Interfaith dialogue has been a very controversial issue and there have been a lot of discussions about it: its necessity, rationale, and success (Kurucan 2006). These questions have made it obvious that people are not aware of the real meaning of interfaith dialogue.

Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca (1969) explain dialogue as follows: “… (it) is not supposed to be a debate … but rather a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (196, 37). Related to this description, Gulen (2000) describes interfaith dialogue as “… seek(ing) to realize religion’s basic oneness and unity, and the universality of belief. Religion embraces all beliefs and races in brotherhood, and exalts love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom via its Prophets” (The Fountain, September 2000). These descriptions bring out another question: how useful and beneficial can interfaith dialogue be in solving problems?

Interfaith dialogue does not aim to change the ideas of people about their religions or faiths, but seeks to find common ground between religions, to focus on communities, and through an emphasis on harmony and peace, find solutions to many of our common problems. In fact, one of the reasons for interfaith dialogue is to “provide an atmosphere of freedom” (Kurucan 2006, 17).

Another major proponent of dialogue was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University. When he visited the Vatican in 1977 in a delegation, Nasr highlighted five areas that Christianity and Islam can work together to make the world better. These five areas are “dangers of modern technocracy and ecological ruin, energy crises, youth problems and decadence of morality and faith” (Kot 2009). In addition, Rev. Allman states, “The ability to discuss our religious and cultural differences is more than an ‘extra-curricular activity’; it is a skill which is vital for participants in democracy, especially a democratic society such as ours, which is filled with people whose differences are deep and complex” (The Network, 1999).

These statements show the importance of interfaith dialogue for the improvement of humanity and the goodwill of societies. Pinto (2003) highlights the role of interfaith dialogue in today’s society as “…an inevitable fact of our being-with-other-faiths.”

In connection to this, Swidler et al. (2007) state that, “In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village” (Stress added, p.1).

Today most of the common reasons for dispute between religions, or between people of different religions, are that they do not understand one another’s beliefs or ideas (Baum 2011). Interfaith dialogue meetings, panels, conferences help these misconceptions and unfamiliarity disappear. And the result of such dialogues can be tremendous. As Smock states, “… when two or more faiths come together to explore or promote the possibility of peace, the effects can be especially potent” (viii).

The benefits of interfaith dialogue are obvious but still it is not an easy work. Once again, Smock (2002) highlights that “interfaith dialogue is a difficult, often painful endeavor” (viii). There are some prerequisites for interfaith dialogue to be successful. Swidler (2003) categorizes them as:

“1) an openness to learn from the other. 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition. 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition” (p. 12).

The importance of each prerequisite will be explained in detailed below.

Ingredients for a successful interfaith dialogue meeting

1) The most important component of interfaith dialogue is to remember the real meaning of dialogue. It is a two-way discussion that requires respect and understanding. This component may seem very simple to understand but it is very easy to forget. Swidler (2007) states that, “If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue – and a growing transformation of each participant’s life and that of their communities – will follow” (p. 19). So for better results out of interfaith dialogue, the real meaning of dialogue should not be forgotten. Be sure to explain dialogue as “… a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, 1969, 37).

2) In these meetings, participants must be aware of the fact that all of the participants are from different religious and cultural backgrounds, so interfaith dialogue is based on understanding and respecting all participants. In interfaith dialogue, none of the participants should try to discredit or question the belief system of the other participants.

3) Smock (2002) writes that stating the purpose of the meeting very clearly and choosing the right participants goes a long way towards determining the success of a dialogue. The purpose of the meeting should be decided by the participants before the meetings, very clearly and in detail.

4) While describing how to start dialogue, Bohme et al. (1991) state that suspension is an important part of dialogue. Listening to the other participants is a compulsory part of the process. During these meetings, all of the participants should be free of their biases and be open to understanding and recognizing new perspectives. Interfaith dialogue meetings are great ways to learn about different religions and different thoughts.

5) It should not be forgotten that in these meetings, we come together as people, not as belief systems, but these meetings provide an incredible opportunity to learn about, discuss, and understand other religions. “… the dialogue among the world’s religions and traditions should lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and an exchange of the mutual values as an enrichment of one’s own faith and of the faith of the others” (Cosijns & Braybrooke, 2008, 55-56). However, a problem or mistake made in the meetings should not be used to generalize about a whole belief system. Kurucan (2006) states that by interfaith dialogue, “We refer to dialogue between the people of different religions” (17). So people in these meetings should not be seen as categories, sole representatives of their religions, but they should be seen as individual people, with their strengths and flaws – just like all of us.

6) Interfaith dialogue aims to find solutions to the problems of the world and other people by focusing on the similarities between belief systems. It does not focus on the differences and controversial issues.

7) Smock (2002) states that one-time interfaith dialogue meetings cannot be very useful, so there should be some follow-up sessions to enforce the benefits of the meetings.

8) In addition, it would be a good idea to learn about the religious practices of the other participants, see the differences between your own understandings, and be very careful about these differences during the dialogue process. Crowley (2006) states that setting the stasis – the parts that the participants may have different ideas about – is an important part of civil discussion. In interfaith dialogue, being aware of the stasis is important, so as not to offend the other participants.

9) No exclusives and no syncretism. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) state that in interfaith dialogues, no religion should be excluded. This would be a huge handicap for the success of interfaith dialogue. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) also highlights that trying to synchronize all religions into one can be just as dangerous as exclusiveness. As stated above, it is very crucial to accept all religions and religious people in their own belief system.

10) Dialogue can only happen between equals. If a religious group sees one group as inferior or even superior to another, no dialogue can happen. There cannot be sharing and understanding between the groups, which is the main aim of any interfaith dialogue.

Interfaith dialogue is an important concept in the globalized world. People from different religions live side by side in the globalized village and there are tons of problems that human beings face today. These interfaith groups are very crucial for a world in which “every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” (www.bread.org). The role of the interfaith dialogue in solving these problems cannot be underestimated. Smock (2002) states that “while religion can and does contribute to violent conflicts, it can be a powerful factor struggling for peace and reconciliation (viii).

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. & Khoury, A. & Welty, E. 2007. Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Bohm, D. & Factor, D. & Garrett, P. 1991. Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
• Cosijns L.F. & Braybrooke , M. 2008. Dialogue among the faith communities. Lanham, MA: Hamilton Books.
• Crowley, S. 2006. Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press
• Gulen, M.F. 2000. “Necessity of interfaith dialog.” The Fountain Magazine. Issue 31.
• Kot, Z. 2009. “Muslim-Christian relations: The traditionalist interfaith dialogue” (Unpublished master thesis) George Washington University, Washington, DC.
• Kurucan, A. 2006. Nicin Diyalog: Diyalogun temelleri. Uskudar, Istanbul: Isik Yayinlari
• Perelman C.H. & Olbrechts- Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pinto, H. 2003. Faucault, Christianity and interfaith dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Publications
• Smock, D. R. 2002. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Swidler, L. & Duran, K. & Firestone, R. 2007. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

If on occasion we are able to block out the horror of September 11, those who travel by air are brought back to the reality of it whenever we go through the intensive and intrusive airport security screening now required at every airport in this country, and for that matter throughout the world.

Immediately following 9/11, questions and uninformed, insufficient answers were too often offered in hate-filled newspaper articles and on radio and television stations. Too often, the conversations were by their very nature laced with Islamophobia. The content too often demonstrated our collective ignorance as a people and nation about Islam, the Holy Qur’an, imams, mosques, and what really was the definition of Jihad?

As a counterweight, and spurred primarily by religious leaders in the three Abrahamic faiths, interfaith dialogues and summits began to appear first in America and then throughout the world. As a result, Islam, which had pretty much been a foreign word in America’s religious vocabulary, was now on the lips of everyone.

But in truth, ignorance about Islam continues to drive our reactive behavior toward one of the three great Abrahamic faiths. It is hard to believe, but in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation, 40 percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, because of his name. There continue to be concerns expressed in this country by American Muslims about their place in American culture and society. Where do they belong, and can they ever really belong, without being under a microscope all the time? My friend Eboo Patel, founder of the Inter Faith Youth Core in Chicago, has said, “I am more afraid now than I was after 9/11.”

And yet, within this capsule of ignorance and fear of the “other,” I believe that as a nation there is another reason why we as Americans have had such a hard time dealing with the horrors of September 11. As a nation, we have never had the opportunity to grieve over the horrible loss of life, the indelible visual experience of all that was attached to that fateful September morning ten years ago.

Ten years ago as a nation we were embraced quite frankly by almost every nation in the global community, offering help, prayers, and whatever support was needed at this time of national crisis. And yet, our immediate response as a nation was to seek retribution and frontier justice. Wanted “dead or alive” was a regrettable pronouncement offered by some. And the taunt to those who were religious terrorists was “bring ’em on.” As the nation gathered in prayer at Washington National cathedral, President Bush unfortunately misspoke and used the word “crusade” in his speech to the nation-a word that was frightening, and historically painful and confrontational to millions in the Muslim world.

Because of the reflexive need to immediately “strike back” at the perpetrators and planners of the 9/11 attacks, we never really had the opportunity to grieve as a nation. When we do not grieve over a great loss, we tend to have overly emotional, often unhelpful knee-jerk responses. Anger and aggression can be the first response to significant loss in one’s family, or in the larger human family. And without time to grieve, think and process, responses can be illogical and result in bad decisions.

For much of the last decade, we have not found the time to grieve over the horrors of September 11, 2001. Yet the hard work of interfaith conversation and interaction emanating from religious scholars, denominational leaders, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have led the way to places where people of faith have had wonderful opportunities. Through the discipline of prayer, the blessings of shared compassion, and the core teachings of their religious traditions, they have had a significant impact on moving not only America, but many other nations, from retribution to reconciliation, from theological illiteracy to literacy, from xenophobia to respect, tolerance, and acceptance of the “other.”

9/11 scarred the psyche of America, but also the public image of Islam. And yet the Jesus of Christianity reminds his followers that at the very center of their belief system is the word reconciliation—embraced by unconditional love and the quest for a peace that passes all understanding.

And it is no accident that Islam has as its radius the word salam (peace). The teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad have much in common regarding care for the “other.” Peace and divine love is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam. And it is that quest that now leads us to continue the healing process that must move forward between the brothers and sisters of Abraham. For it is the promise of the one God that true holiness can be found within the unity of our diversity.

It is now time, ten years later, to embrace the moment and make whole that which has been broken by the ignorance, fear, and illiteracy that too often define our understandings of religion. Much of that work has been undertaken in Washington D.C. through the creative efforts of the Rumi Forum, Washington National Cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution through the U.S. Islamic World Forum.

Many efforts have begun in other parts of the world to engage in work that promises to positively impact the present opportunity—to seek the path of wholeness and reconciliation rather than division and violence. This is a journey begun by both Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad that now defines a new decade, a decade not solely focused on the 9/11 tragedy, but one that must become part of the global community. It is a journey made sacred by all those who lost their lives in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington and by the efforts of interfaith leaders throughout the world.

It is a new time, a new decade, where life promises to overcome the sting of death, where hate is trumped by the power of God’s love, and where people of faith have the courage to speak out against those who use religion for their own selfish desires for control and power, rather than as a means through which all can experience the reconciling love of God.

As a country, and as people of faith, we cannot make this journey alone. We will need partners and colleagues of other faith traditions that believe that this is the moment when we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and proclaim that no one has the right to take another person’s life in the name of God.