Problem # 27 As it is a condition for Qasr in the beginning of the journey to arrive at the place from where Qasr is allowed, similarly the rule of journey ceases to operate at the time of return after arriving at the point from where Qasr was allowed, and so the person shall be required to offer full prayers.

It is more cautious to observe the elimination of both the signs. According to the more cautious opinion it is better to delay offering prayer until entering his place of residence, and to offer prayers both with and without Qasr he has offered prayer after arriving at the limit (allowing Qasr). As regards the place where he intends to stay (for ten days), is the limit allowing Qasr applicable to it, so that the rules concerning journey may cease to operate after arriving there, or not? There is difficulty in deciding about it. So caution must not be given up either by delaying to offer the prayer or offering prayers both with and without Qasr.

Problem # 28 The criterion in the eye of the person seeing, ear of the listener and the sound of the person calling to prayer and the weather is that they should all be of the average scale.

Problem # 29 According to the stronger opinion, the standard for the inaudibility of the Adhän is its inaudibility in a way that it should not be distinguishable between Adhãn and otherwise. Caution must be observed in case where it is distinguishable as Adhãn, but its words are not distinguishable, and in the case where the person has not reached the place where the sound is not audible at all.

Problem # 30 Where there are neither houses nor walls, it is sufficient to suppose them. Rather  they should also be supposed in cases like the abodes of the Bedouins and the like who have no walls in heir abodes.

Problem # 31 If a person doubts whether he has reached the limit allowing Qasr not, he shall deem not to have reached the limit, and so he shall continue offering full prayers while going on the journey, but shall exercise Qasr on his return, except when he comes across some hindrance, as the brief or detailed knowledge arising about the invalidity of the prayers is against it, like the case of a person who has to offer full prayer for Zuhr at the said place while going on the journey, and intends to offer Asr’ prayer with Qasr at the same place.

Problem # 32 If a person happens to be aboard a ship or the like, and starts offering prayer before reaching the limit (allowing Qasr) with the intention of offering it without Qasr then he reaches the limit during the prayer, so if it occurs before he performs Ruku’ in the third Rak’at, he shall complete it with Qasr and his prayer shall be valid, provided that he was sure of completing the prayer before reaching the limit; otherwise, if he reaches the limit before starting the third Rak’at, he shall finalisé it with Qasr and his prayer shall be valid.

In case he has started the third Rak’at (before reaching the limit), then there is difficulty in applying the rule of Qasr and so it is more cautious for him to complete the prayer with Qasr and then offer it again in full, or complete it in full, and then offer it again with Qasr as is also the case when he reaches the limit after going into Ruku’, it shall be difficult to decide. So caution must not be given up by completing the prayer in full, and then offering it again with Qasr. If the person is returning, and starts offering prayer with the intention of Qasr before reaching the limit (allowing Qasr) and then he reaches the limit during the prayer, he shall complete it in full and it shall be valid.

Things that Terminate Application of Rules of Journey

There are a number of things which lead to the termination of application of the rules of journey. They are as follows:

The Home Town. So a journey is deemed to have ended if a person happens to pass from his home town, and after it for offering prayers with Qasr he requires to cover a fresh distance allowing Qasr regardless whether it is his actual hometown, or his place of birth, or a place of his domicile, which is a place chosen as his place of residence and a permanent abode. It is not a condition that he should own some property in it, or should have stayed there for six months.

Of course, it is a condition for the place of domicile that he should have stayed in it for such a period that it may usually be considered his home town and place of residence. Rather sometimes a place is called his home town due to a long period of stay when he happens to stay in a town without the intention of staying in it permanently or with the intention of leaving it.

Problem # 1 If a person shuns his actual home town or place of domicile, and chooses another place as his home town, then if he happens to own no property in the former home town, or had some property but it was not worth living, or it was worth living but he did not stay in it for six months with the intention of permanent residence, it shall cease to be called his home town.

If however, the person happens to own some property and has stayed in it for six months after making it the place of his permanent residence, or its being his actual home town, then according to the prevalent opinion of the jurists it shall be called his present hometown, and shall be considered his legal home town, and they make it obligatory on him to offer full prayers on passing from that place as long as his property remains in it. Rather, some of the jurists make it obligatory on him to offer full prayers even when the person owns a property in it even if it is not worth living, and is an orchard of palm trees or the like; rather even in case he has lived in that place for six months, even if without the intention of permanent residence, but, for example, with the intention of trade.

The stronger opinion is, however, against all this, and does not apply the rule of home town in all the cases mentioned, and considers that a place ceases to be the home town of a person absolutely by shunning it, though it is more cautious to find a via media between applying the rule of home town and otherwise particularly in the first case.

Problem # 2 It is possible for a man to have two home towns at one and the same time, and make both of them places of his permanent residence, so that he may stay in each of them, for instance, for six months every year. But there is difficulty in accepting more than two home towns for a person, and so observance of caution is necessary.

Problem # 3 Apparently, a person who is not independent in his intention and living shall also be deemed dependent on whom he is dependent in matter of home town, so that the hometown of the former shall be the home town of the latter, regardless whether the former is a minor, as is generally the case, or an adult according to law, as is the case with some male children and a large number of female children, particularly in the early stage of coming of age.

The criterion here is the dependence and lack of independence, as sometimes a discreet minor is found to be independent in his intention and living, while, on the contrary, some times a person who is an adult according to law has no independence (of action and living). It is not exclusively with the father and children, but the basic criterion is dependence even if it is on any other relative or even a stranger. All this relates to the place of domicile, but as regards the actual home town, there is no need of independence of action for determining it, as a home town is not opted or taken by intention. In case of shunning the home land, whatever has been said here shall also apply in that case.

Problem # 4 If a person hesitates in migrating from his home town, then apparently it shall continue to be deemed his home town until and unless his migration and shunning that place do not materialize.

As regards the place of domicile there is no difficulty in declaring that it ceases to be called his home town if the person fails to reside in it for a period of time which is usually considered necessary for calling it a home town. If a person has stayed at a place for a period which is usually considered necessary for calling it a home town, then it is more cautious to apply the rules of home town and otherwise; though, according to the stronger opinion, it would also continue to be deemed his home town.

2. Decision for staying continuously for ten days or the knowledge about staying for ten days in it, even if it is not in his control.

Problem # 5 The nights lying in the middle of the ten days are included in the stay often days to the exclusion of the first and last nights. So ten days and nine nights are sufficient (for calling it a stay of ten days), and to compensate the deficiency of the day from the (eleventh) day, according to the stronger opinion, as when a person intends to stay from the noon of the first day upto the noon of the eleventh days, as, according to the stronger opinion, the beginning of the day is counted from the dawn. So if a person starts his stay from the sunrise, the end of the tenth day shall be counted at the sunrise on the eleventh day, and not the sunset on the tenth day.

Problem # 6 It is a condition that the place of stay must be one and the same. If he intends to stay in several places for ten days, the rule of journey shall not cease to apply to it, as for example, when a person intends to stay at Najaf and Küfa at one and the same time. Of course, a distance caused by a river or the like shall not affect the unity of the place when the whole area is considered a single town, as the river on two sides of Baghdad and Istanbul, so that if a person intends to stay on both sides of the river, it shall suffice in the termination of the rule of journey.

Problem # 7 It is not a condition in the intention to stay not to leave the surrounding walls of a town. Rather, if a person goes out of the surrounding walls of a town to the gardens or farms of the town, the rules of a resident shall nevertheless apply to him. Rather even if he intends to go out of the limit allowing Qasr, even if it is less than four Farsakhs, it shall not be harmful, when his intention is to return soon, so that his period of stay may not exceed, for instance, one hour or two, in a way that it may not cease to be usually called a stay often days in that town. As regards the stay for period more than that, there is difficulty (in calling a stay of ten days in that town), particularly when it was with the intention of passing the night.

Problem # 8 The brief intention is not sufficient in the materialization of stay (for ten days). So if a person is dependent on another, like a wife or friend, if intending to stay as much as on whom he or she is dependent is not sufficient, even the latter intends to stay for ten days, when the former did not know the extent of the latter’s stay in the beginning. So after a few days the former comes to know that the latter intended to stay for ten days, he/she shall continue exercising Qasr except when after that he intends to stay for ten days, rather even if he intends to stay, for example, up to the end of the month or until the Eid, which in fact come to ten days, but he/she did not know it at the time of departure, it is not far from being insufficient, and the Qasr being obligatory on him/her; but, as far as possible, caution must not be given up.

Problem # 9 If a person plans to stay (for ten days), and then changes his intention, if he has offered the four Rak’at prayers in full during the intention, he shall continue offering full prayers as long as he stays in that place. If he intends to depart after one or two hours, but he has not offered the prayers, or has offered a prayer which does not involve Qasr like the morning prayer, after the change he shall revert to Qasr If, however, he has offered a four Rak’at prayer in full due to ignorance about his intention to stay (for ten days), or has performed it in full due to vicinity of one of the holy shrines after being ignorant of his intention to stay (for ten days), then he should not give up caution by offering the prayers both with and without Qasr though the obligation for exercising Qasr would not be far from being in conformity with the principles of law.

Problem # 10 If a person (on journey) failed to offer a prayer in a way that it was obligatory on him to compensate it, and he compensated it in full, and then changed his intention to stay (for ten days), he shall continue to be governed by the rule of offering full prayers, though there is difficulty (in accepting this rule), and it is more cautious to offer the prayers both with and without Qasr If the person has changed his intention before the prayer be comes due, then apparently he shall return to exercising Qasr.

Problem # 11 If a person plans to stay (for ten days), and then intends to keep fast, then changes his mind after the noon before offering full prayers, he shall revert to exercising Qasr in his prayers, but his fast shall be valid, and he shall be like one who has kept fast and has traveled after the noon.

Problem # 12 There is no difference in changing the mind to stay whether he intends not to say (for ten days) or hesitates in it, so that if it happens after offering the prayer in full, he shall continue to do so. But if it occurs before offering the prayer in full, he shall revert to exercising Qasr.

Problem # 13 If the time often days stay is over, he shall not be required to renew his plan to stay in order to offer prayers in full, so that as long as he does not undertake a fresh journey, he shall continue to offer prayers in full.

Problem # 14 If a person intends to stay (for ten days), and the rule of offering full prayers is established by offering a single prayer in full, and then the person leaves his place up to a distance less than one allowing Qasr and his intention was to return to the place of his residence as it was the place of his residence where his luggage was still lying, and he had not shunned it, then if he intended to stay for ten days after return in it, there is no difficulty in his continuing to offer his prayers in full. In case his intention was not that, regardless whether he was hesitant or intended not to stay there for ten days after his return, then, according to the stronger opinion too, he shall continue to offer his prayers in full, while going from his place, as well as at the destination and while returning and at the place of stay until and unless he starts a fresh journey, particularly when his destination lies on the way to his home town though it would be more cautious to offer the prayers both with and without Qasr particularly while coming back as well as at the place of his stay, and more particularly when his place of stay lies on the way to his own home town. Of course, if he starts a fresh journey at the time of departing from his place of residence, and intends to return to it, so that it happens to be one of the stopping places in his new journey, he shall be governed by the rule of obligation to exercise Qasr while returning as well as the place of residence. As regards the rule regarding while going and at the destination, there is hesitation n deciding about it), and so caution must not be given up by offering the prayers both with and without Qasr though it is not far from being obligatory to offer the prayers in full in both (i.e. while going as well as at the destination). This is the rule when the person does not intend to depart during the ten days to a place lying at a distance of less than the one allowing Qasr at the beginning. Otherwise, it has already been mentioned that if he intended to return very soon, he shall offer prayers in full In case otherwise, there shall be difficulty. In case he leaves for a place lying at a distance less than the one allowing Qasr and was hesitant about returning to the place of his residence or otherwise, or was negligent about it, then it would be cautious for him to offer the prayers both with and without Qasr and this caution must not be given up, though, according to the stronger opinion, he shall continue to offer the prayers in full as long as he does not start a fresh journey.

Problem # 15 If a person intending to stay (for ten days) has to undertake journey, and then he intends to return to his place of residence, and stay there for ten days, then, if it has happened after reaching four Farsakhs, he shall exercise Qasr going and at the destination as well as while returning.

If the place lies after passing from the limit allowing Qasr he shall exercise Qasr while leaving until when he decides to return, and it shall not be obligatory on him to compensate for the prayers he has already offered with Qasr. As regards the rule relating to the period during the time he decides to return, it is more cautious to offer the prayers both with and without Qasr though it is closer to the traditional authority to continue to exercise Qasr. The same rule shall apply if the person intends to return without staying at the new place, he shall continue to exercise Qasr even at the place of staying.

Problem # 16 If a person starts a prayer with the intention of exercising Qasr then during the prayer, he decides to stay there, he shall offer full prayer. If the person intends to stay and starts a prayer with the intention of offering it in full, and subsequently changes his mind during the prayer, then if it were before going into the third Rukü’, he shall complete the prayer with Qasr If, however, it were after going into the third Rukü’, but before completing the prayer, then, according to the stronger opinion, his prayer shall be invalid, and he shall revert to exercising Qasr though it would be more cautious for him to complete it in full, and then offer it again with Qasr and offer it both with and without Qasr as long as he does not undertake journey.

3. Staying for thirty days at the place of hesitation. To hesitation is added the case when he intends to depart the next day but fails to do so, and so on until thirty days pass (in this state of hesitation).

To this category shall be added the case when a person intends to say, for instance, for nine days, and then decides to stay for another nine days, and so on, in which case he shall exercise Qasr until thirty days, and then start offering prayers in full, even if the time left is not for more than a single prayer (having four Rak’ats).

Problem # 17 Apparently a lunar month shall be deemed to have thirty days, even if a person has started hesitating from the first of the month.

Problem # 18 It is a condition that the place of hesitation must be one and the same, like the place of residence, so that in case of being more than one, the rule of journey shall not cease to apply.

Problem # 19If a person stays in a place in a state of hesitation, he shall offer full prayers after the completion of thirty days. If he leaves the place of hesitation after it for a place lying at a distance less than one allowing Qasr and intends to return to that place, he shall be governed by the rule concerning the person who intends to stay at some place and leaves it, which has already been mentioned.

Problem # 20 If a person remains in a state of hesitation, for instance, for twenty nine days or less, and then travels to another place, and still remains in a state of hesitation, he shall continue to exercise Qasr as along as he remains in that state, except when he intends to stay at a place or has remained in a state of hesitation for thirty days.

Rules Concerning a Traveller

It has already been understood that in case of fulfillment of all conditions, two Rak’ats shall be reduced from the prayers of Zuhr, Asr and Ishã’. The supererogatory prayers for Zuhr and Asr shall also drop, but the other supererogatory prayers shall remain intact, and it is more cautious to offer the Vatirah prayer (i.e. the supererogatory prayer for Isha’ prayer) with the intention of hope (that it would be desirable to Allah).

