Is Islam The Antichrist? Richardson'S Book Raises The Question...

[Cold Steel]

I recently reread Joel Richardson's The Islamic Antichrist after seeing him interviewed on television.

He raises some fascinating points comparing the eschatologies of the world's three great religions. Namely, that all three expect messianic figures, and that two, the Jewish and Christian expect someone who will save the Jews, and Jerusalem, when it's on the brink of destruction. Islam, on the other hand, expects the Mahdi, someone who will appear and convert the world to Islam, slaughtering the Jews as needed. Richardson says that Christianity's Jesus and the False Prophet, which John talks about in his Apocalypse, mirror Islam's Jesus and the Mahdi.

Christianity is expecting the rise of the Beast, which Ezekiel called "Gog," and that these figures mirror Islam's Mahdi. Depending on your point of view, the Beast/Gog will be either evil, or if you're Muslim, he will convert the world to Islam.

His book is fascinating and I'm wondering if anyone else here has read it. Naturally, he doesn't know about, nor is he interested in, the LDS eschatology. Richardson takes the scriptural prophesy that the Beast will rule "all nations" literally and he believes the United States will eventually fall under the sway of the Beast. LDS believe that the Jewish scriptures are pretty much Jerusalem-centric, and that though the Beast may indeed rise up out of modern day Turkey or some other part of the world, his rule will be limited most likely to Europe and Asia Minor. According to LDS prophesy, the Western Hemisphere will be cut off from the rest of the world. Also, amidst civil war and widespread strife, Zion will be established.

I was skeptical when I first read Richardson's book, but I'm now fairly well convinced that he's on to something. Although most Muslims today are peaceful, decent people, they fear the radicals amongst them, and rightly so. Even though they're in the majority, speaking out against the radicals is often tantamount to inviting death.

See this segment of Richardson's interview.

. Edited January 18, 2012 by Cold Steel

[Storm Rider]

Islam is not a monolithic group, rather it is seriously divided between the two major groups: Sunni and Shia. You do have radicals among the Sunni, but the Shia can be more radical in their hatred of the West.

I have not read this book, but I am naturally sceptical of these types of essays. The anti-Christ is not an organized group at first, imho, but it is that which is percevied as good, but dedicated to evil. It is the stuff that the father of lies is foundational.

[Bill Hamblin]

I recently reread Joel Richardson's The Islamic Antichrist after seeing him interviewed on television.

He raises some fascinating points comparing the eschatologies of the world's three great religions. Namely, that all three expect messianic figures, and that two, the Jewish and Christian expect someone who will save the Jews, and Jerusalem, when it's on the brink of destruction. Islam, on the other hand, expects the Mahdi, someone who will appear and convert the world to Islam, slaughtering the Jews as needed. Richardson says that Christianity's Jesus and the False Prophet, which John talks about in his Apocalypse, mirror Islam's Jesus and the Mahdi.

Christianity is expecting the rise of the Beast, which Ezekiel called "Gog," and that these figures mirror Islam's Mahdi. Depending on your point of view, the Beast/Gog will be either evil, or if you're Muslim, he will convert the world to Islam.

His book is fascinating and I'm wondering if anyone else here has read it. Naturally, he doesn't know about, nor is he interested in, the LDS eschatology. Richardson takes the scriptural prophesy that the Beast will rule "all nations" literally and he believes the United States will eventually fall under the sway of the Beast. LDS believe that the Jewish scriptures are pretty much Jerusalem-centric, and that though the Beast may indeed rise up out of modern day Turkey or some other part of the world, his rule will be limited most likely to Europe and Asia Minor. According to LDS prophesy, the Western Hemisphere will be cut off from the rest of the world. Also, amidst civil war and widespread strife, Zion will be established.

I was skeptical when I first read Richardson's book, but I'm now fairly well convinced that he's on to something. Although most Muslims today are peaceful, decent people, they fear the radicals amongst them, and rightly so. Even though they're in the majority, speaking out against the radicals is often tantamount to inviting death.

See this segment of Richardson's interview.

.

I browsed through the book. It's basically bunk. What he does is cherry pick through a vast array of Islamic sources on the Mahdi from widely different times and places and Islamic sects. He selects those parts of Islamic concepts of the Mahdi which parallel evangelical concepts of the antichrist and lines them up. He makes no attempt to historically contextualize evangelical concepts of the antichrist, nor to contextualize Muslim concept of the Mahdi.

[Person]

Sure,

Watch this video

[Cold Steel]

I agree that Richardson has some problems with his thesis. For one thing, he doesn't have the benefit of modern day revelation. He believes the Antichrist will rule the entire Earth, and this because John wrote: "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (13:7- In this case, "saints" (holy ones, or sanctified) means the Jews. I don't believe that the LDS interpretation means this to be taken literally. As Richardson himself notes, the Bible is Jerusalem-centric. As we understand it, the Western Hemisphere will be cut off from the rest of the world. Also, Zion cannon be established in a nation under any rule. In fact, even the United States will cease to function as a cohesive government, and there will be widespread civil war outside of Zion. In fact, Zion, and only Zion, will have power to restore the Constitution. If my understanding is wrong on this, please correct me.

John also indicates that those who do not have the mark of the Beast will be beheaded (see Revelation 20:1-4). "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus....," he writes. Richardson notes that the primary means of executing unbelievers, or kaffirs, is through beheading.

Adnan Oktar, a well known Turkish Muslim leader, author (with more than 65 million books in circulation) and intellectual, met recently with with three representatives from the re-established Jewish Sanhedrin, a group of 71 Orthodox rabbis and scholars from Israel, to discuss how religious Muslims, Jews and Christians can work together to rebuild Solomon's Temple. He subsequently wrote: "Come let us love and respect one another, and love and honor and hold our heavenly Father in awe. Let us establish a house of prayer in His name in order to worship and serve Him together, for the sake of His great compassion. He surely does not want the blood of His creations spilled, but prefers love and peace among all mankind."

The Beast will initially be seen as a man of peace—a man who will seek to bring about a mutual understanding between the Jews and their enemies. We also know that the Beast will bring the nations that are round about Israel, and Ezekiel names them. They're all presently Muslim countries. And Zechariah says that these nations will come against Jerusalem with a vengeance. What is surprising is the bitterness of these nations after the true Jesus returns. Zechariah begins by writing: "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." After their defeat he writes: "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." (Chapter 14)

What could cause such bitterness to remain in the hearts of those who are not destroyed at the Lord's coming? What could cause these people to refuse to come and celebrate with the true God of Israel and his people? In my mind, only the bitterness and hate that Muslims have in their hearts for the Jews, and their sudden awareness that Muhammad is not a prophet.

Richardson believes the kingdom following Rome was the Ottoman Empire. It was the seventh kingdom that "was, and was not, and is again," as John wrote. That means, if he's correct, that the caliphate, which was abolished in 1923, will be restored and that the Antichrist would come out of Turkey. And for them to openly war against the Jews, it also means that somehow the U.S. will be neutralized as a world power. Based on recent events, such as our skyrocketing debt, I can see how the U.S. might erupt into civil war and cease to be a world power. On the plus side, I believe that China and North Korea will have to be opened up to the Gospel. So the Lord may grant us some more time.

[The Nehor]

It's been the province of every age to define the Anti-Christ as the current bogeyman on the world stage. Only a few decades ago it was communism. A few before that and it was a bad artist with a Charlie Chaplin mustache bent on world domination, and before that.....etc.

If we knew that our generation would see the end we might know enough to speculate a little but we don't even know that. Even if we did the big bad may shift before it all comes to an end. History moves too quickly for this kind of guesswork. In another 20 years the big bad guy that is suspected to the be the Anti-Christ might be the European Union, China, nanobots, zombies, who knows?

[Cold Steel]

You can also say many churches have claimed to be the true one. Why is Mormonism any different? Well, it is different. People who make claims regarding the "beast" and "antichrist" ultimately have to make a case. And they do this through scriptures and history. Having waded through many other theories from communism to the Pope, I don't think Richardson should be casually dismissed. I admit his eschatology is flawed in areas where he doesn't have the benefit of the full Gospel message, but his primary exegesis does hold, I think. And many, many Muslims will be victimized by it as well.

I think most Muslims want peace. I think they want to have jobs, raise their kids and fit in to our society; however...HOWEVER, they fear the radical minority who will target them sooner than the kaffirs. Radical Islamists become incensed, and some non-radicals, when Muhammad is portrayed in film or cartoons. But they hardly stir when a film or cartoon is made concerning Christ or Moses, both of whom they claim to venerate. Why didn't they threaten violence when any other prophet other than Muhammad is characatured?

God for generations spoke through Hebrew prophets, and not via verse. Why should He suddenly speak through an Arab? Isaiah 11 speaks of a Gentile ensign under which Israel would be gathered in the last days, but they are silent regarding the coming of any Arab prophet. And it's important to keep in mind that Islam represents everything Satan has stood for since the beginning: 1) an intense hatred of Jews, 2) force to make one submit, 3) beheadings, which is what the Antichrist will use in the latter times. And keep in mind the number one aspect we must always consider, and that is the nations round about Israel are or will be the Antichrist. Ezekiel mentions them: Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria (which may be gobbled up by Israel in a future war), Jorden, Saudi Arabia. These countries all are associated with the Antichrist, and what do they have in common but a religion based on a hatred of the Jews and a command from Allah to attack them and take back Jerusalem?

Communism, the Pope and the other candidates just do not fit. Islam does, in my view, or should I say militant Islam does. If Richardson is correct, once the U.S. crumbles and ceases to be a world power, Turkey will again arise and establish the caliphate. When that happens, watch for a man who will be appointed the Grand Mufti. Either he or a successor will be the long-awaited Beast.

Jesus said to study these things and to watch for them. Nothing is worse than to just sweep it all under the rug and say, well yeah, we've seen other people make similar claims! We have, but it's like those people who have given up on the return of Jesus because he's failed to appear in generations past. Or who have stopped looking for the true church because everyone and his brother have claimed to be that church.

Richardson devotes one chapter to what Islam expects as part of its eschatology, then what Christianity expects. They are, as one fellow put it, "polar opposites." The radical Muslims fully expect to march on Jerusalem under the leadership of the Mahdi (Beast) and the "true Jesus" (false prophet). The latter will do many miracles and will tell the Christians that they were mistaken about his being crucified. He also will eliminate the tax on non-Muslims and give them a choice of either accepting islam or being beheaded. This is an established doctrine and not long ago a Muslim spokesman appeared on Fox News and admitted this was true. Being of the peaceful types, he said he was always taught this was radical eschatology and that he's never accepted the hadiths that indicated otherwise. The point is, the doctrines and expectations are out there. Even our own prophets have said that the Antichrist will display miraculous powers and deceive many, even the elect if it were possible.

[Daniel Peterson]

By the way, Bill Hamblin actually knows something about this subject. He is, among many other things, the co-author of the article on “Eschatology” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito. 4 vols. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1:440-442.

[Bill Hamblin]

By the way, Bill Hamblin actually knows something about this subject. He is, among many other things, the co-author of the article on “Eschatology” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito. 4 vols. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1:440-442.

I can't remember who I co-authored that with.

[Cold Steel]

I realize both of you gentlemen know what you're talking about. I raised the issue here partially for that reason. I have Muslim friends who are peaceful, kind, and cook great food. I haven't gotten to the point where I'm comfortable eating it with my fingers like my Afghanistani friends, but it's some of the best food I've ever had. My friends from Iran are very much into the coming of the Mahdi, though they despise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is, as you know, a huge proponent of the Mahdi and believes his coming is imminent. With Iran so close to gaining "the bomb," many of my Iranian friends fear Ahmadinejad may attempt to use nuclear weapons to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.

One of the most beautiful books anyone has ever given me is a copy of the Qur'an. If I had our scriptures on the quality of paper and the stitch and binding of this Qur'an, I'd be thrilled. Anyway, the fellow who so generously gave me this was himself a convert (and you know how converts are!). We spent hours talking about it and it has the original Arabic and the English translation.

I would love it if someone who knew much more about this topic than I do would actually read the book and let me know where Richardson is missing the boat. I can only read prophecy and he seems to make a good case. My friends who believe in the coming of the Mahdi and Jesus are adament in saying these two will bring peace, not horror, to the world. They don't understand the concept of someone having to die for someone else's sins when Allah could just forgive the sins anyway. Why, they ask, does God need a Son?

The concepts of the Mahdi and the coming of Jesus may be taken from various times and places, but it's dangerous if hard liners begin accepting them as Richardson has described. He claims that he has witnessed to some of these Muslims for hours and hours and he says they're fine debaters. But right or wrong, many of them accept the eschatology that he writes about. I'm a bit more concerned because of the nations round about Jerusalem are specifically mentioned as being part of the Antichrist's avid followers.

So that's where I am. I don't pretend to have the vast knowledge that seasoned scholars have. I just threw this out for conversation.

[Bill Hamblin]

The first problem with these types of theories is that there is no Antichrist mentioned in Revelation. It is all based on a conflation of different scriptural texts from different authors and times, and may or may not be exegetically related.

Another problem is that the Turks are Sunnis and the Iranians are Shi'ites. A Turkish Caliph would not unite the Muslim world, it would further divide it. (No Muslims outside the Ottoman empire--and few within--took the caliphal claims of the Ottoman sultans seriously.) In fact a new Caliphate was proclaimed in the Sudan in the late 19th century. How many Muslims accepted his claims to authority. No one outside of the Sudan. Self-proclaimed Caliphs are relatively frequent in Islamic history, and have always proved divisive, and frequently resulted in war.

[Bill Hamblin]

I realize both of you gentlemen know what you're talking about. I raised the issue here partially for that reason. I have Muslim friends who are peaceful, kind, and cook great food. I haven't gotten to the point where I'm comfortable eating it with my fingers like my Afghanistani friends, but it's some of the best food I've ever had. My friends from Iran are very much into the coming of the Mahdi, though they despise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is, as you know, a huge proponent of the Mahdi and believes his coming is imminent. With Iran so close to gaining "the bomb," many of my Iranian friends fear Ahmadinejad may attempt to use nuclear weapons to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.

One of the most beautiful books anyone has ever given me is a copy of the Qur'an. If I had our scriptures on the quality of paper and the stitch and binding of this Qur'an, I'd be thrilled. Anyway, the fellow who so generously gave me this was himself a convert (and you know how converts are!). We spent hours talking about it and it has the original Arabic and the English translation.

I would love it if someone who knew much more about this topic than I do would actually read the book and let me know where Richardson is missing the boat. I can only read prophecy and he seems to make a good case. My friends who believe in the coming of the Mahdi and Jesus are adament in saying these two will bring peace, not horror, to the world. They don't understand the concept of someone having to die for someone else's sins when Allah could just forgive the sins anyway. Why, they ask, does God need a Son?

The concepts of the Mahdi and the coming of Jesus may be taken from various times and places, but it's dangerous if hard liners begin accepting them as Richardson has described. He claims that he has witnessed to some of these Muslims for hours and hours and he says they're fine debaters. But right or wrong, many of them accept the eschatology that he writes about. I'm a bit more concerned because of the nations round about Jerusalem are specifically mentioned as being part of the Antichrist's avid followers.

So that's where I am. I don't pretend to have the vast knowledge that seasoned scholars have. I just threw this out for conversation.

The very first problem I have with Richardson is that he doesn't understand Christian eschatologies (note the plural). In my opinion his populist Evangelical eschatological theories are incompatible with scripture (and, by the way, many Evangelical scholars agree with me). But be that as it may, until he gets Christian eschatologies right, it is pointless to compare his interpretations with Muslim eschatologies, which he understands far worse.

By the way, we've been through all this before during the Crusades. Not one of their eschatological interpretations and claims proved accurate. Not one. That's a pretty impressive record.

[KevinG]

By the way, Bill Hamblin actually knows something about this subject. He is, among many other things, the co-author of the article on “Eschatology” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito. 4 vols. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 1:440-442.

I can't remember who I co-authored that with.

Some narrow minded apologist I'm sure...

[KevinG]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but the idea of anti-Christ being anyone who fights against the Savior. Isn't the notion of a single powerful personality as the anti-Christ more of a modern construct that isn't expressly mentioned in the Bible?

Perhaps that was what Bill was saying but I'm not bright enough to know for sure.

[Bill Hamblin]

Some narrow minded apologist I'm sure...

How dare you call Dan Peterson an apologist?!

[Bill Hamblin]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but the idea of anti-Christ being anyone who fights against the Savior. Isn't the notion of a single powerful personality as the anti-Christ more of a modern construct that isn't expressly mentioned in the Bible?

Perhaps that was what Bill was saying but I'm not bright enough to know for sure.

Right.

[KevinG]

How dare you call Dan Peterson an apologist?!

How dare you call Dan Peterson an apologist?!

I'm just trying to fit in around here with the other Kevins.

[Cold Steel]

Eschatologies are as varied as the human mind can make them.

Among Latter-day Saints we are little different though we have more to work with. Although John may have not mentioned the term "Antichrist" in the sense that many evangelicals understand, how are we to understand Ezekiel 38 in relation to the "beast" that John does mention? Is Gog the latter day prince that will bring a large army against Jerusalem as Zechariah and John foretell? Or are we to understand Gog as the end-time rebel who brings armies against Jerusalem at the end of the Millennium?

To Professors Hamblin and Peterson, I ask their opinions as to who it will be who will come against Jerusalem and kill the two witnesses who will use supernatural powers against the beast? (By the way, I'm disappointed that Richardson failed to address their identities or even their existence).

In LDS eschatology, and correct me if I'm wrong, is there not to be a Sixth Seal earthquake? Some LDS believe we're already in the Seventh Seal, and this fascinates me. The calandar keeps on clicking and yet the Seventh Seal remains ahead of us!

But getting back to the beast, whatever you want to call him (and I have no aversion to the term "Antichrist" as it's as good as any), I think we all agree that he has to raise an army and bring it against Jerusalem. Most evangelical eschatologies speak of a revived Roman Empire, which makes no sense to me. And the nations round about Jerusalem, who hate and despise the Jews with all their hearts, minds and souls, seem to make excellent candidates. The beast will have to come from somewhere. Russia perhaps? China? Some evangelicals have even mentioned the United States.

I really have no horse here, and I'm happy to relegate myself as a student and would love to hear Bill Hamblin's and Daniel Peterson's views. It is, after all, something that our leaders have not really spent a lot of time on. I realize they probably prefer to spend more time on history rather than speculation, but both are not only Islamic scholars of no small standing but scriptural scholars as well. As I see it, the last few chapters of Zechariah tells of the invasion of Jerusalem and the glorious return of our Lord and Savior. He seems to point to Israel's surrounding neighbors.

And one significant question that has nibbled at me for years. Do they, or anyone else on this board, really think the Church will ever be able to evangelize Muslims in their own countries in this Dispensation before the Second Coming of Christ? China? Yes. North Korea? Yes. But will any Muslim country ever open their doors to the preaching of the Gospel in our day?

[The Nehor]

And one significant question that has nibbled at me for years. Do they, or anyone else on this board, really think the Church will ever be able to evangelize Muslims in their own countries in this Dispensation before the Second Coming of Christ? China? Yes. North Korea? Yes. But will any Muslim country ever open their doors to the preaching of the Gospel in our day?

People were saying the same thing about the nations behind the Iron Curtain until the prophet asked the Saints to pray that the doors to preaching in eastern europe will be opened. They were. Now we have missionaries in Russia. I expect the Lord can do something similar if or when He is ready to have us preach in Muslim-dominated nations.

[volgadon]

People were saying the same thing about the nations behind the Iron Curtain until the prophet asked the Saints to pray that the doors to preaching in eastern europe will be opened. They were. Now we have missionaries in Russia. I expect the Lord can do something similar if or when He is ready to have us preach in Muslim-dominated nations.

As well as missionaries from Russia.

My first area was in the former Stalingrad.

[Bill Hamblin]

Eschatologies are as varied as the human mind can make them.

Among Latter-day Saints we are little different though we have more to work with. Although John may have not mentioned the term "Antichrist" in the sense that many evangelicals understand, how are we to understand Ezekiel 38 in relation to the "beast" that John does mention? Is Gog the latter day prince that will bring a large army against Jerusalem as Zechariah and John foretell? Or are we to understand Gog as the end-time rebel who brings armies against Jerusalem at the end of the Millennium?

To Professors Hamblin and Peterson, I ask their opinions as to who it will be who will come against Jerusalem and kill the two witnesses who will use supernatural powers against the beast? (By the way, I'm disappointed that Richardson failed to address their identities or even their existence).

In LDS eschatology, and correct me if I'm wrong, is there not to be a Sixth Seal earthquake? Some LDS believe we're already in the Seventh Seal, and this fascinates me. The calandar keeps on clicking and yet the Seventh Seal remains ahead of us!

But getting back to the beast, whatever you want to call him (and I have no aversion to the term "Antichrist" as it's as good as any), I think we all agree that he has to raise an army and bring it against Jerusalem. Most evangelical eschatologies speak of a revived Roman Empire, which makes no sense to me. And the nations round about Jerusalem, who hate and despise the Jews with all their hearts, minds and souls, seem to make excellent candidates. The beast will have to come from somewhere. Russia perhaps? China? Some evangelicals have even mentioned the United States.

I really have no horse here, and I'm happy to relegate myself as a student and would love to hear Bill Hamblin's and Daniel Peterson's views. It is, after all, something that our leaders have not really spent a lot of time on. I realize they probably prefer to spend more time on history rather than speculation, but both are not only Islamic scholars of no small standing but scriptural scholars as well. As I see it, the last few chapters of Zechariah tells of the invasion of Jerusalem and the glorious return of our Lord and Savior. He seems to point to Israel's surrounding neighbors.

And one significant question that has nibbled at me for years. Do they, or anyone else on this board, really think the Church will ever be able to evangelize Muslims in their own countries in this Dispensation before the Second Coming of Christ? China? Yes. North Korea? Yes. But will any Muslim country ever open their doors to the preaching of the Gospel in our day?

I don't know the answers to your questions. Whatever I'd say would be pure speculation. Sorry.

[Cold Steel]

Again, just because people made the wrong guesses in the past, it doesn't hold true that everyone who attempts to identify the beast will be wrong in the future. Many people who thought the coming of Christ would come in past ages failed to take into account that the Jews had not gathered to Israel. Nor had they considered the other things (like the Sixth Seal earthquake) that had to happen. Some have complained that the apostles of Jesus day thought it would happen in their lifetimes, or soon. If LDS beliefs are correct, then no, they knew the great apostasy would come first. John even knew how long it would last. And they knew that Israel would be dispersed, then gathered. Thus, they knew it would be quite a while.

Another problem is that the Turks are Sunnis and the Iranians are Shi'ites. A Turkish Caliph would not unite the Muslim world, it would further divide it..

All things considered, yes, you've got a point. One of the earmarks of the false prophet, though, is that he will do many great wonders and miracles, so great that he would deceive the very elect, if possible. Imagine having someone who could cause fire to come down from heaven, walk on water and do many of the miracles Jesus did during his ministry. Such miracles would, I think, would quickly unite the differing factions of Islam.

Christianity believes in the coming of the beast, the Antichrist, or Gog (whatever you want to call him) and a false prophet. The beast won’t do miracles, but the false prophet will. In the Shi'ite eschatology, the Mahdi will form an alliance with Jesus, who will support and show deference to the Mahdi and do miracles and great wonders. The false prophet of Christianity (Rev. 13) will ally himself with the beast and do miracles and great wonders. In the book Mormons and Muslims, Spencer J. Palmer writes: “[Mahmoud Mustafa] Ayoub [associate professor in the Centre for Religious Studies, University of Toronto] concludes that in the idea of the Mahdi, Islam and Christianity meet. Jesus will come to restore the world to its purity, but Muslim piety affirms that Jesus and the Mahdi will work together.”

According to the Shi'ite expectations, a man claiming to be Jesus will appear with the Mahdi when they make their appearance. The Mahdi will ask “Jesus” to offer prayer, but he will defer to the Mahdi. He will be able to work many of the same miracles that the New Testament Jesus did, and will abolish the tax on unbelievers, tear down crosses from churches and kill swine. The Mahdi also will make war on the Jews and will lead an army against Jerusalem to restore it to its Islamic roots.

Richardson writes: “Obviously, the Lord directed Ezekiel to significantly highlight Turkey. The other three nations mentioned—Libya, Sudan, and Iran—together with Turkey form a perfect circle around Israel. Turkey covers Israel’s entire northern horizon, while Iran lies to the east of Israel, Sudan to the south, and Libya to the west. Israel finds herself surrounded on all four sides by the Islamic nations of the Antichrist’s empire.” He adds: “While many Bible teachers have for years prophesied a coming invasion of Israel headed by Russia, we see that the Bible does not substantiate this position.”

Again, this is speculation. But it's the first speculation that makes sense. I recall when I first joined the church, our friends in Utah sent us a cassette pack where some here today, gone tomorrow guy was making predictions about the abomination of desolation, and he said the Dome of the Rock was the fulfillment of this prophecy. I listened to it, but was unimpressed.

I realize that Muslim scholars will tend to shy away from this, but I can never envision the church going into any Muslim country surrounding Israel. If so, our elders would be in grave danger. I also can't see this changing until after the return of the true Jesus, and even then I see scriptures in Zechariah indicating that Islam may die a hard death. It's a religion where the radical, militant minority controls the peaceful, thoughtful majority through fear and intimidation.

Since beginning this discussion, I've talked to some Shi'ite friends who are wonderful people. They believe in the Mahdi and that he will return with Jesus. This "Jesus" however will unite all religions by correcting Christian misconceptions. They don't see him using violence, but the radical Muslims (according to Richardson) believe he will.

[volgadon]

I realize that Muslim scholars will tend to shy away from this, but I can never envision the church going into any Muslim country surrounding Israel.

Umm, we already do. Granted, we don't proselyte Muslims, but we do proselyte Christians.

Edited January 22, 2012 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

Umm, we already do. Granted, we don't proselyte Muslims, but we do proselyte Christians.

We've got a mission in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country.

We also have a mission in Nigeria, which is a slight majority Muslim nation.

At any rate, the BOM seems to imply that the gospel must be taken to all the world before Israel.

We also had missionaries in Lebanon before the Civil War.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, just because people made the wrong guesses in the past, it doesn't hold true that everyone who attempts to identify the beast will be wrong in the future.

That's very true. On the other hand, is there any reason to think Joel Richardson is any more informed than previous speculators? (Of course, Richardson claims he was prophetically chosen by God to deliver his message, which is more than a bit disturbing.) Literally every possible conceivable suggestion has been made by someone at sometime.