from doing so.” Reported by Muslim.

Whoever fails to distinguish between what is prescribed and what is forbidden in visiting graves does not understand the religion of Islam in this matter. The purpose here is to draw attention to the contents of this work, written by the objector against the aforementioned response, and to expose its ignorance and fabrications.

Among these is his statement concerning the response:

“What has become clear to me from the explicit wording of that discussion, its implications, its intended purpose and its thrust, is that he prohibits visiting the graves of the prophets and all other graves, and travelling to them, and claims that this is a forbidden act of disobedience whose prohibition is established by consensus.”

The reply is as follows:

Anyone who has read the response knows that it contains no prohibition on visiting graves—whether those of the prophets or anyone else—when no journey is involved. Nor does it claim a consensus on the prohibition of travelling; rather, it explicitly acknowledges the disagreement over that.

How, then, can he be reported as saying that visiting graves in itself, without qualification, is a forbidden act of disobedience whose prohibition is established by consensus? This is a blatant fabrication against the response. Moreover, the objector contradicts himself: after this, he reports that the respondent acknowledged the disagreement over the permissibility of travelling.

Then, at the end of his discussion, he says that the respondent claimed there was consensus on its prohibition, and that he contradicts himself in this. Yet it is the objector himself who contradicts himself in this account. As for the respondent,