Talk:The Islamist

review section

i currently moved some unsorted mess about the book from the Ed Husain article to the review section. this information needs some sorting on this article, and only after it's sorted, it should be softly introduced on the writer's page. perhaps i'll sort it some tomorrow, in the meantime, i'm placing it on an "extras" sub-title". Jaakobou 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to sort out some of the unsorted mess about the book - have given a brief overview of the book's content, followed by some of the approving critique and some of the critical reception the book has received. I am undecided on whether it is better to retain all of this with the Ed Husain article - I agree with Aaliyah that without the book Ed Husain is a nobody. Learnreal4001 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

complaint from Penguin, publisher of Ed Husain’s The Islamist

I’m writing on behalf of Penguin, publisher of Ed Husain’s The Islamist.

We are concerned that over the past few months facts and quoted opinions have been removed from Ed Husain’s Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Husain) and from that of The Islamist, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Islamist) leaving an imbalanced and unfair portrayal of the man and his work.

Our concerns outlined here:

Ed Husain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Husain)

Personal life, education and Career

The following information was removed or altered:

He studied Arabic at the University of Damascus and has completed an MA in Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is currently enrolled at the School’s Ph.D programme in Political Science. Husain is also a visiting fellow at Civitas, the independent think-tank.

He is a member of the Labour Party and supports Amnesty International.

The Islamist

The final sentence of this section currently reads:

'Husain's book has received some mixed reviews, among them some strong criticism, in relation to accuracy and Husain's analysis'

We believe a factually accurate presentation would read:

'Husain's book has received positive reviews from mainstream British commentators but some strong criticism from Islamism-influenced individuals. '

I believe the following links (some of which have been removed from the entry by other parties) reflect this analysis:

The Guardian http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2078103,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2071237,00.html

The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1685725.ece

International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/01/news/profile.php

The Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Islamist)

We are concerned about the division of reviews of The Islamist into Approving Critique and a larger section entitled Critical Reception.

Especially as the distinction between these two terms is very small.

We are particularly troubled by the following quote, which strays from the book itself into debate and conjecture. It constitutes criticism but has nothing to do with the critical reception of The Islamist:

A review of The Islamist in the Sunday Times notes that Husain asserts that Hizb ut-Tahrir supported Saddam Hussain and recruited the suicide bomber Asif Hanif in London. However, academics have documented the execution of Hizb ut-Tahrir members by the Saddam regime. Taji-Farouki notes that "In December 1990 five activists were executed in Suleymaniyya and six in Mosul in response to a note sent to the Iraqi embassy in Amman urging Saddam Hussain to abandon Ba'thism and to declare an Islamic Caliphate" [4]. An Islamic scholar and leader from Hizb ut-Tahrir was also tortured and killed by the Saddam Hussain regime after the scholar criticised Saddam's treatment of their Shia brothers. Asif Hanif was associated with 'LightStudy', an educational Sufi Muslim group based at Hounslow mosque [5]. The group is led by the Syrian scholar and Sufi Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and an investigation by The Observer found that Hanif was most probably recruited in Damascus, not London.

The extensive quote from Taji-Farouki is totally unrelated to the critical reception of the book, as are the sentences that follow it.

Similarly we feel, that the final point in this section is not recording a ‘critical reception’ rather using Wikipedia as a platform to debate issues arising from the book:

Husain states (regarding Ghulam Sarwar's Islam: Beliefs and Teachings) that "The first book I read about Islam in English was Islam: Beliefs and Teachings by Gulam Sarwar" [6] and goes on to state that after only being taught about Islam orally by his family, Sarwars book "filled a gap". As he was taught that Islam and politics do not mix [6] he says that "one part of the book has stayed with me." This being the chapter "Political System in Islam" [6]. He says that Sarwar said that Politics within Islam is fundamental. [6]

Husain goes on to say that "What I did not know at school was that Sarwar was a business management lecturer, not a scholar of religion. And he was an activist in the organisations that he mentioned Muslim Brotherhood and Jamat-e-Islami]. Sarwar's book was not the dispassionate educational treatise it purported to be." and that "He was also the brains behind the separation of Muslim children from school assemblies into what we called 'Muslim assembly', managed by the Muslim Educational Trust (MET) [of which Sarwar is the Director]. What seemed like an innocuous body was, in fact, an organisation with an agenda. In my school, a Jamat-e-Islami activist named Abdul Rabb represented the MET and awarded us trophies and medals for our performance in MET exams. Ostensibly it all seemed harmless, but the personnel all belonged to Jamat-e-Islami front organisations in Britain. Their key message was that Islam was not merely a religion but also an ideology that sought political power and was beginning to make headway." [6]

However, when Husain quotes Sarwar on page 21 of The Islamist regarding politics and Islam (page 169 of Sarwar's book), he does so but, although not wrong, he words the quoting very differently to what is actually written in Sarwar's book.

Additionally, as discussed above, Husain mentions that "What I did not know at school was that Sarwar was a business management lecturer, not a scholar of religion." However, it says clearly in Sarwar's book that he "obtained his first degree in Commerce and a masters in Business Management from the University of Dhaka, Bangkladesh" and that "For three years he taught Business Management to first-degree students in City College".

The Islamist is a contentious book and we realise it may divide opinion. However, we strongly believe that people using your site to look for a record of critical opinion on the The Islamist or a biography of Ed Husain should not instead be exposed to a live and often one-sided debate.

We would very much like to hear from you on how we can go forward from this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.223.5 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to User Edhusain who keeps blanking

Edhusain, if it is you, the real Edhusain, are you aware that you and your IP/computer can be blocked from vandalising this page The_Islamist, and the page "ed_husain" if you continue to vandalise it, by blanking it. Please see WP:Vandal. Aaliyah Stevens 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the real Ed Husain would vandalise a page which promotes his book. Jaakobou 13:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it as well, but may be, just may be, he may be worried about some of the critical reviews that have been posted. Learnreal4001 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com not carrying book?

I noticed recently that this book does not seem to be available on Amazon.com, while it is available on Amazon.ca and Amazon.co.uk. Is there a reason the US Amazon is not carrying this book? Perhaps I did not search properly, but I did search by title, author, and ISBN, with no luck. I assume this book is not banned in the US since other books of Husain's are carried there, so can anyone explain why Amazon is not carrying it there? Perhaps the Penguin rep who posted earlier can shed some light on this. Thanks. Ssilk 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.... Because its British? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I moved the quotes from the book about Ghulam Sarwar and his book to the overview and left the criticism of it in the Critical reception section. I tagged the criticism WP:OR because it does not cite anyone making that criticism of Husain - i.e. that Husain should have known Sarwar was a business management lecturer not an Islamic scholar. Some notable source has to make the criticism, not an editor. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

The Approving critique is about 1/3 the length of the Critical reception. The article is disorganized conglomeration, sprinkled with unencylopedic attacks (e.g. others argue that the concept of the Islamic State or caliphate has been well documented in Islamic theology... Although some writers have described him as a former terrorist or jihadi, ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unencyclopedic nature of the criticism. An example "Yet another Islamic activist blogger asserts that Ed Husain’s appearance has been orchestrated by pro-war groups and individuals within the media connected to the government and New Labour.[22]" This doesn't fit in with Wiki rules and should be removed. There must be better examples than this--86.31.59.81 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

restoring synopsis

User:GorgeCustersSabre deleted the synopsis with the edit summary "This entire section is unnecessary". I don't think it's to much to ask to have a description of the book including excerpts for a wiki article.

I have rewritten and restored the section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another deletion

User:GorgeCustersSabre has deleted the synopsis again. No talk page discussion, just edit summary:
No, this is far too much. This is an encyclopedia entry -- and supposedly a neutral one -- not a book review. Sorry.

I shall return. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left protest on User:GorgeCustersSabre talk page pointing out:
he had made two deletions with no discussion on the talk page, when there is obviously no consensus 2nd deletion
and if the problem is "just too long" then the solution is to shorten it, not delete it.

The manual style Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article makes it pretty clear wikipedia articles on a books include a synopsis of the book:

A general book article includes:

A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
A book synopsis. [emphasis added]
Information about its publication.
A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
Noteworthy citations and sources.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GorgeCustersSabre reply?
Deletes my post from his talk page with edit summary:
" Ho hum. Another editor insulted by someone merely disagreeing with him." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BoogaLouie, I hope you are well. Please let it go now. I am not opposing you or again reverting your edits . I gave up disagreeing with you because I found your manner a bit ... um ... assertive. I will no longer watch this page, let alone edit it. I hate edit wars and try to avoid conflicting with ... ah ... overly firm ... editors. So let's please be at peace. I wish you well. Forgive any misunderstanding. Yours sincerely, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "gave up disagreeing with" me because of my "manner"?? Look my man, you weren't just disagreeing with someone, you were deleting the whole synopsis. When someone calls you on it you owe an explanation to wikipedia and its editors. You don't have to cave in, you do have to explain. Anyway, I'm sure you are no longer reading this, but I am rewriting the synopsis. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more restoring

Have added a rewritten synopsis, adding plenty of source quotes for accuracy and "according to Husain" comments to minimize POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]