Why do we not say that the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from facing the qiblah or turning one's back to it is disliked (makruh) due to a strong indication, which is the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The questioner : Does the same argument apply to the prohibition for the sake of prohibition (tahrim), such that an indication would shift it to dislike (karahah) regarding turning one's back to or facing the Ka'bah? The prohibition in the desert and in buildings is as we have it, and then they ask why the prohibition does not shift to dislike (karahah) by the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) when Ibn 'Umar saw him relieving himself with his back to the Ka'bah and facing the House of Prayer (Bayt al-Maqdis)?

The Shaykh : Yes

The questioner : Does the same argument apply, or is it...?

The Shaykh : No, there may be something here that is not there. Here we have two things:
The first thing: The generality of his statement (peace be upon him): The generality of this hadith includes buildings and the desert. This is the first point.
Second: The narrator of this hadith is Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), and among the jurists there is a very important rule that may help us, the Salafis, to understand the texts according to their concepts. He says:
The student: We have strayed, and we seek forgiveness from Allah.

The Shaykh : This is in buildings. So he understands that the hadith, in its generality, includes even buildings... very important.

The questioner : Did Abu Ayyub al-Ansari say this during the life of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or after his death?

The Shaykh : No, after his death.

The questioner : After his death. They say that the other group abrogated it, they say...

The Shaykh : What do they say?

The questioner : That the prohibition of facing [the qiblah] in buildings was abrogated one year before his death... by a weak hadith.

The Shaykh : No problem, we are not getting ahead of things now. We have first, we have second, we have third, and we don't know about a fourth either.
The student: Fourth.

The Shaykh : Hehe, there is a third thing here that is important, which is his statement (peace be upon him): And in a narration This is a general text, and what those people bring up regarding urine and excrement does not apply to it. So I say, if spitting toward the qiblah is prohibited by a general prohibition with no distinction between the desert and buildings, then it is even more so that... excrement is not distinguished between the desert and buildings.
Then we make this the fourth point. This is from the perspective of sound reasoning. Every person of insight, whether he distinguishes or does not distinguish, in my opinion understands that the wisdom of the Wise Lawgiver in prohibiting facing the qiblah with urine or excrement, and consequently with spitting, is to respect this direction, the direction of the qiblah, to respect it. And by that, to respect the direction that the Muslim faces in his prayer, in his supplication, and in his standing between the hands of his Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He. So it is not correct in legal reasoning to combine two opposites: this direction that you face in your prayer, and yet you face it when relieving yourself. This is a very, very reprehensible matter. And since there is no difference here—the crux of the matter, as they say—and since there is no difference in the prayer's facing of the qiblah between the desert and buildings, it is his qiblah in the desert and in buildings. Likewise, he is prohibited from that facing in the desert and in buildings.
Then we return to the doubt of those who claim abrogation. It is clear that when Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) facing or turning his back to the qiblah, it was not intended for him to discover it. And consequently, it was even less intended that the Messenger sat to relieve himself in a place where he would be discovered. So this was an act that occurred secretly and in seclusion. The fact that Ibn 'Umar came to know of it due to some slip... a natural or unnatural slip, this does not mean that he transmitted to us a ruling that Muslims should have transmitted. That is because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was discreet about what he did. And if he had wanted to clarify to people what some people understand from this sudden and unintended sight, neither for the observer nor the observed, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified it with his words, as our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, said in the Qur'an in the well-known verse: What is the beginning of the verse?
The student: And We have revealed to you the reminder.

The Shaykh :
The student: Convey what has been revealed.

The Shaykh : No.
The student:

The Shaykh : And we know that the clarification of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is divided into three categories: by his speech, by his action, and by his tacit approval. Speech is understood, and tacit approval is understood, and we have no concern with either of them now. But our concern now is with the action. Is this action a clarification? How did he clarify [it] by relieving himself between walls, and then he saw him without intention? And it is not permissible for him to intend it, because it is a discovery of private parts, and the least knowledgeable Muslim knows this, let alone 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. So we do not know the situation the Messenger (peace be upon him) was in. Perhaps he was in a difficult, narrow place where he was unable to apply his action to his speech, to apply his action to his prohibition for his Ummah. And the original rule, as it came in the Qur'an: And with this, the answer to this second issue ends.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may Allah bless you.
The student: ...