Continuation of the discussion on women visiting graves.

The Shaykh : ... that they call it a turn, and if it were called a transition, that would be better, that would be better. Fine. . Did it come before?
.
They said, "Look, this is a woman whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw at the grave, and he did not forbid her; rather, he ordered her to fear Allah and be patient, and he did not say, 'Do not visit, for it is forbidden.'"
They also cited as evidence what is established in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of A'ishah, a long hadith, in which it says: . So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went out, hidden from A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), and visited, made du'a, and returned. Then he informed her of the matter, (peace and blessings be upon him). When he informed her and said, "Jibril ordered me to go out and make du'a and seek forgiveness," she said to him, "What should I say, O Messenger of Allah?" He said: and so on. They said, "So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) taught her the du'a for visiting graves, the du'a for visiting graves. Teaching the du'a is evidence of permissibility; otherwise, he would not have taught her that."
They also cited as evidence that A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) visited the grave of her brother, visited the grave of her brother, and Abdullah ibn Abi Mulaikah said to her: . And this is evidence that it was abrogated. This is the summary of the evidence of those who say it is permissible.
But these evidences are not explicit. They are correct, but they are not explicit in ... .
First: The claim of abrogation is not correct, because the claim of abrogation is not accepted except with two conditions:
One of them is: The impossibility of reconciling the two texts.
And the second is: Knowledge of the chronology, knowledge of the chronology ... the abrogating text is later, and reconciliation here between the two texts is easy and not impossible, because we can say, "I used to forbid you from visiting graves, so visit them." To whom is the address? To the men. The address is to the men, and the scholars differed on whether, when men are addressed with a ruling, women are included or not. And if we say they are included, which is the correct view, then their inclusion in this address is from the category of the inclusion of individuals in the general. Is that not so? And if that is the case, then it is permissible to specify some individuals of the general with a ruling that contradicts the general. So here we say: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified women from this ruling, and the visitation is for men only, because women were specified or excluded by specification from this generality. Then, it invalidates the abrogation, his saying: And it is known that his saying: no one claims that it is abrogated, and the hadith is one. So claiming abrogation in one part of it and not the other is ... impossible. And on this basis, the hadith remains, not abrogated, but it specifies the generality of his saying, hmm? The generality of his saying: . This is the answer to the claim of abrogation.
What remains is the answer to the hadith of A'ishah and the hadith of the woman.
As for the hadith of the woman, the woman did not go out for a visitation, certainly. But the woman was struck by a calamity. And because of the greatness of the calamity upon her, she was unable to control herself to remain in her house. And so she went out and began to cry at the grave, which indicates that there was something great in her heart that she could not bear, until she went to her father and began to cry at his grave, and this is not a visitation. Yes, but the calamity carried her to that. And for this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to be patient, because he knew that she did not intend a visitation; she went out because of what was in her heart of not being able to bear this great shock. And for this reason, he ordered her to fear Allah and be patient. So it is not explicit that she went out for a visitation. And if it is not explicit, then it is not possible to oppose the explicit with something not explicit.
And as for the issue of the hadith of A'ishah: A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was informed by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that Jibril ordered him to go out to the people of al-Baqi' and seek forgiveness for them. Then she said, "What should I say?" He said: Is the meaning that if she went out as a visitor, or if she passed by? There is a difference between a woman who passes by the graves without intention and goes out and greets, and a woman who goes out from her house to visit. The latter is a visitor, and the former is not a visitor, but one passing by, passing by ... So the hadith of A'ishah does not have an explicit statement that she visits, and we say in it what we said in the hadith of the stricken woman: as long as it is not explicit, it cannot be used to oppose what is explicit.
And as for her action (may Allah be pleased with her) with her brother, her action with her brother was not cited by Abdullah ibn Abi Mulaikah as evidence for the cursing of women who visit graves; he cited it as evidence for the prohibition of visiting graves. Because if he had cited it as evidence for the prohibition of women visiting graves, or the cursing of women who visit graves, we would look at what our answer would be? So she cited it as evidence for the prohibition of visiting graves. And it is known that the prohibition of visiting graves was specific to women, or was it general? It was general. And for this reason, she answered him with the abrogation of the general.
She said: "It has been ordered to do so," and he answered her with the abrogation of the general. And we, even though we say that A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) cited the wording of the generality, she is like other scholars whose saying does not oppose the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
Moreover, it is narrated from her that she said: And this is evidence that she (may Allah be pleased with her) went out to make du'a for him, because she did not attend his funeral. But this narration was criticized by some scholars, and they said that it did not become authentic from A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). But the text of the first correct narration does not contain evidence that she ... that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ... And if she understood it, then her saying does not oppose the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
What remains with us is the hadith: Can we not say: We only take the prohibition to mean repeating the visitation, "zawwarat," meaning "zawwarat," an exaggeration? Yes? We say this is possible, but if we ... on that, then we have lost its absolute indication of visitation. And the exaggeration may be taken to mean the multiplicity of the doers, not the multiplicity of the action. Exaggeration may be intended to mean the multiplicity of the doers, not the multiplicity of the action. So "zawwarat" means women, and women, if ... much ... much, and the exaggeration with regard to the action, the doer exists in the Arabic language. Allah the Exalted said: And it is known that the door is opened once; the opening of the door is once, but because the doors were many, they became ... So they are like it ... Yes.