Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Khadim uz Zahra

Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi Against 3G Internet?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(BISMILLAH)

 

(Salam)

 

So, I came across this article recently, in which Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has some sort of fatwa against faster internet in Iran:

 

http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2014/08/makarem-internet/

 

Isn't this a bit too extreme? I mean, it's like opposing the invention of printing just because it can be used to create fashion magazines. Now, I understand that, maybe, what he is saying is that the internet, in general, is unlawful until it has been strictly filtered for Haraam content by the religious institutions. Any care to explain what seems to obviously be too "Wahabi" a fatwa coming from this very famous jurist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is talking about the Internet in General not the speed. Yes, because generally speaking the ba out ways the good on the Internet, his position is that basically it should not be used till filtered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it very illogical.

 

Internet is not bad , its very good if you decide to do good stuff on it.

 

To make internet haram because the bad outweights the good is like making life in the 21st century haram because shaytan is dominant and that the bad outweight the good..

 

I think its going too much.  Internet should not be haram. .  :S  how else do you want to spread islam to others who have never heard of what it is and just heard of the stereotype that the media puts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ LOL are you serious?

That's a horrible attempt at justifying the fatwa.

How so? In Islam it's prevention before cure. He is being precautionary.

To make internet haram because the bad outweights the good is like making life in the 21st century haram because shaytan is dominant and that the bad outweight the good..

Lol sister, that analogy doesn't work. Hence, Qiyas is haram in Shia Islam. Even with life, Allah commands us to move if our faith is on the verge of extinction. Although I don't agree with his position I can see that it is very plausible. Life is something you cannot run away from (being a monk) where as the Internet CAN be managed, hence the precaution, until it can be. Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? In Islam it's prevention before cure. He is being precautionary.

Lol sister, that analogy doesn't work. Hence, Qiyas is haram in Shia Islam. Even with life, Allah commands us to move if our faith is on the verge of extinction. Although I don't agree with his position I can see that it is very plausible. Life is something you cannot run away from (being a monk) where as the Internet CAN be managed, hence the precaution, until it can be.

Dont you think thats just extreme precautionary? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont you think thats just extreme precautionary? 

 

Hmm, from Iran's standpoint no. From the west's perspective maybe. In Islamic terms, precaution is just precaution, nothing extreme about it. :)

FYI, I personally think there is political reasons in regards to a free internet as well as overall religious. Oh and I dont think he is against THE internet, just the limitation of it. He has a website and all after all: http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The printing press was deemed Haram in the whole of the sunni dominated part of the world up until modern times & although Iran had a printing press among its Armenian community in 1616, no islamic work printed in Iran exists from before 1818.

The refuse of the printing press is probably the major cause of the decline & eventual fall of the islamic worlds dominance as it couldnt keep up with the rapid technological developments that grows out of the increasingly educated west.

The Internet is like a library: it can be filled with cookbooks, pornography, cartoons or it can be filled with books that transmits the highest of sciences to the lowest strata of society. In My opinion it's the task of personal discipline to utilize it for learning & good instead of bad.

Egypt got it's first printing press when Napoleon conquered it (he actually brought one with him on the ship it's said) but the ottomans eventually removed it so the ulemawouldnt be threatened in their exclusively controlling the hadith transmissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His words have been altered. 

 

http://makarem.ir/news/?typeinfo=4&lid=1&mid=326349&catid=0&start=1&PageIndex=0

 

My stance on 3G has been altered
didar-10.jpg
We are not against technology however western technologies are like muddy unhygienic water. Water is the source of life yet when it is dirty it must be refined.

Grand Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi in a meeting with the head of Iranian parliament Dr. Ali Larijani said: regarding to the 3G issue there was a group representing High Council of Cyberspace (HCC) came to me and explained the issue therefore I warned as to some problems we may come across. Unfortunately however, some people with ill intention altered my statement. We do not oppose technology rather indeed we consider it wajib to use technology.

 

His eminence emphasizing on the fact that he definitely confirms technology, mentioned: we are not against technology however western technologies are like muddy unhygienic water. Water is the source of life yet when it is dirty it must be refined.

 

Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi added: we say this unclean unhygienic water being 3G must be refined so when clean you can make it available for all without any objection. A lunatic may only oppose development and technology. Therefore those interpretations on my statement were incorrect.

 

He reiterated that we are bound to Islamic ethics. we have some red lines, every new technology must be refined, this dirty water must be refined. What I say is that they should not rush it, they should cooperate with the High Council of Cyberspace otherwise it is going to cause numerous problems.

 

We believe cultural issues turns in to political and economical issues and also political and economical issues changes in to cultural problems they have mutual impact on one another.

 

“We have an Islamic system we believe if morality is corrupted there will be many consequences;Why we have reached this high divorce rate? Why the tendency towards marriage is decreased? Why the husband is suspicious of his wife and the wife of her husband? One main cause is such unleashed technologies. Such corruptions destroy families. We have concern about this and that is why we warn about such problems and of course sometimes we pay the cost as well” his eminence stated.

__________________

 

May Allah (swt) keep us away from ahl ul fitnah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same when in the past the conservatives argued against the modern education of people, especially women, of their attending secular schools and colleges and earning degrees. The argument was that they don't need that sort of education because they don't need to earn and besides, it was improper for them to spend much time outside as it went against the ideas of modesty and purdah. That made sense to many at the time. Result: They failed to see the zeitgeist, the changing times, and were left much behind. Now everyone has realised, by no feat of their own vision but only by having it seen so widely practiced, that it is good to give women education besides teaching them sura Noor and some ahadith about hayd and nafas.

 

The same mindset is at work with internet today. In some third world countries internet remains an 'extra' - you don't really need it for day to day functioning of your lives, you don't need it for education or work either, because most things still go on in the old way, unlike in the West where almost day-to-day life is so twined with the world wide web that you can't escape it even if you want to. So in countries still living the old way the internet seems like how modern education looked to people of past generations. An inane and not-too-useful thing invented to waste time, which one had better avoid.

 

This I am saying in general, without a particular reference to the Ayatullah or his fatwa

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Ayatullah Makaram Shirazi is definitely not against the internet. Not even remotely and this (so-called) fatwa has nothing to do with the internet itself. I call it a so-called fatwa because, it seems like mere advice and his views rather than a specific ruling for this followers (in Iran) that they absolutely must adhere to. A jurist doesn't normally identify the mawdhoo for his muqallideen (it is for the muqallid to identify it) in issues like these, rather presents the basic principle. Most of the times if they do identify the mawdhoo and speak about it, then it really is a matter of either taking it as an advise and following it or not. His own office and the offices of many of the jurists & political figures are all using VPNs to operate their Facebook and Twitter pages or access websites that are blocked without it, and I am almost certain they also have access to faster internet speeds.

 

That being said, Ayatullah Makaram has in the past even spoken against Facebook and now in this news he is speaking against 3G Internet for mobiles. Internet speeds have limitations for the majority of the people in Iran. This is a precautionary and security measure (makes it a pain-in-the-butt for spies inside Iran to get any work done, or harder for the public to download foreign illicit films or access pornography etc.). Of course faster speeds were and are available for certain institutions and individuals.

 

That being said, 3G has recently become open to anyone and this question and answer seems to be in relevance to that specifically. Part of the question said that this will make it really easy to access blogs, films, and images that are harmful (ethically speaking), among other things and that trying to keep an eye over all these things will not be possible. It also refers to the hastiness in making this technology available to the public.

 

 دسترسی آسان به مطالب، فیلمها و عکسهای ضد اخلاقی و ضد انسانی، شایعه پراکنی و فتنه انگیزی، تضعیف بنیان خانواده جاسوسی و فروش اطلاعات محرمانه کشور و خانواده ها و امثال آن فراهم شده است ولی در کشور ما هنوز بسیاری از این زیر ساخت ها فراهم نشده است و علی رغم مفاسدی که وجود دارد امکان نظارت بر آن ممکن نیست

 

 

Furthermore, the actual question is asking for his view on having made this technology available to people before it going through all the necessary legal conditions that pertain to security and safety (i.e the relevant people have not assessed the cons of it and have not determined how to address these issues).

 

مستدعی است در صورت صلاحدید نظر خود را در مورد اعطای مجوز برای "خدمات اینترنت پر سرعت همراه و کلیه خدمات نسل سوم و بالاتر ارتباطات همراه" قبل از تحقق شرایط قانونی و الزامات ایمن و سالم سازی آن اعلام نمائید

 

Also the general answer Ayatullah Makarem gives is pretty reasonable, particularly for the audience he is speaking to. The English article has really exaggerated it into some sort of a human rights issue. Out of all the jurist websites that I have seen, the website and the general Internet-team of Ayatullah Makarem looks the most advanced. His team makes use of all sorts of technologies, such as a very decent website, using WhatsApp, SMS and Google Chat in the past to answer inquiries, operating social media accounts etc.

