At the time of this writing, the fear and loathing of Islam is growing in the West, and has been for over a decade since the murderous attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York on September 11, 2001. With the even more recent rise of multiple terrorist groups with global terror agendas and a penchant for capturing beheadings on film, and daily murders of minorities, especially Christians in majority Muslim nations, Christians in the West are rethinking not only their pacifism, but their view of Islam.
Is Islam merely one of many false religions that ought to be replaced by faith in Christ, or even a religion with partial revelation of God available in it, as Paul Knitter might describe in his Fulfillment point of view? Or does Islam hold a special place in Christian theology, as Judaism does, due to its origins in Abraham? In this paper, I explore three broad categories of possibility, that Islam has a positive, neutral, or antagonistic role in the Biblical narrative. I also conclude with some suggestions for praxis in our gospel outreach to Muslims, and its limits, based on the general view(s) we have.
In his book Introducing Theology of Religions, Paul F. Knitter outlines four broad ways in which Christians may view other religions. The first view, Replacement Theology, states that other religions are false, offer few if any positive benefits, and are merely to be replaced by Christian faith. To whit:
[The Replacement view] allows for no value, no presence of God in other religions, viewing them as entirely man-made, as obstacles to, rather than conduits for, God’s love. In theological terms, there is neither revelation nor salvation in the world of other religions.
Many, if not most conservative Protestants still hold this view, although a tide of Catholics since Vatican II and concerned Evangelicals have seen the negative impact of this view on our theology and interaction with other faiths, especially Judaism, and have begun to abandon it. There is a ‘lighter’ view of this theology named Partial Replacement, in which general revelation, or facts that can be known about God through creation, and without specific revelation, can be found in other religions. This seems patently true, since we can see the existence of proverbs in other cultures that mirror the general wisdom found in our own book of Proverbs. In this view, no salvific revelation exists in other faiths, but what can be known about God through creation is often captured correctly. Of course, to some extent, this jibes well with Paul’s description of general revelation in Romans:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ~ Romans 1:20 (NIV)
However, if you look closely at the verse above, you might intuit that something even beyond general revelation is being implied, perhaps even parts of God’s nature and plan of salvation are partially revealed in other faiths. This view leads us from partial replacement to the fulfillment model, the second of Knitters broad categories. In this view, God has prepared people via other religions to hear and receive the gospel, using those religions as a preparatio evangelica. Such well-received missionary books as Eternity in Their Hearts and Peace Child are examples of this, documenting cases where the gospel story was already somehow present in the myths and practices of pagan tribes, preparing them to receive the gospel. This view opens up a spectrum of ever increasing possible revelation in other faiths, even to the point of accepting that salvific revelation may be available in other religions.
At some point moving down this spectrum, however, you cross a line where salvific revelation may be found in many religions, and knowledge of Christ may be unnecessary for salvation or only one piece of a bigger puzzle. These characteristics fall into the two remaining categories, the Acceptance and Mutuality Models. As in the previous two models, one can move from a more conservative starting point towards a more broad one, but the starting point for these models is already so far towards the liberal end of the spectrum that I have grouped them together as one package which I will consider outside of consideration.
For the sake of this paper, I will assume that the reader is of the same mind as me, acknowledging that most religions share general revelation, common wisdom, and perhaps even some knowledge of God revealed in creation, but no salvific revelation, i.e. a Partial Replacement or Fulfillment position. However, there are some indications that this position may not be applicable to Islam, and if this is so, we may be logically pushed back into a replacement theology for Islam, while still being justified in holding a fulfillment position for other faiths. There are (at least) two possible reasons for rejecting a fulfillment perspective on Islam, historical sequence and specific, contradictory Christology.
The typical pattern assumed in fulfillment theology is that the later revelation must add greater clarification and specificity to existing revelation. But this process does not necessarily work when you reverse the order, can an earlier revelation clarify or add anything to a later? If the latter is already subsumed in the former, it is not new in any real sense, hence it is at best a subset of the existing faith, not a separate faith that would be converted to from the older system. This very logic is used by Ayoub in explaining why Christians must accept a replacement view of Islam over Christianity:
Islam is a post-Christian religion. Thus, while pre-Christian philosophies and religious dispensations might be regarded as a prelude to the Gospel, or preparatio evangelica, Islam could not be fitted into this schema.
