known as the seven modes. At other times, he says that it belongs to the abrogated modes; or that it is among those the Companions unanimously agreed to set aside; or that it has not reached us through transmission sufficient to establish its status as Quran. This is the distinction between the earlier and later scholars.

For this reason, there is a “third view” on this issue, preferred by my grandfather, Abū al-Barakāt: if someone uses these readings for the obligatory recitation—which is al-Fātihah, when one is able to recite it—his prayer is invalid, because he is not certain that he has fulfilled the obligatory recitation, since such transmission does not establish its status as Quran. If, however, he uses them for recitation that is not obligatory, his prayer is not invalidated, because he is not certain that he has done anything that invalidates the prayer: it may belong to the seven modes in which the Quran was revealed.

This view rests on a “principle”: if something has not been established as belonging to the seven modes, must we categorically conclude that it does not belong to them? The majority of scholars hold that no such categorical conclusion is required, since this is not a matter concerning which we are required to have certain knowledge, whether affirming or denying it.

A group of speculative theologians, however, held that it must be categorically denied. Some of them—such as al-Qādī Abū Bakr—even declared categorically that al-Shāfiʿī and others who affirmed that the basmalah (the opening invocation in Allah’s name) is a verse of the Quran outside Sūrat al-Naml were mistaken. They claimed that anything whose status as Quran is subject to scholarly judgment must be categorically denied that status. The correct view, however, is