Last September, in a 44-day military operation, Azerbaijan managed to liberate the disputed Karabakh Heights after 30 years of Armenian occupation. No one could imagine that Armenia would have voluntarily abandoned this territory and did justice to the Azerbaijanis.
In theory, the international community acknowledges this occupation, or rather turns a blind eye to this region that the Armenians have occupied for more than 30 years, and believes that this conflict can be resolved through peace talks. Accordingly, the “Minsk” group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was established, which aims to resolve the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Karabakh region. She has no plans to finish it.
In light of this situation, Azerbaijan had to make a fateful decision to end the occupation with the help of Turkish support. Azerbaijan has reached the point where it is compelled to pull its thorns out by hand and solve its problems by itself without any state objecting to this. In other words, the member states of the “Minsk” group should be grateful to Azerbaijan and Turkey for taking this step aimed at ending this occupation because it effectively saved them from a heavy burden.
Although the “Minsk” group officially recognized the Armenian occupation of the Karabakh Heights and its alleged efforts to end it, it has not taken any steps on the ground that reflect its commitment to put an end to it. Upset.
These countries do not cease to express their dissatisfaction on every occasion, as international organizations have previously expressed similar positions, although they should be neutral. For example, a UNESCO spokesperson expressed his fear that Armenian religious monuments would be damaged in the areas that were freed from occupation.
The conversion of the people of Anatolia from Christianity to Islam was voluntary and history bears witness to this, but the archbishop’s statement reveals the buried hatreds that still exist today. The existing churches in the region are in good condition, despite the passage of decades, and remain among the most prominent manifestations of the religious tolerance of Muslims.
These statements are not without absurdity, but rather deny Azerbaijan’s entitlement to these lands, because those organizations did not care about the issue of mosques when Armenia occupied them 30 years ago, neither UNESCO nor its representatives objected to what is happening to Islamic religious monuments in these areas, nor did they express their concern about Her destiny. Now that these lands are returned to their owners, they fear Armenian churches and religious temples will be damaged.
If this position indicates anything, then it indicates their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Throughout history, Muslims have always been keen to protect the temples and religious monuments of different religions, and there are many honorable examples that reflect religious tolerance. Even in wars, mosques are usually targeted while churches and temples remain safe. The best example of this is what happened in the Bosnian war in the 1990s when minarets and mosques were severely damaged and the churches were not affected by any damage, and this was not due to the inability of Muslims to target them but because they respect the sanctity of These places are aware of their importance.
Returning to the disputed Karabakh heights, which lived 30 years of Armenian occupation, we find that the devastation and destruction of mosques such as the Shousha Mosque, the Zinjilan Mosque, and the Aghdam Mosque, some of which turned into pens for raising pigs and cows. However, none of the representatives of UNESCO made a statement denouncing what is happening to these monuments, while they do not hesitate to express their unjustified concerns about the churches, especially since Azerbaijan did not do this in the areas it previously liberated.
These statements confirm doubts about the annoyance of these countries with the victory achieved by Azerbaijan over the Armenians. Perhaps this is what was confirmed by the Archbishop of Athens, Ironimus II, earlier when he said that Islam is not a religion but a political party. Statements like this reflect the positions of these parties today towards the Anatolia region, which was once dominated by Christianity.
The conversion of the inhabitants of the Anatolian region from Christianity to Islam was voluntary and history bears witness to that, but the archbishop’s statement reveals the hidden hatreds that still exist today. The existing churches in the region are in good condition, despite the passage of decades, and remain among the most prominent manifestations of the religious tolerance of Muslims.
In Greece, there is no trace of the thousands of mosques that were once scattered throughout its cities, in the city of Athens there is no mosque, some of them were closed or demolished, and this is evidence that they do not want Islam to have any effect in their countries. Where are UNESCO officials from all this? Why did they not condemn what is happening to these mosques in Greece, or express their concern over the fate of these historic mosques? The simple answer to this is that Islam and Muslims are always exempt from international laws.
Raising such issues again provides an opportunity to reassess the discriminatory policies that Islam and Muslims are subjected to everywhere, and it gives us Muslims the right to defend ourselves, and the best response to such allegations is our bright record of religious tolerance.