Introduction
Throughout the history of politics, the concept of Security in Political Thought has always been one of humanity’s most fundamental concerns. From the formation of the earliest human societies, the issue of survival against internal and external threats emerged as the core of political power. Yet security does not merely mean the absence of danger or war; it refers to the establishment of a stable order in which individuals and society can live with trust, freedom, and predictability.
In other words, in politics, security is the boundary between fear and trust. States employ instruments of power to eliminate fear and create order; but the question arises: to what extent may freedom be restricted in the name of security? This question forms the essence of the discussion surrounding Security in Political Thought. From the views of Hobbes and Locke to Foucault and Arendt on the one hand, and Islamic political thought and the experience of religious governance in the contemporary era on the other, the relationship between security, power, and freedom can be examined.
Thus, this article aims to analytically explore two parallel yet distinct paths in the evolution of the concept of security from classical times to the contemporary world: first, the path taken in the West; and second, the path taken in Islamic lands. In these two trajectories we will observe that security is not a fixed condition but a mental and political construct, continually transforming according to the historical circumstances and lived experiences of each civilization.
-
The Western Path
1-1. Theoretical Origins of Security
In examining the concept of Security in Political Thought in the West, we must first recognize that it emerged from the concern for survival. From the earliest history of philosophy, security has not merely been a military issue, but the foundation of social and political order. Nevertheless, its meaning has evolved—from inner tranquility to external control.
1-1-1. Security in Greek Philosophy: Order Against Chaos
In ancient Greek thought, security was equivalent to “the tranquility of the city.” In The Republic, Plato saw security as the result of justice; in a just society where everyone occupies their rightful place, disorder and threats are prevented. For Aristotle as well, the purpose of politics was “the good life,” and such a life was impossible without security. Thus, in Greek philosophy, security was a moral and internal matter—not merely military or power-centered.
1-1-2. Security in Modern Philosophy: From Survival to Control
With the rise of modernity, the meaning of Security in Political Thought underwent transformation. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes identified security as the very reason for the emergence of the state. To escape fear, death, and insecurity in the state of nature, individuals surrendered their power to a central authority. Security thus became linked to absolute power.
In contrast, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau sought to reconcile security with freedom through the idea of the social contract. For them, security meant preserving natural rights, not negating them.
1-1-3. Security in the Enlightenment: Rationality and Predictability
In the eighteenth century, Enlightenment thinkers elevated security from the physical level to the rational plane. Philosophers such as Kant viewed security as the product of the rule of law and collective reason. Security during this period meant liberation from fear through a lawful order, not merely the force of power. This shift moved politics from a state of perpetual emergency toward more stable forms of governance.
1-1-4. Security in Late Modernity: Disciplinary Order and Population Control
In the twentieth century, with the rise of mass states and bureaucratic systems, security became a mechanism of social control. Michel Foucault, in his analysis of power, showed that security permeates not just borders but everyday life. Schools, prisons, and hospitals are all security mechanisms aimed at regulating bodies and behaviors. Thus, security in the modern world became institutionalized and often invisible.
In conclusion, whereas security in Greek philosophy served virtue and tranquility, in modern and contemporary theory it has become an instrument of order and control. This transition—from security as virtue to security as a tool of power—marks the starting point of many contemporary political debates.
1-2. Security and Power
In the history of politics, no concepts are as intertwined as security and power. Whenever states have spoken of security, they have, in effect, defended a justification for exercising power. For this reason, understanding Security in Political Thought is impossible without understanding the logic of power. From ancient city-states to modern bureaucratic systems, power has always legitimized itself through the promise of security. Yet this relationship is neither simple nor linear; it is complex, reciprocal, and at times paradoxical.
In modern political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes clarified the starting point of this link. He viewed humans as fearful, self-interested beings engaged in perpetual conflict. In his view, the only way to escape the “constant fear of violent death” is to surrender all power to an absolute sovereign who, through authority, guarantees security. Thus, security became the first human right and, simultaneously, the greatest justification for absolute power. The state in Hobbesian thought is the embodiment of people’s fear—an institution born out of insecurity in order to control it.
Yet this very starting point produced a profound question at the heart of political philosophy: if power exists to create security, what force secures the people against power itself? John Locke, answering this question, viewed the state as the guardian of liberty and property, not their owner. For him, security must serve the preservation of natural rights, not their negation. Here, two distinct intellectual traditions emerged: security as obedience in authoritarian tradition, and security as freedom in the liberal tradition.
By the twentieth century, philosophers like Michel Foucault demonstrated that security in the modern world is no longer merely a tool for defending against external enemies, but a complex mechanism for regulating everyday life. Foucault introduced the concept of “disciplinary power” to explain how states, through a network of seemingly neutral institutions—from schools to hospitals—produce a form of security that is in fact a new mode of social control. In such a structure, security is not confined to borders; it penetrates the body, mind, and behavior of citizens.
From this perspective, security and power in modernity enter a new phase: security becomes not a reaction to threat, but a tool for preventing, managing, and directing collective behavior. Politics shifts from the level of visible war and enmity to that of hidden order and constant surveillance. This is why some theorists call modern society a “securitized society”—a society in which citizens gradually accept surveillance and restriction in the name of protection.
Against this pessimistic view, Hannah Arendt warns that limitless security is the enemy of politics. For her, when people relinquish freedom in the name of security, the space for dialogue and collective action disappears, and politics dissolves into a security bureaucracy. Arendt argues that the essence of politics lies in the capacity for free and collective action; security gained at the cost of destroying this space ultimately spreads human and moral insecurity.
From a historical perspective, security and power have always existed in constant tension. In ancient empires, power was sacred because it promised security; in modern states, power became legal because it produced security; and in late modern states, power has become technological because it monitors and predicts security. In all three stages, political legitimacy depends on the state’s ability to “manage insecurity.” Yet, as the experience of the twentieth century demonstrates, whenever states have crossed the boundaries of freedom and morality in the name of security, that very security has turned into fragility.
Thus, the concept of Security in Political Thought ultimately becomes a question about the limits of power: how far can power expand in the name of security before security itself becomes a threat to humanity? This question lies at the heart of many contemporary political philosophy debates and paves the way for the next discussion: “the expanded dimensions of security in the modern world.”
1-3. Expanded Dimensions of Security in the Modern World
In the contemporary era, the concept of Security in Political Thought has moved beyond its traditional scope—namely military defense and border protection. Security is no longer limited to safeguarding territory or territorial integrity; it has expanded into a complex network of human, economic, cultural, and technological relations. In other words, in the twenty-first century, security is not simply a concern of states but an existential issue for modern humanity.
1-3-1. Economic Security: From Financial Stability to Social Survival
In a world of increasing economic interdependence, economic security has become one of the main pillars of global politics. From the 1970s oil crisis to the 2008 financial crisis and contemporary trade wars, all demonstrate that economic collapse can undermine political legitimacy. Today, states rely on instruments such as sanctions, tariffs, and financial data regulation to safeguard economic security.
However, economic security is not confined to macro-indicators; it also relates to people’s sense of confidence in their future employment and livelihood. When inequality peaks and inflation erodes trust, society enters a state of “structural insecurity”—a condition in which, even in the absence of war or military threat, the foundations of the state are shaken.
1-3-2. Cultural and Identity Security: Fear of the Other
In the post-colonial world, particularly in the Middle East, Security in Political Thought is often intertwined with “preservation of identity.” States and societies perceive threats not merely in foreign armies, but in foreign ideas, values, and lifestyles. Thus, discourses such as “cultural invasion” or “defense of national identity” have become common forms of security politics.
Yet cultural security is more complex than a simple dichotomy of self versus other. On one hand, globalization has dissolved cultural borders and made identities fluid; on the other, this fluidity has triggered conservative and nationalist reactions. Consequently, cultural security is constantly shaped by tension between openness and isolation, modernity and authenticity, and cosmopolitanism and nationalism.
1-3-3. Digital Security: Surveillance, Data, and Domination
With the expansion of information technology, security has entered an unprecedented phase. Security is no longer confined to physical bodies or geographical borders; it now encompasses data, digital identity, and cyber infrastructure. In the age of artificial intelligence, “digital security” has become a primary instrument of power. Governments and major tech corporations simultaneously play the roles of protector and threat: on one hand promising cybersecurity, and on the other trapping citizens in networks of continuous surveillance through data collection.
If Michel Foucault were alive today, he might speak of a “digital panopticon”—a system in which citizens voluntarily make themselves transparent to power. This condition poses a serious challenge to traditional notions of freedom, for the line between security and control has become more ambiguous than ever before.
1-3-4. Environmental Security: Survival of Human Civilization
In recent decades, the climate crisis has given Security in Political Thought a new dimension. Climate change, climate-driven migration, and competition over natural resources have become threats that no longer recognize geographical borders. Environmental security thus represents the greatest intersection of politics, science, and ethics.
Whereas in past centuries security was defined against human enemies, today the new enemy is the very structure of human industrial and consumerist development. Security has therefore expanded from the national to the global level, raising fundamental questions about intergenerational justice and the moral responsibility of humanity toward nature.
1-3-5. Conclusion of Part One: From State-Centered to Human-Centered Security
Overall, security in the modern world has gradually shifted from state-centered security to human security. This shift reflects not only a transformation in political theory but also a change in our understanding of politics itself. Security is no longer solely the responsibility of the state but a human right and a multifaceted concept that must be realized in the realms of economy, culture, technology, and the environment.
Thus, while security in the nineteenth century was defined by power and order, in the twenty-first century it is measured by justice, sustainability, and human dignity. Yet this transformation remains incomplete, and the tension between traditional security and human security continues to be one of the primary arenas of debate in contemporary philosophy and politics.
-
The Path Taken by Islamic Lands
Security in Islamic Political Thought and the Political Experience of the Muslim World
2-1. Divine Foundations of Security in Islamic Political Thought
In the Islamic tradition, the concept of Security in Political Thought has deep roots in divine and ethical foundations. Security is not merely a political necessity, but a sign of divine justice. Unlike modern thought, which sees security as the result of power and contract, Islamic philosophy understands security as arising from faith, justice, and the harmony of the human being with the divine order.
In the Qur’an, God refers to Himself as al-Mu’min—the Giver of Security. The verse “Those who believe and do not mix their faith with injustice; for them is security” (Qur’an 6:82) demonstrates that security is not derived from power, but from the removal of injustice and the realization of faith.
The Prophet of Islam also established security in Medina through the Constitution of Medina—a social and ethical pact—not through coercion. Thus, in Islam, security is born from justice and sustained by faith.
2-2. Al-Farabi, al-Amiri, and the Rationality of Security
For al-Farabi, security is a prerequisite for “felicity.” The virtuous city is secure only when citizens live within a rational and ethical order. Unlike Hobbes, he did not view security as the product of fear, but as the result of knowing the good. In his view, insecurity arises from ignorance, not from a lack of power.
Abu-al-Hasan al-Amiri also linked security to the union of reason and religion. If politics is separated from reason, he argued, it descends into tyranny; and if religion is separated from reason, spiritual security collapses. With his concept of “rational justice,” al-Amiri held that true security emerges when reason and Sharia serve human dignity.
2-3. Sharia and Security Through the Objectives of Law
In Islamic jurisprudence, the theory of maqāṣid al-sharīʿa (objectives of the law) emphasizes protection of five essentials: religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property—all pillars of human security. Political jurisprudence seeks to establish a system that protects the life, property, and faith of the community. However, because the ultimate criterion of justice in Islam is “the implementation of divine command,” security and justice are divine concepts, not human constructs. This creates a fundamental gap between classical Islamic thought and modern theories of justice and security.
2-4. Divine Justice vs. Human Justice
In Islamic philosophy, justice means placing each thing in its rightful, divinely ordained place. Human beings do not create justice; they implement it. In modern thought, however, justice is a human construct, defined in two dimensions:
- Distributive justice: reducing inequality and ensuring public welfare,
- Procedural justice: equal treatment before laws created by humans themselves.
Thus, Islamic justice is grounded in obedience to divine command, whereas modern justice relies on the social contract. This fundamental divergence has historically concentrated legitimacy in the hands of religious jurists, enabling authoritarian political structures.
2-5. The Jurist as Interpreter of Power
Because the implementation of divine justice depends on interpreting God’s law, the jurist (faqīh) became the ultimate arbiter of political legitimacy. Initially a spiritual role, it gradually became a tool of social control with the rise of Islamic states.
The experiences of the Islamic Republic in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Sharia-based governments in Sudan demonstrate that when jurisprudence becomes state law, politics turns into theology and security becomes synonymous with obedience to religious interpreters. Such a structure produces ideological security rather than human security.
2-6. The Incompatibility of Religious Justice with a Human World
In a world where cultures and values transcend borders, insistence on fully aligning society with a religious model inevitably leads to broad surveillance and control. A religious state intervenes in every aspect of life—dress, thought, art, economy—to preserve “sacred order.” Rather than security, this produces fear and repression. In such a system, the citizen is not a rights-holder but a subject to be guided—and forced guidance ultimately leads to violence.
2-7. From Philosophy to Reality
From al-Farabi to al-Ghazali, Islamic thinkers viewed justice as the aim of government, but by defining it through divine command, they constrained human freedom. With the emergence of the modern state, implementing religious law required legal institutions and surveillance mechanisms—and at this point religion shifted from spirituality to an instrument of power.
Thus, the crisis of security in the Muslim world does not stem from a lack of faith, but from the politicization of religion. Religion, intended to be the moral conscience of society, became—when embodied in the state—an instrument legitimizing authority.
2-8. Return to Human Principles
The solution lies not in rejecting religion, but in returning it to the realm of individual conscience and collective ethics. Religion can inspire moral justice, but it must not replace civil justice.
Sustainable security today rests on human dignity, secular law, free dialogue, and legal equality. Politics, in this sense, is the execution of the people’s will for shared life—not the implementation of divine decree upon them.
Conclusion: Security at the Crossroads of History and Human-Centered Values
Security has been a central theme in political philosophy from ancient Greece to the present. Aristotle and other classical philosophers considered security a precondition for happiness and justice—only in a secure and orderly society can virtue flourish.
In the modern era, security expanded beyond order and power to encompass economic, cultural, technological, and environmental dimensions. Human-centered security replaced purely state-centered security, demonstrating that true security requires protection of life, freedom, and human dignity. Economic crises, cultural challenges, digital threats, and climate emergencies revealed the danger of restricting security to military and political domains.
In Islamic thought, security has deep ties to justice, rationality, and ethics. Qur’anic teachings, prophetic practice, and Islamic philosophy show that true security arises from justice and moral order. Yet differences in the concept of justice, combined with the catastrophic results of merging modern state mechanisms with Religious jurist power, revealed that political religion without checks and accountable institutions quickly leads to authoritarianism, repression, and crises of legitimacy.
Ultimately, security is not a technical or purely political goal; it is the outcome of justice, freedom, and human dignity. The historical journey from Greece to modernity, from the West to Islamic civilization, and the experience of the Middle East all demonstrate that the only sustainable and humane path to security is human-centered politics grounded in reason—one that adapts continually to the conditions of its time.
