PDA

View Full Version : Was Zul-Qarnain Alexander the Great?



Laith Al-Doory
04-30-2007, 12:21 PM
Up until relatively recently, most Muslims have always assumed Zul-Qarnain (the two horned one) to be Alexander the Great, who was often portrayed in classical art, not to mention Greek coinage, wearing a two-horned helmet. The Qur’an only refers to the most important characters by name, and Zul-Qarnain was likely a term used by Arabs to describe Alexander the Great before the advent of Islam.

‘Islamic fundamentalists’ regard such a notion as a source of embarrassment, for Alexander the great is inextricably linked with the European Enlightenment and the spread of Helenic ideas across much of the ancient world as a result of his monumental military campaign. However, as the Arabs were the effective inheritors of the Graeco-Roman civilization, Enlightenment thinking was to flower in the Khaliphate before it was ever to re-emerge in Europe, which was plunged into a Christian Dark Age. As Islam was originally a religion of science and tolerance, Enlightenment thinking has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity.

According to the Qur’an, Zul-Qarnain was guided, and this Alexander certainly was, according to historical accounts, by his many visits to oracles. This same evidence is used by ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ to argue that Alexander was a polytheist and therefore could not be referred to, as he is in the Qur’an, as a believer. However, Alexander was a student of Aristotle, who was himself a monotheist and coined the term ‘prime mover.’ Also, ancient Greek Hermetic doctrine, like that of the Jews, describes a universal God that can manifest in many forms.

The Father of all things, the Word being Life and Light, brought forth Man, like unto Himself, whom He loved as His own child, for he was beautiful beyond compare, having the image of his Father.”
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
04-30-2007, 04:28 PM
:sl:

I would kind of doubt that. Alexander is not his name either. It came from what the Arab speakers of the time called him and that was his Arabic title "Al es Kandra." I have heard several versions of what the name meant. Some quite derogatory. When I was in Morocco I had quite a few people tell me that the best English translation of "Al es Kandra" is "The Gay One" which was in references to the his Soldiers preference for young boys. In Morocco they often used the name very similar to how we use the term Bogey Man in the west. (at least when I lived there)


Wikki does differ with me considerably over that:

The name was one of the titles ("epithets") given to the Greek goddess Hera and as such is usually taken to mean "one who comes to the aid of warriors." In the Iliad, the character Paris is known also as Alexander. The name's popularity was spread throughout the Hellenistic world by the military conquests of King Alexander III of Macedon, commonly known as "Alexander the Great" (Μέγας Αλέξανδρος).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander
Reply

NoName55
04-30-2007, 04:36 PM
:sl:

Who was Zul-Qarnain?
Dhul-Qarnayn= Alexander the Great?
Alexander in the Qur'an
Story of Alexander the Great at his death bed Story of Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great
Is (zho el'Qarnyen) Prophet Solomon PBUH?

:w:
Reply

Abu Zakariya
04-30-2007, 04:41 PM
The name Dhul-Qarnayn has nothing to do with horns. See this post:

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...tml#post272176
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Keltoi
04-30-2007, 04:43 PM
No doubt Alexander wasn't exactly a hero to the Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, and Indians he conquered.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 04:45 PM
I still believe him to be prophet Solomon PBUH.. he was the only one who understood and could communicate in several languages, who could travel faster than the speed of light, and he was the one who had an incomparable kingdom and army... but given all the replies I have received as per regard to the topic.. my inference is nothing more than suppositions... one thing for sure, Zho El Qarnyen was a pious man ( a man of G-D) very contrary to Cyrus and Alexander the great.. We'll have to be content not knowing until there is some sort of Archeological find, or until Gog and Magog are set loose? I don't want to be around for such an event though.....

this website is great if you can unencrypt it http://www.alassrar.com/sub.asp?page1=derasat1-- if you can't then just read the introduction...
Reply

Sami Zaatari
04-30-2007, 04:46 PM
if you read ibn katirs tafsir, you will see that dhul qarnayn was actually alive during abrahams time and performed the hajj with abraham, obviously that isnt alexander. :)
Reply

Woodrow
04-30-2007, 05:16 PM
Also it is historicaly known that Alexander died at a very young age. Not more than 21 years old. One problem is there has been a long line of people called Alexander. The Earliest Known going back to 1280 BC.

* Alaksandu, ca. 1280 BC
* Alexander of Corinth, 10th king of Corinth (816-791 BC)
* Alexander I of Macedon
* Alexander of Pherae despot of Pherae between 369 and 358 BC
* Alexander I of Epirus king of Epirus about 342 BC
* Alexander II of Epirus king of Epirus 272 BC
* Alexander II of Macedon
* Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon), King of Macedon, 336–323 BC
* Alexander IV of Macedon
* Alexander Balas, ruler of the Seleucid kingdom of Syria between 150 and 146 BC
* Alexander Severus, (208–235), Roman Empire

[edit] Middle Ages

* Alexander, Byzantine Emperor (912–913)
* Alexander I of Scotland (c. 1078–1124)
* Alexander II of Scotland (1198–1249)
* Alexander Nevsky (1220–1263), Grand Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir
* Alexander III of Scotland (1241–1286)
* Aleksander (1338-before 1386), prince of Podolia (son of Narymunt)
* Sikandar Butshikan, Sultan of Kashmir (1389–1413)
* Alexandru cel Bun, voivode of Moldavia (1400–1432)
* Skenderbeg (1405–1468), prince of Albania
* Alexandru I Aldea, ruler of the principality of Wallachia (1431–1436)
* Eskender, Emperor of Ethiopia (1472–1494)
* Alexander of Poland (1461-1506), king of Poland
* Alexandru Lăpuşneanu, voivode of Moldavia (1552–1561 and 1564–1568)
* Sikandar Shah Suri, Shah of Delhi (1555)
* Sikandar Lodhi, Sultan of Delhi (16th Century)



Like with the Cesears it is difficult to tell when one died and another took the title as they were all called simply Cesear. A few exceptions, Julius, Augustus, Octavius
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
04-30-2007, 05:17 PM
Alexander the Great was also revered by the Jews for what was written about him in the book of Daniel.
Reply

Trumble
04-30-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Also it is historicaly known that Alexander died at a very young age. Not more than 21 years old.
He was either 32 or 33 when he died.
Reply

Woodrow
04-30-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
He was either 32 or 33 when he died.
I just noticed my error. It was said he cried when he was 21 because he had no more worlds to conquer. That was were I remembered the 21 from.

But, you are correct about his age at death. He was ruler for 13 years and he had become ruler at about the age of 18.
Reply

m102313
04-30-2007, 06:40 PM
Listen to these Lectures :

Gog & Magog - 1

Gog & Magog - 2

It mentions that Alexander the Great was a Disbeliever and Dhul-Qarnayn was a Believer and that he believed in Allah
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
04-30-2007, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by moabubaker
Listen to these Lectures :

Gog & Magog - 1

Gog & Magog - 2

It mentions that Alexander the Great was a Disbeliever and Dhul-Qarnayn was a Believer and that he believed in Allah
My original thread already answers this question. Mine is the orthodox view.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
04-30-2007, 09:08 PM
The view that Alexander was indeed Dhul-Qarnayn isn't the Orthodox view.
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
04-30-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
The view that Alexander was indeed Dhul-Qarnayn isn't the Orthodox view.
That was the view of many Islamic scholars for many hundreds of years after the time of Mohammed. It plainly is the orthodox view. If Alexander the Great is not Zul-Qarnain then who is the Qur'an refering to? Any other candidates such as Cyrus or Solomon are anything but orthodox.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:13 PM
Pickthal 18:97] And (Gog and Magog) were not able to surmount, nor could they pierce (it).

قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقًّا {98}
[Pickthal 18:98] He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord cometh to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.

It was said of alex that "he insisted on his effigy being put in each temple of the people he conquered" -- does that sound like someone who would make mention of mercy from his lord or states the promise of the lord is true? besides this verse 84.18

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا --
leads me to believe that he might have been Solomon PBUH--- from Suret Al-kahf 84] Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.

[85] One (such) way he followed--

I don't know of a prophet or a Man of G-D more established on earth than Solmon PBUH,(with ways and means to all ends) his kingdom shall not be bequeathed to another after him--- Anyhow I don't want to impose that belief on others since no one is sure and all are speculating-- I am willing to accept him as simply Zho El-Qarnyen... but not someone who is a complete Hedonist like Alex who cried when there was no more of the world to be conquered!
:w:
Reply

yahia12
04-30-2007, 10:19 PM
Tafsir Al-Jalalyn

And they, the Jews, question you concerning Dhū'l-Qarnayn, whose name was Alexander; he was not a prophet. Say: 'I shall recite, relate, to you a mention, an account, of him', of his affair.

Why was he blessed then? if he wasnt muslim.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:27 PM
where did you get this addendum of his name was Alex? are you kidding me? I just quoted you the verses from the Quran... no mention of Alexander.. since prophet Mohammed PBUH didn't mention who he was by name, it isn't up to someone to pass some random fatwa ( As-sahaba) in the days of the prophet would be sweating not wanting to answer a scholarly question off the top of their head lest they commit a great sin of passing wrong information, and would try to pass it to one of them who was more scholarly ( now a days everyone is a grand mufti?) ... in my very non scholarly opinion I believe the description fits more prophet Solomon than Alex in terms of piety and means of travel and having all means to an end... but in no way is that an assertion it is a speculation to which I deeply apologize if wrong-- but where do you come up with this nonsense of him being Alex.. when clearly in the Quran it is mentioned that he is a man of G-D, who spoke of the lord's mercy...

peace!
Reply

yahia12
04-30-2007, 10:28 PM
Tafsir Al-Jalalyn
Reply

yahia12
04-30-2007, 10:30 PM
versers in the quran
18:83]
[18:84]
[18:85]
[18:86]
[18:87
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:32 PM
The word Tafsir means an interpretation... Just because someone interpreted it this way doesn't make it so..
:w:
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by Serdar
versers in the quran
18:83]
[18:84]
[18:85]
[18:86]
[18:87
Yes I am quite familiar with these verses.. in fact I just quoted you a few of them... No mention of Alex.. go ahead and read suret al-kahf I challenge you to come up with the name alex from the verses...
:w:
Reply

yahia12
04-30-2007, 10:36 PM
The verser are familiar with the way Zul-Qarnain was moved forward(historical). and tafsir tell us name alexander. much like life of alexander the great. inshalla i get more facts.
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:38 PM
وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَن ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْرًا {83}
[Pickthal 18:83] They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا {84}
[Pickthal 18:84] Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road.

فَأَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {85}
[Pickthal 18:85] And he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا {86}
[Pickthal 18:86] Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَى رَبِّهِ فَيُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا نُّكْرًا {87}
[Pickthal 18:87] He said: As for him who doeth wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, Who will punish him with awful punishment!

وَأَمَّا مَنْ آمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُ جَزَاء الْحُسْنَى وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِنَا يُسْرًا {88}
[Pickthal 18:88] But as for him who believeth and doeth right, good will be his reward, and We shall speak unto him a mild command.

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {89}
[Pickthal 18:89] Then he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَطْلِعَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَطْلُعُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ لَّمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُم مِّن دُونِهَا سِتْرًا {90}
[Pickthal 18:90] Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.

كَذَلِكَ وَقَدْ أَحَطْنَا بِمَا لَدَيْهِ خُبْرًا {91}
[Pickthal 18:91] So (it was). And We knew all concerning him.

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {92}
[Pickthal 18:92] Then he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْمًا لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلًا {93}
[Pickthal 18:93] Till, when he came between the two mountains, he found upon their hither side a folk that scarce could understand a saying.

قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجًا عَلَى أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدًّا {94}
[Pickthal 18:94] They said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Lo! Gog and Magog are spoiling the land. So may we pay thee tribute on condition that thou set a barrier between us and them?

قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا {95}
[Pickthal 18:95] He said: That wherein my Lord hath established me is better (than your tribute). Do but help me with strength (of men), I will set between you and them a bank.

آتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ حَتَّى إِذَا سَاوَى بَيْنَ الصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ انفُخُوا حَتَّى إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَارًا قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًا {96}
[Pickthal 18:96] Give me pieces of iron - till, when he had levelled up (the gap) between the cliffs, he said: Blow! - till, when he had made it a fire, he said: Bring me molten copper to pour thereon.

فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَن يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْبًا {97}
[Pickthal 18:97] And (Gog and Magog) were not able to surmount, nor could they pierce (it).

قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقًّا {98}
[Pickthal 18:98] He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord cometh to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.

وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَجَمَعْنَاهُمْ جَمْعًا {99}
[Pickthal 18:99] And on that day we shall let some of them surge against others, and the Trumpet will be blown. Then We shall gather them together in one gathering.

:w:
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by Serdar
The verser are familiar with the way Zul-Qarnain was moved forward(historical). and tafsir tell us name alexander. much like life of alexander the great. inshalla i get more facts.
Indeed you'll find that zho El Qarnyen and Alex had moved in opposite directions one started from the east to west while the others from west to east... therefore they can't be one in the same...
:w:
Reply

yahia12
04-30-2007, 10:43 PM
Zul-Qarnain who is he then?
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 10:50 PM
he is who he is (min 3ibad Allah Asa'le7een)-- we should be content with that for now... though my inclination to go with Prophet Solomon PBUH is purely Speculative... based on his status both religiously and by the means of his kingdom and the strength of his person... But it isn't a fact and we may never know... And that is ok.. rather than making a grave mistake of attributing qualities of the righteous to a hedonist.

:w:
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
04-30-2007, 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
he is who he is (min 3ibad Allah Asa'le7een)-- we should be content with that for now... though my inclination to go with Prophet Solomon PBUH is purely Speculative... based on his status both religiously and by the means of his kingdom and the strength of his person... But it isn't a fact and we may never know... And that is ok.. rather than making a grave mistake of attributing qualities of the righteous to a hedonist.

:w:
Zul-Qarnain is not a prophet, which is why he is not named. If Solomon were Zul-Qarnain, then he would have been named as such. There are many contradictary historical accounts with regard to Alexander the Great. Why do you dismiss him as a hedonist? According to the Torah, Solomon had 700 wives!
Reply

جوري
04-30-2007, 11:38 PM
Your point being? I don't take the Torah as my guide!
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Your point being? I don't take the Torah as my guide!
But you would believe any historical account of Alexander the Great? Is not the Torah just as worthy a historical account? It should be noted that Alexander was also revered by the Jews, being mentioned in the book of Daniel.
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 12:21 AM
my inference isn't etched in stones... whereas you don't see Prophet Solomon as having fulfilled certain criteria to be qualified as zho- el-Qarnyen--I don't see Alex as having fulfilled others... I believe at the very fulcrum of it should be his relationship to G-D... under no account is Alex a monotheist... you should see some of the books written about him if they in fact have an accurate historical account the man engaged in homosexual behavior... does that sound like something a man of G-D would do? Further
Zhu el qarnyen means (of two horns)... that is what the term denotes in Arabic--


we had this discussion before on the forum not so long ago.. but I felt it queer for a mother to name her son (of two horns).. I thought it was an alias given to him-- but was kindly corrected by another member that very possible it was his name? we may never know...


on a last note... though many believe Prophet Daniel to be a prophet, there is even a whole street dedicated to him by the marina in port saiid... there is no Islamic record of him, and if you read about him ( the Quran mentions prophets and states there are others we don't know of) from a biblical sense you'll find he (Daniel) has some very questionable traits, pls go ahead and read about him in more details...(traits that we know aren't of G-D's messengers) ... what I mean by that is not to deny that his prophet hood rather, (when the scriptures speak of Prophet Solomon) They don't have an accurate account and don't even pass him off as a prophet rather a (king).. I am able to verify Prophet Solomon's character from an Islamic perspective and it corrects some of these very sketchy views... not so with Daniel so frankly the whole Jewish account of should be negligible... if he were a prophet he isn't described in a flattering manner... and if he was, than I question what scribe described him in such an unflattering manner... thus enables me to dismiss the entire Jewish account of whom Zho- El- Qarnyen) was... I am still inclined to say it is prophet Solomon-- and have stated my reasons above... but will be just as comfortable not knowing at all... He was of the righteous, which Alex wasn't

I must be off for maghrib prayer
peace!
:w:
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
my inference isn't etched in stones... whereas you don't see Prophet Solomon as having fulfilled certain criteria to be qualified as zho- el-Qarnyen--I don't see Alex as having fulfilled others... I believe at the very fulcrum of it should be his relationship to G-D... under no account is Alex a monotheist... you should see some of the books written about him if they in fact have an accurate historical account the man engaged in homosexual behavior... does that sound like something a man of G-D would do? Further
Zhu el qarnyen means (of two horns)... that is what the term denotes in Arabic--


we had this discussion before on the forum not so long ago.. but I felt it queer for a mother to name her son (of two horns).. I thought it was an alias given to him-- but was kindly corrected by another member that very possible it was his name? we may never know...


on a last note... though many believe Prophet Daniel to be a prophet, there is even a whole street dedicated to him by the marina in port saiid... there is no Islamic record of him, and if you read about him ( the Quran mentions prophets and states there are others we don't know of) from a biblical sense you'll find he (Daniel) has some very questionable traits, pls go ahead and read about him in more details...(traits that we know aren't of G-D's messengers) ... what I mean by that is not to deny that his prophet hood rather, (when the scriptures speak of Prophet Solomon) They don't have an accurate account and don't even pass him off as a prophet rather a (king).. I am able to verify Prophet Solomon's character from an Islamic perspective and it corrects some of these very sketchy views... not so with Daniel so frankly the whole Jewish account of should be negligible... if he were a prophet he isn't described in a flattering manner... and if he was, than I question what scribe described him in such an unflattering manner... thus enables me to dismiss the entire Jewish account of whom Zho- El- Qarnyen) was... I am still inclined to say it is prophet Solomon-- and have stated my reasons above... but will be just as comfortable not knowing at all... He was of the righteous, which Alex wasn't

I must be off for maghrib prayer
peace!
:w:
Firstly, as I stated before, Zul-Qarnain was not a prophet. Solomon was. Therefore Zul-Qarnain could not be Solomon.

Secondly, you deny that Alexander the Great could be a righteous man based on historical accounts. By similar historical accounts one could dismiss Abraham, for according to the Torah he married his own sister (Sarah was his half-sister by the same father). Moses could be dismissed as a murderer. Soloman had 700 wives. Jesus, of course, never married, and according to the Gospels, the one he loved was another man, John. You are very selective as to which historical accounts you believe. You reject the Zul-Qarnain/Alexander orthodoxy for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with truth.
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 01:49 AM
You are free to believe what you wish. If the Torah is your doctrine then you are welcome to it and all its contents... I don't judge the characters of the prophets from the accounts written in the Torah or the bible... Do you really want to go down that path? You have written a preamble and have drawn your own conclusion to which I saw more power to you-- I don't see this as a subject to debate, this is simply your belief!

peace
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You are free to believe what you wish. If the Torah is your doctrine then you are welcome to it and all its contents... I don't judge the characters of the prophets from the accounts written in the Torah or the bible... Do you really want to go down that path? You have written a preamble and have drawn your own conclusion to which I saw more power to you-- I don't see this as a subject to debate, this is simply your belief!

peace
You purposely try to miss the whole point of what I said. Typical woman.
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 01:56 AM
Do you have a point? I inferred from the title that you were questioning was Zho El Qarnyen Alex the great. I believe we have replied to adequately.. The answer is apparently is not agreeable with you... Yes I enjoy my typical woman status!
Reply

Woodrow
05-01-2007, 03:57 AM
just a reminder. I get displeased when threads go off topic and even more displeased when personal insults are added.

Please be nice. Address refutations to the topic not to the person.
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Do you have a point? I inferred from the title that you were questioning was Zho El Qarnyen Alex the great. I believe we have replied to adequately.. The answer is apparently is not agreeable with you... Yes I enjoy my typical woman status!
Speak for yourself. A simple disagreement is not an argument. You haven't made a credible case for anybody other than Alexander being Zul-Qarnain, which leads me to believe that you're not interested in truth.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
05-01-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
That was the view of many Islamic scholars for many hundreds of years after the time of Mohammed. It plainly is the orthodox view. If Alexander the Great is not Zul-Qarnain then who is the Qur'an refering to? Any other candidates such as Cyrus or Solomon are anything but orthodox.
I didn't say that it was Cyrus or Solomon, so this is a red herring.

What I did say is that this isn't, as you say, the Orthodox position. That simply is not true. Some scholars have said that it might be Alexander the Great, others have said that it can't be him. For instance, take a look at what is said in the Tafsir of ibn Kathir (perhaps the most popular Orthodox tafsir book).
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
Speak for yourself.
I believe I have been!
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
A simple disagreement is not an argument.
Agreed-- so why are you turning it into one?
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
You haven't made a credible case for anybody
That is true admittedly I have stated we should be content just not knowing, and that it was purely speculative an (inclination) if you will that it might be Prophet Solomon PBUH
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
other than Alexander being Zul-Qarnain,
I don't see how? is he the default choice even if he doesn't fit the bill?
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
which leads me to believe that you're not interested in truth.
What sort of logical fallacy is this? An argumentum ad odium?

peace
:w:
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
QUOTE=Laith Al-Doory;727164]Speak for yourself.
I believe I have been!

Agreed-- so why are you turning it into one?


That is true admittedly I have stated we should be content just not knowing, and that it was purely speculative an (inclination) if you will that it might be Prophet Solomon PBUH


I don't see how? is he the default choice even if he doesn't fit the bill?

What sort of logical fallacy is this? An argumentum ad odium?

peace
:w:[/QUOTE]

My whole point is that Alexander is not the default choice if you bother to read the original thread. To argue that he could not have been a believer shows an ignorance of the culture of ancient Greece. Secondly, there are lurid historical accounts about just about any historical figure one could care to mention; that doesn't make them true. Thirdly, as one of the most important figures in history in defining our modern age, it would seem odd that he was not mentioned in the Qur'an, which is after all, for the most part a historical account of acient times in the Middle East.
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
My whole point is that Alexander is not the default choice if you bother to read the original thread. To argue that he could not have been a believer shows an ignorance of the culture of ancient Greece. Secondly, there are lurid historical accounts about just about any historical figure one could care to mention; that doesn't make them true. Thirdly, as one of the most important figures in history in defining our modern age, it would seem odd that he was not mentioned in the Qur'an, which is after all, for the most part a historical account of acient times in the Middle East.
The Quran isn't a history book any more than it is a book on embryology... for the most part the stories in it have a great emphasis on morality than to foretell of one of history's greats... I believe Khalid Ibn Ilwaleed to have possessed excellent military genius that was incomparable to any other in history, save for ghengis khan, only with far better war ethics --but there is no mention of him in the Quran either, yet someone like Abu Lahab makes it to the verses ten years before his death ( even in that is a moral) if you can see it!...

The beauty of it, is that no matter what walk of life you come from, it will appeal to you on that level... If you have spent a great deal studying science, The Quran communicates to you by means of science, if you are into history the communication would be means of Ancient destroyed towns of which there is no record in previous scriptures ('Aad, Thamus) as an e.x..
If you are into astronomy communication will be made trough references to that...
if you are simply into language you can certainly appreciate the sheer poetry and context of its verses... But by no means are you to infer that it is a book about Geology, Astronomy, embryology, or physiology of high altitude hypoxia or poetry... by no means is it meant as a historical account of someone creating an effigy of himself to be left in every town he conquered.... Emphasis is purely on morality through all these different facets and multitudes of ways for you to find G-D.

This is the book' greatest miracle... it isn't just another book by Bedouins out of the desert. You may pass that off as ignorance on my part, but that is my opinion and I share it with a number of people...

The Jewish account of Alexander isn't any more truthful than the Jewish account of Prophet Solomon (PBUH) whom they don't even deem as a prophet but as a "king" -- my point being is how can you accept his status as pious or whatever else from Jewish scriptures? when there is a great chance it has been altered such as was done with many major prophets up to and including (Solomon)?-- in a nut shell it is faulty... I can read it as an object of theological debate but certainly not as an accurate historical account...

Thank you
:w:
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 07:00 PM
On the one hand, you seem to have a love affair with the Jews. If Alexander had been Jewish, we wouldn't be having this discussion, no matter what had been written about him by sources other than the Qur'an. On the other hand, you ridicule the Jews for themselves revering Alexander the Great, something Muslims also have done. Nobody is claiming Alexander to be a prophet.

Reason is something which is much championed in the Qur'an. Alexander's legacy was the spread of Helenic ideas of philosophy and reason across an ancient world steeped in superstition, irrational fear, hatred and tyranny, a thousand years before the advent of Islam.
Reply

جوري
05-01-2007, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
On the one hand, you seem to have a love affair with the Jews.
How so I think myself rather ambivalent? I don't dispense emotions where they are not needed or necessary..

Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
If Alexander had been Jewish, we wouldn't be having this discussion, no matter what had been written about him by sources other than the Qur'an. On the other hand
I really don't understand the point you are making here... it isn't tied for me nicely-- regardless of how he is being viewed by the Jews.. in fact it wasn't through their literature that I have drawn my conclusions rather simply history speaks of a Hedonist not a Man of G-D!

Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
you ridicule the Jews for themselves revering Alexander the Great, something Muslims also have done. Nobody is claiming Alexander to be a prophet.
I neither applaud nor ridicule... I am not sure how you have drawn such a conclusion? Al-khidr wasn't a prophet either but was from (3ibad Allah Asale7een)-- I have come to hold the same belief of zho-el-qarnyen-- prophet or not, I doubt he engaged in homosexual behavior or left statues of his person in each temple!

Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
Reason is something which is much championed in the Qur'an. Alexander's legacy was the spread of Helenic ideas of philosophy and reason across an ancient world steeped in superstition, irrational fear, hatred and tyranny, a thousand years before the advent of Islam.
Indeed.. I believe, I have also used reason to apply the same principles to prophet Solomon (PBUH) as a possible candidate... but can be quite content if neither of them were Zho-el-Qarnyen-- and we'd just have to live with not knowing...

peace

:w:
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-01-2007, 08:46 PM
As far as I know Alexander the Great married at least twice. The true love of his life was said to be another man, but then the same is said of Jesus in the Gospels, who never married. Platonic love was considered the highest form of love in ancient Greece. Sex and love were considered two very different things, as they undoubtedly are. But I prefer to leave the discussion of the sex lives of others to gossiping women (and sometimes men as the case may be). It's very easy to disparage the dead.
Reply

Keltoi
05-02-2007, 03:36 PM
I've learned something new here. I had no idea Alexander the Great was revered, or insert whatever word you deem appropriate, by Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Obviously the man was a great leader, and probably a great warrior, since he led his father's cavalry regiment at the age of 14 or so. However, he also believed himself to be the son of Zeus after an oracle in Egypt told him so. He crucified thousands of Persians.

My questions is this, was Alexander considered special only because of his spread of Hellinistic philosophy and culture, or is there something else? I know the debate was whether he was this certain figure, something I haven't quite grasped as of yet, but what is the reason for this praise and argument about "who" he is? Thanks.
Reply

جوري
05-02-2007, 04:15 PM
This "debate" is about chapter 18 in the Quran... you can read about it here
وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَن ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْرًا {83}
[Pickthal 18:83] They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا {84}
[Pickthal 18:84] Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road.

فَأَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {85}
[Pickthal 18:85] And he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا {86}
[Pickthal 18:86] Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَى رَبِّهِ فَيُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا نُّكْرًا {87}
[Pickthal 18:87] He said: As for him who doeth wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, Who will punish him with awful punishment!

وَأَمَّا مَنْ آمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُ جَزَاء الْحُسْنَى وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِنَا يُسْرًا {88}
[Pickthal 18:88] But as for him who believeth and doeth right, good will be his reward, and We shall speak unto him a mild command.

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {89}
[Pickthal 18:89] Then he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَطْلِعَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَطْلُعُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ لَّمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُم مِّن دُونِهَا سِتْرًا {90}
[Pickthal 18:90] Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.

كَذَلِكَ وَقَدْ أَحَطْنَا بِمَا لَدَيْهِ خُبْرًا {91}
[Pickthal 18:91] So (it was). And We knew all concerning him.

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا {92}
[Pickthal 18:92] Then he followed a road

حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْمًا لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلًا {93}
[Pickthal 18:93] Till, when he came between the two mountains, he found upon their hither side a folk that scarce could understand a saying.

قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجًا عَلَى أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدًّا {94}
[Pickthal 18:94] They said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Lo! Gog and Magog are spoiling the land. So may we pay thee tribute on condition that thou set a barrier between us and them?

قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا {95}
[Pickthal 18:95] He said: That wherein my Lord hath established me is better (than your tribute). Do but help me with strength (of men), I will set between you and them a bank.

آتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ حَتَّى إِذَا سَاوَى بَيْنَ الصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ انفُخُوا حَتَّى إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَارًا قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًا {96}
[Pickthal 18:96] Give me pieces of iron - till, when he had levelled up (the gap) between the cliffs, he said: Blow! - till, when he had made it a fire, he said: Bring me molten copper to pour thereon.

فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَن يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْبًا {97}
[Pickthal 18:97] And (Gog and Magog) were not able to surmount, nor could they pierce (it).

قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقًّا {98}
[Pickthal 18:98] He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord cometh to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.

وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَجَمَعْنَاهُمْ جَمْعًا {99}
[Pickthal 18:99] And on that day we shall let some of them surge against others, and the Trumpet will be blown. Then We shall gather them together in one gathering.

From the above you can deduce that a man named Zho El-Qarnyen ( of two horns) created a dam of iron to trap (Gog, and Magog) in until such a time when Allah should will them to be freed as one of the signs of the end-- the argument is about Zho _el -Qarnyen's identity-- some believe he is Alex the great... but many know that it couldn't have been... we may never know who he was some of us (me) believe it was prophet Solomon-- it is really inconsequential at this stage.. he was a righteous man ( Alex-- wasn't a righteous man-- nor a man of G-D)
We don't revere Alex the great from an Islamic point of view.. though there is no denying he was an important historical figure no more important than ghengis khan...

peace!
Reply

Keltoi
05-02-2007, 04:23 PM
I see. Well, he obviously had a major impact on the course of history, so it makes sense that people would look to prophecies that might have forseen his conquests.
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-03-2007, 12:26 PM
The reason Zul-Qarnain is not named, but refered to by a euphemism, is because the Qur'an only names the most important figures such as the prophets. Even those less important people named in the Torah, such as Eve, Sarah etc, are not named in the Qur'an, but refered to by their title or as somebody's wife etc. Solomon is a prophet in the Qur'an, and therefore could not be Zul-Qarnain, because he would be named as such.

Alexander is refered to in the prophetic writings of the Book of Daniel, but in the Qur'an, the account is historical, and as Alexander had a major impact on the history of the Middle East and the Jews in particular, it would seem rather odd that he is not refered to in the Qur'an. According to Jewish accounts, Alexander recognised a Jewish holy man from a dream and therefore deemed the Jewish people worthy of protection.
Reply

Malaikah
05-05-2007, 09:34 AM
:sl:

I would have thought that the fact that Alexander was not a pious man should be evidence enough that it could not be him?:?
Reply

جوري
05-05-2007, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

I would have thought that the fact that Alexander was not a pious man should be evidence enough that it could not be him?:?
It is sufficient to disqualify him-- but according to our dear bros. here -- since Jewish scriptures exalt him as a great man.. then he must be by default!
Each is to his own.

:w:
Reply

noodles
05-05-2007, 04:34 PM
Sheikh Ahmed Ali makes some good points in his "Gog and Magog" lecture, I invite you to listen to some of his points.

They rather seem reasonable for the likes of me and some others.

Here is a link where you me listen to it.
http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audi...og%20Part1.mp3
http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audi...og%20Part2.mp3

If any mod can convert that into the media player tags, I'd appreciate it.
It'd be much easier if people are able to listen to it here, instead of copying and pasting it :)
All about conveniance :p
Reply

Chuck
05-06-2007, 09:59 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Malaikah
I would have thought that the fact that Alexander was not a pious man...
We don't know if that is a fact. People here are basing there argument on stories written after Alexander's time which may or may not be true.

It is difficult to say who was Dhul Qarnain, and it is not really important. But for sure he was not Prophet Soloman (pbuh).

Here is another point of view on Dhul Qarnain:

The title Dhul-Qarnain ("The Two-Horned") should have been quite familiar to the Jews, for it was at their instigation that the disbelievers of Mecca put this question to Mohammad. Therefore one must turn to Judaic literature in order to learn who was the person known as "The Two-Horned" or which was the kingdom known as "The Two-Horned".... [it is in the Book of Daniel Chapter 8; see the source link]

.... As mentioned above, the first of these characteristics is easily applicable to Cyrus, for according to the Bible Prophet Daniel saw in his vision that the united kingdom of Media and Persia was like a two-horned ram before the rise of the Greeks. (Dan. 8: 3,"20). The Jews had a very high opinion of "The Two-horned" one, because it was his invasion which brought about the downfall of the kingdom of Babylon and the liberation of the Israelites (also refer to E.N. 8 of Chapter XVII).

The second characteristic is applicable to Cyrus to a great extent but not completely. Though his conquests spread to Syria and Asia Minor in the West and to Bākhtar (Balkh) in the East, there is no trace of any of his great expeditions to the North or to the South, whereas the Qur'an makes an explicit mention of his third expedition. However some historians do verify the probability of such a voyage. Nevertheless, this third expedition is not completely out of question for history tells us that Cyrus' kingdom extended to Caucasia in the North. As regards Gog and Magog, it has been 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 incursions on various 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 yet to be determined historically whether these were built by Cyrus.

As regards the last characteristic, Cyrus is the only known conqueror among the ancient rulers, to whom this may be applicable, for even his enemies have been full of praise for him for his justice, and, Ezra, asserts that he was a God-worshipper and a God-fearing king who set free the Israelites because of his God-worship, and ordered that the Temple of Solomon be rebuilt for the worship of God.

Thus in the light of the above, it is easy to conclude that of all the conquerors who had died 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.

The historical Cyrus was a Persian ruler whose rise began about 549 BCE. Within a few years he had conquered the kingdoms of Media and Lydia; by 539 BCE he had conquered Babylon. There was no powerful kingdom left to oppose him. His conquests extended eastward to Turkistan; westward to Ionia; northward to Caucasia--covering, in fact, much of the known civilized world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_t...%27an#Analysis

I think it is plausible that it was Cyrus, as he seems like a monotheist and a man of God (see bold part).
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-07-2007, 12:10 AM
Firstly, the association of the name 'two horned one' with Cyrus is so obscure as to not to merit consideration. The Qur'an is meant to be more accessable than that. Secondly, Cyrus's main contribution to the history of the Jews is the destruction of Babylon. This is not mentioned in the Qur'an with regard to Zul-Qarnain.
Reply

Chuck
05-07-2007, 07:06 AM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
Firstly, the association of the name 'two horned one' with Cyrus is so obscure as to not to merit consideration. The Qur'an is meant to be more accessable than that. Secondly, Cyrus's main contribution to the history of the Jews is the destruction of Babylon. This is not mentioned in the Qur'an with regard to Zul-Qarnain.
Brother, the Book of Daniel you were using to support Alexander, well it mostly supports Cyrus. There are some vague verses referred to Alexander, but he also have contradictory account in Jewish literature like charges against him of bringing Hellenistic culture to the Jewish capital and hostilities against the Jews by the Greeks. Another thing, regarding to Jews and Cyrus I think you are not reading, there is much more between Jews and Cyrus than the destruction of Babylon.
1. He was prophesied by Jewish prophets.
2. Jews consider him Messiah sent by God.
3. He freed Jews from slavery.
4. He started the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon.
5. He prayed/knelled with Jews toward God.
6. It is in Jewish Bible that God gave him power and resources to subdue nations and open gateways which is similar to what stated in Quran about Zul-Qarnain.



The personage of Cyrus the Great is unconditionally praised in the Jewish sources (as mentioned above). It is likely that, after the Persian conquest of Babylon, Cyrus had commenced his relationship with the Jewish leaders in exile,[2] and that he later was considered as a messiah sent by Yahweh.[3] Daniel was in the favor of Cyrus, and it was in the third year of Cyrus that he had the vision recorded in his tenth chapter.

Cyrus issued the decree of liberation to the Jews,[4] concerning which Daniel had prayed and prophesied.[5] The edict of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Second Temple at Jerusalem marked a great epoch in the history of the Jewish people. However, some of the non-Jewish peoples of Samaria hired counselors to frustrate the Jews from completing the rebuilding throughout the reign of Cyrus, Xerxes ('Ahasuerus'), and Artaxerxes, until the reign of Darius. The work recommenced under the exhortations of the prophets, and when the authorities asked the Jews what right they had to build a temple, they referred to the decree of Cyrus. Darius, who was then reigning, caused a search for this alleged decree to be made, and it was found in the archives at Ecbatana,[6] whereupon Darius reaffirmed the decree and the work proceeded to its triumphant close.

A chronicle drawn up just after the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus, gives the history of the reign of Nabonidus ('Nabuna'id'), the last king of Babylon, and of the fall of the Babylonian empire. In 538 BC there was a revolt in Southern Babylonia, while the army of Cyrus entered the country from the north. In June the Babylonian army was completely defeated at Opis, and immediately afterwards Sippara opened its gates to the conqueror. Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Kurdistan, was then sent to Babylon, which surrendered "without fighting," and the daily services in the temples continued without a break. In October, Cyrus himself arrived, and proclaimed a general amnesty, which was communicated by Gobryas to "all the province of Babylon," of which he had been made governor. Meanwhile, Nabonidus, who had concealed himself, was captured, but treated honourably; and when his wife died, Cambyses II, the son of Cyrus, conducted the funeral. Cyrus now assumed the title of "king of Babylon," claimed to be the descendant of the ancient kings, and made rich offerings to the temples. At the same time he allowed the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to return to their old homes, carrying with them the images of their gods. Among these populations were the Jews, who, as they had no images, took with them the sacred vessels of the temple.

Speculation abounds to the reasoning for Cyrus' release of the Jews from Babylon. One argument being that Cyrus was a follower of Zoroaster, the monotheistic prophet: Zoroastrianism played a dominant religious role in Persia throughout its history until the Islamic conquest. As such, he would feel a kindred spirit with the monotheistic Jews. Another possibility is the magnanimous respect he is ascribed to have shown to the diverse beliefs and customs of the peoples within his extended kingdom. As one example, upon the conquest of Babylon itself, it's recorded that he paid homage at the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk - thereby gaining the support of the Babylonian people and minimizing further bloodshed. While Jewish tradition, as described previously in Ezra1:1-8, indicates "the Lord inspired King Cyrus of Persia to issue this proclamation", the decree itself pays homage to Marduk and indicates the Jews would have been one of several displaced cultural groups allowed to return to their homelands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_i...tian_tradition

And why the association of the name 'two horned one' with Cyrus is so obscure as to not to merit consideration as compared to Alexander?
Reply

Chuck
05-07-2007, 07:37 AM
In any case, it is difficult to determine who really was Zul-Qarnain. In history, there are so far two candidates that comes close to the description: (1) is Cyrus, and (2) is Alexander.
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-07-2007, 10:47 AM
It is obvious why Alexander should be refered to as the 'two horned one' as this was the way he was portraied in Classical art, not to mention Greek coinage. As Islam had first adopted Alexander as 'Zul-Qarnain', this was also something considered obvious to many early Islamic scholars.

The Jews in fact, for the most part, innitially welcomed the Helenization of their culture, as they had never encountered anything like it before. Today anceint Greece is considered an enlightened masculine culture (outward looking) based on philosophy and reason, rather than a superstitious feminine culture (inward looking) based on irrational fear and hatred. It was only much later, under the totalitarian rule of Antiochus (a Syrian) that the Jews began to detest the Greek occupation.
Reply

abs
05-07-2007, 11:00 AM
i dont know all these people myself
Reply

Chuck
05-07-2007, 12:10 PM
It is obvious why Alexander should be refered to as the 'two horned one' as this was the way he was portraied in Classical art, not to mention Greek coinage.
The problem is Cyrus is also identified with two horns. See http://oznet.net/cyrus/original.htm

As Islam had first adopted Alexander as 'Zul-Qarnain', this was also something considered obvious to many early Islamic scholars.
They could have made a mistake as they were getting into Greek writings, which would have influenced their thinking.

The Jews in fact, for the most part, innitially welcomed the Helenization of their culture, as they had never encountered anything like it before. Today anceint Greece is considered an enlightened masculine culture (outward looking) based on philosophy and reason, rather than a superstitious feminine culture (inward looking) based on irrational fear and hatred. It was only much later, under the totalitarian rule of Antiochus (a Syrian) that the Jews began to detest the Greek occupation.
Sure there were Jews who welcomed it, but not the religious Jews as Hellenistic values go against both Judo-Islamic values.

Here is an article from Understanding Islam, maybe it will help:
The Qur’an relates the story of Zulqarnain (one with two horns) in Surah Kahaf. In fact the Qur’an relates three incidents in this Surah, and the story of Zulqarnain is one of them. These were apparently revealed in response to three questions asked by the Quraish. But actually the Qur’an responded to serve its own purpose of admonition. As to who was Zulqarnain, the Qur’an does not specifically mention any name or personality in history to be Zulqarnain. However certain hints are given which can be helpful in arriving at a decision as to who actually was Zulqarnain.

The first question in this regard is that which is the personality in history who fits the beliefs and characteristics of Zulqarnain and his different expeditions as mentioned in the Qur’an. Secondly, what was the importance of Zulqarnain for Quraish who asked about him? And if not for the Quraish then for any other group which was the direct addressee of Qur’an --- Jews and Christians. In fact these two questions are interrelated and cannot be viewed in isolation, that is, if a personality from history fits the charecteristics of Zulqarnain then we will also have to find out about his importance for any of the three groups mentioned above, for without any historic importance it seems illogical that any of the three groups instigated the question. Specially when the Qur’an responded with the words ‘they ask thee concerning Zulqarnain’. Only a personality with these specifications have a greater chance to be Zulqarnain

There are apparently two personalities in history before Islam who were great conquerors and ruled over vast empires as mentioned by Qur’an. These were Alexander the Greek conqueror and Cyrus the Persian conqueror. As far as Alexander is concerned the extent of his expeditions was towards the east and south, whereas Qur’an mentions Zulqarnain’s expeditions towards west, east and a third direction. Secondly when Qur’an talks about Zulqarnain, it shows him as a person believing in one God and the hereafter. He is also depicted as a kindhearted and just ruler. Now it is known about Alexander that he was a polytheist and no incidents of his kindness and justice are explicitly recorded in history. But as far as Cyrus is concerned we find out that the extent of his expeditions was towards west, east and north that is, after becoming the king of Persia, Cyrus went on different expeditions, ultimately conquering almost eighty percent of the civilized world at that time. He became the king of this vast empire stretching from Lydia (west) to India (east) and Bactria (north) to Babylon (south). Secondly history has explicitly recorded incidents of Cyrus’s extreme kindness and justice towards his subjects. In fact, these traits of his personality were so conspicuous that friend and foe equally acknowledged this fact. As regards Cyrus’s religion, he was a believer in Zoroastrianism, a new religion at that time, which existed with all its purity and spirit. The prophet Zoroaster who was probably contemporary to Cyrus preached belief in one God, the hereafter and all other basic good deeds that form a part of Divine religions. This answers our first question, showing that Cyrus comes very close to the narrative of the Qur’an. Now the second question will be answered in the light of the first.

As far as Alexander is concerned, there is no mention of him in the history of either the Quraish or the Jews and Christians in any manner which makes him significant for either of these groups. But as far as Cyrus is concerned we find out that though he had no significance for Quraish and Christians but Jews had a very special importance for him in their history. What was this importance of Cyrus for Jews? Anyone who is familiar with the Jewish history knows that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar conquered the kingdom of Judea in sixth century B.C and the Jews were taken to Babylon as captives. The temple of Jerusalem was plundered and desecrated. From then onwards the Jews remained in Babylon as captives for seventy years. During this time the Prophet Daniel was appointed in Jews. He was the Prophet who at one time, after receiving revelation from God in a dream, announced the coming of a savior of Jews---the one who would release them from the captivity of the Babylonians. In that dream the Prophet Daniel saw this savior as a ram with two horns (Zulqarnain---one with two horns) (Daniel 8:1-4). The two horns metaphorically showed the two kingdoms of Media and Persia united and ram depicting the savior himself showed him to be the conqueror and king of this united kingdom. This king was Cyrus. He was the one who afterwards conquered the Babylonian kingdom and released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to go back to their homeland and build the temple. It was because of these reasons that Jews held him in very high esteem and considered him as their savior as predicted by the Prophet Daniel. Apart from Prophet Daniel, Prophet Isaiah and Jermiah also foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, captivity of Jews and then release with the coming of Cyrus as the savior (Isaiah 44:26-28, 45:1-3) (Jermiah 50:1-3, 29:11). With this explanation it becomes clear that Jews had great regard for the Persian king Cyrus. This answers our second question that out of the three main groups who were the direct addressees of Qur’an---Quraish, Jews, Christians---Jews had a personality in their history who fits the description of Zulqarnain and they had great regard for him. This personality (Cyrus) happens to be the same, which we have alluded to, in the first question. This discussion makes it clear that Cyrus comes very close to the Zulqarnain of Qur’an.

Another interesting thing in this regard is that the commentators of the Qur’an have also generally believed that the Jews instigated the question. The above discussion verifies this notion also and it seems quite possible that actually the Jews instigated the question and the Quraish asked it on their behalf.

However, it would be pertinent to mention in brief the three expeditions and the wall built by Zulqarnain (Cyrus). Cyrus’s western expedition was the one, in which he conquered Lydia and the Lonian city-states on the western coast of Asia Minor. It is in all probability this expedition which the Qur’an mentions as the one in which he reached a place where he saw the sun sinking in water, metaphorically explaining the western direction of his conquest and his experience while standing at the shore of Mediterranean in western Asia Minor (modern Turkey). He must have had the same vision in front of him at that time. Next, Cyrus turned his attention towards the barbaric nomadic tribes of the eastern part of the Iranian plateau. It is probably this expedition which the Qur’an mentions as the one in which he conquered a people who had no cover for the rising sun, metaphorically explaining their nomadic life style and the eastern direction of the conquest. Lastly, the Qur’an talks about his third expedition. This is probably when Cyrus went to the northeastern part of his empire (Caucasus mountain range between the Black Sea and the Caspian sea) and built barriers to protect his people against the incursion of nomadic tribes who lived on the other side of the Caucasus range, and referred to as Gog and Magog in the Qur’an.

.... With this discussion in view we can conclude that in our opinion there is a greater likelihood that Cyrus the Persian king was the person mentioned as Zulqarnain in the Qur’an. However, it should always be kept in mind that Qur’an has not specifically mentioned any name, so we should also avoid saying that our opinion is final and the personality we found out to be Zulqarnain is exactly the one which Qur’an calls Zulqarnain. We should always talk about it in terms of our own understanding and knowledge, as the door for further research is always open.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-028.htm
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-07-2007, 12:59 PM
As an Emporor, there is no evidence that Cyrus went further afield than the confines of his Palace.

As mentioned earlier, the Jews do in fact honour Alexander the Great. The thing with Judaic prophetic writings (such as the book of Daniel) is that the same peice of literature can often apply to more than one time in history, a case of history repeating itself. The Jews have returned to Palestine more than once. The temple was destroyed twice, etc.

The notion that Greek ideas go against Judaic and Islamic principals is simply not true. Jewish ideology emphasizes the role of the community (family orientated cultures tend to be matriarchal). Ancient Greece was very much a masculine, community orientated society. Also the Qur'an advocates the notion of reason. Reason is regarded as a masculine faculty, as opposed to the emotions, which are feminine. As a result of Alexander the Great, Helenic ideas of philosophy and reason were spread across an ancient world of superstition, tyranny and wanten persicution, a thousand years before the advent of Islam.

With sectarian hatreds presently rife in Iraq, never before has a true understanding of what Islam stands for been more urgent.
Reply

Chuck
05-07-2007, 01:25 PM
Brother, those point have been answered already, regarding the book of Daniel. http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post731768

Here is an exceprt from Jewish site on Hellenistic culture:
Like all others in the region, the Jews bitterly resented the Greeks. They were more foreign than any group they had ever seen. In a state founded on maintaining the purity of the Hebrew religion, the gods of the Greeks seemed wildly offensive. In a society rigidly opposed to the exposure of the body, the Greek practice of wrestling in the nude and deliberately dressing light must have been appalling! In a religion that specifically singles out homosexuality as a crime against Yahweh, the Greek attitude and even preference for homosexuality must have been incomprehensible.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ry/Greeks.html
Reply

Chuck
05-07-2007, 01:30 PM
The most important thing that is missing from this thread, the message behind the story:

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 Zul- Qarnain? 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. Allah, however, not only gave a complete answer to their questions but also employed the three stories to the disadvantage of the opponents of Islam in the conflict that was going on at that time at Makkah between Islam and un-belief:

1. The questioners were told that "the Sleepers of the Cave" believed in the same doctrine of Tauhid which was being put forward in the Quran and that their condition was similar to the condition of the persecuted Muslims of Makkah. On the other hand, the persecutors of the Sleepers of the Cave had behaved in the same way towards them as the disbelievers of the Quraish were behaving towards the Muslims. Besides this, the Muslims have been taught that even if a Believer is persecuted by a cruel society, he should not bow down before falsehood but emigrate from the place all alone, if need be, with trust in God. Incidentally the disbelievers of Makkah were told that the story of the Sleepers of the Cave was a clear proof of the creed of the Hereafter, for this showed that Allah has the power to resurrect anyone He wills even after a long sleep of death as He did in case of the Sleepers of the Cave.

2. The story of the Sleepers of the Cave has also been used to warn the chiefs of Makkah who were persecuting the small newly formed Muslim Community. At the same time, the Holy Prophet has been instructed that he should in no case make a compromise with their persecutors nor should he consider them to be more important than his poor followers. On the other hand, those chiefs have been admonished that they should not be puffed up with the transitory life of pleasure they were then enjoying but should seek after those excellences which are permanent and eternal.

3. The story of Khidr and Moses has been related in such a way as to supply the answer to the question of the disbelievers and to give comfort to the Believers as well. The lesson contained in this story is this "You should have full faith in the wisdom of what is happening in the Divine Factory in accordance with the will of Allah. As the reality is hidden from you, you are at a loss to understand the wisdom of what is happening, and sometimes if it appears that things are going against you, you cry out, 'How and why has this happened'. The fact is that if the curtain be removed from the "unseen", you would yourselves come to know that what is happening here is for the best. Even if some times it appears that something is going against you, you will see that in the end it also produces some good results for you.

4. The same is true of the story of Zul-Qarnain for it also admonishes the questioners, as if to say, "0 you vain chiefs of Makkah you should learn a lesson from Zul-Qarnain. Though he was a great ruler, a great conqueror and the owner of great resources, yet he always surrendered to his Creator, whereas you are rebelling against Him even though you are insignificant chieftains in comparison with him. Besides this, though Zul-Qarnain built one of the strongest walls for protection, yet his real trust was in Allah and not in the "wall". He believed that the wall could protect him against his enemies as long as it was the will of Allah and that there would be crack and holes in it, when it would be His will : whereas you who possess only insignificant fortified abodes and dwellings in comparison with him, consider yourselves to be permanently safe and secure against all sorts of calamities."

While the Quran turned the tables on the questioners who had tried to "expose" the Holy Prophet, in the end of the Surah the same things have been reiterated that were stated at its beginning: "Tauhid and the Hereafter are absolutely true and real and for your own good you should accept these doctrines, mend your ways in accordance with them and live in this world with this conviction that you are accountable to Allah: otherwise you shall ruin your life and all your doings shall be set at naught."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau18.html

018.094 - 110 (YUSUFALI):
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?

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:

"Bring me blocks of iron." At length, when he had filled up the space between the two steep mountain-sides, He said, "Blow (with your bellows)" Then, when he had made it (red) as fire, he said: "Bring me, that I may pour over it, molten lead."

Thus were they made powerless to scale it or to dig through it.

He said: "This is a mercy from my Lord: But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it into dust; and the promise of my Lord is true."

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.

And We shall present Hell that day for Unbelievers to see, all spread out,-

(Unbelievers) whose eyes had been under a veil from remembrance of Me, and who had been unable even to hear.

Do the Unbelievers think that they can take My servants as protectors besides Me? Verily We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) entertainment.

Say: "Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds?-

"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?"

They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight.

That is their reward, Hell, because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.

As to those who believe and work righteous deeds, they have, for their entertainment, the Gardens of Paradise,

Wherein they shall dwell (for aye): no change will they wish for from them.

Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-07-2007, 02:13 PM
Further more, with regard to the Jewish religious establishment's attitude to Helenic ideas, they didn't much care for their Messiah either, with his doctrine of tolerance, who they conspired to have executed.

According to the Torah, before the fall (attributed to Eve) man existed in a state of shameless nakedness. After all, a requirement for clothes is born out of a self-awareness, given to humanity from the Devil according to the Qur'an. What is deemed titilating is purely a matter of perspective. If you find the idea of naked wresting men too much for you, that's your problem. It was not intended by the Greeks as a sexual spectacle.

With regard to homosexuality, in any case, it was never criminalized in the original Shariah as transcribed by Mohammed and is only mentioned in the Qur'an in the context of the sexual needs of married women being ignored. According to the Qur'an, Islam is the most tolerant of all religions.
Reply

Chuck
05-08-2007, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Laith Al-Doory
If you find the idea of naked wresting men too much for you, that's your problem.
It was not my quote, it was a quote from one of the most respected Jew site by the Jews. I do find it indecent, but my opinion about it is irrelevant for this topic.

Btw, I'm not here to debate, I just wanted to give balanced information on the issue. People can read the discussion and decide themselves which plausible personality in history would be most likely zul-qarnain.

I'm out of this discussion

:w:
Reply

Hemoo
05-08-2007, 09:23 PM
for every one who likes to read here is a good link:

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=22029&ln=eng

and the full text :

Question:
My worry is the propogation of false notions about quran by some christians through internet.i even sent a mail to the so called muslim to christians about their fabricated stories.i want to know what should be our response regarding alkexander the great whom they say according to history died young at 33 and in koran it states that he died at a ripe old age.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible to read the specious arguments that the Christians propagate on the internet or via other media, or to engage with them in religious disputes and debates, except for those who are qualified to do so, who have proof and evidence and who know how to present arguments. A number of scholars have stated that it is haraam to look at any of the books of the People of the Book, except for those who have deep knowledge, because we are commanded neither to believe nor disbelieve what they tell us about stories that are not present in our religion. There is no guarantee that the ordinary person who has no knowledge will not end up believing in falsehood and rejecting the truth. Moreover, man is weak and specious arguments may take root in the heart and it may be difficult to get rid of them. The following fatwa was issued by the Standing Committee:

“A great deal of distortion, addition and subtraction has befallen the previous divinely-revealed scriptures, as Allaah has stated, so it is not permissible for a Muslim to read them and study them, unless he is one who has deep knowledge and is seeking to explain the distortions and contradictions therein.” (3/311).

So whatever Christian books have come to you, you must hasten to get rid of them.

With regard to what you say about Alexander the Great, this is a specious argument which is indicative of the stupidity and ignorance of the Christians. We may respond to that from several angles, as follows:

1 – There is no mention in the Qur’aan of how long Dhu’l-Qarnayn (Alexander) lived, or of the era in which he lived.

2 – Dhu’l-Qarnayn who is mentioned in the Qur’aan is not Alexander the Macedonian or Greek who built Alexandria. This Alexander is the one who died at the age of 33, as mentioned in the Christian books. He lived 323 years before the birth of the Messiah (peace be upon him).
Dhu’l-Qarnayn who is mentioned in the Qur’aan lived at the time of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him), and it is said that he became Muslim at the hands of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him), and he went on pilgrimage to the Ka’bah walking. The scholars differed concerning him, as to whether he was a Prophet or a righteous slave and just king, but they agree that he was a Muslim, a monotheist (believer in Tawheed) and one who was obedient to Allaah.

The correct view is to refrain from stating what he was, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I do not know whether Tubba’ was a Prophet or not, and I do not know whether Dhu’l-Qarnayn was a Prophet or not.”
(Narrated by al-Haakim and al-Bayhaqi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 5524).

3 – The difference between this righteous slave, and the Macedonian Alexander who was a kaafir, is well known to Muslim scholars. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Badaayah wa’l-Nahaayah (1/493):

“It was narrated that Qutaadah said: Alexander was Dhu’l-Qarnayn and his father was the first of the Caesars, and he was one of the descendants of Saam ibn Nooh (Shem the son of Noah). As for Dhu’l-Qarnayn, he was Alexander son of Philip… ibn Roomi ibn al-Asfar ibn Yaqaz ibn al-‘Ees ibn Ishaaq ibn Ibraaheem al-Khaleel. This is the genealogy of him given by al-Haafiz ibn ‘Asaakir in his Taareekh. (He is known as) the Macedonian, the Greek, the Egyptian, builder of Alexandria, on the events of whose life the Greeks based their calendar. He came much later than the first Alexander. This was approximately three hundred years before the Messiah. The philosopher Aristotle was his minister and he is the one who killed Daar ibn Daar (Darius) and humiliated the kings of Persia and invaded their land.


We have drawn attention to him because many people think that they are one and the same and that the one who is mentioned in the Qur’aan is the one whose minister was Aristotle, which has resulted in a lot of mistakes and far-reaching corruption. The former was a righteous believing slave and a just king, and the latter was a mushrik and his minister was a philosopher. There were more than two thousand years between the two, so what comparison can there be between them? They are not alike at all and they have nothing in common, except in the mind of a fool who does not know anything.”

4 – The Christians have no information in their holy book about the second Alexander, let alone the first. All they have is the story of the visions of Daniel, which they claim refer to the rule of this infidel Alexander, and the division of his kingdom after his death.

5 – If we assume that there is a difference between what the Qur’aan says and what their book says about a person or an event, why should that be regarded as strange? There are many such differences, especially in the stories of the Prophets such as Ibraaheem (Abraham), Nooh (Noah), Loot (Lot), Moosa (Moses), Dawood (David) and ‘Eesa (Jesus) (peace be upon them). The Christians have no reliable and continuous chain of narration for this book in which they believe, and they know nothing about those who translated it. Moreover it contains dozens of contradictions which effectively nullify any claim to infallibility or to have been written with inspiration from the Holy Spirit. It is sufficient to note the contradictions in the genealogy of Jesus (peace be upon him)!

So how can we take what is in these distorted books as a standard by which to judge the Holy Qur’aan which is preserved by Allaah?!
And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Reply

Laith Al-Doory
05-08-2007, 10:27 PM
I do not base my observations on Christian sources, but the religion and culture of the ancient Greeks. Such disparagement of Alexander for being Greek shows remarkable ignorance. Your assumption that the Jews are the fountain of all wisdom and truth is plainly ridiculous.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-28-2013, 02:17 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 05:57 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2007, 01:24 PM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-26-2006, 01:43 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 03:52 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!