The Children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam [Hardcover]

This is a good introductory survey and comparative study of the three major religions to develop from the early Abrahamic traditions. According to scholar John Esposito, the revised edition of this book is more important than ever given the international attention drawn to the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to Esposito, for too long has the 'Judeo-Christian' school ignored the fact that Islam, too, comes out of this same source of origins, and that there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that can be identified and studied.

Author Frank Peters describes a three-strand tradition that sometimes works together and sometimes is at odds and warfare against each other, but neither intention is the case with his text. His purpose is to underscore both shared aspects and distinct elements, and to pull these back together to their common source. This is in large degree sacred history, which has its own aspects unique from secular and modern history. It draws together the history of revelation (both in scripture and in oral and practical traditions) as well as the history of the community of believers (the people, the church or Church, etc.). Later peoples had to strive to remain faithful to these strands of history and the earlier visions, to show how their actions and identities were consistent with them.

Peters explores the earliest foundations of Judaism as the starting point, it being the oldest of the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions. He develops a brief history involving both scriptural and archaeological/historical research, but brings in the interpretative framework of Christianity and Islam regularly where those traditions differ either as to the 'facts' or the interpretation of similar stories.

Jews, Christians and Muslims are all 'people of the book' in one fashion or another, and the parallels in these texts, both how they came to be and what their contents are (and how they are variously used and not used) is remarkable. Peters looks at the development of scripture and extra-canonical writings, community and hierarchical issues, attitudes toward law (Torah, Mitzvot, Halakot, Canon Law, Shariah, Hadith, etc.), worship, and theological method as it has shared and divergent developments across the three religions. Given that there has always been the case of minorities of one (or more) of the three living amongst the majority of another of the three religions, such cross-polination yet differentiation was almost inevitable.

There are extensive notes (intended, according to Peters, to be useful and 'to provide guidance rathe than proof on specific points'), a handy glossary of terms and a good index. This is a useful book for scholars, ministers and general readers, and provides a unique insight into the comparison/contrast of the three major religions that impact the modern West and Middle East specifically, and given the interdependent nature of the planet, the rest of the world generally.

This is a fascinating study.

This book attempts to explain the main features and developments of the three monotheistic religions. Though it treats nothing in depth, it gives good summaries of some points and provides tantalizing details which might be new even for people with some knowledge of the subjects. It is copiously footnoted and readers are encouraged to examine the listed sources for more detail.

Of course, being a broad survey, it does contain errors and questionable simplifications, some more serious than others. This isn't the place to get into all of those, but a couple points could be mentioned.

First Esposito noted the timeliness of this book in its foreword: inter-religious understanding is now more important than ever. Regrettably some opportunities to clear up misunderstandings were missed. Pp. 114-115, for example discusses martyrs, noting that Husayn, grandson of Mohammed, is the prototypical martyr of Islam. The Shiites see it that way, but do Sunnis also recognize Husayn as the prototype of a martyr? That's new for me. But when I read of Islamic martyrs, I think of Yasser Arafat , who called suicide bombings martyrdom operations. Peters had a good chance here to clarify the notion of martyrdom in Islam, but he didn't. So the question remains, at least for me: How do real Muslim scholars define a martyr?

Perhaps the most flagrant evasion of an issue is the discussion of Muslim asceticism, which follows a rebuke of Christian mortifications, esp. pp. 118 and 121. When the subject turns to Mohammed, he is seen as being more balanced. "He seems neither excessive nor particularly abstemious in his behavior. ... Nor did he preach to others any discernible degree of voluntary self-restraint or self-denial with respect to the legitimate pleasures in life (p. 121)."

I don't think one can fairly discuss Christian asceticism without mentioning the virtue of chastity. Christians are taught that their bodies are God's temple, God's spirit dwells in them, they are members of Christ's body, and non-marital sex is a sin against one's body (I Cor. 3:16, 6:13-20). Jesus also states that sexual sins can be committed in the heart, just by lusting for a woman (Matt. 5:28). This kind of asceticism or self-restraint is expected of all Christians.

But back to Mohammed. What were these "legitimate pleasures in life" which he allowed? Well, Muslim men could have sex with their slaves (Quran, 33:50-52, wrongly given by Peters (p. 121) as 35:50-52), and by extension with their female prisoners of war. Thus Bukhari 005:059:459, Muslim 008:3371 and numerous other ahadith show that Mohammed's men practiced coitus interruptus on their prisoners because a pregnancy would lower their value on the slave market. Mohammed mildly rebuked the interruptus, but not the coitus. Of course nearly all sex with war captives was non-consensual, or put another way, what Peters calls "the legitimate pleasures in life" included the rape of women at the mercy of Mohammed and his troops.

So, when Peters talks about the "self-abasement" of overzealous monks in the desert (p. 118), probably due to a strong Manichaean influence, he is ducking a larger issue. Christian chastity makes it possible for us to treat ourselves and all people, regardless of their background or circumstances, as created in the image of God. In the eyes of a Christian, Mohammed's troops not only abused and abased their victims, they also defiled themselves. This is not a mere difference of degree, with Mohammed being more easy-going than Paul in matters of sexuality. Radically opposing viewpoints on human dignity and personal sanctity come to the surface in this and in other incidents.

My question about this book, therefore, is whether certain facts are being ignored to spare people the pain of having to confront some unpleasant truths. Admittedly this works both ways. I was happy to read a book on this period without having my face rubbed in the atrocities of the First Crusade again. But if we are to make progress in understanding one another, and bettering ourselves, we must also undergo the afflictive process of confronting the crimes which are sadly part of our heritage.

Note: There are at least 4 different printings of Peters' book "The Children of Abraham" sometimes with the subtitle "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam". (May 1982):hb, 240pgs, ISBN:0691072671; (Jan 1984):pb, ISBN:9990824762; (Jan 1990):pb, 225pgs, ISBN:0691020302; (Aug 2004 revised):hb, 312pgs; ISBN:0691120412.