I believe you are mistaken.
ETA: Ah, I see you’re talking about Right of Return, not being stripped of citizenship.
Which one? The
The purpose of the Law of Return was, yes, to protect Jews. Remember that Hitler’s version of “Who is a Jew” is different than the rabbinic one. For Israel, the Hitler version sufficed when the law was amended in 1970.
You’re still not citing. Why can’t you? This should be readily available information, since it’s pretty inflammatory. RoR law has become more lenient since the amendments. The RoR recognizes Christians of Jewish descent. When it was objected to, the Supreme Court held that if the Christian could show Jewish descent, they were eligible. So to claim that Israel kicks out Christians is **extremely **far-fetched. It is also a crime (and could invalidate your petition) if you lie on your citizenship papers.
Here’s the text of the Law, including Amendments.
I don’t know which court case you think I agree with. This thread isn’t about Israel’s law of return, but since you’ve mentioned it at least three times with some serious misrepresentation, it’s silly to think someone wouldn’t respond. The Court first held up the Law. Then the Court went against the Law. Since I am one who believes in the law of government, I am hesitant to support the Court - even when I do agree with their principle.
The falashmurah and the Russian Christians are in the same category here. They immigrated as Christians who are direct descendants of Jews. The unification of Palestinians and Arab Israelis is in another category (and one that the Right of Return does not address and never intended to).
I would like a cite of your unsubstantiated claim. If you can’t cite, maybe you should stop referencing something that (so far) seems to not exist.
So is that why you keep talking of things you have no proof of? 
A political narrative?
The government does not. The rabbinic authorities do.
They’ve tried to invalidate conversions. It hasn’t worked.
He’s wrong on both counts. 
That last is a contentious claim. According to Caesar Farah at least the Jews in Medina/Yathrib in particular may have formed up to 50% of the population and were also very well-represented in Tayma and Khaybar. By contrast sedentary Christian populations were mostly more peripheral to Mecca, though there were certainly Christians monks and merchants sprinkled throughout the area. The Christianized Judham and Udhra tribes were in the general region of the Hijaz, but were migrant Bedouin rather than settled populations, whose contacts with Mecca would have probably been regular but transitory. Otherwise major Christian populations were further to the south in Yemen or the north in Syria and Iraq.
It is obvious that Muhammad was influenced by both faiths, but that Muhammad “met far more Christians than Jews”, even as a relatively cosmopolitan merchant by the limited standards of the region, seems likely to be an overstatement ( and of course an unverifiable point in either direction ).
The case was in 1993 and is I believe, referred to in this article. http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870469395&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
In it the Court rejected the idea that Messianic Jews were covered under the Right of Return, though in 2008, the Court reversed the decision.
I thought the case involved Americans who had already immigrated and were stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that by denying practicing a religion other than Judaism on their applications they’d lied, though obvious I may have misremembered and this article isn’t terribly clear on the facts surrounding that case.
There was an earlier Court decision in the late 1980s where a South African couple’s application was rejected even though they came from Jewish families.
Anyway, when I brought this up I wasn’t taking shots at Israel just pointing out that Jews have made it clear that claiming Jesus was the Messiah, as Muslims do, is a huge no-no.
It’s possible I was wrong when I said he’d met more Christians than Jews because I thought as a merchant he would have.
Nevertheless, I’d maintain that the Quran was clearly more influenced by Christianity, particularly the Christianity of that time period. In fact there have been extremely controversial claims that the Quran was originally written in Syriac.
Judaism doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about the afterlife and what happens to those who follow God’s laws(which apply to everyone) whereas the Quran spends a huge amount of time discussing this.
Also, the Quran explicitly blames the Jews for the arrest and persecution of Jesus, which is not something that too many Jews would like.
Like I said the idea that Muslims are “a Jewish sect” is asinine.
Certainly good evidence for a Christian influence. 
I suspect that was a slightly facetious comment :). It’s pretty common IME to hear Christianity referred to as a “Jewish sect” in a tongue in cheek sort of way. It is a fair to say that it started out as one, but as a fully separate religion now it obviously no longer qualifies as such. Just like Baha’i or the Druze faith wouldn’t be considered sects of Islam at the point.
Islam, strictly speaking ( and arguably unlike Christianity ), was never really a sect as it didn’t exactly bud directly off a parent religion as a protest/separatist movement. More it was an inspired religion that borrowed from/grew out of pre-existing traditions.
Forgot to add ( and too slow to correct )…
ETA:
I was also going to add that the Jews do receive more direct attacks than Christians in the Qur’an. However my understanding is that the general scholarly consensus was that this was likely the result of rising tension with the important Jewish tribes that were stubbornly resisting Muhammad’s new faith. That hostility may in fact actually point to the closer pre-eruption contact with Jewish communities, as local Christians were nowhere near as numerous or organized as the Jews in Medina where Muhammad was living in exile and developing his theology.
Dio certainly didn’t give the impression it was a facetious remark.
The Quran does seem to have a very Nestorian view of Jesus, though, and a lot of Muslim eschatology (the unleashing of Gog and Magog, the coming of a false messiah and a miraculous talking beast that unbelievers will worship as a god, Jesus coming back to lead an army to defeat the false messiah, Gabriel blowing a trumpet to signal the end of the world, and then God resurrecting everyone and judging them) all come out of Christianity.
There’s no “false messiah” in Christian eschatology (at least not in Christian scripture), and the “Beast” was allegorical, not literal. It was also an allusion to the Roman emperor, not a prediction of our future.
What I think the controversy is over, is what is truly important to a religion.
There is no question that Islam borrowed much from both Judaism and Christianity. The issue is, are the things that it borrowed really important and basic things or not?
From a Jewish POV, eschatology is simply less emphasized, and there is a considerable degree of difference between various modern sects as to what it ought to be. Same with the afterlife.
What is bedrock-basic to Judaism is a very strict monotheism.
To make a perhaps nonsense analogy … if Judaism is a car and Christianity is a boat, Islam is a car with a nautical theme, and anchor, and sails. To a Jew it looks more like a “car” since the essential feature of a “car” or “car-ness” is that it runs on land … just as in religion, the essential thing, to a Jew, is that the person not worship multiple gods. In Judaism, “God is One” is of the essence; also, that whatever God is, he ain’t a person.
Someone else may say “well look, it has an anchor, and a nautical themed decor, and sails, just like that Christianity-boat. Obviously, it is more like than the Judaism-car”. The response to that is that car-owners can, in some extreme cases, decorate their cars somewhat differently, but that doesn’t change their essential car-ness, which is based on the fact that they run on land.
Not that I’m saying Islam is Judaism - obviously, it isn’t. It is however more like Judaism in its essential nature.
True, but that doesn’t mean that Muhammad wasn’t influenced at least by what he thought Christian eschatology was.
I’m muslim and after reading through this thread I though I’d make a few points:
-Muslims don’t believe in three prophets, we believe in every prophet mentioned in the Torah. There are distinctions between “nabi’s’” and “rasools” in that rasools are given scripture and new laws for their respective nations to follow. Nabi’s’ are minor prophets, and more or less warners. Moses(Torah) Jesus(gospel) and Muhammad(Quran) were all rasools. All rasools are nabi’s’, but all nabi’s’ are not rasools. A perfect example of a nabi would be someone like lot, or Joseph.
-it’s pretty pointless arguing about which religion is closer to the other, as Islam is considered by Muslims to be the middle path. In my opinion if we are going to talk about the similarities between Judaism and Islam and how they relate to each other, we should bring up the interesting fact that according to Jewish law, it is permissible for a Jew to pray inside of a mosque, since both religions are monotheistic and worship the God of Abraham. It is not permissible for a jew to offer his prayers inside of a church, since both Jews and Christians see Christianity as a subtle form of idolatry. These points are far more intriguing than the whole kosher/halal thing IMO.
Going to have to sort of disagree with you there, because the question isn’t what the writers of Christian scripture meant by the “beast” and any false messiah. The question is what 7th Century Arabian Christians believed about the “beast” and “false messiah”, and (while it’s distant in space), we know that in his 6th century “Commentary on Job”, Pope Gregory identified a physical anti-Christ and identified “the beast” with Satan.
also, regarding “The beast”:
Interesting. I’ve never heard that thing about Jews being religiously allowed to pray in mosques.
I agree of course that the “strict monotheism” thing is the most significant shared commonality between Judaism and Islam.
The most significant difference, I would contend, is the centrality of Mohammed in Islam and the treatment of the oral law in the two religions.
Here’s a site that references what I was talking about. I didn’t get a chance to look it over thoroughly since I’m at work, but it appears to have cites:
Seems pretty authoritative to me. I’d never heard of this particular issue being raised before, but the resolution, as described in your link, absolutely makes sense - as, of course, the most significant issue for Jews is the adherence to monotheism.
I did know that Muslims were considered to qualify for being “Noahides” under Jewish law, whereas there is great debate whether Trinitine Christians would.
[The “Noahide” laws are the seven basic laws that, in Jewish tradition, are binding on all of humanity: non-Jews who are good “Noahides” are, in Jewish tradition, considered fully as righteous as good observant Jews, even though they are not Jewish. The seven laws are:
Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Sexual immorality
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
Establishment of law courts
The term “Noahide” derives from the fact that these laws were binding on Noah, who though clearly a righteous person, was of course not a Jew; therefore, logically, someone who acted as Noah did must also be “righteous”, even if not a Jew. ]
The problem, for Christians, is the “no idolitary” law. The issue is whether believing in the Trinity violates that ab initio. Here is an interesting discussion of the debate (in summary, some say yes and some say no):
http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Christianity_and_Noahide_Law
Compare with Islam - almost all commentators agree a Muslim can be a Noahide.
http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Islam_and_Noahide_Law