DimitriRascalov
No bio...
User ID: 450
Apparently, the Battle of Vienna happened on the 1st of September 1682/83 in the Julian calendar (both years are possible depending on where the locality in question puts the date border between years). Mistakenly treating this as a Gregorian date and converting it to the Islamic calendar yields either Shaban 29, 1093 (8/29) or Ramadan 10, 1094 (9/10). However, as stated above 9/11 2001 is 6/23 in the calendar that matters for the terrorists and the Islamic world that is supposedly aggrieved about this date, so neither one fits.
The other way around also doesn't work: mistaking September 11, 1683 for a Julian date converts to Shawwal 3, 1094 (10/3) or Shawwal 15, 1095 (10/15) Islamic.
Maybe I'm getting something wrong or there's another way to spin this, but I don't see it.
DimitriRascalov
3yr ago
The 11th and 12th of September are auspicious dates in political Islam as they represent the Caliphate's "high water mark" and end of the Islamic golden age. While it has largely passed from conscious memory in the West, the day that King Sobieski of Poland broke the Siege of Vienna (September 12th 1683) is remembered by many in the Islamic world as a bloody and shameful anniversary, the day that Islam lost it's way.
Do you have a source for that? Because that sounds very unlikely, given that the battles at the end of the Siege of Vienna happened on the 19th and 20th of Ramadan 1094 (9/19) and 9/11 happened on the 23rd of Jumada al-Thani 1422 (6/23) in the Islamic calendar. The correct date would have been the 5th of December 2001 (19th of Ramadan 1422) if the terrorists were after a symbolic message.
DimitriRascalov
3yr ago
Based on the above data I would posit that feminist societies result in fertility rates declining to below replacement rates, but once a country is wealthy it is far worse for the population to remain conservative than for it to be a feminist nation due to the fact that conservative rich nations do far worse on population growth than feminist nations.
Within those less conservative nations, it's the more conservative subset having more children however. In Germany, refugees, recent migrants and obscure evangelical sects have tons of children, everyone else has mostly one, with sizeable minorities having none or two. How would your model explain this? More conservatism on the national level causes lower birthrates, but at the level of broad social subgroups it causes higher ones? Doesn't make sense IMO.
Searching the web I can find literally no Muslim accounts while the only two sources supporting your interpretation are Lawrence Wright and Christopher Hitchens, who both present no direct evidence (e.g. statements by bin-Laden, Muslim scholars discussing the significance of the date etc.). In fact, your paragraph in the OP comes suspiciously close to simply remixing their claims with a bit of rhetorical flair.
That's only part of your original claim. I can buy that a westernized radical Muslim like Atta chose the 9/11 date for its historical significance in the struggle between Christendom and Islam, even if no direct evidence exists. What I take issue with and would like to see concrete proof for is the idea that 9/11 ..
How did 9/11 become a cultural touchstone for historical/geopolitical thinking east of the Bosporus when nobody outside of a tiny number of scholars concerned with calendars would even have a clue what the Gregorian date for it is, pre-1917? Further, we'd expect people who are especially concerned with the fate of Islam to be less likely to use a Western calendar than their traditional one. The main calendar for Saudi-Arabia, where the supermajority of the hijackers came from, is still the Islamic one, they switched to the Gregorian one for matters of paying civil servants only in 2016.
More options
Context Copy link