Was Zul-Qarnain Alexander the Great?

[جوري]

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

 

[Laith Al-Doory]

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.

 

[جوري]

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..

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!

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!

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

 

[Laith Al-Doory]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[جوري]

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!

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[Laith Al-Doory]

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.

 

[Malaikah]

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

 

[جوري]

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.

 

[noodles]

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/Audios/Lectures\Ahmed Ali\/Ahmed Ali - Gog and Magog Part1.mp3
http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Lectures\Ahmed Ali\/Ahmed Ali - Gog and Magog Part2.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

 

[Chuck]

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_the_Great_in_the_Qur'an#Analysis
​

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

 

[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.

 

[Chuck]

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_in_the_Judeo-Christian_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?

 

[Chuck]

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.

 

[Laith Al-Doory]

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.

 

[abs]

i dont know all these people myself

 

[Chuck]

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
​

 

[Laith Al-Doory]

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.

 

[Chuck]

Brother, those point have been answered already, regarding the book of Daniel. http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/41763-zul-qarnain-alexander-great-4.html#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/jsource/History/Greeks.html