Did Umar Ibn Khattab burn the Alexandria library?

Quote

“Modern research has shown the story to be completely unfounded. 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.”6

Benard Lewis has also said that Umar Ibn Khattab didn't burn the library of Alexandria. 
Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, Goodword Books: N. Delhi, (1950), 2001, p. 54 << i have the book scan if you need it

The library was burnt way before the Muslims invaded 

Quote

Historian D.P. Singhal considers the story untenable.9 Singhal writes,
“It makes its first appearance in the solitary report of a stranger, Abul Faraj, who wrote 500 years later. 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.”10

D.P. Singhal, ibid., p. 136 

Quote

John Philoponus

I already have mentioned above that this guy died a good 50 years ( actually was about 40years) before Muslims invaded,so how can it be?

http://en.wikipedia....John_Philoponus

http://en.wikipedia....nquest_of_Egypt

Quote

book History of the Wise Men, the Muslim historian Al Qifti mentions that the burning of these books continued for almost six months,

Apparently their were approx 700,000 books burned in 4000 baths, and each bath takes lets say 200 books, it would have lasted for a couple of days and not 6 months! and thats even if their was 700,000 books 
because that is really allot of books for that period of time, and lets not forget like you said the library was burnt many 2 times before.


Lets see what historians say about this

Quote

“Modern research has shown the story to be completely unfounded. 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.”6

Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, Goodword Books: N. Delhi, (1950), 2001, p. 54 << i have the book scan if you need it

Quote

Historian D.P. Singhal considers the story untenable.9 Singhal writes,
“It makes its first appearance in the solitary report of a stranger, Abul Faraj, who wrote 500 years later. 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.”10

D.P. Singhal, ibid., p. 136 

Quote

Bertrand Russell has gone deep into the controversy and made the following statement:
“Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library in Alexandria. As a matter of fact, this library was frequently destroyed and frequently recreated. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet. The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called ?people of the Book?, provided they paid tribute. 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. To come to later times, Spain was ruined by fanatical hatred of Jews and Moors; France was disastrously impoverished by the persecution of Huguenots.”11

Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, Routledge: London, (1954), 1992, p. 218 

Quote

“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. The former, a patriarch of Alexandria, could be hardly suspected of partiality to the enemies of Christianity. An order of Caliph Umar has been usually cited as evidence of the barbarous act ascribed to his general. 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. 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.’ (The Decline and Fall of Roman Empire)13 Byzantine barbarism had undone the meritorious work of the Ptolemies. 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. That was already in the beginning of the 5th century.”14

M. N. Roy, ibid., p. 64 
M. N. Roy, ibid., p. 65 

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.


If you can prove that John Philoponus was alive during the period when the Muslims invaded then their can be hope to this theory , till i see some proof of this i will continue to believe this is a fabrication and 
another lie regarding Hz Umar 

Salaam 

Quote

Bertrand Russell has gone deep into the controversy and made the following statement:
“Every Christian has been taught the story of the Caliph destroying the Library in Alexandria. As a matter of fact, this library was frequently destroyed and frequently recreated. Its first destroyer was Julius Caesar, and its last antedated the Prophet. The early Mohammedans, unlike the Christians, tolerated those whom they called ?people of the Book?, provided they paid tribute. 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. To come to later times, Spain was ruined by fanatical hatred of Jews and Moors; France was disastrously impoverished by the persecution of Huguenots.”11

Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, Routledge: London, (1954), 1992, p. 218