A brother is in need of money, so he began transporting some female teachers from a city to a village located approximately 150 kilometers away.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says:The questioner : Your Eminence, a brother is in need of money, so he began transporting some female teachers from a city to a village located approximately 150 kilometers away, and he did not find a mahram (a relative one may not marry) with him other than his wife. Is this permissible, or is it forbidden, knowing that he is unaware of the ruling?
The Shaykh : As for his statement, "he did not find a mahram (a relative one may not marry) other than his wife," this is an incorrect expression. Why? The wife is not a mahram; the wife is a woman who needs a mahram. However, if he had said that he does not remain alone with any one of these women, meaning that he comes to pick them all up and returns them all, and does not remain alone with any one of them because his wife is with him, then the wording would have been correct. I see in this case: as long as the driver is trustworthy in his religion, does not remain alone with any one of the women, and returns on the same day, there is no blame on him. This is not considered travel; no one says that they traveled for teaching, even if it is 100 kilometers or more. This distance is not considered travel because he will return on the same day before, for example, having lunch there. The important point is that this is not travel and there is no obstacle. Seclusion is what is forbidden, and as long as there is no seclusion, there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is obligatory for the guardians of the women to scrutinize the driver carefully and determine whether he is someone to be trusted or not. Yes.
The Shaykh : As for his statement, "he did not find a mahram (a relative one may not marry) other than his wife," this is an incorrect expression. Why? The wife is not a mahram; the wife is a woman who needs a mahram. However, if he had said that he does not remain alone with any one of these women, meaning that he comes to pick them all up and returns them all, and does not remain alone with any one of them because his wife is with him, then the wording would have been correct. I see in this case: as long as the driver is trustworthy in his religion, does not remain alone with any one of the women, and returns on the same day, there is no blame on him. This is not considered travel; no one says that they traveled for teaching, even if it is 100 kilometers or more. This distance is not considered travel because he will return on the same day before, for example, having lunch there. The important point is that this is not travel and there is no obstacle. Seclusion is what is forbidden, and as long as there is no seclusion, there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is obligatory for the guardians of the women to scrutinize the driver carefully and determine whether he is someone to be trusted or not. Yes.