Explain!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:26 AM 9/2/97 -0700, Helen wrote:


>Helen:

>  According to the ancient Greeks, Sappho was a teacher and the mother of=

=20

>lyric poetry. The subject of her poetry tended to be her sexual love for=20

>other women. I will agree with you that the Moslems have a much better=20

>history than the Christian concerning the Jews, unfortunately their=

 attitude=20

>towards women seem to be one of such terror of women's sexuality, that many=

=20

>of them think God/Allah is pleased to have little girls' private parts=20

>butchered to prevent them from ever enjoying the pleasures of physical=

 love.=20


ADNAN
Female circumcision is not just an Islamic practice. It has more to do with
the culture. Many Muslims practice female circumcision but it is because
Islam  grew in a region where female circumcision was already practiced.
FGM was practiced before Islam was even born. There are Coptic Christians,
Protestants, Catholics, and many others  who practice female circumcision.
90 % of population in Ethiopia practice FGM, and Ethiopia is a Christian
country. Female circumcision is not recommended in the Quran. One haddith
says something about female circumcision, which is not considered authentic
haddith by some Muslims. Even if the haddith is authentic, it can easily be
interpreted in such a way to discourage female circumcision, since the
haddith says not to cut whole of the clitoris. Not all Muslim countries
practice FGM, it is not practiced in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, etc., etc.,.

Have a look at the site,=20

Female Genital Mutilation Research Homepage.=20
http://www.hollyfeld.org/fgm/

It quotes in one of the article, Ren=82e Saurel who says :=20

"The Koran, contrary to Christianism and Judaism, permits and recommends
that the
woman be given physical and psychological pleasure, pleasure found by both
partners during the act of love. Forcibly split, torn, and severed tissues
are neither conducive to sensuality nor to the blessed feeling given and
shared when participating in the quest for pleasure and the escape from
pain This verse appears to condemn any change of God's creation. It is
referred to by Islamists to oppose permanent birth control, be it by
measures affecting the man or the woman . Oddly, male and female
circumcision enthusiasts forget this verse completely. They also forget the
following one: "He perfected everything He
created" (32:7).=20

And have a look at another site,=20

Female genital mutilation
http://www.bmj.com/bmj/archive/7012l.htm

I will quote one paragraph from it,

"Contrary to J A Black and G D Debelle's assertion,[i] female genital
mutilation is not largely confined to Muslims, and attempts have been made
to correct this
misrepresentation.[iii] The perpetuation of this myth may provoke
antagonism in the very areas where maximum cooperation is required for any
global intervention to stand any chance of success. Religion has never
nurtured female genital mutilation, except for that practiced by the
Christian Skoptozy sect in Russia, which in the past supported female
genital mutilation with quotations from the Bible (Matthew xix, 12)[iv].
Tradition is the main reason why this barbarous act still continues in
parts of the developing world, and many Islamic areas do not have this
custom".=20

Treatment of Women in Islam, of course, is bad.  But treatment of women in
Christianity (or Bible) is worse. Most secular scholars of Islam, I read,
claim that Islam improved women's position in the 7th century. Of course,
if we compare it with modern standards, Muslim treatment of women is not
acceptable. Muslims, by the way, will claim that Islam gives much better
position to women than Christianity (or anything else). Have a look at :
"Muslim women home page,"
http://www.albany.edu/~ha4934/sisters.html=20

As for the slavery in Sudan, Sudan Foundation, an organization in Britain,
concludes that Slavery in Sudan in not because Government permits it but
because of civil war in the south and because the Government is too poor
and powerless to stop it. According to Sudan Foundation, atrocities in the
Sudan are committed by both side and not just by Muslims. Sudan
foundation's articles are available at:

Part 1:  Sudan Foundation: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related
Practices [part 1]=20

http://www.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.2.html

Part 2. Sudan Foundation: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related
Practices [part 2]=20

http://www.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.3.html

Part 2, has some information about Slavery in Islam in general, have a look
at it.=20

HELEN

>  Suppression of written material is, also, an old Moslem trick. I have=

 read=20

>it took several years for them to burn what the Christians had left of the=

=20

>Great Library of Alexandria.=20


ADNAN
As far as I know, the above in not correct. There is no evidence that Omar
ibn Khatab burnt the Library of Alexandria. It was a hoax spread but
Christians against Omar and Muslim conquerors. Most scholars reject it as a
hoax. In an Islamic news group an article was posted by some one dealing
with this issue, which I quote here :=20


**********************************************************
All the said above has proved that Islam advocates science and knowledge,
it is the religion of the mind and thought. But another orientalist would
say: "Why, then did Amr ibn-al-As by order of Omar Ibnel Khattab burn the
library of Alexandria which was full of books? This work has deprived
humanity of a great treasure of learning. And the library was burnt by
Arabs who thought that the literature and writings in the library
contradict Islamic views and traditions. How does the religion of science
account for burning the library of Alexandria?"

In fact several Western writers dealt with the topic of the Library of
Alexandria such as Gibbon, Butler, Sedillot and others but they didn't
reach a final judgment. Many writers suspect the whole story.

Gustav Lebon in "The Arab Civilization" emphasizes that the story is only a
myth and says that "The said burning of the Library of Alexandria is a
barbarian action which does not agree with Arab or Muslim morality. Man
would enquire: 'How could prominent scholars believe such a story for a
long time?' This story which was rejected in our time need not be discussed
again. Nothing is easier than
proving that Christians themselves burnt the books of the polytheists
before Islamic conquest."

Jack. S. Wrestler in his book considered the Alexandria fire a myth.

"The historians who were contemporary of the Islamic conquest like Otikha
did not have anything in their books about accusation. Books of the Old
Arab historians also such as: Al Yaqubi, Balathery, Ibn Abdel Hakam,
Tabari, Al Kindi, Al - Maqrizi, Abul Mahasen, Al Suyouti and others did not
mention any thing of the kind."

The first one to say that Amr ibn--al-As burnt the library was Abdul Latif
Al Baghdadi (1231), then came Ibnul Qafti (1248) and Abul Faraj Gregorius
Al Malti, known as Ibnul Ibri or (son of Hebrew) without documentation.
Modern historian who quoted them wanted to prove the following:

   1.Muslims had a great desire to destroy any book except the Quran and
the Traditions.

   2.The story of the fire was not only told by Abul Faraj but was also
told by two Muslim historian: Al Baghdadi and Ibnul Qafti.

   3.The conquerors burnt also the books of Persians as was told in Haji
Khalifa's book "Kashful Zunoon."

   4.Burning books was a common thing done by everyone who wanted to punish
those who opposed him as Hulagu the Tartar did when he threw the books of
the Muslims in the Tigris river.

We say that the first idea is not accepted; it was the Muslim's habit to
encourage science. Abul Faraj himself said that Amr ibn-al-As listened to
Yuhanna (John) the Grammarian.

As for the Haji Khalifa's saying, we can say that he is not considered as a
good reference in historical matters because he died in 1657 A.D. And if
the Muslims had burnt those books, other historians who lived before Haji
Khalifa would have mentioned that in their books.

Comparing Hulagu with Omar Ibnel Khattab is irrelevant because the former
wanted to destroy the civilizations of his time while the latter intended
to spread culture and knowledge.

Some historians of our times spoke much about the tale of Abul Faraj
concerning the library. These historians believe that Amr and Omar are
innocent and had nothing to do with the accusation of the burning. Here is
what Abul Faraj said:

"At the time of the Arab conquest there was a famous man called Yahia (
John) the Grammarian. He was a priest in Alexandria. He believed in
Jacobite Christianity and hailed the (Sauri) creed. Then he refused the
idea of Trinity. The bishops met him and asked him to return to their creed
but he refused, so they lowered his rank. He lived till the Arab conquest
of Alexandria. He met Amr who was known for encouraging science.

Amr honored him and heard his philosophical speech and was so pleased with
this that he kept his company and made him very close to himself. One day
Yahia said to Amr: 'You have confiscated everything in Alexandria. What you
need or you find useful to you is yours without objection but what you do
not want I would take it'. Amr said: 'What do you want?' Yahia said: 'The
books of philosophy in the royal cupboard'. Amr said: 'I cannot do this
without consulting the Prince of the
Believers Omar ibn-al-Khattab'. So Amr wrote to ibn-al-Khattab asking for
the advice. Omar replied 'As for the books you have mentioned I can say
that those which agree with the Book of God (The Quran) are to be disposed
of because Quran is sufficient. And if they have things which contradict
the Quran, so they must be deposed of'. So Amr distributed those books to
the public baths of Alexandria to burn in their fire places. Those books
were exhausted in six months. Hear
that and wonder!."

1. We can say first that this narration seems as a myth. Ibn Al Ibri said
that the books were enough to heat four thousand baths - which existed in
Alexandria - for six months and this seems unreasonable because the books
which were allegedly burnt were 700 thousands books. If they had been burnt
in 4000 baths then each bath would have taken 175 books. This number would
last only for a few days not for six months.

We doubt also that there were 700 thousand books or pamphlets because if we
supposed that each author wrote twenty books then the number of authors
would be thirty thousand and that seems imaginary at that time of the
ancient world, not to count the authors in Greece and Rome.

Besides, if Ibn-al-As had wanted to destroy the library he would have burnt
it at once and wouldn't have left it to the owners of the said baths.
Yuhanna or others would have taken those books from the bath owners for the
possible prices and many of those books would have appeared later, which
never happened.

2. Butler also mentioned that the said John Yuhannah had died thirty or
forty years before Islamic conquest of Egypt.

3. If the tale had been true then the early historians would have said
something about it, however brief.

4. They said the library was burnt twice, first in this year 48 B.C. as a
result of the burning of Julius Caesar's fleet, and the second in A.D. 391
during the period of the Caesar Theodosis (338-395). The tale, then, of the
burning of the Library was told with these two accidents as models.

5. Orazius visited Alexandria in the first part of the fifth century and
told that at his visit of the library he saw the shelves without books.
Therefore, the books which were in the library from the Ptolemian period
were not existent at the end of the fourth century [A.D.) i.e., since the
period of the Theodosis, at the time of the second burning.

The library was not mentioned in the literature of the sixth or the seventh
centuries. It is known that Egypt before the Islamic conquest since the
period of Diocletian was in a state of deterioration in agriculture,
industry, science, knowledge and literature. And it would not be possible
that the people
at that time cared for restoring the library to what it was before.

6. Islamic teachings advocate respect of all religion and their books and
Muslims can, without reservations, benefit from those books. So, the tale
seems contradictory to the Islamic practices which would not allow any bad
treatment of anything bearing the name of God.

7. Supposing the library was still existing at the time of the Islamic
conquest, nothing could prevent carrying the library to Constantinople by
the Romans during the truce with the Muslims. Besides, Amr allowed them to
carry with them whatever they could carry. They had enough time to carry
several libraries, not only one. And the tale is merely a lie.

8. The phrase which Abul - Faraj wrote at the end of this tale "Hear this
and wonder!" may be understood in various ways:

1. That the tale is untrue and impossible.

2. That he believed the story was prejudiced against Omar and Amr.

Anyhow, such wondering and call to hear has something of inexactness and
unfairness which makes the tale a mere lie.

• Previous message: Explain!
• Next message: Explain!
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]