Addressing a Sibling Rivalry: In Seeking Effective Christian–Muslim Relations, to What Extent Can Comparative Theology Contribute? An Evangelical Christian Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the length of this article and the relative complexity of its structure sometimes entails a danger that the reader can too easily lose her or his overall sense of direction when trying to combine the effort to retain that with a close reading of the individual parts of the text, overall this is an interesting paper that has the potential to make an interestingly original and useful contribution to overall relevant debates.

While having above expressed some concern about the related length of complex structure of the paper, overall this reviewer is prepared to live with the challenges arising from that rather than potentially requiring the author to shorten and "simplify" the text on the basis that such a requirement would likely entail substantive work for the author and it is not unreasonable for some published texts to make significant demands upon reader engagement.

However, if the piece is to proceed to publication, there are two other areas to which I think it is important that the author gives serious consideration and makes some response in relation to how any version of article that goes forward to publication is at least framed and presented.

(1) While the abstract of the article, right at its end, refers to the implications of the article being directed primarily towards "orthodox Muslims and evangelical Christians", and the methodology section of the article makes brief reference to the author's "own inherent subjectivity and evangelical Christian perspective" because there are many places in the text and its arguments, and perhaps even more so what might call its "working assumptions" where Christians who might describe their self-understanding in ways other than as "evangelical Christians" might find what is written to be at least problematic and in need of challenge from other Christian perspectives, it seems to me that this particular perspectival approach to the article needs to be even more explicitly foregrounded and acknowledged in the article than in the current somewhat brief references to this.

Indeed, I would like the author seriously to consider making this perspective in some way explicit in the title of any version of the article that goes forward to publication - by (only for example) adding to it something like "An Evangelical Christian perspective." A modification of this kind to the title would, I think, be a fairer and more accurate overall representation in the title of what the article aims to deliver and actually does deliver.

(2) The appearance of the words "in the UK" in the title of the article appears to promise a potentially strongly contextual piece in which a grounded discussion of the specific context of Christian-Muslim relations the UK in the UK might be expected. However, apart from a small number of scattered and fairly inconsequential sentences in the early part of the paper, neither the impact of the specific geographical and socio-political context of the UK  features in the article until the UK appears again towards its end in the sentence that: "The overall aim of this research was to explore approaches for more effective Christian-Muslim relations in the UK", nor, as a possible alternative understanding of "in the UK", do the arguments proceed with reference only or mainly to UK based proponents of the various positions discussed.

Because of this failure really to contextualise the discussion in an really grounded way, one might simply conclude that the article has failed in its aim. And for the arguments really to be explored in a contextual way taking seriously the potential difference of their outworking in relation to the context of the UK as distinct from in, say, Uganda, or Germany, or China or Jordan would, it seems to me, require a complete rewrite of the present text. That would, however, I think, be unfair to require of the author. What would, however, I think be important would be for the author at least to remove the UK specific reference from the proposed title of the piece on the basis that such promises what it does not deliver in terms of any serious contextualisation.

Of course, it may be that author might still, in the introduction to the article, wish to make some general statement of recognition that their own writing of this piece emerges out of a particular biographical context (noting that some biographical references are included in the current text) such that the arguments presented may be differently received and evaluated by evangelical Christians operating out of other significantly different contexts - for example, perhaps especially where such differences pertain to different majority-minority relations as between Christians and Muslims.

Although I would view the text going forward without taking into account and accepting the critiques that I have made above as otherwise requiring either a "reject" or a "rewriting after major revisions", if my critiques are accepted, I am giving the evaluation of "accept after minor revisions" in the sense that the actual work involved in accepting my critiques would not be major and that I am content to let the editors check how these critiques have been received and acted upon rather than myself particularly needing myself to undertake a further review of it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and good synthesis of material relating to the importance of Comparative Theology for Interfaith dialogue as a meaningful transforming project today. It has a thesis, which we get to learn more about towards the end. There is a wide and comprehensive awareness of relevant sources and a wide range critical analysis of the traditional tripartite division to dialogue (Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Universal) with an attempt to propose a new model. The author shows the ability to pick up key ideas from the sources and reflect on them from their own personal experience too.

The execution is hampered by the structure and shape of building the argument. The article's aim and purpose is stated in line 68. We only really get a good glimpse of the thesis in the conclusion. The author would benefit, after having synthesised all this important and relevant material, from stating the thesis and purpose of his project right from the start. Then follow it up by more significant, focused chapters, instead of a sequence of smaller sections. The article needs a better focus on how the argument is built, what the thesis to be defended from the start, how it is tested and refined throughout. 

There is an over emphasis on the personal experience of dialogue in the family, with reference to the 'Muslim Brother'. This is a point that could be also referred to more succinctly in the introduction noting that the interest in this project comes from a self-involving narrative and experience, which is the mode and expressions of his critical engagement with dialogue. There is no need to keep referring back to it at various points of the discussion. 

Line 44: 'the why behind 'the' engagment'. 'The' is mission.

Line 51: 'To our missiology and approaches therein'...is vague and needs clarification, what does the author mean by approaches? 

at time the word 'polemic' is used when it should be 'polemical'. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf