A reading from al-Nawawi’s commentary on Sahih Muslim with the Shaykh’s annotations.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "His statement: 'So I asked Urwah, "What is the matter with Aishah completing the prayer while traveling?' He said, "She interpreted the ruling as Uthman did." The scholars differed regarding their interpretation, and the correct view, held by the meticulous scholars, is that both of them considered shortening the prayer permissible and completing it permissible, so they adopted one of the permissible options, which was completing it. It was said that this was because Uthman was the Imam of the Believers and Aishah was the Mother of the Believers, so it was as if they were in their own homes, but the meticulous scholars rejected this because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was more deserving of that than they were, as were Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both). It was also said that Uthman had settled in Makkah, but they rejected this by pointing out that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) traveled with his wives and shortened the prayer. It was also said that he did so for the sake of the Bedouins who were with him, so that they would not think that the obligation of the prayer is always two rak'ahs, whether present or traveling, but they rejected this by pointing out that this meaning existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ".
The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest.
The reader: "Rather, the matter of the prayer became more well-known in the time of Uthman than it had been before. It was also said that Uthman intended to stay in Makkah after the Hajj, but they rejected this by pointing out that staying in Makkah is forbidden for a Muhajir for more than three days. It was also said that Uthman had land in Mina, but they rejected this by pointing out that this does not necessitate completing the prayer or staying. The correct view is the first one, which is also the school of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars ".
The Shaykh : What is the first one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That both of them considered shortening the prayer permissible and completing it permissible, but the reality, in addition to this reasoning, is that shortening was originally for facilitation and ease, so they adopted the more difficult option, just as 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr did with continuous fasting. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade continuous fasting to the extent that the prohibition was considered a prohibition of sin, yet he used to fast continuously, even up to fifteen days without eating or drinking, as a voluntary act for Allah, interpreting it to mean that the prohibition was for the sake of ease, and that if a person does not find it difficult, there is no harm in him going against it. But this interpretation is not correct, just as the interpretation of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and Aishah that this is a matter of dispensation, and that it is only eased out of fear of hardship, when there was no hardship for them. It is said that this is a weak reasoning in reality. The correct statement is that they exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, and a scholar who errs in independent legal reasoning receives a reward, and it is never permissible to blame him or direct criticism at him. For this reason, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) disapproved of Uthman and found his action objectionable, but they did not make it a reason for criticizing his character, except for what came from the Khawarij, who rebelled against him with verbal rebellion by disapproving of him and disapproving of that.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: "Then the school of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars is that shortening is permissible in every permissible journey. Some of the Salaf conditioned it being a journey of fear, some a journey of Hajj or 'Umrah or expedition, and some a journey of obedience. Al-Shafi'i, Malik, Ahmad, and the majority said that it is not permissible in a journey of sin, while Abu Hanifah and al-Thawri permitted it. Then al-Shafi'i, Malik, their followers, al-Layth, al-Awza'i, the jurists of the people of hadith, and others said that shortening is not permissible except in a journey of two stages, which is forty-eight Hashimi miles. The mile is six thousand cubits, the cubit is twenty-four fingers placed side by side and straight, and the finger is six grains of barley placed side by side and straight. And Abu Hanifah and the people of Kufah said that one does not shorten in less than three stages, and it was narrated from Uthman, Ibn Mas'ud, and Hudhayfah. And Dawud and the people of the Zahir school said " ...
The Shaykh : This is regarding the measurement, which the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) rejected, saying that this measurement is not possible. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have ... in his time, they did not have surveyors. And if we say it is up to a grain of barley, if there is a grain of barley between one man and another, the one behind it...
The student: Shortens.
The Shaykh : Shortens, and the one before it...
The student: Does not shorten.
The Shaykh : Does not shorten, so this is far-fetched. But if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had set a limit for the distance, we would say "upon our eyes and heads," just as the age of puberty was set at fifteen years. A man in the early part of the day, if he killed a person, would not be executed for it, and in the late part of the day, if he killed him, he would be executed, because he reached puberty during the day. That is to say, if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had set the distance to this extent, we would say "upon our eyes and heads" and hear and obey, even if there were no surveyors at that time, for we hear and obey. But no limit has been reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in this matter, and therefore setting a limit is considered arbitrary without evidence. Continue?
The reader: "And Dawud and the people of the Zahir school said that shortening is permissible in long and short journeys, even if it were three miles, one would shorten ".
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is what is indicated by the hadith of AnasBulugh al-Maram 2:343, but going out with the intention of returning from a near place is not considered a journey by people. However, with the intention of staying in this short distance, it is considered a journey. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: A long distance in a short time is a journey, and a long time in a short distance is also a journey. The conclusion is that there is no evidence for setting a specific limit. As for the scholars' disagreement regarding the journey in which one shortens—whether it is a journey of obedience, a journey of Hajj, a journey of expedition, every journey, or a permissible journey?—these are all differences and independent legal reasonings. But what appears to me is that it must be permissible, and that shortening is not valid in a forbidden journey. But is a forbidden journey one in which sin is committed, or one by which sin is committed?
The questioner : One by which sin is committed.
The Shaykh : One in which sin is committed?
The questioner : By which.
The Shaykh : By which?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, what is the difference? Brother? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the journey is permissible. Good, well done. And one by which sin is committed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, well done. If he traveled to the land of disbelief, and the travel is forbidden, is this...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What? A sinner, in it or by it?
The questioner : By it.
The Shaykh : A sinner by it. And if a woman traveled without a mahram?
The questioner : In it.
Another questioner: By it.
The Shaykh : By it.
The questioner : By it, yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and if he traveled and during his journey he drank intoxicants?
