Are you saying there are exceptions to that? because I somehow doubt it (though I have heard that some shia subsects of the past allowed some things).

If there are exceptions, provide them.

You wrote:

Are you saying there are exceptions to that? because I somehow doubt it (though I have heard that some shia subsects of the past allowed some things).

If there are exceptions, provide them.

The fact you ask this question means you've not understood the point I've been banging on about!

All sharia rules have an exception - necessity.

In life death situations, one can violate any sharia rule - including denying the shahadah!

One does not need to reiterate this rule every time one makes a comment about taxes, ruling, voting, prayer, marriage etc One assumes a Muslim is aware of it - if he is not, he can always ask.

If one puts a gun to your head and threatens your life or do this filthy act, one is permitted to do it! Just like if our survival was in problems in the UK we can vote or legislate kufr etc but as it is not, the rule is that it is haram.

and then you accuse me of supporting hedonism.

Taxes are a different situation, where youy denied them is not just a denial of an imaginary exception, but one that would be constant and done every single day. you are now pretending that this is an exceptional circumstanec and not an everyday one as has been presented in that faq.

You wrote:

Taxes are a different situation, where youy denied them is not just a denial of an imaginary exception, but one that would be constant and done every single day. you are now pretending that this is an exceptional circumstanec and not an everyday one as has been presented in that faq.

Taxes are no different - Allah has legislated rules where a ruler can take wealth from people called taxes. Any other means of taking money from society is violating the right to private property and is seen as zulm and haram.

The only time a ruler can do such haram is in necessity - which can only be done when the necessity is there and must stop as soon as the necessity is over! It's like pork is haram day in day out - one can only eat it in necessity (life/death!) cases and only to a limit to survive, nothing more! Once food is available he must stop eating pork. Likewise the ruler must conform to colelcting the taxes a rates/on people that Allah permits - day in day out - exception being necessity (life/death/serious harm etc).

What is so difficult about this concept? You are obviously not seeing something obvious but are not articulating what your concern is so that I can at least try to address it...

The difficulty is that you are pretending that it will not be an everyday action.

The comparison to states when the shariah does not apply is different as the rule used to declare the taxes is from ahdith that the FAQ on an islamic state mentions. Those taxes would be present every day and not just in a life/death capacity.

Health, Education, roads, industry would all be used to help with tax in order for them not to be harmed compared to other locations etc and these are not always life and death things (and not always things you can use other money eg from zaka'ah for).

So that makes it a system there there will be a set of taxes that will always be there - even if they gain more money than is necessary and then another set of taxes that will be based on what is required.

In the end, the system will not be too different from what we have now.

But when you put it your way, it sounds like there is a major difference - because you neglect to mention a part of the equation.

You wrote:

The difficulty is that you are pretending that it will not be an everyday action.
The comparison to states when the shariah does not apply is different as the rule used to declare the taxes is from ahdith that the FAQ on an islamic state mentions. Those taxes would be present every day and not just in a life/death capacity.

The sharia taxes cover all the day to day income/expenditure and the state has to operate within them.

Illegal taxes will never be a day to day action. What makes you think illegal taxes will be a day to day action?

Apart from the taxes Allah has ordained, the state is not permitted in the normal course of events to take excess wealth from the people - that is zulm - and zulm is never permitted on a day to day basis.

Pretending what will not be an everyday action? Illegal taxes?

The sharia taxes cover all the day to day income/expenditure and the state has to operate within them.

Illegal taxes will never be a day to day action. What makes you think illegal taxes will be a day to day action?

You wrote:

Health, Education, roads, industry would all be used to help with tax in order for them not to be harmed compared to other locations etc and these are not always life and death things (and not always things you can use other money eg from zaka'ah for).

Industry is meant to pay taxes and not receive them.

Zakat can be used on roads as one of the 8 categories is facilties for the traveller - during Umar's(ra) roadside services were introduced from Zakat.

Health and education can be paid for through a combination of state/private provision alleviating the burden on the state. Other taxes and natural resources which are under state control can be used for funding. Illegal taxes are not necessary.

You wrote:

So that makes it a system there there will be a set of taxes that will always be there - even if they gain more money than is necessary and then another set of taxes that will be based on what is required.
In the end, the system will not be too different from what we have now.

Nope - the legislated taxes will cover the expenditure - exceptional circumstances may be warfare, or drought or earthquakes where additional income may be necessary.

Given these are divine taxes, there are many differences, some obvious, some subtle, some economic, some psychological, some long term, some short term etc etc etc For example, an immediate difference is in psychology of tax payers and receivers - in the west most evade taxes as much as they can and grab any benefits/grants they can even if it means being a little economical with the truth! In an Islamic society, where the education system empahsises purpose of life (non-fun but achieving paradise and pleasure of Allah!), those who do not pay are made to feel they are holding back wealth which is the right Allah has legislated for others and will have queues of people demanding their rights. Those who take such taxes and they are not entitled etc will have a similar problem.

You wrote:

But when you put it your way, it sounds like there is a major difference - because you neglect to mention a part of the equation.

There is a major difference - the latter part of the equation is not day to day and never has been.

Read the tax policies of the Khilafah Rashidah, the Ummayads, Abbassids and you'll see! During Umar bin Abdul Aziz's reign, poverty was eliminated just through the taxes sharia had legislated - no other tax was needed!

Responding to

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

The difficulty is that you are pretending that it will not be an everyday action.
The comparison to states when the shariah does not apply is different as the rule used to declare the taxes is from ahdith that the FAQ on an islamic state mentions. Those taxes would be present every day and not just in a life/death capacity.

The sharia taxes cover all the day to day income/expenditure and the state has to operate within them.

Illegal taxes will never be a day to day action. What makes you think illegal taxes will be a day to day action?

and

Health and education can be paid for through a combination of state/private provision alleviating the burden on the state. Other taxes and natural resources which are under state control can be used for funding. Illegal taxes are not necessary.

From the document I linked to on page 1:

The financial burdens placed on modern states today are far higher than in previous times. When the Khilafah is re-established it will need to finance a huge re-development and industrial programme to reverse centuries of decline, and bring the Muslim world fully into the 21st century. Because of this, the Bait ul-Mal's permanent sources of revenue may be insufficient to cover all the needs and interests the Khilafah is obliged to spend upon. In such a situation where the Bait ul-Mal's revenues are insufficient to meet the Khilafah's budgetary requirements, the Islamic obligation transfers from the Bait ul-Mal to the Muslims as a whole.

This is because Allah (swt) has obliged the Muslims to spend on these needs and interests, and their failure to spend on them will lead to the harming of Muslims. Allah (swt) obliged the State and the Ummah to remove any harm from the Muslims.

It was related on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, (ra), that the Messenger of Allah said: "It is not allowed to do harm nor to allow being harmed." [Ibn Majah, Al-Daraqutni]

Therefore, Allah (swt) has obliged the State to collect money from the Muslims in order to cover its obligatory expenditure. The State achieves this by imposing taxes upon the Muslims such that these needs and interests are met without being exceeded. These taxes should only be taken from people's surplus wealth. This wealth is what is left after someone has spent on his basic needs, and also his luxuries according to the normal standard of living.

which is contradictory to your phrasing.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Zakat can be used on roads as one of the 8 categories is facilties for the traveller - during Umar's(ra) roadside services were introduced from Zakat.

Roadside services and roads are two different things. (but I assume you knew that and were carefully trying to navigate the course... ?)

Not a site I like, but the first one that actually addressed spending on roads, Islam-qa says:

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Mughni (2/280): It is not permissible to spend zakaah on anything other than what Allaah has mentioned here, such as building mosques, bridges and aqueducts, maintaining roads, shrouding the dead, providing hospitality to visitors and other acts of charity that Allaah did not mention here. End quote.

You wrote:

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Mughni (2/280): It is not permissible to spend zakaah on anything other than what Allaah has mentioned here, such as building mosques, bridges and aqueducts, maintaining roads, shrouding the dead, providing hospitality to visitors and other acts of charity that Allaah did not mention here. End quote.

u can't or can spend it on the above? :S

you can not spend Zaka'ah on such things.

There are only 8 categories you can spend zaka'ah on which are mentioned in [qs:9:60].

"The obligatory charity shall be only for the poor and the needy, and for those who work to collect it, and to influence hearts (to belief), for ransoming captives, and debtors in the Way of Allah and the destitute traveler. It is an obligation from Allah. Allah is Knowing, Wise." (At-Taubah: 60)

those who collect it?
influence hearts?
ransoming captives?
debtors?

:S

You wrote:

which is contradictory to your phrasing.

As I said I'm not with HT nor am I arguing what policies they will adopt. Different political parties will adopt different policies if and when they establish Islamic states.

My argument is, and has been, what Islam says and what the classical scholars have detailed in their tracts on taxation eg Abu Yusuf in his kitab al-kharaj.

As far as I understand, the taxes legislated in Islam should be adhered to and only exceptionally violated - if someone can justify an exception for a given situation, fine. If not, they have to run day to day affairs according to legislation and cannot introduce laws beyond them.

those who collect it - people whose job it is to collect the zaka'ah can be paid from the zaka'ah
influence hearts - something that Hadhrat Umar (ra) put a moratorium on, but its for non Muslims who want to or are likely to accept Islam, but are afraid to for some reason.
ransoming captives - free slaves etc.
debtors - people in debt. (and as such they would not meed the nisab requirements I suspect.)

Anonymous1 wrote:

As far as I understand, the taxes legislated in Islam should be adhered to and only exceptionally violated - if someone can justify an exception for a given situation, fine. If not, they have to run day to day affairs according to legislation and cannot introduce laws beyond them.

Not sure if I have asked and you have provided this before... but is there a source for this?

You have classed other taxes as zulm, so I assume there is some evidence of this that I can read?

You may not be HT (I suspect the Anjem Choudhary crew to be closer to your views...) but they have information and details on what they stand for - things that you have neglected to mention they mentioned, so if they are the best source of information I can find on on what you think, they are what I will use.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Zakat can be used on roads as one of the 8 categories is facilties for the traveller - during Umar's(ra) roadside services were introduced from Zakat.

Not a site I like, but the first one that actually addressed spending on roads, Islam-qa says:

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Mughni (2/280): It is not permissible to spend zakaah on anything other than what Allaah has mentioned here, such as building mosques, bridges and aqueducts, maintaining roads, shrouding the dead, providing hospitality to visitors and other acts of charity that Allaah did not mention here. End quote.

Maybe you should read Abu Yusuf's opinion which states it can be spent on routes in his book al-Kharaj.

There are some differences amongst the scholars on the details and ultimately it's down to the ijtihad of the state where to draw the limits... I don't think it's a major issue to be honest.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

As far as I understand, the taxes legislated in Islam should be adhered to and only exceptionally violated - if someone can justify an exception for a given situation, fine. If not, they have to run day to day affairs according to legislation and cannot introduce laws beyond them.

Not sure if I have asked and you have provided this before... but is there a source for this?

You have classed other taxes as zulm, so I assume there is some evidence of this that I can read?

You may not be HT (I suspect the Anjem Choudhary crew to be closer to your views...) but they have information and details on what they stand for - things that you have neglected to mention they mentioned, so if they are the best source of information I can find on on what you think, they are what I will use.

Hmmm you're judgement is really poor - I'd probably be classed an innovator by muhajiroun for my rational views and views on sufism!

I can't recall the references from the top of my head - studied them too long ago. I do recall part of the argument was the Quranic verse Hud:85 - it was famously used by Umar bin Abd al-Aziz when he had illegal tax offices demolished stating Allah forbids illegal taxes that reduce people's properties.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Maybe you should read Abu Yusuf's opinion which states it can be spent on routes in his book al-Kharaj.

There are some differences amongst the scholars on the details and ultimately it's down to the ijtihad of the state where to draw the limits... I don't think it's a major issue to be honest.

I have not read the book but I was reading about public infrastructure that is for the community's benefit (read canal/irrigation systems that benefit the people whose land the canal passes). There was the idea that the people who benefit can be charged to cover the upkeep and expenses of of the canal.

So while it is not called a tax...

Anonymous1 wrote:

it was famously used by Umar bin Abd al-Aziz when he had illegal tax offices demolished stating Allah forbids illegal taxes that reduce people's properties.

I think what he did was repeal the previous uniform taxes that Al Hajjaj had implemented in Iraq and replaced them by making Kharaj apply to all land (before then, when land came into Muslim hands, Ushr was paid, which was at a lower rate.)

I was just reading this about taxes in Islam.

It (eventually) makes the case that additional taxes and allowed and uses the example of Ushur (import duty) introduced by Hadhrat Umar (ra) as a proof of a tax that did not exist before and mentions a few ahadith etc that can be taken to mean it is allowed.

Bait ul Maal is the treasury. Calling it that makes things easier to understand in english IMO.

in the post I had linked to this page which IMO gives a good base and covers most of what we have discussed.

You wrote:

Bait ul Maal is the treasury. Calling it that makes things easier to understand in english IMO.

I don't think it does make it easier to understand as it changes the nature of the concept from a divine one to a temporal one.

It's like calling zakat tax - the two terms have quite different connotations, reverence and perceptions.

Christianity underwent similar processes with its terminology - swine to pork, adultary to affair, usury to interest etc

In my opinion, it is better to retain the Islamic terms unless there are terms that reflect most dimensions well in English. Unfortunately in the secular west, worships translate well - eg salat prayers, dua supplications etc - but social and political matters translate badly into secular terms.

Lilly wrote:

So Zakat <-- an islamic tax
for:* (1) the poor
* (2) the needy,
* (3) collectors of Zakah,
* (4) reconciliation of hearts,
* (5) freeing captives / slaves(fee al-Riqab),
* debtors
* (7) sadaqa in the Way of God's holy service (fee sabeel illah)
* (8 ) the traveler.

what other taxes exist? (as you guys seem to use "taxeS" but i thought zakaat was the only one?

yes please, go back to the basic so that we may (us commoners) understand what this whole debate is about.

and Baitul-maal? what goes in it? Zakaat? Sadaqa? donations? (also considered sadaqa?) other?

coolio look what i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat#Minimums_and_amounts <--table that says what need to be paid when and how much, neat or what?

zakat and sadaqa are 2 different things aren't they...

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

Bait ul Maal is the treasury. Calling it that makes things easier to understand in english IMO.

I don't think it does make it easier to understand as it changes the nature of the concept from a divine one to a temporal one.

It's like calling zakat tax - the two terms have quite different connotations, reverence and perceptions.

Maybe tithes is the word you want. You're probably right that the term treasury emphasises the physical and possibly secular pecuniary duties over the divine context, but it does also make it much easier to understand.

You wrote:

I was just reading this about taxes in Islam.

It (eventually) makes the case that additional taxes and allowed and uses the example of Ushur (import duty) introduced by Hadhrat Umar (ra) as a proof of a tax that did not exist before and mentions a few ahadith etc that can be taken to mean it is allowed.

Umar(ra) imposed a tax on harbi traders in retaliation for taxes that were imposed by them. One can do what is normally haram with harbis even in matters of riba, lieing, deception etc However that cannot be generalised - thus this is not evidence that new taxes cannot be innovated.

Narrations from Abd al-Rahman bin Maqil and Amr bin Dinar clarify that Umar(ra) never took such taxes from anyone other than the harbis.

I can't find any evidence he cites that justifies additional taxes without necessity - all the ahadith he cites comprise permission to take taxes other than zakat - which would be kharaj, jizya etc

The problem most modern economists face is that of politics - most wealth is controlled by tiny elites (eg 22 families control most land holdings in Pak!) which means that they won't pay kharaj/ushr (and ushr income is low as most land is not in use!). Instead of calling for political economic reformation to solve the problem (and take on the establishment/risk losing jobs etc), they start innovating new taxes to increase the yield arguing "modern state needs" and that sharia needs to adapt to new needs.

Sharia does not need to change, it is fine as it is, the corrupt reality needs to change.

Lilly wrote:

So Zakat <-- an islamic tax
for:* (1) the poor...
* (7) sadaqa in the Way of God's holy service (fee sabeel illah)

(7) fee sabeeli Allah - military expenditure

Lilly wrote:

what other taxes exist? (as you guys seem to use "taxeS" but i thought zakaat was the only one?

Public property includes all shared resources (roads, parks, govt buildings etc) of which the main category is natural resources (water,oil,gas,gold etc), administered by the state on behalf of the Muslims and private ownership is not allowed
Kharaj is land tax
Jizya is a head tax for non-Muslims
Ushr is taxed on agriculture
Anfal/Fai are war booty and income
Ushur are taxes on harbi traders
etc

Lilly wrote:

and Baitul-maal? what goes in it? Zakaat? Sadaqa? donations? (also considered sadaqa?) other?

All revenue collected by the state goes into it - it has to have separate accounts for each tax, esp. zakat due to its specified categories of disbursement.

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

Bait ul Maal is the treasury. Calling it that makes things easier to understand in english IMO.

I don't think it does make it easier to understand as it changes the nature of the concept from a divine one to a temporal one.

It's like calling zakat tax - the two terms have quite different connotations, reverence and perceptions.

Christianity underwent similar processes with its terminology - swine to pork, adultary to affair, usury to interest etc

In my opinion, it is better to retain the Islamic terms unless there are terms that reflect most dimensions well in English. Unfortunately in the secular west, worships translate well - eg salat prayers, dua supplications etc - but social and political matters translate badly into secular terms.

Its about using the correct language and about elitism. We are in the UK and converse in English.

Using foreign words IMO makes some people feel empowered in ways that are not true. Its a superiority complex and does not add to the discussion - the original terminology is in Arabic because the people weer Arabs and they spoke arabic.

Lilly wrote:

zakaat is obligatory
sadaqa is up to you.

i think
but maybe it's more complicated than that..

yeah thats what i thought...didn't u put sadaka under zakah :S
nvm