nor a transgressor against them. Furthermore, the concession was legislated to assist in the realization of a permissible purpose, serving as a means to achieve a benefit. Therefore, if it were legislated here, it would be a means of assisting in [the commission of] a forbidden act, resulting in the realization of harm, and the [Islamic] Law is far above such [a thing]. Moreover, the texts were revealed regarding the Companions, and their journeys were permissible; therefore, the ruling does not apply to one whose journey is contrary to theirs, and it becomes necessary to interpret it as such to reconcile the two texts. Analogizing an act of disobedience to an act of obedience is invalid, given their opposition.

Section: If the person committing a sin in his journey lacks water, he is obligated to perform tayammum (dry ablution), because prayer is obligatory and does not lapse, and purity for it is also obligatory, thus it becomes a definitive requirement (azimmah). Is he required to repeat it? There are two views: One is that he is not required to do so, because tayammum is a definitive requirement, as evidenced by its necessity, whereas concessions are not obligatory. The second is that he must repeat it, because it is a ruling associated with travel, resembling other concessions. The first view is more sound, for he has performed what he was commanded to do regarding the tayammum and the prayer, so he is not required to repeat them. It differs from other concessions in that he is prevented from [using] those, whereas this [act of prayer and purification] is mandatory to perform. Furthermore, the ruling for other concessions is the prohibition of their use, and it is impossible to extend this ruling to tayammum or to the prayer because of the necessity of performing both. Also, the necessity of repetition is not a rule for other concessions, so how could it be derived from them or extended beyond them? It is permissible for him to wipe over his socks for a day and a night, because that is not exclusive to travel, so it resembles istijmar (cleaning with stones), tayammum (11), and other concessions of residency. It was said: It is not permissible, because it is a concession, so it is not permitted for him just like travel concessions. The first view is more sound, and this is invalidated by all other concessions of residency.

Section: If the journey was permissible but he changed his intention to disobedience, the permission to take concessions ceases due to the removal of its cause. If he traveled for a sinful purpose but changed his intention to a permissible one, his journey (12) becomes permissible, and he is granted what is permitted in a permissible journey; the distance of shortening (13) is reckoned from the time he changed his intention. If his