Why should we always face a particular direction while doing our Salat prayer ?

Wakas

peace Arman,

Re 2177
According to corpus and other reference works I have it is a different word form (i.e. a verb meaning ~towards, not a noun qiblah)
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qbl#(21776)

Hence my statement.

Before exodus making the own house as qibla (focal point) makes sense because of security concerns. Per my understanding, make your houses as qibla means you do not need any other focal point other than your house. Perhaps, Pharaoh and his priests wanted everyone to pray towards the direction of some egyptian temple - which Allah nullified. This is purely my assumption, though.

It is saying to all make your houses a qiblah. I only see two possible understandings of this

each one makes their own house a qiblah
the houses collectively are made a qiblah

If qiblah is taken as "prayer direction" then
(1) doesn't make sense as this would render direction irrelevant when inside the house and if away from the house each person would have a different direction (unless very far from their houses), thus making the command seem unhelpful/impractical/unusual at best and illogical at worst.
(2) only works if all the houses are very close together and the people spoken of are far enough away from them so they can all face one direction, but as you say it is unlikely congregational gatherings would take place if they were under threat where they lived.

So, according to you, which one is your view (1) or (2) or something else?

Perhaps this is why many Traditional tafsirs say qiblah means "place of prayer" here. How convenient. Assuming you've read my link you will know my view is different.

With regards to the meaning of "settle (dual)", I take it as is and have no issue with it. It's only an issue if one claims 1087 is about exodus or after the exodus, or returning after exodus (no idea how that works). It seems odd. You will note for example, contradictory positions in the free-minds translation and reformist translation of this word. The former says seek out homes, the latter says leave their homes.

Abdoul

Peace.

It seems that there are many others problems with the traditionnal understanding of Qibla (Prayer direction). The followings are from http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html. Thanks to Wakas for the link.

NB AQ = Al Qur'an
AMAL = Al MaSJiD Al Haram

The following is a list of the problems regarding this traditional explanation

It is entirely an interpretation based on external sources (i.e. traditions). The terms "kaabah", "mecca", "AMAH", "turn your wajh/face/consideration", "masjid" etc are NEVER discussed elsewhere in AQ involving a specific physical direction, nor is an example given of anyone performing salat in a particular direction. Some cite 4102 but please see part 1 of this series for its analysis.
The word "qiblah", and its root (QBL), cannot be shown to clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence.
All traditional commentators translate the only other occurrence of the specifc noun "qiblah" (apart from these verses) in 1087 as "oratories / places of worship" not "prayer direction". The likely reason is that to do so would make little sense as 1087 says "...and make your houses a qiblah...". Further, they turn it into a plural here, whilst elsewhere it is singular.
In addition to 2142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2115, 2142-150, 2177. Some commentators explain this away by saying there was no prayer direction initially, and later this was abrogated, and so on. However, note that in terms of sequence, this same message is given prior to AND after the "change of qiblah" verses. Interestingly, some traditional commentators accept that any direction is not special, and the only thing that makes it special is God having imposed it, no other reason.
The verses do not say turn in the direction of the "Kaabah", but AMAH. One may ask then, what does one do once inside AMAH or next to it.
The verses do not say turn your wajh DURING salat, this is an inserted interpretation. In fact, it explicitly says "wherever you are" / "wherever thou start or come forth", implying no limitation, and if so, this would make it impossible to face one direction all the time.
Technically, it is impossible to face an object on a spheroid (i.e. earth) if you are a long distance away from it. One actually faces a random point in space, and even if one were to draw a line on the earth's surface in a direction towards the intended object being even one degree off can result in being many miles away from the object. Thus, it is actually near impossible to do, unless in close proximity to the object, so if one wishes to take this interpretation, one must accept facing one direction is symbolic only.

Note how 2141 clearly implies the past is the past, but according to the traditional understanding the verses which follow are about resuming the qiblah of Abraham et al. Seems a mixed message.

