The reality and the authenticity of religious experiences with regard to conversion may not be necessarily disputed, especially when it has to do with conversion from the other religion to Christianity. This is due to the Christianity’s belief that God still speaks to the hearts of people in mysterious ways. Thus it is Christianity has believed that God speaks to the hearts of the people through dreams, visions, and prophecy. These are indeed psychic experiences replete with conventional stories which later tranformed to conviction, thereby leading to conversion of the persons involved. Thus, at this time vision and dreams are said to bring a repressed conviction to consciousness. And when this takes place, it is always that the persons involved could not be stopped, even when their lives are threatened or their convictions and consciousness being subjected to suppression. However, it has been observed that religious is something, even though that may not disputed against but at the same time not within the confines of experimental verifiability as it is always being a personal experience and encounter with God. Hence, there could be possibility that some persons should use such as a ploy to deceive the unsuspecting and gullible individuals. For instance, many have used it as a reason for undue founding of many religious movement and denominations especially in Christian religion, thus leading unguided proliferation of churches and multiplication of doctrines. However, I still believe that abuse does not negate a relity. Religious experiences leading to conversion are exemplified in the Bible such as that Ethiopian Eunuch, Saul who turned to Paul and so many others.

The common word which denotes the meeting point of agreement between Christianity and Islam is indeed an expression of a rich dialogical progress made by these two major religions. It really depicts a growth and maturity in Muslim-Christian relations. For the fact that the dual common ground was thought out by these two major religions implies that both see peace as the most paramount thing in the socio-political landscape. I think the two common ground of the love of God and the love of neighbor arrived at by these two religions indicate their source and link to the Abrahamic religion. Thus, the shamah prayer of Deut.6:5 corroborates. Against this backdrop the Christianity’s understanding that the humanity’s love of God and God’s love of humanity which is intricately connected can be viewed within this framework. From this foregoing love becomes the pinnacle of duties toward God and our neighbor. Muhammad corroborates this when he says that “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” Thus this has with Christianity’s principle “Whoever does not love neighbor does not know God and whoever does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn 4:8, 20)

From the foregoing, justice and freedom of religion become a crucial and an important aspect of the show of love to our neighbor. Muhammad thought on this is quite interesting when he said that the “most virtuous behavior is to engage those who sever relations, to give to those who withhold from you, and to forgive those who wrong you” This is to say that from these common ground one is sure of tolerance from both religions in any given community and society. Thus, the peaceful coexistence is assured in our world given the fact that the world’s population is mainly dominated by these two religions. Hence, these two religions by this common word believe that to be is to be related and to be related is to love which is the basic principle of any community.

The above statement as highlighted by D’Costa in his article on Interreligious prayer is an important one as it clearly distinguishes inter-religious prayer from the multi-religious prayer. Reclining to most of the church’s documents and scholars’ thoughts in relation to John Paul II Assisi prayer of 1986, a lot questions have been raised regarding why inter-religious prayer rather than the multi-religious prayer or vice versa. Thus, in line with the ideas raised by the many of the church’s documents and the views of some thinkers and scholars, it is observed that many favor the multi-religious prayer. For many of them, including Ratzinger who later became the Pope Benedict XVI, the possibility of interreligious prayer is dicey as they believe that it could amount of the monopolization of one religious faith against the other. Hence, they were of the view that mutireligious prayer should should be adopted as it is expressive of shared concern of different religions regarding issues that likely to threaten the peace, unity, and justice in the world. It is also an expression of the point of commonality among all the religions. It also expresses tolerance, love of neighbor, and respect for the integrity of other religions. However,Cragg who seems to be a lone voice regarding interreligious prayer, though he did not reject the grounds on which the multireligious prayer is favored, but raises questions in what should have been the contents of the interreligious prayer and who should the prayer be directed to? He also brings to our knowledge on the power of the Holy Spirit on inspiration of prayer. From this backdrop he did not say yes or no to multireligious prayer, but he is concerned about the co-intentionality which without it interreligious prayer will degenerate into monopolization. Given all these highlights I think it is important to know why prayer should be talked about at first instance and being aware of that will help to guide all the religions to pray for a common intention which should equally express the contribution of all the religions to the phenomenon of the common good. In the context of this I believe that we will always be making a head way in relations among all the religions.

As I was going through the reading articulated by Khalidi on the Muslim Jesus, what was going in my mind was, how did the Muslims come about this? Could it be through the revelation,an encounter, the analysis of the gospel of Jesus or speculative reflection and thought about Jesus as a prophet? However, there are some quotations from the Quar’an regarding a couple of sayings of Jesus, but so many appeared to have been the interpretation and analysis of the Gospel as it appealed to their minds. Judging from the sayings so far, I think Muslims presented Jesus in most part in a positive light; His teachings, his life, his miracle/works, his relationship with people, his guidance and direction of the people’s moral life for the sake of the kingdom. However, after all this they still maintain the limitation of Jesus, still denying his status as the Son of God, but son of Mary and, equally the denial of the divinity of Jesus, thus at this time based on the fact of not providing the answer regarding the hour question asked by Gabriel. Cashed in this, Muslims believe that such reveals that Jesus has no super power, even though he is a revered prophet. Hence, he remains a genuine teacher in their reckoning, with no attribute of Divinity.

From the reading about Salat which reflects the religious content of prayer in a more significant way than physical posture, I came to realize that it is an integral part Islamic religion as it is the best possible way through which the adherents and faithful followers can express their allegiance, trust, obedience, nothingness, worship, devotion. In relation to other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, I don’t there is any much difference. However, the methods of the ritual could be different, and some cases different theological interpretation. The common denominator when Salat is compared to something like it in other religions is that it is a religious practice believed to have been legislated by God. To this end, it becomes arbitrarily obedience to God’s law each time we lift our minds to God either as a congregation(Juma’a )gathering of two or three persons(Salat al-jama’a), or as individuals, that is supererogatory, the prayer in solitude. From this one sees Christianity’s emphasis on both communal and private prayers. The interesting part of this is the condemnation of the ostentatious prayers which Christ did in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 6. That is, discouraging that supererogatory prayer should be said not in a public place as that will be a show of hypocrisy. Another important aspect is du’a’ which means supplication prayer. By this it is required of Muslim to always make supplication as it is a way of showing their limitations, shortcomings, dependence, allegiance, and obedience to God. I think both the Christianity and Judaism hold this same view. And for Islam, as du’a’ requires a spiritual preparation so also that in Christianity the prayer of petition requires spiritual rejuvenation as such a prayer is one of the most salutary medicines.

The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation according to Muslims and Jews have raised questions on the Christians’ claim on the belief of the monotheistic God. For these religions, how can God be one and the same described with three persons. In their thoughts, it is illogical to describe God with such concept of undivided essence with three distinct persons. Such in their understanding could amount to projecting tritheism , thus yielding to polytheistic belief. In furtherance, it is difficult to understand that Jesus is the revelation of God who is indivisible and still becomes a distinct person. Thus, it becomes difficult to understand that there is a difference between Jesus in God and God in Jesus. This has been the issue which appears to have been stifling the interfaith dialogue as there are yet to establish a point of commonalities and acceptance of differences

The above background was what necessitated the meeting between Volf,Sheikh al-Jifri, and Ford. This meeting could be termed interfaith dialogue. In this meeting Volf tried to respond to the volatile issue that appear to have been obstructing Muslim/ Christian relations. What Volf I think he did here was not much of playing defense and at the same time not yielding to the allegations from Muslim and Jews. Exploring the thoughts of many thinkers like Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Nicholas of Cussa, he is of the view that Christians’ belief in Trinity does not imply worship of idols, but could be seen from the point of view of their understanding of God. Though he accepts that such a concept may appear to be weak and inconsequential in such a way that it cannot convince Muslims when they hear of undivided essence and three persons. Volf, therefore, suggested what he called “Numerical identity of divine essence” This seemed to have doused the curious mind of Sheikh al-Jifri. However, his yearning was satisfied. But one thing I think Volf was able to establish was that every concept used to describe God must be inadequate even the words like sustainer and master, and gracious and merciful which Qur’an used. By this he was advocating of tolerance of each other’s belief, while we try to establish a common ground. That is, in trying to seek for a point of commonalities, we should always bear in mind of differences. In the final analysis he established that what Muslims deny is what the Christians deny, that is there is no other god beside God, and also what the Muslims affirm is what the Christians affirm, that is there is only one indivisible God. And I think this what D’Costa was equally trying to establish in his reflection on Volf’s Allah.

