Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 one". A word-by-word decomposition goes as follows: "with (dhu, actually pronounced "though") the (l) two-horns (Qarnain)". Since this name is not a proper noun but an actual Arabic expression, why would it be derived from or resemble the orginal Greek name Alexander ?Thomas Arelatensis 16:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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 we have a tendancy in the west to treat eastern historical references with less respect even contempt..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)

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

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)

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)

Contents

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
    • 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)
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)

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)

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)
"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)

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)

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)

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)
"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)

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)

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)
"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." 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 of Elea 20:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"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 don't seem to be grasping the need for precise language. Are you saying that you found a Muslim website which claims to locate "Alexander's wall" (i.e. the Caspian Gates) or claims to locate Dhul-Qarnayn's Gate? Or does the website consider both to be the same? AS the article explains, MANY people throughout history have claimed to have located the Caspian Gates. As the article explains, "The gate itself had wandered from the Caspian Gates to the pass of Dariel, from the pass of Dariel to the pass of Derbend, as well as to the far north; nay, it had travelled even as far as remote eastern or north-eastern Asia, gathering in strength and increasing in size as it went, and actually carrying the mountains of Caspia with it. Then, as the full light of modern day come on, the Alexander Romance ceased to be regarded as history, and with it Alexander's Gate passed into the realm of fairyland." (Please note that in your "proposed major revision" you have deleted this crucial information). Does this mean that Pseudo-Callisthenes does not explicitly describe a flat Earth cosmology? -- Zeno of Elea 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"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." The more I look at your responses and your "proposed major revision" the more it seems to me that you have not even bothered to read the article. Did you read the caption of the T-O map by St. Isidore and the related information about Greek and Christian beliefs regarding the shape of the Earth? Did you read the quoted passages from Mar Jacob's discourse on Alexander and the Caspian Gates from the Syriac version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes which explicitly describe, in great detail, a flat Earth cosmology and explanation of where exactly at the ends of the flat Earth the Caspian Gates are and how they can be kept enclosed by a single narrow gate between two mountains? These are all cited and sourced facts. The Pseudo-Callisthenes says that the Earth is flat and yet you are making absurd statements about the Caspian Gates being somewhere in Central Asia and that "it's just not true" that the Pseudo-Callisthenes says that the Earth is flat while at the same time you are censoring the relevant quoted passages from Pseudo-Callisthenes in a supposed effort to "reduce the length of the article" by purging it of all quotations whatsoever. So what exactly "just isn't true?" It behooves you to be precise in your language and to point out precisely which statements in the article are factually incorrect, as you claim. As for your claim that "highly educated" Muslims and Christians believed that the world was round, I again refer you to examples such as St. Isidore (and let us not forget the persecution of Galileo Galilei by the Church, as well as the reknowned 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. -- Zeno of Elea 20:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"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." I went through the effort to meticulously cite everything I knew about Ibn Baaz's comments on the shape of the Earth. You are also obligated to cite your claims. If you researched the matter then you should have no trouble providing a citation. Furthermore, your opinion that Ibn Baaz was an "ignorant old man" is your own POV. Ibn Baaz was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and is a highly respected figure in some circles of Muslims. It is quite possible that he backed down on his claim that the "the Earth is flat and anyone who says it is round is an atheist deserving punishment," but the fact that he ever made such a claim is worth mention, along with the opinions of ancient Musilm scholars who also said that the Earth is flat. If you can cite a reliable source which shows that Ibn Baaz backed down from some of his claims then that also deserves mention. However, the POINT is that a flat Earth controversy exists in Islam and amongst Muslims, and in light of the fact that (in the opinion of many people) the story of Dhul-Qarnyan in the Qur'an directly implies a flat Earth, the context of flat Earth controversy should also be briefly mentioned in the article (as it is). IF you wish to start a seperate and detailed article about Islam's flat Earth controversy then please do so FIRST, BEFORE trying to delete any mention of it from THIS article. -- Zeno of Elea 21:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Since no one save Zeno has commented, I have to assume that he is the only obstacle to putting my version of the article in place. I will wait to do so, however, until I can write an Islam and flat earth theories article to hold the material that should be deleted from this article. The identity of Dhul-Qarnayn and flat earth theories do not belong in the same article, though they should be linked.

As for Ibn Baz' denial or backtracking, see [1]. He says he never said it and was misquoted. It is possible that he did say it and other Muslims, aghast at his ignorance, enlightened him as to the effect his statements would have if publicized -- as they were. As for his status among Muslims -- Zeno, you seem to think that Al Qaeda = Salafism = Islam. That's just not true. There are many many Muslims who think that Ibn Baz and Salafism are ignorance emboldened only by oil money. See [2]. Also read Desperately Seeking Paradise by Ziauddin Sardar, a liberal Muslim who turned down a million-pound bribe by the Saudis, who were trying to shut him up.

If you want to defuse the threat of Islamism, condemning all Muslims as ignorant bloodthirsty terrorists is not the way to go. That just convinces moderate Muslims that they have to close ranks against prejudice and protect the Islamists. Keeping the lines of communication open with folks like Ziauddin Sardar is a much more productive course of action. Zora 02:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"The identity of Dhul-Qarnayn and flat earth theories do not belong in the same article" This has already been discussed. One of the central themes of Christian legends about Alexander is a very specific flat Earth theory and cosmology. This flat Earth theme is clearly relevant to the legend about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes (such as the location of the Caspian Gates, the location of Gog and Magog, the location of the Sun when it rises and sets, etc.), and of course the legend about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes is highly relevant to this article. You can go write your article about flat Earth theories and Islam, but this article discusses the flat Earth theme in the Pseudo-Callisthenes and such a discussion firmly belongs here. I have already argued this above and you have failed to respond to my argument - instead you just keep repeating your false assertions and concentrating on tangent subjects such as Ibn Baaz, and irrelevant subjects such as Al-Qaeda, Saudi oil money, and terrorism.
"If you want to defuse the threat of Islamism, condemning all Muslims as ignorant bloodthirsty terrorists is not the way to go." I am not interested in "defusing the threat of Islamism," I am interested in improving this article, and this article has absolutely nothing to do with this so-called "Islamism." Nowhere did I "condemn all Muslims as ignorant bloodthirsty terrorists." I don't know what you're going on about, but it doesn't have anything to do with this article. -- Zeno of Elea 21:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure if its available on the net or not , but a lot of muslim scholars identify dhulqarnain as cyrus the great . Identification of dhulqarnain is a modern problem , in the times of Muhammad people actually asked him about the life of Dhulqarnain , & in reply these verses werte revealed .
Qarn also means time . And there are some tafsirs that explain his name in this context . But I really dont remember much right now . May be IFaqeer could help here .
Until Quran clearly says that the earth is flat , no body can say that it said so . Tafsir is not Quran .
Flat earth is not associated with Dhulqarnain , neither are bibilical stories . The article is about Dhulqarnain , so it should start with Quran , hadith ( if available ) & end with tafsir . Associated judo-christian mythology isnt dhulqarnain , neither is flat earth , nor the propoganda from FFI . Farhansher 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"Flat earth is not associated with Dhulqarnain , neither are bibilical stories" You are absolutely incorrect, for reasons mentioned in detail above and described in the article. Also note that the Christian legends are not "biblical" as they are not from the bible. -- Zeno of Elea 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
In his book The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz says that Bin Baaz issued a fatwa condemning believers in a round earth as atheists. He says Bin Baaz changed his position after speaking with a Saudi who had been in low Earth orbit and told Bin Baaz that he had personally observed the roundness of the Earth. (I don't know how a Saudi managed to get into low Earth orbit, however). Babajobu 21:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"I don't know how a Saudi managed to get into low Earth orbit" He was a Saudi prince. The royal family payed a large sum of money to NASA, thus he went into space. -- Zeno of Elea 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The lengthy quote from the Qur'an is there (in my version) because the whole article is an analysis of the quote. If you don't give it at the very first, you have to keep quoting bits and pieces from it to prove your point. Zeno's version must have quoted it three times over, twice in bits and pieces. It shortens the article to just give it at the start, blam, and makes it easier to follow the argument. It is not there for religious reasons -- it is not one of the more "hortatory" sections of the Qur'an.

As for the flat earth stuff -- if it's in a breakout article, it's still THERE. Splitting the article into two parts makes sense from a readability POV. Plus, it would give us space to discuss the matter that Zeno doesn't seem to want to discuss, namely, the fact that educated medieval Muslims knew that the earth was round, and invented spherical trigonometry to calculate the direction of the qibla. He blusters and says that it was a Zoroastrian who did the math, but in fact, it wasn't just one man, it was a number of MUSLIMS:

Al-Biruni, Abu Nasr Mansur ibn Iraq, Muhammad Abu'l Wafa al-Buzjani, Abu Muhammad Jabir ibn Aflah Al-Ishbili, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (from Katz, A History of Mathematics, 1998). Zora 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I could list as many Jews who are members of the Gay Liberation Front or Earth First. However, this would not indicate that Judaism supports ecoterrorism or violence on behalf of gay rights. Lists of Muslims who accepted the roundness of the Earth tells us nothing about the Islamic position on the matter as hashed out by Muslim theologians. Babajobu 22:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
But the theologians do not bind any individual Muslim, unless that Muslim chooses to follow that theological school. It is true that Muslim rulers intervened in religious matters to enforce "orthodoxy", but since different rulers endorsed different "orthodoxies", Muslims very quickly became somewhat cynical as to the value of the ruler's endorsement. I think you're looking at Sunni Islam through the lens of Christian history, where schismatic splintering was the norm. Sunni Islam is much more of a "big tent". Flat earth theologians and round earth mathematicians could peaceably co-exist.
In any case, I would regard these extended arguments as proof that Islam and flat earth theory deserves its own article, which would of course be linked to Dhul-Qarnayn. Zora 00:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is wrong with quoting the Qur'an passages as need be. In any case, putting a section with nothing but Qur'an passages at the top of the article is not a very good solution, imo. -- Zeno of Elea 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Some comments by Svest

  • The article seems to present facts instead of hypothesis! The Alexander stuff should be presented as one of the hypothesis.
  • Isn't it an article about Dhul-Qarnayn, a Quranic figure? It doesn't seem so if you read the article. The historical background of Alexander talks much about the Biblical traditions than about the Quranic ones.
  • Fakhr Razi was the first person who said that Dhul Qarnayn is the same Macedonian Alexander of Greece. His justification is that Dhul-Qarnayn mentioned in the Qur'an travelled to the east and the west achieving victories. Then he says that "While a survey in the history we do not find anybody other than Macedonian Alexander, therefore, the Dhul Qarnayn is the same Macedonian Alexander". This was the logic: Since you did not find it therefore it is he. It means to infer a positive proposition from a non-existential proposition. Although it seems that Dhul Qarnayn belongs to ante historic periods, like some of the prophets. "The first people appeared on the earth were Dhul Qarnayn and Abraham, while according to the Old Testament, the Macedonian Alexander existed 800 years after the Prophet Abraham. This does not concur with the idea of Fakhr Razi.
  • To Farhansher. Recently, Abulkalam Azad has compared Dhul Qarnayn with Cyrus and on the basis of the reasons and evidences cited in Old Testament, he claims that this personality has remained unknown to Muslims for being away from the Old Testament thus, while by referring to Old Testament it becomes obvious that Dhul Qarnayn is the same great Cyrus. This is a controversial statement, because it is said that when Cyrus conquered Babylon, he shook hand with a great idol called as "Mordoukh" to conciliate the nation of Babylon. While the Dhul-Qarnayn as described by the Qur'an was a pure servant of God.
  • Dhul-Qarnayn dam which has not been located and late Sayyid Hebat Allah Shahrestani compared it with China wall, while it is not in agreement with the Qur'an because Qur'an says: "That dam was made from molten iron and copper." Some others have thought that Dhul Qarnayn dam is the same dam of Bab al-Abwab of Russia (i.e., present Turkmenian). -- Svest 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Response to Svest:
"The article seems to present facts instead of hypothesis!" I disagree. And this is not really a hypothesis. Anyone with a Neutral Point of View is forced to conclude that Dhul-Qarnyan = the legendary Alexander, because (outside of Muslim beliefs) it is undoutable that the Qur'an contains material from the Christian legends about Alexander.
"Isn't it an article about Dhul-Qarnayn, a Quranic figure? It doesn't seem so if you read the article. The historical background of Alexander talks much about the Biblical traditions than about the Quranic ones. " Once again, the Syriac Christian legends about Alexander are not from the Bible, thus they are not Biblical traditions. Secondly, this whole article is an analysis of the Quran verses about Dhul-Qarnyan IN LIGHT of the Christian legends found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Thus your claim is false, as I see it.
"Fakhr Razi was the first person who said that Dhul Qarnayn is the same Macedonian Alexander of Greece." This is absolutely incorrect. If you read the article, you will notice that there is a quote from Ibn Hisham who claims that Dhul-Qarnayn = Alexander, and Ibn Hisham lives far before Fahr Razi. Other early Muslim scholars also said the same thing. The REASON that they said so was because they found the same story in the Christian legends, but at the time they thought that this was no different than finding Quran stories in the Bible (which does not disturb Muslims because they believe that the "previous revelations" were from Allah but were "corrupted").
"Abulkalam Azad has compared Dhul Qarnayn with Cyrus" The claim that Dhul-Qarnyan is Cyrus the Great is completley supurious and is not supported by any objective evidence whatsoever. This claim seems to have first been promoted by Maududi. And, as it has been pointed out, Cyrus the Great was pagan as well, so the same problem exists in that argument anyway.
" Some others have thought that Dhul Qarnayn dam is the same dam of Bab al-Abwab of Russia (i.e., present Turkmenian)." This is not encylopediac knowledge. As far as objective observers are concerned, Dhul Qarnyan's gate = Alexander's Caspian gates, and we know without any doubt that the Caspian Gates are a fairy tale based on a flat Earth theory. -- Zeno of Elea 02:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


To Farhansher. Recently, Abulkalam Azad has compared Dhul Qarnayn with Cyrus and on the basis of the reasons and evidences cited in Old Testament, he claims that this personality has remained unknown to Muslims for being away from the Old Testament thus, while by referring to Old Testament it becomes obvious that Dhul Qarnayn is the same great Cyrus. This is a controversial statement, because it is said that when Cyrus conquered Babylon, he shook hand with a great idol called as "Mordoukh" to conciliate the nation of Babylon. While the Dhul-Qarnayn as described by the Qur'an was a pure servant of God.
Well the problem is tat if Cyrus isnt that good , alexender is even farther away from Quranic standards . A possible polythiest , drug addict , homosexual ....& he fought for land , not for God . So the article should discuss Quranic Dhulqarnain , with both Alexender & Cyrus as theories . Flat earth & non-bibilical christian mythologies should be discussed in separate articles . Farhansher 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"Flat earth & non-bibilical christian mythologies should be discussed in separate articles " Farhansher, "the non-bibilical christian mythologies" mentioned here (specifically, the legends about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes) are a fundamental part of this article. The Qur'an's story about Dhul-Qarnyan is an identical (but abridged) version of a legend specifically found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes. The EXACT SAME STORY is found in the Qur'an and in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, the only real difference being that in the Qur'an the character is called "Dhul-Qarnayn" and in the Pseudo-Callisthenes the character is called "Alexander, the Believing King." The legends in the Pseudo-Callisthenes pre-date the Qur'an by at least 100 years (assuming that the whole Qur'an was written exactly when the Islamic traditons claim it was written, and not at a later time). It is for this reason that objective observers conclude that the story in the Qur'an about Dhul-Qarnayn was taken from the Christian legend about Alexander, and thus the title "Dhul-Qarnyan" refers to Alexander the Great. Thus the Pseudo-Callisthenes non-bibilical christian mythologies clearly belong in this article. To suggest that this article should be purged of any mention of the Pseudo-Callisthenes non-bibilical christian mythologies is very absurd. Once we are agreed that the Pseudo-Callisthenes legend about Alexander is to be discussed in this article, it is only fair that the Pseudo-Callisthenes be described in suffucient detail. One highly important aspect of the Pseudo-Callisthenes legend is that it describes a flat Earth theory, in a great amount of detail, and this flat Earth theory is used to explain WHERE "on Earth" Alexander built the Caspian Gates, and HOW a gate is able to keep the Gog and Magog people outside the world. The whole Alexander legend in Pseudo-Callisthenes is motivated by the flat Earth theory, as anyone can see by actually reading the quoted passages in the article. It would be nothing more or less than POV pushing to insist that the description of the flat Earth cosmology described in the Pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander legend be removed this article. And I furthermore note that, to an objective observer, the only way to make sense of the Qur'an's story about Dhul-Qarnayn is to read the Pseudo-Callisthenes legend and thus realize that the "rising place of the Sun" and the "setting of the Sun in a murky spring," etc., etc. described in the Qur'an, and to realize that this can only be understood in terms of a flat Earth theory (from an objective, i.e. secular, point of view). -- Zeno of Elea 02:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, if we take all the flat earth stuff and put it in a separate article, then link to it, it will still be available. As for it being so crucial to this article that many KB have to be devoted to it -- well, um, no. The exact same problem comes up in dealing with mythology, frex, the Hawaiian mythology with which I'm familiar. The ancient Hawaiians saw the earth as a flat plate bounded by the horizon, with the Hawaiian islands at the center. This is assumed by many of the myths. Do accounts of the myths discuss this at length? No, they dispose of it in a sentence or so.

