Was Dhul-Qarnayn Borrowed from the Alexander Legend? A Refutation of the Syriac Source Theory
Responding to the Claim that Surat al-Kahf Borrowed from the Syriac Alexander Legend
-
Introduction
-
The Qur’anic Narrative of Dhul-Qarnayn (Surat al-Kahf 83–99)
-
The Borrowing Objection Stated
-
Preliminary Response to the Claim
-
Alleged Sources Invoked by Critics
- The Syriac Alexander Legend
- The Alexander Romance
- Nishana Attributed to Jacob of Serugh
- Pseudo-Ephraim Sermon
- Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
-
First Point — The Syriac Sources Postdate Revelation
- Dating the Syriac Alexander Legend
- Heraclius and Political Propaganda Context
- Dating the Alexander Romance Recensions
- Additions of Gog and Magog Material
- Dating Nishana (629–636 AD)
- Pseudo-Ephraim (642–683 AD)
- Pseudo-Methodius (Late 7th Century)
-
Evidence that Surat al-Kahf is Meccan
- Sunan al-Tirmidhi
- Ibn Kathir
- Al-Qurtubi
- Al-Suyuti (Al-Itqan)
-
External Scholarly Support Against Borrowing
- Brannon Wheeler
- Kevin van Bladel
- Louvain la Neuve
- Emeri van Donzel and Andrea Schmidt
- Travis Zadeh
-
Second Point — Failure of the Borrowing Claim
- Textual Divergences
- Lexical Differences (tur / siddin, yam / ayn)
- Dependence Reversed: Later Recensions and Qur’anic Exegesis
-
Third Point — The Prophet’s Illiteracy and Impossibility of Borrowing
- Qur’an 29:48–49
- Sahih al-Bukhari
- Sahih Muslim
- Ibn Hibban
- Al-Bayhaqi
- Absence of Plausible Transmission Route
-
Fourth Point — Earlier Jewish Oral Heritage Regarding Dhul-Qarnayn
- “They ask you concerning Dhul-Qarnayn”
- Daniel 8 and Two-Horn Imagery
- Al-Sa’b b. Dhi Marathid in Arabian Tradition
- Ka’b al-Ahbar and Al-Tijan fi Muluk Himyar
- Distinguishing Oral Heritage from Isra’iliyyat Expansions
-
Fifth Point — Differences Among the Predecessors on the Identity of Dhul-Qarnayn
- Al-Sa’b al-Himyari
- Righteous King Contemporary with Ibrahim
- Afridun
- Another Alexander (Not Macedonian)
- Righteous Servant View
- Hermes / Marzban Reports
-
Two Alexanders Distinction in the Tradition
- Believing Dhul-Qarnayn
- Macedonian Alexander
- Ibn Kathir’s Separation of the Two
-
Pre-Islamic Poetry and Himyarite Clues
- Fath al-Bari Citations
- Tubba’ Traditions
- Arab Poetic References
-
Weak Roman Alexander Narration Examined
- Al-Tabari Report
- Ibn Lahi’ah Criticism
- Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad Criticism
- Unknown Narrators Problem
- Statements of Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Shawkani, Ibn Hajar, Al-Albani
-
The Narration Attributed to Ali and Its Critique
- Al-Tha’labi Report
- Isnad Interruption
- Abd al-Razzaq’s Authentic Shorter Report
- Al-Durr al-Manthur Attribution Issue
-
Synthesis of the Argument
- Chronology
- Textual Criticism
- Source Criticism
- Oral Tradition Evidence
- Identity Question
-
Conclusion
- Why the Borrowing Claim Fails
- Final Remarks on Dhul-Qarnayn’s Identity
Introduction
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious,
the Most Merciful.
Qur’anic Narrative of Dhul-Qarnayn
“And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, ‘I will recite to you about him a report.‘
Indeed, We established him upon the earth and gave him from all things a way…”
(18:83–99)
((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 Objection
The enemies of Islam, Christians and atheists claim that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Holy Qur’an is a mythical story taken from Syriac Christian writings that mention Alexander the Great and his legendary journeys.
Preliminary Response
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 date to the period after the Islamic conquest — many years after the revelation of Surat al-Kahf in the early Meccan period.
It is worth mentioning — as will be shown — that this “Alexander” material functions as political symbolism connected to Heraclius, not as an ancient source predating the Qur’an.
Sources Claimed by Critics
- The Syriac Alexander Legend
- The Alexander Romance
- The Nishanah (forged poem attributed to Mar Jacob of Serugh)
- Forged Syriac sermon attributed to Ephraim the Syrian
- The Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Structure of This Study
- Clarifying that these Syriac sources postdate the revelation of Surat al-Kahf
- Showing the absurdity of the borrowing claim due to non-conformity between texts
- The Prophet’s illiteracy preventing borrowing
- Clarifying Jewish oral heritage about Dhul-Qarnayn
- Reviewing the sayings of the predecessors concerning his identity
First Point
The Syriac Sources Postdate the Revelation of Surat al-Kahf
First: The Syriac Alexander Legend
This source is the foundation and oldest upon which the rest depend.
It is presented as a legendary work with political aims: glorifying Heraclius, supporting imperial policy, and symbolizing seventh-century events through Alexander imagery.
Its composition is dated to 629–630 CE, two years before the death of the Prophet ﷺ — and well over a decade after the revelation of Surat al-Kahf.
Therefore, the claim of Qur’anic borrowing is chronologically impossible.
Source Citation
“The Alexander Legend was composed by a Mesopotamian Christian probably in Amid or Edessa. It was written in 629–630 after the glorious victory of Emperor Heraclius over the Sassanian king…”
“The legend thus propagates Heraclius’ military victory…”
“He is depicted as an ideal Christian emperor, a truly Alexandros Neos…”
If the alleged source postdates the Qur’anic revelation, it cannot be the source of that revelation.
Additional Evidence for the Syriac Alexander Legend
Further Citation
“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 Magog behind iron gates in an apocalyptic setting.”
Kevin Van Bladel’s Admission
“Reinink has shown that the Alexander Legend … prefigures the emperor Heraclius…”
“…composed just after 628, perhaps in 630…”
Even writers often cited by critics acknowledge the late date of these sources.
Observation
Some writers concede these Syriac materials were composed after revelation — yet still insist on dependence.
That is not historical reasoning; it is assumption looking for rescue.
Second: The Alexander Romance
But the two features often compared to the Qur’anic account:
- The Water of Life episode
- Gog and Magog enclosed behind iron gates
appear in the Syriac developments, not in the earliest forms.
And these additions themselves derive from the later Syriac Alexander Legend, tied to the Heraclian political milieu after 628 CE.
Source Citation
“…a Nestorian product from North Mesopotamia belonging to the period ca. 628 AD…”
“…more plausible date around 629–630…”
The famous “Water of Life” and “Bronze Gate” legends:
“Neither of them appear in the Syriac version, but they have been added at the end…”
Critical Point
The very motifs critics use as “proof of borrowing” are acknowledged interpolations.
Not original.
Not early.
Not pre-Qur’anic.
Additional Testimony
“The episode of Alexander’s building a wall against Gog and Magog… is not found in the oldest Greek, Latin, Armenian and Syriac versions…”
“The fusion… appears for the first time in the so-called Syriac Alexander Legend.”
Interim Conclusion
- The Syriac Legend is late.
- The Alexander Romance does not originally contain the decisive parallels.
- The “parallel” material is itself later accretion.
- Much of it appears linked to Heraclius propaganda.
This reverses the borrowing argument.
Rather than:
Qur’an ← Alexander material
the evidence increasingly pressures toward:
Later Alexander recensions reacting within a post-Qur’anic environment.
Third: The Nishanah (Attributed to Jacob of Serugh)
But the attribution is misleading.
Though associated in manuscripts with Mar Jacob of Sarug, the poem itself is argued to have been composed 629–636 CE, with internal awareness of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in 629.
