Para ulama fiqh telah sepakat bahawa menghadap ke arah Baitullah merupakan salah satu syarat sahnya solat, berdasarkan firman Allah Yang Maha Tinggi, "Dan dari mana sahaja engkau keluar (untuk solat), maka palingkanlah wajahmu ke arah Masjidil Haram. Sesungguhnya ia adalah kebenaran daripada Tuhanmu".99 Namun, jika orang yang solat dapat melihat Kaabah, maka kewajipannya ialah menghadap Kaabah itu sendiri, dan dalam hal ini tiada perselisihan. Para ulama berselisih pendapat dalam dua perkara apabila Kaabah tidak kelihatan. Pertama, sama ada kewajipannya ialah menghadap Kaabah itu sendiri atau menghadap ke arahnya. Kedua, sama ada kewajipannya ialah bersungguh-sungguh dalam menentukan arah dengan tepat, atau memadai dengan menganggarkan arahnya, iaitu sama ada dengan tepat menghadap Kaabah itu sendiri atau menghadap arah umumnya.

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?

Sebahagian ahli fiqh berpendapat bahawa kewajipan itu ialah menghadap Ka‘bah itu sendiri, manakala yang lain berpendapat bahawa ia ialah menghadap arahnya. Punca perselisihan mereka ialah sama ada dalam firman Yang Maha Tinggi, "Dan dari mana sahaja engkau keluar [untuk solat, wahai Muhammad], maka palingkanlah wajahmu ke arah Masjid al-Haram", perlu diandaikan satu perkataan tersirat, sehingga bacaannya menjadi, "Dan dari mana sahaja engkau keluar [untuk solat, wahai Muhammad], maka palingkanlah wajahmu ke arah Masjid al-Haram", atau sama ada ayat itu dibaca sebagaimana adanya. Mereka yang mengandaikan perkataan tersirat berpendapat bahawa kewajipannya ialah menghadap arahnya, manakala mereka yang tidak mengandaikan perkataan tersirat di sini berpendapat bahawa kewajipannya ialah menghadap Ka‘bah itu sendiri. Adalah wajib mentafsirkan perkataan mengikut makna sebenarnya, melainkan terdapat dalil yang menunjukkan bahawa ia disusun dalam makna majazi. Namun begitu, dikatakan bahawa dalil bagi perkataan tersirat di sini terdapat dalam sabda Nabi ﷺ, "Apa sahaja yang berada di antara timur dan barat adalah kiblat jika kamu menghadap arah Rumah (Ka‘bah)". Mereka berkata bahawa persetujuan para fuqaha Muslim mengenai saf panjang para jemaah solat yang melampaui sempadan Ka‘bah adalah bukti bahawa kewajipan itu bukanlah menghadap Ka‘bah itu sendiri, iaitu apabila Ka‘bah tidak kelihatan. Apa yang ingin saya katakan ialah, jika kewajipan itu menuntut seseorang menuju tepat ke arah Ka‘bah itu sendiri, nescaya ia akan menjadi satu kesukaran, sedangkan Yang Maha Tinggi telah berfirman, "Dia telah memilih kamu dan tidak menjadikan kamu menanggung sebarang kesukaran dalam agama". Menuju tepat ke arah sesuatu tidak mungkin dilakukan tanpa mendekatinya dengan menggunakan geometri dan cerapan (astronomi), dan hasilnya pun tetap anggaran; maka bagaimanakah mungkin arah dapat ditentukan melalui ijtihad tanpa semua ini? Kita tidak diwajibkan untuk mengetahui secara pasti melalui ilmu ukur berdasarkan pemerhatian astronomi, yang daripadanya seluruh panjang dan lebar bumi dapat diperoleh.

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.

Adakah kewajipan seseorang yang berusaha menentukan arah kiblat itu ialah mencapai ketepatan, atau hanya melaksanakan usaha untuk mencarinya? Maka, jika kita katakan kewajipannya ialah menentukan arah yang tepat, dia wajib mengulang solat sekiranya dia mendapati bahawa dia telah tersilap (dalam menentukan arah yang sebenar). Jika kita berpegang bahawa kewajipannya hanyalah berusaha, dia tidak perlu mengulang solat sekiranya tersilap, dan juga jika dia telah solat sebelum berusaha mencari arah itu. Al-Shafi'i berpendapat bahawa kewajipannya ialah menentukan arah yang tepat, dan jika jelas kepada orang itu bahawa dia telah tersilap, dia wajib mengulang solat, dalam setiap keadaan. Sekumpulan ahli fiqh berkata bahawa dia tidak perlu mengulang solat jika dia telah selesai solat, kecuali jika dia melakukannya dengan sengaja (iaitu, solat menghadap arah yang salah) atau solat tanpa berusaha mencari arah itu. Ini ialah pendapat Malik dan Abu Hanifah, kecuali bahawa Malik ﷺ menganjurkan supaya solat diulang jika masih ada waktu.

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.

Sebab perselisihan dalam hal ini ialah pertentangan antara sebuah hadith dan qiyas, serta perbezaan pendapat mengenai kesahihan hadith tersebut. Qiyas itu didasarkan pada persamaan antara (kewajipan menghadap) arah dengan waktu, iaitu waktu solat. Mereka bersepakat (mengenai waktu) bahawa kewajipan bagi orang yang beribadah ialah tepat pada waktunya. Jika seseorang menyedari bahawa dia telah solat sebelum masuk waktu, maka solatnya menjadi tidak sah, dan dia mesti mengulanginya, tanpa pengecualian. Namun, terdapat sedikit penyimpangan yang dilaporkan daripada Ibn ʿAbbas dan al-Shāfiʿī, serta riwayat daripada Malik bahawa jika seorang musafir tidak mengetahui waktu lalu solat isyak sebelum hilangnya syafak, dan kemudian mendapati bahawa dia telah solat sebelum waktu tersebut, solatnya tetap sah. Dasar persamaan antara keduanya ialah bahawa ini adalah had bagi waktu sebagaimana itu adalah had bagi arah.

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.