As for their disagreement over the length of time during which a traveller who stops in a town may continue to shorten his prayer, it is extensive. Abū ʿUmar cites roughly eleven different opinions, yet the view most commonly adopted is that of the jurists of the great regional centers, who themselves present three positions.

First: The school of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī maintains that if the traveller decides to stay for four days, he must pray the full prayer.

Second: Abū Ḥanīfah and Sufyān al-Thawrī hold that if he intends to stay for fifteen days, he must pray in full.

Third: Aḥmad and Dāwūd say that once he resolves to remain for more than four days, he must pray in full.

The cause of the disagreement is that the Revealed Law is silent on any explicit limit, and analogy in order to fix such a limit is deemed weak by all. For that reason each group sought evidence for its view in the occasions on which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—either stayed somewhere while shortening his prayer or accorded a place the ruling of travel.

The first group cite the report that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—stayed in Mecca for three days during his ʿumrah and continued to shorten his prayers. This, however, merely shows that shortening is allowed for three days or fewer; it does not prove that three days is the upper limit.

The second group build their case on the report that he stayed in Mecca during the Year of the Conquest while shortening his prayers. Some narrations put the period at about fifteen days, others at seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen. Al-Bukhārī related the report from Ibn ʿAbbās, and each of these durations has been adopted by a different set of scholars.

The third group argue from his stay in Mecca during the Farewell Pilgrimage, when he shortened his prayers for four days. The Mālikīs further adduce the report that “the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—allowed the emigrant three days in Mecca after completing his rites.” To them this indicates that a three-day stay does not strip a person of the designation “traveller.” This is precisely the point toward which all sides are striving, seeking to infer—from the Prophet’s practice, peace and blessings be upon him—the point at which the intention to settle removes the name of “traveller” from a person, and for that reason they are unanimously agreed