Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah

[Pravoslavnik]

I recently read a very interesting book entitled Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah (see link below.) It is a comparative study of traditional Christian and Islamic eschatology, and the concept of the Antichrist in both religions. The pseudonymous author is a (heterodox) Christian with considerable knowledge of Islam. His central thesis is that the Antichrist will be possibly be received as the Islamic "Mahdi," the twelfth Imam, or Messiah, and that the Christian "False Prophet" will appear, in turn, as the Moslem Jesus, "Isa," a servant of the Antichrist who will likely deceive many people, including Christians.

[Catherine5]

This notion is preposterous! What a waste of time to read such garbage.
Might as well start thumbing thru the "left behind" series if you can believe more than a word of that ignorant Protestant-written nonsense!

I would recommend "The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam" by a bona fide historian of Shia belief, Iranian expatriate Said Amir Arjomand.
[I was very fortunate to have been introduced to him once when visiting another scholar at the Institute For Advanced Study at Princeton where he was a visiting scholar at the time. Very unassuming man despite his prestige and overwhelming expertise!]
For the record, I would never believe ANY Western author speaking about Shia beliefs, as none understand beyond intellectually the love and devotion to their Imams of the Shias, and Ismailis to the first 6 Imams. The Ismailis diverge after that, believing the Imamate passed to Ismail rather than his brother Musa.
This is one reason why it's next to impossible for the U.S. to ever even begin to fathom Iran or Iranian Shias. Completely opposite mindsets.
Don't think this is too far off the subject, as there's some of the same operative principles regarding the US inability to understand religious emotion or fervor in general, including the Russian Orthodox. This topic is worthy of further analysis by those better versed than I.

In general due to the intense prejudice about Islam built up over many centuries, I would never recommend reading a single book by Western self-styled specialists. A good example to browse thru is a rare study of Islamic beliefs about the Afterlife by a Muslim author published by SUNY Press in probably the 1980s. That was far better than Americans trying to explain something they inherently look down upon.

Prav, one has to dig really a lot these days to get to sound books or articles on the subject as a starting point from which to make what could be fascinating comparisons.
However, I would toss that particular book into the trash if you still have it now as it may poison your bookshelf.
Its theory is beyond ludicrous.

[mmcxristidis]

Catherine,
How can you be so sure that a book written by a Muslim author could give a more accurate picture of how future events concerning antichrist will happen? After all, he will be able to deceive even the very elect, is a Islamic author above them? The Muslims are already deceived even more-so than the Protestants in my opinion. Sounds like you have'nt even read any part of this book, just dismissing it entirely because it was written by a westerner. Alot of books written by Orthodox authors are'nt any better.

[Catherine5]

I think there's a terrible darkness that makes Christians of any denomination point fingers at Muslims and say they are the devil's spawn and the devil originated their faith.
There's a very unself-examined aspect to those Christians, often fundamentalist type, who speak like this.
But I am sorry to hear Orthodox Christians also indulging in this sport. They latch onto fantastical notions of how dark are the Muslims, it's classic way of shifting blame onto others rather than addressing their own deficiencies before God. You can see this dynamic everywhere in the world, within families too, where one person is made the scapegoat and the others delight in making that person feel bad about themself.
For sure, participants in this cruel game are influenced by demons.

Just to show that Muslims do not engage in some type of dynamic toward Christians, as Christians have assumed from the beginning of the intense competition between the two religions, let's look at one example. Muslims never say the Second Coming of Jesus must mean this is the ANTI-Christ. Instead they are far more reverently respectful of Jesus than most Christians I have seen!
Every Muslim who prays recites asks for deliverance from "Shaitan al-Rajim" - Satan the Accursed.
What anyone asks specifically from God for, he or she is granted.
Perhaps there are LESS demons around Muslims than around the garden variety Christian. Because where are OUR constantly repeated prayers mentioning as a top priority a strong and fervently meant request to be kept free of demons?

This is my opinion, I fully understand how controversial it is in this context.
But I think I have much more experience than any of the posters here are likely to have working in lands occupied by Muslims.

Remembering how much I was showered with open-hearted kindness, I can't but rise to the challenge of defending these special people from vile insults made in entire ignorance!
Try this.
Go to Afghanistan, walk around in the countryside and see how you are treated. Having nothing to offer due to horrible malnutrition after 3 decades of unrelenting war, the poorest peasant will offer you the best food he could bring from miles away - for YOU, Christian or of any religion, it doesn't matter.
You will be taken in, given the best place in the village to sleep and never asked to leave. You could stay for life, if you needed to! You probably wouldn't want to, but this is how they will regard you!! They won't ask you your opinion on ecumenism and kick you out for the wrong answer...
In contrast, I feel shocked to say that when I think about it, I could probably count the number of kindnesses extended to me within the Orthodox milieu in America on the fingers of one hand!
Where is the Orthodox sincere compassion to help others - isn't that Jesus' prime teaching, to help those in need?

So, why, then, is there such a dismaying lack of interest among True Orthodox in for example, even offering prayers for Mother Juliana, let alone offering substantive help? I was very taken aback when an otherwise top quality, immensely admirable True Orthodox priest coldly refused to serve a moleben for her recovery. He sniffed: "She must have brought her accident upon herself".
Request denied, case closed.
That was it, after ALL she has done to fight the MP far more bravely than most of us. Right on the front lines, too! Would any of us have had the courage to turn away the supposed patriarch of All the Russias and almost literally close the convent door in his face -- for all our spirited anti-MP commenting on safe internet forums, where no one can fire us and send us back to a completely different continent to languish in decreased status not to mention dire privation due to shunning by official - and even now TOC - sources?

This heartlessness is appalling and should stop before accusing other religions of supposed horrible ideas when those people are living more Christ-like lives in general than the Christians of today are.

Were she working in the Muslim world, families would have rushed to take her in, and nurse her back to health. Any religious person there is almost venerated for having given their life for God's service. Christians absolutely included. At the VERY least, she and her orphan girls would not have been left to starve! Which of the two communities sounds more like the devil has infiltrated them, stopping their hearts from operating?
When push comes to shove, having the Right Doctrines is no guarantee to save anyone despite our wishes that it may be so. Therefore, it's not right to speak so pejoratively about those who do not share all the same concepts of God.
It's OK to have homosexuals in Orthodox monasteries but Muslims are the from the Devil?! I'd say some of the Orthodox scene needs a good house cleaning before offering vicious and crazy sounding attacks on a religion which officially hates homosexuals. They are not shy to speak out against the evil phenomenon, spawned by the Devil for the ruin of souls. This courage to stand up for God's cause is almost impossible to find anywhere in the world today, due to heavy American promotion of the evil practise worldwide. Why not look at the good instead about Muslims? And copy their stand?
Where have either ROCOR-MP< MP< or the TOC's < issued statements sharply and loudly warning against this crime, the most awful one in GOD's eyes? That's undeniable, but all of the above are comfortable pointing fingers at the suposedly satanic Muslims.... It's not laudable.

[mmcxristidis]

[quote="Catherine5"]I think there's a terrible darkness that makes Christians of any denomination point fingers at Muslims and say they are the devil's spawn and the devil originated their faith.
There's a very unself-examined aspect to those Christians, often fundamentalist type, who speak like this.
But I am sorry to hear Orthodox Christians also indulging in this sport. They latch onto fantastical notions of how dark are the Muslims, it's classic way of shifting blame onto others rather than addressing their own deficiencies before God. You can see this dynamic everywhere in the world, within families too, where one person is made the scapegoat and the others delight in making that person feel bad about themself.
For sure, participants in this cruel game are influenced by demons.

You sound like a Washington lobbyist for the rights of these poor, misunderstood God-pleasing workers of Allah. or have you been sipping the camel urine again. Spin your fables elsewhere
You don't think Islam is dark and demonic, go tell it to the New-Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke. Are you for real ?
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes.Islam

[mmcxristidis]

Speaking on Islam being of Antichrist and Satanic, St. John of Damascus wrote some very interesting things about this subject :

On Islam
Fountain of Knowledge,
Book II (“On Heresies”)
By St. John of Damascus

1. There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, was was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarra Kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: “Sara hath sent me away destitute.”1 These used to be idolaters and worshipped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabir (Khabar?), which means great.”2 And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,3 devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, Creator of all things, Who has neither been begotten nor has begotten.4 He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron.5 For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the Law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven.6 And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: “O Jesus, didst thou say: ‘I am the Son of God and God’?”And Jesus, he says, answered: “Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.”And God answered and said to Him: “I know that thou didst not say this word.”7 There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’-they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’ -they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘we know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams.)8

When we ask again: “How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: ‘First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you’”- they are ashamed and remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he was asleep.’

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the Cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba9 and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac,10 and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed; but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the Cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabar. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, 11 in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines -as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’ Rather - to tell the story over from the beginning - he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you put away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken her and committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’12

In the same book (On Woman) he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work (till/plow?) the land which God hath given thee and beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner13-not to repeat all the obscene things that he did.

Then there is the book of The Camel of God.14 About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel-where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise - one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk - and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight (pleasure). And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight (pleasure)? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms, and hellish demons.’

Again, in the book of The Table, Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible table.’15

And again, in the book of The Heifer,16 he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized. And, while he ordered them to eat some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.

---

Footnotes

1. Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB) .

2. The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus 1.131).

3. This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.

4. Koran, Sura 112.

5. Sura 19: 4.169.

6. Sura 4.156.

7. Sura 5.116ff.

8. The manuscripts do not have the adage, but Lequien suggests this one from Plato.

9. The Ka’ba, called ‘The House of God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It occupies what the Moslems consider the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca and in all the world. Incorporated in its wall is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.

10. Gen. 22.6.

11. Koran, Sura 4.

12. Cf. Sura 2.225ff.

13 Sura 2.223.

14 Not in the Koran.

15 Sura 5.114, 115.

16 Sura 2.

[Pravoslavnik]

Catherine,

Code: Select all

  Mohammedism is, among other abominations, a Christological heresy.  This is true according to Orthodox theology, and even regarding the often flawed theology of the heterodox Christians, is it not?  There is a long and venerable Orthodox Christian literature on this subject, including the above-quoted teaching of St. John of Damascus condemning the Mohammedan religion.

  Mohhammed claimed that Christ God was merely another prophet, and that he, Mohammed, was the "Paraclete," the Holy Spirit and Comforter, foretold by Christ!  What utter Godlessness and deceit!

 Mohammedism arose from the Satanic dictations of the Koran, which have always sought to deny the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ God, and to destroy the Holy Church, the mystical Body of Christ.  Was it not devised by the Evil One primarily to destroy the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire, like a spiritual virus?

   As for this book, which I have reviewed here and on Amazon.com, it is a well-written summary of the Hadith-- the Sunna and the traditional Islamic teachings related to sharia, jihad against infidels, and taquiyya-- a Moslem's religious duty to lie to infidels about the nature of Islam and jihad.  The discussion of the scriptural accounts of the Antichrist are entirely consistent with Orthodox theology, but no substitute for the direct teachings of the saints, of course.

   From your comments, it appears that you are one who needs to learn more`about the true, diabolical nature of the Mohammedans.  Frankly, your sympathetic view of Islam sounds more Soviet than Holy Russian.  Have you visited the great Orthodox sites of Byzantium which were destroyed and defaced by the Moslems over the centuries?