Dhul Qarnayn: Quranic Error?

format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya

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

Hi Nicola

format_quote Originally Posted by 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

format_quote Originally Posted by mirage41

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by mirage41

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by mirage41

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by Nicola

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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.)

format_quote Originally Posted by mirage41

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Nicola

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by mirage41

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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!