As for Ahmad and Mālik, they permitted him to eat carrion, but not to shorten the prayer or break the fast.

They also argue: “Unlawful travel is sinful, and the concessions granted to the traveller assist him in it; assisting someone in sin is not permissible.” These arguments are weak.

As for the verse, most Quran commentators have said that “one who desires it” means someone who seeks forbidden food despite being able to obtain lawful food, while “one who exceeds the limit” means someone who exceeds the amount he needs. This interpretation, rather than the first, is correct. Allah revealed this in the Meccan surahs al-Anʿām and al-Nahl, and in the Medinan surahs, to explain which foods are lawful and which are forbidden. Necessity is not confined to travel. Even when it arises during travel, unlawful travel is not confined to highway robbery and rebellion against the ruler.

During the lifetime of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, there was no ruler against whom to rebel. Nor must someone who rebels necessarily be a traveller. Likewise, the rebels whom Allah commanded to be fought in the Quran need not be travellers. Those concerning whom the verse was first revealed were not travellers; rather, they were residents of al-ʿAwālī who fought one another with sandals and palm branches. How, then, can the verse be interpreted as referring to something not confined to travel, when this interpretation does not encompass every unlawful journey? If what the verse mentions were as they claim, it would not correspond to unlawful travel: it could occur without travel, and unlawful travel could occur without it.

Moreover, His words “neither desiring it” are a circumstantial qualifier of “is compelled by necessity,” and must therefore apply at the time of