Anonymity and Digital Islamic Authority

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article goes in the line of numerous researches on digital religion

1. Litterature review - at the core of the research objectives is the connection between anonymity and authority; but the concept of anonymity is vaguely defined and the debates (rich debates) on the concept of religious authority in online are totally ignored. In the Conclusions segment suddently anonymity is labelled as a ”performative strategy” but no discussion here on the concept of performance and the various theoretical approaches.

2. Methodology; the criteria and the steps for identifing and selecting the websites analysed are clearly presented; but there are no information of the type of interview, the guide and protocol, the timing, the amount of answers/text etc. + if certain main topics were identified (”The main topics addressed include Islamic theology, Qur’an recitations, rituals such as prayer and fasting, sharia (Islamic law) and fatwas (legal rulings), and guidance on personal moral and ethical conduct.”) which methods were used in order to find them and establish the importance of each topic?

3. Conclusions: the text did not state clearly what is the significance of this investigation in the field of debates on online religion. The ideea that ”The performance of anonymity, we have argued, contributes to the impression that the content posted on such sites is universal and non-sectarian” has 2 week points: a) what is the theoretical meaning of universal in the context of a scientific (and not theological) analysis of a religious phenomena?; b) why anonymity generate the feeling of non-sectarian? which are the elements that sustain this assertion IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE  READERS OF THE SITES AND PAGES in question?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed comments on our article. We found them helpful for improving its quality.

Comment 1: Litterature review - at the core of the research objectives is the connection between anonymity and authority; but the concept of anonymity is vaguely defined and the debates (rich debates) on the concept of religious authority in online are totally ignored. In the Conclusions segment suddently anonymity is labelled as a ”performative strategy” but no discussion here on the concept of performance and the various theoretical approaches.

Response 1: The literature review for this article is limited in scope and aims to highlight a gap in research on digital religious authority, which has focused mainly on how traditional authorities or emergent influencers flag their personal characteristics, experiences, and connections to consolidate, extend, or build a following. The principal contribution of the article is to draw attention to other sites that are also visible and influential, but via a different approach, namely that of hiding personal qualities and coming off as universal, neutral, and non-sectarian via anonymous self-presentation. Likewise, with respect to performance, it is beyond the scope of this article to engage in a lengthy discussion of Goffman and other iconic works on the topic. Rather, we discuss how recent sociological literature on anonymity conceptualizes it as a performance “in which actors obscure personal identities as they make meaning for various audiences” (p. 2). We include a succinct and up-to-date review of the aspects of this literature relevant to our framework. In the conclusion, we return to performativity and draw on linguistic theory to discuss conditions of performative felicity. But again, we felt going too deeply into the various theoretical debates on the topic would detract from the specific empirical focus of our article, as well as the main contribution, which does not seek to extend theories of performance per se.

Comment 2: Methodology; the criteria and the steps for identifiing and selecting the websites analysed are clearly presented; but there are no information of the type of interview, the guide and protocol, the timing, the amount of answers/text etc. + if certain main topics were identified (”The main topics addressed include Islamic theology, Qur’an recitations, rituals such as prayer and fasting, sharia (Islamic law) and fatwas (legal rulings), and guidance on personal moral and ethical conduct.”) which methods were used in order to find them and establish the importance of each topic?

Response 2: We appreciate this comment and have added more details regarding our selection of websites and how we analyzed them using textual analysis. We did not seek to ‘weight’ the importance of each topic, though the order of the topics listed in the sub-sections of the sites makes their relative importance somewhat apparent. Our aim was rather to highlight a series of topics that these types of generic and anonymous sites tend to include across the board. Some might give more significance to one topic or another, but this is not central to the arguments we advance in the article.

Comment 3: Conclusions: the text did not state clearly what is the significance of this investigation in the field of debates on online religion. The ideea that ”The performance of anonymity, we have argued, contributes to the impression that the content posted on such sites is universal and non-sectarian” has 2 week points: a) what is the theoretical meaning of universal in the context of a scientific (and not theological) analysis of a religious phenomena?; b) why anonymity generate the feeling of non-sectarian? which are the elements that sustain this assertion IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE  READERS OF THE SITES AND PAGES in question?

Response 3: We have made our contribution more clear in the introduction and conclusions. We draw on standpoint theory to explain how the “view from nowhere,” or knowledge presented as emanating from an “Archimedean point,” “gives the impression of universality, objectivity, and in consequence, authority.” We give concrete examples of how administrators hide their identities and claim to present a truthful interpretation of Islam, in some cases citing their diversity or lack of sectarian affiliation as grounding for this claim and for establishing trust. To be sure, we do not have data on the diverse and geographically dispersed audiences that consume the content of these sites. Obtaining such information would be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, we highlight how future research might productively focus on audience perceptions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great work, solid contribution. A minor revision: I would ask that the methods section be revised for more clarity as to how the websites, FB pages, and interviews were analyzed. A few additional sentences would be sufficient. 

Author Response

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have included additional sentences explaining how we selected the websites and FB pages included in our study, as well as how we analyzed them using textual analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments - it is useless