Tajdid (Renewal) by Embodiment: Examining the Globalization of the First Mosque Open Day in Australian History

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for bringing this topic to attention and discovering the origins of Mosque Open Days. It was interesting to read and learn the history of mosque open day and how the idea came about. It is certainly an important contribution and significant historical data. Good to see it is captured and recorded with this research. Well done!

Noting above mentioned originality and significance of the research, I also recommend the author to improve the research a bit further. Following points can be helpful:

• Main argument of the article is mosque open day is a tajdid or renewal by conduct. Along this line, definition of tajdid is repeatedly mentioned as to "restore or lead to restore correct religious knowledge and practice". Taking this into account, what is being restored by mosque open day idea is not clear. Article should make it clear for the reader what tradition or practice is changed, forgotten or amended so this practice of mosque open day is restoring it or leading to a restoration. Prophet Muhammad's welcoming Najran Christians in the mosque can be further incorporated into the body of article and highlighted to point the area tajdid taking place. This is one suggestion as a concrete example. It seems Christian-Muslim relations is the highlight and this practise of open day is restoring that avenue. Yet, in my opinion, the place of tajdid, what is being restored and how needs further elaboration in the article. This would make the premise of your article more grounded and contribution and alignment to special issue rather stronger.  
• Introduction of the article sounds like a repetition of the abstract. It would be good to improve this part of the article and provide a further context to the topic in hand.
• Footnote 2 has unnecessary information. It would be good to revise it. I would suggest author to just mention what Hizmet Movement is about as heading 3 directly speaks of the founder and his reading of the life of the Prophet. Giving some information about the Movement, its activities will work better in this footnote. Recent political developments can be briefly touched upon in very general terms without giving figures as this is beyond the scope of this article.
• Sentence in line 158-159 does not make a sense. Tajdid of ayn al-yaqin does not seat right. Maybe reword it in more clear terms.
• Before moving to heading 5 have some further discussion to move smoothly to the next section which is the crux of this article. There is only one sentence, the very last sentence (line 230-231) and feels very shorth. More discussion to contextualise why mosque open day is the best example needs to be explained in that context.
• The entire article is based on the argument that AIS and AIF initiated mosque open day and AIS’s open day in Melbourne was the first initiative. Although there is a day for AIF’s open day (September 2, 2001) there is no date for the first open day in Melbourne. The exact date for this is very critical since this is actually the first initiative according to article. If organisers’ did not record this, author of the article should have a sufficient information and clarity of the approximate date or a footnote that explains this. In other word, if it is known it should be noted between the lines 276-279. If it is not known, what the researcher has done to get some information on the exact date should be captured around those lines or at least in a footnote.
• Executive director of AIS between 2000-2010: Who is this person? Would be good to give his details as this should be known and accessible to people. It seems his efforts are the main drivers of this initiative. If there is an issue about consent that might also need clarity too.
• In general, before and after September 11, activities of AIS and AIF, and also later dated mosque open day activities need clarity and distinctive articulation. Sometimes, points and arguments carried out gives the impression that they are mixed. Author should capture quite distinctively the motivation behind this initiative before 9/11 and AIS and AIF’s approach and logic for coming up with this as opposed to those initiatives that came up some time later by other organisations around the globe. For instance, the paragraph between 373-385 has mixed information but main topic was the general perception prior to 9/11. This confuses the reader and brings the question to mind what is exactly being captured; before or after 9/11?
• In line 393 clarify who are the guides since you are citing critical information from them.
• In and around the line 398 give further information on bid’a (innovation). I think this is very important concept and one of the main premises for this article. I suspect more so than fiqhi (jurisprudential) differences this would have more bearing why people approach this matter with suspicion.
• In line 418, you are referring to National Mosque Open Day. This is also important and critical information. It would be good to talk about this further in the article since this indicates that there is a national mosque open day in Australia. However, it is not quite clear what day is this, how this idea come about to make it national etc.
• No need for the entire paragraph between the lines 503-506.
• Section 6 on limitations does not look good as it comes at the very end. Either move to earlier sections or maybe incorporate in the section you talk about the Southern Californian case. It could even be a footnote somewhere there in earlier sections.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

I thank to the reviewer 1 for very valuable feedback. To my knowledge, I almost incorporated all  points except a part of one point. My responses point by point are  in bold. I will be happy to work on  it  if further revision needed.  

Thank you for bringing this topic to attention and discovering the origins of Mosque Open Days. It was interesting to read and learn the history of mosque open day and how the idea came about. It is certainly an important contribution and significant historical data. Good to see it is captured and recorded with this research. Well done!

