Which religion is closest to Islam?

[Whatsthepoint]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

How come we were discussing the issue for quite some time and pages and no one has come up with a seemingly so simple explanation...?

 

[Keltoi]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

Why would Arianist Christians be more to Muhammed's liking than traditional Christians? Arianists did not fully deny Christ's divinity, they simply disagreed upon his equality with the Father...making them more "polytheistic" than some have accused traditional Christianity of being.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Note the definite article "the" (al in arabic) which refers to some particularized Jews and Christians only. So of course there are exceptions eg. the Modern Jews and the Arianist Christians. As Qatada said, the Jews it refers to are only the Jews of Medina.

Also, there might be some confusion over the precisely what you think makes things clear. I don't know about the translation of the article, that the terminology "the Jews" when used in English could very easily refer to all Jews, and if one wanted to indicate a limited number one would say some Jews. And if one wanted to indicate a particular subset, then one would say those Jews or the Jewis in Medina. Absent the clarification, it would be most natural to understand the article to refer to all who would qualify as being Jews versus something other than Jews.

The same can be said with regard to the article "the" that is used to define the noun "Christians". For me the key is that even if the article was being used in a particularlizing way you would think that it would be used the same with for both "the Jews" and "the Christians". It doesn't follow, that the articel "the" might refer to a limit subset of Jews in Medina, and that the article "the" refers to all Christians. It is also hard to make a stretch to think that it might be referenceing Arianist Christians, a group that had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Unless you know of some small band of Arianist Christians that Muhammad would have been familiar with in the same way he was familiar with the Jews of Medina?

 

[Keltoi]

Also, there might be some confusion over the precisely what you think makes things clear. I don't know about the translation of the article, that the terminology "the Jews" when used in English could very easily refer to all Jews, and if one wanted to indicate a limited number one would say some Jews. And if one wanted to indicate a particular subset, then one would say those Jews or the Jewis in Medina. Absent the clarification, it would be most natural to understand the article to refer to all who would qualify as being Jews versus something other than Jews.

The same can be said with regard to the article "the" that is used to define the noun "Christians". For me the key is that even if the article was being used in a particularlizing way you would think that it would be used the same with for both "the Jews" and "the Christians". It doesn't follow, that the articel "the" might refer to a limit subset of Jews in Medina, and that the article "the" refers to all Christians. It is also hard to make a stretch to think that it might be referenceing Arianist Christians, a group that had ceased to exist centuries earlier. Unless you know of some small band of Arianist Christians that Muhammad would have been familiar with in the same way he was familiar with the Jews of Medina?

Good point about the timeline of Arianism. To my knowledge, the last vestiges of Arianism were found in some of the Germanic tribes, which were converted to Arianism by missionaries before the Council of Nicea. After these tribes were subjugated by the Franks(also Germanic but Catholic), Arianism pretty much ceased to exist. This was centuries before Muhammed's birth.

 

[- Qatada -]

How come we were discussing the issue for quite some time and pages and no one has come up with a seemingly so simple explanation...?

Did you know that not all christians say that Jesus son of Mary is God? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, they say he is God's creation - yet they are still grouped in the christian category. Yes, christians will differ on whether they are truly christian or not, that isn't the issue - the issue is that if someone claims to follow a religion, or if they claim to be part of a religion due to a birth right of some sort - then they will be termed as part of that religion. I.e. the example of Jehova's witnesses being Christians and Jews being Jews.


The Jews who lived in Medinah were Jewish by blood, they did many things which contradicted their religion. They fought their own brethren, they sided with the polytheists and told them that they were upon the truth (refer to the seerah, or deny it if you choose to do so) - does this mean that this is a part of mainstream Jewish beliefs? No. Indeed, without a doubt it is not the religion of Prophet Moses.



So, is it possible that the Jews could say that Uzair was the son of Allah? If they have disobeyed Allah in many matters, is it possible that they could lie about Him too? Yes. Jews are not perfect, nor is any other son of Adam. We all make mistakes, and the best of sinners are those who repent to Allah and mend their ways.



If you are to argue that the verse refers to specific Jews only, know that the verse regarding Christians saying that Jesus is the son of God or God himself is referring to specific christians only also. And i've explained that because there are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Jehova's witnesses, i wouldn't be surprised if there were many people who had similar beliefs to them in the past also.



So to say that the verse refers to all christians and specific Jews only is false, since there are christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but rather His creation. Which then refutes your claim.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Did you know that not all christians say that Jesus son of Mary is God? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, they say he is God's creation - yet they are still grouped in the christian category. Yes, christians will differ on whether they are truly christian or not, that isn't the issue - the issue is that if someone claims to follow a religion, or if they claim to be part of a religion due to a birth right of some sort - then they will be termed as part of that religion. I.e. the example of Jehova's witnesses being Christians and Jews being Jews.


The Jews who lived in Medinah were Jewish by blood, they did many things which contradicted their religion. They fought their own brethren, they sided with the polytheists and told them that they were upon the truth (refer to the seerah, or deny it if you choose to do so) - does this mean that this is a part of mainstream Jewish beliefs? No. Indeed, without a doubt it is not the religion of Prophet Moses.



So, is it possible that the Jews could say that Uzair was the son of Allah? If they have disobeyed Allah in many matters, is it possible that they could lie about Him too? Yes. Jews are not perfect, nor is any other son of Adam. We all make mistakes, and the best of sinners are those who repent to Allah and mend their ways.



If you are to argue that the verse refers to specific Jews only, know that the verse regarding Christians saying that Jesus is the son of God or God himself is referring to specific christians only also. And i've explained that because there are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Jehova's witnesses, i wouldn't be surprised if there were many people who had similar beliefs to them in the past also.



So to say that the verse refers to all christians and specific Jews only is false, since there are christians who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but rather His creation. Which then refutes your claim.

Well beyond the fact that I would not include Jehovah's Witnesses in any subset of theological beliefs that was labelled as Christian in character, I think you have the same problem as was brought up with regard to Arianism. Just as there were no Arian Christians in the 7th century for they had long since disappeared, there were also no Jehovah's Witnesses for they had not yet been created. Can you, please, tell me what group of actually Christians, living at the time and in the geographical area of Muhammad, Muhammad might have been referring to? That's a serious question because I don't know that much about the history of the people's of the Arabian peninsula in the first milenia.

 

[- Qatada -]

Grace Seeker, i'm not saying i know of an official group of people, i'm saying that his argument of those Jews being specific and the Christians being a general - in the verse - isn't true at all.


Rather, there are Christians today (not according to you, however according to the fact that they attribute themselves to it) who are Christians, yet they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor His son. Yet this simply means that the verse applies to those who do say that Jesus is the 'son of God.' Similarly, the verse applies to those Jews who said that Uzair was the son of God, although many other Jews do not say this.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, i'm not saying i know of an official group of people, i'm saying that his argument of those Jews being specific and the Christians being a general - in the verse - isn't true at all.


Rather, there are Christians today (not according to you, however according to the fact that they attribute themselves to it) who are Christians, yet they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor His son. Yet this simply means that the verse applies to those who do say that Jesus is the 'son of God.' Similarly, the verse applies to those Jews who said that Uzair was the son of God, although many other Jews do not say this.

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, Jehovah's Witnesses are about as close to true Christianity as the Ahmadi are to true Islam.

 

[- Qatada -]

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, Jehovah's Witnesses are about as close to true Christianity as the Ahmadi are to true Islam.

Ahmadi's attribute themselves to Islam, Jehova's Witnesses attribute themselves to Christianity, and those Jews which we're discussing in the thread attributed themselves to Judaism.


Do you get a grasp of what i'm saying now?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Ahmadi's attribute themselves to Islam, Jehova's Witnesses attribute themselves to Christianity, and those Jews which we're discussing in the thread attributed themselves to Judaism.


Do you get a grasp of what i'm saying now?

I can live with that. Can you live with my assertion that none of them are true representatives of those respective faiths?

 

[- Qatada -]

I can live with that. Can you live with my assertion that none of them are true representatives of those respective faiths?

According to my beliefs, it's quite clear that in some aspects - Jehova's Witness's belief about Jesus son of Mary being a creation of God is true. But many of their other beliefs i do not agree with. Yeah, i agree that the Jews at that time were not true representatives of the religion of Moses, nor are the Ahmadi's followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him.)



Peace.

 

[Omari]

,nor are the Ahmadi's followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him.)

I hope you are making a generalization, because some Ahmadis DO follow the ways of the Prophet of Allah [PBUH]

Peace.
Omari

 

[Grace Seeker]

According to my beliefs, it's quite clear that in some aspects - Jehova's Witness's belief about Jesus son of Mary being a creation of God is true.
Peace.

Certainly, according to YOUR beliefs JW beliefs regarding Jesus might be true. But I didn't asked about them being in accord with your beliefs. What I asked was if you would agree that they are NOT true representatives of Christianity. That would of course mean that if you believe that JW beliefs are true, but they don't represent Christianity, that at those points were they differed from Christianity you would probably hold Christianity to itself be false. I understand that. But again my question is not about what you think is or is not true. It is whether you can agree with my assessment that JW teachings do not truly represent the teachings of Christianity any more than Ahamdi teachings do not truly represent the teachings of Islam?

It is entirely possible the you may think that JW teachings are true or that I may think that Ahmadi teachings are true, but both issues would be irrelevant to the point in question. Even though JWs may attribute themselves to Christianity and even though Ahamdi may attribute themselves to Islam, the only point in question is whether we can concur that neither Sunni nor Shi'te Muslims feel that Ahamdi are true representatives of Islam, and can we further concur that Christians with historical and denominational roots going back farther than that 19th century do not feel JWs are true representatives of Christianity?

 

[Jayda]

Jehovas Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist and Mormons are not Christians.

 

[- Qatada -]

Sure then Grace seeker, i agree.


However, i'd love to know what the criterion is for the truth according to christianity.

We as muslims believe that the criterion for the saved group in Islam is those who follow the Messenger of God and the understanding of his companions - as mentioned by the Messenger himself.

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Sure then Grace seeker, i agree.


However, i'd love to know what the criterion is for the truth according to christianity.

We as muslims believe that the criterion for the saved group in Islam is those who follow the Messenger of God and the understanding of his companions - as mentioned by the Messenger himself.

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

Well, obviously we argue amongst ourselves. Jayda would tell you that it is the teaching magesteriums of the Roman Catholic Church and that any others are in error. But even despite this what I find is that Christians are more in agreement with each other than they are in opposition. That's why you can still group Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all together as Christians.

 

[Jayda]

positions do not make a person Christian... valid baptism makes a person Christian... Woodrow for example is considered a (lapsed) Christian while Qatada would not be considered a Christian.

after a person is baptised they still may not be considered members of the Church (that is called excommunication) or their theology might be considered unorthodox (that is called heresy). but they are still considered Christian by virtue of baptism.

martin luther was a Christian but he was excommunicated and heretical... as was arius. born protestants or orthodox are not considered excommunicated because they were not brought into the Church to begin with... but the errors of their beliefs make the heretical to varying degrees.

the issues of baptism, heresy and excommunication all affect our standing on judgment day.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What is there in Christianity as a true, clear criterion to distinguish between truth and falsehood? Especially since we know that there are many, many denominations.

positions do not make a person Christian... valid baptism makes a person Christian... Woodrow for example is considered a (lapsed) Christian while Qatada would not be considered a Christian.

after a person is baptised they still may not be considered members of the Church (that is called excommunication) or their theology might be considered unorthodox (that is called heresy). but they are still considered Christian by virtue of baptism.

martin luther was a Christian but he was excommunicated and heretical... as was arius. born protestants or orthodox are not considered excommunicated because they were not brought into the Church to begin with... but the errors of their beliefs make the heretical to varying degrees.

the issues of baptism, heresy and excommunication all affect our standing on judgment day.

As I said, we obviously argue amongst ourselves. So, for a person outside of Christendom it might be hard to say. And even for those within it, there are disagreements.

By Jayda's definition there are some folks connected to my church that were presented for baptism as infants by their parents 50 years ago and who have not been back in the church since that would be considered Christians. Yet there are others -- children presently active and involved in the life of the congregation, who believe in the historic teachings of the Christian faith, who have made personal confessions of their own faith in Christ, and regularly participate in receiving Holy Communion, but because their parents made the decision not to have them baptized until the child made this commitment for themselves -- who would not be considered Christian. So, as some of these children have approached me to schedule baptism, I suppose that on that date, though their theology won't have changed, their status in the eyes of the Catholic Church will.

Other Christians would cite making a personal confession of faith as the key to their evaluation of whether or not a person is a Christian. Such individiuals hold that if someone walks down the sawdust trail, responds to an altar call, prays a prayer asking Jesus into their heart that this person is a Christian at that point in time. For these individuals it matters not whether the person has participated in the life of the church before or not. Some people don't even seem to be concerned about whether such a person participates in the life of the church after making such a profession of faith. Though generally most who make such a commitment seek to be baptized if they have not previously been baptized, the baptism itself is not seen as the moment of becoming a Christian, rather it was when the person "accepted Christ as my personal savior" that is understood as the defining moment.

And then still other Christians look to other events as what they use as the key deciding moment. So, since we disagree amongst ourselves, it is no doubt hard for someone outside of Christianity to sense that there is any consistent oneness in the body of Christ. Yet, surprisingly, there really is. Notice that we still have no problem, even in our disagreements, with using the term Christian to describe theologies, positions, or people. We sometimes hold other people to be in error in the specifics of their definitions, but there is enough common understanding that we don't debate one another over the general use of the term. Even non-Christians seem to understand this.

So, what does this mean? For me it means that while at the edges it is hard to draw an exact line and say that this person is Christian and this person is not, and get universal agreement. That it is very easy to recognize what is at the center of Christianity. I suggest that this center is what should be the standard by which you answer your question as to what is used to distinguish truth from falsehood, or Christian from non-Christian teachings. It is sort of like asking the question "What is normal?". Is it normal to think of a family as a single mom raising children of two different fathers while living with a third man? I hope not. But I, also, don't think anyone would view it as abnormal to encounter such a "family". Yet, even if it is not abnormal, that is not what anyone would want to use as the standard by which one identified what is a family. So it is with Christianity. There are things that pass for Christian that I would not want to have people use as the standard to identify what is Christianity.

For me, the standard remains that at the heart of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, come to live among us and make God known to us, creating a new covenant by which lost human beings can be reconnected to God by grace (not a reward for something we have done), and we trust in Jesus Christ to accomplish this for us by his sacrificial and atoning death on the cross.

 

[rahul_89]

in all honesty for me....the Christians (nasaara) r in fact closa to us muslims....firstly bcoz they acept all the prophets unlyk the kews..and secondly bcoz Muhammad (saw) came strait afta prophet Jesus....all the Prophets r lyk brothers and to me it seems they wer very close in spreadin the religion...lemme knw if u defer...jazakallah

 

[someone...]

christians are closest to islam in my opinion because they believe all the prophet, but switch the words around a bit, and and they got lots of things that are the same with islam.