Question:
We know that gradualism in the application of rulings is not permissible; it is not allowed to apply part of the rulings and abandon another part. Rather, it is required to apply all the rulings of Islam. How do we understand the following two Hadiths cited by the advocates of gradualism, who claim that it is permissible to apply part of the rulings and leave another part? In other words, are the two Hadiths rejected, or can they be reconciled with the evidences that prohibit gradualism and mandate the application of all Islamic rulings? The two Hadiths are:
1 - The Hadith of Mu’adh bin Jabal (ra): On the authority of Ibn Abbas (ra), he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Mu’adh bin Jabal when he sent him to Yemen:
إِنَّكَ سَتَأْتِي قَوْمًا أَهْلَ كِتَابٍ فَإِذَا جِئْتَهُمْ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى أَنْ يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ فِي كُلِّ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَغْنِيَائِهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ عَلَى فُقَرَائِهِمْ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَإِيَّاكَ وَكَرَائِمَ أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَاتَّقِ دَعْوَةَ الْمَظْلُومِ فَإِنَّهُ لَيْسَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ اللَّهِ حِجَابٌ
"You will come to the people of the Book, so when you come to them, invite them to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they obey you in that, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them five prayers every day and night. If they obey you in that, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them charity (Zakat) to be taken from their rich and given to their poor. If they obey you in that, then beware of taking the best of their wealth, and fear the supplication of the oppressed, for there is no veil between it and Allah."
2 - The Hadith of Uthman bin Abi al-Aas: On the authority of al-Hasan from Uthman bin Abi al-Aas that the delegation of Thaqif came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). He housed them in the mosque so that it might soften their hearts. They stipulated to the Prophet (saw) that:
أَنْ لَا يُحْشَرُوا وَلَا يُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُجَبُّوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرُهُمْ قَالَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ لَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تُحْشَرُوا وَلَا تُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ غَيْرُكُمْ وَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا خَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَا رُكُوعَ فِيهِ قَالَ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي الْعَاصِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عَلِّمْنِي الْقُرْآنَ وَاجْعَلْنِي إِمَامَ قَوْمِي
"They should not be mobilized (for war), nor should they be tithed (Zakat), nor should they لا يُجَبُّوا, and no one from outside them should be appointed over them. He (the Prophet) said: 'You shall not be mobilized, nor tithed, and no one from outside shall be appointed over you.' And the Prophet (saw) said: 'There is no good in a religion that has no bowing (prayer) in it.' Uthman bin Abi al-Aas said: 'O Messenger of Allah, teach me the Quran and make me the Imam of my people.'"
Answer:
Before answering regarding the two mentioned Hadiths in the subject of gradualism—applying part of the rulings and leaving another part—I will clarify the following:
1 - When deriving a Sharia ruling for an issue, its reality must be studied well, then the evidences related to this reality must be collected and studied from an Usuli (foundational) perspective to derive the ruling.
2 - Every effort must first be made to reconcile the evidences (al-jam'), as acting upon both evidences is better than neglecting one of them.
3 - If reconciliation is impossible, then preponderance (al-tarjih) is sought according to its established principles: the Muhkam (definitive) judges the Mutashabih (ambiguous), and the Qat'i (certain) judges the Dhanni (speculative). If two speculative evidences meet, the strength of the evidence is studied in terms of its chain of narration (sanad) and its generality; the stronger chain is preferred, the specific (khass) is preferred over the general (amm), the restricted (muqayyad) over the absolute (mutlaq), and the explicit meaning (mantouq) over the implicit meaning (mafhum)... etc., as detailed in its respective field.
Now let us discuss the subject of gradualism and applying part of the rulings while leaving another, and then see how the two Hadiths are understood:
1 - Gradualism and applying a part while leaving another is not permissible, and its evidences are definitive in their transmission (qat'i al-thubut) and definitive in their meaning (qat'i al-dalalah). We mention some of them:
Allah (swt) says:
وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ إِلَيْكَ
"And judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 49)
This is a decisive command from Allah to His Messenger, and to the Muslim rulers after him, regarding the obligation of judging by everything Allah has revealed of rulings, whether commands or prohibitions. This is because the word "what" (ma) mentioned in the verse is one of the forms of generality (sigh al-umum), thus including all the revealed rulings.
