Christianity and Islam: ANY similarities?

[Perfectionist]

Christianity believe in a CORE set of beliefs, which are very simple, are listed in the Nicene Creed and are FOUNDATIONAL. If you do not believe these, then your house is built on SAND and if it rains, the sand will wash away. But if you build you home on the ROCK, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ, it will stand.

What about Eastern Orthodox Christianity? It uses a different version of the Nicene Creed. Do its followers count as Christian?

 

[The Tollan]

Although I voted for the third option I consider that there could be more than two major similarities depending on how a major difference is defined. I consider my vote something in the middle of #3 and #4. There are definitely noticeable differences among the two religions.

http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html#secular differences

That link is interesting although it has a few problems (the part of Christianity and interest rates being one). The author or authors are knowledgeable on a good deal of information regarding each religion.

 

[SecretKnowledge]

Interesting. Those are Hindu websites, and they do seem as indignant as people of the other religions that have been accused of being plagarized by Mohammed. There is much discussion about archeological finds of the pre-Islam Moon God, with the crescent moon as it's symbol. As they say in the Hindu site, archeology is forbidden now in the area, presumably because they have found evidence of the Hindu gods there. Condemnation for the Hindu religion is extremely heated by Muslims also, they are considered their worst enemy. Ansheem can tell you about that. He has been in this thread. I wish he would contribute more! He is from India and has knowlege of the Islam conquest there.

Hindus might be more receptive to pantheistic forms of Sufism since they have much in common with ideas from India. Attempts at syncretism sometimes occurred in the Mughal Empire. The Ismailis, which the Assassins were, believed in reincarnation and tried to combine all sorts of religious ideas together. The Hindu influences seem to have diminished or have been forgotten as Islam developed an orthodoxy. With many of the minor religions it was common that they often started out somewhat sycreticistic/pluralistic then become increasingly exclusivitic.

Really? I've never heard that. What else can you tell us about it? I did hear that there was trouble last week at the mosque during Eid.

I have heard that octagonal shapes in religious buildings often indicate circumbulation. The Dome of the Rock doesn’t have a marker showing the direction of prayer and thus is not considered a mosque.

In addition, it is also important to remember that the actual Christian message is very simple, short and complete. It leaves a large void of 'free will' of how a 'walk of faith' is to be accomplished. Most Christian doctrine has to do with what happens at conversion. At that point, it is basically a complete event. That leaves a question of "How, then, shall we live?" (Francis Shaeffer) This is a question that only a person - individually - can answer. Since upon reconciliation, a person is 'right with God' they are acceptable now and forever more, it certainly leaves much latitude in who we live. So, your remark of 'changing over time' and 'not identical with the original' is really unapplicable. How we express Christianity does indeed change over time, throughout the centuries, and from person to person, church to church. There are so few basics that Christianity is very flexible and people can truly have as many rules, or as few rules and rituals as they choose.

Still, we are sticklers on those basics, as you can see from those of us posting.

I actually meant that Islam itself had changed from the original version. That part of my post might not have been sufficiently specific. Islam’s original form might have been based on variants of Christianity that were deemed heretical. Some historians though believe it started out as an adaptation of Judaism to Arabia. The lack of clear information about what happened has resulted in many possible interpretations.

Like Islam Zoroastrianism and Buddhism also have texts that were compiled well after these religions appeared and almost certainly are not in their texts are not in the original forms. The Quran’s compilation (allegedly by Uthman) occurred when the Arabs possessed a substantial empire and religious doctrine was being finalized. The early Umayyad caliphs may have wanted to differentiate their religious beliefs from those of rival empires to a greater degree and make it a more compact system. The needs of a sedentary empire were quite different from those of nomadic tribes. Many of the hadiths represent a contest between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

Arnold Toynbee classified the Umayyads as "crypto-pagans" who did not actively seek to spread Islam. It could be because their form of proto-Islam doesn't match what is expected. They couldn't really spread it all that well until it was comprehensible to outside populations.

I think there is a story in one of the later Islamic texts about Mohammed ascending into heaven from there.
Al Aqsa
The Al Aqsa Mosque was built between 709-715 A.D. by Caliph al-Waleed, son of Abd el-Malik, the man who constructed the Dome of the Rock. It is located on the southern part of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It is thought to have been built over the ruins of the first Temple, built by King Solomon.

