Which religion is closest to Islam?

[aamirsaab]

I've heard this statement made by Muslims sources, but I have never heard any Jews make such a claim. In fact, prior to coming to this board, in years of studying the Bible and both Christian and Jewish history, I had never heard it at all...

click me
According to that link, a certain Yemen sect of Jews (at the time of the Prophet) DID indeed believe Ezra to be the son of God. Though, you could call bias as it is an Islamic site.

(truth be told I either find an Islamic site agreeing with the above link or a Christian site disagreeing with it [the latter doesn't produce any evidence to support their case tho])

 

[Grace Seeker]

truth be told I either find an Islamic site agreeing with the above link or a Christian site disagreeing with it

So, if such a group did exist, what you are saying is that

1. they disappeared from history without a trace beyond the revelation of their existence to Muhammed.
2. they were heterodox in their beliefs (at least according to Jewish standards of orthodoxy).
3. they existed only for a brief period sometime after the time of Jesus and before the time of Muhammed.

BTW, I tried looking up the Hirschberg quote in an online edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, and found it to be taken from the following article on Ezra. It is interesting to read it in its entire context:

Muhammad claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of the Jews, ʿUzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are an enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (see Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammad with a Muslim legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14:18–19. The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, the Holy Ark was removed, and the Torah was forgotten. It was due, however, to Ezra's merit that his heart was filled with the Torah of God, which he taught to the people of Israel. When the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared that which Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Ţabarī cites another version of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves hid the Ark, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H.Z. Hirsch-berg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Ḥazm (I, 99), namely, that the "righteous" who live in Yemen believe that ʿUzayr was indeed the son of Allah. According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of the messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christians saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Ezra as the apostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespread among the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested that they immigrate to Ereẓ Israel, and because they did not, he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have therefore refrained from naming their children Ezra. According to some Muslim commentators, ʿUzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city (of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be rebuilt (see *Jeremiah ).

[Haïm Z'ew Hirschberg]


source: article on Ezra

 

[malayloveislam]

^^^

It's not Muhammad who claim that Ezra is the son of God. It is God Himself. When we mention Quranic verses we say, "God says" and when we mention Hadiths, we say, "Messenger of God says." Quran is the word of God, we do not have any doubts in Quran.

 

[aamirsaab]

So, if such a group did exist, what you are saying is that

1. they disappeared from history without a trace beyond the revelation of their existence to Muhammed.
2. they were heterodox in their beliefs (at least according to Jewish standards of orthodoxy).
3. they existed only for a brief period sometime after the time of Jesus and before the time of Muhammed.

...

Pretty much. Though, this is only based on what I have read so far. Regarding the article you gave me, thanks for the interesting read. I will look into this area in further detail, but it's difficult since there seems to be such polarisations in the view points I do find.

Edit: After a little more reading, I have found some interesting things. Namely, some verses in the book of Proverbs:

My son [bar], pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding, that you may preserve discretion, and your lips may keep knowledge. (Proverbs 7:1,2)

Source

So, one could reasonably assume that this could easily have lead some people to call Ezra (and certainly other prophets) the son of God, since the verse refers to the prophets as ''my son'' (from my understanding, this is from God's perspective, i.e: God is saying my son). Correct me at all if I am wrong though - I'm no biblical scholar and I could very well be chatting bob (I did just wake up).

Another link on the matter:
Views from some Quranic commentators are given on the matter.

 

[YusufNoor]

I claim that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron. That the two terms are mutually exclusive. Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's preaching does not a Christian make. If that is all that it takes to make a Christian, then Ghandi and Muhammed were both Christians, and I don't hear anyone making that claim.

An essential part of what it means to be a Christian is to believe in the divinity of Jesus and the atoning value of his death on the cross. Perhaps you disagree with my definition of what it takes to be a Christian. So be it. But in my opinion, use of the term Christian regarding anyone who doesn't truly believe in the efficacy of Christ's death, the reality of his resurrection, and his idenitity in the godhead -- all key components of the Apostles' Creed, the teaching of Didache, and the extant writings of the New Testament Church -- is misplaced. But that discussion really is far removed from the topic of this thread.

BTW, I didn't deny that Unitarians exist, I just deny that they are indeed Christians.

actually you wrote:But to speak of Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron, there is no such creature

You used Unitarian sources in which they claimed to be Christian as proof that they were. I simply gave you a taste of your own standard when I turned to the writings of Ahmadi and cited their claims to be Muslim. I have no doubt that they did not appear until 1889; a fact which I find irrelevant. Using your own standard, they claim that they are Muslims and that claim should be sufficient to recognize them for who they say that they are. Now, if you object to that, surely you can understand why I would object to the assertion that Unitarians are Christian simply because they say that they are.

i absolutely disagree. "Christians" should acknowledge that the original Christians were, in fact, Unitarian and that, much like the Ahmadiyyans and the Qaddiyanis, they["Christians"] have altered their religion based on the words of men and NOT the Word of The One True God. you MAY then claim that you BELIEVE that only those who accept the manmade changes to the Religion are YOUR BRAND of "Christianity" and that you feel that True and Proper Christians [those believing in the Oneness of The One True God] are of a different religion. THAT would be correct BUT it would also be correct that the Trinitarian path is one that is astray and NOT the Original and True Christianity.


You forget, one of my daughters is a Muslim. I don't find that threatening at all. I trust that her faith blesses her life. Whenever we are together, we keep all Islamic holy days. That includes me observing the fast of Ramadan in every detail alongside her.

In Islam, ONLY your REAL father is your father.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

returning to this:

I claim that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron. That the two terms are mutually exclusive. Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's preaching does not a Christian make. If that is all that it takes to make a Christian, then Ghandi and Muhammed were both Christians, and I don't hear anyone making that claim.

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Christ's preaching doe a Christian[Hanif] make. we could say that one who properly followed Jesus/Isa, Alaihe Salaam, WAS called, in Arabic, a Hanifa, as also a proper Jew was called and so in that respect the Messenger of Allah, SallaAllahu Alaihe wa Salaam WAS a Hanif!

is Surah #2 Al Baqarah, we read:

135:
Muhsin Khan: And they say, "Be Jews or Christians, then you will be guided." Say (to them, O Muhammad Peace be upon him ), "Nay, (We follow) only the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hanifa [Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], and he was not of Al-Mushrikun (those who worshipped others along with Alla

the transliteration was "Ibraheema Haneefan" we now use the term Muslim, and using that term now, we could say:

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Adam's, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make!

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Noahs, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Ibrahim, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Christ's, Alaihe Salaam, preaching DOES a Muslim[Hanif] make

Believing in [and obeying]God and accepting [and following]Mohammed, Salla Allahu Alaihe wa Salaam, preaching does a Muslim[Hanif] make

the reason this ism possible is because the teachings of all those Prophets had a foundation in what we now call the 7 Noahide Laws:

1. Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

2. Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

3. Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d's image, is sacred.

4. Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

5. Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

6. Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

7. Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/noahide.html

what we now call "Christians," are teeming with Idolatry in "associating partners with The One True God, and some [though STILL accepted as Christians] even make images of those "associated partners! Nowuthubillah!

additionally, most have NO LAWS pertaining to the eating of living flesh and NOW have abandoned having courts to deal with their "Shariah", [courts of justice and a just social order established in order to enforce the first six laws] and now live in "secular societies" whereby they have "freed" themselves of their responsibillty!

Furthermore the Apostles' Creed WASN'T written by the Apostles and as for the teachings of Didache:

Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

"Discovered" in 1883, and what date did we give to the beginnings of the Ahmadiyyan movement? 1889!

so, as we now have seen we have BOTH, [what we now call] Christianity and the Ahmadyya/Qaddiyanis who claim that Merely believing in God and accepting Christ's or any of God's Messengers preaching does not a Christian of Hanifa make! Quite a discovery!

we were warned in the Qur'an:

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
[9.31] They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

they take "their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah" by accepting their teachings in place of Divine Revelation. it's NOT by chance that we find NO TRINITARIAN teachings until a century after Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, May Allah's Peace and Blessings be on the both of them, ascended into heaven!

and finally, A TRUE Christian who believed in the prior Messengers of Allah, Alaihe Salaam, WITHOUT associating partners with The One True God would, upon understanding Tawheed, accept Islam as Correct Guidance and the Proper Religion!

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is one thing for a Muslim to assert that, based on the teachings of the Qur'an, the original followers of Jesus were also followers of Islam. It is quite another for a Muslim to assert that they can decide who is and who is not a Christian.


But in reference to the Qur'an, what does it say: "christians say, 'The Christ is God's son'." (9:30) Unitarians don't say that, so Unitarians don't fit the definition that the Qur'an has for Christian.

Or turn again to the Qur'an:

For, never will the Jews be pleased with thee. nor yet the christians, unless thou follow their own creeds. Say: "Behold, God's guidance is the only true guidance." And, indeed, if thou shouldst follow their errant views after all the knowledge that has come unto thee. thou wouldst have none to protect thee from God, and none to bring thee succour. (2:120)

Does this not show that Christian views are errant? And yet you proclaim that the views of Unitarians are not. In fact you insist that the early followers of Jesus were both Unitarians and Muslims, if so they could not have been both Muslim and held errant views. So, since the Qur'an says that Christians hold errant views, it follows that these Unitarians you seek of (if they are indeed Muslims) cannot be and never were Christian.

 

[Silver]

*Post deleted.

 

[YusufNoor]

It is one thing for a Muslim to assert that, based on the teachings of the Qur'an, the original followers of Jesus were also followers of Islam.

my education and or research into "Christianity" preceeded my Shahaadah by DECADES.

It is quite another for a Muslim to assert that they can decide who is and who is not a Christian.

anyone may call themselves a Christian, but we are talking about religions based upon revelations from God, which you admit that present day "Christianty" is not.


But in reference to the Qur'an, what does it say: "christians say, 'The Christ is God's son'." (9:30) Unitarians don't say that, so Unitarians don't fit the definition that the Qur'an has for Christian.

as you shall see below, the 1st followers of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, Alaihe Salaam, were NOT Christians! and my usage of the term Unitarian is merely to differentiate those followers from the Pauline Trinitarians. i apologize if that caused some confusion.

Or turn again to the Qur'an: Does this not show that Christian views are errant? And yet you proclaim that the views of Unitarians are not. In fact you insist that the early followers of Jesus were both Unitarians and Muslims, if so they could not have been both Muslim and held errant views. So, since the Qur'an says that Christians hold errant views, it follows that these Unitarians you seek of (if they are indeed Muslims) cannot be and never were Christian.

actually i used the term Ibrahim"Hanifa" which is one that adhere's to Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], as opposed to Al-Mushrikun, i.e. to associate partners with Allah as do Pauline Christians. Hanifa, as i stated, was the term in use BEFORE Muhammad ibn Abdullah's Salla Allahu Alaihe wa Salaam, Prophethood. NOW we use the term Muslim

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

BismiAllah ir Rahman ir Raheem,

of course the 1st followers of Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, Alaihe Salaam, were NOT called Christians and didn't call him the son of God. at least according to the "Christians writings, it's wasn't until the people in Antioch raised Paul/Saul of Tarsis to the rank of Messenger and Prophet of God [and thus REJECTING Jesus as such] that his follower became called Christians

evidence:

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

when we put this with this:

Galatians 2
The Council at Jerusalem
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.


we see it was the followers of Paul/Saul in Antioch that were FIRST called Christian and second we that when Paul/Saul came back to Jerusalem he had to tell them "the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles" how? IN PRIVATE!

we also see that Paul Galations 2:21 is claiming Nabua, that is Prophethood, by stating "because of a revelation that I went up", and by teaching a new gospel which he had to inform the Elders of "IN PRIVATE", he is also claiming the status of Rasool, that is Messenger.

we can see from this that it is Paul/Saul's message that we now call Christian and that is INDEED the "Christianity" that the Qur'an speaks of. the original followers of Jesus were NOT in error, by following their new messenger and prophet Paul/Saul, the "Christians" fell into error.

however where i would agree with you in that as you feel that Ahmadiyyans are Muslim that what we have discovered here is the AMAZING SIMILARITY of Pauline Christians and Ahmadiyyans. if fact, i shall endeavor, In Sha'a Allah to refer to Christians as the Ahmadiyyan followers of Jesus as it is the best and most accurate description! so thank you, as that will really help people understand what present day "Christianity" really is, In Sha'a Allah!

 

[Follower]

I would say that most definately Christianity is most like Islam. Much of the Quran is about Jesus.

The Quran tells us that Jesus above all is unique.

He was born of a virgin.

In the Quran Jesus is pure and faultless- no other is.

Jesus is mentioned as the Messiah-Muslims have erased all the meaning of messiah from the title, but Jesus is the deliverer.

Jesus is a WORD from GOD. So was Adam but, for some reason GOD used a womb to have Jesus appear on earth.

 

[Grace Seeker]

we see it was the followers of Paul/Saul in Antioch that were FIRST called Christian

Look at what you yourself quoted:

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

These aren't just the followers of Paul, but the followers of Jesus that the author of Acts is referring to.

Then also note:

Galatians 2
The Council at Jerusalem
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain

3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul wasn't doing this on his own, Barnabas was with him. But these are minor points.

On the major issue, am I correct in understanding that you now agree with me, Unitarians are NOT Christian if we are to use the definition of Christianity found in the Qu'ran?

we can see from this that it is Paul/Saul's message that we now call Christian and that is INDEED the "Christianity" that the Qur'an speaks of.

Hence I continue to assert that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron; there is no such creature, for Christians believe in what the Qur'an calls shirk and Unitarias do not. You can't be both shirk and non-shirk at the same time.

 

[YusufNoor]

we see it was the followers of Paul/Saul in Antioch that were FIRST called Christian

Look at what you yourself quoted:

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

These aren't just the followers of Paul, but the followers of Jesus that the author of Acts is referring to.

the above mentioned verse tells me that it was AFTER Barnabas found Saul in Tarsus and went to Antioch with him, that THOSE disciples whom were taught the Gospel that "Paul preached that was so different he had to explain it to the Church leaders IN PRIVATE," that THEY were then the first to be called Christians.


Then also note:

Galatians 2
The Council at Jerusalem
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain

3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul wasn't doing this on his own, Barnabas was with him. But these are minor points.

[maybe] Barnabas rebelled after he wasn't chosen to be an Apostle, and subordinated himself to Saul/Paul. to me, that just points out that somehow Barnabas was an accomplice. after all, he HAD motive!
On the major issue, am I correct in understanding that you now agree with me, Unitarians are NOT Christian if we are to use the definition of Christianity found in the Qu'ran?

actually, and quite honestly, i don't believe that you know how the Qur'an portrays the followers of Isa ibn Marriam, may Allah's Peace and Blessing be upon both of them. i think you know some, BUT you ARE missing something! [AND it's related to a question i asked like a year [or so] go!


Hence I continue to assert that Unitarian Christianity is an oxymoron;

what i'm pointing out is that you are only posting your opinion!

there is no such creature, for Christians believe in what the Qur'an calls shirk and Unitarias do not. You can't be both shirk and non-shirk at the same time.

believers can end up astray, which is why we, as Muslims attempt to avoid any and all types of shirk, both big and little.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it is YOUR opinion, which YOU FELL is backed up by the evidence that Christians MUST be trinitarian in belief.

it is MY opinion, which I FEEL is backed up by the evidence, if you ARE a trinitarian then:
a) you have most definitely gone astray and
b) that IS different than the earliest followers of Jesus/Isa [AS] were those who submitted to Islamic concept of Monotheism and that
c) the Qur'an confirms confirms this view

it HAS been my opinion for somewhere around 3 decades that trinitarianism is wrong and that it IS as wrong as: celebrating XMas, Easter, eating pork, not observing the Sabbath, celebrating birthdays, praying to "Saints", making Mary, the mother of Jesus[AS], into a god.

i DO freely admit that my views on the matter are not the views of the majority of those referring to themselves as Christians today. MY OPINION is that MY VIEW is still the correct view and although i WON'T force it on anyone, i feel no need to let anyone claim that it is either not correct or non existant.

 

[Grace Seeker]

what i'm pointing out is that you are only posting your opinion!

No doubt. That is all pretty much any of us ever post in these threads. We all begin with a point of view, Immanuel Kant called it an apriori assumption, and then proceed to discuss/debate/argue with one another from that particular point of view.

Yes, it is my opinion that the early church held to the beliefs that we see expressed in the book of Acts, I find those views to be substantially Trinitarian in nature. And it is also my opinion that the Unitarians of the 18th century who claim to be Unitarian Christians in their own publications are not keeping beliefs that are in harmony with the historic teachings of the church: Beliefs that were codified by ecumenical councils in the 4th century, practiced by believers in the 1st century, articulated in the writings of the Paul to the church, but held even before Paul by Jesus' own disciples. I believe that these beliefs are the foundational beliefs of Christianity and they include Thomas' reference to Jesus as both Lord and God (John 20:28); Peter's assertion that God made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and then also speaks of "the Lord" as "our God" (Acts 2:39) and calls him "the author of life" (Acts 3:15) even as he understands him to have been killed. Indeed it is my opinion that these statements represent fundamental beliefs of the early church. And it is likewise my opinion that these beliefs are at variance with both what you express as your opinion regarding the beliefs of the early church and that which Untarians hold today. I see no evidence in the scriptures, the historical record of the early church, or even the gnostic writings to suggest that the early church held any other belief, but rather that when it encountered them coming in to infect the church from outside, the church declared them to be in error and spoke against said beliefs.

If you see history differently, I suggest that it is as you have implied, a result of the opinions you hold as to what is and is not true. Of course I understand that your view is based on assumptions you have regarding the veracity of the Qur'an that I try to respect, but ultimately do not share.

 

[Follower]

LOL!! Yusef finish reading through the thought-

4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

The issue is circumcision, who is Jewish, who is Gentile, the false brothers were making it too much of a concern.

12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Unitarian Christians are closest to Jehovah Witness, some believe Jesus is supernatural!! Jesus is the Son of GOD to Unitarian Christians

 

[Muezzin]

Which religion is closest to Islam?

I voted Other.

Jedi.

But to get serious for a moment in time, I think Judaism is closer to Islam than Christianity.

 

[coddles76]

I would say Christianity since Allah SWT says so himself.

[Quran 5:82]Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

 

[YusufNoor]

I would say Christianity since Allah SWT says so himself.

[Quran 5:82]Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Muhsin Khan: Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (see V.2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.
Yusuf Ali: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
Shakir: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
Sahih International: You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.

those Ayats are speaking of those who dislike Muslims and those who "are nearest in affection." it doesn't appear to be talking about beliefs as we already have that in Surat Al Fatihah:

The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

 

[coddles76]

Good Point.
I would still tend to move more towards the christians since the jews have earned the anger of Allah SWT and it has been recommended to do everything opposite to what the Jews do. The Christians have gone astray in regards to Jesus PBUH but still hold alot of similarities to islam, thats why you'll find a HUGE amount of people that embrace the islamic faith are from the christian background not the jewish background.

 

[YusufNoor]

Good Point.
I would still tend to move more towards the christians since the jews have earned the anger of Allah SWT and it has been recommended to do everything opposite to what the Jews do. The Christians have gone astray in regards to Jesus PBUH but still hold alot of similarities to islam, thats why you'll find a HUGE amount of people that embrace the islamic faith are from the christian background not the jewish background.

yes, laddy, but now you're describing Christians and not Christianity!

Judaism more closely resembles Islam in it's Monotheism. the Jews attacked Islam, pretty much like they did their own Prophets [see Nehemiah ch 9]. but their deen was SUPPOSED to be like ours.

and speaking from experience, i think that it's those in Christianity that are trying to find the Monotheism that accept Islam!

 

[coddles76]

Thankyou for your comments laddy

 

[Willow]

I don't think either Christianity or Judaism is closer to Islam. The rites of Islam don't follow either of these two religions and neither do the principles of what constitutes a sin, the fact that Islam has predestination, and also Salvation by Works. It isn't clear what, or how many, good works are required to bypass predestination either.

And the scales of good and bad are also not of either of the other two religions. If the scales tip towards the good, does that bypass predestination?