Rick Warren, the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, spoke recently at the 2009 ISNA Convention in Washington, DC. He arrived at the convention center and made his way across the registration and information booths, up two flights of escalators and then again across the numerous exhibitors’ booths just outside of the auditorium where he was to speak. Several ISNA executives were with him, but he was able to pass by most convention attendees without any fanfare.

Given that the ISNA convention is a racially diverse gathering the sight of a white man in a summer suit was hardly noteworthy on its face, but given what his presence at ISNA means, perhaps a little more fanfare was in order. Rick Warren’s willingness to reach out to Muslims is a bold step towards greater inter-religious dialogue in the United States. Warren’s gesture at ISNA, as with the MPAC convention last year, represents a marked departure from the “Islam is evil” message delivered by other Evangelical Christian leaders like Franklin Graham.

After all, several reputable national studies after 9/11 have shown that Evangelical Christians hold very unfavorable opinions of Islam and of Muslims. Right after 9/11 a Pew poll found that 62 percent of Evangelical Christians believe that their faith is very different from Islam and a 2003 Beliefnet/Ethics and Public Policy survey found that 77 percent of Evangelical Christian leaders had an unfavorable view of Islam.

Warren is obviously part of that very small minority of Evangelical Christian leaders who does not have an unfavorable view of Islam and who does not think his faith is that much different from Islam. That is why he is willing and able to come to speak sincerely to large Muslim audiences. It is good for American religious pluralism that Rick Warren and the national American-Muslim leadership have found one another.

This relationship and the ensuing dialogue are important because they help pave the way for grassroots dialogue between their faith communities. The grassroots inter-religious dialogue is where great gains in understanding and bridge-building can be made. Understanding and relationships between American-Muslims and Christians are vital to sustaining America’s tradition of religious pluralism.

Protestant and Catholic churches have significant experience in ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue and have clergy and lay leadership with training and experience to carryout the outreach and dialogue with American-Muslims. They have been doing similar outreach and dialogue with the American-Jewish community for quite some time already.

Still, there is a lot of work to be done in the American-Muslim community in order to capitalize on opportunities such as those presented by Warren and by other Christian denominations in America. Presently American-Muslims are ill-equipped to engage in inter-religious dialogue commensurate with the needs of the times.

In the metropolitan Chicago region, which is home to approximately 400,000 American-Muslims, there is a lot of inter-religious activity taking place but it is often held back by a lack of qualified participants. The Catholics, the United Methodists and the Presbyterians are regularly represented by clergy while doctors and other professionals represent the American-Muslim community in meetings and in dialogue. The Christian community brings full-time clergy committed to inter-religious dialogue while the sincere and committed American-Muslims are volunteers juggling careers and families and almost never have formal religious training in Islam that is comparable to their Christian counterparts.

Inter-religious dialogue holds great promise in easing the way for full and complete civic integration of American-Muslims on their own terms, but there are several challenges that must be met and overcome in very short order. First, American-Muslims must draw a clear distinction between inter-religious dialogue and proselytizing. Both are important but they are also very different in their intent and in the manner in which they are carried out. Inter-religious dialogue is about knowing the beliefs of other religious communities and finding areas of common ground and shared values. The success of inter-religious dialogue is not measured by the number of converts won.

Even for those who understand this distinction there remain several outstanding challenges. As leaders they must convince their co-religionists that inter-religious dialogue is valuable in creating a safe and permanent place for Islam in America. Furthermore, American-Muslims involved in inter-religious dialogue must be at least as well-grounded in Islam as their Christian partners are in Christianity in order to make inter-religious dialogue meaningful. The purpose of seeking dialogue is to learn and in these times most Americans already have a lot of information about Islam, some of which is authentic and a lot which is not.

In order to bring more American-Muslims into inter-religious dialogue it will help to frame the work in the context of Islamic teachings based on Quran and Sunnah. There is ample support for inter-religious dialogue (as distinct from proselytizing) in the Quran and Sunnah, but again, those already active in this work must be able to articulate this basis to their co-religionists. Too often, and ultimately to the detriment of real inter-religious understanding, American-Muslims view it as public relations.

Dialogue is more than speaking to one another. But dialogue can also be in the form of concerted action. Looking again at the metropolitan Chicago region, there are several relationships with Christian churches where the relationship between the leadership is well established. Their meetings are very cordial and the discourse is engaging and lively, but over many years the dialogue has remained verbal and has stayed among the small group of leaders from each faith community.

Inter-religious dialogue can and should be, at the opportune time, elevated into action for the common good. The shared values in promoting justice and equality and in alleviating suffering and bringing fairness into the law and in to the economy are all fertile grounds for united action between faith communities in America. Christians are already working with one another and with Jewish communities on issues of common good. American-Muslim leaders in the inter-religious arena should make united action on issues of common good a priority as well.

Rick Warren’s engagement with American-Muslims is significant in that it comes from a particular denomination that has also fostered a lot of negativity towards Islam and also because he is a Christian leader with a national platform. His willingness to engage with American-Muslims is not unique though. There are many in the Christian clergy and lay leadership who are open to and even eager to engage in inter-religious dialogue with American-Muslims.

For their part, American-Muslims have to make up a lot of ground in a very short time to seize the goodwill that is being extended to them. There is no telling what the mood and outlook of Americans will be if, before enough bridges are built and enough relationships are cemented between faiths, there should be another heinous terror attack by Al Qaeda.

Talk, talk, talk. At least now a tiny part of Islam is going to start talking to a tiny part of Christianity, but will they engage like the Christians and Jews have? Will they work together to achieve useful goals, and ultimately have each side agree it's okay for the other side to keep breathing?

>Talk, talk, talk. At least now a tiny part of Islam is going to start talking to a tiny part of Christianity, but will they engage like the Christians and Jews have? Will they work together to achieve useful goals, and ultimately have each side agree it's okay for the other side to keep breathing?<

Yawn, more faulty arguments from our resident know-nothing festering troll. Muslims have no issues in engaging anyone in dialogue and have done then their in extending the had of friendship. But that all goes out the door given the kind of rhetoric coming out from usual suspects quarters. This is the fundamental flaw in Juanid's article. The well being of Muslims is not dependent upon pleasing anyone but Allah(swt).
Evangelical "Christians" the most virulent extremists in the US, who worship Zionism have no interest in any dialogue at all, they want their Armageddon, and they want it now. Unfortunately the Falwaells Robertson, Franklins and Hageys have far more pull then Rick Warren ever will.

Fester >>> Will they work together to achieve useful goals, and ultimately have each side agree it's okay for the other side to keep breathing?

But that's what this type of meeting proves. That people aren't as polarised as once thought, and barriers are not as insurmountable as the media has us believe. Its not all screaming protests and angry rednecks.

DrM >>> This is the fundamental flaw in Juanid's article. The well being of Muslims is not dependent upon pleasing anyone but Allah(swt).

A convulsion of Islamic principles into a slogan, if ever I read one. "Inter-religious dialogue holds great promise in easing the way for full and complete civic integration of American-Muslims on their own terms" is not pleasing to Allah SWT because it pleases a white establishment non-Muslim.

>>> Evangelical "Christians" the most virulent extremists in the US, who worship Zionism have no interest in any dialogue at all, they want their Armageddon, and they want it now. Unfortunately the Falwaells Robertson, Franklins and Hageys have far more pull then Rick Warren ever will.

Fifty years ago, these same types opposed non-white integration into their society. They are still against immigrants, homosexuals, and teaching science. Today they have a black president. Over time, their attitudes will change. Don't you agree that any effort that eases the burden on Muslims in their public lives and eats away at a Pat Robertsons legitimacy is a good thing/deed? Fight power with truth?

But that's what this type of meeting proves. That people aren't as polarised as once thought, and barriers are not as insurmountable as the media has us believe. Its not all screaming protests and angry rednecks.
- Posted by Ghulam


I'm certain Islamic/Christian/Jewish co-operation occurs all the time. What I'm looking is a situation where it is the norm. Sorry, but what I've seen (for the most part) so far is Muslims acting like they are under active attack by communities they've never attempted to become a part of.

>>> Sorry, but what I've seen (for the most part) so far is Muslims acting like they are under active attack by communities they've never attempted to become a part of.

I think that many Muslims have succesfully integrated in the meaningful ways. The workplace, schools, political, military and social involvement. In fact, I have to keep on reminding myself that at least half of the Muslims in the US are reverts or non-migratory citizens. This means that inter-faith dialogue should have already been pre-empted by a coherent national identity.

As for the extent of inter-faith dialogue, this article alludes to a great depth of dialogue, but it seems to be happening in isolated communities and a broader Muslim national co-operation has not been built. Its there, but there's no pooling of resources. I was shocked to find that media at state level in the US was constantly obsessed with race and Obama's religion before his election. Muslims are definitely under attack. But they aren't getting resources from their government to combat that tide of Islamophobia, because the government is more interested in monitoring Masjids, than undermining racism/lies and protecting their citizens rights (who happen to be Muslim).

Its a very difficult position for Muslims. You don't find any eastern orthodox christians or buddhists reaching out to explain their beliefs or getting such racist coverage in the media. The reality of the media driven monster that makes up US popular culture, is that if you don't have money or political sway, your story will not make it into the American mainstream. InshaAllah, this tide of ignorance will be swept away by what I've found are very pro-active American Muslims with real flair for expressing themselves well.

