Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran

Recent lede reverts

We should retain at least some aspects of the long-standing lede. Also, attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn is not inline with WP:NPOV nor with modern scholarship. Recent scholarly works still refer to Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character", which is only "identified with Alexander". An example from 2016,

... exegetic activity revolving around the the mysterious character of Dhū al-Qarnayn (“The Two-Horned”), mentioned in a Qurʾanic sūra (Q 18: 83–97). According to one interpretation, ultimately accepted as authoritative, Dhū al-Qarnayn is identified with Alexander the Greek -- l-Iskandar al-Rūmī -- ... ([1], p. 211, Brill)

In other words, we must capture how reliable sources introduce and summarize the subject. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add the weasel word "some" at the lead has to stop, per WP:OR and WP:WEASELWORDS. I removed it yet again and I expect discussion, not reverts per WP:BRD. Also, avoid sloppy accusations that anyone is trying to "hide" anything. This is just nonsense and it violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. All I am trying to do is remove the weasel word. Dr. K. 06:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the history of the article before accusing anyone of edit warring. The long-standing lede (since late 2012) always presented doubt in the first sentence. Here is the version that was stable for many years before Pico's edit warring: [2], notice the use of "may be". The same applies for deleting the second paragraph, which is also found in the stable version. Since you claim to be familiar with policies, you should also know that the article must fairly reflect other views to not end up as a WP:CFORK. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The deleted para

This is the deleted para:

Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, but others disagreed. A few early Muslim scholars saw it as a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia. It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great. There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts.

This is why it doesn't belong in the lead:

• The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken.
• "Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great.." No they haven't - that's not what "endorsed" means. What they've done is identified DQ as AG. This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources - Wheeler for one.
• "...but others disagreed." Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round. Our job is to (a) find where the weight of scholarly opinion lies, and then (b) represent all significant opinions,signifying their importance. So far as I can tell, the weight of opinion behind AG=DQ is so great that anything else is fringe (notably the idea that DQ is "really" Cyrus the Great).
• ...followed by two sources, one of them dating from 1927 (really?) and the other, so far as I can tell, not disagreeing with the DQ=AG consensus (if I'm wrong please provide a quote - and the author of the second one, an article titled "A Hero Without Borders: Alexander the Great in the Medieval Persian Tradition", is Faustina C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, not Julia Rubanovich).
• "In an attempt to settle chronological discrepancies, medieval exegetes and historians suggested the existence of two Dhū al-Qarnayns: Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Akbar (the elder Dhū al-Qarnayn) and Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Aṣghar (the younger Dhū al-Qarnayn). The former is the one mentioned in the Qurʾān; he lived after the Prophet Ṣāliḥ and before the Prophet Ibrāhīm (Abraham) and is famous for erecting the Wall against Gog and Magog. The latter is identified with Iskandar-i Rūmī, who conquered Iran and whose counsellor was Aristotle." This quote is irrelevant - chronological discrepancies? Where does the DQ story in the Quran give any chronological information? A real wall against a real Gog and Magog? A real Abraham? All very well for medieval exegetes, but in terms of modern scholarship it's lunacy.
• "It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great." We're not interested in theology. Nor in Persian nationalism.
• "There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts. This is close to meaningless.

So, the article, and the lead, have to focus on the ties between Alexander the Great and the stories in the Quran, and they have to avoid theological speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comments sound persuasive to me. I agree. Dr. K. 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV. While you assert that the scholarly consensus equates Dhu al-Qarnayn with Alexander, Brill's latest collection describes Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character".[3] Clearly the link between the two is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise, we need sources that explicitly refer to the scholarly consensus, not your original research. Also, where did Wheeler claim anything about it? (quote him please) I doubt that a scholarly consensus will emerge, since recent scholarship moved on to the development of individual motifs, not the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. The identify issue remains an old debate largely dominated by medieval historians and 19th-century orientalists (which is why I believe the widely-cited Anderson's paper is informative here). We can't label any of these views "fringe", as reliable sources still refer to them even in short articles. And a minor correction to what you said above: A Hero Without Borders is the title of multiple chapters in an edited collection. The article I correctly cited and linked is ch.8 by Julia Rubanovich ("Persian Tradition"), not ch.7 by Doufikar-Aerts. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I am not someone familiar with the scholarship on the topic but I've reverted the edit again because of it's horribly non-encyclopedic language. "See my expose" for example - this is Wikipedia, not a blog.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi], you talk about "attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn", but this isn't about the identity of a fictional character, it's about how this story got into the Quran. The unanimous view among scholars is that Qarnayn is to be identified with Alexander, but obviously not with the historical Alexander, who built no walls and never reached the ends of the Earth - he's fictional. I get the impression that you think Allah dictated the story to Mohammed and that therefore it cannot have entered the Quran from a merely human source. We have two editors Wallingford and DrK, telling you to leave this alone, and yet you persist. PiCo (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence that the Syriac Legend existed in the milieu of the Quran, hence whether it entered or not is still a matter of historical speculation. Moreover, the disputes about the dating of the Syriac Legend (reaching centuries after the Quran) and its late manuscript tradition isn't helping. Some have suggested alternative sources, like Arabic or Hebrew oral accounts. Incidentally, the academics who accept the Cyrus or Sa'b accounts also have textual and archeological evidence supporting their views. Now since you keep asking for my personal views, I wouldn't mind adding Alexander to the list of pre-Islamic figures mentioned in the Quran. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾, "[t]he lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV". The older version was much better.

• "It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken." — Since the same user references the flat Earth theory, I'll ask why such a method wasn't applied to the article Flat Earth, which includes the sentence: "Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused..."? According to the user's logic, this should also be removed. Additionally, Dhu-al-Qarnayn's identity is a much more controversial topic than the Earth's shape.
• "... This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources... Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round..." — I have read literally a dozen modern commentaries which reject this idea, three of which were included in a previous revision.
• "We're not interested in ... Persian nationalism." — Except that the Cyrus the Great as Dhul-Qarnayn theory was first proposed and researched by the Indian scholar Abul Kalam Azad as referenced by Iran's Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in his commentary.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This is for UncleKasra, who left this message on my personal talk page - as it concerns article content it's more appropriately placed here: Hi. You have repeatedly reverted one of my edits to the intro of the article without any explanation. The problem with the intro is that it's almost entirely taken from one scholar's point of view, but presented as fact and as the result of scholarly consensus. I'm just trying to make sure that is clarified, and I've added a sentence to unpack how theistic and non-theistic views of the Qur'an's origins can clash. One can't just provide one point of view and expect the footnotes to clarify that. The sentence structure itself should be clear. I didn't want to start edit-warring, but this has to be resolved here instead of reverted without any explanation.

First, regarding the charge that I reverted edits without any explanation, I quite clearly (or I hope clearly) said in the edit summary that I was reverting because the source used was not reliable - it's an online website, but for academic articles the reliable sources are books and articles by qualified academics.

Reliable sources such as Wheeler do underlie that web-article and can be considered, but even if you had quoted Wheeler I would have reverted, because Wheeler does not support the argument you wish to make. That argument (or point), as I understand, is that Wheeler supports the idea that Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad. He does not. Nowhere in any of his books and articles does he say this, and you're welcome to look (I'll provide links to some of his works in a moment).

You also say that the current statement in the article to the effect that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn entered the Quran through the legendary material that grew up around Alexander the Great is not the scholarly consensus. It is. I've looked at a great many books by scholars on this subject, and every one of them says either that the Dhul-Qarnayn story is based on the ALexander legends, or that Dhul-Qarnayn is most often taken to be Alexander (which implies reliance on the Alexander legends). Wheeler is one of these.

If you can produce one or more reliable sources (meaning scholars, and fairly recent ones) who say that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn came to the Quran by divine revelation, or that it is not based on ALexander, I'll reconsider.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Origins of the Quranic story of Dhul Qarnayn

I recently reverted this edit by Mikka85 with the explanation that he had misunderstood his sources:
However according to recent studies the current forms and manuscripts of the syriac- and greek recensions of the Alexander Legend, mentioning Gog & Magog including the Gate, suggest, that these do not "qualify as a direct source for the Quran"

Mikka85's first source is Stephen Gero's paper "The Legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient", with two quotes cited:

• "the work (Alexander Legend neshana) also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran [...] recent investigations indicate an ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in A.D. 629" (page 7)
• "In particular he [Dhul Qarnayn] is described there as shutting in the tribes of Yajuj wa- Majuj, the biblical Gog and Magog, by means of an iron gate or dam until the end of time, when they shall burst out of their captivity. Now, this episode is not found in the oldest form of the Greek Alexander romance; it was only interpolated, as we shall presently see, into later Byzantine medieval recensions of the text from elsewhere; that is, the Alexander romance stricte dictu cannot be considered as a source of the Koranic narrative." (page 6)
  

It's vital to note that Gero says: "It is well known that Alexander appears in the Koran (Sura 18) under the name of Dhu'l-Qarnain, the hero with the two horns" (page 6 - please use the page numbers on the pdf file, not those that appear in the browser counter). In other words, Gero is saying that Alexander came into the Quran through sources other than the oldest form of the Greek Aexander romance (the second quote) or the work called the Alexander Legend "neshana". This does not invalidate our article statement: "The story of Dhul-Qarnayn has its origins in legends of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East in the early years of the Christian era ... [which] ... went through much further elaboration in subsequent centuries before eventually finding its way into the Quran through a Syrian version."

Mikka85's second source is a book by Brannon Wheeler, "Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis", page 19. Wheeler's book, as the title indicates, is about the development of the figure of Moses in later Muslim commentary. The page Mikka indicates has a chart at the top of the page showing his theory of the sources of the Muslim commentaries, one of them being the Quran, but he makes clear that he's talking about the emergence of the commentaries, not of the Quran (see the highlighted text, "This "full" version of the story seems to emerge as the dominant explanation of Q 18:60-101 in Muslim exegesis as early as the eleventh century" - my bolds.)

For these reasons I reverted the edit to the introduction. There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at, but frankly I'm dubious of Mikka's ability to read academic texts thoroughly.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying the text from my talk page: "What? No I'm not using different accounts. Mate really, with respect, Wheeler ibid p 19 supports exactly this, just look at the proposed theory (the simplistic drawing). He is stating that Q83-101 may very well developed differently then initially anticipated. Needless to say Gerö verifies the eclatant weekness in Nöldeke's "Pahlavi-origin"-theory by his own findings: The Gog & Magog-apocalyptic narrative interpolation in late byzantine recension, but absent in early recensios. I don't want to brag about this but this belongs in there mate, really. This comes from someone who, not counting ottoman-turkic literature, studies this. Entire paassages in Gerös work (esp. p.4-5 Memra and Neshana on Alexander and the Alexander romances comparison with Q83-101) are dedicated to this. It literally supports a new approach to the causa, which Wheeler further elaborates. I'm asking again, why was it reverted? I don't care for apologetic scholars or their approach, if this is what you fear (judging on what I saw on your talk page). What I care for are facts. And when these facts are there, they should be mentioned, otherwise the objectivity goes down the hill. By the way you even deleted the Rabbi Levi editation. This hole section esp. the Khidr-narrative uses quotes and sources from the 19th century, and some of these are long outdated and refuted/ re-worked ever since." Thank you for replying Pica. It is quite ironic that you accuse me of not reading through sources thoroughly, funny enough you are following my steps by (Quote:)"There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at". But lets head back to my sources: The chart in Wheelers theory DOES differentiate clearly between the Quranic narrative on the one hand and the Quranic COMMENTARIES on the other. On p 214 Wheeler states: "Q 18:60-82 is not necessarily derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary, a more discerning examination of the different texts show that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Qur'an as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentators. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation of "Dhu al-Qarnayn" attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries. A closer analysis of the commentaries on Q 18:60-82 shows the development of an increased association of Q 18:60-82 and 83-102 with Alexander stories. This recognition makes it possible to obtain a fresh understanding of the reconstruction of the history of the later recensions of the Alexander stories" And clearly, again(3rd time je sais), he differs between both, the commentary and the quranic narrative. One more thing to Gerö: If his conclusion is that Q83-101 are from the Alexander legend, but he expresses the existing discrepancies because the manuscripts according to Gerö himself "also do(es) not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran" then why can't we quote this? Shouldn't this be mentioned?Mikka85 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before under your other two user-names, and I don't see it advancing anywhere. I'll put in a request for RfC. (I indented your edit above to make this thread easier to follow).PiCo (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My friend really, this is my only account, how many times should I repeat that. I don't know why someone would accuse me of such thing as this would be nonsense per definition. I joined the english Wiki just recently from the german Wiki. Just please you as an admin/mod(?), track/look at my IP and my initial editings, heck look at my e-mail adress (wait, do you give your e-mail to verify?). Anyways, you will then notice that I'm german, there shouldn't be many germans running around in the english Wiki pissing off others, non? Compare all of this to whoever you think I supposedly should be. Theres no reason for me to waste time with this, when I can have a reasonable discussion with 1 account. Yes the discussion was heated but in the end we calmed down and you even put edit in a request section, which is a great start. I'm hoping that you don't forget my editations. And thank you, I mean it. Mikka85 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Included indentation. AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I would also argue that Gero's comments should be included, it can simply be pointed out that although Gero accepts the overall theory, he also finds problems with the evidences used for that theory. Furthermore, I also believe that a justified reason for exclusion of Wheeler's work has not been provided. Unless someone wants to discuss this, I plan to re-include those portions. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There is no consensus in this RfC.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lede contain a statement that Alexander the Great features in the Quran as dhul-Qarnayn and that he entered it through various legends current in the Middle East? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). PiCo (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Uhm just quick: I really don't know what this is about. I started the discussion (which was about Gerö and Wheeler) because I wanted them both mentioned as sources in the wiki article, plus the sources for the Khidr-narrative. Nothing else. --Mikka85 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The first part of the question is related to the title. However, it'd better be stated as "Alexander the Great is allegedly featured in the Quran as Dhul-Qarnayn", because the direct connection between these two names is still debatable. The second part of the question should not be stated definitively, because there is no certain direct connection between the legends and the Quran (which is believed by Moslems only came through Muhammad), so words such as "hypothesized" or "purported" should be included. JohnThorne (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• No (to Q1) – or at least, not in the way this confusingly worded Rfc has it. It appears that this entire article is about a legend, and so an unqualified statement that "Alexander the Great features in the Quran" in Wikipedia's voice can not be supported under our Verifiability policy. The lead sentence of the article in its current wording (as of rev 898498796) is a violation of Wikipedia's standards. (This also means that the title of this article is incorrect per WP:AT and requires a change, but that is a separate issue which should be brought up in a separate discussion.)
  Decline to vote (on Q2) – Q2 of the Rfc is dependent on Q1 and presupposes that Q1 is true and not a POVFORK, and thus indicates a malformed Rfc question. It should not be addressed until after the issue with Q1 is resolved. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Listed at: WT:Folklore, WT:ANEGY, WT:WikiProject Ancient Near East, WT:CGR, WT:HISTORY, WT:ISLAM. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging involved editors to this Rfc over 4% in stats who are not already participating:
  • @Wiqi55, Semaphoris, PaleoNeonate, Aldux, Thomas Arelatensis, Gamma737, and Mikka85:
  • article editors not already noted: @Irishpunktom:
  • main article editors: @Zeno of Elea, Doug Weller, Mazdakabedi, and Farhansher:
  • Not notified: two anon accounts (99.242.17.45 and 99.179.1.230) who are SPAs with no edits since 2010.
  • Please also see #Disputed title discussion below. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

See related issue at #Disputed title below. The Rfc can be decided independent of that, but users arriving here from WikiProjects are invited to participate below as well: in a way, the Rfc question is merely a subset of (or obviated by) the RM/Merge issue discussed below. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed title

The title of the article should be changed, or this article should be merged into Dhul-Qarnayn.

The current title, Alexander the Great in the Quran, implies by its wording in Wikipedia's voice that the two are linked, i.e., that Alexander the Great is in the Quran. However, this is a disputed theory without universal agreement, and thus is a NPOV violation. A more neutral descriptive title should be found that complies with article title policy. Something along the lines of, Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran, Debate about Alexander the Great in the Quran, or the Legend of Alexander the Great in the Quran.

The current title, and all the alternatives, refer to a theory about the identity of the person named in the Quran as "Dhul-Qarnayn". The article Dhul-Qarnayn is only 20kb, so perhaps another approach is simply to merge the two articles. Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think merging this article with Dhul-Qarnayn is the best solution. I don't even know why this article has been created. It was apparently already contentious in 2005. T8612 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A clue to the present title, or what some editors view as the scope of this article may be found in the following statement (diff) in this discussion, which says,

The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken.

While it's fine to have an article about a theory, generally arguments on both sides of the theory should be presented in the same article, to maintain a neutral point of view. This article appears to be basically a POVFORK of the main one. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am agreed that there is no need for Alexander the Great in the Quran. The material on that topic makes more sense folded into the Dhul-Qarnayn article (although, I think there is some exaggeration in this discussion about the degree to which the identification of Alexander with Dhul-Qarnayn is disputed - it has generally been accepted by modern scholars and Muslims).

However, the material in the section on Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great isn't actually about "Alexander the Great in the Quran." It might be folded into an article on the Alexander Romance or Depictions of Alexander the Great, or (my preferred option) made a standalone article Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great (with a paragraph at the start explaining the Dhul-Qarayn situation in miniature and directing readers to Dhul-Qarayn as the {{main article}} on that topic. Furius (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough about the scholarship on Dhul-Qarnayn to take a position on the merge proposal, but I agree that Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great should be a standalone article as Furius suggests. A. Parrot (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be worth mentioning that Brill's 2nd edition of the Enclyclopaedia Islamica (paywall of course) has a six-word entry for "D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn". Six words is below the paywall, so we can see it all: "D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn: [see ISKANDAR ]". That was surely a sensible editorial choice for them. Legendary figures often draw in aspects of more than one historical personage, but the massive consensus that Dhul-Qarnayn equals a legendary Alexander should be reflected in our article, whatever title we choose. Andrew Dalby 09:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Dhul-Qarnayn because it is more neutral and does not assume any position on the hypothesis. I also agree with Furius's suggestion about splitting the Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (via FRS above) to Dhul-Qarnayn with some discussion of the various theories. Additionally, split the section on Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great into its own article. The current article seems to have a non-neutral POV. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Dhul-Qarnayn. That said, after perusing the article mentioned by Andrew Dalby concerning the Encyclopaedia of Islam it is paramount to avoid giving undue weight to rival theories since the EoI is pretty straightforward: "It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modern occidental scholars that Dhu'l Karnayn, "the two-horned", in Sura XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be identified with Alexander the Great."Aldux (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – What I'm seeing here, is a consensus to merge to Dhul-Qarnayn, while reserving certain sections, notably Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great, into an article, likely its own (new) article. Although this wasn't organized as an Rfc, I believe it can be semiformally closed with an outside assessment anyway, the way an Rfc is. I can't do it, since I'm involved, but I'll list this somewhere so we can request it be done. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Actually now that I think about it, I wonder if one can simply ask a trusted editor to assess and close a discussion? I've observed closes by an editor who I think does a very good job at assessing Rfcs, even difficult ones, and in reporting results. User:StraussInTheHouse, would you be willing to have a look at this non-Rfc discusson, and give your independent opinion, and close it with an assessment of whether there's consensus, and if so, what it is? (Note: there was a related Rfc in Archive 2 that fizzled.) If you're busy or don't wish to, please ping here so I can post somewhere to request a closer (suggestions where to post?). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about splitting the article to Islamic depictions of the Quran, couldn't it fit in Alexander Romance or Dhul-Qarnayn? These articles aren't that big. T8612 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)   moved to fix broken reply threading here; by Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it could go into either, but there is nothing wrong with a small article and I'm sure there is more than is said here that could be said on the topic. Furius (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the idea that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great is NOT disputed by majority of scholars. Only Muslim fundamentalists continue to dispute this. We cannot give preferential treatment to Islamic articles. The article on the Book of Daniel CLEARLY says that it is a 2nd century BC work, even though Christian fundamentalists still dispute this. I COMPLETELY disagree with saying that this just one theory, when almost all critical, neutral scholars and early Muslims scholars are completely and UTTERLY unanimous in identifying Alexander the Great with Dhul Qarnayn. This is not any more disputed than the fact that Daniel is dated to 2nd century BC. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect – I think the most appropriate option would be to move most of the content to something like "Alexander the Great depiction in Abrahmic religions". This, because a lot of the alleged similarities are common among the Abrahmic religions with related sources arguably borrowing from each other. The uniqueness of Islam in this context does not appear to be significant enough to warrant a separate article.

• Move to Dhul-Qarnayn - Against this, because even if classical commentators generally agreed, modern scholarship often outrightly rejects the comparison. Moving Alexander the Great in the Quran to Dhul-Qarnayn would imply ignorance of the opinion difference. Moreover, if Alexander theory is moved, for balance purposes, Cyrus the Great in the Quran will have to be merged there too.

Visitors looking up the name Dhul-Qarnayn are likely to be much more interested in how the source of the character i.e. the Qur'an describes it. The theories would be of a secondary nature. The large size of the Alexander theory will overshadow everything else, even the statements of the Qur'an which, in this context, is the only non-difference-of-opinion material. Moreover, having a section heavily cited with Jewish and Christian quotations appears to be out of place for a Qur'an-centered article. A better option is to have short introductory paragraphs for both theories in Dhul-Qarnayn with further reading links to the detailed content.

• Change title to Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran - Not too important, because then Cyrus the Great in the Quran will also have to be renamed. Summary description mentioning the theoretical nature of the idea/title in the introductory paragraphs appears to be sufficient.
• Move section #Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great - As suggested, better option is to move to Alexander Romance, the material appears irrelevant here. Also, I don't think the content is large enough to require a separate standalone article yet. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the arguments above that the title is mis-informative given that Alexander himself is not mentioned in the Quran (the one who is mentioned is Dhul-Qarnayn). I think we have a consensus here for the move.--Bright kite (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Legends about "Iskandar" is not limited to the the Iskandar in the Quran or religious texts, so AhmadF.Cheema saying this is "a Qur'an-centered article" is not quite correct.

The legend about the "Iskandar Zū-l-Ḳarnain-i-Akbar (not Alexander the Great)"[4][5] who erected the walls or Gates of Alexander to keep away Gog and Magog is more of a secular legend.

But if his "a section heavily cited with heavily cited with Jewish and Christian" is referring to the §Dating and origins of the Alexander legends, I do agree there is excessive digressive content belonging to the Alexander romance article, and needs purging.

Though it is noted that Niẓāmī in composing the Iskandarnāma did consult "Jewish and Christian (Naṣrānī / Nestorian) sources" as well as "Pahlavi" (pre-Islamic) ones.[6]--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Since it's been too long, I don't recall a lot of the relevant points. I would argue that this is a Qur'an-centered article because this article is not about "Iskandar" or "Alexander the Great", but about Alexander the Great in the Quran - this was the old title with Qur'an being mentioned in the name itself - or about Dhu al-Qarnayn - which is a figure specific to the Qur'an. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinions of "tiny minorities"

This is in reference to my edits that were reversed recently on the article, I made a detailed comment on the reverting user's talk page, however, over 2 days have passed without any response. Therefore, I'm re-including the comment with minor changes here:

Regarding your reverts, I had included references from the exegeses of:

• Syed Abul Ala Maududi
• Mufti Muhammad Shafi
• Amin Ahsan Islahi

Since you've chosen to completely remove the information instead of increasing/decreasing the weightage, then according to WP:UNDUE, you must believe that these people represent "the views of tiny minorities". If so, are you serious? With all due respect, do you even know what you're talking about here?

And you wrote, "sources of doubtful reliability"; again, seriously? Either, I'm severely misunderstanding what you're saying, or you really have no familiarity with the topic at hand. So, the works of some of the most prominent modern Muslim scholarship count as "sources of doubtful reliability" in your book? I would strongly suggest that you, at the very least, read through their biography pages just on Wikipedia, before making such simplistic assertions.

More Muslims would have in-depth familiarity with the works and name of Maududi instead of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. He is probably the most well-known scholar, regarded as even a household name by many, in the second most populous Muslim country. His succinct description of the scholarship on the matter appears to be extremely accurate:

"... in general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great but the characteristics of Zul-Qarnain described in the Qur'an are not applicable to him. However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus, an ancient king of Iran."

Additional prominent exegeses authors who hold similar opinions are:

* Sayyid Qutb

* Abul Kalam Azad

* Naser Makarem Shirazi (Shia Grand Ayatollah) (Azad's opinion is referenced in his exegesis)

* Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

* Israr Ahmed

* Muhammad Asad

* Muhammad Ali (Ahmadi)

* Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi

* Basheer Ahmad Mohyidin

* Shams Pirzada (referenced Azad's opinion)

Together these people make a following of probably literally hundreds of millions of, if not over a billion, Muslims. And you consider that "the views of tiny minorities"? I'm pretty sure the works of these people are read by a much more significant population of the Muslim world, compared to the Encyclopaedia of Islam - and that too by Brill, with all due respect to them, whom, as far as I can remember, I'm hearing about for the first time.

It might not be relevant to Wikipedia, but the fact is, any Muslim commentator worth their salt, who comes across the historical understanding that Alexander was a polytheist, which most modern exegeses authors do, would almost never accept the Alexander theory. This idea completely obliterates the possibility of Alexander being a potential candidate for this Qur'anic figure. It is unbelievable that a theory which appears to have been so widely discredited by modern scholarship is accepted 100% uncritically on Wikipedia.

Even worse, the same introductory paragraph includes at the end, the statement "[t]he legend went through much further elaboration in subsequent centuries before eventually finding its way into the Quran through a Syrian version" - one doesn't even need a basic understanding of the religion to know that this statement clearly says that Islam is fabricated and just made-up. But somehow this uncritically accepted content is unchallenged NPOV? It should also be pointed out that the Cyrus the Great in the Quran theory is apparently notable enough to have its own article, but almost never mentioned in the Alexander article. Even though the Cyrus article was balanced enough to point to the Alexander opinion in its very first introductory paragraph.

Kindly, inform me exactly how many more modern era exegeses will I have to cite for you to dare rethink your simplistic "views of tiny minorities" and "sources of doubtful reliability" conclusion?

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at previous revisions of the article, it would appear that an, above mentioned, older version of the introductory paragraphs was much more balanced and NPOV. However, later edits made at least that portion of the article blatantly POV leading to the idea that this article is a POVFORK, as mentioned by User:Mathglot. Furthermore, at least two attempts in the last few months to include some balance to the introductory paragraph, like mentioned above by User:JohnThorne and User:Mathglot, have been met with summary reversions.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Refactored for indentation per WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema:, thanks for the ping. I guess I did claim it might be a POVFORK; I was persuaded it wasn't for POV reasons by other editors, but it's still an unnecessary split, in my view.

Also, without commenting directly on the content dispute in question here, I'd just like to add that a concise description of your differences may be more effective; see WP:WALLOFTEXT. Also, in your comments and replies here (and on all article and user talk pages) please observe the indentation conventions described at WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In case I'm misunderstood, I didn't say that it was a POVFORK, I said the introductory paragraphs lead to the idea that it is. Do you now believe that those paragraphs are balanced and NPOV is maintained in the article, especially compared to its older revision?

Regarding length, as mentioned above I was trying to reproduce the original comment on the reverting user's talk page, without much changes. Might be too long for this place, but I don't believe it is for the specific user's talk page. Also, if a user isn't bothered enough to even read all the relevant arguments, should they get to decide which direction the article takes? Additionally, it appears to me quite clearly, that a strong POV is being forced in the starting paragraphs and obviously no one here is motivated enough to fix that. I'd rather conclude the discussion, instead of leaving it in limbo and completely accepting strongly POV phrasing for the article, as others appear to have done. Indentation wasn't used since all of it was the first comment; the included indentation now makes that first comment appear as three separate ones.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been quite persuasive to me. An adjustment to the article to reflect the arguments of these scholars as well as the those that the article currently cites, seems desirable. Technically, that's a separate issue from the discussion above about merging this article into others, but they are clearly related, so do you have any opinions, AhmadF.Cheema, on how we should proceed on that score? Furius (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

With reference to the anonymous 9th July edit: Reverted.

Editor's summary was: This older lead has better sources and represents the scholarly consensus — The "new" lede didn't remove any of the sources, in fact the anonymous user actually removed one of those "better sources". Furthermore, how can an apparently non-Muslim source be considered "better" if its representation of Muslim opinion contradicts what Muslim scholars have themselves opined in their books? "Scholarly consensus" cannot be claimed when major contradicting scholarly opinion has clearly been cited. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

For convenience I'll indent this.
Sourcing: One source I've deleted is simply "EI 2". If you want to put a source template in this format in the article (it's called sfn, meaning short foot note), you have to spell it out. It took me a while to realise you were talking about the online Enclyclopedia of Islam. If you want to source that you need to use the websource form instead of the sfn format. However, it's not really relevant, as an online encylcopedia isn't a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia - you need to use books and articles by recognised scholars. And as I said, use the sfn format, linked to an entry in the Bibliography section.
Consensus: By this I mean that we need to reflect scholarly consensus. The first line of the lead runs: "Western scholars and Muslim commentators generally agree that Alexander the Great is featured in the Quran as Dhul-Qarnayn..." That's sourced to Stoneman, who meets the "reliable source" criteria. Given that the consensus is that Dhul Qarnayn is ALexander, anything to the contrary is undue weight, reflecting a minority viewpoint.
Misrepresentation of sources: You want to amend the lead to read that DQ "may be a reference" to Alexander. As above, the source says no such thing.
Use of quality sources: In Wikipedia we always use quality sources. In academic subjects such as this, that means academic sources. The sources you want to use - Maududi and such - are not quality sources. They represent a very back-ward-looking traditional Islamic version of scholarship that simply isn't accepted by modern Western scholarship. Dispute resolution: I suspect that you aren't going to accept what I've said. To cut matters short, I suggest we take this immediately to dispute resolution. That isn't necessarily a hostile process (in fact the reason I'm suggesting this now is to prevent hostility from arising) and can clear the air. I'll even get myself a nick to the interim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.77.89 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you're continuing with unilateral reversions without getting your understading accepted on the talk page.

• I didn't include "EI 2", I only mentioned it because you claimed that "older lead has better sources" and this is one of those sources. If you want to exclude this, sure go ahead, that reference actually supported your position.
• If at least about a dozen Muslim scholars are contradicting Stoneman's assertion, then it obviously means the author is wrong or at the very least is representing outdated information. Muslim scholars obviously do not accept the claim that is being forced on them. And again with the "minority viewpoint" claim? As I have exhaustively argued above, about a dozen modern Muslim scholars representing a following of hundreds of millions of Muslims don't agree - does that count as "minorities"?
• The sources you want to use - Maududi and such - are not quality sources. They represent a very back-ward-looking traditional Islamic version of scholarship that simply isn't accepted by modern Western scholarship. — I don't even know what to say to this. This appears to be cherry-picking at its best. Apparently, widely published and read Muslim scholarship is not a quality source. Older Muslim scholarship which kind of went along with Western conclusions was fine but modern Muslim scholarship which goes against it, is "back-ward-looking traditional". Immensely convenient!

Why exactly is a Western scholar's assertion regarding Muslim scholarship more reliable than an actual Muslim scholar's? And not just less reliable but bad enough to be completely removed from the article?

• Furthermore, as far as I understand, it is irrelevant whether Western scholarship accepts them or not, as long as the idea is accepted by a significant number of Muslim scholars, it is therefore relevant and has to be represented. The article is titled "Alexander the Great in the Quran" not, "Alexander the Great in the Quran specifically according to Western scholarship".
• Moreover, incidentally, even Western scholarship disagrees on the issue, especially Brannon Wheeler as mentioned in this and this edit and more detailed at, Is the source of Qur'an 18:60-65 the Alexander Romances? at Islamic-awareness.org.

If you're not going to refute the above points, then sure, take the matter to dispute resolution. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't go through all those points, but just to mention a few of the more important ones:

No, religious "scholarship" is not scholarship as Wikipedia accepts the term - we don't take God-inspired scripture as authoritative. That applies whether the religion be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever. (Hindu scholarship will tell you that the world is flat, but we don't give it equal space with modern geography, not even if there are a billion Hindus in India).

Brannon Wheeler does not say that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus - in fact he says explicitly that the majority of scholars agree that he's Alexander.

Anyway, I'll take this to 3O. I'm a bit busy right now but I'll get back to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.77.89 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• The fallacious way you are representing the issue would mean no religious scholar should ever be quoted in any article on Wikipedia. Maududi's statement isn't being used to prove the Cyrus theory, it is used to represent in which direction modern Muslim commentators lean towards. Madudi wrote: "The identification ... has been a controversial matter from the earliest times. In general the commentators have been of the opinion that he was Alexander the Great ... However, now the commentators are inclined to believe that Zul-Qarnain was Cyrus..." This clearly represents an objective practical observation and has nothing to do with one's religious beliefs and is completely independent of "God-inspired scripture".

Even your Hindus example is an unjustified fallacious parallel. The matter of Dhul-Qarnayn is obviously much more controversial and not as widely resolved as the flat Earth idea. Even out of your quoted "billion Hindus in India", presently how many of them do actually believe in it? Furthermore, where is the purported "equal space" given here? Two sentences (2KB) in an ~87KB article counts as "equal space" in your book?

• Brannon Wheeler does not say that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus... — This is interesting. Maududi's personal opposition to Western scholarship is focused upon while his representation of scholarship opinion is completely ignored, while in complete opposition, Wheeler's personal opposition to Western scholarship is completely ignored and his representation of scholarship opinion is given focus. What exactly is the reason for this cherry-picking?
• "... majority of scholars agree that he's Alexander." — And this would serve as a good example of the Strawman fallacy. Exactly who denied this? Who claimed that majority Western scholars don't "agree that he's Alexander"? As the referenced edits clearly point out, Wheeler is cited obviously to criticise the evidences of those "majority of scholars", completely unrelated to the Cyrus theory.
• ... I'm a bit busy right now but I'll get back to you. — So Wikipedia is forced to accept your, arguably POV, edit and your desired version of the lede while you don't even have time to defend it? If you are so constrained with time, shouldn't you have first discussed your blatant reversion especially deleting sourced content, on the talk page? With all due respect, if you don't reply soon, I have no reason to not undo your edit. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also noticed that the "EI2" reference was added back, by any chance was it because of the position it supported, as I mentioned above? Again, appears convenient. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the two recent unilateral, undiscussed reverts and deletion of sourced content by an anonymous user:

• The idea that Muslim commentators agree that Alexander the Great is Dhul-Qarnayn should be considered as an exceptional claim which is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" and therefore "is subject to serious dispute". Around a dozen Muslim commentators who reject this idea have already been mentioned above.
• We need reliable sources, and traditional Muslim teachers are not. — Given your other edit it seems like you can't even bring yourself to refer to those Muslims as "scholars" at this point, instead using the term "teachers". In any case, the present subject isn't whether Islam is divinely inspired or not, rather towards which identification modern Muslim scholarship leans towards. Whether that identification is accurate or not is irrelevant in the present context. For this narrow topic, Muslim scholarship is more than reliable enough, arguably, even much more so than Western scholarship is.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't believe this is needed, but thought to archive it here just in case.

Muslim scholarship against Alexander theory

Allamah Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i (Shia'), Tafsir al-Mizan - Against the Alexander theory. Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur'an - Against the Alexander theory, the whole incident argued as being allegorical. Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of The Qur'an - Against the Alexander theory. Yaisr Qadhi (influential with-respect-to American Islam) - Against the Alexander theory. Mufti Muhammad Ashiq Ilahi, Tafsir Anwarul Bayan - Against the Alexander theory, quotes the opinions of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar. Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani, Tafseer-e-Ma'riful Qur'an - Against the Alexander theory, quoting the opinions of Ibn Kathir and Maulana Hifzur-Rehman. Maulana Hifzur Rehman, Qasas-ul-Qur'an - Supports Cyrus theory.:101-102 Also references Ibn Hajar,:100 Ibn Kathir,:100-101 Ibn Taymiyyah,:101 Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Zaheer bin Bakaar as rejectors of the Alexander theory.:101 Abul Kalam Azad, referenced in Tafseer-e-Namoona and Dawat ul Quran - Supports Cyrus theory. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Tafhim al-Qur'an - Supports Cyrus theory. Dr. Israr Ahmed, Bayan-ul-Quran - Supports Cyrus theory. Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-e-Qur'an - Supports Cyrus theory. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi ("Liberal" Sunni), Al-Bayan - Supports Cyrus theory. Naser Makarem Shirazi (Shia'), Tafseer-e-Namoona - Supports Cyrus theory. Maulana Muhammad Ali (Ahmadi), Commentary and comprehensive Introduction of the Holy Quran - Supports Cyrus theory. Shams Pirzada, Dawat ul Quran - Supports Cyrus theory. Basheer Ahmed Muhyiddin, Qur'an: The Living Truth - Supports Cyrus theory. References

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC) - Updated 2019-08-05.

