Mapping Muslim Moral Provinces: Framing Feminized Piety of Pakistani Diaspora

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed article deals with extremely important issues regarding the place, function and role of women in Islam. However, it should be emphasized that the importance of women in religions, regardless of the specificity of religion, is still marginalized. This is true of all the great religions of the world: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It should also be presumed that other religions also significantly reduce the importance of women in fulfilling significant roles in the "boards" of religious organizations. The more peer-reviewed article is an important voice in the global debate about women in religion. And it is not about the ethos of women, her inborn functions as mothers, wives and guardians, but as a full participant in shaping the image of contemporary religions. Of course, Islam is a special religion, still equated with patriarchalism and the far-reaching marginalization of women in social life. Therefore, the indication of specific Muslim female activists, working for equality, equal access to knowledge, and the possibility of exercising religious functions by women, deserves recognition and admiration. However, my appreciation for the topic raised in the reviewed article ends there.

The article is an essay and largely recreational work. The author makes a special reference to the thoughts of Afiya Zia. From verse 274 to 376, he refers to the Afiya Zia publication 10 times. I understand the author's intentions, who strives to show others' thoughts, but I believe that such frequent reference to one publication does not bring anything new to science. It is a recreation of Afiya Zia's work. In point 4, references to the work of Afiya Zia again appear. Since the author is very fascinated by this thought, maybe the title of the article should be changed?

The article does not contain the results of own research or even reports from interviews with women. The author eagerly refers to the British experience, why did he not ask British Muslim women of Pakistani origin for their opinion on this topic, but limited himself to the reproductive opinions of this community? Personal research and the resulting knowledge would significantly improve the quality of the peer-reviewed article. Similarly, the author raises the issue of social media addiction among Muslim women, but does not provide research, so it would be worth focusing on. How does social media influence the feminization of Muslim women?

The article is incomprehensible to me, divided. Number 3 (verse 377) has a strange division, at least. In verse 378 there is subsection 3.1 Religion vs. Secular. Verse 486 has subsection 3.2. Public vs. Private, and again in verse 552, is marked 3.1. Feminism vs. Femizisation.

There are no conclusions in the article, so it is not known what the whole argument was for? The author did not make any conclusions. The author also did not indicate the methodology, but only limited himself to the Case Study, but without his own research.

The literature used in the article is very poor. The latest scientific reports on this topic are missing. Anyway, the work lacks a point discussing the literature on the subject.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Here is my response:

• ‘Recreational work’: purpose is to evaluate opposing literature on religion vs secularism, so there is bound to be referencing of similar material consecutively.
• ‘Frequent reference’, ‘nothing new to science’: I can cut down easily, and make additions. Given the level of this critique, suggestions as to what should be included would have been welcome.
• ‘Results of own research, personal research’: have now included first-hand interviews.
• ‘Limited himself to the reproductive opinions of this community’: There are no opinions featured in this piece, but a critical engagement with prior scholarly work.
• ‘Author raises the issue of social media addiction among Muslim women, but does not provide research, so it would be worth focusing on’: Nowhere do I refer to ‘social media addiction’, but rather I give concrete examples of how social media activism can be used for good.
• ‘How does social media influence the feminization of Muslim women?’: This is not the purpose of my article at all. It is not about the influence of social media on feminization, but rather how traditionalist Muslim women scholars employ social media to purport their message of feminization. This was clearly evident to the other reviewers.
• ‘There are no conclusions in the article’: The final section contains concluding remarks. Please re-read.
• ‘The literature used in the article is very poor. The latest scientific reports on this topic are missing’: It is rather dismissive to label someone’s work ‘very poor’ and claim that it is lacking ‘latest scientific reports’ without being clear as to which sources of literature are deemed poor, and specifically, what is it that you believe is ‘missing.’

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Mapping Muslim Moral Provinces: Framing Feminized Piety of 2 Pakistani Diaspora” is an excellent piece of research! The engagement with previous research makes it an interesting read, and the empirical material is very well used to illustrate the theoretical points. The author discusses scholars such as Saba Mahmood critically and independently and reaches analytical conclusions that are convincing. The author also manages to write in a nuanced and non-apologetic manner about these issues, which I find relieving!

Line 650 “ilk”? Should it be "like"?

Author Response

I thank you for reading and for your encouraging intervention.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Mapping Muslim Moral Provinces

This is in many ways an excellent article. The author argues that in a globalised world, certain Muslim voices are nevertheless dominant, marginalising others (or attempting to). The focus is on women and she/he contends that a dominant voice has been of Al-Huda, who organiser and key spokeswoman is anti-feminist and transmits a conservative message about women and their role in the home, vis-à-vis men/their husbands etc. The author rightly objects to a simple binary secular-religious which she claims that scholars such as Asad and Mahmood (and many others maintain). Instead, she wants to show that Muslim women, especially in the diaspora, are carving out a ‘third way’ of adopting an ethical Islam which is, if I understand her correctly, progressive and liberal without being secular or ‘western’. She gives examples of two organisations, both online, that promote this ethical way for women.

            I have several comments on the paper. First, the author does not seem to be aware of the work of Usha Sanyal on Al Huda International, especially her recent book Scholars of Faith (2020). Second, a recent special issue of the journal Contemporary Levant (2018) edited by Claudia Liebelt and Pnina Werbner deals critically with Asad and Mahmood, and has case studies that seem to fit her suggest third way. Third, I think she needs to distinguish her argument from that of Schielke and Marsden who argue for a kind of ‘situational’ transgression of strict Islam. The women she refers to have a more integrated worldview.

            Finally, and most importantly, since the article is clearly polemical, the author needs to position herself in the text and to explain her methods of research clearly. At present the article is far too abstract, without any empirical examples illustrating her argument. As a result, it’s also quite hard to follow. The need is for some nitty gritty ethnography to back up her argument.

 

              

Author Response

Thank you for reading and offering such helpful comments. Your intervention has really helped me to strengthen my article. 

• I appreciate the two extra references that you have kindly suggested. I have now read Sanyal’s latest book (2020) and incorporated some citations from it. I have also delved into the special issue (2018) from Liebelt and Werbner to bolster my proposition of the ‘third way’. Grateful that you recommended them. 
• I have clearly defined and distinguished my proposition from Schiekle and Marsden, as recommended. 
• ‘Author needs to position herself in the text and to explain her methods of research clearly’, ‘gritty ethnography’: Thank you for this suggestion. I have now incorporated a section on methodology and included interview excerpts from British Muslim women and their experiences of exclusion from faith-based spaces. I had been saving these for another paper, but I am including some of the interviews in this article. 
• Thank you once again for encouraging and constructive feedback. It means a lot to me.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author still refers to one publication, recalling or paraphrasing its successive fragments. The scientific rules in force in my country limit the length of reference to one bibliographic item in a research paper. Therefore, I still believe that if the Author wants to present Zia's views, he should change the title of the article by adding: according to the teachings of Zia.

I stand by my opinion that literature is poor. A few weeks earlier, I was reviewing an article with over 70 references.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your input. With respect, I will not be changing the title of my article as I have referenced other scholars like Mahmood many times in my, too. This is not 'according to the teachings of' anyone in particular. Zia's work, which I have critiqued throughout, is seminal to my argument and features heavily because no one in Pakistan has written a book on contemporary feminism in Pak and its relations to Islam. My article is by no means restricted to one scholar and I politely decline this suggestion.

You might find the choice of literature to be 'poor' but I stand by my choice. Secondly, this journal has on many occasions published articles with less than half the number of cited sources than I have used.