Journal of Islamic Law Research

Journal of Islamic Law Research

The “Mind” as a Legal Domain: Elucidating “Cognitive Ownership” in the Age of Neurotechnology from the Perspective of Islamic Fiqh

Type : Research Article

Authors
Ehsan Aliakbari Baboukani 1
Mohammad Javad Heydarian Dulatabadi 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Ahl al-Bayt Studies, Faculty of Theology and Ahl al-Bayt Studies, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
2 PhD Student in Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
10.30497/law.2025.248802.3851
Abstract
 ‌Context & Objective: In the contemporary era, the advancement of cognition-oriented technologies like neuroscience and mental data-mining has blurred the traditional boundary between "thought" and "action," raising novel legal and ethical questions about the ownership and sanctity of the human mind. This article explores the concepts of “cognitive privacy” and “cognitive ownership” by examining them within the frameworks of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), Iranian domestic law, and international human rights law. The research seeks to answer several central questions: Can the human mind be considered a protected and ownable domain? To what extent can Islamic jurisprudence—through principles like the prohibition of unwarranted intrusion [ḥurmat-e tajassus], the no-harm rule [lā ḍarar], and the imperative of preserving human dignity—safeguard this right? And how are cognitive rights conceptualized in contemporary human rights frameworks?
 ‌Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal method combined with a comparative approach, drawing upon Islamic jurisprudential sources, comparative legal doctrine, and international instruments. It also adopts an interdisciplinary and foresight-oriented perspective to analyze the subject matter.
 ‌Findings: The findings indicate that the mind, as the core locus of personal privacy and a vital cognitive asset, is both ownable and protectable. The research identifies significant legal lacunae in Iran’s domestic system, other legal orders, and international instruments, which underscores the urgent need for new protective frameworks. Furthermore, the study finds that Islamic jurisprudence is a rich and dynamic source with the adaptability and interpretive resources required to derive cognitive rights, and it could serve as a basis for issuing supportive Fatwas concerning cognitive technologies.
 ‌Conclusion: This study underscores the critical need for drafting both national and international charters of cognitive rights and for forging a jurisprudential-legal consensus to safeguard the sanctity of the mind. It also proposes specific recommendations for the development of cognitive rights in Iran.
Keywords
Cognitive Ownership
Cognitive Rights
Principle of Non-sovereignty over Persons
Mental Data-mining
Cognition-oriented Technologies
Mind-reading Algorithms
Neuro-big Data
Subjects
  1. The Holy Quran.
  2. Ansari, Mohammad Hasan (1347 SH/1968). al-Makāsib. Qom: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamiyah [in Arabic].
  3. Bublitz, J. C. (2019). Freedom of thought in the age of neuroscience. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 105(1), 1–25.
  4. Bublitz, J. C., & Merkel, R. (2014). Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms, and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8(1), 51–77.
  5. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.
  6. Cohen Kadosh, R., Levy, N., & Walsh, V. (2019). The neuroethics of non-invasive brain stimulation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 26, 54–59.
  7. Dove, E. S., et al. (2017). The challenge of informed consent in neurotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(4).
  8. European Commission. (2020). Digital Europe Programme: Data governance and digital rights.
  9. European Union. (2020). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.
  10. Farah, M. J. (2015 a). Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 66.
  11. Farah, M. J. (2015 b). Neuroscience and neuroethics. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 571–590.
  12. Fisher, M. (2019). The brain and the law: Neuroethics and the legal system. Oxford University Press.
  13. Funk, C. (2016). Privacy and the mind: New challenges. Journal of Law and Policy, 45(3).
  14. Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1380 SH/2001). Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn. Tehran: Islamic Culture Foundation [in Arabic].
  15. Gostin, L. O., & Hodge, J. G. (2019). The legal and ethical implications of neurotechnology. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(4).
  16. Hassan, M. (2022). Islamic bioethics and neurotechnology: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Islamic Ethics, 6(2), 123–145.
  17. Hildt, E. (2015). What will this do to me and my brain? Ethical issues in brain-to-brain interfacing. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 9, Article 17.
  18. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(5).
  19. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2020). Neurotechnology and human rights: New norms and ethical dilemmas. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(3), 468–475.
  20. Ienca, M., et al. (2018). Disability, neurotechnology and human rights: Toward a human rights approach to neuroenhancement and assistive technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(22).
  21. Jafari, Mohammad (1397 SH/2018). Aḵlāq-e Pezeshkī va Feqh [Medical Ethics and Jurisprudence]. Tehran: University of Tehran [in Persian].
  22. Kaltenborn, M. (2021). Cognitive liberty: Legal and ethical issues in neuroscience. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 8(1).
  23. Katouzian, Nasser (1399 SH/2020). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī; Kolleyāt [Civil Law; General Concepts]. Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  24. Khoei, Mohammad Kazim (1389 SH/2010). Feqh va Fanāvarī-hā-ye Novīn [Jurisprudence and New Technologies]. Qom: Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute [in Persian].
  25. Locke, J. (1968). Some thoughts concerning education (J. L. Axtell, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  26. Makarem Shirazi, Naser (1390 SH/2011). Feqh va Ḥoqūq-e Bašar [Jurisprudence and Human Rights]. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office [in Persian].
  27. Makarem Shirazi, Naser (1395 SH/2016). Feqh va Masāʾil-e Pezeshkī-ye Novīn [Jurisprudence and Modern Medical Issues]. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office [in Persian].
  28. Martínez Martínez, & Núñez. (2021). Nuevos derechos frente a la neurotecnología: La experiencia chilena. Revista de Derecho Político, 112, 415–446.
  29. Matthan, N., Nguyen, A., & de Sa, V. R. (2020). Cognitive warfare: Technology, ethics, and national security. Journal of Military Ethics, 19(3-4), 207–226.
  30. Mirshekari, Abbas, & Sabetghadam, Fatemeh (1402 SH/2023). Barresī-ye Taʾṯīr-e Ḥoqūq-e Šaḵṣīyat bar Ḥoqūq-e Aʿṣāb-šenāḵtī va Rafʿ-e Tazāḥom Mīān-e Ānhā [Investigating the Impact of Personality Rights on Neuro-Rights and Resolving the Conflict Between Them]. Majalleh-ye Elmi-ye Hoquq-e Khososi [Private Law Scientific Journal], Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 437–449 [in Persian].
  31. Motahhari, Morteza (1378 SH/1999). Tafsīr-e Mawżūʿī-ye Qurʾān [Thematic Exegesis of the Quran]. Tehran: Sadra [in Persian].
  32. Motahhari, Morteza (1385 SH/2006). Ensān va Īmān [Man and Faith]. Tehran: Sadra [in Persian].
  33. Mousavian, Sayyid Morteza (1397 SH/2018). Ḥarīm-e Ḵoṣūṣī dar Feqh va Ḥoqūq [Privacy in Jurisprudence and Law]. Tehran: Imam Sadiq University [in Persian].
  34. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.
  35. NATO Strategic Foresight Analysis. (2020). Cognitive warfare conceptual framework.
  36. NeuroRights Initiative – Columbia University. (n.d.).
  37. Petoft, Arian (1398 SH/2019). Morūr-e Ejmālī-ye Maḥdūdīyat-hā-ye Fannī-ye Kārbord-e Raveš-e Dorūġ-sanj-e fMRI dar Ḥoqūq-e Aʿṣāb-šenāḵtī [An Overview of Technical Limitations of the Application of fMRI Lie Detection Method in Neuro-Law]. Akhlaq-e Zisti [Bioethics Journal], Vol. 9, No. 34, pp. 95–107 [in Persian].
  38. Petoft, Arian, Abbasi, Mahmoud, & Zali, Alireza (1400 SH/2021). Kārbast-e Šavāhed-e Aʿṣāb-šenāḵtī dar Ḥoqūq-e Keyfarī-ye Novīn bā Taʾkīd bar Dādrasī-ye Aʿṣāb-šenāḵtī-ye Kānādā va Beryitāniyā [Application of Neuro-Evidence in Modern Criminal Law with Emphasis on Neuro-Adjudication of Canada and Britain]. Majalleh-ye Elmi-Pazhoheshi-ye Hoquq-e Pezeshki [Medical Law Journal], Vol. 15, No. 56, pp. 241–259 [in Persian].
  39. Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2013). Big data and the future for privacy. Wake Forest Law Review, 48, 393–431.
  40. Schroeder, J. (2020). Neuroprivacy and data protection in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1).
  41. Stahl, B. C. (2021). Ethics of brain-computer interfaces. Neuroscience Letters, 741, 135458.
  42. Subhani, Jafar (1395 SH/2016). Feqh va Ḥoqūq-e Bašar [Jurisprudence and Human Rights]. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office [in Persian].
  43. Subhani, Jafar (1426 AH/2005). Mabāḥeṯ-e Jadīd dar Kalām-e Eslāmī [New Issues in Islamic Theology]. [n.p.]: Imam Sadiq Institute [in Persian].
  44. Tabatabai, Mohammad Hossein (1365 SH/1986). al-Mīzān (Tafsīr al-Qurʾān). Tehran: Dar Ihya [in Arabic].
  45. Tabatabai, Mohammad Hossein (1394 SH/2015). Oṣūl-e Feqh [Principles of Jurisprudence]. Tehran: Nashr-e Daneshgahi [in Persian].
  46. UNESCO. (2021). Ethics of artificial intelligence.
  47. United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights.
  48. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD).
  49. Yuste, R., Goering, S., Bi, G., et al. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, 551(7679), 159–163.

  • Received 21 August 2025
  • Accepted 23 September 2025