There is a problem with the belief in one figure associated with a particular tribe or cultural tradition as the "savior" of the world. Despite religious truth proposing that such a figure is objective and is enlightened, history shows us that the culture in which this figure is born is elevated to a status that is above any other therefore giving rise to the divisions among idealistic beliefs. The half-human god in Jesus who, is thought out as an example of "perfection" is [from my studies] is nothing more than the mere image of Eurocentric beliefs and fantasies. the proposed image of Muhammad gave rise to the popularity of Arab nationalism and new politics. The image of Moses and the ancient laws started a transitional phase of revelation.
All these figures are fought for by the large religious groups that dominate our world. I'm Muslim. Not simply because of Quranic doctrine and its verses I find appealing, but because of my inability to deny that which I find truthful-that is, the existence of something greater, non-material, high power which controls this universe. But in this world the appeal is not this philosophical idea but rather, the lawgiver who received this revelation. All popular religions elevate their truths through their prophets and each do so dialetically in such a way that it retracts priviledge from the other as if one presuppose some verbal supremacy over the other.
As I've seen when dialogue commence it is always "Jesus was this" "Muhammad was that" all of which takes focus away from the artisan who gave them the ability to convey the eternal message. As I've mentioned in another thread my love for the figure who came with the law and the message associated with is sustaining but it does not exceed the love I have for the one who said it, that is God, Rabbil Alamin [Lord of the Worlds].