Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft

These days it is rare that a German publication on a specific research topic in the humanities makes its way into the review section of an English language journal. The authors of such a book may consider themselves all the more fortunate upon learning that their findings are the subject of an assessment of both substantial length and copious detail. Matthew Melvin-Koushki's thirty-three page review essay constitutes such an exceptional case, as it appraises our collected studies volume, Die Geheimnisse der oberen und der unteren Welt: Magie im Islam zwischen Glaube und Wissenschaft (The Secrets of the Upper and the Lower World: Magic in Islam between Belief and Science).¹ In the case of Melvin-Koushki's review, however, the authors and editors of the collected studies he assesses may not consider themselves quite so fortunate, in spite of the appreciative beginning and conclusion of this essay.

Melvin-Koushki opens his review of The Secrets of the Upper and the Lower Worlds (hereafter Secrets) with an acknowledgment of the book as standing "dense testament to several new turns in the study of Islamicate societies, both past and present, from Arabophone to Anglophone and every tongue between."² He closes by stating that this new book provides "a solid [End Page 124] philological-bibliographical foundation and bold advertisement for the longoverdue turn to Occult Science among Islamicists" (RE 287).

In the body of his essay, however, the reviewer levels some harsh criticism at the approaches and the findings of individual chapters, as well as of the volume as a whole. These passages in the review are mixed with considerations of the general state of research on the occult sciences in Islam and repeated references to the reviewer's own prolific academic activities and publications on the topic.

While criticism—including self-criticism—among scholars is an essential element in the advancement of knowledge, and even disputes can serve the greater good, it is important that both sides of an argument get a fair hearing. This is all the more pertinent in the present case because several major points in the reviewer's criticism of Secrets appear to be unfortunate misreadings and misrepresentations of the respective German texts. Our response to Melvin-Koushki's review essay will necessarily remain brief, only touching on those aspects most urgently in need of correction so that readers interested in this volume have a more realistic idea of the content of this book.