The meaning of the compound zü’l-karneyn, which is formed from the definite form of the word qarn, which means “owner, possessor” in the dictionary, and “horn, forelock, temple; generation living in the same period, peer” (Azhari, Tehẕîbü’l-luġa, “ḳrn” article), changes according to the meaning given to the word qarn (Hasan al-Mustafavî, IX, 274-278). The 83-98th verses of the Surah al-Kahf, which was revealed in the Meccan period as an answer to one of the three questions asked by the Jews, or more likely by the Quraysh polytheists under the guidance of the Jews, in order to test the Prophet. Although it is not clear whether the word Dhul-Qarnayn, which is mentioned three times in the story in the verses (Tabari, Jami'u'l-beyân, IV, 174, 271; İbn Kathir, Tefsîr, III, 100), is a proper name or a nickname, the prevailing view is that it is a nickname. The existence of words such as "Dhul-Qarnayn, Dhul-Yedayn", which indicate nicknames and attributes in the Arabic language, and the fact that Hz. Yunus is mentioned as "zennûn/zünnûn" in the Quran (al-Anbiya 21/87) suggest that Dhul-Qarnayn may be a nickname rather than a proper name; however, it is not clear what this nickname means.

According to different explanations in Islamic sources, most of which are based on Isra'iliyyat type narrations, verses 83-98 of the Surah Kahf. It is stated that the person mentioned in the verses was a conqueror who organized expeditions to the east and west and made great conquests, that he was killed by being shot on both sides of his head by disbelievers because he invited people to monotheism, that he had two horn-like protrusions on his head, that he had two copper horns on his crown, that his hair was in two braids, that light and darkness were given to his command, that he saw himself climbing to the sky and holding on to both sides of the sun in his dream, that he belonged to a noble lineage on both his mother and father's side, that he came from two lineages of Iranian and Greek origin, that two generations came and went during his life, that he was called Dhul-Qarnayn because of his great courage or because he struck and overthrew his enemies like a ram in battle or because he was given knowledge of the apparent and the hidden (Sa‘lebî, el-Keşf, IV, 146; Fahreddin er-Râzî, XXI, 140). Although some commentators, referring to the widespread use of the word Qarn in Arabic in the sense of forelock/tresses, say that the nickname in question means “two braids” (Ibn Ashur, XVI, 19), the fact that Dhul-Qarnayn’s two journeys to the east and west are indicated in verses 85-86 and 89-90 of the Surah Kahf suggests that the first explanation is more accurate. Accordingly, the nickname Dhul-Qarnayn conveys a meaning such as “world ruler”. This explanation can be supported by the view of the People of the Book that Dhul-Qarnayn was known with this title because he conquered Byzantium and Iran (Tabari, Jami'u'l-beyân, VIII, 271), as well as the findings that the title Dhul-Qarnayn symbolized power and authority through metaphor, and that this symbolic meaning was known to the Jews at the time of revelation (Qāsımî, VII, 76). Indeed, in the book of Daniel of the Old Testament (8/3, 20), a vision/vision is mentioned regarding the image of a ram and two horns, and it is stated that the two long-horned rams symbolized the kings of the Medes and the Persians.

The statements in the Quran regarding the story of Dhul-Qarnayn are quite concise and ambiguous. This situation makes it difficult to determine a historical framework for the story. According to the statements in the relevant verses, Dhul-Qarnayn, thanks to the great power and vast opportunities given to him by Allah, organized two expeditions to the east and west of the world. During his first expedition to the west, he delivered a religious-moral message to a people he encountered, expressed in terms of avoiding oppression/polytheism, believing in Allah, doing good deeds and receiving a good reward. He then set out on a second expedition to the east and during this expedition, he encountered another people who did not have any shade to protect them from the sun. He then probably made a third expedition to a mountainous region in the north. During this expedition, he encountered a people who complained about a corrupt and aggressive people called Gog and Magog. Upon their request, he built a strong barrier by melting iron blocks and copper in a pass in the region. He rejected the people's offer to pay him for the construction of this barrier, saying, "The fee you will give me is worthless compared to the vast opportunities my Lord has bestowed upon me." However, he asked them to help him with their physical strength. When the construction was completed, Gog and Magog could not even breach this barrier, and they could not pass it. Dhul-Qarnayn told them that this success was due to divine grace and that the barrier would only be demolished when the time determined by Allah came. The fact that Dhul-Qarnayn was given great power and means is expressed in the story with the word “reason” (al-Kahf 18/84). Commentators generally explain this word as “knowledge that enables one to attain a goal and desire”. However, it is stated that in some commentaries, the cause is used as a metaphor for all kinds of means that enable one to attain something (Fahreddin al-Razi, XXI, 141; Qurtubi, XI, 33). Accordingly, it is possible to say that the cause given to Dhul-Qarnayn includes everything that enables one to attain a goal, such as intellect, knowledge, will, strength, power, and means, in a broad sense (Shirazi, VII, 588).

In the verses that mention the first two expeditions of Dhul-Qarnayn, the phrases “maghribe’ş-shams” (al-Kahf 18/86) and “matlia’ş-shams” (al-Kahf 18/90) are used. These literally refer to the place where the sun rises and sets; however, in reality, there is no place where the sun rises and sets. Therefore, the phrases in question refer to the last point that Dhul-Qarnayn could reach during his expeditions to the east and west. There are explanations in the sources of interpretation that these two points could be the coasts of the Aegean Sea or the Atlantic Ocean to the west, and the Indian Ocean or the east of Asia to the east; however, most of these are based on conjecture. In fact, it is not possible to make a definite geographical determination from the Quranic statements regarding the first two expeditions of Dhul-Qarnayn. However, it is possible to say that the Quranic statement that he saw the sun setting in a black mud during his western expedition and encountered a people there is more than a description of a cosmographic reality, but rather a description of the sun setting in a foggy horizon as perceived by the naked eye. Because the sun does not actually set in a black mud (Fahreddin al-Razi, XXI, 142). The fact that the people Dhul-Qarnayn encountered during his eastern expedition are mentioned in the story as “We had not created a shelter/shade for them to protect them from the sun” (al-Kahf 18/90) indicates that the geography they lived in was a steppe, a place with no rich vegetation, rather than the possibility that these people lived a primitive life. On the other hand, the fact that Dhul-Qarnayn is described in the story as a servant with faith, benevolence, justice, fairness and gratitude rather than the qualities of a ruler, and that concepts such as faith, good deeds, divine grace and mercy are used in the words attributed to him, is a feature related to the fact that the language in the Quran is a religious language centered on monotheism and that the story is conveyed in accordance with the patterns of this language.

The fact that Dhul-Qarnayn is introduced in the Quran as speaking in a language and style specific to prophets or religious elders, as required by the religious language, has led some Islamic scholars to think that he was a prophet, while on the other hand, some scholars have described Dhul-Qarnayn as a “righteous servant.” Apart from these two views, Hz. According to a view attributed to Omar and described as extremely strange by Ibn Kathir, Dhul-Qarnayn is an angel (Mas‘udi, II, 8; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, II, 537). According to another view, which Biruni calls strange, Dhul-Qarnayn is from the jinn (al-As̱ar al-Baqiya, p. 40). Scholars who claim that he is a prophet have argued that prophethood should also be included in the general meaning of the expression “We gave him everything he needed” in the 84th verse of the Surah Kahf, but this argument has been objected to (Ibn Âdil, XII, 556). In fact, in the light of the statements in the Quran, it is more accurate to say that Dhul-Qarnayn was not a prophet but a ruler with knowledge, wisdom and justice. In fact, this is the view accepted as authentic by the majority of scholars (Hâzin, III, 209).

In tafsir and historical sources, very different information is given about Dhul-Qarnayn's real name, his lineage, when and for how long he lived. For example, in addition to exaggerated figures such as two or three thousand years, it is also stated that he lived only thirty-odd years (Ibn Asakir, XVII, 361; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, II, 550). In addition, in some narrations, Dhul-Qarnayn is presented as a mythological person who had superhuman attributes, who was given clouds to his command, who was ascended to the sky by an angel, and who even tied his horse to the star Sureyya; however, such depictions have been criticized by some exegetes such as Ibn Kathir (Tafsir, III, 101). Regarding the age in which he lived, it is stated that he lived during the interregnum between Hz. Jesus and Hz. Muhammad, that Hz. Interesting views have been put forward, such as that he was contemporary with Ibrahim and converted to Islam with his guidance and circumambulated the Kaaba, that he lived in the same era as Hz. Musa and Khidr, that he was the cousin of Khidr’s aunt, that he traveled to the land of darkness in search of the elixir of life and that Khidr was present as a guide on this journey (Makdisî, III, 80; Sa‘lebî, ʿArâʾisü’l-mecâlis, pp. 323-325; İbn Kathir, el-Bidâye, II, 547-551; İbn Hacer, I, 117-118).

According to İzzet Derveze, in these views based on narration, reality and fantasy are intertwined, and historical events and legends are mixed (et-Tefsîrü’l-ḥadîs̱, V, 94). When we look at the narrations in historical sources in particular, we see that sometimes a connection is established between Dhul-Qarnayn and Khidr, but the information about these two names is mixed up (Tabari, Tarikh, I, 365, 571-578), and sometimes at least two different people are mentioned in relation to Alexander, who is identified with Dhul-Qarnayn. In addition, the content of the views that Dhul-Qarnayn was a person of Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian or Egyptian origin, as well as the motif of Khidr and the water of life mentioned together with Dhul-Qarnayn in some narrations (İbn Asakir, XVII, 345-348), can also be found in the Gilgamesh epic and the Alexander legend (DİA, XVII, 407-408). In fact, it can be seen that in Islamic literature, a spiritual personality was attributed to Alexander the Great, the King of Macedonia, and that this personality was legendary and identified with Dhul-Qarnayn. Especially in the literary genre called “Iskendername”, Alexander was almost completely given the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn. This situation was explained by the idea that Alexander’s establishment of a very large empire by eliminating many states spread over a wide geography in a short period of twelve years was only possible with spiritual power and divine support (ibid., XXII, 555-559).

According to one interpretation, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is not historical but representative, and essentially expresses the fact that man does not forget that all his worldly pursuits are temporary, and that worldly life and power do not have to conflict with spiritual and spiritual salvation as long as he is aware of his ultimate responsibility to Allah, who is beyond all limits of time and appearance (Esed, pp. 708, 735). According to another interpretation of science fiction, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is actually about space and tells of an interesting adventure experienced in the depths of space (Türe, pp. 199-267). According to some commentators who follow the line of social interpretation, the story of Dhul-Qarnayn, although it bears historical reality, actually points to important lessons and lessons about man, history and society within the framework of the sunnah of Allah (Qāsimi, VII, 72-74).

In contrast to modern interpretations that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is representative or contains many important lessons of wisdom and caution, almost all of the explanations in the classical period focused on determining the historical framework of the story, and very different views were put forward, especially regarding the historical personality of Dhul-Qarnayn. Scholars such as Muqātil b. Sulayman, Mas‘udi, Ibn Sina, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Siddiq Hasan Khan and Jamal al-Dīn al-Qāsimi stated that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander the Great, the King of Macedonia who died in 323 BC and was known as a student of Aristotle. However, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī also pointed out that this view had some problems because Dhul-Qarnayn, mentioned in the Quran, was a believer and Alexander the Great was a polytheist (Mafatīḥ al-Ghayb, XXI, 139-140). Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsīmī, on the other hand, insisted that Dhul-Qarnayn was Alexander, King of Macedonia, saying that there was no information to prove that Alexander was a polytheist. Western writers generally adopted this view. On the other hand, Salafi scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and Ibn Kathir stated that it was a great mistake to consider Alexander the Great, whom they definitely considered a polytheist, as the same person as Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran (Macmuʿatu’l-fatawā, IV, 83-84; IX, 81; al-Bidāyah, II, 542). Ibn Kathir stated that there were two different Alexanders in history, and that the person referred to as Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran was not the second Alexander, who lived close to the time of Hz. Jesus, but the first Alexander, who lived in the same era as Hz. Ibrahim and became a Muslim through his guidance, and who also had a relationship with Khidr, and drew attention to the fact that a period of more than 2000 years had passed between these two Alexanders (Tafsir, III, 100; al-Bidāyah, II, 542). However, the contemporary Shiite commentator Tabātabaī evaluated Ibn Kathīr’s explanation as an explanation without any evidence or basis (al-Mīzān, XIII, 380).

In some Islamic sources, it has also been suggested that Dhul-Qarnayn was a king named Sa‘b b. Hāris b. Hemmal al-Himyāri or Abu Karib Shammar Yur’ish b. Ifrīkish al-Himyāri who ruled in Yemen. According to Birūnī, this is the most likely view to be true. This view, which is based on the evidence that the kings in Yemen were called with nicknames such as “zûnüvâs, zûruayn, zûyezen, zûceden” and that such nicknames were used only for the Himyar kings in Yemen (Biruni, pp. 40-41) and is also preferred by authors such as Asmai, Ibn Hisham, Neşvân b. Said al-Himyeri, has been criticized on the grounds that there is no evidence that a king who fits the Quran's description of Dhul-Qarnayn reigned in the Yemen region (Abu'l-Kelâm Âzâd, S̱eḳāfetü'l-Hind, I/1 [1950], p. 54; Tabâtabâî, XIII, 368, 380).

In the sources, his real name is Abdullah b. Dahhâk, Mus‘ab b. Recently, different views have been put forward regarding the historical personality of Dhul-Qarnayn, who is also narrated to be Abdullah, Sa‘b b. Zülmeraid, Merzübân b. Merzübe, and in this context, various names have been mentioned, such as Akkad King Naram-Sin who lived in 2200 BC, Iranian national epic hero Feridun, Oghuz Kaghan, Cyrus the Great (II.) who was the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty of the Persian empires in Iran and who reigned between 559-530 BC, and Darius the Great (I.) who reigned between 522-486 BC. While authors such as Shibli Nu‘mani, Mawlana Muhammad Ali Lahuri and Omar Riza Dogrul say that Dhul-Qarnayn is Darius, Abu’l-Kalam in particular insisted on the name Azad Koresh. One of the most important proofs of this last view, which has recently been preferred by many Sunni and Shiite commentators such as Mawdudi, Derveze, Tabatabai and Shirazi, is that the questions in the narrations about the reason for the revelation of the story of Dhul-Qarnayn were asked through the knowledge of the Jews, and therefore the hero of the story was a person known and valued by these Jews. When viewed from this perspective, the possibility that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great becomes stronger. Because this ruler has a very important place in Jewish history. Cyrus, who is generally accepted to be a monotheist and Zoroastrian, destroyed the Babylonian Kingdom in 539 BC, ending the captivity of the Jews there, and then issued a decree allowing them to return to Jerusalem and freely practice their religion (II Chronicles, 36/22-23; Ezra, 1/1-4; 6/3-5). For this reason, Cyrus is mentioned in the Old Testament with exalting titles such as the shepherd and messiah of the Lord Yahweh (Isaiah, 44/28; 45/1), is presented as a person who is the recipient of many divine promises, especially in the 45th chapter of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah, 45/1-6), and is seen as the savior messiah in Jewish popular belief. In the Ezraname, which is a poetic interpretation of the book of Ezra, the birth of Cyrus is mentioned as a gift from God, and it is also stated that he is in the same position as the prophets and kings of Israel, and that he is unique among other kings in terms of both his justice and heroism (EIr., IX, 131).

Ebü’l-Kelâm Âzâd’a göre Zülkarneyn’in Büyük Koreş olduğunu gösteren bir diğer delil, Daniel’in rü’yetindeki iki uzun boynuzlu koç imgesinin Med ve Pers krallıklarını birleştiren kişi olarak yorumlanması ve tarihte bu iki krallığı birleştiren kişinin de Koreş olmasıdır. Ayrıca arkeolojik kazılarda İstahr şehrinde bulunan ve Koreş’e ait olduğu kabul edilen heykelin baş kısmında iki boynuz kabartması yer almaktadır. Öte yandan Koreş’in doğuya ve batıya seferler düzenlediği, batı seferinde Lidyalılar’ı mağlûp ederek Ege denizine kadar ilerlediği, doğu seferinde ülkesinin sınırlarını güneydoğu ve Orta Asya’ya kadar genişlettiği, kuzeyde ise İskitler/Sakalar üzerine seferler tertip ettiği bilinmektedir (Ebü’l-Kelâm Âzâd, S̱eḳāfetü’l-Hind, I/1 [1950], s. 60-62, 71; I/3, s. 26-27, 32). Bütün bunların yanında Kafkasya bölgesinde Viladikafkas’ı Tiflis’e bağlayan yol üzerindeki Daryal Geçidi eski Ermeni kitâbelerinde Koreş Geçidi adıyla anılmaktaydı (Şîrâzî, VII, 589).

