Thursday, January 29, 2015

Going to the Bathroom - One Should Neither Face Nor Turn His Back on the Qiblah (Tamaam al-Minnah)

Under the topic of “Going to the Bathroom”  
His statement on point no: 5
 [pg. 18; paragraph: 1 : ”One should neither face nor turn his back on the Qiblah…”; – PDF pg 43 (Arabic pg 22)]

His (Ustaz Sayyid Saabiq) commentary, footnote no: 5; “This version is more reliable than the previous one

I say: It is as he said, if only that his action really actually contradicts his words as a way of legislating a ruling for mankind, yet how can it be so, when it is a private matter (going to the privy), usually hidden and unseen, as easily and naturally understood?! 

The truth is, the correct opinion is that it is of an unrestricted Forbiddance, irregardless of whether it is in the open/desert or in an enclosure like a building. This is the final conclusion of ash-Shawkaanie in Nayl al-Awtaar and as-Sayl al-Jarraar: 1/69, as he said:
“The actual understanding of a prohibition is at-Tahriem/Haraam/Forbidden and it is not diverted (to another ruling) by what doubtedly narrated of his actions, as we have made you to understand that his actions do not oppose his words verbally expressed to his ummah/people, unless there is a proof which serves as a command from him , for them to follow him in doing that act and if there isn’t so, then it is an act, exclusively special to him personally. This is an established principle in Usool, substantiated thoroughly and it is the truth that is not hidden for anyone who is impartial (in seeking the truth). If we take it that such an act (he relieved himself while turning his back on the qiblah – as in Ibn ‘Umar’s narration), is supported by a proof that he is to be followed, it would have served that this is particularly for a building, for he saw him while he was in Hafsah’s house in between 2 bricks/walls”  
My comment: He meant that there is no daleel/proof to serve that conclusion (particularly for a building), such that the original general ruling stands and the act was exclusive and restricted to himself (not taken as a diversion from the original ruling for his ummah).

As for the saying of Ibn ‘Umar in the hadeets of Marwaan bin al-Asfar which the author mentioned right after the abovementioned hadeets: “إنما نهى عن هذا في الفضاء... – He only prohibited this when it is (done) in the open/desert…” it is not a clear statement of ar-Raf‘u (to be attributed to the Prophet – as a Marfoo‘ narration), in fact in could have been his (Ibn ‘Umar’s) personal understanding from the Prophet’s act in Hafsah’s house such that it does not stand to serve as a daleel/proof to specify the desert/open space as explained by ash-Shawkaanie, do refer to it: 1/73.

Among the supportive evidences that this is to be understood in it’s general ruling are the ahaadeets (plural for hadeets) said with regard to the prohibition of spitting at the direction of qiblah inside and outside of the masjid, like his saying: “من تفل تجاه القبلة جاء يوم القيامة و تفلته بين عينيه – whoever spits at the direction of qiblah, will come in the Hereafter with his spit/spittle in between his eyes” and it is listed in “as-Sahihah” no: 222 and 223. An-Nawawi exerted it’s prohibition without any restriction to conditions, in the prayer (Solat) or outside it, inside the masjid or out of it, as I quoted him there (in as-Sahihah) and as-San‘aaniy held the same opinion. If spitting at the direction of qiblah in a building is prohibited, a forbidden act, should not urinating and defecating facing the direction of qiblah be worse than it?! Evaluate O’ people of wisdom.

Copyright 2011
Template by freethemelayouts