Alexander Adalah Zulkarnain: Who Cares?
Thursday, 23rd September, 2010 § 42 Comments
I first knew about Muhammad Alexander (real name Wisno Sasongko) when I read his first book, Yakjuj & Makjuj: Bencana Dari Sebalik Gunung (Gog & Magog: Disaster From Beyond the Mountains). It was an interesting piece of speculative history. In Islam, Gog & Magog are the a race of people who will come near the end of time to create havoc and disaster. In fact, their appearance is one of the signs of the end of days, according to Islamic tradition.
Also according to Islamic tradition, a legendary warrior-king named Zulkarnain trapped Gog & Magog behind a dam of iron and bronze. Many have theorised who Zulkarnain really was in history (Zulkarnain wasn’t his name but his title which means, “The Two-Horned Man) . The most famous theory is that he was Alexander the Great or Alexander of Macedonia. I for one have no idea myself but Muhammad Alexander is convinced that Alexander of Macedon was Zulkarnain mentioned in the Quran. Which is why he wrote the book Alexander Adalah Zulkarnain (Alexander Was Zulkarnain). I was excited to read this book. I’ve read another book written by a Malaysian who speculated that Zulkarnain could have been Cyrus the Great. I wanted to see if Muhammad Alexander could refute this claim and convince me of his own theories.
Boy, was I disappointed.
Instead of writing an entire thesis of why I didn’t like the book, I’ll give it in point forms instead. Quick and to the point which was what Muhammad Alexander should have done:
It isn’t objective – When you call your book Alexander Was Zulkarnain, it’s pretty clear where you stand on the issue. It is difficult, then, for the reader to be presented with other contrary opinions because the author has decided that only his opinion is the correct one and everyone else’s is swept away or simply ignored.
Hearsay evidence is presented as fact and a less than professional way of presenting his arguments – Muhammad Alexander tends to ignore other previous authors on the subject whom he does not agree with simply by stating, “This author was wrong…” or “that author was confused…”
Square pegs are forced into round slots just to legitimise his argument that Alexander was Zulkarnain. For example, Muhammad suggests that Socrates the ancient Greek philosopher was actually Luqman Al-Hakim! To those who don’t know (and I’m guessing a lot of you don’t), Luqman Al-Hakim was a wise man who has an entire chapter in the Quran named after him. It has been agreed by Islamic scholars that Luqman was not a Prophet but a holy man who was rewarded with wisdom by God.
Now, Muhammad Alexander suggests in his book that Socrates was Luqman based on the fact that Socrates died by swallowing poison.
Yeah, I know. I rolled my eyes as well.
His line of argument was that no wise man or great teacher in history has ever been ordered to die by poison except Socrates. What has this got to do with Luqman? Well, Muhammad argues that in Arabic, laqman means ‘to swallow’. Therefore, a wise man whose name in Arabic means ‘to swallow’ could be (because Muhammad himself isn’t sure, he admits) Socrates the Greek philosopher because he died by swallowing poison. What’s the connection with Alexander? Well, Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle who taught the young Alexander. Since Muhammad is convinced Alexander the Great was Zulkarnain who believed in One God and not an idol worshiper, it would not be proper for Alexander to be taught by scholars who were idol worshipers themselves. His teacher and the teachers who taught his teacher had to believe in One God as well. Ergo, Socrates must have been the wise Luqman Al-Hakim in the Quran.
See what I mean about pushing square pegs into round slots?
I don’t know whether or not Socrates was a Muslim (anyone who believes in the unity of God is by definition of the word, a Muslim) and really, I don’t care but Muhammad’s clunky way and damn-all attitude in presenting his argument in order to fit his view that Alexander the Great was Zulkarnain in the Quran just turns me off.
Another example is when he refutes the common perception among Western historians that Alexander the Great was a homosexual. Muhammad simply sweeps all that away by stating that Alexander the Great had children and that proves he was not gay. And that was it! It is not whether Alexander was gay or not that I have a problem with but the way Muhammad challenges that allegation. He merely states that the man had children and then he (Muhammad) moved onto other things.
As someone mentioned to me recently, if I do not believe Alexander the Great was Zulkarnain of the Quran does that mean I believe that Alexander was a homosexual? Of course not! I’m just not prepared to accept Muhammad’s line of argument because his line of argument is weak and less than convincing. How can anyone be convinced when the argument is, “He was not homosexual because he had children. There, see? That proves everything.” Erm, no. No, it doesn’t.
Using the Christian Bible to strengthen his argument – Throughout his book, Muhammad uses excerpts from the Bible, usually the New Testament, to show the contradictions and mistakes in the Bible itself. As a Muslim myself I have no problems in agreeing with Muhammad in this matter. We believe that the Gospels revealed to Christ are not the Gospels that are around today. The original is gone, subverted through the ages. The Gospels today are no longer the ‘real’ ones and therefore cannot be regarded as the Word of God. Fine, no problems there.
