Q. I travel to work a distance of about 50 miles, staying at my place of work from Monday to Friday, and go back for the weekend. May I ask whether this distance counts as travel which permits shortening my prayer? Do I treat my stay at work as travel that gives me the concessions associated with traveling?

P. Liyakat

A. Scholars mention a certain distance for travel that justifies using the concessions God has given us in prayer and fasting. The distance varies a little, but the figure quoted in most cases is 80 km, with some people adding or taking away a few kilometers. But the view which is more valid in this respect does not rely on distance, but on social custom. It is what people consider to be travel, rather than the distance or the time it takes to cover that distance. Today, if you live on the outskirts of Jeddah, in the direction of Makkah, you can reach Makkah by car in less time than you can reach the other end of Jeddah. Yet if you go to Makkah you are deemed to be a traveler, while if you go to the other side of Jeddah, you are not. If you take a flight to Madinah, you arrive there in less time than it needs for either of the two journeys mentioned, although the distance is much longer. Yet while no one suggests that going from one end of Jeddah to the other constitutes travel, and a strict person may argue that the Jeddah-Makkah trip does not either, no one disputes that the Madinah trip is true travel. Yet it may be the most comfortable of the three journeys.

Thus, it is not so much the distance, but the general acceptance of society of what constitutes travel. Before the advent of the age of fast transport, a journey to another town at 25 kilometers distance was universally considered to constitute travel. Today, this would be a short trip that justifies neither shortening prayer nor breaking one’s fast. Therefore, the reader is the best to know whether his trip to his place of work constitutes travel or not.

If it does, there remains the question of the regularity of the travel, and where he is considered to be a traveler and where he is resident. The answer to this question is where he normally considers himself to be at home. If at the place he spends the weekends he has a home, where his wife and children live, then this is where he resides, and his trips to work are travel. So, he shortens his prayers when he travels to work. On the other hand, if he simply spends his weekends in the city because of the variety it offers, staying with friends, rather than in his own home, then he is a traveler when he is in the city and a resident where he works. He should look at the situation and make his own decision.

The mortgage and tax

Q. The argument that has been put for and against buying a house on mortgage for residents in the US and other countries is very interesting. One point that has not been mentioned is that of taxes, whereby a house buyer reduces his burden of income tax when he buys his house on mortgage. Is it not true to say that Islamic law aims to reduce a person’s burden, rather than increase it? If so, should not this be taken into consideration when issuing a verdict on the permissibility of buying a house on mortgage when there is no alternative?

R. Kazi

A. Some scholars have taken up this point of tax reduction when issuing their rulings that the mortgage transaction is permissible. However, I feel this to be a weak point, because we should not be looking for ways to avoid tax payment. Government taxes are necessary for the funding of public services, such as education, transport, health, etc. The tax question could be important when we look at the overall picture of what the mortgage arrangement involves, but it is not a major factor in its permissibility or otherwise.

In general, Islam recognizes the need for imposing taxes for the benefit of the community. The Prophet says: “There is a duty on wealth other than zakah.” He left this duty unspecified, so as to allow the government of the Islamic community to determine what it needs and for which services to provide funding.

To my mind, the strongest argument in favor of the mortgage transaction is that it gives the borrower much more than the money he or she borrows. I am referring here to the full ownership of the whole house one buys, despite paying only a portion of the price. This means that he benefits by the full utility of the house, and on selling it, he receives the increase in the price of the whole house.

Thinning eyebrows

Q. I have thick eyebrows that come all across my face, with no partition in the middle. Is it permissible for me to cut them in the middle, or to cut unwanted thick hair?

(Name and address withheld)

A. Such a question is normally asked by a young woman, but this time it is put by a young man who finds his thick hair a source of irritation. In normal situations we would give an answer that this is not permissible. The Prophet has made it clear that all types of changing one’s appearance are not permissible. On eyebrow thinning, he curses the woman who undertakes the task and the one who requests it to be done for her. If this is not acceptable in the case of a woman, it is certainly less so for a man, because changing one’s appearance is one way of changing God’s creation, which is forbidden in Islam. In the Qur’an, God says about the unbelievers: “In His stead, they invoke only lifeless symbols – thus invoking none but a rebellious Satan, whom God has rejected, for he had said: ‘Of Your servants I shall indeed take my due share, and shall certainly lead them astray, and fill them with vain desires; and I shall command them – and they will slit the ears of cattle (in idolatrous sacrifice); and I shall command them – and they will corrupt God’s creation.’ But all who take Satan rather than God for their master do incur a manifest loss.” (4: 117-119) Here corrupting God’s creation is clearly shown to be part of Satan’s designs against humanity. The Prophet has warned against all aspects of such change, including removing or thinning eyebrows, trimming teeth, etc.

Having said that, a case may be made for a person who suffers from some abnormality in his or her appearance, which causes them much distress. If one has an abnormally thick hair in some part of one’s face, which makes that person subject to taunts, ridicule or other forms of irritation, and if this is seen to weigh heavily on such person, then this may be a case for relaxing the restriction. However, this applies to individual cases. We cannot give a general ruling except to say that in such a case there may be room for permissibility, depending on the special circumstances of the case.