Muslims and non Muslims who are researching into Islam in my view, predominantly talk about the issues inside the religion: Verse X or hadith Y for example, however i feel that a severely underlooked topic is not the religion itself, but the material upon which the religion was formed. Doing so certainly opens up many interesting discussions about whether Islam really is from God, the beliefs of the people of certain time periods and much more.

The reason that it opens up the discussion about if this really is from God is because of the source material itself. For instance a common criticism from those who take this angle, is the fact that Quran 5:32 is plagiarised from the Talmud, a man made commentary. Many many other passages in the main text, the Quran and also the teachings of hadith also take from man made Jewish mythology, mystical teachings and other stories of the time.

One such set of verses are the verses of Dhul Qarnayn. The general claim is that Muhammad derived the story of Dhul Qarnayn from a story about Alexander the Great, commonly known as the Alexander romance.

This link between the Quran and its taking from a prior source has been known since 1890 with the research of Theodore Nodeke, whom concluded that this legend was orally transmitted to Muhammad and thus made it into the Quran. However since then there has been considerably more evidence for scholars to go through and review, as well as confusion on the matter (we’ll come back to that later). The most analytical and concise papers is from Kevin Van Bladel , an assistant professor at the University of California.

Bladel for his study divided it into five parts:

.

1. An introduction to Dhul Qarnayn, the two-horned one (83-84) 2. His journey to the suns setting and his punishment of unjust people there (85-88) 3. His journey to the suns rising place where the people have no shelter from the sun (89-91) 4. His journey to a place threatened by Yajuj and Majuj where he is asked to build a protective wall between two mountains, culminating in his uttering a brief prophecy (92-98) and finally 5. God’s first person warning of events to come (99-102).

The Quran in its historical context, page 178

.

Now, the similarities between the two texts are widely known and as Bladel states:

.

“many of the correspondences between the syriac and the Arabic stories are so obvious, that they do not need special attention”.

The Quran in its historical context, page 180

.

However, if you wish to see the similarities, here are some paired:

.

“When Alexander came to the people in the west, he tested the efficiency of the deadly, fetid waters with the lives of convicts. This passage helps to explain the option given for no apparent reason, by God to Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran: either to punish the people or to do them a kindness. Dhul Qarnayn says he will punish only wrongdoers…. who are like the prisoners sentenced to death in the Syriac text, described there as evil-doers”.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181

.

We said: “O Dhul Qarnayn! either punish or show them kindness“

Quran 18:86

.

Another:

.

The Syriac text has Alexander travel from that point, near to where the sun sets, in the direction of the place where the sun rises, just as Dhul Qarnayn does in the Quran. The sun does not exactly set in the fetid water, but more vaguely nearby. And it is only that Syriac text that explains the meaning of Q 18:90 where the otherwise unknown Eastern people who have no cover from the sun are mentioned.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181

.

Until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water.

Quran 18:86 Until when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising upon a people for whom we provided no covering protection against the sun.

Quran 18:90

.

And another:

.

On his third journey, the people who can barely understand speech are explained by the syriac text as “huns,” here a generic term for Central Asian pastoralists, who appeared to the residents of the middle East as savages. Their allegedly beastial barbarism is explained at length in the Syriac. The Quranic text saying that they “could scarcely understand speech”, together with reference by name to Gog and Magog makes only in the context of this Syriac tale.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181

.

Until when he reached between two mountains, he found, beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word.

Quran 18:93

.

Also:

.

Dhul Qarnayns ability to build a wall of Iron and brass is explained in the Syriac story by his being accompanied by seven thousand Egyptian “workers in brass and iron”.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181

.

Bring me blocks of Iron! At length, when he had filled up the space between the two

Quran 18:96

.

And lastly:

.

Most importantly, in both texts the hero issues a prophecy upon completing the fortification foretelling the end of the world in a time of great battles among nations. Thus, quite strikingly, almost every element of this short Quranic tale finds a more explicit and detailed counterpart in the Syriac Alexander legend.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181

.

Linguistically, the texts are both also extremely similar:

.

The water at the place where the sun sets is “fetid” in both texts, a perfect coincidence of two uncommon synonyms (Syriac: sarya. Arabic: hami’a). Also, the wall which Alexander builds is made specifically of iron and brass in both texts. We are told in the Syriac that God will “gather together the kings and their hosts”, which finds a nearly perfect match in Q 18:99: “the horn shall be blown and we shall gather them together”. The proper names of Yajuj and Majuj are not uniquely matched by this Syriac text, for their tradition is derived from the books of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse of John, but they still do count as specific word correspondences between the Syriac and Arabic texts in question here. In the Quran, God is characterised as saying: “we shall leave them on that day surging like waves against each other” while the Syriac says similarly “and kingdoms will fall upon each other. The title of the Syriac work is “Neshanâ of Alexander.” The word neshanâ means “glory” or “victory” but was often used to refer to a narrative account of a person’s heroic acts. In Q 18:83 God is portrayed as commanding Muhammad to say that he will recite a dhikr about the Dhu l-Qarnayn. Dhikr in Arabic has most of the same connotations as Syriac neshanâ: it refers to glory or good repute but it also can refer to an account remembered about someone. Could the word dhikr in Q 18:83 be a translation of the very title of the Syriac Alexander Legend? It is a tempting consideration, but there are a few other instances in the Qur’an where a dhikr of a person is related without any apparent reference to a written work. The translation of sabab (pl. asbab), occurring in Q 18:84, 85, 89, and 92 as “heavenly course” requires some explanation. These are conventionally translated merely as the “ways” that Dhu l-Qarnayn is made to follow, since among the many meanings of sabab in Arabic are prominently “means” and “ways of access.” However, Arabic lexicographers and much other evidence attest to the early use of the word to mean in particular heavenly courses, specifically cords leading to heaven along which a human might travel: asbab al-sama’, “ways to heaven” or “sky-cords.” In fact this is probably the only meaning of the word occurring in the Qur’an, appearing in four other places. Nor are these isolated cases of such a usage in Arabic. For example, it is also attested in the poetry of al-A‘sha (d. 625), an exact contemporary of Muhammad, where the phrase wa-ruqqita asbaba l-sama’i bi-sullam, “and were you to be brought up the gateways of heaven by a flight of steps,” is found with the synonymous, variant reading abwab al-sama’ “gates of heaven.” Thus, the translation given earlier, though unconventional, is not only suitable but likely. In the case of Dhu l-Qarnayn’s tale, it matches the window of heaven (kawwteh da-mmayyâ) through which the sun passes on its course, and which Alexander follows, in the Syriac Alexander Legend. The remaining problem is then to account for the third “way” mentioned in Q 18:92, the northward path that is not connected with any course of a heavenly body in the Alexander Legend. Here one may excuse the Arabic as following the pattern of the earlier journeys.

The Quran in its historical context, page 181-182

.

Bladel then concludes:

.

If there were a closer correspondence of the Syriac and the Arabic, it would be possible to argue that one was just a modified translation of the other.

The Quran in its historical context, page 182

.

Now, probably the most important point is the dating. This is important because one of the most common arguments is that the Quran probably predates the Syriac. Well, Bladel explains:

.

“The Alexander Legend is an apocalyptic text in which the ancient Alexander is portrayed as presenting a prophecy written long ago for events to come, which were intended to be understood by the audience at the real time of authorship as referring to events leading up to and including their own time. This is how many texts of the apocalyptic genre work. Thus the date of composition for such apocalypses can often be found by locating the latest point at which events allegedly predicted match actual historical events. Where the events “predicted” diverge from history, there one usually can find the date of the composition. The message of the apocalypse for its own time is not just in the events it describes, but rather in the way it describes these events and the future that it expects to unfold given what has occurred.”

The Quran in its historical context, page 183

.

There are two dates of interest from the Syriac legend:

.

The first of the two dates is thus… 514-15 CE… The second of the two dates…. 628-9 CE.

The Quran in its historical context, page 183-184

.

Drawing off of the work of other scholars, Bladel writes:

.

“Reinink 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 repeat entirely 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.”

The Quran in its historical context, page 184

.

After more elaboration, Kevin van Bladel concludes:

.

“By now it should be amply clear that the Alexander Legend is the product of a very specific, identifiable historical and cultural environment, the end of a devastating war widely believed to carry eschatological implications, ending with Heraclius’ campaign in 628 and in 629 with the final withdrawal of the Persian armies. This needs to be held in mind when the relationship between this text and the Qur’an is considered.”

The Quran in its historical context, page 185

.

But, early mid 7th century is a bit late for this legend. However the plot thickens:

.

In the early twentieth century Russian scholars discovered a number of Pahlavi inscriptions on the old wall at Darband, dated variously at first but with a final, general consensus to the sixth century. Thus the author of the Syriac Legend of Alexander was using common lore that would be readily understood by its audience: Alexander was thought to have built a real wall with a gate that was known to the inhabitants of the Caucasus region and indeed was famous far and wide, a wall that bore inscriptions. It is easy to see how one of these inscriptions might have been thought to have been carved there by Alexander.”

The Quran in its historical context, page 186

.

It’s also interesting to note that the Alexander Legend combines two earlier traditions:

.

Thus the Alexander Legend combines two traditions (1) Alexander’s building of a wall in the Caucasus to hold out Huns and (2) the identification of Huns, a generic term for all Central Asian peoples, with Gog and Magog, thereby associating Alexander with the end of time and giving him an occasion to make eschatological prophecies. Alexander’s wall also explains why the Huns (Gog and Magog) cannot invade at just any time; they have to surmount the wall first. But when that wall is breached, that will be a sign of the approaching end. Once these traditions were combined, it was now easy to link Heraclius both with the world conquering Alexander, who similarly defeated the Persian emperor, and with the end of time.”

The Quran in its historical context, page 187

.

Another point worthy of analysis is: was this legend in circulation so that Muhammad had accessability to it? The answer is, yes:

.

The success or popularity of the Alexander Legend is indicated in that it was used by at least three more apocalypses, the so-called Song of Alexander attributed falsely to Jacob of Serugh (composed just a few years later but before the Arab conquest, between 630 and 636), the Syriac apocalypse De fine mundi attributed falsely to Ephraem (composed sometime between 640–83), and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (composed around 692, quite possibly in reaction to the building of the Dome of the Rock). The Alexander Legend was evidently well known in the early seventh century.

The Quran in its historical context, page 188

.

Lastly, is it possible that the instead of Syriac predating the Quran that the Syriac was instead drawing off of the Quran? No:

.

“Could the Syriac text have its source in the Qur’an? If this were the case, then the Syriac text would have to be seen as a highly expanded version of the Qur’anic account, which would then need to be understood as an attempt to explain the cryptic Qur’anic story with rationalizations drawn from stories about Alexander. However, the Syriac text contains no references to the Arabic language the type of which one might expect to find if its purpose was to explain an Arabic text, and it is impossible to see why a Syriac apocalypse written around 630 would be drawing on an Arabic tradition some years before the Arab conquests, when the community at Mecca was far from well known outside Arabia. Moreover, the very specific political message of the Alexander Legend would not make any sense in this scenario. This possibility must therefore be discounted.

The Quran in its historical context, page 189

.

After evaluating all other options, Bladel thus concludes:

.

“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 Qur’an. He does not explain in detail but I take the implication to be that such a date of composition is too late for it to have reached the human agents who related the Qur’an. But to me this seems to be the only real possibility because the others are invalid, as just explained. The Qur’anic account must draw from the Syriac account, if not directly then by oral report.

The Quran in its historical context, page 190

.

As stated in the beginning, one of Kevin Van Bladels reason for his paper was because of confusion around the topic. This confusion stems from a research paper by a man named Brannon Wheeler whom said that the Quran did not copy from the Alexander legend. Muslim apologists pounced to this study in an attempt to sever the link with the Alexander romance. However, Brannon wheelers work is heavily criticised by the scholars as having “unfortunate oversights”, presenting arguments “without foundation”, “confused” and “highly doubtful”.

.

A very confused (and confusing) discussion about the relationship between Q 18:60-82 and various texts concerning both Alexander and Gilgamesh is found in Wheeler 1998.

The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus, page 4 by Tesei Tommaso.

.

And:

.

