Defensive Jihad and Sovereign Prerogatives in Asymmetric Warfare: Intersections of Islamic Political Jurisprudence and International Law

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پسا دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سمنان، سمنان، ایران

3 گروه فقه و حقوق دانشگاه تربیت مدرس-معاون پژوهش مؤسسه آموزش عالی حوزوی حضرت عبدالعظیم علیه السلام

4 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی

10.22091/rcjl.2026.17403.1471

چکیده

Contemporary asymmetric warfare has introduced novel challenges in international law and Islamic political jurisprudence concerning territorial security, the protection of identity authorities, and compensation for war casualties. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology rooted in Imami jurisprudence and international standards, this study investigates the "Doctrine of Wilayi Sovereignty and State Responsibility" across three strategic axes. First, findings indicate that strategic waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, are classified as Anfal al-Kabir (great public endowments), rendering the exercise of sovereignty and the collection of transit tolls—based on the principles of "managerial authority"(Saltanat al-Tadbiri),"repelling harm" (Daf' al-Darar), and "usufructuary conciliation"(Sulh al-Intifa'i)—a legitimate, sovereign act. Second, confronting state terrorism, the peremptory norm "Islam fetters sudden assassination" (Al-Islam Qayd al-Fatk) strictly prohibits surprise killings; thus, subsuming religious leaders under the"Direct Participation in Hostilities" (DPH) doctrine is legally unjustifiable and constitutes a crime of aggression. However, in scenarios of international legal deadlock, the"assassination fatwa"(Fatwa al-Teror) emerges as a contingent deterrent against enemies whose blood is void (Mahdur al-Dam). Third, regarding casualty compensation, a substantive distinction between "wasted life" (Itlaf al-Nafs) and "sacrificed blood" (Khun-e Mabdhul) demonstrates that establishing a prescribed blood money (Diyah) obligation upon the public treasury lacks jurisprudential merit. Instead, the Islamic state, operating within the "discretionary sphere of the ruler" (Mintaqat al-Faragh) and the framework of "social solidarity" (Takaful al-Ijtima'i), is obligated to establish a national compensation fund for comprehensive victim support and the pursuit of international reparations from the aggressor.This paradigm highlights the civilization-building capacity of governmental jurisprudence in resolving modern conflicts.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Defensive Jihad and Sovereign Prerogatives in Asymmetric Warfare: Intersections of Islamic Political Jurisprudence and International Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • mahdi miri 1
  • seyed reza Tabatabaeifar 2
  • Khadijeh Hamedi 3
  • mohsen ghasemi 4
1 Postdoctoral Researcher in Private Law, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran,
2 Ph.D. Candidate in Criminal Law and Criminology, Islamic Azad University, Semnan Branch, Semnan,
3 Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Tarbiat Modares University – Deputy for Research, Hazrat Abdol-Azim (AS) Seminary Higher Education Institute
4 Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Islamic Azad University
چکیده [English]

Contemporary asymmetric warfare has introduced novel challenges in international law and Islamic political jurisprudence concerning territorial security, the protection of identity authorities, and compensation for war casualties. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology rooted in Imami jurisprudence and international standards, this study investigates the "Doctrine of Wilayi Sovereignty and State Responsibility" across three strategic axes. First, findings indicate that strategic waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, are classified as Anfal al-Kabir (great public endowments), rendering the exercise of sovereignty and the collection of transit tolls—based on the principles of "managerial authority" (Saltanat al-Tadbiri), "repelling harm" (Daf' al-Darar), and "usufructuary conciliation" (Sulh al-Intifa'i)—a legitimate, sovereign act. Second, confronting state terrorism, the peremptory norm "Islam fetters sudden assassination" (Al-Islam Qayd al-Fatk) strictly prohibits surprise killings; thus, subsuming religious leaders under the "Direct Participation in Hostilities" (DPH) doctrine is legally unjustifiable and constitutes a crime of aggression. However, in scenarios of international legal deadlock, the "assassination fatwa" (Fatwa al-Teror) emerges as a contingent deterrent against enemies whose blood is void (Mahdur al-Dam). Third, regarding casualty compensation, a substantive distinction between "wasted life" (Itlaf al-Nafs) and "sacrificed blood" (Khun-e Mabdhul) demonstrates that establishing a prescribed blood money (Diyah) obligation upon the public treasury lacks jurisprudential merit. Instead, the Islamic state, operating within the "discretionary sphere of the ruler" (Mintaqat al-Faragh) and the framework of "social solidarity" (Takaful al-Ijtima'i), is obligated to establish a national compensation fund for comprehensive victim support and the pursuit of international reparations from the aggressor. This paradigm highlights the civilization-building capacity of governmental jurisprudence in resolving modern conflicts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Political Jurisprudence, International Law, Asymmetric Warfare, Maritime Sovereignty, Targeted Killings, Martyrs'
  • Blood Money (Diyah), Reparation

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 09 شهریور 1405
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 18 مهر 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 27 مهر 1405

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار