Hacker News Reader

Comment by mxxc | Hacker News Reader

not sure to which degree current islamic republic brainwashing has messed up with this but many "modern not too or not at all religious iranians" call alexander the great just "alexander" and don't have a good view of him.

View on HN

That could just be part of the secular trend of re-assessing the records of "conquerors" across the world. Some people consider Napoleon, Alexander and so on to be glorified warlords who happened to win but are essentially mass murderers like non-western conquerors (Attila the Hun and so on).

No, it is not.

Alexander was/is (ridiculously, par per course in this matters) considered by "doctors of religion" to be Zal Qurnain (the Two Horned one) mentioned in Sura 18 (The Cave) in the Qur'an. I personally think Carl Jung had a firmer grasp on the meaning of Sura 18 than most of these scholars. But anyway, the two-horned one was a "servant of God" who had 'divine proxy power' to "punish or reward as you see fit". He sets up the molten metal wall to protect against "Gog and Magog" (which should cause spiritual discomfort vis a viz IRI & CCP /g). He travels far and wide.

Two horns in spiritual context: https://aleteia.org/2021/08/23/the-reason-why-michelangelos-...

There is a distinct pro-Roman anti-Persian element to the Qur'an which (regrettably for the divine word set) maps exactly to geopolitical alliances of client states of the contemporary contending Roman and Persian Empires at the time of Islam's arrival on the scene. (It is fascinating that Rome 2.0 -- British Empire and then US -- also have an affinity for Arabs vs Persians.)

So, obviously no son or daughter of Iran would care to celebrate the person that caused the demise of the Hakhamanesh empire.

-- "that must be Eskandar!" --

https://carm.org/islam/quran-surah-18/

83. And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.”

84. Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything.

85. So he followed a way.

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): “O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness.”

87. He said: “As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).

88. “But as for him who believes (in Allah’s Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions).”

89. Then he followed another way,

90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun.

91. So (it was)! And We knew all about him (Dhul-Qarnain).

92. Then he followed (another) way,

93. Until, when he reached between two mountains, he found, before (near) them (those two mountains), a people who scarcely understood a word.

94. They said: “O Dhul-Qarnain! Verily! Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) are doing great mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute in order that you might erect a barrier between us and them?”

95. He said: “That (wealth, authority and power) in which my Lord had established me is better (than your tribute). So help me with strength (of men), I will erect between you and them a barrier.

96. “Give me pieces (blocks) of iron,” then, when he had filled up the gap between the two mountain-cliffs, he said: “Blow,” till when he had made it (red as) fire, he said: “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.”

97. So they [Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog)] were made powerless to scale it or dig through it.

98. Dhul-Qarnain) said: “This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the Promise of my Lord comes, He shall level it down to the ground. And the Promise of my Lord is ever true.”

99. And on that Day [i.e. the Day Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) will come out], We shall leave them to surge like waves on one another, and the Trumpet will be blown, and We shall collect them all together.

This is because the Romans practiced a form of Christianity (and still do), which Islam recognizes as a revealed (yet corrupted) religion, while the Persians were idol-worshipers. I agree that it is fascinating that this geopolitical orientation is still in place since the time of the Qur'an's revelation.

I don't think you're correct in saying that the scholars agree that Dhul-Qarnain is Alexander. The opinions I've heard rule Alexander out. What I've always heard is that the identity of Dhul-Qarnain is one of those details in Qur'anic exegesis that are not known with total certainty, like the identity of Al-Khidr in the same surah. Cyrus the Great has been floated as another candidate, though [0].

---

[0] https://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/zolqarnain_cyru...

Calling Persians idol worshippers sounds revisionist and is materially incorrect. Persians were more attuned to natural symbols. Noting that Muslims pray to a stone in Mecca, would you call that idol worship?

Muslims don't pray to a stone, they pray towards the Mosque in Mecca, where the stone happens to be and is only used as part of a ritual during the Hajj pilgrimage. There was a period of history where the stone had been removed from its current place and that did not change the direction of prayer.

Also, idol worship is a misnomer and mistranslation. From an Islamic perspective, associating anything other than God alone in worship would fall into the category of polytheism and paganism, it does not have to be literal idols. Hence, zoroastrians are included in our definition of pagans or polytheists. Frankly, it's really telling how the HN crowd is speaking so confidently about Islam all over this thread while not really having any idea.

You know, you're right about most of what you said, but when I looked into it, it seems that idol worshiper is the correct translation. In ibn Kathir you can find the narration. It's not a hadith but this at least shows that it's not a mistranslation or a revisionist stance. [0]

كَانَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ يُحِبُّونَ أَنْ تَظْهَرَ فَارِسُ عَلَى الرُّومِ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ أَصْحَابُ أَوْثَانٍ

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, just giving context. Maybe it comes down to whether you consider fire an idol. Muslims certainly would, but if you don't, I understand why you would take exception to that. Either way, it seems obvious that Christianity is closer to Islam than Zoroastrianism because of our shared belief in Jesus and the Israelite prophets. I wanted to highlight this in regards to the Roman-Arab connection. That was really my point, not to pass judgment on ancient Persians' beliefs.

[0]: http://www.quran-wiki.com/surah-overview.php?sura=30&aya=1

Hit a nerve, did I? And yet folks, you included, are speaking about Zoroastrianism without having any idea. For the record, Zoroastrianism is widely recognized as a monotheistic faith, in fact the world's oldest recorded monotheistic faith [1]. The characterization as pagan or polytheistic is an Islamic interpretation and has no basis in truth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

>and has no basis in truth

Whose truth?

(Don't know why you are downvoted). Thank you for your reply. I think at the time when "great" was appended to Eskandar's name, so it became a norm, it was a held opinion, but tbh I don't have authoritative knowledge of this bit.

It is possible that Sassanid's had slipped into "idol worship" (promoting a couple of angels into some sort of Iranian pseudo-pantheon had already occurred) but note that there are no idols in Zoroastrianism itself. Fire is effectively a natural phenomena 'icon'.

I'm not an expert on Zoroastrianism but just relating something that's come in Muslim tradition.

"The idolaters wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because they were idol worshipers, and the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians, because they were People of the Book."

http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Ar-Room/Foretelling-the-Victory-o...

We may just be splitting hairs, but I would be slacking if I had a reference and didn't provide it.

The vast majority of Muslims, "doctors of religion" or otherwise, have never identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander and even those who did considered it a possibility rather than a certain thing. If you took a survey today, only a small fraction would say it might be Alexander. The view that it was Alexander is much more common in western circles, probably because the colonialist mind wanted to identify a western figure as having tremendous importance in Islam and among Muslims.

Alexander is much more popular among Muslims today and historically because of his aptitude as a military commander, just as he is in the west.

I mean, Alexander was if nothing else a pretty bad guy to be be around. Just ask his friend Cleitus who saved Alexander's life but would later get killed by him in a drunken fight.

To be fair, binge drinking (and its share of drawbacks) when celebrating military victories was very much a big feature of Macedonian culture.

yeah, he was a young violent warlord, not unlike his contemporaries, but had some redeeming qualities of honor and respecting the culture of places he conquered, which was unusual for the time.

Isn't the original article an example of him disrespecting the culture of the place he conquered?

Some level of respect, higher than the average warlord of the time.

An Elon Musk of the ancient world.

Not really, Alexander actually did stuff.

Do you see this is an expression of secular "neo-Persian" nationalism, or as part of a reaction to Iran's religious conservatives who'd read literal truth in the Quran's story of a heroic Zuul al Qarayn (whom I've heard is identified with Alexander)?

i enjoyed the shitstorm i unintentionally created but i don't think most people (even religious ones) make the connection with dhu-l-qarnayn. it's probably, like someone else said, something that has to do with softer or harder persian nationalism. after all, even religious iranians are still iranians.

Not much with the Islamic Republic than with the Shah regime, which went on a run glorifying the old Achaemenid and Sassanid empire over even the Safavid empire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com