I would say the best starting point for Muslim / Christian dialogue would be to eliminate "islamofascist" rhetoric and to recognize that one does not have to be a christian to appreciate and live by moral values. Also, recognize that muslims, like christians, are concerned about the decline of moral values in society. Muslims stress the importance of traditional family values as evangelicals do.

There is common ground between Christians and Muslims. Our media and unfortunately some of our evangelical leaders like to push the "islamofascist" and "clash of civilization" rhetoric. This idea that there are islamic jihadist terror cells all throughout America with muslims hating us because "they hate our freedoms" is a bunch of hurtful nonsense that should be dismissed.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews not only claim to worship one God, but specifically the God who called Abraham and blessed him. That certainly makes it more definite than Rick Love's generalization about those who worship "the one God" worshiping the same God because there is only one. No, all three religions really do claim to worship the same One. What we must surely see, however, is that some of our understandings of that God have differed so radically at times that it may as well be a different deity. Nevertheless, I feel it is legitimate when I enter into conversation to call a Muslim to a better understanding of the God of Abraham rather than to assert that the Muslim's God is not God at all.

If I may suggest another response, in addition to Justin's excellent one, that agrees substantively with what he wrote and expands beyond it to include historical, cultural, and specifically Qur'anic considerations, I would point to the Barnabas Fund's response (a Christian non-profit devoted to supporting the persecuted church, particularly in Muslim-majority countries): http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=381

As a point of disclosure, I do work for the Barnabas Fund.

The article is a bit condescending towards Islamics, I think. And I'll annoy some people by going all post-modern here...One can't know what is being tacitly claimed...that unlike Islamics, who worship God, "albeit imperfectly," Christians would therefore worship God perfectly. Which no doubt explains the myriad Christian sects and denominations, right? (And, pretty much the same comment for Islamic and Jewish claims of religious superiorities. To paraphrase a medieval Rabbi, if I could know perfection, I would be perfect. Are you? I'm not. I'm not even sure I want to be...though perhaps somewhat closer to whatever perfection might be would maybe be nice.)

My Mainline Protestant understanding of a "prophecy" is that it's a timely message that can change history. Muhammad obviously had a timely message of the One God that changed history, which makes him a prophet in my book...even if I would disagree with particulars and post-Muhammad rationalizations, projections and desires...and the same for particulars in the Bible and post Jesus rationalizations, projections and desires.

One would expect the Islamics who composed and signed their letter to start from just where they are, and the same for a Christian response. The letters are mere starting points, not ending points.

"Yoo, Hoo...I'm over here..."
"I see you...But I'm way over here..."

The spaces in between the letters are scary to contemplate, but compellingly interesting for both the brave and the foolish. Of course, while the foolish have to be brave, the brave don't have to be foolish. But, how do you tell if you're one or the other?

Justin Taylor's argument makes use of John 8 (in which Jesus tells some of his Jewish opponents that they are not "of God," that God is not their Father, and that they are "of the Devil") to argue against the idea that the one God of Muslims, the one God of Jews, and the one God of Christians is not the same God. But Jesus does not say that the God his opponents claim is not the true God, simply that they are not "of" that God. It is not a denial of that one God's identity, but a denial of their allegiance to the one God.

The rhetoric on Islamofascism and clashes of civilizations should be evaluated on its truth value, not whether or not it hurts feelings. First of all, the Quran and Sharia mandate (not allow or suggest) the subjugation and humiliation of all non-Muslims. Secondly, the historical Muslim "traditional family values" are rather different from ours (women veiled, polygamy, honor killings,etc.). If interfaith dialogue is to have value, and not simply be an act of submission by dhimmis, it must address the most thorny issues head-on, not spare feelings. Jewish-Catholic dialogue has advanced precisely because it dealt with genocide and forced conversions.

Of course, this is not a new debate. Many of us are catching up to the fact of the world 'shrinking,' but this is a debate that strikes at the core of post-Templar Freemasonry and its relationship to orthodox Christianity. In the early degrees there is a synthesis between Christianity and Judaism that is often overlooked by Christian members, due to the inclusion of the Hebrew scriptures in the Christian Bible. However, the Shriners then incorporate the trappings of Islam at their level, meeting in 'mosques' and wearing 'fezzes.' It's the most visible form of 'Abrahamism' in our society.