The event in which it is claimed that Mohammed ascended to heaven sounds very similar to alleged out of body experiences. Some who have claimed to have had obes say that they entered spiritual realms during the event. Although many religions have unusual, interesting, and not well known features Islam seems to really have a lot of them.

The fact that the Dome of the Rock does not mention the ascension might call into question the date of the origin of the claim of the ascension though. The fact that inscriptions focus so much on the nature of Jesus probably indicates an attempt to challenge Byzantium.

Well, you seem very knowledgable. Please give us more! Give us your take on it!!

The Qibla change is especially interesting. There has been some debate over the direction of some of the first mosques. One reason why this matters is that it could possibly reveal some of the characteristics of earlier forms of Islam. The Quranic version is that the change occurred during the life of Mohammed. Some historians question the exact timing though.

The Constitution of Medina seems to be regarded as genuine. It would be difficult to deny the existence of Mohammed however the hadiths do not present a real picture of him. The hadiths are considered by many Western historians not to be useful historical material.

Of the various ideas of what Mohammad actually thought it seems likely that he came into contact with a variety of religious traditions and beliefs and came to a unique conclusion. Unorthodox versions of Christianity, large elements of Judaism, Hanifism (whatever this might have been is disputed), Sabaenism, indigenous ideas (influenced by Hinduism and paganism), and even some Zoroastrianism were probably accepted.

Many Christians in Syria and Egypt either thought that Jesus did not have a human nature at all or was just a human without divinity. The Islamic version resembles the Arian version rather than what the Monophysites thought. Mohammed might have been influenced by Christian mysticism which would often include fasting and meditation. His religious ideas probably were affected by these unusual groups. It is fairly likely that the original form of Islam focused a lot on unorthodox Christian and Jewish themes within the context of mysticism. Gradually various religious texts and ideas were incorporated and after Mohammed’s death the Umayyads and others added some of their own ideas. The markers that indicate the vowels on letters in the Quran definitely not present initially.

There is very little reliable historical information about Mohammed himself so it is impossible to know exactly for certain what was the case.

The emphasis on an Arabian connection with the Israelites was noted by an Armeninian source which claimed that a type of Semitic alliance formed with the goal of retaking Jerusalem and that territory.


A similar situation exists with Buddhism in which Siddhartha Gautama's ideas have been embellished and added onto. Interestingly the traditional Buddhist account documents the Buddha's use of mysticism much like that way traditional Islamic accounts claim Mohammed used mysticism. The Confucian Annalects are regarded as more representative of what Confucius thought than the texts of many religions to their founders.

 

[onejayhawk]

How about the water into wine? Do most Christians believe that this literally happened?

Do most Christians believe that Jesus actually endorsed Moses's writings?

Yes, most Christians believe that Jesus literally turn ordinary water, meant for washing, into wine, and excellent wine at that. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the story is anything but a recitation of an actual event.

I'm not sure what you mean be "endorsed", but Jesus treated the books of the law as Holy Writ.

To the point of the htread, the main DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity is in the nature of man and the form of salvation. Islam espouses that one can save himself through obedience, literally submission. Christianity teaches that salvation cannot be earned and must be given as a gift. The submission follows after the salvation, not before.

J

 

[Katheryn]

I actually meant that Islam itself had changed from the original version. That part of my post might not have been sufficiently specific. Islam’s original form might have been based on variants of Christianity that were deemed heretical. Some historians though believe it started out as an adaptation of Judaism to Arabia. The lack of clear information about what happened has resulted in many possible interpretations.

Like Islam Zoroastrianism and Buddhism also have texts that were compiled well after these religions appeared and almost certainly are not in their texts are not in the original forms. The Quran’s compilation (allegedly by Uthman) occurred when the Arabs possessed a substantial empire and religious doctrine was being finalized. The early Umayyad caliphs may have wanted to differentiate their religious beliefs from those of rival empires to a greater degree and make it a more compact system. The needs of a sedentary empire were quite different from those of nomadic tribes. Many of the hadiths represent a contest between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

I agree with this. My own studies on the origins of the Islamic beliefs seem to indicate that Mohammed wanted to adapt Judaism into Arabia, but that he had too much difficulty in convincing the people to abandon their polytheism. So, much of Hinduism was then folded into the mix. The person of Jesus Christ had to be dealt with in some way, so relegating Him to a 'Prophet' was the way he did it.

This was a stubborn problem for Mohammed, evidently so stubborn that eventually denial of Christian beliefs became a focus of everyday life.

Here is the content of the "salat", (the five prayers that are said each day) It seems to focus a great deal on denying Christian beliefs.

The Qur'an, chapter 112 (Al-Ikhlas), verse 1 to 4: Say: [1] Say: He, Allah, is One. [2] Allah is He on Whom all depend. [3] He begets not, nor is He begotten. [4] And none is like Him. — translated by M. H. Shakir


This passage is commonly recited as part of the five daily prayers, known as salat.

So, at some point, Muslims became quite obsessed with denying any connection with Christianity.

They still say this today. Five times a day, they deny that Jesus Christ is the Begotten of the Father. Very wierd obsession.

As a Christian, it makes me a little uncomfortable!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid

 

[Katheryn]

What about Eastern Orthodox Christianity? It uses a different version of the Nicene Creed. Do its followers count as Christian?

Do you have a link on that? Because I don't think it is much different. There have been changes to the Nicene Creed, but for the life of me, I can't tell the difference in the wording, or the significance.

Here, this is from Wikipedia:

Nicene Creed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Icon depicting the Holy Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea holding the Nicene Creed.The Nicene Creed, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is the most widespread Christian statement of faith.

Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches.....

The original Nicene Creed of 325

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which was the first Ecumenical Council. At that time, the text ended after the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit", after which an anathema was added....

The Nicene Creed of 381

The second Ecumenical Council in 381 added the section that follows the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit" (without the words "and the son"); hence the name "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", referring to the Creed as it was after the modification in Constantinople. This is the version still used by the Eastern Orthodox Church and by Greek Catholic Churches.

The third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the 381 version, and stated that no further changes could be made to it, nor could other creeds be adopted.

OH my, look what I found here:

In Christian theology the filioque clause or filioque controversy (filioque meaning "and [from] the Son," referring to the Holy Spirit) is a heavily disputed part of the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. It is most often referred to as simply "filioque" or "the filioque."

Explanation of the creed

Following John 15:26b, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the statement of the First Council of Nicea in 325 by stating that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father." The First Council of Nicea had not elaborated on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Nicene creed is often called "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" or "Niceno-Constantinopolitan." This creed was not officially received until the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

In thinking about God as Father, Son, and Spirit, the Trinity, following Jesus (Matt 28:19), Christians from early times have made some important distinctions. The Son and the Spirit are said to have their eternal origin from the Father; the Son, the eternal Divine Logos (John 1:1) is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") of the Father, while the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. These statements are made in reference to the being of God, from all eternity, "before all ages" in the words of the Nicene Creed.

On the one hand, the Nicene Creed and the Bible do not say explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father; that is, there is no statement that the Spirit's eternal origin is found anywhere but in the Father.

What a disgrace! I can't believe they split the church over such a thing, who can really understand how the Holy Spirit works? I bet it was much more about not wanting the Pope be 'the boss of them'. Especially when they were so far away.

 

[Katheryn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
Exactly. The minor similarities that you mention are similarities with JEWISH beliefs, really. Many Chrisitans do not believe in a literal creation, either.

=====
How about the water into wine? Do most Christians believe that this literally happened?

Do most Christians believe that Jesus actually endorsed Moses's writings?

You know what? The first couple pages of Genesis really reads like a poem. The story of Jesus turning the water to wine is just reporting an incident that happened.


Here is what I mean:

Genesis 1 ASV

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Now 'Day' is used in the Bible in many different ways. So you can't say that "Day" always means a 24 hour period, because it doesn't. It is used like 'In that day..' or 'the Day of the Lord' which is more like an 'age'.

God also lives in 'eternity' or a timelessness, and so we have to remember that our conception of time and space will not always be limited to three dimensions. Maybe there are even multiple universes that we don't understand.

But Jesus' visiting a wedding of a friend is just a typical day in the life of Jesus, he did miracles wherever He went.

 

[C~G]

You only think so because someone taught you to think so.

Probably the western and eastern philosophy combined.

And, you only believe it is mockery to believe otherwise because someone taught you that humanism is superior. Have you never questioned that? Have you never wondered that it is possible that there is such a thing as unwavering truth? What is truth? Jesus was asked that question, too.

I meant it's mockery to your own intelligence Katheryn that you cannot step at least for a sec outside of that sphere of your religion and try to make some kind of perception of reality without falling to speak "truth" about Jesus. It might be your belief but christians do numerous other things which are based into other aspects of christianity and even though you deny their importance those christians don't.

Second of all, even if Jesus and your God would exist (see, I give a possibility for such thing) it doesn't mean Islam doesn't have anything common with Christianity. I think that would mean Islam would had just wrongly understood the message of TRUTH.

But that truth about Jesus is different from the truth that we are try to solve here and that's it are there similarities between christianity and Islam. It's possible that in your interpretarion of christianity there aren't many similarities to Islam. But in general as I have voted from objective and neutral perspective there are similarities more than example when comparing christianity to some other religion.

Now I understand why you hold such grudge towards Islam.

You sound like cynical Pilate who said, "What is truth?"

Well, if we are trying to find the "truth" to question does Christianity and Islam have any similarities then it's kind of important question.

I'm very glad that I don't have to ask that question.

Probably because you once already answered that question for yourself and decided never ask it again.

Everything else is a side issue and there is great latitude in interpretation of them. But the core cannot be anything but THE ROCK OF JESUS CHRIST.

Everything else is not just a side issue.
Christianity has numerous other traditions as well and example christians quote Old testament all the time as evidence of their faith.
The main problem here is that Islam is build differently but it doesn't mean they don't share similarities.

Of course if you consider the belief to Jesus Christ being so special (which I think it isn't since India is full of holy men) then christianity cannot be compared to any religion.

You take this all somehow personally. For me it's strange you couldn't see that the seed of the truth you hold so high would had made impression to Islam too. I guess your stubborness is based into trying to imply christians would never be as violent as muslims while they have been so but this all is just your loss towards understanding the world outside of your own subjective universum inside which exists only one interpretarion of your religion.

 

[Kyriakos]

The bible is in a way the opposite of fiction; not though because it is "real" since it cannot be, but because it is a work of fiction that immediately requests that it is judged not according to what impression the text itself would be making, but relating its supposed judgement to the question of a salvation of its reader. Thus it already has become to literature what fascism is to government: something that requests that it is judged not according to its genre, but out of a relation of its importance which would be found outside of it, in fear or hope, or both.

Everyone relates to any text in his own way. Im sure that if one was desperate enough he would have been able to find high and complicated meaning in a groccery list-note. But if he needs to do so then without a doubt this need will infest his entire life as well.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Both are obsessed with sexe, sodomy and virginity

 

[HannibalBarka]

They couldn't be more different.
Christianity has more in common with Buddhism than with Islam.

Hemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, in another thread you said (I quote you):

Protestant Christians do not believe that Catholics are actually Chrisitans. It is the 'Mary is a Co-Redeemer' thing. We consider that idolatry.

Here is the full post :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4686233&postcount=41

My question is "Do you think those Catholic idolatrers have more in common with Islam or with Buddism" ?

 

[Bast]

Regardless of what Protestant Christians believe, Catholics are still Christians. So no they don't have more in common with Islam nor Buddhism. But I agree with Katheryn that Christianity is more in common with Buddhism than Islam. Buddha and Christ's teachings are very similar.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Look you've got it all wrong.
Will you please listen!

 

[Swedishguy]

Protestant Christians do not believe that Catholics are actually Chrisitans. It is the 'Mary is a Co-Redeemer' thing. We consider that idolatry.

So if I understand you right, your a protestant? Since I'm a fanathical atheist I'm not capable of judging wether it's true or not, but from my protestantic friends I think I understand that you're wrong. Many protestants like to switch to whatever variety of religion that suits them.

And to the OP's question: I think it's the same religion, It's just a matter of culture.

 

[HannibalBarka]

So if I understand you right, your a protestant?

No, I am not, God forbid . I was quoting Katheryn

Since I'm a fanathical atheist

I am also, although without the fanatical

I'm not capable of judging wether it's true or not, but from my protestantic friends I think I understand that you're wrong. Many protestants like to switch to whatever variety of religion that suits them.
And to the OP's question: I think it's the same religion, It's just a matter of culture.

I suppose the rest of the message is for Katheryn

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1 Both tell, no insist they are right and the rest of the world is wrong
2 Both have gods who are childish enough to want to send me to hell
3 Both of them have members who don't agree amongst themselves because of differences in interpretation, no matter what the interpretation is however, all of them claim 1.
4 Both rely on outdated scripture
5 Both of them have really beautifull religious buildings which I can use as tourist attractions

Ton of simularities.

 

[Swedishguy]

1 Both tell, no insist they are right and the rest of the world is wrong
2 Both have gods who are childish enough to want to send me to hell
3 Both of them have members who don't agree amongst themselves because of differences in interpretation, no matter what the interpretation is however, all of them claim 1.
4 Both rely on outdated scripture
5 Both of them have really beautifull religious buildings which I can use as tourist attractions

Ton of simularities.

In fact, it's the same religion, only 'culture' put them aside.

 

[warpus]

Wow. I go away for a couple days and this thread takes off. Good to see, but I wish I could have been around to contribute a bit more.

Also interesting to see "A ton of similarities" in the lead.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm surprised (well, knowing the forumites, not really surprised) that anyone voted for 'no simularities at all'.

 

[Katheryn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
You only think so because someone taught you to think so.

Probably the western and eastern philosophy combined.

Actually, secularism and relativism is basically a philosophy just like deism. And there are people, most actually, who believe in absolute truth. Some people believe that adultery is just wrong. It is absolute. And for you to say that they are stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated is just being judgmental. This is something you usually do, "you don't have a relativistic worldview, therefor you are wrong." And you need to rethink that. I realized I believed in "absolute truth" while studying Aristotle in college, after being raised in an atheist home. Becoming a Christian was a done deal after that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
And, you only believe it is mockery to believe otherwise because someone taught you that humanism is superior. Have you never questioned that? Have you never wondered that it is possible that there is such a thing as unwavering truth? What is truth? Jesus was asked that question, too.

I meant it's mockery to your own intelligence Katheryn that you cannot step at least for a sec outside of that sphere of your religion and try to make some kind of perception of reality without falling to speak "truth" about Jesus. It might be your belief but christians do numerous other things which are based into other aspects of christianity and even though you deny their importance those christians don't.

I really don't know who 'those christians' are, but the Bible is very clear that once a person converts to Christianity, once they ascribe to the basic 'Jesus died for your sins' faith system, they are considered 'brethren'. The one and only rule that Jesus gave His people was to 'LOVE YOUR BROTHER'. So, again, you are quite mistaken if you think side issues in Christianity supercede that. Churches have separated over things like how do you baptise, dunk in water or sprinkle with water? If you want to be baptised and dunked, then go to the former church, it is really NO BIG DEAL!

Second of all, even if Jesus and your God would exist (see, I give a possibility for such thing) it doesn't mean Islam doesn't have anything common with Christianity. I think that would mean Islam would had just wrongly understood the message of TRUTH.

It would mean that they have NOTHING right. There is not ONE tenet of Islam that I can agree with, and yes I have studied it thoroughly since 9-11.

The things that Islam have in common with JUDAISM are things that Christianity has accepted from Judaism. Those things have been taken from Judaism and then replaced with Islam. Therefore there is NOTHING that Islam and Christianity have in common. You can say, vaguely, that Oh, they both believe in God... but those concepts of WHO GOD IS, HOW HE ACTS, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO HIM, WHAT HE EXPECTS FROM HIS PEOPLE, WHAT HE HAS DONE, and WHAT HE PLANS TO DO IN THE FUTURE couldn't possible be more different.

But that truth about Jesus is different from the truth that we are try to solve here and that's it are there similarities between christianity and Islam. It's possible that in your interpretarion of christianity there aren't many similarities to Islam. But in general as I have voted from objective and neutral perspective there are similarities more than example when comparing christianity to some other religion.

Now I understand why you hold such grudge towards Islam.

My grudge against Islam is their murdering Christians all over the world, simply for the fact that they are Christians. They put a gun up to the head of people like Jill Carroll (who didn't convert by the way) and Steve Centanni, these people who were trying to help them, and force them to say the Shahada, which is a proclamation that denies Jesus Christ. Why are they doing this? It is happening all over the world. Why do they cut off the heads of Christians girls on their way to school? Why do they stone a young Christian girl in France for eating during Ramadan? Why are they massacring Christians in Darfur? In Iraq? In Palestine, in Gaza? Why are Christians being killed in Egypt? Why is is illegal to own a Bible in Saudi Arabia? Why are they immigrating to the West in order to bring their culture here? Why is Saudi Arabia spending their billions of oil dollars building mosques all over the world? Instead, they could built an economy for the region so they could work instead of live in poverty. It makes no sense unless they plan send their people here to populate our countries and claim them for Islam. I find that quite alarming. In Florida, the locals are fighting a plan for a very small (a couple of hundred) Muslim community to build a huge mosque complex that will hold some 10,000 people. It is a Christian community, why do they want to have a huge children's school, market complex, and mosque for this demographic? Well, the only answer is they plan to grow, and grow in huge numbers. We see what is happening in Europe, in England, and it is just not what we want for the U.S. These cultures do not integrate. Islam demands submission from infidels. It is that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
You sound like cynical Pilate who said, "What is truth?"

Well, if we are trying to find the "truth" to question does Christianity and Islam have any similarities then it's kind of important question.

I was talking about the general concept of 'humanism' which accepts the idea of 'relativism', which basically means there is no such thing as absolute truth. Obviously, Pilate was a humanist, who thought discussing 'truth' was futile, like many atheists in the world today - my brother included, who has a degree in Philosophy from Claremont College. We get into this quite a bit, it is a familiar discussion for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
I'm very glad that I don't have to ask that question.

Probably because you once already answered that question for yourself and decided never ask it again.

Again, I have taken a look at the different belief systems, and I believe in absolute truth, yes. That is a plumbline for me, yes. I don't think I will ever fall into the confusing and dark world of relativism, no. Too much hopelessness there, like in existentialism. No thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
Everything else is a side issue and there is great latitude in interpretation of them. But the core cannot be anything but THE ROCK OF JESUS CHRIST.


Quote: C~G:

Everything else is not just a side issue.
Christianity has numerous other traditions as well and example christians quote Old testament all the time as evidence of their faith.
The main problem here is that Islam is build differently but it doesn't mean they don't share similarities.

Of course if you consider the belief to Jesus Christ being so special (which I think it isn't since India is full of holy men) then christianity cannot be compared to any religion.

Yes, it is, and I'm not really sure how to explain this to an atheist, but to any Christian, the belief in Jesus Christ really is all there is. Sorry that you can't understand that. You can't have read the New Testament because if you had at least done that, you would at least realize how many times this is said, over and over again.

It's is like this - here are Jesus' words, and these are probably the most quoted words by any Christian:

This is John 3:16. Remember the guy who used to go to all the sporting events and he would carry a poster that said this: "John 3:16"

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Remember the guy who used to go to all the sporting events and he would carry a poster that said this: "John 3:16"

It says BELIEVE three times in that short passage.

The problem occurs in this: AFTER this great event has happened, there is still a life to be lived. So then, How shall we live? There is not very much to go on in the Bible. Yes, you can look at the lives of people in the Old Testament and see parallels, glean principles, but bottom line: THESE STORIES SHOW THE FACT THAT GOD IS MERCIFUL and all forgiving. These are stories that have to do with men failing to come up to the mark. King David - had it all, but one day, out of boredom, he committed adultery, then covered it up with murder. He was very sorry, and yet he still married Bathsheb and their son, Solomon, became King instead of his older brothers. What kind of example to follow is this? Not so hot! But it does show God's overwhelming mercy and forgiveness to those who stray. You will find it very difficult to find a good example of a human being in the Old Testament, good luck! They all fall. But the good news is... God's mercy endures forever.

Christianity is about forgiveness and love : GOD'S FOR US, not ours for Him.

And Islam turns it around 180 and says, it is about OUR SUBMISSION to God, our good works for God.

This is irreconcilable.

You take this all somehow personally. For me it's strange you couldn't see that the seed of the truth you hold so high would had made impression to Islam too. I guess your stubborness is based into trying to imply christians would never be as violent as muslims while they have been so but this all is just your loss towards understanding the world outside of your own subjective universum inside which exists only one interpretarion of your religion.

You want to know what personally bothers me is that fact that every time they pray - they do it five times a day - they deny Jesus Christ has come into the world. That upsets me that someone who made up this ritual thinks it so important to deny Jesus Christ, that they think every Muslim should do this five times a day. It upsets me that it is so important that the first and most important thing a Muslims does (the First Pillar) is to deny that God has a Son. In some Islamic countries, to get a license to buy or sell, they must have a certificate that says they have done so.

That is disturbing to a Christian.