Was Quranic story of Dhul Qarnain and khidr And Fish taken from Romance of Alexander? A response to atheists and orientalists objection on Quran

Was Quranic story of Dhul Qarnain and khidr And Fish taken from Romance of Alexander?
A response to atheists and orientalists objection on Quran
Compiled by Dr Ahead Hassan

 The atheists and orientalists say that Quranic story of Dhuld Qarnain is taken from Aexanders the great life account book ,the Romance of Alexander.They say that ibn Ishaq and Ibn hisham label Dhul Qarnain as Alexander the great.
First of all,remember that Ibn  ishaq and ibn hisham are not prophets, they are scholars of islam, when they said that Dhul-Qurnayn was alexander the great it was just their opinion, there opinion is not supported by the quran or the hadith.If they are then please show us the Quranic verse/hadith in which Dhul Qarnain is labelled as Alexander the great.And the evidence from Ibn Hisham is in his Sira, not the Hadith.
The story which Ibn Hesham based his assumption on is narrated by Wahb Ibn Minah who is regarded as a source of fabricated hustoric accounts and myths.
There seems to be some confusion – the purpose of this story in the Quran is that the Jews of Madinah put out this story as a challenge question to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Which means they knew Makkans had no chance to know of about DQ. So unless there’s some historical evidence that Muhammad PBUH got in contact with some story teller in the 15-20 days after which he recited this part of the Quran, the argument, IMHO, that, since ppl after the messenger thought DQ was Alexander, the Quran is mistaken, does not hold up to rationality.
If there WAS some such story teller, the Jews and Makkans would definitely have made a HUGE issue out of it, and history would have recorded it. An argument often given in response to this is that we don’t have many historians’ accords of that time, and Ibn Ishaq might have purposefully ignored the part about the story teller. In that case, we’re doubting Ibn Ishaq, which makes the whole case shatter even further, as, the article in the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander the great in quran)
         The orientalists and atheists further say that Dhul Qarnain means "Two horned" and theit coins have been discovered from Arabic region which show Alexander ad great with two horns. for the two horns things.......first of all the word "Qarn" in arabic can be translated to "horn" or "century"....that's why the Quran translators left it as it is "Zulqarnin"...........and in the hadiths which explain why the Quran called him "Zulqarnin" some companions say that it's about the look of his hair......and as mentioned before a senior companion like Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra)say that zulqarnin was not even a king
and what is also popular among the muslim scholars is there were not one Zulqarnin but two......and Alexender the Great is the 2nd....and between there is 2000 years or less...
The prophet (saw) or any of his companions (such as abu bakr, umar, uthman and ali (mat Allah be please with them)) never ever said Dhul qurnayn is alexander the great.The atheists and orientalists   just quote the sira of ibn hisham, he was born about thousand years after the prophet (saw) death.
As far as we know Alexander the great of Macedonia was a kaafir. Dhul qarnayn was a Muslim.There is no mention in the Qur’aan of how long Dhu’l-Qarnayn (Alexander) lived, or of the era in which he lived.
Dhu’l-Qarnayn who is mentioned in the Qur’aan is not Alexander the Macedonian or Greek who built Alexandria. This Alexander is the one who died at the age of 33, as mentioned in the Christian books. He lived 323 years before the birth of the Messiah (peace be upon him).
According to Ibn Kaseer r.a,Dhu’l-Qarnayn who is mentioned in the Qur’aan lived at the time of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him), and it is said that he became Muslim at the hands of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him), and he went on pilgrimage to the Ka’bah walking. The scholars differed concerning him, as to whether he was a Prophet or a righteous slave and just king, but they agree that he was a Muslim, a monotheist (believer in Tawheed) and one who was obedient to Allaah.
The correct view is to refrain from stating what he was, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I do not know whether Tubba’ was a Prophet or not, and I do not know whether Dhu’l-Qarnayn was a Prophet or not.”
(Narrated by al-Haakim and al-Bayhaqi; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 5524).
The difference between this righteous slave, and the Macedonian Alexander who was a kaafir, is well known to Muslim scholars. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Badaayah wa’l-Nahaayah (1/493):
“It was narrated that Qutaadah said: Alexander was Dhu’l-Qarnayn and his father was the first of the Caesars, and he was one of the descendants of Saam ibn Nooh (Shem the son of Noah). As for Dhu’l-Qarnayn, he was Alexander son of Philip… ibn Roomi ibn al-Asfar ibn Yaqaz ibn al-‘Ees ibn Ishaaq ibn Ibraaheem al-Khaleel. This is the genealogy of him given by al-Haafiz ibn ‘Asaakir in his Taareekh. (He is known as) the Macedonian, the Greek, the Egyptian, builder of Alexandria, on the events of whose life the Greeks based their calendar. He came much later than the first Alexanderor Dhul Qarnain. This was approximately three hundred years before the Messiah.
 The Dhul Qarnain who is mentioned in the Qur’aan  was a righteous believing slave and a just king, and the Alexander  was a mushrik and  his minister was a philosopher named Aristotle. According to some islamic scholars,there were more than two thousand years between the two, so what comparison can there be between them? They are not alike at all and they have nothing in common, except in the mind of a fool who does not know anything.”
 Alexander was convinced he was the son of/ was the Egyptian-Graeco god Ammon-Zeus, who was depicted with horns or ram head. Arabian coins minted by Arabian kings show Alexander with two horns on his head as early as 200 BC.
The characteristics of Dhul-Qarnain in the light of his story as given in the Qur'an now follow:
(1) The title Dhul-Qarnain ("The Two-Horned") should have been quite familiar to the Jews, for it was at their instigation that the disbelievers of Mecca put this question to Mohammad. Therefore one must turn to Judaic literature in order to learn who was the person known as "The Two-Horned" or which was the kingdom known as "The Two-Horned."
And the word Dhul Qarnain is not essentially used to mean the two horned one.About Zul-Qayrnoon, Muhammad Ali says (p586): {The word qarn means a horn, as also a generation or a century and dhul qarnain literally means the two-horned one, or one belonging to the two generations or two centures. The reference here seems to be to the two horned ram of Daniel's vision (dan. 8:3), which he interpreted as the Kindoms of Media and Persia, which were combined into a single kindom under one ruler, Cyrus, who is erroneousy called Darius in the Bible.
why there is not a single saying by the prophet or even his companion which say that zulqarnin is alexander the great??......not a single word on that in what excess 250,000 hadith!!.......and not to mention the fact that the Quran didn't even mention his name!!.....again why??....99% of Muslim scholars said that they don't know for sure who is zulqarnin (because the prophet didn't specify and the Quran too).........if it was such an established fact in judo xtian base of knowledge that the two horned is Alexander then why the Quran and the prophet and the companion rejected it??......how come even one of the most knowledgable companions like Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) say that zulqarnin was not even a king???in all the tafsirs you find no link made between the two horned man and Alexander.
The atheists and orientalists blame Islam that Quranic story of Dhul Qarnain is taken from from Romance of Alexander but no arabic version of this greek Romance of Alexander was present in Holy Prophet S.A.W time and Prophet Muhammad s.a.w did not Greek language nor Greek version of Romance of Alexander was present  in Arabia at that time.So the non Muslims changed their side and attackedit on Quran in a different way.This time,they blamed that Quranic story of Dhul Qarnain was taken from syriac version of Romance of Alexander and attacked in a different way  thought the Syriac version of the Alexander Romances was a post Islamic invention.
But there is a problem with this blame of atheists and orientalists .There is a problem with that...in the texts of the jews and the xtians the Alexender was mentioned by name but not in Quran.....and even stranger...not even in hadith!!.....and even stranger and starnger......not even by the companions or 99.9999999999% of the Muslim scholars........could it be because Islam corrected the distortations of xtians and jews?
if everyone believed zulqarnin is Alexnder...then why no one just even mentioned his name??....how come they were not even sure if he was even a king or not??
t is not a legend in the bible or in the Quran.....both books are from the same God telling the stories of what happend by believers and non believers in the past......the major difference is that the bible was distorted......for example a rabbi find that it make more sense if "The Two Horned Lord" should be replaced with "Alexender" so he just do it..changing the word of God.
Noeldeke said that Zulqarnain is Alexander the Great. Yet, the dating of Syriac version seems to indicate that the material was not present in Muhammad's time, at least that's what Budge and Wright seems to say so.
the man was not even known in Arabia....only the very knowledgable jews knew about him.
Hellenized Jews and Christians romantacized Alexander into a pious monotheist hundreds of years before Muhammed s.a.w.
The Ethiopic version of these Christian Alexander legends calls Alexander "the two horned lord", and a story from the Syriac version, avaliable in the Middle East.
The Syriac text is a post Islamic "document". Julian's arguments rest of assumptions that the Syrian text was available during Muhammad's time. That's a fallacy.
So is current Hebraic. Proving which Langauge is the origin and which is the offshoot is easy. That Syriac or Hebrew came first is just an assumption that orientalists liked to state as though it was fact. It is wrong.
The Syriac version of the Alexander stories has been dated from between the sixth and the tenth centuries. Budge had argued for the Syriac version to be dated roughly between the seventh and ninth centuries. On the basis of the spelling of proper names and vocabulary, Wright had argued that the Syriac translation was made from an Arabic original and places it in the tenth century.Nöldeke dated the Syriac version to the late sixth century. He argued that the spelling and vocabulary indicate not an Arabic but a Pahlavi origin. The Syriac version is, in fact,a source of much of non-Koranic Alexander tradition and legend in the Islamic world but its account not matches with Quran and Quran had been reavealed before it.
Reference is:
E. A. W. Budge, The History Of Alexander The Great Being The Syriac Version Of The Pseudo-Callisthenes, 1889, op cit., p. lx.
Th. Nöldeke, "Beiträge Zur Geschichte Des Alexanderroman", Denkschriften Der Kaiserlichen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe, 1890, Volume 37, pp. 30-32.
 S. Gero, "The Legend Of Alexander The Great In The Christian Orient", Bulletin Of The John Rylands University Library Of Manchester, 1993, Volume 75,
 In Lissan Al Arab  Qarnayn has many meanings.. It certainly has many meanings.  A Qarn (singular of Qarnayn) is a high wall. Arabs frequently refered to the two high walls around a well as Qarnayn (see the Hadeeth below).
So it is more probable that ZulQarnayn is called that because he built the damn between the Two High walls.So Dhul Qarnain may be called dhul qarnain becoming useThe he built a high wall against Gog Magog.
The biased non-muslims have asserted that the
 Qur'anic story of Dhul-Qarnayn was borrowed from the Syriac Christian Legend attributed to Jacob of Serugh.
Even Orientalists later decided that the linkage between Zul Al Qarnayn and Alexander the great is an error.
The link is 18:60 where Moses' fish escapes 'Saraaban' and leads him to Al Khidr. They took Sarabaan to mean Miraculously. In the Alexander the great story, his cook dipped a dead fish into various lakes, when the fish miraculousy came back to life he knew that this was the pond of eternal life.
The porblem is Saraban does not mean Miraculously at all. Saraab means mirage (as in desert mirage). The verse says the fish vanished like a mirage/vanished into nothing. Also, the Qur'an doesn't say the fish was dead to start with. The only Link between ZulQarnayn and Alexander was that dead fish so this is the end of that.
Now on to the actual greek story of the dead fish, this is how it develops:
Now to the interesting part, the account of the fish in the Alxendar the great stories changed 4 times, it became LIKE the account in the Qur'an after the revelation of the Qur'an. In other words, the Qur'an influenced the greek account of the Fish not the other way round.
The 3rd century CE: No fish mentioned, dead OR a live
Between the 4th and 6th centuries CE: Shorter fish episode. Contains the story of fish escaping but not the cook gaining immortality. Cook does not tell anybody about the fish.
Not earlier than middle of the 6th century CE:Cook takes the water of life in a silver vessel and gives some of it to Alexander's daughter.
Not earlier than the 6th century CE: Cook takes the water of life in a silver vessel and gives some of it to Alexander's daughter.
