A German Muslim scholar when he was asked about TERRORISM and Islam.
He said. "Who started the first world war? Not Muslims!!
Who started the second world war? Not Muslims!!
Who killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ? Not Muslims.
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? Not Muslims!!
Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 50 million of Indians in south America? Not Muslims!!
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown overboard into Atlantic ocean? Not Muslims!!
First of all, You will have to define terrorism properly. If a non-Muslim does something bad, it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a Terrorist. So first remove this double standards. Then come to the point. I am proud to be a MUSLIM !!
!
i don't like these "others did this and that" kind of arguments, they have a sour flavour... sorry my English is bad... i don't know how to express it properly, but it sounds like an attempt for excusing or justiying things. Killing innocents is an unacceptable crime and sin. Point. No other comment is needed. That is all what he should say. Be proud muslim and proudly condemn and despise terrorist crimes, no matter if they are commited by kafirs or muslims.
I think the German scholar gave a very good reply and asked a very good question. Exactly what is terrorism?
In my opinion the My Lai massacre was terrorism at its peak. Committed by the American army during the Vietnam war and the conviction that followed was a farce too.
Point is terrorism is a political agenda pushing tool, not a religious one.
A German Muslim scholar when he was asked about TERRORISM and Islam.
He said. "Who started the first world war? Not Muslims!!
Who started the second world war? Not Muslims!!
Who killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ? Not Muslims.
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? Not Muslims!!
Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 50 million of Indians in south America? Not Muslims!!
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown overboard into Atlantic ocean? Not Muslims!!
First of all, You will have to define terrorism properly. If a non-Muslim does something bad, it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a Terrorist. So first remove this double standards. Then come to the point. I am proud to be a MUSLIM !!
!
Similar question was asked from Assaduddin Awaisi by a Hindu girl in a TV show of India, and he left the audience speechless when he questioned that girl in his reply that who killed Mahatma Gandhi was a Muslim? Who killed Rajev Gandhi was a Muslim? Who Martyred Babri Mosque was a Muslim? Who were behind the Gujrat genocide of Muslims were Muslims? In the end he added, there is no religion of terrorism my sister.
A German Muslim scholar when he was asked about TERRORISM and Islam.
He said. "Who started the first world war? Not Muslims!!
Who started the second world war? Not Muslims!!
Who killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust ? Not Muslims.
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? Not Muslims!!
Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Not Muslims!!
Who killed more than 50 million of Indians in south America? Not Muslims!!
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown overboard into Atlantic ocean? Not Muslims!!
First of all, You will have to define terrorism properly. If a non-Muslim does something bad, it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a Terrorist. So first remove this double standards. Then come to the point. I am proud to be a MUSLIM !!
!
I think the German scholar needs to add the Armenian genocide to his list (1.5 million killed by the Ottomans)
He'd better add Iraq, Burma, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Uigar, Palestine and American aboriginals in this list as well. Killing of innocent people has no place in humanity and it can't be justified.
I think the German scholar needs to add the Armenian genocide to his list (1.5 million killed by the Ottomans)
There was no genocide, there was a rebellion organized by Russia to arm, kill and ethnic cleanse Turks from East Anatolia, something that was already done in the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece. The Turks who had experienced the price of loss before were no longer willing to cede any more losses, so they put their foot down and harshly put down the rebellion, and yes some civilians died but it's ridiculous to call it a genocide.
1 - The well-known Armenian author Levon Dabagyan said as follows: "Those who claimed that genocide was committed must learn history much better. Armenian issue is very important for the Christian West because it has been used against Turks/Muslims. West's empty promises led Armenians to uprising. There was no Armenian Genocide, only a deportation!"
2 - K.S. Papazian: "Terrorism has, from the beginning, been adopted by the Dashnak Committee (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) as a policy or a method for achieving its ends." [Patriotism Perverted, Boston Baker Press, 1934]
3 - The report of Aslem Varaam, a Dashnag officer: "I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making any exceptions. One some times feels the bullets shouldn't be wasted. So, the most effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to let them inhabit this world any longer. So I did accordingly. I collected all the women, men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into, crushing them with rocks." (A.A.Lalayan, "Revolutionary East" No: 2-3, p.92, Moscow, 1936)
4 - Hovhannes Katchaznouni (the first prime-minister of the Armenian state): "The Armenian terrorist acts were directed, at winning the Western public opinion. They were unconditionally allied with Russia. They massacred the Moslem population. The decision of the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by Turks. Turkey had acted with an instinct of self-defence." (Manifesto Bucharest, 1923)
Example: Attack the Turks - Armenians begin Religious Assault
Armenians attack the Turks (Ford Wayne Journal Gezette)
The Armenians Kill the Turks (Manitoba free press)
The Armenian terrorists had also attempted suicide bombing Sultan Abdulhamid II.
There was no genocide, there was a rebellion organized by Russia to arm, kill and ethnic cleanse Turks from East Anatolia, something that was already done in the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece. The Turks who had experienced the price of loss before were no longer willing to cede any more losses, so they put their foot down and harshly put down the rebellion, and yes some civilians died but it's ridiculous to call it a genocide.
1 - The well-known Armenian author Levon Dabagyan said as follows: "Those who claimed that genocide was committed must learn history much better. Armenian issue is very important for the Christian West because it has been used against Turks/Muslims. West's empty promises led Armenians to uprising. There was no Armenian Genocide, only a deportation!"
2 - K.S. Papazian: "Terrorism has, from the beginning, been adopted by the Dashnak Committee (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) as a policy or a method for achieving its ends." [Patriotism Perverted, Boston Baker Press, 1934]
3 - The report of Aslem Varaam, a Dashnag officer: "I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making any exceptions. One some times feels the bullets shouldn't be wasted. So, the most effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to let them inhabit this world any longer. So I did accordingly. I collected all the women, men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into, crushing them with rocks." (A.A.Lalayan, "Revolutionary East" No: 2-3, p.92, Moscow, 1936)
4 - Hovhannes Katchaznouni (the first prime-minister of the Armenian state): "The Armenian terrorist acts were directed, at winning the Western public opinion. They were unconditionally allied with Russia. They massacred the Moslem population. The decision of the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by Turks. Turkey had acted with an instinct of self-defence." (Manifesto Bucharest, 1923)
Example: Attack the Turks - Armenians begin Religious Assault
Armenians attack the Turks (Ford Wayne Journal Gezette)
The Armenians Kill the Turks (Manitoba free press)
The Armenian terrorists had also attempted suicide bombing Sultan Abdulhamid II.
You interpretation of those events is completely different than existing historical and scientific scholarship on this issue
there any countless photos of Armenians in mass graves, crucified women, etc.
Were there rebels? Certainly. That does not excuse war crimes on a massive scale towards Armenian civilians. This has been documented extensively, even more than the Holocaust.
You interpretation of those events is completely different than existing historical and scientific scholarship on this issue
there any countless photos of Armenians in mass graves, crucified women, etc.
Were there rebels? Certainly. That does not excuse war crimes on a massive scale towards Armenian civilians. This has been documented extensively, even more than the Holocaust.
Yes I'm sure countries like France recognizing the so-called armenian genocide just when there's a government that's not a western vassal. For decades, when CHP was in power, the West completely ignored the so-called Armenian "genocide". Now why would that be?
It's just a political stunt to pressurize Turkey, nothing more. As I said some civilians died but there was no genocide, only deportation. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that the first PM of Armenia said: The decision of the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by Turks. Turkey had acted with an instinct of self-defence.
Friend, you didnt answer my question. Do we Turks have right to call what Armenians did to us during WW1 the Turkish genocide or not?
the Armenians committed genocide against the Turks?
I'm sure they committed some terrorism or even atrocities, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that they committed a genocide. They didn't have the power or organization to do that
the Armenians committed genocide against the Turks?
I'm sure they committed some terrorism or even atrocities, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that they committed a genocide. They didn't have the power or organization to do that
Reality is that, Armenians started to rebel against the Ottoman state beginning from the late 19th century because of the nationalist and libertarian influence of the French revolution. This animosity continued untill the WW1 as battles between the Armenian mobs and the Official guards of the Ottoman State. With the beginning of WW1 it turned to a civil war between Christian (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians) and Muslim folks (Turks and Kurds) of the region as well as the terrorist acts against the State. Russian Empire invaded the North eastern Anatolia and wanted to use this as a tool for their invasion and the Ottoma government deported a huge amount of Armenian population from the region to the southern parts of the country to save the region from the Russian intervention.
Now, some of the Armenian casualties occured during this march and some were killed directly by some Ottoman soldiers. However, most of the casualties of each side occured during the infights between civilians. Armenians killed turks and Turks killed Armenians.
