Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is pertinent and offers a substantial contribution to Islamic studies and international law.  It effectively connects classical Islamic jurisprudence with contemporary diplomatic practice, persuasively advocating for the enduring significance of the Islamic treaty-making tradition.  The work is methodologically robust, utilizing primary sources (Qur'an, Hadith) with a diverse array of classical and contemporary juristic perspectives.  Its primary strength resides in its methodical dissection of the legal elements of a mu’ahada.

 Nevertheless, the article possesses certain deficiencies.  for example:

- The phrase "Anonymous for Peer Review" and the placeholder text "[From Reference source not found.]" are recurrently present in the initial parts and the references.  This is the paramount issue to rectify prior to publication, since it presently disrupts the flow and diminishes the author's trustworthiness regarding those particular topics.  These should be substituted with the original citations.

- The "Elements and Conditions" section is inadequately developed: although the article enumerates four categories (basic elements, conditions, establishment process, reservations), it provides detailed discussion solely on the first category (sigha - form of expression).  The next sections transition to "Signatories" without adequately elaborating on the proposed structure.  Enhancing the other three categories or reorganizing the titles to accurately represent the content (e.g., "Signatories" and "Consent" might be categorized under "Conditions") would enhance the logical coherence.

 -The article extensively addresses the development and legality of treaties, however it only briefly discusses the criteria for violation and the processes for termination or abrogation.  An in-depth analysis or dedicated section on the ramifications of treaty violations from an Islamic viewpoint will enhance the discourse considerably.

-Disproportionate dimensions of the article's sections:  Although the main text comprises only 8 pages, the footnotes extend to 10 pages; I recommend the elimination of all superfluous footnotes.

-Copyediting should rectify several minor typographical problems. For instance:

 On Page 2, "Virally" in Q. 8:61 should be corrected to "Verily."

 On Page 4, the journal title is erroneously spelled as "Refigions" in the header.

 Discrepancies in transliteration manifest, including "muwada’a," "muvaada’a," and "muuoada’a."  It is essential to standardize this across the board.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor revision to the language is required. 

Author Response

1. Expanded and sharpened definition; Arabic script added; related terms distinguished.
2. Anonymous placeholders: “Anonymous for peer review” and missing reference placeholders must be removed in the actual Word file; here the content is presented clean.
3. Structure: Section reorganized and expanded into four coherent categories as requested.
4. Conditions: Content about signatories, consent, and status in Qurʾan/Sunna is now explicitly treated as conditions.
5. Process: Drafting, negotiation, ratification, and implementation are now systematized.
6. Reservations: New, more systematic analysis.
7. Violation: Entirely new section responding to Reviewer 1’s concern about the brief treatment of violation and termination.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Evaluation of “Treaty (Mu’ahada) Making in Islam”

Title: The current title, “Treaty (Mu’ahada) Making in Islam: A Focused Examination”, is somewhat redundant. The phrase “A Focused Examination” does not add meaningful information and could be removed for conciseness.

Scope and Focus:

• The study claims to explore the concept and practice of treaty-making within the Islamic tradition. However, much of the discussion centers primarily on juristic (fiqh) aspects rather than the broader historical and practical implementation of treaties.

• A comprehensive analysis of treaty-making in Islam would require a detailed examination of actual treaties, their historical context, and the political, social, and diplomatic implications of these agreements across Muslim and non-Muslim entities.

Theoretical Framework: The study lacks a clear theoretical framework to guide the discussion of treaties in Islamic jurisprudence. Establishing a framework would help organize the analysis, link historical practice with legal principles, and provide a systematic approach to understanding how Islamic law conceptualizes and regulates treaties.

Research Gap:

• The study does not clearly identify a research gap. To strengthen the study, the author should:

  1. Survey existing scholarly literature on Islamic treaties.

  2. Highlight underexplored areas (e.g., comparative analysis of historical treaties, practical negotiation mechanisms, ethical guidelines in diplomacy).

  3. Explain how the current study specifically addresses these gaps.

Methodology: The study lacks a clear explanation of research methodology. It should explicitly state whether it employs historical analysis, jurisprudential analysis, textual analysis of primary sources, or a combination of methods, and justify the choice.

Content and Analysis:

• The paper promises to discuss the drafting, negotiation, and implementation of treaties within an Islamic context. However, it provides limited detail on these practical dimensions.

• The study should explicitly demonstrate the ethical and legal norms that guided Muslim rulers and states in engagements with both Muslim and non-Muslim entities.

• While theological and legal underpinnings are mentioned, the integration of historical practice with normative principles could be strengthened to reflect both theory and praxis.

Conclusion:

• The conclusion primarily reiterates definitions rather than synthesizing findings or providing critical insights. It should be reformulated to:

  • Summarize the main findings regarding treaty-making practice and norms.

  • Highlight contributions to scholarship.

  • Suggest implications for understanding Islamic governance and diplomacy.

Clarity: The text could benefit from more precise language and organization, especially in distinguishing between theological, legal, and historical dimensions.

Author Response

1. Gap: New subsection added to identify gap and contribution.
2. Methodology: Methodology explicitly added.
3. Process: Drafting, negotiation, ratification, and implementation are now systematized.
4. History: New section answering the request for more historical practice, including the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
5. Practice: Section expanded and linked more clearly to modern examples.
6. Conclusion: Fully rewritten to synthesize findings and contributions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Definition: Expanded and sharpened definition; Arabic script added; related terms distinguished.
2. Terms: New paragraph added as requested to distinguish related terms.
3. History: New section answering the request for more historical practice, including the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf