Listen / Download Mp3 Here (Time 52:33)
In order to preserve both the man and woman’s honor and to safeguard their hearts from temptation, and as a means of blocking the pathways that lead to corruption, a woman is restricted from traveling alone without a mahram. This is since if a woman is accompanied by a mahram, he will preserve her, safeguard her and take care of her needs. The Prophet said: “It is not lawful for a woman that believes in Allaah and the Last Day to travel the distance of two days unless accompanied by a mahram.”
In one narration it states: “a day and a night” while in another narration it states: “to travel” without specifying a time-frame.
What is intended here is that a woman should not travel alone without a mahram. If she does so, i.e. travels without a mahram, she would be disobeying Allaah and His Messenger, committing what Allaah has forbidden and exposing herself to fitnah. This applies generally to all situations and time periods.
As for what some people claim that if a woman travels accompanied by a group of other women, this takes the place of a mahram then this is a view that is in opposition to the Prophet’s statement: “It is not lawful for a woman that believes in Allaah and the Last Day to travel the distance of a day unless accompanied by a mahram.” 
A group of women do not serve as a mahram for a woman. The mahram of a woman is well-known it is a male that she is forbidden to marry due to family-ties, such as her father, her son, her paternal uncle, and her maternal uncle…or due to some allowable reason, such as marital ties, like the father of her husband or the son of her husband, or such as foster-suckling ties based on the Prophet’s statement: “Foster-suckling makes forbidden that which is forbidden due to family-ties.” 
Therefore, a woman’s mahram is any male that she is forbidden (to marry) due to a family-tie or some allowable reason. This forbiddance (of marriage) must also be endless, i.e. everlasting. So what doesn’t fall into this category is the temporary (marital) forbiddance such as the wife’s sister and the wife’s paternal and maternal aunt. This marital forbiddance is only applicable for a prescribed time. This is why the husband cannot serve as a mahram for his wife’s sister even though he is forbidden from marrying her since this marital forbiddance is temporary. In the same manner, he cannot be a mahram to his wife’s maternal and paternal aunt. This is what a mahram is. As for a group of women, they are not a mahram.
The Prophet stipulated that a woman be accompanied by a mahram when traveling under all circumstances, regardless of whether she travels by foot, on a riding beast, in a car or by airplane.
Some people today claim that there is no problem if a woman travels by airplane and her mahram dispatches her in the departure airport while another mahram picks her up at the arrival airport. We say: No, this is not permissible, since she has traveled without a mahram. And the Prophet said: “It is not lawful for a woman that believes in Allaah and the Last Day to travel the distance of two days unless accompanied by a mahram.” This applies to whether she travels on foot, by car or on a riding beast. The Prophet did not specify. However, the cause is there, and it is due to the fitnah that is feared will befall her even if she is on an airplane. So she is not safe from fitnah even on board a plane.
Furthermore, let’s suppose for example that the airplane is forced to change its destination and so it lands in a different country who will pick her up in this other country? That is why there must be a mahram present along with the woman.
This is such that once a man came to the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, I have enlisted for such and such battle expedition, but my wife has gone out for Hajj.” The Prophet told him: “Go back and make Hajj with your wife.”
The Prophet turned this man away from battle so that he may accompany his wife on Hajj and serve as a mahram for her. This is proof that having a mahram is a condition for a woman to travel on Hajj or to other places, regardless of whether she is with a group of people or not. This is why the scholars of Fiqh, may Allaah have mercy on them, mentioned that one of the conditions in which Hajj becomes obligatory on a woman is when she has a mahram available to travel with her. So if one is not available for her, she is then not obligated to make Hajj until a mahram does become accessible for her.
 Reported by Imaam Al-Bukhaaree (2/219-220) from the narration of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudree
 Reported by Imaam Muslim (no. 1339) from the narration of Abu Hurairah
 Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (4/18) and Muslim (no. 1341)
 Reported by Imaam Muslim (no. 1339) from the narration of Abu Hurairah
 Reported by Imaam Al-Bukhaaree (3/149) from the narration of Ibn `Abbaas
 Reported by Imaam Al-Bukhaaree (2/219) from the narration of Ibn `Abbaas
Source : Advice to the Muslim Woman – Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzaan al-Fawzaan [Book]
Qn41: Is it permissible to hang the supplication of the traveler (du’aa of travelling) in the car so the people who haven’t memorized it yet can read it?
