Acts17apologetics find the horned one; Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" about Historical Figures Destroy His Credibility (PvM 9)"

Dhul Qarnayn's 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.

This was Cyrus the Great 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.

Apostate prophet skeptic of Muslim sources; Islamic sources retrospectively written?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

Hadith books, are based upon oral tradition and oral tradition in any culture, precedes the writing of that tradition. All history is a 'written' attestation to an ORAL tradition, meaning written word comes AFTER THE FACT. Just because pre-Islamic history became written down after a certain time period does not predicate it never existed. History did not fail to exist, because it was not written down. Many times the reporters themselves admitted that in the transmission process, they paid little regard to truth and falsehood.

That is why we find reports about the prophet ranging from overly flattering to slanderous.

In both cases, Muslims do not just accept a report or reject it at face value, but scrutinize it through various meticulous angles so as to arrive to a decent level of certainty. The ahadith, although a secondary source of religious guidance, went through an authentication process that the major scriptures of Christianity and Judaism cannot even hope for, let alone their secondary sources. That authentication process of the ahadith is still open even today, with ahadith seen in the past as undisputed but now downgraded to a lower level of certainty. No writing in the history of mankind received a divine pledge of protection other than the Quran. Anything else is open to human error.

An important thing to be kept in mind, as already said, many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. When the selecting process was finished, the discarded reports werent physically destroyed and erased, but were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies.

That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason.

As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.

Apostate prophet stuck on verse 9:30; Allah curses people in the Quran?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers like prophets, angels, believers, jinn, satan and more, even sometimes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose, all this all the while actively interracting with the reader and or/audience, making it sometimes directly part of the flow of the discourse. In all cases it is word for word the speech of God, whoever it quotes or commands to proclaim/qul. When Allah speaks through the prophet starting with qul, the words spoken afterwards do not become the words of the speaker, for example

39:10"Qul (Say/Proclaim/Declare/State/Mention), “O My servants who have believed, fear your Lord. For those who do good in this world is good, and the earth of Allah is spacious. Indeed, the patient will be given their reward without account."

This is just one of the many aspects of what makes it a literary masterpiece on such a level that the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call it magic and sorcery.

When it commands the prophet to be the speaker the Quran sometimes begins with qul/say. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say". At other places the prophet is to relate the revelation on God's behalf without starting with the qul/say formula. Only the style indicates that the speaker at a place is not Allah but indirectly His messenger or some other character who are either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance.

 In the HB God says to Moses

Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you",

ie I will teach you how to worship Me. or in the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.

The same principle is followed when determining at other places who the speaker is when using certain idiomatic expressions like "may Allah" or "By God" see 4:65,9:30,16:56,63,34:3,63:4 "By your life" 15:72 "alhamdulilla/praise God" 39:29. It is to be noted there is no "may" in 9:30,63:4 and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing happenning. Here the Quran is quoting what the indignated expression of a believer should be, when confronted to groups who insist on such deviation despite being warned and admonished. For a believer to be offended by sin, to the point of hating the obdurate people who insist on it, is not something misplaced. It is rather expected. God endows those willing to walk the straight path with increased sharpness of spiritual insight. Faith and righteousness become the dearest of values to them while unbelief and transgression become hated 49:7-8.

The prophet Ibrahim, having received a clear discernment of right and wrong even felt physically sick at the sight of falsehood 37:89. The prophet Yusuf, because of that faculty was able to extricate himself from a situation that would have otherwise compromised his chastity 12:22-4. Love of Truth and aversion towards everything false and sinful is the natural outcome of the acceptance of the straight path. One becomes in a heightened state of spiritual awareness, constantly longing to be increased in divine knowledge and wisdom. IT is however important to keep in view that the Quran here is not speaking of hatred towards the sinful person itself. There are countless verses encouraging rectitude and compassion indiscriminately even towards one's enemies, and regardless of the person's religion or lack thereof. Religious hatred is hatred for evil and evil deeds. This again, demonstrates the supreme pragmatism of the Quran; infatuated love and destructive hatred completely miss the mark. One hates for the sake of God and loves for the sake of God.

One hates the evil deed because it harms the sinner, just as one loves the good deed because it brings one closer to guidance. The prophet encapsulated that notion when  he spoke of a category of people whom the prophets and martyrs themselves will envy on the day of resurrection 

"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".

The HB surely echoes the theme of religious hatred although it amalgamates hatred towards the individual itself as reflected in David's

Psalms119:104-5,139:21-22"From Your precepts I shall gain understanding; therefore, I hate all ways of falsehood. Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path...Did I not hate Your enemies, O Lord? With those who rise up against You, I quarrel. I hate them with utmost hatred; they have become my enemies"

as well as Solomon's Proverbs2:7-10,13:5. Again in 2Sam22, the prophet David speaks of God's guidance as the lamp by which one walks in darkness, levelling the obstacles along the path, making every step firm, a rock, forteress and shield of salvation. In his later days, he would state

Ps19:9"the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes".

