Does a wife’s travel for Hajj require her husband’s permission, or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... Regarding a woman’s travel for Hajj, does it require her husband’s consent?
The Shaykh : No, it is not required, because ... excuse me, perhaps I was hasty. Even if I was not hasty, this depends on your intention ... Because if the Hajj, as it appears from your question, is the obligatory Hajj, then I was not hasty, because it is obligatory for her to perform Hajj whether the man gives permission or not. But if she wants to perform Hajj as a voluntary act, then in this case, her husband’s permission is necessary. This is as stated in the hadith regarding fasting: Yes.
The questioner : But Shaykh, regarding the wife, the ability (istita'ah) is included in the conditions for Hajj. And of course, she is treated like a slave; a slave does not go out without his master’s permission, or a slave without his master’s command. So if he prevents her, does that mean she does not have the ability at that time? I mean, if she travels against his will, alone, for example, does that mean the harm is apparent?
The Shaykh : I think this question has another form. It is as if you are asking: Does a woman perform the obligatory Hajj if she does not have the ability? That is what a person would say. So what do you mean?
The questioner : I mean, is the husband’s permission included in the ability (istita'ah)?
The Shaykh : If we said earlier that it is permissible for her to perform Hajj without his permission, does that mean his permission is included in the ability (istita'ah)? No. Well, this is a matter of common sense.
The questioner : Well, what if she goes out and travels alone and is stubborn?
The Shaykh : She would be in a state of disobedience. She would be in a state of disobedience.
The questioner : In a state of disobedience?
The Shaykh : Yes, because she went out without a mahram.
The questioner : Well, this is a journey of disobedience, meaning it is permissible ...
The Shaykh : No, there is no problem. Have we finished with this point?
The questioner : Which point?
The Shaykh : That she went out without a mahram. Because you can imagine in your mind saying, "No, she went out with a mahram." So how did she go out?
The questioner : Without a mahram.
The Shaykh : That is it. I have answered you. She went out in a state of disobedience. But if she performs Hajj, her obligation is discharged, but she is in a state of disobedience. Not because of the Hajj without her husband’s permission, for in this case, his permission is not a condition for her. But she is in a state of disobedience because she did not go out with a mahram.
The questioner : Well, those who analogized the woman to the slave, is that an incorrect analogy?
The Shaykh : What do you think if they analogized the slave to the woman? Would that be a correct analogy?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : So how about the reverse?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : This analogy is not permissible.
The Shaykh : No, it is not required, because ... excuse me, perhaps I was hasty. Even if I was not hasty, this depends on your intention ... Because if the Hajj, as it appears from your question, is the obligatory Hajj, then I was not hasty, because it is obligatory for her to perform Hajj whether the man gives permission or not. But if she wants to perform Hajj as a voluntary act, then in this case, her husband’s permission is necessary. This is as stated in the hadith regarding fasting:
A woman does not fast without her husband’s permission except for Ramadan.
لا تصوم امرأة بغير إذن زوجها إلا رمضانThe questioner : But Shaykh, regarding the wife, the ability (istita'ah) is included in the conditions for Hajj. And of course, she is treated like a slave; a slave does not go out without his master’s permission, or a slave without his master’s command. So if he prevents her, does that mean she does not have the ability at that time? I mean, if she travels against his will, alone, for example, does that mean the harm is apparent?
The Shaykh : I think this question has another form. It is as if you are asking: Does a woman perform the obligatory Hajj if she does not have the ability? That is what a person would say. So what do you mean?
The questioner : I mean, is the husband’s permission included in the ability (istita'ah)?
The Shaykh : If we said earlier that it is permissible for her to perform Hajj without his permission, does that mean his permission is included in the ability (istita'ah)? No. Well, this is a matter of common sense.
The questioner : Well, what if she goes out and travels alone and is stubborn?
The Shaykh : She would be in a state of disobedience. She would be in a state of disobedience.
The questioner : In a state of disobedience?
The Shaykh : Yes, because she went out without a mahram.
The questioner : Well, this is a journey of disobedience, meaning it is permissible ...
The Shaykh : No, there is no problem. Have we finished with this point?
The questioner : Which point?
The Shaykh : That she went out without a mahram. Because you can imagine in your mind saying, "No, she went out with a mahram." So how did she go out?
The questioner : Without a mahram.
The Shaykh : That is it. I have answered you. She went out in a state of disobedience. But if she performs Hajj, her obligation is discharged, but she is in a state of disobedience. Not because of the Hajj without her husband’s permission, for in this case, his permission is not a condition for her. But she is in a state of disobedience because she did not go out with a mahram.
The questioner : Well, those who analogized the woman to the slave, is that an incorrect analogy?
The Shaykh : What do you think if they analogized the slave to the woman? Would that be a correct analogy?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : So how about the reverse?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : This analogy is not permissible.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.