Furthermore, this is an American issue, in that America's unique ethos of pluralism can easily lend itself to both unitarianism and universalism (Freemasonry on the right; Unitarian Universalists on the left).

American 'post-modern' Christianity does not critique this ethos (see Gregory above) even as it rightly critiques American nationalism, but, it seems to me, uncritically baptizes evangelicals into it. That, it seems to me, is straining at a idolatrous gnat and swallowing a unitarian camel.

Kozak,

I agree with you that in any dialogue with muslims, christians should be clear about what they believe and should recognize differences.

Your comment about islamofascism is kind of like saying all christians do not value the lives of the brown peoples of the world because they all supported Ronald Reagan (and his support for dictators in Latin America) and George Bush (and his invasion and occupation of Iraq). Sure many evangelicals supported both Reagan and Bush, but that doesn't mean their foreign polices were christian or followed the teachings of Christ.
I'd say there is sinfulness amoung Christians and Muslems. Perhaps another good starting point for dialogue would be to take the beam out of our own eyes before making blanket statements about muslems..

Yes, there are many church denominations, yet it is mainly as a result of differences in approach to worship, the use of sacraments and other minor theological aspects which do not compromise the Gospel message or the character of God, as revealed through Judeo-Christianity.

To infer that we share a similar faith because both are Monotheistic, and because we share common grounds on moral values and an Abrahamic background, is short-sighted. Anyone who has done decent, objective homework on both faiths, simply has to recognize the irreconcilable differences between Christianity's- and Islam's views on God’s character. An incorrect view of God’s character can have a major influence on one’s personal world view.

Christians and Muslims SHOULD dialogue. As Christians we MUST care about Muslims (and people from other faiths), and share the love and redemption of Christ as God incarnate. (I personally know a few wonderful Muslim people).

However, I believe it’s irresponsible to advocate PUBLIC dialogue and co-operation between the two faiths on the basis of their "common grounds". The secular media (and even some Christians) does not make distinctions. A new stream of radical Atheism (with proponents such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) gaining rapid popularity, is constantly attacking “religion” (especially Christianity) as “being dangerous” to a free-thinking society. With the popular media not making these necessary distinctions, the repression of human freedoms in virtually all Islamic countries (not to mention the persecution of Christians in many of them), serve as “proof” that fundamentalist belief systems should be done away with in an age of globalization.

Now, with Christians and Muslims engaging in public dialogue, this act can only help FEED the growing misconceptions and antagonism towards Christianity in the Western world.

I've been vaguely searching for a definition of "fascism" for a couple of decades now...and I haven't found one. I think that's because Fascism was a broadly sketched, perpetually inchoate and contradictory movement that promiscuously lifted and twisted most anything that appealed to an authoritarian, compartmentalized mind. There was something for most everybody in fascism, but it took a compartmentalized and credulous mind to be a fascist activist.

One thing that I think most dangerous extremists have in common is that, at heart, they're tireless romantics who can and will do anything for love...whatever "love" is.

I think the work romantic comes from an old French word for a genre of literature about heroic adventures, and you see this again and again, from the Bader Meinhoff gang to Patty Hearst to the 9-11 conspirators...bad ideas about love, and how to love.

Merriam Webster student dictionary.
Middle English romauns "a story of adventure or legend," from early French romanz "French language, something written in French,"

I once possessed K.S.Lattourette's History of Christianity and I
think I read in it something to the effect that Muhammed was probably a Nestorian "Christian" insofar that the Nestorian heresy had spread to his part of the world. If so, then Bishop Nestor's
Unitarianism was a forerunner of Islam.

For the best starting place for Muslim-Christian dialogue, try the mystery of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross which is equally shared by both the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran! There is no better alternative!

There is no doubt that the prophet Muhammad took his fundamental ideas about God from the environment he was raised in. He had intercourse with Jews, Christians of different denominations, and mostly animists and pagans from his own people, the Qureish. While the Qur’an is full of repeated stories and people that are taken straight out of the Old Testament - - some altered, and some added to- - the prophet Muhammad’s idea of the one God was influenced more by a group of simple monotheists in the Arabian Peninsula called the Hanifis. Their simple monotheism was neither Jewish, nor Christian. This group was acquainted with books called “The Heavenly Books” and the “Leaves” and “The Book of Luqman”, causing us to wonder about the accuracy of their knowledge of the one God, since these “books” are enveloped in a shroud of obscurity.

The Meccan Suras, which comprise about two-thirds of the Qur’an, and are the result of the prophet Muhammad’s first 13 years of his ministry, show little or no animosity or differences with the Jews. It is after the emigration to Yathrib (Medina), and his interaction with the Jewish tribes who were settled in Medina, where the suras begin to change considerably in their tone towards Jews and Christians. The prophet Muhammad had expected the Jews and Christians to recognize and embrace him as a prophet mentioned in their holy books. When this did not happen, and the prophet began consolidating his position as not only the spiritual leader, but the political leader of the Muslim community, the message of the Qur’an began to change, and became more and more confrontational, and distinct from the message of the Jews and the Christians.

In terms of finding “common ground” with Muslims, I have found that there is much to share, and particularly in initial discourse. If a Christian is trying to split doctrinal hairs from the beginning, then, of course, there will be no way forward. In my experiences with Muslims, in most cases they are anxious to tell me that “we believe in basically the same things, with only a few minor differences.” In other words, most of them are looking for a friendly discourse (and in most cases not about religion) and not a fight. This should be encouraged, and then some of the core differences can hopefully be discussed, undergirded by a foundation of friendship and trust.

Robert

Gregory,

I think you may agree with me on this. Indeed, "fascism" is difficult to define, but "Islamofascism" is one of the nuttiest terms in our popular lexicon, driven purely by emotion. It is a term that is 100% western, rooted in ancient Rome.

If evangelicals truly want to rid the world of fascism, one place to start would be to petition Congress to remove the giant fasces on either side of the American flag in the US House of Representatives. The next place would be under the hands of Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial. And, oh, there's more...

It's more than amazing how our pride blinds us to the plank in our own eye.

David Neff’s point concerning John 8 can also be made about James 2:19. The problem of the demons is not that they do not know who God is but that they hate him. The God that the demons hate is the God we are commanded to love.

This points us to the key source of confusion in the discussion between Love on the one hand and Piper and Taylor on the other. Love answered the question “do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?” but Piper, Taylor and others respond as though Love had answered the question “is God pleased with the worship of Muslims?” These are quite different questions and confusion results when they are conflated, as is happening in the ongoing discussion.

Noah, Abraham, Jethro, Rahab and the apostle Paul all worshipped the same God and all were rightly related to God, despite the fact that Paul knew much more about that God than any of the others, between whom there were also differences in the degree of their knowledge.

Thankfully, no one is saved by the extensiveness or accuracy of their theology, God saves us by his grace through a faith response to God’s self revelation. Some people with good theology at a theoretical level are not God's children. Those of us whom God has blessed with greater revelation and with faith are called upon to be a blessing to others whose lives will be enriched by more complete understanding of God, even if their relationship with God is already right.

The truth is far beyond any "theological common ground". Neither Christians nor Muslims really know whom they are worshipping. If they did, they would both find the "One True God" uniquely revealed on the cross Jesus died as directed in their respective Scriptures. What a wasted opportunity!

Robert said, "In my experiences with Muslims, in most cases they are anxious to tell me that “we believe in basically the same things, with only a few minor differences.” In other words, most of them are looking for a friendly discourse (and in most cases not about religion) and not a fight. This should be encouraged, and then some of the core differences can hopefully be discussed, undergirded by a foundation of friendship and trust."

One thing the Muslim friend has in common with the Christian is a desire to see the other in the life to come.

Personally, I feel that there can never be true dialog between Christians and Muslims. I have nothing personally against Muslims, but we seem to be giving them the very thing they want - world domination of Islam. We, as Christians had best stand our ground in this. We are heading exactly where the Muslim people want us - we are getting so wishy-washy in our own theologies and beliefs that we will allow almost anything or anyone to influence us to accept their heretical, non-biblical theologies and beliefs. I feel we should not allow any compounding of the Bible and Quran."A litle yeast affects the whole loaf." Little by little Christians are giving up the major beliefs we have stood for for over 200 years. We had best count the cost. Look what doing this did for Israel - the same could happen to the United States. We have already outlawed the Bible and God from our classrooms and public areas - now we are just going to give it up entirely? I hope to God we don't.

You obviously do have something personal against Muslims, Edward. Christianity is also older than 200 years...so exactly what are you saying here?

The Bible and God are not outlawed in public places...causing a public disturbance or abusing your position of authority to advance your religion is outlawed in some instances...which a "true" American wouldn't do anyway...would she/he?