Alexander adalah Zulqarnain

The book offers an ambitious and intriguing premise, positing that Alexander the Great is the historical figure Iskandar Zulkarnain mentioned in the Quran. Reviewers highlight the author's extensive research and effort to prove this connection, along with other fascinating hypotheses, such as identifying Socrates as Luqman Al-Hakim. Many readers found the book's narrative exciting and engaging, appreciating its attempt to provide new discoveries and challenge established historical interpretations, particularly those from Western scholarship. It presents an alternative viewpoint, exploring Alexander's potential monotheistic beliefs and extensive travels as described in religious texts, which some found to be a captivating and mind-opening experience.

Despite the ambitious scope, several reviewers expressed significant concerns regarding the book's objectivity and argumentation. A common criticism is that the title itself, "Alexander IS Zulkarnain," indicates a predetermined conclusion, making it difficult for the author to present a balanced view or consider counter-arguments fairly. Critics point to the author's tendency to dismiss other scholars' opinions curtly and to present assumptions as facts without sufficient proof. The methodology is also questioned, particularly the inconsistent use of religious texts; the author is noted for critiquing the reliability of the Gospel but then selectively quoting it to support his own claims. Additionally, some found the writing style to be dull or repetitive, and the arguments against certain Western interpretations, such as Alexander's sexuality, were deemed ineffective or overly simplistic.

In conclusion, this book presents a bold and highly speculative reinterpretation of history, driven by a desire to align historical figures with religious narratives. While lauded for its deep research and thought-provoking hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom, it is also criticized for its perceived lack of objectivity, questionable argumentation, and inconsistent use of sources. This book would primarily appeal to readers who are deeply interested in the intersection of Islamic scripture and ancient history, those who enjoy unconventional historical theories, and individuals open to engaging with arguments that aim to dismantle long-held beliefs, even if the evidence presented is controversial or not entirely convincing to all. It is less suited for readers seeking a strictly academic, objective historical account with rigorously supported conclusions.