that of the others. Accordingly, the Messenger taught those who do not recite it without reciting the basmala, while he taught the others with the basmala. This indicates that both practices are permissible, even if one is preferable. It does not indicate that, in one of the two readings, it is not part of the Quran and that he prohibited its recitation. That would combine two contradictory judgments: how could reciting it be both permissible and prohibited? Rather, this indicates that both practices are permissible, just as certain words occur in one recitation but not another, such as “from beneath it” and “Indeed, Allah—He is the Self-Sufficient.” The Messenger permits both including and omitting such words; both are permissible under his law.

This makes clear that those jurists who say that reciting it is obligatory according to the recitation of those who include it, or disliked according to the recitation of those who omit it, are mistaken. Rather, the Quran indicates that both practices are permissible.

Someone who follows a particular recitation is not required to follow it every time he recites. Nor does someone who omits what others recite say that their recitation is disliked. Rather, all of this is permissible by agreement, even though each group may prefer a particular practice.

This also makes clear the error of anyone who denies altogether that it is part of the Quran except in Sūrat al-Naml, and declares those who affirm it unquestionably mistaken, on the grounds that something can only be established as part of the Quran with certainty. He should be told: “Nor can it be excluded without certainty.”

He should then be told: “Those who affirm it are certain that it is established, and certain that those who deny it are mistaken.” Rather, the precise understanding is that whether something is known with certainty or not is a relative matter, and the recitations