Why is there a distinction between travel for obedience and travel for disobedience regarding the permissibility of travel concessions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the traveler, I said that he has three days and nights. I touched upon the difference between obedience and committing sin, and both are travel. What is the evidence for distinguishing between them?
The Shaykh : Yes, the school of thought says that the operative cause is that shortening the prayer or wiping over the socks is a dispensation, and a dispensation should not be tied to disobedience. This is because it is not fitting for a sinner to be granted a dispensation; rather, it is fitting for him to be subjected to strictness. They relied on this reasoning along with the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:173] meaning that there is no sin on him in eating carrion. They said that Allah the Mighty and Majestic did not permit the eating of carrion for the one in dire necessity unless he is not a transgressor and not an excesser. Based on the understanding that "not a transgressor and not an excesser" means one who transgresses against the imam and one who is excessive in his travel. The issue is subject to scholarly disagreement, and the correct view is that "not a transgressor and not an excesser" means not transgressing in eating by seeking it, and not being excessive in eating more than what is required by his dire necessity. This is evidenced by the verse in Surat al-Ma'idah: [Al-Ma'idah 5:3] This is their argument. The research and verification of this issue will come, if Allah wills, in the chapter on the shortening of the traveler's prayer. This is because the school of Abu Hanifah, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and a group of scholars say there is no difference between travel for obedience and travel for disobedience, because the general texts do not contain a distinction. Whether the traveler is traveling for obedience, for disobedience, or for a travel that involves neither obedience nor disobedience, each of them is granted the concessions of travel.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, what clarifies the case of the one who travels with the intention of breaking the fast in Ramadan?
The Shaykh : No, the one who travels with the intention of breaking the fast does not break his fast, but he shortens the prayer according to their opinion. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the school of thought says that the operative cause is that shortening the prayer or wiping over the socks is a dispensation, and a dispensation should not be tied to disobedience. This is because it is not fitting for a sinner to be granted a dispensation; rather, it is fitting for him to be subjected to strictness. They relied on this reasoning along with the saying of Allah the Exalted:
But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him
فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فلا إثم عليهBut whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin
فمن اضطر في مخمصة غير متجانف لإثمThe questioner : Okay, Shaykh, what clarifies the case of the one who travels with the intention of breaking the fast in Ramadan?
The Shaykh : No, the one who travels with the intention of breaking the fast does not break his fast, but he shortens the prayer according to their opinion. Yes.