Problem # 1 If a traveller offers a full prayer after the fulfillment of all the conditions for Qasr despite having knowledge of the relevant rule and the subject, his prayer shall be declared void, and he shall be required to offer it again (with Qasr) whether within the due time or after it. If he were ignorant about the actual rule, and that it is a rule that a traveller must exercise Qasr it shall not be obligatory on him to offer the prayer again (with Qasr) not to speak of compensating for it. If a person had knowledge about the actual rule, but he was ignorant of some of the details, as, when he was ignorant of the rule that a journey to a distance of four Farsakhs with the intention of returning makes it obligatory on the person to exercise Qasr or that if his profession was traveling, then if he stays in his own home town for ten days, it shall be obligatory on him to exercise Qasr in his first journey, and such other rules, then if such a person offers full prayer, he shall be bound to offer the prayer again (with Qasr) within its due time or after it.

Similarly, if a person knows the rule but does not know the subject, as when he thinks that his destination does not lie at a distance allowing Qasr and so he offers full prayer despite the place being at a distance allowing Qasr (the same rule shall apply). If a person has forgotten that he was on journey, and so he offers full prayer, and then recalls (that he was on journey), it shall be obligatory on him to offer the prayer again (with Qasr) within the due time. If the person comes to realize it after the due time of the prayer, it shall not be obligatory on him to compensate for it.

Problem #2 According to the stronger opinion, the rules relating to the prayers mentioned here are also applicable to fasting, so that a fast is declared void in case a person has knowledge (about the rules of Qasr during journey) and keeps fast deliberately. Likewise, a fast shall be valid if the person is ignorant of the actual rule to the exclusion of its details and its subject, (in which case his fast shall be declared void). Of course, the rule of forgetfulness does not apply in case of fasting, so that if a person does not keep fast out of forgetfulness, it shall be obligatory on him to compensate for it.

Problem # 3 If a person who is required to offer full prayer exercises Qasr his prayer shall be declared void. So also if a person intends to stay, but he exercises Qasr out of ignorance of the fact that he was required to offer full prayers, (his prayer shall also be declared void).

Problem # 4 If a person who has forgotten that he was on journey comes to recall it during the prayer, then if it were before going into the third Ruku’, he shall complete the prayer with Qasr and would suffice with it.

In case he recalls (that he was on journey) after going into the third Ruku’, is prayer shall be void, and it shall be obligatory on him to offer it again, provided that there was sufficient time for it even if up to a single Rak’at.

Problem # 5 If the time for offering prayer becomes due while the person is still in his home town, and is able to offer the prayer, but he undertakes the journey without offering the prayer until he crosses the limit allowing Qasr and there is still time left for offering prayer, he shall exercise Qasr But he should not give up caution by offering full prayer as well.

If the time for offering prayer has become due while he is on journey, and he arrives at his own home town before offering prayer, while the time for offering the prayer is still there, he shall offer full prayer, though it is more cautious for him to exercise Qasr as well.

Problem # 6 If a person fails to offer a prayer while in his own town, he shall have to compensate for it by offering the prayer in full even while on journey, in the same way as when he fails to offer a prayer while on journey, it shall be obligatory on him to compensate for it by offering the prayer with Qasr even while he is (back) in his home town.

Problem # 7 If a person fails to offer a prayer while he was in his home town at the beginning of the time, but at the end of the time he was on journey, or vice versa, then, according to the stronger opinion, he shall observe the time when he failed to offer the prayer which is the end of the time, so that in the former case he shall offer the prayer with Qasr while in the latter he shall offer the prayer in full, though he should not give up caution by offering the prayer both with and without Qasr.

Problem # 8 A traveller who has no intention to stay (for ten days) shall have the discretion to offer the prayer with or without Qasr in the following four places: They are the Masjid al-Harãm

(Mecca), the Masjid al-Nabi, Peace be upon and his Progeny, (in Madina), Masjid al-Küfa and the Haram of Imam Husayn, Peace be upon him; though it is preferable to offer the prayer (even in such places) in full. There is hesitation in including the cities of Mecca and Madina in the sanctity of the first two mosques, but caution must not be given up by exercising Qasr. while in Mecca and Madina. To this category do not belong all other mosques and shrines. There is no difference in these mosques, (i.e. Masjid al-Haràm, Masjid al-Nabi and Masjid al-Kufa), whether it is their roofs, courtyards or their low lying sections like the Bayt al- Tasht in Masjid al-Kufa.

According to the stronger opinion, the whole holy tomb is included in the Haram of Imam Husayn, and extends from the side of the upper end to the grilled windows adjacent to the portico and from the lower end to the gate adjacent to the gallery, and from behind upto the limit of the mosque, the interior of the mosque and the gallery also being included in it, but the caution must not be given up by exercising Qasr.

Problem # 9 The discretion granted in such holy places is of a permanent nature, so that if a person starts offering prayer with the intention of offering it in full may change it into a prayer in full, or vice versa, as long as he has not surpassed the place where such change is allowed. Rather, there is no objection if he intends to offer the prayer without specifying to be with or without Qasr from the beginning and opts for either of them later.

Problem # 10 To this category of discretion in prayers mentioned here does not belong fasting, so that in such holy places it is not valid to keep fast as long as one does not intend to stay there or has not remained there in a state of hesitation for thirty days.

Problem # 11 After every Qasr prayer, it is approved to recite thirty times: “Subhãnallãh val Hamdu lillãh va là ilàha illallàhu vallàhu Akbar”.

Chapter on the Jamà’at Prayer

Among all the obligations, specially those relating to the daily prayers, offering prayers with Jamä’at is one of those recommended emphatically, and it is particularly emphasized in respect of offering the Morning, Maghrib and Ishà’prayers. It has a tremendous reward. But it is primarily not declared obligatory, by Shari’ah or any other provision, except in case of the Jum’ah prayers with the condition of fulfillment of its relevant conditions mentioned in its proper place. It is not legally valid in any of the initially supererogatory prayers, even if they are rendered obligatory due to a vow or the like, except the prayer for rain (Istisqã). It has already been mentioned that in case of the prayer for the Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha it is more cautious to offer them (with the intention of offering) them individually, though there is no objection in offering them with Jamã’at with the intention of hope (that it would be desirable to Allah).

Problem # 1 The uniformity of the prayer of the Imam and his follower as regards its kind and quality is not a condition for the validity of the Jamà’at. So a person offering any daily prayer may offer it with the Imam who may be offering any other prayer, even if their prayers differ as regards their being with or without Qasr and Ada’ (offered at the due time) or Qadã (i.e a compensatory prayer offered after the due time).

The same is the case with the Ayãt prayers, so that they may also differ (as when one of them is offering the Ayat prayer for earthquake, and the other for solar or lunar eclipse).

Of course, it is not permissible for a person offering a daily prayer to offer it behind the Imam offering the prayers for Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adhã, or Ayãt or burial, or even the prayer for caution or circumambulation (Tawaf) or vice versa.

Likewise, it is not permissible to follow an Imam who is offering any of the above-mentioned five prayers different from one another. Rather there is difficulty in declaring the prayer for circumambulation and cautionary prayer with Jamã’at as valid.

Problem # 2 The minimum number required to hold a Jamã’at other than on Friday and the two Eids (i.e. Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha is two persons including the Imam, regardless whether the persons offering prayer behind the Imam are men or women, or, according to the stronger opinion, even a discreet boy.

Problem # 3 It is not a condition in holding a Jama’at for a prayer other than the Jum’ah prayer, prayers for two Eids (i.e. the Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adhã and some secondary prayers called “Ma’ãdah”, provided that they are valid according to the Shari’àh, that the Imam should have the intention of Jamâ’ah and Imãmat (i.e. leading the prayers), though his award for it depends on it. As regards the person offering prayer behind the Imam, it is obligatory on him to have the intention of following the Imam (Iqtida) so that if he fails to do so, the Jamà’at shall not be held even if he follows the Imam in his actions and words.