That places it firmly in the same late historical stratum as the previous sources.
Source Citation
“The poem was composed… between 629 and 636…”
“…it does not qualify as a direct source for the ‘two-horned’ Alexander of the Koran…”
“…recent investigations indicate ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in AD 629…”
Critical Observation
Even a source often used for alleged parallels explicitly fails as a direct source.
And again:
- Late date
- Heraclius symbolism
- Political-apocalyptic agenda
Pattern repeated.
Fourth: Pseudo-Ephraim Sermon
Another alleged “source” collapses chronologically.
This sermon is not actually by Ephraim the Syrian.
It is falsely attributed and dates 642–683 CE — after the Islamic conquests.
Source Citation
“The sermon is falsely ascribed to Ephraim… it dates from the Early Islamic period…”
A post-Islamic composition cannot explain a pre-Islamic revelation.
Simple chronology.
Fifth: Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Also late seventh century.
Another Syriac work composed in the last quarter of the seventh century.
Source Citation
“…composed in Syriac sometime in the last quarter of the seventh century…”
Interim Conclusion on the Five Sources
- Oldest relevant materials: 629–630 CE
- Others later still
- Some post-Islamic
- All postdate revelation of Surat al-Kahf
The borrowing thesis is chronologically inverted.
Evidence that Surat al-Kahf is Meccan
Even if one ignored the dating problem above, the surah itself belongs to the early Meccan period.
Evidence from Hadith
Sunan al-Tirmidhi
Among these was the context tied to revelation.
Authenticated by al-Albani.
Evidence from Tafsir
Ibn Kathir
“Surat al-Kahf is Meccan.”
Al-Qurtubi
“It is Meccan according to the opinion of all the interpreters.”
Al-Suyuti — al-Itqan
Includes al-Kahf among Meccan revelations through transmitted scholarly consensus.
Conclusion on Meccan Dating
If Surat al-Kahf is Meccan,
and these alleged sources are decades later,
borrowing is historically impossible.
External Scholarly Support Against Borrowing
Brannon Wheeler
Even non-Muslim scholarship has challenged borrowing theories.
Reasons Summarized
- Syriac sources are too late.
- Qur’anic details differ radically.
- Syriac sources differ among themselves.
- Qur’anic details align more closely with other traditions than the Syriac recensions.
Important Turning Point
“Borrowing is unproven.”
It is becoming:
“Borrowing is historically implausible.”
Very different claim.
Further Support from Brannon Wheeler
Moses in the Qur’an and Islamic Exegesis
Key conclusions:
- Ethiopic and Persian Alexander materials cannot be shown derived directly from Syriac recensions.
- Key Qur’anic elements are absent in Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes.
- Jacob of Serugh does not match Qur’anic details.
- Later “Alexander legends” are not straightforward literary ancestors of the Qur’anic narrative.
Wheeler’s Major Thesis
“Maybe the Qur’an did not borrow.”
Rather:
The data may point the opposite way.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Wheeler argues:
Later Alexander recensions may depend upon the Qur’an as mediated through early Muslim commentary.
Critical Reversal
not
Qur’an ← Alexander legends
but potentially
Later Alexander materials ← Qur’anic interpretive tradition
That is a completely different model.
A Note on Kevin Van Bladel’s Contradiction
Here a methodological problem appears.
van Bladel admits:
- Syriac Legend is late
- Meccan chronology is a problem
- direct sourcing is difficult
yet still says the Qur’an must somehow depend on it.
That is conclusion preceding evidence.
Citation
“The Quranic account must draw from the Syriac account…”
Observation
asserting borrowing as “the only explanation”
is not argument.
It is dogma.
Second Point
Failure of the Borrowing Claim at the Linguistic Level
Lexical Divergence
They require textual evidence.
Yet significant vocabulary diverges.
Examples raised:
- Syriac tur / tury vs Qur’anic wording
- Syriac yam vs Qur’anic ʿayn
These are not trivial differences.
They cut against direct literary dependence.
