Sunnahs such as these—whose occasions recur time and again and whose underlying causes have never been revoked—could simply vanish from the practice of the people of Madinah, the very community that perfected adherence to the Prophetic way, generation after generation. Their collective practice is, in fact, a stronger proof than the principle of “prevalent necessity” (ʿumūm al-balwā) to which Abū Ḥanīfah appeals, for the people of Madinah were far less likely to overlook such rulings than the wider populace on whose transmission Abū Ḥanīfah relies.
In short, actual practice is unquestionably a contextual indicator: when it concurs with a transmitted report it reinforces the report and tips the balance of probability in its favour; when it conflicts with the report, it weakens that probability. Whether this indicator can ever rise to a level that warrants rejecting sound solitary reports (aḥād) is open to investigation. Perhaps it does so in certain cases but not in others, for matters differ in the degree to which they involve widespread, pressing need. The rule is that the greater the community’s need for a Sunnah and the more frequently it must be implemented, the weaker its transmission becomes if it rests solely on isolated narrations without any widespread verbal or practical diffusion. Such a scenario necessarily points to one of two conclusions: either the ruling has been abrogated, or the transmission is defective—a point clarified by the theologians, such as Abū al-Maʿālī and others.
Combining the prayers while at home for a sick person was permitted by Mālik when the patient fears losing consciousness or suffers severe abdominal illness, whereas al-Shāfiʿī prohibited it. Their disagreement turns on whether the rationale for combining during travel—namely hardship—may be extended to illness. Those who apply the rationale argue that hardship is even greater for the sick than for the traveller and therefore, a fortiori, the licence should apply. Those who regard the rationale as restricted to travel—“confined,” as they say, to that specific ruling—do not allow it.
Section Five of the Third Division: The Prayer of Fear (ṣalāt al-khawf)
The scholars disagreed over the permissibility of the Prayer of Fear after the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—and over its prescribed form. The majority maintain that it remains lawful, invoking the generality of the Almighty’s words:
“When you travel through the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer” (al-Nisāʾ 4:101),
and citing the established practice of the Prophet himself and of the leading Imams and Caliphs after him. Abū Yūsuf, however, diverged from his fellow Ḥanafīs, claiming that after the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—the Prayer of Fear may not be performed behind a single imām. Instead, two imāms should be utilised: the first leads one group in two rakʿahs, after which the second leads the guard group in two rakʿahs while the first group stands watch.
The root of the dispute is whether the Prophet’s Prayer of Fear with his Companions was an act of worship whose legal force continues, or whether it was enabled solely by the unique rank of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Those who view it as an act of worship do not regard it as exclusive to him; those who ascribe it to his unique distinction deem it his exclusive prerogative. For if it were not unique, the people could have divided themselves under two imāms. Their need to gather behind a single imām, they argue, was one of the Prophet’s special privileges, and this interpretation, in their view, is reinforced by the implicit meaning derived from