4,682
edits
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Alexander Romance (view source)
Revision as of 03:32, 15 January 2021
, 15 January 2021→Modern Views and Controversies
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
{{Quote|Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation: (1880 - 1960), p. 32|When treating the Dhul-Qarnayn story, Azad beings by setting forth that it follows from verse 82/83 that the hero's epithet was familiar to the Jews, being an expression used by the questioners. Then, he must have been a righteous (see verse 86/87) and godly (see verses 87/88, 94/95 and 97/98) sovereign. In other words, he cannot represent Alexander the Great: "That man was neither godly, nor righteous, nor generous towards subjected nations; moreover, he did not build a wall"<ref name="Azad"/>}} | {{Quote|Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation: (1880 - 1960), p. 32|When treating the Dhul-Qarnayn story, Azad beings by setting forth that it follows from verse 82/83 that the hero's epithet was familiar to the Jews, being an expression used by the questioners. Then, he must have been a righteous (see verse 86/87) and godly (see verses 87/88, 94/95 and 97/98) sovereign. In other words, he cannot represent Alexander the Great: "That man was neither godly, nor righteous, nor generous towards subjected nations; moreover, he did not build a wall"<ref name="Azad"/>}} | ||
The apologist insists that the only possible connection to Alexander must be to the historical man. On this basis, it is easy to agree that the historical Alexander is not portrayed in the Qur'anic story, as he does not fit the description at all. However, the legendary Alexander is a perfect fit. He is portrayed as a godly and righteous man, he shows generosity to the people harassed by the Huns, and he builds a wall of iron and brass. While these legendary stories were popular in the 7<sup>th</sup> century, they are virtually unknown outside of academic circles today. | The apologist insists that the only possible connection to Alexander must be to the historical man. On this basis, it is easy to agree that the historical Alexander is not portrayed in the Qur'anic story, as he does not fit the description at all. However, the legendary Alexander is a perfect fit. He is portrayed as a godly and righteous man, he shows generosity to the people harassed by the Huns, and he builds a wall of iron and brass. While these legendary stories were popular in the 7<sup>th</sup> century, they are virtually unknown outside of academic circles today. Maulana Azad simply ignores these facts and never considers the possibility that these verses are about a legendary figure and not the Alexander of history. | ||
===Two Horns=== | ===Two Horns=== | ||
| Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
{{Quote|The Meaning of the Qur'an, Introduction to Chapter 18|This Surah was sent down in answer to the three questions which the mushriks of Makkah, in consultation with the people of the Book, had put to the Holy Prophet in order to test him. These were: (1) Who were "the Sleepers of the Cave"? (2) What is the real story of Khidr? and (3) What do you know about Dhul-Qarnayn? As these three questions and the stories involved concerned the history of the Christians and the Jews, and were unknown in Hijaz, a choice of these was made to test whether the Holy Prophet possessed any source of the knowledge of the hidden and unseen things.<ref name="Maududi18">{{cite web|url= http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/maududi/introductions/mau-18.php|title= Tafsir Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an|publisher= |author= Maududi|date= 1972 |series= Introduction to Chapter 18|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usc.edu%2Forg%2Fcmje%2Freligious-texts%2Fmaududi%2Fintroductions%2Fmau-18.php&date=2013-11-22|deadurl=no}}</ref>}} | {{Quote|The Meaning of the Qur'an, Introduction to Chapter 18|This Surah was sent down in answer to the three questions which the mushriks of Makkah, in consultation with the people of the Book, had put to the Holy Prophet in order to test him. These were: (1) Who were "the Sleepers of the Cave"? (2) What is the real story of Khidr? and (3) What do you know about Dhul-Qarnayn? As these three questions and the stories involved concerned the history of the Christians and the Jews, and were unknown in Hijaz, a choice of these was made to test whether the Holy Prophet possessed any source of the knowledge of the hidden and unseen things.<ref name="Maududi18">{{cite web|url= http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/maududi/introductions/mau-18.php|title= Tafsir Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an|publisher= |author= Maududi|date= 1972 |series= Introduction to Chapter 18|archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usc.edu%2Forg%2Fcmje%2Freligious-texts%2Fmaududi%2Fintroductions%2Fmau-18.php&date=2013-11-22|deadurl=no}}</ref>}} | ||
Apologists | Some Apologists argue that the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn must have been well known to the Jews and should therefore be found in the Bible. However, no justification is ever given as to why only the Bible is considered and not other literature used by Jews and Christians of the 7<sup>th</sup> century. This includes the Talmud, apocryphal books, and other non-canonical writings. In fact, this very account refers to another non-canonical story, [[Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the Quran|the Sleepers of the Cave]], which is a 5<sup>th</sup> century legend popular in both Syria and Arabia. In point of fact the Alexander Romance was well known to both Christian and Jewish audiences in late antiquity, so the assumption that the story is well known to the audience of this verse once again points to the Alexander Romance. | ||
Another detail about this account | Another detail about this account is that the audience of the verse is not asked to simply identify Dhul-Qarnayn. If that were the case, the answer would have been something such as "he is Alexander" or "he is Cyrus". The speaker in the verse actually asks the audience to relate a ''story'' about Dhul-Qarnayn. This once again points to a well known narrative about Dhul-Qarnayn, the Alexander Romance. In order for the audience to know the "right" answer to that question, they must already know the details of this story. This story does not appear anywhere in the Bible; but it does occur, point-by-point and detail-by-detail in the Alexander legend. Therefore, they must be using the Alexander legend as their source for the "right" answer. | ||
An argument based on this verse ignores the wide range of stories in circulation by Jews and Christians of the 7<sup>th</sup> century. It projects a modern understanding of the cannon of scripture back upon the people of that time. The Alexander legends were incorporated into the writings and theology of the Jews and Christians in Syria and Arabia, thus it is easy to see why the speaker in the verse expects a well-rehearsed answer. | |||
===Reference in the Bible=== | ===Reference in the Bible=== | ||
Another point brought up in defense of the Cyrus thesis is a passage from the Bible, Daniel 8 that mentions a ram with two horns: | |||
{{Quote|Daniel 8:2-7|In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was '''a ram with two horns''', standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. '''One of the horns was longer than the other''' but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. As I was thinking about this, suddenly '''a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west''', crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power.<ref>New International Version of the Bible. Zondervan 1971. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%208:2-7&version=NIV Dan 8:2-7].</ref>}} | {{Quote|Daniel 8:2-7|In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was '''a ram with two horns''', standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. '''One of the horns was longer than the other''' but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. As I was thinking about this, suddenly '''a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west''', crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power.<ref>New International Version of the Bible. Zondervan 1971. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%208:2-7&version=NIV Dan 8:2-7].</ref>}} | ||
| Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
Another problem with identifying Cyrus as the ram is that the ram is defeated and disgraced by the goat. It is well known that Cyrus was responsible for freeing the Jews from slavery in Babylon<ref>Ezra 1:1-2</ref> and he is always portrayed favorably in the Bible. In the Book of Isaiah, Cyrus is even called God's anointed <ref>Isaiah 45:1</ref> which is the same word used for Messiah or Savior. However, in this prophetic vision, the goat defeats the ram and tramples it, which is completely at odds with how Cyrus is portrayed throughout the rest of Jewish scripture. Again, this clearly shows that the Ram represents Persia as a whole and not Cyrus as an individual. | Another problem with identifying Cyrus as the ram is that the ram is defeated and disgraced by the goat. It is well known that Cyrus was responsible for freeing the Jews from slavery in Babylon<ref>Ezra 1:1-2</ref> and he is always portrayed favorably in the Bible. In the Book of Isaiah, Cyrus is even called God's anointed <ref>Isaiah 45:1</ref> which is the same word used for Messiah or Savior. However, in this prophetic vision, the goat defeats the ram and tramples it, which is completely at odds with how Cyrus is portrayed throughout the rest of Jewish scripture. Again, this clearly shows that the Ram represents Persia as a whole and not Cyrus as an individual. | ||
We must also consider that Cyrus is mentioned explicitly by name 23 times<ref> Chron 36:22-33, Ezra 1:1-8, Ezra 3:7, Ezra 4:3-5, Ezra 5:13-17, Ezra 6:3,14, Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1,13, Daniel 1:21, Daniel 6:28, Daniel 10:1</ref> in the Bible including other parts of the Book of Daniel; yet he is never given the epitaph of "Two Horns". If the Jews knew Cyrus by this epitaph then | We must also consider that Cyrus is mentioned explicitly by name 23 times<ref> Chron 36:22-33, Ezra 1:1-8, Ezra 3:7, Ezra 4:3-5, Ezra 5:13-17, Ezra 6:3,14, Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1,13, Daniel 1:21, Daniel 6:28, Daniel 10:1</ref> in the Bible including other parts of the Book of Daniel; yet he is never given the epitaph of "Two Horns". If the Jews knew Cyrus by this epitaph then one should expect to see it mentioned in at least one of these verses. Considering that Alexander is said to have two horns in the Alexander legend, this lack of direct reference to Cyrus further weakens this theory. | ||
The horn on the goat is considered by many to be a reference to Alexander the Great. The horn is called "the king of Greece" that comes form the west and charges to the east destroying everything in its path; a basic summary of Alexander's conquest of the Persians. Later in the chapter, we are told that the horn is broken (a reference to Alexander's death) and four horns appear in its place (a reference to the four rulers that divided up Alexander's kingdom).<ref name="Guzik" /> This again provides further evidence that the ram is not Cyrus, as Alexander lived three centuries after Cyrus and the two never fought each other on the battle field. | The horn on the goat is considered by many to be a reference to Alexander the Great. The horn is called "the king of Greece" that comes form the west and charges to the east destroying everything in its path; a basic summary of Alexander's conquest of the Persians. Later in the chapter, we are told that the horn is broken (a reference to Alexander's death) and four horns appear in its place (a reference to the four rulers that divided up Alexander's kingdom).<ref name="Guzik" /> This again provides further evidence that the ram is not Cyrus, as Alexander lived three centuries after Cyrus and the two never fought each other on the battle field. | ||