Some of my ideas on various topics...

[Slaedi7324]

Greetings, I wish to create this thread where I assert my opinions, beliefs and interpretations of various, different theological aspects. I will also speak a bit about my religion. Keep in mind, I am a Muslim.

What I say are solely based on what is compatible to Islam, some of these interpretations might be compatible to other religions or thoughts, but I am here to represent what these things I am going to talk about means to me from a Muslim perspective.

For an analogy, if I mention an event during Jesus' time, I mention the Muslim perspective of that event and not the Christian perspective, unless I explicitly state I am speaking from the perspective of other religions and faiths.

Miracles:

I believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, literally and not allegorically, as most Christians do not believe anymore. Although, I am not a Creationist, I am an evolutionist.

My justification for this non-contradictory belief is due to this:

If you had ever been wondered about Adam and Eve and how it fits to the current scientific consensus on the human world, such as evolution, I can easily answer that point.

Many anti-Creationists like to point out a "flaw" on that if there were no human population on Earth other than Adam, Eve, Abel and Cain, and Cain killed Abel, how did Cain find his mate and continue to reproduce children? Eve is usually not considered to have been a possibility. An easy answer!

Evolution. And neither does that disprove the existence of God, because Adam was still the first man...

To explain this is simple; when God said that Adam is the first man, He never said that he was the first Human on Earth, but that he was the first human ever created [in the Heavens].

Adam and Eve were created during the time of Homo habilis were just becoming their own species and by the time that they ate the apple from the apple tree, God and His Angels had already produced several of new humans, through evolution, because remember: God's time is different from ours.

Adam and Eve were just new creatures he was satisfied with unlike the prototypes.

By the time, God sent Adam and Eve to Earth, there were already early humans, 200.000 years ago, but Adam was still the first human ever created, he founded his own family and when Cain killed Abel, he went further to make children with other human families, that were already existent back then, in small minorities.

Unlike Genesis, the Quran makes no mention of that Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and it clearly says that Adam and Eve ate the apple whilst they were still in Heaven in the Quran.

This is another amazingly miraculous reason why Quran always word itself carefully unlike other religions because God knew that His words will be making more sense in the future that we had yet to understand back then.

Therefore, there are no need to reject evolution if it doesn't contradict God's words.

Whenever a miracle is made, they were of course made through the law of psychics by how we comprehend things, as always, when God gave us medicine as a miracle, he gave it through doctors, he never went Himself down. When God sent us the Black Stone as a miracle, He didn't give us it with his bare "hand," He sent it by what we will consider for a meteorite from the Heavens.

When He gave Revelations, He never spoke directly to the People, He gave them through Prophets and even then, they were through the Angels.

When He gave us warmth, He gave it through the Sun, and of course, if he had created Humans and Animals, He didn't just throw them to the world (with the exception of Adam and Eve), but gave us them through evolution. Miracles doesn't mean what cannot be understood or logically explained, it means the opposite of that, it means that God works through the way science and nature shows us, but is extraordinarily and very infrequent. When God makes miracles, it can always be rationally explained, even if we don't know the answer yet today, I think that I even heard some scientists have explained how that the Red Sea parting was possible.

What are your comments on this? Do you agree or not? Discuss.

Story of Gog & Magog:

I believe Gog & Magog is an obvious myth and should be taken allegorically.

Some would say that they are hiding underground, but the Gog and Magog are above the ground, since if they are trying to dig their way through the wall, they would be able to see sunlight through it. If they were underground, after having dug through it, they would see more earth.

The Quran states this wall was built between two mountain peaks, then molten metal was poured over it.

This process is very well detailed in verses cited above. It is described as a "dam." Clearly, this was a structure that was built on, not under, the ground.

"They said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, indeed Gog and Magog are [great] corrupters in the land. So may we assign for you an expenditure that you might make between us and them a barrier?" He said, "That in which my Lord has established me is better [than what you offer], but assist me with strength; I will make between you and them a dam. Bring me sheets of iron" - until, when he had leveled [them] between the two mountain walls, he said, "Blow [with bellows]," until when he had made it [like] fire, he said, "Bring me, that I may pour over it molten copper."

Taking this into account that Quran clearly says that they are above ground, if we look though at any map of the world, it is clear to us that there is no place on the planet. Quran also says that people of Gog and Magog will outnumber Muslims, 999 to 1 on the Day of Judgment.

If an actual nation of billions and billions people were hiding between two mountains, someone would have noticed this by now. Especially given the fact that every day they are trying to dig their way through, and will be doing so until they are let loose.

This is very much a myth and only that, a fairytale. The story of Gog and Magog should be taken allegorically.

There is a Hadith that is proof of Muhammad, himself, didn't believe in Gog and Magog, when he was asked about it, it supports an idea that he considered the tale, allegorical.

And that is my opinion on that, what are your thoughts? Please discuss.

Second Coming of Jesus Christ:

I believe that Jesus is dead and he will never return. My interpretation here is still underwhelming and isn't as well supported, in my opinion.

And I am still trying to figure everything out here, but I will present you this as it is right now...

I believed that Jesus was mortal and for him to have been that, he would have died 2,000 years ago, not survived for all these years that quite contradict the mortal-claim. You would think that only a God can survive for this long...

There is nothing in the scriptures to support the idea that he will return. What the scriptures does indicate is that he weren't killed in the crucifixion, he survived it and when he came to his conscious, he exiled to another country and died there. Though, Christians believe that he survived it and that when he came to consciousness is sign of a resurrection. But I believe that's when a person see something he cannot comprehend and thinks irrational and say something as ludicrous as that. It should also be said there are no evidence in the Bible nor Quran that Jesus actually were resurrected, the verses about resurrection in the Bible only came centuries after the books were written.

Therefore, the Bible makes it clear that he had died. And when Quran says that he raised him alive up to Heaven, I only fear that it meant his consciousness. Today, Jesus is with God, but as a dead man, just like the other prophets.

I only believe that the Second Coming of Christ wouldn't happen because it has already happened. This is where I am feeling undecided and have two conflicting hypotheses that I feel makes little sense to each other, very poorly supported and I am in confusion, which kind of conclusion I am looking for here, still studying to find out the truthful hypothesis. But I will present to you them both now in their incomplete forms:

1. Prophet Buddha predicted a new Buddha that will be known as Maitreya, I believe whom might have been the Maitreya Buddha is Jesus. The reason for this is because Jesus had many similarities to Buddha, even performed similar miracles to show that he is truly the predicted Buddha and promised Messiah of the Old Testament, therefore if Christ was to return yet again, it will be his third coming.

The role for Messiah of Old Testament was to establish the submission to God.
The role for the predicted Buddha was to revive the destroyed teachings of Buddha.

Though, the sufficient counter-evidence against this is;

• Jesus' miracles might have been corrupted and added on later by the Roman empires and Paul the Deceiver with influence from Buddhist traditions, this is very plausible since back at the time Roman Empire and Asia, including India, were having trade routes, the Romans could have easily have been influenced by the Buddhists at that time and stolen from their works.

• Jesus own teachings has been destroyed by the Romans corrupters, therefore he didn't fulfill the promise of Buddha. And that disqualifies him from being the Maitreya Buddha.

2. Prophet Buddha predicted a new Buddha that will be known as Maitreya, I believe another person that might have been the Maitreya Buddha is Muhammad.

I have my own reasons and then there are other possibilities for this to be the case, according to Wikipedia and I do not know if is true, but if it is, then this could be used as a sufficient example as proof; "Some Muslim scholars who studied Buddhist texts believe that Maitreya is "Rahmatu lil-'alameen" (Mercy for The Worlds), which is the name for the prophet Muhammad as it is said in the Quran. According to the research on the book Antim Buddha - Maitreya scholars have surmised that Maitreya Buddha is Muhammad. After examining the Buddhist texts, researchers concluded that Muhammad had been the last and final awakened Buddha to come into existence long after the current teachings."

