Jump to content

Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Msadiqi

I feel the story of Hanno the Navigator is closer than either Alexander or Cyrus to the story of Dhul Qarnayn told in the Qur'an in Surah al-Kahf. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_the_Navigator in Wikipedia. Also qarn can mean both horn and century or era in Arabic, so some Muslim Scholars have posited that Dhul Qarnayn lived during two historic eras. This comes from Dr. Mohamad Adam El-Sheikh, member of the Fiqh Council of North America.

Msadiqi (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)M. Ali Sadiqi

General points

Zeno's replies to my points above rather strongly suggest he didn't even bother to read the version he reverted from. This is a shame, because it contains a number of important and well-referenced points that his version entirely neglects - notably, the other Dhul-Qarnayns. However, let's start by disposing of one conspicuous misunderstanding:

Ce qui resulte des opinions des philosophes, des savants illustres et des observations habiles dans la connaissance des corps celeste, c'est que la terre est ronde comme une sphere, et que les eaux sont adherentes et maintenues sur elle au moyen d'un equilibre naturel qui n'eprouve aucune variation. - p. 1, La Geographie d'Edrisi, translated into French by Pierre-Amedee Jaubert, Philo Press, Amsterdam 1975 (reprint of the 1836 edition), ISBN 9060221044.
Quick and dirty translation: "The result of the opinions of the philosophers, illustrious scholars and clever observations in the knowledge of heavenly bodies, is that the earth is round like a sphere, and that the waters are adhesive and maintained on it through a natural equilibrium which does not undergo any variation." - page 1, Edrisi's Geography, etc. Thomas Arelatensis 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a very interesting text, why not mention it (or similar texts) in Islam and flat-earth theories ? Thomas Arelatensis 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Idrisi was well aware of the earth's roundness, and Zeno's misinterpretation of his perfectly sensible map of the eastern hemisphere is frankly odd. Incidentally, so was Ibn Khaldun: "the earth has a spherical shape and is enveloped by the element of water. It may be compared to a grape floating on water." (p. 49, Rosenthal's translation as abridged by Dawood, Princeton 1967.) - Mustafaa 11:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the 3 pre-Islamic kings called "Dhul-Qarnayn", I suggest that Zeno check the references that he has been deleting from the article. - Mustafaa 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time to fix this right now, so let me just outline some important things for a to do list:

  • Clarify the Tubba' al-Aqran issue; in particular, note the poem ascribed to Hassan ibn Thabit, Muhammad's contemporary, which celebrates the Qur'anic Dhul-Qarnayn as an ancient king of Yemen (given in Nicholson's Literary History of the Arabs, p. 18).
  • Get quotes and dates and background for the Cyrus issue.
  • More detail on Pseudo-Callisthenes' different versions: which embellishments first appeared where when?
  • Shorten or eliminate the multi-section Maudoodi quote; summary and link should suffice.
  • More tafsirs.

- Mustafaa 11:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, you've done it again. Brilliant. Thank you and well done. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


I'll take care of the alternative (non alexandrian) theories. I will also write a separate page on the Cyrus theory, as I have some extensive info and pictures about it (which will become too exhaustive if I post it on this page, considering what is already there). I will upload the stuff this afternoon.
The page overall seriously needs some reorganizing. It's way too scattered in presenting its info. However, I will only contribute to the non-alexandrian us(which I think should be in one place). The rest I leave up to you guys.--Zereshk 13:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What I just did

I thought I might explain what I did, before anybody goes out and reverts. The page seriously needed (and still does need) a re-organization. Information is so scattered, it makes it hard for one to read without running into repetitive text numerous times. So:

  1. I did not delete or remove ANY sentence from the original text as of this afternoon. I only re-organized it into related sections. So there shouldnt be any need to revert what I did.
  2. I did however take out the part on Cyrus the Great, and made a separate page for it (because I will be adding text to what is already there, making it a full length page on its own). I provided a brief synopsis and link to the Cyrus article instead.

I hope this alleviates some of the mess the article is currently in.--Zereshk 21:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing

I've had enough of the Muslim fundamentalist POV pushers and the "usefull idiots" who support them. I will not be editing Wikipedia articles any more. I sincerely appologize to those who appreciated my efforts. But I have become disheartened with the potential of Wikipedia in matters such as this. I have come to the conclusion that my efforts are better spent on a medium where Muslim fundamentalists (and their foolish non-Muslim allies) cannot freely edit and delete everything that I write. Therefore I will no longer be editing WIkipedia. Again, I applogize to my friends on Wikipedia, but I have lost hope in this medium. Wikipedia is great source of information about objective subjects such and mathematics, but when it comes to subjects such as Islam it is clear that the current model simply does not work. I look forward to a day when Wikipedia becomes a more organized medium. -- Zeno of Elea 09:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is wrong, cept Zeno of Elea .. everyone is a bigoted "fundamentalist", cept Zeno of Elea.. how pathetic. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be a shame for Wikipedia if Zeno left. Babajobu 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You think it's a shame that someone who calls Mustafaa a "Muslim fundamentalist" and "Nazi" is leaving? I disagree --Irishpunktom\talk 19:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
If Zeno really did call Mustafaa a Nazi and a Muslim fundamentalist (and I have a hard time believing that he did), then obviously I strongly disagree with him on that. But Zeno knows a great deal, is a very good writer, and Wikipedia really does have a surplus of "my religion is beautiful" pushers of every background. And I think Wikipedia will be worse off without Zeno. Babajobu 19:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
He called everyone an apologist of fundamentalist Islam. He didn't call anybody a Nazi. When I made major ADDITIONS (not DELETIONS, as is the case here) to Criticism of Islam, I was jumped on by these same apologists for fundamentalist Islam who claimed that I had "gone on a frenzy again" and they proceeded by reverting all my edits and telling me to edit slow and little by little. I ask that Zora, Farhansher, Mustafaa, FayssalF, and Irishpunktom explain why they are replacing this article with Zora's "proposed major revision" -- Zeno of Elea 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC). The problem with Zeno is that he focuses on that point and still saying it even after Mustafaa brought more academic content. The verision of Zeno is simply (Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander ----> Islam believe the earth is flat). Any other content that would suggest the opposite is not accepted by him. Why? Only God knows! After all, all theories must be mentioned. If he really is a good editor than obviously he must agree about that other theories exist and are all referenced. (i.e. The infamous Al-Idrissi map in 1154, Al-Idrissi map. Any POV in that? -- Svest 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Yes he did call everybody a Nazi. simply dont have the time to deal with these Muslim fundamentalist Nazis and their idioticly allied non-Muslim editors (e.g. Zora, SlimVirgin). I hsve better things to do with my time. Let them push their POV on Wikipedia. There is no way to stop this hoard of POV pushers on Islam related articles. It is clear in this case that the NPOV party is vastly outnumbered. So what sense does it make to try to fight all these ramandan crazed narcasistic fundamentalists who cannot accept a single blemish of their horrid religion? I've had it with this, you can call these women "wives of muhammad" all you want, the intelligent man will quickly realize that they were enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath. You POV pushing degenerated want to call them wives. Go right ahead. I give up in the face of your relentless POV pushing. Congradulations. -- Zeno of Elea 09:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[1]. Do you call that a sane person with no POV or prejudice against wikipedians?! -- Svest 22:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
It would be a shame for Wikipedia if Zeno left.
Trust me....he wont . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope you're right, Farhanshar. Babajobu 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I wish....I had th luxuary of hoping the same. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
In the last couple days he's made no edits other than to say he's leaving. Prior to that he was making many edits every day. So clearly all the POV wars have put him off Wikipedia. Hopefully he'll change his mind. Babajobu 22:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
About Zeno's changes, and NPOV, just look at his user page. He calls certain people Islamofacist I believe, amongst other things. Hopquick 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess. References don't match the article main text ! Articles Alexander in the Qur'an and Cyrus the Great in the Quran should be re-merged into this article. At any rate the titles of both articles suggest that they are definitely mentioned in the Quran, which is precisely the point being debated ! This page must definitely mention the resemblance between the Alexander Romance and the Quranic story of Dhul Qarnayn, and must do so much more prominently than currently does. In particular, the closeness between both accounts must be demonstrated by examples, quotations, and references.

As for the quotes from the Quran, I agree that the Quranic account should be expounded first, but I also agree that putting a big table of quotes up front makes the article indigest. The proper way to do this, IMHO, would be to put a summary of the description of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran at the beginning of the article, then put the exact quotes at the end of the article. This would greatly improve the readability. My English is not nearly good enough for doing this, could someone help ? By the way, the rather stern section on "context" which follows the Quranic quotes should be moved with them, obviously.

Also, I strongly suggest deleting large sections of this Discussion page. Thomas Arelatensis 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with merging the articles. Should we merge all articles that talk about figures mentioned in the Quran? I think not. Nothing is being taken away from this debate by having a separate article for Cyrus.--Zereshk 23:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
But it isn't at all clear that Cyrus is mentioned in the Qur'an. That's a minority position. We certainly shouldn't have an article that starts out with a POV title. Zora 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The very fact that it is a minority position merits a page of its own even more (so that the entire page here can be left for the Alexander theory). Being a minoity in position doesnt devalue a theory. Being correct is what counts. It was the Persians who were the major proponents of the Alexander theory anyway (to fit their Aristotelian ideologies). That's why we have so many "Iskandar Namehs" in Persian literature. By God even Attar devotes entire chapters to Iskandar searching for the water of life. "Iskandar" is evrywhere in Persian literature. Please use material from the Cyrus page if you like, but leave that page alone.--Zereshk 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. The newly titled pages (with the "theory" bit) seem good. May I also suggest that the orthography of Quran/Qur'an should be the same on both ? Also, the separation of the Alexander in the Qur'an page from this page led to inconsistent references in both ! Zora, would it be possible to have a look at it (as well as the minor modification I made on the Alexander in the Qur'an page) ? Thomas Arelatensis 18:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The main conflict related to this article was simply that Alexander=DQ, Cyrus=DQ, etc..., while it is one of the theories. The article before and still somehow now presents all theories as facts! IMHO, all related articles should be titles X (theory). -- Cheers -- Svest 19:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

agreed.--Zereshk 20:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What about this guy

Speaking of two horns, what about this guy:

Moses with horns, by Michaelangelo

--Irishpunktom\talk 19:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Michelangelo's rendering of Moses with two horns resulted from a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "qeren", which can mean both "horn" and "ray of light". Don't think it's relevant to this article. Babajobu 09:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to the WP:RFC

I would like to express my opinion that "certain" users seem to be in violation of Wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.
This means that before editing an article, one must find a reliable and neutral source which says something which supports his/her edits.
Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
This means that only what can be found in reliable publications can be used in articles, not what you can prove on your own.

As I cannot comment on much now, I will have to read the whole talk page and examine the edits on the article. For the moment, I suggest that sources are the best defence and where reliable sources exist, there can be no POV-pushing, so instead of edit-warring go and find sources. If you cannot find sources, then you will have to compromise with everyone else and if they are firmly against it, then you will have to drop your proposal. Izehar 14:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Who are ...

