when he led them in Medina in eight units of prayer together and seven together, is not reported to have instructed them at the outset to intend to combine the prayers; nor is this reported of the early generations after him.

This is the view of the majority, including Abū Hanīfah, Mālik and others. In the case of shortening prayers, the issue rests on what is obligatory for the traveller. Thus, scholars hold three views on performing the two prayers consecutively.

The first is that consecutive performance is not obligatory, whether during the time of the first prayer or the second. Ahmad explicitly stated this, as we have mentioned, regarding travel and combining prayers because of rain.

The second is that consecutive performance is obligatory during the first prayer’s time, but not during the second’s. This is the well-known position among most of his later followers, and the apparent position of al-Shāfiʿī’s school. If the prayers are combined during the first prayer’s time, they must be performed together. If they are combined during the second prayer’s time, however, the first is offered during the second’s time, while the second is offered within its own time. His performance of the second prayer is therefore valid even if he delays it, and he incurs no sin by doing so. According to this view, consecutive performance is required during the first prayer’s time but not during the second’s.

The third is that consecutive performance is required in both cases, just as observing the proper sequence is required. This is a position within the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad. It means that if someone offers the first prayer and delays the second, he sins even though the second prayer is valid. For, having postponed the first prayer, he was only permitted to do so on condition that he offer the second together with it. If he does not do so, he is like someone who