By virtue of the Prophet’s statement—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—one would have to say:

“The Prophet has forbidden this, and whatever the Prophet forbids is unlawful; therefore this is unlawful.”

Likewise, one would say:

“He has made it obligatory, and whatever the Prophet makes obligatory is obligatory; therefore this has become obligatory.”

When adducing evidence for the prohibition of mothers, daughters, and the like, one must say: “Allah has forbidden this in the Qur’an, and whatever Allah forbids is forbidden.” And when arguing for the obligation of prayer, almsgiving, and pilgrimage on the basis of the Divine words—

“Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah by all people” (Q 3:97)—

one says, “Allah has enjoined pilgrimage in His Book, and whatever Allah enjoins is obligatory.” Such additions sensible people deem mere reminders or a clarification of what is already obvious—superfluous words for which there is no need.

This prolixity that yields no benefit in their syllogistic scheme is akin to their prolixity in definitions, such as defining the sun as “a star that rises by day,” and similar talk that does nothing but waste time, weary minds, and multiply idle chatter. Those who follow them in their definitions and demonstrations continue to disagree over the delineation of matters already known without their definitions, and they dispute about providing proofs for things that stand in no need of their proofs.

Refutation of their claim:

“The desired conclusion consists of no more than two parts,”

and their assertion:

“Because it has only two parts, it needs no more than two premises.”

We reply: If you mean it has only two single names, that is not so; for it may be expressed through multiple names. Suppose someone is uncertain about nabidh—whether it is forbidden by explicit text or not forbidden, neither by text nor by analogy. If the respondent says, “Nabidh is forbidden by explicit text,” the required proposition then has three parts. The same holds if one asks, “Is consensus a definitive proof?” and the answer comes, “Consensus is a definitive proof”: the proposition now has three parts. Or if he says, “Is the human being a corporeal, sentient, living creature that moves by volition and speaks, or not?” here the desired proposition contains six parts.

In sum, the subject and predicate—namely the topic and comment of a declarative sentence—may form a clause of two words, or they may consist of many words whenever the content is restricted by qualifying conditions