The wājib and the fard have one meaning, without distinction; the two are synonymous. As for what some of the mujtahideen held that if the ruling is established by a definite evidence such as the Qur’an and the mutawātir hadith then it is fard, and if it is established by a preponderant [dhanni] evidence like the solitary report [khabr al wāhid] or legal analogy [qiyās] then it is wājib, then this position is arbitrary and without evidence. There is nothing in the language or the revelation to establish it, nor is it correct for this to be a conventional position for those who hold it, because convention [istilāh] is the application of names upon referents [musammayāt], and this issue is not of this sort, rather this matter is of the definition of a specific referent and thus it must be in accordance with the reality. The reality of this referent is that which the legislator decisively requested, regardless of whether that request was established by a definite or indefinite evidence. The issue is related to the indication of the address, not to its establishment. The obligation is of two types with respect to its fulfillment [ā’da’]: the expanded obligation [fard muwassa’] like the salāt and the confined obligation [fard mudayyaq] like the sawm. If the time granted for the performance of the obligation is greater than that required to perform it, like the duhr salāt for example, then it is an expanded obligation. All the parts of that time comprise the time for the performance of that obligation, whereby the obligation is fulfilled and its benefit acquired. An evidence for the expanded obligation is that the command to pray Dhuhr – his (saw) saying in the hadith related by Abu Dāwūd that, “Jibrīl led me in prayer twice near the House. He led me in Dhuhr when the Sun moved from its zenith by the size of a shoe lace…” until he said, “and he led me in ‘Asr when the shadow of a thing was twice its size.” This includes all the parts of the mentioned time. The intent of this hadith is not the implementation of the first act of the salāt in the first time and the last at its last, nor is it the performance of the salāt in every part of the mentioned time such that no part of it is without salāt, nor is it the specification of a particular part of the time in which the obligation is fulfilled. This is because there is no indication in the expression for any of these meanings. Hence there remains no meaning except that each part of the time is acceptable for the performance of the obligation, and that the mukallaf has the choice of performing it in any of these parts.