Hacker News Reader

Comment by gher-shyu3i | Hacker News Reader

> Some people value having an equal voice in their government above all of those things.

You're going to have to elaborate more, because Islam definitely allows people to have their voices heard. Furthermore, it not only allows people of different faiths to live on its lands, their rights are heavily protected by the law:

http://qaalarasulallah.com/hadithView.php?ID=23053

Note that the word "contracting man" here refers to a non-Muslim.

If this isn't the manifestation of justice, I don't know what is.

View on HN

I was just responding to your statement that Islam isn't exactly democratic in the modern sense, and there are some "boundaries". Presumably that means there are some issues where an average citizen doesn't get a vote? I am not making a value judgement, I am just trying to explain how it is possible for someone to believe differently than you.

> If this isn't the manifestation of justice, I don't know what is.

Now imagine somebody saying that exact sentence in response to, for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property. Clearly that kind of law is not reconcilable with your idea of a good society, and yet you both consider these contradictory things to be perfect justice. Does that illustrate my point?

Or: the next verse says that certain taxes should only be leveled on non-Muslims. I don't care whether or not you agree with this, the point is that both views are possible. It's impossible to prove that religious discrimination is just or unjust. It's an opinion! A society could survive perfectly well with or without that rule. Different value systems will come to different conclusions about whether that rule is a good idea.

Your username implies a gross bias.

> Now imagine somebody saying that exact sentence in response to, for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property.

Is this in reference to an Islamic position? If so please provide a source.

Not it isn't, it was an example intended to be completely contradictory to the Islamic position, to illustrate how two people can both believe their completely irreconcilable systems are the pinnacle of justice.

> Presumably that means there are some issues where an average citizen doesn't get a vote?

Look up Shura laws on how these things work. Topics are delegated to experts in their respective fields who have the obligation to act out of interest of the society, a form of "meritocracy" if you will. This doesn't mean that average citizens cannot be consulted.

> for example, a man being stripped of his possessions because his caste is not allowed to own property. Does that illustrate my point?

No it doesn't, because Islam does not prohibit non-Muslims from owning properties. You have not shown what issues you have with the Islamic system so far other than conjecture.

> the next verse says that certain taxes should only be leveled on non-Muslims

Because non-Muslims are not required to pay Zakat, Muslims are already "taxed".

I feel that the discussion went on a tangent. The fact of the matter is that it is perfectly not only possible to build a society without the dangerous practice of interest, but it is in the benefit of the entire society to do so (except a relative few who stand to benefit extremely from interest and other similar practices). We've known about it for a long time now.

I agree this is a tangent. The point that I am failing to make is that even if you and I agree that the Islamic Golden Age was the perfect society, we cannot "prove" that, and many people believe it was a terrible society by definition, because they have very different value systems than us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com