Talk:Muslim Association of Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Can anyone please fix the problem with this article. I see some idiotic picture as background here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.117.39 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dr. Tamimi[edit]

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)[reply]

Muslim Brotherhood = MAB[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

MAB activities[edit]

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)[reply]

what is NPOV?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MABLogo.jpg[edit]

Image:MABLogo.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 Wikipedia: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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-verified categories[edit]

Bali Makmur recently added two categories to the page. These were Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam and Category:Government of the United Arab Emirates designated terrorist organizations. Neither of these is associated with any content or verification in the text of the article, so I have removed them both. I'm not convinced the second category would be germane to the article even if it was cited, but I'll leave that for another time. If you have citations to support the addition of the category, please add relevant content to the body of the article too. Relentlessly (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just undone this edit. Bali Makmur re-added the categories mentioned above and added the UAE's classification of MAB as a terrorist organisation to the lead; I moved this to "other" and added MAB's refutation. This is necessary to meet WP:UNDUE: to have it as the second sentence of the article gives it enormous weight that isn't appropriate.
The categories are also non-neutral, in my opinion, and they do not meet WP:NONDEFINING. Relentlessly (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the categories do not meet WP:NONDEFINING, that's a problem with the categories themselves, not the article being in them.--Bali Makmur (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not reverting the other content. I have no wish to edit-war with you; I shan't revert any more. Note, however, that "the category exists so the page must go in it" is a fairly spurious argument. I have nothing invested in this article: my only desire is to see it be neutral. (See the edit history.) Relentlessly (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is a problem with the categories, WP:CFD is for that, not the articles.--Bali Makmur (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A year on, {{ping|Bali Makmur]] is continuing this disruptive editing and trying to re-insert these categories against consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please add reference text[edit]

Hi, can someone please add to the following footnote (currently #9) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8113977/Al-Qaeda-leaders-tour-of-Britain-revealed.html the text: "Al-Qaeda leader's tour of Britain revealed" 5 Nov 2010

TIA 66.225.176.38 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muslim Association 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_Association_of_Britain&oldid=1209143413"