Aga Khan sues 2 of his own followers in Canada

[Al Zulfiqar]

In a curious twist of events, the Aga Khan, spiritual leader to the world's 15 million + ismailies has sued 2 of his own followers in canada. here is a news article from the law society newsletter in canada.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lawyer sued by Aga Khan keeping the faith.

By Michael McKiernan | Publication Date: Monday, 19 April 2010
A Toronto lawyer says he will still follow the Aga Khan despite a lawsuit the hereditary imam has filed against him.

Alnaz Jiwa, a lawyer with Jiwa & Associates, could find himself facing down the spiritual leader in a Canadian court after the Aga Khan named him as a defendant in a copyright infringement case launched in the Federal Court last week.

The Aga Khan is the spiritual leader of the Ismailis, a branch of Shia Islam to which Jiwa and his co-defendant belong.

“I still follow him, absolutely, without any doubt,” Jiwa tells Law Times. “You will get the answer to this when I file the defence,” he says, noting he has yet to appoint a lawyer to act on his behalf.

“I don’t want to make any comments now until my defence is filed. Once I file it, I will set out the circumstances and answer the questions,” he adds.

The Aga Khan alleges in the claim that Jiwa and Montreal businessman Nagib Tajdin infringed his copyright and moral rights by compiling a book that collected addresses delivered to Ismaili communities around the world between 1957, when he assumed his title, and 2009.

The materials include 589 Farmans — addresses the Aga Khan gives as imam to his followers — and 77 Talikas, which are brief religious messages to Ismailis in writing. The suit claims the Aga Khan is the sole author of those materials.

According to the claim, Jiwa and Tajdin, as well as other unknown defendants, sold the book for $50 per volume in multiples of four. Buyers allegedly got 14 MP3 audio files featuring extracts read by the Aga Khan free with the book.

The imam is seeking punitive and exemplary damages in addition to damages for the alleged infringement of his copyright and moral rights. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Brian Gray, a senior partner with Ogilvy Renault LLP who is representing the imam in the suit, provided an e-mailed statement from an Aga Khan spokesperson claiming the defendants had been cautioned numerous times to halt their operation, warnings that included personal pleas from the Aga Khan himself and his brother.

“The Aga Khan has taken this matter extremely seriously,” the statement notes. “He would not have taken this course of action if there was an alternative.

The only recognized legal way to stop them is through the courts.”
The Aga Khan traces his lineage back to Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad. Although he was born in Switzerland, he lives in France and is a British citizen.

The statement of claim says the imam’s mandate is to interpret the faith for Ismailis who live in more than 25 countries around the world.

Colleen Spring Zimmerman, a partner with Fogler Rubinoff LLP in Toronto, says she has never seen a case like this one with a religious leader taking on one of his own followers. Nevertheless, the statement of claim alleges Tajdin was asked to stop a similar operation in the early 1990s.

Zimmerman says that piece of information could be crucial when it comes to deciding whether to award the Aga Khan the punitive and exemplary damages he’s looking for in the case.

“They’re asking for broad sweeping relief against these defendants,” Zimmerman notes. “The court has in the past granted punitive and exemplary damages in certain circumstances, but there has to be behaviour which goes beyond normal copying of a work, something that goes to the very root of misconduct.

If a defendant was warned in the past not to do this and now they’ve done it again, the punitive and exemplary damages may come to bear.”

The religious dimension of the case makes the outcome much less predictable, she adds. That could explain why the Aga Khan is claiming a breach of moral rights.

“It’ll be interesting to see from a moral rights point of view whether the defendants have said anything to which he would object and to what extent he has the right to stop the reproduction and distribution of this work solely on the basis of moral rights rather than copyright,” Zimmerman says. “I’ll be very interested to see what the court has to say on that.”

Without seeing the materials herself, Zimmerman says it’s hard to tell whether the Aga Khan’s works have been amended but she’s not the only one in the dark.

The statement of claim says the Aga Khan himself hasn’t verified the accuracy of the infringing materials but leaves the door open to a moral-rights breach by pointing out that “any act of omission that is contrary to the moral rights of the author is an infringement” of them under the Copyright Act.

“As has been his systematic practice for many years, the Aga Khan often annotates and edits his texts in accordance with established criteria and well-established guidelines before any publication of them,” the claim states.

Zimmerman says the plaintiff’s decision not to claim an independent copyright on the MP3 recordings was noteworthy.

The recordings are in the Aga Khan’s own voice, but the claim alleges only that they breach his copyright inasmuch as they are “a copy in substantial part” of the Farmans and Talikas in the book.
“So if there’s any issue with the ownership of those literary works, that’s going to be a problem for the plaintiff,” Zimmerman says.

In the e-mailed statement, the spokesperson for the Aga Khan explained he felt the issue of the sound recordings would unnecessarily complicate the claim. It also indicates that photographs in the book raise another question around personality rights, another issue the plaintiff avoided in the claim.

“It was hoped to keep the matter simple by focusing only on the copyright in his written works,” the statement says. “If necessary, these other matters may have to be asserted later.”

[anajmi]

What a joke!!! The Aga Khan has agreed that human courts are more powerful than him. And he is nothing more than an ordinary human who wants to protect his own interests, his own profit and doesn't want to freely distribute it to the others or let others have a share from it.

The first person to turn away from Aga Khan should be the defendent and the idiot still wants to keep following him.

This is akin to the prophet suing the sahabas for distributing the quran amongst his followers and the rest of the world. What kind of a religion would we be following if our prophet were to do something like this?

[Al Zulfiqar]

anajmi,

the motive here is not money or sharing of profits. let us not get too carried away. The matter here is of copyright infringement which is being claimed by the Agha khan.

I have had occasion to discuss this with a few of my lawyer friends here, as this has been in the newspapers in canada since last few days. what they all agree is that it will be most interesting to see how the agakhan will prove copyright infringement, if he has been sending his firmaans and taliks in writing, and those circulars or letters/firmaans were not accompanied by an advisory or warning that they cannot be reproduced or quoted without express permission from the author, and failure to abide with same could lead to legal prosecution.

the defence can also ask why the written firmaans cannot be published, reproduced or quoted, if indeed they were in the public domain, even if that domain is restricted to his own followers. what is it that the agakhan wishes to hide and what is there in it which would cause damage to his copyright or reputation? This has to be seen from a purely legal viewpoint, lets not get into name calling and personal attacks.

what interests me most from a bohra standpoint however, is that inspite of this matter being ongoing since last 15-20 years, these 2 ismailies have not been chucked out and are still in the community, unlike the consequences which would result if it was any bohras who dared to do something similar. leaving religious commentary aside, atleast this shows that there is mature discussion and debate within the ismailies and no mafia actions like bohras.

[anajmi]

Al Z,

I believe the motive here is money and that is why I have posted what I have posted. For any copyright infringement case filed anywhere around the world, the motive has always been money. And people have a right to file these infringement cases to make the maximum profit from their intellectual or physical properties. So does the Aga Khan. But not in the capacity of being a spiritual leader.

what is it that the agakhan wishes to hide

I don't think hiding is the issue as it is already public knowledge, and suing is not going to reverse that.

The fact that the Imam had to take a couple of his followers, for trying to propagate his own word, to human courts tells me a lot about the Imam.

Consider this from the article

“As has been his systematic practice for many years, the Aga Khan often annotates and edits his texts in accordance with established criteria and well-established guidelines before any publication of them,” the claim states.

His spoken word isn't the last word even for the Imam himself. He needs to verify everything he says before he gives permission to publish it. More qualities resembling ordinary human beings and not an infallible Imam.

Sorry Al Z, but this will be my last post on this article, lest I entice the Ismailis to start participating and getting myself banned.

[Humsafar]

Zulfiqar/anajmi, you both are talking from different points of view. Zulfiqar makes sense if the matter is considered from a purely legal point of view, and the contrast with the bohra reality really jumps at you.
But anajmi is looking at it from the religious/doctrinal point of view. And I agree with him. The Imam suing his followers is a joke. It makes the infallible imam all too human - vulnerable, insecure and powerless. It brings the whole Ismaili doctrine imam into question. The implications - if taken to "logical" conclusion - cannot be very pretty for the imam.

[Al Zulfiqar]

anajmi,

i dont think i was discouraging you from any further discussion, just when it was starting to get more interesting..
and no, if we are having a civil debate, none of us are going to get banned.

i agree with you and humsafar that this case certainly throws up some interesting angles, esp. on the point of imamat and its attributes. whereas this is a legal case, i am sure at a certain stage religion is bound to creep in, as the defense will make every effort to widen the scope of the case in order to dilute the claims of the agha khan.

btw, my lawyer friends are very doubtful if this case has enough merit to even come to the stage of trial. it seems the agha khan is aware of it and seems to want to force the issue out-of-court in preventing the further distribution of these books. if he wanted he could have excommunicated these 2 ismaili followers of his long ago, but then they would have been further motivated to publish and engage in wide publicity to market it.

the agha khan's counsel here are one of the leading law firms here in canada. its mystifying how they plan to make this suit stick. surely, they either have an ace up their sleeve or there is some other, at this stage atleast, hidden agenda. a law firm like ogilvy and renault do not take up a case they are going to lose.

ismailies are welcome to contribute, provided they do not get into a shia-sunni argument.

[Fatwa Banker]

It would be a fascinating case (strictly from a legal point of view), if it ever made it to court. I am curious as to what the Aga Khan's motive would be (?) At $50 per volume, money clearly is not the motive. As far as drawing parallels with the Bohra community, the statement "warnings that included personal pleas from the Aga Khan himself" is the clear distinction.

[salim]

I think imam has all rights to protect his work. We live in a civil society (not in jungle), what's wrong in going to court and asking for help?

He is the owner of his work and he should have rights to protect it.

[Muslim First]

Salim

He is the owner of his work and he should have rights to protect it.

Is'nt Aga Khan Allah?

Can Allah copy right his words?

BTW read Isnaili views here:
kalam-e-imam-e-zaman
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... pic&t=7522

[Dost]

Salim

He is the owner of his work and he should have rights to protect it.

Is'nt Aga Khan Allah?

Can Allah copy right his words?

BTW read Isnaili views here:
kalam-e-imam-e-zaman
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... pic&t=7522

My dear brothers "Muslim First" and other members of Prgressive Dowoodii Bohra Community:

I am an Ismaili follower of His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan. I would like to repond to the questions raised by "Muslim First". Please note that all the Ismailis through out the world recite Sura Al Ikhlas in their everyday obligatory prayers according to which Allah (SWT) is Unique. He does not beget, He is not begotten and ther is none like unto Him. Hopefully, this does answer your first question in view of which the second question does not arise.

I would also like to point out that the website that you have pointed to is owned by Nagib Tajdin who is one of the defendants named in this case. For a number of years he and his followers have been preaching, practicing and following their own brand of Ismailism. They have continuously disparaged Holy Quran, the Ismaili leadership and anybody who does not agree with their views. They have now userped our Imam's prerogative. This website promotes polemics and "Fitnah" rather than Islamic Unity and Brotherhood.

Accordingly I would encourage you to go to the following Ismaili Website to get a true understanding of What Ismailies are and what they stand for.

http://www.theismaili.org
http://www.akdn.org
http://www.iis.ac.uk

Please accept best wishes and fondest regards from your Ismaili Brother, Dost

[Muslim First]

Ismailis through out the world recite Sura Al Ikhlas in their everyday obligatory prayers according to which Allah (SWT) is Unique. He does not beget, He is not begotten and ther is none like unto Him.

Do they really understand it?

Web sites mentioned by 'Dost' are sanitized and you cannot get any sense from them about Ismailism.

Khoja Ismailis practicing their own brand of Ismailism?

Aga Khan should throw them out of Ismaili religion. Oh no. he won't.

Reason 10% 10% 10%

And why object to it. Aren't Ismailis practicing their own brand of Islam?

[porus]

Dost,

Welcome.

I would not be concerned too much about the views of Muslim First. He is not a Dawoodi Bohra. He has internaiized some facets of the Wahhabi point of view and is best considered a light-weight Wahhabi.

Muslim First has little understanding of Muslim history and no knowledge of the Shia in history, whether Ithna-ashari or Ismaili. We have attempted to educate him, but he will not learn. He can remain a Wahhabi, but if he continues to display intolerance for other madhaa'ib in Islam, he will open himself to the charge of being a neo-Salafist.

[salim]

Dost,

I follow Aga Khan too.

I would also like to point out that the website that you have pointed to is owned by Nagib Tajdin who is one of the defendants named in this case. For a number of years he and his followers have been preaching, practicing and following their own brand of Ismailism.

I have explained this to Muslim First many times in this past. But he does not understand. He has been posting things from Ismaili.net from long time. For me there is no difference between those Muslim First and those who go crazy on Ismaili.net. Sometimes I think Muslim First is worse, unlike his counter part (Ismaili.net) he believes more in force and compulsion.

This website promotes polemics and "Fitnah" rather than Islamic Unity and Brotherhood.

I do not agree with ismaili.net and like. They represent only 0.01% of ismailis or even less. While I understand your anger, your tone sounds to harsh towards those who do not agree with you. You should learn from Aga Khan, the value of pluralism. These guys were warned for 10 years and now Aga Khan is still going for just a law suit.

After this my respect for Aga Khan has increased even further. May Allah show them (ismaili.net) true path, and may Allah help us control our anger against those who do not agree with us. Remember, all of the human represent minority at one time or other. Minority rights should be protected, even though they are as negligible as 0.01%.