 

PS - This nonsense human-rights talk just reminded me of this talk that was uploaded on ShiaChat a few days back: Dr. Jonathan AC Brown - Seminar | Challenges of Campus Life for Muslim Students.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh :mad:

 

poor shirazi, I had a verbal fight with my uncle cuz he laughed when he read the title and tried to make shirazi look dumb.

 

His points are perfectly fine, you would have to be insane to deny them but as everyone else has mentioned, his words were altered and made fun of for no reason, I completely agree.

 

Take a look at the younger generation, almost every young man who is exposed to high speed internet has a masturbation and pornography problem, even the older generation can't get it up for their wives because they are used to seeing flawless pornstar skin, and women too, because the standard of looks has become so high because of those models and their nude photos and films, women in general feel less attractive etc etc.... there is so many problems to list.

 

The expectation of boys in the west and boys who I know in rural Afghanistan are so different, boys in the west see the best as attractive whereas boys I know in rural Afghanistan are happy with 2 arms 2 legs, chest, head, eyes, so very basic things, which all women have.

 

High speed internet in its current state is haram, its full of sin traps and ruinous content. it must be cleaned, as Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi said.

Edited by Sayed Faridoon Taha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the usual suspects flock to this thread and don't even give a charitable attempt to investigate whether news about a respected scholar has been hyped, exaggerated or distorted. Prepared to accept anything without a moment's pause they go off on their snark remarks, indifference to the facts and outdated ideological diatribes.

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same mujtahid who said "Friendship with dogs is a blind imitation of the West"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/19/us-iran-islam-ayatollah-idUSTRE65I0M220100619

 

Is it true that youtube and facebook are banned in Iran?

 

Is this not a way of controlling peoples minds and curtailing their freedom? I am so glad, ironically that I live in a secular state.

 

Some of these Mullahs treat people like children, not adults.

 

Iranians need more liberty. How could they be happy living like this?

 

http://rt.com/news/184328-iran-internet-tolerant-president/

Edited by reformist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Is this the same mujtahid who said "Friendship with dogs is a blind imitation of the West"?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/19/us-iran-islam-ayatollah-idUSTRE65I0M220100619

 

The source says that he said: "Friendship with dogs is a blind imitation of the West," he was quoted as saying in Javan daily. "There are lots of people in the West who love their dogs more than their wives and children."

 

Sounds very correct to me. Some of them rather sleep with their dogs than their wives.

 

Is it true that youtube and facebook are banned in Iran?

 

Yes they are banned - they weren't always. They (Twitter & Facebook, not sure about YouTube) were banned around the time of the 2009 elections and one could argue they had very good & sensible reasons to do so [at that specific time anyways]. 

 

Is this not a way of controlling peoples minds and curtailing their freedom?

 

Those who really want to access these websites, can do so through VPNs anyways.

 

How could they be happy living like this?

 

 

They must feel sorry for people like you and most of us, who "enjoy" living in "secular" states, where Divine Law is violated every single second in the worst of manners, while we continue to think that happiness lies in having access to Facebook or YouTube.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so since I posted it, perhaps it wasn't entirely inaccurate and the blame lies with me. I tried to see it on his website and it was all in Farsi, so...

 

Anyways, I am still concerned about the ban on Whatsapp. Why is that banned in Iran, if anyone were to enlighten me?

 

As far as I am concerned, Islamically speaking, censorship is best as practised in Pakistan - with the obvious  exception of the dumb ban on YouTube. Internet is really cheap and relatively fast there but most of the morally bad sites are banned. Now, yes, they do go a bit over the step sometimes, like the YouTube fiasco (if you don't want people seeing one video - whether you should is debatable in itself - then just block the link to that particular video, not the whole site!) but access to the internet is mostly unfettered and fast.

 

We shouldn't forget that while the internet holds pornographic sites, it also holds vast potential in terms of education and economics. The youngest billionaire ever made it all from an internet site. It also holds immense promise in propagating religion.