Noting above mentioned originality and significance of the research, I also recommend the author to improve the research a bit further. Following points can be helpful:

Main argument of the article is mosque open day is a tajdid or renewal by conduct. Along this line, definition of tajdid is repeatedly mentioned as to "restore or lead to restore correct religious knowledge and practice". Taking this into account, what is being restored by mosque open day idea is not clear.

Article should make it clear for the reader. what tradition or practice is changed, forgotten or amended so this practice of mosque open day is restoring it or leading to a restoration.

The following added to the introduction. “This research will contribute to the field of renewal in Islamic studies by focusing on how the mosque open day began in Australia and then gradually became a practice in the Western world. Historically the mosques were not just places of worship but also functioned as the centres for education, welfare and unity of the society regardless of ethnicity or religious background. However, after colonisation, the mosques gradually lost such multi-tasks and primarily became the place of worship.”    

Prophet Muhammad's welcoming Najran Christians in the mosque can be further incorporated into the body of article and highlighted to point the area tajdid taking place. This is one suggestion as a concrete example. It seems Christian-Muslim relations is the highlight and this practise of open day is restoring that avenue. Yet, in my opinion, the place of tajdid, what is being restored and how needs further elaboration in the article. This would make the premise of your article more grounded and contribution and alignment to special issue rather stronger. 

Najran Christians added to the article (p 2)

Introduction of the article sounds like a repetition of the abstract. It would be good to improve this part of the article and provide a further context to the topic in hand.

Footnote 2 has unnecessary information. It would be good to revise it. I would suggest author to just mention what Hizmet Movement is about as heading 3 directly speaks of the founder and his reading of the life of the Prophet. Giving some information about the Movement, its activities will work better in this footnote. Recent political developments can be briefly touched upon in very general terms without giving figures as this is beyond the scope of this article.

Some changes made in the introduction. Footnote 2 deleted.

Sentence in line 158-159 does not make a sense. Tajdid of ayn al-yaqin does not seat right. Maybe reword it in more clear terms.

Good point, line 158-159 deleted .

Before moving to heading 5 have some further discussion to move smoothly to the next section which is the crux of this article. There is only one sentence, the very last sentence (line 230-231) and feels very shorth. More discussion to contextualise why mosque open day is the best example needs to be explained in that context.

The following added. “Based on the author's data, the mainstream media coverage was quite positive regarding mosque open days worldwide. It was attracted and welcomed by the politicians, faith leaders and local people. According to the organizers, it contributed reducing fear about Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, it built bridges between different faiths communities.”  

The entire article is based on the argument that AIS and AIF initiated mosque open day and AIS’s open day in Melbourne was the first initiative. Although there is a day for AIF’s open day (September 2, 2001) there is no date for the first open day in Melbourne. The exact date for this is very critical since this is actually the first initiative according to article. If organisers’ did not record this, author of the article should have a sufficient information and clarity of the approximate date or a footnote that explains this. In other word, if it is known it should be noted between the lines 276-279. If it is not known, what the researcher has done to get some information on the exact date should be captured around those lines or at least in a footnote.

I did further research but I was unsuccessful for the exact  about the exact date. However, I found that it was done in July, 2001. That added to the article.See line 401-402

Executive director of AIS between 2000-2010: Who is this person? Would be good to give his details as this should be known and accessible to people. It seems his efforts are the main drivers of this initiative. If there is an issue about consent that might also need clarity too.

This is done in p 7 line 290-293

In general, before and after September 11, activities of AIS and AIF, and also later dated mosque open day activities need clarity and distinctive articulation. Sometimes, points and arguments carried out gives the impression that they are mixed. Author should capture quite distinctively the motivation behind this initiative before 9/11 and AIS and AIF’s approach and logic for coming up with this as opposed to those initiatives that came up some time later by other organisations around the globe. For instance, the paragraph between 373-385 has mixed information but main topic was the general perception prior to 9/11. This confuses the reader and brings the question to mind what is exactly being captured; before or after 9/11?

The following added in line 306-311 “ There was political tension between secularists and Muslim groups including the Hizmet Movement. The Hizmet Movement organised iftar dinners during the Ramadan and rich out non Muslims(who were scapegoats) and secularists for social harmony. The motto was ‘the arts of living together.” It can be said that The Hizmet affiliats saw the benefit of reaching out non Muslims and secularists in the light of Nursi’s philosophy on Christian-Muslims relations.”

 

In line 393 clarify who are the guides since you are citing critical information from them.

A sentence was added about the guides (see line 374-376)

In and around the line 398 give further information on bid’a (innovation). I think this is very important concept and one of the main premises for this article. I suspect more so than fiqhi (jurisprudential) differences this would have more bearing why people approach this matter with suspicion.

It is briefly explained in line 411-413 as following:” Some literalists argue that any practice which  was not done by the Prophet and four rightly guide caliphs is innovation and must be rejected.”

In line 418, you are referring to National Mosque Open Day. This is also important and critical information. It would be good to talk about this further in the article since this indicates that there is a national mosque open day in Australia. However, it is not quite clear what day is this, how this idea come about to make it national etc.

The following sentences added(see line 456-462): After killing police accountant Curtis Cheng by a Muslim terrorist in Parramatta, there were anti-Islam rallies over the weekend and a group chanted anti Islam slogans where Friday prayer is held in Parramatta. Lebanese Muslim Association set up National Day of Unity at Federal Parliament House where fifty representatives from different faith participated in October 13, 2015”

No need for the entire paragraph between the lines 503-506.

I disagree with the reviewer to a certain extent. This is based on the data that I collected. I think it will be good to add that part.  Without that it will not reflect the full data. However, I added “  based on the collected data…” to make it clear that it is not my view but the collected data. 

Section 6 on limitations does not look good as it comes at the very end. Either move to earlier sections or maybe incorporate in the section you talk about the Southern Californian case. It could even be a footnote somewhere there in earlier sections.

I moved the limitation to p 6

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article's main intentions are morally important and definitely approachable, I'am completely agree that the Open day Mosque as the common iftar or inter-religious and common eid al-Fitr festivity after the month of Ramadan, which are concretely important to create bridges as to integrate different communities in society. 

However, this article is not an academic one and it would need a complete overhaul in relation to the methodological approach, Said Nursi's main visio as well as the most Gulen's interpretation of Tajdid and impact in different countries, Turkey, first of all. 

Tajdid has, in the Islamic thought, a huge historical tradition of sources from al-Ghazali, even before, passing through Ibn Taymiyya, Nawawi, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi, until more recent Nahda's authors as Nursi, but also M. Abduh, M. Iqbal, Fazlur Rahman etc. If the author wants to show up the correlation between tajdid-Nursi, Gulen and the open Mosque impact in contemporary society needs a more solid academic approach on it. 

Nursi inspired Gulen, but the Muslim community in the West started to open mosques to non Muslims after the 9/11 without being specifically affiliated to the Gulen movement. Aspect that need to be better frame and that it does not emerged properly in the article.

The previous impediments for other religious affiliated members to enter in Mosques or main Islamic pray locations needed to be historically associated with the meaning of purity and impurity in Islam and that works for Muslims as for non-Muslims. This approach is unconsidered in the text but this is an academic topic really helpful to better understand the reasons for the changeover. 

Finally, the entire text is persuaded by an evident little "propagandistic" afflatus that humanly comprehensible needed to be supported by a more scientific approach able to reply to important questions impacting the society: the open mosque policy can be considered helpful in fighting Islamophobia, white suprematicism, general racism? But has it worked out in the last couple of decades, are there data on it? And finally, which has been the reaction of the most conservative Muslim approach to tajdid and to the open days in specific countries as Us, Germany, France etc.?

Author Response

My response to reviewer 2 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments, the article has been sufficiently improved. 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thanks for the valuable feedback. My responses are highlighted in yellow. If it needs  more work, I will be happy to do it.

Salih Yucel

 

This paper needs to be sent back to the author for fixing the following:

  *   Referencing - some references are missing in the text, some direct quotes have page number missing, and some referencing are done incorrectly,

This was done by the author and then a professional editor.

  *   The list of references needs attention,

I went over it five times and did corrections according to the  Journal author guidelines.

  *   Sentences - some sentences need to be rewritten because they don't make sense, and

The article was edited by a professional editor again. Some sentences were deleted including the ones that don’t make sense according to the guest editor and some were rewritten.

  *   Add a paragraph at the end of Discussion section explaining in some detail how mosque open day and Hizmet are part of the phenomenon of Islamic revivalism or contribute to it.

This was done.

Also, the paper must be thoroughly copyedited before publication.

This was done by a professional editor. The guest editor asked italicize the non-English words. This was done as well. In my previous article in the Religions, the editor questioned the italicising non-English words. The standard US English is used in the article. In the previous version, it was mixed.     

Author Response File: Author Response.docx