This article will be based off the paper and Youtube video of the brother Farid Responds.
Navigation Menu
Breaking Down The Paper By Farid Responds
Breaking Down His Youtube Video
Summary
Qur’an Portrait and the Alexander Problem
Dhū al Qarnayn in Surah al Kahf appears as a righteous servant granted authority and means, ruling with justice and acting under guidance, while Alexander in standard biographical treatments appears as a polytheist.
The Qur’an keeps the title “Dhū al Qarnayn” without giving a personal name. Naming Alexander would have been the clearest identification if Alexander were intended.
Early Islamic Identification Outside Alexander
Early Islamic material preserves a different identification, linking Dhū al Qarnayn to the Himyarite king al Ṣaʿb ibn Dhī Marāthid, and separating him from Alexander. Kaʿb al Aḥbār ties this to the view of his rabbis and predecessors, and pre Islamic poetry is brought as support, with Ibn Ḥajar leaning toward this direction while listing poets who referred to al Ṣaʿb as Dhū al Qarnayn.
The Name Dhū al Qarnayn and the Horn Claim
The “two horned” reading is treated as an assumption rather than an early attestation. A second early interpretation links the name to “two braids”, with examples of the epithet used for those who wore the hair in two braids, and Alexander iconography does not show Alexander with two braids.
The earliest reported explanation also conflicts with literal horns, with ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib denying horns “like that of a bull” and tying the name to being struck on the sides of the head.
Early Reports That Clash With the Alexander Identification
Some early Muslims identified Dhu al Qarnayn with Alexander. However, early reports also attribute Dhu al Qarnayn to an angel, while ʿAli is reported to have denied that he was an angel. This creates clear internal tension within the early material.
Other early reports place Dhu al Qarnayn in the time of Ibrahim عليه السلام and connect him to pilgrimage. Ibn Hajar links the placement found in Sahih al Bukhari to a period before the prophets of Banu Israʾil, which does not align with the established historical dating of Alexander.
There is only one authentic from the prophet on this matter and he says, “I do not know whether Dhu al Qarnayn was a prophet or not.”
This stands in contrast to the Syriac Alexander Legend, where Alexander is presented with a prophetic role, accompanied by prophecies and divine support.
Gate Sources Before Islam and the Wall in Surah al Kahf
Pre Islamic sources commonly raised in discussion mention a gate attributed to Alexander against barbarians, yet the Qur’an account speaks of a sealed barrier against Gog and Magog that cannot be climbed or tunnelled.
وَآتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ
“Bring me blocks of iron.” (Surah al Kahf: 96)
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَارًا قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًا
“Then, when he made it red hot, he said: Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” (Surah al Kahf: 96)
فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَنْ يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْبًا
“So they could not scale it, and they could not tunnel through it.” (Surah al Kahf: 97)
Flavius Josephus reports, centuries after Alexander, that the Alans requested permission to pass through the gate, were granted access by the king of Hyrcania, then carried out raids and returned through the same gate. This describes a controlled passage rather than a sealed barrier.
Flavius Josephus does not connect the gate to Gog and Magog, and does not label the Alans as Magogites in the account found in his War. Attempts to combine that report with a separate note in Antiquities, where Greeks referred to Scythians as “Magogites,” impose a connection not made in the sources themselves. Anderson notes that no early synthesis of these elements achieved general acceptance, especially given the wide variation in later identifications of Gog and Magog.
Jerome and Procopius also refer to Alexander’s gate without linking it to Gog and Magog, even into the fifth and sixth centuries. Procopius explicitly mentions the existence of routes around the gate, which conflicts with the description of a barrier built to seal a people completely.
The Syriac Alexander Legend and the First Alexander, Gog and Magog Link
Van Donzel and Schmidt identify the earliest connection between Alexander and Gog and Magog in the Syriac Alexander Legend, indicating that earlier gate traditions do not contain this key association.
Significant content differences are evident. Gog and Magog are described as two kings among many rather than as a distinct nation, and the narrative includes elements absent from Islamic transmission, such as single breasted female warriors.
Soomro dismantles commonly claimed parallels and points to clear contradictions. The legend describes cave dwellers who escape the sun, whereas the Qur’an describes a people with no shelter from it. A linguistic argument is also advanced, noting that Syriac cognates expected under borrowing are absent.
