Jurisprudential strategies to deal with severe threats against national security

In a time where security challenges are among the issues facing the Islamic world, this research aims to utilize the deep and extensive capacity of Islamic jurisprudence in explaining national security measures and pursuing the fulfillment of one of the essential needs and demands of Islamic nations. This article, relying on deduction and reference methods, has explored the juridical propositions regarding facing severe threats and national security. In this review, we first examined the approaches to ensuring security in different schools of thought, such as realism (based on power and military force), classical liberalism (based on legal systems and regimes), Copenhagen school (based on the state), and constructivist approach (based on identity and internal processes of society). Then, by expressing some of the theoretical and practical contradictions and impasses of these approaches, we explained the juridical strategy that rests on the foundation of national security values and religious beliefs of the Islamic community. We have looked at propositions derived from the opinions and thoughts of jurists in two areas: hard threats (rebellion and overthrow, Dar al-Harb, combat, and terrorism), and security-generating and supportive elements (jihad, the principle of denial of access, the principle of preserving the "Islamic egg," relationship, the principle of legitimate defense and counteraction, and the institution of the Wilayat-e-Faqih)