Another interpretation is that the prohibition is confined to a person who has vowed to pray in a mosque other than these three; such a vow, Ibn Baṭṭāl said, does not have to be fulfilled.

Another view is that the ruling concerns only the worshipper himself, meaning that no journey should be undertaken to any mosque for the sake of praying there except these three. As for travelling to other places—to visit a righteous person, a relative, a friend, to seek knowledge, engage in trade, or simply for recreation—this is outside the scope of the prohibition. Supporting this is the report recorded by Aḥmad through the chain of Shahr ibn Ḥawshab: “I heard Abū Saʿīd; when prayer at Mount Sinai was mentioned to him, he said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: It is not fitting for the worshipper (1) to saddle his mounts for a mosque in which he seeks to pray other than the Sacred Mosque, the Farthest Mosque, and my mosque.’” Shahr’s ḥadīth is classed as ḥasan, although it does contain some weakness.

I say: The ḥāfiẓ—may Allah have mercy on him—has shown leniency here toward Shahr and deemed his report sound in this wording, even though he previously ruled that Shahr was “given to many mistakes,” as we quoted earlier. How, then, can a ḥadīth from someone of that stature be judged ḥasan—especially when he alone reports this addition, to the exclusion of all others who transmitted the narration? The ḥadīth comes through three other chains from Abū Saʿīd, and none of them contain the extra phrase upon which the ḥāfiẓ relied, namely: “to a mosque.”

Moreover, the ḥadīth is also transmitted—through numerous reliable chains—from seven Companions other than Abū Saʿīd, and not one of them mentioned what Shahr reported. After all this, is there any clearer proof that Shahr was mistaken in this addition?