This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dhu al-Qarnayn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhu al-Qarnayn. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhu al-Qarnayn at the Reference desk. |
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)
@ Wiqi55:, I reverted your edits of 30/31 January for the following reasons:
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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
@ 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)
@
PiCo: are you seeking a third opinion that agrees or disagrees with you?
JorgeLaArdilla (
talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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؟)
∫∨∧∫ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNF6161 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. [1] [2] 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
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)
@ Loverofediting: @ Doug Weller: please stop edit warring and discuss your differences here to resolve the case. Ahendra ( talk) 06:40, 6 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)
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 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Reliable sources are common sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.167.88 ( talk) 12:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
Partial record of disruptive edits (2022-2023)
|
---|
|
AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am a native Arabic speaker, following the section with Surat-Al-Kahf the meanings of the word "qarn" which is italicized are discussed, however, there is an error in that it is written as "qam" and not "qarn". Please fix it for clarity.
Change {The Arabian word qam means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} to {The Arabian word qarn means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} NiceCrispyBac0n ( talk) 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dhu al-Qarnayn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhu al-Qarnayn. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhu al-Qarnayn at the Reference desk. |
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)
@ Wiqi55:, I reverted your edits of 30/31 January for the following reasons:
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)
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 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.
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.
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
@ 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)
@
PiCo: are you seeking a third opinion that agrees or disagrees with you?
JorgeLaArdilla (
talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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؟)
∫∨∧∫ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNF6161 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. [1] [2] 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
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)
@ Loverofediting: @ Doug Weller: please stop edit warring and discuss your differences here to resolve the case. Ahendra ( talk) 06:40, 6 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)
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 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Reliable sources are common sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.167.88 ( talk) 12:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
Partial record of disruptive edits (2022-2023)
|
---|
|
AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am a native Arabic speaker, following the section with Surat-Al-Kahf the meanings of the word "qarn" which is italicized are discussed, however, there is an error in that it is written as "qam" and not "qarn". Please fix it for clarity.
Change {The Arabian word qam means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} to {The Arabian word qarn means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} NiceCrispyBac0n ( talk) 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)