Modern Western Thought and Islamic Reformism: Intellectual Challenges, Prior Discourse, and Future Prospects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research answers questions that have not been thoroughly explored at least in the Western hemisphere. The argument is original, logical, and contributes to our understanding of the tension between the West (secularism and the separation between religion and the state) and the Islamic world (the use of the Qur'an and religious teachings in the public sphere). The research methodology is clear and effective. It would be helpful though if the author provides an explanation why this particular methodology is the best approach for this research. Also, the author needs to offer some suggestions on how to move the argument forward in a future research. The article needs to be proofread for some grammatical error and punctuation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Religions
I hope that you are doing well.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Modern Western Thought and Islamic Reformism: Intel-lectual Challenges , Prior Discourse and Future Prospects” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that you and the other reviewers have spent to offering their valuable thoughts on my work. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect almost all of the suggestions provided by you and other reviewers.
Here is a point-by-point response to your valuable feedback.
Point # 1:
The research answers questions that have not been thoroughly explored at least in the Western hemisphere. The argument is original, logical, and contributes to our understanding of the tension between the West (secularism and the separation between religion and the state) and the Islamic world (the use of the Qur'an and religious teachings in the public sphere).
Author’s Response:
I'm glad the honorable reviewer had positive things to say about the paper regarding its scope, importance, and uniqueness.
Point # 2
The research methodology is clear and effective. It would be helpful though if the author provides an explanation why this particular methodology is the best approach for this research.
Author’s Response:
A note is added to the section about the method that explains why the implied method worked for my work. See in track changes (Reviewer#1's point #2).
Point # 3
Also, the author needs to offer some suggestions on how to move the argument forward in future research.
Author’s Response:
Recommendations are made so that the argument can go in a different direction in the future. Please look at the track changes: (point #3, Reviewer#1).
Point #4
The article needs to be proofread for some grammatical error and punctuation.
Author’s Response:
With the help of an English language editor, a thorough check of the language was done.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to your kind efforts and competent criticism. I believe that your insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that your good self may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Author should reduce the number of very general, "million dollar" questions raised at the begining of the article and simply state what they want to present: That is, the different understanding of place of reason and faith in Muslim and Western worldview. They should refrain from total terminology of "Western Philosophy" . Be more specific. Also, the claim that Modern Western Philosophy dislodged Muslim Iintellectual tradition and created a "Crisis" is somewhat hyperbolic. Challenge, Yes. Also, the author uses an imperative language that Muslim intellectuals should consider this difference with regard to reason and Should study western "philosophy" in historical context. This is as if Muslim thinkers in the past few centuries have fallen short of their duty and have been waiting for an order. The imperative, prescriptive language should be toned down.
As said, there are many repetitions of generalities that should be cut. The best part of the article are sections 9-12
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Religions
I hope that you are doing well.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Modern Western Thought and Islamic Reformism: Intel-lectual Challenges , Prior Discourse and Future Prospects” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that you and the other reviewers have spent to offering their valuable thoughts on my work. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect almost all of the suggestions provided by you and other reviewers.
Here is a point-by-point response to your valuable feedback.
Comments from the Reviewer # 2
The Author should reduce the number of very general, "million dollar" questions raised at the begining of the article and simply state what they want to present: That is, the different understanding of place of reason and faith in Muslim and Western worldview. They should refrain from total terminology of "Western Philosophy" . Be more specific. Also, the claim that Modern Western Philosophy dislodged Muslim Iintellectual tradition and created a "Crisis" is somewhat hyperbolic. Challenge, Yes. Also, the author uses an imperative language that Muslim intellectuals should consider this difference with regard to reason and Should study western "philosophy" in historical context. This is as if Muslim thinkers in the past few centuries have fallen short of their duty and have been waiting for an order. The imperative, prescriptive language should be toned down.
As said, there are many repetitions of generalities that should be cut. The best part of the article are sections 9-12
Author’s Response:
Point # 1.
The Author should reduce the number of very general, "million dollar" questions raised at the begining of the article and simply state what they want to present: That is, the different understanding of place of reason and faith in Muslim and Western worldview.
Author’s Response:
To make the topic more specific, the extra research questions were taken out, and the thesis statement was changed to match the suggestion. Kindly see (Point#1, Reviewer #2, p. 2).
Point # 2.
They should refrain from total terminology of "Western Philosophy" . Be more specific.
Author’s Response:
I appreciate the reviewer's suggestion, but I respectfully disagree with him on the use of the term "Western Philosophy," because, while the term "Western Philosophy" is a broader term, the impact of modern philosophy on the Islamic world is specific, and it is clearly stated that this paper endeavors to explore the impact of modern Western philosophy on Muslim societies, with a particular focus on the epistemological gap between Western and Islamic approaches. While Islamic and Western philosophical approaches differ in many issues, including the Authority of Knowledge, the Concept of Progress, Individualism vs. Community, Free Will and Predestination, Ethics, the Concept of Human Nature, the Role of Women, and metaphysics, all of these issues have a significant impact on Islamic societies. Faith and reason is chosen as a central topic of discussion among the various philosophical issues to shed light on the nature of the disagreement between the two schools of thought.
Point # 3
Also, the claim that Modern Western Philosophy dislodged Muslim Intellectual tradition and created a "Crisis" is somewhat hyperbolic. Challenge, Yes.
Author’s Response:
As per the suggestion and in order to make the language more scholarly, the word "crisis" has been substituted with "challenges" wherever it appears; however, the word has been left unmodified where it was part of the original quotation. Kindly see the track changes. (point 3, Reviewer # 2, pp. 1,2 and 3).
Point # 4
Also, the author uses an imperative language that Muslim intellectuals should consider this difference with regard to reason and Should study western "philosophy" in historical context. This is as if Muslim thinkers in the past few centuries have fallen short of their duty and have been waiting for an order. The imperative, prescriptive language should be toned down.
Author’s Response:
Taking into consideration the suggestion of honorable reviewer the imperative language is toned down after a through revision. Kindly see ((Point #4, Reviewer #2, pp.3, 11, 12).
Point # 5
As said, there are many repetitions of generalities that should be cut. The best part of the article are sections 9-12.
Author’s Response:
In response to the reviewer's feedback, I have meticulously evaluated the paper and made necessary revisions, including the elimination of certain generalities and the summarization of others. In addition to sections 9 and 12, a comprehensive literature review and theoretical framework is presented at the beginning of the paper, which I believe is crucial in providing an overview of the various reformist movements that emerged in the Islamic world and their approaches to the impact of modern Western thought. This serves as a foundation for the development of a theoretical framework for the article. The subsequent section entitled "Faith and Reason in Western Modernism" is a prelude to section 9, which was noted by the reviewer as being of particular importance in comprehending the intricacies of the impact of Western thought on Islamic societies. This section provides a comprehensive understanding of the relevant theories that are imperative in advancing the discussion in new directions.
Subsequently, the discussion section has been expanded to include a thorough critical examination of the issue from multiple perspectives. However, in response to the reviewer's suggestion, I have summarized certain parts of the discussion to ensure concision and clarity. See for example (point # 5 Reviewer' #2, p. 7).
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to your kind efforts and competent criticism. I believe that your insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that your good self may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission.
Reviewer 3 Report
I will begin by saying that as an historian rather than a philosopher, I may be the wrong person to review this paper. I ask the authors and journal editors to weigh my comments accordingly.
My primary issue with this paper lies in the argument that the conflict that emerges in the Islamic world over whether and how to embrace Western philosophy was a result of the emotional and intellectual unpreparedness of Muslims at the time of their encounter with the West. My response to this: So, when is a society emotionally and intellectually prepared for colonialism? Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophy not only arrived in the Islamic world along with the colonizers, but were used as a tool to devalue and dismantle the cultural and philosophical traditions of the colonized. While the authors acknowledge that colonialism happened (far later in the paper than they should have acknowledged it), they never fully unpack the various kinds of colonial violence done to the Islamic world and the role that Western philosophy played in that violence.
My second issue with this paper is the way that it homogenizes "Europe" and the history of religion and reason in Europe. While these formulations may work in the abstract, when one looks in any depth at them, they fall apart. It feels as though the authors have fallen into a sort of European exceptionalism that we should really be past by now.
Finally, how is the Muslim encounter with Western philosophy different from the Hindu encounter? the Buddhist encounter? the encounters of various indigenous peoples? Were they equally emotionally and intellectually unprepared?
In conclusion, it feels as though the authors need to historicize this story much more and define what makes the Muslim encounter unique.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Religions
I hope that you are doing well.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Modern Western Thought and Islamic Reformism: Intel-lectual Challenges , Prior Discourse and Future Prospects” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that you and the other reviewers have spent to offering their valuable thoughts on my work. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect almost all of the suggestions provided by you and other reviewers.
Here is a point-by-point response to your valuable feedback.
Comments from the Reviewer #3
I will begin by saying that as an historian rather than a philosopher, I may be the wrong person to review this paper. I ask the authors and journal editors to weigh my comments accordingly.
My primary issue with this paper lies in the argument that the conflict that emerges in the Islamic world over whether and how to embrace Western philosophy was a result of the emotional and intellectual unpreparedness of Muslims at the time of their encounter with the West. My response to this: So, when is a society emotionally and intellectually prepared for colonialism? Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophy not only arrived in the Islamic world along with the colonizers, but were used as a tool to devalue and dismantle the cultural and philosophical traditions of the colonized. While the authors acknowledge that colonialism happened (far later in the paper than they should have acknowledged it), they never fully unpack the various kinds of colonial violence done to the Islamic world and the role that Western philosophy played in that violence.
My second issue with this paper is the way that it homogenizes "Europe" and the history of religion and reason in Europe. While these formulations may work in the abstract, when one looks in any depth at them, they fall apart. It feels as though the authors have fallen into a sort of European exceptionalism that we should really be past by now.
Finally, how is the Muslim encounter with Western philosophy different from the Hindu encounter? the Buddhist encounter? the encounters of various indigenous peoples? Were they equally emotionally and intellectually unprepared?
In conclusion, it feels as though the authors need to historicize this story much more and define what makes the Muslim encounter unique.
Author’s Response:
Point # 1:
I will begin by saying that as an historian rather than a philosopher, I may be the wrong person to review this paper. I ask the authors and journal editors to weigh my comments accordingly.
Author’s Response:
Although the reviewer comes from a different field of study than philosophy, I believe that his insightful comments on a number of the article's sections are crucial for enhancing the quality of this work. Therefore, I appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments. I have taken into consideration the majority of the points and will respond as follows:
Point #2
My primary issue with this paper lies in the argument that the conflict that emerges in the Islamic world over whether and how to embrace Western philosophy was a result of the emotional and intellectual unpreparedness of Muslims at the time of their encounter with the West. My response to this: So, when is a society emotionally and intellectually prepared for colonialism?
Author’s Response:
It is imperative to clarify, with due respect, that the proposition that Muslim societies were emotionally or intellectually unprepared to embrace modern Western thought must be appraised in the context of Western philosophy and not Western colonization. In addition to colonization, several other factors played a crucial role in fomenting skepticism among Muslims towards anything Western, including the fundamental epistemological chasm that separates the West and the Islamic world, different approaches toward faith, and pre-conciliar theology. Consequently, the contention that Muslim societies were unprepared to accept Western modern ideas solely due to Western colonization is a valid argument, supported by numerous scholars as cited in this paper. The reason being, Muslim societies have never experienced a conflict between religion and reason, which is a fundamental aspect of Western societies. The term "modernism," which has been used to describe Western societies since the Renaissance era, encompasses a range of economic and social developments that led to the rise of capitalist civilizations. The Western mind underwent a transformation, marked by secularization, rationality, individualism, cultural differentiation, industrialization, and technological advancement. These developments allowed the scientific mind to gain dominance and replace religion as the primary reference for understanding the world. This resulted in the split between faith and reason and the decline of religion as a communal matter.
On the other hand, Muslim societies have a different relationship with religion, one that has never witnessed such animosity between mosque and state. This has led to a vastly different experience with religion, which has not undergone the same level of secularization and rationalization as Western societies. As a result, Muslim societies were not prepared to accept the changes brought about by the modern Western thought in the same way that Western societies were.
In conclusion, it is evident that Western societies, with their deep conflict between faith and reason, were emotionally and intellectually prepared to accept ideas went for the most of the time against religion. Muslim societies, however, with their unique relationship with religion, were not. This highlights the importance of considering the historical context and philosophical framework of a society before making any assumptions about their preparedness for change.
Point # 3
My second issue with this paper is the way that it homogenizes "Europe" and the history of religion and reason in Europe. While these formulations may work in the abstract, when one looks in any depth at them, they fall apart. It feels as though the authors have fallen into a sort of European exceptionalism that we should really be past by now.
Author’s Response:
The study looks at how Western philosophy evaluates religious thought and how it differs from that of the Islamic world. The author believes that Europe has a long history of civilization and cultural achievements; however, Europe is not exceptional, and it has its own problems and challenges as any other region.
Point # 4
Finally, how is the Muslim encounter with Western philosophy different from the Hindu encounter? the Buddhist encounter? the encounters of various indigenous peoples? Were they equally emotionally and intellectually unprepared?
In conclusion, it feels as though the authors need to historicize this story much more and define what makes the Muslim encounter unique.
Author’s Response:
Although I cannot speak authoritatively to the reception of Western religious philosophy in Hindu society, it is a reality that Hinduism, like other Eastern religions, has been subjected to many intellectual challenges from the modern Western thought. The integration of Western philosophy into Hinduism has resulted in a multifaceted and intricately woven tapestry of influence and impact. During the colonial period, the imposition of British rule and the proliferation of Christian missionaries brought Western ideas and values into close proximity with Hinduism. This resulted in a comprehensive reassessment of Hinduism, as it was forced to come to terms with the challenges posed by the influx of new ideas and worldviews.
One of the most salient aspects of Western philosophy's impact on Hinduism was the introduction of monotheism, which fundamentally challenged the pluralistic and pantheistic divine reality that was inherent to traditional Hindu beliefs. This challenge led to the emergence of Neo-Vedanta, a movement within Hinduism that sought to reconcile the seemingly incompatible ideas of monotheism and Hinduism. This movement aimed to present Hinduism as a universal religion that could stand in conversation with other monotheistic religions and compete on equal footing. The influence of Western ideas of reason and rationality also led to a critique of traditional Hindu beliefs and practices. The values of individualism and the rejection of caste systems, in particular, challenged the deeply entrenched hierarchical structures of Hindu society. The encounter with Western ideas led to a rethinking of Hinduism and its role in the modern world. However, it is important to note that Western philosophy also had a positive impact on Hinduism. The influx of new ideas inspired Hindu reformists to reinterpret and reform Hinduism in light of Western ideas. This resulted in a revitalization of Hindu thought and a renewed appreciation for its philosophical and spiritual traditions. The integration of Western philosophy allowed for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of Hinduism and its place in the world.
Based on the foregoing, the effects of modern Western thought on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism could be investigated in a separate article.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to your kind efforts and competent criticism. I believe that your insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that your good self may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission
Reviewer 4 Report
The author summarizes the impact of modern Western thought on the Islamic world. The applicant analyses the causes of what it is called "intellectual crisis" and the process which shaped this intellectual influence of the Western thought. It serves a good introduction to the topic.
The author cites some secondary scholarly sources but it can be helpful to access some works on modern Islamic thought such as
Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1798-1930,
Muhammad Khalid Masud, Armando Salvatore and Martin Van Bruinessen (ed.) Islam and Modernity: Key Issues and Debates and
Charles Kurzman Modernist Islam 1840-1940: A Source Book and
Joseph E. B. Lumbard (ed.)Islam, Fundamentalism, and The Betrayal of Tradition: Essays by Western Muslim scholars.
