Note: Policymaking for cyberspace is one of the significant challenges facing our country, as well as many other countries worldwide. Given Iran’s Islamic identity and reliance on the science of fiqh, it is necessary to structure policymaking in a way that aligns or is compatible with jurisprudential rulings. We discussed this topic with Dr. Sadegh Qadimi, who holds a PhD in Fiqh and the Foundations of Islamic Law and is a professor at the Women’s Seminary, with a keen interest in policymaking and cyberspace. His familiarity with both fiqh and the various dimensions of cyberspace policymaking has resulted in an engaging and insightful conversation.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What does policymaking for cyberspace entail, and what are its requirements and dimensions?

Qadimi: Policymaking for cyberspace refers to the set of decisions, laws, and strategies adopted by the government, public institutions, and other organizations to manage, regulate, and oversee activities and content in cyberspace. This policymaking has several requirements and dimensions, which I will briefly outline:

• Protecting users’ rights;
• Ensuring equal access or justice in terms of facilities and infrastructure;
• Regulating content;
• Promoting education and development;
• Encouraging innovation, creativity, education, and awareness-raising.

Each of these has various components. For instance, protecting users’ rights includes issues such as privacy, data security, and freedom of expression. Ensuring equal access involves providing equitable infrastructure to reduce class disparities in this regard. Content regulation involves preventing or countering the dissemination of false, inappropriate, or harmful information, while, on the positive side, it entails supporting creative, cultural, and appropriate content. Promoting development, innovation, and creativity includes supporting startups and digital businesses, fostering education in this field, and encouraging the development of new technologies.

The dimensions of cyberspace policymaking are multifaceted, including legal, economic, social, security, and international dimensions.

Each dimension has its own components. For example, the legal dimension involves drafting laws and regulations related to data privacy protection, copyright, and similar issues. The economic dimension addresses matters such as supporting digital businesses and emerging technologies. The social dimension deals with the impact of policies on users’ social and cultural behavior in cyberspace or the role of cyberspace in cultural and social transformations. The security dimension, which often influences policymaking, includes measures to protect information technology infrastructure, prevent cyberattacks, and foster international cooperation to address cyber threats. The international dimension encompasses standards and international agreements on cyberspace and collaboration with other countries to manage global challenges, such as cyberattacks.

In general, policymaking for cyberspace is a multidimensional process that requires cooperation among governments, the private sector, and society. Therefore, enacted laws must be flexible and adaptable to both current and desired conditions.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the requirements and indicators of success in cyberspace policymaking?

Qadimi: First, regarding the requirements, I will mention a few key points:

a. Education and Awareness-Raising: For example, providing educational programs to enhance users’ awareness of their rights and responsibilities in cyberspace, which is truly a missing link in our society and has been overlooked, or improving technical and digital skills across various societal groups.

b. Participation and Consultation with all stakeholders involved in this domain.

c. Transparency and Accountability: For instance, transparency in processes. One of the major issues our society faces is precisely this lack of transparency. The result is, firstly, that policies lack transparency, and secondly, that policy communication is neither clear nor explicit. This often leads to negative feedback.

Alongside transparency, there is the issue of accountability mechanisms, meaning systems designed to address violations and infringements of users’ rights. This aspect is completely neglected, as users’ rights are often violated, yet there are no mechanisms, whether at the individual, social, or national level, to address such violations.

d. Infrastructure Development: For example, developing national internet infrastructure. Discussions about infrastructure development, such as the national internet or similar initiatives, are critical. Neglecting infrastructure development results in our lack of dominance in a space where cyberspace is an undeniable reality, leaving us passive and, in many cases, under external control. Protecting data and providing appropriate infrastructure for fast and secure internet access are among its components.

e. Balancing Rights and Responsibilities, which requires no further explanation.

As for the indicators of success in cyberspace policymaking, the following can be noted:

• Enhancing the quality of laws and regulations;
• Accessibility;
• Innovation and development;
• Responsiveness to challenges;
• Monitoring, evaluation, interaction, and participation.

These are the indicators by which the success or failure of policymaking in the cyberspace domain can be assessed.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the science of fiqh inherently possess the tools and capacity to regulate policies, or is its influence limited to the legal and legislative sphere?

Qadimi: Yes, the science of fiqh, as a systematic and principled intellectual framework, can effectively contribute to regulating policies and decision-making in cyberspace. It has capabilities that enable it to play an active role in this field. One of these capabilities is its principles and foundations, such as justice, fairness, respect for others’ rights, and preserving human dignity.

Moreover, as a dynamic science capable of addressing society’s contemporary needs, fiqh can respond to new issues and propose appropriate policies. However, this requires that fiqh be assumed to be active in policymaking and placed in an active, rather than passive, role. Unfortunately, in existing laws and policymaking, fiqh often plays the role of an observer rather than an active participant, which prevents the full utilization of its potential.

