Yasir Qadhi | The Definition of Travel (safar) According to Islamic Law | Part 1

Posted by Yasir Qadhi July 1st, 2011 Printer-friendly 52 Comments

Share220 Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 One of the five main principles upon which Islamic law is based (i.e., the Legal Maxims, or alQaw id al-Fiqhiyya) is: Difficulty begets ease (al-mashaqqa tajlib al-tays r). This principle is manifested throughout all of the rules of fiqh, and in particular that of travel (safar). A traveler may shorten the prayers (qasr), combine them (jam ), and be legally permitted to break the fast of Ramadan (fi r). There are explicit evidences from the Quran, the Sunnah, and unanimous consensus of the scholars of Islam that allow a traveler to shorten his or her prayers. The Quran says, And if you travel in the land, there is no sin on you that you shorten your prayers (taq ur min al- al t) if you fear that the unbelievers may harm you. [S ra alNis :101]. The verse seems to suggest that fear is a necessary condition, along with travel, in order to shorten the prayer. However, even though the verse mentions fear as a condition, it is no longer a requirement. Umar b. al-Kha b was asked how it was still permissible to shorten prayers even though there was no fear remaining. He replied, I asked the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam the exact same question, and he said, This is a charity that Allah has given to you, so accept His charity [Reported by Muslim]. In other words, Allah has graciously lifted the condition mentioned and allowed Muslims to shorten even if there is no fear of impending attack by enemy forces. It is narrated in numerous traditions that the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam would shorten every four-unit prayer to two-units whenever he was traveling in fact, he never prayed any four-unit prayer while in a state of travel.[1] Hence, there is unanimous consensus amongst all the scholars of Islam that a traveler who is undertaking a legitimate journey may shorten the four-unit prayers to two.[2] [Note that the issue of combining (jam ) is a separate one, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the permissibility of combining prayers while traveling]. The question that arises, however, is: when does one legally become a traveler? And for how long may one continue to shorten the prayer?

To answer this question, we will divide this article into two sections. Firstly, we shall discuss the opinions of scholars regarding the distance that constitutes travel. This will also require us to go into a tangent and convert the distances narrated in the classical and medieval textbooks into modern measurements. Secondly, we shall discuss the opinions of the scholars regarding the time-duration that is required for the status of a traveler to change into a resident once he arrives at some destination. 1. The Distance that Constitutes Travel The distance that constitutes travel is one of the most highly contested issues amongst the early scholars of Islamic law, so much so that Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 310/922) mentioned close to twenty opinions on this matter. For the purposes of our article, we shall concentrate on the four most famous opinions. 1.1 First Opinion: A three-day journey

What is meant b y a three-day journey is the distance that a traveler on a camel of average speed would traverse in three complete days. This is the position of the Companion Ibn Mas d, some of the famous scholars of Kufa such as al-Sha b (d. 105/723) and al-Nakha (d. 96/714), and the standard position of the anaf school of law. They based this figure on the famous hadith in which the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam said, It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travel for a distance of three days without her father, son, husband, brother or any ma ram [Reported by Muslim]. They reasoned from this hadith that the Prophet called the distance of three days a travel, hence this can be taken as a definition for what constitutes traveling. Another evidence that they used was the hadith pertaining to wiping over the socks, in which the Prophet allowed a traveler to wipe over his socks for a period of three days and nights [Reported by Muslim]. The anaf s reasoned that since the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam set a particular time limit in place, this demonstrates that anyone traveling a distance less than a three-day journey would not be allowed to wipe over his socks, which would then imply that he would not be a traveler. 1.2 Second Opinion: A two-day journey This is the famous opinion of the anbal s, Sh f s and M lik s (note that even within these schools there are other opinions as well, as shall be pointed out in the next section). This opinion

