The Islamic Jesus: Will He Establish the Kingdom of God or an Islamic Caliphate Upon His Return?

The figure of Jesus (Isa in Arabic, peace be upon him) holds a central place in Islamic eschatology. While Christians view Jesus as the divine Son of God and the savior of humanity, Muslims regard him as a mighty prophet and the Messiah who was neither crucified nor killed, but raised to the heavens by God. One of the most intriguing aspects of the Islamic view of Jesus is his second coming. According to authentic Hadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), Jesus will return at the end of times. The purpose of his descent has been the subject of scholarly discussion for centuries. Will he establish the Kingdom of God, as many Christian eschatologies assert, or will he institute an Islamic Caliphate aligned with Shariah law?

Jesus in Islamic Theology

In the Qur'an, Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times, with titles such as al-Masih (the Messiah), Kalimatullah (the Word of God), and Ruhullah (the Spirit from God). He was born miraculously to the Virgin Mary (Maryam), performed miracles, and was a servant and prophet of God. The Qur'an refutes the crucifixion, stating:

“And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them…”
— Qur’an 4:157

Instead, Muslims believe that Jesus was raised bodily to the heavens and will return in the end times as part of God’s divine plan.

Purpose of Jesus’ Return in Islam

The return of Jesus is a major sign of the Day of Judgment in Islamic eschatology. The Hadith literature, especially those recorded in Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawood, and others, provide detailed descriptions of this event.

According to these narrations, Jesus will return to:

1. Kill the Dajjal (Antichrist): The greatest deceiver who will spread immense corruption on Earth.

2. Break the Cross: Symbolizing the rejection of the belief in his divinity.

3. Kill the Pig: Denoting the end of unlawfulness and distortion in religion.

4. Abolish the Jizya: A tax taken from non-Muslims under Islamic rule — implying all will embrace Islam at that time.

5. Rule with Justice According to Islamic Law (Shariah).

A famous Hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

“By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely the son of Mary will soon descend among you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it…”
— Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2222

This description clearly portrays Jesus not only as a spiritual reformer but as a temporal ruler who will establish justice and order based on Islamic principles.

The Kingdom of God or Caliphate?

From a Christian perspective, the "Kingdom of God" is a spiritual and sometimes eschatological concept that encompasses God's rule over the hearts of believers and the eventual defeat of evil. In Christianity, the return of Jesus ushers in the final judgment and the establishment of God's eternal kingdom.

However, in Islamic eschatology, the rule of Jesus is not symbolic or merely spiritual — it is political, legal, and physical. His reign represents a literal establishment of divine justice on Earth before the final Day of Judgment. Many Islamic scholars have interpreted this as the re-establishment of the Caliphate — a system of governance in which a righteous leader rules in accordance with divine guidance.

Evidence for the Islamic Caliphate View

Islamic traditions indicate that Jesus will descend during a time of great global chaos and religious confusion. A righteous Muslim leader, the Mahdi, will have already emerged to unite the Muslim Ummah. However, when Jesus arrives, the Mahdi will offer him leadership of the Muslim community, which Jesus will accept.

An authentic narration from Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah reports:

“Jesus son of Mary will descend and will lead the people with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.”
— Musnad Ahmad

This narration clearly ties Jesus’ rule with the Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah — the foundation of Islamic law.

Furthermore, another narration from Sahih Muslim says:

“A leader will be appointed from among them (the Muslims), and Jesus son of Mary will descend. He will come down at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus, wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron, placing his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, beads of sweat will fall from it like pearls…”
— Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2937

These descriptions make it clear that Jesus’ rule will not inaugurate a new religion but rather affirm and solidify the final religion — Islam — as revealed to Prophet Muhammad.

Characteristics of Jesus’ Rule

• Peace and Justice: His rule will bring an end to tyranny, oppression, and war. Humanity will experience peace and prosperity.

• Universal Islam: All people will embrace Islam, not by force, but through overwhelming clarity and truth.

• Abolishment of False Beliefs: The divinity of Jesus, the cross, and corrupted doctrines will be removed.

• No New Revelation: Jesus will follow the Shariah of Prophet Muhammad and not bring a new scripture or law.

Therefore, the reign of Jesus in Islam can be understood as both the Kingdom of God on Earth, in terms of divine justice, and an Islamic Caliphate, in terms of governance and law.

Conclusion

In Islamic theology, the return of Jesus is a momentous event filled with spiritual and political significance. He will not come to found a new religion or merely lead spiritually. Instead, he will confirm the message of Islam, defeat falsehood, and establish justice through governance based on Islamic law. His reign represents the realization of divine justice on Earth — the very essence of the Kingdom of God in Islamic understanding.

