Review Reports - Defending the Gate of Inimitability: Abū Rashīd al-Naysābūrī (d. After 415/1024) and the Freethinker Critiques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the valuable opportunity to study this manuscript. This article is an in-depth and highly valuable study of important themes in classical Islamic theology. The utilization of the unpublished manuscripts of Abū Rashid al-Naysābūrī became a significant scholarly contribution, opening up new insights into the intellectual strategy of the Baṣrān Muʿtazila in defending the doctrine of iʿjāz.

The author demonstrates an excellent command of Arabic-language primary sources and relevant secondary literature. The main argument—that Abū Rashid carefully balanced fidelity to the Bahshamī tradition with a flexible and hypothetical style of argumentation—is presented convincingly and compellingly.

However, to achieve the standard of publication in a reputable journal, this article requires some revisions, especially on aspects of structure and presentation flow. The rich and detailed narrative today still feels descriptive and chronological, so it sometimes overlooks key analytical points. It is recommended that the author rearrange the structure of the article following a more systematic scientific format: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Analysis and Discussion, and Conclusion.

The methodology needs to be written explicitly so that the reader understands the approach and framework of analysis used. The analysis of Abū Rashid's thoughts—which is the main strength of the manuscript—should be positioned as the center of the discussion. In addition, the bibliography that is already very strong still needs to be standardized according to the style of journal citations.

With the rearrangement of the structure and the refinement of the presentation, I believe this article has the potential to be one of the important contributions to the study of classical Islamic theology.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The main thesis statement needs to be stated more clearly and consistently throughout the article.

Comment: To address this, I have added several comments highlighting how Abū Rashīd was inspired by the thought of ʿAbd al-Jabbār. These additions improve the clarity and analytical depth of the article. You can find these comments on page 11. I have also rewrote a significant part of section 4 to sharpen the findings, improve analysis and clarity (see pp. 13-15).

This article is well-written but very dense and complex, so it may be difficult for non-specialist readers to access. Some sentences are very long and complicated. Then simplify some sentences that are too long. And consider moving some of the textual comparison details into footnotes or a table/appendix.

Comment: I have simplified several terms and phrases (see pages 11, 14, and 15). I have also moved the textual comparison to a table on page 7.

The current structure of articles feels very linear and chronological, resembling chapters in a dissertation rather than journal articles. The flow from the early Mu'tazilah, to the freethinker, then to Abü Rashid, and finally to the internal criticism, feels long and makes the main points less focused. Consider restructuring the article. The Introduction section should directly summarize the state of the art and clearly state the gaps in the research as well as the author's arguments. An analysis of Abu Rashid's thought should be the core of the article, while the previous historical context can be condensed into a single dense introductory section.

Comment: The current structure was designed to support the argument, beginning with the early Muʿtazila and the pressures from freethinker critiques, which continue to influence later Muʿtazilite traditions. Presenting these two elements of Qur’anic inimitability before Abū Rashīd’s time helps readers understand how freethinker critiques affected him and how his position can be more deeply appreciated.

To enhance the clarity of the current structure, I have made the following changes:

I merged Sections 1 and 2 into a single “Historical Context” section, covering both the emergence of the concept of Qur’anic inimitability and the freethinker critiques.
I incorporated the discussion of Ibn al-Rāwandī and al-Warrāq into Section 3, aligning it with the main argument of the article.

Here are the specific fixes that must be made:

1. Abstract

Today's abstracts are descriptive and overly long-winded. The abstract for the Q1 journal should be concise, informative, and clearly state the key elements of the research:

Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

Suggested Improvements:

Opening Sentence: Begin with a stronger statement about the significance of the doctrine of i'jäz and gaps in previous research (e.g., lack of focus on responses to freethinkers).
Methods: Explicitly state that this is a text-based qualitative study of Abü Rashid's manuscripts and other primary sources.
Findings: Provide a more emphatic and specific statement of key findings. For example: "This study finds that Abu Rashid's defense was highly adaptive. While remaining loyal to the Bahshami framework, he strategically employed hypothetical concessions, including the sarfa theory, as a dialectical tool to neutralize freethinker critiques on their own terms."

Conclusion: Conclude with broader implications, for example about the dynamic and responsive nature of Mu'tazila Basra theology.

Comment: I have revised the abstract accordingly, adding specific findings, methodology, and a concluding sentence to highlight the broader implications of the study.

Introduction

The current introduction provides context but does not effectively "sell" the article. It needs to be built like a funnel, from general to specific, and end with a clear statement of the purpose and structure of the article.

Suggested Improvements:

Paragraph 1 (Broad Background): Open with the significance of the doctrine of i'jäz in Islam and the key role of the Mu'tazilah Basra in formulating it theologically.
Paragraph 2 (Literature Review & Gaps): Briefly summarize the existing literature (e.g., Martin, Price) and clearly identify the gaps.
Paragraph 3 (Focus on Abu Rashid & Sources): Introduce Ab Rashid and his unpublished manuscripts as primary sources to fill in this gap. Explain why this is important.
Paragraph 4 (Thesis Statement & Research Question): State the main argument (thesis) firmly. Then, describe the research questions.
Paragraph 5 (Paper Structure): End with an outline of the paper.

Comment: I have followed this structure, added a paragraph to highlight research gaps, and expanded the discussion of primary sources. See p. 2

Methodology

There is no section that explicitly describes the method used. This is very important for the scopus journal. Describe the approach by mentioning: This is historical-textual research or intellectual history that uses qualitative text analysis. Then describe the primary source data source and secondary source. And explain how you analyze those texts.

Comment: I have added a full paragraph to describe the methodology. See p. 4.

Results and Discussion

This section is essentially the content of the current article (Sections 3, 4, 5, 6), but it needs to be reorganized with a clear "Results" and "Discussion" framework. Nowadays, these two elements are mixed.

Comment:

I have tried my best to follow this comment without compromising the central argument of the article. The actions I took are as follows:

I moved the section on Ibn al-Rāwandī and al-Warrāq into Section 3, as I believe it fits more appropriately there.
I redefined the first two sections (1 and 2) as the historical context of the article.
I restructured part of Section 4 to avoid repetition and to improve the analysis.
This restructuring is important for the overall argument because I focus extensively on the development of the two central elements of Qurʾānic inimitability—akhbār and eloquence.

Moreover, I found it difficult to shorten these two sections since the figures discussed (Wāṣil, Ibn ʿUmayr, al-Jāḥiẓ, and Abū al-Hudhayl) represent crucial milestones for understanding later Basran conceptions of Qurʾānic inimitability and how freethinker critiques were presented and shaped their ideas. It is also important to note that Abū Rashīd’s manuscript is relatively short (about 32,000 words), which makes providing historical context essential for proper interpretation.

Additionally, this manuscript contains some repetitions in Abū Rashīd’s statements and questions (for example, the repeated question of how non-Arabs could understand Qurʾānic inimitability). Finally, even Abū Rashīd’s mentor, ʿAbd al-Jabbār, in his discussion of akhbār in volume 15 of al-Mughnī, emphasizes the early development of Muʿtazilī thought. For all these reasons, I believe maintaining this structure is highly beneficial.

Conclusion

The current conclusions are good summaries but can be strengthened by highlighting the larger contributions and discussing the limitations and implications for future research.

Comment:

I have revised the final two sentences to clarify these points.

References

Substantively, the article's reference base is very strong, demonstrated by the balanced use between classical primary sources, unpublished manuscripts that are of unique value to this research, and modern secondary sources that are up-to-date and relevant in multiple languages. However, to meet the standards of Scopus publications, significant technical improvements in consistency and format are required. The main problems include inconsistencies in bibliography writing, the use of "n.d." that is not ideal for manuscripts, and the existence of incomplete placeholders.

Comment:

I have verified all references against the Chicago style, corrected two incomplete citations in pp. 7, 10), and replaced “n.d.” in manuscript references with folio.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: An abstract can more explicitly emphasize the critical significance of the issue, situate it within the problem map, clearly state the research objectives or questions, concisely outline the methods, highlight key findings, and conclude with a more concise conclusion and recommendations.
Introduction:
In the introduction, the author has provided a fairly strong overview, discussing the early theological debates about the uniqueness of the Qur'anic i'jaz, particularly within the Mu'tazilite tradition of Basra, which developed through the interaction between arguments within Islamic theology and the critiques of freethinkers. However, several important aspects still need to be strengthened to provide greater academic depth to this introduction: Research gaps have not been clearly explained. Furthermore, the introduction does not specifically explain the research gaps that distinguish this study from previous studies on the Qur'anic i'jaz. The author has not clarified how the analysis of Abu Rashid al-Naysaburi offers an original contribution compared to previous research that focused more on prominent figures such as 'Abd al-Jabbār or al-Rummānī.
Conclusion:
A. Important research findings (something surprising): something new discovered after the research was conducted. B. Scientific contribution: does this article confirm previous findings, question the validity of previous findings/research, or contribute a new perspective (point of view), concept, variable, or method?
C. Research limitations.

References:
References are adequate, but the author appears to have neglected to utilize proper reference management. Furthermore, the author should add several more references to strengthen the analysis in this manuscript.

Author Response

Comment: In order to follow your suggestion, I have reconstructed the abstract. I began with a general background, followed by an introduction to Abū Rashīd’s manuscript. I have added findings that clearly express the research objectives and included the methodological approach. I also concluded the abstract with a sentence that situates the paper within the broader discussion in the field.

Introduction:
In the introduction, the author has provided a fairly strong overview, discussing the early theological debates about the uniqueness of the Qur'anic i'jaz, particularly within the Mu'tazilite tradition of Basra, which developed through the interaction between arguments within Islamic theology and the critiques of freethinkers. However, several important aspects still need to be strengthened to provide greater academic depth to this introduction: Research gaps have not been clearly explained. Furthermore, the introduction does not specifically explain the research gaps that distinguish this study from previous studies on the Qur'anic i'jaz. The author has not clarified how the analysis of Abu Rashid al-Naysaburi offers an original contribution compared to previous research that focused more on prominent figures such as 'Abd al-Jabbār or al-Rummānī.

----

Comment: I have added a full paragraph to clearly identify the research gaps in the literature and the issues related to primary sources. I have also included a dedicated section for the literature review to demonstrate how this study differs from earlier works on Qurʾānic inimitability. pp. 2 and 3 This section shows how the analysis of Abū Rashīd’s manuscript provides a more original contribution compared to studies centered on ʿAbd al-Jabbār. p. 2.

References are adequate, but the author appears to have neglected to utilize proper reference management. Furthermore, the author should add several more references to strengthen the analysis in this manuscript.

Comment:

I have reviewed the references and ensured that they conform to the Chicago Manual of Style. I corrected two incomplete citations in pp. 7, 10), and replaced “n.d.” in manuscript references with folio.

Additionally, I added two new sources that enhance the analytical depth of the article (Yusuf Rahman and Hasan Ansari).

To strengthen the discussion, I expanded the analysis in several paragraphs-particularly in the sections dealing with the concept of challenge (taḥaddī)-to clarify how Abū Rashīd’s arguments align with the thought of ʿAbd al-Jabbār.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes a significant contribution to the study of classical Islamic theology, particularly the development of the doctrine of Qurʾānic inimitability (iʿjāz) within the Muʿtazilī tradition. With impressive command of primary sources and a nuanced understanding of theological debates, the author skillfully reconstructs Abū Rashīd al-Naysābūrī’s position and situates it within the broader intellectual and polemical landscape of his time. Especially noteworthy is the detailed analysis of Abū Rashīd’s responses to "freethinker" critiques.

A minor point of critique concerns the somewhat broad use of the term “freethinker,” which could have been more precisely defined or problematized. Nevertheless, this is an outstanding study analytically rigorous, textually grounded, and conceptually rich that sheds valuable light on a neglected figure in Islamic intellectual history.

Author Response

A minor point of critique concerns the somewhat broad use of the term “freethinker,” which could have been more precisely defined or problematized.

I added a clarifying sentence specifying that the term refers to those labeled in Arabic as zanādiqa, against whom numerous refutations were written. Footnote 2.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of your manuscript shows meaningful improvement, especially in terms of argumentation, historical grounding, and methodological articulation. However, several key aspects still need further refinement to bring the article to the level expected in Religions. While the research gap is now clearer—namely the absence of a comprehensive study of Abū Rashīd al-Naysābūrī’s conception of iʿjāz al-Qurʾān within the trajectory of Bahshamī thought after ʿAbd al-Jabbār—the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement of its novelty at the end of the introduction. Please clarify how this article differs from existing studies and in what ways the Abū Rashīd manuscript functions as a historical “missing link” in Muʿtazilite intellectual historiography. Sections 2 and 3, though improved, remain dense and would be clearer if the long paragraphs were divided into thematic units with stronger transitions. I also recommend adding a concise comparative table showing the doctrinal differences regarding iʿjāz and ṣarfa among Baṣran, Baghdādī, Bahshamī, and Ikhshīdī strands.

Methodologically, the manuscript should further articulate what “source criticism” means in this study and elaborate on how the reconstruction avoids potential copyist bias or shifts within the Zaydī transmission. Consistency in transliteration (Muʿtazila/Muʿtazilī, iʿjāz, ṣarfa) is also important. The analysis of Abū Rashīd would be significantly strengthened by explicitly stating whether he leans more toward ṣarfa or miraculous eloquence, and by situating his thought within the intellectual culture of fifth-century Nīsābūr. Finally, the conclusion would benefit from a sharper formulation of Abū Rashīd’s historical and theological contribution, a discussion of the relevance of these findings to contemporary Qur’anic studies, and suggestions for future research. With these refinements, the manuscript has strong potential to meet the standards of Religions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks for taking the time to review my article again. I have tried my best to follow your suggestion and improve the article. Here is a detailed response to your comments.

-
- However, this contribution will be stronger if it is displayed more explicitly at the end

of the introduction, What exactly is the novelty of this article compared to the existing study? And in what aspects does the Abu Rashid manuscript provide a historical "missing link" that has not been explained in Mu'tazilah's historiography?
Re1: I added a sentence to explain the novelty and the missing link compared to the

earlier studies in the field. See: p. 2.
- However, parts 2 and 3 still feel long and dense. You might consider breaking up long paragraphs into thematic paragraphs and reinforcing "transition sentences" that connect each stage of thought development.
- Re2: In Section 2, I broke long paragraphs into shorter ones and ensured each paragraph discussed a specific point. I have also inserted a subheading for this, which is the following: 1) Identifying the identity of freethinker figures, 2) Freethinkers’ critiques on transmitting reports, 3) Freethinkers’ critiques against Qurʾānic passages. See: pp. 6-7.
- - In section 1, I also added two subheadings, which I felt would make it easier for the reader. (the first generation of Mu’tazila and the second generation of Mu’tazila). P. 4.
- - I have also added three subheadings in section three (The convergence and divergence within the framework of al-Jubbāʾī’s circle; ʿAbd al-Jabbār and the establishment of Qurʾānic inimitability; Ibn al-Rāwandī’s critiques in the tradition of Baṣrān Muʿtazila). pp. 7-8.
- But it can still be strengthened by explicitly explaining what is meant by source criticism in this context. And explain the process of historical contextualization as an analytical method, not just descriptive.
- Re3: I think that the problem here is with the loss of freethinker and early Mu’tazila books, so I have added two sentences to clarify my actions concerning this matter. With regard to source criticism, I have already incorporated three points into my source criticism as a method. So the three points now are: pre-text, text, and context of the text. See p. 3.

-
- Add an intellectual position map. For example, a concise table: Baghdädi vs Basrãn

vs Bahshami vs Ikhshidi related to i'jäz and sarfa.
- I have added a table that explains Basran, Baghdadi, Bahshami, and Ikhshidi's

positions on Quranic inimitability. See p. 8.

-
- Ensure consistency between Mutazila / Mu'tazila, inimitability / i'jaz, and the term

sarfa.
- Re4: I have ensured consistency all over the article concerning the use of these terms.

I changed the term I’jaz to Quranic inimitability.
- The analysis of Abü Rashid's thought would be stronger if an explicit explanation

was added: was Abu Rashid more inclined to sarfa or miraculous eloquence? (You have already alluded to this, but have not yet concluded with an explicit conclusion.)

- RE5: I have added three sentences to clearly explain Abu Rashid's position regarding this. see p. 16.
- And explain the intellectual culture of the 5th century Nisäbür that became the psychological and social context for his intellectual response.
- RE6. As far as I know, the Nīsābūr did not witness a significant shift regarding Quranic inimitability. I could not identify anything in the manuscript that would suggest any relevance of Nīsābūr in his intellectual responses. However, I felt that the freethinker's and al-Murtada's critiques became the context for Abu Rahsid’s responses.
- At this point, your conclusion is good but can be strengthened by formulating unequivocally what Abu Rashid's historical and theological contribution to the theory of i jaz is. Mention the relevance of this research to contemporary Qur'an studies (hermeneutics, theology, comparative theology). And provide recommendations for follow-up research.
- RE7: Yes, I have added two sentences in conclusion to explain this. See p. 17.
- Add a discussion of the method of reconstruction: How do you ensure that Abu

Rashid's argument is not mixed with copyist bias or shifting Zaydi traditions?
- RE8. This point was raised by Hasan Ansari, but others in the field have disagreed with him. In issues other than Imāma, there is no reason to be skeptical about the identity of the copyist. This is because the issue is not a shift of the Muʿtazila toward Zaydīsm since earlier Zaydīs scholars, including al-Nāṭiq bi-l-Ḥaqq al-Hārūnī (424/1033) and al- Muwaffaq bi-llāh al-Jurjānī (after 420/1029), seem to agree with the Bahshamī model of Qurʾānic inimitability (see al-Harūnī, Ziyādāt, 140–150; al-Jurjānī, al-Ihata, 2–24).1 Even al-Ḥākim al-Jishumī, who probably converted to Zaydism later in life, showed a complete adherence to the Bahshamī model of Quranic inimitability (see al-Jishumī 2008, 199–207). Hence, I see no reason to be skeptical about the identity of the copyist.
- Moreover, the major shift in the doctrine of Qurʾānic inimitability came with ʿAbd al- Qāhir al-Jurjānī and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, whose linguistic thoery was later adopted by the Zaydi scholar Yaḥyā b. Ḥamza al-ʿAlawī in his two books on the Qurʾānic studies. Furthermore, Abū Rashīd showed complete adherence to early Bahsamī thought. Hence, I do not think his arguments were mixed with copyist’s argument.

I can add this to the article as a footnote, but I thought it will distract the reader.

Thanks,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the very serious scientific work and in-depth review of the manuscript. However, based on a reading of the latest version, there are a number of structural and argumentative aspects that need to be strengthened so that this article is fully in line with the Religions standard. The introduction is still too descriptive and has not gradually led the reader towards a clear research gap. The historical narrative is too long, while the focus of the study does not appear sharply—especially the differences between the general study of iʿjāz, the development of Bahshamí theology, and Abū Rashīd's position in the intellectual chain. The literature review also needs to end with a paragraph of synthesis that emphasizes the scientific void that this article wants to fill. In the methodological section, the concept of source criticism still needs to be explained operationally: how Zaydī manuscripts were processed, how potential copyist bias was anticipated, and what methods of historical reconstruction were used.

The Results and Discussion section is very data-rich, but the presentation is not thematically structured, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of the argument. The paragraphs are too long, there are no plot markers, and Abū Rashīd's relationship with the criticism of freethinkers often appears implicitly without an explanation of why the parallel is important to the development of iʿjāz theory. Almost all discussions are still in the form of presentations, not synthesizers. This section has a very strong scientific contribution—for example, the identification of two epistemological instruments (akhbār/mutawātir and ʿādah), the shift from pure eloquence to conditional combination with ṣarfa, as well as Abū Rashīd's typical argumentative pattern (accepting the opposing premise → showing logical inconsistencies → returning to the principle of failure to emulate). For this power to be seen, a mini-synthesis at the end of each subsection is required as well as explicit affirmation of its theoretical findings. Similarly, conclusions need to be condensed so as not to repeat the history of iʿjāz theory, but to focus on the main contributions of the research—namely Abū Rashīd's distinctive position in the post-ʿAbd al-Jabbār Bahshamī tradition, the integration of the two pillars of iʿjāz, the flexibility of the use of ṣarfa, and the implications of research and the direction of further study. Overall, the manuscript has great potential, but it requires a rearrangement of structure and sharpening of the argument to make its novelty appear clear and convincing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Here is my detailed response to your comments.

Although there are several attempts to tidy up the historical flow in the introduction, the structure of the argument is still very descriptive and does not clearly lead to the research gap that is the basis of the research. The introduction is still filled with a long historical description before leading the reader to the scientific problem to be solved, so that the focus of the research becomes blurred.

Reply 1:

I understand the point that you have made. However, I took care to follow the suggestions provided by the earlier feedback I received (in both the first and the second rounds), and now, in the Introduction, I have more clearly presented the novelty of the study and how it addresses the present research gap (very little attention is given to the period after Abd al-Jabbar). I have emphasized that the article focuses on the thoughts of Abū Rashīd, as a key representative of the Basran Muʿtazila. I have also stressed how this work aims to close a key research gap, as the secondary literature has centered primarily on ʿAbd al-Jabbār, with few studies focused on the period after ʿAbd al-Jabbār. Also, I have stated that how some of the early studies was focused on Abu Rashid’s Ziyadat al-Sharh which most probably was not written by him. See the introduction pp. 1-2. Specifically, lines: 66-71; 74-89

The research gap has also not been sharply formulated, as it is only generally stated that there are not many studies of the Abū Rashīd manuscript, without specifying what scientific gaps have not been touched by previous studies.

Reply 2:

I understand the point being raise. However, I have articulated my argument and have clearly stated that I examined Bahshamī thought after ʿAbd al-Jabbār, because this aspect has received only limited attention. I have also explicitly noted that my analysis focuses on the two pillars of Qurʾānic inimitability (akhbār and eloquence). The earlier feedback (rounds 1 and 2) I received asked me to clarify the novelty of the argument and to present the research gap more explicitly. I have done so by explaining how the secondary literature have primarily focused on Abd al-Jabbar (the misattribution of Ziyadat al-Sharh) and the flaw in Martin approach. See: p. 2. Lines 66-89.

In addition, the transitions between pamphlets are still weak and there is no paragraph conclusion that progressively directs the reader towards the focus of thearticle. The introduction also fails to systematically distinguish between three important areas of study: the study of the concept of iʿjāz in general, the study of Bahshamī theology and its development, and the position and significance of Abū Rashīd among these traditions.

Reply 3:

I understand this point. However, as directed by the first and second feedback I received, I have now clearly presented the novelty of the research, as shown in p. 2 lines 88–93. I believe that making the recommended amendments in response to the earlier feedback has strengthened the introduction. However, since this also led to some repetition, I removed the dedicated literature review section and incorporated relevant parts directly into the introduction. This helped to clarify the research gap that the paper addresses. The current introduction includes the following: an overview of the Qurʾān and its miraculous nature; the Muʿtazila’s role in formulating the doctrine of iʿjāz; theological affiliations; the division between the Basran and Baghdadi Muʿtazila; the focus on ʿAbd al-Jabbār in modern studies; the case of Abū Rashīd; the argument; and the structure of the article. See: p. 2.

Ideally, the introduction follows a more targeted structure, starting with an overview of the discourse of iʿjāz, continuing with a mapping of contemporary scientific issues, then identifying specific research gaps, explaining the research focus and contribution of the article, and ending with an explanation of the structure of the article. Since this structure has not yet been realized, the introduction still feels informative.

Reply 4: I disagree with this point, as I have already listed the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. I begin with a general overview of Qurʾānic inimitability, followed by the Muʿtazila, the Bahshami branch, Abū Rashīd, the argument, and the article’s structure. This aligns with the suggested outline.

The methodology is still unclear. It is not explained what source criticism is in the context of the manuscript

Reply 5:

Recent and excellent scholarly publications indicate that a dedicated methodological section is not necessarily required in Islamic studies, as many do not consistently include such a section. For instance, Jaafar (ʿAbd al-Jabbār, 2024), Van Ess (Some fragments, 1981), Martin (1980), and Larkin (1988) do not provide dedicated methodology sections. Even Michael Cook, in his source-critical study Early Muslim Dogma, did not include a methodology section. My approach has been to embed the methodological considerations within the analysis itself, as this is a valid and established practice in the field. Therefore, I consider the methodological section included here to be sufficient for this article.

it is not explained how to avoid the bias of Zaydī copyists, and there is no reconstruction method.

