The Watchmans Study

I am grateful to be a Christian, to have a choice to follow Christ, which can be a contradiction to Islamic beliefs. The Islamic movement we are experiencing is concerning, Islam is spreading by force, instead of choice. It kind of resembles locusts destroying what ever is in their path.

Thank God that He loves us to give us a choice, even though those choices will end up with benefits or consequences. He does not force Himself on us, not like Islam where you can lose your life by force.

Islam and Christian values

> what is the main reason why Islam wants to replace Christian values?

Your question assumes a premise that the search results don’t directly support. Rather than establishing that Islam seeks to “replace Christian values,” the materials describe theological differences and historical competition between the two faiths.

The search results do identify fundamental theological incompatibilities. Islamic doctrine rejects core Christian concepts including Jesus as mediator and the associated framework of sin, salvation, faith, and grace[1]. Additionally, Islam integrates religion with political and social order in ways that contrast with Christianity’s emphasis on religious freedom and institutional separation[1]. These represent substantive disagreements about truth and proper social organization.

However, the materials frame this differently than your question suggests. Both religions operate from missionary worldviews that naturally generate competition and conflict as each seeks to spread its teachings[1]. This reflects mutual proselytizing rather than Islam uniquely targeting Christian values for replacement.

The search results also complicate any simple narrative of Islamic intent. Islamic theology includes the concept of supersessionism—the claim that Islam represents the latest divine revelation—which some Muslim theologians defend as a theological position rather than grounds for triumphalism[2]. Importantly, not all Muslims adopt exclusivist positions, and the Qur’an itself displays nuanced, sometimes ambivalent attitudes toward other religions[2].

The historical record shows Christianity and Islam have alternated between conflict, coexistence, and intellectual exchange rather than Islam pursuing a unified strategy of value replacement. Understanding their differences requires distinguishing between theological claims about truth and historical power dynamics.

[1] George Braswell, Islam and America: Answers to the 31 Most-Asked Questions (Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2005). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Levi Uc Nkwocha and Peter J. Casarella, At the Feet of Abraham: A Day-to-Day Dialogic Praxis for Muslims and Christians (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020). [See here, here.]

> can the overwhelming spread of radical Islam be associated with the locusts of revalations?

This question involves interpretive speculation rather than established biblical scholarship. The search results show that Revelation’s locusts have been identified with many different historical forces across centuries—from Assyrians and Babylonians to Communism to false ideologies—but there is no scholarly consensus, and the identification with Islam remains contested.

The most academically supported interpretation identifies these locusts as demons or fallen angels assuming a locust-like form, emerging from the abyss where evil spirits are imprisoned and led by an angel.[1] This supernatural reading emphasizes that these creatures do not consume vegetation like natural locusts[1], suggesting John intended something beyond literal insects or straightforward military symbolism.

Some commentators have proposed Islamic identification. One scholar notes that “some scholars apply the symbol (the locusts) to the Muslims,” and the prophecy fits that historical period[2]—a view that emerged during medieval Christian-Muslim conflicts. However, this remains one interpretive option among many rather than the dominant scholarly position.

The broader interpretive history reveals the challenge: interpreters have followed two main lines—taking locusts literally as real insects or allegorically as invading nations—and allegorists have not always agreed on which nations were meant.[3] Different eras have reidentified the locusts with contemporary threats, suggesting that apocalyptic symbolism invites each generation to see its own challenges reflected in the text.

Rather than confirming a specific historical identification, the passage’s symbolic language—affecting only those without “the seal of God on their foreheads” (Rev 9:1–11)—emphasizes spiritual protection and discernment as more fundamental than identifying particular enemies.

[1] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 30.
[2] James B. Coffman, Commentary on Revelation, The James Burton Coffman Commentaries (A. C. U. Press, 2017). [See here.]
[3] J. M. Powis Smith, William Hayes Ward, and Julius August Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1911), 65–66.

> what about what Paul said about false angels giving a false gospel, like the one Mohammed claims to have received?

Yes, Paul’s warning directly addresses this concern. Paul states that “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6–9) This passage is particularly relevant to your question because it explicitly mentions an angel delivering a false gospel—a framework that some Christians apply to Muhammad’s claim of receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.

Christian interpreters apply this principle to evaluate new religious claims: any teaching contradicting previous authoritative revelation from God is rejected.[1] From this perspective, since Islamic teachings contradict central Christian doctrines about God, Jesus Christ, and salvation as revealed in the Bible, they do not qualify as authentic divine revelation.[1]

Paul also warned more broadly about deceptive spiritual forces. He expressed concern that believers’ thoughts could be “led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” through false proclamations of “another Jesus” or “a different gospel.” (2 Cor 11:3–4) Additionally, Paul noted that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light,” and his servants similarly “disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” (2 Cor 11:13–15)

The search results present a Christian theological framework for evaluating Muhammad’s claims: revelations from a new prophet must align with previous authoritative divine revelation if they come from the same God.[1] One scholar concludes that Muhammad “never came to grasp what the true gospel of Jesus Christ is” and consequently “led many others on the wrong path.”[1]

This represents a distinctly Christian apologetic position rather than a neutral historical assessment. Muslims would reject this framework entirely, maintaining that Muhammad’s revelation supersedes and corrects earlier scriptures.

[1] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), 49–51.

> with that said, is the movement of Islam directed by evil intentions?

This question moves beyond theological disagreement into attributing motivations—a distinction worth clarifying. The search results describe Islamic aims and historical actions without characterizing them as driven by “evil intentions.”

Islamic theology encompasses what scholars call “pan-Islam”—the vision of a global Islamic state achieved through jihad[1]. A significant number of Muslims, termed Islamists, believe all humanity will eventually submit to Allah either willingly or by force[1]. From a Christian perspective, this represents a false gospel competing with Christian truth claims.

However, attributing “evil intentions” requires distinguishing between several things:

Theological disagreement versus malicious intent: Muslims pursuing Islamic expansion genuinely believe they’re advancing divine truth, not perpetrating evil. Their conviction differs fundamentally from Christian belief, but conviction isn’t the same as malice.

Systemic opposition versus coordinated conspiracy: Islamic countries are among the most prominent persecutors of Christians[1], which represents a real threat to Christian freedom and values. This reflects competing worldviews with real consequences—not necessarily a unified conspiracy directed by evil forces.

Historical complexity: Modern scholarship shows that during Islam’s formative centuries, Muslims lived in an intellectually dynamic and theologically diverse environment with multiple schools of thought[2]. Shi’i Muslims have contributed significantly to Islamic intellectual and artistic accomplishments[2]. This internal diversity complicates any monolithic characterization.

A Christian response grounded in biblical teaching would focus on spiritual discernment rather than attributing motives. Paul warned against false gospels and deceptive spiritual forces, but Christian theology distinguishes between those genuinely deceived and those acting with conscious malice. The appropriate Christian posture involves vigilant defense of truth while maintaining charity toward those who sincerely, though erroneously, embrace Islamic teaching.

[1] Jeff Myers and David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2015). [See here, here, here.]
[2] Farhad Daftary, Amyn Sajoo, and Shainool Jiwa, The Shi’i World: Pathways in Tradition and Modernity (London, WC: I.B. Tauris, 2015). [See here, here.]

> conviction without malice is contradictory to me. islamists force their beliefs even to death in the physical world. while Gods gives you choice without force, but also giving an explanation of consequence of choice, which differs from Islamic force?

You’ve identified a genuine tension that Christian theology addresses directly. The distinction isn’t that conviction without malice is contradictory—it’s that force reveals something about the nature of the conviction itself.

Christian theology emphasizes that believers choose to follow Christ daily out of love rather than mere obedience or fear, demonstrating that God loves us and dignifies our choices, even if we rebel against him, and will not force us to do something against our will.[1] This reflects a fundamental claim about God’s character: authentic relationship requires genuine choice.

The search results reveal a structural difference in how the two faiths approach human agency. Islam demands conformity to the system; Christianity demands the internal transformation sometimes called regeneration.[2] More specifically, a person contemplating changing to Islam must simply exercise an act of will—of willed commitment to a new allegiance, and enormous social pressure may be applied to keep that person aligned with these new-found Muslim commitments.[2]

Your observation about force is theologically significant. When Islamists use violence to compel submission, they’re not merely employing unfortunate tactics—they’re acting consistently with a framework where external compliance matters more than internal transformation. Most Muslim countries will happily allow non-Muslims to become Muslims, but not the reverse, partly due to Islam’s imperialist expectations.[2]

This suggests the issue isn’t malice versus conviction, but rather what each faith believes conversion is. Christianity stakes its claims on voluntary transformation; Islam on submission to divine law. When force enters, it exposes which framework is operating. A Christian using force would contradict Christianity’s core logic; an Islamist using force operates within Islam’s structural logic of enforced submission to divine order.

[1] Daniel Janosik, The Guide to Answering Islam: What Every Christian Needs to Know about Islam and the Rise of Radical Islam (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2019). [See here.]
[2] D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 201–202.