Dating, Interpolation, and Manuscripts
Reinink ties the dating of the Syriac Alexander Legend to the reign of Heraclius and the early seventh century, placing its composition around 630 and possibly extending toward 641. The reference within the text to “the kingdom of the Arabs” aligns with the period when Arabs emerged as a serious Byzantine opponent in 634. Within this framework, Surah al Kahf is placed before 622, producing a chronological gap in which Surah al Kahf precedes the Syriac legend by at least a decade.
Tesei advances an earlier dating by treating the second prophecy, including the “940” element, as a later interpolation. This position lacks tangible manuscript evidence showing copies without the alleged addition and instead relies on narrative and stylistic observations. Removing the key dating passage on this basis opens the possibility of dismissing other sections of the text, including those used to argue for parallels.
The manuscript situation of the Syriac legend further weakens claims of direct dependence. The earliest extant manuscript is dated to the eighteenth century, with only five manuscripts known. This leaves a substantial historical gap in which interpolation could have occurred. A specific example reinforces this concern, where a phrase that is presented as a parallel appears in only one of the five manuscripts, indicating a likely later insertion by a Syriac scribe rather than borrowing from the Qur’an. The same possibility applies to other claimed parallels.
Greek Alexander Romance Recensions and the Late Gate Material
Gate material in the Greek Alexander Romance is tied to the gamma recension rather than the earliest form. The gamma recension depends on later recensions, and the epsilon recension is linked to sources dated to around 640, placing the developed gate narrative in a later period, potentially extending beyond the eighth century.
Anderson notes that the gate episode is absent from the Recensio Vetusta and from early translations, including the version of Julius Valerius. This absence weakens the claim that an early Alexander gate tradition served as the source for the Qur’an narrative.
Full Article
Breaking Down His Youtube Video
Professor Tommaso Tesei, says that he has studied the Syriac Alexander Legend, for over 15 years.
The first matter that needs to be addressed is the claim that the Qur’an plagiarised the Syriac Alexander legend has two parts.
One concerns the actual text, and the other concerns pre-Islamic sources often brought into the discussion.
The sources commonly mentioned include Josephus, Jerome, and Procopius. These sources refer to Alexander building a gate against barbarians. However, this is not comparable to the wall built by Dhul-Qarnain, which is described as sealing Gog and Magog.
Josephus, in “Wars of the Jews”, mentions that centuries after Alexander, a group called the Alans requested permission to pass through the gate. The king allowed them, and they entered, killed civilians, pillaged, and returned through the same gate.
This is fundamentally different. Josephus does not say that Alexander built a gate against Gog and Magog. He does not even say the gate was for the Alans. He only reports that Alexander built a gate, and later a group passed through it with permission.
In contrast, the Qur’an describes a barrier that Gog and Magog cannot pass through or negotiate access to.
The Syriac Alexander Legend
The actual argument used by Western academics focuses on the Syriac Alexander legend, also known as the Nissana.
Amery Van Donzel and Andreas Schmidt, in their work on Gog and Magog, note that the first time Alexander is connected with Gog and Magog is in this Syriac legend. This is the earliest source combining the themes of a horned Alexander and a wall against Gog and Magog.
There are no Western academics claiming that the Prophet ﷺ took the story from Josephus or similar sources and simply replaced names like the Alans with Gog and Magog. The argument is specifically about the Syriac legend.
However, the Syriac text itself is highly unusual. It portrays Alexander as a pre-Jesus Christian prophet. It includes strange elements such as single-breasted warrior women and even describes God joining Alexander’s army in battle.
Anyone who reads this text will see that it does not resemble the Qur’anic account in a way that suggests borrowing.
The Three Claimed Parallels
Professor Tommaso presents three main parallels to argue that the Qur’an borrowed from the Syriac legend.
The first claim is that Dhul-Qarnain built a gate like Alexander. This is incorrect. Dhul-Qarnain built a wall that cannot be passed through, unlike a gate that can be opened.
The second claim is that Dhul-Qarnain had horns. This is also incorrect. Reports from Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, deny that Dhul-Qarnain had horns, and these reports are authentic.
The third claim is that Dhul-Qarnain was a prophet. This is also incorrect. The Prophet ﷺ said that he did not know whether Dhul-Qarnain was a prophet or not. This contrasts with the Syriac legend, where Alexander is clearly presented as a prophet.
Treatment of Islamic Sources
To maintain their theory, some academics dismiss Islamic reports as fabrications without providing justification.
The hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ says he does not know whether Dhul-Qarnain was a prophet is significant.
It reflects honesty rather than invention. If the aim were to fabricate a story, it would have been easier to affirm prophethood clearly.
Instead, the response is uncertainty, which aligns with what is known as the criterion of embarrassment.
The only authentic prophetic report mentioned here states, “I do not know whether Dhu al Qarnayn was a prophet or not.”
Broader Academic Assumptions
Some scholars go further and question foundational aspects of Islamic history, such as the dating of the Hijrah or the single authorship of the Qur’an.
There are even suggestions that parts of the Qur’an may have been composed outside the Hijaz or influenced by later Christian material. These positions require dismissing established historical reports.
Dating of Surah al-Kahf and the Syriac Text
Classical scholars, including Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ikrimah, Ata, Jabir ibn Zayd, and Mujahid, agreed that Surah al-Kahf is a Meccan surah. This places it before the year 622.
For a long time, Western academics dated the Syriac Alexander legend to around 630. This was based on internal references, including a prophecy involving the number 940, which corresponds to historical events during the time of Heraclius.
This led to the conclusion that the text was written after those events, making it later than the Qur’an.
Proof That Surah Kahf Was Revealed Prior
Imam, the precise memoriser, Abu ʿAbd Allah Muhammad ibn Ismaʿil al Bukhari said: “Adam ibn Abi Iyas narrated to us. Shuʿbah narrated to us, from Abu Ishaq, who said: I heard ʿAbd al Rahman ibn Yazid say:
I heard Ibn Masʿud, may Allah be pleased with him, say regarding Bani Israʾil, al Kahf, and Maryam:
It is Meccan by consensus, firmly established.
Kitāb al Nāsikh wa al Mansūkh by Abū Bakr Ibn al ʿArabī (2/287)
Westerners Dating of The Syriac Legend of Alexander The Great
Kevin van Bladel, summarising Gerrit Reinink’s argument, says that Reinink held that the Syriac Alexander Legend was composed “shortly after 628”, meaning “in 629 or 630”, and he ties this to Heraclius’ victory and the return of the Cross to Jerusalem in early 630. Van Bladel also says Reinink understood it as pro Heraclius propaganda from northern Mesopotamia.
Wolfram Brandes, in the same Heraclius volume, refers to the “Syriac Legend of Alexander the Great” as “composed c. 629/630 in Northern Mesopotamia”. That shows the 629 to 630 dating was treated as an accepted scholarly position in that academic context
The Interpolation Theory
More recent arguments claim that the key dating evidence in the Syriac text is an interpolation added later.
This means rejecting the internal evidence of the text itself while also rejecting Islamic historical reports. Both sides of the evidence are dismissed to maintain the theory.
However, if interpolation is accepted for dating, then it could also be applied to other parts of the text. Any element resembling the Qur’anic narrative could also be considered a later addition.
This would include references to horns or Gog and Magog. If interpolation is possible, it must be applied consistently.
Manuscript Evidence
There are five known manuscripts of the Syriac Alexander legend, with the earliest dating to the 18th century.
If the interpolation theory is accepted, it would mean that all surviving manuscripts contain the same later additions, while earlier versions without these additions have completely disappeared. This is highly unlikely.
Tommaso Tesei confirms this about the manuscripts in his book “The Syriac Legend of Alexander’s Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran”. He says The Neṣḥānā d-Aleksandrōs has been preserved in five manuscripts,” and adds that they were all copied “in relatively recent times,” with “the oldest” dating to 1708 to 1709.
https://academic.oup.com/book/51697/chapter-abstract/419758710?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=true
Conclusion of the Argument
The argument that the Qur’an borrowed from the Syriac Alexander legend depends on dismissing Islamic historical reports, reinterpreting the dating of the Syriac text, and assuming interpolations without consistent application.
If the available evidence is taken at face value, the Qur’an predates the Syriac legend. The similarities claimed are weak, and the differences are substantial.
The theory does not hold when examined with consistent methodology.
Breaking Down The Paper By Farid Responds
The Earliest Islamic Identification of Dhu al Qarnayn
Surah al Kahf presents Dhu al Qarnayn as a servant of Allah who rules with justice and worships Allah alone, whereas Alexander the Great is presented in classical biographies as a polytheist.
Surah al Kahf also keeps the title “Dhu al Qarnayn” and does not give a personal name. Had Alexander been intended, naming him directly would have been the clearest way to identify him.
Early Islamic material also preserves a different identification altogether. Dhu al Qarnayn is linked to the Himyarite king al Saʿb ibn Dhi Marathid. Ibn ʿAbbas is reported to have affirmed this identification, and Kaʿb al Ahbar presents it as the view of his rabbis and those before them, while clearly treating Alexander as someone else.
Pre Islamic poetry is likewise brought as supporting evidence, since more than one poet refers to al Saʿb as Dhu al Qarnayn. Ibn Hajar also leaned in this direction.
The Meaning of the Title Dhu al Qarnayn
The earliest explanation of the title does not rest on horns. ʿAli ibn Abi Talib said that Dhu al Qarnayn did not have horns like the horns of a bull. He explained the title by saying that he was struck on one side of his head, then restored, then struck on the other side. This explanation does not fit the Alexander narratives.
Another early explanation understands “Dhu al Qarnayn” as an expression linked to two braids. There are reports that this epithet was used for people who wore their hair in two braids. That meaning also does not match Alexander’s iconography.
Report from ʿAli ibn Abi Talib
ʿAbd al Razzaq narrated, from Maʿmar, from Wahb ibn ʿAbd Allah, from Abu al Tufayl, who said: “I witnessed ʿAli while he was giving a sermon, and he was saying: ‘Ask me. By Allah, you will not ask me about anything that will occur until the Day of Resurrection except that I will inform you of it. And ask me about the Book of Allah, for by Allah there is no verse except that I know whether it was revealed at night or by day, in a plain or on a mountain.’
So Ibn al Kawwa stood up before him, while I was between him and ʿAli and he was behind me, and he said: ‘What about: “By those that scatter, scattering, then those that carry a burden, then those that glide with ease, then those that distribute command?”’
ʿAli said: ‘Woe to you. Ask in order to understand, and do not ask in a way of stubborn challenge. “Those that scatter” refers to the scattering of the winds. “Those that carry a burden” refers to the clouds. “Those that glide with ease” refers to the ships. “Those that distribute command” refers to the angels.’
He said: ‘What about the blackness that is in the moon, what is it?’
He said: ‘A blind one asked about something blind. Have you not heard Allah say: “And We made the night and the day two signs, then We erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible” (Surah al Isra: 12). That erasure is the blackness within it.’
He said: ‘What about Dhu al Qarnayn, was he a prophet or a king?’
He said: ‘He was neither one of them. Rather, he was a righteous servant. He loved Allah, so Allah loved him. He was sincere to Allah, so Allah supported him. He called his people to guidance, so they struck him on one side of his head, and he remained for as long as Allah willed. Then he called them again to guidance, so they struck him on the other side of his head. And he did not have two horns like the horns of a bull.’
He said: ‘What about this rainbow, what is it?’
He said: ‘It is a sign that was set between Nuh and his Lord, a security from drowning.’
He said: ‘What about al Bayt al Maʿmur, what is it?’
He said: ‘It is a structure in the seventh heaven beneath the Throne. Seventy thousand angels enter it every day, and they do not return to it until the Day of Resurrection.’
He said: ‘Who are those who exchanged the favour of Allah for disbelief and settled their people in the home of ruin?’
He said: ‘They are the two wicked groups from Quraysh, Banu Umayyah and Banu Makhzum. Their affair was settled at the Day of Badr.’
He said: ‘Who are those whose effort was lost in the life of this universe, while they think they are doing good?’
He said: ‘They were the people of Harura among them.’
Tafsir ʿAbd al Razzaq (3/234–235)
The Different Views On Why He Was Called Dhul Qarnayn
There is a difference of opinion regarding why he was given the name “Dhu al Qarnayn,” and four views are mentioned:
The first view is that he had two horns on the sides of his head, as was reported from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام.
The second view is that he had two braids, so he was named “Dhu al Qarnayn” because of them. This was said by al Ḥasan.
The third view is that he reached the two ends of the earth, the east and the west, so he was named “Dhu al Qarnayn” due to his control over the two extremities of the earth. This was said by al Zuhri.
The fourth view is that he saw in his dream that he came close to the sun until he took hold of its two sides, in its rising place and its setting place. He then told his people about his dream, so he was named “Dhu al Qarnayn” because of that. This was said by Wahb ibn Munabbih.
Footnote: As for what has been reported regarding the reason for this name which the author mentioned here, al Ālūsī said: “As for the views mentioned concerning the reason for the naming, among them are things that can hardly be considered sound, and that is likely clear.” (Rūḥ al Maʿānī, 24/16)
Tafsir al Mawardi (3/337)
Early Reports That Conflict With Alexander
Some of the Salaf and early imams did identify Dhu al Qarnayn with Alexander. However, the same early reports contain clear contradictions. Among them are narrations that describe Dhu al Qarnayn as an angel, while ʿAli explicitly rejected that he was an angel.
Other reports place Dhu al Qarnayn in the time of Ibrahim عليه السلام and connect him to the pilgrimage. The placement found in Sahih al Bukhari is understood as indicating a period before the prophets of Banu Israʾil, which does not align with the known historical dating of Alexander.
The only authentic prophetic report mentioned here states, “I do not know whether Dhu al Qarnayn was a prophet or not.”
“I do not know whether Tubbaʿ was a prophet or not. And I do not know whether Dhu al Qarnayn was a prophet or not. And I do not know whether the prescribed punishments are expiations for those who receive them or not.” (Graded authentic by Albani. Reported by Abu Dawud 4674 in shorter form, al Bazzar 8541, and al Hakim 2174 with slight differences. Source: Sahih al Jamiʿ, 5524.)
In contrast, the Syriac Alexander Legend presents Alexander within a prophetic framework and includes detailed prophecies. This creates a clear mismatch between the two portrayals.
Pre Islamic Parallels
Flavius Josephus is often cited to support a parallel between Alexander and the barrier, based on references to “iron gates.” However, the description in his works does not match the barrier mentioned in Surah al Kahf. The structure he refers to is a pass or gate that later rulers could control and open, including granting passage to the Alans. This differs fundamentally from the Qur’anic description of a sealed barrier placed between two mountains, constructed with iron and molten copper, and designed to prevent both climbing and tunnelling.
Efforts to combine Flavius Josephus’s mention of gates with his reference to “Magogites” are not supported by his writings. He does not connect these elements into a single narrative. In addition, interpretations of Gog and Magog varied significantly across early sources, and there was no consistent association with Alexander’s barrier in the earliest material.
Later authors such as Jerome and Procopius also refer to a gate attributed to Alexander, but they do not link it to Gog and Magog. The explicit connection between Alexander’s gate and Gog and Magog appears only later, most clearly in the Syriac Alexander Legend, rather than in earlier historical or literary sources.
Late Parallels
The Syriac Alexander Legend itself carries elements that do not fit the Qurʾan account, including portraying Gog and Magog as two kings inside a longer list of kings, and adding details such as single breasted female warriors, none of which appear in Islamic transmission.
Taha Soomro’s analysis dismantled standard claims such as the fetid sea, the swinging gate, and linguistic borrowing, with attention to contradictions, including cave dwellers escaping the sun in the legend compared with people having no protection from the sun in the Qurʾan account, and the Qurʾan avoiding Syriac cognate wording that would be expected under direct borrowing.
Dating and Transmission Problems
The Syriac Alexander Legend is dated on the basis of vaticinium ex eventu prophecies to the period of Heraclius, with scholarly consensus placing its composition in the early seventh century. This situates it after the Makkan period of Surah al Kahf. Attempts to assign an earlier date by treating certain sections as later interpolation remain speculative, particularly in the absence of manuscript evidence that excludes those sections.
The Greek Alexander Romance material describing the confinement of nations behind gates is traced to the gamma recension rather than the earliest form. The gate episode is absent from the Recensio Vetusta and from early Latin transmission. This places the relevant form later than the Qur’an and weakens the claim of direct dependence.
