Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Article moving

I have removed the article to its originary place, since it was moved by Irishpunktom without searching to previously build a consensus for the move. Aldux 17:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I just moved it back to it's original title. -- Karl Meier 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was moved per the discussions in the Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn page, which both of you have read. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of this page duplicates content from Dhul-Qarnayn. I will remove the Quranic excerpts and put a link to the Dhul-Qarnayn page.--Thomas Arelatensis 00:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Paranthetical specification in the absence of disambiguization is POV. See similar discussion on Bushism which the concensus was to move to from Bushism (term). Masterdebater 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "(Theory)" should be removed from the title, as its sole purpose is to push a POV. I'll go further to say that there is no precedent or guideline for qualifying the subject of an article in its title, and to set such a precedent would be a mistake of the slippery-slope variety. Melchoir 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. The "(Theory)", was imposed by a single editor highly hostile to the whole argument without even trying to reach a consensus. Aldux 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theological controversy

The last section is a mess, conveys the (false !) impression that medieval muslims consensually held the Earth to be flat (for a clear counter-example see excerpts from Idrisi in the talk:Dhul-Qarnayn page), and has no source except a link to a strongly anti-Islam website (check by yourself). If someone wants to clean it up, by all means feel free to do so...

Update: well, actually I did it myself :) --Thomas Arelatensis 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The historical personality of Alexander the Great was co-opted by the legendary traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, which chose to portray Alexander as "the Believing King" — a devout monotheist. It was in this Judeo-Christian context that the legends of Alexander the Great reached the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, it is not difficult to understand how the pagan Alexander may have ended in the Qur'an's list of Islamic Prophets

Huh? Is this trying to imply that the Arabs heard about Alexander the Great through Jews or Christians, and assumed that he was Dhul-Qarnayn? Or is it trying to explain why Alexander is considered to be a prophet in the first place? Also, this is theorised by a scholar(s) not wikipedians, correct? Stoa 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be stated that there is no way to establish without a doubt that Dhul-Qarnayn is referring to Alexander the Great. It is merely the opinion of some Muslim scholars, albeit some prominent ones, that this was the case. But I don't know if greats such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said that this figure in the Qur'an was Alexander. This article first seems to try to convince that the Qur'an is in fact referring to Alexander, but then is factually incorrect by religiously co-opting Alexander, as the Jews and Christians did. In fact, it is possible that Dhul-Qarnayn is someone else altogether. But this doesn't seem to be emphasized.

Hi, reply to both: What the article says is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is basically an excerpt from the pre-existing Alexander Romance. This is not so much a theological controversy as a matter of philology: we have texts concerning the "enclosing" of Gog and Magog by Alexander which pre-date the Quran, and we can trace the genesis of this legend from the times of Josephus. Apparently, what happened is this: the jewish scholars knew about those stories of Alexander, who by that time had been assimilated into the judeo-christian folklore as a faithful king (he appears several times in the Talmud). So they asked Muhammad whether he knew about these stories (in order to test his knowledge of past heroes) - and as it turned out, he did. --Thomas Arelatensis 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is too long...

There is no need for the point by point comparison. Only a few broad examples would suffice --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, you should consider that the Qur'an contains only 16 verses (sentences) about Dhul-Qarnayn. The purpose of the point-by-point comparison is to establish the "matter of philology" mentioned by Thomas Arelatensis above. 99.242.17.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Another Reson that Alexander couldn't be Dhul Qarnyan

The Sceptics of Alexander being the Master of two horns, say that he can't be it because of his sexual orientation.

In lesson 47, page 217, Paragraph 3 of the main lesson, sentence 2, in the published textbook: What Islam is all About, published by Noorart Inc. it clearly states:

"Some [Muslim Scholars] say it was Alexander the Great, who lived from 356 BCE to 323 BCE, but that is highly unlikely, given that Alexander was an idol-worshipper and a known homosexual."

I think that should be added.--Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't believe that Alexander was a Sodomist, here is your proof--Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't he be both an idol-worshipper, a homosexual, AND Dhul Qarnyan? Personally I am convinced that Jesus was homosexual, although it's just a belief. Maybe the writer(s) of the Qur'an thought that Dhul Qarnyan was someone else, or didn't know that he had traits that might be contrary to their teachings. Modern Holywood interpretations of Merlin the wizard bears little resemblance to the (propably) historical Myrddin Wyllt, but it is widely acknowledged that Merlin is largely based on him. After all, Alexander died a considerable number of years before the Qur'an was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.236.204 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn Cannot Be Alexander the Great?

It seems that the main point of the article is missed by some critiques. The article argues that what is being said of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an is very similar to Alexander the Great, not as a historical person, but as depicted in the Alexander Romance, and that the content of this romance was widely known in the Midle East at the time of the Qur'an. Therefore, the material in the Qur'an was probably inspired by this romance. The fact that the historical Alexander was an idolatrist and homosexual does not count as a reason against this argument because Alexander was not known this way in the Middle East at the time of the Qur'an. Unless, of course, one assumes the historical inerrancy of the Qur'an. Bahhasg (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statements about the word "balagha"

In the section In the Quran it is stated, "Modern scholars such as Dr. Zaghlool Al-Najjar agree now that the word "balagha" does not literally mean that Alexander came to the setting of the sun.[citation needed] In Arabic the word "balagha" is commonly used in reference to anything in the sky above to indicate time of day."

Of course, most muslim scholars agree on this claim, but this is not true of non-muslims scholars (see for example ).

As for the common usage for "anything in the sky above to indicate time of day.", I have never read an apologist use that argument and Lane's authoritative lexicon of classical arabic (Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon) gives no such indication.

In the following sentences, statements are made about other arabic words without stating which English words are being referred to (balagha = he reached, taghrubu = setting, aayn = spring). The statement about it being most likely a reference to the "Black Drin" is contentious and needs citation. I added a citation needed tag for the first sentence, but could have done so for the rest of the statements in the paragraph. I would have done this and added the above clarifications myself, but frankly, the whole paragraph is misleading and needs deleting or replacing with something more balanced. Do people agree?

available online at google books The Qurʼān in Its Historical Context‎

Gamma737 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no citations were given for the claim at all, I have removed it. - 99.242.17.45 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarm

It has been suggested that this article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it is true. On the other hand, this is an obscure literary subject and it's not at all clear how we can convey the important philological comparison between the Alexander romance and the Qur'an without the quotations. As such, I have taken the liberty of removing the "quotefarm" warning that has been in place here since March 2008 .... it does not seem to help and it is an eyesore. BUT I do think that there should be some discussion about how to deal with the issue of extensive quotations .. Maybe finding a way to use WikiQuote. -- Semaphoris (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ibid

"Ibid" and the likes should never be used in Wikipedia articles. It's confusing to those not familiar with the terminology and it's very likely to throw the whole system of notes into confusion if someone inserts a different source before it.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. In this case it wasn't too bad as every usage of ibid included the author name and year but it's still not a good idea to use it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)