Travis Zadeh
“Significant instances of divergence… put into serious question the exact relationship between the two accounts…”
Interim Conclusion
linguistic evidence still weakens borrowing.
So now:
- chronology against borrowing
- manuscript history against borrowing
- comparative narrative against borrowing
- lexical evidence against borrowing
Cumulative case.
Third Point
The Prophet’s Illiteracy and Impossibility of Borrowing
a practical problem remains.
How would an unlettered Arabian Prophet access obscure Syriac monastic literature in Mesopotamia?
Historical mechanism is absent.
Qur’anic Evidence
“And you did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you inscribe it with your right hand…”
(29:48–49)
Prophetic Hadith Evidence
Sahih al-Bukhari
“We are an unlettered nation…”
Sahih Ibn Hibban
Hudaybiyyah narration used as evidence of prophetic illiteracy.
Argument from Transmission Impossibility
A borrowing thesis needs a transmission route.
Where is it?
- Which Syriac monk?
- Which manuscript?
- Which translator?
- Which documented channel?
- Which Arabic intermediary?
Absent.
Critical Point
It does not.
Borrowing requires:
- Source prior to target
- Access pathway
- Textual dependence indicators
All three are disputed.
Additional Hadith Evidence for Prophetic Illiteracy
Sahih Muslim — Hudaybiyyah
- The Prophet ﷺ dictated
- Ali wrote
- The Prophet asked the wording to be shown to him
Used as further evidence of unlettered prophethood.
Al-Bayhaqi — Al-Sunan al-Kubra
“The Messenger of Allah did not read nor write.”
Consolidated Point
It directly challenges any historically plausible borrowing model.
Fourth Point
Existence of Earlier Jewish Oral Heritage
It only denies:
- that Dhul-Qarnayn = Alexander necessarily
- that the Qur’an borrowed from late Syriac recensions
These are different claims.
Core Thesis
Jewish traditions in Arabia may have preserved memory of a Dhul-Qarnayn figure independent of late Christian Alexander legends.
This is significant because critics often act as though only two options exist:
- Borrowing from Syriac legends
or - Pure invention
False dichotomy.
Evidence 1 — Qur’anic Framing
“They ask you concerning Dhul-Qarnayn…”
implying pre-existing recognition of the figure among questioners.
That matters.
Questions presuppose prior awareness.
Evidence 2 — Daniel 8
The “two-horned” imagery in Daniel is cited as part of wider earlier symbolic tradition.
Not proof of identity,
but evidence such imagery predates late Syriac literature.
Himyarite Identification
Al-Saʿb B. Dhi Marāthid
Dhul-Qarnayn as a Himyarite king.
Al-Tijan Fi Muluk Himyar
Dhul-Qarnayn is al-Saʿb b. Dhi Marāthid, not Alexander.
Kaʿb al-Ahbar likewise transmits this from older traditions.
Why This Matters
then the Alexander identification itself may be secondary.
Which undercuts the whole borrowing thesis.
Critical Distinction
This does not mean all legendary details in later reports are accepted.
Many are explicitly identified as Isra’iliyyat and may be rejected.
But their excesses do not negate the existence of an older non-Alexander tradition.
Important distinction.
Strategic Point
Alexander identification was original.
But evidence may suggest:
Alexander identification was itself the later innovation.
That flips the discussion.
Massive Wahb Material
Preserve it as source material,
but distinguish:
- historical kernel
- later legendary accretions
Do not conflate them.
Working Conclusion
- Late Syriac sources
- Failed borrowing parallels
- Linguistic divergence
- No transmission mechanism
- Prophetic illiteracy
- Alternative Jewish-Arabian oral heritage
The Fifth Point: The Difference in the Sayings of the Righteous Predecessors in Determining Who Dhul-Qarnayn Is
- Statements of the Scholars
- Citation from Fath al-Bari
- Citation from Ibn Kathir
- Pre-Islamic Poetry as Clue
- Citation from Fath al-Bari (Book of Tribulations)
- Weak Roman Narration and Investigation
Statements of the Scholars
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.
Citation from Fath al-Bari
We read from Fath Al-Bari in the explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, 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.
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 these narrations support each other))
Citation from Ibn Kathir
We read from The Beginning and the End by Ibn Kathir, Part Two:
((Ishaq bin Bishr said: On the authority of Othman bin Al-Saj… Dhul-Qarnayn was a righteous king, God was pleased with his work, and praised him in His Book…
Al-Khidr was his minister…
It was narrated that Dhul-Qarnayn performed Hajj on foot…
Ali ibn Abi Talib said:
He was a servant who advised Allah and Allah advised him…
They struck him on one horn…
then on the other…
so he was called Dhul-Qarnayn.
And in some narrations:
He was not a prophet, nor a messenger, nor a king, but a righteous servant.
There is difference over his name:
Abdullah ibn al-Dahhak…
Mus’ab ibn Abdullah…
Marzban ibn Marzuba…
Al-Sa’b bin Dhi Mara’id…
Afridun…
Hermes…
And Ishaq bin Bishr said:
Alexander said: He is Dhul-Qarnayn…
As for the second Dhul-Qarnayn:
Alexander bin Philip…
The Macedonian Greek Egyptian…
the builder of Alexandria…
We only drew attention to him because many people believe they are one and the same…
because the first was a believing righteous slave and just king,
and the second was a polytheist…
there were more than two thousand years between their time…
They are not equal and are not confused except to a fool who does not know the facts of things.))
Additional Note
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… knew him as Al-Sa’b Al-Himyari and not Alexander.
Citation from Fath al-Bari (Book of Tribulations)
We read from Fath Al-Bari, 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.
Al-Rabi’ bin Dabi’ said:
And the difficult Dhul-Qarnayn’s kingdom lasted two thousand years…
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 Al-Nu’man bin Bashir said:
…Dhul-Qarnayn is from us…
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…))
Add
In this regard, he mentioned a weak hadith that is not authentic from the Prophet ﷺ that Dhul-Qarnayn was a Roman man.
The Narration
We read from Al-Tabari’s interpretation of Surat Al-Kahf:
((As for the news that those who asked him were people of the Book…
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 Alexandria…
An angel lifted him…
Then he was brought to the dam…
Then he passed Gog and Magog…
Then to another nation whose faces were like dogs…))
Investigation
The narration is weak for reasons:
1. Ibn Lahi’ah
Except for what was narrated from him by the Abdallahs:
- Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Qanabi
- Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri
- Abdullah ibn Wahb
- Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak
But the narrator here is Zaid bin Habbab.
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib
((Nuaim bin Hammad said:
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 Al-Azdi said:
If the Abadillah narrated from Ibn Lahi’ah, then it is authentic…))
Al-Daraqutni
319 - Abdullah bin Lahi’ah bin Uqbah… considered reliable only through the Abadillah…
Al-Dhahabi
Abu Zur’ah said:
“It is not to be relied upon.”
And he said:
“Its beginning and end are the same, except Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Mubarak used to trace its origins…”
Continuation of Investigation of the Roman Narration
Additional Statement from Ibn Hibban
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:
- Ibn al-Mubarak
- Ibn Wahb
- al-Muqri’
- Abdullah ibn Maslama al-Qa’nabi
then their hearing is correct.
And whoever heard after his books were burned, then his hearing is nothing.
Mizan al-I’tidal
We also read in Mizan al-I’tidal by Imam al-Dhahabi:
((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
Weak due to poor memory.
Taqrib al-Tahdhib
3862 — Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am… weak in memory… righteous man…
Siyar A’lam al-Nubala
Abdul Rahman bin Ziyad bin An’am… despite his poor memory.
Tahdhib al-Kamal
((3817 — Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn An’am…
Yahya ibn Saeed considered him weak.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal:
“It is nothing.”
“I do not write down his hadith.”
“He is a fabricator of hadith.”
Yahya ibn Ma’in:
Weak.
