Talk:Gog and Magog

Alexander the great was NOT Dhul Al Qarynan as Alexander was a pagan while Dhul was a mothiesist therefore i am removing him. Akmal94 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Akmal94: I quite realize Alexander lived in a world of Hellenistic polytheism, and could not have been Christian or Muslim. Legends do contain many such contradictions or anachronism, you must realize.

I am also aware Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander arent an exact match, however, that is generally the identification that is made. So that piece of information should remain.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I think there was a valid point to be made that "Iskandar" isnt explicit in the Quran, so it has been reworded to avoid it.

Unfortunately I had to sacrifice something else bcz of this, which is to point out that "Dhul Qarnayn" is an epithet (nickname), which is a point that even the objectors agree.

Alternatively it could have stated "Quran and other Islamic literature" to avoid this, but I didnt make that change before since it seemed to be excessive parsing.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The excerpt in question as follows:

"In the Qu'ran Surah 18, Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog) are suppressed by Dhul-Qarnayn "the two-horned one", a legendary figure derived from Alexander the Great."

As aforementioned above by Akmal94, it is a misnomer to declare Alexander the Great as the person Dhul al-Qarnayn. There should be a petition to edit/correct the given information regarding this as such, since there are no legitimate sources that proves it in any fashion or form. Any redaction is extremely suggested; hence, any number of unacknowledged readers could possibly render the information as credible. On the contrary, it is absolutely erroneous in context. In truth, Dhul al-Qarnayn was a strict adherent to the Laws of GOD; whereas, Alexander the Great was a bi-/homosexual, paganistic idolator.

The only valid text that mentions Dhul al-Qarnayn is available is the Qur'an–thus being the only canonized religious scripture in Islam. Therefore, the Qur'an neither explicitly nor implicitly gives claim in referencing Alexander the Great as Dhul al-Qarnayn. The cited source that pertains to the sentence that is in question is merely the opinion of the authors prescribed -->(Van Donzel, Emeri J.; Schmidt, Andrea Barbara (2010). "Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall. Brill. ISBN 9004174168).

—RekonDog (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@RekonDog:, I very much understood that the Quran does not explicitly identify the "Dhul al-Qarnayn" as Alexander. However, that is not much of a point of WP:DUE weight significance in this article.

Fact is, numerous scholars support the Alexander hypothesis, some say this is the "authoritative" or "most commonly" made id.[1][2]

You are not entitled to dismiss consensus/plurality opinion of WP:RS scholars as "merely the opinion of authors" if you want to play by Wikipedia rules, whose policy is to rely majorly on such WP:SECONDARY sources.

I realize dissent (as per Hypotheses about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn), which can be addressed by inserting "arguably identified with Alexander" and that should suffice. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lmao, secondary sources are biased af. Capurta (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks like there is an independent set of articles on Gog and Magog that all link to one another, but not to this English one. For example, here is the Arabic one. This other set of language-articles appears to be available in a total of fourteen (almost all Islamicate) languages. Curiously, both that set (that I just linked to the Arabic version of) and this set (that I'm writing in the talk page of) contain versions in Indonesian. They are, of course, separate articles. One (which links to the article that I'm writing on the talk page of right now) seems to be about Gog and Magog in the Judeo-Christian context, while the other (from the set of language-articles I linked to at the beginning of this post) is about Gog and Magog (i.e. Ya'jūj wa Ma'jūj) in the Islamic context. This also appears to be true of Russian Wikipedia.

What is the proper recourse here? Since the English language-article (this one) and the Arabic language-article (as well as many others in both sets of language-articles) cover both the Judeo-Christian and the Islamic versions, should we make them link to one another? Or should we take a cue from our comrades on Indonesian (and Russian) Wikipedia, spinning off a separate English article on the Islamic version of Gog and Magog?

Connorboyle (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is problematic from a Jewish perspective as it implies continuity between the Tanakh and the "New Testament." From a Jewish perspective the Tanakh is not a "Judeo-Christian" text; it is a Jewish text. It would be better to have separate sections for what Judaism and Christianity each believe, with the Christian section obviously being free to reference its purported basis in the "Old Testament." Finsternish (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Otherwise, why stop at Christian? It would be exactly as legitimate to call them Judeo-Christian-Islamic texts, or Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Baha'i texts. Finsternish (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Or Judeo-Christian-Mormon, Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Druze, etc.. Finsternish (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This looks to me like a really good article. If anyone is willing to take on the work, I think it could be raised to formal Good Article status.PiCo (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was puzzled by this paragraph;

'Researches of professors and philosophers such as Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Syeed Abul Ala Mawdudi, who played important roles in British and South Asian politics, and American academic Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi and Caribbean eschatologist Imran N. Hosein, compare the languages, behaviours and sexual activities of the tribes of Gog and Magog with those of Vikings.'

Is it really the case that Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Syeed Abul Ala Mawdudi were ever important in British politics? Is the writer just trying to inflate their importance?Dean1954 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to the cited text, but it seems to me that we have "modern" and "contemporary" exactly the wrong way round, here?

>Many modern Muslim historians and geographers regarded the Vikings as the emergence of Gog and Magog.[6] In contemporary times they remain associated with apocalyptic thinking, especially in Israel and the Muslim world.

Can anyone check that the text is indeed referring to Muslim historians and geographers at the time of the Vikings, rather than now?

46.208.184.183 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good catch! Thanks. There is a logical non-sequitur in the articulation of the first sentence, regardless of what the source says. The sentence is referring to the time of the "emergence of the Vikings," and that cannot logically be referring to modern times. I have switched the two adjectives, as logic demands. I actually think that the adjective "contemporary" could be removed from the firts sentence, without impairing the meaning of the lead. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note: The text of the source is not available in preview in Google Books. It is available for search only. In searching the text, I could find only one mention of "Gog and Magog" in the book, on p. 28. But this single mention of the concept is not associated with "Vikings" at all in the text passage that is offered. So this source would have to be double checked or eventually replaced. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is stated in a source that the Khazars used to invade from the "Land of Gog and Magog" breaching the "Caspian Gates", to be defended by the Armenians at the behest of Caliphs, but starting in the year 914 onwards, they were being invaded by the Varangian Vikings instead. Though the Armenians called them the "Ruzik" or Russians.[3]

No preview is available for this book on Google Books. So the passage and/or the page number for a citation cannot be verified. But thanks for pointing it out. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

±

Surely the "see also" link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkers_in_Albania does not belong here AndyBoySouthPas (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"The nations be a reference to China and Russia getting involved with the Israel conflict, their massive military population large" 70.80.198.92 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply