From the Periphery to the Center: Sufi Dynamics and Islamic Localization in Sudan

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We are grateful to both reviewers for their constructive feedback. In the revised manuscript we

• replaced ambiguous wording (“harness social conflict” → “mitigate social conflict”);
• integrated recent ethnographic scholarship on West‑African Sufism (Ogunnaike 2020) and Egyptian Sufism (Hoffman 1995);
• added a 135‑word field‑note vignette to enliven the Findings section;
• clarified that “center–periphery” is used descriptively, not normatively; and
• updated the Introduction and Conclusion to acknowledge the April 2023 Sudan conflict.

All edits appear in Track Changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Introduction

Can be improved

Additional West‑African references inserted (pp. 4 & 12).

Cited references relevant?

Yes  

Yes

Three‑year ethnography unchanged

Yes

Minor clarifications on sampling (p. 8).

Results clearly presented?

Findings now open with 135‑word vignette (p. 15)

Conclusions supported?

Yes

No conceptual claims altered

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: “...and helps harness social conflict.”

Response 1: Implemented. We thank Reviewer 1 for drawing attention to the potentially instrumental tone of ‘harness’. We have replaced “harness” with “mitigate” in both occurrences to indicate conflict‑reduction rather than exploitation [p. 5, Paragraph 2, line 201] and “….intended is being mitigated as a collective ….” [p. 6, Paragraph 3, line 279] 

Comments 2: [Reviewer 1, pp. 12–13): Egyptian Sufism is also public (Imam Hussein Mosque).]

Response 2: We appreciate this clarification. The comparative paragraph now acknowledges Egypt’s vibrant public zikr culture and adds Hoffman 1995 as support. Location: p. [ 13], Paragraph  [ 4], lines [ 632]–[ 634].
Inserted sentence: “In Egypt—particularly around Cairo’s Imām Ḥusayn Mosque—public Sufi zikr circles are widespread and highly participatory, echoing the Sudanese model in scale and visibility (Hoffman 1995).”

Comments 3: (Reviewer 1, p. 15): spacing error in “badawīnotion”.

Response 3: Thank you for catching this typographical oversight. It now reads “badawī notion” p. [ 15], Paragraph  [ 5], lines [747].

Comment 4 (Reviewer 1, p. 17): “goodness is singular” is unclear.

Response 4: We agree that the phrase required clarification. It has been re‑worded to “goodness is indivisible,” conveying the intended meaning p. [ 18], Paragraph  [ 4], lines [885].

Comment 5 (Reviewer 1): Integrate recent ethnography (Ogunnaike; Hoffman).

Response 5: We are grateful for this literature suggestion. Four targeted insertions have been made:
  • Tijāni ‘ocean of oases’ – p. [ 3], Paragraph  [ 1], lines [94] - [97]. (Theoretical Framework)
  • Fayḍa corridor Dakar→Port Sudan – p. [ 11], Paragraph  [ 1], lines [494] - [496]. (Sufism in Sudan)
  • Dhikr triad + bodily fourth layer – p. [ 10], Paragraph  [ 2], lines [461] - [463]. (Social Practices)
  • Shukr & hospitality – p. [ 11], Paragraph  [ 3], lines [511] - [514]. (Discussion)
All four sentences cite Ogunnaike 2020; the Egypt paragraph cites Hoffman 1995. Reference list updated accordingly

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We are grateful to both reviewers for their constructive feedback. In the revised manuscript we

• replaced ambiguous wording (“harness social conflict” → “mitigate social conflict”);
• integrated recent ethnographic scholarship on West‑African Sufism (Ogunnaike 2020) and Egyptian Sufism (Hoffman 1995);
• added a 135‑word field‑note vignette to enliven the Findings section;
• clarified that “center–periphery” is used descriptively, not normatively; and
• updated the Introduction and Conclusion to acknowledge the April 2023 Sudan conflict.

All edits appear in Track Changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Introduction

Can be improved

Additional West‑African references inserted (pp. 4 & 12).

Cited references relevant?

Yes  

Yes

Three‑year ethnography unchanged

Yes

Minor clarifications on sampling (p. 8).

Results clearly presented?

Findings now open with 135‑word vignette (p. 15)

Conclusions supported?

Yes

No conceptual claims altered

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1 (Reviewer 2): The manuscript omits Sudan’s current war.

Response 1: We thank Reviewer 2 for reminding us of this crucial context. A brief note has been added to the final paragraph of the Introduction and the first paragraph of the Conclusion, specifying that the fieldwork concluded prior to the April 2023 conflict and explaining the relevance of the findings to a wartime reality (p. [ 2], Paragraph  [ 4], lines [72] - [74].

Comment 2 (Reviewer 2): “Periphery” may sound orientalist.

Response 2: We appreciate this sensitivity. The first occurrence now reads “…the ‘center‑periphery’ theory (used here descriptively rather than normatively).” (p. [ 1], Paragraph  [ 4], lines [34] - [35].

Subsequent instances are either put in scare quotes or replaced with “so‑called periphery” (p. [ 19], Paragraph  [ 1], lines [910].

Comment 3 (Reviewer 2): Results need more vivid ethnographic detail.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. We inserted a 135‑word italicised field‑note vignette immediately above the “Findings” heading to convey the atmosphere of a typical Friday dhikr at Ḥāmid al‑Nīl Square (p. [ 9], Paragraph  [ 2], lines [401 - 418].