Note: Implementing laws, if not more challenging and precise than enacting them, is certainly no less so. When addressing a critical, widespread, and sensitive issue like cyberspace, these challenges and sensitivities intensify. Does the implementation of laws in cyberspace require specific considerations? Has jurisprudential knowledge provided specific insights regarding the method of law implementation? Dr. Mohammad Hossein Zarifian’s response to both questions is affirmative. Having studied in Islamic seminaries and earned a Ph.D. in Media Management, with a background as the head of the Center for Islamic Media Research, he considers certain jurisprudential and legal principles, such as those related to resolving conflicts of duties, applicable to the implementation of laws. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence‘s exclusive interview with the assistant professor at the Farabi Campus of the University of Tehran follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Are there jurisprudential considerations for the implementation of laws related to cyberspace?

Zarifian: One instance where jurisprudential considerations arise in the implementation of a law is when it conflicts with another law or religious ruling during execution. For example, we had a law prohibiting the use of satellite reception equipment, and due to a uniform approach, similar issues arise in cyberspace. Suppose this law, in practice, conflicts with other laws, such as those related to citizens’ rights, and you find this conflict inefficient. In such cases, the issue must be carefully examined. For instance, if the sole basis for this law is the prohibition of ostentatious sinful acts—such as satellite equipment displayed on rooftops, walls, or balconies, which is deemed forbidden—changing the storage method, concealing the equipment, or using devices inside homes without external visibility (e.g., accessing satellite channels via the internet) may alter the ruling. Not to mention that Starlink equipment has disrupted these dynamics entirely.

Principles related to resolving conflicts of duties (bab tazahom) are also among the factors that introduce jurisprudential considerations in law implementation. For example, in the case of filtering, one key principle is prioritizing the more important over the important (taqdim ahemm bar mohemm), though some individuals may differ on what constitutes the more important or the important.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given fatwas that impose conditions on adhering to governmental laws and do not deem them absolutely obligatory, can we hope for cyberspace to become law-abiding?

Zarifian: To prevent a follower of a jurist who imposes conditions on adhering to governmental laws from facing issues, it seems that the legislator, when enacting laws, should adopt a comprehensive approach and, as far as possible, consider the conditions set by other jurists. However, in cases of conflict, the ruling of the Islamic ruler takes precedence. It should also be noted that with the presence of the esteemed Guardian Council, comprising prominent jurists who have the final say in reviewing and approving parliamentary legislation, such conflicts are naturally rare and resolvable.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a jurisprudential perspective, if a law enforcer considers a law contrary to Sharia or the fatwa of their chosen jurist, can they refuse to enforce it?

Zarifian: For several reasons, they cannot refuse to enforce the law: First, such refusal would clearly lead to chaos, and a fatwa that causes chaos is unacceptable. Second, one of the jurisprudential principles is the rule of obligation (qa’idat al-ilzam): by choosing to live in a society, we are inherently bound to its laws and must comply with them. Third, in the context of ijtihad and taqlid, it is possible to argue that following the most learned jurist is not always necessary. In cases of conflict between a fatwa and a law, since the law is based on a fatwa, an individual can follow the law. It is worth reiterating the role of the esteemed Guardian Council and the presence of distinguished jurists within it.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a jurisprudential perspective, what is the ruling on law enforcers or state officials violating cyberspace laws, such as using VPNs to access filtered platforms?

Zarifian: If a law is general and applies to everyone, including officials, violating it is not permissible. However, a general law may initially appear to include officials or, more broadly, society’s elites, but that law may have specific exemptions. Anyone falling under those exemptions is not required to adhere to the general law.

Regarding filtered platforms, if officials are exempted from the prohibition of use based on the legislator’s opinion or any other reason, such use is permissible, akin to prioritizing the more important over the important (taqdim ahemm bar mohemm). For example, conveying truths on platforms dominated by false and degenerate ideas—platforms that have become hubs for spreading falsehood and leading people astray from the path of God—requires the voice of truth and its proponents to be heard. Alternatively, it may involve prioritizing a ruling without an alternative over one with an alternative. This applies to platforms like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Telegram, for which we have not yet developed effective alternatives and which have significant global influence. Of course, this assumes that the legislator has genuinely considered public interests and harms, without personal interests, and that the actor claiming the exemption has the necessary competence and capability for impactful actions in that space.