IDEA 62
My ‘Iskandar’ Problem (Part 1)
Whenever he heard Philip had taken any town of importance, or won any signal victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would tell his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions. For being more bent upon action and glory than either upon pleasure or riches, he esteemed all that he should receive from his father as a diminution and prevention of his own future achievements; and would have chosen rather to succeed to a kingdom involved in troubles and wars, which would have afforded him frequent exercise of his courage, and a large field of honour, than to one already flourishing and settled, where his inheritance would be an inactive life, and the mere enjoyment of wealth and luxury. (Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Alexander)
Ever since classical Islamic exegetes identified the figure of Dhil-Qarnain in the Qur'an with Alexander 'the Great' of Macedon, Muslims have been naming their sons Iskandar or Iskander or some variation thereof. The name is particularly popular among the elite classes (or wannabe elites), as it connotes the traits associated with the Macedonian hero -- power, glory, success, and charisma, as well as all the qualities mentioned or implied in the Qur'anic narrative.
The problem with this identification, however -- one that the majority of classical commentators might never have realized -- is that the Alexander portrayed by Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, and other ancient historians could not possibly be Dhul-Qarnain as described in the Qur'an. Dhul-Qarnain is depicted as a monotheist who travelled to the far west before going east, who was tasked with ruling justly rather than merely conquering territory, and who built a wall to hold back Ya'juj (Gog) and Ma'juj (Magog). The historians' Alexander was a pagan who eventually consented to be worshipped as a god. He took no significant journey westward, and he never built any giant wall.
The Alexander whose name Muslims have been borrowing for over a thousand years to give to their children because they associate that name with Dhil Qarnain of the Qur'an is a mythical character. According to my query posed to the Copilot AI program,
The Syriac Alexander Romance (a 6th-century Christian text) is the primary classical source describing Alexander building a wall against apocalyptic northern tribes.
According to the search results:
• Alexander’s alleged wall “was a widespread theme among Syriac Christians in Mesopotamia.”
• The Romance depicts Alexander travelling to the far north and enclosing Gog and Magog behind a massive gate.
The search results list multiple Syriac works that describe Alexander building a barrier:
• Syriac Alexander Legend
• Syriac Alexander Poem
• Pseudo Methodius Apocalypse
• Syriac Sermon on the Last Days
• Coptic and Ethiopic Alexander Romances
• Armenian and Georgian Alexander traditions
All of these contain variations of the same motif:
Alexander travels to the ends of the earth and builds a gate to imprison Gog and Magog.
This motif is so consistent that scholars call it a “topos” — a standard literary theme.
Modern academic studies (e.g., van Donzel & Schmidt) conclude:
• The Qur’anic barrier story is part of the same literary tradition as the Syriac Alexander Romance.
• The motif of Alexander enclosing Gog and Magog was already widespread in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature before Islam.
• Islamic tradition later expanded and localized the story (e.g., Sallām’s journey).
Thus, the Qur’anic narrative is not an isolated story — it is part of a well established Late Antique Alexander cycle.
These sources re‑imagined Alexander as a cosmic, God‑guided ruler who traveled to the ends of the earth and imprisoned Gog and Magog.
This legendary Alexander is not the Alexander of Plutarch or Arrian.
I have long known that the 'real' Alexander of Macedon, the Alexander described in authoritative histories, could not be Dhul-Qarnain ... and so I assumed that he must be some other divinely guided king not usually associated with the Qur'anic figure. Some scholars had opined that he could be a representation of Cyrus 'the Great' of Persia, but more recent studies and archeological findings have demolished that conjecture. Other candidates have likewise been proposed, and then dismissed for failing to meet all the criteria that appear in Q18:83–98.
Many scholars have, accordingly, come to the reasonable conclusion that there is no historical person underlying the story of Dhil-Qarnain in the Qur'an. It is obvious, therefore, if that conclusion is correct (and so it seems to me), that Dhal-Qarnain is a fictional character.
I wanted to know why the Qur’an uses the legendary Alexander, not the historical one.
Because the legendary Alexander was:
widely known in the Near East
morally elevated (unlike the pagan historical Alexander)
associated with Gog and Magog
depicted as a righteous, God‑guided king
already part of Jewish and Christian storytelling
The Qur’an engages with this Late Antique moralized Alexander, not with the Macedonian conqueror of Plutarch.
This is why the Qur’anic story resembles the Syriac Alexander Legend — not the classical biographies.
This answer left me shaken; it did not feel 'OK' to me. Next week, GOD willing, I will delve into how a believer might be coping with it.
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazo
