Talk:Muslim Association of Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the MAB have Muslim Brotherhood ties? GCarty 17:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has many ties not the least of which is that the father of Anas Al-Tikriti, the former President, is head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq.

Contents 1 Dr. Tamimi 2 Muslim Brotherhood = MAB 3 MAB activities 4 what is NPOV?

[edit] Dr. Tamimi

Will add what Louise Ellman has said about Dr. Tamimi[1] later. Does anyone have a link to the speeches made by Dr. Tamimi? --Mrfixter 15:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Brotherhood = MAB

"The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood". --Mrfixter 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't think the MP in question is neutral. Here is MAB's reply [2]. I have edited the article to reflect bothsides of view.--JK the unwise 08:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say that the statement you linked to is a reply to an article written by Anthony Browne in The Times, NOT Louise Ellman's statement in the House of Commons, as evinced by the first few paragraphs. --Mrfixter 10:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The point about diverse origins, cultures, traditions and schools of thought is relevant because it is a counterpoint to the idea that MAB originates from/stands exclusivly in the tradition of/stands exclusivly in the school of thought of the Musslim Brotherhood.--JK the unwise 09:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what matters is what the MAB say about the Muslim Brotherhood in their own organisation, not some political waffle about "diversity". No-one is claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood is not diverse, after all it exists in 70 countries so must have some diversity. The repetition of the MAB's strawman is still a strawman on the WP. --Mrfixter 09:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Diversity of traditions means includes those who's tradtions are outside those of the Musslim Brotherhood. Diversity of origins means includes those with origins outside of Musslim Brotherhood. Diversity of schools of thought means includes those who do not stand in schools of thought connected to Musslim Brotherhood => this (if true) would show that MAB isn't front group. The statment was made by MAB directly in relation to accusations of being Musslim Brotherhood front group.--JK the unwise 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your original researh about what the MAB thinks about "diversity" is exactly that. Let's look at the quote about "diversity":

MAB is proud of the diversity its membership profile displays in terms of origins, cultures, traditions, schools of thought, ages, skills, educations and specialties. Amongst its members are those whom, back in their original countries, were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they were found to be of a level of awareness, understanding, skill and ability, that would serve MAB and what it aims for.

Keep you original research out of this article, please. I don't see anything explicitly or implicitly saying that the diversity is on opposition or outside the Muslim Brotherhood here. Nor why anyone would think that the Muslim Brotherhood would not be proud of the same thing of its own members. You do understand that even with the MAB's self-proclaimed pride in diversity, you are missing the uniformity in being part of the MAB! Also, can you cite an example of this diversity? --Mrfixter 11:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Also, the words "Muslim Brotherhood" do not even occur before the statement quote, so your inference that it refers to "diversity" set against the Muslim Brotherhood is quite clearly original research.--Mrfixter 11:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MAB activities

I think we need to something written on the MAB's alliance with the SWP, hosting Yusuf al-Qaradawi in London and their boycotting of Holocaust Memorial Day. --Mrfixter 10:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is NPOV?

JK: It is a simple, easily demonstrated fact that MAB opposes the US extradition request for Babar Ahmad. You cut out this fact in the name of "NPOV"? Since when is NPOV fact supression? May I suggest that supressing facts is in fact quite the opposite of NPOV? Do you at least have the integrity to put a neutrality disputed tag on the article if you insist on whitewashing it of all provable facts which you don't square with your particular view? How many other articles are you purging in order to turn them into your propaganda vehicles?Bdell555 23:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see you are now willing to let that stand, so I retract my hostile remarks. And I concede that your edit linking to Nick Cohen is an improvement in accuracy. I was hesitant since a newspaper opinion column is only a bit better than a blog, but I assumed the Guardian wouldn't let Cohen make it up so a source could be found if one searched hard enough. My only remaining dispute is that you maintain Ahmad is only accused of setting up the websites in question (thus leaving open the question of whether he really did). But Ahmad's defence counsel has not contested that particular point [ http://www.freebabarahmad.com/defence%20hearing.php]Bdell555 00:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)