The Arabian War

[Xen]

Some will say this belongs in ASB, but just a few years ago some would have said September 11 belongs in ASB. Let us say after the 1993 WTC bombing failed to bring down the towers, Osama changed his tactic instead of toppling buildings, he was now going to topple the infidels puppet's in the Arab countries. After years of planning, and training he finally sets a date for the operation.

The morning of July 12, 1998 the west awakens to shocking and horrible news 12 Middle Eastern/Arab governments were overthrown in the night by al-Queda operatives. The governments of the west seemed baffled, the people uncertain of what the future held. The New York Stockmarket was at a new low. The world watched trying to grasp what was happening. A tall man dressed in white with a long graying beard finally addressed selected news agencies of the world. It was clear beyond a shadow of a doubt this man was Osama bin Laden. After an hour of talking of how what had transpired was the will of Allah, bin Laden gave the west a list of demands in order to live in peace and trade with the Caliph of Arabia.

The demands included but were not limited to:
-Withdrawal of all non Arabian troops from the Caliph
-Cease supporting Israel (if the west wanted to evacuate the civilians that was fine, but the leaders must face trial)
-The turnover of western and Russian leaders to face trial for crimes against Islam. Those he mentioned included George H.W. Bush, John Major, Mikhail Gorbachev, Norman Schwarzkopft, Colin Powell, and others.
-Compensation for the Muslims killed in the Gulf War, the Arab-Israeli wars and the Soviet-Afghan War.

He gave the west, notably the United States, thirty days to meet his demands or suffer the consequences. Western military officials scrambled to draw up invasion plans of the caliph, while moderate Muslims and moderate Islamic countries like Turkey and Indonesia warned the United States and the west not to attack Mecca and Medina.

In the days that followed Al jazera began showing al Queda released tapes of their training, and the executions of the former Arabian leadership, the most commonly run reels being the deaths of Saddam Hussein by firing squad and the hanging of Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Anti-war protests started as small gatherings in major cities, but grew in size as the reality began to sit in. The Americans closed their military bases in Saudi Arabia, reopening the base in Israel, an act which greatly angered bin Laden who accused the US of warmongering.

The western armies prepared for the largest scaled war since the Second World War against the backdrop of a bitter antiwar protest, and the fear of a wave of terrorist cells wreaking havoc in western cities.

[David Howery]

uh, what 12 countries did OBL take over?

[Beck Reilly]

uh, what 12 countries did OBL take over?

I assume he was refering to the 12 Islamic nations east of Israel. That is: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Qatar, U.A.E., Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Saudia Arabia.

Two problems. Some of those nations have (relatively) stable governments. That list excludes Bahrain and Lebanon. I guess because of Lebanon's Christian population it was excluded, but I don't know why Bahrain was. If I got the list right.

[David Howery]

that can't be completely right, as it is implied that Libya is one of the 12.... if I had to guess, I'd say SA, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrein, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, UAE, Yemen, Qatar, and Lebanon... those are all Arab countries, more or less....

[Xen]

The 12 are
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Kuwait
3) UAE
4) Qatar
5) Yemen
6) Oman
7) Jordan
8) Iraq
9) Syria
10) Egypt
11) Sudan
12) Libya

He just concentrated on those nations

Blue is the Caliph
Light Blue are the Arab countries not taken over, now under Marshall Law
Red are the countries made up of the anti-Caliph coalition
Gold are the neutral nations
Dark Blue are the countries sympathetic to the Caliph
Pink are the countries sympathetic to the coalition
Purple is Israel
Green is the occupied West Bank and Gaza, very sympathetic to the Caliph

[Xen]

The flag used by the Caliph

[Raymann]

Alright? Why would we leave our bases in the middle east? We have substantial forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and with Bin Laden killing their leaders wouldn't they support us? Also with regards to those nations and the UAE, they all have rather large royal families who have much direct control over their countries, assassinating the king and his family means little when the line of succession is that long, the princes might fight for leadership but not until Bid Laden is defeated like China in WWII. Also many princes live in Western Europe until they ascend to the throne (thats why all the English they speak has British accents), governments in exile will be quickly formed.

Next, what about loyalists forces? The Sudan especially with their continuous civil war. Also Saudi Arabia, even if Bin Laden grabs the government, every high ranking officer is of the Saudi family and the first thing they'll do is run to that fortress we have there in the middle of the desert. As for Kuwait, we can recapture that country at will and whose there to stop us? Military the situation is skewed and there is no way Bin Laden can do anything about it. We can hold several Gulf states in their entirety and most of the peninsula while we build up forces. The entirety of NATO will jump right on it and after the UN finishes bickering with itself they'll jump in just as we're dragging Bin Laden out of his cave.

[carlton_bach]

Well...

I'm just not sure Al Qaida would have had the resources to pull off that kind of thing. I mean, in spite of the money and planning that went into its attacks, the Embassy Bombings, USS Cole or September 11th were relatively unsophisticated operations, distinct from most other terrorism only in their intent to cause maximum casualties at maximum coverage. Toppling a courty, on the other hand, would require considerable planning and involve a large number of people cooperating. Simultaneous coups in 12 countries - I don't think even the CIA or KGB ever tried that.

If ObL ever wanted to try something like that, my guess is that the target would be Saudi Arabia. He can buy himself a failed state - that's a known fact - but that wouldn't help him. If he wanted to take over a small gulf state his chances nmight be better - a few hundred armed guerillas could probably get hold of Qatar more quickly - but it would be hopeless to holsd it against neighbouring forces. Shia, Farsi-speaking Iran would be less than amenable to the blandishments of an Arab, Sunni would-be dictator, especially since he is allied to the Taleban (with whom Iran avoided all-out war only through massive exertions of the UN. Yes, if the UN hadfn't stayed their hands, a card-carrying Axis of Evil member could well have stopped September 11th). As to places like Syria and Iraq, I don't see it happening. Security is too tight. Of course, toppling Saudi Arabia is not going to be anything like easy, but at least the country is big, hardly anyone there actually likes the king and the military keeps all kinds of western hardware packaged and ready for enterprising terrorists.

I still don't think it would be possible, but this I could just see. Al Qaida is a terrorist network, not a political insurgency. They just aren't equipped to topple govermnents.

[MerryPrankster]

Methinks bin Laden, if he focuses exclusively on undercutting US-allied Arab states as opposed to actively attacking the US, could do an 1848 where he and his associates unseat the established gov'ts for a short time, but are ultimately defeated by loyalists with Great Power (ie US) backing.

Let's use Saudi Arabia, for example. OBL could seize control of the major cities and gain the loyalty of large parts of the regular army, but with the purging of royal-family officers, that army might require some time to function well. In the meantime, what's left of the al-Sauds have joined up with the ultra-loyal Bedouin National Guard (assuming it's out of the cities, where they're usually stationed, and thus survives the revolt) and, with US air support, they're heading back to retake the kingdom.

The Caliphate could also disintegrate after a short time due to an ego-clash between various leaders, like the 1848 Austrian revolt failed after a split between middle-class democrats and more radical working-class elements. Bin Laden and his group are from Saudi Arabia, but a lot of the fundamentalist leadership is actually Egyptian. There could be a nationalistic spat between the two and lead to the Caliphate disintegrating, after which the US could take them out individually or play them against each other to their ultimate detriment.

[Xen]

Yes thats pretty much the jist of it Matt, could you imagine what this would do to the governments in exile? It would put them in the wests back-pocket, which is where the west would want them. This is a conspiracy theorists wetdream, you know how many people will claim the west let Bin Laden do this? Or even wilder yet, the west supported and helped him do it?

And call the closing of the base in SA a tactical retreat, the US is rather cautious with its casualties.

[Grey Wolf]

The 12 are
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Kuwait
3) UAE
4) Qatar
5) Yemen
6) Oman
7) Jordan
8) Iraq
9) Syria
10) Egypt
11) Sudan
12) Libya


OK, I don't like knocking timelines completely so lets assume the attempt goes ahead

I think it will fail in Syria and Iraq - those are two secularist state-controlled countries. Its possible that the Shia in S Iraq would be stirred up but I doubt it given how their experience after the first Gulf War went, and how it taught them to sit back and watch and wait

I think in places like Libya it will lead to civil war not to control of the country

It seems unlikely they would ignore Lebanon, especially if they are going for Syria. Hizbullah is in Lebanon and a slice of the Syrian army which if left unmolested will simply head back towards Damascus and help reimpose order

Isn't there a permanent Allied taskforce in the Persian Gulf at this time ? Couple with US forces from airbases such as Incirlik or from the Med I think you would see an immediate counter-attack in Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar

That would by default leave Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan I guess

A note about anti-war protesters - if you're trying to draw a parallel to events over Iraq then its the wrong parallel. Those who opposed the war such as myself did so because it broke international law IMHO and was a war of aggression. International law gives full legality to wars in response to aggression, so I don't think you will see any similar problem getting support for the overthrow of Islamists, or even for backing Assad and Ghadaffi in civil wars, counter-insurgency etc. The US and allies will have to back the pre-existing governments or they risk simply destabilising the country and freeing it up for Aq Quaeda etc to walk in

You could even therefore see US aid to Saddam Hussein...

Grey Wolf

[Xen]

A note about anti-war protesters - if you're trying to draw a parallel to events over Iraq then its the wrong parallel. Those who opposed the war such as myself did so because it broke international law IMHO and was a war of aggression. International law gives full legality to wars in response to aggression, so I don't think you will see any similar problem getting support for the overthrow of Islamists, or even for backing Assad and Ghadaffi in civil wars, counter-insurgency etc. The US and allies will have to back the pre-existing governments or they risk simply destabilising the country and freeing it up for Aq Quaeda etc to walk in

You could even therefore see US aid to Saddam Hussein...

Grey Wolf

Nah, I wasnt drawing a parallel to the anti-war protests in this TL, and Iraq. We have a large population of people who seem to think peace is the absence of war. I'm drawing more of a parallel to those who protested the war in Afghanistan after September 11. Those who claim peace no matter what, which of course is a noble and rather foolish notion, of course I dont think I have to tell you, I have crossed paths with them too many times on this wonderful internet.

[Raymann]

I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable guy but I seriously cannot even comprehend what goes on inside the minds of Afgan War protesters. Well if they revolt I can use my gun and find out.

Anyway, Syria is a secularist country? Since when? Also if Saddam somehow survives his assassination attempt, he's not getting back to power. Over the 90's Clinton bombed Saddam almost as much as HW did (Congress didn't like him, bombed Iraq; the media was on his back, bombed Iraq) and it was probably the only good thing he did consistently. No, there's no chance we'll help Saddam, he doubled crossed us before and he won't get another chance; oh sure we can lead him on at least until our army is in Baghdad.

[wkwillis]

Most terrorist movements spend one year preparing and thirty years fighting. What if someone spent thirty years preparing and one year fighting.
Bin Laden and one thousand Russian nukes?
Our armed forces depend on high technology, high meaning undependable. No cities, no armor or aircraft.

[aktarian]

Anyway, Syria is a secularist country? Since when?

Since the creation. they were nationalist/arabist/socialist etc, but never fundamentalist.


Bin Laden and one thousand Russian nukes?


How much noise does entire world intelligence comunity snoring makes? :)

[Anthony Appleyard]

As Pakistan is one of the Muslim nations involved, India would likely invade Pakistan as part of the fightback.

It is 80% probable that there will be a Battle of Mecca.

Muslim minorities in Europe make trouble.

[Otis Tarda]

I cant see Osama taking Baghdad. IMHO, Saddam is too well protected to be thrown out just by band of fundamentalists.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Islam is often viewed in the West as a monolithic religion like Catholicism, but it is not at all like that; so, you all get another one of the Pasha's lectures.

Islam is split into two major groups, Shiism, and Sunnism; however, Sunnism itself is split into many different schools. For purposes of comparison, Shiism is as different from Sunnism as Catholicism is from Protestantism, but within Sunnism, Hanefism is as different from Wahhabism as Episcopalians are from Seventh Day Adventists.

Shiism is more heirarchical, with access to God being through a clergy; Sunnism emphasizes a more personal relationship with God, where the clergy are basically monks and legal scholars.

Sunnism is composed of "Madhab"s, or schools of jurisprudence, with greatly varying histories, traditions, geographic ranges, and outlooks. They are:

Hanafi - this is the largest, and predominates in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Central Asia, the Balkans, parts of W. Africa, and India. It is the oldest, and the most flexible, being the most open to modern ideas, and has traditionally been the most able to adapt to local custom. This was the official sect of the Ottomans, for obvious reasons, and notably because the Hanefites believe the Caliphate need not rest with any particular lineage.

Maliki - North Africa and parts of W. Africa. Also pretty flexible, differs from the other branches in that the "common law" of Medina is an important source for the derivation of rulings.

Shafi'i - Phillippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and Syria - I don't know much about this branch, but it's more conservative.

Hanbali - (5%) - Arabian peninsula - the most conservative and inflexible school

Wahhabism is a branch of the Hanbali tradition, and Wahhabis call themselves "Unitarians", being extreme fundamentalists, viewing the 1,400 years of accretions to Islamic law as heretical - prayers that mention saints, prophets or angels are heretical and polytheistic and should be punished by death. Smoking and music are banned. Fun.

Anyway, the Ottomans derived their claim upon the Caliphate from the conquest of Egypt, taking the Caliph back to Istanbul and claiming he had transfered his authority to the Sultan, but more importantly the claim was based upon their rule over most of the Muslim world and the Holy Cities. When Mustafa Kemal abolished the Caliphate, that was it - it's gone for good. It would be nearly impossible to get any Arabs to accept Osama bin-Laden as Caliph, and only the Hashemites would have a prayer at this point, and even then, someone would have to conquer the Muslim world to have a claim upon this title. Overnight al-Qaeda coups wouldn't cut it, as Wahhabist regimes would not be accepted anywhere outside of Arabia.

Even if this worked, Turkey and Israel, which are allies, would instantaneously invade and overthrow this monstrosity. Turkey alone could probably handle everything up to Egypt, and Iran wouldn't just sit around for this either.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable guy but I seriously cannot even comprehend what goes on inside the minds of Afgan War protesters. Well if they revolt I can use my gun and find out.

Anyway, Syria is a secularist country? Since when? Also if Saddam somehow survives his assassination attempt, he's not getting back to power. Over the 90's Clinton bombed Saddam almost as much as HW did (Congress didn't like him, bombed Iraq; the media was on his back, bombed Iraq) and it was probably the only good thing he did consistently. No, there's no chance we'll help Saddam, he doubled crossed us before and he won't get another chance; oh sure we can lead him on at least until our army is in Baghdad.

How many non-secular regimes are there in the Muslim world? One. Iran. All the rest are secular.

[MerryPrankster]

"Iran wouldn't just sit around for this either."

Aye. The Shi'a and Wahabis HATE each other; Iran's got some of bin Laden's associates (incl. one of his sons) and they're putting them on trial for various things. Iran would probably not think highly of a bin Laden Caliphate.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, but the Wahabi sect has so much power there that, for all intents and purposes, it's a theocracy. That's why you hear horror stories about girls being stuffed back into burning buildings for not being properly covered.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"Iran wouldn't just sit around for this either."

Aye. The Shi'a and Wahabis HATE each other; Iran's got some of bin Laden's associates (incl. one of his sons) and they're putting them on trial for various things. Iran would probably not think highly of a bin Laden Caliphate.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, but the Wahabi sect has so much power there that, for all intents and purposes, it's a theocracy. That's why you hear horror stories about girls being stuffed back into burning buildings for not being properly covered.

No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position.

That Wahhabism is the dominant sect does not make it a theocracy. Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either. Likewise, the Queen is head of state and head of the Chruch of England, the official religion, but Britain is not a theocracy. Girls being stuffed into burning buildings is an extreme case that is a very rare occurrence; I might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite - once again, a theocracy that doesn't make. To be one, there has to be a religious hierarchy in place and running things. The Vatican is a theocracy, and Iran is a (partial) theocracy; Saudi Arabia is not, it's merely an unpleasant place.

[MerryPrankster]

" might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite"

Thing is, the bombing of abortion clinics are typically done by people who are OPPOSED to the government. The people stuffing the girls back into the burning buildings were the muttaween religious police--they were government employees who had the full coercive power of the state at their command.

"No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position."

The al-Sauds and the Wahabi religious leaders have been operating in synergy since the 1700s. They depend on each other, plus members of the two familes (the Wahabis are a dynasty in their own right--the founder was a man named al-Wahab) intermarry. The dynasty views itself as the "strong arm" of the Wahabi sect.

"Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either"

There's a difference of scale here. Firstly, the sodomy laws are rarely enforced, or else there'd be probably millions in jail for it, plus religious-based US laws (unless you count prohibitions against killing, stealing, etc) are relatively few in number. The Saudis' unbelievably nasty and numerous "Islamic" laws (gender segregation, abuse of women who go out in public w/out tents or male relatives, abuse of Jews and Christians, beheading missionaries, holding American women hostage, etc) are enforced by a police-state apparatus that rivals, if not the KGB, possibly the old SAVAK.

The fact that the US State Department colludes in this (an American woman and her daughters being abused by Saudi husband were turned out of the US Embassy by Marines, who didn't especially like doing it) makes me almost physically ill.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

" might cite the bombing of an abortion clinic as a riposite"

Thing is, the bombing of abortion clinics are typically done by people who are OPPOSED to the government. The people stuffing the girls back into the burning buildings were the muttaween religious police--they were government employees who had the full coercive power of the state at their command.

"No, it's still secular. The government is run by a dynasty that has no religious position."

The al-Sauds and the Wahabi religious leaders have been operating in synergy since the 1700s. They depend on each other, plus members of the two familes (the Wahabis are a dynasty in their own right--the founder was a man named al-Wahab) intermarry. The dynasty views itself as the "strong arm" of the Wahabi sect.

"Most US states ban sodomy for religous reasons, that doesn't make the US a theocracy either"

There's a difference of scale here. Firstly, the sodomy laws are rarely enforced, or else there'd be probably millions in jail for it, plus religious-based US laws (unless you count prohibitions against killing, stealing, etc) are relatively few in number. The Saudis' unbelievably nasty and numerous "Islamic" laws (gender segregation, abuse of women who go out in public w/out tents or male relatives, abuse of Jews and Christians, beheading missionaries, holding American women hostage, etc) are enforced by a police-state apparatus that rivals, if not the KGB, possibly the old SAVAK.

The fact that the US State Department colludes in this (an American woman and her daughters being abused by Saudi husband were turned out of the US Embassy by Marines, who didn't especially like doing it) makes me almost physically ill.

You are really exaggerating. You make it sound like there are people wandering around doing these things as a matter of course. You are describing exceedingly rare occurrances committed by extremists. Saudis are not particularly free from disobedience to Islamic law; there is a reason why Osama bin-Laden hates the Saudi regime - it's because Saudi Arabia has become a decadent and materialistic culture that ignores the Sheriat. And there is no state apparatus that even remotely resembles the ubiquity and power of the KGB or SAVAK. Where are you getting all this?

[MerryPrankster]

The SAVAK was ubiqituous? I chose them b/c they were second-rate compared to the KGB and the Gestapo.

Here're some links...

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785263659/qid=1076534538/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400050219/qid=1076534562/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-3178411-7442529

http://www.amnesty.ca/SaudiArabia/6.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967673763/qid=1076535503/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books

http://freedomhouse.org/survey99/country/saudi.html

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/5.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967673747/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books&st=*

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967673755/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-3178411-7442529?v=glance&s=books&st=*

http://www.house.gov/lantos/caucus/TestimonyGreenwood060402.htm

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010310/2001031043.html

The "Princess" books are a collaboration between a Western woman and a member of the royal family (luckily for her, she's married a reasonably progressive/nice member of the dynasty). I imagine she knows what she's talking about.

The story about the woman and her children being turned out of the US Embassy by reluctant Marines comes from the Wall Street Journal. I don't have an online account @ www.wsj.com, so I can't supply a link for that one. One of the reviewers of Patricia Roush's book describes similar situations.

"are describing exceedingly rare occurrances committed by extremists"

I never said most Muslims in Saudi Arabia were extremists and, in a way, you're correct that these offenses are committed by extremists. Thing is, these extremists control the government and oppress everyone else. There's trouble brewing...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=485405

To be fair, though, the government HAS been making some reforms lately (democratic local councils, some of the people involved in the girls' school fire have been reprimanded, etc). However, they are still an unpleasant regime and although they may not technically be a theocracy (point conceded), there is a degree of religious influence in the gov't several orders of magnitude higher than in the US.

"there is a reason why Osama bin-Laden hates the Saudi regime - it's because Saudi Arabia has become a decadent and materialistic culture that ignores the Sheriat"

bin Laden's problem is with the al-Saud dynasty itself, which enforces a hyper-strict interpretation of Islam (more so than al-Qada itself...AQ has female operatives) and at the same time lives one of the most mind-blowingly decadent (prostitutes, drugs, etc) lifestyles a ruling caste has ever lived. They're the decadent, materialistic ones.

[MerryPrankster]

Now, an 1848-style uprising against all the various royal dynasties and military dictators orchestrated by bin Laden would probably involve lots of young folks...rioting in the streets and the like. The Middle East is experiencing a "youth bulge" (a large % of the popualace is below the age of 15 or so); in similar situations in the past, governments (Louis XVI and the Shah of Iran) fell.

Whether this actually succeeds in toppling the governments (at least for a little bit) depends on the military's committment. I think the uprising will fail in Syria; its military is experienced in that sort of thing (the 1982 Hama rising comes to mind). The Assad rulers are Alawite (the Alawite sect is a rather unorthodox branch of Islam widely denounced as heretical); they know that their people will be exterminated if they lose, so they'll fight to the death.

Jordan is tricky; it's close to Israel, so it would be easily for Israel to intervene a la 1970 to help prop up the Hashemites. However, 67% of Jordan is Palestinian and if al-Qaeda harnesses them, it'd be a LOONG, nasty affair.

What about the smaller Gulf emirates? The UAE, Qatar, and the like. Qatar is liberalizing...will they avoid the storm that hits their more repressive neighbors or will their more liberal laws allow terrorists more room to operate? I'm inclined to go with the first option, but I could be wrong. Oman likewise. I don't know much about the UAE; any experts there?

[Gedca]

This might help

According to DK atlas of world history:

The following countries are "formally designated Islamic republics":
Iran
Pakistan
Afganistan
Pakistan
Mauritania
Comoros

The following countries are where the "established religion is Islam":
Morrocco
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya
Egypt
Sudan
Entitrea
Djibouti
Somalia
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Maldives
Kuwait
Iraq
Lebanon
Bangladesh
Malaysia
Brunei
Indonesia

The following are "secular state where greater than 50% of the population is Muslim":
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Niger
Syria
Turkey
Albania
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikstan

The following are not on the above lists but are "members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)":
Guinea-Bissau
Sierra Leone
Burkina
Chad
Cameroon
Kazakstan

I think that's all.