al-Naml,” has expressed a view that falls within the legitimate scope of scholarly interpretation.

As for the takbīr, anyone who says that it is part of the Quran is misguided by agreement of the leading scholars. He must be called upon to repent; if he does not repent, he is to be put to death. How, then, can anyone be condemned for omitting it? Whoever brands someone who omits the takbīr an innovator, someone who contravenes the Sunnah, or a sinner is closer to disbelief than to Islam and must be punished. Indeed, if he persists in this after the proof has been made clear, he must be put to death.

Even if it were assumed that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, instructed some of those whom he taught to recite the Quran to say the takbīr, this would at most indicate that it is permissible or recommended. Had it been obligatory, the majority of Quran reciters would not have omitted it, nor would the leading Muslim scholars have agreed that it is not obligatory. No leading scholar of the religion has reported that the takbīr is obligatory. The most that someone who follows Ibn Kathīr’s reading can say is that it is recommended.

This differs from the basmalah, whose recitation is obligatory according to those who consider it part of the Quran. Nevertheless, Quran reciters allow its omission by those who do not hold that it should separate the surahs. How, then, could it be impermissible to omit the takbīr for someone whose reading does not include it? As for the claims some Quran reciters make of mass transmission concerning particular details, this is not the place to discuss them in detail.