Explanation of the Book of Ablution, Ghusl, Menstruation, and Tayammum-02a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Abdullah ibn Yusuf narrated to us, saying: Malik informed us, from Yahya ibn Sa'id, from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Huban, from his uncle Wasa' ibn Huban, from Abdullah ibn Umar, that he used to say: .
The Shaykh : His statement (may Allah be pleased with him):Muwatta Malik 14:3, in some of its wordings: , and Hafsa is the sister of the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), Sahih al-Bukhari 145, and if he faced the Sacred Mosque, he had his back to the Ka'bah. This indicates that it is permissible in a built structure to have one's back to the qiblah while relieving oneself. Some scholars have held this view.
The apparent practice of al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) in the first chapter is that it is permissible to face or have one's back to the qiblah. This is the prescribed view in the Hanbali school: if one is in a built structure or the like, it is permissible to face the qiblah or have one's back to it, and there is no blame on him.
This issue is based on: Does the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) specify his statement, or not?
So whoever says: No, says: Then it is forbidden to face the qiblah or have one's back to it in open space and in built structures. Is that clear? Al-Shawkani and his group held this view, and they saw that it is not possible to specify the statement by the action, because the action has possibilities, and with possibility, the argument falls away.
But the majority say that the action specifies the statement, because the whole is Sunnah, and the possibilities that the mind assumes are not considered in legal argumentation, because if we yielded to every possible interpretation in the evidence, no evidence would ever be established for us, because every evidence allows the mind to consider the opposite of its apparent meaning.
Based on this, we say: The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding if one is in a built structure:
Some said: It is not permissible to face the qiblah or have one's back to it. The action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could be forgetfulness, it could be a special attribute of his, or it could be that he was unable to sit except in this manner. It has many possibilities, while the statement is general and has no possibilities. Supporting its generality is that its narrator, Abu Ayyub, said: "We turn away from it and seek forgiveness from Allah".
Some said: Rather, the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates that the ruling of facing and having one's back to the qiblah in a built structure has fallen away, fallen away completely. Based on this, they permitted facing and having one's back to it.
Some scholars said: It is permissible to have one's back to the qiblah but not to face it in a built structure. They qualified their statement by saying that the hadith of Abu Ayyub contains generality, and specification was not reported except in one case, which is having one's back to it. Therefore, one must stand by what the specification brought only. When they are asked: What is the difference between facing and having one's back to it? Meaning, we concede that facing was not specified, so what is the difference between it and having one's back to it?
They answered that facing is more ugly than having one's back to it. For this reason, if a man faced people and started urinating, and another had his back to them and started urinating, which of them is more insulting to people and more indifferent to them?
The first one. Therefore, since having one's back to it is lighter, the analogy of facing it to it is not correct, because in analogy, the original case and the branch must be equal in the operative cause. And this view is, in my opinion, the strongest of the views: that it is permissible to have one's back to the qiblah in a built structure due to the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but it is not permissible to face it.
In the hadith, there are benefits: that it is recommended for the one sitting to relieve himself to be on something raised, a brick or a tile or something similar, on two bricks. The benefit of this is that nothing of the urine flows to him, or that nothing of the excrement clings to him, because if a person is not on two bricks, the place of exit is close to the ground. For this reason, it is recommended for a person if he is in the open and wants to urinate or defecate to take two stones to sit on so that he does not become impure. This is from the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
If someone asks: What do we do with the action of Ibn Umar? Why did he climb up to see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Is this from good character to climb up or to look at a person relieving himself?
The answer allows for two matters:
The first matter: That Ibn Umar did this to seek understanding in the religion of Allah, to see how the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sits. It is not necessary that seeing him with his back to the Ka'bah and facing Sham means seeing his private parts, because he might see him from above.
The second: Perhaps this that happened to Ibn Umar happened by coincidence, not intentionally. And coincidence is something a person can act upon.
So the conclusion is that Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) is not blamed for this, because we say: Either he did it seeking knowledge and understanding, but he did not look at the private parts, or it can be said that it happened to him by coincidence.
Some people say: When you sit to relieve yourself, do not face the qiblah or the Sacred Mosque. So Abdullah ibn Umar said: I once climbed onto the roof of a house of ours and saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) on two bricks, facing the Sacred Mosque to relieve himself. He said: Perhaps you are one of those who pray on their buttocks. I said: I do not know, by Allah. Malik said: He means the one who prays and does not raise himself from the ground; he prostrates while clinging to the ground.
إن ناسا يقولون : إذا قعدت على حاجتك فلا تستقبل القبلة ولا بيت المقدس، فقال عبد الله بن عمر : لقد ارتقيت يوما على ظهر بيت لنا فرأيت رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلم على لَبنتين مستقبلا بيت المقدس لحاجته ، وقال : لعلك من الذين يصلون على أوراكهم، فقلت : لا أدري والله، قال مالك : يعني الذي يصلي ولا يرتفع عن الأرض يسجد وهو لاصق بالأرضThe Shaykh : His statement (may Allah be pleased with him):
I went upon top of a house of ours
ارتقيت يوما على ظهر بيت لناI once climbed onto the house of Hafsa
ارتقيت يوما على بيت حفصةI saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem)
فرأيت النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلم على لبنتين مستقبلا بيت المقدس لحاجتهThe apparent practice of al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) in the first chapter is that it is permissible to face or have one's back to the qiblah. This is the prescribed view in the Hanbali school: if one is in a built structure or the like, it is permissible to face the qiblah or have one's back to it, and there is no blame on him.
This issue is based on: Does the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) specify his statement, or not?
So whoever says: No, says: Then it is forbidden to face the qiblah or have one's back to it in open space and in built structures. Is that clear? Al-Shawkani and his group held this view, and they saw that it is not possible to specify the statement by the action, because the action has possibilities, and with possibility, the argument falls away.
But the majority say that the action specifies the statement, because the whole is Sunnah, and the possibilities that the mind assumes are not considered in legal argumentation, because if we yielded to every possible interpretation in the evidence, no evidence would ever be established for us, because every evidence allows the mind to consider the opposite of its apparent meaning.
Based on this, we say: The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding if one is in a built structure:
Some said: It is not permissible to face the qiblah or have one's back to it. The action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could be forgetfulness, it could be a special attribute of his, or it could be that he was unable to sit except in this manner. It has many possibilities, while the statement is general and has no possibilities. Supporting its generality is that its narrator, Abu Ayyub, said: "We turn away from it and seek forgiveness from Allah".
Some said: Rather, the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates that the ruling of facing and having one's back to the qiblah in a built structure has fallen away, fallen away completely. Based on this, they permitted facing and having one's back to it.
Some scholars said: It is permissible to have one's back to the qiblah but not to face it in a built structure. They qualified their statement by saying that the hadith of Abu Ayyub contains generality, and specification was not reported except in one case, which is having one's back to it. Therefore, one must stand by what the specification brought only. When they are asked: What is the difference between facing and having one's back to it? Meaning, we concede that facing was not specified, so what is the difference between it and having one's back to it?
They answered that facing is more ugly than having one's back to it. For this reason, if a man faced people and started urinating, and another had his back to them and started urinating, which of them is more insulting to people and more indifferent to them?
The first one. Therefore, since having one's back to it is lighter, the analogy of facing it to it is not correct, because in analogy, the original case and the branch must be equal in the operative cause. And this view is, in my opinion, the strongest of the views: that it is permissible to have one's back to the qiblah in a built structure due to the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but it is not permissible to face it.
In the hadith, there are benefits: that it is recommended for the one sitting to relieve himself to be on something raised, a brick or a tile or something similar, on two bricks. The benefit of this is that nothing of the urine flows to him, or that nothing of the excrement clings to him, because if a person is not on two bricks, the place of exit is close to the ground. For this reason, it is recommended for a person if he is in the open and wants to urinate or defecate to take two stones to sit on so that he does not become impure. This is from the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
If someone asks: What do we do with the action of Ibn Umar? Why did he climb up to see the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Is this from good character to climb up or to look at a person relieving himself?
The answer allows for two matters:
The first matter: That Ibn Umar did this to seek understanding in the religion of Allah, to see how the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sits. It is not necessary that seeing him with his back to the Ka'bah and facing Sham means seeing his private parts, because he might see him from above.
The second: Perhaps this that happened to Ibn Umar happened by coincidence, not intentionally. And coincidence is something a person can act upon.
So the conclusion is that Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) is not blamed for this, because we say: Either he did it seeking knowledge and understanding, but he did not look at the private parts, or it can be said that it happened to him by coincidence.