Originally Posted by waqas izhar

Fiscality.-As already pointed out zakat is not at all almsgiving or charity, but the State tax, covering practically the entire fiscal system imposed on Muslim subjects. It is significant that the Qur'an prescribes no details as to the income, but gives very precise directions regarding the expenditure of the State. The implication seems to be that the government may have a free hand in increasing the revenues, but in matters of expenditure it should not deviate from the principles of a welfare State. The expenditure of zakat is much more important. The Prophet of Islam ordained that the income of zakat is religiously forbidden (haram) to him, to his family, to his tribe, and to the allies of his tribe. If the Head of the State is so scrupulous and does not abuse public confidence in money matters entrusted to his care, subordinates would be the less tempted to corruption. Further, the Qur'an has ordered that taxes should be spent under eight main heads of expenditure. They are to be levied only for the poor, the needy, the wayfarer, those who work for the State revenues, and those whose hearts are to be won, also for freeing the necks, and the heavily indebted, and for use in the path of God.
According to such a high authority as the Caliph Umar, ‘f ugara' (the poor) are those who belong to the Muslim com¬munity, and masakin (the needy) are from the non-Muslims. It is to be noted that the taxes do not come from the non-Muslims, yet the needy among them are the beneficiaries of these taxes paid only by the Muslims.
Those who work are the collectors, accountants, and controllers of expenditure, auditors, and others, embracing practically the entire administrative machinery of the State.
Those whose hearts are to be won may be of many kinds. The great jurist alm Ya'la al-Farra' observes: "Those whose hearts are to be won are of four kinds: (i) those whose hearts are to be reconciled for coming to the aid of the Muslims; (ii) those whose hearts are to be won in order that they abstain from doing harm to the Muslims; (iii) those who are attracted towards Islam; and (iv) those by whose means conversion to Islam of the members of their tribes becomes possible. It is lawful to benefit each and every one of those whose hearts are to be won, be they Muslims or polytheists."
By the term "freeing the neck," jurists have always understood the emancipation of slaves (which is a duty of the State!) and ransoming the prisoners of war, be they Muslim or non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim State.
Aid to those who have heavy debts or great burdens may be given in different ways. The Caliph Umar organized even a service of interest-free loans.
Expenditure "in the path of God" includes every charitable act, and the jurists from very early times have not hesitated to mention military equipment for the defense of Islam as the first item, since Islam struggles solely for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
As for the wayfarers, one can help them not only by giving hospitality to them, but also by ensuring them physical well-being and comfort, providing means of communication, security of routes, and taking all other measures for their well-being, be they countrymen or strangers, Muslims or non-Muslims.
These items are wide enough to embrace practically all the requirements of a welfare State.

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.

Originally Posted by waqas izhar

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).

Originally Posted by waqas izhar

not necessarily. you can keep them in lock up for a few days or give them the same punishment the modern tax defaulter gets.

Originally Posted by waqas izhar

for all:

Imagine that a poor person comes to you and asks for a thousand rupees so that he can rent a cart and earn some livelihood for himself and his family. assume that you in fact do have a thousand rupees to spare and you are willing to help the guy. in all probability you will do either of the three:

1. you will just give away the thousand rupees to him and wish him good luck.
2. you might say to him," if you make a lose, no problem. but if you make a profit you will give me 5% of your profits."
3. you might say to him," ok brother, i do not care whether you make a lose or a profit. but at the end of the year not only will you return me the thousand rupees but you will aslo give me Rs 100 above the thousand."

let's say that there are three thousand guys who have a thousand rupees each to spare.
and that a thousand choose option 1. the other thousand choose option 2. the third thousand choose option 3.

let's say further that the first thousand collect their money and call it a box of money.
the second thousand collect their money and call it a vault of money.
the third thousand collect their money and call it a bank of money.

now without going into the past or the future. without yammering about systems and sciences. without talking about the modern world or the ancient world or the Muslim world. without politics or economics. without thinking about implications or causes. simply choose the one in which you will deposit your money:

a box, a vault or a bank

regards

Originally Posted by waqas izhar

please answer the above post

Originally Posted by waqas izhar

making it up

Originally Posted by Buddha

Making up shariah punishments! I rest my case.