The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Behavioral Model for Responding to Domestic Unrest: An Analysis Based on Islamic Jurisprudential Maxims

This study examines the Islamic Republic of Iran’s behavioral model for responding to domestic unrest through the lens of Islamic jurisprudential maxims. Its primary objective is to move beyond a description of unrest and develop a coherent framework of Sharīʿa and legal principles governing state action during crises, balancing security imperatives, the public interest, human dignity, and legal accountability. The study investigates the extent to which state responses to unrest conform to the maxims of preservation of the Islamic system (Ḥifẓ al-Niẓām), prohibition of domination (Nafī al-Sabīl), inviolability and respect (Iḥtirām), liability (Ḍamān), and voluntary action (Iqdām), and examines how potential conflicts among these maxims can be managed. The main research question concerns how the Islamic Republic of Iran’s behavioral model for responding to domestic unrest can
be explained and evaluated on the basis of Islamic jurisprudential maxims. Subsidiary questions address the limits and constraints of state intervention, the relationship between public security and citizens’ rights, measures to counter foreign influence, the allocation of responsibility for compensation, and the conditions governing the application of Iqdām. The central issue is how state action in complex situations of unrest can maintain Sharīʿa legitimacy and comply with jurisprudential and legal principles while safeguarding individual rights and ensuring institutional accountability. Accordingly, the study identifies the jurisprudential foundations of state conduct and examines the interpretive and practical challenges associated with their application. The study adopts a descriptive–analytical methodology, drawing on data collected through documentary and library research. Primary sources include verses of the Holy Qur’an, narrations of the Infallible Imams, and works by prominent Imami jurists, including Muḥaqqiq al-Narāqī, Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir,
Imam Khomeini, Ayatollah Nāʾīnī, Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī, al-Shahīd al-Thānī, and Fakhr 
al-Muḥaqqiqīn. Iranian positive law, including the Constitution, the Civil Liability Act, and the Islamic Penal Code, provides an additional basis for comparison and evaluation of
state conduct. The comparative and interdisciplinary approach connects jurisprudential foundations with legal and governance-oriented analytical perspectives, enabling a more precise assessment of the political system’s responses to domestic unrest. It also evaluates the scope and limitations of jurisprudential maxims under the complex and changing conditions of such unrest.The findings indicate that Ḥifẓ al-Niẓām constitutes the foundational basis for legitimizing state action in response to unrest. Under this maxim, the Islamic government is obliged to safeguard the cohesion, stability, and survival of the Islamic community and respond proportionately to actual disruptions of public order, security, and collective interests. Grounded in both reason and Sharīʿa, this maxim is recognized by Imami jurists as a general jurisprudential principle. Nevertheless, it does not authorize unlimited state action. Its application is constrained by necessity, proportionality, the prevention of actual or imminent corruption, and the avoidance of transgression and destructive conduct. Within this framework, Nafī al-Sabīl characterizes efforts to counter organized unrest linked to foreign interests not merely as security measures but also as a religious obligation to prevent domination and preserve independence, dignity, and national sovereignty. This maxim extends beyond individual relationships to governance and international relations, treating attempts to facilitate foreign influence over decision-making, the economy, or the security of the Islamic community as potential manifestations of sabīl. Meanwhile, Iḥtirām emphasizes the inherent inviolability of individuals’ lives, property, honor, and legitimate rights, extending its scope to moral rights and human interests. The findings identify a potential tension during unrest between preserving the system and respecting citizens’ rights. Managing this tension requires precise interpretation of the relevant maxims, adherence to proportionality, and avoidance of arbitrary action. The maxim of Ḍamān addresses liability for damage to public and private property, physical harm, and disruption of economic order. Under this principle, the government may be liable for compensation in cases of negligence, omission, or fault in fulfilling its legal duties, just as direct perpetrators of unrest may be held responsible for damage resulting from their conduct. However, establishing liability, proving causation, and effectively implementing compensation mechanisms present significant challenges. As an analytical principle grounded in knowledge and volition, Iqdām suggests that individuals who knowingly and voluntarily enter risky situations cannot readily attribute the foreseeable consequences to others. This maxim is not absolute, however; its application is restricted in cases involving deception, coercion, duress, lack of genuine volition, or disproportionate state responses. A comparative analysis demonstrates that although each maxim can independently provide a framework for legitimizing state action, their practical application may give rise to conflicts requiring careful management informed by the public interest. Among the most significant is the tension between preserving the system and respecting human dignity and citizens’ rights, which can pose a serious challenge for the authorities during unrest. The role of Ḍamān in securing compensation for damage to public and private property, together with the interpretive and practical challenges of applying jurisprudential maxims in complex situations of unrest, also emerges as a key finding. Overall, the findings suggest that the 
Islamic political system’s behavioral model for responding to domestic unrest should adopt a governance-oriented, Wilāyah-based approach emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and legitimacy under both Sharīʿa and positive law. Such a model should remain grounded in jurisprudential principles while effectively managing and reducing domestic tensions and providing more transparent mechanisms for accountability and compensation. Attention to interpretive nuances and continuous reassessment of policies and approaches are essential to this endeavor.