>Arabs conquer Egypt and destroy the Library of Alexandria, basically laughing it off as 'w/e m8, none of that shit is in the Qran it's all haram, lol not important'
>Turks conquer Constantinople and leave the Hagia Sophia as it is, appreciating it's beauty and importance
why are people still so assmad at the Turks when clearly it's the Arabs who have historically been the truly vicious and backwards people in the muslim world?
I thought they converted it into a mosque
>>946007
that's still infinitely better than destroying it
it's no different from the christians converting the Pantheon into a Christian Church
>>945999
>>Arabs conquer Egypt and destroy the Library of Alexandria,
This is false. It was destroyed before Islam even existed. Stop spreading 1000 year old propaganda.
>>945999
You left out the part where the Turks kidnapped Christian children and brainwashed them into soldiers, genocided entire populations of Christians, and had their claws deep in the slave trade.
Even among arabs, the ones who have power today are truly backwards and despicable. The arab world used to revolve around places like Egypt, Yemen and Baghdad which were situated along important trade routes and cultivated worldly, cosmopolitan cultures. Now scumbag oil clans run everything and are content to use their money to spread toxic wahhabi garbage all over the world and ruin everything forward-thinking or beautiful, all the while sequestering themselves in their miserable desert shit-holes and only leaving to fuck western prostitutes in New York and Paris
the Saudis and Qataris are utter, utter scum is what I'm basically trying to say. The arab muslims of the medieval era were extraordinarily enlightened by comparison
>>946015
Why not demolish the dome of the rock then?
>all the sources come from 500+ years after the event
>most historians disagree that it happened
>The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Heræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.[29]
turkroach please go, turkroaches literally contributed absolutely nothing to the areas they conquered.
>>946040
Because Christian military expansion never reached Mecca?
> those fucking minarets
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>946100
the dome of the rock is in jerusalem, built over the site of the old jewish temple. I'm sure if it was demolisted they would have a defcon 5 chimpout.
>>946007
yes but nothing was destroyed inside
even the murals were covered yet restored repeatedly over the centuries.
>>945999
Library of Alexandria had been destroyed many times over by then
>>945999
>destroy the Library of Alexandria
That was Julius Caesar.
>>946120
Converting it into a mosque and is probably the biggest insult that could have been given
>>945999
>>Arabs conquer Egypt and destroy the Library of Alexandria, basically laughing it off as 'w/e m8, none of that shit is in the Qran it's all haram, lol not important'
But that never happened.
>>945999
>>Arabs conquer Egypt and destroy the Library of Alexandria
>Turks dindu Nuttin
t. Mehmet
>>946167
worse than a museum?
the building exists to honour God, not treat faith and the artistry associated with it as some historical quirk
>>945999
Didn't the Romans destroy the library
Romans were a fucking plague
>>946167
It's still a house of god, for the same fucking god
>>945999
damn senpai
you made two mistakes in one post
arabs didnt destroy the library
ottomans did respect Hagia Sophia as architecture, but only did they turn it into a mosque, they also destroyed all the mosaics- many of them masterpieces
>>945999
You seem to missing some sources.
>>945999
Is this the pretend history board? Where retarded neckbeards and eurotrash make up fake shit that never happened?
It's literally on the wiki article that Salad Al-Din made that story up to legitimize the burning of Shia texts in the Library. All modern historians agree that the Muslim conquerers did not burn the library down.
Especially considering how the Muslims actually saved Greek and Roman texts, and how all of Aristotle's works were saved by the Arabs, even though Aristotle denied the existence of the soul. Even more than that, it was actually a core debate in the Muslim world, which basically said "Aristotle is so smart and so right about so many things, why was he wrong about the soul?"
The only agreed historical period that ever had books burned by the Muslims was what I mentioed above.
>>946039
If by Arabs you mean, everyone who speaks Arabic, in which case you are wrong.
If you mean Arabs as in, those who are ethnically Arab, then you are correct, as that only refers to the Saudis and other gulf Arabs, but includes Yemenis who are actually awesome people.
>>946100
They did, but ignored it.
It's actually why the Arabs conquered so much when they united. No one expected a bunch of Nomadic tribes to unite and be good at invading. They fought like Raiders, not like traditional armies, and used a ton of Calvary. It trumped the weakened Persian and Roman armies.
The Christians could've conquered Mecca, but they didn't want to. Literally no one wanted to conquer the Hijaz (the province that contains Mecca and Medina) until it became a way to legitimize control over Muslims.
>>946025
Even ancient muslims scholars agree that happened
Stop making excuses
>>946399
>ancient muslims
Muslims didn't exist until the Classical Period. All modern European and Muslim historians agree this didn't happen, and it was a fake story created by Salah Al-Din like i said above.
>>946039
Support the Houthis then, even though it's still tribalism.
>>946421
>In 642 AD, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas.
>Abd'l Latif of Baghdad (1162–1231) states that the library of Alexandria was destroyed by Amr, by the order of the Caliph Omar.
> Amr writes to Omar for instructions, and Omar replies: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
>>946421
>No source
>muh question begging epithet
>In 642 AD, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas.
>Abd'l Latif of Baghdad (1162–1231) states that the library of Alexandria was destroyed by Amr, by the order of the Caliph Omar.
>Syriac Christian author Bar-Hebraeus (1226–1286), also known as Abu'l Faraj. He translated extracts from his history, the Chronicum Syriacum into Arabic, and added extra material from Arab sources. In this Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum he describes a certain "John Grammaticus" (490–570) asking Amr for the "books in the royal library." Amr writes to Omar for instructions, and Omar replies: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."
>>946440
>Writing on events 600 years in the past
>>946451
>refuses to believe muslims scholars 500 years after the destruction of the library of Alexandria
>believes modern historians 2000 years after the destruction of the library of Alexandria
wew lad
Your question begging epithet isn't a credible source and not a argument
>>946486
Only one of these things involves an act of belief.
>>946478
If years mean credibility
Then by your logic modern historians are wrong because close to 2000 years have passed since the destruction and more knowledge lost
>>946495
>Then by your logic
I'm not convinced you fully grasp my logic.
2/10, I replied
>>946493
>question dodging
Elaborate how muslims scholars 500 years after the destruction of the library of Alexandria are wrong yet modern historians 2000 years after the destruction of the library of Alexandria are right
Again, no question begging epithet pls
>>946503
not a argument
>>946486
Yeah, that's why I only listen to history in the form of Oral poems sand by pagans in 3000 BC. They're are the most accurate historical records, right?
retard.
>>946504
The Egyptian writer in the 13th century only has local legend as his source. The modern historian has access not only to the Egyptian writer, but writers from across the Middle East and Europe from not only the 13th century, but for almost every century going back a thousand years.
>>946504
because those Muslim historians had an agenda, involving Salah Al-Din burning Shia books in Alexandria, and saying "Well, those previous guys burned it before, so I can do it now."
Modern historians have no political gain one way or the other.
>>946504
Is that a real question?
Ok.
Because we have access to much more sources as well as archaeology, not to mention modern historical methods.
>>946486
500 years later, 2000 years later. In terms of source reliability thats basically the same.
>>946521
>Modern historians have no political gain one way or the other.
Well, I'd argue those claiming the Muslims did it have a political agenda. Due to the current state of the world all Muslim history is full of political and emotional bias.
>>946535
Those aren't historians in the first place.
>>946539
What about Robert Spencer.
The US government actually hired him to teach US soldiers about Muslims.
>>946481
Your emotions aren't valid sources of information
neither is your appeal to stone fallacy
>>946025
It was sacked several times but wiped out by Arabs. Stop spreading around Muslim apologist revisionist history
>>946524
>the old muslims scholars had access to knowledge now lost
>the modern historians use their old papers as references
I've yet to see actually cite sources to back up your claims
I even name dropped a few muslim scholars you use your emotions
>>946547
Also not a historian, but a comparative religion scholar who writes books on politics for the public.
>>946567
>>the old muslims scholars had access to knowledge now lost
They would mention their sources if they did. Muslim writers were actually pretty good about that.
>>946517
So Egyptian scholars where the actually site for the library of Alexandria had less knowledge about their own history and modern historians have access to scholars from Europe and the middle east somehow make it more creditable?
Elaborate
>>946567
Is this what it feels like for /sci/ when Creationists and Broscience trolls raid their threads?
>>946371
The Persians and the Romans had just finished fighting a 30 year war only 5 years before the arabs invaded.
>>946580
You are question dodging and avoiding
Where are your sources and what makes them more creditable than old muslims scholars from Egypt and surrounding areas?
Insulting old muslims scholars isn't a argument
>>946587
It is if you cant back up your claims and use a appeal to stone fallacy and question begging epithet instead of actually addressing the argument and instead dismiss it because "reasons"
>>946510
Can you valid your sources?
Or is your appeal to stone fallacy all you got, fuckface?
>>946594
It's more the fact that sources state that it was already destroyed before Islam was a thing.
>>946620
Again, where is your source and what makes it creditable
You are using a appeal to popularity fallacy as your justification for your reasoning
Why can't you cite your sources?
>>946605
Yeah, it's exactly the same feeling.
![bf46e5d84d[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/9kszXoY.png "bf46e5d84d[1].png")
Just stumbled into thread
>>946605
Ayyyyyyyy look I can namedrop too
>But it's on Wikipedia!!!
You just cited a Wikipedia article, leaving out the convenient part where the article disagrees with you. Whatajoke
>>946634
>muh appeal to stone fallacy
Glad to see you will dismiss what you can't refute
>>946635
You still haven't presented a single source for your "argument" and instead use ad hominem attacks on me and old muslim scholars
The bigger joke is you because you have not even provided a single source to back up your claims and use your emotions as a justification for your reasoning.
How sad
>>946640
There are no merits to refute, only ignorance of a historian's discipline.
>>946630
Dude, just read?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria
It was wrecked by Aurelian and finished off by Theodosius. If the Arabs did find something I'm sure it was just some burnt out ruins.
>>946654
Not a argument
>>946630
>Again, where is your source and what makes it creditable
This has already been explained.
>>946658
Doesn't have to be. You haven't shown that you're here to argue.
>>946656
Did you read?
It says Caesar destroyed parts of it
Christians destroyed the old pagan temples
And muslims destroyed the actually library itself along with the books
Do you even look at your sources before you post them?
>>946665
So an appeal to stone fallacy?
Got it
>>946661
No it hasn't
You gave a question begging epithet as your reasoning
Not a valid source
>>946669
>The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Heræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.
>>946669
Yes I did read it but clearly you did not because it says Caesar burnt the records.
> and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.
>>946671
No merits, thus no fallacy.
>>946675
>The pagan scholar Eunapius of Sardis, witnessed the demolition, and though he detested Christians, his account of the Serapeum's destruction makes no mention of any library. When Orosius discusses the destruction of the Great Library at the time of Caesar in the sixth book of his History against the Pagans, he writes:
So perished that marvelous monument of the literary activity of our ancestors, who had gathered together so many great works of brilliant geniuses. In regard to this, however true it may be that in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough—yet it seems fairer to suppose that other collections had later been formed to rival the ancient love of literature, and not that there had once been another library which had books separate from the four hundred thousand volumes mentioned, and for that reason had escaped destruction.
—Orosius, vi.15.32
>Thus Orosius laments the pillaging of libraries within temples in 'his own time' by 'his own men' and compares it to the destruction of the Great Library destroyed at the time of Julius Caesar
Plus the Arabs admit they destroyed the library and its books see>>946440
Why take credit for it if you didn't do it?
>>946679
No argument, thus a fallacy
>>946495
>If years mean credibility
It does. Had our 13th century Egyptian source mentioned he was copying from a 7th century source, he would have more credibility and the issue then becomes whether we can believe he actually had a 7th century source.
The problem with the story however is that we do actually have sources from the 7th century, which are thus far more credible sources than one from the 13th century on 7th century events.
None of them mention the Library of Alexandria or its burning.
>>946691
>Why take credit for it if you didn't do it?
Because they wanted justification for later destruction of works. Why else would you randomly write 500 years later that your people destroyed something.
>>946678
I guess you dont understand what "destroyed" means
>>946696
Can you prove what you just claimed?
Where are your sources?
>>946698
I do. If you burn the books you have destroyed the library, because a library without books is just a building. If you're trying to twist it to say yea well the Arabs destroyed the building then go ahead.
>>946704
The Christian man in the Arab destruction story was long dead by the time of the supposed event, and thus could not have happened.
>>946650
I just showed you a bunch of historians who disagree with it along with an explanation by a Cambridge author. You're either trying not to look bad on anonymous image board or just have your head stuck too far up your own ass to see you made a mistake and are now trying to justify it by arguing ancient historians must be right (I guess none of the authors refuting this thought of that, what a pile of morons!). At any rate your position is not tenable, you're behaving like those creationists who spam about how macroevolution can't be true and insult people in "the establishment" who may disagree with them. I'm out of this thread because it's just devolved into responding to you. Please remember to examine evidence more objectively and that posting on a history board doesn't make you a historian.
>>946705
He burned the religious text of the pagans from their temples
> If you're trying to twist it to say yea well the Arabs destroyed the building then go ahead.
How is it twisting when they admit they did it?
>>946717
Why would Caesar burn the religion texts of Pagans?
Saying you did something doesn't mean you did it. Also what do you mean "they", the Muslims from the time of the source are 500 years removed from Caliph Omar.
>>946715
You still haven't provided a single source and still use a question begging epithet.
So I'm right to assume you can't back up what you say?
You provided nothing but your emotions
>>945999
Arabs destroy everything and most of the world already has a solid position on them.
Turks took existing works and reused it to suit themselves. They cosy up to Western nations and have spent a lot of their history trying to replicate us.
For this reason, people delude themselves into thinking somehow the Turks like us, and aren't doing it for personal gain. They've gotten away with a ridiculous amount of shit historically.
I mean nobody's demanding Turkey pay reparations to the groups their empire oppressed.
I suppose that's a reason why people don't like their government, they have the history of a colonial conquerer, but the modern attitude of some sort of oppressed minority.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/09/27/the-vanished-library-2/
>>946724
All you're doing is replying to every post with "No source no source!" when they are giving you sources.
>>946713
And how those that invalidate him and old scholars but validate modern historians 2000 years after the fact?
>>946732
Your 2000 years argument doesn't hold up or mean anything. We have much more sources available to us now than they did then. You might as well say Scientists in the past were better than today. There was no historical method back then.
>>946722
Because he believed himself to be a god
Also elaborate how muslims 500 years after the destruction are wrong yet modern historians 2000 years after the destruction are right
>>946731
Well, why dont you post an actually creitable source to shut me?
>>946745
Fewer sources and almost no archaeology.
For example, this is how an Arab historian in the 9th century said the pyramids were built:
>Surid, Ben Shaluk, Ben Sermuni, Ben Termidun, Ben Tedresan, Ben Sal, one of the kings of Egypt before the flood, built two great pyramids; and, notwithstanding, they were subsequently named after a person called Shaddad Ben Ad ... they were not built by the Adites, who could not conquer Egypt, on account of their powers, which the Egyptians possessed by means of enchantment ... the reason for the building of the pyramids was the following dream, which happened to Surid three hundred years previous to the flood. It appeared to him that the earth was overthrown, and that the inhabitants were laid prostrate upon it, that the stars wandered confusedly from their courses, and clashed together with tremendous noise. The king though greatly affected by this vision, did not disclose it to any person, but was conscious that some great event was about to take place.
>>946742
>500 years after the destruction invalidate muslims scholars
>2000 years after the destruction doesn't invalidate modern historians
K
>>946755
Correct, for all the reasons stated in this thread that you'll keep ignoring for (you)'s
>>946752
Modern historians use those very muslims scholars as a reference for their own research
If those scholars are wrong then historians referencing them are wrong too
>>946755
>500 years after the destruction invalidate muslims scholars
>2000 years after the destruction doesn't invalidate modern historians
The Muslims made something up, the historians are going by ancient sources. Whats not to get.
>>946764
>Modern historians use those very muslims scholars
They don't. They use Coptic Christian, Byzantine, and Jewish sources as well as Muslim ones.
Not one in the 600 years before the 13th century ever mentions a library burning in Egypt in the 7th century AD.
>>946754
Did you even look at that source it references Christian scholars from around the 16th century and those very same muslims scholars you say are wrong?
>>946767
>>muh appeal to stone fallacy
I agree, repeating 'muh appeal to stone fallacy' is a pretty poor argument.
>>946772
What sort of mad argument are you trying to make now? That modern historians must either accept all of a medieval historians work, or none of it? No, they can say some is obviously false and some seems to be true. That happens all the time. For example Livy is a well respected source for the Roman Republic and Carthaginian Wars, yet no one believes him when he claims Hannibal deployed 4000 Macedonians, I won't go into why its wrong but if you know the history its obvious. But according to you historians should either entirely reject all of Livy because of that false line, or accept it and all the rest.
>>946787
It chronicles the myth that began in the 13th century and continued into the 16th and 17th. You purposefully missed the Christian sources from earlier eras that are mum about any destruction event.
>>946784
>>Modern historians use those very muslims scholars
>They don't. They use Coptic Christian, Byzantine, and Jewish sources as well as Muslim ones.
>as well as the muslims ones
Why did you contradict yourself?
>>946789
So why are you using it?
>>946796
The Muslim sources they use are earlier and different from the 13th century one. I understand this is hard for you to follow, but please understand we're trying our best to dumb all this down for you.
>>946794
You purposely missed the old pagan source I gave earlier in this thread
>>946798
The mysteries of your perceived realty is an open question for us all.
>>946810
No they didn't. It had nothing to do with Arabs or Muslims, who did not exist yet and thus are irrelevant to discussing the supposed event that took place in the 7th century.
>>946791
>claim old scholars are wrong because they wrote about it 500 years after the destruction
By that logic because "x" amount of years invalidates them as so many here claim then 2000 years later is even more wrong with even more ancient text lost in the sands of time
>>946811
You are avoiding my question and question dodging
Why are you using it?
>>946825
>>claim old scholars are wrong because they wrote about it 500 years after the destruction
Correction. Old scholars who quote no sources contemporary to the event they're discussing are untrustworthy compared to scholars who either do quote contemporary 7th century sources, near contemporary 8th century sources, or were themselves alive and in Egypt in the 7th century.
>>946809
You said they didnt use muslims scholars then contradict yourself further down your own post
Using ad hominem isn't gonna validate you
>>946832
It is a mystery, obviously. Ask your head shrink, it's out of my reach.
>>946818
Once again
The muslims claimed they did it and took credit for it.
Out of their own scholars mouths
Why take credit for something you said they didnt do yet they claimed they did?
>>946841
Ah, ad hominem and another question dodge
So you can't give me a answer as to why you are using it and resort to personal attacks?
>>946848
>Why take credit for something you said they didnt do yet they claimed they did?
An irrelevant question to what happened in the 7th century. What someone in the 13th century believed is their own business. Go read some books on Ayyubid society if you actually care to know why.
>>945999
They didn't leave it as it is.
They put those fucking hideous minarets up, covered the inside with retarded Islamic shit, and covered up mosaics.
>>946836
As to modern historians who quote those very same old scholars who you say have no sources that make them creditable?
>>946852
How is it "irrelevant" when they said they did it?
You haven't gave a valid reason why you say they are wrong after they claimed it and say because "x" amount of years invalidates them.
>>946859
They quote better old scholars in increasing levels of credibility for the subject the modern historian is exploring. al-Baghdadi would make a fine source for Medieval Egypt, but the Coptic sources on the conquest of Egypt make much better sources on the Rashidun Caliphate.
>>946890
What make them "better" scholars and how does this not invalidate them when you say all those scholars aren't creditable?
>>946035
This I'm a a Melkite Catholic ( an Eastern Catholic Rite group ) my family was from Aleppo until the Turkroaches came and started kid napping the young boys turning them into fucking extremists for allah so then to avoid that my family Immigrated to America
>>946908
Chronological and physical distance from the event in question, or direct reference to a known source that was closer than themselves.
It's not that al-Baghdadi isn't credible, it's that he's not credible for events beyond his capability to have either witnessed or have access to the better, earlier sources that modern historians have. His story on Umar is no more credible than his story on the Sphinx.
Arabs are generally degenerate
I don't mean to defend Turks or imply that Constantinople doesn't rightfully belong to Greece, but have you guys seen Athens lately? It's one of the ugliest capitals in Europe. Istanbul is fucking great though, the Turks have taken really good care of the city, and I'm not sure I could trust present-day Greece to treat as well as the Turks have.
>>946297
>It's still a house of god, for the same fucking god
>It's a house of God so it must be O.K
>It's O.K to re purpose a building for a religion which explicitly denies the central tenant of my religion.
>>946297
>same fucking god
This liberal ecumenist meme needs to die. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? Do they believe in Jesus being literally God? No? Then it's not the same God.
>>949719
their are all fake so it doesn't really matter
>>949780
*типc фeдopa*
The library of Alexandria died multiple times, but really, by then it was a shell of its former self. After the Romans critically underfunded it.
>>949785
>*тиѱ фeдopa*
top argument there christcuck
>>949833
Cacи хyй быдлo
>>949719
It's still the God of Abraham
>>946359
I specifically mentioned Yemenis as being alright in my post
>>950138
What's so special about Yemen? I only know they're getting bombed by the Saudis and are poor.
>>949436
>Constantinople belonging to the Greeks
Constantinople belongs to whoever is the protector of eastern Christians and therefore the spiritual successor to Rome. Therefore it belongs to Pyccия
>>946007
It honestly looks better with minarets.
>>951051
This to be quite honest family
>>946359
i would consider iraqis 60% ethnic arabs, yemen the father of arabs , and eygpt are at best 30%-20% the rest are just arabized
>>953239
>Success breeds jealousy
>Turks
>success
lol
i want turks to leave
>>946355
and did the catholic church due to being the main book manufacturer in europe also help store many of aristoles works
>>946039
This. I've known a lot of Lebanese, Egyptians, and Syrians and they've all been lovely, cultured people, but a family member of mine works for a Qatari company and I've run into Saudis and Qataris a lot in clubs here in LA, they are utmost scum, illeterate cultureless savages who happened to find oil to the detriment of all humanity. A Korean qt I know let one take here to an awkward movie date and then started screamed WHY YOU WILL NOT SEX WITH ME? I TOOK YOU TO DATE, I AM RICH. Khalijis are animals.
>>945999
>basically laughing it off as 'w/e m8, none of that shit is in the Qran it's all haram, lol not important'
This isn't true. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria is more a sentimental act than one of purposefully destroying knowledge. The Arabs had a good relationship with academia, as evidenced by some of the first degree-granting universities being built is places they controlled. Damasuc and Al-Andulus were also notable places for learning for many centuries.
So the burning of the library is closer to a 'Haha get wrekd scrubs, now watch me burn down your library senpai' than the one you described. Arabs were noble people for the better part of a thousand years. It's just that they became largely irrelevant during Ottoman rule and didn't know how to handle shit after they left. If you look at Arabia after the Ottoman's withdrew it's just a whole bunch of people waiting around until Europe comes in and introduces new nations. Such segregation and then the discovery of immense wealth just turned them to complete shit.
Also the Ottoman empire was pretty shit for the last 200 or so years. Sultan's were hoarding wealth, not paying attention to social matters and giving the public (as well as Janissaries) enough reason to start running amok.
>>949719
And do Christians believe that there is no god but god and Muhammad is the final prophet? Of course you don't.
It is the same God. Just that we do things to Him differently.
>>954840
>>954840
>WHY YOU WILL NOT SEX WITH ME? I TOOK YOU TO DATE, I AM RICH
>>946317
No they put plaster over everything which was removed after it became a museum. Also the plaster actually protected all the images of jesus.
t.been to hagia sophia last summer
>>945999
>Arabs conquer Egypt and destroy the Library of Alexandria, basically laughing it off as 'w/e m8, none of that shit is in the Qran it's all haram, lol not important'
So I assume they destroyed the ashes.
For the Library of Alexandria was destroyed by a mob of angry Christians in 391.
>>959596
Yes anon,yes, a mob of angry Christians destroyed it in 391
>>946486
You're a fucking idiot. Modern historians are 3000 times more aware of medieval historical works than you are, so if they claim something contrary to those writings than they have a good fucking reason. This is such a no brainer there's no way that you're not religious
>>962318
Man has this place gone to shit. Take your conspiring hands, shove'em up your arse and go back to where you came from, cunt.
>>954889
>Arabs were noble people
...raiding the meditarranean and europe for (sex) slaves.
>>946825
this is fucking hilarious
>/pol/ enter the thread
>precedes to use the classic "nuh uh" tactic
>>950976
But Moscow is the Third Rome, they have no need for Constantinople.
>>954646
Turks were pretty powerful in their day, they are now cursed by Jesus to be a third rate country until the end of time as they grew so arrogant and abused His people. Only reason they exist today is probably being cool toward Hagia Sofia.
Of course this post is assuming God exists and stuff from that perspective and all don't let it get ya angry.
>>945999
This building is amazing
You can visit it, and aside from the minarets, it's as it was 1,500 years ago
The Blue Mosque almost seems to be afraid of it
Why don't we build magnificent structures like this any more
>>954646
this must be trolling.
if not, kys.
>>946510
kek
>>964547
yeah it's the fucking shit, blows the blue mosque out of the water even though it's in a state of disrepair and despite that when I visited like half of the interior was filled with one big mass of scaffolding
and I'm not just saying this because I am mad at islam, it's truly a fucking incredible building
>>946609
This just in, literal autists now require you to source your sarcastic comments.
>>946724
This word, source, I don't think it means what you think it means.
