story of Dhul-Qarnayn was borrowed from Syriac sources

 In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious,

the Most Merciful. Allah the Almighty said in Surat Al-Kahf: ((And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, "I will recite to you about him a report (83) Indeed, We established him upon the earth and gave him from all things a way (84) So he followed a way (85) Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of murky water. And he found near it a people. We said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish or you will be punished." (86) He said, “As for him who wronged, We will punish him; then he will be returned to his Lord, and He will punish him with a terrible punishment.” (87) But as for him who believed and did righteousness, he will have the best reward, and We will speak to him from Our command with ease. (88) Then he followed a way. (89) Until, when he reached the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had not appointed anyone to protect them. (90) Thus it is, and We have encompassed what he has with knowledge. (91) Then he followed a way. (92) Until, when he reached between the two barriers, he found beyond them a people who could hardly understand a word. (93) They said, “O Dhul-Qarnayn, indeed Gog and Magog are corrupters in the land. So shall we assign to you an expenditure on condition that you make between us and them a barrier?” (94) He said, "What my Lord has empowered me in is better, so help me with strength; I will place between you and them a barrier." (95) Bring me sheets of iron. Until, when he had leveled between the two mountain-sides, he said, "Blow." Until, when he had made it a fire, he said, "Bring me molten copper, that I may pour over it." (96) But they were not able to scale it, nor were they able to pierce it. (97) He said, "This is a mercy from my Lord." (98) And We will leave some of them that Day surging against others, and the Trumpet will be blown, and We will gather them together. (99)

The enemies of Islam, Christians and atheists, claim that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Holy Quran is a mythical story taken from Syriac Christian writings that mention Alexander the Great and his legendary journeys.

The truth is that all of these Syriac sources date back to the seventh century, especially after Heraclius recaptured Jerusalem and the Levant from the Persians, and some of them date back to the period after the Islamic conquest, that is, many years after the revelation of Surat al-Kahf in the early Meccan period.
It is worth mentioning - and as we will explain - that this story of Alexander is a bee that some hands have sown in order to export the image of Heraclius to the world. All the concepts mentioned about Alexander the Great are symbols and references to Heraclius and his great kingdom and an attempt at symbolization by linking the details of the story to Heraclius’ victories over the Persians .

The sources that these people claim to quote from are:
1. The Syriac Alexander Legend
2. The Alexander Romance
3. The Nishanah or a forged poem on the tongue of Mar Jacob of Serugh
4. A forged Syriac sermon on the tongue of Ephraim the Syrian
5. The Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo Methodious .

We will divide the subject into three sections:
1. Clarification that the Syriac sources mentioned above are many years after the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf
2. Clarifying the absurdity of the claim of borrowing, given the non-conformity of the Quranic words with the Syriac texts.
3. The illiteracy of the Prophet, peace be upon him, which prevents borrowing.
4. Clarifying the existence of an oral heritage among the Jews that speaks about the story of Dhul-Qarnayn
. 5. Clarifying the sayings of the predecessors about the character of Dhul-Qarnayn and the conclusion of the statement in defining his character .

The first point: Clarifying that the Syriac sources mentioned above are many years after the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf .

We begin with the sources:
First: The Syriac Alexander Legend .
This source is the foundation and oldest upon which the rest of the sources depend, as will become clear. This work is a legendary work with political goals, as we said, as it goes to glorify the character of Heraclius and serve his policies, especially with the Khazar Turks, in an indirect way by using a fabricated story about Alexander and directing it indirectly to symbolize the events that took place in the seventh century. This work was composed by a Christian monk living in Mesopotamia (currently Iraq) and dates back to the year 629-630 AD, that is, two years before the death of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that is, more than thirteen or four years, or even more than sixteen to seventeen years after the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf (if we consider that it was revealed before the migration to Abyssinia), which means that it is impossible for the quotation to have occurred .
We read from the book Gog And Magog In Early Eastern Christian And Islamic Sources by Emeri J. van Donzel, Andrea Barbara Schmidt, Chapter Two, Page 18
(( The Alexander Legend was composed by a Mesopotamian Christian probably in Amid or Edessa. It was written on 629-630 after the glorious victory of Emporer Heraclius over the Sassanian king Kuhsurau Pavrez. The anonymous author used both oral and written traditions on Alexander. The Alexander Romance was certainly known to him. G . Reinink underlines the political setting of the legend which clearly shows a pro- Byzantium propaganda. The purpose of the Legend probably was to win the seperated Syrian Christians back to a union with the imperial church of Costantinople. The legend thus propagates Heraclius' military victory over the old enemies namely the Huns, Khazars and Persians as part of a devine plan. A special role is deliberately attributed to the orthodox Emperor Heraclius in the relization of the devine plan. plan. He is depicted as an ideal Christian emperor, a truly 'Alexandros Neos', who anounces the advent of a final Christian empire . ))

And on page 21 we read:
(( The narration of Alexander's iron gate as told in the Syriac Legend is quite probably the oldest version which puts Alexander's enclosure of the impure nations Gog and Megog behind iron gates in an apocalyptic setting ))

And we read from The Alexander Legend in the Quran by Kevin Van Bladel, page 184-185:
(( Reninik has shown that the Alexander Legend demonstrates through its prophecy and its use of Alexander to prefigure the emperor Heraclius, detailed knowledge of the events of that war and its resolution with the restoration of the earlier borders, a peace treaty and a final reference to Jerusalem. Using this information, too much to entirely repeat here, he has persuasively argued that the Alexander Legend was composed just after 628, perhaps in 630, the year in which Heraclius restored the cross to Jerusalem...Heraclius's visit to Edessa in late 629 might have been an occassion for its composition. It is also possible that the text had been written a few months later when Heraclius restored the cross to Jerusalem ))

And we will have a pause with this writer who, while acknowledging that the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf preceded the writing of these Syriac sources, said what no mind accepts!!!

Second: The Alexander Romance .
This work is originally ancient Greek and was translated into several translations, including Syriac in the seventh century. However, the story mentioned in the Qur’an only appears in the Syriac version in the seventh century by one of those who made the modifications, where he added these two details: 1. Alexander’s journey to the Water of Life 2. Alexander’s imprisonment of the peoples of Gog and Magog behind iron doors. This addition was made based on the previous Syriac source, The Syriac Alexander Legend, meaning that this addition was also made after Heraclius’ victory over the Persians in 628 AD as part of the political campaign carried out in favor of Heraclius .
We read from the book A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages, page 42:
((the Syriac Alexander Romance, stricto sensu, spawned from the Greek version of the PC through a translation done from a middle Persian (Pehlevi) Volrage in the early 7th century, which must have been in fact a Nestorian product from North Mesopotamia belonging to the period ca. 628 AD. Such a text must have been done with purely propagandistic For purposes shortly after the winning campaigns of Heraclius against the Persian)

and we read from the same source, page 44:
((On the other hand, the Syriac Alexander romance is a translation from a lost Neo-Persian Vorlage in the early 7th century.16 This Syriac version seems to have been translated in Nestorian circles17 in the northern part of Mesopotamia in the late sixth or early seventh century according to Nöldeke,18 Although Brock has recently proposed a more plausible date around the year 629–630, shortly after the victorious campaigns of Heraclius against the Persians in the heyday of the Arab-Islamic expansion,19 as can be inferred from the seventh-century Syriac works on Alexander the Great.20 However, the several copies that have come down to us, as we can see in the following section, date from a later period.))

And we read from page 55:
((The Syriac version of the Alexander romance is the translation of the PC starting from the Neo-Persian version in the early 7th century.55 This Syriac version, judging by the copies of the MSS that have reached us, seems to have been generated in Nestorian circles from north Mesopotamia.56 The Alexander legend (“A Christian Legend Concerning Alexander,” according to the title given by Budge in his edition)57 is a substantially reshaped form of the Alexander romance, amplified with the apocalyptic topos of Gog and Magog, which is of great importance to the study of apocalyptic literature of the Middle Ages.58 Thus
, for instance, besides the interpolations made by a Christian hand, the origins of which do not seem to be other than a Christian work, we have the two most famous legends of the Greek recension, such as the “Legend of the Water of Life”59 and the “Legend of the Bronze Gate in the Frontier of Gog and Magog.”60 Neither of them appear in the Syriac version, but they have been added at the end of the work as if they belonged to another cycle . The reason that they were kept apart from the whole body of the work does not seem to be other than the fact that, while the main character is a pagan king in Alexander the Great, it is either a Jewish king or a Christian king in the two legends, and their actions are guided by God. ))

And we read from the book Gog And Magog In Early Eastern Christian And Islamic Sources by Emeri J. van Donzel, Andrea Barbara Schmidt, page 17:
((The Syrian redactor probably an eastern Syrian Christian added a certain number of until then unknown episodes to the text. T he episode of Alexander's building a wall against Gog and Magog, however is not found in the oldest Greek, Latin, Armenian and Syriac versions of the Romance . Although the Alexander Romance was decisive for the spreading of the new and supernatural image of Alexander, the king of the east and west, the barrier episode has not its origin in this text. The fusion of the motif of Alexander's barrier with the biblical tradition of the apocalyptic peoples Gog and Magog appears in fact for the first time in the so called Syriac Alexander

Legend .
It is a poem attributed to Mar Jacob of Sarug who lived in the sixth century. The poem was composed and attributed in the seventh century between the years 629-636 AD. A study of the text indicates that the writer was aware of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in 629 AD. In fact, the text suggests that it is included with the two previous sources in that it was written within the framework of the political promotion campaign for Heraclius .
We read from the previous source, page 22:
(The Alexander Legend was the source for a metrical homily (memra) entitled “Poem on the pious king Alexander and on the gate which he built against Gog and Magog. T he poem was composed by an anonymous Christian Author in Northern Mesopotamia probably in the neighborhood of Amid. G Reninnik, who edited the text, believes the poem was written between 629 and 636 ))

And we read from The legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient by the writer S. Gero Page 7:
((. The apocalyptic element is very pronounced in this work Alexander is depicted as a pious, proto-Christian instrument of God, endowed with the gift of prophetic utterance. Several features of the text also occur in the Koranic narrative - the famous horns of Alexander, the journey to the west and then to the east, and of course the central theme of the gate, which will be opened at an apocalyptic Endzeit by divine command. But, although this has been proposed by Noldeke30 and often repeated since,31 the work also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran, at least not in its present form; recent investigations indicate an ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in AD 629. 32 This prose legend (neshana) was then in turn the literary source of the Syriac metrical homily attributed to Jacob of Sarug (sixth century) in the manuscripts. 33 The poem however was actually written in the seventh century, shortly before the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia and Palestine. 34 The political dimension of apocalyptic in this work is very interesting. Thus, Alexander's conquests are identified in detail with Heraclius's territorial gains (or potential claims),35 and the politically conciliant feature of the neshana, that, despite the Persian defeat, the guarding of the gate is a contractually....))

Fourth: A Syriac sermon transcribed in the tongue of Ephraim the Syrian .
It was destroyed after the Islamic conquest of the Levant between 642 and 683 AD .
We read from the book texts Gog And Magog In Early Eastern Christian And Islamic Sources, page 25:
(( The sermon is falsely ascribed to Ephrim the Syrian but it is not of the eminent Syrian poet, for it dates from the Early Islamic period and it must have been composed between 642- 683. The anonymous author originates perhaps from Edessa ))

Fifth: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius .
Also a Syriac work dating back to the last quarter of the seventh century .
We read from The Legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient, page 8:
(( The legend of Alexander's shutting in of Gog and Magog is also found in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, a quite obscure, but extremely influential text, primarily devoted to theeschatological interpretation of the Arab conquest. This work also was composed in Syriac, sometime in the last quarter of the seventh century ,37 although it was soon translated not only into Greek,38 but also from Greek into Latin. 39))

After we have reviewed the five sources, and the oldest mention of the story in these five sources dates back to between the years 629-630 AD, two years before the death of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and more than sixteen to seventeen years after the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf, we mention the evidence for the Meccan nature of Surat Al-Kahf:
We read from Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Book of Interpretation of the Qur’an, Chapter: And from Surat Bani Israel:
((3140 Qutaybah narrated to us, Yahya bin Zakariya bin Abi Zaydah narrated to us, on the authority of Dawud bin Abi Hind, on the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: Quraysh said to the Jews: Give us something so we can ask this man. He said: Ask him about the soul. He said: So they asked him about the soul, so God Almighty revealed: And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is from the command of my Lord. And you have not been given of knowledge except a little. They said: We have been given much knowledge. We have been given the Torah, and whoever has been given the Torah has certainly been given much good. So He revealed: Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted, to the end of the verse. He said: This is a good, authentic hadith, strange from this aspect))
It was authenticated by Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, in Sahih and Da’if Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 3140.

We read from the interpretation of Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, at the beginning of Surat Al-Kahf:
((The interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf, and it is Meccan .))

We read from the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, at the beginning of Surat Al-Kahf:
(( And it is Meccan according to the opinion of all the interpreters . It was narrated from a group that the beginning of the surah was revealed in Medina up to the word Jarzah, and the first is more correct.

We read in Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, the first part in knowing Meccan and Medinan:
Abu Ja`far Al-Nahhas said in his book “Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh”: Yamut bin Al-Muzra` told me, Abu Hatim Sahl bin Muhammad Al-Sijistani told us, Abu Ubaidah Mu`mar bin Al-Muthanna told us, Yunus bin Habib told us: I heard Abu `Amr bin Al-`Ala’ say: I asked Mujahid about the summary of the verses of the Qur’an, Medinan from Meccan, so he said: I asked Ibn `Abbas about that and he said: Surat Al-An`am was revealed in Mecca all at once, so it is Meccan except for three verses that were revealed in Medina: Say, Come, I will recite [151-153] to the end of the three verses, and the previous surahs are Medinan. Surat Al-A`raf, Yunus, Hud, Yusuf, Al-Ra`d, Ibrahim, Al-Hijr, and An-Nahl
were revealed in Mecca, except for three verses from the end of it, for they were revealed between Mecca and Medina. And the city, on his way back from one. And Surah Bani Israel and Al-Kahf and Maryam and Taha and the Prophets and Al-Hajj, except for three verses, these two are opponents to the completion of the three verses, for they were revealed in Medina... This is how he narrated it in full, and its chain of transmission is good, and all of its men are trustworthy and famous scholars of Arabic. ))

Another testimony to the fact that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn was not borrowed from the late Syriac stories of Alexander.
Dr. Brannon Wheeler denies that the Qur’an borrowed the story of Dhul-Qarnayn from the Syriac narratives of Alexander, as he lists the decisive reasons for denying the borrowing, which we summarize as follows:
1.The late date of the composition of the Syriac texts related to Alexander, his travels, and his construction of the iron gates that imprisoned Gog and Magog.
2. The radical difference in details between the Qur’an and the Syriac sources, and the difference also between the Syriac sources themselves in details, while the Qur’anic details are similar to the details of the story of Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid Al-Himyari .

We read from Moses in the Qur’an and Islamic Exegesis, page 17:
((Given these points about the origins of the association of the Alexander stories with Q 18:60-10 1, it is necessary to reconsider some of the theories concerning the reconstruction of the history of the Alexander stories’ recensions. It is not possible to show that the Ethiopic and Persian versions of the Alexander stories are derived directly from the Syriac versions. There are a number of problems with the dating of the Syriac versions and their supposed influence on the Qur’an and later Alexander stories, not the least of which is the confusion of what has been called the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, the sermon of Jacob of Serugh, and the so-called Syriac “Legend of Alexander Second, the key elements of Q 18:60-65,18:83-101, and the story of Ibn Hisham’s Sa’b Dhu.” al-Qarnayn does not occur in the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes.i'' The fish episode, found in the sermon of Jacob of Serugh, although not necessarily the source for Q 18:60-65 is also missing from the Syrianc Pseudo-Callisthenes. Third, the brief, so-called "Legend of Alexander," which is often said to be a prose version of Jacob of Serugh's sermon, is not identical with the sermon nor can it be shown to be dependent upon the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes. It omits several elements found in Jacob of Serugh's sermon, including the fish ring, and the elements it does mention could be derived from an independent Greek or Pahlavi source. Fourth, although Jacob of Serugh's sermon does contain the fish episode, although not identical to the fish episode in the Greek Recension 13, the sermon does not include the same key elements as found in the Quran and associated with Sa'b Dhu al-Qarnain...... . The episode in the sermon resembles the one in the Greek recension 13. The story in Q 18:60-65, although later identified as the fish episode from the Alexander stories, does not resemble the earlier stories and is probably derived from sources independent of the Alexander stories. )


And we also read from the same source Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65 but from Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 191-215 (25 pages) On page 215 we read the gist of Dr. Wheeler's words where he denies that the Syriac sources for the story of Alexander are a source for the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Holy Qur'an:
(( It is important to recognize the Quran as sharing in the large culture of late antiquity, but it is unfortunate to ignore the pivotal role played by the early commentators in identifying and appropriating certain late antique motifs to the understanding of the Quran. Q 18: 60-65 is not necessarily derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary amore discerning examination of the different texts shows that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Quran as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentaries. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation "Du-al Qarnain" attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries ))
We conclude this section with what Kevin van Bladel said, where he admitted in his speech that The Syriac Legend of Alexander was in fact composed after the victory of Heraclius over the Persians, and this according to the chronological order of the Prophet’s biography was many years after the revelation of Surat Al-Kahf, but with this statement he contradicted it by saying that the story in Surat Al-Kahf must have been taken in some way from this book Because it is the only acceptable explanation!!!!!
We read what he said in The Alexander Legend in the Quran, page 190:
(( Stephen Gero implied in one article that since the text comes from this date (629 CE or later it cannot be regarded as a source of the Quran. He does not explain in detail but I take the implication to be such a date of composition too late for it to have reached the human agents who related the Quran. But to mc this seems to be the only real possibility because the others are invalid as just explained. The Quranic account must draw from the Syriac account, if not directly then by oral report ))

Then he went on the same page to suggest that the story in the Quran is either Medinan or that the Companions, may God be pleased with them, added it to the Quran after the death of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. By God, the situation was saying: “A goat, even if it flew.” Here he faces a difficult dilemma, as the Quran here stands high and nothing is higher than it,
so he was forced to put forward the established fact from history (which is that Surat Al-Kahf and the verses of Dhul-Qarnayn in it are Meccan by consensus) and then he makes an empty accusation that has no value and It is not based on any evidence and points the failed finger of accusation at the Companions, may God be pleased with them. The strange thing is that he returned at the end of his speech on page 191 to say that this is not impossible and is possible!!! So look, dear reader, at the fanaticism of the Orientalists and how far they go to deny the facts for the sake of any desperate attempt to prove the humanity of the Qur’an. Look and be amazed at how he rejected the established facts of history for the sake of his own whims. God Almighty said, “Indeed, conjecture is of no avail against the truth.” He
denied it while he knew that he was in a predicament and he almost said it and confessed it, had it not been for his arrogance and stubbornness. God Almighty said, “And they denied it, while their souls were convinced thereof, out of injustice and arrogance. So see how was the end of the corrupters.” (14)

To the second point: showing the futility of the claim of borrowing with the lack of conformity of the Qur’anic words with the Syriac texts .
This is in terms of the words and phrases used that differ between the Qur’anic and Syriac contexts, as the claim of borrowing must be accompanied by evidence that relates to the commonality of the words used in both texts, especially with the presence of words that have a Semitic commonality between them.
For example, we do not find the Qur’an using the word “tur” which is pronounced “tury” in Syriac, but rather we find the word used in the Qur’an “siddin.”
Likewise, we do not find the Qur’an using the word “yam” (which is a Semitic commonality word that has synonyms in Syriac and Hebrew), but rather it uses the word “ayn.”
We read from Quranic Studies and the Literary Turn by Travis Zadeh, page 333:
(( At a linguistic level however the significant instances of the divergence between the Quranic text and the Neshana put into serious question the exact relationship between the two accounts. There is much to suugest that echatalogical discourses on the life of Alexander and Gog and Magog were widely diffused throughout the seventh century both orally and textually. It is thus tenuous to attempt to historisize the Quranic account using material that may not have been a direct inertext of the Quran ))

The third point: The illiteracy of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, which prevents quotation: How could an illiterate Arab who could neither read nor write read a book in Syriac that could only be found among a few Christian monks in Mesopotamia at that time!!! Rather, how could he communicate with those Syriac Christians who wrote the story while he only knew Arabic!!!???

Allah the Almighty said: (( And you did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you inscribe it with your right hand. Then the falsifiers would have had doubts. (48) Rather, it is clear signs within the breasts of those who have been given knowledge. And none reject Our signs except the wrongdoers. (49)))

And we read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Fasting, Chapter on the saying of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “We do not write nor do we calculate.”
1814 Adam narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us, al-Aswad ibn Qays narrated to us, Sa’id ibn Amr narrated to us that he heard Ibn Umar, from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he said, “We are an illiterate nation. We do not write nor do we calculate. The month is like this and like this,” meaning sometimes twenty-nine and sometimes thirty.

And we read in Sahih Ibn Habban, Book of Biography, Chapter on Truce and Appeasement, Hadith No.: 4982
(Hadith with a chain of transmission traceable to the Prophet) Al-Nadr ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Mubarak informed us, saying: Muhammad ibn Uthman Al-Ijli informed us, saying: Ubaydullah ibn Musa informed us, on the authority of Israel, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Al-Bara’, who said: “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, performed ‘Umrah in Dhul-Qa’dah, but the people of Mecca refused to let him enter Mecca until he ruled that he should stay there.” Three days passed, and when they wrote the letter, they wrote: This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has decided. They said: We do not acknowledge this. If we knew that you were the Messenger of Allah, we would not have prevented you from anything. But you are Muhammad ibn Abdullah. He said: I am the Messenger of Allah, and I am Muhammad ibn Abdullah. He said to Ali: Erase the Messenger of Allah. He said: By Allah, I will never erase you. So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took the letter, and he was not good at writing, so he ordered, and Muhammad was written in the place of the Messenger of Allah, and he wrote: This is what Muhammad ibn Abdullah has decreed, that he should not enter Mecca with weapons except the sword, and he should not leave it with anyone following him, and he should not prevent any of his companions if he wanted to stay in it. So when he entered it and the time had passed, They came to Ali

and we read in Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Expeditions, Chapter of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
1783, Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Hanthali and Ahmad bin Janab Al-Masisi, both of them, narrated to us on the authority of Isa bin Yunus, and the wording is from Ishaq, Isa bin Yunus informed us, Zakariya informed us on the authority of Abu Ishaq on the authority of Al-Baraa, who said: When the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was besieged at the House, the people of Mecca made peace with him on the condition that he would enter it and stay there for three days, and would not enter it except with the armor of the sword and its sheath, and would not take anyone of its people with him, and would not prevent anyone from staying there who was with him. He said to Ali, write the condition between us, “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of God, has agreed upon.” The polytheists said to him, “If we knew that you were the Messenger of God, we would follow you, but write Muhammad bin Abdullah.” So he ordered Ali to erase it, and Ali said, “No, by God, I will not erase it.” So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said, “Show me its place.” So he showed me its place, so he erased it and wrote Ibn Abdullah .

And we read in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, Book of Marriage
12916, Chapter: He was not allowed to learn poetry or write. Allah the Almighty said: (And We did not teach him poetry, nor is it befitting for him)
and He said: (So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet) Some of the people of interpretation said: The unlettered is the one who does not read the book, nor write with his right hand. This is the saying of Muqatil bin Sulayman, and others of the people of interpretation.
(And we were informed) Abu Hazim Al-Hafiz, Abu Bakr Al-Ismaili informed us, Ali bin Siraj Al-Masry informed us, Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, the nephew of Husayn Al-Ja’fi informed us, Abu Usamah informed us, on the authority of Idris Al-Awdi, on the authority of Al-Hakam bin Utaybah, on the authority of Mujahid, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas - - in His statement - the Almighty: (And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you inscribe it with your right hand) he said: The Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - did not read nor write .

The fourth point: Clarification of the existence of an oral heritage among the Jews that speaks about the story of Dhul-Qarnayn .
The claim that the Syriac sources are late does not mean denying the existence of an oral origin for the story, but rather all that denies it is:
1. That Alexander the Great is Dhul-Qarnayn, as we have shown, was assumed by some Christians after Heraclius’ victory over the Persians.
2. Any possibility that the Qur’an quotes from these late Syriac sources .

The truth is that the Jews - especially the Jews of the Arabian Peninsula - preserved the oral heritage of this story - even though they added to it many illogical details that do not exist in the Holy Qur’an - while not believing that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander the Great, but rather someone else (and we will explain him, God willing, shortly).
We have two pieces of evidence for this:
1. The context of the verses about Dhul-Qarnayn in Surat al-Kahf began with the phrase “And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn,” which indicates that the Qur’anic story was known among the rabbis of the Jews of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. Dhul-Qarnayn was mentioned in the Book of Daniel, even though he was mentioned in a metaphorical context, not as a title .
We read from the Book of Daniel, Chapter 8:
((6 And he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing by the river, and ran toward him with all his might.
7 And I saw him come to the side of the ram, and he was enraged against him, and smote the ram, and broke his two horns; so that the ram had no strength to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled him underfoot; and there was no one to rescue the ram from 8 And the he
goat became exceedingly great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and in its stead came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came out a little horn, and it became exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glory of the lands.
10 And it became great even to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and the stars unto the heavens. 20 And the ram which you saw having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the wild goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king . 22 And when it is broken
, and four rise up in its place, then four kingdoms shall arise from the nation, but not in his strength. 23 And at the end of their kingdom, when their sins are at an end, there will arise a king with a harsh face and an understanding of deceit. As for the evidence for: 1. The existence of such a story in the oral Jewish heritage among the Jewish rabbis in the Arabian Peninsula 2. And that the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen, such as Ka’b al-Ahbar, denied that Alexander the Great was Dhul-Qarnayn, it is in the story of the Himyarite king al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid, whom the Jews of Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula before Islam viewed as Dhul-Qarnayn. Ka’b al-Ahbar transmitted this from his rabbis and ancestors . We read in the book of al-Tijyan fi Muluk Himyar:











((Abu Muhammad said: Asad told us on the authority of Abu Idris on the authority of Wahb on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas that he was asked about Dhul-Qarnayn, who was he? He said: He is from Himyar and he is Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid. He is the one whom Allah empowered on earth and gave him a reason for everything, so he reached the horns of the sun and trampled the earth and built a dam on Gog and Magog. So it was said to him: What about Alexander the Roman? He said: Alexander the Roman was a righteous and wise man who built two minarets on the African Sea, one in the land of Babylon and the other at its setting in the land of Armenia. The sea of ​​the Maghreb was called Africa because he was a great man from the great Tubba’a who multiplied the traces of him in the Maghreb from factories, cities and wells.
He said: Ka’b was asked about Dhul-Qarnayn and he said: The correct thing according to us from the knowledge of our rabbis and ancestors is that he is from Himyar and he is Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid and Alexander is a man from the children of Yunan bin Es bin Yaqub bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Khalil and his men met Jesus bin Mary, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, among them Galen. Aristotle, Daniel, and Galen. Aristotle was from the Romans, from the children of Greece, and Daniel was from the children of Israel, a prophet of God.
Kaab said: The Romans did not seek that, nor did they have the power to do so. And He who sent Muhammad with the truth, there is no donkey among the people of the world except for a nose on the face or he said: between the eyes. And the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, said: God revealed to me {Indeed, I sent you as an unlettered person and made for you what is under your feet and strengthened your back with those behind you from Yemen and made for you what is before you the spoils of Iraq, Syria, and the West. Indeed, He will increase guidance among them and decrease from every nation}. So I do not know whether his saying “He will increase guidance among them” is attributed to him or he raised it from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace.
Abu Muhammad said: The hadith was traced back to Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas, who said: Dhul-Qarnayn of Himyar was one of the greatest of their Tubba’is, and he was Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid Al-Himyari.

Wahb narrated his story at length in the book Al-Tijan fi Muluk Himyar, and it contains some Israelite stories that are not mentioned in any book or authentic Sunnah, and no sane person can accept them:
Wahb said: And the king Al-Sa’b, Dhul-Qarnayn bin Al-Harith Al-Ra’ish Dhi Marathid bin Amr Al-Hamal Dhi Manah bin Aad Dhi Shaddad, was tyrannical. There was no tyrant like him among the Tubba’is, nor was there a greater authority or more powerful. He had a throne of solid gold studded with pearls, rubies, emeralds, and chrysolite. He wore clothes woven from gold strung with pearls and rubies, and he was a great chamberlain. He said: While he was in that place, he saw a vision as if someone came to him, took him by the hand, and walked with him until he climbed a great, lofty mountain that no one could walk on, because of the horror of what he saw when he looked up at it. Hell is beneath him, its waves are crashing, and in it are people who are whipped by the fire. Then Dhul-Qarnayn, the two-horned one, ordered the soldiers to rise, and he placed a thousand thousand horsemen on his mount. Then he walked with the horses and the men until he reached the Sacred City, and he descended there. He walked in the Sacred Sanctuary on foot, barefoot, and circumambulated the House, shaved his head, and slaughtered his sacrifice. Then he completed his Hajj and walked in the Sacred Sanctuary on foot, barefoot, until he exited it, then he mounted and walked to Jerusalem. When he reached Jerusalem, he asked about the prophet who was mentioned to him and did not ask for anything else until he appeared to him. Dhul-Qarnayn said to him: Are you a prophet? Moses al-Khidr said to him: Yes. He said to him: What is your name and lineage? He said to him: Moses al-Khidr bin Khadrun bin Amum bin Judah bin Jacob bin Isaac bin Abraham al-Khalil, peace be upon him. Dhul-Qarnayn said to him: Has revelation come to you, O Moses? He said to him: Yes, O Dhul-Qarnayn. Dhul-Qarnayn said to him: What is this name that you called me by? He said: You are the one with the two horns of the sun, and the first one to name him was Dhul-Qarnayn al-Khidr.
Wahb said: Then he told him how he saw Hell and Paradise, then he told him how he saw that he was hung.
His sword was drawn by the Pleiades and that he took the sun and the moon and the stars and the planets followed him and he descended with them to the earth and walked with them on the earth and the stars followed him, then he told him how he ate the earth with its mountains and drank all the seas, then he drank most of the water of the surrounding sea.. The sea overwhelmed him so he built another minaret and set up an idol on it, a necklace. He kept walking on the ocean and whenever he crossed and sighed he built a minaret and tied necklaces until he reached the eye of the sun and found it setting in a spring of mud in the surrounding sea and he found before it islands in which there were nations who did not understand what they were saying or what was being said to them. Dhul-Qarnayn said: Who threw you here? They said to him: Saba. Dhul-Qarnayn took them and wanted to kill them. Al-Khidr said to him: O Dhul-Qarnayn, “Either you punish them or you treat them with good.” He said: “As for he who does wrong, We will punish him. Then he will be returned to his Lord, and He will punish him with a terrible punishment. But as for he who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best reward, and We will speak to him of Our command with ease. Then he followed a way.” Until he reached Wadi al-Raml and the sun rose until it fell into the spring of mud, and he almost perished and all those with him perished from the heat of the sun. When he came to Wadi al-Raml, he found it flowing with sand like solid mountains. He tried to cross it, but he could not. He stayed there for four days until Saturday came upon him. So he passed it. He ordered Amr ibn Ya`far al-Himyari to cross Wadi al-Raml with twenty thousand men. He went until he disappeared from it, and no one from him returned to him. Then he ordered Zuhair ibn Malik al-Himyari to cross it with ten thousand men. He said to him: O Zuhair, look at Amr and those with him and turn away and do not go on. So Zuhair crossed it, and when he reached the place of Amr, he turned away with those with him... Then he marched until he reached a great ravine in Nahavand. Then he met the impregnable mountains of the north, between which were great valleys. It was said to him: O Dhul-Qarnayn, this ravine extends to Jabir Sa, and this ravine reaches Herat, Merv, and Samarkand, and this ravine extends to Jaja, Balkha, Hablaja, Bard, and the land
of Gog and Magog. So he took the ravine of Jabaris and Jabalqa, and killed whomever he killed and believed and whoever believed while he was in the back of the land and he conquered Armenia and those in it, then he turned to the valley of Nahavand, and it was said: This is the Gate of Gates, and its name to this day is the Gate of Gates. So Dhul-Qarnayn went on reciting these verses...

The fifth point: The difference in the sayings of the righteous predecessors in determining who Dhul-Qarnayn is .
Scholars and commentators differed in identifying the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn in several statements:
Some said that he was Al-Sa’ib bin Dhi Marathid Al-Hamri, like Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, and Ka’b Al-Ahbar.
Some said that he was a righteous king who performed Hajj with Abraham. Some
said that he was a Persian king named Afridun
. Some said that his name was Alexander, but not the Macedonian, but another Alexander.
Some said that he was neither a prophet nor a king, but rather a righteous servant, as narrated by Ali, may God be pleased with him.
It was said that he was Marzban bin Marzuba
. It was said that his name was Hermes.

We read from Fath Al-Bari in the explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, may God have mercy on him, the book of Hadiths of the Prophets, the chapter on the story of Gog and Magog:
((And what indicates the precedence of Dhul-Qarnayn is what Al-Fakihi narrated on the authority of Ubayd ibn Umair, one of the senior followers, that Dhul-Qarnayn performed Hajj on foot and Ibrahim heard about him and met him. And on the authority of Ata’ on the authority of Ibn Abbas that Dhul-Qarnayn entered the Sacred Mosque and greeted Ibrahim and shook hands with him, and it is said that he was the first to shake hands. And on the authority of Uthman ibn Saj ​​that Dhul-Qarnayn asked Ibrahim to pray for him and said: How, when you have ruined my well? He said: It was not of my command, meaning that some of the soldiers did that without his knowledge. And Ibn Hisham mentioned in “Al-Tijan” that Ibrahim went to Dhul-Qarnayn for judgment about something and he ruled in his favor. And Ibn Abi Hatim narrated on the authority of Ali ibn Ahmad that Dhul-Qarnayn came to Mecca and found Ibrahim and Ismail building the Kaaba, so he asked them about that and they said: We are two servants who are commanded, so he said: Who will testify for you? So five rams stood up and testified, so he said: You have told the truth. He said: I think the rams mentioned were stones, and it is possible that they were sheep. So these narrations support each other))

We read from the beginning and the end Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, Part Two:
((Ishaq bin Bishr said: On the authority of Othman bin Al-Saj, on the authority of Khasif, on the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: Dhul-Qarnayn was a righteous king, God was pleased with his work, and praised him in his book, and he was victorious, and Al-Khidr was his minister, and he mentioned that Al-Khidr, peace be upon him, was at the forefront of his army, and he was with him in the position of a consultant, which is to the king in the position of a minister in reforming people today. Al-Azraqi and others mentioned that Dhul-Qarnayn converted to Islam at the hands of Abraham, the friend of God, and he and Ishmael, peace be upon him, circumambulated the Holy Kaaba with him.
It was narrated on the authority of Ubayd ibn Umair, his son Abdullah and others, that Dhul-Qarnayn performed Hajj on foot, and that when Ibrahim heard of his arrival, he met him, prayed for him and was pleased with him, and that Allah subjected the clouds to Dhul-Qarnayn to carry him wherever he wanted, and Allah knows best... Al-Thawri narrated on the authority of Habib ibn Abi Thabit on the authority of Abu al-Tayyal on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib that he was asked about Dhul-Qarnayn, and he said: He was a servant who advised Allah and Allah advised him. He called his people to Allah, so they struck him on one horn and he died, then Allah revived him and he called his people to Allah, so they struck him on his other horn and he died, so he was called Dhul-Qarnayn.
And this is how Shu’bah al-Qasim ibn Abi Bazza narrated it, on the authority of Abu al-Tayyal, on the authority of Ali. In some narrations on the authority of Abu al-Tayyib on the authority of Ali, he said: He was not a prophet, nor a messenger, nor a king, but he was a righteous servant.
There is a difference of opinion regarding his name: Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas: His name was Abdullah ibn al-Dahhak ibn Ma'ad, and it was said: Mus'ab ibn Abdullah ibn Qanan ibn Mansour ibn Abdullah ibn al-Azd ibn Awn ibn Nabt ibn Malik ibn Zayd ibn Kahlan ibn Saba ibn Qahtan.
It was mentioned in a hadith: He was from Himyar, and his mother was Roman, and that he was called the son of the philosopher because of his intelligence. Some of the Himyarites recited poetry about that, boasting that he was one of his ancestors, and he said:
My grandfather Dhul-Qarnayn was a Muslim * A king to whom kings were obedient and mobilized
He reached the Easts and the Wests seeking * The causes of a matter from a wise guide
He saw the setting of the sun at its setting * In the spring of Dhi Khalab and Tha'at Harmad
After him Bilqis was my aunt * She was their queen until the hoopoe came to her.
Al-Suhayli said: It was said: His name was Marzban ibn Marzuba. Ibn Hisham mentioned him. He mentioned in another place that his name was Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Mara’id, and he was the first of the Tubba’a, and he was the one who ruled for Ibrahim in Beersheba.
It was said that he was Afridun bin Asfyan who killed Al-Dahhak. In a sermon by Qus: O people of Iyad bin Al-Sa’b Dhul-Qarnayn, the king of the two horizons, and the humiliator of the two heavy things, and he lived for two thousand years, then he was like the blink of an eye. Then Ibn Hisham recited for Al-A’sha:
And Al-Sa’b Dhul-Qarnayn became settled * In the shade of the sky, residing
Ad-Darqutni and Ibn Makula mentioned that his name was Hermes, and it is said: Harawis bin Qaytun bin Rumi bin Lanti bin Kashlukhain bin Yunan bin Yafith bin Noah, and Allah knows best.
And Ishaq bin Bishr said: On the authority of Saeed bin Bashir, on the authority of Qatada, Alexander said: He is Dhul-Qarnayn, and his father was the first of the Caesars, and he was from the descendants of Sam bin Noah, peace be upon him. As for the second Dhul-Qarnayn, he is: Alexander bin Philip bin Misrim bin Hermes bin Miton bin Rumi bin Lanti bin Yunan bin Jafith bin Yunah bin Sharkhun bin Ruma bin Sharfat bin Tawfil bin Rumi bin Al-Asfar bin Yaqz bin Al-Ais bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim Al-Khalil. This is how Al-Hafiz Ibn Asakir attributed him in his history.
The Macedonian Greek Egyptian, the builder of Alexandria, who dates the Romans by his days, and he was a long time after the first, this was about three hundred years before Christ, and the philosopher Artemis was his minister, and he is the one who killed Darius the son of Darius, and humiliated the Persian kings, and trampled on their land.
We only drew attention to him because many people believe that they are one and the same, and that the one mentioned in the Qur’an is the one whose minister Artemis was, and because of that a great error and a great deal of corruption occurs, because the first was a believing, righteous slave and a just king, and his minister was Al-Khidr, and he was a prophet as we have stated before this.
As for the second: he was a polytheist, and his minister was a philosopher, and there were more than two thousand years between their time, so where is this from that? They are not equal and are not confused except to a fool who does not know the facts of things.))

