The Muslim jurists agreed that turning toward the direction of the House is one of the conditions for the validity of prayer, because of the words of the Exalted, “And whencesoever thou comest forth [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship. Lol it is the Truth from thy Lord”.99 If, however, the worshiper can see the House, then the obligation is to face the House itself, and there is no dispute about this. The jurists disagree about two issues, when the KaQ^a is not in sight. First, whether the obligation is to face the Ka^a itself or to face in its direction. Second, whether the obligation is to be exact about it or estimate the direction, that is, being exact about the KaTia itself or about the general direction?

Some Jurists maintained that the obligation is for facing the Ka<ba itself, while others maintained that it is for facing its direction. The reason for their disagreement is whether in the words of the Exalted, “And whencesoever thou comest forth [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship”, an implied word is to be assumed, so as to read, “And whencesoever thou comest forth [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn thy face in the direction of the Inviolable Place of Worship”, or whether the words are to be read as they are. Those who assumed an implied word maintained that the obligation is for facing in its direction, while those who did not assume an implied word here said that the obligation is to face the Ka<ba itself. It js necessary to interpret the words in their actual meanings, unless an evidence indicates their construction in the metaphorical meaning. It is, however, maintained that the evidence for an implied word here is to be found in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “.Whatever is between the east and the west is a qiblay if you take the direction of the House”. They said that the agreement of the Muslim jurists about a long row of worshipers extending beyond the boundary of the Ka<ba is an evidence that the obligation is not to face the Ka^a itself, that is when the Ka<ba is not in sight. What I would say is that if the obligation had been to aim at the Ka<ba itself it would have amounted to hardship, and the Exalted has said, “He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship”.100 Aiming directly at a thing is not possible without approaching it by the use of geometry and (astronomical) observation, and yet the result is approximate; then, how is it possible without these to determine the direction by way of ijtihad? We are not under the obligation of discovery by means of geometry based upon astronomical observation from which the whole length and breadth of the land may be derived.

Is the obligation of a person striving to determine the qibla (the attainment of) accuracy or is it just the exercise of effort to discover it? Thus, if we say that the obligation is to accurately determine it, he is to pray again if he discovers that he made a mistake (in determining the true direction). If we maintain that the obligation is only for exerting effort, he does not have to pray again if he makes an error, and also if he had prayed before an effort to discover the direction. Al-ShafiT thought that the obligation was for accurate determina­ tion, and if it becomes obvious to the person that he had made a mistake, he was to pray again, always. A group of jurists said that he does not pray again if he has finished praying, unless he did so intentionally (that is, prayed in the wrong direction) or prayed without making an effort to discover the direction. This was the opinion of Malik and Abu Harnfa, except that Malik i recommended praying again if there was still time.

The reason for disagreement in this is the conflict between a tradition and analogy, along with a dispute over the authenticity of the tradition. The analogy is based on the similarity of (the obligation to face the) direction to time, that is, the timing for prayer. They agreed (about time) that the obligation was for the worshipper to hit the time accurately. If the subject realizes that he prayed before time his prayer becomes invalid, and he must pray again, invariably. There is, however, a slight deviation reported from Ibn <Abbas and al-Sha^T, as well as the report from Malik that if a traveller is unaware of the timing and prays <ish& before the disappearance of twilight discovering later that he had prayed before this time, his prayer remains valid. The basis for the resemblance between them is that these are the bounds of timing just as those are the bounds of direction.

The tradition is found in the report of ‘Amir ibn RablTa, who said, “We were travelling with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on a dark night, and the direction of the qibla became obscure to us. Each one of us prayed in a certain direction, as we guessed, but when it was morning we found that we had prayed in a direction other than that of the qibla. We asked the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about it and he said, ‘Your prayer was valid.’ It was then that revelation came down with the verse, ‘Unto Allah belongeth the East and the West, and withersoever ye turn, there is Allah’s countenance’”.101 Thus, the implication of the verse stays confirmed, and it is concerned with the person who observes prayer and later discovers that he prayed in a direction other than the qibla. The majority of the jurists, however, maintain that it has been abrogated by the verse, “And whencesoever thou contest forth [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship”.102 Those for whom this tradition did not prove to be authentic constructed the analogy of the limits of direction upon the limits of timings. And those who accepted the tradition held that prayer was valid. .