has also been reported from Ibn Abb s, Ibn Umar, Ibn Shih b al-Zuhr (d. 129/746), and others. From amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of Ibn Baz (d. 1999) and the fatwa of the Permanent Committee of Scholars of Saudi Arabia. It is claimed that this is the majority opinion of the classical scholars of Islam. Their evidence is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam said, It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of two days without a ma ram [Reported by Muslim]. They also used the action of Ibn Umar as an evidence, for it is reported that he would shorten his prayers if he traveled the distance of four bar ds (i.e., two days, as we shall discuss later in this article) [Reported by Imam Malik in his Muwa a]. 1.3 Third Opinion: A one-day journey This was the opinion of Imam al-Bukhar (d. 256/869) which he explicitly mentions in his a . It has also been attributed as a second opinion within the three schools of the last opinion (viz., the anbal s, Sh f s and M lik s). [It will be explained later why this second opinion for these three schools is not in essence different from their first one]. The famous scholar of Syria, al-Awz (d. 151/768), said, This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and we hold it as well. Amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of our teacher Mu ammad b. Mu ammad al-Mukht r al-Shanq . Their evidence for this is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu alayh wa sallam said, It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of one day without a ma ram [Reported by al-Bukh r ]. Al-Bukh r commented on this hadith by saying, So it is clear that the Prophet called [the traveling of] one day and night a travel. They also use as evidence the statement of Ibn Abb s, when he was asked by a person residing in Makkah, Should I shorten when I go to Mina or Arafat? He said, No! But if you go to Taif, or Jeddah, or travel an entire days journey, then do so. But if you travel less than that, then do not shorten.[3] Therefore, he expressed an entire days journey as being the minimal limit for shortening the prayers. 1.4 Fourth Opinion: It is not defined by distance but by experience What is meant by this opinion is that a journey is not defined by how much one has traveled but by what one does and how one prepares for it. According to this opinion, a journey is not a particular distance as much as it is a physical and psychological experience. This is the opinion of Ibn azm (d. 456/1064) (although he placed a minimum of one mile), Ibn Qudama (d. 610/1213), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1327), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 756/1355), alan n (d. 1182/1768), al-Shawkan (d. 1250/1834), and others. It has been interpreted to be the opinion of Ibn Mas d, Uthm n b. Aff n, and Ibn Sir n. In fact, there is an explicit statement from Ibn Sir n which shows that this opinion might have been more prevalent in the past, for he states, They used to say that a travel in which one may shorten the prayer is a

journey in which one takes provisions and baggage.[4] Amongst the modern scholars, it is the opinion of Ibn Uthaym n (d. 2000) and Ibn Jibr n (d. 2010). Their evidence is the lack of any Scriptural evidence that defines travel, and hence the necessity of resorting to what is culturally understood to be travel. Ibn Taymiyya was perhaps the most vocal proponent of this opinion. He disagreed with any specific distance that other scholars sought to derive. According to him, there is no explicit evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, language or custom of that generation that would be binding on later Muslims. He views the distances that the legal schools and other scholars adopted as having been resorted to because these scholars did not find anything more explicit to demarcate the distance required to be considered a traveler. In fact, all three of the previous opinions use the same basic hadith that prevents women from traveling without a male companion yet, as is obvious, each hadith uses a different limit. This in itself shows that the intention of the hadith is not to define the distance of what constitutes travel. Ibn Taymiyya writes,[5] So demarcating a specific distance does not have any basis in the Shariah, or in the language, or in the intellect. Most people, in fact, do not know the distance of the earth, so it is not allowed to link something that the average Muslim is in need of (i.e., when to shorten the prayer) with something that he does not know (i.e., how much he has traveled). No one measured the earth during the time of the Prophet, nor did the Prophet himself put limits, neither in m ls nor in far sikh (units of measurement). And a person might leave his village to go to the desert in order to collect wood, and he leaves for two or three days, and he will be a traveler, even though the distance might be less than a mile! In contrast to this, another person might go [a longer distance] and come back the same day, and he will not be a traveler. This is because the first person will take provision for the journey, and bags [with his necessities], whereas the second person will not. Therefore, even a near distance can be considered a travel if someone stays for a period of time, and a longer distance will not be considered a travel if a person stays for a short period. A travel is therefore defined by the actions that are required in order for that journey to be called traveling and this is a matter that people recognize by their own customs. Ibn Taymiyya did, however, place a condition that such a travel be considered a travel according to ones custom, such that a person would prepare for a journey and travel into the wilderness (meaning, an uninhabited area). Hence, if a person visited an outlying district of a city (in Ibn Taymiyyas explicit example, if a person living in Damascus visited a small population outside of Damascus), even if this distance was considered large, this would not constitute travel, as this is not considered traveling for a person in this situation. Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyya, a travel is not merely a distance but also a frame of mind. Someone who leaves his house, intending to return the same evening, is not a traveler, even if (as in our times) he travels to another country and then returns. Ibn Uthaym n also holds the same position.[6]

Ibn Taymiyya also pointed out that this interpretation was in accordance with the very word safar in Arabic, because this word indicates exposure. Thus, a woman who exposes her face is called s fira. Therefore, a safar would be a journey in which a person exposes himself/herself to the wilderness by abandoning the cities and towns and journeying into an uninhabited area.

To be continued Part Two deals with converting these measurements into modern units.

[1] Ibn Taymiyya, Majm

al-Fat w , 24/8.

[2] Ibn Hubayra, al-If , 2/55. There is some disagreement regarding someone who travels for an impermissible purpose, such as a businessman who travels to engage in an impermissible transaction; that tangent will not be discussed in our article. [3] Abd al-Razz q, al-Mu annaf, # 4296. al-Fat w ,

[4] Ibn Ab Shaybah, al-Mu annaf, # 8153. Also see Ibn Taymiyya, Majm 24/86-7. [5] Majm [6] Ibn al-Fat w , 24/15. Fat wa, 15/255.

Uthaym n, Majm

Yasir Qadhi | The Definition of Travel (safar) According to Islamic Law | Part 2
Posted by Yasir Qadhi July 8th, 2011 Printer-friendly 6 Comments

Share40 Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Continued from Part 1 1.5 The Distance in Modern Measurements So what exactly does a days journey mean? Not surprisingly, there is no easy method of converting classical measurements into modern ones. It appears that many researchers (classical

and modern) did not pay due attention to scientifically converting such measurements into modern ones. What follows is my brief attempt to illustrate the hurdles that one faces.

The standard units of measurement for travel during early Islam were the farsakh and the bar d. However, the Prophetic traditions use the term days travel. So the first issue at hand is to convert the Prophetic days travel into the classical terms of farsakh and bar d. Before we even begin that, let us first define these terms and establish a relationship between them. A bar d was a distance that a messenger could travel before he needed to stop to allow his animal to rest. If the message was urgent, then at the end of every bar d there would be a fresh animal waitingfor him. Eventually, the term began to be applied to the messenger himself and then to the actual message, hence modern Arabs still call the postal service bar d.[1] A farsakh appears to be a Persian measurement that the Arabs adopted (it was also adopted by the British and called a league). Most early works mention that four farsakhs make up one bar d.[2] So it can be said that each bar d is divided into four smaller units of a farsakh (plural is far sikh). 1 bar d = 4 far sikh So far, so good. Now the real confusion begins. The first real issue is: How many bar ds can be traversed in a 24-hour period? Unfortunately, this is not something that is unanimously agreed upon, and it is this difference of conversion that results in one difference of opinion over the number of days required to consider someone a traveler. Collectively, the anbal s, Sh f s and M lik s all agreed that the distance of travel was four bar ds. However, they disagreed amongst themselves as to what exactly this meant in terms of days of travel. Some within these schools said that in any 24-hour period, a maximum of two bar ds could be traversed; other scholars within these same schools, however, said that four bar ds could be traversed in one 24-hour period. It is because of this conversion difference that these three schools of law had opinions of both one-day and two-days as being the minimal amount of travel.

One days travel = EITHER two bar ds OR four bar ds [both opinions held] What is important for us to note is that these three schools were in agreement with the limit as being four bar ds. Therefore, for the three schools, Shar distance of travel = 4 bar ds = 16 far sikh [For the 3 schools]

This is the opinion of the schools of law other than the anaf school. As for the anaf s, they also disagreed regarding how many farsakhs can be traversed in a day [and there is significant disagreement amongst their own scholars as well]. In order to simplify matters, the majority opinion within the far sikh can be traveled in a 24-hour period [note that some seven].[3] Thus, for this school: Shar distance of travel = 3-day journey = 3 days x 5 far sikh/day = 15 far sikh [ anaf school] anaf school appears to be that five anaf scholars said six, some said

Ironically, even though the anaf s have a larger quantity in terms of travel days, because the actual journey traveled per day is shorter, the net difference was not of great significance. Therefore, in the end, all four schools of law are relatively close to one another in terms of far sikh (16 or 15). The second dilemma that we face is: How exactly does one translate a farsakh into the modern measurements of miles and kilometers? Obviously, depending on ones estimate of a farsakh, the distance of a days journey will vary accordingly. Here is where we encounter our first serious problem. We begin by pointing out that many medieval texts define a farsakh as being 3 m ls. M l is, of course, how the Arabs pronounce the word mile. This would be absolutely perfect, until we understand that this m l is not the equivalent of the modern mile! It appears that the Arabs got this word (as did the Romance languages) from the Roman m llia, which they (i.e., the Romans) measured as a thousand paces by foot. A pace was defined to be a full stride of a Roman soldier (in our understanding, that would be two steps, one with each foot). It has been estimated that this Roman mile was actually around five-thousand feet (in our current understanding of feet). It was only centuries later that the English Parliament standardized the exact length of miles and feet, and decreed that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km). [Why and how they came up with number is really beyond the scope of this article our readers are already confused by now, and those who are interested may look this tidbit up in any encyclopedia].