Believe me, Ibn Baz' fatwa is just as embarrassing to the Saudis in another article as it would be here. Note, also that the Ibn Baz article needs lots of work, and the flat earth kerfluffle should be discussed there too. You might want to turn your energies there. Zora 07:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal to make a new "flat Earth" article (though I dont have time to do so myself at the moment). I also agree that some of the things in this article, such as the stuff about Ibn Baaz, are better discussed in that article and not here. But I want to make it very clear that the vast majority of the "flat Earth stuff" in this article does not belong in an "Islam and flat Earth theories" article because it is specifically describing the legend about Alexander found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes material, specifically Alexander's travels to the end of the flat Earth to build the Caspian gates, Alexander watching the sun set into the fetid sea at the end of the flat Earth, etc. The primary purpose of this information is to describe the legend found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes. And the fact is that most of the flat Earth stuff in Pseudo-Callisthenes has been described in a couple sentences followed by quoting directly from the Pseudo-Callisthenes. These few sentences and quotes have are accompanied by the T-O map and the rendition of Homer's view of the universe, and they are clearly relevant, informative, and concise. I'm sure that we can reach a compromise. -- Zeno of Elea 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

New version up

Yuber replaced the old version of the article with my version. I had said that I wouldn't do so until I'd created an Islam and flat-earth theories article to hold stuff that I'd taken out of the Dhul-Qarnayn article. Rather than revert Yuber, I scurried to make the other article. It's kind of sparse at the moment, needs references, but at least it's there. Would appreciate help working on it. Zora 04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You have not even explained you edits yet, Zora. I have had to do most of the talking just to get some discussion going about your "proposed major revision" which you spent 2 hours hastily and poorly coming up with and then just as quickly abandoning. I also note that many changes have been made since you copied this article to your user pages and scrambled it into an incoherent mess. YUBER is certainly in NO position to be replacing this article with ZORA's user pages, when Zora has not even EXPLAINED her edits yet. How was Yuber ever allowed back onto Wikipedia anyway? --Zeno of Elea 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Could you kindly refrain from SPEAKING IN CAPS. It is called "shouting" and is considered rude. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Then why do you do just that in your edit summaries, Irishpunktom?: [3]. -- Karl Meier 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Err.. those are abbreviations. Using NPOV instead of npov is not considered shouting, you're being silly now. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, when I first read your editsummary "RVUE2NPOVV", I actually thought that your caps lock was stuck or something, but apparently that wasn't the case... -- Karl Meier 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You didn't think that was an abbreviation?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Not that I don't enjoy watching endless reverts between two versions of an article, but why don't we at least accompany it with some discussion as to the disputed points. Babajobu 13:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Maybe Irishpunktom could point out some of things that concern him in this article, and mention why he wants to start a revert war, to delete large parts of it? What are your specific PoV concerns Irishpunktom? -- Karl Meier 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The article as it stands deals with, and expands upon only one possible POV, contains pointless information irrelevant to Dhul-Qarnayn, and the other version is significantly more NPOV and just plain better. Whats your problem with the alternate version Karl?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere but I've been watching this article for a long time now. I understand why Zora got another version and I understand why Irish is reverting. IMHO guys, the version of ZEO is a lecture and not an balanced article. It presents a theory as a fact (Dhul Qarnayn=Alex). It's like A=B and B=C than A=C. But there are other theories that conclude that A=D. There's no room for other theories in the article. I say a lecture because it got a message: Islam got that from other sources, some Muslim scholars found out that DQ=Alex and therefore Islam believes in the flat-stuff theories! -- Cheers Svest 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I dont think Muslimhope is an authentic site on Islam .For a site that " calls muslims back to Bible ", so much extensive use of Muslimhope doesnt make any sence . Its like Quoting OBL for reference on Views of Americans . Just compare the claims that they made about tafsir ibn kathir , & the stuff that I was able to find out on tafsir site . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the link. I never did. I trust it would be OK if I used a reference from Katz' history of math textbook? That's an extremely reputable source. Zora 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Which link Zora? Svest 00:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The link to Muslimhope. Zora 00:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"It's like A=B and B=C than A=C. But there are other theories that conclude that A=D. There's no room for other theories in the article." What? Why not? There is no room for other theores? What other theories? You don't need to censor the "theory" that DQ=Alexander in order to describe some other theories that Muslims have come up with, e.g. "DQ=Cyrus the Great, DQ=Tubba, DQ=Joe Camel, etc" -- Zeno of Elea 03:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Other Dhul-Qarnayns

The point I added - that at least four people were termed "Dhul-Qarnayn" by the early Arabs - is thoroughly referenced and obviously relevant to any consideration of this issue. Please don't delete it. - Mustafaa 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I added your material. Since I fitted it into the current list, you may want to make sure that I haven't mangled your argument. Zora 10:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Great job guys. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to edit this article but I was sure that a lot was missing in this article. -- Cheers -- Svest 10:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Thanks! I've got some more stuff re Tubba' al-Aqran at home... - Mustafaa 11:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"The point I added - that at least four people were termed "Dhul-Qarnayn" by the early Arabs - is thoroughly referenced " Throoughly referenced? It's not referenced at all. Provide a reference. -- Zeno of Elea 03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Note re Alexander's wall and flat-earth theories

"How can a single wall and gate prevent the barbarians from invading the civilized countries to the West?" Well, al-Idrisi's 14th-century map provides the obvious answer. While I don't have a photo of his globe, his map of the eastern hemisphere is sufficient to illustrate the point. If you can read Arabic, you will notice that the area at the bottom right, bounded by impassable mountains at the top and by the ocean at the bottom, is labelled "Yajuj, Majuj". The map has south on top, and the area in question would correspond to modern-day northeastern Siberia. Theories about a flat earth have absolutely nothing to do with it. - Mustafaa 11:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And some tafsir which even Zeno will no doubt realize predates the faintest suggestion of modernism:

"(Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth. As for the idea of his reaching the place in the sky where the sun sets, this is something impossible...
(he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.[4]

This is Ibn Kathir, writing in the 1300s. - Mustafaa 11:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My conclusion? The entire section is irrelevant. The existence in a Christian source of some embroidery about flat-earth theories in a story about Alexander means absolutely nothing to a Muslim interpreter, medieval or modern - and is relevant here only to the extent that illustrates a parallel between the stories, not insofar as it's being used to argue that Muslims believed in a flat earth, nor that Muslims "should" believe in a flat earth. Currently, it is exclusively doing the latter. - Mustafaa 12:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. - Mustafaa 12:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Arabic map provided by Mustafaa appears to be a flat Earth map. Note that a flat circle is not the same thing as a sphere, as can be seen from a T-O map. ALso, Mustafaa is asking us to read a map written in Arabic on English wikipedia. Mustafaa must provide a translation of this map from a reliable source in order to use it as evidence (he must also prove that it is not a flat Earth map). Secondly, the legend about Alexander the Great, in the Pseudo-Callisthenes, explicitly says that the Caspian Gates are at the end of the flat Earth and that that is how Alexander managed to lock Gog and Magog behind a single wall.
"The existence in a Christian source of some embroidery about flat-earth theories in a story about Alexander means absolutely nothing to a Muslim interpreter, medieval or modern - and is relevant here only to the extent that illustrates a parallel between the stories, not insofar as it's being used to argue that Muslims believed in a flat earth, nor that Muslims "should" believe in a flat earth. Currently, it is exclusively doing the latter." The statement that Mustafaa is objecting to is "In order to understand the legend of the Caspian Gates, that is in order to understand how a single gate between two mountains could prevent the Gog and Magog hoard from invading the world, one must understand that the Christian legend was written in a time when most people believed that the flat Earth theory is true ..." THis statement appears in the "Gog and Magog" story under the subsection "In the Christian legend." This does not neccessarily say anything about the story in the Qur'an - it is a description of the ancient Christian legend, which happens to appear in the Qur'an in an abridged format. Saying that there is no connection between the Alexander legends in Pseudo-Callisthenes and the Dhul-Qarnayn story in the Qur'an is an extreme POV that is only held by fundamentalist Muslims - it is not going to serve as an objective guide to the content of article. -- Zeno of Elea 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, According to that map, the mountains containing these Gog Magog fellas are not at the end of the world, unless you are seriously contending that Muslims thought Spain the end of the world. Flip that image around and maybe you will understand more clearly. Secondly, Mustafaa is one of the best, if not the best, translators of Arabic we have. Do you have any reason at all to doubt his translations? Thirdly, your statement that only "fundamentalist Muslims" disagree with your POV version of events is, of course, inherently POV, insulting and wrong, and frankly you should apologise. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, are you an authority on the history of Muslim cartography? Can you read Arabic? What makes you think that this map is of a round Earth and not a flat Earth? You are asking users on English Wikipedia to read an Arabic map. We are not all Arabs. User:Mustafaa is not an authority on the history of Muslim cartography, nor is he a reliable source as a translator. BUT it is true that Mustafaa might be the best translator we have at the moment. If Mustafaa could kindly edit the map in Photoshop and label it with English translation then that would be great. -- Zeno of Elea 02:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Am I an authority on early Muslim cartography, no, and neither are you. Can I read Arabic, Yes, and, apparently, so can you. As for that map, it is not invented by him, and indeed if you do a google search for it you will see it in various places, both adademic and non, these sites can give you a translation if you do not believe User:Mustafaa. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

History

"the poetic version of Jacob of Serugh which was written not later than A.D. 521". [5] cites a goodly number of scholars who say it cannot have been written any earlier than AD 629, as a matter of fact. The date issue definitely needs more careful attention here. - Mustafaa 12:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly is your explanation? Are you suggesting that it was not the Qur'an that copied the Christian myth, but rather the Christian myth that copied the Qur'an? The sources cited by [6] do not suggest that the legend of Alexander, specifically, was written after the Qur'an. What those sources say is that the Pseudo-Callisthenes is a work of many hands over a long period of time, and was compiled from many variations of legends about Alexander that had been in the making for thousands of years. These sources say that Mar Jacob's sermon is probably not THE source from which the Qur'an got the story - that does not mean that the myths about Alexander originated in the Qur'an and were somehow copied by Christians who lived before Muhammad. Do you have any source more reliable than http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ which discusses this issue? The quote I provided speaks specifically about the QUr'an and the Christian poetic version of the Alexander myth, written by Mar Jacob. If you wish to bring an alternate POV in a scholarly manner then you should also rely on a quote from an academic source which specifically speaks about the Qur'an and the Christian legend and clearly supports your POV. I find it quite amusing that on one hand your friend Irishpunktom accuses me of using "anti-Islamic websites like www.answering-islam.com" when I have not cited a single non-Muslim website (and almost all of my sources are printed books written by academics, not some ridiculously POV websites). On the other hand, you don't see any problem with citing Muslim apologetic websites instead of doing actual research yourself and accurately citing the printed sources. So you've found a Muslim apologetic website which misrepresents some quotes by historians and academians - that is not NPOV content, but it could certainly lead to a good section in the article about problems with dating the Mar Jacob sermon and what this means. -- Zeno of Elea 03:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


The "Jewish legends" section is unacceptably vague - in time reference and about who said what. As it stands, it certainly doesn't belong in "Reasons to identify Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great"; without more detail, I don't think it belongs here at all. Again, "a Christian legend has it" is way too vague - a legend of what date? And an Ethiopic version of what date? This is simply not of encyclopedic standard. - Mustafaa 12:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"The "Jewish legends" section is unacceptably vague - in time reference and about who said what. As it stands, it certainly doesn't belong in "Reasons to identify Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great"; without more detail, I don't think it belongs here at all." There is no "Jewish legends" section. There is only a "Historical background" section. Of course the incorporation of the Alexander Romance into the Judaism and Christianity is of the utmost relevant in this article, and specifically in the Historical background prelude to the section describing why Dhul-Qarnayn has been identified with Alexander the Great for 1400 years. I note that I did not write the Jewish legends information, I found it in Alexander in the Qur'an. It's true that the information about the Jewish legends is not well cited, however this does not mean that you can delete it. Of course you would try to delete it if you wanted to hide any information which suggests that perhaps Islam followed the same folly as Judiasm and Christianity in erroneously thinking that Alexander was a pious monotheist. That is your extremist POV, and you are entitled to it, but it does not justify your claims that such information should be deleted. A lack of detail is clearly not just cause for deleting any and all information. -- Zeno of Elea 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Source Please

According to this article the Following quote is sourced. I have a few problems here. The quote Reads: "The episode of the building of the gate against Gog and Magog is found in the Christian legend concerning Alexander, and in the poetic version of Jacob of Serugh which was written not later than A.D. 521. The Koran was written over a century after this version." is from the 1971 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Page 201 of, I'm assuming, it's first book) . I don't have that version, but I do have the Online version, and that is not there. Now, I need to know what the writer is speaking of, what book or writings by Jacob of Serugh contains these passages? According to Anti-islamic sites (which contain this exact same quote), Gustaf Knös' "Chresthmathia Syriaca" [7] quotes Jacob of Serugh .. but he doesn't. Where does Jacob of Serugh make these statements? I would like a primary source here! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That quote is not from Encylopedia Britanica. The quote is from Iskandarnamah - A Persian Medieval Alexander-Romance, Translated by Minoo D. Southgate, Columbia University Press, New York, 1978, p. 201. -- Zeno of Elea 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but I really want to know where Jacob of Serugh wrote it.. in what works? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
According to official Wikipedia policy, reliable secondary sources are always preferable to primary sources. A wikipedia admin, SlimVirgin, provided a good explanation of this in another article:
"Zora asked me to clarify a comment I made on Talk:Islam about secondary sources. Generally, good secondary sources are preferable to using primary sources, especially if the latter requires interpretation, but it depends on the situation. If you're writing about a criminal case, the the judge's summing up would be a primary source, and would be a better source than a newspaper report about the trial, which would be a secondary source. But if you're writing about Euripides' Medea, a scholarly secondary source would be better than a Wikipedia editor trying themselves to interpret Euripides, which would count as original research. We can use primary sources so long as we don't come up with our own interpretation, argument, analysis, or synthesis of facts, in order to advance a particular position. If we're only quoting, that's fine; but as soon as we start to say what is meant, then we're into original research. To present an analysis, argument or interpretation, we have to find a good secondary source. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)"
Secondly, Irishpunktom, I am not your private researcher. I am not here to take research assignments from you and go find answers to questions that you have. I have cited the source of the quote that I used. The citation is all you need in order to begin researching the answer to your question, by yourself. I would recommend a trip to the library if you are so sincerely interested in the writings of Jacob of Serugh. Most probably the author of the quote is referring to "A Discource Composed by Mar Jacob upon Alexander, the Believing King, and upon the Gate which he made against Gog and Magog," in The History of Alexander the Great Being, the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Translated by E.A. W. Budge, 1889. -- Zeno of Elea 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

reverts

I had added some stuff[8][9][10][11][12] that was removed witout any reason .

The reasons for revelation are necessary. It is important to mention that Muhammad didnt create all these stories , these were actually questions that were put to him by jews . So the question " Who was DQ " , is better to be sought in Torah or Talmud . Quran is just answering their question .

The tafsir is also neseccary. It should be mentioned that the Arab Muslim scholars didnt believe that DQ actully went to the end of Flat world . But he went to the place where civilisation ended in the west . So this question posed by people that Islam advocates flat earth is a big slander , since as Ibn Kathir says , these stories were created by people of the book . Nothing to do with Islam . And the same people of the book are again puting words in the mouth of Islam on christian sites.The tafaseer can also be used on Islam & Flat Earth article .

I had also added links for the benifit of those who have time to write , & have better typing speed than me .

F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You have persuaded me that Muhammad spoke only truth, and that the corruptions introduced into the scripture of the People of the Book are now being unfairly attributed to Islam. Thank you so very much. Babajobu 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And you are quite wellcome . Those are the actual translations of Tafsirs , unlike the non-bibilical christian mythologies that were added here by zeno , or the accusations made by "come back to bible" site. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that information about any non-biblical Christian mythologies should be deleted from this article? -- Zeno of Elea 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well the article is about a quranic figure , I dont think there is a need of any more explanations . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 03:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"So this question posed by people that Islam advocates flat earth is a big slander": it is a slander being propagated by Muslims as well as Book People. Again, see the bin Baz fatwa. Ya, Allah, why do the Muslims persist in defaming the Muslims?? Babajobu 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why do you believe Ibn Baz made the Fatwa, when he says he didn't. Wouldn't he be in a better position to know? And if he issued a fatwa, why would he deny it? Your argument makes no sense.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, not only do you disagree with it, but it actually makes no sense. Farhansher says that flat-earth theories are non-Muslim, and that to claim otherwise is a slander against Islam. I point out that, according to some sources, a prominent Muslim theologian issued a fatwa claiming the world was flat. I state that, if true, this casts doubt on Farhensher's assertion. If you find that logic totally inexplicable, I can't help you. Babajobu 12:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora's "Proposed Major Revision"

