in this sense is undoubtedly valid. But this is not a consensus in favour of what they expressly prohibited or declared not to be an act of devotion or obedience.

Mālik and others, such as al-Qādī Ismā‘īl and al-Qādī ‘Iyād, expressly stated that travelling to places other than the three mosques is prohibited: neither someone who has vowed to undertake it nor someone doing so voluntarily should do it. They also expressly stated that travelling to Medina or Jerusalem for a purpose other than praying in their two mosques falls within the prohibited journeys. A person may not undertake such a journey even if he has vowed to do so, whether he travels to visit any prophet, any of their graves, the graves of others, or a mosque other than the three. All of this, according to them, constitutes prohibited travel. How, then, could they call it an act of devotion?

However, consensus that it is forbidden to treat it as an act of devotion does not contradict disagreement over the act considered in itself. This consensus, reported from the early generations and the leading scholars, is not undermined by dissent from some later scholars, if any such dissent exists. If, however, any of the recognized righteous people of the early generations were found to have said that travelling solely to visit graves, or solely to visit the graves of prophets and righteous people, is recommended, this would undermine that consensus, and there would then be three positions on the matter. In that case, the scholar reporting the consensus would simply have been unaware of this view, as frequently happens to many scholars. Even so, this view must be referred back to the Quran and Sunnah for judgment. It is not permissible to compel people to follow it without proof, for doing so is contrary to the consensus of the Muslims.