The
traveler, traveling and its conditions
source:
silsilat ul-hudā wa nnūr ~ the series of guidance and light
~ tape no. 247
Question #2: “Why did you complete (your prayer)?” [The
shaykh was led in prayer during his journey, then the imām
shortened (the prayer) but the shaykh did not shorten, so he
was asked about that]
Shaykh al-Albānī answers:
“The matter )of being considered a traveler(, in my
understanding, does not depend on crossing a fixed distance
as much as it depends on two things, the foundation of which
is the intention, and the other is leaving the city/country.
So if there is the intention to travel, and he leaves the
city/country, the rulings of traveling are applicable (to
him); and after that, the distance that he crosses is not
regarded, whether long or short. As for (if) the fundamental
principle is not present, which is the intention, then this
(person) who left (the city/country) is not a traveler even
if he crossed a long distance or less or more, because
traveling is one of the rulings that are linked with this
hadīth, about which some of the scholars of Islām have said
that it is a third of Islām: ‘Actions are only by (their)
intentions and every person will have only that which he
intended.’[1] And the truth is that this is a very sensitive
issue about which the views of the scholars have differed
and they did not agree on something completely clear such
that it would be possible for someone to say: ‘This is the
truth, it is quite obvious, so leave the side issues off of
me.’ No one can say this, but all that he can say is: ‘I
chose such and such.’
So I chose – what I understood from the treatise of Ibn
Taimiyah (rahimahullaah) regarding this matter. He has a
special treatise about the rulings of traveling. Indeed he
struck a very wonderful example, from which the researcher
and student of knowledge understand that traveling has
nothing to do with crossing a long distance over a short
distance. As for (saying) that it has nothing to do with
crossing a short distance, then I think this is not an area
of debate, because it is established from the Messenger (of
Allāh) (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that he used to leave from
Madīnah to al-Baqīʽ (graveyard); then he would greet them
(the dead) with the salām, then return. He used to go out to
the martyrs, to Uhud; he would greet them with the salām,
then return. He did not consider himself a traveler although
he left the city. And the opposite of that as well – if he
crossed a long distance, that does not mean that he became a
traveler merely because of crossing this distance.
The example that (Ibn Taimiyah) struck is as the following.
He was from Damascus like me, and there are well-known towns
around Damascus, so he struck an example with a city known
up to this time as Duma. He said, if a man seeking game[2]
left from Damascus to Duma (which is) 15 kilometers (away) –
there is no doubt that (crossing) this distance is
(considered) travelling according to our custom if the
fundamental condition exists, which is the intention to
travel – (Ibn Taimiyah) says that this man is not considered
a traveler because he had left for hunting then for
returning. But what happened was that he did not find the
game that he was looking for, so he continued on the
journey, and continued and continued, and kept going on
until he reached where? – Aleppo; and there are
approximately 400 kilometers between Aleppo and Damascus
today by car. (Ibn Taimiyah) says this (man) is not a
traveler – although he had crossed (many) distances of the
traveler, not just one distance – because the first
condition, which is the intention to travel, was not there
in this person. Thus, we can say that a car driver leaves
early in the morning from ʽAmmān for instance to reach Maʽān
(then) to al-ʽAqabah,[3] returning by evening; this (person)
is not a traveler because he, due to his work, does not
intend to travel; rather he intends to carry out this work
to make a living.
Therefore, regarding the subject of traveling, we must take
into consideration the fundamental condition, which is the
intention. And by us taking into consideration this
intention, the ruling differs for two persons who cross one
and the same distance, but one of them is a traveler and the
other is not considered a traveler because of the difference
in their intentions. And in this manner, there also occur
rulings related to the ruling of residency, i.e. residency
that is planned for a specific time. (For example), two men
left a city, both as travelers; they landed in another city.
The staying of one of them is that of a traveler (but) the
other one is a resident. Why? Because (this second man) has
another wife there, so he (goes) from one wife to another
wife. Thus, because of there being a wife for him who causes
him to be chaste, gives him a home and arranges his
accommodations for him, he takes a ruling other than that of
his companion because the situation differed in some ways.
Therefore, we learn of a very important conclusion, which is
that the exact rulings of traveling differ from one person
to another. So, we don’t assign to a person the ruling of
another (person), and also the opposite likewise.”
~ asaheeha translations ~
[1] Sahīh al-Bukhārī #1
[2] animals hunted for food
[3] these are all cities in Jordan
|