The problem arises when Muhammad uses the same Bible to prove his case (page 19, PTS edition). Now wait a minute. If you have decided and argued that a particular source of information is unreliable, how then can you use the same source to help strengthen your case when it suits you? If you say a witness is a liar, can you then use the testimony of that same witness?
The blatant hypocrisy astounds me.
Dry prose – This book started as an academic thesis and anything academic has to be dryly written, right? It’s like a rule or something. Plus, I was reading the translated version. It was originally written in Indonesian. If something was written as dry as the Gobi desert and coupled with unconvincing arguments, the chances of me siding with the author is between slim to none.
I still don’t know who Zulkarnaian really was but you know what? Who cares? Not knowing who he was in history will not affect a Muslim’s faith either way. If I believe Alexander was Zulkarnain, fine. If I don’t, that’s fine too. If I believe Zulkarnain was someone who was not notable in known history, well, guess what? THAT’S FINE AS WELL!
But if you want to convince me of your views then please, please, please write an interesting book with very good arguments and not filled with sweeping statements and presenting flimsy evidence as fact, mmmkay?
Alexander Adalah Zulkarnain. Do not buy.
Is this the only instance of a writer coming up with a book about someone who, by sheer coincidence, shares his name?
Or maybe he changed his name (or used a pseudonym) to be ‘close’ to his Macedonian hero. His real name’s Wisno Sasongko which screams “Javanese!” at you a kilometer away.
Hatred to something, make it unfair.
Learn some English before writing in English.
Please.
The previous, related entry, although it invited a heated argument from somebody (plus your tone might have caused it all), I found the whole thing hilarious! Seeing how he (you-know-who) took the painstaking effort of typing the entire table of contents, then followed up by your comments, I really couldn’t stop laughing last night
Strange. It’s supposed to be a heated discussion, but I find it funny.
Oh, I was chuckling while typing the replies. I mean, how can you NOT laugh at the guy??
Poor soul. Thank you for giving us a good laugh. I haven’t had that for quite some time – being busy and all.
Saya perpanjangkan ini di blog saudara, terutama tentang pemetikan berapa hujah2 daripada buku ahli kitab yang dilakukan oleh penulis.
Isu memetik ayat-ayat daripada ahli kitab ini adalah isu yang menarik. Saya pernah membaca sebuah buku karya pakar sejarah dari Al-Azhar, Amin Muhammad Jamaluddin, melalui bukunya Umur Umat islam, Kedatangan Imam Mahdi dan Munculnya Dajjal pada halaman xvii beliau ada menyatakan hujahnya mengenai isu ini apabila ada soalan ditanyakan ” kita tidak boleh mendengarkan, berdalih dan membicarakan perkataan2 ahli kitab”.
Lalu kata beliau, ini adalah tidak benar. Beliau memetik kata2 dari Ibn Hajar iaitu ” Tidak ada halangan bagimu untuk berbicara dari ahli kitab, kerana Rasulullah saw telah memperingatkan kaum muslimin dalam mengutip dan melihat kitab kaum mereka. Kemudian nabi saw memberi kelonggaran dalam hal ini di mana perubahan ini menunjukkan bahawasanya larangan yang pertama adalah kerana hukum2 islam dan kaedah agama belum stabil dan dikhuatirkan akan menjadi kekacauan dalam syariat. Kemudian setelah penyebab dari larangan tersebut (kekacauan) dapat diatasi, maka beliau mengizinkan untuk berbicara dengan para ahli kitab. Kerana hal itu pada saat yang bersamaan dapat mendatangkan iktibar. (fathul bari, juz 6 hal 498).
Penulis juga memetik kata2 imam ibn hajar sekali lagi iaitu ” dan telah berkata imam malik, bahawa yang dimaksudkan dengan bolehnya mengutip isi kitab mereka adalah terhadap hal2 yang benar. adapun pada apa yang telah nyata diketahui kebohongannya, maka hal tersebut tidak boleh dikutip”
Ada lagi hujah dari imam syafie yang ditulis penulis iaitu, ” sebagaimana diketahui bahawa nabi saw tidak membolehkan pengutipan dengan cara dusta. hingga makna yang dimaksud dari hadits nabi saw tersebut adalah, “kutiplah isi perkataan bani israil apabila kamu temuihal-hal yang sesuai dengan syariatmu, maka tidaklah ada halangan bagimu untuk membicarakannya dari mereka”. Ini juga dipetik penulis dari fathul bari hal 498.
Penulis petik lagi kata2 Ibn Taimiyyah, “sesungguhnya nabi saw telah memberi keringanan dalam mengutip pembicaraan mereka. walaupun demikian, beliau melarang kita untuk begitu saja membenarkan atau mendakwa kebohongan mereka. dan sekiranya pengutipan ajaran mereka itu tidak ada manfaatnya, maka tentulah beliau saw tidak akan menyuruh, atau tidak akan memberi keringanan dalam hal itu”. (rujukan penulis majmu’ fatawa. jil 18 hal 67).
Ada lagi diberi contoh yang ada beberapa ulama memang pernah mengutip dari ahli kitab seperti imam ibn taimiyyah sendiri melalui karyanya Jawaban Yang Lurus Terhadap Orang-Orang Yang Merubah Agama Al-Masih bermula dari halman 1 hingga 16. Begitu juga kata penulis, para shabat seperti Ibn Abbas (Tinta Umat) dan Abdullah Ibn Umar dikatakan penulis sebagai orang yang banyak menukil dari ahli kitab pada masalah2 yang diperbolehkan oleh nabi saw untuk memetik kata2 ahli kitab.
Adapun hadi nabi yang biasa kita dengar di mana nabi saw melarang umar al khattab memetik ayat2 ahli kitab, lalu baginda saw bertanya, “apakah kamu masih ragu terhadap islam”, penulis kata, yang itu adalah larangan kali pertama, dan kemudian nabi saw memberi kelonggaran.
Wallahu alam. Ini adalah saya petik dari pandangan penulis. Saya tidak mampu memberi apa2 komen kerana pengetahuan tersangat cetek. Cuma apa yang saya faham, kita dibolehkan memetik kata2 ahli kitab tetapi ada kaedah2 yang diperbolehkan ke arah itu.
Pemetikan daripada ahli kitab ni biasanya kita akan jumpa apabila membaca buku2 sejarah, pengkajian terhadap sesuatu isu2 sejarah, yakjuj makjuj, isa, imam mahdi, biasanya penulis (kebanyakan yang saya jumpa) tidak akan lepas daripada memetik ayat2 dari ahli kitab.
Persoalannya sama ada M. Alexander mengikut kaedah2 pemetikan ahli kitab yang betul atau tidak, itu yang kita tidak tahu. Mungkin boleh ditanya kepada yang pakar berkenaan sejauh mana kita diperboleh memetik ayat2 dari ahli kitab.
Wallahu alam
Saya bukan kata salah M.Alexander memetik dari Injil. Tetapi saya hairan dan meluat apabila beliau menggunakan Injil untuk mengukukuhkan pendapatnya tetapi selepas itu menuduh Injil sebagai kitab yg telah dipalsukan, kitab penuh kesilapan, kitab diselewengkan.
Aik? Bila boleh tolong, dia guna. Lepas tu dia kutuk?
Saya bukan kritik dia memetik Injil tapi saya kritik hipokrisinya.
Pemakaian ayat Bible itu termasuk sumber israiliyat. Ada tiga cara kita terima. Pertama, yg wajib kita tolak, bila ia bercanggah dengan al-quran dan as-sunnah. contohnya, nabi lut dimabukkan oleh dua anak perempuannya, lalu berzina dengan mereka kerana bimbang zuriat manusia terputus. Nabi Isa disalib; ayat spt ni tak boleh kita pakai;
Kedua, yg wajib kita terima, bila ia bertepatan dengan al-quran dan as-sunnah; Ini boleh kita pakai hujah untuk menguatkan pendapat kita. contoh: ramalan Bible mengenai datangnya Nabi Muhammad.
Ketiga, boleh kita terima dan boleh kita tolak bila ia tak dinyatakan dalam al-Quran dan as-sunnah serta tak pula bercanggah dengan kedua2nya.
Dalam Quran juga ada ayat yang mengkritik ayat Bible; dan dalam ayat lainnya Quran juga membenarkan ayat Bible. Contoh Kritik Quran terhadap Taurat yang sudah diubah:
Maka dengan sebab mereka mencabuli perjanjian setia mereka, Kami laknatkan mereka, dan Kami jadikan hati mereka keras membatu (tidak mahu menerima kebenaran). Mereka senantiasa mengubah Kalimah-kalimah (yang ada di dalam kitab Taurat dengan memutarnya) dari tempat-tempatnya (dan maksudnya) yang sebenar, dan mereka melupakan (meninggalkan) sebahagian dari apa yang diperingatkan mereka mereka dengannya. (Quran Al-Maidah 5:13)
Dan ini contoh ayat Quran yang membenarkan ayat Taurat & Injil: “Iaitu orang-orang yang mengikut Rasulullah (Muhammad s.a.w) Nabi yang Ummi, yang mereka dapati tertulis (namanya dan sifat-sifatnya) di dalam Taurat dan Injil yang ada di sisi mereka.” (Quran Al-A’raf 7:157)
Dan (ingatlah juga peristiwa) ketika Nabi Isa ibni Maryam berkata: “Wahai Bani Israil, sesungguhnya aku ini Pesuruh Allah kepada kamu, mengesahkan kebenaran Kitab yang diturunkan sebelumku, iaitu Kitab Taurat, dan memberikan berita gembira dengan kedatangan seorang Rasul yang akan datang kemudian daripadaku – bernama: Ahmad”. Maka ketika ia datang kepada mereka membawa keterangan-keterangan yang jelas nyata, mereka berkata: “Ini ialah sihir yang jelas nyata!” (Quran As-Saff 61:6)\
ayat2 ini bermakna Quran membenarkan bahawa nama Nabi Muhamamd ada dalam Taurat & Injil, dan menjadi tugas kita sebagai muslim untuk mencari ayat itu untuk menguatkan hujah kita dan Quran. Semua itu tergantung konteks topik permasalahan yang dikaji.
Persoalan seperti ini juga dilakukan oleh Dr. Maurice Bucaille dalam buku “La Bible, le Coran et la Science” (1976), Beliau juga menggunakan ayat Bible untuk mengukuhkan pendapatnya, dan juga beliau menunjukkan kepalsuan ayat Bible yang lain, so tidak jadi persoalan.
Begitu juga yang dilakukan oleh Jerald F. Dirks, seorang bekas pendeta Kristian Methodist USA yang masuk Islam, dalam buku beliau “The Cross & The Crescent”; dan juga Abdul Ahad Dawud dalam buku “Muhammad In The Bible”
so apa yang dilakukan Muhammad Alexander dalam buku “Alexander adalah Zulqarnain” itu tidak menjadi persoalan.
Konteks di sini adalah penting.
Maurice Bucaille menggunakan ayat-ayat Bible untuk membuktikan mana yg lebih saintifik; Quran atau Bible.
Jerald Dirks menggunakan ayat-ayat Bible untuk membuktikan bahwa Nabi Muhammad s.a.w ada disebut di dalamnya.
Manakala Muhammad Alexander pula menggunakan ayat-ayat Bible untuk memperkuatkan hujahnya iaitu, jika pernah terjadi di zaman Nabi Isa a.s. tidak mustahil boleh terjadi di zaman Alexander the Great (yakni berjumpa dgn org yg tidak hidup sezaman dgn kita).
Berbeza dgn hujah-hujah Maurice Bucaille dan Jerald Dirks yang boleh dianalisa dan boleh dikaji, hujah Muhammad Alexander berdasarkan spekulasi yg sukar untuk dibuktikan kerana insiden ini berlaku beribu tahun dahulu (kalau ya pun ia berlaku).
Therefore, a wise man whose name in Arabic means ‘to swallow’ could be (because Muhammad himself isn’t sure, he admits) Socrates the Greek philosopher because he died by swallowing poison.
I LOL’ed so hard at this I fell off my chair. Of course the term “to swallow” + man + Greek philosopher brought my mind to dirty and unmentionable places as well. *grin* This guy’s logic is incredible and stupefying (emphasis on the latter to make one stupid).
Muhammad simply sweeps all that away by stating that Alexander the Great had children and that proves he was not gay.
Someone must tell ex-Governor Jim McGreevey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McGreevey) that he is NOT GAY. No sir. ‘Cause has children. *howls with laughter some more*
If you have decided and argued that a particular source of information is unreliable, how then can you use the same source to help strengthen your case when it suits you? If you say a witness is a liar, can you then use the testimony of that same witness?
The slippery slope; it has been oiled further.
Thanks for the NOT!rec. *grin*
My work here is done
Khairul H. – I read bad books so you don’t have to.
Sebuah ulasan buku yang hebat, saya teruja dengan jumlah buku yang Tuan Khairul miliki dan baca (lebih dari 1000 buku), wow ….
Saya yakin dengan jumlah sebanyak itu, Tuan pasti sudah berjaya menulis beberapa buku karya sendiri. Bolehkah saya tahu tajuk buku karya Tuan itu?
Tidak pernah menulis atau menerbitkan apa-apa karya sendiri. Saya suka membaca saja, tak suka menulis untuk bacaan ramai.
Dan juga tidak perlu menjadi penulis profesional untuk memberi ulasan buku yg sudah kita baca. Saya suka buku tu, saya beritahu mengapa. Saya tak suka, saya beritahu juga mengapa. Orang lain setuju tak setuju, itu hak mereka. Saya beri pendapat saya.
Kristina, ulasan Khairul memang hebat, betapa tidak hebat? buku AAZ itu ada 727 muka surat, dan hanya membaca 80 muka surat sahja (11%) Khairul sudah boleh membuat ulasan, ini betul-betul hebat & ajaib.
Baca 1000 buku tapi belum menghasilkan sebarang buku karya sendiri? Mungkin krn kesibukan di depan internet, kritik sana kritik sini, menghabiskan masa dan ringgit, hingga tak boleh menghasilkan apapun buku bermutu. Atau mungkin takut bukunya dikritik? keh ..keh ..keh..
Kalau saya sih baru baca 57 buku dan memang ada plan nak tulis buku sendiri.
Laa, ada lagi si Koring ni? HAHAHA!
Aku dah habis baca lah. Yg baca 80 mukasurat tu minggu lepas.
“Baca 1000 buku tapi belum menghasilkan sebarang buku karya sendiri? Mungkin krn kesibukan di depan internet, kritik sana kritik sini, menghabiskan masa dan ringgit, hingga tak boleh menghasilkan apapun buku bermutu. Atau mungkin takut bukunya dikritik? keh ..keh ..keh..
Kalau saya sih baru baca 57 buku dan memang ada plan nak tulis buku sendiri.”
Ini ulasan yg tidak masuk akal. Ramai org membaca beribu buku tapi tidak menerbitkan buku sendiri. Contohnya, koring sendiri hehehe.
LOL!
Saya dah baca semua ulasan ini, saya pun dah baca buku aaz tu & nak compare ulasan Khairul,
dan ternyata ulasan khairul tidak kena pada tempatnya, seperti kata peribahasa
“JAUH PANGGANG DARI API”.
*shrugs* Okay. I don’t mind. You have your opinions and I have mine. Tak kisah pun org setuju ke tak.
Namun begitu saya tergerak untuk menyentuh peribahasa yg anda diketengahkan. Saya rasa tidak tepat peribahasa itu dalam hal ini. Semua kritikan saya berdasarkan apa yg saya baca dari buku AAZ itu. Maka saya percaya “panggang” memang kena “api”. Ini membuat saya fikir ada 2 kemungkinan:
1) Anda tidak fasih Bahasa Inggeris (BI) dan kurang paham tulisan saya sebab saya tulis dalam BI.
2) Anda terlalu taksub dgn AAZ sehingga tidak boleh dan tidak mahu menerima hujah yg kontra dgn AAZ. Ini tabiat yg tidak profesional.
Saya syorkan anda mengkritik reviu saya tapi buatlah di blog sendiri bukannya di ruang komentar. Bukan tempatnya. Blog adalah percuma (tapi kalau nak bayar pun boleh, lagi macam-macam kelebihan disedikan). Tulislah apa-apa pun di blog sendiri.
Sementara itu sila baca reviu oleh Najmuddin pula: http://mudin001.com/2010/09/28/kecek2-tentang-alexander-adalah-zulqarnain/
Salam,
Pertama sekali aku ucap tahniah sebab kau bersungguh-sungguh menafikan kesungguhan penulis melakukan kajiannya.
Pertama sekali aku fikir kepala otak kau tentu pening sebab banyak sangat membaca karya-karya Barat.
Aku nak tanya kau, sebelum buku ini keluar, ada tak orang Islam yang mampu keluarkan hujah yang kuat bagi membersihkan nama Alexander?
Ada tak orang Islam yang mengkaji betul-betul tentang Bible sehingga mampu membuat perbandingan versi asal dan versi ditokok tambah? Kalau kau kata semua Bible itu silap, kau salah.
Sebagai orang Islam aku cukup bangga dengan penemuan ini walaupun banyak ayat berulang-ulang tetapi isinya tak sama.
Kau mungkin tak kisah sebab tak ada satu pun kajian di tangan kau mengenai Zulqarnain dan kau kutuk penulis sedangkan kau tak ada apa-apa research pun?!
Jadi, aku harap hormati penulis supaya orang lain pun akan hormat dengan kau.
Sekian, terima kasih.
“Kau mungkin tak kisah sebab tak ada satu pun kajian di tangan kau mengenai Zulqarnain dan kau kutuk penulis sedangkan kau tak ada apa-apa research pun?!”
Hmm, seorang lagi peminat AAZ yg tidak boleh menerima sebarang kritikan. Ya, kritikan bukan kutukan. Ada perbezaan di situ.
Aku kritik (bukan kutuk) cara penulisan dan pendapat M. Alexander yg kurang meyakinkan aku. Bukannya aku kata dia salah bila menganggap Alexander adalah Zulkarnain tapi aku kurang yakin. Baca sekali lagi tulisan aku. Aku rasa kau kurang fasih dalam Bahasa Inggeris sebab tu kau salah paham dengan apa yg aku tulis.
Aku mengkritik alasan-alasannya bukannya aku kutuk. Ada paham ka tarak paham ka???
Nabi Muhammad merupakan orang yang tidak pernah melakukan pembohongan.beliau juga merupakan seorang yang pandai.adakah tuan ingin menyangkal apa yang diberitahunya tentang zulkarnain.
“dia berasal dari rom.dia diberi kekuasaan sampai ke mesir dan mendirikan kota iskandariah(alexander)apabila dia selasai,dia didatangi malaikat,lalu dinaikkan.malaikat itu berkata ‘aku melihat satu kota’Malaikat berkata ‘itu adalah bumi seluruhnya,hanya sahaja Allah ingin memperlihatkan kepadamu dan memberikan kekuasaan untukmu di bumi.Berjalanlah padanya dan ajarlah orang yang bodoh serta kukuhkan orng yang berilmu’
bukan semua orang rom pagan.adakah tuan mahu menafikan kata-kata rasulallah.kalau bukan alexander siapa lagi!!!!
Kalau nak bagi hadis tak boleh pakai suka-suka tulis je! Dari mana riwayatnya? Tidak dinyatakan dalam komen anda. Adakah ia hadis sahih, daif atau palsu? Tidak dinyatakan dalam komen anda. Lagipun Alexander dari Macedonia, bukan Rom. Jangan salah sangka. Di zaman Alexander, empayar Rom belum wujud lagi. Julius Caesar belum lahir. Jangan kata Julius, moyang dia pun belum lahir. Harus diingatkan bahwa di zaman Rasulullah istilah ‘Rom’ melingkungi benua Eropah dan bukannya Rome di Italy yg ketika zaman Rasulullah (saw) sudah pun jatuh empayarnya. Jadi bila anda kata bukan semua org Rom beragam pagan, adakah anda fikir Rome di Italy tu atau Rome mengikut istilah yg dipahami oleh kaum Arab pada abad ke-7?
Apa-apa pun itu semua tidak penting kerana jika anda lihat semua komen-komen yg menyanggah saya di sini, mereka seolah-olah tidak memahami apa yg saya tulis. MUNGKIN mereka memang tidak paham apa saya tulis kerana saya tulis dalam Inggeris dan mungkin mereka tidak fasih Inggeris. Lihat tajuk entri ni: Who Cares? atau dlm Melayu, “Peduli Apa?”. Saya tak kisah siapa Dzulkarnain…Alexander? Cyrus? Mamat? Joyah? Who Cares? Bukan siapa Dzulkarnain yg patut kita buang masa memikirkan tetapi apa yg dia telah buat. Itu yg lebih penting. Apa dia telah lakukan dan bagaimana kita boleh ikut tingkah lakunya dan dijadikan tauladan. Bukannya dia Raja Parsi, dia Orang Rom, dia Orang India, dia Orang Melayu. WHO CARES!
saya mahu bertanya kepada khairul h nabi-nabi sebelum nabi muhammad berketurunan apa?nabi muhammad berketurunan apa?kenapa bani israel tidak menerjma nabi muhammad?jawab soalan ni
Apa punya soalan ni? Apa kena mengena dengan buku AAZ? Dah, aku tak layan soalan yg takde kena mengena dgn topik. Sedangkan soalan aku kat atas tu pun kau tak layan* (di mana riwayat hadis yg dipetik? Mengapa buat tak tau? Atau memang tak tahu?), ni nak tukar topik ke bangsa nabi le pulak. Pi tidur la!
*yeah, this is the same guy as above.
I think there is a trend now for alternative history. I, for one, am tired of history being told (and often distorted) by western historians, and enjoy hearing other perspectives. I find it quite unfortunate though that when a new hypothesis comes up, and it does not go with the majority’s opinion – it immediately gets ridiculed or knocked down as rubbish.
As for the issue of “who” is Zulkarnain – perhaps the blogger/reviewer here may not care about the identity of this person, as he blatantly stated. However – trust me when I say this – there are a great many people who do care, and in the best interest of knowledge, we have to accept there are bound to be many theories surrounding the bygone past. To the reviewer, I would say – I love the idea that you are doing all these reviews, but it would do you well to stay objective, rather than get taken away making rather disconcerting remarks and personal attacks on those whose books you review and do not agree with their hypothesis.
Salam alaykum,
I’m not really an avid reader but I’m trying to be. Reading a blog about someone else who reads is a good start eh?
This particular post is a good read and I praise your effort in writing a holistic review on a book that probably would take days or weeks to finish. I own the book and I still haven’t finished reading it yet. :/
Although some of your comments about the book were perhaps… harsh towards the author, I have to somehow concur with you, especially the ones at his biblical references. So maybe I’m a softy and not really critical. I guess I have a lot to learn from other readers as well with hopes that my English could improve along the way
Waalaykum salam,
Perhaps I was harsh but I read books on Islam with a more critical eye than other books. I do not tolerate poorly argued theories in so-called academical tomes such as this one. I take Islam seriously and cannot bear to see a book on Islam where the author shoves all kinds of arguments just to fit his preconceived notions.
By the way, your English is very good so don’t worry.
1. “Karya ini tidak objektif”
We need to understand that the author stated the title “Alexander adalah Zurkarnain” not prior to his research. For “Average People” to understand it means the author conducted his research first then he made the title of the book to be published. Not much of an issue to be put forward.
2. Muhammad Alexander sering menyangkal pendapat penulis lain dengan ayat seperti, “penulis itu keliru, penulis ini keliru”.
You see, the idea of filtering the recorded history made by various historians, religous or testament writers and the religous scriptures etc is a noble effort by the author.
For examples if Al Masih Isa Ibn Mariam (Christ, Jesus the son of Mary) is being recorded as the Son of God and God Himself in the recorded Gospel and other Historian Scriptures, would you accept it???
You will say no!
Im asking “Why not??”
You are going to tell me that “the recorded Gospel and other Historian Scripture had been manipulated or interpolated”
I say “Right” and “What made them incorrect??”
You are going to tell me that “The authors’ personal background and environment had clouded (affect) their judgements”
You are right again
Therefore you are in the same allignment as the author
This issue is simple enough to be understood and it can be apllicable in view the case study of Alexander the Great.
3. Satu lagi contoh ialah apabila Muhammad Alexander menganggap Alexander bukanlah ‘gay’ seperti dituduh oleh para sarjana Barat.
