There is little to no difference between what the article is describing, a halal certificate on some financial instruments and the Kosher or Halal stamps you see on food products at the grocery store. In this case there is a consumer demand for products labelled Halal and it is being met by a body deemed to hold legitimacy in determining compliance, how this becomes a discussion about defending the entirety of a broad concept like Sharia is perplexing.

Scale makes a difference here. Kosher food isn't in large enough demand in the US to transform the entire agricultural industry, so non-adherents still have real choice.

A closer example might be the MPAA (US film rating group). It's a voluntary certification, but it's become a de facto requirement such that the small, opaque, non-government group shapes the level of violence (high) and nudity (low) in all TV and films.

Surely most people will continue to be able to find a bank that will lend them money under familiar terms of interest. I find it hard to believe or take seriously that an Indonesian body certifying financial instruments of debt as Halal is going to upend JP Morgan and the western banking system en masse.

Exactly, in my religion/culture eating Halaal is forbidden, because of 100s of years of wars with Muslim Rulers. Forcing or scaling Halaal to transform the market that we non users have no choice will be totally unacceptable.

Is a "halal certificate on some financial instruments" a relevant thing outside of Sharia law? This is a serious question. Are more moderate Muslims okay with interest, or is it pretty much across the board? I'm sure you can find some of any group okay with just about anything, I just mean in general. I'm not sure where on the spectrum of atheist to Islamist something like this falls.

Right or wrong I have always associated refusal to use traditional banking a more hard-line Muslim belief.

Don't you think it's weird to have such strong opinions about something you don't know much about?

I think it's weird to frame my honest questions as having strong opinions.

Did I misunderstand the article? I thought it said you were REQUIRED to have a certificate in order to operate...

Edit:

For most Sharia fintech startups, MUI certificates are not only commercially advantageous but legally required by the Financial Services Authority of Indonesia (OJK), the state financial regulator. Other areas of the Sharia digital economy, like halal e-commerce and umrah sites, travel-booking platforms for Islamic pilgrimages, do not require this certificate.

So yes for fintech, maybe for ecommerce in general?

Conventional banking and finance remains the bulk of activity within the country and I do not believe this announcement is declaring conventional products banned from the market at large. Rather I think this requirement only applies to a small section of the Indonesia financial industry, approximately 10% of the market.

https://www.ojk.go.id/en/berita-dan-kegiatan/siaran-pers/Pag...

Participating in the Indonesian sharia finance economy would be more akin to something like organic certification on produce. Most farms are not organic but if you want to label your products as such then you have to undergo a certification process with an agency like the USDA. In this case to be certified Halal you have to gain the MUI certificate which is recognized by the OJK Financial Services Authority of Indonesian. However, an Indonesian person is likely better person to clarify this more precisely.

But it applies to all of the fintech sector right? You cannot start or operate a fintech without religious permission? And by extension, forcing customers to buy products they don't actually want (sharia when they want non sharia).

I don't believe it's a blanket requirement, it's rather that if you want to market your product as being Halal then you have to get certification. Perhaps have a look at lemparin2020's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24518270 who appears to be an actual Indonesian who is more familiar with the article's subject matter. lemaprin2020 says:

>>Well obviously. If you want to build a halal certified banking product it has to be implement syariah principles, thats the point.

The article explicitly states it is a requirement. If you want to build a non halal certified product... You can't.

I see that you are determined to take that away from the article even if it is incorrect.

> For most Sharia fintech startups, MUI certificates are... legally required

Nowhere does it say that most fintech startups, let alone most finance, are are seeking that classification.

> Is Sharia law not a religious authority ruling folks who do not belong to that religion?

Absolutely not.

It specifically applies only to Muslims, while excluding others (known as dhimmi, which translates to something like "protected people"). Others have protected rights to live, have property, and freedom of religion, and in exchange they're expected to respect the authority of the State and are subjected to different taxes (jizya tax). Everything else depends on the implementation.

It's basically how you get a vibrant expat community in places like Dubai.

Absurdly wealthy inheritors looking to improve their public image on the backs of a slave labor underclass is how you get a "vibrant" expat community in places like Dubai.

Wow. I'm surprised at how incompetent Ben Affleck is at debating, or even following a line of reasoning.

I think it's because he's angry, which is somewhat understandable, because he thinks he's debating with a racist.

I'm not sure why he refuses to accept the fact that he might be wrong in this instance, though. I've seen him talk about other topics with Maher before and he's not nearly so bombastic or hard-headed.

I saw an interesting interview with Harris shortly after this where he said everyone was shocked that Affleck inserted himself into the conversation this way as well. I haven't seen many episodes of this show but apparently this segment is always a one-on-one between Maher and the guest in question, usually talking about whatever book or movie they're promoting, and given Ben's relative frequency on the show prior to this, he was aware of that.

That seems like a total lie by Harris. “Everyone”? The incident’s reactions are divided. Sam Harris is one of those people who has a huge [internet] rabid following. A following who love jumping on things and blowing things out of proportion while holding up their guy as amazing. Maher to a lesser extent.

Not surprising that their fanbases and communities loyal to them are going to jump on this far more than necessary. It doesn’t matter if Affleck didn’t do a horrible job in that scene, the reaction wasn’t going to be that much different from Harris’ fans.