Apr 27 2009
April 23, 2009 No. 2325
London Islamist Hani Sibai: ‘The Armenian Genocide by the Ottomans… The Big Lie’
The following is an article by Dr. Hani Sibai,  an Islamist activist residing in London who is the founder and director of a private institution called “The Almaqreze Centre for Historical Studies.” 
A “Reply to the Alleged Claim of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottomans”
“Praise be to Allah and Peace and Blessing be upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
“This is an article in reply to the alleged claim of the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans:
“Second: Crucial points to understand the conflict
“Third: [A] Few Examples of the Loyalty of the Armenians to Russia and their Mutiny against the Othman State
["Fourth: A statement buried in the U.S. archives]
When Did the Issue of Armenia Come to Light – And Why Do the Armenians Insist That They Were Subjected to Genocide by the Ottomans?
“This false claim and despicable propaganda (i.e. the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans) had been adopted by the Russians who used the Armenians to achieve their political interests and ambitions. It was the Russians who had created the Armenian state and had given them, illegally, most of the lands owned by the Muslims after they were expelled from them. These vast lands were seized by the Russians during centuries of constant wars against the Ottoman Empire.
“Russia conducted an organized terror campaign against the citizens of the Ottoman state; they destroyed complete towns and villages fully inhabited with Muslims, and those Muslims who would remain alive were forced to leave. The Russians [would] seize all the properties of those oppressed Muslims, who were exposed to the worst kind of mass extermination in the history of mankind. At the same time, and under the pretext of defending Christianity, the Russian armies [would] bring in the Armenians who were supporting them in their wars against the Ottomans, and give them Muslims lands. The Russian government [would] provide the Armenian rebels with money and weapons, after any incident between a Muslim among the Ottoman nationals and an Armenian supporting Russia. The Muslim was not allowed to retaliate [against] the hostility of the Armenian gangs, who [would] attack the villages and rape women; and if a Muslim tried to defend his land and honor, the Armenian gangs would destroy and burn down the whole village.
“Russia used the Armenian rebels to extend their areas of influence and seize countries that were under the Ottoman Empire, and this policy had helped them create the Soviet Union since the Bolshevist revolution in 1917. This has been confirmed by Laurent Chabri and Annie Chabri in their valuable book Politics and Minorities in the Near East, and although they were not unbiased in their book (Politics and Minorities in the Near East, translated by Dr. Dhuqan Qarqut, page 311), they said in it: ‘The Armenians, who remained in Armenia and who were under the authority of the Turks on one side and under the authority of the Persians on the other, had seen great hope by the end of the eighteenth century in the Russian power, the Christian power that would appear in the scene of the Near East, and with it came the desire to extend well behind the Caucasus towards the south and the southeast. Before that, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Armenians had tried vainly to get a support from the western Catholics, expecting a military intervention from the western countries in order to rescue them from the Turkish firepower. Russia did not break those new hopes, as it used the army of Armenian volunteers to invade Persia and occupy the lands that form what is held to be the Russian Armenia.’
“Perhaps, one [may] ask when the issue of Armenia came to light internationally, and why the Armenians insist about their allegation that they have been subjected to a genocide by the Ottomans.
“To answer these questions, we will shed light upon the following issues:
Crucial Points to Understand the Conflict
“Second: Crucial Points to Understand the Conflict
“The first point: The Armenian issue was raised at the international level for the first time following the Saint Stefano Deal: after the end of the Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878, the two parties conducted the deal of Saint Stefano and Berlin in 1878, where articles 16 and 61 gave way to deal with the Armenian issue internationally in a manner that is still gouging and exacting pressure on the Turks up to our present time.
“The second point: It is necessary to study the historical period during which the Armenians claim to have been subjected to genocide, and it is the period that more or less between 1821 and 1922. There should also be a study of a great geographical region that was under the authority of the Ottomans, from the Caucasus to Anatolia and the Balkans, including Bulgaria and Greece, where most of the inhabitants of these vast regions were Muslims.
“There are indeed some serious studies about this subject, although few, such as the one conducted by Justin McCarthy in his book Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, ©1995), a book that was sponsored by the U.S. National Endowment for Cultural Studies to investigate the First World War and its effects, and by the Institution for Turkish Studies to look into the deaths and migration of the Turks, jointly with some American and British universities…
“This research is considered to be the best effort regarding this issue, despite our reservation about some remarks that do not diminish its value and its genuine effort, and it was translated into Arabic and published by Qadams in Damascus. Naturally, the study of this region geographically and historically, with the nature of the conflict in that period, necessitates a great deal of research and documented studies, which would allow reasonable and just people to discover the gravity of this allegation, repeatedly quoted by the West about the so-called ‘Armenian genocide,’ in time when the western writers ignore the fate of millions of Muslims who were expulsed from their lands and killed at the hands of the Russians, the Armenians, the Bulgarians, the Greeks and the Serbians during the aforementioned period up to 1922!
“As in the words of McCarthy: “There were Muslim societies in an area with the size of western Europe that were reduced or exterminated. In the Balkans, the great Turkish population was reduced to their previous number. In the Caucasus, there was expulsion of the Charkas, the Laz, the Abkhaz and the Turks along with other Muslim minorities. Anatolia has changed, as its east and west were almost completely destroyed. This was one of the greatest tragedies in history. (McCarthy: p327)
“The third point: There was the role of the ‘Union and Progress Group’ in the downfall of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1908, coercing the Sultan Hamid the Second to retire, and introducing an article in the new constitution, allowing all the Ottoman citizens to be armed and providing a legal cover for the ethnic minorities to procure weapons. The Armenians exploited the new legislation to acquire and store weapons with which they killed Muslims. The Armenian aggression against the Muslims began in the town of Adana before the middle of 1909, under the leadership of the vicar of the city of Asvin, named Mustic.
“The fourth point: There was also the role played by western ambassadors and consuls and American protestant missionaries in misleading the public opinion and spreading reports, exaggerating the number of killed Armenians, while disregarding the number of Muslims killed i
the war. In many occasions, telling lies was deliberate as is the case of American consul who was accused of siding fanatically with the Armenians. The French consul was not less fanatic than the American or the Russian consuls!
“Unfortunately, the Sultan Abdul Hamid believed that the British government wanted to preserve the unity of the Ottoman provinces, but he came around after it was too late!
“Robert Mantran said in the second part of his book The History of the Ottoman State, a book that contains many inaccurate statements: ‘From 1878 to 1879, Abdul Hamid began to have suspicions that England wanted to abandon its traditional policy about preserving the unity of the Ottoman lands. These suspicions were fed by the pressures executed by the British government on the Sultan Abdul Hamid in order to carry out the promised reforms in the Armenian region, and were increased intensely by the appointment of Gladstone, leader of the Liberals, as the head of British government in May 1880. He was a known enemy of the Turks since the slaughters in Bulgaria. Those suspicions were confirmed, in a way, by the control of London upon Egypt in 1882. Since that time, the British diplomacy had witnessed – according to the Istanbul’s view – a complete turn over.’ (Robert Mantran: The History of the OttomanState ).
“The fifth point: It is the misleading western propaganda, diffused by the media to distort the facts and depict the Muslims as savages and barbarians; while on the other hand, it pictures the Armenians as genius, righteous and tolerant people!
“The sixth point: These problems and worries, stirred by enemy forces against the Ottoman State, appeared in its reigning lands of the Caucasus, the Crimean peninsula, the Balkans and Anatolia, and had an impact on the fate of the Muslims in those vast territories, because of many fundamental factors:
“a. The weakness of the Ottoman State, to the point where it was described as ‘the sick man’
“b. Inciting the Christian Nationalism among the minorities, who were under the Ottoman Empire. The Great Powers at that time, which were ambitious enough to divide the properties of the Ottoman Empire, strove to incite the non-Muslim minorities to rise up and revive nationalism, as is the case with Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Robert Mantran confirmed this issue, saying: ‘In reality, the Armenian National Movement, after 1878, is associated, to a considerable extent, with the analysis which the Armenian intellectuals had conducted about the Bulgarian independence. Bulgaria had achieved this independence with the help of Europe, but, in fact, it had been achieved by the use of force and ruthless methods used by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committees. Therefore, the Bulgarian example dominated the Armenian combatants’ thought, especially those who would resort to create the first organizations. Actually, the first revolutionary parties started to appear in the middle of 1880: the Armenian Party was established (in Fan) in 1885 by a number of educators, then the two large parties, unlike the first party, were formed by Armenians from Caucasus who had very little link with the Armenian Turks. The first of these two large parties was Hintshaq, which was established in Geneva in 1887, and Tashnaq (The Armenian Revolutionary Union) established in 1890 in Tiflis.’ (Robert Mantran: Second 2, p. 217)
“c. The Russian colonial expansion, which continued to absorb the properties of the Ottoman Empire piece by piece.”
The West Uses “The Armenian Problem” Against the ModernTurkishState – Even Though the “Turkish Government Adopts the Secular System and Fights Any Aspect of Islam in the Country, in Order to Satisfy the West and Join… the EU”
“Therefore, from the aforesaid, we can understand the Armenian problem, which the West uses against the modern Turkish state, though the new Turkish government adopts the secular system and fights any aspect of Islam in the country, in order to satisfy the West and join the promised paradise of the European Union. However, the European Union will never allow Turkey to be a member in its club, because the Western leaders know very well that Kamal Ataturk had done a very good job by turning Turkey into a secular state. Nevertheless, they know that, although the Turkish people are far from the real Islam, they still have the spirit of it in their blood and a yearning for the return of the glorious Islam, which have started to spread in recent years, even though the army tried hard to stop this living spirit. Accordingly, the European leaders worry about the entry of Turkey into the European Union because they believe with faith that this Union is a Christian club and there is no place for a Muslim state in it.
“Although Turkey and the United States are close allies at the moment, the leaders of the White House are not certain about their interests in the remote future; therefore they will, eventually, adopt a resolution which condemns Turkey of the Armenian genocide, and hence use extortion against Turkey and use this resolution as an excuse to sanction Turkey economically, and intervene militarily, if Turkey abandons its extreme secular system and adopts an Islamic system. If that happens, Europe and the US will form an alliance and wage a fierce war against Turkey. It will be like a Third, Fourth or Fifth World War against Turkey in order to occupy Constantinople and annex it to the West.”
The Armenians’ Loyalty to Russia and Their Mutiny Against the OttomanState
“Third: The Loyalty of the Armenians to Russia and their Mutiny Against the OttomanState
“The religious loyalty had a major impact in the conflict between Russia and the Ottoman state, because the concept of citizenship had not appeared then. This principle was confirmed by McCarthy in his aforementioned book: ‘It is obvious that the Armenian people, under the Ottoman and the Russian control, used to view each other as brothers, regardless of their nationalities, and the same thing goes for Muslims. It is not clear whether the concept of citizenship, in comparison with the religious affiliation, was firmly established, to a greater extent, in either the Caucasus or eastern Anatolia before 1920.
“‘In the East, a Caucasian Muslim felt that he was closer to his Anatolian Muslim brother than to a Caucasus Armenian; likewise, the Eastern Anatolian Armenian related himself to the Caucasus Armenian and not to the Anatolian Muslims. Their affiliations with their religious groups were confirmed by the Caucasian and Eastern Anatolia wars time after time.” (Justin McCarthy: Expulsion and Genocide, p. 49)
“The religious loyalty is not something strange in world history, but what is strange is to exclude this principle in assessing the nature of the conflict throughout history. As an example of the importance of this religious loyalty, the Russian Tsarists used to persecute the Armenian Church, and then they changed their treatment during the reign of Peter the Great, so that they could use them as support in their expansionist wars against the Ottoman state. The Armenian people understood that on the basis that they belong, along with the Russians, to the same Christian religion and that their enemy was one (the Ottoman Islamic State).
“In fact, the Armenian people used the same principle with the French and established a legion which became under the French army command in Qulayqiliyyah. This Armenian legion caused mischief on earth on the basis that the French were their brothers in religion and that they had a common enemy (i.e. the Ottoman Islamic State). The American Protestant Missionaries had also a major role in inflaming this conflict and the religious brotherhood was the sole factor which associated them with the Armenians, and worst, it covered the reality of the carnage committed by the Armenians against Muslims. This is not prejudice from my part in understanding the nature of the conflict, because all the historical facts confirm it and
the modern history supports this opinion.
“If you really want to understand this fact clearly, look at the regions of conflict in the world: Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Burma, Thailand, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Somalia, Darfur and the pressure and oppression of Muslims in the West. Is all this just sheer coincidence, unintentional and with no religious loyalty in this conflict and in waging these unjust wars?
Examples of the Armenians’ Loyalty to the Russians
“A Few Examples of the Armenians’ Loyalty to the Russians and their Mutiny against the Ottoman Empire
“In his study, McCarthy mentioned many historical proofs of the Armenian’s loyalty to the Russians, which we will summarize as follows:
“1. During the reign of Peter the Great, the Armenians started to rely more on the Russians, hoping that they would get the support they needed. Since the first waves of attacks by the Russians on the Caucasus, the Armenians had formed a military power to help the Russians attack the region and they pledged their allegiance to the Tsars.
“2. During the eighth and ninth century, the Armenians (Church leaders, secular leaders, different groups, etc.) supported the Russian attack of Muslim lands in the Caucasus, hoping to overthrow the Muslim leaders in these states.
“3. The Armenians were employed as spies for the Russians against their Muslim leaders, whether they were the Ottomans or Armenians who were subjects of the Persian state.
“4. When the city of Derbend was under siege by the Russian army in 1796, its Armenian inhabitants sent to the Russians valuable information about the city’s water supplies, and this allowed the Russian army to defeat the army of Derbend.
“5. In the 1890′s, Armenian archbishop (Argotnisky-Dolgorokov) publicly announced that he hoped that the Russians would liberate Armenia from Muslim rule.
“6. During the wars of 1827-1829 and the Qaram war, the Armenian citizens of both the Ottoman and Persian Empires, together with the Armenians who lived inside the Russian Empire, fought alongside the Russian army against the Persian army and the Ottoman Empire.
“7. The Armenians, living inside Ottoman Anatolia, gave their allegiance to the Russian cause by working as spies for the Russian government.
“8. The Armenians would cross the borders of Anatolia and give reports of the Ottoman armies to the Russian in all the wars of eastern Anatolia.
“9. The Armenians in Anatolia helped the invading Russian armies in 1827, and when the Russian armies left, thousands of Armenians followed it outside Anatolia.
“10. During the Qaram war, the Armenians gave secret information from the city of Kars which was under the Russian siege.
“11. The Armenian guides paved the way for the Russian invaders from the Ottoman Anatolia in 1877.
“12. In 1877, the Armenians of Elsekirt valley welcomed the invading Russian armies, and when the Russian armies left all Armenians left with them.
“13. The Armenians of Anatolia and Caucasus were allies of the Russian armies in the First World War. In Anatolia, the Armenian rebels’ reliance on the Russians became clear by the middle of the 19th century, by revolting in Zeyton when there was need for financial resources to reinforce their defense in Zeyton against the Ottomans. In 1854, while the Ottoman armies were fighting against the Russian in the Qaram war, the Armenian rebels tried to get financial support from the Russians.
“14. In 1872, the Armenians of Van, who were citizens of the Ottoman Empire, wrote to the Russian Emperor’s representative in Caucasus asking help from him against their government. They wanted to become citizens of Russia so they started to buy and store weapons.
“15. There were constant contacts and communications between the Ottoman Armenians and the Russian Empire within the Armenian revolutionary groups, especially Tashnaq, and the other half of Armenia under the Russian control was a centre for storing weapons and revolutionary organization against the Ottoman Empire.
“16. The Archbishop of Derik, on the side of the Persian border with the Ottoman, transformed a monastery into a store for weapons and a centre of infiltration for the Armenian rebels to the Ottoman Empire.
“17. The Armenians and the Georgians, especially those who had relatives in Iran or had businesses, continued to be significant sources of information for the Russians; hence they had a major impact in the Russian political and strategic decisions. The Tsar, Alexander Tsitsianov, ordered his advisers to contact Patriarch Daniel and his followers.
“18. Patriarch Daniel, who was a candidate, supported by the Russians, for the position of the Armenian Church Patriarchy (after the death of Argotnisky-Dolgorokov) would spy and give valuable information to the Russians.
“19. In 1808, Alexander Tsitsianov rewarded Patriarch Daniel with a first-degree monastic for his services in spying and providing information to the Russians. While the Russians were fighting to expand their territories in Kur and Aras, the Armenians continued to send letters to the Russian officials encouraging them to capture areas under Muslims control and save the Armenian people from the Muslim persecution.
“20. The relation between the Armenian rebels and the Armenian Church had facilitated their activities to a larger extent, because the church was an organization which managed to cross the border easily, and in Istanbul, itself, the church leaders and priests had the freedom to move as they pleased and the Ottoman Armenians could not touch them, although they were caught many times carrying letters, reports and money to the rebels. Besides, some churches and monasteries were used as clandestine stores for weapons, which were smuggled to the Armenian rebels, as these churches and monasteries were not subject to security inspection.
“Therefore, we have examined some examples of the Armenians’ loyalty and allegiance to the Russians during times of war and peace, which quash their fabricated lie (The Armenian genocide by the Ottomans).
For more confirmation about the authenticity of our report, we present this statement:
The Americans Disregarded a Report on the Damage and Destruction Perpetrated by the Armenians and Their Atrocities Against the Muslims
“Fourth: A Statement Buried in the U.S. Archives
“This statement is in the form of a report, made by two men who did not have any sympathy for the Ottoman Muslims. They were rather fanatically inclined towards the Armenians, and went to the region with a deliberate thought that the Armenians were a victimized nation, against whom the Muslims had committed group killings and slaughters, according to information taken from the misleading Western media and from the American Protestant Missionaries, who did not deserve any trust as witnesses of the Muslims’ sufferings, because they were excellent in deceptively recording acts against the Armenians in details. They were also dishonest in recording acts against the Muslims, as reported by some historians! Therefore, who are these two witnesses who returned to America with a different mood than the one with which they set out to eastern Anatolia?
“They are Captain Emory Niles and Arthus Sutherland, who were commanded by the American State administration [sic] to check the situation in eastern Anatolia. When they arrived in Anatolia, they travelled all around the region and listened to the testimony of the two parties. They were surprised at the bulk of distortions, fabricated by the Armenians, and were shocked at the terrifying ordeal and atrocities suffered by the Muslims at the hands of the Armenians! The American government was not pleased with the report so they disregarded it.
“It was for this reason that the report of the two American envoys was not included in the file of the American Investiga
ting Committee, and all thanks to Allah, Glorified is He, that their report was not lost, but rather concealed and buried in places linked to the First World War in eastern Anatolia!
Justin McCarthy, of the University of Louisville, printed the report in 1994, and published it in his book Muslims and the Minorities! He published it once more in another book, Expulsion and Genocide, and all thanks and praise to Allah.
“As for the report of Niles and Sutherland, they wrote: ‘In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit, we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Muslims. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Muslim population. At first, we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are Armenian quarters … while the Muslim quarters were completely destroyed.’
“They also said in their report: ‘The ethnic situation in this region (Bayezit and Ardrom) is extremely critical because of its closeness to an Armenian front, fled by the refugees who report about the atrocities and organized killings committed by the Armenian government and its army and people against the Muslim residents. Although few hundred Armenians live actually in the province of Van, it is impossible for them to live in the mountainous regions of the province of Ardrom, where everyone feel utmost hatred towards them. There, the Armenians destroyed the villages and committed all types of criminal acts against the Muslims, before they retreated. The criminal acts of the Armenians have left a living and influencing factor of hatred on the other side, an aversion that fumes with rage at least in the region of Van. The existence of organized killings in Armenia was confirmed by refugees from all Armenian territories and also by some British officers in Ardrom.’ (McCarthy: p251.)
“Niles and Sutherland presented, in their report, some statistics covering the number of Muslim villages and houses which survived the miseries of war around the cities of Van and Bitlis alone; its confirmed that the Armenians had destroyed most Muslim houses and demolished all building with Islamic features, as detailed in the following table:
“Destruction in Van and Bitlis
“After the War 1919 Before the War The City of Van
“3 3400 Muslim houses
“1170 3100 Armenian houses
“After the War 1919 Before the War The City of Bitlis
“Naught 6500 Muslim houses
“1000 1500 Armenian houses 
As for villages in the provinces of Van, Sanjiq and Bayezit before the war and the Armenian occupation, it was reported, in the statistics of Noles and Sutherland, that the number of Muslim houses before the war in the villages of the province of Van was 1,373 and it decreased after the war in 1919 to 350 houses! Whereas the houses of the Armenians were 112 before the war and they increased after the war to 200! In the villages of the province of Bayezit, the number of the Muslim houses before the war was 448 and they reduced to 243 after the war, while the houses of the Armenians were 33 and they remained 33 after the war!
“Niles and Sutherland conscientiously summarized the history of Muslims in eastern Anatolia in the end of their report: ‘Although it is not part of our investigation at all, one of the significant facts which affected us in every place of Bitlis and Trabzon, that we have passed through, was that the Armenians had committed exactly all the atrocities and group killings which the Turks had committed against the Armenians in other places. At first, we largely had doubt regarding all the narrations we have received, but the overall agreement of all the witnessed and the passion with which they discussed the evil acts perpetuated against them, and their apparent hatred towards the Armenians, besides all the materialistic proofs in the land itself, all this made us believe the authenticity of the facts in general.
“‘First, the Armenians killed Muslims in a large scale and with various barbarity in their methods. Second, the Armenians were responsible for the destruction of most towns and villages. The Russians and the Armenians occupied the country for a long period (1915-1916), and it appeared that during that period, anarchy was limited, even though the Russians undoubtedly had caused much damage. In 1917, the Russian army was disbanded and left the authority in the hands of the Armenians alone. During that period, the Armenian militias patrolled the country, killing Muslim civilians. When the Turkish army moved towards Arzugan, Ardrom and Van, the Armenian army broke up and its soldiers or militias began destroying Muslim properties and killings mercilessly the Muslim inhabitants. The result was a completely destroyed country and a strong hatred towards the Armenians; a fact which makes it impossible for these two people to co-exist in the present time. The Muslims declared that if they were to be forced to live under the Armenian authority, they would rather fight, and it seems to us that they are likely to execute their threat. This opinion is shared by the Turkish, British and American officers that we have met.’ (McCarthy: p 253-254).
“This is just a testimony about the organized killing perpetuated by the Armenians against the Muslims during the First World War, from 1914 to 1918 in the provinces of Van and Betlis, in east Anatolia, let alone the decrease of the number of Muslim inhabitants in the all eastern Ottoman provinces, such as Ardrom, Betlis, Diyar Bikr, the Al-’Aziz colony, Siwas, Halab and Trabzon. We will discover that in the period from 1912 to 1922, more than 62% of the Muslims in the province of Van were missing, 42% in the province of Betlis, 31% in the province of Ardrom and more than 60% in the Qoqaz!
“As for the provinces in western Anatolia, such as Aydin, Kadawindakar, Bigha and Idmid, the coalition forces expulsed the Turkish refugees who settled there and handed their properties to the Greeks! They left the Muslims without any refuge in the greatest public group theft in history. It was a premeditated group killing against the Muslims in the Qoqaz, Anatolia and the Balkans, with the blessing of the world imperialistic powers in that miserable period, and the dramatic end of the Ottoman Caliphate, which lasted six centuries.
“Millions of Muslims Were Killed at the Hands of the Armenians… The Defect Lies With Us as a Nation That Accepts Humility and Cheers Its Executioner”
“Therefore, it has become clear to us the weakness of this allegation of ‘the Armenian genocide by the Ottomans,’ which is repeatedly declared by the Armenians and those who encouraged them and supported them.
“Millions of Muslims were killed at the hands of the Armenians, the Russians, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, the Serbians and other enemies of the Ottoman Islamic state, in which lived under its reign various ethnic minorities in peace and security! Yet, no one asked for the punishment of the criminal perpetrators, who committed those group killings.
“The Muslims who were and still are the victims of these gruesome killings are exposed as savage killers!
“The real problem lies with the regimes related to the Islamic world for not demanding – even with diffidence – the punishment of the offenders behind the ongoing crimes against the Muslims in the Caucasus and Chechnya, the population exterminated in the Balkans, the mass graveyards in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the killing of more than one million child in Iraq alone, the destruction and complete disappearance of towns and villages in Afghani
stan during the barbaric British, Russian and American aggressions. These oppressive regimes did not take one sound decision in its life to demand justice for their people, and ask for compensations from the French, the British, the Spanish, the Italians, the Dutch, the Russians and the Americans for their victims in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kashmir, Thailand, Somalia and Sudan!!!
“The Armenians have scraped the scab off wounds which are not dressed yet. They revived grieves which have not calmed yet. They stirred sorrows which would not rest until justice is done in the future. The western world owes a clear apology to the Muslims and compensation deemed for the crimes committed in the crusade wars, past and present! Yes, we demand apology and compensation for the mass killings of the Muslims during many centuries.
“As for those who seek their mercy in every fabricated case highlighted by them, and keep on defending disgracefully on the doorsteps of the Security Council and European Union, well it is self-destruction itself! It is better for this nation (Islamic) to be swallowed by the earth than to live in disgrace and dishonor!
“The defect lies with us as a nation that accepts humility and cheers its executioner and does not punish its killer!”
 For more about Hani Al-Sibai Visit MEMRI TV: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1513.htm ; http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/803.htm ; http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/748.htm ; http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/576.htm
 Article is posted on the centers website, see http://www.almaqreze.net/articles/artic1059.html.
 The table is presented here as in the original article.
No responses yet