Do we 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 because of an indicator, which is the action of the Prophet (peace and

The questioner: Does the same argument apply to the prohibition for the sake of prohibition, until an indicator comes that shifts it to dislike regarding turning one's back to and facing the Ka'bah? The prohibition in the desert and in buildings, as we are currently doing, and then they say: Why does the prohibition not shift to dislike by the action of the Messenger (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?

The Shaykh: Yes.

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

The Shaykh: No, there may be something here that is not there. Here we have two things: The first thing is that the generality of his saying (peace be upon him): , , the generality of this hadith includes buildings and the desert, this is first. 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, we Salafis, to understand the texts according to their concepts. He says: .
The student: We deviate, and we seek forgiveness from Allah.

The Shaykh: This is in buildings; so he understands that the hadith in its generality includes even buildings, and this is a very important thing.

The questioner: Was this what Abu Ayyub al-Ansari said during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or after his death?

The Shaykh: No, after his death.

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

The Shaykh: What do they say?

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

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

The Shaykh: There is a third thing here that is important, which is his saying (peace be upon him): This is a general text, and what those people bring up regarding urination and defecation does not apply to it. So I say: If spitting toward the qiblah is prohibited by a general prohibition with no difference between the desert and buildings, then it is even more so that ... urination and defecation are not distinguished between the desert and buildings ... Then we make this the fourth point. This is from the perspective of sound reasoning. Every person with insight, whether he is one who does not distinguish or one who distinguishes, in my opinion understands that the wisdom of the Wise Lawgiver in prohibiting facing the qiblah with urine or feces, and consequently with spitting, is respecting this direction, the direction of the qiblah, respecting it, and in the sense of respecting the direction that the Muslim faces in his prayer, his supplication, and 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 is 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 facing or turning his back to the qiblah, it was not his intention first to discover it, and consequently, even more so, the Messenger sitting to relieve himself in a place where he would be discovered was not the case. So this was an action that occurred secretly and in seclusion. The fact that Ibn 'Umar became aware of it due to a slip ... a natural or unnatural slip, this does not mean that he transmitted to us a ruling that Muslims should have transmitted, because the Messenger was concealing what he did. If he had wanted to clarify to people what some people understand from this sudden and unintended sight, neither from the viewer nor the one viewed, he (peace be upon him) would have clarified it with his words. And 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 : .

The Shaykh : .
The student : .

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 saying, his action, and his tacit approval. The saying is understood, and the 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? He is relieving himself between walls (peace be upon him), and then he sees him without intention, and it is not permissible for him to seek it out, because it is an exposure of the private parts, and this is known by the least of Muslims, 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 saying, to apply his action to his prohibition for his Ummah. And the original principle, 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 : May Allah bless you.
The student : ... .