I have quoted that particular Koranic verse rather than one the other four on the same subject because it mentions the kinsman. Christians believe Christ to be our kinsman-redeemer. He fulfilled all three requirements of that office. He was indeed our kinsman, being born of a woman. He had the ability to redeem us, being without sin through His divine nature. And He was willing and obedient even to the way of the Cross. (see Ruth 3:9-13).
As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:
'Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.' (WCF Ch XI, Para I)
But I am not entirely happy with the word 'fulfilled' in a moral/civil law context. It seems to have an agenda behind it. Our gracious Lord kept the moral law, that is certain. He did not commit any sin, 'neither was guile found in His mouth.' (! Peter 2:22) But can He be said to have 'fulfilled' it in the sense that He fulfilled the sacrificial law, which is what He plainly means at Matt 5:17? In other words, if we use the word 'fulfilled' in a moral/civil law context with the idea of 'kept' behind it, we can defend it. But then, why use it at all if it is not to make a link to Matt 5:17? Certainly if we try to shoehorn the idea of 'abolished' into it in the context of the moral and civil law we fly in the face of the Apostles' admonitions in the Epistles, not to mention our Lord's own teachings.