Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: SonOfaSaracen Nov 27 2004, 02:08 AM

asalmo 3lakom

Among Western scholars, the issue of Dhul-Qarnayn (the two-horned one) in Qur'an 18:82 has been a source of great debate. The debate surrounds not only the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn but also the sources of the Qur'anic story. Who was he? Was he really Alexander the Great? Hammer-Purgstall held that Dhul-Qarnayn was one of the old kings of Yemen.[1] Graf took exception to this view and cited the passages from Ephippus and Clement that referred to the representations of Alexander as son of Ammon with horns. He concluded that the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn is that of Alexander.[2] Graf's conclusions provoked the dissent of Redslob. Redslob, citing the prophecy of Daniel in which the king of the Medes and Persians is interpreted as the two-horned ram, proposed that Dhul-Qarnayn was Cyrus the Persian.[3] Beer held that the Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an had adopted the form of the long awaited Jewish redeemer or messiah.[4] And others like Geiger have attempted to link Dhul-Qarnayn to Moses.[5] In the Western scholarhip, the issue of Dhul-Qarnayn's identity was finally brought to a close by Nöldeke who established that Dhul-Qarnayn was none other than Alexander and the source of the Qur'anic narrations was the Syrian Christian Legend ascribed to Jacob of Serugh (d. 521 CE). Nöldeke dated the Christian Legend to 514-515 CE.[6] A similar claim has been made by Newton and is available here. Nöldeke's position was accept by many scholars[7] until it was discovered that the internal evidence of the Christian Legend suggested a post-Islamic date.


For more Information go to
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBhorned.html

Posted by: Samiullah Nov 27 2004, 02:29 AM

It kind of makes sense. You know, Alexander always said he was from the Heavens sent by God.

Posted by: Keeping Faith Nov 27 2004, 04:44 AM

Many emperors/kings said that. They were considered to be 'divinely appointed' as leaders of their nations, so Allahu Alim.

Very interesting bro. for sharing.

Posted by: Mercyonmankind Nov 27 2004, 10:02 AM

Salaam..
I heard that too long time before, that some people said Thul Qarnan was Alexander the great... Allah knows best who is alex..

Posted by: Hashi Al-Eritre Nov 27 2004, 01:24 PM

Assalaamu 'alaikom,

Dhul Qarnayn being Alexander "the Great" actually has no basis from the Sunnah or the statements of the Salaf as Saleh. Infact, as the first post shows, it was thought up recently by orientalists. Then it was mentioned by Yusuf Ali in his tafsir. However, Yusuf Ali is not a Mufassir nor is his tafsir reliable to begin with as it contains many grave errors and does not depend upon the interpretations of the Salaf but more on his reasoning and intellect.

One should look to Tafsir ibn Kathir and At Tabari and these major works for understanding of those verses as these tafsirs contain many statements from the Prophet sulAllahu 'alayhi wassalaam, the companions and the rest of the Salaf as Saleh in interpreting the meaning of the verses. And if it was indeed Dhul Qarnayn was infact Alexander that is mentioned in those verses then surely we would have found the Prophet sulAllahu 'alayhi wassalaam or his companions describing us this in detail so that his identity would have been clear.

barakAllahu feekum
wassalaamu 'alaikom

Posted by: slave Nov 27 2004, 02:35 PM

salam ^^^ good advice

if we take into belife that alexandra was mentioned in the quran then prepare your self for some bashing by non muslims,

Posted by: LegalEagle Nov 27 2004, 02:44 PM

Salaam

Alexander was NOT Dhul'Qar Nain... Alexander was a meglomaniac

pedophile macedonian tyrant who murdered millions in his goal to

control the world

Posted by: Samiullah Nov 27 2004, 04:00 PM

Yusuf Ali is an Idiot (astaghfirullah)

The guy writes so much stuff on yajuj and Majuj on his own opinion. He makes things up as he goes along somethimes.

Posted by: Islamicbrother Nov 27 2004, 07:05 PM

Dhul Qarnayn isn't alexander .

I heard in one of Zakir Naiks debate when he refuted that. Yusuf Ali is wrong in his tafsir.

He was probably a very pious and righteous person who had been endowed with wisdom and power by Allah. Its not impossible, coz if you think of Khidr he had been given some powers too.

Posted by: saufia Nov 27 2004, 09:00 PM

my Islamic studies' teacher talked about him as though he was the cleverest man in the world...how he is a great Islamic scholar, has a pHd in philosophy, is an Algerian revert, can speak upto 10 languages fluently, his english translation of the Quran is said to be the closest to the actual arabic (can be accessed on www.divineislam.co.uk )

perhaps he just comes across as making things up along the way because he writes based on sources not-widely known?

Posted by: Hashi Al-Eritre Nov 27 2004, 09:14 PM

Assalaamu 'alaikom,

Yusuf Ali has made very serious errors in both his translation and especially his tafsir of the Quran. He employed a methodology of judging the Quran according to science and reason. He has a habit of rejecting things that conflict with his intellect and reasoning, so in his Tafsir, he rejects the existance of Jinn and even rejected the existance of jannah and jahanam. If he relies on any sources, they are certianly not reliable sources like Tafsir at Tabari or Ibn Katheer or any of the relaible books of Tafsir. His Tafsir does not put the Sunnah and the statements of the companions as primary sources. Rather, it seems he relied more on orientalist views and his own judgements than anything else.

Posted by: SonOfaSaracen Nov 27 2004, 10:09 PM

Assalaamu 'alaikom,

God knows best.

Posted by: saufia Nov 27 2004, 10:17 PM

Haishi, does he really not believe in jinn? belief in 'other spiritual beings' is of the 6 articles of faith of Islam.

can you tell me please what beliefs of Yusuf Ali and which parts of his translation are disputed on? - so i can ask the teacher about it. you don't have to give me complete specifics, but exactly what (other) beliefs of his are disputed on.

what are his views on heaven and hell? - i dont see how a muslim can not believe in heaven and hell.

by the way, what is tafsir?

Posted by: Hashi Al-Eritre Nov 28 2004, 01:11 AM

Assalaamu 'alaikom,

Tafsir is the arabic word for Quranic Interpretation/meaning/explanation . The most authentic and major books of Tafsir are Tafsir at Tabari by Imaam At Tabari (this book is far too detailed for the layman to read, but is the most comprehensive Tafsir there is), and Tafsir Ibn Kathir (www.tafsir.com if you want a free read. Dar-us-Salam has published a 10-volume translation of the abridged version of the Tafsir ibn Kathir. You can find it on almost all islamic bookstores). Tafsir Ibn Kathir by Imaam Ibn Kathir is one of the best Tafsirs for a person like you and me to read as its more summarized and focused on giving the correct interpretation rather than all the interpretations that have been narrated.

These are the books that one should consider reliable books of Tafsir because they contain only interpretations from the Sunnah, the companions, and the Tabi'een., and those that followed them.

As for the mistakes in Yusuf Ali, here is a summary of them:

1) Heaven and Hell are states of the mind and do not really exist ;

2) jinns are not a separate creation of Allaah but rather an innate force in man;

3) the hooris (virgin women) of Heaven are only for companionship, and not for pleasure.

There is a book called "An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran" by Yasir Qadhi. He discusses the various incorrect interpretations in the Quran, specifically that of Yusuf Ali. I have the book but it is not with me right now. So until i get it back, you will have to be patient with me in transcribing what it contains.

However, i did find this as just one example of a quote from him where he has gravely erred. In an attempt to appeal to the Western read of Christian background, Yusuf Ali has mistranslated the verses in the Quran refering to pleasure in Paradise in a symbolic fashion as opposed to it being PHYSICAL. Yusuf Ali said regarding the verse that speaks of the Virgin woman in paradise: "Then there is companionship. If sex is suggested, its physical associations are at once negatived by the addition of the word Mutahharatun (pure and holy). The Arabic is in the intensive form, and must be translated by two adjectives denoting purity in the highest degree. The companionship is that of souls and applies to both sexes in the physical world of men and women." (A. Yusef Ali, The Holy Quran, (Trans.), (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corp., 1983) p.22. ft n. 44).

Inshaa Allah if you require references to his errors, just e-mail me and i will try to get the book back and type them up for you inshaa Allah.

wassalaamu 'alaikom

Posted by: genetic_freak Nov 28 2004, 02:45 AM

WHAT YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT (0_o) .... Recently on DISCOVERY CHANNEL ... it was Shown that ... ALEXANDER THE GREAT ... was actually a HOMO sexual .... and that he Had this THRIST TO CONQUER THE WORLD AS VENGEANce ... because he was In LOVE WITH HIS COMMANDER in charge ... He Vowed TO CONQUER THE WHOLE WORLD .. on his COMMANDERS DEATH bed ...

Guys i am VERY CONFUSED ... after watching that SHow i totally Spit on ALEXanders name ... Do prove me wrong

Posted by: SonOfaSaracen Nov 28 2004, 05:27 AM

^^^^^^^
sorry accidently pressed some button that made it do that.


i saw the movie and was completely freaked out about it. On the way home my older brother said that he was in the quran so i researched it. Maybe history was changed to view him as a ordinary greek person at those times, cause remebr that all his generals were polytheistic and some plotted for his murder. Allah knows best.

Posted by: saufia Nov 28 2004, 08:13 PM

jazakallah haishi ...i'll refer those points to my islamic studies' teacher...

his abstract concepts may sound clever to Europeans but Truth is the best

Posted by: LegalEagle Nov 29 2004, 01:32 PM

Exactly as I said gene-freak...Alexander was a European genocidal boy
raping tyrant ...Colonialists tried to change his reputation into somebody
who tried to civilise the East ...except the East dosn't need civilising and
he was on the same mission as his Amrikan successors..theft and murder

Posted by: genetic_freak Nov 29 2004, 05:19 PM

Jazakallah Khair Bro ... 4 solving that ... i really SPIT at his Name ... coz as a kid .. i really admired him a lot

Posted by: Crystal Eyes Nov 29 2004, 05:37 PM

Asalamu Alaykum


Brothers and sisters I do not know much on this topic but do keep in mind that we should not utter things we have very little knowledge on.

Posted by: rasheed gonzales Nov 29 2004, 05:50 PM

assalaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah.

i haven't read all of the posts yet, but inshaa'Allah, i will. there's some good discussion on this debate from shaikh al-islaam ibn taimiyyah, if i remember correctly. when i get home, i'll check my library and see what i can find inshaa'Allah.

also, one thing i thought i'd mention that i'm not sure if its been mentioned... but alexander the great was a homosexual. i think that in itself rules out the possibility that he was dhul-qarnain.