Answer:

Noting is wrong by taking the money if visiting the particular page is allowed and if there is no religious obstacle against this act – like propagation of falsehood – whether the money is paid in return for visiting the site as a compensation or like a gift encouragement.

If visiting the site is forbidden, then taking the money is not allowed if it was compensation since it would be collecting money falsely. However, it is allowed if it was like a gift or prize.

Yes, it might be allowed to take the money regardless as it is rescued if the payer’s money is not sacrosanct. Same thing can be said if the payer’s money was sacrosanct but he/she obligated him/herself to pay the money and allowed it to be taken from him/her because of this particular action.

Q9: Is it obligatory for the person to respond to fallacies posted on the internet especially if they were accusations against the truth and its people by way of falseness and accusation? We seek refuge from Allah. What is the religious standard in the ruling to answer this kind of fallacies and others?

Answer:

There are no special rules regarding the necessity of responding to fallacies posted on the internet, it is at the same level as every fallacy raised against the truth and in any media.

There is no evidence of the necessity to confront every fallacy and respond to it. The most that can be said is the necessity to answer the fallacy depends on if it was strong enough to be difficult to answer and was so important in such a way that it is going to harm and weaken the religion, since answering it would protect the religion, it is necessary to do so, as it is a kind of struggle, which is collectively obligated (8).

If it is more than that, it is a sort of propagation and service for the religion. And – no doubt – it is recommended, but there is no way to consider it mandatory.

Yes, if the person was asked about a religious truth that he/she knows and there is no obstacle or embarrassment to explain it, then it should absolutely be explained, even if it was not very important, since it is prohibited to hide religious knowledge.

The mentioned detailing is for the necessity to explain and respond to fallacies initially even without a question. It is so even if the truth is unknown to the person and if he/she could learn in order to explain it to others.

Q10: If the person was asked questions regarding surfing the internet and his answers to some people would have saved them from committing sins like the claimed fallacies and he/she knows if they – especially this particular group of believers – were not answered, then they would defiantly be subject to sinning. Can he/she neglect guiding them after knowing they would respond to it?

Answer:

What is appearing to be the question is the request of a group of believers to learn how to reach sites on the internet that are beneficial to the religion, help responding to fallacies, explaining truths, reminding about Allah the almighty, approximating to Him and similar aims of the beneficial religious culture.

Apparently answering and guiding them is religiously recommended in a definite way to whoever can do so, as it is answering the need of a faithful and especially to this kind of need. It is feared that not explaining would lead to Allah’s abandonment of the person who was asked because of belittling the answer to the believer's need when he/she has the ability to do so.

It is mandatory to explain when it is feared that not explaining and leaving the believers in their ignorance would allow the spreader of falsehood to take advantage of them and misguide them, supporting falsehood in a way that harms the religion and becomes what weakens it.

Q11: What is the religious standard in regards to protecting the believers and their pages on the internet? For example, if I know that a faithful is subjected to disclosure of his/her personal or public information by the enemies of the sect of the Ahlulbayte (peace be upon them) or subjected to disclose his/her personal matters.
What is the religious standard for that? When I have definite knowledge regarding that, do I have to inform him/her or not? Also do I have to inform the pages that belong to other believers that a prejudiced person has a link to destroy the whole page or steal the information of its participants? What is the religious standard for that? Whether the matter is personal or related to the prestige of the truth sect and similar cases?

Answer:

There is no doubt that this is religiously highly recommended, since it is included in a group of texts that the faithful is a brother to the faithful and his eyes, mirror and guide, and it is among his rights to defend him if he is not present. But that duty does not reach the level of necessity.

Of course if the harm is greater, it might be necessary to notify him/her to warn him/her about it. This mentioned right should not be neglected if it was generally easy to do, since it is part of the brotherhood faith.

If not doing this is considered neglecting the affairs of the faithful and not paying attention to him/her, then it is prohibited because of the religious sources talk about the necessity of paying attention to the issues of Muslims and that whoever is not paying attention to the issues of Muslims is not one.

This is more definite if the matter is linked to the shi’a sect in such a way that it is related to protecting it from an important harm surrounding it and the enemies are going to append it to the right sect.

Q12: What is the religious ruling to the person if he/she is sure that the visit to the particular page would subject his/her computer to destruction and waste of money, but he/she likes to visit the site for the sake of curiosity for instance, and similar cases. So what is the ruling?

Answer:

It is prohibited to waste and spoil money; it is even among the big sins. So it is prohibited to visit a page where this is expected except if there is reasonable benefit - from the awareness to what the page present – justifying the use of money due to the visit.

Q13: What is the ruling regarding creating attack viruses whether they were to be used or not but it is subject to possible usage by others. What is the ruling for this industry? And what is the religious standard for it? Same thing can be said regarding the production of private espionage programs for the person to use against others, or not used but subject to be used by others?

Answer:

Manufacturing viruses is not prohibited by itself, what is prohibited is using them to harm a Muslim because of the sanctity of his/her money and blood. Same thing when allowing others to use them for this purpose since it is helping the oppressive in his/her oppression, which is – no doubt – prohibited.

If it is only the existence of the possibility for others to use the viruses to harm Muslims without allowing them to do so, then this does not prevent from producing and saving them. This is similar to manufacturing the whip and it is possible that it might be used to whip a Muslim with.

Same thing can be said regarding their usage without the knowledge of any harm coming to a Muslim; it is similar to selling the whip to someone who might use it to harm a Muslim because it was not intended to do so in all the previous cases, Unless the harm was important in such a way that the holy legislator would intend to heed precaution from the possibility of its existence by its elimination, which is a rare probability that cannot be standardized.

As for the private spying programs, if you meant that they are spying programs to look into someone’s confidential matters and behaviors that he/she conceals and does not want others to know about, then the prohibition to spy on believers would cause the prohibition of whatever is related to him/her among these programs.

And if you meant to decode the programs that belong to the site in order to get its scientific or cultural information, then it is not prohibited since it is not considered spying. There is no religious right for the person to specialize in his/her information so no one can see them without his/her permission.

Yes, if this action involves the usage of others’ machines in order to get this information from it, then it this is prohibited since this mentioned act is prohibited without the consent of the owner whose wealth is sacrosanct.

Q14: What is the ruling regarding the virus deterrence projects when the person creates a personal virus or uses a virus to deter an attacker from his/her machine and a one that ruins the programs that he/she bought using his/her money? What is the ruling regarding that in case where this way is the only way or in a case that this is not the only way to prevent the attacks?

Answer:

There is nothing wrong with that, even if it is not the only way, whether this was to protect the machine from the virus attack or preparing a virus to attack the other party’s machine when they are attacking his/her system. This is due to the absence of that attacker’s sanctity after the attack.

Yes, if you meant - by the virus deterrence project - to send the deterrent virus to the other party before the attack to damage the equipment to prevent him/her from attacking, then it is prohibited if the other party has sanctity since it is prohibited to punish before the crime is committed.

Q15: What is the ruling regarding voluntarily informing, is it allowed or not? This is following of the varieties of hackers by the person and presenting their addresses and information on a special page assigned for that. This would be done with the observation of the religious criterion when searching for the information. Like presenting certain computer information that makes the hacker think twice before harming believers and this advertisement is placed in special pages assigned for that. What is the religious ruling regarding that? Some of the foreign sites have already started attempting this. Is it allowed? And what is the religious standard for allowing or not allowing that?

Answer:

If the hackers were harming the believers, then exposing them to prevent from their harm or to forbid the evil on them is allowed. If they were not like that, then exposing them is not allowed if they were believers since this would humiliate or harm them.

Q16: What is the ruling regarding the pleading of a case between believers before the unjust, if one of them trespassed on another in a computer or damaging case and there is a possibility that the attacker might be subjected to financial or other kinds of punishment?

Answer:

If the trespasser refuses to plead before the religious judge (4), then it is allowed for the victim to plead before the unjust ruler in order to get the compensation he/she has the right to. If the victim is compensated more than what he/she deserves, then the extra must be returned to the trespasser.

If the pleading would include a bodily or financial sanction not as compensation but like the tax the government collects, then it is allowed if the pleading was to receive the compensation because of the sanctity is fallen due to the refusal of the compensation.

If the punishment was imposed without retrieving any compensation from it, then pleading is not allowed if there is a possibility for a believer to be punished, except for preventing his/her harm in the future or forbidding the evil, if both of them where restricted by this. In this case, seeking permission from the religious judge (4) is a necessity.

Q17: A person visits a chat site mostly used by sinning people like pornographers presenting debauchery by words, pictures, exchange of telephone numbers and other kinds of promiscuity. If the person visited this site and some of the visitors asked him/her questions regarding the ways to use the mentioned site, is the person allowed teaching the visitor without knowing his/her honesty? Mostly they want to learn so they could commit the prohibited widespread actions in that dialogue program by themselves? What is the ruling regarding teaching them as well as, the standard regarding the absolute instruction for the use of programs that are used to propagate promiscuity publicly?

Answer:

Teaching by itself is not prohibited; however it is forbidden for a secondary reason like encouraging and propagating promiscuity. Then it is a precaution not to teach or even the precaution might be for avoiding visiting the site and chatting in it. It might be mandatory if it was to forbid the evil.

Q18: What is the religious standard regarding participating in internet chat sites especially the various pornographic ones? What is the ruling regarding listening or seeing forbidden things between the chatters? What if he/she was subjected to be sworn at, outraged or similar things whether he/she was anonymous or not, because of the usage of nicknames? What is the religious standard for the allowance and the forbiddance? What kind of participation would be allowed with those kinds of people?

Answer:

Listening or seeing such things by themselves is not prohibited. They might be forbidden for other reasons like encouraging and propagating dissipation if the person’s visit would do that, also if it causes sexual excitation.

As for answering the swearing and assault, it is allowed provided that it is equal in proportion, if the opposite’s dignity is respected.

It is better for the believer to walk away on this as Almighty Allah disciplines him/her when He says: “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 not desire the ignorant people”. Or try to answer in the best way as Almighty Allah said: “And the good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel though (evil) with what is the best, when lo! He between whom and thee was enmity, shall be as though he were a warm friend () and none are granted it but those who are steadfast, and none are granted it but the owners of great happiness.() And if an enticement from Satan entices you, then seek refuge in Allah; verily, he is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing”.

Q19: If he/she hears or sees words on the internet that are false accusations against Allah, the Messenger, the Ahlulbayte or our kind scholars for the sake of decreasing the esteem of truth and its people by the author, so he/she claims what is not true. Is it mandatory for qualified people to answer and defeat the destruction of the text or the meaning? What is the religious standard for that?

Answer:

It was mentioned in the answer to the ninth question what can benefit in answering this case since correcting the mentioned liar is a kind of fallacy which was referred to in that question.