Letters to Monarchs

Letters To The Arab Potentates

The Prophet also sent letters to Mundhir B. Sawa, ruler of Bahrain;1 Jayfar B. al-Julanda, and ‘Abd B. al-Julanda2 Azdi, rulers of ‘Oman; Haudha B. ‘Ali, the ruler of al-yamama3 and harith B. Shammar al-Ghassan. Mundhir B. Sawa and the two sons of al-Julanda, Jayfar and ‘Abd embraced Islam. Haudha B. ‘Ali wrote back to say that he would accept Islam provided he was allowed to share the dominion with Muslims. The Apostle turned down his request and he died soon thereafter.

Footnotes:

1. Bahrain forms part of Najd and is now known as al-Ahsa. The party sent under Abu ‘Ubayda to raid the coast was despatched to this region where it found a whale from the sea. The traditions refer to this region as al-Bahrain. The name is now applied to another region , a Sheikhdom on the coast of Persian Gulf. The tribes inhabiting the region belonged to Bani ‘Abd al-Qays, Bakr b. Wall and Bani Tamim. When the letter was written the ruler of the area was Mundhir b. Sawa, the Chief of Bani Tamim.
2. Ai-Julanda was not the name of any person but a title meaning Chief of the religious leader in the dialect of ‘Oman, Jayfar, being the eldest brother, was then the Chief of ‘Oman.
3. Haudha b. Ali al-Hanafi was the King of Yamama, who professed Christianity. Salit b. ‘Amr was commissioned to deliver the Prophet’s letter to him. Yamama was then vast region between Bahrain, to the east, and Hijaz, to the west. Banu Hanifa were settled in this region. Musaylima belonged to this tribe, who was nickname Kazzab or the liar after he made a claim to apostleship.

Heracluis And Abu Sufyan

Heraclius decided to satisfy himself about the contents of the Apostle’s letter. He ordered to search for a man from Arabia who could tell him about the Prophet. Abu Sufyan happened to be there on a business trip and so he was summoned before him. The question raised by Heraclius on this occasion showed that he had a deep insight into the scriptures and the teachings of the prophet of yore and he knew how and when God sends them and the way they are usually treated by their people. Abu Sufyan, too, acted like a true Arab for he considered it below his dignity to tell the Emperor anything but truth.

The conversation between Heraclius and Abu Sufyan is significant enough to be quoted here in extenso or at full length.

Heraclius: Tell me about his lineage.

Abu Sufyan: He comes of the best lineage.

Heraclius: Did anybody before him make the claim he does?

Abu Sufyan: No.

Heraclius: Had there been any king in his family?

Abu Sufyan: No.

Heraclius: Who have followed him? Are they the poor and the weak or the nobles?

Abu Sufyan: They are all poor and weak.

Heraclius: Are his followers increasing or deserting him?

Abu Sufyan: Their numbers are growing.

Heraclius: Do those who enter his religion despise and leave him?

Abu Sufyan: No.

Heraclius: Did you find him telling lies before he made the claim?

Abu Sufyan: No.

Heraclius: Did he ever break the word given by him?

Abu Sufyan: Not as yet, but we will see what he does in the future.

Heraclius: Did you ever fight against him?

Abu Sufyan: Yes.

Heraclius: What was the result?

Abu Sufyan: The fortunes have varied, sometimes in our favor, sometimes in his.

Heraclius: What is it that he teaches?

Abu Sufyan: He asks to worship One God, and not associate ought with Him. To offer prayers, be virtuous to speak the truth, and be kind to the kinsmen.

Heraclius then asked the interpreter to tell Abu Sufyan: “I asked you about his lineage and you replied that it was the noblest among you. Prophets always come from the best lineage, I asked you if any man in his family had made a similar claim and your reply was ‘No.’ If anybody had made a claim to apostleship in his family, I would have thought that he was imitating him. Then I asked if there had been a king in his family, and you said ‘No.’ Had it been so, I would have surmised that he was trying to recover his lost kingdom. And I inquired if you knew him to be untruthful before making the claim, and you said ‘No.’ I know that it is not possible for a man to be truthful to the people but to mince the truth in regard to God. Then I asked you if his followers were drawn from the people of rank and distinction or they were the poor and the weak, and you replied that they were humble and meek. Prophets are always followed by the humble and poor in the beginning. And I asked if his followers were increasing and you said that they were gaining in numbers. Faith is always like that for it goes on increasing until it is triumphant. Then I asked if anybody had turned away from him and rejected his faith and your reply was ‘No’. The faith once settled in the heart never leaves it. And then I asked if he ever broke his word and you said ‘No.’ Prophets never break their promises. Then I asked about his teachings and you told me that he asked you to worship One God, not to associate ought with Him; bade you to turn away from the idols and to speak the truth; and to be virtuous and to glorify the Lord. Now, if you have told me the truth about him he will conquer the ground that is beneath my feet. I knew that a prophet was about to be born but I had never thought he would come from Arabia. If it had been possible I would have called upon him, and if I had been with him, I would have washed his feet.”

Heraclius summoned his chiefs and courtiers and got the doors of his chamber closed upon them. Then, turning he said, “Ye Chiefs of Rome! If you desire safety and guidance so that your kingdom shall be firmly established, then you follow the Arabian Prophet.” Whereupon they all started off but found the doors closed. When Heraclius saw them getting sore, he was despaired of their conversion, so he ordered to bring them back. He said, “What I had said before was to test your constancy and faith and I am now satisfied of your firmness and devotion.” The courtiers lowered their heads and were pleased to hear him speaking thus.

Heraclius lost the golden opportunity as he preferred his kingdom over the eternal truth. As a consequence, he lost even his kingdom after a few years during the time of Caliph ‘Umar.

Who were the Ariseen? – Araisiyan or ariseen is the word used by the Apostle in his letter to Heraclius. No other letter written to any other Arab and non-Arab king and potentate contains the word whose significance is disputed by the scholars of Traditions and lexicographers. According to one version it is the plural of Arisi which means the servants and the peasants.1

Ibn Manzoor makes it out as a synonym for cultivators in the Lisan-ul-Arab and cites Th’alab as the authority for holding this view. He also quotes Ibn al-‘Arabi in his support while at the same time cites a quotation from Abu ‘Ubayda to show that the word also means the chief or the elder who is obeyed or whose orders are carried out.2

Now the question arises that if ariseen means peasants, it should have been employed to denote the subjects of Chosroes rather than the population of Byzantine Empire. The class of cultivators was by far more numerous under the Persian Empire and formed the chief source of its revenues. Ibn Mazoor has cited Azhari who says, “the people of Iraq who followed the religion of Chosroes were peasants and countrymen. The Romans were artisans and craftsmen and, therefore, they had nicknamed the Magis as Ariseen which meant that they were peasants. Arabs also used to call the Persians as fallaheen or the peasants.’3

Ariseen has also been interpreted to denote Arians or the follower of Arius (280-336) who was the founder of a well-known Christian sect. The doctrine of Arius which hovered for a long time between acceptance and rejection as the official creed of the Byzantine Empire, upheld the Unity of God and denied the co-substantiality of the Son with the father. In other words Arianism maintained a complete distinction between the Creator and the creature, emphasizing the inferiority of the latter. In short, Arius held that the characteristics of the One and Only God are solitude and eternity and He puts forth nothing on the earth from His own substance. God brought into being an independent substance as the instrument by which all things were created. This being is termed, according to Arius, as Wisdom, Son, Image, Word, etc. in the scripture. The Son is not truly God, but is only the so-called Word and Wisdom. Like all rational beings, the Son is endowed with free will. He is not absolute but only relative, he is knowledge of the father.4

James Mckinon writes in his book ‘From Christ to Constantine’:

“Arius insisted that God alone is primeval, eternal and infinite; None is co-substantial with Him. He it is who brought the Son into existence and, therefore, the Son is not eternal. God was not father always; a time was there when the Son did not exist at all. The Son has an independent substance not shared by God for the Son is susceptible to change and contingencies. He cannot, therefore, be called God although he has perfection in his being. At any rate, he is a perfect being.”5

The church of Alexandria had, by the fourth century adopted the view that the Father and Son were identical in nature, and that the Son was equal to, independent of, and contemporaneous with the father. Arius, the presbyter of the district of Baucalis, disputed this view and was condemned by a local synod which met at Alexandria in 321 A.D. Arius left Alexandria but the controversy between him and Bishop Alexander continued to be fought out only among the longshoremen. After trying hard to stay out of the verbal tussle, and urging the bishops to stop discussing it, Constantine realized that it required to be settled, but he did not succeed in his efforts. He summoned in 325 A.D., the first council of the whole of church, a council called ecumenical, at Nicaea, across the strait from Constantinople which was attended by 2030 bishops. Constantine was inclined to the divinity of Christ, as God the Son, and he gave his decision in its favor although a large majority of the Bishops preferred the doctrine of Arius. Only 326 bishops are reported to have cast their votes in favor of the view held by the King. Arius was banished to Illyricum, his writings were burnt and their possession was declared a crime, but the decree of Nicaea did not dispose of Arianism as the official creed of the realm altough Arius died suddenly.6

In his History of conflict between Religion and Science, John William Draper says that in the fourth century alone there were thirteen councils averse to Arius, fifteen in his favor, and seventeen for the semi-Arians – forty five all in all.7

Formulation of One God in three person was, as a matter of fact, not solidly established in Christian life and in its profession of faith prior to the end of the fourth century. The mystery of Trinitarianism was truly unraveled by the second half of the nineteenth century when Biblical theologians came around to acknowledge that when “one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the fourth century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma: “One God in three persons,” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought.”8

The Nicene dogma of Trinity violated the plain and simple teachings of Christ. Both competed, for a long time, to capture and win the minds of the people. A large number of Christians, especially in the eastern parts of the Byzantine Empire, continued to deem the Arian doctrine as the trustworthy dogma of faith. Until Theosodius the great (346-395) summoned yet another council of the bishops at Constantinople which finally set its seal on the divinity of Christ or unity in the Trinity of Godhead. Arianism was thereafter made a capital offense and suppressed ruthlessly. Arians went underground but traces of Arianism remained in the Christendom for a couple of centuries after the Council of Nicaea.

The word ‘Arisiyin’ used in the Apostle’s letter to Heraclius can, therefore, be reasonably deemed to stand for Arians since Heraclius was himself faithful to the dogma of Arius which approached nearest to the Unity of God among the Christians.

Strangely enough, some of the learned scholars of the earliest times have also favored this interpretation of the word in question, for example, Imam Tahawi (d. 321 A.H. writes in Mushkil al-Athar:

“Some of the knowledgeable scholars say that a sect among the courtiers of Heraclius, known as Ariseen, believed in monotheism and the created nature of Christ. They did not accept what the Christians say about the divinity of Christ. They relied upon the Gospels and acted on its commandments, but the Christians disputed their faith. If that be so, the sect could be called Araisiyan or Ariseen, as known to the scholars of Traditions.”9

Nuwawi (d. 676 A.H.) the commentator of the Sahi Muslim, has also expressed a similar opinion in this regard. He says:

“Others say that they were Jews and Christians who followed ‘Abdallah B. Aris”.10

Footnotes:

1. See Nawawi’s Commentary on Muslim and Majm’a Bahar-ul Anwar by Muhammad Tahir Patni.
2. Lisan-ul-Arab ,See “Ars”.
3. Lisan-ul-Arab, See “Ars”.
4. Encyclopedia of Religions and Ethics, Vol. I, Art. ‘Arianism’ p. 777
5. James Mackinon, from to Constantine, London, 1936, (Rendered from Urdu Translation).
6. Encyclopedia of Religions and Ethics, art. Arianism.
7. J.W. Draper, History of Conflict between Religion and Science, London (1910), p. 205.
8. The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) art. “The Holy Trinity’, Vol. 14, p. 295.
9. Mushkit-wal-Athar, Vol. p. 399
10. Nawawi, Sharah Muslim, Vol. II, p. 98.

Reaction Of The Monarchs

Heraclius, Negus and Muqauqis received the letter from the Apostle with all due respect that each gave a courteous reply. Negus and Muqauqis showed the highest regard to the envoys from where the latter even sent some presents to the Apostle. These included two slave-girls, one of whom was Maria who gave birth to the Apostle’s son Ibrahim.

Chosroes II was indignant, he tore the letter into pieces, saying, “My slave dares to write me thus!” When his reply was conveyed to the Prophet, he said, “even so shall God shatter his kingdom to pieces.”1

Chosroes II wrote to Badhan, who was his governor in Yemen, to get the Apostle sent to him in Ctesiphon. Badhan deputed Babwayh to tell the Apostle what Chosroes II had written to him and that he had come to take him to the King. But when Babwayh came to Medina, the Apostle told him, “God has given Sherveh power over his father and he has killed Chosroes II.” The prophecy of the Apostle came true exactly in the way foretold by him. Chosroes’ son Qubaz had by then deposed his father and seized the throne under the title of Sherveh. Chosroes II was murdered in March 628 A.D. and with him ended the glory of four hundred years old house of Sasanids. Sherveh enjoyed only six months of the fruits of his crime, and in the space of four years the regal title was transferred to ten sovereigns, in quick succession, until, the exhausted monarchy was assumed by Yazdagird III. He was the last Persian Emperor for he was soon to flee for his life before the advancing might of the Muslims. And thus was realized the Apostle’s prophecy within eight years of his pronouncement.2 The Apostle had also said: “No more Chosroes after Chosroes dies.”3 This portion of the prediction also came to pass with the fall of Yazdagird III.

In a few years the whole of Iran lay at the feet of the Muslims. The bulk of the population adopted Islam and there were born in Iran men with such lambent flame of intellect that proved true, word by word, what the Apostle had once remarked: “If knowledge were to be found in pleiads, some of the sons of Persia would attain it.”4

Footnotes:

1. Tabari, Vol. III, pp. 90-91
2. See Chapt. X, the last days of Sasanid Empire in the Iran ba ‘Ahd Sasainan
3. Ibn Kathir, Vol. III, p. 513 and Muslim.
4. Musnad Imam Ahmad, Vol. II, p. 399

Negus:

Ethiopia is an ancient country in the eastern part of Africa lying along the coast of the Red Sea which came to be known as Abyssinia since the distant past. Its boundaries, as they existed in the seventh century, are not easy to define now. The kingdom of Abyssinia was also one of the oldest in the world. The Jewish sources denote that the queen Sheba belonged to Abyssinia and her progeny by Solomon ever ruled the country. The Jews started migrating to the country from the sixth century B.C. after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple but Christianity became the dominant faith of the people by the fourth century. When the Jewish monarch of Yemen persecuted the Christians of his land, Emperor Justin I wrote to the Negus of Abyssinia to help the Christians.1 Negus of Abyssinia is said to have complied with by sending an army which captured Yemen in 525 A.D. and retained the hold of Abyssinia over it for about fifty years. Abraha was the viceroy of Abyssinian King in Yemen who led an army to destroy the House of God in Mecca whence came off the memorable event of ’Am al-fil or the year of the elephant. The capital of Abyssinia was at Axum. Being a sovereign state, it was neither dependent nor a tributary to any alien power. Of course, as a Christian country, it had friendly relations with Byzantium which was then regarded as the protector of Christendom. The Byzantine Emperor respected the independence of Abyssinia for Justinian had sent his Ambassador by the name of Julian, to the count of Axum.2 De lacy O’Leary writes in the “Arabia before Muhammad”that “from 522 to the rise of Islam, the Abyssinians controlled the southern end of the Red Sea including trade with Africa, perhaps that with India as well.3 The official title of the King of Abyssinia was Nagusa Nagasht or King of Kings of Ethiopia.4 But, the name of the King to whom the Apostle sent his letter inviting him to embrace Islam has been variously mentioned in different sources. However, we have before us two kings of Abyssinia. One of these is the king during whose reign the Muslim migrated from Mecca to Abyssinia under the leadership Ja’afar B. Abi Talib, in the fifth year of the apostleship of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). But it is highly improbable that the Apostle wrote any letter to Negus at that time. The circumstances prevailing with the Prophet at Mecca then were unfavorable for addressing such a letter to any ruler. And in any case, it was neither an appropriate time for inviting any noble or king from a foreign land to accept Islam nor did he send any such letter, according to the Traditions, to any foreign dignitary. All that the Traditions suggest is that the Apostle had requested the then Negus to afford protection to the Muslims in his country for they were being severely persecuted by the Quraish. Similarly, the writings of Ibn Hisham and others imply that the Negus had admitted the truth of divine revelation and accepted that Jesus was a Prophet and word of God cast by Him unto Mary, the mother of Jesus. In so far as the Negus to whom the Apostle had sent his letter is concerned, he was, according to Ibn Kathir, the King who succeeded the Negus who had been given asylum to Ja’afar B. Abi TaliB. Ibn Kathir maintains that the letter inviting him to accept Islam was written to the Negus before the conquest of Mecca along with other monarchs. ‘Ibn Kathir’s view appears to be preferable for this second Negus accepted Islam, and of whose death the Prophet informed the Muslims and prayed for his salvation. Waqidi and some other biographers of the Prophet have stated that the Prophet had prayed for the Negus after a return from Tabuk in Rajab 09, A.H.5 The consequential circumstances of the event suggest that Waqidi is correct in holding this view and in its dating. Footnotes: 1 De Lacy O ‘Leary, Arabia before Muhammad, London, 1927, p. 119. 2 A.H M. Jones and Elizabeth Monroe, A history of Abyssinia, Oxford, 1935, p. 32) 3 Ibid., p. 120 4 Ibid., p. 63 5 Sahih Muslim, Vol. V. p. 166

Muqauqis:

He was the Prefect as well as Patriarch of Alexandria acting as the Governor of Egypt on behalf of the Byzantine Emperor. The Arab historians normally mentioned him by his title ‘Muqauqis’ but they hotly dispute his personal identity. Abu Salih who wrote in the sixth century after Hijrah (12 century A.D.) gives his name as Juraid B. Mina al Muqauqis (which is corruption of George, son of Mina). Ibn Khaldun says that the then Muqauqis was a Copt while al-Maqrizi asserts that he was a Roman. When the Persians conquered Egypt in 616 A.D., the Byzantine Prefect and patriarch was John the Almoner who fled from Egypt to Cyprus and died there. George was appointed in his place as the Archbishop of Merkite church who remained in office from 621 A.D. till his death in 630 A.D. Known to the Arab historians as Juraij, they give the year of his appointment as 621 A.D. Alfred j. Butler is of the opinion that practically seized all the Arab historians about a person by the title of Muqauqis, appointed by the Byzantine Emperor Herculius after the recovery of Egypt from the Persians, who was both its Patriarch and Governor. They have, therefore, identified George as Muqauqis. But he also says that Muqauqis was only a title of the Patriarch since it was applied to the governor in the early Coptic manuscripts.1 It is also possible that some Coptic Patriarch might have assumed the ecclesiastical and political powers after the conquest of Egypt by the Persians. However, as the treaty of peace between the Romans and the Persians was executed in the year 628 A.D., the letter of the Prophet was more probably received by the Patriarch of Egypt when he was more or less independent. This is why, it appears, that the Apostle addressed him as the chief of the Copts.

Egypt was the most fertile dominion of the Byzantine Empire, far exceeding other provinces in population as well as in resources. It was also the granary of the Byzantine capital. When ‘Amr B. al-‘as entered Egypt at the head of the conquering Arab force, fourteen years after the Apostle had sent his letter to Muqauqis, he wrote to Caliph ‘Umar B. al-Khattab about that land: “The country is exceedingly fertile and green. Its length covers a journey of one month and its breadth is of about ten days.”2 A census of Egypt taken by ‘Amr B. al-As in 20 A.H./640 A.D. to find out the number of persons on whom jizya could be levied, showed that the population exceeded six million3, one hundred thousand of which being Romans. ‘Amr B. Al- As also wrote to the Caliph: “I have taken a city of which I can but say that it contains 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40, 000 Jews and 400 theatres for the entertainment of the nobles.”4

Footnotes:

1. A.J. Butler: The Arab Conquest of Egypt, Appendix-C, pp. 508-26.
2. Al-Najum al-Zahira by Ibn Tahgri Bardi, Vol. I, p. 32.
3. See art. Egypt in Muhammad Farid Wajadi’s Da’iratul M’arif al-Qarn al-‘Ashrin. The Author, however, is doubtful about the population mentioned in view of the present population of Egypt and its growth rate for it is not more than forty millions at present.
4. Husn-ul-Muhadra by Siyuti.

Chosroes II.

Known as Khusro Parvez to the Arabs, he was the fourth son of Hormouz and the grandson of Chosroes I, Anushirvan the Just. Murder of Hormouz in 590 A.D. was succeeded by enthronement of Chosroes II, but after suffering a defeat at the hands of a rebel chief, Bahram, he had to solicit the protection of Maurice, the Byzantine Emperor. The fugitive prince was helped by Maurice with a powerful army which restored his kingdom after two fierce battles on the banks of Zab and the confines of Mada’in. While the majesty of the Persian Emperor was revived, Phocas, who promoted himself to the vacant purple, killed his adopted father, Maurice. Chosroes II decided to avenge the death of Maurice and invaded the Byzantine dominions in 604 A.D. Chosroes II continued to extend his triumphant march to Constantinople, even after the death of Phocas, rolling in the dust all the Byzantine provinces, Syria , Egypt and Asia Minor, in the rapid tide of his success. By 616 A.D. Chosroes II had reached the summit of his victorious campaign for he seemed to announce the approaching dissolution of the Byzantine Empire. But his insolent demands at last animated the dormant valor of Heraclius who put the Iranians to rout and penetrated into the heart of Persia. Chosroes II, had to ultimately leave his country and seek refuge in some far off place and thus the battle between the two empires came to an end in 628 A.D.

Chosroes II was, according to the unanimous verdict of historians, the greatest Emperor of Iran. In the East, his writ ran up to the northwestern parts of India.1 During his rule, the glory and magnificence of royal court had surpassed the limits of fancy. Iran was, during this period, more than a match to any country of the world in its ostentatious living, luxury of its nobles and the splendid workmanship of its artisans. Writing about the attainments of Chosroes II, the noted Arab historian Tabri says:

“Made of a sterner stuff, he was the most prudent far-sighted Emperor of Persia. Deeds of valor, exploits of victory, abundance of wealth, stroke of luck and favorable circumstances had so bunched up during his reign as never before. It was for these reasons that he came to be known as Pervez which meant victorious in Arabic.”2

In the arts of civilization and ever-new innovations of edibles and drink, Iran was without any parallel.3 In the manufacture of perfumes it had attained perfection. The people had developed a taste for savory preparation, luscious liquors and the finest perfumes. Love of music had grown into craze, which had stipulated its development in the reign of Chosroes II. He was so fond of amassing wealth and artifacts that when his treasures was transferred from an old building to a new one at Ctesiphon in 607-8 A.D., it consisted of 468 million Mithqals of Gold valued at 375 million gold sovereigns. In the thirteenth year of his reign, Chosroes II had 830 million Mithqals of gold in his exchequer. The reign of Chosroes II lasted up to 37 years, afterwhich his son Sherveh took over.

Footnotes:

1. Iran ba ‘Ahd Sasanian
2. Tarikh Tabri, Vol. II (Egypt), p. 137
3. Ibid. p. 995

Heraclius (610 – 641).

The Byzantine empire, then calling itself “New Rome”, had along with its Iranian counterpart, kept a tight hand over the civilized world for several hundred years. Its emperors ruled in direct succession to the Roman Emperors over vast and populous lands in Europe, Asia and Africa.1 The empire was enormously rich while its phenomenally good armies and navies had compiled a successful military record.

Coming from a Greek family, Heraclius was born in Cappadocia but was brought up in Carthage where his father was the Exarch of Africa. In his early years he never made any illusion to his fire of genius, avarice for power or qualities of leadership. When Phocus killed the tyrant Emperor Maurice, in 602 A.D., and usurped the throne, the Chosroes of Persia declared himself the avenger of his former benefactor. The Byzantine Empire absorbed heavy losses as the Iranians reduced Antioch, Damascus, and Jerusalem and took away the True Cross in triumph. Soon afterwards they entered Alexandria, and Egypt too was gone. It seemed to be the end of the great Roman Empire in the East.2

It was then that the secret emissaries of the Senate prevailed upon the Exarch of Africa to send his son from Carthage to Constantinople. Heraclius was crowned in 610 A.D., when the Empire, afflicted by famine and pestilence, was incapable of resistance and hopeless of relief against the enemy laying a siege to the capital. Heraclius spent the first few years of his reign beseeching the clemency of Persians and suing out peace, but in 621 A.D. he was suddenly awakened from his sloth. This was the year in which the prediction of Roman Victory, something most “distant of its accomplishment”,3 was made by the Qur’an. In a sudden, displaying the courage of a hero, Heraclius exchanged his purple for the simple garb of a penitent and warrior and decided to become the deliverer of Christendom and restorer of the greatness of the Eastern Empire. He began a great counter offensive and defeating the Persians of their own territory, brought his victorious arms to the capital of Iranian Empire. Amidst the triumph of his succeeding campaigns, Heraclius avenged the honor of Byzantium, crushed the arms as well as the glory of Iranian Empire until it seemed to be nearing its end. Heraclius returned to Constantinople in 625 A.D. and then, in 629, marched in triumph to Jerusalem for restoring the True Cross to the holy sepulchre. The people went forth to meet the victor, with tears and thunderous applauses, spreading carpets and spraying aromatic herbs on his path.4 The glorious event was celebrated with the tumult of public joy. While the emperor triumphed at Jerusalem, he was conveyed the letter of the Apostle of God inviting him to embrace Islam.5 By that time, Heraclius seemed to have exhausted himself. He became the “slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities,”6 as he had been in the beginning, until the new movement of Islam exploded out of Arabia and took away the very provinces Heraclius had recaptured from the Persians. The boundaries of the Byzantine Empire again shrunk to the Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea in Europe. The work of Heraclius was undone, but he was decidedly one of the most extraordinary and inconsistent Emperors who assumed the charge of the Byzantine Empire. Great were his exploits and adventurous campaigns and he ruled the greatest empire of the day. In the magnitude of his dominions, wealth and military prowess, he could be compared only with Chosroes II, the Emperor of Persia. Heraclius died at Constantinople in 641 A.D. and was buried there.

Footnotes:

1. The extent of its vast boundaries have been given in chapter I under the subtitle “The Eastern Roman Empire.”
2. E. Gibbon, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, London 1908, Vol. V, pp. 70-72 and Iran Ba ‘Ahd Sasanian.
3. E. Gibbon, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, London 1908, Vol. V, pp. 74. Also see the Chap. Romans in the Qur’an and the author’s article the ‘Prediction of the victory of Roman in the Qur’an.
4. Fath ul-Bari, Vol.I, p. 21
5. The Apostle’s letter was sent to the ruler of Busra for forwarding it to Heraclius but as the latter was pre-occupied with the affairs of the State on return from War and Constantinopole was far away, the letter could not be sent to him earlier. Heraclius was also away from his capital for subduing a resurrection in Armenia. Thus the letter reached him in Jerusalem in 629 A.D.
6. E. Gibbon, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. V. p. 76

Letters of the Prophet

Of the many letters sent by the Apostle, those written to Heraclius, the Emperor of Byzantine Empire, Chosreos II, the Emperor of Iran, Negus, the king of Abyssinia and Muqauqis, the ruler of Egypt, are remarkably significant.

Dihya b. Khalifa al-Kalbi, who was assigned to take the letter to Heraclius, got it forwarded to the Emperor through the ruler of Busra. The Apostle wrote in this letter.1

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful. This letter is from Muhammad, the slave and Messenger of God, to Heraclius, the great King of Rome. Blessed are those who follow the guidance.

“After this, verily I call you to Islam. Embrace Islam that you may find peace, and God will give you a double reward. If you reject, then you shall rest the sin of your subjects and followers.2 O people of the Book, come to that which is common between us and you. that we will serve none but Allah, nor associate aught with him, nor take others for lords besides God. But if you turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.”3

The Letter sent to the Chosroes II read:

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisra, the great King of Persia.

“Peace be upon whom who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and His Apostle, bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Apostle of Allah for the entire humanity so that every man alive is warned of the awe of God. Embrace Islam that you may find peace; otherwise on you shall rest the sin of the Magis.”4

In the letter5 addressed to Negus, the Prophet had written that:

“IN the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Negus, the great King of Abyssinia.

“Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

“After this, Glory be to Allah besides whom there is no God, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Peace, the Faithful, the Protector. I bear witness that Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Spirit of God, and His Word which He cast unto Mary, the Virgin, the good, the pure, so that she conceived Jesus. God created him from His Spirit and His breathing as He created Adam by His hand and His breathing. I call you to God, the unique, without any associate, and to His obedience and to follow me and to believe in that which came to me, for I am the Messenger of God. I invite you and your men to the Great Lord. I have accomplished my task and my admonitions, so receive my advice. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.”6

The letter7 sent to Muqauqis, the Chief of the Copts of Egypt, said:

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Muqauqis, the Chief of the Copts.

“Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

“After this, I call you to Islam that you may find peace, and God will give you a double reward. If you reject, then on you shall be the sin of you r countrymen. O people of the Book come that which is common between us and you; that we will serve none but Allah, nor associate aught with Him, nor take others for lords besides God. But if you turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslim.”8

Who were these Kings?

We cannot appreciate the gravity and significance of the memorable step taken by the Apostle unless we also know who were Heraclius, Chosroes, Negus and Muqauqis, what were the extent of their realms, and their prestige and splendour and might in the world of the seventh century. Any one not well acquainted with the political history of the time might take them as local suzerains, for ever so many of them are found in every country.

But, one who is mindful of the political map of the world in the seventh century and the power and splendor of the ambitious monarchs who had divided the world among themselves, would arrive at but one conclusion. That only a man sent by God on a mission could dare summon the imperious autocrats to put their trust in his apostleship. Such a man should be devoid of the least doubt in the success of his sacred task, or of a speck of fear in his heart. He had to possess such a glowing conviction in the glory and majesty of God that the proudest sovereign was to him not with more than an illusory puppet going through the motions of regality. For all these reasons, it would be worthwhile to give a brief sketch of the monarchs to whom the Prophet had sent his epistle.

Footnotes:

1. The original letter of the Prophet to Heraclius was in Spain for long centuries and it has reappeared now (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasululluah, p. 211).
2. The Arabic word used by the Prophet was araisiyan or arisen variously translated by latter biographers, which has been discussed later on in his chapter
3. Bukhari, Chap. How the Revelation to the Prophet Began
4. Al-tabari, Vol. III, p. 90
5. The original letter exist at Damascus (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasulullah, p. 216)
6. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Vol. III, p. 15
7. The original letter of the Prophet to Muquaqis is exhibit in the Topkapi Museum at Istambul (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasulullah, p. 216)
8. Muwahib Ladunniyah, Vol. III, pp. 247-48

Letters To Monarch

The peaceful conditions following the Treaty naturally gave a boost to the missionary activities which kept on advancing day-by-day. Islam grew like an avalanche and showed the signs of assuming vast proportions. The Apostle then sent several letters to the rulers outside Arabia and the tribal chiefs1 within the country inviting them to accept Islam. The letters were not couched judiciously by the Apostle but he also took care to select the envoys of different kings keeping in view the station and dignity of the different potentates. The envoys were conversant with the languages spoken as well as with political conditions of the countries to which they were deputed.2

When the Apostle expressed the desire to send letters to the kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs, the companions advised him to affix his seal on the letters for the unsealed letters were not recognized by the kings. The Apostle accordingly got struck a silver seal on which was engraved: “Muhammad the Messenger of Allah.” 3

Footnotes:

1. The letter were sent, as Waqidi says, in the month of Zil Hijja, 6, A.H. which coincides with 627 A.D. one of these letters was sent to Chosroes Pervez, the Emperor of Iran, who was killed in March 628 A.D. the letter to Heraclius would have also been sent in 627 A.D. but he set out on a tour to Armenia during 628 A.D. Heraclius should have, thus, received the letter on his return from Armenia when he went forth to the pilgrimage of Palestine. (See Alfred J. Butler, The Arab conquest of Egypt, p. 140).
2. According to Ibn S’ad (Tabaqat, Vol. II, p. 23) and Siyuti (Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra, Vol. II, p. 11), the Apostle’s ambassador received the miraculous gift of language and were able to speak in the language of the country to which they were sent. While a miracle similar to that conferred of the disciples of Jesus on the Day of Pentecost cannot be ruled out, for, the Prophet of Islam worked many an astounding miracle mentioned by his earliest biographers, but it appears more reasonable to expect that the Prophet selected envoys who could speak those language. The envoys were sent only to four foreign countries – Byzantium, Egypt, Iran and Abyssinia which had very close trade relations with Arabia. The Arabs fitted out caravans to these lands and we also find the nationals of these countries visiting Arabia or even settled down there. It was, therefore, not all difficult for the these countries. The embassies to Arab chiefs should, however, have presented no difficulty since all of them spoke Arabic.
3. Bukhari, Kitab ul Jihad and Shama’il Tirmidhi