Talk:Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Moving
Please see the discussion at Talk:Alexander in the Qur'an (Theory), a similar and related case. Melchoir 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I got rid of this part
Between Derbent and Dar'yal, however, there are no such mountains and the passes also are wide and passable. In ancient times savage hordes from the north invaded and ravaged southern lands through these passes and the Persian rulers who were fearful of them had to build a strong wall, 50 miles long, 29 feet high and 10 feet wide, for fortification purposes, ruins of which can still be seen.[3]
Because when you clikc on the link it says the wall was Sassanin in origin, and built in the fifth century AD.
[edit] Now really?
I have no idea why this article is here in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It does not, it any way, conform to the standard of scholarship expected of articles in this encyclopaedia.
To begin with, I must insist on highlighting the stupidity of using Jewish sources as evidence to lend credence to any argumet about Cyrus the Great being mentioned in the Qur'an, or being Dhul Qarnain. I have never come across any Historians proporting to verify Cyrus' mention in the Qur'an, by using said Jewish sources almost exclusively, and paying lip service to the Qur'an and its contents, and mentioning 'Muslim scholars' in passing.
The article establishes its dubious premise of using these Jewish sources by narrating an incident (uncited) where the pagans of Mecca were induced by them to ask the Prophet Muhammad about Dhul Qarnain. From here on in, references from the Bible, and other historical situations abound. There is no attempt to explore the myriad verses of the Qur'an dealing with Dhul Qarnain, in conjunction with these sources. No attempt is made to even include the Qur'an, apart from the title. Using an instance of Jew instigated questioning (uncited) as an argument for using Jewish sources puts the substantial tracts of the article in doubt.
It has weasel words such as 'Muslim historians' in the sentence "and the Muslim historians have also accepted this", in an attempt to link Islam and Muslims to what is essentially a Jewish discourse. As such, 'Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an' is a misleading title.
Another telling feature is the absence of any references at ALL to any of these texts, relying on quotes (which are uncited) as evidences or proofs for the argument.
This article is useless conjecture; shoddy scholarship (or lack thereof), and absolutely stupid.
Badshahi.