By no mean I am saying that ismaili.net did right thing in publishing someone else work. Aga Khan has all rights to protect his work. Ismaili.net has right to follow what they want. Again I do not agree in any part the believes of ismaili.net

[Dost]

My dear brother Porus,

Thank you for pointing out the Wahabi factor. I do not see any point in educating such people as they have their agenda clearly defined. Accordingly, I will not dignify his comments with any further responses.

Brother Salim, I would like to assure you that I bear no anger towards any one. Neither do I pray for people who ridicule the Holy Quran, whether they comprise of 0.01 percent or 99.9 percent of the population. I sincerely apologize if my tone appeared too harsh.

Mah Allah (SWT) bless you all

[reasoningforum]

I believe the motive here is money and that is why I have posted what I have posted. For any copyright infringement case filed anywhere around the world, the motive has always been money.

For anyone in his own community to make public what was offered by the Aga Khan in a private setting of his community is a remarkable demonstration of betrayed trust. Therefore, the copyright infringement reduces FUNDAMENTALLY to a question of "MORAL" rights of the Aga Khan, that is, is it acceptable for any individual, his follower or not, anywhere in the world, to surreptitiously tape his PRIVATE words knowing that it is against the will of the speaker to do so and then reproduce them without any REAL GUARANTEE that those words will not appear in print in some distorted form?

The Aga Khan as a man of international stature cannot allow anyone to hold him to ransom every time he speaks in the privacy of his community halls. Does he have to follow every single publication by whosoever sees it fit to publish his words to ensure that they have not deviated from his speech by commission or by omission?

And when there is such a discrepancy where does he go to seek redress except to bear it at his cost and well-being? Why would he have his role as a leader of a congregation compromised by the fear that what he speaks will be published without his oversight and cause him emotional, financial or even severe political fallout since his followers span all six continents? Does the Vatican allow such license? Does any church or any community anywhere tolerate such affronts?

The fact that the Imam had to take a couple of his followers, for trying to propagate his own word, to human courts tells me a lot about the Imam.

Exactly! It tells us that this is an Imam in the likeness of Hazrat Ali. Could not Ali the veritable Shield of Islam have taken his armor from the man who claimed it with one stroke of his sword? No. Instead he presented himself at the Court and made his request as a humble citizen. Why? Because the Imams are amongst us as exemplars of ethics and ethical action. The Aga Khan Prince Karim is an exemplar par excellence . By taking his own followers to Court instead of excommunicating them which he so easily could he is aware of their feelings that they have been devoted to him by propagating his words for the last 20 years. In fact even I was pleased with their fast and prompt relaying of the Imam's words to the public but now that I see that the Imam is not happy with this then I took a second look to see what it is that could backfire - and I have explained this above.

Today the world media is controlled by the enemies of Islam and they will do anything to hurt the cause of Islam. It needs someone with mal-intentions to do the same as these two Ismailis are doing but purposely twisting the Aga Khan's words so that when these words get into the media they could create havoc for the Ismailis in particular and for the Muslims in general. Therefore, the way I see it in hind sight, the most intelligent thing to do was to be patient with these two enthusiasts and since they still do not see the error of their ways then to stop them by a comparatively benign use of the law - and which is the copyright law which will not criminalize the Defendants if they apologize to the judge and promise to stop the abuse of the MORAL copyright. This is why I really and truly like this Imam as an exemplary man in his own right and as a human being sent to us to guide as on the sirat-ul mustaqeem.

I wish the rest of the Muslim world could look at this and see this lawsuit for what it is: that there is debate and dialog under the Ismaili Imam rather than dictation as there usually is in almost all religious organizations. That is not to say that there is no dictation from the leaders nominated by the Aga Khan but the beauty of his tariqa is that a person can be at odds with his nominated leadership and not be evicted from the faith without his personal approval - and as all can see in this case, it is rarely - if ever - given by him.

His spoken word isn't the last word even for the Imam himself. He needs to verify everything he says before he gives permission to publish it. More qualities resembling ordinary human beings and not an infallible Imam.

As I explained above the Imams are exemplars and they do what they do so as to set a precedence. For him to state that he needs to edit his words is a sign of humility but in actual fact it is more likely that the transcriber will make errors in transcribing or translators in translating because he deals with so many of his followers in different lands and languages.

It is one matter to speak publicly in a PUBLIC forum or give media interviews and which the Aga Khan has done so often, and with the full awareness of the nature of a public addresses, that is, the give-and-take in terms of publicity versus the risk of misquotation. It is another matter altogether where privacy and not publicity is the issue.

There are a couple more quotes I found highly stimulating and which I shall post separately so as to get to the quotes first and then be able to comment on those quotes.

[reasoningforum]

This is akin to the prophet suing the sahabas for distributing the quran amongst his followers and the rest of the world. What kind of a religion would we be following if our prophet were to do something like this?

Two things come to my mind:

1. I paraphrase here a hadith of the Prophet that comes to my mind (someone can help me trace its reference): Everything is not to be told to everybody.

Clearly therefore it is important to stop the transmission of private information from getting out of control to the point that eventually it can be catastrophic for a community at some place at some time on this planet. Private is private and public is public and the twain shall never meet!

2. Lest we forget, even the Great and Holy Prophet Mohammad (saws) was extremely diligent with the scribes to ensure that what they had written was absolutely perfect. Many a time he had instructed a scribe to change this or that word or correct a phrase he deemed incorrectly written.

[reasoningforum]

Is'nt Aga Khan Allah?
Can Allah copyright his words?

------------------

The Aga Khan is the 49th Imamim-Mubeen of the Nizari Ismailis just as Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib was the 1st Imamim-Mubeen ALSO of the Bohras (Muste-alian Ismailis) and the Ithna Ashris, the Druzes, the Seveners, etc.

The 1st question I pose to you: Was Hazrat Ali the man, Allah Himself? If not then what was his relationship viz-a-viz Allah and what were Ali's powers viz-a-viz Allah? Whatever you will answer is the answer I shall give back to you concerning the Aga Khan i.e. we believe in him being the direct inheritor of the mantle of the Imamat from Mawlana Nizar whereas the Bohras believe that the mantle went to his half brother Mawlana Muste Ali. The difference between our two belief systems is that whereas the Bohras do not have an Imamim-Mubeen of the Time, the Nizari Ismailis do!

Which fact leads to the 2nd question : Is it not in the faith of the Shia communities that the Imamim-Mubeen wil never disappear from the face of this earth because Allah has said, "We have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest Imam." _Qur'an 36:12. So of course the other Shia tariqas have come up with their theological apologetics but this cannot remove the logical implication that each of these Tariqas had taken a wrong fork in the road when it came to following this or that Imam other than the ones followed by the Nizaris.

Of course anyone can come up and say that "history" (the victorious write the history they prefer) shows that the Imam this and the Imam that was killed and did not leave an inheritor behind him so that the Nizari Ismailis are following an imposter.

It is said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have found that following the guidance of our Imamim-Mubeen has been highly satisfying so that we really and truly enjoy the fruit pudding that he has been serving up - and we crave for more and more of his beautiful speeches and private firamins. If you have not had a taste of this rich, nourishing, and nutritious pudding then I suggest you visit the Institute of Ismaili Studies website and read the Aga Khan's public speeches. I assure you that you will never leave the site except to return to it again and again!

As for his private firamins, they are a personal guide to the Nizari Ismailis to do this or that in order to obtain satisfaction in this world - and indeed, in the next. So, why should we share these pearls with the rest of the Muslim Ummah when they do not accept The Aga Khan as the vicegerent of Allah on earth?

IT IS BECAUSE OF OUR IMAM, AND NO OTHER REASON, THAT WE HAVE BECOME THE MOST PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY AMONG THE MUSLIMS OF THE WORLD SO MUCH SO THAT WE STAND TO CHALLENGE EVEN THE WESTERN WORLD'S COMMUNITIES IN TERMS OF OUR EDUCATED MEN AND WOMEN.

[Muslim First]

The Aga Khan Prince Karim is an exemplar par excellence .

Do you really mean it?

[reasoningforum]

Out of my 3 posts you could only find your own stupidity to display for the world to observe.

[Muslim First]

Out of my 3 posts you could only find your own stupidity to display for the world to observe.

This statement stands out, othrwise rest of post is generic. I have read it many times. Its waste of time to get in debate.

[anajmi]

reasoningforum,

Although I said I wouldn't be responding, I am reversing my stand. Let me take a shot at your post. My responses are in no particular order.

So, why should we share these pearls with the rest of the Muslim Ummah when they do not accept The Aga Khan as the vicegerent of Allah on earth?

This actually proves that Aga Khan is not the vicegerent of Allah on earth. The Prophet was not accepted by the meccans too in the beginning. But he shared the message of the Quran with everyone. He sent his emissaries to the 4 corners of the world inviting others to Islam. He didn't place the condition that you have to first accept him as the prophet and then he will share the Quran with you.

Exactly! It tells us that this is an Imam in the likeness of Hazrat Ali.

What this also tells you is that every individual or company that ever sued anyone else for copyright infringement, or for violating any other rights of that individual or company, in a court of law, is in the likeness of Hazrat Ali. There is nothing special about your Imam. The fact that he is dependent on a court of law which is not Islamic or Ismailic in nature tells me that you Imam trusts these courts more than he does his own power of Imamat.

By taking his own followers to Court instead of excommunicating them which he so easily could he is aware of their feelings that they have been devoted to him by propagating his words for the last 20 years.

Hmmm. So instead of resolving the matter within the community, he decides to humiliate his followers in public? Isn't that ironical?

but purposely twisting the Aga Khan's words

Can you give an example of how these people twisted Aga Khan's words? How he was misquoted? Obviously, when he filed the lawsuit, he must've submitted these as proof. Do you have any of this as evidence?

For him to state that he needs to edit his words is a sign of humility

This isn't a sign of humility, it is a sign of being human. An ordinary human. The one time when his words get out without him verifying it, he panics and sues his followers. If he was only displaying his humility by editing his words, then he shouldn't have been suing his followers as his words didn't actually need editing. Or does he makes mistakes on purpose too, to show his signs of "humility"?

The prophet has said, do not do in private that which you would be ashamed to do in public. The Aga Khan should know better than to say things in private that he doesn't want to be heard in public. If he is righteous and the vicegerent of Allah, the last thing he should be afraid of is political backlash because of things he says. He shouldn't be saying things which would embarass him or his community if brought out in the open. He shouldn't have a double standard. Or does he do all that to show us signs of his humility?

the beauty of his tariqa is that a person can be at odds with his nominated leadership and not be evicted from the faith without his personal approval

His personal approval doesn't seem to be working very well for him. Isn't that the reason he had to go to court in the first place? Or if we were to believe his followers, then he is simply displaying his signs of humility!!

I can keep going on and on but already do not like where this is going. I hope to end my participation with this post. But then again, you know me.

[porus]

I cannot help thinking that if Aga Khan had not resorted to courts, this matter would have quietly died within the Ismaili community without the outsiders knowing much about it.

Aga Khan clearly has a right to restrict his material from being put into the public domain without his permission. In this case, the perpetrators have clearly violated this right. This would appear to be all there is to it.

All the rest about whether his material amounts to divine commandments to be freely made available is extraneous to the issue. To be sure, there are instances where Prophets, as leaders of their community, may have wished to keep some of their counsel secret or share it with only a few trusted people. The most obvious example concerns guarding strategic secrets in times of war. Any divulgence of this material would have invited death penalty in periods when Imams ruled as sovereigns of states as during Fatemi Khilafat.

[reasoningforum]

Anajmi should read carefully and understand what he reads before uttering the utterly OUT OF CONTEXT rubbish. I have no time for that type of dialog where I am expected to repeat, repeat and REPEAT as if I am beholden to some befuddled brain for his goodwill by tackling his out of context nonsense. To add insult to injury he goes further and attaches assertions to me that I did not make. CLEARLY ENGLISH IS NOT HIS MEDIUM OF UNDERSTANDING and since it is English we are writing our opinions in, therefore I cannot understand his pidgin.

I cannot help thinking that if the Aga Khan had not resorted to courts this matter would have quietly died within the Ismaili community without the outsiders knowing much about it.

NOT SO! The people involved have been transgressing for the last 20 years and there was no other BENIGN METHOD of making them stop doing what they think is for the "good" of the community. They have become so entrenched in their belief that they are pursuing a "good thing" that they have lost the fundamental relationship that is supposed to exist between a murid and his Murshid i.e. a Murshid's request is like a command to a murid. These "murids" have become ludicrous in extolling their own selves viz-a-viz their Murshid by refusing to obey a simple request to stop making public what is private - NOT THAT IT WAS ANYTHING THAT IS UNSPEAKABLE BUT THE PRINCIPLE MUST BE MAINTAINED TO PREVENT ABUSE. (Are you listening and getting the gist, Anajmi?)

The Aga Khan clearly has a right to restrict his material from being put into the public domain without his permission. In this case, the perpetrators have clearly violated this right. This would appear to be all there is to it.

No! What is at stake here is the principle of disobedience. When the transgressors disobey and then confront the Imam they are thereby confronting the entire community of believers BY DEFAULT. In my considered opinion they deserve excommunication but the Imam is a lenient personage like a parent to a prodigal child. He wants them to understand through the Court system that they are on a very weak stand when it is a matter of MORAL copyrights. If this type of MORAL copyright did not exist then people would have no way of seeking injunction against hypocrites who could very easily distort in the name of service. The foolishness of these "murids" is demonstrated by their pride AND IT WAS PRIDE THAT BROUGHT THE GREAT ARCHANGEL AZAZIL LOW.

All the rest about whether his material amounts to divine commandments to be freely made available is extraneous to the issue.

Again you are not entirely correct in your thinking: The Imam is not a Prophet and therefore it is not a matter of any "divine commandments" emanating from his mouth as was the case with the Holy Prophet Mohammad (saws) where he was helpless to do anything about his physical state when the REVELATIONS used to come down upon him.

The Imam gives his wisdom to whom he will and it is not for a murid to dictate to him who shall be the beneficiaries of this wisdom. Again, as I have said it in my previous posts, it is a matter of avoiding future problems of possible misrepresentation of his speech by any disaffected elements in the community (as Anajmi is so clear an example of how people can misconstrue words.)

When I do not have the time to deal with purposeful misunderstanding in the guise of intellectualism then most certainly the Aga Khan does not have the time to get involved with future discontented followers publishing misquotes ad infinitum. (Again Anajmi should be paying keen attention to what I am stating instead of busying himself with his itching nose.)

[porus]

For Ismailies, this is clearly an issue of disobedience and, for them, it is morally wrong. However, whether a court of law can decide on morality of a case is something I would clearly like to wait and see.

If the material made public is verbatim record of Aga Khan's speeches and firmaans, then Aga Khan should have no 'moral' objection, but he certainly can claim that it is done without his permission and seek damages on those grounds.

If the material is misquoted, Aga Khan can put the records straight.

If Aga Khan has said something which is of interest to non-Ismailies, then the defendants can claim 'fair reporting', at least in the USA. If it is a commentary on his material then I would not think it objectionable unless it is clearly defamatory.

In the age of the internet, once material is published, there is no way of stopping its spread, especially through peer-to-peer networks where the source of material is often hard to trace.

By going to courts, Aga Khan has fueled interest in the issue and people will seek the material under contention. It will have the effect opposite to what Aga Khan desires.

[Fatwa Banker]

Aga Khan clearly has a right to restrict his material from being put into the public domain without his permission. In this case, the perpetrators have clearly violated this right. This would appear to be all there is to it.

it is not as simplistic if the Candadian Copyright laws are similar to that of the US. They will first have to establish that the material was not in the public domain to begin with (in a legal sense).

No! What is at stake here is the principle of disobedience. When the transgressors disobey and then confront the Imam they are thereby confronting the entire community of believers BY DEFAULT.

Disobedience is not a crime and cannot be litigated, unless you are in the military or living under a dictatorship.

[reasoningforum]

No! What is at stake here is the principle of disobedience. When the transgressors disobey and then confront the Imam they are thereby confronting the entire community of believers BY DEFAULT.

Disobedience is not a crime and cannot be litigated, unless you are in the military or living under a dictatorship.

Dear Fatwa: When I informed on the principle of obedience I was replying to the comment related to WHAT WAS THE ERROR OF THE FOLLOWERS IN PUBLISHING WHAT THEY DID. Most certainly the Aga Khan cannot litigate against disobedience as you so rightly state. So the question arises, "What should he do if he does not want to turn out of the community a score of his followers who have become too invested in their (undesirable) activities and tiffs with the community leadership (not with the Aga Khan himself whom they revere in their own peculiar way) so that it has also become a matter of 'face' for them?"

Litigate for MORAL copyright! I shall explain this legal principle of MORAL copyright in my next post below wherein I shall take up porus's post so as to explain what this term means in legal terms.

[reasoningforum]

Whether a court of law can decide on morality of a case is something I would clearly like to wait and see.

The matter that is for consideration for the Federal Court is the matter of MORAL COPYRIGHT which is different from the philosophical understanding of the term "moral rights". Thus, from Wikipedia:
------------------
Moral rights may mean several things:

Moral rights (copyright law) are a subset of the rights of creators of copyrighted works, including the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.

Moral rights, also called Natural rights or Inalienable rights, are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.

Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany, before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928. Canada recognizes moral rights in its Copyright Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_righ ... ght_law%29

In Canada, Art. 18, Copyright Act, 2005 provides perpetual moral rights. The moral rights in Art. 6 are for proper attribution and against any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work where that act would be or is prejudicial to the reputation of the author or where the work is discredited by the act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_righ ... _in_Canada

-----------------------

If the material is misquoted the Aga Khan can put the records straight.

OH REALLY! As I have repeatedly pointed out on this Forum that that is NOT AN OPTION for intelligent management of one's intellectual output! For God's sake, who has the time, the finance, the emotional strength, the legal clout on an international scale, AND THE POLITICAL FALLOUT TO CONTEND WITH should something be misquoted? Even you have stated further down in your own post that it is impossible to bring back the horse once it has bolted into the irreversible internet! SO PLEASE DO NOT THINK IN A CONTRADICTORY MANNER I.E. SAY IT THIS WAY HERE AND THEN SAY IT THAT WAY SOMEWHERE ELSE. All you have to do is to write a SIMPLISTIC single line but I have to write many paragraphs to reverse your illogic - and it gets tiring to do so continually. THAT IS THE REASON WHY I REFUSED TO DEAL WITH ANJAMI'S MEANINGLESS NONSENSE!

If the Aga Khan has said something which is of interest to non-Ismailies, then the defendants can claim 'fair reporting', at least in the USA. If it is a commentary on his material then I would not think it objectionable unless it is clearly defamatory.

All this is irrelevant because the MATTER is one of CONTROL of one's PRIVATE intellectual output via the MORAL COPYRIGHT - simple and succinct. For more understanding on the matter please refer to my post on the matter of PRIVATE VS PUBLIC STATEMENTS. [Also your logic is faulty about commenting because one cannot make a commentary without having access to the original words.]

In the age of the internet, once material is published, there is no way of stopping its spread, especially through peer-to-peer networks where the source of material is often hard to trace.

Precisely! Therefore why should the Aga Khan risk being misquoted just because some persistent do-gooders want to keep on doing things without a thought for the greater environment then their own backyard?

By going to the courts, the Aga Khan has fueled interest in the issue and people will seek the material under contention. It will have the effect opposite to what the Aga Khan desires.

There is nothing wrong with the material - in fact I should myself like to have a copy of these beautiful firamins of our Mawlana Hazar Imam because I used to have to laboriously copy them by hand in our Seattle Jamaatkhaana since the leaders there were so incredibly dogmatic that they would not even let me have a photocopy of the approved firamins. SO, I TOO WANT A COPY OF THIS BOOK BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF CIRCULATION - HELP! SOMEONE GET ME A COPY, QUICK!

The Aga Khan really does not desire to keep these firamins secret (I was using hyperbole in a certain statement I made in my previous posts to highlight the idea of the Aga Khan's moral rights in the circulation of his private pronouncements) but he is pursuing a simple matter of control. But these fools are too far gone in their activities to understand that there can be terrible repercussions if any and all Ismailis were to start to smuggle in tape-recorders and then hoohah their "treasure troves" to the world by indiscriminate publishing from home and propagating through the internet. YOU CAN APPRECIATE THAT THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE IN ANY MANNER FOR A COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS RECEIVING THEIR SPIRITUAL MASTER IN A PRIVATE AUDIENCE.

[porus]

reasoningforum,

Thank you for your detailed response. It shows you care a lot about positive discussion.

I was certainly not aware of the concept or law about 'Moral Copyright'. Thank you for the education. I will follow with interest the issue as it develops in the courts.

[Fatwa Banker]

Good point reasoningforum. Though Moral Rights does not cover text in the US, I trust that you have done your research regarding enforcement in Canada. Will be an interesting case to follow.....

[Al Zulfiqar]

By going to courts, Aga Khan has fueled interest in the issue and people will seek the material under contention. It will have the effect opposite to what Aga Khan desires.

on the contrary, i believe that the agha khan's respect as a modern, enlightened and reasonable religious leader will actually go up, esp. in the western world, where tolerance, human rights and intelligent debate are encouraged.

consider the possibilities if it was any other religious sect or community. any dissent or disobedience would have led to extreme persecution, vilification in the press and society, excommunication, dire threats of physical and psychological harm and even death. we bohras should be well aware of this. by resorting to 'civil' (double entendre' intended) litigation, the agha khan has reinforced the view that he is a beacon of moderation, reasonableness and lberalism in islam.

those die-hard purists who leave no opportunity to hurl invective and ridicule on the agha khan and his followers should consider this: what if a similar scenario unfurled among say the iranian shias, or the muslims of saudi or pakistan or bangladesh? those who dissented against the ayatollah's or taleban type sheikhs & mullahs would be by now burned, mutilated or beheaded and their corpses subjected to all types of indignities.

whereas look at the quiet and dignified way the ismailies and their leader have gone about tackling the issues. need more be said?