Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The significant works of Toshihiko Izutsu are not mentioned in this article at all. I highly recommend including his works on the Quran whereby a linguistic approach is emphasized.  

2. The article will benefit from some examples in the areas that the works of al-Jabri and Abu Zayd are being explained. For example, line 54-59.

Author Response

1. The significant works of Toshihiko Izutsu are not mentioned in this article at all. I highly recommend including his works on the Quran whereby a linguistic approach is emphasized.  Thank you for this suggestion which I integrated in my paper. I also tried to improve the paper following the oether remaks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-written and properly referenced. It would be beneficial to include additional secondary scholarship on these authors at the beginning of the article to emphasize your contribution to scholarship. Other than that, with some minor revisions to the English grammar, the article deserves to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is well-written and properly referenced. It would be beneficial to include additional secondary scholarship on these authors at the beginning of the article to emphasize your contribution to scholarship. Other than that, with some minor revisions to the English grammar, the article deserves to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I thank you for your remarks. I tried to improve the article accordingly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations for the interesting paper. It is an important paper that shows how two differently trained Muslim scholars approached the Quran and developed different methodologies although sharing more or less the same basic stance.

I have only some minor suggestions for improvements:

1) I recommend adding a short description at the end of the introduction to show how the author proceeds (the author's approach) and what the basic assumption/thesis of the article is that justifies focusing on the selected two scholars.

2) Throughout the article, the transcription of the Arabic terms must be revised according to the rules of transliteration "IJMES".

3) Each time when the author refers to the book titles of the scholars, the original should be mentioned in brackets.

4) When the author refers to Saussure, Derrida etc., it should be mentioned clearly whether Abu Zayd and/or al-Jāb(i)rī refers to them or the author does it him/herself. If the author sees parallels between them, he/she should make clear, why it is important to draw these parallels: does it help understanding Abu Zayd and/or al-Jabiri's approaches better? Otherwise, it is only an additional information that there are similar approaches. I would also recommend explaining why the author refers to Arkoun on p. 4.

5) Please consider revising the transliteration of al-Jābrī's name (al-Jābrī or al-Jābirī, but not al-Jabrī).

6) P. 4, l 139: I recommend adding a reference to Abu Zayd's work since the author refers to Abu Zayd and al-Jabiri together but mention a reference only from the latter's work.

7) The "ascendant and descendant dialectics" in Abu Zayd work is missing; I recommend adding this points since this is crucial to his theory.

8) P. 8. l. 282: Please provide death dates for Ibn Isḥāq and al-Bukhārī.

9) P. 9, l. 316: I would describe Ibn Taymiyya in general as a scholar, not only as a jurist. Further: here, the transition to Abu Zayd's theory is not successfull. Before the author leads over to Abu Zayd's theory, he/she should provide a short conclusion of al-Jabiri's views and then show a similarity between these two scholars. Then, he/she can proceed to chapter 4.

10) Abu Zayd's name is often written differently; please provide a standrad spelling.

11) The diagram on p. 11 should be in English.

12) Their should be a separat heading for the conclusion, where the author can additionally summarize the commonalities and differences between these two scholars. The current information can of course remain unchanged.

13) The author should clarify, why he/she refers to Shahrour; there is a huge difference between his approach and those of al-Jabiri and Abu Zayd.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I thank you so much for your extensive reading of my paer and your comments. Please find below my chnages according to your remarks:

1) I recommend adding a short description at the end of the introduction to show how the author proceeds (the author's approach) and what the basic assumption/thesis of the article is that justifies focusing on the selected two scholars. Done in yellow in my text

2) Throughout the article, the transcription of the Arabic terms must be revised according to the rules of transliteration "IJMES". This is done

3) Each time when the author refers to the book titles of the scholars, the original should be mentioned in brackets. Done

4) When the author refers to Saussure, Derrida etc., it should be mentioned clearly whether Abu Zayd and/or al-Jāb(i)rī refers to them or the author does it him/herself. If the author sees parallels between them, he/she should make clear, why it is important to draw these parallels: does it help understanding Abu Zayd and/or al-Jabiri's approaches better? Otherwise, it is only an additional information that there are similar approaches. Reformulated in paragraph 145-161 I would also recommend explaining why the author refers to Arkoun on p. 4. Being the father of “islamology” I find it reasonable to refer to him and to quote, relevantly, his arguments

5) Please consider revising the transliteration of al-Jābrī's name (al-Jābrī or al-Jābirī, but not al-Jabrī). Yes, thank you. Corrected

6) P. 4, l 139: I recommend adding a reference to Abu Zayd's work since the author refers to Abu Zayd and al-Jabiri together but mention a reference only from the latter's work. Done in l. 185

7) The "ascendant and descendant dialectics" in Abu Zayd work is missing; I recommend adding this points since this is crucial to his theory. Sorry, I could not integrate it

8) P. 8. l. 282: Please provide death dates for Ibn Isḥāq and al-Bukhārī. Done

9) P. 9, l. 316: I would describe Ibn Taymiyya in general as a scholar, not only as a jurist. Further: here, the transition to Abu Zayd's theory is not successfull. Before the author leads over to Abu Zayd's theory, he/she should provide a short conclusion of al-Jabiri's views and then show a similarity between these two scholars. Then, he/she can proceed to chapter 4. theologian for Ibn Taymiyya. Reformulated accordingly.

10) Abu Zayd's name is often written differently; please provide a standrad spelling. Corrected

11) The diagram on p. 11 should be in English. Corrected

12) Their should be a separate heading for the conclusion, where the author can additionally summarize the commonalities and differences between these two scholars. The current information can of course remain unchanged. The conclusion has been reformulated

13) The author should clarify, why he/she refers to Shahrour; there is a huge difference between his approach and those of al-Jabiri and Abu Zayd. I tried to reconnect the paragraph mentioning Shahrur to the previous one, to who relevancy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx