Is he certain that he intended it or not? The established position in the school is that he must complete the prayer, because the basic rule is that no intention was made.

Among the established legal principles is that when a person doubts whether something exists or does not exist, the basic rule is its non-existence. Thus, if he is not certain that he intended to shorten the prayer, he must complete it. Yet the obligation to complete in this case is less compelling than the obligation to complete in the preceding case, namely, when he is certain that he did not intend it. Therefore, if the correct view in the first case is that he shortens the prayer, then the permissibility of shortening in this case is even more warranted. Accordingly, we say: if he doubts whether he intended to shorten the prayer or not, he shortens it and is not required to complete it, because the basic rule concerning the traveller’s prayer is shortening.

“Or he intends to remain for more than four days, ...”

His statement: “Or he intends to remain for more than four days.”

This is the tenth issue: if a traveller intends to remain for more than four days, wherever he may be—whether he intends to stay in the open countryside or in a town—then he must offer the prayer in full.

For example, a man travels to perform ʿumrah and intends to remain in Mecca for a week; he must therefore offer the prayer in full, because he intends to remain for more than four days.

An example of remaining outside a town is that of a traveller who comes to a pond, likes the place, and settles there, intending to stay in that location for five days. He must offer the prayer in full, because he intends to remain for more than four days.

The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ arrived in Mecca during the Farewell Pilgrimage on Sunday, the fourth of Dhū al-Ḥijjah. He remained there on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and departed for Minā on Thursday. Thus, he remained in Mecca