Talk:Zakat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

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)

Contents 1 Hmmm 2 Amount? 3 Zakat as tax 4 Dispute tag 5 DOUBT

[edit] Hmmm

This does not make any sense. Please can someone explain it clearer?

no

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)