Brannon Wheeler, who dismisses any direct relationship between Q 18:60-82 and the Alexander legend, has attempted to challenge the dominant views concerning the dependence of Q 18:60-82 on the Alexander tale (“Moses or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis of Qur’an 18:60-65,” JNES 57,3 [1998]: 191-215); yet the results he achieves are highly doubtful. The same arguments are repeated in his Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis (London: Routledge, 2002), 10-36. For a critique of Wheeler’s study, see Kevin van Bladel…

Some cosmological notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60-65: the Quran in light of its cultural context. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 135(1), 22, n.15.

.

And as we see from Kevin Van Bladel:

.

“B. Wheeler, “Moses or Alexander? Q 18:60–5 in early Islamic exegesis,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57.3, 1998, 191–215 and idem, Moses, 10–36. Wheeler does not address directly Noldeke’s hypothesis of the relationship of the Alexander Legend to Q 18:83–102, which is the subject of the present paper, though he does refer in his notes to Noldeke’s work (“Moses or Alexander?” 201, n. 52; Moses, 138, n. 55 to chapter 1). This strikes me as an unfortunate oversight. While this is not the place to redraw Wheeler’s charts showing the supposed interrelationships of these texts, a few critical remarks are in order to guide the reader. In discussing the Qur’an, its commentaries, three different texts about Alexander (the Legend, the Song, and different recensions of the Romance), and then also the Talmudic story of Alexander, Wheeler has overlooked a good deal of relevant published research (e.g. see later in this note) but has almost completely avoided getting into the details of the texts that could be used to establish their real interrelationships. To take just one of the problematic conclusions as an example, his charts of affiliations (Wheeler, “Moses or Alexander?” 202–3; Moses, 17, 19) argue that the Babylonian Talmud is a source of the Christian Song of Alexander, which is extremely unlikely. He argues, without foundation, that when Qur’an commentators refer to extra-Qur’anic traditions, it becomes impossible for the Qur’an to refer to the same extra-Qur’anic traditions; the Qur’an itself is cleared of relying on the same ancient traditions (Moses, 28–9). This and other problematic schemata aside, Wheeler has not included the Legend of Alexander in his chart of affiliations, but only the Song of Alexander, which has been shown not actually to be by Jacob of Serugh, as Wheeler seems to think: “Moses or Alexander?” 201; Moses, 17; following Noldeke, actually, but missing much of the subsequent scholarship: for example, A. Baumstark, Geschichte der Syrischen Literatur, Bonn: A. Markus und E. Weber, 1922, 191; K. Czegledy, “Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan sources in the literary remains of M. Kmosko,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, 1955, (19–90) 35–6; G.J. Reinink, “Ps.-Methodius: A concept of history in response to Islam,” in A. Cameron and L.I. Conrad (eds) The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1, Princeton, NJ: Darwin, 1992, (149–87) 167 n. 73; S. Gero, “The legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian orient,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75, 1993, 3–9, 7; and above all the introduction accompanying the standard edition of the Song of Alexander itself: Das syrische Alexanderlied. Die Drei Rezensionen, CSCO 454 (edition)-455 (translation), Scriptores Syri 195–6, Trans. G.J. Reinink (ed.), Louvain: Peeters, 1983. Compare Wheeler’s reference to “the brief so-called Legend of Alexander, which is often said to be a prose version of Jacob of Serugh’s (Song) . . .” (Wheeler, Moses, 17, no references given) with Reinink’s statement: “No scholar has seriously considered the possibility that the legend is dependent on the (Song)” (Reinink, “Alexander the Great,” 153). Not even Budge, who first edited the Legend, thought that it was a prose version of the Song; rather he supposed that they shared a common source (Budge, History of Alexander, lxxvii). As Reinink has shown, the Song of Alexander is to some degree a reaction to the Alexander Legend composed not many years after the latter, probably between 630 and 640 CE (Reinink, “Alexander the Great,” 152–5 and 165–8).”

The Quran in its historical context, page 197-198

.

In conclusion it is quite clear that the author of the Quran was borrowing content from the Alexander legends. The exceptionally sound historical circumstances, linguistic parallels, thematic correspondences and the widespread awareness of the legend confirm this. Similarly as shown, research coming to a conclusion against this consensus from scholars have many errors as shown by Bladel.

See the full research paper by Kevin Van Bladel here. See also Teseis paper here. And see also see this video by IslamCritiqued whose video I essentially made into a written format.