Note: It could perhaps be said that the most challenging aspect of governing virtual space is the enforcement of laws related to this domain. But are there jurisprudential considerations for implementing these laws? Can the executor introduce considerations or modifications during enforcement? Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Qotbi believes that since the legitimacy of laws and regulations is determined by the Guardian Council, the executor must implement the law exactly as it is. If they have objections regarding its legitimacy, they should file a complaint with the Administrative Justice Court for re-examination. The head of the Art and Creative Industries Task Force at the Islamic Research Center of the Parliament also considers the use of filtered platforms a violation rather than a crime, as their use has not been criminalized. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with the CEO of Eshraq Creative and Innovation House regarding the requirements for enforcing laws related to virtual space is as follows:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Are There Jurisprudential Considerations for Enforcing Laws Related to Virtual Space?

Qotbi: The question seems to assume that we have passed a set of laws, meaning we have formulated and approved them, and they have now gained legal validity, and we want to enforce them. Yes, since the law exists, the executor has some leeway, and certain considerations may arise during enforcement.

Naturally, if we think about it as we do with other national laws, we should consider that once a law has been passed by the Parliament and communicated to the executive branch, such as the government, for implementation, the executor should not pursue political considerations. The law has gone through its approval process, and the Guardian Council has approved it. Thus, the executor is obligated to implement what has been communicated to them. Therefore, even if jurisprudential considerations exist, the executor cannot exercise independent reasoning (ijtihad) and say, “In my opinion, this law would be better if implemented differently.”

If we allow the executor to consider jurisprudential factors in enforcing an approved and communicated law, this would not be limited to virtual space but could extend to areas such as urban planning, health, security, and other sectors. The executor may have personal opinions, but once a law is approved and communicated, there should be no room for so-called jurisprudential considerations.

However, if the question refers to the stage of translating general parliamentary laws into executive regulations—when a general law has been approved and must now be converted into detailed regulations—then, like other laws, the executor must draft these regulations in accordance with the approved law.

In our country, this model of enforcement exists: when the cabinet approves a regulation or a ministry drafts a set of guidelines, those regulations must align with the law. If the Parliament determines that they are not contrary to the law, the regulation is implemented.

Therefore, in my view, such issues should not arise in enforcement matters. The executor is obligated to enforce the law without considering any additional factors.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the Fatwas That Qualify or Condition Obedience to Governmental Laws and Do Not Deem It Absolutely Obligatory, Can We Hope for the Regulation of Virtual Space?

Qotbi: Yes, we face this issue in other areas as well. For example, in medical matters such as surrogacy, or in economic issues and banking, there are differing jurisprudential opinions.

Sometimes, the differences of opinion are significant. However, in the process of lawmaking, the current model in our country is that after a law is passed by the Parliament, the Guardian Council determines whether it contradicts Sharia. If the Guardian Council determines that the law is not contrary to Sharia, this constitutes sufficient religious legitimacy, even if there are opposing or contradictory jurisprudential opinions.

Thus, the religious legitimacy of a law rests with the Guardian Council. The Council employs several methods for this determination: sometimes the jurists of the Guardian Council directly review and decide based on their collective opinion; sometimes they consult with religious authorities (maraji‘) to reach a conclusion; and sometimes they rely on the opinion of a jurist who has approved the law. In any case, the Guardian Council follows its review process, and if it does not deem a law contrary to Sharia, that law becomes enforceable.

This applies to virtual space as well. Particularly in the early stages of new phenomena, there are often significant differences of opinion. For example, regarding cryptocurrencies, opinions ranged from absolute permissibility to absolute prohibition, with some setting conditions. However, as the subject becomes better understood, fatwas tend to converge. Since the Quran and Sunnah do not change, what changes is our understanding of them. The more precise our understanding, the fewer the differences. Therefore, if we consider the legal legitimacy to rest with the Guardian Council, once a law is approved and confirmed, differing fatwas will not affect its enforcement, and the executor is obligated to implement the law.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a Jurisprudential Perspective, If the Executor of a Law Deems It Contrary to Sharia or Their Marja‘’s Fatwa, Can They Refuse to Enforce It?

Qotbi: According to the Constitution, the authority to determine whether laws contradict Sharia is vested in the Guardian Council. No individual, from the president to ministers, governors, or directors-general, has the right to deem a law contrary to Sharia and refuse to implement it. However, if someone believes a law contradicts Sharia, they may refer the matter to the Administrative Justice Court and request a review. In such cases, the Administrative Justice Court will refer the case to the Guardian Council for further examination.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: From a Jurisprudential Perspective, What Is the Ruling on Law Executors and State Officials Failing to Comply with Virtual Space Laws, Such as Using Filtered Platforms?

Qotbi: In this regard, there are three scenarios:

1. If a court has issued a ruling to filter a platform and an individual uses it, this constitutes a violation of the judge’s ruling but is not considered a violation of the law.
2. If the prohibition of using a platform is based on a parliamentary or cabinet resolution, using it constitutes a legal violation.
3. If, in addition to the prohibition, the act has been criminalized and a penalty has been specified, the violator would be considered a criminal. Currently, there is no law that criminalizes the use of certain virtual platforms. Therefore, it is considered a violation but not a crime.