Cyrus and Dhul-Qarnayn: Evidence, Myth and Modern Debate

Date: 19 December 2025 - 22:47

News ID: ۱۴۷۰۸۱

TEHRAN -- For decades, a
compelling question has hovered at the intersection of Qur’anic exegesis and ancient history: Was Cyrus the Great—the founder of the Achaemenid Empire—the same figure as Dhul-Qarnayn, the righteous ruler described in the Qur’an?
While the idea has enjoyed periodic popularity, modern historical and archaeological research increasingly points to a wide gap between the two.
Recent scholarship suggests that the proposed identification rests more on selective parallels and cultural aspirations than on solid historical evidence.
The idea that Cyrus might be Dhul-Qarnayn first emerged in the early 20th century, advanced by a handful of European Orientalists. Their work coincided with a broader effort to generate interest among Muslim audiences in pre-Islamic Iranian history. The hypothesis later found supporters in the Muslim world, most notably the Indian thinker Abul Kalam Azad. Some Islamic scholars, including Allameh Tabataba’i, discussed the possibility—often citing Azad’s historical arguments—based on the limited data available at the time.
At the heart of the theory was a desire to reconcile a celebrated Qur’anic figure with a well-known historical ruler admired for his tolerance and statecraft.
When the theory gained traction, knowledge of the Achaemenid period was fragmentary. Scholars drew on vague classical sources and a handful of perceived similarities: Cyrus’s vast conquests, his reputation as a just ruler, and artistic depictions sometimes interpreted as

showing “two horns”—a phrase famously associated with Dhul-Qarnayn, whose name literally means “the Two-Horned One.”
These resemblances, however, were circumstantial, shaped by the gaps in historical understanding rather than by direct evidence.
Over the past several decades, archaeological discoveries and advances in ancient Near Eastern studies have dramatically refined our understanding of Cyrus and his world. Inscriptions, administrative texts, and material remains now paint a clearer portrait of the Persian king as a ruler operating firmly within a polytheistic religious framework.
Crucially, no archaeological or textual evidence supports the claim that Cyrus constructed a massive barrier comparable to the wall described in the Qur’an as protecting peoples from Gog and Magog. Nor do Cyrus’s known military campaigns align neatly with the eastward and westward journeys attributed to Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur’anic narrative.
The Qur’an presents Dhul-Qarnayn as a monotheist who attributes his power to God, governs with moral discernment, and undertakes a monumental act of engineering for the protection of vulnerable communities. None of these elements can be conclusively matched to Cyrus based on reliable historical sources.
Moreover, Cyrus’s documented reverence for multiple deities—including his public invocation of Babylonian gods—stands in clear tension with the Qur’anic portrayal of a God-conscious, divinely guided ruler.
Despite the growing scholarly consensus, the Cyrus–Dhul-Qarnayn hypothesis continues to circulate in some circles. Critics argue that its persistence owes less to evidence than to ideology. A Qur’an-aligned Cyrus can serve as a powerful symbol—bridging Islamic identity with pre-Islamic Iranian heritage, and sometimes mobilized for modern cultural or political narratives.
Such uses, historians caution, risk turning a tentative academic hypothesis into a tool of persuasion rather than inquiry.
Today, most researchers— including some who once viewed the theory as plausible—acknowledge that the evidence does not support a definitive identification. They emphasize that Qur’anic interpretation must rest on sound textual analysis and credible historical data, not on modern cultural agendas.
The story of Cyrus and Dhul-Qarnayn offers a cautionary lesson: how an idea born in scholarly curiosity can drift into ideological territory. For historians and readers alike, it underscores the importance of keeping the boundaries between faith, history, and modern identity clearly—and carefully—drawn.