Problematising the Islamic Theology of Religions: Debates on Muslims’ Views of Others
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your revision. I addressed your points in the text. I proofread my text carefully and revised it according to your instructions. Apart from its English, I added some paragraphs to address your critiques.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In sum, this is a very fine paper. I am teaching a class right now for which I would give a revised version of this paper as compulsory reading if it were already published.
Having said that, there are some weaknesses to the paper. I see two main problems.
First, the author never clarifies why epistemology should have priority over soteriology. Is this an arbitrary choice, as perhaps Khalil’s decision to privilege soteriology was an arbitrary choice? If one gives priority to epistemology, I understand why Islamic theologies of religion boil down to either exclusivism or pluralism (on this I think the author is correct), but I don’t see why epistemology governs the discussion. I have read Khalil’s work very closely and see no fault with his decision to classify the figures he studies as inclusivists of various stripes; this is a necessary consequence of his decision to prioritize soteriology as the primary criterion for classifying these thinkers.
Second, the entire bibliography is English, even though several of the scholars cited hail from different parts of the Muslim-majority world. Do the scholars discussed in this article represent the full spectrum of contemporary Islamic opinion? At the very least, the article should indicate the nature of the data set chosen and the scope of the works cited; this is primarily an article about Muslim thinkers working in the West.
The English style is generally fine but needs a careful proofreading: there are some infelicities (page 7, line 294: convincible???) and some obvious errors, including Kerusha for Jerusha in one place. I noticed at least a half-dozen other typos that I won't bother to type out -- a close re-read is absolutely necessary. On page 1, line 33 the author means “plurality” not “pluralism”. An omission in the bibliography is Marco Demichelis’s Salvation and Hell in Classical Islamic Thought (Bloomsbury 2018). Even if the author intends to focus on epistemology, an article on this topic should probably engage Demichelis (because Khalil has been discussed at length). But this is a small problem compared to the issue of the all-English bibliography.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your revision. I addressed your revision in the text. I proofread my text carefully and revised it according to your instructions. Apart from its English, I added some extra paragraphs to address your comments.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
