Waɗanda suka tabbatar da halascin haɗa sallolin sun yarda cewa tafiya na ɗaya daga cikin dalilan da ke halatta haɗa sallolin. Sun sabawa juna game da haɗa sallolin a cikin gari, da kuma game da sharuɗɗan tafiyar da ke halatta hakan. Wasu daga cikinsu sun ɗauka cewa kowace irin tafiya, ko menene yanayinta, dalili ne ingantacce na haɗa sallolin, yayin da wasu kuma suka sanya wani takamaiman nau'i na tafiya da wani takamaiman nau'in sallah. Malik na ɗaya daga cikin waɗanda suka sanya takamaiman nau'in tafiya, bisa ga riwayar Ibn al-Qasim daga gare shi. Ya ce matafiyi ba zai haɗa sallolin ba sai dai idan tafiyar ta zama mai wahala a gare shi. Al-Shafi'i kuwa yana cikin waɗanda ba su sanya wannan sharaɗi ba, kuma wannan ma wata riwayar daga Malik ce. Waɗanda suka karɓi wannan ra'ayi (na Malik) sun dogara ne ga maganar Ibn Umar: "Na ga Manzon Allah ﷺ, idan yana gaggauta tafiyarsa (saboda wani dalili), yana jinkirta sallar magariba domin ya haɗa ta da sallar isha'i." Waɗanda ba su riƙe wannan ra'ayi ba kuwa sun bi ma'anar zahirin hadisan Anas da sauran sahabbai.
Those who upheld the permissibility of combining prayers agreed that travel is one of the causes permitting the combining of prayers. They disagreed about combining prayers within a settlement and also about the conditions of travel that permits it, as some of them considered any kind of journey, whatever its nature, to be a valid cause for combining prayers, while others stipulated a particular form and a particular kind of prayer. Malik is one of those who stipulate a particular form of journey, according to the narration of Ibn ak Qasim from him. He said that the traveller is not to combine prayers unless the journey becomes cumbersome for him. Al-ShafiT is among those who did not stipulate this, and this is also one narration from Malik. Those who adopted this opinion (Malik’s) relied on the saying of Ibn TJmar “I have seen the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he was hastening his journey (for some reason), delaying maghrib so that he would combine it with Sshff”. Those who did not hold this opinion adopted the apparent meaning of the traditions of Anas and others.
Haka kuma sun sabawa, kamar yadda muka fada, game da irin tafiyar da ake yarda a hada sallolin a cikinta. Wasu sun ce tafiya ce da ake yi da niyyar ibada, kamar aikin hajji ko yaki (jihadi), kuma wannan ita ce ma’anar zahirin riwayar Ibn al-Qasim. Wasu kuwa sun ce tafiya ce da aka halatta (ko da niyyar ibada ko kuma don wata manufa ta halal), sabanin tafiyar da ake yi don manufa ta haram. Wannan ita ce ra’ayin al-Shafi‘i, kuma ita ce ma’anar zahirin riwayar mutanen Madina daga Malik. Dalilin sabanin nasu a kan haka shi ne dalilin sabanin da suka yi a kan tafiyar da ake gajarta sallah a cikinta, sai dai a wancan lokacin ma’anar tana da fadi, domin an riwaito gajarta daga kalmomi da ayyukan Annabi ﷺ, alhali hada sallolin an riwaito shi ne daga ayyuka kawai. Wadanda suka takaita shi ga irin tafiyar da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya hada sallolinsa a cikinta, ba su halatta shi a wasu irin tafiyoyi ba. Wadanda kuma suka dauke shi a matsayin wata sassauci (rukhsa) ga matafiyi, sun halatta shi a sauran tafiyoyi ma.
