Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017): 219-224 Book Review Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. c. 1390) ranks among the most influential Muslim theologians of the late middle period and his works continue to shape Sunni religious thinking up to the present day. Nevertheless, scholars writing in European languages have largely neglected al-Taftāzānī, publishing only a few studies of very modest length about his life and works over the past decades. Würtz’s book, which constitutes the first book-long study of selected aspects of al-Taftāzānī’s thought, is based on the author’s disserta- tion defended at the University of Zurich and represents a most welcome contri- bution to the field. It focuses on three key topics of al-Taftāzānī’s theological writings: his teachings about resurrec- tion, human actions, and creation. The study, furthermore, situates them within their intellectual context as defined by the traditions of falsafa and kalām in the late middle period. Moreover, it sheds light on the evolution of al-Taftāzānī’s thought by paying special attention to differences in content between his early Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya (written in 1367), his main work Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid (completed in 1383), and his late short summary work Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām (written in the late 1380s). The book consists of seven chapters, a b i b l i o g r a p h y , a n d a n i n d e x . T h e first chapter (pp. 1-16) discusses the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f a l - T a f t ā z ā n ī ’ s w o r k s during the 20th and early 21st century by highlighting their ongoing use as teaching materials at Cairo’s al-Azhar University. It also contrasts al-Taftāzānī’s ongoing importance with the thus far very limited amount of research undertaken on him and his writings—a consequence of still widespread notions about an alleged intellectual stagnation of Islamic theology in the late middle period. The first chapter moreover reflects on the concepts of “theology” and “philosophy” as used by Würtz and argues inter alia that terms such as kalām and mutakallim can be meaningfully translated as “(rational) Thomas Würtz, Islamische Theologie im 14. Jahrhundert. Auferstehungslehre, Handlungstheorie und Schöpfungsvorstellungen im Werk von Saʿd ad-Dīn at-Taftāzānī, Welten des Islams 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter 2016), viii, 295 pp. ISBN 9783110399585, $113.00. Christian Mauder University of Göttingen (christian.mauder@phil.uni-goettingen.de) Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017) 220 • Christian Mauder theology” and “theologian,” respectively. While one can disagree with Würtz’s point of view in this regard and argue that translating kalām as “theology” bears the risk of attributing to kalām the status of Islamic theology per se instead of rather seeing it as a theological tradition within Islamic scholarship, the author deserves credit for explicitly discussing an issue that is often enough passed over in silence. Chapter Two (pp. 17-36) offers the most detailed biography of al-Taftāzānī published hitherto in a European language. It begins with a synopsis of the political history of Greater Iran and Central Asia in the 13 th and 14 th centuries before discussing al-Taftāzānī’s biography proper. Würtz focuses in particular detail on questions that have been controversial in earlier scholarship such as the dates of al-Taftāzānī’s birth and death, the identity of his teachers in kalām, his madhhab, and his role in learned debates at Timur’s court. The remainder of the chapter introduces al-Taftāzānī’s works in the fields of rhetoric, grammar, logic, and law not dealt with in the subsequent chapters. The third chapter (pp. 37-84) presents the three above-named theological works by al-Taftāzānī that form the basis of Würtz’s analysis, whereby the author pays ample attention to their broader theological and philosophical background. To this end, the chapter begins with a general introduction to the early history of theological thought in Islam before broadly discussing the theological peculiarities of the theological group of the Māturīdiyya. Thereafter it turns, likewise briefly, to the teachings of Ibn Sīnā and Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī inasmuch as these are relevant for al-Taftāzānī before shedding light on the Qurʾan commentaries of Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī that Würtz uses in the remainder of his study to point to similarities and differences between al-Taftāzānī’s writings and the tafsīr tradition of his period. The by far longest part of the chapter then deals one by one with Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid a l - N a s a f i y y a , S h a r ḥ a l - M a q ā ṣ i d , a n d Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām. In each case it offers not only information on the structure and content of the respective work itself, but also on other texts with close intertextual relations, such as—in the case of Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya— al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya by Najm al-Dīn al-Nasafī and Tabṣirat al-adilla by Abū al-Muʿīn al-Nasafī or—in the case of Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid—the pertinent works by Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī, Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, ʿAbdallāh al-Bayḍāwī, and ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī. The analysis of al-Taftāzānī’s writings proper starts in Chapter Four, which is dedicated to his teachings on resurrection (pp. 85-152). Würtz selected this topic mainly because al-Taftāzānī’s discussion of this notion is still relied upon by students of al-Azhar today, and because it offers a particularly clear case for demonstrating how al-Taftāzānī dealt with teachings of the falāsifa that were of theological significance. The chapter begins with short discussions of eschatological material in the Qurʾan, the ḥadīth literature, and early kalām works before turning to the relevant sections in al-Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, a n d T a h d h ī b a l - m a n ṭ i q w a - l - k a l ā m , each of which is discussed separately. As Würtz shows, all three works seek to refute the teaching of the falāsifa that there is no bodily resurrection, thereby, Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017) Thomas Würtz’s Islamische Theologie im 14. Jahrhundert • 221 however, focusing on different aspects of eschatology. While the broader strands of this discussion are only hinted at in the generally rather concise relevant sections of Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya, Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid deals with this topic in great detail in the sense of a “theological encyclopedia” (p. 100) that seeks to discuss as broad array of different theological opinions about the topic as possible— regardless of whether al-Taftāzānī agreed w i t h t h e m o r n o t . M o r e o v e r , S h a r ḥ al-Maqāṣid also pays special attention to the importance of the subject within the falsafa tradition, as becomes apparent inter alia from the fact that it uses the word maʿād for “resurrection”—a well- established term in the philosophical discussions of the topic, but one that in al-Taftāzānī’s time had also found entry into kalām debates, where it was reinterpreted to match the concept of a bodily resurrection. In Tahdhīb al-manṭiq wa-l-kalām, al-Taftāzānī presents a final systematic synthesis of his own position on the topic which agrees with its more general treatment in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid. In the fifth and longest chapter of the book (pp. 154-241), Würtz analyzes the passages of al-Taftāzānī’s theological works which deal with the theory of h u m a n a c t i o n , a t i m e - h o n o r e d t o p i c of the mutakallimūn stimulated by the question of how human beings can be held responsible for their acts if these are known ahead of time and are brought into being by God. After a discussion of the relevant Qurʾanic verses, Würtz sheds light on earlier kalām debates about this topic and the respective positions held by the theological groups of the Qadariyya, the Muʿtazila, the Ashʿariyya, the Māturīdiyya, and the Jabriyya, thereby paying special attention to what he calls the neo-Jabriyya strand within late Ashʿarī kalām. The latter ascribed to human beings a smaller role in their actions than mainstream Ashʿarī authors usually did. As Würtz shows in his detailed discussions of the development within al-Taftāzānī’s position, Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya seems to largely follow the standard Māturīdī position on the issue which postulated the existence of different aspects (jihāt) of an action that, in part, pertain to God and, in part, to human beings, as well as the presence of a human ability to act (istiṭāʿa) in addition to God’s ability to act. This allowed Māturīdī mutkallimūn to endorse a pronounced i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n t h a t n e i t h e r negated a human being’s influence on his or her acts nor curtailed God’s power over them. In Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, however, which again offers a sophisticated and nuanced discussion of various theological views on the topic but pays also special attention to relevant Qurʾanic verses, al-Taftāzānī voices support not for the standard Māturīdī understanding, but for an Ashʿarī view that assumes positions of the neo-Jabriyya, while Tahdhīb al-manṭiq w a - l - k a l ā m s h o w s h i m e m b r a c i n g a mainstream Ashʿarī outlook and distancing himself from the neo-Jabriyya. Thus, Würtz is able to demonstrate that al-Taftāzānī’s v i e w o n t h e i s s u e o f h u m a n a c t i o n s as attested to in his writings evolved considerably over time. The sixth chapter (pp. 242-277) deals with al-Taftāzānī’s theory of creation and thus addresses another issue that w a s h i g h l y c o n t e s t e d b e t w e e n t h e mutakallimūn, who opined that the world was created in time, and the falāsifa, who taught that the world was eternal. Beginning again with a discussion of Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017) 222 • Christian Mauder relevant Qurʾanic material, Würtz offers a brief outline of the positions of falsafa and earlier kalām on the topic before dealing again with the three studied works by al-Taftāzānī. His most important findings include the fact that, in Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyya, al-Taftāzānī sides again with the Māturīdiyya by viewing creation (takwīn) as an eternal attribute of God, a position he vehemently rejects in his later works, which exhibit a largely mainstream Ashʿarī character. Moreover, while in all of his works, al-Taftāzānī clearly objects to the falsafa opinion about the eternity of the world, his discussion of the philosophical teachings on this issue in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid deserves special attention as here he deals with pre-Socratic positions that are otherwise only rarely discussed in pre-modern Arabic works. T h e s e v e n t h c h a p t e r ( 2 7 8 - 2 8 3 ) s u m m a r i z e s W ü r t z ’ s m a i n f i n d i n g s . Among other things, in this chapter the author highlights al-Taftāzānī’s clear e m b e d d e d n e s s i n t h e e a r l i e r k a l ā m tradition as well as the profound impact that the writings of Ibn Sīnā, being the most prominent representative of the falsafa, had on al-Taftāzānī’s works, also and especially when it comes to the latter’s ontological terminology. These close connections between al-Taftāzānī and the earlier mutakallimūn and falāsifa become especially apparent when al-Taftāzānī quotes their works or implicitly tries to distance himself from their views. With regard to the intellectual tradition represented by Ibn Sīnā, Würtz speaks in this context of an “amalgamation (Verschmelzung) of kalām and falsafa” (p. 278). Moreover, Würtz highlights that his results suggest a development in al-Taftāzānī’s thought that made him at later points in time, when he seems to have identified more strongly with the Ashʿariyya, reject Māturīdī positions that he had embraced earlier in his life. Furthermore, Würtz emphasizes that, at least when it comes to his teachings about resurrection and the human ability to act, al-Taftāzānī engages in more detail with relevant Qurʾanic verses and ḥadīths than had previously been documented in the writings of other mutakallimūn of his time. Finally, Würtz notes that there is little to suggest any direct impact al-Taftāzānī’s biographical experiences may have had on his theological writings. Thomas Würtz’s book is a pioneering contribution to our knowledge about one of the most influential mutakallimūn of the late middle period and thus helps to close a large gap in the state of research obvious to everyone working on Islamicate intellectual history of this period. His discussions of the selected aspects of al-Taftāzānī’s writings are clear and— bearing in mind the highly technical character of much of the subject matter— r e l a t i v e l y e a s y t o u n d e r s t a n d . T h e y offer not only valuable descriptions of al-Taftāzānī’s views, but also contextualize them within their broader intellectual framework in a helpful manner. Among his broader conclusions, Würtz’s arguments for a significant change in al-Taftāzānī’s theological views over time are absolutely convincing, as are his findings regarding the assumption of falsafa terminology by the mutakallim. Furthermore, Würtz’s discussion of al-Taftāzānī’s engagement with pre-Socratic philosophy opens up a previously largely neglected area of our knowledge about the reception of Greek philosophy within the Arabic-speaking t r a d i t i o n . L i k e w i s e , W ü r t z ’ s d e t a i l e d Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017) Thomas Würtz’s Islamische Theologie im 14. Jahrhundert • 223 a c c o u n t o f a l - T a f t ā z ā n ī ’ s b i o g r a p h y constitutes an important step forward in our understanding of this thinker. Finally, Islamische Theologie im 14. Jahrhundert is a very clearly structured book, written in a sophisticated and always appropriate German that might, however, not always be easily understandable for nonnative speakers. Moreover, especially the latter parts of the book would have profited from a more careful proofreading, which might have detected a number of missing words and incomplete sentences. These, however, do not compromise the general clarity of Würtz’s argumentation. Würtz’s book should be understood as a pioneering foray into the sometimes d e n s e , h i g h l y - d e v e l o p e d , a n d b r o a d theological thought of a prolific author. One cannot blame the author for hardly or not at all dealing with many key topics of al-Taftāzānī’s thought, such as his epistemology, his teachings about God’s attributes, prophethood, or the imamate, given that, with our present state of knowledge, no monograph could do equal justice to all facets of this mutakallim’s w o r k . L i k e w i s e , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e reception of al-Taftāzānī’s thought remains almost completely unstudied, apart from Würtz’s short remarks about the use of his books at al-Azhar, which offer a valuable s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r f u r t h e r i n q u i r i e s . Furthermore, future scholarship should explore whether and to what degree one can discern connections between al-Taftāzānī’s theological writings and his works in other scholarly disciplines such as law and rhetoric. Nevertheless, there are passages in Würtz’s often largely descriptive and in part redundant discussion of al-Taftāzānī’s writings where one would have wished for greater analytical depth. This is especially the case with the generally rather short chapter on creation. Furthermore, while Würtz is absolutely convincing in tracing the evolution of al-Taftāzānī’s away from Māturīdī towards Ashʿarī positions, the reasons for this development remain u n c l e a r a n d d e m a n d m o r e s t u d y . M o r e o v e r , W ü r t z ’ s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e state of research remains, with less than two pages, overly brief, especially since the author has managed to gain access to several modern studies in Arabic that are not easily available to many scholars outside of the Arab world and might therefore have called for a more thorough discussion. At the same time, the general introductions to authors and traditions of thought predating al-Taftāzānī, based almost completely on secondary literature, are often of interest only to nonspecialists and might have been dispensed with given that most if not all of the readers interested in a book of this nature can be expected to have at least a general knowledge of key aspects of the earlier traditions of kalām and falsafa. F i n a l l y , o n e o f t h e a u t h o r ’ s terminological choices appears infelicitous. Given that Würtz refers to al-Taftāzānī’s time, i.e., the 14th century CE, repeatedly as the “late period” (Spätzeit) of the kalām tradition, the question arises as to how we should denote even later periods in the development of the same intellectual tradition, especially since the recent work of Aaron Spevack, Khaled El-Rouayheb, and others showed beyond a doubt that the kalām tradition was very much alive in the centuries after al-Taftāzānī, up to at least the 19th century CE. Here, a clearer discussion of the chronological framework in Würtz’s study would have been helpful. Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 25 (2017) 224 • Christian Mauder These observations notwithstanding, Islamische Theologie im 14. Jahrhundert deserves applause as a very clear discussion of important aspects of al-Taftāzānī’s thought. Indeed, it is the very first and thus groundbreaking monograph written in a European language on this much too long neglected important figure of Islamic intellectual history. Future studies in al-Taftāzānī will have a solid grounding in Würtz’s book, and it is hoped that it will receive attention beyond the rather small germanophone community of scholars interested in kalām.