Alexander Orwin's book is a significant contribution especially to three disciplines: to modern and contemporary political theory (specifically to the discussions on “ethnicity”, “nation”, and “nationalism”), to the history of Islamic philosophy (as a novel interpretation of Alfarabi's political treatises), and to Islamic intellectual history (as a work that explores the notion of umma). The term umma, usually translated as “community”, but also frequently as “nation”, is key to understanding Islam. In the Islamic context it refers not only to a religious community but also to a variety of ethnic nations. This notion appears in practically all major political works of Alfarabi, but apparently only in its ethnic sense and not in the religious sense. Throughout this book Orwin tries to show that Alfarabi's understanding of the umma includes both the Islamic and ethnic components, thus claiming that Alfarabi's notion of umma sheds light on both the understanding of the Islamic community and the conception of ethnic nation, underlining the way in which it influences human institutions as well as cultural activities such as philosophy, religion, and politics.

Orwin's approach to Alfarabi's political philosophy deserves attention, not only because it provides new insights into a largely unexplored topic, but mainly because it challenges scholars in the field, thus stimulating philosophical debate. He points out that some (Mahdi, Galston, Parens) have reflected on the topic, resorting mainly to the Political Regime while not attending to the Book of Letters in enough detail; others (Alon, Nassar) have rejected Alfarabi's religious use of the term. Orwin offers a thematic interpretation of the notion of umma within Alfarabi's treatises, prioritizing the Book of Letters where, according to him, its most detailed and revealing characterization is found: while in the Political Regime this characterization is built on climate and nutrition, the Book of Letters focuses on language. I agree with Orwin regarding the importance of the Book of Letters and the relevance of language for understanding Alfarabi's use of the inherited Greek philosophical terminology. Orwin challenges the common assumption among scholars that Alfarabi did not know Greek. This is relevant given Alfarabi's concern regarding the relation between particular grammars and logic and his interest in the translation and interpretation of philosophical texts; it is also relevant for understanding the development of philosophical terminology, in this case, the term umma. Certainly, as Orwin points out, there is no single, definite Greek term that could be translated as “nation”. Plato uses the terms ethnos and genos, equivalent in some contexts to “ethnicity” and “identity”, respectively.

Orwin finds several parallels between the idea of “nation” as found in Plato's Republic and Alfarabi's account in some of his treatises, especially in The Philosophy of Plato. However, Alfarabi's treatises also resonate with the political thought of Aristotle, who sometimes uses the term ethnos ambiguously, dissociated from the idea of partnership. Nevertheless, I think that although Alfarabi's political thought has been considered more Platonic than Aristotelian, Aristotle's influence is very much present. For instance, Alfarabi's Political Regime echoes many passages from Aristotle's Politics. Orwin briefly deals with the well-known controversy on whether Alfarabi actually knew this treatise and, following the positions of Pines and Brague, he remains sceptical in this regard. Concerning this discussion, in “A note on the transmission of Aristotle's political ideas in medieval Persia and early-modern India: was there any Arabic or Persian translation of the Politics?”, Syros Vlastos has provided relevant insights and information that should be considered. Yet, beyond this debate, Orwin clearly shows that whereas Plato and Aristotle deal with something close to the idea of “nation” their approaches, though influential in Alfarabi, are still vague. In contrast, Alfarabi seems to go beyond his Greek masters providing a much more elaborate notion of umma.

In the Book of Letters and the Political Regime there is a thematic account of the umma including its causes and its character. In both texts Alfarabi affirms that every umma is formed by nature (natural temperaments and natural states of character), but consummated only through custom and convention (i.e. by language). This suggests, according to Orwin's interpretation, that by the end of this development the natural elements disappear. In this sense, while umma and language are rooted in nature, both extend beyond nature: while human beings tend by nature to live in association, this natural tendency leads to different kinds of conventional communities, associations, and political regimes. Orwin notices that while in both treatises we find a strong connection between language and umma, there is still no connection between umma and religion. From this Orwin concludes that some scholars might have inferred that Alfarabi avoids religion. However, Orwin's main goal is exactly the opposite: he wants to show that Alfarabi's umma is Islamic. This is not an easy task given the strong imprint of Greek thought in Alfarabi's political thought. Actually, when reading Alfarabi one is tempted to think that, although he uses Islamic concepts, his model is essentially Greek. Orwin holds that although Alfarabi never openly proclaims the Muslim umma, it is nevertheless often present, mainly in the Book of Religion. If this is so, the subordination of a religious umma to philosophy, as Alfarabi conceived it, demands further elucidation. Orwin accordingly provides several clues for reading Alfarabi as though he were justifying a religious umma. Certainly, this possibility also requires a particular interpretation of Islam which is certainly debatable. In sum, Orwin's book goes beyond the scope of an exegetical work on Alfarabi's philosophy. In the final chapters he shows that Alfarabi is able to contend in contemporary debates on the notions of nation and nationalism. Orwin explains that Alfarabi's presentation of the umma does not support modern nationalism. Like every book that is worth reading, Orwin's opens several fronts of debate that will surely be appreciated by academics working in these fields.