and the view of those who prohibited it.

They did not merely reject one of the two views, for that would not contradict what the respondent had stated. Rather, they said:

“This aforementioned mufti should be restrained from issuing such fatwas, which are invalid in the view of the scholars.”

If what he stated in the response concerning the two views is invalidated, such travel must necessarily be deemed a recommended sunnah. Moreover, they cited reports of a consensus that the very travel concerning which he mentioned the two views is recommended.

The third ground:

They cited reports from scholars stating that visiting the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is an encouraged virtue and a sunnah established by consensus. These scholars reported a consensus concerning visitation, not concerning travel solely to visit the grave. Even if they had reported a consensus concerning travel for visitation, it is well known that Muslims intend to visit both the mosque and the grave; only an ignorant person intends to visit the grave without the mosque. When a visitor intends to visit both the mosque and the grave, the respondent did not mention the two views concerning that situation. He mentioned them only concerning someone who travels solely to visit graves. Nor did the response concern the grave of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, specifically; rather, it concerned graves in general.

They treated that as a consensus concerning travel to all the other prophets’ graves, even though the respondent distinguished between the form of visitation prescribed by the Prophet, which Muslims unanimously agree is recommended, and that which they unanimously agree is not recommended, as well as that concerning which they disagree. Even if, in their view, the consensus they reported did not support what the respondent stated, it would not constitute evidence against him. Yet they treated it as evidence