Reconcile these two statements about Ottoman taxation, if you can:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The fact that the conversion rate on the Balkans during the Ottoman period remained pretty low has several explanations, but chiefly it was an economic issue. Christian subjects paid higher taxes than Muslims...If all the Balkan Christians has converted to Islam it would have created a huge deficit in the Ottoman state finances.

versus

The jizya was far smaller that zakat.

jizya = dhimmi tax on non-Muslims, zakat = tithing of Muslims
 
Neither of these things have citations and are by separate people so Whats the point in finding internal logic between it.

Anyway the jizya could be smaller than zakat in absolute terms but still as a percentage be larger in terms of population it taxes.
 
versus



jizya = dhimmi tax on non-Muslims, zakat = tithing of Muslims

The jizya is a poll tax, while the zakat is effectively a combination income-property tax. While for a professional or moderately prosperous independent farmer or herdsman a zakat would produce more income, the Balkans was far more dedicated to orchard crops and estates, on which your agricultural workers in general were likely to be poorer per capita.

Granted, both of these figures come from separate sources and were based on separate theories. It's not like there was a policy writ stored in a vault in Konstantinye and shown to every local official.
 
Anyway the jizya could be smaller than zakat in absolute terms but still as a percentage be larger in terms of population it taxe
As @FillyofDelphi Say but in total Terms pure zakat is far bigger that jyzia, So money was not a factor of conversion(even poor convert and would not paid either) So in tax term both paid.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Neither of these things have citations and are by separate people so Whats the point in finding internal logic between it.

I am trying to spark discussion, even advocacy and debate, on the question and use that to learn, come to a conclusion and feel satisfied it is the logical and historically supported conclusion.

Note: although quoting two posters at odds is provocative in a sense, it is not meant to create any personal antagonism between the two.
 
@raharris1973

Inalcik says the zakat property tax was 2% of merchandise in the sixteenth century, while the average cizye was 40 aspers per household. For the average person, the cizye would have been a significantly larger burden (2,000 aspers was a decent amount of money in the sixteenth-century Ottoman empire).
 
@raharris1973

Inalcik says the zakat property tax was 2% of merchandise in the sixteenth century, while the average cizye was 40 aspers per household. For the average person, the cizye would have been a significantly larger burden (2,000 aspers was a decent amount of money in the sixteenth-century Ottoman empire).
For merchants and just merchandise, in before other properties are accounted, the Zakat is very big.
 
The average person is not a merchant. 2000 aspers is a minor timariot’s income.
Zakat is very complex...and is all property, did you dind't read the post? example, I a merchant who is debt free and have lands, i've to paid zakat over my net worth both in species and relative value(ie a charity donation if i product something else) the zakat is very big aspect how old islamics states worked, even modern ones too, can be a rate of 2 to 4 to 5% all income. Jyzia is flat but poor people avoid it at all, the same for poor muslim with zakat.
 
Jyzia is flat but poor people avoid it at all, the same for poor muslim with zakat.
Even poor Hungarians under Ottoman rule had to pay cizye (20-25 aspers in the 1560s), so this isn’t true.

In any case, how exactly is the cizye not worse for a poor Balkan peasant who can’t even dream of 2000 aspers?
 
Top