Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn/Archive 1

message: I see what the last message is getting at...i see there are a number of possibilities - in oposition to the belief that Alex was Dhul Q.
If Alex The Great was Dhul Q then The Arabs would have chosen a name that was more similar to it i.e ( in pakistan it is sikander (you can here the resemblance in the phonics.- alexander/ (a-sikander)  However there is no phonical similarity between |DHul-the arabic) and alex, implying two different figures. my argument is proven if you look at other historical names in other languages and compared the phonics to arabic. Abraham /Ibrahim --Jesus/ESA - Moses/ MUSA. in conclusion using this argument alex and dhul are to different figures. 
: Your 'argument' is none at all. Dhul Qarnain is not a proper noun. It is an Arabic expression which literally means "the two-horned one". A word-by-word decomposition goes as follows: "with (dhu, actually pronounced "though") the (l) two-horns (Qarnain)". Since this name is not a proper noun but an actual Arabic expression, why would it be derived from or resemble the orginal Greek name Alexander ?Thomas Arelatensis 16:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no logical arguments that Dhul Qarnayn is not Alexander the GReat. Please do not insult our intelligences. The pre-Islamic Christian legends about Alexander and the Qur'an's legend about Dhul Qarnayns are exactly identical. ONLY an Islamic POV would deny that the conclusion is that Dhul Qarnayn = the legendary Alexander.  -- UNSIGNED COMMENT 01:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: The original word in Qur'an ver 18:96 is قطر qiTr. which my Qur'anic lexicon defines as "molten brass", and which isn't included in my dictionaries of modern Arabic.  Root q-T-r means "to drip, fall in drops". AnonMoos 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This sort of illogical "reasoning," which is clearly motivated by apologetic concerns of fundamentalist Muslims, is not acceptable as encylopedia content. --Zeno of Elea 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I've been editing and refining this article for a long time now, and (as can be seen from Irishpunktom's reverts) this article has come a very long way since when I found it. Now that other editors have started taking an interest in this article, I must outline the history of this article. Though I completely rewrote Dhul-Qarnayn, I also incorporated all of Alexander in the Qur'an article into Dhul-Qarnayn.   Alexander in the Qur'an now redirects to Dhul-Qarnayn. The information incorporated from Alexander in the Qur'an was not originally written by me and it was the long-standing content of Alexander in the Qur'an that had been agreed upon by consensus in that article. Also, most of the "Muslim Veneration for Alexander the Great" section of Dhul-Qarnayn was taken from the "Alexander's legend in non-Western sources" section of the article Alexander the Great. That section of Alexander the Great has been greatly reduced and it currently has a "main article at Dhul-Qarnayn" tag. --Zeno of Elea 11:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on my edits 

message: Yuber replaced the old version of the article with my version. I had said that I wouldn't do so until I'd created an Islam and flat-earth theories article to hold stuff that I'd taken out of the Dhul-Qarnayn article. Rather than revert Yuber, I scurried to make the other article. It's kind of sparse at the moment, needs references, but at least it's there. Would appreciate help working on it. Zora 04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not even explained you edits yet, Zora. I have had to do most of the talking just to get some discussion going about your "proposed major revision" which you spent 2 hours hastily and poorly coming up with and then just as quickly abandoning. I also note that many changes have been made since you copied this article to your user pages and scrambled it into an incoherent mess. YUBER is certainly in NO position to be replacing this article with ZORA's user pages, when Zora has not even EXPLAINED her edits yet. How was Yuber ever allowed back onto Wikipedia anyway? --Zeno of Elea 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you kindly refrain from SPEAKING IN CAPS.  It is called "shouting" and is considered rude. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Then why do you do just that in your edit summaries, Irishpunktom?: . -- Karl Meier 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err.. those are abbreviations.  Using NPOV instead of npov is not considered shouting, you're being silly now. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I first read your editsummary "RVUE2NPOVV", I actually thought that your caps lock was stuck or something, but apparently that wasn't the case... -- Karl Meier 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't think that was an abbreviation?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version up 

message: Not that I don't enjoy watching endless reverts between two versions of an article, but why don't we at least accompany it with some discussion as to the disputed points. Babajobu 13:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be great. Maybe Irishpunktom could point out some of things that concern him in this article, and mention why he wants to start a revert war, to delete large parts of it? What are your specific PoV concerns Irishpunktom? -- Karl Meier 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article as it stands deals with, and expands upon only one possible POV, contains pointless information irrelevant to Dhul-Qarnayn, and the other version is significantly more NPOV and just plain better.  Whats your problem with the alternate version Karl?--Irishpunktom\talk 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: The point I added - that at least four people were termed "Dhul-Qarnayn" by the early Arabs - is thoroughly referenced and obviously relevant to any consideration of this issue. Please don't delete it. - Mustafaa 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added your material. Since I fitted it into the current list, you may want to make sure that I haven't mangled your argument. Zora 10:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job guys. I wasn't knowledgeable enough to edit this article but I was sure that a lot was missing in this article. -- Cheers -- Svest 10:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: "the poetic version of Jacob of Serugh which was written not later than A.D. 521".   cites a goodly number of scholars who say it cannot have been written any earlier than AD 629, as a matter of fact. The date issue definitely needs more careful attention here. - Mustafaa 12:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly is your explanation? Are you suggesting that it was not the Qur'an that copied the Christian myth, but rather the Christian myth that copied the Qur'an? The sources cited by  do not suggest that the legend of Alexander, specifically, was written after the Qur'an. What those sources say is that the Pseudo-Callisthenes is a work of many hands over a long period of time, and was compiled from many variations of legends about Alexander that had been in the making for thousands of years. These sources say that Mar Jacob's sermon is probably not THE source from which the Qur'an got the story - that does not mean that the myths about Alexander originated in the Qur'an and were somehow copied by Christians who lived before Muhammad.   Do you have any source more reliable than http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ which discusses this issue? The quote I provided speaks specifically about the QUr'an and the Christian poetic version of the Alexander myth, written by Mar Jacob. If you wish to bring an alternate POV in a scholarly manner then you should also rely on a quote from an academic source which specifically speaks about the Qur'an and the Christian legend and clearly supports your POV. I find it quite amusing that on one hand your friend Irishpunktom accuses me of using "anti-Islamic websites like www.answering-islam.com" when I have not cited a single non-Muslim website (and almost all of my sources are printed books written by academics, not some ridiculously POV websites). On the other hand, you don't see any problem with citing Muslim apologetic websites instead of doing actual research yourself and accurately citing the printed sources. So you've found a Muslim apologetic website which misrepresents some quotes by historians and academians - that is not NPOV content, but it could certainly lead to a good section in the article about problems with dating the Mar Jacob sermon and what this means. -- Zeno of Elea 03:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I had added some stuff that was removed witout any reason .
The reasons for revelation are necessary. It is important to mention that Muhammad didnt create all these stories , these were actually questions that were put to him by jews . So the question " Who was DQ " , is better to be sought in Torah or Talmud . Quran is just answering their question .
The tafsir is also neseccary. It should be mentioned that the Arab Muslim scholars didnt believe that DQ actully went to the end of Flat world . But he went to the place where civilisation ended in the west . So this question posed by people that Islam advocates flat earth is a big slander , since as Ibn Kathir says , these stories were created by people of the book . Nothing to do with Islam . And the same people of the book are again puting words in the mouth of Islam on christian sites.The tafaseer can also be used on Islam & Flat Earth article .
I had also added links for the benifit of those who have time to write , & have better typing speed than me .
F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have persuaded me that Muhammad spoke only truth, and that the corruptions introduced into the scripture of the People of the Book are now being unfairly attributed to Islam. Thank you so very much. Babajobu 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are quite wellcome . Those are the actual translations of Tafsirs , unlike the non-bibilical christian mythologies that were added here by zeno , or the accusations made by "come back to bible" site. F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you suggesting that information about any non-biblical Christian mythologies should be deleted from this article? -- Zeno of Elea 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article is about a quranic figure , I dont think there is a need of any more explanations . F.a.y.تبادله خيال   /c 03:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "So this question posed by people that Islam advocates flat earth is a big slander": it is a slander being propagated by Muslims as well as Book People. Again, see the bin Baz fatwa. Ya, Allah, why do the Muslims persist in defaming the Muslims?? Babajobu 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you believe Ibn Baz made the Fatwa, when he says he didn't.  Wouldn't he be in a better position to know?  And if he issued a fatwa, why would he deny it?  Your argument makes no sense.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, not only do you disagree with it, but it actually makes no sense. Farhansher says that flat-earth theories are non-Muslim, and that to claim otherwise is a slander against Islam. I point out that, according to some sources, a prominent Muslim theologian issued a fatwa claiming the world was flat. I state that, if true, this casts doubt on Farhensher's assertion. If you find that logic totally inexplicable, I can't help you. Babajobu 12:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reverts