Ptolemy II, who became the ruler of Egypt after Alexander the Great in the third century BC, was a great patron of learning, and founded a library in Alexandria, Egypt, which contained about 5,00,000 books on different subjects.托勒密二世，誰成為埃及的統治者後，亞歷山大大帝在公元前三世紀，是一個偉大的贊助人的學習，並創辦了一家圖書館，埃及亞歷山大，其中載有大約 5,00,000書籍不同的主題。 It is this collection which is known in正是這種集合這是眾所周知的 history歷史 as the great library in Alexandria.正如偉大的亞歷山大圖書館。

It has been據 alleged所謂的 that this library was burned down by Amr bin Aas at the behest of the Second Caliph, Umar.這個庫被燒毀了原子吸收光譜法斌在AMR的遺志第二哈里發歐麥爾。 The story goes to state that Amr fed the numerous bath furnaces of the city with the volumes of the Alexandrian library.據說 AMR的美聯儲聲明，浴爐的許多城市與冊的亞歷山大圖書館。 The story also relates the oft-quoted remark allegedly made by Caliph Umar (ruled: 634-644) when he consented to the destruction of the library, “If these writing of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed”.這個故事還涉及人們經常引用的說法據稱由哈里發歐麥爾（裁定：634-644）時，他同意銷毀的圖書館，“如果這些文字的希臘人同意書的上帝，他們是無用的，需要不被保留，如果他們不同意，他們是有害的，應該被銷毀。“ It was, the story continues, thereupon, decided that the books were contrary to the Quran and the whole library was burned down without even opening the books.這是，這個故事繼續下去，於是，決定書違背了古蘭經和整個圖書館被燒毀，甚至沒有打開的書。

Equating the burning of Alexandria Library with that of Nazi policy, Joseph Barnabas writes, “the arguments of Caliph Umar and the Nazi book burning are not without explanations.”燃燒等同亞歷山大圖書館與該納粹政策，約瑟夫巴拿巴寫道，“哈里發歐麥爾的論點和納粹焚書也不是沒有解釋。” ^{1 一} A Hindutva theorist, BN Jog, was more emphatic and clear: “Many people are surprised that Caliph Umar burnt down the huge and rich library of Constantinople.一個印度教主義理論家，英國國民慢跑，更有力和明確的：“許多人感到吃驚的是哈里發歐麥爾燒毀了巨大而豐富的圖書館君士坦丁堡。 The urge for him to do so was, however, provided by his religion.”在敦促他這樣做了，但是，只要他的宗教。“ ^{2 2}

Encyclopedia Britanica says that the Alexandrian Library had, in fact, been destroyed much earlier in the fourth century AD, long before the advent of Islam: “The library survived the disintegration of Alexander?s empire (first century BC) and continued to exist under Roman rule until the third century AD.” 百科全書Britanica說，亞歷山大圖書館有，事實上，在更早被摧毀公元4世紀，早在到來的伊斯蘭教：“圖書館倖存下來的解體亞歷山大？帝國（公元前一世紀），並繼續下存在羅馬人統治，直到公元三世紀。“ ^{3 三} The truth is that one-half of this library was burnt by Julius Caesar in 47 BC.事實是，其中一半由這個庫被燒毀凱撒在公元前47。 In the third century, Alexandria came under the domination of Christians.在第三個世紀，亞歷山大統治下的來的基督徒。 At another place the same work states that, “The main museum and library were destroyed during the civil war of the third century AD and a subsidiary library was burned by Christians in AD 391.”在另一個地方同樣的工作指出，“主要的博物館和圖書館被摧毀，在內戰公元三世紀和一個附屬圖書館被燒毀基督徒在公元391年。” ^{4 4}

Phillip K Hitti states that the story “is one of those tales that make good fiction but bad history.” He goes on, “…the great Ptolemic library was burnt as early as 48 BC by Julius Ceasar.菲利普K表希提說的故事“是其中的一個故事，使好的小說，但壞的歷史。”他接著說，“...偉大的Ptolemic庫被燒毀，早在公元前48年由凱撒。 A later one, referred to as the daughter library, was destroyed about AD 389 as a result of an edict by the Emperor Theodosius.後來一位之一，被稱為女兒圖書館，約公元389被摧毀，結果的一項法令，由皇帝狄奧多西。 At the time of the Arab conquest, therefore, no library of importance existed in Alexandria and no contemporary writer ever brought the charge about Amr or Umar.”當時的阿拉伯征服，因此，沒有圖書館的重要性，也沒有存在的當代作家亞歷山大曾經帶來的費用大約 AMR或者奧馬爾。“ ^{5 5}

Bernard Lewis, a vehement critic of Islam, has thus summarised the verdict of modern scholarship on the subject:伯納德劉易斯激烈批評伊斯蘭教，就此總結了現代學術判決關於這個問題：

“Modern research has shown the story to be completely unfounded. “現代研究表明這個故事是完全沒有根據的。 None of the early chronicles, not even the Christian ones, make any reference to this tale, which is mentioned in the 13th century, and in any case the great library of Serapenum had already been destroyed in internal dissensions before the coming of the Arabs.”無早期的編年史，甚至也不是基督教的，作出任何提及這個故事，其中提到在13世紀，在任何情況下大圖書館的Serapenum已經被摧毀來臨前內部糾紛的阿拉伯人。 “ ^{6 6}

Lewis wrote the above words in 1950.劉易斯說上面的字在1950年。 As late as in 1990, he went on to state, “not the creation, but the demolition of the myth was 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.”由於晚於 1990年，他又到國家“，而不是創造，而是拆遷的神話是實現歐洲獎學金，從 18世紀到今天已經拒絕虛假和荒謬的故事，從而清白哈里發歐麥爾和早期的穆斯林從這個誹謗。“ ^{7 7}

John M. Robertson, a historian of rationalistic and free thought, also dismissed the story of the destruction of the Alexandrian library by Umar as a myth.約翰 M ·羅伯遜，一個歷史學家的理性和自由的思想，還駁回了故事的破壞，由歐麥爾亞歷山大圖書館作為一個神話。 ^{8 8}

Historian DP Singhal considers the story untenable.歷史學家阿密特認為，民主黨的故事是站不住腳的。 ^{9 9} Singhal writes,阿密特寫道：

“It makes its first appearance in the solitary report of a stranger, Abul Faraj, who wrote 500 years later. “這讓第一次出現在報告中孤獨的陌生人，阿布法拉傑，誰寫了500年後。 The reported sentence of the Caliph is alien to the traditional precept of the Muslim casuists who had expressly commanded the preservation of captured religious text of the Jews and Christians, and had declared that the works of profane scientists and philosophers could be lawfully applied to the believer.”報告的句子的哈里發是格格不入的傳統戒律的穆斯林casuists誰已明確指揮保存捕獲的宗教文本的猶太人和基督徒，並宣布該工程的褻瀆科學家和哲學家可以合法地應用到信徒“。 ^{10 10}

Bertrand Russell has gone deep into the controversy and made the following statement:羅素已經深入到了爭議，並提出以下聲明：

“Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library in Alexandria. “每一個基督徒都被教導的故事哈里發破壞亞歷山大圖書館。 As a matter of fact, this library was frequently destroyed and frequently recreated.作為緊急事項的事實，這個庫經常被破壞，經常重新創建。 Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet.它的第一個驅逐艦是凱撒，並且上次antedated先知。 The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called ?people of the Book?, provided they paid tribute.早期的伊斯蘭教，不像基督徒，容忍那些人，他們叫什麼名字？人的圖書？，只要他們表示敬意。 In contrast to the Christians, who persecuted not only pagans but each other, the Mohammedans were welcomed for their broadmindedness, and it was largely this that facilitated their conquests.與此相反的基督徒，誰迫害異教徒，但不只是對方，伊斯蘭教受到歡迎他們的心胸開闊，這在很大程度上這是促使他們征服。 To come to later times, Spain was ruined by fanatical hatred of Jews and Moors; France was disastrously impoverished by the persecution of Huguenots.”來後來，西班牙毀了狂熱的仇恨猶太人和摩爾人，法國是災難性貧困的迫害胡格諾派。“ ^{11 11}

In the 500 years between the supposed event and its first reporter no Christian historian mentions it, though one of them, Eutychius, Archbishop of Alexandria in 933, described the Arab conquest of Alexandria in great detail.在500年間的第一次活動，應該沒有基督教歷史學家記者提到的，雖然其中一人，Eutychius，大主教亞歷山大 933，描述了亞歷山大的阿拉伯征服了非常詳細。

Colin Wilson, a popular science writer and researcher expressed his firm opinion that the demolition of the Alexandrian library was caused by Christian clergy.科林威爾遜，科普作家和研究員表示，他堅定地認為，拆遷的亞歷山大圖書館是由於基督教的神職人員。 He writes,他寫道：

“The Library of Alexandria ? “圖書館的亞歷山大？ which contained, among other things, Aristotle?s own collection of books ?其中主要包括其他的東西，亞里士多德？自己的藏書？ was burned down on the orders of the Archbishop of Alexandria (backed by the Emperor Theodosius).被燒毀的訂單大主教亞歷山大（支持由皇帝狄奧多西）。 Knowledge was evil; had not Adam been evicted from Paradise for wanting to know?”知識是邪惡的;已不是亞當被逐出天堂想知道嗎？“ ^{12 12}

MN Roy penetratingly analysed the issue in a wider perspective.百萬深刻分析了問題，羅伊在更廣闊的視野。 It is worth quoting some part of his views on the subject:這是值得引用的一些部分，關於這個問題的看法：

“While books written in the 11th and 12th century indignantly details the shocking tale of the burning of the library of Alexandria, the historians Eustichius and Elmacin, both Egyptian Christians, who wrote soon after the Saracen conquest of their country, are significantly silent about the savage act. “雖然書籍寫在第11和12世紀的令人震驚的故事細節憤怒在燃燒的亞歷山大圖書館，歷史學家 Eustichius和Elmacin，無論埃及基督徒，誰寫後不久，撒拉遜征服自己的國家，有顯著沉默的野蠻的行為。 The former, a patriarch of Alexandria, could be hardly suspected of partiality to the enemies of前者，一個族長的亞歷山德里亞，可很難涉嫌偏袒的敵人 Christianity基督教 . 。 An order of Caliph Umar has been usually cited as evidence of the barbarous act ascribed to his general.哈里發歐麥爾的順序通常被引用作為證據的野蠻行為歸因於他的將軍。 It would have been much easier not to record that order than to suppress any historical work composed by Christian prelates who had endless possibilities of concealing their composition.這本來是很容易不記錄該命令不是壓制任何歷史的基督教主教組成的工作有無限的可能性誰掩蓋其組成。 A diligent examination of all relevant evidence enabled Gibbon to arrive at the following opinion on the matter: 'The rigid sentence of Omar is repugnant to the sound and orthodox precept of the Mohammedan casuist; they expressly declare that the religious books of the Jews and Christians, which are acquired by the right of war, and that the works of profane scientists, historians or poets, physicians or philosophers, may be lawfully applied to the use of the faithful.'一個勤奮的所有有關證據的審查使長臂猿到達對此事的意見如下：'剛性一句奧馬爾是令人厭惡的聲音和正統伊斯蘭教戒律的詭辯，他們明確宣布，宗教書籍的猶太人和基督徒，這是正確的收購戰，而作品的褻瀆科學家，歷史學家和詩人，醫生或哲學家，可依法申請使用的忠實。' ( The Decline and Fall of Roman Empire ) （ 衰亡羅馬帝國 ） ^{13 13} Byzantine barbarism had undone the meritorious work of the Ptolemies.拜占庭式的野蠻毀壞了的卓越工作的托勒密。 The real destruction of the Alexandrian seat of learning had been the work of St. Cyril who defiled the Goddess of learning in the famous fair of Hyparia.真正的破壞了亞歷山大的座位一直是學習工作圣西里爾誰玷污了女神的學習，在著名的公平Hyparia。 That was already in the beginning of the 5th century.”這是已經開始的第五世紀。“ ^{14 14}

It is no mere chance that for most of its 2000 years of history, Christianity not only did not inspire a spirit of learning at an extensive level, but often suppressed it.這不是偶然，對於大多數的2000年的歷史，基督教不僅沒有激發出的精神，在廣泛的學習水平，但往往抑制它。 Churchmen and Crusaders were responsible for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Greek and Muslim books.牧師和十字軍的負責銷毀幾十萬希臘和穆斯林書籍。 For example, in 389 AD the celebrated library of Serapis at Alexandria was ruined on the order of Archbishop Theophilus.例如，在公元389塞拉皮斯慶祝亞歷山大圖書館被摧毀的順序大主教提阿。 The guiding principle of Pope Gregory was, “Ignorance is the mother of piety.” According to this principle, Gregory burned the precious Palestine Library founded by Emperor Augustus, destroyed the greater part of the writings of Livy and forbade the study of the classics.指導原則是，羅馬教皇格雷戈里，“無知是母親的虔誠。”根據這一原則，格雷戈里燒了寶貴的巴勒斯坦圖書館創辦的皇帝奧古斯都，摧毀了大部分的李維的著作，並禁止該研究的經典之作。 The Crusaders destroyed the splendid library of Tripoli and reduced to ashes many of the glorious centres of Saracenic art and culture.十字軍摧毀了的黎波里和燦爛的圖書館化為灰燼很多的光榮中心的Saracenic藝術和文化。 Ferdinand and Isabella put to flames all the Muslim and Jewish works they could find in Spain.費迪南德和伊莎貝拉投入火焰所有的穆斯林和猶太教的作品，他們可以找到西班牙。 Nor is it a coincidence that when science and learning did become widespread in Europe in spite of the Church, it was accompanied by a rejection or reduction of the authority of the它也不是一個巧合，當科學和學習也變得普遍，儘管在歐洲的教會，它是伴隨著一個或減少排斥反應的權威 Bible聖經 and science became completely secularised.完全成了世俗化和科學。

The story is now generally rejected as a fable and a fabrication.這個故事是現在人們普遍拒絕作為一則寓言和捏造。 Let us conclude this piece with a remark by Dr. Singhal:讓我們結束這件作品與阿密特博士的一句話：

“Seldom in history has there been a parallel for transcribing a falsehood with such persistence, conviction, and indignation, in spite of contrary evidence.” “很少在歷史上曾經有過一個並行抄錄一假這樣堅持，信念和憤慨，儘管有相反的證據。” ^{15 15}

And only God knows best.只有上帝最清楚。

Welcome to Bismika Allahuma , your premier source of counter-missionary information from an Islamic perspective!歡迎來到Bismika Allahuma，你的主要來源反傳教士的信息從伊斯蘭的角度！ If you are new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，您可能想要通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!謝謝您的來訪！

1. C. Joseph Barnabas, “Religious Freedom and Human Rights,” in CJ Nirmal (ed), Human Rights in India , Oxford University Press: N Delhi, 2000, p.三約瑟夫巴拿巴，“宗教自由和人權”，在終審法院首席法官Nirmal（教育）， 人權在印度 ，牛津大學出版社：無新德里，2000年，第 144 [ 144 [ back回 ] ]
2. BN Jog, Threat of Islam: Indian Dimension , Unnati Prakashan: Mumbai: 400081, 1994, p.國陣慢跑， 伊斯蘭威脅：印度尺寸 ，Unnati Prakashan：孟買：四〇 〇 〇八一，1994年，第 428 [ 428 [ back回 ] ]
3. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.大英百科全書，卷。 1, 1984, p.一，1984年，第 227 [ 227 [ back回 ] ]
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, ibid. , p.大英百科全書， 同上。，第 479 [ 479 [ back回 ] ]
5. Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs , Macmillan: London, 1970, p.菲利普K ·希提， 歷史的阿拉伯人 ，麥克米倫：倫敦，1970年，第 166 [ 166 [ back回 ] ]
6. Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History , Goodword Books: N. Delhi, (1950), 2001, p.伯納德劉易斯，阿拉伯人在歷史 ，Goodword書籍：全德里，（1950），2001年，第 54 [ 54 [ back回 ] ]
7. Bernard Lewis, New York Review of Books , 2 September 1990 [伯納德劉易斯， 紐約書評 ，1990年9月2日[ back回 ] ]
8. John M. Robertson, A Short History of Free Thought , Watts & Co: London, 1914, p.約翰M ·羅伯遜， 簡史思想自由 ，瓦特事務所：倫敦，1914年，第 253 [ 253 [ back回 ] ]
9. DP Singhal, India and World Vol I. Civilization, Rupa and Co: London, 1993, p. DP的阿密特，一，印度和世界文明卷，魯帕與合作：倫敦，1993年，第 136. 136。 [ [ back回 ] ]
10. DP Singhal, ibid. , p. DP的阿密特， 同上。，第 136 [ 136 [ back回 ] ]
11. Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics , Routledge: London, (1954), 1992, p.羅素， 人類社會在倫理與政治 ，勞特利奇：倫敦，（1954），1992年，第 218 [ 218 [ back回 ] ]
12. Colin Wilson, The Occult , Panther: London, 1984, p.科林威爾遜， 隱匿 ，豹：倫敦，1984年，第 278 [ 278 [ back回 ] ]
13. MN Roy, ibid. , p.百萬羅伊， 同上。，第 64 [ 64 [ back回 ] ]
14. MN Roy, ibid. , p.百萬羅伊， 同上。，第 65 [ 65 [ back回 ] ]
15. DP Singhal, ibid. , p. DP的阿密特， 同上。，第 136 [ 136 [ back回 ] ]