Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam. When Muhammad died in 632 a.d. barely ten years into the Islamic ear, he died without naming his successor. The first order of the leader-less group was the election of a successor. There were two primary options: 1) a male blood relative of Muhammad regardless of maturity or leadership abilities, and 2) the best candidate for the position regardless of the relation to Muhammad. For option 1, there was only one possible candidate, Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of Muhammad and husband of his daughter, Fatima, who was also Muhammad’s cousin (from which “Shias” get their name as “partisans” of Ali). For option 2, the “consensus” candidate was Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was the father-in-law of Muhammad through his daughter Aisha, and the first “Muslim” follower of Islam. Abu Bakr was elected. From that point forward, Sunnis and Shias (partisans of Ali) have been at a divide. The divide reached its high-water mark in 680 a.d. at the Battle of Karbala when a small band of followers of Ali were massacred by a large group of Sunnis led by Yazid I, the reigning caliph of Islam. Ever since, Sunnis have persecuted Shias. Sunnis are the dominant sect (85% of Muslims) and Shias the minority sect (10-15%). The divide has continued to the modern day not only as reflected in the animosity of Iran and Saudi Arabia, but Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, regardless of location.

The most recent example of the divide is found in the actions of the top cleric of Saudi Arabia (Sunnis Muslim), Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, the grand mufti, who recently stated that Iranians (Shia Muslims) are “not Muslims.” Sunnis consider Shias as “rafida,” rejectors of the first three caliphs of Islam because they are not related by blood to Muhammad. In fact, Shias consider the first three caliphs to be “usurpers.” BBC news reports:

Source: Saudi Arabia’s top cleric says Iranians are ‘not Muslims’ – BBC News

What does this have to do with the Bible prophecy?

 And in that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. 42 “And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle. 43 “And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery. (Dan. 2:41-43 NAS)

Notice — two verses of particular importance – verse 41 and 43. Verse 41 describes the future empire to be a “divided” kingdom. Islam is a divided kingdom and has been such since the death of its founder, Muhammad, in 632 a.d. Not only is Islam divided into two primary sects but those within the two sects are divided. If you are of the Revived Roman paradigm, you are probably thinking, “So are the Romans — there was a Rome of the East and a Rome of the West, hence, a “divided kingdom.” But Rome does not meet the other key verse, verse 43: “… they will combine with one another in the seed of men.” Shia Islam combines in the “seed of men.” (Read more). Shias combine based on the blood relationship of Ali ibn Talib to Muhammad; to Shias, only the descendants of Ali could satisfy the requirements for successor. Another key passage is Daniel 7:8 which provides that “three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it.” In Shia Islam, the first three caliphs were “rejected” because they were not blood relatives of Muhammad. That is too big a coincidence to ignore.  The Roman paradigmers have never been able to successfully resolve this identifier.

Islam also meets the other requirements of Daniel 2 as well as Daniel 7, Revelation 12, 13, 17, and many other passages. A good source for the open-minded is Islam the Cloak of Antichrist, by yours truly. In case you didn’t notice, the name of the self-acclaimed caliph of the Islamic State is Abu Bukr al-Baghdadi.

Jesus come quickly.