The Qur’anic story of the “Companions of the Cave” has traditionally been explained by the Islamic narrative as proof of Allah’s divine power whereby he miraculously caused 7 youths to fall asleep and awaken after more than 300 years. Yet comparison with the literary milieu of the Qur’an, 7th century Chrisian culture in the Middle East, reveals parallels to the 7 Sleepers of Ephesus, a Christian legend dating from the 5th century which tells the story of Christian youths being persecuted by the pagan Roman Emperor Decius in the 3rd century. The youths seek shelter in a cave, fall asleep for over 200 years, and venture out only to find that the Empire is now Christian. Their faith confirmed, the youths then die and are embraced by the Lord. Rather than a mere exhibition of god’s power, the original story was a parable meant to emphasis the ability of Christian faith to overcome persecution, a celebration of the Christianization of the Roman Empire and an answer to heretics at the time of the story’s composition who doubted the literal nature of the physical Resurrection. As the Qur’an does not preserve the entire story, but appears to merely refer to it, the mufassirun of later generations misinterpreted the story, leaving out key components and failing to relay the underlying message of the original parable. In 2023, academic scholar Thomas Eich published his finding that the specific version of the tale found in the Qur’an overlaps significantly with the version taught by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus (d. 690 CE), and which can be situated in an early 7th century Palestinian context.[1]
The stories of Alexander the Great and Dhul-Qarnayn (often identified as Alexander) share similarities, including a leader who travels to the ends of the earth and builds a barrier against Gog and Magog, but also differ in their narratives and contexts.
Similarities:
- Travel to the Ends of the Earth:
Both figures are depicted as traveling to remote and distant lands, exploring the boundaries of the known world.
- Construction of a Barrier:
Both stories involve the creation of a barrier or wall, intended to prevent the release of a destructive force (Gog and Magog) onto humanity.
- Historical Context:
Some scholars suggest that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran may be inspired by the Syriac Legend of Alexander the Great, which also features a similar narrative.
Differences:
- Narrative Context:
The story of Alexander the Great is a historical account of a real king and his conquests, while Dhul-Qarnayn is a figure from the Quran and Islamic tradition, with a more religious and symbolic narrative.
- Purpose of the Barrier:
In the Quranic narrative, the barrier is built against Gog and Magog, likewise the Syriac Legend of Alexander reads “ Alexander said, “This mountain is higher and more terrible than all the mountains which I have seen.” The old men, the natives of the country, said to the king: “Yea, by your majesty, my lord the king, neither we nor our fathers have been able to march one step in it, and men do not ascend it either on that side or on this, for it is the boundary which God has set between us and the nations within it” Alexander said, “Who are the nations within this mountain upon which we are looking? “The natives of the land said, " They are the Huns.” He said to them, " Who are their kings?” The old men. said: “Gog and Magog …”
- Identification of Dhul-Qarnayn:
While many scholars identify Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great, some Islamic traditions and scholars propose other figures, such as Cyrus the Great, as the true Dhul-Qarnayn.
- Religious Significance:
The story of Dhul-Qarnayn is part of the Quran and is interpreted as a religious narrative, while the story of Alexander the Great is primarily a historical account.
Per WikiIslam “ The Syriac Legend as we have it is commonly dated to 629-636 CE, though most scholars infer the existance of an earlier 6th century version which was later updated (see dating sections below). As the legend of Alexander spread, so too did the claims of his miraculous deeds grow in scope and size.”
Apparently there were skeptics among those to whom the Quran was first recited who recognized these stories did not originate with it. Sūrah 8. Al-Anfāl The Spoils of War, 31 states” When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: ‘We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients.’” and Sura 23:83 which states ‘Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! They are nothing but tales of the ancients!’
This is the real tragedy of you.
We could have had really good conversations, with you as a stable skeptic, and me systematically nullifying every objection with trenchant scholarly feedback.
