Recently I started hearing that the king of the south in Daniel 11 is Islam. What is your opinion?

Some interpreters identify the “king of the south” in Daniel 11 with Islam, especially in parts of the historicist tradition. I think that view is worth considering, but I would be careful about treating it as certain.

In the early part of Daniel 11, the identity of the king of the south is clear. After Alexander the Great’s empire was divided, the southern kingdom was the Ptolemaic dynasty centered in Egypt, while the northern kingdom was the Seleucid dynasty centered in Syria. These kingdoms were called “north” and “south” because of their location in relation to the land of Israel.

The main debate concerns Daniel 11:40:

“At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him…”

By this point in the prophecy, many historicist interpreters believe the symbols have expanded beyond the original Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. The question then becomes: what does the end-time king of the south represent?

One interpretation identifies it with Islam or Islamic political powers. Supporters of this view point to the long historical conflict between Islamic powers and Christian Europe, particularly involving territories south and east of the Mediterranean. Some connect Daniel 11 with the rise of Islamic empires, including the Ottoman Empire, and argue that Islam fits the geographical pattern of a southern power opposing the northern power.

There are some strengths to this view. It attempts to maintain the geographical meaning of “north” and “south,” and Islam certainly became a major political and religious force in regions historically associated with Egypt, North Africa, and the Middle East.

However, there are also difficulties. “Islam” is extremely broad. It includes many nations, governments, cultures, and religious movements. Daniel 11 describes specific political powers taking specific actions, so simply saying “the king of the south is Islam” can be too general unless the interpretation explains exactly what political power or coalition is intended.

Another well-known historicist interpretation identifies the king of the south with atheistic or secular opposition to Christianity. In this interpretation, revolutionary France becomes especially important. Revelation 11:8 symbolically describes a power as “Egypt,” and Pharaoh’s statement, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice?” (Exodus 5:2), is understood as representing open rejection of God. Therefore, some interpreters see “Egypt” or the king of the south as symbolic of atheism, secularism, or political forces hostile to religion.

This interpretation also has strengths, particularly within a historicist reading of Revelation, but it is not without problems either. Daniel 11 itself does not explicitly define the king of the south as atheism.

For that reason, I would avoid being overly dogmatic. The original king of the south was unquestionably Egypt under the Ptolemies. In the end-time portion of Daniel 11, the symbol may broaden to represent a later political or ideological power, but Scripture does not directly say that it is Islam.

The best approach is to examine Daniel 11:36–45 as a continuous passage and compare it carefully with Daniel 7, Daniel 8, Revelation 13, and Revelation 17. Any interpretation of the king of the south should fit the larger prophetic framework rather than being based mainly on current geopolitical events.