Even a quick scan of today's headlines makes clear that the growth of fundamentalist versions of Islam is having a vast impact on our world. For Americans the rise of Christian fundamentalism, especially the Evangelical movement, is also socially and politically shaping the country, as debates about abortion, stem cell research and other important issues are often driven by fundamentalist notions.
In profound ways, orthodox versions of Judaism have altered the fabric of Middle Eastern politics through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially regarding settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, making peace there all the more difficult, and further destabilizing an already unstable region. The rise of fundamentalism in the three monotheistic faiths is fully examined in this textbook. It is not about fundamentalism however, it is about its opposite religious syncretism. Syncretism describes the phenomenon of one religion borrowing elements from another, and it is part of religion that fundamentalists will seldom acknowledge.
This textbook explores Judaism, Christianity and Islam, using compelling examples of how syncretism works and looks, to show how these three religions have adopted customs and conceptions of other religions, most often acquiring practices from pagan predecessors and neighbours. The book shows how these three faiths - despite how modern media would have us believe - have been willing, at various times and places, to borrow.
A series of case studies of syncretism, ie assimilating heterodox religious beliefs and practices, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Reverence of saints is identified as a common way of integrating pre-monotheistic minor deities, and they can also cross over between religions. There are also chapters on Marranism (a kind of underground Judaism persisting after the Iberian expulsions), the Kabbala, and the idiosyncratic Divine Faith promulgated by the Mogul emperor Akbar.
The author tries to justify the lack of any conceptual framework first by saying it'd be wrong-headed to impose one on something which by its nature is ad hoc. On this basis it'd also be futile to theorize, let's say, engineering. Then at the end he says "There's nothing more frustrating than working with a concept that can include virtually everything" which would probably also make it impossible to write the book he did. So these justifications are clearly vacuous but the case studies are still insightful.