His statement, “to a distant town,” means, in their view, one that is at the distance permitting the shortening of prayer, thereby excluding anything less than that. Thus, the author says: custody belongs to the father if he is travelling to a distant town in order to settle there, provided that both the town and the route are safe.

For example, if the husband and wife were in Makkah and he divorced her, and they had a child between them, custody belongs to the mother. If the father wished to harm the mother and travelled to Madinah to settle there merely in order to take the child, we say: he has no right to custody when we know that the man travelled only to harm the mother. But if we know that he wished to move from Makkah to Madinah for a purpose other than harming her, then custody in this case belongs to the father and the mother’s right is forfeited. This is one of the factors that forfeits custody.

The reason is that remaining far from his father may lead to the child’s neglect, since the mother may not fulfil the duty of disciplining him. Therefore, the father has the greater right to him, even if he is still nursing: he takes him and hires someone to nurse him. But, as mentioned earlier, this is subject to three conditions:

First: his journey must be a distant one.

Second: his journey must be for settlement, not for a temporary need after which he will return.

Third: the town and the route to it must be safe. If they are dangerous, it is not permissible to endanger the child.

The fourth condition, according to the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—is that he must not intend by his journey to harm the mother. If he intends harm, he has no right to custody, for the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “There is to be neither harm nor reciprocating harm” (1), and he—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “Whoever