The "contemporary" Muslim scholars who are divided on the issue of DQ's identification, and why shouldn't they be mentioned by name if their disagreement is important enough to place in opening para? BrandonYusufToropov 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly no. I mean, the opening paragraph is only a presentation, and the other paragraphs names the scholars (for example the Cyrus theory proponents; and for the other side, Ali Yusef is one and I have read other names in my books, but my memory isn't very good; if you want, I can give you the names tomorrow, when I'm less occupied) Aldux 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see [2] -- Zeno of Elea 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

On moving

I've restored in full the section on the Alexander theory, since it was separated from the main article without even trying to find a consensus. It must be understood that the parts must find a consensus for so radical changes, or else they will end inevitably being reverted. I invite all to search a common ground for the article. Aldux 18:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to include large parts of theories in a bulk? It was removed the same way it was introduced. The question Aldux is that DQ=Alexander is just a theory among many! You've got Cyrus the Great in the Quran (theory) and we've got to do the same and treat everything as a theory as nothing is sure!!! -- Cheers -- Svest 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
I don't exactly understand what you mean. If you're asking me why I restored the Alexander theory but I haven't merged the Cyrus one, the reason is that it was Zereshk, the main author on the subject, who decided to build a separate article, while the decision to summarize and throw the information in Alexander in the Qur'an was made by Irishpunktom, a virulent critic of the Alexander theory, at least in the way it is presented here. If you object that Alexander=Dhul-Qarnayn is not presented as a theory, I have to dissent: the heading reads "Theories on the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn", and many theories are presented. And if you mean that all theories should be given the same validity and sace, here also I have to object: the majoritarian theory should have more space, and in particular when some of the theories appear to be quite new (i.e. Cyrus theory). I invite all those who want to better the article (and it sure needs bettering) to concentrate on searching new material to add (and don't forget to cite the sources!). Ciao! ;-) Aldux 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree about many of the things you said. I am not supporting any theory. Indeed, and in principle, I am not against the inclusions here- as long as Theories is mentionned explicitly. However, the redirect and the move are false Aldux:
  • Alexander in the Qur'an should not be redirected to Dhul-Qarnayn. You answered it yourself; the heading reads "Theories on the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn", and many theories are presented. If the article about Dhul-Qarnayn includes other theories than why redirect it?
Therefore, if the redirect and the move are not correct than there's no need to include large and bulk info here as there would be an article for that in detail. All articles work this way Aldux. Details are kept for generic ones. I hope my explanation is clear. Cheers -- Svest 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Regarding why I moved Alexander in the Qur'an (theory) to Alexander in the Qur'an, the reason I did so was not that I thought it was wrong it should have such a name (personally, I believe the former name is better than the latter), but I objected to the way the move had been done, without asking anybody anything or even leaving a note, while in such a contentious argument a votation would have been needed; and I was influenced also, I admit, by the fact that Irishpunktom, who made the first move (from Alexander in the Qur'an to Alexander in the Qur'an (theory)), was a very strong critic of the article, and not a neutral party in the matter. For the same reasons I restored the part on the Alexander theory in the main article. the So I believe to have been consistent and (I hope) neutral in my actions. Have care, and ciao! :-) Aldux 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (Postscriptum: wrote this message before I knew of Irishpunktom's one)

And So I moved it back to how it was. Firstly, it's a theory, not a fact, and should be stated as such in title. Secondly, dumping a large amount of information regarding one theory and not another breaches the idea of NPOV. Thirdly, both theories are large enough in volume and scope to warrant their own articles, if we get more information regarding the other theories then they too may warrant a seperate article, but right now, they do not. The content of the theory you support is not being censored, it is being flagged prominently on this page and people can read it by clicking on it. Dumping it's contents here makes this article untidy, breaches NPOV and seems to be done to make a Point. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Irishpunktom, but I have to remember it was you who a month ago decided without searching a consensus (or even leaving a note) to split the article. I have only restored the original situation before the split. I am not saying that the article must not be absolutely splitted: I'm simply saying that their must be conensus (sorry if I'm always repeating this word ;-)). For these reasons I will have to revert your actions. As to having a point, you only have to look at my contributions to see that I'm not a Christian apologist. Have care Aldux 12:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't care wheter you hate Christians or not, that is irrelevent. The article was split three ways owing to the Volume of the content. Why are you choosing to re-add the Alexander portion and not the Cyrus portion? Thats a breach of the ideas behind NOPV. What consensus have you to change something which has lasted in one particular way for, according to you, a month? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Why can't people simply read the talk page? A few lines higher I wrote to Fayssal "If you're asking me why I restored the Alexander theory but I haven't merged the Cyrus one, the reason is that it was Zereshk, the main author on the subject, who decided to build a separate article, while the decision to summarize and throw the information in Alexander in the Qur'an was made by Irishpunktom, a virulent critic of the Alexander theory". And this is the point: your clearly partisan on the matter, so I can't trust your judgement on the opportunity of splitting the article. Aldux 12:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, firstly, just because I did not create the article in no invalidates me from improving it. Secondly, you neither added tha article nor split it, thus using your logic, you had no right to change either. Thirdly, every time a page is edited text appears that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it.". Accusations of Bad Faith are to be expected but unwarranted, as I had said previously, the article on the Alexander theory is not Censored and is featured prominently. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The point is you speak as if you were the sole and full emanation of Wikipedia, and with a tone of considerable agressivness. As every wikipedian, I have a right to revert your decisions, especially considering that I only want to be sure there is a consensus for the split, while you want to to impose it. Aldux 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Aldux, I don't believe there should have been any consensus over this issue. There's been no edit warring related to the nature of edits and of course there's no censorship. The problem is simple; whether to split the article into generic ones or not. As far as I am concerned, in Wikipedia, any article that can be developped should merit its own article. Extraterrestrial life is separated from Extraterrestrial life in popular culture, from Greys, from Ancient astronaut theory, from Paleocontact theory. All can be included in the main one but that would be a mad thing. This is what's happening here. Alexander and Cyrus are both candidates to be DQ and both theories should be developed apart if there's room for that - which is the case here.
On the other hand, everybody agree about that Alex or Cyrus being DQ are theories. We cannot consider them as facts. Therefore, moving the article from a theory into a fact is not correct. --Cheers Svest 21:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Since FayssalF, Yuber, and Irishpunktom are all against the restore, while nobody seems to sustain it, I will not insist, even if I must admit I would have preferred a votation. Aldux 12:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The story of Dhul Qarnayn is adapted from Alexandrian legend

I have managed to find one of the books cited as a reference: "Alexander's gate, Gog, Magog and the Inclosed Nations", by A. R. Anderson, The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932. I found it in the library of the University of Birmingham (UK), so it shouldn't be too hard to find in the US.

The evidence is just overwhelming. Apparently the main elements of the story (Alexander's gate to exclude barbarians from the North identified with the Scythians; Gog and Magog identified with said Scythians) are already to be found in Flavius Josephus; by that time, Alexander "was already well established as a national hero in Jewish tradition" (chap II, p 19). Several pre-existing accounts describe exactly the same story as the one which appears in the Quran, complete with the great sea which surrounds all creation, the utterly uneducated natives complaining about northern barbarians called (among others) Gog and Magog, the building of the wall between two mountains, etc. The gradual transformation of Alexander from a heroic pagan ruler building a wall to isolate northern barbarians, into a believer king fencing off their religious equivalent Gog and Magog, is accounted for in detail.

I do not see any rational way to counter such an amount of evidence. I think the term "theory" should be removed: Dhul Qarnayn does originate in the Alexander Romance.

From the context I understand that Muhammad told the story of Alexander-Dhul Qarnayn to the Jewish scholars exactly as they knew it, as a way to show them his knowledge of ancient traditions.

Also I have tried to clean up references, removing some that were not used in the article. --Thomas Arelatensis 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody argues about the scholars' writings. The point is Wikipedia doesn't endorse any view. A good example is Atlantis. Most of the writings suggest that it is somewhere nearby the gates of Gibraltar. However, there are other writings which suggest different things. Therefore, wikipedia has to cover them all and never to try to conclude. Back to the example of Atantis, lately, it has been agreed that Location hypotheses of Atlantis to be created apart. At least, that makes sense. Cheers -- Svest 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Certainly; however in this case we are asking whether or not a certain story is to be found in early documents. This can be determined quite objectively, unless all these documents are to be regarded as fakes, which I think nobody suggests. In that regard, the (copious) excerpts provided by Anderson are rather unambiguous. I should point out that Anderson's book does not aim to prove a point about the Quran - it's just a scholarly work about the legend of Alexander's gates, Gog and Magog as it evolved throughout the ages, from the Christian era to the Middle Ages (the "Koran" is briefly mentioned as one example of this evolution, with a stress on its similarity with earlier, amply quoted Syrian accounts: they are essentially identical to the Quranic version). Anyway, I have tried to rewrite the corresponding section of the article. I do not intend to modify the rest.--Thomas Arelatensis 00:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Good edits. I simply removed an apparent POV statement that may suggest that modern muslim scholars refute the idea just because they don<'t want to see a Quranic story related to a folk hero.  Wiki me up&#153;
What early documents? And can you ascertain with any degree of certainty that these "early records" were from a Pre-Islamic era? Altough dated as earlier, do you have anything which is actually earlier? I mean, just because it claims to be from an Era, that does not mean it is. Case and point = Most of the Old Testament, and the Gospel of Barnabus. There are records of Al-Andalusian (Thanks to Said Al Andalus, one of the greatest Historians, or rather Documenters, of the Era) writers changing records statements, including on Alexander to suit the Qur'anic revealations, in other words changing the record on Alexader to suit the Quran. I don't really think this practice was isolated to Spain either. The problem with A. R. Andersons' work, and not just "...The Inclosed Nations", but all the work they appear to have on Alexander is that they take the "Christian legend" as Gospel, believeing it to be written when it claims to have been. This is dodgy in light of our Al Andalusian friends information above there. In fairness, Anderson is not alone there, taking the "Christian Legend" as fact means that the author must have been a Prophet, as they prophesize incidents which take place during the life and reign of Muhammad. A More Critical view could only lead to the conclusion that this was compiled during and after the life of Muhammad in a Muslim dominated area in a time when the legends of Alexander was being embellished to suit the description laid down by the Qur'an. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me - do you really believe that modern scholars take the documents they work on "as gospel" (especially when said documents contain utterly fantastic stories)? Do you really believe that they are not familiar with the fact that documents may not be what they claim to be, and may not have been written when they claim they have been, or with the concept of interpolations ? We are talking about a well-established field of research, the same which allows us (for example) to determine that the canonical gospels were written quite some time after the death of their traditional "authors", or that pro-christian passages in Josephus were utter interpolations.
With apparently no evidence, you are asserting that many respected scholars were severely mistaken about the provenance of a wealth of different documents (including such "obscure" documents as Josephus' Wars of the Jews !). Your assertion that these documents describes "incidents which take place during the life and reign of Muhammad" is quite surprising and leads me to believe that we are simply not talking about the same texts. Your last sentence, in particular, strikes me as definitely POV. I would be interested in reading the opinion of others.
In any case, I think the article as it stands is pretty good. I may make small changes and additions in the "Alexander" section, but otherwise I'm OK with the rest. I removed the NPOV warning and I might remove the "cleaning" tag if no one objects. --147.188.192.41 18:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
We mightn't be speaking of the same Documents, and thats why I asked you to name them. What Texts are you basing the claim above on? The problem here is that Anderson uses Nöldeke and Nöldekes' sources, which have been discredited. But, do tell what texts you are using as primary sources? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to find the Alexander Romance mentioned in this article but not the Christian Legend of Jacob of Serug. I think it needs to at least be mentioned, since it's important in the literature. Also, I had to chuckle at this line: "some Muslim scholars have asserted that the medieval scholars were mistaken and that Dhul-Qarnayn cannot be Alexander, because Alexander the Great was not a monotheist." But I guess we have to include all perspectives. *shrug* 174.34.210.116 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI the Jacob of Serug story in great detail in Alexander the Great in the Qur'an -- 173.34.24.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

Mismarked

The statement "Some adaptations containing all the elements of the Quranic account can be found in pre-existing Hellenistic documents; in fact the main elements of the story (a gate constructed by Alexander which isolates northern Barbarians identified as Scythians; identification of said Scythians with Gog and Magog) can already be found in Josephus" is backed up with Source "The Wars of the Jews, VII, vii, Flavius Josephus." Th sources used do not back the source, and right now I'm having trouble locating any mention of Gog and or Magog.. Is this an explicit link or are we led to assume that Scythians are Gog and Magog ?--Irishpunktom\talk 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. This is tenuous at best. And besides, the Qur'an refers to a wall of iron between cliffs and mountains wheras Josephus' tenuous link with alexander refers to a Alexanders gate opened which let in the "Alans", not magog, and apparently no gog either - "they came in great multitudes, and fell upon the Medes unexpectedly, and plundered their country, which they found full of people". This is markedly in contrast with the Quran. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
IPT, what is argued here is that "the main elements of the story" were already in place at the time of Josephus: First, a gate built by Alexander the Great to isolate Scythians from the North (Wars of the Jews, VII, vii, 4) and second, identification of Scythians with Magog (Antiquities of the Jews, I, vi, 1). I made the references more precise on this.
As Anderson points out, this does not mean that the integrated story as found in the Syriac texts, the Quran and the later version of the Alexandrian Romance was already extant at this time. Rather, it illustrates the ancient roots of the story. The story itself appears in later hellenistic sources, e.g the 5th century Armenian version of Pseudo-Callisthenes. Also see Saint Jerome's Letter 77, where it is mentioned that Alexander built Gates "between the Tanais and the Maeotis" to "keep wild people behind the Caucasus", while elsewhere (commentary on Ezekiel) Jerome identifies Gog and Magog as "Scythian nations, fierce and innumerable, who live beyond the Caucasus and the Lake Maeotis, and near the Caspian Sea, and spread out even onward to India". The association between Gog and Magog, and all kinds of barbaric,invaders from beyond the Black Sea (Huns, Scythians, Khazars) is well documented.
Additionally, everybody agrees that some of the (later) recensions of the Alexandrian Romance, such as the Ethiopian version, were influenced by the Quran and the Quranic commentaries (apparently Alexander is even called Dhul Qarnayn in the Ethiopian version !). Also the dating of the extant syriac texts is controversial. But to deny the link between the Quranic account and earlier Alexandrian stories is an extremely difficult position. While there are large differences of opinions in specific points such as the dating of the syriac texts, I'm not aware that any western scholar has ever denied that the Quranic account of Dhul-Qarnayn already appears in earlier Alexandrian stories.
Please, if anyone here has access to the Armenian version (e.g. in the edition of A. M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes), which is consensually regarded as an authentic 5th century document, could you please confirm the presence of the story in it (apparently in a letter from Alexander to Olympias) ? Also could someone access "The Syriac Legend Concerning Alexander The Great", by K. Czeglédy, in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1957, Volume 7, p. 246, which apparently argues for a late dating of all syriac texts ?--Thomas Arelatensis 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Addition I have brought back some content from Alexander in the Qur'an. This content provides contextual information about Ibn Kathir's commentary - most of which is traced back by Ibn Kathir himself, please follow the external link in the relevant section. After several reverts from Irishpunktom, I am trying a more condensed version, containing more original material from Ibn Kathir so as to remove possibilities for biased interpretations. --Thomas Arelatensis 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at, IPT. Are you claiming the Quranic version of the Iron Gates story is the earliest one? According to my copy of the Greek Alexander Romance, the Alexander's Gates story appeared in a version from around the 6th century, and it does indeed have Gog and Magog. Might we just say that the authors of the Romance mis-applied a potentially true story to the hero of their work?--Cuchullain 19:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IPT, why do you keep reverting Thomas' edits? It's mostly direct quotation, it seems hardly NPOV.--Cuchullain 03:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Same question. The rv simply consists in removing large chunks of the commentary, which describe how (according to the ancient scholars) the corresponding Surah was revealed. The rationale escapes me. --Thomas Arelatensis 12:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the reverter's wrath has found a new target. Now references to Josephus' works have been removed because, apparently, closing a mountainous passage with an "iron gate" cannot be related to closing a mountainous passage with an "iron wall". Am I alone in thinking that this is getting a bit out of hand ? (Thomas Arelatensis)
No, you're not. Probably the best thing to do is simply restore the piece. Aldux 16:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Hisham cited in support of conflicting theories?

At the top, he's said to identify Alexander and Dhul-Qarnayn. In a later section, he's said to support theories of an Arabian Dhul-Qarnayn. One of those statements has to be wrong. I'll see if I can find the comment in my copy of the Sirat Rasulallah. Zora 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Lot of discord here

... and I may be fast-forwarding over some of it to pose this question, for which apologies.

Where we have:

Although very little is written about Dhul-Qarnayn in the original sources of Islam...

... we then go on to mention the Qur'an as not belonging to this category of "original sources."

To what "original sources" are we referring, and who regards them as such? BYT 13:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement on the page mentioning Alexander the Great equal Dhul Qarnayn is complete wrong as Alexandra is not a muslim and during his ruling era he has commited so many sins he didnt do a peaceful rule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.111.100 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

Come on, everyone, let's stop this. IPT, could you explain why you want that text removed?--Cuchullain 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some quick explanations

I've changed the toc . Why is he in Quran is more important than who is he .
Both Alex & Cyrus theories are equaly important . If there are evidences proving Alex=DQ theory , so are Alex=cyrus theory . If this needs to be explained in detail , than that needs to be explained too . Both people conquered West & East . I think these details are better suited in its own article rather than here . Btw I had a look at idrisi's map . The Gog magog region seems to be somewhere around the eastern parts of kazakistan!!!
F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
First, I appreciate that at least you take the time to discuss your changes on the talk page. However I'm having a hard time making sense of them !
1: The changes you made had nothing to do with the theories about the source of the character of Dhul-Qarnayn! Basically you went back to IPT's version, that is, you just deleted a large chunk of verbatim Ibn Kathir quotation ! Please consult the diff if uou don't believe me.
Actually all that big ibn kathir quote is not relevent here . The heading says reference to context on Dhul qarnain , its not about the history or mechanism or day to day diary of revelation . It should only explain why DQ exists in Quran . Whatever was going on in any part of the world or in the life of Muhammad at that time has got nothing to do with DQ . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
2: "Yajooj" and "Majooj" (respectively, from left to right) appear in the extreme bottom-left side of the map, pretty much "at the end of the world", and are enclosed by (black) mountains (with one narrow passage out). This fits the story quite well, no ? I'm afraid I'm missing your point, or maybe we're not talking about the same map ?
Well it has nothing to do with the current discussion , but let me explain
Actually the map is in south up position ( Arabs liked it that way ) . If you rotate it to north up position , the land mass in the middle of it is Arabian peninsula , north east of it you can find the word "faras"(persia) , north east to it is the word "khorasan"(that included khurasan province of Iran & western parts of Afghanistan) . North east to it are black mountains that separate Iran from Central asia . Immediately north east to them is Khorazam (modern Xorazm Province of Uzbekistan ) . Immediately east to you can find 2 rivers . If you see modern maps there are only 2 rivers around Khawarzm , Amu Derya river & Syr darya river (named shar in map) . After Syr darya , the map shows mountains , again consultations from modern maps show there are karatau mountains in the region . This safely leads us into Kazakistan without any need of guessing . After ward , we see four lakes from from these mountains to yajuj majuj mountains . In modern maps , you can easily see Aral , Balkhash , Alakol , & Zaysan (zakash or zaish can be seen written in map ) lakes in that region . Afterwhich come Atlai mountains . The idrisi map show Yajuj Majuj territory beyond these mountains . We are safely into Mangolia . No wonder , everybody made walls to save them selves from them . May be Chinese , Alex , Cyrus , DQ , every body made walls in different regions to save from the same people . There are still remanents of walls in that region prior to Great China Wall .
Anothr thing I was able to see was three rivers connected to each other beyond these mountains. The othe end of one connected to Caspian , second to mountains in north of Caspian (Ural) , third one going into Yajuj Majuj territory . These three rivers still exist today . The third river is the first river north east to Atlai mountains , Dzavhan , that goes right into Mongolia through Tanna ola mountains , that lie at an angle to Atlai mountains . The map also give hints about Tian Shan mountains of East china & Kunlun Shan of central china . Two rivers (Yangtze & yellow) can be seen coming out of them , & Tibet (written as difficult to read bet) can be seen F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
3: The only difference with your new TOC order is that now the "commentary/context" on the Surah comes before the Surah itself ! No relation whatsoever with the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn ! Again, I don't get the point.
As I said before , its being on the top is to explain not the identity , but the reason of him being discussed in Quran .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
Unless someone has a good reason against it, I will revert back to the more complete (and apparently more consensual) version, although keeping your last change in (removal of unnecessary sentence) and refining the map's description, until we resolve these issues.--Thomas Arelatensis 20:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Also can anybody give sources to Avicenia , Avoros & secular scholars . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
I found a larger version of Al Idrisi's map [[3]]. I think you read a bit more than there is in it (e.g. what you call "Shar" is actually "Shas" or "Sham"), but overall that's pretty much where Mongolia should be (North of China, South-east of Siberia, and above all east-north-east of the Caspian Sea).
I still don't buy your ordering of sections. Putting comments / context on a text before the text itself is just not right. We should mention the original first, then the (later) references to it. That's just common usage.
Furthermore what makes you say that why the Surah was revealed is important, but how it was revealed is not ? Certainly some people doing research about Dhul-Qarnayn might be interested in knowing the particulars of how the Surah "came down" - just because you aren't doesn't mean that we should remove this information ! From an encyclopaedic viewpoint, the "historic" context that you removed is just as important as "theological" context that you kept. Apparently you and IPT both fail to consider this.
I'll take care of this in due course unless someone objects.--Thomas Arelatensis 21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cooling off

For the record, no one has addressed my query (above) about original sources, so I'm going to assume no one is invested in that language.

As a cooling-off measure, I want to suggest that we discuss here the possibility that both of the following things could be true at the same time:

  • Early commentators identified DK as Alexander.
  • The Qur'an is ambiguous in many passages, and early commentators are not the final, or even the most meaningful, tool for determining the question of whether the Qur'an references Alexander. BYT 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
While those are wise words, you might want to check the actual sections being reverted in and out ? The possible identities of Dhul-Qarnayn are not the matter of contention here. All versions contain more or less the same contents about this point. Please feel free to check the diffs by yourself.
As for having more sources, I'm all for it.--Thomas Arelatensis 20:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Article names

It has been proposed that Alexander in the Qur'an (Theory) be moved back to Alexander in the Qur'an, and the same for Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an (theory). As an alternative suggestion, how about moving them to Dhul-Qarnayn (Alexander theory) and Dhul-Qarnayn (Cyrus theory), respectively? Rd232 talk 21:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I would prefer the first move suggested. Aldux 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this guy? Darkjedi10 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in Qurancyrus & alexender are mentioned , so , there is no point for this . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 19:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This again

Aldux, could you give a specific quote or page numbers for the Anderson reference?--Cúchullain t / c 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As can be read in the first chapter of the first section of Anderson's "Alexander's gate, etc." (p.3 in the 1932 edition) : "In the course of time the Jews, in recognition of their indebtedness for the great benefits accruing to them through the influence of his (Alexander's) work, came to conceive of him as one of their own heroes, a champion and propagandist of the Most High"
Apparently Aldux has added a new reference to another book, which may be more widely available (I don't know), so I won't rv. Anderson's book is not so important here as it is in Alexander in the Qur'an. Feel free to rv if you feel Anderson is a better reference.
However I am appalled at the lack of basic integrity exhibited by certain contributors here. If one wants to cast doubt on a dominant theory, suppressing well-known facts (Alexander not a hero of Jewish folklore ? Just try googling 'alexander talmud' !) for no apparent reason besides incapacity to read the source properly is probably not the way to go.--Thomas Arelatensis 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Thomas. I changed the footnote because Irishpunktom kept saying that the reference was a pseudo-reference, and since I've never read Anderson, I couldn't say for sure he was wrong, so I searched in another book the same statement. Since you've clearly cited the page and the text, I wouldn't find anything wrong if anybody removed Stoneman and restored Anderson. Bye :-) Aldux 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from tag

Please refer to Talk:Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an#Replaced OR and verified tags with mergeto--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Akhenaten as Dhul Qarnayn?

Perhaps this section requires a delete? Or at least some references, as I could not find any googling. Faro0485 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Spurious Citations

A large number of citations from Alexander in the Qur'an seem to have been copied into this article. This is due to the fact that a large amount of content from Dhul Qarnayn was moved to Alexander in the Qur'an. Those sources are no longer cited in this article since the corresponding content was moved to Alexander in the Qur'an. I have removed all publication listed in this article that are not cited anywhere in the article. Citing sources without using them is a clear form of academic dishonesty. -- Semaphoris (talk)

I think it's rather an artifact of the piecemeal way this article was forked off into other articles. The whole thing needs a serious rewrite, and the forked articles can probably just be merged back here once the chaff is removed.--Cúchullain t/c 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Theory

It's a holy book. It's just made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.90.26 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Allegory

"Dhul-Qarnayn" may be; - Andromeda Galaxy

while reading, keep attention on black holes and nucleus(es) of Andromeda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.247.202 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)



Cyrus part

I add some informations in the part of Cyrus. I add some of references. but it needs more work on it to become complete. I don't have time now. Later i will come back and will make it more adequate and complete. If anyone have more info help me to complete this part.P. Pajouhesh (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add anything that you can't source with sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources. but i have to translated them from Persian, Arabic, French, and so on... please, wait till i add it soon. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
How could Dhu-Qurnain get his name from Cyrus? Can you show a literary traditition linking Cyrus to the Koran? That link CAN be shown for Alexander, via the Alexander Romance, but it can NOT be shown for Cyrus. The material about horns on statues of Cyrus is irrelevant, by the way - horns were symbols of power in the Ancient Near East since the 3rd millennium, and all kings and gods had them. I'll take this material out till you can get some decent sources. PiCo (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dhal-Qarnayn means Norse-hern and Surt-hern (Northern and Southern Poles) two horns(corners)

In my opinion it is about a change in the earths magnetic poles. But I am not an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.237.226 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some was copyvio from [4]. Sources such as yahoo.com don't meet our criteria at WP:RS. Any sources arguing the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn must specifically mention him, see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

for starting I answer to his reasons here:

  • edit 01: I don't think these sources qualify as mainstream scholarship.
It is not about what we think. It's about what the scholars believe about this article. When there are different claims of the origin, it's not good behavior deleting every claim but one. From beginning of Islam there are claims of the origin. Besides, we are not in a place to deny Shaykh Tabresi, Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei, Naser Makarem Shirazi, Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammad Ebrahim Bastani Pariziand other grand scholars of Islam and grand Historians.
  • edit 02: Differences without a difference. And the Hebrew bit is silly.
Firstly, 'having, possessing, endowed with" are different in meaning and the part had written by the writer to show possibles of the meaning. Secondly, as it's come in Tafsir ibn Kathir - That is in the article too - the prophet said ask about Dhul-Qarnayn fromRabbis. so why would be silly if Its come from Hebrew? Besides, Lots of scholars throughout centuries accept it's possibility. Neither me, nor you aren't in a place to deny it and say It's silly. Arabic language and also The Quran is full of words derived from Hebrew. So, at list, it's not silly. maybe we just don't know about that. so it's better just scape from something we didn't have knowledge about that.
  • edit 03: The Book of Daniel is irrelevant - we're talking about the Koran
Wrong. Is it accepted if we talk about Goliath just talk about Jewish origins and not about its Islamic infos? there are lots of part in the Torah's The Book of Daniel that talk about "Ba'al Haqqərānayim" that supporter of the Cyrus the Great claims about the possible origin. If it is irrelevant about Torah, so we have to delete all the parts of Jewish traditions that also involve in Islamic's Quran from Wikipedia.
  • edit 04: Nah - it doesn't mean "two ages", since that makes no sense in any context
Wrong. Arabic: قرن means "horn, century, coupling, pairing, connexion, connection"[5] I think the witer means "two centuries" than "two ages".
  • edit 05: Possible identity: None of this material is well sourced, much of it is OR and synthesis.
I didn't write the Alexandre part of this article, but the other part is mine. I wondered of what he said about sources. all are with good sources. one of them is from yahoo answer that is not important because it's a translation of Torah. I can remove it. but there's not anything else.

--the material above is by Pajouhesh (talk) dated 4:32 pm, Today (UTC+1) Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new section called Bibliography. There are two entries in it (two books), in citebook format. This is a useful format when used in combination with the References section. You use it like this: in the article itself, when you want to make a reference to a source, you put just the author's name plus the page number - like <>Smith, p.1</> (with ref and /ref between the brackets of course - I can't put that here because it would just create a footnote number).
The reason this is so useful is that it means you won't have large amounts of reference material cluttering up the article. Anyone wanting to check a reference clicks on the footnote number and is taken to the References section, where they learn what book to look for in the Bibliography section. There are other systems available, but I like this one and I hope you will too.
When using sources, try to avoid rare books and books with Arabic titles - look for English-language encyclopedias and general reference works if you can find them. Readers will be more likely to trust them. The second of the two books I added is a good place to start - it's recent (2006), scholarly, and thorough.
Do you know how to use google books? Here you'll find] a whole list of books that mention our subject. Not all are useful, but many will be.
Regarding the translation of his name: Arabic, like English, and like most or all languages, has many words that have more than one meaning. The fact that the word "bow" in English, for example, can mean an object used to fire an arrow, and a bend in a river, and also an action made by bending the the waist, shouldn't lead us to think that the last two meanings are relevant when defining the word "longbow". Similarly with qarnain - the meaning "ages, centuries" is irrelevant, as it clearly refers to horns in this context. Be guided by the meaning in context, not by the dictionary. PiCo (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you PiCo for your helps. I'm agree with you in use of that method. also, thanks for references. I will look at them on weekend (Friday - In my country. Now I'm too busy). And about قرن. because I talk it in everyday life, I can assure you that "قرن" in this phrase (ذو القرنین) has both meaning. It's not just a dictionary information. maybe better we both talk about it with An Arab for adequacy. besides, guys, I find some another interesting information about the meaning of قرن in al-Munjid(Arabic: المنجد الطلاب) a very popular Arabic-Arabic Dictionary in Islamic studies: القَرن means: "had been connected, horn, in front of man's head, (قرنُ الشَمْس=next to the sun, begining of sunrise), (هُوَ عَلَی قَرْنِی= he has same age as me), century, hundred years, peoples of an era, a generation, generation after generation, era"

Is it useful?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you should stop looking in dictionaries for the meaning of the name. If you look up Robin Hood in a dictionary you'll learn that a robin is a bird, which is very true but totally misleading in the context. Similarly with "qarn" meaning age or century - it does, but is it relevant to this story? Instead of using a dictionary, use an encyclopedia or some other such source, which will give you the conclusions of scholars.
Let's start with the first sentence: "Dhul-Qarnayn (Arabic ذو القرنين ḏū al-qarnayn, IPA: [ðuːlqarˈnajn]), literally "He of the Two Horns" or "He of the two centuries" [1] is a figure mentioned in the Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam, where he is described as a great and righteous ruler who built a long wall that keeps Gog and Magog from attacking the people who he met on his journey to the east (i.e., the rising of the sun). I can see one error there straight off - Dhul Qarnain was travelling north when he met this people. First he went west to the ends of the earth, then east, and finally north, and it was in the north that he found Gog&Magog and this oppressed people.
Second is the footnote [1]: it links to the main page of an online Arabic-English dictionary, but not to the page where "qarn" is explained. When I enter "qarn" in the search screen and click through I get this about "qarn": "It is a hill at a distance of about forty two miles from Mecca. It is the Miqat for those coming from Najd-e-Yemen, Najd-e-Hijaz and Najd-e-Tihama." This is not useful to the reader. As I said above, you need an encyclopedia or something like that that defines his name (most commonly held to mean "two horns", but sometimes some other, rather strange, meanings - one story even has him being hit twice on the head!)PiCo (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Naram-Sin of Akkad

Could Naram-Sin of Akkad be Dhul-Qarnayn? Check his page out in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net. Aseel Mulla (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Asâ, Oktan Keles,, I.stanbul

Taken to WP:RSN#Asâ, Oktan Keles,, I.stanbul Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No sources. Is this article a joke?"

"According to the Quran, Cyrus was the first king (several hundred years before Alexander the Great) who conquered most of Europe and Asia"

The Coran as the new history scholar resource?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:BC5E:4C6F:6B57:76E8 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing sourced text

At least 2 editors have changed the sourced text to suggest that the source says Alexander was probably D-Q. The author says "Dhu ’1-Qarnayn (Ar.) Literally, ‘He with the Two Homs’. This is the name of an important figure who appears in w.83-98 in Surat al-Kahf of the Qur’an, and has been identified as Alexander the Great (al-Iskandar) by Muslim commentators and others. The reasons for endowing Alexander with the title Dhu 7-Qamayn are unclear and a number of possibilities have been mooted." Click on the link and you'll see it. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what point you want to make here - isn't "Alexander was probably D-Q" (should be the other way round, DQ was probably A) the same thing as what Netton says? Anyway, my problem isn't that it's singling Netton out - makes it seem like a personal view, when my reading makes me believe it's by far the majority one. (Not the sole one, though - DQ as Cyrus is certainly out there and respectable). PiCo (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"The section that is edited called CANDIDATES !! "

No, it's not. It's for people who have been identified as Dhul-Qarnayn. All I have asked is for you to post a quote from your source where he identifies Karib'il Watar, which seems to be the most common English speeling, as Dhul-Qarnayn. Seems simple enough. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Karab El as a candidate

By saying "people who have been identified as Dhul-Qarnayn" means there are at least more than one person !!, many ancient Arabic poems have indicated that Dhul-Qarnayn is a Yemeni king but they used different titling of names compared to the names found in the inscriptions due to change in religion afterwards! it is mentioned by some scholars that someone called "Al-Sa'eb (الصعب بن في مراثد بن الحارث الرائش)"[1] is probably Dhul-Qarnayn, but if you track the ancestry line of both you may be able to figure out that the Karab El is Al-Sa'eb. Ecoboy90 talk 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep using the word candidate, but the point is that we have no reliable sources explicitly stating that Kareb El, whatever the spelling, has been identified as Dhul-Qarnayn. What you are doing is what we call original research and is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ لكتاب : المواعظ والاعتبار المؤلف : المقريزي

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhul-Qarnayn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"The legend went through much further elaboration...and eventually found its way into the Quran"

You need to correct this part: "The legend went through much further elaboration in the following centuries, and eventually found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version" to read: "The legend went through much further elaboration in the following centuries, and is claimed by non-Muslims to have found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version." Obviously this is a correct edit as the Quran is a religious Scripture believed by 24.1% of the world to be revealed by God (see Islam). The quote above is a claim by non-Muslims that is being made, "...and eventually found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version," which is saying that the Quran is not the Revelation of God but rather a compilation of fables collected from various sources. Thus, it should be edited to signify this. Sorry for any confusion previously. (Also see this for more clarification: http://portals.whyislam.org/Portals/0/Order%literature/Literature/54.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajwa.moneeb (talk • contribs) 02:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bajwa.moneeb: Sorry I forgot to respond to your message, the reason your edit was being reverted is that you were changing content without a reliable source for the change. I am not sure whyislam.org is a reliable source, and the other link you provide is in arabic, which is perfectly ok, but I don't speak arabic, so I can't tell if the source is good or not. If no other editors respond here, we can put this on the reliable source noticeboard to get more input. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the Arabic page is to something by Al-Maqrizi. WhyIslam is run by Islamic Circle of North America and I don't see it as a source meeting WP:RS. We can change the text to "according to Peter G. Bietenholz, it found its way into the Quran through a Syrian version." I'll do that now. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhu_al-Qarnayn/Archive_2&oldid=1239894407"