Miller

The Islamo-Christian Dialogue Online (Spring 2007)

The perspectives surrounding the nature of relations between Islam

and Christianity are many and varied. To summarize these perspectives, the

relations, or the religions themselves can be a fool’s errand. Yet in these

times of increasing international interaction, it would be equally foolish to

ignore these relations, such perspectives, or the rising influence of the

religions themselves on the peacefulness of such an increase in international

interaction.

Likewise, the growth in popularity and the increased distribution of and

access to various technologies have all facilitated the development of new

communication canvases upon which these interactions have been able to

continue. Therefore, the dissemination of Internet access globally, combined

with the immense influence of these religions on the peacefulness of

increased international interaction, warrants a closer examination both of the

potential effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on what we

will call the “Islamo-Christian dialogue” and of the various ways this dialogue

manifests itself online in general.

Successful Iterations of The Islamo-Christian Dialogue Online

Defined

The growth of the Internet is a relatively recent development in the

scope of the overall timeline of the Islamo-Christian dialogue, yet its

potential for having impact on communication cannot be understated. In an

article for the Annual Review of Sociology, Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai,

1

Miller

W. Russell Neuman, and John P. Robinson illustrate succinctly the weight of

this potential impact.

First, the medium’s rapid growth offers a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity for scholars to test theories of technology diffusion

and media effects during the early stages of a new medium’s

diffusion and institutionalization. Second, the Internet is unique

because it integrates both different modalities of communication

(reciprocal interaction, broadcasting, individual reference-

searching, group discussion, person/machine interaction) and

different kinds of content (text, video, visual images, audio) in a

single medium. (308)

Within the boundaries of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online specifically, we

may classify its manifest iterations generally into three major categories:

“the interactives,” ”the organizational support URLs,” and “the emerging

blogosphere.” Each variety of manifestation exhibits tendencies we will

determine to be “successful” or “not successful” “iterations” of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online. Though the weight of the medium has warranted

much research on its effects, this discussion exists as a response to the

feeling that there has not been, however, exhaustive enough research on the

way this unique opportunity for study impacts the equally important

interaction between Christian and Islamic cultures. Indeed the very words

we use to describe this interaction reveal the immensity of the task ahead.

2

Miller

In his book The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization Richard W. Bulliet

illustrates how careful we must be as we set about the task of objectively

analyzing any of the interactions between Christian and Islamic cultures. He

describes in his first chapter what he sees to be a watershed moment in the

discourse. A Harvard professor titles an article using the phrase “Clash of

Civilizations” and suddenly a new formulation of rhetoric concerning the

interactions of Western culture and the world Muslim community finds itself

polarizing pundits and scholars. This new formulation

took on almost cosmic proportions: the Islamic religion, or more

precisely the world Muslim community that professes that

religion, versus contemporary Western culture, with its

Christian, Jewish, and secular humanist shadings. How quickly

and fatefully a well-chosen phrase can challenge perceptions of

reality (2).

The characterization of the interaction of these two cultures as a “clash” is

precisely the kind of slippery slope against which Bulliet would warn us. In

his work, he has lobbied for an understanding of Christian and Islamic

cultures as deserving of the same kind of mental consideration as

represented linguistically in the phrase Judeo-Christian. Judeo-Christian is a

term that enjoys a fair amount of popularity, especially in English. It has

come to represent the foundations of the ethos of our Western society.

Bulliet would like to see Islamo-Christian evolve as a term and does not think

it would be problematic.

3

Miller

Not all scholars share his point of view. In an article for the Christian

Scholar’s Review, Randall B. Bush describes what he calls “A Tale of Two

Scriptures: Jewish-Christian and Islamic Paradigms of Scripture and Their

Impact on Culture.” His point of view not only espouses the rhetoric of clash

illustrated by Bulliet, its scholarship hinges on the existence of the variance

in cultures as being mutually opposed. “Jews and Christians do,” he says,

“stand closer together on their view of how the authority and inspiration of

Holy Scripture are determined than Muslims do to either Jews or Christians”

(309) and “…a deeper investigation reveals a much deeper divide between

these ‘peoples of the book’ than what meets the eye of the casual observer.

On one side stand Jews and Christians; on the other side Muslims” (309).

There is perhaps no stronger example of the discordant tendencies within

the establishment of perspectives concerning the interaction of these two

faiths, and the difficulties inherent in the successful establishment of a

peaceful Islamo-Christian dialogue, online or elsewhere.

In his dissertation for Fuller Theological Seminary, Everett W. Huffard

outlines his perspective toward dealing with issues of cultural difference

between Christians and Muslims.

My approach to this problem will be that of a critical realist.

Muslims and Christians live in cultural and historical contexts

that create “maps” for their views of the world. To identify

these models of reality can provide a theoretical framework that

has value in analyzing the problem at hand. It also provides

4

Miller

direction to the task of cross-cultural communication and the

initiation of a contextualized message.(3)

Though his perspective points to the importance of cultural and historical

context in terms of the interactions between Christianity and Islam, the

implied subtext here is that such interactions must always take place in the

context of evangelization, a context that, according to many, provides for

unsuccessful dialogue and constant conflict. This tension between dialogue

and evangelization cannot be extracted from any discussion of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online, and is for many an issue of first order attention and

proof that any interaction between Islam and Christianity must be

characterized as a “clash.” Likewise, there are elements of difference in

cultural context that cannot be ignored as is pointed to by Dinesh D’Souza in

her article “War on Terror’s Other Front: Cleaning Up U.S. Pop Culture.” She

mirrors Huffard’s notion of models of reality in regard to dialogue.

To many American liberals, pop culture reflects the values of

individuality, personal autonomy, and freedom of expression.

Thus it is seen as a moral achievement. But viewed from the

perspective of people in the traditional societies of the world,

notably the Muslim world, these same trends appear to be

nothing less than the shameless promotion of depravity. (5)

Yet how often have we heard calls of the same variety from Christian groups

in America concerned with the way popular culture represents us abroad and

impacts ourselves at home? It is clear that successful iterations of the

5

Miller

Islamo-Christian dialogue online must be cognizant of both the similarities

and differences in the way we map out the realities of our cultural

worldviews. Likewise, it seems that the tension between dialogue and

evangelization is not a problem limited to Christianity. In an article entitled

“Arab Group for Christian-Muslim Dialogue” posted on one of the

“organizational support URLs” (www.globalministries.org) examined in this

discussion, there is discussion of a group called the Arab Group for Christian-

Muslim Dialogue that seeks to tackle this issue by stating that it was formed

“neither as a vehicle for Islamic proselytism or for Christian evangelization,

nor an attempt toward unification of the two faiths, or syncretism (2).” It is

from such a point of view that this discussion continues in its assessment

and analysis of “successful iterations” of the Islamo-Christian dialogue

online.

Ira Rifkin’s article posted on the web at www.islamamerica.org, is part

of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online and also sheds more light on this

tension between dialogue and evangelism. “As the American Muslim

community continues to grow at a steady clip…the nation’s Christian

churches have belatedly recognized the need to go beyond the stereotypes

and provide their members with a fuller understanding of Islam and the lives

of ordinary Muslims” (1). Rifkin goes on to quote Rev. Burt Breiner, the

interfaith relations co-director for the National Council of Churches, as

pointing to a “lack of resources and expertise” contributing to “the tension

among Christians and between churches over dialogue vs. evangelization”

6

Miller

(1). Breiner goes on to state “some are concerned that dialogue sells short

the gospel. The concern is, should we be preaching the gospel rather than

learning about Islam” (2)? Yet are these two considerations necessarily

mutually exclusive? Do we have a situation whereby there is a “clash”

within a “clash?” Can the interactions of Christianity and Islam, and the

interactions of evangelism and understanding of historical and cultural

context co-exist?

As the article continues, Rifkin illustrates Christian convert from Islam

and Luther Seminary professor, Charles Amjad-Ali’s perspective as holding

that conservative churches that favor evangelization over dialogue are often

ironically better equipped to understand Muslims because they share similar

approaches toward religious faith. “Just like Islam,” Amjad-Ali says “the

conservative churches take a literalist approach to their scripture. The

problem is both have no ability to see God outside of their own reality,

preventing genuine understanding” (2). Rifkin ends his article with the

notion that Muslims are often suspicious of Christian efforts to dialogue,

fearing it as a mask for evangelization. “That’s part of the legacy of Western

colonialization that Muslims carry with them,” he quotes Georgetown

University professor Yvonne Y. Haddad as saying, who is a Syrian born

Christian and leading expert on American Muslims. “Besides,” she says,

“That’s what it is. For a lot of people, dialogue is a way to undermine the

other” (3). This discussion, therefore will illustrate a perspective that

characterizes dialogue not as an exacerbation of the problem of “clashing

7

Miller

civilizations” in terms of undermining the other, but as having more

productive traits.

Bulliet points to the existence of such an accepted phrase as Judeo-

Christian and the way we use it commonly to refer to relations between

Christianity and Judaism (let alone as the foundational layers of Western

culture in general), as a signal that the destiny of the potential for a

characterization of relations between Christianity and Islam as something

other than a “clash” is not set in stone. “No one with the least knowledge of

the past two thousand years of relations between Christians and Jews can

possibly miss the irony of linking in a single term two faith communities that

decidedly did not get along during most of that period” (6). His perspective

that we need not characterize the interaction of these two cultures as a clash

comes from his understanding that there are such things as Eastern

Christians and Western Muslims. Eastern Christians are no less Eastern and

Western Muslims are no less Muslim (7) and therefore there is more of a case

of these civilizations as capable of being represented in a more peaceful

way. It is because of this dual potential for a peaceful re-characterization of

the Islamo-Christian dialogue and the opportunity to gain an understanding

of the effects advancements in Internet technology have on communications

in general that we must undertake a more careful analysis of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online.

Though we have discussed the symbolic and linguistic significance of

the term “Islamo-Christian” as a marker of the potential for a peaceful re-

8

Miller

characterization of the way these two cultures interact, we have yet to

define the parameters for the term “dialogue” as it exists in this context. It

could be said that loosely we are concerned most with interactions in

general, and any moment, place, or combination of presences that contains

within it some representative element of Christianity and some

representative element of Islam, we are mostly and more succinctly

concerned with such interactions as they occur in the form of human

communication. More specifically, we are concerned with these

communications as they exist in their computer-mediated forms. But

dialogue, in this context, is not a synonym for communication. Nor is it

represented best by the kind of “co-active evangelization” that normally

characterizes communicative interactions between faiths (at least those not

characterized by the hurling of weapons at one another) in terms of the way

our cultures view the interaction.

In this context, successful dialogue is best characterized by the fluid

give and take of peaceful conversation free of external agendas other than

the agenda of facilitating more and deeper peaceful conversation.

Unsuccessful dialogue, then, is dialogue that includes agendas other than

the facilitation of more and deeper peaceful conversation. Unfortunately,

historically, the Islamo-Christian dialogue and likewise the continued Islamo-

Christian dialogue online, has fallen prey to such counter-productive

agendas. Recently, however, efforts have been made within both cultures to

9

Miller

facilitate change. In his “Assessment of Christian-Muslim Dialogue” for the

World Council of Churches, Walid Saif illustrates such change.

Over the last ten years, our Muslim-Christian dialogue…has well

surpassed/overcome the old conception, or rather

misconception, that dialogue is an exercise of interreligious

theological debate whereby each side tries to prove his religious

truth in contrast with the other. Instead our dialogue has been

based on mutual respect, understanding, and recognition of the

differences as both a condition of human existence and a

manifestation of divine wisdom. (1)

Saif illustrates that believers do not have to give up or change their basic

religious beliefs in order to be good participants in a successful dialogue.

Later, we will discuss representative examples of the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online and attempt to determine the degree to which each of them

might fall in various areas on a spectrum of successful vs. not successful, as

well as to outline some other theories about what makes for successful

Islamo-Christian dialogue online. Before further analysis in that direction,

however, it is important first to illustrate and make a brief survey of some of

the theories concerning the effects of computer mediation on human

communication as they exist in the scholarly realm today.

The Internet and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

There are at least two ways to look at what we now call the Internet,

according to DiMaggio, et al. in “Social Implications of the Internet.” One is

10

Miller

as technical infrastructure such as public TCP/IP networks, and the other is to

view the uses to which that infrastructure is put such as the World Wide

Web, email, blogs, and chat rooms (308). Like DiMaggio, we will seek to

understand the Internet not simply in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of

the uses developed for that infrastructure, specifically in regard to the ways

those uses impact the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. We will examine and

categorize the various manifestations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online

in terms of the various uses that have developed for this infrastructure. In

specific terms, this infrastructure can be seen as being used for interactive

uses, the world-wide-web as a collection of URL pages, and the more recent

manifestation, the blog.

In their article for Human Communication Research, Lisa Collins Tidwell

and Joseph B. Walther point to the value of analyzing CMC and its

penetration into so many people’s lives.

The use of email and other forms of electronic communication

raise interesting theoretical questions about interpersonal

processes, not the least of which is how these channels may

cause people to alter or adapt their communication behaviors,

methods of forming acquaintances, processes of forming

attributions, and ways of relating to one another. (338)

These fundamental relations are of primary concern to this discussion, as are

the facts about the ways individuals have been shown to behave inside the

digital medium. There is little doubt that CMC causes communicators to

11

Miller

change their behavior. We shall see later, that humans will adapt in the

strangest of environments when communication is necessary, even those

environments that are bereft of the normal non-verbal cues present in face-

to-face communication. However, has the use of CMC changed the Islamo-

Christian dialogue so far, and can we make predictions about how it may or

may not change it in the future?

When examining the details of existing research concerning the effects

of CMC on any dialogue, not just the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, it is

important to have an understanding of the various elements that are

theorized to be at work in communication in general, whether computer

mediated or face to face (FtF). As a result, our discussion of CMC will draw

heavily from and reside within the confines of three distinct studies, all three

of which were undertaken by leading scholars in the field of CMC, such as

Joseph Walther. The first study we will examine concerns CMC as it

intersects with self-attribution, the second on information seeking and

uncertainty reduction, and the third as it concerns disclosure, impressions,

and interpersonal evaluations. Of each of these studies, we will ask first

“How does this intersect with the Islamo-Christian dialogue online?” then “In

what ways do the research reflect on the effects of CMC on the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online?” and finally, “What does this research say about

the future of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online?”

12

Miller

Walther and Bazarova worked together to determine the effects of

CMC on self-attribution, or the acknowledgement or deflection of personal

responsibility. They did this by setting up virtual groups of test subjects.

Two hundred and fifty-two individuals were assigned to four person groups

for decision-making discussions via the Internet. The decision making task

required a consensus ranking of three community development programs

competing for a limited funding, and conflicting information was given to

participants to stimulate involving online discussions. The four person

groups were organized in such a way as to combine individuals into the

Internet communities that were both relatively close geographically and also

distant.

The prediction was made that groups that contained members from

within geographic proximity would attribute the cause of their own negative

behavior to their group partners less, whereas the opposite was predicted for

those groups whose members were more distributed geographically. Tests

proved positive that “…remote partners provided a salient and less ego-

threatening target on which one’s own poor performance can be blamed in

distributed groups” (13). Proximity, it seems affects our ability to blame

others for problems. How does this information interact with an analysis of

the Islamo-Christian dialogue online?

Groups interacting over the Internet in chat rooms across the world

enter into the Islamo-Christian dialogue. Currently, both Yahoo and Google

offer groups with postings relating to the Islamo-Christian dialogue. Sites

13

Miller

such as Beliefnet.com and Perspectives.com are oriented more specifically

toward interfaith dialogue in general, and each has significant postings

concerning the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. Whether the dialogue that

occurs in these online posting environments can be seen as successful or

constructive often hinges on challenges those participating face in

communicating. According to Walther and Bazarova, there are adjustments

to be made in order to achieve successful dialogue.

In addition to the challenges facing traditional groups, virtual

groups must adjust to temporal delays in information exchange,

maintain shared context and workflow, and confront other

difficulties in order to work and relate effectively. Research

suggests that over time, virtual groups often adapt to these

challenges, resulting in relatively successful operations. (1-2)

The research that Walther and Bazarova conducted predicts that attribution

in virtual groups may depend heavily on member distribution. Where this

interacts with the Islamo-Christian dialogue online is that it predicts that

those interacting via virtual environments from distributed locations (as is

often the case in the Islamo-Christian dialogue) may have greater potential

for allowing alternate agendas other than the facilitation of peaceful

dialogue, agendas that are self serving and allow for more partner blame,

thus providing for less successful dialogue in general. These conclusions do

not reflect favorably on the potential overall effects of CMC on the Islamo-

Christian dialogue.

14

Miller

But CMC’s ability to foster a sense of community may work in favor of

what we would determine to be successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online. According to Stephen G. Jones in his book Cybersociety 2.0,

CMC has conflicting abilities and potential. “On the one hand,” he says, “it

appears to foster community, or at least the sense of community, among its

users. On the other hand, it embodies the impersonal communication of the

computer and of the written word, the ‘kind of imitation talking’ Walter

Ong… aptly described.” The question of how CMC, and specifically the

Internet affects the development of community is key to any analysis of the

Islamo-Christian dialogue online. In his essay for the book he edited entitled

New Media and The Muslim World, Jon W. Anderson illustrates his

perspective on the impact of the Internet:

Born in a world of higher education, the Internet facilitates and

links specific new interpreters lodged within or enabled by it to

form an extended discursive space, marked by new techniques

not only for interpretation but also for creating a public that lies

between, draws on, and links previously discrete discourses.

(47)

The same is the case with the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. These links

of discourses join to form communities, but within these communities

remains a certain amount of uncertainty about how peaceful and successful

potential dialogue can be, especially since these iterations often occur in

15

Miller

environments free of the normal conversational cues humans have become

accustomed to in face-to-face (FtF) environments.

Luckily, Joseph B. Walther has also worked in this area, with Ramirez et

al., determining some of CMC’s effects on information seeking strategies in

regard to uncertainty. Here they seek to develop a conceptual model of that

seeks to prove that “…although most CMC environments eliminate or

severely reduce nonverbal and contextual information available to address

uncertainty, form impressions, and develop relationships, such environments

offer alternative mechanisms for acquiring social information about others”

(213). In their report they state, “Several classes of factors influence the

selection of information-seeking strategies. They include (a) communicator

related, (b) situation/context related, (c) goal related, (d) information related,

and (e) technology related factors (221).” The context of the potential for

successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, then, can be

said to depend heavily upon factors that include but are not limited to the

situational context and the specific agenda or “goals” related to the

communication in general. Again, the tension between evangelization and

dialogue plays a role in the analysis of the dialogue.

This was also found to be the case with many of the “organizational

support URLs” considered in our analysis of the Islamo-Christian Dialogue

online. On many of the sites it is clear that both goal and context play large

roles in strategy selection as a way of adapting for success in the face of

CMC limitations. Respondents often make mention of the context and goals

16

Miller

of the communication as needing to focus more on commonality than

difference in order to achieve successful dialogue. For example, in terms of

context and goal, the website www.islamreview.com presents itself as a

legitimate source for facts about Islam for non-Islamic seekers, yet further

analysis of the site reveals not only that the site’s developers are not Islamic,

they have intentionally withheld any biographical or direct contact

information out of a self described fear of retaliation.

Yet even in the absence of information and non-verbal cues associated

with FtF interactions, there is research that CMC participants still strive for

what we would consider successful dialogue online. The adaptations that

CMC participants of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online might go through

can be better understood with a closer examination of a study by Tidwell and

Walther. They used a more evaluative process in terms of studying CMC

effects. Their process was to rate certain CMC artifacts on a specific and

mathematical evaluative scale in order to determine the presence of certain

traits. As stated before, the hypothesis was, in general, that CMC

participants would adapt their communication for success. This study was

developed to help determine how.

Our findings indicate that the restrictions of CMC prompt users’

adaptation to the medium through modification of uncertainty

reduction behaviors. Bereft of most nonverbal cues, CMC

partners forgo the peripheral questions and answers that mark

the normal, superficial exchanges among new acquaintances in

17

Miller

the FtF encounters. Instead, CMC interactants appeared to

employ a greater proportion of more direct, interactive

uncertainty reduction strategies – intermediate questioning and

disclosing with their partners – than did their FtF counterparts.

