What is the ruling on a traveler who stays for work for two years or more?

Question : The questioner says: If a man travels to a certain country on a mission for two years, does he avail himself of the dispensations of travel, and what are they?

Answer : This issue is also one in which scholars have differed. If a person travels to a certain country for a mission and stays there for two years or more, he is not free from two cases. The first case is that he does not specify a duration, but says, "I will stay in this country until my work is finished, then I will return." The Hanbali scholars and many other scholars have stated that this is permissible, and that the person always avails himself of the dispensation, meaning, no matter how long the duration is. This is if the duration is not specified. However, if it is specified, such as if he says, "I will stay in this country for a month, a year, two years, or more for work, but as soon as the work is finished, I will return to my country. I am a traveler for this purpose, but I know that it will not end until after a year or two, for example," then scholars, both early and later, have differed on this issue. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in his *Sharh al-Muhadhdhab* that scholars differed on this in about twelve opinions. When people disagree on issues, it is obligatory to refer them to the Book and the Sunnah. There is nothing in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that clearly indicates a specific duration that ends the state of travel, such that it would be permissible for a person to lift the ruling of travel from this traveler. Whoever wants more of this research, which is important due to the need for it, should read what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in the *Fatawa* in the section on jurisprudence. He elaborated on this issue and said that there is no evidence for the one who specifies a duration, neither from the Book nor the Sunnah, nor from language, nor from custom. He said that as long as a person is a traveler, he is a traveler. He said that dividing people into three categories—settled resident, resident, and traveler—is a division with no evidence for it. The author of *Al-Manar*, Muhammad Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him), presented a clear perspective that reveals the weakness of the opinion that specifies a duration. He said that these people who specify a duration hold that the one who intends a stay that ends the rulings of travel is a traveler in one aspect and not a traveler in another. They say that he is not from the people of the Friday prayer, so it is not valid for him to be an imam in it or a preacher in it. Even if thousands of people gather in a place and they are not settled residents but have stayed for a need and will return, the Friday prayer is not obligatory for them and is not valid from them. And yet, they say that it is obligatory for them to complete the prayer and obligatory for them to fast in Ramadan, and they do not have the rulings of travelers. So he said to them: If you hold that the rulings of travelers are lifted from them, why do you not obligate the Friday prayer upon them? And why do you say that it is not established by them?
In any case, the issue requires that a person review it thoroughly, and not judge a matter by rejection or acceptance until he has investigated the research and clarified it. Then he judges based on what he holds to be the truth.