entailed recommendation, whereas such recommendation applies exclusively to men. Rather, ‘Ā’ishah explained that his later command abrogated his earlier prohibition, so that prohibition could no longer be invoked as evidence, leaving women subject to the original presumption of permissibility. Had ‘Ā’ishah believed that women were commanded to visit graves, she would have done so as men do, and would not have said to her brother, “I would not have visited you.”

The third response:

This is the response of those followers of Ahmad and al-Shāfi‘ī who regard it as disliked. They say: The hadith containing the curse indicates prohibition, while the hadith granting permission removes that prohibition, leaving the underlying disapproval in place. This is supported by Umm ‘Atiyyah’s statement:

“We were forbidden to follow funeral processions, but this was not strictly imposed upon us.”

Visiting graves is of the same nature as following funeral processions, so both are disliked rather than forbidden.

The fourth response:

This is the response of a group among them, such as Ishāq ibn Rāhawayh. They say: The curse was expressed using the word zawwārāt, meaning women who visit frequently. A single visit in a lifetime does not fall within that description, nor does it make a woman a visitor. They say that ‘Ā’ishah visited once and was not a frequent visitor.

Those who maintain that it is forbidden, however, say: The wording zawwārāt has indeed been reported, but this form may refer to the multiplicity of women, just as one says, “I opened all the doors,” since each door has its own separate opening. An example of this is the statement of Allah Most High:

“Until, when they reach it and its gates are opened…”