harms another, Allah will harm him” (1). We cannot support such a person in his malicious intent.

If it is the mother who will be travelling, then custody belongs to the father all the more so.

However, the correct view in this matter is that if we know that the child needs his mother, or that the father will harm the child, then there is no doubt that the mother has a greater right to custody than the father. For the child’s being with his mother and nursing from her milk is more beneficial to him than being nursed on another woman’s milk. In matters of custody, consideration is given to what is in the child’s best interest.

His statement, “If the journey is distant but undertaken for a temporary need”: according to the author, custody belongs to the mother. The position of the school of law is that it belongs to whichever of the two parents remains resident; the stronger view is that it belongs to the mother.

His statement, “or if it is near and for such a need,” means that the journey is short—less than the distance that permits the shortening of prayer—and is undertaken for a temporary need. In this case, custody belongs to the mother, because a short journey is treated as though one were present; it is as if no journey had occurred. It is well known that the mother has a greater right to custody than the father, whether she is the one travelling or the one remaining resident, because such a journey is not considered travel to which the rulings of travel apply, such as shortening and combining the prayers and the like. Thus, the traveller is regarded as a resident, and the matter remains as it was: the mother is given precedence in custody.