The Determination of Halal Food Perceptions Among University Students Receiving Islamic Theology Education: The Case of Istanbul, Berlin, and Kuala Lumpur
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is clearly structured and well written. It seeks to investigate halal awareness amongst theology students in three cities. Finding that significant differences between the cities are shaped not only by individual religious beliefs but also by broader cultural contexts, social norms, and structural conditions.
This is a reasonable and relevant finding that although not particularly suprising, does contribute interesting data to the way that halal certification practice emerges unevenly in different places and contexts.
The paper notes that theology students would be expected to be well versed in Islamic dietary law. However, the paper then proceeds to accept the analysis of scholars in anthropology and other fields who conflate halal certification with halal practice.
The work of Fischer and Blackler for example have been shown to overlook the significant transformations that halal certification brings to halal practice, misunderstand or are ignorant of the historical theological archive of halal, and do not address the ethical objections that many Muslims and ulama have to the aims and claims of halal certification as a neoliberal practice of halal. This is a major oversight, since it is has been that non-awareness of halal certification does not mean non-awareness of halal. Halal practice can and is assured through ways other than halal certification. For example the consumption of vegetarian food is a practice of halal that does not require halal certification. This is particularly relevant since the subjects being studied are presumably aware of the complexity of halal, a complexity not evident to anthropologists such as Fisher and Blackler.
The authors need to recognise that halal certification is not easily overlapped onto halal practice, allowing for theological reasons for this so called, 'non-awareness of halal.'
Author Response
Reviewer #1 Comment:
The authors need to recognise that halal certification is not easily overlapped onto halal practice, allowing for theological reasons for this so-called ‘non-awareness of halal.’
Author Response:
We appreciate this insightful comment. In line with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have explicitly clarified in the Discussion section that a lack of awareness of formal halal certification does not necessarily indicate a lack of awareness of halal practice itself. From a theological perspective, halal has historically been assured through multiple mechanisms beyond certification, such as knowledge of Islamic dietary law, communal practices, and the consumption of inherently permissible foods (e.g., vegetarian options). We further highlighted that theology students, in particular, are likely to recognize this distinction, demonstrating that halal practice cannot be reduced solely to institutional certification (see Discussion, p. 10).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #2 Comment 1
How are the different variables (halal awareness, halal literacy, etc.) defined and measured? The article glosses over this by quickly referencing different studies but never clearly defined them for readers, or how exactly they are asked to the participants in the survey? (Can – at least a selection of – the survey questions perhaps be an addendum to the article?)
Author Response:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised version, we have expanded the Methodology section to provide clearer definitions of the constructs (halal awareness, halal literacy, religious commitment, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, price value, hedonic motivation, and habit). Each scale is directly linked to prior validated studies, and their scope is explained in detail. While the full survey is not included as an addendum, all measures were adapted from published and validated instruments, ensuring both reliability and validity.
Reviewer #2 Comment 2
Who exactly are the participants of the studies? Are they from comparable institutions and programs? Can the differences be explained in terms of institutions/programs? What are some demographic backgrounds of these students?
Author Response:
We appreciate this observation. The Methodology section now clarifies that the sample was drawn from theology students enrolled in one university in each of the three cities. This may introduce institutional bias, which is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation. The primary aim of the study was to examine broad cultural and structural differences; therefore, detailed demographic comparisons between programs and institutions are beyond the present scope. However, the limitation of selecting one university per city has been clearly stated.
Reviewer #2 Comment 3
The article claims that “Islamic theology students have the potential to act as religious guides within society.” How so? Are these students training to be leaders of Islamic organizations?
Author Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. In the Discussion section, we emphasize the formative role of theology faculties. Students in these programs are not only trained in doctrinal knowledge but also positioned to serve as educators, preachers, and community leaders. Thus, they may act as multipliers of religious knowledge and practice within their societies. The Conclusion also highlights their role as multipliers in broader halal discourses and processes of religious orientation.
Reviewer #2 Comment 4
The article mentions the difference in the conceptualization of halal in Malaysia (associated with hygiene/health) and Berlin (associated with ethics). Can the author clarify whether the survey questions address this conceptual difference?
Author Response:
We agree this is an important point. The survey was based on established scales adapted from the existing literature, which capture broad dimensions such as awareness, literacy, and hedonic motivation. While they do not directly measure the cultural interpretations of halal (e.g., hygiene vs. ethics), these conceptual differences are critically reflected upon in the Discussion section. We note that such cultural meanings frame how students respond to general constructs and highlight the need for future research using qualitative methods to capture these nuances more explicitly.
Reviewer #2 Comment 5
The article mentions policy-making consequences in the conclusion. Does this study suggest that a centralized model of halal (Malaysia) is better than decentralized ones (Germany and Turkey)?
Author Response:
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this. The study does not aim to prescribe one model over another. Rather, it highlights how different levels of institutionalization and centralization shape perceptions of halal food. The Conclusion emphasizes that these findings demonstrate variation shaped by structural and cultural conditions, without suggesting the superiority of one system.
Reviewer #2 Comment 6
On p. 4 of 12, the article says 210 participants; on p. 6 of 12, it says 300 participants. Can the author clarify this?
Author Response:
We agree with the reviewer’s observation. This inconsistency has been corrected. The sample size is now consistently reported as 210 participants throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer #2 Comment 7
I think the author can benefit from reviewing some literature on the different conceptualizations of halal (e.g., Mukherjee 2014, Tayob 2021).
Author Response:
We thank the reviewer for these valuable suggestions. The recommended studies have been reviewed and considered. While they were not directly integrated into the manuscript to maintain its current focus, their insights were useful in refining our understanding of the broader discourse on halal conceptualizations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCritical comments
- Cultural diversity and individual variability in religious engagement may not be fully captured by purely statistical comparisons. Since the study is exclusively quantitative and does not integrate qualitative data (e.g. interviews), contextual factors and subjective nuances of perception remain insufficiently considered. The interpretation of the results remains strongly quantitative and may underestimate the complexity of individual beliefs and social dynamics. These aspects should be critically reflected upon in the article and given greater consideration in the discussion.
- The significance of the results for politics, education and consumer culture should be emphasised more clearly. It would be useful to state more clearly the benefits of the findings and open questions for further investigation.
- The methodology refers to 210 students, but the results refer to 300 participants. This discrepancy must be corrected.
- Selecting only one university per city carries potential for bias and should be reflected in the text.
- The integration into the literature is successful, but the theoretical implications for Islamic theology could be more clearly elaborated.
- In the concluding section, the results will be reflected upon with a view to the question of what role theology students can play as multipliers in social halal discourses and in processes of religious orientation on the basis of the available findings.
- Check sources: Some source references are incomplete or incorrect (e.g. Babür & Kurnaz, DOI is incorrect.
- Ensure that all references cited in the text appear in the bibliography and vice versa.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Cultural diversity and individual variability in religious engagement may not be fully captured by purely statistical comparisons. Since the study is exclusively quantitative and does not integrate qualitative data (e.g. interviews), contextual factors and subjective nuances of perception remain insufficiently considered. The interpretation of the results remains strongly quantitative and may underestimate the complexity of individual beliefs and social dynamics. These aspects should be critically reflected upon in the article and given greater consideration in the discussion.
Response 1:
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have expanded the Discussion section with a new paragraph reflecting on the limitations of a purely quantitative design. This paragraph acknowledges that statistical analyses cannot fully capture the complexity of individual religiosity and social dynamics, and it highlights the need for future qualitative approaches. (see Discussion, p. 11).
Comment 2:
The significance of the results for politics, education and consumer culture should be emphasised more clearly. It would be useful to state more clearly the benefits of the findings and open questions for further investigation.
Response 2:
We appreciate this suggestion. The Discussion section now includes a new paragraph that elaborates on the implications of the findings for policy, education, and consumer culture. Additionally, the Conclusion has been revised to highlight the societal benefits of the study and to specify open questions for future research. (see Discussion, p. 10, para. 11).
Comment 3:
The methodology refers to 210 students, but the results refer to 300 participants. This discrepancy must be corrected.
Response 3:
We agree with the reviewer. The inconsistency has been corrected, and the sample size is consistently reported as 210 participants throughout the manuscript. (see Findings, p. 6).
Comment 4:
Selecting only one university per city carries potential for bias and should be reflected in the text.
Response 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a clarifying sentence in the Methodology section to note that the sample was drawn from only one university in each city, which may limit representativeness and introduce institutional bias. (see Methodology, p. 5).
Comment 5:
The integration into the literature is successful, but the theoretical implications for Islamic theology could be more clearly elaborated.
Response 5:
We appreciate this observation. A new paragraph has been added to the Discussion section to clarify the theological implications of the findings. This addition highlights how theology faculties function as formative environments that bridge doctrinal principles with contemporary consumer realities. (see Discussion, p. 10).
Comment 6:
In the concluding section, the results will be reflected upon with a view to the question of what role theology students can play as multipliers in social halal discourses and in processes of religious orientation on the basis of the available findings.
Response 6:
We agree with this recommendation. The Conclusion section now explicitly emphasizes the role of theology students as multipliers in social halal discourses and religious orientation processes. (see Conclusion, p. 12).
Comment 7:
Check sources: Some source references are incomplete or incorrect (e.g. Babür & Kurnaz, DOI is incorrect. Ensure that all references cited in the text appear in the bibliography and vice versa.
Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. The incorrect reference has been removed and replaced with a valid study (Saygılı & Sütütemiz, 2023) with its correct DOI. In addition, all references have been carefully cross-checked to ensure consistency between in-text citations and the bibliography. (see References, p. 13).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept. comments sufficiently addressed.
