Talk:Zakat/Archive 1

Archive 1

untitled comments

I have no edits to make, just the comment that I find the article difficult to understand as written. Respectfully suggest an edit or rewrite by a native english speaker? The thoughts or points are often not clearly connected. Thank you. May 18, 2008 ladeedah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladeedah (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you changed the newer template to the older one. In my oppinion Template:Muslim Beliefs is much more appropiate for this article than Template:Islam. It shows that there are several closly related articles, how they are related and also kills the myth that the five pillars are universal. More accurate in other words. Could you provide some arguments for changing back to the old template? --Striver 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The text is clear, however, certain aspects of the discussion need to explained in a context. Regarding the prayers, it is correct that there are five prayers, but the first is not the dawn prayer. The first prayer is to occur before the dawn. This distinction should not be overlooked, as it is very important. There is a dawn prayer, but it is voluntary and not a part of what Muslims regard as the compulsory prayer.

The second correction goes to Zakat. There is not, in any strict terms, a mathematical calculation to determining Zakat. It literally should be translated as an act of charity. There is some Quranic guidance for determining the amount, but such is not based on a mathematical formula; rather, simply guides one to give from his net, i.e., from what one has in excess of his needs and obligations. Food is generally the preferred method of giving, and such should be offered to those who are hungry, poor, oppressed, etc. In modern times, one usually adjusts the meaning of Zakat to mean the giving of one's money. Perhaps this is best applied in places like the US and Europe where these forms of "value" exchanges are common. That said, Zakat will vary within societies and cultures, and may include many other things that have a value.

Zakat is a regular part of Islam practices and includes even works that are of good deeds. The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) instructed Muslims that a good greeting, helping one to mount his or her horse, etc., all constitute Zakat. It also allows those who are poor and without to commit themselves to acts of charity.

One should also be careful not to mash-up the meaning of Zakat with certain aspects of "alms" giving that is outlined during the holy month of Ramadan. The giving of Alms during Ramadan includes certain preferred methods, and guidance. None of these preferred methods, however, is an exact calculation that is tied to one's income. Some confusions about the Zakat may have been exaggerated by Islamic practices that encourage Muslims to give donations by the end of Ramadan. The latter is a kind of assurance for those: 1) who may not have made aims donations during the earlier part of the year; 2) who are observing rites while on a pilgrimage at Mecca, or for other reasons.

The Wiki discussion also exaggerates the distinctions between major Islamic cultures, i.e., Sunni and Shai. While I am not comfortable speaking on the differences between Sunni and Shia practices relative to the five pillars, it is better to first state that this distinction is not only man made, but also in diametric opposition to instructions in the Quran and teachings by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This position is best understood in a larger context. In Islam, one should be observant of, if not attracted to, differences among peoples. The Prophet expressly states that there should not be any racial or cultural distinctions between Muslims even it these believers come from different families, clans, or parts of the earth. It is fine to see that these believers may be, for lack of a better term, arrayed in different colors, shapes, and speech. However, these differences should be akin to the way one would observe hues of colors. This is a nuanced understanding that takes one away from making black and white distinctions among groups. The prevailing sentiment is that no distinctions should be made among Muslims that are based on cultures, races, etc. This point is inserted now because the WiKi definition explains the differences between Sunni and Shai as a matter that is de facto and permissible within the Islam.

To the extent that one should make differences between any person or group should be simply based on the degree to which that person or group is pious. Plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.moss (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help Me Please

I am trying to send a letter to my friend about Zakah. Therfore she does not know anything about the Muslim beleif and how important it is to them. Please can you help me explain to her about Zakah? Thankyou

I have added a link in external links called "Important Information about Zakaah, Nisaab & Sadqah-Tul-Fitr" i personally when to mosque and got the accurate information though "Islamic Foundation of Toronto" do check it out, plus its very informative. (Imuslimz (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Imuslimz - Self published blogs in this vein are not appropriate for Wikipedia. We also ask that people do not add links to their own sites directly to the external links sections. (See our external links guidelines.) Please update the article content using reliable published sources instead. -- SiobhanHansa 12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Amount?

First, let me say I'm not Muslim and have very little knowledge of the religion beyond the basics. I have heard different things though as to the amount of the Zakat--2.5% and 10%. The article says 2.5% but I've heard a few people (including a Muslim) say it was 10%. I even had a professor who was raised Muslim say it was 2.5% a few days ago in an anthropology lecture, but in an article she wrote she said it was 10% (and she doesn't seem to remember ever saying it was 10%, but I have the article on my lap as I type this). Can someone clarify this? The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a lot more complicated than the article suggests: http://soundvision.com/info/zakat/howzakat.asp 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Θʢγ

---

I study Islam in college and I understand that it's 2.5% of 'wealth' (not just salary) or 10% of your 'produce' (if you're a farmer and give some of your crops for example). However, there is also Sadaqa which is a charitable donation and this can be given on top of Zakat, but it's not the same thing as Zakat (it isn't obligatory). Hope this helps :)

Zakat as tax

Zakat is used to pay the salary Islamic clergy, build mosques and temples, and promote Islam. The poor have to wage jihad to gain more territory for everyone. Soup is given out to the poor on rare occasions and the like, but nothing meaningful. The main beneficiaries are mullahs as pointed out by Ali Dashti — who was an Islamic cleric, though dissenting. --Patchouli 08:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of current opinions on Zakat and how it has impacted Islam would be great addition to the article. But we do need reliable sources, especially for something so controversial. Your recent edit is an unverified opinion, written in a fairly non-encyclopedic style. I didn't want to edit it wihtout reading the source you're using because I don't want to misrepresent the actual meaning. But I really don't think it can stay as it is. --Siobhan Hansa 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• My source is Ali Dashti, and I urge you to consult his article, too.

"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat (tax)."

On the "organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat" see also The Poor Tax (ZakAt): WAR BOOTY]. When I wrote, "The poor have to wage jihad," I was referring to the warfare as another source of revenue.

Perhaps I make lexical mistakes unwittingly and you can alter that and modify the text.--Patchouli 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote in the article implied that Zakat encourages Jihad, whereas the sentence above by, my reading, merely says that Jihad and Zakat are both sources of wealth for Islam. And that Islam has become militant and punitive. But it does not say that Zakat (or even Jihad) are the reasons Islam has changed. There may be more in Dashti's work that does draw that conclusion, but it's not in this quote. On the basis of this quote I would probably change the article to say soemthing like - some critics of current Islamic practice, such as Ali Dashti believe that Zakat no longer serves the poor but has become necessary to support the religious machinery of Islam though the "religious machinery" bit is a jump from the quote alone. I don't think there's anything in the quote that makes a mention of Jihad relevent. Does that make sense?

I think it's also important to point out early on that the quotes on the Ali Dashti page aren't properly cited. Quotes should ideally come from an official translation (Mazda published an English language translation of Twenty Three Years - ISBN 1568590296 ) and should specify which publication of the book they come from and the page number(s) the quote can be found on. While this isn't the critical bit of the article writing (getting the content on the page right comes first!), it helps people defending the content's inclusion because they can actually point to the quote. Whereas, if you just say "well it's in this book" It's easy enough for others to say "no it's not" and if people can't find the quote easily, they're unlikely to let the content stand. --Siobhan Hansa 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And I see you've already edited the article! So that makes most of my comments above irrelevent! --Siobhan Hansa 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is an article about Islam, then why discuss some hearsay criticism about Muslims? Its off-topic

Dispute tag

Patchouli, as a non-Arab myself I have no difficulty reading this article. Could you point out which Arab words are left unexplained? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had no problem either; they are all explained. Remove the tag if you like.--Patchouli 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the aims of Zakat, as described here, accurate? I don't think they are and we should urgently look at the Aims section. Parkylondon 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DOUBT

I don't believe this material about how zakat works. It is too well organized. My guess is that this is the ideal form of zakat according to one of the many possible source. Maybe the Shi'ite information is more accurate. It is certainly more plausible.

In my opinion the whole article should be condemned as POV. But I am not about to do anything about it today. DKleinecke 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiite example: numbers don't add up

Can anyone please clarify the numbers used in the Shiite example: "A man starts with $5000 in his bank account; on the same day after one lunar year passes, he has $1 in his bank account (having already paid his bills and debts), and so must take the fifth of his $1 earning, that is $120. What remains after the fifth (that is 1-1=$5480)"

• How come the man has a $1 earning after going from $5000 in his account down to $1? Looks like a 4999$ loss to me
• The fifth of $1 would be 20 cents, no?
• 1-1 =0, not 5480

Riemerb 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The numbers imply an increase of $600, for a new total of $5,600. Then the rest of what is said makes sense. I changed the article accordingly. Catawba 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute

The article is not complete and there're a few misunderstandings on this talk page. While I am addressing some of the issues on the talk page, my main concern (and the motivation for this dispute) is because of inaccuracy of the zakat article.

The article only talks about 2.5% on savings and does not even discuss ushr and khums which is part of zakat. I cannot update it right now, but I am flagging it so someone else can spend some time fixing it and in the meantime, users will know that this is misrepresenting Zakat.

If you would like to know more about Zakat, feel free to read this: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/nodeed98.html This is a journal published in Pakistan by Al-Mawrid institude (one of the leading Islamic sciences research institutes). You can find ample material in Sayyid Sabiq (from Al-Azhar university cairo)'s Fiqh-us-Sunnah - which you can easily get by googling.

Zakat is supposed to be paid to an Islamic government - that is why many Muslim countries officially charge zakat (example in case, Pakistan - unless you are a non-Muslim or do not adhere to the scholarly opinion that you can pay zakat to the government.) It is only in the case of lack of a government or living in an Islamic government that one ends up paying their Zakat elsewhere (i.e. to poor and/or to charity). (see http://www.renaissance.com.pk/deisma951.html)

Also someone mentioned above a link between Jihad and Zakat - they have no direct link. The only way they 'were linked' was when the government waged a war (which is how armed Jihad is supposed to be), and it uses Zakat (otherwise called tax) to purchase arms or build military.

Thanks - Omer (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs clearly need deletion or serious editing as they are full of sweeping nonverifiable generalizations and an obvious anti-Islam bias. IrishHollow (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which?

Is it zakat or zakah? Or are the terms interchangeable? 69.42.7.212 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic: زكاة is zakāt. People see the "ta marbuta" (ة) and mistakenly assume it is always pronounced as an h, but in cases like this (and the word for prayer - salāt) the long vowel means the t is not elided. Most Muslims are not Arabic speakers. Ogress _smash! 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking the same question. If both terms are used by Muslims then they should both be given in the introduction. Ltwin (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Favour

I'd be grateful if anyone could have a look at [1] and spot any errors. I appreciate I ought to post this on a Wikiproject Islam page but it is more relevant here and it does contain some quotes which might be useful for improving this article. --BozMo talk 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unused and un-invested surplus

Preamble:

Allama Iqbal envisions the operation of the Qura’nic command – Qulil ‘Afw [Say to the people: ‘spend the surplus’ above the median level for the benefit of the common man, Al Qur’an 2:219] in the modern age in the following verses:

Jo harf-e- Qulil ‘Afw mein poshidah hai abtak Is daur mein shayad wuh haqiqat ho namoodar.

The truth hidden in the Qur’anic verse Qulil ‘Afw And hitherto unexplored, may be revealed unto mankind, In the present age.

THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE IN ISLAM

The Theory of Surplus Value is a Qur’anic Conception, crisply defined in the Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago before Karl Marx, Thus:

“They ask you as to how much they should spend (for the cause of humanity for Allah’s sake). Say: The entire Surplus. (Al-Qur’an, 2:219).

Take the Surplus, promote good, and ignore the uninformed (for the truth and justice of Islam to prevail). (Al-Qur’an, 7:199)

This edict provides the wherewithal to the State of Islam, to ensure primary human rights to all and to abolish poverty, ignorance, inequalities and all the ills of the Society, - as decreed and ordained in the Magna Charta of Human Rights – the great Qur’an. It enunciates of the policy of public finance as well in the Kingdom of Islam.

Land and Natural resources are a part of the universe and they belong to Allah. Man, as His Khalifa and His manager, is entrusted with the efficient management of these natural resources to ensure proper exploitation, maximum production and equitable distribution of the joint product of man and nature, the free gift of Allah, to all mankind.

“To Allah belongs land (and the natural resources), the heirdom whereof He bestows upon whomsoever among His servants He may will” (Al -Qur’an, 7:128).

Land and natural resources have been created by Allah for the benefit and nourishment of all mankind and of all creatures. The function of the Government of Allah is to see that these are not misappropriated for selfish individual aggrandizement of wicked people and followers of the devil at the cost of all others.

MAN AND NATURE ARE THE AGENTS OF PRODUCTION

Man and Nature co-operate with each other in the production of wealth for the benefit of all mankind in the Kingdom of Allah. They, therefore, have each a share in the joint product. Nature’s share is collected in the Baitul Maal (State Treasury) by the Khalifa for equitable distribution among the disabled, the sick, the poor and the destitute, in order to help them to stand on their own legs, to remove inequalities, and to bring the stragglers into line to march forward and join the race with the soldiers of Allah to encircle the globe.

“And it is Allah Who confers on some of you superiority over some others in wealth and means. Why not then those who have been favoured with abundance give it away to their dependants in such a manner that they all become equal. Do they deny that this abundancy is a favour of Allah to them? (Al-Qur’an, 16: 71).

The capitalist idea of land, labour, capital and entrepreneurs as factors of production is an anathema in Islam. Land is part of Nature. Labour and entrepreneurs are the capitalist divisions of man into classes and masses.

Nature and Man are two agents of Allah for the production of wealth in this world. After man is paid his dues in return for his industry, there remains an undistributed surplus which, in the capitalist state, is unjustly appropriated by the capitalist classes in one form or other in return for undertaking no risk of uncertainty of a productive enterprise.

The Surplus is the Natures share of the national products- on the wealth produced in the Kingdom of Allah.

In the Kingdom of Allah, there is no division of man into classes. There is only one ‘Ummat’ of mankind. The surplus of the joint product of Man and Nature is the share of Nature or the share of Allah placed at the disposal of the Viceroy to feed the stragglers and to help them to join the company of workers rightfully and honourably.

Karl Marx was not originator of the Theory of Surplus Value. His definition of the Theory was also wrong. This was natural, for he came to a confused conclusion after analyzing the nature of capitalist production. According to him, the measure of the value of an article is the amount of labour necessary to produce it. The labourers, however, produce more than they consume but under the capitalistic regime, they lose the surplus value of what they produce over and above their wages. He thus sowed the seeds of class-struggle, strikes, lockouts and the division of men into militantly hostile groups.

But labour cannot produce anything in vacuum. It can produce only in co-operation with Nature and with help of natural resources which are free gifts of Allah to all mankind. Capital is the by-product of Man’s industry and Nature’s co-operation, and it consists of the undistributed surplus value left after payment to man of his dues fully, for his industry, organization and leadership. Capital also, therefore, is a free gift of Allah to all mankind.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE SURPLUS?

Plain living and high thinking has been the actively living motto of Islam. The criterion should be the lives of Muhammad (Sm.) and rightly guided Caliphs. Building up of a balanced character through complete self-realization by each individual is the first and fundamental principle of the state of Islam. State capitalism or state socialism or state communism, negating or dwarfing the personality of the common man has no place in Islam.

The main function of the head of the state of Islam is to serve as a friend, philosopher and guide – freely accessible to every individual citizen or corporate body of individuals for the fullest development of self of the individual or the corporate body, in harmony with the Divine order which is subject to eternal laws to be discovered by discerning minds and acted upon by the entire humanity.

One of the Divine attributes is that Allah is Rabbul ‘Alamin – that He is the Sustainer and Nourisher of the universes. Allah gives everything but takes nothing in return except submission to His Sole Sovereign Divinity and accord with His order and the laws of Harmony in the universe. The man who is to serve as His Khalifah - His Viceroy – is invested with this Divine attribute which is fully developed in him so that he can feel the oneness of the life eternal and forgo the transient for what is an eternal continuity. He will then have his outlook on the permanent aspect of life beyond this decaying world and be able to hold a firm grip on it and its resources to minister to the comforts, prosperity and happiness of others and acquire satisfaction for himself by seeing others under his care happy, prosperous and peaceful. For his material comforts or gains, he comes last of all, he being the residuary legatee in the Kingdom of Allah.

Theory of Surplus Value cannot work in a secular system:

The guiding principle to regulate work and distribution of wealth in the state of Islam is ‘from each according to ability, to each according to needs for a respectable living.’ This principle worked successfully in the state of Islam alone. Because it promises a future life in which every individual is accountable to his Sovereign Master for his performances in his earthly term. And he will receive rewards for his loyalty to the Revealed Constitution [The Qur’aan] or punishments for his disloyalty.

But this guiding principle cannot work in any other system. It has failed in Communism. Capitalism and other [secular or man-made] systems do not believe in, and do not accept, this principle. In the state of Islam, Nature is an agent of production. The surplus (Al-‘Afw) above the cost of production is the share of Nature, which must go to the state treasury (Baitul Maal) to promote and finance welfare services and meet the essential demands of its citizens in distress and in dire needs, to eradicate poverty, misery, ignorance and unskilled labour and not to multiply the number of beggars. Appropriation of un-invested surplus by the state prevents hoarding, dissolute living and extravagance.

Notes:

Zakaat is the compulsory state levy at prescribed rates on the annual net savings after meeting all kinds of liabilities and expenditures.

Unused and un-invested surplus (al-‘afw), however, is to be surrendered to, and to be collected by, the state of Islam, which guarantees security of means and employment on a world basis to all. These measures have been enacted to finance the welfare programme of the state to eradicate and banish poverty, ignorance and all kinds of maladies from the world.

Excerpts collated from: 1. The Intelligent Man’s Guide to Islam (1969), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman 2. The Clarion Call of the Eternal Qur’aan (1991), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman

Md. Nasireddin Ghani (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal...interesting - Aquib (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Media:hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.203.235 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ZAKAT IS THE ONE THING WE MUST DO because of the real property by issuing a charity that we have can terbersihkan clean dirt from the point of the rights of poor people because it was feared the treasures we have tucked away the rights of the poor.thanks,!

الزكاة الشيء الوحيد التي يجب أن نفعلها بسبب الممتلكات العقارية عن طريق إصدار الخيرية التي يمكن أن تكون محمية من التراب الذي هو واضح من حقوق الفقراء لأنه كان يخشى من كنز أن لدينا مدسوس بعيدا عن حقوق الفقراء. (Yanto)

Used to Fund Terrorism ?

A recently recieved e-mail (you know the kind) alleges that President Obama has made public statements in opposition to supposedly increasing the level of difficulties for US Muslims to (whatever the verb is) "do" Zakat. The e-mail links to a YouTube video which alleges that the "7th category" is to fund "military operations" around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQG8PIqLp7k

I came to wikipedia to see what this was about, and while there is no mention in the article one way or the other, I am inclined to believe that there may be some truth to this allegation due to the amibuous working of the 7th category, "In the way of Allah - Fi sabil Allah".

It gives the impression that the specific purpose of this 7th category is to hide the fact that money given under this category may in fact be used for what would be considered terrorist activities.

It seems to me that some text directly addressing this issue/possible misconception would be constructive.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda emails and Youtube are not accepted credible sources. If you have some information from credible sources, please post it. Otherwise the assumption is that this is a biased attempt to make a partisan attack, based on hearsay. Jbower47 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Jonny, I saw the same video of President Obama and came to look for myself. I would disagree with Jbower47 as the Youtube video was a recording of the President giving this speech in Cairo. It's public record. Also, several other sites have the same video. I consider that a credible source. I understand his desire to defend his faith.

I read the article about the Zakat and what all it is for. Number seven says Fi sabil Allah which can be translated different ways, one of which is to be on the path of Allah which is interpreted by many Islamic Jurists, the educated class of Muslim legal scholars engaged in the several fields of Islamic studies. Unfortunately, many foreign languages have words and statements that can be interpreted different ways. While some Muslims may say Zakat is not to support jihad, others, including extremist terrorists, will interpret it as such. It depends who wrote out the uses of Zakat and you have to look at all their writings to determine what it means. Many times there are multiple words in the original language that can translate similarly but have variations. For example, there are two words in Aramaic that can both be translated "husband of one wife" but have different meanings. One can mean you are married to one woman at a time while another can mean you have only had one wife your entire life. However, in this case, I am not going to dig in to that. There will always be those who say yes, it supports jihad, and those that say no, it doesn't. I believe there are even those who believe it supports it but will tell a non-Muslim that it doesn't.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdavis30 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

American taxes are used to fund military occupation which does cause terror in the minds of people who live in occupied lands. However, I don't see that section the "Taxes" article.--UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is in the Islamic law manuals that zakat can be bestowed on eight categories of recipients, and one of them is "Sabīlullah (those fighting for Allah) – people enganged in Islāmic military operations." [2] So giving money to what some consider "people enganged in Islamic military operationstion," (e.g. Hamas, Hezbullah or Al-Qaeda) is an integral part of zakat and therefore, I would argue, relevant to the article.

The prominent Islamic scholar, Yusuf Al Qaradawi, in writing about the use of zakat to give to the cause of Allah (Sabīlullah) writes: "The most honorable form of jihad nowadays is fighting for the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of unbelievers, regardless of their religion or ideology. The communist and the capitalist, the Westerner and the Easterner, Christian, Jew, pagan or unbeliever, all are aggressors when they attack and occupy Muslim land. Fighting in defence of the home of Islam is obligatory until the enemy is driven away and Muslims are liberated." This is not a secret document, but a book that Qaradawi published, and he defines the occupied lands: "Today Muslim land is occupied in Palestine, Kashmire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Chad, Somalia, Cyprus, Samarqand, Bukhara, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Albania and serveral other occupied countries. Declaring holy war to save these Muslim lands is an Islamic duty, and fighting for such purposes in those occupied territories is the Way of Allah for which zakat must be spent."[3].

And then it has also been shown to have happened for zakat foundations, for example the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Global Relief Foundation Davidelah (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop misleading editors. This topic has been discussed a million times with you. You can't use a book that is written by one scholar that is a member of one sect of Islam. They don't represent the Muslim nation, nor do the majority of Muslims follow those books. Please show some respect and learn from discussions rather than restating the same mistakes over and over again. And PLEASE separate religion from terrorist, as Crusades are separated from Christianity. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Zakat to non-Muslims?

There are portions of this article that seems to suggest that non-Muslims have some a possibility to receive zakat, for example:

...contribution to poor and deprived Muslims, although others may have a rightful share.

Helping non-Muslims (those in need of non-Muslim citizens)(is voluntary)

Non-Muslims receive help through Sadaqah or charity. Only under special circumstances may a non-Muslim receive zakat.

Non of these claims have any sources to back them up as far as I can see. There is however evidence that suggests Muslims is forbidden from giving zakat to non-Muslims here and here and even under "special circumstances". It seems only to be allowed to volentary give charity to a non-Muslim but forbidden to give zakat which is obligatory as can be seen here. Davidelah (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Zakat is actually a tax in your community, which the community (or yourself) spends it on their needy people, like food, shelters, and assets (except if your community is all wealthy, it goes somewhere else)--that's the straight order of the Hadith and Qur'an. I'm in America, so my Zakat goes to my community--which is all non-Muslims. I can't deny that many scholars say that it's only for Muslims, but many other major scholars deny so--as there's no clear proof. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi actually said in his book that it's allowed, quoting two companions of the prophet that say, straight forward, that it's allowed for non-Muslims. {Non-Muslims in the Muslim Community, p.50}

I suggest to keep it to its long-lasting state, without the added "Muslims only". What do you suggest? AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 05:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would first suggest you give some more secondary sources from scholars, because it is difficult to verify what Qaradqwi wrote in his book. If their is some disputes nowadays whether zakat is permitted for non-Muslims I suggest a term like "generaly (only) to Muslims" or the like, so that zakat isn't confused with general charity, and that most scholars consider it impermissible. Davidelah (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that logic says write what's confirmed, not what's not confirmed. If only isn't proven, so what logic tells you to write that. Anyways, the following is a nice example of charity to non-Muslims. I have many reasons to object on the source, but I can find the story somewhere else. I just don't see it's a big deal to dig-in. Another source here talks about different opinions, but you know that Al-Qardawi is the most influenced scholars in our time. Actually, the only prove they have is the prophet saying to give it to your community, so giving Zakat depends where you are. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Qaradawi seems to be holding that view, Adil Salahi says that it is only when Muslims’ needs have been satisfied[4], whatever that means. The Islamic q&a sites confirm it again and again[5][6]. Your own source confirms this "the view of the majority is based on the general meaning of the hadith prohibiting giving Zakah to non-Muslims." So my suggestions above are still valid. Davidelah (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZpgRbcZDIAwJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DIslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE%26cid%3D1119503544900+zakat+to+non-muslims+Non-Muslims+in+the+Muslim+Community&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com#ixzz1MhA3OK3b"So my suggestions above is still valid.

Advertadam, you are one of the most close minded people in my opinion on wikipedia, i am sorry if that offends you, you reject everything and anything that goes against your POV (you even revert other well referenced POV from wiklipedia), you would not even consider if you are wrong, you are always right, arent you !!!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zakat is a tax for the welfare of the Muslims. Zakat is not collected from non-Muslims. The other faiths have their own similar laws and customs for looking after their needy. Islamic Suduqah charity can be given to non-Muslims if needed.

Non-Muslims paid a tax called Jizyah which allowed them to live peacefully, practice their beliefs, and follow their own customs in Muslim lands. This is according to the Dhimma contract - rights of residence in return for taxes.

Traditionally, non-Muslims had their own faith communities, their own places of worship, their own traditions, their own laws and their own leaders. They collected and distributed their own taxes. So it's not like they were being deprived of Zakat. They were just given a certain degree of autonomy in how they lived.

I doubt the way it works in modern times, and western countries, is much different for all the major faiths. Each faith will have its universal charity, its outreach, and a certain amount of funds reserved for looking after the needy among their own members.

-Aquib (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find Zakat is given to non-Muslims from time to time under special circumstances. If there's money in the Zakat fund but not the Sudaqah fund. If a calamity falls on a community. But I would be surprised to find its done routinely in any school. My reference is from the Shafi school, but there are usually notes to point out when Hanafi law is different. I didn't see any notes or mentions of exceptions. I would be interested in knowing exactly who/when/where Zakat goes to non-Muslims, with good quality references. That would be worth including. -Aquib (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions2, you're the only one that's against me in the 300 pages I review. Please don't take it personally. Even my user-page say that I make mistakes and correct me please. I sent you a reminder on your talkpage with some policies that will help you, but I guess that you didn't like it and deleted it. Wikipedia is not a "Dumping ground for random information." Please reread Wikipedia's bias and consider it in your future editing. Your edits are always welcome with secondary sources, anywhere. Happy editing... --AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 14:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To further shed some light on the opinion of the jurist as to the question of zakat for non-Muslims, in the Guide to Zakah: Understanding & Calculation from the biggest bank in Pakistan, written by a respected scholar, says that; There is consensus of the Muslim jurists that it is not permissible to give Zakah to non-Muslims. And regarding the fourth category of recipient: This category of recipients refers to the poor and needy Muslims ... non-Muslims are excluded in accordance with the general principle that they do not qualify as recipients of Zakah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it's more reliable because...it fits your POV ? Since your reference doesn't quote any other jurist on this issue (as opposed to the first source I added), I'm assuming it's his own opinion, which can be represented if you want, neutrally and given the appropriate weight. I reverted your edit to restore other opinions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the author of that, so called, "Guide to Zakat" never claimed that this is his opinion, because he simply knows that he's not credible enough to make such a claim with no statistics nor studies. Therefore, he used footnotes and we can't use the guide till we verify the footnotes, according to WP:REDFLAG. This article turned to be a mess, so please take care of the tags instead of playing around them with unsourced insertions. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The guide to zakat is, as I indicated, not just a single scholar's view, but has institutional authority when being made for the largest bank in Pakistan, and I can't find anything about the author of the other document or for which institution it was written. Which to me seem less reliable. And I'm not sure I understand the problems with footnotes, the other source uses footnotes also. Davidelah (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi Could you point to the place(s) in the reference that support your POV? I'm using google translate, but I can't find it and the text appears confusing. I think that it's a problem also for the readers that they can't verify the sources as easily as when it is in English. Davidelah (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been warned about the same insertion three times. I really don't want to open an ANI for your disruption. It's pretty simple David, if the sources' source is unverifiable or non-reliable, then certainly its content is non-reliable. The author did not claim anything from himself, and a bank certainly isn't a source that overrides what I previously provided of reliable sourced examples of Zakat to non-Muslims.

Regarding your second debate, Wikipedia prefers an English source when multiple languages are available, but a source in a foreign language is still acceptable in this case. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Adam, please stop accusing me of disruptive editing because you won't compromise on your POV, you have been corrected about this and I hoped that it could be resolved by that, but it seems to me have not reconsidered your civility on this. We are all trying to make Wikipedia better, so assume good faith and be prepared to change your POV. Davidelah (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of my source, I must admit that I'm not convinced of the explanation given, (that because he have not mentioned that this is his own opinion and using footnotes then it's very questionable). If you won't recognise a document by a respected scholar made to be a guide for a large institution whose work relies on information of that topic, I would request a WP:3O. Davidelah (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, keep personal matters out of here, and don't misuse others' words. I wasn't corrected but was politely asked to calm you down, while I never retained my suggestions.

Sure, go open a 3O, as I'm not allowed to override policies. I also encourage you to read footnote, as it simply means that the author isn't taking responsibility. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have come here from WP:3O. Unless the bank has a professional editorial staff, and is a notable publishing outfit, then the "Guide To Zakat" PDF is not a reliable source. If the information you are trying to use the PDF to support is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then you should be able to find a higher-quality reliable source that discusses it. You can read more about how to determine which sources are reliable by reading WP:RS. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mesoderm, thanks for the third opinion.

It seems forgotten that Dr. Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usman is a very notable and respected scholar which can be read here, so a document by him cannot just be unreliable, in my opinion. I'm not sure if there is any specific editorial staff since it's primarily a bank, but it has a "Shariah Supervisory Board," which Imran Usman is the Shariah Advisor of and it also has the renowned Muhammad Taqi Usmani as its Chairman. So since it is a publication of the bank, and Imran is part of the banks central knowledge, wouldn't it then be reliable when the bank's own knowledge is very reliable? I would also like to point out that some of the other sources that has come up in this discussion do not have an editorial staff or even a notable scholar as its writer. Davidelah (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I likely will not be checking back here, but I just wanted to make one last comment regarding two parts of your last statement:

"It seems forgotten that Dr. Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usman is a very notable and respected scholar..." -- Then his work, if not under editorial review, would be classified as a self-published source

"I would also like to point out that some of the other sources that has come up in this discussion do not have an editorial staff or even a notable scholar as its writer." -- Then those are not reliable sources either. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me take this as an opportunity to provide a few examples of reliable sources on "Zakat for Non-Muslims". I found these through a simple Google Books search (a great way to find good sources) for "Zakat non-muslims": [7][8][9][10][11]. Note that these sources are all published by well-reputed publishing houses. If these sources disagree, which often happens, then the disagreement should be objectively discussed in the article. There are plenty of other sources that you could dig through in the search results there. I would recommend using these sources to write the article. Message me on my talk page if there is any further problems with this, or if you have questions regarding why these sources are superior to the type of sources mentioned in the discussion above. Also, I hope that everyone here can take a deep breath, and be a bit more civil to each other. I've noticed quite a few statements, from both "sides", that are bordering on personal attacks, and these need to stop. I know it's difficult sometimes when we disagree, especially on matters of religion, but it will be best for everyone if this is discussed calmly and in a collegial tone. Good luck and best wishes to all of you. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was sent to the the Dispute Resolutions here, and I will post the results here when done. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

7. In the way of Allah!

What's added, "Those Fighting for Allah", is one meaning of many; it's already explained in the wikilink. What's your reason of adding it? Look at the style of the whole list, and decide from there. Again, no need to restate the same thing over and over again, just to highlight the words you like. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 09:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, being undermined by most scholars is none of your business. You don't have the rights to notice whatever you like, according to your own theology. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 09:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In don't know how the style of the list would look best, but the phrase "In the way of Allah" could mean anything, and most scholars interpret it to mean in this context "Those Fighting for Allah" or "Those fighting in the way of Allah"[12]. If you think that it ruins the style of the list then we should just write "Those fighting in the way of Allah," because that is the most common interpretation. The wikilink to the article Fi sabilillah is about that expression in general and not in this context, so this category will still be very ambiguies to the reader. Davidelah (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a different opinion. Fighting in the way of Allah is an accurate description, but the wikilink to the little article with the black flag is undue weight. It emphasizes this use of Zakat. If we're going to have a wikilink on this use, there should be wikilinks to poverty, travelers, etc, for the others. -Aquib (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't happen to have a good reference handy for this, but I hear the expression Fisibillah used by Muslims trying to persuade other Muslims to do something (charity, business decisions, etc) because it is the right thing to do. So we could probably find references saying the term is used this way as well. But that wouldn't apply to an article on Zakat. You could say for the purposes of this article, 'Fighting in the way of God' is the correct term for #7 in this list. I assume the translation for this is Fisibillah, but I don't know that personally. -Aquib (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the biasness of the wikilinked article. However, we should also keep the weight of the meaning of the whole term. Supporting fighters, funding Qur'an teachings, funding non-profit organizations that give food to the poor, and funding the expenses of volunteers who teach prayers & fasting are all considered in the path of God. Most of my message is heading to David, as all of his edits are to show that Islam is violence. Look at this Encyclopedia and also look at the following straight translation of the Arabic term. I repeat again and again, David, that not everyone who calls himself a scholar is followed, so try not to push your povs with bias sources. "In the path of God" is the correct translation and meaning, as it contains all types of help toward good. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 03:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is about zakat and not about the phrase "Fisibillah" and we have to consider the context remember? And I'm sorry to say that here Adam is not engaging in real debate when he claims that my references above is biased, there is no reason to think that and he has not shown anything to indicate that. And about making false accusation of my previous edits is not of any relevance. Davidelah (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When we use old sources, we risk being questioned about their reliability. I have an excellent source on The preaching of Islam that covers material I haven't found anywhere else. But it's from 1905, so it is easily challenged on the grounds of quality of research and NPOV. -Aquib (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliance lists these same 8 uses for Zakat, in similar words. So far so good. But I don't have a good source that says Those fighting for God translates to Fisibillah in Arabic. I am beginning to doubt it does. -Aquib (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jihad does not seem correct in this sense, as Jihad is usually described as a more general term. We need the technical term used by the scholars for the use of Zakat to support those who fight in the name of God. -Aquib (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think there is any technical term used by scholars unanimously, but I have shown what the majority interpretation is. I think we should also consider using neutral explanations (e.i. non-Islamic) to make it less ambiguous for the readers. Ludwig W. Adamec expresses it more clearly as "those who are fighting in the cause of Islam"[13]. Davidelah (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Might be shaving it a bit thin. We start getting into convoluted discussions of when do the fight for God and when for Islam or should we say fighting in the way of God but of course that translates into the word Islam and so on. Maybe it's good enough for now just as it is. -Aquib (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A word of caution on the sources. We can all get a source that supports our position. There are naturally going to be scholars with differing opinions. We could go and line up 20 sources that support a position. But these are individual scholars. Compare that to a reference (like mine) that states the consensus opinion of all the scholars of a major school of legal thought, that's more than 20. We are talking about legal opinions recognized by tens or hundreds of millions of people. We are talking, I'm sure, about thousands of scholars. -Aquib (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that you can have a reliable source that tells what the majority opinion is among the scholars. Davidelah (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the current translation is interpreted. In the sake of God or in the path of God can also be called support of Jihad, not fighters. Wars are one type of Jihad and the conditions aren't even available continually. The article is called Zakat but the point we're discussing now is an Arabic term called, Fisabillilah. Even Christian Arabs can translate it better than this; dictionaries, too. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 04:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and btw, David, here is just a link for you to see how Zakat is used in major Muslim countries, currently. You can realize that missionary service, Qur'an teaching schools,...etc have no category to goto within the current state of this article. But, it actually follows under category 8, when it's truely translated to "For the path of God" or "the sake of God", as it's the category of all good deeds activities. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the way the section looks now, and it seems accurate. It would be nice if we could get the citations into the standard book citation template format. Also, a citation using a religious website might not hold up. Someone could come by and rip that out. -Aquib (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was honestly going to revert that, as David haven't respected the discussion page. He was warned many times, but I guess there's no solution. I'll leave it for now and fix the phrasing. According to WP:MOSISLAM, one scholar is not consider reliable, so I'm tagging it. Also, accurate is also your pov (without reliable sources). ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The source I used did not claim to be merely a one scholar's point of view as I have explained, but was answering on behalf of a whole school of thought, the Hanafi which is also is the biggest, but he also mentions other schools of thought. Didn't you read all this? And why removing my source but keeping you own? Why do you claim that I don't respect the discussion page when I explained both points of views from the discussion? The other user could see that, but it isn't good enough for you. Davidelah (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm answering below to not get the page scrambled, even thoug it already is :p. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

David, please continue the discussion next-time and stop pushing your POV. "Generally" is a broad claim that you don't have the credibility to write. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Adam, I will really recommend you stop being so uncomprimising from your POV. The term "generally" is directly from the source I used: "the majority of the Qur'anic exegetes (mufassirin) interpreted 'the way of Allah' as meaning those fighting in the way of Allah" and "the Hanafi books generally mention that the way of Allah refers to those fighting in the way of Allah..." You haven't given any reason to think, in this discussion, that the source I used is unreliable but you still removed it, even though I also gave your POV in the explanation. As I have responded to you in my talk page this kind of behavior is not in the spirit of wikipedia policy. Davidelah (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also you new edits insersions that, [zakat] has mostly been applied to fund missionary work, Quranic schools and to serve the community in-general, is not supported in the source you use. Why do you make these claims? I find it really disturbing that a user with reviewer rights can makes such obvious mistakes or pushing his own POV, and I will recommend you to consider these issues. Davidelah (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My answer will be strictly professional, as I've told you before that I won't waste my time with long explanation anymore, because it's simply ignored or misread.

Please, stop making claims about your sources. SunniPath is not an organization, but a self-published site by Ashraf Muneeb. Does the about us link claim that they represent the Hanafi school? NO! He just studied in a Hanafi school, only. Again and again, don't claim things you know nothing about. I have studied Hanafi, and you haven't; I've personally spoke with Hanafi scholars, and you haven't; I have lived and visited Hanafi-majority communities, and you haven't. Please... I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop.

My source was detailing was is used in the largest Muslim countries. There was a long list that specifies community services, do you want to switch that word with the long list?! I don't think that you're the person that should be evaluating my contribution... ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The the page you linked to does not say that the site is self-published by Ashraf Muneeb, but that he is the Academic Director of SunniPath Academy. The site also claims that its knowledge is reliable because its teachers are formally trained and authorized to transmit knowledge by leading scholars of the Muslim heartlands. Can you explain why this is not a reliable source? And if you read the page I linked to earlier you will see that the question is answered in the Hanafi fiqh section. The book you linked to says that it can be used to serve the ummah at large. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or Commonwealth of the Believers. I would say this refers to a Muslim community and not just any community. Adam, you often claim that you know more about these kinds of topics but what can I use that for? I really wish that we could stay to sources, and evaluate their authenticity and authority soberly. Davidelah (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:DUE, I reverted your edit. The first sentence (with its sources) is mentioning a minority pov, while the second sentence (with its source) is showing what is used by the larges Muslim community. Keep the weight and happy editing ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This reply does unfortunately not address the issues I raised in the last comment. The self-proclaimed reliability of the website sunnipath.com. The bolded assertions that, [zakat] has mostly been applied to fund missionary work, Quranic schools and to serve the community in-general, that I can't find support for in the source. Davidelah (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you realize that I started at a new line, so I wasn't replying to your comment; I was just clarifying my revert, because the summary limit was too short :p. That's called a summary, so read the cited page again and see if you can come-up with something better, with-in its content; we can't just add a long list of the concept.

Regarding your source. How can any editor clarify the writer's credibility if it's not a recognized official organization nor has an editor. The current source is good, and should stay this way. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The current source, the Islamic law manual, is a more primary source and does not explain how frequent that interpretation is. All manuals I have looked in has this interpretation also. I think therefore it would be better to quote a secondary source to explain its prevalence. The source I used does claim to have accurate knowledge as I quoted earlier. If you think that the information is not true, then you should provide a better more authoritative source to show that. The same answer was aslo given by a SunniPath Academy teacher on another question here. You did not, as far as i can see, address the issue of, in my opinion, unsupported assertions by another source. Davidelah (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not my problem that you can't find a reliable secondary source for your pov. AGAIN, the SunniPath is not an acceptable official Muslim organization, nor is it know by the majority either. The person who answered the question is not notable, also. The only thing I found for that name is a medical physician, but I'm not sure if it's the same person or not. Anyways, it doesn't matter as long as the publisher is disputed. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 10:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with the assertion that the source is not reliable. I REPEAT, it claims to have knowledge that is reliable because its teachers are formally trained and authorized to transmit knowledge by leading scholars of the Muslim heartlands. If they are authorized by leading scholars of the Muslim heartlands then I would say the source can be used, so an alternative source will have to support your pov. Another authorized source, Dr. Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usmani here, also support the view of Sunnipath, although not as detailed. Davidelah (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will also have to REPEAT since you reverted my edits on this, that "mostly applied to fund missionary work..." is not supported since the book only deals with modern Southeast Asia. The "ummah at large" refers the context of Islam, to mean the diaspora or Commonwealth of Muslims. Davidelah (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how long will this go-on. My pov IS referenced in the article, and hold the practice of the largest Muslim nation. Just a simple reply, DON'T translate things the way you want: how can "Ummah at large" mean Commonwealth of Muslims??? Click on Ummah and read its article, which means community (has nothing to do with money)! So supporting a community means the community's services. Any defense budget is always way less than the rest, everywhere in the world. Please read and research before claims. We all have better things to do. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 08:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I will have to REPEAT myself again. If you can't show how "mostly" is the same as modern Southeast Asia in the context of a concept that is 1400 hundred years old and from many parts of the world, then you shouldn't revert my edits on this. And about your definition of the term "Ummah," if you look in most dictionaries this is what the interpretation is, the Commonwealth of Muslims, here is one example. You said that; Please read and research before claims. We all have better things to do. I find this statement rather impolite because I am trying to do just that by given references. You are also implying again that you have better knowledge on these kind of topics, and I will repeat my request again that I really wish that we could stay to sources, and evaluate their authenticity and authority soberly. I don't know how long is will go on either. Davidelah (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not refuted the interpretation of sunnipath or Dr. Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usmani with any better sources. Davidelah (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. The link you provided defines ummah as "community" or "community of believers". There is no definition of ummah as "commonwealth" in here. Page 214 is not about ummah either. -Aquib (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, but to clarify, my point was that "ummah" at least connotes some sort of Muslim identity to a commudr.nity when it is used in an Islamic context. And sorry I forgot to adjust the page number, here is the correct adjustment. Davidelah (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Early usage of the term "umma"" in Islamic contexts also included non-Muslims. For instance, in the Constitution of Medina the word "umma" includes both Muslims and non-Muslims, namely the Jews and pagans of Medina. In later centuries, however, it might have acquired a new meaning, like the "nation of Islam". But I'm not sure whether this new meaning should exclude non-Muslims. Wiqi<sup>(55)</sup> 13:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

One could say it has acquired a new meaning since the earlier history of Islam, but I have not seen any dictionary that defines the term to normally include non-Muslims, in most of history or the present day. Davidelah (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you open any Arabic-English dictionary and look for "أمة" under the alphabet "أ" to read the meaning of the word. Arabic words don't change meanings during history, sir. Don't make claims about things you said you haven't read about! Answering your comment above, majority comes from the root major, so please keep that in mind while rereading what I wrote above. I've already had the discussion of minor/major with you before on Jihad, so please reread those sources too, pls; to save all of us time. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may use an analogy to this interpretation, one could say that Eucharist is really just "thanking someone" so this is all it means - in Greek. This may well be true, but it also has a specific meaning if used in another context, for example in a church - or in any other language other than Greek. I can't follow your interpretation of this because it ignores the context, it is used in a non-Arabic book in an Islamic context. Is this a refusal to get to the point? It is in any case not a very good argument. When I say that I haven't seen contrary definitions of "ummah" than the one I sourced to, I invite someone to produce another definition. Focus on the content and not about what I read or don't read, or know and don't know. Davidelah (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you're not willing to accept my explanation to you, then stick to the point (as well). You can't convince three editors of your pov without a proof. Consensus here is already met, so please don't make more edits without bringing a real reliable source. PERIOD.

There's no need to answer the continues weakly-referenced claims each time. To save us all the time, "Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind." from WP:FOC. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have given reference (as the only one) to an encyclopedia that says the term "ummah" includes Muslims wherever they may be, is that without a proof? I hope I will not have to repeat my references again. Who is wasting our time here? Also, what is getting personal? I'm not the one that warns another user with blocking on the talk page. I mention this because you should not claim that I take it personal when I'm holding to my POV, as the only one with a reliable source. And about the "consensus" to your POV, read WP:Silence and consensus. Davidelah (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't generalize terms. There's a Muslim Ummah (community), there's an Arab Ummah (community), ...etc. I guess all three editors here are wrong and you're right. Same as Jihad, please just go to ("Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard") and save us all the time. ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 12:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, so a book about Southeast Asia uses the term "ummah," and then there are two possible meanings according to the encyclopedia, the Muslims world-wide or the Arab diaspora. Are you suggesting its the second? GET TO THE POINT. Save us all the time indeed. Davidelah (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on whatever you added here, now and before, you can't claim that Zakat is for Muslims only, and you can't claim that #7 is to mostly fund the Muslim wealth or support for warfare. Don't like my conclusion? Goto WP:CCN (those are the experts in these topics). ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I take that to mean you won't have a reference and content based discussion? This discussion has really become a waste of time, as it seems to me, you won't compromise on your POV, and without giving any reliable references, as I have, to believe that your POV is correct. Davidelah (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, stop whitewashing Islam related articles ! Go spread your "truth" somewhere else. You still have not realised that on wikipedia there is "no one truth", we never mention the 1 truth on wikipedia, only what the sources say about the truth. Why dont you allow multiple truths? You need to stop believing that there is only 1 truth on wikipedia (which i know you do, i have shown proof of this in the admin notices), you wont last long on wikipedia, if you persist like this. You have already gotten yourself a bad reputation among many users (and i can tell you the more you carry on like this, the more people will watch your edits carefully)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a section about enforcing zakat

I have read that many Muslim leaders such as Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman and Muhammad enforced the payment of Zakat by force when people refused to pay it. Would it be suitable to mention this in the article. one example of enforcing Zakat during Muhammad's era is the Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn . You thoughts please --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alms-giving is not limited to persons, let along Muslims

See Hadith 4:538 'Allah's Apostle said, "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."' User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary that we refer to primary sources (such as the Koran) here, because there are plenty of scholarly, secondary sources that discuss this topic. In the preceding section discussing Zakat for non-Muslims, I suggested several reliable sources that discuss this topic. Instead of doing our own research directly from the Koran, we should try to just state what these sources say about the matter. In the case of zakat, there is disagreement amongst scholars both about who should pay it, and who should receive zakat funds (for example: "Muslim scholars disagree over whether the poor that qualify for zakat should include non-Muslims"[14]). For instance some people say that "the funds of zakat (tax) cannot be handed out to non-Muslims" [15] and others believe that "Islam does not impose zakat or jihad on non-muslims"[16] and others believe that non-Muslims are obligated to pay zakat, but do not have to make it up later if they choose not to.[17] ... Basically, as with most things regarding religion, there is not 100% agreement on zakat, and we should objectively describe the disagreements here, rather than feeling like we have to pick the "right" interpretation of the Koran. There is disagreement, and so we should describe all of the perspectives, rather than arguing about which one we think is the right one. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding a little suggestion when you find secondary reliable sources, which are available. You're referring to Sadaqah (a type of charity), not Zakat (a type of tax). This is just a personal tip (not a discussion), so no-replies are required :) ~ AdvertAdam <sup>talk</sup> 06:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Zakat in practice

There is an enormous hole in this page, and it is "Zakat in practice". How is Zakat done in modern day Islamic societies? How was it done in the past? Too much of this article is about what may be largely irrelevant theory William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have started to add more information on this. In reality, studies have shown that the majority of Muslims who live under voluntary zakat systems do not pay the prescribed amount. See the sources I have added as I've been reworking the lead today. I believe that two of them discuss this. Also, we should discuss the modern Saudi and Pakistani systems, which are two of a handful of nations that actually have a state-controlled zakat system. We should compare and contrast this with the voluntary systems. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed large amount of content

As I'm sure you will all notice, I have removed a very large quantity of unsourced information, original research from primary documents, and information that used unreliable sources. I have replaced this with information that is found in scholarly sources. Please do not re-include any of the deleted information unless you can provide sources that meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. In the future, please try to use the types of sources I've provided here -- that is, sources that are published by academic publishers, and that are not promoting a single Islamic sect's views. There is clearly disagreement about many things related to the zakat, and we need to talk about this disagreement without taking a stance ourselves, as editors. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is good; the article is better now. It is still clearly in need of expansion, but hopefully it now has a structure that will allow that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Zakah

An alternative spelling of zakāt is zakah. Should that be mentioned in the article? --Mortense (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) should the title of the article be in Arabic anyway? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Zakāt → Zakat – Zakat is by far the more commonly used name is English, as confirmed by Google Ngram Viewer and as used in the Wikipedia article itself. Khestwol (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support because of the above reason and because no one objected. Khestwol (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Easy support, WP:UE. Red Slash 16:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Atheism is not a religion

The intro compares donations of different religious sects thus:

There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists.

Atheism is neither a religion nor a sect. Please consider either removing atheists from the comparison of donors or clarify that large proportions of atheists' donations do not go to the upkeep of salaries/properties/mass-indoctrinations of the respective religions own followers and possible converts. Donations to secular causes that are spent directly on the needy can not be compared to religious donations that follow a long and insidious road before they actually reach the needy.

Also, while all other sects mentioned in the above have links to their respective wikis, "atheists" does not. I shall correct that presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoother (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Have corrected the link mentioned above. I have not capitalised the noun as some dictionaries would demand. Please correct that as needed. Themoother (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of charity in the UK is too simple

For the following statement:

"There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists."

There is only a dollar amount of wealth given and no discussion about factors that would change this. The article seems to assert that the dollar amounts imply more charity on behalf of certain groups and are caused by religion or irreligion. What if certain groups simply earn more more (and so can afford to donate more)? What if factors correlating with religion but not related to religion affect donation rates? For example, suppose recent immigrants give more or less money.

This is interesting information but maybe should not be at the top of the page (because it's complicated and can't be explained in one sentence) and might need more discussion. It also seems a bit out of place at the top of the page. Maybe we can move this sentence and add a link to a specific page that discusses the issue of religion and charity in more depth?

This issue is related to the previous subject of how atheism is not a religion but is distinct. I feel regardless of that discussion that this sentence needs more work.

Thank you for reading my thoughts.

173.180.212.56 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of people's charity by belief

@Themoother:@173.180.212.56:I've gone ahead and moved the paragraph comparing the amount given by each religion, seems out of place in the lead. I could not find the original survey on ICM website. The comparison of Islamic giving Vs total humanitarian giving may be problematic - isn't some of the aid given by Muslims humanitarian? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Confused in one sentence

"The family of the Muhammad…"
shouldn't that be "The family of Muhammad" ? Is "Muhammad" also a common noun ? If so, can it be defined ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jerome Charles Potts:Looks like a typo to me, maybe be bold and change it. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It would have been changed from "The family of the Prophet" as per WP:MOSISLAM at some point and "the" was missed. Happens sometimes. Fixed it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory

The article states that it is obligatory to give Zakat but it doesn't say which countries. Maybe this could a good starting point? http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/zakat-by-country/

Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen. 124.190.24.102 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Zakat is the third pillar of Islam to be a Muslim. They are all mandatory to be a Muslim.

1. REDIRECT Five Pillars of Islam

--OxAO (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Shia zakat

User at 120.18.68.78 - Read WP:V and WP:RS. The lead summary needs to reflect the main article and match what the cites are saying, not what your "Shia sources" are telling you. If you have concerns about the summary, explain it on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No edit war. Discuss your concern here. Mohamad Ariff, on p. 38, in para 3 states zakat recipients to be: the poor, new converts to Islam, slaves, etc. The quran.com provided Shahih International translation is controversial and has been criticized by scholars (we also can't use WP:Euphemism in wikipedia articles such as "bring hearts together"). Read the cite. RLoutfy (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with any of your edits other than the shia content which you are removing and changing. So leave this alone and there will be no issue. You have no right to re-word this section even though your change contradicts the source info.120.18.122.137 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@120.18.122.137 and other 120.18.*.* addresses, Which source does it contradict? Please provide cite and its pg number. Your edit to the lead disrespects wikipedia's WP:LEAD guidelines, because the lead is supposed to a summary of the main article, not new material from non-RS sources. The Sahih International translation provided by quran.com is also an unacceptable source. The wikipedia community has discussed quran.com as a source previously, and you can read the concerns about it here. RLoutfy (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

IP, please see WP:OWN. Edit summaries like "Shia section must stand as is. Editor may edit anything else" are severely frowned upon. You need to defend your changes on their own merits. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

IP, I will break my edit into two. Take a look at the second edit that deals with Shia content only, and lets discuss your concerns. RLoutfy (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now we are in agreement. You kept the well cited initial info and added what you wanted and i have no objection to that.120.18.16.8 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Move article

The title of the article has a taa marbuta at the end, meaning it is pronounced "Zakah" when it stands alone such as in a title and is only pronounced "Zakat" when immediately followed by another word like "Zakat-ul-fitr". Sodicadl (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zakat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://islamicbulletin.org/free_downloads/resources/reliance2_complete2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 03:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal on improving organization

This article doesn't seem to be clear in separating theory from practice and past from present. The separation mostly seems to exist on paragraph level, so I'm tempted to rearrange the material, but this a big change and I'd like to build consensus first. How about the following?

• Etymology
• Doctrine
• - Quran
• - Hadith
• - Amount
• - Failure to pay
• - Recipients
• - Distribution (first two paragraphs)
• - Role in society
• Historical practice
• Contemporary practice
• - Lead
• - Collection
• - Distribution (the rest)
• - Role in society
• - Comparative charity practice
• Related terms

Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: This seems like a nice initiative, I'll get back later on the organization of the article, but for now we need to improve the lede in my opinion. 10:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I followed my unopposed proposal a few days later. This is what the article looked like before the reorganization. Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So-called "Ridda wars"

It is stated in the lede that, "The payment and disputes on zakat have played a major role in the history of Islam, notably during the Ridda wars." I would like to quote this excellent entry by Wael Hallaq in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 121.:

A more convincing view, however, is that each of the revolts against the new order had its own causes. Of the six major centers of uprising, four had a religious color, each led by a so- called prophet, prophetess or soothsayer: al-Aswad al-Ansī in Yemen, Musaylima (q.v.) in Yamāma, ulay a b. Khuwaylid of the tribes of Banū Asad and Banū Ghaafān and Sajā of the tribe of Tamīm. The resistance in the two other centers — east and southeast of the Arabian peninsula — seems to have been caused by a refusal to submit to the political authority of Medina including the payment of taxes imposed upon them by the Prophet in 9 ⁄ 630. Following classical Islamic sources, much of modern scholarship tends to see all these wars and battles that took place within the boundaries of Arabia — before the conquests in Syria and īra began — as falling into the category of the wars of apostasy. In point of fact, of all the centers of revolt only Najd qualifies, strictly speaking, for classification as a center of apostate rebellion. The Banū Hanīfa, led by Musaylima in Yamāma, had never been subject to Medinan domination nor did they sign any treaty either with Muhammad or with his successor Abū Bakr (11 ⁄ 632-13 ⁄ 634). It was only when the military commander Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21 ⁄ 642) defeated them in 12 ⁄ 633 that they came, for the first time, under Medinan domination. In other words, they never converted to Islam in the first place so that they cannot correctly be labeled as apostates. A similar situation existed in Umān, al-Barayn, al-Yaman, and a ramawt. There, Muhammad concluded treaties with military leaders — some of whom were Persian agents — who were quickly ousted by the local tribes. Thus, the tribes’ resistance to Medina did not presuppose a particular relationship in which they paid allegiance to the Muslim state. Again, their uprising does not constitute apostasy, properly speaking. The tribes of Najd, on the other hand, were their own masters and signed treaties with Muhammad, the terms of which required them to adopt Islam and to pay homage as well as taxes to Medina. Their revolt, thus, constituted a clear case of apostasy.

So as it seems "disputes on zakat" didn't play a "major role" in the ridda wars, with only the tribes of Najd refusing to pay it. What do you thus suggest as an alternative? 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I've been meaning to work on the history section, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. The connection between the Ridda wars and zakat is something I've come across in RSs before, and this take is also sourced in the article. Hallaq's own wording suggests that it's a common view, although drawing conclusions about zakat from this passage requires making inferences about relationship between "apostasy" and zakat which aren't explicitly stated there. Also, even if only tribes of the Najd rebelled for zakat-related reasons, why wouldn't it qualify as a "major role"? I recommend reworking the history section to reflect alternative viewpoints and then deciding how to summarize it in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The wording "played a major role in the disputes leading to the revolt of the Najd tribes" would be convenient, however labeling all "ridda" wars as being a direct result of zakat non-payment would be misleading at best. 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Well, two different issues. The phrase "payment and disputes on zakat have played a major role in the history of Islam" is not based on a source (one source says "zakat is an integral part of Islamic history", which is not the same). However, the connection of zakat with the Ridda wars is expressed in general terms in multiple standard references:

 EI2 "Zakat": The system of zakat collection was gravely threatened during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when some of the Arabian tribes refused to acknowledge that the Prophet's authority to collect zakat had passed to his successor. This movement in resistance to the collection of zakat is associated with the apostasy of the ridda wars [...]

 The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, "Zakat": In fact, neglecting to pay zakāt became an offense punishable by law. This was a precedent set by the first caliph, Abū Bakr, who fought against those who refused to fulfill their obligation of zakāt. Zakāt in this case, however, was in essence a form of tribute paid by the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula to the Muslim treasury (bayt al-māl). Failure to make these payments after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad resulted in the Wars of Apostasy during Abū Bakr's caliphate (632–634).

 Nonetheless, Abu Bakr made a number of decisions that defined the political direction of the new regime. He decided that all tribes formerly allied to Muhammad would have to continue to pay taxes (zakat), and he waged war on those who refused, a period known as the apostasy (ridda) wars. Lapidus, Ira M.. A History of Islamic Societies (p. 65). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Other authors, like Hallaq and Donner in Oxford History of Islam list the zakat dispute alongside other factors that led to the Ridda wars, and we should reflect them too, but not to the exclusion of the other sources. Eperoton (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I didn't state otherwise, surely, we use something like "Disputes about zakat .... contributed to the (ridda) wars. However, Wael Hallaq states that amongst all the rebellions, only the tribes of Najd qualify as being a direct result of zakat non-payment."

By the way, I invite you to check (since you have access to OUP) chapter 6 - The legal pillars of religion pp. 225-238 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815300.008) of Wael Hallaq's Shari'a. It presents a good summary which we draw upon to improve the lede.

11:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Let's improve the body of the article and then make sure the lead adequately summarizes its contents. There's no need to go into the details of the scholarly controversy regarding the causes of Ridda wars in the lead. In the body, we need to give proper weight to the view Hallaq is arguing against, for which we can use his own words: "Following classical Islamic sources, much of modern scholarship tends to see all these wars and battles that took place within the boundaries of Arabia [...] as falling into the category of the wars of apostasy." We have several good sources to work with (EI2, "Almsgiving" in EofQ, Hallaq's book). I'm having a hectic couple of weeks again, but I'm managing to fit in some relevant readings on my travels. Eperoton (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of the term has been subject to back-and-forth, and I've struggled myself on the best wording. I would welcome discussion on this point. Here's the issue. There are RSs which refer to zakat as simply alms-giving, there are RSs which highlight it as a religious duty, and there RSs which call it a tax. What we want to make clear is the distinction between religious obligation and compulsion. The word "obligatory" in itself doesn't convey it clearly, and so it doesn't appropriately reflect the fact that most countries these days no longer treat it as a legal requirement. Eperoton (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll accept your rewriting. There just has to be something indicating most (virtually all) Muslims consider it religiously obligatory. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation

Could someone please provide a small translation for this image which is used in the article. It is the English wikipedia so I think this request makes sense here.

DTM (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zakat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810145129/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/ to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726022928/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/22/19611201-muslims-give-more-to-charity-than-others-uk-poll-says?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/22/19611201-muslims-give-more-to-charity-than-others-uk-poll-says?lite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)