It is not binding, however, according to Abū Ḥanīfa, for in his view nothing becomes obligatory by a vow except what is already obligatory in its own right under the Sacred Law. The majority, on the other hand, maintain that every vowed act of obedience must be fulfilled, adducing the report recorded by al-Bukhārī and others from ʿĀʾisha—traced back to the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever vows to obey Allah must obey Him, and whoever vows to disobey Allah must not disobey Him.”

Since travelling to the two mosques—the Prophet’s Mosque and al-Aqṣā—is an act of obedience, a vow to undertake it must therefore be honoured. As for travelling to any site other than the three mosques, no scholar has ever held that one is obliged to set out for it when vowed. The jurists have even stated explicitly that one is not to travel to the Mosque of Qubāʾ, because it is not among the three, even though visiting it is recommended for someone already in Medina; such a visit does not constitute “saddling the mount,” as will be explained.

They further said: Travelling with the intention of visiting the graves of prophets or of the righteous is an innovation; none of the Companions or their Followers ever did so, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ never ordered it, and none of the leading imams of the Muslims deemed it desirable. Whoever regards it as an act of worship and performs it is therefore at odds with the Sunnah and the consensus of the imams. This is one of the innovations that Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Battah listed in his minor work al-Ibāna as contradicting the Sunnah and consensus (1).

There remains for us the reply to the second answer put forward by the ḥāfiẓ. We say: it restricts the hadith without any evidence to warrant such restriction, whereas the wording of the hadith is broader than that. Anyone can claim that a general text from the Qurʾān or the Sunnah is subject to limitation, but such a claim is acceptable only when supported by proof and clear argument. Where, then, is the evidence for this assertion?