first: as for the criticism of the ḥadīth, it is utterly baseless; for it is the way of the innovators and the theologians, and you know that its narrators are trustworthy and reliable. second: as for interpreting it in a manner similar to the verse of recitation; it could have been acceptable, were it not for the totality of the narrations from ʿUqayl that refute it, especially the narration of Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned earlier with the wording: "He gathered his palms, then blew into them, then recited." similar to it is the narration of Aḥmad: "..he blew into them; then he recited." these are explicit in the mentioned order and do not accept interpretation. third: as for the claim that no one has said it and there is no benefit in it; this is as baseless as the criticism of the ḥadīth; for it is not permissible for a Muslim to say about acting upon what is authentic in the ḥadīth: there is no benefit in it; as is evident. as for the statement that no one acted upon it, it is a claim of the unseen, and may Allāh have mercy on Imām Aḥmad when he said: "Whoever claims consensus has lied, and what does he know? Perhaps they differed." fourth: what he quoted from al-Ḥāfiẓ is found in "al-Fatḥ" (10/210) in the explanation of the aforementioned ḥadīth of al-Awīsī, and it is also an interpretation contrary to what was previously indicated from the authentic narration with its direction of opposing the sorcerers as previously mentioned from al-Ṭībī (may Allāh have mercy on him). furthermore, I can hardly find any difference between placing the blowing before the recitation, and placing the wiping with the hand on the sick person before the recitation, as in the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah who also said: "The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) when one of us complained, he would wipe him with his right hand, then say: 'Remove the harm, Lord of the people...'" the ḥadīth