Let me make a few comments as well.
Apart from minor quibbles, I fully agree with Khalid Jan and most of the Muslim responses on this issue that have been given on various forums. That is, I agree as far as they stressed that Zul-Qarnain cannot possibly be the historical figure of Alexander the Great.
As such I am greatful to Khalid Jan that he has provided even more reasons than are found in the chapters by Mr. Rafiqul-Haqq and Mr. Newton showing that Zul-Qarnain doesn't fit what we know of the historical Alexander.
Isn't it wonderful that we can all unanimously agree?
Well, what is wrong? I have never claimed that Zul-Qarnain IS the historical Alexander the Great. I don't know why your move to agree with me in this is considered a rebuttal.
Let me explain what the argument is:
The argument is then that the Qur'anic story is clearly taken from the legends about Alexander. There are many many details of the Qur'an account which are nearly verbatim to be found in the Alexander legends.
Conclusion: Zul-Qarnain clearly is the Alexander the Great of the legend stories. And because the Qur'an presents the material from the legends as if this were history, it shows that Muhammad could not distinguish between legends and history when he incorporated this material in the Qur'an. This is evidence that the Qur'an is not of divine origin.
Everything the Muslims have written on this topic so far which shows further discrepancies between Zul-Quarnain of the Qur'an and Alexander of history strengthens the original argument instead of refuting it. Arguing that because of the discrepancies the Qur'an does not talk about Alexander but about somebody else is fallacious.
Nobody has yet answered to the evidence presented that the account of Zul-Qarnain in the Qur'an is not taken from the legends.
I hope that is helped to clarify the structure of the argument.
Answering Islam Home Page