Other options for Tafsir Ibn Kathir online. www.tafsir.com has been down for weeks

Discussion in 'Tafsir (Exegesis)' started by ish, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. ish

    ish ...

    Assalamu alaikum,

    Does anyone know any site that has Tafsir Ibn Kathir? www.tafsir.com has been down for a couple of weeks.

    I know about this one: Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Quran Tafsir but I found a couple of mistakes, and it's not really user friendly anyway.
    I also found this one: http://abdurrahman.org/qurantafseer/ibnkathir/ but it doesn't have the verses in Arabic.

    Does anyone know of another site that has Tafsir ibn Kathir online similar to how www.tafsir.com was? I am not looking for software or a PDF, just a user-friendly website like www.tafsir.com that also has the verses in Arabic.
  2. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    Don't really want to get into the copyright issue, but . . .

    If you see the website in which the program has retrieved the Tafsir, then you will see that it is an exact copy of the Darussalam version.

    And Abu Khaliyl Jadd Sylvester (USA), one of the translators of the Tafsir, sent an e-mail on three separate occasions warning this website not to distribute work that is not their own. The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir (10 volume set) is protected via copyright and a mere comparison of the volumes with these websites and softwares will reveal that this copyright is infringed.
  3. That is non-sense. You rather not benefit Muslims cause of copyrights? Something the kuffar started.

    Many things we use 'illegally' are copyrighted. I understand that they have to sell the books to cover the publishing cost. But at same time, the books will sell because not everyone wants it online. I can't understand how any Muslim copyrights something that can benefit millions and get 'ajr for it.
  4. Layth

    Layth Abu Shawarma

  5. You did. So strap in.

    So, all that means is that they should give credit where it's due.

    If it was not allowed in Islam to transcribe the works of others without permission from the author where it came to the works of scholars, Abu Khalil would not have had any work to translate in the first place.

    So what determined that the work of Ibn Kathir was allowed to be translated by Abu Khalil? Did he get permission from Ibn Kathir or his relatives to translate the work and claim that it is an interpretation of the original work?

    Of course not. Because men determined that copyright laws are effective for only a certain amount of time. Did any Islamic scholars or jurists have a say in development of the copyright laws?

    It is one thing to pass work off as your own or not to give credit, it's another thing to create a work or a service that is reproducible and to demand that it not be done simply because kafir laws say you can do that.

    Finally, there is a difference of opinion among our scholars on the issue. I certainly don't want anyone doing anything that could lead to imprisonment or a fine where it comes to copyright infringement laws and penalties in the west. However, that does not mean we should go around warning people against infringing on copyrights when this goes against the well-known precept that in matters of Ikhtilaf one should not condemn others who take a valid position on the matter.

    I leave you with the Fatwa of Shaykh Sulayman Ibn Nasir Al-‘Ulwan:


    If you believe differently than that, that is your right. However present your view in a manner that shows balance and acknowledgement of the other views, In Sha Allah, as that is closer to justice and fairness in advising others.
  6. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    It might be useful to read this first before taking the more lenient position:

    as-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah:

    Some people have advertised, made available, circulated, etc., books in various data forms that are owned by others.

    There is a popular statement that circulates upon the tongues of the Muslims:

    "There is no copyright in Islam"

    Many of the arguments put forward by the claimants, deal with "gray" areas about the topic. For example, everyone is free to recite the Qur'an, the hadiths, etc., no one can claim to have a copyright to a copy of the Qur'an, etc.

    Just that statement alone, which I wrote above, contains truth and falsehood in it, misleading points and correct points. And similar arguments abound.

    As for the Qur'an, it is the word of Allah, uncreated, there is no means for "the Qur'an" to be brought into the discussion, whoever brings it into the discussion must ask themself:

    "Why did I liken Allah's speech to the works of creatures in this matter?" And I can not answer that question for you.

    As for the hadiths, the books of "Rijaal" and "al-Jarh wat-Ta`deel" are full of people whose biographies say things like:

    "He was in Baghdad, stealing hadiths..."

    And the title: "thief of hadiths"

    It is not a secret just because the average people do not know it. Rather, those versed in the field should be well aware of this.

    And what does that mean? It generally refers to a person who is narrating hadiths to people with certain chains on the authority of some shaykh that did not actually give him any form of permission to do so, or, from whom he did not actually hear it, or whom he did not actually meet.

    Meanings similar to this are found when a person was accused of stealing hadiths.

    Nowadays, the popular books of hadith are printed and re-printed by various publishers all over the world.

    Rather than people being concerned about learning them from the scholars or the qualified, people are merely concerned with which editions are best, free of typing errors, with the correct selections of alternative wordings found in the various manuscripts, overseen by better scholars or editors, etc.

    Some publishing companies are known for their lack of concern about typing errors in their publications of such books, and others will often take a printed edition, edited and carefully prepared by another publisher with a team of editors and reference writters, and re-print it without mention of any of that, giving the apperance that this publisher has done all of this work.

    Often times they are not very good at hiding that either, sometimes leaving certain footnotes that make no sense without some of the important notes that were in the introduction which the stealing publisher has removed, etc., and on and on.

    Our people have found many ways to steal from each other, calling it by other names.

    This is the point of the examples above, while there are so many of them that they could not be mentioned in a message like this.

    So now, you may pick up a copy of an Arabic printed edition of Sahih al-Bukhari and read the hadiths, and there is no argument that this is good.

    But ask yourself this then, if you are with Imam al-Bukhari, and he said to you: "I do not want you narrating these hadiths of mine" will you tell him: "there is no copyright in Islam?" Then you will be one of those theives in the books of "Rijaal" I mentioned before.

    All of this is dealing with the texts in Arabic. And whoever believes that someone's translation of a religious text in English is somehow a legacy or the sole domain of the "ummah" then he is severly confused.

    A translation is but an explanation, and those who translated it are its explainers, and if they tell you that you do not have the right to make copies of it and distribute it, and you do so, then you are a theif.

    The same with a book that is written by an author on a topic, and the same with a translation of such book.

    I personally worked on the Arabic abridgement of al-Misbah al-Muneer fi Tahdheeb Tafseer Ibn Kathir, in Riyadh, with Shaykh Safiur-Rahmaan al-Mubarakpuri, and I over-saw the English preperation of it (the ten volumes of the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir), and edited it entirely, and it was my responsibility to determine which narrations were removed from the Arabic text - since we wanted to present the people with only the authentic hadiths of the Prophet (sall Allahu `alaihi wa sallam), removing the weak narrations, as well as other work that I am not listing here.

    Now whatever you read in the English translation, who do you think decided it should be there, and said this or that way? And do you have more right over my work than I? Do you have more right over our work that we do?

    So we were a team of translators and editors who prepared this text under the supervision of our Shaykh Safiur-Rahmaan, the author of ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom - which should be mentioned shortly if Allah wills.

    We agreed to do this work for Darussalam, and Darussalam would be the owner of that work.

    I have been working for Darussalam for over 7 years now, I revised the translation of ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom (which someone has tried to distribute a file or link of here) while Shaykh Safiur-Rahmaan was present in Riyadh, and with an edition of the text in Arabic that he wrote additional notes and edited with pencil and pen by his own hand.

    I was given instructions by the publisher as to what sort of editing, and how much time to spend, etc. There is a list of things I did, which I will not mention here.

    I ask you, do you have more authority, ownership, right over our work than we do?

    So consider this, you write your own great book in Arabic, or Urdu, or English, you go out and spend on a copy of the complete version of the Tafsir of Ibn Katheer, then you abridge it in Arabic as you want and see is best - get your own scholars to help you - then you hire a team of translators and editors and you get them to translate it into different languages and you sell it to cover the expenses of its production. Do you think I have the right to then make copies of it in various forms and distribute it without your permission?

