Talk:Zakat

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)