If he combines them during the time of the second, the continuation of the excuse is considered until the time of its entry. If it ceases during the time of the first—such as a patient recovering, a traveler arriving, or rain stopping—combining is not permitted due to the disappearance of its cause. If it continues until the time of the second enters, he may combine, even if the excuse [then] ceases, because they have become incumbent upon him, and he must perform them.

Section: If he completes both prayers during the time of the first, and then the excuse ceases after finishing them before the time of the second arrives, they are sufficient for him, and he is not obligated to perform the second at its [actual] time, because the prayer was performed correctly and sufficiently for what was [in his obligation], so his obligation was cleared of them and the obligation is not occupied by them thereafter. Furthermore, he performed his obligatory prayer while the excuse existed, so it is not invalidated by its subsequent cessation, just like the one who performs tayammum and finds water after finishing the prayer.

Section: When he combines during the time of the first, he may pray the sunnah (supererogatory prayer) associated with the second of the two, and perform witr before the time of the second arrives, because the sunnah associated with it is a follower of it, so it follows it in its performance and its time. The time for witr is between the Isha prayer and the dawn prayer, and since he has prayed Isha, its time has entered.

Section: If he performs one of the two combined prayers with an imam, and performs the second with another imam, and a follower prays with him in one of the two prayers, and another follower prays with him in the second, it is valid. Ibn Aqil said: It is not valid, because each one of the imam and the follower is one of those through whom the combination is completed, so it is not permissible for there to be a discrepancy in it, and if its continuity is stipulated, like the excuse, its continuity is stipulated in both prayers. Our view is that each prayer has its own ruling, and it is independent in its intention, so the unification of the imam or the follower is not a condition, just like prayers that are not combined. His statement that the imam and the follower are those through whom the combination is completed is incorrect, for it is permissible for the patient and the traveler to combine individually, and in the case of rain according to one of the two views. Even if we say that combining during rain is not valid except in a congregation, then that through which the combination is completed is the congregation, not the specific imam or the follower, and the congregation has not been compromised. According to what we have mentioned, if a follower follows an imam who does not intend to combine, but the follower intends it, then when the imam delivers the taslim, the follower prays the second, it is permissible; for we have permitted him to diverge from his imam in a single prayer due to an excuse, so it is even more appropriate in two prayers. Moreover, their intentions did not differ in the first prayer; he only intended to perform an action [that leads to] another, so it is similar to if a traveler intends during the first prayer to complete the second. Likewise, if a traveler prays behind residents and intends to combine, then when he has prayed the first with them, he stands and prays the second, it is permissible according to this view. Likewise, if he performs one of the two combined prayers alone, then a congregation arrives performing the second, and he leads them in it, or prays as a follower with them, it is permissible. Ibn Aqil's statement implies that none of this is permissible.