Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to Questions from the Visitors of his Facebook Page "Fiqhi"
To Abu Omar
Question:
Our virtuous Ameer, Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
May Allah protect you, care for you, and grant victory at your hands.
How authentic is this Sharia principle, and is it permissible to use it as evidence for the gradualism in applying Sharia rules: "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left in its ease"? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
To begin, may Allah bless you for your kind prayer for us, and we pray for goodness for you as well.
You are asking about two matters: First, the validity of the Sharia maxim that states "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left in its ease," and second, whether it is permissible to use it as evidence for gradualism in the implementation of Sharia rules. The answer is as follows:
First: Regarding your question about the validity of the maxim "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left in its ease":
This statement has several versions circulating in the books of scholars, which are similar in meaning: "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely," "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not have its majority left," "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not have its minority left," and "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not have its part left," in addition to the version mentioned in your question... Some characterize it as a proverb or a saying, while others describe it as a Sharia maxim. It has even been circulated on the tongues of some as if it were a Hadith from the Prophet ﷺ. This led the Hadith scholar of the Levant in his time, Ismail bin Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi al-Jarahi al-Ajlouni al-Dimashqi, Abu al-Fida (d. 1162 AH), to mention it in his book Kashf al-Khafa’ wa Muzil al-Ilbas, where he says: ["What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely" is in the meaning of the verse ﴿فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ﴾ and the Hadith: "Fear Allah as much as you are able," and the wording of the title is a maxim, not a Hadith]. It was also mentioned by Ahmad bin Abdul Karim al-Ghazzi al-Aamiri (d. 1143 AH) in his book al-Jadd al-Hathith fi Bayan ma Laysa bi Hadith, stating: ["What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely" is a maxim and not a Hadith, and it is in the meaning of the verse ﴿فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُم﴾].
Upon careful examination, it becomes clear that the source of the saying "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely" is the Sharia maxim "The easy (possible) is not waived by the difficult (impossible)" (Al-Maysur la yasqutu bil-Ma’sur). This latter maxim is mentioned in books of Sharia principles along with its evidence. For example, Al-Suyuti says in Al-Ashbah wan-Naza’ir: [The thirty-eighth maxim: "The easy is not waived by the difficult." Ibn al-Subki said: It is one of the most famous maxims derived from his ﷺ saying: "If I command you with an order, then do of it as much as you are able."] Al-Zarkashi also mentioned it in his book Al-Manthur fil-Qawa’id, saying: ["The easy is not waived by the difficult": This refers back to the maxim of the ability to perform part of the original obligation], and he explained it and its limits when discussing the topic: "Is the part that one is capable of performing obligatory?"
Scholars have used as evidence for the maxim "The easy is not waived by the difficult"—or its counterpart "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely"—the words of the Almighty:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ "So fear Allah as much as you are able." (TMQ At-Taghabun 64:16)
And the saying of the Prophet ﷺ:
إذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِأَمْرٍ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ "If I command you with an order, then do of it as much as you are able." (Narrated by Bukhari in his Sahih from Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him).
They provided detailed examples to clarify the reality of these maxims. In Al-Ashbah wan-Naza’ir, many branches are mentioned, including:
["The easy is not waived by the difficult"... and its branches are many: Among them: if some of the limbs are amputated, it is definitively obligatory to wash the remaining part. Among them: one who is capable of covering only part of the body (awrah) must cover as much as possible. Among them: one who is capable of reciting only part of Al-Fatiha must recite it without dispute... Among them: if one is unable to bow (ruku) and prostrate (sujud) but is able to stand, it is obligatory for him to stand without dispute among us... Among them: one who possesses part of a saa’ for Zakat al-Fitr must give it according to the most correct opinion...].
