It should be pointed out here that while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. Zakat (2.5% of savings) and %u2018Ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.
RE:THE GREAT EMPEROR - SHAHENSHAH AURANGZEB
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:06 AM Permalink
Zakat is a religious duty, but Jizyah is discrimination and way to eventually convert non-muslims to Islam. The two are very different. Taxation was a concern for non-Muslims who were paying a higher tax than the zakat tax paid by Muslims. It was also an important factor persuading many dhimmis to convert to Islam, though during the first century after the Arab conquest of Syria and Palestine conversion to Islam was not encouraged "partly because the jizyah constituted an important source of state revenue"