Also, conclusions of research should be developed in order to make clear the implications of this study. Minor language editing/correction needed. If these issues are addressed, this article can be a great contribution to the field.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Religions
I hope that you are doing well.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled “Modern Western Thought and Islamic Reformism: Intel-lectual Challenges , Prior Discourse and Future Prospects” to Religions. I appreciate the time and effort that you and the other reviewers have spent to offering their valuable thoughts on my work. I have been able to integrate improvements to reflect almost all of the suggestions provided by you and other reviewers.
Here is a point-by-point response to your valuable feedback.
Comments from Reviewer # 4
The author summarizes the impact of modern Western thought on the Islamic world. The applicant analyses the causes of what it is called "intellectual crisis" and the process which shaped this intellectual influence of the Western thought. It serves a good introduction to the topic.
The author cites some secondary scholarly sources but it can be helpful to access some works on modern Islamic thought such as
Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1798-1930,
Muhammad Khalid Masud, Armando Salvatore and Martin Van Bruinessen (ed.) Islam and Modernity: Key Issues and Debates and
Charles Kurzman Modernist Islam 1840-1940: A Source Book and
Joseph E. B. Lumbard (ed.)Islam, Fundamentalism, and The Betrayal of Tradition: Essays by Western Muslim scholars.
Also, conclusions of research should be developed in order to make clear the implications of this study. Minor language editing/correction needed. If these issues are addressed, this article can be a great contribution to the field.
Point # 1
The author summarizes the impact of modern Western thought on the Islamic world. The applicant analyses the causes of what it is called "intellectual crisis" and the process which shaped this intellectual influence of the Western thought. It serves a good introduction to the topic.
Author’s Response:
I appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful and encouraging comments and am relieved to hear only good things about my work. The feedback the reviewer provided really helped me to fine-tune my work.
Point # 2
The author cites some secondary scholarly sources but it can be helpful to access some works on modern Islamic thought such as
Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1798-1930,
Muhammad Khalid Masud, Armando Salvatore and Martin Van Bruinessen (ed.) Islam and Modernity: Key Issues and Debates and
Charles Kurzman Modernist Islam 1840-1940: A Source Book and
Joseph E. B. Lumbard (ed.)Islam, Fundamentalism, and The Betrayal of Tradition: Essays by Western Muslim scholars.
Author’s Response:
I looked at the original sources that the reviewer suggested, and I found them to be very helpful. I cited almost all of them in the article, and the places where I did so are marked in track changes. Kindly see (Point #2, Reviewer # 4, pp. 2, 3 and).
Point #3
Also, conclusions of research should be developed in order to make clear the implications of this study. Minor language editing/correction needed. If these issues are addressed, this article can be a great contribution to the field.
Author’s Response:
The conclusion is rewritten to include the study's implications and mentioned in the track changes. In addition, a thorough linguistic check is undertaken with the assistance of an English editor. Kindly see (point # 3, Reviewer #4, p. 12).
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to your kind efforts and competent criticism. I believe that your insightful remarks have improved the academic quality of the article significantly. Meanwhile, let me demonstrate my willingness to make any additional changes to the paper that your good self may advise or to reply to any queries you may have about my submission.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I feel as though the author has really addressed none of my concerns in the revision. To me, the historical context of the encounter between the Muslim world and so-called "Western philosophy" is vastly more important than the specific content of that Western philosophy. There is a question of power imbalance in this encounter that the author simply refuses to engage with adequately. By failing to do so, this paper perpetuates stereotypes about both Europe and the Muslim world that are outdated, essentialized, and historically inaccurate.
That said, I will repeat that I am coming at this article as an historian. This is clearly a philosophy paper. So, if the reviewers from that field find that this paper makes an original contribution to that field and meets the standards of that field, I will go with their opinion.
