It seems like you're desperately trying to inject religion into an argument where it's wholly irrelevant. Take this at face value: HN is about tech. Religion is not tech, therefore it's not at the forefront of discussion (with the exception of this trainwreck of a tangent).

Someone is facing legal action for posting pictures and need help with their startup. The context of their conviction isn't relevant for the discussion. Similarly; Al-Khwarithmi's religion is not relevant to us whatsoever. They're really interesting tech stories with human-interest stores intermingled - it's not difficult at all to focus just on the tech aspect.

I'm confused by your last point too - we aren't here to sit and discuss some kind of homogenous technocratic dogma. It's a poor example in any case - tech seems to prompt the some of most fervent rounds mud-slinging of all topics up for discussion on the internet.

did you read the description? not so secular isn't it? so if the description is not secular, how am i desperately injecting religion? what kind of filtering did you use when you read the description? im very curious.

From the title:

> Ask HN: I might be going to prison soon, how to save my one-man SaaS startup?

That's what the discussion should be about. Perhaps OP shouldn't have mentioned his "crime", but the fact that it's religious has no bearing on how he handles running a startup from jail.

so you simply filtered the entire description. fair enough.

its simply what the original discussion was about. the specific reason he is being jailed could be 1st degree murder for all the difference it makes. He wasn't asking help to get out of jail.

that is what i meant. it just happens that the OP is convicted against religion. if it was 1st degree murder id say the same, dont support him on HN. your point of view is clear and straight forward that regardless of the crime, HN is a place where such people can be supported.

> who said it is a muslim community

I interpreted your position as applying muslim community standards in what is not a muslim community. This is a very liberal community in which insulting religions for humorous effect is perfectly ok.

> not be refuge for immoral people who insult other people's cultures

"there seems a clear correlation between intelligence and willingness to consider shocking ideas". "In any competitive field, you can win big by seeing things that others daren't" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

or see for example (http://xkcd.com/137/)

This community willingly asks questions that would be considered 'immoral' elsewhere.

> a muslim guy invented algorithms

Irrelevant. Alan Turing was gay and Ada Lovelace was female.

the OP didn't insult gay people nor females, that's why those are irrelevant.

Indeed. and he didn't insult the inventor of algorithms either. Look, not all jokes involving females are insulting Ada Lovelace. Not all jokes about gay people are insults of Alan Turing. Not all jokes about a specific practice of muslims are insults to Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī.

If the OP was facing jail for insulting gay people or "females" (I "love" the implicit denigration of women as lesser you're performing here) in in the US, there would be a _huge_ fund out to defend them, outpoor of money and support, and organizations like ACLU coming to his aid. There would be a bi-partisan outrage against this. We would all say that we disagree with what he said and consider it stupid/immature/offensive but that he had every legal right to say it. To use a real example, see the case of weev: his personality and actions were extremely offensive and poisonous but currently he is in prison on trumped charge of computer trespass due to a stupid law (CFAA). Yet, most are rallying behind him despite having been very familiar with results of his denigration of others (e.g., Kathy Sierra).

Here's a new word for you: liberty. It doesn't mean "only liberty to do things that _I_ like", it means tolerating when others do things I don't like, as long these don't constitute (in words of US Supreme Court) a "clear and present danger" to me or others. I don't have a right to post a list of mosques in my area and encourage others to attack their members (if I do so I should very much be arrested, thrown in jail, and forced to pay restitution if any vandalism, property damage, or violence has occurred); I do have a right to say that prohibition of pork both in Islam and my religion (Judaism) is outdated and silly (it made sense when there was no refrigeration and eating pork in a hot climate meant a risk of trichinosis, but it makes no sense now), you have a right to disagree and continue to not eat pork.

There is nothing inherently Western about this idea too. If you don't treat the concept as binary but as a continuum, it's clear that during the Middle Ages parts of Islamic world were more free than most parts of the Western world. There are many Western detractors of the idea of liberty, there are many Eastern (including Islamic) defenders of the concept (see http://www.nocompulsioninislam.com/nocompulsion.html for examples from your own culture, see Mencious and Laozi for examples from Chinese culture).

Being offended does not constitute "clear and present danger". I personally find the literal text of Torah, New Testament, and Koran to be extremely offensive -- but I understand that they are not meant to be taken literally (but frequently are with disastrous results), were written a in different time and in different circumstances, and will do all I can to prevent those texts from being censored.