{ وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ }

i.e., when you travel, no matter what kind of journey it is; hence, it was not restricted to a specific type. Al-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him) restricts travel to that which is permissible, such as a journey for trade or obedience (e.g., Hajj), excluding journeys for disobedience, such as highway robbery or fleeing (as a fugitive). Thus, the ruling mentioned later does not apply to them, because it is a concession (rukhsah), and concessions are only established as a mitigation. Something of this nature cannot relate to that which necessitates hardening, for appending a ruling to a description that mandates the opposite is corrupt in its framing.

As for us, we rely upon the absolute nature of the texts, given that in some of them there is a context (qarinah) suggesting the intended meaning is absolute, and the addition of the restriction of "non-disobedience" is an abrogation (naskh), as is known in its proper place. Furthermore, travel itself is not disobedience; it is merely the definition of a long departure, and there is nothing of disobedience in the travel itself. The disobedience occurs after it, as in theft, or is contiguous to it, as in being a fugitive. Therefore, it is fit in its essence to be the object of the concession because of the possibility of separation from what is contiguous to it, just as if one were angry (and performed wudu) and donned (khuffs); it is permissible for him to wipe over them, because the cause is the covering of his foot, and there is no prohibition in that. The prohibition is merely in what is contiguous to it, which is the quality of being "angry." Its full explanation is in the principles of jurisprudence (usul).

The meaning of "the earth" is that which includes land and sea, and the objective is generalization—i.e., when you travel in any place where travel is possible, whether on land or sea.

{ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ }

i.e., difficulty or sin,

{ أَنْ تَقْصُرُوا }

i.e., in that you shorten. "Qasr" (shortening) is the opposite of "madd" (lengthening). It is said: "I shortened (qasartu) the thing," if you made it short by removing some of its parts or its descriptions. Thus, the object of "shorten" is that thing itself, not a portion of it, for that would be the object of the removal, not the shortening. Consequently, His saying, { مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ }, should—based on this—be the object of "shorten," and the "min" (from) is redundant (za'idah), as Abu al-Baqa' reported from al-Akhfash, who asserted its redundancy in affirmative statements.

As for the assumption that it is partitive (tab'idiyyah), and the object is elided, and the prepositional phrase is in the position of an adjective—according to what the aforementioned scholar reported from Sibawayh—i.e., "a portion of the prayer," then one must turn to describing the part with the description of the whole. Or, "qasr" is meant to signify restraint/confinement, as in His saying: { حُورٌ مَقْصُورَاتٌ فِي الْخِيَامِ } (Fair ones restrained in pavilions), or "prayer" is meant as the genus, so that the intended meaning is a portion of it, which is the four-rak'ah prayer—i.e., there is no sin upon you in shortening a portion of the prayer by halving it.

It was also recited "taqsiru" from "aqsara," whose verbal noun is "iqsar." Al-Zuhri recited it with intensification: "tuqassiru," whose verbal noun is "taqsir." All carry the same meaning.

The shortest duration of travel to which the shortening relates, according to the famous view of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), is the distance of three days and their nights by camel travel and walking on foot at a moderate pace on land, and the sailing of a ship with moderate wind at sea. In mountainous terrain, this distance is also considered by the average travel time on mountain paths. In one narration from him, it is estimated by stages (marahil), which is close to the famous view. Abu Yusuf estimated it as two days and the majority of a third. Al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said in one opinion: a day and a night. The general body of scholars estimated it by parasangs (farsakhs), then they differed: some said twenty-one parasangs, others said eighteen, and others said fifteen. The soundest view is that there is no estimation. Perhaps everyone who estimated it with what was mentioned believed it to be three days and their nights.

The evidence for this duration is the authentic statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "The resident wipes [his khuffs] for a day and a night, and the traveler for three days and their nights," because he (peace be upon him) generalized the concession for the genus, and from its necessity is the generalization of the estimation. The argument that "three days" is a container for the traveler—not for the wiping—is rejected, because the context is solely to clarify the quantity of the traveler's wiping, not his general state. On the assumption that it is a container for the traveler, then he would wipe absolutely [at all times], which is not the intended meaning. Furthermore, it invalidates it as a container for that purpose, because the resident wipes for a day and a night; this would necessitate the unification of the ruling for travel and residence in some cases—specifically the case of the one-day-and-one-night traveler—for he would only wipe for a day and a night, and this is known to be false due to the known distinction of the Shari’ah between the traveler and the resident. Moreover, the "container-ness" of the three days for the traveler requires the "container-ness" of the day for the resident so that both ends of the hadith correspond, and at that point, it could hardly be attributed to the most eloquent of those who spoke the Arabic language (peace and blessings be upon him).

Some may argue for shortening in less than three days based on what was narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "O people of Makkah, do not shorten in less than four burud (a unit of distance) from Makkah to Usfan." It provides for shortening in the four burud, which is traveled in less than three days. It was answered that the narrator of the hadith is Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mujahid, who is considered very weak by the critics, to the extent that Sufyan would disparage him as a liar; so understand this.

Imam al-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him) argued from the apparent meaning of the noble verse that shortening is not obligatory and that completing the prayer (itmam) is superior. He supported this with what Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Bazzar, and al-Daraqutni brought out from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to shorten in travel and complete it. Also, what al-Nasa'i and al-Daraqutni brought out—which al-Bayhaqi declared fair (hasan) and [others] authentic—that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), when she performed Umrah with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), said: "O Messenger of Allah, I shortened and I completed, I fasted and I broke my fast," to which he said: "You did well, O Aisha." And by what was narrated from Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to complete and shorten.

With us, shortening is obligatory inevitably, except that some of our scholars called it a "determination" (azimah) and others called it a "concession of remission" (rukhsat isqat)—such that there is no room for completion—not a "concession of fulfillment" (rukhsat tawfiyah), for there is no meaning in being given a choice between the lighter and the heavier. This is the opinion of Umar, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jabir, and the entire House of the Prophet (peace be upon them all). Al-Hasan, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and Qatadah held this view, and it is the opinion of Malik. Al-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah brought out from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Travel prayer is two rak'ahs, complete and not shortened, upon the tongue of your Prophet (peace be upon him)." The two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) narrated from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "The first time Allah ordained prayer, it was two rak'ahs and two rak'ahs; then it was retained in travel and increased in residence." As for what was narrated from her regarding completion, she excused herself by saying: "I am the Mother of the Believers; wherever I land, it is my home," just as Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) excused his completion by saying that he had taken a wife in Makkah and intended to reside there, as narrated by al-Zuhri. Therefore, it cannot be argued that her opinion contradicted her narration; and when a narrator contradicts their own narration in a matter, their narration is not acted upon regarding it. The claim that her hadith is not "raised" (marfu') because she did not witness the ordination of prayer is not accepted, due to the possibility that she heard it from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Indeed, some Shafi'is mentioned that the report is interpreted such that "ordained" (furiḍat) in her statement "it was ordained as two rak'ahs" means "clarified," and it has appeared with this meaning, such as "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths." Al-Tabari said: "Its meaning is: it was ordained for those among the travelers who choose that." This is as was said regarding the pilgrim: he has a choice in the departure on the second or third day, and whichever he does, he has fulfilled the obligation and it is correct. Al-Nawawi said: "The meaning is: it was ordained as two rak'ahs for those who wanted to limit themselves to them, then two rak'ahs were added in residence as a mandatory matter, and the travel prayer was left on the permissibility of completion." Since the proofs for completion have been established, one must move towards that to reconcile the evidences.

Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What appears to me in reconciling the evidences is that the prayer was ordained on the night of the Ascension (Isra') as two rak'ahs and two rak'ahs, except for Maghrib. Then it was increased after the Hijrah, except for the Morning prayer, as narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibban, and al-Bayhaqi from Aisha, which includes: 'And the Dawn prayer was left due to the length of the recitation, and Maghrib because it is the witr of the day.' Then, after the four-rak'ah prayer was established as an obligation, it was mitigated during travel when the verse was revealed." This is supported by the statement of Ibn al-Athir: "Shortening was in the fourth year of the Hijrah," which is taken from the statement of others: "The revelation of the Verse of Fear occurred then." It was said: "Shortening was in Rabi' al-Akhir of the second year," as mentioned by al-Dulabi. Al-Tha'labi said: "It was a year or so after the Hijrah." It was also said: "Forty days after the Hijrah." Thus, according to this, Aisha's statement, "The travel prayer was retained," refers to the outcome of the matter regarding mitigation, not that it continued since it was first ordained. Therefore, it does not necessitate that shortening is an "azimah" (determination).

This reconciliation was considered far-fetched, as if it had been two rak'ahs before the Hijrah, it would have been well-known. Others among them said: "The verse is explicit in the non-obligatory nature of completion, and what was mentioned is a solitary report (khabar wahid), so it does not oppose the explicit text—except that it is restricted to other than Morning and Maghrib." The authoritativeness of a generalized text that has been restricted (al-'amm al-makhsus) is a matter of disagreement.

Our scholars mentioned that the abundance of reports and the practice of the vast multitude of the Companions, the Successors, and the entire Progeny (peace be upon them all) regarding it strengthens the opinion of obligation. Its arrival with the negation of "sin" (junah) is because they were accustomed to completion, so they were prone to think that they would incur a deficiency by shortening; thus, it was explicitly stated that there is no sin upon them, so that their souls might find comfort and reassurance in it, as in His saying: { فَمَنْ حَجَّ الْبَيْتَ أَوِ اعْتَمَرَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَطَّوَّفَ بِهِمَا } (Whoever performs Hajj or Umrah, there is no sin upon him to circumambulate them), even though that circumambulation is obligatory according to us, and a pillar according to al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him). From Abu Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with him), it is reported that he recited this verse for one who deemed obligation unlikely due to the negation of "sin."

{ إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا }

Its answer is elided because of the indication of what preceded it, i.e., if you fear that they will confront you with what you dislike of fighting or other things, then there is no sin upon you [to shorten]. Some have taken the apparent meaning of this condition and restricted shortening to fear. Ibn Jarir brought out from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that this is so, but the position held by the Imams is that shortening is legislated in security as well, and the reports have reinforced this. Al-Nasa'i and al-Tirmidhi brought out—and the latter declared it authentic—from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "We prayed with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) between Makkah and Medina, and we were secure, fearing nothing, as two rak'ahs." The two Sheikhs and others among the authors of the Sunan brought out from Harithah ibn Wahb al-Khuzai that he said: "I prayed the Dhuhr and Asr with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at Mina—at a time when people were most numerous and secure—as two rak'ahs." And there are others.

Let it not be imagined that this contradicts the Book, for the restriction to a condition, according to us, only indicates the establishment of the ruling when the condition is present. As for its non-existence when the condition is absent, it remains silent; if evidence is found for it, it is established even then, otherwise, it remains in its state due to the lack of its evidence, not due to the existence of evidence for its negation.

Enough for you is what you have heard of the clear evidences. As for those who believe in the "concept of the opposite" (mafhum), it only indicates the negation of the ruling in the absence of the condition if there is no other benefit for it. The condition here has been used in the context of the "most frequent case" (aglab), as was said regarding His saying: { فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ }. Rather, it is said that the noble verse is indeterminate (mujmal) regarding the amount of shortening and its method, regarding the prayers to which it relates, and regarding the amount of travel duration to which shortening is linked. Therefore, everything that was reported from him (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding shortening in the state of security, his restriction of it to four-rak'ah prayers in the manner of halving, and his travel in the specified duration is a clarification of the indeterminacy of the Book, as the Shaykh al-Islam said. Some said: "Shortening in the verse is carried over to the 'shortening of states'—from nodding (im'a), the mitigation of glorification (tasbih), and turning to whatever direction—and in that case, the condition remains on its apparent, immediate meaning to the mind," and this was attributed to Tawus and al-Dahhak.

Ibn Jarir brought out from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said regarding the verse: "Shortening the prayer is if you encounter the enemy and the time has come, that you glorify Allah and bow your head in a nod, whether riding or walking." It was said that His saying { إِنْ خِفْتُمْ } along with what follows it regarding the prayer of fear is separate from what preceded it. Ibn Jarir brought out from Ali (may Allah be pleased with his face) that he said: "A group of merchants asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, we travel on the earth, so how should we pray?' So Allah revealed: { وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ }. Then revelation ceased. A year later, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went on an expedition and prayed Dhuhr. The polytheists said: 'Muhammad and his companions have made their backs accessible to you; why did you not attack them?' One of them said: 'They have another prayer like it coming after it.' So Allah revealed between the two prayers: { إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا }... until His saying: { إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَعَدَّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابًا مُهِينًا }. Thus, the Prayer of Fear was revealed." Perhaps the answer to the condition in this case is also elided, in the style of what preceded. Al-Tabarsi reported from some that "shortening" in the verse means combining the two prayers, but that is of no substance at all. Ubayy recited—as Ibn al-Nadhir said—{ فَأَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ أَنْ يَفْتِنَكُمُ }. The famous view is that, like Abdullah (ibn Mas'ud), he omitted { إِنْ خِفْتُمْ } entirely. In any case, { أَنْ يَفْتِنَكُمُ } is in the position of the cause (maf'ul lahu) for what the speech indicated by assuming a genitive; it is as if it were said: "This was ordained for you because of the fear that they might fitnah (oppress/test) you," for constant occupation with prayer is an opportunity for the disbelievers to incite fitnah. And His saying: { إِنَّ الْكَافِرِينَ كَانُوا لَكُمْ عَدُوًّا مُبِينًا }.

{ إِمَّا }

Either explaining that based on it being reasoned by what was mentioned, or explaining what is understood from the speech regarding the fact that their fitnah is expected, for the completeness of enmity is one of the causes of hostile confrontation. { عَدُوًّا } (enemy), as Abu al-Baqa' said, is in the place of { أَعْدَاءً } (enemies). It was said: it is a verbal noun on the pattern of "fa'ul," like "wulu'" (ardent desire) and "qabul" (acceptance), and { لَكُمْ } is a state of it or relates to "kana."