Islam Imploding

Why Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur’an Is Not Cyrus or Alexander — And Why That’s a Serious Problem for Islam

When Folk Legend Is Mistaken for History in a “Divine Book”

“Say, [O Muhammad], ‘I will recite to you a story...’”
— Qur’an 18:83

Surah Al-Kahf introduces a mysterious world-conquering figure named Dhul-Qarnayn (literally: The Two-Horned One). The narrative is dramatic: he travels to the ends of the earth, helps the oppressed, and builds a massive iron wall to contain the forces of Gog and Magog.

Muslim scholars and apologists have tried for centuries to identify this man — some say Alexander the Great, others say Cyrus the Great.

But both identifications collapse under scrutiny.

And what’s worse: the story appears to be based on legendary material, not actual history — calling into question the Qur’an’s historical reliability, and ultimately, its divine authorship.

🏛 Early Islam: Dhul-Qarnayn = Alexander the Great

📜 Classical Interpretation:

Islam’s most authoritative early exegetes — Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir — all identified Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, drawing on the Alexander Romance, a well-known literary genre circulating in the Near East in Syriac, Greek, and Persian versions.

These stories portray Alexander as:

A world traveler,
A seeker of the Water of Life,
A builder of a great wall to trap Gog and Magog.

🧨 The Problem:

Alexander the Great:

Was a polytheist who claimed to be the son of Zeus-Ammon.
Accepted worship.
Conquered violently and glorified himself, not God.

That is completely incompatible with the Qur’an’s image of Dhul-Qarnayn as a monotheistic, just ruler guided by Allah.

❌ Theological contradiction: How can a pagan emperor who claimed divinity be God’s moral exemplar?

Even modern Muslim scholars have distanced themselves from the Alexander identification — not because of lack of textual support, but because it is theologically disastrous.

👑 The Modern Patch: Dhul-Qarnayn = Cyrus the Great?

🛠 The Fix:

Some Muslim apologists, realizing the problem with Alexander, pivot to Cyrus the Great — the Persian king who freed the Jews from Babylon and ruled with tolerance.

They argue:

Cyrus was more monotheistic.
The horned figure from Pasargadae could represent “two horns.”
His reputation fits the Qur’anic tone better than Alexander.

🚫 The Fatal Flaws:

There is no record that Cyrus was ever called “Dhul-Qarnayn” or “two-horned.”
The Pasargadae figure is not labeled as Cyrus and is now widely considered a guardian spirit, not a portrait.
Most damning: the Qur’an does not mention Cyrus’s most defining act — freeing the Jews — which would be the clearest sign of his identity.

❌ Historical contradiction: If Dhul-Qarnayn were Cyrus, the Qur’an omits his greatest act — while including mythical elements like trapping Gog and Magog behind a metal wall.

🧠 The Deeper Problem: The Qur’an Embeds Myth as History

Here’s the real issue — and it goes beyond identity:

The entire Dhul-Qarnayn story mirrors late antique legends, especially from the Alexander Romance, which was widely known among Jews, Christians, and Syriac storytellers.

Key parallels:

Qur’anic Story	Alexander Romance
World traveler reaching the “sunset”	Alexander reaching the ends of the earth
Building wall against Gog and Magog	Alexander traps Gog and Magog behind a gate
Helping oppressed peoples	Alexander as a just ruler in fictional accounts

📉 But these stories are not historical. They are mythical.

And here’s the problem:

The Qur’an presents them as real events — not as parables, not as allegories, but as historical truth.

This is catastrophic for a book that claims to be eternal, perfect, and from God.

🧨 The Logical Explosion

Let’s lay it out logically:

The Qur’an presents the Dhul-Qarnayn story as a real, historical account.
The story contains non-historical elements taken from legendary traditions (e.g., the Alexander Romance).
Therefore, the Qur’an is either:
- Embedding myth as fact, or
- Plagiarizing late antique folklore, or
- Wrong about history.

Any of these options:

❌ Disqualify the Qur’an from being the literal word of an all-knowing deity.

🗣 Scholarly Voices Agree

Tom Holland:

“If the Qur’an is eternal, divine truth, how does it contain legends that were circulating in the late antique world?”
Shahab Ahmed (Muslim scholar):

“If the Qur’an is drawing from the Alexander Romance — a clearly legendary and non-Islamic tradition — how should Muslims understand its divine status?”

These aren’t fringe critics. They are mainstream, credentialed scholars acknowledging a fatal inconsistency.

🧩 Conclusion: Neither Alexander nor Cyrus — Just a Myth Mistaken for History

The story of Dhul-Qarnayn in Surah 18:

Cannot be Alexander (polytheist, claimed divinity).
Cannot be Cyrus (lacks historical match and literary signature).
Matches late antique legend, not history.

This means the Qur’an:

Is not infallible history.
Embeds folklore from the cultural stew of the 6th–7th century Near East.
Cannot be divine in origin, if it contains known legends passed off as truth.

The Qur’an didn’t preserve ancient knowledge.
It absorbed local mythologies — and dressed them up as divine revelation.

📚 Suggested Reading

Kevin van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes
W. Montgomery Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an
Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs
G.J. Reinink, Alexander the Great in the Early Christian World
Tom Holland, In the Shadow of the Sword