Sixth point: In Hanafi legal theory a fard (obligatory duty) is that which rests on evidence both definitively transmitted (qat‘i al-thubut) and definitively indicative in meaning (qat‘i al-dalala). If either condition is absent, the act is classified only as wajib (necessary). What concerns us here is the failure to meet the second condition. An example is the verse, “fa salli li rabbika wanHar” (so pray to your Lord and sacrifice; 108:2). The Qur’an here commands sacrifice, which outwardly suggests that sacrificing is fard. Yet the commentators disagreed about the nature of this sacrifice. Some held that it is an unrestricted slaughter offered in gratitude for the abundant blessings Allah has bestowed; others maintained that it refers specifically to the sacrifice of ‘Id al-Adha, on the basis that the word “pray” alludes to the ‘Id prayer. The Hanafis adopt the latter view, making the ‘Id sacrifice wajib but not fard, because this disagreement renders the verse speculative rather than definitive in its import. Accordingly, the verse “faqra’u ma tayassara mina l-Qur’an” (recite whatever is easy for you of the Qur’an; 73:20) is likewise speculative in meaning, for the reasons already given—even though the correct view differs from the Hanafi reading. It therefore cannot be used to prove that Qur’anic recitation in prayer is fard; at most it establishes that it is wajib. The verse is thus free of any clash with the hadith, which must be taken at face value. The Hanafis, fearing a conflict, declined to do so and instead construed the hadith as merely negating perfection, as noted earlier. Abu al-Hasan al-Sindi al-Hanafi states in his marginalia on Ibn Majah: “As for the notion of ‘perfection,’ Kamal (*) has shown its weakness, because it contradicts the plain text and may be followed only with proof. Moreover, the term ‘existence’ in the speech of the Lawgiver is to be understood as legal existence, not merely physical existence. Hence the hadith negates the legal existence of any prayer in which Umm al-Qur’an (Surat al-Fatiha) has not been recited, which necessarily negates its validity. As for our scholars’ claim that the report is ahad—therefore probabilistic and yielding no certain knowledge but only practical obligation—that does not prevent it from establishing obligation.” (*) That is, Kamal ibn al-Humam.