Why not?
Disproving the theory that Alexander=Dhul Qarnayn is independent of proving him to be someone else. We can do the first without doing the second.
As I've already pointed out, there are not 'so many scholars', just a few who SPECULATED that Dhul-Qarnayn might be Alexander the Great. They did not say their personal speculation was the definitive conclusion.
As above.
I already responded to this. Evidently, you refused to read my link. HERE IT IS FOR A THIRD TIME:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../BBhorned.html

Already responded to this:

Not really. If someone who didn't know much about the history of Alexander the great speculates that he could be Dhul-Qarnayn, why shouldn't those who do more research in this area correct such speculation?

Yes there is, Dhul-Qarnayn. Dhul-Qarnayn is not the same person as Alexander the Great.
There have been hundreds of conquerors who's territorial conquests have led them to waters, allowing them to see the sun set! (note: like all anti-islamists claims, this is one that has been refuted hundreds and hundreds of times. See my post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/174248-post7.html (Prove that the Qur'an is NOT the word of God.) )

You clearly are pressing something that has already been refuted numerous times. Why are you so desperate to keep trying when you're proven wrong?

Please, POINT BY POINT. One common method of weak arguments it to try to flood someone with points. Lets discuss ISSUE at a time.

I have read you web post. Now what? It doesn't really conculde much and its pretty sparse. Please don't just throw articles my way and expect me to gain something from that. Please actually quote specific points from that source. Thanks.

My friend, that is exactly what I have been doing. I have been responding to each of your posts one by one. It is you who has ignored several of my points.
It demonstrates the fallacy of attributing the source of the story of Dhul-Qarnayn to legends Alexander the Great. Perhaps you can refute the historical evidence they have provided? If not, then maybe you have realized that you're wasting your time trying to prove something that has been refuted.

Regards

Hello, and God's blessings upon you. With all due respect to your beliefs, you are mistaken 'Zhulkarnein' of the holy Koran is NOT Alexander the Great. It is Cyrus the Great, the famous Persian king of the Achamenid Dynasty (600?-541 B.C). Consider the following:

1- Alexander was not a monotheistic man. He was a blasphemer who worshipped the many gods of Ancient Greece. The Biography of Alexander, written by a famous Greek historian (Herodotus?) states that Alexander believed that he was the son of Zeus! This contradicts the Koran, which states that Zhulkarnein was a man of Godly faith. Also, Alexander was a lecherous womanizer of the worst kind, and was far from what you would call a gentleman (inspite of his military genius). He killed one of his generals in a drunken frenzy.

My personal objection to this point: As I mentioned above, Alexander is considered as a great person to the Jews and is like a Saint to the Christians. There is no proof that he was a Pagan. Also, regarding the "Womanizer" point, well, according to Islam, we believe in the Prophets of the Bible peace be upon all of them. They too were "Womanizers" if you wish to use this term, for many of them had literally hundreds of wives from all ages.

2- The Koranic verses in the 'AL KAHF' sura, which talk about Zhulkarnein, begin with the words: "And they ask you about Zhulkarnein..". Meaning that the Jews are asking the Prophet Muhammad about him. This means that this king was KNOWN TO THE JEWS, AND IS MENTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Alexander the Great is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor did he have any close relation with the Jews.

3-The word "qarn" in the Koran has one meaning and one meaning only: It means: People or Nation. Thus, he was called Zhulkarnein because he was a king of two peoples or two nations. Historically, Cyrus was of the Achamenid Dynasty, a dynasty of double throne. He was King of both the Medians and the Persians! He was the one who overthrew the Babylonian empire and permitted the captive Jews to return to their homeland and to rebuild their Temple. Thus, the Jews greatly revere and respect him.

My personal objection to this point: With all due respect dear brother Mark, but "qarn" in Arabic doesn't mean people or nation, and "Zhulkarnein" or "Dhul-qarnain" or "Zul-qarnain" doesn't mean the king of two peoples or two nations either. "qarn" in Arabic has two meanings: "horn" and "century". "Dhul-qarnain" could literally mean in Arabic: "The man of two horns" or "The man of two centuries". This "one word having multiple meanings" problem if you will, exists in English as well. Take for instance the word "trunk": It could mean the back of your car, and it could also mean the trunk of the Elephant.

4- It is Known that Cyrus' empire stretched for the western shores of Turkey in the west, to the flat and barren deserts near Northern India in the east (you may check any Encyclopedia to verify this). Also, the Northernmost boundaries of his empire are the Caucasus mountains, in present day Georgia. The region is full of Ancient Persian ruins of military fortifications and strongholds.

5- Geographically, the Caucasus mountains form a natural and almost impassable barrier that stood between the civilized kingdoms of central Asia, and the northern plain lands were the savage barbarian and nomadic tribes once roamed. Among the only natural passes through these formidable mountains is a stretch of open ground known today as "Daryal Pass". It is located north of Tiblisi, the capital of Georgia. The area is called: "doorway of Ghurash" (Ghurash is Armenian for Cyrus). The remains of a metallic rampart STILL STAND TODAY, as part of ancient Persian fortifications.

6- The technique used by Cyrus in building this 'wall' was not known to the people of the region way back then. (He received this technique from God himself!). Also, the great Greek historian Herodotus states, in his chronicles, that the Georgians were the first people in the world to have learned how to 'smelt iron'.....(strange coincidence, eh?).

All this evidence is overwhelming, and cannot be ignored.

If you understood it right, its an error by the translator. Its not an error in the Qur'an. Come on people! that was your best shot? I mean thats not even an argument to be discussed upon.
Subhanallah...these failed desperate attempts by the non-muslims is a proof that they have nothing to say about the Glorious Qur'an..so they come up with stupid qestions and try to proove themselves right. It's good at least you know now that the Qur'an does not have a dot worth of error in it - nor in its scripture - nor in its true meaning and wisdom.
if you say you are truthful then produce your proof.

There are other scholars that claim that Dhul-Qarnayn isn't Alexander the Great. Does this prove that he isn't Alexander?

Lol thats true, i'm sure there have been ammny scholars who said he wasn't Alexander the Great.

Mirage, it's a weak argument you have, some scholars may have thought that, big wow, they aren't divine or anything, they can make mistakes. Muhammed SAW never said that in any hadith though, and nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that either

he dribbles past the defence, the keeper is helpless, he shoots.....GOALLLL!!!!

Mashallah bro Moss...That was well put!

I think your arguement is weakly supported...Sorry mirage...but it looks like you have been left flat heeled....

Hi Nicola
This is a claim that has already been refuted here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/174248-post7.html (Prove that the Qur'an is NOT the word of God.)

Regards

What "refutation"? The issue is that whether he is Alexander or not. If he isn't Alexander then who is he? I stated that the muslims trying to refute that Dhul Karnain is Alexander is a disingenious attempt at damage control. Most of the evidence points to him being Alexander. I displayed coins, historical fact and the fact that most people in the Medieval times believed Dhul Qarnain to be Alexander. The modern Muslims have simply answered by saying "Umm. No he isnt... " Only because modern history has proven that Alexander is definitely not a monotheist.



THE TWO HORNED ONE : A 3rd century Reference that always meant "Alexander the Great"

Well, you could start by answering at least ONE of my points!! You've simply repeated here what I've just debunked. Is it that you simply do not understand what I've previously mentioned?
In fact, your entire allegation is constructed on the supposition that Dhul-Qarnayn IS Alexander the Great. But since this cannot be proven, the entire allegation collapses.
He's Dhul-Qarnayn. It has absolutely no relevance as to what he was known as by other nations.
And I already debunked this nonsensical claim in my posts which you ignored.

Such as? You were unable to refute EVEN A SINGLE POINT from the following article:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../BBhorned.html
Relevant historical evidence has been examined in the above link.

You displayed a coin showing Alexander with horns coming out of his head. I could show you a similar picture of a devil, a cow, a goat or a child on halloween. I guess they all must be Dhul-Qarnayn too.

Most people?! The only names you've pulled are three - a modern translator, a classical historian, and a Muslim ascetic! The speculation on the part of a few individuals proves nothing in terms of his identity.

Like I said, refuted here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/174248-post7.html (Prove that the Qur'an is NOT the word of God.)

Don't be shy, I challenge you to refute my arguments. Show me the flaw in my reasoning.

After all the allegations I've seen from non-muslims, I must say that the Dhul-Qarnayn=Alexander the Great has got to be one of the most pathetic. Most intellectuals are able to realize the serious flaw in this argument after realizing that the Qur'an nowhere draws the comparison.

You never debunked anything. You simply pointed me to an article, which isn't fair. I could do the same and ask you to read something and then claim "hah you're debunked". Please bring out some original facts IN YOU OWN WORDS. Don't just point me to huge articles and expect me to be impressed.

I repeat: I WILL NOT read any big "refutations" you point me towards. This is a typical tactic of religionists in that they seek to confuse their opponent by inundating them with huge irrelevant articles. Please bring me your own point and state them here ONE BY ONE.

This man must have been important in world history..for it to be mentioned at all...
who could he have been?