Extended Abstract
Introduction
 Mosques have always been more than mere places of worship in Islamic societies. Throughout history, they have played pivotal roles as cultural, political, social, and even military centers. From the early Islamic era to the contemporary period, mosques have served as bases for organization, education, refuge, and public support in times of crisis. In modern Iran as well, mosques were instrumental during the Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. However, their unique architectural features (such as domes and tall minarets) and the concentration of people at specific times make them attractive targets for enemies. Considering the significance of vital and sensitive centers in the national defense structure, assessing the feasibility of assigning “secondary functions” to mosques located in such centers, from the perspective of passive defense, has become a crucial necessity. This study aims to evaluate such feasibility and identify the most appropriate option based on scientific criteria.
Methodology
The research adopts a descriptive-survey approach using the Delphi technique. The statistical population consisted of 22 experts in architecture, civil engineering, and security threats, who evaluated the criteria and alternatives of secondary use of mosques through a specialized questionnaire. Four key criteria were identified from literature and expert consultation: cost, reduction of vulnerability, continuity of essential services, and reduction of attractiveness as a target for enemies. The SWARA method was applied to prioritize and weigh the criteria. Subsequently, four potential alternatives for secondary use—safe shelter, emergency accommodation, clinic, and single-function (no secondary use)—were ranked using the VIKOR method, which offers compromise solutions in multi-criteria decision-making.
Discussion and Results
The SWARA results indicated that “reduction of attractiveness as a target” ranked first with a weight of 31.17%. This was followed by “reduction of vulnerability” (28.34%), “continuity of essential services” (23.62%), and finally “cost” (16.87%). These findings highlight that, from a passive defense perspective, minimizing the risk of mosques becoming attractive military or terrorist targets is the top priority.
The VIKOR analysis revealed that the single-function option was the best choice (Q=0). While secondary uses might enhance service continuity, they significantly increase both vulnerability and attractiveness as targets. The clinic option ranked second (Q=0.702), as it can support essential services and has relatively lower attractiveness for enemies. The safe shelter option ranked third (Q=0.736); although it could reduce vulnerability, the high construction costs were considered a major drawback. Lastly, emergency accommodation ranked the lowest, as large gatherings in such a context would greatly increase vulnerability and attractiveness, despite being less costly.
Conclusion
The study concludes that assigning secondary functions to mosques located in vital and sensitive centers is not advisable from a passive defense perspective. Maintaining their single-function religious role is the most suitable option, as any additional function would not only impose extra costs but also heighten their vulnerability and attractiveness as enemy targets. While certain alternatives such as clinics or shelters may offer partial benefits, the overarching priority remains reducing exposure to threats. Accordingly, it is recommended that mosques in such centers be restricted to their primary religious role, while alternative facilities elsewhere in urban areas should be designated to fulfill secondary needs during crises.
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific advisors and participants in the research