Dare I ask, what ssh thing?

Side Note: It was already believed that SSH encryption was broken by state actors since the first NSA leaks. So, people should at least always use it over another encrypted channel anyway.

Freedom in the west is a goal in and of itself that acts as a moral compass when judging tools and products. Islam values freedom, but it is not a end goal, nor is it a moral precept to base your ethics on.

This is the kind of hubris that started in the Ta’weel era (a good equivalent English word escapes me. In Arabic: “عصر التأويل”) after the rashidun period and the Tanzeel era, and accumulated in the full abandonment/replacement era (“عصر التبديل”).

The whole point of true monotheism is to be only subject to Allah and no one else. No kings. No clergy (itself an anti-islamic concept). No “intellectuals”…etc. In other words, “freedom” is at the core of Islamic creed, it’s not even something to be discussed at the jurisprudence level.

The whole point of finality of religion including sharia, is that no one can add/append to it. This relates to additional restrictions even more than additional allowances (read about the limits of restricting what’s allowed if you wish “تقييد المباح”, although that’s a luxury subject nowadays since there are no legitimate states or heads of states around).

The rest of your comment is also full of the same hubris and incoherence common in the two downfall eras, especially the abandonment/replacement one (still ongoing). The maqsidi approach immediately gives that away (the modern abandonment/replacement take, which al-Shatibi is not responsible for).

• Everything is “default-allowed” unless otherwise proven (A basic rule in jurisprudence/fiqh. In arabic: “الأصل في الأشياء الإباحة”).
• Current open-source software licenses (including the copyleft subset) are a part of enforceable legal frameworks. They are not self-enforced moral/ethical directives. None of the current popular licenses were born in an environment where sharia law is ruling, or even known. In fact, none of them were written for anything but the current capitalist world order.
• There is no legitimate “Dar Hijra” around, with real independence and a proper Shura system and with real sharia enforced (an Islamic state is named after the ability for anyone to migrate to, and become a part of, it (“hijra”), because that’s a strict first requirement 😉). Most states with majority Muslim (or supposed Muslim) populations are fake colonial constructs with client feudalistic regimes.
• All good “scholars” are either dead, in prison, in exile, or keeping a low profile. Most scholars you know, if not all, are the ones the prophet had in mind when he said: “Most hypocrites in my Umma are its scholars”, and that’s a literal quote (Arabic: “أكثر منافقي أمتي قراؤها”). In modernity, this generic reality became clear beyond Muslim societies (Check out “The Treason Of The Intellectuals”/“La Trahison des clercs”).
• For when a real “Dar Hijra” emerges, and this needs much much more study and elaboration, but as a starting point, the differentiation between the knowledge, and the application of knowledge in software is important. Free access to the former must be protected (“legally”), as is access to all knowledge. When it comes to the application/implementation, it’s more complicated!
• Attribution is also important and well-protected under Sharia law. So there should be no problem there. It would actually be more respectful of actual pioneers, unlike the current patent system(s), where patents get sold around and are mostly owned by big companies and trolls.

great source

Removed by mod