This is one of my favourite blogs. An American sister with excellent writing and observational skills. I read her blogs and I have to wonder what does she have to do, to reach to out to Americans, when she is already so American and so firmly entrenched in American culture. Its a two way street, but Muslims are doing most of the driving.

http://www.kameelahwrites.com/

they aren't getting resources from their government to combat that tide of Islamophobia, because the government is more interested in monitoring Masjids, than undermining racism/lies and protecting their citizens rights (who happen to be Muslim).
- Posted by Ghulam


Back before America decided to create a welfare state, the answer to this problem was pretty obvious: Do It Yourself.

I don't know of anyone, except OmarG, who was here during the last round of this discussion, but it goes something like this...

Writing articles in widely read, or more likely very obscure, publications does nothing in America. You have to get out and meet people personally. Get the head of your mosque to contact the head of a local church. Have a couple of ordinary Muslims, not the leadership, go out and meet local church groups to talk about Islam. You talk about the problems you have with work, kids, and all the foreigners moving into the area. The message is: Muslims are pretty much like anybody else.

In this way you get infidels to know you as human beings, not potential suicide bombers, half-a-dozen people at a time.

Fester >>>> In this way you get infidels to know you as human beings, not potential suicide bombers, half-a-dozen people at a time.
>>> Back before America decided to create a welfare state, the answer to this problem was pretty obvious: Do It Yourself.

By the story above and numerous others I've read online, this seems to already be happening. And it has been happening for more than just a few years. Also, you seem to think that Muslims aren't interacting with their non-Muslim citizens. Isn't trading/working/schooling together already a base to work from?

Doing the work on the ground is a necessary part of any social movement anywhere in the world. But I don't think that Americans need necessarily to be confronted one at a time by someone with a pamphlet. They can be confronted in their popular media quite successfully too and news-sources like FOX should be held to account for their excesses. I hate to say it, but doing the right thing and presenting the truth is not the sole cause of the disenfranchised. Its EVERYONES personal concern.

They can be confronted in their popular media quite successfully too...
- Posted by Ghulam

Americans can successfully be confronted by the media, if you're a rock star. Other than that, the work will have to be done in small groups, WITHOUT PAMPHLETS!

I have to admit, I'm not too thrilled at the "bridges" between Evangelicals and Muslims. I understand its a Good Thing (tm) to be freinds with groups who may eventually otherwise seek our exclusion from public life. However, as Muslims we pride ourselves on being rational and not rejecting obvious things like evolution, the Earth being older than 5000 years and other ideas that I find hard to digest, let alone respect.

This People of the Book thing...I dunno...I'd rather we not be associated with any Evangelicals. Catholics, mainstream Protestents, sure, but Evangelicals, no.

@fester: >>You have to get out and meet people personally.

You know, I might actually want to take part in some kind of Evangelical-Muslim soup kitchen / shelter / neighborhood revitalization, etc. Now, *that* would be a worthwhile inter-faith activity, not the talk-talk we often see. I don't want/need to explain my faith to evangelicals since how I interpret Islam is likely to differ from someone perhaps more conservative than I. That merely sends confusing messages about what we are. This is perhaps what I dislike the most: I assume participants in interfaith come out believing that the others' religions are only as they say it and not as the spectrum that all religions actually are in real life.

This People of the Book thing...I dunno...I'd rather we not be associated with any Evangelicals. Catholics, mainstream Protestents, sure, but Evangelicals, no.
- Posted by OmarG

Why shouldn't you have to suffer like the rest of us?

I assume participants in interfaith come out believing that the others' religions are only as they say it and not as the spectrum that all religions actually are in real life.
- Posted by OmarG


Wow, you're asking alot. All I'm looking for is a situation where the neighbors aren't afraid of each other because of their religion.

OmarG >>> I assume participants in interfaith come out believing that the others religions are only as they say it and not as the spectrum that all religions actually are in real life.

I think that people can deal with complex truths if its presented in a sincere and human way. Besides, Fundamentally, Muslims all share the same beliefs. Its the differing circumstances and objectives that makes us seem like a swarm of bees. But a swarm is largely coherent. Its just not easy to see.

Fester >>> Americans can successfully be confronted by the media, if you're a rock star. Other than that, the work will have to be done in small groups, WITHOUT PAMPHLETS!

Honestly. Malcolm X did more for the cause than all the propogation movements. But we all agree we need better PR. The methods vary. I don't think its insurmountable.

Fester >>> Other than that, the work will have to be done in small groups,

It seems to me like this conference is bringing those small groups together to do exactly that.

>A convulsion of Islamic principles into a slogan, if ever I read one.<

Just the kind of idiotic cliched slogan I'd expect from a wannabe lefty whose spends too many hours turning a shade of pale in front of his seven year old PC(without having a clue about his supposed religion).

