Fatwa ID: 08875
Written by Alimah Saleha Bukhari Islam
Question:
I would like your clarification on the details of righteous Muslim king mentioned in the glorious Quran named Dhul Qarnayn. Growing up I widely read Yusuf Ali’s Quran translation and also read a few works of classical Muslim scholars, many of them identified this Muslim king with either Alexander or Cyrus the great.
In recent times many Muslim scholars have refuted the claim that Dhul Qarnayn (pbuh) was Alexander the great and rightly so since Dhul Qarnayn was a Muslim king and Alexander was a confirmed pagan. Like I said growing up I followed Zakir Naik a lot and so through his channel Peace Tv Muslim youth was introduced to many esteemed Islamic scholars one of them being his close friend a Muslim Australian convert Musa Cerantonio.
Recently I was shocked to learn Musa Cerantonio who was a great student of knowledge well versed in fiqh and Quran exegesis participated in many dawah projects himself became an apostate from Islam after being Muslim for 17 years. What is more important is the reason he gave for renouncing Islam. He says after doing a detailed study on the character of Dhul Qarnayn he is convinced that Alexander the great is indeed referred and identified in the Quran as Dhul Qarnayn, and so this is reason enough for him to become an apostate since Quran being a word of Allah (SWT) should not contain contradictions. Identifying Dhul Qarnayn as Alexander who being a pagan convinces him that Astagfirulllah Islam cannot be true.
Musa Cerantonio is someone who understands the Aramaic language and he read the Aramaic text of Alexander’s biography called something like as romance of Alexander that enabled him to connect the pagan king with Dhul Qarnayn.
Can you please clarify to me if Dhul Qarnayn is not who Musa Cerantonio claims to be is. If a former Muslim scholar can become an apostate for the reason that he gives then it can present big intellectual challenges for us as Muslims for which we should be prepared for to answer difficult questions especially for future generation of Muslims. I wouldn’t my children and their generation to have doubts about Islam, as doubts can cause serious problems.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Answer:
The Quran presents Dhul-Qarnayn as a righteous, powerful, and God-conscious ruler who was just, wise, and divinely aided in spreading justice on earth. He travelled to the east and the west and built a mighty barrier to protect people from the corruption of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj).
In the Quran, Dhul Qarnayn is described as a ruler empowered by Allah:
“They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, “I will relate to you something of his narrative. Surely, We established him in the land, and gave him the means to all things…” (Surah al-Kahf 18:83–84) [1]
A just leader who believed in Allah and judged between people with fairness:
“He responded, “Whoever does wrong will be punished by us, then will be returned to their Lord, Who will punish them with a horrible torment…As for those who believe and do good, they will have the finest reward, and we will assign them easy commands.” (Surah al-Kahf 18:87–88) [2]
A defender of the weak, building a barrier to protect them from Ya’juj and Ma’juj:
” Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the two mountains, he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” (Surah al-Kahf 18:96) [3]
The above descriptions emphasise monotheism, piety, and justice, clearly distinguishing Dhul Qarnayn from pagan rulers. Dhul Qarnayn is not Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great was a confirmed pagan, and historical sources confirm he claimed to be the son of Zeus, participated in idolatrous rituals, and demanded worship. Whilst the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn is a mu’min (believer), a servant of Allah, not someone who claimed divinity.
Ibn Kathir states the difference in his tafsir. In one part of the report is the claim that Dhul-Qarnayn was Roman. In fact, it was Alexander the Second, son of Philip of Macedon, from whom the Roman calendar originates. The Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran, as mentioned by al-Azraqi and others, lived at the time of Ibrahim (as). He did Tawaf around the Ka’bah with him, believed in him, and was with al-Khidr (as). The other figure, Alexander the Great, was a Greek who lived about 300 years before Isa (as). His teacher was Aristotle, and his empire later influenced the Roman world. [4]
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir, commentary on Surah al-Kahf 18:83]
Classical scholars, including Imam al-Ṭabari, al-Qurtubi, and others, did record the view that Dhul-Qarnayn could be Alexander. But it is important to understand what they meant by this and why modern scholars have rejected this identification. It’s important to understand that Alexander the Great was deeply embedded in Hellenistic polytheistic culture, which included idolatry and the worship of human figures. This is one reason why many Muslim scholars reject the idea that Alexander could be the same as Dhul-Qarnayn. Additionally, Imam Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir, explicitly noted that there were two Alexanders; the first, a believer, possibly living in the time of Ibrahim (as) and the second, the Greek Alexander, son of Philip of Macedon, whose minister was Aristotle, and he was not the one mentioned in the Qur’an.
The legend of Alexander circulated in many cultures, including Syriac and Arabic, portraying him as a great explorer and king. He was called “two-horned” in various texts due to symbols on ancient coins or sculptures. Reports were repeated, but often without affirming them definitively, and many stated that these came from Israiliyyat (Biblical or non-Islamic traditions). Alexander the Great was historically a polytheist and idol worshipper, trained by Aristotle, and promoted Hellenistic religion. In contrast, the Quran clearly presents Dhul-Qarnayn as a believer, this moral and spiritual profile does not fit Alexander the Great in any objective historical analysis.
Thus, early Muslim historians mention the Alexander theory, but always with caution and without authentic isnad (chains of narration). Maulana Abul Ala Maududi’s commentary in Tafhim al-Quran mentions the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn has been a controversial matter from the earliest times. In general, the commentators have believed that he was Alexander the Great but the characteristics of Dhul-Qarnayn described in the Quran did not match.
The commentators were then inclined to believe that Dhul-Qarnayn was Cyrus, an ancient Persian king of Iran, known for religious tolerance and monotheistic sympathies. However, the historical facts, which have come to light to date, are not sufficient to make any definite claims. Scholars like Imam Ibn al-Kathir and al-Qurtubi note the speculation too but do not treat it as authoritative tafsir. [5]
The Quran never names Dhul Qarnayn explicitly nor links him directly to any known historical figure like Alexander the Great or Cyrus the Great. What is clear is his character and mission, that of a just king guided by Allah.
The apostasy of Musa Cerantonio based on the Dhul Qarnayn issue reflects a flawed premise. Since the Quran does not name Dhul Qarnayn, any identification with Alexander is not Quranic but a speculative opinion of historians. The apostasy of any individual, no matter how learned, is tragic but not a proof against Islam. Even scholars can fall prey if they are not grounded. May Allah guide us all to the truth.
The principle of Quranic interpretation (tafsir) is that ambiguous (mutashabih) verses are understood considering established, clear principles and not isolated historical theories. Allah ﷻ says:
“He is the One Who has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book, of which some verses are precise, they are the foundation of the Book while others are elusive. Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking ˹to spread˺ doubt through their ˹false˺ interpretations—but none grasps their ˹full˺ meaning except Allah…” (Surah Ali Imran 3:7) [6]
Doubt arising from non-binding scholarly opinions does not undermine the truth of revelation, especially when stronger evidence and positions exist. Understanding ancient texts (like Aramaic) does not override Quranic context, authenticity, or scholarly consensus.
Furthermore, Muslims are not required to identify Dhul Qarnayn with any known historical figure. His role in the Quran is moral, spiritual, and symbolic, to show how a just ruler uses power with humility, guided by Allah. So, rejecting the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great is not rejecting the Quran, but rather preserving the Quranic integrity against flawed external assumptions. Teaching children and youth to separate faith from speculation is key to safeguarding future generations from confusion. [7]
Any claim of contradiction based on the above assumption is invalid. The apostasy of an individual, even if once respected, does not undermine the truth of Islam. Our faith rests on the miraculous nature, message, and preservation of the Quran, not speculative interpretations of history and the apostasy of an individual.
Your concern is valid, such events can cause doubts especially in children and youth. But doubts do not come from the Quran. They arise from misreading it or relying on unverified interpretations. Muslims must strive to acquire knowledge and learn to distinguish between Quranic truth and historical speculation.
References:
[1] وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَن ذِى ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ ۖ قُلْ سَأَتْلُوا۟ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْرًا ٨٣
إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُۥ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَءَاتَيْنَـٰهُ مِن كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ سَبَبًۭا ٨٤
[2] قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُۥ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِۦ فَيُعَذِّبُهُۥ عَذَابًۭا نُّكْرًۭا ٨٧
وَأَمَّا مَنْ ءَامَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحًۭا فَلَهُۥ جَزَآءً ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُۥ مِنْ أَمْرِنَا يُسْرًۭا ٨٨
[3] ءَاتُونِى زُبَرَ ٱلْحَدِيدِ ۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا سَاوَىٰ بَيْنَ ٱلصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ ٱنفُخُوا۟ ۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا جَعَلَهُۥ نَارًۭا قَالَ ءَاتُونِىٓ أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًۭا ٩٦
[4] https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura18-aya83
[5] https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=18&verse=83
[6] هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ مِنْهُ ءَايَـٰتٌۭ مُّحْكَمَـٰتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتٌۭ ۖ فَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌۭ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـٰبَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَآءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَآءَ تَأْوِيلِهِۦ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ ۗ
[7] أما أن ذا القرنين هذا هو الإسكندر الأكبر المقدونى (٣٥٦ ـ ٣٢٤ ق.م) فذلك قصص لم يخضع لتحقيق تاريخى.. بل إن المفسرين الذين أوردوا هذا القصص قد شككوا فى صدقه وصحته..
فابن إسحق (١٥١ هـ / ٧٦٨ م) ـ مثلاً ـ يروى عن ” من يسوق الأحاديث عن الأعاجم فيما توارثوا من علم ذى القرنين ” أنه كان من أهل مصر، وأن اسمه ” مرزبان بن مردية اليونانى “..
أما الذى سماه ” الإسكندر ” فهو ابن هشام (٢١٣ هـ ٨٢٨ م) الذى لخص وحفظ (السيرة) لابن إسحق.. وهو يحدد أنه الإسكندر الذى بنى مدينة الإسكندرية فنسبت إليه..
وكذلك جاءت الروايات القائلة إن (ذا القرنين) هو الإسكندر المقدونى عن (وهب بن منبه) (٣٤ ـ ١١٤ هـ / ٦٥٤ ـ ٧٣٢ م) [القرطبى ج ١١ ص ٥٠] .. وهو مصدر لرواية الكثير من الإسرائيليات والقصص الخرافى.
ولقد شكك ابن إسحق ـ وهو الذى تميز بوعى ملحوظ فى تدوين ونقد القصص التاريخى ـ شكك فيما روى من هذا القصص الذى دار حول تسمية ذى القرنين بالإسكندر، أو غيره من الأسماء.. وشكك أيضاً فى صدق ما نسب للرسول ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ حول هذا الموضوع.. وذلك عندما قال ابن إسحق: ” فالله أعلم أى ذلك كان؟ .. أقال رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ذلك أم لا؟ “.
ويثنى القرطبى على شك وتشكيك ابن إسحق هذا، عندما يورده، ثم يقول: ” والحق ما قال “.. أى إن الحق هو شك وتشكيك ابن إسحق فى هذا القصص، الذى لم يخضع للتحقيق والتمحيص، وإن يكن موقف ابن إسحق هذا، وكذلك القرطبى، هو لون من التحقيق والتمحيص..
فليس هناك، إذن، ما يشهد على أن الإسكندر الأكبر المقدونى الملك الوثنى هو ذو القرنين العادل والموحد لله.
ص10 – كتاب شبهات حول القرآن – الشبهة التاسعة – المكتبة الشاملة
Only Allah (عز و جل) knows best.
Written by Alimah Saleha Bukhari Islam
Checked and approved by Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah
Darul Ifta Birmingham