A few days ago, Zora rewrote this article in her user pages at User talk:Zora/Dhul. She announced this, but did not explain her edits in detail. When I asked for details, she did not give them. When I objected to her edits, she did not defend her edits. User talk:Zora/Dhul is an incoherent mess that has not been explained by Zora and has been refuted without adequate respone from Zora (please see above). The edit history shows that Zora spent about 2 hours completely "rewriting" an article that has taken years to write. Now, certain editors are replacing this article with User talk:Zora/Dhul and all of these editors are widely known apologists for Islam. Zora is not even bothering to talk about User talk:Zora/Dhul and she was not even the one who copied that "revision" here. I suggest that Zora and others first explain their edits, and then proceed with editing SLOWLY and LITTLE by LITTLE. When I made major ADDITIONS (not DELETIONS, as is the case here) to Criticism of Islam, I was jumped on by these same apologists for fundamentalist Islam who claimed that I had "gone on a frenzy again" and they proceeded by reverting all my edits and telling me to edit slow and little by little. I ask that Zora, Farhansher, Mustafaa, FayssalF, and Irishpunktom explain why they are replacing this article with Zora's "proposed major revision" -- Zeno of Elea 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it, I put it up, I asked people to look at it, and everyone BUT you preferred the severely edited version better. I don't think that this could have been a surprise to you. Your major points are still there in the new version, and in the new Islam and flat-earth theories article. Zora 08:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno Claims that this article "has taken years to write". What Zeno does not mention is that before they started editing it, it was completely different[13]. The article, as Zeno wants it, did not take years, but a few days to chop from well known Anti-Islamic sites[14]. The Version Zeno put up went up without the slightest bit of the consensus Zeno is now demanding, and Zoras version has significantly more support. Also, far from taking "years to write", Zenos version at most is A month and a half old, beginning as it did on August 25, 2005. It's also worth noting that on that day, without consensus or discussion, Zeno completely blanked Alexander in the Qur'an, and turned it into a re-direct to Here[15], thus further consolidating his POV that there could only be one meaning, one person, to whom the title of Dhul-Qarnayn could apply. Also, Zeno, STOP TALKING IN CAPS, we are all capable of reading. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think I'm an apologist for Islam. I've had a fair number of Muslims mad at me because I remove material I think is too pious, or add things they'd prefer not be mentioned. It's just that I want to be fair. FAIR. Zora 10:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Talking about the infamous Muslim apologists expression that is heard 10 times a day at least in every discussion. It serves for nothing. It's just like calling oneself's being an apologist himself. Everyone is an apologist in the eyes of others! What's is weird indeed in Zeno's comments is that she/he adds some spices to it rendering it Muslim apologists for fundamentalist Islam. I think Zora is right and therefore having people challenging Zeno's views doesn't mean that they are apologists or having any relationship with the rant about terrorist Islam. A very important thing to be noted is that my name is mentioned in Zeno's list of most wanted people for reverting. I had said clearly that I am not an expert in the issue and I am only an observer w/ some opinions here. I indeed haven't censored any version, I only said that Zeno's version looks as if DQ=Alexander! Something like an Alexander's article mirror and a fact instead of a theory among others.
In brief, Irish demonstrated that Zeno's wrong. Zora as well did the same. And now I say the Zeno is wrong and no wonder why his version would look a POV version for many people that Zeno is accusing of being part of the (Muslim Apologists for Fundamentalist Islam Association - MAFIA). Cheers -- Svest 10:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
"Everyone is an apologist in the eyes of others!" I'm sorry, Svest, but you are clearly not understanding what an apologist is. Your extremist intellectual relatavism is not accepted by academians who study religion. In the academic study of religion, the primary goal is always to avoid both polemics as well as apologetics. These are valid and technical terms in the study of religion, they are not insults or personal attacks. Nor is true that everyone is an apologists or that avoiding apologetics is impossible. If you believe that I have written something wrong in the article, then please elaborate by specifically quoting the text that you are disagreeing with.
"I only said that Zeno's version looks as if DQ=Alexander!" Any objective version of this article will look as if DQ=Alexander to any objective observer because the only rational explanation is that the author or authors of the Qur'an copied a psuedo-religious Christian myth from the Alexander Romance. Only in the Muslim mind is it possible that DQ!=Alexander. This makes this article an extremely controversial topic, and it is the reason why so many Muslim editors have resorted to deleting most of the article without any explanation - and they continue to delete more and more of the article, creating a deeper and deeper divide between the article and the version fork that Zora inappropriately started on her User pages. Sometimes a certain POV is more reasonable that other POVs. For example, there are some people who believe that the Earth is flat - the flat Earth article discusses some of them. Now, according to NPOV we have to represent both the round-Earth and flat-Earth POVs in a neutral manner. However, any objective reader is going to find the flat Earth POV to be extremely implausable no matter how NPOV that flat Earth article gets. In the same way, any objective reader is going to find the DQ=Alexander POV to be more plausable since it is the inevitable conclusion from a purely rational point of view. However, I am not saying that the article I wrote is perfect. It probably IS true that there is a POV in it, but you actions (as well as the actions of others whom I have named above) have been completely inappropriate. If you think there is a POV in the article then concentrate on a specific sentence, parapgraph, or subsection, and please explain your edits, especially if you are deleting half the text and all the images. That is the civil way of doing things - it is not appropriate to start your own version of the article on your user pages and then launch a revert war to replace the article with your user pages without proving any discussion that is even remotely proportional to the extent of changes being made. Please think about how you are acting, and the possible implications of violating the core values of WIkipedia (such as civility, consensus, discussion, NPOV, etc.) -- Zeno of Elea 01:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
please explain your edits, especially if you are deleting half the text and all the images. I said many times that I reverted nothing, included nothing and removed nothing. Svest 07:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I said many times that I reverted nothing, included nothing and removed nothing. Svest You lying to our faces is not going to help your cause. The user "Svest " is actually just User:FayssalF, and User:FayssalF did a revert two days ago [16]. Faysal, is there a reason that you have changed your nick to "Svest" and are pretending that your edit history is not your own? -- Zeno of Elea 10:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, my I use that nick in most of my communications on the web (emails, etc...) I choosed here my real name FayssalF for the account. Everybody knows me by FayssalF than by Svest! I don't do that to hide my history edits as everyone knows how to check that!!! I am sorry for saying never as seriously don't remember doing that. However, read very well my revert comment and see that it was more about the way Karl managed the revert before: Karl, please! If you don't want to use the talk page, at least rev with comments. It wasn't a revert concerning a point of view from my side as I had stated that I am not an expert in this article. -- Svest 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)  Fayssal™

One of the main reasons I deleted half the text is that there was too dang much of it. It was verbose, ill-organized, and confusing. That has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with copyediting. I originally left in some of your flat-earth stuff, trying to be nice, but Mustafaa made the decision -- warranted, IMHO -- that it didn't contribute and could be axed. That chunk included a few of the pictures. There are still pictures left.

All the writers I know (and I know a number of published writers) rely heavily on "alpha readers", who run the first eye over their text and give feedback. They listen to the feedback too. Good writers look at proposed changes and say, often as not, "Hey, that improves the sentence. Thanks." Bad writers believe that every word of theirs is perfect and resist editing mightily. I think I'm a fair writer and critic, but I'm not perfect. I really do appreciate it when folks like Mustafaa, whose judgement I respect, cut some fat out of my prose or point out problems in the argument. It hurts, but the point is the result, not my ego.

As a matter of fact, Zeno, I agree with you that Dhul-Qarnayn is a figure of Arabic folklore inspired by the legends of Alexander the Great. The argument is MORE convincing if it's more readable. It's also more convincing if there's no argumentative bias in the text. If it's clear that the article is not trying to force the reader to a foregone conclusion, then the reader is going to trust that the article has presented all sides of the case fairly and then he/she may possibly come to the same conclusion that you and I did. You have to trust to the "facts", so far as they can be established, rather than rhetoric for this result. If some readers don't draw the same conclusion, well, OK. Let a hundred flowers bloom (and don't cut their heads off when they bloom). Zora 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"One of the main reasons I deleted half the text is that there was too dang much of it. It was verbose, ill-organized, and confusing. " Zora, first of all, you will note that I took many of your suggestions and incorporated them into the article. Secondly, your claims that the article is "verbose" and that there is "too dang much of it" are not supported by specific references to the article. Articles on Wikipedia are considered too long when they exceed a certain number of KB - and when that happens, a notice automaticlly appears on the article. Such a notice has not appeared on the article, so your unfounded statement that you can delete half the article just because you feel that it is "too long" is clearly not a civil or logical way of doing things. Perhaps you should try to have more consideration for the opinions and POVs of others - if you feel something is too long then explain what specifically is too long and why - what sentence, paragraph, or section? You are free to edit this article at any time. If you feel that a specific sentence, paragraph, or section is too long, then you should systematically edit it while explaining your edits - something that you have not done once. Starting your own article on your own user pages and then waiting for POV pushers to replace this article with yours is highly inappropriate, and no amount of your endless and vauge insinuations about "verbosity," "confusion," and "ill-rgoanization," is going to change that. If you think that there is an organization problem, then refer to specific text and sections in the article and explain how your edits are supposed to improve it. I think that if this article got enough attention, a great many editors would feel that your fork of this article at User talk:Zora/Dhul (which you spent little more than 2 hours working on) is not an improvement at all - and given the absense of any specific discussion from you or those who are supporting your fork of this article, it cannot simply replace what is already here and what many users have worked on over the course of a very long time. I mean your fork of the article starts off with a section at the very top which is nothing but a long and poorly formatted passage from the Qur'an - any reasonable Wikipedia editor will tell you that such a subsection should never exist in any Wikipedia article and should be moved to the Wikisource sister project. This is just one objection that I have raised against your fork of the article, above. You have still not replied to my comments, even though a long period of time has passed and you have certainly have spent much of that time on Wikipedia. You can't even be bothered to defend your so-called "proposed major revision." I don't want to discuss this directly with you any longer and, as I have already indicated, will be seeking mediation instead. I hope that through mediation we can come to a better understanding and put an end to the reverts and bickering - after all, we are both objective, well-read, and intelligent people who basically agree with eachother. -- Zeno of Elea 02:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, it's very hard for me to explain, step by step, what makes one sentence sing and one sentence go clunk, or one presentation work and another one confuse the reader. I could spend half an hour trying to write about one sentence. Doing it for many KB of prose would be extremely time-consuming. I'm used to working with people who take a look at a proposed revision and say, "Hmmm, I see what you're getting at, but here, on this sentence, what about ... " and then we start riffing. That's the way collaboration works. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to edit someone who demands that every change be justified.

