OIC is now Organization of Islamic Cooperation

[VelocuR]

Since 1969 - Pakistan member of OIC, what Pakistan gained from this organization ? I think not. Please look at many Muslims countries are in war against each other. Little progress.

 

[PakShah]

OK, you too look like a prime candidate for my ignore list.

Anyways, lets have a look at what you wrote.

First you talk about the UAE-IRAN dispute. Lets compare this to the Pakistani-Indian dispute.
The difference is that, if either Iran or UAE was blocked from OIC, it would isolating a muslim government. It would also be isolating a muslim majority country.
Does India have a muslim government? Is India a muslim majority country?

Secondly, I gave you my reasoning about Suriname. Certain exceptions can be made due to certain circumstances? What is so hard to understand here?
Perhaps due to certain circumstances, and out of necessity, Suriname got added.

Now,
perhaps due to certain circumstances, and out of necessity, India was rejected from becoming an observer state of OIC.
Now you say Pakistan uses OIC for personal motives.
Well who is more important? Pakistan or India?
Clearly Pakistan is more important, because:
1. Pakistan has the second world's largest muslim population
2. Pakistan has a muslim government
3. Pakistan is muslim majority

Are the any members in OIC that disagree with Pakistan? Why doesn't OIC punish Pakistan, if Pakistan is being dishonest?



Thirdly, now you bring Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no dispute between them, and the UN recognizes no dispute between them. I wonder why you say "I" disagree? The UN and the OIC disagrees with you EjazR.
The UN and OIC does not recognize any territorial dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You are just make statements without thinking.

Fourthly, stop spreading misinformation, the KhaleejTimes is a UAE newspaper, not a Saudi newspaper.
Since when did Saudi newspapers do Horoscopes??? LOL!!!

Also the so called "Think Tank" you are talking about is an emirati "organization", called the "Gulf Research Center", not a Saudi "organization."

Even their official website ends in .ae

GULF Research Center > Foundation Council

About Abdulaziz Sager,
well whatever he wrote was his opinion(I have not read his article), because the article YOU copied from KhaleejTimes was in the opinion section. Abdulaziz Sager's opinion is not the government of Saudi Arabia, or the government of UAE's opinion, and Abdulaziz Sager's opinion can be completely wrong and irrevelant.
So, end of discussion.

Ok, now I have read his article.
By Mr. Sager's logic, then OIC should make the Zionist state an observer member in OIC, afterall, Al-Aqsa Masjid is there, and Muslims in the Zionist state make up 16% of the population.
Also there some muslims who say that accepting the Zionist state as a legitimate country, would end the bloodshed and war in Palestine.

Do you to want us Muslims to accept this?
Obviously No.

Mr. Sager's opinion is wrong.

 

[Al Bhatti]

So who knows, a time may come and a loose "Confederation of Islamic Countries" will be formed.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...oose-confederation-islamic-countries-cic.html

 

[W.11]

Pakistan is a country where 300,000 East Pakistanis were slaughtered and raped not by groups of people like what happens in communal riots in India but by its army. Even today, Pakistani jets and F-16s are pounding tribal areas. Not to mention the atrocities by Rangers and five insurgencies that have occurred in Balcohistan where again innocent people have been killed.

Should Pakistan still be a part of the OIC after all this?

some of the east pakistanis suffered because they became anti pakistani, they sought direct indian help which comes under traitor, what happened aftermath every body is an eyewitness, it was solely a political issue rather than communal issue.. the mukti bahini traitors supported by india then started killing non bengalis in east pakistan, read some of the gruesome genocides of non bengalis by the hands of east pakistanis, so it proves pakistan army was going against bunch of barbarians who had no value for life, the rape reports have been largely false, esp when in bangladesh believe that the rapes were actually done by few indians crossing over the border dressed in pakistani uniforms ..

pakistan jets dont frequently pound the tribal areas, it happened once when afghanis were entering into pakistan and killing pakistanis

the five killed in kharotabad are people who became victims of bad intelligence, intelligence was that, they were going to suicide bomb

 

[Kambojaric]

Two reasons are usually give by people here for why India can't be OIC member
(1) Member should not have dispute: So I gave the example of UAE and IRan. Even if you don't agree with the Afghan-Pakistan dispute over the Durrand line, the UAE-Iran example is very clear refutation of this
(2) Member should be muslim majority: Again, these are countries where muslims are not in majority or control the govt. but are still FULL members: Uganda, Togo, Benin, Suriname, Gabon (less than 1%Muslim), Guyana, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Mozambique. And India's muslim population of around 180 million is more than the combined population muslim and non-muslim of all these countries and more. Moreover, as a democracy, Indian muslims share power in the govt. unlike these countries which are mostly semi or full dictatorships.

1) Neither of these disputes have resulted in any major conflict unlike the indo-pak wars over Kashmir. Also all of these four countries are Muslim majority countries ruled by Muslim leaders further adding to their case.
2) None of these countries are involved in any conflict with another Muslim country, also these countries are not going against one of the OIC core issues, yet they border countries who are Muslim.

 

[EjazR]

@Baxma

Don't change the goalposts please. UAE-Iran is just one example. Iraq invading Kuwait is another when neither of the countries were dropped. The Iran-Iraq war is another. Note to mention a long list of Indonesia-Malaysian border disputes Indonesia

The difference is that all these countries realized that their bilateral dispute does not mean that we should not think of the collective good unlike Pakistan.

And again on point (2), you are shifting the goal posts again. The fact remains that these countries are non-Muslim majority countries with no head of state as Muslim. On the other hand, India has had at least three Muslim head of states and Muslims in many ministries not to mention that they share power in the government as per the democratic process.


Why is it so difficult to admit that it is only Pakistan that is blocking India's entry on petty national interest? There is no other "nice" reason for this. Lets just stop pretending that Pakistan is looking after some larger muslim good and admit that it feels that it can use OIC to pressure India on Kashmir and that is it. No conflict with member state excuses, there are many with that who are full members. And no muslim majority excuse, there are many states with non-muslim majority who are full members.

 

[Burnz]

OIC, should be taken seriously.
Well is India a muslim majority country? Are muslims controlling India?

The main point is that as long as India is having a conflict with one of the most important members in OIC, India will be blocked. Simple as that.
Now if you Indians don't care, that's another issue. If you guys don't care, stop being hypocrites and stop crying about not being in OIC (like EjazR previously in the thread).
If you guys want to get in OIC, its simple, solve your territorial disputes with Pakistan according to just and moral principles.
And India can get a seat as an observer member in OIC. Very simple.


Other issues: I don't know if member states in the OIC would be comfortable with having India in OIC, even if India solves it's disputes with Pakistan according to just and moral principles, because India also has territorial disputes with Nepal and China.

Why would anybody want to have a warmongering nation in a serious international organization?
I mean if China gets strong enough one day, and decides that it really wants South Tibet back, and wants to make India stop claiming Aksai Chin, China might pressure OIC to reject India, as way to pressure and isolate India.

What about Pakistan?

It has dispute with one Islamic Country Afghanistan.

According to Afghanistan, Pakistan has occupied its territory.

Durand Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EjazR]

@KarachiPunk

Again, my post there was to refute Abu's claim that the death of 3000+ Muslims in a horrible communal riots incident that happened in 2002 can be the reason for India not being a member of OIC. I explained how more Muslims have been killed by the Pakistani state that in communal riots in India (NOT BY THE INDIAN STATE).

If murderous actions not by the Indian STATE but by crazy mobs murdering fellow citizens is the bar, then what about the state killing its own people using the army like Pakistan did? Forget about Pakistan, what about Syria, Libya or Iraq under Saddam, or Bahrain today?

My aim is to only show that this can't be a reason and is incorrect to say so.

 

[asad71]

1.OIC HQ at Jeddah is one of the ugliest structures in the city. It is also unkept. Thankfully they are going to construct a new building.

2. Originally OIC was not meant to be toothless. There was even a Mily Group where Pakistan was represented. Then, of course, WCC stepped in to take control covertly - just as they have castrated Arab League, UN and other organizations.

 

[Kambojaric]

@ EjazR

And again i will say as has been mentioned before that in this case Iraq and Kuwait were established members of the OIC prior to the conflict. India has however from the start occupied a Muslim province which has showed that it has no desire to stay with Hindu majority India (whether it wants unification with Pakistan is a different matter). It is this dilemma that you are not understanding. And also with all due respect i am shifting no goal posts, i am merely answering the 2 points you raised and providing counter arguments to them.

 

[PakShah]

@EjazR

I don't know why you keep ignoring my posts, but I believe I have answered your controversial complaints quite satisfactorily.

The Iran-UAE and Malaysia-Indonesia Disputes are handled differently From Pakistani-Indian disputes, because
if OIC were to block Iran, UAE, Malaysia, Or Indonesia, it would be isolating a Muslim government and a muslim majority country.

I'm quite curious why you keep comparing India, where Muslims are a minority, to countries where Muslims are in a majority and make the government.

I mean, EjazR, your reasoning is ludricous.

So what if many Muslims held many posts and head of state in India. Was there ever a Muslim prime minister of India?
Isolating India from OIC is not isolating a Muslim government or a muslim majority country.

Also why are you comparing India, which at best can be an observer member of OIC, to member states of OIC like UAE, and Indonesia?

@ Burnz
Stop looking like an Idoit.
The UN and OIC recognizes no territorial dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The agreement between the Afghanistanis and the Britishers had no expiry date. Pakistan is not obliged to give any land to anyone.
I said this to EjazR, now I'm saying it to you.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

What about Pakistan?

It has dispute with one Islamic Country Afghanistan.

According to Afghanistan, Pakistan has occupied its territory.

Durand Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its different thn indo-Pak disputes........ abt durand line who cares! they can keep whining... Pakistanis dont give a damn.

 

[PakShah]

@Paskistani Nationalist

That's the wrong attitude, the point is there is no dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
UN and OIC recognizes no dispute between them.
Burnz's map is actually not in wikipedia.

Burnz's map is just a propaganda piece.
How can Balochistan be a part of Pashtunistan, thats pure absudity!
Balochistan is called Balochistan for a reason and not Pashtunistan.
That pretty much debunks Burnz's stupidity and lies.

This British historical map also shows Afghanistan's territory before the Durand Line agreement
And Pakistan's Balochistan was actually independent of Afghanistan according to historial maps.
I suggest everone looks at the links and maps.
AFGHANISTAN NEVER HAD ACCESS TO THE ARABIAN SEA AND BALOCHISTAN WAS NEVER A PART OF AFGHANISTAN OR PASHTUNISTAN. BURNZ'S MAP IS A PROPAGANDA PIECE. BURNZ'S MAP IS A LIE!


LC Zoom Viewer - Afghanistan, Beloochistan, etc.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ser...ist_No_InitialSort;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=41&trs=59

 

[Tshering22]

Its different thn indo-Pak disputes........ abt durand line who cares! they can keep whining... Pakistanis dont give a damn.

The same is seen from our perspective regarding whatever you dispute. So how is your action justified and ours not.

 

[somebozo]

Muslims can only remain strong and prosperus if they join hands as one single force. Nationalist sentiments will always exisit so the powerful should not impose their language and cuture over the weaker but a sense of belonging to a larger nation is desperately needed in the Muslim world. Most of out past accomplishments are connected to this sense of community. When a larger base of people unite, they feel confident to take on a large challenge. 1.5 billion people and 7 trillion dollars of economy is a might to reckon with IF we know how to use it

Arab news
Preparing the ground

By ISRARUL HAQUE, JEDDAH

Published: Jul 2, 2011 22:19 Updated: Jul 2, 2011 22:19

Kazakhstan, an important Muslim state and a key player in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is calling on the OIC to become a United Nations of the Muslim world. What the Muslim leadership needs to realize is that it is useless to establish institutions if they cannot answer value questions.

The fact that UN responded negatively to many nations and it was mostly concerned with the protection of power of the powerful states while the weak nations did not see in the UN any form of appropriate leadership should be taken into account. Since it is common to criticize institutions for failures but it is uncommon to acknowledge the complexity of the whole process, hence it is advisable not to get involved in intense debates over such matters.

Muslim Ummah, which account for more than 2.2 billion people in a world of social conflict, political pressure and financial constraint, may address their immediate problems and come up with short-term solutions while promoting alternate recommendations that may be more appropriate to solve their future problems, instead of offering solutions which are not feasible in practical terms.

It is useful to examine the types of problems which the policymakers are likely to be interested in. Out of the infinite number of possible problems it is necessary to decide which ones are most important and should be pursued.

The goals of education, finance and administration can be considered as top priorities. At the first level, the need is to produce literate, numerate and responsible citizens who believe in one God, humanity, unity of Muslim Ummah, and social justice. At the financial level the useful and effective products that the Ummah can offer the world is the system of Islamic financing which leads to economic justice. At the administrative level the Muslim world must pay considerable attention to the slogan “no possibility of any covert deal and all possibility of an overt deal.”

The traditional way in which the Muslim world will maintain its quality check will be transparency and accountability. It will be not unusual to undertake monitoring of achievement at every level.

© 2010 Arab News