My Questions to Muslims [Zul-qarnain]
Jochen Katz
This is the follow up part to "The Gate" which was mainly ignored on this
newsgroup. [again posted with permission of the author].
ZUL-QARNAIN
We have seen in the previous section that the story of the iron gate
of Gog and Magog belongs to the realm of fairy tales or the category of
"Gone with the Wind" as shown in the "Romance of Alexander." We now turn
to investigate more of the Qur'anic claims about Zul-qarnain.
The Qur'an speaks about Zul-qarnain as a historical figure. Who could
this man be?
Yusuf Ali identifies Zul-qarnain as Alexander the Great when he states:
"Personally, I have not the least doubt that Zul-qarnain is meant
to be Alexander the Great, the historic Alexander, and not the
legendary Alexander..."[1]
Razi explores three possibilities as to who is Zul-qarnain. In spite of
some difficulties he prefers to identify Zul-qarnain as Alexander the
Great.[2]
We agree with Yusuf Ali's statement, but here again the Qur'anic claims
about Alexander the Great do not fit the historical facts.
ALEXANDER WAS NOT EVEN A BELIEVER
The language of the Qur'an about Zul-qarnain or Alexander the Great
leaves us with the impression that Alexander the Great was a true
believer. He talks like a believer and behaves like a believer.
He even talks as if he was a prophet.
He said: "This is a mercy from my Lord: But when the promise
of my Lord comes to pass, He will make it into dust. And the
promise of my Lord is true. (Q. 18:98, Yusuf Ali's translation)
>From the above we understand that Zul-qarnain or Alexander the Great
received a promise from God concerning this barrier that he personally
built. This promise was not given hundreds of years before the building
of the barrier. This promise was a personal message to Alexander the
Great there and then.
Furthermore we are told in Q. 18:86 that God spoke to him directly. Razi
observed that "God spoke to Zul-Qarnain without intermediary, and that
proves that he was a prophet".[3]
Until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set
in a spring of murky water. Near it he found a People. We said:
"O Zul-qarnain! (Thou hast authority,) either to punish them or
to treat hem with kindness." (Q. 18:86)
But was Alexander the Great a prophet, or even a believer?
Alexander the Great, contrary to the impression given by the Qur'an,
was an infidel par excellence.
"At Memphis Alexander sacrificed to Apis (one of the Egyptian idols)
and was crowned with the traditional double crown of the Pharaohs;
the native priests were placated and their religion encouraged."[4]
"Alexander consulted the god (Ammon) on the success of his expedition."[5]
And "On the Hyphasis Alexander erected 12 alters to the 12 Olympian
gods."[6]
In Egypt he was received as the son of Ammon[6] (one of the Egyptian gods).
This god is represented by a ram, with two prominent horns of course, and
hence Alexander's name in the Qur'an Zul-Qarnain meaning the two horned
one.
Furthermore, "He seems to have become convinced of the reality of his
own divinity and to have required its acceptance by others ... The cities
perforce complied, but often ironically: the Spartan decree read, 'Since
Alexander wishes to be a god, let him be a god."[8]
Alexander was far from being even a believer.
Where did the Qur'an then get the idea that Alexander the great was a
prophet? It came from the legend concerning Alexander.
The Jews made Alexander a believer and favoured by God so much that "God
parted the waters of the Pamphylian sea so that Alexander's troops might
pass in pursuit of the Persians."[9]
Like wise the Christians made him a saint. Here is a sample of Alexander's
prayer:
And king Alexander bowed himself and did reverence, saying, "O God,
Lord of kings and judges, thou who settest up kings and destroyest
their power, I know in my mind that thou hast exalted me above all
kings, and thou hast made me horns upon my head, wherewith I might
thrust down the kingdoms of the world; give me power from thy holy
heavens ... I will magnify thy name, O Lord, forever ... and I will
write the name of God in the charter of my kingdom, that there may
be for Thee a memorial always. And if the Messiah, who is the Son
of God, comes in my days, I and my troops will worship Him..."[10]
According to the Qur'an and the legends Alexander was a believer,
but not according to history.
DID ALEXANDER GO WEST?
The Qur'an claims that Alexander travelled west.
They will question thee concerning Dhool Karnain. Say: 'I will
recite to you a mention of him.' We established him in the land,
and We gave him a way to everything and he followed a way until,
when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in
a muddy spring, and he found nearby a people."
(Q. 18:83-86) Arberry.
However, Alexander never went west as the Qur'an claims. He travelled
east and south (to Ammon and Memphis in Egypt).
HOW FAR DID ALEXANDER GO EASTWARD?
The Qur'an claims that Alexander travelled to the far east.
Then he followed a way until, when he reached the rising of
the sun, he found it rising upon a people for whom We had not
appointed any veil to shade them from it.
(The Qur'an 18:89-90 Arberry)
Ibn Kathir understood from the Qur'anic passages that Zul-Qarnain
travelled the whole length and breadth of the earth. And Razi said
that "he reached the closest place to the rising of the sun".
But how far east did Alexander the great travel?
When reaching "the Hyphasis [west of India] his (Alexander's) army
mutinied, refusing to go further in the tropical rain; they were weary
in body and spirit, and Coenus, one of Alexander's four chief marshals,
acted as their spokesman. On finding the army adamant, Alexander agreed
to turn back."[11]
Contrary to the claims of the Qur'an Alexander the Great was not a
believer he did not travel west and he did not go to the far east.
References:
1. The Holy Qur'an, Translation and Commentary by Yusuf Ali,
Appendix 7, page 763 (1983)
2. Razi, at-Tafsir al-Kabir, commenting on Q. 18:83-98.
3. Razi, at-Tafsir al-Kabir, commenting on Q. 18:86.
4. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
6. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
8. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
9. The Medieval Alexander, George Cart, Cambridge at the university
press, 1956, p.126.
10. "A Christian Legend Concerning Alexander", in
The History of Alexander the Great Being the Syriac Version of
the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Translated by E.A. W. Budge, 1889, p.146.
11. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Alexander III, 1971.
Metallica
On 24 Mar 1997, Jochen Katz wrote:
assalamu-alaikum:
> We have seen in the previous section that the story of the iron gate
> of Gog and Magog belongs to the realm of fairy tales or the category of
> "Gone with the Wind" as shown in the "Romance of Alexander." We now turn
> to investigate more of the Qur'anic claims about Zul-qarnain.
firstly, the gog and magog belonging to the realm of fairy tales is a
christian opinion as i have shown in my post "is the quraan from
christian sources?" and we do not have to lap up the christian opinion as
the gospel truth.
let me quote it again for the sake for of argument:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
coming back the topic... quraan being borrowed from jewish and christian
sources. let us examine what people of understanding have to say about it.
in the book "islam and the west: a historical survey" phillip hitti writes
"the sources of the quraan are unmistakably: christian, jewish and arab
heathen"
he supports this assertion by pointing out during the prophet's (saw)
time, painting of jesus and mary (as) on the inner walls of kaaba. that
the quraanic material is second hand from hearsay is demonstrated by the
quraanic statement that jesus spoke unto mankind in the cradle and
fashioned out of clay a living bird. these statements have the parallel in
the apocryphal gospel of infancy. mary, the mother os jesus (as), is
confused with mary, sister of aaron (as). the hamaan, favourite of
abusuerus (esth 3:2) is mistakenly made minister of the pharoah 9surah
40:38). and the quraanic story of "two horned" "alexander the great" must
have originated in the "romance of alexander" then current among the
christian syrians.
however, according to richard bell, "in spite of the traditions to the
effect that the picture of jesus was found on one of the pillers of kaaba,
there is no good evidence of any seats of christianity in the hijaaz or in
the near neighbourhood of makkah or even madinah" (richard bell, the
origin of islam in its christain environment: the gunning lectures
edinburgh university, 1925, Macmillan and Co. Ltd.). if any biblical
passge resembles that of the quraan, they do not warrant the conclusion of
borrowing or quoting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Qur'an speaks about Zul-qarnain as a historical figure. Who could
> this man be?
>
> Yusuf Ali identifies Zul-qarnain as Alexander the Great when he states:
>
> "Personally, I have not the least doubt that Zul-qarnain is meant
> to be Alexander the Great, the historic Alexander, and not the
> legendary Alexander..."[1]
there is a difference between yusuf ali's personal opinion and the opinion
of allah. yusuf ali is neither prophet nor god to convince us that dhul
qarnain is none but alexander the great. yusuf ali even states that the
story has to taken as a parable in his commentary whereas the hadiths from
the prophet have clearly mentioned that gog and magog is a reality and
their people will appear before the day of judgement. and in fact this is
one of the signs of day of judgement.
there is a great deal of difference of opinion who dhul qarnain is among
the muslim scholars. this is because the quraan has not given a detailed
explanation of this pious person except that he had a huge empire and shut
up the people of gog and magog.
there are also great difficulties in the commentary of yusuf ali. for
example one can see his interpretation for the lofty pillars of the city
of iram. he has merely speculated that the people there were huge etc. and
now we know that this is wrong. one can check out the back issue of
national geographic to see that the claim of the quraan and that it is
right.
it is to be remembered that yusuf ali is just a translator but people may
not agree with his "exegesis" or commentary.
> Razi explores three possibilities as to who is Zul-qarnain. In spite of
> some difficulties he prefers to identify Zul-qarnain as Alexander the
> Great.[2]
see there you are... people are just speculating.
> We agree with Yusuf Ali's statement, but here again the Qur'anic claims
> about Alexander the Great do not fit the historical facts.
what makes you to agree with yusuf ali? although it does not even fit with
the historical facts.
this means that we should wind up the discussion and stop discussing about
the things of which we have no idea about. by the way, the people who
asked the prophet (saw) about the companions of the cave, dhul qarnian and
al-khidr got their answers right. they did not even questioned the prophet
on anything else or said that he was wrong.
<rest of the messsage deleted because it does not makes sense to discuss
things which are merely speculative and saying that ultimately saying that
speculation if the truth>
so, jochen did you get your answer, short and crisp?
wassalam
saif
D A Rice
In article <5h6gi6$8...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> writes:
> This is the follow up part to "The Gate" which was mainly ignored on this
> newsgroup. [again posted with permission of the author].
I was planning to reply to it, but it was so long, and I had so much
to do. However, insha-Allah, I will reply a little bit here.
> ZUL-QARNAIN
Let's start with the meaning of "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn." According to
Muhammad Asad's commentary of this part of the Qur'an, the noun "qarn"
can mean "horn" or also "generation," "epoch," "age," or "century."
Therefore, "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn" literally means "two-horned one," or "He
of two epochs."
Some Qur'anic _commentators_ have identified "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn" with
Alexander the Great. If I'm not mistaken, I think Alexander the Great
had coins printed where he was shown with two horns, and perhaps this
is the source of this theory. However, neither the Qur'an nor the
hadith make such an identification, so such an identification is in
reality speculation.
That Alexander the Great is generally considered to have been a pagan,
and to have had people worship him as a god (if I am not mistaken), is
an obvious problem for this theory. However, since the idea that
"Dhul 'l Qarnayn" is Alexander the Great has no solid foundation in
the Qur'an or hadith, we can accept that these theories of some Muslim
commentators may be wrong.
> We have seen in the previous section that the story of the iron gate
> of Gog and Magog belongs to the realm of fairy tales or the category of
> "Gone with the Wind" as shown in the "Romance of Alexander." We now turn
> to investigate more of the Qur'anic claims about Zul-qarnain.
Actually, I think not necessarily.... I think some of the
interpretations made your "The Gate" post are not necessarily correct.
Insha-Allah, I might comment on this a little bit on that thread
(depending on my inclination and available time).
> The Qur'an speaks about Zul-qarnain as a historical figure. Who could
> this man be?
Even if we cannot clearly identify him with a historical figure we
know about, this would not mean that he was not a historical figure.
Many historical kings fade away into the murky sands of the hourglass
of time, yet this does not make them any less historical.
How much would we know of the Ancient Egyptian King Tutankhamen, for
example, if his tomb hadn't been found? No matter whether we know a
little or a lot, it doesn't make King Tutankhamen any less of a
historical reality.
> Yusuf Ali identifies Zul-qarnain as Alexander the Great when he states:
[...]
> Razi explores three possibilities as to who is Zul-qarnain. In spite of
> some difficulties he prefers to identify Zul-qarnain as Alexander the
> Great.[2]
These are opinions, yet the Qur'an and hadith makes no such
identification. Therefore, if their opinion is false, it makes no
difference to the Islamic faith.
> We agree with Yusuf Ali's statement, but here again the Qur'anic claims
> about Alexander the Great do not fit the historical facts.
Now, you jump to the assumption that the Qur'an _is_ talking about
Alexander the Great.
I remind you that the Qur'an nowhere says that this is Alexander the
Great, nor do any hadith. Therefore, you cannot make this assumption.
The rest of the post goes on to talk just about Alexander the Great.
Since "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn" in the Qur'an may not have been Alexander the
Great, the discussion is not necessarily directly relevent to the
Islamic faith.
The attempted attack on the Qur'an, by attacking the identification of
"Dhu'l Qarnayn" with Alexander the Great, in fact supports the
argument that the Qur'an is in fact not referring to Alexander the
Great. Islam does not teach that Alexander the Great was "Dhu'l
Qarnayn." Rather, the Qur'an and hadiths leave the historical
identity of "Dhu'l Qarnayn" open.
Therefore, this attempted attack on the Qur'an does not really
invalidate the validity of the Qur'an at all, since neither the Qur'an
nor the hadith identify "Dhu'l Qarnayn" with Alexander the Great.
Peace,
Fariduddien Rice
Mehdi
phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (D A Rice) writes:
>> ZUL-QARNAIN
>Let's start with the meaning of "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn." According to
>Muhammad Asad's commentary of this part of the Qur'an, the noun "qarn"
>can mean "horn" or also "generation," "epoch," "age," or "century."
>Therefore, "Dhu 'l-Qarnayn" literally means "two-horned one," or "He
>of two epochs."
I read a whole book in Arabic dicussing the historical
possibilities as to who Thul-Qarnayn was. It was written
in Arabic and I read it a long time ago.
Howver, from my recollection, I rememebr the following:
1. The author starts with the discreption of T.Q. in the Quran
and extrats conditions for accepting a historical figure as a nominee:
a. He had to be a king.
b. Had to have travelled the earth.
c. Have to have access to reveleation from
God - either by having a prophet in his
population or being a prophet himself.
d. Have to be a monotheist (muslim).
e. Have to alternate between kindness ans harshness depending on
the type of people he deals with.
f. Reached the western most part of the known earth as well
as the eastern part.
Any way, the author excludes Alexander the Great outrightly because
he does not fit number d. definitely.
He offers other historical figures. I remember the following:
1. Cyrus the Great the ancient persian king.
2. A king of Himyar - an old Arabic tribe that ruled Yemen.
3. I think he also mention the kings of Egypt and some of
old Iraq.
He concludes that Cyrus the great is the most probable
candidate for being Thul Qarneen and I was very impressed
at the time with his process of fitting the historical
biography of Cyrus with that in the Quran.
Unfortunately - I do not have more information or access to that
book currently.
Wassalam.
--
----------------______________--------------------________________
_=asd0g jf kdfjg 9f-f\\ ukjfghsfg 0==0gh -
Mahdiyy ------ Sleep never increases age <> Nor
does lack of it decreases age ....
Ahmad Farid
Jochen Katz (jk...@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Yusuf Ali identifies Zul-qarnain as Alexander the Great when he states:
: "Personally, I have not the least doubt that Zul-qarnain is meant
: to be Alexander the Great, the historic Alexander, and not the
: legendary Alexander..."[1]
: We agree with Yusuf Ali's statement, but here again the Qur'anic claims
: about Alexander the Great do not fit the historical facts.
Firstly, if historical facts do not fit Dhu'l Qarnain being Alexander the
Great, then why does the above writer agree with Yusuf Ali ?
Does the above writer always agree with statements which are against
historical facts ?
Secondly, the writer wrongly assumes that since Yusuf Ali states that Dhu'l
Qarnain is Alexander the great, then the Qur'an also makes this claim, when no
such claim is made by the Qur'an.
The Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the Great.
The Qur'an mentions and describes Dhu'l Qarnain.
The above writer makes this mistake again and again throughout the article.
Namely, he believes and accepts Yusuf Ali's belief that Dhu'l Qarnain is
Alexander the Great, even though he knows Yusuf Ali's belief is completley
against historical fact.
We are left wondering why the above writer clings to Yusuf Ali's belief, when
he knows it is against historical fact.
I believe it is his bigotry and desire to prove the Qur'an false, thus proving
himself to not be a seeker of truth.
: ALEXANDER WAS NOT EVEN A BELIEVER
:
: The language of the Qur'an about Zul-qarnain or Alexander the Great
: leaves us with the impression that Alexander the Great was a true
: believer. He talks like a believer and behaves like a believer.
All the more proof to show that Alexander could not be Dhu'l Qarnain.
Yet, the above writer accepts Yusuf Ali's belief that Dhu'l Qarnain is
Alexander the Great, even though the writer himself proves that this is
completley inconsistent with historical fact.
So why does the writer hold this belief despite it being against historical
fact ?
: But was Alexander the Great a prophet, or even a believer?
: Alexander the Great, contrary to the impression given by the Qur'an,
: was an infidel par excellence.
However, after realizing this, he continues to believe that Dhu'l Qarnain is
Alexander the Great and agrees with Yusuf Ali.
What type of logic is this ?
The bigotry of the writer should be showing through quite clearly now.
: "At Memphis Alexander sacrificed to Apis (one of the Egyptian idols)
: and was crowned with the traditional double crown of the Pharaohs;
: the native priests were placated and their religion encouraged."[4]
: "Alexander consulted the god (Ammon) on the success of his expedition."[5]
: And "On the Hyphasis Alexander erected 12 alters to the 12 Olympian
: gods."[6]
Again, then how can the above writer ever believe that Alexander the Great
was Dhu'l Qarnain and why does he accept Dhu'l Qarnain to be Alexander ?
Also, why does the above writer state that he accepts Yusuf Ali's belief, that
Alexander the Great is Dhu'l Qarnain, and then totally prove that such a view
is totally unacceptable and completley illogical as it is completley against
historical fact ?
Is it to show he is illogical and weak in reasoning and despite historical
fact, his intellect is fooled and accepts falsehood ?
: Alexander was far from being even a believer.
:
: Where did the Qur'an then get the idea that Alexander the great was a
: prophet? It came from the legend concerning Alexander.
The Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the great.
So the question is, why are you wrongly attributing such a statement to the
Qur'an ?
The next question is, why do you believe Alexander the great is Dhu'l
Qarnain, whom does find mention in the Qur'an, when it is against historical
fact ?
The next question is, why do you go on to prove your own belief false by
giving us these historical facts ?
: According to the Qur'an and the legends Alexander was a believer,
: but not according to history.
Completley false.
According to historical fact Dhu'l Qarnain could not be Alexander the
great, despite this fact, the above writer believes him to be anyway.
After this display of intelligence, or the lack of, the writer ignorantly
claims the Qur'an is also guilty of teaching this belief.
But the Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the great.
Thus proving the above writer is completley false in attributing such
non-sense to the Qur'an.
: The Qur'an claims that Alexander travelled west.
No it does not. It is the above writer who holds the belief that Alexander
the Great is Dhu'l Qarnain, despite historical fact, and due to this belief he
wrongly assumes that his belief must be the Qur'anic teaching.
While nothing could be further from the truth.
The rest of the article is filled with the same mistake over and over again.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk (my opinions)
P.S. I believe Dhu'l Qarnain to be Cyrus the Great, and this is in complete
accordance with historical fact.
Mehdi
3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) writes:
It is interesting that I and Ahmad Fareed agree on the speculation
that Thul-Qarnayin is Cyrus the great and Allah knows best. I say
this because Ahmad as I understand is Qadiani and I am a muslim. The
Qadianis usually have unique beliefs that the muslims do not agree
with (like that Eisa (jesus) A.S. died a natural death and went to
Kashmeer). So I am just noting that my rare agreement here on this
conterversial point is just that - rare.
Mahdiyy Al`rabiyy Alsunniyy The follower of the Seal of the Prophets
and the Messengers (peace be upon him).
Rafiq
Mehdi wrote:
>
> 3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) writes:
>
> It is interesting that I and Ahmad Fareed agree on the speculation
> that Thul-Qarnayin is Cyrus the great and Allah knows best. I say
> this because Ahmad as I understand is Qadiani and I am a muslim. The
> Qadianis usually have unique beliefs that the muslims do not agree
> with (like that Eisa (jesus) A.S. died a natural death and went to
> Kashmeer). So I am just noting that my rare agreement here on this
> conterversial point is just that - rare.
Cyrus the great?! He's just as much a pagan idol worshipper as
Alexander the Great! But I digress, if history was recorded by
truthful and honest people, Alexander and Cyrus might have turned
out to be monotheists indeed. But even these days children are
taught one-sided issues.
Jochen Katz did mistakingly say that the Qur'an says that Dhul
Qurnain was Alexander the Great; he got that impression only
because Yusuf Ali did. But Yusuf Ali also said he might have been
some old King of Persia and that there was very little written
about him at the time; PERHAPS because he might have been a good
king who worshipped and obeyed only One God unlike others around
him?
Along those lines, it could have been any king of old with very
little written about him because he happened to be a good one
who ruled fairly. We mostly read about those who were cruel and u
unfit to be kings and who usually lose it all. (The bigger they
are the harder they fall).
Jochen Katz
This response was full of denials without giving much as an
alternative explanation. Let me just pick out a few points.
In article <5hdvuv$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) writes:
| Firstly, if historical facts do not fit Dhu'l Qarnain being Alexander the
| Great, then why does the above writer agree with Yusuf Ali ?
| Does the above writer always agree with statements which are against
| historical facts ?
Well, you might actually want to read Yusuf Ali, Razi, Baydawi,
Jalalayn, at-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, etc. and ask yourself how
come that all those commentators came to the conclusion that it
was Alexander the Great who was meant? [this is what appears to
me from one source I have, he gives even the page numbers of
all those peoples commentaries, but he doesn't quote them].
And especially Yusuf Ali, living in this century, knew full well
that the things we know of Alexander the Great do not mesh with
the Qur'anic story. Why do you think he was forced to nevertheless
admit that this was the person meant by it?
You might want to ask yourself about that.
| Again, then how can the above writer ever believe that Alexander the Great
| was Dhu'l Qarnain and why does he accept Dhu'l Qarnain to be Alexander ?
because the things in the legends and the things in the Qur'an match up
perfectly, and because many of the Muslim commentators say exactly that.
| But the Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the great.
Then WHOM does it mention?
| Thus proving the above writer is completley false in attributing such
| non-sense to the Qur'an.
|
| : The Qur'an claims that Alexander travelled west.
|
| No it does not. It is the above writer who holds the belief that Alexander
| the Great is Dhu'l Qarnain, despite historical fact, and due to this belief he
| wrongly assumes that his belief must be the Qur'anic teaching.
| While nothing could be further from the truth.
Finally:
| P.S. I believe Dhu'l Qarnain to be Cyrus the Great, and this is in complete
| accordance with historical fact.
Okay, Please give me historical evidence that Cyrus does match the things
said in the Qur'an. Especially, when did he travel to the utmost west
and the utmost east and where did he build this enormous wall and the
gate that to this day holds back Gog and Magog?
It is one thing to deny all the things that match perfectly. It is another
thing to have a BETTER explanation.
Don't you think it is now your turn to give this better explanation, not
just make this a side remark? Then let us compare which one makes more
sense and if your construction is indeed confirmed by historical fact.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
Syed Yusuf
I would like to warn Muslims from following Christians in seeking out
every single historical detail about who did what and which name matches
what historical figure.
Allah (SAW) gave us all the knowlage we need to get the moral of the
story. learning what the person's name was, or his eye color, or his
favorite food, etc etc etc does NOTHING except make the moral a "needle
in the haystack" to find.
There is NO knowlage, except knowledge which brings us closer to
Allah,( through his mircals of revelation, or miricals of scientific
perfections) the rest is VANITY.
--
My reply-to: is altered to avoid junkmailers. Delete everthing after ".edu"
--
Syed Yusuf
http://www.uidaho.edu/~yusuf921
Metallica
On 28 Mar 1997, Jochen Katz wrote:
assalamu-alaikum:
> This response was full of denials without giving much as an
> alternative explanation. Let me just pick out a few points.
the difference between muslims and christians is that we do not talk about
things that we do not know. allah says that dhul-qarnain existed and he
shut up the people of gog and magog. he did not tell us more about the
person (not the complete history of dhul-qarnain). yusuf ali can say that
it could either be a parable or alexander the great. but we do not know if
alexander the great was dhul-qarnain. in these matters scholars can only
speculate, and that could be right or wrong. by the way, muslims do not
base their religion on speculation and we do not take scholars or exegates
as gods. we take from them what is right and leave what is wrong.
so, there is nothing like alternative explanation unless there is one and
the best i could think of is the above lines that i wrote.
hope this clears up the confusion.
wassalam
saif
Jochen Katz
In article <5hjps0$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
yusu...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Syed Yusuf) writes:
| I would like to warn Muslims from following Christians in seeking out
| every single historical detail about who did what and which name matches
| what historical figure.
Why? Isn't that the method of many Muslims trying to disprove the Bible?
Finding scientific and historical errors in it? And isn't that the
approach of the hailed book by Maurice Bucaille?
Why can't you stick with a consistent test?
Either you agree with this kind of test, then you have to allow it
to be applied to the Qur'an. Or you reject this kind of test, then
you have to trash a large part of the Muslim propagation material.
First of all, the whole embryology thing.
And what about this "body of Pharaoh" that supposedly has been
found and proves that the Qur'an is right to predict its preservation...
Muslims are constantly going this avenue. Muslims only can reject this
investigation on Alexander while keeping Bucaille by becoming hypocritical.
| Allah (SAW) gave us all the knowlage we need to get the moral of the
| story. learning what the person's name was, or his eye color, or his
| favorite food, etc etc etc does NOTHING except make the moral a "needle
| in the haystack" to find.
Well, name / identity is important. Nobody asked for his eye color,
food or other irrelevant items. The Qur'an doesn't make claims about
those. Only those claims that are actually made are of interest.
| There is NO knowlage, except knowledge which brings us closer to
| Allah,( through his mircals of revelation, or miricals of scientific
| perfections) the rest is VANITY.
All truth is God's truth. And when something turns out not to be true
then it might just not be from God...
But since you reject this approach for testing the truth of the Qur'an,
let me ask you:
What is your test for the truth of the Qur'an?
I have asked this question many many times on this group.
This is the question most persistently met with silence.
In my question series, many Muslims disagree with my conclusions
(I didn't expect anything else) and a good number [like you] even
with my questions and my methodology of testing. That is fine with me.
The problem I face is that I do give at least a method and approach
for testing, but when I ask you for your proof for the truth of Islam,
then the most I get is very subjective in the realm of "just open your
heart and if you sincerely seek and read the Qur'an then God will show
to you it is true".
This is nice on a personal level, but we all know that on this
subjective level there can be much imagination and deceit or
self-deception and mistaking my personal wishes for truth.
Some things are established by 'looking at it long enough and
the longer I look at it the more familiar and natural it seems'.
I cannot explain why and only can ask you to look at it long as well
That is exactly the Mormon method of convincing people. You ask God
about it if this is right ... but they refuse to have a rational
discussion in weighing the evidence for their claims.
Muslims claim constantly that Islam is the most rational religion.
But why then do Muslims at least on this forum squirm so much when
I ask for a test of its truth?
You reject my test and way of looking at it. fine. Then please give
me your test and evidence and let us discuss how rational it really
is.
I can see basically only two tests / challenges that the Qur'an itself
gives:
1) The Qur'an is true because it is in confirmation of God's earlier
revelation.
Either this earlier revelation is indeed the scriptures in the Bible,
then we see that it is NOT "in confirmation" and the Qur'an has failed
its own test. Or, the earlier revelations are not accessible [which
is the consequence of saying the Bible has been changed] and then
this test evaporates into a claim without evidence. If these earlier
revelations are not there to be looked at, then the test is vacuous,
empty, non-existent, non-applicable.
2) The Qur'an is true because of the challenge "bring a sura like it".
Well, if you want to stress this, I am prepared to argue it.
It is philosophically extremely weak.
Any other test?
I don't see the Qur'an give me any other test for its divine origin.
[Not evidence for the existence of God. In order to give evidence
for the existence of God, the Qur'an just as the Bible points to
the magnificence of creation etc. But that is not the issue. The
issue is whether the Qur'an comes from this God whose existence
is not disputed by me.]
I don't see the QUR'AN give any other test. Today Muslims add the
biblical tests of history and science in order to defend the Qur'an.
Those are tests that the Bible gives us [especially history], but
the Qur'an does not do so really. It does not ask us to test it in
this area. But I am most willing to apply those tests to Qur'an and
Bible, but we have to do it consistently.
Don't chicken out when this test then gets you in trouble with
Zul-qarnain and his gate and more issues to come later in this
series of questions. If you take that test, then take it fully.
If you reject this test, then burn your books and pamphlets by
Bucaille, Moore, etc.
What is YOUR test that has convinced you and which you think is
rational and will convince others who take an intellectually
honest approach to it?
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
D A Rice
In article <5hdvv5$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Mehdi) writes:
[Discussing historical possibilities for Dhu 'l Qarnayn....]
> He offers other historical figures. I remember the following:
>
> 1. Cyrus the Great the ancient persian king.
> 2. A king of Himyar - an old Arabic tribe that ruled Yemen.
> 3. I think he also mention the kings of Egypt and some of
> old Iraq.
>
> He concludes that Cyrus the great is the most probable
> candidate for being Thul Qarneen and I was very impressed
> at the time with his process of fitting the historical
> biography of Cyrus with that in the Quran.
This is interesting. Cyrus the Great is also mentioned in the Bible,
in the Book of Ezra 1:1 onwards.
The Book of Ezra says that Cyrus the Great was inspired by God, and
that under this inspiration he built a place of worship for God in
Jerusalem. Thus the *character* of Cyrus the Great, according to the
Book of Ezra, corresponds with the character of Dhu 'l Qarnayn in the
Qur'an, in that he is a just king, who is also a believer in God.
However, I know practically nothing else about Cyrus the Great, but it
sounds like an interesting possibility.
And Allah knows best.
Wassalam,
Fariduddien Rice
Shahryar Razmafrooz
In the name of Him, the most High
Rafiq wrote:
> Cyrus the great?! He's just as much a pagan idol worshipper as
> Alexander the Great!
Excuse me? Cyrus the Great was Zoroastrian. And a fair King.
I know that there are writers (moffassereen) who do believe Zul Gharnain
to be Cyrus the Great.
Zoroastrians of the time were without any doubt monotheists.
We only have our doubt when it comes to Zoroastrians of the later
Empires whose religion had had to pass the test of time (and the burning
of their books by Alexander). And even todays Zoroastrians claim to be
monotheists.
In fact it is written on the mountains that Cyrus the Great
believes that he bacame King only because it was God's will.
To me that sounds like faith.
Shahryar
Ahmad Farid
Jochen Katz (jk...@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
As-Salamo Alaikum,
: | Firstly, if historical facts do not fit Dhu'l Qarnain being Alexander the
: | Great, then why does the above writer agree with Yusuf Ali ?
: | Does the above writer always agree with statements which are against
: | historical facts ?
:
: Well, you might actually want to read Yusuf Ali, Razi, Baydawi,
: Jalalayn, at-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, etc. and ask yourself how
: come that all those commentators came to the conclusion that it
: was Alexander the Great who was meant?
Why ?
When I know it is completley against historical evidence to believe that
Alexander the great was Dhu'l Qarnain ?
Can not these commentators make a mistake ?
I do not worship commentators, I worship The Truth.
: And especially Yusuf Ali, living in this century, knew full well
: that the things we know of Alexander the Great do not mesh with
: the Qur'anic story. Why do you think he was forced to nevertheless
: admit that this was the person meant by it?
: You might want to ask yourself about that.
I am not doing a biography on Yusuf Ali and no one believes that Yusuf Ali is
free from error.
If Alexander the great's history does not coincide with the Qur'an's claims
about Dhu'l Qarnain, then there is no reason to believe that Alexander the
great is Dhu'l Qarnain. Is there ?
To the contrary, this is the reason to not believe that Alexander the great is
Dhu'l Qarnain.
: because the things in the legends and the things in the Qur'an match up
: perfectly, and because many of the Muslim commentators say exactly that.
But this has no effect on the fact that Alexander the great's history does not
coincide with the Qur'anic claims about Dhu'l Qarnain.
This proves that Alexander the great can not be Dhu'l Qarnain.
Legends mean nothing infront of historical fact. Do they ?
Maybe the above mentioned Muslim commentators were influenced by these
legends.
Allah knows best.
: | But the Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the great.
:
: Then WHOM does it mention?
It mentions Dhu'l Qarnain.
: Okay, Please give me historical evidence that Cyrus does match the things
: said in the Qur'an. Especially, when did he travel to the utmost west
: and the utmost east and where did he build this enormous wall and the
: gate that to this day holds back Gog and Magog?
I saw a baseless attack on the Qur'an and defended it.
I am under no obligation to present my beliefs about who Dhu'l Qarnain is.
But if the historical proof provided is true, then it is certain that Dhu'l
Qarnain is not Alexander the great.
However, I will give a brief proof for my belief that Dhu'l Qarnain is Cyrus
the Great. But not today as I am busy.
Hopefully tomorrow.
: It is one thing to deny all the things that match perfectly. It is another
: thing to have a BETTER explanation.
Firstly, they did not match perfectly and the writer himself provided the
historical proof showing that the Qur'ans claims about Dhu'l Qarnain did not
coincide with Alexander the great. Thus proving that Alexander is not Dhu'l
Qarnian.
Yet, the writer foolishly insisted that Alexander the great was Dhu'l
Qarnain.
Secondly, I agree it is another matter to have a better explanation, but first
it must be realized that your article attacking the Qur'an was completley
false and has no basis.
: Don't you think it is now your turn to give this better explanation, not
: just make this a side remark? Then let us compare which one makes more
: sense and if your construction is indeed confirmed by historical fact.
Firstly, I will provide my belief.
Secondly, if it is shown that my belief is also not valid, this will not
thereby make your belief valid. Your article has been proven false, by none
other than the writer of your article.
My belief is that Cyrus the great is Dhu'l Qarnain, if this is not true, then
this has no effect on the Qur'an as the Qur'an mentions Dhu'l Qarnain.
Both our replies would be invalid and would have no effect upon the Qur'an.
Simply because we do not know who Dhu'l Qarnain is, does not mean we have the
right to make it whomever we choose, despite historical evidence contrary to
our wild claims.
But, I believe, my belief that Cyrus the great is Dhu'l Qarnain is supportable
and will not be proven false, as Mr.Katz's article was.
Jochen Katz
In article <5hvgdi$b...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) writes:
| : | Firstly, if historical facts do not fit Dhu'l Qarnain being Alexander the
| : | Great, then why does the above writer agree with Yusuf Ali ?
| : | Does the above writer always agree with statements which are against
| : | historical facts ?
| :
| : Well, you might actually want to read Yusuf Ali, Razi, Baydawi,
| : Jalalayn, at-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, etc. and ask yourself how
| : come that all those commentators came to the conclusion that it
| : was Alexander the Great who was meant?
|
| Why ?
| When I know it is completley against historical evidence to believe that
| Alexander the great was Dhu'l Qarnain ?
| Can not these commentators make a mistake ?
| I do not worship commentators, I worship The Truth.
How do you know what is true?
| If Alexander the great's history does not coincide with the Qur'an's claims
| about Dhu'l Qarnain, then there is no reason to believe that Alexander the
| great is Dhu'l Qarnain. Is there ?
| To the contrary, this is the reason to not believe that Alexander the great is
| Dhu'l Qarnain.
And then you repeat the same denial over and over again.
The issue is the following:
There are people who want to find a way to evaluate if the Qur'an is true.
This is one piece of evaluation. And everything I have seen so far points
to the fact that the Qur'an incorporated false legends about Alexander
into its text.
You have decided that anything that contradicts the Qur'an is to be
rejected and explained away somehow. Feel free to do so, but until you
give me a way to do some sort of reasonably objective test for the truth
of the Qur'an I only see you as operating in blind faith.
When Alexander the great is mentioned in the Qur'an under his "nickname"
then you think you can deny that it is him because the Qur'an does not
use his "real name".
But if you HAVE people mentioned with the real name and it doesn't fit,
then you explain it away otherwise. Mary the sister of Aaron and daughter
of Imran. Here we have concrete names. Names of father and son known from
the Torah. But since the timing doesn't work out, you spiritualize it
away and it isn't meaning what it says ...
If it doesn't give the proper name, therefore it is somebody else.
If it does give the proper name it means something else.
Fact is: You are not willing to evaluate the Qur'an and have decided
that the Qur'an is right and hence all that disagrees with it has to
be wrong, no matter how many things disagree and how weak the
justifications are. Please continue to deny, but I surely am not
impressed with this approach. The more problems there are for which
we have to invoke the divine authority to dispell them away, the
stronger needs your real evidence to be FOR the divine origin of
the Qur'an.
WHAT is YOUR evidence for the Qur'an? It better be rock solid.
Much more solid than the problems. Otherwise you are one who declares
cotton to be harder than diamond just because otherwise it would rock
your world.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Ahmad Farid
As-Salamo Alaikum,
I here present my reasons for beleiving Dhu'l Qarnain to be Cyrus the Great.
All of the reasons I present are from the second head of the Ahmadiyya
Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad.
Dhu'l Qarnain seems to be the king who founded the Medo-Persian Empire which
represented the two horns of Daniel's famous dream. "I saw the ram pushing
westward and northward and southward, so that no beast might stand before
him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did
according to his will and became great." (Dan. 8:4,20,21)
Quite in harmony with this part of Daniel's dream, the Qur'an mentions three
journeys of Dhu'l Qarnain. (Chapter 18, verses 87,91,94)
This fact lends powerful support to the inference that Dhu'l Qarnain was the
descriptive name of a king of Media and Persia. And of all kings of Media
and Persia, the description given in the Qur'an most fitly applies to
Cyrus.
The Qur'an has mentioned four distinctive marks of Dhu'l Qarnain:
a) He was a powerful monarch and a kind and just ruler. (vv. 85,89)
b) He was a righteous servant of God and was blessed with Divine revelation.
(vv. 92,99)
c) He marched to the West and made great conquests till he came to a place
where he found the sun setting, as it were, in a pool of murky water and
then he tured to the East and conquered and subdued vast territories.
(vv. 87,88)
d) He went to a midwary region where a savage people lived and where Gog
and Magog made great inroads; and he built a wall there to stop these
inroads. (vv. 94-98)
Of the great rulers and famous military captains of ancient times, Cyrus
possesses, in the greatest measure, the four above mentioned qualities.
He, therefore, rightly deserves to be considered the Dhu'l Qarnain of the
Qur'an.
Cyrus believed in life after death. He was a follower of Zoroaster and of
all religions, second only to Islam, zoroastrianism has laid the greatest
stress on life after death.
I quote:
"There can be no doubt that Cyrus and his Persian followers were faithful
believers in the pure doctrine of Zoroaster, and disdainfully regarded
foregin cults. (Jew. Enc., vol 4, p.404)
I now turn my attention towards the construction of a wall by Cyrus to
protect from Gog and Magog.
The Scythians or Gog and Magog occupied territories to the north and
northeast of the Black Sea and they came from these regions through the pass
of Darband and invaded and conquered and ruled over the Persians.
Cyrus degeated them and delivered the Persians from their clutches
(Historians' History of the World).
Exactly, at the place which, according to Herodotus, was the pass through
which the Scythians made raids upon Persia stood a wall, the famous of Wall
of Derbent.
I quote:
"Derbent or Darband, a town of Persia, Caucasia, in the province of
Deghestan, on the western shore of the Caspian...And to the south lies the
seward extremity of the Caucaisan wall, 50 miles long OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
ALEXANDER'S WALL, blocking the narrow pass of the IRON GATE or the Caspian
Gate.
This, when entire, had a height of 29 feet and a thickness of about 10 feet,
and with its IRON GATES and numerous watch-towers formed a veritable defence
of the Persian frontier." (Enc. Brit. under "Derbent")
I particularly capitalized IRON GATE, as the Qur'an states in the same
chapter, verse 97, Dhu'l Qarnain is to have said:
" 'Bring me blocks of iron' They did so till, when he had filled up the
space between the two mountain sides, he said...."
AGAINST established historical data it is popularly believed that the Wall
was built by Alexander the Great. But Alexander's millitary expeditions
were like a whilrwind amidst which he could not attend to any vast project
as the building of such a huge wall, nor did his death at a very early age
leave him time for such a grand undertaking.
The populat notion seems to have arisen from the fact that Muslim
commentators of the Qur'an mistook Dhu'l Qarnain for Alexander.
The following circumstantial evidence shows that Cyrus built it:
a) In order to break the power of the Scythians, Darius, who ascended the
throne after the death of the son of Cyrus, passed through Greece and
attacked them from across Europe. It is inconceivable that he should have
undertaken such a long, ardous and round-about journey to attack these
people from across south-east Europe when they lived very near him in the
north. The inevitable conclusion is that the existence of a huge wall
which only Cyrus could have built before him had made it ipossible for him
to cross over to the other side with a large force.
b) The fact, that before the time of Cyrus the Scythians made constant and
uninterrupted raids upon Persia but after his conquests these raids
completley ceased, leads to the very probable conclusion that he must have
set up a barrier which effectivley checked these attacks and that the
barrier must be the famous wall of Dervent, mistakenly known as Alexander's
Wall.
Cyrus must have been informed by revelation that sometimes in the future Gog
and Magog would again spread to the south-east and this wall would then fail
to retard or check their progress. This may be the significance of the
words, 'He will breat it'. In 21:97 we are told that Gog and Magog would
spread their tentacles all over the world.
Metaphorically, the 'breaking of the wall' may mean the decline of the
plitical power of Islam, particularly the Turks of Europe. With the
weakening of the Turkish power the way for Christian nations of Europe to
conquer the East was made clear.
At the time of the rise to power of Gog and Magog all peoples of the world
will come together and the whole world will become united like one country.
And according to the Bible, nation shall fight nation and kingdom against
kingdom and malice, hatred and iniquity will abound.
The reference seems to be the present age.
A veritable hell was let loose upon the world in the last two World Wars and
human imagination shudders at the destruction that the Third World War will
cause. Even now they are preparing for Armageddon.
There should be no doubt that Gog and Magog are the Western nations,
That is why there are hadith warning us to read Chapter 18, Surah Al-Kahf to
be protected from the Dajjal.
The Imam Madhi and Promised Messiah who would slay the Dajjal has come, yet
the people deny him.
They make false accusations like the ignorant and fail to listen, and would
that they use their understanding.
Allah does not punish a people un-justly.
Ahmad Farid
Jochen Katz (jk...@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
As-Salamo Alaikum,
: | Why ?
: | When I know it is completley against historical evidence to believe that
: | Alexander the great was Dhu'l Qarnain ?
: | Can not these commentators make a mistake ?
: | I do not worship commentators, I worship The Truth.
:
: How do you know what is true?
Mr.Katz's article claims that Dhu'l Qarnain is Alexander the great.
Yet, historical facts show that Alexander the great could not be Dhu'l Qarnain
because Alexander the great did not posess the qualities that Dhu'l Qarnain
posessed.
For example, if I describe a UFO to have three,cube shaped,orange eyes; and
another claims this UFO is actually a prehistoric animal named MINT, yet
archeological evidence shows that MINT had two sphereical green eyes.
Then we can conclude that MINT is not the UFO I described.
In the same way the Qur'an does not mention Alexander the great, but mentions
a man, namely Dhu'l Qarnain and lists his characteristics, and it is a
historical fact that Alexander the great did not posess those characteristics
described in the Qur'an about Dhu'l Qarnain.
Therefore, we can conclude that Alexander the great is not Dhu'l Qarnain.
: | If Alexander the great's history does not coincide with the Qur'an's claims
: | about Dhu'l Qarnain, then there is no reason to believe that Alexander the
: | great is Dhu'l Qarnain. Is there ?
: | To the contrary, this is the reason to not believe that Alexander the great is
: | Dhu'l Qarnain.
:
: And then you repeat the same denial over and over again.
Only to show the falsehood of your claim.
: The issue is the following:
:
: There are people who want to find a way to evaluate if the Qur'an is true.
Fine, but to falsely assume that Dhu'l Qarnain is Alexander the great and then
claim that since historical evidence is different then what the Qur'an
describes, therefore the Qur'an is false, is a completley baseless argument.
We must first determine whether the assumption that the Qur'an actually
teaches that Dhu'l Qarnain is Alexander the great, is true or false.
Prove that the Qur'an meant Alexander the great when mentioning Dhu'l Qarnain.
This should be your first step.
Instead, you assume this first step, but we do not accept this assumption and
consider it most unworthy.
: This is one piece of evaluation. And everything I have seen so far points
: to the fact that the Qur'an incorporated false legends about Alexander
: into its text.
The Qur'an does not even mention Alexander the great and this is your faulty
assumption.
Show me one verse which mentions Alexander the great.
: You have decided that anything that contradicts the Qur'an is to be
: rejected and explained away somehow. Feel free to do so, but until you
: give me a way to do some sort of reasonably objective test for the truth
: of the Qur'an I only see you as operating in blind faith.
I and my views whether out of blind faith or what not, are not the topic of
discussion.
Leave me, Audil Virk, out of the discussion and concentrate on the issue.
: When Alexander the great is mentioned in the Qur'an under his "nickname"
: then you think you can deny that it is him because the Qur'an does not
: use his "real name".
Since when is Dhu'l Qarnain the "nickname" of Alexander the great ?
If this is his "nickname" as you claim, surely you must posess some proof to
show this.
I await for this proof.
: But if you HAVE people mentioned with the real name and it doesn't fit,
: then you explain it away otherwise. Mary the sister of Aaron and daughter
: of Imran. Here we have concrete names. Names of father and son known from
: the Torah. But since the timing doesn't work out, you spiritualize it
: away and it isn't meaning what it says ...
Now, Mr.Katz brings up another altogether different issue, in an incredibly
weak attempt to support his false claim that the Qur'an is using the
"nickname" of Alexander the great, and Muslims are fabricating weak arguments
and uses the above as an example of Muslim behaviour to justify his claims
about Alexander the great.
Do not confuse the issue by bringing up and commenting negativley upon other
issues of which you have little or no understanding.
Stay on topic and remain focused and do not drag in every aspect of Islam
which you fail to understand. Patience and humility are the ways of the
seekers of truth.
Can it be that we should be born today and walk tomorrow ?
: Fact is: You are not willing to evaluate the Qur'an and have decided
: that the Qur'an is right and hence all that disagrees with it has to
: be wrong, no matter how many things disagree and how weak the
: justifications are.
Again, I am not the topic of discussion, but the identity of Dhu'l Qarnain.
Please leave my person out of the discussion.
Mr.Katz claims it is Alexander the great, despite the fact that his history is
completley contrary to the Quranic claims about Dhu'l Qarnain.
So naturally I ask, why should I accept that Alexander the great is Dhu'l
Qarnain, when historical facts are completley opposed to this claim ?
: Please continue to deny, but I surely am not
: impressed with this approach.
Historical facts about Alexander the great are in complete opposition to the
description of Dhu'l Qarnain in the Holy Qur'an.
Therefore, Dhu'l Qarnain is not Alexander the great.
I do not claim this aproach is impressive, and to the contrary, deem it to be
common sense and not requiring a high degree of intelligence to understand.
: The more problems there are for which
: we have to invoke the divine authority to dispell them away, the
: stronger needs your real evidence to be FOR the divine origin of
: the Qur'an.
:
: WHAT is YOUR evidence for the Qur'an? It better be rock solid.
: Much more solid than the problems. Otherwise you are one who declares
: cotton to be harder than diamond just because otherwise it would rock
: your world.
These are not valid questions to be asked under this thread.
This thread consists of identifying Dhu'l Qarnain.
Once you have understood that your article could not be correct, then feel
free to ask such questions under an appropriate thread or form a new article.
I would be most pleased to reply.
But under this thread, I will not be carried away with the tide of questions
and claims that Mr.Katz makes.
This thread is about the identity of Dhu'l Qarnain and why it is unreasonable
to conclude that Dhu'l Qarnain is Alexander the great, namely, it is
completley against historical fact.
tufail
Ahmad Farid wrote:
>
> As-Salamo Alaikum,
> I here present my reasons for beleiving Dhu'l Qarnain to be Cyrus the Great.
> Audil Virk (my opinions)
>>>>> Assalamu alaikum.
I read this in the Holy Qur'an by Muhammed Ali. The reasons for me
not to believe that Dhul Quarnain is not Alexander are the history that
I read did not support the idea. Secondly, all the charecters and people
mentioned in the Qur'an are generally the charecters and persons in the
earlier revelations. I have not come across in the current version of
Bible any mention of Alexander the great. However, the dream of Daniel
is Biblical account and it fits with idea that the charecters and
persons
are *generally* the chrecters and person in the Qur'an. Becuase of these
two reasons, I accepted Muhammed Ali's explanation of DhulQurnain.
Peace
Tufail
Jochen Katz
Audil Virk wrote a long article trying to establish the
identity between Zul-Qarnain and Cyrus the Great.
There are many weaknesses in this theory. But let me just
point out two crucial pieces.
In article <5i4nno$8...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) writes:
| The Qur'an has mentioned four distinctive marks of Dhu'l Qarnain:
| c) He marched to the West and made great conquests till he came to a place
| where he found the sun setting, as it were, in a pool of murky water and
| then he tured to the East and conquered and subdued vast territories.
| (vv. 87,88)
Now, it is true that Cyrus went west, since he reached and conquered
parts of Greece, but if "the place of the setting of the sun" means
anything it certainly indicates "as far west as you can go". Greece
is certainly not the utmost west of what you can go [on land].
| d) He went to a midwary region where a savage people lived and where Gog
| and Magog made great inroads; and he built a wall there to stop these
| inroads. (vv. 94-98)
What is "midwary"? Midway?
| Of the great rulers and famous military captains of ancient times, Cyrus
| possesses, in the greatest measure, the four above mentioned qualities.
| He, therefore, rightly deserves to be considered the Dhu'l Qarnain of the
| Qur'an.
We will see. You forgot the piece on going to the "rising of the sun".
He probably went into Central Asia, but definitely not to the far
East.
No way. Several facts. Which you seem to deliberately (?) overlook.
Or maybe you got all your quotes out of your source and did not
independently verify them, since you say:
| All of the reasons I present are from the second head of the Ahmadiyya
| Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad.
Maybe you will have to come to realize that your "scholar" is not all
that scholarly after all and not a very honest man in quoting. But since
you submitted the article, I will respond and say "you" quote the
Encyclopedia Britannica, the entry on 'Derbent'.
Cyrus lived about 580 - 529 B.C.
[another piece from this encylopedia].
Now "your" quote on Derbent:
| on the western shore of the Caspian...And to the south lies the
The most interesting bit is not what you quote, but what you do NOT
quote. The piece that is marked "..." in your quote.
I am not sure which edition of the encylopedia you have. Yours seems
to give a somehow longer article than mine. But the most items are
parallel nevertheless. Well, WHAT is it that you cut out?
==> "Founded in AD 438 as a Persian fortress, ..." <==
Could you tell me how Cyrus could have built this fortress and wall
when he died over 950 years prior to the foundation of it?
Check the Britannica at http://www.eb.com:180/ and search for
"Derbent". It will tell you that this is the date when it was founded.
But in fact, we are not left guessing as to the origin of this wall.
Even though the Enc. Brit. doesn't state it under the entry "Derbent",
there are other books that help.
The Iron gate and the Caucasian wall at Derbend were not built by
Cyrus but by Khosrow I Anushirvan, who ruled the Persian empire
531-579 A.D. The wall was completed about 542 A.D.
(Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog and Inclosed Nations,
by Andrew Runni Anderson)
But in fact, after knowing this, looking in the Encyclopedia Britannica
Online one comes up with similar inforation at this URL:
As such, it is clear that Cyrus is definitely not the one who built
this wall.
Apart from the fact that it isn't intact to this day but a ruin
and doesn't fit the the description of the Qur'an.
Then followed he (another) way. <BR>
Until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains. He found,
beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word.<BR>
They said: "O Zul-Qarnain! The Gog and Magog (people) do great mischief
on earth: Shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightiest
erect a barrier between us and them. <BR>
He said: "(The power) in which My Lord has established me is better
(than tribute): <BR>
Help me therefore with strength (and labour): I will erect a strong
barrier between you and them: <BR>
Bring me blocks of iron. At length when he had filled up the space
between the two steep mountain-sides, he said, "Blow (with your bellows)".
Then when he had made it (red) as fire, he said: "Bring me, that I may
pour over it molten lead." <BR>
Thus were they made powerless to scale it or to dig through it. <BR>
He said this is a mercy from my Lord. But when the promise of my Lord
comes to pass He will make it into dust. And the promise of my Lord is
true. (Q. 18:92-98, Yusuf Ali's translation)
It is clear that the WALL is of iron, not (just) the gate. You don't built
a gate from blocks, you built walls from blocks. The Derbent wall is not
made from iron. The gate in that wall was of iron, that is true, but
the wall itself was not. Hence this is the second reason that your
identification doesn't work.
May the truth reign supreme.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
el Gringo
In article <5i4nno$8...@shell3.ba.best.com>, 3f...@qlink.queensu.ca (Ahmad Farid) wrote:
>
>As-Salamo Alaikum,
>I here present my reasons for beleiving Dhu'l Qarnain to be Cyrus the Great.
>All of the reasons I present are from the second head of the Ahmadiyya
>Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad.
salam.
It's a known fact that du al qarnain was the first great king after nouh
(saw). It's said also that his kingdom englobed large lands in east and west.
Plus, the facts dealing with the people of Gog and Magog (yajouj and wajouj)
makes it very totaly unlikely that du al qarnain was recent (and I consider
Cyrus the great and Alexander the great to be very recent in this sense).
So why people are torturing their minds with so illogical assumptions as
Alexander or Cyrus is du al qarnain ????
Riad
Sheik
Personally, I dont believe that he was Alexander the Great.
In any case, most of the persons we believe as prophets in the Old
Testament and the Quran cannot be proven to exist historically. So why do
we bother to prove who they are? It is fallacious of the Quranic
commentators to choose Dzul Qarnain for examination merely because he is
the only character in the Quran who was not mentioned in the Bible, isnt
it?
I dislike this whole approach of justifying the truths of scripture by
historical or sceintific basis. History (especially archeological
history) relies too much upon inferences and deductions from often scant
material. The contemporary inference from a particular archeological or
historical find is by nature almost always subject to contrary
interpretation and deduction. A historical find is stumbled upon, and
people jump and interpret it to be something in the scripture, like Noah's
Ark or the Garden of Eden, or Goliath's skull or whatever, and is used as
proof of scriptural allegations. But many a time interpretations of
history have been debunked by subsequent discoveries, and everyone has egg
on their faces.
When we try to justify the Quran or any scripture with science or history,
we are placing the Quran on a yardstick and telling everyone, hey, see
here, it measures up. But it is the Quran or the scripture that should be
the yardstick if you believe that it is God's word. If placed against a
diametrically opposing historical allegation, does it mean to Muslims or
Christians that the scripture is wrong? Of course not. But we are saying
that the scripture is true because history matches it. It's trying to have
your cake and eating it, it's somewhat hypocritical to me.
Just me off-hand view.
Sheik
Singapore