Strange points

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 7, 2013 at 12:18

Hi, dhimmi no more !

I must say you make a very strange point referring to my quotes :

>> Al-Biruni in his "Chronology of ancient nations "(p.42) has the following story :"Kutaiba ben Muslim had extinguished and ruined in every possible way all those who knew how to write and to read the Kwarizmi writing, who knew the history of the country and who studied their sciences . In consequence these things are involved in so much obscurity , that it is impossible to obtain an accurate knowledge of the history of the country since the time of Islam (not to speak of pre-Muhammedan times)."<<

> I tend to read anything written by Muslim historians with suspicion because if they were not liars then they were making things up or telling us a story and no more<

>> And Leo Africanus alias El Hasan ben Muhammed el-Wazzan-ez-Zayyati, confesses in his book "The history and description of Africa and the notable things contained therein " (translated by J. Pory , London 1600,v.1, p.166) that :"For certaine it is that at the same time the Persians lost those letters which were peculiar unto their nation; and that all their books, by the commendement of the Mahumetan prelates, were burnt least their knowledge in natural philosophie or their idolatrous religion might moue them to contemne the precepts of Mahumet".<<

He is alluding to the bogus story of the burning of the library of Ctesiphon by the Arabs which is just as bogus as the story of the burning of the library of Alexandria

Well I do not believe him either as the story of the burning of the library of Ctesiphon is also bogus<

What is your point ? Are you suggesting therefore that "Kutaiba ben Muslim HAD NOT extinguished and ruined in every possible way all those who knew how to write and to read the Kwarizmi writing, who knew the history of the country and who studied their sciences" and "the Persians DID NOT lose those letters which were peculiar unto their nation; and that all their books, by the commendement of the Mahumetan prelates, were NOT burnt"? Every Moslem reading that would have to sigh with relief. We Moslems couldn't have done such a bad thing.

Now in India there exists a respectable community of Parsees who are famous for their veracity and honesty - the basic virtues preached by Zoaroaster. The Parsees are Zoroastrians that fled Islmaic persecutions and preserved the genuine religion of Persia. What they tell about their ancestors' sufferings corresponds well to the account which you dismiss. After the conquest Moslem rage turned first of all against the Zoroastrian priests . The Zoroastrians temples were desecrated and destroyed, the priests robbed, murdered, mutilated. The Avestan books were burnt and common Zoroastrians suffered from all imaginable opressive and sadistic measures Moslems are so notorious for - exorbitant taxes,extortions,humiliations,murders,rapes, thefts and robberies and no cases were ever heard of where a Moslem criminal was punished for a crime against a Zoaroastrian. A typical picture from any Moslem-dominated territory, isn't it? Now will you suggest that the Parsees are not trustworthy and their stories of Moslems desecrating and cremating their holy books are also bogus?

The book I referred to last time was "Early Arab invasions in Central Asia 644-704" by G. Goibov and A.J. Jalilov , Dushanbe 1989. I read it a long time ago and as I don't have it at home I can't quote from it at present, but I remember the main points. The book relied heavily on numerous Russian archaeological excavations in Central Asia (Merv, Khoresm, the Balkh region etc.) whose results were published in various Russian journals and books. What the later Arab sources tell about the Arab expeditions there is largely confirmed by the excavations in what were the Northern provinces of the crumbling Sassanid Empire. Dendrochronology on the whole also supports the dates given by later authors for the invasions. I have already mentioned their destructive effects.The excavated sites display a horrible picture of a violent conquest, mass slaughter of inhabitants and wanton destruction with local temples being targets of particularly violent attacks. So at least for the northern outskirts of the early Caliphate which were explored archaeologically there is no glaring discrepency between the literary sources and archaeological evidence.

But to the best of my knwoledge there is nothing comparable in scale and depth to the Russian excavations or Western excavations in the Near East dealing with ancient ("jakhilya") cultures has been done in respect to the early Moslem period and its sites in the heartland of the Caliphate. Moslems hate being questioned about their real past. If a scholar who perseveres must flee for his life because he discovered Islam's life lie, if early Islamic archaeological sites are wantonly destroyed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, then one should not rely in his conclusions too much on "lack of archaeological evidence". Archaeology hasn't really started doing its job in dar al-Islam yet. Als it is unlikely that it will do in teh foreseeable future. It's too dangerous for archaeologists to dig and bring to light the bloody secrets of "the religion of peace". But where there is some substantial evidence like in former Soviet Central Asia archaeology rather tends to undermine a hypercritical view of early Islam and support a more traditional view.

> I had the great chance to attend a conference about 2 years ago and the topic was about the very early literary sources be it in pahlavi or Syriac of the Arab invasion of Iran and I was really surprised to hear that Fardawsi was silent in his Shahnemah about such claim by the Arabs and the burning of such library which makes Leo Africanus no more than another Muslim liar<

Really? And who Firdowsi himself ? Firdowsi was a Moslem shia, not a Zoroastrian like his ancestors. And where did his Islam come from? From the very killers of his fatherland. A personality split all the so called "Perisans" with anti-Persian religion are suffering from. I wish a Parsee had written "Shahname". We could see then what was omitted and distorted by Firdowsi because teh Parsees to this day have been telling about events which agree with Leo Africanus' passage . Furtehrmore, he is a late source (10th/11th century) himself and a poet and not a historian.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".