Fazlur Rahman in his articulation of the personality of God highlighted that the mercy and justice of God are interpenetrated in the Qur’anic concept of God as inseparable attributes. This invariably indicates that God is the creator of everything in the sense that everything is contingent upon God, which equally gives credence that God is almighty. Thus, it becomes amazing that God in His almighty is merciful, hence this becomes the character of God, which entails the relationship between God and man, the servant and the servant, and consequently between man and man. From this foregoing, Qur’an is said to be all about man and his behavior, and not God. In the light of this, it implies that Qur’an is a guide to man’s life. That is, it contains the rule which directs man’s affairs in relation to God and fellow man. It means, therefore, that God through the Qu’ran gives man power to be responsible, thereby making it a book replete with moral principles that are true to the realities of life. It is against this backdrop, that Qur’an talks about the expected judgment of man by God in which he will account of his responsibilities. This judgment is expected to be strict. This is a position the modern thinkers seem not be comfortable with as they emphasize more on the mercy and love of God at the expense of his justice. Christianity to some extent shares this view. This position of Qur’an points to the fact that God created man for a purpose and just for frivolities and sport according to Rahman.

Sayyid Qutb’s perspective of America is what was informed by the pragmatic observation and experience within the course of his studies in America. In his article, “I have seen America”, he highlighted what he perceived America to be it was impressed upon him. His articulation is summarized in what he referred to as the combination of the zenith of civilization with the nadir of primitiveness. In the context of this he presents America as that country that is known for its industrialization and massive production of goods and services with so much reliance and dependence on science and technology, but with zero value for humans. By this he means that while America’s greatness and development cannot be overemphasized, he is of the view of its abysmal primitiveness in the world of senses, feelings, and behavior. Hence, he didn’t human dignity being recognized in the midst of America’s thriving economic development. He attributes American’s withdrawal from the religious morality and culture and the reliance on the applied science as the cause. In furtherance, he identified America with domination, undue economic struggle and competition, war, and violence which were made manifest in its history of conquering, occupation, and the independence, and even in its football games. From this foregoing points of view, one could see from Qutb that he does not have much love for American culture. However, some of the points he raised cannot be totally disputed.

The video lecture by Yusuf Estes is a very interesting one which highlights much more why Islam and Christianity should build a strong relationship. Yusuf in this video I think is speaking to Muslims more than Christians. I see him as I observe trying to inform the Muslims to restrain from accusing Christians as polytheist religion. Thus he emphasizes that both religions are worshipping the God of Abraham. Hence, he reminds us how Jesus is the last prophet the line of Isaac and Muhammad from the line of Ishmael and informed us how both are the last prophets from their descents. While he says that Muhammad taught the followers about the worship of one true God, he equally reminds us how Jesus also taught his followers about the worship of one true God. Making reference to Matthew 5:17 where Christ says that I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it and also Mark 12:29 where Christ is emphasizing on the greatest of all commandments as worship of one true God. Another significant teaching in the video is the highlight on Islam, thus Islam means surrender, submission, obedience, sincerity, and peace. Against this backdrop, he says that when someone is forced to do anything, it means that there is no sincerity. By this I think Yusuf is emphasizing on religious tolerance and as Muslims, we are called live sincerely by our actions as Muslim according to him simply means one who does action in relation to the worship of true Allah.

The implication of accusing both the Jews and Christians of falsifying , distorting, and altering of the scriptures is that Islam has assumed that it is only Qur’an that is an authentic scripture, that it is their scholars that have the key to the interpretation of the scriptures and as such has the knowledge. By this it means that anything Jewish and Christian scriptures are not reliable and against that backdrop cannot be taken as authentic. However, one wonders how they came to this conclusion given the fact that Jewish and Christian scriptures were there before the Qur’an. Thus, it becomes the height of Muslim polemics against the Jews and Christians as it presents the Islamic religion as a superior to Jewish and Christian religions. In the words of Qasim such an approach is a dismissive assertion of the authenticity of Jewish and Christian scriptures. In the light of this Qasim can be seen as Jewish and Christian apologetic, though he agrees that there could be wrong interpretations of certain passages, but it does not stand to diminish the reality and the authenticity of the scriptures.