Explanation of the author's statement: "It is permissible for a resident for one day and one night, and for a traveler for three days and their nights."

The Shaykh : The author says "It is permissible for a resident". He used the word "permissible." Is the permissibility directed at specifying the duration or at specifying the ruling? If it is directed at specifying the duration, there is no issue with it, meaning the permissibility is attached to this duration. If it is directed at specifying the ruling, there may be an issue, which is that wiping over the leather socks for the one who wears them is a recommended practice (sunnah); we do not say it is merely permissible, we say it is a recommended practice. And removing them to wash the feet is a religious innovation (bid'ah), contrary to the Sunnah. So if the expression of permissibility is directed at the ruling in itself, there is this issue. However, it can be answered by saying that the author used the word "permissible" to refute the statement of those who say it is prohibited. This does not contradict the fact that it is prescribed (mashru'). Scholars always express it in such a way in opposition to those who say it is prohibited, even if the ruling in their view is not limited to permissibility but is either obligatory or recommended. We give an example of this other than the one we are discussing: the expression of some scholars where they said, "And for the one who enters the state of ihram for a standalone Hajj and has not brought the sacrificial animal, it is permissible to break it off for an 'Umrah so that he becomes one who combines them (mutamatti')." The expression with the lam indicating permissibility is in opposition to those who prohibited that, because some scholars say it is not permissible to break off the Hajj of the one who combines them (qarin) or the one who does it standalone (mufrid) to an 'Umrah to become one who combines them (mutamatti'), and that this is forbidden (haram) and is from invalidating the act. The discussion of this, if Allah wills, will come in its place. The scholars may use the word "permissible" to refute the statement of those who say it is prohibited. He said "It is permissible for a resident for one day and one night, and for a traveler for three" days. For a resident: the word "resident" includes the one who is settled and the one who is staying, because the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) hold that people have three states: staying, settling, and traveling. They differentiate in the rulings of these states. But the correct view, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said, is that there is only either settling or traveling, and that "staying" does not exist, neither in the Book nor in the Sunnah. Staying, according to the jurists, is every traveler who stays a stay that prevents shortening the prayer; he is called a resident and not a settler. He is called a resident, so Friday prayer does not become obligatory for him on his own, nor is he an imam in it, nor a preacher, even if he stays for two or three years. Friday prayer does not become obligatory for him on his own, nor is he suitable to be an imam in it or a preacher. And the settler is the one who has taken this country as his homeland. So the word "resident" in the author's view includes the one who is staying and the one who is settled. This is its apparent meaning, but this apparent meaning is not intended. His intended meaning by "resident" is the settler. As for the one who stays a stay... I see I made a mistake in his speech. It includes the resident, the settler, and the non-settler. And his intended meaning by "resident" is the one who was a traveler and stayed a stay that prevents shortening. The ruling of this resident regarding wiping over the leather socks is like the ruling of the settler, just as his ruling is like the ruling of the settler in the obligation of completing the prayer and the prohibition of breaking the fast in Ramadan. But he is not like the settler in the issue of Friday prayer; it does not become obligatory for him on his own, nor does he lead in it, nor preach in it. He said "One day and one night". The evidence is the hadith of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . It was narrated by Muslim. This is an explicit, clear, and detailed text. He said, "And for the traveler, three days and their nights." His statement "and for the traveler": if we look at its generality, it includes the short and long traveler, because travel is short and long, and it includes travel for shortening and other travel, because there is long travel in which one does not shorten, such as forbidden (haram) or disliked (makruh) travel according to the school of thought. If a person travels to a country to drink intoxicants, may Allah protect us, or to indulge in prostitutes, this travel is forbidden (haram) and the dispensations (rukhas) are not permitted with it. So he wipes for three days, or one day and one night. As for the apparent wording of the author...

The questioner : One day and one night.

The Shaykh : As for the apparent wording of the author, he wipes for three days because he said "for a traveler." But the school of thought qualifies the traveler here as the one for whom shortening is permissible. For a traveler who shortens, it is three days and their nights.