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.

>>climbing a sharp learning curve.

Yes, this is quite true. But, without pressure to climb that learning curve, would they have ever even put on thier climbing boots??