The Ocean of the Quran

A verse by verse explanation of The Ultimate Scripture

Al-Kahf – Verse 83

وَيَسأَلونَكَ عَن ذِي القَرنَينِ ۖ قُل سَأَتلو عَلَيكُم مِنهُ ذِكرًا

They question you concerning Dhū al-Qarnayn. Say: ‘I will relate to you an account of him.’

EXEGESIS

Dhū means the one in possession of something, either concrete or abstract like an attribute or quality. Qarn literally means things which are placed next to each other. It is said to mean many different things here, such as horns, or sidelocks (of hair), or temples (of the head), and so on. See the next section for more.

EXPOSITION

We now arrive at the fourth story of this surah. We read how Khiḍr (a) traversed the lands affecting God’s plan amidst His servants, and now we learn of another similar servant of God who, during his travels, met various nations and brought them divine justice and aid. Unlike Khiḍr (a) who passed unnoticed and unidentified amongst the people, Dhū al-Qarnayn seemed to have been famous and well known. When he comes across tribes he interacts with them, declares God’s commands, and some of them beseech him for help. Both leave their mark on the world around them, but in two very different manners. There is food for thought for the reader here.

It also connects to the story of the People of the Cave. While they lived in the time of a tyrannical ruler who persecuted the believers, Dhū al-Qarnayn was a just king who acted in accordance with God’s will and brought hope and fair rule of law to his subjects, giving the believers a chance to practice their faith freely.

Like the previous stories, this too relates to the theme of the ‘true account’. We learn here once again how limited man’s knowledge of the world is, how much there is that we have not explored and are unaware of, and how much there is that we do not understand.‎[1] Strange lands, with diverse people of different languages and cultures, all absorbed in their own lives and local affairs. This lesson is perhaps even more poignant today, when man is just beginning to realise how truly awesomely vast the universe in which he resides is, and how little hope mankind has of ever completely exploring and understanding it. It also reflects the subject of knowledge related to the theme. Dhū al-Qarnayn meets different nations at different levels of development and technology, to whom he imparts of the knowledge given to him by God.

They question you concerning Dhū al-Qarnayn: this phrase did not precede the earlier stories, and it seems that a major reason why this story is included in the surah is precisely because it was something that was asked about. This was a unique position held by the audience contemporary to the Quran who could receive answers to questions that they posed, if you ask about them while the Quran is being sent down, they shall be disclosed to you (5:101).‎[2] As is typical to the Quranic style, it is not a chronicle of events that is told, but rather the story is looked at in that aspect which benefits man’s guidance and through the lens of the surah’s theme.

The address here is to Prophet Muhammad (s), and this is in reference to the questions posed to him by the Meccan idolaters, as discussed in the Introduction. One of these questions was supposedly about a man who had reached the easts of the earth and its wests.‎[3] Although some have said that the ones asking the Prophet were the Jews,‎[4] or a group from the People of the Book,‎[5] however, what is most commonly reported is what we mentioned, that it was posed by the Meccan idolaters who were advised by the Jews, or People of the Book, to ask Prophet Muhammad (s) about a man who had ‘travelled to the far reaches of the west and the east’.

Another report claims that the Jews confronted the Prophet, saying: ‘You have told us about Abraham and Moses and Jesus and other such prophets because you have heard about them, but tell us about a prophet who has only been mentioned once in the Torah.’ When he asked which one they intended, they said Dhū al-Qarnayn.‎[6] For this report to be correct, Dhū al-Qarnayn should have been mentioned in the Torah, or at least in the recensions of the Torah available to the Jews at that time. One possible candidate is the Book of Daniel.

Even if we do not accept this report, it seems more likely that it is more accurately alluding to what the Prophet had been asked about. As such, we could disregard the reports that the Prophet was asked about a man who had ‘travelled to the far reaches of the west and the east’ as mere interpolation based on the Quranic verses. Rather, what he was actually asked about was to speak of the ‘ram with two horns’ as quoted in the vision of Daniel 8. This is supported by the fact that history knows of no famous king named Dhū al-Qarnayn, ‘the one with two horns’, or any other person known primarily by such a moniker. This may very well be the reason why scholars have had such a hard time identifying him, because they were mistakenly trying to find a person known by such a name, whereas in fact he is referred to as Dhū al-Qarnayn in the Quran because the questioners were asking him to speak about the two-horned man mentioned in the prophecy attributed to Daniel. This would also make it clear why the verses do not refer to him by any other name, and begin with quite literally the statement: They question you concerning the one with two horns.

It is important to note that the question posed is not to just identify Dhū al-Qarnayn, but rather about what happened to him. If the intention was only to identify him, the verse would not say They question you concerning Dhū al-Qarnayn, but rather: They question you who is Dhū al-Qarnayn.‎[7]

We should also note that like with the story of the People of the Cave, this question too seems to have meant to ask for some details about a story that was in circulation at the time and known to people. As we mentioned in the Introduction, these stories were revealed in the Quran because Naḍr ibn Ḥārith used to tell tales of Persian epochs, and then under some instruction from the People of the Book decided to ask the Prophet some questions he thought would be difficult for the Prophet to answer. 

For more on who specifically Dhū al-Qarnayn was, see the Topical Article.

Say: ‘I will relate to you an account of him’: the expression Say: ‘I will relate to you’ shows us that while saying ‘God willing’ is good and important, what is truly important is to intend it in one’s heart, even if it is not mentioned on the tongue. Furthermore, the statement is an instruction from God and He does not need to say in shāʾ allāh.

Dhikran here either means an account, that is: I will tell you something of his tale; or it could be a reference to the Quran, which is often named dhikr. In this case it would mean: I will recite to you some of the Quran related to him.‎[8] The former seems more suitable though.‎[9] Hence, dhikran alludes to what is known to God and that is far more than this, and we are only given a small glimpse into the life of Dhū al-Qarnayn. This is a more suitable understanding considering the main theme of the surah.‎[10]

In the beginning of the surah God declared, Indeed We have made whatever is on the earth an adornment for it that We may test them [to see] which of them is best in conduct (verse 7). One of the biggest adornments and temptations of this world is the temptation to rule and lead.‎[11] It is a giant responsibility, and the one who carries it out well deserves much praise, although far too often those in positions of authority abuse the power entrusted to them. Dhū al-Qarnayn is an example and testament to what a good ruler can achieve.

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

The reports about Dhū al-Qarnayn are varied and contradictory. Many of them contain various fantastic elements, which are very hard to accept. All of this tells us there has been a lot of fabrication surrounding this story.‎[12]

Tabatabai notes some of the contradictions and fantastic claims in the reports concerning Dhū al-Qarnayn, which may be summarised around the following points:

  1. Whether he was a man or an angel, or a hybrid of the two.
  2. Was he a pious servant, an inspired (muḥaddath) saint, or a prophet.
  3. What his actual name was.
  4. Why he was known as Dhū al-Qarnayn.
  5. Where he travelled and what he saw.
  6. About the wall he constructed.
  7. About Gog and Magog, their descriptions, and who they were.
  8. When he lived and how long he ruled.

Many if not most of these are too fantastic to be accepted, such as Gog and Magog outnumbering all other mankind nine to one, or that the wall he built was as tall as mountains and hundreds of kilometres long, or that in his travels he reached the edge of the world where there was a mountain so huge it encompassed the whole world, or that he travelled to lands of perpetual darkness, and so on.‎[13]

There are also many legendary accounts and descriptions of him and his powers. It is said that he was given control over light and darkness, light would lead him wherever he went with darkness following behind him. He was also said to have been given control over the clouds.‎[14] We already discussed the influence of storytellers surrounding Dhū al-Qarnayn and how that has seeped into narrations and exegetical works.‎[15] One should be wary of accepting the reports about him without caution. Some of the more famous reports regarding him are as follows:

  1. According to a report, Imam Ali (a) was asked about Dhū al-Qarnayn, whether he was a prophet or an angel, to which he replied: ‘He was neither a prophet nor an angel,‎[16] but a servant whom God loved and who loved Him, who was sincerely devoted to God and God wished good for him. So God sent him to his people and they struck him on his right temple (qarn) and he went missing from amongst them for as long as God wished. Then He sent him again and they struck him on his left temple and he went missing from amongst them for as long as God wished. Then God sent him a third time and granted him power in the earth, and there is someone similar to him amongst you.’ The narrator added that Imam Ali (a) meant himself.‎[17]

Note: This hadith is apparently meant to explain why he was called Dhū al-Qarnayn, namely because he was struck on both sides (qarn) of his head. This is explicitly mentioned in some versions of the hadith. Tabatabai says that ‘there is someone similar to him amongst you’ means that Imam Ali (a) was struck by ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd-Wudd and would be struck by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muljam on the head.‎[18] Another possibility is that it means he himself is like Dhū al-Qarnayn, neither a prophet nor an angel, but a servant of God loved by Him and divinely inspired. Or perhaps both meanings are intended.

  1. From Burayd ibn Muʿāwiyah, that he asked Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘What is your station? What past figures do you resemble?’ He said: ‘[We are] like the companion of Moses [meaning Khiḍr] and Dhū al-Qarnayn. They were knowledgeable men, but were not prophets.’‎[19]

Note: There are also other traditions that mention Dhū al-Qarnayn was not a prophet, but something like the Imams.‎[20] On the other hand there are traditions that say he was a prophet.‎[21] As with most reports regarding him, there are a lot of contradictions.

INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS

The following are some passages from the Bible referencing Cyrus II, whom we have discussed in the next section as being the most likely candidate for the historical Dhū al-Qarnayn.

  1. Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to His foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? He makes them as the dust with his sword, and as driven stubble with his bow. He pursued them, and passed safely, by paths his feet have not travelled.‎[22]

Note: This passage is generally agreed upon by Biblical commentators to be referring to Cyrus. Noteworthily, its description of him passing safely and travelling where others have not is strongly reminiscent of the Quranic description of Dhū al-Qarnayn that follows in the verses to come.

  1. I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come; from the rising of the sun he shall call on My name; and he shall come on princes as on mortar, and as the potter treads clay.‎[23]

Note: This description of Cyrus in the same Isaiah 41 is interesting as it describes the east as ‘the rising of the sun’. The similar language is utilised in the Quran and is meant to impress the Jewish questioners with the intimate knowledge that the Prophet had of their scriptures.

  1. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: “The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has commanded me to build for Him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up.”‎[24]

Note: Interesting is the reference once again to Cyrus being inspired and ‘stirred’ by the spirit of God. 

  1. Come together, all of you, and listen: Which of the idols has foretold these things? The Lord’s chosen ally will carry out his purpose against Babylon; his arm will be against the Babylonians. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him. I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission.‎[25]

TOPICAL ARTICLE

Who was Dhū al-Qarnayn?

We may now set about identifying the man alluded to in the vision of Daniel 8 in order to then identify Dhū al-Qarnayn. The prophecy given in Daniel 8 is as follows:

‘In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. I saw in the vision, and while I was looking, I was at Susa in the palace which is in the province of Elam.‎[26] And I saw in the vision that I was by the canal of Ulai. Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and there stood before the river a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high. But one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward and northward and southward,‎[27] so that no animal might stand before him; nor was there any that could deliver out of his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. As I was considering this, suddenly a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth and did not touch the ground. And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. He came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran to him in the fury of his power. I saw him come close to the ram, and he was moved with rage against him, and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and stamped on him. And there was none who could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore, the male goat grew very great. And when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and four conspicuous horns came up in its place toward the four winds of heaven.’‎[28]

This passage is generally accepted to be a reference to a Persian king and Alexander of Macedon. Alexander conquered the Persian Achaemenid empire; he is the goat that overcomes the two-horned ram. At the height of his power, Alexander abruptly died at a young age. After his death, his kingdom was divided into four parts; this is the goat’s horn that split into four parts.

As for the ‘ram which had two horns’, this is explained in the passage that follows: ‘The ram which you saw having two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The rough goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now the broken horn and the four horns that stood up in its place are four kingdoms that shall stand up out of his nation, but not with his power.’‎[29]

The king of Greece is, as we said, no doubt meant to be Alexander. As for the ‘kings of Media and Persia’ the Book of Daniel itself seems to suffer from some confusion regarding the Persian kings’ identities. While it speaks of Cyrus, it also speaks of one known as ‘Darius the Mede’‎[30] who is generally viewed as not being known to history. It seems to be a persona who has resulted from this confusion.

Many exegetes have considered the ram to be Cyrus II.‎[31] This is not unlikely, as Cyrus II was the founder of the Achaemenid empire, and its symbol, which was then defeated by Alexander. Both were great conquerors who forged massive empires in astoundingly short timespans. Cyrus was of course significant for the Jews, because after he conquered Babylon he allowed the Jews to return and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. He was well-respected by them ever after.‎[32] Scholars have debated as to why Cyrus did this; one theory is that he was a Zoroastrian and thus respected the monotheistic views of the Jews. It is said this is also why he was a just and kind ruler.‎[33] In any case, the Old Testament affords Cyrus much praise: ‘Thus says the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed, whose right hand I have held – to subdue nations before him and to loosen the loins of kings, to open doors before him so that the gates will not be shut: I will go before you and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of bronze and shatter the bars of iron. And I will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places so that you may know that I, the Lord, who calls you by your name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob My servant’s sake and Israel My chosen one, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me. I am the Lord and there is no other; there is no God besides Me. I strengthen you, though you have not known Me, so that they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; … I have made the earth and created man on it. I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and I have ordained all their host. I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways; he shall build My city, and he shall let My captives go, neither for price nor reward, says the Lord of Hosts.’‎[34]

‘He shall build My city, and he shall let My captives go’ is reference to the conquest of Babylon and the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem. He is also said to have done that ‘neither for price nor reward’, meaning he did not impose anything on the Jews because of this favour, but rather did it because it was the right thing to do.

There are several connections here to the story of Dhū al-Qarnayn, notably the gates of bronze and iron, the mention of the rising and setting sun, that God speaks to him (‘Thus says the Lord to Cyrus’ and ‘who calls you by your name’), yet he is apparently not a prophet (‘though you have not known me’, although this may also be inserted in the text because Cyrus was a gentile and thus not part of the Jewish nation that ‘knows God’), and God granting him power and means (‘I will direct all his ways’). Being God’s ‘anointed’ in the Old Testament is reserved for prophets, prophet-kings, or people of such status, such as David (a). The description is significant indeed. For a gentile to be described in such a fashion in the Jewish sacred texts is not something that should be treated lightly. In fact, Cyrus is the only non-Jew to be given this honorific in the Old Testament. Him being divinely inspired is also referenced in the following passage: ‘Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he issued a proclamation throughout all his kingdom …’‎[35]

Considering all of this, it should not be surprising that a question originating with the Jews should ask the Prophet to speak more of the ‘two-horned one’, whom they respected and held in high-regard (which the narration then, likely mistakenly, identifies as a prophet). This question was still considered to be cryptic enough that only one with knowledge of their books should be able to identify and speak about him accurately.

Before we proceed further, per the Quranic description, the person of Dhū al-Qarnayn should have several qualities, which we should look for in order to identify him:

  1. A person known with the moniker Dhū al-Qarnayn (the one with two qarns). We know from the expression They question you concerning Dhū al-Qarnayn that this moniker was not one given to him by the Quran, but one with which he was known already before.‎[36]
  2. A believer in God, as evidenced by for example him saying This is a mercy from my Lord (verse 98).
  3. A powerful and just king.
  4. He travelled far to the west, where he came across an evil people and fought and punished them (verses 86-88).
  5. After this he travelled far to the east, where he met people living in primitive conditions (verse 90).
  6. He then travelled to a mountainous area, where he met a people with a primitive language threatened by other tribes, wherewith he constructed a metal wall (verses 93-96).
  7. He should have been known to the contemporary audience of the Quran, the Arabs or Jews of that region, as they questioned the Prophet about him.‎[37]

Examining the life of Cyrus, we shall see that he fits with all of these. We already mentioned earlier how many of these qualities and descriptions are attributed to Cyrus in the Old Testament. Below we have made some more notes relating each of the above points to Cyrus in the same order below, however in order that the discussion here should not be too drawn out we have reserved some details for the commentaries of the relevant verses, which the reader may later refer to:

  1. As we explained, Cyrus is almost certainly the ‘ram which had two horns’ in Daniel 8.
  2. Again, Cyrus is thought by some to have been a faithful Zoroastrian, and kind to the monotheistic Jews. In any case he was one who ruled guided by a moral conscience. If his descriptions in the Old Testament (quoted earlier) are accepted then he was of very high spiritual station and one that God spoke to. Of interest is also the description of Cyrus given by Josephus: ‘Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.’ According to Josephus, Cyrus was in fact God’s chosen for this task.‎[38] Tabatabai argues that is unlikely that Jewish authors would have lauded an idolater and polytheist as God’s anointed (Isaiah 45:1).‎[39]
  3. Herodotus describes Cyrus: ‘whithersoever Cyrus directed his march, it was impossible for that nation to escape.’‎[40] He managed to forge in his own lifetime the largest empire known to history up to that point. He was so well liked that many nations offered to join his empire willingly.‎[41]
  4. Starting in modern-day Iran, Cyrus expanded the Persian empire far to the west, conquering almost all of Asia Minor. As for which of those western areas these verses might specifically refer to, see the commentary on verse 86.
  5. Cyrus also led campaigns and conquests to the east, reaching India and encountering some of the nations there, many of whom were in quite primitive conditions compared to the more established nations of Persia and Greece. See the commentary on verse 90 for more.
  6. This is in all likelihood the Caucasus mountains where he constructed a wall at the Darial Pass (Dār-e Ālān, or Pass of the Alans) to protect against the nations to the north of it.‎[42] While there is no direct written record of Cyrus himself building a wall there, Herodotus describes Persian rule as extending all the way to the Caucasus mountains, but not beyond.‎[43] In this region the Achaemenids built a series of fortresses to guard against a northern invasion.‎[44] For more on this see the commentary on verse 94.
  7. Cyrus would have been well known to both Arabs and Jews at the time of the revelation of this surah.

Considering all this we may say that the best candidate for Dhū al-Qarnayn is Cyrus II of Persia, the founder of the Achaemenid empire.‎[45] He was known for uniting the Pārs (Persian) and Mād (Mede) nations, for conquering the Elamites, the Lydian kingdom in Anatolia, the Babylonian empire in Mesopotamia where he allowed the captive Jews held there to return to Israel (this is referenced in Isaiah 45), going until the borders of Egypt in the Sinai peninsula, his conquests included also the Caucasus (where the Darial Pass and the fortifications of Derbent are located), after which he directed his forces east until reaching the banks of the Indus river. It was the largest empire in recorded history up till that point in time. A testament to his character and just rule was also that even though he conquered such vast areas and so many different people, he is generally reflected positively in all the various sources, contemporary or otherwise, whether Babylonian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, or Persian.‎[46]

As for him being named Dhū al-Qarnayn, this is not attested to in any historical sources, however, he is depicted in at least one relief as wearing the Hemhem crown with two spiral ram horns.‎[47] The Hemhem was attire typical to Egyptian rulers and adopted by Cyrus. However, it is unlikely that this is the reason why he is called Dhū al-Qarnayn in the Quran, but rather as we said because the Prophet was asked to identify the ram in in Daniel 8.

Nevertheless, we should note that this is only one theory, and it is impossible to say anything with certainty about the matter, and other options and understandings may also be viable. The purpose of the discussion is to consider one historical possibility.

There are many other opinions related to the identity of Dhū al-Qarnayn. Two are worth serious consideration and the rest may only be mentioned by way of enumeration.

  1. Dhū al-Qarnayn as Alexander of Macedon:

Perhaps the most popular opinion amongst exegetes is that he was Alexander of Macedon.‎[48] This is also attributed to some second-generation Muslims.‎[49] This is around the time when the stories of the Alexander Romance which incorporated the stories of Sūrat al-Kahf began to circulate in the region (see the commentary on verse 61).

Rāzī argues that he must have been Alexander, because Alexander was the only one who conquered all the world, till the farthest reaches of the east, west, and north. He also says that Dhū al-Qarnayn should be a famous and well-known king, since he conquered large parts of the world. Rāzī does end by noting that Alexander was a student of Aristoteles, and if Dhū al-Qarnayn was really Alexander, that would mean that Aristotelian thought is correct, while it is to Rāzī patently false.‎[50] Ālūsī replies to this that he did not necessarily agree with everything his teacher taught, but he does not agree with Dhū al-Qarnayn being Alexander.‎[51]

That he was Alexander is the opinion generally preferred by western academics. This is perhaps best attested to by the fact that both The Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān do not even have entries on Dhū al-Qarnayn, rather both entries refer the reader to Alexander. This may partly be influenced by the fact that Gog and Magog have generally in the Judeo-Christian tradition been linked to Alexander, and he is considered to be the one who built a wall to stop Gog and Magog.‎[52]

There are some points that are in favour of him being Alexander. Alexander had great conquests and was a formidable general and eager builder, founding many cities as he travelled. His conquests took him to faraway lands, he went far towards the east after traveling some way to the west in Egypt. Josephus describes him also as being kind to the Jews when he conquered Jerusalem, showing them respect and even sacrificing at their temple. Some of them even joined his army.‎[53]

However, it has been pointed out that Alexander was according to what we know an idolater, and that does not fit with the description of Dhū al-Qarnayn.‎[54] Tabatabai also says there is no historical evidence that he constructed a wall as the one described in this surah.‎[55] However, according to Josephus, Alexander constructed ‘iron gates’ at a pass, which is sometimes identified as being a reference to the Caspian Gates.‎[56]

Perhaps one of the most important criticisms is that Alexander was not historically known as Dhū al-Qarnayn (one with two horns). Hence, while the theory is popular, it is most likely due to the influence and popularity of the Alexander Romance.

Finally, it could be mentioned that some have argued that there were in fact two Alexanders, the second of whom was Alexander of Macedon. The first was the one known as Dhū al-Qarnayn, a descendant of Noah (a), and lived long before the second Alexander.‎[57] Ālūsī says that there were two Alexanders, and the one who is Dhū al-Qarnayn is someone else who lived about 2000 years before Alexander of Macedon and who was given an extremely long lifespan.‎[58] However, there is no historical evidence of such kings.‎[59] To claim that they lived in pre-historic times would make no sense, as the Quranic story is prompted by inquiry, so we know that Dhū al-Qarnayn must have been someone known to the people.

In a similar fashion, some have tried to reconcile between the narrations reported about Dhū al-Qarnayn, his long life, his world-sprawling kingdom, his entering into lands of darkness and so on, by saying he lived in a time before all recorded history. Tabatabai points out that this is giving needless attention and importance to such fanciful reports.‎[60] Additionally, there is not even any evidence that such a mythological person existed in tales so that the people at the time of Prophet Muhammad (s) should question him about it.

Dhū al-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance: It has been claimed that the Alexander Romance is the source for the Quranic account of Dhū al-Qarnayn. As this was already discussed in the commentary on verse 61, we will only briefly discuss it here.

The first issue with such theories is the dating of the many various recensions of the Alexander Romance. Most, if not all the recensions that have similarities to Sūrat al-Kahf seem to be dated after the advent of Islam and are apparently the mixture of Islamic accounts into the legends.

It is theoretically possible that while the Alexander Romance is fictional, there are parts of it which have factual basis and Dhū al-Qarnayn was in fact Alexander. Or that the events of Dhū al-Qarnayn predate even Alexander and that his story was known amongst people, passed down in oral traditions, and eventually incorporated into the Alexander Romance. Such speculation is unnecessary though, as the much simpler explanation is that the influence was vice versa, the later versions of the Alexander Romance incorporated the Quranic material. These were then later amalgamated into the corpus of hadith and tafsīr works.

  1. Dhū al-Qarnayn as a Himyarite king:

It is said Dhū al-Qarnayn was an Arab king called Abū Karib Shimr ibn ʿAbīr ibn Afrīqash al-Ḥimyarī.‎[61] They point out that Ḥimyarī kings of Yemen – or Tubbaʿ as they are often called – used to have names with dhū in it, such as their famous final king Dhū Nuwās, who is often linked to 85:6.

Abū Karib, according to what has been mentioned, was a king of the second Ḥimyarī kingdom (approximately 300-525 CE). He is said to have converted to Judaism and then returned from Iraq with two Rabbis, with whose help – and some miracles – his people also accepted Judaism.‎[62]

According to a report, Abū al-Mālik ibn Thaʿlabah ibn Abī Mālik al-Qaraẓī said in a poem:

‘My forefather Dḥu al-Qarnayn was a Muslim,

a king followed by other kings and envied.

He reached the wests and the easts following,

the means laid out for him by the decree of the wise guide.

He saw the disappearing of the sun when it set …’‎[63]

However, this opinion has been criticised since a person fitting Dhū al-Qarnayn’s description is not listed as one of the Yemeni kings in reliable historical sources, and it is not such ancient history that we should think no records would exist.‎[64]

It has been noted that a dam and fortress was constructed at Marib (Maʾārib) in Yemen during the time of the Himyarites, which could be the wall of Dhū al-Qarnayn.‎[65] This has been criticised that the dam is not a wall meant to stop the flow of soldiers, but water, and it does not fit with the Quranic description.

The option could be considered attractive, considering the reason of revelation of the story, which is said to be questions posed by the Meccan idolaters, which they gleaned from the Jews. The Himyarite kings would be something known to both of them. Nevertheless, it fails to satisfy when it is compared to the Quranic account.

We may finally note some other discarded theories by way of enumeration. It should be kept in mind that as Tabatabai points out, such records only exist in the tales of the storytellers.

  1. He was a Greek or Egyptian man named Marzabān ibn Mardabah.‎[66]
  2. He was Qin Shi Huang (Ying/Zhao Zheng), the first emperor of China, during whose reign significant portions of the Great Wall of China were built.‎[67]
  3. He was the mythical Fereydūn, who killed Bīvarasb ibn Arvandasb,‎[68] or Ḍaḥḥāk-e Mārdūsh, the mythical snake-shouldered king today best known for being featured in the Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. Fereydun himself was supposedly the king of the Pishdādiān dynasty written about in Zoroastrian mythology. However, history knows no such dynasty or figures.‎[69]
  4. He was someone called ʿAyyāsh, who lived sometime after Noah (a), in western lands.‎[70]
  5. He was Seleucus Nicator, the founder of Antioch and successor to Alexander the Great.‎[71]
  6. He was one of the Assyrian kings.‎[72]
  7. He was Darius I. He began with a campaign to the west, conquering Egypt, then he set off east for a campaign in the Indus region. He also battled the Scythians to the north, chasing them all the way to Europe. Josephus lauds ‘Darius’ as a believer saying ‘king Darius sent [letters] over all the country, and praised that God whom Daniel worshipped, and said that he was the only true God, and had all power.’‎[73]

Like Khiḍr (a) there are far more opinions and fanciful tales told about Dhū al-Qarnayn than can be recounted here.‎[74]

There are different opinions mentioned as to why he was called Dhū al-Qarnayn:

  1. Because he was struck on both sides of his head.‎[75]
  2. He wore a crown with two horns.‎[76]
  3. He had two locks of braided hair (ḍafīratān);‎[77] or sidelocks (dhuʾābatān);‎[78] or he had two protrusions on his head, which resembled horns;‎[79] or that the two sides of his head were of copper.‎[80]
  4. He ruled the east and the west,‎[81] or Greece and Persia,‎[82] or travelled to the east and the west of the earth.‎[83] The Arabs used to call the east and the west the ‘two horns’ (qarnayn) of the sun.‎[84]
  5. He lived for two centuries (qarnayn), or that two generations (qarnayn) of people passed away while he was still living.‎[85]

And some other opinions. What is most sound though is that it relates to the prophecy of the Book of Daniel and the two-horned ram, as we discussed earlier.

[1] Nemuneh, 12/525.
[2] Of course, that does not mean that every posed question was replied to in revelation.
[3] Tantawi, 8/569; Munyah, 17/77.
[4] Zamakhshari, 2/743.
[5] Tabari, 16/7.
[6] Alusi, 8/350. See also Suyuti, 4/240.
[7] Mizan, 13/359. See also Alusi, 8/351.
[8] Mizan, 13/360.
[9] Although Tabatabai prefers the latter himself.
[10] Subḥānī also says that the word minhu (of him) is indicative of the fact that only a partial account is given (Munyah, 17/77).
[11] Mudarrisi, 6/347.
[12] Mizan, 13/360.
[13] Mizan, 13/369-374.
[14] See Ayyashi, 2/341; Nur, 3/296-297; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Razi, 21/494. In the tradition found in Ayyashi, it is explained that his control over light and dark meant he could see in the dark as easily as in daylight.
[15] See the commentary on verse 61.
[16] Tabatabai points out that the word should be read malak (angel) and not malik (king) (Mizan 13/374).
[17] Qummi, 2/41; Tabrisi, 6/756; Zamakhshari, 2/743. See also Thalabi, 6/190; Baghawi, 3/212; Razi, 21/494; Suyuti, 4/241; Muhit, 7/218; Ibn Kathir, 5/170-171; Alusi, 8/346; which do not include the final portion of the hadith ‘and there is someone similar to him amongst you’. Ṭabarī gives several similar traditions, except in his version Dhū al-Qarnayn is killed when he is struck the second time. The most similar of these he reports through Imam al-Ṣādiq (a), which also includes the ending ‘and there is someone similar to him amongst you’ (Tabari, 16/8). See also Kamal, p. 393, with a slight variation. In some versions the questioner also enquires about the horns of Dhū al-Qarnayn, whether they were of gold or silver (see Fadlallah, 14/382).
[18] Mizan, 13/374.
[19] Basair, p. 386; Kafi, 1/269.
[20] See Nur, 3/294-295. See also Suyuti, 4/240-241.
[21] See for example Ayyashi, 2/340-350. See Suyuti, 4/241, where he attributes this opinion to Ibn Abbas.
[22] Isaiah 41:2-3.
[23] Isaiah 41:25.
[24] 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. This continues in Ezra 1:1-3 in a very similar passage.
[25] Isaiah 48:14-15.
[26] Susa was of course the capital of Elam (or Susiana). The Elamites were the first kingdom to fall to the conquests of Cyrus.
[27] Like the ram pushing forward to three directions, Sūrat al-Kahf also tells us of three journeys of Dhū al-Qarnayn.
[28] Daniel 8:1-8. Some have dated the Book of Daniel to have been composed in the third or early second century BCE. See John J Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (USA: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), p. 34. Although this does not necessarily mean that (all of) its content originated during that time. In any case, what is important for us is not whether or not the texts predate Cyrus or Alexander, but that it predates Islam. In other words, the prophecy of Daniel was in circulation amongst the Jews in pre-Islamic times and that the question about Dhū al-Qarnayn was based on this prophecy or tradition.
[29] Daniel 8:20-22.
[30] See Daniel 11.
[31] Mizan, 13/393. Tabatabai and these exegetes base this on the writings of Abū al-Kalām Āzād. See Abū al-Kalām Āzād, Kūrosh-e Kabīr, trans. Bāstānī Pārīzī (Tehran: Tābān, 1342 AHS).
[32] See for example Isaiah 44:24-28: ‘This is what the Lord says … I am the Lord, the Maker of all things … who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be inhabited,” of the towns of Judah, “They shall be rebuilt,” and of their ruins, “I will restore them,” … who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’”’
[33] Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices (London: Routledge, 1979), p. 51.
[34] Isaiah 45:1-13.
[35] Ezra 1:1.
[36] Mizan, 13/378.
[37] See Mizan, 13/378-379; Nemuneh, 12/544-545.
[38] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, Chapter 1, p. 1. Accessed at:  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm
[39] Mizan, 13/393.
[40] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, (trans. G. C. Macaulay) Book 1, p. 204. Accessed at:nhttps://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm
[41] According to Herodotus the Ionians and Aiolians send messengers to Cyrus, asking to become his subjects. Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, (trans. G. C. Macaulay) Book 1, p. 141. Accessed at:  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm. Āzād also adds that Cyrus was known with the name Agradates, meaning ‘The Pioneer of the Law’. Agra from the Indo-European meaning ‘front’ or ‘beginning’, and dāt from the Persian dād, meaning ‘law’ or ‘justice’. See Abū al-Kalām Āzād, Kūrosh-e Kabīr, trans. Bāstānī Pārīzī (Tehran: Tābān, 1342 AHS), p. 91. He also says it could come from dāde meaning ‘given’. In this case it would mean ‘firstborn’.
[42] Nemuneh, 12/549.
[43] Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, (trans. G. C. Macaulay) Book 3, p. 98. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm. It should be noted that Herodotus admits he passes over in silence over most of Cyrus’ career, mentioning only some selections. Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, (trans. G. C. Macaulay) Book 1, p. 177.
[44] Wolfgang Messerschmidt, ’The Caucasus Region’ in A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2021), pp. 671-679.             
[45] Mizan, 13/391; Nemuneh, 12/545; Abū al-Kalām Āzād, Kūrosh-e Kabīr, trans. Bāstānī Pārīzī (Tehran: Tābān, 1342 AHS).
[46] Matt Waters, Cyrus the Great’s Conquests in ‘World History Encyclopedia’ (Oxford University Press, 2022). Accessed at: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2022/cyrus-the-greats-conquests/
[47] Mizan, 13/393; Nemuneh, 12/547. The relief was discovered near Istakhr.
[48] Tabrisi, 6/756; Tabari, 16/14; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Baghawi, 3/212; Razi, 21/493; Qurtubi, 11/46; Ibn Kathir, 7/218; Muhit, 7/219; Alusi, 8/347-351; Mizan, 13/382-383; Nemuneh, 12/542; Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, 1/201. Ṭabarī mentions this through a different source, however, he gives a fanciful account of the story of Dhū al-Qarnayn (Tabari, 16/7). Ibn Kathīr also mentions this, but says that actually there was another even earlier Alexander, who was a contemporary of Abraham (a), and Dhū al-Qarnayn is that Alexander (Ibn Kathir, 5/170).
[49] Suyuti, 4/242, where it is attributed to Qatādah and Wahab ibn Munabbih. In Tabrisi, 6/756, this is attributed to Muʿādh ibn Jabal.
[50] Razi, 21/493-495.
[51] Alusi, 8/347-348.
[52] This is found in both the writings of Josephus and many of the versions of the Alexander Romance. See also John Andrew Boyle, ‘Alexander and the Mongols’ in Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1/2 (1980), pp. 18-35.
[53] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, Chapter 8. Accessed at:  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm
[54] Mizan, 13/383-384. An idolater might not have any problem sacrificing at the temple of the Jews, as such an act does not contradict a polytheistic theology.
[55] Mizan, 13/383-384.
[56] Emeri von Donzel and Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 11.
[57] Bidayah, 2/125; Qurtubi, 11/47.
[58] Alusi, 8/348.
[59] Mizan, 13/384.
[60] Mizan, 13/396.
[61] Razi, 21/494; Tantawi, 8/569, who considers this the most likely possibility. Abū Ḥayyān gives it as Abū Bakr ibn Sumay ibn ʿUmayr ibn Ifrīqis al-Ḥimyarī (Muhit, 7/219). Other names are also given such as Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd-Allāh, or Saʿb ibn Dhī al-Marāthid, and others. See Mizan, 13/385-386. See also Bidayah, 2/124; ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.), 15/233. Qutb seems to prefer the opinion that he was a Ḥimyarī king, but without supplying any name (Qutb, 4/2289-2290).
[62] Reuven Firestone, EQ, ‘Tubbaʿ’, 5/389-390.
[63] Ibn Asakir, 17/332-333; Bidayah, 2/124; Andulusi, 3/539; Mizan, 13/385-386.
[64] Mizan, 13/390. See also Alusi, 8/349.
[65] Mizan, 13/388; Nemuneh, 12/543.
[66] Tabari, 16/14; Baghawi, 3/212; Qurtubi, 11/45. This is the opinion of Ibn Isḥāq, although he says he was an Egyptian man. Ibn Hishām says it was Alexander. See Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, 1/201.
[67] Mizan, 13/381-382.
[68] Qurtubi, 11/47; Alusi, 8/346-347; Mizan, 13/382. Qurṭubī identifies Bīvarasb as ‘the tyrant that ruled during the time of Abraham (a), or some time before that’.
[69] Mizan, 13/382.
[70] Ayyashi, 2/340-341.
[71] Alusi, 8/348.
[72] Mizan, 13/382.
[73] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, Chapter 11, p. 7. Accessed at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm
[74] See for example Ayyashi, 2/341-349; Tabari, 16/15-18; Suyuti, 4/240-247; Muhit, 7/219.
[75] See the Insights from Hadith section.
[76] Zamakhshari, 2/743; Razi, 21/494; Mizan, 13/371-372.
[77] Tabrisi, 6/756; Zamakhshari, 2/743.
[78] Thalabi, 6/190; Baghawi, 3/212.
[79] Tabrisi, 6/756; Tabari, 16/8; Thalabi, 6/190; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Baghawi, 3/212. Different stories surround these horns as well. Some have said they grew from the wounds that were inflicted upon his head by his people; others say he covered his head with a turban to hide them and he was the first to wear a turban and only his scribe knew about it (Mizan, 13/370-371).
[80] Tabari, 16/8; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Razi, 21/494.
[81] Tabrisi, 6/756; Razi, 21/494; Mizan, 13/371. Rāzī attributes this to a prophetic hadith.
[82] Tabari, 16/8; Thalabi, 6/190; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Baghawi, 3/212; Mizan, 13/371.
[83] Zamakhshari, 2/743, who reports this opinion from the Prophet.
[84] Nemuneh, 12/544.
[85] Tabrisi, 6/756; Thalabi, 6/190; Zamakhshari, 2/743; Razi, 21/494.