Personality Profile: Is Alexander ‘the Great’ actually the Quran’s Dhul-Qarnayn ?

The Holy Quran in many ways is mysterious in that it remarkably conveys multiple facets of a story within a single verse or a bunch of verses. It is therefore only natural that over the course of history, multiple interpretations (or ‘tafsirs’) have come about to help Muslims understand the meaning of these stories. Though most of the interpretations have remained more or less similar, the identification of characters in the Quran to history have somewhat been ambiguous. One such example is the story of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain). The Quran describes him as a just ruler who built a great iron wall for a foreign group of people to save them from the threat of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’.The interpretations of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’ are itself a topic for another day, however, this implies that the conditions for any historical figure to meet the description of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) are as follows: 

1. He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous
2. He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who leads two generations’.
3.  Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own
4.  Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog
5. Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of’ Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

Alexander the Great

Merriam-Webster dictionary describes Alexander as follows: 

Alexander the great, (born 356 BC, Pella, Macedonia—died June 13, 323 BC, Babylon) was King of Macedonia (336–323) and the greatest military leader of antiquity. The son of Philip II of Macedonia, he was taught by Aristotle. He soon showed military brilliance, helping win the Battle of Chaeronea at age 18. He succeeded his assassinated father in 336 and promptly took Thessaly and Thrace. In 334 he crossed to Persia and defeated a Persian army at the Granicus River. In 332 he completed a seven-month siege of Tyre, considered his greatest military achievement, and then took Egypt. There he received the pharaohs' double crown, founded Alexandria, and visited the oracle of the god Amon, the basis of his claim to divinity. Conquering what is now Tajikistan, he married the princess Roxana and embraced Persian absolutism, adopting Persian dress and enforcing Persian court customs. By 326, he reached the Hyphasis in India, where his weary men mutinied; he turned back, marching and pillaging down the Indus, and reached Susa with much loss of life. He continued to promote his unpopular policy of racial fusion, a seeming attempt to form a Persian-Macedonian master race. He fell ill at Babylon after long feasting and drinking and died at age 33. He was buried in Alexandria, Egypt. His empire, the greatest that had existed to that time, extended from Thrace to Egypt and from Greece to the Indus valley. 

Alexander's Empire

Condition 1: He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous.

The greatness of Alexander’s empire is without doubt unparalleled and hence he fits this description easily. Whether he was a righteous ruler or not, is subject to debate.  An incident of his meeting with the leader of Jews, Simeon (‘the just’) relates that on meeting Simeon, Alexander withdrew from his carriage and bowed down inciting criticism from his followers as it was not customary for a man of Alexander’s stature to bow to a Jew. This incident shows he was certainly not arrogant, yet there are other incidents the describe Alexander’s love for Alcohol, women and even men that casts doubts on if he was a righteous ruler. My verdict on whether this condition is met is therefore partial.

Condition 2: He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who lead two generations’.

Egyptian God Amun

By 333 B.C, Alexander had reached Egypt, and one of his first directives there was to declare himself the son of the Egyptian God Amun , thus linking him with divinity. Amun, the Egyptian God is depicted with two plumes on his head that look like horns and coins that were produced in Alexander’s land at the time had this depiction. Consequently, the people started identifying Alexander as the ‘one with the two horns’.

As for the second translation, it could obviously not be literal since Alexander’s rule lasted for less than 15 years and his son who would be his successor died at the age of 12. There is, therefore no direct relation to this version of the translation.

Given that at least one version of the translation matches, I will consider this condition to have been met.

Condition 3: Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own

Alexander’s Empire spanned many kilometers and modern day continents. This condition is therefore easily met.

Condition 4: Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog

If we look at the traditional definition of a gate, its main purpose is to define a boundary whereby the other side is restricted from entering. In most cases, this means that there is only one road that leads into the area that the gate is protecting. Going by this definition, it follows that identification of a single path leading to Alexander’s lands are a starting point to see if this condition holds true. For example: Mountain passes. Furthermore, investigating if this area had or still has a gate like structure would confirm that this condition holds true.

The Cilician Gates in Turkey

Alexander’s lands extended from his home in Macedonia (Greece) to the edge of India and from parts of modern day Iran to modern day Egypt. Given condition 3, we can safely discount Macedonia and its surrounding areas since the language would have been easily comprehended by Alexander. The remaining lands were foreign to Alexander and this is where this condition should most likely be tested. If we assume mountain passes as the most likely pathways in which such a gate would have existed on, Egypt can be crossed out since there are no major mountain passes in the Egypt that Alexander had conquered. The closest mountain pass in this area is the Halfaya Pass at the border of Libya and at the time Alexander had not conquered this region.  The highest probability therefore of such a mountain pass lies in the Afghan plains towards the borders of modern day Tajikistan and Iran or on the Anatolian plains of Turkey. There are multiple large gate-like structures here including the ‘Gates of Alexander’ in Derbent close to Tajikistan, Great wall of Gorgan in Iran and the Cilician Gates in Turkey. All of these are close to naturally forming iron and copper deposits making it ideal that this could be the gate identified in the Quran. Thus, it can be safely assumed that this condition is very possible in the case of Alexander.

'Gates of Alexander' near Derbent

Interestingly, if we look at the empires that existed beyond the approximate locations of any one of these gates, the description of Gog and Magog could be referring to the Scythians, a nomadic tribe who are considered to be ancestors of the Mongols thus fulfilling the prophecy that they would cause widespread death and destruction. 

Condition 5: Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of ’Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

 Alexander, soon after his Egyptian campaign, associated himself with divinity. In fact even during his teens, he was constantly told that he would go on to do great things since he was spawn of the Greek Gods. This surely instilled a lot of confidence but it also contributed to him believing in multiple Gods. He therefore fails miserably to fulfill this condition.

Conclusion:

Depiction of Cyrus the Great

With 3.5 of the 5 conditions being met, it is NOT very probable in my opinion that Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) was a description of Alexander. Among scholarly interpretations, there is one other ruler who fits the conditions slightly better i.e Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. In addition to his emblem having two horn like structures, all the lands he conquered were similar to that of Alexander. Furthermore, he was also known to be righteous and a monotheist. It is also interesting to note that in a mere oddity among great civilizations that existed at the time, Cyrus’ empire was carried forward by only his sons before being taken over by Darius I. Thus, only two generation of rulers lead the empire further meeting the definition of Dhul-Qarnayn – “The one who leads two generations”.

The Curious Case of a Giant named Goliath

The story of David and Goliath (‘Dawud ‘and ‘Jalut ‘in Arabic) has forever been a literary cliché in self-help scenarios and as a precursor to ‘anything is possible’ speeches. It is one of those stories specifically highlighted in the Quran, Bible and Talmud making it significant for Muslim, Christians and Jews.

That said, the biggest problem that I have with historic stories such as these is that there are aspects in it which are quite far-fetched.  Take for example the fact that David who is known to be a shepherd boy of average size was able to ‘out maneuver ‘ and take on a very ‘powerful’ and ‘tactful’ giant Goliath which seems to suggest that there was a real competition playing out on that field that day. Not that it is impossible; however I felt gaps in understanding on how it actually played out. The ‘physics’ of it all somehow seemed to be out of place. Then last evening I got a plausible explanation: A recent book and a TED video by Malcolm Gladwell explains that the competition may not have been the spectacle that it was made out to be. 

For readers, who are not familiar with this story, it occurs in the 11^th century B.C (around the year 1040-50 BC) during a time when the Kingdom of Israel was at loggerheads with the Philistines, a sea faring tribe most likely originating from modern day Greece and Turkey. The two armies had gathered at Elah, a valley in the plains of Israel which was so conspicuous that any army advancing into the valley first would clearly be exposing themselves to failure. For this reason, the two parties decided to wait it out, till finally it was apparent that the only way there could be a winner was if either parties sent their finest warrior for a face to face combat. The winner of the duel would decide who had won the war. The Phiistines banking on scaring the opponent with size decides to send Goliath, a 9 foot giant from the hills of modern day Armenia while the Israelites still undecided on who to send turn to their leader and King Saul. A shepherd boy named David persists to be sent till King Saul finally agrees and lets him proceed. At this point, I must draw attention to the mystery of David’s confidence in facing this giant and convincing King Saul. Given his upbringing as a shepherd and little or no military experience per se, my view is that either this boy was unbelievably brave or there was a divine intervention (similar to Muhammad’s -PBUH victory at the battle of Badr) which guaranteed him of victory. In either case, David proceeds with a stick and his satchel containing stones for his slingshot. He takes a shot at Goliath between the eyes, and Goliath tumbles to the floor after which David used Goliath’s sword to sever the beast. 

Gladwell argues that Goliath might NOT have been the finest fighter that the Philistines had; instead he would have in most probability been their tallest, and heftiest which would serve well in scaring off the enemy. Given that Goliath’s height was close to 9 feet, it is most likely he suffered from Acromegaly, a condition related to Gigantism that in turn causes pituitary adenoma. Pituitary adenoma is a tumor like growth that affects eyesight and mobility. Gladwell supports this theory with the following observations:

•  On seeing David approaching, Goliath says “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks”. Why “sticks” when David was carrying only a single stick? Could it be that the giant’s vision was so poor that he was seeing double or even triple?
• Goliath was assisted down the hill by a helper. Why would their “finest” fighter need assistance? Also when David used his slingshot to hit Goliath, why was he so slow in reacting if he was indeed their ‘”finest” fighter? Both indicate a problem in mobility functions i.e. not being able to react and move quickly.

 According to me and it follows from Gladwell’s observations that David was probably made aware of these facts beforehand through divine sources. His faith coupled with this revelation probably catapulted this young man from being a mere shepherd boy to one of the greatest kings of the kingdom of Israel. Thus the story may not be about the victory of the underdog but instead of the fact that with immense unconditional faith, a solution to your problems always appears!