he kept saying, “I shall leave today; I shall leave tomorrow.” Rather, he conquered Mecca while its inhabitants and those of the surrounding area were unbelievers at war with him. It was the greatest city he conquered; through its conquest, his enemies were humbled and the Arabs embraced Islam. He dispatched detachments to the surrounding regions and awaited their return. Such matters clearly could not be concluded within four days. Thus, he stayed to attend to matters which he knew could not be concluded within four days. The same applies to his stay at Tabūk.

Furthermore, whoever sets a limit on residence—whether three, four, ten, twelve or fifteen days—has advanced a position unsupported by any evidence from Islamic law. These are competing numerical limits.

These positions entail dividing people into three categories: a traveller; a settled resident, meaning someone who intends to remain in a place, whose presence counts towards constituting a valid Friday congregation and for whom Friday prayer is obligatory; and a third category, a resident who is not settled. The settled resident must, without dispute, pray in full, for he is the resident who stands in contrast to the traveller.

As for the third category, the resident who is not settled, they require him to pray in full and fast, and they also require him to attend Friday prayer. Yet they say, “His presence does not count towards constituting a valid Friday congregation,” and, “Only settled residents count towards constituting a valid Friday congregation.”

This division—that is, dividing residents into settled and non-settled residents—has no basis in evidence from Islamic law. Nor is there any evidence that Friday prayer is obligatory for someone whose presence does not count towards constituting a valid congregation for it. Rather, anyone for whom it is obligatory counts towards constituting it. They said this only because they posited a resident who must pray in full and fast, yet found that he was not settled, so they could not