A Wave of Unbelief? Conservative Muslims and the Challenge of Ilḥād in the Post-2013 Arab World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “A Wave of Unbelief? Conservative Muslims and the challenge 2 of ilḥād in the post-2013 Arab World” does not qualify for publication in a paper at Religions’ rank. The paper lacks many objective research fundamentals most, important amongst which integrity are objectivity and use of proper research tools and data analysis.

Author Response

Comment: "The paper lacks many objective research fundamentals"

Reply: In the field of qualitative social science, scientific objectivity does not depend on the size of the sample – it is quite common to use small sample sizes. All of the literature referenced in ll. 26-27 does so, and this is the research field within the sociology of religion that the article belongs to.
Concerning scientific integrity and objectivity, the following criteria are generally considered important:
On the theoretical side, authors should describe the research field that they situate themselves in (ll. 24-36), the theoretical and methodological approach that they adopt (ll. 37-47, 78-87).
On the empirical side, authors should describe the setting of their research and how the sampling and interviews took place (ll. 55-77). They should be explicit about their methods of data analysis (ll. 78-87) and they should discuss their findings in the light of other research (ll. 102-275) and take a critical account of the limitations of their sample and their findings (ll. 48-53, ll. 486-498). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The purpose of the work can be developed to explain the phenomenon itself in the future.
2. The structure of work can be developed to be having more paragraphs on the research finding of the phenomenon.
3. There are several narratives explaining about the phenomenon which are unbelief, fiducial doubt, atheism, form of non-belief, etc, but the interesting words described in the findings are "I am a Muslim but I do things that are not right" (286) . These words do not match any of those narratives.
4. There is a typo in "Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in exile were aware they the organization... (350).

Author Response

Comment 1: There is a typo in "Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in exile were aware they the organization... (350).

Reply1: I have corrected the typo.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers an impressively nuanced and original analysis of the emergence of nonreligion (ilhad) among conservative Muslim milieus in Egypt and Syria post-Arab Spring. It is grounded in empirical research, engaging theoretical frameworks, and deep contextual understanding. The study’s methodology, critical engagement, and phenomenological approach stand out as especially strong contributions to the sociology of religion and Middle Eastern studies.

The abstract is exceptionally well-written—it concisely introduces the topic, clearly defines the scope, and presents the article’s key argument. The author sets the stage by noting the apparent rise in expressions of nonbelief in traditionally conservative Muslim spaces and outlines the complex social, political, and cultural factors behind this phenomenon. It also demonstrates both awareness of field limitations and the author’s rigor.

The methodology is one of the article’s major strengths. It is inductive, phenomenological, and highly reflective of context. The author does not impose predefined categories of “atheism” but rather derives meanings from participants’ own expressions and discourse.

The data sources—21 interviews with Egyptian and Syrian exiles in Istanbul, alongside media and literature—offer rich insight and are presented with transparency about limitations and sampling.

The article’s engagement with literature is thorough and critical. The discussion of how atheism has been historically present but marginal within the Arab Islamic context is well-supported (e.g., references to Kassab 2009, Schielke 2013, Coury 2018). The author also critically engages with insufficiently substantiated claims (e.g., Shalata 2014) and shows how some narratives have relied on anecdotal or limited data.

Part 3 of the article is particularly impressive. The author introduces the idea that many expressions of unbelief were not purely theological rejections of religion but symbolic acts of protest—against religious authority, political failure, and social betrayal.  The concept of “ilhad as protest” is a powerful lens, showing that nonreligion here is not just about belief, but about existential rupture and political disillusionment. The connection to trauma, exile, and betrayal by Islamist groups is deeply compelling.

Equally notable is the distinction between fiducial doubt and doxastic doubt. This distinction, adapted from Weltecke’s work, adds analytic depth and respects the subjective experience of the participants. This framework is vital for capturing nonreligion in a conservative Islamic context where the language and social meanings of doubt are different than in secularized Western settings.

The conclusion is logically argued and synthesizes the findings effectively. The author distinguishes between two driving developments:

1.The erosion of conservative Islamic hegemony via globalization and digital media.

2.The internal crisis of Islamism post-Arab Spring, especially the collapse of political expectations among youth.

Most importantly, the article shows that ilhad is not a stable, and not Western-style atheism, but a relational, socially embedded reaction to crisis. The final reflection—that ilhad has sparked both defensive backlash and a generational renewal within conservative Islam—is well-supported and leaves space for future research.

Minor Suggestion: The author could elaborate further on what is meant by “conservative Muslims” or "conservative milieu" While the term is somewhat explained through examples and social positioning, a clearer conceptual unpacking would strengthen the analysis—particularly as “conservative” can encompass wide-ranging beliefs, practices, and affiliations.

 

Author Response

Comment: Minor Suggestion: The author could elaborate further on what is meant by “conservative Muslims” or "conservative milieu" While the term is somewhat explained through examples and social positioning, a clearer conceptual unpacking would strengthen the analysis—particularly as “conservative” can encompass wide-ranging beliefs, practices, and affiliations.

Reply: I have added a few sentences in the introduction to clarify my use of the term "conservative".  The whole paragraph now reads a follows:

This article is a case study of emerging nonreligion within or in relation to the milieu of conservative Sunni Muslims from Egypt and Syria between 2011 and the present. I am using ‘conservative’ as a working definition based on how interlocuters described their own relationship to Islam and its meaning for their families and social circles. They unanimously described a social milieu that upholds traditional norms and religious dogmas and represses critical thoughts and fiducial doubts about them. Most importantly in the present context, it does not recognize the viability of alternative religious paths and tends to treat them as a social pathology. The study cannot claim to present any quantifiable evidence as to how many people within this large and heterogeneous social group in Egyptian and Syrian societies have doubted or lost their faith, but it can describe and analyse some of the individual and collective processes that have been triggered by the challenge of ilḥād – the Arabic term mostly used by observers.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I checked the paper again and I was ready and willing to reconsider it. To my surprise, the author has not done any significant changes to the paper; he just added a couple of sentences in the introduction.  In its current shape and quality, this paper is eligible for publication for a SCOPUS journal, not SCI one.

Author Response

See correspondence with academic editor