Dhul Qarnayn is mentioned in the Quran (Chapter 18) as a ruler who reached the far ends of the earth. He is described as a pious servant of Allah.

But there are certain things that muslims know very little of this the historical connections of the this Quran story...

During the 3rd century Christian Greeks were in control of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine). They began a process of christianizing a lot of ancient greek figures. One such figure was Alexander the Great, the conqueror. The wrote books portraying Alexander the Great as a monotheist and a righteous and moral leader. And they wrote poetic descriptions of him as the "two-horned one", meaning ruler of the east and west.

A vast majority of Islamic Scholars (eg. Yusuf Ali, Ghazali, Ibn Ishaq etc) regard the the Dhul-Qarnayn character of the Quran to be Alexander the Great. However, this reveals a MAJOR INNACCURACY IN THE QURAN.

Alexander the Great was a pagan, bisexual and quite brutal. This is a historical fact. Saying Alexander the Great was monotheistic is completely false. In propagating their religion, the Christians fabricating and decorated Alexander the Great as a believing king. In turn, the Muslims must have also inherited this completely false legend and included in the Quran, thus giving us the plagarized story of Dhul Qarnayn.

Finally, If the Quran is in fact the word of God, how can it possibly contain such a major error?

Hi Mirage41,
Not a vast majority at all. Yusuf Ali is a translator, not an Islamic scholar. And any hypothesis in this regard is only the conjecture of a human being and has no impact on the Qur'anic revelation.
Wrong. It reveals a major inaccuracy in the opinion of those people. How can it reveal a major inaccuracy in the Qur'an when the Qur'an never said Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander the Great?!

The truth of the matter is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn has absolutely nothing to do with the story of Alexander the Great. Attributing the story of the Qur'an to such sources is nothing more than your personal conjecture, which, at any rate, has already been refuted:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../BBhorned.html

Regards

Yusuf Ali is not a scholar? The man translation is the most widespread Quran in the world, I would take the word of an Arabic-English professional that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great. Nearly all the evidence points to him being Alexander the Great. The greeks used the "two-horned one" and dhul qarnayn means two horned. Ibn Ishaq wrote the Sira of the Prophet, he even regarded it as Alexander. Even Imam Al-Ghazali regarded the story to be Alexander.

Nearly all of the Medieval Islamic scholar (during Islam's so called 'golden' age) regarded as Alexander the Great! How much more evidence do you need? It seems that suddenly in the 20th century all the Muslims after learning the facts about Alexanders, "suddenly" changed their mind to 'interpret' dhul qarnayn as someone else. Rather disingenuous dont you think?

You're original accusation was against the Quran. Yet you are now levelling accusations against the opinion of scholars.

Ansar al Adl already refuted your claim. The Quran does not say Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander. So where is the error or major inaccuracy in the Quran?

Nope.
Doesn't negate the fact that he had no formal education in Islam and his commentary contains many errors.
As if the name "Alexander" is somehow hidden in the arabic language so that a translator would be able to decipher it! Speculating as to how Dhul-Qarnayn is can be done by someone who doesn't even know arabic; it has nothing to do with translation.
Such as?
This is the only simmilarity between the two accounts and because we know that the statement was a reference to territorial conquest, it could refer to a large number of historical figures.
And tell me what is the connection between the sirah of the Prophet and speculation as to who Dhul-Qarnayn is?
Imam Al-Ghazali specialized in worship; again, no connection to speculating about Dhul-Qarnayn.

First, you can only mention three names (one being a modern translator) and you expect me to believe that it was nearly all medieval Islamic scholars??? Secondly, personal opinion is personal opinion. It has no impact on the Qur'an because it is not decisive evidence.

You haven't provided any. Provide me a statment from the Prophet that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great, otherwise your wasting your time.
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?

And the link remains that refutes your comments:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../BBhorned.html

Where am I levelling accusationgs at a scholar?

A person can't just say "dhul qarnayn isn't alexander". Then who is he? How come so many scholars believe dhul qarnayn is alexander? How come when I used to go to Khutbahs in Saudi Arabia they all say he's Alexander? The greatest evidence is the name "dhul qarnayn" it means two-horned, as in the ruler of the two halve, east and west. That imagery is only associated with Alexander, by the medievel greeks, persians and arabs too.

It just seems that in the 20th century we now conveniently avoid this rather embarrassing story.

What a man says can be wrong, if someone came up to you and said Tony Blair is George Bush's Brother (just an example), and the guy who came and said that to you was very knowledgeable, truthful etc.

Would you belive him just cos he is learned?

How is this analogy relevant. If someone knowledgable claims something I'll respect him and ask him for his evidence.

Hey I can remember in your introduction you were a muslim but not practicing am I right?

Yes(sorry about the dumb, irrelevant analogy)

But where is his evidence that he was Alexander?

Oh, by the way, did Alexander the Great build an enourmous wall between two tribes?

Also, was Alexander good at IRON MONGERY?

the story of Alexander the great is a LOT different to the story of Dhul Qarnain in the Qur'an....getting them mixed up is a person's own fault there is a LOT of proof dat they are NOT da same people

A third century roman coin depicting Alexander with the horns of Amon.

REMEMBER: The imagery of the "horned" king is ONLY, i repeat ONLY associated with Alexander.

Another point: the Quran describes Dhul Qarnayn as reaching the end of the earth and seeing the sun sink into murky waters. There is NO OTHER KING that has the reputation of reaching the ends of the earth. Only Alexander is regarded as a conquerer who reached where the sun sets. (note: there is also a flat-earth error in this Quranic passage).

if your claims that Alexander isnt dul karnayan then how so is that a quraanic error? it would be a scholar error ......but I still think this is pointless to ponder over because as Allah has said in the 2nd ayaah of surah baqarah (dhaalikal kitaabu laa rayba fih) the meaning to my understanding is that "this is the book..in which there is no doubt"

Yes, indeed.

You can't use the Quran to prove the Quran. It's like saying "Why is Mirage right? Because he is right!"