The MAB has a formulaic blurb at the end of its horrible press release.
Notes to Editors:
MAB is a British organisation dedicated to serving society through promoting Islam in its spiritual teachings, ideological and civilising concepts, and moral and human values. MAB has local branches across the UK that provide a wide range of events and activities.
MAB actively seeks to dispel the misconceptions about Muslims and helps to act as a bridge to promote better understanding between the UK and the Muslim World.
You know what? No it doesn’t. It doesn’t do that at all. It does the opposite. It entrenches the misconceptions that Muslims must by nature be dogmatic and authoritarian and fundamentalist and touchily aggressive.
If it really wanted to dispel the misconceptions about Muslims it would stop acting like the stereotype Angry Muslim and do the other thing. But it doesn’t. It’s a pathetic joke that it says it actively seeks to dispel the misconceptions about Muslims.
Muslims couldn’t have a more dedicated enemy than organizations like the MAB.
Exactly!
Wish I’d read this before replying to exi5tentialist on the previous post.
Perhaps those are the misconceptions MAB and people like them would like muslims to have about themselves.
Sounds like Ophelia is saying muslims must never be angry.
No, it doesn’t sound like that at all.
“MAB actively seeks to dispel the misconceptions about Muslims”
What are these ‘misconceptions’? An explanation of Islam’s “civilising concepts, and moral and human values” would also be interesting.
@ 3
No, the expression was “stereotype Angry Muslim”.
Muslims couldn’t have a more dedicated enemy than organizations like the MAB.
The Jesus and Mo cartoons are deeply unfunny. The sight of an atheist feminist telling Muslims who their “dedicated enemies” are — now that is funny. Try a little thought-experiment:
How would you, as an atheist, react to a Muslim or Christian or Zoroastrian lecturing you on who your friends and enemies are? How would you react to being told where your atheism is going astray and how you should better accommodate yourself to the world, based on the knowledge of atheism they possess and you don’t?
It’s like the Guardian welcoming female priests and gay bishops. Sensible Christians would realize that anything the secularists and atheists at the Guardian agree with is going to be bad for Christianity.
But please note: I have no personal objection to female priests and gay bishops. I’m simply capable of recognizing that they are bad for Christianity, because liberal Christianity is a suicide-cult. The attendance statistics show that.
It’s like the Guardian welcoming female priests and gay bishops. Sensible Christians would realize that anything the secularists and atheists at the Guardian agree with is going to be bad for Christianity.
Wow. Make a feint with what looks like a reductio ad absurdum (“Sensible Christians”, classic!) and then – WHAMO! – textbook contextual argumentum ad hominem.
The attendance statistics show that.
Verily. Thy faith runneth deep as a puddle.
BestovSest (@6),
Well, if the Muslim or Christian or Zoroastrian concerned can (and, over many years, repeatedly did) point to evidence of the harm done to vast numbers of individual atheists by those alleged enemies, their argument should be given due consideration on its own terms. I certainly hope I wouldn’t dismiss such an argument merely because of its proponent’s religious faith (or lack of it).
And indeed my (unscientific and self-selected) experience is that the atheist writers I encounter tend to address the logical failures and/or lack of evidence and/or counter evidence when tackling religious advice to, or criticism of, atheism and atheists.
Again it’s experiential and self-selecting, but I see this much less if ever in religious people’s criticism of atheist writing about the problems of religion. I’d link to an example of this somewhere, but that would be superfluous in light of your comment.
haha, suicide cult? you are using suicide as a metaphor for not attending church?
*suicide cult is supposed to refer to the members ACTUALLY COMMITING SUICIDE, it’s not supposed to refer to the members attendance, numbers, population growth, or any such silliness.
@Simon Milligan
Wow. Make a feint with what looks like a reductio ad absurdum (“Sensible Christians”, classic!) and then – WHAMO! – textbook contextual argumentum ad hominem.
Wow. You couldn’t refute what I said, so resorted to using Latin phrases you don’t understand. Ignotum per ignotius, eh? “Sensible Christians” might seem absurd, particularly to an autistic individual, but it would be an oxymoron, not a reductio ad absurdum. Sensible Christians are those who wish to help the cause of Christianity. Female priests and gay bishops harm Christianity, as the statistics for church attendance show. I don’t say harming Christianity is a bad thing. But I do say sensible Christians shouldn’t want it. I’m non-autistic, you see. I can put myself into the position of people I disagree with.
Verily. Thy faith runneth deep as a puddle.
Verily, you’re an adolescent. Again, you haven’t refuted what I said. Announcing a Truth ex cathedra is something you should leave to the Pope. I’ll repeat my point in another way:
The Church of England is dying in the UK. Black African Christianity, like Islam, is flourishing. The CoE is liberal. BAC and Islam are not, tho’ they are happy to exploit liberalism for their own ends.
@brianpansky
*suicide cult is supposed to refer to the members ACTUALLY COMMITING SUICIDE, it’s not supposed to refer to the members attendance, numbers, population growth, or any such silliness.
You don’t appear to be familiar with concepts like metaphor, irony and hyperbole. If so, learn what they are and start watching out for them in your reading. After that, you might even try using them for yourself. But take it easy at first: don’t over-do it.