The Fourth Matter
The Barrier of Dhu’l‑Qarnayn
You know that it is one thing to know something exists and another to know its nature and what it is. Also, a single proposition comprises numerous assumptions. Some of them are necessary, and some are theoretical and controversial.
Furthermore, it is well‑known that if an obstinate, imitative man asks someone about something he sees in a book in order to test him, although it may have been somewhat falsified, and the second man answers in accordance with what the first man knows, which is unexpressed; his reply is right in two respects. If he replies directly, or he gives an answer that conforms to what the obstinate questioner knows, either explicitly or interpreting it, both are right.
That is to say, one answer both satisfies reality, because it is true; and it convinces the questioner, because even it is not what was intended, it conforms with what he knows. It does not offend the context either, because it inserts a spark of life into the answer from which the original intention will draw life.
The Qur’an’s answers are thus, so from now on we shall distinguish between the necessary [belief in which is obligatory] and the unnecessary [belief in which is not obligatory]. Thus, the matters in the Qur’an’s answer belief in which is understood to be obligatory may not be denied. It is like this:
Dhu’l‑Qarnayn was a person whose existence is corroborated by Allah the Most High. Under his direction and guidance a barrier was constructed between two mountains in order to repel the incursions of brigands and nomads. Gog and Magog were two raiding tribes. At the divine command, the barrier will be destroyed. And so on. According to this analogy, belief in the Qur’an’s statements referring to him is compulsory. Not even a letter of them may be denied.
However, the Qur’an makes no defining or specific statement concerning the nature of those subjects and their predicates. Rather, in accordance with the rule, “A general statement can express or signify a particular (hâs) one with none of the three types of signification” (delâlât‑i selâse), and the rule of logic, “The subject and predicate of a proposition may be conceived of in any form” it is established that the Qur’an does not denote them specifically; but it may accept them.
That is to say, the above statements are theoretical or speculative (nazarî) statements. They may denote other things. They are open to interpretation and may be interpreted. Their being disputed by authoritative scholars shows that they are theoretical or speculative.
But regretably, fancying that the answer should conform with the question in every respect and attaching no importance to the defects of the question, they garnered the essential and theoretical components of the answer from the questioner and the question, and became commentators. No, they became interpreters; no, they gave meanings at variance with the truth. No, they interpreted something that might possibly have confirmed the meaning as something inferred or understood.
But as explained in the Third Premise, the literalists listened to them uncritically and accepted them as did the authoritative scholars, since they considered them to be trivial tales. If those specific statements are accepted as they are in the corrupted Torah and Gospels, it means opposing the infallibility (mâsumiyet) of the prophets, which is a doctrine of the Sunnis. The stories of Lot and David (Upon whom be peace) both testify to this. One may make independent judgements and interpretations concerning the matter and how it was.
So seeking Allah’s assistance, I say: Firm belief in what Allah the Most High and His Prophet intended is definitely obligatory, because belief in it is a religious obligation. But what they actually intended is disputed. It is as follows:
I do not say that Dhu’l‑Qarnayn was Alexander, for the name does not fit. Some of the commentators called him malik (king) spelling it with kasra, others called him malak, spelling it with a fatḥa, others said he was a prophet, and others said he was a saint, and so on. But certainly Dhu’l‑Qarnayn was the person who conducted the construction of the Barrier.
As for the Barrier, some commentators said it was the Wall of China, others said it was a great mountainous barrier somewhere else, others said it was a hidden barrier, concealing the revolutions and circumstances of the world. And others said such‑and-such, and so on and so forth. Most probably it was a mighty rampart or huge wall to repulse the depradations of marauders.
As for Gog and Magog, some commentators said they were two tribes descended from Yasef, others said they were the Mongols and Manchurians, others said they were the peoples of the north‑east, and yet others said that they were a vast body of men, a horde which would overturn the world and civilisation; and still others said they were a sort of creature, either human or sub-human, from beyond the earth or from inside it. They would be the cause of the end of the world and would thus overturn humankind. Yet other commentators said other things. What is certain and the point on which they are agreed is this: Gog and Magog, two pillaging plundering tribes, and the people of civilisation are two groups of Allah’s creatures.
As for the Destruction of the Barrier, some say that it will occur on the Last Day; others, near to the Last Day; others, when it’s still a long way off, but as a sign of it; and still others, that it has been destroyed. But it has not been demolished. Much has been said about it. Most probably, what is agreed upon is that its ruin will be a sign that a grey hair has appeared in the Earth’s beard and that the human race, its offspring, is growing old.
If you have weighed up and contemplated this discussion, you will admit that the following is possible: the Qur’anic Barrier is the Great Wall of China, which is of great length and, as one of the seven wonders of the world, was built under the guidance of a person whose existence is confirmed by Allah the Most High. He delivered the city‑dwellers of that time from the despoliation of nomadic tribes. The Huns, one group of those savages, overturned Europe; the Mongols, another, overturned Asia.
Then the Barrier’s destruction was looked on as a sign of the last times. But it’s being levelled is something else. The Prophet (UWBP) said: “I’m one of the signs of the last times. The end of the world and myself are as [close as] these two [fingers],” so why should it be thought strange that the Barrier’s destruction will be a sign of the end of the world after the Era of Bliss? Also, in view of the earth’s great age, it’s ruin is merely a wrinkle of old age on its face, or like the fading light of evening compared to high noon. Though admittedly there is an interval of thousands of years. Similarly, the turmoil of Gog and Magog resembles a fever arising from humanity’s decrepitude.
After all this, the opening section of the Twelfth Premise will open the door for you to another interpretation. It is like this: Just as the Qur’an relates its stories to give lessons; so it makes vital points suitably to one of its aims (makasıd) and joins them to it. Although outwardly the light and fire of things do not appear together, they still may embrace and accompany one another in the mind or in style.
The story’s purpose is its moral; you don’t need the details; whatever they are, they do not concern you. Take your lesson and go! Also, you can seek further explanation from the Tenth Premise. Figurative speech opens the door to further figurative speech. The verse: And the sun set in a muddy spring drives the literalists out.
The key to Allah’s argument (hüccetullah – the Qur’an), which is manifested in the styles of Arabic, lies in rhetoric and eloquence (belâgat), which is founded on metaphor and figurative speech and is the basis of its miraculous inimitability (i’caz). It does not consist of baubles found by the wayside through false conjecture due to their fame and hidden in the shells of its verses without their consent. If you wish, experience with pleasure the conclusion of the Tenth Premise, for it is sweet indeed and contains honey.
Moreover, like other signs of the last times, the Barrier, about which nothing is known, may be concealed somewhere else and remaining there unknown through various revolutions until the end of the world, will then be destroyed.
Indication As is well‑known, habitations survive longer than their inhabitants. Citadels last longer than those who fortified them. Dwelling and fortification are the reason (‘illet) for their existence, not for their continuance and survival. Even if they are the reason for their survival, this does not necessitate their enduring and not being vacant. The continuation of the purpose of something, or its existence even, is not one of the things that necessitate its continuance. Numerous buildings remain vacant and empty although they were built as dwellings or forts. Misunderstandings about this question have led to false notions.
Reminder The aim of these details is to pave the way for distinguishing and differentiating between exegesis and interpretation, certitude and supposition, existence and modality, a question and various explanations of it, meaning and verifications of it, and occurrence and possibility.