Islam and Literalism: Literal Meaning and Interpretation in Islamic Legal Theory. By Robert Gleave. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012. Pp. xii + 212. $120, £75 ; $39.95, £24.99.

Medieval Muslim scholars were challenged with squaring their conceptions of prophetic infallibility with reports that Muhammad disobeyed revelatory commands from God. The manner in which they rehabilitated the prophetic image in these cases had corresponding repercussions in the fields of jurisprudence, theology, and legal theory. The present article uses the case of Q. 8:67 to demonstrate the intertwined nature of the Islamic sciences and the stakes involved when delimiting the prophetic ability to err and/or disobey God.

Medieval Muslim scholars unequivocally prohibited the torture of prisoners of war out of a concern for maintaining theoretical constructs about the boundaries of the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Muslim scholars worried that the torturing prisoners of war would compromise values and ideals predicated on such constructs, and that the demands of citizenship trumped any benefit to the Muslim community that might accrue from torture.