Women and travel

yes, wanted to link to it from the other topic about power and womens rights - wiould save me writing everything out again.

I disagree with Hajjar

I dont see why I have to take a mahram with me whenever I step out of the bloody house

whenever I travelled to uni
should I have taken a mahmram with me, to stay with me ALL day, keep an eye on me throughout my lesson and take me home as well???

it is too much of a hassle and really impractical taking mahmram with u wherever u go

if u feel that way, thats your PERSONAL feeling
maybe u feel safer with someone accompanying you
and to be fair I dont feel safe after dark and want a relative to give me a lift home

but otherwise its just impractical
and I dont see where it says I need someone with me 24/7
Im not an invalid

with regards to quoting rape statistics
statistics arent reliable
they can be misleading just as words can
its like Dr Naik claiming that women in the west are raped more than women in muslim countries because they dont wear a hijab
tahts total BS
ppl in the west report crimes far more than their eastern counterparts
and rape is an age old thing
its not a recent practise because men cant control themselves around a woman who decides to gloss her lips

ok ive ranted a little bit

but im done

No need to be harsh on the matter - both sides have ahadith to back them up.

One is more conservative than the other here - and with the legitimate use of the word conservative instead of a new meaning.

well 1r4m i think you need to calm down. i never said you have to take a mahram with you wherever you go, and have them chaperone you at uni until you finish. some scholars may say that, but many scholars also say there are certain things you can do alone if safe. going to local store, going to school uni. taking a bus ride, taking train, taking domestic flight etc.

i went uni do you think i had a chaperone with me? i rented alone, but with other girls who were strangers to me, i also commuted coz i hated being away from family. i go shopping alone, i go out locally alone. so no i think you have got the wrong end of the stick. but if i were going to work and finished late in evening i would get a lift because of problems ive had in past. anyways isn't it common sense for women especially to take precautions specially in winter months?

But likewise i respect the view of scholars who take the more rigid view that women should always be with a mahram wherever she goes, i can understand the reasoning. However it would not work in my life, or in life of many sisters and brothers in west, it's impractical. i/e my husband works all day i need to go out to store, to docs, to drop off pick up kids. it's not feasible for me to sit in the house, i can't survive like that. as im sure most muslims living in west can't.

What I find weird in all this is the Saudi take - if the woman does not have a mahram available, they would provide a chaperone.

Now, call me cynical, but I would think that there is aq greater chance of things going wrong with their implementation that if they were allowed to go around alone.

no in saudi they allow their women to travel in taxis alone to the mall. Alone with a strange male driver? But if the stranger she was travelling with happened to be a male non mahram cousin then she would be punished. are they not on the same footing the taxi driver and the cousin since they are both non mahram? Not forgetting her husband is ok with her travelling with a strange taxi driver too, but not ok were she to invite in a non mahram man. while he was at work i.e her cousin?

I think its all cultural attitudes mixed with religion. Why would they on one hand follow an islamic law, then break it simultaneously?

That's Saudis for u

Behind closed doors the royal family get upto all sorts

I don't think its good to generalise in such a way here.

An issue is when you try to develop custom through religious means, you always need to be careful and aware of where and how things are because if the eye is taken off the ball, the customs could become supported for the wrong reasons or twisted in ways which are not logical or maybe even wrong.

Every people (even individuals) have their own sets of idiosyncrasies.

a very clear answer

That is very long, but is it arguing for the status quo?

It also seems to not mention the hadith where the prophet mentions that there will be a time when a woman will be able to travel from a place further out (I think I have seen two versions of it, one stating a place in Yemen, the toerh Basra/Baghdad) without fear of anything but of God, (the hadith being phrased in a way that the fear of God is not one of it being forbidden, but more as "good people should fear God" or something.

YouThat is very long, but is it arguing for the status quo?

its not that long when u start reading! 🙂 and yes it does "argue for the status quo"

i was going to quote the main points first but didn't know which bits to take out. I'll try and do it now...

According to the Hanafi Ijtihad, the distance that is considered here is three days and three nights, for the narrations mentioning three days & three nights have reached the level of certainty. All the Companions who narrated other than three days also narrate the distance of three days and three nights. The narrations that mention two or one day will be restricted to specific circumstances, such as the fear of more fitna. Hence, they (Hanafi School) consider the narrations that mention three days & three nights as the basis of prohibition. (Zafar Ahmad al-Tahanawi, I’la al-Sunan, V. 10, P. 11).

It must be remarked here that this refers to the distance usually covered by walking or on a animal in three days & three nights (with the usual breaks for resting and eating). Therefore, the restriction of travelling with a Mahram applies if the distance of the journey exceeds this, even if the journey itself is accomplished in a shorter time...Many scholars are of the opinion that it is 16 Farsakh, and each Farsakh equals three miles, thus totalling to 48 miles

Some contemporary people argue that travelling in modern times have changed from how it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). It is incumbent upon us to look at travelling in our time. It is not like how travelling was in the past. It is not filled with the dangers of the waterless deserts, encounters with thieves, highway robbers, etc. Now travelling is by various modes of transportation that usually gather large amounts of people at a time, such as planes, cars, buses, ships, etc…Thus, this provides plenty of confidence and reliability, removing feelings of fear for the woman, because she will not be by herself in any place, and the principle of Islamic Jurisprudence states: “Rulings change due to the changing of times”. Also, some classical scholars have made exceptions with regards to the impermissibility of women travelling in that they may travel in a group, or if there is no fear or risk of Fitna, it would be permissible.

The above understanding is incorrect due to many reasons, and the permissibility of women travelling without a Mahram can not be justified on its basis.

The meaning of “laws changing” is not that the laws of Shariah will change in accordance with the time and era, rather, laws that are based on custom and habit (urf ) or the rules of Fiqh which are based on juristic opinion (ra’i) or Ijtihad have often been formulated in the light of prevailing custom. It is therefore permissible to depart from them if the custom on which they were founded changes in the course of time. Rulings that are based upon clear texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah can never change.

This can be understood more clearly with an example from our day to day life. The law states that the driver must stop his car when the lights are red. The wisdom behind this ruling is that it stops and prevents accidents. However, the reason (illa) for this ruling is the lights being red. Now, a driver who is driving in the middle of the night sees that the light is red, but does not see any sign of a car. If the law was based on the wisdom (which is to prevent accidents), then it would be permissible for his to drive through the red light. However, as it is common knowledge, that despite there being no possibility of an accident, he must stop his car otherwise he will be arrested if caught, for the law is based upon the reason and not the wisdom.

Therefore, it will not be permissible for a woman to travel over 48 miles in order to visit her family and friends, acquire knowledge or any other social reason. It is also strictly impermissible in the Hanafi and Hanbali schools for her to travel for Hajj, and permissible with a group of upright women, however, in the Shafi’i and Maliki schools.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcEIt must be remarked here that this refers to the distance usually covered by walking or on a animal in three days & three nights (with the usual breaks for resting and eating). Therefore, the restriction of travelling with a Mahram applies if the distance of the journey exceeds this, even if the journey itself is accomplished in a shorter time...Many scholars are of the opinion that it is 16 Farsakh, and each Farsakh equals three miles, thus totalling to 48 miles

Even if you accept the three days and nights rule, this bit is obsolete. You can jet around the world in less than three days and three nights.

The ruling of time is also one of the few that is subject to change due to time and circumstance as there is as I had mentioned another hadith that mentions that there will be a time when it will be allowed.

The contention made in the article is disingenuous because it is not merely of "laws changing" due to time, but an issue of best implementing all the hadith evidence available. It is not one of ignoring the source material, but of using it where sticking to the ruling blindly means ignoring a hadith so it is a bit rich for the article to claim "Rulings that are based upon clear texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah can never change" when defending the status quo, because the mile distance is not from hadith, but a calculation based upon it using the common modes of transport available at that time, and the general ruling ignores the hadith that things will be different in the future.

There's a better thread for this but I give up looking for it.

Women of Saudi Arabia: We either be allowed to drive or breastfeed foreigners.

Could be the start of a new tourism fad. Not sure what we've got to compete with that.

The only problem with that idea is that the woman can only have special status if the breastfeeding takes place before the infant is capable of eating solids.

It is not the same situation after that.

Surprising that the guy who originally came out with the idea did not know that...

You

We can understand this from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he promised `Adi ibn Hatim At-Ta’iy (may Allah be pleased with him) three signs when he accepted Islam: that Islam would reach the east and the west; that the companions would obtain the treasures of Kisra, the king of Persia; and that peace would be spread all over the world when Islam reached the east and west so that a woman would be able to travel alone from Yemen to Hadramout not fearing anything but Allah and the wolf, meaning she would fear nothing.

Scholars understand from this hadith that a time will come when women can travel alone when they feel secure.

Is that time now?

There's no reference for this hadith...

Its annoying that since the salafi takeover of islam-online, the links to stuff the new leadership disagree with has simply been removed... that article is still there, but all others that are linked to are giving errors.