The Role of Ritual Prayer (Ṣalāh) in Self-Purification and Identity Formation: An Islamic Educational Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is an interesting article that addresses an exciting and important topic, the significance of ṣalāh in Islamic educational thought. The topic has strong merit and the potential to contribute meaningfully to the field. However, the paper requires further development, and I hope the following comments are taken constructively.

There are several minor issues, such as formatting of references (e.g., line 44), which can be easily corrected. More substantive issues include the following:

• Clarity and Assumptions: Avoid assuming the reader is already familiar with core concepts. For instance, provide a brief yet comprehensive overview of ṣalāh early in the paper, including its key physical and spiritual components (e.g., bowing, prostration, recitation), so that the reader can appreciate its transformative potential.

• Conceptual Clarification: Terms such as pedagogy, moral pedagogy, and spiritual pedagogy should be clearly defined and their intersections explained. It is currently unclear how you are using these terms and how they relate to each other.

• Use of Core Concepts in Islamic Education: The paper treats taʿlīm, tarbiyah, and tazkiyah as parallel concepts, which is a common but problematic approach in English-language literature. In reality, tarbiyah is the overarching concept, with taʿlīm and tazkiyah as integral components within it, not equal counterparts. Additionally, tarbiyah encompasses far more than moral cultivation. I strongly recommend consulting Abdalla, M. (2025). Exploring Tarbiyah in Islamic Education: A Critical Review of the English- and Arabic-Language Literature. Education Sciences, 15(5), 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050559. This article may help you construct a more coherent framework for your argument. Positioning tarbiyah as your foundational concept would provide a solid basis for articulating the transformative function of ṣalāh.

• Use of Evidence: At times, the evidence cited does not directly support the claim being made. For instance, lines 150–156 conflate tadrīs al-Qurʾān with the performance of ṣalāh, which are not equivalent practices.

• Terminology:

  • Clarify what is meant by “theological reflection” (line 185).

  • The correct spelling is tazkiyat al-nafs, not tazkiyah al-nafs.

  • In line 273, you refer to the Salaf, and in line 280, to the “Salafi vision”, these terms are not interchangeable. The latter may be misconstrued as referring to contemporary Salafi movements. A clearer and more appropriate alternative would be “righteous predecessors.”

• Methodology: The methodology section requires substantial improvement. Explain what is meant by the descriptive-analytical method, and why it was chosen over other approaches. Specify your criteria for selecting texts, Qurʾanic verses, and aḥādīth. Also clarify how the Arabic sources were translated, are these your own translations or from published English versions? The methodology suggests engagement with primary sources, but this is currently minimal in the paper.

• Conceptual Foundations: Although the paper is framed within Islamic educational theory, this is not sufficiently explained. Do you mean Islamic pedagogy? If so, specify. Also, clarify what is meant by the “Islamic worldview” (line 402).

• Terminology Translation: Translate expressions such as higher maqṣid (line 428) to ensure clarity for a broader audience.

• Repetition: There is considerable repetition regarding the value and significance of ṣalāh, particularly in the discussion section. These points should be streamlined for conciseness.

Finally, the paper would benefit from structural revision to enhance coherence and logical flow. A more systematic progression of ideas, moving from conceptual framing, to theological underpinnings, to pedagogical implications, would strengthen the paper's contribution.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments provided were both encouraging and insightful, highlighting the strengths of the topic while identifying areas for improvement. We approached each point with careful consideration and have undertaken substantial revisions to address the issues raised. These revisions include clarifying key concepts, strengthening the methodological framework, refining terminology and evidence, reducing repetition, and restructuring sections to enhance coherence and logical flow. We are confident that these changes have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s comments.

Comment 1:

This is an interesting article that addresses an exciting and important topic, the significance of ṣalāh in Islamic educational thought. The topic has strong merit and the potential to contribute meaningfully to the field. However, the paper requires further development, and I hope the following comments are taken constructively.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback regarding the relevance and potential contribution of this study. We deeply appreciate the constructive spirit of the comments provided, and we have undertaken a thorough revision of the manuscript in response to the points raised. The revisions include expanding the conceptual framework, clarifying key terms, strengthening the methodology, refining the use of evidence, reducing repetition, and restructuring the discussion for greater coherence. We believe these changes have substantially improved the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the paper.

Location:
General – reflected across the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:

There are several minor issues, such as formatting of references (e.g., line 44), which can be easily corrected. More substantive issues include the following:

Response 2:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have corrected the formatting of all in-text citations and references to conform to the Chicago Author–Date style used by Religions. Specifically, the citation on line 44 has been revised from (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah 2019, p. 109) to (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah 2019, 109). Likewise, the reference to al-Ghazālī was updated from (al-Ghazālī, n.d., Vol. 1, p. 145) to (al-Ghazālī n.d., 1:145). We also conducted a comprehensive review of all references to ensure consistency, accuracy, and proper transliteration.

Location:
Section 1 (Introduction), paragraph 2, line 54; adjustments made consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3:

Clarity and Assumptions: Avoid assuming the reader is already familiar with core concepts. For instance, provide a brief yet comprehensive overview of ṣalāh early in the paper, including its key physical and spiritual components (e.g., bowing, prostration, recitation), so that the reader can appreciate its transformative potential.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To address this point, we have added a new explanatory paragraph in the introduction that offers a concise overview of ṣalāh. The paragraph highlights its physical components—standing (qiyām), bowing (rukūʿ), prostration (sujūd), and sitting (julus)—together with its spiritual dimensions such as khushūʿ (mindful humility), presence of heart, and attentiveness to God. This clarification ensures that readers who may not be familiar with Islamic ritual practice are able to understand both the embodied and spiritual aspects of ṣalāh, thereby better appreciating its transformative role in self-purification and moral identity formation.

Location:
Section 1 (Introduction), lines 41–50.

Comment 4:

Conceptual Clarification: Terms such as pedagogy, moral pedagogy, and spiritual pedagogy should be clearly defined and their intersections explained. It is currently unclear how you are using these terms and how they relate to each other.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new paragraph in the literature review that defines and distinguishes between pedagogy, moral pedagogy, and spiritual pedagogy. Specifically, pedagogy is presented as the general theory and practice of teaching and learning; moral pedagogy highlights the cultivation of ethical values and character formation; while spiritual pedagogy emphasizes the integration of faith, mindfulness, and God-consciousness into the educational process. We also clarified how these three dimensions intersect in a holistic vision of Islamic education, with ṣalāh serving as a uniquely integrative pedagogy that unites instructional, moral, and spiritual dimensions. This addition provides greater conceptual clarity and aligns with recent scholarship on Islamic pedagogy (Sahin 2013).

Location:
Section 2.1 (Ṣalāh as a Spiritual, Moral, and Pedagogical Practice), lines 187–201.

Comment 5:

Use of Core Concepts in Islamic Education: The paper treats taʿlīm, tarbiyah, and tazkiyah as parallel concepts, which is a common but problematic approach in English-language literature. In reality, tarbiyah is the overarching concept, with taʿlīm and tazkiyah as integral components within it, not equal counterparts. Additionally, tarbiyah encompasses far more than moral cultivation. I strongly recommend consulting Abdalla, M. (2025). Exploring Tarbiyah in Islamic Education: A Critical Review of the English- and Arabic-Language Literature. Education Sciences, 15(5), 559. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050559. This article may help you construct a more coherent framework for your argument. Positioning tarbiyah as your foundational concept would provide a solid basis for articulating the transformative function of ṣalāh.

Response 5:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the conceptual relationship between tarbiyah, taʿlīm, and tazkiyah. Drawing on Abdalla (2025), we now frame tarbiyah as the overarching and holistic concept in Islamic education, encompassing intellectual, moral, spiritual, social, and emotional formation. Within this framework, taʿlīm functions as the transmission of knowledge and instruction, while tazkiyah represents the process of inner purification and moral refinement. These two are not parallel to tarbiyah but rather integral components within it. We also emphasize that the transformative role of ṣalāh can only be fully appreciated when situated within this broader paradigm of tarbiyah. This refinement strengthens the theoretical grounding of the paper and ensures conceptual accuracy in line with current scholarship.

Location:

Section 1 (Introduction), lines 81–90.

Comment 6:

Use of Evidence: At times, the evidence cited does not directly support the claim being made. For instance, lines 150–156 conflate tadarus al-Qurʾān with the performance of ṣalāh, which are not equivalent practices.

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that the study by Syahbudin, Muthia, and Thahir (2019) focused specifically on tadarus al-Qurʾān (collective Qurʾān recitation) and not on ṣalāh. We have revised the paragraph accordingly to represent their findings accurately, highlighting that Qurʾānic recitation and ṣalāh are distinct ritual practices with different pedagogical logics. To strengthen our argument, we now present ṣalāh as a complementary but separate practice that, through embodied repetition and mindful orientation, fosters virtues such as humility, discipline, and attentiveness. This revision avoids conflation and ensures a more precise use of evidence.

Location:
Section 2.1 (Ṣalāh as a Spiritual, Moral, and Pedagogical Practice), lines 169–179.

Comment 7:

Terminology: Clarify what is meant by “theological reflection” (line 185).

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the meaning of “theological reflection” at its first occurrence in the literature review. Specifically, we use this term to denote the disciplined engagement of Islamic sources—Qurʾān, Sunnah, and theological doctrines—with lived practice and pedagogical concerns, in order to derive practical insights for moral and spiritual formation. This addition ensures that readers unfamiliar with the concept can appreciate how theological reflection functions in our argument as a bridge between revealed knowledge and educational application.

Location:
Section 2.1 (Ṣalāh as a Spiritual, Moral, and Pedagogical Practice), lines 214–226.

Comment 8:

The correct spelling is tazkiyat al-nafs, not tazkiyah al-nafs.

Response 8:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful correction. All occurrences of tazkiyah al-nafs in the manuscript have been revised to the correct form tazkiyat al-nafs to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Location:
Throughout the manuscript

Comment 9:

In line 273, you refer to the Salaf, and in line 280, to the “Salafi vision.” These terms are not interchangeable. The latter may be misconstrued as referring to contemporary Salafi movements. A clearer and more appropriate alternative would be “righteous predecessors.”

Response 9:

We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the expression “Salafī vision” with “the methodology of the righteous predecessors” to avoid any possible association with contemporary Salafi movements. This correction ensures historical accuracy, maintains terminological precision, and preserves the intended classical Islamic context of the discussion.

Location:
Section 2.3 (The Concept of Tazkiyat al-Nafs in Educational Discourse), lines 305–314.

Comment 10:

Methodology: The methodology section requires substantial improvement. Explain what is meant by the descriptive-analytical method, and why it was chosen over other approaches. Specify your criteria for selecting texts, Qurʾanic verses, and aḥādīth. Also clarify how the Arabic sources were translated, are these your own translations or from published English versions? The methodology suggests engagement with primary sources, but this is currently minimal in the paper.

Response 10:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, the methodology section has been substantially expanded and clarified. We now define the descriptive–analytical method as a two-step approach: first, describing the normative structure and spiritual dimensions of ṣalāh as presented in Islamic sources; and second, analyzing these dimensions for their educational and pedagogical implications. This method was deliberately chosen over empirical or quantitative approaches because the aim of the paper is conceptual and theological rather than statistical—it seeks to build a framework that bridges Islamic textual traditions with contemporary educational theory.

We also specify the criteria for source selection: Qurʾānic verses were chosen based on explicit references to ṣalāh (e.g., Q 2:3; Q 2:45; Q 4:103; Q 29:45) or their articulation of its ethical-spiritual functions. Aḥādīth were selected where they emphasize the formative and moral aspects of prayer, such as those addressing khushūʿ and the description of ṣalāh as “the pillar of religion.” Classical sources, such as al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s al-Ṣalāh and Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, were included for their systematic treatment of the inner dimensions of prayer. Contemporary works were selected according to their peer-reviewed status, relevance to Islamic pedagogy, and explicit engagement with ritual practice, virtue ethics, or identity formation.

In addition, we clarified the translation policy: unless otherwise indicated, translations from Arabic are the author’s own; where published English translations were consulted, they are cited directly. Key Arabic terms (tazkiyat al-nafs, khushūʿ, tarbiyah) are transliterated and briefly defined at first mention to ensure clarity for an international readership.

Finally, the analytical framework is explicitly tied to the concerns of Islamic Practical Theology, which emphasizes lived faith, the role of ritual in spiritual formation, and the integration of normative teachings with daily ethical practice. Through these revisions, the methodology section now provides a clear rationale, transparent criteria, and deeper engagement with primary sources.

Location:
Section 3 (Methodology), lines 407–432 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11:

Conceptual Foundations: Although the paper is framed within Islamic educational theory, this is not sufficiently explained. Do you mean Islamic pedagogy? If so, specify. Also, clarify what is meant by the “Islamic worldview” (line 402).

Response 11:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the conceptual foundations more explicitly. The study is now situated within the discourse of Islamic pedagogy, which we understand as the theory and practice of teaching and learning grounded in Qur’ānic principles, prophetic traditions, and classical Islamic scholarship. This clarification avoids ambiguity and frames the discussion of ṣalāh not only as a theological concern but also as a pedagogical one, highlighting its educational and formative implications.

In addition, we have defined the meaning of the term “Islamic worldview” at its first occurrence in the discussion section. By this, we refer to the Qur’anically grounded vision of reality that integrates faith in God, moral accountability, and human purpose with educational and social practice. This definition ensures clarity for readers from diverse backgrounds and situates the analysis of ṣalāh within its broader theological and ethical framework.

Location:
Section 1 (Introduction), lines 80–82; Section 4 (Discussion), lines 436–442.

Comment 12:

Terminology Translation: Translate expressions such as higher maqṣid (line 428) to ensure clarity for a broader audience.

Response 12:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In the revised manuscript, the phrase higher maqṣid has been replaced with “higher objective (maqṣid)” to ensure clarity for a broader audience while retaining the precision of the original Arabic term. We also reviewed the manuscript for similar expressions and confirmed that key Arabic concepts are now consistently presented with both an English translation and the Arabic term in parentheses at their first occurrence. This approach guarantees accessibility for readers unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, while maintaining accuracy for specialists.

Location:
Section 4 (Discussion), line 464.

Comment 13:

Repetition: There is considerable repetition regarding the value and significance of ṣalāh, particularly in the discussion section. These points should be streamlined for conciseness.

Response 13:

We thank the reviewer for drawing attention to the issue of repetition in the discussion section. In the revised version, we have carefully streamlined the argument to avoid unnecessary restatements of the value and significance of ṣalāh. Specifically, we removed overlapping references to Qur’anic verses (e.g., Q 2:45 and Q 29:45) and retained Q 29:45 as the primary textual support within section 4.1, while keeping Q 2:45 only in the Ibn Taymiyyah quotation. We also condensed sections where the pedagogical and formative functions of ṣalāh were reiterated, ensuring that each paragraph contributes a distinct analytical dimension. These revisions make the discussion more concise, coherent, and focused, while still preserving the theological depth and educational implications of the study.

Location:
Section 4 (Discussion), lines 436–444; lines 451–457; lines 519–523; lines 631–635.

Comment 14 (Structure and Coherence):

Finally, the paper would benefit from structural revision to enhance coherence and logical flow. A more systematic progression of ideas, moving from conceptual framing, to theological underpinnings, to pedagogical implications, would strengthen the paper's contribution.

Response 14:

We are grateful for this valuable observation. In response, we revised the structure of the paper to ensure a clearer and more systematic progression of ideas. The revised version now begins with a conceptual framing of ṣalāh as both ritual and pedagogy (Introduction and Literature Review), followed by its theological underpinnings rooted in Qur’anic verses, ḥadīth, and classical scholarship (Methodology and Discussion, section 4), and culminating in its pedagogical implications for moral formation, identity construction, and practical theology (sections 4.1–4.4 and Conclusion). We also refined transitions between sections to highlight how each part builds upon the previous one. These adjustments enhance the logical flow and coherence of the paper, ensuring that its contribution is more accessible and impactful for an international readership.

Location:
Overall paper structure — with special attention to transitions in Section 2 (Literature Review), Section 3 (Methodology), and Section 4 (Discussion), leading into the Conclusion.

We again thank Reviewer 1 for their valuable observations and constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining and strengthening our manuscript. Through these revisions, we believe the paper now presents a clearer conceptual framework, a more rigorous methodology, and a more systematic integration of theological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions of ṣalāh. We are confident that the revised version makes a stronger scholarly contribution to the field of Islamic Practical Theology and Islamic pedagogy, and we hope it will meet the high standards of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

Your manuscript addresses an important scholarly topic within Islamic education and demonstrates considerable thought and engagement across disciplinary boundaries. I do have several points of feedback that, if considered, would strengthen your manuscript.

To begin, your literature selection demonstrates selectivity, privileging sources that validate the transformative nature of ṣalāh. While this is noteworthy, I am concerned that you are not presenting a balanced view - at least acknowledging research that may contest this perspective. For example, al-Ghazālī and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah are presented as scholarly consensus without acknowledging alternative jurisprudential or doctrinal perspectives. Your analysis also does not include discussions of ritual formalism and spiritual dangers associated with improper practice—equally important dimensions of these scholars' work. In addition, you might want to revisit Han and Bucar's perspectives, as their more critical analyses might challenge assumptions about Islamic ritual practice.

My other concern rests with your methodology section. I feel that this section would benefit from greater transparency and depth to enhance your study's rigour. The manuscript would be strengthened by including source selection criteria that explains how you identified and chose your literature, as well as the boundaries and quality measures that guided these decisions. Your analytical framework and procedures for examining the sources would benefit from clearer articulation. I would also encourage you to consider addressing potential researcher bias and reflexivity, particularly given your evident commitment to Islamic educational approaches, as acknowledging these perspectives would demonstrate scholarly transparency.

The manuscript might also benefit from explicitly addressing how your findings across different source types—classical texts, contemporary research, and philosophical works—strengthen your analytical validity. Finally, you might consider relocating your study's limitations from the conclusion to the methodology section, where they would provide helpful context for readers from the outset.

While your manuscript demonstrates impressive knowledge. strengthening these elements would enhance the rigour of your academic inquiry and support more balanced examination of ritual prayer's educational benefits.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank Reviewer 2 for the careful, constructive, and collegial engagement with our manuscript. The comments helped us refine both the balance and the rigour of the paper in several substantive ways. In response, we (i) broadened the literature base to include critical perspectives alongside supportive ones, explicitly addressing ritual formalism and the juridical sufficiency of ṣalāh without khushūʿ; (ii) revisited Han and Bucar to foreground the critical edge of their analyses as well as their constructive insights; (iii) substantially strengthened the Methodology by detailing source-selection criteria, clarifying the descriptive–analytical procedures, adding a researcher-reflexivity statement, and relocating/expanding the study’s limitations; and (iv) articulated how triangulating classical, contemporary, and philosophical sources enhances analytical validity. These revisions, indicated at the specific locations cited below, aim to present a more nuanced, transparent, and methodologically robust account of ṣalāh’s educational significance.

 

Comment 1:

Your manuscript addresses an important scholarly topic within Islamic education and demonstrates considerable thought and engagement across disciplinary boundaries. I do have several points of feedback that, if considered, would strengthen your manuscript.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their encouraging opening remarks and for recognizing the scholarly value of the manuscript. We deeply appreciate the constructive spirit of the feedback, which has guided us in strengthening both the balance and the rigor of the study. In response, we undertook revisions to broaden the literature base, acknowledge critical perspectives alongside supportive ones, and clarify methodological choices. These changes ensure that the paper not only highlights the transformative role of ṣalāh but also situates it within a more nuanced and multi-dimensional academic discussion.

Location:
General – revisions reflected throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Literature Review and Methodology sections.

Comment 2:

To begin, your literature selection demonstrates selectivity, privileging sources that validate the transformative nature of ṣalāh. While this is noteworthy, I am concerned that you are not presenting a balanced view—at least acknowledging research that may contest this perspective. For example, al-Ghazālī and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah are presented as scholarly consensus without acknowledging alternative jurisprudential or doctrinal perspectives. Your analysis also does not include discussions of ritual formalism and spiritual dangers associated with improper practice—equally important dimensions of these scholars' work. In addition, you might want to revisit Han and Bucar's perspectives, as their more critical analyses might challenge assumptions about Islamic ritual practice.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this important and insightful observation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a more balanced account of the classical and contemporary perspectives on ṣalāh. Specifically, we now highlight that while al-Ghazālī and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah emphasized the transformative and spiritual potential of prayer, they also warned against its reduction to ritual formalism. Jurists generally agreed that ṣalāh remains legally valid even without inner humility (khushūʿ), yet they cautioned that its true pedagogical and spiritual impact depends on attentiveness and sincerity. Al-Ghazālī compared prayer without presence of heart to a body without a soul, while Ibn Qayyim described varying ranks of worshippers, many of whom perform prayer in outward form but fall short of realizing its deeper fruits. This critical dimension is now explicitly incorporated in Section 2.1, after the discussion of Ibn Qayyim, to ensure that both the transformative potential and the limitations of ṣalāh are addressed.

Furthermore, in the Discussion section we added a clarifying sentence that underscores the tension between outward validity and inward efficacy, thereby reinforcing the pedagogical argument without overlooking the risks of ritual reductionism. In addition, we revisited Han and Bucar’s perspectives to highlight not only their constructive insights but also the critical edge of their analyses, which challenge overly idealized readings of ritual practice. These revisions strengthen the manuscript by situating ṣalāh within a more nuanced and multidimensional discourse that integrates its legal sufficiency, spiritual risks, and transformative potential.

Location:
Section 2.1 (Ṣalāh as a Spiritual, Moral, and Pedagogical Practice), lines 151–162; Section 4.1 (Discussion), lines 535–538.

Comment 3:

My other concern rests with your methodology section. I feel that this section would benefit from greater transparency and depth to enhance your study's rigour. The manuscript would be strengthened by including source selection criteria that explains how you identified and chose your literature, as well as the boundaries and quality measures that guided these decisions. Your analytical framework and procedures for examining the sources would benefit from clearer articulation. I would also encourage you to consider addressing potential researcher bias and reflexivity, particularly given your evident commitment to Islamic educational approaches, as acknowledging these perspectives would demonstrate scholarly transparency.

Response 3:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive and detailed observation. In the revised manuscript, we have undertaken substantial revisions to the methodology section to enhance transparency and rigour.

First, we added a new paragraph outlining the Source Selection Criteria, explaining how Qurʾānic verses, aḥādīth, classical texts, and contemporary academic works were identified and chosen. These criteria emphasize explicit thematic relevance to ṣalāh, canonical reliability, systematic treatment in classical scholarship, and peer-reviewed status in contemporary research. This clarification ensures that the corpus reflects both scholarly authority and thematic coherence.

Second, we clarified the analytical framework and procedures by defining the descriptive–analytical method as a two-step process: (1) describing the normative structure and spiritual dimensions of ṣalāh as presented in Islamic sources; and (2) analyzing these dimensions for their pedagogical and theological implications. We also highlighted how this framework is explicitly tied to the concerns of Islamic Practical Theology, which integrates lived faith with educational application.

Third, in direct response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we added a new section on Researcher Reflexivity, acknowledging the potential influence of the author’s scholarly orientation within Islamic educational thought. To mitigate bias, the analysis intentionally incorporates not only perspectives affirming the transformative role of ṣalāh but also discussions of ritual formalism, the juridical sufficiency of prayer without khushūʿ, and the warnings of classical scholars such as al-Ghazālī and Ibn Qayyim against spiritually deficient practice. In addition, critical perspectives from Byung-Chul Han and Elizabeth Bucar are engaged to ensure a balanced and critically aware approach.

Finally, we relocated and expanded the study’s limitations from the conclusion to the methodology section. These limitations now clarify the conceptual (rather than empirical) scope of the study, its reliance on textual and philosophical sources, and the risk of emphasizing transformative dimensions over juridical perspectives. By placing them within the methodology, we provide readers with appropriate context from the outset.

Together, these revisions ensure that the methodology section now presents a transparent account of source selection, analytical procedures, researcher reflexivity, and study limitations, thereby significantly strengthening the rigour and credibility of the paper.

Location:
Section 3 (Methodology), lines 428–439; lines 466–474; in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4:

The manuscript might also benefit from explicitly addressing how your findings across different source types—classical texts, contemporary research, and philosophical works—strengthen your analytical validity. Finally, you might consider relocating your study's limitations from the conclusion to the methodology section, where they would provide helpful context for readers from the outset.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new paragraph in the methodology section that explicitly highlights how the integration of diverse source types strengthens the analytical validity of the study. Classical Islamic texts (e.g., al-Ghazālī, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah) provide authoritative theological and spiritual frameworks; contemporary educational and pedagogical studies contribute empirical and theoretical insights into the formative functions of ṣalāh; and philosophical works (such as Han’s critique of performance culture and Bucar’s analysis of contested embodiment) introduce critical perspectives that prevent overly idealized readings of ritual practice. This triangulation of sources ensures that the analysis remains both rooted in Islamic tradition and critically robust, thereby enhancing its scholarly credibility and relevance.

As also recommended, the study’s limitations have been relocated from the conclusion to the methodology section and expanded to clarify the conceptual scope, the absence of fieldwork or ethnographic data, and the interpretive orientation of the analysis. A brief reminder of these limitations is retained in the conclusion only as a transition toward future research directions, while the substantive discussion now appears in the methodology to provide transparency from the outset.

Location:
Section 3 (Methodology), lines 440–447 (analytical validity); Section 3 (Methodology), lines 472–473 (limitations).

Comment 5:

While your manuscript demonstrates impressive knowledge, strengthening these elements would enhance the rigour of your academic inquiry and support more balanced examination of ritual prayer's educational benefits.

Response 5:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their encouraging assessment of the manuscript’s contribution and for underscoring the need for greater rigour and balance. In response, we have substantially revised the methodology section to include explicit source selection criteria, a reflexive account of the author’s scholarly perspective, and a detailed discussion of the study’s limitations. We have also added a new paragraph demonstrating how the triangulation of classical, contemporary, and philosophical sources enhances the analytical validity of the study. Together, these revisions provide a more transparent, balanced, and rigorous framework for examining the educational and spiritual benefits of ritual prayer (ṣalāh). We believe that these improvements significantly strengthen the manuscript and align it more closely with the high standards of the journal.

Location:
General – reflected across Section 3 (Methodology) and Section 4 (Discussion).

We remain sincerely grateful to Reviewer 2 for the incisive feedback that has demonstrably improved the manuscript’s clarity, balance, and methodological transparency. We believe the revisions collectively address the concerns raised—contextualizing classical insights, acknowledging limits and risks (including ritual reductionism), and articulating a clearer methodological pathway supported by reflexivity and triangulation. We hope the updated version now meets the journal’s standards for scholarly rigour and balance, and we welcome any further suggestions that could strengthen the contribution of this study to the ongoing conversation in Islamic Practical Theology.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant to the field of practical theology addressing salah as pedagogical approach in shaping Muslims’ Inner self and moral identity.

It rarely adds to the subject area that the salah is not only a ritual but also a morally grounded Muslim identity.

The methodology is very weak in saying everything based on Qur’anic verses, prophetic traditions and traditional pedagogical literature to argue that salah functions as a lived and repeated experience that cultivates the soul and molds ethical behavior. It undermined living experience of salah in today Muslim life.

The conclusion provides pedagogical concept for Muslim educators to apply salah in educational programs.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 3 for their careful reading of the manuscript and their constructive feedback. The observations provided helped us clarify the scope of the study, refine its methodological transparency, and highlight more explicitly both the pedagogical contribution and the relevance of ṣalāh to contemporary Muslim life. We approached each comment with thoughtful consideration and undertook targeted revisions in the Introduction, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion to address the concerns raised. These revisions strengthen the manuscript by presenting ṣalāh not only as a ritual duty but as a lived, pedagogical, and identity-forming practice that bridges classical insights with contemporary educational and theological discourse.

 

Comment 1:

The topic is relevant to the field of practical theology addressing ṣalāh as pedagogical approach in shaping Muslims’ inner self and moral identity.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for affirming the relevance of the manuscript’s topic to the field of Islamic Practical Theology. In the revised version, we have worked to make this contribution even more explicit by clarifying from the outset that the primary aim of the paper is not only to describe ṣalāh as ritual, but also to highlight its pedagogical role in shaping the Muslim’s inner self and moral identity. This focus is now emphasized in the Introduction and Conclusion, where we underscore how the study bridges classical theological insights with contemporary educational concerns. By doing so, we hope the paper more clearly demonstrates its significance to the discourse of practical theology and the study of lived religion.

Location:
Section 1 (Introduction), lines 51–59; Section 5 (Conclusion), lines 790–796.

Comment 2:

It rarely adds to the subject area that the ṣalāh is not only a ritual but also a morally grounded Muslim identity.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the originality of the paper by moving beyond the general claim that ṣalāh is “more than ritual.” Specifically, the study now presents ṣalāh as a multi-dimensional pedagogical praxis that integrates taʿlīm (instruction), tarbiyah (moral nurturing), and tazkiyat al-nafs (spiritual refinement). Within this framework, ṣalāh is shown to cultivate key virtues—such as humility, sincerity, patience, and mindfulness—that shape both ethical subjectivity and moral identity. Furthermore, the analysis situates ṣalāh within broader discourses of Islamic Practical Theology and contemporary philosophy of religion, drawing on perspectives such as Han’s critique of performance culture and Bucar’s analysis of embodied practices. This enriched framing demonstrates that ṣalāh functions not only as ritual observance but also as a formative grammar of faith that anchors Muslim identity and systematically nurtures ethical and spiritual development.

Location:
Section 1 (Introduction), lines 70–81; Section 2.1 (Ṣalāh as a Spiritual, Moral, and Pedagogical Practice), lines 120–128; Section 4.1 (Discussion), lines 485–488; Section 5 (Conclusion), lines 767–773.

Comment 3:

The methodology is very weak in saying everything based on Qur’ānic verses, prophetic traditions and traditional pedagogical literature to argue that ṣalāh functions as a lived and repeated experience that cultivates the soul and molds ethical behavior. It undermined living experience of ṣalāh in today Muslim life.

Response 3:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially strengthened the methodology by clarifying the source-selection criteria, explicating the descriptive–analytical framework, and explicitly acknowledging the study’s conceptual (rather than empirical) scope. While the paper is primarily analytical, it also recognizes the importance of the lived experience of ṣalāh in contemporary Muslim life. Accordingly, we have integrated references to ethnographic and educational studies—such as Henkel’s (2005) analysis of prayer as a public marker of religious commitment and Brooks’ (2018) exploration of prayer in an American Islamic school—which illustrate how ṣalāh is experienced and embodied in diverse social contexts. These insights complement the normative and theological perspectives and demonstrate that the analysis does not reduce prayer to textual sources alone. A paragraph highlighting this dimension has been added at the end of the Discussion section, immediately before subsection 4.1.

Location:
Section 3 (Methodology), lines 441–448, 466–474 (framework, limitations); Section 4 (Discussion), lines 533–541 (new paragraph on lived experience, before heading 4.1).

Comment 4:

The conclusion provides pedagogical concept for Muslim educators to apply ṣalāh in educational programs.

Response 4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the pedagogical contribution of the conclusion. In the revised manuscript, we have enriched the conclusion to more clearly articulate how the findings can inform Muslim educators in designing educational programs. Specifically, the conclusion now highlights ṣalāh as a practical theological model of ritual education that integrates taʿlīm (instruction), tarbiyah (moral nurturing), and tazkiyat al-nafs (spiritual refinement). It emphasizes that prayer can function not only as a devotional obligation but also as a structured pedagogical practice that cultivates virtues such as humility, sincerity, patience, and mindfulness. In addition, a brief reminder of the study’s limitations has been retained to encourage further empirical research that complements this conceptual framework. Together, these revisions provide a clearer pathway for applying ṣalāh in both formal and informal educational settings.

Location:
Section 5 (Conclusion), lines 793–799.

We remain deeply appreciative of Reviewer 3’s insightful feedback, which has contributed to sharpening the methodological clarity, expanding the engagement with lived experience, and articulating the pedagogical implications of the study. Through the revisions, the manuscript now more clearly presents ṣalāh as both a theological anchor and a pedagogical model—linking revelation and practice with moral cultivation and identity formation. We believe that these improvements have enhanced the study’s originality and practical value for the field of Islamic Practical Theology, and we hope the revised version meets the high scholarly standards of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the feedback comprehensively.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We are delighted that the revisions have successfully addressed all previous comments. Your kind acknowledgment of the improvements and clarity of the manuscript is greatly appreciated. We are grateful for your valuable time and constructive engagement, which helped us refine the paper and enhance its scholarly quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy to support the article's publication in its current form. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the generous and encouraging evaluation. Your positive assessment and support for the paper’s publication are deeply appreciated. We are grateful for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper says that "the study seeks to analyze the ethical 10 and psychological dimensions of ṣalāh, drawing on classical Islamic sources, as well as 11 integrating insights from contemporary critical philosophy—particularly Byung-Chul 12 Han’s Vita Contemplativa—and Islamic virtue ethics, including perspectives such as 13 those advanced by Elizabeth Bucar. The paper also says "the study engages Qur’anic verses, prophetic traditions, 17 and traditional pedagogical literature to investigate how ṣalāh functions as a lived and 18 repeated experience that cultivates the soul and molds ethical behavior." The conclusion must say that according to the literature, the ethics, and the philosophy, ritual prayer operates as a dynamic and holistic model for moral and spiritual development (not based on empirical research).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on the manuscript.

Comment 1:
The conclusion must say that according to the literature, the ethics, and the philosophy, ritual prayer operates as a dynamic and holistic model for moral and spiritual development (not based on empirical research).

Response 1:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive suggestion. In the revised version, we have clarified in the Conclusion that the study’s findings are conceptual rather than empirical, grounded in classical Islamic sources, ethical reasoning, and philosophical reflection. To address this point explicitly, we have added a new statement emphasizing that, within this theoretical framework, ritual prayer (ṣalāh) operates as a dynamic and holistic model for moral and spiritual development in Islamic educational thought. This addition strengthens the methodological precision of the study and ensures that the conclusion reflects the analytical and philosophical nature of the paper, as recommended by the reviewer.

Location:
Section 5 (Conclusion), lines 807–810.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a literature review, not a field research

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the observation. We confirm that the study is a conceptual and literature-based research, not a field investigation. This is explicitly stated in Section 3 (Methodology) and reaffirmed in the Conclusion, where we wrote:
“Through a descriptive–analytical approach drawing on classical Islamic sources and contemporary ethical theory, the research has highlighted the role of prayer in cultivating internal dispositions such as humility, mindfulness, sincerity, patience, and submission.”
This methodological clarification reflects the intended scope of the paper within the field of Islamic Practical Theology, which focuses on conceptual and theological analysis rather than empirical data collection.