traveling through the land, and thus he possesses that right through the absolute permission granted, and these two perspectives apply to absolute permission. However, if he is permitted to travel, or forbidden from it, or if there is a context indicating one of the two, then that is determined, what he is commanded is established, and what he is forbidden from is prohibited. He does not have the right to travel in a dangerous place, according to both perspectives. Likewise, if he were permitted to travel in general, he would not have the right to travel on a dangerous route nor to a dangerous city; if he does so, he is a guarantor for what is lost, because he is a transgressor by doing what he is not permitted to do. If he travels on a safe route, it is permissible, and his expenses are from his own wealth. This is the opinion of Ibn Sirin and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman. This is the apparent school of al-Shafi'i. Al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, Malik, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) said: He spends from the capital according to custom if he leaves the city with it, because his travel is for the sake of the capital, so his expenses are from it, like the wage of a porter. Our argument is that his expenses are personal to him, so they are his own responsibility, like expenses while residing, the fee of a doctor, and the price of perfume. Furthermore, he entered into the contract with the understanding that he is entitled to a named share of the profit, so he is not entitled to anything else. Moreover, if he were entitled to expenses, it would lead to him being the only one profiting if there were no profit other than what he spent. If he stipulates expenses for himself, he has that right, and he has what was estimated for him in terms of food, clothing, transport, and other things. Ahmad said, in the narration of al-Athram: "It is more beloved to me that he stipulates a limited expense, but if he makes it absolute, it is valid." He stated this explicitly. He has his expenses for food, but no clothing. Ahmad said: "If he says: he has his expenses. He shall spend." It was said to him: "Does he buy clothes?" He said: "No, he only has expenses." If his travel is long and he needs to renew his clothing, the apparent view of Ahmad's words is that it is permissible, because it was said to him: "Why would he not stipulate clothing, except that he is in a distant land, has a long stay, and needs clothing there?" He said: "If he permits him the expenses, he may do so, provided he does not overburden the man's wealth and that was not his intention." This is the meaning of it. Al-Qadi and Abu al-Khattab said: If he stipulates expenses for him, he is entitled to all his expenses, including food and clothing, according to custom.