Difference between Ibn Nasrullah and Bahuti is mentioned in Kishaf al-Qina’ 2/306: (If a letter from Fatiha is not read then it (the prayer) is not considered because the person did not recite the whole of Fatiha but recited part of it, if a person does not recite tashdeed from Fatiha then it (the prayer) is not considered because tashdeed has a status of a letter. Tashdeed stands in place of a letter and if it is not read then it means a letter has not been read. In (Sharh al-Furoo’), Ibn Nasrullah said, “This is applicable if the prayer has ended by a long time whereby immediately uttering the missed parts of the Surah is not possible. However, if a small time has lapsed, and the person repeats the word, that will suffice. This is because this will be a correction. He went on to say, “All this necessitates validity of the prayer on condition that the person would have forgetfully or mistakenly left out a tashdeed. However, if he intentionally leaves out a tashdeed, then the rule of the math-hab is that his prayer will be invalid. However, if he reads the tashdeed wrongly, his prayer will not be invalid. Commenting on Ibn Nasrullah’s words, Al-Bahuti said: “this is disputable because Fatiha is one rukn (basic element) which is observed while standing, and not every letter of Fatiha is a basic element.” The question is; what is the real difference between Ibn Nasrullah and al-Bahuti and what is the correct view? Is Surah Fatiha an independent rukn or every letter of it is a rukn (according to Hanbali school of thought)?

خلاف ابن نصر الله مع البهوتي حول قراءة الفاتحة