Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REALLY original. Congrats

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Surat Maryam Submission

 

The author would like to make a contribution to the understanding of Surat Maryam in the Qur'an by applying what he terms "mimetic theory" to it. There are many technical problems with the piece.

1) It does not have a proper introduction, which would have to 1) address the history of the interpretation of Surat Maryam, and 2) state a thesis clearly.

2) Instead, it begins with broad background regarding the extent to which the Qur'an draws on Biblical literature, which is a large topic with a large literature that the author does not cite.

3) The author, when citing the Qur'an, is apparently translating the German translation of Khoury into English rather than citing an English translation.

4) The Biblical names should be given in the normal English form—not Ibrahim but Abraham, not Maryam or Maria but Mary, etc.

5) There are many other problems in the English. It is Islamic history not “the Islamic history” and especially not “historians of the Islamic history”. The Gospel of Luke and not St. Luke’s Gospel, and not Luc but rather Luke.

 

6) Girard and his theory are mentioned before they are explained. The theory is not explained well or in sufficient detail.

 

7) Above all, it is not clear what the audience is supposed to learn about Surat Maryam—the engagement with the actual text of the surah is insufficient.

 

8) The author seems not to be writing to an audience who know much about the Qur’an or Qur’anic studies.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article argues that because Leto's story of birthing Apollo makes refeerence to violence, the absence of violence in Sura Maryam reflects "a non-violent relationship between Creator and creation." This mimetic view is distanced from a sacrificial understanding of God (lines 325-6). The article argues that at least two motifs from Leto's story have been mimetically adopted into Sura Maryam. My concern is the assumption that the pre-Islamic Arabs necessarily knew Leto's story. The argument advanced here reflects the assumption that Leto's story was known to the Arabs. Certainly in an inter-religius mileu (lines 96-99) mimesis would be likely. The argument about the avoidance of the "scapegoat mechanism" (115-6, 143, 163, 212, 125) needs some more nuance. The story of Mary and Jesus would not seem to need to avoid or 'refuse" a scapegpoat mechanism.

Corrections and other suggestions:

ftn 1: proof > prove

29: Moses {most narrated prophet in Qur'an] should be listed here.

62, 68: Arabic > Arabian

72: [Yes, we know from rock inscriptions that there was more monotheism than the standard accounts acknowledge.]

72, 251: the Islam . Islam

86: Maria: [Use Mary and/or Maryam]

133: however views ? however it views

146: the late antiquity > late antiquity

153 ["discussion of older traditions" = mimetic desire]

191: Marium > Maryam

217, 220, 273: Sara > Sarah

233-4 [Needs expansion]

260, 283: [Shared motifs don't necessarily prove mimetic desire (cf. 312).]

 

271-287: [too speculative?]

ftn 9: [This language makes it seem as if Leto's story is directly in the Qur'an.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your suggestions; I have included your suggestions into my essay. 

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that this article is not yet in a condition to be published. It is not a even a question of improvement, it is a question of research maturity. The text has too many issues of structure, and there is much more work to be done to give shape to this idea of mimeticism. This comment is not meant to discourage the author, but to make them aware of the requirements of research which are not met in this piece. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 5 Report

To make the scope and main argument more apparent for the reader I would advise moving lines 151-161 to the beginning of the paper. So the author can position him\herself from the outset in relation to Neuwirth and Girard, and more exactly define how the textual analysis of the discussed Surra contributes to their various arguments.

In that vein, a more precise conclusion remark will be in place, where the author points out how the specific case study contributes to the general theories of both Neuwirth and Girard. I find the present final remarque (lines 322-329) very helpful and perhaps they might be even extended.

I would also reformulate lines 32-35. I find the comparison between the prophecy of Mohammad, Christian Christology, and Jewish Messianism not clear, especially relating to the subject matter of this paper. If Qur'an accepts previous prophetic moments as reflected in Judaism and Christianity then the dividing line must not be the different messianic models (there are a great variety of messianic conceptions within each of those three religions), but perhaps in the Islamic criticism of Jewish and Christian canonic literal traditions.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. I have changed only parts of my essay; according to your feedback. 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that you should work more in-depth the theoretical aspect of your projects.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.