Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn

"The story entered the Quran through the Alexander Romance" and scholarly consensus

The lead carries the sentence, "The story entered the Quran through the Alexander Romance...", without qualitification (e.eg., it does not say that this is "according to some modern scholars" etc). The source is Peter G. Bietenholz's "Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity ...", page 123 (linked from the bibliography). Bietenholz says of the Alexander story, "from a Syrian version (of the Alexander Romance) it found its way into the Koran." For an in-depth discussion of the standard scholarly understanding, see Z. David Zuwiyya's contribution to the edited volume, "A Companion to Alexander literature in the Middle Ages". This is the consensus, and I don't believe there are any alternative voices. PiCo (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@PiCo: Thank you for your feedback and I appreciate the discussion. However, I must respectfully point out that there are alternative voices on the subject- within the article page itself you will find an alternative perspective that contradicts the idea of unanimous consensus. For example, under the People Identified with Dhul Qarnayn section, the following statement can be found: "but some have objected that this cannot be so: Alexander lived only a short time, whereas Dhul-Qarnayn lived for 700 years...Dhul-Qarnayn worshiped only one god, while Alexander worshiped many." and this is cited as source 18 (Van Donzel & Schmidt 2010, p. 57 fn.2.).

Further then that, I can provide you with Hadith (Islamic documented narrations) from the companions of Muhammad that claim that Dhul Qarnayn is not synonymous with Alexander the Great, but rather another identity. I can provide those sources here if you would like, but I think the above source shows that alternative voices do exist, and even though the source you mentioned says that it has entered the Quran, other sources concluded differently. For this reason, I must respectfully disagree that there is unanimous consensus that the story of Dhul Qarnayn is derived from Alexander Romance. Nbhard (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

In their footnote 2 on page 57 Van Donzel and Schmidt are referring to the objections raised by early (and even modern) Islamic commentators - see Zuwiyya for a clearer note on these. On page 57 Van Donzel and Schmidt identify Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander of the Syrian Alexander Romance. Muslim commentators operating within a traditional framework are not scholars in the modern sense. Neither, for that matter, are Christian or Jewish exegetes who operate in a traditional framework.PiCo (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of edits of 30/31 January

@Wiqi55:, I reverted your edits of 30/31 January for the following reasons:

• The article has been stable for several years, and you are attempting to introduce sweeping changes. You would be better off doing so one piece at a time;
• You seem to be obsessed with who the "real" Dhul Qarnayn was; this is not a meaningful question, as Dhul Qarnayn is a fictional figure (i.e., there never was a "real" Dhul Qarnayn).

The question the article addresses is how the Dhul Qarnayn trope came to be incorporated into the Koran. It gives two answers, the first, in the lead, that it was via the Alexander Romance, the second, in the body, that it was "through legends of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East in the early years of the Christian era." Both are sourced to reliable sources. If you feel that this needs to be amended please let us know how, and from what sources, and how those sources relate to the ones we already use. Thank you. PiCo (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A brief look at the article's history shows many reverts about the vague sentence: "The story entered the Quran through a legendary version...". In the reverts you keep claiming that "modern scholarship is pretty unanimous", but your assertion is inaccurate. For instance, the historian Brannon Wheeler, who published detailed works about Dhul-Qarnayn (1998-1/2 & 2002), wrote in his conclusion (1998):

Q 18:60-65 is not necessarily derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary, a more discerning examination of the different texts shows that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Qurʾān as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentaries. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation "Dhu al-Qarnayn" attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries.

This suggests an opposite direction of influence, i.e., elements from Quranic commentaries entered the Alexander stories. There is also some confusion about the dating of the Syriac versions and which key elements appear within which version. Thus the one-sided influence sentence in the lede and its vague "legendary version" and lack of specific elements is not reflective of modern scholarship.

I also dispute your second point about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. Other encyclopedia articles often introduce the subject by noting the disagreements over his identity. They also mention why the different figures are linked to specific elements (see Wheeler, 1998, p.199 onward). This is a common "theme" in the cited sources, hence it needs to be summarized here as well. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As Wheeler states, he's talking about surah 18:60-65, which involves Moses and a fishing trip. In fact Wheeler's article in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (that's where your quote ultimately comes from) is titled "Moses or Alexander? Early Quranic Exegisis of Quran 18:60-65". He returns to the same ideas in his 2013 book, "Moses in the Qur'an and Islamic Exegesis", which is a more mature consideration of the issues first raised in the article - it's in our bibliography. Moses and the fish is certainly a curious episode, but our article is about Dhul Qarnayn.

I think that your blockquote, and perhaps your entire understanding of Wheeler, comes from this website, "Islamic Awareness" - you quote only what's there on the site. Fair enough, but you should say so. And ideally you should read Wheeler.

As for the identity of Dhul Qarnayn, I thought I made it clear that we avoid such silly questions. Dhul Qarnayn is fictional, and fictional characters have no identity. To say that the Alexander legends lay behind the Dhul Qarnayn story is a statement of literary influence, not identity.

The statement in the lead, "The story entered the Quran through a legendary version of the career of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East", is sourced from Bietenholz, 1994, page 123. I see no reason to change it.PiCo (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pico, Wheeler makes similar arguments for both Dhu al-Qarnayn 18:83-101 and the fish episode 18:60-65. This was in the article before your blanket revert. Here is his argument about the opposite direction of influence:

This suggests that Ibn Hisham's account, coupled with Q 18:83-101, upon which he comments, could represent the immediate source for the stories which attribute these elements to the Alexander stories. These elements originally associated with Sa'b as Dhu al-Qarnayn were incorporated, along with the elements attributed to Dhu al-Qarnayn in Q 18:83-101, into the stories which identified Dhu al-Qarnayn with Alexander.

And about the missing key elements:

There are a number of problems with the dating of the Syriac versions and their supposed influence on the Qurʾan and later Alexander stories, not the least of which is the confusion of what has been called the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, the sermon of Jacob of Serugh, and the so-called Syriac Legend of Alexander. Second, the key elements of Q 18:60-65, 18:83-102, and the story of Ibn Hishām's Saʿb dhu al-Qarnayn do not occur in the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes.

Note that Wheeler links the dating problems and the missing elements to the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, the same version mentioned by Bietenholz.

I'm aware that Islamic Awareness has an article on this issue (only read their conclusion; probably where I picked up Wheeler's name), but I'm actually reading Wheeler's book and paper.

The debate about his identity is not mainly about the real Dhu al-Qarnayn -- see how Wheeler uses Sa'b account in the quote above. It's all about recognizing key elements in the earliest sources. Calling that silly is just your point of view, and not a compelling argument for removal. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your change to the lead would replace this key sentence: The story entered the Quran through a legendary version of the career of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East with this: The majority of traditional and modern scholars have generally endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, but some early Muslim scholars saw it as a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia. In short, you want to replace sentence about the literary origins of surah 83:18-101 with something about who Dhul-Qarnayn "really was". He wasn't real at all, he's imaginary. We can talk about where the author of this passage found his material, but it's impossible to talk about the reality of a character who sees the sun set in a pool of mud and builds a wall of iron an copper - it's like asking who Harry Potter really was.

In that same sentence you reference "early Muslim scholars". Early Muslim scholars are like early Christian scholars - not terribly reliable. We use modern scholars, and we prefer reliable ones.

You want to insert a section on King Ṣaʿb Dhu-Marāthid. He's identical with Abu Nawas, who is already mentioned in the section "People identified with Dhul-Qarnayn" we have three names, one of them "Messiah ben Joseph", a fabulous military saviour expected by Yemenite Jews and associated in folk-lore with Dhu Nawas, a semi-legendary 6th century Yemenite king. Given the extremely few referecnes to this identification, due weight suggests that this is about the right amount of coverage.

You want a whole section on Cyrus the Great. This is surely the weakest of all candidates for Dhul-Qarnayn (no one has ever suggested how Cyrus could have gotten into the Quran), and is a very recent invention by Iranian nationalists. It should be mentioned in the same section as Ṣaʿb dhu/Abu Nawas, but only in a single sentence. PiCo (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We need more space to summarize the arguments about Sa'b and Cyrus. Also Sa'b is not the same as Dhu Nawas. The Cyrus section should contain both arguments in support and against the Cyrus theory, per Wheeler, as well as its earliest proponents who do not seem to be Iranian nationalists. You misconstrued my edit to the lede sentence. I removed it because it needs to be qualified per Wheeler (dating problems, "supposed influence", missing key elements) and it was inaccurate (Bietenholz refers to the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, not "a legendary version"). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so obsessed with Wheeler - his book got only lukewarm reviews and he definitely isn't the mainstream view. For the rest, I can only repeat that Dhul Qarnayn not only isn't Cyrus, he isn't anyone, he's fictional.
PiCo (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, it was his ideas about Moses that were reviewed, since that's what the book is about. He doesn't deny that the DQ story is based on Alexander stories.PiCo (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wheeler (1998&2002) is a reliable source with many paragraphs discussing the Quranic concept of Dhu al-Qarnayn. That's the topic of this article. He is also moving in the right direction as far as modern scholarship is concerned (dating issues; differentiates between the Romance, Legend, Poem, etc; discussion of separate elements). He does deny some elements in the Alexander stories being the earliest source for the DQ story, suggesting a reverse influence of the Quran and Sa'b's account. If you don't mind, and since I can't think of any policy-based concerns to exclude Wheeler, I'll go ahead and add a short summary about Sa'b and Cyrus. Feel free to introduce more sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pico, Wheeler's summary is on topic here. It can readily be supported by other sources, e.g., the Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature includes a paragraph on the account of Sa'b (citation in article). Your removal of well-cited and on-topic material is not inline with our content policies. If you insist on not working cooperatively then perhaps we should consider a 3rd opinion. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments have not convinced me, nor have mine convinced you. Please take this to dispute resolution if you feel strongly enough. In the meantime, I can only point out that you're trying to introduce a major change to a pretty stable article, and for that you need to convince established editors.PiCo (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just correcting your cherrypicking. You constantly omit the confusion on dating/recension and the key elements found in the Quran but missing from the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes. Instead, you cite an exceptional claim by Bietenholz as fact even though its just a one-liner that received no coverage in the literature. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, even Wheeler agrees with Bietenholz .PiCo (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What other source cites Bietenholz's conclusion (to determine wp:weight)? Also, could you quote Wheeler where he agrees with Bietenholz that the origin of the Quranic account is the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes? In fact, the Syriac PC is missing most of the key elements of the Quranic account, including the "Dhu al-Qarnayn" appellation. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Our article does not say that sura 18:83-101 entered the Quran through Psuedo-Callisthenes, it makes a more general claim: "The story [of Dhul Qarnayn] entered the Quran through a legendary version of the career of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East". Bietenholz says: "Around the beginning of the Christian era a version of this tale (i.e., legendary Alexander and his wall) ... appears to have added some lavish detail (to the existing legend or group of legends). It ... seems to have inspired ... Pseudo-Callisthenes ... (and) from a Syrian version it found its way into the Koran." In other words, Bietenholz does not say the DQ story was based directly on PC, but that it "found its way" from "a Syrian version". I believe our wording represents what he says more accurately than would a statement that DQ is based on PC. (We repeat this, with different wordi9ng, in the first line of the subsection "Alexander romance", which is clearly a mistaken header - it's not the AR, a specific text, that's in view, but the more general idea of literary versions of the legendary Alexander)

Wheeler wrote an entry on DQ for the 2006 Encyclopedia of the Quran edited by Oliver Leaman, in which he says: "The most popular identification of Dhu al-Qarnayn is with Alexander the Great, and many exegetes relate 18:83-102, and the verses preceding (18:60-82) with episodes from the Alexander Romance literature." This gives us the weight of scholarly opinion and is in agreement with Bietenholz. PiCo (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wheeler is just stating the widely-accepted view about the exegetes, that they used the Alexander Romance to interpret the Quran: "exegetes relate 18:83-102, and the verses preceding (18:60-82) with episodes from the Alexander Romance literature." How can you compare that to "a Syrian version has entered the Quran", which is a claim about the Quran itself? Also, why didn't you quote Bietenholz in full? He refers to a Greek version of PC as the ultimate source for the Syrian version: "From a Greek version of the Alexander legend authored by Pseudo-Callisthenes, the tale of Gog and Magog traveled to Syria, and from a Syrian version it entered the Quran." If not, then which Syrian version is he referring to? His vague sentence is why no one has ever cited him on this issue except you, which makes it an exceptional claim. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

: If you don't like Bietenholz we can use Wheeler: "The most popular identification of Dhu al-Qarnayn is with Alexander the Great." We still need to say how Alexander got into the Koran, though - but there are plenty of sources for that.PiCo (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer Wheeler's statement, which is specific and more widely supported. What other sources make the same claim as Bietenholz? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You're using the wrong argument, you should be saying that Bietenholz is writing about the later history of Gog and Magog and that his mention of Dhu l-Qarnayn is only incidental. Which is quite true - his book, after all, is called Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age. Hence the fact that nobody quotes him. Nevertheless, he does sum up the general view on how this story got into the Quran - from one or more of the many legendary tales of Alexander current in the ME around the time it was composed. Even Wheeler doesn't differ - his article and book are about the subsequent, post-Quran, commentaries, and he's saying that these drew on other sources. Just out of curiosity, since you haven't mentioned it, what are your own views (based on those of scholars) on how the story got into Sura 18? Wheeler says nothing about this. Do you have any alternatives? PiCo (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just asking for sources to determine weight, which is necessary for the lede. So again, what sources suggest that Bietenholz's view is "the general view on how this story got into the Qur'an"? Also, Wheeler doubts the influence on the Quran citing dating issues and missing motifs (quoted above). My own view is inline with Wheeler. We should also focus on recent and detailed scholarship, not one-liners like Bietenholz's. In recent years, the most widely-cited analysis of the Arabic tradition is by Faustina Doufikar-Aerts of Universiteit Leiden. Ideally, we should summarize her works and introduce others that counter her points (if any). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Faustina Doufikar-Aerts says that the Dhul Qarnayn story is based on the ALexander story. Which is what Bietenholz says, and what our article says. And, for that matter, what Wheeler says. Can you suggest me someone who says something different? PiCo (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Faustina Doufikar-Aerts: "The Afro-Asiatic Alexander cycle started with the translation of the Alexander Romance of Pseudo-Callisthenes into Syriac in around 600 AD..." She then goes on to talk about the later development of the Alexander stories, which is the same ground Wheeler is covering (not how it got into the Quran). Do you know of any place where she says the Dhul Qarnayn story is NOT based on the Alexander cycle?

There's Brannon Wheeler - I may have mentioned this - who says that Dhul Qarnayn is "an epithet usually applied to Alexander the Great": this isn't actually what we're after, which is how the story got into the Quran.

Kevin van Bladel argues here that the story came from the ALexander Legend rather than the Alexander Romance - "Now that the continuity of tradition between the Syriac Alexander Legend and (the verses on DQ) is established..." Our article just talks about "legends" in general.

Look, your website is very good, very well-written, but I think you're a little too close to your own ideas. And we're not trying to say (in our article), who DQ is, but where the Quan story came from - the answer is not any specific literary source, but the whole corpus of legends and stories, as Doufikar-Aerts says. Bietenholz just puts this more succinctly than anyone else.PiCo (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Doufikar-Aerts lists three sources for the Afro-Asiatic tradition: Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, Christian Syriac Alexander Legend, and the Qur'an. She explicitly notes the confusion about "the origin and the lines of transmission" between these sources:

"These three seventh-century sources basically formed the pillars of the Afro-Asiatic tradition. [...] Although these sources are still at hand and traceable, there is a lot of confusion concerning their origins and lines of transmission, not to say mystification."

She further notes that the Qur'an and the Christian Legend appeared "In the same period" (p. 62). This makes it difficult to accept Van Bladel's hypothesis which assumes a later date for the Qur'an not supported by many. Indeed, Van Bladel is aware of this, as he cites Stephen Gero noting that "since the text [of the Legend] comes from this date (629 CE or later), it cannot be regarded as a source of the Qur’an." (Bladel, p. 190)

You should realize by now that claims about origin and transmission aren't facts, just speculations by some historians. Also please spare us the unsubstantiated accusations; I'm not affiliated with any website. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologise if you were offended by my reference to the website, I actually think it's very well written.

On your first point, our article isn't about "the Afro-Asiatic tradition", it's about a few verses in the Quran. The stories about Alexander continued to be elaborated and to multiply for centuries after the Quran appeard - these stories make up the "Afro-Asiatic tradition", and yes, the Quran, after it appeared, fed into them. But our concern here is the sources of the Quran itself.

Yes, claims about literary transmission are hypotheses. On Wikipedia we try to represent the balance of scholarly opinion concerning those hypotheses, and it appears, from sources such as we've discussed here, including even Wheeler, that that balance is that the Quranic Dhul-Qarnayn story is based on earlier stories concerning Alexander. If you have any alternatives I'd like to hear of them. PiCo (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That Wheeler argued for an independent Quran is well attested. Here is the conclusion of chapter 1 of his book:

"It is important to recognize that the details in Q 18:60-101 were such that Muslim exegetes could and did see in them reflections of popular late antique motifs including those related to Biblical contexts. To assume that the Quran intended these associations would be to conflate the Quran with its earliest interpreters, and implicates a number of literary and theological perspectives not always made explicit by those who make the assumption." (Wheeler 2002, p.33)

Doufikar-Aerts also notes the confusion on origins and transmission of the sources, not the later Afro-Asiatic tradition. She listed the sources separately as the Quran, the Syriac Romance, and the Christian Legend.

We should add a line or two explaining the confusion over origin and transmission, hence "according to" statements are necessary.

Also consider replacing Bietenholz with another source. His statement that the Gog and Magog tale traveled from the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes to the Syriac contradicts what other sources are saying. For example:

"The episode of Alexander's building a wall against Gog and Magog, however, is not found in the oldest Greek, Latin, Armenian and Syriac versions of the Romance. Though the Alexander Romance was decisive for the spreading of the new and supernatural image of Alexander the king in East and West, the barrier episode has not its origin in this text. The fusion of the motif of Alexander's barrier with the Biblical tradition of the apocalyptic peoples Gog and Magog appears in fact for the first time in the so called Syriac Alexander Legend. This text is a short appendix attached to the Syriac manuscripts of the Alexander Romance." ([1], p. 17)

Edit: signing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾

I don't know why we keep having to go over this. Our article does not say that DQ entered the Quran from Pseudo-Callisthenes, and nor does Bietenholz - he says that Pseudo-Calisthenes authored a version of the Alexander legend (and not the Alexander Legend), and from a Syrian version (of the legend, not of Pseudo-Callisthenes) it entered the Quran. Elsewhere we have your statement that the wall motif comes from the Alexander Lengend and not from Pseudo-Callisthenes. Our article covers that. The other sources you mention are rather vague about how AG got into the Quran, which is why Bietenholz is our best source - he doesn't contradict them, though, and they don't contradict him. And no, the Quran was not revealed to Mohammed by Allah. PiCo (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bietenholz repeats a a misconception about the Gog and Magog story: "From the Greek version of the Alexander legend authored by Pseudo-Callisthenes, the tale of Gog and Magog travelled to Syria". That's an error on his part. More recent sources state the opposite, i.e., the story traveled from Syriac to Greek: "the motif of Alexander's barrier with the Biblical tradition of the apocalyptic peoples Gog and Magog appears in fact for the first time in the so called Syriac Alexander Legend". Clearly Bietenholz is a bad source for issues of origin. This is a good enough reason to ignore Bietenholz, which is also not cited by anyone except you. For why the origin claim is subjective, see the quotes above by Wheeler, Doufikar-Aerts, and Stephen Gero. And take heed of wp:assert. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's seek a third opinion

@Wiqi55:. This discussion is just going round in circles. I strongly suggest we get a third opinion, which is a dispute settlement (or at least management) procedure]. When you read the page you'll see that it's recommended that the approach be opened by both parties. If you agree with this you can either open it yourself or advise me here that you'd like us both to open it. PiCo (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I have suggested a 3rd opinion before. However, after realizing how outdated and confused Bietenholz is, I now think it would be best if you try to familiarize yourself with our content policies, namely wp:assert and wp:redflag. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If you refuse 3O we'll have to try a different (more confrontational) dispute resolution route. Please reconsider 3O.PiCo (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Where have I refused 3O? You can go ahead and ask for 3O if you want. But you can't remove sourced content without discussion and without citing any policies. You also did not reply to my concerns about Bietenholz above. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: are you seeking a third opinion that agrees or disagrees with you? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop nuisance editing

Gog and Magog first appear in the 2nd temple period (first few centuries before Christ) - before that, in Ezekiel, it's Gog from Magog, a person and a place. The wall appears in the Hellenistic period, in connection with Alexander. They come together in a whole set of written legends from that period, and then into the Quran. To put it very simply, your proposal fails to identify the literary origins of the Dhul Qarnayn story, Bietenholz does and is a reliable source, he isn't contradicted (and is in fact supported) by every single source you've mentioned, and you've never given a good reason for rejecting this. Please stop this nonsense.PiCo (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As exaplined in the sources cited above, the Hellenistic stories do not link Alexander with an eschatological barrier involving Gog and Magog. That motif first appeared in the Syriac and Quranic accounts. Besides, Bietenholz explicitly mentions the Greek P-C as a source for the tale of Gog and Magog: "From the Greek version of the Alexander legend authored by Pseudo-Callisthenes, the tale of Gog and Magog travelled to Syria". That turned out to be an error. Since you also assert that Wheeler and Stephen Gero supports Bietenholz on the Syriac origin of the Quran, contrary to what I quoted above, then why don't you quote them directly? I asked you many times to quote Wheeler and you have failed to do so. I hope you're not creating new sections just to avoid addressing that question. Also, recent scholarship point out that the "two-horned" appellation first occurred in the Quran. In other words, an important motif in the Quranic account is not found in any Greek or Syriac legend. Why do you keep removing that sourced info? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A New Theory on Dhul-Qarnayn

Significant and valuable researches in the field of Iranian mythology, about Jam specially, have been accomplished in recent years. Every researcher has seen to one or a few characteristic(s) of this polyhedral character from a point of view. One of the unanswered questions about Jam is the two instruments which Ahura Mazda gave to him to spread and develop of material world. In this article, it is tried to show the reality of these two by documentary reasons; and it is displayed some other unknown phases of this wonderful character through it. Mentioning the notices that are stated about Dhul-Qarnayn in holy Koran, I show similarities Jam and Dhul-Qarnayn, and on the basis of it I propose theory of oneness of these two. Proving that Dhul-Qarnayn is the same Indo-Iranian Jam, it could be said that Jam had been a historical character. This article has been written in Persian, by thtle of "Who is Jam?" (جم کیست؟)

http://aclr.ir/?page_id=288

∫∨∧∫ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNF6161 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit deleted?

I have given a detailed quote from a valid date that editor2020 user deleted and I don't know what the reason is. Reza235 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reza235: If you know who the editor was, then you know how to access the edit history, where you can see that Editor2020 said "needs references."

If you don't understand what a reference is, you should start with this simple tutorial before you try editing an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson I didn't add any articles or articles I just added in the see also section of Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an because on the same page Cyrus the Great was mentioned in addition to Alexander Reza235 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reza235: It is your responsibility for you to cite sources for *ANYTHING* you add to articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit was removed from Zul Qarnain? Are you a racist and don't want the name of Cyrus the Great in Zul Qarn? I didn't make any major edits, I just added the name of Cyrus the Great to Alexander because in Wikipedia he speaks of Cyrus separately from Alexander, so if you don't allow Cyrus to remain a name, I say you're racist. Thanks Reza235 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reza235: To be as clear as possible, since you obviously didn't pick it up beforehand: you must cite sources when you add any claim. You did not cite sources. That was literally the only problem. If you cannot assume any good faith from other editors, then we will have to assume you're not here to cooperatively work on a collaborative project with other users. If you make another personal attack toward other editors without even attempting a civil conversation beforehand, we may have to assume you are incapable of doing so.

The course of action you need to take now is looking for sources, or asking how to look for sources or cite sources. There is nothing worth defending in your post beyond the (already noted) suggestion of expanding the material on Cyrus the Great. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: My source is Wikipedia. I also see the page of Cyrus the Great in the Koran in Wikipedia itself. Cyrus the Great Page in the Qur'an is available on Wikipedia, now let me add the Cyrus the Great page in Wikipedia? Because I just added the Cyrus the Great page on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reza235 (talk • contribs)

@Reza235: That you're citing Wikipedia is further evidence you just need to stop until you've completed this tutorial. Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Seriously, just stop until you've taken the tutorial, you're only making yourself look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding specifically the See also link at the top:

While arguably it is true that according to Wikipedia standards the Cyrus theory is comparatively not as well-established - since Western academics have written in favour of only the Alexander theory (afaik) - having only the Alexander theory mentioned at the very top of the page appears a little POV. I suggest either removing the "See also" part entirely or to include links to both theories. If no one disagrees, I'll move forward on this. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the reason for the removal of Cyrus the Great?

Why did you remove the leaf of Cyrus the Great in Zul Qarnain while I hadn't added it and had the source? I looked at it a week ago and the Cyrus section was great, but now my request has been deleted while it had the source part and I didn't add it. This section had the source. Until a week or so ago, Cyrus the Great was in Zul Qarn, but not now Reza235 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for recent edits:

Lede: The "destruction by God in a single night" part isn't supported by the verses quoted in the citation (Qur'an 21:96). A careful reading of the citation shows that the author also didn't claim such. This part apparently, is actually from apocalyptic writings outside of the Qur'an. Correcting possible POV issues. Re-including balancing information previously added by 77.16.54.108, but unjustly removed (ironically by someone who supports the same understanding).

Specifically naming Ernst: Interpretation of relevant verses so as to mean the sun actually setting in a "muddy spring" and the "live so close to the rising sun that they have no protection from its heat" part isn't universally accepted. Furthermore, the part - Quran changes this into a general administration of justice - something along those lines isn't even mentioned in the cited verses. The exegeses by Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani (p. 653) and Maududi also don't support these. On a side-note, the interpretation of sababa as "celestial 'pathways'" (argued by Ernst but unused in the article) is also unsupported by the mentioned exegeses.

Including everyone under #People identified as Dhul-Qarnayn appears more balanced.

Re-including the unjustly removed #See also links.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary mistakenly included Special:Diff/925013307 should've been Special:Diff/925245105.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Valid sources indicate that Cyrus is the same as Dhul-Qarnayn

I have made a promise and cited sources indicating that Cyrus the Great is the same as Zul Qarn, so I urge you to revert to the previous edition that deleted Cyrus the Great from Zul Qarnain in English because the sources are credible, now that the sources Valid Please return the name of Cyrus to the English language page. Zulqarnain in connection with Cyrus the Great because you deleted the name of Cyrus the Great from Zulqarnain page because it had no credible source

Azad, Abul Kalam (1990). India's Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Indian Council for Cultural Relations.

Ball, Warwick (2002). Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. Routledge. ISBN 9781134823871.

Berberian, Manuel (2014). Earthquakes and Coseismic Surface Faulting on the Iranian Plateau. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444632975.

Bietenholz, Peter G. (1994). Historia and fabula: myths and legends in historical thought from antiquity to the modern age. Brill. ISBN 978-9004100633.

Cook, David (2005). Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815630586.

Wasserstrom, Steven M. (2014). Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400864133.

Wheeler, Brannon M. (2013). Moses in the Qur'an and Islamic Exegesis. Routledge. ISBN 9781136128905.

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (Tafsir al-Mizan was translated into English by author and renowned Shia preacher Syed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi)

Authentic Persian Resources

پورپیران، عباس (دی ۱۳۸۴)، «نگرشی بر مقدمه کوروش کبیر (ذوالقرنین)»، مجله گزارش (۱۷۰)

یزدان‌پرست، حمید (۱۳۸۶)، ««ذوالقرنین» یا «کوروش» در متون مذهبی (۲)»، مجله گزارش (۲۴۳ و ۲۴۴)

ذوالقرنین یا کوروش در متون اسلامی، مجله دریای پارس

کوروش کبیر یا ذوالقرنین، ابوالکلام آزاد ترجمه و مقدمه: دکتر محمدابراهیم باستانی پاریزی، نشر کورش، تهران ۱۳۷۵

Authentic Arabic sources

کتاب شناخت: کوروش کبیر، نوشته نویسنده عرب صابر صالح زغلول کورش الأکبر «مؤسس الدولة الفارسیة وأبو إیران؛ حیاته و فتوحاته وهل هو ذوالقرنین»

الاسرائیلیات و الموضوعات فی کتب التفاسیر قدیما و حدیثا تألیف سید یوسف محمود ابو عزیز، ص: ۲۵۶ حدیث نبوی کوروس ملک فارس Reza235 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reza235:

Regarding Muslim sources favouring the Cyrus theory, you can also use the "Muslim scholarship against Alexander theory" at the end of #Opinions of "tiny minorities".

With-respect-to the Western sources you've quoted above, what exactly do they support? Do they support Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus theory? The Warwick one that I checked doesn't appear to be doing so. Quoting the text or referencing the page number would help.

Update: Looking at Ian.thomson's edit, although I don't agree with the interpretation of Wheeler's writing, it would appear those Western sources do not support your edits. Is this true? If so, these are irrelevant to the present discussion.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The obsession against Muslim "scholars"

In the talk page of the related article, Alexander the Great in the Quran, I pointed out how Muslim intellectuals are conveniently cherry-picked as scholars when they support the editor's position, otherwise have themselves degraded to something like mere clerics.

'Why the use of the term 'clerics' for these scholars? Their own Wikipedia pages define them as scholars. The IP [editor] incrementally degraded them from 'traditional Islamic version of scholarship' to 'traditional Muslim teachers' and then finally to just 'Muslim clerics'. Furthermore, in the very same lede, when support for Alexander theory is cited, Muslims are termed as 'commentators', but when opinion opposes this theory, they become simple 'clerics'."

The same thing appears to have happened yet again. Maududi is now forced into the "philosopher" term. "Philosopher" is normally fine, but not when it is being used to degrade the significance or credentials of the person. Maududi is defined as a "scholar" by reputable sources. Furthermore, at the end of section #Opinions of "tiny minorities", I pointed out over a dozen other Muslim scholars against the Alexander theory.

Regarding the Reeves citation, since a significant number of Muslim "scholars" are clearly not in agreement, the unqualified "consensus of scholars" is inaccurate. Either qualify these scholars specifically as "Western scholars" (even Reeves appears to be referring only to Western scholars) or revert to the previous wording of "has most popularly been identified as" which is more accurate. In the absence of a response, I think I should revert this edit.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead

In general I think it's a good idea to more briefly mention that differing views exist here, and leave the who-says-what for the body. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph was primarily authored by me. Maududi's name was included because of this discussion. Regarding the other two, I don't know how to phrase the paragraph without mentioning the names. Can't say "some scholars say such and such" as these two individuals might be the only ones mentioning this.

Regarding the brief introduction of these two people (Bietenholz and Wheeler), how about leaving the names in the lede as is, without mentioning who they are; and when their names are mentioned later in the article, their credentials can be noted there?

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Regarding the statement you included: "In modern times, the identification of Dhu al-Qarnayn with Alexander remains the most popular..." - It appears a bit unclear whether Reeves is referring towards only Western scholarship or he is including Muslim too. If Muslims are included, then this is demonstrably false as in Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran#Opinions of "tiny minorities", I noted over a dozen modern highly influential Muslim scholars who pretty much out-rightly reject the Alexander theory. If Reeves' sentence is limited to only Western scholarship, then this qualification should be pointed out in the lede. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema: That's a valid point. I think it's better to remove that sentence for now, pending additional discussion/sources. We lack a complete survey, and recent scholarship now focus on origin and transmission of individual motifs rather than the identity question. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war resolution

@Loverofediting: @Doug Weller: please stop edit warring and discuss your differences here to resolve the case. Ahendra (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ahendra: How is one edit since December 2020 editwarring? Why me and not User:Anachronist and User:Wiqi55? Doug Weller talk 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Simply because i only see the recent editors which i think i can reach by talking.Ahendra (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ahendra: That reasoning makes no sense; the article history is plain to see. The only person edit-warring has already been blocked. That person needs to get consensus after the block expires. I'm happy to participate in that discussion if and when it happens. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

sure, its just an eyesore to see how much reverts of this page in single day alone, glad it resolved.Ahendra (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw this and I thought I'd add a reliable source or two. Doing that I may have reinforced the bad turn taken in the lead (early Muslims – modern scholars – some modern Muslims – modern scholars and early Muslims all over again) by the recent editor, so feel free to reorder/rewrite. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Loverofediting: the "commentators" you want to refer to are modern Muslim scholars, and I do not understand why you object to that phrasing. Could you please explain why you prefer it, beyond the fact that it's the exact word used by the source (Abul A'la Maududi)? Also, could you cite a number of reliable sources which use the spelling "Dhul Qarnayn"? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The citation states commentators. Changing it to “Muslims scholars” is not backed by the source. Not only that, commentators (in Arabic “mufassireen”) isn’t synonymous with the term “Muslim scholars”. Stick to what the source says and be fair. Further, Al-Maududi is already mentioned in the page concerning Cyrus. No need for repetition. It would be like repeating those who believed it was Alexander. It’s already on the page. And I added the name “Dhul Qarnayn” because from what I’ve seen on the internet it seems to be a very popular spelling of the word. Where are your citations for the other spellings? 👍 Loverofediting (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Loverofediting: thanks for replying here! The problem is that it is not clear what the word "commentators" refers to in our context. I agree that Maududi is talking about mufassirun or Quran commentators. But it's also obvious, and this is important, that he is talking about other modern Quran commentators like himself ("now the commentators are inclined to believe [...]", emphasis added). So what about While some modern Quran commentators such as Abul A'la Maududi are in favor [...]? I feel it's important to specify that it's Maududi who holds this opinion, because it's a minority opinion, so people will want to know who precisely holds it.

The spelling "Dhu al-Qarnayn" is used, among others, by Cook 2013 (see the 'Sources' section, quoted in what is now note 9). But the WP:BURDEN to cite reliable sources is on the editor who wants to add content. So please give us specific sources for the Dhul Qarnayn spelling. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, "While some modern Muslim commentators ..." does remain the best option given the fact that the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, and that the Dhu al-Qarnayn#Cyrus the Great section covers the fact that according to reliable, secondary sources, multiple modern Muslim scholars have defended that interpretation. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead: the Cyrus the Great hypothesis adopted by Muslim scholars

The relevant section of the article documents at some length that the theory that Dhu al-Qarnayn referred to Cyrus the Great, though first proposed by the German philologist Redslob, was adopted by a number of modern Muslim scholars. The lead summarizes the article, so there is no reason to remove the word "Muslim" from it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Artaxor

With regard to the content I removed here: we need a secondary source making the inference that the Artaxor on the map may refer to Cyrus the Great. The Shahnameh is a primary source and should not be used by Wikipedia-editors for this type of thing: that would be original research, which we leave to trained researches and do not carry out ourselves. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: it's been reinstated. JOHANN SCHÖNER'S GLOBE OF 1515: Transcription and Study does say taxor rex collexit de omnibus partibus persarum; and the second: Provincia gog in qua fuerunt iudei inclusi tempore artaxorsis régis persaru which means "The taxor, the king, collected from all parts of Persia; and the second: The province of gog in which the Jews were confined in the time of Artaxorsus, king of Persia". That's a transcription by Nordenskiöld. The other Van Duzer source (the first one) adds nothing to that. Nordenskiöld himself says "Mag°g, in these two are races big as giants, full of evil manners, Jews whom King Artaxor collected from all parts. Province of Gog, in which the Jews were confined in the time of Artaxor, King of Persia.. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I looked a bit into this and found the following: according to Andrew Gow, who writing in the Journal of Early Modern History (here, pp. 77-78) quotes the Provincia gog, in qua fuerunt iudei inclusi tempore artaxersis regis persarum line from the Borgia map (c. 1430), Artaxersis refers to the Artaxerxes mentioned in the Book of Ezra 7 (here, either Artaxerxes I or Artaxerxes II), whom he says was commonly confused in Medieval Europe with the Neo-Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 17, here) as the king who drove the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel into exile. This is based on the identification of Gog and Magog with the lost Jewish tribes, a topos that may go back to the 12th century and that was especially popular in 13th-15th century Europe. I added this info to the Gog and Magog article.

There is no reason to suppose that these late medieval Bible-based speculations had anything to do with the Islamic Dhu al-Qarnayn narratives, and in any case we have no sources making such a connection. We should therefore remove it. @Bashir Iran: is there any reason why we should not? @other editors: please briefly confirm here if you think it should be removed. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bashir Iran:: Dear @Apaugasma: and @Doug Weller:, In the method of historical studies, which is related to ancient history, they do not remove the evidence. Because a symmetry can clearly show the background of an idea. Here we have a historical document that shows the connection between the Achaemenid kings of Persia and the imprisonment of Gog and Magog. Deleting this evidence (and removing its citations from Wikipedia) will only help make the wiki more biased (not more free). Please note that Artaxor is not same as Artaxerxes (i.e.: David is not same as Davidson). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashir Iran (talk • contribs)

@Bashir Iran: You don't understand how Wikipedia works. "Symmeetry" would need to have sources meeting WP:RS discussing such symmetry, otherwise it is original research and is absolutely not allowed. I agree with what User:Apaugasma says above, we should remove that material. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022

Majority of scholars don't support Alexander being him because Alexander was a pagan. This is basic knowledge. 94.110.167.88 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉️] 12:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are common sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.167.88 (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

i think it needs some modern basely islamic source (shia specialiy) not the europian sources about islam

titles says. also this comment (Majority of scholars don't support Alexander being him because Alexander was a pagan. This is basic knowledge) is true too. 5.62.168.102 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2024 edits

I made changes in the article after going through the hundreds of edits since 2021, which included dozens of changes from banned sock puppet accounts. Tried to make sure none of the citations or the content got removed, only paraphrased and moved.

• Lede

• Changed the lede after comparing the versions from 2019, 2020, and the present March 2024 one.
• The "majority of modern scholars and Islamic commentators" phrasing gives undue weight, since over a dozen medieval and modern Muslim scholars and some Western researchers have been noted to have rejected the Alexander identification. On the other hand, the original phrasing from 2019, "most popularly been identified", is more appropriate and furthermore fits the citation better too.
• The Syriac Alexander Legend portion is somewhat complicated due to it being disputed, and therefore may be more appropriate in the detailed Alexander section below. Not sure about this, though.
• Added the Wheeler citation with quote, but it may require further trimming.

• This section removal was mistaken. Part of the content may have been from a banned user, but that section overall had been part of this article for a long time, which was also partly edited by Doug Weller. No need to make the two quotes block-quote again, since this content is not significant enough.

Partial record of disruptive edits (2022-2023)

Previous lede survives till December 2021. Disruptive edits begin in January 2022 by User:Loverofediting – who gets blocked twice for disruptive editing and edit warring, and then indefinitely for Sockpuppetry. Loverofediting obliterates specifically that portion of the cited lede which suggests Dhu al-Qarnayn's identification with anyone other than Alexander the Great, even an important citation that is referenced later on. This edit was clearly to force an agenda. Loverofediting continues on with this, making small changes to enforce this, qualifying the opponents of this theory and simply changing "many Muslim scholars" to just "some Muslim scholars". The changes get reverted but Loverofediting undoes it. Going on to actually reference a children's book, My Little Lore of Light, to support their viewpoint. Changes get reverted back to original again, but Loverofediting undoes that again too. They are told to take these changes to the talk page, but the same cycle repeats once more, and again. At which point, Loverofediting gets blocked for 48 hours and things temporarily calm down. Then, after the expiration of the block, there is the demoting of "Muslim scholars" into just some "commentators". All this is a fair bit similar to another edit warring instance from summer of 2019 on a related article. There, I had also documented about a dozen modern Muslim scholars who have supported the Cyrus identification theory. Loverofediting returns to the page after two weeks and there is a bit more edit warring, though this time it is not really in support of their agenda. Wrong removal related to Gog and Magog, the source can be checked, it is just in a non-English language. User:Ziggy Wiggy Figgy removed the Cyrus identification from the lede claiming that "it’s only the view of one person (Al-Maududi) and nobody else" which is objectively false. Even the Cyrus the Great section underneath contradicts this claim. This edit became unsurprising when it turned out that this was a sock puppet of User:Loverofediting. Two more sock puppets of Loverofediting become involved, User:CoolHistory757 in December 2023 (which leads to page protection for a year) and User:GlobalEdit1617 in January 2024.

AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)