    Someone says: "People should do for the sake of Allah not money." Eh!? People who do for the sake of Allah - Allah knows who they are does He not? And the one who has the right, has the right to decide what is done with the right. So people should fear Allah, because they could never do for His sake if they did not fear Him first! And it can not be said that the one who is taking the right of his brother is "fearing Allah" while doing so!

    I warn you my brothers and sisters, against taking the lenient of two different opinions when the lenient - if wrong - means you are stealing from Muslims. Because wrong-doing, oppression, injustice, will be darkness for you on the Day of Resurrection.

    Lastly, I realize that we live in the age where people have no regard for learning, rather just acquiring stuff, so they can say they have it, and be inspired, to get more stuff, and complain about how everyone else should be helping them get more stuff, and stop being so stingy with them, and one expects that whatever they want to read - they should be able to get it for free on the internet.

    So as much as there is no copyright in Islam, there is no sitting on your behind and getting knowledge without effort in Islam either.

    So make your decision, either learn according to Islam, or follow the way of the disbelievers, not giving the rights, committing the injustices, blaming it on others, calling evil by another name, claiming to be innocent when you know you are not, spreading mischeif in the land, etc.

    I have said all of this, because, as it is not secret to most, copying English translations of texts and spreading them on the internet is the standard which many Muslims have adopted, and they could never, ever, in all of time, prove that doing that is halal in Islam, as long as the publisher of the text has written on every copy "All rights reserved...."

    And do not even dare to be so ventursome to compare our work to Allah's speech if you are a Muslim!

    So consider this and beware, I have written privately to many, and Allah blessed them to see the way on this matter, to close websites, to stop spreading some things for free that we have published, but I will not tolerate people sending messages to this email group with attachments or directing to links where people can go and get or acquire materials that these people do not have the right to spread in such form., etc.

    And while there is much more that I could write about this, I only drew this out because of my experience with the doubts that are often raised by people. And Allah knows best.

    jazakum Allahu khaira
    was-salamu `alaykum
    Abu Khaliyl
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  7. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    This is a rather ridiculous argument; the Darussalam edition is an abridgement, or more precisely, a Tahdib. There is a great distinction between what you are stating and what Darussalam did.

    Trust me, Abu Khaliyl's position is by far more appropriate in this context as you will see:

    as-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah:

    Through personal messages, as well as those sent to quranwasunnah@yahoogroups it occured to me that I should elaborate on a few more points.

    I have stated in the previous message that translations are but interpretations of translators, some are better, more precise, more "desireable" than others.

    Taking the case of the translation of the Qur'an for example, at Darussalam, we are favored to have the expressed permission of Shaykh Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, to hold the copyright to his and Shaykh Muhammad Taqiud-Deen al-Hilali's translation entitled:

    "Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, A Summarized version of at-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir...."

    Reading the title, it is clear of the intent of those who prepared it. While it is normally referred too today as: "The Noble Qur'an (translation) by Muhsin Khan"

    Then, shortening the title on the tongues of the people, leads to the idea that it is somehow "the Quran" and therefore, there can be no copyright of the Qur'an, etc, as was mentioned before.

    While it is clear as stated on the cover in the title, that there is no claim that this English translation is the Qur'an, but rather interpretations of it in the English language.....

    What follows, is directed to those who are concerned with translations, as for classical Islamic texts in the Arabic language, most of what I said does not apply to that, because in most cases, the original Arabic text of a "classical" book - Ibn Kathir for example, will not have a copyright holder, or its equivelant in our time. And again, I have explained that the Darussalam edition is an Abridgement, being a translation of the Arabic edition entitled: "Al-Misbah al-Muneer fi Tah-dheeb Tafseer Ibn Katheer." So my saying that Ibn Kathir in Arabic is "free domain" has nothing to do with the abridged edition that we worked on and translated and published.

    Translations can be divided into two categories with respect to the authors of the original Arabic text:

    1. Those scholars of the past, or distant past, like Ibn Kathir, al-Bukhari and others.
    2. Those of the recent past or present, like Shaykhs al-Albani, Ibn Baz, Ibn `Uthaymeen, Muqbil bin Hadi etc.

    For the first category, what I said before should be enough, in nearly all cases we do not find anyone saying that they hold the rights to these original Arabic texts, therefore, there should be no reason - without a claimant - for us to fear translating and publishing them in other languages.

    In the second category, the case of each of them will differ depending upon what is known or made known. For example, many or most of Shaykh al-Albani's works have been sold by the Shaykh to the owner of Maktabah al-Ma`aarif in Riyadh, he personally told me when I was purchasing some books there: "Just don't translate any of them, I have the rights to that." Meaning, according to him, and what I have learned since then, it is not lawful for anyone to translate any of those titles which Shaykh al-Albani gave to his publishing house, since the Shaykh also gave translation rights to those titles, and for some monetary amount. So the right to sell it is the Shaykhs, and after that the right belongs to the one he sold it.

    There are a number of books that he did not sell, some are still the right of al-Maktab al-Islami in Beirut, and there may be others with other publishers too.

    There is no rule with these books, or, no rule that we can state with certainty, except that we can say as I said above, if the original owner of the work has sold it and its right to translation for some money to someone, or given - for free - all expressed rights of publication, as original or otherwise translated, to someone, than the one who received that right, as a gift or after payment, has more right than anyone else. That is well founded in Islamic law, and there can be no dispute of these facts.

    Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymeen, his work in orignal language as well as some translations is available on website established by his foundation, and they mention that only they have the rights to the titles:


    scroll to the bottom of the page and it is even written in English.

    As for Shaykh Ibn Baz, I am not really aware of details pertaining to his works.

    As for Shaykh Muqbil - he approved of me translating and publishing Sahih al-Musnad fi Asbab an-Nuzool some years ago (perhaps it was over ten), and about 1/3 of it was published in the periodical HUDAA at that time while I was a contributor and editor, which I have not been since the past seven or eight years.

    Then while in Riyadh, shortly, I think it was not even a year perhaps before the Shaykhs death, may Allah have mercy with him, he wrote permission for Darussalam, that is he wrote it with his hand on paper, that they have the permission to re-publish the Arabic text. And he also gave us permission for his COMPLETE annotation of the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, - that is he actually gave it to us, and I often consulted it for our project with Ibn Kathir. It was a set of notebooks with his hand written footnotes and footnote reference numbers written in the volumes of Ibn Kathir cooresponding to his written footnotes in the notebooks. I hope that Allah facilitates that we may complete the reprinting of the Shaykh's Arabic text of Asbab an-Nuzool in Arabic, as the earlier edition had a number of typing errors, and the Shaykh had some more notes and changes. And I hope that Allah will facilitate the printing of the complete Arabic edition of the Shaykhs annotation of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. I heard later that someone has translated his book on Asbab an-Nuzul, perhaps that person had acquired some permission from the Shaykhs relatives after his death, or from him during his life, and Allah knows best.

    That story above, sheds light on the difficulty in some of these cases, where it may be that more than one has been given the right to translate a title, or to publish it. And it also supports the claim that with authors of recent or modern times, we must be very careful and ascertain the situation before just deciding that we are going to translate and publish their works.

    Then, there is no doubt that because translations are interpretations only, they can not be considered to be a theft of the original. But as I have said, if the author has given permission to translate to only this person, than only this person has been given that permission, and if another did it later, it may or may not be considered "wrong" based upon whether the author sold that permission, or gave it for da`wah purposes alone, etc.

    This is further comment to clarify that what I wrote previously was essentially addressed to English books that are published, then spread through various means by other than the publishers in an attempt to make them "free domain." All of what I said or wrote is not addressed to all kinds of texts in all languages, and with what I wrote before, and these additional points, I think that should be clear if Allah wills.

    Suffice it to say that English translations taken from Darussalam publications, they may not be posted in complete form on websites, nor shared by any other means in their complete form. This was the objective of the original, and I have been authorized to say that, and to anyone who had some "school of thought" to the contrary that they wish to convert others to about this: the number of the main office of Darussalam in Riyadh is on every one of their books, no one is stopping anyone from calling them, and that is the next step for the complaint.

    And indeed Allah knows best.

    was-salamu `alaykum
    Abu Khaliyl

    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  8. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    Hate to break it to you, but they didn't. So much for keeping it classy, eh?
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  9. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    This response is priceless:

    So consider this, you write your own great book in Arabic, or Urdu, or English, you go out and spend on a copy of the complete version of the Tafsir of Ibn Katheer, then you abridge it in Arabic as you want and see is best - get your own scholars to help you - then you hire a team of translators and editors and you get them to translate it into different languages and you sell it to cover the expenses of its production. Do you think I have the right to then make copies of it in various forms and distribute it without your permission?

    Someone says: "People should do for the sake of Allah not money." Eh!? People who do for the sake of Allah - Allah knows who they are does He not? And the one who has the right, has the right to decide what is done with the right. So people should fear Allah, because they could never do for His sake if they did not fear Him first! And it can not be said that the one who is taking the right of his brother is "fearing Allah" while doing so!

    I warn you my brothers and sisters, against taking the lenient of two different opinions when the lenient - if wrong - means you are stealing from Muslims. Because wrong-doing, oppression, injustice, will be darkness for you on the Day of Resurrection.
  10. Prolix

    Prolix Prospicient

    wa 'alaykum salaam wa rahmatullaah!

    Woah, all that above is too long to read at the moment (I completely understand how others feel about my posts sometimes now :( ).

    But here's my personal favorite, I just discovered it this Ramadaan: 1. Al-Fatihah | Tafsir | iKnowledge

    Only catch, they say it's Tafseer ibn Katheer but it is definitely a bit different from the ones on tafsir.com, abdurrahman.org and others. I'm not quite sure why yet, so if someone can clue me in, it'd be helpful.

    But it's still very beneficial masha'Allaah, pretty user friendly, and has the text in Arabic so... that what I've been going with!

    Hope it helps ~
  11. ish

    ish ...

    I bought the 10 volume set from dar-us-salam, but I find reading the online version easier. Even if I hadn't purchased the set, I pretty much hold the opinion that our respected brother ibn al-iskandar quoted from the fatwa by Sheikh Sulaiman ibn Nasir al-Ulwan and honestly wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I accessed it or any other copyrighted work online. Still, I buy anything I find useful to support the Muslim authors and publishers and would encourage Muslims who can afford it to do so as well.
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  12. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    If you don't want to read it, I completely understand. It was way too long for me at first too, but some of the points he makes are really good.

    And just to note, by no means did I wish to accuse you of anything, and if you felt so, then I apologize. I just wanted to drive the message home for a really neglected issue where many simply take the more lenient position without evidence.
  13. Prolix

    Prolix Prospicient

    I'm sure they very well may be. I've actually come across Abu Khaylil before, have read some of his translations and attended some of his classes so I do think he is good and sincere in what he says and not simply out to get a profit or anything like that. And that he is publicizing his opinion (which I will read at some point inshaAllaah). However brother, what you must also acknowledge is that there is somewhat of an ikhtilaaf on the issue as to whether things related to Islaam, especially towards the benefit of the Muslimeen has the same type of copyright.

    What if a person did not have the money to afford the book? What if the only access they had was online? Think of youths and reverts and such who many times are constrained from the ability to purchase from copyrighted books and audios etc... Holding this opinion makes it impermissible to share and provide them with these other sources does it not?

    I personally don't take such a strong view on it. Of course making a profit off of someone else's work and copyright is wrong, however in general cases (like online) this doesnt happen so I don't hold such a severe opinion. And this has been backed by some scholars, such as the one brother Ibn al-Iskandar quoted.

    So it's good that you are careful, and if that is the opinion you hold then alhamdulillaah. But since some of the scholars have held this opinion, it's also not really a position for you to criticize - even if you don't agree.

    waAllaahu A'lam
  14. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    Although I completely agree with what you say, and that it is a matter of difference of opinon, it must be noted that there has been little circulated about the other opinion (i.e. prohibition of copyright infringement). Very little. This is why I merely wanted to share the other side of the story which for very long has been ignored.
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  15. Firstly, I understand that you didn't write the majority of the content of the posts however from your reproducing them here in this thread, I must assume that you hold the same position as the author and so I will respond to the claims, as if I am responding to you, In Sha Allah.

    The above is a 'ridiculous' argument and there is no reason to inject a discussion of Aqidah into the topic at all.

    The Quran and Sunnah are not 'gray' areas where it comes to copyright. I'm no copyright lawyer, however there are points in time where works become public domain, meaning they can't be copyrighted again unless significant changes have been made to them to render them an original work. Here is something which gives the conditions and timelines for expiration and establishment of copyright protections: Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States.

    You should notice that certain countries have no copyright protections due to their not signing some Berne Convention Treaty, and protections only begin after their signing it. Listed are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and some other countries.

    Also, I and others here, are of the opinion that Allah's Speech is composed of letters and sounds, and this is not a matter of 'likening Allah's Speech to the works of creatures', rather that is a matter of submitting to the understanding of the Salaf.

    However, if someone wants to charge for transcribing the Quran and reproducing it, what is wrong with charging for it? Their charge would cover the service of transcribing and reproducing it, not for the Speech of Allah per se.

    I found the above comparison very strange and a bit desperate since the author is trying to associate something which potentially constitutes a crime punishable with prison and/or fines to something discussed by the Muhaddithin as rendering a person unworthy of being transmitted from.

    What did 'stealing Hadith' mean to the Muhaddithin? See Lisan al-Muhaddithin, the famous dictionary of the terms used in Jarh wat-Ta'dil:
    No fines. No imprisonment. No legal threats of any kind.

    And this is when a person invents the lie that they themselves heard the narration and to make the analogy fit- to invent that they themselves did the translation or were part of the project.

    It is a stretch to say the least and it is quite deceptive to try and use terminology that has a specific meaning and consequence in a science that to laypeople is very respected and cherished, in order to 'scare' people with the prospect of doing something against 'Islamic law' or 'Islamic etiquette'.

    Ajeeb! Even by the standards of copyright laws this does not apply! And by the norm and standards of this Ummah, the narrations of al-Bukhari are encouraged to be memorized and transmitted. So there's no point in presenting an argument based on the pretense that today al-Bukhari would/could prohibit anyone from memorizing his narration

    No one said anything of the sort on this thread. Public domain would imply that we believe we can quote the translations and profit from it without any duty to compensate the author. That is far from the case.

    Now we're getting somewhere away from all the rhetoric. So what does the Shari'ah say about the punishment for a thief? Are you suggesting that the hands of copyright infringers be cut off- even though the law was developed and established by kuffar and is a part of the Qawanin Wadhi'iyah?

    Dr. Abd Allah al-Faqih said in his Fatawa ash-Shabakah 2/2603 #6072: “Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘It is not for anyone to judge between the creation of Allah be it Muslim or Disbeliever…except with what Allah and His Messenger judged, and whoever seeks to rule with something else is dealt with by the verse: {Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief)?}[al-Ma’idah: 50]. And what is well-known is that the western authorities are among those who raise up and judge by (pagan law), and laws of incrimination, and others, relying on positive law to do so; or it is adopted from distorted traditions- thus in its entirety they are laws which contradict Islamic law…”

    That is meant for you especially...

    No. No one is this thread every mentioned anything of the sort.

    Yes, you have that right in Islam. You just shouldn't charge people money over and above the cost of copies or your service, and if you do, then you should pay part of that to the author whose amount should be negotiated before you do so- that is called 'fair use' in some respects, which many authors opt for even under positive law.

    'Taking the right of his brother'? We are Muslims and are only concerned with those rights which Allah and His Messenger have granted, and not those the kuffar have invented. Fear Allah indeed!

    Theft is defined by Islam, not kuffar. I warn you against fabricating Shari'ah and legislating on your own accord or following the Deen of the kuffar, which means you are committing disbelief in Allah AWJ. No doubt wrong-doing, oppression, and injustice are a darkness on the Day of Judgment, but kufr is in the Hell-Fire altogether. Who is taking the greater risk here?

