Talk:Australian Federation of Islamic Councils

Anyone have material related to how Hilaly was selected by AFIC? SmithBlue 11:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

AFIC = French Private Equity Association
There is a redirect from AFIC to Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. I cannot find any mention of the French Private Equity Association in the article, which is abbreviated AFIC (Association Francaise des Invertisseurs pour la Croissance). Maybe this association is not important enough in the anglophone world to justify a proper article - but in my opinion it should at last be mentioned (the French private equity market being the third largest in the world and it being the only professional organisation representing the industry in France). What do you think? PS: There are other AFICs around, if you google the term... --Alpenfreund (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Halal
If there's a desire to discuss this organisation's role in the certification of food as Halal, it should be done factually. I've just re-removed material which presents this as a "controversy" without noting that the critics of Halal certification are, according to the reference given, "anti-Islam activists". This story and the other reference also doesn't state that the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils is the particular target of these people or is involved in any "controversy" with them, with the campaigners appearing to be opposed to Halal certification in general rather than this particular organisation (which is apparently one of four which certifies food to be Halal in Australia). The inclusion of this material without any context and the implication that it is a controversy surrounding the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils is pretty dubious (to draw an obvious comparison, we wouldn't present the views of anti-Semites who are campaigning against kosher food as a controversy involving the Jewish community). Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added material on this to the Islamophobia in Australia article, which I'd suggest is where it belongs given that it centres around the activities of "anti-Islam" campaigners. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As there's been no response to this in two days (including the provision of references which demonstrate that it is a "controversy" related to this organisation specifically), I've just re-removed the material from this article. The topic is covered in Islamophobia in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just removed material from a Paul Sheehan op-ed where he was quoting an anti-Halal campaigner which was being presented as some kind of noteworthy criticism - given the views of both people, this is most unlikely to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-removed. I note that the nature of the critics here wasn't even identified in the material being added.... The criticism is also obviously nonsense: assuming the claim is factually correct no-one was forcing Cadbury to have Easter eggs certified as Halal if this required extra effort on their part, and I'd be pretty sure that Muslims also eat them (presumably this is who Cadbury was hoping to sell to...). Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "nature of the critics"  What does that mean?  Paul Sheehan's wide-ranging columns. []    Apparently.  Writing something 'good' about Islam - acceptable.  Writing anything 'not good' about Islam - the writer is unacceptable.  Is that not Islamic? Re  AFIC and Easter.   Halal-shirk.   An Islamic oxymoron.BruceSpider (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Opinion columns are generally not considered reliable sources, and especially not on topics where the author has well known strong views as is the case here. It doesn't matter whether they are for or against the topic. In the case here, you're presenting Sheehan and the anti-Halal activist he quotes as being some kind of non-biased commentators, which is hardly accurate. There's also the issue of why their views are noteworthy, and referencing back to an op-ed provides no evidence that they are. Regarding the Easter eggs thing: not many Muslims are fundamentalist you know. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing reference to $1m "believed to be" made by AFIC for certification: if a newspaper uses these weasel words, I do not consider it to be reliable.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060918111140/http://www.afic.com.au/about03.htm to http://www.afic.com.au/about03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141228053239/http://www.icv.org.au/index.php/publications/what-is-halal to http://www.icv.org.au/index.php/publications/what-is-halal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)