Discussions moved from project page

OIC acheivements in "creating consensus"

[edit]
Oh no - the discussion already ended? :) I was going to say that it's really interesting that a statement coming out of The Islamic Republic of Iran, of all places, is considered the final opinion on a matter and ends all discussion over it. What else has been coming out of Iran lately? It's good to know so we can take their advice and end other disputes. In any case, nobody is saying that there was never any alternative statements by this group or that group, but the point here is that this article, if you take all the sloppy sources and "Wait - Mahmoud in Damascus once wrote this" style citations, what's left does not merit an entire article on its own but can be added as a footnote or section somewhere more appropriate. Ramallite (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand - if the issue would have been undisputed wouldn't the Quran specifically said that it took place in Jerusalem ? Whether we believe the scripture or not, you do realise that it DOES say that the Temple was in Jerusalem, many innumerable times. I think the dispute would have been natural since it never said Jerusalem. Anyway, we do have WP:RS in the various articles mentioning that the version of Jerusalem as the definite truth did no go uncontested... I am intrigued though and even though it's not related here, maybe you can pass me information about these passages immediately after talking about bney israel. Amoruso 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK,so the OIC has been creating consensus on the issue of Islam's third holiest site, but I'm sure the 'issue' they are referring to is not what this article is referring to, and sorry to burst your bubble, but here is the remainder of that paragraph

"The most important achievements of the OIC has been creating consensus on the issue of Islam’s third holiest site, Bait ol-Moqaddas. Today with the passage of over three decades, the OIC once again approved resolutions condemning the Zionist regime’s aggressions against the Palestinian nation and the Israeli threats to the Islamic world." [2] . "This is the proof we have been waiting for" - I'm laughing, yes, more proof that the Al-Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. the'''s'''tick 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That “the OIC once again ‘’approved resolutions’’ condemning the Zionist regime’s aggressions against the Palestinian nation and the Israeli threats to the Islamic world” is a fact, - whether or not these accusations are true & proof of Israel’s intentions is another matter. The same holds true for their ‘’creating consensus’’ – a fact, they created the consensus that Jerusalem in the hands of the infidels is the third holiest, but whether or not the al Aqsa is in fact the third holiest OR NOT is another matter!! Chesdovi 16:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to understand, the 'issue' they are referring to is what they believe is "the Zionist regime's aggresstions ...*remainder of that paragragh*". Also, please look at the definition of consensus accordting to the free dictionary [3] the'''s'''tick 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares what the "issue" is?! They have acknowledged that the OIC created the consensus? Is this too simple for you to understand or am I not understanding you? Chesdovi 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting you suddenly dont care about the issue. The transcript says "OIC creating consensus", not "created the consensus". Since when did "create consensus" mean "Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam" - Mlaheji 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies - you seem to be right – It just “clicked”! You are correct! I was reading it as creating consensus on the issue [of Jerusalem as] Islam’s third holiest site. Thank you for pointing this out. Chesdovi 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More