Talk:Muslim Council of Britain/Archive 1

86.130.64.10 - our readers aren't idiots
The readers of this article can work this out for themselves;
 * In this one sentance, the MCB managed to completely contradict their previous statements on freedom of expression

This is your own analysis;
 * the use of the word "xenophobic" (a fear of foreigners) suggests that the council believes that Danish newspaper cartoons were targeting Muslims of Arabian origin, rather than Islamic views as a whole. In this statement, the MCB showed themselves up as racists, since a member of any race can follow the beliefs of Islam.

Although you have a point, wikipedia is not the place for your analysis unless this work has published elsewhere to a large audience. I don't believe this is significant evidence to alledge racism either. In Sacranie's sentance, he attributed 'a xenophobic tone' to the Western Media as a whole rather than to Jyllands-Posten specifically. I genuinely don't believe that the MCB would argue against a member of any race converting to Islam. Infact, they'd probably be delighted. I think you've misjudged them. Veej 00:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Aims incompatible with MCB stated aims
"The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is an organisation founded in 1997 to defend the rights of Muslims, improve relations between traditional Muslims and wider society and to "promote cooperation, consensus and unity on Muslim affairs" in the United Kingdom."

This is vague and incorrect in part. As an unincorporated association the MCB has it's aims clearly stated in their constitution as a legal requirement. http://www.mcb.org.uk/aim.php To misrepresent these with paraphrasing is awkward and misleading. Comments please. PhilipPage 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited as suggested. Points I-VI could do with formatting. PhilipPage 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * though this hadn't occured to me before, now that you've suggested it, the paraphrasing was awkward and misleading. well spotted mate. Veej 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you approve, it's a great idea for an entry. Rather surprised it hadn't been here for years to be honest. PhilipPage 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant
The section in this article that states:

" Despite the fact that there is in fact no such thing. British police officers are always trained to go for head or chest shots to try and guarentee a first shot kill. British police officers who carry firearms are always taught that using a firearm is a last, desperate resort to be used when the target must die to ensure public safety. British police are never trained in disabling shots. There was the same sort of confusion some years ago in Northern Ireland."

Should be removed. It is simply going off on a tangent, and has nothing really to do with the Muslim Council of Britan. I'm not a Muslim, I was simply searching for information, but this that this inclusion is too subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.123.76 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite agree, given that the majority of British Police aren't armed they're not "always trained" to go for any kind of shotPhilipPage 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

MCB members want freedom of expression
Wooster removed "unless you can demonstrate that the linked letter was written on behalf of the MCB?"

The letter was written to the Times (notable) by several member organisations of the MCB (an umbrella group). The signatories are senior figures within the MCB. If Tony Blair writes to the Times, do we need to prove that he was writing on behalf of the UK government before including excerpts on wikipedia's UK government page? Veej 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not so simple in my opinion. I would go on whether they signed themselves "X, treasurer of the MCB", or just "X" in which case we should assume they were writing in a personal capacity. This seems to be the normal distinction in letter sections of Newspapers. The same goes for "Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" vs. just "Tony Blair". Zargulon 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 136.148.1.143
Please read what kind of nonsense your wiki-editors write before sticking it on the net, please delete these sections as it is highly Islamaphobic, trying to brand all muslims as terrorists. the information here is all incorrect because the Secretary General of the MCB has recently been honoured with knighthood by H.M. the Queen. How could this organisation be honoured with such prestigious award after burning the effigy of Tony Blair and asking for the bombing of New York. in addition Tony Blair himself was involved in the processs of selecting people to be knighted. Is this kind of information rational to us living in the 21st century or is it outright racial/ religious hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fys (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

I am continuously denied the right to correct the article by Zeq. In the restriction of my right to free speach, I can only protest by issuing a NPOV warning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.128.70 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

MCB Does Not Represent British Muslims
In my experience most British Muslims have not heard of the MCB. The MCB membership and political outlook is very Islamist. I'm a secular Muslim. MCB has too many links to dodgy groups like Jamaat I Islam, for my liking.

Does the average Muslim care more about getting a good education, job and whatnot or far off conflicts like Pakistan or Israel/Palestine? The MCB most certainly doesn't represent me because as a Bengali Sylheti Muslim, I have no interest in Palestine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.21.73 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * good point, to many people nowadays presume that all muslims have a fixed consensus, and a single opinion. i mean the archbishop of canterbury doesn't represent every christian in britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerkschmerk (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MCB.jpg
Image:MCB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2ZGDNSB4AHWMXQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/10/nbari110.xml Zeq 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial day boycott
I notice that there is no mention of the Muslim Council of Britains long held boycott of the Holocaust Memorial day. It is mentioned on the Holocaust Memorial Day page from wikipedia, but not on the MCB page. I will add something to the MCB page about it in the next day or so if there are no valid objections. Malbolge 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice the real reason for the boycott is missing, namely the fact they refused to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and they refused to recognise the gay victims of the holocaust. A fact that hte MCB now try to hide, they have removed the origional press release from thier website, but the BBC website has quotes from it.  I know it used to be on here, so someone must have removed the referances.   OktoberSunset (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, here is the origional press release preserved by web.archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20010309212038/http://www.mcb.org.uk/news260101.html I think I'm good to do an edit now. OktoberSunset (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Category islamist groups?
http://www.markhumphrys.com/islam.uk.html criticized it. 79.203.219.5 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How representative is the MCB?
As a British Bengali Muslim, I would like to ask that the Wiki article on the MCB is edited to inform readers that the MCB leadership is a self-appointed group. There are no wide ranging elections which legitimise these people as 'spokesperson's for Muslims'.

Habz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.41.206 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The leadership is democratically elected from within the organisation (as, for example, with the Labour Party). However, some Muslims are clearly concerned that the MCB does not represent them. If you can find a source it'll fit nicely in the 'Criticism' section.Jamal (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article says "a large majority of British Muslims". That means way more than fifty percent of British Muslims, not just "many" or "very many", such terms can mean a numerous but minority set. Can a reference be given to a countrywide poll and how the electorate was chosen?  The answer to the person who asked just above that the article be changed is "This is WP, make the change yourself."--SilasW (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Daud Abdullah
I notice that a search for Daud Abdullah redirects here. Surely he's notable enough to have an article of his own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.100.97 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul
I'm working on an overhall of this page that sets out the structure better. It's a bit of a mess right now. There needs to be far more (well sourced) information about the activities of the MCB. That should make up about 70% of the article. The criticism should be put into one cohesive section and referenced, and could perhaps be balanced with praise, also referenced. If you can think of a better structure, let's talk. Jamal (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy with the page now, but we could do with a more comprehensive account of criticism and praise from various quarters and organisations. I also think the 'Structure' table is unsightly. Could we perhaps have it going horizontally as well as vertically, so it takes up less vertical page space? The 'History' section is the final bit that needs to be revamped, I'll get round to it in the next couple of days.Jamal (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

May I add that there is an erroneous statement in the introduction that something called the "Muslim Movement for the Establishment of the Global Caliphate" is one of the MCB affiliates. I dont think such 'movement' exists, it certainly isnt one of the MCB affiliates as you can verify here: http://www.mcb.org.uk/affiliates.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macab09 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A subset?
Recently "South Asian" has been stuck in front of nearly every occurrence of Muslim/s. JHC alone knows if that qualification is correct but I query its addition in every case of what is apparently a direct quotation.--SilasW (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aims and objectives
The section and comments on the aims and objectives is now out of date. These are the aims and objectives from their web apoge

http://www.mcb.org.uk/aim.php

Aims and Objectives

i To promote cooperation, consensus and unity on Muslim affairs in the UK.

ii To encourage and strengthen all existing efforts being made for the benefit of the Muslim community.

iii To work for a more enlightened appreciation of Islam and Muslims in the wider society.

iv To establish a position for the Muslim community within British society that is fair and based on due rights.

v To work for the eradication of disadvantages and forms of discrimination faced by Muslims.

vi To foster better community relations and work for the good of society as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.238.65 (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV ?
Article now reads like a PR for MCB. Zeq (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you like to change? I think it compares favourably with article on similar organisations, e.g. the Board of Deputies of British Jews Jamal (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed all facts that give the reader a more complete NPOV picture about this oragnization: Zeq (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It`s ridiculous, but in between his ~50 edits Liquidsword aka Jamal has actually announced to overhaul the article into 90% praise and activities of the MCB: "There needs to be far more (well sourced) information about the activities of the MCB. That should make up about 70-80% of the article. The criticsm should be put into one cohesive section and referenced (10-15%), and should be balanced with praise, also referenced (10-15%)." The article was better before this POV blather was introduced and all critical information and weblinks were erased. I`d second a revert, unless someone tries another "overhaul".--Shengyi (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * there is a similar problem explained here: - there the isue is not just content but behaviour as well. Zeq (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There were numerous edits, but most of them were small (just how I work). Feel free to add to the 'criticism' section, with well-sourced material. I obviously haven't removed all critical material. Again, I point the critic to the article on the equivalent Jewish organisation in the UK, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, since we must assume such criticisms apply to both articles. Jamal (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One article is written as a PR and the other as informative balanced encyclopdia article. We also must take into accounr what each group does. Zeq (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The proper approach is for the praise/criticism to reflect what appears in the RSs. If it is mostly praise, so it should be in the article.  The "equivalency" of other organizations is non-illuminating in this regard.  We don't require the same amount percentage of criticism in an Obama article that we have in, say, a Idi Amin article -- just because that are/were both heads of state.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the positives?
This article is totally imbalanced. The MCB does significant good works and makes a serious attempt at representing all British Muslims, irrespective of sect or ethnicity. How is it that none of these areas are covered in this entry? May I suggest also adding comments on some of the following: - political lobbying - books for schools - interfaith dialog - advising on faith matters - employers good practice guides - adoption and fostering - etc etc

Neither does the article mention that the MCB is a voluntary organistaion (it has less than five permamnet members of staff at any point in time) and as such is dependent on the good-will of it's volunteers to get anything done. Please also note that the MCB is the largest Muslim organisation in the UK by membership. Husainweb 24 April 2006 00:44 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, but please bear in mind this entry was originally started with a strong anti-islam POV and various contributors have edited away from that, albeit slowly. I suggest you jump in and make the changes you'd like to see, I know I've been waiting for Muslims to come along and set the record straight. I'd be wary of changing "unincorporated association" in the opening line though as this is it's legal standing. Good luck! PhilipPage 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a stab at it, let me know what you think.Jamal (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment this article is a complete joke. It cannot be further from NPOV.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Trojan horse controversy
A brief comment on and references to this affair added. Cpsoper (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Given the gravity of the charges, the number of schools now taken into special measures, and the MCB's response to this situation as unjust and disproportionate, it justifies the use of a subsection here.Cpsoper (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muslim Council of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011230339/http://www.mcb.org.uk/uploads/M100.doc to http://www.mcb.org.uk/uploads/M100.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muslim Council of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcb.org.uk/MCBPR-16042014.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I added information on the history of the council and clarified sentence structure under the structure section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab Styles (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Policy Exchange
Is this:

"In 2016 a survey done by Policy Exchange found that about 2% of British Muslims felt that MCB represented them."

relevant and within the bounds of WP:UNDUE? Is Policy Exchange fair and unbiased on their reporting of the MCoB? Is International Business Times a reliable source? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No. This statement made by the Policy Exchange was proven to be incorrect. The article claimed that 2% of British Muslims felt the MCB represented them. However, the factoid was later corrected to be that "2% of British Muslims would choose the MCB to engage with government officials on their behalf". Rather, according to the BBC, it was seen that 55% of respondents stated that the MCB does a good job of representing the views of Muslims.

WGC12345 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC) WGC12345

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gab Styles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)