The Pursuit of Justice in the Women’s March: Toward an Islamic Liberatory Theology of Resistance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a generally well-written article, and the topic of religious faith as a source liberation is certainly important. There is, however, one major problem with this article and its approach--it reifies an "Islam vs. the West" dichotomy that contributes directly the the problem the author acknowledges on page 7--"the discursive narrative of Muslim women as other."  The author has an opportunity to challenge the false "Islam vs. the West dichotomy and the othering of Muslims,, but instead reifies both throughout the article. This reification others Muslims and erases the existence of Muslims who are also "Western" by birth and ethnicity.

Author Response

Hello,

I thank you for insightful comments. My response is as follows:

 

1. I limit the use of these self-representations to statements where Muslim women want to be recognized as the other. Check lines 96-98.
2. This study is also limited to a few Muslim women and does not claim to represent all Muslim women. Check lines 899-900.
3. I have added a new section that links between Women’s March and Western-Islamic liberation theology to show the linkage between the West and Islam within the US contexts.

I will be more than happy to receive comments/reviews of this new version of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes the contours and factors related to the 2017 Islamic Women's March in Iran. This thoughtful analysis could be improved with attention to the following considerations.

1. This study would benefit from a theoretical framework. There has been a good deal of research written about agency and resistance. The author should define agency and resistance while identifying different forms (types) of agency and resistance. For example, how does the form of agency evident here square with Emirbayer and Mische's discussion in What Is Agency? And, is this embedded resistance (Mihelich and Storrs) or something else? The lack of theoretical development here makes for a study that does not realize its full analytical promise.

2. I am favorably disposed to a Materials and Methods section. What considerations governed the collection of data and what were the sampling criteria used to gather relevant data? What analytical techniques were utilized to render the insights that are conveyed in the study? Critical decisions about data collection, management, and analysis are not addressed.

3. There are some sources that are missing and that could bear meaningfully on the project. There are, for example, two studies published by Jen'nan Read and John Bartkowski that describe Islam as having the potential to foster progressive politics, especially where gender is concerned. Some attention needs to be paid to Muslim feminism and other emancipatory elements of Islam.

4. Finally, the conclusion should do a better job of specifying study limitations and suggesting future research.

Overall, a good paper that can be improved by addressing the foregoing comments.

Author Response

This study analyzes the contours and factors related to the 2017 Islamic Women's March in Iran. This thoughtful analysis could be improved with attention to the following considerations.

Response:

This article examines the link between the Women’s March and Muslim women’s pursuit of justice and its impact on the making of a renewed role of faith in shaping their identities in the United States.

1. This study would benefit from a theoretical framework. There has been a good deal of research written about agency and resistance. The author should define agency and resistance while identifying different forms (types) of agency and resistance. For example, how does the form of agency evident here square with Emirbayer and Mische's discussion in What Is Agency? And, is this embedded resistance (Mihelich and Storrs) or something else? The lack of theoretical development here makes for a study that does not realize its full analytical promise.

Response:

I have incorporated the article by Emirbayer and Mische. I show how this article is helpful in framing agency within Islam. At the same time, I highlight the limitations of the Western definition of agency with respect to Muslim women. I also use Mihelich and Storrs’ discussion on resistance. I emphasize how diasporic Muslim women in the US resist outside forces beyond their own faith communities.  Such modes of resistance illustrate the utility of the framework posed by Mihelich and Storrs in addressing resistance within faith communities.

2. I am favorably disposed to a Materials and Methods section. What considerations governed the collection of data and what were the sampling criteria used to gather relevant data? What analytical techniques were utilized to render the insights that are conveyed in the study? Critical decisions about data collection, management, and analysis are not addressed.

Response:

I have added a new section entitled “Intersection between agency, resistance, and political theology as a method.”  I have discussed in this section the theoretical underpinnings for discussing agency and resistance in diasporic Muslim community in the US. I also discussed the method of data collection and the analysis of data using feminist and political theology lenses.

3. There are some sources that are missing and that could bear meaningfully on the project. There are, for example, two studies published by Jen'nan Read and John Bartkowski that describe Islam as having the potential to foster progressive politics, especially where gender is concerned. Some attention needs to be paid to Muslim feminism and other emancipatory elements of Islam.

Response:

I have incorporated the article by Jen'nan Read and John Bartkowski. I show how this article is helpful in framing the progressive nature of Islam and in showing that Muslim women have contributed a renewed meaning and role of faith in US public sphere.

Finally, the conclusion should do a better job of specifying study limitations and suggesting future research.

Response:

I have included a disclaimer in the conclusion section stating that this study is limited to the views of a few Muslim women and does not represent all Muslim women. I have defined the scope and methodology to Muslim women’s responses to the travel ban policy and how they used their faith to address it. More studies on Muslim women’s agency in many branches of Islam, such as law, history, philosophy, or Quranic interpretation are needed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed my very specific concern clearly and well. 

Author Response

Hello,

In the first review, this reviewer indicated that it will be signed. Now, the manuscript will be not be signed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate this commendable job on revisions.

I still believe more data-related detail is needed in the Materials and Methods section. How many interviews were conducted? Is it only the four listed at the end of the manuscript? If the project is based on only four interviews, the study should be described as a pilot investigation. 

Were the interviews recorded and transcribed or were notes taken? How were these analyzed after they were collected? Data collection and analysis procedures should be addressed in at least a few more sentences. Detail need not be as extensive as this article (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/64), but it shows how it can be done.

If some interviewees are listed by name, did they consent to this? There are no IRB/human subject considerations addressed in the manuscript. Please consult the manuscript template to be sure all items in it are addressed.

Author Response

Thanks for the second round of reading. 

Thanks for a reminder about the confidentiality of the respondents. I need to change one of them to be confidential. Additionally, I did not remember anymore about the IRB. How do I proceed with this paper? Do you want me to withdraw my submission? I will request to withdraw from submitting this paper to both the journal and the collection.

Again, many thanks for shaping the paper to be at the current form.

Best,
EA