But I'll try. Your presentation had too many long quotes. You repeated the relevant Quranic quotes many times. Mixing the "Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander" and "Dhul-Qarnayn story as proof of flat-earth" issues was extremely confusing. Those are logically separate subjects, and they're now in two separate articles. I set up the new version with an extremely straightforward outline: Statement of problem, quote of passage to be explicated, arguments PRO Dhul-Qarnayn = Alexander, arguments CONTRA. That's all that's needed. Then it was just a matter of slotting chunks of your prose into the outline. I tried to condense as much as possible.

I put the proposed revision up in a separate space and invited comment. Everyone but you thought the new version worked better. They didn't think it was perfect, as shown by the many surgeries performed upon it since, but they thought it was preferable. Let go of your prose! If you don't think that the PRO arguments are sufficiently persuasive, you should work on those, rather than trying to drag the article back to your original version. Zora 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing about the flat Earth issue. It is quite simple. The Christian legends explicity describe a flat Earth. So, when I described the Christian legends in the article, I quoted the passages described the flat Earth cosmology in which the legend of the Gog and Magog and Alexander's gate grew. These quoted passages are accompanied by cartographic images and relevant captions, describing Christian and ancient flat Earth cosmologies. You will notice that in the latest version of the article, no mention is made of a flat Earth in sub-sections titled "In the Qur'an" - the flat Earth passages are only mentioned in subsections titled "In the Christian legends." The only exception to this is in the "Theological Controversy" section. IF it is true that the the source of the Qur'an's story of Dhul-Qarnayn is the Christian legend about Alexander, THEN it is clear that the Qur'an's story implies a flat Earth SINCE the Christian legend explicity describes a flat Earth. This is not confusing at all, and it is up to the reader to decide what the source of the Qur'an's story is.
"you should work on those, rather than trying to drag the article back to your original version." I see that you are still insisting that it is appropriate for you to replace this article with your forked version of the article. That is not how the Wikipedia process works. If we all came up with our own forked versions in our user pages then there would be havoc. And indeed you have caused a huge amount of havoc here. I suggest that instead of trying to replace this article with your forked version, you work on systematically editing the existing article while explaining your edits. If justifying your changes is too much of a burden for you then perhaps you should take a break from Wikipedia. YOU need to be build consensus. And in an article with so few editors, consensus means that you have to convince more than just the people who are engaging in revert wars in an attempt to replace this article with your forked version of it. -- Zeno of Elea 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
May be we should start editing the article from here[17]. It is clearly that brfore you started improving the article , it was written in a nice NPOV fashion . Then you started adding Christian polemic into it . Without any consensus you converted this into a Islam slandering article . DQ is a quranic figure , he should be identified according to what Quran says about him . There is no conclusive evidence htat says that DQ is Alex . You copy it from Islamophobic site & you call it reality . You copied LIES from Muslimhope & then you pasted them here as an evidence of Islam believes flat earth . Now you call for NPOV . This must be a joke .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"May be we should start editing the article from here[18]. It is clearly that brfore you started improving the article , it was written in a nice NPOV fashion." You're pretty funny, User:Farhansher. Are you sure you know what the abbreviation NPOV stands for?
"you started adding Christian polemic into it" Christian polemic? I think you are confused. This article references ancient Christian legends about Alexander. It does not reference Christian polemics against Islam. The legends about Alexander were written well before Islam.
"You copied LIES from Muslimhope..." I am not famaliar with Muslimhope. I have not referenced any website called Muslimhope. You seems to be the one who is lying, right now. Furthermore, if you believe that some statement in the article is factually incorrect then please tell us which specific part of the article is factually incorrect and why. -- Zeno of Elea 11:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

another alternative...

I'm not really happy with Zena's version, nor the existing version. The current article is not only POV, it also contains information which should really be on Alexander the Great, not here. On the other hand, Zena's article is confusing in its structure. Both have their points, but.... If I may recommend an alternative, restructure the current article like so:

  • 1. Similarities to Alexander the Great
    • 1.1 Historical background — move substance to Alexander the Great
    • 1.2 The two-horned one — move substance to Alexander the Great
    • 1.3 The Caspian Gates
    • 1.4 Gog and Magog
    • 1.5 The rising of the Sun from the fetid sea — retitle to "Scope of travel" or something
    • 1.6 Alexander's travels — move under 1.5; excise flat earth stuff, it was discussed already in 1.5.2
  • 2. Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great inapproiate for this article, move to Alexander the Great
  • 3. Theological controversy — rewrite, removing POV; we need to respect both sides and present them, not talk about which position is tenable or not; strike anti-religious bias, flat-earth stuff
  • 4. Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an — maybe strike, should already be found in section 1; replace with reference

In short, present the similarities, then present inconsistencies. Make no judgements. If there are other positive alternative for Dhul-Qarnayn's identity with some substance/research behind it, put that in a new section 4?

This will make the article smaller (intentionally). — AdamDiCarlo 19:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

.1 Historical background - has been been moved to "2.1. Historical background on religious Alexander legends" to make it clear what is being discussed in the section. That section obviously does not belong in Alexander the Great. The article Alexander the Great is already very long (much longer than this article). The article Alexander the Great is about the historical Alexander (a real person who did many things). The legendary Alexander is an altogether different subject, and is discussed in Alexander Romance (with brief mention in the article Alexander the Great). The article Alexander Romance is about a wide range of legends written about Alexander - both religious (monotheist and polytheist) as well as secular legends. Thus, section 2.1 does not belong in Alexander Romance either, as it is meant to be a brief introduction to the Alexander Romance with specific mention of religious legends. The widely held belief on secular scholars of Islam is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran is an Alexander Romance. In order to explain this in the article, it is neccessary to explain the historical background of why Alexander the Greek pagan ended up in the legendary traditions of earlier monotheistic religions. How and why this happened must be briefly explained in this article, though the main article is obviously Alexander Romance.
1.2 The two-horned one - moving this section to Alexander the Great is obviously wrong. The section is called "two horned one" which, translated into arabic is, "Dhul-Qarnayn." Now why would an analysis of the Arabic phrase "Dhul-Qarnayn" belong in any article other than the one titled "Dhul-Qarnayn"?
2. Muslim veneration of Alexander the Great - moving this to Alexander the GReat would be inappropriate. Muslims did not just begin venerating Alexander the Great because they were in the habit of venerating ancient Greek pagan conquerors. Note that all of the veneration of Dhul-Qarnayn was done by early Persian Muslims. Before the Arab-Muslim conquest of Persia and the conversion of the Persians to Islam, Alexander the Great was the hated enemy of Persians. Before Islam, the two great superpowers of the world were Greece/Rome and Persia. The Greeks were the national enemy of ancient Persia, and Alexander the Great was a Greek who succeeded in destroying the Persian Empire. In the Persian lore, Alexander is directly blamed for causing the end of the golden age of Zorastrianism. But with the Muslim-Arab conquest of Persia, the Persian Muslims suddenly started venerating Alexander the GReat as a prophet of Islam. It would be inappropriate to remove this information from this article. Furthermore, I note that Zora and others are trying to change the title from "Muslim veneration of Alexander" to "Muslim veneration of Dhul-Qarnayn." This is blatent POV and ignorance - that section specifically discussed Musilm veneration of Alexander. Changing "Alexander" to "Dhul-Qarnayn" is totally factually incorrect and is an extreme POV pushing tactic that editors should be held accountable for in a perfect wikiworld. -- Zeno of Elea 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Surely the entire battery of templates on the article page could be reduced. Perhaps to "This article is in need of attention". Jkelly 05:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Those templates were inserted by a user who is not acting in accordance with Wikipedia polcies. -- Zeno of Elea 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Distruptive actions by User:Farhansher aka "F.a.y."

User:Farhansher, who has started signing his comments under the alias "F.a.y" is distrupting this article. A look at the latest diff quickly shows that User:Farhansher is deleting appropximately one half of the content of this article. He has inserted five different "clean up banners." He has destroyed the organization of this article. He has made no real contribution - all he is doing is taking Zora's forked version of this article which Zora has yet to explain, and which Zora herself is not standing behind.

What do you mean that I'm not standing behind it? I thought I wrote a reasonable version; other people improved it ... and then I couldn't figure out what was happening. Farhansher and Zeno were reverting back and forth with versions neither of which I particularily liked. So I'm supposed to make it a three-cornered revert war? So far as I can tell, nothing good is coming from this, and I'm sick of it. I don't like being threatened either -- Zeno says he's taking me to mediation and if I don't cooperate, he'll file an arbcom case against me. So far as I can tell, I'm guilty of editing his article. You guys can fight each other to a standstill and then the rest of us will come clean up the mess. Zora 12:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
When I came here , I only wanted to add some Cyrus stuff , then one thing lead to other , & I was compelled to add a lot of other stuff . I was just curious that shouldnt DQ article discuss theories about DQ as theories , rather than as facts . But then I was wrong . Because to any objective obvserver , it is evident that DQ=Alex....there is no question about that . Being born with an illogical , fundamentalist , apologetic muslim mind , I wasent able to see the evident fact . I dont have that low EQ , but ... on this article , my visual cortex was overloaded with one word , i.e. Pseudo-Callisthenes . I had to do it . If you think I was wrong , my apologies . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Farhansher has not explained why he is doing this. His only goal is to delete as much information from this article as possible and to make it as unreadable as he can, while pushing his extreme fundamentalist Muslim POV. In his revert comments, User:Farhansher has accused me of copying information from a Christian "anti-Islam website." I challenge User:Farhansher to show a single sentence in the article that is a copyright violation or to point out a single Christian website that has been sourced in the article. All of the sources in the article are published books - all of the references can be seen in the appropriate section of the article. User:Farhansher is being offensive to members of the Christian religion, once again. And once again, User:Farhansher is trying to discredit information by claiming that it comes from "anti-Islam Christian websites" without a shred of evidence to show that any information in the article relies on any non-Muslim websites. User:Farhansher's blatently POV-pushing edits are characterized by the comments he has made on this discussion page. For example, consider the following discussion that took place between me and Farhansher earlier (above):

Are you suggesting that information about any non-biblical Christian mythologies should be deleted from this article? -- Zeno of Elea 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well the article is about a quranic figure , I dont think there is a need of any more explanations . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 03:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that I need to explain why this is outrageous POV pushing. It's more than obvious that something needs to be said about the similarity between Dhul-Qarnayn and legends about Alexander the Great - after all, it was an early Muslim (Ibn Hisham) who first wrote that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great. Yet User:Farhansher is insisting that since Dhul-Qarnayn is a "quranic figure" no further explanation is needed - outside the Quran. Now, this is a POV that is already represented in the article. The article does say that some Muslims insist that nothing outside of the Quran is known about Dhul-Qarnayn. However, this is just one particular point of view. Trying to delete any information from the article that is not in the Quran is clearly the worst kind of POV pushing - a narrow and ridiculously fundamentalist POV that cannot possibly set the purpose or tone of an article. User:Farhansher is also spreading blatent misinformation. Above, he wrote:

...It should be mentioned that the Arab Muslim scholars didnt believe that DQ actully went to the end of Flat world . But he went to the place where civilisation ended in the west . So this question posed by people that Islam advocates flat earth is a big slander , since as Ibn Kathir says , these stories were created by people of the book . Nothing to do with Islam . And the same people of the book are again puting words in the mouth of Islam on christian sites.The tafaseer can also be used on Islam & Flat Earth article . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is simply false. Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the Quran verses about Dhul-Qarnayn clearly asserts a flat Earth theory. The passage from the tafsir can be found in section 1.1 of the article (Dhul-Qarnayn in early Islamic literature). The Quran describes Dhul-Qarnayn travelling to the "setting place of the sun" and seeing it setting into a "murky sea." In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir explicitly defined the "setting place of the sun" as "the furthest point that can be reached in the direction of the sun's setting" - this explicitly implies a flat Earth. On a round Earth, there is no "furthest point that can be reached" in any direction because it is ROUND.

The great irony is that in his latest attempts to distrupt this article, User:Farhansher is deleting section 1.1 of the article (Dhul-Qarnayn in early Islamic literature). This is the section which contains the excerpts from the tafsir, as well as other sources such as the sira. If User:Farhansher does not wish for his activities on this article to be moderated by the administrators, he should (at the very least) explain his edits and do them gradually instead of deleting half the article in one go (without any explanation other than blatently false accusations about me copying content from "Christian websites"). User:Farhansher's shows of hatred and hostility towards members of the Christian faith should not go unnoticed. This is not the first time that the he has made such comments. I am not a Christian, but I am nevertheless offended by User:Farhansher's derogatory statements. Furthermore, making false accusations against other users is a serious violation of the Wikipedia code of conduct. Finally, User:Farhansher's deletions of information and senseless, unexplained reverts, are distruption at best and vandalism at worst. Hopefully he will begin showing more civility in the future, and the matter will not have to be escelated. -- Zeno of Elea 09:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


On a round Earth, there is no "furthest point that can be reached" in any direction because it is ROUND. Wrong. All you have to do is assume - as the medieval geographers sensibly did, being ignorant of America - that one hemisphere is entirely covered with water, and be aware that - in Arabic as in English - "earth" means "soil" as well as "this planet". - Mustafaa 11:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir was arguing that the Sun does not literally set into a sea. If he didn't believe in a geocentric, flat Earth view, why didn't he just say that the Earth is round and the Sun does not really set at all - that the sun does not really orbit the earth? Instead, Ibn Kathir argued that the setting of the sun into a sea is just a metaphore for how it would appear at the END OF THE EARTH. The fact that Ibn Kathir failed to mention that the Earth is round and that the solar system is not geocentric, and the fact that Ibn Kathir referred to the Eastern and Western ENDS OF THE EARTH, is more than enough evidence against your claim. You have absolutely no evidence that Ibn Kathir believed that the Earth is round but that the Western hemisphere is all water - this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Secondly, what you say is illogical. Even if the Earth was a pangea supercontinent, there is no such thing as the "farthest Western point reachable." This is because you could get on a boat and sail around the Earth. The concept of the farthest point reachable in the direction of the sunset is manifestly a flat Earth concept. There is absolutely no doubt that Ibn Kathir believed that the Earth is flat. This is manifest in his tafsir of the Dhul-Qarnayn story as well as his tafsir of other stories. For example, in regards to verse 31:10, Ibn Kathir wrote: "<..without any pillars that you can see.> meaning, 'there are pillars, but you cannot see them,' according to Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, Al-Hassan, Qatadah, and several other scholars. Iyas bin Mua'wiyah said, "The heaven is like a dome over the earth," meaning without pillars. Similar was reported from Qatadah, and this meaning is better for this part of the Ayah [verse], especially since Allah said in another Ayah, <He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His permission.> [22:65]". Ibn Kathir was a man who believed that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth. This is manifest from his writings. This is nothing extraordinary or surprising. Most people in the medieval ages continued to believe that the Earth is flat. Ibn Kathir was not a scientist, he was not God, he was not an infallable prophet, and he lived in an ancient time. It light of the many statements made by Ibn Kathir, which clearly imply a flat Earth view, and in light of the time and place where Ibn Kathir lived, and in light of the fact that he was not a scientist or a deep sea sailor, it would be quite extraordinary to claim that Ibn Kathir taught that the Earth is round. You cannot produce a single statement by Ibn Kathir which even remotely implies a round Earth. -- Zeno of Elea 13:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Greetings

He has inserted five different "clean up banners

That wasent me

He has made no real contribution

I ve added added reference to context & connections bw Cyrus & DQ

User:Farhansher has not explained why he is doing this.

Well I expected an explanation regarding the addition of Muslims believe flat earth assersion ( that came from Muslimhope ) , & the whole DQ must be Alex theme .

His only goal is to delete as much information from this article as possible and to make it as unreadable as he can, while pushing his extreme fundamentalist Muslim POV.

Lets not go into it . I might have the same things to say about you . But then...it isnt gona change anything .

I challenge User:Farhansher to show a single sentence in the article that is a copyright violation or to point out a single Christian website that has been sourced in the article.

[19][20][21][22]

User:Farhansher is being offensive to members of the Christian religion, once again.

Comeon man...you are putting words in my mouth . Like that muslimhope site puts words in Ibn Kathir's mouth . I am not offensive to anybody , I am just curious , if Answering Islam & muslimhope should be allowed here ,by the samelogic, will answering christianity be allowed on Christianity pages .

I don't think that I need to explain why this is outrageous POV pushing. It's more than obvious that something needs to be said about the similarity between Dhul-Qarnayn and legends about Alexander the Great - after all, it was an early Muslim (Ibn Hisham) who first wrote that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great. Yet User:Farhansher is insisting that since Dhul-Qarnayn is a "quranic figure" no further explanation is needed - outside the Quran'

You are doing it again , I never said nothing outside Quran shouldnt be here , I thought you would understand , Since DQ is a Quranic figure , priority should be given to Islamic scholars , not Pseudo callistines

I dont think there is a need of any more explanations

I actually meant to say "I dont think there is a need of any more explanations from my side" . Next time I'll be cautious .

Trying to delete any information from the article that is not in the Quran is clearly the worst kind of POV pushing

U can see my first edit for an idea of what I was trying to do .

