Explanation of the author's statement: "And whoever wipes while traveling and then stays, or the reverse, or is in doubt about when he started, then he wipes as a resident. And if he becomes in a state of ritual impurity and then travels before wiping, he wipes as a traveler."

The Shaykh : He said "And whoever wipes while traveling and then stays". If one wipes while traveling and then stays, he completes the wiping of a resident if any time remains of the period, and if the period has ended, he removes the socks. For example, a traveler who is approaching his city and the time for prayer has arrived wipes, then arrives in the city. Does he complete the wiping of a traveler for three days, or the wiping of a resident for a day and a night? He completes the wiping of a resident, because the three-day wiping is for one who is traveling, and now the travel has ended. Just as it is not permissible for him to shorten the prayer when he arrives in his city, it is not permissible for him to complete the wiping of a traveler. That is the end of it. If a day and a night have passed since his wiping and he arrives in his city, what does he do? He removes the socks, because the wiping has ended. If two days have passed, he removes them. If a day has passed without a night, he has a night remaining. This is why he said he completes the wiping of a resident. Or the reverse. What does "the reverse" mean? It means he wiped while a resident and then traveled. He wiped while a resident and then traveled. He completes the wiping of a resident. How does he complete the wiping of a resident? Why did they say it is to give precedence to the side of prohibition? Let us suppose he wiped for a day while a resident and then traveled. He has a night remaining. After the night, there is a permissor and a prohibitor. Travel permits it, and prohibition does not permit it; it prevents it. They said we give precedence to the side of prohibition as a precaution. Do you understand now? The picture is clear and the reasoning is clear, because after the completion of the day and night, anything added to that has a permissor and a prohibitor. Residency prevents it, prohibits it, and travel permits it. Therefore, the prohibitor is taken, because taking the prohibitor is more cautious. If you remove the socks, perform ablution, and wash your feet, there is no doubt in your worship after that. But if you wipe, there is doubt in your worship. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . The second narration from Ahmad is that he completes the wiping of a traveler, like the reverse, because he found the cause that permits this period before the period of the resident ended. However, if the period of the resident ended, such as a day and a night completing in his wiping, and then he traveled after that before wiping, in this case he must remove the socks. But if the wiping remains and he has found the cause by which the period is extended, it remains. It is said that Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) returned to this narration and that he returned from his first statement, and Allah knows best. But this narration is strong, because if he started wiping as a resident and then traveled, he completes the wiping of a traveler. Now, in a matter we mention incidentally: if the time entered upon him and then he traveled, does he pray the prayer of a traveler or the prayer of a resident? The school of thought is that he prays the prayer of a resident, and the correct view is that he prays the prayer of a traveler. This is close to this, because he now prayed it while a traveler. And Allah the Exalted said . Just as if the time entered upon him while he was a traveler and then he arrived in his city, he completes. Yes, the author says "or is in doubt about when he started". Being in doubt about when he started means he has wiping and he is a traveler, or he wiped while a resident. He completes the wiping of a resident. Why? As a precaution. And based on the second opinion, he completes the wiping of a traveler, because the second opinion says that even if he is certain he wiped while a resident, he may complete the wiping of a traveler. But this which the author said, "or is in doubt about when he started," is based on the school of thought. So these are three issues: if he wiped while traveling and then stayed, or wiped as a resident and then traveled, or is in doubt whether he started wiping in travel or in residency. In these three issues, it is obligatory for him to complete the wiping of a resident. And the correct view is that if he wiped as a traveler and then stayed, he completes the wiping of a resident. And if he wiped as a resident and then traveled, he completes the wiping of a traveler, unless the period ends before his travel. If the period of residency ends before his travel, he cannot wipe. He says "And if he becomes in a state of ritual impurity and then travels before wiping, he wipes as a traveler". If he becomes in a state of ritual impurity and then travels, he became in a state of ritual impurity while a resident and then traveled before wiping. He completes the wiping of a traveler, because he did not start the wiping in residency, but the start of his wiping was in travel. Now, based on this, it becomes clear to us the strength of the opinion we preferred before, that the start of the wiping period is from the wiping, not from the state of ritual impurity. They agreed here that the ruling is tied to the wiping, not to the state of ritual impurity. And this is what strengthens the opinion we referred to before. It obligates the school of thought or its followers (may Allah have mercy on them) to say with the correct opinion, or to apply the rule and make the ruling tied to the state of ritual impurity, and say that if he becomes in a state of ritual impurity and then travels and wipes in travel, he is obligated to wipe as a resident. Otherwise, there is a contradiction.