Explanation of the author's statement: "And facing the two lights, and it is forbidden to face the qiblah or turn one's back to it in a place other than a building"

The Shaykh : Then he said "And facing the two lights" This is facing, which is conjoined to what? To what is disliked, not to what is valid, no...

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, regarding entering upon his entry, it is disliked to enter with something that has dots, then he conjoined it, because the correct view is that the conjunction should be upon what the operator acts upon directly... If I say "Zayd stood up, and 'Umar, and Bakr, and Khalid, and 'Ali, and Muhammad, and 'Abdullah," who says 'Abdullah? Where is it conjoined? To Zayd, to the first one. That is, the conjunction is upon the first object, whether it is the subject or the object, upon which the operator acts. Why? Because the rest are branches and followers, not the roots.

The questioner : Even without the conjunction particle?

The Shaykh : Even without the conjunction particle. Everything he said, "And facing the two lights," what are the two lights? The sun and the moon. It is disliked for a person to face them while relieving himself. The evidence? There is no evidence! The reasoning is the light that is in them. This reasoning, the light that is in them, it is disliked to face them. And the truth is that the light in them is not the light of Allah, which is His attribute, but rather there is a created light in them, and there is a created light in the stars. Or not? If you were in a place with no electric lights, you would see some stars casting your shadow, meaning they have light that reflects. So if we say this, we would say that anything that has light and illumination, even the stars, it is disliked to face it, and there is a consideration in this. Then we say that this reasoning, in addition to being defective, contradicts the text. For the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said And it is known that if one faces east and the sun is rising, he will face it, or if he faces west and the sun is setting, he will face it. And the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say anything except: if the sun and moon are in front of you, do not do it. So it is known from this that the correct opinion in this issue is the second opinion, which is that it is not disliked to face the sun and moon while relieving oneself, due to the lack of evidence, and rather the establishment of evidence indicating permissibility. "And it is forbidden to face the qiblah or turn one's back to it in a place other than a building" This is, I think, the first point we reach regarding the qiblah. Facing the qiblah and turning one's back to it while relieving oneself is forbidden, haram. What is the evidence? The evidence is the hadith of Abu Ayyub (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said Abu Ayyub (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We came to Sham and found toilets built toward the Ka'bah, so we turn away from them and seek forgiveness from Allah." This is the evidence: do not face it. The original ruling in prohibition is prohibition. And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates that a slight deviation is not sufficient, because he said "do not face it," then he directed to another matter, which is facing east or west. And it is known that his saying "face east or west" is for people who, if they face east or west, do not face the qiblah and do not turn their backs to it, like the people of Madinah. The people of Madinah's qiblah is to the south, so if they face east or west, the qiblah is either on their right or left. But in a place like ours, if we faced east or west, we would face the qiblah. So in this case, we say to people who face the qiblah if they face east or west: "But face north or south." Yes, as the Messenger said here, "face east or west." Okay, so the evidence is this hadith. The reasoning is that I want the person to understand the evidence. The evidence is agreed upon by every believer, but if there is reasoning with the evidence, it is more complete. And if Allah makes it easy and opens it for us, we prefer the reasoning to be respect for the qiblah by not facing it or turning one's back to it. Do not face it and do not turn your back to it. And the author says "in a place other than a building," he made an exception. If it is in a building, it is permissible to face it and turn one's back to it. Yes, what is the evidence? The evidence is the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said: "I climbed up to the house of Hafsa one day and saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) relieving himself facing Sham and turning his back to the Ka'bah, facing Sham and turning his back to the Ka'bah." But we look at whether this hadith agrees with the author's statement or not. He said "in a place other than a building," meaning in a building it is permissible to face it and turn one's back to it. And this is the famous view of the school of thought. In fact, they said, may Allah have mercy on them, that a barrier is sufficient, even if it is not a building, such as facing a car, or a pile of sand that one set up and stood behind, or a tree, or a mound, or a large stone, or something similar. They said that whatever is a barrier is sufficient. But some scholars went to the view that nothing is ever excepted, and that it is not permissible to face the qiblah or turn one's back to it, neither in the open nor in a building. And this is one of the narrations from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). Imam Ahmad has multiple narrations from him on this, including the school of thought you heard, and the second opinion, the second narration, is that it is forbidden to face it and turn one's back to it absolutely, in the open and in a building. They said that this is what we stated is the implication of the hadith of Abu Ayyub, in terms of reasoning and action. As for the reasoning, it is by the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and as for the action, it is by the action of Abu Ayyub when he said "We came to Sham and found toilets built toward the Ka'bah, so we turn away from them and seek forgiveness from Allah" His saying "we seek forgiveness from Allah" indicates that he did not see that this was sufficient. It is clear. Okay, and this is the choice of our second Shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that it is not permissible to face the qiblah or turn one's back to it, neither in a building nor in a place other than a building, due to the generality of the hadith. But how do we answer regarding the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Some scholars took from the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that the prohibition is for dislike, and said that the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was to clarify permissibility and that it is not haram. But there is a consideration in this. It remains to say what is the answer to the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did. Some said that it is to be understood as being before the prohibition, and the prohibition takes precedence over it, because the prohibition transfers from the original ruling. How does it transfer from the original ruling? What is the original ruling? The original ruling is permissibility. You can face whatever you want unless a prohibition comes. So they say that the hadith of Abu Ayyub transfers from the original ruling, and the one that transfers from the original ruling takes precedence over it. This is the second aspect of the answer: that the hadith of Abu Ayyub is a statement, and the hadith of Ibn 'Umar is an action, and an action cannot contradict a statement, because the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) may imply specificity, that it is specific to him, or it may imply forgetfulness, that he (peace and blessings be upon him) forgot this. Is this refuted or not? Yes, it is refuted. But the truth is, as for the possibility of specificity, it is refuted, because the original ruling is to follow and emulate him, and there is no complete contradiction. Yes, if there were a complete contradiction between the statement and the action, the opinion that the action is specific to him would be valid. But there is no complete contradiction. Why? Because it is possible to understand the hadith of Abu Ayyub as applying when it is not in a building, and the hadith of Ibn 'Umar as applying when it is in a building. And whenever it is possible to reconcile the statement and action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), that is what is obligatory. It is obligatory. And in any case, being in a building is specific. So we say that the stronger opinion in this issue is that it is permissible to turn one's back to the qiblah in a building, but not to face it, because the prohibition of facing it is preserved, and there is no specification in the prohibition of facing it. It is preserved without specification. And the prohibition of turning one's back is specified by the action. This is from one aspect. And from another aspect, turning one's back is lighter than facing it. A person turning his back to the qiblah is lighter than facing it. For this reason, the relaxation in it, if a person is in a building, came, God knows best.