Part 4: The Qiblah of the Nasrani, the Direction of the East, and the Secret of “Son of Man”

Series: The Change of Qiblah

Introduction

In the previous part, we saw that the Jewish qiblah in tafsir is associated with Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem. Therefore, when the qiblah of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. and the Muslims was shifted to al-Masjid al-Haram, the Jewish objection to that change of qiblah became very strong.

However, there is one question that we rarely ask, and it is also very rarely found in Muslim writings, namely the qiblah of the Nasrani. If this issue involved the People of the Book, why was the clearest objection mainly from the Jews? Where, then, was the position of the Nasrani? Did the Nasrani also take Jerusalem as their qiblah like the Jews? If so, why did they not also join in objecting?

This is why this part is written: to examine the issue of qiblah from the side of the Nasrani. The early Nasrani did not follow the Jews in the matter of qiblah. They had their own orientation. They did not merely ride on Jewish tradition, and they did not take the direction of Jerusalem. In their early tradition, the direction of worship was associated with the mashriq, that is, the east.

What I am telling you here is not a small matter. Many of us may assume that the Jews and the early Nasrani shared the same Jerusalem orientation. Yet the issue we are discussing is not merely “holy land”, but the direction of worship. This is where the difference appears. The Jews are associated with Bayt al-Maqdis, while the early Nasrani, in tafsir and in early Christian records, are associated with the direction of the east.

The early Nasrani faced east not because they did not know about Jerusalem, but because in their belief, the east carried a very deep meaning related to light, Eden, the birth of al-Masih, and the return of the Son of Man.

In brief, the direction of light is the east, the place where the sun rises. In Christianity, light is associated with hope and resurrection. The direction of Eden, meanwhile, refers in the Bible to the Garden of Eden being associated with the eastern side. Thus, the east became a symbol of returning to the origin of humanity. Muslims refer to the Garden of Eden as Jannatul Adni.

Then there is the direction of the altar. In a church, the altar is the main place of worship and it faces east. Over time, even when a church building did not truly face geographic east, the altar area came to be regarded as “liturgical east”. “Liturgy” means the official order of worship in the church.

What is being conveyed here is that the People of the Book were not one group sharing the same qiblah. The Jews had their own orientation. The early Nasrani also had their own orientation. Therefore, when we read the story of the change of qiblah, we must not narrow it as though all parties at that time were merely revolving around Jerusalem as the same qiblah.

The Qur’an Shows That the People of the Book Did Not Have One Qiblah

The main verse that opens this discussion is Surah al-Baqarah 2:145:

وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ بِكُلِّ آيَةٍ مَا تَبِعُوا قِبْلَتَكَ ۚ وَمَا أَنْتَ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَتَهُمْ ۚ وَمَا بَعْضُهُمْ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَةَ بَعْضٍ

Meaning:

“And even if you brought to those who were given the Book every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Nor will you follow their qiblah, and some of them do not follow the qiblah of others.”

Pay attention to the final phrase:

وَمَا بَعْضُهُمْ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَةَ بَعْضٍ

“Some of them do not follow the qiblah of others.”

This verse does not directly name the direction of the Jews as Bayt al-Maqdis and the direction of the Nasrani as the east. However, the verse gives an indication that the People of the Book were not one single qiblah block. There were directional differences among them.

Therefore, we also cannot say directly that “the Qur’an says the Nasrani faced east.” What is more accurate is that the Qur’an shows that the qiblah of the People of the Book differed. It is the mufassirin who explained that the Jews faced Bayt al-Maqdis and the Nasrani faced east.

The Jewish Qiblah Was Bayt al-Maqdis, the Nasrani Qiblah Was the Mashriq

Here we enter the tafsir sources. Al-Tabari, when interpreting al-Baqarah 2:145, stated that the Jews faced Bayt al-Maqdis in their prayer, while the Nasrani faced al-mashriq, that is, the east. He used this as an explanation for why the Prophet S.A.W. could not possibly follow “their qiblah”, because the qiblah of the Jews and the Nasrani themselves differed.

Al-Tabari also mentioned the same matter: “The Jews face Bayt al-Maqdis, which is the direction of the west; the Nasrani face the east; and the qiblah of the Muslims is the Kaabah.” Note: “west” here is according to the geographical perspective of the location being discussed in the tafsir. It does not mean that Bayt al-Maqdis is always west for every human being.

Ibn Kathir also recorded the narration of Zayd ibn Aslam that the earlier communities “differed regarding the qiblah; the Nasrani faced east, and the Jews faced Bayt al-Maqdis, then Allah guided the ummah of Muhammad in the matter of qiblah.”

All of the information above is important because we cannot casually claim that at that time all parties, namely the Jews, the Nasrani, and the Muslims, were merely revolving around one and the same qiblah in Jerusalem. The authoritative tafsir itself mentions the difference in qiblah between the Jews and the Nasrani.

Therefore, we who came later must not swallow the Jewish narrative one hundred percent, as discussed in Part 3: The Jewis Qiblah, Bayt al-Maqdis and Jerusalem. If that happens, then the problem is not with the earlier scholars, but with our own reading, which has taken their writings too lightly. At BAZ, I am only drawing back out information that has long existed in tafsir, but is often missed in ordinary Muslim discussions.

That information does not stop there. There is also another historical layer. The sirah narration shows a practical example of the Nasrani of Najran facing east when praying in the mosque of the Muslims.

The Nasrani of Najran Truly Faced East

The narration concerning the delegation of the Nasrani of Najran is very interesting. This narration is not found as a sahih marfu‘ hadith. It comes through the sirah route, including from Ibn Ishaq and al-Bayhaqi in Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah. Although its sanad is discussed, its matn aligns with tafsir information and early Christian records that the Nasrani were oriented eastward in their worship.

The story is that they came to meet Rasulullah S.A.W. in Madinah. When the time for their worship arrived, they stood to worship inside the Prophet’s mosque, which was oriented toward Masjidil Haram. Some of the companions wanted to stop them, but the Prophet S.A.W. allowed them. The narration states:

فَاسْتَقْبَلُوا الْمَشْرِقَ فَصَلَّوْا صَلَاتَهُمْ

“They faced the east and performed their prayer.”

So what exists in the books of tafsir is not merely theory. It is a picture of a Nasrani practice that was still known during the time of the Prophet S.A.W.

Yes, from the perspective of sanad, this narration cannot be elevated into a sahih marfu‘ hadith that conclusively establishes a general ruling. Its assessment mentions that the narrators are trustworthy, but the sanad is disconnected.

However, from the perspective of history, this narration is very important because it aligns with Islamic tafsir and also with early Christian records themselves.

Early Christian Records That They Truly Prayed Facing East

Tertullian was an early Christian writer and theologian from Carthage, North Africa. He lived around 155/160 CE and died after 220 CE, several centuries before the emergence of Islam. In the history of Western Christianity, he is regarded as important because he was among the early figures who shaped the language of Latin Christian theology. Interestingly, Tertullian once mentioned that outsiders thought Christians worshipped the sun because they were indeed known as a group that turned eastward when praying. In the text Apology, he stated that this accusation arose because Christians were “known to turn to the east in prayer”, meaning “known to turn eastward when praying.”

Origen was an early Christian theologian and Bible scholar from Alexandria, Egypt. He lived around 185 CE to 254 CE, several centuries before the emergence of Islam. In the history of the early Greek church, Origen is considered one of the most important figures in Biblical interpretation and Christian theology. Interestingly, Origen discussed the direction of prayer clearly. In the text On Prayer, he stated that among the four principal directions, the east “clearly indicates the duty of praying with the face turned towards it”. For Origen, the east symbolized the soul looking toward the rising of the true light.

