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?
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
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?
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?
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?
A person can't just say "dhul qarnayn isn't alexander". Then who is he? How come so many scholars believe dhul qarnayn is alexander? How come when I used to go to Khutbahs in Saudi Arabia they all say he's Alexander? The greatest evidence is the name "dhul qarnayn" it means two-horned, as in the ruler of the two halve, east and west. That imagery is only associated with Alexander, by the medievel greeks, persians and arabs too.
It just seems that in the 20th century we now conveniently avoid this rather embarrassing story.
What a man says can be wrong, if someone came up to you and said Tony Blair is George Bush's Brother (just an example), and the guy who came and said that to you was very knowledgeable, truthful etc.
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.
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?
the story of Alexander the great is a LOT different to the story of Dhul Qarnain in the Qur'an....getting them mixed up is a person's own fault there is a LOT of proof dat they are NOT da same people
A third century roman coin depicting Alexander with the horns of Amon.
REMEMBER: The imagery of the "horned" king is ONLY, i repeat ONLY associated with Alexander.
Another point: the Quran describes Dhul Qarnayn as reaching the end of the earth and seeing the sun sink into murky waters. There is NO OTHER KING that has the reputation of reaching the ends of the earth. Only Alexander is regarded as a conquerer who reached where the sun sets. (note: there is also a flat-earth error in this Quranic passage).
if your claims that Alexander isnt dul karnayan then how so is that a quraanic error? it would be a scholar error ......but I still think this is pointless to ponder over because as Allah has said in the 2nd ayaah of surah baqarah (dhaalikal kitaabu laa rayba fih) the meaning to my understanding is that "this is the book..in which there is no doubt"
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!"
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.
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?
Please, POINT BY POINT. One common method of weak arguments it to try to flood someone with points. Lets discuss ISSUE at a time.
I have read you web post. Now what? It doesn't really conculde much and its pretty sparse. Please don't just throw articles my way and expect me to gain something from that. Please actually quote specific points from that source. Thanks.
My friend, that is exactly what I have been doing. I have been responding to each of your posts one by one. It is you who has ignored several of my points.
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
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
Hello, and God's blessings upon you. With all due respect to your beliefs, you are mistaken 'Zhulkarnein' of the holy Koran is NOT Alexander the Great. It is Cyrus the Great, the famous Persian king of the Achamenid Dynasty (600?-541 B.C). Consider the following:
1- Alexander was not a monotheistic man. He was a blasphemer who worshipped the many gods of Ancient Greece. The Biography of Alexander, written by a famous Greek historian (Herodotus?) states that Alexander believed that he was the son of Zeus! This contradicts the Koran, which states that Zhulkarnein was a man of Godly faith. Also, Alexander was a lecherous womanizer of the worst kind, and was far from what you would call a gentleman (inspite of his military genius). He killed one of his generals in a drunken frenzy.
My personal objection to this point: As I mentioned above, Alexander is considered as a great person to the Jews and is like a Saint to the Christians. There is no proof that he was a Pagan. Also, regarding the "Womanizer" point, well, according to Islam, we believe in the Prophets of the Bible peace be upon all of them. They too were "Womanizers" if you wish to use this term, for many of them had literally hundreds of wives from all ages.
2- The Koranic verses in the 'AL KAHF' sura, which talk about Zhulkarnein, begin with the words: "And they ask you about Zhulkarnein..". Meaning that the Jews are asking the Prophet Muhammad about him. This means that this king was KNOWN TO THE JEWS, AND IS MENTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Alexander the Great is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor did he have any close relation with the Jews.
3-The word "qarn" in the Koran has one meaning and one meaning only: It means: People or Nation. Thus, he was called Zhulkarnein because he was a king of two peoples or two nations. Historically, Cyrus was of the Achamenid Dynasty, a dynasty of double throne. He was King of both the Medians and the Persians! He was the one who overthrew the Babylonian empire and permitted the captive Jews to return to their homeland and to rebuild their Temple. Thus, the Jews greatly revere and respect him.
My personal objection to this point: With all due respect dear brother Mark, but "qarn" in Arabic doesn't mean people or nation, and "Zhulkarnein" or "Dhul-qarnain" or "Zul-qarnain" doesn't mean the king of two peoples or two nations either. "qarn" in Arabic has two meanings: "horn" and "century". "Dhul-qarnain" could literally mean in Arabic: "The man of two horns" or "The man of two centuries". This "one word having multiple meanings" problem if you will, exists in English as well. Take for instance the word "trunk": It could mean the back of your car, and it could also mean the trunk of the Elephant.
4- It is Known that Cyrus' empire stretched for the western shores of Turkey in the west, to the flat and barren deserts near Northern India in the east (you may check any Encyclopedia to verify this). Also, the Northernmost boundaries of his empire are the Caucasus mountains, in present day Georgia. The region is full of Ancient Persian ruins of military fortifications and strongholds.
5- Geographically, the Caucasus mountains form a natural and almost impassable barrier that stood between the civilized kingdoms of central Asia, and the northern plain lands were the savage barbarian and nomadic tribes once roamed. Among the only natural passes through these formidable mountains is a stretch of open ground known today as "Daryal Pass". It is located north of Tiblisi, the capital of Georgia. The area is called: "doorway of Ghurash" (Ghurash is Armenian for Cyrus). The remains of a metallic rampart STILL STAND TODAY, as part of ancient Persian fortifications.
6- The technique used by Cyrus in building this 'wall' was not known to the people of the region way back then. (He received this technique from God himself!). Also, the great Greek historian Herodotus states, in his chronicles, that the Georgians were the first people in the world to have learned how to 'smelt iron'.....(strange coincidence, eh?).
All this evidence is overwhelming, and cannot be ignored.
If you understood it right, its an error by the translator. Its not an error in the Qur'an. Come on people! that was your best shot? I mean thats not even an argument to be discussed upon.
Subhanallah...these failed desperate attempts by the non-muslims is a proof that they have nothing to say about the Glorious Qur'an..so they come up with stupid qestions and try to proove themselves right. It's good at least you know now that the Qur'an does not have a dot worth of error in it - nor in its scripture - nor in its true meaning and wisdom.
if you say you are truthful then produce your proof.
The people who cry about freedom are slaves to their own desires. I am a slave of my Exalted and Merciful Rabb, Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Alhamdulillah
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks