So these reports included the mention of ‘takbir’ along with ‘qunut’, both in general terms and in detailed enumeration. They also included the number of ‘takbirs’ as ninety-five. And if there were no ‘takbir’ in the ‘qunut’, then the ‘takbirs’ would have been ninety only. No one has the right to say; “I interpret the number beyond ninety as referring to the ‘takbir’ when the worshiper rises from the first ‘tashahhud’ to the third rak‘ah.” For several reasons: First; This situation does not apply to all prayers, only in four of them is there a rising from the second to the third rak‘ah. If that had been intended, the narration would have said: ninety-four ‘takbirs’. Second; The detailed narration explicitly mentions eleven ‘takbirs’ in the morning (‘Ghada’) prayer, and the ‘takbir’ of ‘qunut’ is included among them. If the matter were as they claim, there would have only been eleven ‘takbirs’ in total. Third; There are many narrations which state that a person should rise from the first ‘tashahhud’ to the third rak‘ah saying: ‘By the power and strength of Allah سبحانه وتعالى I rise and I sit.’ Had it been obligatory to rise with ‘takbir’, the narration would have said: “Then he says the ‘takbir’ and rises to the third,” just as when they mention bowing and prostrating, they say: “Then he says ‘takbir’ and bows,” and “he says ‘takbir’ and prostrates,” and “he raises his head from prostration and says ‘takbir’.” If there were a ‘takbir’ here as well, it would have been stated in the same manner. And the one who narrated what we have mentioned is: