Reference #2 -I agree that Islam is monotheistic. I have an issue with labeling Islam as Abrahamic however. Arabs are descendants from Ishmael son of Hagar the Egyptian is certainly Abrahamic, but what of the Berbers, the Persians and the Indonesians and Philippinoes?
Their line doesn’t physically come through those lines. Indeed they would be insulted to be called Arab.
So is it in only a spiritual sense they are from Abrahamic line, much as Christians would view that (but based on Abraham’s faith)? “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these very stones” (Mt 3:9). Faith and the works inspired by it constitute being children of God hence, children of Abraham. So in that sense I would agree.

Both the North African Berbers and Persians were Christian before they were Muslim, so I don’t know how that fits in.

On #1 I think Eph 4:14-15 applies as far as those within Christianity to utilize both positive and negative, since one assumes the outside influence is distorting the Gospel.

As far as converts to Christianity goes I would think the positive commonality is better to start, but at some point one has to provided a reasonable justification to leave Islam for Christianity and that is most likely going to reflect negatively on Islam. Otherwise what would be the point in converting?

I often struggle with the very issue you raise. So, allow me to offer a couple of more general thoughts.

/1/ Apologetics seem to have become an en vogue branch of Christian exploration. Where the original apologists (as well as “classical” and “evidential” apologists of today) sought to defend the truth claims of Christianity as a means of supporting and encouraging believers under attack, there has now arisen (in disciplines like scientific, cult, or global apologetics) a desire to prove to people why they should convert. I see the value in one, but I am not sure about the other (Evangelicals may be taking it too far).

/2/ I understand an outright rejection of the world’s pantheistic religions by Christianity, but I see Christianity’s relationship to Judaism and Islam as much more problematic. An outright dismissal of either seems to not appreciate the kinds of things you bring up. So, I guess I see other religious worldviews as “alien,” but I see the Abrahamic worldviews as dysfunctional cousins. Attacking an outsider always seems easier than attacking a family member.

In relation to these two points, I think your references to St. John are spot-on and appropriate.

I think your correct in your assessment. St. John is not what I would call bring a positive apologetic to the topic. I was attempting to bring out that St. John, taken with a grain of salt, brings out the developmental stage of Islam. To understand Islam today IMO one means to know what is has been in the past which includes the positive and the negative. Whether one then brings a positive or negative slant to the discussion is up to the individual.

I don’t disagree per se. However, something that has arisen (I am learning) in recent Christian apologetics (especially within evangelical circles), is to capitalize on the difference between “positive” and “negative” arguments for Christianity. The “positive” has essentially taken over what I had previously thought to be the realm of personal evangelism. The “negative” is what I had held to be the more traditional role of apologetics in answering criticisms and attacking other worldviews. This blog was posted with the “positive” apologetic in mind.

So, having said that (if it was already clear, pardon me for being verbose), I believe I see the clear and obvious application of the Damascene position for “negative” apologetics – but how exactly does it fit into the positive?

Sit an wait on a good deal for this one.