A Jurisprudential Exploration into the Nafy-e Sabil Verse, the Arguments in Favor of it, and its Coverage of the Elective Positions in Modern States

One of the most well-known jurisprudential rules whose enforcement in the Islamic community can lead to significant results is ‘the nafy-e sabil rule’. Among these results, we can point out the permission for non-Shiites to take elective positions in modern Islamic states. This article seeks to deliver an accurate, conceptual description of this rule, scrutinize its coverage in relation to the doubtful cases, and scrutinize the authorization or lack of authorization to extend it to elective positions in modern states. The proofs of the Islamic jurists and commentators on this rule are either verbal or non-verbal. Verse 141 of the Surah al-Nisaa and the hadith ‘Nothing equals Islam in significance.’ are among the verbal arguments signifying that unbelievers do not dominate Muslims on the Day of Judgment. The first non-verbal argument of the jurists in favor of this rule is the jurists’ consensus of opinion whose being documentary can be verified. The second non-verbal argument raised by the jurists is that the dignity of Islam requires the denial of the domination of unbelievers over Muslims. The latter is the most authoritative argument for the nafy-e sabil rule. However, it is doubtful whether the jurisprudential arguments in favor of this rule can be extended to all positions in modern states as each one of these positions has its own specific definition and function, and since, according to the chosen opinion in rational demonstrations, no rule can be extended to all doubtful cases, it is not possible to associate these positions with the traditional concepts using the nafy-e sabil rule and prevent non-Shiites from holding these positions.