This work explores the relationship between revelation, reason and tradition. It focuses on the way willing jurists re-interpreted the teaching of revelation to justify the expansionary aims of their rulers. The alleged abrogation of the verses counselling peace and reconciliation tainted the teaching of revelation. The teaching of abrogation transformed the religion of peace into a political agenda justifying wars of aggression, based on the misinterpretation of verses 9:29 and 9:05, within the alleged "clash" between the abode of peace (dar al-Islam) and the abode of non-belief (dar al-kufr). This misinterpretation accelerated the territorial expansion of Islam at first. It also accelerated its fall afterwards. The teaching of abrogation is not receiving the attention it merits. The repression of reason by tradition facilitated the militarisation of exegesis. The abandonment of reason facilitated the adoption of perceptions alien to revelation, aiming to serve the political agenda of the powers that be. The abandonment of reasoning triggered a sequence of juridical aberrations: the treatment of tradition as revelation, the reversal of the relationship between revelation and tradition, and the subordination of the teaching of revelation to the rulings of the ulema. A prominent example of an aberrant practice is the teaching of abrogation. Prominent among aberrant presuppositions are the perceptions that revelation is "incomplete," in parts "unclear," and that tradition is revelation which has the power to "judge," "abrogate," and even "replace" revelation, and that the rulings of jurists possess the power to "abrogate" and "replace" parts of revelation. The emergence of tradition and its engagement in "explaining" the Quran brought an alteration in the way revelation would be understood. The emergence of taqlid enabled the perception that all problems were solved, including any that might arise in the future. It appears it is time to return to the revelation-centric paradigm of Islam. For the tradition-centric approach ruled far too long. Which person would endorse assertions that brazenly flout the teaching of revelation? The "eclipse" of reason by tradition ensured that tradition would be followed in preference to reason. The de-emphasis on reason facilitated the entry of a range of unwarranted accretions and practices into the Muslim universe of discourse. The "eclipse" of revelation by tradition forced revelation under the auspices of tradition, in exegesis, jurisprudence, and in foreign affairs. The "eclipse' of tradition by the rulings of the ulema usurped the position of revelation and asserted the right of the jurists to abrogate revelation as well as tradition. In politics, ruling elites engaged in wars of aggression, the reprisals for which triggered the fall of Muslim empires. The Muslim past is a record of catastrophe after catastrophe. What to do? While revelation emphasises justice, ethics and reason, we are hard put to find a tradition, let alone a book on justice, ethics and rationality in the secondary literature. The anthologies of traditions attributed to the prophet represent a faint reflection of the teaching of revelation, akin to the faint light of the moon. Even in moonlight, we are largely in the dark. What happened? Bukhari features no entries on justice, ethics, or reason. What kind of Islam are we getting from "tradition"? Is it Islam without justice, ethics and reason? Is it the Islam of unquestioning following? Is it the Islam of revelation or the Islam of tradition? Have the practices of the predecessors eclipse the revealed word of God? Have Muslims turned from revelation to tradition? Has tradition eclipsed (replaced) revelation? Has tradition provided reliable knowledge to the Muslim umma? Does revelation expect us to follow tradition or revelation? Allah knows best.