Reliable sources and Muslim clerics

Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit. (A sentence I took from User:Tgeorgescu - thanks TG :). One of the most important of these rules is that we use WP:RS. So how do we decide whether a given source is or is not reliable?
This is an article on an academic subject, and therefore we use academic sources. A few quotes from the WP:RS policy page will provide guidance:

• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

From this we can say that Wikipedia accepts sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community, peer-reviewed, published by sources that are well-regarded in the academic world, and are cited by other scholars.
Muslim clerics do not meet these criteria. (Nor, for that matter, do Christian priests or Jewish rabbis - we don't use the works on pastors and priests for articles on the Bible, or rabbis for the Old Testament). Such clerics have not been trained in modern academic methodology, have never held academic posts or published with academic presses or in academic journals, and are never cited in mainstream academic papers or books.
I should also point out that Wikipedia very much discourages edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I just find it acutely interesting how you're trying so very hard to not use the word "scholars" for these Muslim experts. First, you remove their designation, then use the word "teachers" and, what, it's Muslim clerics now? I suggest you go to the Wikipedia article pages of each of the scholars mentioned above and remove the term "scholar" from there, not to mention change the names of numerous pages such as Template:Islam scholars diagram, List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam, List of Islamic studies scholars etc. in addition to category pages too, like Category:Sunni Muslim scholars, Category:Quranic exegesis scholars etc.

• Regarding WP:RELIABLE, there really isn't any way to convince you as long as you commit to your very own personal definition of who should be regarded as a scholar which obviously is in clear contradiction to Wikipedia as evidenced by the numerous pages mentioned in the previous paragraph.
• Muslim clerics do not meet these criteria. — Muslim scholars not clerics or at least not just clerics. Your interpretation obviously contradicts the common opinion of Wikipedia contributors. If you're so confident of your position, first replace "scholars" with "clerics" in all the above-cited pages to prove that Wikipedia is aligned with you on this.

• Nor, for that matter, do Christian priests or Jewish rabbis - we don't use the works on pastors and priests for articles on the Bible, or rabbis for the Old Testament... — The Resurrection of Jesus article quotes and cites the opinions of John R. Rice, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, N. T. Wright and Louis Ginzberg is cited in Hebrew Bible. According to the definition of "clerics" that you're employing, you should have a huge problem with them as well. You should correct those articles and remove those individuals' opinions too.

• In any case, you obviously appear to be unaware of an important advice from Wikipedia contributors namely WP:RSE#Religious sources.... publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
• Furthermore, the point of contention is only what modern Muslim scholarship's opinion leans towards, regardless of whether it is historically justified or not. One doesn't need to be a scholar for this, even a less-known journalist should be reliable enough for this.
• Regarding you warning me of edit warring, seriously? Are you trolling here? You, an anonymous editor, unilaterally changed content on the article lede. You deleted sourced content. You did not "try to reach a consensus" and "repeatedly chang[ed] content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree." You did not bother to discuss your changes on the talk page. You chose not to counter-argue any of the several points made above. This is the first time that your IP has inconvenienced itself to even respond on the talk page. And if all that wasn't enough, you even warned me against edit warring and getting blocked on my talk page. I believe I should be the one complaining against your behaviour instead of the other way around. Over the past month, I have repeatedly given blatant unilateral reverters - who cannot be bothered to go through the trouble of discussing or defending their edits - enough time to state their position on the talk page before reverting them.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a new user. Since you don't take my word on RS policy I'll take this to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll take up Mathglot's summation of the discussion above regarding merging this article into Dhul-Qarnayn and deleting.

"Comment – What I'm seeing here, is a consensus to merge to Dhul-Qarnayn, while reserving certain sections, notably Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great, into an article, likely its own (new) article. Although this wasn't organized as an Rfc, I believe it can be semiformally closed with an outside assessment anyway, the way an Rfc is. I can't do it, since I'm involved, but I'll list this somewhere so we can request it be done. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk)

I've asked an admin (Doug Weller) if he'll consider actioning the earlier consensus on a merge and delete or whatever it was; plus I've informed Mathglot. Right now there shouldn't be any need for you or me to do anything, unless this leads nowhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or energy. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Muslim scholars representing Muslim opinion. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Forcing a POV

This is the original long-standing lede back from January 2014, which managed to survive over 4½ years up-to August 2018. As can be seen, information of the two sentences that is unacceptable to recent reverters - i.e. ...some early Muslim scholars believed [Dhul-Qarnayn] to be a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia, with modern Muslim scholarship also leaning in favour of identifying him with Cyrus the Great - had been part of that long-standing lede.

From August 2018, some specific editors through a series of, arguably POV, edits have vigorously sought to delete any content that informs doubtful or non-universally accepted nature of the Alexander theory.

Series of potentially POV edits

Special:Diff/855156458 - Removal of doubtful nature (along with one vandal sentence). Special:Diff/855156775 - Further removal. Special:Diff/872851730 - Removal. Special:Diff/882551337 - Removal. Special:Diff/882551449 - Removal of almost the entire lede with the stated reason that the "lead fail[ed] to summarise the article". Special:Diff/883984504 - Removal. Special:Diff/883985059 - Removed the fact of controversial nature of the theory since early times, with the stated purpose to just "[merge] 2 sentences". Special:Diff/884061230 - Removal. Special:Diff/884155192 - Removal. Special:Diff/884327044 - Removal. Special:Diff/884481464 - Dissenting source removed with the reasoning: Not a verifiable source - on English WIkipedia, "verifiable" means in English. This is apparently in blatant contradiction to WP:RSUE. Special:Diff/886546329 - Removal. Special:Diff/886589605 - Removal. Special:Diff/886600781 - Removal, at least an explanation given at #The deleted para. Special:Diff/887212141 - Removal of an expert in the field Fastina Doufikar-Aerts' dissenting opinion. Special:Diff/887212387 - Along with a lot of, arguably irrelevant, content, dissenting opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Maqrizi, and Ibn Arabi are also removed. Furthermore, the exact statement of Abul Ala Maududi which is in contention now, was also removed in this edit. Special:Diff/889546346 - Fastina Doufikar-Aerts again removed. Special:Diff/889851238 - Removal (Fastina Doufikar-Aerts). Special:Diff/889938821 - Removal (Fastina Doufikar-Aerts). Special:Diff/890119863 - A "compromise" is made with the Fastina Doufikar-Aerts citation. The "compromise" happens to be a reassertion of the universally-accepted nature of the theory. Special:Diff/890120396 - Removal, since: This is more accurate and less weasel-y - Allah didn't dictate the Quran, you know, it had human origins Special:Diff/890884423 - Further expansion in the lede, furthering theory's undisputed nature. Special:Diff/890884513 - Apparently, the "compromise" ends here and Fastina Doufikar-Aerts is again removed. Special:Diff/891492871, Special:Diff/891802986, Special:Diff/891885071 - Removal, probable violation of WP:ASSERT. Special:Diff/892210964 - Removal of B. M. Wheeler and Stephen Gero citations. Gero apparently believes the overall theory but argues against some of the underlying evidence. Special:Diff/893922933 - Removal. Special:Diff/894391899 - Removal, though this time some dissent is left standing. Special:Diff/896544087 - That "some dissent" is removed as well. Special:Diff/902292412 - Reversion, although to be fair, a statement assuming undisputed fact is replaced with a statement of "general agreement". This is the beginning of Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran#Opinions of "tiny minorities". The removal is left standing for the next six days awaiting a response by the reverting user. Special:Diff/905465438 - Reversion without discussion. Special:Diff/905559747 - Reversion without waiting for a concensus on the talk page. The revert is left standing for the next two days. Special:Diff/907162830 - Reversion without discussion. Special:Diff/907335660 - Reversion without discussion. Special:Diff/907444928 - Reversion with finally some discussion on the talk page. However, still reversion without waiting for a concensus. Once more, a revert, when bothered to be discussed, is left standing for the time beingwas left standing for four days until the conclusion of a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Special:Diff/908969499 - Reversion without discussion, completely disregarding the discussion at Muslim scholars representing Muslim opinion. Special:Diff/909135537 - Reversion with a new previously unused reasoning included. This revision was left standing for over 13 days, even in the absence of any further response on the talk page. Less obvious ones Special:Diff/855860560 - Removal. Special:Diff/864680683 - Removal, but not deliberate POV. Special:Diff/884336042 - Removal. Special:Diff/892407751 - The idea of Islam's influence on Jewish stories supported through citations of Jeremy G. Boulter, Mark L. Solomon, and Brannon Wheeler is included in the #Al-Khidir section. That entire section is then deleted.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC) - Updated 2019-10-01.

Why we cannot have a lead that mentions the theory that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus

This is the last time I'll address this issue - from here it has to go to dispute resolution.
AhmadF.Cheema, you in correct in saying that a pov is at the root of this - your're pov, which appears to be based on the idea that the Quran was revealed to Mohammed by Allah. When you and your Moslem clerical sources (all South Asian, and deriving from a specific Perso-Indic culture) say that DQ was Cyrus, they mean quite liertally that he WAS Cyrus - not that the story in the Quran was based on some legend of Cyrus, but that he lietrally was Cyrus. This is nonsense - Dhul Qarnayn is a fictional figure, an invention of whoever wrote those verses of the Quran (certainly not Mohammed, who was illiterate).
So let's set out some basic facts: The Quran is a work of fiction, not history, and Dhul Qarnayn is a charcter within that fictional universer.
On the other hand, when modern scholars say that the fic tional Dhul Qarnayn was Alexan der the Great, thet don't mean that DQ actually WAS Alexander, but that the story in the Quran was based on fictions about him. Not history, fiction. Someone, possibly the historical Mohammed, more likely someone who cane some time after him, picked these fictions up and wrote them into the Quran - which, as I said, is a work of fiction, not history.
Now the reasons why we can't mention the modern Moslem (not Muslim, but Moslem - do you know the difference?) ideas on the equivalence of DQ with Cyrus - all deriving from Wikipedia policy, which we (meaning you) are forced to adhere to:

• ARTICLE TITLE: The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It deals with the way in which various Hellenistic-era legends about Alexander came to enter the Quran. Cyrus the Great is irrelevant. But it could become relevant if the idea that the fictional Dhul Qarnayn were based on the historic Cyrus rather than the legendary (not historical) Alexander. So...

• FRINGE THEORIES: Is the idea that Dhul is based on Alexander a fringe theory? No, it is not. In fact it's the scholarly mainstream. See, for example, Professor Brannon Wheeler in The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia (p.182): "The most popular identification of Dhu al-Qarnayn is with Alexander the Great...".
  

As Wheeler illustrates, the Alexander idea is the mainstream. So where does that leave the idea that DQ was (not "was based on", but actually was) Cyrus? T the fringe theories policy states: "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The article Cyrus the Great in the Quran clearly states: Proposed by the German philologist G. M. Redslob in 1855, [the idea] failed to gain followers among Western scholars" (sourced in the oroginal article). It has, of course, gained some following among South Asian Moslem clerics, such as Maududi and his followers, but not more widely. SO can this be mentioned? It is mentioned - in the artilce on Cyrus in the Quran, which is the appropriate place. It is NOT appropriate here, which the article about the mainstream, schiolarly, position.

I hope and trust this has explained the situation adequately. I realise that you haven't much experience as an editor (less than 400 edits, wheras I have, I think, over 40 thousand), but if you revert this again I'll have no optio0n but to seek a topic ban.

Incidentally, I trust you won't use multiple accounts - Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ looks rather suspicious. 121.45.209.79 (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you've once more ignored above points, first of all, pretty much your entire edit is based on the premise that in-spite of objections, I'm forcing the Cyrus theory into the lede - this is a complete strawman.

• This is the last time I'll address this issue... — Apparently, aside from the "last time", this is also the first time too. In fact, this is literally the first time your IP is complaining here that Cyrus theory shouldn't be mentioned in the lede.

Up till now, you have been focusing almost entirely on rejecting widely accepted Muslim scholars as reliable sources. At least, after Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Muslim scholars representing Muslim opinion, you appear to have given up on that.

• ... from here it has to go to dispute resolution. — This is at least the third time you're saying this, just take it there already.
• ... you in correct in saying that a pov is at the root of this - your're pov — Accuses the other person of being POV and then proceeds to write two, almost entirely POV, paragraphs.
• not Muslim, but Moslem - do you know the difference? — The only relevant difference I could find was that "Moslem" apparently is sometimes used as an insult (wiktionary:Moslem, History News Network, mwod:Moslem). Was such your intention here?
• Article Title — The title itself does not in any way automatically imply the subject matter to be specific to Hellenistic-era Alexander legends' entrance in the Qur'an, therefore, I have no idea why the article title is even relevant here. The title isn't "Hellenistic-era Alexander legends entrance in the Qur'an" or, as mentioned earlier, "Alexander the Great in the Quran specifically according to Western scholarship".

Furthermore, since you mention that "Cyrus the Great is irrelevant" here, why is the sentence "He is most commonly identified with Alexander the Great" relevant in Cyrus the Great in the Quran article? Can you be expected to remove this sentence from there too?

• Fringe Theory — Pakistan (~210 million) and Iran (~81 million) themselves represent ~18% of the World's Muslim population. Furthermore, since due to a potentially insincere edit, representation of Indian scholarship was removed from Cyrus the Great in the Quran, Indian Muslims should also be included here. Arguably, this will indicate support for the Cyrus theory among scholarship representing ~30% of the global Muslim population. As mentioned above, the support is also represented among a wide range of groups including Sunni (both Conservative and Liberal), Shia', and Ahmadi scholars.

• ... gained some following among South Asian Moslem clerics, such as Maududi and his followers, but not more widely... — Any source for this claim of no wide acceptance among modern scholarship? Furthermore, this focus on Maududi in this context is also fallacious. The primary source of the Cyrus theory among Muslim scholarship is Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and since such details apparently matter to you, Azad was also the First Minister of Education in secular India.

• I realise that you haven't much experience as an editor (... I have, I think, over 40 thousand)... — What does this have to do with anything here? Assuming your claims are true, by the same fallacious logic apparently used here, since you almost never sign your comments - possibly: 1, 2; definitely: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 - wrongly quote another user etc. i.e. issues indicating a lacking understanding of Wiki guidelines, therefore somehow, your opinions have less value. I don't make any such argument.
• ... if you revert this again I'll have no optio0n but to seek a topic ban. — Just go for it. The way you're deliberately ignoring my arguments, a topic ban might be the only way to prevent my participation.
• Incidentally, I trust you won't use multiple accounts - Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ looks rather suspicious. — I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean exactly.

Regarding T8612's edit:

While I overall agree with you, your edit appears to suggest that you haven't been following the present discussion. The primary issue isn't the Cyrus theory, it's the non-universally accepted nature of the Alexander theory. I included the Cyrus theory because it fit perfectly into the long-standing lede, did not diverge from the actual wording of the Maududi citation which generalized modern opinion, and succinctly expressed non-universal nature.

Don't really care that much about Cyrus theory, I would be fine with replacing that with something of the sort: "however, the Alexander theory has also been rejected since classical times, by several prominent Muslim scholars belonging to a wide range of Sunni, Shia' and Ahmadi schools" - or maybe something more succinct.

There are a few problems with the way you have presently left the lede.

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns are again completely ignored. Why have the references to Peter Bietenholz's name been removed? This, in turn, with the current phrasing, represents his theory in WP:WIKIVOICE as statements of accepted fact rather than of disagreed opinion?

• Above in a collapsible block, titled "Muslim scholarship against Alexander theory", I have cited 15 modern, 3 classical and one medieval Muslim scholar who explicitly reject the Alexander theory. These scholars hail from areas and, in the case of Ibn Taymiyyah, a school of thought, which hold nearly half of the global Muslim population. A number of them are prominent, widely followed household names. Such proves the existence of a serious dispute over this issue.

• My phrasing was sourced with the Maududi citation, however, with all due respect, yours isn't. Do you have a citation that states only a minority of modern Muslim scholarship accepts the Cyrus theory, or more broadly rejects the Alexander theory? It might be true, but it isn't cited.
• Do you have a source which limits the Cyrus theory to Pakistan and Iran? As mentioned above, the primary source of the Cyrus theory among Muslim scholarship is the Indian scholar Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
• Why the use of the term "clerics" for these scholars? Their own Wikipedia pages define them as scholars. The IP incrementally degraded them from "traditional Islamic version of scholarship" to "traditional Muslim teachers" and then finally to just "Muslim clerics". Furthermore, in the very same lede, when support for Alexander theory is cited, Muslims are termed as "commentators", but when opinion opposes this theory, they become simple "clerics". Not saying this is deliberate, at least not on your part, but such represents an obvious case of cherry-picking.
• You wrote, "a minority of them ... still think..." - the word "still" is completely incorrect here, reality is actually the opposite. The scholarship doesn't still think, they have started to think such. This appears to have been a typo.

I'll be grateful if you can give a moment of your time to review the above points.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You do not understand that on Wikipedia we follow the academic consensus. The "scholars" you talk about may bee influential among Muslims, but they are not academics. You would give them undue weight by making the changes you suggest. It is also not required to put references in the lede, as they are supposed to be in the text body. My sentence on the Cyrus theory was only a summary of the article Cyrus the Great in the Quran. This is why I told you to write about the Cyrus theory in the last section of the article (so it could be appropriately summarised in the lede). T8612 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

One of these days someone is actually going to bother responding to all, or even most, of my arguments.

• "academic consensus"? Which academic consensus? Apparently, Brannon Wheeler disagrees substantially, Fastina Doufikar-Aerts forwards two other possible explanations and Stephen Gero while believing the overall theory, argues against some of the strongest underlying evidence.
• The "scholars" you talk about... — Apparently, there is still a problem with terming these Muslim intellectuals as scholars. These critics should "fix" all of such personalities' Wikipedia articles and their overlying category pages and remove the "scholar" term from there. Would really help in clearing up all this misunderstanding.
• ... but they are not academics. — Even if this is accepted, it isn't very relevant in the present context. The very first sentence of the lede includes the words "Western scholars and Muslim commentators...". If a claim regarding Muslim commentators' beliefs is being put forward, any substantial deviations from that belief need to be pointed out. One cannot cherry-pick Muslim commentators when they accept the Alexander theory and then simply reject those who do not. Either present those multiple substantial and relevant commentators' theories or don't present any at all. Please, don't cherry-pick.
• You would give them undue weight by making the changes you suggest. — Exactly how so?
• It is also not required to put references in the lede... — First of all, this is inaccurate. "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation." The present context obviously fits this requirement. Second, it's not that a reference is missing in just the lede, the citation is absent from the entire article.
• My sentence on the Cyrus theory was only a summary of the article... — Is that correct? That article also happens to use the terms "scholars" and "commentators" for these Muslim intellectuals. Why exactly did you feel the need to go out of your way and down-grade them to mere clerics then?

Furthermore, as far as I've seen, there is no citation or even a mention regarding which side modern Muslim scholarship lean towards, that whether the Cyrus theory is in the minority or the majority. In contrast, the short sentence I included is referenced to Maududi. From what I understand of Wikipedia policies, a sourced statement is much more valuable than an unsourced one.

• Regarding my previous reply, I should apologise for believing your "clerics" point was indeliberate and that "still think" was a typo. It would strongly appear that you actually believe those things. If you're unwilling to budge even on the obviously false "still think" point, I don't believe there would be anything that will convince you.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is no concerned individual going to respond and defend their edits? Does that mean I should go ahead and revert those new edits? -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You're reading too much in what I said. The way Muslim commentators or scholars or whatever they are called is not relevant: they are still not academics (the use clerics was to underline this point). Their views can be summarised here, but they cannot influence the overall structure of the article. That said, if you have sources from academics favouring the Cyrus theory, then it seems more logical to edit the Cyrus theory article with these sources first. T8612 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you're ignoring most points.

If Muslims favouring Alexander theory are being termed "commentators", those against are also going to be called "commentators", otherwise, this is obvious cherry-picking - keeping up the status of one group and downgrading that of the other purely on the basis of their conclusions. How exactly is this balanced or neutral?

As mentioned previously, "WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns are again completely ignored. Why have the references to Peter Bietenholz's name been removed? This, in turn, with the current phrasing, represents his theory in WP:WIKIVOICE as statements of accepted fact rather than of disagreed opinion?"

Their views can be summarised here, but they cannot influence the overall structure of the article. — Summarising of views is exactly what my edit did, and that too with a citation. How exactly does it "influence the overall structure of the article"? Compared to my edit, your version is unsourced and part of it is actually factually incorrect. Why are you favouring an unsourced sentence over a sourced one? And it does seem odd why you continue to not, at the very least, correct the blatantly incorrect information already pointed out to you since almost four days ago.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Combative

The exploits of Alexander are but a playground spat against the intensity of the edit wars in this article. Can someone help pull together a consensus on its scope? Onanoff (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible title

Alexander the great in Islamic tradition. So too with Cyrus. The Quran makes the base for the tradition but Nizami's Iskandernameh and other references to Sikander are part of a speculative, even folkloristic tradition within Islam that is not entirely theological and is often times rejected by conservative commentators. The Islamic depictions section could also probably be expanded for example from Muslim traditions in India which parallel the New Persian traditions. Allauddin Khilji for instance saw himself as the second Alexander.119.155.47.201 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Title change; “Alexander the Great as Dhul Qarnayn”

I believe the title should change. It’s not a theory when an entire tradition of Alexander the Great being Dhul Qarnayn exists in Islam. From a traditional Muslim perspective it’s not a “theory”. It’s also not a “theory” when even non-Islamic academics believe the figure of Dhul Qarnayn is in one way or another related to Alexander the Great. I believe the title should be changed to “Alexander the Great as Dhul Qarnayn”. It would make more sense with what is found on the page. Whodatttt (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You'd need to get a discussion started here per WP:Requested moves Doug Weller talk 11:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Alexander the Great in Muslim tradition

A lot of this page could be its own separate Wikipedia page on Alexander traditions in the Muslim world so I have created it: Alexander the Great in Muslim tradition.

I hope to expand on this page further in the future and this page can focus more about theories about the Quran Pogenplain (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)