|
Praise be to Allah, the Master of the Universe and Peace be upon Mohamed and his Purified Progeny The Islamic jurisprudence, especially of the Shi’a school of thought, is distinguished by its comprehensive theories and the depth of its branches, making it able to fulfill the needs of this progressive time and its complications in various fields of scientific majors. The jurists of the Ahlulbayte school of thought have presented the history – as they are known by their scientific depth and wide experience in the derivation process – of the Islamic and human societies with the legislated answers that correspond to the theories of the Islamic Jurisprudence. In your hand, my dear reader, is an example of this endless spring. It pours into a progressively advanced scientific field with the answers of one of the greatest contemporary scholars of the jurisprudence of the Ahlulbayte school of thought. He is known to have scientific precision and reasonable jurisprudence sense. He enriched the Islamic library with various books in current issues. He is the great religious scholar, his eminence, the grand Ayatollah Sayyid Mohamed Saeed Alhakeem (may Allah prolong his life). He answered - from the neighboring shrine to “the gate of the Prophet’s city of knowledge”, Imam Ali bin Abi-Talib in the holy city of Najaf - questions presented by devotees in the fields of computer and internet. We decided to publish them in an attempt to publicize their benefits. In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful Your eminence, the religious leader the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Mohamed Saeed Alhakeem. Q1: We ask your Eminence about the jurisprudence of computer, since dealing with the programs that run the computer is widespread. Many non-Muslim companies that produce them, prohibit their exchange except with certain guidelines that those companies specify. However, there is a way to reproduce these programs and even the operating programs like “Windows”, as well as others, or even the small branch programs. Some people copy them to a non-original disk and sell them at reasonable prices even though the companies that programmed them are not pleased with it. They even consider it to be stealing the programs or the copyright. The questions about the above are the following: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful and Grace be to Him. Answer: Apparently the mentioned condition is a religious obligation, since it is a kind of covenent. Verses and traditions confirmed the binding nature of the covenant. Almighty Allah said: “and fulfill the covenant; verily the covenant shall be questioned about”(1). In the tradition narrated by Hussain bin Mus’ab that Imam Sadiq (a. s.) said: “Three (things) have no excuse: returning the trust to the duteous and the dissolute, fulfilling the covenant to the duteous and the dissolute and to be dutiful to one's parents whether they were duteous or dissolute”(2). Similar in meaning to this tradition is the tradition narrated by Mus’ab bin ‘Ambesa. Yes, if the companies themselves broke the covenant by not following some of the conditions then this condition is not binding
anymore. If the mentioned prohibition is not a condition within the trading deal, then it would not be binding from the beginning. 2. Is it considered a binding duty on the person that bought the original copy not to copy it if: A. There was a specific
condition to that effect. Answer: It is obligatory if the mentioned prohibition is a condition whether it was mentioned or implied within the dealing of all the mentioned assumptions. Otherwise, it is not obligatory to reproduce them. 3. What are the rulings for all the previous assumptions based on copying from the non-original copy? I am hoping for the answer to all these assumptions? Answer: It is prohibited to copy the
non-original copy if this was part of a condition in the trading deal but this
prohibition is limited to the person that made the deal. Therefore, he/she
is not allowed to let others do that. 4. Based on the fact that a person obtained the original program or the non-original copy, is it mandatory religiously on him/her to find out the source of the programs or the way they were obtained before using them? Nevertheless, these companies sometimes advise their customers to check the source and sometimes oblige them to do so. Is usage of such products prohibited assuming that the source is unrecognized? What is the ruling if the person knows that the production company does not accept such usage? It is prohibited to do so? Answer: It is not prohibited and the person does not have to research it. 5. All these questions were based on the fact that the
companies were owned by non-Muslims. Now, assuming that the programs – whether they
were computer operating systems or other kinds like the ones containing information
– were produced by companies owned by Muslims, Shi’as or even if the
company is under the supervision of one of our scholars (may Allah raise their
words). Answer: There is no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims in that in all the previous rulings. 6. If the general satisfaction (regarding the usage and reproduction) exists from the shia owned companies but without declaration, is it allowed? It is noticeable that some of the reproducers are merchandising and making profits from trading with non-original copies without giving away some of the profits to the production or programming companies or establishments. What is the ruling if we are not certain that satisfaction existed? Answer: If they were satisfied, there is no prohibition to reproduce or trade. 7. If there were negative effects on the program’s efficiency or its ability in such a way that ruins the company’s reputation sometimes or some other times it effects the essentials of the program’s quality as a product. What is the ruling? Answer: This does not forbid the merchandising or the usage if it was after informing the owners of the company and getting their approval. If it was without their acceptance, then the forbiddance is limited by the existence of a condition and it is against the person who accepted the condition. So he/she is not allowed to reproduce or allow others to do so. There is no prohibition to others, even with the existence of the condition. Q2: Some Shi’a establishments produced computer programs
based on books to make it easier for the researchers to benefit from them.
They wrote a sentence on the program stating that it is not allowed to copy the
program or reproduce it. Answer: If this was really a condition in the contract of the sale or the gift, then it is prohibited for the buyer or gift receiver to copy the program or permit others to do so as this is an implementation of the mentioned condition. This ruling does not distinguish between the establishment that follows the Ahlulbayte school of thought and the one that doesn’t if its wealth was sacrosanct as the mentioned condition is a kind of covenant that should be binding even in the case of those whose wealth is not respected. If this was not a condition in the contract but was covered by the legal copyright laws, then reproduction is not prohibited and this right has no validity. Q3: What is the religious standard regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed to be viewed on the internet? As its aim and what is being presented whether vary; whether it was cultural, educational classes, materials that strengthen of the religion and similar subjects, entertainment and similar subjects, debauchery and swearing at scholars and the right path, being seduced into committing sins and even falling into committing sins as well as similar situations to the aforementioned examples. What is the general standard of the ruling of allowance or forbiddance? Answer: It is permissible to make the connection in all of the mentioned possibilities except for two cases: First: When learning what is being presented on the internet results in committing the forbidden like when what is being presented is misguidance or debauchery in such a way that the viewer is affected by and may react to it. If it was feared that this is happening, then it is rationally prohibited to proceed as stopping prevents an expected harm. Second: If visiting the site is considered as encouragement to falsehood or forbiddance and spreading them like if the person has social position or respect - even within a small group of people - in such a way that visiting the site that presented and spread falsehood encourages others to do so which might lead to committing sins because of that or if the mentioned person’s visit would be a reason for an increase in the significance of such a site and its esteem or the esteem of the side that launched it even by increasing traffic or if the refusal of this person would be considered some kind of forbidding of evil towards the site, its sponsor and other sites or others who visits the sites. Visiting a site in other than these two cases is not prohibited by itself since it is not prohibited to learn about falsehood, forbiddance or any other material. Q4: What is the religious standard in your honourable opinion regarding participating in providing internet service? Since some kind of internet service supports the oppressor directly and some indirectly such as ones that provide the service with the acceptance of the oppressor in return for a certain percentage from the profit, and similar cases. What is the ruling of such expanses? And what is its religious position in your honourable opinion? Answer: Dealing with the oppressor in order to benefit from the things or the services that he provides is not considered a support to him. It is just like purchasing goods from him or getting the services of water, electricity, telephone or other services that the unjust government provides. It is not like being employed by it or perform its projects, which is prohibited acts as they are considered as support to the unjust. Sometimes participation might become recommended or even obligatory, like when the things or the services provided by the oppressor are essential needs and cannot be obtained from any source other than the oppressor. Yes, this could be prohibited for a secondary reason, like when such participation encourages the unjust and increases his position or when avoiding this participation weakens the oppressor and decreases his standing. This ruling differs by the difference in people who can participate or can avoid, and by the difference in the circumstances. A person might have a high social position and his avoidance to deal with the unjust has a great negative effect on the latter. The effect of avoidance might depend on announcing the reason for it, because of his injustice or to weaken or deny him. If the avoidance was without explanation, it might be considered as inactivity or delay in thinking or any other misunderstanding that does not reach the expected aim for this avoidance. Such avoidance is not obligatory if the reason behind if can not be achieved like when it can not be announced or when there is more important obstacle that will result from doing it. Whenever the participation is allowed, paying for it is allowed and whenever the participation is forbidden, then spending on it is prohibited. Q5: What is the religious
standard in respect to dialogue over the Internet? Some of it is with people
who are injurious to the followers of the infallible Ahlulbayte (peace be upon
them), whether their harm is by deliberate insult to them, or by creating a doubt
in the honesty of their great scholars like al-Tusi and al-kulayni and similar
scholars. Answer: The dialogue where good is expected from them is - no doubt - recommended. It might even be mandatory since it is propagation for the truth and seeking to raise its esteem or defending it and preventing the outrage of the offenders against it. As for the dialogue where what good is not hoped from them, it is not forbidden by itself except for if it is feared that religious obstacles are behind it. (Among them): drowning the opposite side with his sins and his stubborn increase to propagate falsehood as a reaction to opening the dialogue and criticizing him/her. (And among them): encouraging the site and increasing it self-esteem even by criticizing it, since dialoguing with him/her might be the reason for the feeling of whoever is behind the site or others that the site is important in a way that the adversary needs to criticize it, answer to it, and chat with it. It is not the same if they were ignored since this might let them feel their insignificance in such a way that the adversary does not see them worth to criticize or dialogue with. This is similar to what the Almighty said: “And when they hear any vain talk, they withdraw from it, and they say: For us shall be our deeds, and for you shall be your deeds, peace be on you, we don’t desire the ignorant people”. Or the truth is strong and has clear evidences in such a way that it is not affected by non-logical accusation. This might let them feel the disappointment and be the reason for the decrease in their exaggeration and the halt in their passion. And this is what we recommend usually with people that disfigure the truth with stubbornness and determination outside the borders of logic and consideration. Q6: What is the ruling in the general deals, like sale and purchase and similar deals throughout the internet? Some of them are deal making by the using banking certificates or cards. What are the religious standard and the ruling? Explain please. Answer: Performing deals in the mentioned is correct if the rest of the conditions are met, since the mentioned connection is enough to put the contract and deal into existence so it is included by the general law of validity of contracts and validity of deals that happen this way. It would not be sufficient when performing the marriage contract, since there is a condition in the marriage contract to be performed by pronunciation, in such a way the acceptance (of the man) is based on the offer (of the woman) and linked to it and that cannot be achieved in the mentioned net as for the electronic mail. If the dialogue was live between the two sides like the telephone connection, then the marriage contract is valid. Q7:What is the ruling regarding representing and mediating for deals over the internet? What is the ruling regarding the financial profit that can be generated this way? Since we notice the widespread of knowledge on the internet that enable the person to propose to one side and link him/her with the other side so he would deserve the commission even thought one party knew that and not both of them. Similar kinds of mediation are there throughout the net? Answer: There is nothing wrong with all of that and funds can be taken in return for this work after agreeing with the intended party. As for the party that does not know, there is no way to deserve the funds from him/her except for if he/she obligated him/herself to pay money to whoever connects him/her throughout the net; this is very similar to Ju’ala (3). There is nothing wrong with taking the money due to the mentioned obligation |