Apostate prophet seeks evidence; Jews said Ezra is son of God?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

In 9:30 the Quran accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra. It is important here to note that a statement that starts with "the people said" without being followed by a precise designation of the individuals concerned inside the group is a literary feature of Arabic usage of sentences; its aim is to point to a prevailing tendancy among a larger group. It is the equivalent to "Most people said". This is all the more true when the single feminine form is used, as in this case.

So in 9:30, it does not mean that all the Jews said this, but it does bring the attention to a significant group amongst them which happened to say it. The same verbal form is used in 5:64-66 for the Jews, and again because in the introductory statement "the Jews said" there was no precise designation of the guilty individuals, the passage ends by making a distinction between the sinners and the righteous, thus showing that although both belong to the same larger group, not all of them are concerned with the accusation levelled against their comunity.

Further corroboration can be seen in the prophetic sayings, where a glimpse of what shall occur on the day of judgement is given, when people are seperated into different groups. The first group, those who consciously worshipped anything other than Allah are sent to hellfire. Then 2 groups are made from among the worshippers of Allah; the righteous and the sinners. In both groups there will be Muslims and non muslims, such as Jews and Christians. The Quran repeatedly says, among the people of the book, both righteous and sinners will be rewarded accordingly in the hereafter. Finally, a party will be brought forth from those who worshipped Allah among the people of the book. They will be those whom the Quran accuses of transgression in regards to Ezra and Jesus

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie...Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars..." 

The Quran is here making a historical observation pertaining to the beliefs of the Arabian peninsula. It is already well-documented that not all Jews had the same beliefs. Even within the HB and NT, one finds competing theologies such as the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection, while it is a pillar of the orthodox Jewish belief. Paul observes that some Jews in his lifetime worshiped angels Col2:18. There were Jews and gentiles among the proto-christian sect that deified Jesus. That is besides the numerous idolatrous practices Jews have done since the times of Moses, and recorded in the HB.

Ezra was believed to have ascended up to heaven without dying by certain Jews, just as Christians argued Jesus ascended to heaven. In the Jewish apocalypse 2 Esdras 14 God tells him that 

"You will be taken from among human beings, and you will associate from now on with my son and with those who are like you until the times are finished". 

There is nothing far-fetched in the assertion of these Arabian Jews, their over exaltation of Ezra especially in the context of the religious competition that existed between Christianity and Judaism in the Arabian peninsula. The Quran often references this, and the following verse is a similar style to the one in question

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".

It was in such religious prejudice that the Jews and Christians would even go as far as condemning their opponents on matters that had no religious basis from the book they shared. 9:30 is an example of the religious prejudices reaching extremes, but in this case, it caused them to utter words of unbelief regarding their own religious figures. The next verse states

9:31"They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him)".

There is an important omission in the verse. Although both Jews and Christians have raised their religious figures as God's sons, and both have set their scholars and monks as God's partners in the sense that they follow their authority blindly even if it innovates and contradicts what was revealed to them, yet in contrast to Ezra only Jesus is mentionned as having been raised to a divine status. And this is to differentiate between the Christians who willingly did so, whereas with the Jews, their type of idolatry in regards to Ezra was indirect, through descriptions overstepping the limits of acceptable monotheistic belief. There is a reason why that transgression is only mentionned once, in contrast to the deification of Jesus which is repeatedly condemned throughout the Quran. The hadith itself states that they used to worship Allah, although they will be convicted of worshipping Ezra 

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah..." 

These Jews were pointed and publicly exposed for their transgression. That is why when they will be singled out from among other Jews on the day of resurrection, as per the hadith quoted earlier, then questionned as to who they used to worship, they will immidiately know that this questionning will be related to the accusation made against them in their lifetime, and will thus convict their own selves, admitting to their worship of Ezra.

An important Quranic principle is that those who associate with Allah's essence and authority, whether deities, saints or personalities, religious leaders or their own selves by following ways incited by their own desires 9:31,6:136-9,25:43,36:60,42:21,45:23 do so many times unknowingly 

23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?" 

The attribution of intrinsic powers and authority to any of those entities, their leaders, their own selves, or Mary who in addition is included in prayer rituals, even without naming any of them "gods" is equal to taking them as gods besides Allah. 

This appelation, Ezra's sonship to God, implies that someone might be compared in essence to God, to whom there is no likeness in the heavens and the earth, the Supreme above all things 3:83,19:88-95,13:15,22:18. This title is so much honor no one deserves, not the greatest prophets or angels, not anything of His creation. The greatest of the greatest creations, although honored and drawn near to Allah, are only fit to be called His slaves

19:93,21:26"And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants".

Another important point is that 9:30 does not necessarly state that what they uttered concerning Ezra and Jesus has scriptural basis. This means that although it might be the case, as in Jesus' case who is referred to with the title son of man and son of God in the NT, it isnt necessarly so as in Ezra's case.

 There are other such instances where the Quran exposes some false utterances of the Jews and challenges them to bring the scriptural basis 2:94,2:111,3:75. Elsewhere it denounces their misinterpretations aimed at satisfying their own interests, either by advancing certain concepts contrary to their scriptures' intent or hiding certain realities fully present in them 3:71,78,98-99.
The point of the verse is that they were not interested in proclaiming the truth, they were interested in their partisanship, even at the expense of the truth. Serving God, as the above verse states, is not in their equation.