1394 Reviews of Books AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW runners such as the Grammarian Muhខ ammad alŞabba៮ n, the pedagogic H ខ asan al-Atខខta៮ r , and the lexicographer Murtadខ a៮ al-Zabı៮dı៮. Discussions of the nahdខ ah’s usual suspects, such as Dı៮wa៮ n al-Tខ ahtខa៮ wı៮, Sulayma៮ n al-Busta៮ nı៮, and Muhខ ammad Abduh, are integrated into the remaining chapters where Patel outlines discursive nahdខ ah markers, including the institutionalization of education, the rise of literary salons, the emergence of organized missionizing, and the evolution of an “Arab” cultural infrastructure. Because Patel’s methodology is extensive rather than intensive, favoring a broad examination of a principal, yet understudied, aspect of the nahdខ ah (namely its forerunners and its immediate past), the book lacks an indepth critical exegesis or close analysis of any of the texts to which it refers. A careful examination of one or two texts as a case in point would have indeed yielded significant results, allowing the reader to see the ties, be they strong or tenuous, between precursor and pioneer nahdខ ah texts. In addition, it should also be mentioned that Patel accepts too readily Abu-Rabi’s binary and truncated definition of European modernity. The work of Paul Gilroy, Fredric Jameson, or Michel Foucault on the same topic could have enriched his thesis and addressed the prominent question of continuity and discontinuity that guides his examination of pre-nahdខ ah Arabic literature much more squarely. This is a minor limitation, understandably driven by the fact that Patel wishes to engage Arab and Muslim scholars in interrogating modernity. Another regrettable limitation is the total absence of the discussion of the role of Arab women in nahdខ ah. Given the discursive and broader historical lens through which Patel invites us to regard the Arab nahdខ ah, this lacuna is surprising. It is difficult to understand why Patel would not have included a seminal chapter on women in the nahdខ ah, one that he surely could have written with admirable expertise. Where, if not in a book of this historical sweep, would be a better place for a discussion or acknowledgment of women writers like Hana៮ Kasba៮ nı៮ Ku៮ ra៮ nı៮ (1870–1898) and Anı៮sa al-Shartu៮ nı៮ (1883–1906); or a much needed chapter on the outstanding women journalists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, such as Hind Nawfal or Maryam Mazhar; or further still, the second generation of remarkable nahdខ ah women authors like ៮ isha al-Taymu៮ riyyah Zaynab Fawwa៮ z (1860–1914), A (1840–1902), and Malak H ខ ifn ៮ı Na៮ sខ if (1886–1918)? Nevertheless, despite these gaps and some minor language and diacritical infelicities, one should still be grateful for this hugely informative and thoroughly enjoyable book. MOHAMMAD R. SALAMA San Francisco State University NAJAM HAIDER. The Origins of the Shı៮a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Ku៮ fa. (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization.) New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pp. xvi, 276. $103.00. OCTOBER 2014 Downloaded from http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 12, 2014 to an exclusive group of Westernized Christian scholars. Patel convincingly proves that one cannot simply pinpoint a moment in modern Arab history that marks its commencement. Rather than a European import, the nahdខ ah is shown to be the result of an accumulation of a complex array of forces at home and abroad. Context and sub-context, whether religious, secular, ideological, or nationalist, is elaborately interlaced in Patel’s theoretical discussion of the nahdខ ah’s complex imbrications. But the broader ambition of the book might be seen as a rechanneling of canonical conceptions of the nahdខ ah and a deconstruction of the socalled paradigm of decline in Arabic literature in the centuries prior to 1798. Quite appropriately, Patel voices serious reservations with major scholars, including Marshall Hodgson, Ehsan Yarshater, and to some extent Albert Hourani, who have either adopted or failed to deconstruct blanket views of the Arab nahdខ ah as an intellectual “awakening.” Drawing on the writings of Edward Said, Nehemiah Levitzion, Ussama Makdisi, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and Peter Gran, Patel calls for a larger humanistic de-provincialization and emancipation of the term nahdខ ah; often misrepresented as a proxy child of European modernity or the product of a handful of Arab scholars in ideological harmony with Western secularism. Indeed, Gran becomes Patel’s maı̂tre à penser in rebuffing what the latter convincingly reveals to be a naı̈ve underestimation of Egypt’s thriving intellectual community after 1760. Patel is in agreement with both Gran and Ibrahim Abu-Rabi’s criticism of the stereotypical idea that the Arab nahdខ ah is a movement that primarily emerged at the hands of Levantine Christians who sympathized with and embraced European modernity and who were, because of their Christian dogma, supposedly immune to the ultra-traditional and conservative winds of nineteenth-century Wahhabism. Patel’s work might also be seen as a response to the call sounded a decade ago for the study of world Renaissances and the de-centering of Europe as the sole origin of revivalist movements. In the introduction, Patel offers an account of reductionist theories of the Arab nahdខ ah, but also of related essentialist conceptions of such significant terms as “modernity,” “modernization,” and “humanism.” Patel then interrogates, in chapter 1, traditional criticisms and theories of the Arab nahdខ ah available both in Arabic and in English. Thus, in addition to debunking contemporary approaches to the nahdខ ah and challenging dominant views regarding its genesis and historical development, Patel provides a critique of instrumental theories on the nahdខ ah in the Arab world, Europe, and North America. In chapter 2, one of his most engaging chapters, Patel discusses the reintegration of premodern Christians into the mainstream of Arabic literature and the creation of an interreligious cultural space. He then addresses the contributions of luminaries and guardians of the Arabic-Islamic humanist tradition in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Rashı៮d al-Shartu៮ nı៮, Ahខ mad Fa៮ ris al-Sha៮ dya៮ q, in addition to prominent Azharite scholars and nahdខ ah fore- Middle East and Northern Africa AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW Gregor Schoeler, Behnam Sadeghi, Etan Kohlberg, Hossein Modarressi) to identify traditions and views concerning specific ritual practices among jama៮ ı៮Sunnı៮, Zaydı៮, and ima៮ mı៮ scholars in the early-eighthcentury Ku៮ fa. He then examines them comparatively to gauge the extent to which presumed sectarian groups rely on insular or common authority figures, chains of transmission, and literary styles. The next three chapters are dedicated to three case studies. In a concise but careful manner the author examines in each of these instances the positions of the four Sunnı៮ and two Shı៮ı៮ legal schools. The conclusions of these studies are mixed. The data show an independent ima៮ mı៮ sectarian communal identity in the early eighth century. By contrast, the same data allow the conclusion that the early Zaydiyya sect was not a collection or coalition of Batrı៮s and Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮s, but rather a mainly (if not overwhelmingly) Batrı៮ community. Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮s seem to have only gradually become the dominant group of the Zaydiyya sect sometime in the middle of the eighth century. The final chapters are intended to address the emergence of the Zaydı៮ Shı៮ism from a historical and historiographical perspective and dedicated to tracing the gradual emergence of Ku៮ fan Shı៮ı៮ identity in the eighth century based on a detailed examination of three subjects: the revolt of Zayd b. Alı៮ (d. 740) and subsequent developments around his revolt; the debates on the credibility and veracity of Ku៮ fan transmitters whose ritual practices did not always align with their community; and the correlation between a sacred space and sectarian identity in Ku៮ fan mosques. Only on a few occasions this reader felt the study could have better satisfied a historian’s curiosity. A fuller discussion of Ku៮ fa and the Caliphate as urban and political frameworks of sectarian developments could have provided political and socioeconomic anchors that must have had a role in the emergence and development of Zaydism. The reader would have also welcomed a more detailed portrayal of some central characters in the study (for instance, Amash) to be able to better imagine how lofty legal and theological discussions were related to an individual’s life. Overall, though, The Origins of the Shı៮a: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Ku៮ fa is a welcome contribution to existing scholarship on sectarianism in eighthcentury Iraq and a well-structured, readable work that is going to benefit graduate and undergraduate students of the early Islamic period. HAYRETTIN YÜCESOY Washington University in St. Louis DANA SAJDI. The Barber of Damascus: Nouveau Literacy in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Levant. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2013. Pp. xv, 293. Cloth $60.00, e-book $60.00. Once a black hole in Ottoman historiography when the debunked Ottoman decline paradigm reigned, the eighteenth century is now the subject of vibrant histories. OCTOBER 2014 Downloaded from http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 12, 2014 Historical studies to date trace the emergence of the ima៮ mı៮ Shı៮ism to the eighth century C.E. The early Ima៮ mı៮s, who considered Alı៮ as the rightful successor to Muhខ ammad, upheld the doctrine of the ima៮ mate, espoused the belief in the unquestioned authority of the ima៮ ms, and rejected the credibility and trustworthiness of any companion of Muhខ ammad who opposed Alı៮ ’s right to rule. Zaydism, too, originated in the events of the early eighth century around Zayd b. Alı៮ ’s revolt against the Umayyads in Ku៮ fa, which brought together the Batrı៮s and the Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮s, the two sub-branches of Ku៮ fan Shı៮ism. While the Batrı៮s upheld the probity of the Companions without abandoning their support of Alı៮ ’s right to rule, the Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮s maintained the view that the proofs of Alı៮ ’s right to rule were unequivocal and accused those opposed of committing apostasy. Sectarian identity, according to current scholarship, emerged as a result of the internal struggle between the Batrı៮s and the Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮s over the control of the Zaydiyya. This is a persuasive narrative, but it is vulnerable in two spots. First, it is based on historiographical and heresiographical narratives of later periods which have a tendency to project theological positions of later times back without much concern for chronology. Second, it prioritizes theological positions as the lynchpin of sectarian identity over any other marker that might have played a role in identity formation. Najam Haider postulates that if the arguments hold, one would expect to find evidence for them in the eighth-century ima៮ mı៮ sources and Zaydı៮ traditions. In three parts, Haider directs his attention to the early eighth-century Ku៮ fan traditions on ritual practice (rather than theological doctrines) to test the validity of existing arguments and retrace the origins of Zaydı៮ identity. He concurs with the conclusions of modern scholars and the claims of heresiographical sources that the early imamı៮ traditions display independence from their Zaydı៮ and proto-Sunnı៮ counterparts. The absence of noticeable overlap with Zaydı៮ and jamaı៮-Sunnı៮ traditions points to the crystallization of ima៮ mı៮ Shı៮ı៮ identity in the early-eighth-century Ku៮ fa. With respect to the Zaydı៮s, however, Haider comes up with a fresh conclusion. He argues persuasively that Zaydı៮ traditions do not support the view that Zaydism emerged as a result of the merger between Batrism and Ja៮ ru៮ dism. Rather, Zaydism seems to have witnessed a drastic shift in identity and theological position from being predominantly Batrı៮ to almost totally Ja៮ ru៮ dı៮ in the later eighth and early ninth centuries. According to Haider, this shift seems to have occurred in large part due to a few long៮ llah lived strong leaders, in particular Yahខ ya៮ b. Abd A (d. 805) who became the ima៮ m of the Zaydı៮s after the battle of Fakhkh in 786. In the first two chapters the author offers a concise overview of the scholarly work on the subject and makes a good case for the value of excavating later and seemingly ahistorical sources for historical information. He judiciously treads the path of recent promising achievements in textual archeology (as demonstrated by Harald Motzki in particular, but also Iftikhar Zaman, 1395