Similarly, if he is not qualified for independent legal reasoning, then his duty is to follow another; but if he does not do so—asking no one, and simply prays—then he must repeat the prayer even if he happened to face the correct direction, because he has neglected what is obligatory upon him. What is required is that he ascertain that this is the qiblah, either through his own independent reasoning, if he is capable of it, or by following another if he is not.

This latter case occurs frequently. For example, a man may come to someone’s home as a guest, then rise to pray without asking the homeowner where the qiblah is. He prays despite not being among those qualified for independent reasoning who can determine the qiblah through its evidences. He must therefore repeat the prayer even if he happened to face the correct direction, because he has not fulfilled the obligation of either independent reasoning or following another. Thus, when this guest wishes to pray, he must ask the homeowner, since the homeowner knows the direction of the qiblah.

Some scholars said that if he happened to face the correct direction, the prayer is valid (1), because he would only pray in a direction toward which he naturally inclines, and this inclination produces a preponderant likelihood. A preponderant likelihood is sufficient in acts of worship, due to the Prophet’s ﷺ saying: “Let him seek what is correct, then continue building upon it.” (2) If he faced the correct direction, then why should we require him to repeat the prayer? This view is more correct. However, if he errs, he must repeat it, because he has not done what is required of him, whether asking or exercising independent reasoning.

Is a settled residence a setting in which independent reasoning may be exercised or not? The answer is that, according to the established school of the jurists, it is not a setting for independent reasoning (3). There is no doubt, however, that this view is weak.