Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring (Part Two)

Translation (Yusuf Ali)

Transliteration

Following on from part one, this part concerns the different interpretations of the phrases:

And

Major questions include the meaning of wajadahā in these phrases, whether the things found are being described figuratively, from whose point of view is the story told, and whether the story is meant to be a fictional fable or an historical account.

As noted in Part One, some commentators claimed that the phrase in 18:86 describes Dhu’l Qarnayn’s point of view that the sun appeared to set into the sea when he could see to the horizon. This interpretation is commonly criticised on the following contextual grounds:

Firstly, that there is no reason to remark on what the sun merely appeared or was mistakenly thought to be doing in 18:86, nor any reason to describe the nature of the spring (murky / muddy / hot) unless something happened at the spring itself.

If Dhu’l Qarnayn had just traveled until the time of sunrise or to the east in 18:90, but no closer to the sun, critics also say it would be odd for the people there to be described only in terms of how the sun affects them (it rises on them and they have been given no covering protection from it).

Some further note that these phrases in the two verses immediately follow Dhu'l Qarnayn's arrival at destinations which literally and in other sources meant the setting and rising places of the sun, which they argue would have to be a series of unfortunate coincidences under those interpretations.

Spring or ocean

Critics also question the claim that a powerful man, intelligent enough that people would offer him tribute for his help (18:94) could be so badly mistaken as to think he had found the sun to be setting in a muddy spring or even that he could regard it as having the appearance of doing so while he knows it did not in reality.

Some note that a large body of water would be needed that extended to the horizon, so proponents of such interpretations often claim^[1] that ʿaynin in 18:86 (which has the genitive case because it is the object of a preposition, but the case is not translated in English) means a sea rather than a spring.

Lane’s Lexicon explains that this word, which usually means an eye, is also used to mean a spring or source of water (because from the eye springs forth tears).

While there is no apparent limit on the size of the spring, critics note that the lexicon does not give the slightest indication that ʿayn is ever used to mean a sea or an ocean, which are generally not like a source of water from the ground. The verses in the Qur’an where ʿayn is used in the water rather than eye sense are as follows:

2:60, 7:160, 15:45, 26:57, 26:134, 26:147, 34:12, 36:34, 44:25, 44:52, 51:15, 54:12, 55:50, 55:66, 76:6, 76:18, 77:41, 83:28, 88:5, 88:12.

In every case, all the major Qur’an translations^[2] translate this word as spring, waterspring, fountain, font, or fount with the following exceptions:

In 15:45 Sarwar has “streams”;

In 44:25 M. Asad has “water-runnels”;

In 55:66 Khalifa translates ʿaynani naḍḍākhatāni as “wells to be pumped” (most have here “springs gushing forth”);

In 76:18 and 83:28 M. Asad has “a source”.

It is only in verse 18:86 that ʿaynin is translated differently. Here some translate “ʿaynin hamiatin” as “a black sea” (Shakir, M. Ali), “a vast ocean” (Khalifa), “an ocean / spring” (Malik), “the Black Sea / the dark waters” (QXP), and “a dark, turbid sea” (M. Asad).

These translations derive from the interpretation of those classical commentators who claimed that Dhu’l Qarnayn reached the coast and saw the sun set behind the horizon. It is not in any way justified from internal evidence nor even from any hadith. The word baḥr is used in the Qur’an to mean a sea, ocean, large river or any large body of water. It is used in this way 41 times in the Qur’an.^[3]

As mentioned in Part One, there were two different readings of the word used to describe the spring. Most translations use ḥamiʾatin, meaning muddy. Only the Sarwar and Free Minds translations use the alternative reading tradition, ḥāmiyatin, which they translate as “warm” or “boiling”. Some of the hadith relating to this controversy were quoted in Part One. There is also one from among the 6 major Sunni hadith collections.

Critics often note that oceans and seas are neither muddy nor hot, but a spring could easily have one or both characteristics in the mind of the story's author.

