Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn

message: . This discussion is just going round in circles. I strongly suggest we get a third opinion, which is a dispute settlement (or at least management) procedure]. When you read the page you'll see that it's recommended that the approach be opened by both parties. If you agree with this you can either open it yourself or advise me here that you'd like us both to open it. PiCo (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I have suggested a 3rd opinion before. However, after realizing how outdated and confused Bietenholz is, I now think it would be best if you try to familiarize yourself with our content policies, namely wp:assert and wp:redflag. Wiqi(55) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you refuse 3O we'll have to try a different (more confrontational) dispute resolution route. Please reconsider 3O.PiCo (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where have I refused 3O? You can go ahead and ask for 3O if you want. But you can't remove sourced content without discussion and without citing any policies. You also did not reply to my concerns about Bietenholz above. Wiqi(55) 18:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's seek a  third opinion 

message: Gog and Magog first appear in the 2nd temple period (first few centuries before Christ) - before that, in Ezekiel, it's Gog from Magog, a person and a place. The wall appears in the Hellenistic period, in connection with Alexander. They come together in a whole set of written legends from that period, and then into the Quran. To put it very simply, your proposal fails to identify the literary origins of the Dhul Qarnayn story, Bietenholz does and is a reliable source, he isn't contradicted (and is in fact supported) by every single source you've mentioned, and you've never given a good reason for rejecting this. Please stop this nonsense.PiCo (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As exaplined in the sources cited above, the Hellenistic stories do not link Alexander with an eschatological barrier involving Gog and Magog. That motif first appeared in the Syriac and Quranic accounts. Besides, Bietenholz explicitly mentions the Greek P-C as a source for the tale of Gog and Magog: "From the Greek version of the Alexander legend authored by Pseudo-Callisthenes, the tale of Gog and Magog travelled to Syria". That turned out to be an error. Since you also assert that Wheeler and Stephen Gero supports Bietenholz on the Syriac origin of the Quran, contrary to what I quoted above, then why don't you quote them directly? I asked you many times to quote Wheeler and you have failed to do so. I hope you're not creating new sections just to avoid addressing that question. Also, recent scholarship point out that the "two-horned" appellation first occurred in the Quran. In other words, an important motif in the Quranic account is not found in any Greek or Syriac legend. Why do you keep removing that sourced info? Wiqi(55) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop nuisance editing

message: Significant and valuable researches in the field of Iranian mythology, about Jam specially, have been accomplished in recent years. Every researcher has seen to one or a few characteristic(s) of this polyhedral character from a point of view. One of the unanswered questions about Jam is the two instruments which Ahura Mazda gave to him to spread and develop of material world. In this article, it is tried to show the reality of these two by documentary reasons; and it is displayed some other unknown phases of this wonderful character through it. Mentioning the notices that are stated about Dhul-Qarnayn in holy Koran, I show similarities Jam and Dhul-Qarnayn, and on the basis of it I propose theory of oneness of these two. Proving that Dhul-Qarnayn is the same Indo-Iranian Jam, it could be said that Jam had been a historical character.
This article has been written in Persian, by thtle of "Who is Jam?" (جم کیست؟)
http://aclr.ir/?page_id=288
∫∨∧∫  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNF6161 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Theory on Dhul-Qarnayn 

message: In the talk page of the related article, Alexander the Great in the Quran, I pointed out how Muslim intellectuals are conveniently cherry-picked as scholars when they support the editor's position, otherwise have themselves degraded to something like mere clerics.
: 'Why the use of the term 'clerics' for these scholars? Their own Wikipedia pages define them as scholars. The IP [editor] 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'."
The same thing appears to have happened yet again. Maududi is now forced into the "philosopher" term. "Philosopher" is normally fine, but not when it is being used to degrade the significance or credentials of the person. Maududi is defined as a "scholar" by reputable sources. Furthermore, at the end of section #Opinions of "tiny minorities", I pointed out over a dozen other Muslim scholars against the Alexander theory.
Regarding the Reeves citation, since a significant number of Muslim "scholars" are clearly not in agreement, the unqualified "consensus of scholars" is inaccurate. Either qualify these scholars specifically as "Western scholars" (even Reeves appears to be referring only to Western scholars) or revert to the previous wording of "has most popularly been identified as" which is more accurate. In the absence of a response, I think I should revert this edit.
— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The obsession against Muslim "scholars" 

message: The relevant section of the article documents at some length that the theory that Dhu al-Qarnayn referred to Cyrus the Great, though first proposed by the German philologist Redslob, was adopted by a number of modern Muslim scholars. The lead summarizes the article, so there is no reason to remove the word "Muslim" from it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: the Cyrus the Great hypothesis adopted by Muslim scholars 

message: Majority of scholars don't support Alexander being him because Alexander was a pagan. This is basic knowledge. 94.110.167.88 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[✉️] 12:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022 

message: titles says. also this comment (Majority of scholars don't support Alexander being him because Alexander was a pagan. This is basic knowledge) is true too. 5.62.168.102 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  i think it needs some modern basely islamic source (shia specialiy) not the europian sources about islam 

message: I made changes in the article after going through the hundreds of edits since 2021, which included dozens of changes from banned sock puppet accounts. Tried to make sure none of the citations or the content got removed, only paraphrased and moved.
* Lede
:* Changed the lede after comparing the versions from 2019, 2020, and the present March 2024 one.
:* The "majority of modern scholars and Islamic commentators" phrasing gives undue weight, since over a dozen medieval and modern Muslim scholars and some Western researchers have been noted to have rejected the Alexander identification. On the other hand, the original phrasing from 2019, "most popularly been identified", is more appropriate and furthermore fits the citation better too.
:* The Syriac Alexander Legend portion is somewhat complicated due to it being disputed, and therefore may be more appropriate in the detailed Alexander section below. Not sure about this, though.
:* Added the Wheeler citation with quote, but it may require further trimming.
* This section removal was mistaken. Part of the content may have been from a banned user, but that section overall had been part of this article for a long time, which was also partly edited by Doug Weller. No need to make the two quotes block-quote again, since this content is not significant enough.
* Previous lede survives till December 2021.
* Disruptive edits begin in January 2022 by User:Loverofediting – who gets blocked twice for disruptive editing and edit warring, and then indefinitely for Sockpuppetry.
* Loverofediting obliterates specifically that portion of the cited lede which suggests Dhu al-Qarnayn's identification with anyone other than Alexander the Great, even an important citation that is referenced later on. This edit was clearly to force an agenda. Loverofediting continues on with this, making small changes to enforce this, qualifying the opponents of this theory and simply changing "many Muslim scholars" to just "some Muslim scholars".
* The changes get reverted but Loverofediting undoes it. Going on to actually reference a children's book, My Little Lore of Light, to support their viewpoint.
* Changes get reverted back to original again, but Loverofediting undoes that again too. They are told to take these changes to the talk page, but the same cycle repeats once more, and again. At which point, Loverofediting gets blocked for 48 hours and things temporarily calm down.
* Then, after the expiration of the block, there is the demoting of "Muslim scholars" into just some "commentators". All this is a fair bit similar to another edit warring instance from summer of 2019 on a related article. There, I had also documented about a dozen modern Muslim scholars who have supported the Cyrus identification theory.
* Loverofediting returns to the page after two weeks and there is a bit more edit warring, though this time it is not really in support of their agenda.
* Wrong removal related to Gog and Magog, the source can be checked, it is just in a non-English language.
* User:Ziggy Wiggy Figgy removed the Cyrus identification from the lede claiming that "it’s only the view of one person (Al-Maududi) and nobody else" which is objectively false. Even the Cyrus the Great section underneath contradicts this claim. This edit became unsurprising when it turned out that this was a sock puppet of User:Loverofediting.
* Two more sock puppets of Loverofediting become involved, User:CoolHistory757 in December 2023 (which leads to page protection for a year) and User:GlobalEdit1617 in January 2024.
AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2024 edits 

message: I am a native Arabic speaker, following the section with Surat-Al-Kahf the meanings of the word "qarn" which is italicized are discussed, however, there is an error in that it is written as "qam" and not "qarn". Please fix it for clarity.
Change {The Arabian word qam means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} to {The Arabian word qarn means both "horn" and “period” or “century”.} NiceCrispyBac0n (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Charliehdb (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024