Another tool for policymaking is dynamic, active, and comprehensive jurisprudential ijtihad, which is not limited to specific issues or existing fiqh. Due to its dynamic, logical, reasoned, methodical, and scholarly nature, it can engage in any domain, apply ijtihad, and be utilized. Regrettably, this too has been overlooked.

Jurisprudential rules can also be highly beneficial in this regard, including the rule of lā ḍarar (no harm), the rule of preserving the system (ḥifẓ al-niẓām), the rule of negating domination (nafī sabīl), and the rule of justice and fairness (‘adl wa inṣāf).

The influence of fiqh in the legal and legislative sphere manifests in various forms, such as drafting laws, regulating systems, and structuring social relationships.

In conclusion, fiqh can not only be effective in the legal and legislative sphere but also possesses the tools and capabilities necessary for policymaking. With its principles and rules, it can serve as a rich resource for policymaking, improve the quality of life, and lay the foundation for a virtuous life (ḥayāt tayyiba).

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is policymaking inherently a single-discipline process, or does it necessarily require the participation of multiple disciplines? If so, what is the role of fiqh in cyberspace policymaking?

Qadimi: As I mentioned, policymaking refers to the process of designing, drafting, and implementing decisions and strategies to address social, economic, and political issues in cyberspace. This process typically involves data analysis, evaluations, and predicting outcomes.

Based on this definition, it is clear that policymaking is a multidisciplinary process, and no single discipline can manage or complete it alone. Some of the disciplines and specialties utilized in this regard include psychology, information technology, law, economics, sociology, anthropology, management, and similar fields. This diversity of disciplines helps policymakers make more comprehensive decisions, address various societal needs, and prevent unintended or undesirable consequences.

However, the central part of the question concerns the role of fiqh in cyberspace policymaking. In my view, fiqh can play a significant role in providing foundations for analyzing new issues, drafting laws and regulations, and participating in policy-related decision-making.

In other words, fiqh can have an active presence in various domains of cyberspace policymaking, including groundwork, development, management, and guidance of activities. It can ensure that future activities are founded on sound religious principles and can correct, guide, confirm, or encourage existing policies and activities.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a jurisprudential perspective, what policies are recommended for cyberspace governance?

Qadimi: Naturally, fiqh offers prescriptions and recommendations for cyberspace governance and is not devoid of such guidance. These include:

• The necessity of protecting data security and privacy;
• The necessity of content regulation;
• The necessity of ensuring users’ rights;
• The necessity of enhancing education and awareness;
• The necessity of developing infrastructure and technologies;
• The necessity of supporting innovation and entrepreneurship;
• The necessity of addressing the international dimensions of the issue.

These can be considered the main prescriptions of fiqh for cyberspace governance. The components of each were mentioned in the earlier discussion.

In general, policymaking and governance in cyberspace based on jurisprudential principles and rules can contribute to creating a healthy, secure, and just environment. The flexibility and adaptability to new conditions are additional advantages of fiqh’s contribution to policymaking for cyberspace governance.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the challenges and potential harms of fiqh’s involvement in cyberspace policymaking, and how can these be addressed?

Qadimi: Naturally, active involvement in policymaking is not without challenges. However, some of these are genuine challenges, while others are merely perceived or fabricated. I may not personally agree with some of these challenges, but for the sake of discussion, I will mention them.

One challenge is the perceived conflict with individual freedoms. Some believe that certain jurisprudential rulings may conflict with individual freedoms, though I believe this is not a genuine challenge but rather a form of challenge fabrication.

Another challenge is the issue of jurisprudential disagreements and differing interpretations or opinions on a single issue, which may lead to confusion regarding objectives and policy consistency. This is somewhat valid but has solutions.

Another challenge is the perceived lack of adaptability to rapid technological changes. Some argue that fiqh lacks the necessary speed to keep pace with technological advancements, making it potentially harmful.

Another challenge is the perceived restriction on innovation and creativity, with the claim that fiqh imposes limitations on technological and digital business innovation. This challenge is also worth considering.

The proposed solution to these challenges is the development of dynamic ijtihad, not an ijtihad that conflicts with individual freedoms. Dynamic fiqh, due to its adaptability, can keep pace with technological changes. It has no issue with reasonable and legitimate innovation and creativity and imposes no restrictions on them.

Regarding jurisprudential disagreements, scholars have proposed various solutions, one of which is the concept of wilāyat al-faqīh (guardianship of the jurist).

Another issue that must be addressed is that, unlike recent centuries, fiqh must be proactive rather than reactive. This shift requires significant effort, serious reconsideration, and reforms in jurisprudential thinking. Otherwise, current fiqh and jurisprudential thought cannot lead, pioneer, or manage transformations in cyberspace at national and international levels.