Until quite recently, Ibn al-Nafīs has been known to historians of Islamic science mainly owing to his theory of the pulmonary transit of blood, anticipating by about three centuries the discoveries of Servetus and Harvey. This book by Nahyan Fancy tries to explain the religious and philosophical context that led this Arabic physician and scholar to his original proposition, which was so unlike the traditional anatomical and physiological views shared by scholars and physicians since Antiquity. Although centred on Ibn al-Nafīs, an important thirteenth-century figure in Islamic scientific and religious history, the book actually moves between three important thinkers of medieval Islam: Ibn Sīnā, whose main challenge to Islamic thought was the avoidance of using revelation in trying to unveil the truth and even theological postulations; Ibn Ṭufayl, who represents the mystical approach in Islamic philosophy; and Ibn al-Nafīs, who is presented here as a kind of creative traditionalist, in his choice to base rational arguments on revelation. The author's main argument is that in order to grasp the importance and originality of Ibn al-Nafīs' anatomical and physiological theories, one has to understand the discussions on central religious themes that took place in the Islamic world before Ibn al-Nafīs' time, during his lifetime, and even afterwards, namely the debates on the relation between soul and body and on bodily resurrection, as well as the ideological conflicts and interaction between traditionalists, rationalists and mystical philosophers.

The first chapter presents the author's integrative approach, emphasizing at the same time the need to refrain from attributing to medieval Islamic culture the modern significance of terms such as “religion” or “science” as two distinct fields of thought. The second chapter presents Ibn al-Nafīs' education and activity that enabled him to play an important role in the intellectual debates of his time, particularly in the traditionalist criticism of Ibn Sīnā on the one hand, and of mystical trends that gained momentum during the Mamluk period on the other. As a prominent physician, he was proficient in philosophy and other rational disciplines, and his expertise in the Shafiʿı School of jurisprudence transformed him into an authority in the theological sphere. The third chapter mainly focuses on Ibn al-Nafīs' Risālat Fāḍil ibn Nāṭiq, a philosophical–theological legend, written, according to Fancy, as a criticism of Ibn Ṭufayl's Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān and its mystical approach to reason. By doing so, Ibn al-Nafīs defends the authority and rationality of revelation for all enquiries regarding central issues, such as the divine attributes and bodily resurrection. As a demonstration of Ibn al-Nafīs' rational interpretation of revelation, Fancy points to his use of the term ʿajb al-dhanab, described in Islamic tradition as a seminal matter generated from sperm that enables bodily resurrection. The fourth chapter explains how Ibn al-Nafīs' new physiological theories were embedded in his understanding of the link between soul and body, which transforms or re-elaborates older views that had previously occupied the thought of many philosophers and theologians. Ibn al-Nafīs' understanding of these concepts is described as “hylomorphic psychology”, according to which the soul is linked to the body as a whole, investing it with its various faculties. His theory regarding the pulmonary transit of blood is here presented as a side-product of much wider philosophical and theological beliefs. Finally, the fifth chapter exposes Ibn al-Nafīs' rejection of important elements of the anatomical and physiological systems of both Galen and Ibn Sīnā, as in the case of the vital faculty, whose existence is rejected, the concept of chief organs, which is transformed, and in his denial of the direct passage of blood from one side of the heart to another. Fancy demonstrates how the new theory of pulmonary blood resulted from Ibn al-Nafīs' understanding of the soul–body connection. Other related consequences, not sufficiently grasped by former historians, are Ibn al-Nafīs' theories on the pulse and embryogenesis, related to his reflections on bodily resurrection, and based on a rational interpretation of revelation. An appendix is dedicated to exposing the author's doubts regarding the attribution of the authorship of the Mūjaz (an abridgement of Ibn Sīnā's Canon) to Ibn al-Nafīs, which led him to exclude the Mūjaz from his discussion.

Science and Religion in Mamluk Egypt is another contribution to studies that have recently highlighted the significant input of Islamic scholars, particularly those of the Mamluk period, to the advancement of science, which has to be understood, as repeatedly emphasized by the author, in the light of contemporaneous beliefs, concepts and intellectual interests. Readers who are not well versed in the historical development of Islamic philosophy and theology would probably have some difficulty in following the writer's arguments, but the text is well structured, much effort is invested in explaining the changing significance of central terms, such as “soul”, “spirit” and even “science”, with respect to ancient Greek and medieval Arabic writings, and the author's arguments are quite convincing. His exposition of Ibn al-Nafīs' posthumous image created in the traditionalist milieu in fourteenth-century Mamluk society is also of considerable interest.

However, putting such weight on theological and philosophical discussions, which occupy the greater part of this book, risks creating an imbalanced impression of the nature of Ibn al-Nafīs' medical writings. Of the corpus of Ibn al-Nafīs' medical works, only his commentary on Ibn Sīnā's Canon is represented, though rather selectively, leaving out Ibn al-Nafīs' rich and detailed discussions of strictly anatomical, physiological and therapeutic issues, and allowing only cursory references to his other medical treatises. To his credit it must be stated that the author is well aware of this gap.

This being said, the book reflects fine scholarship, close acquaintance with the history of Islamic theology and philosophy, and is an important contribution to the history of medieval science, in particular through its shedding light on the creative and original contribution to medical knowledge of Islamic scholars of the post-Abbasid period, understood within the conceptual framework of their own times.