From studying the examples provided by scholars for the maxim "The easy is not waived by the difficult" and its equivalents, it is clear that they mean that a specific ruling commanded by Sharia, if the person cannot perform part of it due to inability (ma’sur), then the performance of the rest of the commanded action is not waived. Rather, he must perform what he is able to of the commanded action because the individual is required by Sharia to perform what they can of the command according to the texts of the Quran and Sunnah: "So fear Allah as much as you are able," and "If I command you with an order, then do of it as much as you are able." For example, a worshiper must recite the entire Al-Fatiha in every rak’ah. If a person embraces Islam and wants to pray but only knows part of Al-Fatiha, is it obligatory for him in his prayer to recite the verses he knows, or should he leave the recitation of Al-Fatiha entirely because he does not know some of its verses? The answer, according to this maxim, is that he must recite what he knows, and it is not permissible for him to leave it, because the possible (the verses he knows) is not waived by the difficult (the verses he does not know). Similarly, in wudu, one must wash the hands to the elbows. But if a hand is amputated, must he wash the rest of the arm, or is the washing of the rest of the arm waived because he cannot wash the part that was cut? The answer is that washing the rest of the arm (the possible) is necessary even if washing the hand is impossible (the difficult), because the easy is not waived by the difficult. Thus, the subject of this maxim among scholars is the commanded Sharia rule: if the person cannot perform part of it, the obligation to perform what is possible of the required action is not waived.
The maxim "The easy is not waived by the difficult" and its equivalents are not universal (muttaridah); they are correct in some fields and incorrect in others. For example, one who cannot fast for part of a day in Ramadan is not required to abstain for the rest of the day and act as if he fasted under the pretext that the possible is not waived by the difficult. Rather, he breaks the fast and makes up for the day he missed. Thus, it appears that these maxims are not universal; they are applicable in some cases and not in others. Their application requires ijtihad in studying the reality to which they are to be applied and knowing the relevant Sharia rulings. Scholars have noted that these maxims are not universal:
a. Al-Suyuti mentioned in Al-Ashbah wan-Naza’ir: [Note: Several issues are excluded from this maxim: Among them: one who finds part of a slave for expiation (kaffarah) does not manumit it, but instead moves to the substitute (badal) without dispute. This is justified because obligating part of a slave along with fasting two months combines the substitute and the original, and fasting a month with manumitting half a slave is a fragmentation of the expiation, which is prohibited. Also, the Legislator said ﴿فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ﴾ and the one who finds part of a slave has not "found a slave"... Among them: one who is capable of fasting part of a day but not all of it is not required to abstain...].
b. Al-Zarkashi also clarified this in Al-Manthur fil-Qawa’id, saying: [The part that one is capable of performing is divided into four categories: (First) What is definitively obligatory, such as if the worshiper is capable of reciting part of Al-Fatiha, it is definitively required... Second: What is obligatory according to the most correct opinion... and if there are wounds on his body that prevent the water from covering it, the school of thought is to wash the healthy part and perform tayammum for the wounded part... Third: What is definitively not obligatory, such as if he finds part of a slave in the sequential expiation, it is definitively not required; because the Sharia's intent is the completion of manumission as much as possible; ... and he moves to the substitute... Fourth: What is not obligatory according to the most correct opinion, such as if one in a state of ritual impurity who lacks water finds ice or hail and it is impossible to melt it, it is not obligatory to wipe the head with it according to the school of thought; because the sequence is obligatory, and this cannot be used on the head before performing tayammum for the face and hands...]
Thus, it appears that the referred-to maxim(s) are neither absolutely correct nor absolutely wrong; rather, they are correct and upright in some fields and incorrect in others.
Second: Regarding the use of the maxim "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left in its ease" or "The easy is not waived by the difficult" as evidence for the gradualism in applying Sharia rules:
Using these maxims to justify gradualism in applying Sharia rules is a form of deceiving people and a fabrication against the religion of Allah. This is because there is absolutely no room to use these maxims for the gradual implementation of Sharia for several reasons:
The meaning of gradualism in applying Sharia rules is that a portion of Sharia rules is applied in some matters while the rules of Kufr (disbelief) are applied in others. For example, marriage contracts are made according to Islamic rulings, but usury (riba), adultery (zina), and drinking alcohol are permitted; or the thief's hand is amputated, but no punishment is set for the adulterer or the wine drinker. The true meaning of gradualism in applying Sharia is ruling by the laws of Kufr in certain issues instead of ruling by Sharia. This is undoubtedly far removed from the subject of the maxim "What cannot be achieved in its entirety should not be left entirely," because this maxim says that a Sharia-commanded action must have its possible part performed if the other part is not possible due to inability. The maxim does not say that it is permissible to perform what is Haram (forbidden) or to apply Kufr when one is unable to perform the command.
These maxims speak about the commanded action, not the prohibited action. The commanded action is to apply Sharia. As for applying other than Sharia, it is undoubtedly prohibited; in fact, it is among the greatest sins. How then can this maxim be used to justify the application of Kufr rules? Is this not a strange thing?!
Those who advocate for gradualism in implementation refer to the ruler’s gradualism in applying Sharia. Nothing prevents a ruler from applying Sharia; thus, the issue of inability (lack of power) does not apply to him because he is the ruler. For example, what prevents a Muslim ruler from applying all Sharia rules instead of applying Kufr rules in most fields of life? Is he not the actual ruler of the country? Why then does he not apply Sharia rules but instead prioritizes Kufr rules? Is the reality of the ruler like that of a person who cannot stand in prayer due to illness, so the obligation to stand is waived, and he prays without standing? Where is the similarity between them?!
Before and after all that, the Sharia texts used as evidence for these maxims do not indicate gradualism at all:
a. The verse: ﴿فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ﴾ does not have a "reverse implication" (mafhum al-mukhalafah); it is not understood from the verse that Taqwa (piety) is not commanded when there is no capability. On the contrary, the verse indicates the obligation to exert one's utmost effort in achieving Taqwa and adhering to Allah's commands and prohibitions. Imam al-Tabari highlighted this meaning in his Tafsir, saying: [...His saying: (فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ) Allah, whose mention is exalted, says: And beware of Allah, O believers, and fear His punishment, and avoid His torment by performing His obligations and avoiding His acts of disobedience, and doing what brings one closer to Him as much as you are able and as much as your capacity reaches.] Ibn Ashur excelled in his Tafsir (Al-Tahrir wat-Tanwir) when he explained this verse, saying:
[...﴿فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ وَاسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا وَأَنْفِقُوا خَيْراً لِأَنْفُسِكُمْ وَمَنْ يُوقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهِ فَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ﴾ (16) The Fa is fasihah and an inference from what preceded, meaning: if you know this, then fear Allah in what is obligatory of Taqwa... The object of (fear/at-taqwa) was omitted to intend the generalization of everything related to Taqwa in all the mentioned circumstances and others, and thus this speech becomes like a concluding remark (tadhyil) because its content is more general than what preceded it. Since Taqwa regarding the mentioned things and others may face negligence in its establishment due to the desire to satisfy the soul's lust in many situations of those things, the emphasis on the command of Taqwa was increased by His saying: مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ. And مَا is masdariyah zarfiya, meaning: for the duration of your ability, so as to encompass all times and all situations following the generalization of times, and to encompass all abilities. Thus, they should not abandon Taqwa at any time. Times were made a container for ability so that they would not fall short by neglecting anything they are capable of regarding what they were commanded of Taqwa, as long as it does not go beyond the limit of ability to the limit of hardship...] End quote.
The noble verse clearly indicates the necessity of exerting effort in the Taqwa of Allah and not deviating from His commands and prohibitions as much as the Muslim is able. It does not indicate in any way gradualism—meaning the permissibility of applying Kufr rules alongside Sharia rules. Rather, it demands adherence to the entire Sharia to the highest degree of commitment.
b. The noble Hadith used as evidence for the mentioned maxims is as narrated by Bukhari in his Sahih from Abu Hurairah from the Prophet ﷺ, who said: "Leave me as I have left you, for those before you were destroyed by their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their prophets. So if I forbid you from something, avoid it, and if I command you with an order, then do of it as much as you are able." Regarding the prohibited matters, the Hadith says they must be avoided; the forbidden things must be steered clear of definitively. As for the commands, they are linked to ability. There is no doubt that applying Kufr rules (alongside Islamic rules) under the pretext of gradualism is among the things the Sharia has forbidden with definitive evidence. Allah Almighty said: ﴿وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ﴾ "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers," ﴿وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ﴾ "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers," ﴿وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ﴾ "And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." And He said: ﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْراً أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالاً مُبِيناً﴾ "It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error." Therefore, the Hadith does not indicate in any way the permissibility of neglecting the implementation of Sharia and applying Kufr rules under the pretext of gradualism, because ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is among the prohibitions and forbidden acts that the Hadith commanded to avoid.
Accordingly, using this maxim for gradualism in applying Sharia rules is a false inference that holds no weight at all.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
05 Rabi’ al-Akhir 1443 AH Corresponding to 10/11/2021 CE