Al-Nasa’i:
Weak.
Ibn Khuzaymah:
It is not acceptable to use it as evidence.
Ibn Kharash:
It is abandoned.
Abu Ahmad ibn Adi:
Most of his hadiths are not followed up on.))
3. Vagueness in the Chain
There is vagueness in the isnad:
The two sheikhs in the report are unknown.
Scholars Who Weakened This Hadith
Ibn Kathir
Ibn Jarir mentioned here… a hadith with a weak chain of transmission…
Al-Qurtubi
Al-Tabari mentioned a hadith from the Prophet… and it is a hadith with a weak chain of transmission…
Al-Shawkani
Its chain of transmission is weak, and in its text there is something strange, and most of what it contains is from the news of the Children of Israel.
Ibn Hajar
And if this is correct, it would remove the dispute, but it is weak, and God knows best.
Al-Albani
Declared weak in The Weak Chain of Transmission.
Additional Observation
The text of the hadith is strange because its context suggests that the verses were revealed in Medina, while Surat Al-Kahf is Meccan.
A Second Narration Attributed to Ali
Not authentic.
Al-Tha’labi’s Report
((Ali said:
Dhul-Qarnayn ruled between East and West…
and had a friend from the angels named Raphael…
“O Raphael, tell me about your worship in heaven…”))
Investigation
Isnād Problem
This is not true about Ali:
Al-Tha’labi transmitted it without chain.
Between him and Ali:
More than four hundred years interruption.
What Is Actually Established from Ali
Abd al-Razzaq’s Tafsir
((1706 —
A man asked Ali about Dhul-Qarnayn.
He said:
“He is a righteous servant who was sincere to Allah, so He subjected the clouds to him…
and extended the means for him…”))
Attribution Problem
This wording was attributed by Al-Suyuti not to Ali, but to:
Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Baqir.
Possibly confusion by Al-Tha’labi.
Al-Durr al-Manthur
Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh narrated on the authority of Abu Ja’far:
“Dhul-Qarnayn had a friend from the angels called Zarafeel…
he asked:
Is there something increasing life so we increase worship?
So Zarafeel ascended to heaven…”
Another Evidence that the Story of Dhul-Qarnayn Was Not Borrowed from the Late Syriac Stories of Alexander
Testimony of Dr. Brannon Wheeler
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:
-
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.
-
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.
Citation from Moses in the Qur’an and Islamic Exegesis (p.17)
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 18:60-101, 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 do not occur in the Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes.
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 Syriac 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 Greek Recension 13, the sermon does not include the same key elements as found in the Qur’an and associated with Sa’b Dhu al-Qarnayn…
The episode in the sermon resembles the one in 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.))
Additional Citation from Brannon Wheeler
We also read from the same source Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis of Qurʾān 18:60-65, from Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1998), pp. 191–215, on page 215:
((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 a more 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.))
The Syriac Version of the Alexander Romance
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.
Citation from The Syriac Version of the Alexander Romance (pp. 121–122)
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…)
The editor has adopted the criterion of the codex optimus…
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…
because of the inclusion of a certain number of episodes that are not recorded in any of the Greek versions known to us,
for example:
- Alexander’s journey to China
Furthermore, the Syriac version contains a considerable number of slight variations on the original Greek…
These discrepancies with the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes…
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.
Citation from Page 138
Critic Lovin also acknowledges:
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, 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-‘Aleksandros)
written in northern Mesopotamia by a Syrian author,
around 629–630 AD,
soon after Heraclius’s victory over the Persians,
in which Alexander is given the traits of a prefiguration of the Byzantine emperor.
A poem of around 800 lines, traditionally wrongly attributed to Jacob di Saruj, of a slightly later period, is based on this Legend.
There exists yet another shorter and secondary version of the Syriac Legend of Alexander in the western-Syriac Chronicle of the Pseudo-Dionysius.
Finally, there is also a brief biography of Alexander in Syriac.
Conclusion of the Citation
To conclude, we return to the Syriac Alexander Romance:
having ascertained 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.