Re-Writing History for Hate

History Book or Agenda-for-Profiteering tool?

 

“MEDIEVAL WORLD: A CREATION OF ISLAM”  is an item by John J O’Neill in the bigoted SIOE offshoot of Pamela Geller’s hate-for-profiteering efforts. 

It is nothing less than a farce in the face of history and I would have ignored it completely except that it is a perfect example of how history is full of such efforts in changing history, abusing its context, to somehow have one side look better of the only option at the expense of others.  In this case it is to create hate for profit but the tools are the same.  

We can add that if John J O’Neill wishes to be considered academic, then why does he avoid context, all facts and tellingly write for and associate with the likes of Geller and would-be-academics like the blogger Robert Spencer? 

Do go to the link and read its style, to learn how well worded text may look scholarly but in fact when looked into are just ugly propoganda tools.  I wrote the following reply, I doubt it will stay long, thus my publishing it here. 

It is a tragedy when one tries to write history to prove an agenda, rather than discover facts based on studying the history in the first place.  The author has most certainly failed on this case, and clearly struggles in desperation to find source to justify it. 

Henri Pirenne is regarded as a history writer of Belgium and now is rather discarded as an example of a time when Belgium tried to justify itself when it was simply a creation of politics at that time.  Similarly, his wider histories are basically ignored as part of that Western-Christian exceptionalism that was so common, and a failure when it came to actually history. 

Most certainly great cities and civilizations existed before and after the ascendancy of Arab and Muslim expansion. Seville had great bridges, viaducts and bathhouses, built by Romans.  Most civilizations expanded and built upon the previous, or destroyed them.  What is the point of O’Neil’s writings but an attempt to somehow temporarily ignore that fact only for the Arabs and Muslims? 

The undeniable fact was that the Arabs and Berbers moved in to locations like Southern Iberia and not only supported what was worth keeping but expanded and added more.  That at that time, Europe was in decline if not moving backwards whilst the Muslim World was in many places starting their own Golden Age.   Cordoba became a centre for learning and science whilst its neighbours were often sleeping in the same room with their sheep, pigs and cows.  Whilst philosophy, astronomy and the words of Aristotle and Plato were being restored, discussed and expanded on – Europe was burning those thinking of such things as witches and heretics. 

Just as undeniable is that the clash of faiths existed, brutality and anti-semitism existed on both sides and histories were often fabrications to support agendas. 

O’Neil attempts to read those that suit his agenda as truths whilst ignoring others and their contexts.  At worst he fails to at least mention other views and leave the questions to the readers, that for him would be defeatist to his agenda. 

The Library of Alexander was destroyed at least four times to varying degrees, rumours of it being finished off by Muslims for various reasons have resonated for years, mostly incorrect and most certainly forgetting the Great Fire of the Alexandrian War in 48 BC, the SAcking by Aurellian in the 3rd Century and the vetting of the un-Godly texts by Pope Theophilus (Copt) in 391.   Most certainly Caliph Umar chose to get rid of what was left of the Library because it stored Ismaili texts that were creating schisms in the empire.  This is well documented.  The problem was that Christianity wanted to say otherwise, such as the equally well documented hoax of Pococke’s translation of “History of the Dynasties” in 1663. 

The only question that comes from this item is why was it written and for what agenda, hate or profit – my bet is a little bit of both. 

Donny vdH
Rotterdam
blootstellen.wordpress.com