and the obligation to offer the prayer in full, the prohibition of wiping over the leather socks for more than one day and night, and the prohibition of breaking the fast in Ramadan. Thus, all the rulings of travel cease, except for one ruling that remains: Friday prayer. Friday prayer is obligatory for this man just as it is for others, yet he cannot serve as its imam or deliver its sermon, nor can he be counted toward the required quorum. Thus, he is a traveller in one respect and a resident in another. With regard to Friday prayer, he is not counted among the residents, since Friday prayer cannot be validly established through his presence, nor may he serve as its imam or preacher. Yet it is not waived for him; rather, it is obligatory upon him. In all other respects, his ruling is that of a resident. This is the rationale behind the author’s statement.

This issue is one over which there has been extensive disagreement, with the views of the scholars exceeding twenty. The reason is that there is no decisive evidence in the matter to settle the dispute; hence the scholars’ views concerning it have varied. The positions of the recognized schools are as follows:

First: the Hanbali school, may Allah have mercy on them: as mentioned previously (1), if a person intends to stay for more than four days, the rulings of travel cease to apply to him and he must offer the prayer in full. This does not apply to Friday prayer, however, because Friday prayer requires permanent settlement, and this person is not permanently settled. According to this view, people are divided into three categories: a traveller, a permanently settled resident, and a resident who is not permanently settled.

The rulings of travel apply to the traveller.

The rulings of permanent settlement apply to the permanently settled resident, without exception.