Islamic Antichrist?

Last Updated: 01/09/2012 03:40                                                                                                                                                                               | | |

Related Topics:

A book by Joel Richardson called The Islamic Antichrist recently was released and brings up some interesting points that I would like to address and study here. This page is a work in progress and will involve some serious reflection as I hadn’t had any doubts until now that the man of sin would arise from Europe. I still have not made up my mind, but as with all things I must study and look at the points, history and scripture to understand myself and make a decision. Regardless of which way I lean, I will leave this research here as with other pages for your perusal to study it and decide for yourself. If you have additional input, please let me know!

One of the primary premises of determining the identity comes from the book of Daniel speaking of the prophesied 70 weeks for Israel.

Daniel 9:26
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

According to Joel Richardson’s historical research cited from Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Titus Flavius Josephus as well as more modern scholars and historians, the Roman army that destroyed the temple in 70 AD was not comprised of “European” Romans, but rather inhabitants of Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia and Egypt - ancestors of the modern-day inhabitants of the Middle East.

If this is the case, then scripture would be stating that the people were those now comprised of the Islamic Middle Eastern people and therefore the “prince that shall come” would be of those people. Today Islam is the unifying religion of all these peoples with a supernatural hatred of Israel and the Jews.

A Muslim Antichrist? — What Holly Thinks January 17, 2010

The idea that the Antichrist will come from a Muslim nation — and not from Europe — has become popular since 9/11. But it doesn’t square with Scripture. Let me explain.

Chuck Missler, one of the proponents of the Muslim Antichrist theory, said that prophecy buffs have been “nearsighted.” Since the Bible teaches that the Antichrist will come from the region of the Roman Empire, they’ve mistakenly assumed that he will come from Western Europe and have forgotten the fact that the Roman Empire also had an eastern division, which continued long after the western division. It’s this eastern leg of the Roman Empire that the Antichrist will come from, according to Missler. Read about it here.

But is it true that prophecy buffs have been nearsighted, or do they have good reasons to believe that the Antichrist will emerge from Europe? I believe it’s the second answer.

The eastern leg of the Roman Empire (called the Byzantine Empire) did not come into existence for a few centuries after the time of Christ. Yet Daniel 9:26 — the verse that teaches that the Antichrist will emerge from the Roman Empire — says he will come from the same people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. This destruction occurred in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.

Since the eastern leg didn’t exist in 70 A.D., then the Romans who destroyed the city and sanctuary couldn’t have referred to the people from the much later, eastern leg. This is why prophecy scholars have historically believed that the Antichrist will come from the people of the old Roman Empire (represented today in Western Europe).

Yet to salvage their theory, some proponents of the Muslim Antichrist theory say that the Roman army included conscripted soldiers from Syria, so the Antichrist will be of Syrian origin. But this is nonsense to claim that, somehow, conscripted soldiers who are merely following orders represent the Roman Empire. Philosophers have a Latin phrase for this type of last-ditch argument — i.e., a weak argument that’s only purpose is to save someone’s favored viewpoint. It’s called an ad hoc argument.

The fact that the eastern leg of the Roman Empire didn’t exist in 70 A.D. seems, to me, to be a fatal flaw in the Muslim Antichrist theory.

Audio:

Other Sources:

• Walid Shoebat is a proponent of this belief and there is some audio where he goes over these points. You can listen to some of his comments in the audio section. Several of the clips were from Chuck Missler’s 66/40 broadcasts of the Strategic Trends.

Thoughts:

• - The eastern leg of the Roman Empire (called the Byzantine Empire) did not come into existence for a few centuries after the time of Christ.
  • + Would it matter that it is not the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire if “the people of the prince to come” were Arabian conscripts acting against orders? Look for historical reference
• - While I currently feel that the man of sin rises from Europe and the false prophet is possibly the Imam Mahdi, at a surface glance I can also see it possible that the man of sin is the Mahdi and the false prophet is from Europe. It would make more sense for the development and implementation of a global “mark of the beast” from the West than from Islam and that is one of the primary functions of the false prophet.
• - I still feel that historically the “woman riding the beast” points to the Roman Catholic Church
• -/+ A point made by Dr. Mark Hitchcock on September 18, 2010 in the audio above is that he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers and exalt himself above all gods. He will sit in the temple and declare himself to be God. The Mahdi would never declare himself to be God and the moment that he does, he is no longer Muslim so while he may have originated from Islam, he would not remain in that capacity following the abomination of desolation. This could of course point to the possibility that he originates from Islam, but upon declaring himself to be God, separates himself from the god of his fathers, elevating himself to the status of God. The question then is, would faithful Islam accept him?
• + Revelation 20:4 speaks of people beheaded during this time of great tribulation for their witness of Jesus. I used to think of it in a European sense with a guillotine, but now with the rise of Islam, it does seem more likely that the beheading would be in the nature of that done by Islam and part of the Koran.
• + Daniel 11:36-38 speaks of the man of sin not regarding the god of his fathers, and Islam didn’t exist until around 633 AD when Mohamed claimed to receive revelations. It points back to Adam, but the holy book and teachings of Islam didn’t exist until Mohamed channeled them throughout his life. Daniel also speaks of him honoring a god of forces, or war, with gold, silver, precious stones and pleasant things. In Islam Zakat, or almsgiving, is one of the five pillars of Islam.
• + Daniel 2 is Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue. Walid makes the point that the Western leg of the Roman Empire never controlled Babylon while the Eastern leg, the people of the Middle East always have.
• + Daniel 7 combines all the beasts together, comprised of Middle Eastern historical nations.
• + Daniel 7:25 Islam is trying to change the times and the laws. (Sharia)