Islam critiqued exposes the real Dhul Qarnayn; who was it?

In answer to the video "Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18"

Now we get to the issue of Dhul Qarnayn. His story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8. 

He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys, as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45. 

Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his "being established in the land" to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementioned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power. 

Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus. 

In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn. The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it. 

It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III. The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk. 

The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.

This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. As to the notion of parental resemblance, it is similar to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a. The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions 

"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that". 

To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge 

"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".

The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet 

25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".

Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;

- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.

- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?

- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.

Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with

"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".

The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels;
- it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures
- it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness

As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head. Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on. 

This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf. Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.

Despite the lack of surviving information on Cyrus' life, in light of what is known of him from the Hebrew bible and the historical records, there exists no other conquerer of the ancient world whose details given in the Quran are as applicable as they are to him. Cyrus led several military campaigns, starting West then heading East as described in the Quran, instead of Alexander who never went West but only East and took back another route on his way back. He led his campaigns against the most powerful kingdoms of the time, including Media, Lydia, and Babylonia ultimately defeating them all and founding the Achaemenian empire, centred on Persia and comprising the Near East from the Aegean Sea eastward to the Indus River. He encountered many nomadic tribes all throughout his expeditions. Those of Central Asia were the most rebellious. Cyrus built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against their assaults. He is in fact said to have been finally killed by one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes among whom he was trying to expand his influence. 

Although the lack of inscriptions left behind do not indicate precisely what were Cyrus' beliefs, because among other reasons Persia was comprised of many nomadic cultures and languages and record-keeping was not a priority, it can be inferred that he was Zoroastrian or at least a theist, as seen from his monotheistic proclamation in the book of Ezra and the way he is spoken of by God in Isaiah, that had a leaning for Zoroastrianism. Several people in his closest family and entourage, including among his children had names of Zoroastrian characters. Although he never forced his beliefs upon conquered people, he is said to have sent emissaries peacefully preaching his religion around his empire or territories he was about to conquer. Influence of Zoroastrian teachings can be seen in writings related to him, including in the Bible in certain Isaiah passages, that are thought to have been penned during the Jewish Babylonian captivity. The Medes vastly supported him in his battle against their own king who wasnt Zoroastrian. Cyrus was buried according to Zoroastrian rituals.

His heroic, magnanimous, humanitarian qualities, religious tolerance, as a ruler greatly influenced his portrayal by the Greek writers who were easily tempted to embellish his biography, and the Romans too who transmitted the traditions about him to Europe. Alexander the great was known, from an early age among his contemporaries as having been in literal "loving" infatuation for Cyrus as presented in Greek works, restoring and visiting his tomb several times later on. 

It is only natural then that many aspects from Alexander, as portrayed by contemporaries and others, sometimes accurately and at other times with additions, will parallel with Cyrus. Alexander's life, his expeditions, battles, nations he encountered, all happened pretty much within the same territorial area as Cyrus' former Achaemenian empire about 200 years earlier. This is the common thread of truth that is found between the Quran and the various Alexander traditions. To a Muslim, the whole borrowing charge could be dismissed right here. But i will keep delving into the issue to burry it deeper that what it already is. These Cyrus/Alexander similarities are the reasons why some among the earlier Quran commentators, without any basis in the prophetic traditions, have confusedly identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander. They were misinformed due to a weak and unreliable narration by Tabari in his tafsir, and by Muhammad bin Rabee’ Jaizi in his “Book of the companions” where Dhul-Qarnayn has been mentioned as Roman and founder of Alexandria. Other Commentators like ibn Kathir and ibn Taymiyya did not subscribe to that view. Orientalists and recent critics of course jumped on the Alexander bandwagon, grasping upon superficial similarities, between some versions of the Alexander legends (there are different versions) and the Quran.