Jump to content

Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.100.109.63 (talk) at 20:08, 9 October 2005 (→Proposed major revision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I see what the last message is getting at...i see there are a number of possibilities - in oposition to the belief that Alex was Dhul Q. If Alex The Great was Dhul Q then The Arabs would have chosen a name that was more similar to it i.e ( in pakistan it is sikander (you can here the resemblance in the phonics.- alexander/ (a-sikander) However there is no phonical similarity between |DHul-the arabic) and alex, implying two different figures. my argument is proven if you look at other historical names in other languages and compared the phonics to arabic. Abraham /Ibrahim --Jesus/ESA - Moses/ MUSA. in conclusion using this argument alex and dhul are to different figures.

Your 'argument' is none at all. Dhul Qarnain is not a proper noun. It is an Arabic expression which literally means "the two-horned ones", word for word "with (dhu) the (l) two-horns (Qarnain)". Since this name is not a proper noun but an actual Arabic expression, why on Earth would it be modified ? Thomas Arelatensis 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another point is .there is a reference to Dhul Q as being in the earth at the time of Abraham... it is thought Dhul Q travelled with Abraham to the Kaba implying that Dhul was ruling his kingdom from East to west in that period of history... if one was to open this line of thought the possiblity of Dhul Qarnain being Dhul Qarnain becomes apparant. we have a tendancy in the west to treat eastern historical references with less respect even contempt.. we need a fair open minded investigation to arrive at the truth. who ever takes further study in this area - GOOD LUCK -- UNSIGNED COMMENT

There are no logical arguments that Dhul Qarnayn is not Alexander the GReat. Please do not insult our intelligences. The pre-Islamic Christian legends about Alexander and the Qur'an's legend about Dhul Qarnayns are exactly identical. ONLY an Islamic POV would deny that the conclusion is that Dhul Qarnayn = the legendary Alexander. -- UNSIGNED COMMENT 01:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


I believe his name is rendered in the following way in Arabic: (ذولقرنين). Meursault2004 22:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ذو القرنين. AnonMoos 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dhul-Qarnayn is obviously Alexander in my opinion. Making him out to be Cyrus is an example of "spin doctoring" by fundamentalist Muslims. The whole story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran is clearly mythological. A large wall made out of iron blocks and melted copper is completely unrealistic. It would be incredibly expensive and the iron would simply rust. A wall made out of stone would be just as good and last longer.

Regarding the copper: Some translations say copper, others say brass, and Yusuf Ali says molten lead. I guess we need someone who knows Arabic to sort this out. -- UNSIGNED COMMENT

The original word in Qur'an ver 18:96 is قطر qiTr. which my Qur'anic lexicon defines as "molten brass", and which isn't included in my dictionaries of modern Arabic. Root q-T-r means "to drip, fall in drops". AnonMoos 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, before you are going to blindly stick to your own POV, do not discard muslim scholarship. There is a reason that there has never been a scholarly consensus on Dhul-Qarnyun.

1) Perhaps a closer examination of Al-Kahf would answer why this topic on "who was Dhul-Qarnyun" has largely been ignored by the ulema. The same polemical disputes are reprimended in the matter of the youths of Ephesus.

2) "The two horned one" = Alexander. Wrong. We know for a fact that Pyrrhus of Epirus had the same type of helemt, as was common in hellenistic times.

3) Alexander, Cyrus, and and Abrahamic King are all popularly held by Muslims to be Dhul-Qarnyun. I will not make the case for any.. until substantial proof (which I doubt anyone can give)is shown. It is not an important matter. Its polemical nature is just as harmful as the debates between muslims over if Luqman was a prophet or not. There is a reason why the Quran warns against such futile debates... -- UNSIGNED COMMENT

This sort of illogical "reasoning," which is clearly motivated by apologetic concerns of fundamentalist Muslims, is not acceptable as encylopedia content. --Zeno of Elea 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Disputed

The entire article has appalingly lopsided into an anti-islamic rant so as to suit Zeno of Eleas obvious agenda. I'll try fix it, but, there is a lot to do. I'll start with a revert and then see if any at all of his insertions is suitable. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you just stop vandalizing Irishpunktom. I'll report you if you do that again. -- Karl Meier 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be nice if you started to respect WIkipedias policies regarding civility. Your bad faith accusations doesn't help editors like Zeno, that actually contribute something useful here. -- Karl Meier 15:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've already stated to you, this is not vandalism, and I resent the crass accusation. Further, Zenos agenda is neither hidden nor implicit, it's right there. I doubt even he would deny it! --Irishpunktom\talk 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in you mud throwing and bad faith accusations Irishpunktom. Anyway, if we can't say that blanking a page without pointing out any reasons to do so is vandalism, then it is atleast disruptive. -- Karl Meier 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have stated previously, this was not a page-blanking, it was a revert to the last NPOV version. I am, and will, try and incorporate that users edits in a more Neutral way, several of those edits are actually decent, but some again are appallingly POV, unsourced and wrong. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced? You have just removed a huge amount of sourced information Irishpunktom, and you still haven't been able to point out anything specific that is PoV. The only thing you have done so far is to throw mud at named Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, just had a look. Some of Zeno's additions are good, but he gave the article an overall anti-Islamic bias and nasty, insinuating tone. A revert is a hasty solution, but reworking Zeno's version to take out the sneer is going to take some time. Dunno if I'll have it today. Zora 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, frankly, you could also just say something like that "it has some PoV issues", or that "it really need some NPoV work".... I'm sure your opinion would get through anyway. Another thing is that, I just reverted it back to the previous version. -- Karl Meier 20:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hmmm, just had a look. Some of Zeno's additions are good, but he gave the article an overall anti-Islamic bias and nasty, insinuating tone. " Zora, you don't have to anounce your arrival - however it would be greatly appreciated that if and when you do make edits, you describe them in the talk page. I want to add that I take offense at your comments that my contributions have an "overall anti-Islamic bias and nasty insinuating tone and sneer." These are very general negative comments about my "overall" contributions and to add injury to insult you have come up completely short on any specific details. I believe this is an ad hominem fallacy known as "poisoning the well."
"A revert is a hasty solution" Zora, please do not confuse the situation with ridiculous euphamisms. Irishpunktom has started a revert war here, and his actions are far from a "hasty solution." Irishpunktom's actions are a clear case of vandalism. -- Zeno of Elea 11:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my edits

I've been editing and refining this article for a long time now, and (as can be seen from Irishpunktom's reverts) this article has come a very long way since when I found it. Now that other editors have started taking an interest in this article, I must outline the history of this article. Though I completely rewrote Dhul-Qarnayn, I also incorporated all of Alexander in the Qur'an article into Dhul-Qarnayn. Alexander in the Qur'an now redirects to Dhul-Qarnayn. The information incorporated from Alexander in the Qur'an was not originally written by me and it was the long-standing content of Alexander in the Qur'an that had been agreed upon by consensus in that article. Also, most of the "Muslim Veneration for Alexander the Great" section of Dhul-Qarnayn was taken from the "Alexander's legend in non-Western sources" section of the article Alexander the Great. That section of Alexander the Great has been greatly reduced and it currently has a "main article at Dhul-Qarnayn" tag. --Zeno of Elea 11:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed major revision

I just spent a couple of hours revising Zeno's work. Since everyone jumped all over him for making major changes without consultation, I have posted my proposed revision at User talk:Zora/Dhul. I hope that I have made the article shorter and cleaner. I have removed huge swathes of quotes that, IMHO, were not necessary, as well as much of the discussion of Islam and flat-earth theories. Flat-earth theories are not directly relevant to Alexander the Great and should be relegated to a breakout article. Some material is there in a note -- which could be deleted if people agree -- but most of it needs to be transferred to another article. Zora 07:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zora but I completely disagree with your revision. You have rearranged the sections into an illogical mess. You have completely discarded the "historical background" section. You have completely removed the word "similarities" as if these are not similarities. The Qur'an quotes belong at the END of the article not at the beginign. And as for the many quotations, which I spent several weeks collecting and sourcing, this are of a central importance to the article. There is no rule against quoting sources, Zora. Since we are comparing literary works, quotations are neccessary in order to drive the point home. It is extremely POV of you to delete the Pseudo-Callisthenes quotes while leaving the Qur'an quotes in - your POV is as clear as day; you don't want people to read the striking similarity between the Qur'an quotes on Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander legend in Pseudo-Callisthenes. This article does not need a major revision. It does not need to be shortended - it is not too long. The flat Earth theory does not need a seperate section - the flat Earth theory should be discussed while explaining the Christian legend, since it cannot be understood without knowing the whole flat Earth theory. You have completely deleted the "Theological Controversy" section, as if there is no controversy!! I copied most of the "Theological Controversy" section from Alexander in the Qur'an, an article that I didnt even write! You changed "Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great" to "Muslim veneration of Dhul-Qarnyan"! WRONG. Did you even read the article before your "major revision?" That section describes Persian legends, Persian paintings, Persian poetry, etc about ALEXANDER. It is only IF you ASSUME that Alexander=Dhul-Qarnayn that you can CONCLUDE that "Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great"="Muslim veneration of Dhl-Qarnyan." PLEASE NOTE: most of the content in "Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great" was moved here from the article Alexander. Your version of the article is an incomprehensable mess and you intend to delete large amounts of information without explanation. I will have to revert your edits if you make such crazy changes. -- Zeno of Elea 13:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Flat-earth theories are not directly relevant to Alexander the Great and should be relegated to a breakout article." Zora, the Christian legend about Alexander the Great written in the Pseudo-Callisthenes rely heavily in a flat Earth theory. The CENTRAL THEME of the legend is that the Earth is flat, as the article explains. It is NECCESSARY to point out that the legend is about a flat Earth in order for the reader to understand what the hell the story is talking about. Can you explain how a narrow wall between two mountians could keep out a hoard of warriors (Gog and Magog)? Couldn't the Gog and Magog hoard just walk around the mountains, thus circumventing the Caspian gates? And how can we understand the Christian and Islamic legends' references to "the setting place of the Sun" and "the rising place of the Sun" and the "setting of the Sun into a murky sea" without understanding ancient man's view of the universe (e.g. Homer's view of the world). Zora, I think that your POV is distorting your reasoning. -- Zeno of Elea 13:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Zora, your "revision" of the article claims that Muslim mathematicians invented spherical trignometry and that therefore Islam does not embrace a flat Earth theory in any way. First of all, the "Muslim" in question is the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi and the idea that Al-Khwarizmi was a Muslim is highly questionable, it is quite probable that he was a Zorastrian ( a "fire-worshiper", as Muslims call them). Furthermore, even if Al-Khwarizmi WAS a Muslim, it does not mean that his mathematical work had anything to do with his religion. Today, there are Muslim biologists, paleontologists, etc. who do work in biological evolution theory - does this therefore mean that Islam endorses evolution? Please don't confuse the Qur'an and hadith with the great Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi. It is very interesting that you were in such a rush to mention the spherical trignometry of "Al-Khwarizmi Al-Magus," the ancient scholar of MATHEMATICS, that you completely forgot to mention the ancient MUSLIM scholars of ISLAM, such as Jalalan, Baidawi, Zamakhshari, etc., all emphaticaly INSISTED that the Earth is flat, even though the idea that it is round was being promoted by scientists of their time. For example, Al-Jalalan, stated in his ancient and famous Tafsir of the Qur'an, "In His phrase, `how it is spread', He denotes that the earth is flat. All the scholars of Islamic law agree upon this. It is not round as physicists claim." Isn't it interesting that you had to refer to an ancient Zorastrian mathematician in an attempt to prove that the QUr'an does not imply a flat Earth theory, and could not refer to the ancient Muslim scholars of Islam to prove this same thing? -- Zeno of Elea 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno, a flat earth theory isn't necessary in order to believe in Alexander's wall, any more than it's necessary for believing in the Great Wall of China. I ran across one Muslim web site that confidently located Alexander's wall somewhere in Central Asia (I forget where) and assured readers that this was proof of the truth of the Qur'an. You're just looking for a hook on which to hang yet another denunciation of Muslims, in this case as flat-earthers. One, that can be better handled in another article. Two, it's just not true. The Greeks knew that the world was round, and highly educated folks in both Christendom and the Muslim world knew it too. Look at the Flat earth article. As for Ibn Baz -- I researched the matter and found that he had partially backtracked, saying that of course Muslims knew the world was round, it was just geo-centrism that was implied by the Qur'an. Yes, he was an ignorant old man, but I don't think he represents all Muslims any more than Pat Robertson represents all Christians.
The rest of your objections seem to me to amount to passionate defence of your sacred prose, which does not impress me. Your article is too long, repetitive, and meandering, and it induces MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). Zora 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Zeno, a flat earth theory isn't necessary in order to believe in Alexander's wall," As always, we must be precise in our usage of language by making it clear what we mean. "Alexander's wall" is medieval Christian myth from the Pseudo-Callisthenes and forms a part of the mythical literature collectively known in literature as the Alexander Romance. The correct and precise name is not "Alexander's wall," it is "the Capsian Gates." NO ONE on Earth believes in the Caspian Gates anymore, Zora. As the quotations in the article establish, the myth about the Caspian Gates is part of a lengthy story which starts out in Alexander's court, where he is speaking to "the old wise men" who are informing him about the mountains at the end of the disc-shaped, flat Earth, "beyond India." Alexander then decides to set out to the ends of the Earth to build a gate to enclose the Gog and Magog on the other side of the mountains that surround the disc-shaped flat Earth. The narrator of the story adds a great amount of detail, describing the exact mechanics of how the Sun rises and sets into the fetid sea, and what its thermal effects are upon the people who live near the areas where the Sun rises. This is the story found in the Christian myth about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, and it is PART and PARCEL of the legend of the Caspian Gates. When we say, "Hey, look, the story about Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an is remarkably similar to a legends about Alexander in Pseudo-Callisthenes, For example the Caspian Gate sounds a hell of a lot like Dhul-Qarnayn's Gate" we are obligated to describe, in full, what the Pseudo-Callisthenes story about the Caspian Gate is and what the Qur'an's story about Dhul-Qarnayn's Gate is. One of the central themes of story in the Pseudo-Callisthenes is that the Earth is flat. Your POV is driving you to seperate the explicit, flat Earth theme of the Christian Pseudo-Callisthenes legend from the sections which describe the themes of the Christian Pseudo-Callisthenes legend. Your POV is even driving you to base your arguments on the idea that anyone actually still believe in the Caspian Gates ("Alexander's wall"), and you are thus trying to censor any of the content which explains WHY nobody believes in Pseudo-Callisthenes legends anymore (e.g. flat Earth theory). Wikipedia is not a forum for your POV. --Zeno 20:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhu_al-Qarnayn&oldid=25150255"