The Zul-Qarnayn paradox: Alexander the Great disproves the Quran

Muslims view the Quran as flawless, the perfect, unaltered word of God transmitted to humanity. They believe it contains no contradictions, no errors, and no human influence. Yet for all its claims of divine perfection, the Quran proves remarkably vulnerable to being debunked by historical inaccuracies that even casual investigation can uncover.

Today, I want to highlight the flaws in the story of Zul-Qarnayn, the "Two-Horned One", or in other translations "Dhū l-Qarnain." The more I examine this character from Surah Al-Kahf, the more convinced I become that we're looking at one of the most significant contradictions in Islamic scripture, one that genuinely challenges the Quran's claim to divine perfection.

The Quran presents Zul-Qarnayn as a righteous monotheist but is clearly drawing from legends about Alexander the Great, the pagan king who claimed divine status. This is a huge problem for Islam and not just a minor inconsistency.

The Quranic portrait vs. historical reality

The Quran introduces Zul-Qarnayn with divine favor: "We established him in the land, giving him the means to achieve everything." Throughout his journeys to the setting and rising of the sun, he speaks as a devoted servant of God, saying things like "We shall punish those who have done evil, and when they are returned to their Lord, He will punish them further." When offered payment to build a barrier against Gog and Magog, he piously refuses, declaring, "What my Lord has given me is better than payment."

This portrait of a humble monotheist servant of God simply cannot be reconciled with the historical Alexander the Great. Alexander was deeply committed to Greek polytheism. He regularly sacrificed to Zeus and other deities. After visiting the Oracle of Siwa in Egypt, he brazenly claimed to be the son of Zeus-Ammon and demanded divine worship from his subjects. Ancient coins even depict him with the ram horns of this deity, clearly connecting to the "Two-Horned" epithet.

The historical Alexander wasn't a monotheism, quite the contrary, as we all know: he represented the antithesis of Islamic monotheism by claiming divinity for himself. It's a fundamental contradiction that can't be waved away.

The borrowed legend problem

What makes this contradiction truly damning is the Quran's apparent reliance on the Syriac Alexander Legend, a Christian fairytale from the 6th or 7th century that coincidentally circulated at the time of Mohammed. This text reimagines Alexander as a pious figure, much like the Quran does. Both stories feature journeys to the world's extremes and the construction of a massive metal barrier against apocalyptic forces.

The parallels are undeniable. The Legend describes Alexander commanding "three thousand smiths, workers in iron and brass" to make "a gate of brass" smeared with "liquid pitch." The Quran similarly describes Zul-Qarnayn using "sheets of iron" and "molten copper." Both barriers serve an apocalyptic purpose, holding back destructive forces until the end times.

If the Quran is truly the timeless, perfect word of God, why does it echo a contemporary Christian legend? Why does it adopt a sanitized version of Alexander that contradicts historical fact? These questions should trouble any intellectually honest person.

The historical impossibility

Let's talk about the wall itself. The Quran describes a massive iron-copper barrier so impressive that even the forces of Gog and Magog cannot scale or penetrate it. Yet despite centuries of searching, no archaeological evidence of such a structure exists. Some scholars have suggested the Caspian Gates or Derbent fortifications, but these were minor military installations, not the apocalyptic bulwark described in the text.

The historical Alexander built many things during his conquests, but nothing resembling this legendary wall. The Quran appears to be treating a fictional element from the Syriac Legend as historical fact, which raises profound questions about its reliability.

The theological implications are staggering

The Quran claims absolute perfection and divine authorship. Islam is built on the foundation that the Quran is the uncorrupted, eternal word of God, free from human influence or error. Yet in the Zul-Qarnayn story, we see what appears to be a human hand at work, borrowing from contemporary legends and mischaracterizing a historical figure.

If Zul-Qarnayn is meant to be Alexander, then the Quran contains a serious error in portraying a pagan king as a righteous monotheist. If Zul-Qarnayn is supposed to be someone else, why does the narrative so closely mirror the Alexander Legend that was circulating at the time of the Quran's emergence? Either way, the text shows signs of cultural influence and historical inaccuracy that are difficult to reconcile with divine perfection.

The scholarly defenses don't hold up

Muslim scholars have offered various defenses over the centuries. Some suggest Zul-Qarnayn might be Cyrus the Great instead, but this feels like an evasion. Cyrus lacks the iconic "two-horned" imagery and the detailed parallels to the Quranic narrative that Alexander possesses. The earliest Islamic commentators, like Al-Tabari, confidently identified Zul-Qarnayn as Alexander based on the textual evidence and cultural context.

Others argue that the Quran is using Alexander symbolically or that it's describing a different, unknown figure who shares characteristics with Alexander. But these defenses seem more like attempts to rescue the text from contradiction than genuine interpretations based on what the text actually says.

What makes more sense: that God chose to feature a figure suspiciously similar to a fictional version of Alexander the Great that was popular in the 7th century, or that the Quran reflects the cultural and literary influences of its time?

The Quran emerged in an Arabia that was a crossroads of Jewish, Christian, and pagan stories. The Alexander Romance and its Syriac adaptation were wildly popular, widely circulated tales. When the Quran addresses questions about Zul-Qarnayn, it draws on narrative elements recognizable to its audience. This makes perfect sense if the Quran is a product of its historical context, but it's harder to explain if it's the timeless word of God.

The Quran is not divinely inspired

If the Quran can make a fundamental error about a historical figure, casting a pagan king as a monotheistic hero and treating a fictional wall as historical fact, what does that mean for its other claims? If it shows evidence of borrowing from contemporary legends without correcting their historical flaws, how can it claim divine origin?

A single contradiction can unravel the entire claim of perfect divine authorship. That's the nature of absolute claims, they don't allow for partial truths or human influence. The Zul-Qarnayn paradox forces us to confront the possibility that the Quran and Islam, whatever its merits as a religious and literary text, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of human authorship.