But your modus operandi over time is always:
- Post a big video supposedly debunking monotheism without properly explaining any of it and ignore what l say in response if you cannot counter it and just continue rehashing your original argument
- Eventually accuse me of just having a problem with skepticism as if l’ve said nothing by way of rebuttal up to then
- Effectively cover up the flaws in your argument in the long grass of an ever-growing thread, by just restating your argument and accusing me of just not liking it - which is why l asked for an official debate that affords you no long grass in which to hide anymore.
- Then the penultimate stage: wish me peace
- Then continue posting and even have the call to mention me in continued posts when you know l’ve said my piece and you haven’t responded
- Then when l return for more rebuttals we reach the nadir of your attitude, the ultimate stage: You drop a hint that Mossad may have been involved in the making of your revisionist videos (as you have done on this thread), or you ask me to explain Bin Laden or a Qur’an verse instructing Muslims to finally fight pagans in the city wherever they are except in the sanctuary (knowing full well this is not a command to kill non-Muslims like PCP zombies)
- Then you even have the gall to declare yourself a student of the Qur’an and so you go back to trailing me around the forum, quietly noting what winds me up (e.g. being asked to comment on terrorism when l’ve explained many times in great detail how it’s against Islam), for later recall so you can return to Stage 6 again (= your ultimate stage when your latest Revisionist theory to debunk monotheism really aint working out as planned).
As for “Tales of the ancients” - l’ve already explained in this and your other thread about “Yahwism” revisionism multiple times what this means - that it is how your Revisionism is old as the hills and is just idle naysaying. You ignore it all and now present it (well, copy-paste a presentation of it) as being skepticism among Muslims at the time of the Prophet.
Zul Qarnain is not Alexander III of Macedon. No Muslim scholarly source would say tihs today.
They said he was because he had a horned helmet. As did Cyrus II the Great of Persia. As even did Moses (peace be upon him) in some representations.
Some people know who he is.
Some people know what Yahweh really means.
**You won’t find either revealed on Google. **
Knowing either of these would scupper your revisionism.
I’m not going to tell you. Like l said, you’ve missed a valuable opportunity for scholarly debate. You’re a very sinister individual. Please be a serious scholar. May Allah judge between us.
This is my final plus plus +++ ultimate post on here, the real end - because you keep tacking new topics onto the thread and my replies get lost in the long grass, and you don’t counter my rebuttals, and as mentioned, you then start implying l’m ignorant and don’t want to learn.
Again it’s a shame because l actually like these topics that you have brought up. You’re the wrong opponent though. If you want to debate Alexander as Zul Qarnain and find his true identiy, then request an official debate. I will not have my replies just get lost in the long grass of this thread, which frankly is only going because l responded to your OP. It’s just a waste of time for me, nobody will read my replies when they get lost in the long grass so to speak. Peace (genuinely, final final reply on this thread).
Historians generally view the Quran as a text compiled in Iraq decades after Muhammad’s death under the auspices of the first caliphs, drawing from diverse, related texts, potentially influenced by earlier Christian, Jewish, or Persian traditions.
Here’s a more detailed look at what historians say about the Quran:
- Compilation and Canonization:
Most historians agree that the Quran, as we know it, was compiled and canonized in Iraq under the first caliphs, likely within a few decades of Muhammad’s death.
- Source Material:
The Quran’s source material likely included a variety of related texts, some potentially inspired by or drawing from earlier Christian, Jewish, or Persian traditions.
- Traditional Islamic Narrative:
Islamic tradition attributes the compilation to Abu Bakr, who allegedly ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to compile a single manuscript, later standardized under Uthman.
- Early Manuscripts and Variations:
While the traditional account of the compilation is plausible, early Quranic manuscripts show differences from the later “common” version, suggesting a more complex process than the traditional account.
- Evolution and Oral Transmission:
Some historians propose that the Quran evolved through decades of memory work and oral transmission, with the final canonization occurring around the turn of the 8th century under the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik.
- Skeptical Perspectives:
Some scholars, like Patricia Crone and Stephen Shoemaker, suggest that the earliest accounts of Muhammad’s life, like those by Ibn Ishaq, were written centuries after his death, with later narratives containing more embellishments, leading to a critical approach to the traditional narrative.
- Historical Context:
Historians emphasize the importance of understanding the Quran within its historical context, including the culturally diverse environment of late ancient Syro-Palestine and Iraq, and its interactions with other Abrahamic traditions.
- Supernatural Claims:
Historians acknowledge the Quran’s claim of divine origin, but as historians, they are not equipped to judge supernatural phenomena, such as prophecy or revelation.
- Historical Criticism:
Historians employ historical criticism to analyze the Quran, including examining the text itself, other relevant sources, and avoiding reading the scripture through the lens of later Islamic traditions.
- Material Evidence:
Some seventh-century material evidence for the Quran exists, primarily from coins and commemorative inscriptions, like those at the Dome of the Rock, which declare the primacy of Islam over Christianity.
- Early Quranic Fragments:
In 2015, some of the earliest known Quranic fragments, dating from between approximately AD 568 and 645, were identified at the University of Birmingham.
Thus, critical historians are generally in agreement with Tom Holland’s perspective as presented in the video, “Islam the Untold Story”, in the opening post and his book “ In the shadow of the sword : the birth of Islam and the rise of the global Arab empire” excerpts of which I posted above.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx3S3OLm_G0bQHAi58PdoPyyz_zEAopnHk?si=S_KKuMl-QODQPYYF
The earliest Islamic sources date in general to 200 years after the appearance of what is later called “Islam.
How did the first Islamic community emerge? In late antiquity, the Roman Empire had difficulty enforcing its position on the nature of Christ’s divinity, which was rejected by Monophysites in Egypt and Syria, as well as by religious communities in the Sasanid Persian Empire. This presentation locates the origins of the Islamic movement within the dynamics of the religious conflicts that convulsed the Middle East leading up to the 8th century a.d.
Peter von Sivers is an associate professor of history at the University of Utah. Von Sivers’ research focuses on classical Islamic history, medieval and early modern Spain and North Africa, as well as Islamic philosophy and science. He is working on a monograph with the working title Islamic Origins and the Umayyad Empire.
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx8WxIxQM789Jo88Edvky_POqRCWDOVjDl?si=-aXDkHt-XmQaNGx7
Carbon dating shows that the Quran might have existed earlier than previously supposed i.e. in the 580s CE
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx6iOhIYxjgT6g46aH_OsGKByBD4G_WWx0?si=tBHWgUkajMvSSNt8
We can understand the rise of Islam only if we have really have a good understanding of what happened between the Christian denominations of the 500s i.e. vicious attacks of Christians against each other.
Quran 4: 171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not ‘three’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him:
and
Sura 5:73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily, a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
This represents a reaction against Tritheism which was prevalent among Western Arabs in what is now Jordan. Neither verse speaks of Trinity but just of three. These were the ones against whom the Quran polemicizes. The Quran is actually quite friendly toward Jacobism, monophysism, and Nestorianism. All of these Christian sects were common in the area after being pushed out by the Imperial Church of the Byzantine Empire.
This sounds very compatible with what we have already heard about the schisms of Christianity, with diverse groups rejecting the trinity, including the Jewish/Aramaic Christians. I suspect that seeing Jesus as a prophet, even an eschatological prophet, was common to begin with, and it was Paul who gave Christ a ‘cosmic’ relevance due to his familiarity with Greek culture.
The special feature of the Quran seems to be the beauty of the language, which gave it a special standing and suggested divine origins.
Islam was born in a hotbed of theological and christological controversy. The traditional narrative of its origin with Muhammad, and his relation to the Quran and the Arab conquerors of the 7th century is questionable, but I haven’t reached any definite conclusions about it at this point. The opinions of academic scholars are widely divergent. Here’s a free book of the origin of the Quran from a well respected academic scholar, Stephen J. Shoemaker on the skeptical side https://www.ucpress.edu/read/books/creating-the-quran
Here’s an interview with Gabriel Said Reynolds, Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology, Notre Dame, presenting some of the major historical issues https://youtu.be/iLh_0b6y8LI?si=s_n0HP9bJHxfJt4E
I really liked this video, which showed a scholar dedicated to getting to the truth about the Quran without criticising the faith. I think, like I assume you do, that there is a valid basis to this religion, even if the general assumptions about divinity we encounter are more primitive than the scripture implies.
Right! How can we understand that beneath the strife between the world religions and between religion and science in the modern world and philosophic debate, lies the buried treasure of Truth? Wars have been fought over it. Islam itself was born in the strife between the Byzantine and Persian (Sasanian) empires.
Like the origin of Christianity, many of the putative facts of its origin have not been confirmed according to the standards of modern critical history. Nevertheless, both religions did come into being and become at the very least vehicles of meaning for millions of people. Whatever their historicity, the origin stories of these religions are touchstones of spiritual experience for people that free them from the meaning crisis that plagues the modern world.
I would like to be able to reassure believers that they need not fear the debunking strategies of skepticism that is part of the critical research process. However, it can be destructive to faith that is not grounded in first hand experience. It’s a risk that must be taken to get at the truth through critical thinking and the scientific method.
On the other hand, the question arises, does Islam invite us to freely investigate its truth claims? Now, if I were to go by my experience with one individual on this thread who claims to be a muslim, I would say no. If anyone is interested, they can review the interaction on this thread and make up their own mind. But, how well does this person reflect represent Islam? Is intolerance of free inquiry into religious truth justified by the Quran itself? That’s a question I intend to investigate?
The story of Noah in the Quran in Sura 11 goes like this:
- We sent Noah to his People (with a mission): ‘I have come to you with a Clear Warning: 26. ‘That ye serve none but Allah: verily, I do fear for you the Penalty of a Grievous Day.’ 27. But the Chiefs of the Unbelievers among his People said: ‘We see (in) thee nothing but a man like ourselves: nor do we see that any follow thee but the meanest among us, in judgment immature: nor do we see in you (all) any merit above us: in fact we think ye are liars!’ 28. He said: ‘O my People! See ye if (it be that) I have a Clear Sign from my Lord, and that He hath sent Mercy unto me from His own Presence, but that the Mercy hath been obscured from your sight? Shall we compel you to accept it when ye are averse to it? 29. ‘And O my People! I ask you for no wealth in return: my reward is from none but Allah: but I will not drive away (in contempt) those who believe: for, verily, they are to meet their Lord, and ye I see are the ignorant ones!
- ‘And O my people! Who would help me against Allah if I drove them away? Will ye not then take heed? 31. ‘I tell you not that with me are the Treasures of Allah, nor do I know what is hidden, nor claim I to be an angel. Nor yet do I say, of those whom your eyes do despise that Allah will not grant them (all) that is good: Allah knoweth best what is in their souls: I should, if I did, indeed be a wrongdoer.’ 32. They said: ‘O Noah! Thou hast disputed with us, and (much) hast thou prolonged the dispute with us: now bring upon us what thou threatenest us with, if thou speakest the truth!’
- He said: ‘Truly, Allah will bring it on you if He wills–and then, ye will not be able to frustrate it! 34. ‘Of no profit will be my counsel to you, much as I desire to give you (good) counsel, if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray: He is your Lord! And to Him will ye return!’ 35. Or do they say, ‘He has forged it?’ Say: ‘If I had forged it, on me were my sin! And I am free of the sins of which ye are guilty!’ Section 4 36. It was revealed to Noah: ‘None of thy People will believe except those who have believed already! So grieve no longer over their (evil) deeds. 37. ‘But construct an Ark under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and address Me no (further) on behalf of those who are in sin: for they are about to be overwhelmed (in the Flood).’ 38. Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: every time that the Chiefs of his People passed by him, they threw ridicule on him. He said: ‘If ye ridicule us now, we (in our turn) can look down on you with ridicule likewise! 39. ‘But soon will ye know who it is on whom will descend a Penalty that will cover them with shame–on whom will be unloosed a Penalty lasting.’ 40. At length, behold, there came Our Command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: ‘Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family–except those against whom the Word has already gone forth–and the Believers.’ But only a few believed with him. 41. So he said: ‘Embark ye on the Ark, in the name of Allah, whether it move or be at rest! For my Lord is, be sure, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful!’ 42. So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): ‘O my son! Embark with us, and be not with the Unbelievers!’ 43. The son replied: ‘I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water.’ Noah said: ‘This day nothing can save, from the Command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy!’–and the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood. 44. Then the word went forth: ‘O earth, swallow up thy water, and O sky, withhold (thy rain)!’ And the water abated, and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount al-Judi, and the word went forth: ‘Away with those who do wrong!’ 45. And Noah called upon his Lord, and said: ‘O my Lord! Surely my son is of my family! And Thy promise is true, and Thou art the Justest of Judges!’ 46. He said: ‘O Noah! He is not of thy family: for his conduct is unrighteous. So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge! I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!’ 47. Noah said: ‘O my Lord! I do seek refuge with Thee, lest I ask Thee for that of which I have no knowledge. And unless Thou forgive me and have Mercy on me, I should indeed be lost!’ 48. The word came: ‘O Noah! Come down (from the Ark) with Peace from Us, and Blessing on thee and on some of the Peoples (who will spring) from those with thee: but (there will be other) Peoples to whom We shall grant their pleasures (for a time), but in the end will a grievous Penalty reach them from Us.’ 49. Such are some of the stories of the Unseen, which We have revealed unto thee: before this, neither thou nor thy People knew them. So persevere patiently: for the End is for those who are righteous.
In the Bible, God sends the flood to punish the people for their corruption and violence:
“11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
But in the Quran, they are simply guilty of idolatry that is shirk: the association of partners with Allah. In the Quran, shirk (Arabic: شِرْك, lit. “association”) is defined as associating partners with God, or polytheism, which is considered the greatest sin and a major violation of the Islamic doctrine of tawhid (the oneness of God).
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
- Meaning:
Shirk literally means “association” or “partnering” and in the context of Islam, it refers to attributing divine qualities or worship to anything or anyone besides Allah (God).
- Core Islamic Belief:
The Quran emphasizes the absolute oneness of God (tawhid), and shirk is the direct opposite of this fundamental belief.
-
Examples of Shirk:
- Worshipping idols or other deities: The Quran condemns the worship of any entity other than Allah.
- Believing in other gods or powers alongside Allah: Islam teaches that God does not share divine attributes with anyone.
- Seeking intercession from anyone other than Allah: The Quran states that only Allah can forgive sins and that no one else can intercede on one’s behalf.
-
Significance:
Shirk is considered the most unforgivable sin in Islam, and those who die in a state of shirk will not be forgiven.
-
Quranic verses:
- “And whoever associates other gods with Allah, it is as if he has fallen from the sky, and has been knocked senseless. Then he will be carried headlong into the fire.” (Quran 2:21)
- “And whoever calls upon, besides Allah, a god that has no authority over anything, and does not grant him any help, then he is in manifest error.” (Quran 28:10)
Thus, this version of story of Noah sets a precedent for the central message of the prophet of the Quran i.e. Say: ‘O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than Allah.’ If then they turn back, say ye: ‘Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s Will).’ Surah 3:64
So the central issue, for Allah according to the Quran is theological purity not morality. Noah is a prototype of the prophet of Islam, Preaching the same message. The reception Noah gets pre-figures the response of the Quraysh to Qurash to Muhammad’s. The people tell Noah he’s just a man and charge him and his followers with lying even claiming he is forging the messages he says are from Alllah. This prefigures Muhammad’s experience. Allah instructs him to tell the unbelievers that he is just a man they charge him with lying and with forging the Quran.
In 11:34 Noah says : ‘Of no profit will be my counsel to you, much as I desire to give you (good) counsel, if it be that Allah willeth to leave you astray: He is your Lord! And to Him will ye return!’ In 7:186 , the prophet reaches the same fatalistic conclusion: “To such as Allah rejects from His guidance, there can be no guide: He will leave them in their trespasses, wandering in distraction.”
So we see that according to the Quran, Noah was a prophet who prefigures the mission of the final prophet of the Quran.