Analysing the Rhetoric of Islam Needs Reforming: Tony Abbott’s Political Discourse in Response to Terrorism in Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, the article is well-structured, well argued and relevant. However, the author was careless in checking formal aspects of his/her writing.
For example:
Page 1: two titles are suggested instead of one
How does “Islam needs reformation” discourse perpetuate Is- 2 lamophobia? 3
Islam needs reformation: An analysis of Tony Abbott’s politi- 4 cal discourse in response to terrorism
Page 1: emphasising on “national security” should be emphasising “national security
Page 2: through the British power and Muslim partner. I guest the author means and its Muslim partners.
Page 3: George W Bush should be George W. Bush
Page 5: I used this model to 72 I guess 72 was an inserted mistake.
Numerous similar mistakes can be found in the text. The author should carefully read the text again or submit it to an external reader.
In terms of content, I agree with the author that Western politicians misuse the discourse on Islam needs reform. However, this discourse pre-dates Western imperialism, and many Muslim reformists were/are anti-Western. Yet, they believe Islam as it exists in terms of beliefs and laws needs reformation. It would be very useful for the author to state this fact in the introduction. Similarly, the Islamic character of violence is claimed by various jihadist movements in the Islamic world. Yet, it is true that Western politicians and many intellectuals associate maliciously Islam with violence. However, these are two different aspects (religiously motivated violence for some Muslims) and (associating a religion with violence).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall, the article is well-structured, well argued and relevant. However, the author was careless in checking formal aspects of his/her writing.
For example:
Page 1: two titles are suggested instead of one
How does “Islam needs reformation” discourse perpetuate Is- 2 lamophobia? 3
Islam needs reformation: An analysis of Tony Abbott’s politi- 4 cal discourse in response to terrorism
Page 1: emphasising on “national security” should be emphasising “national security
Page 2: through the British power and Muslim partner. I guest the author means and its Muslim partners.
Page 3: George W Bush should be George W. Bush
Page 5: I used this model to 72 I guess 72 was an inserted mistake.
Numerous similar mistakes can be found in the text. The author should carefully read the text again or submit it to an external reader.
In terms of content, I agree with the author that Western politicians misuse the discourse on Islam needs reform. However, this discourse pre-dates Western imperialism, and many Muslim reformists were/are anti-Western. Yet, they believe Islam as it exists in terms of beliefs and laws needs reformation. It would be very useful for the author to state this fact in the introduction. Similarly, the Islamic character of violence is claimed by various jihadist movements in the Islamic world. Yet, it is true that Western politicians and many intellectuals associate maliciously Islam with violence. However, these are two different aspects (religiously motivated violence for some Muslims) and (associating a religion with violence).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, I found this work exciting and technically very well composed. The construction and structure are correct, as well as the exposition is adequately explained. On the other hand, there is another thing with the content of this and the allegations it builds upon. The problem that I raise for better clarification in order to remove the prospective accusation of maliciousness of the logical construction is that the discourse is based on subjective, partial interpretations and, in some places tendentious through various artifices to manipulate public opinion: omitting some positive passages, emphasizing on others that could pass as negative, vitiating some ideas by the intentional inclusion of degrading nuances, and the most frustrating, confusing the genus with the species.
The author refers to a "public" collection 193, which is not actually accessible to the public, for that matter the statements and allegations upon cannot be easily verified. Since there is no direct reference or quotation to "Abbott's speech" the author refers to [other than a private, unattainable source 193], I will use these instead [video-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 84qj2y8BR4Y; written-https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/tony-abbott-defends-controversial-2014-budget/7012190] which is public for further documentation.
The construction of the work is considered biased for several reasons: the parts of positive statements from the speech are not present at all [such as "Islam is a religion of peace"]; the interpretations of all expressions are single-sided, only aimed at a so-called 'denigration of Islam'-332, although these statements can be interpreted equally well in a positive hermeneutic key, i.e., for the removal of factions and extremist ideas that the Islamic realm cannot deny that they exist and damage its global image-335. But the most erroneous assumption that is the basis of all the assertions of the author of this work is the confusion between gender and species, where Islam [as a religion] is the gender, while factions, organizations, leaders, or other individuals are species dependent on gender but without being able to define the whole genre through their particularities. In this sense, we see how the interpretation of Abbott's words tends to be directed from species to gender, saying, for example, "Islam needing to change"-336, or that "Islam as the source of ISIL terrorism"-295/6. "Islamic terrorism" [species] is not the same as "Islam as the source of terrorism" [genre]. Similar misleading interpretations: national self-glorification 354, "Australia "easy-going" whereas Islam is the opposite" 358. "All cultures are not equal" doesn't imply Islam's interiority 397-9.
Recommendation: 354-377 to be removed as false and bigotism-source. Same goes for 397-402/404-413 [the source of the citation 400-402 cannot be found]. The linkage/"conflating"404 between ISIL ideology and Islam is not coined by Abbott or other Western figures, but by the core declaration of ISIL and Mulsim scholars talking about it [see Woodward M., Lukens-Bull R. (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Islam and Muslim Lives. Springer, Cham]. Labeling the Lindt café siege as "Islamic terrorism" is not Abbott's fabrication but a fact highlighted by the documentation of that siege [https://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf] starting from Man Monis' membership as a religious activist of the Islamic State.
---------------
In short, the work, although scholarly and well-composed - so that it can be the basis for future comments (which will certainly not be few) - is tendentially processed, trying to bring out nuances that do not actually exist in the analyzed speech through interpretations on edge, i.e., "that Islam is the cause of the problem at hand, terrorism" -337, an idea that is definitely not present at all in Abbott's speech.
PS: I totally understand the importance of such paper [fighting Islamophobia], but [as a teacher of Interfaith] this endeavor must follow the interfaith dialogue principles, e.g., the 9th principle "Participants in dialogue should have a healthy level of criticism toward their own traditions" [https://www.kings.uwo.ca/kings/assets/File/academics/centres/cjcml/PGID-%20How%20to%20Dialogue.pdf].
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting piece of work based on unexplored material and elaborating on an original idea. However it needs some reconstruction and additions to make it better. Some remarks:
Overall, the introduction needs refinement: the research aims, objectives and questions are not clearly illustrated; neither the methodlogy applied and the structure of the essay
In the first page of the reproduction I detect a repetition regarding Islamophobia; the author repeats time and again that Australian post 9/11 discourses contribute to the rise of Islamophobia; I suggest avoidance of repetitions.
In the second page the author mentions "appeals for reinstatement of secuilarism by western leaders''; what do he/she mean by this?
The second paragraph of page 2 needs more documentation; more works on the Western appeals to the "reformation of Islam" should be cited. Also, the author has to pinpoint that the Australian reformation discourses are imbued with and reflect George W. Bush "good and bad Muslims", as well as "moderate Islam" narratives
The last paragraph of page 3 starts with the phrase "following federation..". It is unclear. English editing is needed I suppose. Also, I would like to see some elaboration on the history of Australian state racist and discrimination policies since the late 19th century (lines 142-148) so as put the post 9/11 Islamophobic discourses into a historical frame.
I think that the lines 178 - 187 would make more sense if they were incorporated in the introduction.
I strongly suggest that you include either in the introduction or in a separate sub-section a brief outline of contemporary Australian politics because most of the readers (including myself) are not familiar with; which are the main opposing parties? Where does Abbott ideologically belong? How many times did he govern? How were his predecessors in that party? How many elections did he won? Who defeated him? What do the polls currently hint regarding the preferences of the Australian public?
Line 254: "as he did not have terrorist demands" How do you differentiate him from a "common terrotist"? On what grounds? You should provide a definition or more of what terrorism is, then discuss your case against this definitional background.
Line 288: stand or stance?
Lines 429-453: your discussion should be adequately cited; major works on the perception of Islam by the West - Western centrism as you mention - and/or the clash of civilizations may be referred at this point to frame your analysis of Abbott's discourse
Line 449: you say: "Contrary to Abbott’s comments and terrorist claims, the 449 central point of true teachings of Islam is mercy, honesty, decency and forgiveness 450 (Absattorov Bakhtiyor, 2022)." Is this your personal opinion? Or a claim? I do not think that it is relevant to this study or useful for your analysis to dwell on Islam's "true teachings", especially if we consider that Islam's teachings are multifaceted and may change depending on the perspective.
In your last sub-section I deem it necessary to provide more specifc data regarding incidents of violence targeting Muslims in Australia (incidents per year/number and origin of victims/ region, etc.) so as to better illustrate the detrimental effects of Abbott's discourses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhatever working method someone approaches in presenting a theme, the research itself must work scientifically in the following direction: 1-n hypotheses are issued in the first place, which will be denied or confirmed successively following the research presented by the announced method. Instead, the current work starts from an assumption that it takes as an axiom and only tries afterwards to support/justify through various references (outside of the "studied" speeches): that Abbott's speech is Islamophobic. The author's justification from the coverletter.pdf as the method approached "CDA does not seek (or claim) to meet the standards of objectivity, validity and reliability" is not only misplaced but also cannot be the basis of a scientific work, a reference research. Otherwise, on the same justification, anyone can support aberrant things taken as a basis/axiom and say that they do not have to justify/prove them because "does not seek (or claim) to meet the standards of objectivity, validity and reliability" - so much as in The Cartesian circle. The fact itself, Lindt café siege, is emphatically declared not to be a terrorist act - despite all the declarations of the authorities and those who have legally studied the phenomenon [https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages /HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1323879322-98110/link/107; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindt_Cafe_siege] - which passed as 'unscientific, lacking objectivity, and, in this case, of journalistic importance.'
Instead of making changes in the work, the author preferred to argue what was already in the paper and on which I pointed out the invalidity of the assumptions; in this case, everything goes from "reviewing" to exchanges of replies that do not improve the work, nor help the readers to get a correct picture of the content of PM Abbott's statements.
In this case, all I can do is re-emphasize the initial conclusion: I still consider that without major substantial changes, this work does nothing but exactly what it accuses: it sees things where they are not and stirs up public opinion against the authors of the alleged [ pretty much like Islamophobia, right?!].
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have now revised my manuscript with the suggested changes. Please note that I have highlighted Round 1 revisions in yellow and Round 2 revisions in green for your review. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and regards,
