and performing prayer while mounted, and eating carrion out of necessity. Therefore, it is permitted for him to perform Tayammum in both cases. This is the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i. It has also been said: It is not permitted except during a long journey. The saying of Allah the Almighty: {And if you are ill or on a journey} up to His saying: {then betake yourselves to a clean surface} (2) indicates by its general implication the permissibility of Tayammum in every journey. Furthermore, because short journeys occur frequently, and the absence of water in them happens often, there is a need for Tayammum therein, so it should suffice for fulfilling the obligation, just as it does in a long journey.

Section: There is no difference between a journey of obedience and one of disobedience, because Tayammum is a firm requirement (`azim), so it is not permissible to abandon it, unlike other concessions (rukhas). Moreover, it is a ruling that is not restricted to travel, so it is permitted during a journey of disobedience, like wiping over the khuffs (leather socks) for a day and a night.

Section: If one lacks water while being a resident (hadar), such as if the water is cut off from them or one is imprisoned in a city, then he must perform Tayammum and pray. This is the position of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said, in one narration from him: He does not pray, because Allah the Almighty stipulated a journey for the permissibility of Tayammum, so it is not permitted for other than that. It has been narrated from Ahmad that he was asked about a man imprisoned in a house, and the door was locked upon him [like the position of a guest] (3), does he perform Tayammum? He said: No. Our argument is what Abu Dharr narrated, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The clean surface is the means of purification for the Muslim, even if he does not find water for ten years. Then, when he finds water, he should let it touch his skin, for that is better" (4). Al-Tirmidhi said: This is a hasan sahih hadith. Therefore, the subject of the dispute falls under its generality. Also, because he is someone who lacks water, he resembles the traveler. As for the verse, it is possible that the mention of the journey in it was made in the context of what is prevalent (5), because it is common that water is only lost (6), as was mentioned, during travel, like the mention of the scribe in the verse of debt, and they are not conditions for it. Even if it were an argument, the explicit wording (mantuq) takes precedence over it, especially since Abu Hanifa does not consider the implication of the text (dalil al-khitab) to be an argument, while the verse can only be used as evidence through the implication of its text.