    Wait, so there is no copyright in Islam then? Is this a matter of 'learning according to Islam'? I thought this was about 'theft' and 'stealing'?

    How could following the valid position of scholars be considered 'following the way of disbelievers', 'spreading mischief in the land' or 'committing injustices'?


    We don't have to prove something is 'Halal' in Islam. Rather the claimant has to prove something is prohibited in Islam if Allah and His Messenger did not do so. That is more fitting to preserve the rights of the public where it comes to trade, work, and customary actions. Instead you want to preserve the privilege of the individual over the rights of the public!

    It was only a matter of time before it would come to this. Amazing sense of comparison and analogy. Just so you know, one of the only books granted perpetual copyright protection is the King James version of the bible. Think about that for a while.

    You can thank the brother for his hard work at translations, but ask him kindly to refrain from writing about anything else since it is catastrophic really.

    No. His points are completely invalid and reliant upon kafir law not Shari'ah. Bring some evidence from the Shari'ah that shows a such thing as 'copyright' and that disobeying positive law is Haram and punishable the same as with Islamic law and you might have a point. Until then you're just threatening people with the weight of kafir law. Nice going!

    You might not have- but Abu Khalil sure did. Do I need to re-quote what is above? 'Stealing' 'committing injustices' 'spreading mischief in the land'. Remember? You supported his conclusions and said that they are more 'appropriate'.

    You weren't simply 'sharing' you were 'warning' and threatening people by proxy. Learn the difference between the two and you'll do much better in life...
    amatulhaqq likes this.
  16. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    Laws are laws. Islam commands us to obey the laws of the land we live in . . . Even further, this law does not constitute as disobedience to Allah. Nor do I think that our many scholars who prohibit this merely embrace this 'invention'. Their evidences are valid, as opposed to what you believe.

    Sheikh Ibn Al-Uthaymin argues that if the country has accepted the concept of copyright and has made transgressions against copyrights illegal, then one must obey such laws. He stated, “If the country prohibits that, then it is not allowable, as Allah has ordered that those in authority are to be obeyed in any matter that is not disobedience to Allah and this is not disobedience to Allah . . .” (Al-Liqaa al Maftoohah, session #178).

    As you will see below, this law does have a basis, such as the Hadith which explicitly states that "the Muslims must abide by conditions that they lay down." And it goes beyond of 'All rights reserved.'

    I'm sorry but I don't think anybody has the capacity to believe that many of our noble scholars who adopted the position that copyright infringement is Haram and a form of theft would merely take this view from the Kuffar.

    However, I totally agree with you of the fact that Abu Khaliyl has many excesses in this article, but he quite often does so in his writings. But note that I do not agree with what he said, I merely said it is more appropriate. I agree with the gist of what he has said in these two writings of his.

    Absolutely still think it is more appropriate. Just think about all of the publishing companies, authors, editors, publishers, distributors and retailers who all lose out when customers buy or access a pirate/counterfeit copy (you're giving VIP access to these pirates who aren't restricted in any way whatsoever) rather than a legitimate book. But I guess all of this is permitted by you? Are you forgetting these words of our Prophet (peace be upon him):

    الْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى شُرُوطِهِمْ

    لَا يَحِلُّ مَالُ امْرِئٍ إِلَّا بِطِيبِ نَفْسٍ مِنْهُ

    Whether you like Darussalam or not, I think by adopting your position they're going to lose a lot of money . . . unjustly. Actually they already have.

    Disagree. I didn't quote any of Abu Khaliyl's arguments until I was 'strapped' into this conflict by you. See my first post and see whether or not I was a proxy. Seriously.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  17. That which we are dealing with in this thread is making a personal electronic copy of a book for educational purposes and personal use.

    The fatwa above is dealing specifically with making copies in the form of discs:

    الشيخ: يعني: ما سجل فيه؟ السائل: ما سجل في الأقراص

    And the Shaykh still says that he doesn't see any harm in making a copy for personal use:

    وأما من جهة الشركات فالذي أرى أن الإنسان إذا نسخها لنفسه فقط فلا بأس، وأما إذا نسخها للتجارة فهذا لا يجوز

    "As for the point of view of sharing, then I don't see that when a person copies it for himself alone there is any harm, and as for copying it for commercial use then this is not allowed..."

    It was a quick translation, however I believe I got the gist of it correct.

    And the principle that he bases the commercial aspect of it on is:

    يشبه البيع على بيع المسلم

    In other words, if you were to make a translation and sell it for $100, and I copied it and sold it for $50, then that would not be allowed.

    Here is the entire text of the fatwa:

    حكم نسخ البرامج التي مكتوب عليها (حقوق الطبع محفوظة):
    السؤال: فضيلة الشيخ! هل يجوز نسخ برامج الحاسب الآلي مع أن الشركات تمنع ذلك والنظام؟ وهل يعتبر ذلك احتكاراً وهي تباع بأسعار غالية، وإذا نسخت تباع بأسعار رخيصة؟
    الجواب: القرآن؟ السائل: برامج الحاسب الآلي عموماً. الشيخ: القرآن؟ السائل: القرآن وغير القرآن والحديث وبرامج أخرى كثيرة. الشيخ: يعني: ما سجل فيه؟ السائل: ما سجل في الأقراص. الشيخ: أما إذا كانت الدولة مانعة فهذا لا يجوز؛ لأن الله أمر بطاعة ولاة الأمور إلا في معصية الله، والامتناع من تسجيلها ليس من معصية الله. وأما من جهة الشركات فالذي أرى أن الإنسان إذا نسخها لنفسه فقط فلا بأس، وأما إذا نسخها للتجارة فهذا لا يجوز؛ لأن فيه ضرراً على الآخرين، يشبه البيع على بيع المسلم؛ لأنهم إذا صاروا يبيعونه بمائة ونسخته أنت وبعته بخمسين هذا بيع على بيع أخيك. السائل: وهل يجوز أن أشتريها بخمسين من أصحاب المحلات وهو منسوخ. الشيخ: لا يجوز إلا إذا قدم لك أنه مأذون له، وأما إذا لم يقدم فهذا تشجيع على الإثم والعدوان. السائل: إذا لم يؤذن له هو؟ جزاك الله خيراً. الشيخ: وإذا كنت أيضاً لا تدري، أحياناً الإنسان لا يدري يقف على هذا المعرض ويشتري وهو لا يدري، هذا لا بأس به، الذي لا يدري ليس عليه شيء.

    This fatwa does not seem to apply to the situation of an electronic copy of a book for personal use.

    Oh, and the impression I get as well is that the Shaykh is talking about a Muslim country. I've never heard someone refer to kafir authorities as 'Wulat al-Umur'. I could be wrong of course. It seems to me that you're taking the whole 'obey the authorities' thing too far as well and applying it to the Tawaghit of the kuffar...
  18. Massoud

    Massoud New Member

    Yes, Jazakallahu Khairan for sharing this lengthy Fatwa and may Allah bless you for your efforts in the translation. However, after stating similar above, the Sheikh himself said:

    أما إذ نصّ الشخص الذي كتبها أولاً على المنع الخاصّ والعامّ فلا يجوز مطلقا

    "However, if the author or the copyright holder specifically stated that private and public copying of the software is prohibited, then it is not permissible to copy that software."

    This is the Committee Fatwa #18453, and it can be read on IslamQA too, Fatwa #454.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  19. Apples and oranges Akhi- the above is referring to 'software'. We're still talking about books.

    Either way, it is a fatwa, and I have no problem respecting the opinion of scholars especially when they differ.

    Abu Khalil's comments on the other hand were very disrespectful in their content and did not acknowledge the other views.

    So the end result is the same- you don't have to share links or download from links provided. But I humbly request that you don't 'warn' or condemn anyone who does.

Share This Page