Christians are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Obviously, the Prophet and his Progeny (AhlulBayt) (AS) have won the Mubahala and the Christians of Najran surrendered to the Prophet (SAWA) and accepted to pay Jizyah which is the tax of protection paid by People of Book to Muslim government.
The narrations state that the leaders of Christians of Najran, seeing the Messenger (pbuh&hf) with his close family members, reneged on the Mubahila. They remained on their religion and came under the protection of the Messenger (pbuh&hf) and the Muslims, pledging to pay a tribute.
And God knows best
In need of your prayers
You can put it is any will or water near your area. If there is no water at all, then you can burry it.
Jesus was a human being created by Allah with out a father just like Adam who was a human being created by Allah with out parents.
Jesus is not God nor son of God, but he was a great messenger from God to guide people to worship and obey God.
Worshipping any one apart from God is a major sin.
Jannah (Paradise) is not under our control to judge who will enter in it or not. Allah, The Glorious, Knows who will be granted Paradise because He only Knows everything about everyone from His creatures and grants Paradise according to His full Knowledge and Mercy.
The issue of proving or denying the marriage of Jesus was a matter of discussion between many Christians. Catholics deny any marriage of Jesus, that is why Catholic priests do not marry, while many other Christians say that he got married and their priests marry. Mary the Magdalene has been mentioned in many Christian books as a wife of Jesus.
We Muslims have no authentic evidence from Quran or Sunnah to stand firmly with or against the issue of the marriage of Jesus. Both possibilities are there.
If we take any of the two possibilities, there are valid reasons to justify it. Marriage is highly recommended in the Shari'a of Islam but we know that the Shari'a of previous prophets can differ in some parts.
Marriage is a human need for settled life with out tension and peaceful life with out sinful acts. Marriage is the only way of procreation with out which human beings would have diminished.
Sexual need is part of the feelings of most people and marriage (permanent or temporary) fulfills this human need.
Marriage is highly recommended in Islam and some cases it can be obligatory on those who can fall in sinful acts if they are not married.
We believe in the original Bible which was revealed on Prophet Easa (AS), not the claimed different Bibles which were written by people.
Both are required depending on your surroundings. If you are living among Muslims who need to be nurtured to be better Muslims, you should then focus on that. If you are living among non Muslims who do not know enough about the facts of Islam being the last and final message to all human beings, you need to try to enlighten them and help them know the facts then leave to them to think and decide. No doubt, the reward of enlightening non Muslims is very great, nevertheless,BT he reward if nurturing Muslims to make them better Muslims is also very great.
You can do both as our Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) and his great successors the infallible Imams did. It depends on the need of your surroundings and your abilities.
Please read the following answer to this question:
May Allah grant you success
In addition to what has been said, my understanding of this verse is with respect to the meaning of "wali/awliya" as putting one's self under someone else's authority. That is, one should not put one's self under the authority (in the sense of dependence or giving over power of one's self to someone else, e.g. politically, financially, personally) of someone who is not Muslim in such a way that one loses control over one's life or society and cannot easily recover it.
To my understanding, one of the principles of the early Muslim community was self-definition and self-sufficiency. It doesn't mean that one cannot be friends; friendship is different from disempowerment. To see the results of political or economic disempowerment, one can look at what happened during the colonialist era as an instructive example. (I am not saying that European colonialism was a morally Christian act, but just that this is how these dynamics can play out in the real world)
I would like to add that, in this day and age, no one would argue the reverse; that is, none of the Western countries (which are somehow connected to the Christian heritage even if they are not necessarily "Christian") woud put themselves under the political, legal, financial, or cultural authority of Muslims, yet no one says that this is prejudiced.
The verse that you have asked about is often used by some anti-Islam supporters to portray Islam as a hateful and intolerant religion which goes against peaceful co-existence.
They use the verse to say that a Muslim isn’t allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. It is correct that some translations have translated the word ‘Awliya’ - the plural of wali’ - as ‘friends’ but the word wali or awliyah, can have various meanings depending on the context.
Firstly in Islam as we know, marriage is allowed with the people of the book. Therefore it wouldn’t make sense for Allah to command us not be friends with the people of the book and at the same time, allow marriage with them. Is it possible that one may have a Christian or Jewish wife but not be her friend?!
Secondly, when we read history, we find that the prophet Mohammad had (sawa) peaceful interactions with the people of the book as well as friendship.
Extracted from a longer Hadith in Kitāb Al-Tawhīd by Sheikh Saduq, we find the following:
كان لرسول الله صديقان يهوديان
“The Messenger of Allah had two Jewish friends”
This shows us that according to our books, the prophet did in fact have friendship with those from the people of the book. By coupling this hadith with the verse, we would come to realise that the word ‘wali’ must have a different meaning than friend.
When we look into some books of history, we find that according to some reports, this verse was revealed during an incident relating Jews who had breached a covenant with the prophet.
Please read the passage below:
“It is reported that the Messenger of Allah besieged them for six days until finally they surrendered to him. `Abdullah ibn Ubayy came to him and interceded on their behalf saying: “O Apostle of Allah, these are my allies and clients who have defended me against the black and the red (that is, against all kinds of people). They were three hundred armoured soldiers and four hundred without armour. Would you now cut them down all in one morning? By Allah, I can then find no security; rather I dread the turns of for- tunes!” The people of Banu Qaynuqa` were allies of the Khazraj tribe only, and not of the Aws. `Abdullah ibn Ubayy persisted in his entreaties until the Prophet relented and granted him their blood. But seeing the humiliation which they had suffered, the people of Banu Qaynuqa` left Medina altogether and settled in Adhri'at in Syria. Then Allah sent down concerning `Abdullah ibn Ubayy and others of the Khazraj tribe:
O you who have faith, take not the Jews or the Christians as patrons. . . (Qur'an. 5 : 51‐ 52) .”
Source: Beacons of Light: Muhammad, the Prophet and Fatimah az-Zahra’ (the Radiant) a Partial translation of I'lamu 'l Wara bi Alami 'l-Huda of Abu Ali al Fadl ibn al Hasan ibn al Fadl at Tabarsi (c. 468/1076 - 548/1154).
So we see that from this source, a hypocrite from among the companions, tried to intercede for the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa who broke the peace treaty with prophet which was a betrayal. The Prophet allowed this Jewish tribe to reside in Medina on the condition that they do not help enemies against the Muslims; despite this, they still broke their agreement.
From this source it shows that Allah revealed this verse to rebuke the hypocrite Abdullah bin Ubay who took these people as his allies and his protective guardians. He relied on them and had a type of attachment towards them over the prophet and Muslims.
This leads us understand that if we take the verse to mean friends, it would indicate those from them who Muslims have conflicts with, and not regular people from Ahlul kitab.
However from the context of the historical report, it seems that the correct translation could be the following:
O you who have faith, take not the Jews or the Christians as patrons or protective guardians. . . (Qur'an. 5 : 51‐ 52)
Also it could be possible for a Muslim to be forbidden from friendship with some other Muslims. For example if they would lead him astray or to an immoral path, he must not be friends with them despite them being Muslims. So this isn’t discriminatory and restricted to only people of the book.
If a Muslim was to have a Christian friend for example, who he may study with or partake in sports with etc, then this would be permitted providing that this person wouldn’t lead him down an immoral path or a deviated path. How many times have we found ourselves around Christians who held better moral traits than Muslims although they are upon Batil?
Also to mention, it is better for someone to take mu’minin as friends as this will lead them to become stronger in iman and prevent them from haram things.
It should be noted that the book above, also contains reports from non-Shia reported Seerah of the prophet. This is due to the Shia losing many books by having them burnt by the enemies, so the above opinion is a possible exegesis for the verse and not 100% definite. Allah swt knows best and the full explanation of the Quran will be with us when Imam Mahdi (May Allah hasten his reappearance) returns.
What we do know for certain, is that it wouldn’t mean friends in the absolute sense as the Prophet had two Jewish friends as reported in our sources. As we know, the Prophet Mohammad (sawa) is of course our role model who we try to imitate. If he showed friendship and kindness towards the non-Muslims, we may also take this example.
May Allah grant you success
This is permitted provided that no haram would be done. So for example, a Muslim may not go to a haram environment like a pub or club. Let us say the Muslim even goes to a normal restaurant but then his non-Muslims colleagues consume alcohol; he would not be permitted to sit on the same table as them in which alcohol is being drunk at.
If however they go to a restaurant and there is no drinking alcohol on the same table, and the food is halal, then there is no issue and it is permitted inshallah.
May Allah grant you success