穆斯林法学家一致认为，面向天房的方向是礼拜有效的条件之一，依据至尊真主的经文：“无论你从何处出来，都要向着禁寺转你的脸。这确是来自你的主的真理。”{又无论你从何处出来，都要向着禁寺转你的脸。这确是来自你的主的真理。}若礼拜者能够看见天房，则应当面向天房本身，对此并无争议。法学家在天房不在视野之内时存在两个分歧：第一，应当面向天房本身，还是面向天房的方向；第二，应当精确地确定方向，还是估计大致方向，即是要精确地对准天房本身，还是只对准大致方向。

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?

一些法学家认为,义务是面向天房本身,另一些法学家则认为,义务是面向天房的方向。他们分歧的原因在于,至高者的话语"无论你从何处出发[为礼拜而出,穆罕默德啊],就把你的脸转向圣寺"中,是否应当假设存在一个省略的词,从而读作"无论你从何处出发[为礼拜而出,穆罕默德啊],就把你的脸转向圣寺的方向",还是应当按其字面读法。假设有省略词的人认为,义务是面向圣寺的方向;而不假设有省略词的人则认为,义务是面向天房本身。除非有证据表明其结构是隐喻义,否则必须按其实际含义来解释经文。然而,有人认为,此处假设省略词的证据见于先知(愿真主的赞颂与安宁降临于他)的圣训:"东方与西方之间的一切都是朝向(qiblah),只要你们面向天房的方向。"他们还说,穆斯林法学家一致认为,即使礼拜者排列成长队并延伸到天房范围之外,这也是证据,表明义务并非面向天房本身,即在看不到天房的情况下。我要说的是,如果义务是要正对天房本身,那将造成困难,而至高者已经说过:"他拣选了你们,在宗教中没有给你们设置任何困难。"直接对准某个事物,若不借助几何学和天文观测去接近它,是不可能的,而即便如此,结果也只是近似的;那么,没有这些手段,又如何能通过ijtihad(独立判断)来确定方向呢? 我们并没有义务通过基于天文观测的几何方法去探究那些可以由此推导出大地全部长度与宽度的知识。

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.

这位在寻找克尔白方向的人，其义务是要求准确确定方向，还是只需尽力去探求？若说义务是准确确定，那么他一旦发现自己判断有误，就须重新礼拜；若认为义务只是尽力探求，那么即便判断有误，他也无需重新礼拜，就算他在探求方向之前就已礼拜，同样如此。沙斐仪认为义务在于准确确定方向，因此只要行人明确发现自己判断有误，就应当重新礼拜，无论何时皆然。一群教法学家则认为，若他已礼拜完毕，便不必重新礼拜，除非他是故意（即有意面向错误的方向礼拜），或者礼拜前未尽力探求方向。这是马立克和艾卜·哈尼法的观点，只是马立克建议，若时间尚未过去，仍应重新礼拜。

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.

这种分歧的原因在于一则圣训与类比之间的冲突，以及对该圣训是否可靠的争议。类比的依据是：面向的方向（即朝向天房的方向）与时间，即礼拜的时间，具有相似性。大家一致认为，关于时间的要求是礼拜者必须准确地赶上时间。如果当事人发现自己在时间之前礼拜，他的礼拜即为无效，必须重新礼拜，这是无可置疑的。不过，有一种轻微的分歧，据伊本·阿拔斯和艾什·沙比（al-Sha^T）的传述，以及马立克的传述，如果旅行者不知道时间，在暮光消失之前礼拜了晚礼（<ish&），之后才发现自己是在这一时间之前礼拜的，那么他的礼拜依然有效。二者的相似之处在于：时间的界限正如方向的界限一样。

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.

据‘Amir ibn Rabī‘ah的传述，他说：“我们在一个漆黑的夜晚与安拉的使者（愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）同行，我们对克尔白的方向变得模糊不清。我们每个人都依自己的推测朝某个方向礼拜，但到了早晨，我们发现自己所朝的方向并非克尔白的方向。我们就此事询问了先知（愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他），他说：‘你们的拜功是有效的。’于是，启示降下了这节经文：‘东方和西方都是安拉的，你们无论朝向何方，那里都有安拉的属性。’”101 因此，这节经文的含义得到了确认，它所涉及的是这样一种人：他礼拜之后才发现自己所朝的方向不是克尔白。然而，大多数法学家认为，此义已被另一节经文所废止：“无论你从何处出外，都要面向禁寺礼拜。”102 那些不认为这段圣训可靠的人，便以方向的界限类推时间的界限。而那些接受这段圣训的人则认为，礼拜是有效的。

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. .