and clarification? Prayer, as we know, is the greatest pillar of Islam after the two testimonies of faith. So how can we tell the Ummah that if a man who intends to stay for ninety-six hours and ten minutes shortens his prayer, his prayer is invalid? Such a matter cannot be left without clarification. Indeed, the absence of clarification where clarification is needed is itself a clarification: had the reality and obligation been otherwise, it would have been explained.

Accordingly, we say that the preponderant view is that held by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH): a traveller remains a traveller unless he intends one of two things:

1. Unrestricted residence.
2. Permanent settlement.

The difference is that one who settles permanently intends to make that land his homeland. Unrestricted residence means that he comes to a land and finds its commercial activity flourishing, or its opportunities for seeking knowledge strong, and so intends to reside there without restricting his stay to a particular time or task. His intention is to reside, because he likes the place—whether for its abundance of knowledge, the strength of its trade, or because he is a government employee assigned there, such as an ambassador. The basic presumption in his case is that he will not travel on; since he has intended residence, we say that the rulings of travel no longer apply to him.

As for one who restricts his stay to a task that will end or to a period of time that will end, he remains a traveller, and the rulings of travel do not cease to apply to him.

Furthermore, if we examine the view that the rulings of travel cease to apply when one intends to stay for more than four days, we find it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is that, with regard to the Friday prayer, he is treated as a traveller, whereas in matters other than the Friday prayer, he is treated as a resident. Matters such as these require evidence.