So you must define the terminology you use. What is an "atrocity" and what differs it from a genocide? What were the extends of this terror and atrocity that Armenians commited? What makes them disqualified to be a genocide and what makes what the Ottomans (who do you refer as "the Ottomans"?) did a genocide? You must be very clear on your definitions because this so called genocide has been used as propoganda for a political agenda more than asserting a historical claim.
Reality is that, Armenians started to rebel against the Ottoman state beginning from the late 19th century because of the nationalist and libertarian influence of the French revolution. This animosity continued untill the WW1 as battles between the Armenian mobs and the Official guards of the Ottoman State. With the beginning of WW1 it turned to a civil war between Christian (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians) and Muslim folks (Turks and Kurds) of the region as well as the terrorist acts against the State. Russian Empire invaded the North eastern Anatolia and wanted to use this as a tool for their invasion and the Ottoma government deported a huge amount of Armenian population from the region to the southern parts of the country to save the region from the Russian intervention.
Now, some of the Armenian casualties occured during this march and some were killed directly by some Ottoman soldiers. However, most of the casualties of each side occured during the infights between civilians. Armenians killed turks and Turks killed Armenians.
So you must define the terminology you use. What is an "atrocity" and what differs it from a genocide? What were the extends of this terror and atrocity that Armenians commited? What makes them disqualified to be a genocide and what makes what the Ottomans (who do you refer as "the Ottomans"?) did a genocide? You must be very clear on your definitions because this so called genocide has been used as propoganda for a political agenda more than asserting a historical claim.
German and Ottoman officials both attested to atrocities committed by the Turkish army and the "Special Organization" (basically killing squads) against the Armenians. "Genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian wrote that 80,000 Armenians in 90 villages across the Muş plain were burned alive in "stables and haylofts". 50,000 Armenians were killed by drowning in Trabzon (put into boats and then capsized in the Black Sea).
Actual death camps were set up in places like Deir el-Zor, where tens of thousands perished.
In a New York Times article dated October 10, 1915, Şerif Pasha condemned the massacres on Armenians and declared that the Young Turk government had the intentions of "exterminating" the Armenians for a long time
There are many pictures of dead civilians, crucified women, and mass graves, along with direct orders are correspondences from Turkish officials ordering the destruction of the Armenians as a people.
It was both a civil war and a genocide. And as a genocide, it is one of the worst in human history, with cruelties surpassing that of the Nazis.
It doesn't reflect on the current Turkish people or government, but it happened, and it shouldn't be pushed under the rug.
It is overwhelmingly called a genocide by virtually all scholars in the west, and many in the Middle-East
If the Turks want to pretend it didn't happen, or to spin false narratives about what happened, so be it. No one believes them
Most Western countries believed them when their leader was secularist, pro-Western. You didn't answer why Netherlands, France, Israel, Egypt, etc recognized the so-called armenian "genocide" exactly when Erdogan stopped being a vassal. Tell us what was the West doing all these days?
Btw while we are on the topic, it's hilarious West supports independent Kurdistan when it was the Kurdish regiments in the Hamidiyan Army which fought and expelled the Armenians. After that the Kurds settled in those lands (Kars, Van, Mus). If anything the Kurds played the biggest role in the expelling of Armenians and benefitted most, yet they get a free pass. I wonder why?
So why are you giving the already disputed and controversial number of 1.5 million for only the genocide if there was also a civil war in which Turks were also killed?
Also define “Ottoman” when you used it in “genocide commited by the Ottomans”. This name/idendity is used for several different things. 1. Ottoman ruling family, 2. Ottoman officials (specifically Union and Progress party), 3. Turkish (or all muslim) people living in the Ottoman empire?
So why are you giving the already disputed and controversial number of 1.5 million for only the genocide if there was also a civil war in which Turks were also killed?
Also define “Ottoman” when you used it in “genocide commited by the Ottomans”. This name/idendity is used for several different things. 1. Ottoman ruling family, 2. Ottoman officials (specifically Union and Progress party), 3. Turkish (or all muslim) people living in the Ottoman empire?
Specifically the Young Turks and clownish goons like Enver Pasha, among others.
That 1.5 number might be controversial among certain radical Turkish nationalists or maybe Islamists. Among scholars, it is an accepted figure.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Eric H liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks