Christian-Muslim dialogue in the United States: a Muslim perspective.

A personal journey into interreligious dialogue

Meetings with Christians in Pakistan. My first encounter with Christian ministers and missionaries started in 1972 in Islamabad, Pakistan. Three Protestant missionaries working at a Christian study center at Rawalpindi approached the director of the Islamic Research Institute to exchange their views with Muslim researchers at the IRI on different topics in Islamic studies. These missionaries were working in Islamic studies and doing research on modern Islamic movements. Their initial conversation led to the idea that these Christian missionaries and scholars of Islam would help the younger Muslim researchers of IRI by teaching them certain research methodologies and helping them improve their writing skills in English.

I was one of these younger researchers. I remember very well that we started the discussion with H.A.R. Gibb's Mohammedanism. The Christian scholars entertained and responded to some of our objections and most likely gauged our reactions and sensitivities. However, coming from a culture that demands nothing less than deferential respect for one's teachers, we young Muslims were careful to keep the discussion from becoming negative or confrontational. The only thing I remember of this encounter is that our Christian teachers raised many critical questions about the history and development of Islamic law, theology, and thought and challenged us to articulate alternatives to certain traditional Muslim understandings of these issues. One of the three Christian missionary teachers later went on to become a member of the Task Force of Christian-Muslim Relations, inaugurated in 1977, with its headquarters at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut.

An individual who played a significant role in these exchanges, although he was not present for any of them, was an elderly gentlemen, a traditional Muslim scholar: the IRI librarian. He would always be ready to provide us with a "correct" Islamic response to the criticism of Orientalists and would admonish us to be wary of these Western scholars of Islam, in particular the Christian missionaries, whom he saw as "wolves in sheep's clothing." I always respected this librarian, but somehow I could neither intellectually nor temperamentally agree with him. I marveled at his memory as a ready reference to the authors and titles of books. It was this, perhaps, that qualified him to be a librarian without ever studying library science.

This gracious encounter with the three Christian scholars made me ever appreciative of Western scholars of Islam--be they prejudiced, antagonistic, curious, polemical, objective, or sympathetic. I would ever after think that if non-Muslims devoted so much energy, time, effort, and resources to studying and researching Islam, Muslims should be ashamed if they did not study their own religious resources and classics, let alone the resources of other religious traditions. While I knew that I had to approach the perspectives of non-Muslim scholars of Islam with a certain degree of caution, I also knew that it was the zealous "neo-revivalist" movements that were transforming Islam into a revolutionary ideology and invoking the slogan of "Back to the Quran and Sunnah!" that indirectly helped sever the connection between contemporary Muslims and the rich heritage of traditional Muslim scholarship. Although this was never the intention of the leaders of these movements, however, it resulted in such an unfortunate situation.

First dialogue experiences in the U.S.A. In the fall of 1974, I was selected to receive a scholarship for graduate studies in the Department of Religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. Interestingly and coincidentally, one of the courses in which I first enrolled was "Interreligious Dialogue." It was taught by a staunch proponent of interreligious dialogue who popularized the "Decalogue of Dialogue" and even claimed that the survival of humanity depended on the choice between "dialogue or death," a phrase that was to become the title of one of his works. In the course we studied the Roman Catholic Church's directives for interreligious dialogue. Unfortunately, we never fully discussed or analyzed Nostra Aetate or any of the other documents of the Second Vatican Council that had to do with dialogue. Indeed, our respected professor tended to focus more on what he considered to be the irrelevance of the traditional religious truth claims of all the major world religions. By comparing competing truth claims he attempted to demonstrate that every religion is merely a product of its own particular historical milieu and cultural context. If memory does not fail, the other Muslim students in this course and I were very disappointed at the course's lack of sensitivity to the value of traditional religious truth claims. We found that the course focused on a gross comparison of beliefs and practices filtered through the lens of a strong relativism. Our professor placed heavy emphasis on the reality of secularism and its contribution to freedom and equality.

The most challenging and enriching course for me was one on the history of the Christian church, taught by a German Pietist scholar whose lectures and critical analysis of the church's councils, formative periods of trinitarian theologies, and passionate discussions of Christology and the writings of early Church fathers would always retain my thirst for understanding and appreciating the most complex of Christian doctrines such as the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Redemption--the cornerstones of the Christian faith.

Experiencing sincere but opportunistic proselytization. As soon as the foreign students arrived at the university, we started receiving visits from young missionaries accompanied by older missionaries who had worked in Muslim countries. Fully conscious of our homesickness and culture shock, they offered us their hospitality as well as some material assistance. They invited us to their church services, introduced us to young missionary girls, and provided us paperback Bibles and books.

They also were keen to tell us the stories of some Muslims who were fortunate to find their Savior in Jesus Christ. Though some of the older missionaries were very aware of the "stubbornness" of Muslims when it comes to conversion to Christianity, these missionaries were too impatient to let "God guide whoever wills to be guided." They were wont to press for our conversion as soon as possible. Many a time, they would express bafflement at our simple questions about their understanding of Trinity and Incarnation.

Despite all their crude and zealous efforts to "save" us, what struck me the most were the tactics of proselytization about which I had heard in Pakistan but never experienced until I came to the U.S. Although I appreciate their commitment and devotion to their faith and their concern to bring others into the fold of Christianity, I believe that such ways go against the grain of any religious teaching.

Unfortunately, as I would see later in the 1980s, many simplistic Muslims, who had never studied and never fully understood Islam, adopted these same methods and would zealously offer Christians copies of the Qur'an in order to convert them to Islam. Oddly enough, they would use these methods on people who were deeply committed to and theologically trained in their traditions, such as seminarians who would visit mosques as part of the requirements for their courses in global and intercultural ministries. Perhaps, due to my nature and my education as a historian of religions, I am unsympathetic to this sort of committed but overly forceful and impatient faith.

As I continue to investigate the major religions of the world and learn more about them through teaching courses on world religions, I want all the more to drink from their rich and inexhaustible sources. Their sweet fountains of life and meanings and their precious treasures of jewels and pearls invite me to look into my own faith tradition and find the same there.

Learning from a dynamic mentor's experience. During the mid-1970s to early 1980s, many national and international dialogues were taking place. In some of these high-profile dialogues the late Ismail R. al-Faruqi would be a vocal participant (for example, in Tripoli, Libya, in 1976). I learned a great deal from his personal impressions of the dialogues in which he was involved. I also read his presentations and their critiques by his non-Muslim dialogue partners. At times, some of us would join the audience in those interreligious dialogue meetings and reflect on these in terms of their natures and functions. Similarly, many dialogue meetings took place that were organized by the Task Force for Christian-Muslim Relations of the National Council of Churches.

After the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, Islam made the radar screen of the U.S. mass media. Many latent stereotypes, misconceptions, and caricatures began appearing as headlines. Paradoxically, such events stimulated more curiosity and interest in Islam than the well-planned, patient efforts of the Catholic Church, World Council of Churches, or National Council of Churches to engage their parishes and congregations in Christian-Muslim dialogue. Christian leaders working for Christian-Muslim dialogue now started responding to the general uneasiness about Islam and began to engage Muslim religious leaders of Islamic centers and organizations. Until the early 1990s the Christian-Muslim dialogue remained primarily an encounter of Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders of national or international organizations. The meetings taking place between Islamic Centers and Christian parishes and congregations were mostly on the level of certain individuals' personal interests and tended to be oriented toward "mission" or da'wah (invitation to Islam).

Throughout this period there were rapid changes in geopolitical conditions, especially with the end of the Cold War. These included the situation in post-Soviet Afghanistan, the Iraq-Iran War, the first Gulf War, and the tragedy of Bosnia. Each of these events in its own way forced many more Muslims to seek refuge in the U.S. At this time, more and more U.S. Americans were becoming wary not just of Islam but also of Muslims. Thus, in the 1990s Muslim organizations felt an increased need to respond to Christian Church leaders' openness for more organized dialogue as well as to seek their help and learn from their experience. This was particularly the case with respect to the Catholic Church and Jewish communities' experiences of being religious and cultural minorities in WASP America.

Returning to the late Dr. al-Faruqi's experience, he was convinced that Muslims should establish their own educational and research institutions in the U.S., institutions that could prepare new generations of American Muslims to learn their own sources authentically and critically and also to act as bridges for mutual understanding between the U.S. and various parts of the Muslim world. Hence, he broke new ground for the Muslim community in the U.S. by his concerted efforts to found the American Islamic College in Chicago in 1983 under the auspices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and to found the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia, in 1985.

Although his contributions to Christian-Muslim dialogue often have been perceived as polemical and combative (perhaps due to his passionate temper and dynamic personality), his close students and colleagues found in him an ardent believer in the efficacy of Christian-Muslim as well as Christian-Muslim-Jewish trilateral dialogue. Whether or not he was convinced of the sincerity of his Christian dialogue partners (only God knows the conditions of human hearts), he never denied his dialogue partners the benefit of the doubt and always wholeheartedly encouraged Muslims to engage and cooperate in every venture and with every people for the cause of socioeconomic justice and real freedom for all humanity. He was absolutely committed to interreligious dialogue and strongly believed in an honest and free exchange of religious ideas and experiences as well as in the freedom of conscience and religion for every human being. His unshakable faith in the unity of God (tawhid) and in the equality of all humanity was the basis of his radical commitment to the dignity of every human person.

It was out of his strong belief in these fundamental principles that he tirelessly spoke out against all oppression, whether political, economic, social, cultural, religious, or racial. Long before the Christian scholars of the history of religion (Religionswissenschaft) started reflecting on a theology of world religions, Faruqi had proposed the theory of "meta-religion" according to which he argued that the historical development of any religious tradition can be judged according to transhistorical universal principles. (1) He embraced the death of martyrdom, and May God bless him with paradise!

The beginnings of institutional dialogue in Chicago. The American Islamic College in Chicago started its academic program in the fall of 1983, and Dr. Faruqi was its first president. AIC's mission statement highlighted two of its goals: (1) "to provide an education that acquaints students with various fields of learning in the context of the Islamic view of the arts and sciences, nature, man, culture, and civilization" and (2) "to build bridges between Americans and Muslims, to develop mutual scholarly and educational relations and to promote better understanding through education."

As for the first objective, the College started with unrealistically high aspirations and expectations and soon realized that the financial and organizational resources it needed even to obtain accreditation were not available. Despite the lack of necessary financial and organizational resources, it continues its educational programs and activities, though reduced to a skeletal level. With respect to the second objective of its mission, however, it was fortunate to have the moral support and encouraging cooperation of many Chicago-area Christian theological seminaries and church leaders and organizations interested in Christian-Muslim dialogue. The credit, recognition, and appreciation must be given to whom it belongs: Harold Vogelaar, soon to be inaugurated as the first director of Lutheran School of Theology's Center for Christian-Muslim Engagement for Justice and Peace, contacted AIC in the fall of 1984 to start a Christian-Muslim dialogue.

As if many churches and Islamic centers were eagerly awaiting this blessed initiative, within six months (January 1985) the first Christian-Muslim dialogue took place at AIC. LSTC, with its Professors Harold Vogelaar, David Lindberg, and James Scherer, and the American Islamic College, with its faculty and staff, served as the convening institutions for the first Chicago Metropolitan area Christian-Muslim dialogue engaging the representatives of major Christian and Muslim institutions. The two days of conversation and workshops occurred with the strong leadership and participation of the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, with its director of ecumenical and interreligious affairs Fr. Tom Baima (now the Provost of the University of St. Mary of the Lake); Catholic Theological Union; McCormick Theological Seminary; Garrett Theological Seminary; the Council of Middle East Churches; the Muslim Community Center, Chicago; the Islamic Cultural Center; the Islamic Foundation; Imam W. D. Muhammad's community of African-American Muslims; and other metropolitan Chicago-area mosques and Islamic centers.

The participants were so excited and inspired that they proposed to form what later became the Conference for Improvement of Christian-Muslim Relations (1986-2004). For the following two decades, this Conference continued the Christian-Muslim dialogue in the Chicago area. In particular, LSTC, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, CTU, the Muslim Community Center, Chicago, and AIC continued their cooperation and consultation in Christian-Muslim relations. The members of these organizations have formed very respectful friendships and enriching and trusting relations in all aspects of their religious learning and experience.

It is very important to note that the ELCA's Division for Global Mission and LSTC started in 1990 to teach courses on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at LSTC. In addition, Dr. Mark Thomsen, ELCA Director of Global Mission during that period, made special efforts to organize crash courses on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations during the summers of 1990-1995 and also urged the ELCA's yearly Global Mission Institutes to arrange workshops and seminars on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations.

These special efforts of ELCA and the interest of LSTC led to an academic program on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at LSTC. LSTC and the American Islamic College started teaching these courses jointly. This was the first such academic program to team-teach courses on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at any theological seminary in the Chicago area. This program has come to fruition in the establishment of the new Center of Christian-Muslim Engagement for Peace and Justice (CCME) at LSTC.

Besides team-teaching, LSTC and AIC host annual iftar (breaking fast during the month of Ramadan) dinners, visit mosques and centers, pray together for victims of terror, war, and political violence, and exchange greetings at feasts, fasts, and condolences at the loss of leaders (such as Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and Pope John Paul II). In addition, these partners in dialogue have been actively participating in the Catholic-Muslim regional dialogues at the national and international level at conferences. CTU has offered academic programs on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations since 2000 with the positive support and appreciation of AIC and the Muslim community in Chicago.

The active and vigorous Christian-Muslim dialogue and relations in the Chicago metropolitan area have not only helped to improve the mutual and respectful understanding between Christian and Muslim faith communities but also have provided the basis for the establishment of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions and indirectly may have encouraged the National Council for Christians and Jews to rename itself as the National Council for Community and Justice.

During each Ramadan since 1996, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago hosts an annual interfaith iftar dinner at which the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago is the keynote speaker. Since 1998, the Islamic Society of North America has held its Interfaith Unity Dinner at its annual convention. Religious leaders of all faiths in the Chicago area, as well as leaders engaged in interfaith dialogue at the national level, are invited and included at this event.

Muslims' approach to Christian-Muslim dialogue in the United States

The history of institutional Christian-Muslim dialogue in Chicago reflects a broader movement throughout the United States. Muslims in the U.S. are a microcosm of the Muslim Ummah (Community) of the world. Whereas the commonality in faith and religious ideals unites them, their ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic identities and diverse practices and understandings of Islam have always made them a diverse community. According to a well-known tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (s.), "Difference of opinion in my Ummah is the grace and mercy of God (rahmah)." With regard to attitudes toward interreligious dialogue, and Christian-Muslim dialogue in particular, Muslims in the U.S. may be grouped into the following four categories.

1. "Traditionalists." These probably are the majority. Their understanding of Jews and Christians ranges between considering them ahl-al-kitab, the "Peoples of Earlier Revelation," and kuffar (pl. of kafir), or "disbelievers." They generally accept the difference in faith with respect, though sometimes with a sense of superiority. More often than not, they remain indifferent to both sociopolitical interactions and interreligious dialogue. Their interaction with neighbors and coworkers of other faiths is generally one of mutual respect, courtesy, and recognition of differences. They will not initiate any discussion in particular about religion or politics, but if approached by others they may present the "Truth of Islam." Generally, they live in their own small ethnocultural mosques, import imams from their home countries, have recently begun to send their children to receive a religious education from madrasahs and jami ahs (traditional "schools" specifically designed for religious education), and are gradually opening and operating their own such institutions based on very traditional models. They are not impervious to modernity in terms of the adoption of new technology and new means of communication and production; however, they do try their best to safeguard their children and families from the "immoral" programs and pictures of the mass media. They do not subscribe to any animosity or condone any violent reaction or opposition to Western secular institutions in general and to religious Jews and Christians in particular. Their pacifist approach is that of letting everyone live according to his or her beliefs and practices. Their view of da'wah is largely aimed at their fellow Muslims, and they strongly believe that in living and practicing "true Islam" they can genuinely give the best "witness" to their faith.

2. "Sufi" groups. These people are usually followers of some Sufi shaykhs or pirs ("masters"), whether these spiritual leaders belong to some traditional Sufi orders such as the Naqshbandiyah, the Qadiriyah, the Shadhiliyah, and the Tijaniyah or are unaffiliated charismatic individuals. Their focus is on spirituality and on encouraging others to engage in various forms of dhikr, rituals of meditation and prayer focusing on the "remembrance" of God. They emphasize the commonality of all religious traditions, in particular of the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Generally they avoid any sort of religious or sociopolitical controversies or conflicts. Their attitude toward Jews and Christians in particular is very positive and conciliatory and focuses on common sources and practices of spirituality. They are of the view that it is through genuine spiritual experiences that the peoples of faith will come to live in peace and harmony. Their approach to da'wah is to invite and embrace others in joining their dhikr practices with the sincere belief that God will accept the true seekers.

3. "Neo-revivalist activists." Most of the Muslim organizations or individuals engaged in formal or organized Christian-Muslim dialogue in the U.S. are of this persuasion. Although this group is not statistically the majority, they are definitely the most well-organized, and their membership includes the most highly educated professionals in the Muslim community. They are vocal and strongly engaged in any number of so-called Muslim causes. Thus they appropriate to themselves the role of representing all of the Muslims in the U.S. The majority of them come from South and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, with some indigenous African Americans and white Americans. Most of the leaders and workers in this category are either directly or indirectly influenced in their understanding of Islam by the thought and interpretation of neo-revivalist movements, such as Jama'at-i-Islami of the subcontinent, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun of the Arabic-speaking world, and the like-minded organizations in other parts of the Muslim world. They believe in Islam as a complete way of life. Gaining substantial financial and educational support from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states from the early 1970s to 2000, they have quite successfully established and monopolized their control over the leadership of the major Islamic centers, charitable organizations, financial and educational institutions, sociopolitical and cultural organizations, and so on. A prime example is the Muslim Students' Association. This organization began as an association of foreign Muslim graduate students in the early 1960s. Since then, it has evolved into the Islamic Society of North America. Leaders of these institutions have support from and contacts with al-Rabitah, the World Muslim League (WML). Many of them were active leaders of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a Muslim student organization in the Muslim countries and an organ of WML in their home countries. Their approach to da'wah, at least until the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001, has been no different than that of the WML but adapted to the circumstances of the particular context. This approach has been well presented and documented during the International Christian-Muslim dialogue held on the subject of mission and da'wah. (2)

4. African American Muslims. Until the mid-1970s, they were recognized as belonging either to the Nation of Islam or to smaller groups, some of which were mainstream Sunni and others of which exhibited varying degrees of syncretism. After the death of Elijah Muhammad, the Nation of Islam split into three main groups: (1) followers of Imam W. D. Muhammad, who transformed his organization, joining mainstream traditional Islam, now known as "The Mosque Cares"; (2) Louis Farrakhan's group, oscillating between the Nation of Islam ideology and teachings of mainstream Islam, a group still not recognized as fully Islamic by the mainstream; and (3) many small groups who are independent mosques or centers following either African Sufi shaykhs or homegrown African-American Sufi leaders. Among these, Imam Muhammad's following is the largest group and generally represents African American Muslims nationally and internationally. Imam Muhammad, endowed with a peaceful and congenial personality, has always maintained good and positive relations not only with all diverse Muslim organizations but also with Jewish and Christian communities in the U.S. His group's approach to dialogue is always to call upon the partners to work for socioeconomic justice, to help African Americans to gain socioeconomic parity, and to appreciate the African American Muslim contribution to the American experience of Islam.

Challenges

Correcting general misconceptions and deconstructing stereotypes. Muslims of America are fortunate in that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs has been very supportive in helping to correct stereotypes and misunderstandings about Islam in general and American Muslims in particular. It has been in contact with many Muslim organizations sponsoring dialogues and retreats particularly since 1988 under the impassioned leadership of Dr. John Borelli and now continued by Fr. Francis Tiso. Similarly, the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches' Commissions on Interreligious Dialogue have extended friendships and positive support. Yet, the vocal right-wing Evangelical churches and the media, along with America's complex political and military involvement in the Muslim world and terrorists' attacks, continue to perpetuate negative images of Islam and thereby stimulate Islamophobia in the general public. Muslims have been preoccupied with defending and explaining their innocence and in proclaiming themselves as patriotic and faithful American citizens. Muslims in the U.S. have increasingly begun to recognize interreligious dialogue as an important and effective venue for combating misconceptions and stereotypes.

Disparity in organizational structure and partners in dialogue. Although some Muslim organizations are trying to assert and appropriate for themselves the role of national representative of the entire faith community, there is no hierarchy or organizational structure comparable to that of many Christian denominations. For example, the Archdiocese of Chicago--just one subset of the U.S. Catholic community--has an official director of ecumenical and interreligious affairs. With no centralized hierarchical organization of religious leadership, the Muslim community in Chicago must rely on the leadership of those who volunteer their time and energy in these efforts. Even the international Muslim organizations such as al-Rabitah cannot claim official representation of the Muslim Ummah.

The Muslim religious leaders or scholars who participate in formal Christian-Muslim dialogue meetings cannot claim to represent general Muslim opinion, and, with very few exceptions, they are not scholars or experts on both religious traditions. Jacques Waardenburg describes this disparity in partners of dialogue very aptly:

If it is already difficult to find Christians able to represent the
Christian Churches (with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church) and
who have a thorough knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, it seems
to be practically impossible at the present time to find one Muslim able
to represent the Muslim communities and who has a thorough knowledge of
both Islam and Christianity. (3)

The challenge here for Muslims is not to conform to Roman Catholic standards of hierarchical organization but rather to devise mechanisms of qualified and authoritative religious representation.

Muslims have to come to terms with the fact that there is a disparity between Christians and Muslims, where the former belong to a globally dominant civilization, and the latter belong to one that is dominated. They also must come to terms with the scope of this domination, which operates at a number of different levels, including the sociopolitical, the military, and the economic. As far as they are able, however, they must strive not to allow these facts to intimidate their full and assertive participation in the dialogue.

Disparity in objectives and purposes. Whereas the Christian partners in dialogue tend to be focused on theological issues and matters of religious pluralism (including the welfare of Christian minorities in the Muslim majority countries), the concerns of the Muslim partners are quite different. They involve issues of socioeconomic justice and geopolitical crises that, for Christian dialogue partners, fall into the area of politics rather than religion. Here, the challenge for Muslims is to underscore the religio-moral dimensions of these issues.

Opportunities

The Muslims of America and Europe have a new experience of living in a religiously plural environment. They are being called and helped by Christian majority partners to get rid of their religious-minority complex and to join them in finding religious solutions for a religiously plural world. It is a great opportunity, but will the present situation of Muslims and their lack of financial, organizational, and intellectual resources hamper them from rising to the occasion?

Since the declaration of Nostra Aetate at the Second Vatican Council and many sincere and concerted efforts on the sides of both Islam and Christianity, great progress has been made at least on organizational and formal levels to bring Muslims and Christians together. One cannot deny the very perceptive and judicious assessment of Christian-Muslim dialogue made by Waardenburg: "Present day Christian-Muslim dialogues are in the first place a social and cultural rather than a religious phenomenon, even if they are also the product of religious motivations." (4) Nonetheless, many formal dialogues are moving more toward discussing each other's scriptures and other classical theological and spiritual resources. (5)

Another obvious challenge that still faces the sincere practitioners and participants of Christian-Muslim dialogue is how to share their experiences and enrichment with the grassroots and engage every parishioner and believer to be an active partner in the venture to do the will of God together with peoples of different faiths and cultures.

Ghulam-Haider Aasi

American Islamic College

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

Catholic Theological Union, Chicago

1. Ismail R. al-Faruqi, "Meta-Religion: Towards a Critical World Theology," American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 3, no. 1 (September 1986): 13-57.

2. Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah (Leicester, U.K.: Islamic Foundation, 1982).

3. Jacques Waardenburg, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today (Paris: Peters, 2000), 293.

4. Waardenburg, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today, 293.

5. For example, see Revelation: Catholic and Muslim Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006).