My own reasoning and evidence for this is because Prophet Muhammad, in Islamic belief, is that the Prophet was the one to restore all the prior prophets' lost, interpolated, destroyed, corrupted teachings. These included Prophet Buddha's teachings and why the Buddha predicted him as the Maitreya. He is actually qualified as the Maitreya, that I think is another meaning for Messiah. What support this idea even more is that the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas also clearly says Muhammad is the messiah or Maitreya;

"Then said the priest: 'How shall the Messiah be called?' [Jesus answered] 'Muhammad is his blessed name.'" —Chapter 97, "Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.'" —42:2

Therefore, it is more likely that Muhammad was the Maitreya that was to revive the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Moses and the other prophets, as well as the Messiah, than Jesus himself. But the problem here with this hypothesis is that the counter-arguments for this claim:

• As mentioned above, these pronouncements contradict Islamic belief as Jesus is not only mentioned as a prophet in the Quran but also referred to by the title "al-Masih," which is the Arabic translation of the term "Messiah." It is also important to note that the Quran never makes use of this term to refer to Muhammad and that the only Quranic figure to bear this title is Jesus, better known in Arabic as Isa, which is a cognate to the Aramaic Iso, which is the true name of Jesus and not the Hebrew "Yeshua," which is where "Jesus" stems from.

Therefore, would this mean that Prophet Muhammad was the Messiah and that Jesus was not? That Muhammad was the true Messiah and Jesus was the one who tried, but failed with honor. I thought about a theory that Muhammad only considered Jesus to be Messiah because he was oblivious to the fact that he was in actuality the true Messiah, which is not a claim that you can make, but something that you are determined by without the Messiah's realization that he indeed is the Messiah.

Though, Quran, whose author is God, also says Jesus is Messiah, so it means that Jesus was the Messiah. Is it possible for two Messiahs? Either way, that is here where I am left with great confusion and trouble in my hand that I feel like is too complex for me to solve. I cannot figure this out.

And that's where my interpretations, opinions and beliefs of these many things ends. I will appreciate thoughts and responses to these opinions I have asserted. Thank you very much for reading and goodbye.

 

[mainliner]

Many anti-Creationists like to point out a "flaw" on that if there were no human population on Earth other than Adam, Eva, Abel and Cain, and Cain killed Abel, how did Cain find his mate and continue to reproduce children? Eve is usually not considered to have been a possibility. ...............<<<< this makes sense but you have to remember insest wasn't an issue then ...... I think 200 years later it was an issue.

Ps..... I like the prototype quote

getting ANY young human to see the true way Eden was suppose to be has been a never ending struggle for all time.........ask any parent

 

[Slaedi7324]

Many anti-Creationists like to point out a "flaw" on that if there were no human population on Earth other than Adam, Eva, Abel and Cain, and Cain killed Abel, how did Cain find his mate and continue to reproduce children? Eve is usually not considered to have been a possibility. ...............<<<< this makes sense but you have to remember insest wasn't an issue then ...... I think 200 years later it was an issue.

I know that incest wasn't a stigma in the pre-civilization era, but it is still impossible for creating this many humans from only two individuals, scientists say that it is incompatible with the current understanding of human genetics.

 

[mainliner]

I know that incest wasn't a stigma in the pre-civilization era, but it is still impossible for creating this many humans from only two individuals, scientists say that it is incompatible with the current understanding of human genetics.

maybe Eden started in many places ...... Maybe that's why there are different races of people idk?

 

[Augustus]

Story of Gog & Magog:

I believe Gog & Magog is an obvious myth and should be taken allegorically.

Some would say that they are hiding underground, but the Gog and Magog are above the ground, since if they are trying to dig their way through the wall, they would be able to see sunlight through it. If they were underground, after having dug through it, they would see more earth.

The Quran states this wall was built between two mountain peaks, then molten metal was poured over it.

This process is very well detailed in verses cited above. It is described as a "dam." Clearly, this was a structure that was built on, not under, the ground.

"They said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, indeed Gog and Magog are [great] corrupters in the land. So may we assign for you an expenditure that you might make between us and them a barrier?" He said, "That in which my Lord has established me is better [than what you offer], but assist me with strength; I will make between you and them a dam. Bring me sheets of iron" - until, when he had leveled [them] between the two mountain walls, he said, "Blow [with bellows]," until when he had made it [like] fire, he said, "Bring me, that I may pour over it molten copper."

Taking this into account that Quran clearly says that they are above ground, if we look though at any map of the world, it is clear to us that there is no place on the planet. Quran also says that people of Gog and Magog will outnumber Muslims, 999 to 1 on the Day of Judgment.

If an actual nation of billions and billions people were hiding between two mountains, someone would have noticed this by now. Especially given the fact that every day they are trying to dig their way through, and will be doing so until they are let loose.

This is from Surat al-Kahf, which was revealed in response to questions asked by Jews/Christians to Muhammed. The sleepers in the cave of this surat must therefore relate to the '7 sleepers of Ephasus', a famous Christian myth, so it follows that the story of Dhul Qarnayan also relates to Christian myth.

al-kahf is a Meccan sura, but the Dhul Qarnanyan verses are considered to be revealed later on in Medina. In the later years of Muhammed's life, there is considerable evidence that the 'Alexander legend', a Christian apocalyptic story featuring Alexander the Great was common in the region. This story is often seen as religious propaganda for the Roman Emperor Heraclius, trying to paint himself as the 'new Alexander'. In early tafsir, Dhul Qarnayan was identified with Alexander. There is a Syriac version of the legend which contains such striking similarities to the Quranic version, that one was certainly based on the other.

In classical and late antiquity, these tales were not considered allegory, Gog & Magog were believed to be real. Their identity was always open to debate, Scythians, Persians, Turks, Huns or whoever was a threat at the time were identified as them.

In antique and medieval Islam and Christianity, the apocalypse was, in my opinion, always seen as an imminent event, so I don't think the eschatological and apocalyptic elements were traditionally viewed as being allegorical. To say that these verses are allegorical is a modern interpretation, rather than the traditional perspective, but religion always evolves, which is why it is so resilient; it changes to meet the needs of the time.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, literally and not allegorically, as most Christians do not believe anymore. Although, I am not a Creationist, I am an evolutionist.

I come from the from the standpoint of choosing to be unlabeled. However, the genesis story from the Bible I sense as being not only the oldest, but the most allegorical.

Now I am not all that advanced with Hebrew and Greek, however, etymology always interested me and struck me as being very important.

I know that the Hebrew word 'Adam' has several meanings and parts, first of all the 'm' at the end of the word makes it plural, I believe. The 'dom' part is the hebrew word for 'blood.' Now the word 'adam' is not only a word for a specific person, it was also the hebrew word for 'man.' So whenever you read the word 'man' in the bible, the original word there was adam before it was translated. The word 'adamah' also means 'ground.'

 

[Slaedi7324]

This is from Surat al-Kahf, which was revealed in response to questions asked by Jews/Christians to Muhammed. The sleepers in the cave of this surat must therefore relate to the '7 sleepers of Ephasus', a famous Christian myth, so it follows that the story of Dhul Qarnayan also relates to Christian myth.

al-kahf is a Meccan sura, but the Dhul Qarnanyan verses are considered to be revealed later on in Medina. In the later years of Muhammed's life, there is considerable evidence that the 'Alexander legend', a Christian apocalyptic story featuring Alexander the Great was common in the region. This story is often seen as religious propaganda for the Roman Emperor Heraclius, trying to paint himself as the 'new Alexander'. In early tafsir, Dhul Qarnayan was identified with Alexander. There is a Syriac version of the legend which contains such striking similarities to the Quranic version, that one was certainly based on the other.

In classical and late antiquity, these tales were not considered allegory, Gog & Magog were believed to be real. Their identity was always open to debate, Scythians, Persians, Turks, Huns or whoever was a threat at the time were identified as them.

In antique and medieval Islam and Christianity, the apocalypse was, in my opinion, always seen as an imminent event, so I don't think the eschatological and apocalyptic elements were traditionally viewed as being allegorical. To say that these verses are allegorical is a modern interpretation, rather than the traditional perspective, but religion always evolves, which is why it is so resilient; it changes to meet the needs of the time.

I believe that the 7 men that slept in a cave were true and not an allegory. But the myth about Gog and Magog makes no sense, even if classical Muslims thought it was true, what does it matter? Where they more knowledgeable than us? As a matter of fact, that's quite the opposite. During that time, Muslims would be living in a time of restriction on knowledge compared to today where we are rich of it.

That the allegory is a recent interpretation really doesn't invalidate it. Mirza and Baha'ullah believed Gog and Magog to be an allegorical myth, too. They lived centuries ago.

Even if most medieval Muslims believed in that it was to be a literal truth, I have found two Ahadith of the same event of where a man told Muhammad that he saw Gog and Magog's door, Muhammad himself is looking surprised and confused and asks him if he's serious and told him to describe it, the man describe it and the Prophet then realized he speaks metaphorically and says that he has seen it. I believe the description was the essence of the allegory of Gog and Magog myth, the man, who was an ascetic, achieved the knowledge of the meaning of the passage, that Muhammad was the second to know. He realized the man knew the meaning of the allegory. This is how I viewed the conversation between them.

 

[Augustus]

I believe that the 7 men that slept in a cave were true and not an allegory. But the myth about Gog and Magog makes no sense, even if classical Muslims thought it was true, what does it matter? Where they more knowledgeable than us? As a matter of fact, that's quite the opposite. During that time, Muslims would be living in a time of restriction on knowledge compared to today where we are rich of it.

That the allegory is a recent interpretation really doesn't invalidate it. Mirza and Baha'ullah believed Gog and Magog to be an allegorical myth, too. They lived centuries ago.

Out of interest, what religion do you think the sleepers were?

As for Gog and Magog, the more people take religion figuratively rather than literally, the happier I am. But the Islamic tradition relies on the fact that early Muslims knew the most about Muhammed's message. Hadith and Sira rely on isnads and the fact that early Muslims could accurately pass on the prophet's message.

Personally, I think religion should be reinterpreted insight of modern knowledge; so I agree with you then, I think that early Muslims interpreted Islam according to the beliefs of the time, and much of what is considered 'traditional' Islam is simply a later construct of believers who lived long after the prophet. You have as much right to interpret religious texts as they do and, given modern knowledge, it is much more tenable to consider Dhul Qarnayan as an allegory rather than literally true.

What criteria do you use to decide whether or not Quranic verses should be taken literally of figuratively btw?

 

[Slaedi7324]

Out of interest, what religion do you think the sleepers were?

I believe they were monotheists and honest and devoted believers of God. I suppose they were either Jews or Christians, by scripture. But they were all Muslims in the sense that they submitted themselves to God.

As for Gog and Magog, the more people take religion figuratively rather than literally, the happier I am. But the Islamic tradition relies on the fact that early Muslims knew the most about Muhammed's message. Hadith and Sira rely on isnads and the fact that early Muslims could accurately pass on the prophet's message.

I do not agree with this, if by early you mean "medieval Muslims," I do agree if you mean early as in during Muhammad's time. But if you meant the former, from where does this source stem from? Even if medieval Muslims believed that Gog and Magog was literal, I have found two Ahadith that proves Gog and Magog to have been an ascetic allegory during Muhammad's time by early Muslims.

Personally, I think religion should be reinterpreted insight of modern knowledge; so I agree with you then, I think that early Muslims interpreted Islam according to the beliefs of the time, and much of what is considered 'traditional' Islam is simply a later construct of believers who lived long after the prophet. You have as much right to interpret religious texts as they do and, given modern knowledge, it is much more tenable to consider Dhul Qarnayan as an allegory rather than literally true.

I wholeheartedly agree. Those Muslims back then are no different than us right now. If I said this exact same thing 500 years ago, my interpretation is valid, but because I say it in modern time, it is not? How stupid, I thought Islam is a timeless religion, not a religion for the 7th century people only.

What criteria do you use to decide whether or not Quranic verses should be taken literally of figuratively btw?

I don't know, it's an instinct or intuition.

If I should try: An allegory or metaphor should have a meaning, what I believe has a metaphorical meaning and message within the tale, while also clearly unrealistic or unsupported, historically and archaeologically, it also has to use unnamed figures, which is why I believe Gog and Magog is myth, there is no one that is named "Dhul Qarnayan," it's a title that means "the man with the horns," of course that is not a reasonable name and is clearly hinting to a metaphorical man. It's the message, not the story. That could be an allegory.

Literal stories are historic facts or legends that are plausible to surmise, has existed with certainty or are not challenged in their existence. Has no metaphorical meanings, either. They are just stories that had existed and nothing more.

Dhul Qarnayan is never presented to us as a real man, he is actually presented to us as one of the greatest warriors of the world that once conquered the whole east and the whole west, yet not even a shred of evidence. Obviously, not even a reasonable man from the 7th century would have believed that. It clearly refers to someone strong and powerful, simply in the message and metaphor.

That's what I will decide what is and what is not literal. But it also clearly depends on the verses and not on my criteria. Something must be accepted and rejected by reason, not just because they didn't fulfill some certain promises. Who knows, some consider Jesus to not be a real man because of these exact criterias, yet; it's clear that he had existed. Some of these same people will reject Jesus, but accept Buddha, even though there are more evidence for the indirect proof of Jesus than Buddha. So, it really just depends on the situation and not the criteria.

 

[Slaedi7324]

Do anyone have any comments to the part that is "Second Coming of Jesus Christ" of my post? I like to hear some opinions on this and what your thoughts are.

 

[Faybull]

Adam was chosen from mankind, that has recently been scattered due to the judgement.

 

[Slaedi7324]

Do anyone have any comments to the part that is "Second Coming of Jesus Christ" of my post? I like to hear some opinions on this and what your thoughts are.

 

[outhouse]

Adam and Eve were created during the time of Homo habilis

Cant this be really considered factually false?

 

[Slaedi7324]

Cant this be really considered factually false?

No, it cannot. Why would it be?

 

[outhouse]

Why would it be?

Because every credible university in the whole teaches the exact opposite of what you posit, based on evidence, not imagination.

No, it cannot.

Unsubstantiated. You need to provide credible sources.

 

[outhouse]

Literal stories are historic facts or legends that are plausible to surmise, has existed with certainty or are not challenged in their existence

But who are you to judge what is a literal story?

And what happens when the literal claims you make, factually do not line up with history or reality, and mirror a people who wrote in rhetoric and mythology and allegory and are known to have created pseudo history?

 

[Slaedi7324]

Because every credible university in the whole teaches the exact opposite of what you posit

Elaborate.

Unsubstantiated. You need to provide credible sources.

I have. What sources are you looking for?

But who are you to judge what is a literal story?

And what happens when the literal claims you make, factually do not line up with history or reality, and mirror a people who wrote in rhetoric and mythology and allegory and are known to have created pseudo history?

Stress out your main point. From how I see it, it's moot.

 

[outhouse]

My own reasoning and evidence for this is because Prophet Muhammad

Not a credible source. That is not science, it is faith based.

I have.

Only for faith, nor for science. You need credible scientific sources.

From how I see it, it's moot.

How you see it, is not how the world see's it.

Elaborate.

Your factually going against every credible learning institution that exist in the whole world, with statements you cannot substantiate.

 

[Augustus]

If I should try: An allegory or metaphor should have a meaning, what I believe has a metaphorical meaning and message within the tale, while also clearly unrealistic or unsupported, historically and archaeologically, it also has to use unnamed figures, which is why I believe Gog and Magog is myth, there is no one that is named "Dhul Qarnayan," it's a title that means "the man with the horns," of course that is not a reasonable name and is clearly hinting to a metaphorical man. It's the message, not the story. That could be an allegory.

Literal stories are historic facts or legends that are plausible to surmise, has existed with certainty or are not challenged in their existence. Has no metaphorical meanings, either. They are just stories that had existed and nothing more.

Dhul Qarnayan is never presented to us as a real man, he is actually presented to us as one of the greatest warriors of the world that once conquered the whole east and the whole west, yet not even a shred of evidence. Obviously, not even a reasonable man from the 7th century would have believed that. It clearly refers to someone strong and powerful, simply in the message and metaphor.

Dhul Qarnayan is almost certainly Alexander the Great though, the horns are the horns of Amun which he was frequently depicted as having on coins etc. He was one of the greatest warriors in history and conquered the East and West, featured in the Jewish and Christian traditions, the 'Alexander legend' was popular at around the time of the revelation of the verses and is almost identical to the Quranic verses. Early tafsir also identified him as Dhul Qarnayan, there is a hadith which talks about a town built by Dhul Qarnayan in Khurusan called Merv, this place also happened to be known as Alexandria. There is a load of evidence who Dhul Qarnayan is, the only reason it is now rejected is because Alexander was a bisexual polytheist, so people had to change their opinions

 

[Slaedi7324]

Dhul Qarnayan is almost certainly Alexander the Great though, the horns are the horns of Amun which he was frequently depicted as having on coins etc. He was one of the greatest warriors in history and conquered the East and West, featured in the Jewish and Christian traditions, the 'Alexander legend' was popular at around the time of the revelation of the verses and is almost identical to the Quranic verses. Early tafsir also identified him as Dhul Qarnayan, there is a hadith which talks about a town built by Dhul Qarnayan in Khurusan called Merv, this place also happened to be known as Alexandria. There is a load of evidence who Dhul Qarnayan is, the only reason it is now rejected is because Alexander was a bisexual polytheist, so people had to change their opinions

I doubt.