Interestingly, a later revelation could abrogate an earlier one, or the earlier could claim that the later revelation is false, in either case, both sides would be taking the replacement view of one another. From a Christian point of view, the fulfillment position does not seem much of a logical option, though it still is for the Muslim because he can view his later, Muslim revelation as the fulfillment of the earlier Jewish and Christian texts.
When a pre-Christian faith system makes claims about God and soteriology, you can be fairly certain that it makes no claims about Jesus Christ, though it may make claims about a coming prophet or messiah based on its own soteriology. For the Christian, then, it is fairly easy to bring the gospel into the existing religious context, and explain it as a fulfillment of what congruent truths and myths are already present in pre-existent faiths. Paul the Apostle even took this approach in his gospel presentation to the pagan philosophers and religious at Athens, recorded in the book of Acts (17:22-31 NKJV):
Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, â€œMen of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.
As can be seen in the passage, he is quoting one of their own poets, whose observations have now become a part of the Christian canon! That alone is a fairly good justification for fulfillment theology when viewing others from the Christian point of view.
Islam, however, coming after Christianity, contains repeated and strong denials of the specifics of Christian Christology, and there is little or no way that these differences can be harmonized into a view in which the Christian view fulfills the Islamic view. Admittedly, parts of the robust Islamic Christology are congruent with the Christian view, so one could argue that those claims could be leveraged by Christians as a preparatio evangelica. However, this narrow example is not enough to overcome the repeated and strong denials of Jesus’ divinity, substitutionary death, or sonship in the Quran.
If then we cannot logically accept a fulfillment view of Islam, we are left with either a replacement theology, partial replacement, or a much more liberal acceptance or mutuality model. This alone may seriously circumscribe and limit our evangelical dialog with Muslims. However, further investigation of Islam must be pursued because of its unique history found in the book of Genesis and perhaps other Christian scriptures. While most contemporary faiths find no roots in Biblical history, Islam claims to find its roots in the stories of Abraham and Ishmael, and Christians need to develop a theology of Islam as it pertains to this narrative.
There is little doubt that both Mohammed and Muslims claim that Mohammed descended from Abraham via Ishmael. There is considerable debate over the voracity of these claims to ancestry, but there is at least some scholarly thought that at the very least, some Northern Arabians could be descended from Ishmael.  However, perhaps biological lineage is not entirely necessary to consider Muslims the ‘sons of Ishmael,’- perhaps spiritual lineage is enough, similar to how Christians are considered the spiritual children of Abraham by faith. In fact, some of the stereotypical characteristics of Muslim attitudes may be directly attributed to the spiritual experience and legacy of Ishmael, and identified with by Mohammed and his followers.
It is easy to see the generational bitterness of Ishmael being channeled through Muhammad’s teachings. Not surprisingly, Muhammad himself was also an orphan, having lost a few of his closest caregivers during his upbringing. So in Muhammad, Ishmael’s resentment found a perfect conduit. From a spiritual sense, then, we may view Islam as the broken and bitter cry of Ishmael, the fatherless, the orphan, memorialized and canonized as a religion.
Assuming, then, that Muslims are in some way recipients of the stories and promises to Ishmael and his children in the Old Testament, we should explore their content and limits.
The main text of the story of Ishmael is in Genesis 16, 17:26, 21:1-21, and 25:12-18. Secondary scriptures about his descendants are in 28:6-9, 36:1-17, 37:25-28, 39:1, and Judges 8:24. The main promises to Ishmael and his progeny that we can discover are these:
The passage below has commonly been interpreted in negative ways, but some scholars have interpreted it in a positive fashion. For that reason, there has been much disagreement about how to carefully apply this text. Many commentators have seen it as an apt description of Islam’s relationship with the outside world:
He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. ~ Genesis 16:12
These characteristics are commonly interpreted in these positive or negative ways:
Our interpretation of this explicit description of Ishmael and perhaps his descendants will certainly affect how we see them in the Biblical narrative. It is possible that both positive and negative are meant, but we should allow context and usage to help us determine that.
Perhaps the most we can surmise from this is that the covenant with Abraham was not officially ‘cut’ until after the birth, and with the circumcision of Isaac, even though according to the scriptures, Abraham was righteous from the moment he believed God’s promise of many progeny (Genesis 15:4-5). However, Muslims could interpret this circumcision as God extending that promise through Ishmael. Certainly his circumcision made him part of the Abrahamic covenant, but in what way?
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.’ And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son.
But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ~ Genesis 21:9-12
Muslims argue that this elevation of Isaac over Ishmael was interpolated by the Jewish writers, but nonetheless, according to the Bible we have, the promises of God of a future messiah come through Isaac and not Ishmael. But this does NOT mean that the God of the Bible didn’t have a promise for Ishmael.
Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed.~ Genesis 21:33
The Bible itself records that Ishmael had 12 sons who all became princes, and they became a great nation. These ‘Ishmaelites’ also come up in a few places in scripture, in the story of Joseph the son of Jacob, Ishmaelites bought him as a slave from his brothers (Genesis 37:25-28, Ishmael was Joseph’s great uncle), and sold him to Potiphar. In addition, Gideons army fought Ishmaelites. Perhaps these details can shed light on the role of the Ishmaelites in the Biblical narrative.
From the explicit scriptures regarding Ishmael and his descendants, a case can be made for enmity against others, but an arguably equal case can be made for blessings and peaceful coexistence. It is notable that Ishmael and Isaac buried their father together without any record of strife. However, we do see strife between Israel and the Ishmaelites in the story of Gideon (Judges 8), and some note that the shape of the gold earrings of the Ishmaelites was a crescent, perhaps like that of the current symbol for Islam (though in all honesty, a crescent shape is a fairly common shape for an earring). Additionally, but outside the scope of this paper, are the many other possible names for the Ishmaelites in scripture, including the Midianites, the Sons of Seir, Amalekites, and Bene Kedem, among others. While these mentions are not explicit, they are worthy of much more study if we are to understand the role of the sons of Ishmael in the history of Israel.
In addition to arguing for Ishmael-friendly interpretations of the Old Testament and accusing the Jews of altering the text to replace Ishmael with Isaac as the son of promise, Muslims quote a number of less direct passages that they say indicate promises made to the sons of Ishmael, each who have tribes named after them, some of which are mentioned by name in other OT passages. Those passages include:
Naturally, these associations are contested, as are the Muslim interpretations of the passages. But are some of these positive prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and towards the sons of Ishmael? Interestingly, Christians who make a case for Islam giving rise to the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2’s vision, indicating that the antichrist will arise from a renewed Ottoman rather than Roman empire, use a similar mapping of ancient to modern middle eastern nations. However, their focus is on apocalyptic passages such as the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Psalm 83, and Revelation. Joel Richardson, for example, a popular writer associating Islam with the kingdom of the antichrist, provides this map for the countries in Psalm 83:  
The lesson to be learned from this brief introduction to a deep subject is this, depending on our hermeneutic and method of nation mapping, we can come up with both positive and negative roles for the sons of Ishmael, and by extension, Islam, in the Old Testament. These need to be investigated with objectivity and care. How we calculate nation mapping will affect which promises of blessing and apocalyptic participation is part of the biblical narrative of the sons of Ishmael.
There is one explicit reference to Hagar and her son Ishmael in the New Testament. Paul is emphasizing, as the Jewish Old Testament did, that Ishmael was not the son of promise, and that he and his mother actually reflect the slavery of the Old Covenant, rather than the miraculous covenant of grace, which is represented by the miraculous birth of Isaac.
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar – for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children – but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:
‘Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.’
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. ~ Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV
Not only is the Apostle Paul reiterating that Ishmael is not the heir of the promise, he notes that in some sense the sons of Ishmael persecuted the son of promise, and in Paul’s day, those who are in the spirit of the Law still do! This is probably a reference to those who want to keep Jewish law, but it is quite possible that Christians could at least point to Islam as a religion of the Law, to be rejected as antithetical to the gospel, and a regression back to a righteousness under the Law. This limited explicit Pauline reference does not significantly add the sons of Ishmael to the New Testament Christian narrative, but it does relegate them to a non-redemptive role in the present and perhaps future.
To this point, I have argued that what is explicit in scripture is not directly or unequivocally damning of the sons of Ishmael, but based on Paul’s use of Hagar in Galatians 2, neither is it a part of the redemptive plan of God. What still remains, however, is to review the prophetic Old and New Testament passages, including eschatological passages, and determine if the sons of Ishmael, and Islam, have a place in the ongoing Biblical narrative, either through promised blessings or a negative eschatological role. There are, in general, three Biblical positions one might take.
From our study of the Old Testament, we know that Ishmael was given promises of becoming a great nation, and his God-given name seems to indicate that God will hear his prayers, and perhaps those of his descendants. In addition, when we look at the passages that Muslims cite in the Old Testament, it appears that they might be slated for end times blessings and restorations. Some Christians, especially those like author, former Muslim, and now Christian evangelist Faisal Malick, believe that these promises may be for a great Christian awakening among Arabs and Mulsims in the end days, and a reunion of Isaac and Ishmael:
God will use Ishmael to provoke the Church unto a passion for Jesus – what the Church has forsaken, Ishmael will embrace. God is going to use Ishmael to provoke Israel to jealousy for the Messiahâ€¦.I believe that Ishmael will come to a revelation of the Father, and he will take it to Israel. And Isaac will break and weep and say I grew up with the Father, I was the one with the covenant, I was the one who was given everything, I was the one through the seed and you were the one who was cast out and rejected and the law cast out – but you’ve come back with a revelation of the Father. Then Israel will say, “Tell me who the Father is. Tell me how I can know Him.”
It is quite possible that God has a positive role for the children of Ishmael, that they will be reconciled to God the Father and to their brothers, the Israelites and Christians.
Lacking explicit scriptures regarding the role of Islam in the Christian narrative, many Christians may take a safe position that any speculations regarding the Muslim role in the Christian story is merely that, impossible to know. Some may even make the claim that there is absolutely no specific role for Muslims, except as those who are the general targets of the Great Commission. Of course, such evasions mean that they must also reject any solid conclusions of eschatological prophecies, including the standard interpretation of the apocalypse in which a revived Roman empire is the seat of the antichrist.
Until this point, I have only alluded to the modern Islam/Antichrist theology, which has actually existed in some form since the Reformation, in which both Luther and Calvin declared that Islam (and the Catholic Church) together were anti-christ, and may actually be part of supporting the end-times Antichrist.  For example:
As Mahomet says that his Al-Coran is the sovereign wisdom, so says the Pope of his own decrees. For they be the two horns of Antichrist.
In more recent times, author Joel Richardson has become the public mouthpiece of the theological movement reinterpreting the Beast of Revelation as a revived Ottoman Empire instead of Roman. Some see this as merely the latest round of Christian demonization of a feared and abusive contemporary power (like the Catholic Church in the Reformation or Russia during the Cold War), based more on hearsay and interpreting the news instead of sound Biblical hermeneutics. However, Richardson is aware of this criticism, and after spending time outlining hermeneutics that any Evangelical would laud, goes on to exegete the scriptures for many chapters across many books supporting his thesis. To summarize his argument for a negative role of Islam in the Biblical narrative:
- Land: The lands inhabited by the peoples named in the prophetic, end-times passages surround the land where Israel has always existed. There is little scriptural reason to think that those same lands, now populated by Muslims, will not be those that attack Israel as part of the last days scenarios of the antichrist. Further, the Roman empire never occupied more than 2/5 of the lands described in Daniel, while the Ottoman Empire occupied them all.
- “The Assyrian”: The Assyrian King who attacked Israel (e.g. Micah 5:5) is a type of the Antichrist, and this is supported by historic Christian theologians. The final Antichrist will arise from this same region, Assyria cannot be interpreted as a Roman or European nation without straying into non-informative hyper-metaphorical view of the nations mentioned.
- Anti-semitism: The nations that hated Israel in the beginning are a type of the antichrist, and the antichrist coalition will likely hate Israel, and who hates Israel in our time?
- Antichrist-Mahdi Similarities: Some such as Richardson claim that the Christian description of the antichrist and the Quranic and Muslim descriptions of the Mahdi of Islam are stunningly similar, for example, both are said to make a 7 year peace treaty with Israel, then break it.
- The Quran’s Christology: The fact that the Quran repeatedly, clearly, and strongly denies the deity, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the Fatherhood of God shows it to be expressly and importantly anti-Christ.
This last point is often illustrated by comparing the denials of the Quran with 1 John 2:22-23
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
It is difficult to identify any ideology with a more specific, expressly theological position in opposition to the central tenets of the Gospel than that found in Islam, even the Shahada is arguably a direct denial of the trinity:
There is no god but the Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of the God.
If we adopt the positive or negative views of the role of Islam in the end times, where does that leave us with respect to evangelism and service towards Muslims? The former would lead us to greater and more hopeful evangelism of Muslims, but the latter might predispose us to negative approaches to Muslims. Richardson is very aware of this, and in his book states clearly that this is not the correct praxis to distill from his position:
In writing this book I am acutely aware of the danger that some who read it will use the information to solidify their view that Muslims are the enemy who should be hated or feared. Of course, this is precisely the opposite response that Jesus would have his followers take.
Even if we choose to support the idea that Islam may be the seat of the Antichrist, our response to individuals with the gospel must still be one of love and truth. Additionally, interpretations of eschatological passages are infamously reversed by actual history, and based on Jesus’ claims that no one really knows when end-times events will happen, and that we should love our enemies, choosing this view of Islam should not predispose us to be unkind, fearful, or hateful to Muslims.
Islam is such a prevalent force in our contemporary world, and is predicted to increase 35% from its current 1.6 billion adherents to over 2.2 billion by 2030. Coupled with the seminal stories of Ishmael and Isaac in scripture, it would seem helpful, if not imperative, for Christians to determine where Islam fits in the Biblical narrative. Though not explicitly included in New Testament purposes, it seems likely that God’s promises to Ishmael, as to Israel, may find specific fulfillment as part of the redemption narrative focused on Christ. As argued, it seems doubtful that Christians may adopt a fulfillment view of Islam in their theology of religion, and so are either forced to some version of replacement theology or acceptance. It may even be that both the positive and negative roles in the Biblical narrative outlined here are part of God’s plan for the sons of Ishmael, and in both cases, we ought to all the more have mercy on them and hope for the liberation of Muslims through faith in Christ. Whatever can be surmised about their role in the end times, it is certain that without Christ, the sons of Ishmael walk without a Father God.
For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar – for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children – but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. ~ Galatians 4:22-26
 Paul F. Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions : A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes (Mit Deutscher Zusammenfassung ), Marburger Theologische Studien (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1974), 33.
 Michael Brown, “A Deadly, Anti-Israel Theological Error”, Charisma Magazine http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/43161-a-deadly-anti-israel-theological-error (accessed 2014-12-12).
 Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, CA, U.S.A.: Regal Books, 1981).
 Don Richardson, Peace Child (Glendale, Calif.: G/L Regal Books, 1974).
 Mahmoud Ayoub and Irfan A. Omar, A Muslim View of Christianity : Essays on Dialogue, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2007), 42.
 Sam Shamoun, “Ishmael Is Not the Father of Muhammad”, AnsweringIslam.com http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael.htm (accessed 2014-12-12).
 Jonathan Edwin Culver, “The Ishmael Promises in the Light of God’s Mission: Christian and Muslim Reflections” (Fuller Theological Seminary, 2001), 229.
 Joel Richardson, Mideast Beast : The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist (Washington, D.C.
New York: WND Books ; distributed by Midpoint Trade Books, 2012), 252.
 John Calvin, “John Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 16:1-16”, Christian Classics Ethereal Library http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxii.i.html.
 Tony Maalouf, Arabs in the Shadow of Israel : The Unfolding of God’s Prophetic Plan for Ishmael’s Line (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2003), 75-76.
 Eric Lyons, “Ishmaelites or Midianites?”, Apologetics Press http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=748 (accessed 2014-12-12).
 “Ishmaelites”, Jewish Virtual Library http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0010_0_09678.html (accessed 2014-12-12).
 “Promises to Arab Peoples”, God Loves Ishmael http://godlovesishmael.com/site/en/background_info/ishmael/promises (accessed 2014-12-10).
 Joel Richardson, “Which Nations Does Psalm 83 Really Include? “, World News Daily http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/which-nations-does-psalm-83-really-include/ (accessed 2014-12-10).
 Faisal Malick, The Destiny of Islam in the End Times : Understanding God’s Heart for the Muslim People (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2007), 170-174.
 Adam Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam : A Study in Sixteenth-Century Polemics and Apologetics, History of Christian-Muslim Relations (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2007). There is some argument as to whether or not Mohammed fully understood Islam and its history, and whether his approach was bifurcated into polemic and apologetic for Islam, depending on the circumstance. Luther sometimes seemed to side with the Turks against the Catholic Church and the Jews, which he disliked.
 “Martin Luther on the Turks (and Islam)”, Reimagining Cordoba http://reimaginingcordoba.com/2013/07/03/martin-luther-on-the-turks-and-islam/ (accessed 2014-12-12).
 John Calvin, The Sermons of M. John Calvin Upon the Fifthe Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy (Henry Middleton, 1583).
 Joel Richardson, “Comparing the Biblical Antichrist and the Mahdi”, Answering-Islam.org http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch05_comparing_the_biblical_antichrist.htm (accessed 2014-12-12).
 Richardson, 247.
 “The Future of the Global Muslim Population” http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/ (accessed 2014-12-12).