Some people in our time have gone so far as to say that he is the Persian king Cyrus

. An important clue:
Some pre-Islamic poets mentioned Dhul-Qarnayn as Al-Sa’b Al-Himyari in their poems, and this suggests that the oral heritage in the Jewish community before Islam and whoever heard the title of Dhul-Qarnayn and his name from them - without his detailed story - knew him as Al-Sa’b Al-Himyari and not Alexander, and this increases our certainty of the lack of connection between Alexander and the story and the lack of knowledge of the Jews of the Arabian Peninsula about Alexander and the lack of knowledge of the Arabs about him, which increases our certainty that the name Alexander entered late after Heraclius reclaimed Jerusalem from the Persians.
We read from Fath Al-Bari, commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Tribulations, Chapter on Gog and Magog:
((And what strengthens that Dhul-Qarnayn was from the Arabs is the frequency with which they are mentioned in their poetry. A’sha bin Tha’labah said:
And the difficult Dhul-Qarnayn spent the night in Hanu in a grave there, residing

. Hanu with a broken silent letter and a silent letter noon is in the direction of the east. Al-Rabi’ bin Dabi’ said:
And the difficult Dhul-Qarnayn ’s kingdom lasted two thousand years, after which it became in ruins. And

Quss bin Sa’idah said:
And the difficult Dhul-Qarnayn has become residing in the grave between the playgrounds of the winds.

And Tubba’ Al-Himyari said:
Before me, Dhul-Qarnayn was a Muslim king to whom kings were subject, and
after him Bilqis was mobilized. My aunt was their queen until the hoopoe came to her.

And some of the Harithians said, boasting that Dhul-Qarnayn was from Yemen, addressing a people from Mudar:
Name one of you for us so that we may know him in the pre-Islamic period, because the name of the king is possible
like the Tubba’in. And Dhul-Qarnayn is accepted by the people of wisdom, and the most correct statement is that which is accepted.

And Al-Nu’man bin Bashir Al-Ansari said: The companion, the son of the companion:
Who is this ( ) who is hostile to us among the people, we are noble people, and Dhul-Qarnayn is from us, and so is Hatim.

And the bottom line is:
The name Dhul-Qarnayn was not mentioned in any book or authentic Sunnah, so there is no benefit in being preoccupied with it, especially since no belief is based on it, and all we have are merely interpretations, nothing more and nothing less, that can be accepted or rejected.

Add:

In this regard, he mentioned a weak hadith that is not authentic from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that Dhul-Qarnayn was a Roman man.

The novel:

We read from Al-Tabari’s interpretation, may God have mercy on him, of Surat Al-Kahf.

((As for the news that those who asked him were people of the Book, Abu Kurayb narrated it to us. He said: Zayd ibn Hubab narrated to us on the authority of Ibn Lahi’ah, who said: Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am narrated to us on the authority of two sheikhs from Tajib, one of whom said to his companion: Let us go to Uqbah ibn Amir to talk. They said: So they came to him and said: We came to talk to you. He said: “One day I was serving the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I left him, and some people of the Book met me and said: We want to ask the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. So he asked permission for us to see him, so I entered upon him and told him. He said: What do I have to do with them? I have no knowledge except what Allah taught me.” Then he said: Pour me some water. So he performed ablution and prayed. He said: He had not finished until I saw the joy on his face. Then he said: “Bring them to me, and whoever you see of my companions.” So they entered and stood before him. He said: If you wish, you may ask, and I will tell you about what you find written in your book, and if you wish, I will tell you. They said: Yes, he told us. He said: You came to ask me about Dhul-Qarnayn, and what you find in your book: He was a young man from the Romans. He came and built the city of Alexandria in Egypt. When he finished, an angel came to him and lifted him up into the sky and said to him: What do you see? He said: I see my city and cities. Then he ascended with him. He said: What do you see? He said: I see my city. Then he ascended with him and said: What do you see? He said: I see the earth. He said: This is the sea surrounding the world. God has sent me to you to teach the ignorant and strengthen the knowledgeable. So he brought him to the dam, which are two soft mountains from which everything slips. Then he went with him until he passed Gog and Magog. Then he went with him to another nation, their faces were the faces of dogs fighting Gog and Magog. Then he went with him until he cut off another nation fighting those whose faces were the faces of dogs. Then he went with him until he cut off these people to another nation that he named.

Investigation:

The novel is weak for reasons :

1. Ibn Lahi’ah, except for what was narrated from him by the Abdallahs, who are Abdullah bin Yazid al-Qanabi, Abdullah bin Yazid al-Muqri’, Abdullah bin Wahb, and Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, and the narrator from him in the hadith is Zaid bin Habbab.

We read from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part Five, Page 375: ((Nuaim bin Hammad said: I heard Ibn Mahdi say: I do not rely on anything I heard from the hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah except the hearing of Ibn al-Mubarak and the like.

Abdul-Ghani bin Saeed Al-Azdi said: If the Abadillah narrated from Ibn Lahi’ah, then it is authentic, Ibn Al-Mubarak, Ibn Wahb and Al-Muqri ’.

Al-Daraqutni said in The Weak and Abandoned, Part Two, Chapter Ain:

((319 - Abdullah bin Lahi’ah bin Uqbah, and perhaps he is attributed to his grandfather, and he is considered to have narrated from him the Abadillah Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Muqri’, and Ibn Wahb ))

We read in the biography of the nobles of Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, the eighth part, the seventh class, in the biography of Ibn Lahi’ah:

Abu Zur’ah said : It is not to be relied upon . It was said: What about the hearing of the ancients? He said: Its beginning and end are the same, except that Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Mubarak used to trace its origins and write from them.

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban al-Basti said: Some of our companions used to say: The hearing of those who heard from Ibn Lahi’ah before his books were burned, such as the Abdallahs: Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Wahb, al-Muqri’, and Abdullah ibn Maslama al-Qa’nabi, then their hearing is correct. And whoever heard after his books were burned, then his hearing is nothing.

We also read in Mizan al-I’tidal by Imam al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, Part 2, Chapter on the letter ‘Ayn.

((Al-Fallas said: Whoever wrote about it before it was burned, such as Ibn al-Mubarak and al-Muqri’, then his hearing is more authentic .))

2. Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am is weak due to his poor memory .

We read from Taqrib al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Chapter on the letter ‘Ayn:

((3862- Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am, with the first letter open, the noon silent, and the silent letter closed, the African, its judge, weak in his memory, from the seventh, died in the year fifty-six, and it was said after that, and it was said that he passed one hundred, but it was not authentic, and he was a righteous man, Kh D T Q))

We read from the biography of the noble figures by Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, part six:

((Abdul Rahman bin Ziyad bin An’am, the Imam, the role model, the Sheikh of Islam, Abu Ayoub Al-Sha’bani Al-Ifriqi. The judge of Africa and its scholar. And its hadith scholar, despite his poor memory .))

We read from Tahdhib al-Kamal by Imam al-Mizzi, Chapter on the letter ‘Ain’:

((3817 - Bukh D T Q: Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am ibn Munabbih ibn al-Nimada ibn Haywil ibn Amr ibn Aswat ibn Sa’d ibn Dhi Sha’bin ibn Ya’far ibn Dab’ ibn Sha’ban ibn Amr ibn Mu’awiyah ibn Qays al-Sha’bani... Abu Musa Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna (4) said: I did not hear Yahya or Abd al-Rahman narrating on the authority of Sufyan on his authority.

Amr ibn Ali (5) said: Yahya did not narrate from him , and I never heard Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi mention him, except once. He said: Sufyan told us from Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-Ifriqi, and he is a good narrator of hadith, unlike others in weakness. Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Qahzad (1) said, from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh: I heard Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan say: Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad is trustworthy. Ali ibn al-Madini (2) said: I asked Yahya ibn Saeed about him. He said: I asked Hisham ibn Urwah about him, and he said: Leave him alone, his hadith is from the Levant !

And he said in another place (3): I heard Yahya say: I told Hisham bin Urwa, on the authority of Al-Ifriqi, on the authority of Ibn Umar, regarding ablution. So he said: This is a hadith from the East, and Yahya Al-Ifriqi considered it weak , and he said: I wrote a book from him in Kufa, meaning his hadith on the authority of Abu Ghatif, on the authority of Ibn Umar: Whoever performs ablution in a state of purity, ten good deeds will be written for him.

Muhammad bin Yazid Al-Mustamli (4) said: I heard Abd Al-Rahman bin Mahdi say: As for Al-Ifriqi, no hadith should be narrated from him .

Abu Talib (5) said, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: It is nothing .

Ahmad bin Al-Hasan Al-Tirmidhi and others (6) said, on the authority of Ahmad bin Hanbal: I do not write down his hadith .

Abu Bakr Al-Marwazi (7) said, on the authority of Ahmad bin Hanbal: He is a fabricator of hadith . He entered upon Abu Ja`far and spoke harshly, so he spoke to him in a good manner and admonished him.

Abu Bakr bin Abi Khaithama (1) and Muhammad bin Othman bin Abi Shaybah (2) said, on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in: Weak.

Muhammad added on the authority of Yahya: His hadith is written, but he only denounced the strange hadiths that he brought.

Abbas Al-Duri (3) said, on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in: There is nothing wrong with him, and he is weak , and I prefer him to Abu Bakr bin Abi Maryam Al-Ghassani (4).

Ali bin Al-Madini (5) said: Our companions used to consider him weak, and our companions rejected hadiths that he narrated alone and that are not known.

Ibrahim bin Yaqoub Al-Jawzjani (6) said: He is not praised in hadith . He was strict and rough.

Yaqub bin Shaiba (7) said: He is weak in hadith, but he is trustworthy and truthful, a righteous man, and he was one of those who enjoined what is right and forbade what is wrong. Yaqub bin Sufyan (1) said: He is fine, but there is weakness in his hadith.

And Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim (2) said: I asked my father and Abu Zur’ah about al-Ifriqi and Ibn Lahi’ah, which of them do you prefer? They said: They are both weak, and al-Ifriqi is more similar to them . There are many differences between al-Ifriqi and Ibn Lahi’ah, but as for al-Ifriqi, his hadiths that are rejected are from sheikhs we do not know, and from the people of his country, so it is possible that he is one of them, and it is possible that he is not .

Saeed bin Amr Al-Bardha’i said: I said, meaning to Abu Zur’ah: It is narrated on the authority of Yahya Al-Qattan that he said: Al-Ifriqi is trustworthy, but we do not know his men. Abu Zur’ah said to me: We do not know his hadith from these people, but he narrated on the authority of Yahya bin Saeed, on the authority of Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, about someone who has intercourse with an animal, and it is strange. I said: What is his status with you? He said: He is close to Yahya bin Ubayd Allah, and the like (3).

Saleh bin Muhammad Al-Baghdadi said: He is a fabricator of hadith , but he was a righteous man.

Abu Dawood (5) said: I said to Ahmad bin Salih: Is the hadith of Al-Ifriqi used as evidence? He said: Yes. I said: Is the book authentic? He said: Yes.

Al-Tirmidhi (6) said: He is weak according to the people of hadith. Yahya Al-Qattan and others declared him weak, and I saw Muhammad bin Ismail strengthen his position and say: He is close in hadith.

Al-Nasa’i (1) said: Weak .

Abu Bakr bin Khuzaymah said: It is not acceptable to use it as evidence.

Ibn Kharash (2) said: It is abandoned.

Zakariya bin Yahya Al-Saji (3) said: He is weak , and Abdullah bin Wahb used to praise him, and Ahmad bin Saleh used to say: He is trustworthy, and he would denounce those who spoke about him.

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj ibn Rushdin ibn Sa`d said: I said to Ahmad ibn Salih: Is Hayyi as trustworthy as Abu Hani’? He said: Yes. I said: What about Ibn An`am? Ahmad ibn Salih said to me: Ibn An`am is older than Hayyi in my opinion, and he raised Ibn An`am in trustworthiness. I said to Ahmad ibn Salih: So who speaks about him in your opinion is ignorant? Ahmad ibn Salih said: Whoever speaks about Ibn An`am is not acceptable, Ibn An`am is trustworthy.

Abu Ahmad bin Adi (4) said: He has hadiths, and the one who narrated the most from him is Abdullah bin Yazid al-Muqri’, and most of his hadiths are not followed up on .

3. The vagueness in the chain of transmission is that it is unknown, so we do not know who the two sheikhs are.

Scholars have weakened this hadith :

Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, weakened it in his interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf:

((Ibn Jarir mentioned here, and Al-Umawi in his book Al-Maghazi, a hadith with a weak chain of transmission , on the authority of Uqbah bin Amir, that a group of Jews))

and Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, weakened it in his interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf:

((There is much disagreement about the name of Dhul-Qarnayn and the reason for which he was called that. As for his name, it has been said that he is Alexander, the Greek Macedonian king, and his qaf is stressed, so it is said: the Macedonian. It has been said that his name is Hermes. It has been said that his name is Hardis. Ibn Hisham said: He is Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Yazan Al-Himyari from the descendants of Wa’il bin Himyar. The statement of Ibn Ishaq has been presented above. Wahb bin Munabbih said: He is Roman . Al-Tabari mentioned a hadith from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - that Dhul-Qarnayn is a young man from the Romans, and it is a hadith with a weak chain of transmission ; this was said by Ibn Atiyyah.))

Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, declared it weak in Fayd al-Qadir in his interpretation of Surat al-Kahf:

((Ibn Abd al-Hakam in Futuh Misr, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu al-Sheikh, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Dala’il narrated a hadith on the authority of Uqbah ibn Amir al-Juhani that includes that a group of Jews asked the Prophet - may God bless him and his family and grant them peace - about Dhul-Qarnayn, so he informed them of what they had come for in the beginning, and among what he informed them was that he was a young man from the Romans, and that he built Alexandria, and that a king ascended with him to the heavens, and he went with him to the dam, and its chain of transmission is weak, and in its text there is something strange, and most of what it contains is that it is from the news of the Children of Israel ))

Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, weakened it in Fath al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Hadiths of the Prophets, Chapter on the Story of Gog and Magog:

((Third: Dhul-Qarnayn was from the Arabs, as we will mention later, and as for Alexander, he was from the Greeks, and all the Arabs are from the descendants of Sam, son of Noah, by agreement, although there was disagreement as to whether they were all from the sons of Ishmael or not? And the Greeks are from the descendants of Japheth, son of Noah, according to the most correct opinion, so they separated. And the doubt of those who said that Dhul-Qarnayn is Alexander is what was reported by al-Tabari and Muhammad ibn Rabi’ al-Jizi in “The Book of the Companions Who Departed in Egypt” with a chain of transmission in which Ibn Lahi’ah said that a man asked the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, about Dhul-Qarnayn, and he said: He was from the Romans and was given a kingdom, so he went to Egypt and built Alexandria, and when he finished, an angel came to him and ascended with him and said: Look at what is beneath you, he said: I see one city, he said: That is the entire land, and God only wanted to show you and He has given you authority on earth, so you spread it and taught the ignorant and strengthened the learned. And if this is correct, it would remove the dispute, but it is weak , and God knows best))

Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, declared it weak in “The Weak Chain of Transmission.”

The text of the hadith is strange because its context suggests that the verses were revealed in Medina, while Surat Al-Kahf, as we have proven, is Meccan .

A second narration attributed to Ali, may God be pleased with him, is not authentic.

Al-Tha’labi narrated a long hadith attributed to Ali bin Abi Talib, may God be pleased with him, in which he said that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander bin Philip.
The text was also transmitted by Al-Nuwayri in Nihayat Al-Arab fi Funun Al-Adab from Al-Tha’labi in the fourth part.

(( Abu Ishaq al-Tha’labi, may God have mercy on him, said: Ali, may God be pleased with him, said: Dhul-Qarnayn ruled between the East and the West, and he had a friend from the angels named Raphael who would come and visit him. While they were talking one day, Dhul-Qarnayn said: O Raphael, tell me about your worship in heaven. So he cried and said: O Dhul-Qarnayn, your worship is nothing compared to our worship! There are angels in heaven who are always standing and never sit down. ))

Investigation

Sanda :

This is not true about Ali, may God be pleased with him, because Al-Tha’labi transmitted the words without a chain of transmission, and Al-Tha’labi died in the fifth century AH, so between him and Ali, may God be pleased with him,

It is more than four hundred years of interruption

We died

1. What is proven from Ali, may God be pleased with him, is not this wording, but rather it is much shorter.

We read from Abdul Razzaq’s interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf

((. 1706 - Israel informed me, on the authority of Simaak bin Harb, on the authority of Habib bin Himaz Al-Asadi, who said: A man came and asked Ali while I was with him about Dhul-Qarnayn, so he said: “He is a righteous servant who is sincere to Allah, so he obeyed Allah, so He subjected the clouds to him and carried them on him, and extended the means for him and spread out the light for him.” Then he said: “Does it please you, O man? I will give you more, so the man remained silent and sat down .

2. This wording mentioned in the narration was attributed by Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, in Al-Durr Al-Manthur to Abu Ja`far Muhammad Al-Baqir and not to Ali, may God be pleased with him, and he attributed the news to Abu Al-Sheikh and Ibn Abi Hatim, but I did not find it from Ibn Abi Hatim. As for the interpretation of Abu Al-Sheikh Al-Isfahani, it is missing, and he is one of the scholars of the fourth century AH, and perhaps Al-Tha`labi transmitted it from him and got confused, so he attributed the narration of Al-Baqir, may God have mercy on him, to his grandfather Ali, may God be pleased with him !

We read from Al-Durr Al-Manthur in the interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf
: “ Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu Al-Shaykh narrated on the authority of Abu Ja`far Muhammad bin Ali bin Al-Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib, who said: Dhul-Qarnayn had a friend from the angels called Zarafeel, and he would always greet him with greetings. Dhul-Qarnayn said to him: O Zarafeel, do you know of something that will increase the length of life so that we may increase in gratitude and worship? He said: I have no knowledge of that, but I will ask you about it in the heaven. So Zarafeel ascended to the heaven and remained as long as Allah willed him to remain, then he descended and said: I I asked you about what you asked me about, so I was told that God has an eye in the darkness of it ....

Another evidence that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn was not borrowed from the late Syriac stories of Alexander .
Dr. Brannon Wheeler denies that the Qur’an borrowed the story of Dhul-Qarnayn from the Syriac stories of Alexander, as he lists the decisive reasons for denying the borrowing, which we summarize as follows:
1. The late date of the composition of the Syriac texts related to Alexander, his travels, and his building of the iron gates that imprisoned Gog and Magog.
2. The radical difference in details between the Qur’an and the Syriac sources, and the difference also between the Syriac sources themselves in details, while the Qur’anic details are similar to the details of the story of Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Marathid Al-Himyari .
We read from Moses in the Qur’an and Islamic Exegesis, page 17:
((Given these points about the origins of the association of the Alexander stories with Q 18:60-10 1, it is necessary to reconsider some of the theories concerning the reconstruction of the history of the Alexander stories’ recensions. It is not possible to show that the Ethiopic and Persian versions of the Alexander stories are derived directly from the Syriac versions. There are a number of problems with the dating of the Syriac versions and their supposed influence on the Qur’an and later Alexander stories, not the least of which is the confusion of what has been called the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes, the sermon of Jacob of Serugh, and the so-called Syriac “Legend of Alexander Second, the key elements of Q 18:60-65,18:83-101, and the story of Ibn Hisham’s Sa’b Dhu.” al-Qarnayn does not occur in the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes.i'' The fish episode, found in the sermon of Jacob of Serugh, although not necessarily the source for Q 18:60-65 is also missing from the Syrianc Pseudo-Callisthenes. Third, the brief, so-called "Legend of Alexander," which is often said to be a prose version of Jacob of Serugh's sermon, is not identical with the sermon nor can it be shown to be dependent upon the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes. It omits several elements found in Jacob of Serugh's sermon, including the fish ring, and the elements it does mention could be derived from an independent Greek or Pahlavi source. Fourth, although Jacob of Serugh's sermon does contain the fish episode, although not identical to the fish episode in the Greek Recension 13, the sermon does not include the same key elements as found in the Quran and associated with Sa'b Dhu al-Qarnain......
. The episode in the sermon resembles the one in the Greek recension 13. The story in Q 18:60-65, although later identified as the fish episode from the Alexander stories, does not resemble the earlier stories and is probably derived from independent sources of the Alexander stories. ))

We also read from the same source Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65 but from Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 191-215 (25 pages) On page 215 we read the summary of Dr. Wheeler’s words where he denies that the Syriac sources of the story of Alexander are a source for the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Holy Qur’an:
((It is important to recognize the Qur’an as sharing in the large culture of late antiquity, but it is unfortunate to ignore the pivotal role played by the early commentators in identifying and appropriating certain late antique motifs to the understanding of the Qur’an. Q 18: 60-65 is not necessary derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary amore discerning examination of the different texts shows that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Qur’an as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentaries. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation “Du-al Qarnain” attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries ))

Critic Lovin states that the Syriac version of The Alexander Romance dates back to between the seventh and ninth centuries (after Islam). It is worth noting that the Syriac version is the only one that contained the stories of Alexander with Gog and Magog and his building of the dam, while we do not find these additions in the older versions such as the Greek, Armenian and Latin versions.

We read from THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE ALEXANDER ROMANCE by the critic Louvain la Neuve, pages 121-122

The Syriac version of the Alexander Romance is preserved in five manuscripts, all in Nestorian script and of recent date (the oldest, held by the British Museum, was compiled in 1708-09), and was edited in 1889 by Ernest A. Wallis Budge (The History of Alexander The Great, being the Syriac Version, edited from five manuscripts, of the Pseudo- Callisthenes, Cambridge, 1889, reprint. Amsterdam, 1976 = BUDGE, History). The editor has adopted the criterion of the codex optimus: this edition is mainly based on the text of the oldest codex, known as A, while the variables in the other four codex (known respectively as B, C, D and E) are noted in the apparatus.

The Syriac text belonging

How- ever, the Syriac text does not seem to be a pure and simple translation of any of the texts of the Pseudo-Callisthenes that have come down to us, both because of the different order in which certain subjects are dealt with, and, above all, because of the inclusion of a certain number of epi- sodes that are not recorded in any of the Greek versions known to us, for example, Alexander's journey to China

(

text and trans.: BUDGE, History, p. 195-201, p. 109-113). Furthermore, the Syriac version contains a con- siderable number of slight variations on the original Greek, which in- clude some modifications that can definitely be attributed to the transla- tor, who is assumed to have been a Nestorian Christian

. These discrep- ancies with the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes, combined with a certain number of errors in the Syriac translation of Greek proper names,

led Budge to suspect that the Syriac text was the translation, completed between the 7th and 9th century AD, of an Arabic version of the original Greek (BUDGE, History, p. lxi-lxii)

.

Critic Lovin also acknowledges that the Syriac legend of Alexander and the poem Nishana, attributed to Mar Jacob of Serugh, date back to 629-630 AD, after Heraclius had recaptured Jerusalem from the Persians, and that the story was part of Christian propaganda to commemorate Heraclius' victory.

We read from THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE ALEXANDER ROMANCE by the critic Louvain la Neuve, page 138

In Syriac literature in particular, in addition to the Pseudo-Callisthenes, there are various other works (which, however, are not translations from Greek or any other language) connected with Alexander the Great.

These include the Syriac Legend of Alexander (Nezgana d-'Aleksan- dros), written in northern Mesopotamia by a Syrian author, around 629- 630 AD, soon after Heraclius's victory over the Persians31, in which Al-exander is given the traits of a prefiguration of the Byzantine emperor. A poem of around 800 lines, traditionally wrongly attributed to Jacob di Saruj (an author who died in 521 AD), of a slightly later period32, is based on this Legend. There exists yet another shorter and secondary version of the Syriac Legend of Alexander in the western-Syriac Chroni- cle of the Pseudo-Dionysius33.

Finally, there is also a brief biography of Alexander in Syriac34.

To conclude, we return to the Syriac Alexander Romance: having as-certained that this is a direct translation of a Greek text, the presence of Persian elements in the text still has to be explained.

Neither the author, nor the precise date of the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance are known