The travelling distance

[MRahman]

assalamu alaikum

it is a good discussion in here. i want to ask . 1) is it wrong to say it could be 99 km also... 2) shouldn't we not, according to the countries we live in, also measure the distance ourselves and give our own fatwa like the ulama did? they lived 100 years ago in india, but now we live in west 100 years after, is not a new fatwa is required then?

1) 99km is a valid opinion no-one denies that.

2) well in reality - not much has changed except that people nowadays have become more lazy and unhealthy thus maybe it'll be less miles (distance of 3 days). Obviously if it was a mountainous area than one should ask a mufti or so.

[mospike]

On the same topic. Why is it that a women in the state of Haidh who commences a journey (enough for her to become Musafir) has to make salaah in full when she attains purity afer reaching her destination.

Why is her intention to travel not accepted whilst being in Haidh

[Husain]

On the same topic. Why is it that a women in the state of Haidh who commences a journey (enough for her to become Musafir) has to make salaah in full when she attains purity afer reaching her destination.

Why is her intention to travel not accepted whilst being in Haidh

This issue was discussed on the Yahoo Ulama group some time back.

Here are a few portions of the thread:

Firstly, before a person sets out on safr, niyyah is essential. Without it, this isn't a shar'i safr.

Secondly, the result of this niyyah - together with setting out- is that the order of salah that was directed to the person is now changed or reduced. This intention also has other effects eg. a woman now cannot continue without a mahram, the person doesn't have to keep the fast, Jumu'ah is not necessary for him etc.

Now, we have a kafir, a child and a woman all setting out on a journey. All three intend travelling 100km for example.

Now lets take them one by one:
1. The kafir- He is ordered by Shariah to perform salah, thus he is mukhatab with the order of salah. Thus when he intended to travel, the order of salah directed to him was reduced. Now during the journey, when he accepted Islam, he will perform Qasr- regardless of the distance left- as he was on a shar'i journey from the beginning. As for his not having Iman and not performing salah prior to this, this was a barrier that he had himself placed, thus it doesn't prevent him from being Mukhatab of the salah, neither does it prevent his niyyah from being considered.

2. The child- He wasn't ordered to perform salah ie. he wasn't mukhallaf. So as there was no order of salah directed towards him in the first place, when he intended to travel, his intention was worthless as it didn't bring any change in the order directed to him (as there was no order directed at all). Now, when he matured during the journey, he is now mukhallaf and is ordered to perform full salah. If he now intends a full journey, he will become Musafir, however if he intends less eg. 50km, then he willn't become Musafir as niyyah of safr is not found.

3. The woman- She was in a state of haidh when she left, thus in spite of her being mukhallaf, she was not mukhatab with salah, thus her niyyah of safr, would be restricted to what she is mukhatab with viz. not being able to continue without a mahram etc, and would not apply to salah, fasting etc.
The resoning behind this is that the niyyah of safr changes the ahkam directed towards a person, now when the ahkam of salah, fasting etc are not currently directed towards her, her intending safr willn't bring about any change in those ahkam (as they weren't directed towards here in the first place).
Now when she becomes pure, if she now intends a full journey, she will become Musafir, however if she intends less eg. 50km, then she willn't become Musafir as niyyah of safr is not found.

The aspect of her being subordinate to her husband has already been discussed. The gist of it is that her husband's niyyah can only stand in for hers, in aspects in which her niyyah is considered. As her niyyah isn't considered with regards to salah - on account of her not beng mukhatab with it- thus his cannot stand in for hers.
The same would apply to the child.


***********

The first question that pops up in the mind of most Ulama when they hear this mas'alah is: " Isn't the wife tabi' to the husband, so it is his niyyah that is considered, not hers. Thus even is she was ha'idh she should be in hukm of Musafir as her husband made the niyyah?"

The answer to it is quite simple:

In order for the niyyah of the tabi' - here the wife- to be passed over to the asl- the husband- the condition is that the tabi' must be mahal of niyyah in the first place. Once she is mahal of it, then it can be passed over to him.
However when she is in haidh or nifas, she isn't mukhatabah, thus she isn't mahal of niyyah of safar at all, thus no possibility of it being passed over to the husband.
The same applies to a child who became baligh while on a journey.

There are number of masa'il based on the fact that the woman isn't mukha'tabah when in haidh. eg. she doesn't reply to Azan, as she isn't mukhatabah. (Imdadul Fattah pg. 219)

And Allah Ta'ala knows best

[Talib84]

Assalamu Alaikum

Firstly, before a person sets out on safr, niyyah is essential. Without it, this isn't a shar'i safr

I would like to clarify this statement. Suppose I intend to go to the beach in my country, but on arriving at the beach I realized that the distance travelled was more than 88 km. Will I have to shorten my salah? (on leaving home I did not have the intention of going on safr)

In the Hanafi madhab is it compulsory to shorten the salah? The people with me usually prefer not to shorten their salah, and some even say it is only recommended but not compulsory.

[vagabond]

Respected Mufti Sahib, and others:

Sorry to bring this old thread up, by I was intrigued by the discussion .

1. When the Fuqaha say that the distance travelled in three days would change based on time and place, it DOES NOT mean that it will change based on the type on conveyance. Walking or the pace of a camel (which are similar) is what is taken into account. The Fuqaha have clearly stated that if a person travels in one day the distance normally traveled in 3 days on account of a fast conveyance, then he would still become a musafir.
If you have understood this, then the arguments about airplanes etc would be answered.

Here you have mentioned that the distance calculated is based on walking or the pace of a camel. However, you have also mentioned a quote in which traveling by sea is included - indicating that the distance calculation by sea would be different than land.

1) Shams al-Aimmah as-Sarakhsi, who is classified as a mujtahid in masail:

وَلَا مَعْنَى لِلتَّقْدِيرِ بِالْفَرَاسِخِ ، فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ يَخْتَلِفُ بِاخْتِلَافِ الطُّرُقِ فِي السُّهُولِ وَالْجِبَالِ وَالْبَحْرِ وَالْبَرِّ ، وَإِنَّمَا التَّقْدِيرُ بِالْأَيَّامِ وَالْمَرَاحِل

ِ
"Calculating it in farsakhs is MEANINGLESS, as it would differ based on the roads, whether they are on normal land, mountains, land or sea. The calculation would ONLY be by days and marahil."

So, in the case of traveling by sea, would one still use the rate of travel of a man walking, or a camel - even though one cannot walk on water? Or would one use the average speed of a passenger boat? In the case of using the average speed of a passenger boat (or something similar) - where does that leave the 'principle' of using the average rate of travel of a man walking or a camel?

Jazaak Allaah Khayr!

[vagabond]

C'mon, I'm really curious about this one
Someone comment, pleeeaaase.