The scientific seminar “Jurisprudential-Legal Analysis of Access to Foreign Platforms via Domestic Interfaces” was held on 30 April 2024, with presentations by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Reza Mahmoudi and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ali Nahavandi, and scientific moderation by Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Movahhed at the Jurisprudential Center of the Imams of Athar (peace be upon them) in Qom. In this seminar, which focused on the 96th session resolution of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, various jurisprudential-legal aspects of this resolution were examined and elucidated.

Initially, Hujjat al-Islam Mahmoudi, while reading the resolution in question, identified the point of discussion as Clause 4 of the 96th Resolution of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace and stated: The existence of certain ambiguities in the text of the resolution hinders the achievement of the resolution’s objectives. Phrases such as potentially and actually high-usage services and platforms, governability indicators, and useful foreign services are among these phrases that provide grounds for the broad inclusion of the resolution over many activities.

A faculty member of Shahid Mahallati University described the use of domestic Interfaces in foreign software as contradictory to certain principles of the Constitution, including Principles 3, 10, 11, 25, and 43, and considered this action as paving the way for the formation of colonialism.

He identified the possibility of colonialism in cultural, economic, political, and informational domains and stated: Even assuming the governability of foreign social networks, the minimum colonialism that emerges will be informational colonialism, which is by no means negligible or overlookable. Therefore, the relevant and responsible authorities in this field must take necessary actions to address these flaws.

Subsequently, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Ali Nahavandi presented his considerations and points regarding Clause 4 of this resolution in several axes:

A) Points related to the overall framework of the resolution document:

1. Lack of connection with other resolutions approved by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution
2. The document is content-oriented and must undergo a rigorous process from theoretical frameworks to providing solutions. Principles and foundations have no connection with theoretical and contextual frameworks.

B) Points related to the content of the resolution document:

1. Incorrect issue identification: It appears that appropriate issue identification has not been conducted in this resolution, and this flaw overshadows the entire resolution. The reasons for the weakness in issue identification are as follows:
   • Weak connection of the mentioned issues with issues in the domains of culture, lifestyle, business, and trade, etc.
   • Lack of attention to processes, particularly the natural restriction process of domestic platforms
2. Lack of clarity in the relationship of governance with the issue of interfaces and domestic and foreign platforms: Covering an issue with multiple political, security, cultural, and other dimensions is a governance issue. The relationship between governance and the cultural issue must be specified, future programs and solutions must be clear, and the extent of governance intervention or facilitation must be determined in such a way that activists in this field are not restricted, while strategic programs are presented against the cyberspace mafia.
3. Lack of enforcement guarantees for the proposed solutions: Unfortunately, like many other resolutions, there is no specific enforcement guarantee for implementing the instructions in the document. Insufficient attention to the various dimensions of the issue in the implementation phase is also among the flaws of this resolution.
4. Necessity of attention to different climates and geographies and insufficient attention to the needs and tastes of audiences: It is necessary to identify key challenges and issues and present specific ideas for solving them, with programs aimed at operationalizing those ideas.
5. Lack of explanation of the supervision process and transparency with specific regulation

The head of the Jurisprudence of Communication, Art, and Media Group at the Jurisprudential Center of the Imams of Athar (peace be upon them), in another part of his remarks, expressed jurisprudential reflections on this resolution and stated: Regarding foreign social networks and platforms, complete caution must be observed because the current high-audience social networks in the world belong to governments hostile to the Islamic Republic system, and the presence of these networks undoubtedly provides grounds for the domination of non-Muslims over Muslims. According to the rule of negating domination (nafy sabil), any domination of non-Muslims over Muslims is jurisprudentially and religiously negated and forbidden.

As you know, the most important way to establish domination is through engineering public opinion and engineering content dissemination in cyberspace. One of the important instances of domination is informational domination. Even assuming the establishment of an office and the introduction of a representative by foreign social networks, the assumption of domination by the owners of these dissemination platforms over the information of the Muslim society still holds, and this is one of the most important instances regarding the negation of domination.

Additionally, according to the rule of averting probable harm, the presence of networks from hostile foreign governments, even if they have governability, will undoubtedly have harms. Because hostile governments, according to the verse: “And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion” (Quran 2:120), will not take steps toward achieving the goals of Islam and will not refrain for a moment from harming the religion of Islam.

Therefore, using foreign social networks until their probable harms are completely eliminated is condemned as forbidden according to this rule. Additionally, according to the rules of negating hardship and harm, no harm, and the prohibition of spreading falsehoods and rumor-mongering, regulating the presence of foreign social networks is jurisprudentially and religiously problematic.

Source: Ijtihad.