The other matter is that the foregoing rationale of removing hardship is also established regarding the combining of prayers while travelling, in the hadith of Muʿadh: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, combined the Dhuhr and ʿAsr prayers, and the Maghrib and ʿIsha prayers, during the expedition to Tabuk. Abu al-Tufayl said: “I asked, ‘What prompted him to do that?’” He replied: “He wanted not to cause hardship to his ummah.” It was recorded by Muslim, Ibn Khuzaymah (2/81/966), and others, and its documentation is given in al-Irwaʾ (3/31). In a version reported by Abu Dawud and others, the prayers were sometimes combined in advance and sometimes combined by delay. It is documented in the aforementioned source under no. 578. Something similar is established in the hadith of Anas and others, and is documented there under no. 579.

I say: once you have understood the foregoing, it will, Allah willing, become clear that what is correct regarding the combining justified by the removal of hardship is actual combining. For apparent combining, in itself, entails no hardship whatsoever, whether travelling or residing. Accordingly, among the proofs of the majority against the Hanafis—who do not permit actual combining even while travelling—is that combining in advance is also established in this case. This invalidates their interpretation of combining as apparent combining. Likewise, some of the hadiths mentioned above establish delayed combining in explicit wording that also invalidates their interpretation, such as the hadith of Anas from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “If he needed to depart hurriedly on a journey, he would delay Dhuhr until the beginning of ʿAsr time and combine them; and he would delay Maghrib until he combined it with ʿIsha when the twilight had disappeared.” Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

On this occasion, I say: it appears to me from the rationale of removing hardship given for combining in the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbas that prayers may only be combined where hardship exists; otherwise, they may not. This differs according to individuals and their circumstances. Perhaps those among the early scholars who held it permissible without restriction alluded to what I have mentioned when they stipulated that it must not be made into a habitual practice, as the Shiʿah do. I can only envisage this in the case of someone who