Talk:Alexander the Great in the Qur'an
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Dhul-Qarnayn, due to size or style considerations. |
It should be noted that the name Alexander or al-Iskandar is not mentioned at all in the Qur'an and that the figure dhul-Qarnayn may or may not represent an actual historical person, the possibility being that he is a myth presented for the purpose of a moral lesson, his actual existence not necessarily being assumed. The article seems to present the connection between the qur'anic figure and Alexander as all but undeniable. This is simply not the case.
- 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)
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
