until they are silenced, so that whoever perishes may perish upon clear proof, and whoever lives may live upon clear proof.

Al-Qurtubī mentioned this view but rejected it, arguing that if the Beast were a human being who debated the proponents of religious innovation, it would not be a supernatural sign or one of the ten signs of the Hour.

Moreover, this would mean abandoning the proper designation for this virtuous and learned debater—whom the people of the earth ought to call a man, a scholar, or an imam—and calling him “the Beast” instead. This departs from the customary usage of eloquent speakers and fails to accord scholars their due respect (1).

Fifth: “The Beast” is a generic term (2) for everything that moves about, and does not refer to a particular, individual animal possessing marvels and wonders. Perhaps what is meant by it is those dangerous germs that ravage human beings, their bodies, and their health. They injure and kill, and their injurious effects and harm convey words of admonition to people—if only they had hearts with which to understand—that would bring them back to Allah and His religion and establish the proof against them. The language of circumstance is more eloquent than spoken words, for taklīm may also mean wounding.

This is the view adopted by Abū Ubayya in his annotations on Ibn Kathīr’s al-Nihāya / al-Fitan wa-l-Malāhim (3). It is a view far removed from what is correct, for several reasons:

A. Germs have existed since ancient times, as have the diseases that