or belittlement of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him?! And could anyone even imagine that ⦗125⦘ visiting the Prophet’s grave (1) would add to his rank, or that neglecting it would lessen the veneration due to him? Far be it from the Messenger to need such things!

Yes, had someone introduced that claim from the outset, and there were indications that pointed to disparagement and belittlement, it might have been possible to construe the words in that sense—though even then they would be no more than an allusion (2), not an explicit statement. How, then, can that construction be maintained when the remark was made only in the course of posing a question, in the manner of scholarly inquiry and debate (3)?

Moreover, what is understood from the statements of the scholars and the reflections of rational people is that the visit, in itself, is not an act of worship or obedience (4); accordingly, if someone swore to perform an act of worship or obedience, he would not fulfill his oath merely by undertaking the visit.

Qadi Ibn Kajj (5)—one of the later jurists of our school—did say that a vow to make this visit is, in his view, a devotional act that becomes binding upon the one who makes the vow. Yet he is alone in this opinion: no explicit textual proof and no sound analogy support him. The unconstrained purport of the prophetic report in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “Mounts are not to be saddled…” and so forth, dictates that it is impermissible to saddle one’s mounts for any destination other than