This is simply false. Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the Quran verses about Dhul-Qarnayn clearly asserts a flat Earth theory. The passage from the tafsir can be found in section 1.1 of the article (Dhul-Qarnayn in early Islamic literature). The Quran describes Dhul-Qarnayn travelling to the "setting place of the sun" and seeing it setting into a "murky sea." In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir explicitly defined the "setting place of the sun" as "the furthest point that can be reached in the direction of the sun's setting" - this explicitly implies a flat Earth. On a round Earth, there is no "furthest point that can be reached" in any direction because it is ROUND

Anybody can see what you are trying to do here , I again dont think there is any need of explanation ( from my side that is )

The great irony is that in his latest attempts to distrupt this article, User:Farhansher is deleting section 1.1 of the article (Dhul-Qarnayn in early Islamic literature). This is the section which contains the excerpts from the tafsir, as well as other sources such as the sira

that can be found in Alexander the Great -- or not? section

User:Farhansher's shows of hatred and hostility towards members of the Christian faith should not go unnoticed. This is not the first time that the he has made such comments. I am not a Christian, but I am nevertheless offended by User:Farhansher's derogatory statements

Well you are trying to paint me as a christianophobic ? Hatred ?? comeon man .

AS for being offended , take a look here , person should practice what he preaches .

This sort of illogical "reasoning," which is clearly motivated by apologetic concerns of fundamentalist Muslims, is not acceptable as encylopedia content

So Maududi is a illogical "reasoning" man who is motivated by apologetic concerns of fundamentalist Muslims

The Qur'an quotes belong at the END of the article not at the beginign

Its like saying Bible belongs in the end while explaining christianity .

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.

A fine piece of reasoning , Quran needs to be in the end , Pseudo-Callisthenes on the top ??

"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).

I am speechless

Jalalan, Baidawi, Zamakhshari, etc., all emphaticaly INSISTED that the Earth is flat

Source : muslimhope ??

In His phrase, `how it is spread', He denotes that the earth is flat

WOW


Wikipedia is not a forum for your POV

Just imagine who is saying this

a flat Earth cosmology and explanation of where exactly at the ends of the flat Earth the Caspian Gates are and how they can be kept enclosed by a single narrow gate between two mountains? These are all cited and sourced facts. The Pseudo-Callisthenes says that the Earth is flat and yet you are making absurd statements about the Caspian Gates being somewhere in Central Asia and that "it's just not true" that the Pseudo-Callisthenes says that the Earth is flat while at the same time you are censoring the relevant quoted passages from Pseudo-Callisthenes in a supposed effort to "reduce the length of the article" by purging it of all quotations whatsoever. So what exactly "just isn't true?" It behooves you to be precise in your language and to point out precisely which statements in the article are factually incorrect

Again the very same Pseudo-Callisthenes=Quran=DQ=Alex=Flat Earth stuff copied from......

Ibn Baaz was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and is a highly respected figure in some circles of Muslims. It is quite possible that he backed down on his claim that the "the Earth is flat and anyone who says it is round is an atheist deserving punishment," but the fact that he ever made such a claim is worth mention, along with the opinions of ancient Musilm scholars who also said that the Earth is flat

So....Ibn Baz says he didnt say it , zeno says ...he did.....we must believe zeno ????

This flat Earth theme is clearly relevant to the legend about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes (such as the location of the Caspian Gates, the location of Gog and Magog, the location of the Sun when it rises and sets, etc.), and of course the legend about Alexander in the Pseudo-Callisthenes is highly relevant to this article. You can go write your article about flat Earth theories and Islam, but this article discusses the flat Earth theme in the Pseudo-Callisthenes and such a discussion firmly belongs here

Arhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Anyone with a Neutral Point of View is forced to conclude that Dhul-Qarnyan = the legendary Alexander, because (outside of Muslim beliefs) it is undoutable that the Qur'an contains material from the Christian legends about Alexander.

Now is my time to get offended , zeno has accused all muslims of believing in flat earth , this shouldnt go unnoticed .

Secondly, this whole article is an analysis of the Quran verses about Dhul-Qarnyan IN LIGHT of the Christian legends found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes

Here he actually accepts it . Now if I call it christian copy pasted material , am I wrong .

As far as objective observers are concerned, Dhul Qarnyan's gate = Alexander's Caspian gates, and we know without any doubt that the Caspian Gates are a fairy tale based on a flat Earth theory

Muslim community is again offended .

The Qur'an's story about Dhul-Qarnyan is an identical (but abridged) version of a legend specifically found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes.

offended again .

is for this reason that objective observers conclude that the story in the Qur'an about Dhul-Qarnayn was taken from the Christian legend about Alexander, and thus the title "Dhul-Qarnyan" refers to Alexander the GreatIt

and again . BTW who is this OBJECTIVE Observer ( I mean ofcourse you are , but anybody other than you here )

One highly important aspect of the Pseudo-Callisthenes legend is that it describes a flat Earth theory, in a great amount of detail, and this flat Earth theory is used to explain WHERE "on Earth" Alexander built the Caspian Gates, and HOW a gate is able to keep the Gog and Magog people outside the world. The whole Alexander legend in Pseudo-Callisthenes is motivated by the flat Earth theory, as anyone can see by actually reading the quoted passages in the article. It would be nothing more or less than POV pushing to insist that the description of the flat Earth cosmology described in the Pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander legend be removed this article. And I furthermore note that, to an objective observer, the only way to make sense of the Qur'an's story about Dhul-Qarnayn is to read the Pseudo-Callisthenes legend and thus realize that the "rising place of the Sun" and the "setting of the Sun in a murky spring," etc., etc. described in the Qur'an, and to realize that this can only be understood in terms of a flat Earth theory (from an objective, i.e. secular, point of view)

offended again

The primary purpose of this information is to describe the legend found in the Pseudo-Callisthenes.

I thought this was DQ's article

What? Why not? There is no room for other theores? What other theories? You don't need to censor the "theory" that DQ=Alexander in order to describe some other theories that Muslims have come up with, e.g. "DQ=Cyrus the Great, DQ=Tubba, DQ=Joe Camel, etc"

I have lost count how many times muslims have been offended on this page.

THis statement appears in the "Gog and Magog" story under the subsection "In the Christian legend." This does not neccessarily say anything about the story in the Qur'an - it is a description of the ancient Christian legend, which happens to appear in the Qur'an in an abridged format. Saying that there is no connection between the Alexander legends in Pseudo-Callisthenes and the Dhul-Qarnayn story in the Qur'an is an extreme POV that is only held by fundamentalist Muslims - it is not going to serve as an objective guide to the content of article

Maaaan ...what is this guy thinking .

Are you suggesting that it was not the Qur'an that copied the Christian myth, but rather the Christian myth that copied the Qur'an

Is any body counting .

There is no "Jewish legends" section. There is only a "Historical background" section. Of course the incorporation of the Alexander Romance into the Judaism and Christianity is of the utmost relevant in this article, and specifically in the Historical background prelude to the section describing why Dhul-Qarnayn has been identified with Alexander the Great for 1400 years. I note that I did not write the Jewish legends information, I found it in Alexander in the Qur'an. It's true that the information about the Jewish legends is not well cited, however this does not mean that you can delete it. Of course you would try to delete it if you wanted to hide any information which suggests that perhaps Islam followed the same folly as Judiasm and Christianity in erroneously thinking that Alexander was a pious monotheist. That is your extremist POV, and you are entitled to it, but it does not justify your claims that such information should be deleted. A lack of detail is clearly not just cause for deleting any and all information.

same as above

Any objective version of this article will look as if DQ=Alexander to any objective observer because the only rational explanation is that the author or authors of the Qur'an copied a psuedo-religious Christian myth from the Alexander Romance.

The agenda unveiled .

Only in the Muslim mind is it possible that DQ!=Alexander.

The source of all evil ??An offence ?? right ??

IF it is true that the the source of the Qur'an's story of Dhul-Qarnayn is the Christian legend about Alexander, THEN it is clear that the Qur'an's story implies a flat Earth SINCE the Christian legend explicity describes a flat Earth. This is not confusing at all, and it is up to the reader to decide what the source of the Qur'an's story is.

This is actually the best argument I have ever seen

You're pretty funny, User:Farhansher.You seems to be the one who is lying, right now

this was the thing that made me enter the revert wars . A personal insult that shows zeno isnt interested in discussitions , but in pushing his agenda . Before that , I was simply adding stuff here & there .

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

This made me add Reference to context section , I nevever planned to do it but ....

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

This made me add a whole Maududi's tafsir section on DQ's gates .

User:Farhansher's shows of hatred and hostility towards members of the Christian faith should not go unnoticed

The sole reason why I wasted a whole hour answering the whole above section , again that comprises of senseless accusations .

Now a summerised version of all this would be

"Zeno believes quran is a copy paste of Pseudo-Callisthenes " , & , "only muslim mind can believe that Alex!=DQ" , An insult to 1.5 billion muslims .
"He thinks Quran is less important than christian mythologies whle explaining Quranic figure" Most illogical argument I've ever seen .
Puts words in the mouth of other people , not a sign of good faith .
Assersts baseless accusation against well known muslim scientist . ( I know where this comes from ...ofcourse not from those ridiculus sites )

"Any objective version of this article will look as if DQ=Alexander to any objective observer because the only rational explanation is that the author or authors of the Qur'an copied a psuedo-religious Christian myth from the Alexander Romance"

Here he unveils his agenda & calls his POV the objective version of article . Case closed .

F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)