Note: It could perhaps be said that “virtual space” falls into the category of being deceptively simple yet complex; at first glance, it appears clear and obvious, but upon reflection, it becomes evident that it has many ambiguous dimensions. Regarding the precise meaning of “jurisprudence of virtual space,” Dr. Mohadeseh Moeinifar believes that the meaning of “jurisprudence of virtual space” is entirely distinct from “jurisprudence of cyberspace.” A faculty member at Imam Khomeini International University in Qazvin, who has conducted numerous studies and research on the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of virtual space, in an exclusive interview with Contemporary Jurisprudence, elaborated on the foundations, presuppositions, jurisprudential rules, and differences between the jurisprudence of virtual space and similar chapters.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space, and What Topics Does It Address?

Moeinifar: To clarify the concept of the jurisprudence of virtual space, it is necessary first to consider the meaning of jurisprudence and then the meaning of virtual space. Jurisprudence is a triliteral root verb meaning to discern the apparent meaning and to understand the hidden and inner meaning from the apparent knowledge. Thus, jurisprudence is more specific than the term “knowledge.” In early Islam and in the language of Quranic verses and narrations, jurisprudence and its derivatives were used to mean understanding or insight into religion. Gradually, the term jurisprudence and its derivatives diverged from their general meaning and came to be applied to a part of religious teachings—namely, the knowledge of practical rulings—and the term “jurist” was used for someone who, through ijtihad (independent reasoning), is knowledgeable about secondary religious rulings. Hence, today, when the science of jurisprudence is mentioned, it refers to the knowledge of religious rulings derived from their specific sources and evidence. The term “jurisprudence” in the phrase “jurisprudence of virtual space” also refers to this technical meaning.

Regarding virtual space, there are several common terms, such as cyberspace, which differs significantly from virtual space. In cyberspace, the interaction is “through a system and between two or more users,” whereas in virtual space, the interaction is “with the system.” In other words, in cyberspace, user-to-user interaction is the criterion, but in virtual space, the interaction refers to the user’s interaction with the system. Therefore, the jurisprudence of virtual space refers to the knowledge of secondary religious rulings—encompassing both obligatory and situational rulings—concerning the individual’s interaction with the system or their behavior in virtual space, and user-to-user interaction is not considered here.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the “Jurisprudence of Virtual Space” an Independent Jurisprudential Chapter, or Is It a Collection of Several Chapters or Some Issues from Several Emerging Jurisprudential Chapters?

Moeinifar: This question can be answered from two perspectives:

A. Regarding Views on Jurisprudence

First case: If jurisprudence is considered limited to traditional jurisprudence and its usual topics, naturally, no independent chapter can be considered for the jurisprudence of virtual space or other emerging issues, and these topics must be subsumed under previous discussions. In this case, each issue of virtual space jurisprudence must be placed under one of the traditional jurisprudential chapters. For example, transactions in virtual space should be discussed under the chapter of transactions.

Second case: If jurisprudence is not considered limited to traditional jurisprudence and we accept the expansion of jurisprudential chapters, the jurisprudence of virtual space can be considered an independent chapter, and all its topics can be addressed within this chapter.

B. Regarding Views on Virtual Space

First case: If virtual space is considered a space independent of the ordinary space of human life, its issues, for this reason, do not fit within the scope of traditional jurisprudence.

Second case: If virtual space is considered an extension of the ordinary space of human life, then most of its issues will not differ significantly from those in the ordinary space of human life, and consequently, its independence in addressing topics will be negated.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What Is the Difference Between the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space and Similar Jurisprudential Chapters Such as “Jurisprudence of Media,” “Jurisprudence of Art,” and “Jurisprudence of Computer Games”? Are There Issues in the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space That Completely Overlap with These Other Chapters? If So, Under Which of These Jurisprudential Chapters Do These Issues Fall?

Moeinifar: Regarding virtual space, the reality is that many of its issues have existed previously in different or weaker forms; thus, it can have many overlaps with other chapters. The relationship between the jurisprudence of virtual space and the chapters mentioned as examples varies in each case. For instance, the relationship between the issues of the jurisprudence of virtual space and the jurisprudence of media is one of general and specific correlation; some issues of media jurisprudence are unrelated to virtual space jurisprudence, such as issues concerning mass media, while some issues of virtual space jurisprudence do not pertain to media jurisprudence, such as transactions in virtual space or certain vices specific to virtual space.

Regarding the jurisprudence of art, it seems there is no relationship between its issues and those of virtual space jurisprudence, unless we expand the subject of art jurisprudence to include the creation of clips, podcasts, and similar items. In that case, some common ground might be found, and the relationship between the two could be considered one of general and specific correlation.

Regarding the relationship between the jurisprudence of computer games and the jurisprudence of virtual space, a general and specific correlation can also be assumed; some issues are common to both, but there are differences in others, such as the ruling on games for children or adults, which has no place in virtual space jurisprudence.

Ultimately, it seems that an independent identity should be considered for each of the mentioned chapters, and if there are common issues, they should be placed in their appropriate position based on their proximity to each of the aforementioned chapters.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What Are the Main Topics and Most Important Issues of the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space?

Moeinifar: The most important topics and issues of the jurisprudence of virtual space can be identified as follows:

• The concept of virtual space and the identification of its dimensions;
• The difference between virtual space and cyberspace;
• Identification of instances of virtual space;
• Rulings on transactions in virtual space:
  1. Buying and selling channels on messaging platforms;
  2. Rulings on various methods of increasing followers (e.g., buying, selling, exchanging, etc.) and receiving payment for them;
  3. Rulings on creating websites, platforms, or channels with misleading content and their buying and selling;
  4. Rulings on buying and selling cryptocurrencies;
  5. Rulings on advertising in virtual space;
  6. Rulings on ownership of channels and groups on platforms or websites;
  7. Conditions of religious contracts in virtual space;
• Rulings on family matters in virtual space:
  1. Rulings on interactions with non-mahram individuals in virtual space;
  2. Rulings concerning parent-child relationships in virtual space;
  3. Rulings concerning privacy;
  4. Rulings on spending time in virtual space;
• Rulings on criminal matters and moral vices in virtual space:
  1. Rulings on hudud crimes in virtual space, such as defamation and similar cases;
  2. Rulings on non-hudud crimes in virtual space, such as nudity, dissemination of misleading content, etc.;
  3. Rulings on certain moral vices and sins in virtual space, such as backbiting, slander, etc.;
• Jurisprudential rules governing virtual space:
  1. The rule of negation of domination (nafy sabil);
  2. The rule of no harm (la dharar);
  3. The rule of waste (itlaf);
  4. The rule of causation (tasbib);
  5. The rule of dominion (taslit);
  6. The rule of liability for possession (dhaman yad);
  7. The rule of obligation to avert probable harm;
  8. The rule that “the forbidden does not make the permissible forbidden”;
  9. The rule of “unlawful acquisition of property”;
  10. The rule of permission (idhn);
  11. The rule that “what is forbidden by Sharia is like what is impossible by reason.”

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What Are the Most Important Presuppositions and Foundations of the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space?

Moeinifar: Regarding the meaning of foundations in jurisprudence, various perspectives can be expressed. Foundations can be considered as the evidence for a ruling, and for example, when discussing each jurisprudential rule to establish its validity, foundations or evidence from the Quran and Sunnah can be cited. Additionally, foundations can be understood as the general rules and principles governing a jurisprudential domain. Based on the latter perspective, regarding the foundations of virtual space jurisprudence, several important rules and principles should be noted:

• Rules and principles related to ownership;
• Rules and principles related to unlawful acquisition of property;
• Rules and principles related to preserving honor and privacy;
• Rules and principles related to preserving the system in its fourfold meanings;
• Rules and principles related to security in virtual space.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the Jurisprudence of Virtual Space Have Specific Jurisprudential Rules? If So, What Are They?

Moeinifar: Specific jurisprudential rules for virtual space cannot be easily identified; however, a set of rules applicable to this domain can be mentioned, such as the rule of negation of domination (nafy sabil), the rule of no harm (la dharar), the rule of waste (itlaf), the rule of causation (tasbib), the rule of dominion (taslit), the rule of liability for possession (dhaman yad), the rule of obligation to avert probable harm, the rule that “the forbidden does not make the permissible forbidden,” the rule of “unlawful acquisition of property,” the rule of permission (idhn), the rule that “what is forbidden by Sharia is like what is impossible by reason,” and so forth.