Basil of Caesarea, or Basil the Great, was a fourth-century Christian church figure. He was born around 329 CE and died in 379 CE, also several centuries before the emergence of Islam. He was the Bishop of Caesarea and among the major figures of Eastern Christianity. Interestingly, Basil also acknowledged that Christians faced east when praying. In the text On the Holy Spirit, he asked, “What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?”. This question is important because Basil himself placed the practice of facing east as an inherited church tradition, not as a command written explicitly in the Bible.

The Apostolic Constitutions is not the Bible, but a collection of early Christian church regulations. According to Britannica, this text is now regarded as having been written in Syria around 380 CE, although its name appears to attribute it to the apostles. It is important because it shows the form of early church practice and worship regulations. In Book VII, the text states, “But let him pray towards the east”, meaning “let him pray facing east.” This shows that the practice of praying toward the east was indeed known in early church tradition.

Thus, based on these early Christian records, it is very clear that the eastward orientation was not an external assumption imposed upon the Nasrani by the mufassirin or by BAZ. It truly existed in early Christian worship tradition and was known by their own figures.

The East, “Son of Man” and the Expectation of the End Times

Why did the east become important in early Nasrani tradition? In Matius 24:27, the coming of the “Son of Man” is described as lightning that flashes from east to west. In Islam, we do not use the term “Son of Man” as part of our creed. We know him as Nabi Isa ibn Maryam A.S., al-Masih, and the servant of Allah. However, in the Bible, this term is used in discussions of the return of Jesus according to Christian belief.

This verse is not a literal command requiring all Christians to pray facing east. However, in early Christian tradition, it became one of the symbolic foundations for why the east was seen as the direction of expectation for the return of al-Masih.

John of Damascus, an eighth-century Christian figure, also linked worship facing east with the coming of the Son of Man as mentioned in Matius 24:27. In his work An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, he explained that Christians face east because they await the return of Christ from that direction according to their theological reading.

Therefore, the direction of the east in early Nasrani tradition was not merely an ordinary direction. It also became a direction of hope, a direction of light, a direction of resurrection, and a direction of expectation. Here we begin to see a major difference between the Jews and the early Nasrani. The Jews tied their identity to Jerusalem, while the early Nasrani elevated the east as a symbolic direction for the coming of al-Masih.

Does the Story of Maryam Carry a Further Eastern Indication?

Here we need to open a very important question that cannot simply be left closed. The Qur’an mentions Maryam:

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَرْيَمَ إِذِ انْتَبَذَتْ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا مَكَانًا شَرْقِيًّا

Wa udhkur fi al-kitabi Maryama idh intabadhat min ahliha makanan sharqiyya

“And mention Maryam in the Book, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the mashriq (east).”

Surah Maryam 19:16

Then Allah mentions:

فَحَمَلَتْهُ فَانْتَبَذَتْ بِهِ مَكَانًا قَصِيًّا

Fa hamalat-hu fa intabadhat bihi makanan qasiyya

“So she conceived him, then withdrew with him to a distant place.”

Surah Maryam 19:22

Here there are two expressions that must be carefully noted:

مَكَانًا شَرْقِيًّا

makānan sharqiyyan

“a place toward the east”

مَكَانًا قَصِيًّا

makānan qaṣiyyan

“a distant place”

The mufassirin usually explain that the eastern place refers only to an area east of her house or east of Bayt al-Maqdis. That is the existing tafsir reading of that time, and we do not reject it. However, this question still arises for us:

Does the “eastern place” and the “distant place” refer only to a small area around Jerusalem? Or does it carry an indication of a greater distant journey?

Did Maryam truly go far away, carrying Nabi Isa A.S. in her womb to an eastern place farther than what is usually assumed?

We do not need to go too deeply into that in this writing because our focus is the qiblah. But we also cannot close the question before it has been properly examined. Especially since al-Tabari himself narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Nasrani took the east as their qiblah because Maryam withdrew to an eastern place, and they took the birthplace of Isa as their qiblah.

Al-Razi also recorded the same meaning: the Nasrani took the mashriq as their qiblah because of the verse makanan sharqiyya, and they took the birthplace of Isa as their qiblah.

From Eastern Nasrani to Jerusalem Christianity

This must be stated as a historical speculation, not a definitive conclusion. It is possible that the early Nasrani still carried remnants of a genuine eastward orientation. They did not follow the Jews. They did not make Jerusalem the center of qiblah in the same form as the Jews. They had their own direction.

However, as the religion of the Nasrani developed into the larger institution of Christianity, especially after the construction of churches, canon, imperial power, and official theology, that eastward orientation increasingly changed its nature. The east was no longer read as an indication of search. It became a church symbol.

At the same time, the Jerusalem narrative grew stronger. Christian holy sites were built, visited, and centralized around Palestine. Therefore, later Christianity, in many of its forms, no longer lived with the consciousness of “facing east” in the same way as the early Nasrani. Instead, it came to be within the Jewish framework of the Jerusalem narrative because the far east had not been explored.

However, we must also be fair that some Eastern churches still preserve the practice of ad orientem. Yet for many modern Christians, the direction of the east is no longer the main consciousness of their worship. The term ad orientem comes from Latin and means “facing east.” In church tradition, it refers to the practice of worship with an eastward orientation or toward an altar that is considered to represent the east.

The early Nasrani may still have preserved a genuine eastward orientation. But later Christianity was increasingly drawn back into the Jerusalem narrative, whether through theology, liturgy, pilgrimage, church politics, or the influence of the Judeo-Christian narrative.

Why Is This Important in the Series on the Change of Qiblah?

The change of qiblah is not merely the story of Muslims shifting direction. It reveals three major orientations:

• The Jews with Bayt al-Maqdis.
• The Nasrani with the east.
• Islam with al-Masjid al-Haram.

Al-Qur’an 2:145 indicates that some of the People of the Book did not follow the qiblah of others. The mufassirin then explained that difference: the Jewish qiblah was toward Bayt al-Maqdis, while the Nasrani qiblah was toward the mashriq.

Therefore, when Allah commanded Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. to face al-Masjid al-Haram, the Muslims were no longer under the Jewish orientation, nor did they enter into the Nasrani orientation. Islam stood with its own qiblah.

Conclusion

Finally, we arrive at a very interesting point. In early Nasrani tradition, the east was not merely the direction of the rising sun. The east became the direction where they waited in hope, expectation, and the direction associated with the return of al-Masih according to their understanding.

In Islam, meanwhile, east and west do not belong to any human group. Even in some end-time narrations, the theme of the “east” also appears, although narrations such as the black banners must be read with the discipline of hadith knowledge and cannot be turned into careless claims.

Allah Himself emphasizes that “to Allah belongs the east and the west.” Therefore, the issue of qiblah cannot be read merely as a shift in the direction of prayer. It is a great test that separates people based on their obedience to the command of Allah and the Messenger.

Allah says:

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَمَ مَن يَتَّبِعُ الرَّسُولَ مِمَّن يَنقَلِبُ عَلَىٰ عَقِبَيْهِ

Wa ma ja‘alna al-qiblata allati kunta ‘alayha illa lina‘lama man yattabi‘u al-rasula mimman yanqalibu ‘ala ‘aqibayh.

“And We did not make the qiblah that you were upon except so that We may know who follows the Messenger and who turns back upon his heels.”

Surah al-Baqarah 2:143.

The change of qiblah was not merely a geographical change. It was a test to reveal who truly followed the Messenger and who turned away when the direction they were accustomed to was shaken.

The Jews were tested with their Bayt al-Maqdis orientation. The Nasrani had their eastern orientation. The Muslims, in turn, were tested to submit to the qiblah that Allah commanded through His Messenger.

Therefore, Part 4 is not merely a discussion of the qiblah of the Nasrani. It reminds us that direction never stands on its own. A direction becomes true only when it comes from the guidance of Allah. The true qiblah is not determined by inherited group tradition, historical narrative, or human habit, but by the command of Allah and obedience to the Messenger. Who follows the Messenger, and who turns away.