The reason given for the apparent change in qiblah is "not will be for the people against you debate", and "that I may complete My favour upon you and so that you may be guided". The traditional commentators try to explain these away using traditions, see Al Jalalayn (altafsir.com), ibn Kathir (qtafsir.com), Asad (quranix.net). Interestingly, traditional Islamic history shows that their relations with the Jewish tribes of Medina only worsened after this point - potentially contradicting the reasoning offered in AQ.
2145 says "...nor will they follow each other's qiblah..." - a much missed point is the fact that the traditional understanding of "qiblah" as "prayer direction" requires the people of the book to have a minimum of TWO different "qiblah" or "prayer directions" in order to make sense logically, i.e. Jews pray one direction, Christians pray another. I did not find a commentator who explained this away. It is possible they did not realise this. However, there is apparently some evidence to suggest early Christians prayed facing east, and Jews faced Jerusalem, thus satisfying the two-minimum criteria. To me the context of this suggests people can have many qiblah, even their own individual qiblah, i.e. more than two.
If these verses were revealed in Medina, as alleged, then the direction of Jerusalem from there is clearly north-west, not west. Further, there may be some evidence Christians prayed to the east, but Jews do not pray to the west, thus the use of "east" and "west" in 2142 are unlikely meant to be taken as discussing prayer directions, as some claim. Most traditional commentators do not claim this however.
If facing the cuboid called "Kaabah" pleased the messenger, as implied in 2144, then it should be noted it was full of idols at the time, as even accepted in traditional sources. They allege that since it was the first house dedicated to worship, built by Abraham, this was more important than the fact it was filled with idols and a pagan symbol, hence "pleased".
IF the cuboid called "Kaabah" was also the qiblah of Abraham, as agreed upon by traditionalists, then it should be noted prophets Moses and Jesus (who came after Abraham) were NEVER recorded, in any source, as visiting it nor facing it during prayer. This would be extremely unusual. Thus, the explanation sometimes given is that Jerusalem was the legitimate qiblah for Moses/Jesus, and then the original qiblah (i.e. cuboid called Kaabah) was restored with the final revelation, i.e. Quran. This requires us to believe for some reason God changed it, then restored it, and now seemingly assigns blame to the people of the book for not accepting this change. Can we really blame them for not changing, as this explanation is tantamount to God being the source of confusion, which is unacceptable in my view. Further, it is implied in 2146 that some of the people of the kitab/book know that this change is the truth, implying somewhere in their own scriptures this qiblah is mentioned or that their qiblah will be superseded by a future messenger etc - if so, where is this information? Perhaps further research needs to be done in this area.
AMAH as a building likely did not exist at the time, as admitted by traditional sources, and refers to the area/site (see Encyclopaedia of Quran, volume 3, p77). How this was delineated is anyone's guess. Please note some commentators regard AMAH as Mecca in some verses, e.g. 928.
As is clear from the last part of 2144, the only requirement for knowing the true "qiblah" is to be given the decree/scripture from our Lord. There is no requirement to have a compass or to consult a geographical map to know the true "qiblah" from our Lord.
IF the Jerusalem qiblah was appointed by God, then this indirectly implies the messenger was dissatisfied with such a qiblah when 2144 says "...We see thy face/consideration shifting in the sky..." and "...that will please thee...", i.e. was the messenger dissatisfied with a command from God?
The use of masculine suffix pronoun "hu/it" in these verses is somewhat problematic (see bold blue in the above translation), as IF "it" refers to AMAH as a physical building then it seems odd (e.g. they recognise it/AMAH as they recognise their sons). Tafsir Al Jalalayn states the "it" in 2146 refers to Muhammad, Ibn Kathir says it could be Muhammad or Kaabah but unfortunately for him the latter is a feminine noun so it cannot be that. Perhaps Ibn Kathir meant AMAH. Some translators imply the "it" refers to the qiblah but again, this is a feminine noun (see the use of feminine "ha/it" in 2143 for confirmation of this). For me, the variance is telling. It should be strongly noted that in AQ Abraham is never said to have built AMAH, nor is it explicitly mentioned in his presence, thus for the people of the writ/decree to link this to Abraham and recognise AMAH as the truth is somewhat difficult.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to state with certainty what the masculine pronoun "hu" refers to, but in my humble opinion, the flow and logic of the verses suggest it=AMAH, especially considering the usage of "it is the truth from your Lord" in 2144, 2147 and 2149.

1 2145 would imply that if the messenger were to follow their qiblah after these revelations then he would be a wrongdoer and following their desires, yet he was apparently following it previously. Is there a precedent for this in AQ, i.e. doing X is allowed then a future revelation clearly changes doing X to desires/wrongdoing? Not to my knowledge.

The expression "turn + wajh", is used in 679 and rendered as "I shall turn my face to the One who created the heavens and the earth..." but explained as "making his religion and works sincere" (e.g. Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas), likely because this was prior to the alleged building of the cuboid called "Kaaba", thus to render it as a physical direction when such a place did not exist would be problematic for Traditionalists, yet they take this same phrase to mean physical directional command here. Also see "wajh" in 'Verbal Idioms of Quran' by Mustansir Mir. This shows that this phrase does have a link to mindset/sincerity/intention/approach/etc even in traditional sources. The phrase is also used in 2822 (albeit "turn" is verb form 5 not 2) and likely denotes an actual physical turning of one's face, but uses the Arabic word "tilq'aa" for "towards" not "shatra (in the direction)" like these verses. Perhaps "til'qaa" is more appropriate for a physical turning towards, also see 747. It is somewhat peculiar "shatra" is used in 2144-150, rather than the more common "ila/to" for example, IF it did mean a physical face turning towards/to something.
As a side note, also recall how in part 2 it was shown the phrase "aqim wajh" had no link to a physical face or directional command.
IF it was a reference to turning towards another direction in prayer, then to me, it seems odd that in 2142 it states the foolish (al sufahau) will ask "what has turned them from..." when this seems like a reasonable question to ask. Think about it, if you were there as an observer, and a group prayed towards X then Y for about 18 months (as the traditional story goes) then back to X again, wouldn't you also ask "why"? If so, you are of the foolish ones according to the traditional understanding.

Clearly the traditional position has issues, thus is there an alternative understanding that fits better?

Please, can somebody help me.

May God guide all fo us.

amin

Why should we focus on a direction?

We should go back to early days when people do mostly hunting and related jobs, when there were no communication tools like what we have, How a mosque or a raised building should have helped a community of people in multiple ways, How living in unity should have helped them survive even in harsh deserts and other lands. God is the COMMON GOOD and making everyone focus and believe on the common goodness should be the objective of the Salat ritual. Even animals do that live in groups, follow herds or single paths etc.. just for their common Goodness.

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks to brother Wakas for the input regarding 2177. This is useful, I'll take this into consideration.

From the aricle links provided by brother Wakas, it seems that AMAH as Qibla has been proposed to mean "Inviolable time of submission" is the "focal point". This interpretation is still somewhat vague for me and also I am confused how this relates to "houses" as Qibla for people of Moses. In the definition I composed for Qibla - I tried to define it as a "focal point" both physically and spiritually. As of now, it is my impression that if both these meanings are taken parallelly only then the related verses make most sense. I am not claiming it is a 100% clear explanation though - and hence I remain open to exploring new interpretations and understandings.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

Man_of_Faith

I would direct my prayers towards my heart, or rather mind. This is the best submission and hence "God's" spirit is in me. If I pray towards something externally then that is my idol.

Or like I have sarcastically said before, twist and turn 360 degrees around me in all directions and finally sit in front of a mirror and consider myself had my exercise for the day.

The easiest is to direct prayers into the "ether", mind and the energy around us. "God" is the Foundation, the "concrete" around is, which is not actually concrete but all energy in disguise.

Be of one in God

Wakas

peace Arman, all,

From the aricle links provided by brother Wakas, it seems that AMAH as Qibla has been proposed to mean "Inviolable time of submission" is the "focal point". This interpretation is still somewhat vague for me and also I am confused how this relates to "houses" as Qibla for people of Moses.

Did you manage to read all of the article? It is a lengthy article and lots to digest, and should be read in conjunction with this article also.

The article's findings suggest the most likely meaning of qiblah is
focal-point focus/centre of interest/attention or activity

Many things could be a focal-point (i.e. a focus of interest/attention/activity). For example, if a university student is busy working hard trying to graduate from their course, spending much time and thought on this, then it could be said their qiblah is that degree, or to pass the course or graduation etc.
If a person is a sprint athlete and they are training regular, eating right, entering sprint competitions etc in order to qualify for the olympics, then it could be said their qiblah is olympic qualification.
If a person is a chef and thinks about food a lot, how to improve it, studies and cooks regular because they want to become a Michelin star chef, then it could be said their qiblah is the michelin star.

As you can see, many things could be a qiblah, i.e. someone's focus of interest/attention/activity.

In 1087 it is advised to the children of israel to make your houses a qiblah, which fits perfectly as they were under threat and persecuted by the authority, thus they may not have been able to congregate publicly in groups or discuss matters openly or have public weddings, preach their faith, recite/teach scripture, settle disputes etc but they would be able to do that in their houses.
Thus, it makes perfect sense to make their houses a focal-point for such matters etc.

With regard to qiblah in verses 2142-150 I recommend you read all the article, as it is discussed there.
Put simply, "al masjid al haram" means "the inviolable time of submission/honour/paying respect" and refers to the time-period/event of the inviolable months wherein al hajj can take place, various restrictions are in place in an area. You will note that The Quran never mentions this period/event until much later in its discourse (which explains the change in qiblah)

in my view, the reason being is that now the believers had grown in number, and all they needed was a common qiblah to converge upon, to bring them together and triumph over the opposition, and God chose for them the perfect vehicle the inviolable time of submission/honour/paying respect.

In the definition I composed for Qibla - I tried to define it as a "focal point" both physically and spiritually. As of now, it is my impression that if both these meanings are taken parallelly only then the related verses make most sense.

Note in the examples of qiblah I gave it involves someone exerting themselves both physically, as well as mentally (and perhaps spiritually) thus your meaning can fit BUT if you include physically facing in one direction, then the problems highlighted in thread will resurface.

As I said, I recommend reading the article as it goes into more detail.

Armanaziz

Salamun alaikum.

I have no problem with Qibla as "focal-point focus/centre of interest/attention or activity". However, form the Qur'anic narration that the earlier Qibla was assigned to make known who follows the messengers and who turns on his heel - it seems to me that turning the face towards the Qibla while performing salat rituals was also part of Qibla being the focal point.

If Qibla as physical direction is the null hypothesis, I have not yet found enough evidence to reject the null ) But I am open to examining new evidences.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

Wakas

peace,

I have no problem with Qibla as "focal-point focus/centre of interest/attention or activity". However, form the Qur'anic narration that the earlier Qibla was assigned to make known who follows the messengers and who turns on his heel - it seems to me that turning the face towards the Qibla while performing salat rituals was also part of Qibla being the focal point.

That is one possible way of interpreting it, not the only way.

If Qibla as physical direction is the null hypothesis, I have not yet found enough evidence to reject the null ) But I am open to examining new evidences.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the issues raised in the article and this thread for qiblah=prayer direction are insurmountable, but certainly food for thought. What I have found when discussing this subject with others is that the various views will involve various degrees of assumptions, indirect evidence, interpolations etc in order to work. In my view it's good to examine the options on the table.

Those who listen to what is being said, then follow the best of it.
These are the ones God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.

Abdoul

Peace,

I would direct my prayers towards my heart, or rather mind. This is the best submission and hence "God's" spirit is in me. If I pray towards something externally then that is my idol.

Very interesting view.

You shall submit to Him, reverence Him, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and - whatever you do - do not ever fall into idol worship.

Thanks to everybody for your contributions. I am open to further explanations.

May God guide all of us.

FindingRightPathToAllah

Peace,

I have stopped facing Qibla very recently. I am not sure if it is the right direction, and I don't think it is. It seems idol worship. I still have the habit with me though. I have faced that direction all my life, so I guess it is hard to let go, and I forget about not facing it anymore. I tend to face it during prayer, and then I change the direction when I remember.

Man_of_Faith

It seems idol worship.

It is idol worship. You treat the building in the city called Mecca like an image of "God".

It is arguable that even prostrating with direction towards the ether can be considered a violation of commandments as well, because you make an image out of "God" as in objectifying "God".

Have faith