Back in July 2005, when four young British Muslims killed scores on the London Underground, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Britain's largest umbrella organization for Muslims, was quick to condemn the crime and join the fight against extremism, expressing its "anguish, shock and horror." The group offered its services to the Blair government and visited mosques in Yorkshire to implore others to join in the struggle. It was a constructive moment of humility and honesty, likely helpng to avert further backlash as British Muslims and non-Muslims looked for answers within their own communities and not just outside them.

Yet if one looks back on 2005, the MCB is arguably best known not for the results of these efforts, but for it's reaction to a critical (post 7/7) BBC Panorama documentary that challenged their approach and philosophy, with criticism included from some fellow Muslims. The MCB's response was apoplectic.

The documentary was in many ways a no-win situation for the MCB and was clearly meant to exploit many of the MCB's questionable actions and comments in the past. But in a different context, many of the criticisms would still be worth making, if only to point out the appearance of impropriety groups like this should avoid. Critical - even hostile - journalism should be expected of any leader or organisation, Muslim or otherwise.

However, carefully crafted responses can often overcome the unfair questions. How we respond to critics is as important as what we actually say, and the MCB's defensiveness only fueled the fire. It is difficult to find any criticism - especially from Muslims - taken constructively by the MCB, and this is not lost on the British public. Ultimately, the controversy overshadowed the MCB's post-7/7 efforts, which also failed to stop a string of ill-conceived anti-terror legislation from being developed.

How did this all happen? Part of the answer may lie in how the MCB chooses its battles. The MCB is not so much a legislative or theological group as an advocacy group that seeks its mandate through smaller Muslim organisations whose affiliation they solicit. It has an advisory board that meets at least twice a year made up representatives from its affiliates, who choose to have the MCB represent them to the public. The group's 400 affiliates make up a wide range of mainstream Muslim groups and mosques throughout Britain (even though many have questioned the inclusion of some groups and the exclusion of others).

Ideally, the organisation would have the concerns of Muslim communities filtered up to the leadership, which would then represent them to the greater British public in a way that helps them understand our point of view, improving perceptions of Muslims and enhancing the strategic use of our influence. These would be the battles worth fighting.

So what battles have the MCB chosen for 2006?

Well, this year the group has decided to again boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, instead calling for it to be replaced "Genocide Memorial Day" that would include the killings in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Palestine. "Such a day would help dispel the - frankly racist - notion that some people are to be regarded as being more equal than others," said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the group's secretary general.

Creating a day to commemorate the victims of genocide is a laudable idea, and the MCB would have the moral high ground if it chose to organise one itself, include the Holocaust, and invite Jewish groups to participate (while returning the gesture to them on their day). At that point, those same groups may refuse to attend, claiming a politicising of the issue.

Instead, the MCB would rather be in that embarassing position themselves with the whole episode looking like a strange sort of victim envy, questioned by even our closest non-Muslim supporters. Muslim groups have never made it a priority to include commemorations of non-Muslims with our grievances. Why would we insist others do the same?

The next battle, coming on the heels of the legalisation of domestic partnerships in Britain, was a tirade against homosexuality, labelling it "harmful" to society and "not acceptable". "We tolerate each other," said Sacranie. "We may not be happy with the views being expressed by others. But the difficulty comes in that at the end of the day we are human beings."

By this standard, much of the BNP's hateful rhetoric towards Muslims - who they deemed "harmful" to British society in another BBC documentary - should be "tolerated" by British Muslims and not marginalised. No one would be surprised to hear that many Muslims, like those of other faiths, consider homosexuality incompatible with their religion. The key is the context in which the comments are made (i.e., appearing to impose those views on the public) and the benefit, if any, gained by British Muslims by making them. Faith groups have long since made their case about homosexuality. The wiser ones have realised that British society will remain pluralistic.

Before his comments on homosexuality, Sacranie agreed to appear at a forthcoming (and sold out) conference in London. He'll happen to be joined in a panel discussion by two outspoken gay rights activists, who will no doubt remind him that he is now being investigated for hate crimes by the police.

The press will be ready and the MCB, in ways known only to itself, will be planning its next battles.

Ok so I hate to be the altmuslim cheerleader but this is a grat post. I appreciate how your post is factual with references and that you steered clear of making it personal. Well done.

Perhaps you can try to rope one of them in your podcast interview? Now that would make for an interesting show.

Interesting post.

Sacranie's point with regard to the overly large focus place on the Holocaust is valid - but his tactics for change were not wise or effective.

Frankly, I find his second point regarding homosexuality correct. I don't understand the comparison to BNP etc. Islam has a position on the issue - he stated it. If people think that is imposing - then obviously they are mentally deficient. There is no context in which to place this issue - we disagree with the practice but if the broader society wants it - that is democracy. Every other religious group has stated the same - what makes MCB's comments on this worthy of criticism has escaped me.

With regard to the homosexuality issue, the point is not whether Muslims consider it incompatible with Islam. The point is whether one would (for example) stand on a street corner in the Castro in San Francisco with a sandwich board proclaiming it. The MCB is doing the political equivalent and there is little benefit gained from it in retrospect.

Put another way, the questions we should be asking are:

a) Are these the priorities that British Muslims have? If a poll was taken (or better yet, a direct consensus of its members), would Muslims say that Holocaust day and public repudiation of gays are priorities. If such a poll was taken, I'd love to see it.

b) Is the energy spent (and the negative image fostered) worth it? Who did the cost/benefit analysis of these particular battles and on what basis did they choose to fight them. I'd like to see that too.

Zahed,

Whether to "stand on a street corner in the Castro in San Francisco with a sandwich board proclaiming it" is entirely separate from the usefulness of that tactic. Islam would tell us to proclaim the truth at all times - and as it is the truth proclaiming it is correct and on that point can't be criticised. Personally, I don't think that tactic is useful since it is simply a presentation of a forbidden act and not an explanation of the moral system as a whole. But the point remains - there is a distinction between whether an action is correct and whether it is effective.

As to question (a) - no, I don't think those above issues are priorities for Muslims or should be priorities. But I don't know that they are in fact priorities. MCB has not said them as such. It seems to me that they were actions taken since the start of the year and somehow you have inferred them as priorities. Should they have taken the above actions - it depends. As to the Holocaust thing, probably not - for the Homosexuality thing - offering our stand is correct. But nothing in the article has shown these two issues are the priorities.

As to question (b) - if the thing is part of Islamic teachings - then a commentary affirming that is always correct(as with homo issue). Is it particularly useful in that it adds to the debate - No. But it is correct. Holocaust thing has little to do with Islam and was political. I think their point was valid but their tactics were ineffective and unwise. As to 'negative image fostered' - I generally don't care about that if what we are saying is part of Islamic teaching. As you well know - religion and religious dictates are unpopular with many in the secular West. So if affirmation of Islamic dictates fosters a 'negative' image in their minds - I could care less.

I could understand the groups point on a genocide day instead of a holocaust day...

But considering how much holocaust denial is currently present in the Islamic world (Iran's President, MB, etc..), it would have been a nice gesture to show their solidarity with the Jews.

By boycotting Holocaust day, some people might assume, however wrongly, that they agree with the outragist "holocaust is a myth" idiology.

I think that the best way muslims can confer legitimacy on our special Islamic purpose and unique identity as groups of minorities in western countries is:
1. To collectively belong to a body that will serve our interests that
2. is governed by elected representatives.
3. It should represent people of all Islamic backgrounds and
4. serve ALL muslims interests fairly.
5. It should be an open and accessible organisation with equal oppportunity for its governance
6. etc......

Is the MCB these things? I doubt it. I do know that the various ulema and charitable bodies in my country (South Africa) aren't these things because they are formed with different purposes in mind. Perhaps the MCB is a fledgling body with these basic concepts in mind.

I know its idealistic (and some would say irresponsible idea) but I really do think that it is the single most important burden of muslims minorities in their societies (after dawaah and social justice).

Zahid Amanullah was spot on: MCB has started off with an atrocious start to the year. But, I'm afraid Mr. Amanaullah has not been scrupulous in his presentation or fair in his judgement.

1. Noteworthy in his omission is the fact that this seems to be the only democratic UK Muslim body with elected representatives. Nor does he mention that the Secretary GeneralÌs position is limited to two terms, and Sir IqbalÌs term ends in April. It has plenty of other flaws, but please, show us you are impartial
2. Mr Amanullah mentions that the advisory group (actually it is the Central Working Committee) meets only twice a year. The constitution he cites states ÏThe Central Working Committee shall meet at least once every three monthsÓ (42.3.a Meetings). My maths makes that four times a year.
3. Mr Amanullah licks his lips in anticipation of a avalanche of bad press for MCB. No doubt there is. And Sir Iqbal was certainly lacking nuance (on the homosexuality) issue for what, for many, is a perfectly acceptable view See http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/14/do1401.xml&sSheet;=/opinion/2006/01/14/ixopinion.html
4. Constructive comment would dictate an exposition of all of MCB's activities. A cursory look at http://www.mcb.org.uk/vote2005/ would illustrate the advocacy Mr Amanullah talks about. But reading their 2005 document http://www.mcb.org.uk/vote2005/issues.php would illustrate the range of issues pursued by this supposedly narrow-minded organisation
4. Mr Amanullah, who I believe is from the US, would be wise to desist from transposing his preppy East Coast liberal US Muslim analysis on the UK. It wonÌt work. The UK Muslim community is a patchwork of communities with different values. MCB, with its memberships of mosques, community centres and charities is the largest one, and represents a conservative core. It is certainly not the only one, as the small-circulation Q-News reminds us consistently.

oh yes. Mr. Zahed is a snotty East Coaster from the East Coast town of.....LA?

Folks I understand if you disagree with Zahed but why do we have to use personal attacks? Zahed and his bro Shahed work insanely insanely hard to help Muslims. Altmuslim provides a forum for people to express their views even if those views are not held by Zahed.

So you disagree with Zahed? Cool. Write an article. The thing I love about Zahed is that he would be the first to publish it--but only if it stays clear of needless attacks on people's characters.

I agree with Zahir - Disha, your points were well made but no reason to add the insulting and condescending commets in there.

Greetings Chaps (and chapettes).

First, my intention was certainly not to stoop to personal attacks. My target was Mr Amanullah's analysis, which had all the hallmarks of East Coast (including LA!) righteousness.

Second: Look, I'm a snotty Brit who looks down on the colonies. We have a rather misguided sense of superiority, and reading this article (and hearing his dulcit American tones on the podcast) led me to make that final good humoured, but valid point.

In any case, I note none of my points have been addressed. I would love to write an article, but I'm not sure the esteemed editors of this lovely website would not publish. If they do, then my second excuse would be that I do not have the time or energy. Sad, but true.

Final note Mr Zahed: you say "Are these the priorities that British Muslims have? " No. But MCB was responding to the News Agenda: the homosexuality question was raised in the context of the hot debate here on civil partnerships. All religious leaders had the same same views as Sacranie, he was asked the same question, but, for reasons known only to himself, lacked the nuance and sophistication to deliver a similar reply.

Disha,

Could you post his response regarding Homosexuality? I don't know what nuance one can add there. It seems to me straightforward. Islam prohibits it and considers it harmful to society. What else is there to say - and how could one add nuance and sophistication there?

Thanks.

basically Alt.Muslim seems to have taken up the role of Muslim Wake Up - it even has its own brand of "don't dare to criticize us types" such as Zahir. Same thing I saw on Muslim Wake Up - where every critique was met with "oh Ahmed Nassef is a very hard worker for Muslim" - now we have "Amanullahs" as hard workers for Muslims.

Same type of don't be critical of alt.muslim - while alt.muslim goes about being critical of everybody else. Seen it all before --- same "progressive types" who can't stand to be critiqued themselves - only they can be the critical ones who think they are just about always right. What a joke!

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4579146.stm

Iqbal Sacranie's quote:

"Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

The Pope, the Chief Rabbi and sections of the Church of England agree with the moral case against homosexuality. But that is where they stop. Why then go out of your depths and into the realm of science? There is no need.

Before I forget, apologies on mixing up my Zahed's and my Zahid's and my Zahir's.

My point was not to silence criticism. It was to point out that Disha's comments were unnecessarily personal in their nature.

Please tell me you guys at least believe that a better way is possible. That muslims can become so idealistic and proactive that this kind of sillyness is overshadowed by a powerful and humble western muslim minority that educates and exchanges freely and sincerely.

Can I get a AAMEEEN!!

I do think the numerical majority of Muslims in the West are sincerely and productively living here. But, not the ones who run many of the mosques...

OmarG:

I don't understand why it is you are so prone to generalizations - this issue has appeared in the past. But it seems you keep making these mistaken generalizations all the time? Why?

I call it like I see it, and I've been to many, many mosques around the country, a number of which where I spent some considerable time including: Tampa, Pittsburgh, Orange County, San Diego, Hawaii, Arizona, New Jersey. This is not simply too small of a sample to avoid judgements by it.

As far as i can tell most muslim people leave politics, business, science and even philosophy out of their religious practice. It prevents a culpability surrounding maybe our lack of "deeni" knowledge or distancing from the way of the scholars (who are naturally presumed right every time).

The generalisation can be considered unfair because things don't change without a sincere collaborative effort, but that doesn't mean that the systems in place work or are fair. Which is what I think is crux of the matter surrounding bodies like the MCB or masjid boards.

Before the MCB what? It's so easy to criticise, but the MCB is a trail-blazing pioneer climbing a sharp learning curve. For once the Muslims have a voice, and who fears that now?
I'd rather have the MCB represent me - for all its faults - than sneerers, I can do better, better than thou hecklers wearing the cloak of Ziauddin Sardar.
Yes, Muslims still lack communication skills. But are we better now than during the Rushdie affair? Certainly. Will we be better ten years from now? Insha Allah Ta'ala! Will that be a concern to any parties? Certainly. That explains the number who are taking pot shots at anything that shows promise now. Aided and abetted by the media. Now, who owns the media?