www.islam-watch.org

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Did Caliph Omar Order the Burning of Alexandria Library?

E-mail Print PDF

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. 

Comments (34)Add Comment
0
Destruction of Library.
written by Reed Wilson , March 13, 2010
Preston Chesser writes.The first person blamed for the destruction of the Library is none other than Julius Caesar himself. In 48 BC, Caesar was pursuing Pompey into Egypt when he was suddenly cut off by an Egyptian fleet at Alexandria. Greatly outnumbered and in enemy territory, Caesar ordered the ships in the harbor to be set on fire. The fire spread and destroyed the Egyptian fleet. Unfortunately, it also burned down part of the city - the area where the great Library stood. Caesar wrote of starting the fire in the harbor but neglected to mention the burning of the Library. Such an omission proves little since he was not in the habit of including unflattering facts while writing his own history. But Caesar was not without public detractors. If he was solely to blame for the disappearance of the Library it is very likely significant documentation on the affair would exist today.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
0
To Reed, on Caeser's alleged destruction of Alexandria Library...
written by MA Khan , March 13, 2010
This from my book "Islamic Jihad" (p. 247, ref. clxxxii):
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."
0
...
written by duh_swami , March 13, 2010
I have no idea who really burned the library, and I don't know why Caesar or Umar would even care about it...But sometimes the brutal types don't need a reason...
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...
0
Romans never burned libraries
written by MA Khan , March 14, 2010
Duh_Swami, the Romans never burned libraries. They were, instead, patronizers of learning in those days. As concerns the Library of Alexandria, even if it was that library (which it seems not), it caught fire by accident.

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.
0
Secularism?
written by Healer_999 , March 14, 2010
"Islam's contempt for secular learning is well proven."

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.
0
Of libraries and books
written by Gary Rumain , March 14, 2010
Reed,
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
0
...
written by duh_swami , March 14, 2010
written by MA Khan , 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...
0
to Reed Wilson
written by Mohammad.A.khan (Pakistani atheist) , March 14, 2010
Mr. Wilson, When Umar said just before the death of his master Muhammad that they don't need any further dictation from his master, and only Quran is sufficient book for him. so this is not a surprise that he would have really burnt not only Alexendria Library but also many other distingished Libraries so that no any book could be compared in parallel with Quran. Umar, 2nd Caliph of Islam, certainly had given orders to destroy every library that came in his way.
0
burn it!
written by Kohi , March 14, 2010
Got burn ANYTHING that makes a muzzie look like the retards they truly are! Always wondered why Romans burn there own stuff this (muzzies acting nutso) makes so much sense
0
Hard to tell
written by tanstaafl JW , March 14, 2010
........ exactly who burned the library at Alexandria, but we do know that "Islam is sheltered by the sword" and that an estimated 270 million unbelievers were killed in the past 1400 years by the "swords of Islam".
0
independent
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.
0
...
written by vbv , March 15, 2010
All barbarians hate knowldge and wisdom to spread amongst humanity,Ceaser was no exception. But those who had/have an agenda of proselytising their cult are the real destroyers of Alexandria - and this blame is to be shared equally by the christians and the muslims. Both Christians and muslims hated anything that contradicted their "holy" shit of books :Bible and the Quran. Their mad zealots made it a point to destroy and obliterate all knowledge since it would show their holy shit books in poor light. Muslims conquest in India saw the destruction of many libraries and places of learning lilke Nalanda,Taxila,etc. Muslims are known for mindless destruction of artifacts,books,etc. throughout human history . hence muslim burning of the Alexanfdrian library comes as no surprise.
0
vbv
written by duh_swami , March 15, 2010
All barbarians hate knowldge and wisdom to spread amongst humanity,Ceaser was no exception.

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...
0
vbv...
written by duh_swami , March 15, 2010
Both Christians and muslims hated anything that contradicted their "holy" shit of books :Bible and the Quran. Their mad zealots made it a point to destroy and obliterate all knowledge since it would show their holy shit books in poor light.

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...


0
Short circuit.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 15, 2010
To MA Khan. I am not an eye-witness to the burning. I gave you published knowledge. You are advancing excerpts from your own book to authenticate your claim. Interesting!! If I would believe your book, what stops me to believe your article?

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!!
0
Al Ghazali on non muslim books
written by Mulhid , March 15, 2010
Muslims are not the only deluded people who tend to burn books not their own. But they do.
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.
0
to Reed Wilson
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 16, 2010
Mr. Wilson, if you deny that hadiths are controversial and disputed, then how do you believe that Muhammad the founder of Islam, was sinless and innocent? Because all Hadiths (sayings of Muhammad) are in favour of him. However, Quran asserts that Muhammad was sinner, thus he should repent of his past sins. so your statement proves that Muhammad claimed himself a sinner.

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?
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
My very dear Mohammad A. Khan.
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.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , March 16, 2010
MAKhan. I have posted a reply off the above. It shall appear after editor's review
0
to Reed Wilson
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 17, 2010
I see, whatever you said, is the same response from Zakir Naik, Indian muslim scholar, and this question was asked by him and you replied exactly what he replied. But wait, here it is still a logical mistake in Quran. I know Quran attributed famous figures with Alle Ibrahim, Alle Samood (sons of Abrahim and Samood) etc...

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?
0
to Reed Wilson
written by Mohammad.A.Khan , March 17, 2010
I know whenever my article is published with my name, there is no dot between my first and middle name; however, I like to put dot between my first and middle name and this is my style.

Mohammad.A.khan
0
Reed
written by Machmoed , March 17, 2010
I mentioned this way ago and there was no explanation...nobody can explain rather then it is a mistake because of meryem being Maria and Meryem in arabic. He is human so he made mistakes..so what! What about Allah is telleing that the jews say we have killed the messenger of allah...etc. Does Allah lie to us? i mean we all know jews do not believe jesus is a messenger nor the son of god but a blasphemist and that's why they killed himsmilies/wink.gif

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.
0
Mistakes.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 17, 2010
To Mohammad Khan. You write "I like to put dot between my first and middle name and this is my style". But is a mistake too! Mistake is your style?
Best way is to accept your mistake and correct yourself instead of justifying your mistakes.
0
wasting time
written by Dr. U , March 17, 2010
So who burned Alexandria library...?, is it enaugh excuse to not to accept a true religion which is otherwise a true religion like other true religions.
0
...
written by Kohi , March 17, 2010
"excuse to not to accept a true religion which is otherwise a true religion like other true religions."

No excuse need to HATE THE CULT OF PISSLAM
0
Message of Bible.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
To Machmoed. Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus criticized clergy of Jews. They killed Jesus as per Bible. I quote from Matthew 23.

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.

0
JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
Machmoeed. I found a reference that shows that they deliberately humiliated Jesus.John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

I hope you know who was Mr.Pilate.
0
2 Reed
written by Machmoed , March 18, 2010
Reed, Who accused Jesus of being the king of jews or that he said that he was the son of God. If it weren'r the jews, who was?
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!
0
Belief.
written by Reed Wilson. , March 18, 2010
Machmoed. 'Who accused Jesus of being the king of jews or that he said that he was the son of God. If it weren'r the jews, who was?'. Yes eveerybody was Jew I think including Jesus and Pilate. The stake holders were Jew clergies whom Jesus bravely criticised as we see in Gospel.

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.
0
reed
written by Machmoed , March 19, 2010
If there was real evidence then it would be a subject in historyclass. It's called belief. I'm not saying bible is not trustworthy...only that it's human.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson. , March 20, 2010
Mohammad.A.Khan
You write "I know Quran attributed famous figures with Alle Ibrahim, Alle Samood".

Where Alle Samood?
0
golden duas
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

0
...
written by Reed Wilson , April 21, 2010
To duh_swami.
But Reed...How do we know 3:144 was not added by Usman?

I don't know. How do you know?
0
Circle jerk
written by P KAN , November 01, 2010
You people are talking about useless lies and frivolous details-about the lives of other men. Are you so weak in your heart and spirit to conform yourself to a cult of personality which is what ISLAM is, despite the fact they claim to abhor any idolatry yet in effect achieve this by fervently studying a personality-Mohammed.
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.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna

islamic-jihad-cover


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
islamic-jihad-bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Announcements

Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA

imran-firasat

Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy

Syndication