 |
|
Praise be to Allah, the Master of the Universe and Peace be upon Mohamed and his Purified Progeny
The Islamic jurisprudence, especially the Shi’a school of thought, is distinguished by its comprehensive theories and the depth of its branching which makes it able to fulfill the needs of the progressive time and its complications in various fields of scientific majors. The jurists of the Ahlulbayte school of thought have presented the history – with what is known about their scientific depth and their knowledge in the derivation process – of the Islamic and human societies with the legislated answers that fit the theories of the Islamic Jurisprudence. In your hand, my dear reader, is an example of this spring that does not have an end. 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 with the scientific precision as well as in the reasonable jurisprudence sense and the enrichment of the Islamic library with various books in current issues. He is the great religious scholar, his eminence 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 – the questions raised by devotees in the computer field, as well as the 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 that are following: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful and Grace be to Him. Answer: Apparently the mentioned condition is religious obligation, since it is a kind of contract. Verses and traditions confirmed the faithfulness of the covenant. Allah Almighty said: “and fulfill the covenant; verily the covenant shall be questioned about”. 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”. Similar in meaning to this tradition is the tradition narrated by Mus’ab bin ‘Ambesa. If they 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 them 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 deal but this prohibition is limited to the person that made the deal. Therefore, he/she would not be 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 people to check the source and sometimes oblige them to do so. Is usage prohibited assuming that the source is unrecognized? What is the ruling if the person knows that the production company does not accept the 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 non-Muslim ones. Now, assuming that the programs – whether they were the computer operating ones or others like the ones containing information – were produced by companies owned by Muslims or even Shi’as or even 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 general satisfaction (regarding the usage and reproduction) exists from the shi’a companies but without declaration, is it allowed? It is noticeable that some of the reproducers are merchandising and making profits from the trade with the non-original copies without allowing any profits to the get to 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 the prohibition 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 for some books which makes 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, it should be binding in case of even 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 view on the internet? As its aim varies and what is being presented whether culture, class or strength of the religion, and similar subjects or entertainment, debauchery and cursing of scholars and of the right path, being seduced into committing sins with desires 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 allowed to make the connection in all of the mentioned possibilities except for two cases: First: When learning what is being presented in the net results in committing the forbidden. As if what is being presented is misguidance in such a way that the person is effected if he/she would view it or what is being presented is debauchery that he/she may react to it. If it was feared that this is happening, then it is rationally forbidden to seek that since it is prevention of the expected harm. Second: If visiting the site is considered encouragement of falsehood or forbiddance and spreading them. As if the person has social position or respect – even within a small group of people – in such a way that his/her visit to the site that presented and spread falsehood encourages others to visit it and might fall into the forbidden because of that. Or if the mentioned person’s visit is a reason for an increase in the significance of that site and its esteem or the esteem of the side that launched it even by increasing traffic. The refusal of this person would be considered some kind of forbidding of evil towards the site, whoever is responsible for it and other sites or others who visits the sites. Visiting a site in other than these two cases is not prohibited by itself. Since informing on the falsehood or the forbiddance is not prohibited in further to notifying other of it. Q4: What is the religious standard in your honorable opinion regarding the participation in providing internet service? Since some kind of internet service providing amounts to supporting the unjust directly and some indirectly such as ones that provide the service with permission from the unjust in return for a certain percentage and similar cases. What is the ruling on the money put towards these expenses? And what is its religious standard in your honorable opinion? Answer: Dealing with the unjust in order to benefit from the things or the services that belong to him is not considered a support to him. It is similar to buying the goods that he owns and getting the services of water, electricity, telephone or other services provided by unjust government. This is not like working for it or performing its projects, which is prohibited since it is aiding the unjust. Sometimes participation is recommended or even mandatory, like when the things or the services are sources for essential goods and cannot be obtained without the providence of the unjust, as he is the only source for them. Yes, this could be forbidden for another reason, if it amounts to encouragement of the unjust and increases his position or if the avoidance of this participation would weaken the unjust or decreases his standing. This ruling differs by the difference in people who can participate or can avoid, and by the difference in the circumstances. The person might have a high social position and his avoidance of dealing 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. By not announcing the reason behind the avoidance and the boycott or the existence of an obstacle that prevents the explanation, it is not mandatory after not being able to fulfill the reason behind 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 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 Q8: What is the ruling on taking fees and obtaining money for just visiting a particular page in the internet? A fee is registered in the web-site owner account. At the end of each month he/she get paid whatever money assigned to him/her for the visit. This could reach sometimes between 400 to 2700 dollars monthly. The same thing happens by just opening certain electronic mail messages. An automatic program would register a particular amount in the owner’s account and so on and so forth. Similar issues are a widespread in the internet? 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. 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 Allah almighty 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 Allah almighty 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. Q20: What is the ruling regarding visiting “internet cafés” even though they became – in the place where the person resides - a gathering place for whoever seeks immorality and forbiddances over the internet such as: appointments for prohibited meetings and much more. What is the ruling regarding visiting the site? What is the ruling regarding working for it? What is the ruling regarding establishing a commercial project like this? Answer: According to this, visiting the mentioned café is considered participation in the forbidden or encouraging it so it is then prohibited and earning any money this way is prohibited too. Q21: What is the ruling regarding giving away addresses to sites having commercial or scientific aims but they are pages that specialize in arranging non religious relations with presented price and pictures etc. A person has the fear that if he/she gives someone this address then they would pursue to these vices on that page and commit the obvious forbiddances whether by looking or making appointments... etc. What is the ruling regarding publishing these addresses or giving them to another person? What is the ruling regarding publishing addresses? Answer: The answer to this was mentioned in the answer to the seventeenth question since they are from one subject. Q22: What are the rulings regarding advertisements placed on the person’s page whether he accepted them in return for certain financial compensation or because the host of the person’s page obligated him/her to do that. What is the ruling regarding these advertisements? Is it mandatory for the person to refuse them, especially when some of them advertise the pornography, wine, gambling, music and other kinds of forbiddances like disgraceful pictures? What is the ruling regarding this acceptance? And what is its religious standard?? Answer: Watching the advertisement is not prohibited by itself whatever kind it was unless it is prohibited because of another reason like encouraging or promoting untruth. This is similar to some of the previous answers. If it was prohibited then collecting money as compensation for it is prohibited too. Q23: Do some of the internet pages become subjected to the ruling of misguiding books with respect to the person if he/she fears the its effect on his/her children or his/her intellect or behavior by being misguided from the truth? Answer: Yes, they have the same ruling as the misguiding books, what is prohibited is misguiding - in any form it was - without any specialization regarding the book. Q24: If a student of religious sciences is not able to travel in order to continue his knowledge seeking or teaching etc, for reasons that are beyond his/her control but he/she can learn or teach through the internet. Does he/she deserve to collect the religious funds (5) similar to the students who attends the school by himself/herself? Answer: This is not a general religious ruling that we can explain. It is a special ruling that belongs to the opinion of the jurist or whoever represents him in managing the funds. We cannot standardize that. Q25: If the student of religious studies spent part of his/her time teaching or learning to prepare programs to be used on the computer and he/she produced them to make the scientific researches accessible to the student in the religious studies, makes the subjects easily accessed and helping students in writing research on scientific subject in response to the fallacies. Does this effect his/her entitlement to receive the wages given to the religious students in return for his/her efforts in this way? Answer: The answer to this question is the same as the last one Q26: If the person launched a page on the internet especially to solve the problems faced by students of the religious studies, propagate their activities, make relations between each other in various subjects, allowing them to have dialogue and similar services, does he/she need a special religious permission from the religious judge (4)?What is the religious standard regarding this action? Answer: There is no need for permission from the religious judge in this case, since it is a recommended action by itself, unless this would lead to special obstacles, like when some dialogist use this opportunity to vivificate whoever does not deserve to be vivificated, exaggerate on problems in such a way that leads to the discouraging of others from serving the religion etc. It is required to take extra care when making relations with those kinds of people and have good control, in case these concerns and similar ones are actualized. Q27: Is it allowed to say that the propagation of scandals - we seek the refuge from Allah – against scholars between believers is considered an opinion. Everybody is entitled to curse and publish whatever is related to scandals or weakness. He says: “if anybody wants to answer me then I don’t mind and you can curse and divulge and I can do the same” referring to doing that against scholars, is this allowed between believers? What is the ruling regarding exchanges of cursing and scandals by believers against scholars, happening with the awareness of non-followers of the Ahlulbayte (peace be upon them) or without the awareness. What is the ruling with regards to these public actions between believers on the internet? Is the person allowed to listen to or read the opinions of some believers who think that they are allowed to do that in what the person considers a deficiency in those scholars and similar issues? When one party mentions a scholar’s name, the other party starts to curse or scandalize and vice versa so what is the ruling regarding that and its acceptance? Answer: It is not permissible to unmask a regular concealed person in regards to whatever they have, further to whatever they don’t have. So why would unmask scholars be allowed, especially if it was based on rumors and false statements? Yes, it is allowed to unmask the people with novelties in religion and callers for aberration to alienate people from following them and to feel safe from their evil.As for listening to or reading the narrations of whoever is committing prohibited unmasking, it is forbidden if it was based on their knowledge in such a way that would fulfill their aim. The same can be said about dialoguing with them. It is mandatory to avoid them in order to deny them. If listening to them is based on notification only, without announcing listening or dialoguing with them or it is for the sake of answering them or judging the speaker to know the level of crime that he/she is doing, then it is allowed in all the mentioned cases. When increasing the number of listeners would be an encouragement to the speaker and propagation to his/her narrations then it becomes forbidden. Q28: If the person was a manager of a chat site or an observer on the internet, what is his ruling with regards to what is happening on in these sites? Things such as weakening the sect of Ahlulbayte or cursing from enemies of the right sect of the religion, the sect, our kind scholars or the followers of the Ahlulbayte by cursing and announcing what is called the scholars scandals by some of the believers and similar issues? What is the ruling regarding receiving wages in return for looking after these pages and sites? What is the ruling regarding working for these sites - even voluntarily - initially? What is the ruling regarding accepting or being silent to the belittling or what the speaker refers to as “scholars' scandals”? Is deletion mandatory if this was his/her right and can be done and it is part of the deal between the participant and the page itself? What is the ruling for the manager or the observer and what is religious standard to his/her work? Answer: All people that participate by managing, implementing, observing or doing anything else, would share in the rewards of whatever is happening on the site if it was an obedience to Allah almighty and his/her work was to seek closeness to Him. All participants would deserve a share of the punishment if what is happening on the site is disobedience to Allah almighty since this is not only supporting the sins or supporting the righteousness; it is participating in theses sins or righteousness since the work of the site cannot be done without the implementing committee’s involvement. Allah almighty said:”and help you one another unto righteousness and piety. Help not one another unto sin and aggression, but keep your duty to Allah. Verily, Allah is severe in punishment”. Because of this, it is mandatory to delete the forbidden materials or stop working for the site, in order not to participate in its burden. We ask Allah almighty to guide you, all believers, and us. We also ask Him for protection from aberration after being guided and from deflection after being straight. We seek refuge in Him from misguiding seductions, from our evil and the sins in our deeds. Allah almighty says: “ And upon Allah rests the direction of the right way, and (some) of them are deviated; and had He willed He would guide you all aright”. He is sufficient for us and most excellent is He in whom we trust. Grand Ayatollah Saanei in an interview with Dr. Liyaghatali
Do you consider non-Muslims impure? What is your edict about having a meal with them? Answer: All humans are pure. No one is unclean unless they have found the truth in Islam; nevertheless, express hostility against it. Such a person is exceptionally rare and should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thus all Non-Muslims including Hindus, Fireworshipers, Cowdasists, and so on are pure. 'Impure ' has only been associated with atheists in Quran. God commands atheists to be away from the Holy Mosque. Atheist is a person whose soul has grown into impure. Soul impurity arises when somebody ascribes partners to God while he knows God is the absolute one. Ascribing partners to God through neglect, man is not atheist, but unenlightened. In view of taking food, they are as respectable, as Muslim mealmates. All people, Muslim, or non-Muslim should call God's name, when slaughtering animals for food; otherwise, the food is not clean. Is the slaughtered animal by Non-Muslim clean? Answer: It makes no difference; only God's remembrance and mention is necessary, no matter what language or religion he has. If you are doubtful about God's mention at the time of slaughter by a non-Muslim, the food is impure. At Muslims’ market, it is clean. Does this all include Jews too? Answer: Certainly, yes. You can ask him to mention God's name at slaughter, and the food is clean. what is your attitude in general towards non-Muslims? Are their good deeds acceptable by God? Answer: I am of the opinion that the outcome of good deeds and eschewing evils according to one's understanding will be paradise. Regardless of the religion they practice, owing to the fact that they are convinced by the righteousness of their ideology without the slightest doubt, they get what they deserve. God says: 'Good deeds will be rewarded ten times as much as they deserve, and evildoers will be given punishment which fits the evil; You shall not be unfairly treated.' According to Molla-Sadra, paradise inevitably evolves from spiritual development. In some Quranic verses, faith is a vital prerequisite for paradise, which I interpret it, as sincere belief in the goodness of one's deeds not belief in God. Strong belief is associated with the mental serenity, and it contributes to spiritual development. However, someone with a sense of being under compulsion can never be consistent in doing good deeds and improve. Neither identification nor label, i. e. Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist is the requirement for paradise, but indeed good deeds are. An agnostic involved in his skepticism can not believe in God or prophet. Neither do Christians put trust in Prophet Mohammad. It would be utterly inconceivable if God called for a particular identification on the Doomsday. Would it be unfair? Quran says reassuringly: "God shall not be unfair to any of his creatures." Similarly, evil doing mortifies human soul, which will result in hell. It makes no difference which religion or belief you have, but which deeds you perform. If doubt is cast upon the authenticity of his ideology, one has to seek the truth; other wise he is guilty of laxity. what is your view on women's rights? Answer: Women do have equality in all rights except inheritance which is half as much as men, but I consider it fair, and I have given elaborate explanation on this issue. Are they regarded equals in giving testimony? Answer: They have equality. In ' The cow’, the first chapter of Quran, two women are found necessary to testify in the court of law where one man suffices. The reason is one of them can serve as a reminder to help vivid remembrance. There, we come to understand that women are more likely to forget a past event in this special case. Now, This Quranic verse was revealed with relevance to commercial affairs. Having few social associations, women mostly did not know much about financial and commercial subjects. To guarantee a fair judgement, two women would testify. Similarly, to provide assurance, the testimony of two men is essential when they are more likely to forget a past event than women are. The criterion is knowledge and awareness. Both men and women can be of equal number when they have equal knowledge. What is your verdict on blood money for women? Answer: I regard men and women equals in the following cases: blood money, retaliatory punishment, appointment as a judge, and even being an expert on jurisprudence. Can I follow a female expert on Muslim law? Answer: It is like other fields of science; the foremost criterion is expertise. what is your perspective upon stoning as a punishment? Answer: Regardless of what is being enforced in Islamic countries presently, there are two jurisprdential answers two this question. 1) Some great experts believe fixed Islamic penalties can not be enforced at Occultation Time (when Imam Mahdi is absent.) 2) In Islam, legal procedure concerning punitive law is so constraining that we can not prove a wrongdoing such as fornication. Legal sanctions can not be executed until hard proof is submitted. As far as fornication is concerned, four just people should have witnessed the sexual intercourse vividly. It would be impossible unless wrongdoers committed this action in public. We can also prove a suspect's guilt when he makes the confession of fornication for four times, and also when his confession derives from pang of conscience; the evildoer wants to set himself free from sin. The confession should not be extracted under pressure in prison. When Imam Ali was at realm of his Islamic State, a woman came to him for the penalty to be executed after she had committed fornication. The woman visited Imam Ali for three times, and each time was told to leave by Imam Ali. She was pregnant when she came the forth time, therefore, Imam Ali postponed the penalty until the child was born. Having given birth to her baby, she was told to leave until the child could distinguish good from bad. In Fact, Imam Ali never wanted to enforce the law. It was his unique policy to stop corruption. Here, we come to understanding that the judge can not put the pieces together and state the fixed penalty of stoning against the suspect. In such cases, we can only enforce some discretionary punishments. In conclusion, there should be some corrections in the legal procedures. Grand Ayatollah Saanei in an interview with Dr. Liyaghatali
|
|
 |
