Within Iran’s criminal justice system, the offence of insulting Islamic sacred tenets occupies a contentious position at the intersection of protecting religious rites and values and safeguarding freedom of expression and legitimate critique. Transformations in media ecosystems and digital platforms have reshaped traditional boundaries of speech and conduct, exposing legislative gaps—particularly the ambiguity of “sacred tenets” and “insult,” and the lack of method-driven criteria to distinguish scholarly criticism from criminal behaviour. These gaps have produced inconsistent judicial decisions, weakened legal predictability, and heightened the risks of over-criminalisation and disproportionate penal intervention, making a doctrinal and institutional re-examination necessary.

This study employs a descriptive–analytical methodology with a comparative assessment of Islamic jurisprudence and positive law. Data were collected through documentary research and scholarly texts, and processed using inferential and analytical approaches to extract the conceptual and evidentiary mechanisms of the issue.

Findings indicate that challenges surrounding insults to Islamic sacred tenets manifest in three dimensions. First, the conceptual dimension: broad statutory language, absence of criteria-based definitions, and unclear demarcation between critique and insult have led to divergent interpretations and enforcement. Second, the evidentiary dimension: digital evidence and online dissemination remain without frameworks for authenticity, chain of custody, and probative value. Third, the institutional–procedural dimension: limited coordination among jurisprudential, judicial, and expert bodies, reliance on customary indicators, and absence of interdisciplinary mechanisms have produced fragmented rulings and conflicting practices.

Typological analysis further shows that the scope of dissemination, the actor’s intent, and social consequences are decisive in assessing gravity and criminal liability-factors that the current legislative regime still lacks sufficient systematisation and normative structure to address.