It’s not a badly worded question at all. So, the jizya was levied on ahl al-dhimma; the people who accepted dhimma, which basically meant that they accepted Muslim rule. Dhimmi—the singular—is commonly mistranslated as ‘second class citizen’ which is not at all what the term means; it actually means that they signed a treaty with the Muslims to guarantee their status within the community. (The idea of citizenship is a European post-enlightenment idea and has no basis here; dhimmis were restricted from holding certain positions or doing certain things unless they converted to Islam, but that was pretty much par for the course among subjugated peoples anywhere. Moving on from my soapbox.)

What you’re thinking of are the Ahl al-Kitaab, the ‘peoples of the book’ referenced in the Qur’an—these people could become ahl al-dhimma, but it wasn’t automatic (they had to lay down arms first).

The jizya was usually one of the conditions imposed upon the ahl al-dhimma; it was partially tribute and partially a replacement for the zakat, which was only levied on Muslims (and is a fixed amount that couldn’t be changed, not coincidentally the ahl al-dhimma usually bore the financial brunt if the government went into debt). As you describe, the entire system was intended to be a mechanism wherein religious minorities could continue living alongside the Muslim majority without converting (although many would do over time for various reasons, including social mobility and the financial advantages of not paying the jizya if it were raised).

As you can probably tell from the way I’ve responded, there are a lot of interpretations of how this all worked, many of which are oriented through a modern or an anti-Islam lens; it is certainly true that the jizya was enforced unevenly and often as a form of financial extortion by some Muslim leaders at times and in some locations, but that is not how it was originally envisioned.

To answer the question directly posed, Zoroastrians, although not specifically identified as ahl al-kitaab, were the majority of the population in Iran at the time of the Islamic conquest, and they were accepted as dhimmis. In various contexts in Central Asia and India, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists were also granted dhimma status. A lot of this boiled down to pragmatism: at no point were Muslims the majority in India, for example, so the idea that the Mughal emperors were going to try to force the much larger Hindu population to convert was a fool’s errand at best; in order to be successful at ruling over such a large population, accommodations had to be reached.