The Doctrine of an-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh: Abrogation in the Qur’an and the Idea of a Hijacked Religion Part 2.
The Doctrine of an-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh:
Abrogation in the Qur’an and the Idea of a Hijacked Religion
Muhammad Sameel ‘Abd al-Haqq
Definitions of Abrogation
An-Nasikh wal Mansukh
From the dictionary we get that abrogation is abolishing by authoritative action. Some may believe that because it was the ‘ulama who formulated a doctrine of abrogation, that this idea is their own intellectual device to solve the supposed problem of apparent contradictions in the Quranic text. However it is believed that Allah Himself abrogates and another definition would be “to nullify”. However we also find that the early jurists did not always view abrogation in this sense. In nearly all cases what the scholars called “abrogation” turned out to be something else such as specification, qualification, restriction, or addition. Consequently, many jurists did not see abrogation as complete abolishment of a legal ruling of the Qur’an.
The revelations found in the Qur’an deal with a variety of subjects, yet the jurists particularly regarded as important the ahkam(legal rulings). This was mainly because these type of rulings, particularly because of the comprehensive nature of Islam, shed light on the manner of legal relationships between people as Allah wishes them to be observed. The basic message of Islam has alway been the same, from Adam(as) to Muhammad(saws), but it is believed that the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, according to the circumstances of the respective communities these prophets were sent to. Therefore the things of Islam that are of a permanent, fixed nature never change, but the particular rulings that are merely specific applications of the shari’ principles they derive from change with the circumstances. This inherent flexibility in the Shari’ah has lead to the belief in abrogation of previous revelations and scriptures. It seems only natural that this idea would be extended to the Qur’an itself.
The Arabic words nasikh and mansukh are both derived from the same root word nasakha which carries meanings such as “to abolish”, “to replace”, “to withdraw” and “to abrogate”. The word nasikh (an active participle) means “the abrogating”, while mansukh (passive) means “the abrogated”. In the technical language of the ‘ulama these terms refer specifically to certain parts of the Qur’anic revelation, which have been “abrogated” by others. According to the jurists who support and elaborate a doctrine of abrogation within the Qur’an, the Qur’an itself refers to it and it is not a later development of the ‘ulama, developed following the generation of the Tabi’in:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou that God has power over all things? [Qur’an 2: 106].
There are many commentators and other scholars who opine that this ayah refers to the revelations before the Qur’an, which have now been substituted by the itself (See Mawdudi. The Meaning of the Qur’an, Lahore, 1967, Vol. I, p.102. note 109). We understand that the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as if something new that was introduced in stages. The Qur’an brought important changes to that society gradually in order allow the people to adjust to the “new” prescriptions. This type of gradualism in revelation is exemplified by the three verses in the Qur’an concerning alcohol drinking. The three verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4). Many scholars have used this as an example affirming abrogation of Qur’an by Qur’an.
Many scholars believed that understanding the concept of abrogation fully was one of the pre-conditions for explanation (tafsir) of the Qur’an. It is also one of the important pre-conditions for understanding and application of the Islamic law (hukm, shari’a). Scholars such as Suyuti(rahimahullah) have said that tafsir or legal ruling is not acceptable from a person who does not have knowledge of abrogation. As in the field of asbab al-nuzul(reasons for revelation, a historiographical discipline) the information about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh cannot be accepted upon mere personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should go back to the Prophet(as) and his Companions(ra).The narration must clearly state which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh. According to Qattan, some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:
1. Narrations from the Prophet(as) or Companions(ra).
2. Ijma’ (consensus of the ummah upon what is considered nasikh and what is mansukh).
3. Knowledge about which part of the Qur’an preceded another part in the history of revelation.
Further study will suggest not only that reports from the Prophet(as) or his Companions(ra) about abrogation have some serious defects, internal and external, but that they often contradict each other. Further study will also serve to demonstrate that there was never any real consensus about what is considered nasikh and mansukh. In addition, asbab al-nuzul shows that the majority of cases of abrogation were in fact specification or restriction or some other qualification, according to the broad understanding of the earlier scholars of the meaning and application of abrogation.
An example here will hopefully illustrate how abrogation was classically understood and applied:
Narrated Mujahid(may Allah be pleased with him) (regarding the verse): Those of you who die and leave wives behind, they (their wives) shall await (as regards their marriage) for four months and ten days [Qur’an 2: 234]. The widow, according to this verse, was to spend this period of waiting with her husband’s family, so Allah revealed: Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e. widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year’s maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they leave (their residence) there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is honorable (i.e. Lawful marriage) (Qur’an 2: 240).
So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra maintenance for seven months and 20 nights and that is the completion of one year. If she wished, she could stay (in her husband’s home) according to the will, and she could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: Without turning them out, but if they leave (the residence) there is no blame on you.
So the idea (i.e. four months and ten days) is obligatory for her. ‘
Ata’ (may Allah be pleased with him)said: Ibn ‘Abbas(ra) said: This verse i.e. the statement of Allah … without turning one out … canceled the obligation of staying for the waiting period in her late husband’s house, and she can complete this period wherever she likes.
‘Ata’ said: If she wished, she could complete her ‘idda by staying in her late husband’s residence according to the will or leave it according to Allah’s statement: ‘There is no blame on you for what they do with themselves.’ ‘
Ata’ added: Later the regulations of inheritance came and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in her dead husband’s house) so she could complete the ‘idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary to provide her with a residence.
Ibn Abbas said: This verse abrogated her (i.e. the widow’s) dwelling in her dead husband’s house and she could complete the ‘idda (i.e. four months and ten days) (wherever she liked, as Allah’s statement says: …”without turning them out …”[Bukhari 6:54]
This report explains clearly which part of the revelation is considered nasikh and which is mansukh. Mujahid(may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the well-known tab’iun and Ibn ‘Abbas(ra) was a Companion of the Prophet(saws). Later on in this series I will present a fuller explanation of this particular case of abrogation situated in the contextual framework of “every case of supposed abrogation can be reconciled without resorting to a doctrine of abrogation, narrowly defined”. The reason I word it in this way is that most early commentators and supporters of this doctrine had a very broad definition of abrogation.
Origin of the Doctrine of Abrogation
During the period when the commentaries were being prepared and when the study of the occasions of revelation (shan al nuzul) as well as of identifying Meccan and Medinan surahs was a subject of serious study, our scholars felt the necessity for a branch of knowledge which indicates and explains the gradual development of the Quranic teachings. A theory was framed that in the Qur’an some ayat are cancelled (mansukh) by other ayat (nasikh) . It is believed that abrogation for Qur’anic verses, was originally invented/elaborated during the 4th and 5th centuries A.H. (late 10th century C.E.) by some Muslim scholars; notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about “Al-Nasikh and Al-Mansukh” is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.(Iftekhar Hai. “Case of Misinterpretation & Abrogation Theory“).
I say elaborated because there are many fiqhi and Shari’ concepts that, although not named explicitly in the Qur’an or described in the technical sense they are described in in fiqh manuals, commentaries or other Muslims scholarly works, the new or technically used terms were in reference to concepts already found in the Qur’an. Thus the Qur’an does use terms meaning abrogation and technical terms refer to a pre-existing Quranic concept.
The importance of understanding abrogation can never be understated as it is widely exploited by non-Muslim Islamophobic writers to tarnish the perfection and Divinity of the Book, and used by Extremist Muslims to justify un-Islamic practices . According to many scholars the principle of naskh originally emerged during the conflicts between usuli of different schools of fiqh. These discussions showed no uniformity and it can never be claimed that any type of consensus on abrogation was ever reached, contributing further to the complexity of the issue. Imam Shafi’i(may Allah be pleased with him) and many of his followers held that some parts of the Qur’an had superseded its other parts, but could never supersede the Sunnah; and that some Sunnah had superseded the other Sunnah, but had not superseded the Qur’an. In other words, Qur’an abrogates Qur’an and only Qur’an, Sunnah abrogates Sunnah and only Sunnah, but they never abrogated each other as the Sunnah was a supplement to the Qur’an and both were differing modes of revelation, as it were. Some scholars, even some in Shafi’i’s madhhab, took it further, stating not only could Qur’an never abrogate Sunnah, but Sunnah did indeed abrogate Qur’an as well as itself. The supporters of the doctrine of abrogation based their theory on their understanding of the aforementioned following ayah:
“Such of Our Ayat (messages) which We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one…” [Qur’an 2:106]
On the basis of the above it was argued that the principle of naskh (abrogation) is referred to in the Qur’an itself and is not to be considered a later scholarly historical development. In the discussions on abrogation the supposition was that since the various passages of the Qur’an were revealed according to the needs of a particular stage some of the earlier revelations were superseded by the later revelations. When some of the ayat looked “discrepant” to them and they were unable to reconcile interpretation of one ayah with another they formulated the doctrine of abrogation. There never was, however, agreement regarding the number of ayat to which the rule can be applied to. Ilm al naskh was a discipline, developed as auxiliary to the study of the Qur’an, set out to point out precisely how one ayah of the Qur’an abrogated another, and scholars in this discipline drew up lists of a abrogating and abrogated ayat. From the Qur’an we find,:
Yet whenever We sent forth any apostle or prophet before you, and he was hoping (that his warnings would be heeded) Shaytan would cause an aspersion on his innermost aims, but Allah renders null and void (faya nasakhun) whatever aspersions Shaytan may cast: and Allah makes His messages clear in and by themselves – for Allah is all- knowing wise.[Qur’an 22:52],
showing how the word was used in the Qur’an to signify “rendering null and void” as a definition of naskh. A derivative of this root is also used to mean “recorded”. For example:
This Our record speaks of you in all truth: for, verily, We have caused to be recorded (nustansikh) all that you ever did. [Qur’an 45:29]
Many of supporters of the doctrine of abrogation have taken a restricted meaning of ayat as the ayat of the Qur’an, as mentioned earlier in Qur’an 2:106, whereas many earlier commentators did in fact have a broader understanding of the concept of abrogation, as derived from an understanding of the ayat in question. The classical supporters of the doctrine of abrogation have described three kinds of abrogation:
1. The abrogation of the recital (of the Quranic ayat) as well as the injunction.
2. Abrogation of the recital (of the ayat) without nullification of application of the injunction.
3. Abrogation of the injunction and not the recital (of the ayat).
Some Muslim scholars refused to accept `naskh‘ and declared that `naskh‘ does not go with the holiness (taqaddus) of the Allah. They argued that Allah’s words are too authoritative, to be considered abrogated in human opinion. Abu Muslim Isfahani (d. 332/944) was the first one who refused to accept the ‘doctrine of abrogation.’ According to him abrogated ayat were those Divine Messages which were found in earlier Books (Taurat, Injeel etc.) Allah abrogated those earlier ayat, he argued, due to neglect and deliberate corruption of the Books by the respective followers and hence the contents of those books do not find place in the Qur’an:
“And convey (to the world) whatever has been revealed to you of the Sustainer’s writ. There is nothing that could alter His words: and you cannot find any refuge other than with Him“. [Qur’an 18 : 27].
The eminent scholar Zarqani (d. 1367/1948) supported the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ and argued in his book, “Manahil al Irfan” that when Allah replaces an order by another it does not imply that Allah realized something which He did not realize earlier. He who has absolute discretion to cancel any injunction He deemed proper and to replace it by another injunction was aware that the expediency of the order will cease at a particular time. Gradual implementation of the laws of Allah does not imply that the revelation meant for one stage were not good for later stages or that the earlier messages were replaced by the later messages. The tendency of hairsplitting in this issue among the ‘ulama has lead many to erroneous and even dangerous conclusions. Such discussions were introduced which provided justification for the Islamophobic opponents of Islam to argue that the Prophet(as) made corrections in the Qur’an, as and when it suited him. To this we will turn in the next part of the series, Insha’Allah.
The Legacy of Islamic Intellectual History
Muhammad Sameel ‘Abd al-Haqq
Praise be to Allah.
Early Muslims regarded Islam as the completion of Allah’s Message to humanity, as well as somewhat a continuation of the two other faiths regarded as Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity; and contemporary Muslims have carried this religious conviction to modern times. However, Muslims regard these previous historically manifested religions as corrupted, based on deliberately corrupted texts, hence the need for the revival of Islam. The Qur’an as a Holy Book was regarded as the criterion for judging what is true and false among the previous religions encompassing the Middle-Eastern spiritual and intellectual universe of tradition some would call Judaeo-Christian-Islamic Civilization. Early attempts to show similarities among the three religions were initiated by Muhammad(saws), attempts which should not really be accepted as such if we accept that it was Allah, subhanu wa ta’ala, himself who revealed to the Prophet(as) these similarities. Yet what we can say is that part of the message of the Prophet(as), his proselytizing, his daw’ah and methodology, was to show the Jews and Christians of his time these similarities, also showing future generations as well, through the vehicle of the preservation of Revelation and Sunnah.
After Muhammad(saws), the early Muslim scholars, by reference to the Qur’an and Prophetic Traditions circulating at the time, and an appeal to the knowledge of the Prophets Muslims, Jews, And Christians have in common, were not attempting to reconcile these differences per se so much as they were attempting to show how and why Islam is the correct belief and how the Jews and Christians deviated from that original belief system. For it is believed by the majority of Muslims that Allah always sent his Prophets with Islam, an idea that many Modernist Muslims will have to contend with as they postulate the validity of other religious traditions besides Islam. With the belief that the Prophets always came with Islam comes the belief in the deviation of the People of the Book.
There was a large flow of Jewish and Christian converts into Islam, implications of which have not yet been thoroughly studied. These converts related quite a few traditions that linked the three religions. Traditions of the Jews, the Isra’iliyyat , not found in the Hebrew canon, but in many Talmudic traditions and Jewish “legends”, were related and found their way into Muslim Prophetic Traditions.
Christian traditions, many relating to eschatology, not found in the Protestant and Catholic Canon(usually), yet found in Christian Apocrypha, the Nag Hammadi Library, Dead Sea Scrolls, and various Gnostic Christian writings were related. Ideas judged to be heretical by many Christians are also found among Muslim Prophetic Traditions. For some this suggests “religious borrowing”, sometimes used to mean “religious plagiarism” or theft/copying. For others, mostly Muslims, this is merely Islam affirming what is true in other traditions, rejecting what is false in them.
Many of these traditions describe Creation, Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah and Flood, Abraham, Hagar, and Isma’il; all concepts and personages found in Judaeo-Christian tradition. Though the traditions in Islam were sometimes related differently from their Jewish and Christian counterparts, they did serve to show how the three faiths were related, how they belonged to the same universe of tradition. The early Muslim scholars also inherited the legacy of rejection of core articles of faith among the Jews and Christians. While Muslims retained the the idea of One God, the Muslim idea of tawhid is quite different from the Christian conception of monotheism, and is even different from the Jewish conception. Muslims retained a similar view of Creation, belief in Angels, but were distinguished by the belief in all of the previous Prophets sent by Allah, many not even mentioned by name. I will not list the ideas rejected by Islam and held by the Jews and Christians here, but the legacy of the environment of interfaith relations, whether that environment was political and polemical, friendly, marked by daw’ah efforts, exchanges of ideas, or marked by war, this legacy impacted the Islamic intellectual tradition in ways palatable today.
The Islamic Intellectual Tradition
This series of articles will attempt to describe and analyze the impact of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition on contemporary Muslim thought. We will do this by giving a brief history of Islamic historiography and its implications for preserving orthodoxy. We will ask ourselves how Muslims transformed a primarily oral tradition to a written one. We will discuss how this tradition was marshaled to deal with the impact of Western colonialism. The 19th and 20th centuries saw unprecedented change in the Muslim world with respect to how it was the first time the Muslim world was largely inundated with foreign ideologies. We will examine how the Islamic intellectual Tradition was utilized to deal with these challenges.
The Islamic Intellectual Tradition, next to the period of Revelation itself, also was the chief element responsible for how non-Muslims were viewed and should be viewed by Muslims. We describe how the Ahl al-Kitab and other non-Muslim groups were regarded and treated by the tradition. In addition, we will be discussing how certain seminal events, trends, and periods in Islamic history informed and shaped the emerging worldviews arising out the Islamic Intellectual tradition; we say worldviews because although the tradition has relative uniformity enabling it to be identified through its distinguishing characteristics, unifying underlying principles and coherence, it is not a monolithic tradition. These seminal events, trends, and periods include, but are not limited to, the Aftermath of the death of the Prophet(as) and the Ridda Wars ; The Muslim Conquests; The Umayyad dynasty; The Abbasid Revolution and Dynasty; The Medieval Period; Islamic Philosophy; The Crusades; The Mongol Invasions and Conversion; and the perceived Ottoman Decline. And finally we describe and analyze the impact of these events on the Islamic tradition as well as the implications of the responses of those working within the broad tradition for contemporary Muslims.
The term Islamic Intellectual History encompasses many disciplines, so it is proper to conceptualize the Islamic Intellectual Tradition as the sum of the intellectual discursive traditions found among the Muslim community; and we will discuss the relevant disciplines in some detail. Islamic Historiography, Fiqh and other major Islamic Sciences, the Islamic philosophical tradition, Islamic Heresiology, and the institutionalized Sufi tradition are all distinctive traditional strands in the broad intellectual tradition which have all contributed to the combined legacy of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition as a whole. Throughout this series we will see how Islamic education and the ‘ulama also played a key role in the development and impact of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition as well. We will be asking and attempting to answer a number of key questions in this series: What exactly is the Islamic Intellectual Tradition and what is its paradigmatic frame of reference?; How was it utilized to deal with the challenges Muslims faced and how was it marshaled and relied upon to respond to specific crises?; Who were some of its major luminaries, what were their ideas and what was their influence?; What are some of the implications of its legacy for interfaith dialogue and relations?; What was the impact of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition on contemporary Muslim thought?; And how did the Islamic Intellectual tradition affect the broader world? Other important questions will also arise during the course of this series.
The legacy of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition is to be found in how contemporary Muslims view themselves, other Muslims, and people of other faiths, particularly the People of the Book- Jews and Christians. It also leaves behind a legacy of two key issues: just what constitutes authority in Islam and what is meant by tradition in Islam? Clearly its legacy informs and shapes the Muslim worldview in the contemporary period. While it is clear that Muslim scholars disagreed with many core articles of faith found in other religious traditions, there was also a need to reconcile this rejection with the belief that Islam was a continuation of the religion of Abraham. Early Muslim scholars did this by utilizing a method that can only be regarded as what passed for comparative religion at the time. The scholars tried to show that Islam was the perfection of Allah’s Message to humanity and any divergence among other faith groups were viewed as indications of historical, deliberate corruption or misunderstanding. The intellectual environment surrounding the elucidation, propagation, and preservation of the ideas found in the texts of Qur’an and Sunnah determined the intellectual trajectory of the subsequent and consequent Islamic Intellectual Tradition. It cannot be denied that this and the resultant daw’ah of the early Muslims also played a key role in shaping the tradition. However we cannot conclude that the Islamic Intellectual tradition was largely reactionary, as internal dynamics and the belief that the tradition was to be put in the service of the perceived mission to spread Islam to the world at large also determined the character of the tradition. And one must never forget the over-arching theme and impetus of this tradition: worship of Allah alone and seeking nearness to Him. Allahu A’lam.
1. Many are unaware that it is these types of reports that are largely responsible for beliefs surrounding the Banu Qurayza “massacre”, for instance.
2. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has already cautioned us against this source of knowledge (Israilliyyat):
Narrated Abu Huraira (RadhiyAllahu Anhu): The people of the scripture used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah’s apostle said: ‘Do not believe the people of the scripture or disbelieve them, but say: “We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us”‘ . [Bukhari]
Similarly Ibn Mas’ud (RadhiyAllahu Anhu), the well-known Companion, is reported to have said: ‘Do not ask the Ahl al-Kitab about anything (in Tafsir), for they cannot guide you and are themselves in error….’
The rules relating to Israelite reports:
According to Usul Al Tafseer, Isra’iliyyat are narratives which have reached us through Jews and Christians. It may be noted that early commentators used to write down all sorts of narrations which reached them from an identified or unidentified source. Many of these narrations were straight Judaica. Therefore, it is equally necessary to know what they really are.
The reality is that some noble Companions and their Successors,ra, first belonged to the religion of the people of the Book, later on when they became Muslims and learned the Qur’an, they came across several events relating to past communities in the Qur’an and which they had also read in the books of their previous religion. Therefore, while referring to the events mentioned in the Qur’an they would describe other details before Muslims which they had seen in the books of their old religion.
These very details have entered into the books of Tafseer,[also Sira, and Hadith], under the name of ‘Isra’iliyyat’. Hafiz ibn Kathir,ra, who is one of the authentic research scholars, has categorized them into three different kinds:
1) Narrations, the truth of which is proved from other evidences of ‘the Qur’an and Sunnah, for instance, the drowning of Pharoah and the ascent of Sayyidna Musa (Alaihis Salam) onto Mount Tur (Sinai).
2) Narrations the falsity of which is proved from other evidences of the Qur’an and Sunnah, for instance, it appears in Judaic narrations that Sayyidna Sulayman (Alaihis Salam) had become (God forbid) an apostate in his later years. Its refutation is proved from the Qur’an. It is said there:
‘It was not Sulayman who became an infidel, but the devils did become infidels’ [2:102].
To cite yet another example, it finds mention in Judaic narration’s that (God forbid) Sayyidna Dawud (Alaihis Salam) (David) committed adultery with the wife of his general (Uriah), or, having him killed through all sorts of contrivances, ended up marrying his wife. This too is a blatant lie, and taking such narrations to be false is imperative.
3) Narrations regarding which the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Shariah are “silent”, such as the injunctions of Torah etc., are subjects about which silence is to be observed as taught by the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) neither confirm, nor falsify. There is, however, a difference of opinion among scholars whether or not reporting such narrations is permissible. Hafiz ibn Kathir,ra, has given the decisive word by saying that reporting these is permissible all right but doing so is useless because they cannot be taken as authentic.[Muqaddamah Tafseer ibn Kathir]
[See: Ma’ariful Quran]
These set of rules are applied by Hadith scholars when dealing with Isra’iliyyat material. These rules are based on the Hadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) which I have mentioned above.
About the transmitter Wahb Ibn Munabbih (Rahmatullahi Alaih):
Wahb Ibn Munabbih transmitted both Isra’iliyyat and Islamic traditions. It does not make him or any other transmitter untrustworthy or a fabricator.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (Rahamtullahi Alaih) says, ” Wahb Ibn Munabbih Ibn Kamil al-Yamani, the father of `Abdullah Al Abnawi. He is trustworthy.” [Taqrib al-Tahdhib]
Imam al-Suyuti (Rahamtullahi Alaih) includes him in his book of Hadith memorisers. [Tabaqat al-Huffadh)]
Many of the Hadith scholars have recorded his Hadith, including al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi (Rahamtullahi Alaih).
So the conclusion here is that Wahb Ibn Munabbih and others like Ka’ab Ahbar, Hammam Ibn Munabbih (Rahmatullahi Alaihim) are considered to be trustworthy even though they transmitted Isra’iliyyat traditions along with the Islamic ones because they did not attribute these Isra’iliyyat traditions to the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam).
So, the narration above will be rejected totally as this contradicts the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah.
And Only Allah Ta’ala Knows Best.
Moulana Qamruz Zaman
3. Eschatology (pronounced /ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ ( listen); from the Greek ἔσχατος/ἐσχάτη/ἔσχατον, eschatos/eschatē/eschaton meaning “last” and -logy meaning “the study of”, first used in English around 1550) is a part of theology, philosophy, and futurology concerned with what are believed to be the final events in history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity, commonly referred to as the end of the world or the World to Come. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “concerned with ‘the four last things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell’”.Regarding mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine. In many religions it is taught as an existing future event prophesied in sacred texts or folklore. More broadly, eschatology may encompass related concepts such as the Messiah or Messianic Age, the end time, and the end of days.
4. (Arabic: “People of the Book”), in Islāmic thought, those religionists such as Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians who are possessors of divine books (i.e., the Torah, the Gospel, and the Avesta), as distinguished from those whose religions are not based on divine revelations. The latter are an imprecisely identified group referred to as Sabaeans but also considered “People of the Book.”
5. The Ridda wars (Arabic: حروب الردة), also known as the Wars of Apostasy, were a set of military campaigns against the rebellion of several Arabian tribes against the Caliph Abu Bakr(ra) during 632 and 633 AD, after Prophet Muhammad(saws) died. The revolts, in Islamic historiography later interpreted as religious, were in reality mainly political. However, these revolts also had a religious aspect: Medina had become the center of a social and political system, of which religion was an integral part; consequently it was inevitable that any reaction against this system would have a religious aspect
The Encyclopedia of Islam. New Edition. Vol. 1, p. 110.
6. For a time the Il-Khans tolerated and patronized all religious persuasions—Sunni, Shīʿite, Buddhist, Nestorian Christian, Jewish, and pagan. But in 1295 a Buddhist named Maḥmūd Ghāzān became khan and declared himself Muslim, compelling other Mongol notables to follow suit. His patronage of Islamicate learning fostered such brilliant writers as Rashīd al-Dīn, the physician and scholar who authored one of the most famous Persian universal histories of all time. The Mongols, like other Islamicate dynasties swept into power by a tribal confederation, were able to unify their domains for only a few generations.