"The Islamic Antichrist Myth" presents 15 solid arguments which explain why the Antichrist cannot be a Muslim or an Arab. Although recent acts of Islamic terrorism have caused some Christians to think the Antichrist will come from the Middle East, the Bible actually points to a Roman Antichrist who will lead a ten-nation military confederacy from Europe in the last days. My book uses logic and Scripture to show why the Antichrist cannot possibly come out of Islam, or from any Arabic nation.
This book is much more user friendly than other books on the same topic and covers many arguments which have been omitted by other authors. For example, "The Islamic Antichrist Myth" demonstrates why the Antichrist is not the leader of Muslims nations during the war of Gog (Ezekiel 38 and 39) but is instead their bitter enemy. Each argument is written in "Claim - Support - Refutation" format, making the entire book easy to read and understand. A brief synopsis of the statements made by those who support the Islamic Antichrist Theory -- Joel Richardson, Pastor John Hagee, and Pastor John MacArthur -- is also included at the beginning. There are even several maps and charts to help explain the text, when appropriate. A very solid, yet captivating read.
I believe readers will enjoy my brief expose' (in chapter 2) of the errors in logic that taint virtually all of the arguments put forth by those who support the Islamic Antichrist Theory.
I also believe they will enjoy the fact that each argument is covered thoroughly, but in a manner that is actually engaging and fun to contemplate.
In short, it was not the war machine of any Middle East chieftain that perpetrated the horrific bloodbath in First Century Israel. It was the war machine of three of the most scandalous Italians in history: Nero, Vespasian, and Titus.
Why did the Romans do this? It was because the Jews had dared to defy Rome. And that is the key to this whole discussion. You see, the siege of Jerusalem was ordered by Caesar specifically because the Jews had refused to accept Caesar’s edicts, and because they refused to worship Caesar as God. The cause of the war had nothing to do with any grievances between Israel and her Arabic neighbors. Consequently, when tensions finally boiled over in 66 A.D. and a handful of Jewish freedom-fighters evicted the Roman garrison at Fort Antonia, Emperor Nero became enraged and commanded his troops, both homegrown and foreign, to avenge the insult to the dignity and authority of Rome. And that is why the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is properly attributed to the Romans, not to their Arabic underlings: Had the Arabs not been a part of the Roman forces, the Romans still would have declared war on Israel, and they still would have gone forward and annihilated Jerusalem and the Temple. And that is why the Romans are the ones in view in Daniel 9:26, not the Arabs.
Unfazed by these facts, those who support the Islamic Antichrist Theory have an interesting comeback: Rome, they say, bears no blame for destroying the Temple because Titus had specifically ordered his men not to do so. The general, it seems, wanted to save the magnificent structure as a trophy for Rome, and when the Syrians set fire to the building, Titus actually ran to the site and tried to prevent his subordinates from damaging the House of God. But the ill-mannered Syrians had no interest in preserving Roman trophies. Instead, they were seething with greed and vengeance. So the Syrians defied their commander and broke into the Temple despite Titus’ order. They then looted the Sanctuary and demolished the structure, stone by stone.
Well…it’s true. Titus had indeed told his men not to harm the Temple. And the unruly Syrians had indeed rushed in and started to tear down the Sanctuary despite Titus’ commands. But it is also true that Titus — eager for pay-back and a share of the Temple treasures — soon reversed his decision and ordered his men to obliterate the Holy Place, all the way to its foundations:
"Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay, or to plunder…Caesar [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city, and temple."
The Romans then joined their Syrian comrades, finished the Temple’s destruction, and killed or enslaved every Jew in sight. The city itself was obliterated. In that way, the Italians were just as guilty of destroying Jerusalem and the Sanctuary as anyone.
Again, the Roman armies that surrounded the Jewish capital may have consisted (in large part) of Syrians and Edomites — although even that point is debated by reputable scholars — but these Middle East tribesmen never would've laid siege to the city or destroyed the Temple without the resources, initiative, and leadership of the Italians. This is why Daniel, in the 7th Century B.C., referred to the future Roman marauders as the nameless "people... that shall come," instead of identifying the tribes already residing in and around Judea (which Daniel easily could've done.) Local mercenaries could not have been the "people...that shall come," because they already lived in the area. Daniel obviously had another group of obscure, distant, and yet-to-come people in mind. The warriors of Italy fit this description; the Middle Eastern auxiliaries do not.
Indeed, to argue that the Arab troops — as opposed to their Roman masters — are to blame for demolishing the Temple is like claiming that a Mafia crime-boss is innocent of aggravated robbery because, although he set up the heist, led the assault, paid his henchmen, and provided the guns, he told his crew not to shoot anyone.
Further, inasmuch as there are no records from 70 A.D. identifying the ethnic origin of each soldier who took part in the siege — in fact, there are barely 3000 source documents covering a period of 300 years and about 2 million soldiers — it’s impossible to know exactly how much of that force was composed of Arabic people.
What we do know is this: In 70 A.D. the legions of Rome included men from across the empire — Italy, Spain, Gaul, Germany, North Africa, Greece, etc. And all of them were under the command of an Italian Caesar and several Italian generals. It is therefore flat impossible to assign responsibility for the Temple’s destruction to any one ethnic group, except for the Italians who indisputably instigated and led the operation.
Consequently, from a historical, legal, and practical standpoint, it was the Italians who were responsible for obliterating the “city and the sanctuary.” And that means the Antichrist will hail from this bloodline (Hebrew am, v. 9:26), not from the Arabs.