 | This is not a forum for general discussion of Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Organisation of the Islamic Conference at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | | This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: | |  Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar and style: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
- Accessibility: not checked
| To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. | | | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |
Two official links for the member states 1 2
The official press release. -ZeroFuzion 02:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
When was the "Palestine state", that is mentioned here as a member in the orgnaztion from 1969, found?
[edit] United Muslim Nations
Looking at who heads the organisation OIC Muslims in general would not want to be associated with OIC because of one reason. He does not look Muslim as in he does not even have a beard nor upholds Sunnah atire.
Many people around the world would prefer to see a person who upholds Sunnah and has a panel of international Ulama. This is not a general discussion but a valid opinion with the expectation of a possible answer.
I think the United Muslim Nations (UMN) who is new and upcoming has a better hold on the Muslim Nations then the OIC.
I see this as competition for the OIC, the UMN does not do or aline with the UN but came to replace the UN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
What does the writing mean.....what does it represent?
- Allahu Akbar, though the calligraphy is rather ornate, and the person who devised the SVG file was apparently not experienced in the Arabic alphabet, so it's rather hard to read off the image shown on this page. See http://flagspot.net/flags/int-oic.html for a better pic... AnonMoos 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
the article says 'written in modern Arabic calligraphy.' This is wrong. The style is a well-established one; not something devised recently. I recommend removing the word 'modern.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.40.242 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Member states
Article states "It groups 57 mostly Islamic nations..." But the membership includes Guyana and Suriname, which aren't "mostly Islamic" at all.
- I think it means "57 nations, most of them Islamic", not "57 nations, all primarily Muslim" Pure inuyasha 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I noticed the same thing. Since it had been discussed here and there was nothing to suggest otherwise, I made that change. JodyB 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Court?
In reviewing (briefly) various Islamic and Arab intergovernmental organizations, I've noticed an absence of judicial organs. Neither the OIC, the Arab League or the Gulf Cooperation Council seem to possess a sitting body to mediate or adjudicate disputes among member governments. Is this reflective of some aspect of Arab or Islamic culture? Tfleming 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, the two most prominent of these, the OIC and the Arab League, can barely be called intergovernmental organizations, realistically. In reality there is not a lot of comprehensive political cooperation between Arab or Islamic states at all. One major factor which divides Arab and Islamic states between themselves is each nation's own diplomatic status with the USA & the EU. Ironically, it seems the only two Islamic nations with comprehensive (economic, political, social) relations with eachother right now are Syria & Iran, (which is unusual, since Iran is mainly Shiite & Syria is a Sunni-majority nation) due to their "in the doghouse" political status with the world's hyperpower and wannabe hyperpower.
- To answer the question though, The lack of judicial organs in these primarily superficial intergovernmental organizations is mostly just a severe lack of perceptive unity coupled with a much greater interest in economic cooperation, not a reflection of Arab or Islamic culture.
- see: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25syria.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=c6024db2a0ededd2&ei=5094&partner=homepage --Sc423 07:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a valid point and therefore as mentioned about the United Muslim Nations UMN International Org they're looking much better but are underground workers in the hidden place called don't know where, they have courts and are stern in judgement. I think the UMN will eventually make the OIC part of its Organization. The UMN has a lot of political power and decision making power as well. Talk about being a secret group... The smart thing about them is that they leave others report for them and are rarely seen. A sub of the UMN is the UIA "United Inteligence Agency" a top secret group as well. Finding a UMN member is like looking for a needle in the open bush fields.
Wiki should look into this but I don't think they'll get much info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.106 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Relation to Al Qaida
The introduction refers to Al Qaeda - what exactly is the relationship in question? (I'm not disputing, just the language is confusing.) Peter Grey 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OIC-Flag.jpg
Image:OIC-Flag.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Immigrate Populate Dominate"
The article asserts:
- In 1982, the foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the controversial plan to Immigrate, Populate, Dominate to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of Islamic presence in other non-Muslim countries.
But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.
Could someone please verify this?
-- 99.226.23.121 (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tanzania
I think Tanzania should figure somewhere on this page. --Thecurran (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Tanzania is closer to Saudia Arabia than member state, Mozambique, has more Muslims, and has a higher percentage of Muslims, but it is not even an observer state. This is quite intriguing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But ZANZIBAR is. Zanzibar is an autonomous part of Tanzania and contains most of the nations Muslims... so... yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatianfan52 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Republic of Kosovo
Somehow someone added Kosovo to the "observer" status of this organization. Kosovo is not an observer as the official website http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/page_detail.asp?p_id=179 will point out.
[edit] Members
It seems as though many of the listings in the "members" are anachronistic; it states that the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" joined in 1969, yet that legal entity did not exist at the time (in 1969, Afghanistan was officially the "Kingdom of Afghanistan"). As many of the countries listed have undergone significant changes in government status, I recommend that this section be reformed to reflect the admission of each government into this organization, not each country. --Goon Noot (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] International Islamic University Malaysia
It is related to OIC, as said in [1]. Mention it here please.
P.S:Someone please show me how to make a proper link. I tried the way that is revealed to me in a tutorial not long ago but it doesn't turn out well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azar2804 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] percentage of muslims in india and russia
what a hell is that muslims in russia are no more than 10%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes the percentage of under20 years old muslims in russia maybe!!its undeniable that muslims in russia are from15%(according to presedential speech):20% of the russian population and 13% of indian citizens are muslims!!!i dont know from where u get this kind of information muslims in india are from 20%:25% in wikipedia most of muslim satistics are extremly understated!!!
[edit] military section
excuse me where the hell is the military section that was merged with economy section?!?!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike monotheist (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Issues
This article is in an extremely bad shape and has several problems. To name a few:
- I couldn't find even one credible source noting that India had officially applied for an observer status.
- Apart from Pakistani newspapers, there are no other sources that indicate Pakistan exclusively blocked India's application even if it was made.
- The reasoning for block is not backed by sources again. And seems pretty illogical given that Russia has lower % of Muslims compared to India and yet has observer status.
- The map in this article marks countries blocked from entry. I think this is the only such map on an international organization.
Unfortunately, there is no place for nationalism in Wikipedia. So, I urge those who regularly watch this article to make appropriate changes. And I say this because the only thing being compromised here is this article's credibility. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] OIC reject Universal Declaration of Humans Rights
The article states
- The Organisation of the Islamic Conference rejected [5] the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights [6] as not being consistent with Sharia Law.
The article cite one of most Islamophobic and unreliable site: http://europenews.dk/en/node/3847 I am willing to put this one if someone can cite a reliable source. Tarikur (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- What's the problem with the source? The text cites authoritative works, gives an objective outline of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights and holds a balanced tone throughout. EuropeNews represents the midstream interpretation of human rights and is concerned about the challenge from islamism. This is not the same as islamophobia.
- By the way, is the statement quoted above controversial in any way? To me, it seems that any one who has read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights can draw the conclusion that it was formulated as a Sharia-compatible alternative to the UN version. --Jonund (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- The problem with the statement is, it is not factually accurate. OIC never rejected the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and all OIC members signed the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and still no OIC member withdrew it's signature. The problem with the source is that it is extremely bias and very unreliable. They have articles on how to attack Islam using facebook. I known the site for sometime, they always put anti-Islamic materials from different right-wing commentary sites. Every organizations/countries have their own prescribed rights that is little bit different from the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights. According to your logic, USA reject the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights because USA has the Bill of Rights, where the Bill of Rights is little bit different than the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights. Tarikur (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- If the CDHR is incompatible with the UDHR, the adoption of the first means a rejection of the latter. Signing the latter is not proof of accepting it, since political motives often make states act inconsistently. All too many states have signed the UDHR, while at the same time rejecting it in their official ideology (for instance, the communist states) or in their behavior.
- The two alternative declarations seem to be incompatible:
- The statement in CDHR "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia" runs counter to the principle of religious freedom, insofar as non-muslim legislators are free to legislate in contradiction to the Sharia.
- The notion of associating the freedom of expression with "a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia" is alien to the UDHR.
- "The right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah" is another limitation, which the UDHR doesn't recognize.
- According to the UDHR, freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Though it is, arguably, a reasonable qualification that this freedom should not be misused to "undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society", it is certainly not, in the UDHR:s understanding, legitimate to forbid "exploitation or misuse" of information to "weaken [society's] faith" - Muslim or other.
- Article 18 of CDHR, "Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property", is rendered an unacceptable meaning by article 24, which says: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah", and article 25 which excludes other sources than the Shari'a from the interpretation, given that the Shari'a stipulates capital punishment for those who convert from islam to another religion
- These contradictions are quite different from the differences between the US Bill of Rights and the UDHR. (The latter two are, by the way, different categories, the Bill of Rights defining some of the rights owned by US citizens, the UDHR proposing rights that allegedly follow from being a human.) Id somebody claims that the United States Bill of Rights contradicts the UDHR, that would be interesting material for the respective articles.
- If you claim that EuropeNews is "extremely biased and very unreliable", you have to back up the statement, since private opinions are not relevant. I didn't find any articles on how to attack Islam using Facebook. --Jonund (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- To the contrary, according to WP:RS, the burden of proof is on you to prove this source is reliable. To give an example, I could myself create a website and then write articles, and it could be hard to prove I am unreliable simply because most of the academia hasn't even taken notice of me. From my overview of the website as well as research on it, it doesn't seem to have much place in the academic world, which is mainly what Wikipedia is based upon. It seems (slightly) polemical in my opinion, but outside of that, I don't see anything distinguishing it as reliable. We should refrain from using sources from this website and instead use BBC (if you want a news source) or academia. If you want to delve into criticism about the issue, I believe HRW might have some material. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, simply saying it is "obvious" one contradicts the other is breaking WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, be careful. I am very sure you can find secular unbiased publications stating the two are incompatible with one another. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is the point, you need to understand. All the points that you mention above are very debatable of how Cairo Declaration on Human Rights contradict UDHR. Even if Sharia law or cairo declaration on human rights contradicts UDHR as you say, you can not conclude OIC reject UDHR because that would be original research and NPOV. The only way that statement would be factual and you can put this on wikipedia is that if you have a quote of OIC secretary general actually saying OIC reject UDHR. Another way to put that statement on wikipedia is to quote a scholar saying how Cairo Declaration contradicts UDHR. Otherwise, if you put the statement, then it is not factually accurate because OIC never rejected UDHR. Tarikur (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tarikur, I think your use of the word "Islamophobic" being NPOV on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.92.11.162 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Five tags?!
This article carried FIVE tags that all essentially said "This article sucks" at the top. After some thought, I left the NPOV tag, which essentially encompasses all of the issues concerned. Let's try to keep it that way. --AStanhope (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
