DimitriRascalov
No bio...
User ID: 450
DimitriRascalov
3yr ago
You mean aside from assorted Muslims that I've spoken to? No not really, but I could just as readily, ask you the same question.
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.
The downhill cavalry charge into the Ottoman flank that inspired both Tolkien and Sabaton is generally agreed by both sides to have happened on the morning of September 12th per the Georgian Calendar. Sure there are other calendars, but if the intent is to send a message you're going to use the one that is mutually intelligible.
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 ..
is remembered by many in the Islamic world as a bloody and shameful anniversary
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.
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.
Let me be precise about what my position is: of course there were lots of people in the Muslim world pre-modernity that understood the Gregorian calendar. However, the great majority of intellectuals and the general population would at most be aware of its existence, but not of how to use it or convert their own dates in the Hijri calendar that everyone of them would be using, just as I or about 99,9% of all westerners can't tell the Julian date of a particular day without consulting an expert or a web app. Because of this, the idea that the numbers or the date 9/11 hold special significance for Muslims is suspect to me. The date would have been announced as Ramadan 19 as heralds spread the news throughout the Middle East. Where would a tradition of assigning 9/11 with special importance have organically come from instead of 10/19, the actual date almost everyone would have been thinking about before the 20th century?
Sure, but people translating and writing about them might. I can't read classic Greek, yet I still have access to a great deal of Greek thinking and commentary on it. For example, the original writings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab survive and are available in English.
What exactly gave you that impression? I did directly mention things that would convince me: a statement by bin-Laden or someone else from the group responsible referencing Vienna and the context of the 9/11 date, writing by Muslim historians or scholars about the importance of the Battle of Vienna and particularly the (Gregorian) date it was on, basically anything that provides some evidence for the notion that the Gregorian date itself is really something that people paid attention to in the Islamic world other than hearsay or statements by outsiders like Hitchens or Lawrence.
I don't really have an alternative theory. My best guess would be that it was just random chance. For example, here on the Wiki it says that in a meeting in Spain in July 2001, a middleman expressed that bin-Laden wished for the operation to go ahead ASAP. This old CNN article about an Al-Jazeera documentary that talked with the same middleman before he was captured by US forces recounts the anecdote of how Atta revealed the final date of the attack to him, which has no mention at all of the significance of the date (while it does confirm that the date was in given in the Gregorian calendar). Both of these taken together imply to me that there was no or little group-wide discussion and that the date was chosen for practical reasons.
More options
Context Copy link