As for the previous rejoinder, it is weighty and they have no answer to it. Second point: Even if we hypothetically concede that the verse lays down a required amount of recitation, as they claim, on what basis do they fix that amount at one verse or three? If an objector were to set it at two, four, or six verses, how could they refute him, and what would distinguish his view from theirs? Sound reasoning—on their own concession—would dictate that the obligation is simply to recite whatever is easy, without any fixed measure; that will plainly differ from one worshipper to another. Thus, someone for whom it is easy to recite Surah al-Baqarah, for example, would be obliged to read the whole of it—and that is something they themselves do not say. Third point: Grant that your understanding of the verse is correct; at most it would establish that recitation is obligatory (*fard*), not that it is an essential pillar (*rukn*) whose omission invalidates the prayer. Whence, then, do you derive its being a pillar? If they say, “From the Prophet’s statement, ‘There is no prayer without recitation’,”—recorded by Muslim (2/10) and others from Abu Hurayrah—we reply: the report is unrestricted, and Abu Hurayrah himself limited it in his other narrations already cited, so you have no proof in it. Perhaps for this very reason some of our Hanafi scholars held that recitation is not a pillar; among them al-Ghaznawi, author of al-Hawi al-Qudsi (cited in al-Bahr al-Raiq 1:308–309). Fourth point: It has become clear from what preceded that they have already restricted the verse by their own opinions; had they left it unqualified, the consequences we mentioned would follow. Since some restriction is inevitable, tying it to an authentic, established hadith of the Prophet is better than tying it to unfounded opinion. Their objection—“A single-chain (*khabar ahad*) report cannot add to the Qur’an”—is of no avail, because we reply: