Jurisprudential research-analysis on the typology of ijtihad methods in security jurisprudence

Talking about security jurisprudence without discussing the ijtihad methods of security jurisprudence is a fruitless task. Because the inference method of the jurist finds direction by knowing the existing methods of inference, and the jurist creates a basis for himself by examining common methods, and this prevents jurisprudence and jurisprudence.
The main question of this research is related to unity or multiplicity of inference styles in jurisprudence chapters. In this sense, is the inference style of the jurists the same in all jurisprudence chapters, or are individual and religious chapters different from social and political chapters, including security jurisprudence? In other words, is security jurisprudence and the derivation of propositions and rulings related to security from sources such as the Qur'an and hadiths, the same as deriving the rulings of prayer and Hajj from evidence, or is it different from it and has a special method? In addition to the issue of security jurisprudence, this discussion is also effective in other chapters of jurisprudence such as deriving political propositions, rulings on jihad and defense, rulings on production and weapons of mass destruction, family rulings, etc.
The current research, by adopting the descriptive-analytical and documentary method and by using the library technique, shows that there are two opinions or, more precisely, two procedures in relation to the methodology of deriving security jurisprudence propositions. The existence of two procedures indicates that in some cases, people are not willing to express their opinion directly, but their practical procedure of inference shows this phenomenon. These two procedures can be called "identification of security jurisprudence propositions with other chapters" and "non-identification of security jurisprudence propositions with other chapters".