This paper seeks to investigate the legal ruling on using the toilet while facing the qiblah or with your back towards it (istiqbāl wa istidbār al-qiblah).
The earliest opinion on the topic is what has been attributed to Ibn al-Junayd (d. 4th century) who opined it is mustaḥabb to turn one’s front or back away from the qibla while using the toilet.
Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413/1022) in his al-Muqni’ah says it is makrūh to face the qiblah when one is in the desert or in a location where they can turn away from the qiblah, or else if they enter a toilet where the toilet is constructed in a way where one would have to face the qiblah with their front or back then that is permissible.
Shaykh Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) in his al-Khilāf says it is prohibited to face the qiblah with your front or back whether you are in the desert or in a toilet. The words of Sallār al-Daylamī (d. 463/1071) in his al-Marāsim are also not clear although some scholars have said he believed it was permissible to face the qiblah in a toilet, but not in the desert. Qāḍī ibn al-Barrāj (d. 481/1088) in his al-Muhadhdhab says it is obligatory to not face the qiblah with your front or back if one can avoid doing so, though without a choice it is permitted. Shaykh Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1153) says it is prohibited except in case of emergency.
Muḥammad al-Ṭūsī (alive in 566 AH) says it is prohibited when it is possible to turn around so.
Ibn Zuhra al-Ḥalabī (d. 588/1189) in al-Ghunya says it is obligatory to not face the Qiblah with one’s front or back while using the toilet, and there is no difference between the desert or in a constructed toilet. He cites consensus and precaution as evidence and cites a Prophetic ḥadīth to argue against the non-Imāmī jurists. Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥillī (d. 598/1201) in his al-Sarā’ir holds the same opinion, except if the toilet is built in a way where it is not possible to use it in any other way. Quṭb al-Dīn Kaydarī (alive in 610 AH) has the same opinion as Ibn Idrīs. Fāḍil Ābī (alive in 672) believes it is prohibited regardless of the place.
Subsequent generation of scholars such as Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī (d. 676/1277) in his al-Maqṣūd min al-Jumal wa al-‘Uqūd, al-Mu’tabar and Sharā’i al-Islām, says it is prohibited, and even if the toilet is made in the direction of the qiblah, it is obligatory to turn around.
Yaḥya b. Sa’īd al-Ḥillī (d. 690) in al-Jāmi’ lil-Sharā’i says even if it is built in that direction, then if it is possible to change then one must. ‘Allāmah Ḥillī (d. 726/1325) in Ajwibah al-Masā’il al-Mahnā’īyah, Irshād al-Adhhān, Tabṣirah al-Muta’allimīn, Talkhīṣ al-Marām Qawā’id al-Aḥkām, Muntaha al-Maṭlab, Nihāyah al-Aḥkām, and Tadhkirah says it is prohibited and it is obligatory to change directions if the toilet is built in that direction. He also attributes this position to the famous opinion in his Mukhtalaf al-Shī’a.
Shahīd Awwal (d. 786/1384) in al-Bayān, al-Dhikra, al-Durūs, and al-Lum’ah al-Dimishqīyyah and Miqdād Suyūri al-Ḥillī (d. 826) in his al-Tanqīḥ al-Rā’i’ defends the famous opinion. Ibn Fahd al-Ḥillī (d. 841) in his treatise called al-Muḥarrar fī al-Fatwa says it is prohibited to face the qiblah. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥillī (d. 841) in his al-Muqtaṣar min Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar and al-Muhadhdhab al-Bāri‘ has the same opinion. Mufallāḥ b. Ḥasan al-Ṣaymarī (d. approx. 900) in his Talkhīṣ al-Khilāf defends the opinion of prohibition through consensus.
Muqaddas Ardebellī (d. 933/1585) in Majma’ al-Fā’idah casts doubt on the prohibition of the act and says kirāha is not a far-fetched opinion, although at the end he suggests obligatory precaution (wa lākin al-iḥtiyāṭ lā budda minhu). Muḥaqqiq Karakī (d. 940/1534) in his al-Risālah al-Ja’farīyyah fī al-Ṣalāt says it is prohibited to face the Qibla and in Jāmi’ al-Maqāṣid says it is prohibited to face with the whole body and not just the private organs.
Shahīd Thānī (d. 966/1559) in his Ḥāshiyah al-Irshād and Ḥāshiyah Sharā’i al-Islām does not leave any contradictory comments on the ruling of prohibition. In Rawḍ al-Jinān he strengthens the opinion of prohibition. In Rawḍ al-Bahīyyah and Masālik al-Afhām he says this ruling is for the whole body and not just the private parts. Muḥammad b. ‘Alī ‘Āmilī (d. 1009) in Madārik al-Aḥkām also believes in prohibition with the whole body. Ḥasan b. Zayn al-Dīn ‘Āmilī (d. 1011) in Ma’ālim al-Dīn wa Malādh al-Mujtahidīn defends the famous position of prohibition.
Muḥaqqiq Sabzwārī (d. 1090 AH) in his Dhakhīra al-Ma’ād brings arguments for both obligation of turning away from the Qiblah and also argues that Istiḥbāb is not far-fetched, although his final opinion is not clear. In Kifāyah al-Aḥkām he says the famous opinion is prohibition of facing the qiblah, but that it being makrūh is not far-fetched. Fayḍ Kāshānī (d. 1091 AH) in his Mu’taṣim al-Shī’a, al-Nukhba fī al-Ḥikmah al-‘Amalīyyah and Mafātīḥ al-Sharā’i believed in kirāha.
Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Khūnsārī (d. 1098) in his Mashāriq al-Shumūs fī Sharḥ al-Durūs believes in karāha. Shaykh Ḥurr al-Āmilī (d. 1104) believed in prohibition as well. ‘Allāmah Majlisī (d. 1110 AH) appears to agree with the famous opinion in Biḥār al-Anwār and says that the traditions which appear to allow it were uttered in dissimulation.
Sayyid Ni’matullah Jazā’irī (d. 1114) believes in prohibition, but cites the action of the jurists as a reason for overlooking the weakness of the traditions indicating prohibition, and as well as this being more precautious and in line with the popular opinion.
Fāḍil Hindī (d. 1137) says it is prohibited in any situation in Kashf al-Lithām, and so does as Ṣāḥib al-Ḥadā’iq (d. 1186/1772). Waḥīd Bihbahānī (d. 1205/1791) in his Maṣābīḥ al-Ẓilām defends the opinion of prohibition.
Muḥammad Mahdī Nārāqī (d. 1209) in his Lawāmi’ al-Aḥkām and Mu’tamad al-Shī’a says it is prohibited. Sayyid Mahdī Baḥr al-‘Ulūm Borūjerdī (d. 1212) in his Maṣābīḥ al-Aḥkām appears to accept the popular opinion of prohibition. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Baḥrānī Āl ‘Uṣfūr (d. 1216) in his Sidād al-‘Ibād also believes in prohibition.
Ja’fr Kāshif al-Ghiṭā (d. 1228 AH) believed it is prohibited in Kashf al-Ghiṭā’. Sayyid ‘Alī b. Muḥammad Ṭabāṭabā’ī Ḥā’irī (d. 1231 AH) in Riyāḍ al-Masā’il argue for prohibition but in al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr says obligatory precaution. Mīrzā Qumī (d. 1231/1815) in Ghanā’im al-Ayyām says prohibition.
Mawla Aḥmad Nārāqī (d. 1245) in his Mustanad al-Shī’a, Aḥmad Āl Ṭūq Qaṭīfī (alive in 1245) in Rasā’il Āl Ṭūq al-Qaṭīfī, Muḥammad Taqī Isfahānī (d. 1248) in his Tabṣirah al-Fuqahā’, Ḥasan Kāshif al-Ghiṭā’ in his Anwār al-Fiqāha all say it is prohibited.
Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir (d. 1266/1850) believed in prohibition. Shaykh Anṣārī (d. 1281) in his Kitāb al-Ṭahārah defends the view on prohibition. Riḍā Hamadānī in his Miṣbāḥ al-Faqīh also believes in prohibition. Mullā Abū Ṭālib Arākī (d. 1329) in his Sharḥ Najāt al-‘Ibād, Ākhund Khurasānī (d. 1329) in his al-Luma’āt al-Nīrah all defend prohibition.
Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim Yazdī (d. 1337/1919) in his al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqa, Mullā Ḥabībullah Kāshānī (d. 1340) in his Muntaqid al-Manāfi’ believed in prohibition. Āqā Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn ‘Arāqī (d. 1361) in his Sharḥ Tabṣīrah al-Muta’allimīn holds the same opinion. Hādī Kāshif al-Ghiṭā’ (d. 1361) in his Huda al-Muttaqīn and Muḥammad Ḥusayn Kāshif al-Ghiṭā’ (d. 1373) in his Su’āl wa Jawāb and Wajīzah al-Aḥkām both say it is prohibited.
Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥakīm (d. 1390/1970) in al-Mustamsak argues for prohibition, Mīrzā Muḥammad Taqī Āmulī (d. 1391) in his Miṣbāḥ al-Huda, Yūsuf Ārām Biyārjumandī (d. 1394) in his Madārik al-‘Urwah, Sayyid Aḥmad Khonsārī (d. 1405/1985) in his Jāmi’ al-Madārik, Imam Khumaynī (d. 1409) in the transcriptions of his Kitāb al-Ṭahārah, Mīrzā Hāshim Āmulī (d. 1413) in his al-Ma’ālim al-Ma’thūrah all say it is prohibited.
Sayyid Khū’ī (d. 1413) in his discussion on the topic, concludes that if it were just us and the traditions, there would be no justifiable way to give the verdict of prohibition, although in his published verdicts he says it is prohibited. Sayyid Muḥāmmad Taqī Ṭabāṭabā’ī in his Mabānī Minhāj al-Ṣāliḥīn explains Sayyid Khu’ī’s opinion and says that though all the narrations on the topic was weak, applying the principle of exemption (barā’ah) in this situation to permit this act would be considered highly detested, especially given the continuous practice of the Shī’a.
Sayyid ‘Abd al-A’la Sabzwārī (d. 1414/1993) in his Muhadhdhab al-Aḥkām, Sayyid Muḥammad Riḍā Gulpaygānī (d. 1414) in his Kitāb al-Ṭahārah, Muḥammad ‘Alī Arākī (d. 1415/1994) in al-Masā’il al-Wāḍiḥa and Muḥaqqiq Muḥammad Taqī Shūshtarī (d. 1416) in his al-Nuj’ah defend prohibition as well.
Jawād Tabrīzī (d. 1427) in his al-Tanqīḥ concludes that precaution must be maintained, although in his Ṣirāṭ al-Najāt he explicitly says it is not allowed. ‘Alī Panāh Ishtihārdī (d. 1429) in his Madārik al-‘Urwah and Sayyid Ṣādiq Rūḥānī in his Fiqh al-Ṣādiq conclude it is prohibited.
