Jump to content

Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed title

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
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)"[1][2] 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.[3]--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Combative

[edit]

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)[reply]

Possible title

[edit]

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)[reply]

Title change; “Alexander the Great as Dhul Qarnayn”

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Alexander the Great in Muslim tradition

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&oldid=1275001190"