Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * Included indentation. AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Origins of the Quranic story of Dhul Qarnayn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: 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.
* 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)
thread_title:  Forcing a POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible title 

message: 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)
replies: text: You'd need to get a discussion started here per WP:Requested moves Doug Weller talk 11:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change; “Alexander the Great as Dhul Qarnayn” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great in Muslim tradition