THE PEACEFUL CONDITIONS following the treaty, naturally, gave a spur to the missionary activities that 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 sovereigns outside Arabia and the tribal chiefs within the country inviting them to accept Islam.[1] The Apostle’s letters were not only judiciously phrased, he also took care to select the envoys to 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 sent.[2]
When the Apostle expressed the desire to send letters to the king of the Arabs and non-Arabs, the companions advised him to affix his seal on the letters for the unsealed letters were not recognised by the kings. The Apostle accordingly had a silver seal made on which was engraved: Muhammad the Messenger of Allah.[3]
LETTERS OF THE PROPHET
Of the many letters sent by the Apostle, those written to Heraclius, the Emperor of Byzantium, Chosroes II, the Emperor of Iran, Negus, the king of Abyssinia and Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt, are remarkably significant.
Dihyah ibn Khalifah al-Kalbi, who was assigned to take the letter to Heraclius, had it forwarded to the Emperor through the ruler of Busrā. The Apostle wrote in this letter:[4]
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent 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 guidance. To commence, verily I call you to Islam. Embrace Islam so that you may find peace, and God will give you a twofold reward. If you refuse, then on you shall rest the sin of your subjects and followers.[5] O People of the Book, come to that which is common between us and you; that we 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.[6]
The letter sent to the Chosroes II read:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Kisrā, the great King of Persia. Peace be upon him who follows guidance, believes in Allah and His Apostle, bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Apostle of Allah to all mankind 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 Magians.[7]
In the letter[8] 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. To commence, 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 breath as He Created Adam by His hand and His breath. 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.[9]
The letter[10] sent to Muqawqis, the Chief of the Copts of Egypt, read:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Muqawqis, the Chief of the Copts.
Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. To commence, I call you to Islam that you may find peace, and God will give you a twofold reward. If you reject, then on you shall be the sin of your countrymen. 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.[11]
WHO WERE THESE KINGS?
To appreciate the gravity and significance of the steps taken by the Apostle it is necessary to know Heraclius, Chosroes, Negus and Muqawqis, 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, since many of them are found in every country.
But, someone mindful of the political map of the world in the seventh century and the power and splendour 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 would dare to summon the imperious autocrats to put their trust in his apostleship. Such a man had to have not the least doubt in the success of his sacred task, nor 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 a whit more than an illusory puppet going through the motions of grandeur. For all these reasons, it would be worthwhile to give a brief sketch of the monarchs to whom the Prophet had sent his epistles.
Heraclius (610-611). The Byzantine Empire then calling itself “New Rome,” had along with its Iranian counterpart kept a tight hand over the civilised 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.[12] The Empire was enormously rich while its phenomenally efficient armies and navies had compiled a successful military record.
Coming of 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 allusion to his fire of genius, avarice for power or qualities of leadership. When Phocus killed the tyrant Emperor Maurice in 602 AD, 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.[13]
It was then that the secret emissaries of the Senate prevailed upon the Burch of Africa to send his son from Carthage to Constantinople. Heraclius was crowned in 610 AD, when the Empire, afflicted by famine and pestilence, was incapable of resistance and without hope of relief against the enemy siege of the capital. Heraclius spent the first few years of his reign beseeching the clemency of the Persians and suing for peace, but in 621 AD he was suddenly awakened from his sloth. This was the year in which the prediction of Roman Victory-something most “distant in its accomplishment”[14]-was made in the Qur’ān.
Suddenly, 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 on their own territory, carried his victorious arms to the capital of the Iranian Empire. Amidst the glories of his successful campaigns, Heraclius avenged the honour 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 AD and then, in 629 AD, marched in triumph to Jerusalem to restore the True Cross to the Holy Sepulchre. The people went forth to meet the victor, with tears and thunderous applause, spreading carpets and spraying aromatic herbs on his path.[15] The glorious event was celebrated with a great tumult of public joy. While the Emperor triumphed at Jerusalem, he was given the letter of the Apostle of God inviting him to embrace Islam.[16] By that time, Heraclius seems to have exhausted himself. He became the “slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities”[17] 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 shrank to Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea in Europe. The work of the Heraclius was undone, but he was decidedly one of 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 vastness of his dominions, wealth and military powers he could be compared only with Chosroes II, the Emperor of Persia. Heraclius died at Constantinople in 641 AD and was buried there.
