How modern Islamic scholarship, led by prominent Shia exegetes, connects the ancient Persian unifier to the Quran's greatest champion of divine justice.
With regards to Dhul Qarnayan, do you think it some kind of multiple choice question or a personal preference where every Muslim can choose to have their personal Zul Qarnayn? Some can choose Cyrus, some can say Darius, some will say Alexander .That is not how it works in the real world.
You can choose to reject whatever you want but historians are focused on what it actually is. We know 100% without any doubt, that Zul Qarnyan is based on Christian legends about Alexander the Great found in pre Islamic stories called Syriac Alexander legend.
Christians created these stories around Alexander as they wanted to appropriate a pre Christian famous king in their worldview so they invented these laughable stories where he is going to the end of the world and encountering Gog and Magog and trapping them behind an iron wall. These stories were very popular in the middle east. They were as popular as Batman and Superman are today. Luckily for Christians, they just used these stories as Christians legends and never incorporated them into their holy texts.
Unfortunately, for you Muslims, it became part of your divine revelations and the word of God, called the Quran, so you have no way to hide from this. If this was the hadith, you could have rejected it but it is not, it is as per your religion, a story told to Muhammad by archangel Gabriel which means Gabriel was dictating man made christian fairytales to Muhammad.
This basically shows that Muhammad was a 7th century Charlatan and a scammer who heard stories from Christians and turned them into divine revelations for his illiterate followers. The real Alexander was a Greek polytheist who did none of these things and all these stories were created around him centuries after his death.
There is not even a single western historian or any early Islamic scholar who agrees with you that Cyrus is Zul Qarnain. Cyrus himself was a die hard pagan even more than Alexander and Cyrus cylinder contains prayers to the Babylonian gods and Cyrus calls himself as being appoined by the god Marduk. All your early Islamic scholars who lived during the early period of Islam and were aware of this story, clearly say this is Alexander the Great. There is not even a single western historian who has analyzed the Quran who says this is anyone other than Alexander the Great.
The implication is much more serious for you Muslims. It annihilates your Quran's claims of being the word of God.
A thinker has taken the more dignified path above, and I respect that completely. But for the benefit of other readers passing through this thread who may want to see whether the commenter's "100% certainty" actually holds up to scrutiny, I'd like to address a few of the factual claims directly. Not to convince the commenter — A thinker is right that this isn't possible from where they're writing — but for everyone else.
1. On the Syriac Alexander Legend ("Neṣḥānā")
The thesis that the Quran borrowed from this text is associated principally with Kevin van Bladel (2007). It is a *hypothesis*, not a settled fact, and it has a serious internal problem.
Van Bladel himself dates the Syriac Legend to roughly **629–630 CE**, based on internal references that presuppose Heraclius's victory over the Sasanians. Surah al-Kahf is Meccan — revealed before the Hijra in 622 CE. You cannot borrow from a text that did not yet exist in its known form. To save the dependence thesis, its proponents must posit a hypothetical *earlier oral version* for which there is no manuscript evidence. The "100% certainty" rests on a conjectured lost source we cannot examine. Stephen Shoemaker and others have raised serious questions about how much weight that conjecture can bear.
2. The differences are as significant as the similarities
Even granting some shared Late Antique milieu, the Quranic account diverges from the Syriac Legend in ways that cut against simple borrowing:
- The Quran never names Alexander — odd, if it were copying his story.
- Dhul-Qarnayn is a strict monotheist who attributes everything to God; the Syriac Legend's Alexander is framed within Christian imagery, sometimes Christological.
- The geographical sequence, the moral logic, and even the construction details of the barrier differ.
- The Gog/Magog motif is centuries older than the Syriac Legend (Ezekiel 38–39, Josephus, apocalyptic literature). Shared motifs across the ancient Near East are not proof of literary dependence — they are the common cultural air everyone breathed.
3. The claim about early Muslim scholars is factually wrong
The commenter wrote: *"All your early Islamic scholars who lived during the early period of Islam and were aware of this story, clearly say this is Alexander the Great."*
This is simply not true, and it is easy to verify.
- Al-Tabari (d. 923) records multiple identifications, including a Himyarite South Arabian king.
- Ibn Hisham and **Ibn Ishaq** preserve the South Arabian tradition prominently.
- Al-Biruni (d. 1048) was sceptical of the Alexander identification.
- Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1209) discusses the disagreement without committing to Alexander.
- Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) was openly sceptical and noted that the Quranic profile does not match Alexander's well-known biography.
There was genuine disagreement from the earliest period, precisely because Alexander the polytheist Macedonian does not fit a monotheistic, God-fearing king. The "unanimity" asserted in the comment is a rhetorical invention.
4. On Cyrus and Marduk
The Cyrus Cylinder's invocation of Marduk is offered as a finishing move. It is not, and this point is well-trodden in Iranology.
The Cylinder is a political document — propaganda composed for a Babylonian audience to legitimise Cyrus's rule in their idiom. Adopting the religious vocabulary of a conquered city was standard practice across the ancient Near East. It tells us about Cyrus's statecraft, not his private theology.
The actual scholarly debate — Mary Boyce, Richard Frye, Pierre Briant — treats Cyrus's religion as *genuinely contested*, with substantial evidence pointing to Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian monotheism. The Achaemenids are firmly associated with Ahura Mazda. To call Cyrus "a die-hard pagan even more than Alexander" is not a historical statement; it is a slogan.
And here is the decisive point: the **Hebrew Bible itself** — written by Jewish contemporaries who scrutinised him — calls Cyrus God's *"anointed" (mashiach)* in Isaiah 45:1. He is the only non-Israelite ever given that title. If a strict monotheist prophet could honour him this way, the Quran is not breaking new ground.
5. "Not a single Western historian"
Also false. The Cyrus identification has been argued by:
- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, whose meticulous exegetical study laid the foundational case.
- Allameh Tabatabai in Tafsir al-Mizan
- Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi in Tafsir Nemouneh
- A range of contemporary scholars who have engaged with Azad's argument.
One may not find it persuasive. That is anyone's prerogative. But pretending no one has made the case is rhetoric, not history.
6. The methodological problem
The structure of the comment's argument is: *all experts agree, anyone who disagrees is wrong, therefore Islam is false.* That is an appeal to a false consensus, not historical reasoning. Serious scholars working on the Quran's engagement with Late Antiquity — Sidney Griffith, Gabriel Reynolds, Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai — are far more measured. They take the shared discourse seriously without leaping to polemical conclusions about the Prophet (S). That last move is not a historical finding; it is a pre-existing position dressed up as one.
7. On "Gabriel dictating Christian fairytales"
This phrasing is meant as an insult, but underneath it there is an actual claim worth answering: that the Quran's narrative material is borrowed from Late Antique folklore, and therefore cannot be revelation.
This argument is older than the commenter realises — it goes back to the Meccan polytheists themselves, who accused the Prophet (S) of being taught by a foreigner. The Quran answers them directly:
"We know very well that they say, 'It is only a man who teaches him.' But the tongue of the one they allude to is foreign, while this is clear Arabic speech."(Quran 16:103)
The objection assumes that any thematic resonance between the Quran and earlier traditions proves human authorship. But that logic, applied consistently, would also disqualify the Hebrew Bible (which engages Mesopotamian flood traditions, ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Canaanite poetic forms) and the New Testament (which engages Hellenistic literary conventions, Septuagint vocabulary, apocalyptic motifs). Every scripture in history speaks to its audience in a language and through references that the audience already understands. That is not a defect; it is how communication works.
The Islamic position has never been that the Quran descended into a cultural vacuum. It is that God, who knows His creation and its history, addresses humanity using the materials, motifs, and reference points already present in the world — and reframes them in service of *tawḥīd* (the Oneness of God). A figure remembered confusedly across cultures — Persian king, Macedonian conqueror, Christian saint-figure — is corrected and clarified in the Quran into what he actually was theologically: a just monotheistic ruler raised by God for a purpose. The Quran does not say *"this is the legend you've heard"*; it says, in effect, *"here is the truth behind what you've heard."*
Calling that "fairytales" is rhetoric. Engaging with it seriously is scholarship. The two are not the same.
---
The article stands: a Quranic figure described as a just, monotheistic king who liberates the oppressed and shields the vulnerable matches Cyrus the Great far more naturally than he matches the polytheist Macedonian of later Christian legend.
Disagreement is welcome. Certainty masquerading as scholarship is not the same thing.
Again wrong on many levels and did not addres many things I mentioned earlier.
1. No mention of where the physical location of the wall mentioned in the Quran:
As I had said, my position is easily falsifiable by Muslims presenting where the iron wall built by Dhul Qarnayn is. Muslims have never been able to and will never be able to produce or show where this so called wall is because it does not exist.
It is like trying to find Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry somewhere in Scotland. It is a religious fairytale and nothing else. Dhul Qarnayan is simply a Christian version of Alexander the great.
2. No pre Islamic Iranian evidence or manuscript or document to show that pre islamic Iranians were ever aware of any of this Gog and Magog myth:
There is zero pre Islamic Iranian literature in which they mentioned any of their Achaemenid kings ever building a wall to trap Gog and Magog. If Cyrus build anything like this. at least he or any of his subsequent successors like Darius or Xerxes will mention this? But nobody seems to have left anything behind.
There is only 1 person before Islam and around Islam, around whom we find these stories around and that is Alexander the Great. There is not even a single manuscript of this story where it is being associated with Cyrus.
3. Cyrus clearly mentioning his religious beliefs in the Cyrus cylinder
The author Ra'iyat al-Fikr mentioned that Cyrus cylinder is a propaganda text that somehow Cyrus's own words of his,praying to Marduk and including a prayer to Marduk does not count and somehow Cyrus was a monotheist of some kind. Cyrs clearly said that Marduk made him the kind of the world. He publicly affirmed marduk but never mentioned ahura mazda even though he may have been a follower of some early form of zoroastrian or Indo iranian religion.
Well you cannot ignore what a person himself is saying. If you are not going to take his own words, then on that basis why reject Alexander then? Alexander could also called him the son of Zeus for propaganda purposes but may have actually been a monotheist.
There is all other evidence that Cyrus was a much bigger pagan than Alexander. He believed in Marduk just like Alexander believed in Zeus. Cyrus repaired temple sto pagan gods in Mesopotomia like Alexander did and he also liberated the Jews and tried to rebulid their temple out of pure goodwill towards the conquered populations not because he had any special affinity for Jews. He makes no mention of Jews or the god of israel in any of his announcements. There is incontrovertible evidence that Cyrus supported polytheism and not monotheism of any kind.
4. The Hebrew bible is a Jewish theological interpretation of what Cyrus did not his own personal belief
Jews who were conquered and liberated by Cyrus saw him as God's anointed and him being chosen by yahweh. He never saw himself that way and never made any pronouncements that he believes in the God of Israel.
Importantly, even Jews do not make any mention of Cyrus going east and west and building a wall against Gog and Magog.
5. Cyrus died at the age of 70 and fought battles in modern Iran, Turkey, Iraq and central asia regions. There is no tradition of him going to conquer to different ends of the world as descrbed for Dhul Qarnayn.
Cyrus was likely killed in central asia. His campaigns are fairly attested and there is no evidence of him fighting any supernatural Gog and Magog during his life or building a wall to trap them.
6. Why are Muslim scholars claiming that Cyrus is Dhul Qarnayn?
Muslim scholars in the 19th century learned about the real Alexander the great and his life and clearly noticed the contradiction between his life and the Dhul Qarnayan character. Muslims had to save the Quran because this story clearly refutes the Quran's claim that the Quran is divine.
Muslims found Cyrus in the bible being called God's annointed by Jews and decided to adopt him as their new found Dhul Qarnayn. This is a dishonest and a theological attempt to save the Quran. Once Cyrus is conclusively proven to be a pagan (which he was), there will be a new Dhul Qarnayn, preferably someone whose identity can never be established. For ex: some Muslims say he was a pre islamic arab king just to somehow get the rid the Dhul Qarnayn issue.
7. Western and early Islamic scholars unanimously agree that Alexander the Great is Dhul Qarnayn:
We have pre Islamic manuscripts and strong evidence of presence of this story and tradition widely associated with Alexander before Islam. The following western historians have confirmed that Dhul Qarnayan is based on christian legends around Alexander the great:
1. Theodore Noldeke
2. Richard Bell
3. W. Montgomery Watt
4. Kevin Van Bladel
5 . Gabriel Said Reynolds
6. Sydney Griffith (Referred by Ra'iyat al-Fikr earlier)
7. Andrew Rippin
There is no western academic support for the theory that Dhul Qarnayn is based on Cyrus.
The Islamic scholars mentioned by Ra'iyat al-Fikr are Muslims theologians or apologists who tried to portray Cyrus as Dhul Qarnayn for theological reasons in their attempt to save the Quran.
The following are early Islamic scholars who all clearly identitfied Dhul Qarnayan with Alexander:
1. Al Tabari writing in 923 explicitly identifies Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander of macedon
2. Ibn Ishaq in 767 clearly identify Dhul Qarnayan with Alexander
3. Al Thalabi in 1035 does the same
4. As Masudi in 956
5. Al Zamakhshari in 1144
6. Ibn Kathir also reports that Alexander was Dhul Qarnayn in 1373 but has doubts since he seems to be aware that the historic Alexander was a pagan.
For close to a 1200 years, Dhul Qarnayan was Alexander the great for Muslims before the switch was made by some to make it Cyrus to defend the Quran.
6. Composition of Syriac legend and why Christological elements were made Islamic
The Quran contains all sorts of Christian fables like seven sleepers which is also noted in chpater 18 of the Quran. Quran also copies stories from infancy gospels like jesus talking in a cradle and making birds from clay which are all given an Islamic twist and changed from their original christian meaning to an Islamic one.
Again, the problem is that these stories are all Christian inventions and just merely stories that were just circulating around Christian communities but never part of the Bible. The Quran adopts these stories and turns them into divine revelations when these stories are false to begin with.
Same thing with Alexander, he has been turned into a monotheist by Christians and he was doing all sorts of magical stuff in these stories. The idea of him building a wall first and journey to end of the world developed like this
1. 3rd century CE: Alexander is travelling to the end of the world and encountering strange people. This was composed when Greco Romans were still pagan.
2. 4th- 6th century CE: Alexander becomes a monotheist after adopting of Christianity by the Roman empire. This was the first attempt to Christianize Alexander.
3. 6th-7th century CE (close to the time of Muhammad): The stories were already circulating orally and new fantastical stuff being added to it through oral storytelling which is how Muhammad and the early Muslims got this story.
New apocalyptic elements added to the story. Alexander builds a massive barrier to trap Gog and Mag and this wall will break down during end times. This is the version we find in the Quran. This is the full Dhul Qarnayn package that the Quran plagiarizes.
The gates of Alexander are also mentioned in pre islamic Byzantine era chronicles so again a strong pre islamic evidence of the story.
Thank you for taking the time read our Substack. Much appreciated.
You make many claims, you make them with great confidence, and that is sweet I'm sure, however - just being confident doesn't really make what you're saying accurate.
Since you are so aware of who Dhul Qarnain was and who he wasn't - and since you use your post to attempt to slur Prophet Muhammad, this is a reflection upon you my dear, and not a reflection on Prophet Muhammad or Islam.
Your pain is clear for all to see; clearly you have been upset or hurt by someone who professed to be a Muslim, and you take our your latent rage upon all Muslims and Islam, because you lack the wherewith-all to actually study.
Your claims are frankly laughable.
Let me validate my position. Since you know so much - are you familiar and au fait with the various languages? Arabic? Farsi? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? No I didn't think so - since the analogy you make is that characters like Dhul Qarnain are akin to 'Superman and your namesake 'Batman'.
Just because you are named for a fictional character created by the Media Industrial Complex, this does not mean that all is to be seen through your worldview.
You have your position; and while I respectfully disagree with it, I accept that you have a position; I simply pray that is it not - as is the inference from your phraseology - from a position of malice and hurt. I pray that it is based on actual research and knowledge, though to be honest, I doubt that is the case.
I could sit and debunk each of your claims, but there is no purpose in that, because whatever I say you will reject - until you come to terms with your own internal pain and anger.
I will pray ardently for your guidance as this is our way; we don't show malice to those who have different opinions to us; we accept that people are all on their own journey; and will get to their destination - and it will be the most perfect and best destination if they are righteous and truthful and if they abide by patience and diligence in their move towards the Truth.
Again respectfully, I would actually appreciate if you can refute my arguments. Attacking Islam or Muhammad is not a personal attack on you as an individual. You I am sure is a good person but we are talking about reality here. Claiming the Dhul Qarnayan is Cyrus is wrong and dishonest.
Embracing reality is beautiful and liberating and I hope you do as well!
My argument is easily falsifiable. You can find and locate the iron wall that Dhul Qarnayn/ Alexander the great built and prove that this story not a myth but a real historical event or you can show pre Islamic documents where this story is told about anyone other than Alexander the Great. Prove it if you can! I would actually love for you to refute my argument.
Alexander the Great is one of the most famous humans of all time. Stories about him as a conquerer in the middle east were quite common before Islam. The alexander romance was the most widely circulated stories during that time and were extremely popular in Middle east, Arabia and Europe.
Dhul Qarnayn is not a real person at all. It is a fictional character based on a mythical reimagined Christian Alexander the great. If he was real and done anything remotely similar to what the Quran described, we will have archaeologists and historians confirming this. We have evidence for all sorts of kings, emperor from 1500 BC onwards as there are coins, monuments supporting their reigns and their existence as real people. No such evidence for Dhul Qarnayn.
However we do have evidence of Alexander coins with him wearing 2 horns that were widely circulated in the ancient world, which is why he is called Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran. The funny part is that Muhammad had no clue who Alexander was, all he had heard was about this mighty ruler who had 2 horns and who travelled all across the world and was very famous, and Muhammad simply passed of this story as revelation from God without having no clue who this person actually is.
If Dhul Qarnayn was Cyrus then the Islamic regime of modern Iran can easily produce evidence from its pre islamic history where their great king Cyrus built a wall to trap gog and magog or produce some pre islamic iranian document to support the story? But have they never ever done that! They don't seem to because none exists.
Dhul Qarnayn is simply a religious fairytale. If you are an Iranian, which I assume you, you know your country's history and you know that your country was conquered by Alexander the Great who then went on to burn down Persepolis and you know very well from your own country's history that Alexander was a Greek polytheist who executed Zoroastrian priests. Your own country's history disproves the holy book you follow today.
You've asked to be refuted on substance, so let me take you at your word and do exactly that. I'll address each of your specific claims.
1. "Find the iron wall or concede it's a myth"
This is the wrong burden of proof, and I think you know it.
The Quran does not tell us where the barrier is, when it was built, or that it must still be standing in its original form. The text itself says Dhul-Qarnayn declared: "This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes, He will level it to the ground" (18:98). The barrier is not presented as a permanent monument; it is presented as something that will eventually be levelled. Demanding I produce a standing iron wall to validate the account is demanding evidence the Quran itself does not promise.
By your standard, we should also doubt the existence of:
Hammurabi's actual code stele as originally erected (we have a copy that ended up in Susa as plunder).
The historical Hanging Gardens of Babylon — no archaeological remains, sole evidence is much later Greek sources.
The Ark of the Covenant.
Solomon's First Temple — there is no direct archaeological evidence; we infer it from later texts.
Absence of an intact monument is not proof of non-existence. Ancient fortifications across the Caucasus — including in the Daryal Gorge and the Derbent Wall complex — do exist as ancient defensive barriers against northern nomadic incursions, and they are exactly the kind of structures classical and medieval geographers (Muslim and non-Muslim) associated with this tradition.
2. "Alexander coins with two horns prove he is Dhul-Qarnayn"
This actually argues against your case, not for it.
Alexander's two-horned imagery on coinage comes from his self-association with the Egyptian god Zeus-Ammon after his visit to the Siwa Oracle. The horns are a pagan religious symbol — Alexander claiming divine sonship from a polytheistic deity. If the Quran were copying this iconography, it would be praising a man who declared himself the son of a pagan god as a righteous monotheist. That is not a coherent revelation; that is a contradiction.
Cyrus, by contrast, ruled the Medo-Persian empire — symbolised in the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 8:3–4, 20) as a two-horned ram, with the two horns explicitly representing the union of Medes and Persians. The "two horns" symbolism for Cyrus is political and dynastic, not idolatrous. It fits a monotheistic profile. Alexander's does not.
So yes, both figures had two-horn associations. The question is which one's two horns are compatible with the Quranic description of a God-fearing king. The answer is obviously not the one claiming descent from Zeus-Ammon.
3. "Dhul-Qarnayn isn't real because there's no archaeological evidence"
You assert that "we have evidence for all sorts of kings and emperors from 1500 BC onwards." Correct — and Cyrus the Great is one of them. The Cyrus Cylinder, the ruins of Pasargadae (including his tomb, which still stands), the reliefs at Naqsh-e Rostam, Greek and Babylonian historiography (Herodotus, Xenophon, the Nabonidus Chronicle), and the biblical books of Ezra, Isaiah, and Daniel all attest to him.
So your demand "produce archaeological evidence for Dhul-Qarnayn" is satisfied the moment one accepts the Cyrus identification — which is precisely the position the article defends. You are arguing against the Cyrus thesis by demanding evidence that Cyrus, in fact, has in abundance. The argument refutes itself.
4. "Pre-Islamic documents only ever describe Alexander, never Cyrus, doing these things"
This is misdirection. The Quran is not claiming Dhul-Qarnayn matches a pre-Islamic legend; it is claiming he was a real historical figure described accurately. The relevant question is whether a real historical figure fits the Quranic description — not whether earlier legends about a different figure resemble the Quran's account.
And on that test, Cyrus fits remarkably well:
A king who united two peoples (Medes and Persians — the "two horns").
Campaigns to the west (Lydia, reaching the Aegean), east (Bactria, Central Asia), and north (the Caucasus).
Famous for liberating an oppressed monotheistic people (the Jews from Babylonian captivity — Ezra 1, Isaiah 45).
Honoured by a monotheistic prophet of God as God's "anointed" (Isaiah 45:1).
Recognised even by ancient Greek historians (Xenophon's Cyropaedia) as a model of just kingship.
Now compare Alexander, who:
Burned Persepolis.
Massacred populations at Tyre and Gaza.
Declared himself the son of Zeus-Ammon.
Executed Zoroastrian priests, as you yourself note.
Died at 32 from his own debauchery, having destroyed the religious heritage of an entire civilisation.
Which of these two men reads as "We established him in the land and gave him a way to everything" (18:84)? Which one says "As for the one who does wrong, we shall punish him; but as for the one who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best reward" (18:87–88)?
You are asking me to accept that the Quran praises, as a model of divine justice, the man who burned the religious capital of monotheism's eastern wing. That isn't reality — that's the position you're defending.
5. "If you're Iranian, your own history disproves your holy book"
I am not Iranian, but the argument is worth answering anyway because it cuts the wrong way for you. Iranian history does not disprove the Quran; it vindicates the Cyrus identification. The pre-Islamic Iranian who burned Persepolis was Alexander, the polytheist invader. The pre-Islamic Iranian who built the empire, freed the Jews, and was remembered as a just monotheistic king was Cyrus. Iranian history tells you exactly which of these two is plausible as a divinely guided ruler, and it isn't the Macedonian.
6. The shifting goalposts
Notice what has happened in this exchange. Your original comment claimed "100% certainty" that Dhul-Qarnayn is the Syriac Legend's Alexander. When the dating problem with that thesis was raised — that the Syriac Legend post-dates Surah al-Kahf — you did not address it. When the unanimity claim about early Muslim scholars was shown to be false, you did not address that either. You have now moved to "produce the iron wall or concede."
This is not how the pursuit of "reality" works. Reality is established by engaging with counter-evidence, not by raising the bar each time the previous bar is cleared. I have answered your arguments on substance. I would invite you to do the same.
1. Hanging garden of Babylon as well as the ark of the covenant have not been found for precisely the same reason that the wall of Dhul Qarnayn has never been found, because they are mostly all myths. Ark of the covenant is also not a giant iron wall, it is a religious storage chest.
Respectfully, Noah's ark is also a myth with no evidence outside religion. Archeology, genetics will prove the story if it was real but it is not. No Jews. and christians try to prove the story to be real.
Hanging garden of Babylon may have some iota of truth to it but again there is no evidence as of right now that it was real or it may just be some exagerrated storytelling around some real garden. There is nothing supernatural about it.
Noah's ark and Dhul Qarnain are explicitly supernatural stories. Dhul Qarnain's wall is supposed to be build of iron with evil tribes of Gog and Magog trapped behind them. There has to be evidence if it is real, if you cant find anything then it is simply a figment of human imagination.
I mean claiming Noah's ark or Dhul Qarnayn's wall is real is a much bigger claim that claiming there is no Babylonian garden.
2. Alexander with 2 horns and Cyrus with 2 horns:
Again, wrong on so many levels. You are desperate to prove that Cyrus is Dhul Qarnayn because you believe in Islam so much and want it to be true. You are very well aware of the theological implications of Dhul Qarnayn being copied from Alexander legends so I understand this strong resistance.
Alexander with 2 horns imagery are indeed of pagan origin but you expect people living during the time of Muhammad or 1-2 centuries before him (nearly 6-8 centuries after death of Alexander) to know that when those religions had literally ceased to exist? All people back then had about Alexander was that he was a great world conquerer and some legendary material around him and his face being on coins. The original real Alexander and his achievements were also lost but he was a legendary figure already by then with mythical elements added to him. He was famous globally as a legendary figure but his real life events had been lost before they were rediscovered later.
Alexander was and still is one of the most famous people of all time. Cyrus was completely forgotten globally and even by Iranians with not even a single reference to him in any Iranian text (including shahnameh) before he was rediscovered in the 19th century and that is when Cyrus became famous again.
Your argument is that the Quran is calling Cyrus Dhul Qarnayn for some reason when even Iranians never themselves did that and had completely forgotten about with no cultural memory around Cyrus.
3. Cyrus imagery with 2 horns has never been identified with Cyrus himself and is considered by many to be a Zoroastrian guardian angel. Again, there is zero association of the historical Cyrus with Dhul Qarnayn.
4. Again your points about Alexander committing atrocities, I agree he was cruel many times just like all conquerers are. Again, your arguments are emotional. You want the Quran to be true so much that you cannot digest that the same Alexander is described as a Muslim in the Quran.
Your whole argument rests on the claim that the Quran is true, there can nothing be wrong in it and therefore Dhul Qarnayn is not Alexander even though all the evidence suggests otherwise that he indeed is. Your arguments are based on emotions and not on facts.
5. My goal posts have not shifted.
I 100% state without any hesitation that Dhul Qarnayn is based on Christian legends about Alexander the great.
I have evidence on my side. My position is supported by all western historians, all your early islamic historians, there are manuscripts to support my position. We can clearly match the syriac alexander legend manuscript with the story found in the Quran and it matches 100%.
Your arguments are based on Quran is true and therefore I have to find someone to put in there to prove it to be true.
Respectfully mam, if God is not real and Quran is not true, you need to accept it and move on with your life without a God. No matter how hard you try, Allah will not become real, you cannot summon Allah into existence through your prayers.
Do your research, accept the truth and what it says and move on with your life. Praying to imaginary gods are a waste of time.
I'll address the new points, and then I'll be stepping back from this exchange — for reasons I'll explain at the end.
1. On the Hanging Gardens analogy
You concede the Hanging Gardens "may have some iota of truth" with no supernatural element, while insisting Dhul-Qarnayn's barrier must be a myth because it's "supernatural." But the Quranic description of the barrier is not supernatural. It describes iron, molten copper, and a mountain pass — entirely mundane construction materials. The eschatological element (Gog and Magog being released at the end of time) is a separate theological claim, not a claim about the barrier's construction. Ancient defensive walls against northern nomads exist throughout the Caucasus. You are conflating "I don't believe the eschatology" with "the barrier cannot have existed," and those are different arguments.
2. "Cyrus was completely forgotten, even by Iranians"
This is factually wrong, and confidently asserted falsehoods don't become true through repetition.
The Achaemenid memory was preserved in Greek sources (Herodotus, Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Ctesias) that circulated continuously across the ancient and medieval world.
The Hebrew Bible — read continuously by Jews and Christians across the Middle East throughout late antiquity — names Cyrus explicitly and praises him in Isaiah, Ezra, and 2 Chronicles. To claim "Cyrus was forgotten" while the Bible was being read in every synagogue and church across the region is simply not credible.
The tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae stood — and still stands — visibly, continuously, throughout the Islamic period. It was known locally as Mashhad-e Madar-e Sulaiman ("the Tomb of Solomon's Mother") in Islamic times, indicating that the monument was never lost; only its original attribution shifted.
The Shahnameh concerns the legendary-mythological Kayanian dynasty, not a comprehensive history of all Iranian kings — its silence on Cyrus reflects its narrative scope, not "forgetting."
The claim that Cyrus was unknown until 19th-century European archaeology is a popular internet talking point. It is not history.
3. "The two-horn imagery has never been identified with Cyrus himself"
The two-horned figure in the relief at Pasargadae is debated among Iranologists — some identify it as Cyrus, some as a fravashi (guardian spirit), some as a syncretic royal-divine image. "Debated" is not "disproven." Meanwhile, the two-horned ram of Daniel 8 explicitly represents the Medo-Persian empire (Daniel 8:20 — "the ram which you saw, having the two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia"). This is a Jewish text, written by people contemporary with the Achaemenids, identifying the Medo-Persian dual monarchy with two-horn symbolism. That is not a coincidence I am inventing to defend the Quran.
4. "Your arguments are emotional"
You have made this charge three times now without rebutting any of the specific evidence offered: the dating problem with the Syriac Legend, the named early Muslim scholars who rejected Alexander, the Zeus-Ammon problem, the Daniel 8 two-horn parallel, Isaiah 45:1, the Cyropaedia, the Cyrus Cylinder. Calling counter-evidence "emotional" is not a refutation. It is an attempt to dismiss what you cannot answer.
Meanwhile, your own position rests on:
A hypothesised oral version of a text that didn't exist in writing yet (the Syriac Legend predating 622 CE).
A claim of unanimous early Muslim agreement that is demonstrably false.
A claim that Cyrus was "forgotten" that ignores the entire Greco-Roman and biblical historiographical tradition.
The assumption that any thematic resonance with prior literature proves human authorship — a standard that would also disqualify the Hebrew Bible.
I leave it to other readers to judge which side is reasoning from evidence and which from prior commitment.
5. On the closing remarks
You ended your reply not with a historical argument, but with religious instruction: that I should "accept" there is no God, that prayer is "a waste of time," that I should "move on with my life without a God." This is preaching, not scholarship. You are entitled to your worldview. You are not entitled to dress it up as the conclusion of a historical inquiry.
I notice that the conversation began with you accusing Muslims of believing on insufficient evidence, and has ended with you asking me to abandon belief on the basis of arguments that, on examination, do not hold up. The asymmetry should give you pause.
I have answered your arguments substantively three times now. The points stand on the record for any reader to weigh. I'll let you have the last word if you wish — but I won't be continuing past this. Not from defeat, but because the exchange has stopped being about Dhul-Qarnayn and become an invitation to abandon faith, which is not something a comment thread will accomplish in either direction.
While I do not agree with the tone of the other person, he is 100% accurate here.
This story of Zul Qarnayn is clearly a retelling of Alexander the Great of Macedon and these were stories made up by Christians in the Middle East. That is the consensus of all historians who have read the Quran and this is a 100% confirmed fact. There is literally no one else that fits.
Do you have secular historians and not theologians to support your claim that this is Cyrus? Is there any Persian record to support the claim that Cyrus built an iron wall? Where is this wall, and where are Gog and Magog?
The Syriac version of the story existed well before Islam and was widely in circulation during the time of Muhammad and that story totally matches the one found in the Quran. Do you any explanations for that? Why would Allah the supposed God of the universe take a man made fable about Alexander and dictate it to Muhammad? Also, the sleepers story in the Quran is also a Christian legend. The story is about Christian youths who miraculously slept in a cave for ~200 years to escape Roman persecution (c. 250 CE) under Emperor Decius, awakening during Theodosius II's reign (c. 435 CE).
As great the story is, it is not true and is imply a religious story and again why is this myth in the Quran? Is Allah not able to distinguish between fact and fiction? Why is Allah copying Christian tales or is it Muhammad? You should ask yourself that question.
The sources you mention in your article are Shia scholars and theologians. Who can take them seriously? They obviously have an agenda. Theologians are not historians. They want to prove the truth of Islam. They will make up stuff as they see fit.
Can you prove Zul Qarnayn is Cyrus without referring to anything supernatural and purely through history? Where is the wall if it is true? Where is the place where sun sets in a muddy pool? We know Cyrus campaigned in Middle East, Persia and Central Asia. Where is this place? The answer to all these questions is, there isn't one.
Zul Qarnayn is an extremely silly and laughable story and its presence in the Quran clearly shows the man made origins of the Quran. Quran is not the word of any kind of a God. It is the handiwork of 7th century Arab tribesmen who copied stuff from all different sources. They plagiarized extensively from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.
You really need to realise that there is much that you do not know. I am not here to correct your ideas - that is something that only God can do.
My background and origin is of no consequence; and wherever I am from doesn't prove or disprove anything, indeed it entirely lacks relevance.
Your interpretation - flawed that it is, because you failed to answer my point about which languages you are a master in - for my part, I am fluent in Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, and am well versed with Greek and Aramaic - being a student in the Islamic Seminary in Qom teaches you a lot of such things.
Listen my dear, your insistence that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander is invalid - it is incorrect - it has been debunked and Ra'iyat a-Fikr the author of this write-up has clearly educated you in her post below - which I respectful as you to learn from.
Whether you accept what is said, whether you accept that the Quran is the - as per the Islamic belief, the word of God (as are the Bible and the Torah - though in their current forms they carry many errors, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of our discussion), whether you accept the thesis that Dhul Qarnayan is not Alexander but that it is Cyrus, this is also neither here nor there.
It is your opinion; and that is all it is.
Our write-up is grounded in facts, in research and in the teachings of actual scholars - yours is, well I'm sure its grounding in something more than the acute anger that lies latent within your heart.
What has hurt you so tragically my dear? Why do you bear such malice, that even when you don't intend it, it falls out of your very words?
Fine, you don't accept our thesis on Dhul Qarnayn - okay, and? Has the world come to an end? Has he sky fallen? Okay, so Mr Batman has refused to accept this; and he feels it is a fairy story, and that it is as he has described it.
Wonderful, I'm happy for you.
We do not come to try and insult what you believe, yet from your first comment you insulted and abused Prophet Muhammad. Is this fair? You can disagree with him, you can disagree with Islam, that is your prerogative; I would try to educate you if you were receptive and open minded; but that is clearly something that yet has to be worked on by yourself.
I am not interested in a to-and-fro dialogue with you on this subject as it is to be very honest pointless - you have hard latent biases that make you think your position - based on whatever it is based on - is entirely accurate and beyond reproach.
For my part, I do not have the time to sit and explain to someone who has started the discussion from the perspective of being insulting an uncouth.
Therefore; as I said before - I genuinely will pray for you; as this is what our Prophet Muhammad taught us; and what the Quran teaches us:
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
- Romans 12:18
That should give you pause my dear; and I invite you to reflect deeply on your inner self and that which burns your heart up and that is clear for all to see.
The malice and hatred you carry for Islam and for Prophet Muhammad has no impact on either Islam nor Prophet Muhammad; but it burns your very soul, and harms only yourself.
I am ready to engage in detailed discussions with you - but there is a key condition - you must be genuine, you must be at all times respectful and never insulting or abusive about Islam, about the Prophet - or any Prophet or revered personality - as that was one of the crimes of those form the Children of Israel who turned to the worship of Ba'al and became from the greatest of losers.
I therefore bid you good day and peace, and genuinely I will pray for you; that whatever hurt and pain inhabits your soul is alleviated and removed and that your heart is opened - not because I want you to become a Muslim, no, that is not my task, nor is it something I can do; that is upon Him, He guides who He wishes to the right way:
"Be confident with all your heart in God, and do not exalt yourself in your own wisdom; in all your ways acknowledge Him, that He may rightly direct your paths."
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
- John 6:44
I will only engage with you if you are respectful and show you have honour; I have outlined my terms below. It is quite simple.
Should you decide you wish to engage in an honest and respectful dialog; you can contact me by DM and let us see - but I will not tolerate your insulting and abusive words about Prophet Muhammad or Islam.
So before any dialog can take place - you will need to publicly recant your insults and abusive and arrogant tone, this is because your insult and abusive words were made in public and as a result your apology and recanting them must too be public. This is the only fair way.
If you are able to do that; then I will consider that you are a truly sincere person who is seeking the Truth; and then I am duty bound to engage with you.
Yes sure happy to connect. Saying that Muhammad or the Quran plagiarized stuff from some external sources is not attacking you. You have to accept that I cannot make my argument that the Quran is man made without saying all that as that is my whole point. If Quran is not divine, then it is borrowed from somewhere else.
You need to have a thick skin with regards to that. I promise I will not abuse Muhammad but I am happy to connect and discus this.
Obviously, I completely disagree with your research. You did not provide any resources fore your conclusion. You are trying to prove Islam from theological lens and not based on any real research. The whole Cyrus identification is based on trying to prove Islam as many Muslims find it embarrassing to admit that the Quran contains legends and fairytales and the Alexander legend is testament to that.
Again, I have no hatred for you as a human being and wish the best for you. I do not believe in any God but I wish the best for you regardless.
Let me know if you still want to connect. You can DM me.
One important thing. If you choose not to believe in God; why then would you 'waste your time' reading and commenting on a site that is clearly a site that does believe in God?
Surely you can't be so arrogant as to think you can 'convert' people - and no I'm not interested in converting you - that is not what we do.
We discuss, and we do so respectfully.
You have failed in that - hence I refuse to continue to engage with you until you provide a public and formal appology for your dispicable and abusive words regarding God, His prophet, His book and Islam (and by extension any other faith).
You can disagree and not follow them - that is your perogative as I said - what you cannot do is belittle them and those who follow them.
If you can't understand that - then with respect; you have far greater problems.
With prayers for your guidance and success should you be guided and should you learn some humility.
The reason I responded because you are falsely claiming that Dhul Qarnayn is Cyrus when he is clearly Alexander so a response is warranted.
Obviously I am not going to apologize for abusing an imaginary non existent God (Allah) and insulting a person (Mohammad) who in my view plagiarized stories from Christians and Jews and passed them off as divine revelations and created a system of oppression which affects millions of people today.
I as an atheist cannot be expected to respect a religious prophet. That is absurd. However, I can be civil when the other person is as well.
If you don't want to continue the conversation, that is totally cool with me. At the end of the day, I am not wasting my time on evil man made myths, you are. I don't pray to imaginary gods, you do.
"And the servants of God, the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, 'Peace!'"
- Quran, Surah Al-Furqan (the Chapter of the Criterion) #25, Verse 63
I really have very little to say to you.
And yes - you insulting Prophet Muhammad - and the Quran and Islam - just because in your opinion (and that is all that it is) it is invalid - though I am certain your position is from a position of ignorance as no wise person would behave and speak as you do.
I could sit and insult your lack of belief, your notion that your existance is but a 'chance' of nature; and we could go into that philosophical discussion - including Pascal's well known argument - but you - honestly speaking from what I can see - lack the sincerity and genuine desire to learn and reflect.
You have a position - one that is clearly built upon historical abuse and misconceptions that you have suffered and been subjected to; and until - with the utmost of respect - you get over yourself - there is no purpose in engaging with you further.
To you your way; to us ours.
Again, I will continue to pray for your guidance - as it makes me sad to see one in such abject loss and confusion, filled with such malice and hate, and I pray that you are guided, but that is only going to happen if you - as I said - get over yourself, realise you know very little (only an ignorant person things he/she knows anything - a wise person knows that he/she knows nothing and is constantly learning and ready to engage with the learned ones - even if they disagree.
Sadly, I do not - based on your illogical and confused discourse - do not consider you from those with wisdom or intelligence.
But I pray for your guidance.
I wish you well - and pray that you overcome that which is buring you up from the inside.
May He guide you if that is possible, and if you open your heart and soul to His guidance; and if you choose not to; well that is also your choice and you will continue to flail around in the darkness of your own making.
I think this discourse is now pointless and I will not be engaging further with you, unless you exhibit a major change of position or heart - and as I said - apologise for your insulting and abusive words against Islam, Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. I refuse to engage with people who can't argue anything but choose to abuse and insult from a position that can only be described as abject ignorance.
With regards to Dhul Qarnayan, do you think it some kind of multiple choice question or a personal preference where every Muslim can choose to have their personal Zul Qarnayn? Some can choose Cyrus, some can say Darius, some will say Alexander .That is not how it works in the real world.
You can choose to reject whatever you want but historians are focused on what it actually is. We know 100% without any doubt, that Zul Qarnyan is based on Christian legends about Alexander the Great found in pre Islamic stories called Syriac Alexander legend.
Christians created these stories around Alexander as they wanted to appropriate a pre Christian famous king in their worldview so they invented these laughable stories where he is going to the end of the world and encountering Gog and Magog and trapping them behind an iron wall. These stories were very popular in the middle east. They were as popular as Batman and Superman are today. Luckily for Christians, they just used these stories as Christians legends and never incorporated them into their holy texts.
Unfortunately, for you Muslims, it became part of your divine revelations and the word of God, called the Quran, so you have no way to hide from this. If this was the hadith, you could have rejected it but it is not, it is as per your religion, a story told to Muhammad by archangel Gabriel which means Gabriel was dictating man made christian fairytales to Muhammad.
This basically shows that Muhammad was a 7th century Charlatan and a scammer who heard stories from Christians and turned them into divine revelations for his illiterate followers. The real Alexander was a Greek polytheist who did none of these things and all these stories were created around him centuries after his death.
There is not even a single western historian or any early Islamic scholar who agrees with you that Cyrus is Zul Qarnain. Cyrus himself was a die hard pagan even more than Alexander and Cyrus cylinder contains prayers to the Babylonian gods and Cyrus calls himself as being appoined by the god Marduk. All your early Islamic scholars who lived during the early period of Islam and were aware of this story, clearly say this is Alexander the Great. There is not even a single western historian who has analyzed the Quran who says this is anyone other than Alexander the Great.
The implication is much more serious for you Muslims. It annihilates your Quran's claims of being the word of God.
In His Name, the Most High.
A thinker has taken the more dignified path above, and I respect that completely. But for the benefit of other readers passing through this thread who may want to see whether the commenter's "100% certainty" actually holds up to scrutiny, I'd like to address a few of the factual claims directly. Not to convince the commenter — A thinker is right that this isn't possible from where they're writing — but for everyone else.
1. On the Syriac Alexander Legend ("Neṣḥānā")
The thesis that the Quran borrowed from this text is associated principally with Kevin van Bladel (2007). It is a *hypothesis*, not a settled fact, and it has a serious internal problem.
Van Bladel himself dates the Syriac Legend to roughly **629–630 CE**, based on internal references that presuppose Heraclius's victory over the Sasanians. Surah al-Kahf is Meccan — revealed before the Hijra in 622 CE. You cannot borrow from a text that did not yet exist in its known form. To save the dependence thesis, its proponents must posit a hypothetical *earlier oral version* for which there is no manuscript evidence. The "100% certainty" rests on a conjectured lost source we cannot examine. Stephen Shoemaker and others have raised serious questions about how much weight that conjecture can bear.
2. The differences are as significant as the similarities
Even granting some shared Late Antique milieu, the Quranic account diverges from the Syriac Legend in ways that cut against simple borrowing:
- The Quran never names Alexander — odd, if it were copying his story.
- Dhul-Qarnayn is a strict monotheist who attributes everything to God; the Syriac Legend's Alexander is framed within Christian imagery, sometimes Christological.
- The geographical sequence, the moral logic, and even the construction details of the barrier differ.
- The Gog/Magog motif is centuries older than the Syriac Legend (Ezekiel 38–39, Josephus, apocalyptic literature). Shared motifs across the ancient Near East are not proof of literary dependence — they are the common cultural air everyone breathed.
3. The claim about early Muslim scholars is factually wrong
The commenter wrote: *"All your early Islamic scholars who lived during the early period of Islam and were aware of this story, clearly say this is Alexander the Great."*
This is simply not true, and it is easy to verify.
- Al-Tabari (d. 923) records multiple identifications, including a Himyarite South Arabian king.
- Ibn Hisham and **Ibn Ishaq** preserve the South Arabian tradition prominently.
- Al-Biruni (d. 1048) was sceptical of the Alexander identification.
- Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1209) discusses the disagreement without committing to Alexander.
- Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) was openly sceptical and noted that the Quranic profile does not match Alexander's well-known biography.
There was genuine disagreement from the earliest period, precisely because Alexander the polytheist Macedonian does not fit a monotheistic, God-fearing king. The "unanimity" asserted in the comment is a rhetorical invention.
4. On Cyrus and Marduk
The Cyrus Cylinder's invocation of Marduk is offered as a finishing move. It is not, and this point is well-trodden in Iranology.
The Cylinder is a political document — propaganda composed for a Babylonian audience to legitimise Cyrus's rule in their idiom. Adopting the religious vocabulary of a conquered city was standard practice across the ancient Near East. It tells us about Cyrus's statecraft, not his private theology.
The actual scholarly debate — Mary Boyce, Richard Frye, Pierre Briant — treats Cyrus's religion as *genuinely contested*, with substantial evidence pointing to Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian monotheism. The Achaemenids are firmly associated with Ahura Mazda. To call Cyrus "a die-hard pagan even more than Alexander" is not a historical statement; it is a slogan.
And here is the decisive point: the **Hebrew Bible itself** — written by Jewish contemporaries who scrutinised him — calls Cyrus God's *"anointed" (mashiach)* in Isaiah 45:1. He is the only non-Israelite ever given that title. If a strict monotheist prophet could honour him this way, the Quran is not breaking new ground.
5. "Not a single Western historian"
Also false. The Cyrus identification has been argued by:
- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, whose meticulous exegetical study laid the foundational case.
- Allameh Tabatabai in Tafsir al-Mizan
- Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi in Tafsir Nemouneh
- A range of contemporary scholars who have engaged with Azad's argument.
One may not find it persuasive. That is anyone's prerogative. But pretending no one has made the case is rhetoric, not history.
6. The methodological problem
The structure of the comment's argument is: *all experts agree, anyone who disagrees is wrong, therefore Islam is false.* That is an appeal to a false consensus, not historical reasoning. Serious scholars working on the Quran's engagement with Late Antiquity — Sidney Griffith, Gabriel Reynolds, Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai — are far more measured. They take the shared discourse seriously without leaping to polemical conclusions about the Prophet (S). That last move is not a historical finding; it is a pre-existing position dressed up as one.
7. On "Gabriel dictating Christian fairytales"
This phrasing is meant as an insult, but underneath it there is an actual claim worth answering: that the Quran's narrative material is borrowed from Late Antique folklore, and therefore cannot be revelation.
This argument is older than the commenter realises — it goes back to the Meccan polytheists themselves, who accused the Prophet (S) of being taught by a foreigner. The Quran answers them directly:
"We know very well that they say, 'It is only a man who teaches him.' But the tongue of the one they allude to is foreign, while this is clear Arabic speech."(Quran 16:103)
The objection assumes that any thematic resonance between the Quran and earlier traditions proves human authorship. But that logic, applied consistently, would also disqualify the Hebrew Bible (which engages Mesopotamian flood traditions, ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Canaanite poetic forms) and the New Testament (which engages Hellenistic literary conventions, Septuagint vocabulary, apocalyptic motifs). Every scripture in history speaks to its audience in a language and through references that the audience already understands. That is not a defect; it is how communication works.
The Islamic position has never been that the Quran descended into a cultural vacuum. It is that God, who knows His creation and its history, addresses humanity using the materials, motifs, and reference points already present in the world — and reframes them in service of *tawḥīd* (the Oneness of God). A figure remembered confusedly across cultures — Persian king, Macedonian conqueror, Christian saint-figure — is corrected and clarified in the Quran into what he actually was theologically: a just monotheistic ruler raised by God for a purpose. The Quran does not say *"this is the legend you've heard"*; it says, in effect, *"here is the truth behind what you've heard."*
Calling that "fairytales" is rhetoric. Engaging with it seriously is scholarship. The two are not the same.
---
The article stands: a Quranic figure described as a just, monotheistic king who liberates the oppressed and shields the vulnerable matches Cyrus the Great far more naturally than he matches the polytheist Macedonian of later Christian legend.
Disagreement is welcome. Certainty masquerading as scholarship is not the same thing.
Peace.
Again wrong on many levels and did not addres many things I mentioned earlier.
1. No mention of where the physical location of the wall mentioned in the Quran:
As I had said, my position is easily falsifiable by Muslims presenting where the iron wall built by Dhul Qarnayn is. Muslims have never been able to and will never be able to produce or show where this so called wall is because it does not exist.
It is like trying to find Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry somewhere in Scotland. It is a religious fairytale and nothing else. Dhul Qarnayan is simply a Christian version of Alexander the great.
2. No pre Islamic Iranian evidence or manuscript or document to show that pre islamic Iranians were ever aware of any of this Gog and Magog myth:
There is zero pre Islamic Iranian literature in which they mentioned any of their Achaemenid kings ever building a wall to trap Gog and Magog. If Cyrus build anything like this. at least he or any of his subsequent successors like Darius or Xerxes will mention this? But nobody seems to have left anything behind.
There is only 1 person before Islam and around Islam, around whom we find these stories around and that is Alexander the Great. There is not even a single manuscript of this story where it is being associated with Cyrus.
3. Cyrus clearly mentioning his religious beliefs in the Cyrus cylinder
The author Ra'iyat al-Fikr mentioned that Cyrus cylinder is a propaganda text that somehow Cyrus's own words of his,praying to Marduk and including a prayer to Marduk does not count and somehow Cyrus was a monotheist of some kind. Cyrs clearly said that Marduk made him the kind of the world. He publicly affirmed marduk but never mentioned ahura mazda even though he may have been a follower of some early form of zoroastrian or Indo iranian religion.
Well you cannot ignore what a person himself is saying. If you are not going to take his own words, then on that basis why reject Alexander then? Alexander could also called him the son of Zeus for propaganda purposes but may have actually been a monotheist.
There is all other evidence that Cyrus was a much bigger pagan than Alexander. He believed in Marduk just like Alexander believed in Zeus. Cyrus repaired temple sto pagan gods in Mesopotomia like Alexander did and he also liberated the Jews and tried to rebulid their temple out of pure goodwill towards the conquered populations not because he had any special affinity for Jews. He makes no mention of Jews or the god of israel in any of his announcements. There is incontrovertible evidence that Cyrus supported polytheism and not monotheism of any kind.
4. The Hebrew bible is a Jewish theological interpretation of what Cyrus did not his own personal belief
Jews who were conquered and liberated by Cyrus saw him as God's anointed and him being chosen by yahweh. He never saw himself that way and never made any pronouncements that he believes in the God of Israel.
Importantly, even Jews do not make any mention of Cyrus going east and west and building a wall against Gog and Magog.
5. Cyrus died at the age of 70 and fought battles in modern Iran, Turkey, Iraq and central asia regions. There is no tradition of him going to conquer to different ends of the world as descrbed for Dhul Qarnayn.
Cyrus was likely killed in central asia. His campaigns are fairly attested and there is no evidence of him fighting any supernatural Gog and Magog during his life or building a wall to trap them.
6. Why are Muslim scholars claiming that Cyrus is Dhul Qarnayn?
Muslim scholars in the 19th century learned about the real Alexander the great and his life and clearly noticed the contradiction between his life and the Dhul Qarnayan character. Muslims had to save the Quran because this story clearly refutes the Quran's claim that the Quran is divine.
Muslims found Cyrus in the bible being called God's annointed by Jews and decided to adopt him as their new found Dhul Qarnayn. This is a dishonest and a theological attempt to save the Quran. Once Cyrus is conclusively proven to be a pagan (which he was), there will be a new Dhul Qarnayn, preferably someone whose identity can never be established. For ex: some Muslims say he was a pre islamic arab king just to somehow get the rid the Dhul Qarnayn issue.
7. Western and early Islamic scholars unanimously agree that Alexander the Great is Dhul Qarnayn:
We have pre Islamic manuscripts and strong evidence of presence of this story and tradition widely associated with Alexander before Islam. The following western historians have confirmed that Dhul Qarnayan is based on christian legends around Alexander the great:
1. Theodore Noldeke
2. Richard Bell
3. W. Montgomery Watt
4. Kevin Van Bladel
5 . Gabriel Said Reynolds
6. Sydney Griffith (Referred by Ra'iyat al-Fikr earlier)
7. Andrew Rippin
There is no western academic support for the theory that Dhul Qarnayn is based on Cyrus.
The Islamic scholars mentioned by Ra'iyat al-Fikr are Muslims theologians or apologists who tried to portray Cyrus as Dhul Qarnayn for theological reasons in their attempt to save the Quran.
The following are early Islamic scholars who all clearly identitfied Dhul Qarnayan with Alexander:
1. Al Tabari writing in 923 explicitly identifies Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander of macedon
2. Ibn Ishaq in 767 clearly identify Dhul Qarnayan with Alexander
3. Al Thalabi in 1035 does the same
4. As Masudi in 956
5. Al Zamakhshari in 1144
6. Ibn Kathir also reports that Alexander was Dhul Qarnayn in 1373 but has doubts since he seems to be aware that the historic Alexander was a pagan.
For close to a 1200 years, Dhul Qarnayan was Alexander the great for Muslims before the switch was made by some to make it Cyrus to defend the Quran.
6. Composition of Syriac legend and why Christological elements were made Islamic
The Quran contains all sorts of Christian fables like seven sleepers which is also noted in chpater 18 of the Quran. Quran also copies stories from infancy gospels like jesus talking in a cradle and making birds from clay which are all given an Islamic twist and changed from their original christian meaning to an Islamic one.
Again, the problem is that these stories are all Christian inventions and just merely stories that were just circulating around Christian communities but never part of the Bible. The Quran adopts these stories and turns them into divine revelations when these stories are false to begin with.
Same thing with Alexander, he has been turned into a monotheist by Christians and he was doing all sorts of magical stuff in these stories. The idea of him building a wall first and journey to end of the world developed like this
1. 3rd century CE: Alexander is travelling to the end of the world and encountering strange people. This was composed when Greco Romans were still pagan.
2. 4th- 6th century CE: Alexander becomes a monotheist after adopting of Christianity by the Roman empire. This was the first attempt to Christianize Alexander.
3. 6th-7th century CE (close to the time of Muhammad): The stories were already circulating orally and new fantastical stuff being added to it through oral storytelling which is how Muhammad and the early Muslims got this story.
New apocalyptic elements added to the story. Alexander builds a massive barrier to trap Gog and Mag and this wall will break down during end times. This is the version we find in the Quran. This is the full Dhul Qarnayn package that the Quran plagiarizes.
The gates of Alexander are also mentioned in pre islamic Byzantine era chronicles so again a strong pre islamic evidence of the story.
In His Name, the Most High
Thank you for taking the time read our Substack. Much appreciated.
You make many claims, you make them with great confidence, and that is sweet I'm sure, however - just being confident doesn't really make what you're saying accurate.
Since you are so aware of who Dhul Qarnain was and who he wasn't - and since you use your post to attempt to slur Prophet Muhammad, this is a reflection upon you my dear, and not a reflection on Prophet Muhammad or Islam.
Your pain is clear for all to see; clearly you have been upset or hurt by someone who professed to be a Muslim, and you take our your latent rage upon all Muslims and Islam, because you lack the wherewith-all to actually study.
Your claims are frankly laughable.
Let me validate my position. Since you know so much - are you familiar and au fait with the various languages? Arabic? Farsi? Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? No I didn't think so - since the analogy you make is that characters like Dhul Qarnain are akin to 'Superman and your namesake 'Batman'.
Just because you are named for a fictional character created by the Media Industrial Complex, this does not mean that all is to be seen through your worldview.
You have your position; and while I respectfully disagree with it, I accept that you have a position; I simply pray that is it not - as is the inference from your phraseology - from a position of malice and hurt. I pray that it is based on actual research and knowledge, though to be honest, I doubt that is the case.
I could sit and debunk each of your claims, but there is no purpose in that, because whatever I say you will reject - until you come to terms with your own internal pain and anger.
I will pray ardently for your guidance as this is our way; we don't show malice to those who have different opinions to us; we accept that people are all on their own journey; and will get to their destination - and it will be the most perfect and best destination if they are righteous and truthful and if they abide by patience and diligence in their move towards the Truth.
With prayers for your guidance, and success.
Peace.
Again respectfully, I would actually appreciate if you can refute my arguments. Attacking Islam or Muhammad is not a personal attack on you as an individual. You I am sure is a good person but we are talking about reality here. Claiming the Dhul Qarnayan is Cyrus is wrong and dishonest.
Embracing reality is beautiful and liberating and I hope you do as well!
My argument is easily falsifiable. You can find and locate the iron wall that Dhul Qarnayn/ Alexander the great built and prove that this story not a myth but a real historical event or you can show pre Islamic documents where this story is told about anyone other than Alexander the Great. Prove it if you can! I would actually love for you to refute my argument.
Alexander the Great is one of the most famous humans of all time. Stories about him as a conquerer in the middle east were quite common before Islam. The alexander romance was the most widely circulated stories during that time and were extremely popular in Middle east, Arabia and Europe.
Dhul Qarnayn is not a real person at all. It is a fictional character based on a mythical reimagined Christian Alexander the great. If he was real and done anything remotely similar to what the Quran described, we will have archaeologists and historians confirming this. We have evidence for all sorts of kings, emperor from 1500 BC onwards as there are coins, monuments supporting their reigns and their existence as real people. No such evidence for Dhul Qarnayn.
However we do have evidence of Alexander coins with him wearing 2 horns that were widely circulated in the ancient world, which is why he is called Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran. The funny part is that Muhammad had no clue who Alexander was, all he had heard was about this mighty ruler who had 2 horns and who travelled all across the world and was very famous, and Muhammad simply passed of this story as revelation from God without having no clue who this person actually is.
If Dhul Qarnayn was Cyrus then the Islamic regime of modern Iran can easily produce evidence from its pre islamic history where their great king Cyrus built a wall to trap gog and magog or produce some pre islamic iranian document to support the story? But have they never ever done that! They don't seem to because none exists.
Dhul Qarnayn is simply a religious fairytale. If you are an Iranian, which I assume you, you know your country's history and you know that your country was conquered by Alexander the Great who then went on to burn down Persepolis and you know very well from your own country's history that Alexander was a Greek polytheist who executed Zoroastrian priests. Your own country's history disproves the holy book you follow today.
You've asked to be refuted on substance, so let me take you at your word and do exactly that. I'll address each of your specific claims.
1. "Find the iron wall or concede it's a myth"
This is the wrong burden of proof, and I think you know it.
The Quran does not tell us where the barrier is, when it was built, or that it must still be standing in its original form. The text itself says Dhul-Qarnayn declared: "This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes, He will level it to the ground" (18:98). The barrier is not presented as a permanent monument; it is presented as something that will eventually be levelled. Demanding I produce a standing iron wall to validate the account is demanding evidence the Quran itself does not promise.
By your standard, we should also doubt the existence of:
Hammurabi's actual code stele as originally erected (we have a copy that ended up in Susa as plunder).
The historical Hanging Gardens of Babylon — no archaeological remains, sole evidence is much later Greek sources.
The Ark of the Covenant.
Solomon's First Temple — there is no direct archaeological evidence; we infer it from later texts.
Absence of an intact monument is not proof of non-existence. Ancient fortifications across the Caucasus — including in the Daryal Gorge and the Derbent Wall complex — do exist as ancient defensive barriers against northern nomadic incursions, and they are exactly the kind of structures classical and medieval geographers (Muslim and non-Muslim) associated with this tradition.
2. "Alexander coins with two horns prove he is Dhul-Qarnayn"
This actually argues against your case, not for it.
Alexander's two-horned imagery on coinage comes from his self-association with the Egyptian god Zeus-Ammon after his visit to the Siwa Oracle. The horns are a pagan religious symbol — Alexander claiming divine sonship from a polytheistic deity. If the Quran were copying this iconography, it would be praising a man who declared himself the son of a pagan god as a righteous monotheist. That is not a coherent revelation; that is a contradiction.
Cyrus, by contrast, ruled the Medo-Persian empire — symbolised in the Hebrew Bible (Daniel 8:3–4, 20) as a two-horned ram, with the two horns explicitly representing the union of Medes and Persians. The "two horns" symbolism for Cyrus is political and dynastic, not idolatrous. It fits a monotheistic profile. Alexander's does not.
So yes, both figures had two-horn associations. The question is which one's two horns are compatible with the Quranic description of a God-fearing king. The answer is obviously not the one claiming descent from Zeus-Ammon.
3. "Dhul-Qarnayn isn't real because there's no archaeological evidence"
You assert that "we have evidence for all sorts of kings and emperors from 1500 BC onwards." Correct — and Cyrus the Great is one of them. The Cyrus Cylinder, the ruins of Pasargadae (including his tomb, which still stands), the reliefs at Naqsh-e Rostam, Greek and Babylonian historiography (Herodotus, Xenophon, the Nabonidus Chronicle), and the biblical books of Ezra, Isaiah, and Daniel all attest to him.
So your demand "produce archaeological evidence for Dhul-Qarnayn" is satisfied the moment one accepts the Cyrus identification — which is precisely the position the article defends. You are arguing against the Cyrus thesis by demanding evidence that Cyrus, in fact, has in abundance. The argument refutes itself.
4. "Pre-Islamic documents only ever describe Alexander, never Cyrus, doing these things"
This is misdirection. The Quran is not claiming Dhul-Qarnayn matches a pre-Islamic legend; it is claiming he was a real historical figure described accurately. The relevant question is whether a real historical figure fits the Quranic description — not whether earlier legends about a different figure resemble the Quran's account.
And on that test, Cyrus fits remarkably well:
A king who united two peoples (Medes and Persians — the "two horns").
Campaigns to the west (Lydia, reaching the Aegean), east (Bactria, Central Asia), and north (the Caucasus).
Famous for liberating an oppressed monotheistic people (the Jews from Babylonian captivity — Ezra 1, Isaiah 45).
Honoured by a monotheistic prophet of God as God's "anointed" (Isaiah 45:1).
Recognised even by ancient Greek historians (Xenophon's Cyropaedia) as a model of just kingship.
Now compare Alexander, who:
Burned Persepolis.
Massacred populations at Tyre and Gaza.
Declared himself the son of Zeus-Ammon.
Executed Zoroastrian priests, as you yourself note.
Died at 32 from his own debauchery, having destroyed the religious heritage of an entire civilisation.
Which of these two men reads as "We established him in the land and gave him a way to everything" (18:84)? Which one says "As for the one who does wrong, we shall punish him; but as for the one who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best reward" (18:87–88)?
You are asking me to accept that the Quran praises, as a model of divine justice, the man who burned the religious capital of monotheism's eastern wing. That isn't reality — that's the position you're defending.
5. "If you're Iranian, your own history disproves your holy book"
I am not Iranian, but the argument is worth answering anyway because it cuts the wrong way for you. Iranian history does not disprove the Quran; it vindicates the Cyrus identification. The pre-Islamic Iranian who burned Persepolis was Alexander, the polytheist invader. The pre-Islamic Iranian who built the empire, freed the Jews, and was remembered as a just monotheistic king was Cyrus. Iranian history tells you exactly which of these two is plausible as a divinely guided ruler, and it isn't the Macedonian.
6. The shifting goalposts
Notice what has happened in this exchange. Your original comment claimed "100% certainty" that Dhul-Qarnayn is the Syriac Legend's Alexander. When the dating problem with that thesis was raised — that the Syriac Legend post-dates Surah al-Kahf — you did not address it. When the unanimity claim about early Muslim scholars was shown to be false, you did not address that either. You have now moved to "produce the iron wall or concede."
This is not how the pursuit of "reality" works. Reality is established by engaging with counter-evidence, not by raising the bar each time the previous bar is cleared. I have answered your arguments on substance. I would invite you to do the same.
Peace.
Again wrong on many many levels.
1. Hanging garden of Babylon as well as the ark of the covenant have not been found for precisely the same reason that the wall of Dhul Qarnayn has never been found, because they are mostly all myths. Ark of the covenant is also not a giant iron wall, it is a religious storage chest.
Respectfully, Noah's ark is also a myth with no evidence outside religion. Archeology, genetics will prove the story if it was real but it is not. No Jews. and christians try to prove the story to be real.
Hanging garden of Babylon may have some iota of truth to it but again there is no evidence as of right now that it was real or it may just be some exagerrated storytelling around some real garden. There is nothing supernatural about it.
Noah's ark and Dhul Qarnain are explicitly supernatural stories. Dhul Qarnain's wall is supposed to be build of iron with evil tribes of Gog and Magog trapped behind them. There has to be evidence if it is real, if you cant find anything then it is simply a figment of human imagination.
I mean claiming Noah's ark or Dhul Qarnayn's wall is real is a much bigger claim that claiming there is no Babylonian garden.
2. Alexander with 2 horns and Cyrus with 2 horns:
Again, wrong on so many levels. You are desperate to prove that Cyrus is Dhul Qarnayn because you believe in Islam so much and want it to be true. You are very well aware of the theological implications of Dhul Qarnayn being copied from Alexander legends so I understand this strong resistance.
Alexander with 2 horns imagery are indeed of pagan origin but you expect people living during the time of Muhammad or 1-2 centuries before him (nearly 6-8 centuries after death of Alexander) to know that when those religions had literally ceased to exist? All people back then had about Alexander was that he was a great world conquerer and some legendary material around him and his face being on coins. The original real Alexander and his achievements were also lost but he was a legendary figure already by then with mythical elements added to him. He was famous globally as a legendary figure but his real life events had been lost before they were rediscovered later.
Alexander was and still is one of the most famous people of all time. Cyrus was completely forgotten globally and even by Iranians with not even a single reference to him in any Iranian text (including shahnameh) before he was rediscovered in the 19th century and that is when Cyrus became famous again.
Your argument is that the Quran is calling Cyrus Dhul Qarnayn for some reason when even Iranians never themselves did that and had completely forgotten about with no cultural memory around Cyrus.
3. Cyrus imagery with 2 horns has never been identified with Cyrus himself and is considered by many to be a Zoroastrian guardian angel. Again, there is zero association of the historical Cyrus with Dhul Qarnayn.
4. Again your points about Alexander committing atrocities, I agree he was cruel many times just like all conquerers are. Again, your arguments are emotional. You want the Quran to be true so much that you cannot digest that the same Alexander is described as a Muslim in the Quran.
Your whole argument rests on the claim that the Quran is true, there can nothing be wrong in it and therefore Dhul Qarnayn is not Alexander even though all the evidence suggests otherwise that he indeed is. Your arguments are based on emotions and not on facts.
5. My goal posts have not shifted.
I 100% state without any hesitation that Dhul Qarnayn is based on Christian legends about Alexander the great.
I have evidence on my side. My position is supported by all western historians, all your early islamic historians, there are manuscripts to support my position. We can clearly match the syriac alexander legend manuscript with the story found in the Quran and it matches 100%.
Your arguments are based on Quran is true and therefore I have to find someone to put in there to prove it to be true.
Respectfully mam, if God is not real and Quran is not true, you need to accept it and move on with your life without a God. No matter how hard you try, Allah will not become real, you cannot summon Allah into existence through your prayers.
Do your research, accept the truth and what it says and move on with your life. Praying to imaginary gods are a waste of time.
I'll address the new points, and then I'll be stepping back from this exchange — for reasons I'll explain at the end.
1. On the Hanging Gardens analogy
You concede the Hanging Gardens "may have some iota of truth" with no supernatural element, while insisting Dhul-Qarnayn's barrier must be a myth because it's "supernatural." But the Quranic description of the barrier is not supernatural. It describes iron, molten copper, and a mountain pass — entirely mundane construction materials. The eschatological element (Gog and Magog being released at the end of time) is a separate theological claim, not a claim about the barrier's construction. Ancient defensive walls against northern nomads exist throughout the Caucasus. You are conflating "I don't believe the eschatology" with "the barrier cannot have existed," and those are different arguments.
2. "Cyrus was completely forgotten, even by Iranians"
This is factually wrong, and confidently asserted falsehoods don't become true through repetition.
The Achaemenid memory was preserved in Greek sources (Herodotus, Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Ctesias) that circulated continuously across the ancient and medieval world.
The Hebrew Bible — read continuously by Jews and Christians across the Middle East throughout late antiquity — names Cyrus explicitly and praises him in Isaiah, Ezra, and 2 Chronicles. To claim "Cyrus was forgotten" while the Bible was being read in every synagogue and church across the region is simply not credible.
The tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae stood — and still stands — visibly, continuously, throughout the Islamic period. It was known locally as Mashhad-e Madar-e Sulaiman ("the Tomb of Solomon's Mother") in Islamic times, indicating that the monument was never lost; only its original attribution shifted.
The Shahnameh concerns the legendary-mythological Kayanian dynasty, not a comprehensive history of all Iranian kings — its silence on Cyrus reflects its narrative scope, not "forgetting."
The claim that Cyrus was unknown until 19th-century European archaeology is a popular internet talking point. It is not history.
3. "The two-horn imagery has never been identified with Cyrus himself"
The two-horned figure in the relief at Pasargadae is debated among Iranologists — some identify it as Cyrus, some as a fravashi (guardian spirit), some as a syncretic royal-divine image. "Debated" is not "disproven." Meanwhile, the two-horned ram of Daniel 8 explicitly represents the Medo-Persian empire (Daniel 8:20 — "the ram which you saw, having the two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia"). This is a Jewish text, written by people contemporary with the Achaemenids, identifying the Medo-Persian dual monarchy with two-horn symbolism. That is not a coincidence I am inventing to defend the Quran.
4. "Your arguments are emotional"
You have made this charge three times now without rebutting any of the specific evidence offered: the dating problem with the Syriac Legend, the named early Muslim scholars who rejected Alexander, the Zeus-Ammon problem, the Daniel 8 two-horn parallel, Isaiah 45:1, the Cyropaedia, the Cyrus Cylinder. Calling counter-evidence "emotional" is not a refutation. It is an attempt to dismiss what you cannot answer.
Meanwhile, your own position rests on:
A hypothesised oral version of a text that didn't exist in writing yet (the Syriac Legend predating 622 CE).
A claim of unanimous early Muslim agreement that is demonstrably false.
A claim that Cyrus was "forgotten" that ignores the entire Greco-Roman and biblical historiographical tradition.
The assumption that any thematic resonance with prior literature proves human authorship — a standard that would also disqualify the Hebrew Bible.
I leave it to other readers to judge which side is reasoning from evidence and which from prior commitment.
5. On the closing remarks
You ended your reply not with a historical argument, but with religious instruction: that I should "accept" there is no God, that prayer is "a waste of time," that I should "move on with my life without a God." This is preaching, not scholarship. You are entitled to your worldview. You are not entitled to dress it up as the conclusion of a historical inquiry.
I notice that the conversation began with you accusing Muslims of believing on insufficient evidence, and has ended with you asking me to abandon belief on the basis of arguments that, on examination, do not hold up. The asymmetry should give you pause.
I have answered your arguments substantively three times now. The points stand on the record for any reader to weigh. I'll let you have the last word if you wish — but I won't be continuing past this. Not from defeat, but because the exchange has stopped being about Dhul-Qarnayn and become an invitation to abandon faith, which is not something a comment thread will accomplish in either direction.
Peace, sincerely.
While I do not agree with the tone of the other person, he is 100% accurate here.
This story of Zul Qarnayn is clearly a retelling of Alexander the Great of Macedon and these were stories made up by Christians in the Middle East. That is the consensus of all historians who have read the Quran and this is a 100% confirmed fact. There is literally no one else that fits.
Do you have secular historians and not theologians to support your claim that this is Cyrus? Is there any Persian record to support the claim that Cyrus built an iron wall? Where is this wall, and where are Gog and Magog?
The Syriac version of the story existed well before Islam and was widely in circulation during the time of Muhammad and that story totally matches the one found in the Quran. Do you any explanations for that? Why would Allah the supposed God of the universe take a man made fable about Alexander and dictate it to Muhammad? Also, the sleepers story in the Quran is also a Christian legend. The story is about Christian youths who miraculously slept in a cave for ~200 years to escape Roman persecution (c. 250 CE) under Emperor Decius, awakening during Theodosius II's reign (c. 435 CE).
As great the story is, it is not true and is imply a religious story and again why is this myth in the Quran? Is Allah not able to distinguish between fact and fiction? Why is Allah copying Christian tales or is it Muhammad? You should ask yourself that question.
The sources you mention in your article are Shia scholars and theologians. Who can take them seriously? They obviously have an agenda. Theologians are not historians. They want to prove the truth of Islam. They will make up stuff as they see fit.
Can you prove Zul Qarnayn is Cyrus without referring to anything supernatural and purely through history? Where is the wall if it is true? Where is the place where sun sets in a muddy pool? We know Cyrus campaigned in Middle East, Persia and Central Asia. Where is this place? The answer to all these questions is, there isn't one.
Zul Qarnayn is an extremely silly and laughable story and its presence in the Quran clearly shows the man made origins of the Quran. Quran is not the word of any kind of a God. It is the handiwork of 7th century Arab tribesmen who copied stuff from all different sources. They plagiarized extensively from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.
In His Name, the Most High
You really need to realise that there is much that you do not know. I am not here to correct your ideas - that is something that only God can do.
My background and origin is of no consequence; and wherever I am from doesn't prove or disprove anything, indeed it entirely lacks relevance.
Your interpretation - flawed that it is, because you failed to answer my point about which languages you are a master in - for my part, I am fluent in Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, and am well versed with Greek and Aramaic - being a student in the Islamic Seminary in Qom teaches you a lot of such things.
Listen my dear, your insistence that Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander is invalid - it is incorrect - it has been debunked and Ra'iyat a-Fikr the author of this write-up has clearly educated you in her post below - which I respectful as you to learn from.
Whether you accept what is said, whether you accept that the Quran is the - as per the Islamic belief, the word of God (as are the Bible and the Torah - though in their current forms they carry many errors, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of our discussion), whether you accept the thesis that Dhul Qarnayan is not Alexander but that it is Cyrus, this is also neither here nor there.
It is your opinion; and that is all it is.
Our write-up is grounded in facts, in research and in the teachings of actual scholars - yours is, well I'm sure its grounding in something more than the acute anger that lies latent within your heart.
What has hurt you so tragically my dear? Why do you bear such malice, that even when you don't intend it, it falls out of your very words?
Fine, you don't accept our thesis on Dhul Qarnayn - okay, and? Has the world come to an end? Has he sky fallen? Okay, so Mr Batman has refused to accept this; and he feels it is a fairy story, and that it is as he has described it.
Wonderful, I'm happy for you.
We do not come to try and insult what you believe, yet from your first comment you insulted and abused Prophet Muhammad. Is this fair? You can disagree with him, you can disagree with Islam, that is your prerogative; I would try to educate you if you were receptive and open minded; but that is clearly something that yet has to be worked on by yourself.
I am not interested in a to-and-fro dialogue with you on this subject as it is to be very honest pointless - you have hard latent biases that make you think your position - based on whatever it is based on - is entirely accurate and beyond reproach.
For my part, I do not have the time to sit and explain to someone who has started the discussion from the perspective of being insulting an uncouth.
Therefore; as I said before - I genuinely will pray for you; as this is what our Prophet Muhammad taught us; and what the Quran teaches us:
وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ هَوْنًۭا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلْجَـٰهِلُونَ قَالُوا۟ سَلَـٰمًۭا
"And the servants of God, the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, 'Peace!'"
- Quran, Surah Al-Furqan (the Chapter of the Criterion) #25, Verse 63
and in the book of Proverbs we are taught:
ܦܓܪܐ ܕܡܠܬܐ ܪܟܝܟܬܐ ܡܫܒܩ ܪܘܓܙܐ ܘܡܠܬܐ ܕܡܪܝܪܬܐ ܡܩܝܡܬ ܪܘܓܙܐ
A gentle word dismisses anger, but a bitter word provokes anger.
- Proverbs 15:1
and in the Book of Romans; we are also taught:
εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες.
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
- Romans 12:18
That should give you pause my dear; and I invite you to reflect deeply on your inner self and that which burns your heart up and that is clear for all to see.
The malice and hatred you carry for Islam and for Prophet Muhammad has no impact on either Islam nor Prophet Muhammad; but it burns your very soul, and harms only yourself.
I am ready to engage in detailed discussions with you - but there is a key condition - you must be genuine, you must be at all times respectful and never insulting or abusive about Islam, about the Prophet - or any Prophet or revered personality - as that was one of the crimes of those form the Children of Israel who turned to the worship of Ba'al and became from the greatest of losers.
I therefore bid you good day and peace, and genuinely I will pray for you; that whatever hurt and pain inhabits your soul is alleviated and removed and that your heart is opened - not because I want you to become a Muslim, no, that is not my task, nor is it something I can do; that is upon Him, He guides who He wishes to the right way:
قُل لِّلَّهِ ٱلْمَشْرِقُ وَٱلْمَغْرِبُ ۚ يَهْدِى مَن يَشَآءُ إِلَىٰ صِرَٰطٍۢ مُّسْتَقِيمٍۢ
"Say: 'To God belongs the East and the West. He guides whom He wills to the straight path'"
- Quran, Surah al-Baqarah (the Chapter of the Cow) #2, Verse 142
and from the book of Proverbs again:
ἴσθι πεποιθὼς ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ ἐπὶ θεῷ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ σῇ σοφίᾳ μὴ ἐπαίρου
ἐν πᾶσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου γίνωσκε αὐτόν, ἵνα ὀρθῶς κατευθύνῃ τὰς ὁδούς σου
"Be confident with all your heart in God, and do not exalt yourself in your own wisdom; in all your ways acknowledge Him, that He may rightly direct your paths."
- Proverbs 3:5-6
and
from the Gospel according to John:
ܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܡܫܟܚ ܕܢܐܬܐ ܠܘܬܝ ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܢܓܕܗ ܐܒܐ ܕܫܕܪܢܝ ܘܐܢܐ ܐܩܝܡܝܘܗܝ ܒܝܘܡܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
- John 6:44
I will only engage with you if you are respectful and show you have honour; I have outlined my terms below. It is quite simple.
Should you decide you wish to engage in an honest and respectful dialog; you can contact me by DM and let us see - but I will not tolerate your insulting and abusive words about Prophet Muhammad or Islam.
So before any dialog can take place - you will need to publicly recant your insults and abusive and arrogant tone, this is because your insult and abusive words were made in public and as a result your apology and recanting them must too be public. This is the only fair way.
If you are able to do that; then I will consider that you are a truly sincere person who is seeking the Truth; and then I am duty bound to engage with you.
With prayers for your guidance and success.
Peace.
Yes sure happy to connect. Saying that Muhammad or the Quran plagiarized stuff from some external sources is not attacking you. You have to accept that I cannot make my argument that the Quran is man made without saying all that as that is my whole point. If Quran is not divine, then it is borrowed from somewhere else.
You need to have a thick skin with regards to that. I promise I will not abuse Muhammad but I am happy to connect and discus this.
Obviously, I completely disagree with your research. You did not provide any resources fore your conclusion. You are trying to prove Islam from theological lens and not based on any real research. The whole Cyrus identification is based on trying to prove Islam as many Muslims find it embarrassing to admit that the Quran contains legends and fairytales and the Alexander legend is testament to that.
Again, I have no hatred for you as a human being and wish the best for you. I do not believe in any God but I wish the best for you regardless.
Let me know if you still want to connect. You can DM me.
One important thing. If you choose not to believe in God; why then would you 'waste your time' reading and commenting on a site that is clearly a site that does believe in God?
Surely you can't be so arrogant as to think you can 'convert' people - and no I'm not interested in converting you - that is not what we do.
We discuss, and we do so respectfully.
You have failed in that - hence I refuse to continue to engage with you until you provide a public and formal appology for your dispicable and abusive words regarding God, His prophet, His book and Islam (and by extension any other faith).
You can disagree and not follow them - that is your perogative as I said - what you cannot do is belittle them and those who follow them.
If you can't understand that - then with respect; you have far greater problems.
With prayers for your guidance and success should you be guided and should you learn some humility.
Peace.
The reason I responded because you are falsely claiming that Dhul Qarnayn is Cyrus when he is clearly Alexander so a response is warranted.
Obviously I am not going to apologize for abusing an imaginary non existent God (Allah) and insulting a person (Mohammad) who in my view plagiarized stories from Christians and Jews and passed them off as divine revelations and created a system of oppression which affects millions of people today.
I as an atheist cannot be expected to respect a religious prophet. That is absurd. However, I can be civil when the other person is as well.
If you don't want to continue the conversation, that is totally cool with me. At the end of the day, I am not wasting my time on evil man made myths, you are. I don't pray to imaginary gods, you do.
You are free to do that. Good luck!
If you wish to not believe in the Quran or Prophet Muhammad or anything - and as you have said even don't believe in God - that is your perogative.
As I quoted for you earlier from the Quran:
وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ هَوْنًۭا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلْجَـٰهِلُونَ قَالُوا۟ سَلَـٰمًۭا
"And the servants of God, the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, 'Peace!'"
- Quran, Surah Al-Furqan (the Chapter of the Criterion) #25, Verse 63
I really have very little to say to you.
And yes - you insulting Prophet Muhammad - and the Quran and Islam - just because in your opinion (and that is all that it is) it is invalid - though I am certain your position is from a position of ignorance as no wise person would behave and speak as you do.
I could sit and insult your lack of belief, your notion that your existance is but a 'chance' of nature; and we could go into that philosophical discussion - including Pascal's well known argument - but you - honestly speaking from what I can see - lack the sincerity and genuine desire to learn and reflect.
You have a position - one that is clearly built upon historical abuse and misconceptions that you have suffered and been subjected to; and until - with the utmost of respect - you get over yourself - there is no purpose in engaging with you further.
To you your way; to us ours.
Again, I will continue to pray for your guidance - as it makes me sad to see one in such abject loss and confusion, filled with such malice and hate, and I pray that you are guided, but that is only going to happen if you - as I said - get over yourself, realise you know very little (only an ignorant person things he/she knows anything - a wise person knows that he/she knows nothing and is constantly learning and ready to engage with the learned ones - even if they disagree.
Sadly, I do not - based on your illogical and confused discourse - do not consider you from those with wisdom or intelligence.
But I pray for your guidance.
I wish you well - and pray that you overcome that which is buring you up from the inside.
May He guide you if that is possible, and if you open your heart and soul to His guidance; and if you choose not to; well that is also your choice and you will continue to flail around in the darkness of your own making.
I think this discourse is now pointless and I will not be engaging further with you, unless you exhibit a major change of position or heart - and as I said - apologise for your insulting and abusive words against Islam, Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. I refuse to engage with people who can't argue anything but choose to abuse and insult from a position that can only be described as abject ignorance.
With prayers for your guidance and success.
Peace.