Note: Legislating for cyberspace may be challenging, but implementing these laws is, if not more difficult, certainly not easier. The enforcement of laws related to cyberspace requires not only the necessary technical expertise but also consideration of the social and cultural dimensions of the law. At times, practical considerations in implementing a law may influence the law itself, leading to its revision. We discussed the various dimensions of enforcing laws in cyberspace with Dr. Abedin Momeni, a faculty member at the University of Tehran. The professor in the Department of Jurisprudence and Legal Foundations at the University of Tehran believes that no exceptions should be made in the enforcement of laws, and violating laws is illegitimate for everyone, including officials. He cited the presence of officials on filtered platforms as an example, which he considers incorrect. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence‘s exclusive interview with this seasoned professor and researcher of jurisprudence follows:

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

Momeni: Jurisprudence deals with the actions of those bound by religious obligations, meaning its subject is the actions of individuals, and jurisprudence must determine the rulings for these actions. Therefore, whether these actions occur in the physical world or in cyberspace makes no difference in the matter. Whether a person performs an act in the real world or in the automated, machine-driven world that we call “virtual,” it does not alter the issue.

The term “virtual” itself is a kind of coined expression used in place of “machine-driven” or “automated.” In reality, activities in cyberspace are carried out by real human beings, and the term “virtual” does not accurately apply to it.

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

Momeni: In my opinion, laws must be accepted absolutely. Imposing conditions and qualifications on the obligation to follow laws is, in essence, a rejection of the rule of law and a form of circumventing the law, similar to what is done through legal stratagems (hiyal shar’iyya) in cases like usury. In usurious loans, for instance, some sell an item, such as a box of matches, at an exorbitant price to the other party to legitimize profiting from them. Just as legal stratagems essentially circumvent God’s ruling and undermine it, refusing to adhere to laws absolutely and unconditionally also leads to lawlessness and circumvention of the law in practice.

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

Momeni: I believe that in matters of governance, the directives of the Supreme Leader (wali-e faqih) are binding. If, in matters with social and governmental implications, everyone were to act according to the fatwa of their own jurist, the country would face chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, to prevent lawlessness and maintain social order, it is necessary for everyone to act in accordance with the fatwa of one person, namely the Supreme Leader. However, in individual and personal matters where there is no need for uniformity among Muslims or citizens, there is naturally no obligation to follow the opinion of a single person, and each individual can act according to the fatwa of their own jurist, as has been the case thus far.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a jurisprudential perspective, what is the ruling on law enforcers and state officials failing to comply with cyberspace laws, such as using filtered platforms?

Momeni: When a social media platform is legally filtered and the government prohibits its use, naturally, no one should access it, and there is no distinction between government officials and other citizens in this regard. I believe not only is this act impermissible, but the judiciary should also be vigilant about it and deal with violators decisively and without hesitation through legal measures.

On the other hand, it is necessary to exercise due care and wisdom regarding filtering. Whether it is truly necessary to filter a particular social media platform, and whether filtering it would be effective or, conversely, lead to greater insecurity through the use of VPNs, is a matter that the government and parliament must carefully consider.

Here, it is important to note that even if the government has mistakenly filtered a platform, the error does not justify defying the law or accessing that platform. A flawed law is still a law, and if individuals were to determine the correctness or incorrectness of laws based on their own judgment and act accordingly, it would lead to chaos. Therefore, when I say that the government and parliament must carefully assess the correctness or incorrectness of filtering a platform, it does not mean that if someone believes the filtering is incorrect, they are permitted to defy the law and access that platform.