Visit the Link below to read the answer
source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 247
Question #2: Why did you complete (your prayer)? [The shaykh was led in prayer during his journey, then the imaam shortened but the shaykh did not shorten (the prayer), so he was asked about that]
Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:
“The matter of being considered a traveler, in my understanding, does not depend on crossing a fixed distance as much as it depends on two things, the foundation of which is the intention, and the other is leaving the city/country. So if there is the intention to travel, and he leaves the city/country, the rulings of traveling are applicable (to him); and after that, the distance that he crosses is not regarded, whether long or short. As for (if) the fundamental principle is not present, which is the intention, then this (person) who left (the city/country) is not a traveler even if he crossed a long distance or less or more, because traveling is one of the rulings that are linked with this hadeeth, about which some of the scholars of Islaam have said that it is a third of Islaam: ‘Actions are only by (their) intentions and every person will have only that which he intended.’ And the truth is that this is a very sensitive issue about which the views of the scholars have differed and they did not agree on something completely clear such that it would be possible for someone to say: ‘This is the truth, it is quite obvious, so leave the side issues off of me.’ No one can say this, but all that he can say is: ‘I chose such and such.’
So I chose – what I understood from the treatise of Ibn Taimiyah (rahimahullaah) regarding this matter. He has a special treatise about the rulings of traveling. Indeed he struck a very wonderful example, from which the researcher and student of knowledge understand that traveling has nothing to do with crossing a long distance over a short distance. As for (saying) that it has nothing to do with crossing a short distance, then I think this is not an area of debate, because it is established from the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) that he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] used to leave from Madinah to al-Baqee’(graveyard); then he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] would greet them (the dead) with the salaam, then return. He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] used to go out to the martyrs, to Uhud; he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] would greet them with the salaam, then return. He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] did not consider himself a traveler although he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] left the city. And the opposite of that as well – if he crossed a long distance, that does not mean that he became a traveler merely because of crossing this distance.
The example that (Ibn Taimiyah) struck is as the following. He was from Damascus like me, and there are well-known towns around Damascus, so he struck an example with a city known up to this time as Duma. He said, if a man seeking game left from Damascus to Duma (which is) 15 kilometers (away) – there is no doubt that (crossing) this distance is (considered) traveling according to our custom if the fundamental condition exists, which is the intention to travel – (Ibn Taimiyah) says that this man is not considered a traveler because he had left for hunting then for returning. But what happened was that he did not find the game that he was looking for, so he continued on the journey, and continued and continued, and kept going on until he reached where? – Aleppo; and there are approximately 400 kilometers between Aleppo and Damascus today by car. (Ibn Taimiyah) says this (man) is not a traveler – although he had crossed (many) distances of the traveler, not just one distance – because the first condition, which is the intention to travel, was not there in this person. Thus, we can say that a car driver leaves early in the morning from ‘Ammaan for instance to reach Ma’aan(then) to al-‘Aqabah, returning by evening; this (person) is not a traveler because he, due to his work, does not intend to travel; rather he intends to carry out this work to make a living.
Therefore, regarding the subject of traveling, we must take into consideration the fundamental condition, which is the intention. And by us taking into consideration this intention, the ruling differs for two persons who cross one and the same distance, but one of them is a traveler and the other is not considered a traveler because of the difference in their intentions. And in this manner, there also occur rulings related to the ruling of residency, i.e. residency that is planned for a specific time. (For example), two men left a city, both as travelers; they landed in another city. The staying of one of them is that of a traveler (but) the other one is a resident. Why? Because (this second man) has another wife there, so he (goes) from one wife to another wife. Thus, because of there being a wife for him who causes him to be chaste, gives him a home and arranges his accommodations for him, he takes a ruling other than that of his companion because the situation differed in some ways.
Therefore, we learn of a very important conclusion, which is that the exact rulings of traveling differ from one person to another. So, we don’t assign to a person the ruling of another (person), and also the opposite likewise.”
 Saheeh al-Bukhaari #1
 animals hunted for food
 these are all cities in Jordan