Plausibility of an illusion

Critics also argue that no one would think they could see where the sun set or appeared to set into just because they can see to the horizon. It appears no larger, and therefore no closer, wherever on Earth someone observes sunset. If some people traveled west around 90km and believed they were now within 10km of the sun, they would expect the sun to have an apparent diameter at least 10 times larger than when they started. By traveling west, even to a sea, it would look no more like they had found where the sun sets than it would from the eastern end of the Mediterranean or any other west facing shore. They further note that our intuitive ability to use parallax to judge distances tells us from a short walk along a beach that the sun and distant clouds are a vast distance away.

Another question commonly raised is what body of water could provide such an illusion, if it cannot be a sea or ocean. The horizon is approximately 5km away when viewed at sea-level by a 2m tall man.^[4]

This gives an idea of the minimum size of any candidate spring that reached the horizon (it would have to be even larger if viewed from a higher altitude than 2m). There would also have to be no hills or mountains taller than 2m for the 5km beyond the horizon in the direction of the sun, nor taller than 30m for the 15km beyond that to maintain the illusion. This rules out, for example, Lake Ohrid (or Ochrida, modern Lycnis/Lychnitis), which is fed by underground springs and was advocated by Yusuf Ali,^[5] but which is surrounded by mountains and never spans more than 15km east to west. The Black Sea and Caspian Sea are ruled out because they are not springs / sources of flowing water from the ground (the Black Sea exchanges water with the Mediterranean and the Caspian Sea is fed by inflowing rivers).

A claim popularized by Zakir Naik, a prominent Muslim public speaker, is that wajadahā means that it appeared to Dhu’l Qarnayn that the sun was setting in a spring.^[6] Naik says that Allah is telling us Dhu’l Qarnayn’s opinion, but Allah does not himself claim that this opinion was correct (he uses the analogy that a teacher would be wrong to say that 2 + 2 = 5, but the teacher can correctly say that a student thought that 2 + 2 = 5).

It is possible to trivially dismiss on grammatical grounds Naik’s specific claim that in 18:86 wajada means “it appeared” because it requires that the subject of wajadahā is the sun, when it can only actually be Dhu’l Qarnayn. The fatha (the “a”) after wajad indicates the masculine gender, so Dhu’l Qarnayn is doing the action of the verb, which is in the active voice (l-shams is a feminine noun). The -ha suffix is a feminine referent to the sun as the object of the verb. It must therefore mean Dhu’l Qarnayn [verb] the sun.

Critics nevertheless also respond to the essence of Naik’s claim – that wajadahā can mean “he found it having the misleading appearance” or “he mistakenly had the opinion that it”. Note that it is not enough for Naik's argument to work if usage of wajada indicates an opinion that fits the reality.

Lane’s Lexicon sheds light on this matter as detailed in the next section.

Wajada in Lane’s Lexicon

The authoritative Lane’s Lexicon (freely accessible online) gives the definition below for wajada:

Each of these meanings is then further explained. Regarding the last four, which could be relevant to Naik’s claim, the Lexicon says:

This part of the definition explains how an attribute of a thing perceived by the senses (e.g. the taste of a thing) can be an object of the verb wajada. Thus, when wajada is used in that sense it means to perceive with the senses. The question at the heart of the controversy is whether or not wajada can mean to visually perceive something which conflicts with the reality.

There are 2 ways of interpreting what the lexicon here tells us about wajada. Critics have argued that neither interpretation gives any reason to suppose that wajada can mean to have a perception that conflicts with objective reality (which Naik’s argument requires). More significantly, further down on the same page the lexicon describes the usage of wajada that actually occurs in 18:86 and 18:90 (this will also be discussed further below).

The very likely and obvious interpretation of the above quote is that wajada can be used as a mono-transitive verb (verb acting on a direct object) to mean to sense something. For example, “I found its sound” in reference to a cat means I could hear the cat. Qur’an 12:94 is an example of this usage when Jacob says he can scent Joseph’s smell (literally, “I find the smell of Joseph”). Whether or not a person has sensed a particular direct object is a matter of objective fact. A narrator would be saying something that isn’t true if he used wajada to say that another person had found the cat’s odour, even if the person thought he had, when in fact he had smelled a dog. In this usage, wajada means to actually sense the noun concerned.^[7] Critics argue that there is no evidence here that it can mean a mere opinion, which may be incorrect, of having done so.

It is worth noting at this point a subtlety to that argument before moving on to the other interpretation. There are verses in the Qur’an where someone other than Allah is the speaker and uses the word wajada (e.g. 7:17). In such cases the quoted speaker could, in principle, be mistaken in their opinion and thus wrongly be stating that something was or will be found (as is conceivably the case in 7:17, 7:28, 18:36, 18:69), or the speaker could be deliberately misleading the listener (in 27:24-27, Solomon wonders if the hoopoe is lying when it says it found something). In those cases wajada still means to actually find even if the thing mentioned has not actually been found. It would just mean that the speakers in those verses are mistaken to use wajada or are being deliberately deceiving. It may be a safe assumption that statements in the Qur’an where Allah is the speaker, as is the case in 18:86 and 18:90, are not meant to be mistakes or deceptions.

The other way to interpret the above quote from the lexicon is in a ditransitive sense (unlikely, as the ditransitive usage is described separately a little later in the lexicon as discussed further below). In this interpretation one could, for example, use wajada to say a person found a taste to be pleasant.

Critics respond this (probably wrong) reading of the lexicon along the following lines. The taste, smell, sound, feel, and aesthetics of an object detected by the senses are subjective attributes. A perception of a subjective attribute is neither correct nor incorrect. For example, if a woman says the phrase, “I found the painting to be beautiful”, it may be objectively true that the painting seemed beautiful to her, but the painting is not objectively beautiful – the perception is a matter of opinion. However, if an action (e.g. an object falling, seen with the eyes) or an objective attribute (e.g. an object’s name, heard with the ears) is being perceived, the perception can be correct or incorrect since these things are objective facts rather than matters of opinion. Like these latter examples, whether or not the sun set in muddy spring is a matter of objective fact. So, even if this 2nd interpretation of the above quote in Lane’s Lexicon is possible, it is not the usage of wajada in 18:86 and 18:90.

Looking a little further down the same page of the lexicon is the description of the usage of wajada which actually occurs in 18:86 and 18:90. This is the two objective compliments, ditransitive usage of wajada mentioned in Lane’s Lexicon when wajada means to know something by direct experience:

In verses 18:86 and 18:90 respectively, the noun is the sun (via the referent “it”) and the predicate is “setting in a muddy spring” / “rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun”. In the lexicon quote, this usage means that a person actually comes to know something as it really is. Other examples of this usage in the Qur’an are provided in the next section below.

When wajada is used in this ditransitive way, it is being used as a “verb of the heart” (that is what أفْعَالُ القُلُوبِ means in the quote), and the predicate must fit the reality, as shown on LearnArabicOnline, which is quoted below (wajada is the 2^nd verb from the bottom). What Lane calls the noun and predicate is here called the topic and comment.

This explanation states (2^nd row from bottom in the table) that when wajada is used with a noun and predicate (also called topic and comment) as in 18:86 and 18:90, it means to “rightfully” find rather than a mistaken perception.

Some critics further note that from the same root as the verb wajada is the word wujud, meaning 'being' or 'existence' (see also the next page of Lane's Lexicon following the quote earlier for the passive participle, mawjud, which means “Being, or existing”). This became a technical term in Islamic philosophy to denote the quality of existence that things have. That such a meaning is related to the verb wajada is not surprising if the latter refers to things that are objectively found to exist, according to this view, whereas wujud meaning the quality of existence would be very odd if wajada means to form a visual interpretation of something that is merely subjective and could be illusory.

Critics argue that Naik's interpretation could only have worked if 18:86 and 18:90 had a few extra words: It could have said, “he found its appearance like it was setting in a muddy spring”. Similarly, it could have said, “he thought he found the sun setting in a spring”, and there would be no factual error in the statement. They contend there is no evidence to suggest that wajada can mean to incorrectly perceive an objective fact or action, or to think it appears like something while knowing the perception is false, such as that the sun set in a muddy spring. But rather, they contend that based on the evidence, if someone made a statement that used a factually incorrect predicate in the object of the verb wajada, they would have made a factually incorrect statement. For example, it would be a factually incorrect statement if someone used wajada to say “Zayd found a flying elephant”, even if Zayd believed that he had found such a thing or merely thought that it appeared that way.

Wajada in the Qur’an

This section illustrates how wajada is used in the Qur’an. It is used there 107 times,^[9] as listed by Project Root List and The Quranic Arabic Corpus.

Critics note that in none of those cases does it mean a mere perception that conflicts with an objective reality nor an opinion of what something appears like.

Of the 107 verses, there are four highly relevant ones that shed light on the meaning of wajada in 18:86 and 18:90.

Most significantly, immediately after Dhu’l Qarnayn finds the sun setting in a spring, wajada is used again:

The “wa” prefix just means “and”. Critics point out that nobody would suggest that wajada means a mistaken perception here, and it is highly unlikely that the same word would have been used both in this and in the preceding phrase unless it means to say that both these things were actually found by Dhu’l Qarnayn.

The same argument is made regarding verse 18:93 where the same structure is used as in 18:86 and 18:90.

Here again, the words following wajada are a description of what Dhu'l Qarnayn is meant to have been actually found, not a mistaken perception or an opinion of what something looked like.

A third example of wajada appears in the story of Moses preceding that of Dhu’l Qarnayn.

This verse has a similar structure to those in the Dhu’l Qarnayn story, beginning with ḥattā idhā (although instead of balagha, the next word in this instance is atayā, translated “they came”, and has the sense of coming directly and quickly according to Lane’s Lexicon^[10]). As with the above examples, wajada here means an objective discovery rather than an illusionary perception or a matter of opinion. A similar grammatical structure follows wajada here as in the Dhu’l Qarnayn episode: someone finds a thing doing something. This is the two objective compliments, ditransitive usage of wajada with a noun and predicate mentioned in Lane’s Lexicon (see quote above) when wajada means to know something by direct experience.

In this verse and verses 18:86 and 18:90 respectively, the noun is the wall / sun (via the referent “it”) and the predicate is “on the point of falling down” / “setting in a muddy spring” / “rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun”.

An objection is sometimes made due to the Arabic words used in 18:77. The word for word translation of the predicate is “(that) want(ed) to collapse”.^[11] A wall cannot “want” anything; this is rather a figure of speech with the meaning that the wall had a structural weakness that would cause it to collapse. Critics respond that this does not support Naik’s claim about the word wajada because the reality described, albeit using a figure of speech, is actually found by Moses in 18:77 (the same applies to a few other verses - 4:65, 59:9, the 2^nd instance in 24:39 and 73:20). The idea that the predicates describing the behavior of the sun in 18:86 and 18:90 are figures of speech rather than literal descriptions, regardless of what wajada may mean, is an alternative argument used by Naik and is discussed separately in a later section below.

A fourth example, verse 24:39, is also significant for any claim that wajada in the Quran can mean a false perception according to critics:

The word for word translation has:

Here wajada is used in direct contrast to perceiving a mere visual illusion. Again, it has the ḥattā idhā … yajid'hu [a form of wajada] … wawajada structure. If Naik is correct, wajada would also have been used instead of yaḥsabuhu (he thinks/reckons) as the verb to describe the man’s initial mistaken perception, according to critics. Similarly, yaḥsabahā could have been used instead of wajadahā in 18:86 if Naik is correct. Rather, they say, wajada was used to describe what was actually found because that is what it means, i.e. the thirsty man in reality finds nothing where he had falsely perceived water, and finds Allah before him, ready to pass judgement.

Other verses that have the ditransitive usage of wajada include 7:157 (“…the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures)…”), 12:65 (“they found their stock-in-trade had been returned to them…”), 27:24 (“And I found her and her people prostrating to the sun…”), and 58:22 (“Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day…”).

Critics argue that there isn’t the slightest indication in any of these verses or any other verse in the Qur’an that wajada can mean a false perception, but rather, it is clear that it always means actually finding.

It has also been noted that only Muslim translators translate wajadahā in 18:86 as “it appeared to him” (QXP, M. Asad), or insert the comment “[as if]” (Sahih International). The same translators correctly translate wajadahā as “he found it” in 18:90.

Wording used in the Quran to mean a mere perception

Some argue that if verse 18:86 did not mean Dhu'l Qarnayn actually discovered some fact about the sun, it could have instead said that Dhu’l Qarnayn saw (as in 6:78) it setting in a spring of murky water, or quoted Dhu’l Qarnayn’s speech directly (“He said, ‘I found it setting in…’”) as in 18:87-88, 18:95-18:96 and 18:98.

Examples of such usage accurs in the two verses below:

The verb raā meaning “he saw” is used at the start of both verses in reference to the sun (“watarā” means “And you will see”). If verses 18:86 and 18:90 had used raāhā (“he saw it”) instead of wajadahā, perhaps there would be a plausible case for claiming that a mistaken perception or an opinion of what it looked like is meant, and certainly if it was then followed by a correction as in this verse:

The Qur’an has many similes, in which the prefix ka- is added to a noun to which something is being compared to create the meaning “like”. Ka- combined with anna, which means “that” as in “I think that” is used to mean “as if”. Some critics suggest that the word ka-annahā, meaning “as if it”, could have been used with raāhā in 18:86 in a similar way to verses 27:10 and 28:31, which both have the phrase:

Another example of such usage occurs in the following verse:

If this pattern had been used in verse 18:86 it would have meant a mere appearance, for example, “raāhā ka-annahā taghrubu fī ʿaynin ḥami-atin” (“he saw it as if it set in a spring of murky water”).

There is an argument^[6] that whatever wajada means, the things that Dhu’l Qarnayn found (whether actually or just in his opinion) are described in figurative language. For example, people talk about the sun rising even today, but they mean that actually, the Earth has revolved enough so that the sun becomes visible to us. If the phrases about the sun’s setting and rising are meant to be figurative in 18:86 and 18:90 one could even remove the word wajada from those phrases and they should not cause any conflict with what is known in reality. Figurative language can be defined as a way of expressing with words a meaning that is not necessarily true when read plainly.

Ignoring the context such as the location and the people's lack of protection from the sun, some argue that 18:90 is meant to be a figure of speech such that Dhu’l Qarnayn found the sun began to shine on (ʿalā, “on” or “above”) the people, just as it does for everyone on Earth when their day begins. As noted in Part One, al-Qurtubi also promoted a figurative interpretation, pretending that the alternative would be a hyper-literal interpretation of ʿalā ("on") such that the sun was in physical contact with the people as it was rising.

A similar figure of speech occurs in a hadith about the sun rising on Thabir mountain (“tashruqa l-shamsu ʿalā thabīrin”) (Sahih Bukhari 3838).

There it clearly means that the sun starts to shine on the mountain, on which the sun shines earliest in that location because of its height, rather than the sun actually being overhead above the mountain. Another example is Sahih Muslim 1883a: “…(anything) on which the sun rises or sets”, “…ṭalaʿat ʿalayhi l-shamsu wa gharabat”.

Critics have responded in a number of ways. Regarding 18:90, even if the phrase in this verse could be regarded as a figure of speech in the limited sense that the sun was not exactly overhead during the period when it is described as “rising on a people”, they argue that the context of the surrounding words ("he reached the rising place of the sun" and their lack of shelter from it) strongly imply that the people must at least have been unusually close to the sun as it rose above them.

They further note that 18:86 is not an exact mirror of 18:90. 18:86 is describing the place that the sun sets into using the word fī, meaning in or into. If 18:90 had said, “wajadahā taghrubu min”, meaning “he found it rising from” somewhere (i.e. the rising place that the sun emerges out of, as in Sahih Muslim 159a quoted above), it would be describing for sunrise the corresponding action of that described in 18:86 for sunset.

In fact, 18:90 describes what the sun did after it emerged (perhaps because that’s when Dhu’l Qarnayn reached them, and/or because the author’s purpose in that phrase was to describe the people, not the sun). If this was mirrored in 18:86 to describe the sun before it disappeared, that verse would say something like “he found it set on a spring of murky water” (using ʿalā instead of fī), which perhaps, if the context is again ignored, could be a figure of speech to convey a reality that the sun started to appear too low to shine on a muddy spring.

Instead the word fī is used, and critics do not see any evidence that “it set in a spring of murky water” could be a figurative phrase meaning something else. There is also no evidence in Lane’s lexicon suggesting that such a phrase could be used as a figure of speech.^[13] Neither can fī mean “behind”.^[14] The word warā is used in Arabic to mean behind.

The most prominent criticism of the figurative interpretation is that it would also be a highly misleading figure of speech to say that the sun set in a muddy spring when something else is meant. Abundant evidence set out in earlier sections of this article demonstrates that early Muslims understood it literally, as also verse 90. For critics this is unsurprising, especially considering the contextual issues discussed above, for example that a few words earlier Dhu’l Qarnayn reached maghriba l-shamsi / maṭliʿa l-shamsi, and the Quranic usage of wajada, and that the literal reading of verses 86 and 90 reflect the Syriac Alexander Legend.

If “setting in a muddy spring” in 18:86 communicated a figurative meaning, critics ask why this does not seem to have occurred to anyone for a few centuries, but rather there is plentiful evidence that it was understood literally until educated Muslim scholars learned that the literal interpretation was astronomically impossible.

It is sometimes suggested that there is a deeper meaning or lesson to be learnt from the Dhu'l Qarnayn account. Critics respond that even if some phrases have a deeper meaning, at the same time the plain reading must have been intended to be understood as a true account since it is obvious that Muslims without sufficient scientific knowledge would (and did, as detailed in Part One) understand the plain reading as historical narrative rather than only being true in a figurative sense.

Argument that otherwise "he found" would be omitted

A slightly different defence of the Quranic passage is that even if the wajada phrase must mean actually finding the sun setting in a spring, the phrase is just described from Dhu’l Qarnayn’s point of view, and the author of the verse does not claim it happened as described. Al-Baydawi’s comment on 18:86 is sometimes cited in discussions of this topic in which he says:

It is argued that if Allah claims that the sun really set in a spring, wajada ("he found") would be omitted.^[16]

Responding, critics argue that given that this passage is an account about Dhu’l Qarnayn, one should expect each statement to be phrased in a way that makes clear how it relates in some way to him and what he did (in this case finding the thing that was the objective of his journey).

Argument that 18:83 means it is just Dhu’l Qarnayn’s recollection of the events

Another way of supporting the claim that the entire story is the point of view of Dhu’l Qarnayn is to use the last two Arabic words of verse 18:83 to suggest that this is meant to be merely how Dhu’l Qarnayn remembered the events:^[17]

The second phrase is qul sa-atlū ʿalaykum min'hu dhik'ran, and in the word-for-word translation says, “Say, ‘I will recite to you about him a remembrance”. The word min'hu literally means “of him” or “from him”.

The second word here, talawa (sa-atlū), means “to recite”. It is used 63 times in the Qur’an,^[18] always (except for 91:2 and 2:102) in relation to the reciting of revelations from Allah, and whenever the subject doing the reciting is Muhammad, it means reciting the Qur’an. It has the sense of following, repeating, or reciting what has been done, written, or said.^[19] An example is in verse 10:16, which refers to the Qur’an (the next verse is also quoted below, which emphasises that things which Muhammad rehearses about Allah must be true).

In the next example, in a historical narrative about Jesus, are the words also seen in the 18:83 phrase. Talawa (natlūhu) is translated “we rehearse”, ʿalayka is “to thee”, mina is “of”, and l-dhik'ri is “the Message” (literally, “of the rememberance”).

Two more historical narratives are introduced with talawa (translated “rehearse” and “Recite”):

Critics argue that it is therefore unlikely that 18:83 means that Allah is commanding Muhammad to recite from another man’s mistaken recollection. Further points are made regarding the word dhik'ran. Lane’s Lexicon defines this word as “A reminding”, or “causing to remember” and “An admonition”.^[20]

Two highly relevant examples of its usage in the Qur’an occur in Sura al-Kahf. Immediately preceding the passage about Dhu’l Qarnayn is one about Moses and a servant of Allah, whom Moses follows.

The words translated as “concerning it” in this verse are the same as in 18:83, min'hu dhik'ran. Here min'hu is literally “of it” or “from it”. The reminder (dhik'ran) cannot be a recollection coming from the mind of the things which Moses might ask about. It is the servant’s reminder about the things which Moses asks. That is what the phrase means here and in 18:83. All of the major English translations understand it this way.^[2]

Critics also note that at the end of the Dhu’l Qarnayn story, Allah refers to it as his remembrance / reminder.^[21]

It should nevertheless be noted that dhik'rī in verse 18:101 does not necessarily refer to the preceding story of Dhu’l Qarnayn, but perhaps simply to the warnings of the Qur’an in general.

Verse 91 could not be from Dhu’l Qarnayn’s recollection

Finally, some critics point out that this is explicitly an account told from Allah’s point of view. Numerous instances of the first person pronoun occur in reference to Allah (18:84, 18:86, 18:90, 18:91, 18:99, 18:100, 18:101) as well as references to Dhu’l Qarnayn in the third person. For these reasons critics point out that this is supposed to be Allah’s account from Allah’s point of view about Dhu’l Qarnayn. Even in verses with the speech of Dhu’l Qarnayn (as in 18:87-88, 18:95-18:96 and 18:98), his words are preceded with qala, “he said”.

Even more importantly, say critics, in between the second and third journeys, Allah remarks:

The word-for-word translation says, “Thus. And verily we encompassed of what (was) with him (of the) information”.^[22]

The first word, kadhālika, is frequently used in the Qur’an and means literally, “like that”, and is usually translated “So it was” / “even so” / “thus” in relation to the preceding text, as in 26:59.

The verse below from the preceding story about Moses has the same ending phrase (but without ladayhi, “with him”), so can be used to verify the meaning of 18:91. The words aḥaṭnā (“we encompassed”) in 18:91 and tuḥiṭ (“you encompass”) here have the same root.

The word-for-word translation says, “And how can you have patience for what not you encompass of it any knowledge.”^[23]

For all these reasons, verse 18:91 cannot be interpreted as coming from Dhu’l Qarnayn’s recollection, but rather is what Allah is presented as saying about the story and himself according to critics. They also argue that it would in any case be strange to suppose that this passage is meant to be Allah explaining in his own words how he fits into someone else’s mistaken recollection.

It is occasionally argued that the entire account was intended to be understood as a fictional fable from which lessons could be learnt but not an historical narrative.

Critics have identified various issues with this view. Most importantly, Quran 18:99-102 has Allah confirming and elaborating on a prophecy by Dhu’l Qarnayn in 18:98 that Allah will destroy the barrier built by Dhu'l Qarnayn holding back Gog and Magog (mentioned again in Quran 21:96). This implies it is meant as an historical account with future consequences.

Another issue identified is that 18:83 begins, “They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain.” This implies that the questioners regarded him as an historical figure like Moses in the previous passage. Critics argue that it would be deceptive to answer the question with unhistorical details. As detailed in Part One, early Muslims regarded the story as historical.

As noted mentioned above, critics also argue that the usage of dhik'ran in the same verse shows that it means a reminder of something that is real or that really was said or happened. For example, 18:70 has the servant promising to give to Moses a reminder about things that Moses should regard as real history.

Another point raised is that in verse 18:84, Allah is said to have empowered Dhu’l Qarnayn (“Verily We established his power on earth…”). As this verse can only be understood as a claim about true history, it conflicts with the proposed fable intention.

Two related things have been noted regarding verse 18:84. That verse (18:84) begins with innā, which can be translated as “indeed” or “verily”. It indicates emphasis on the subject of the sentence that immediately follows it. In this case that subject is “We” i.e. Allah. The verse is emphasising that it is Allah who gave this famous man his power, which only makes sense as a claim of historical fact. There are also other places in the account where Allah is part of the unfolding story (18:86 says, “…We said: ‘O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.’”, and 18:90 says, “…a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.”).

It has also been pointed out that an intended true account fits with the recorded context for this Sura (Questions suggested by Jews to test Muhammad, though academic scholars note that the questioners were more likely Christian as with the other stories in surah al-Kahf). According to this tradition it was recited in response to the expectation of the questioners that Muhammad would have no knowledge of “the mighty traveller”.

Another verse, 6:25 declares that the unbelievers dismiss the historical stories of people in the Qur’an as fictional (which implies that the Qur’an claims to contain no such things):

There are other similar verses including the following:

Note that talawa is also used in the above verse (tut'lā ʿalayhim translated “rehearsed on them”). As noted above, this word is used in 18:83. Similar examples can be found in verses 25:4-5, 34:43, 68:15 and 83:13. In contrast, the verse below refers to another story in Sura al-Kahf and emphasises that it is meant to be historical:

The verse below follows a story about Moses:

Finally, as noted above, 18:91 has Allah saying that the reminder which he is asking Muhammad to recite is how history actually happened. It seems likely to critics that the purpose of this verse was to emphasise that the story so far had already shown that Allah could answer the testing question alluded to in verse 83. The meaning would be that like that part of the story, Allah knows everything else there is to know about Dhu’l Qarnayn.

The article on this topic by Osama Abdullah^[24] makes two logistical arguments against the interpretation that the sun was found actually setting in a spring.

Bouncing sun

First he suggests that this interpretation implies that the sun must return to the rising place after it sets by taking the reverse journey that it took during the day.

This argument essentially claims that because of the apparent presence of a logistical problem (how does the sun exit the spring in 18:86 so it can rise again?) which even 7^th century CE Arabs could identify, Muhammad and his followers could not have believed that the sun literally sets in a spring, so 18:86 does not mean as such.

Critics argue that there is a flawed premise in such a claim. Early muslims and commentators who were unaware of or ignored Greek astronomical discoveries did believe in this interpretation, so they cannot have been concerned about a logistical problem. Part One of this article quotes al-Tabari explaining in detail that the sun is in heaven prostrating between entering the springs of sunset and sunrise, similar to the Syriac Alexander Legend. Part One also details various other commentators and hadith which indicate that no problems were seen with this interpretation.

The evidence in Part One also suggests other ways of answering this question. For example, people could have imagined the sun floating along an underground stream (i.e. the source of the water from the springs) like the view recorded in al-Thalabi's tafsir, or the hadith in Ibn Kathir that has Ibn ‘Abbas claiming that the sun is like running water. Perhaps Muhammad accepted the belief found in other ancient writings^[25] that there is an ocean under the Earth and he imagined the springs were part of this ocean. It is not necessary to know what, if anything, Muhammad imagined about the sun between it setting in a spring and sunrise. For critics, there is enough evidence to show that the setting in a spring and literally rising was not regarded as implausible.

The moon not being mentioned

Abdallah's other logistical argument is that there is no mention in the Qur’an of the moon setting in a spring, which seems to be implied by a belief that the sun does so.

A response of critics is to note the hadith at the beginning of the quotation in Part One from al-Tabari’s History of the Prophets and Kings, which contains a concept that there are springs created for both the moon and sun to set in and rise from and, further down in the quotation, that they both floated in the same ocean across the sky. Earlier in the hadith it also says after describing the path of the sun:

Critics argue that again, one need not know what, if anything, Muhammad imagined the moon doing since this question did not prevent early Muslims interpreting 18:86 as the sun actually setting in a spring.

It has similarly been noted that these are not the only plausibility difficulties in the story. The idea that a large population would be unable to ascend over, dig under nor melt a metal barrier between two mountains nor find another way around the mountains until the barrier is destroyed in the last days sounds implausible to modern ears. Nevertheless, people believed it (as evidenced in the commentaries and the popularity of the Syriac Alexander Legend). The barrier holding back Gog and Magog is mentioned again as still existing in Qur’an 21:96. Several expeditions were in fact sent to find Dhu’l Qarnayn’s wall/barrier/gate, beginning with one sent by Caliph ‘Umar in the 7^th century CE, as recorded by al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir.^[27]

• Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring (Part One)
• Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance
• Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth

• Tafsir Al-Tabari for Q18:86 - The Islam Issue
• The early Muslims and the sun in the spring - The Islam Issue
• Forum discussion showing Shi'ite hadith also confirm a literal meaning to the sun "setting in a muddy spring"
• Does the Quran really say the Sun sets in a muddy spring? - The Masked Arab - YouTube video
• The Physical Setting of the Sun, The Sun sets in a Murky Water - islamwhattheydonttellyou164 - YouTube video