Reply 6:

I replied to this comment earlier in feedback 2, but I will provide a detailed reply here for a further clarity. This point was raised by Hasan Ansari with regards to the section of Imāma in Muʿtazilī books, but others in the field disagreed with him. In issues other than Imāma, I see no reason to be skeptical about the identity of copyist. So in this case, the issue is not a shift toward Zaydīsm, since Zaydīs scholars (such as al-Nāṭiq bi-l-Ḥaqq al-Hārūnī and al-Mufawwaq bi-llāh al-Jurjānī) seem to agree with the Bahshamī model of Qurʾānic inimitability (al-Harūnī Ziyādāt 140-150; al-Jurjānī al-Ihata 2-24). Even someone like al-Ḥākim al-Jishumī, who probably converted to Zaydism later in his life, showed a complete adherence to the Bahshamī model on Qurʾānic inimitability (see: al-Jishumi, Taḥkīm al-ʿUqūl, 199-207). Even al-Malahimi, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri’s student, seems to agree with the general headlines of Bahshami’s thoughts on prophecy and Qurʾānic inimitability, although with a different presentation (al-Malahimi, al-Fa’iq, 366, 369, 372, 375, 388-395). Hence, there is no reason to be skeptical about the copyist’s identity. The only exception here may be the Zaydī scholar, al-Muʾyyad bi-Allāh al-Hārūnī (al-Natiq’s brother), who showed in his book, Ithbāt nubuwwati al-Nabī, some similarities with the al-Rummani model of eloquence, although he was in line with the Bahsmahi theory of miracles and seems to adopt some of ʿAbd al-Jabbar thoughts (see al-Haruni, Ithbāt, 62-63, 84-85, 93-94, 122-24).

Moreover, the major shift in the doctrine of Qurʾānic inimitability came about due to ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, whose linguistic understanding of inimitability was later adopted by the Zaydi scholar Yaḥyā b. Ḥamza al-ʿAlawī in his two books in tafsīr. Furthermore, Abū Rashīd showed complete adherence to the earlier Bahsamī thoughts. Hence, I see no reason here to be skeptical about the identity of the copyist. Otherwise, we will be skeptical about most of the Muʿtazila books available today, since they were preserved in northern Yemen.

The literature review should end with a paragraph that answers: "Departing from all previous studies, what is the scientific vacuum that this article specifically wants to close?"

Reply 6: As stated earlier, the literature review I have provided in the introduction is sufficient to allow readers of the journal to understand the research gap and the originality of my study. Therefore, the formal literature review section has been removed. As also indicated above, many publications in the field do not include a dedicated literature review section.

Paragraphs are very long and dense, making the main argument difficult to capture because there are no sub-subheadings or signposts that clarify the logical transitions,

Reply 7: I find that I disagree with this point. I have consistently maintained the two central components of Qurʾānic inimitability (akhbār and eloquence) throughout the analysis of the early thoughts of Mu’taizla and Abū Rashīd. In my view, readers of the article will find that a clear and coherent argument is presented. The subheadings are clear, as are the transitions, which begin with early Muʿtazila theories, followed by freethinker critiques, and then exploring akhbār and eloquence. Please find the list of subheadings of the article in the following:

Introduction

Methodology

Contextualising early Muʿtazilī endeavours on reports and proofs of prophecy

The first generation of Muʿtazila
The second generation of Muʿtazila

Contextualising the early Muʿtazilī endeavours with the critiques of freethinkers

Identifying the identity of the freethinkers
Freethinkers’ critiques on transmitting reports
Freethinkers’ critiques against Qurʾānic passages

Ibn al-Rāwandī’s critiques in the tradition of Baṣrān Muʿtazila

The canonisation of Qurʾānic inimitability within the framework of Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī’s circle

The convergence and divergence within the framework of al-Jubbāʾī’s circle

ʿAbd al-Jabbār and the development of Qurʾānic inimitability

Freethinker critiques and later Baṣrān thought: The case of Abū Rashīd al-Naysābūrī

The authenticity of Muḥammad’s challenge
The integrity of the Qurʾān
The credibility of the failure of the Arabs to emulate the Qurʾān
The miraculous eloquence of the Qurʾān in the view of Abū Rashīd
Abū Rashīd and the challenge against Baṣrān Muʿtazila

Conclusion

and too many textual details, folios, and references are quoted without being summed up in a concise sentence before moving on to the next argument.

Reply 8: I also disagree with this point, as I do not see any instances where excessive folio or textual details have prevented the clarity of the argument. I cannot see any instances of incomplete arguments. Notably, neither excessive details nor incomplete arguments were raised as concerns in earlier feedback.

It can be compiled with the Authenticityof Challenge (Taḥaddī), Integrity of Qurʾān, Failure to Emulate (ʿAjz al-ʿArab),

Hypothetical Objections & Freethinker Legacy, and Bahshamī Response & Theoretical

Refinements.