Klasik tefsirlerde Zülkarneyn’in üçüncü seferi ve iki dağ arasına inşa ettiği set hakkında da farklı izahlara yer verilmiştir. Bu seferin hangi coğrafyaya düzenlendiği hususunda genellikle kuzeye işaret edilmiş ve bu çerçevede Ermenistan, Azerbaycan veya genel olarak Kafkasya bölgesi gibi yerler zikredilmiştir. Bu arada Zülkarneyn Seddi’nin Çin Seddi veya Yemen’deki Me’rib Seddi olduğuna dair görüşler de ileri sürülmüş, fakat bu görüşler gerek coğrafî açıdan gerek seddin özellikleri bakımından Kur’an’daki tasvire uymadığı gerekçesiyle kabul görmemiştir (Tabâtabâî, XIII, 377; Şîrâzî, VII, 588). Son döneme ait tefsirlerde bu konuyla ilgili olarak daha ziyade Kafkasya bölgesindeki Derbend ve Daryal geçitleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Dağıstan’da Hazar denizinin batı sahilinde bulunan ve Arapça kaynaklarda Bâbülebvâb, Türkçe kaynaklarda Demirkapı diye anılan Derbend şehrindeki seddin deniz sahilinden dağlara doğru uzanması, ayrıca demirden değil taştan yapılmış olması Kur’an’da sözü edilen sedle aynı yapı olma ihtimalini zayıflatmaktadır. Ebü’l-Kelâm Âzâd’a göre Zülkarneyn Seddi, Derbend’de değil Kafkasya’yı iki ana bölgeye ayıran Daryal Geçidi’ndedir. Derbend ve Daryal geçitlerinin aynı bölgede ve birbirine yakın yerlerde bulunması sebebiyle bu ikisi birbirine karıştırılmıştır. Daryal Geçidi, Kur’an’daki tasvirlere uygun biçimde Hazar deniziyle Karadeniz arasındaki sıradağların doğal duvar oluşturduğu bir bölgede yer almakta ve bu geçitte iki yüksek dağın arasına demirden inşa edilmiş bir set bulunmaktadır. Bu set daha önce de zikredildiği gibi eski Ermeni kitâbelerinde Koreş Geçidi diye anılmaktadır (Aṣḥâb-ı Kehf: Ẕülḳarneyn, s. 114-118). Öte yandan Kehf sûresinin 98. âyetinde Zülkarneyn’in dilinden aktarılan, “Rabbimin belirlediği vakit gelip çattığında bu sed darmadağın olur” meâlindeki ifadeyi, tefsirlerdeki hâkim görüşün aksine söz konusu seddin kıyamete kadar yıkılmayacağına hamletmek yerine hem düşman saldırılarına karşı son derece mukavemetli olduğuna hem de ilâhî güç ve kudretin karşısında hiçbir gücün duramayacağına dair bir uyarı olarak anlamak gerekir (Kāsımî, VII, 79). Zira dünya üzerindeki her şey gibi bu seddin de doğal ömrünü doldurduğunda yıkılıp yok olması mukadderdir. Bütün bu düşüncelere dayanarak kıssada bahsi geçen Ye’cûc ve Me’cûc’ün halen Zülkarneyn Seddi’nin arkasında mahpus oldukları ve onu aşmaya çalıştıkları tarzındaki geleneksel anlayış ve inanışın da Kafdağı ve Zümrüdüanka efsanesine benzer nitelikte olduğu söylenebilir 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kamus Translation, II, 404-406.

Hasan al-Mustafawi, at-Taḥḳīḳ fî kalimāti’l-Kurʾāni’l-Karim, Beirut 2009, IX, 274-278.

Muqātil b. Sulayman, Tafsīru Muḳātil b. Suleyman (ed. Abdullah Mahmud al-Shahata), Beirut 2002, II, 600-603.

Tabari, Jamiʿ al-Bayan, Beirut 1420/1999, IV, 174, 271; VIII, 270-289.

a.mlf., Târîḫ (Ebü'l-Fazl), I, 365, 571-578.

Ali b. Hüseyin el-Mes'ûdî, Mürûcü'ẕ-ẕeheb (ed. Ch. Pellat), Beirut 1966, II, 8-9.

Makdisi, el-Bedʾ ve't-târîḫ, III, 78-81.

Sa‘lebî, el-Keşf ve’l-beyân fî tefsîri’l-Ḳurʾân (ed. Seyyid Kesrevî Hasan), Beirut 2004, IV, 146-159.

a.mlf., ʿArâʾisü’l-mecâlis, Beirut 2004, p. 316-326.

Bîrûnî, el-Âs̱ârü’l-bâḳıye ʿani’l-ḳurûni’l-ḫâliye (ed. C. E. Sachau), Leipzig 1923, p. 36-41.

Ferrâ el-Begavî, Meʿâlimü’t-tenzîl (ed. Hâlid Abdurrahman el-Ak – Mervân Süvâr), Beirut 1995, III, 178-184.

Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf, Beirut 1977, II, 496-499.

Ibn Atiyah al-Andalussi, al-Muḥarraru’l-vecîz (ed. Abdus-Salam Abdushshafi Muhammad), Beirut 2001, III, 538-543.

Ibn Asakir, Tarikhu Damascus (Amrî), XVII, 330-361.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatīḥu’l-Ghayb, Beirut 2004, XXI, 139-146.

Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, al-Jamiʿ li-aḥkâmi’l-Khurʾân, Beirut 1408/1988, XI, 31-43.

Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu'atu'l-fatawā (ed. Mustafa Abdul Qādir Atā), Beirut 2000, IV, 83-84; IX, 81.

Ali b. Muhammad al-Hāzin, Lubābu't-ta'wīl (ed. M. Amīn Demc), Beirut, ts., III, 209-213.

Abu'l-Fidā Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Ḳurʾāni'l-ʿaẓīm, Beirut 1983, III, 100-106.

a.mlf., el-Bidaye ve’n-nihaye (ed. Abdullah Abdulmuhsin et-Turki), Cize 1417/1997, II, 536-546, 547-551, 552-560.

Ibn Hajar, el-Iṣābe, I, 117-118.

Abu Hafs Ibn Adil, el-Lubab fī ʿulūmi’l-Kitāb (ed. Adil Ahmed Abdulmawjud – Ali M. Muavvaz), Beirut 1419/1998, XII, 553-570.

Shahabaddin Mahmud al-Alusi, Ruqh al-Ma'ani, Beirut 2005, VIII, 346-365.

Siddiq Hasan Khan, Fetq al-Bayan fī maqāṣid al-Khurʾan (ed. Abdullah b. Ibrahim al-Ansari), Beirut 1992, VIII, 101-110.

Omar Riza Dogrul, God's Order, Istanbul 1947, II, 490-493.

Abu'l-Kalam Azad, Aṣḥāb al-Kahf – Qulqarneyn, Lahore, ed. (Jawad Birader), p. 29-93, 102-118.

a.mlf., “Şaḫṣiyyetü Ẕil-ḳarneyn el-meẕkûr fi’l-Ḳurʾân”, S̱eḳāfetü’l-Hind, I/1-3, New Delhi 1950, rt.local.

Şiblî Nu‘mânî, İslam Tarihi: Asr-ı Saâdet (trc. Ömer Rıza Doğrul), İstanbul 1974, III, 120-125.

M. Tahir İbn Âşûr, et-Taḥrîr ve’t-tenvîr, [no place and date of printing] (ed-Dârü’t-Tûnisiyye li’n-neşr), XVI, 17-39.

Elmalılı, Hak Dini, V, 3274-3293.

Mawdûdî, Tefhîmü’l-Kur’ân (trc. Muhammed Han Kayanî et al.), Istanbul 1986, III, 174-180.

M. Hüseyin Tabâtabaî, el-Mîzân, Beirut 1997, XIII, 368, 373-393.

İskender Türe, The Man Whose Travel to Space is Narrated in the Qur’an: Dhul-Qarnayn, Istanbul 2000, p. 65-102, 199-267.

Jamal al-Din al-Qasimī, Maḥāsinü’t-teʾwīl (ed. Ahmed b. Ali-Hamdī Subh), Cairo 2003, VII, 67-81.

Nasir Makarim al-Shirāzī, al-Amsal fī tafsīr Kitābillâhi’l-munzel, Beirut 2007, VII, 572-590.

M. Izzet Darwaza, at-Tafsīrü’l-ḥadīs̱, Cairo 2008, V, 90-107.

Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an: Interpretation of the Meaning (trc. Ahmet Ertürk – Cahit Koytak), Istanbul 2009, p. 708, 735.

A. Netzer, “Some Notes on the Characterization of Cyrus the Great in Jewish and Judeo-Persian Writings,” Acta Iranica, p. 2, Téhéran-Liège 1974, p. 35-52.

a.mlf., “ʿEzrā-Nāma”, EIr., IX, 131.

Ahmed Suphi Furat, “Zul-Qarneyn”, İA, XIII, 650-652.

İlyas Çelebi, “Hızır”, DİA, XVII, 407-408.

Mahmut Kaya, “Iskander”, op.cit., XXII, 556.

İsmail Ünver, “Iskander [Literature]”, op.cit., XXII, 557, 558.