This kind of issue is very vital to be proven by the author that the fact is the otherwise. Eversince Prophet Luth for the people of Sodom (which now have derived Sodomites = Homosexuals) we have since that Allah the AlMighty prohibits that not after the Last Testament aka the Holy Quran was revealed.
For your information, can you prove that what is recorded in the historical scriptures is reliable to state “Whether Alexander is Gay?” .. then state what is the proof?
4. Tak habis-habis orang Barat juga dipersalahkan!
This is not about who is to be blamed or not, but what we seek is the Truth.
5. Menggunakan Injil untuk memperkukuhkan hujahnya
You should have read many other books regarding the Old and the New testaments (Torah and Gospel) such as Muhammad in the Bible, Is Bible, God’s Words?, History of Quranic Text Revelation to Compilation etc
Many Muslim Scholars such as Syeikh Ahmed Deedat, Dr Zakir Naik etc had stated that in the Bible consists of God’s Word, the Prophet’s (Isa) Word and the histiorian’s words. So they state that one should not entirely reject the revelations of Allah since it had been stated in the Quran that there had been some manipulations but not totally different holy books and not to accept everything in it. since this will affect the Faith in the Holy Books mentioned in the Quran (4 main Holy Books)
I will add more details on the religous scriptures for all of us to share and understand better through the proofs of various eminent Muslim’s Scholars.
Too long, didn’t read.
I did have all of the late Ahmed Deedat’s lectures and debates on video back in the 1980s but that is neither here nor there.
I still think this book is nonsense.
I will add more details on the religous scriptures for all of us to share and understand better through the proofs of various eminent Muslim’s Scholars.
Don’t bother. This entry was written in September. Today is December. I’ve moved on. So should you.
[...] Sebahagian besar apa yang aku ingin kongsi tentang buku ini telah disentuh oleh Khairul H di sini dan sini, juga di forum GR-MY. Ada lagikah yang boleh aku tambah? Sedikit saja aku [...]
haha, nasib baik tak beli buku ni. Aku setuju dengan poin The Malaysian Reader, dia pun TERUJA nak baca benarkah claim penulis bahawa Iskandar itu Alexander, tapi hujahnya tidak berapa kuat (tidak memberi fakta-fakta yang kuat, atau sumber-sumber yang kuat) menyebabkan claim itu terbatal terus. Itu aja. Di sinilah pembaca perlu teliti dan baca buku “dengan mendalam” dan bukan secara dasar. Tahniah Khairul!
it is possible that Alexander the great was a righteous, monotheist and a just king. The accounts of the book,Alexander’s romance, is actually a recession from Callisthenes’ original compilation, who was Alexander’s main historian and physically attended his expeditions into asia. Alexander’s romance did witness transformations over time, but one of the main elements the recurr in its different editions (whether syriac, ethopic etc.) describe this macedonian king as person of righteoueness, a monotheist who sought God’s closeness, and a saintly figure who was aided with Divine help, and whose concern was to bring peace, justice, and prosperity to those whom he conquered.
it should be known that Allah swt, says in His book, the Quran, that He doesnt cause reform/islah from the deeds of mufsidun/corrupters, and that the evil plotter, his evil plot comes back to him, and that Allah swt doesnt grant success to those who oppress, and so in the light of these facts, Alexander has to be someone pious, God-fearing and righteous, who was granted one success after the other, who was established on the earth, and whose name, legacy and praise has been mentioned across centuries, cultures, and generations.
Also the Jews have narration in their talmud and other sources that Alexander held the city of Jerusalem, its temple , and its people in much esteem and respect.
There is one narration that speaks of him before arriving to Jerusalem, of him telling the priests in the temple that he is coming to the city in the name of their God, and that the Prophet of Allah Jeremiah alihyesalam met with him and blessed him, and when Alexander saw Jeremiah, he was astonished to see him, as before that he appeared to Alexander in his dream.. and that the priests of Temple prayed for his victory way before Alexander even arrived to Jerusalem, and of Alexander affirming to Bani Israel that their God is the true God ..and this is the same the temple where latter in history Prophet zakariya peace be upon him, was one of its respected figures, and Mariam (as) was given a place for worship
it should be known that the accounts the describe Alexander as a polytheist are not eye witness accounts, unlike of those of Callisthenes , rather they come from what some other latter Greek historians such as Arrian, who live centuries after Alexander, had narrated based on very obscure sources
likewise there is no proof, nor eye witness account of Alexander being gay or a drunkard.
It was a cultural habit of certain Greek historians to describe foreign lands, their beliefs, ways and customs, from an ethnocentric prespective, seeing them from a Greek lense.
So for example the indian ‘god’ krishna who was worshipped in a certain far away ancient town in India, was described/identified by Megasthenes ( a Greek historian ) as the greek ‘god’ Heraclius being worshipped by those Indians, or that certain Egyptian dieties being described as the same as Zeus, and Apollo etc.
They even used to describe people with foriegn names, of non-Greek nations, with their names translated in greek, or ioanized to sound Greek. Names of Persian kings like “Khashayar”, and “Daraa” became “Xerxes” and “Darius”, etc.
even whole country names were ioanized by them, such as “persis” for “Fars”, etc.
so it is possible that when Alexander worshipped the one God, or when he described His different names and attributes, or offered scarifice to Him, the latter Greek historians described that as if he was worshipping Zeus or Heraclius.
Most of the Muslim scholars held that Alexander is Dhul Qarnayn, one such was Ibn Ishaq, who was the first one to compile the Prophet sallahu alihye wasalam’s seerah and Ibn Hisham who latter compiled ibn ishaq’s seerah in his own work. During the time of the Prophet sallahu alihye wasalam,The Jews of Madina, and also the Christians of Syria, based on the Alexander romances, used to see him as the Dhul Qarnayn and also the builder of the wall against yajjuj majuj, it was from this cultural context that the Jewish rabbis posed their question to the Quraish delegation for the Prophet sallahu alihye wasalam.
it should be known that Alexander’s image as that of a polytheist, drunkard, etc. was first propagated en mass and given reliability during the “enlightment era” in Europe, based on the work of the Greek historian Arrian, that came to light at that time, with Arrian being a historian two century appart from Alexander, and whose work itself faced many criticism placing the reliability of his accounts into question.
Wish to highlight abt King Cyrus too was highly regarded by the Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
King Cyrus was influenced by Zoroastrian, a religion of one god Ahura Mazda and also had their own prophet Zoroaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrian
Just another debate. i am with the blog owner though. Zulkarnain could b anyone. However, i wonder why Oliver Stone / makers of Alexander the movie project the symbol of the religion as if Alexander in the movie also a believer.
I saw this book lying around in bulk at the various bookstores I visited but I didn’t even bother to take a peek, simply because I know that the premise is NOT true, that Alexander the Great is NOT Dhul-Qarnain of the Qur’an. And I have the evidence supporting this assertion.
“Alexander Adalah Zulkarnain. Do not buy”
Assalamualaikum…dah beli pun…tahun lepas…
tapi, tak habis baca lagi, sebab ada seseorang cakap kat saya, “baca lah buku tu, tp gosip je tu….”..jadi, tak semangat dah la nak habiskan….lagipun, nak memahamkan ayat2 dalam buku tu saya memerlukan suasana yang tenang…..hehe….
Mana boleh yahudi jadi scythians? Yahudi adalah orang semitik.
dzhul qarnain was alexander the great from macedonia.alexander adalah raja makedonia dari macedonia. alexander bukan homosexual.
raja kurush(cyrus) adalah raja parsi dari persia(iran).
alexander membina tembok besi di kawasan pergunungan kaukasus(caucasus mountains) untuk menahan puak yakjuk makjuk(scythian/skyfiya/saka/scyths).
Scythians adalah orang indo-european,sama seperti Parthians,Indo-Iranians dan bangsa-bangsa indo-european yang lain.
read up on indo -europeans, alexander the great,caucasus peoples.
uhhh . berminat betol tengok orang komen lepas tuu berdebat . (saje menyebok)
Perdebatan adalah bagus tapi saya rase mesti ada batasnya dan perlu fokus kepada isu pokok. Saya langsung tidak membaca karya ini kerana tajuk dan kulit buku tersebut. Pemahaman saya yang cetek ini menyatakan Zukarnain adalah seorang yang beragama dan adil. Alexander pula lebih kepada seorang yang ganas dan tampak tidak bertimbang rasa. Zulkarnain yang beragama dan beradab mungkin dari kerajaan Parsi atau seumpamanya yang more ‘civilised’. Oleh itu cara pakaiannya mestilah lebih beradab. Alexander nampak lebih seksi dan more ‘barbaric’ dari segi pakaian. Dari situ saya sudah buat kesimpulan bahawa penulisan ini ‘not worth reading’. May not be fair to judge a book by its cover but from the comments above, I was right! Somehow I have a feeling this book is published to achieve some agenda………………………………………………………………………………………….
Basicly, penulis cuma bagi fact ‘why’ dia convience Alexander adalah Zulqarnain. Dia bukan nak present others party punya arguement, just nak throwed idea about who is dzulqarnain that he believe is Alexender the Great. His assumption based on AQEDAH TAUHID THAT APPEAR IN THE WRITING OF PLATO & SOCREATES.. INSTEAD OF BLINDLY ACCEPTING REPORT MADE BY MUSRYIKIN PAGAN OF ROM AND GREECE ON ALEXENDER THE GREAT, his way of writing is similar with writing of other story book FOR EXAMPLE GOSPEL itself which with the message to promote idea of the writer.
assalamulaikum..
tergerak hati nk bagi sedikit komen saya rasa penulis buku sepert MA memberi hujah yang hnya mampu di capai shja baca sikit terus dijdkan hujah bkn brbntuk penyelidikan.. iskandar bukanlah alexander kerana sikap tawadhuk pd Allah hnya pd iskandar..