Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 18, “The Cave,” verses 83-110

posted at 8:00 am on March 23, 2008 by Robert Spencer

As we saw two weeks ago, verses 83-101 of sura 18 were revealed after a group of rabbis devised a test for Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet: “Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story?” That man was Dhul-Qarnayn (v. 83) – “the one with two horns.” Ibn Kathir explains that he had “dominion over the east and the west, all countries and their kings submitted to him, and all the nations, Arab and non-Arab, served him.” He goes on to explain that Dhul-Qarnayn got his Qur’anic name “because he reached the two ‘Horns’ of the sun, east and west, where it rises and where it sets.”

But who was this great conqueror? The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that “he was not a prophet” and that his “name was Alexander” – better known as Alexander the Great, who was depicted on coins with two ram’s horns on his head. Maududi notes that “early commentators on the Qur’an were generally inclined to believe” that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander. Muhammad Al-Ghazali says that Alexander the Great is “high on the list of possibilities.”

However, Dhul-Qarnayn seems to have been a pious Muslim, since he said: “Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before). But whoever believes, and works righteousness, he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command” (vv. 87-88). This has led some modern-day Muslim commentators on the Qur’an to be embarrassed by the earlier commentators’ insistence that the manifestly pagan Alexander the Great was identified as a Muslim in the Qur’an. Some have suggested instead that Dhul Qarnayn was Cyrus the Great of Persia, or some other great ancient king, but such identifications lead to many of the same difficulties caused by saying that Dhul Qarnayn was Alexander: Muhammad Asad observes that “it is precisely the Qur’anic stress on his faith in God that makes it impossible to identify Dhu’l-Qarnayn, as most of the commentators do, with Alexander the Great (who is represented on some of his coins with two horns on his head) or with one or another of the pre-Islamic, Himyaritic kings of Yemen. All those historic personages were pagans and worshipped a plurality of deities as a matter of course, whereas our Dhu’l-Qarnayn is depicted as a firm believer in the One God.” The consensus today, therefore, is that his exact identification is unknown. Asad concludes that the Qur’anic account “has nothing to do with history or even legend, and that its sole purport is a parabolic discourse on faith and ethics, with specific reference to the problem of worldly power.”

Anyway, whoever he was, Dhul-Qarnayn traveled to the farthermost West, until “he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring” (v. 86). The Iraqi astronomer who insisted last fall that the Qur’an taught that the earth was flat did not quote this verse, and that was probably because it has been understood for centuries in a way that wouldn’t have given Copernicus dyspepsia. Ibn Kathir explains that it means that Dhul-Qarnayn “followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun’s setting, which is the west of the earth.” He didn’t see actually see the sun setting, he was just watching it from the shore: “he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.” So where do people get crazy ideas such as that he actually reached “the place in the sky where the sun sets”? Why, from the Jews and Christians, of course: “Most of these stories come from the myths of the People of the Book and the fabrications and lies of their heretics.”

After traveling from the farthermost West to the farthermost East (v. 90), Dhul-Qarnayn on another journey encounters Gog and Magog, who “do great mischief on earth” (v. 94, cf. 5:33). They are, according to Ibn Kathir, “two groups of Turks, descended from Yafith (Japheth), the father of the Turks, one of the sons of Noah.” Dhul-Qarnayn walls them in between two mountains (v. 96) – which is another reason why he is identified with Alexander the Great, who according to pre-Islamic legend built the Gates, or Wall, of Alexander in the Caucasus in order to protect his empire from the barbarians of the northern regions – who were associated with Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39. But the wall will come down (v. 98) on the Day of Judgment, when the trumpet sounds (v. 99). A popular modern-day Saudi preacher, Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid, explained Islamic eschatology in a nutshell:

Ya’juj and Ma’juj are two disbelieving tribes from among the sons of Adam. They used to spread mischief on earth, so Allah gave Dhul-Qarnayn the power to build a barrier to detain them. They will keep on digging at it until Allah gives them permission to come out at the end of time, after `Isa [Jesus] (peace be upon him) has killed the Dajjal ["Deceiver"]. They will emerge in huge numbers and will drink up the lake of Tiberias (in Palestine). They will spread mischief on earth and no one will be able to resist them. `Isa (peace be upon him) and the believers with him will take refuge in Mount Tur until Allah destroys Ya’juj and Ma’juj [Gog and Magog] by sending worms that will eat their necks. Then Allah will send rain to wash away their bodies into the sea and cleanse the earth of their stench.”

When will this be? No one knows, but even in his day Muhammad the prophet of Islam was warning: “Woe unto the Arabs from a danger that has come near. An opening has been made in the wall of Gog and Magog like this” – and he made a circle with his thumb and index finger. Muhammad also warned that only one out a thousand people would be saved: “one-thousand will be from Gog and Magog, and the one (to be saved will be) from you [Muslims].”

Verses 102-110 conclude this wild and wonderful sura by returning to several familiar themes: the unbelievers trust in created beings rather than in Allah, and hell awaits them (v. 102); even the good works of those who deny Islam will be for naught (vv. 104-106); the believers will enjoy the gardens of Paradise (v. 107); Muhammad is just a human being, but what he is transmitting are the words of Allah, who has no partners (v. 110).

Next week: Sura 19, “Mary”: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?”

(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So at the end of time, Jesus triumphs over Satan (I assume that is “the Deceiver”), and Jesus takes believers with him while God takes care of Gog and Magog, but Mohammed says the ones to be saved will be from the Muslims? How does that make sense? Jesus is going to throw over his own followers in favor of Muslims who say he was just a prophet?

AZCoyote on March 23, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Dyspepsia. I know the feeling.

Several questions for you, R.S.:

Maybe Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid explaination went over my head or I rede too much into this……

1) Is Gog and Magog an allegory for a those people who have gone astray from the muslim way, or just folks mohammed didn’t like?

2) Is ‘the wall’ (not r. waters) the ‘allah ledes astray’ stuff that is mentioned time and again for unbelievers, or is it an actual wall with an archeological foundation?

3)If Jesus (isa) is a prophet revered among the muslims, how do they square these ‘wayward’ Christians ‘shirking’ Jesus?

4) and how do muslims mentally digest all the teachings of Jesus in the new testament (Son of God etc)??

Happy easter and thanks for another good read!

locomotivebreath1901 on March 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Thank you Robert for your timely work. Please know there are many who appreciate you but can’t always relay that. I am late in doing thus.

OkieDoc on March 23, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Another great post Robert. Thanks and Happy Easter!

PS- have you seen the message at the UK site for Fitna?

Zorro on March 23, 2008 at 10:44 AM

AZCoyote on March 23, 2008 at 9:24 AM

I think I can actually answer this. According to Islam, Christians aren’t following Jesus (Isa). They are following a made-up version of him. Muslims honor the “true” Jesus. Therefore, the true followers of Jesus are Muslims.

Robert, please correct me if I’m off the mark…

TheBigOldDog on March 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Alexandria in Egypt is known as Iskandariya, so Alexander must have been known in Arabic as ‘Iskander’. Given that, how did the translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn’ to Alexander find acceptance among ordinary Arabs?

Also, the 2 horns – in those times, it’s known that Vikings wore such crowns, but all depictions of Alexander the Great show him without such crowns. Doesn’t that factor into the theories that Muslims put out about who Dhul-Qarnayn really was?

infidelpride on March 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Thanks for your work, Mr. Spencer.

p40tiger on March 23, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Maududi notes that “early commentators on the Qur’an were generally inclined to believe” that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander. Muhammad Al-Ghazali says that Alexander the Great is “high on the list of possibilities.”

Am I reading this right? Muslims think Alexander was one of them? A guy that lived about 900 years before muhammed was even hatched? It seems like muslims always take credit for things that happened long before islam existed, like Jesus, “Isa” is a muslim prophet. Yeah, ok.

Speakin’ of Alexander, wouldn’t the siege of Tyre make a great movie? As long as Oliver Stone has nothing to do with it.

Tony737 on March 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM

I try – I really do try – to read this. Mr. Spencer, it’s not your fault, but the twisted, circuitous reasoning and self congratulation of these passages really make my eyes glaze over. I cannot imagine actually trying to read the original text (in translation). I’ve had the same reaction trying to read the Book of Mormon. The fact that it was the angel Moroni (couldn’t get moron out of my head, or the Greek work for infant and/or idiot) killed it for me.

Which makes me admire you all the more for bringing this information to us without slamming your head on your desk.

Mommynator on March 23, 2008 at 1:52 PM

The word “Karnayim” in Biblical Hebrew indeeds means “horns” in the plural. About Moshe (Moses) is says in Hebrew “ki Kahran ohr panav”. Christians long ago took this to mean that Moses had horns. Hence Davinci’s ignoramous depiction of Moses in his famous statue.

“Kahran” in the case of Moses mean “rays” or “glow”, as in the rays or the glow of the sun. Moses didn’t have horns. After seeing G-d and coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets containing the 10 Commandments, his face beamed and shined rays of lite.

I still recall people in the southern US who thought that Jews wore Kipot/Yarmulkas/skullcaps in order to hide their horns.

I wonder if such similar ignorance spread to Islam and they somehow pinned the tail on Alexander rather than on Moses for some reason. The Talmud also talks about Alexander in relatively high terms but nothing to do with horns or the radiance of Alexander’s face like Moses’.

Shy Guy on March 23, 2008 at 2:05 PM

AZCoyote:

So at the end of time, Jesus triumphs over Satan (I assume that is “the Deceiver”), and Jesus takes believers with him while God takes care of Gog and Magog, but Mohammed says the ones to be saved will be from the Muslims? How does that make sense? Jesus is going to throw over his own followers in favor of Muslims who say he was just a prophet?

But that’s exactly the point — that Muslims say he was just a prophet, and that that is the correct understanding of Jesus. So at the end of the world Jesus will return and break all crosses, as Muhammad says here. That is, he will abolish the false religion of Christianity, and Islamize the world.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:45 PM

locomotivebreath1901:

1) Is Gog and Magog an allegory for a those people who have gone astray from the muslim way, or just folks mohammed didn’t like?

Opinions differ among Muslims as to whether Gog and Magog are individuals or groups or tribes or some such. In any case, they are unequivocally evil, and only let loose in the end times.

2) Is ‘the wall’ (not r. waters) the ‘allah ledes astray’ stuff that is mentioned time and again for unbelievers, or is it an actual wall with an archeological foundation?

Alexander’s wall is an actual wall. And that seems to be the wall referred to, if one accepts the traditional identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander.

3)If Jesus (isa) is a prophet revered among the muslims, how do they square these ‘wayward’ Christians ’shirking’ Jesus?

From the Islamic perspective, that’s precisely the problem with those Christians: they have deified a Muslim prophet and twisted his message.

4) and how do muslims mentally digest all the teachings of Jesus in the new testament (Son of God etc)??

Those teachings are why the mainstream Muslim view is that the New Testament has been corrupted, and is no longer the true or original Gospel that Jesus the Muslim prophet taught.

Happy easter and thanks for another good read!

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Whoops — that last sentence in my comment above was actually left from locomotive breath’s post. Not that I am not wishing you a Happy Easter. I am.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Zorro:

PS- have you seen the message at the UK site for Fitna?

Yes, I have.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM

TheBigOldDog:

Robert, please correct me if I’m off the mark…

No, you’re quite right.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Infidel Pride:

Alexandria in Egypt is known as Iskandariya, so Alexander must have been known in Arabic as ‘Iskander’. Given that, how did the translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn’ to Alexander find acceptance among ordinary Arabs?

Dhul-Qarnayn is not a translation of “Alexander.” It means “The Two-Horned One.” Alexander is Iskander, as you have noted. The equation is made between the two in Islamic tradition, but no one says that Alexander means “The Two Horned One.”

Also, the 2 horns – in those times, it’s known that Vikings wore such crowns, but all depictions of Alexander the Great show him without such crowns. Doesn’t that factor into the theories that Muslims put out about who Dhul-Qarnayn really was?

Actually, there are many common depictions of Alexander with horns, most notably on coins.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Mommynator:

I’ve had the same reaction trying to read the Book of Mormon.

I can’t say that I have ever made it through that book, but I will always remember Mark Twain’s deathless review of The Book of Mormon: “Chloroform in print.”

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Shy Guy:

Hence Davinci’s ignoramous depiction of Moses in his famous statue.

I believe it was Michelangelo.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Also, the 2 horns – in those times, it’s known that Vikings wore such crowns, but all depictions of Alexander the Great show him without such crowns. Doesn’t that factor into the theories that Muslims put out about who Dhul-Qarnayn really was?

First: the Vikings didn’t exist until about 790 AD, over a century after the Koran was written. So it’s unlikely Mohammed was writing about them.

Second: the Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets.

See Viking and Viking Age arms and armor

corbettw on March 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM

See a horned Alexander image on a coin here.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Okay, but doesn’t the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was born to a virgin, and that the angel who announced the conception to Mary told her that her son would be “pure” or “faultless” or words to that effect? If the Muslims claim to be the “true” followers of Jesus, then why all the emphasis on Mohammed and his life? I understand that Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was divine, but the Qur’an seems to acknowledge that Jesus was far more than just another prophet (e.g., the virgin birth, the triumph over Satan at the end times, etc.).
What am I missing?

AZCoyote on March 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM

AZCoyote:

Okay, but doesn’t the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was born to a virgin, and that the angel who announced the conception to Mary told her that her son would be “pure” or “faultless” or words to that effect?

Stay tuned — a lot of this is in sura 19. And yes, it does say he was born of a virgin, and in several ahadith Muhammad says he and his mother were sinless.

If the Muslims claim to be the “true” followers of Jesus, then why all the emphasis on Mohammed and his life? I understand that Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was divine, but the Qur’an seems to acknowledge that Jesus was far more than just another prophet (e.g., the virgin birth, the triumph over Satan at the end times, etc.).
What am I missing?

Nothing — except that in Islam is it not legitimate to reason to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Jesus is all the things you say in Islam, but it also says he is not the Son of God and is just a prophet. So there you are, and that’s where you stay.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Okay, so it’s just inherently contradictory. Thanks for explaining. At least now I know why I’m confused.

Happy Easter to all my fellow infidels.

AZCoyote on March 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Nothing — except that in Islam is it not legitimate to reason to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Jesus is all the things you say in Islam, but it also says he is not the Son of God and is just a prophet. So there you are, and that’s where you stay.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Well of course he’s not the Son of God. That would make him more important than Muhammad and We (Allah & Muhammad) can’t have that now, can We? /s

Connie on March 23, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I have 2 questions.

If someone today made the reference, “Two-horned one,” I would immediately think
Satan. I understand that this imagery came from the Greco-Roman world’s images of debauchery and the association of rams and Bacchus. It was adopted by the Christian world as the personification of evil.

Did Muhammad know this imagery? It intrigues me to think it refers to Alexander the Great whose exploits were as was well known then as they are now. Why would he use it as one of his own or force of Islam?

In v. 95-96 why were they pouring copper onto iron? Copper and tin make bronze, which makes very strong swords or other weapons, but what does copper and iron make? I am reading Asad’s translation. You did not mention this; does it translate different in other versions?

Once again, thanks for everything you do, I cannot ever repay what I am learning from you and happy Easter.

dentalque on March 23, 2008 at 8:01 PM

Then Allah will send rain to wash away their bodies into the sea and cleanse the earth of their stench.”

…and they all lived happily ever after.

labrat on March 23, 2008 at 9:48 PM

It’s awesome how Muhammad could “prophesy” about past events.

The true prophet Daniel actually foretold Alexander’s rise to power and his defeat of the Persian empire in the eighth chapter of Daniel, 300 years before it happened.

Robert, is this not, more than likely, another case of plagiarism and distortion of OT scripture on the part of Muhammad?

labrat on March 23, 2008 at 10:24 PM

I believe it was Michelangelo.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM

That will teach me for trying to post while still intoxicated from our Purim feast. You have no idea how long it took me to type up that post and correct around 2 dozen misspells before clicking SUBMIT.

My head still hurts.

Shy Guy on March 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM

Let me see, East of Arabia is Egypt. So this world traveler must have found the Atlantic Ocean. Any other body of water
in his way he could have simply gone around. I will note that I cannot quite believe the Atlantic Ocean in his era was a “muddy spring”. It hasn’t even reached that state today with all the modern forms of pollution pouring into it. But I suppose I should be a proper dhimmi (or is that dhummi?) in my mind and start referring to “the pond” as “the muddy spring.”

What bugs me most is that there are 1.2 to 1.4 billion idiots in this world who believe this sort of nonsense. BUT, that observation may actually explain why so many quite successful and well educated Muslims, such as Mohammed Atta, radicalize. They are tied to the religion. The religion teaches that Allah knows what’s inside you. If your belief flags Allah knows and has grim and eternal punishment prepared for you. The one way to escape is the way of the martyr.

{^_^}

herself on March 24, 2008 at 5:35 AM

Shy Guy wrote:

“Hence Davinci’s ignoramous depiction of Moses in his famous statue.”

Gotta disagree with you there, Shy Guy. Michelangelo’s statue of Moses is one of the great works of art in all history.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The statue depicts Moses with horns on his head. This is believed to be because of the mistranslation of Exodus 34:29-35 by St Jerome. Moses is actually described as having “rays of the skin of his face”, which Jerome in the Vulgate had translated as “horns” (See Halo). The mistake in translation is possible because the word “karan” in the Hebrew language can mean either “radiated (light)” or “grew horns”.

kuta

kutabeach on March 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Gotta disagree with you there, Shy Guy. Michelangelo’s statue of Moses is one of the great works of art in all history.

kutabeach on March 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM

I don’t know what we are disagreeing about. I didn’t mention anything about the qualitative aspect of the artwork itself. I only refered to the ignorance involved in portraying Moses with horns.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The statue depicts Moses with horns on his head. This is believed to be because of the mistranslation of Exodus 34:29-35 by St Jerome. Moses is actually described as having “rays of the skin of his face”,

The exact words in Hebrew are “ki kahran ohr pahnav”, meaning “because the skin of his face had become radiant”.

The mistake in translation is possible because the word “karan” in the Hebrew language can mean either “radiated (light)” or “grew horns”.

Which is pretty much what I said in the first place. But thanks for pointing out the sources of the horn myth.

Shy Guy on March 24, 2008 at 1:28 PM

I still recall people in the southern US who thought that Jews wore Kipot/Yarmulkas/skullcaps in order to hide their horns

Wow. That’s a new one. Us cracker-heads are even dumber than you people thought.

Squiggy on March 25, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Yeah–this is the first I’ve ever heard of that too…people can be SO disappointing sometimes.

What surprised me so much about this week’s blog, is that Muslim “scholars” (sorry, but the only way I can use that term is loosely) are backing off of the Koran’s appropriation of Alexander the Great–when it’s just more of the same! Muhammed’s lie about A. the G. is not one iota less evil, or less obvious than the lie about every single Jewish prophet, sage, or person of interest!

Auralae on April 16, 2008 at 4:21 AM