So, while Christians await Jesus to establish the Kingdom of God in spiritual terms, Muslims await him to rule as a just leader — upholding the Shariah, abolishing corruption, and leading a final phase of human history before the Day of Judgment. In this way, the Islamic vision of the return of Jesus blends the spiritual "Kingdom of God" with the tangible structure of a righteous Caliphate, united under God’s final revelation.

Not All Jews Are Evil: The Danger of Stereotypes and the Power of Individual Humanity

In times of social unrest, political tension, or economic uncertainty, it's unfortunately common for minority groups to become scapegoats. Among those historically and persistently targeted are Jews, who for centuries have faced discrimination, exclusion, and violence—ranging from forced exile to genocide. These hostilities are often fueled by dangerous stereotypes, one of the most toxic being the false and dehumanizing idea that "all Jews are evil" or blindly follow a specific political or social agenda.

This kind of broad-brush prejudice is not only factually wrong but also morally corrosive. It undermines social cohesion, distorts historical understanding, and causes real harm to individuals who are unfairly targeted based on nothing more than their heritage or faith. The truth is simple: no group is a monolith. Jews, like any people, hold a vast range of beliefs, values, political views, and moral convictions.

Historical Context of Antisemitic Stereotypes

Antisemitism has ancient roots. From being blamed for the death of Christ in early Christian Europe to conspiracy theories about world domination in the 20th and 21st centuries, Jews have long been targets of suspicion and hatred. These stereotypes are not just wrong—they're deadly. The Holocaust, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime, was the catastrophic culmination of centuries of prejudice.

One recurring narrative that persists today is that Jews are somehow unified in pursuit of harmful agendas—controlling the media, manipulating governments, or seeking to exploit others. These lies have been debunked time and time again, yet they continue to resurface, especially during conflicts in the Middle East or financial crises, where people look for easy explanations for complex problems.

The Fallacy of Collective Blame

To say "all Jews are evil" is not just incorrect—it's fundamentally unjust. It attributes the actions of a few to an entire group, ignoring the rich diversity within Jewish communities. Jews live all over the world—in the United States, Israel, Iran, France, Argentina, Ethiopia, and beyond. They are secular and religious, liberal and conservative, Zionist and anti-Zionist, wealthy and poor, pacifist and militarist. To flatten this diversity into a single caricature is intellectually lazy and ethically bankrupt.

Consider how this logic would fall apart if applied elsewhere. Would it be fair to say all Christians are responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the actions of the Ku Klux Klan? Are all Muslims terrorists because of the acts of extremists? Of course not. We recognize the danger of those generalizations in other contexts, and we must apply the same logic consistently.

Jewish Voices of Conscience

Throughout history, many Jewish individuals have stood for justice, peace, and human rights—even when it meant speaking out against powerful institutions, including their own governments or communities.

For example:

• Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and was a powerful advocate for civil rights.

• Noam Chomsky, a Jewish intellectual, has been one of the most vocal critics of American and Israeli foreign policy.

• Judith Butler, a Jewish philosopher and feminist, has publicly opposed Israeli occupation and supports Palestinian rights.

• Organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow challenge Israeli policies while affirming Jewish identity and moral responsibility.

These examples show that being Jewish does not mean towing any particular political line. In fact, there is deep internal debate within Jewish communities on everything from religion and identity to politics and justice.

Why Stereotypes Persist—and How to Break Them

Stereotypes persist because they offer simple narratives in a complex world. They allow people to explain hardship or perceived injustice by blaming an “other.” But clinging to these simplistic views does more than just mislead—it poisons relationships, fuels extremism, and impedes collective progress.

To break these stereotypes, education is key. People must learn the historical context of antisemitism, understand the diversity within Jewish communities, and critically evaluate the sources of the information they consume. Social media platforms, online forums, and even popular media can be breeding grounds for conspiracy theories and hate speech. It’s crucial that individuals take responsibility to challenge and correct harmful narratives wherever they appear.

Moving Toward a More Just Society

One of the most effective antidotes to prejudice is personal connection. Studies consistently show that people who have real-life relationships with members of different religious or ethnic groups are less likely to hold biased views. When we see others as individuals—rather than symbols or stereotypes—we're more likely to act with empathy and fairness.

Building a just society means rejecting all forms of bigotry, including antisemitism. It means acknowledging that no group should be judged by the worst actions of a few. And it means remembering that dehumanization starts with language—but it rarely ends there.

Conclusion: See the Individual, Not the Caricature

The claim that “all Jews are evil” is not just a lie—it’s a lie with consequences. It has justified discrimination, violence, and genocide. And today, it continues to fuel online harassment, vandalism of synagogues, and attacks on Jewish communities.

Combatting this kind of hate begins with truth. The truth is that Jewish people are as diverse, complex, flawed, and inspiring as any other group. There are Jews who fight for human rights, and there are those who support the status quo. There are Jews who are devoutly religious, and others who are staunchly secular. There are Jews who support Israel, Jews who oppose it, and many in between.

To truly oppose antisemitism—or any form of prejudice—we must abandon the idea of collective guilt and embrace the power of individual humanity. Only then can we build a society rooted in justice, empathy, and truth.

The 'Son of Man' mentioned in the Bible refers to the Prophet, Muhammad

The claim that the term “Son of Man” mentioned in the Bible refers to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not a view held by mainstream Christian theology. However, some Islamic scholars and researchers argue that certain biblical prophecies — including those that mention the "Son of Man" — could be interpreted as references to Muhammad. This article will explore that perspective, while also placing it in its broader theological and historical context.

---

The Term “Son of Man” in the Bible

The phrase “Son of Man” appears many times in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, especially in the Book of Ezekiel, it is used as a title for the prophet himself. God frequently addresses Ezekiel with “Son of Man,” emphasizing his human nature and distinction from the divine. For example:

"He said to me, 'Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.'" (Ezekiel 2:1)

In these cases, “Son of Man” simply means a human being — a mortal — chosen for divine communication.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to himself as the “Son of Man.” This has been a topic of much theological interpretation. Some Christians see this as a Messianic title, pointing to Daniel 7:13–14, where a vision shows:

"...one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven..."

Christians traditionally interpret this figure as a prophecy of the coming Messiah — Jesus Christ — who will have an everlasting dominion. However, some non-Christian scholars and Islamic thinkers have offered alternative interpretations.

---

The Islamic Perspective: The Awaited Prophet

Muslims believe that the Bible, in its original form, contained prophecies about the coming of Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an states:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel…”
(Qur’an 7:157)

Many Islamic scholars have attempted to identify such prophecies in the Bible. While some point to passages that refer to the “Paraclete” (Comforter) in John 14–16 as references to Muhammad, others look at terms like “Son of Man” as potentially pointing toward a future prophet.

---

“Son of Man” as a Future Figure

In Daniel 7:13–14, the vision of “one like a son of man” is seen coming with the clouds, given authority, glory, and sovereign power. Unlike the use of the term in Ezekiel to refer to a present prophet, here the Son of Man appears as a future figure.

“He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.” (Daniel 7:14)

Muslim interpreters argue that this figure — exalted, universal in message, and receiving global allegiance — does not fit the historical Jesus, who was a preacher to the Israelites, but more closely resembles the Prophet Muhammad, who:

• Was given authority as a religious, political, and military leader.

• Was accepted by people of many languages and nations, from Arabia to Africa to Southeast Asia.

• Preached monotheism, as did all prophets.

They argue that this figure could not have been Jesus, as Jesus’ message was confined in scope (Matthew 15:24: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."), whereas Muhammad’s message was universal (Qur’an 34:28: "We have not sent you except to all of mankind as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner...").

---

Jesus Foretelling Another to Come

The Gospel of John contains sayings of Jesus that some interpret as foretelling the coming of another prophet:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth…”
(John 16:12–13)

While Christian theology sees this as a reference to the Holy Spirit, Muslim interpreters argue that the “Spirit of truth” refers to a future human prophet — one who would speak, guide, and declare truths yet to be revealed. They draw attention to the fact that the Prophet Muhammad claimed to bring such a message.

Some have drawn parallels between “Son of Man” and the concept of a coming human prophet who would fulfill roles that were not completed by Jesus in his earthly ministry.

---

The Return of the “Son of Man” in Christian Eschatology

In Matthew 24:30, Jesus says:

“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.”

This eschatological view — the idea that the Son of Man will return — leads some to argue that Jesus himself was not the final prophet, but that another would come after him, clothed in authority and divine guidance.

Muslims believe Jesus will return in the end times, but not as a new lawgiver — rather, to support the mission of Islam and affirm the message of Muhammad. In this light, the Son of Man could be interpreted not as Jesus in his first mission, but as a figure associated with the final, universal message of God — which Muslims believe was completed through Muhammad.

---

A Broader Interpretation

It’s important to recognize that language and titles in the Bible often carry layered meanings. The “Son of Man” in Ezekiel represents humanness and prophetic responsibility. In Daniel, the “Son of Man” symbolizes divine authority given to a human. In the Gospels, the term blends humility with a claim to heavenly appointment.

When Islamic scholars read the Bible through the lens of the Qur'an, they often identify themes — like a promised prophet, universal guidance, and the final covenant — that they believe point to Muhammad.

---

Conclusion

While mainstream Christian theology identifies Jesus as the “Son of Man” and the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, some Islamic thinkers propose that certain biblical references — particularly those concerning a universal messenger with authority — are better fulfilled in the person of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

This view hinges on reinterpreting certain biblical texts in light of Islamic revelation and historical outcomes. Though it remains a minority interpretation outside of Islamic scholarship, it is a serious and thoughtful perspective grounded in both scripture and theological reasoning.

The term “Son of Man” remains a rich, multilayered phrase — and its exploration opens avenues for interfaith dialogue, deeper scriptural study, and mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians seeking to understand each other’s traditions more deeply.

The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism by Mahmoud Abbas

Introduction

In 1984, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas—then a doctoral candidate at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow—published Al‑Wajh al‑Ākhar: Al‑‘Alāqāt al‑Sirrīyya bayna an‑Nāzīyya wa al‑Ṣiḥyūnīyya, later translated as The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism The Tower+15Wikipedia+15Jerusalem Post+15. Based on his 1982 thesis, the work argues that Zionist leaders engaged in secret cooperation with Nazi Germany—not merely pragmatic but fundamentally collusive. This provocative theory ignited major controversy and remains a source of debate decades later.

---

Core Claims

Abbas makes several extraordinary contentions in his book:

1. Zionist–Nazi Cooperation
   He posits that Zionist leaders were “fundamental partners” with Nazis, facilitating or even encouraging persecution of Jewish communities to spur mass emigration to Palestine Jerusalem Post+2Wikipedia+2Jerusalem Post+2JNS.org+3Israel National News+3Jerusalem Post+3.

2. Inflation of Holocaust Death Toll
   Abbott calls the figure of six million Jewish victims a “fantastic lie,” claiming the real number may have been fewer than one million. He accuses Zionism of deliberately exaggerating death tolls to gain postwar sympathy and political leverage Wikipedia+9Wikipedia+9Wikipedia+9.

3. Distortion of Eichmann’s Capture and Trial
   He alleges Israeli intelligence (Mossad) abducted Adolf Eichmann not to bring a Nazi criminal to justice, but to suppress his alleged revelations about Zionist complicity in the Holocaust Wikipedia+15Wikipedia+15Wikipedia+15Wikipedia on IPFS.

4. Denying Gas Chambers and Other Core Evidence
   The narrative incorporates quotes from known deniers like Robert Faurisson, questioning the existence and use of gas chambers JNS.org+3Wikipedia+3Jerusalem Post+3.

---

Historical Context: The Haavara Agreement

Abbas grounds much of his argument in the Haavara Agreement of 1933, a documented pact between Nazi Germany and Zionist organizations (notably the Jewish Agency) to enable Jewish emigration to Palestine with partial transfers of assets World Israel News+7Wikipedia+7Wikipedia+7. This agreement allowed approximately 60,000 German Jews to relocate between 1933 and 1939 Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1.

While the agreement was real and factual, historians overwhelmingly view it as a desperate and pragmatic measure—not evidence of ideological or moral partnership with the Nazi regime.

---

Reception and Scholarly Critique

Abbas’s book has been sharply criticized by mainstream historians and Holocaust scholars:

• Holocaust Denial Accusations
  Many experts regard the book as Holocaust denial. He allegedly recasts a genocide as a political tool orchestrated by Zionists JNS.org+5World Israel News+5Israel National News+5Reddit+13Wikipedia+13Jerusalem Post+13The Tower.

• Factual Inaccuracies
  Claims such as “Raul Hilberg estimated fewer than one million Jewish deaths” have been refuted. Hilberg never made such assertions Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1.

• Methodological Gaps
  Critics note that the book lacks a proper academic apparatus—there's no bibliography or citations commensurate with established historical methodologies .

• Reliance on Extremist Sources
  Abbas quotes known Holocaust deniers like Faurisson, which undercuts academic credibility Wikipedia+1ynetnews+1Jerusalem Post.

In the early 2000s, during his time as Palestinian prime minister, Abbas publicly argued that he would not have made such claims today and affirmed the Holocaust as “a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation … a crime against humanity” Wikipedia+4Wikipedia on IPFS+4ynetnews+4.

However, he has never fully retracted the thesis; parts of it are still prominently featured by Palestinian official media Jerusalem Post+10Wikipedia+10Wikipedia+10.

---

Continued Controversies in Public Sphere

Despite Abbas’s later political adjustments, the book remains a flashpoint:

• In 2013, he defended parts of his thesis on Lebanese TV, asserting that a "Zionist–Nazi" connection did exist JNS.org+9Wikipedia on IPFS+9The Tower+9.

• The book remains accessible on the Palestinian presidency’s website and is still promoted by Palestinian institutions .

• Public figures influential in Fatah and PA discourse have invoked its conspiratorial theory in ongoing commentary .

---

Contextualizing Haavara: Pragmatism vs. Conspiracy

Most historians interpret the Haavara Agreement and related Zionist–Nazi interactions as strategic, not ideological:

• Zionist leaders faced impossible choices under Nazi persecution. The agreement was a rare opportunity to save lives amid worsening conditions ynetnews+7Wikipedia+7Wikipedia+7.

• The moral and ethical weight of these decisions is still debated, but equating them with meaningful cooperation with genocidal Nazis is seen as a serious historical distortion.

---

Post-Thesis Evolution: Abbas’s Public Embrace or Reinterpretation?

After rising to political prominence, Abbas has oscillated:

• Public political statements stress recognition of the Holocaust as a grave crime against Jews and humanity The Guardian+1Reddit+1.

• But in Arab media and Palestinian discourse, he has repeated conspiracy allegations, including claims of Zionist obstruction of Jewish rescue efforts and even sabotage of Red Cross aid Jerusalem Post.

This dual track—condemnation in Western outlets, revival in Arabic media—suggests a strategic repositioning around deeply rooted narratives.

---

Conclusions and Historical Responsibility

Abbas’s book remains historically discredited in mainstream scholarship:

• Its core thesis—an ideological alliance between Zionists and Nazis—is overwhelmingly rejected.

• Its disputation of six million Jewish deaths lacks credible evidence and aligns with antisemitic revisionism.

• Its use in contemporary Palestinian discourse continues to stoke tensions and undermines trust in peace narratives.

Yet it also offers a case study in how political conflict can shape historical scholarship—reflecting propaganda, memory politics, and national identity.

From a historical standpoint, the book is best understood as a politically motivated, ideologically driven artifact, not an academic breakthrough. That it remains in print and discourse speaks to its utility in conflict framing.

---

Why This Matters Today

• Memory Politics: The book exemplifies how historical events like the Holocaust become battlegrounds for contemporary narratives.

• Peace Implications: Abbas’s inability to fully disavow its claims poses challenges to Palestinian–Israeli reconciliation.

• Academic Integrity: It serves as a cautionary tale about rigorous historical methods vs. ideological scholarship.

---

Moving Forward: Responsible Scholarship and Dialogue

• Scholars must continue to counter Holocaust distortion with evidence-based histories, emphasizing academic integrity.

• Political leaders should distance themselves from conspiracy narratives that sabotage mutual recognition and trust.

• Public education—in schools, media, and institutions—must contextualize controversial works and stress critical engagement, rather than presenting them as credible alternative histories.

---

Final Thoughts

The Other Side is a thorny artifact of its time: reflecting Cold War Soviet influences, Palestinian national struggles, and broader ideological battles. But its core allegations lack factual grounding and remain unjustified in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. To move toward a more informed and peaceful discourse, both Palestinians and Israelis—including their leaders—must contend with this legacy, reject distortion, and recommit to truth and accountability in both memory and politics.

Islam: The Religion of All Prophets – From Adam to Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad

Islam is often seen in the modern world as a religion founded by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 7th-century Arabia. While it is true that Muhammad is the final messenger and brought the last revelation, the Qur’an and Islamic tradition emphasize a profound and often overlooked reality: Islam is not a new religion, but the timeless message of all prophets sent by God throughout history, beginning with Adam and including figures like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them all).

This central Islamic belief—that the essence of Islam was the core message of all previous prophets—offers a unifying perspective on divine guidance across time, cultures, and scriptures. It shows that God's message has always been one of submission to His will, which is precisely what the word "Islam" means.

What Does “Islam” Mean?

The Arabic word Islam comes from the root word s-l-m, which means peace, purity, submission, and obedience. In a religious context, Islam means submission to the will of the one true God (Allah in Arabic) and finding peace through that submission.

Therefore, anyone who submits to God's will and lives according to His commandments is, in essence, practicing Islam. The Qur’an repeatedly states that prophets before Muhammad were Muslims—not in the cultural or ethnic sense, but in the sense that they were devoted, obedient servants of God.

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.” (Qur’an 3:19)

Adam – The First Prophet and the First Muslim

According to Islamic belief, Adam (peace be upon him) was the first human being and the first prophet. God created Adam with His own hands, gave him knowledge, and honored him above the angels. Adam was taught to worship only one God and to live according to divine guidance. When Adam and Eve erred, they repented, and God forgave them—establishing the pattern of sin, repentance, and forgiveness that would characterize human life.

Adam’s mission was to guide his descendants to worship God alone and live righteously. This foundational principle is the essence of Islam: belief in one God, righteous living, and submission to His will.

Noah, Abraham, and the Prophetic Tradition

Noah (Nuh in Arabic) was sent to his people when they strayed from monotheism. He preached the worship of one God for 950 years, calling his people to repent and turn back to their Creator. The Qur’an describes him as a faithful servant who was “a grateful slave” (Qur’an 17:3).

Abraham (Ibrahim) is perhaps one of the most celebrated prophets in Islam. He is referred to as the “friend of God” and the “father of the prophets.” Abraham rejected idolatry and polytheism and called his people to worship the one true God. He is described in the Qur’an as a "ḥanīf" (upright man), and a Muslim:

“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 3:67)

Abraham’s life was marked by trials—most famously his willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to God’s command. His unwavering faith and submission made him a model of Islam, and his legacy continues through the Hajj pilgrimage and other Islamic practices.

Moses (Musa) – Lawgiver and Servant of God

Moses (peace be upon him) is the most frequently mentioned prophet in the Qur’an. Sent to the Israelites to deliver them from the oppression of Pharaoh and guide them to God’s laws, Moses received the Torah (Tawrat), a divine scripture.

Moses’ mission was deeply Islamic in its foundation: calling people to monotheism, justice, compassion, and submission to divine law. He led his people in prayer, fasting, and reliance on God. Though the Israelites sometimes faltered, Moses remained a faithful servant.

“And We certainly sent Moses with Our signs, [saying], ‘Bring out your people from darkness into the light and remind them of the days of Allah.’” (Qur’an 14:5)

Like all prophets, Moses taught that salvation comes through faith in God and obedience to His commands—another expression of Islam.

Jesus (Isa) – Messenger and Spirit from God

In Islam, Jesus (peace be upon him) is revered as one of the greatest prophets, born miraculously to the Virgin Mary (Maryam). He is described as the Messiah, a sign to the world, and a spirit from God. However, Islam rejects the divinity of Jesus, emphasizing instead his humanity and prophethood.

Jesus came to confirm the Torah and bring the Gospel (Injeel), calling the Children of Israel back to the true path. He preached love, mercy, humility, and devotion to God.

“Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:30)

The Qur’an describes Jesus and his disciples as Muslims, submitting to God:

“And [remember] when I inspired the disciples, ‘Believe in Me and in My messenger.’ They said, ‘We believe, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah].’” (Qur’an 5:111)

Muhammad – The Final Prophet and the Seal of Revelation

Muhammad (peace be upon him) is considered the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin). He did not bring a new religion but rather revived and perfected the message that had been distorted or forgotten over time.

The Qur’an, revealed to Muhammad, is seen as the final, preserved, and universal message for all humanity, confirming the scriptures before it:

“It is He who has sent down the Book to you [O Muhammad] with truth, confirming what came before it.” (Qur’an 3:3)

Muhammad’s life embodied the teachings of Islam. He was known for his honesty, compassion, and wisdom. Through his example, the message of previous prophets was clarified and completed.

Unity of the Prophetic Message

One of Islam’s most unique theological contributions is its insistence on the unity of all true prophets and their messages. Muslims are required to believe in all the prophets without distinction:

“The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], ‘We make no distinction between any of His messengers.’” (Qur’an 2:285)

This belief fosters a sense of continuity and respect for previous scriptures and traditions—though Islam also teaches that many of those scriptures were changed or corrupted over time, while the Qur’an remains preserved.

Conclusion

From Adam to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, all prophets brought the same essential message: believe in one God, live righteously, and submit to His will. This is the essence of Islam. While rituals and laws may have differed to suit the needs of different peoples and times, the core of the message remained the same.

Islam is not a new faith, but the final and complete form of the universal religion preached by all the prophets of God. Recognizing this shared legacy promotes not only deeper understanding among the followers of the Abrahamic faiths but also a profound appreciation of the unity of divine guidance through the ages.

The Christ of Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians and Christian Zionists is the Biblical Antichrist

Throughout the history of Christianity, one of the most divisive and persistent charges levied by various factions against others has been that of apostasy — a falling away from the true faith. Often wrapped in apocalyptic language, such charges have sometimes gone as far as labeling rival interpretations of Christ as antichrist in nature. This article explores how, within the Christian tradition itself, believers have accused others — including Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Christian Zionists — of theological deviation, sometimes invoking the image of the biblical Antichrist as a symbol of such perceived corruption.

Apostasy in the Early Church

The concern over apostasy is not new. Even in the New Testament era, several epistles warn of false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and a coming “man of lawlessness.” For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 speaks of a “falling away” (Greek: apostasia) that must occur before the return of Christ, alongside the revelation of the “man of sin.”

In 1 John 2:18, the Apostle writes:

“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.”

Here, “antichrist” is not just a singular future figure but a present reality — individuals or movements denying the truth about Christ. This laid the foundation for how future generations of Christians would identify theological opponents not just as wrong, but as embodying the very spirit of the antichrist.

The Protestant Reformation and the Papal Antichrist

Perhaps the most historically significant accusation of apostasy came during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and William Tyndale argued that the Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the gospel through its traditions, sacramental system, and papal authority. More provocatively, they identified the Pope himself as the Antichrist — a view reflected in many Protestant confessions of faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a foundational document for many Reformed churches, states:

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist..."

Reformers based this charge on a combination of scriptural interpretation (notably Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation) and their perception of Catholic theology as idolatrous, authoritarian, and contrary to Scripture.

While many Protestants today no longer hold to the view that the papacy is the Antichrist, the idea still persists in some conservative and historicist circles.

Evangelicals Accused of Compromise

In more recent history, some conservative or fundamentalist Christians have accused the mainstream Evangelical movement of falling into apostasy through theological liberalism, ecumenism, or compromise with secular culture.

For example:

• The emergent church movement was criticized for downplaying biblical authority and embracing postmodern relativism.

• The prosperity gospel, popular in many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, has been labeled heretical by others for equating faith with material success.

• Movements promoting interfaith dialogue have been criticized for undermining the exclusivity of Christ as Savior.

Groups like the Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) and some conservative Reformed denominations often describe such deviations as signs of the “Laodicean” church — lukewarm and apostate (Revelation 3:14–22).

Christian Zionism and Eschatological Conflicts

Another area of contention is Christian Zionism — the belief that modern Israel plays a central role in biblical prophecy and that Christians must support it unconditionally. While rooted in Dispensationalist theology (popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby and later by the Scofield Reference Bible), Christian Zionism has drawn criticism from multiple directions:

• Traditional Catholic and Orthodox Christians often reject the literalist reading of prophecy on which Zionism is based.

• Historic Protestant amillennialists see such interpretations as a distortion of Christ’s kingdom.

• Palestinian Christians and many in the Global South view Zionist theology as politically and ethically problematic, supporting injustice under the banner of biblical mandate.

Critics argue that Christian Zionism replaces the gospel's universal message with a form of political nationalism — and some even warn that its unwavering support for a secular state, justified through distorted readings of Revelation, mirrors the kind of religious deception attributed to the Antichrist.

Modern Voices Warning of a False Christ

In more radical or separatist corners of Christianity, some voices continue to warn that much of institutional Christianity has embraced a "false Christ." These critics argue that:

• The real Christ was Torah-observant, and modern Christianity has divorced Him from His Jewish context.

• Churches have paganized Jesus, blending Him with Greco-Roman philosophy, sun worship, or imperial religion.

• The image of Jesus in some popular preaching (e.g., as a life coach, prosperity giver, or mere moral teacher) is incompatible with the biblical witness.

Such arguments are common among Messianic movements, some branches of Seventh-day Adventism, and even parts of the Islamic critique of Christianity, which also accuses Christians of deifying a prophet and altering his teachings.

In these views, the “Antichrist” is not necessarily a single future tyrant but a system — religious, political, and cultural — that replaces the true Jesus with a counterfeit one.

Who Defines Apostasy?

At the heart of these accusations is a profound theological question: Who gets to define the true Christ? Is it the church fathers? Scripture alone? Tradition? Revelation? Every Christian faction that makes a claim about apostasy is implicitly claiming to possess the correct interpretation of Christ and His gospel.

Yet the New Testament warns that false christs and false prophets will arise (Mark 13:22), and the image of the Antichrist is deliberately ambiguous — a test of spiritual discernment more than a literal figure. For some, the Antichrist is a Roman pope; for others, it's a deceptive political messiah; and for still others, it's a system of theological lies wrapped in Christian language.

Conclusion

The charge of apostasy has echoed throughout Christian history, from the early church to the modern age. Whether aimed at the papacy, liberal Evangelicals, Zionist theology, or prosperity preachers, such accusations reflect deep disagreements about who Christ is, what the gospel means, and how God’s truth is preserved.

While some interpret deviations as tragic errors within a shared faith, others see them as manifestations of the spirit of Antichrist — a counterfeit Christianity that replaces truth with lies. Regardless of where one stands, the debate is a reminder that Christianity is not a monolith. Its internal tensions often reflect a sincere (if sometimes misguided) struggle to remain faithful to the truth of Christ in a complex and changing world.

Revolutionary Violence in Communist and Zionist Movements: A Historical Overview

Throughout the 20th century, both Communist and Zionist movements experienced phases where certain factions employed revolutionary violence to achieve political aims. While these movements differ fundamentally in ideology and objectives—one seeking classless internationalism, the other focused on Jewish national self-determination—they shared a willingness, at times, to resort to militant tactics during periods of struggle. This article examines historical instances where factions within both movements adopted violent strategies, highlighting the complex and often controversial legacies they left behind.

---

Revolutionary Violence in Communist Movements

Communism, as envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, called for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a classless, stateless society. However, the implementation of Communist ideals has frequently involved revolutionary violence, particularly in cases where political elites or entrenched systems resisted transformation.

1. The Bolshevik Revolution (Russia, 1917–1922)

The Bolsheviks, under Vladimir Lenin, believed that violent revolution was not only necessary but inevitable. In October 1917, they overthrew the Provisional Government in Russia in what would become known as the October Revolution. The events that followed included:

• The Red Terror (1918–1922): A campaign of political repression conducted by the Cheka (early Soviet secret police), targeting perceived enemies of the revolution. Tens of thousands were executed without trial, and many more imprisoned or exiled.

• Civil War (1917–1922): The Bolsheviks (Reds) fought against various anti-Communist forces (Whites). The war led to immense suffering, famine, and the deaths of an estimated 7–12 million people, many of them civilians.

Lenin justified this violence as necessary to dismantle the bourgeois state apparatus and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Critics, however, argue that it laid the groundwork for totalitarianism and suppression of dissent.

2. Maoist Revolution in China (1946–1976)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by Mao Zedong, similarly relied on revolutionary violence to achieve its goals. After years of civil war with the Kuomintang (KMT), the CCP established the People's Republic of China in 1949.

Key episodes include:

• Land Reform Campaigns: In the early 1950s, landlords were publicly tried, humiliated, and often executed. Estimates suggest that between 1 and 2 million people were killed.

• Cultural Revolution (1966–1976): Mao mobilized youth into Red Guards to purge "counter-revolutionary" elements. The result was widespread violence, destruction of cultural heritage, persecution of intellectuals, and thousands of deaths.

Mao viewed these campaigns as part of the class struggle necessary to maintain the purity of the revolution. Others view them as politically motivated purges that unleashed chaotic and often senseless violence on civilians.

---

Militant Zionist Factions During the British Mandate

Zionism, the movement for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine, was primarily political and diplomatic in its early decades. However, as Jewish immigration increased and tensions with both the Arab population and British authorities intensified, some Zionist factions resorted to militant action.

1. Irgun (Etzel)

Formed in 1931 as a breakaway from the more moderate Haganah, the Irgun believed in active retaliation and offensive operations to protect Jews and further Zionist goals.

• King David Hotel Bombing (1946): Perhaps the most infamous Irgun operation, the bombing targeted the British administrative headquarters in Jerusalem, resulting in 91 deaths, including British, Arab, and Jewish civilians. Though Irgun had sent a warning beforehand, the British failed to evacuate in time.

• Attacks on Arab civilians and militias: Irgun was also involved in attacks during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939) and in retaliatory raids against Arab villages accused of harboring militants.

Irgun’s actions were condemned by both the British and mainstream Zionist leadership, including David Ben-Gurion, who viewed such attacks as counterproductive and morally troubling.

2. Lehi (Stern Gang)

Founded in 1940, Lehi was more radical than Irgun and rejected cooperation with the British even during World War II. It aimed to force the British out of Palestine by any means necessary.

• Assassination of Lord Moyne (1944): Lehi operatives killed the British Minister of State for the Middle East in Cairo. The assassination deeply strained Zionist-British relations and was condemned by most Zionist leaders.

• Use of political assassination and terror tactics: Lehi employed targeted killings and bombings to undermine British rule. They considered themselves freedom fighters, though many contemporaries and historians have described their methods as terrorist in nature.

Ironically, several future Israeli leaders, including Menachem Begin (Irgun) and Yitzhak Shamir (Lehi), were once leaders of these groups—highlighting the complex transition from militant activism to statehood.

---

Ethics, Legitimacy, and Legacy

In both Communist and Zionist contexts, revolutionary violence was often justified by leaders as a means to a greater political end—liberation, national self-determination, or class equality. However, the use of violence has left a complicated legacy.

• For Communist movements, violence was institutionalized in some regimes, often resulting in large-scale repression and suffering. The tension between ideological purity and political power led many revolutions to devour their own ideals.

• For Zionist militants, violence was often tactical, focused on specific objectives (e.g., ending British rule), and eventually gave way to state-building and diplomacy. However, it has also been used as a justification by opponents to characterize Zionism as inherently violent—an oversimplification of a diverse movement.

Today, both ideologies continue to provoke debate. Revolutionary violence remains a contested subject in political philosophy, history, and international law. While some view these acts as necessary evils in the face of colonialism or oppression, others see them as violations of moral and legal norms.

---

Conclusion

The history of revolutionary violence in both Communist and Zionist movements underscores the complexities of political struggle. While not all adherents supported violent tactics, specific factions in both movements resorted to militant action during critical junctures. Understanding these events in their historical context is essential for grappling with the legacy of 20th-century ideologies and the ethical boundaries of political resistance.