Why another book on Rashīd Riḍā? His central role in the intellectual history of Islam around 1900 and as pioneer of transnational Islamic publishing are textbook knowledge. Leor Halevi demonstrates in his monograph how many important aspects have been overlooked by readjusting the focus towards materiality, an aspect which – as he claims – the centrality of belief in the study of religion has obscured.

Using fatwas as the main source for his “microhistorical” approach Riḍā's partially affirmative answer to the question of whether Muslims are supposed to clean their anus with paper after defecating serves as a peg for the analysis of his laissez-faire/easygoing approach that superordinates the necessity of advancing in colonial modernity over inherited legal concerns. Responding to an officer in Sudan he opined that the traditional way of using water and stones was of course preferable, but in case this would prevent somebody from travelling by steamboat, using the recently introduced Western merchandise was perfectly acceptable. One might assume that Riḍā was in this respect following his senior partner Muḥammad ʿAbduh. Halevi, however, stresses that in both substance and style the fatwas of both differed; whereas ʿAbduh indulged in general legal discussions, Riḍā focused on the peculiarity of each issue. Ridā's legal method is classified as “originalist” or “scripturalist”: accretions by later legal reasoning are not supposed to impose restrictions without foundation in the primary sources. However, when it came to the assessment of paper money he took a decision on a different basis, as the aḥādīth prohibiting the exchange of the same item at different weights as ribā represented a considerable argumentative obstacle. In this case Riḍā introduced the objectives of law as legal argument to circumvent the formalistic definition of ribā by arguing that the real purpose of its prohibition was to prevent exploitation.

One case where Halevi highlights the limits of the pragmatic approach is the recording and playing of recitals of the Quran on gramophone records, where Riḍā sided mostly with the Tatar jadīdīs who had asked him for a fatwa in the hope of getting a wholesale permission. However, he also stressed that a problematic consequence of playing the Quran on the gramophone could be that the etiquette that is supposed to accompany the recital of the Quran would not be observed properly. Apparently, he did not regard the trade with records of Quran recitals even by non-Muslim companies as problematic. Based on the judgements on the Quran and the phonograph Halevi further elaborates that anything that could undermine Islamic rituals or Islamic identity set the limit of legal pragmatism for Riḍā. Javanese Muslims expecting support for their (old) practice of alerting to the call for prayer with a gong was answered in the negative, as Riḍā associated this instrument with the bells of Christian churches. However, he had no objection to communicating the beginning and end of Ramadan by telegraph, a modern device not associated with other religions. Riḍā's reluctance towards the adoption of Western attire for men, like “sexy French trousers”, is motivated by similar concerns. Halevi uses this topic to discuss a shift in Riḍā's economic attitudes in the interwar period. Western clothes were not only a moral issue, they were also weighing heavily on Egypt's import balance. Had adaptation to the world market been the major theme of Riḍā's legal writings before the First World War, he emphasized the necessity of economic independence thereafter. In this context he discovers Gandhi as an example of economic independence based on a frugal lifestyle. Riḍā regarded Western influence – both cultural and economic – increasingly as a threat, and advocated a national resurgence based on one's own identity by following the “Japanese model”. With regard to the interwar period Halevi demonstrates how far Riḍā's decisions were adapted to local circumstances. When it comes to Muslims living in a minority situation he continued his lenient approach, whereas he would not allow non-Muslim technicians to operate the telegraph system in the Ḥijāz due to the territory's religiously sensitive status. His new Saudi allies ignored his opinion.

Halevi dedicates much attention to the economic background to Riḍā's activities: Riḍā had realized that fatwas were a “marketable item”. By entitling subscribers to request fatwas he created a bond with his core audience. According to Halevi, the way in which mustaftīs formulated questions and implied their answers influenced considerably how Riḍā would answer. Thus, a mode of interaction was established that should characterize the relationship between “media muftis” and their audience for decades to come. Halevi demonstrates that Riḍā consciously addressed a wealthy, often secularly educated segment, at the expense of the staff of religious institutions with meagre salaries.

Halevi has meticulously investigated the contexts in which the legal issues Riḍā was asked to address arose. This enables him to draw a lively picture of Islamic debates in the first third of the twentieth century. Moreover he has to a large degree himself investigated how the various “modern things” became known and how they were marketed in Egypt and other countries. Hence he not only weaves intellectual and economic history together but comes forth with a contribution that is as ground breaking and original regarding the development of a consumer culture as it is concerning legal reform.

These achievements notwithstanding, the general revision of Muslim attitudes to science, technology, and economy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Halevi claims to formulate in the Prologue and the Introduction is not warranted by his own account. He seeks to overcome the paradigm of Muslim opposition to technology, but whereas the openness of Riḍā and many of his “clients” to technology and capitalist modernization is undeniable, Halevi himself shows in many instances how these clients had to confront reluctant attitudes among scholars in their respective contexts. Hence, it is rather the contrast between the dominance of more conservative scholarly opinions and the desire of an emerging Muslim middle class for more pragmatic approaches that explain how Riḍā could attain his outstanding transnational position.