1

A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE Dhul-Qarnayn 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

2.1 Historical vs Legendary Alexander

2.2 Oral Tradition

3 Parallels to the Syriac Legend

o

3.1 Two Horns

3.2 Established with Power

3.3 Journey to the Fetid Sea

3.4 Punishment of Wrongdoers

3.5 Sun Rises on People with No Cover

3.6 Travel to the Valley between Two Mountains

3.7 Gog and Magog Spoil and Ravage the Land

3.8 Build a Barrier

3.9 Made of Iron and Brass

3.10 Cannot be Breached

3.11 Destroyed at the End of Times

3.12 Summary

4 Dating the Alexander Legend

o

4.1 Epic of Gilgamesh

4.2 Early Jewish Legends

4.3 Early Christian Legends

4.4 Gog and Magog in the Bible

4.5 Dating the Syriac Legend

4.6 Dating the Qur'anic Verses

4.7 Spread of the Syriac Legend to Arabia

4.8 Summary

5 Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander in Islamic Sources

o

5.1 Early Islamic Scholars

5.2 Modern Islamic Scholars

6 Reconstructing the Historical Alexander

o

6.1 Polytheism

6.2 Son of Zeus-Ammon

6.3 Personal Relationships and Sex Life

7 Cyrus the Great

o

7.1 Turning-point of Alexander as Dhul-Qarnayn

7.2 Rejection of Alexander

7.3 Two Horns

7.4 Questions from the People of the Book

7.5 Reference in the Bible

7.6 Building a Wall

8 Historicity of the Story

o

8.1 Historical Claims in the Hadith

8.2 Great Wall of Gorgan

8.3 Caspian Gates of Derbent

9 Conclusion

10 See Also

11 References

Introduction

The story of Dhul-Qarnayn (in Arabic , 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
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.
[QURA: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 QURA:NIC INFORMATIONS ARE BORROWD FROM
THAT OF ALEXANSERS 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 (356323 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 QURA:NIC
INFORMATION IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT ALSO BORROWED. THIS
SUPPOSITION IS THE SUPPOSITION OF DISBELIEVE. THAT IS QURA:N
IS NOT DIVINELY REVIELED SPEECH OF DEITY BUT IT IS BORROWED
FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES LIKE SYRIAC SOURCES. IF SOME ONE
DISBELIEVE IN QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA:N. ONCE A PERSON PRESUMES THAT
QURA: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 HOLY QURA:N IT IS ASSUMED
THAT QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA:N IS A HUMAN WORK OR IT IS A DIVINE

REVELATION. AS QURA:N IS A HUMAN WORK IT IS NOT A
DIVINE REVELATION.

ONE CAN SEE THAT IT IS PRESUMED THAT QURA: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
QURA:N FROM THE SYRIAC TRADITION. THERE IS NO SUCH
IMPLICATION. ONCE AGAIN THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION
MAKER HAS PRESUMED THAT QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA:N DID BORROW THE

LEGEND SOME HOW. IF QURA:N CAN ONLY BORROW FROM THE
LEGENDARY ACCOUNTS OF ALEXANDER IF AND ONLY ID QURA: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 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 QURA:N IS NOT A
DIVINE REVELATION. ONCE IT IS SUPPOSED A PERSON THEN TRIES TO FIND
THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF QURA:N OR PERHAPS ORIGINAL SOURCES OF
QURA:N AS ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SUPPOSITION . THEN TRY TO SHEW
THAT QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA:N IS A DIVINE REVELTAION AND SO HE IS
CRITICISING IT ARMED WITH PETITIO PRINCIPI AND CIRCULAR LOGIC AS IT IS
SHEWN ABOVE]
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 QURA: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 QURA:N. DID QURA: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 QURA:N . IS THIS
THE COORECT LOGICAL ARGUMAENT OR IT IS A GREAT FALLACY. WHAT WE SAY IS
THAT QURA:N NEVER EQUATED ALEXANDER AND DH:UL QARNAIN. TO ASCRIBE
THIS FLAW TOWARDS QURA:N ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS HAVE ASSUMED
THAT HOLY PROPHET OR QURA: N HAS BORROWED THIS BIOGRAPHICAL ARTS FROM
SYRIAC TRADITIONS. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION BEASED ON THE BASIS OF DISBELIEVE
IN THE TRUTH OF QURA:N AND FALSEHOOD OF THE BELIEF OF DIVINE REVELATION.
EVEN A NON BELIEVER CANNOT APPLY THE ERRORS OF SYRIAC TRADITIONS TO
QURA:N SINCE QURA: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 QURA: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.

10

"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 Zulqarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with
kindness."
Qur'an 18:85-86

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 sary, Arabic hami'a).[4] Similar connections
can be found in Islamic poetry contemporary to the time of Muhammad. Muhammad ibn Ishq
ibn Yasr ibn Khiyr 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

11

DREAM AND FREEST IMAGINATION OF MAULA:NA: MAUDU:DI: THAT

IBN ISH:A:Q CAN BE USED EVEN AGAINST HOLY QURA:N.
EVEN AFTER SOME SIMILARITIES THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME
PERSON .

The famous historian Ibn Kathir mentions that Dhul-Qarnayn

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

when he built it.

]
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,
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 QURA:N BROWETH FROM
THE LEGEND STATED , BUT THIS IS JUST TO BEG THE QUESTION. SINCE IT IS
BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION RAITHER PRESUMPTION THAT QURA:N IS
NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. THE SENSES OF VERSES OF REVIELD QURA: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

12

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 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.

13

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
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

14

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
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

15

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 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 [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 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

16

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]
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 Quran 18:83-102, p. 182
Dating the Alexander Legend

17

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 QURA:NIC INFORMATION WITH
THE FALSE HUMAN PRODUCTS : The Quran 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 Dhul-Qarnayn (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 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

18

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.
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

19

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
Motis (they had their haunts between the icy Tanais and the rude Massaget;
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 earthGog and Magogand
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 Gods 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
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,

20

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 QURA:N. BUT WHAT HE WANTS TO PROVE IS THAT QURA:N IS
SOME THING WHICH IS BORROWED FROM LAGENDARY TRADITIONS
OF SYRIA. BUT ONCE AGAIN THE NECLECTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT
QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA:N IMPLIES THAT QURA:N
BORROWETH FROM THEM CAN BE TRUE IF AND ONLY IF QURA:N IS
NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. EVEN IF FOR SAKE OF AN ARGUMENT
THE LEARNED ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER WOULD HAVE
SUPPOSED THAT QURA: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
QURA:N IS NOT A DIVINE REVELATION. BUT WHAT IF IT BE? IF IT BE
THE DIVINE REVELATION THEN QURA: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
REVIEL OR HE BELIEVES THAT DEITY DOES NOT EXIST.OTHER WISE
HE WOULD NOT HAVE ARGUED THAT IF SYRIAC TRADITIONS ARE
PRIOR TO QURA:N, THEN QURA: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

21

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.

[SOME COMMENTATORS OF QURA: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

22

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 QURA: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 QURA: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 QURA: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 Great ,
the Greek, the Macedonian. Ibn Kathir has also reported from the early
righteous elders in al-Bidayah wa an-Nihayah that Dhul-Qarnain 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. (Al-Bidayah, p.
108, v. 3)

23

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 Qura:n Nor Hadi:th:. So to claim that a popular
Commentary of a Verse or some verses of Qura:n are proved Wrong does
not imply that the Qura:n and Qura:nic verses are falsified. This is a well
established fact.]

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 ]

24

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 Dhl-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.
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 Qura:n. Some may err in their
opinions. This the point Which is missed.]
Reconstructing the Historical Alexander

25

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
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:

26

The famous historian Ibn Kathir mentions that Dhul-Qarnayn

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

when he built it.

]
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,
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

27

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.
[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.

28

[ 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.
[ 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 QURANIC INFORMATIONS ARE
FALSE SINCE HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT QURA:N IS NOT A DIVINE
REVELATION ]

29

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 QURA: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

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

30

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
THAT DH:UL QARNAIN IS NOT A HISTORICAL FIGURE AT ALL, NOT IN
THE LEAST SENSE. BUT IN EACH CASE THERE ARE PROBABILITIES

31

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)]

32

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
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 QURA: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 QURA: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.

33

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 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

34

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.]
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

35

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.]
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]

36

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 QURA:NIC INFORMATION CANNOT BE BORROWED
FROM LEGENDARY STORIES.
[THIS BE DISCUSSED IN A SEPARATE ARTICLE]
Historicity of the Story

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

37

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
BCE224 CE), and that it was restored during the Sassanid era (3rd to 7th century CE).[37]
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 (576530 BC) and almost a century after Alexander the Great (356323 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

38

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 QURA: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 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.

39

THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE QURANIC 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
QURA: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 quran is not a divine revelation but a
borrowed book. Since if qura:n is a divine revelation then elements of qua: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 QURA:N OR

H:ADI:TH: BUT BASED UPON THEIR KNOWLEDGE RECEIVED TO THEM
FROM SECULAR SOURCES. If Most of the Commentators of Qura:n
have made an opinion , it does not imply that Qura: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.

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.

40

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 QURA: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 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 QQURA:N BORROWED FROM
FROM FALSE TRADITIONS AND FICTIONS OR LAGENDARY AND FALSE
TRADITIONS IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE TRUTH OF QURA: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.

41

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 QURA: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 QURA:N IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES. IF QURA:N WOULD HAVE
NARRATED WHICH WERE COMMON TO SOME HISTORICAL SOURCES , THEY
WOULD HAVE ATTEPTED TO CLAIM THAT QURA: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 DhulQarnayn

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

References
1.
For example, Amar Ellahi Lone completely ignores the Alexander Legends of the
4th-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 Greats coinage in E Arabia" at culrute.gr.
Van Bladel, Kevin, The Alexander legend in the Quran 18:83-102, in "The
Qurn in Its Historical Context", Ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York: Routledge,
2007.

42

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. 138140.
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 0-930464-20-6, 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, 133 rd Annual Meeting
Program (Philadelphia, January 5, 2002)
Ibn Ishaq; Guillaume, Alfred, ed. (2002). "The Life of Muhammad: A
Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah". Oxford University Press. pp. 138140.
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.

43

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 978-0-7538-2413-9, 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". WileyBlackwell. 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
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

44

Omrani Rekavandi, H., Sauer, E., Wilkinson, T. & Nokandeh, J. (2008), "The
enigma of the red snake: revealing one of the worlds 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

Translations

List of Tasks

45

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

Policies Overview

Citing Sources

Translations

Azrbaycanca

46

esky

Deutsch

Espaol

Franais

Italiano

O'zbekcha

Trke

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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0

License

Privacy policy

About WikiIslam

Disclaimers

47

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Alexander_Romance
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111

{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
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

48

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.