that the response was invalid. That would follow only if travel were considered recommended without qualification. They thus misrepresented those who reported the consensus, failing to understand their intent, and passed judgment on the basis of this false belief. Such a judgment is invalid by consensus.

The fourth ground:

They treated this report of consensus as contradicting the response, whereas it does not contradict it. Indeed, the mufti mentioned in his response that scholars consider visiting the grave of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recommended. He did not attribute to anyone the statement that visiting the Prophet’s grave, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is forbidden. A judgment based on a false report is invalid by consensus.

The fifth ground:

They treated visitation in general as recommended by consensus, without distinguishing between its prescribed and forbidden forms. Yet some forms of visitation are prescribed, while others are forbidden by consensus, as he explained in his response to the request for a fatwa. They rejected this distinction, thereby contradicting the consensus; a judgment based on that rejection is invalid by consensus.

The respondent did not reject travel for visitation whose prescribed status is unanimously agreed upon. Rather, he explained in his response the forms of travel and visitation upon which Muslims agree. This is discussed extensively in many passages of his writings and is well known as his position. He also mentioned the matters concerning which they disagree and those whose prohibition they agree upon. Had these people accepted the distinction, they would not have rejected the response. Thus, when they declared the response invalid in the view of the scholars, it became clear that they had failed to make this distinction.