Wale waliokubali uhalali wa kuunganisha swala walikubaliana kwamba safari ni moja ya sababu zinazoruhusu kuunganisha swala. Walikhitilafiana kuhusu kuunganisha swala ndani ya makazi, na pia kuhusu masharti ya safari inayoruhusu jambo hilo. Baadhi yao walizingatia kwamba safari ya aina yoyote, bila kujali asili yake, ni sababu halali ya kuunganisha swala, wakati wengine walishurutisha aina maalum ya safari na aina maalum ya swala. Malik ni miongoni mwa wanaoshurutisha aina maalum ya safari, kwa mujibu wa simulizi ya Ibn al-Qasim kutoka kwake. Alisema kwamba msafiri haruhusiwi kuunganisha swala isipokuwa safari imemletea uzito na ugumu. Al-Shafi'i ni miongoni mwa wasioshurutisha hilo, na hii ni pia simulizi moja kutoka kwa Malik. Wale waliofuata maoni haya (ya Malik) walitegemea kauli ya Ibn Umar: "Nilimuona Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, alipokuwa akiharakisha safari yake (kwa sababu fulani), akichelewesha swala ya Maghrib ili aiunganishe na swala ya 'Isha." Wale ambao hawakushikilia maoni haya walifuata maana ya wazi ya Hadithi za Anas na wengineo.
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.
Vivyo hivyo, walitofautiana, kama tulivyosema, kuhusu aina ya safari ambayo kukusanya (kwa Sala) kunaruhusiwa. Baadhi walisema kwamba ni safari yenye lengo la ibada, kama Hija au vita (jihadi), na hii ndiyo maana dhahiri ya riwaya ya Ibn al-Qasim. Baadhi walisema kwamba ni safari inayoruhusiwa (yenye lengo la ibada au kufanywa kwa kusudi lolote halali), tofauti na safari inayofanywa kwa malengo haramu. Hii ndiyo rai ya al-Shafi'i na maana dhahiri ya riwaya ya watu wa Madina kutoka kwa Malik. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika hili ni ile ile iliyosababisha kutofautiana kuhusu safari ambayo Sala hufupishwa, ingawa katika hilo maana ni ya jumla, kwa kuwa kufupisha kumepokelewa kupitia maneno na vitendo (vya Mtume), wakati kukusanya kumepokelewa kupitia vitendo peke yake. Wale waliokifunga kwa aina za safari ambazo Mtume wa Allah (ﷺ) alikusanya Sala zake hawakukiruhusu katika aina nyingine za safari, wakati wale waliokiona kuwa ni aina ya msamaha (rukhsa) kwa msafiri waliona kuwa ni sahihi pia katika safari nyingine.
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 na wanazuoni wengi wa fiqhi hawaruhusu kuunganisha swala ndani ya mji bila sababu ya udhuru, ilhali kikundi cha Dhahiriyya na Ashhab, miongoni mwa wanafunzi wa Malik, waliruhusu jambo hilo. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu maana ya hadithi ya Ibn Abbas. Baadhi yao walifasiri kuwa inahusu hali ya mvua, kama alivyofanya Malik, na wengine walichukua maana yake ya jumla. Muslim ameipokea nyongeza katika taarifa yake, yaani maneno ya Mtume ﷺ “bila kuwepo [sababu ya] hofu, wala safari, wala mvua”, na hili lilikubaliwa na Dhahiriyya.
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.
Al-Shafi'i aliruhusu kuunganisha sala ndani ya mji wakati mvua inanyesha, iwe mchana au usiku, ilhali Malik alikataza jambo hilo mchana (kwa sababu ya mvua) na akaliruhusu usiku. Pia aliliruhusu usiku pale kunapokuwa na tope (matope) usiku bila mvua. Al-Shafi'i alimkosoa Malik kwa kutofautisha kati ya sala za mchana na sala za usiku, kwa kuwa alisimulia hadithi kisha akaigeuza (kwa tafsiri), yaani akapunguza maana yake ya jumla kwa msingi wa kulinganisha kwa mfano. Alitoa maoni juu ya maneno ya Ibn 'Abbas: "Mtume wa Allah ﷺ aliswali Dhuhr na 'Asr pamoja, na Maghrib na 'Isha pamoja, bila sababu ya hofu wala safari", akisema kwamba yeye aliona hili lilikuwa wakati wa mvua. Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba yeye hakuchukua maana ya jumla wala tafsiri yake, yaani maana iliyopunguzwa, bali alikataa sehemu yake na kuitafsiri (kupunguza maana) sehemu iliyobaki. Hili ni jambo lisiloruhusiwa kwa makubaliano, kwani hakukubali maneno "aliswali Dhuhr na akaunganisha", bali alikubali maneno "aliswali Maghrib na 'Isha pamoja", kisha akayatafsiri. Hata hivyo, mimi naamini kwamba Malik (Mwenyezi Mungu amrehemu) alikataa sehemu ya hadithi kwa kuwa ilipingana na amali (desturi ya watu). Kwa hiyo alichukua sehemu isiyopingana na amali, ambayo ni kuunganisha Maghrib na 'Isha ndani ya mji, kwani imepokewa kwamba watawala walipokuwa wakiunganisha Maghrib na 'Isha, Ibn 'Umar alikuwa akiunganisha pamoja nao.
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.
Uchunguzi wa kanuni hii unategemea kuchunguza suala la jinsi amali (vitendo) inavyoweza kuwa ushahidi wa kisheria. Maulamaa wa mwanzo wa Kimalik walikuwa wakisema kuwa ni aina ya kanuni ya ijmaa (makubaliano). Hata hivyo, hakuna msingi wa hili, kwa kuwa makubaliano ya watu wachache hayategemewi. Maulamaa wa baadaye wa Kimalik walisema kuwa ni aina ya upokezi wa jumuiya (tawaatur), na walitoa hoja kwa hili kwa msingi wa (matumizi yaliyoenea ya) kipimo (saa) na mambo mengine kama hayo yaliyopokelewa na maulamaa wa Madina kutoka kwa watangulizi. Amali ni tendo, na matendo hayaleti tawaatur, isipokuwa yakithibitishwa na maneno, kwa kuwa tawaatur ni njia ya habari zilizopokelewa kwa mdomo na si matendo. Kuona matendo kuwa yanaonyesha tawaatur ni jambo gumu na pengine si halali. Kwa maoni yangu, kuna uwezekano mkubwa kuwa ni suala la haja ya jumla ya watu, kanuni aliyoikubali Abu Hanifa, kwa kuwa si halali kuyachukulia matendo hayo yanayojirudia, pamoja na sababu zake zinazojirudia, kuwa hayajafutwa, wakati watu wa Madina, ambao walitenda kwa sunnah hizi wakifuata watangulizi wao, hawazijui. Ni ushahidi wenye nguvu zaidi kuliko haja ya jumla ya watu aliyoikubali Abu Hanifa, kwa kuwa inafaa kwamba maulamaa wa Madina wasiwe hawajui haya, ikilinganishwa na wale ambao Abu Hanifa alitegemea kwa upokezi. Kwa jumla, amali ni ushahidi wa kuunga mkono pale inapoambatana na kulingana na kitu kilichopokelewa, na katika hali hiyo inatoa ushahidi wa kushawishi, na pale inapopingwa na upokezi kama huo, bado inatoa ushahidi wa uwezekano. Lakini swali, kama ushahidi huu wa kuunga mkono unafikia kiwango ambacho hadithi sahihi zilizopokelewa kupitia isnadi moja (khabar al-wahid) zinaweza kukataliwa, linahitaji uchunguzi. Inawezekana kwamba katika baadhi ya hali unafikia kiwango hicho, na katika nyingine hauafikii kwa sababu ya tofauti katika kiwango cha haja ya watu. Sababu ni kwamba kila mara hitaji la sunna linapokuwa kubwa, na jambo hilo likiwa linajirudia kila mara kwa watu, usambazaji wa sunna kwa njia ya dhad ambayo haienei katika riwaya na utendaji (licha ya hitaji kubwa la watu), huonyesha udhaifu kwa sababu huzaa mojawapo ya hitimisho mawili: kwamba imefutwa, au kwamba kuna mkanganyiko fulani katika usambazaji wake. Hili limefafanuliwa na Mutakallimun kama Abu al-Ma^lT. :
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 aliruhusu kuunganisha swalah ndani ya makazi kwa mgonjwa (marīḍ) pale alipohofia kuzimia wakati wa swalah nyingine, au pale mtu anapopoteza udhibiti wa njia za kutoa haja, lakini al-Shāfi‘ī alikataza hili. Chanzo cha kutofautiana kwao kinatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu kupanua sababu ya msingi ya kuunganisha wakati wa safari, yaani shida (mashaqqah). Wale waliotumia sababu hiyo kwa upana walishikilia kwamba katika jambo hili ni bora na inafaa zaidi, kwa kuwa shida kwa mgonjwa katika kuswali kila swalah kwa wakati wake ni kubwa kuliko ile ya msafiri. Wale ambao hawakuichukulia shida hiyo kuwa sababu ya msingi, na wakaiona, kama wanavyosema, kuwa ni finyu, yaani mahsusi kwa hukmu hii peke yake bila kuenea kwa mengine, hawakuruhusu jambo hilo.
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.