As you can see, the dead fish and the complete account of the cook gaining immortality (like Al Khidr) only really develops after the Qur'an not before, hence it is more probably that the account changed as a reult of copying FROM the Qur'an.
Here is more info from an Orientalist from Islamic awarenss.com from where  the above false linkage is achieved
Brannon Wheeler, who has discussed this issue of "borrowing" as adduced by Friedländer and Wensinck in great detail, says that:
There are a number of reservations against these contentions concerning the identity of the "fish" in the Alexander romance and Q 18:61 and 63. The identity of two fish is itself problematic. While the story in Q 18:60-65 has in common with the fish episode in Jacob of Serugh's sermon a fish whose escape is either made or noticed just before it is eaten, and mention of the some unusual water, it is not necessary to equate the two stories. Given the information in the Qur'an alone, it is uncertain that the fish in 18:61 and 63 was dead and escaped by being brought back to life in the water of life. Q 18:61 states that the two people, presumably Moses and his companion, forgot their fish, which made its way into the water. Q 18:63 likewise states that the fish made its way into the water. In neither case is there an indication, first that the fish was dead and, second, that if it were dead its escape was due to its contact with the water of life. Even if it is assumed that the fish was dead and escaped by coming back to life, there is no indication in verses 61 or 63 that this resurrection took place on account of the fish coming in contact with the water of life. In fact, in verse 63 Moses' companion states that the fish escaped while he and Moses were taking refuge on a rock.
Further he adds that:
More problematic for identifying Q 18:60-65 with the Alexander stories is the tendency of western scholars to confuse the information given in the Qur'an with its interpretation in the commentaries, just as the scholars confused the Qur'an and the commentaries in relation to Q 18:66-82. In the case of the fish episode, Wensinck and others have not paid close enough attention both to the variety within the early commentaries and to development of the explanations of Q 18:60-65 from the earlier to the later commentaries. For example, Q 18:61 states that the fish escapes making its way saraban. The term saraban has been understood as describing the fish's escape as a "miracle" in most translations of this verse. That the fish escaped by a miracle would be consistent with this episode having been taken from the Alexander Romance, where the fish, already dead, is brought back to life by the water of life and swims away. This understanding of the fish's escape is at odds with that of the commentaries, however.
Wheeler adds that:
There is also little indication that Q 18:60-65 was initially identified with the Alexander stories, except in two reports that reflect an attempt to link the fish in the Qur'an with the fish episode from the Alexander stories.... This interpretation insofar as it parallels the Alexander stories, must be distinguished from the information given in the Qur'an itself. The report of Ibn `Abbas is neither the only nor the "original" interpretation of the passage, but rather, it is an attempt to make an association between the Qur'an and otherwise extra-Qur'anic stories.
The atheists and orientalists  say that the "authors" of the Quran used the Syrian version of the Alexander romances to incorporate materials. According to E. A. W. Budge( The History Of Alexander The Great Being The Syriac Version Of The Pseudo-Callisthenes, 1889, )and S. Gero("The Legend Of Alexander The Great In The Christian Orient", Bulletin Of The John Rylands University Library Of Manchester, 1993, Volume 75, p. 5.,) the Syrian version dates back to post Islamic period. Hence, it is illogical to deduce that it was a source of the Quranic sotry of Zulqarnain.
Interesting.............christianity is liar
MUHHMUD COULD NOT READ!!!!!!!!!!! OR WRITE!!! HE WAS IN MECCA, HOW THE HECK DOES HE FIND OUT SOMETHING IN GREECE!!!! WHERE IS THE LOGIC. If he made this up HE IS THE GREATEST MAN THAT EVER WALKED ON THE EARTH, how the heck can he write this Koran(all these tales from all over the world into one book?), he made some dumb arabs into World WIde Kings. He made the Arabs powerful and smart and he was the reason for the Renassaince (communication with the Great Islamic Empire) If he made this up he is... it is so unlogical. Use commonsense...Btw, the Quran has so many accusations made by its enemies of it, and each accusations contradicts each other.
 The Orientalists, for some reason, assumed that the Fish with Moses was dead and that 'saraaban' meant it came back to life. Neither is correct. The fish was not dead and Sarab means Mirage - i.e, the Fish vanished quickly like a mirage.
018.061 فَلَمَّا بَلَغَا مَجْمَعَ بَيْنِهِمَا نَسِيَا حُوتَهُمَا فَاتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ سَرَبًا
018.061 But when they reached the Junction, they forgot (about) their Fish, which took its course through the sea (straight) as in a tunnel.
018.061 Falamm[a] balagh[a] majmaAAa baynihim[a] nasiy[a] [h]ootahum[a] fa(i)ttakha[th]a sabeelahu fee alba[h]ri sarab[a](n)
Do you see a dead fish here or a fish comming back to life ?
Orientlaists recently (and even back then) decided making the assumption that Zul Qarnayn was alexander based on the fish incident was incorrect because there is every indication that the fish was alive and because Saraban does not, in any defintion of the word, mean came back to life.
As a side note, Hoot means whale or an animal from that mamilian species, it does not mean Fish.
Read this verse about the same incident
________________________________________
018.063 قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِذْ أَوَيْنَا إِلَى الصَّخْرَةِ فَإِنِّي نَسِيتُ الْحُوتَ وَمَا أَنْسَانِيهُ إِلا الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ أَذْكُرَهُ وَاتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ عَجَبًا
018.063 He replied: "Sawest thou (what happened) when we betook ourselves to the rock? I did indeed forget (about) the Fish: none but Satan made me forget to tell (you) about it: it took its course through the sea in a marvellous way!"
018.063 Q[a]la araayta i[th] awayn[a] il[a] a(l)[ss]akhrati fa-innee naseetu al[h]oota wam[a] ans[a]neehu ill[a] a(l)shshay[ta]nu an a[th]kurahu wa(i)ttakha[th]a sabeelahu fee alba[h]ri AAajab[a](n)
If a fish was dead and came back to life, what would be the first thing that would grab his attention ? Its speed or the fact that it came back to life ???
it took its course through the sea in a marvellous way!" is inline with 'vanished like a Mirage' (sarab[a](n)) from the previous verse.
Here is a verse about Jonas

________________________________________
037.142 فَالْتَقَمَهُ الْحُوتُ وَهُوَ مُلِيمٌ
037.142 Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame.
037.142 Fa(i)ltaqamahu al[h]ootu wahuwa muleem(un)
a Hoot here is a whale, unless there is a fish large enough to swallow a person and still leave enough room inside it to keep him alive, Hoot cannot mean anything other than whale. Because here it is a whale and whales are not Fish then the previous verses must have been addressing a mamilian like a Dolphin or even a whale not a Fish.
As for the fish being the link:
" Brannon Wheeler, who has discussed this issue of "borrowing" as adduced by Friedländer and Wensinck in great detail, says that:
There are a number of reservations against these contentions concerning the identity of the "fish" in the Alexander romance and Q 18:61 and 63. The identity of two fish is itself problematic. While the story in Q 18:60-65 has in common with the fish episode in Jacob of Serugh's sermon a fish whose escape is either made or noticed just before it is eaten, and mention of the some unusual water, it is not necessary to equate the two stories. Given the information in the Qur'an alone, it is uncertain that the fish in 18:61 and 63 was dead and escaped by being brought back to life in the water of life. Q 18:61 states that the two people, presumably Moses and his companion, forgot their fish, which made its way into the water. Q 18:63 likewise states that the fish made its way into the water. In neither case is there an indication, first that the fish was dead and, second, that if it were dead its escape was due to its contact with the water of life. Even if it is assumed that the fish was dead and escaped by coming back to life, there is no indication in verses 61 or 63 that this resurrection took place on account of the fish coming in contact with the water of life. In fact, in verse 63 Moses' companion states that the fish escpaed while he and Moses were taking refuge on a rock.
Further he adds that:
More problematic for identifying Q 18:60-65 with the Alexander stories is the tendency of western scholars to confuse the information given in the Qur'an with its interpretation in the commentaries, just as the scholars confused the Qur'an and the commentaries in relation to Q 18:66-82. In the case of the fish episode, Wensinck and others have not paid close enough attention both to the variety within the early commentaries and to development of the explanations of Q 18:60-65 from the earlier to the later commentaries. For example, Q 18:61 states that the fish escapes making its way saraban. The term saraban has been understood as describing the fish's escape as a "miracle" in most translations of this verse. That the fish escaped by a miracle would be consistent with this episode having been taken from the Alexander Romance, where the fish, already dead, is brought back to life by the water of life and swims away. This understanding of the fish's escape is at odds with that of the commentaries, however.
Sir Wallis Budge indicated a long time ago that the Christian Legend had been re-worked and is burdened with additions, and that this work is that of Jacob of Serugh is improbable:
This composition appears to be an abbreviated form of which known to us is that given in the metrical discourse on Alexander attributed to Jacob of Serugh; both these works, in turn are based upon chapters xxxvii-xxxix of the second book of Pseudo-Callisthenes according to Muller's greek MS. C. The Christian Legend has been burdened with many additions, evidently the work of the Christian redactor, which have no connexion whatever with the story. On the other hand many passages, as, for example, the account of his descent into the sea in a glass cage, have been entirely omitted. The names of the places which are given us freely in this legend seem to indicate that it was drawn up at a very late period; that it is the work of Jacob of Serugh is improbable.
More.........
Among Western scholars, the issue of Dhul-Qarnayn (the two-horned one) in Qur'an 18:82 had been a source of great debate. The debate surrounds not only the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn but also the sources of the Qur'anic story. Who was he? Was he really Alexander the Great? Hammer-Purgstall held that Dhul-Qarnayn was one of the old kings of Yemen.Graf took exception to this view and cited the passages from Ephippus and Clement that referred to the representations of Alexander as son of Ammon with horns. He concluded that the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn is that of Alexander.Graf's conclusions provoked the dissent of Redslob. Redslob, citing the prophecy of Daniel in which the king of the Medes and Persians is interpreted as the two-horned ram, proposed that Dhul-Qarnayn was Cyrus the Persian. Beer held that the Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an had adopted the form of the long awaited Jewish redeemer or messiah.And others like Geiger have attempted to link Dhul-Qarnayn to Moses.In the Western scholarhip, the issue of Dhul-Qarnayn's identity was finally brought to a close by Nöldeke who established that Dhul-Qarnayn was none other than Alexander and the source of the Qur'anic narrations was the Syrian Christian Legend ascribed to Jacob of Serugh (d. 521 CE). Nöldeke dated the Christian Legend to 514-515 CE.A similar claim that identifies Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander was made by Newton and other Christian missionaries/apologists. Nöldeke's position was accept by many scholars until it was discovered that the internal evidence of the Christian Legend suggested a post-Islamic date.
So you see the issue of who his Identity is not definate as you would like to have everyone beleive, also did you read the part in Bold red ? The Christian Legen suggested a POST Islamic date. In othe words, it was copied from the Qur'an.
Alexander the great was known at the time of Mohamed (Saaws) if he was the person intended the verse would have stated directly that it was Alexander the Great. Can you think of one reason why the Qur'an wouldn't simply state his name if it was him ?
The Christian legends about Alexander have been proven to be POST-Islamic hence any similarities between what the Qur'anic Zul Qarnayn and the Christian Alexanderis a matter of Christians copying from The Qur'an not the other way round.
Zulqarnain means man with two horns. Although an old tradition says Moses had two horns, Muslims have largely identified him with Alexander the Great. In Rome, the statue of Moses has two horns.
Qarn meaning 'Horn' is not once used that way in the Qur'an. The Qur'an uses Qarn over a dozen times to refer to 'Generation' and 'Bound together' so thats what the word means - not Horns. That was one of 2 links missionaries tried to use to make the person Alexander.
Two Horns, Two centuries and other things:
Qarn is never mentioned in the Qur'an in the context of a Horn. It is only mentioned either as 'Generation' or as 'Bound together/interwined').
Here is how the Qur'an uses the term Qarn.
Generations (verse 006.006, 019.074,019.098,023.031,038.003,050.036 )
Bound together (verse 14.49,025.013,038.038).
It is from bound together that Ali is reported to have said Qarnayn is a referenrce to two interwined braids the person had because a Braid is hair 'bound together'.
So insisting that Zul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great despite the Qur'an not saying so, and using the fact that Qarn means Horn evern though the Qur'an never uses Qarn as Horn is rather pathetic despite all the claims that the person is a truth seeker or whatever else they like to pretend they are.
 If Alex. Gr. was knows as "two-horned", that doesn't mean that every "two-horned" is Alex. Gr.If I say gold is shining, that doesn't mean everything shining is gold.
Finally, the only other link that orientlaists used to try and connect ZulQarnayn to Alexander was the fish. Even other Orientalists now admit that the fish in the Qur'an was neither dead NOR came back to life as the Alexender legends state. Hence there is NO link. Finally, the Arabic word for Fish is Samaka not Hoot. Hoot means Whale or Dophin. I can't see a cook walking all over the place around carrying a Whale, can you ?
 Furthermore, two horns and two horned symbolism was not an unknown emblem of the kingdoms of Persia and its predecessors, for we see that Elamite kings used this symbol routinely in their insignia.
It would be futile to argue that Allah should have clearly mentioned the name of Dhul-Qarnayn because those seeking differences due to jealousy and hatred would not cease at any instance. Such people may develop further pointless queries and keep on arguing; this is an endless cycle.
Imam Bukhari in his book, “Stories of the Prophets”, mentioned the story of Dhul-Qarnayn before that of Prophet Ibrahim –peace be upon him- and upon its commentary, Hafiz Ibn Hajrstates as follows:
The narrator has mentioned theincident of Dhul-Qarnayn before the mentioning of Ibrahim –peace be upon him- so that he may weaken the argument of those who call Alexander the Greek as Dhul-Qarnan.
Stories relating to him are comparatively more famous around the world, so some people have also equated him with the Dhul-Qarnain mentioned in the Qurun.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great_in_the_Quran
Dhul-qarnayn", literally meaning "two-horned one" or "two-century
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../BBhorned.html
 Sir Wallis Budge indicated a long time ago that the Christian Legend had been re-worked and is burdened with additions, and that this work is that of Jacob of Serugh is improbable:
This composition appears to be an abbreviated form of which known to us is that given in the metrical discourse on Alexander attributed to Jacob of Serugh; both these works, in turn are based upon chapters xxxvii-xxxix of the second book of Pseudo-Callisthenes according to Muller's greek MS. C. The Christian Legend has been burdened with many additions, evidently the work of the Christian redactor, which have no connexion whatever with the story. On the other hand many passages, as, for example, the account of his descent into the sea in a glass cage, have been entirely omitted. The names of the places which are given us freely in this legend seem to indicate that it was drawn up at a very late period; that it is the work of Jacob of Serugh is improbable.
Recent extensive studies on the influence by Syriac Pseudo-Callisthenes on Qur'an 18:60-102 (which includes the story of Dhul-Qarnayn) by Wheeler have shown that it was the Qur'anic commentaries and not the Qur'an that adopted the Alexander stories among other near eastern stories to explain the verses 18:60-102.
It has been claimed by Nöldeke and subsequent scholarship that the Qur'anic story of Dhul-Qarnayn was borrowed from the Christian Legend attributed to Jacob of Serugh. Internal evidence however shows that it was composed after 628 CE. Investigations by Hunnius, Kmoskó and Czeglédy have conclusively shown that the writer had ex eventu (i.e., a prophesy or predication after the event) knowledge of Khazar invasion of Armenia. The text provides no date by which the terminus ad quem (a final limiting point in time) can be fixed.
It is not only important to know the dates of composition of the individual works that are used to establish the theories of borrowing, but to also understand the difference between the Qur'an and the Qur'anic commentaries.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBhorned.html
All of this discussion shows that Syriac version of Romance of Alexander is post islamic invention and Quran had already been revealed.