From the perspective of this unbeliever we have a bad news – good news story here.

--The bad news is that most Christians don't follow Christ's teachings as set out in the Gospels.

--The good news is that most Muslims, in Western countries anyway, don't follow the teachings of the koran. And for that let us gave thanks to whatever deity may exist.

More to the point I want to congratulate David Palmer on an exceptionally well thought out essay. It introduces a much needed dose of reality into Christian – Muslim dialogue.

Secularists who want to enter into dialogue with Muslims should also take note of David Palmer's insights

Steve....

The only reason Muslims call for 'dialogue' is that they are not a superpower. I don't find Muslims in Saudi Arabia calling for 'dialogue' with expatriot_Christians about anything.

Mohammad, mocked by the town of Ta'if when he was just a weak itinerant_preacher; returned with an Army and beseiged them.. they folded and embraced_Islam, being totally cutoff from all possible help.

THE_PROBLEM. When Muslims come to dialogue with Christians.. as David said "It is to call them to Islam". If genuine Christians meet with Muslims, it is to call them to repentance, faith in Christ and salvation and worship of the One True God who has spoken with absolute finality in Christ.

Mucking around trying to find 'common ground' is plain silly. You cannot have 'common ground' which remains static between 2 mutually exclusive faiths, one of which is doctrinally and militarily hostile to the other.

BACKGROUND. The call to 'find common ground' is remeniscent of the very early Muslims who fled Mecca and Quraysh persecution to Etheopia, where they pleaded with King Negus using early passages from the Quran which impressed the Christian king that they were at least 'on the same chapter' if not the same page spiritually.

But a few years in religion, can change much. The later chapters of the Quran emerged from a now more powerful Mohammad, so he writes to the same Negus:

"Embrace Islam and you will safe" Now..this is where 'history and chronology' have much to teach us.

All the 138 Muslims need to do to show 'true good faith' is add an apendix to their letter as follows:

"And we commit to allowing Churches to be built in Saudi Arabia and all Muslim countries" and BINGO.. they would have some credibility.

ABROGATION. To understand Islam truly, one must know about 'Abrogation'. If an earlier verse (the Christian friendly ones) is abrograted(contradicted) by a later one.. the later applies.
Hence..when evaluating "Muslim statements which include friendly Quranic quotes" one must absolutely know about this and interpret the statement accordingly.

Surah 9,(the warlike one) abrogates surah 2 (the friendly one) in this regard.

David Palmer is certainly insightful with his article and correctly calls the dialogue involving the so called representatives of half the worlds population at best, "a truce".

Western civilization’s delinquent knowledge of the Islamic faith leaves us naïve to many of its tenets. There are many aspects to Islam - many of which are moderate, but what is being invoked, however, feeds the intemperate. So, rather than go back to the fundamentals of each religion lets go back rather to some basic principles. Many branches of Islam do not take 'al -Taqiyya' totally to heart - a from of deceit which literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies" Let me also stress, in almost every reference to taqiyya in Islam it is held that there are only a very few times when it is permissible. However, it can be invoked by certain Muslims when interacting with government and law enforcement where giving damaging information on another Muslim is concerned - so, there are critical exceptions. The 'lie',in principle, is therefore permissible. Within the Shi'ite Islamic tradition it is a perfectly acceptable tenet. Need I mention also, Ahmadinejad, a devoted Shi’ite, has indicated without reservation his blind faith to Islam. Let's not be naïve therefore as to who exactly we are dealing with and understand its dire implication within Middle East politics.

Moderate Muslims in a secular society therefore need to denounce certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures, along with the basis of Tawhid, nubuwwa, and qiyãma , which form the so called constitution of Islam. They also need to totally and honestly reject the punishment of death as prescribed by the shari`ah for apostasy - i.e.the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam. This is all a big ask. I'm skeptical that the majority of professing Muslims are able to do this (even if willing) - I'd like to be proved wrong.

Absolutely correct Stevenlmeyer, David Palmer is to be congratulated. Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs. I'm not too sure which version, as it seems that they can't decide between them which is the right one either.

David

VK3AUU: "Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs"

I would have thought that would be an area of 'common ground', given the example of some of the godbotherers in this forum. In fact, I don't think I've read anything here from a proselytising Muslim, while we're subjected to biblical babble here on a daily basis - from several raving religionists of the Christian variety.

Given that we can't ban religions, as a society we should consciously foster secularism as our dominant worldview. For example, the Federal government should remove all direct and indirect funding of religious agencies and schools, and redirect the funds into schools and organisations that articulate and practise rational, secular objectives.

We can't get rid of religious delusions and their inherent conflicts, but we can certainly make them less attractive and authoritative. Our society and culture can and should remove any imprimatur that religion asserts - in fact it's inevitable that secularisation will continue. Let's encourage it.

The author of this piece is a Convener (lit: "the member of a group whose duty it is to convene meetings") of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria Church and Nation Committee, which position apparently qualifies him to indulge in all sorts of speculation:

>>...the letter from the 138 Muslim scholars and leaders is an invitation to the Church’s leaders to become Muslims<<

That is a fairly insulting claim. Where is his evidence?

>>Christian leaders for their part... must make clear their own adherence to the far richer revelation of the triune God given through Scripture and in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ<<

Why should they bother to do this, when neither side would be prepared to budge one doctrinal millimeter?

What is wrong with putting religion aside for the purposes of making the world a safer place, and in doing so, take responsibility for the example that you set to those who choose to follow you?

Is that too hard?

>>...issues such as the right of both Muslims and Christians anywhere to worship freely and to proselytise, even the right to proselytise persons of each other’s faith<<

Worship freely, yes of course.

But it is deceitful to put a "right to proselytise" in the same basket. In fact, it would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities.

Instantly, the world would be a better place to live, for all except those who make a living from the business of adversarial religion.

>>In the first place agreeing on what the unity of God means is impossible<<

True, but it shouldn't even be a question - being fundamentally irrelevant to the purpose of the talks.

It is patently pointless to convene a summit to discover which religion is "right".

One final point. When discussing issues such as this - and further, quoting additional texts that support the straw man you have set up - it is generally considered polite to provide a link to the source document under discussion.

I'm sure the author meant to do it, but forgot.

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1