Civilizational Fantasies in Populist Far Right and Islamist Discourses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please sharpen your thesis and research question

no comment

Author Response

I have improved clarity of argumentation and research design throughout the article, including adding a research question to the introduction. Additional revisions have been made to improve readability, including English grammar. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a peculiar paper, not the 'usual' kind that I have seen to be submitted to Religions. It is very abstract and proceeds in a declamatory way; there is little attempt to make an argument. Much - most? - of the material implies a significant level of understanding from the reader, which by no means all will possess. Key terms are not clearly defined or explained, including 'populism', 'far right' and 'Islamist'. It is also not clear why 'far right' and 'Islamists' are regarded as equivalent and thus worthy of comparative analysis. The paper is polemical, and alternative views to that of the author are not included. I cannot unfortunately offer useful ways to revise the paper to make it publishable, as I struggled throughout to make sense of what is written in the article. For this eason, request not to be asked to review any subsequent revisions of the article, beleiving that others may be better positioned to provide a useful opinion on its merits and demerits.

The English language is okay but I suspect not written by  a native English speaker; as such, it requires some language editing.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their valuable comments. The article is a philosophical and epistemological contribution to areas of research engaged with populism and radicalism. It is for that reason the tone and contribution of the article could be considered 'polemical' or 'declamatory', as the reviewer suggests. The purpose of the article is to present a different vantage point to the study of far right and islamist politics and discourses; a relationship which has been studied extensively (see for example Abbas 2019, 2021; Allchorn 2020; Ebner 2017; Goodwin 2013; Lygren & Ranvdal 2021). The article engages closely with populist theory to render visible the shared civilizationist foundations in far right and islamist politics/discourse. For a reader who is seeking more traditional forms of empirical measures and evidence, the article can be considered 'peculiar'. However, it is the purpose of the article to render visible what is generally overlooked when taking a more positivist approach. It is not the intend of the article to discredit other approaches; but rather to complement existing approaches and studies with an alternative vantage point that aims to reveal the content of ideologies might differ, but the logic by which they are discursively constructed are the same. Looking at far right and islamist politics in conjunction - through a civilizationist lens - have certain implications for our understanding of social division in that it demonstrates the commonalities between opposing identities. Addressing the peer reviewer's comments on accessibility, I have revised the article so that key definitions are well-defined, and complex theoretical and philosophical proceedings are more easily understood across disciplines, and for readers who are not familiar with theories of antagonism or hegemony, for example. 

I hope to have satisfied the peer reviewer's comments despite noting they did not feel to be in the position to review the article.  

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Comparing civilizational discourse between far-right and Islamists is an interesting topic. However, for the Islamist case, I would like to suggest you reconsider taking other Islamist movements which are more influential than Hizb al-Tahrir. In the "big family" of Islamists, even though a transnational entity, Hizb al-Tahrir is a periphery movement if compared to those who are inspired by Ikhwan Muslimin/Muslim Brotherhood. Or, if you want to stick to Hizb al-Tahrir, you should state clearly why you are choosing that entity to represent this Islamist side for your comparison and analysis.

2) I suggest you make the last paragraph the conclusion part of your paper. 

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their valuable comments.

1. I agree that Hizb ut-Tahrir is not the most influential in terms of organisational and political structure (they do not participate in politics) and social support. However, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a  relevant case subject when exploring civilizationist discourse and politics because of their positioning as the only true Islamist alternative. Contrary to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir takes deliberate effort to position itself outside of politics. And different to militant/jihadist organisations, such as Daesh, they have a clear method whereby any militancy must precede the unification of the ummah through an ideological consciousness. Hence Hizb ut-Tahrir is a valuable case subject because their approach is not dissimilar from the far right parties studied that focus on a 'civilizational' consciousness. For the purpose of this article, the content of the discourse is more important than the strength or support of the given party. This is because the article is exploring relationality - how both discourses are connected and operate in conjunction - and another Islamist group like the Muslim Brotherhood would not be as consistent in terms of their engagement in national politics. I have added a paragraph in the Introduction to explain and justify the case selection. 
   
   
2. I have decided not to amend the structure of the final discussion section to allow for an additional conclusion. I have adhered to the common article structure in Religions, and made the final paragraph such that it presents a couple of questions and considerations for further research. I think that suits well in the discussion section.