While the Arabs took the name from the Romans, they did not take the same measurement. It is also claimed that the Roman soldiers step was considerably larger than the average step of other ethnicities, especially those who had shorter statures. The Roman m llia was adopted by many different cultures. Therefore, to distinguish this Arab version of the mile from other adopted versions, it was called the Hashemite mile. Other versions of the mile were the Russian, the Danish, the Portuguese, and the German (not to mention the Nautical Mile, which is different from land equivalents). Our scholars did attempt to define this Hashemite mile (a.k.a. a m l); however, in the days before scientific measurements and international treaties that governed such matters, they could not come up with a unified definition. Some classical texts mention that a m l consists of twelvethousand steps; others claimed that a m l was as far as the eye can see; yet others claimed that it was the distance where one could recognize a figure of a human in the distance but could not tell whether it was a male or female.[4] What is clear from all of this is that not only is a m l undefined, even if one of these definitions were to be taken, it would not be scientifically precise. The bottom line is that the Arab m l, a.k.a. Hashemite mile, had never been scientifically defined. How could it, in an era before the Newtonian scientific revolution that we are all familiar with and upon whose standards we conduct experiments? In the 16th century, the British parliament offered a precise definition that has stuck to this day: that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km). Remember that this conversion factor was a relatively recent one, offered by the British. However, when some of our modern scholars attempted to then translate these ancient distances of far sikh and bar d into modern units, they appeared to have read in the British conversion units into the ancient terms. Hence, they simply chugged and plugged away, using the ancient definition of one farsakh being three medieval Hashemite m ls, and every mile (sic.) being 5280 feet. Thus, they moved from an ancient term (farsakh) to a medieval one (m l) to a British definition of another (mile). This was not the only attempt to translate the farsakh into a recognizable unit. The famous scholar Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) stated that a farsakh is roughly 10,500 arm-lengths (dhir ).[5] Very well, but what does that mean for us in our units of measurement? An average arm-length has been estimated in our times to be around 48 centimeters (i.e., 0.48 meters).[6] It appears that a large group of later scholars accepted Ibn Abd al-Barrs conversion factor and based modern calculations on it. Other scholars, such as al-Nawaw , al-Raml , and al- ajj w all held the position that a farsakh is in fact eighteen-thousand dhir .[7] Hence, plugging and chugging away: - With the conversion factor of one farsakh = 3 m l = 3 standard miles Four bar ds = 16 farsakhs x 3 m l/farsakh = 48 m l = 48 miles = 77.25 km

- With the conversion factor of Ibn

Abd al-Barr: /farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhir miles) = 80.64 km (50.4

Four bar ds = 16 farsakhs x 10,500 dhir

- With the conversion factor of al-Nawaw : Four bar ds = 16 farsakhs x 18,000 dhir / farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhir miles) = 138.24 km (86.4

For reasons that I could not understand, the modern distance of 15 farsakhs to be 77 km (or 48 miles).

anafi position typically calculates a

It can be seen that the conversion factor of al-Nawaw actually yields almost double the distance of the first conversion factor. It can also be seen that all of these conversions are rather tenuous; none of them could have been known or measured with such precision during the time of the first generations of Islam. Now that we have successfully (?) translated these ancient units into three possible distances (and note that there are even more possibilities if we were to discuss other conversion factors), let us return to the issue of the distance required for one to be considered a traveler. 1.6 The strongest opinion Now that we have discussed the actual distance of these measurements, let us return to the original question: which of these opinions appears to be correct? The strongest opinion and Allah knows best appears to be the last one (viz., that a traveler is one who customarily understands his situation to be one of travel), for a number of reasons: 1) Ibn Taymiyyas point that the Prophet did not specify any distance is a very poignant one. He neither ordered that the earth be measured, nor did most of the travelers of the time calculate the distance that they traveled. It does not make sense, therefore, that the Shariah would place a numerical value when such unit-definitions were not known or followed by the majority of that generation. 2) Even in the hadiths that the majority use (about a woman traveling without a ma ram), there are discrepancies between one-day, two-days and three-days all three wordings are reported in one or both of the Sa works. So which one should be resorted to?

Additionally, all three hadiths use the word travel; would it not, therefore, be safe to assume that the Prophet was not trying to link the word travel to any distance, but rather simply discussing the issue of a woman traveling without a ma ram? Furthermore, the tradition about permitting wiping over the socks has nothing to do with setting a limit for traveling it merely sets a time-limit for allowing someone to wipe over ones socks. Therefore, there is nothing in the hadith literature that one can safely use as a defining distance for travel. 3) As can be clearly seen, there is no precise and agreed upon conversion factor for translating a days journey into a tangible and precise measure. There are a number of grey areas in this calculation. What exactly is a days journey? How many bar ds are in such a journey? How many farsakhs can be traveled in a day? How long is a farsakh? What exactly is a m l? And so forth. If this is the case, it does not make sense that our Shariah would have obligated us to measure travel in units that to this day remain undefined and ambiguous. 4) To place a precise measurement on travel seems to contravene the purpose of the law and hence the maq id of the Shariah. The purpose of this ruling is to ease the burden upon the traveler by allowing him to shorten and join the prayer. If a traveler is engrossed in figuring out how far he has traveled (imagine in the days before car odometers gave this information), it is as if the Shariah is placing a bigger burden on him by asking him to calculate a distance that he is, in all likelihood, not capable of doing. 5) This distance really makes very little sense in modern times. A distance of 80 km is more akin to a picnic than to a travel and according to Ibn Taymiyyas definition, if one were to go to a park outside of ones city with the express intention of returning in a short period of time, this would not constitute travel. If we look at the frame of mind of a family who is going on a daytrip to a park outside the city versus going on a journey, there is a significant difference. When one goes on a day-trip, the house is left as is, the neighbors are not told, life at home is not assumed to be interrupted, and so forth. On the other hand, when one goes on a travel, miscellaneous factors must be taken care of before embarking on a journey. All of this is known to and experienced by the people of our time. 6) Before even beginning to convert such ancient units into modern ones, an even more profound dilemma can and should be discussed. For those who follow one of the standard opinions, the issue must be raised: is it not too literalistic to measure a days- journey by the means and methods of eras gone by? In other words, if the primary means of travel of the time were horses and camels, and based on that one extrapolates a days journey, would it be permissible (in fact, would it not be more in line with the goals of the Shariah) to measure a modern days journey in car-travel time?

Personally, if I were to follow this opinion (meaning, if I were to follow a two-day journey opinion), it would make more rational sense to me to measure a days journey in the standard travel-means of our times, namely: a car. This then raises a further question: Does this mean we can eventually extrapolate to a passenger plane? How about a private jet? Questions abound; answers, on the other hand, are not so easy to bring forth. All of this lends further credence to the position of Ibn Taymiyya: that a traveler is one who is customarily considered one. An average Muslim does not need to resort to a scholar, or to a map, in order to find out if s/he is a traveler or not: you know it by what you do to prepare for a trip and your psychological frame of mind.

To be continued In our next and final installment, we will discuss how long one remains a traveler at a nonresident location.

[1] There are other opinion on the origin of this word as well. See Lis n al- Arab, 3/86-8. [2] Most because there is also an opinion that two farsakhs make up a bar d. [3] Al-Tah naw , I l al-Sunan 7/282; al- Ayn , Shar al-Hid ya 3/4.

[4] Lis n al- Arab, 11/639, al-Shawk n , Nayl al-Aw

r, 3/245.

[5] To be more precise, he claimed that each farsakh was three miles, and each mile was three-thousand five-hundred arm-lengths; hence each farsakh would be 3 X 3,500 = 10,500 armlengths. [6] Najm al-Din al-Kurdi, al-Maqadir al-Shar iyya, p. 258. [7] To be more pedantic, they claimed that a m l is six-thousand arm-lengths, and a farsakh is three m ls, hence a farsakh would be 18 thousand arm-length. See: al- ajj w , al-Iqn , 1/274; al-Shawk n , Nayl al-Aw r, 3/245.