eating carrion is obligatory for someone compelled by necessity, whether travelling or resident, and whether that necessity arose from a lawful or unlawful cause. If he threw his wealth into the sea and was compelled to eat carrion, he would be obliged to eat it. If he undertook an unlawful journey that exhausted him until he could no longer stand, he would pray sitting. Likewise, if he engaged in unlawful fighting and his wounds left him unable to stand, he would pray sitting.

If it is asked, “May someone engaged in unlawful fighting offer the prayer of fear?” the answer is: He must pray and refrain from fighting. If he refuses to abandon the unlawful fighting, we do not permit him to abandon prayer. Rather, praying as someone in fear does is better than abandoning prayer altogether. Must he then repeat the prayer? This is disputed. If he can perform it within its prescribed time without these invalidating actions, he must do so, for he is commanded to perform it. But if the time elapses without his doing so, its validity and acceptance thereafter are disputed.

The second point of disagreement is that ʿUthmān regarded as a traveller only someone who carried provisions and waterskins, not someone staying in a place where he had no need of them—for example, a merchant, a resident, or a tax collector staying somewhere they did not need such supplies. ʿUthmān did not set a fixed measure for travel; rather, he did not regard someone in this category as a traveller. It has likewise been said that he did not consider himself and those with him to be travellers at Minā once Minā had become built up.

Ibn Abī Shaybah reported that Ibn Sīrīn said: “They used to say: ‘The journey on which prayers are shortened is one for which provisions and waterskins are carried.’” The basis of this view—and Allah knows best—is that prayers are shortened only