The method of ensuring security in the three schools of thought: Islam, Realism, and Liberalism

Abstract

The question that this article aims to answer is how the process of achieving security based on the principles of Islamic political jurisprudence is attainable and how it stands out in comparison to the methods of obtaining security in other schools of thought. Various schools of thought have their distinct approaches in ensuring security. This article endeavors to elucidate the superiority of the security methods from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence compared to liberalism and realism. The research hypothesis posits that "Islamic principles exhibit superiority in the process of ensuring security compared to the other two schools." The research methodology employed in this study is descriptive-analytical. In the realm of ensuring security, different schools of thought employ their unique strategies, ranging from coercion and power to persuasion, based on diverse approaches. In the context of democratic approaches, the emphasis is on persuasion. However, within the liberal school of thought, a dual policy is observed. They employ persuasion against liberals and coercion against non-liberal states. The issue of security methods from the perspective of the chosen school of thought delves into various strategies, spanning from "coercion" and "power" to "persuasion" based on different approaches. In the realm of democracy, persuasion is generally emphasized. However, within the liberal school of thought, a dual policy is evident. They employ the component of "persuasion" against liberals, and the element of "coercion" against non-liberal countries.