(from Introduction) This book begins a new series devoted to 'Religions and Discourse'. The idea of creating a series arose during the 25th LAUD-symposium on "Metaphor and Religion," which was held at Schloss Krickenbeck, Germany, from April 1 to April 4, 1997. The first two volumes present a selection of essays which have been substantially revised as a result of discussion, both at the time of their presentation and subsequently. The present volume reflects the inter-religious aspects of the symposium in relation to the three monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The companion volume (Metaphor and God-Talk, edited by Lieven Boeve and Kurt Feyaerts) presents more particularly various interdisciplinary Christian viewpoints on the issue. The idea of the symposium was certainly not to contrive to create a religious melting pot nor to foster the illusion that, all things considered, world religions agree on some shared idea of transcendence. Even within the different forms of monotheism such an allegation would be dangerously erroneous. If, beyond the strict scholarly scope of our undertaking, a more ecumenical message can be derived from these essays, it is that we ought to recognise each religion in its peculiarity and to go a step farther in the exercise of mutual respect. As Recep Yaparel writes in this volume, "through the knowledge of metaphors employed by other people we can learn the depths of their culture." Indeed, metaphor is a good starting point to become familiar with the habits of thought specific to each religion. The issue addressed by the symposium participants was that many fascinating metaphors originate in religion. But how is one to interpret them? Many scholars believe that metaphors can only be interpreted by following certain semantic or linguistic mechanisms. This approach is largely insufficient to grasp the broad range of possible interpretation techniques that have emerged in the history of religions, and to cope with the deep debates about whether a given religious expression is to be considered as a metaphor. The crucial point is that every religion interprets its metaphors according to a more or less different model. Such differences tend to be largely determined by dogmatic principles underlying a specific religion. An undecided question in most religious orientations is therefore: to what extent is it legitimate to interpret a given religious expression as a metaphor and according to what rules can the metaphorical interpretation be carried through? (Ralph Bisschops)