1. Ijmā’ – Consensus
If someone claims that there is consensus amongst the Imāmī scholars – as it has been claimed in al-Khilāf, al-Ghunya, and al-Sarā’ir – that the facing the qiblah is prohibited, then it can be said:
1) There is no consensus on the matter since a number of scholars did not believe it was prohibited to face the qibla or obligatory to face away. Sallār al-Daylamī opined it was merely makrūh, and many have understood Shaykh Mufid’s opinion to be that it is permissible in buildings, but makrūh in the desert to face the qibla. In terms of later scholars, Muqaddas Ardebellī stated it is difficult to argue for prohibition and hence went with obligatory precaution at the end. Likewise, Muhaqqiq Sabzwārī believes the view of kirāha is not far-fetched, while Fayḍ Kāshānī and Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Khūnsārī opined it was makrūh.
2) Even if there happened to have been a consensus on the matter, it is very clearly madrakī and hence not binding. This has been confessed by a number of jurists themselves, such as Mīrzā Jawād Tabrīzī in the very discussion on facing the qiblah:
و لا اعتبار بنقل الإجماع في إثبات الأحكام على ما هو المقرّر في بحث الأُصول
There is no value of quoting a consensus in proving laws, as it has been discussed in the discussions of legal theory.
2. Shuhra – Popularity
It is very clear that the ruling of prohibition of facing the qiblah is a very popular opinion amongst Imāmī Shī‘ī jurists. A number of scholars have also cited it as evidence for their verdict; such as in al-Tadhkirah, al-Mukhtalif, al-Dhikra, Kifāyah al-Aḥkām, al-Dhakhīrah, Biḥar al-Anwār and others.
However, as has been concluded in discussions of legal theory, mere popularity of a verdict amongst scholars is not sufficient binding proof for issuing the same ruling, particularly when we have the evidence at our disposal which was subjected to reflective analysis to arrive at this conclusion.
The most pertinent discussion here concerns the narrations themselves. We will evaluate all the traditions on the subject that can be used to clarify the law on this matter.
Ḥadīth #1 – Tahdhīb
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنِ الْهَيْثَمِ بْنِ أَبِي مَسْرُوقٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ قَالَ: دَخَلْتُ عَلَى أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع وَ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ كَنِيفٌ مُسْتَقْبِلَ الْقِبْلَةِ.
عَنْهُ عَنِ الْهَيْثَمِ بْنِ مَسْرُوقٍ النَّهْدِيِّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ قَالَ: دَخَلْتُ عَلَى أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع وَ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ كَنِيفٌ مُسْتَقْبِلَ الْقِبْلَةِ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ مَنْ بَالَ حِذَاءَ الْقِبْلَةِ ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ فَانْحَرَفَ عَنْهَا إِجْلَالًا لِلْقِبْلَةِ وَ تَعْظِيماً لَهَا لَمْ يَقُمْ مِنْ مَقْعَدِهِ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَه
Grading: The path of Shaykh Ṭūsī to Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Maḥbūb in al-Tahdhīb is as follows:
الحسين بن عبيد اللّه عن احمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار عن ابيه محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن علي بن محبوب
Although Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Yaḥya al-‘Aṭṭār has no explicit tawthīq in which case this chain would be classified as ḍa’īf, unless one accepts the view of ta’wīḍ al-sanad and relies on some of the other paths Ṭūsī has to Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Maḥbūb which are reliable.
In addition, Haytham b. Abī Masrūq has no explicit tawthīq although ‘Allāmah Ḥillī (d. 726) mentions him in the section of narrators who he relied on and quotes a statement from Kashshī who narrates that Ḥamdawayh deemed him to be a man of merit (fāḍil). Although this does not necessitate tawthīq, it is definitely a praise for Haytham.
However, if Aḥmad al-‘Aṭṭār is considered reliable, as is the case amongst many contemporary scholars, then this narration would be classified as ḥasan as Ḥaytham has been praised, or else this is a weak tradition.
In al-Faqīh a similar statement appears and though he does not mention a chain for it, it appears to be taken from the same report of al-Riḍā (a):
وَ فِي خَبَرٍ آخَرَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الْهِلَالَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهُ. وَ مَنِ اسْتَقْبَلَ الْقِبْلَةَ فِي بَوْلٍ أَوْ غَائِطٍ ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ فَتَحَرَّفَ عَنْهَا إِجْلَالًا لِلْقِبْلَةِ لَمْ يَقُمْ مِنْ مَوْضِعِهِ حَتَّى يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَه
Meaning: This tradition does not signify the prohibition of facing the qiblah, let alone having your back towards it, and at the very most it seems to indicate istiḥbāb of turning away from it with the intention of giving it respect. There is not even a command to turn away when one remembers they are not facing the qiblah, rather it seems to say if they do decide to alter their direction out of respect for the QIblah, then such an act is rewarded.
Ḥadīth #2 – al-Maḥāsin
عَنْهُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ الْحَرَّاثِ بْنِ بَهْرَامَ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص مَنْ بَالَ حِذَاءَ الْقِبْلَةِ ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ وَ انْحَرَفَ عَنْهَا إِجْلَالًا لِلْقِبْلَةِ وَ تَعْظِيماً لَهَا لَمْ يَقُمْ مِنْ مَقْعَدِهِ حَتَّى يُغْفَرَ لَه
Grading: Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Barqī is thiqa, but Muḥammad b. Khālid al-Barqī is disputed due to contradicting comments regarding him by Ṭūsī and Najāshi. For the purpose of this paper we will deem him to be thiqa.
Al-Ḥarrāth is a scribal error for al-Ḥārith, but he is unknown. ‘Amr b. Jumay’ is deemed a Butrī and has been weakened by Ṭūsī and Najāshī, and as well as a number of non-Imāmī scholars. In addition, the chain has irsāl between ‘Amr and the Prophet (p).
This narration would be classified as very ḍā’īf.
Meaning: The tradition has the same meaning as the one before.
Ḥadīth #3 – Tahdhīb
وَ أَخْبَرَنِي الشَّيْخُ أَيَّدَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قُولَوَيْهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ يُونُسَ عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع يَقُولُ إِذَا دَخَلْتَ الْمَخْرَجَ فَقُلْ- بِسْمِ اللَّهِ وَ بِاللَّهِ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ الْخَبِيثِ الْمُخْبِثِ الرِّجْسِ النِّجْسِ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ وَ إِذَا خَرَجْتَ فَقُلْ- بِسْمِ اللَّهِ وَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي عَافَانِي مِنَ الْخَبِيثِ الْمُخْبِثِ وَ أَمَاطَ عَنِّي الْأَذَى وَ إِذَا تَوَضَّأْتَ فَقُلْ- أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْنِي مِنَ التَّوَّابِينَ وَ اجْعَلْنِي مِنَ الْمُتَطَهِّرِينَ وَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعالَمِينَ*.
ثُمَّ قَالَ وَ لَا يَسْتَقْبِلِ الْقِبْلَةَ وَ لَا يَسْتَدْبِرْهَا وَ لَكِنْ يَجْلِسُ عَلَى اسْتِقْبَالِ الْمَشْرِقِ إِنْ شَاءَ أَوِ الْمَغْرِب
Grading: This is a ṣaḥīḥ chain unless someone casts doubt on Muḥammad b. ‘Īsa b. ‘Ubayd b. Yaqtīn who has been weakened by Shaykh Ṭūsī, Ibn Walīd and Shaykh Ṣadūq particularly when Muḥammad narrates from Yūnus.
Meaning: It is not clear whether this is a tradition or words of Shaykh Mufīd from his al-Muqni’ah which Shaykh Ṭūsī has just reiterated. In addition, if the statement is a continuation of the previous tradition, then its context is in line with speaking of mustaḥabb etiquettes, and not prohibition.
Ḥadīth #4 – Tahdhīb
فَأَخْبَرَنِي الشَّيْخُ أَيَّدَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَسْبَاطٍ أَوْ رَجُلٍ عَنْهُ عَمَّنْ رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَعْمَلُهُ إِذَا دَخَلَ الْكَنِيفَ يُقَنِّعُ رَأْسَهُ وَ يَقُولُ سِرّاً فِي نَفْسِهِ- بِسْمِ اللَّهِ وَ بِاللَّهِ تَمَامَ الْحَدِيثِ.
ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ فَقَالَ فَإِذَا انْتَهَى إِلَى الْمَكَانِ الَّذِي يَتَخَلَّى فِيهِ قَدَّمَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى قَبْلَ الْيُمْنَى وَ قَالَ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ وَ بِاللَّهِ أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الرِّجْسِ النِّجْسِ الْخَبِيثِ الْمُخْبِثِ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ ثُمَّ لْيَجْلِسْ وَ لَا يَسْتَقْبِل
Grading: This chain is weak due to irsāl in the chain, otherwise all other narrators are reliable, unless someone disputes the withāqa of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Walīd.
The tradition would be classified as ḍa’īf.
Meaning: This line once again is unclear whether it is a narration or the words of Ṭūsī, or even just the words of Shaykh Mufīd from al-Muqni‘a. The context of this statement is also in line with the etiquettes of using the toilet and indicates it is not recommended to face the qiblah – though it is silent on facing it with one’s back.
وَ أَخْبَرَنِي الشَّيْخُ أَيَّدَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ الْوَلِيدِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى الْعَطَّارِ وَ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ إِدْرِيسَ جَمِيعاً عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَلَاءِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ رَفَعَهُ قَالَ: سُئِلَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ع مَا حَدُّ الْغَائِطِ قَالَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الْقِبْلَةَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهَا وَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الرِّيحَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهَا.
This same tradition in al-Faqīh is without a chain, but in al-Kāfī it is attributed to Abū al-Ḥasan which could be Imam ‘Alī, Imam Kāẓim or Imam Riḍā:
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بِإِسْنَادِهِ رَفَعَهُ قَالَ: سُئِلَ أَبُو الْحَسَنِ ع مَا حَدُّ الْغَائِطِ قَالَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الْقِبْلَةَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهَا وَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الرِّيحَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهَا
Ṣadūq mentions the same tradition in his al-Muqni’ but attributes to al-Riḍa (a):
وسئل أبو الحسن الرضا عليهالسلام ما حدّ الغائط؟ فقال : لا تستقبل القبلة ، ولا تستدبرها ، ولا تستقبل الريّح ، ولا تستدبرها
Grading: The tradition would be classified as ḍa’īf since it is marfū’. Other than that, it also has Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Walīd who has no explicit tawthīq. While ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd b. Abī al-‘Alā’ could either be al-Sumayn or someone else, this does not harm the chain since Ibn Abī ‘Umayr is narrating from him and he is from the Aṣḥāb al-Ijmā’.
Meaning: This tradition is very explicit in prohibition (ḥurmah) of not just facing the qiblah with your front and back, but it also suggests the same thing for facing towards the wind while reliving one’s self. This is while no jurist has given a verdict of prohibition when facing the wind.
عَلِيُّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَفَعَهُ قَالَ: خَرَجَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ مِنْ عِنْدِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع وَ أَبُو الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع قَائِمٌ وَ هُوَ غُلَامٌ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ يَا غُلَامُ أَيْنَ يَضَعُ الْغَرِيبُ بِبَلَدِكُمْ فَقَالَ اجْتَنِبْ أَفْنِيَةَ الْمَسَاجِدِ وَ شُطُوطَ الْأَنْهَارِ وَ مَسَاقِطَ الثِّمَارِ وَ مَنَازِلَ النُّزَّالِ وَ لَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الْقِبْلَةَ بِغَائِطٍ وَ لَا بَوْلٍ وَ ارْفَعْ ثَوْبَكَ وَ ضَعْ حَيْثُ شِئْتَ.
Grading: This tradition is marfū’ and graded as ḍā’īf.
Meaning: This tradition is also apparent in prohibiting facing the qibla with your front, but it is silent on facing it with your back.
أَخْبَرَنِي الشَّيْخُ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ عِيسَى بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْهَاشِمِيِّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ ع قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ ص إِذَا دَخَلْتَ الْمَخْرَجَ فَلَا تَسْتَقْبِلِ الْقِبْلَةَ وَ لَا تَسْتَدْبِرْهَا وَ لَكِنْ شَرِّقُوا أَوْ غَرِّبُوا
مَا أَخْبَرَنِي بِهِ الشَّيْخُ أَيَّدَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ الْوَلِيدِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ عِيسَى بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْهَاشِمِيِّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ قَالَ قَالَ لِيَ النَّبِيُّ ص
Grading: This tradition is ḍa’īf due to ‘Īsa b. ‘Abdullah al-Hāshimī, his father and grandfather, all of whom do not have tawthīq.
Meaning: This tradition is also apparent in prohibiting facing the qibla with your front and back, when you enter a toilet, though it also has the command to turn towards the east or west. Given this narration is from the Prophet (p), the command for facing east or west could be because he may have been saying this in Medina, where the direction of Qibla is south, and the way to turn away from it would be to turn towards the east or west.
Ḥadīth #8 – Da’āim al-Islām
وَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ص قَالَ: الْبَوْلُ فِي الْمَاءِ الْقَائِمِ مِنَ الْجَفَاءِ. و نهى عنه و عن الغائط فيه و في النهر و على شفيره و على شفير البئر يستعذب من مائها و تحت الشجرة المثمرة و بين القبور و على الطرق و الأفنية و أن يطمح الرجل ببوله من المكان العالي و عن استقبال القبلة و استدبارها في حين الحدث
Grading: This tradition is mursal and graded as ḍā’īf and the source book is even more problematic than the chain.
Meaning: Depending on one’s conclusion on what the root-word naha signifies – ḥurmah, karāha, or synonymous with both ḥurmah and karāha – the interpretation will differ. The popular view amongst legal theoreticians today is that it primarily signifies ḥurmah in which case without any other contextual indicator, this tradition signifies ḥurmah of facing the qiblah with one’s back and front. Although given the presence of other scenarios mentioned, which are not usually classified as prohibited by jurists, it is more probable that this narration implies karāha.
Ḥadīth #9 – Al-Nawādir
وَ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ ع نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص أَنْ يطيح [يُطَمِّحَ] الرَّجُلُ بِبَوْلِهِ مِنَ السَّطْحِ فِي الْهَوَاءِ وَ نَهَى أَنْ يَبُولَ الرَّجُلُ وَ فَرْجُهُ بَادٍ لِلْقِبْلَةِ.
Grading: This tradition is mursal and graded as ḍā’īf.
Meaning: This tradition also uses the root-word naha which popularly has been accepted to signify ḥurmah. Although it could be argued this tradition is not prohibiting facing the qiblah, rather it is prohibiting the exposure of one’s private part towards the qiblah while urinating. In other words, if it is possible to imagine a scenario where one urinates facing the qiblah but is able to keep their private-part covered, then this tradition does not appear to prohibit that.
This is a popular tradition known as Manāhī al-Nabī:
قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ مُوسَى بْنِ بَابَوَيْهِ الْقُمِّيُّ الْفَقِيهُ نَزِيلُ الرَّيِّ مُصَنِّفُ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَ أَرْضَاهُ رُوِيَ عَنْ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ وَاقِدٍ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ عَنِ الصَّادِقِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ- عَنْ آبَائِهِ عَنْ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ع قَالَ: نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص عَنِ…وَ نَهَى أَنْ يَبُولَ الرَّجُلُ وَ فَرْجُهُ بَادٍ لِلشَّمْسِ أَوْ لِلْقَمَرِ وَ قَالَ إِذَا دَخَلْتُمُ الْغَائِطَ فَتَجَنَّبُوا الْقِبْلَة
Grading: This tradition is ḍā’īf due to the presence of Shu’aib b. Wāqid who is unknown and the path of Ṣadūq to him is weak due to two ambiguous individuals: Ḥamza b. Muḥammad al-‘Alawī and ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Muḥammad ‘Īsa al-Abharī.
Some have said this chain is still authentic since Ṣadūq’s path to Ḥusayn b. Zayd is reliable and due to the concept of ta’wīḍ al-sanad we can accept this tradition. However, there are a number of problems with this:
1) Muḥammad b. Mājiluwayh is in the path of Ṣaduq to Ḥusayn b. Zayd who has no tawthīq and simply being a Mashāyikh al-Ijāzah or having tarāḍḍi of Ṣadūq is not sufficient.
2) Secondly, even if Ṣadūq’s path to Ḥusayn b. Zayd’s book is reliable, there is no way to ascertain this tradition was taken from his book. In fact, Ṣadūq is very clear that the tradition of Manāhī was taken from Shu’ayb b. Wāqid and this is also the chain mentioned in al-Amālī.
3) Thirdly, Ḥusayn b. Zayd Dhū al-Dam’ah himself has no tawthīq in Imāmī works, and in Sunnī works there is a dispute over him. In Mughalṭāī’s Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ al-Rijāl, he references a Kitāb al-Barqī which records a statement from Ibn Mu’īn who says Ḥusayn b. Zayd is not thiqa and Dhahabī records a few more statements from scholars who are he is weak. Dārquṭnī in al-Jarḥ wa al-Ta’dīl says he is thiqa. In any case, this tradition will be graded as ḍā’īf.
Meaning: This tradition has no unified context and as it mixes both ḥurmah and makrūh acts together, the signification of this tradition on ḥurmah is not apparent. In addition, the command tense tajannabū is not apparent in ḥurmah, and the most one can say is that it signifies kirāha.
Hadith #11 – Al-Faqīh
وَ نَهَى ص عَنِ الْجِمَاعِ مُسْتَقْبِلَ الْقِبْلَةِ وَ مُسْتَدْبِرَهَا وَ نَهَى عَنِ اسْتِقْبَالِ الْقِبْلَةِ بِبَوْلٍ أَوْ غَائِط
Grading: This tradition is attributed to the Prophet (p) and it is ḍa’īf since it has no chain of transmission.
Meaning: This tradition uses the verb naha and has mentioned earlier, it popularly is understood to signify ḥurmah, although the presence of other scenarios that have generally been understood to be makrūh leads us to cast doubt on whether this signified prohibition or not.
Hadith #12 – Biḥar al-Anwār citing Kitāb al-‘Ilal of Muḥammad b. ‘Alī
الْعِلَلُ، لِمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ هَاشِمٍ قَالَ: أَوَّلُ حَدٍّ مِنْ حُدُودِ الصَّلَاةِ هُوَ الِاسْتِنْجَاءُ وَ هُوَ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ لَا بُدَّ لِكُلِّ النَّاسِ مِنْ مَعْرِفَتِهَا وَ إِقَامَتِهَا وَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ آدَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ص فَإِذَا أَرَادَ الْبَوْلَ وَ الْغَائِطَ فَلَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَسْتَقْبِلَ الْقِبْلَةَ بِقُبُلٍ وَ لَا دُبُرٍ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِي ذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْكَعْبَةَ أَعْظَمُ آيَةٍ لِلَّهِ فِي أَرْضِهِ وَ أَجَلُّ حُرْمَةً فَلَا تَسْتَقْبِلْ بِالْعَوْرَتَيْنِ الْقُبُلِ وَ الدُّبُرِ لِتَعْظِيمِ آيَةِ اللَّهِ وَ حَرَمِ اللَّهِ وَ بَيْتِ اللَّهِ وَ لَا يَسْتَقْبِلُ الشَّمْسَ وَ الْقَمَرَ لِأَنَّهُمَا آيَتَانِ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَيْسَ فِي السَّمَاءِ أَعْظَمُ مِنْهُمَا لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَ جَعَلْنَا اللَّيْلَ وَ النَّهارَ آيَتَيْنِ فَمَحَوْنا آيَةَ اللَّيْلِ وَ هُوَ السَّوَادُ الَّذِي فِي الْقَمَرِ وَ جَعَلْنا آيَةَ النَّهارِ مُبْصِرَةً الْآيَةَ وَ عِلَّةٌ أُخْرَى أَنَّ فِيهَا نُوراً مُرَكَّباً فَلَا يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَسْتَقْبِلَ بِقُبُلٍ وَ لَا دُبُرٍ إِذْ كَانَتْ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَ فِيهَا نُورٌ مِنْ نُورِ اللَّهِ وَ لَا يَسْتَقْبِلُ الرِّيحَ لِعِلَّتَيْنِ إِحْدَاهُمَا أَنَّ الرِّيحَ يَرُدُّ الْبَوْلَ فَيُصِيبُ الثَّوْبَ وَ رُبَّمَا لَمْ يَعْلَمِ الرَّجُلُ ذَلِكَ أَوْ لَمْ يَجِدْ مَا يَغْسِلُهُ وَ الْعِلَّةُ الثَّانِيَةُ أَنَّ مَعَ الرِّيحِ مَلَكاً فَلَا يَسْتَقْبِلُ بِالْعَوْرَةِ وَ لَا يَتَوَضَّأُ عَلَى شَطِّ نَهَرٍ جَارٍ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِي ذَلِكَ أَنَّ فِي الْأَنْهَارِ سُكَّاناً مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ وَ لَا فِي مَاءٍ رَاكِدٍ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِيهِ أَنَّهُ يُنَجِّسُهُ وَ يُقَذِّرُهُ فَيَأْخُذُ الْمُحْتَاجُ مِنْهُ فَيَتَوَضَّأُ مِنْهُ وَ يُصَلِّي بِهِ وَ لَا يَعْلَمُ أَوْ يَشْرَبُهُ أَوْ يَغْتَسِلُ بِهِ وَ لَا بَيْنَ الْقُبُورِ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِيهِ أَنَّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَزُورُونَ قُبُورَهُمْ فَيَتَأَذَّوْنَ بِهِ وَ لَا فِي فَيْءِ النُّزَّالِ لِأَنَّهُ رُبَّمَا نَزَلَهُ النَّاسُ فِي ظُلْمَةِ اللَّيْلِ فَيَظِلُّوا فِيهِ وَ يُصِيبَهُمْ وَ لَا يَعْلَمُوا وَ لَا فِي أَفْنِيَةِ الْمَسَاجِدِ أَرْبَعُونَ ذِرَاعاً فِي أَرْبَعِينَ ذِرَاعاً لِأَنَّهَا حَرَمٌ وَ لَهَا حَرِيمٌ لِقَوْلِ الصَّادِقِ ع حَرِيمُ الْمَسَاجِدِ أَرْبَعُونَ ذِرَاعاً فِي أَرْبَعِينَ ذِرَاعاً وَ لَا تَحْتَ شَجَرَةٍ مُثْمِرَةٍ لِقَوْلِ الصَّادِقِ ع مَا مِنْ ثَمَرَةٍ وَ لَا شَجَرَةٍ وَ لَا غَرْسَةٍ إِلَّا وَ مَعَهَا مَلَكٌ يُسَبِّحُ اللَّهَ وَ يُقَدِّسُهُ وَ يُهَلِّلُهُ فَلَا يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ لِعِلَّةِ الْمَلَكِ الْمُوَكَّلِ بِهَا وَ لِئَلَّا يُسْتَخَفَّ بِمَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ وَ لَا عَلَى الثِّمَارِ لِهَذِهِ الْعِلَّةِ وَ لَا عَلَى جَوَادِّ الطَّرِيقِ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِيهِ أَنَّهُ رُبَّمَا وَطِئَهُ النَّاسُ فِي ظُلْمَةِ اللَّيْلِ وَ لَا فِي بَيْتٍ يُصَلَّى فِيهِ وَ الْعِلَّةُ فِيهِ أَنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ لَا يَدْخُلُونَ ذَلِكَ الْبَيْتَ فَهَذِهِ حُدُودُ الِاسْتِنْجَاءِ وَ عِلَلُهَا.
Grading: This report will be classified as ḍa’īf as the path of Majlisī to this book is unknown. Majlisī says in his introduction:
و كتاب العلل و إن لم يكن مؤلفه مذكورا في كتب الرجال لكن أخباره مضبوطة موافقة لما رواه والده و الصدوق و غيرهما و مؤلفه مذكور في أسانيد بعض الروايات و روى الكليني في باب من رأى القائم ع عن محمد و الحسن ابني علي بن إبراهيم بتوسط علي بن محمد و كذا في موضع آخر من الباب المذكور عنه فقط بتوسطه و هذا مما يؤيد الاعتماد و إن كان لا يخلو من غرابة لروايته عن علي بن إبراهيم كثيرا بلا واسطة بل الأظهر كما سنح لي أخيرا أنه محمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن محمد الهمداني و كان وكيل الناحية كما أوضحته في تعليقاتي على الكافي.
قلت: لم يذكر في كتب فهارس أصحابنا للهمدانيّ كتاب العلل، فلا يصحّ الاعتماد عليه على أيّ حال.
Meaning: This is not an explicit ḥadīth and are verdicts mentioned with their wisdom. Nevertheless, this text is suggesting it is prohibited to face the qiblah with one’s back and front.
|1 – Tahdhīb||Ḥasan||Istiḥbāb of not facing with the front|
|2 – Maḥāsin||Ḍa’īf||Istiḥbāb of not facing with the front|
|3 – Tahdhīb||Ṣaḥīḥ||Kirāha of facing with front and back
Possibly not a hadith
|4 – Tahdhīb||Ḍa’īf – mursal||Nothing about the qiblah
Possibly not a hadith
|5 – Kutub Arba’a
|Ḍa’īf – marfū’||Ḥurmah of facing the qiblah with front and back|
|6 – Al-Kāfī & Awālī||Ḍa’īf – marfū’||Ḥurmah of facing with front|
|7 – Istibṣār and Tahdhīb||Ḍa’īf||Ḥurmah of front and back|
|8 – Da’āim||Ḍa’īf – mursal||Ḥurmah of front and back|
|9 – Al-Nawādir||Ḍa’īf – mursal||Ḥurmah of exposing the front|
|10 – Al-Faqīh||Ḍa’īf||Kirāha of facing the qiblah front|
|11 – Biḥār al-Anwār||Ḍa’īf||Not a ḥadīth|
What we can conclude from these reports is as follows:
1) Though there are 11 reports cited in this paper, one of them (#11) is definitely not a narration, while two (#3 & #4) of them are unclear as to whether they are a narration of an infallible or the words of one of the scholars. In total, we can say 8 are definitely traditions, amongst which all of the reports are weak, and one can be classified as ḥasan (conditional to one’s opinion on the relevant transmitter). In other words, the opinion of Sayyid Khū’ī who believed all the narrations on the topic were weak is a strong and valid position.
2) Amongst these 8 traditions, roughly half of them either signify the kirāha of facing the qiblah, while roughly another half signify ḥurmah. These narrations are a mixture of those that speak of just facing the front, while others explicitly mention both the front and the back.
3) Though the narrations are weak, the narrations which have transmitters are often those who do not have explicit tawthīq, but they are not generally individuals who have been explicitly weakened or accused of lying, exaggerating or fabricating. However, five of these eight narrations either have irsāl or are marfū‘.
4) Some have implied narration #1 of al-Riḍā, where he had access to a toilet that faced the qiblah, is a contradictory tradition. This contradiction is being understood under the pretext that the rest of the narrations prove ḥurmah, while al-Riḍā’s narration proves permissibility. However, since we do not believe the narrations prove ḥurmah, we do not see this narration as a contradiction. In other words, there are no contradictory narrations on this subject.
4. Sanctity of the Ka‘bah & Qiblah
In some works of jurisprudence, it was argued that it is prohibited to face the qiblah with one’s front or back because the Ka‘bah is the most sacred place on earth. Its magnificence and greatness necessitate that one should not face it as it is also obligatory to face this direction when praying, and that it is also from the symbols of Allah (swt).
While there is no dispute on the sanctity of the Ka‘bah, there is no real relationship between its magnificence and the prohibition of facing the qiblah with one’s front or back while using the toilet. It seems the claimant may be fallaciously mistaking this for the argument of ḥatk al-ḥurmah, which is any act that is done as a sign of disrespect towards a sacred and sanctimonious entity. If this is the case, the instances of what constitute ḥatk al-ḥurmah need to be identified by people, and it is not known whether someone who faces the qiblah, far away from anywhere near the Ka‘bah itself, would be considered someone who is disrespecting the Ka‘bah and the sacred precinct itself.
 Pg. 41
 Vol. 1, pg. 101
 و قال سلّار: بالتفصيل، معناه ينحرف في الصحاري و رخص في البنيان
 Vol. 1, pgs. 39 & 41
 Al-Mu’talaf min al-Mukhtalaf bayn A’imma al-Salaf, vol. 1, pg. 38
 Al-Wasīlah ila Nayl al-Faḍīlah, pg. 47
 Pg. 35
 Sunan al-Bayhaqī, v. 1, pg. 91
 Iṣbāḥ al-Shī’a bi-Miṣbāḥ al-Sharī’ah, pg. 27
 Kashf al-Rumūz fī Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Nāfi’, vol. 1, pg. 65
 al-Rasā’il al-Tis’, pg. 335
 Vol. 1, pg. 122
 Vol. 1, pg. 10
 Pg. 26
 Pg. 102
 Vol. 1, pg. 221
 Pg. 25
 Pg. 6
 Vol. 1, pg. 180
 Vol. 1, pg. 239
 Vol. 1, pg. 79
 Vol. 1, pg. 118
 Vol. 1, pg. 266
 Pg. 41
 Vol. 1, pg. 163
 Vol. 1, pg. 181
 Pg. 26
 Vol. 1, pg. 69
 al-Rasā’il al-‘Ashr, pg. 139
 Pg. 46
 Vol. 1, pg. 128
 Vol. 1, pg. 33
 Vol. 1, pg. 89
 Rasā’il al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, vol. 1, pg. 82
 Vol. 1, pg. 99
 Vol. 1, pg. 29
 Pg. 28
 Vol. 1, pg. 75
 Vol. 1, pg. 337
 Vol. 1, pg. 28
 Vol. 1, pg. 159
 Vol. 2, pg. 824
 Vol. 1, pg. 16
 Vol. 1, pg. 15
 Vol. 1, pg. 284
 Pg. 89
 Vol. 1, pg. 43
 Vol. 1, pg. 355
 Wasā’il al-Shī’a, vol. 1, pg. 301 and 303
 Vol. 77, pg. 169
 Kashf al-Asrār fī Sharḥ al-Istibṣār, vol. 3, pg. 321
 Vol. 1, pg. 215
 Vol. 2, pg. 38
 Vol. 3, pg. 227
 Pg. 222
 Pg. 130
 Vol. 1, pg. 387
 Pg. 21
 Vol. 2, pg. 137
 Vol. 1, pg. 92
 Vol. 1, pg. 16.
 Vol. 1, pg. 105
 Vol. 1, pg. 365
 Vol. 1, pg. 227
 Vol. 1, pg. 390
 Kitāb al-Ṣalāt, pg. 102
 Vol. 2, pg. 8
 Vol. 1, pg. 426
 Vol. 2, pg. 51
 Pg. 160
 Vol. 1, pg. 24
 Al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqa, al-Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim al-Yazdī v. 1, pg. 167.
 Vol. 1, pg. 555
 Vol. 1, pg. 146
 Pg. 19
 Pg. 27
 Vol. 1, pg. 7
 Vol. 2, pg. 194
 Vol. 3, pg. 16
 Vol. 2, pg. 397
 Vol. 1, pg. 29
 Vol. 1, pg. 293
 Vol. 4, pg. 68
 Sharḥ al-‘Urwah, vol. 3, pg. 370
 For example, see Al-Masā’il al-Muntakhibah, pg. 16
 Vol. 1, pg. 277
 Vol. 2, pg. 176
 Pg. 69
 Vol. 1, pg. 16
 Vol. 1, pg. 182
 Vol. 4, pg. 36
 Vol. 5, pg. 63
 Vol. 3, pg. 514
 Fiqh al-Ṣādiq, v. 1, pg. 174
 Vol. 1, pg. 101
 Pg. 487
 Vol. 1, pg. 95
 See Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥillī’s (d. 831) al-Muhadhdhab al-Bāri‘, vol 1, pg. 129 where he attributes this opinion to Shaykh Mufīd.
 Vol. 4, pg. 36
 Vol. 1, pg. 117
 Vol. 1, pg. 266
 Pg. 20
 Pg. 2
 Pg. 16
 Vol. 80, pg. 169
 Vol. 1, pg. 26, 352
 Rijāl al-‘Allāmah al-Ḥillī, pg. 179
 Vol. 1, pg. 53
 Vol. 1, pg. 25
 Pg. 39
 Vol. 1, pg. 24
 Vol. 3, pg. 15
 Vol. 1, pg. 26
 Vol. 1, pg. 26
 Vol. 1, pg. 47
 Pg. 20
 Vol. 3, pg. 16
 Vol. 2, pg. 187
 Vol. 1, pg. 47
 Vol. 1, pg. 25
 Vol. 1, pg. 104
 Pg. 53
 Vol. 4, pg. 4
 Pg. 423
 Al-Faqīh, vol. 5, pg. 532
 See al-Faqīh, vol. 4, pg. 511
 Vol. 1, pg. 146
 Vol. 1, pg. 277
 Vol. 1, pg. 28
 al-Muhadhdhab al-Bari‘ of Ibn Fahad al-Ḥilli, vol. 1, pg. 129.
Sayyid Ali Imran studied in the seminary of Qom from 2012 to 2021, while also concurrently obtaining a M.A in Islamic Studies from The Islamic College of London in the summer of 2018. He continued his seminary studies in legal theory, jurisprudence and philosophy, eventually attending the advanced kharij of Usul and Fiqh in 2018. He is also a regular instructor for Mizan Institute.