Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha
That Zakat is a tax is an interpretation. What is a blow to this interpretation is that Zakat is voluntary. There is no sanction for a Muslim who does not pay Zakat. For example, the sanction for not paying Jizya was that non-Muslims who didn't pay Jizya were in a state of war with Muslims and in case of losing the war the war spoils were distributed as maal-e-ghaneemat and they were taken as slaves etc.
Non-payment of Zakat does not elicit sanctions from anyone. It's a matter between Allah and a Muslim.
Now Zakat could given individually, collectively -in which case zakat collection agency which could be a private venture would draw their salaries from it as it's one of the heads- or state can facilitate it by making a government zakat collection agency-same rules apply as on a private venture-. It can be done in any of the ways without disobeying Islamic injunctions.
|
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...t-paying-zakat
When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#002.023.483
it says that these people were doing Salaat but they were differentiating between the Salat and the Zakat.
As for those apologists who claim that they had reverted from Islam and that it was therefore obligatory to kill them, this allegation is not correct; whoever has read the historical books knows most certainly that those who withheld the zakat had not reverted from Islam. How could they have [done so] when they prayed with Khalid and his forces when he came to destroy them? Furthermore, Abu Bakr himself nullified this spurious claim by paying blood money for Malik from the state treasury and apologized for his death. No apology is needed for the killing of an apostate, nor is any blood money paid from the state treasury. None of the righteous predecessors ever said that those who withheld the zakat had reverted from Islam, except in the later periods when there sprang up [different] schools of thought (madhahib) and sects. The ahl al-sunna then tried their utmost, though unsuccessfully, to justify the actions of Abu Bakr, and found it necessary to formulate the charge of apostasy against them; for they knew that abusing Muslims was wicked and that killing them was [tantamount to] disbelief. This is what has been reported in the Sahih literature of the ahl al-Sunna, and even when al-Bukhari reported the account of Abu Bakr and his speech: "By Allah, I will fight whoever differentiates between salat and zakat..." he gave the chapter the title, "Whosoever refuses to accept the obligatory commandments, and what is attributed to them with [charges of] apostasy"; this is clear proof that he did not himself believe in the charge of their apostasy (as is obvious).