The questioner : In it.
The Shaykh : This is a sinner in it. Some scholars hold that a sinner in his journey does not shorten, because shortening is a dispensation, and a dispensation is not made lawful by sin. And others said that rather he shortens, based on the generality of the evidence, and this is the school of Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the choice of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who said that the journey in the Book of Allah is absolute. But I have something in my mind about this, something in my heart about this, because we would say to this man, "We do not help you in shortening, rather we warn you, so we say, do not shorten. And if you want to shorten, repent. If you repent... upon your return after repentance.
The questioner : He shortens.
The Shaykh : He shortens. This is closer to my view, yes.
The questioner : ... a traveling man.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest.
The reader: "Rather, the matter of the prayer became more well-known in the time of Uthman than it had been before. It was also said that Uthman intended to stay in Makkah after the Hajj, but they rejected this by pointing out that staying in Makkah is forbidden for a Muhajir for more than three days. It was also said that Uthman had land in Mina, but they rejected this by pointing out that this does not necessitate completing the prayer or staying. The correct view is the first one, which is also the school of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars ".
The Shaykh : What is the first one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That both of them considered shortening the prayer permissible and completing it permissible, but the reality, in addition to this reasoning, is that shortening was originally for facilitation and ease, so they adopted the more difficult option, just as 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr did with continuous fasting. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade continuous fasting to the extent that the prohibition was considered a prohibition of sin, yet he used to fast continuously, even up to fifteen days without eating or drinking, as a voluntary act for Allah, interpreting it to mean that the prohibition was for the sake of ease, and that if a person does not find it difficult, there is no harm in him going against it. But this interpretation is not correct, just as the interpretation of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and Aishah that this is a matter of dispensation, and that it is only eased out of fear of hardship, when there was no hardship for them. It is said that this is a weak reasoning in reality. The correct statement is that they exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, and a scholar who errs in independent legal reasoning receives a reward, and it is never permissible to blame him or direct criticism at him. For this reason, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) disapproved of Uthman and found his action objectionable, but they did not make it a reason for criticizing his character, except for what came from the Khawarij, who rebelled against him with verbal rebellion by disapproving of him and disapproving of that.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: "Then the school of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars is that shortening is permissible in every permissible journey. Some of the Salaf conditioned it being a journey of fear, some a journey of Hajj or 'Umrah or expedition, and some a journey of obedience. Al-Shafi'i, Malik, Ahmad, and the majority said that it is not permissible in a journey of sin, while Abu Hanifah and al-Thawri permitted it. Then al-Shafi'i, Malik, their followers, al-Layth, al-Awza'i, the jurists of the people of hadith, and others said that shortening is not permissible except in a journey of two stages, which is forty-eight Hashimi miles. The mile is six thousand cubits, the cubit is twenty-four fingers placed side by side and straight, and the finger is six grains of barley placed side by side and straight. And Abu Hanifah and the people of Kufah said that one does not shorten in less than three stages, and it was narrated from Uthman, Ibn Mas'ud, and Hudhayfah. And Dawud and the people of the Zahir school said " ...
The Shaykh : This is regarding the measurement, which the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) rejected, saying that this measurement is not possible. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have ... in his time, they did not have surveyors. And if we say it is up to a grain of barley, if there is a grain of barley between one man and another, the one behind it...
The student: Shortens.
The Shaykh : Shortens, and the one before it...
The student: Does not shorten.
The Shaykh : Does not shorten, so this is far-fetched. But if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had set a limit for the distance, we would say "upon our eyes and heads," just as the age of puberty was set at fifteen years. A man in the early part of the day, if he killed a person, would not be executed for it, and in the late part of the day, if he killed him, he would be executed, because he reached puberty during the day. That is to say, if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had set the distance to this extent, we would say "upon our eyes and heads" and hear and obey, even if there were no surveyors at that time, for we hear and obey. But no limit has been reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in this matter, and therefore setting a limit is considered arbitrary without evidence. Continue?
The reader: "And Dawud and the people of the Zahir school said that shortening is permissible in long and short journeys, even if it were three miles, one would shorten ".
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is what is indicated by the hadith of Anas
When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out on a journey of three miles or three Farasikh, he (ﷺ) used to pray two Rak'at.
كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلّم إذا خرج ثلاثة أميال أو فراسخ صلى ركعتينThe questioner : One by which sin is committed.
The Shaykh : One in which sin is committed?
The questioner : By which.
The Shaykh : By which?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, what is the difference? Brother? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the journey is permissible. Good, well done. And one by which sin is committed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, well done. If he traveled to the land of disbelief, and the travel is forbidden, is this...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What? A sinner, in it or by it?
The questioner : By it.
The Shaykh : A sinner by it. And if a woman traveled without a mahram?
The questioner : In it.
Another questioner: By it.
The Shaykh : By it.
The questioner : By it, yes.
The Shaykh : Good, and if he traveled and during his journey he drank intoxicants?
The questioner : In it.
The Shaykh : This is a sinner in it. Some scholars hold that a sinner in his journey does not shorten, because shortening is a dispensation, and a dispensation is not made lawful by sin. And others said that rather he shortens, based on the generality of the evidence, and this is the school of Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the choice of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who said that the journey in the Book of Allah is absolute. But I have something in my mind about this, something in my heart about this, because we would say to this man, "We do not help you in shortening, rather we warn you, so we say, do not shorten. And if you want to shorten, repent. If you repent... upon your return after repentance.
The questioner : He shortens.
The Shaykh : He shortens. This is closer to my view, yes.
The questioner : ... a traveling man.
The Shaykh : Yes?