>"Inter-religious dialogue holds great promise in easing the way for full and complete civic integration of American-Muslims on their own terms" is not pleasing to Allah SWT because it pleases a white establishment non-Muslim.<

Ah yes, the usual strawman arguments which shows you have have no idea what inter-faith really means and/or that you misconstrue what doesn't register in that tiny skull of yours. There's nothing wrong in having fraternal relations with other members of other religions(without flirting with shirk by trying to harmonize fundamentally incompatible theological views) but first and foremost the well being of Muslims is based on pleasing Allah(swt) by following the Deen.

>This People of the Book thing...I dunno...I'd rather we not be associated with any Evangelicals. Catholics, mainstream Protestents, sure, but Evangelicals, no.<

For once Gomer is right. I have more respect for my atheist friends then I do for evangelicals any day.

>Fifty years ago, these same types opposed non-white integration into their society. They are still against immigrants, homosexuals, and teaching science. Today they have a black president. Over time, their attitudes will change.

This is the typical unsophisticated and naive cookie cutter view of American history. Having a Black puppet for president doesn't mean anything, those who understand how the gears of power work here know this well. The roots of Evangelical Christianity(explicit and implicit) in American life would be a thread of information in itself.

>Don't you agree that any effort that eases the burden on Muslims in their public lives and eats away at a Pat Robertsons legitimacy is a good thing/deed? Fight power with truth?<

Nope. These virulent movements didn't start with or will end with Robertsons, Falwells etc. The next generation of these armageddonists are primed and ready to fill in their daddys boots. Their influence will only decline with dawah from Muslims(not just soup kitchens and little biryabi chomping sessions). Only then will the rehmah of Allah(swt) ease any burden.

>In this way you get infidels to know you as human beings, not potential suicide bombers, half-a-dozen people at a time.<

A lame attempt at sarcasm which says more about the inherent racism and ignorant stupidity in your thinking. It's the Muslims who always stand ready to debate and have a solid track record of doing so, whether its Deddat, Naik, Ally etc.

>>> Just the kind of idiotic cliched slogan I'd expect from a wannabe lefty whose spends too many hours turning a shade of pale in front of his seven year old PC(without having a clue about his supposed religion).

You're the one with the slogan. More childishness.

>> Ah yes, the usual strawman arguments which shows you have have no idea what inter-faith really means and/or that you misconstrue what doesn't register in that tiny skull of yours.

I can't find any other reason that you would find this dis-pleasing to your religious sensibilities. But please enlighten everyone. What does inter-faith REALLY mean? You obviously think that Junaid and everyone involved in this conference doesn't know.

>> Their influence will only decline with dawah from Muslims(not just soup kitchens and little biryabi chomping sessions). Only then will the rehmah of Allah(swt) ease any burden.

Soup kitchens, beryani chomping sessions, and maintaining open/respectful inter-religious channels for dialogue would fall into that category for me. Of course, you're not saying what dawah from Muslims is. I wonder what that is when you're not willing to maintain any dialogue with people of different religions?

>>> A lame attempt at sarcasm which says more about the inherent racism and ignorant stupidity in your thinking. It's the Muslims who always stand ready to debate and have a solid track record of doing so, whether its Deddat, Naik, Ally etc.

That is not inter-religious dialogue. That is purely debate. Its not aimed at enlightening people on the ground. And all three quoted, represent very differing approaches to the debate, none of whom were broadly supported by the orthodoxy who are more dependent on tafsir to explain Quraan. I found their discussions to be populist, though frank. Deedat is a South African who typifies how much he alienated people to the end where he was alienated himself by those around him. It was a very sad end to a very dynami man. Everyone loves a good boxing match, but I don't think this can be categorised as similar to inter-faith dialogue and community co-operation.

Do you think there is such a thing as inter-faith co-operation?

Well, it is estmated and foreast that the US will have 50 million muslims in next 70 years. So, the US should think about the muslims' integration in the soiety.

As an active member in my community, I resent the implication that because the Muslim way of approaching dialog seems unpolished when compared to the American version of dialog, it must be inferior and less effective. In stark contrast to this, it has been the interactiosn with regular Muslims who may not be experts in Islam ("lack formal training") but who practice with full faith and conviction which has done so much good for our communities. It is the deep commitment to dialog that is demonstrated by those of us juggling families which has proved so valuable to those listening to us.

@humanitarian: >>version of dialog, it must be inferior and less effective

I guess you don't watch the media, much eh? Y'all are going up against a professional establishment and we're loosing out because of it.

Great; a good effort is always rewarded by God, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking its not less effective (it so obviously is).

...it has been the interactiosn with regular Muslims who may not be experts in Islam ("lack formal training") but who practice with full faith and conviction which has done so much good for our communities.
- Posted by humanitarian

This is exactly the approach I am promoting.

P.S. Islam is recognized as the fastest growing major religion in the U.S.