Dhul Qarnain: A RESPONSE TO ARTICLE : DHUL QARNAIN AND THE ALEXANDER 'S ROMANCE

1

A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE “DhulQarnayn and the Alexander Romance” From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam

BY AL IMKAN WAL IMTINAA [ NOTE CAPITAL LETTERS ARE USED ONLY TO HELP THE READERS TO GET ANSWERS QUICKLY THROUGH OUT THE RESPONSE]

Alexander the Great depicted with horns on a silver tetradrachm of Lysimachos, circa 297-281 B.C.

This article discusses the story of Dhul-Qarnayn from the Qur'an and its relation to the Alexander romance.

Contents 

1 Introduction



2 Background

o 2.1 Historical vs Legendary Alexander o 2.2 Oral Tradition

2 

3 Parallels to the Syriac Legend

o 3.1 Two Horns o 3.2 Established with Power o 3.3 Journey to the Fetid Sea o 3.4 Punishment of Wrongdoers o 3.5 Sun Rises on People with No Cover o 3.6 Travel to the Valley between Two Mountains o 3.7 Gog and Magog Spoil and Ravage the Land o 3.8 Build a Barrier o 3.9 Made of Iron and Brass o 3.10 Cannot be Breached o 3.11 Destroyed at the End of Times o 3.12 Summary 

4 Dating the Alexander Legend

o 4.1 Epic of Gilgamesh o 4.2 Early Jewish Legends o 4.3 Early Christian Legends o 4.4 Gog and Magog in the Bible o 4.5 Dating the Syriac Legend o 4.6 Dating the Qur'anic Verses o 4.7 Spread of the Syriac Legend to Arabia o 4.8 Summary 

5 Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander in Islamic Sources

3 o 5.1 Early Islamic Scholars o 5.2 Modern Islamic Scholars 

6 Reconstructing the Historical Alexander

o 6.1 Polytheism o 6.2 Son of Zeus-Ammon o 6.3 Personal Relationships and Sex Life 

7 Cyrus the Great

o 7.1 Turning-point of Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn o 7.2 Rejection of Alexander o 7.3 Two Horns o 7.4 Questions from the People of the Book o 7.5 Reference in the Bible o 7.6 Building a Wall 

8 Historicity of the Story

o 8.1 Historical Claims in the Hadith o 8.2 Great Wall of Gorgan o 8.3 Caspian Gates of Derbent 

9 Conclusion



10 See Also



11 References

Introduction The story of Dhul-Qarnayn (in Arabic ‫ذو القرنين‬, literally "The Two-Horned One", also transliterated as Zul-Qarnain or Zulqarnain) is found in the 18th Surah of the Qur'an, al-Kahf (the Cave). While he is never mentioned explicitly by name, the story is clearly based upon a

4 legendary account of Alexander the Great. For centuries, most Muslim historians and Qur'anic commentators endorsed the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander, though some also proposed alternatives. In recent years, this identification of Dhul-Qarnayn has become particularly problematic and controversial for Muslim scholars, as historians have gradually discovered that the historical Alexander was a Greek pagan who fashioned himself as a god.

[QUR’A:N AND ;AH:ADITH: DID NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE REAL PROPER NOUN OF THE PERSON DH:L QARNAIN , AND THE AREA IS AN OPEN RESEARCH FIELD , IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT PROPER DOCUMENTATION OF THIS PERSON IS BEYOND DOCUMENTATION. IT IS NOT A PROBLEM IN THE MEANING THAT IF HE IS NOT IDENTIFIED THE HIS PARTIAL BIOGRAPHY IN QURAN IS NOT TRUE. IF ALEXANDER IS NOT DH:UL QARNAIN EVEN THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE QUR’A:NIC INFORMATIONS ARE BORROWD FROM THAT OF ALEXANSER’S SYRIAC TRADITIONS. SO IF THIS PERSON CLAIMED TO BE A DEITY LIKE THE PHAROAHS OF EGYPT IT IS ONLY PROVED THAT ALEXANDER WAS NOT DH:UL QARNAIN. ] This has prompted many apologists to create and advance alternative theories that identify DhulQarnayn as other prominent historical kings, most notably Cyrus the Great. These alternative theories have major deficiencies and fall short of the strong parallels between the Qur'anic story and legends of Alexander that date to the early 7th century.

Background Historical vs Legendary Alexander

What is overlooked by most apologists when discussing the identify of Dhul-Qarnayn[1] is that the story in the Qur'an is not based on an historically accurate account of Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BC). Instead, it is based entirely upon legendary stories of Alexander which bare little resemblance to the Alexander of history.

[THIS A THE SUPPOSITION WHICH HAVE LEAD ANTI ‘ISLA:M OBJECTION MAKERS TO ARRIVE THAT THE RESULT THAT QUR’A:NIC INFORMATION IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT ALSO BORROWED. THIS SUPPOSITION IS THE SUPPOSITION OF DISBELIEVE. THAT IS QUR’A:N IS NOT DIVINELY REVIELED SPEECH OF DEITY BUT IT IS BORROWED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES LIKE SYRIAC SOURCES. IF SOME ONE DISBELIEVE IN QUR’A:N AS DIVINE REVIELED SPEECH ,THEN HE ATTEMPTS TO FIND ITS HUMAN SOURCES. BUT IF ONE SUPPOSE A THING WHICH HE DOES WANT TO PROVE IS BEGGING THE ARGUMENT. THE OBJECTION MAKER HAS SUPPOSED THAT QUR’A:NIC INFORMATION IS BASED ON LEGENDARY STORY OF ALEXANDER WHICH CIRCULATED IN SYRIA. BUT THIS IS AN INCORRECT SUPPOSITION BASED ON THE BASIS OF DISBELIEVE IN THE REVIELED NATURE OF HOLY QUR’A:N. ONCE A PERSON PRESUMES THAT QUR’A:N IS BARROWED WORK THEN HE CAN SAY SUCH A THING. THUS THIS IS PETITIO PRINCIPI OR BEGGING THE ARGUMENT. SINCE IN TIS SORT OF ARGUMENT AGAINST

5 HOLY QUR’A:N IT IS ASSUMED THAT QUR’A:N HATH A HUMAN ORIGIN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT HATH A HUMAN ORIGIN .

PETITIO PRINCIPI MAY BE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:= Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.  Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly). 

Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

PETITIO PRINCIPI MAY BE SHEWN AS FOLLOW: 1) EITHER

QUR’A:N IS A DIVINE REVILATION OR A HUMAN WORK. IF A HUMAN WORK THEN IT IS CERTAINLY BORROWES. AS IT IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION IT IS BORROWED FROM HUMAN SOURCES LIKE SYRIAC TRADITIONS IN CASE OF DH:UL QARNAIN.

2) EITHER

QUR’A:N IS A HUMAN WORK OR IT IS A DIVINE REVELATION. AS QUR’A:N IS A HUMAN WORK IT IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION.

ONE CAN SEE THAT IT IS PRESUMED THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION AND UNDER THIS SUPPOSITION IT IS ATTEMTED TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS BORROWED FROM SOME SORCES LIKE SYRIAC TRADITIONS NEGLECTING THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY OF ANY DIVINE REVELATION.] NOW

In particular, the Qur'an parallels a Syriac legend where Alexander is portrayed as a monotheistic king who awaits the second coming of the Messiah and the end of the world.[2] [LET THERE BE SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO BUT SIMILARITY DOES NOT IMPLY THE CLAIM OF BORROWING OF QUR’A:N FROM THE SYRIAC TRADITION. THERE IS NO SUCH IMPLICATION. ONCE AGAIN THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC

6 OBJECTION MAKER HAS PRESUMED THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. AS IT IS STATED EARLIER PARALLELISM DOES NOT IMPLIES THE ACT OF BORROWING, IT IS CERTAINLY NOT IMPLIED AS CLAIMED IN THE ARGUMENT. FIRST IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF IT IS IN SYRIAC TRADITIONS THAT ALEXANDER WAS AWAITING FOR A MESSIAH , IT IS NOT IN QUR”A:N. SO AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DIFFERENCES DO EXIST EVEN ACCORDING TO ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS. ] It has been well understood for many centuries that legendary accounts of Alexander's life began shortly after his death in 323 BC. These were popular across most of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Persia and even India and China. In the subsequent centuries after his death, the historical accounts of Alexander were largely forgotten and legendary accounts of his deeds and adventures replaced them in popular folklore. It is these legendary depictions of Alexander that would have been known in the 7th century and not the historically accurate accounts of his life.

[IT IS SAID IN THE ABOVE SENTENCES THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ACCOUNTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT. 1] THOESE WHICH ARE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.2] THOSE WHICH ARE HISTORICALLY INACCURATE. LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT THOSE WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE INACCURATE IN SOME MEANING. BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE THAT A PORTION OF THSES ACCOUNTS MAY BE HISTORICALLY CORRECT YET THEY ARE INCORRECTLY ASCRIBED TO ALEXANDER THE GREAT. ON THE CONTRARY THEY ARE OF AN OTHER PERSON WHO IS BEYOND HISTORICAL RECORDS. HOWEVER NOT BEYOND TO DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. THAT IS WHY DEITY INFORMED ABOUT HIM. IT MAY BE ALSO NOTED THAT THOSE PERSONS WHO DID ASK THIS QUESTION ABOUT DH:UL QARNAIAN DID KNOW ABOUT HIM AND DID NOT USE USE THE NOUN ALEXANDER OR ANY “ARABIC FORM OF THE GREEK PROPER NOUN. THIS DOES SHEW IN SOME MEANING/SENSE THAT THESE PERSONS DID NOT CONIDER DH:UL QARNAIN AS ALEXANDER THE GREAT. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE ALLEGED ACCONTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE ACCURATE ARE GENERALLY WRITTEN BY ARRIAN WHO WAS BORN AFTER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT. SO WHAT WERE HIS SOURCES WHICH HE USED AND CONTINUED TO SUVIVED FOR TWO CENTURIES PRIOR TO ARRIAN. THEIR RELIABILITY ,CRADIBILITY AND AUTHENTICITY ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE AND INFINITELY CONTROVERSAL. BASED ON SUCH PROBLEMATIC BASES , THIS ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WANTS TO DECLARE QUR’A:NIC AND H:ADI:TH:IC INFORMATIONS AS FALSE AND BORROWED? IS THIS A RESURCH EVEN ON SECULAR OR ATHEISTIC STANDARD?? ] It was not until the Renaissance in the 16th century that the first historical accounts of Alexanders life were rediscovered and investigated. [ ONCE AGAIN IT IS SUPPOSED THAT QUR’A:N DID BORROW THE LEGEND SOME HOW. IF QUR’A:N CAN ONLY BORROW FROM THE LEGENDARY ACCOUNTS OF ALEXANDER IF AND ONLY ID QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. THIS DOES IMPLY THAT THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER IS ONCE USING THE FALLACY OF PETITIO PRINCIPY OR ITS MODIFIED FORM ARGUING IN A CIRCLE

7 OR CIRCULUS IN PROBANDO. THIS MAY BE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:= Circular reasoning ORcirculus in probando , "circle in proving" is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

ONCE MORE IT IS UNWILLINGLY ATMITTED THAT IN THE 16 TH CENTURURY THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS OF A ALEXANDER WERE REDISCOVERED. STARTING FROM 16TH CENTURY SAY 1501 CE THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN 281 BCE APPROXIMATELY 1501- [-281]+/- 1=1782 +/-1 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH . CAN THEY BESTILL RELIABLE AFTER ATLEAST1700 YEARS ?.]

Oral Tradition

Some may object to the literary link between the Qur'anic story and the legendary Alexander story on the basis that they believe Prophet Muhammad was not a literate man and could not have read the Alexander legend. Muhammad's ability to read, however, is irrelevant to the inclusion of the story in the Qur'an as most stories in ancient communities were shared orally. [ THIS ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WANT TO SHEW THAT HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD GOT THESE INFORMATIONS ORALLY. IT IS JUST A SUPPOSITION AND NOT A PROOF/EVIDENT . A PURE CONJECTURE.].

Since the vast majority of people in 7th century Arabia and the Middle East were illiterate, most stories were passed on through word of mouth. It is through this telling and re-telling of stories that this legend likely came to be known by the author of the Qur'an. [ ONCE AGAIN IT IS THE RESULT OF SUPPOSTION THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. ONCE IT IS SUPPOSED A PERSON THEN TRIES TO FIND THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF QUR’A:N OR PERHAPS ORIGINAL SOURCES OF QUR’A:N AS ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SUPPOSITION . THEN TRY TO SHEW THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. THIS IS PURE PETITIO PRINCIPI OR ARGUMENT IN CIRCLE . IT MAY BE ASKED TO THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WHAT QUR’A:N WOULD HAVE DONE IN THE CASE IF IT IS A DIVINE REVELATION IN REAL? THIS QUESTION IS NOT GOING TO BE ANSWERED SINCE WHAT THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER DOES WANT IS TO DENY THAT QUR’A:N IS A DIVINE REVELTAION AND SO HE IS CRITICISING IT ARMED WITH PETITIO PRINCIPI AND CIRCULAR LOGIC AS IT IS SHEWN ABOVE]

8

Parallels to the Syriac Legend In 1889, the renowned scholar and philologist, Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, translated five Alexander stories from Syriac manuscripts into English. One of these stories was a legend that detailed the exploits of Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, and how he traveled to the ends of the world, made a gate of iron, and shut behind it the Huns so they might not come forth to spoil the land.[2] The parallels between this story and the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an are detailed below. [ WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THSE MANUSCRIPT WHEN THEY WERE FIRT WRITTEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHER? IF IT IS SUPPOSED THAT THEY ARE PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OH HOLY PROPHET EVEN THEN THE CLAIM OF BORRWONG CAN BE CORRECT IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION OF QUR’A:N ON HOLY PROPHET, ONCE AGAIN IT IS BEGGING THE ARGUMENT/QUESTION] Two Horns

Alexander in the Syriac legend is described as having horns on his head. An Ethiopic variation of the story refers to Alexander as "the two horns".[2] Coins depicting Alexander with ram horns on his head were first minted shortly after his death. By the 1st century BC, silver coins depicting Alexander with ram horns were used as the primary currency in Arabia. Imitation coins were issued by an Arab ruler named Abi'el who ruled in the south-eastern region of the Arabian Peninsula and other minting of these coins occurred throughout Arabia for another thousand years.[3] This connection of Alexander with two-horns was widely known across the region at the time.

And king Alexander bowed himself and did reverence, saying, "0 God, Lord of kings and judges, thou who settest up kings and destroyest their power, I know in my mind that thou hast exalted me above all kings, and thou hast made me horns upon my head, wherewith I might thrust down the kingdoms of the world;[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 146 THIS ONLY SHEW THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE DID THINK THAT ALEXANDER WAS DH:UL QARNAIN. BUT THIS MAY NOT BE A TRUE CASE . THEY CAN CONFUSE TO DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. BUT IF THEY DID IT , THIS ERROR CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO QUR’A:N. DID QUR’A:N AND CORRECT ‘AH:A:DI:TH: CLAIM THAT THIS PERSON WAS ALEXANDER/SIKANDER /’-SKANDAR. THE ANSWER IS CERTAINLY NEGATIVE. NO WHERE IN ARABIC SCRIPTURES IT IS SAID THAT HE WAS ALEXANDER THE GREAT. THIS MEANS THAT THE SYRIAC TRADITIONS MAY HAVE CONFUSED TWO PERSONS. NOW THE QUESTIONS IS THOSE WHO ASKED ABOUT DH:UL QARNAIN, WHAT DID THEY ASK. THEY DID NOT ASK ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THIS PERSON. WHAT THEY DID ASK WAS ABOUT HIS EVENTS. DEITY REVIELED THE ANSWER OF THIS QUESTION. NOW THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS ARE TRYING TO ASCRIBE THE FLAWS AND DEFECTS OF SYRIAC TRADITIONS TOWARDS HOLY QUR’A:N . IS THIS THE COORECT LOGICAL ARGUMAENT OR IT IS A GREAT FALLACY. WHAT WE SAY IS THAT QUR’A:N NEVER EQUATED ALEXANDER AND DH:UL QARNAIN. TO ASCRIBE THIS FLAW TOWARDS QUR’A:N ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS HAVE ASSUMED THAT HOLY PROPHET OR QUR’A: N

9 HAS BORROWED THIS BIOGRAPHICAL ARTS FROM SYRIAC TRADITIONS. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION BEASED ON THE BASIS OF DISBELIEVE IN THE TRUTH OF QUR’A:N AND FALSEHOOD OF THE BELIEF OF DIVINE REVELATION. EVEN A NON BELIEVER CANNOT APPLY THE ERRORS OF SYRIAC TRADITIONS TO QUR’A:N SINCE QUR’A:N DID NOT COMMIT IT. BUT ONCE IT IS ASSUMED THAT SYRIAC TRADITIONS ARE THE SOURCES IT CAN ONLY BE SAID THEN. ONCE AGAIN IF SYRIAC TRADITIONS ARE NOT THE SOURCES THEN THE FERRORS OF THE TRADITIONS UNDER DISCUSSION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO QUR’A:N. Established with Power

At the beginning of the Syriac legend, Alexander says a prayer to God that he might be given power from heaven to rule over the kingdoms of the earth. The Qur'anic story, speaking from the perspective of Allah, says that he has given Alexander power on earth.

Give me power from thy holy heavens that I may receive strength greater than [that of] the kingdoms of the world and that I may humble them, and I will magnify thy name, O Lord, for ever, and thy memorial shall be from everlasting to everlasting, and I will write the name of God in the charter of my kingdom, that there may be for Thee a memorial always. [2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 146 Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.

Qur'an 18:84 Journey to the Fetid Sea

The first destination for the hero in both the Syriac and Qur'anic stories is a place near the setting of the sun. The Syriac legend identifies this location as Oceanus, a mythical sea believed to encircle a flat earth. In both accounts, the water is described as being muddy or fetid.

"As to the thing, my lord, which thy majesty (or thy greatness) desires to go and see, namely, upon what the heavens rest, and what surrounds the earth, the terrible seas which surround the world will not give thee a passage'; because there are eleven bright seas, on which the ships of men sail, and beyond these there is about ten miles of dry land, and beyond these ten miles there is the fetid sea, Oceanus (the Ocean), which surrounds all creation.

And they put ships to sea and sailed on the sea four months' and twelve days, and they arrived at the dry land beyond the eleven bright seas.[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 145-147 One (such) way he followed, until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

Qur'an 18:85-86

10 Dr. Kevin Van Bladel, professor of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, states in his comparison of the two stories, that the water at the place where the sun sets is 'fetid' in both texts, a coincidence of two uncommon synonyms (Syriac saryâ, Arabic hami'a).[4] Similar connections can be found in Islamic poetry contemporary to the time of Muhammad. Muhammad ibn Ishāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār recorded many pre-Islamic Arabic poems in his Sirat Rasul Allah (Biography of Muhammad); This included a poem about Dhul-Qarnayn that he claims was composed by a pre-Islamic king of ancient Yemen. Here we can see that the sun sets into a pool of water that is described as being both muddy and fetid, a perfect linking of the two adjectives in both the Qur'anic and Syriac stories. [ IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE DIVINE REVELATION AND A LEGEND, BUT THIS ONLY MEANS THAT A SOME TRUE EVENTS WHERE DISTORTED BY HUMANS AND THE OMNISCIENT DEITY NATTARED THE TRUTH AND EXTRACTED TRUTH OUT OF THE COMBINATIONS OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD. BUT IF IT IS SUPPOSED THAT OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT DEITY DOES NOT EXIST OR IF IT IS SUPPOSED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN FOR THE DEITY TO EXTRACT TRUTH OUT OF FALSEHOOD THEN ONE MAY DISCARD THIS POSSIBLITY . IT MUST ALSO BE NOTED THAT ‘IBN ‘ISH:A:Q IS NOT EA RELIABLE NARRATER AND HIS NARRATIONS AND TRADITIONS ARE NOT RELIABLE. UNFORTUNATELY MAUDU:DI: SUPPORTED THIS PERSON EVEN IF MANY POWERFUL CRITICISMS WERE MADE ON MAULANA MAUDU:DI: FOR HIS VIEWS IN REGARD OF ‘IBN ‘ISH:A:Q AND ‘IBN H-SHA:M. YET IT WAS BEYOND THE WILDEST DREAM AND FREEST IMAGINATION OF MAULA:NA: MAUDU:DI: THAT ‘IBN ‘ISH:A:Q CAN BE USED EVEN AGAINST HOLY QUR’A:N. EVEN AFTER SOME SIMILARITIES THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME PERSON .

The famous historian Ibn Kathir mentions that DhulQarnayn was a pious king, who lived during the time of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham, PBUH) and he performed the Tawaaf around the Ka'bah with Prophet Ibrahim he built it. ]

when

Conquered kings thronged his court, East and west he ruled, yet he sought Knowledge true from a learned sage. He saw where the sun sinks from view, In a pool of mud and fetid slime.[5] The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah Punishment of Wrongdoers

The Qur'anic story next gives the reader a cryptic speech by Dhul-Qarnayn where he says that "whoever does wrong" will be sent back to the Lord (i.e. killed). The Syriac legend gives a much fuller account; it explains that Alexander asked for criminals to be sent to the shore of the fetid sea to test a rumor that anyone who approaches the sea dies. When the prisoners drop dead,

11 Alexander notes that it is good that those already "guilty of death should die". Not only is there a direct parallel between the stories, but the Syriac legend helps makes sense of the short and cryptic Qur'anic version of the story. [ ONCE AGAIN THIS IS BASED UPON THE BELIEF QUR’A:N BROWETH FROM THE LEGEND STATED , BUT THIS IS JUST TO BEG THE QUESTION. SINCE IT IS BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION RAITHER PRESUMPTION THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. THE SENSES OF VERSES OF REVIELD QUR’A:N BASED ON FALSE STORIES CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED.] And Alexander and his troops encamped, and he sent and called to him the governor who was in the camp, and said to him, "Are there any men here guilty of death?" They said to him, "We have thirty and seven men in bonds who are guilty of death." And the king said to the governor, "Bring hither those evil doers." And they brought them, and the king commanded them and said, "Go ye to the shore of the fetid sea, and hammer in stakes that ships may be tied thereto, and prepare everything needful for a force about to cross the sea." And the men went, and came to the shore of the sea. Now Alexander thought within himself, "If it be true as they say, that everyone who comes near the fetid sea dies, it is better that these who are guilty of death should die," and when they had gone, and had arrived at the shore of the sea, they died instantly.[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 147-148 He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before).

Qur'an 18:87 Sun Rises on People with No Cover

After leaving the muddy sea, The Qur'an tells us that Dhul-Qarnayn travels to the east where the sun rises. The author then conveys an odd and cryptic detail that the people living there have "no covering protection against the sun"; however, it gives no further explanation as to what that means. Again, the Syriac legend not only has an expanded, parallel account but it helps clarify the Qur'anic story. We are told that the people who live near the location where the sun "enters the window of heaven" (i.e. rises above the flat earth) must seek cover because the sun is much closer to the ground and its rays burn the people and animals there.

So the whole camp mounted, and Alexander and his troops went up between the fetid sea and the bright sea to the place where the sun enters the window of heaven; for the sun is the servant of the Lord, and neither by night nor by day does he cease from his travelling. The place of his rising is over the

12 sea, and the people who dwell there, when he is about to rise, flee away and hide themselves in the sea, that they be not burnt by his rays; and he passes through the midst of the heavens to the place where he enters the window of heaven; and wherever he passes there are terrible mountains, and those who dwell there have caves hollowed out in the rocks, and as soon as they see the sun passing [over them], men and birds flee away from before him and hide in the caves, for rocks are rent by his blazing heat and fall down, and whether they be men or beasts, as soon as the stones touch them they are consumed.[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 148 Then followed he (another) way, Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.

Qur'an 18:89-90 Travel to the Valley between Two Mountains

On his final journey, the Qur'an tells us that Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to a valley between two mountains. The Syriac legend tells us that Alexander heads north and likewise arrives at a plain between mountains. Here he sets up his camp near a mountain pass.

And Alexander said, " Let us go forth by the way to the north "; and they came to the confines of the north, and entered Armenia and Adarbaijan and Inner Armenia And they crossed over the country of TurnAgios, and BethPardia, and Beth-Tekil, and Beth-Drubil, and Beth-Katarmen, and Beth-Gebul, and Beth-Zamrat Alexander passed through nil these places; and he went and passed mount Musas and entered a plain which is Bahi-Lebta, and he went and encamped by the gate of the great mountain.[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 149 Then followed he (another) way, Till, when he came between the two mountains, he found upon their hither side a folk that scarce could understand a saying.

Qur'an 18:92-93

13 Gog and Magog Spoil and Ravage the Land

12th century map by the Muslim geographer Al-Idrisi (south up). "Yajooj" and "Majooj" (Gog and Magog) appear in Arabic script on the bottom-left edge of the Eurasian landmass, enclosed within dark mountains. Note that the earth is encircled by water that corresponds to the ocean at the end of the world in the Alexander Legend.

The Syriac legend then states that Alexander meets with people who live near the mountain pass.

These natives tell of a tribe, the Huns, who live beyond the pass. These Huns spoil and ravage the land and then return back to their lands on the other side of the mountain. The legend identifies the first two kings of this tribe as Gog and Magog, the exact same names used in the Qur'anic account.

Alexander said, "This mountain is higher and more terrible than all the mountains which I have seen." The old men, the natives of the country, said to the king: "Yea, by your majesty, my lord the king, neither we nor our fathers have been able to march one step in it, and men do not ascend it either on that side or on this, for it is the boundary which God has set between us and the nations within it" Alexander said, "Who are the nations within this mountain upon which we are looking? "The natives of the land said, " They are the Huns." He said to them, " Who are their kings?" The old men. said: "Gog and Magog..."

Alexander said to the natives of that country," Have they come forth to spoil in your days?" The old men answered and said to the king: "May God establish thy kingdom and thy crown, my lord the king! These fortresses which have been overturned in our lands and in the lands of the Romans, have been overthrown by them; by them have these towers been uprooted; when they go forth to spoil, they ravage the land of the Romans and of the Persians, and then they enter their own territory." [2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, pp. 149-150, 152 They said: "O Zul-qarnain! the Gog and Magog (People) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them?"

Qur'an 18:94

14 Build a Barrier

After speaking with the people about Gog and Magog, Alexander says he will build a barrier (a wall or dam) between the people and the tribes that harass them. Both stories record Alexander proclaiming this in a speech.

When Alexander had heard what the old men said, he marveled greatly at the great sea which surrounded all creation; and Alexander said to his troops, " Do ye desire that we should do something wonderful in this land?" They said to him, "As thy majesty commands we will do." The king said, "Let us make a gate of brass and close up this breach."[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 153 He said: "(The power) in which my Lord has established me is better (than tribute): Help me therefore with strength (and labour): I will erect a strong barrier between you and them Qur'an 18:95 Made of Iron and Brass

Another similarity between the two stories is that the wall will be made of both iron and brass.

Here the Qur'anic translators use different words for the second metal: "lead" (Yusif Ali), "copper" (Pickthall), "brass" (Shakir) but the connection with the Syriac legend is apparent.

And Alexander commanded and fetched three thousand smiths, workers in iron, and three thousand men, workers in brass And they put down brass and iron, and kneaded it as a man kneads when he works clay. Then they brought it and made a gate, the length of which was twelve cubits and its breadth eight cubits. And he made a lower threshold from mountain to mountain, the length of which was twelve cubits;[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 153 "Bring me blocks of iron." At length, when he had filled up the space between the two steep mountainsides, He said, "Blow (with your bellows)" Then, when he had made it (red) as fire, he said: "Bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead [brass]."

Qur'an 18:96 Cannot be Breached

After constructing the barrier, the Syriac legend says that it is very difficult to penetrate and the Huns will not be able to dig under it. A similar phrase is used in the Qur'an to convey that the barrier is very difficult to pass.

He fixed the gate and the bolts, and he placed nails of iron and beat them down one by the other, so that if the Huns came and dug out the rock which was under the threshold of iron, even if footmen were

15 able to pass through, a horse with its rider would be unable to pass, so long as the gate that was hammered down with bolts stood.[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 153 Thus were they made powerless to scale it or to dig through it Qur'an 18:97 Destroyed at the End of Times

An often overlooked aspect of the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is that it ends with a prophetic prediction of the wall being destroyed and the tribes of Gog and Magog surging and destroying everything in their path. In particular, it notes that this will occur on the day of Judgement when the "trumpet is blown" and the people of the world are gathered together to account for their sins.

The Syriac legend also ends with a similar prophecy that likewise occurs when the nations have been gathered together at the end of times.

And the Lord will gather together the kings and their hosts which are within this mountain, and they shall all be assembled at His beck, and shall come with their spears and swords, and shall stand behind the gate, and shall look up to the heavens, and shall call upon the name of the Lord,"saying, 'O Lord, open to us this gate.' And the Lord shall send His sign from heaven and a voice shall call on this gate, and it shall be destroyed and fall at the beck of the Lord, and it shall not be opened by the key which I have made for it. And a troop shall go through this gate which I have made, and a full span shall be worn away from the lower threshold" by the hoofs of the horses which with their riders shall go forth to destroy the land by the command of the Lord;[2] The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version, p. 154 He said: "This is a mercy from my Lord: But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it into dust; and the promise of my Lord is true." On that day We shall leave them to surge like waves on one another: the trumpet will be blown, and We shall collect them all together.

Qur'an 18:98

The connection with the destruction of the wall and the end of times is further explained in the classic Qur'anic tafsir by Ibn Kathir.

(We shall leave some of them to surge like waves) meaning mankind, on that day, the day when the barrier will be breached and these people (Ya'juj and Ma'juj) will come out surging over mankind to destroy their wealth and property. As-Suddi said: "That is when they emerge upon the people." All of this will happen before the Day of Resurrection and after the Dajjal, as we will explain when discussing the Ayat: (and As-Sur [the trumpet] will be blown.) As-Sur, as explained in the Hadith, is a horn that is blown into. The one who will blow into it is (the angel) Israfil, peace be upon him, as has been explained in the Hadith quoted at length above, and there are many Hadiths on this topic. [6]

16 Tafsir Ibn Kathir, "The Barrier restrains Them, but It will be breached when the Hour draws nigh" Summary

After seeing the numerous and explicit connections between the Qur'an and the Syriac Legend, it is easy to agree with Van Bladel who summaries the parallels between the two stories.

Thus, quite strikingly, almost every element of this short Qur'anic tale finds a more explicit and detailed counterpart in the Syriac Alexander Legend. In both text the related events are given in precisely the same order.

As it is, the correspondences shown earlier are still so exact that it is obvious in comparison that the two texts are at least connected very closely. They relate the same story in precisely the same order of events using many of the same particular details.[4] The Alexander legend in the Qur‘an 18:83-102, p. 182

Dating the Alexander Legend The parallels between the Syriac Legend and the Qur'an are obvious and striking and both accounts are clearly telling the same story. After establishing this fact, we must now determine the dependency between the two stories. Is the Qur'anic story based on the Syriac story? Is the Syriac story based on the Qur'an? Are both dependent upon earlier stories? In order to determine the answer to those questions, we must look at scholarly works that date both the Qur'anic account, the Syriac legend, and prior Alexander folklore.

While the Syriac story tells a specific version of the Alexander Romance, many aspects of this legend draw from earlier materials. Similar stories of Alexander pre-date both the Qur'an and Syriac legends by many centuries including folklore found in earlier Christian and Jewish writings. Parallels to the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical story of Gog and Magog can be clearly identified in the story as well.

[ONE MAY COMPARE THE TRUE AND REAL QUR’A:NIC INFORMATION WITH THE FALSE HUMAN PRODUCTS : The Qur’an narrates this story saying: “They ask thee concerning Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, I will rehearse to you something of his story.? Verily we established his power on earth, and we gave him the ways and the means to all ends. One (such) way he followed, until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a people: we said: O DhulQarnayn (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness. He said: whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and he will punish him with a punishment unheard of (before). But whoever believes, and works righteousness, he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as we order it by our

17 command. Then followed he (another) way, until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun. (He left them) as they were: we completely understood what was before him. Then followed he (another) way, until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains, he found, beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word. They said: O Dhul-Qarnayn the Gog and Magog (people) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them? He said: (the power) in which my Lord has established me is better (than tribute): help me therefore with strength (and labor): I will erect a strong barrier between you and them: Bring me blocks of iron. At length, when he had filled up the space between the two steep mountain sides, he said, blow (with your bellows) then, when he had made it (red) as fire, he said: bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead. Thus were they made powerless to scale it or to dig through it.? He said: this is a mercy from my Lord: but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, he will make it into dust; and the promise of my Lord is true.� (Al-Kahf: 83-97) Epic of Gilgamesh

One of the earliest and most influential stories, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written sometime before 2000 BCE. In one of the tablets of his many adventures, Gilgamesh travels far to the east, to the mountain passes at the ends of the earth. He slays mountain lions, bears and other wild animals. Eventually he comes to the twin peaks of Mount Mashu at the end of the earth, from where the sun rises. Here he finds a large gate, guarded by scorpion-people who protect the sun and forbidden anyone to enter through the gate without their permission.[7] It is in this very ancient mythology, that we have the basic outline of the adventure found in the Qur'an and the Alexander legends: a powerful hero, who travels from west to east, the setting and rising of the sun, two mountains and a gate.

Early Jewish Legends

The Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 CE), records in his two books legendary stories of Alexander that were known to the Jews of the first century. In his first book, "The Antiquities of the Jews", he mentions that the tribes of Magog are called the Scythians by the Greeks. In his second book, "The Wars of the Jews", he further details that these people are held behind a wall of iron that has been built by Alexander the Great. In this legend, Josephus relates that Alexander allows the tribes of Magog to come out from behind the wall and create havoc in the land. Here we see a very clear connection of Alexander to an iron gate and the tribes of Magog being prevented from plundering the land. This shows that local folklore already contained the basic backbone of the Alexander story almost six centuries before the story found in the Qur'an.

18 Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.[8] The Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Ch6, v1 Now there was a nation of the Alans, which we have formerly mentioned some where as being Scythians and inhabiting at the lake Meotis. This nation about this time laid a design of falling upon Media, and the parts beyond it, in order to plunder them; with which intention they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was master of that passage which king Alexander [the Great] shut up with iron gates. This king gave them leave to come through them; so they came in great multitudes, and fell upon the Medes unexpectedly, and plundered their country. [9] The Wars Of The Jews, Book VII, Ch7, v4 Early Christian Legends

As early as the 399 CE, local stories of Alexander building a wall against the Huns had made their way into Christian writings as well. St. Jerome, an early church father, writes about rumors of attacks against Jerusalem by invaders from the north. He refers to these invaders as Huns who live near the gate that was built by Alexander.

For news came that the hordes of the Huns had poured forth all the way from Mæotis (they had their haunts between the icy Tanais and the rude Massagetæ; where the gates of Alexander keep back the wild peoples behind the Caucasus); and that, speeding here and there on their nimble-footed horses, they were filling all the world with panic and bloodshed. [10] Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 77 Gog and Magog in the Bible

The story of Gog and Magog being let loose at the end of the world, on Judgement Day, can be found in the Book of Revelation. We are told that they will swarm across the earth and surround the "camp of God's people" who have been gathered together in the "city he loves" (namely Jerusalem). This writing dates to the second half of the 1st century.[11][12] When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. [13] Revelation 20:7-9 Dating the Syriac Legend

The Alexander Legend was composed by a Mesopotamian Christian probably in Amid or Edessa.

It was written down in 629-630 CE after the victory of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius over the

19 Sasanian king Khusrau Parvez. Dr. Reinink, a Near East philogist and scholar, highlights the political agenda of the legend which is clearly written as a piece of pro-Byzantine propaganda.

Its purpose was probably to win the separated Syrian Christians back to a union with the church at Constantinople.[14] Dating the Qur'anic Verses

According to Muslim scholars, Al-Kahf (The Cave) was generally revealed in Mecca, except verse 28 and verses 83-101 which were revealed in Medina.[15] Based on this information, we can date the story of Dhul-Qarnayn, contained in verses 83-101, sometime after the Hijra in June 622 CE and before Muhammed's death in June 632 CE; a more specific date is difficult to ascertain with any certainty. Since the community of Muslims in Mecca were far from well known outside of Arabia, the possibility of their story influencing Christians in Syria is extremely remote. The Syriac work also contains no references to the Arabic phrases used in the Qur'anic account, which would be expected if the Syrian story was using that as its source.[4] While the timelines are tight, it is clear that the composition of the Syriac legend fits into the timeline of the Qur'anic revelation and likely pre-dates it.

[THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER HAS ONCE AGAIN TRIED TO SHEW THAT SYRIAC LEGENDS CANNOT BE BORROWED FROM QUR’A:N. BUT WHAT HE WANTS TO PROVE IS THAT QUR’A:N IS SOME THING WHICH IS BORROWED FROM LAGENDARY TRADITIONS OF SYRIA. BUT ONCE AGAIN THE NECLECTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT QUR’A:N IS A DIVINE REVELATION. IF SOME ONE SUPPOSES SOME THING AND THEN DRIVE THE VERY THING BY ARGUMENTS IT IS BEGGING THE ARGUMENT. THE CLAIM OF BORROWING FROM SYRIAC TRADITIONS IS BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A REVELATION, AND WHEN IT IS TAKEN AS AN UNPROVABLE AXIOM THE DERIVATIONS ARE THAT IT IS BORROWED FROM SOME WHERE, AND IF IT BORROWED THEN IT IS NOT A REVELATION. THE CLAIM THAT SYRIAC TRADITIONS FITS IN QUR’A:N IMPLIES THAT QUR’A:N BORROWETH FROM THEM CAN BE TRUE IF AND ONLY IF QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. EVEN IF FOR SAKE OF AN ARGUMENT THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WOULD HAVE SUPPOSED THAT QUR’A:N IS A DIVINE REVELATION HE WOULD NOT HAVE DEDUCED THIS RESULT . THUS ALL ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED ANITY ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER MAY BE CORRECT IF QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. BUT WHAT IF IT BE? IF IT BE THE DIVINE REVELATION THEN QUR’A:N IS NOT SOME THING THAT IS BORROWED. THIS DOES SHEW THAT EITHER THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER DOES NOT BELIEVE THE DEITY HATH POWER TO

20 REVIEL OR HE BELIEVES THAT DEITY DOES NOT EXIST.OTHER WISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE ARGUED THAT IF SYRIAC TRADITIONS ARE PRIOR TO QUR’A:N, THEN QUR’A:N IS BORROWED SOME HOW.] Spread of the Syriac Legend to Arabia

The popularity of the Syriac legend of Alexander is evidenced by its inclusion in other works soon after its composition. The "Song of Alexander", composed a few years later but before the Arab conquest of Syria sometime between 630 CE and 636 CE. The Syriac apocalypse, "De Fine Munid" composed between 640 CE and 683 CE and the "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius" composed around 692 CE.[4] Since the work was composed as a piece of propaganda, its intentional dissemination makes sense of its rapid adoption and popularity in the region. This would have included Christian Arabs of the Ghassanid.

It is even possible that early Muslim followers heard the story of the Syrian legend during their raids on Mu'ta on the borders of Syria around September 629 CE.[4] [THIS CLAIM CANNOT BE PROVED FROM AUTHENTIC REPORTS OF AH:ADI:TH: MAKING IT JUST A CLAIM WITH OUT ANY PROOF OR A CLAIM WITH WEAK PROOF IOF IT HAS ANY..]

Summary

It should be clear that all the major elements of the Alexander story were in place by the 4th century, predating both the Qur'anic and the Syriac account by hundreds of years. The strong, point-by-point connection between the story of Dhul-Qarnayn and prior legends is undeniable. In effect, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an is simply another example of the widespread inclusion of Alexander folklore into the stories and traditions of the religious groups in the Middle East. Rebecca Edwards in a address to the American Philological Association in 2002 states: Alexander's association with two horns and with the building of the gate against Gog and Magog occurs much earlier than the Quran and persists in the beliefs of all three of these religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The denial of Alexander's identity as Dhul-Qarnayn is the denial of a common heritage shared by the cultures which shape the modern world--both in the east and the west. [16] [ IT IS AN IN CORRECT VERSION OF ‘ISLA:M. HOW COULD THIS BE SO WHEN CANONICAL WORKS OF TESTAMENTS ARE NOT OF THIS NATURES. THE ALLEGED HERITAGE IS NOT EVEN EQUAL TO CANONICAL BOOKS , WHAT THE SIGNIFIANCE IS IN THE ALLEGED HERITAGE OF IDEBTIFICATION.]

Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander in Islamic Sources While the Qur'an and Hadith never explicitly identify Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander, a number of Islamic scholars and commentators have endorsed this view.

21

[SOME COMMENTATORS OF QUR’A:N DID EQUATED DH:UL QARNAIN WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT , BUT THEIR EQUATION IS NOT BASED UPON ANY AUTHENTIC TRADITION, FROM HOLY PROPHET. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NOT TAQLI:D IN TAFSI:R . THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF FOR THEIR CLAIM. RITHER THEY MADE CONJECTURES . CONJECTURES ARE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN SENSES. BUT CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE OF QUR’A:N AND H:ADI:TH: . THERE IS NO TQLI:D IN TAFSI:R.] This was especially true in the early centuries after the founding of Islam when the legends of Alexander were still widely known and popular. [ A COMMENTARY IF NOT BASED UPON AUTHENTIC TRADITIONS IS JUST AN OPINION, AND AN OPINION IS ATMOST PROBABLE AND AT LEAST FALSE BUT NEVER CERTAINLY CORRECT. IT IS INCORRECT TO EQUATE POPULAR OPINIONS WITH THE TEXT OF QUR’A:N] In more recent years, some prominent scholars have also supported the connection between Alexander and Dhul-Qarnayn of the Qur'an. [ THIS IS INCORRECT SINCE SOME GRAT SCHOLARS OF ISLAM DID HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT DH:UL QARNAIN: FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT GREAT SCHOLAR OF COMMENTARY ON QUR’A:N IBN KATH:I:R DID HOLD A DIFFERENT VIEW ABOUT THE IDENTIFIOCATION OF THE PERSON OF DH:UL QARNAIN: First:= Imam ‘Ibn Kath:i:r, the great scholar of Hadith and history, did remove a misconception. He Did clarify that this Iskandar, who lived three hundred years before Sayyidna: Masih: (AS) and one who did who fight Darz or Darius and King Purus , and one who is the founder of city Alexandria, is not the Dhul-Qarnain stated in the Holy Quran.

Second:= According to ‘Ibn Kath:i:r, his time was the time of Sayyidna Ibrahim (“AS), two thousand years before the time of Alexander the

22 Great , the Greek, the Macedonian.

Ibn Kathir has also reported from the early righteous elders in alBidayah wa an-Nihayah that DhulQarnain went for Hajj traveling on foot.

When Sayyiduna: ‘Ibrahim found out about his arrival, he went out of Makkah to greet him.

It is said that Sayyidna Ibrahim (AS) also prayed for him and passed out some good counsel to him. (AlBidayah, p. 108, v. 3) Third: ‘Ibn Kath:i:r did also inform that 'this Dhul-Qarnain is the first Tubba' (the title of the kings of Yaman). He was among the Tababi'ah (plural of Tubba') of Yaman and this is the same person who had ruled in favor of Sayyidna Ibrahim in the case of Bi'r Sab' (seven wells)' - (al-Bidayah, p. 105, v. 2). In all these narratives, irrespective of the difference regarding the elements of his identity, his time period has been identified as that of Sayyidnii Ibraim (AS) Forth It is said that ‘imam ‘ibn taimiah rh: also rejected this person who is called Alexander the great the greek.

So it is incorrect to say that recently Muslim Scholars did begin to present other ideas. In Islam it is a certain fact that personal opinions of Commentators are neither Qur’a:n Nor Hadi:th:. So to claim that a popular Commentary of a Verse or some verses of Qur’a:n are proved Wrong does not imply that the Qur’a:n and Qur’a:nic verses are falsified. This is a well established fact.]

23 Early Islamic Scholars

The Sirat Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq, circa 761 CE, mentions that Dhul-Qarnayn was of Egyptian and Greek origins, a pretty good description of Alexander who came from Macedonia in Greece and conquered Egypt.

A man who used to purvey stories of the foreigners, which were handed down among them, told me that Dhul-Qarnayn was an Egyptian whose name was Marzuban bin Mardhaba, the Greek. [17] Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah [IBN ISH:AQ IS A WEAK NARRATOR OF TRADITION. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSAL FIGURES IN THE SCIENCE OF TRADITIONS AND CHAIN OF REPORTERS. HIS REPORTS ARE WEAK AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS FROM AUTHENTIC AND TH:IQA:T ]

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a classical Sunni tafsir of the Qur'an, composed by Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli in 1459 CE identifies Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander.

And they, the Jews, question you concerning Dhū’l-Qarnayn, whose name was Alexander; he was not a prophet. Say: ‘I shall recite, relate, to you a mention, an account, of him’, of his affair. [18] Tafsir al-Jalalayn [TAFSI:R AL JALA:LAIN IS ONE OF THE BOOK OF CARRICULAM OF MUSLIM SCHOOLS. IT MAY CONTAIN SOME COMMENTARIES WHICH ARE NOT SO AUTHENTIC.]

Another influential Tafsir author who endorsed the identify of Alexander is the Indian scholar Shah Waliullah (1763 CE).[19] [SHA:H VALIYALLAH IS A GREAT SCHOLAR YET EVEN HE MAY COMMIT ERRORS. SHA:H VALIYULLAH RH: DID NOT MAKE EXCOGITATIONS ON EACH ISSUE .]

Modern Islamic Scholars

One of the most prominent modern scholars to defend the fidelity between Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander the Great is the famous Qur'anic translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Yusuf Ali gives a detailed defense of the Alexander theory in the Appendix of his commentary on the Qur'an, including assertions that the Qur'an accurately depicts an historical account of Alexander and not a legendary one.

24 Personally, I have not the least doubt that Dhu al Qarnayn is meant to be Alexander the Great, the historic Alexander, and not the legendary Alexander, of whom more presently. My first appointment after graduation was that of Lecturer in Greek history. I have studied the details of Alexander's extraordinary personality in Greek historians as well as in modern writers, and have since visited most of the localities connected with his brief but brilliant career. Few readers of Quranic literature have had the same privilege of studying the details of his career. It is one of the wonders of the Quran, that, spoken through an Ummi's (illiterate) mouth, it should contain so many incidental details which are absolutely true.[20] The Noble Quran's Commentary, appx. 6, p. 738.

[ But this is his personal Opinion. A Personal Opinion of a Commentator cannot be the Text of Qur’a:n. Some may err in their opinions. This the point Which is missed.]

Reconstructing the Historical Alexander While legendary accounts of Alexander's life dominated Europe and the Middle East for almost two thousands years, eventually more historical biographies about his life were unearthed. This included information about Alexander as a polytheist, Zeus worshiping pagan and insight into his personal and sexual preferences. Such historical facts about Alexander the Great became well known only after the Renaissance period (1300-1600 CE) when Greek documents from the 2nd century were rediscovered. [ IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ARRIAN WAS BORN AFTER TWO HUNDRED YEARS [APPX.] AFTER ALEXANDER. HIS SOURCES ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. THERE FORE AT MOST THEY ARE ONLY PROBABLE BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE CERTAINLY TRUE. ONE CAN NEVER BE CERTAIN ABOUT THE BELIEVES OF ALEXANDER IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER HIS WAS DH:UL QARNAIN OR HE WAS NOT DH:UL QARNAIN. SO IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT ALLEGATION OF POLYTHIESM , HOMOSEXTUALITY , HETROSEXUALITY ETC. MAY NOT BE TRUE. THEY MAY BE FALSE. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF A REPORT IS PROBEBLY TRUE THEN THERE IS LESS PROBABLE THAT IT IS FALSE.] These included the "Anabasis Alexandri" or "the Campaigns of Alexander" by Arrian. It is generally considered the most important source on Alexander the Great. Written in the 2nd century, it gives a detailed history of Alexander's military complains and is based on early sources that are now lost. The other is the "Life of Alexander" and two orations "On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great" , by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch of

25 Chaeronea. This work detailed much of Alexander's personal life, desires, motivations, and other personal insights.[21] Polytheism

Alexander the Great was a polytheist who believed in the pantheon of Greek gods, the dominant religious belief at the time of the 4th century BCE in Macedon Greece and throughout most of the Mediterranean. When his army first invaded Asia, Alexander dedicated the lands of his conquests to the gods. He visited the Oracle at Delphi and sought prophecies about his future. After his death, Alexander apparently left instructions in his will for a monumental temple to Athena be built at Troy.[22] [ If Alexander was a Polytheist then he cannot be Dh:ul Qarnain unless and other wise it is some how proved that he did converted to Monothiest. ONE MAY REPEAT THAT:

The famous historian Ibn Kathir mentions that DhulQarnayn was a pious king, who lived during the time of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham, PBUH) and he performed the Tawaaf around the Ka'bah with Prophet Ibrahim he built it.

when

] Son of Zeus-Ammon

A terracotta cast of Zeus Ammon with ram horns. 1st century CE. Alexander is depicted with similar ram horns in coins as a reference to his deity.

Alexander appears to have believed himself a deity, or at least sought to deify himself.[23] Olympias, his mother, always insisted to him that he was the son of Zeus,[21] a theory apparently confirmed to him by the oracle of Amun at Siwa in Libya.[21] Shortly after his visit to the oracle,

26 Alexander began to identify himself as the son of Zeus-Ammon and often referred to ZeusAmmon as his true father. This god, an amalgamation of both the Greek god Zeus and the Egyptian god Ammon was often depicted with ram horns on his head. Subsequent currency depicted Alexander adorned with similar rams horn as a symbol of his divinity.[24] Personal Relationships and Sex Life

Alexander had two wives : Roxana, daughter of a Greek nobleman, and Stateira II, a Persian princess and daughter of Darius III of Persia. He fathered at least two sons, Alexander IV of Macedon with Roxana and Heracles of Macedon from his mistress Barsine.[21] Alexander's sexuality has been the subject of speculation and controversy. Alexander may have been bisexual, and while no ancient sources state that Alexander had homosexual relationships, many historians have speculated that Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion, his life long friend and companion, was of a romantic nature.[25]

Cyrus the Great Recent historical and archaeological evidence clearly points to the real Alexander of Macedon as a polytheistic pagan who fashioned himself after Greek and Egyptian gods. The more recent questions about Alexander's sexuality and personal relationships also raises serious problems for anyone who believes he was a follower of Islam. [ THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS COMMENT. A] WHAT SO EVER IS NARRATED ABOUT ALEXANDEROS IS DOUBT FUL. HE MAY NOT BE LIKE THAT AS STATED ABOVE. 2] THERE IS NO CERTAINTY THAT ALEXANDEROS/ ALEXANDROS WAR TRULY/REALLY DH:UL QARNAIN]

Based on this information, some apologists have constructed alternative theories to the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn. The most prominent alternative theory among modern apologists is that DhulQarnayn was Cyrus the Great of Persia. This theory has been advanced by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi,[26] Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,[27] Allameh Tabatabaei,[28] and Naser Makarem Shirazi.

[29]

It is important to note that these rejections of Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn are primarily motivated by theological concerns and are not based on any convincing evidence. As we shall see, the claims of Cyrus the Great being Dhul-Qarnayn are far weaker than the obvious connection to the legendary stories of Alexander. Proponents of this theory, however, presuppose that the Qur'an is relaying an accurate, historical story and thus never take into consideration the possibility that the story is based on myth and folklore.

Turning-point of Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn

In the first few centuries after the founding of Islam, there was little controversy in identifying Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander.

27 [THIS DOES ACCEPT THAT THERE WAS NEVER AN ‘IJMA:l” THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS THE DH:UL QARNAIN THE GREAT. THE CONTROVERSY IT SELF IS AN EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS JUST AN OPINION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY MAJORITY BUT IN ‘ISLA:M MAJORITY IS NO PROOF. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘IJMA:” AND MAJORITY IS CLEAR. ] Alexander's deeds and exploits were almost universally admired. However this slowly changed after the Renaissance in the 16th century when proper archaeological and historical methods were first applied to the life of Alexander the Great. [ THE ALLEGED MEHODS OF 16 TH CENTURY CE ARE NOT CERTAIN AND UNCERTAINITIES ARE CERTAIN].

Once an accurate picture of the historical Alexander emerged, Christians and Jews easily discarded the legends of Alexander as a believing king. Since these accounts were not present in the Bible, rejecting Alexander as a Greek pagan held no theological consequences for them. [ CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN TALMUD AND OTHER JEWISH TRADITIONS. THAT WAS THE REASON THEY CAN REJECT ANY THING WHICH IS OUTSIDE TWO BOOKS THE HEBRAIC TANACH AND GREEK NEW TESTAMENTS. PROTESTANTS REJECT APOCRYPHA OF OLD COVANANT. BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID FOR JEWS. SINCE THE DO HAVE TALMUD,MISHNA ECT. BESIDE HEBRAIC BIBLE. Jews have narration in their Holy Talmud (Yoma 69a) and other source Book of Antiquities(XI,321-47) that Alexander held the city of Jerusalem, its temple , and its people in much esteem and respect.The narrative states that Alexander, upon seeing the High Priest, dismounted and bowed to him. Which was probably an exceptional case for a prson like Alexander the Great. In Josephus's account, when asked by his general, Parmerio, to explain his actions, Alexander answered, "I did not bow before him, but before that God who has honored him with the high Priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very apparel."

IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THESE ACCOUNTS AND TRADITIONS. ALEXANDER MIGHT HAVE CONVERTED TO JUDAISM AND DID NOT REMAIN A POLYTHIEST OR PAGAN. TO DISCARD THIS POSSIBILITY IS JUST AN EXTRMISM.{1}

] Muslims, on the other hand, are forced to defend these accounts because the stories found their way into the Qur'an. While some Muslims have embraced Alexander and rejected modern scholarship around his historical identify,[30] most apologists have gone the other way and decided to accept that Alexander was a pagan but reject his association with Dhul-Qarnayn.

28 [ THIS IS ONCE AGAIN AN OBJECTION WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO A FALLACY. MUSLIMS ARE NOT FORCED TO ACCEPT ALEXANDER, EVEN IF A NUMBER OF COMMENTATORS DID ACCEPT HIM AS THE PERSON OF DH:UL QARNAIN. FURTHER NOT ALL THE ACCOUNTS ARE ACCEPTED. ONE AGAIN THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER IS FORCED TO OPINE THAT QUR’ANIC INFORMATIONS ARE FALSE SINCE HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION ] Rejection of Alexander

Since most early Muslim scholars and commentators believed that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander, any defense of the Cyrus theory is first obligated to state why Alexander should be rejected from consideration.[27] [ THE QUESTION OF WHY IS NOT UNANSWERABLE AS INITIALLY THOUGHT BY THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER. AS THIS IS JUST AN OPINION AND THERE IS NO COMMANDMENT IN QUR’A:N OR H:ADI:TH: THAT NEW OPINIONS CAN NOT BE MADE , ONE CAN DO IT ON BASIS OF ARGUMENTS] Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, one of the first to advance the theory of Cyrus, gives a typical justification for his rejection of Alexander by appealing to the historical man as an unrighteous polytheist: When treating the Dhul-Qarnayn story, Azad beings by setting forth that it follows from verse 82/83 that the hero's epithet was familiar to the Jews, being an expression used by the questioners. Then, he must have been a righteous (see verse 86/87) and godly (see verses 87/88, 94/95 and 97/98) sovereign. In other words, he cannot represent Alexander the Great: "That man was neither godly, nor righteous, nor generous towards subjected nations; moreover, he did not build a wall" [27] [ THERE IS NO NEED TO DISCUSS THESE ARGUMENT. IF SOME ONE ACCEPTS THAT ALEXANDER WAS A POLYTHEIST , THIS ONE THING IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT HE WAS NOT DH:UL QARNAIN. ONE DO NOT NEED ANY OTHER ARGUMENT TO DISPROVE ALEXANDER THE GREAT TO BE DH:UL QARNAIN. BUT EVEN IF ALEXANDER DID BECAME A MONOTHIEST OR EVEN A JEW IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE WAS THE DH:UL QARNAIN. HOW EVER THE TALMUDIC TRADITIONS ABOUT ALEXANDER DOES POINT AT THE POSSIBILITY THAT ALEXANDER DID BECAME A MONOTHIEST WHETHER HE BECAME A JEW OR NOT. SUCH A CONVERSION IS POSSIBLE AND TALMUDIC TRADITIONS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS FALSE WITH CERTAINTY JUST BECAUSE SOME SECULAR SCHOLARS THINK SO. AT BEST THEY CAN SAY CONVERSION OF ALEXANDER IS IMPROBABLE, IF IT IS SO EVEN THEN IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. THE CLAIM THAT THIS TRADITION IS FALSE WITH CERTAINTY IS CERTAINLY FALSE.] Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation: (1880 - 1960), p. 32

29 The apologist insists that the only possible connection to Alexander must be to the historical man. On this basis, it is easy to agree that the historical Alexander is not portrayed in the Qur'anic story, as he does not fit the description at all. However, the legendary Alexander is a perfect fit. He is portrayed as a godly and righteous man, he shows generosity to the people harassed by the Huns, and he builds a wall of iron and brass. While these legendary stories were popular in the 7th century, they are virtually unknown outside of academic circles today. The apologist simply ignores these facts and never presents the option that these verses are about a legendary figure.

[ONCE THE PROBLEM IS OF DISBELIEVE. ALEXANDER IF HE WAS DH:UL QARNAIN THEN THIS MEANS THAT THE HISTORICITY OF THE ALLEGED HISTORICAL ALEXANDER ARE NOT SO HISTORICAL , THERE MAY BE SOME TRUE PARTS IN THE LIGENDARY ALEXANDER. BUT IF ALEXANDER IS NOT DH:UL QARNAIN EVEN THEN THIS PERSON MAY HAVE SOME TRUTH IN HIS LEGENDARY ACCOUNTS.] Two Horns

Sketch of a relief of Cyrus.

In order to connect Cyrus to the epithet Dhul-Qarnayn (i.e. man with two-horns), proponents of this theory have pointed to reliefs found at the tomb of Cyrus in Pasargadae, Iran. In these depictions of Cyrus, a set of horns can be seen at the bottom of an elaborate head dress.

However, the horns are extremely small and difficult to identify. When you compare this to the prominent placement of horns in Alexander coins and the depiction of Zeus-Ammon, upon which the Alexander coins are based, the horns on the Cyrus relief pale by comparison. We have no other physical engravings or any other archaeological evidence that connects Cyrus with the epithet "two horns".

[ONCE AGAIN THIS PERSON IS TRYING TO SHEW THAT AN OTHER CANDIDATE FOR THE PERSON OF DH:UL QARNAIN MUST BE DISCARTED AS AN EXTRATANIOUS . SINCE HIS AIM IS TO PROVE

30 THAT DH:UL QARNAIN IS NOT A HISTORICAL FIGURE AT ALL, NOT IN THE LEAST SENSE. BUT IN EACH CASE THERE ARE PROBABILITIES THAT MAKE THEM CANDIDATES FOR PERSON OF DH:UL QARNAIN. SIZE OF HORNS IF SMALL CANNOT PROVE THAT THESE ARE NOT HORNS BUT SOME THING ELSE. SIZE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HORNLESSNESS AS THIS ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WANTS TO SHEW. IF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO THEN THEIR SIZE WHO SO EVER SMALL ,CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT THAT CYRUS FAILS TO BE A CANDIDATE JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE.] Questions from the People of the Book

Another attempt to connect Cyrus to Dhul-Qarnayn comes from an analysis of the events that prompted the revelation of the Qur'anic story in the first place. The story begins in verse 83 by stating that someone has asked Muhammad about the story of Dhul-Qarnayn: They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story."

Qur'an 18:83

The "they" in question is often identified as Jews, or sometimes generally as the People of the Book, living near Mecca who use the question as a test of Muhammad's prophet-hood This Surah was sent down in answer to the three questions which the mushriks of Makkah, in consultation with the people of the Book, had put to the Holy Prophet in order to test him. These were: (1) Who were "the Sleepers of the Cave"? (2) What is the real story of Khidr? and (3) What do you know about Dhul-Qarnayn? As these three questions and the stories involved concerned the history of the Christians and the Jews, and were unknown in Hijaz, a choice of these was made to test whether the Holy Prophet possessed any source of the knowledge of the hidden and unseen things. [31] The Meaning of the Qur'an, Introduction to Chapter 18

Apologists then argue that the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn must have been well known to the Jews and should therefore be found in the Bible. [ NOT NECESSARY IN BIBLE BUT KNOWN TO JEWS SOME HOW. EITHER IN SOME JEWISH APOCRYPHA OR IN TRADITIONS OF JUDAISM [‘ISRA:’I:LIA:T]. THERE IS NO IMPLICATION THAT IF A THING IS KNOWN TO JEWS THEN IT IS MENSIONED IN TANAKH. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAURAH/TORAH AND ‘ISR:’ILIA:T. HOW EVER SOME GENERALIZED THE WORD TORAH INCLUDING TRADITIONS OF ISRAEL (‘ISRA:I:LIA:T)] However, no justification is ever given as to why only the Bible is considered and not other literature used by Jews and Christians of the 7th century. This includes the Talmud, apocryphal

31 books, and other non-canonical writings. In fact, this very account refers to another noncanonical story, the Sleepers of the Cave, which is a 5th century legend popular in both Syria and Arabia. This story is not found in the Bible and therefore provides definitive proof that the people questioning Muhammad relied on extra-Biblical material for their questions.

Another detail about this account that is completely ignored by Islamic scholars, is that Muhammad is not asked to simply identify Dhul-Qarnayn. If that were the case, he could have given a one sentence answer such as "he is Alexander" or "he is Cyrus". He is actually asked to relate a story about Dhul-Qarnayn.

[ONCE AGAIN THIS SUGGESTED ANSWEWR TO A SUPPOSED QUESTION IS BASED ON THE AXIOM THAT QUR’A:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. SINCE IF MUH:AMMAD PBUH WAS ASKED THIS QUESTION HE MUST HAVE STATED WHAT IS TRUTH. IF NONE OF THE TWO WAS DH:UL QARNAIN THE HOLY PROPHET WOULD HAVE REPLIED TRULY THAT HE IS NEITHER OF THE TWO. SO THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTION ON QUR’A:N BUT AN IMPROPER SUGGESTION.] In this context, it is assumed that everyone at the time is familiar with this person, but they are asking Muhammad for details of Dhul-Qarnayn's deeds.

[THIS ASSUMPTION IS CERTAINLY INCORRECT, REGARDLESS OF THE ASSUMER WHO SO EVER HE MAY BE. IT IS A VERY STRONG PROBABILITY THAT FEW PERSONS KNEW IT THAT IS WHY THEY WERE ASKING THIS QUESTION.ALSO THEY DID NOT USE THE NOUN ALEXANDER BUT THE APPELLATION OR EPITHET , WHY? THIS MEANS THAT THIS NOUN WAS NOT KNOWN TO MANY BUT KNOWN TO FEW.] In order for the People of the Book to know the "right" answer to that question, they must already know the details of this story. This story does not appear anywhere in the Bible; but it does occur, point-by-point and detail-by-detail in the Alexander legend. Therefore, they must be using the Alexander legend as their source for the "right" answer.

Again, apologists are simply ignoring the wide range of stories used by Jews and Christians of the 7th century. They project a modern understanding of the cannon of scripture back upon the people of that time. When we consider that the Alexander legends were incorporated into the writings and theology of the Jews and Christians in Syria and Arabia, it is easy to see why it should be included as the most likely source of these questions.

Reference in the Bible

While trying to link the phrase "two horns" to Cyrus in the Bible, the apologists will cite a passage from Daniel 8 that mentions a ram with two horns: In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could

32 rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns.

The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power. [32] Daniel 8:2-7

The meaning of this prophetic vision is explained a few verses later; the identities of the twohorned ram and the one-horned goat are given: He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king.

Daniel 8:19-21

On the one hand, the two-horned ram is associated with Persia, and it conquering foes to the west, north, and south is a reference to Cyrus leading Persia to become a great power in the region. However, linking Cyrus explicitly to both of the "two horns" is problematic. First, the author of Daniel clearly says that the ram represents two kings and not only one king. The implication is that Persia is the longer and newer of the two horns, since Persia was more powerful and rose in ascension later than Media. The horn was a common metaphor for rulers or kings in the Middle East, so this imagery is not unique to Persian kings or Cyrus the Great. The clear explanation given in the text is that the ram represents the Persia-Media empire in general and not Cyrus in particular. Since the ram was considered a symbol of Persia, this is not a unique depiction.[33] Another problem with identifying Cyrus as the ram is that the ram is defeated and disgraced by the goat. It is well known that Cyrus was responsible for freeing the Jews from slavery in Babylon[34] and he is always portrayed favorably in the Bible. In the Book of Isaiah, Cyrus is even called God's anointed [35] which is the same word used for Messiah or Savior. However, in this prophetic vision, the goat defeats the ram and tramples it, which is completely at odds with how Cyrus is portrayed throughout the rest of Jewish scripture. Again, this clearly shows that the Ram represents Persia as a whole and not Cyrus as an individual. [ VISION IS A VISION. IT IS SOME THING LIKE DREAM. IT IS SOME TIME METAPHORICAL. IF IT IS SUPPOSED THAT THIS VISION IS NOT FOR CYRUS EVEN THEN THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT DH:UL QARNAIN IS NOT CYRUS WITH CERTAINTY. AS THE ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER ADMITS THAT CYRUS WAS ENSIONED 23 TIMES IN BIBLE, HE CAN BE A CANDIDATE AS WELL. EVEN IF THIS VISION IS NOT FOR HIM, EVEN IF THIS RAM IS NOT CYRUS THE GREAT.]

33 We must also consider that Cyrus is mentioned explicitly by name 23 times[36] in the Bible including other parts of the Book of Daniel; yet he is never given the epitaph of "Two Horns". If the Jews knew Cyrus by this epitaph then we should expect to see it mentioned in at least one of these verses. [ SOME TIME GREAT EXPECTATIONS ARE IN VAIN. IF DH:UL QARNAIN [ ONE WHO HATH TWO HORNS] IS NOT MENSTIONED IN TANACH , IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CYRUS DID NOT HAVE TWO HONS IN HIS CROWN OR ELSE. THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CASES. 1] EITHER CYRUS WAS KNOWN AS ONE WHO HATH TWO HORNS OR 2] THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT CYRUS EVEN IF HE WAS NOT KNOWN BY THE EPITHET , BUT JUST BECAUSE HE DID HAVE TWO HORNS IN HIS CROWN OR ELSE. THIS THING MIGHT BE KNOWN TO FEW.] When we consider that Alexander is said to have two horns in the Alexander legend, this lack of direct reference to Cyrus further weakens this theory.

CYRUS WAS NEVER CALLED AS MAN OF TWO HORNS IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE. WHAT DOES THIS PROVES. IT IS BASED ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT IF HE WAS CALLED SO BIBLICAL VERSES MUST HAVE MENSTIONED IT. BUT THIS SUPPOSITION MAY NOT BE AS CERTAIN AS IT APPEARS AT FIRST. THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE WHICH SAYS THAT WHAT SO EVER NOT MENTIONED IN BIBLE IS CERTAINLY FALSE IF CLAIMED SO. THIS CONSIDERATION IT SELF IS WEAK. SINCE IF ALEXANDER WAS CALLED WITH ONE WHO HATH TWO HORNS, IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT CYRUS WAS KNOWN AS ONE WHO HATH TWO HORNS. NOW ABOUT WHOM THEY WERE ASKINGING? THIS IS A QUESTION. IN MUST BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THEY ASKED A DIFFICULT QUESTION IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND THIS CAN BE MORE PROBABLE IN CASE OF CYRUS THE GREAT INSTEAD OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT. The horn on the goat is considered by many to be a reference to Alexander the Great. The horn is called "the king of Greece" that comes form the west and charges to the east destroying everything in its path; a basic summary of Alexander's conquest of the Persians. Later in the chapter, we are told that the horn is broken (a reference to Alexander's death) and four horns appear in its place (a reference to the four rulers that divided up Alexander's kingdom).[33] This again provides further evidence that the ram is not Cyrus, as Alexander lived three centuries after Cyrus and the two never fought each other on the battle field.

[DREAMS AND VISIONS MAY BE INTERPRETED DUFFERENTLY BY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATORS.]

34 Building a Wall

We have no evidence that Cyrus the Great built large walls or was famous for such deeds. In his commentary, Maududi all but admits as much:

CYRUS MAY BE THE PERSON YET IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED WITH CERTAINTY THAT HE WAS. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT CYRUS DID NOT USE USE TO MAKE LARGE MEGA STRUCTURES INCLUDING WALLS BUT IT BE BE AN SPECIAL OR EXCEPTIONAL CASE. ANY HOW LACK OF PROOFS FROM HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS DOES NOT PROVE THAT AN ACT WAS NEVER DONE

BY CYRUS. SO THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON IGNORENCE OR AT BEST UNPROVED IS ASSUMED TO BE DISPROVED. As regards Gog and Magog, it has been nearly established that they were the wild tribes of Central Asia who were known by different names: Tartars, Mongols, Huns and Scythians, who 'had been making inroads on settled kingdoms and empires from very ancient times. It is also known that strong bulwarks had been built in southern regions of Caucasia, though it has not been as yet historically established that these were built by Cyrus.[31] ADIMITION OF MAULANA

MAUDUDI

CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VERY DEITY OR

HIS PROPHET OR BOTH. MAUDUDI MAY ERR. Tafhim al-Qur'an, Introduction to Chapter 18

When we compare this to the legendary version of Alexander, who not only built a wall against Gog and Magog but made it of iron and bronze, we have the final piece of evidence that the Legendary Alexander is the person identified as Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an and not Cyrus.

MAULANA MAUDU:DI:’S PERSONAL OPINION CANNOT BE USED AS AN OFFICIAL BELIEF OF ALL AHLUSSUNNAH. AT MANY PLACES HE DEVIATED FROM ALL AHLUSSUNNAH. SO THIS IS AT ITS BEST A PERSONAL OPINION. TO REFUTE OPINIONS OF SOME SCHOLARS IS ON THING AND TO REFUTE THE WORDS AND SENTENCES OF DEITY IS AN OTHER THING. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT QUR’A:NIC INFORMATION CANNOT BE BORROWED FROM LEGENDARY STORIES. [THIS BE DISCUSSED IN A SEPARATE ARTICLE]

Historicity of the Story

35 Another problem for apologists is the complete lack of physical evidence for the existence of this massive wall of iron and bronze that Dhul-Qarnayn supposedly built at the end of his final journey. If this story is historically accurate then they should be able to point to the location of this large wall, between two mountains that is holding back a tribe of people bent on destroying the earth.

LACK OF HISTORICAL OR PHISICAL EXISTENCE IS NOT A PROOF OF DISPROOF OF THE EVENT. IT IS THE CASE THAT IF DEITY HATH HIDDEN THE WALL FROM THE WODERN TECHNIQUES TO OPEN IT OR TO MAKE PORTALS TO IT IT CANNOT BE FOUND BY RATIONAL SUPPOSITAL ADVANCEMENTS HOW SO EVER ADVANCE THE MAY BE. SO THE ARGUMENT THAT IF THIS STORY IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE THEN THE MOUNTAINS AND THE PLACE BETWEEN THEM CAN BE LOCATED IS JUST BASED ON THE BELIEF OF NON OMNIPOTENCE OF DEITY. Historical Claims in the Hadith

The historical nature of the story is affirmed by the following Sahih Hadith by Bukhari which relates that Muhammad viewed this wall (here called a dam) holding back Gog and Magog as a real structure that was facing immanent demise. In this account, he also reiterates that the wall's destruction will bring about death and destruction of the land when the tribes held behind it are let loose.

Narrated Zainab bint Jahsh: That one day Allah's Apostle entered upon her in a state of fear and said, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah! Woe to the Arabs from the Great evil that has approached (them). Today a hole has been opened in the dam of Gog and Magog like this." The Prophet made a circle with his index finger and thumb. Zainab bint Jahsh added: I said, "O Alllah's Apostle! Shall we be destroyed though there will be righteous people among us?" The Prophet said, "Yes, if the (number) of evil (persons) increased."

Sahih Bukhari 9:88:249 DEITY WITH HIS ETERNAL OMNIPOTENCE REVIELD THE WALL OR MADE THE PROPHET TO OBSERVE IT EVEN IT IS INVISIBLE OR UNFINDABLE FROM OTHERS WITH A FEW EXCEPTION OF PEOPLE. Great Wall of Gorgan

The Great Wall of Gorgan is sometimes offered as a possible candidate for the wall built by Dhul-Qarnayn. Made of clay from the local soil, the wall is called the Red Snake due to the color of its bricks. The wall is 195 km (121 mi) long and interspersed with forts. It covers an area between the Caspian Sea and the mountains of northeastern Iran. Dr. Kiani, who led an archaeological team in 1971, believed that the wall was built during the Parthian Empire (247 BCE–224 CE), and that it was restored during the Sassanid era (3rd to 7th century CE).[37]

36 This wall cannot be same as the one described in the story of Dhul-Qarnayn for a number of reasons. First, it is made of bricks not iron and brass. It also does not cover an area between two mountains. The story in the Qur'an says that the wall built by Dhul-Qarnayn holds back a tribe but this wall in northern Iran is not holding back anyone; it is in a state of disrepair. The Qur'an also says the wall of iron will not be destroyed until the Day of Judgement; unless apologists are willing to admit that this Qur'anic prophecy has failed, then this cannot be the wall described in Surat 18. Finally, even its earliest dating of 247 BC puts it almost three centuries after the reign of Cyrus the Great (576–530 BC) and almost a century after Alexander the Great (356–323 BC).

AT MOST FROM THE DISCUSSION IT IS FIND THAT THIS IS NOT THAT WALL. BUT EVERY THING STOPS THERE. IF THIS WALL IS NOT FOUND THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS WALL DOES NOT EXIST OR DOES CEASE TO EXIST. Caspian Gates of Derbent

Derbent, a city on the other side of the Caspian Sea from the Great Wall of Gorgon is located just north of the Azerbaijani border. Historically, it occupied one of the few passages through the Caucus mountains and it has often been identified with the word 'gate'. Fortresses and walls have been built at this location probably dating back thousands of years. The historical Caspian Gates were not built until the reign of Khosrau I in the 6th century, long after Alexander, but they likely were attributed to him in the following centuries. The immense wall had a height of up to twenty meters and a thickness of about 3 meters when it was in use.

This wall cannot be the same as the one in the Qur'an because it is not built between two mountains. The walls near Derbent were built with the Caspian sea as one border. In his comments on Derbent, Yusuf Ali mentions, that "there is no iron gate there now, but there was one in the seventh century, when the Chinese traveler Hiouen Tsiang saw it on his journey to India. He saw two folding gates cased with iron hung with bells".[20] Again, if this gate is the same as the one in the Qur'anic story then the apologist must admit that the revelation of the gate holding back Gog and Magog must have failed since they did not rampage over the nations nor bring about judgement day. Additionally, the solitary claim of a single eye witness from the 7th century is spurious at best.(But then Arrian can also be disbelieved on this ground??????)

We should expect a massive structure would have left copious amounts of archaeological evidence, instead all we have are rumors and folktales.

ONCE AGAIN IT CAN BE SAID THAT THESE ARE NOT THAT WALL, BUT IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH WALL. ANY WALL WHICH DOES NOT SATISFY EACH AND EVERY QUR’A:NIC AND H:ADI:TH:IC CONDITION IS NOT THIS WALL. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN IT. EVEN IF A SINGLE CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED THEN THE WALL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT THIS WALL. DEITY HAS INFINITE AND ABSOLUTE OMNISCIENCE AND OMNIPOTENCE TO HIDE THIS WALL FROM ALL THE FINITE HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES HOW SO EVER THEY BE ADVANCED . BUT THERE MAY BE SOME TRUTH IN THESE TALES. THESE TRUTH CAN BE EXTRACTED OUT OR CAN BE STUDIED IN LIGHT OF

37 DIVINE REVELATION, AND NOT THE REVELATION TO BE STUDIED IN LIGHT OF THESE TALES. AS THE WALL CANNOT BE SEEN IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE WALLS ARE HIDDEN BY DIVINE POWER. ONLY AN ATHIEST CAN DENY THIS THING. SO THE EXPECTED MASSIVE WALL MAY NOT BE DETECTED BY FINITE HUMAN TECNOLOGIES IF IT IS HIDDEN BY DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE.

Conclusion In summary, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports that: 

The story in the Qur'an parallels a medieval Syriac legend of Alexander; it portrays him as a believing king who traveled the world and built a barrier of iron which holds back the tribes of Gog and Magog until Judgement Day.



THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE QUR’ANIC INFORMATION WAS ACTUALLY BORROWED FROM THE SYRIAC TRADITIONS. IT AT MOST SUGGEST THAT THE QUESTIONERS SOME HOW RECIVED THE STORY AS ASSUMING IT TO BE TRUE ASKED HOLY PROPHET AS A TEST BUT THEY DID NOT ASK ABOUT A STORY FROM BIBLE BUT FROM SYRIAC TRADITIONS. OMNISCIENCT DEITY CONFIRMED THE TRUTH OF THIS STORY TO THE EXTENT HE REVIELED IT IN HIS HOLY SPEECH ‘AL QUR’A:N.



Almost every major element of the Qur'anic story can be found in Christian and Jewish folklore that dates hundreds of years prior to the time of Prophet Muhammad.



THIS IS AN IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT PROBEBLY INSERTED HERE JUST TO SUPPORT THE IMAGINATIVE CASE OF BORROWING AND A DISBELIEVE IN DIRECT REVELATION FROM OMNISCIENT DEITY. This exposes the mind of the anti Islamic objection maker that qur’an is not a divine revelation but a borrowed book. Since if qur’a:n is a divine revelation then elements of qu’a:n which are found in ancient sources as stated above cannot prove the claimof borrowing, which is the centra idea of this work some time less clearly some time clearly.



Most early Muslim commentators and scholars identified Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander the Great, and some modern ones do too.



BUT THEIR IDENTIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON QUR’A:N OR H:ADI:TH: BUT BASED UPON THEIR KNOWLEDGE RECEIVED TO THEM FROM SECULAR SOURCES. If Most of the Commentators of Qur’a:n have made an opinion , it does not imply that Qur’a:n actually considered Dh:ul Qarnain as Alexander the Great.



Historical and Archaeological evidence has revealed that the real Alexander was a polytheistic pagan who believed he was the literal son of Greek and Egyptian gods.

38 

IF THIS IS SO THEN ALEXANDER WAS NOT THIS PERSON WHO WAS DH:UL QARNAIN.

But It should be known that the accounts the describe Alexander as a polytheist are not eye witness accounts, unlike of those of Callisthenes , rather they come from what some other latter Greek historians such as Arrian, who live centuries after Alexander, had narrated based on very obscure sources. Based upon them it cannot be said to be a Historical Certainty.

 

The theory that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great has little evidence in its favor compared to the overwhelming evidence that the story is actually based on a legendary version of Alexander.



AT LEAST LITTLE EVIDENCE IS ACCEPTED. BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE QUESTIONERS USED THE WORD ALEXANDER. CERTAINLY NOT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT TWO OR MORE PERSONS MAY BE CONFUSED AS ONE AND THE SAME PERSON IN SYRIAC TRADITION. BUT AS THE QUESTIONERS DID USE THE WORDS DH:UL QARNAIN AND NOT THE NOUN ALEXANDER SO DEITY RESPONDED THEM AND ANSWERED THEIR QUESTION. IT WAS NOT THE ISSUE TO DISCUSS EACH AND EVERY THING IN FULL DETAIL. AT MOST ALEXANDER MAY NOT BE THIS PERSON. THESE ARE HUMAN ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY THIS PERSON DH:UL QARNAIN.



Today, there is no giant wall of iron and brass between two mountains that is holding back a tribe of people; it likely never existed.



A WALL WHICH SATISFIES THE QUR’A:NIC CONDITIONS AND CRETERIA IS NOT FOUND. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT NO SUCH WALL EXISTS. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IF THERE IS NO IMPLICATION THEN THE RESULTS LIKE “IT LIKELY NEVER EXISTED ETC.” ARE NOT PROVED. THIS IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING TYPE OF REASONING. IF A IS NOT FOUND ON EARTH THEN A DOES NOT EXIST ON EARTH.

From all of this it can be concluded that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is a myth about Alexander the Great and has no basis in history.

THIS CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT. DH:UL QARNAIN CANNOT BE DISPROVED IN THE BASIS OF THAT THERE IS NO HISTORICAL DOCUMENT WHICH STATES HIS CORRECTER SECULARLY. AT BEST ONE MAY ARGUE THAT HE IS BEYOND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS FOUND SO FOR. DOES IT IMPLY HE DID NOT EXIST? THERE IS NO SUCH IMPLICATION . IF THE LEARED SCHOLAR WANTS TO SAY THAT THE RECORDS WHICH REPORT ALLEGELY

39 THE ACCURATE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER DO NOT RECORD SOME EVENTS THEN ATMOST HE CAN SAY THAT THEY ARE INFORMATIONS BEYOND THESE DOCUMENTS BUT FROM ALL THE ABOVE HE ONLY WANTS TO SAY THAT QQUR’A:N BORROWED FROM FROM FALSE TRADITIONS AND FICTIONS OR LAGENDARY AND FALSE TRADITIONS IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE TRUTH OF QUR’A:N. THIS IS A CENTRAL POINT OF HIS WORK. BUT MANY RELIGIOUS CHARACTERS ARE UNHISTORICAL IN THE SENSE THEY ARE AHISTORICAL LIKE AMRAHAM, NOAH, ADAM ,ARON, MOSES ETC. IF SO THEN DH:UL QARNAIN CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THEM . TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR DH:UL QARNAIN AND TO INSIST THAT HE IS DERIVED FROM FALSE SOURCES IS SOME THING ELSE. SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS NO BASIS OF DH:UL QARNAIN IN HISTORY THEN DOES IT IMPLY THAT THE OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT DEITY CANNOT REVIEL ABOUT DH:UL QARNAIN ? THAT IS WHY IT IS A FALLACY. SINCE THE BASIC ATTEMT OF ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS IS TO DISPROVE THE TRUTH OF QUR’A:N AND H:ADI:TH:. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE OBJECTION MAKERS WHO WANT TO MAKE OBJECTIONS ON THE DIVINE ORIGINE OF QUR’A:N IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES. IF QUR’A:N WOULD HAVE NARRATED WHICH WERE COMMON TO SOME HISTORICAL SOURCES , THEY WOULD HAVE ATTEPTED TO CLAIM THAT QUR’A:N HAS BORROWED FROM THESE HISTORICAL SOURCES. The difference between Unhistorical and ahistorical is that Unhistorical are incorrect and false while ahistorical are beyond the documents of history yet they are true or they still may be true or they may have some probability to be true.

It should be known that the accounts of Alexander considered as Historical are not eye witness accounts, unlike of those of Callisthenes , rather they come from what some other latter Greek historians such as Arrian, who live centuries after Alexander and did narrated based on the bases obscure sources at worst and highly questionable sources it best .]

See Also 

Dhul-Qarnayn - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Dhul-Qarnayn



Cosmology - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Cosmology

References 1.

40  For example, Amar Ellahi Lone completely ignores the Alexander Legends of the 4 th-7th century and focuses on a historical account of Alexander. Baha'eddin Khoramshahi rejects Alexander based solely on his historical identity. And Khalid Jan gives background information on the historical Alexander and why he is not a fit to the Qur'anic story. Expresses no knowledge of the Alexander legends.   Sir Ernest Alfred Wallis Budge, "The History of Alexander the Great, Being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Volume 1", The University Press, 1889.   "The impact of Alexander the Great’s coinage in E Arabia" at culrute.gr.   Van Bladel, Kevin, “The Alexander legend in the Qur‘an 18:83-102″, in "The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context", Ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York: Routledge, 2007.   Ibn Ishaq; Guillaume, Alfred, ed. (2002) [?-767 AD]. "The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah". Oxford University Press. pp. 138–140. ISBN 978-0-19-636033-1.   Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Ch 18: "The Barrier restrains Them, but It will be breached when the Hour draws nigh". Full text at qtafsir.com   Maureen Gallery Kovacs (trans.), "Epic of Gilgamesh: Tablet IX", Academy for Ancient Texts, I998 (archived).   Flavius Josephus, William Whiston (trans.), "The Antiquities of the Jews: Book I, Ch6, v1", Project Gutenberg, accessed November 24, 2013 (archived).   Flavius Josephus, William Whiston (trans.), "The Wars Of The Jews: Book VII, Ch7, v4", Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed November 24, 2013 (archived).   Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley. From "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series", Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <Letters of St. Jerome: Letter 77 (archived)>.   Kenneth Gentry, "Before Jerusalem Fell", Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, ISBN 0-93046420-6, 1989.   Robert Mounce, "The Book of Revelation", Cambridge: Eerdman's, pp. 15-16.   New International Version of the Bible. Zondervan 1971. Rev 20:7-19.   Ed. Emeri J. van Donzel, Andrea Barbara Schmidt, "Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Chrisitan and Islamic Sources", BRILL, p. 18, 2010.   Allamah Abu Abd Allah al-Zanjani, Mahliqa Qara'i (trans.), "The History of the Quran", Al-Tawheed, p. 34.   Rebecca Edwards. "Two Horns, Three Religions. How Alexander the Great ended up in the Quran".

American Philological Association, 133rd Annual Meeting Program (Philadelphia, January 5, 2002)

41   Ibn Ishaq; Guillaume, Alfred, ed. (2002). "The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah". Oxford University Press. pp. 138–140. ISBN 978-0-19-636033-1.   Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli, Feras Hamza (trans.), "Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Surah 18, Ayah 83", Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2013 (archived).   Shah Waliullah (1763), "Al-Fawz al-Kabir fi Usul al-Tafsir", Islamic Book Trust, p. 27, 2013.   Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, "The Noble Quran's Commentary", appx. 6, p. 738.   Plutarch (1919). Perrin, Bernadotte, ed. "Plutarch, Alexander". Perseus Project. Retrieved December 6, 2011.   Joseph Roisman, Ian Worthington, "A Companion to Ancient Macedonia", John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 1-4051-7936-8, 2010.   Peter Green, "Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age", London: Phoenix, ISBN 978-0-75382413-9, August 7, 2008.   Karsten Dahmen, "The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins", Routledge, ISBN 0-415-39451-1, February 23, 2007.   Ogden, Daniel (2009). "Alexander's Sex Life". In Heckel, Alice; Heckel, Waldemar; Tritle, Lawrence A. "Alexander the Great: A New History". Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-3082-2.   Maududi, "Tafsir Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an", Surah 18 Ayah 83, 1972 (archived).   Baljon , Johannes Marinus Simon. "Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation: (1880 - 1960)". pp. 32-33.

1961. Relates a typical defense by Azad of the Cyrus theory by explaining first why Alexander should be rejected based on the historical Alexander and not the legendary one.   Allameh Tabatabae. Tafsir al-Mizan Vol 26   Naser Makarem Shirazi. Bargozideh Tafseer-i Nemuneh, Vol 3, p. 69   A brief defense of Alexander against Cyrus by a Muslim apologist can be viewed here.   Maududi, "Tafsir Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an", Introduction to Chapter 18, 1972 (archived).   New International Version of the Bible. Zondervan 1971. Dan 8:2-7.   Guzik, David. "Commentary on Daniel 8:1". "David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible". 1997-2003 (archived).   Ezra 1:1-2   Isaiah 45:1

42   Chron 36:22-33, Ezra 1:1-8, Ezra 3:7, Ezra 4:3-5, Ezra 5:13-17, Ezra 6:3,14, Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1,13, Daniel 1:21, Daniel 6:28, Daniel 10:1 37.  Omrani Rekavandi, H., Sauer, E., Wilkinson, T. & Nokandeh, J. (2008), "The enigma of the red snake: revealing one of the world’s greatest frontier walls", Current World Archaeology, No. 27, pp. 12-22, February/March 2008 (archived).

Categories:



Qur'an



Non-Muslims

Navigation menu 

Create account



Log in



Page



Discussion



Read



Edit



View history



Main Page



New Articles



Site Map

Editing



Recent Changes



Discussions



Become an Editor



New Users

43 

Translations



List of Tasks



Incomplete Pages



Help

Core articles



Apostasy



Homosexuality



Miracles



Pedophilia



People of the Book



Propaganda



Science



Scripture



Violence



Women

About



About Us



Meet the Editors



What People Say



FAQ

Policies



Core Principles

44 

Policies Overview



Citing Sources

Translations



Azərbaycanca



Български



Česky



Deutsch



Español



Français



Italiano



O'zbekcha



Русский



Türkçe



Miscellaneous

Tools



What links here



Related changes



Special pages



Printable version



Permanent link



Page information



This page was last modified on 24 March 2014, at 10:49.

45 

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License



Privacy policy



About WikiIslam



Disclaimers

  https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Alexander_Romance 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

{1} A number ofscholars agree that the story of Alexander told by the Jewish historian Flavius Iosephus in his Jewish antiquities 11.317-345, is not true. The basic arguments are as follow:=1)Alexander is shown a book that was not yet written.2) : When Alexander visits Ierusalem, understands that he owes everything to the God of the Jews. This may be taken as Alexander accepted Judaism. 3)Alexander allows them the privilege to live according to their ancestral customs .4) He allows them to behaves unkind towards the Samarians. It is said that if a Jew in the second century BCE were to invent a story, he would write something along these lines.There may be some exaggerations in Flavius’ book but there still may be some truth in it.To reject each and every thing stated in it about the events of Alexander the Great as false is not so scholarly .Agreements between Talmud and Antiquities may be consider as true, if not with certainty then with very high probability that they are true. Parts of Antiquities which seconds Talmud Yoma 69a , may also consider as true if not with certainty then with some probability if not as great as the former stated one then slightly less then it. But it cannot be rejected as a fiction invented by Flavius or some people before him. Additionally there are some reported events in Flavius which have very strong probability that they be not some thing which be invented by Jews. One may notice some odd details. 1) the Samaritans are allowed to keep their temple. This

46 something which does have a very high Probability not to be invented by a Jew., 2) Alexander does not give the Jews any privilege at all.

Everything he grants the Jews, had already been granted to them by the Persian kings. Perhaps it Alexander did have his own limits of granting privileges to any nation what so even it may be.3) The idea that Alexander did have a vision in which the God Yahvah of the Judaism performed an important role cannot be invented. Alexander claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Ammon. Nobody would invent a special link to Yahvah the Jewish God. The easiest explanation is that Alexander did indeed sacrifice to the God of the Jews. What so ever the Secular interpretation of the Dream/Vision of Alexander be Alexander most probably saw some thing either as a Vision or as a Dream. This cannot be a fiction.It might be the case that after a vision or a dream Alexander might have converted to Judaism if not openly the secretly. Some thing does point at this conversion in some sense.It is possible that a number of allegations like homosexuality, claiming to be a demigod etc. may be fabrications. Any how based on the alleged accounts which are consider as true with certainty by secular scholars one may not argue in favour of rejecting Alexander the Great as a Possible candidate of Dh:ul Qarnain.