Some modern historians, including Bernard Lewis, discredit the fact that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the great Alexandria Library as a 17-century Christian invention to scandalize Islam. But they ignore that fact that the original report comes from Muslim authors of the 11th century...
Introduction
In this article, we investigate the claim that Omar, the second Muslim Khalif who ruled the Islamic state after Abu Bakr, did in fact order the destruction/burning of the Alexandria library when the Muslims invaded and took over Egypt.
There are researchers of history who try to clear Omar’s name from this incident. There are others who claim that Omar did indeed perpetrate this atrocity. Who is correct? Can we arrive at an answer? This is the goal of this paper.
Some thinkers who claim that Omar is not responsible for this atrocity
Presson Chesser writes:
The final individual to get blamed for the destruction is the Moslem Caliph Omar. In 640 AD the Moslems took the city of Alexandria. Upon learning of "a great library containing all the knowledge of the world" the conquering general supposedly asked Caliph Omar for instructions. The Caliph has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." So, allegedly, all the texts were destroyed by using them as tinder for the bathhouses of the city. Even then it was said to have taken six months to burn all the documents. But these details, from the Caliph's quote to the incredulous six months it supposedly took to burn all the books, weren't written down until 300 years after the fact. These facts condemning Omar were written by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus, a Christian who spent a great deal of time writing about Moslem atrocities without much historical documentation.
Bernard Lewis writes:
To accept the story of the Arab destruction of the library of Alexandria, one must explain how it is that so dramatic an event was unmentioned and unnoticed not only in the rich historical literature of medieval Islam, but even in the literatures of the Coptic and other Christian churches, of the Byzantines, of the Jews, or anyone else who might have thought the destruction of a great library worthy of comment. That the story still survives, and is repeated, despite all these objections, is testimony to the enduring power of a myth.
So, this story is a myth according to Bernard Lewis. However, he continues to say:
Myths come into existence to answer a question or to serve a purpose, and one may wonder what purpose was served by this myth. An answer sometimes given, and certainly in accord with a currently popular school of epistemology, would see the story as anti-Islamic propaganda, designed by hostile elements to blacken the good name of Islam by showing the revered Caliph 'Umar as a destroyer of libraries. But this explanation is as absurd as the myth itself. The original sources of the story are Muslim, the only exception being Barhebraeus, who copied it from a Muslim author. Not the creation, but the demolition of the myth was the achievement of European scholarship, which from the 18th century to the present day has rejected the story as false and absurd, and thus exonerated the Caliph 'Umar and the early Muslims from this libel.
One wonders why Lewis thinks this story is a myth knowing, as he clearly says, that the original sources of the story are Muslims? Is a Muslim so anxious to show Omar in a bad light that he invents such a story? Or, could it be that Lewis is wrong in viewing this story as no more than a myth? To his credit, Lewis, in the above link tries to explain why a Muslim would do that. His reasons were related to Salah Aldin attempt to destroy the available books of a cultic Islamic tradition that is not Sunnism. But, even with this excuse, it would be hard to believe that a whole great library would be destroyed for such reason. One expects such a library to contain a huge number of documents and books that are not related to what Sunnism considers a cult. We find Lewis’s explanation very unconvincing regarding this matter. The reader is invited to read the details of Lewis’s explanation in the above link we provided.
Islamic Researchers Exonerate Omar
As one would expect, Muslims adamantly deny that Omar had anything to do with the destruction of Alexandria library. Here is a link to one such site.
Some Earlier Sources
Let us try to get to the bottom of this. We think that Isya Joseph did a thorough investigation of Bar Hebraeus and his role in the narrations about the Alexandria Library destruction by Amr Ibn Al-As on the command of Omar. His research was published in 1911 in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature (Volume 27). Here is a link to his research.
The reader is advised to read pages 335-8. According to Isya Joseph, Bar Hebraeus says that Yahya, a Coptic philosopher, petitioned Amr Ibn Al-As to restore the royal library (Alexandria Library). Amr referred the matter to Omar. Omar ordered him to destroy the library on grounds that if what is in the library agrees with the contents of the Qur’an, then it is redundant. And, if the contents of the library do not agree with the Qur’an, then such contents are heretic.
In either case, the destruction of the library was necessary as Omar viewed it. Those of us who studied the personality of Khalif Omar “Al-Farooq” are not surprised at all by the story above. It fits Omar’s personality to expect such a reaction from him.
In any case, let us go back to Isya Joseph’s research. According to him, Bar Hebraeus’ writings date back to 1663. He is considered an authoritative source. However, modern scholars, Bernard Lewis being one of them, discredited his writings as a Christian effort to scandalize Islam and Muslims.
The assumption behind this is that no Muslim mentioned about Omar’s destruction of the Alexandria Library before Hebraeus. This latter assumption is actually mistaken. There are at least two independent sources that validate Hebraeus’s story. First, Abd-Al-Latif of Baghdad visited Egypt in the latter part of the sixth century AH (Islamic Calendar). He mentions that a library, which was in Alexandria, was burned by Umru ibn al-As in compliance to Omar’s orders. Second, Jamal Ad-din Al-Kufti, who was born in Kuft in upper Egypt in 565 AH, and died in 646, informs us that the library was burned by Umru Ibn Al-As (p. 335 in above link).
Conclusion
As big a name as Bernard Lewis is, he got it wrong this time. There is strong evidence to the contrary. It seems more likely than not that, in fact Omar – the second Khalif of Islam – bears the final responsibility of the destruction of Alexandria library, when Muslims invaded and took over Egypt.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by MA Khan , March 13, 2010
Some modern scholars, such as Phillip K Hitti, deny this (Omar's destruction of the library) on the ground that the Library of Alexandria could not exist because it was destroyed during the invasion of Julius Caesar in 48 BC. But, according to Theodore Vrettos (Alexandria, City of the Western Mind , The Free Press, New York, 2001, p. 93-94): "Caesar’s soldiers set fire to the Egyptian ships, and the flames, spreading rapidly in the driving wind, consumed most of the dockyard, many structures near the palace, and also several thousand books that were housed in one of the buildings. From this incident, historians mistakingly assumed that the Great Library of Alexandria had been destroyed, but the Library was nowhere near the docks… Some 40,000 book scrolls were destroyed in the fire, which were not at all connected with the Great Library; they were account books and ledgers containing records of Alexandria’s export goods bound for Rome and other cities throughout the world."
written by duh_swami , March 13, 2010
But if I had to determine the most likely candidate between the two, I would opt for Umar because Muslims are more prone to senseless acts of violence...Not that the Romans of that day were much better, but they didn't have the Quran to guide them...
written by MA Khan , March 14, 2010
On the contrary, Islam's contempt for secular learning is well proven. The Library of Alexandria aside, we know other instances like burning the library in Nalanda by Bakhtyar Khilji, in Egypt by Saladin, and also libraries in Syria, Persia, Spain.
written by Healer_999 , March 14, 2010
Editor is right, in fact any concept of secularism, like respect for basic human rights, only invites contempt from Muslims, except when Muslims are in minority,for example Indian Muslims (or Muslim Indians), but then they are telling lies.
It is extraordinary in the sense that how they live two lives in one life. Probably genetic evolution. Lol! they do not believe in evolution, right.
Any way above article is a great one.
The ground rule for Islam is that any thing non Islamic is a threat to it, so destruction or subjugation are necessary.
written by Gary Rumain , March 14, 2010
Greek scholars were still active in Alexandria well into the 6th Century AD. I thought Hypatia had some association with the library given her background but I can't find a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia
Mr. Khan,
On the contrary, Islam's contempt for secular learning is well proven. The Library of Alexandria aside, we know other instances like burning the library in Nalanda by Bakhtyar Khilji, in Egypt by Saladin, and also libraries in Syria, Persia, Spain.
Can you document that a little more? I'd love to learn more about that history. It also seems incongruous with the House of Wisdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom
written by duh_swami , March 14, 2010
Duh_Swami, the Romans never burned libraries.
That would be my take on it...The Romans had nothing to hide, it's much more consistent with Islam who always has something to hide...
Book burning was first done by the Chinese in 200+ BC...Umar did it in the name of Allah/Islam...Other powers also participated including the Catholic Church who burned plenty of books during its reign of power...So did the Nazi's...
The common denominator in all these burnings is that the burner had something to hide...There was something there that you were not supposed to know about...What marvelous bits of information some of those books must have contained...Lost forever because someone did not want YOU to know...
written by Mohammad.A.khan (Pakistani atheist) , March 14, 2010
written by Kohi , March 14, 2010
written by tanstaafl JW , March 14, 2010
written by ltt , March 14, 2010
Afer Julius Caesar burned the library of Alexandria, the best library of the ancient world, Marc Anthony filled it up with books again by transferring to it the books belonging to the library of Pergamon, the second best library of the ancient world: from Wikipedia:
Pergamon's library on the Acropolis (the ancient Library of Pergamum) is the second best in the ancient Greek civilization.[4] When the Ptolemies stopped exporting papyrus, partly because of competitors and partly because of shortages, the Pergamenes invented a new substance to use in codices, called pergaminus or pergamena (parchment) after the city. This was made of fine calfskin, a predecessor of vellum. The library at Pergamom was believed to contain 200,000 volumes, which Mark Antony later gave to Cleopatra as a wedding present.
so Omar burned the second best and backup library of the ancient world.
written by vbv , March 15, 2010
written by duh_swami , March 15, 2010
The Romans were very materialistic...The worse thing that could happen to a Citizen of Rome, was not the death penalty...it was taking all his possessions away from him, and banishing him from Rome...Rome at that time had no fear of any other religion...The Roman gods were bigger than your gods...so there would be little or no gain for them in burning a library...They would more likely seize it and try to turn a profit somewhere...
written by duh_swami , March 15, 2010
I don't know any Christians who fit that description...Most of them know how to state disagreement without lowering to hate...There were 'mad zealots', who did a lot of nasty zealot stuff in the name of God and Christianity...But as I have explained at length elsewhere, these people were not Christians they were/are liars...The Christian religion is not immune from evil men with evil personal agenda's from gaining power positions, and using the name of the religion and God to further their selfish ambitions...But there is nothing in the Christian ideology that calls for it...So it is not appropriate to blame Christianity for the lies of liars...But Islam does call for evil men in power positions wielding sharia like a sword, cutting down kufr wherever it is found. Shouting Allahu Akbar as they cut and slash their way to the very gates of Rome itself...
And then...Here comes Mahdi...His theme song is 'Here I come to save the day'...The first thing he will do, other than set off fireworks, is to kill Dajjal...
He may need Issa's help with that...Dajjal is pretty tough...after they get Dajjal out of the way, Mahdi will save the world for peace and justice...Now ain't that a plan??? Christianity has no plan like that...In fact I don't think Christianity has much of a plan at all...
written by Reed Wilson. , March 15, 2010
To Gary Rumain. Thank you.
To Mohammad.A.khan (Pakistani atheist).
What is so significant in being a Pakistani atheist?
Your information about Umar saying "quran was sufficient", is Hadis based. Hadis is controversial and disputed. Don’t weaken your argument.
Action of Umar, if he did so, is not essentially Islam.Quran doesn’t say char every library or char Alexandria library.
We know that the library was destroyed many a times.
Somebody posted on this page that cause of fire was short circuit!!
written by Mulhid , March 15, 2010
Read this famous quote from al-Ghazali’s Kitab al-Waqiz Fi Figh Madhab al Imam al-Shafi’i: "one must go on Jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…One may use a catapult against them (non-muslims) when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl-al-Kitab (People of the Book, Jews and Christians, typically) is enslaved, his marriage
Is (automatically) revoked….One may cut down their trees.
ONE MUST DESTROY THEIR USELESS BOOKS.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide… they may steal as much food as they need…."
Destroying non muslim books was a must.
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 16, 2010
on the other hand, what about abrogation in quran where the so-called holy quran was confused between the two Marrys, the older sister of Aron and the mother of Jesus. would you like to elaborate for us in the light of truth?
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
I will write you even if I have to relegate my professional, domiciliary and societal obligations.
You want me to accept the controversial and disputed, unauthentic narrations to believe that Mohammad was founder of Islam!! Don’t suggest me that. Should I accept them because they prove him sinless? They are in favor of him? Why? Is mohammad my Godfather?
This is no logic. The witness of Allah should be enough.
On the contrary the entire chagesheet against mohammad is a product of Hadith.
Sister of Aron. Quran says, they said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought. O sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man, nor was your mother a bad woman!" 19:28.
Please observe, they are saying and they are angry. Mary was from a respected family of Messengers of Allah. To highlight her alleged offence they sarcastically addressed her as sister of Aron. We know that Aron was a mighty messenger and she hailed from that family.
So this was an expression which Allah reports. It is not unusual. People might angrily call you son of Sher I Bengal, knowing you were from Bangladesh.
Here I quote Matthew1:1. 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son. Jesus was not son of David. It is not a mistake. It is beautiful style of saying.
I did not know the above explanation. I thought and thought.
While writing your name, you need not put a dot after Mohammad. It is fine after A.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 17, 2010
Why didnt Quran say to Marry, the mother of Jesus, "...O daughter of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man...", rather than "...O sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man..."?
is it because Aron had sister, coincidently the same name as the mother of Jesus? Now you are trying to protect this mistake because you are still Muslim. But those who are not Muslims, how you will convince them.
And yes, the story of Aron's sister also belongs to her brother Moses, while he was infant and she floated her brother in the river of Nile, in order to save him from the persecution of Eygption Lord.
Don't you think Quran should have said, "...O the daughter of Aaron!..." instead of "...O sister of Aaron..." so that if could be more justified and reasonable to reader of quran, and would be understandable that Quran is saying Marry to the mother of Jesus but not the sister of Aaron?
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 17, 2010
Mohammad.A.khan
written by Machmoed , March 17, 2010
Other complication: What do you believe? do you also believe in the devine books (Thora and the bible) sent before muhammad to other messengers like Moses and Jesus? We all know Thora and the bible were not sent down or given to moses and jesus or wrote by moses and jesus. Does Allah lie to us? Or did the arabs lie to us?
I really don't know what is the hard thing to understand this. This should be enough to discard the whole book as devine. Maybe because you can't believe humanity is capable of doing such things. In that case i can tell you that humanity is crazy and if it is nessecary, they will tell you everything like they did with religions.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 17, 2010
Best way is to accept your mistake and correct yourself instead of justifying your mistakes.
written by Dr. U , March 17, 2010
written by Kohi , March 17, 2010
No excuse need to HATE THE CULT OF PISSLAM
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Your point is valid that the Jews may not be knowing that he was messenger or son.
But I have read somewhere that those scribes and the Pharisees or Rabbii proudly said that yes we have killed Jesus who was son of God or Mesenger. You find and tell me or I will. Whoever is earlier.
Regarding 'Other complication'. I am sorry. I will work on them when find time.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
I hope you know who was Mr.Pilate.
written by Machmoed , March 18, 2010
Furthermore: ofcourse we are talking about the story of Christ, not reality. In reality there is nothing that we can say yes Jesus is a historical individual. You see...only the bible thinks he is a person of flesh and blood. The Nag Hammadi scriptures do not say he is but rather an spiritual guide and i'm sorry to tell you this but in those scriptures there is no Maria, no Joseph, no Pilate. There is nothing. You must know that Joshua ben pantera/ben Meryem was hanged approx. 80 years before his birth according to christians. This Joshua ben Meryem was a result of a rape by a roman soldier. Meryem wasn't married and this is exact the wording in jewish scriptures, but the christians translated this as hour. True in that time if you had a child and wasn't married, then you have to be a hour...like islamic countries nowadays...they also act like this. Jesus as Koran tells us is a big big lie. Born under a palmtree...sure! All i see is the arabisation of the story. NO truth whatsoever!
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
You have your own concept. Everybody can have his own belief.
I was looking for a more apt evidence from Bible. But what is the use telling you? You dont consider Bible trustworthy. I have no other sourcee.
written by Machmoed , March 19, 2010
written by Reed Wilson. , March 20, 2010
You write "I know Quran attributed famous figures with Alle Ibrahim, Alle Samood".
Where Alle Samood?
written by ibrahim ali , March 27, 2010
Our LORD Appreciated Christians as per Quranic Verses 3:55,5:82,57:27,28 Except Quranic Verses 5:14,15,16 & 57,9:31. As per Quranic Versus 4:59 and 83, it is our duty to spread the following messages to all concerns towards public peace, security, health and wealth of mankind in the world as per our website www.goldenduas.com. The following message ought to have published to all the members of the group so far.As per quranic versus 4:59 and 83 it is a duty tospread the following messages in the interest of public peace, health and wealth. "please download from web site WWW.GOLDENDUAS.COM for peace, security, health& wealth for mankind and the same may be published to all members of the group based on quranic verses 2:2,10:57,17:11,16,28:59,39:55,57,13:37&65:8. Otherwise it will amount to refusal to follow our Lord Order, guidance and direction as per Quranic verses 6:26"
With kind regards
U.IBRAHIM ALI
written by Reed Wilson , April 21, 2010
But Reed...How do we know 3:144 was not added by Usman?
I don't know. How do you know?
written by P KAN , November 01, 2010
You're sick with a sickness. Anything that appeals to you in Islam is essentially taken directly from great civilisations of Persia, Egypt, Greece, China and India...
The whole Modus Operandi of Islam, in which it converts all, is essentially based on Dul Quarnaan Alexander the Great which in turn was in response to Persian imperialism.
You hide behind hypocrisy ignorance and lies-think Taquia.
It's not necessarily your fault: your fathers and forefathers subscribe you to these views FIVE Times a day. What a brilliant method of brainwashing. It's really effective, you cannot deny this, if you do anything everyday 5 TIMES a day, you will become REALLY good at it or believe anything. For shame; free your minds and explore your potential outside of this mental carcass whose matrix emprisons your mind.
Nothing could ever come from a "civilisation" that is nomadic at heart; the difference between cultures that developed mathematics and technologies usurped by them are so fundamentally different that it would have been impossible for Arabic Bedouin culture to have developped anything of use; consequently they stole and called it their own.
For people that believe in righteousness and purity of the mind and soul (Greek concepts), Islam has produced some of the most corrupt and sinful states in history: think of the Barbary Pirates and their master(s)--ottoman Turks.
It's a crying shame that many of the peoples of current day "Arabic" populations see Islam and Arab as inseperable from their culture, when it is their great un-Arabic cultures in the past that helped create some of the worlds legacy.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9