The same, then, is permissible by the unanimous agreement of all religious communities.

Is such a case to be called “abrogation” (naskh)?
There are two opinions:

1. One view holds that it is not called abrogation; it is like a ruling whose endpoint is explicitly known, as in the divine command:
   “Eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread of dawn; then complete the fast until nightfall” (Q 2:187).
   Because the obligation to fast terminates with the arrival of night, and no one counts that as abrogation, some argue that an unknown endpoint is no different from a known one.

2. The other view maintains that this does indeed fall under the heading of abrogation. Yet everyone—Jews and others alike—agrees that this sort of abrogation is permissible. Accordingly, the validity of the prophethood of the Messiah and of Muhammad (may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon them both) does not depend on the permissibility of the contested type of abrogation, for that debate concerns only rulings issued in an absolutely unrestricted manner, whereas the earlier laws were never legislated in such unrestricted terms.

Whether one says that forewarning of an abrogating dispensation is obligatory or says that it is not, in either case the adherents of the first law were in fact notified that it would one day be superseded. Moses heralded the coming of the Messiah, as did other prophets; and both Moses and the Messiah—as well as many other prophets—heralded the coming of Muhammad. Given that this is what actually occurred, the prophethood of the Messiah and of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is in no way dependent on establishing the permissibility of the disputed form of abrogation.

Hence we say: knowledge of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and of the Messiah is not contingent upon