Note: Cyberspace is no longer merely a possibility but has emerged as a second realm of human life, occupying a significant portion of people’s lives. Dr. Kamal Akbari, born in 1975 in Qazvin, has been engaged in research and study of cyberspace for years, both out of personal interest and as part of his responsibilities as the President of the Faculty of Religion and Media. This associate professor at the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting University, who has pursued advanced seminary studies in jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence and holds a post-doctorate in political communication, believes that to establish the jurisprudential branch of cyberspace jurisprudence, a specialized principles of jurisprudence for this field must be developed. He also considers that jurisprudential rules need revision and adaptation to address cyberspace jurisprudence. The full text of the interview follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the jurisprudence of cyberspace, and what topics does it address?
Akbari: To define the jurisprudence of cyberspace, we must first define jurisprudence and cyberspace. The definition of jurisprudence is clear. The only point to note is that jurisprudence is divided into minor jurisprudence (fiqh aṣghar) and major jurisprudence (fiqh akbar). Minor jurisprudence refers to the conventional jurisprudence, while major jurisprudence goes beyond individual rulings to include beliefs and ethics. In my opinion, the jurisprudence referred to here is major jurisprudence, as minor jurisprudence alone cannot produce effective and robust fatwas related to cyberspace.
The next point is the definition of cyberspace, which is now considered the second realm of people’s lives. Currently, cyberspace is a domain where interactions, movements, financial transactions, and communications occur, much like in the physical world. Therefore, it is not defined in opposition to the physical world, as the same interactions and communications that take place in the physical world also occur in cyberspace.
The term “jurisprudence of cyberspace” sometimes refers to the jurisprudential rulings of behaviors occurring in cyberspace, such as lying, spreading immorality, gambling, and so forth. However, at other times, it is considered in a broader sense, involving jurisprudential discussions of large-scale interactions in cyberspace, such as shared communication systems, social communication systems, and the like.
The jurisprudence of cyberspace encompasses both domains, addressing both the minor issues of obligated individuals and the broader issues of this space, which extend to the realms of politics, art, and society. In this sense, the jurisprudence of cyberspace certainly exists and must be seriously discussed in jurisprudential texts.
Cyberspace can be divided into several segments, and naturally, its jurisprudence will cover these segments as well. One segment involves the obligated individuals, whom we refer to as “cyberspace users.” Another segment includes managers and service providers in cyberspace, such as operators providing internet access to the public. Another segment is the governmental and managerial level, which addresses issues at the level of government and political systems, such as the National Cyberspace Center or the National Artificial Intelligence Organization in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the “jurisprudence of cyberspace” an independent jurisprudential branch, or is it a collection of several branches or specific issues from other emerging jurisprudential branches?
Akbari: I believe that the jurisprudence of cyberspace can now be considered an independent jurisprudential branch and should be approached as such. The method of deducing its issues will follow the conventional principles of jurisprudence, although more work is needed in certain areas, such as the discussion of terms (alfāẓ). The communication and communicative systems formed in this domain are somewhat different. Therefore, we need to undertake new work in the principles of jurisprudence for cyberspace. In some cases, this may result in different research methodologies and processes for arriving at rulings in this field. For example, the customary norms (urf) we observe in streets and markets differ from those in cyberspace. Similarly, the practices of the religious community (sīra mutasharri‘a) in physical spaces differ from those in cyberspace. Since cyberspace provides a distinct environment, it requires a different discourse and a distinct principles of jurisprudence. Thus, we need to develop a specialized principles of jurisprudence for cyberspace with this perspective.
In addition to the principles of jurisprudence, the jurisprudence of cyberspace certainly has certain foundations, including ontological, anthropological, and subject-matter foundations. All these foundations must be discussed in the jurisprudence of cyberspace.
Regarding jurisprudential rules, although many rules have been developed for the discipline of jurisprudence, new jurisprudential rules must be formulated based on the requirements and exigencies of cyberspace jurisprudence. Additionally, some existing jurisprudential rules need to be rewritten and revised for use in this branch. If this revision occurs, it will certainly affect the deduction of legal rulings. By “change,” I do not mean a change in outcomes but rather an expansion of the scope of jurisprudence, allowing new topics and issues to enter the discipline of jurisprudence.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the difference between the jurisprudence of cyberspace and similar jurisprudential branches, such as “media jurisprudence,” “art jurisprudence,” and “jurisprudence of computer games”? Are there issues in the jurisprudence of cyberspace that completely overlap with these other branches? If so, under which branch do these issues fall?
Akbari: When we present cyberspace as a second realm of life and bring various issues under its purview, it naturally creates a significant distinction from other branches.
It is true that there are overlaps. The jurisprudence of cyberspace has a close relationship with the branches you mentioned, but it can independently stand as a jurisprudential branch and encompass some of their issues. For example, games may have their own independent jurisprudential branch, but when they enter the realm of cyberspace and are labeled “computer games,” they fall under the jurisprudence of cyberspace. This is because games played in cyberspace are fundamentally different from those played in physical spaces like streets. In computer games, a player may not know who they are playing against, and their opponent might even be a bot rather than a human. Therefore, the jurisprudential issues related to computer games must be discussed within the jurisprudence of cyberspace.
Similarly, regarding art, disciplines like painting and sculpting differ significantly when performed in the physical world compared to cyberspace, and their rulings will also differ accordingly.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What are the chapters, headings, and most important issues of the jurisprudence of cyberspace?
Akbari: Identifying the chapters and issues of the jurisprudence of cyberspace requires thorough and fundamental research, which cannot be fully addressed in a single interview. However, in brief, it can be said that in the jurisprudence of cyberspace, we must first precisely define the term, its foundations, and its premises—both conceptual and affirmative premises, or more precisely, its theoretical foundations. Next, we come to the principles of jurisprudence, where, as mentioned, a specialized principles of jurisprudence for cyberspace must be developed, distinct from the general principles of jurisprudence currently in use.
When discussing the issues of the jurisprudence of cyberspace, we must consider that these issues vary in scope: some pertain to the individual level, others to the social level, and some to the political and governmental level, where policymaking takes place. There is also an international level that addresses cyberspace beyond our country. Additionally, the security level, which can be considered in domestic, international, individual, and social dimensions, represents another category of issues that must be addressed. In any case, these considerations must be taken into account when developing the framework of issues for the jurisprudence of cyberspace.