(338-339)

Within the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, there is certainly a connection to

the results of this study. Largely, the sites offering postings about

Christianity and Islam, like Google, Yahoo, Perspectives, and Beliefnet,

showed signs of more direct exchanges, dispensing with many of the

discussed formalities of FtF interactions and approaching interaction in a

generally less formal way. Likewise, there is a greater sense of the need to

identify the “other” in the interaction as grouped into a more social, less

personal category. These interactions do not meet the standards we set up

for successful dialogue earlier in the discussion, as they generally have

agendas counter to success (argumentation and debate.) This is in line with

Tidwell and Walther as well who state, “personal questions and self-

disclosures, offering potentially individuating information, reinforce the

presence of social, and the lack of individual identity” (340). In this way, the

future of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online must adapt to the limitations of

CMC in order to ensure success.

Perhaps it is important at this point to draw a distinction between what

we have set up as successful dialogue as juxtaposed against what we will

call simply electronic discourse. Discourse, in this context, is less facilitative

18

Miller

of self-perpetuation and success through mutual understanding in the ways

we have defined dialogue, and is more in line with Tidwell and Walther’s

conceptual model of CMC, information seeking, and uncertainty. In their

book Electronic Discourse: Linguistic Individuals in Virtual Space, Boyd H.

Davis and Jeutonne P. Brewer outline their perspective about the

distinctiveness of electronic discourse; “the term…focuses on how

individuals use language to exchange ideas rather than on the medium or

channel by which they transfer and deliver their messages” (2). In this way,

discourse is similar to dialogue in that it is an arena for exchange of ideas.

But it is different in that, as they state “…using this term (electronic

discourse) emphasized our focus on language above the sentence” (2).

Dialogue, as we have defined it, is interested in language and sentence, form

and content.

As Seyyed Hossein Nasr points out in his discussion on Beliefnet.com

with Ejaz Akram and John Esposito, “There are several planes on which

relationships are taking place between Christianity and Islam. There is a

plane of search for mutual understanding, a plane of rivalry, and the plane of

out and out conflict and confrontation” (1). We may set up, then, the further

distinction of interactions between Christianity and Islam on the Internet as

having two faces; the Islamo-Christian dialogue online in a larger more

optimistically productive sense, and the electronic discourse of Christian and

Muslim interaction in a more pragmatic and confrontational sense. Later in

that same interview, Esposito, Nasr’s Catholic partner in the dialogue, points

19

Miller

to the structure of dialogue as successful. “When we encounter each other

as neighbors, co-workers, citizens,” he says, “concerned about common

social issues, and parents with shared concerns about our children, we

establish a climate of mutual respect” (3). Walid Saif of the World Council of

Churches shares his view.

It is often said, and rightfully so, that ignorance of the other

breeds enmity and resentment. But it is also true that ignorance

or misunderstanding of one’s own religious resources is often

responsible for misconceiving and thus mistreating the other;

each feeds into the other. Through face-to-face dialogue –

through personal interaction – the common tendency to view the

‘other’ as an undifferentiated collectivity defined in terms of

essential ahistorical features, gives way to more understanding,

inclusiveness, and appreciation of both diversity and

commonalities. (2)

The commonalities and inclusiveness spoken of here are links that lead to

tools of adaptation CMC users employ in order to reduce uncertainty about

the ‘other’ and to establish, as though through FtF interactions, a kind of

digital personal interaction that facilitates a successful iteration of the

Islamo-Christian dialogue online. What, then, are some representative

examples of the Islamo-Christian Dialogue made manifest online and how

can we attempt to determine the degree to which each of them might fall in

various areas on a spectrum of successful vs. not successful? Likewise, what

20

Miller

other theories are there about what makes for successful iterations of the

Islamo-Christian dialogue online?

Manifestations of The Islamo-Christian Dialogue Online

According to an article for Christian Century called “Century Marks,”

there are some notable changes taking place in the world that impact the

Islamo-Christian dialogue in general. In America, Democrat Keith Ellison is

the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, and used the Koran, not the

Bible, in a private swearing-in ceremony (1). Abroad in the Middle East (it

was listed in the same report) Christians make up only 4% of the total

population of Iraq, yet they make up about 40% of Iraqi refugees fleeing

current conflict there, this according to the UN High Commissioner’s office

(3). Rebecca Cook Dube of the Christian Science Monitor recently reported

on an unusual new situation comedy on Canadian television called “Little

Mosque on the Prairie” about a Midwestern Muslim family, citing that it had

over 2.1 million viewers for its first episode (6). These are all statistical

anomalies that would have been unbelievable even ten years ago, let alone

in the early stages of interaction between Christianity and Islam.

Western Christian culture and Eastern Islamic culture are interacting in

increasing ways, some of them with very unexpected results. The same

kinds of surprising trends can be seen while observing iterations of the

Islamo-Christian dialogue online. Gail Beckerman, reporting for the Columbia

Journalism Review, writes about the dynamism for change that has occurred

within the “new culture of openness, dialogue, and questioning” (2) on the

21

Miller

Internet, asserting that voices and perspectives that, in the past, one would

have expected to be shunned by lack of support are finding solidarity online.

She reports that only 10% of the Arab world currently has Internet access,

but points to the fact that it is a five fold increase from 2000 (3).

Yet, along with this new frontier of openness, some regions are finding

ways to build new walls and borders. An article for Aviation Week and Space

Technology claims that the Iranian government runs Internet sites that

promote radical Islamic views and that the Iranian government itself

prohibits its nearly 7 million citizen Internet users access to Western

websites (2). Likewise, many U.S. companies, colleges, and agencies have

blocked Iranian sites.

Clearly, the boundary lines are beginning to bleed from the old world

of the Islamo-Christian dialogue as characterized by “clash” onto the new

world of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. What are the various ways this

dialogue currently manifests itself online? In what ways can an examination

of the various types of interactions be viewed through a lens of

understanding afforded the lessons learned through studies in Computer

Mediated Communication in general? Is it possible for CMC to produce

successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online that are not

characterized by “clash?”

Within the boundaries of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online

specifically, we may classify its manifest iterations generally into three major

categories: the interactives, the organizational support URLs, and the

22

Miller

emerging blogosphere. First, there are iterations that occur in an interactive

environment, such as those mentioned earlier in this discussion, as they

exist on sites such as Yahoo, Google, Perspectives.com, and Beliefnet.com.

These sites offer chat rooms and discussion threads with titles ranging from

“Warning to Christians: If You Debate Muslims They Will Try to Kill You” to

“The Story of Joseph in the Quran, a Work of Art.”

Aside from these interactive iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue

online, there are also specific website URLs that are representative of certain

organizations online, such as the World Council of Churches, The Council on

American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), answering-islam.de, and

christianmuslimforum.org. These sites offer a range of pages and potential

for dialogue that could be seen as both successful and unsuccessful by the

standards set forth in this discussion. For example, answering-islam.de

posts on its own site a disclaimer that would, by the standards set forth in

this discussion, qualify as landing in the “unsuccessful” zone in a spectrum

of an analysis of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. Specifically, note the

tendency of the authors of the site to refer to the Muslim “them” in a way

that resonates with what Waid Saif described as “an undifferentiated

collectivity defined in terms of essential ahistorical features” (2) in his

address to the WCC illustrating the values of FtF style communication.

These Muslims probably have the deep conviction that what

they write is correct and it is necessary to attack the Bible and

the Christian faith in order to warn others of this “falsehood”.

23

Miller

But after discussion with several of them and pointing out the

factual mistakes to them [not questions of interpretation on

which we might legitimately differ] and they continue to

distribute without correction what they know is wrong, then it

becomes malicious. (3)

Successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online require as a

requisite quality the absence of agenda other than the facilitation of more

and deeper peaceful dialogue. In the twists and turns of internet

communication, it is difficult, in the absence of normally informative FtF non-

verbal cues, to apprehend the have successful dialogue, especially when the

discourse includes such obvious characterizations of the interaction of the

two faiths as necessarily “clash” oriented.

Of the three manifestations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, the

emerging blogosphere has shown the most potential for providing an

environment that facilitates successful iterations. One of the most popular

phenomenon to come out of the Internet and into the collective

consciousness, the blogosphere, continues to grow in popularity even as

sites such as MySpace, Zenga, and Facebook include ways for users to post

and retrieve blogs. Blogs, as published on these various sites, represent the

new face of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, and potentially the most

successful iteration yet.

According to one popular blogger and blog historian, Rebecca Blood,

blogs as we know them could be said to have appeared officially late in 1999

24

Miller

after the release of programs like Blogger that made it easy for individuals to

make weblog sites (10). Weblogs themselves have changed over the years.

This change could be seen as favorable in terms of the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online. When blogs first developed, there were like roadmaps to

the weird. Bloggers would fill pages full of hyperlinks and commentary.

They would point readers to corners of the web that readers themselves

might not normally go. This has evolved over time to include less in the way

of self-referential commentary, and more in the way of day-to-day journaling.

As more and more people became bloggers, blogging itself changed (11).

But this change works well for the purposes of dialogue in general. The way

that people have begun to blog has served in many cases to bring light to

what was once dark. For example, according to Gail Beckerman, writing for

The Columbia Journalism Review, there are people that are blogging,

describing their experiences in personal ways that ordinarily get overlooked.

Whether it is a Jordanian student discussing the taboo

subject of the monarchy’s viability or a Saudi woman writing

about her sexual experiences or an Egyptian commenting with

sadness at an Israeli blogger’s description of a suicide bombing,

each of these unprecedented acts is one small move toward

opening up these societies. (2)

Today there are numerous options for those who wish to blog. This

intersects well with what we are calling successful iterations of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online, if only because of the way that blogs have become

25

Miller

an advocate for change in the Islamic world. Gail Beckerman, points to blogs

and bloggers in the Arab world in general as providing an “independent

voice, a counter-intuitive opinion not filtered through any official source” and

that there is power in Middle Eastern Web logs to “expose a hidden trove of

multiple perspectives in a world that the West often imagines as having only

one perspective” (3). Again, the efforts of communicators to reach past the

limitations of CMC are facilitated by environments that perpetuate the

relational understanding that comes more naturally with FtF conversation.

Blogs are documents of minutia, detailing many aspects of lives that have

thus far remained unapproachable and foreign. Western, or for this

discussion specifically, Christian audiences of the weblogs of Muslim writers

participate in an iteration of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online that falls

into the realm of “more successful” on the spectrum we have devised.

Aggregated weblog sites like iToot do a good job of collecting English

language opportunities for this to occur.

Gary Bunt discusses the possibilities of what he calls an Islamic

Information Revolution. His perspective about the way CMC might impact

certain facets of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online are inline with what

Beckerman has said about blogs in general.

The Internet can highlight what is individual and distinct about

different Muslim perspectives and communities. These facets

may enhance our dialogue and ideas of difference, countering

those notions of homogeneity promoted on occasions both by

26

Miller

non-Muslims and by Islamic ‘authorities’ as part of a singular

path of Islam – which excludes marginalized groups, or

alternative interpretations of Islam, including those that are

traditionally less-political and more quietist in their outlook.

(153)

According to Beckerman in the Columbia Journalism Review, young bloggers

in the Middle East are “breaking taboos, reaching to the ‘other,’ and possibly

sowing the seeds of reform” (1). It is for this reason and the others listed

that we have discussed “the emerging blogosphere” to have the most

potential as being considered, by the standards set for here, a successful

iteration of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

Islam is not alone in its potential for homogeneity. As a Christian in

the U.S. these days, I feel it is just as important to enhance dialogue about

ideas of difference. Western Christians often take for granted some of the

freedoms we are allotted in our access to technology and the potential for

social acceptance of diversity. Within the modern blogosphere, it might be

possible for Christians with points of view that are alternative interpretations

of Christianity to likewise break through the inertia of the homogenizing

forces at work in modern American Evangelical culture. In terms of the

Islamo-Christian dialogue online, the day-to-day regularity of the mundane

explored in each others lives should do a lot to reduce the perception of the

modern Islamo-Christian dialogue, and allow for more successful iterations in

general.

27

Miller

The Future of The Islamo-Christian Dialogue Online

Within the world of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, we have

discussed three varieties of manifestations; “the interactives,” “the

organizational support URLs,” and “the emerging blogosphere.” We have

shown how, in each of these manifestations, CMC can fall into a spectrum

ranging from successful to not successful, and have a range of effects. We

have also discussed three major studies on the effects of CMC on human

communication. Walther and Bazarova, for example, through studying

misattribution in virtual groups, showed that people will be less likely to

accept blame for negative behavior if they think that other participants in

the online group are distributed more widely. The Islamo-Christian dialogue

online is made up of groups that have varying physical distance between

them, but the effect is probably that there is more chance for partner blame

and therefore not good dialogue.

Walther, with Ramirez et al. via their study of information seeking

strategies, also showed that people will dispense with the formalities of

information seeking in CMC and be more direct. This is true online and

affects dialogue in a negative way by exacerbating argumentativeness and

hostility. Walther and Tidwell (via studies on the effects of disclosure

postulate that CMC users will adapt for success when it comes to the

limitations of CMC. In regard to the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, it is not

so clear. Often, impressions of the “other” remain distant and removed and

bias hampers successful dialogue.

28

Miller

It is beyond discussion at this point that the Internet, and therefore

CMC, is firmly entrenched in our lives and cultures. The Internet plays a

significant role in the exchanges between Christians and Muslims and

between Western and Eastern cultures in general. According to Raffi

Katchadourian for the New Yorker, even the most famous westerner to join

the cause of militant Islam, Azaam the American, “began scrolling through

AOL’s religion folders on the Internet” and “found ‘discussions on Islam to be

the most intriguing,’ he wrote after he converted” (15). Clearly, we can no

longer afford to ignore the potential of this new medium, both in its ability to

enflame and enable peace.

Luckily, as some would say, there are qualities inherent in the medium

of the Internet that facilitate its role as peace enabler. As Jon W. Anderson

points out, “They built into it open access, flattened hierarchies, freedom of

information, and, more subtly, notions of transient, purposive connections

among people and between pieces of information. Their Internet is

organized not so much around transmission as around sharing of

information” (48). It is significant that the structure of the Internet facilitates

community. This is especially so when considering the specifics of the future

of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

Community is vital to Islam, and Christianity likewise has a need for

community in its structure and operation. According to Sister Pauline Rae,

where these concerns of community and technology best meet are in the

ability to bring ordinary people together. “What is significant,” she says “is

29

Miller

the development of Christian-Muslim relations at the grassroots level, the

commitment of ordinary people to reach out across what some see as

‘barriers’ of faith” (6). These ordinary people are reaching out in ways that

are more and more mediated by computers. It may be true soon that the

only manifestation of the Islamo-Christian dialogue are manifestations that

occur as CMC. Likewise, these “barriers” point to the kind of notions

mentioned earlier in the discussion. That the Islamo-Christian dialogue, and

specifically the Islamo-Christian dialogue online need to be characterized as

a “clash” of civilizations is not set in stone. As stated before, if difference

can be viewed as both a condition of human existence and a manifestation

of divine wisdom, “clash” need not characterize these CMC interactions.

We have thus far discussed dialogue in ways that pertain specifically to

our perspective that successful dialogue need only facility more and deeper

peaceful dialogue. This is a very vague notion, however, and others within

the Islamo-Christian dialogue have their own ideas about the way that

dialogue must manifest itself. It must be noted as well at this point that this

discussion also needed to limit itself to a particular perspective. For

example, much of the research completed came from a cadre of sources that

was only English language based.

Though there are many sites that represent Islam and Muslim

individual perspectives that are in English, this discussion is aware of the fact

that the inability to consider non-English sites is a limitation, efforts have

been made to make this discussion successful by its own determined

30

Miller

standards. It should also be noted that this discussion was initiated by a

Christian, and therefore from a distinctly Christian perspective. In the future,

it would be desirable for a similar study of the Islamo-Christian dialogue

online to take place with representative parties from both Christianity and

Islam.

Likewise, our discussions of dialogue can be assisted by some

definitions of dialogue as discussed in other places. Again, however, there is

a tension between what we can call dialogue and what we call

evangelization. For example, the World Council of Churches released online

a document it called “Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations; Ecumenical

Considerations.” In this document, the tensions that exist between dialogue

and evangelism are addressed. Here they outline the Christian commitment

in this way, that dialogue “has its own place and integrity and is neither

opposed to nor incompatible with witness and proclamation” (2). They also

state that we, as Christians, must not “water down our commitment if we

engage in dialogue; as a matter of fact, dialogue between people of different

faiths is spurious unless it proceeds from the acceptance and expression of

faith commitment.” The Islamo-Christian dialogue online must not

specifically remove all aspects of witness and proclamation. To be

successful, however, by the standards of this discussion, evangelization as

the goal of dialogue is counterproductive to successful dialogue, though not

always successful evangelization.

31

Miller

How then must we approach Christian-Muslim relations via the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online? Some helpful suggestions have come from

Cardinal Francis Arinze in a talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian

Understanding in Georgetown University, Washington D.C., on the fifth of

June, 1997. Cardinal Arinze outlines five different suggestions for better

relations. “Christians and Muslims,” he says, “have in all sincerity to ask

themselves what kind of relations they really want in the forthcoming

century. A clear vision of the desirable target is necessary for an adequate

assessment of how it can be reached” (1). Though it could be seen as an a

specific agenda, and therefore undermine the parameters of success put

forward by this discussion, attaining a clear vision of the kind of dialogue

desired for the future of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online is essentially

what we have done here. His suggestions for how this might be reached

cover five main points.

First, he suggests that we have “Better Knowledge of the Other” (1).

This knowledge will be key to successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online as well. His examples of what to do to increase this

knowledge in a practical sense include making “friendly visits” and

participating in celebrations that mark “major events in one’s life such as the

birth of a child, marriage, religious initiation, and death” (1). Arinze

illustrates quite clearly how this increase of the knowledge of the other can

help in the attainment of relations to be hoped for and worked for in terms of

FtF relations. Likewise, in the realm of CMC, the Islamo-Christian dialogue

32

Miller

online can be benefited by an increase in the kind of information seeking,

though, as we have seen, the information seeking strategies of CMC are

often more direct, a factor worth taking into consideration.

Second, Arinze proposes that there be “Acceptance of the Other and

Respect for Differences.” There are numerous differences between

Christianity and Islam, not the least of which includes the culture contexts of

Muslims and Christians. Both in FtF and CMC interactions, however, it is

imperative to understand what we have shown Huffard as referring to as

“maps” (3) for a view of the world. When considering acceptance of the

other in the context of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, it imperative to

likewise consider what Walther and Bazarova have discovered concerning

the effects of CMC on self-attribution. This is likewise important to consider

when attempting Arinze’s third suggestion for the aim at the future. His

third suggestion is that there be “Actual Engagement in Dialogue” (2).

Though we have provided numerous perspectives on the nature of dialogue

throughout this discussion, perhaps more could be learned through the

addition of yet another statement from the World Council of Churches’

document on “Issues in Christian Muslims Relations.” This document states

what we would consider to be very valuable in a discussion of the meaning of

the word dialogue in the context of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

Dialogue is not only conversation (dialogue of ideas) but is also

an encounter between people (dialogue of life). It depends on

mutual trust, demands respect for the identity and integrity of

33

Miller

the other, and requires a willingness to question one’s own self-

understanding as well as an openness to understand others on

their own terms. Dialogue is primarily an encounter of

commitments. (2)

It is this “dialogue of life” that is best mirrored in the iterations of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online that come from the category called “the emerging

blogosphere. The blogosphere is the dictation of life and its details. As

Blood has defined it,

the blogger is compelled to share his world with whomever is

reading. He may engage other bloggers in conversation about

eh interests they share. He may reflect on a book he is reading,

or the behavior of someone on a bus. He might describe a

flower that he saw growing between the cracks of a sidewalk on

his way to work. Or he simply my jot notes about his life; what

work is like, what he had for dinner, what he thought of a recent

movie. These fragments, pieced together over months, can

provide an unexpectedly intimate view of what is to be a

particular individual in a particular place at a particular time.

(13)

It is this intimacy that can facilitate the joining of usually disparate

perspectives, and promote successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian

Dialogue online. There are numerous variables at stake, which is why it is so

important to consider things like the effects of CMC on the Islamo-Christian

34

Miller

dialogue online. But, as stated, commitment is a key constituent element,

without which there would be little point to dialogue at all.

The fourth suggestion made by Cardinal Arinze covers what he calls “A

Joint Witness to Shared Values” (2). It is clear that there are some very large

differences between Christianity and Islam, but, as we have shown, it may be

that conservative Christians have a greater chance at understanding and

sharing values with many Muslims, though FtF dialogue is made quite

difficult by the common social characterization of any interaction between

Islam and Christianity as necessarily a clash. It may be oversimplified, but

one wonders if it is possible for our two cultures to accentuate the positive.

This leads us the final of Arinze’s five suggestions. It is the “Joint Promotion

of Peace.” This falls very much in line with what this discussion has framed

as of key importance in determining the successfulness of various iterations

of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online. That there should be no agenda

other than the facilitation of more and deeper peaceful dialogue is a central

suggestion of this discussion of successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online.

Set against these suggestions for the future, Cardinal Arinze lists six

obstacles or challenges to these goals, and six potential ways of meeting

these challenges. We would therefore put forward that successful iterations

of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online contain similar obstacles and

therefore similar potential strategies for avoiding these obstacles. In order

to be aware of the challenges facing the Islamo-Christian dialogue online we

35

Miller

will illustrate briefly the challenges and solutions put forward by Cardinal

Arinze.

First, there is the “Weight of the Past” (3), which Arinze suggests can

only be circumnavigated by a “Healing of Historical Memories” (3). As was

pointed to in the opening of this discussion, the perspectives surrounding the

nature of relations between Islam and Christianity are many and varied and

reconciling them is both difficult and important. Next, Arinze suggests that

there is a “Lack of Self-Criticism” (3) within both faiths. This development of

ability for self-criticism must be enacted in order to avoid this obstruction to

a successful iteration of the Islamo-Christian dialogue, online or elsewhere.

There is also, as Arinze points out the challenge of “Manipulation of Religion

by Politics” (3). This is not an easy obstacle to overcome, but Arinze’s

suggestion is quite simply to liberate religion from political manipulation.

This is indeed an oversimplified response and, even considering religion as

represented online, political manipulation would be difficult to extract. Yet if

such a thing is to occur at all, as we have pointed out, perhaps the Internet is

the most viable medium yet.

The fourth obstacle Arinze illustrates is that of “Religious Fanaticism or

Extremism” (3). This is an obstacle that is not absent in the Islamo-Christian

dialogue online, and yet, as we have stated, there are manifestations that

show potential in terms of promoting views that ordinarily would not survive

against the volume and power of the homogenizing trends of extremist

points of view. Arinze’s suggestion is to meet the challenge head on and to

36

Miller

“promote religious freedom” (5) which is seen as an antidote to fanaticism.

As stated before, this is no easy task, but we have at our disposal a medium

that might actually facilitate this kind of change in the Internet.

Within this problem, however, exists that added issue that, as Arinze

has put it, there are “Differing Approaches to Human Rights and Especially to

Religious Freedom” (5). This ties in with what we have referred to as

perspectives that help us view the world the differences of which need to be

taken into consideration in terms of interpreting communications between

and within these two cultures. Arinze’s suggestion to overcoming this

problem or obstacle is the “Promotion of Development and Justice” (5).

Finally, there is the issue of “Reciprocity” (4) that cannot be ignored.

Arinze’s solution to this obstacle is more spiritual and less pragmatic. His

suggestion is that “greater attention to God is necessary” (6) and this will

therefore pull each closer to each other. In this way, what Arinze is saying is

in line with what this discussion has maintained from its onset, that the

interaction of Christianity and Islam need not be characterized as a clash,

and that there can be successful iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue,

even, if not especially, online.

In closing, we would like to make mention of some the difficulties

surrounding any discussion that rests so closely near the heart of humans.

What a person believes is a very personal aspect of consciousness. It is

therefore very difficult to make comment on or criticism of any belief system

without inciting a negative reaction. In understanding that these difficulties

37

Miller

are the same difficulties that surround successful iterations of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online, it has therefore been suggested that there are

ways that these difficulties can be overcome with the appropriate amount of

care and attention. It is to this end that we encourage most of all the

increase of the amount of attention and focus given the mediums that

contain these kinds of discussions, such as the manifestations listed as

occurring on the Internet. Without effort, even the potential of these new

areas of interaction will spoil and devolve into another mechanism for the

advancement of hatred and bloodshed.

Obviously, this study also only scratches the surface of the immense

amount of information available on the Internet, and, again, only those

iterations published in the English language. A more comprehensive study

detailing the similarities and differences between English language and

Arabic language sites (especially in regard to their use of text- versus image-

based design aesthetic) would reap fruitful benefits for an overall analysis of

the progression of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

The perspectives surrounding the nature of relations between Islam

and Christianity are still many and varied and with the advent of Internet

communication, this is only apt to grow. To summarize these perspectives,

the relations, or the religions themselves, as stated, can be a fool’s errand.

Yet in these times of increasing international interaction, it would be equally

foolish to ignore these relations, such perspectives, or the rising influence of

the religions themselves on the peacefulness of such an increase in

38

Miller

international interaction. Likewise, it would be foolish to ignore the impact of

various iterations of these perspectives as they unfold in the realm of CMC.

First, there are iterations that occur in an interactive environment,

such as those mentioned earlier in this discussion, as they exist on sites such

as Yahoo, Google, Perspectives.com, and Beliefnet.com. These sites, as

stated, offer chat rooms and discussion threads with titles ranging from

“Warning to Christians: If you debate Muslims they will try to kill you” to

“The Story of Joseph in the Quran, a work of art.” These sites are the

pinnacle of the advancement in technology. They represent the efforts of

the online technology development community to design sites that use

technology to overcome some of the limitations of CMC as compared to FtF

communication, such as the time lag. When an email is sent, it requires

some time to be read and responded to. With the online chat and thread

messaging, often the postings are simultaneous in a way that FtF

communication is. This does not necessarily facilitate successful dialogue

however. Though the technology has advanced to compensate for the lag

time in CMC, there is still an overall attitude of confrontationalism that

occurs on these sites. More than likely, this occurs as a result of the

objectification of the other due to lack of intimate information. We will see

later on how an item of “less advanced” technology, blogging, is perhaps

more suited to facilitating what we would determine to be successful

iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

39

Miller

Aside from these interactive iterations of the Islamo-Christian dialogue

online, there are also specific website URLs that are representative of certain

organizations online, such as the World Council of Churches, The Council on

American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), answering-islam.de, and

christianmuslimforum.org. These sites, as stated, offer a range of pages and

potential for dialogue that could be seen as both successful and unsuccessful

by the standards set forth in this discussion. As is the case with the

interactive classification, however, there is little in the way of personal

exchanges of information to foster personal emotional attachment, and there

is likewise, an overarching attitude of confrontationalism on most sites.

There are sites, as those mentioned above, however, that represent

organizations whose goals are to promote peace and dialogue and those

sites offer a host of informational pages. Very few, however, offer the kind of

direct dialogue interactions that we would consider successful iterations of

the Islamo-Christian dialogue online.

The most popular phenomenon to come out of the Internet and into

the collective consciousness has been the “blogosphere.” Blogs as

published on various blog posting sites represent the new face of the Islamo-

Christian dialogue online, and potentially the most successful iteration yet.

This is true if only because of the way that is changing Islam and for the way

that people are able to see (in a diary kind of way) the day-to-day struggle

people of different faiths endure thereby becoming known instead of

unknown and therefore feared.

40

Miller

These iterations interact with studies of CMC in that, when examining

the details of existing research concerning the effects of CMC on any

dialogue, not just the Islamo-Christian dialogue online, it is important to have

an understanding of the various elements that are theorized to be at work in

communication in general, whether computer mediated or face to face (FtF).

As a result, our discussion of CMC drew heavily from three studies

undertaken by Joseph Walther along with other leading scholars in the field

of CMC. The first study examined concerns CMC as it intersects with self-

attribution, the second on information seeking and uncertainty reduction,

and the third as it concerns disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal

evaluations. Of each of these studies, we asked, “How does this intersect

with the Islamo-Christian dialogue online?” We also asked, “In what ways do

the research reflect on the effects of CMC on the Islamo-Christian dialogue

online?” Finally, we asked, “What does this research say about the future of

the Islamo-Christian dialogue online?” After having asked these questions,

we intersected the issues learned with the suggestions from Cardinal Arinze

for how to move to a better future.

Therefore, considering the dissemination of Internet access globally,

combined with the immense influence of these religions on the peacefulness

of increased international interaction, it was determined by this discussion to

be imperative to make a study of the how to move the dialogue forward.

Sister Pauline Rae, in her assessment of Christian-Muslim Relations for

Compass begins with a quote from the late Pope John Paul II, at an inter-

41

Miller

religious assembly in Vatican City, October of 1999. “The task before us,” he

states, “ is to promote a culture of dialogue. Individually and together, we

must show how religious belief inspires peace, encourages solidarity,

promotes justice, and upholds liberty” (1). It is for this reason that this

discussion has set forth that the circumstances of modern times warrant a

closer examination both of the potential effects of computer-mediated

communication on what we called the “Islamo-Christian dialogue online” and

of the various ways this dialogue manifests itself online in general.

42

Miller

Works Cited

Akram, Ejaz. “Interfaith Dialogue: Are Islam and Christianity on a Collision

Course?” 16 Mar. 2007

<http://beliefnet.com/story/16/story_1631_1.html>.

Arinze, Francis Cardinal. “Christian-Muslim Relations in the 21st Century.”

Encounter PISAI n.239 (1997): 16 Mar. 2007

<http://www.sedos.org/English/arinze.htm>.

“Arab Group for Christian-Muslim Dialogue” Global Ministries (2007): 16 Mar.

2007. <http://www.globalministries.org/index/php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=1013&Itemid=456>.

Answering-Islam. 1999-2007. 13 Mar. 2007 <http://www.answering-

islam.de/Main////index.html>.b

Beckerman, Gail. “The New Arab Conversation.” Columbia Journalism Review

45.5 (year): 16-23. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 7 Feb.

2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com>.

Beliefnet. 2007. Beliefnet Inc. 13 Mar. 2007 <http://www.beliefnet.com>.

Bulliet, Richard W. The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. New York:

Columbia UP, 2004.

Bush, Randall B. “A Tale of Two Scriptures: Jewish-Christian and Islamic

Paradigms of Scripture and Their Impact on Culture.” Christian

Scholar’s Review. 34.3 (2005): 309-326.

“Century Marks.” Christian Century 124.2 (2007): 6-7. Academic Search

Premier. 7 Feb. 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com>.

43

Miller

Christian-Muslim Forum.org. 2006 Empower Inc. 13 Mar. 2007

<http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/>.

Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR. 2006 The Council on

American-Islamic Relations. 13 Mar. 2007 <http://www.cair.com>.

Davis, Boyd H., Jeutonne P. Brewer. Electronic Discourse. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1997.

“Digital Borders.” Aviation Week & Space Technology 166.1 (2007): 80-80.

Academic Search Premier. 7 Feb. 2007.

<http://search.ebscohost.com>.

DiMaggio, Paul, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman, and John P. Robinson.

“Social Implications of the Internet”. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27 (2001): 307-

336.

D’Souza, Dinesh. “War on Terror’s Other Front: Cleaning Up US Pop Culture.”

Christian Science Monitor 99.41 (2007): 9-9. Academic Search Premier.

7 Feb. 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com>.

Dube, Rebecca Cook. “Muslims Laud ‘Little Mosque’.” Christian Science

Monitor 99.35 (2007): 7-7. Academic Search Premier. 7 Feb. 2007.

<http://search.ebscohost.com>.

Eickelman, Dale F. and Jon W. Anderson, eds. New Media in the Muslim

World: The Emerging Public Sphere. 2nd ed. Indiana Ser. in Middle East

Studies. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2003.

Google Groups. 2007 Google. 13 Mar. 2007

<http://www.groups.google.com>.

44

Miller

Huffard, Evertt W. Thematic Dissonance in the Muslim-Christian Encounter: A

Contextualized Theology of Honor. Diss. Fuller Theological Seminary,

1985. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1986. ATT 8512592.

Islam Review. The Pen vs. the Sword. 13 Mar. 2007

<http://www.islamreview.com/>.

“Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations: Ecumenical Considerations”. World

Council of Churches. (1999): 16 Mar. 2007.

<http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/c-mrel-e.html>.

Jones, Steven G., ed. Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated

Communication and Community. New Media Cultures. Thousand Oaks:

Sage, 1998.

Khatchadourian, Raffi. “Azzam the American.” New Yorker 82.46 (2007):50-

63. Academic Search Premier. 7 Feb. 2007.

<http://search.ebscohost.com>.

Perspectives.com. 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez. 13 Mar. 2007

<http://www.perspectives.com>.

Poole, Elizabeth and John E. Richardson, eds. Muslims and the News Media.

London: I.B.Tauris, 2006.

Rae, Pauline. “Christian-Muslim Relations.” Compass Review 36.1 (2002): 16

Mar. 2007 <http://www.compassreview.org/autumn02/9.html>.

Ramirez, Artemio Jr., Joseph B. Walther, Judee K. Burgoon, Michael

Sunnafrank. “Information Seeking Strategies, Uncertainty, and

45

Miller

Computer-Mediated Communication: Toward a Conceptual Model.”

Human Communication Research 28.2 (2002): 213-228.

Rifkin, Ira. “American Churches Grapple with the Growth of Islam” Religion

News Service (1999): 16 Mar. 2007

<http://islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/7/>.

Rodzvilla, John, ed. We’ve Got Blog: How Weblogs Are Changing Our Culture.

Cambridge: Perseus, 2002.

Salif, Walid. “An Assessment of Christian-Muslim Dialogue.” World Council of

Churches (2000): 16 Mar. 2007

<http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd36-07.html>.

Tidwell, Lisa Collins, and Joseph B. Walther. “Computer-Mediated

Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal

Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time.” Human

Communication Research 28.3 (2002): 317-348.

Walther, Joseph B. and Natalya N. Bazarova. “Misattribution in Virtual

Groups: The Effects of Member Distribution on Self-Serving Bias and

Partner Blame.” Human Communication Research 33 (2007): 1-26.

Yahoo Groups. 2007 Yahoo! Inc. 13 Mar. 2007 <groups.yahoo.com/>.

46