Riḍā ends by arguing that political change in England may restrain British policy. The 1929 election record confirms that Labour won 287 seats to the Conservatives' 260, formed a minority government, and faced 59 Liberal members who held the balance. This supports his political sequence, but not his description of Labour as moderate or his hope for a change in British policy toward ארץ ישראל EREẒ YISRAʾEL. He then claims Jewish promises of restored rule were forfeited because most יהודים YEHUDIM rejected Jesus. This is a supersessionist claim about Jewish scripture and the homeland, not a finding about Jewish rights. Riḍā did publish the promised follow-up article in the next issue. Its publication confirms that he fulfilled the promise, while its hostile and supersessionist argument does not verify his claims. Finally he cites a report about killing Jews and warns Zionists to delay their plans. The core report appears in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3593 and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2921 from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, which verifies Riḍā's collection attribution. The passage remains an explicit anti-Jewish threat in his argument. The source match does not establish prophetic truth, justify the threat, or predict future events.
Riḍā accurately quotes the latter part of Qur'an 61:14, which says that one group among the Children of Israel believed, another disbelieved, and the believers received support and prevailed. The verse does not say that Jewish promises concerning land or rule were forfeited forever. Riḍā adds that supersessionist conclusion.
Riḍā's figure of four hundred million Muslims was much higher than nearby published estimates. A 1922 survey used 250 million. A 1937 discussion described published totals ranging from 230 to 300 million, proposed 280 million, and carried an editorial note that the total was no more than 250 million. Population data were incomplete and definitions differed, so these figures are not exact. They still show that four hundred million was outside the checked contemporary range. Non-Muslim Arabs were a separate addition in Riḍā's sentence and are not counted by these estimates.
Deuteronomy 30 also limits Riḍā's account of the Torah promises. The chapter links return to God and obedience with gathering from exile and renewed possession of the ancestors' land. It therefore supports his point that commandments matter. It also describes restoration after blessing, curse, and dispersal, and it does not make that restoration depend on the coming of a messiah. Riḍā's claim of permanent forfeiture through rejection of Jesus is a Christian and Islamic supersessionist interpretation, not the direct meaning of this Torah passage.
Another report in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim says that seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan will follow the Dajjāl. This identifies one source tradition behind Riḍā's reference to Jewish support for the Dajjāl. The report names a limited group and does not state that all Jews will follow him, that Jews will fight Christians, or that the event will occur in ארץ ישראל EREẒ YISRAʾEL.
Maimonides presents the expected Jewish messiah as a Davidic king who restores Jewish sovereignty, builds the Temple, and gathers the dispersed. His legal account therefore contradicts Riḍā's assertion that the relevant Jewish expectation was fulfilled by Jesus. It also shows that Riḍā's conclusion belongs to Christian and Islamic supersessionist interpretation rather than the Jewish source tradition he is describing.
Riḍā's absolute statement that observance of all Torah commandments had become impossible is also too broad. Many commandments tied to the Temple, sacrifices, agriculture in the land, or institutions that no longer operate cannot currently be performed in their original form. Many other commandments remain active in Jewish law and practice. The practical limits do not amount to abandonment of the Torah as a whole.