Talk:Zakat

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)

Confused in one sentence

"The family of the Muhammad…"
shouldn't that be "The family of Muhammad" ? Is "Muhammad" also a common noun ? If so, can it be defined ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jerome Charles Potts:Looks like a typo to me, maybe be bold and change it. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It would have been changed from "The family of the Prophet" as per WP:MOSISLAM at some point and "the" was missed. Happens sometimes. Fixed it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of people's charity by belief

@Themoother:@173.180.212.56:I've gone ahead and moved the paragraph comparing the amount given by each religion, seems out of place in the lead. I could not find the original survey on ICM website. The comparison of Islamic giving Vs total humanitarian giving may be problematic - isn't some of the aid given by Muslims humanitarian? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory

The article states that it is obligatory to give Zakat but it doesn't say which countries. Maybe this could a good starting point? http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/zakat-by-country/

Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen. 124.190.24.102 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)