are treated as one limb; otherwise the limbs would be eight. He added: “This is open to objection, for it would entail that prostration on the nose alone suffices, just as it is deemed sufficient to prostrate on part of the forehead. Abu Hanifa cited this to argue that prostrating on the nose is enough. The truth, however, is that such reasoning cannot override the explicit mention of the forehead. Even if one were to hold that the two constitute a single limb, this would be true only in nomenclature and wording, not in the legal ruling conveyed by the command. Moreover, a pointing gesture may fail to determine its referent with certainty: it attaches to the forehead only for the sake of worship, and when the parts of the forehead are close together the object indicated may remain indeterminate. Verbal expression, by contrast, fixes its referent precisely; so it deserves priority.” End quote. What he reported about the permissibility of relying on part of the forehead is indeed the view of many Shafiʿis, and some Hanafis have already rebutted them on the basis mentioned above. Ibn al-Mundhir transmits the consensus of the Companions that prostration on the nose alone is not valid. The majority hold that prostration on the forehead alone is sufficient, whereas al-Awzaʿi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Ibn Habib of the Malikis and others require combining nose and forehead; this is also one view ascribed to al-Shafiʿi. I say: This, God willing, is the correct position, because the command is to prostrate on both. Whoever claims that the command regarding the nose is merely recommended and not obligatory opposes the plain wording of the hadith and must provide evidence—yet where could he find it? Al-Nawawi, in al-Majmuʿ (3/424), expressed surprise that this was attributed to al-Shafiʿi, even though he conceded that “its evidentiary basis is strong.” Ibn Daqiq al-ʿId continued: “Some Shafiʿis argued that only the forehead is obligatory, citing the hadith of the man who prayed badly, in which it is said: ‘let him press his forehead firmly.’ At most this is a mafhum laqab (an inference from mere naming), while explicit wording takes precedence; it is not a case of particularising a general text. Weaker still is their reliance on the hadith: ‘My face has prostrated,’ for attributing prostration to the face does not confine it to the face alone. Weaker yet is their claim that the very essence of sujud (prostration) is realised by placing only the forehead, because this hadith shows…"