Allah has forbidden His Messenger and the Muslim rulers after him from following people's whims and complying with their desires, saying:
وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ
"And do not follow their inclinations." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 48)
Allah also warned His Messenger and the Muslim rulers after him against people tempting him or diverting him from applying some of what Allah revealed to him. Rather, he must apply all the rulings Allah revealed to him, whether commands or prohibitions, without paying attention to what the people want. He (swt) said:
وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ إِلَيْكَ
"And beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 49)
Allah also said:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 44)
In a second verse, He said:
فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
"then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 45)
And in a third verse, He said:
فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." (Surah Al-Ma'ida [5]: 47)
In these three verses, Allah deemed whoever does not judge by all that He has revealed—whether commands or prohibitions—as a disbeliever, a wrongdoer, and a transgressor. This is because "what" (ma) in these three verses is a form of generality, including all Sharia rulings revealed by Allah.
This is what the Rightly Guided Caliphs were upon in applying the rulings of Islam to the conquered lands. They were the most knowledgeable of people regarding the Book of Allah and how the Messenger of Allah (saw) applied the rulings. Their application of the rulings (ra) was all at once (duf'atan wahidah), without delay, procrastination, or gradualism. They did not allow someone who entered Islam to drink wine or commit adultery for a year, for example, only to be forbidden later... rather, all rulings were applied. This is reported through mutawatir (recurrent) and widespread accounts regarding the application of rulings in conquered lands.
Accordingly, no speculative (dhanni) evidence affects this ruling; the prohibition of gradualism and the obligation to apply all Islamic rulings are established by definitive text.
2 - This means that any speculative evidence that has a suspicion of indicating the opposite of the definitive evidence is judged by the definitive evidence. That is, the speculative must be understood in a way that does not contradict the definitive. In other words, one must attempt to act upon both evidences by understanding the speculative in a way that does not conflict with the definitive if possible; otherwise, one resorts to preponderance, i.e., taking the definitive and rejecting the speculative.
3 - Now, can both evidences be acted upon? Can the speculative be understood in a way that does not contradict the definitive?
Let us start with the first Hadith: the Hadith of Mu’adh bin Jabal:
(...so invite them to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they obey you in that, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them five prayers... If they obey you in that, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them charity... If they obey you in that, then beware of taking the best of their wealth and fear the supplication of the oppressed...)
a - The Hadith is authentic (sahih) in terms of its chain of narration and its text; there is no inconsistency in it, and it was recorded by Al-Bukhari.
b - It is not correct to understand from it the permissibility of gradualism in rulings, as that would contradict the definitive, which is not allowed. The prohibition of gradualism is fixed by definitive evidence, and the Sahaba acted upon this during the conquests, applying Islam completely—a matter that is recurrent and widespread.
c - The Hadith specifically mentions prayer and Zakat. None of the jurists (fuqaha) used it to justify requiring prayer without Zakat. That is, those who advocate for gradualism do not advocate for separating prayer and Zakat; they do not allow a Muslim to pray but abandon Zakat. Rather, they use an analogy (qiyas) based on the "concept" (mafhum) of the Hadith regarding prayer and Zakat to justify gradualism in other rulings. This is invalid because the original ruling they are analogizing from is not even acted upon by them; they do not advocate gradualism between prayer and Zakat, yet they claim gradualism in applying other branches of rulings, even though the Hadith specifically mentions prayer and Zakat.
d - Therefore, the Hadith is not suitable for use as evidence for gradualism because the original principle mentioned in it (gradualism between prayer and Zakat) is not acted upon by anyone, even by those who use the Hadith to argue for gradualism.
e - Consequently, it is absolutely incorrect to understand the Hadith as permitting gradualism by applying a part and leaving a part. Firstly, because it would conflict with the definitive evidence prohibiting gradualism. Secondly, it cannot be used for analogy because the original principle (gradualism in prayer and Zakat) is not implemented.
f - So, is it rejected, or can it be acted upon in a way that does not contradict the definitive? The answer is that it can be understood as follows:
The explicit wording (mantouq) of the Hadith does not indicate gradualism in applying part of the rulings and leaving another; rather, it is the implied concept (mafhum) that suggests this. The text of the Hadith says:
"...so invite them to testify... If they obey you... then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them five prayers... If they obey you in that, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them charity..."
The explicit wording implies that you call them to faith, and if they believe, you call them to prayer, and if they pray, you call them to Zakat. But the explicit wording does not say "if they do not believe, do not call them to prayer" and "if they do not pray, do not call them to Zakat." This was understood from the "concept of divergence by condition" (mafhum al-mukhalafah bi-shart), i.e., if they don't believe, don't call them to prayer.
The "concept of the condition" in a text is suspended if it contradicts the explicit wording (mantouq) of another definitive or speculative text, because the explicit wording takes precedence over the implicit concept. This is not only if it contradicts a definitive explicit wording, but even if it contradicts a speculative explicit wording; in such cases, the concept is suspended and not acted upon.
Therefore, the Hadith is understood by its explicit wording and limited to it. The "concept of divergence" is not acted upon because it contradicts the explicit wording of clear evidences regarding the obligation of taking Islamic rulings in their entirety.
Suspending the "concept of divergence" by the explicit wording is an established matter in Usul, agreed upon by both those who act upon the concept and those who do not.
For example: Allah’s saying:
وَلاَ تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا
"And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity." (Surah An-Nur [24]: 33)
The explicit wording is the prohibition of compelling them to zina if they desire chastity. The concept of divergence resulting from the condition is that they may be compelled if they do not desire chastity. However, this is suspended by the explicit wording of the verse:
وَلاَ تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلاً
"And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way." (Surah Al-Isra [17]: 32)
Therefore, the concept of divergence in the verse "if they desire chastity" is not acted upon, and the verse is restricted only to its explicit wording—meaning they are not compelled to zina if they desire chastity. As for the ruling in the case where they do not desire chastity, it is not taken from the concept of this verse but from other evidences that prohibit zina absolutely.
Another example is Allah's saying:
وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلاَةِ إِنْ خِفْتُمْ ...
"And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, if you fear..." (Surah An-Nisa [4]: 101)
Its explicit wording is shortening in the case of fear. The concept of the condition is that there is no shortening if you do not fear. But this concept is suspended by the explicit wording of the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) answered a questioner about the permissibility of shortening in the case of security while the verse mentioned the condition "if you fear". He (saw) said:
«صدقة تصدق الله بها عليكم فاقبلوا صدقته»
"It is a charity that Allah has bestowed upon you, so accept His charity."
Therefore, the explicit wording of the verse is acted upon—shortening in the state of fear. As for shortening in the state of security, it is not taken from the concept of the verse but from other evidences, i.e., from the mentioned Hadith of the Messenger (saw) which clarified the permissibility of shortening in both fear and security, as shortening is a charity Allah swt bestowed upon His servants.
Similarly, it is said regarding the Hadith of Mu’adh that its explicit wording is acted upon, but the concept of the condition is not. Rather, the ruling of Zakat if they do not perform prayer is taken from other evidences, which mandate Zakat as a general and absolute obligation, whether one performs the prayer or not.
In other words, the evidences for the prohibition of gradualism—by applying part and leaving part—are acted upon in both explicit wording and concept, whereas the Hadith of Mu’adh is acted upon in its explicit wording but not its concept. Thus, the evidences are reconciled in practice according to the followed foundational principles.
As for the second Hadith:
The Hadith of Uthman bin Abi al-Aas: On the authority of al-Hasan from Uthman bin Abi al-Aas that the delegation of Thaqif came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). He housed them in the mosque so that it might soften their hearts. They stipulated to the Prophet (saw) that they: "should not be mobilized, nor tithed, nor should they لا يُجَبُّوا, and no one from outside them should be appointed over them. He (saw) said: 'You shall not be mobilized, nor tithed, and no one from outside shall be appointed over you.' And the Prophet (saw) said: 'There is no good in a religion that has no bowing (prayer) in it.' Uthman bin Abi al-Aas said: 'O Messenger of Allah, teach me the Quran and make me the Imam of my people.'" This wording is from Abu Dawood. لا يُجَبُّوا refers to at-tajbiyah, meaning bowing, which is used metaphorically for prayer.
We say regarding this Hadith:
a - This Hadith is accepted, even though al-Mundhiri said of it: "It has been said that al-Hasan al-Basri did not hear from Uthman bin Abi al-Aas," but the statement here is in the passive form (uncertain), so it can be used as evidence.
In the same way we spoke about the first Hadith, we say about this one:
It is not correct to understand from it the permissibility of gradualism by applying part of the rulings and leaving part because definitive evidences are established on the prohibition of gradualism in applying rulings.
Thus, either the Hadith is understood in a way that does not contradict definitive evidences (acting upon both), or the definitive evidence is acted upon and the speculative is rejected if reconciliation is impossible. It is known that the definitive judges the speculative.
In this Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) accepted from the delegation of Thaqif that (they shall not be mobilized, nor tithed, nor shall others be appointed over them), but he did not accept their abandonment of prayer. As for not appointing others over them—meaning the governor (Wali) of their province be from among them—there is nothing wrong with that; it is permissible initially if a capable person is found among them. But what is the meaning of (not mobilized nor tithed)? It is said in Al-Lisan regarding the meaning of "not mobilized" (la yuhsharun): "They are not summoned for military expeditions nor are levies imposed on them... and it was said they are not gathered to the Zakat collector to take the charity of their wealth." It is also said in Al-Lisan regarding the meaning of "not tithed" (la yu’sharun): "Their tithes are not taken, and it was said they meant the obligatory charity (Zakat)." Therefore, this Hadith can be understood to mean "not mobilized" in the sense that they are not gathered to the Zakat collector to pay their Zakat, but rather in their own locations—meaning he comes to them and takes their Zakat. This is one of the meanings of yuhsharun. And "not tithed" could mean not taking the ten percent (ushr) of their wealth, which is one of the meanings of yu’sharun.
Thus, what they stipulated and the Messenger (saw) agreed to was that they would pay their Zakat in their own places, and that only the Zakat would be taken from them, not the tithe. It is permissible for someone who wants to enter Islam to stipulate paying Zakat in his own place and that only Zakat, not a tithe, be taken. This is permissible and there is nothing wrong with it. Thus, the Hadith is reconciled with definitive evidences. However, there is a second narration by Abu Dawood via Wahb: "He said: I asked Jabir about the case of Thaqif when they pledged allegiance. He said: They stipulated to the Prophet (saw) that there would be no charity (Zakat) upon them and no Jihad, and that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: 'They will give charity and perform Jihad when they embrace Islam.'" This suggests the meaning of "not mobilized" is that they do not perform Jihad, and "not tithed" means they do not pay Zakat.
In this case, the Hadith is specific to the delegation of Thaqif, and the acceptance of their not performing Jihad and Zakat is a specific text (nass khass) regarding them that does not extend to others, because a specific ruling does not extend beyond its subject. A specific ruling requires an indication (qarinah) for its specificity so that it does not extend, and the indication here is the Messenger's (saw) informing that if they embrace Islam, they will give charity and perform Jihad. Thus, their condition has no reality (in the future), and knowledge of the unseen (ghayb) is not possible for anyone other than the Messenger (saw); this is an indication that this ruling is specific.
Specific rulings exist; for example, the testimony of Khuzaymah, which the Messenger (saw) considered equal to the testimony of two men, is specific to him and does not extend to others. Similarly, the sacrifice of Abu Burdah of a young goat (jadha’ah)—one that reached six months—was specific to him and did not extend to others, as the sacrifice from goats is only valid after one year.
Thus, both evidences are acted upon: gradualism in applying rulings is prohibited according to definitive evidences, and the gradualism of Jihad and Zakat was specific to the Thaqif delegation because the Messenger (saw) knew that once they embraced Islam, they would perform Jihad and give Zakat.
The Conclusion:
Gradualism by applying part of the rulings and leaving another is prohibited due to definitive evidences.
The Hadith of Mu’adh bin Jabal is acted upon by its explicit wording, and the concept of divergence for the mentioned condition is not acted upon.
The Hadith of Abu Dawood in its two narrations—where the Messenger (saw) did not agree to their leaving prayer but accepted their stipulation of no Jihad and Zakat—is a specific ruling for that delegation because the Messenger (saw) knew through revelation that their condition would not remain reality; once they entered Islam, they would Jihad and pay Zakat.
This means the two Hadiths are not rejected; rather, they are reconciled with the definitive evidences that indicate the prohibition of gradualism, as we have explained.
Question: One of the youth sent a follow-up to our answer on gradualism dated 11/02/2006 and requested a clarification. (Due to the length of the question, we have not recorded it here, but we have established the important parts of it in the answer).
Answer:
It seems you are confused. You say: (The Hadith of Mu’adh: If the concept of the condition for the Hadith is suspended... and likewise the explicit wording of the Hadith was not used by anyone as evidence...). From where did you know that the explicit wording was not used by anyone? What was stated in the answer was: "The Hadith is a text regarding prayer and Zakat, and none of the jurists used it to justify requiring prayer without Zakat..." Everyone acts upon the explicit wording, i.e., if he believes, call him to prayer; if he prays, call him to Zakat... But what is not acted upon is the "concept of divergence by condition," i.e., if he doesn't pray, do not call him to Zakat. So, what no one acts upon is gradualism between prayer and Zakat—meaning he does not command him with Zakat until after he prays; this is what no one does. But the proponents of gradualism perform analogy on this very thing they do not act upon. They say the Hadith says call him to prayer, then if he prays, call him to Zakat, and they add: "this means gradualism in rulings." At that point, you ask them: How did you understand that? He says: By analogy with the Hadith, for it asks for prayer, and if he prays, it asks for Zakat. You then ask him: So you say not to call him to Zakat unless he prays? Then he remains silent, because he finds it difficult to separate prayer and Zakat. He analogizes gradualism in other rulings based on what was mentioned in the Hadith regarding prayer and Zakat, while he himself does not separate prayer and Zakat. This is the issue.
As for its explicit wording, it is acted upon. It is correct that you call him to Zakat if he prays; this is from the explicit wording of the Hadith, and you call him to both prayer and Zakat from other texts.
It is permissible to call a man to Zakat after he responds to the call of prayer and prays. To realize this, ask yourself:
If you called a man to prayer without mentioning Zakat to him, is it permissible or not? It is permissible to call him to prayer, and it is permissible to call him to both prayer and Zakat.
And if you saw him pray and then called him to Zakat, is it permissible or not? it is permissible to call him to Zakat after he prays and before he prays. But what is NOT permissible is to believe that it is only permissible to call him to Zakat if he prays first, and if he does not pray, it is not permissible to call him to Zakat.
That is, the "concept of divergence for the condition" is what is incorrect.
So the explicit wording of the Hadith is acted upon and there is nothing wrong with that, whereas the concept of the condition is suspended as we mentioned in the answer. As for what no one acts upon, it is acting upon the concept of the condition in separating prayer and Zakat; thus, it was obligatory not to perform analogy for gradualism in other rulings upon it, as long as gradualism between prayer and Zakat is not practiced. As for him not separating prayer and Zakat—despite the Hadith being a text on both—and then permitting gradualism in other rulings by analogy to the concept of the Hadith, this is what we said is an error. Analogy is not valid here because the original principle (separating prayer from Zakat) is not implemented.
2 - How can you say: "It seems those who use the Hadith as evidence use its concept and not its explicit wording nor the concept of divergence for the condition!" How can you say that?
How can you say they use its concept but not the "concept of divergence for the condition"?
Does it have any concept other than the condition? The Hadith does not contain a "description" (wasf) that suggests causality (illiyah), such as: «لا يقضي القاضي وهو غضبان» "A judge shall not judge while he is angry," where anger is a description suggesting the cause for preventing the judge from judging in that state. As for asking for prayer first then Zakat in the Hadith, it does not contain a cause; the words "prayer" and "Zakat" are not descriptions suggesting a cause for separating them. Nor is there a "limit" (ghayah) in the Hadith like:
{ثم أتموا الصيام إلى الليل}
"Then complete the fast until the night." (Surah Al-Baqarah [2]: 187)
which would have a concept that there is no fasting at night.
Nor is there a "number" (adad) in the Hadith like:
{والزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحد منهما مئة جلدة}
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with a hundred stripes." (Surah An-Nur [24]: 2)
which would have a concept of neither more nor less.
These are the things where the "concept of divergence" is used.
Likewise, the Hadith does not have a "concept of agreement" (mafhum al-muwafaqah) from the lesser to the greater:
(ولا تقل لهما أفٍّ)
"And do not say to them (parents) 'Uff'." (Surah Al-Isra [17]: 23)
implying one should not say more than 'uff' either. Or from the greater to the lesser:
(ومنهم من إن تأمنه بقنطار يؤده إليك)
"And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount (of wealth), he will return it to you." (Surah Al-Imran [3]: 75)
meaning you can entrust him with less as well. Or agreement by necessary connection like: "Keep its container and its string."
So how can you say they act upon its concept but not the concept of the condition?!
In any case, I have not encountered them acting as you described, and even if (for the sake of argument) they did, their understanding is wrong; it is neither explicit wording nor a valid concept.
3 - As for your hypothetical question: that if someone were to act upon gradualism between prayer and Zakat, would that mean the Hadith can be used as evidence for the permissibility of gradualism?
If it were correct to act upon the original principle (which here is gradualism between prayer and Zakat from the concept of the condition in the Hadith), then yes, analogy could be performed on this principle according to Usul.
This statement would be correct on the assumption that the concept of the condition is acted upon here—meaning it would be permissible for a person to pray, and after a while perform Zakat, with no sin upon him. If acting upon this concept were correct, then yes, it could be analogized. But you see that this concept is suspended by many texts which indicate definitively that a person is not exempt from Zakat unless he prays first; rather, he is responsible for Zakat whether he prays or not. Prayer is not a condition for the validity of Zakat.
So the question is hypothetical because the idea that there is no sin in Zakat unless prayer is performed is incorrect according to many evidences; thus the concept of the condition is suspended.
But let us assume for the sake of argument that it is not suspended and that he is not addressed or obligated with Zakat until after he prays. If this assumption were correct, then gradualism in the rest of the rulings would be analogized to it, and a person would start taking one ruling and applying it, and after a period of rest take another ruling and apply it, and so on!! It is clear that this is definitively incorrect.
4 - As for what you mentioned of the understanding of the Hadith (a, b, c), it is an understanding of the explicit wording and it is correct: call them to Islam... call them to prayer... call them to Zakat... and I explained this to you in point (1).
The problem is not in the attempt to understand the explicit wording, whether you summarized this understanding or expanded it; the problem is in the "concept" (mafhum), meaning:
You say in your words (a): (...so inform them that Allah has enjoined five prayers, if they obey you, then inform them that Allah has enjoined upon them charity...). No matter how you interpret "inform them" and "obey," it all remains a discussion of the explicit wording and there is nothing wrong with that. But the question is in the concept. I ask you: the explicit wording implies that after they embrace Islam, you inform them of the obligation of prayer, then if they obey you inform them of the obligation of charity. The concept is NOT to inform them of the obligation of charity if they do not obey you in prayer. Is this correct? And the meaning of "obey" is clearly about implementation and not denial, because this took place after they entered Islam. So the concept means you do not demand Zakat from a Muslim except after demanding prayer from him... and this is not correct no matter how you interpret the explicit wording.
As for the subject of rejecting the Hadith or not, it is simpler than you suggested. We did not reject the Hadith; rather, we acted upon its explicit wording without its concept because it is suspended by other texts.
Suspending the concept of the Hadith does not mean rejecting it as long as its explicit wording does not contradict a definitive text; rather, it can be reconciled with it as we explained in the answer.
As for the Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari:
فَإِذَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِأَمْرٍ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
"So if I forbid you from something, avoid it, and if I command you with a matter, do of it what you can."
The "command" here refers to a single ruling among the rulings of Islam, such as prayer or fasting. This is confirmed in other narrations: "And if I command you with a thing" in Muslim's narration, and "What I have commanded you with" in another narration by Muslim.
It is clear from these that the commanded matter is a single ruling, not the rulings of Islam as a whole.
Therefore, no Mujtahid (jurist), as far as I know, has said that the Hadith implies that a person should fast if he cannot pray, or that he should give Zakat if he cannot fast... The ability to fast is not a condition for performing prayer, nor is the ability to pray a condition for performing fasts, nor is the ability to give Zakat a condition for performing fasts, nor is the ability to fast a condition for performing Zakat. Rather, the ability is a condition for performing the ruling itself—meaning he makes up the fast if he was unable to perform it, and he prays sitting if he cannot pray standing, and he performs tayammum if he cannot perform wudu with water...
You notice here that the ruling must be performed in its proper manner according to ability, and ability is legally defined by evidences and not according to our whims. If the Messenger (saw) commands a ruling, we implement it in its manner according to the ability clearly defined by Sharia evidences.
Performance of the ruling is necessary, and ability is as the Sharia defined it; it is not as we desire.
Thus, the Hadith does not indicate gradualism in applying prayer this year, then Zakat after a year, then abstaining from usury after a year... under the pretext of lack of ability. Ability here is not applicable.
12th of Muharram 1427 AH 11/02/2006 CE