Zakia Jafri welcomes SC order on Narendra Modi and others | TwoCircles.net

Zakia Jafri welcomes SC order on Narendra Modi and others
Submitted by admin3 on 29 April 2009 – 7:12pm.

* Crime/Terrorism
* India News
* Indian Muslim

By TwoCircles.net Correspondent

Ahmedabad: Welcoming the Supreme court order on Monday directing the special Investigation Team(SIT) headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan to investigate the roles of Chief Minister Narendra Modi and seven of his ministers, including VHP international general secretary Pravin Togadia as also senior bureaucrats and police officers, into the communal riots in the state from February 27,2002, to Mary 31, 2002, wife of slain ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri and human rights activist termed it a tremendous relief towards fight for justice in Gujarat.

The SC orders came on a petition filed by Zakia. According to the order, SIT has to submit its report to the apex court within a period of three months. The SIT recently completed investigations in 10 most heinous riot cases of 2002 and submitted its report to the Supreme Court. It was because of SIT investigation that Maya Kodnani, a minister in Modi’s cabint and a senior VHP functionary Jaideep Patel were arrested and both are colling their haeels in jail.

Reacting to the order, she said: “I have immense faith in Allah and I am hopeful that those who conspired, planned and executed the riots in which my husband Ehsan Jafri and more than two thousand others were killed in Gujarat, will get justice’’.

Zakia, who shifted to Surat after her husbands killing un Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on Febvruary 28, 2002, is living with her elder son Tanvir Jafri, a senior executive with Larsen and Toubro.

Commenting on it, noted human rights activist J S Dandukwala said that the apex court orders was a tremendous relief to all victims of 2002 riots.

“We have always viewed Narendra Modi as a principal culprit of the killings of over 2000 people’’, he said, adding that `sadly, Modi used his political clout and administrative power to cover up his 2002 footprints’’.

“Horribly, many top industrialists and even Muslim bureaucrasts like retired additional director general of police A I Saiyed and several maulanas have endorsed Modi in spite of his Hitler-like records’’, commented Bandukwala, himself a victim of 2002 riots as he was the first to be targeted when the anti-Muslim riots began following torching of Sabarmati Express train at Godhra on February 27, 2002, in which 59 passeners, all Hindus, were killed.

Senior advocate and JSM representative Mukul sinha said that he had long ago demanded before Nanavati Commission probing the godhra and post-Godhra riots to summon Modi and his ministers to quiz them for their omission and commission during the riots.

However, he expressed happiness over SC ordering probe int the roles of political bigwigs into the riots who had gone scot-free.

Zakia had for the first time sent a detailed letter on June 8, 2006, to the then DGP A K Bhargava, demanding registration of FIR against 63 persons including chief minister Narendra Modi under Section 154 of CRPC. However, her plea was not entertained.

On May 1, 2007, Zakia and Mumbai-based Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace(CJP) filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court, praying it to direct the police to register FIR against Modi, his cabinet ministers, administrative and police officials, including the then director general of police K Chakravarti and handing over the case to CBI for investigation.

However, the Gujarat High Court rejected the petition on November 2, 2007, asking the petitioners to approach the magisterial court in this regard.

After that Zakia and CJP filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking apex court’s direction for an FIR to be filed against Modi and 62 others, and for an investigation into their alleged role in 2002 anti-Muslim riots.

Zakia’s petition in the Supreme Court raised several questions. An excerpt of these questions is given here.

1. Why were there no minutes of the meeting with chief minister held with senior officers for a review of the situation arising out of Godhra training burning incident?

2. There are some state intelligence reports of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad(World Hindu Council) held at 4 p.m. at Ahmedabad on February 27, 2002. Who attended this meting? Were any elected members of the Gujarat legislature , and the state cabinet present?

3. Why were the bodies of the victims of Godhra train carnage brought to Ahmedabad, and why were they paraded in streets?

4. Did senior police officials or DGP report to Chief Minister or higher officers in writing about the likely repercussions of parading the bodies?

5. Why was no preventive action taken when a bandh call had already been given by VHP?

6. Why was not Army called out immediately and why was there delay in deployment of Army when it reached Ahmedabad?

7. Why was there a delay in declaration of curfew in Ahmedabad?

8. Despite rules for this, why was there no arrangement for videography of the violence by mobs in all districts of the state?

9. Why were there more casualties of Muslims in police firing during riots?

10. Why was the response to distress calls from prominent Muslims like ehsan Jafri, delayed?

11. Why was there no monitoring of the instructions of senior officials, including chief secretary, officials of the home department and the DGP?

12. Why was there no action against officials who failed to register FIRs and why was there no adequate response to the complaints of riot victims?

13. Why was no action taken against supervisory officers, from district superintendents of police to the level of police commissioners and DGP, who violated the Gujarat Police Manual by not properly supervising investigations of serious riot-related crimes and thereby committing culpable omission and grave misconduct?

14. Why was no action taken on the supervisory officers who had done the misconduct of negligent supervision of Bilkis banu and Best Bakery mass massacre cases, whose trials had been transferred by Supreme Court to Maharashtra?

15. Why has there been no further investigation on the depositions of IPS officer Rahul sharma before Nanavati Commission, to reveal the location of BJP leaders and senior officers of police during the riots?

16. Many calls were made to Modi,his cabinet ministers, the then Ahmedabad police commissioner P C Pandey and the then DGP K Chakravarti during the riots. Their phone records must be examined to unearth the facts.

Following is the list of the accused against whom Supreme Court has ordered investigation.

1. Narendra Modi, the then and present chief minister. Charges: Alleged to be architect of criminal conspiracy; unleash unlawful and illegal practices during mass carnage and then protecting the accused having played direct and indirect role and abeeted the commission of the crime.

2. Ashok Bhatt, the then minister of health and now state assembly speaker. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

3. Indravijaysinh Jadeja, the then minister of urban development and now roads and Building Minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

4. Prabhatsinh Chauhan, the then tourism and civil aviation minister. Sat in Ahmedabad police control room at the instance of Modi and allegedly
carried out conspiracy and other crimes.

5. Gordhan Zadaphia, the then Minister of state for home. Charges: Conspiracy and instructions to DGP and police officials to allow Hindus to give vent to their anger on Muslims. Allegations of communal bias as alleged by the then Bhavnagar SP Rahul Sharma.

6. Ranjitsinh Naharsinh Chavda, the then MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

7. Kaushik Jamnadas Patel, the then MLA and now minister: Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

8. C D Patel, the then MLA and now a minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

9. Niteenbhai Ratibhai Patel, the then MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

10. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah, presently home minister. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

11. Anil Tribhovandas Patel, now MLA and Minister for Industries. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

12. Narayan Lalludas Patel, the then transport minister and now MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

13. Kalubhai Hirabhai Maliwad, the then and present MLA. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

14. Dilip Manibhai Patel, the then and present MLA from Anand. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

15. Madhu Srivastava, the then and present MLA from WAghodia. Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

16. Dr. Maya Kodnani, the then and present MLA . Charges: Accused of using political influence to prevent the administration from carrying out their constitutional duty to prevent violence and protect the citizens life.

17. Nalin Kantilal Bhatt, the BJP general secretary and now Bahujan samaj party leader in Vadodara. Charges: the author of the affidavit of the BJP before the Nanavati-shah Commission.

18. Rajendrasinh Rana, the then BJP spokesperson and the then BJP lok sabha MP from Bhavnagar. Charges: He called the `bandh’ the day after the Godhra train burning incident on February 27, 2002.

19. Dr.Kaushikbhai Jamnashanker Mehta, joint secretary, VHP, Gujarat.

20. Dr. Praveen Togadia, International general secretary, VHP. He is the author, verbal and written, of several incendiary speeches that have reportedly breached criminal law by inciting violence against the religious minorities.

21. Dr. Jaideep Patel, the then VHP Gujarat secretary. Charges: Accompanied the road procession of victims of Godhra train carnage from Godhra to Ahmedabad and allegedly instigated crowds to violence against Muslim residents of Naroda Gam.

22. Babu Bajrangi, VHP/Bajrang Dal leader. Charges: accused in Naroda Patiya mass massacre and also responsible for publicly intimidating victim survivors and eyewitnesses outside Nanavatyi commission office in August 2004.

23. Prof. Keshavram Kashiram Shastri(now dead), the then chairman of Gujarat VHP and editor of Vishwa Hindu Samachar. Charges: In an interview to Rediff.com, he detailed how VHP had targeted the Muslims and their properties by using electoral rolls.

24. Babubhai Rajput, BJP worker. Charges: Involved in criminal conspiracy and violence.

25. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP. Charges: Conspiracy with chief minister Narendra Modi and participating in the meeting chaired by Modi asking officials to let Hindus vent out their anger, failure to take action against the accused, subverting the criminal justice system, dereliction of his supervisory responsibility and professional commitment by not enforcing the Gujarat police manual regulations.

26. A K Bhargava, former DGP. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati commission , negligence in supervision of riot related cases.

27. Subba Rao, former chief secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

28. Ashok Narayan, former home secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

29. P C Pande, the then Ahmedabad police commissioner. Charges: Giving false information, delay in requisition and deployment of army, delayed the imposition of curfew in Ahmedabad city. Responsible for utter collapse of law and order in Ahmedabad city, the worst affected during 2002 riots.

30. K Srinivasan, former ZAhmedabad district collector. Charges: Responsible for lack of adequate relief operations and hence part of dictated criminal conspiracy. Not filed affidavit before Zanavati commission.

31. Dr. P K Mishra, the then principal secretary to chief minister. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

32. Kuldeep Sharma, the then IGP, Ahmedabad police range. Charges: failed to protect Muslims in Kheda district under his range. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

33. M K Tandon, the then Additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad(now retired). Charges. Negligence of duty in protecting people in Gulberg Society, Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya under his jurisdiction. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

34. K Nityanand, the then home secretary. Charges: alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

35. Rakesh Asthana, the then Vadodara Range Inspector General of Police. Charges. Failed to protect the life and property of citizens in his range in Godhra and other areas.

Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

36. A K sharma, the then Superintendent of Police. Charges: Conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots. Not filed affidavit before Nanavati commission about what went wrong in 2002 violating the Commission of Inquiry Act.

37. G C Murmu, the then secretary, Law and Order. Charges. alleged to have participated in a meeting where illegal instructions were issued by Modi. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision.

38. Shivanand Jha, the then secretary, home. Charges: Allegations of criminal conspiracy.

39. D H Brahmbhatt, the then collector, Panchmahals district. Charges: Collector of Panchamahals where mass graves
were discovered in December 2005 and a vital accused to understand the allegations of continuing subversion of the law and order machinery in the state.

40. Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range. Charges. Failed to take adequate action resulting in large scale violence in Dahod and Panchmahals district, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence. Not filed any affidavit before Nanavati Commision. Responsible for further subversion of eviudence during the Best Bakery retrial as commented upon in the judgement of judge Abhay Thipsay.

41. Sudhir sinha, former Vaddoara police commissioner. Charges: Played an unholy role for facilitating a few major witnesses of the Best Bakery case turning hostile.

42. K. Kumarswamy, the then additional Vadodara police commissioner. Charges: Played an unholy role for facilitating a few major witnesses of the Best Bakery case turning hostile.

43. B S Jebaliya, the DSP, Anand. Charges: did not supervise the investigators of riot cases against pro-BJP accused, compromised with perpetrators of violence, connived with the accused and the political class.

44. D G Vanzara, senior IPS official. Charges: responsible for many encounter killings.

45. Rahul Sharma, IPS officer and former DSP, BHavnagar. Prevented violence in Bhavnagar, witness to subversion of justice process by a connivance between the accused and influential politicians.

46. Raju Bhargava, senior IPS official and the then DSP, Panchmahals. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

47. Anju Sharma, then then Bharuch collector. Charges. Did not do proper relief work, was allegedly involved in criminal conspiracy.

48. D D Tuteja, the then Vadodara police commissioner and now retired. Charges: Allegedly made false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

49. Bhagesh Jha, the then Vadodara district collector. Charges: Giving false information, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

50. Nitiraj solanki, the then DSP, Sabarkantha district. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

51. Amrutlal Patel, the then District coleector, Mahesana district. Charges:Giving false information, not taking action against print media publishing communally provocative reports, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

52. Upendra Patel. , DSP, Rajkot district. Charges: Making false statements, conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots.

53. P N Patel, the then district collector, rajkot. Charges: Giving false information, not taking action against print media publishing communally provocative reports, forcing closing down of relief camps in first week of August 2002 to project a false image of normalcy.

54. V M Pargi, the then Deputy commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. Charges: Questionable role in Best Bakery case for manufacturing evidence.

55. K G Erda, the then police inspector at Meghaninagar police station. Charges: Dereliction of duty when massacre was taking place in gulberg Society from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on February 28, 2002.

56. Kerman Khurshed Mysorewala, the the Naroda Police Inspector. Charges. Dereliction of duty when mass carnage took place in Naroda Patiy and Naroda Gam from 9 a.m. on February 298 to 2 a.m. on March 1, 2002.

57. M T Rana, the then Assistant Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city. Charges: Allegedly dereliction of duty and involved in subvwersion of justice and tampering of evidence.

58. Tarun Barot, former Crime Branch inspector. Charges: ): Involved in many encounter killings in Ahmedabad city. Involved in many controversial mass carnage investigations subverting process of justice and tampering of evidence.

59. Narendra Amin, Dy SP. Charges: involved in encounter killings.

60. G C Raiger, the then additional director general of police(intelligence), now retired. Charges: attended Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s meetings and privy to information between February 27, 2002 and April 9, 2002 but did not file affidavit before Nanavati commission.

61. K R Kaushik, senior IPS officer and the then ADGP(crime), now retired. Charges: Attended meetings chaired by Modi and other senior officials but did not file affidavit before Nanavati commission.

62. Amitabh Pathak, the then Range IGP, Gandhinagar. Charges: Making false statements, compromising with perpetrators of violence, inaction facilitating riots. conducive situations not created for rehabilitation of victims.

63. Satish Verma, the then Kutch Range IGP. Charges: connived with the accused and political class, compromised with the perpetrators of violence.

A World Leader’s Comments On The War On Terrorism

(We have decided to include these two articles from The Star newspaper in Malaysia as part of Islamic World’s position on the “war on terrorism” because they come from an influential world leader, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, Prime Minister of Malaysia, and they are very much in line with what we have been saying, and what we consider to be a reasonable and representative position from the Muslim perspective. These quotes are from a conference on terrorism organised by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies.) .

Target the Roots of Terror

By SA’ODAH ELIAS

KUALA LUMPUR: The best solution to the global terrorist problem is to remove the causes of terrorism, thus making the activity no longer tenable, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed said yesterday. The Prime Minister said once the causes were removed, terrorists would lose their power base as support for their actions would be much reduced, if not cease altogether. “This is the best approach because the process of identifying and hunting the terrorists will be very difficult and will take a long time. But we may not want to remove these causes because we do not like to give the impression that the terrorists have succeeded, but such an attitude will not help. The terrorists must be hunted and brought to justice, but the causes of their committing the acts of terror must also be removed. Even terrorists would not want to sacrifice their lives for nothing,” he said when opening a conference on terrorism organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

Dr. Mahathir also said, The world must be serious and not be selective in the fight against terrorists, as the cost of turning around the world’s economy thrown into recession because of terrorist attacks would be very high. If the whole world, including the Muslim world, was to participate in eliminating terrorism, all terrorists, irrespective of their race or religion, must be targeted and the cause of their anger and disaffection removed. If we have to determine who is a terrorist and who is not then we have to base it on the act and not on the person or the group or the race or the religion. And no one must be spared, whether their cause is right or not. They must include state terrorists as well, including the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, the man responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Shabra and Shatila and is still the man behind the systematic killing of the Palestinians today”.

Determining who were terrorists was important because people who some described as terrorists were regarded as noble freedom fighters by others. More confusing still, he said, there were many ambivalences in the definition of terrorist as some who were condemned as terrorists one day might be considered respectable leaders another day. “The Jewish Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang were at one time regarded and hunted as terrorists, but later became respected leaders of Israel. Jomo Kenyatta and Robert Mugabe were considered terrorists and were condemned by the British but later became the acknowledged leaders of independent states. The Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation in the eyes of the British but is regarded as freedom fighters worthy of financial support by the Americans. With such differing views at different times, it is difficult to get the whole world to join in the fight against terrorism and if some countries provide shelter and protection for the terrorists because in their eyes these are not terrorists, it would be impossible to eliminate terrorism,” Dr Mahathir said.

Dr. Mahathir also said Muslims could not be faulted if they were under the impression that the current act against terror by the United States and its allies in Afghanistan was beginning to look more like a war against Muslims, especially with their talk of meting out the same punishment on Iraq. This impression, he said, could only be eliminated if similar actions were taken against those who terrorised the Muslims, like in Palestine, the Bosnians, Chechens and the people of Kosovo.

Dr. Mahathir reiterated that attacking Afghanistan was not going to result in the capture of the terrorists believed to be involved in the Sept 11 attack in New York and Washington, but instead might likely anger a lot of Muslims. “Their governments may not, though some are likely to be angered by the wanton acts against a brother Muslim country, but certainly from the vast number of Muslims. There would be quite a few who would join the ranks of terrorists to avenge what they see as gross injustice and cruelty. “So the bombing of Afghanistan, far from progressing the war to eliminate terrorists, would actually result in the spawning of more terrorists, saddling the world with the problem forever,” he said.

Dr Mahathir said Malaysia was familiar with terrorism and the war against terrorists, having to face the problem for 42 years between 1948 and 1990, but in the end the terrorists were defeated by the government campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people so as to cut off their civilian support. “We studied the causes of their disaffection and that of their supporters and we took remedial actions. Our decision to accord citizenship rights to over a million non-Malays then was not a victory for the struggle of the terrorists, but was a means to win the loyalty of the disaffected people and to get them to co-operate in the war against the terrorists,” he said.

Speaking to reporters later, Dr Mahathir said he had already written to President George W. Bush urging the United States to halt the bombing in Afghanistan and expressing the hope that the war in that country would end soon. “I am talking of a stop to the bombing because of the damage it can do to the innocent civilians. The use of ground forces is better because the damage is more contained,” he added.

Palestinian Issue the Cause of Muslim Anger

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir said yesterday that Israel is a terrorist state and that the issue of Palestine is the principle cause of anger and frustration among Muslims, some of whom had resorted to terrorism. To resolve the issue, he said, the first step must be to accord recognition to Palestine as a state and for the United Nations peacekeeping force to forcibly separate the two. However, he said that while the Palestinians were willing to have the UN peacekeeping force, the Israelis objected to it and the world pandered to the wishes of the Israelis, resulting in more killings and terrorism. “It all started because the Israelis came and occupied lands which are not theirs by right. Their only claim is based on a 2,000-year-old history, and if that is the basis of their claim, then even Malaysia can make similar claims on some countries,” he said after opening a conference on terrorism.

In his opening speech, he said there was a great deal of anger in the Muslim world over this issue which the West could never understand. Because the Muslim world was weak and unable to be of any help to the Palestinians, he said, they viewed the unwillingness of the West to stop the Israelis as a sign that the West was anti-Palestine, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. He said while most Muslims would only feel anger, there were some among the one billion Muslims whose anger could not be contained, and had resorted to terror tactics. “It is reasonable to believe if there is no Palestinian issue, if the Palestinians are not being oppressed and children killed, the anger of the Arabs and Muslims would not be there or would be much less. Certainly there would not be those who would be willing to kill themselves in the horrible manner as in the attack of Sept 11,” he added.

He said in Palestine civilians including children were being shot and killed every day and in retaliation the Palestinians killed Israelis. “Eve
ryday Palestinians face the possibility of being killed. Can it be said that they do not live in terror of being the next victim? The Israelis too are in that position but they have superior firepower and obviously they instill more terror in the hearts of the Palestinians,” he said. “In frustration, he said, Palestinians, including children, resorted to throwing stones, but the Israelis retaliated with live bullets and yet the Palestinians were described as terrorists and their peace overtures rejected”.

“We must not glorify these terrorists but we need to understand their minds and their mentality. We need to do this if we want to understand the reason why they did this. If we don’t then we will not be able to remove the causes and reduce the incidence of terrorism,” he said.

Indian Madrasas discussing launch of courses on Islamic economics and finance

Indian Madrasas discussing launch of courses on Islamic economics and finance

Kamran Pasha: Why Suicide Bombing Violates Islam

Why Suicide Bombing Violates Islam

The evil of suicide bombings must be defeated by Muslims, as it violates every tenet of Islam. In the past two days alone, at least 150 people were killed in Iraq in a wave of suicide bombings which have torn apart any illusion of security in that tragic country.

As a Muslim, as a human being, I am filled with horror at images of men, women and children torn to shreds by the madness of people who turn themselves into incendiary devices. And I am filled with outrage and fury at the diabolic forces that seek to present this monstrous, murderous, terrorist activity as somehow sanctioned by my faith.

Let me put this in as simple terms as possible. Suicide bombings, indeed all forms of terrorism, are rejected by mainstream Islam, and always have been.

The Holy Qur’an says it in very clear, without any ambiguity:

“Do not kill yourselves, for truly God is merciful. And if any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them in the Fire. ” (Surah 4:29-30)

The Qur’an makes it clear that there are rules to human conflict and limits that must be followed:

“And fight in the way of God against those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly God does not love transgressors.” (Surah 2:190)

As I discuss in my new novel Mother of the Believers, traditional Islamic law established very clear rules of war based on the practice of Prophet Muhammad and his early followers: Do not kill civilians. Do not kill women and children. Do not harm monks or priests of other religions. Do not destroy the environment.

Abu Bakr, the first leader of Islam after Prophet Muhammad, gave these commandments when Muslims were fighting the forces of the Byzantine Empire, which had sought to destroy the new religion and killed the Prophet’s ambassador:

“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules to keep by heart: Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree. You must not slay any of the flock or herds or the camels, save for your subsistence. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them to that to which they have devoted their lives. You are likely, likewise, to find people who will present to you meals of many kinds. You may eat; but do no forget to mention the name of God.”

Muslims always took great pride in the fact that they acted honorably, even in war. They looked with contempt upon the warriors of Europe, who slaughtered civilians mercilessly during the Crusades. When the Muslim leader Saladin (Salahuddin Ayoobi) defeated the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem and retook the holy city, he spared its Christian populace and pointedly said: “We will not do to you what you did to us.”

His comment was in reference to the First Crusade, where Christian “holy warriors” massacred tens of thousands of civilians upon taking Jerusalem in 1099. Muslims were slaughtered en masse, the Jews of Jerusalem were locked into its main synagogue and set on fire. And Arab Christians were murdered by their co-religionists for the sin of having dark skin and looking like the enemy. The Gesta Francorum, a Crusader chronicle of their activities, proudly notes that the “the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles.”

In the town of Ma’arra in Syria, the Crusaders committed the ultimate atrocity — cannibalism. As Crusader chronicler Radulph of Caen wrote: “In Ma’arra, our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.”

To this day, the Crusaders are referred to in the Muslim world as “the cannibals of Ma’arra.”

The Muslims looked at this kind of atrocity committed in the name of God as unworthy of any great religion, and held themselves above such monstrous behavior.

So how is it possible that its modern equivalent, the mass murder of civilians through suicide bombings, should now be done in the name of Islam?

In Dying to Win, Robert Pape, a scholar at the University of Chicago, analyzes the history and motivation of suicide bombers. Many people who read the book will be surprised to learn that suicide bombing was a tactic that was first used regularly by Hindu terrorists known as the Tamil Tigers. One of the most prominent victims of this tactic, Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, was killed on May 21, 1999 by a female suicide bomber from the Tamil Tigers. According to Pape, Gandhi’s murder marks the first use of the “suicide vest” which has become the tool of suicide bombers throughout the world today.

A full chronology of the history of suicide bombing among Hindu extremists can be found at:

http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm

(A warning that the link contains graphic photos of the carnage caused by suicide bombers.)

One of the greatest tragedies of modern Islam is that Muslim extremists began to adopt this horrific tactic of suicide bombing over the past two decades. Palestinian militants, arguing that they had no other effective way to combat Israeli oppression, began to employ these tactics, and the image of the “Muslim suicide bomber” began to take hold in the media.

I remember at the time most Muslims I spoke with expressed disgust at these horrific acts, but some added the caveat — “What else can these poor people do? They have no tanks or jets to take on Israeli tanks and jets. This is their only way to fight.”

My response then and now is that Islam is a religion that has established rules of war for a reason. Human conflict is perhaps inevitable, but unless there is a sense of morality among warriors, even among the warriors of the oppressed, human beings will descend into monstrosity. The nobility of a cause is forever tainted when dipped in the blood of innocents. The argument that Israeli military activities kill countless Palestinian civilians is not an argument that is supported by the noble spirit of Islam. As Saladin pointed out, the Muslims would not inflict on the Christians the atrocities that the Crusaders had inflicted on their victims, simple because we as Muslims were better than that.

And I warned those who would excuse the suicide bombers as long as they targeted “the unbelievers,” that in Islam all human beings are brothers and sisters and have rights before God and man. I predicted that once some Muslims turned their back on Islam’s strict rules of war and went beneath themselves in order “to win,” the wrath of Allah would be unleashed upon the Islamic community. If we allowed suicide bombings against non-Muslims, then soon would God punish our sins by inflicting the same horror on Muslims.

Tragically, my prediction came true. Suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan now kill thousands of Muslims a year, innocent people going to pray or shop in the marketplace, their only crime being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of monstrous behavior is not Islam. It never has been Islam. And it will never be Islam, no matter what kind of self-serving justifications the terrorists use.

For those who wish to learn more about mainstream Muslim positions about war, terrorism and suicide bombing, I refer you here:

http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm

http://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism3.php

It is time for Muslims and people of all faiths to stand together in love and justice and end this horrific scourge of terrorism and suicide bombing on humanity.

I look forward to the day that the world will no longer associate such monstrosity with my beloved faith. And that one day, mankind will believe that Islam really does represent what its name stands for: “Peace.”

Kamran Pasha is a Hollywood filmmaker and the author of Mother of the Believers, a novel on the birth of Islam as told by Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha (Atria Books; April 2009). For more information please visit: http://www.kamranpasha.com

MEMRI: Latest News

April 24, 2009 No. 2326

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Idol of Zionism Created by the West Must Be Shattered

According to reports in the West, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad toned down his speech at the Durban Review Conference, held April 22-24, 2009 in Geneva, due to public criticism. However, when he returned to Iran he stepped up his anti-West and anti-Israel statements. In an April 23, 2009 speech in Eslamshahr, near Tehran, Ahmadinejad said that the West is worshipping the idol it had created in the form of Zionism, and is forcing the entire world to worship it as well – but that this idol “must be shattered in order to save humanity.” He also claimed that the West fabricated the Holocaust and made it a sacred issue, and is using it to take over the entire world.

Also, in a speech the previous day at an international conference of prosecutors of Islamic countries in Tehran, he accused the West of “prepar[ing] the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations.”

The following are excerpts from speeches he made after returning from Geneva:

“This Idol of Zionism Must Be Shattered in Order to Save Humanity… Iran’s Revolution Has Already Been Exported”

In his speech in Eslamshahr, Ahmadinejad said: “Wherever we want to visit and at every conference in which we participate, they [the Western countries] say: ‘Who do you want to criticize? [You can] criticize the U.S., Europe, the [Second] World War, the Vietnam War, or the Korean War, but you must not criticize the Zionists.’ The people of the West fabricated what is known as the Holocaust and Zionism, and they have sanctified it and placed it at the top of all holy beliefs. They have all united around it, and by hoisting the banner of Zionism, while using violence and aggression, spreading civil strife, and [perpetrating] Zionist crimes, they have taken over the world and wish to rule it.

“I say to them: ‘In your countries, you permit [even] the affronting of the divine prophets, the holy of holies of the world.’ They respond by saying: ‘That’s freedom of speech.’ But when it comes to [the issue of] the Zionists, they say: ‘Shut up, and don’t utter a word.’ They [the Western countries] have fabricated an idol called Zionism, which they worship and want to force all the nations to worship.

“I declare from [this pulpit] that this idol of Zionism must be shattered in order to save humanity… [1] They must know that the free nations, the Iranian nation, and the people of Eslamshahr will not tolerate this modern idol-worshiping, that they will shatter this idol with force… Indeed, they have already shattered this idol.

“A journalist asked me: ‘Do you still want to export your revolution?’ I said to him: ‘Iran’s revolution has already been exported. The world’s nations chant the slogans of the Iranian nation, and talk about brotherhood, justice, and peace, and about the confrontation with oppression and with the crimes of the Zionists. The Islamic Revolution of Iran has already been exported. Can’t you see that? Can’t you discern that? If you go to America, [you will see] that there too people chant the slogans of the Iranian nation.” [2]

“The Zionists are the Ones Running International Relations… The Mask of Judaism [Behind which Zionism Hides] is False”

At an April 22, 2009 speech at the international conference of Islamic prosecutors, which convened in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said: “Let me say a few words about the Durban [2] conference in Geneva: The Zionists are the ones running international relations… Everybody knows that Zionism is a political party, and you all know that the mask of Judaism [behind which they hide] is false, because Zionism is devoid of religion, and they are against religion, against race, and against humanity.

“Zionism is a convoluted and crude party, which operates contrary to the teachings of the divine prophets and against humanity [in an effort] to take over the foundations of the world. Their management of the world takes two forms: One is behind-the-scenes control – they have arranged the [international] institutions so that they will continuously strive to achieve the Zionist goals. They [i.e. Westerners] have prepared the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations, and they fully support the Zionist regime, without donning the mask of Zionism [themselves].

“All the organizations – the [U.N.] Security Council and the international political and judicial institutions – wholeheartedly support the Zionists, even though the Zionist mark is not branded on their foreheads.

“I believe that behind the scenes, the Zionists are running these institutions to their own advantage.” [3]

“Over 70% of the Europeans Support Iran … [Because] the Statements of the Iranian Nation Stem from Divine Inspiration”

Upon his return from Geneva, Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Mehrabad airport in Tehran: “A journalist asked me in Geneva: ‘Why do you say these things? The Europeans are concerned about your statements.’ I told him: Let’s test what you say, and hold a referendum in Europe. You will see that over 70% of the Europeans support the Iranian nation. This is because the statements of the Iranian nation stem from divine inspiration.” [4]

[1] Fars (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[2] ISNA (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[3] The Institution of the Iranian Presidency, April 22, 2009.

[4] Kayhan (Iran), April 22, 2009.

MEMRI: Latest News

April 24, 2009 No. 2326

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Idol of Zionism Created by the West Must Be Shattered

According to reports in the West, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad toned down his speech at the Durban Review Conference, held April 22-24, 2009 in Geneva, due to public criticism. However, when he returned to Iran he stepped up his anti-West and anti-Israel statements. In an April 23, 2009 speech in Eslamshahr, near Tehran, Ahmadinejad said that the West is worshipping the idol it had created in the form of Zionism, and is forcing the entire world to worship it as well – but that this idol “must be shattered in order to save humanity.” He also claimed that the West fabricated the Holocaust and made it a sacred issue, and is using it to take over the entire world.

Also, in a speech the previous day at an international conference of prosecutors of Islamic countries in Tehran, he accused the West of “prepar[ing] the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations.”

The following are excerpts from speeches he made after returning from Geneva:

“This Idol of Zionism Must Be Shattered in Order to Save Humanity… Iran’s Revolution Has Already Been Exported”

In his speech in Eslamshahr, Ahmadinejad said: “Wherever we want to visit and at every conference in which we participate, they [the Western countries] say: ‘Who do you want to criticize? [You can] criticize the U.S., Europe, the [Second] World War, the Vietnam War, or the Korean War, but you must not criticize the Zionists.’ The people of the West fabricated what is known as the Holocaust and Zionism, and they have sanctified it and placed it at the top of all holy beliefs. They have all united around it, and by hoisting the banner of Zionism, while using violence and aggression, spreading civil strife, and [perpetrating] Zionist crimes, they have taken over the world and wish to rule it.

“I say to them: ‘In your countries, you permit [even] the affronting of the divine prophets, the holy of holies of the world.’ They respond by saying: ‘That’s freedom of speech.’ But when it comes to [the issue of] the Zionists, they say: ‘Shut up, and don’t utter a word.’ They [the Western countries] have fabricated an idol called Zionism, which they worship and want to force all the nations to worship.

“I declare from [this pulpit] that this idol of Zionism must be shattered in order to save humanity… [1] They must know that the free nations, the Iranian nation, and the people of Eslamshahr will not tolerate this modern idol-worshiping, that they will shatter this idol with force… Indeed, they have already shattered this idol.

“A journalist asked me: ‘Do you still want to export your revolution?’ I said to him: ‘Iran’s revolution has already been exported. The world’s nations chant the slogans of the Iranian nation, and talk about brotherhood, justice, and peace, and about the confrontation with oppression and with the crimes of the Zionists. The Islamic Revolution of Iran has already been exported. Can’t you see that? Can’t you discern that? If you go to America, [you will see] that there too people chant the slogans of the Iranian nation.” [2]

“The Zionists are the Ones Running International Relations… The Mask of Judaism [Behind which Zionism Hides] is False”

At an April 22, 2009 speech at the international conference of Islamic prosecutors, which convened in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said: “Let me say a few words about the Durban [2] conference in Geneva: The Zionists are the ones running international relations… Everybody knows that Zionism is a political party, and you all know that the mask of Judaism [behind which they hide] is false, because Zionism is devoid of religion, and they are against religion, against race, and against humanity.

“Zionism is a convoluted and crude party, which operates contrary to the teachings of the divine prophets and against humanity [in an effort] to take over the foundations of the world. Their management of the world takes two forms: One is behind-the-scenes control – they have arranged the [international] institutions so that they will continuously strive to achieve the Zionist goals. They [i.e. Westerners] have prepared the ground for the fulfillment of Zionism’s aspirations, and they fully support the Zionist regime, without donning the mask of Zionism [themselves].

“All the organizations – the [U.N.] Security Council and the international political and judicial institutions – wholeheartedly support the Zionists, even though the Zionist mark is not branded on their foreheads.

“I believe that behind the scenes, the Zionists are running these institutions to their own advantage.” [3]

“Over 70% of the Europeans Support Iran … [Because] the Statements of the Iranian Nation Stem from Divine Inspiration”

Upon his return from Geneva, Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Mehrabad airport in Tehran: “A journalist asked me in Geneva: ‘Why do you say these things? The Europeans are concerned about your statements.’ I told him: Let’s test what you say, and hold a referendum in Europe. You will see that over 70% of the Europeans support the Iranian nation. This is because the statements of the Iranian nation stem from divine inspiration.” [4]

[1] Fars (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[2] ISNA (Iran), April 23, 2009.

[3] The Institution of the Iranian Presidency, April 22, 2009.

[4] Kayhan (Iran), April 22, 2009.

President Barack Obama continued his outreach to the Muslim world in April with a visit to Turkey. There was generally favorable response across the political spectrum in Muslim countries to the president’s public statements – such as a pledge made before Turkey’s Parliament in Ankara.

“We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama said. “We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree.”

The president’s approach seems to enjoy popular support back home, as well. The latest Washington Post/ABC opinion survey shows that 81 percent of Americans believe it is important for the U.S. to engage the Muslim world.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the president already has taken action to improve relations with Muslim countries

That is also the conclusion of the report by the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – one of its authors – said the president already is adopting several of its recommendations.

“In terms of diplomacy and conflict resolution, he did say that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a major input, and he immediately named Senator George Mitchell as his envoy in order to work on that particular issue,” she says. “On Iraq, he made a commitment to a relatively fast drawn down. On Afghanistan and Pakistan, he also felt very strongly that it was very important to deal with as a regional diplomatic issue and has named Ambassador [Richard] Holbrook as his representative in order to deal with issues there.”

At the meeting with ambassadors from member states of the Organization of The Islamic Conference, or OIC., Albright laid out the project’s strategies for combating Islamic extremism: First, elevate diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim countries. Then promote broad-based economic development in those nations, foster mutual respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims, and support efforts to improve governance and promote civic participation in predominantly Muslim societies.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Muslim countries can be democracies,” Albright says. “Turkey is a perfect example of that. It is very evident, and, actually, in my study of religions, in many ways Islam is maybe the most democratic religion because there is nobody between you and God. So I do not think that is something that can be used as reason not to have Muslim democracies.”

Albright said the members of the Leadership Group on U.S. Muslim Engagement are calling on the Obama administration to continue promoting democracy through diplomacy, not force.

Former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber says the administration should exert political and economic pressure to promote democratic reforms in the Middle East

Former Congressman Vin Weber, another group member, pointed out that the Bush administration policy of promoting regime change by military intervention strengthened the misperception that while the U.S. is calling for democratic reforms, Washington is continuing to support repressive governments in allied Muslim countries.

“It is a fact, unfortunately, that the word democracy has become a code word in recent years for regime change and maybe for armed intervention regime change, but at the end of the day, there is a core value that Americans have stood for, that we have to continue stand for, and we can’t allow that as well to become a fundamental impediment to improving the relations we are talking about.”

Weber said the report recommends fighting poverty and using U.S. political and economic leverage with authoritarian governments to promote democratic reforms and create a middle class and a civil society.

The OIC ambassadors were generally pleased with the report. Moroccan Ambassador Aziz Mekouar called it “a most constructive blueprint for building relationships of cooperation” between the United States and the larger Muslim world.

“I think that President Obama has taken very good steps immediately after he took office by appointing Senator Mitchell as a personal envoy, and he went there several times, and Secretary Clinton also went to the region, so we are seeing more than goodwill,” Mekouar says. “We are seeing a lot of actions to try to help solve the conflict in the Middle East on the basis of two-state solution.”

Libya Ambassador Ali Aujali says the Arab world will remain skeptical of American policy in the Middle East until they see concrete changes

Libyan Ambassador Ali Aujali agreed, but said the Arab world is waiting for some concrete policy changes, especially in regard to Israel’s continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

“Until we see this change in American policy in the Middle East, and we see that Americans have shifted from supporting one side against the other side, until we see a clear position of the administration that they will help to stop the new settlements, I think the Arab world still will not believe there is a change in the administration’s foreign policy.”

In the face of such skepticism, members of the Engagement P
roject hope their proposed new strategies will help guide the Obama Administration to a more productive dialogue between the United States and the Muslim world.

MEMRI: Latest News

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, [1] an Islamist activist residing in London who is the founder and director of a private institution called “The Almaqreze Centre for Historical Studies.” [2]

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:

“First: Introduction

“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]

“Fifth: Conclusion.”

When Did the Issue of Armenia Come to Light – And Why Do the Armenians Insist That They Were Subjected to Genocide by the Ottomans?

“First: Introduction

“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
n 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 an
d 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 Investi
gating 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 [3]

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”

“Fifth: Conclusion

“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 Afgha
nistan 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!”

[1] 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

[2] Article is posted on the centers website, see http://www.almaqreze.net/articles/artic1059.html.

[3] The table is presented here as in the original article.

2006 Malegaon blast witness accuses ATS of malpractice, absolves Muslim detainees | TwoCircles.net

2006 Malegaon blast witness accuses ATS of malpractice, absolves Muslim detainees
Submitted by admin3 on 22 April 2009 – 5:14pm.

* Crime/Terrorism
* India News
* Indian Muslim

By RINA,

New Delhi: Turning hostile to government organs a key witness in Malegaon blast case now says: “All detainees arrested for Malegaon bomb blast are blameless.” Police initially arrested several Muslim youths but the crime is now revealed to be perpetrated by Hindu extremists.

Abrar Ahmad, the only witness, today signed an affidavit confessing that ATS and former Malegaon S. P. had forced him to witness falsely against arrested persons. “This was all for money and on account of intimidation”, the witness acknowledged in fresh official declaration.

Abrar Ahmad further said, “The culprits of shab-e-bara’at bombings in 2006 are the same persons who exploded bomb on Bhikkoo Cowk in 2008.” ATS had arrested them later.

Abrar’s affidavit, received by the legal cell formed by all organizations of Malegaon yesterday, may prove a decisive turn in the case. Abrar’s brother advocate Jalil Ahmad had requested court’s permission for fresh affidavit as the earlier one was signed under influence of greed and intimidation.

In a press conference organized in Asex Hall in Malegaon, the chief of the legal cell, advocate S. S. Sheikh said, “Local police and ATS hatched a conspiracy without telling it to Abrar Ahmad. Now Abrar’s affidavit reveals that former S. P. Govardhan Raj’s role has been extremely abominable in this case. Police officer’s activities tell that he is an accomplice of bhagwa terrorist ideology.”

Advocate Shabbir Ahmad Kardar complained about another connection, “When the justice loving masses of Malegaon were complaining about partisan activities of ATS, city MLA, Sheikh Rashid had justified ATS in a meeting in 2006.” The legal cell has decided to file a writ petition in the high court within a fortnight in the light of Abrar’s exposure.