The correct view is that both settled residence and travel are settings in which independent reasoning may be exercised. A person in a settled place may climb onto the roof at night, look at the Pole Star, and use it as an indication; and during the day, he may observe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The indicators available during travel are also available in settled places.

As for their statement that there is no independent reasoning in a settled place, because one can determine the direction from the reports of the local residents and from mosque prayer niches, we say: if a person is qualified for independent reasoning, there is nothing to prevent him from exercising it in a settled place just as he does while travelling.

Thus, the correct view is that if he exercises independent reasoning in a settled place, his prayer is valid. If he is correct, that is clear enough; but if he is mistaken, he has exercised independent reasoning and erred, and he receives a reward. Once he has exercised independent reasoning, he does not have to repeat the prayer at all, whether he was correct or mistaken, because he has done what was required of him. Whoever has done what was required of him has feared Allah to the best of his ability, and whoever fears Allah to the best of his ability is not required to pray twice; for Allah has not obligated His servants to perform an act of worship twice when they have performed it in the manner they were commanded.

Question: If a person is not qualified for independent reasoning while in a settled place, and he relies on the statement of the homeowner, only to discover that the homeowner’s statement was mistaken, the established school holds that he must repeat the prayer (1), because it was previously stated that he must rely with certainty upon the statement of a trustworthy person (2).

The correct view is that he need not repeat it, because this person relied on the report of a trustworthy person.