Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:101

An-Nisā’ (The Women): Verse 101

Know that one of the matters a warrior needs to know is how to perform the Ṣalāh (prayer) during a time of fear and while engaged in fighting the enemy. For this reason, God, the Exalted, mentioned it in this verse. Herein lie several issues:

Al-Wāḥidī said: It is permissible to say qaṣara fulān ṣalātahu, aqṣaraha, and qassaraha (meaning: he shortened his prayer).

Ibn ‘Abbās recited: تَقْصُرُوا (taqṣurū) from the root aqṣara. Al-Zuhri recited: تَقْصُرُوا (taqṣurū) from the root qaṣara. This indicates the validity of these three linguistic forms.

Know that the term Qaṣr (shortening) implies facilitation (takhfīf), because it is not explicit whether the intended meaning is the reduction in the number of rak‘ahs (units of prayer) or in the manner of performing them. Consequently, there are two opinions regarding this verse:

The First Opinion: It refers to the prayer of the traveler. Every prayer that is four rak‘ahs in residence becomes two rak‘ahs during travel. Under this view, shortening applies only to the Dhuhr, ‘Aṣr, and ‘Ishā’ prayers, not to Maghrib or Subh.

The Second Opinion: This verse does not refer to the traveler’s prayer but to the Prayer of Fear (Ṣalāt al-Khawf). This is the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, and a group. Ibn ‘Abbās said: "God ordained four rak‘ahs for the resident prayer, two rak‘ahs for the traveler’s prayer, and one rak‘ah for the Prayer of Fear, according to the tongue of your Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

These two opinions stem from the premise that Qaṣr means reducing the number of rak‘ahs.

The Second Interpretation of Qaṣr: The intended meaning of Qaṣr is to introduce facilitation in the manner of performing the rak‘ahs. This means being content with nodding (īmā’) and signaling instead of bowing (rukū‘) and prostrating (sujūd), allowing walking during the prayer, and permitting the prayer even if the garment is stained with blood. This is the prayer performed during the intense engagement of combat. This view is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās and Ṭāwūs.

Their evidence is that the fear of the enemy’s mischief does not cease when one performs two rak‘ahs with all their prescribed qualities; rather, this reduction is necessary when fear intensifies during the clash of battle. This argument is weak, because it can be argued that if the traveler’s prayer is reduced in rak‘ahs, he can perform it in a way that his enemy does not realize he is praying. However, if the rak‘ahs are numerous, the duration becomes long, making it impossible to perform them while the enemy is unaware.

Know that the basis for this ambiguity is what we mentioned: the term Qaṣr implies facilitation, and facilitation occurs both by omitting some rak‘ahs and by substituting bowing and prostration with nodding and signaling.

Know that interpreting Qaṣr as omitting some rak‘ahs is preferable, supported by several points:

1. The Hadith of Ya‘lā ibn Umayyah: He said, "I asked ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may God be pleased with him), 'How can we shorten [the prayer] now that we are safe?' God says: {There is no blame upon you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear...}" ‘Umar replied, "I marveled at what you marveled at, so I asked the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he said: ‘It is a charity that God has bestowed upon you, so accept His charity.’" This indicates that the shortening mentioned in the verse is the reduction in the number of rak‘ahs, and this was understood by them from the meaning of the verse.
2. Linguistic Meaning: Qaṣr is the term used for performing part of something and stopping there. Performing something else is not called Qaṣr or Iqtiṣār (restriction). It is known that substituting bowing/prostration with signaling, permitting walking, and permitting prayer with a blood-stained garment are not forms of Qaṣr; rather, they are the establishment of new rulings and the substitution of one thing for another. Therefore, interpreting Qaṣr as we mentioned is more appropriate.
3. The Particle Min: The particle مِنْ (min) in مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ (mina aṣ-ṣalāh) denotes partiality (tab‘īḍ), which necessitates the permissibility of restricting oneself to part of the prayer. Thus, based on these points, interpreting Qaṣr as omitting some rak‘ahs is preferable to interpreting it as signaling instead of bowing/prostration.
4. Customary Usage: The term Qaṣr was specifically used in their custom to mean a reduction in the number of rak‘ahs. This is why, when the Prophet (PBUH) prayed Dhuhr as two rak‘ahs, Dhū al-Yadayn asked, "Has the prayer been shortened, or did you forget?"
5. Avoiding Repetition: The meaning of changing the prayer (taghayyur) is mentioned in the verse immediately following this one. Therefore, this verse must be intended to explain shortening in terms of the number of rak‘ahs to avoid redundancy. And God knows best.

Imām al-Shāfi‘ī said: Shortening is a concession (rukhṣah). The obligated person may choose to complete the prayer (four rak‘ahs) or suffice with the shortened form (two rak‘ahs).

Abū Ḥanīfah said: Shortening is obligatory (wājib). If a traveler prays four rak‘ahs without sitting for the two rak‘ahs [as a Tashahhud], his prayer is invalid. If he sits between the two rak‘ahs for the duration of the Tashahhud, his prayer is valid.

Arguments for Al-Shāfi‘ī (Permissibility):

1. The apparent meaning of {فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَن تَقْصُرُوا} (There is no blame upon you if you shorten) suggests non-obligation. The phrase “There is no blame upon you” is not used for performing an obligatory act; rather, it is used to lift the obligation concerning that matter. It is not used to mandate something specifically.
   • Abū Bakr al-Rāzī responded by saying that Qaṣr in this verse means facilitating the actions, not reducing the rak‘ahs. We have already proven with evidence that the verse cannot be interpreted this way, so this excuse is void.
   • The author of al-Kashshāf mentioned another view: Since they were accustomed to completing the prayer, they might have thought that shortening involved some deficiency. Thus, the phrase "no blame" was used to comfort their souls regarding the shortening. It is replied to this: This possibility only arises if the Lawgiver says, "I have permitted this shortening for you." But if He says, "I have obligated this shortening upon you, forbidden you from completing it, and made it invalidate your prayer," this possibility would never cross a rational person's mind, so this wording would not be appropriate.

2. The Hadith of ‘Ā’ishah (RA): She said, "I performed ‘Umrah with the Messenger of God (PBUH) from Madīnah to Makkah. When I arrived in Makkah, I said, 'May my father and mother be sacrificed for you, O Messenger of God! You shortened [the prayer] and you completed it, and you fasted and you broke your fast.' He replied, 'You have done well, O ‘Ā’ishah, and you did not criticize me.' ‘Uthmān used to shorten and complete [the prayer], and no disapproval appeared from the Companions toward him."

3. All concessions related to travel were legislated as permissibility, not as a definitive mandate.

Arguments for Abū Ḥanīfah (Obligation):

1. The Hadith where the Prophet (PBUH) said, "It is a charity that God has bestowed upon you, so accept His charity." The apparent meaning of the command suggests obligation.
2. The narration from Ibn ‘Abbās: "When the Prophet (PBUH) traveled, he prayed two rak‘ahs."

The Rebuttal: These narrations indicate that shortening is legislated and permissible. However, the debate is whether doing otherwise is permissible. Since the wording of the Qur’an indicates the permissibility of doing otherwise, holding that view is preferable. And God knows best.

Some said: The traveler’s prayer is two rak‘ahs—it is complete, not shortened. When the Prophet (PBUH) arrived in Madīnah, the traveler’s prayer remained two rak‘ahs, and the resident prayer was increased to four.

Know that the wording of the verse refutes this. We have established that Qaṣr in the verse means reducing the rak‘ahs. If the matter were as they claim, it would not be Qaṣr in the traveler’s prayer; rather, it would be an increase in the resident prayer. And God knows best.

Dāwūd and the Ahl al-Ẓāhir (Literalists) claimed that the concession applies equally to short and long travel. The majority of jurists claim that the concession is not granted unless the travel reaches a specific measure.

Argument of the Literalists: They rely on the verse: {وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَن تَقْصُرُوا مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ} (And when you go forth [traveling] in the land, there is no blame upon you if you shorten the prayer). They argue this is a conditional sentence: the condition is striking the earth (travel), and the consequence is the permissibility of shortening. If the condition is met, the consequence must follow, whether the travel is long or short. At most, this implies the concession is granted when moving from one locality to another, or one dwelling to another.

Rebuttal (Two Points):

1. If moving from one locality to another is not termed "striking the earth," the issue is resolved. If it is termed that, we say: Muslims have reached a consensus that it is not considered travel [for ruling purposes]. This is a specification applied to the general text based on consensus (ijmā‘). A general ruling, after specification, remains authoritative for what is left. Thus, the text must remain authoritative regarding travel, whether short or long.
2. The phrase {وَإِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ} indicates that God made striking the earth a condition for obtaining this concession. If "striking the earth" meant mere movement, this would always be present, as a person never ceases moving from home to the mosque, or the mosque to the market. If it were always present, it could not be made a condition for establishing this ruling. Since God made striking the earth a condition for this ruling, we know it is distinct from mere movement—that is what is called safar (travel). The name safar applies to both short and long distances. Thus, the verse indicates the concession applies to all travel.

The Jurists' Position (Specifying the Distance): The early generations agreed that the minimum distance for travel is quantified. Evidence for this is found in various narrations:

1. ‘Umar: He said, "Shortening is permissible for a full day’s journey." This is the view of Al-Zuhrī and Al-Awzā‘ī.
2. Ibn ‘Abbās: If it exceeds a day and a night, shortening is allowed.
3. Anas ibn Mālik: Five farāsikh (approx. 15 miles) are considered.
4. Al-Ḥasan: A journey of two nights.
5. Al-Sha‘bī, Al-Nakha‘ī, and Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab: The distance from Kūfah to Al-Madā’in, which is a three-day journey. This is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah. (A narration from Al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād states Abū Ḥanīfah held that if one travels a distance requiring two days, plus part of the third day, shortening is permitted. This is also narrated by Ibn Sama‘ah from Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad.)
6. Mālik and Al-Shāfi‘ī: Four barīd (plural of barīd), where each barīd is four farāsikh, and each faraskh is three miles according to the miles of Hāshim (the Prophet’s grandfather). This is the measure used for desert miles, where each mile is 12,000 feet, equivalent to 4,000 steps (since every three feet is one step).

The jurists note that the difference in these opinions indicates a consensus that the ruling is not tied to mere movement.

The Literalists’ Critique of the Jurists: The disagreement among the jurists indicates they found no strong evidence for quantifying the duration. If there were clear evidence, this confusion would not have occurred. As for the silence of the other Companions on this issue, perhaps it was because they believed the verse indicated the ruling was tied to all travel. Since the ruling was established in the text of the Qur’an, they felt no need for Ijtihād (independent reasoning).

Basis for Quantification:

• Ḥanafīs: They based the three-day measure on the Hadith regarding wiping over the khuffayn (leather socks) for three days, implying that if the journey does not last three days, one is not considered a traveler and thus does not receive the concessions.
• Shāfi‘īs: They rely on what Mujāhid and ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "O people of Makkah, do not shorten [the prayer] for less than four barīd," citing the distance from Makkah to ‘Usfān.

Literalists’ Critique of the Shāfi‘ī/Ḥanafī Evidence:

1. Reliance on Aḥād (Singular Narrations) vs. Qur’an: This relies on restricting the generality of the Qur’an with a singular narration, which we deem impermissible for two reasons: Both the Qur’an and singular narrations convey rulings through their wording. The Qur’an is definitively established in text (maṭn), while the narration is conjectural (maẓnūn). It is not permissible to prefer the weaker evidence over the stronger.
2. The Rule of Presentation: It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "If a Hadith is narrated from me, present it to the Book of God. If it agrees with it, accept it; if it contradicts it, reject it." This implies that any narration contradicting the Book of God must be rejected. Since these narrations contradict the general meaning of the Book (which implies all travel), they must be rejected.
3. Rejection of Singular Narrations in Matters of Public Need: These are singular narrations concerning a matter where knowledge of the ruling is of general need. Since most Companions were frequently traveling or fighting, the measure of travel that grants concessions was a general necessity. If this measure were established, they would have known it and transmitted it via tawātur (mass narration), especially since it contradicts the apparent meaning of the Qur’an. Since this did not happen, we know these are weak, rejected narrations. How then can the apparent meaning of the Qur’an be abandoned because of them?
4. Conflict of Evidence: The evidence of the Shāfi‘īs and Ḥanafīs are mutually opposing and canceling. When evidence conflicts, it is discarded, necessitating a return to the apparent meaning of the Qur’an.

My View on this Matter: The words إِذَا (idhā) and إِنْ (in) only imply that the consequence follows the condition at the time the condition occurs; they do not imply universality for all time. For example, if a man tells his wife, "If you enter the house, or when you enter the house, you are divorced," the divorce occurs the first time she enters. If she enters a second time, divorce does not occur. This shows that idhā and in do not imply absolute generality. If this is established, the argument of the Literalists based on the verse falls away, as the verse only implies that striking the earth necessitates these concessions once. We hold this to be true for long travel. As for short travel, it falls under the verse only if we assume idhā implies generality, which we have shown is not the case. Therefore, this line of reasoning is invalidated. It becomes clear that the evidence relied upon by the jurists for a specific measure does not contradict the apparent meaning of the Qur’an, so their evidence is acceptable and sound. And God knows best.

Dāwūd and the Literalists claimed that the permissibility of shortening is specific to the state of fear. Their evidence is that God made this ruling conditional upon fear: {إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَن يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} (if you fear that those who disbelieve may cause you affliction). Since the conditioned thing is absent when the condition is absent, the permissibility of shortening must be absent during safety. They argue that this condition cannot be lifted by a singular narration, as that would imply abrogating the Qur’an by a singular narration, which is impermissible. They found this argument difficult, leading them to use strained interpretations of the verse to escape it.

My View: There is no ambiguity here. We explained in the exegesis of {إِن تَجْتَنِبُوا كَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ} (If you avoid the major sins of which you are forbidden) that the words in and idhā imply that when the condition is met, the consequence occurs, but they do not imply that when the condition is absent, the consequence must also be absent. We supported this with many verses.

If this is established, then God’s statement {إِنْ خِفْتُمْ} implies that the concession occurs when fear is present, but it does not imply that the concession is absent when fear is absent. Thus, the verse is silent regarding the state of safety, both by negation and affirmation. Establishing the ruling during safety by a singular narration is establishing a ruling that the Qur’an was silent about via a singular narration, which is not impossible. What is impossible is establishing a ruling by a singular narration that contradicts what the Qur’an indicates, which we do not claim.

Objection: If the ruling is established during both fear and safety, what is the benefit of restricting it to the state of fear in the verse?

Answer: The verse was revealed concerning the Prophet’s travels, most of which were not free from the fear of the enemy. God mentioned this condition because it was the most frequent occurrence. Some answered that the shortening mentioned in the verse refers to substituting bowing/prostration with signaling, which is the prayer during intense fear. This prayer is certainly specific to the state of fear; it is not permissible to perform this type of prayer during safety, nor is it considered valid or forbidden.

Furthermore, we say to the Literalists: The apparent meaning of this verse implies that shortening is only permissible when the specific fear caused by the disbelievers occurs. If fear arises from another cause, shortening should not be permissible. If they adhere to this, they avoid criticism. If they do not adhere to it, they are flawed, because God said: {إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَن يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} (if you fear that those who disbelieve may cause you affliction), which implies the condition is this specific fear. They can respond: Either there is a consensus of the Companions and the Ummah that any fear suffices, or there is no consensus. If consensus exists, we say: We contradict the apparent meaning of the Qur’an based on consensus, which is a decisive proof, so it is not permissible to contradict it based on a conjectural proof. If there is no consensus, the question dissolves, as we maintain that shortening is only permissible with this specific fear. And God knows best.

Regarding His statement: {إِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَن يَفْتِنَكُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا}: There are two interpretations of this affliction (fitnah):

1. You fear they will tempt you away from completing the rukū‘ and sujūd in all [your prayers].
2. You fear they will afflict you with their enmity. In essence, every trial, tribulation, and hardship is a fitnah.

Then God Almighty said: {إِنَّ الْكَافِرِينَ كَانُوا لَكُمْ عَدُوًّا مُّبِينًا} (Indeed, the disbelievers were to you a manifest enemy). The meaning is that the enmity between you and the disbelievers is ancient, and now that you have manifested opposition to them in religion, their enmity has increased. Because of the intensity of this enmity, they resort to fighting you and intending your destruction if they are able. If your prayer is prolonged, they might find an opportunity to kill you. Therefore, you have been permitted to shorten the prayer. He said عَدُوًّا (an enemy, singular) and not a‘dā’ (enemies, plural) because the word ‘aduww applies equally to one or many, as in His saying: {فَإِنَّهُمْ عَدُوٌّ لِّي إِلَّا رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ} (Indeed, they are an enemy to me, except the Lord of the worlds).

When you are among them and establish the prayer for them, let a group of them stand with you, and let them take their arms. When they prostrate, let the other group be behind you. Then let the second group, who have not prayed, come and pray with you, and let them take their precaution and their arms. The disbelievers wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they might raid you in one swift attack. There is no blame upon you if you are hindered by rain or are ill, that you lay down your arms, but take your precaution. Indeed, God has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

And when you have completed the prayer, remember God while standing, sitting, and [lying] on your sides. But when you are secure, re-establish the prayer. Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers as a decree of specified times.

(Note: The translation covers the description of the Prayer of Fear (Ṣalāt al-Khawf) and the subsequent commands regarding remembrance and establishing the prayer when secure.)