Talk:Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin

Questions about this article

@Pahlevun:

1) You wrote that "the book prompted a counter-publication by the group which included ad hominem of Abrahamian". Can you please explain where in the source this is written?

2) You wrote that "The next deals with the likelihood that "Islamist cornucopia" such as the MEK's ideology, which has been failed in delivering the utopia of the "true" Islam, will raise with another new version." Can you please explain where in the source this is written?

3) Can you also provide full citation information (title of publication, publisher, etc) for "Leaman 1990" and "Kellas 1990"?

Sorry if the information is there and I missed it. Thanks and best wishes. Ypatch (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ypatch:

1. The source says:

Virtually every publication about the MeK is followed by a counter-publication and anything that is critical of the MeK is immediately classified as Iran-sponsored and thus neutralised.

In which the word counter-publication is explained at footnotes, as following:

Often ad hominem discrediting their authors: see, eg,... Abrahamian, above n 1, was followed by a critique by the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities: Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, Facts and Myths on the People’s Mojahedin of Iran: Examples of the Lies, Distortions and Fabrications in Ervand Abrahamian’s The Iranian Mojahedin (Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, 1990).

2. Quotation from Afshari:

Finally, Abrahamian raises large questions: ...Will the Islamist cornucopias go on providing other ideological-political strains now that the three previous amalgamations (that of al-Afghani, the Bazargan's generation, and the Shari'ati's Mojahedin) have failed in delivering the utopia of the "true" Islam?

3. I will. Thank you for the reminder. Pahlevun (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:

1. The source seems to say that Abrahamian’s book "was followed by a critique by the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities." You are saying that an affiliated organization is equivalent to the MEK itself, which does not seem to be an accurate representation of the source.

2. Are you saying that “Shari'ati's Mojahedin” is the same as the MEK? (I’ve never heard the MEK referred to as “Shari'ati's Mojahedin” before). Ypatch (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ypatch: There was a typo in the second quote, it reads "Shari'ati-Mojahedin". If you read the source, you will find out that the author has categorized the MEK and Shariati in the same ideological camp. de Boer and Zieck state that "It must be emphasised from the outset that information about the MeK is politically highly charged and commonly provokes a reaction by either the organisation [MEK] or the Iranian Government" and also explain that they are aware of "seemingly independent authors, institutions and organisations", using quibble marks for the word organisations in the body. It is very clear that they actually mean that such organisations are equivalent to the MEK itself. Referring to two other organisations, they also point out that "Curiously, the two reports are allegedly published by different organisations, but have exactly the same font and layout." Pahlevun (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: You are saying"the MeK-affiliated Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities" is the same as saying the "MeK" itself. I have read the source and your comment above, and I still don't understand how you are coming to this conclusion. Are you saying that because the authors use "quibble marks" it means the authors insinuate that they are the same organization? Where exactly are the authors saying these are the same organization? Ypatch (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This is what the authors say, you are omitting the sentence coming before the quote. I think the explanations are clear enough. Pahlevun (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that is clear that the critique from the book came from the Association of Committed Professors of Iranian Universities, which is affiliated to the MeK (not the Mek per se). If that is what the source indicates, that is what we should be putting in this article. Ypatch (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you omitting the sentence that explicitly says it was a reaction by the organisation before the part? (It must be emphasised from the outset that information about the MeK is politically highly charged and commonly provokes a reaction by either the organisation [MeK] or the Iranian Government. Virtually every publication about the MeK is followed by a counter-publication... [which is the book]). I disagree with you, initiate WP:DR and build a consensus for that change. No user has commented on the RSN topic that you initiated yet. Pahlevun (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you are not quoting the source properly. A "UK-based organization affiliated with the MEK" is not the same "being slammed by the group itself." The quote "Like almost any other publication about the MEK, the book prompted a counter-publication by the group which included ad hominem of Abrahamian.", this is not correct. The source is clear that this publication is not by the group, it's by an affiliated group. So this needs to be made clear in the article. Also Abrahamian is talking about the MEK’s original aim "to synthesize the religious values of Islam with the scientific thought of Marxism” and how it injected new meanings and dimensions to old Islamic terms and symbols.". This aim later changed with time (see its "Ideology" and "Schisms"). Ypatch (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)