Similarly, they disagreed, as we have said, about the kind of journey in which combining (of the prayers) is permitted. Some said that it is a journey motivated by piety, like hajj or war (jihad), and this is the apparent meaning of the narration of Ibn al-Qasim. Some said that it is a journey that is permissible (motivated by piety or undertaken for any legitimate purpose), as against a journey undertaken for unlawful ends. This is al-ShafiTs opinion and the apparent meaning of the narration of the Medinites from Malik. The reason for their disagreement over this is the same as the reason for their disagreement over a journey during which prayer is curtailed, although in that case the meaning is general, as curtailment has been reported both through words and acts (of the Prophet), while combining has been reported through acts alone. Those who confined it to the kinds of journey in which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) combined his prayers did not permit it in other kinds of journeys, while those who considered it a kind of exemption (rukhsa) for the traveller deemed it valid in other journeys as well.
Malik da yawancin masana fiqhu ba sa halatta haɗa sallolin farilla a cikin gari ba tare da uzuri ba, yayin da wasu daga cikin ƙungiyar Zahiriyya da Ashhab, daga cikin almajiran Malik, suka halatta hakan. Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga rashin jituwarsu game da ma'anar hadisin Ibn Abbas. Wasu daga cikinsu sun fassara shi da cewa yana nufin halin ruwan sama, kamar yadda Malik ya yi, yayin da wasu suka karɓi ma'anarsa ta gaba ɗaya. Muslim ya ruwaito wata ƙari a cikin rahotonsa, wato kalmomin Annabi ﷺ "ba tare da wani dalilin tsoro ko tafiya ko ruwan sama ba", kuma Zahiriyya sun karɓi wannan.
Malik and the majority of the jurists do not permit the combining of prayers within a settlement without an excuse, while a group of the Zahirites and Ashhab, from among the disciples of Malik, permitted it. The reason, for their disagreement is based upon their dispute over the meaning of the tradition of Ibn Abbas. Some c of them interpreted it to apply to the case of rain, as did Malik, while others adopted its absolute meaning. Muslim has recorded an addition in his report, namely, the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “in the absence of [a cause of] fear or journey or rain”, and this was adopted by the Zahirites.
1 Al-Shafi'i ya halatta haɗa salloli a cikin gari idan ruwan sama ya yi, ko da rana ko da dare. Malik kuwa ya hana haɗawa da rana (saboda ruwan sama) amma ya halatta da dare. Haka nan ya halatta haɗawa da dare idan akwai laka (kunya) da dare ba tare da ruwan sama ba. Al-Shafi'i ya soki Malik saboda ya bambanta tsakanin salloli na rana da salloli na dare, domin ya ruwaito hadisin sannan ya karkatar da shi (ta hanyar fassara), wato ya takaita ma'anarsa gabaɗaya bisa ga kwatance. Ya yi sharhi kan kalmomin Ibn 'Abbas: "Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi sallar zuhr da 'asr a haɗe, da maghrib da 'isha a haɗe, ba tare da wani dalilin tsoro ko tafiya ba", yana cewa ya dauka wannan ya kasance a lokacin ruwan sama. Al-Shafi'i ya ce shi bai karɓi ma'anarsa gabaɗaya ko fassararta ba, wato ma'anar da aka takaita, sai dai ya ƙi wani ɓangare nata kuma ya fassara sauran. Wannan kuwa ba a halatta shi ba bisa ijma'i, domin bai karɓi kalmomin "ya yi zuhr da haɗe ba", amma ya karɓi kalmomin "ya yi maghrib da 'isha a haɗe", sannan ya fassara su. Ni dai ina ganin cewa Malik (Allah ya yi masa rahama) ya ƙi wani ɓangare na hadisin saboda aikin al'umma (' amal) ya saɓa mata. Saboda haka ya karɓi ɓangaren da aikin al'umma bai saɓa mata ba, wato haɗa maghrib da 'isha a cikin gari, domin an ruwaito cewa lokacin da masu mulki suke haɗa maghrib da 'isha, Ibn 'Umar yana haɗa su tare da su.
1 Al-Shafi T permitted the combining of prayers within a settlement when it c rains, whether during the day or the night, while Malik prohibited it during the day (because of rain) and permitted it during the night. He also permitted it during the night when there is slush (sludge) during the night in the absence f rain. Al-ShafiT criticized Malik for making a distinction between prayers during the day and prayers during the night, as he related the tradition and then diverted it (through interpretation), that is, restricted its general meaning on the basis of analogy. He commented on the words of Ibn cAbbas, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed zaAr and <asr combined and maghrib and <ish& combined, in the absence of [a cause of] fear or journey”, saying that he considered this to have been at the time of rain. Al-Shafi T c said that he did not adopt the general meaning or its interpretation, that is, the restricted meaning, but he rejected part of it and interpreted (restricted) the rest. This is something that is. not permitted by consensus, for he did not accept the words “prayed zuhr and combined”, but accepted the words “prayed maghrib and H$h& combined”, and then interpreted them. I believe, however, that Malik (God bless him) rejected part of the tradition as it was opposed by practice ('amal}. He therefore adopted the part that was not opposed by practice, which is the combining of maghrib and within a settlement, for it is related that when those in authority used to combine maghrib and Hsha>y Ibn TJmar used to combine these with them.
Bincike game da wannan ka'ida ya ta'allaka ne da nazarin batun yadda aikin mutane ('amal) zai iya zama hujja ta shari'a. Malikawa na farko suna cewa yana cikin nau'in ka'idar ijma'i. Amma babu tushe ga wannan, domin ijma'in wasu kalilan ba abin dogaro ba ne. Malikawa na baya kuwa suna cewa yana cikin nau'in tawatur na al'umma (ntfawtir), kuma suna gardama da wannan bisa (yaɗuwar amfani da) mudu (sa'a) da abubuwa makamantan haka waɗanda malaman fiqhu na Madina suka ruwaito daga magabata. Aiki aiki ne, kuma ayyuka ba sa isar da tawatur, sai dai idan kalmomi suna tabbatar da su, domin tawatur hanya ce ta rahotannin baka ba ta ayyuka ba. Ɗaukar ayyuka a matsayin masu nuna tawatur yana da wahala, watakila ma ba halal ba ne. A ra'ayina, yana da yiwuwar ya zama batun buƙatar jama'a gabaɗaya, ka'idar da Abu Hanifa ya karɓa, domin ba halal ba ne a ɗauki irin waɗannan ayyukan da ake maimaitawa, tare da abubuwan da ke jawo su akai-akai, a matsayin waɗanda ba a soke su ba, alhali mutanen Madina, waɗanda suka yi aiki da waɗannan sunnoni bin magabatansu, ba su san da su ba. Wannan hujja ta fi ƙarfi fiye da (ka'idar) buƙatar jama'a gabaɗaya da Abu Hanifa ya karɓa, domin ya dace malaman fiqhu na Madina su kasance ba su mance da waɗannan ba, idan aka kwatanta da waɗanda Abu Hanifa ya dogara da su wajen ruwaya. A taƙaice, 'amal shaida ce mai ƙarfafawa idan ya haɗu kuma ya dace da abin da aka ruwaito, a wannan yanayin yana isar da hujja mai gamsarwa, kuma idan wata ruwaya ta sabawa shi, har yanzu yana isar da hujja mai yiwuwa. Amma tambayar ko wannan shaida mai ƙarfafawa tana kaiwa matakin da za a iya ƙin hadisai ingantattu waɗanda aka ruwaito ta hanyar isnadi ɗaya (khabar al-wahid) yana buƙatar bincike. Yana yiwuwa a wasu lokuta ya kai wannan matakin, amma a wasu kuma ba ya kaiwa, saboda bambancin matakin buƙatar jama'a. Dalilin haka shi ne, duk lokacin da bukatar sunna ta yi tsanani kuma al'amari ne da ke ci gaba da faruwa ga al'umma, to, watsa sunnar ta hanyar ƙadaɗa wanda ba ya yaɗuwa a cikin rahotanni da aiki (duk da tsananin buƙatar mutane gare ta), yana nuna rauni, domin yana haifar da ɗayan matsaya biyu: ko dai an soke ta, ko kuma akwai wata matsala a cikin watsa ta. Malaman Mutakallimun kamar Abu al-Ma'ali ne suka yi bayani a kan haka.
The investigation of this principle is based on the examination of the issue as to how practice ^amal} can be a legal evidence. The earlier Malikites used to say that it is a category of the principle of consensus. There is, however, no basis for this as the consensus of a few is not to be relied upon. The later Malikites used to say that it is a kind of communal transmission (ntfawtir), and they argue for this on the basis of (the prevalent use of) a measure (sat) and similar things that have been transmitted by the jurists of Medina from the predecessors. Practice is an act and acts do not convey tawatur, unless they are corroborated by words, for tawatur is a method of (oral) reports and not acts. To deem acts as exhibiting tawatur is difficult and perhaps not permissible. In my view, it is more likely to be a case of the general need of the people, a principle adopted by Abu Harnfa, as it is not permissible to deem such recurring practices, along with their recurring causes, as unabrogated, when the people of Medina, who acted upon these sunan following their predecessors are oblivious of them. It is a stronger (evidence) than the (principle of) general need of the people adopted by Abu Hanifa, for it is appropriate that the jurists of Medina not be oblivious of these as compared to those on whom Abu HanTfa has relied for transmission. On the whole, ^amal is corroborating evidence when it accompanies and conforms with something that is transmitted, in which case it conveys persuasive evidence, and when it is opposed by such transmission, it (still) conveys probable evidence. But the question, whether this corroborating evidence reaches a level with which authentic traditions transmitted through a single isndd (dhdd) can be rejected,needs investigation. It is possible that in certain cases it does reach such a level, while in others it does not because of the difference in the degree of the need of the people. The reason is that whenever the need for a sunna is acute and it is a matter that is constantly recurring for the subjects, the transmission of the sunna by way of dhad that does not become widespread in reports and practice (despite the acute need of the people), exhibits weakness because it gives rise to one of two conclusions: that it is either abrogated, or that there is some discrepancy in its transmission. This has been elaborated by Mutakallimun like Abu al-Ma^lT. :
Malik ya halatta haɗa salloli a cikin mazauni ga mara lafiya (marid) idan ya ji tsoron zai suma a lokacin sallar ɗayan, ko kuma idan mutum ya rasa ikon riƙe fitar da ƙazanta. Amma al-Shafi'i ya hana hakan. Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga rashin jituwarsu game da faɗaɗa dalilin haɗa salloli a lokacin tafiya, wato wahala. Waɗanda suka yi amfani da wannan dalili a kan kowa da kowa sun ce yana da kyau kuma ya fi dacewa a wannan yanayi, domin wahalar da mara lafiya ke fuskanta wajen yin sallolin daban ta fi ta matafiyi girma. Waɗanda ba su ɗauki wahala a matsayin dalilin ba, kuma suka ɗauke ta a matsayin wadda ba ta cika ba, wato dai ta keɓanta da wannan hukuncin ba tare da sauran ba, ba su halatta hakan ba.
Malik permitted the combining of prayers within a settlement by a sick person (marid) when he was afraid that he would faint at the time of the other prayer, or when the person loses control of the excretion exits, but al-Shafi<T prohibited this. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over extending the underlying cause of combining during a journey, that is, hardship. Those who applied the cause uniformly held that it is preferable and more appropriate in this case, as hardship for the marid in observing separate prayers is greater than that for the traveller. Those who did not consider this (hardship) as the underlying cause and considered it, as they say, deficient, that is, specific to this hukm to the exclusion of others, did not permit it.