Abstract

This study analyzes the jurisprudential differences concerning the requirement of a mahram for women traveling for Hajj and migration (Hijrah), with particular attention to the jurists’ opinions, evidence, and legal reasoning underlying the distinction between the two cases. The study aims to clarify the ruling on the requirement of a mahram for women undertaking Hajj and migration, examine the evidence and legal reasoning of the jurists, identify the factors that have led to differences in rulings, and demonstrate the significance of these differences for understanding Islamic legal rulings. The study employs an inductive approach to identify and examine relevant Islamic legal texts and juristic opinions, an analytical approach to examine the evidence and legal reasoning, and a comparative approach to compare the positions of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The findings show that the requirement for a mahram in Hajj travel is primarily discussed in relation to safety, protection, and the conditions governing women’s travel. The Hanafi and Hanbali schools generally require a mahram for a woman traveling for obligatory Hajj, whereas the Maliki and Shafi‘i schools permit such travel when safety is ensured, subject to their respective legal conditions. The study further finds that when migration from the Land of Disbelief to the Land of Islam becomes obligatory because a woman cannot safely practice her religion, the absence of a mahram does not prevent her from undertaking the obligatory migration. The study identifies significant distinctions between Hajj travel and migration, particularly regarding purpose, necessity, and the legal basis of the ruling. It concludes that the two cases cannot be treated identically in all circumstances and that the ruling should be determined in light of the relevant Islamic legal principles, the purpose of the journey, and the circumstances surrounding each case.

Keywords

Hajj Women’s Travel Mahram Hijrah