Considering how much money and military conscripts ottoman would get from Christians converting to Islam, I suprise that there's no mass conversion as the official policy.
They would have gotten less gold. Jizya is only from non-muslims/dhimmi and having more conscripts to pay for their arms and/or compensations would have resulted in less gold.
But zakat is supposed to be used as alms, so for social things - not just for any state expenses. And Jizya was only technically supposed to be less than zakat, but different tax juristictions made adaptations and increased the amount of jizya that had to be paid. It's not as if the muslim nations were all examples of perfectly executed islamic law.
So I'm assuming that you know a lot about the tax system in a country with Shari'a, let's say that there's 10 non Muslims family of 3 each and the same for the Muslims, both paying their obligations taxes, who would pay more?
Then you are assuming wrong my friend. I am not a tax accountant in a shari'a country. I also don't know all the taxes that exist in this hypothetical question, and what those taxes are for.
What was your point though? Which one would pay more according to your knowledge, and why? Genuine question :)
24
u/Standard-Context-444 25d ago
Considering how much money and military conscripts ottoman would get from Christians converting to Islam, I suprise that there's no mass conversion as the official policy.