Verses 83–102

Introduction & Commentary

26:169These verses tell the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn and contain one of the Qur’an’s heroic tales.

وي�ٔ لونك عن ذِي ٱلقرنينِﷺ قل سأتلوا عليكم مِنه ذِكرا ۝٨

18:83 And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn. Say: I will recite to you an account (dhikran) of him.

This means they ask about Dhū l-Qarnayn’s exploits. The evidence of that is the answer to the question which describes his exploits, but do not acquaint us with his personal details. It even stops at mentioning him by his nickname without going on to state his real name.

Dhikr is either:

1) A verbal noun meaning the object (that is, madhkūr), rendering a meaning of, Say: I will recite to you something worth mentioning (shayʾan madhkūran) about him, that is, about Dhū l-Qarnayn; or,

2) It means the Qur’an—God called it dhikr in many places. Based on that interpretation, it would all mean, “Say: I will recite to you some Qur’an of him”.

Minhu either means (something) about Dhū l-Qarnayn or, (something) from God.

It consists of what follows this verse from, Surely We established him in the land, right to the end of the story. The second interpretation (that is, that dhikr means some Qur’an) is more likely.

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُۥ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَءَاتَيْنَـٰهُ مِن كُلِّ شَىْءٍ سَبَبًا ۝٨٤

18:84 Surely We established (makkanna) him in the land and granted him means of access to everything.

The word tamkin means facilitating. One can either say makkantuhu (I enabled him) or makkantu lahu (I facilitated for him). Tamakkun in the land means the power to dispose of it as he wishes and wants through being made sovereign over it.

26:170It may be claimed that it is derived from makan based on the mistaken belief that the (letter) mim is not one of the root letters. Based on this interpretation, tamkīn would mean giving stability and firmness such that it is not moved from its place by any competing impediment.

A sabab is a link and means. Thus granting him a sabab of everything means giving him some of everything he uses and benefits from, for example intellect, knowledge, religion, strength, body, abundance of money, soldiers, vastness of dominion, the (ability) to administrate well (ḥusn al-tadbīr) and so on to achieve important life goals. This is a blessing from Him bestowed upon Dhū l-Qarnayn and the great importance of his affair [is given] with the most eloquent explanation. What He says about his career, deeds, and utterances is full of wisdom and strength which is testimony to that.

فَأَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ۝٨٥

18:85 So he followed a course (fa-atbaʿa sababan).

Itbāʿ means following a course and taking a path toward the place where the sun sets.

حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِى عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا ۗ قُلْنَا يَـٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا ۝٨٦

18:86 Until (ḥattā), when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people.

We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn! you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.

The word ḥattā indicates an implied verb, that is, So he traveled, until, when he reached . . . The phrase, where the sun set, means the western edge of civilization at that time as evidenced by what follows, and found by it a people.

People say that ʿayn ḥamiʾa means an sea of black mud and that ʿayn means sea. Finding the sun setting in a black sea means a place at the sea shore beyond which there is no expectation of there being any more land. So he thought that the sun set in the sea because it was correct to say that it was the horizon. The description of this black sea applies to the Mediterranean. There are eternal islands in it which used to be sources of longevity but they subsequently sank.

26:171An alternative recitation is fi ʿaynin ḥāmiyya, that is, a hot sea. That is true of the points in the Mediterranean close to the equator and near Africa. It may be that Dhū l-Qarnayn reached the shores of Africa on his journey to the west.

We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn!: When the Qur’an says that He is saying something, it means revelation to a Prophet or communication via revelation, for example: And We said: O Adam! Dwell you . . . (2:35) And when We said: Enter this city . . . (2:58).

It is also used for inspiration other than to a prophet, for example: And We revealed to Moses’ mother, saying: Nurse him . . . (28:7).

Thus, it is clear that the words, We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn!, does not mean that he was a prophet who received revelation because God’s speaking is not just restricted to revelation to a prophet.

It does not fail to give the impression that he was spoken to through the intermediary of a prophet who was with him. That would make his kingdom similar to that of Ṭālūt—one of the Israelites—who was advised and guided by their Prophet. The reason for this impression is that God is referred to in the third person.

The clause, you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit (ḥasanan), means either punish those people or do something of benefit to them. Ḥasanan (benefit) is a verbal noun meant as the subject, taking the place of an implied noun which it describes. Alternatively, it is an adjective for emphasis. In the alternative, it is claimed that making ittikhādh al-ḥasan (doing them a benefit) the opposite of punishing suggests that it is preferable. It could be a declarative statement of two possibilities meant to indicate that both are permissible. Thus it is a declarative intended as a performative. What it would mean is: It is up to you whether you punish them or forgive them. However, what is likely is that it is interrogative— he is being asked what he is going to do: subjugate or forgive. This last alternative is the best because of the context of the answer which deals with punishment and doing good in different situations, As to him who is unjust, we will chastise him . . . And as for him who believes and does good, he shall have goodly reward. If the clause, you either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit, is a choice between alternative obligations, then, As for him who believes and does good, would have been an endorsement of it and an announcement of acceptance, which is of little point.

26:172In short, it means: “We asked him what he wanted to do to them— punish them or do them good—after defeating them and becoming their ruler. He replied: ‘We will punish whoever of them is a wrongdoer and he will be returned to his Lord and He will punish him with an exemplary punishment. We will be good to pious believers and give them ease.’”

The object is not mentioned in, immā an tuʿadhdhiba (lit. either you punish) but it is in, immā an tattakhidha fihim ḥusnan (or you do them a benefit) because they were not all wrongdoers. It is not permissible to apply a punishment meant for people who deserve it to absolutely everyone but it is permissible to be good to the whole of a people among whom there are good and bad.

قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُۥ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِۦ فَيُعَذِّبُهُۥ عَذَابًا نُّكْرًا ۝٨٧

18:87 He said: As to him who is unjust, we will chastise him, then shall he be returned to his Lord, and He will chastise him with an exemplary (nukran) chastisement.

The words nukr and munkar mean “unprecedented,” that is, He will give them a punishment without precedent which they had not reckoned on and not expected. Ẓulm has been interpreted by some as “polytheism” and taʿdhīb as “killing.” On the basis of this interpretation, the clause, as to him who is unjust, we will chastise him, would mean, as for him who is a polytheist and does not resile from polytheism, we will kill him. This is the case if “who is unjust” is being contrasted with “who believes and does good”. However the likely reason for the contrast is that being unjust means all of the following: (1) polytheists; (2) those who do not believe in God at all; and (3) those who believe and do not attribute associates to Him but fail to do good, instead making mischief in the land.

If it had not been contrasted to believing, the likely meaning of ẓulm would have been making mischief without any regard to polytheism because the customary practice of kings who were just was to cleanse their land of the mischief made by mischief-makers. Similarly, there is no evidence for chastisement only meaning killing.

وَأَمَّا مَنْ ءَامَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَـٰلِحًا فَلَهُۥ جَزَآءً ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُۥ مِنْ أَمْرِنَا يُسْرًا ۝٨٨

26:17318:88 And as for him who believes and does good (ṣāliḥan), he shall have goodly reward (jazāʾan al-ḥusnā) and We will speak to him an easy word (yusran) of Our command (amrina).

The word ṣāliḥan is an adjective which takes the place of an implied noun which it describes. The same is true of al-ḥusnā. Jazāʾ (reward) is:

(1) A circumstantial qualifier, with the implied meaning: and as for whoever believes and does good work he will have good reward (al-mathūbat al-ḥusnā) in the circumstance of its being a satisfactory performance of obligation (ḥāl li-kawnihi mujziyan); or

(2) Specifying complement, with the implied meaning: whoever believes and does good work he will have good in terms of reward (min ḥayth al-jazāʾ); or

(3) Absolute object, with the implied meaning: We will reward him a reward (nujzihi jazāʾan) (that is, We will reward him greatly).

And We will speak to him an easy word (yusran) of Our command (amrina): The word yusr means that which is easy (maysūr). It is an adjective which takes the place of an implied noun which it describes. The likely meaning of amr is a command pertaining to obligations (amr taklifi). The implied meaning is: “We will say an easy word of Our command to him, that is, We will give him an obligation which is easy for him and not difficult for him.”

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ۝٨٩ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَطْلِعَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَطْلُعُ عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ لَّمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُم مِّن دُونِهَا سِتْرًا ۝٩٠

18:89–90 Then he followed (another) course. Until, when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom We had given no shelter from it;

26:174That is, then he prepared a means to travel and then traveled toward the eastern horizon until he reached the desert to the east. He then found the sun rising over a nomadic people for whom We had provided no protection from the sun.

Satr, means protection from the sun. It can either be buildings and clothing or buildings only, that is, they lived on the land without having any houses to take refuge in or to protect themselves from the sun. They were also naked, without any clothing. Attributing that to God in the clause, to whom We had given no shelter from it, is an allusion to the fact that they had not yet averted to it, not learned how to build houses, put up tents or weave and sew clothes.

كَذَٰلِكَ وَقَدْ أَحَطْنَا بِمَا لَدَيْهِ خُبْرًا ۝٩١

18:91 Even so! (kadhalika) and We had a full knowledge of what he had.

The likely meaning of kadhalika (even so) is an allusion to the description just given of them. Comparing something to itself—based on the opinion that in a comparison the thing compared should be different to what it is compared with—renders a somewhat emphatic meaning. There are alternative suggestions for what the demonstrative pronoun “that” (dhalika) in kadhalika (lit. like that) refers to, but they are very different from what is ordinarily understood.

And We had a full knowledge of what he had: The pronoun (“he”) refers to Dhū l-Qarnayn. The sentence (grammatically speaking) is circumstantial. What it means is he adopted a means of travel, reached where the sun rises, and found such and such a people in a state, full knowledge of which We have. We know all the provision he has, what he will make happen, and what happens to him. It is likely that having full knowledge of what he had is an allusion to Dhū l-Qarnayn’s choice and that he acted through God’s guidance and commandment. He would only come or go out as guided or ordered—as alluded to what was said about his journey to where the sun sets, We said, O Dhū l-Qarnayn! . . .

The verse, that is, and We had a full knowledge . . ., in its allusory meaning is similar to: And make the ark before Our eyes and (according to) Our revelation . . . (11:37), . . . He has revealed it with His knowledge . . . (4:166), and . . . and He encompasses what is with them . . . (72:28).

26:175It is also said [that the verse means], (1) To state the greatness of his affair and that God alone has full knowledge of the particulars and minutiae; (2) to embellish what Dhū l-Qarnayn suffered on this journey. The difficulties and hardships he endured are within God’s knowledge and do not elude Him, or (3) to state the greatness of the course he took. However, the explanation we gave above is better.

ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ۝٩٢ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ ٱلسَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْمًا لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلًا ۝٩٣

18:92–93 Then he followed (another) course. Until, when he reached (a place) between the two mountains, he found on that side of them a people who could hardly understand a word.

The word sadd means mountain or any other obstruction blocking the way. Thus al-saddayn means two mountains.

He found on that side of them a people, that is, close to the two mountains.

The clause, who could hardly understand a word, is an allusion to their simpleness and the superficiality of their understanding. It may be said that it is an allusion to the strangeness of their language and its remoteness from all the languages known to them. That is not an unlikely explanation.

قَالُوا۟ يَـٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجًا عَلَىٰٓ أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدًّا ۝٩٤

18:94 They said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn! surely Gog and Magog make mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute on condition that you should raise a barrier between us and them.

It is likely that those who said this were the people he found between the two mountains. Gog and Magog were two generations of people who came from behind the two mountains and raided them, killing, wounding or pillaging them all. The context provides proof of that because the pronoun used to refer to them is exclusive to rational beings, the barrier was erected between the two mountains and so on.

Shall we then pay you a tribute (kharajan) . . . : The word kharaj means what is taken from one’s money to spend on things one needs. They made him an offer to give him money in exchange for his erecting a barrier between them and Gog and Magog, to stop them from crossing the barrier and transgressing against them.

قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّى فِيهِ رَبِّى خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِى بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا ۝٩٥

26:17618:95 He said: That in which my Lord has established me

(makkanni) is better, therefore you only help me with strength/ workers, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them.

The basis of makkannī (established me) is makkananī but one of the nūns has been blended into the other. A radm is a barrier. Alternatively, it is said that it is a strong barrier. Based on this interpretation, his saying in response to their request for a sadd (barrier) meant giving them what they wanted and promising what was more than what they needed and expected.

Dhū l-Qarnayn had no need for the tribute they offered him in exchange for his erecting a barrier. He says: “The abundance and strength in which my Lord has established me and settled on me is better than the money you promise me so I have no need for it.”

Therefore you only help me with strength (quwwa): The word quwwa means that through which one has the power to do something. The phrase follows logically from what came of their suggestion to him—their request from him to build them a barrier. In short, it means—as for tribute, I have no need for it, but as for the wall, if you want, help me with what will enable me to build it, for example men and building materials—the examples mentioned were blocks of iron, molten brass, and blowing in the bellows. I will build you a strong barrier.

Thus, it is clear that what they meant by their offer to him of kharaj was the wage for making the barrier.

ءَاتُونِى زُبَرَ ٱلْحَدِيدِ ۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا سَاوَىٰ بَيْنَ ٱلصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ ٱنفُخُوا۟ ۖ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا جَعَلَهُۥ نَارًا قَالَ ءَاتُونِىٓ أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًا ۝٩٦

18:96 Bring me blocks of iron; until, when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said: Blow, until, when 26:177he had made it (as) fire, he said: Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it.

The word zubar is the plural of zubra just as ghuraf (rooms) is the plural of ghurfa (room). Zubra means block. It is said that sāwa means the same as sawwa (to make two things level). In fact sawwa is an alternative recitation. Al-ṣadafayn is the dual form of ṣadaf which is one of the two sides of a mountain. Some say that it can only be said if there is another mountain next to it and parallel to it. It is one of those nouns that only come as part of a pair, for example zawj (spouse or one of a pair), ḍiʿf (half), etc. Qiṭr means copper or molten brass. Ifrāgh means pouring it onto the holes, flaws and gaps.

Atūnī zubar al-ḥadīd means “bring me blocks of iron” so that I can use them in the barrier. It is part of the quwwa (strength) he asked them for. He may have singled it out for mention and not mentioned stone or any other building materials because it is the main ingredient in building a strong barrier. The phrase, atūni zubar al-ḥadīd (bring me blocks of iron), is substitution of the specific for the general fa aʿinuni bi quwwatin (therefore you only help me with strength/might) or it implies, “He said . . .” This (style) appears frequently in the Qur’an.

Until, when he had filled up the space between the two mountain sides, he said: Blow . . . (Ḥattā idhā sāwā bayn al-ṣadafayni qāla anfukhū): There is brevity in these words through the use of omission and implication. They assisted him with might and brought him what he asked of them so he built them a barrier and erected it

The clause, he said: Blow, is likely that it is an instance of not wanting to mention the dependent object of the verb because it indicates the verb itself. What it means is placing the nozzles of the bellows on the barrier to heat up the iron in it and pour the molten brass onto the cracks and gaps.

Until, when he had made it (as) fire. . .: Again implication and brevity are employed. The implied meaning is: “Then he blew until, when he had made it—that is, what he blew the bellows onto, or the iron—fire, or like fire in terms of its appearance or temperature.” This is an example of metaphorical borrowing (istiʿāra).

He [Dhū l-Qarnayn] said: Bring me molten brass which I may pour over it: This means: “Bring me molten brass which I may empty and pour onto it to block the cracks and make the barrier solid, through which nothing can penetrate.”

فَمَا ٱسْطَـٰعُوٓا۟ أَن يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا ٱسْتَطَـٰعُوا۟ لَهُۥ نَقْبًا ۝٩٧

26:17818:97 So they were not able (fa mā sṭāʿū) to scale it (yaẕharūhu)

nor could they (wa mā staṭāʿū) make a hole (naqban) in it.

The words isṭāʿū and istaṭāʿū mean the same thing (they are able, negated with mā in the Arabic). Ẓuhūr means being up high and climbing up high. Naqb means the same as thaqb, that is, hole. However, al-Rāghib explains in al-Mufradat fī gharīb al-Qurʾān that a hole in a wall or a skin is called a naqb while a hole in wood is called a thaqb. The plural pronouns refer to Gog and Magog.

There is implication and brevity in these words. The implied meaning is: Then he built a barrier and Gog and Magog were unable to climb it because it was so high or make a hole in it because it was so strong.

قَالَ هَـٰذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّى ۖ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ رَبِّى جَعَلَهُۥ دَكَّآءَ ۖ وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّى حَقٌّ

18:98 He said: This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, and the promise of my Lord is ever true.

The word dakkāʾ means the same as dakk which is the most severe beating. It is a verbal noun (literally meaning beating flat) but it can be used to mean the same as the object of the verb (that is, beaten flat). Alternatively, it is claimed that it means al-nāqa al-dakkāʾ, that is, a camel which has no hump. Based on this interpretation, it is an example of metaphorical borrowing (istiʿāra). What it means is destruction of the barrier—so people say.

He said: This is a mercy from my Lord, that is, Dhū l-Qarnayn said after building the barrier: “This (the barrier) is a mercy from my Lord, that is, a mercy and protection by which the evil of Gog and Magog are held back from nations of people.”

In the words, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, there is omission and implication. The implication is: “This mercy will remain until my Lord’s promise comes. When my Lord’s promise comes He will make it flat—level with the ground.”

26:179The promise means either a promise from Him specific to the barrier— that it will be flattened close to the Hour, making this is an apocalyptic future prediction related by Dhū l-Qarnayn—or His general promise of the coming of the Hour, which will flatten mountains and destroy the world. He emphasizes what he says with (the words), and the promise of my Lord is ever true.

وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِى بَعْضٍ ۖ وَنُفِخَ فِى ٱلصُّورِ فَجَمَعْنَـٰهُمْ جَمْعًا ۝٩٩

18:99 And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict with another part, and the trumpet will be blown, so We will gather them all together;

It is apparent from the context that the plural pronoun refers to the people. This is supported by the fact that the pronoun “them” in, We will gather them, definitely refers to the people because with plurals, what applies to one instance applies to all.

And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict (yamūju) with another part: This is metaphorical borrowing.¹ It means that on that day, they will be beaten around by the severity of the terror like the swelling of the sea, being pushed against each other. They will lose their order, and disorder and chaos will rule. Their Lord will turn away from them, His mercy will not encompass them and their affair will not be put right by His care.

It is as if the verse fills in the blanks of the clause, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground. It is similar to His words elsewhere: Even when Gog and Magog are let loose and they shall break forth from every elevated place. And the true promise shall draw nigh, then lo! the eyes of those who disbelieved shall be fixedly open: O woe to us! surely we were in a state of heedlessness as to this; nay, we were unjust (21:96–97).

In any event, the verse is a prediction of a future apocalyptic event. It has become clear from the above that the word, tark (We will leave) in the verse means what one immediately thinks it does—the opposite of taking. There is no need for what some people have said, that is, that tark actually means making (jaʿl), which is one of its antonyms.

26:180The verse constitutes God’s words and is not the end of what Dhū l-Qarnayn said. The proof of that is the shift from the third person to the first person [plural of majesty] addressing another—the same as earlier on, in the clauses, Surely We established him, and, We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn. If it had been the end of what Dhū l-Qarnayn said, it would have read, “He will leave” in line with, He will make it level with the ground.

And the trumpet will be blown: This is the second blow—which resurrects—as evidenced by words, so We will gather them all together; and the next verse, And We will bring forth hell, exposed to view, on that day before the unbelievers.

ٱلَّذِينَ كَانَتْ أَعْيُنُهُمْ فِى غِطَآءٍ عَن ذِكْرِى وَكَانُوا۟ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَمْعًا ۝١٠١

18:101 Those whose eyes were under a cover from My reminder and they could not even hear.

This explains who are meant by the unbelievers. It is between them and remembrance of Himself that God put up a barrier. That is why it is appropriate to talk about their condition after mentioning Gog and Magog. So He put their eyes under a cover from remembrance of Him and took away the power of hearing from their ears. Thus the way between them and the truth—remembrance of God—has been taken away.

The truth can only be reached with one’s sight by looking at God’s words and being guided by them to what they indicate and guide toward, or with one’s hearing through listening to the wisdom, warning, stories, and lessons. Those people have no sight or hearing.

أَفَحَسِبَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ أَن يَتَّخِذُوا۟ عِبَادِى مِن دُونِىٓ أَوْلِيَآءَ ۚ إِنَّآ أعتدنا جهنم لِل�ٰفِرِين نزلا ۝١

18:102 What! do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be guardians instead of Me? Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers.

The question is rhetorical. Majmaʿ al-bayān says it means:

“Do those who reject belief in the Oneness of God think that they 26:181can take lords instead of Me to help them and stop My punishment from reaching them?”

This implied meaning is evidenced by (the sentence), Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers.

There is a second explanation narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās, namely that it means:

“What! Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take gods instead of Me and that I will not get angry for My own sake and not punish them?”

A third explanation is that the clause, that they can take, is the first object of ḥasiba which means think. Its second object is implied. The implied meaning is:

“What! Do then those who disbelieve think that their taking servants as guardians instead of Me will be of any avail to them and stop them from being punished.”

The difference between this explanation and the two previous ones is that in the two previous explanations, an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of two objects. What is implied is part of the relative phrase. In contrast, according to this third explanation, an (“that”) and its relative phrase is only the first object. The second object is implied.

A fourth explanation is that an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of the two objects. The purpose of these words is to deny their ittikhādh (taking) being true ittikhādh, meaning that it is not ittikhādh at all. This is because ittikhādh can only be mutual, that is, both parties taking each other. Those taken disassociate themselves from them because they say: They shall say: Glory be to You! You are our Guardian, not they . . . (34:41).

The four explanations are in descending order of merit, that is, the first one is the best and is supported by the context provided by the verses. These verses and indeed all the verses in the chapter are there to explain that people have been seduced by the embellishment of life in this world. They have become confused and rely on ostensible causes and take others as guardians instead of God. They think that their guardianship will suffice them, avail them, and keep harm at bay. The truth is that what they will encounter after the trumpet is blown and they are gathered contradicts that because the verse denounces what they think and believe after that had been their inclination. Next, the need to infer a second implied object is eliminated because the permissibility of an (“that”) and its relative phrase take the place of the two objects of ḥasiba, having done so in many other places, for example: Nay! do those who have wrought evil deeds think (ḥasiba) that We will make them like those who believe . . . (45:21).

26:182This is in spite of the fact that some grammarians have said that it is not allowed.

The chosen interpretation is supported by the subsequent verses, Say: Shall We inform you of the greatest losers in (their) deeds? Similarly, it is supported by the recitation attributed to ʿAlī and several others, a fa ḥasbu, meaning: “What! Is taking My servants as guardians instead of Me enough for them?”

The (plural) word “servants” in the sentence, that they can take My servants to be guardians instead of Me, is any of the angels, jinn, and perfect humans worshiped by idolaters.

Some exegetes say that what is meant by them is the Messiah, the angels, and other favored ones like them, but not shayṭāns because the annexation in this word ʿibādi (My servants) is mainly used to honor that which is annexed.

Author’s reply:

1) The context does not suit honoring, as is obvious.

2) Second, the qualifier min dūni (instead of me) explicitly indicates that “those who disbelieve” means the idolaters who do not worship God in spite of acknowledging His divinity, instead they only worship intercessor associates. As for the People of the Book, for example, Christians take the Messiah as a guardian but they do not deny God’s guardianship. On the contrary, they attest to both guardianship and then worship them both as one. This is something the reader should understand. Thus, the fact is that ʿibādī (My servants) does not include the Messiah and humans like him. Rather, it is exclusive to the idolaters’ gods. “Those who disbelieve” means the idolaters alone.

Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the unbelievers, that is, something they enjoy when they first arrive in the hereafter. The hereafter is likened to a home where a guest stays. Hell is likened to entertainment with which a guest is honored when he first arrives. That which comes after two verses adds to the subtlety and beauty of this analogy—that no weight will be assigned to them on the Day of Resurrection. It is as if they will enter hell immediately. There is obvious scorn in the verse. It is as if it was brought on by the way they scorned [God] in this world, as in the verse, . . . and they mocked My Signs and My messengers.

Examining Narrations

26:183Tafsīr al-Qummī says:

“When God’s Messenger related the account of Moses, his servant, and al-Khiḍr, the people asked him: Tell us about a traveler who traveled the world, east and west. Who was he? What was his story? Thereafter, God revealed, And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn . . .”

Author’s comment: The details of this oral tradition came up in the discussion on the story of the Companions of the Cave. Something to the same effect is also narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥatim on the authority of al-Suddī and on the authority of ʿUmar—Ghufra’s freeman. The reader should realize that there is amazing discrepancy, contradiction, and incoherence in all the particulars of the story and in all the aspects of the oral traditions about the story of Dhū l-Qarnayn, narrated by both the Shī‘ah and the Sunnī on the authority of the Prophet and, by the Shī‘ah on the authority of the People of the Household, and, similarly the sayings narrated on the authority of the Companions and successors and treated like sacred hadith by the Sunnī. Furthermore, they contain odd things which a sound intellect shies away from, the mind thinks are impossible, and which the real world refutes. A critical researcher would not doubt if he compared them with each other and reflected on them that they are not free of interpolation, fabrication, and astonishing exaggerations in the story’s description. The strangest of them are those narrated on the authority of Jewish scholars who became Muslims, such as Wahb b. Munabbih, Kaʿb al-Aḥbar or those stories within which are clues which give the impression that they are taken from them—so these are of no help to us. They have been narrated wholesale, numerous and long as they are. We shall refer only briefly to some of the ways in which they differ and suffice ourselves with narrating what is mostly free of discrepancy.

One of the differences between them is over his personage. Most of them say that he was human. Others¹ say that he was an angel from heaven whom God sent down to earth “and granted means of access to everything”. Al-Maqrīzī’s Khiṭaṭ says, on the authority of al-Jāḥiẓ’s Kitāb al-ḥayawan [The book of animals], that Dhū l-Qarnayn’s mother was human but his father was an angel.

26:184Another of the differences is over his characteristics. Most narrations say that he was a pious servant who loved God, so God loved him and advised him and so he in turn dedicated himself sincerely to Him. Some² say that he was a muḥaddath whom the angel came to and spoke to (yuḥaddithuhu). Others³ say that he was a prophet.

Another of the differences is over his name. Some⁴ say that his name was ʿAyyāsh, some⁵ say Iskandar, some⁶ say Marziyā b. Marzaba al-Yūnāni (the Greek) of the progeny of Yūnan son of Yāfith son of Noah, some⁷ Muṣʿab b. ʿAbdullāh of Qaḥṭān, some⁸ say Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāthid, the first of the Tubbaʿ as if he was al-Tubbaʿ Abū Karb and some⁹ say ʿAbdullāh b. Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muʿid. Many other possible names are suggested.

26:185of al-Shirāzī on the authority of Jubayr b. Nufayr on the authority of the Prophet and on the authority of several narrators on the authority of Khālid b. Maʿdān on the authority of the Prophet and on the authority of several narrators on the authority of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb.

Another example is the reason he was called Dhū l-Qarnayn. Some¹⁰ say that he invited his people to God but they hit him on the right side (qarn) of his head and so he went away from them for a while. He then came back to them and invited them to God again, but they hit him on the left side (qarn) of his head. He then went away from them for a while. Then God gave him the means. Thereafter, he traveled the east and west of the earth. That is why he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn. Some¹¹ say that they killed him with the first blow. God then resurrected him. He invited them but they hit him and killed him again. God then resurrected him and raised him to the lowest heaven. He then sent him down to earth and granted him ease of access to everything.

Some¹² say that after the second time he was resurrected, two horns grew where the two wounds were. God put light and darkness at his disposal. Then, when he came down to earth, he traveled and invited to God. He would roar like a lion and his horns would flash up and thunder. If any people were too arrogant for his invitation, he would impose darkness on them until they were forced to respond.

Some¹³ say that he had two horns on his head and he would wind a turban over them, hiding them with it. He was the first to wear a turban. He hid the horns from the people and no one apart from his scribe saw them. He told the scribe not to tell anyone but it became too much for the scribe so he went out to the desert and put his mouth on the ground. He then called out, “Why the king has two horns!” Thereafter God made two pieces of cane grow from his words. A shepherd passed by them and he liked them so he cut them and took them as a mizmār.¹⁴ When he blew it, “Why the king has two horns,” would come out of the two pieces of cane. It then spread around the city and so (Dhū l-Qarnayn) sent for the scribe and tried to make him talk and threatened to kill him if he did not tell the truth. Thereafter, he told him the story and Dhū l-Qarnayn said: This is a matter which God wanted to become public. He then took his turban off his head.

26:186Alternatively, it is claimed¹⁵ that he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn (having two horns) because he was king of two of the earth’s horns (qarnayan)—the east and the west. It is also said¹⁶ that he saw himself taking the two horns of the sun (qarnay al-shams) in a dream. The dream was interpreted to him as becoming king of the east and the west and he became known as Dhū l-Qarnayn. Alternatively, it is claimed¹⁷ that it was because he had two braids in his hair. It is claimed¹⁸ that it is because he was the king of Byzantium and Persia. Alternatively, it is claimed¹⁹ that it is because he had what looked like two horns on his head. It is claimed²⁰ that it was because he had two golden horns on his crown. There are other explanations.

Another example of the differences [relate to] his journey to the west and the east. The greatest discrepancy is over this. It is narrated²¹ that the clouds were put at his disposal and so he would ride the clouds and travel to the west and east of the earth. It is narrated²² that he reached Mount Qāf, which is the green mountain surrounding the earth from which the sky’s green color comes.²³

26:187It is narrated²⁴ that he sought the spring of life and was given directions to it into the darkness. He entered the darkness. Al-Khiḍr was in his vanguard. Dhū l-Qarnayn was not blessed with drinking from it but al-Khiḍr drank and bathed in water from it. He was then granted everlasting life. These narrations say that the darkness was to the east.

Another example of the discrepancy is over the position of the barrier which he built. Some²⁵ say that it is in the east, whereas others²⁶ say that it is in the north. Some narrations exaggerated so much as to say²⁷ that the length of the barrier, that is, between the two mountains, was a hundred farsakhs, ²⁸ its width was fifty farsakhs and its height was the height of the two mountains. He dug a foundation for it until he reached water and made rock its filling and copper its clay. He then raised it high with blocks of iron and molten brass and made yellow copper veins along it and so it became like a stained garment (burd).

Another example of differences [relate to] the description of Gog and Magog. It is narrated²⁹ that they are Turks of the progeny of Yāfith son of Noah who made mischief in the land so a barrier was put up against them. Alternatively, it is narrated³⁰ that they are not of the children of Adam. A number³¹ of narrations say that they are a proliferous people, not one of their males or females dies before he (or she) had begotten a thousand children, and that they are more numerous than the rest of humanity, to the point that some³² narrations say that they are nine times more numerous than the rest of mankind. It is narrated³³ that they are so cruel and fierce that they do not pass by a single farm animal, predator or person without attacking and eating him, her or it, a single crop or tree without grazing it or body of water without drinking it and drying it up. It is narrated³⁴ that they are two peoples, each of whom is made up of four hundred thousand people, each nation so numerous that they can only be counted by God.

26:188al-manthūr on the authority of ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd and others on the authority of ʿIkrima.

It is narrated³⁵ that there are three groups of them. One group of them is like rice—tall trees. The width of the second group is the same as their height—four arm spans by four arm spans. The third group is the toughest of them. They have two ears and use one to lay down on and the other as a blanket. The outside and inside of one of their ears is covered in fur to keep them warm while the outside and inside of the other one is covered in down to keep them cool in summer. They have hair straight all over their bodies, concealing them. It is narrated that one³⁶ of them measures one, two or three handspans. It is further narrated³⁷ that the ones who fought them have faces like dogs.

26:189ʿAlī and on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of Qatāda; Nūr al-thaqalayn citing ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ on the authority of al-ʿAskarī.

Another discrepancy is over the time of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s reign. Some³⁸ say that it was after Noah (Nūḥ). It is narrated³⁹ that it was during the time of and contemporary with Abraham. He went on hajj to the House [Kaʿba], met him and shook his hand. It was the first handshake on the face of the earth. Alternatively, it is narrated⁴⁰ that it was during the time of David.

Another difference is over the length of his reign. Some narrate⁴¹ thirty years, others⁴² twelve years. There are other discrepancies which anyone who refers to the oral traditions telling the story in hadith collections will come across—especially al-Durr al-manthūr, Biḥār al-anwar, al-Burhān, and Nūr al-thaqalayn.

Kamāl al-Dīn says via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta:

“Ibn al-Kawwāʾ came near ʿAlī’s face while he was on the pulpit and said: Commander of the Faithful, tell me about Dhū l-Qarnayn. Was he a prophet or an angel (malak)? Tell me about his horns. Were they made of gold or silver? He replied: He was neither a prophet nor an angel. His horns were neither gold nor silver. However, he was a servant who loved God and whom God 26:190loved. He sincerely helped God so God helped him. He was only known as Dhū l-Qarnayn because he invited his people to God, but they hit him on the side of his head. Thereafter he went away from them for a while, then came back to them. They then hit him on the other side of his head. There is among you the like of him.” Author’s comment: It is likely that the narration says angel (malak) and not king (malik) because of the plethora (istifāḍa) of oral traditions on his authority and on the authority of another about Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being an angel. Thus, his denial of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being a prophet or angel (malak) was a denial by him of the authenticity of what had been narrated on the authority of the Prophet in some oral traditions—that he was one of the angels. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb used to say that, as mentioned above.

“There is among you the like of him”—that is, the like of Dhū l-Qarnayn with regard to his two head wounds—is an allusion to himself because he was struck by ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Widd and by ʿAbd al-Raḥman b. al-Muljam and was martyred as a result of that. It is a narration reported by numerous sources—but not quite enough to be irrefutable—in various wordings on his authority both by the Shī‘ah and the Sunnī. The simplest worded is the one cited. The narrator’s hand has tampered with the meaning, making it appear in amazing forms and it is therefore corrupt.

Al-Durr al-manthūr says, Ibn Mardawayh cites on the authority of Sālim b. Abī l-Jaʿd that ʿAlī was asked whether Dhū l-Qarnayn was a prophet. He replied: “I heard your Prophet say: He was a servant who sincerely helped God, so He helped him.”

Al-Iḥtijāj by al-Ṭabrasī says, within a long hadith on the authority of al-Ṣādiq, the person asking the question said: Tell me where the sun sets. He replied: “One of the scholars has said: When it descends to the bottom of the dome, the orbit takes it round to the belly of heaven, perpetually rising until it sinks to where it rises, that is, it sets in a black sea, then breaks through the earth on the way back to where it rises and is confused under the Throne until it is granted permission to rise. Its light is taken away every day and it echoes red light, When he found it going down into a black sea . . . where it rises.”

Author’s comment: The verse, When he found it going down into a black sea . . . where it rises, is an explanation of the course taken by the sun from the time it sets until it rises again in its celestial orbit as per Ptolemy’s theory of orbit in those days, based on belief in the earth’s remaining stationary and heavenly bodies revolving around it. That is why he attributed it to one of the scholars.

26:191The words, “that is, it sets in a black sea, then breaks through the earth on the way back to where it rises” are the words of one of the narrators of the oral tradition, not his words. Thus because of the narrator’s inability to understand, he explained God’s words, going down into a black sea, as the sun’s going down in a sea and disappearing in it, then swimming in it like a fish in water and breaking through the earth until it reaches the point where it rises, then going under the Throne, which according to the narrator’s belief, was a heaven above the seven heavens or a luminous body—the greatest in existence—placed above the seventh heaven. It remains there until it is granted permission to rise. It is clothed in red light and it rises.

The narrator is alluding in (the statement), “and is confused under the Throne until it is granted permission” to another oral tradition narration attributed to the Prophet, which says that the angels take the sun away after it sets and stop it under the Throne. Its light is taken away and it remains there without knowing what it will be ordered to do the following morning until it is clothed in light and ordered to rise.

He made the same mistake in explaining the Throne there as he made in explaining the sunset here and so he got further and further away from the truth.

There is no explanation of the Throne as the ninth planet or as a high luminous body in the shape of a bed in the Book or in any reliable Sunna. His understanding fabricated it. We have already discussed most of the oral traditions on the Throne at the beginning of part 8 of this book [i.e., the Arabic edition].

There is in his statement, “one of the scholars has said”—something of an allusion to the fact that this opinion was not approved by him. In spite of that he could not allow the truth to be told, but why not? If naiveté in understanding led to this among the people of his time with regard to a proposition which was easy to conceptualize, one shudders to think what they would have done if they had been taught something which cannot be confirmed by their outward senses or comprehended by the limit of their thought.

Al-Durr al-manthūr says that ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim cite via ʿUthmān b. Abī Ḥāḍir Ibn ʿAbbās’ telling them that Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān recited the verse which is in Sūrat al-Kahf: going down into a hot sea. Ibn ʿAbbās said, I told Muʿawiya:

26:192“We only recite ḥamiʾa (black). Muʿāwiya then asked ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar: And how do you recite it? ʿAbdullāh replied: As you have recited it. Ibn ʿAbbās said: So I told Muʿāwiya: The Qur’an was revealed in my household. Thereafter, he sent a note to Kaʿb asking him: Where do you find the sun setting in the Torah? Kaʿb told him: Ask the people of the Arabic language because they know best. As for myself, I find that in the Torah, the sun sets in water and clay. He pointed to the west. Ibn Abī Ḥāḍir said: How would you like my telling you something through which you could gain insight into hamiʾatin? Ibn ʿAbbās replied: What is that? I replied: Among what we find is what Tubbaʿ says referring to Dhū l-Qarnayn—about his fondness and pursuit of knowledge: Dhū l-Qarnayn lived as a Muslim; other kings served him and mobilized troops for him; he came to the east and the west seeking means of access to rule from a wise guide, and he saw the sun disappear at sunset into a sea which had khalb and thaʾṭ ḥarmad. “Ibn ʿAbbās asked: What is khalb? I replied: Clay, in their language. He asked: What is thaʾṭ? I replied: Mud. He asked: What is ḥarmad? I replied: Black. Ibn ʿAbbās then called a servant and told him: Write what this man says.”

Author’s comment: The hadith does not fit in so well with the ways of reciting considered to be incontrovertible and which people have settled upon. Ibn Hishām’s al-Tījān cites the same hadith but adds that Ibn ʿAbbās recited these lines of poetry to Muʿāwiya and Muʿāwiya asked him what khalb, thaʾṭ, and ḥarmad mean. He replied: Khalb means mud and thaʾṭ means the clay underneath it. Ḥarmad means the pebbles and stones underneath that. He then cited the qaṣīda (ode). This discrepancy warns of some problem with the oral tradition.

Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of Abū Baṣīr on the authority of Abū Jaʿfar regarding God’s words: whom We had given no shelter from it. He replied: “They did not know how to build houses.”

Tafsīr al-Qummī says about the same verse (whom We had given no shelter from it): “They did not know how to make clothes.”

Al-Durr al-manthūr says: Ibn Mundhir cites on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās about the words, Until, when he reached between al-saddayn. He said: The two mountains—Armenia and Azerbaijan.

26:193Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of al-Mufaḍḍal: I asked al-Ṣādiq about the words, I will make a fortified barrier (radman) between you and them. He replied:

“Dissimulation (taqiyya). So they were not able to scale it nor could they make a hole in it [18:97]. When you act with taqiyya, they cannot get the better of you by cunning. It is impregnable protection. It has become a barrier between you and your enemies in which they cannot make a hole.”

It also says on the authority of Jābir, on his authority, regarding the same verse: [It means]Taqiyya.

Author’s comment: Both oral traditions are examples of demonstrating the Qur’an’s continuing relevance and applicability and are not proper exegesis.

Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī says on the authority of al-Aṣbagh b. Nubāta on the authority of ʿAlī: And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict with another part, means the Day of Resurrection.

Author’s comment: The context indicates that it is one of the portents of the Hour. It may be what is meant by the Day of Resurrection. It may also be correct to call some of the events leading up to it the “Day of Resurrection.”

It [Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī] also says on the authority of Muḥammad b. Ḥakīm:

“I wrote a note to Abū ʿAbdullāh asking: Can the soul know? He said: No. So I asked: God says: Those whose eyes were under a cover from My reminder and they could not even hear. He said: It is like His words: they could not bear to hear and they did not see (11:20). I asked: And so He censured them? He replied: He did not censure them for what He had done to them. However, He did censure them for what they had done. If they had not been pretentious, they would not have been accountable for anything.” Author’s comment: that is, They caused this veil so they are responsible for its consequences.

Tafsīr al-Qummī says about the same verse [Those whose eyes were under a cover . . .]: “They would not look at the signs, the heavens and the earth God had created.”

Author’s comment: In ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā, on the authority of al-Riḍā, the verse is applied to those who deny the Imams’ guardianship. However this is an example of demonstrating the Qur’an’s continued relevance and applicability.

About the Story of Dhū l-Qarnayn

A Qur’anic and Historical Study Divided into Sections

1. The Story of Dhū l-Qarnayn in the Qur’an

26:194His name, the history of the time of his birth, his life, lineage, and all his other particular characteristics are not addressed as was customary in the stories (of the people of) the past. Rather, the Qur’an suffices itself with mentioning three journeys he made. The first was to the West, until he reached where the sun sets—he found it setting in a black or hot sea and found a people there. His second journey was to the East, until he reached where the sun rises—he found it rising on a people for whom God had not made any shelter. His third journey was to a place between two mountains—he found on that side of them a people who could hardly understand a word. They complained to him about the mischief made in the land by Gog and Magog and offered to pay him a tribute in exchange for his building a barrier between their people and Gog and Magog. He fulfilled their request by building the barrier and promised them that he would build it above their expectations, refusing to take any tribute. He only asked them to help him with parts and labor. In the story, there is reference to men and blocks of iron, bellows, and molten brass.

The particulars and fundamental aspects which can be understood from the story are:

First: That the person the story is about was called Dhū l-Qarnayn before the story in the Qur’an was revealed and indeed even in his lifetime, as is clear from the context: And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn . . . (18:83). We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn . . . (18:86). They said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn . . . (18:94).

Second: He believed in God and the Final Day and followed the religion of Truth, as is clear from His words: This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, and the promise of my Lord is ever true (18:98). As to him who is unjust, we will chastise him, then shall he be returned to his Lord, and He will chastise him with an exemplary chastisement (18:87). And as for him who believes and does good . . . (18:88).

26:195It adds to his religious standing that His words, either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit, indicate his being supported with revelation, inspiration or one of God’s prophets who was with him to guide him by communicating the revelation to him.

Third: He was one of those for whom God had brought together all the good of this world and the hereafter. As for the good of this world, it was the mighty kingdom which took him from where the sun sets to where it rises. Nothing stood up to him and all means of access were at his disposal. As for the good of the hereafter, it was universal administration of justice, establishment of the truth, forgiveness, pardon, gentleness, self-respect, spreading good, and keeping evil at bay. This is all evidenced by His words: Surely We established him in the land and granted him means of access to everything (18:84), as well as what can be inferred from the context—his physical and spiritual superiority.

Fourth: He came about upon a nation of evildoers in the west and punished them.

Fifth: The fortified barrier which he built was neither where the sun sets nor where it rises because after he reached where the sun rises, he followed another course until he reached a place between the two mountains.

One of the features of his fortified barrier—in addition to not being in the west or the east—was that it was between two mountains like walls; he filled the space between the two mountain sides and used blocks of iron and molten brass to build it. It had to have been in a mountain pass which was the link between two of the populated world’s edges.

2 Reference to Dhū l-Qarnayn, the Barrier, Gog and Magog

In the traditions of the ancient (peoples), the early historians make no reference to a king who was called Dhū l-Qarnayn in his (the king’s) lifetime or what means the same as that in languages other than Arabic, of Ya’juj and Ma’juj with those precise spellings or of a barrier attributable to him by name. True, boastful poetry mentioning Dhū l-Qarnayn is attributed to one of the kings of the Yemeni Ḥimyar. It says that he was one of his Tubbaʿ¹ ancestors. It mentions his journey from the west to the east, the barrier against Gog and Magog. The reader will see some of them in later sections.

26:196Magog, or Gog and Magog are mentioned in several places in the Books of the Old Testament. Genesis 10:1–2 says:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

Ezekiel 38:1–15 says:

And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying: Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say: Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; and I will turn you about, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring you forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed most gorgeously, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them handling swords: Persia, Cush, and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the north, and all his bands; even many peoples with you. Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto you, and be thou guarded of them. After many days thou shalt be mustered for service, in the latter years thou shalt come against the land that is brought back from the sword, that is gathered out of many peoples, against the mountains of Israel, which have been a continual waste; but it is brought forth out of the peoples, and they dwell safely all of them. And thou shalt ascend, thou shalt come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many peoples with you. Thus saith the Lord God: It shall come to pass in that day, that things shall come into thy mind, and thou shalt devise an evil device; and thou shalt say: I will go up against the land of unwalled villages; I will come upon them that are at quiet, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates; to take the spoil and to take the prey; to turn thy hand against the waste places that are now inhabited, and against the people that are gathered out of the nations, that have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the middle of the earth. Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the magnates thereof, shall say unto you: Comest thou to take the spoil? hast thou assembled thy company to take the prey? To carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take great spoil? Therefore, son of man, prophesy, and say unto Gog: Thus saith the Lord God: In that day when My people Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? And thou shalt come from thy place out of the uttermost parts of the north . . .

26:197Ezekiel² 39:1–6 says, continuing from the above:

And thou, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say: Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; and I will turn you about and lead you on, and will cause you to come up from the uttermost parts of the north; and I will bring you upon the mountains of Israel; and I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand. Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the peoples that are with you; I will give you unto the ravenous birds of every sort and to the beasts of the field, to be devoured. Thou shalt fall upon the open field; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God. And I will send a fire on Magog, and on them that dwell safely in the isles; and they shall know that I am the Lord.

Revelation 20 says:

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and 26:198reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

It is understood from this that Magog, or Gog and Magog were a mighty nation or nations which lived in the farthest north of Asia of the populated world at that time. They were belligerent peoples known for forays and raids.

It is now appropriate to make an educated guess that this Dhū l-Qarnayn was one of the great kings who blocked the way of these mischief-makers in the land. The barrier attributed to him has to be a partition between a northern area and south of the continent of Asia, for example, the Great Wall of China, Bāb al-Abwāb, the Dāriyāl Barrier or one of the other ones.

Today the histories of peoples have acknowledged that a large savage, nomadic nation used to live in the northeast part of Asia—mountains and elevated areas in the north of China. They were ever growing in numbers and banding together. They attacked neighboring nations like China. They may have come down from their mountains and descended into the countries of Central Asia and the rest of the world, reaching northern Europe. Some of them settled in the countries they raided, like the majority of the inhabitants of northern Europe. It became populated with them and they busied themselves with agriculture and manufacture. Some of them went back, then returned time and again.³

26:199This also supports what we think to be likely—that the barrier under discussion is one of the barriers found in northern Asia dividing the north from the south.

1. Who is Dhū l-Qarnayn and Where is his Barrier?

Historians and exegetes have various opinions on the matter depending on their different views on what the story applies to.

(a) Some of them attribute the barrier referred to in the Qur’an is the Great Wall of China between China and Mongolia built by Qin Shi Huang, one of the Chinese Huangs, to stop attacks by the Mongols against China. It is three thousand kilometers long, nine meters wide, and twenty-five meters high. It was built with stone. Building commenced in 264 BCE and it was completed in ten or twenty years. Based on this premise, Dhū l-Qarnayn was the aforementioned Huang.

Comment: This is refuted by the fact that Dhū l-Qarnayn and his barrier’s attributes and characteristics as mentioned in the Qur’an do not apply to this Huang and the Great Wall of China. There is no mention of this Huang’s traveling from his land to the far west. Further, the barrier mentioned in the Qur’an is described as being a fortified barrier (radm) between two mountains. Blocks of iron and qiṭr, that is, molten brass, were used to build it. The Great Wall of China is three thousand kilometers long, stretching along flat land and mountains but it is not between two mountains. It is built of stone and no iron or molten brass was used to construct it.

(b) Some attribute the builder of the barrier to one of the Assyrian kings.⁴ In about the seventh century before the birth of Christ, Scythian nations⁵ would raid from the Caucasus mountain passes to Armenia then in the west of Iran and may even have reached the lands of Assyria, the capital of which was Nineveh. They engulfed them, killing, taking prisoners, and pillaging so the kings of Nineveh built a barrier to stop them. It is as if what is meant by (Dhū l-Qarnayn’s barrier) is Bāb al-Abwāb, construction or repair of which is attributed to Kisrā Anūshirwān, one of the kings of Persia.

26:200in the north and the environs of Turkistan in the west. Narrated on the authority of Ibn Miskawayh: Fākihat al-khulafāʾ and Tahdhīb al-akhlāq; see also Rasāʾil Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ.

Comment: However, the inapplicability of the particulars of the story counts against it.

(c) Rūḥ al-maʿānī says:

It is said that he, that is, Dhū l-Qarnayn was Farīydūn son of Athfiyān son of Jamshīd, the fifth king Avestan king. He was a just king who obeyed God. Ṣuwar al-aqālīm by Abū Zayd al-Balkhī says: He was guided by revelation. All history books say that he was the king of the world and divided it (the world) among his three sons: Iraj, Salm, and Tur. He gave Iraj Iraq, India, and the Ḥijāz and put him in charge of the crown. He gave Salm Rome, and the lands of Egypt and Morocco. He gave Tur China, Turkey, and the East. He imposed a law for each of them to rule by. The three codes of law were called siyāsa which is the Arabized form of Sī Aysā, which means three codes of law.

The reason he was called Dhū l-Qarnayn was either (1) because he was king of the two edges of the world; or (2) because of the length of his reign; according to Rawḍat al-ṣafā, he ruled for five hundred years, or, (3) because of his enormous courage and his defeating other kings.

Comment: The problem with this interpretation is that history does not recognize it.

(d) It is said that Dhū l-Qarnayn was Alexander of Macedon. This is the most popularly ascribed opinion and Alexander’s barrier has become idiomatic. Some oral traditions attest to it, for example, the one in Qurb al-isnād on the authority of Mūsā b. Jaʿfar, an oral tradition on the authority of ʿĀmir on the authority of the Prophet, and Wahb b. Munabbih’s oral tradition, both of which are narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr.

Comment: Some early exegetes among the Companions and successors give credence to this, for example, Muʿadh b. Jabal according to Majmaʿ al-bayān and Qatāda, according to what is narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr. Abū ʿAlī b. Sīnā describes him as Dhū l-Qarnayn when he mentions him in Kitāb al-shifāʾ and Imam al-Rāzī insists on it in al-Tafsīr al-kabīr.

26:201An abridged version of what he says is:

The Qur’an indicates that the man’s kingdom extended to the far west, far east, and to the north. That is the whole of the populated world. The name of a kingdom like that has to be preserved in history. The only king renowned in history books for having a kingdom stretching this far is Alexander.

That is because after his father died, he gathered together the kings of Greece⁶ and North Africa and defeated them, ending up at the Green Sea, then Egypt. He built Alexandria, then entered Syria, targeted the Israelites, came to Bayt al-Maqdis and made a sacrifice on its altar. He then turned toward Armenia and Bāb al-Abwāb. The Iraqis, Egyptians, and Berbers became subject to him and he seized Iran. He headed for India and China and raided the remote nations. He returned to Khurāsān and built many cities, then returned to Iraq. He died in Shahrzūr or Rūmiyyat al-Madāʾin and was taken to Alexandria where he was buried. He lived for thirty-three years and his reign lasted twelve years. Because of what the Qur’an says—that Dhū l-Qarnayn was the king of most of the populated world—and it is recorded in history that this was true of Alexander, there has to be no doubt that Dhū l-Qarnayn means Alexander.

1) History does not concede what he said—that the only king ever to have ruled most of the populated world was Alexander of Macedon. There were other kings equal to him or who ruled over more than he did.

2) History does not describe Alexander with Dhū l-Qarnayn’s characteristics as mentioned in the Qur’an and may even refute his being Dhū l-Qarnayn. The Qur’an states that Dhū l-Qarnayn believed in God and the Final Day, which is monotheistic belief. Alexander was a Sabaean idolater as evidenced by his making a sacrifice to Jupiter. The Qur’an states that Dhū l-Qarnayn was one of God’s gentle, just, and pious servants, whereas history tells that Alexander was the exact opposite.

3) None of the historians record Alexander of Macedon’s having built a barrier against Gog and Magog as described in the Qur’an.

Al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya says in an oral tradition about Dhū 26:202l-Qarnayn:

Isḥāq b. Bishr says on the authority of Saʿīd b. Bashīr on the authority of Qatāda: Alexander was Dhū l-Qarnayn. His father was the first caesar and was of Sām son of Noah’s offspring. The second Dhū l-Qarnayn was Alexander son of Philip—whose lineage traces back to Esau son of Isaac son of Abraham—the Macedonian, the Greek, the Egyptian, founder of Alexandria by whose days Rome was dated. He came a long time after the first one.

He lived approximately three hundred years before Christ. Aristotle the philosopher was his vizier. It was he who killed Dārā son of Dārā, subjugated the kings of Persia, and trampled their land.

The only reason we have drawn attention to it is because many people believe that they are one and the same and that the one mentioned in the Qur’an is the one whose vizier was Aristotle, thus erring in the process. Corruption far and wide results, because the former was a pious, believing servant whose vizier was al-Khiḍr who was a prophet as we have established above, whereas the latter was a polytheist whose vizier was a philosopher. There is more than two thousand years’ difference between the times when they lived. One has nothing to do with the other. They are not the same. Only an ignorant person who does not know the truth of matters would get them mixed up.

Imam Rāzī and what he said (above) are insinuated in the above quote. However, if the reader were to scrutinize closely what (Imam Rāzī) said, as quoted, and to compare it with what (Ibn Kathīr) said, he would discover that Ibn Kathīr’s error is no less than Imam Rāzī’s because there is no trace in history of any king over two thousand three hundred years before Christ who was king of the world from the far west to the far east and to the north, who built the barrier, who was a pious believer or even a prophet, whose vizier was al-Khiḍr, who entered the darkness seeking the water of life and whose name was Alexander or anything else.

(e) A number of historians, for example, al-Aṣmaʿī in Tārīkh al-ʿArab qabl al-islām [The history of the Arabs before Islam], Ibn Hishām in his Sīra, and al-Tījān, and Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī in al-Athār al-bāqiya, Nashwān b. Saʿīd al-Ḥimyarī in Shams al-ʿulūm—as is narrated on their authority—and others have stated that Dhū l-Qarnayn was one of the Yemeni Adhwāʾ Tubbaʿ, ⁷ one of the kings of Ḥimyar.

26:203They disagree over his name. It is claimed that he was called Muṣʿab b. ʿAbdullāh. In the alternative, it is claimed that his name was Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāʾid who was the first of the Tubbaʿ. It was he who passed judgment in Abraham’s favor in the predators’ well. It is claimed that he was Tubbaʿ of al-Aqran whose name was Ḥassān. Al-Aṣmaʿī says that he was Asʿad al-Kāmil the fourth Tubbaʿ son of Ḥassān al-Aqran, king of Karb, the second Tubbaʿ son of Malik the first Tubbaʿ. Alternatively, it is said that his name was Shammar Yarʿish.

Dhū l-Qarnayn is mentioned and boasted about in many of the Ḥimyarī poems and in some of those of the poets of the Days of Ignorance. Al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya says: Ibn Hishām recited al-Aʿsha’s poem:⁸

al-Ṣaʿb, Dhū l-Qarnayn became buried

With horns pointing backwards in the grave, the most highborn burial

It was stated above in the discussion on the relevant narrations that ʿUthmān b. Abī al-Ḥāḍir recited to Ibn ʿAbbās what one of the Ḥimyarī had said:

26:204Dhū l-Qarnayn my grandfather was a Muslim

A king whom other kings gave service and mustered

He reached the eastern and western horizons seeking

The means of command from a wise guide

He saw where the sun disappears when it sets

Into a sea which has clay and black mud

Al-Maqrīzī says in Khiṭaṭ al-Maqrīzī:

Know that the authoritative opinion among the scholars of oral traditions is that Dhū l-Qarnayn to whom God refers in His noble Book was an Arab—And they ask you about Dhū l-Qarnayn. Say: I will recite to you an account of him. Surely We established him in the land and granted him means of access to everything. He is mentioned often in Arab poetry.

His name was al-Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāʾid b. al-Ḥārith al-Rāʾish b. al-Himāl Dhī Sadad b. ʿAd Dhī Manḥ b. ʿĀr al-Milṭāṭ b. Saksak b. Wāʾil b. Ḥimyar b. Sabā b. Yashjab b. Yaʿrab b. Qaḥṭān b. Hūd b. ʿĀbir b. Shāliḥ b. Arfkhashud b. Sām b. Nūḥ. He was one of the kings of Ḥimyar who were pure Arabs (al-ʿArab al-ʿāriba).⁹ They are also known as al-ʿArab al-ʿurabāʾ. Dhū l-Qarnayn was a crowned Tubbaʿ. When he became king, he was a tyrant but he then humbled himself before God and joined al-Khiḍr. Anyone who thinks that Alexander son of Philip was Dhū l-Qarnayn who built the barrier is wrong. This is because the word Dhū is Arabic. Dhū l-Qarnayn was one of the Arabs’ honorific titles for the kings of Yemen. The other man was Greco-Roman.¹⁰

Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī says:

The general consensus of the people of the first book¹¹ is that al-Khiḍr was around in the days of Afrīdūn al-Malik b. al-Ḍaḥḥāk. It is also said that he was around in the days of Moses son of ʿImrān. It is claimed that he was in Dhū l-Qarnayn the Great’s vanguard who was around during the days of Abraham the friend and that al-Khiḍr reached the river of life with Dhū l-Qarnayn during the days of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s journey. Al-Khiḍr drank from its water without Dhū l-Qarnayn’s knowledge or that of anyone with him. He received everlasting life and remains alive among them to this day. Others say that Dhū l-Qarnayn, who was around during the time of Abraham the friend, was Afrīdūn son of Ḍaḥḥāk and that al-Khiḍr was in his vanguard.

26:205In al-Tijān fī maʿrifat mulūk al-zamān, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hishām says after mentioning Dhū l-Qarnayn’s lineage which we have cited:

He was a crowned Tubbaʿ. When he became king, he was a tyrant but then he became humble and joined al-Khiḍr at Bayt al-Maqdis. He traveled with him to the eastern and western climes and they were granted means of access to everything as God relates. He built the barrier against Gog and Magog and died in Iraq. As for Alexander, he was Greek. He was known as Alexander of Macedon. Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about Dhū l-Qarnayn. He replied: He was from Ḥimyar. He was al-Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāʾid whom God established in the land and whom He granted means of access to everything. He reached the two horns of the sun and the top of the earth and built a barrier against Gog and Magog. He was asked: What about Alexander? He replied: He was a pious, wise Greek man who built a lighthouse at the sea in Africa. He took the land of Rome and came to the sea of the Arabs. He left a great heritage among the Arabs—manufacture and cities.

Kaʿb al-Aḥbār was asked about Dhū l-Qarnayn. He replied:

What has come down from our rabbis and ancestors and is correct is that he was from Ḥimyar and that he was al-Ṣaʿb b. Dhī l-Marāʾid. Alexander was a man from Greece of the progeny of Esau son of Isaac son of Abraham the friend (of God). Alexander’s men¹² including Galinus and Aristotle lived to see the Messiah son of Maryam.

26:206Al-Hamadānī says in Kitāb al-ansāb:

Kahlān b. Saba begat Zayd and Zayd begat ʿUrayb and Malik and Ghālib and ʿUmaykrab. Haytham said: ʿUmaykrab b. Sabā was the brother of Ḥimyar and Kahlān. ʿUmaykrab begat Abū Malik then Daraḥa and Muhaylīl sons of ʿUmaykrab. Ghālib begat Junāda b. Ghālib who became king after Muhaylīl son of ʿUmaykrab son of Sabā. ʿUrayb begat ʿAmr and ʿAmr begat Zayd, Humaysaʿ. His teknonym (kunyā) was Abū l-Ṣaʿb and he was the first Dhū l-Qarnayn. He was the surveyor [i.e., builder]. It is about him that al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr says:

Who among the people as a band will oppose us

In terms of generosity when Dhū l-Qarnayn and Ḥātim were of us. Al-Ḥārithī says about him:

Name one of your own that we may know him

Who had the name Malik in the Days of Ignorance

Like the two Tubbaʿs and Dhū l-Qarnayn.

Accepted by the people of discernment; the most correct word is the above.

Ibn Abī Dhiʾb al-Khuzāʿī says about him:

One of us was he who traveled far to the east and west

And climbed up in all the lands and every hill

He reached the horn of the sun in the east and the west

He laid the foundation of the barrier then raised up a fortified barrier against Magog

That was Dhū l-Qarnayn the pride of Ḥimyar

Not even an army of elephants could be reckoned or considered a match for him.

Al-Hamadāni says: The scholars of Hamadān say: Dhū l-Qarnayn was al-Ṣaʿb b. Mālik b. al-Ḥārith al-Āʿla b. Rabīʿa b. al-Ḥayyār b. Mālik. There are many opinions on Dhū l-Qarnayn.

It is comprehensive. The following can be understood from it:

1) More than one of the kings of Ḥimyar was addressed by the honorific title Dhū l-Qarnayn. There was a first, great Dhū l-Qarnayn and others.

2) The first Dhū l-Qarnayn was the one who built the barrier against Gog and Magog several centuries before Alexander of Macedon. He was a contemporary of Abraham the friend (of God) or came after him. The latter follows necessarily from what Ibn Hishām relates about his meeting al-Khiḍr at Bayt al-Maqdis which was built several centuries after Abraham in the time of David and Solomon (Sulāyman). In any event he came before him—the history of the kings of Ḥimyar is vague.

26:207Two points in relation to his chosen opinion remain to be discussed: 1) Where is this barrier which he—the Ḥimyarī Tubbaʿ—built?

2) Who was this nation who made mischief in the land whom he built the barrier against. Is this barrier one of those built in Yemen or its environs, for example, the Maʾrib Dam or other dams. The problem is that they were dams built to store drinking and irrigation water, not as a barrier. Furthermore, blocks of iron and molten brass—mentioned by God in His Book—were not used to build it or any of the others. Was there a nation which made mischief and attacked them? The fact is that no one but the Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldaeans, and other civilized city-dwelling people surrounded them.

One of our top contemporary researchers¹³ supports the view. A summary of what he says is as follows:

Dhū l-Qarnayn as mentioned in the Qur’an lived several centuries before Alexander of Macedon. He was not one and the same. Rather, he was one of the pious Tubābaʿa al-Adhwāʾ kings of Yemen. He was of the character of a group of them called Dhī, for example, Dhī Hamadān, Dhī Ghamdān, Dhī Manār, Dhī l-Adhʿār, Dhī Yazn, etc.

He was a monotheistic Muslim, just, well-behaved, strong, aweinspiring, and brave. He traveled with a vast army toward the west, seized Egypt and what was beyond. He then continued traveling along the shore of the Mediterranean until he reached the edge of the Atlantic, so he found the sun setting in a black or hot sea. He then traveled back toward the east, building Afrikiyya¹⁴ on his way. He was fiercely passionate and had experience in building and construction. He carried on traveling until he passed the peninsula and steppes of Central Asia. He reached Turkistan and the Great Wall of China. There he found a people for whom God had not made shelter from the sun.

26:208He then turned toward the north until he reached the Tropic of Cancer (madār al-saraṭān). That may be what is commonly referred to as his entering the darkness. The people of that country asked him to build them a wall to keep out Gog and Magog because Yemenis—of whom Dhū l-Qarnayn was one—were known for building barriers and for their experience in doing so. Thus, he built them a barrier.

If this barrier is the Great Wall between China and Mongolia, that constituted repair of the parts of the wall which had been destroyed by the passage of time because one of the Huangs of China had built it originally, before that. If it was some other barrier then there is no problem. One of the things Dhū l-Qarnayn— whose real name was Shammar Yarʿish—built in those areas was the city of Samarqand, ¹⁵ so people say.

What supports that is Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being the pious Arab king the Bedouin asked God’s Messenger about. The noble Qur’an refers to him as a reminder and as a lesson. It would have been easier to accept than reference to the story of one of the Greek, Persian or Chinese kings, remote nations the Bedouin had no desire to hear tales about or learn from their heritage. That is why the Qur’an did not address any of their tales.

The only remaining problem with this theory is that there is no way that the Great Wall of China can be Dhū l-Qarnayn’s barrier because Dhū l-Qarnayn—as he stated—lived several centuries before Alexander. The man who built the Great Wall of China came approximately half a century after Alexander. There are some other barriers apart from the Great Wall to the north but it is said that they are built from stone. There is no trace in them of blocks of iron or molten brass.

Tafsīr al-jawāhir says after an introduction, the gist of which is that with the help of engravings uncovered in the ruins of Yemen, out of the states of Yemen, three states are known:

1) The state of Muʿīn, the capital of which was Qarnāʾ. Archeologists¹⁶ estimate that the remains of the state of Qarnāʾ originate from the fourteenth century BCE to the seventh or eighth century BCE. They have come across evidence of some of the kings of this state—there are twenty-six of them, for example, Ab Yadaʿ or Ab Yadaʿ Yanīʿ, that is, al-Munqid.

26:2092) The state of Sabā, that is, the Qaḥṭānīs who were originally Adhwāʾ then Aqyāl. Sabā, whose palace was Ṣarwāḥ in eastern Ṣanaʿa, proved to the brightest of all of them. He gained the upper hand over all the others. Their reign ran from 850 BCE to 115 BCE. Twenty-seven of their kings are known, twenty-five of whom were known as Makrib, for example, Makrib Yathʿamir, Makrib Dhimr ʿAlā, and twelve of them were just called Malik (king), for example, Malik Dharḥ and Malik Yarīm Ayman.

3) The Ḥimyarī state—in two stages. The first—the kings of Sabā and Rīdān ruled from 275 BCE to 115 BCE. They were just kings (mulūk). The second stage of kings were kings of Sabā, Rīdān, Hadramawt and elsewhere. There were fourteen of them. Most of them were Tubbaʿs. The first one was Shammar Yarʿish, the second was Dhū l-Qarnayn, the third ʿAmr, that is, Bilqīs’¹⁷ husband. The last one was Dhī Jadn. They ruled from 275 CE to 525 CE.

The link to the kings of Yemen through bearing the honorific title of Dhī is clear. We do not find any other kings, for example, the kings of Greece being called Dhī. Thus, Dhū l-Qarnayn was one of the kings of Yemen. There was reference above to one of them actually being called Dhū l-Qarnayn. However is this Dhū l-Qarnayn who is referred to in the Qur’an?

Comment: Absolutely not, because the one referred to had to have been very close to our time. That is not said of any of them, except of course what storytellers say in their history, for example, that Shammar Yarʿish reached the lands of Iraq, Persia, Khurāsān, and Ṣaghad, and built the city of Samarqand which was originally called Shamarkand. The storytellers also say that Asʿad Abū Karb raided Azerbaijan and sent his son Ḥassan to al-Ṣaghad, his son Yaʿfar to Rome, and his nephew to Persia. They say that some of the Ḥimyarīs remain in China to this day as a result of that king’s raids.

26:210Ibn Khaldūn and others reject these oral traditions and say that they are exaggerated. They refute them with geographical and historical evidence.

Thus, Dhū l-Qarnayn was of an Arab nation. However he is ancient history before familiar history.

(f) It is said that Dhū l-Qarnayn was Cyrus, one of the Achaemenian kings who ruled from 560 to 539 BCE. It was he who founded the Iranian empire and united Persia and Media. He subjugated Babylon and allowed the Jews to return from Babylon to Jerusalem, helped build the temple, subjugated Egypt, then crossed to Greece, defeated the Greeks, and reached the far west. He then traveled to the far east of the civilized world.

One of those close to our time¹⁸ has said so. Subsequently, an Indian researcher¹⁹ has recently exerted efforts to clarify and explain. A brief explanation is that the one who is referred to in the Qur’an as Dhū l-Qarnayn has to be this great king [Cyrus] because he had a monotheistic belief in God, was fair with his subjects, merciful, gentle, did good, and subjugated oppressors and aggressors. God granted him the means of access to everything. He had religion, reason, good etiquette, funds, power, wealth, courage, and means at his disposal.

He traveled—as described by God in His Book—once toward the west until he had seized Lydia and its environs. He then traveled again, this time toward the east until he reached where the sun set. There, he encountered a nomadic, savage people who lived in the steppes. He then built the barrier. Evidence indicates that it is the barrier constructed across the Darial pass in the Caucasus mountains near the city of Tbilisi.

This is the gist of what he says. Here are the details:

His belief in God and the Final Day: Proof of that is in the Old Testament, for example, the Book of Ezra, chapter 1; the Book of Daniel, chapter 6; the Book of Isaiah, chapters 44 and 45 lies in his being exalted and described as holy to the point that he is as the Lord’s shepherd. Isaiah 45:1 says:

[1] Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right 26:211hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut: [2] I will go before you, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; [3] And I will give you the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, who call you by thy name, even the God of Israel. [4] For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called you by thy name, I have surnamed you, though thou hast not known Me.

Putting aside the fact that it is revelation, the Jews, with their chauvinism, would not consider a polytheistic, idolatrous Zoroastrian—if that is what Cyrus was—to be a divinely appointed, rightly guided, supported Messiah or shepherd for the Lord.

Furthermore, archeological cuneiform engravings and writings about Darius the Great, who lived just eight years after Cyrus, speak of Darius’ being a monotheist and not a polytheist. It is inconceivable that there would be a change from Cyrus’ religion in such a short passage of time.

As for his personal merits, it is enough to refer to the tales about him and information on his lifestyle which are recorded and to see how he dealt with the tyrants and despots who rebelled against him or waged war against him, for example, the kings of Media, Lydia, Babylon, Egypt, the tyrannical Bedouin on the outskirts of Bactria (that is, Balkh) and elsewhere. Whenever he defeated a people, he would forgive their criminals, treat their nobles with respect, treat their poor with compassion, and subdue the mischief-makers and treacherous among them.

The books of the Old Testament exalt him and the Jews accord him the greatest respect because he freed them from captivity in Babylon, returned them to their homeland, gave them money to rebuild the temple, and returned the valuables stolen from the temple and stored in the Babylonian kings’ vaults. This in itself is further support for Dhū l-Qarnayn’s being Cyrus because the question about Dhū l-Qarnayn was at the prompting of the Jews according to the oral traditions.

Ancient Greek historians, for example, Herodotus and others refer to him. They could do nothing but describe him as manly, heroic, magnanimous, charitable, forgiving, generous, merciful, and compassionate. They praise him profusely.

26:212As for his Being Called Dhū l-Qarnayn

Even though historical records are free of anything that proves that, the recent discovery of a stone statue of him at the monument of Mirghab in the south of Iran eliminate any doubt that he was described as Dhū l-Qarnayn because his likeness has been sculpted with two horns growing out of the crown of his head from a single spot, one bent toward the front and the other bent toward the back.

This is similar to one of the ancients’ opinion on the reason why Dhū l-Qarnayn was so-called—that he had a crown or helmet with two horns on it.

There is reference in the book of Daniel (8:1–9) to a dream Daniel had in which he saw Cyrus in the form of a ram with two horns:

[8:1] In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. [8:2] And I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the castle, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the stream Ulai. [8:3] And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the stream a ram which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. [8:4] I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself. [8:5] And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. [8:6] And he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the stream, and ran at him in the fury of his power. [8:7] And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler [anger] against him, and smote the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. [8:8] And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly . . .

He then mentions after recounting the whole of the dream that Gabriel appeared to him and interpreted his dream in such a way that the ram with two horns applied to Cyrus, his two horns being the two kingdoms of Persia and Media. The rough he-goat with a single horn was Alexander of Macedon.

26:213As for his journey to the west and the east—his journey to the west was to push back the tyrant of Lydia who had led his troops wrongly and unfairly, without any justification, toward Cyrus. Cyrus advanced on him and routed him. He then followed him until he besieged him in the capital of his kingdom. He then conquered it and took him prisoner but pardoned him and all his supporters, treated him and them with respect. He was good to them even though he was entitled to dominate them and eliminate them.

The words [in the verse], Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, may apply to the west coast of Asia Minor.

The words [in the verse], and found by it a people. We said: O Dhū l-Qarnayn! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit, is because they deserved to be punished for their tyranny, wrongdoing, and mischief.

He then journeyed toward the great desert in the east—around Bactria to suppress the danger presented by savage nomadic tribes which had risen up there to attack and cause mischief. The applicability of (the verse), Until, when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom We had given no shelter from it, to that is clear.

As for his Building the Barrier

The barrier which is there in the Caucasus mountain pass stretches from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and is called the Darial¹ Pass. It is between the town of Tbilisi and Vladikavkaz.

This barrier is in a pass between two towering mountains extending from its two sides. The pass alone is the gap linking the north and south sides of the mountains and the mountains with what is adjacent to them, that is, the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea—a natural barrier extending thousands of kilometers blocking south Asia from north Asia.

During those times, evil people living in northeast Asia would attack from the Caucasus mountain pass to its surroundings to the south, raiding what was beyond the mountains—Armenia, followed by Iran, then Assyria and Chaldea. They attacked in about the seventh century BCE and killed, took captives, and pillaged throughout the lands until they reached Nineveh, the Assyrian capital. That was roughly a century before Cyrus’ time.

26:214Ancient historians such as Herodotus the Greek refer to Cyrus’ journey to the north of Iran to suppress the fires of civil war which had ignited there. It is likely that he built the barrier in the Darial Pass during this journey because out of need generated by the people of the north and their evildoing. He built it with stone and iron and it is the only fortified barrier in which iron was used. It is between the two mountain barriers. The applicability of (the verse), therefore you only help me with strength, I will make a fortified barrier between you and them; Bring me blocks of iron, to it is obvious.

What supports this claim is the fact that there is a river nearby called the Cyrus, which is what westerners call Kurush. There is another river called the Kura, which passes by Tbilisi. This barrier is referred to by Josephus the Jewish historian when he mentions his journey from the north Caucasus. It is not the wall, which is there at Bāb al-Abwāb on the edge of the Caspian, because history attributes the construction of that to Kisrā Anūshīrvān. Josephus lived before he did.²

Furthermore, Bāb al-Abwāb is definitely not Dhū l-Qarnayn’s barrier referred to in the Qur’an because no iron whatsoever was used in its construction.

On Gog and Magog

Research into linguistic developments guides us to the fact that Gog and Magog were Mongols because in Chinese the words are Mangug and Manjug. It is as if the words Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj are a Hebrew transliteration. In Greek and other translations of the Old Testament, they are Gog and Magog. The close resemblance between Magog and Mangug settles it that the word is derived from the Chinese pronunciation Mangug, just as the words Mongol and Moghul derive from it. There are countless other similar examples in linguistics.

Thus Gog and Magog were the Mongols. This nation has since time immemorial lived in northeast Asia, a large nation which at one time attacked China, at another Armenia, northern Iran and elsewhere via the Darial Pass in the Caucasus, and, yet another time, northern Europe (where they are called Scythians) after the barrier was built. This includes the nation that sacked Rome and it was at this time that the Roman Empire fell. It was stated above that what can be understood from the books of the Old Testament is that this mischief-making nation is of the inhabitants of the farthest north.

26:215Comment: This is the end of our abridged version of what he [Mawlānā Abū l-Kalām Āzād] said [about Sir Aḥmad Khān al-Hindī’s theory]. Even though some parts of it are not without problems, it applies best to the verses and is easier to accept than any of the other interpretations.

(g) Another explanation of Dhū l-Qarnayn is [from one of the author’s teachers]—that Dhū l-Qarnayn was a member of an earlier species which preceded the human race. It is a strange view but it may explain some of Dhū l-Qarnayn’s strange features, found in the oral traditions, for example, his coming back to life again and again, his being raised to heaven, descending to earth, the clouds being placed at his disposal to travel to the west and the east and light, darkness, thunder, and lightning being at his disposal. It is known that the historical accounts of that time have not said anything about that, so therefore [according to this logic], it must have occurred in an earlier time. His view of the authenticity of these narrations was too high.

Exegetes and historians have researched this story with careful scrutiny and discussed all its aspects extensively. The majority of them agree that Gog and Magog were a huge nation in the north of Asia. A number of them apply what the Qur’an says about their sallying forth at the end of time and making mischief in the land to the Tartars’ attack on western Asia in the first half of the seventh century AH; they cite their disproportionate destruction of the civilization of mankind, their destruction of the land, extermination of people, pillaging of property, and the unprecedented atrocities they committed.

They first subjugated China, then swept into Turkistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Caucasus, and Asia Minor, destroying all the cities, towns, and fortresses they conquered, for example, Samarqand, Bukhara, Khawarizm, Merv, Nishabur, Rayy, etc. Thousands of people died in every city in the morning and in the afternoon out of everyone, not a single fire blower would be left or a single stone be left upon another stone out of the building materials of the buildings.

26:216They then returned to their country before coming back again, attacking Russia, destroying Poland, Hungary, attacking Rome, and forcing them to pay tribute. It would take a long time to give a detailed account of all their atrocities.

However they have neglected researching the matter of the barrier, with regard to their escape through it, and solving the problem presented by this because He did say: So they were not able to scale it nor could they make a hole in it. He said: This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass He will make it level with the ground, and the promise of my Lord is ever true. And on that day We will leave a part of them in conflict with another part . . . (18:97–98).

The literal meaning according to the exegetes is that this mischiefmaking nation will remain confined behind the barrier without any possibility of escape to the rest of the world, as long as the barrier remains intact until God’s promise to flatten or destroy it comes. They will then escape through it to the people, spreading mischief and evil.

The exegetes and historians should have investigated this description of the barrier. If the aforementioned nation truly was the Tartars—who swept from northern China to Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Caucasus and then on to Asia Minor—where was the barrier in the Qur’an which they trampled, from behind which they came into these countries, turning them upside down?

If they were not the Tartars or any other bellicose nations throughout history, where is this barrier fortified with iron, part of the description of which is that it will stop a large nation from attacking all the other regions of the world for thousands of years. They are supposed to have no other way to reach the rest of the world apart from through the barrier erected against them. Today, all regions of the world are interconnected with land, sea, and air routes and there is no natural barrier, for example, a mountain, sea or artificial barrier such as a dam, wall or trench which can stop any nation from reaching any other. So what is the meaning of a nation’s being stopped from reaching the rest of the world by a barrier between two mountains of any description and by any means?

[The author thinks that] the answer to this question, though God knows best, is that dakkāʾ comes from the word dakk meaning insignificance. Lisān al-ʿArab says jabalun dakkun, means a low mountain. Making the barrier dakkāʾ means making it insignificant, of no consequence and of no use because there are so many alternative routes and so many different means of travel and transport by land, sea, and air.

26:217The truth of this promise is the promise of the advancement of human civilization; various nations coming closer together to the point that people are not stopped by any barrier or hemmed in by any wall, and can move to any region of the world. People are not prevented from attacking or overwhelming any nation they want.

This interpretation is supported by the context provided by His words elsewhere, where He refers to Gog and Magog’s assault: Even when Gog and Magog are let loose and they shall break forth from every elevated place (21:96), because it refers to their being let loose without any mention of the barrier.

Dakk has another meaning, mentioned in al-Ṣiḥāḥ: Dakaktu al-rakī meaning I buried the well with earth. Another meaning is a mountain’s becoming a hill of clay. Al-Ṣiḥāḥ says: Tadaktakat al-jibāl, which means the mountains became hills of clay, all even.

It is possible that the barrier became one of many ancient structures buried under the earth by violent winds or submerged as a result of sea movement or the expansion of some of them, as proven by geological studies. Thus the problem is solved. Nevertheless, the previous explanation is better, but God knows best.