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.