Religious Policy of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars (1260–1277 AC)

1. Summary

1. Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I’d like to thank you for your evaluation and comments, and your contribution that helped me make some corrections and re-revision in the required points.
2. In general, I’ve made the revisions to the whole manuscript as required by highlighting (in red) the new revision, changes, or additions that can be easily reviewed.
3. The abstract and the introduction have been revised for more understanding to indicate the research methodology. (see the Introduction: lines, 64-72)
4. References and citations in this article are used according to the style of RELIGION Journal. So, I checked all references and omitted some of them which are unnecessary or irrelevant to the contents of the manuscript, while I’ve added one reference (see lines, 512-513)

Responses and Comments to the Required Points: My explanation of the corrections required in the manuscript and the comments in general, point by point, for your comments:

Comment 3: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?

After the re-revision and re-review, the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are more clearly stated, and focused on the end of the introduction (see lines, 68-87).

Comment 4: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?

The discussion of the research results is coherent, balanced, and convincing, as it relies on qualitative research in terms of producing results through appropriate sources, in the form of search, investigation, comparison while verifying and confronting and presenting the results from medieval and contemporary sources (See the main discussion in the headlines and main topics: lines, 89-90, 149, 202, 278-279, 354, 399).

Comment 7: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

As stated in the article and the data discussion, the conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article or referred to in the secondary literatur. Anyway, some revisions were made to clarify this point. (see Conclusions: Lines, 456-470).

Summary

a.      Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I’d like to thank you for your evaluation and comments, and your contribution that helped me make some corrections and re-revision in the required points. Special thanks for your positive and lovely comments. Furthermore, I’m attaching below my general responses and explanation of the re-corrections made in the manuscript and the comments in general, point by point.

b.      In general, I’ve made the revisions to the whole manuscript as required by highlighting (in red) the new revision, changes, or additions that can be easily reviewed.

c.      The abstract and the introduction have been revised for more understanding to indicate the research methodology. (see the Introduction: lines, 64-72).

d.     References and citations in this article are used according to the style of RELIGION Journal. So, I checked all references and omitted some of them which are unnecessary or irrelevant to the contents of the manuscript, while I’ve added one reference (see lines, 512-513).

Responses and Comments to the Required Points:

My explanation of the corrections required in the manuscript, point by point in general:

Comment 1: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The content on the topic was described and summarized within the abstract as well as in the introduction. See repairs, additions, or re-revisions in red. (see lines: 3-8, 12-14, 36-37, 52-53, 62-63, 68-80).

Comment 2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes. I’ve checked and omitted some of the irrelevant references to the contents of my manuscript. But I’ve added one more relevant reference (see lines, 512-513)

Comment 3: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?

After the re-revision and re-review, the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods are more clearly stated, and focused on the end of the introduction (see lines, 68-87).

Comment 4: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?

The discussion of the research results is coherent, balanced, and convincing, as it relies on qualitative research in terms of producing results through appropriate sources, in the form of search, investigation, comparison while verifying and confronting and presenting the results from medieval and contemporary sources (See the main discussion in the headlines and main topics: lines, 89-90, 149, 202, 278-279, 354, 399).

Comment 5: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

I think that this point does not fit with the type and method of this research.

Comment 6: Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes. The article is adequately referenced. I've followed the requirements of the Journal (RELIGION) (see References in the whole article).

Comment 7: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

As stated in the article and the data discussion, the conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article or referred to in the secondary literatur. Anyway, some revisions were made to clarify this point. (see Conclusions: Lines, 456-470).