 

Another interesting question that Ibn al-Hussain's posts raised for me is that, according to him, the Ayatollah's Office uses Facebook and Twitter and other stuff, which is obviously banned in Iran (I don't really know about this so I am going to take his word on it). If the clerics themselves don't follow the rules about this censorship, shouldn't they be removed? I mean, if you argue that they were put in place because of the riots in 2009, it's been 5 years now, so what good reason is there to enforce them now?

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All our UHF communications at frequencies 800 mhz and above are bad for health especially when you have heavily polluted your living environment with them. Just google it or check your mobile phone manuals or click to see the SAR values which tells about the harmful radiation emitted by "wireless" gadgetry that our bodies absorb. In an average modern house, you have got Wi-Fi, microwave ovens, mobile phones, tabs, HD televisions, and what not all operating at or near the UHF+ microwave band. Couple that with obliviousness to the natural Radon gas emissions and other pollutions, hazardous and irresponsible use of so many things in our lives and we have got a very serious problem. Already the international health management and monitoring organizations, of UN for instance, are warning us that cancer, for example, will be far beyond our control by as early as 2025.

 

The problem I see here is the consumer mentality. We consume, incorporate and employ whatever is handed down to us. While we are oblivious of, for example, the criticisms and objections of the top scientists who objected to the way corporations started using (or abusing, according to them) the emerging technologies even ways back in the end of the 19th century. That trend still goes on with a peculiarly foolish defiance or rather greed on behalf of the corporations who only want to make more and more money. Meanwhile, it is the society that has suffered and continues to do so.

 

As for internet, certainly it has its uses and great importance. I have personally benefited a lot by it. Most of its uses, however, can be had with slower speeds. High speed internet is basically meant for entertainments and streaming media. Nothing wrong with that. It all comes down to the choice of the user. Governments wrongly deny choices open to their people in order to control them, which is a counter-productive and harmful thing. E.G., personally I feel that Pakistani government's blocking of Youtube since years now, is as if they destroyed a super university where researchers and free thinkers from around the share most beneficial knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see here is the consumer mentality. We consume, incorporate and employ whatever is handed down to us.

 

Very good point that we should all think about.

 

 

 

 

For example, what if facebook weren't "privately-owned" but belonged to a government? Any government? Who would willingly make an account with them and proceed to upload all of their personal information and make it a database of all their family members and social contacts? Surely not the 1 billion people who are currently facebook users.

 

And literally EVERYONE complains about facebook. Everyone complains about its nosiness, everyone complains about what it says about our culture. And yet very few of those people actually delete their accounts.

 

People completely capitulate in the face of unchecked power in so-called "private" hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so since I posted it, perhaps it wasn't entirely inaccurate and the blame lies with me. I tried to see it on his website and it was all in Farsi, so...

 

Anyways, I am still concerned about the ban on Whatsapp. Why is that banned in Iran, if anyone were to enlighten me?

 

As far as I am concerned, Islamically speaking, censorship is best as practised in Pakistan - with the obvious  exception of the dumb ban on YouTube. Internet is really cheap and relatively fast there but most of the morally bad sites are banned. Now, yes, they do go a bit over the step sometimes, like the YouTube fiasco (if you don't want people seeing one video - whether you should is debatable in itself - then just block the link to that particular video, not the whole site!) but access to the internet is mostly unfettered and fast.

 

We shouldn't forget that while the internet holds pornographic sites, it also holds vast potential in terms of education and economics. The youngest billionaire ever made it all from an internet site. It also holds immense promise in propagating religion.

 

Another interesting question that Ibn al-Hussain's posts raised for me is that, according to him, the Ayatollah's Office uses Facebook and Twitter and other stuff, which is obviously banned in Iran (I don't really know about this so I am going to take his word on it). If the clerics themselves don't follow the rules about this censorship, shouldn't they be removed? I mean, if you argue that they were put in place because of the riots in 2009, it's been 5 years now, so what good reason is there to enforce them now?

 

Even the president of Iran tweets from the inside Iran while Twitter remains banned. These social media are commonly used by scholars and government officials. I'm sure it's not  a criminal offence to use them even if they are officially banned. So those for whom it is important or beneficial deploy VPNs to access blocked sites.

 

It is like in the past when satellite dish receivers were first introduced. They were banned too but one only needed to climb at the top of one's house to see the skyline littered with them.

 

I believe it's a contradiction. Even if it's not an offence in the law to access FB and Twitter, basic ethics demand that Iranian official practice what they preach. Or reopen those services now that the emergency of 2009 is over.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you guys actually think those Mullahs are sitting there in Iran on twitter? or khamanei sitting on twitter?

 

you cannot compare and treat an Alim in the same way as a common jahil. the general populace can get misled very easily by western propaganda, which is why it is banned to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys actually think those Mullahs are sitting there in Iran on twitter? or khamanei sitting on twitter?

 

you cannot compare and treat an Alim in the same way as a common jahil. the general populace can get misled very easily by western propaganda, which is why it is banned to the general public.

 

The ulema or the president may not use the social media services themselves but people who make up their official offices do so and they are doing it violation of the ban. This is hypocritical.

 

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't insult people for treating them like autistic kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ulema or the president may not use the social media services themselves but people who make up their official offices do so and they are doing it violation of the ban. This is hypocritical.

 

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't insult people for treating them like autistic kids.

Well it is true, people are very very very gullible, only people who actually study and build on their mental capabilities can actually think for themselves, the rest are like sheep. especially women, they get fooled so easily with all the liberty, freedom and the likes garbage (not that I am against these but the west is using them inappropriately). the result is evident in Iran, some young women are trying to ditch the hijab, why? is it because Islam is being encouraged or because western ideologies are being promoted through sources such as the internet?

 

There are also numerous sexually explicit images, videos and photo shopped women on twitter, very harmful to young men.

Edited by Sayed Faridoon Taha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

The other, and perhaps more relevant, question?

 

It was edited into your post later so I only read it now.

 

Another interesting question that Ibn al-Hussain's posts raised for me is that, according to him, the Ayatollah's Office uses Facebook and Twitter and other stuff, which is obviously banned in Iran (I don't really know about this so I am going to take his word on it). If the clerics themselves don't follow the rules about this censorship, shouldn't they be removed? I mean, if you argue that they were put in place because of the riots in 2009, it's been 5 years now, so what good reason is there to enforce them now?

 

 

During the 2009 elections, the crackdown was very severe. They had even bought all the VPNs and there was really no way to access social media websites. They had even blocked Gmail from what I remember reading. After that, the VPNs (which are technically illegal) could be used to access social media websites and ever since then people have been using these websites via all sorts of VPNs. The ban really seems like a non-issue inside Iran since anyone who wants to use these websites uses them anyways - rendering the ban essentially useless. This can be seen with the various Facebook groups that get created, or YouTube videos being uploaded etc.

 

With that being the case, you can see why it has been a non-issue to discuss consistently especially when they have much more pressing issues to deal with. The issue about the critics using these accounts, it is possible that they don't necessarily want a full-out ban. At least I haven't seen anyone suggest that (and then also possess an account), but rather they want these websites regulated. It is usually the Western and other anti-Iranian media that portrays it like that (i.e as if the mullahs want to ban people from accessing absolutely any of these websites).

 

That being said, they have been trying to discuss and resolve this issue more in recent times (with the coming of Rouhani). Once again though, the ban being uplifted will really only mean that it is now legal for people to do what they have been doing since the last 5 years.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam.

The points are very valid. But so what? Why not allow maximum amount of individual freedom which takes maximum amount of individual responsibility. There'll always be those who cant handle it but I believe it's not the role of the state to correct the individual flaws in character but that this is the proper role of religion or psychology.

If women want to ditch the Hijab, why prevent it? Look at Turkey or any other middle eastern state: the use of hijab has grown expontentially since the 70s & in Turkey it's growing very fast: the nation is being islamicized from the bottom up.

those that dont want to use it will hate islam even more if they're forced to use it.

Some prohibitions are really counter productive to the whole cause imho.

Internet should be filtered to some extent. Even Sweden does that. But My personal opinion is that the filtrering of the internet should not be in the hands of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì bless you.

May Allah (swt) bless you too my brother :)

which part do you disagree on?

His premise. I think the internet should be mostly unfiltered (except for porn and whatnot). It is a great place for the free exchange of ideas. Imagine if secular or Christian countries filtered all Islamic websites, it would be outrageous. But anyways, I'm not looking for a debate. He has his opinion and I have mine. I'm not attacking him; I just happen to disagree on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...