Review Reports - Beyond Emancipation and Oppression: Post-Secular Intersectionality and the Muslim Woman in the French Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant and makes a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on intersectionality. The author weaves together diverse theoretical perspectives and proposes post-secular intersectionality as a useful framework for engaging with the experiences of Muslim women in France.

However, the theoretical framework could be presented more concisely; in some places, it reads more like a summary of existing literature than a synthesis that supports the author’s own argument.

Minor issues and suggestions for revision:

Line 28: Please add year for clarity.
Lines 100–101: There is a gap between the discussion of post-secular perspectives and the transition to intersectionality. Consider adding clearer signposting or an introductory sentence to improve the logical flow.
Pages 3–5: The examples referencing France's clothing regulations (e.g. the 2004 ban) are repeated multiple times. Consider consolidating these references to avoid redundancy.
Line 225 onwards ("Post-secular paradoxes"): I recommend incorporating Sara Salem’s "Feminist critique and Islamic feminism: the question of intersectionality" (2013), which could strengthen the argument from a Muslim feminist perspective.
Lines 372–374: This sentence appears contradictory. It begins by advocating for post-secular intersectionality to create space for diverse definitions of oppression and liberation, yet concludes by limiting it to “only mean to negate oppression.” Please clarify or rephrase for consistency.
Line 422: Please format the reference for clarity.

Overall, the article presents a timely and important perspective. With some revisions for clarity and coherence, it will be a strong contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions for improving the article. I greatly appreciate the time and care you invested in reviewing my work.

I have carefully considered your feedback and have provided responses to each of your comments. I hope these revisions address your concerns and contribute to strengthening the manuscript further.

Please let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to clarify or adjust.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to make a contribution to the ongoing discussion of clothing bans in France, bans aimed primarily at Muslim women and intended to enforce a version of the secular that has been criticized for its assumed neutrality. The author seems quite familiar with the existing academic literature on the topic, but it is not clear that the author has crafted a distinct claim/argument that makes a contribution to the existing literature. The author does try to advocate for change--to better understand the lived realities of French Muslim women, to create a more just implementation of the secular by the French state and society, and to push French feminists to adopt a more inclusive view of feminism and liberation--but does so through referenced sources. Put differently, the voice of the author often gets lost in the welter of arguments and interpretations that are drawn upon to write the article. Indeed, much of the article reads like a literature review of what others have written; see especially sections entitled "Post-Secular Paradoxes" and "Beyond Resistance." To interrogate a political, social, and culture problem like Islamic dress in France is not the same as providing new insight into or understanding of its various dynamics...what makes it a "problem." Using the existing scholarship to advocate for change may be admirable, but it should not be confused for a scholarly contribution itself.

This assessment, while harsh, is intended to alert the author to the difficulties encountered when reading this article, especially as a reviewer. If the author believes she/he has, in fact, made a critical contribution, then this reviewer suggests that the article be rewritten with that specific contribution in mind and not "bury the lead" as it were. The author's voice must harness the sources to make an argument, instead of getting lost in them.

It is important to note that the "Introduction" reads a bit like the author is writing/speaking in code to those who already know all the details/debate related to the topic, and it is very repetitive. It might be helpful to provide, early in the article, a brief historical background section on which the author can build; the current section "Regulating Faith and Gender" tries to do this, but the author jumps back-and-forth in dates, expecting readers to sort things out.

Rework the sentence on lines 34-35: the way it currently reads "a closer look...consistently repeats itself," which is probably not what the author really means to write/communicate.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I am grateful for the time and care you and the reviewers have invested in helping to improve the article.

I have carefully revised the text in response to the comments provided. In particular, I have made the following changes:

Introduction: revised and clarified sections from lines 28 to 46 and from lines 119 to 134 to foreground the article’s original contribution and improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the topic.
Body: restructured and strengthened the argument in the paragraph spanning lines 228 to 267 to better reflect my authorial voice and original intervention.
Conclusion: rewritten and sharpened the sections from lines 742 to 758 and from lines 846 to 856 to clearly state the article’s novel contribution and implications.

I hope these revisions address the concerns raised and enhance the clarity and impact of the article. Thank you again for your invaluable guidance.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reworking of the original goes a long way to making the article clearer and demonstrating the precise contribution it makes to the existing academic literature. The author has carefully edited the article in ways that shape the argument and make it more readable and plausible.

There are, however, ongoing issues of awkward/confused phrasing, issues that would need to be corrected before publication. (See below for partial list.) In addition, the nature of the article--its attempt to synthesize exiting arguments and then use "intersectionality" to shape a "new" reading"--creates an overly complex interpretive narrative, one that readers will likely find difficult to follow. As was pointed out in an earlier review, the article reads like a person's intellectual field notes as they navigate the literature, with lots of references that assume readers are "in the know."

Issues:

Ln 17: the author is not "introducing" but rather drawing upon the "concept of intersectional post-secularity." The concept is being used as an interpretive tool.

Ln 88-90: as pointed out earlier, it is best to avoid repeating the phrase "living together" in two sentences.

Ln 98: again, there is no "the" before French laicite. And if there were, the The would not be capitalized.

Ln 107: I don't think the author means "ongoing influence of religion in shaping..." but rather ongoing influence of "religious thinking." It's the way French posit and think about the role of religion in the public sphere that is at issue, not "religion" itself.

Ln 128-129: This sentence is very confusing, largely because the author has not set the reader up to understand what it means "challenge the political dismissal of intersectionality..." The author knows what he/she wants to argue, but the order of the facts has not been clearly established. And here it should be added that the confusion inherent in this sentence reflects the problem of the article itself: the challenge of rewriting/rearguing the modern history Muslim women and laicite in France. The author needs to tell this story a different way, one that keeps the nuances of the history simple and easier to follow. In this reviewer's opinion, the author is him/herself getting a bit lost while trying to tell the narrative.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is difficult to determine whether some of the clarity issues are the result of original language of simple miscommunication.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you again for accepting this article and for all your help and guidance.

I have rechecked all the references as well as the language.

Best Regards,

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article touches on orignal topic of connection of Laicite with discrimination of Muslim women in the context of French colonial culture. The Authors managed to support and evidence their thesis about inequality of treatment of Muslim women by French Laicite, and of possible violations of freedom of religion there. The boldness and strength of the arguments are to be congratulated.

Although the topic and arguments are of high-quality, there are elements of the texts that could be corrected to provide its high-quality in other aspects.

1. The main arguments and main thesis are quite often repeated in the text in different sections, and the text should be reviewed to eliminate at least some of the repetitions. It is recommended to shorten to text to have about 2 pages less - still its arguments would remain sound, and the narrative would become more smooth.

2. Generally, the text should be reviewed and corrected concerning minor language elements (full stops, commas, breaks). Some of the corrections include:

Line 42 - the name of the state Turkey should be updated to Turkiye.

Line 45 - full stop should be removed.

The full stop is missing in line 104.

References style in the text should be unified according to Religions guidelines.

In bibliography section, some points are left blank - that should be corrected too.

3. Discussing slightly more a wider context and meaning of Laicite would be profitable to the quality of the paper. The Authors focus on problematic reference of Laicite to Islam and women rights and discuss it adequately, however it could be also pointed out that French Laicite has generally negatively referred to religions in the public square since the French Revolution, causing - for example - also Christianity to shrink from this sphere in XVIII-XX century. Therefore, perhaps, part of Laicite's hostility towards public Islam might come from general idea of Laicite, which could also be discussed a bit more widely in the text. That is not to denote the main Authors' arguments of Laicite's discriminating attitude towards Islam women.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit my manuscript. Please find attached the revised version titled:

Beyond Emancipation and Oppression: Post-Secular Intersectionality and the Muslim Woman in the French Republic

Key revisions made include:

Complete reworking of the paper, including all the suggested research papers as well as additional research.

A more clearly integrated research question in the introduction, eliminating the separate heading and embedding it within the broader argument. 
Clarification of the conceptual framing around post-secular intersectionality, including its theoretical foundations and relevance to the French context. 
Strengthened analysis of the relationship between colonial legacies and contemporary practices of laïcité, with a more explicit decolonial critique. 
Expanded discussion of Muslim women’s agency, with greater engagement with relevant scholarship, including Mahmood, Singh, and Brah. 
Improved cohesion across sections, including a bridge paragraph linking theoretical framing with case-based analysis. 
References and bibliography have also been carefully reviewed and updated for accuracy, consistency, and completeness.

I hope these revisions satisfactorily address the editorial and reviewer comments, and I remain grateful for the constructive feedback provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has a coherent structure. The topic addressed in the article is very important and current. The paper has to be improved - I suggest to add clear hypotheses. The title does not fully reflect the content of the article. In several parts, the article relies on only one publication. Thus, the author(s) avoid showing the complexity of the problem and the different perspectives. In the part where the author(s) write about the image of women in the media, it is worthwhile to clarify what the messages refer to. Is this research based on content analysis of the media?

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit my manuscript. Please find attached the revised version titled:

Beyond Emancipation and Oppression: Post-Secular Intersectionality and the Muslim Woman in the French Republic

Key revisions made include:

Complete reworking of the paper, including all the suggested research papers as well as additional research.
A more clearly integrated research question in the introduction, eliminating the separate heading and embedding it within the broader argument. 
Clarification of the conceptual framing around post-secular intersectionality, including its theoretical foundations and relevance to the French context. 
Strengthened analysis of the relationship between colonial legacies and contemporary practices of laïcité, with a more explicit decolonial critique. 
Expanded discussion of Muslim women’s agency, with greater engagement with relevant scholarship, including Mahmood, Singh, and Brah. 
Improved cohesion across sections, including a bridge paragraph linking theoretical framing with case-based analysis. 
References and bibliography have also been carefully reviewed and updated for accuracy, consistency, and completeness.

I hope these revisions satisfactorily address the editorial and reviewer comments, and I remain grateful for the constructive feedback provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the article. As I understand it, this is not an empirical piece of research, but instead a scholarly commentary on French political culture and political events, referring extensively to literature from the sociology of religion, postcolonial studies, studies into racism and discrimination (i.e. islamophobia) and political science/legal studies literature on freedom of religion etc. This is ok for a literature review, but can not carry the argument for a complete journal article. Especially since you are not really engaging but only superficially referring to authors where they seem to support your ideological point of view.

While this alone could have been improved, the whole piece is referenced very sloppily. The bibliography is - excuse the harsh expression - rubbish, all over the place information is missing, and entries are incoherently formatted. Some entries - authors you claim to make extensive use of - are missing completely (e.g. Fanon, Taguieff). Some of the sources I could not check since they appear to refer to a work that is non-existent (e.g. Raissiguier 2008).

When I became aware of the non-existing source, I stopped reviewing the paper.

I am very sorry to say, that in its current state the article is unfit to be published in any academic journal. For those reasons I have to recommend the paper to be rejected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of english is below expectations. It would require serious proof-reading.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit my manuscript. Please find attached the revised version titled:

Beyond Emancipation and Oppression: Post-Secular Intersectionality and the Muslim Woman in the French Republic

Key revisions made include:

Complete reworking of the paper, including all the suggested research papers as well as additional research.
A more clearly integrated research question in the introduction, eliminating the separate heading and embedding it within the broader argument. 
Clarification of the conceptual framing around post-secular intersectionality, including its theoretical foundations and relevance to the French context. 
Strengthened analysis of the relationship between colonial legacies and contemporary practices of laïcité, with a more explicit decolonial critique. 
Expanded discussion of Muslim women’s agency, with greater engagement with relevant scholarship, including Mahmood, Singh, and Brah. 
Improved cohesion across sections, including a bridge paragraph linking theoretical framing with case-based analysis. 
References and bibliography have also been carefully reviewed and updated for accuracy, consistency, and completeness.

I hope these revisions satisfactorily address the editorial and reviewer comments, and I remain grateful for the constructive feedback provided.