is given zakah, even if he is among the wealthiest of people in his own town, when his journey has been interrupted; for in such a case he is in need. It should not be said to him, “You are wealthy, so borrow.” Rather, he is given whatever will enable him to reach his homeland. This varies according to his circumstances, so that he is not subjected to embarrassment or humiliation.

Thus, if he is someone accustomed to first class, should he be given a first-class fare or an economy fare? This is open to consideration, though the stronger view is that he should be given what does not diminish his standing.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no distinction between a long journey and a short one, since he spoke generally and did not specify a short journey.

Likewise, the apparent meaning of his words is that there is no distinction between one traveling for an unlawful purpose and one whose journey is not unlawful, since he spoke generally.

As for the first point, then yes: there is no distinction between a long and a short journey.

If someone were to say, “A short journey can be completed on foot, allowing him to arrive,” we would reply: it may pass through rugged mountains and valleys, or it may be dangerous and require companionship. He is therefore in need of provisions that will enable him to reach his homeland.

As for the second point, some scholars said that even if his journey is unlawful, he is still given.

For the concessions of travel apply by virtue of the journey, even if it is unlawful. Thus, he may shorten the prayer and wipe over his leather socks for three days.