The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

The places in which prayer is permissible, in the opinion of some jurists, are all those that are free from .uncleanliness. Some jurists exempted seven places out of these: the dunghill (garbage area), the slaughterhouse, the graveyard, the roadway, the public bath, the kneelingplace of camels, and the roof of the House of Allah (Ka<ba). Others made an exemption for the graveyard alone, while some others exempted the graveyard and the public-bath. Some of them deemed praying in these undesirable places as merely abominable, but did not invalidate the prayer; this is one narration from Malik. The permissibility of such prayer is also related from him, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s narration.

The reason for disagreement arises from the conflict of the apparent meanings of traditions on the issue. There are two traditions on the issue that are agreed upon, while two are disputed. The traditions agreed upon are the sayings of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been granted seven things that were not granted to anyone before me .. . [He mentioned within this]: The earth has been made a mosque for me and a means of purification, so wherever the time of prayer overtakes me, I pray”. The other tradition says, “Enliven your homes with your prayers in them occasionally, and do not convert them into graveyards”. As to the disputed traditions, one report is “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) proscribed prayers in seven places: the dunghill, the place for slaughtering animals, .the graveyard, the roadway, the public bath, the kneeling places of camels, and the roof of the House of Allah”. It has been recorded by al-TirmidhT. The second is the report that Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Pray in the resting places of cattle, but do not pray in the kneeling places of camels”.

The jurists were divided over these traditions because of the employment of three methods. The first is the method of preference and abrogation. The second is the method of structuring, that is, structuring the particular upon the general. The third is the method of reconciliation. Those who adopted the method of preference and abrogation followed the widely known tradition, the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me and a means of purification”. They maintained that this tradition abrogates those that conflict with it, as it counts the merits granted to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and this cannot be abrogated, as abrogation belongs to the category of rules (ahkdm). Those who adopted the method of structuring the particular upon the general said that the tradition about permissibility is general whereas the proscribing tradition is particular; therefore it is necessary that the particular be structured upon the general. Some of these jurists (who apply this method) excluded the seven places, while some of them excluded only the public bath and the graveyard, saying that this is what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), as it is related that he also proscribed them independently. Some excluded only the graveyard due to the preceding tradition. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation, not excluding the particular from the general, said that the proscribing traditions are to be construed for abomination, and the others for permissibility.

They disagreed about praying in synagogues and churches. One group considered it as reprehensible, while another permitted it. A third group made a distinction on the basis of the existence of figures, which is Ibn ‘Abbas’s opinion because of TJmar’s statement, “We do not enter their churches because of the images”. The underlying cause, however, for the opinion of those who considered it abominable is not the images, but the probability of the existence of uncleanliness (najdsa).

They disagreed about prayer on the (bare) ground and on carpets and other things used for sitting on the ground. The majority maintain the permissibility of prostrating on mats and other similar things made of material produced by the land, and deem the rest as abominable, which is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion.