An Islamic Antichrist?
A book by Joel Richardson called
The Islamic Antichrist brings up some interesting points that I
would like to address and study here. He holds that “Islam is the
primary vehicle that will be used by Satan to fulfill the prophecies of
the Bible about the future political, religious, military system of the
antichrist.” There is also a book by Walid
Shoebat that covers the same aspects of this theory called
God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible.
This page is a work in progress and
will involve some serious reflection as I hadn’t had any doubts, until
looking at the Islamic and
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.
One of the primary premises of determining the identity comes from the
book of Daniel speaking of the
prophesied 70 weeks for Israel.
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
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
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
Proponents of this belief point out that what Islam calls the
antichrist, will actually be Yeshua. This has the potential danger
for those not strong in their Biblical understanding to fall into
accepting this man as Yeshua instead of expecting him to come in the
clouds and gather us to Him. The
harpazo believers would point out they would be gone already,
but I don't
believe this is accurate. This could set some of them up to
believe since the harpazo hasn't come yet, that this couldn't be the
antichrist. If the Jewish antichrist theory is correct, both these
theories could play off each other and, if possible, deceive the
elect. The key is knowing what the Bible says about how Christ will
really come. Matthew 24:23-28 | Luke 21:27-28
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
+ 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
+ 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.