Ruling on Shortening and Combining Prayers for the Permanent Traveler, and Ruling on Cutting Off Maintenance from the Rebellious Wife

Question: From 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Baz to the honorable brother, the virtuous Shaykh, Judge of the Khaybar Court, may Allah guide him to all good. Amen.
Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings. And after that—O dear one—your letter dated 3/4/1389 AH reached you, may Allah guide you, and what it contained regarding the question of the permissibility of shortening the prayer and combining it for one whose nature is constant travel from the Kingdom to outside it, or from some cities of the Kingdom to others where it is permissible for the traveler to shorten and combine, such as drivers, and those in their position among traveling sellers and buyers, was known.

Your question is also about the ruling regarding the rebellious wife, cutting off her maintenance, clothing, and housing until she returns to obedience to her husband, and whether there is a limited period for this; if the woman does not return to her husband's obedience within that period, are they separated by khul'?

Answer: The answer is that these people are in the ruling of travelers, and it is prescribed for them to shorten the prayer, and it is permissible for them to combine it like other travelers, according to the majority of scholars; due to the generality of the scriptural evidence in this matter, and we do not know of any evidence that contradicts this. As for the statement of some jurists: that the caravan leader who has his family with him and does not intend to reside in a specific city does not avail himself of the dispensations of travel, that is a weak statement, and we do not know for it any aspect from the Shari'ah, as Abu Muhammad ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed out in (Al-Mughni).
As for your question about the ruling regarding the rebellious wife, cutting off her maintenance, clothing, and housing until she returns to obedience to her husband, and whether there is a limited period for this; if the woman does not return to her husband's obedience within that period, are they separated by khul'?
The answer to that is: There is no doubt that the rebellious wife does not deserve anything from her husband in terms of maintenance until she returns to obedience, if her rebellion is without right. Determining the period is referred to the ijtihad of the judge. As for what some judges do, ruling that the rebellious wife's maintenance is dropped and she is imprisoned in her husband's debt for long years, I do not know for it any basis in the Shari'ah, and it is injustice to her. There may be reasons for her rebellion that necessitated it, such as her dislike of the husband and her lack of desire for his companionship, or his bad treatment of her, among other reasons.
The obligatory thing in such a matter is to be careful and look into the reasons for the rebellion and to mediate in reconciliation. If that is not facilitated, then arbitration is obligatory, meaning sending the two judges; acting in accordance with the saying of Allah the Exalted: the verse [Al-Nisa: 35].
The correct view is that they are two judges who do what they see as best, whether joining or separating, without the permission of the spouses, and they are not their agents; because Allah named them judges and did not name them agents, and because the purpose is to resolve the dispute between them, and that does not happen except by them being judges, as is not hidden upon reflection. If the two judges pause, the judge exerts ijtihad by postponing the matter for some time or hastening to separate them with what he sees of compensation or without it; due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the wife of Thabit ibn Qays: . She said, yes. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Thabit: . It was narrated by al-Bukhari in his Sahih. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not give him a choice between divorce and not divorcing, but he ordered him to divorce with an absolute order, and the original ruling of an order is obligation. And whoever says otherwise, upon him is the evidence, and there is no evidence that diverts him from its apparent meaning, as far as we know.
As for imprisoning the woman for long years without maintenance and depriving her of enjoying the pleasures of life, because she is tired of her husband's companionship, that contains many harms and damage to her and to the husband. The husband has a limited right, and she likewise has a right like it. So if her husband disliked her and was forced to have companionship with her, would he be pleased with that? I do not think he would be pleased. Justice in rights is obligatory upon the judge, as it is upon him to look into the cases presented to him, and to exert ijtihad in ending the dispute in them, so that rights are preserved and blood, wealth, and honor are protected, and everyone stands at his limit.
May Allah guide everyone to what brings His pleasure, and benefit His servants and execute His command, for He is the best of those asked. And peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings.
President of the Islamic University
In al-Madinah al-Munawwarah