Monday, January 12, 2009

Antichrist a Muslim? Gods War on Terror

Dr. David R. ReaganBy Dr. David R. Reagan

Could the Antichrist possibly be a Muslim? This is a new idea that seems to be catching fire today due to the awakening of Islam and the revival of its territorial goal of conquering the world for Allah.

I recently read four books that relate to this topic.

The Fourth Book

As this essay was being completed a new book was published on the subject that is co-authored by Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat. It is titled God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible.1

Walid Shoebat
This is a very expensive book ($29.95) and a very long one (512 pages). The writing is very tedious and difficult to follow. Even worse, the organizational format is chaotic and confusing. It is very clear that it was not written by Joel Richardson, who is an excellent writer. I can only conclude that Richardson must have helped with the research and Shoebat was the writer.

The book rehashes Richardson's arguments, but in much greater detail. One of the maddening things about the book is that it resorts throughout to convoluted reasoning and scripture misapplication.

Mis-applying Scripture

An example of the latter can be found in Shoebat's explanation of Psalm 83 — a topic ignored in Richardson's book "Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah."2 He attempts to prove that the war described in this psalm between Israel and its close Arab neighbors is one that will occur at the end of the Tribulation, after the Second Coming of the Messiah. Thus, he argues it will be a conflict between forces led by Jesus and those led by the Antichrist. I was astonished to read this interpretation because I have studied this psalm in detail, and there is not one verse in it that even implies that Jesus will be present on this earth when the battle occurs.

So, I looked for Shoebat's scriptural proof of Jesus' presence. Believe it or not, the proof he provided was quotes from two other psalms:3

1) Psalm 82:8 — "Arise, O God, judge the earth!"

2) Psalm 80:14 — "Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts."

Neither one of the psalms are related to Psalm 83. Both are prayers by Asaph for the Lord to return to the earth to bring justice. Neither one states that the Messiah is on the earth.

This kind of incredibly sloppy proof-texting can be found throughout Shoebat's book. Whenever he wants to make a point, he goes fishing for a verse. When he finds it, he reels it in and applies it to the passage under consideration, whether it is related to that passage or not.

Another example can be found in the second argument he gives for placing the Psalm 83 war at the end of the Tribulation. He says it must occur at that time because it is a war triggered by the Antichrist's desecration of the Jewish Temple — a temple that will be rebuilt during the first half of the Tribulation. And what is his evidence? He quotes Psalm 79:1 — "O God, the nations have invaded Your inheritance; they have defiled Your holy temple." Once again, he tries to prove a point about Psalm 83 by quoting a verse from an unrelated psalm.

Strange and Strained Logic

A good example of Shoebat's tortuous logic can be found in his attempt to explain away the meaning of Daniel 9:26. The plain sense meaning of this passage is that the Antichrist will come from the people who will destroy the Temple.

Shoebat and Richardson argue that the Roman legions that carried out the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD were composed primarily of Arabs, mainly Syrians and Turks.4 They therefore conclude that the Antichrist will arise from the Syrians or Turks and will be a Muslim.

This is really grasping at straws in the wind! It doesn't matter whether or not the legions were composed of Australian Aborigines, it was the Roman government that decided to destroy Jerusalem, it was the Roman government that gave the orders, and it was Roman generals who carried out the destruction. Rome was the rod of God's judgment and it is from the Roman people that the Antichrist will arise.

Something Correct

Shoebat and Richardson have gotten one thing right: the Muslim world is going to suffer a devastating fate in the end times, but not at the end of the Tribulation as a result of a conflict between armies commanded by a Muslim Antichrist and Jesus.

The Middle Eastern Muslim nations will suffer overwhelming defeats in the Psalm 83 War and the Ezekiel 38 War before the Tribulation begins and before the Antichrist comes on the scene. The Antichrist, who will arise out of the revived Roman Empire will then launch a world war to conquer all nations, and during that war, he will be used of God to annihilate the remaining Muslim nations outside the Middle East.

Concluding Thoughts

In conclusion, I want to emphasize once more that the behavior of the Antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 rules out his being a Muslim. This has to be one of the key stumbling blocks for the whole theory.

I would also like to answer a question that Shoebat poses throughout his book and seems always to mention in his public presentations. He asks, "Besides the argument over whether Magog is Russia, can you cite any literal reference to a nation that God destroys in the End-Times that is not Muslim?" Yes, I can. It is Babylon, whose destruction is described in detail in Revelation 18. I say that because I am convinced that the "mystery" Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation 17:5 is the end time worldwide empire of the Antichrist that will be headquartered in Rome. I have written extensively on this point, and you can find an essay about it.

Two final observations. First, beware of Lone Ranger interpretations of prophecy that are not widely shared. God does not reveal the meaning of prophecy only to a person or two. 2 Peter 1:20 says, "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." Private and peculiar interpretations like the recent "Pre-Wrath Rapture," usually make a big initial splash and then fade quickly when submitted to critical review.

Second, I think the current rush to identify the Antichrist as a Muslim is a classic example of newspaper exegesis — of reading the news headlines into the Bible rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. It would be good to keep in mind a comment made by the great Bible teacher Ray Stedman: "What determines the future is what God has done in the past and what He has promised to do in the future. So don't look horizontally at current events."5


  1. Walid Shoebat and Joel Richardson, God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible, (Top Executive Media, 2008), 512 pages.

  2. Ibid., pp. 240-249.

  3. Ibid., p. 241.

  4. Ibid., pp. 349-353.

  5. Quote supplied by Lambert Dolphin (


Anonymous said...

Thank you Dr. Reagan for your insight. With the benefit of your vast years of prayerful, those of us who are not Bible scholars can benefit from your knowledge. Although we non-scholars must have some insight from the Lord since we have determined that you are a trusted source.

Mary Habeck said...

Wait a minute. The highest-caliber commentators of old believed that Islam plays a major role in the coming Antichrist threat. John Wesley interpreted the Iron in Daniel 2 as Islam (Works, 1841). Hilaire Belloc foresaw Islam‘s rise 1. Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica interpreted the martyrdom of Christians during the Great Tribulation to come from Islam. Josiah Litch interpreted Revelation as the ushering in of Islam. He even described the magnitude of Islam’s role as Antichrist to the extent of calling it the “general agreement among Christians, especially protestant commentators.” Cyril of Jerusalem (315-368 A.D) in his Divine Institutesbelieved that Antichrist will proceed forth from the region of ancient Syria 2, which today extends from Syria well into portions of Asia Minor (Turkey). Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (560-638) and Maximus the Confessor (580-662) identified Islam with Antichrist and lived through Islam’s invasion of Jerusalem. Maximus was also an important theologian and scholar of the early Church who helped defeat the Monothelite heresy referred to the Muslim invasions as “announcing the advent of the Antichrist.” John of Damascus (676-749) Was another very important figure in the early church. In his famous book, Against Heresies associated Islam as forerunner of Antichrist. Eulogius, Paul Alvarus and the Martyrs of Cordova (9th century)Believed Muhammad to be a false prophet and the precursor to the Antichrist.3 Many are aware that Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation, believed that the Turks were the Kingdom of Antichrist. 4 John Calvin interpreted Daniel 2 eastern leg as the Eastern-Roman Islamic Empire and Daniel 11:37 applied to the Muslims. 5 Even Jonathan Edwards who was the great American congregational preacher, revivalist, and president of Princeton University and like Luther and Calvin, saw Islam as one of the premiere elements of the Antichrist Kingdom. 6 Calvin even interpreted Islam shall fall at the sound of the great trumpet 7 Islam falling at the sound of the great trumpet definitely carries Islam into the Great Tribulation and not as many of our modern prophecy analysts who allege Islam is removed prior to Christ coming. Sir Robert Anderson was perhaps one of the best prophecy experts who unlocked the seventy weeks of Daniel in his remarkable book The Coming Prince insists to focus on the Levant (Eastern) parts rather than the Adriatic (West.) 8

Countless Bible commentators identified Islam, such as Selnecker, Nigrinus, Chytraeus, Bullinger, Foxe, Napier, Pareus, John Cotton, Thomas Parker, Increase Mather, Cotton Mather, and George Stanley Faber. I am not saying that these views are inspired or absolute, but my challenge here fits a style of questioning Jesus did when He encountered the Pharisees who challenged His authority. Jesus was brilliant and used John the Baptist as a reference. They were in check, for if they said that John was no authority, they would be either stoned or rejected and had they accepted John’s authority, they would have to accept the truth. Were all these revisionists and Lone Rangers? As might as I add to the list Rev. Professor Dr. Francis Nigel Lee who sums up the traditional view in his excellent work Islam in the Bible: “from the seventh century onward – [the two legs] would degenerate respectively into the Papacy (which progressively took over the West) and Islam (which progressively took over the East.” (p. 5)

Europe is not the orthodox or even the traditional view. Neither is Roman strictly Italian. Besides Antichrist, there were many who were prophesied in the Bible, Alexander the Great was Macedonian not Athenian. Antiochus Epiphanies, another biblical prediction was Syrian not Athenian or Cypriot. Why then, when it comes to Antichrist insist on an Italian western origin ignoring the whole empire. Even Jesus insisted that Pergamum (Turkey) in Revelation 2:12-13, was the seat of Antichrist and not the gymnastically altered interpretation for an archeological relic that sits in Berlin.
While contemporary prophecy analysts trumpet the idea that the fourth composite of Daniel 2 iron metal of being strictly Roman, our traditionalist views differ. Dr. Matthew Henry's comment "Who is this enemy -- whose rise, reign and ruin are here foretold? Interpreters are not agreed. Some will have the Fourth Kingdom to be that of the Seleucidae and the ‘little horn’ to be Antiochus.... Others will have the Fourth Kingdom to be that of the Romans, and the ‘little horn’ to be Julius Caesar and the succeeding emperors, as Calvin says. The Antichrist, the Papal Kingdom, says Mr. Joseph Mede.... Others make the ‘little horn’ to be the Turkish Empire; so Luther, Vatablus, and others. Now I cannot prove either side to be in the wrong. And therefore, since prophecies sometimes have many fulfilling and we ought to give Scripture its full latitude (in this as in many other controversies) -- I am willing to allow that they are both in the right.” 9

To exclude European nations as the only composite will not only minimize the extent of this prophecy, but the volume of literal references of Muslim nations destroyed on the Day of the Lord, all of which correspond to Revelation 17 and Daniel 2.
Even if we agree that the fourth is Roman, let’s not forget North Africa (Phut) encompasses five Muslim nations historically part of the western wing of the Roman Empire, and already mentioned literally in several end-times references. In order for the exclusively European model to fit, this whole of this Muslim region must be rendered irrelevant.
The problem that caused this flaw was that in 1981 Greece joined as the tenth nation in the European Union and many sounded a false alarm that announced they unlocked the mystery and have the fulfillment of Revelation 17, all with its ten horns, to later, be embarrassed when the European Union mushroomed into twenty some nations. Instead of pulling back their books, these analysts ran back to the drawing board, not to confess their error, but to gymnastically claim that their model must shrink to only ten. They still chose to finagle with the theory. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, realizing this error even discounts Europe’s significance altogether “It has become common today to refer to the ten kingdoms as being in Europe only, especially the Former Common Market, now the European Union. But the text does not allow for this kind of interpretation. At the very best, the European Union might become one of the ten, but it could hardly become all of the ten.'' 10 According to Fruchtenbaum, the European model comprises of one tenth, a mere slice of the whole pie.
Jamieson Fausset & Brown state that, “the ten toes are not upon the one foot (the west), as these interpretations require, but on the two (east and west) together, so that any theory which makes the ten kingdoms belong to the west alone must err.”

1 The Great Heresies, chapter 4 March, 1936, page 127-128
2 Divine Institutes, 7:17
3 Paul Alvarus, Memoriale sanctorum 2.4
4 Martin Luther, Tischreden, Weimer ed., 1, No. 330
5 Calvin On Islam Revelation Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, Lamp Trimmers El Paso, 2000
6 Jonathan Edwards, The Fall of Antichrist, Part VII, page 395, New York, Published by S. Converse 1829
7 Jonathan Edwards, The Fall of Antichrist, Part VII, page 399, New York, Published by S. Converse 1829
8 The Coming Prince, Page 273
9 M. Henry: A Commentary on the Holy Bible, with Practical Remarks andObservations, London: Marshall Bros. Ltd., n.d., IV:1270f.
10 Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, page 36

glen walling said...

i keep hearing that the gog/magog battle led by satan is either before,during, or at the end of the tribulation(same as armageddon)
this is totally in contradiction to what the bible clearly says

jesus comes back at the end of the tribulation, throws the beast/false prophet into the lake of fire, and satan is locked in the abyss for 1000 years
AFTER 1000 years he is released and goes to gather gog/magog for the final battle
how or why this simple explanation goes over almost everyones heads i don't know

as for the european union, there are only 10 full member nations known as the western european union
these are the only ones with military alliance plans
within this parliment they have a vacant seat waiting to be filled
the number of which is 666
also they have built a modern day tower of babel in france - they had a poster which was banned for causing offence to christians which depicts the tower of babel surrounded by 12 stars (inverted pentagrams which are a satanic symbol) and the slogan "many tongues one voice"

Peter Piper said...

Mary Habeck sounds very informed, and I'm sure there are many on the other side who will dazzle us with facts and references to other scriptures. I was only trying to decide whether to go to great lengths to obtain a copy of this book. Dr. Reagan has convinced me it would not be worth the effort. Thank you for this website.

Sandra Medina said...

When I first read Reagan's article I thought that he had an argument, later I read Walid rebuttal on Prophezine under CHALLENGES. I guess I am convinced that one man arguments [Reagan] sounds good until examined by another [Shoebat] I mean WOW. Reagan has no comprehention on this subject of Mahdi and neither does he even understand Antichrist. I clipped the arguments presented by Walid and what a counter punch.

Reagan lacks basic comprehension on Islam and a live debate with him will prove this beyond a shadow of doubt. No serious researcher on Islam would ever write: “In fact the concept of a Mahdi is not even found in orthodox versions of the Hadith like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim…” even worse “there are no confirmed tradition amongst Sunni Muslims that believe in Mahdi.” His article is riddled with “in fact” without any reference to back his views on the subject. We even warned him of this uneducated error before publishing his report and he never heeded any counsel. The Mahdi 17 is well documented in all of the main Hadith collections—Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sunan Abu Dawud, and Sahih Al-Nisa'i. (see reference 16).

The extent of his errors is like a Muslim stating that ‘Protestants unlike Catholics do not believe in Jesus’ second coming.’ That ‘we have no collected traditions by Protestant reformers or commentators that Jesus will return—only Catholics believe in the return of Christ.’ The problem extends beyond pulling a ‘fast one’ on ‘simpletons,’ but to even supply them with portraits of this coming Messiah. Reagan is unaware that its sacrilege to Muslims to draw him, but to confuse him with a dead man from Sunni-Sudan? His research extends to plugging in “The Mahdi” (as well as our photos) in Google search engine, and copied from Wikimedia the images. The evidence is obvious, he sent an email to Joel Richardson stating “90% of Muslims (The Sunnis) do not believe in Mahdi” which he consulted “Wikipedia.” I have heard all sorts of outlandish claims, but this tops-them- all. Reagan needs to get more educated. In 1976, the Muslim World League (Rabitah al-‘Alam Al-Islami), probably the most prestigious and one of the largest Muslim Sunni organizations in the world, issued a fatwa which declared that belief in a coming Mahdi is universal for all Muslims: “The Memorizers and scholars of Hadith have verified that there are reliable and acceptable reports among the Hadiths on the Mahdi; the majority of them are narrated through numerous authorities. There is no doubt that their status is unbroken and sound reports. And the belief in the appearance of the Mahdi is obligatory…none denies it except those who are ignorant of the Sunnah and innovators in doctrine.” (Fatwa issued in Mecca by "The Muslim World League" 18

He cannot fathom how Muslims will deify Mahdi, he states “A person would have to cease being a Muslim in order to believe that any man could be God.”

Reagan’s confusion stems from focusing on Muslim claim, not fact. His argument is that since Muslims claim that they do not worship a man, then we must believe them. He even needs lessons on basic Scripture, that the Bible is what defines worship, not claims by men.

Some men deny that they worship money, yet the Bible says they do. Muslims deny that Allah is a front for Satan, yet he is, regardless of Muslim claims. The Bible states clearly that the idols of the Gentiles are mediums used to worship devils. I presume that Reagan would counter that Muslims do not worship an idol. Especially since this is what Muslims claim. Muslims in fact, do not only worship Lucifer, but Muhammad and the Black Stone as well. All Muslims bow towards the Black Stone. If we use Reagan’s flawed logic above, then Muslims do not worship Satan and neither do they worship Muhammad or a black stone.

Islam teaches that every Muslim must get his sins cleansed by venerating The Black Stone at least once in their lifetime, since the Black Stone is black due to it taking away the sins of Muslims. From a biblical definition—not only do Muslims deify Muhammad, they also deify the Black Stone—this idol takes the position of Jesus Himself, since only Jesus can remit all sin.

Even the Book of Acts addresses such issues: Everyone knows that Ephesus is the official guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, whose image which fell down to us from heaven (Acts 19:35).

Will Reagan say that these did not worship Artemis or her image?

The image of Artemis is strikingly similar to the meteorite stone image in Mecca which Allah commands 1.3 billion Muslims to literally bow down and prostrate themselves toward at least seventeen times during their five daily prayers.

Al-Tirmidhi, one of the greatest Muslim commentators notes “many years ago, the Black Stone was, “whiter than milk; it was only later that it became black as it absorbed the sins of those who touched it.”

Even the stone according to the Bible is an “image”. Biblically speaking, an image does not only mean a statue. Likely, the image of the beast can include a stone.

Muhammad’s name literally means “The Most Praised One”. If this alone is not worship, I do not know what else is. Can Reagan deny that Muslims elevate Muhammad over Yahweh? What you will find here is an astounding yes. Muhammad “The Praised One” is a title of deity. This is a name of blasphemy. The Antichrist system blasphemes God. Of course Muslims do not claim that they worship Muhammad. Yet they do. Allah himself in the Quran commanded: “Allah and His angels pray upon the prophet[Muhammad]. O ye who believe pray upon him and salute him with a worthy salutation” (Qur’an 33:56). Even Allah himself prays upon Muhammad. Reagan is in checkmate, he can either insist on his view and defend Muslim claims, or abandon his uneducated guesswork. Without Muhammad, there can be no Islam and without believing in Muhammad, no one can become a Muslim. The Islamic creed mandates it “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” Muslims elevate Muhammad with God for no Christian would be mandated to state, “There is no God but Yahweh and Ezekiel is His messenger.”

Allah in the Quran even shared many of his names with Mohammed. He holds a uniquely exalted status unparalleled by anything or anyone else. He is given the title Al-Maqam-Al-Mahmud (The Glorious). The Mahdi who Muslims believe is the essence of Muhammad, likewise is called “glorious”, Ahmadinijad stated: “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi—may Allah hasten his reappearance.”

Muslim scholar, Dr. G. F. Haddad, in an article with a blasphemous title, The Best of Creation states “[There is no] other Prophet [other than Mohammed] or angel-brought-near with whom Allah Most High shared as many of His own Names in the Qur’an as He did with the Prophet. With respect to his foremost name—Mohammed—peace be upon him, consider the poetic verse of Hassan ibn Thabit (RA): ‘And He drew out for him [a name] from His own Name so as to dignify him greatly: The Owner of the Throne [God] is The Glorious [Mahm├╗d], and this is the Praiseworthy [Mohammed]!’” 19

Islam claims that God, whose name is Mahmud, or the Glorious or the Praised One, named Mohammed after Himself. This is quite the claim. Mohammed wanted to be like God. Even intersession is attributed to Muhammad “It may be that thy Lord will raise

thee to a praised estate’ (Qur’an 17:79), a station which the Prophet said none but he would receive. And this is the Station of Intercession at the right of the Glorious Throne.” 20

Only Jesus is positioned at the right hand of God where He is the only one that intercedes for mankind: “Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Romans 8:34). One will never find in the Scriptures Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Habakkuk, or Jeremiah given such titles.

Like Mohammed, the Mahdi is exalted by Islam to be above all of creation, and is claimed by Islam to sit in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. 20 Mahdi in Islam has titles that belong only to God. 21

Now, lets examine II Thessalonians 2 that Reagan uses as evidence to write-off for Islam. Antichrist “oppose and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:4).

The Mahdi, like Muhammad exalts himself above all that is called God. In other words, he gives himself titles that only belong to God. The II Thessalonians 2 text is perfect and no serious mind can deny— it does match Islam’s deification of a man.

Isaiah 14 Lucifer is addressed as the man-Antichrist “Is this the man who made the earth tremble?” (Isaiah 14:16) When was this Lucifer a man?

According to Muhammad “The Mahdi is the peacock of all angels and of the dwellers of the heavenly realm, he is dressed and adorned with the cloaks of light.( Ibin Al-Sabbagh in AlFusul Al-Muhimma, transmitted by Ibin Abbas.) He is not mere man, but a man-angel and the peacock of all angels—Lucifer.

Ahmadenijad prayed in front of the whole world to see “O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.” The Mahdi, who is referred to as: “the perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious men.” Even heir to Jesus Himself since Jesus according to Islam will stand behind Mahdi in the Hour of Judgment. Being a perfect man is not only what Shia believe. What Ahmadinejad was saying is that the Mahdi of Islam is essentially the reincarnation of Mohammed—the perfect man.

Reagan argues that “I believe the behavior of the Antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 [that he is God] rules out any possibility that the Antichrist might prove to be a Muslim.”

Does the Bible teach that Antichrist claims to be only deity? If claiming to be God is the only thing Antichrist does, then we have a problem—Daniel 11:39 Antichrist “acts against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory” (Daniel 11:39).

Who is this “foreign god” whom Antichrist worships?

How could Antichrist claim to be God and then here he worships a god? How can anyone claim that he is atheist? He worships a god—a singular god.

Habakkuk also confirms, ‘He commits offense, ascribing this power to his god” (Habakkuk 1:11). He claims strength from his false god who promotes violence. The vision is for the End-Times (Habakkuk 2:3). He always changes his mind and cannot be trusted. The Antichrist is the most proud (Habakkuk 2:4).

Islam indeed advances Allah’s glory through Jihad-war and Daniel describes Antichrist as “acts against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory” (Daniel 11:39). Islam exactly does this—advances the glory of Allah through war, to even declare war on the “strongest fortresses”. Only Muslims declare war on the strongest western powers.

The Bible gives us that Antichrist attributes to himself titles that belong to God, and at the same time honors a god of war.

Jesus commanded us to be as wise as serpents. How can we do this if we do not understand the evil mindset of Lucifer? Islam has a catch 22. Antichrist must deny the deity of Jesus and the Trinity (1 John 2:22) because he wants to replace Him. How can Satan take over that position as Messiah and be worshipped and at the same time deny Jesus’ deity? The best argument he could create is that Jesus is a mere man. How could a man become God? He must destroy belief in the deity of Christ and establish himself instead, yet, at the same time he wants to be worshipped as God. He could not claim that Mohammed was God if he is to deny Jesus’ deity. Satan must direct this worship to Himself. The Bible has warned us that Satan will attempt to exalt his man, the Antichrist, over Christ. Islam does exalt Mohammed whom the Mahdi they claim is his spiritual reincarnation above Christ and downgrades Christ; likewise, the Mahdi is believed to have the spirit of Mohammed, and so, he will have the same attributes, and according to Islam will also occupy the Temple Mount.

Muslims indeed worship Muhammad, the Black Stone and will worship Mahdi. Reagan did not explain our work to his followers, which is the only reason that compels me to refute his assumptions. Several of his Lamb and Lion members wrote me directly asking me to, since they easily found that he is not sharing what we documented in our book God’s War on Terror which he claimed he read (most likely skipped thru it) .

Nathan Jones said...

Actually, Dr. Reagan is extremely well read on the subject of Islam. You ought to see how marked up his copy of the Koran is, too! :)

MaryHabeck said...


You state that David Reagan is learned when it comes to Islam.

Please don't get me wrong here, your mentor David Reagan has alot to offer and most of his material is good, so let's not get into a debate here, but could it be that your bias towards Reagan is a result of your working relationship with him? Do you think your mentor is immune from error? Was he wrong when he stated that only Shia believe in Mahdi? Was he wrong when he stated that Muslims do not worship a man? Can you honestly state that Muslims do not worship Muhammad? Go ahead, answer these two questions, and like Dirty Harry said "go ahread, make my day"
What you need to learn young lad is never depend on man or look up high towards a mentor--your mentor needs to be the Bible. Muslims do worship a man, your mentor was wrong to say that Muslims do not worship a man. He was wrong in assuming that they will not worship Antichrist. Why not simply admit it? Where is the balance in your publication?
Your making your mentor infallable.

Just an adivse, I mean no insult to you or to him. Ok?

Nathan Jones said...

I have been very surprised how worked up some folks have gotten over whether the Antichrist will be a Muslim or not. After all, it has nothing to do with salvation, and none of us will know anyway cause we'll be outta here before it happens.

I guess all the angst has less to do if their theory is correct, and more to do about whether one loses their audience's respect if their theory is questioned.

I can assure the reader that Dr. Reagan and my(autonomous)self are convinced that the Bible, history and current events best support the European Antichrist theory. We also remind the reader that it is only a theory, and that there's a lot more important things to discuss that edify the Body.

Anonymous said...


1-You keep forgetting that it was your mentor who started this thread.

2-You never responded to the errors regarding Mahdi.

3-You still treat your mentor as infalable.

4-If what you say is true, that what counts is the Rapture (and your out of here), then why did the Bible give us all this data about Antichrist?

5-If the issue of Antichrist is not important as you state, why then is it in the Bible, and why are you guys so persistant on interpreting these issues?

6-If the E.U is the revived Roman Empire, then what about the rest of the Roman Empire? North Africa was part of it who are all Muslim. And the Eastern (Asia Minor) was also part of it, and they are all Muslim. So, how is Islam out of the scene? Especially that you guys teach that Islam must be removed prior to Jesus coming?
Your "theory" has flaws

7-Do you guys expect no one challenge your view?

8-You wonder why all the angst? Why should you wonder? Especially since the one who is so dogmatic is you guys. Why else write a whole article to refute others?

9-If you guys live in a crystal glass, why throw stones?

10-Fruchtenbaum who says that Europe is simply a fraction of the beast kingdom disagrees with Reagan:
1-Which of the two is correct?
2-Why didn't Reagan do a rebuttal on Fruchtenbaums work? Why simply pick on The Assyrian Connection and others?

11-Your not responding to the issues, instead you change the subject and focus on Rapture and then question why people debate the issues. This is circular reasoning--

a-you start the arguments
b-then when others respond, you say that the argument is not that important
c-when others challnege your argument
d-you don't respond to questions, then simply go to the first argument-that your theory is correct.


How can one know a weak argument? Its full of circular reasoning.

Mormons love circular reasoning. They say that Joseph Smith is a prophet, when one challenges them as how they know this, they say its in the book of Mormon.

You are sounding like a broken record. I try to advise you on how to have an independent view, and instead of making your view, you use your bosses arguments.

Nathan Jones said...

Sean Osborne of Eschatology Today has an interesting reply to a letter from Walid Shoebat.

Anonymous said...

Interresting, I read the post you refered on Eschatology Today. I have couple observations if I may humbly voice them:

#1 Why would Sean publish a private email?

I can see Sean's point about Arabia Felix, ok, maybe parts of Arabia was not of the Roman Empire,I can also see bro Shoebat's point that northern Arabia was Romanized. Why not stick to the issues of Eschatology?

Instead, we have false accusations to bro Shoebat by using racial slurs like 'your Arab skull' that bro Shoebat still is Muslim and follows Taqyyia.

Obviously Sean is upset, he was called pinhead, but why not call bro Shoebat pinhead, instead he resorted to too extreme personal attacks.

The discussion is about Eschatology and NOT Walid's conversion.

This is Argumentum ad Hominem

What is Argumentum ad Hominem?

It's the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

In other words, Shoebat called Sean Osborne a pinhead for the sole reason of making a historic error, the Bride of Christ is not stationed in the West, but everywhere. Osborne on the other hand instead of addressing the issue decided to attack Shoebat's credebility as Christian. This type of argumentation is a true sign of a pinhead.

only a pinhead would break the church into a western and eastern base, with the west possessing all the knowledge and the east nothing. Sean in his rebuttal ended up adding more to Shoebat's claim that he is a racist.

That, with airing a private email and all this dirty laundry like this is a disgrace.

Nathan, why don't you refer people to something more edifying then this instead of wallowing in the mud. Your a nice kid and can do better then this. Just an advice.

God bless

SeanOsborne said...

Mary Habeck wrote:
"Even Jesus insisted that Pergamum (Turkey) in Revelation 2:12-13, was the seat of Antichrist..."


No, I think you have misinterpreted what is stated in this passage from Revelation. I believe sound exegesis reveals that seven churches addressed in the openning verses of Revelation are prophetically symbolic of The Church through the various ages from the Resurrection of our Lord to the 'Last Days" prior to His return.

Satan has dominion over the whole earth, not just Pergamos. And we, the Bride of Christ, resist him through steadfastness in faith and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation is ALL prophecy. It came from God the Father, to our Lord Jesus Christ and then to John on the Island of Patmos circa 95 AD.

The historical references in each passage related to the faith of each; the future references are predicitive of the works done in His name. Pergamos was symbolic of The Church in the period of a roughly 300-year period (306-612 AD). Pergamos symbolizes the mixed marriage of the spiritual Church and the material world of that era.

Verses 12 through 17 of Chapter 2 must be taken together in context for their true prophetic meaning, in addition to the messages to the other Churches.

Please DO NOT disect items from the Book of Revelation and commence stretching them out of their intended meaning. This is truly a form of tumbling and twisting acrobatic exegesis. God Almighty Himself clearly elucidates the seriousness with which He views such actions in the judgmental warning found in Revelation 22:18-19.

SeanOsborne said...


Why ask Nathan to respond to issues you have with what I wrote?
Do you prefer getting you answers from second-hand sources? Or would you prefer to hear directly from the author?

Nathan merely provided you a link. I will provide you with my response.

"#1 Why would Sean publish a private email?"

Why not? It was sent to me by both Ray Gano and Keith Davies, illustrating "Walid's" most fervent desire that I receive his filthy, ad hominem attacks because I dared to offer a PUBLIC dissenting view to the erroneous exegesis offered by the "eastern leg" clique.

Do I not, or anyone else, have the God-given freedom to express a dissenting voice? Apparently "Walid" and Keith Davies do not think so. (Keith Davies has now gone so far as to issue a threat that I dare not to oppose "Walid" and a warning that by "our poking" at the "eastern leg" proponents we will "hurt ourselves" and that to continue doing (i.e. composing written rebuttals) what I am and others doing will cause me to be "sorry" for doing do, that I have "been warned."

Magnificent Christian brethren, don't you think so? Talk about a "bully" pulpit. Quite frankly the supreme and sublime arrogance of this "eastern leg" clique borders upon the ridiculous.

To continue, I posted that letter due to the very specific nature of it, its vileness, its crudeness and because of the overall way in which "Walid Shoebat" conducted himself with a brother in Christ he does not know and has never met. And because "Walid's" E-mailed response to me is not completely unlike the reaction one can reasonably expect to receive from the totalitarian Islamists he has apparently gone to great lengths to escape and hide from. How distant, really, is he now from his Arab Islamic upbringing?

I desired for all who would read my rebuttal to see the real, unapologetic "Walid Shoebat" in a verbatim, un-edited fashion. If my rebuttal embarrasses him and those who follow the sum of his false exegesis, well, then the embarrassment is well deserved. Any potential damage done to his stature is also just as well deserved.

I reserved the right to give back to Walid as well and with interest what he unilaterally sent to me. My comments that "Walid" took umbrage with were actually and initially taken from Bill Salus' PROPHECY DEPOT blog. But Walid found no inherent value to respond in that venue, he wanted to insult myself personally, directly. I, like our new President, desired to "spread the wealth around."

As for my alleged breaking of the Church into eastern and western branches... you could not be more hopelessly incorrect. When I refer to the Church it is invariably as the unitary Bride of Chist. Period.

Moreover, if divisiveness is a sticking point with you then I would suggest that a re-reading of the openning chapters of Revelation where Jesus Christ divides the Church into seven distinct entities. Will you now criticize Messiah for His "divisive" words?

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote an article refuting the claim made by Dave Reagan that it was the Roman Empire that ordered the destruction of the Temple. The author cite Josephus who actually said that the Roman government did not the Temple to be destroyed and that the Roman soldiers destroyed the Temple as a result of disobedience to the Roman government. Here is the link:

God bless!

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the mistake in the first post. Here it is again

Someone wrote an article refuting the claim made by Dave Reagan that it was the Roman Empire that ordered the destruction of the Temple. The author cites Josephus who actually said that the Roman government did not WANT the Temple to be destroyed and that the Roman soldiers destroyed the Temple as a result of disobedience to the Roman government. Here is the link:

God bless!

Nathan Jones said...

The refute was by Rodrigo Silva, posted on Rapture Ready. (Rapture Ready is pro-European Antichrist in their interpretation, but like us, likes to encourage good discussion of different prophetic views.)

Sean Osborne of Eschatology Today has written a very detailed historical analysis showing Rome did indeed have the Temple destroyed.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Reagan needs to remove his article and apologize for some of the poorest research I have ever seen someone of Reagan's stature make. Reagan's article COMPLETELY misrepresented what the Sunni believe regarding al Mahdi. Sunni leaders have already issued a proclamation or religious decree stating that it is mandatory for ALL Muslims to believe in al Mahdi, who will be the one to gather nations together to destroy Israel and kill all Jews & Christians who do not submit to the religion of Islam. How could Mr. Reagan have missed this???

Sal said...

Anonymous, if you're going to make such an accusation, provide a link to the proof text on the Sunni proclamation (like some news article not written by Shoebat).

Anonymous said...

Sal, aside from what Mr. Reagan writes, have you read some news article somewhere stating that the Sunni do not believe in al Mahdi? No you haven't, and you will not because the FACT is that they do.

I know a few Sunni Muslims and they will attest to this fact.

Read through the page linked below where numerous reference prove that the Sunni fully believe in al Mahdi.

Next, read here what the Sunni believe regarding al Mahdi:

Here is an excerpt:

[b]"We Sunni (1500 Million), Our view of Al Mahdi is different from the Shia'a (150 million)

We Sunni believe as above, while the Shia'a believe Al Mahdi to be the 12th apostle of Hussain (son of Ali - the cousin of Prophet Muhammad) a saint they worship, they worship Ali and his sons - we don't believe in most of their thinking (ideology). - they have great respect for Ali and his sons more than for Muhammad. They say that Gabriel made a grave mistake by descending on Muhammad instead of Ali.

Al-Mahdi as we are informed by Prophet Muhammad, will emerge from the east (his name will be like the prophet name) he is not a prophet of God, he will gather the Muslims on one word and will lead Muslim armies to conquer the Jews in Jerusalem and his army will reach Rome and conquer the Vatican, then he will march back to Jerusalem on the word that the Antri-Christ has emerged in Jerusalem (The Holy Land)"[/b]

Anonymous said...

Here is a Sunni Muslim resource regarding al Mahdi:

Quote 1: "... the Mahdi will appear at the end of time ..."

Quote 2: "The Prophet said, 'The Mahdi will be one of my descendants; he will have a high forehead and a hooked nose. He will fill the earth with justice and fairness just as it was filled with injustice and oppression, and he will rule for seven years.'"

Quote 3: "Towards the end of time, three of the sons of the Khalifahs will fight to get hold of it [the Ka'bah], until the Mahdi appears. He will appear from the East, not from the tunnel of Samarra, as the Shiah claim"

Here is another Sunni reference. In their book, "Al Mahdi and the End of Time" (1997), Muhammad Ibn Izzat and Muhammad Arif, two well-known Egyptian authors, identify the Mahdi from the Book of Revelation, quoting Hadith transmitter Ka'ab al-Ahbar.

In one place, they write, "I find the Mahdi recorded in the books of the Prophets… For instance, the Book of Revelation says: 'And I saw and behold a white horse. He that sat on him…went forth conquering and to conquer.'"

Izzat and Arif then go on to say: "It is clear that this man is the Mahdi who will ride the white horse and judge by the Qur’an (with justice) and with whom will be men with marks of prostration (zabiba) on their foreheads.... The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed." (page 16).

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot, here is the link to the proof text on the Sunni proclamation that you requested:

Quote: "Al-Sayid Sabiq, the Mufti for the 'Muslim Brotherhood,' in his book, 'al- 'Aqa'id al-Islamiyyah,; that: 'The idea about the Mahdi is indeed valid, and is one of the Islamic tenets that one must believe in.' Mr. Sabiq also narrated a variety of traditions relating to the appearance of al-Mahdi (AS) in the above book.

The recent Fatwa in this issue was given in Mecca by 'The Muslim World League' (Rabitatul 'Alamil Islami) on Oct. 11, 1976 (23 Shawwal 1396). This Fatwa states that more than twenty companions narrated traditions concerning al-Mahdi, and gives a list of those scholars of Hadith who have transmitted these narrations, and those who have written books on al-Mahdi. The Fatwa states:

"The memorizers (Huffadh) and scholars of Hadith have verified that there are authentic (Sahih) and acceptable (Hasan) reports among the traditions related to al-Mahdi. The majority of these traditions are related through numerous authorities (Mutawatir). There is no doubt that the status of those reports are Sahih and Mutawatir. (They have also verified) that the belief in Mahdi is obligatory, and that it is one of the beliefs of Ahlussunnah wal Jama'a. Only those ignorant of the Sunnah and innovators in doctrine deny it."

For the transcription and reproduction of this Fatwa, see, among others, the Introduction of al-Ganji al-Shafi'i, in the book named "al-Bayan," Beirut, 1399/1979, pp 76-79 and in Appendix."

Mitchell said...

If David Reagan does not remove his article he should at least publish an update that corrects all of the errors in it (but by then he may also conclude that Antichrist will in all likelihood be Muslim). It would be the honest thing to do, and I strongly encourage Reagan to do something immediately.

Anonymous said...

Gal 6:9 "Let us not be weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will receive a harvest if we do not give up. therefore as we have oppurtunity,let us do good to all people especially to those who belong to the family of believers"


Nathan Jones said...

Mitchell and Anonymous, I appreciate your insights into the Mahdi, though disagree with your conclusions about the Muslim Antichrist and personal criticisms about Dr. Reagan.

Concerning Dr. Reagan, you don't get to be VP of an Ivy League university and earn a Doctorate in Political Science because you're a poor professor or researcher. His research is always very thorough and his attitude always agreeable that people can disagree with his conclusions. "Take it or leave it" is his attitude. You've underestimated the man.

Concerning the Shi'ite and Sunni concepts of the Mahdi, I've gone into Dr. Reagan's notes and found four pages of references he used in his research on just this small part of his article alone. From experts in the subject like Dr. Damuel Shahidm to Dr. J. Dominiquez to Dr. Jim Eckman and a slew of encyclopedias - they all agree that the concept of the Mahdi is central to Shi'ite eschatology, but disputed and held in low regard by the Sunnis.

As there're over a billion Muslims and a number of "denominations" within Islam, it can be understood that there would be wide disagreement over various Islamic concepts among Muslims. If the Muslims can't agree on their own eschatology, then you and I certainly can't get dogmatic about what the overall entire Islamic religion believes on end-time events.

Mitchell said...

Nathan, thank you for your response. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the Sunni fatwa that was issued in 1976 -- again, this was issued 33 years ago -- that solidified the belief in al Mahdi as mandatory for all Sunni Muslims.

"The memorizers (Huffadh) and scholars of Hadith have verified that there are authentic (Sahih) and acceptable (Hasan) reports among the traditions related to al-Mahdi. The majority of these traditions are related through numerous authorities (Mutawatir). There is no doubt that the status of those reports are Sahih and Mutawatir. (They have also verified) that the belief in Mahdi is obligatory, and that it is one of the beliefs of Ahlussunnah wal Jama'a. Only those ignorant of the Sunnah and innovators in doctrine deny it."

Being a VP of an Ivy League university with a Doctorate in Political Science is a very good achievement to be proud of, but it does not make a man infallible, nor does it preclude one from conducting inadequate research on any given topic. You believe that the research is very thorough, yet he references a source like Wikipedia (riddled with errors to begin with), which does NOT state that the Sunni do not believe in al Mahdi? Why not go directly to Sunni sources for confirmation? I find it troubling that Mr. Reagan missed the proofs regarding the Sunni belief in al Mahdi in the books he reviewed.

In fact, in one of his own listed references ( it is noted specifically that a SUNNI book entitled "The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection" states:

"It has been well known (and generally accepted) by all Muslims in every epoch, that at the end of time a man from the family (of the Prophet) will without fail make his appearance, one who will strengthen the religion and make justice triumph. The Muslims will follow him, and he will gain domination over the Muslim realm. He will be called the Mahdi. Following him, the Antichrist will appear, together with all the subsequent signs of the Hour (the Day of Judgment), as established in (the sound tradition) the Sahih. After (the Mahdi), Isa (Jesus) will descend and kill the Antichrist; or, Jesus will descend together with the Mahdi, and help him kill (the Antichrist), and have him as the leader in his prayers."

This is the book referenced here: and is from a SUNNI perspective, yet Mr. Reagan did not consider this while writing his article?

Or why was this resource not referenced, which again affirms the Sunni belief in al Mahdi? -- "... the Mahdi will appear at the end of time ..."

Or why was this Sunni book not referenced? -- "I find the Mahdi recorded in the books of the Prophets… For instance, the Book of Revelation says: 'And I saw and behold a white horse. He that sat on him…went forth conquering and to conquer... It is clear that this man is the Mahdi who will ride the white horse and judge by the Qur’an (with justice) and with whom will be men with marks of prostration (zabiba) on their foreheads.... The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed."

Again, I believe that Mr. Reagan is well intentioned, but it would have only taken a short while to affirm the Sunni belief with respect to al Mahdi. Here are a number of other Sunni references:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v4, Tradition #658
Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 4.658
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v2, p86, v9, pp 74-75
Sunan Abu Dawud, v2, p7
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,376; V3, p63
al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, by al-Hakim, v4, p557
Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, pp 2,160
al-Urful Wardi, by al-Suyuti, p2,
al-Majma', by al-Tabarani, p217
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v9, p144
Fat'h al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, v7, p305
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p249
al-Tathkirah, by al-Qurtubi, p617
al-Hawi, by al-Suyuti, v2, pp 165-166
Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah, by al-Zurqani, v5, p348
Fat'h al-Mugheeth, by al-Sakhawi, v3, p41
Kanz al-Ummal, v7 P186
Iqd al-Durar Fi Akhbar al-Mahdi al-Muntadhar, v12, Ch. 1
al-Bayan fi Akhbar Sahib al-Zaman, By Ganji al-Shafi'i, Ch. 12
al-Fusool al-Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki, Ch. 12
Arjahul Matalib, by Ubaidallah Hindi al-Hanafi, p380
Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldoon, p266

I would encourage Mr. Reagan to correct the errors he made and issue an update as soon as possible, and to also issue a response to both Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat's rebuttals. Or perhaps he could engage in a healthy and open debate with either one of them?

Sal said...

I don't see "Wikipedia" in the notes section of Dr. Reagan's article.

Dude, Mitchell, you write just like Joel Richardson. Are you Joel Richardson? (Would explain why you're beating this dead horse.)

Mitchell said...

Hi Sal, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment. I am not Joel Richardson but he seems to be a very meticulous and discerning writer. I considering everything I read and then judge what I read based on what the whole of Scripture says.

I don't think this issue is a dead horse at all, it is alive and well. I believe it is very pertinent to Biblical eschatology and helps one to understand prophecy in a much clearer light. For the longest time I was guilty of "theological tunnel vision" by looking for something specific according to my own understanding (based off of the opinions of men more than the text of Scripture), but when I sat back and took off the hat of a biased mindset I began to understand a fuller, more complete view of Biblical prophecy. It took time, but sometimes it'll take awhile to "unlearn" viewpoints that I've held for so long. This is what Chuck Missler concluded as well when he stated, "It is essential that we stand back from our presumptions and prejudices and listen carefully to what the Biblical text is telling us. We are living in exciting times, but we need to be diligent in our study of God's Word. The only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that we already have it."

As for the Wikipedia reference, I specifically remember seeing Wikipedia as a resource (for some reason I cannot find the reference right now), but Mr. Reagan did also admit to consulting Wikipedia to Joel Richardson via email to "confirm" what the Sunni believed regarding al Mahdi. Joel Richardson, in his rebuttal to Reagan's article, writes that, "[W]hen someone publishes authoritative statements about something that they demonstrably know little about, even to the point of calling a brother and fellow Christian teacher 'very misleading', then a strong an clear correction is needed. Dr. Reagan was speaking outside of his arena of knowledge and he made an enormous mistake. I exchanged a few e-mails with Dr. Reagan and attempted to inform him of his error as gently as I could, but he was entirely unwilling to reconsider his stance. [His] response was brief:

'I have read extensively regarding Islamic eschatology, and every expert I have ever consulted has stated that the conept of a Mahdi is characteristic of Shi'it (sic) thought, and not Sunni. I just consulted Wikipedia, and it confirmed that.'"

Sal said...

Mitchell, you've got some gall!

You assume that others of us who read the Bible and study just like you are tunnel visioned because we haven't come to the same "Antichrist is a Muslim" conclusion that you have. Like we're weak-minded or something. Then you spend a whole mess of time bashing Dr. Reagan and the like because their decades of research and teaching don't agree with you.

The same pompous, shallow attitude is all over Gano's and Richardson's sites, too.

You're Muslim ideas just can't climb over the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 & 39, so you bash Reagan and ram loads of meaningless arguments down our throats to hide your weak claims.

I think you're the one owing an apology!

Mitchell said...

Hi Sal, let's keep in mind that this is a secondary doctrinal issue, so let us not be divided as Brothers in Christ. Instead, let us receive the word with all readiness, and and then search the Scriptures to find out the Truth (Acts 17:11). Never take MY word for anything, period.

If I understand your previous posting correctly you are asking me to apologize because I described what it took for me to arrive to at my position, and because I am defending it? I stated that it was I who had what I believed to be "theological tunnel vision" for ignoring other views, that it was I who shed the presuppositions and prejudices that I once held. For anyone to change their position they have to go through this sort of "metamorphosis" so to speak and this needed to happen in order for me to unlearn what became ingrained in my own thinking. Just as you, I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it.

I am not saying that anyone here is weak-minded -- far from it. The fact that we have different viewpoints on such matters is evidence that we take the time to study the questions and answers, even if it is from just one perspective. But with two perspectives, iron sharpens iron. However, all too often we resist change to positions we've held for years, especially if it is the only position we've ever known. Anything else would seem "heretical" if it challenges our thinking. So I can understand. For me, looking back, I see now that I had that "tunnel vision" because I refused to consider any differing positions and only accepted one possibility. After all, if the visions of Daniel are sealed up until the time of the end, then do you not think that more of prophecy will be understood the closer we approach D-Day?

As for Mr. Reagan, he has written good articles before, I have stated this elsewhere already, and he is a gifted writer. But his contention that the Madhi is not believed by Sunni Muslims is a gross error that he needs to correct. I would not label pointing out this error and defending one's position as "pompous" or akin to having a "shallow attitude". If it seemed that I came across that way, it was not my intention.

I believe very strongly that the Muslim "idea" as you call it indeed "climbs over" the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 & 39. What is it specifically about it that you have trouble reconciling with Ezekiel 38 and 39? Is it the timing question, or location question? If so, allow me to post a quick response:


1—Ezekiel 38-39 In both battles—Gog and Armageddon—Christ is present with the greatest earthquake: “And all the men that are upon the face of the earth shall shake at my presence.” (Ezekiel 38:20) Who is present? God is present—in the flesh. This is indeed the last battle, with Jesus scoring a great victory on behalf of his people against their enemies.

2—If one doubts that Messiah is on earth, the text in verse 7 should leave no doubt. “And the heathen shall know that I am Jehovah, the Holy One in Israel,” (39:7).

The Holy One is in Israel. Other parts of Scripture use the phrase “the Holy One of Israel,” but here the Messiah is actually present on the Earth in the Land of Israel. This “in” is crucial. It’s like DNA evidence in a court of law.

3—Not only is Christ present, but the destruction of both Gog and the Antichrist is accompanied by an earthquake of unparalleled proportions: “For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken. Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground,” (Ezekiel 38:19-20).

Shake at my presence? In the same verse, we read about the earthquake and his presence on earth. This is not a small event. Every creature on the earth will shake at the presence of Jesus.

4—We also have verse 19, which states, “My fury shall come up in my face.” (Ezekiel 38:18). This is a literal face.

The only choice Reagan has is to allegorize this “presence” and “face”. If so, then he must allegorize the literal feet that will touch the Mount of Olives in Zechariah 14. By this, he will enforce a Jewish interpretation that denies Jesus is Messiah. He has only two choices. So which one is it?

5—The Book of Revelation also tells us that this event occurs when the Antichrist’s armies are gathered together against Israel: “Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon…And there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great…and the cities of the nations fell…And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found,” (Revelation 16:18:-20).

6—Both descriptions tell us that the mountains are “thrown down.” In other words, no nations are left. Only one kingdom remains—The Kingdom of Messiah.


The only way out for Reagan to separate the similarities in the two texts, he must find ways to state that Ezekiel 38-39 is not Revelation 16:18-20. This will force view and unclear text as evidence over plain text which should be the driving method to interpret the Bible.


Reagan claims: “There is no way that Turkey could be considered a nation located in “the remote parts of the north.”

1—For Reagan’s statement to be correct, Matthew Henry then must be wrong. The Matthew Henry Complete Commentary speaks of this diversity of opinion. “Some think they find them [Gog and Magog] afar off, in Scythia, Tartary, and southern Russia Others think they find them nearer the land of Israel, in Syria, and Asia the Less Turkey. (Matthew Henry, Bible Commentary) Josephus also points to the Scythians.

Matthew Henry agrees with me, yet he completely disagrees with Reagan.

Not only Matthew Henry, but every Bible map agrees with me—none agrees with Reagan. If we examine some of the greatest Biblical references, like the Macmillan Bible Atlas, Oxford Bible Atlas, and The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, they all locate Magog, Meshech Tubal, Gomer and Beth Togarmah in Asia Minor, and not Russia proper. Are all our maps which were done by historians wrong? This region is all Muslim. Also, if you find all historic references in any book of your choice that supports the Russia theory, you will find all of them when quoting historians without exception point to southern Russia—never Russia proper. In fact, no serious historian agrees with this new theory founded by Scofield.

2—The text doesn’t say “farthest” but “remote parts,” “sides,” “quarters”, which easily fits the maps—sides of the north. In other words, go north and like a windshield wiper, go on either side—this is Asia Minor and the C.I.S nations of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, Turkmenistan… all Muslim. When the text says “remote parts” “sides” “quarters”, the text is perfect. Reagan even gave the quote “remote parts” not “farthest”.

3—In Ezekiel 39:18 the dead bodies of the fallen soldiers of Magog are called the “fatlings of Bashan.” Most Bible encyclopedias identify Bashan with Syria and Turkey.

One cannot call Russians “fatlings of Bashan.”


Regan states: “Ezekiel 38:15 clearly states” the invasion will be led by the Prince of Rosh”.

Reagan never states that translations divide on the issue.

If Rosh is Russia, I have but one question: One common denominator in the argument over the Gog and Magog story is that everyone at least agrees that Gog is Prince of Meshech and Tubal. No serious historian would argue that Meshech and Tubal are not in Turkey. If we go with the translation that Gog is “prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” are we then to say that Gog rules both Russia and Turkey?

You might want to counter that Gog could indeed be the chief over this whole confederacy. But apart from the fact that these two nations have warred against each other from time immemorial, why didn’t the Bible then give him the title of “prince of Rosh, Meshech, Tubal, Persia, Phut, and Cush”?

Gog is of the land of Magog, a very specific place, and he is the ruler of his domain;

“Meshech and Tubal,” which must be associated with Magog. All these are given for locators and are not intended to lead us into a wild goose chase or a genealogical and historical puzzle.


It is actually far simpler than some make it. The error of the Russian theory arose from the Scofield Study Bible, which identifies Mesheck and Tubal with the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. The only basis for this interpretation is the somewhat similar sound of the two words. Thus: Meshech sounds like Moscow, and Tubal sounds like Tobolsk. However, one cannot simply take a word from an ancient Semitic language (in this case, Hebrew) and find a correlation to a modern name from a drastically different language (in this case an early form of Scandinavian) simply because the two words “sound the same.” While this may be convincing to some for the sole reason of phonetics, it is very irresponsible hermeneutics.

Tim LaHaye for example explains the reason that we may know that Ezekiel 38 and 39

“can only mean modern-day Russia” is because of “etymology,” that is, by studying the

origin of words. If phonetics is the yard stick to prove where Gog comes from, then Meshech fits best with the ancient Moschi/Mushki far better than it does with Moscow. Likewise Tubal fits far better with the ancient Tubalu peoples than it does with modern Tobolsk, especially because the two locations were well known regions of Asia Minor in Ezekiel’s day. There is no need to look any further. Even Mark Hitchcock admits that Mesheck and Tubal are in modern Turkey, or possibly in parts of southern Russia and northern Iran. 22 Yet Hitchcock chose Russia for Rosh and Turkey for Meshech and Tubal.

Here is a good video to watch, start from about 18:00 minutes:

Sorry for the long-winded response.

Anonymous said...


You stated "Concerning the Shi'ite and Sunni concepts of the Mahdi, I've gone into Dr. Reagan's notes and found four pages of references he used in his research on just this small part of his article alone. From experts in the subject like Dr. Damuel Shahidm to Dr. J. Dominiquez to Dr. Jim Eckman and a slew of encyclopedias - they all agree that the concept of the Mahdi is central to Shi'ite eschatology, but disputed and held in low regard by the Sunnis."

There is an obvious contradiction in your statements, your boss stated in his article that "Mahdi is strictly a Shi’a belief and is not at all embraced by Sunni Muslims."

Now you come up with "they all agree that the concept of the Mahdi is central to Shi'ite eschatology, but disputed and held in low regard by the Sunnis."

I see some obvious back peddling here. There is a huge difference between "not at all embrased by Sunni Muslims" and "held in low regard by Sunnis"

This is classic back peddling.

You guys would first need to known how to spell your references, its not "Dr. Damuel Shahidm" but Samuel Shahid whom I know personally.

I suggest both of you read Apocalyptic Politics On the Rationality of Iranian Policy in which Shahid is quoted and he points your confusion "'Twelver' sect of Shiism is the most important component of the Islamic apocalyptic tradition because it is fundamentally associated with the notion of the twelfth, or Hidden, Imam—something that is absent in the Sunni theological system."

This is a huge difference from your assertion.

Your boss's confusion is that he had focused on the Twelver sect.

Of course Sunnis do not regard the twelver sect as valid. Maybe quoting Apocalyptic Politics
can help show the poor research Reagan did "The main difference between the Shiite and Sunni view on the Mahdi is that while Twelver Shiites believe that the Mahdi was born approximately twelve centuries ago and still lives on earth, most Sunnis hold that he will be born at a later date. Both Shiites and Sunnis see the Mahdi as fighting Islam’s enemies, but those enemies are defined very differently. In Sunni tradition, the conflict reflects the conflict that mainstream Muslims have with Christians and Jews.

Neither can you find Dr. J. Dominiquez or Dr. Jim Eckman stating such nonsense as Reagan stating “In fact the concept of a Mahdi is not even found in orthodox versions of the Hadith …” When in fact there are so many.

Had "Damuel" or Dominiquez and Eckman supported your boss's errors, you would have quoted them. Yet you will never find such quotes, and this is because you both are dead wrong and cannot admit it.

Had Reagan been honest when he stated "I have read extensively regarding Islamic eschatology, and every expert I have ever consulted has stated that the conept of a Mahdi is characteristic of Shi'it (sic) thought, and not Sunni. I just consulted Wikipedia, and it confirmed that."

Then he would have produced ONE single reference with a quote, and to date Reagan has not produced one, not even from the Wikipedia.

Would anyone dare to state that Sunnis do not believe in Mahdi without a reference?

It doesn't matter what Ivy League your boss came from, when one is wrong he is wrong.

Anonymous said...


You accuse Mitchell of starting fights without providing a line of evidence.

Who started this fight in the first place? Then cried out "persecution" "persecution" "persecution"

Did anyone "bash Dr. Reagan"?

Or did he bash others?

Who started writting articles accusing Richardson and others of being "misleading" "unorthodox" "unbiblical" "lone rangers" and an array of false statements?

Sal, you keep forgetting who started to bash who. You keep forgetting who used harsh language.

And now you are starting a new attack yourself when you state "The same pompous, shallow attitude is all over Gano's and Richardson's sites, too."

When the facts are that Gano published BOTH opinions, Richardson's and Reagans.

This is unlike the Lamb and Lion Ministries, they only publish their view and never debate the issues on the open.

Neither do they admit their mistakes.

Perhaps Mr. Sal you can look at the log in your eye and stop being so aggressive--Mitchell never called you tunnel-vision, but perhaps I am about to do so myself.

Why don't you simply stop your yelling and give us a sound argument for a change.

Sal said...

Anonymous (whoever you are), I think I now understand why I've heard Dr. Reagan doesn't do debates. One side brings out their pages of support for their point, the other pulls out their pages of support for their point, they argue till they're both blue in the face, and nobody's mind is changed. End result of a debate is a bunch of angry, divided Christians. Hardly edifying.

I find your constant crying for an apology isn't edifying. Nobody wronged you! Somebody even said Reagan and Goodman are friends!!! It's obvious to all of us that you've taken this whole constructive debate between supporters of a Muslim AC vs supporters of a European AC and turned it into your own personal battle.

If you want to pick a fight, do it over something remotely important, like the deity of Christ or salvation.

Nathan Jones said...

Let's agree to disagree. And, however some feel Dr. Reagan came across in his articles, it wasn't personal. A good scholarly debate is never personal.

Case in point, check out Bill Salus' Prophecy Depot Blog article on how Bill responded to Rodrigo Silva claiming the European Antichrist theory's a work of Satan. Bill's gracious response and links to logical counter-arguments is the tone I'd like to see us all follow on The Christ in Prophecy Journal. Thank you.

Mitchell said...

Nathan, I agree - that we should agree to disagree.

However, Dr. Reagan's article regarding the Antichrist and the Muslim connection can easily be viewed as a personal attack against Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat. For example, Reagan calls Shoebat a terrible writer, unreasonable, illogical, a "Lone Ranger" interpreter who misapplies Scripture. He accuses Richardson of not having a Biblical attitude and of being misleading. I do not believe this to be true about either one of them. And, unfortunately, I would not classify Reagan's article as scholarly -- stating that Sunni Muslims do not believe in al Mahdi alone negates any scholarly classification and causes me to question how thoroughly he read their books.

I would truly LOVE to see Dr. Reagan debate either Richardson or Shoebat in an open and moderated forum, and the purpose would not be to convince either one of the other's viewpoint. It would be to give the viewer to chance to hear the arguments, and the rebuttals, in one forum, and they can decide for themselves after the evidence is heard.

Why hasn't Lamb & Lion Ministries posted Richardson's and Shoebat's rebuttals on its website?

Anonymous said...


Do you notice that when you respond, you never address the points a person brings to you but go around repeating yourself. This is not dialogue.

Also, "I find your constant crying for an apology isn't edifying."

I never cried for an apology, you must be confusing me with another person.

You seem to always be tense.In other words CHILL OUT.

Now to Nathan,
You said that "a good scholarly debate in never personal". There was never a debate, so what are you talking about. Can you show me the debate?

In fact, there is no debate here either since no one responds to a single point that is brought up.

Debate was never an intent by your camp and neither dialogue. If you notice when one points out your wrong scholarly references you are completly silent. To date there are no scholars that agree with Reagan that sunnis do not believe in Mahdi and all you do is show off that Reagan is Ivy Leage and such....this is classic pride, don't you think?

The issues between eastern and western Antichrist should never never never divide us, so I hope I made this clear. Both theories are plausable.

This is not the issue and neither did this "eastern" camp cause any division, and while I agree with you that Rodrigo Silva's remarks are wrong "that a European Antichrist is satanic..." and since you brought up Bill Salus blog, if you notice, right from the beginning of his artilce he sets up a divisive camp by stating that "Relatively recently a small circle of individuals have injected into the Christian Church a paradigm shift in Antichrist thinking."

This is rather divisive, don't you agree? Is Jonathan Edwards a "small circle"? You know very well that many Bible scholars believed that Antichrist came from the eastern parts.

Can you be reasonable here?

Nathan Jones said...

I'd also recommend Sean Osborne's blog Eschatology Today to go along with Bill Salus' Prophecy Depot to those who feel passionate about whether the Antichrist will be a Muslim or not. Sean and Bill have greatly researched the subject of who made up the Roman legions and other minutia. Both blogs welcome comments and have Joel Richardson involved in commenting.

Our discussions here have been eye-opening in that I now understand how important the "Antichrist is a Muslim" debate hinges on a Post-Tribulation Rapture view. For those of us like me who believe the Bible teaches a Pre-Trib Rapture, the "Antichrist is a Muslim" debate holds little importance, as we won't be here to find out.

I wish to spend my time focusing on Lamb & Lion's mission: "to proclaim the soon return of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible as quickly as possible," and can't do that in endless back-and-forth about the doctrinally non-essentials.

I know our response to take Dr. Reagan's article as the only info this ministry wishes to spend time on this subject won't be taken well by some, but you can feel free to express your objections on Osborne's and Salus' blogs.

Thank you for your understanding.

Mitchell said...

Nathan, do you seriously believe that this debate hinges on a post-trib rapture view? May I ask why or how you've come to this conclusion? Walid Shoebat is pre-trib, so is Chuck Missler, and I am willing to bet that the growing number of Christians who are beginning to come to the conclusion that Antichrist may be Muslim are pre-trib as well. The rapture question is a completely different discussion.

Anonymous said...

That was quite a post, Sandra. Say hi to Debbie next time you catch up.

Mark Raethel said...

The book doesn’t discuss Rev. 13:11-12 “Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. 12 And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, ……..” Horns are symbols of strength, power, dominion. In every passage that the word lamb is used in Rev. and the New Testament, a lamb is symbolic of Christ. Most Theologians agree with this, but a very few suggest a lamb here represents gentleness, weakness and innocence of a young lamb (animal), similar to the expression of a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15). Verse 13 says that this lamb makes fire come down from heaven and exercises ALL THE AUTHORITY of the first beast (v12). The first beast makes war (v4, 7). As seen in v10 this is a military conflict. This does not sound like the gentleness and weakness representing a young lamb. So IF “horns like a lamb” is in reference to the strength, power and dominion of Christ it means that this “another beast” appears as a false Christ (false Christianity). This “another beast” who causes “the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast” (v12) would then not cause people to worship Islam, but a false Christianity. Otherwise he wouldn’t have “two horns like a lamb.” So this also means that the first beast CAN’T be Islam