Dhul Qarnayn: Quranic Error?

[mirage41]

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?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Mirage41,

A vast majority of Islamic Scholars (eg. Yusuf Ali, Ghazali, Ibn Ishaq etc)

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.

regard the the Dhul-Qarnayn character of the Quran to be Alexander the Great. However, this reveals a MAJOR INNACCURACY IN THE QURAN.

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?!

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.

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

[mirage41]

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?

[azim]

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?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Yusuf Ali is not a scholar?

Nope.

The man translation is the most widespread [english translation of the] Quran in the world

Doesn't negate the fact that he had no formal education in Islam and his commentary contains many errors.

I would take the word of an Arabic-English professional that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great.

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.

Nearly all the evidence points to him being Alexander the Great.

Such as?

The greeks used the "two-horned one" and dhul qarnayn means two horned.

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.

Ibn Ishaq wrote the Sira of the Prophet, he even regarded it as Alexander.

And tell me what is the connection between the sirah of the Prophet and speculation as to who Dhul-Qarnayn is?

Even Imam Al-Ghazali regarded the story to be Alexander.

Imam Al-Ghazali specialized in worship; again, no connection to speculating about Dhul-Qarnayn.

Nearly all of the Medieval Islamic scholar (during Islam's so called 'golden' age) regarded as Alexander the Great!

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.

How much more evidence do you need?

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

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?

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

[mirage41]

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.

[afriend]

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?

[mirage41]

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.

[extinction]

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?

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

[afriend]

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

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 Ruler]

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 :rollseyes

:w:

[mirage41]

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).

[extinction]

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"

[mirage41]

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

Yes, indeed.

[mirage41]

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"

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

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

A person can't just say "dhul qarnayn isn't alexander".

Why not?

Then who is he?

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.

How come so many scholars believe dhul qarnayn is alexander?

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.

How come when I used to go to Khutbahs in Saudi Arabia they all say he's Alexander?

As above.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

Yes there is, Dhul-Qarnayn. Dhul-Qarnayn is not the same person as Alexander the Great.

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).

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 )

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?

[mirage41]

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.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Please, POINT BY POINT.

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.

I have read you web post. Now what?

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

[afriend]

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.

[cool_jannah]

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.

[Abu Zakariya]

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

[Mohsin]

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

[afriend]

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....

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Nicola

Mirage
I'd like to know about the earth being called flat in the Quran?

This is a claim that has already been refuted here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/174248-post7.html

Regards

[mirage41]

:sl:
On-topic please.

Mirage,
If you are unable to respond to our refutation of your allegation concerning Dhul-Qarnayn, then the issue has been resolved and the thread will be closed.

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... :rollseyes " 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"

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

What "refutation"?

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?

The issue is that whether he is Alexander or not.

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.

If he isn't Alexander then who is he?

He's Dhul-Qarnayn. It has absolutely no relevance as to what he was known as by other nations.

I stated that the muslims trying to refute that Dhul Karnain is Alexander is a disingenious attempt at damage control.

And I already debunked this nonsensical claim in my posts which you ignored.

Most of the evidence points to him being Alexander

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.

I displayed coins

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.

historical fact and the fact that most people in the Medieval times believed Dhul Qarnain to be Alexander

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.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There are many implications of flat earth.

"... Until when he [Dhul-Qarnayn] reached the setting of the Sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water." Qur'an 18:86.

This passage implies the Sun is the same size as we see it and that it actually sets down in water. Muslims will refute this by saying that the passage means that Dhul Qarnain reached an ocean were he saw the sun set. But why would he say this specifically at this point? Why would he "go to a place" where the sun sets? In that case isn't that EVERYWHERE that there's water? No, reading it simply shows that the Quran means that the sun actually sets at a specific point on earth.

Like I said, refuted here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/174248-post7.html

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.

[mirage41]

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.

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.

[Nicola]

He's Dhul-Qarnayn. It has absolutely no relevance as to what he was known as by other nations.

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

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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've been giving you my own words for every single post. I simply referred to the article as an additional source for an examination of historical evidence. But everything you've said I have personally debunked. I've debunked your attempted evidence concerning the three people who speculated that Dhul Qarnayn might Alexander the Great by pointing out that the speculation on the part of these three individuals establishes nothing and is contradicted by the view of hundreds of other individuals. I've debunked your claim on the alleged evidence of the coin by pointing out that a devil, a cow, a goat, etc. all have horns as well. What else is left to debunk?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

The claim presupposes that historians are aware of every single significant leader in ancient human history. They are not. Archaeologists continue to discover more regularly.

[mirage41]

I've been giving you my own words for every single post. I simply referred to the article as an additional source for an examination of historical evidence. But everything you've said I have personally debunked. I've debunked your attempted evidence concerning the three people who speculated that Dhul Qarnayn might Alexander the Great by pointing out that the speculation on the part of these three individuals establishes nothing and is contradicted by the view of hundreds of other individuals. I've debunked your claim on the alleged evidence of the coin by pointing out that a devil, a cow, a goat, etc. all have horns as well. What else is left to debunk?

The coin evidence is pretty much conclusive evidence that Dhul Qarnain is Alexander the Great. Alexander the great was always depicted as having the horns of Amon (depicted as a Ram) - the Egyptian equivalent of Zeus - KING OF ALL GODS. Alexander was always considered the most legendary of all kings. Even the Roman Emperors aspired to be him. Thats why he's depicted with horns, because Amon = Zeus = symbol of a king. In the middle east, rulers were compared to the Egyptian gods, which is why the Egyptian copts chose to describe Alexander with the Horns of Amon. This tradition naturally seeped into the inferior Semitic tribes (ie the Arabs) and eventually the "two horned one" is a semitic reference to Alexander the great!

(Extra Info: When Alexander conquered Egypt the Egyptian oracles at Siwa declared him "Son of Amon". Since then semitic cultures portrayed him with two-horns in this vain. NO OTHER LEADER was given this honor.)

[Nicola]

The claim presupposes that historians are aware of every single significant leader in ancient human history. They are not. Archaeologists continue to discover more regularly.

But he must have been an important person and a very well known person...we can't just say, it could have been anyone.

If that is the case, then Muslims do not know who Mohammed was referring to when he talks about Dhul Qarnayn..so how can Muslims say everything in the Quran is proven and true because you don't know who the man even was.

Also I'd like to know are there other great world leaders or great (figures) mentioned in the Quran that Muslims do not know who Mohammed was referring to?

[anis_z24]

Salam,


018.086 Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

No one can reach the Sun set, does that mean that he(Thul qarnayn) went around the world.?

Allahu allam

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The coin evidence is pretty much conclusive evidence that Dhul Qarnain is Alexander the Great.

Is this conclusive evidence he was a goat?

This tradition naturally seeped into the inferior Semitic tribes (ie the Arabs) and eventually the "two horned one" is a semitic reference to Alexander the great!

or...the devil, or a cow, or anything else depicted with two horns.

[mirage41]

Is this conclusive evidence he was a goat?
http://www.pandausa.com/image/lunar/...10goatback.jpg


or...the devil, or a cow, or anything else depicted with two horns.

Actually NO. What does he have to do with a goat? Read up on Amon. He was always portrayed as a ram. Nothing you said actually links back to talking about alexander the great. Nobody here said "he was a goat". So I really don't get what you're talking about.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

If that is the case, then Muslims do not know who Mohammed was referring to when he talks about Dhul Qarnayn..

What you mean is that we do not know whether the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn is known to historians and archaeologists by another name or whether it has yet to be discovered. But we know who he was from what the Qur'an has told us about him.

so how can Muslims say everything in the Quran is proven and true because you don't know who the man even was.

I don't think any Muslim has ever claimed that every historical figure mentioned in the Qur'an has been realized by archaeological and historical evidence.

Also I'd like to know are there other great world leaders or great (figures) mentioned in the Quran that Muslims do not know who Mohammed was referring to?

Again, we know who they were from what it says in the Qur'an. But if you mean anyone who's identity remains a mystery to modern historians and archaeologists, then why not start with Adam?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Actually NO. What does he have to do with a goat? Read up on Amon. He was always portrayed as a ram. Nothing you said actually links back to talking about alexander the great. Nobody here said "he was a goat". So I really don't get what you're talking about.

Your reasoning was:
1. Dhul-Qarnayn is the 'two-horned one'
2. I have a coin depicting Alexander the Great with two horns
3. Therefore, Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great.

What is the difference between the above reasoning and saying:
1. Dhul-Qarnayn is the 'two-horned one'
2. I have a coin depicting a goat with two horns
3. Therefore, Dhul Qarnayn is a goat

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Actually, I should also point out that horned helmets are noted battle-gear for several ancient civilizations.

[mirage41]

Your reasoning was:
1. Dhul-Qarnayn is the 'two-horned one'
2. I have a coin depicting Alexander the Great with two horns
3. Therefore, Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great.

What is the difference between the above reasoning and saying:
1. Dhul-Qarnayn is the 'two-horned one'
2. I have a coin depicting a goat with two horns
3. Therefore, Dhul Qarnayn is a goat

You second line of incorrect reasoning is wrong because it is divorced from historical context. You do not take into account the the authors of the Quran came from the Mid-East (arabs) and that the local powerful cultures (ie Egypt) influenced their ideas and folklore.

Here's my line of reasoning:

1) Dhul Qarnain means "two horned one"
2) Dhul Qarnain is described in Quran as a great leader that reaches the far ends of the earth.
3) Therefore Dhul Qarnain CANNOT be a simple goat (lol)
4) Alexander the Great is the only leader known in the Mid-East to be anointed as the son of Amon (a ram figure) and displayed by locals as being with "two horns"
5) Alexander the Great also reached the far reaches of the known world (at his times)
6) Since the Quran was written in the Mideast the only known figure that matches the Quranic "Dhul Qarnain" is ALEXANDER THE GREAT!

Note: Christian legend also (propagandistically) described Alexander as a pious monotheist. This accounts for how the idea of Alexander the great being a "muslim" made its way into the Quran. Embarrasing indeed!

[mirage41]

Actually, I should also point out that horned helmets are noted battle-gear for several ancient civilizations.

yeah. so? The horns are not just any horns. They are rams horns. The horns of AMON. Alexander the Great was anointed as the SON OF AMON.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun

Likewise, in Libya, there remained an oracle of Amun in the desert, at the oasis of Siwa. Such was its reputation among the Greeks that Alexander the Great journeyed there, after the battle of Issus, and during his occupation of Egypt, in order to be acknowledged the son of the god. Even during this occupation, Amun, identified as a form of Zeus, continued to be the great god of Thebes,

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

1) Dhul Qarnain means "two horned one"
2) Dhul Qarnain is described in Quran as a great leader that reaches the far ends of the earth.
3) Therefore Dhul Qarnain CANNOT be a simple goat (lol)

How about someone with one of these on their head?

4) Alexander the Great is the only leader known in the Mid-East to be anointed as the son of Amon (a ram figure) and displayed by locals as being with "two horns"

Where in the Qur'an does it say Dhul-Qarnayn was anointed as the son of Amon?

5) Alexander the Great also reached the far reaches of the known world (at his times)

There have been NUMEROUS conquerors who have had such territorial span in ancient times.

6) Since the Quran was written in the Mideast the only known figure that matches the Quranic "Dhul Qarnain" is ALEXANDER THE GREAT!

Keyword - 'known'. That proves? Nothing.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

yeah. so? The horns are not just any horns. They are rams horns.

Where does the Qur'an say he had ram horns?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Some Muslims have speculated that Cyrus may have been Dhul-Qarnayn.

Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had yet seen

Again, it's just speculation.

[mirage41]

Where in the Qur'an does it say Dhul-Qarnayn was anointed as the son of Amon?


There have been NUMEROUS conquerors who have had such territorial span in ancient times.


Keyword - 'known'. That proves? Nothing.

I never said the Quran did.

Actually no, Alexander the Great was the only one known to have gone that far. That's the only really big hero the Arabs really knew of.

[mirage41]

Some Muslims have speculated that Cyrus may have been Dhul-Qarnayn.

Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had yet seen

Again, it's just speculation.

Yes, but Cyrus has no imagery of "two horns" associated with him. You see the KEY to this issue is the "two horns". Once again - ONLY Alexander was given this imagery. It really CAN'T POSSIBLY be anyone else.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Yes, but Cyrus has no imagery of "two horns" associated with him. You see the KEY to this issue is the "two horns". Once again - ONLY Alexander was given this imagery. It really CAN'T POSSIBLY be anyone else.

Actually:

Furthermore, two horns and two horned symbolism was not an unknown emblem of the kingdoms of Persia and its predecessors, for we see that Elamite kings used this symbol routinely in their insignia.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_t...t_in_the_Quran

So your claim is actually wrong on numerous levels. According to historical evidence, NUMEROUS kings were known to have used this symbolism. Also, the horned feature of a battle helmet could have adorned NUMEROUS historical figures. There is no logical basis for restricting it to Alexander the great.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I never said the Quran did.

In which case the point is meaningless.

Actually no, Alexander the Great was the only one known to have gone that far.

Wrong. Cyrus is just one other example.

That's the only really big hero the Arabs really knew of.

Why does it have to be a hero that arabs knew of? You're presupposing that the Qur'an was written by man. You can't assume that it was written by men in order to prove it was written by men!

[mirage41]

Actually:

Furthermore, two horns and two horned symbolism was not an unknown emblem of the kingdoms of Persia and its predecessors, for we see that Elamite kings used this symbol routinely in their insignia.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_t...t_in_the_Quran

So your claim is actually wrong on numerous levels. According to historical evidence, NUMEROUS kings were known to have used this symbolism. Also, the horned feature of a battle helmet could have adorned NUMEROUS historical figures. There is no logical basis for restricting it to Alexander the great.

No! The Arabs would not have known of these other kings! But in addition to the Amon imagery there is the fact that he reached where the "sun sets". THATS ALEXANDER!

[mirage41]

Why does it have to be a hero that arabs knew of? You're presupposing that the Qur'an was written by man. You can't assume that it was written by men in order to prove it was written by men!

Of course it was written by men. Have you ever read Surat Al Kafirun? Dude, come one, no wise god would possibly write that stuff. Only a pretty angry dude can write that!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

No! The Arabs would not have known of these other kings!

Even if that were true, would that prove anything? No.

But in addition to the Amon imagery there is the fact that he reached where the "sun sets". THATS ALEXANDER!

According to your favourite source, wikipedia, it fits Cyrus even better:

"The limit where the sun set" does not mean the "place" of the setting of the sun. According to Ibn Kathir, it means that he marched to the West conquering one country after the other till he reached the last boundary of the land, beyond which there was ocean. "He found the sun setting in black muddy waters of the sea": if Dhul-Qarnain was Cyrus, then that place would be the western limit of Asia Minor and the "black waters" would be the Aegean Sea. This interpretation is supported by the use of the word "`ain" instead of "bahr" in the Qur'an.

...Thus in the light of the above, it is easy to conclude that of all the conquerors who had passed away before the revelation of the Qur'an, Cyrus alone is the one to whom the characteristics of "Dhul-Qarnain" are most applicable. There is no other conqueror to whom the characteristics stated in the Qur'an are as much applicable as to Cyrus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_t...t_in_the_Quran

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Of course it was written by men.

You've just conceded the flaw in your argument. You cna't assume the Qur'an was written by men to prove it was written by men!!

Talk about twisted reasoning!

Have you ever read Surat Al Kafirun?

Yes, but now you're switching subject. You dropped the DhulQarnayn charge. Why? Realized you lost the debate?

Dude, come one, no wise god would possibly write that stuff.

Why not? Can you provide objective reasoning that logically negates the possibility of such a passage arising from an AllWise God?

[mirage41]

E

"The limit where the sun set" does not mean the "place" of the setting of the sun. According to Ibn Kathir, it means that he marched to the West conquering one country after the other till he reached the last boundary of the land, beyond which there was ocean. "He found the sun setting in black muddy waters of the sea": if Dhul-Qarnain was Cyrus, then that place would be the western limit of Asia Minor and the "black waters" would be the Aegean Sea. This interpretation is supported by the use of the word "`ain" instead of "bahr" in the Qur'an.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_t...t_in_the_Quran

Cyrus was NOT an Elamite King! The two horned imagery was NEVER associated with Cyrus. The article never says that. Also saying Qarnain was Cyrus will only reveal another Quranic error. Cyrus was "made" into a Monotheist by the grateful Jew (since he was lenient on them) and he was inducted as a righteous king into the Jewish hall of fame. So are you saying Allah was reading up on jewish legends and decided to include it in the Quran?

[Nicola]

=Ansar Al-'Adl;271931]What you mean is that we do not know whether the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn is known to historians and archaeologists by another name or whether it has yet to be discovered. But we know who he was from what the Qur'an has told us about him.

Dhul-Qarnayn (Arabic ذو القرنين), literally meaning "He of the Two Horns", is a figure mentioned in the Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam, where he is described as a great and righteous ruler who built a long wall that keeps Gog and Magog from attacking the people of the West. Moreover, he is regarded by some Muslims as a prophet. Historically, Dhul-Qarnayn has been identified as Alexander the Great, and this remains the opinion of most secular historians, while contemporary Islamic scholars are divided on the issue. The epithet was also familiar among the pre-Islamic Arabs, who applied it to at least three different kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn

Do you know who the other three kings could have been that are mentioned here?...From the above it looks like there are scholars that believe Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander the Great...so I guess it's a matter of opinion. Because the Quran isn't clear enough.

I don't think any Muslim has ever claimed that every historical figure mentioned in the Qur'an has been realized by archaeological and historical evidence.

I was talking about all world leaders, political leader mentioned in the Quran.
What names of world leaders mentioned in the Quran have not be discovered yet?

Again, we know who they were from what it says in the Qur'an. But if you mean anyone who's identity remains a mystery to modern historians and archaeologists, then why not start with Adam?

I'm not talking about digging up the bones from Adam...but surely there would be some historical evidence elsewhere in the world...He of two horns built a long wall that keeps Gog and Magog from attacking the people of the West
Looking at the evidence, how many people in history does this...it seems very likely that Mohammed was referring to Alexander the Great.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Cyrus was NOT an Elamite King! The two horned imagery was NEVER associated with Cyrus. The article never says that.

Yes, the article says in plain english that considering the familiarty of the 'two-horned' symbolism to the Jews, it is massively likely that it could have applied to Cyrus.

Also saying Qarnain was Cyrus will only reveal another Quranic error. Cyrus was "made" into a Monotheist by the grateful Jew (since he was lenient on them) and he was inducted as a righteous king into the Jewish hall of fame.

Actually his religious beliefs remain unknown.

So are you saying Allah was reading up on jewish legends and decided to include it in the Quran?

Please tell me your reasoning is not as distorted as the above statement! An omniscient God does need to read up on anything!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Do you know who the other three kings could have been that are mentioned here?...From the above it looks like there are scholars that believe Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander the Great...so I guess it's a matter of opinion. Because the Quran isn't clear enough.

It has nothign to do with the Qur'an clarity, because the Qur'an never sought to identify Dhul-Qarnayn with a historically known figure in the first place.

I was talking about all world leaders, political leader mentioned in the Quran.
What names of world leaders mentioned in the Quran have not be discovered yet?

How about all the Prophets mentioned in the Qur'an and Bible?

I'm not talking about digging up the bones from Adam...

Why do you not expect to know the historical identity of Adam but you do for Dhul-Qarnayn?

Looking at the evidence, how many people in history does this...it seems very likely that Mohammed was referring to Alexander the Great.

Read the Cyrus link.

Regards

[Abu Zakariya]

There's an explanation of Surat al-Kahf (by Bilal Philips), at this link:

http://nwapp.emirates.net.ae/channel.../lectures2.jsp

Watch this video from the 26th minute: http://213.42.1.10/ramgen/eim/bilal/0002-9.rm

Dr. Philips explains how he got to be known as Dhul-Qarnayn.
It has got nothing to do with horns.
Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked about this and he explained that during his call to righteousness he was struck twice on the tip of his head. The tip of the head, in arabic, is refered to as "al-Qarn". The same way, the top of the sun during sunrise is called Qarn and so is the peak of the mountain.
It has nothing to do with horns.

Thus, the fact that Alexander the Great was depicted as having horns on a coin is irrelevant. Dhul-Qarnayn wasn't called what he was called because of horns, but because of the fact that he was struck two times on his head.
Watch the video for more information.

SubhanAllah, this really shows the importance of knowing one's Deen and the explanation of the Qur'an, so we can answer these kind of things.

[extinction]

this topic is still going on? didnt bro ansar al adl answer more than enough?

[Muslim Knight]

Is this conclusive evidence he was a goat?
http://www.pandausa.com/image/lunar/...10goatback.jpg


or...the devil, or a cow, or anything else depicted with two horns.

Hehehe :giggling: OK Bro. Ansar, you've managed to get my attention to the whole discussion. This is really funny. Hahahaha! ;D

Another point come in mind. Dhul-Qarnayn mentioned in the Quran was a pious Believer of the One God, Allah. It is because of his piety (mentioned in the Quran) that Allah endowed him with the ability to construct the wall to separate between the people (who was beleaguered) from the Gog and Magog tribes.

They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story." (Q 18:83)

He (Dhul-Qarnayn) 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 (Q 18:95)

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" (Q 18:98)

The verses explain themselves clearly.

Alexander the Great, on the other hand, was a Greek Pagan, a worshipper of the gods and goddesses in ancient Greece. Nowhere in the records mention him as the worshipper of the one God.

Additionally, there is a lie perpretrated by modern historical books (in Malaysia, for example) where they (modern historians) try to equate Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great by inserting (a supposed transliteration) "Iskandar" into his name (transforming it into "Iskandar Zulkarnain"). My reasoning is that nowhere in the Quran did it mention Dhul-Qarnayn as having alternate name as "Iskandar" or "Alexander". There is "Dhul Qarnayn" in the Quran, but no "Alexander".

[Mohsin]

There's an explanation of Surat al-Kahf (by Bilal Philips), at this link:

http://nwapp.emirates.net.ae/channel.../lectures2.jsp

Watch this video from the 26th minute: http://213.42.1.10/ramgen/eim/bilal/0002-9.rm

Dr. Philips explains how he got to be known as Dhul-Qarnayn.
It has got nothing to do with horns.
Ali ibn Abi Talib was asked about this and he explained that during his call to righteousness he was struck twice on the tip of his head. The tip of the head, in arabic, is refered to as "al-Qarn". The same way, the top of the sun during sunrise is called Qarn and so is the peak of the mountain.
It has nothing to do with horns.

Thus, the fact that Alexander the Great was depicted as having horns on a coin is irrelevant. Dhul-Qarnayn wasn't called what he was called because of horns, but because of the fact that he was struck two times on his head.
Watch the video for more information.

SubhanAllah, this really shows the importance of knowing one's Deen and the explanation of the Qur'an, so we can answer these kind of things.

Jk khairun for that, i think from this post it is quite conclusive now, i'd like to see what mirage has to say now

[جوري]

brilliant.. I wish we'd have quality threads like this more often
:w:

[NoName55]

Al Majd Quran Channel
Link 1 Link 2 Link 3



Brought to you by Islam Box and AswatAlIslam.net

[Nur Student]

According to explanations given by investigative scholars, and as indicated by the title Dhu’l-Qarnayn, names beginning with the suffix Dhu, like Dhu’l-Yazan, were used by the kings of Yemen, so this Dhu’l-Qarnayn was not Alexander the Great. He was one of the kings of Yemen (1) who lived at the time of Abraham (UWP) (2) and received instruction from Khidr. (3) Alexander the Greek lived approximately three hundred years before Christ, and was taught by Aristotle. (4)

Human history goes back in regular fashion approximately three thousand years. This deficient and short view of history is not accurate concerning pre-Abrahamic times. It continues back either as superstition, or as denial, or in very abbreviated form. The reason the Dhu’l-Qarnayn of Yemen was since early times in Qur’anic commentaries known as Alexander, (5) was either because it was one of his names and he was Alexander the Great or the Alexander of Ancient Times, or else the following:

The particular events mentioned in Qur’anic verses are the tips of universal events. Thus, through his prophetic guidance, Alexander the Great, who was Dhu’l-Qarnayn, built a barrier between some peoples, oppressors and oppressed, and built the famous Great Wall of China to prevent the raids of those cruel enemies. Similarly, many powerful kings and world conquerors like Alexander the Greek followed in the path of Dhu’l-Qarnayn materially, while the prophets and spiritual poles, who are the kings of man’s spiritual world, followed him in spiritual matters and guidance; they built barriers between mountains, one of the most effective means of saving the oppressed from oppressors, and later constructed strongholds on mountain peaks. (There are numerous artificial barriers on the face of the earth that with the passing of time have taken on the appearance of mountains or have become unrecognizable.) They founded these themselves through their material power, or through their guidance and planning. Then they built walls surrounding towns and citadels inside the towns, and finally they made machine-guns and Dreadnoughts, which were like mobile citadels. The most famous barrier on earth, the Great Wall of China, covers a distance of several days’ journeying and was built to halt the incursions against the oppressed peoples of India and China of the savage tribes known in the Qur’an as Gog and Magog, and otherwise known as the Mongols and Manchurians. These tribes several times threw the world of humanity into chaos. Pouring out from behind the Himalayas, they wrought destruction from east to west. A long wall was built between two mountains close to the Himalayan mountains which for a long time prevented the frequent assaults of those savage peoples, and barriers were also built through the efforts of the kings of ancient Persia, who resembled Dhu’l-Qarnayn, in the mountains of Caucasia, in the region of Darband, to halt the inroads of the plundering and pillaging Tatar peoples. There are very many barriers of this sort. Since the All-Wise Qur’an speaks with all mankind, it mentions what is apparently a particular incident, and recalls all events similar to it. It is from this point of view that the narrations differ concerning the Barrier and Gog and Magog, as well as the writings of the Qur’anic commentators about them.

Furthermore, the All-Wise Qur’an switches from one event to another distant one due to the association of ideas. The person who fails to think of this association supposes the two events to be close in time. Thus, the Qur’an’s predicting the end of the world from the destruction of the Barrier is not because the two events are close in time, but to make two subtle points connected with the association of ideas. That is, the world will be destroyed just as the Barrier will be destroyed. Also, just as mountains, which are natural divine barriers, are firm and will be destroyed only at the end of the world; so the Barrier is firm as a mountain and will be levelled to dust only at the destruction of the world. Even if it suffers damage from the assaults of time, it will mostly remain intact. Yes, the Great Wall of China is one particular meaning of the universal meaning of the Barrier of Dhu’l-Qarnayn and has been standing for thousands of years and is still there for all to see. It is read as a long, petrified, meaningful line from ancient history, written by man’s hand on the page of the earth. ~Bediuzzaman~


1. See, Abu Su’ud, Tafsir Abi Su’ud, v, 239-40; Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vi, 385; al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, xvi, 27.
2. See, al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, xi, 47; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an, i, 180; iii, 101; Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vi, 382; al-Faqihi, Ahbar Makka, iii, 221.3. See, al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, xi, 47.
4. See, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vi, 382-3; al-Shawkani, al-Fath al-Qadir, iii, 307; al-Khamawi, Mu‘jam al-Buldan, i, 184; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, ii, 17, 488.
5. See, al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, xvi, 17; al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, xi, 45; al-Shawkani, al-Fath al-Qadir, iii, 307; al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, xvi, 26.

[Scimitar]

Ibn Kathir RA refuted the claim that Alexander was Dhul Qarnayn hundreds of years ago.

Thread dead.

Scimi

[EnlightenedYout]

Shouldn't have banned his account, his "intelligence" was funny

[Karl]

Also Alexander the Great being so famous why would Arabs use a nickname for him? They would have used the name Iskandar as Alexandria is called El Iskandariya. This is derived from the Persian as Alexander's Persian boy Bogaos always called him Iskandar or Iskander.
There was an ancient Egyptian monotheistic religion, it was the worship of Aton.

[syed_z]

Also Alexander the Great being so famous why would Arabs use a nickname for him? They would have used the name Iskandar as Alexandria is called El Iskandariya. This is derived from the Persian as Alexander's Persian boy Bogaos always called him Iskandar or Iskander.

Asalaam O Alaikum...

Actually that should solve the matter of contention here. The Verses of Surah Kahf about Dhul Qarnayn were revealed because Jews in Madinah had posed three questions to the Makkan's who were visiting Yathrib (Madinah) to go an Muhammad (Saw). The Makkan's knew they had so much knowledge from their prophets that it was easy for them to know if this man in Makkah who claims to be a Prophet was indeed a prophet of Allah (swt) or no. So they asked the Jews and the Jews send them with these 3 questions ,

1. Ask him what happened to the young men who disappeared in ancient days,
for they have a marvelous story;
2. Ask him about the mighty traveler who reached the confines of both East and
West;
3. And ask him what is the spirit (Rūh)


They said If he can give you the answer then follow him, for he is a Prophet. If he cannot, then he is a forger and treat him as you will.

So we can imagine Allah (Swt) when revealing the answer to their 2nd question would really be answering the Jews and not the Arabs and so the name would be revealed in a manner understandable to them.

[Scimitar]

The OP who has had his account disabled, made some very noobish errors, rather foolishly.

In a few posts he claimed that Cyrus (Khosroe) of Persia, was never associated with 2 horns.

He tried to refute another members posts with bad logic and lies.

Here is a mural of Cyrus the Great.

See two horns? Yes you do. :)

Cyrus was known to the Jews as who?

He was known as the Masih - meaning, Messiah.

Why?

Because he conquered Babylon, free'd the Jews from the captivity of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar, returned the Jews back to their homeland (Jerusalem) and commissioned the rebuilding of their temple with his own funds - and guess what? He wasn't even a Jew, he was a gentile.

His empire was the largest known. Expanding even beyond the scope of Romes famous empire in its heyday. His empire is hailed as the largest the world has ever seen. His rulership was just and he accepted the practices of peoples different to his own.

But, was he dhul qarnayn?

Consider, that the Jews were asking the Prophet Muhammad pbuh questions which only a true prophet would know. The plight of the Jews during the time of Babylon, would have been ancient even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, so this question would have been a good one to catch out a false prophet or to prove a true one.

So would it not make sense for the jews to test the Prophet pbuh with questions that were seemingly impossible to answer had you not been a Jew? or a learned man?

The Prophet pbuh was neither, he was not a Jew, nor a learnt man - we know he was illiterate - another sign unto the Jews, to await the illiterate prophet - from their holy book. But did they accept him? No.

Look, the hypocrisy is in their questioning - they asked the Prophet pbuh about Dhul Qarnayn - referring to Cyrus, and Cyrus was a gentile - the Jews accpeted a gentile as their messiah...

...yet they could not accept the Prophet Muhammad pbuh (a gentile) as their prophet?

So... let's think on.

Was Dhul Qarnayn, Cyrus the Great?

In order to answer this, we must first answer - was he a monotheist? did he believe in 1 God?

Though it is generally believed that Zarathushtra's teachings exerted an influence on Cyrus's acts and policies, no clear evidence has been found that indicates that Cyrus practiced a specific religion. Pierre Briant wrote that given the poor information we have, "it seems quite reckless to try to reconstruct what the religion of Cyrus might have been."^[96] His liberal and tolerant views towards other religions have made some scholars consider Cyrus a Zoroastrianking.^{[citation needed]} Other scholars^[who?] emphasize the fact that Cyrus is known only to have honored non-Zoroastrian gods. The Cyrus Cylinder, for instance, appeals to the help of the Babylonian gods Marduk, Bêl, and Nabû

So it seems that the religious identity of Cyrus the great is unknown, though he has appealed to pagan gods in the infamous Cyrus Cylinder, however, the deciphering of cuneiform is not exactly a science per se, but since we're talking about the Cyrus Cylinder... this also reminds me of relatively recent find in China...
Chinese bones bearing Inscriptions of Cyrus the Great

In what can be termed as a ground-breaking finding, two fossilised horse bones with cuneiform inscriptions have been discovered in China. What makes these finds remarkable is the fact one of these has been carved with elements of the Cyrus the Great Cylinder. These findings were report by London’s Art Newspaper, Iran’s Tabnak News, and the London-based CAIS (Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies).



...indicating that Cyrus' empire could have very well exerted itself to fringes of the far eastern coast of China...

And in Al Kahf, we find the following ayah:

18:92 - Then he followed a way
18:93 - Until, when he reached [a pass] between two mountains, he found beside them a people who could hardly understand [his] speech.

All semitic languages carry the same etymological roots. Hamitic languages such as those of the Africas also carry the same etymological roots. The same with Japhitic languages... but the Chinese are Hamitic in root:

There is, however, a grain of truth in applying this passage to the Negro people. Most powerful lies gain their power from having at least a modicum of truth about them. It is true that the colored peoples of the earth are descendants of Ham, Hamitic people. They come in varying shades: the yellow of the Chinese, the brown of the Indians, the black of the Africans, and even including some that are white-skinned. Now we must turn to the prophetic words uttered by Noah about his sons as to the destiny of their descendants.

http://www.ldolphin.org/ntable.html

Most Hamitic languages though, are actually African, and not Asian - except in one case - the Chinese.... in fact, over antiquity, the Chinese language developed its hamitic form so much that it was unrecognisable even to the Hamites of Africa - so naturally Semites and Japhetites would also find this language quite alien.

Further, could one not reconcile that if Cyris was indeed Dhul Qarnayn, his travelling to fringes of the Chinese peoples would have been at a time when they 9the Chinese) were being raided by warriors of the northern steppe?

Look, if you want me to carry on, I can seriously piece home some amazing information for you all - such as the true etymology of the words Ya'juj and Ma'juj, but I am no scholar nor am i a student of knowledge. The research i do, I do out of personal interest only. So do understand that what i share here, is not the gospel truth, but the truth as I see it.

And Allah knows best.

Scimi

[Muhaba]

The OP who has had his account disabled, made some very noobish errors, rather foolishly.

In a few posts he claimed that Cyrus (Khosroe) of Persia, was never associated with 2 horns.

He tried to refute another members posts with bad logic and lies.

Here is a mural of Cyrus the Great.

See two horns? Yes you do. :)

Cyrus was known to the Jews as who?

He was known as the Masih - meaning, Messiah.

Why?

Because he conquered Babylon, free'd the Jews from the captivity of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar, returned the Jews back to their homeland (Jerusalem) and commissioned the rebuilding of their temple with his own funds - and guess what? He wasn't even a Jew, he was a gentile.

His empire was the largest known. Expanding even beyond the scope of Romes famous empire in its heyday. His empire is hailed as the largest the world has ever seen. His rulership was just and he accepted the practices of peoples different to his own.

But, was he dhul qarnayn?

Consider, that the Jews were asking the Prophet Muhammad pbuh questions which only a true prophet would know. The plight of the Jews during the time of Babylon, would have been ancient even in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, so this question would have been a good one to catch out a false prophet or to prove a true one.

So would it not make sense for the jews to test the Prophet pbuh with questions that were seemingly impossible to answer had you not been a Jew? or a learned man?

The Prophet pbuh was neither, he was not a Jew, nor a learnt man - we know he was illiterate - another sign unto the Jews, to await the illiterate prophet - from their holy book. But did they accept him? No.

Look, the hypocrisy is in their questioning - they asked the Prophet pbuh about Dhul Qarnayn - referring to Cyrus, and Cyrus was a gentile - the Jews accpeted a gentile as their messiah...

...yet they could not accept the Prophet Muhammad pbuh (a gentile) as their prophet?

So... let's think on.

Was Dhul Qarnayn, Cyrus the Great?

In order to answer this, we must first answer - was he a monotheist? did he believe in 1 God?



So it seems that the religious identity of Cyrus the great is unknown, though he has appealed to pagan gods in the infamous Cyrus Cylinder, however, the deciphering of cuneiform is not exactly a science per se, but since we're talking about the Cyrus Cylinder... this also reminds me of relatively recent find in China...
Chinese bones bearing Inscriptions of Cyrus the Great

In what can be termed as a ground-breaking finding, two fossilised horse bones with cuneiform inscriptions have been discovered in China. What makes these finds remarkable is the fact one of these has been carved with elements of the Cyrus the Great Cylinder. These findings were report by London’s Art Newspaper, Iran’s Tabnak News, and the London-based CAIS (Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies).



...indicating that Cyrus' empire could have very well exerted itself to fringes of the far eastern coast of China...

And in Al Kahf, we find the following ayah:

18:92 - Then he followed a way
18:93 - Until, when he reached [a pass] between two mountains, he found beside them a people who could hardly understand [his] speech.

All semitic languages carry the same etymological roots. Hamitic languages such as those of the Africas also carry the same etymological roots. The same with Japhitic languages... but the Chinese are Hamitic in root:



Most Hamitic languages though, are actually African, and not Asian - except in one case - the Chinese.... in fact, over antiquity, the Chinese language developed its hamitic form so much that it was unrecognisable even to the Hamites of Africa - so naturally Semites and Japhetites would also find this language quite alien.

Further, could one not reconcile that if Cyris was indeed Dhul Qarnayn, his travelling to fringes of the Chinese peoples would have been at a time when they 9the Chinese) were being raided by warriors of the northern steppe?

Look, if you want me to carry on, I can seriously piece home some amazing information for you all - such as the true etymology of the words Ya'juj and Ma'juj, but I am no scholar nor am i a student of knowledge. The research i do, I do out of personal interest only. So do understand that what i share here, is not the gospel truth, but the truth as I see it.

And Allah knows best.

Scimi

That is quite interesting. I love history and would live to read more.

[Nur Student]

According to explanations given by investigative scholars, and as indicated by the title Dhu’l-Qarnayn, names beginning with the suffix Dhu, like Dhu’l-Yazan, were used by the kings of Yemen, so this Dhu’l-Qarnayn was not Alexander the Great.

Sorry guys, but I noticed that I made a small mistake in my original post. The red part should have been Alexander the Greek, not Alexander the Great.

I tried to edit the post, but I couldn't find the link. Maybe it is because the site is under construction. Maybe one of the admins can help me correct the original post. Thanks.

[Scimitar]

Re: Dhul Qarnayn: Quranic Error?



That is quite interesting. I love history and would live to read more.

in sha Allah all will be revealed when I am ready.

As for anyone following Shaikh Imran Hoseins theory... you'll be surprised how his version of the wall is located in Alexander territory, ie: caucuses... silly. The caucuses is more middle earth than not.

I really want to say more, but after labouring years on this research, last thing I want is for it to be released prematurely on the net. I'd rather concrete the informations first, release the series of videos and then, blog the info for further critique by experts... this is how I want it to go... but if you cannot wait, and wish to contribute research, then PM me - but only if you are serious - and I will send you a link where you can see the work my team and I are doing in sha Allah.

Scimi

EDIT: a small teaser, Radm / sadda...

when I overlayed Al Idrisi's infamous Tabulus Rogeriana onto google earth, the location of the barrier was approximated to the verkhoyansk/chersky/momsky ranges in Siberia... so I removed the map and started looking at the terra fauna, the topography and the routes... then finally, after figuring out where the most likeliest routes would have taken Dhul Qarnayn from China's east coast to Siberias ICE WALL - I started to look at the panoramio photo's... and came across this:

in the classical exegetes of Al Kahf, we find that the description ot the two mountains are likened to two parts of a sea shell, adjoined at the bottom and opened at the top... now look at this pic. Allah knows best.