The attack on tourists in Egypt last week, in which 62 people were left dead in Luxor, raises western fears that Islamic "fundamentalism" is gaining strength in the Middle East and North Africa. Those fears have been nurtured in recent years with reports every other day of fearsome massacres in Algeria, which have generally been attributed to militant Islamists.

Since the fall of the Shah in 1979 and the establishment of an Islamic state in Iran, there has been a growing fear of militant Islam.

In the minds of many, the words Muslim and fundamentalist are inseparable, and western perceptions of Islam itself have become inextricably linked with western fears of terrorism and violence. These judgments and prejudices are reinforced by events such as the Luxor murders.

But must Islam always be equated with violence and intolerance, and is it fair to continue equating violence in the Islamic world with religious fundamentalism, or to think of all Muslims as religious fanatics?

The attack in Luxor drew swift condemnation from Islamic militants outside Egypt, including Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria. Egypt's Islamists are outside not only the mainstream of Islam but also the mainstream of their own supposed school of thought.

Before he disappeared two years ago, the Egyptian leader of Gamaat Islamiya, Talaat Fuad Qasim, justified attacks on tourists, saying: "Tourism is an abomination, a means by which prostitution and AIDS are spread by Jewish women tourists."

Attacking tourists and foreigners goes against basic Muslim principles of tolerance and hospitality which have their roots in the Quran. Teaching tolerance, the Quran warns Muslims against compelling people to believe against their will (10: 99), and enjoins Muslims to tolerate others "lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance" (6: 108).

In their refusal to respect the possibilities of a broad range of interpretations and opinions within Islam, the militants fail to abide by the Quranic injunction: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2: 256). In their refusal to respect the rights of Christians and Jews, they deny the teaching in the Quran that the "People of the Book" have special rights, and that diversity in religious beliefs is part of God's overall plan (10: 99). an, which encourages kindness and equity towards non-Muslims (60: 8). Muslim tradition records occasions when Muhammad stood in respect for the funeral of a Jew, allowed the Christian delegates from Najran to pray in his mosque, promised to protect their religious rights and to preserve the sanctity of their monastery, and promised to protect the Jews and Christians of Medina.

In one of his traditional sayings, recorded in al-Bukhari, he said whoever kills a Jew or Christian entitled to the protection of an Islamic state "would be prevented from entering Paradise."

Western fears about Islam are a historical hangover not only from the fears of the Turkish onslaught on Europe, which was turned back only at the gates of Vienna at the end of the 17th century - they are fears that probably date back to the Crusades. And yet during the Crusades, Salladin invited the Jews back to Jerusalem and promised to protect Christians, while the Crusaders are often remembered in the East for their slaughter of Orthodox Christians and the pillaging of Constantinople.

Historical memories make it difficult for Muslims, Christians and Jews to approach any open dialogue. Dialogue with Islam is always a thorny problem for Christians and Jews, and it is difficult for Muslims to accept an outsider's comments on the Quran or Muslim tradition. On the other hand, Christians need to overcome the barrier of perceiving all Muslims as fundamentalists.

an to Mein Kampf and talked of Islam and "the dangerous fundamentalism revived by the ayatollahs and their admirers." But Muslims object that the phrase implies that the Quran sanctions political extremism. In fact, the word fundamentalism was coined by American Protestants to imply a reaffirmation of the fundamentals of Christianity.

But in the face of difficulties and prejudices, we must have dialogue. In recent years, one of the finest example of dialogue has been provided by the Muslim-Christian Research Group, which published some reports of its discussions in 1989 in The Challenge of the Scriptures - Bible and Quran.

The International Abrahamic Youth Forum is a new project, being launched by a team of volunteers from all religious and political perspectives within mainstream Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The organisers are planning their first conference in January next and they hope the forum will stimulate the creation of a network of individuals and organisations involved in dialogue between the three faiths.

An "Abrahamic dialogue" has been advocated by many leading Muslims (Sheikh Nahnah of Tunisia, Sheikh Kuftaro of Syria and Dr Kurshid Ahmad of Pakistan, for instance), Christians (Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury and Dr Hans Kung in Germany) and Jews (including the British Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, and the former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, Dr David Rosen).

Unfortunately, in Ireland there are few people working on the questions raised by the increasing encounters between Christians and Muslims. Although there are now more Muslims than Methodists in Ireland, and the number of Christian-Muslim marriages is bound to increase, none of our Churches has given an official responsibilities for relations with the Muslim community.

The co-ordinators of the Abrahamic Youth Forum start from the premise that dialogue is not most necessary where it is easy - it is most necessary when it seems most difficult.

More information about the Abrahamic Youth Forum and dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews can be obtained from: Ibrahim El-Zayat (emugev@aol.com), Dr James Aitken (jk12@cam.ac.uk) and Dr Dvora Ross (rossdv@netvision.net.il).

Patrick Comerford is an Anglican theologian