Reply 9: Thank you for this suggestion. It is very close to what is already in the article.

The author has identified many parallels between the criticisms of al-Warrāq, Ibn al-

Rāwandī, al-Baṣīr, as well as the commentaries of al-Murtaḍā. Yet the historical connection is often implied, not explicit. Some passages mention "similarity" but do not state why this is important in the development of the theory of iʿjāz. And there needs to be an affirmation at the end of each subsection: what impact does the criticism have on the development of Abū Rashīd's theory?.

Reply 10: I have already emphasized how these critiques reflect early Basran Muʿtazila positions (see: sections 2.2 and 2.3 pp. 6-7), and then demonstrate the parallels with Abū Rashīd’s responses (see p. 10, lines 558-565, p. 11. Lines 592-598; p. 13; lines 795-799, 802-806). I clearly state that Abū Rashīd accepted various hypothetical positions, including ṣarfa, to prove inimitability. This conclusion appears in several spots throughout the analysis (for example, see lines 545-546, 611-613, 807-822; 863-865, 873-876, 886-888, 901-903 ). I also mentioned that there were two questions that appear to be widely discussed after Abd al-Jabbar; These are the questions of eloquence and Jinn. See: pp. 15-16.

For almost all of the paragraphs contain elaborations of the freethinker's arguments, Abū Rashīd's response, and parallels with ʿAbd al-Jabbār. But there is not always a synthesis, for example: What is Abū Rashīd's methodological pattern?, Is he more inclined to eloquence or ṣarfa or hybrid?, and How does his position differ from ʿAbd al-Jabbār and al-Murtaḍā? It is therefore recommended to add a mini-synthesis at the end of each section

Reply 11: I think have already incorporated these elements. I clearly state that Abū Rashīd sometimes relies on the absence of emulation while also accepting hypothetical scenarios involving ṣarfa as evidence for the Qurʾān’s inimitability (see for example, see lines 545-546, 611-613, 807-822; 863-865, 873-876, 886-888, 901-903 ). I also emphasize how he differs from ʿAbd al-Jabbār in light of the intellectual challenges that emerged after Abd al-Jabbar (see: Section 6). Regarding al-Murtaḍā, I show that Abū Rashīd was able to defend ʿAbd al-Jabbār’s thoughts against his (al- Murtaḍā) critiques (See for example Section 6 pp. 14-16; see also lines 583-592).

Conclusions need to be condensed so as not to repeat the long history and to highlight the main findings of the study. The author should emphasize the central contribution, namely Abū Rashīd's distinctive position in the post-ʿAbd al-Jabbār Bahshamī tradition and how this manuscript fills an important "missing link" in the historiography of Muʿtazila.

Reply 12: I disagree with this point, as I have stated that the main contribution of the article is to show how Abū Rashīd, as a later Basran scholar, approached iʿjāz. Abu Rashid’s contribution cannot be understood without understanding the history of the topic prior to him. I also stated Abū Rashīd’s distinctive position in the post-ʿAbd al-Jabbār in the following lines: 1017-1033.

Theoretical findings must also be explicitly stated, especially the integration of the two pillars of iʿjāz (akhbār and eloquence) and Abū Rashīd's flexibility in using ṣarfa strategically to respond to freethinkers' criticisms. The main insight that needs to be reinforced is that Abū Rashīd not only defends the Bahshamí model, but expands it through a more adaptive hypothetical approach in the context of anti-freethinker debate.

Reply 13: I have already stated this in the conclusion with regard to Abū Rashīd. See lines: 1017-1033.

The concluding section would also be stronger if it included the implications and direction of future research, especially development opportunities for other Bahshamī works as well as limited relevance to contemporary issues such as AI capabilities, if they still want to be mentioned. Finally, the final paragraph should be shortened and focused on the scientific impact of the research, rather than opening up new discussions that are not analyzed in the article.

Reply 14:

I have concluded the paper by recommending that future research should focus on the post-ʿAbd al-Jabbār period and pay particular attention to later Muʿtazilī teachings on iʿjāz (see lines 1031-1033). I mentioned the use of AI because the second feedback requested a sentence on its relevance to contemporary debates in Qurʾānic studies and hermeneutics. However, I can delete it if you want me to do so.

Thanks,