This view is the strongest of the opinions if this is the only evidence cited by the jurists, for an act of worship cannot be declared invalid and thereby spoiled on the basis of evidence that could mean either obligation or guidance.

His statement, “and invoking blessings upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, therein,” means that invoking blessings upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is the pillar, rather than invoking blessings upon his family. This is indeed strange, for the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Say: O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad …” (1). How, then, can we divide up the hadith, making one part of it a pillar while the rest is not a pillar? The implication of this evidence is that all of it must be regarded either as a pillar, an obligation, or a sunnah.

If they say, “We have made invoking blessings upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, a pillar to the exclusion of his family because the conjunction indicates subordination,”

we reply: If it indicates subordination, then the subordinate takes the same ruling as that to which it is joined.

If they say, “The Companions asked about invoking blessings upon him, not upon his family; therefore, the ruling applies to invoking blessings upon him rather than upon his family,”

we reply: But the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, answered them by explaining how to do what they had asked about in this manner; this entails that the ruling for all of it is the same.

His statement, “and the sequence”: this is the thirteenth pillar of the prayer—that is, maintaining the prescribed order between the pillars of the prayer: standing, then bowing, then rising from it, then prostrating, then sitting, then prostrating.

The evidence for this is: