The answer to the question as to whether Muhammad and his followers are antichrist, will obviously not be found in the dissimulation of Islam's modern-day Greek sophist styled entertainers.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390996044
Does the First Epistle of John really suggest Muhammad was not antichrist, as the famous liar Ahmed Deedat proclaimed? Have you ever read the First Epistle of John for yourself, from the same version that Deedat pretended to quote from?
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/first_epistle_john.htm

The answer can obviously only be found in the book that introduces and defines the term "antichrist". There are only 4 verses in scripture that use the term:

1 John 2:18

Thus we learn that people had heard that (the spirit of) antichrist would come, but that even in John's first century there were many antichrists. Here is why:

1 John 2:22 

So it cannot be refuted that Islam is antichrist and the false prophet Muhammad was an antichrist. Indeed he was even specifically an outright blasphemer of the Son of God:

Sura 19:88 They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" 89 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

Thus each and every one of Muhammad's followers throughout a period of 1400 years, have been antichrists, as an article of their faith in the false prophet Muhammad alone.

1 John 4:3 

Here we find confirmation that it is not a boogieman, but the spirit of antichrist that people had heard was coming, through the same phraseology as the first verse I posted.
And just as it says, this is a test of spirits, not persons. If it was a test of persons, all a person would have to do is lie and confess "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", and according to Deedat it would make them a true prophet of God! In fact a Satanist could honestly say he believes that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and that would qualify him as a true prophet, according to Deedat's buffoonery!

But this is a test of spirits, like when a person speaks in tongues. We are given the test so we can know whether the spirit behind the tongue being uttered is the Holy Spirit, or an unclean spirit posing as the Holy Spirit.
Ah if only Muhammad had known to use this test, when he met with what he himself recognized to be a demon, in the cave of Hira! How much more peaceful might the world otherwise be today!

CNS reports: "Sunni Muslim terrorists committed “about 70 percent” of the 12,533 terrorist murders in the world last year, according to a report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)."
That's for the year 2011, and that percentage doesn't even include Shiite Muslim terrorist murders.

2 John 1:7

That's all 4 verses. It should go without saying, that just because someone believes they conform to some part of any of the above verses, is obviously irrelevant. Judgment can only be made in light of

ALL

the applicable verses.
If you flunk one point, your an antichrist! Whether Muslim or atheist.
However some Jews may have been sovereignly blinded to the Gospel by God Himself, so they couldn't sin against it - but that's a separate discussion.
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/spirit_of_slumber.htm

While so many chase after an individual boogieman, has this blinded them to the fact that there are 1.5 billion antichrists just in Islam - that's 1/4 of mankind in the world today - without even including other antichrists?

There seems to be considerable confusion on this subject in this forum.
Though there has been no shortage of those even in Christianity, that believe the subject of antichrist to be about some past or future individual boogieman. However when we apply an adjacent hermeneutic and let scripture define the term "beast" - when used in the context of the figurative language of a dream or vision in prophecy - the idea of an individual as the "beast" yields to Daniel's definition of it being a kingdom. John and Daniel even use 3 of the very same figures in their descriptions of kingdom beasts.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390714478/16#16

Having witnessed a show on the History Channel that devoted an entire hour to the term, which dealt with it solely on the basis of it being an individual boogieman, I would suggest that bears testament to the fact that humanity has not been served very well by that notion - having distracted folks away from the actual subject.