Oxford, OneWorld, xv + 251pp., pb. £14.99 $22.95, ISBN 1-85168-147-7

This work sets itself a number of ambitious goals. The first of these is to serve as a corrective for a number of contemporary research projects which the authors consider to have been grounded in incorrect assumptions. In particular, the authors take to task the substantial Fundamentalism Project, currently underway in the United States, as well as the research of Bruce Lawrence, which base themselves on the assumption that modern Islamic militancy represents essentially a response to modernity. The authors comment that "…Islamist and other forms of ‘fundamentalism’ … belongs to a larger discourse of which theological modernism, including neo-Mu`tazilism, is an important part … the historical nature of the theological discourse of which fundamentalism is a part must be reasserted." (p7-8). This primary goal is restated at the end of the study, where the authors reassert that fundamentalism does not result from modernity, but rather represents part of a traditionalist response to "religious rationalism and pluralism, not just in modern times" (p.221). The authors have thus defined their key message that the root causes of contemporary intra-Muslim tensions lie deep within the history of the faith.

The second goal of the work is to present two texts which are key to the authors’ central argument. The first is a treatise written by the 10^th century scholar Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, the last great theologian of the Mu`tazilite school. His birth coincided with the death of the great theologian al-Ash`ari, who similarly commenced his scholarly life as a fellow Mu`tazilite but broke away, founded a rival school, and in the process set the framework for later theological orthodoxy. The principal point of comparison with this 10<sup>th</sup> century text in this book is provided by an essay written by the 20<sup>th</sup> century Indonesian theologian Harun Nasution, a self-declared latter day neo-Mu`tazilite.

A particularly valuable contribution made by this book is its clear articulation of the essential basis of opposition between the Hanbali traditionalists and Mu`tazilite rationalists on wide-ranging matters. This distinction, which dates back to the classical period, nevertheless did not die with the demise of the Mu`tazila in the 11^th century, but rather lived on and formed the basis of ongoing doctrinal disputes throughout the course of Islamic history. Indeed, the authors skilfully demonstrate how modern tensions within Islam in the late 20^th century draw their inspiration from early debates within the classical period, with traditionalists looking back to key early thinkers such as Ibn Taymiyya, and modernists looking back in varying degrees to the writings and doctrines of the Mu`tazila.

The two translations of the texts in question will provide valuable materials for ongoing research. The rendering of Qadi Abd al-Jabbar’s Kitab al-usul al-khamsa is accompanied by a useful outline of the text which is designed to assist the uninitiated grapple with the theological concepts contained within this Mu`tazilite document. The rendering of Nasution’s essay The Mu`tazila and Rational Philosophy is similarly user-friendly, and the translators have succeeded in making accessible to their readers the thought of both texts in a most effective way, rather than interesting themselves in scholarship for its own sake.

The significance of Harun Nasution will come as a surprise to many readers of this work. Because most of his writing has been in Indonesian, few scholars of Islam outside the Southeast Asian area are able to access his writings. A reading of his essay contained within this book, coupled with a realisation that he is one of the few leading Islamic thinkers in the modern day who have the courage to openly espouse Mu`tazilite views, goes some way to portraying his importance in the modern era. The fact that Nasution can actively promulgate Mu`tazilite thinking in the late 20^th century is also testimony to the relative tolerance of the Indonesian Islamic scene. It is most unlikely that a person espousing a set of views widely regarded as a heresy for 1,000 years could rise to a position of great prominence within the Islamic hierarchy of most Islamic societies, as Harun Nasution has done in Indonesia.

Nasution’s significance is further underscored by this work’s focus on the contribution of other leading modernist thinkers from various Islamic societies: Fazlur Rahman (Pakistan), Mohammed Arkoun (North Africa/France), Fatima Mernissi (Morocco), Hassan Hanafi (Egypt). The evaluations of these figures not only enhance Nasution’s role, but also provide a broader frame of reference for the authors’ overall goal; namely, to link contemporary Islamic modernist thinking with Mu`tazilite thought from the classical period, and to show that the tensions evident within Islam in the modern day find their inspiration in earlier periods of Islamic history. The authors have achieved their task effectively, and in the process this book represents an important contribution to our understanding of the contemporary faces of Islam.

Peter G. Riddell

This review was published in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 9.3 (1998): 376-78.