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 that permits shortening my prayer? Do I treat my stay at work as travel that gives me the concessions associated with traveling?
P. Liyaqat
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 that 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. Qazi
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 (peace be upon him) 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.