Chosroes II. Known as Khusto Parvez to the Arabs, was the fourth son of Hormouz and the grandson of Chosroes I, Anushirvan the Just. The murder of Hormouz in 590 AD was succeeded by enthronement of Chosroes II, but after suffering a defeat at the hands of a rebel chief, Bahrām, 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 Madā’in. While the majesty of the Persian Emperor was revived, his adopted father, Maurice, was killed by Phocas, who promoted himself to the vacant post. Chosroes II decided to avenge the death of Maurice and invaded the Byzantine dominions in 604 AD. Chosroes II continued to press his triumphant march to Constantinople, even after the death of Phocas, rolling in the dust of all the Byzantine provinces, Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor, in the rapid tide of his success. By 616 AD, 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 valour of Heraclius who put the Iranians to rout and penetrated into the heart of Persia. Chosroes II had ultimately to leave his country and seek refuge in some far off place and thus the quarrel between the two Empires came to an end in 628 AD.
Chosroes II was, according to the unanimous verdict of historians, the greatest Emperor of Iran. In the East, his writ ran up to the north-western parts of India.[18] During his rule the glory and magnificence of the 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, the luxury of its nobles and the splendid workmanship of its artisans. Writing about the attainments of Chosroes II, the noted Arab historian Tabari says:
Made of a sterner stuff, he was the most prudent and far-sighted Emperor of Persia. Deeds of valour, exploits of victory, abundance of wealth, the stroke of luck and favourable circumstances had so amassed during his reign as never before. It was for these reasons that he came to be known as Abrawiz (Parvez) which meant victorious in Arabic.[19]
In the arts of civilisation and innovations in the preparations of edibles and drinks Iran was without any parallel.[20] In the manufacture of perfumes it had attained perfection. The people had developed a taste for savoury preparation, luscious liquors and the finest perfumes. Love of music had grown into a craze which had stimulated its development in the reign of Chosroes II. He was so fond of amassing wealth and artefacts that when his treasure was transferred from an old building to a new one at Ctesiphon in 607-8 AD, it consisted of 460 million mithqāls of gold. Which was worth 370 million gold sovereigns. In the thirteenth year of his reign Chosroes II had 880 million mithqāls of gold in his exchequer.
The reign of Chosroes II lasted thirty seven years. His son Sherveh ascended the throne after him.
Mugawqis: 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 mention him by his title “Mugawqis” but his personal identity is hotly disputed. Abu Sāliḥ who wrote in the sixth century after hijrah (12th century AD), gives his name as Jurayj ibn Minā al-Muqawqis (which is a corruption of George, son of Minā). Ibn Khaldūn says that the then Muqawqis was a Copt while al-Maqrīzī asserts that he was a Roman. When the Persians conquered Egypt in 616 AD, 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 the Merkite church who remained in office from 621 AD till his death in 630 AD. He is known to the Arab historians as Jurayj; they give the year of his appointment as 621 AD. Alfred J. Butler is of the opinion that practically all the Arab historians speak of a person by the title of Muqawqis, appointed by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius after the recovery of Egypt from the Persians who was both the Patriarch and Governor of Egypt. They have, therefore, identified George as Muqawqis. But he also says that Muqawqis was only a title of the Patriarch since it was applied to the governor in the early Coptic manuscripts.[21] It is also possible that a Coptic Patriarch might have assumed the ecclesiastical and political powers after the Persian conquest of Egypt. However, as the treaty of peace between the Romans and the Persians was executed in the year 628 AD, it is more probably that the letter of the Prophet would have been received by the Patriarch of Egypt when he was more or less independent. This is why, it appears, 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 resources. It was also the granary of the Byzantine capital. When Amr ibn al-Āṣ entered Egypt at the head of the conquering Arab forces, fourteen years after the Apostle had sent his letter to Muqawqis, he wrote to Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khatṭāb describing it thus: “The country is exceedingly fertile and green. Its length covers a journey of one month and its breadth is of about ten days.”[22] A census of Egypt taken by ‘Amr ibn al-Āṣ in 20 AH/640 AD to find out the number of persons on whom jizyah could be levied showed that the population exceeded six million[23] of whom one hundred thousand were Romans. Amr ibn al-Āṣ 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.”[24]
Negus: Ethiopia is an ancient country in the eastern part of the Africa lying on the coast of the Red Sea. It has been 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. Jewish sources suggest that the queen of Sheba was Abyssinian and her progeny by Solomon had ruled the country ever since. Jews started migrating to the country from the sixth century BC after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, but by the fourth century Christianity had become the dominant faith of the people. 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.[25] The Negus of Abyssinia is said to have complied by sending an army which captured Yemen in 525 AD, and retained the hold of Abyssinia over it for about fifty years. Abraham was the viceroy of Abyssinian King in Yemen who led an army to destroy the House of God in Makkah whence came off the memorable event of Äm 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, Julian by name, to the court of Axum.[26]
De Lacy O’Leary writes in Arabia before Mohammad that “from 522 to the rise of Islam the Abyssinians controlled the southern end of the Red Sea and the trade with Africa, perhaps that with India as well.”[27]
The official title of the King of Abyssinia was Nagusa Nagashi or King of Kings of Ethiopia,[28] 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 Muslims migrated from Makkah to Abyssinia under the leadership of Jafar ibn Abī Tālib, in the fifth year of the apostleship of Muhammad; but it is highly improbable that the Apostle wrote any letter to the Negus at that time. The circumstances in which the Prophet was in at Makkah were unfavourable for addressing such a letter to any potentate, and, in any case, it was neither an appropriate time for inviting any noble or king of a foreign land to accept Islam, nor had he sent any such letter to any foreign dignitary, according to the Hadith. All that the Hadith 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 Quraysh. Similarly, the writings of Ibn Hishām and others imply that the Negus had admitted the truth of divine revelation and accepted that Jesus son of Mary was a Prophet and word of God cast by Him into Mary.
In so far as the Negus to whom the Apostle had sent his letter is concerned, according to Ibn Kathīr he was the king who succeeded the Negus who had given asylum to Ja’far ibn Abī Tālib. Ibn Kathīr holds that the letter inviting him along with other monarchs to accept Islam was written to the Negus before the conquest of Makkah. Ibn Kathīr’s view seems preferable for this second Negus accepted Islam, and of whose death the Prophet informed the Muslims and for whom he prayed for salvation. Wāqidī and some other biographers of the Prophet have stated that the Prophet had prayed for the Negus on return from Tabūk in Rajab 9 AH.[29] The circumstances of the event suggest that Wāqidī is correct in holding this view and in its dating.
REACTION OF THE MONARCHS
Heraclius, the Negus and Muqawqis received the letters from the Apostle with due respect and each gave a courteous reply. The Negus and Muqawqis showed the highest regard to the envoys and the latter even sent some gifts to the Apostle. These included two slave-girls, one of whom was Māriyah who gave birth to the Apostle’s son Ibrāhim.
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.”[30]
Chosroes II wrote to Bādhān, who was his governor in Yemen, to have the Apostle sent to him in Ctesiphon. Bādhān deputed Bābwayh to tell the Apostle what Chosroes II had written to him and that he had come to take him to the King. But when Bābwayh came to Madinah, 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 Qubādh had by then deposed his father and seized the throne under the title of Sherveh. Chosroes II was murdered in March 628 AD, and with him ended the glory of the four hundred year old house of the 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 arms of the Muslims. And thus was realised the Prophet’s prophecy within eight years of his pronouncement.[31] The Apostle had also said, “No more Chosroes after Chosroes dies.”[32] This portion of the prediction also came to pass with the fall of Yazdagird III.
In a few years the whole of Persia would lie at the feet of the Muslims. The bulk of the population were to adopt Islam and there would be born in Persia men with such a lambent flame of intellect that proved true, word by word, what the Apostle had once remarked: “If knowledge were to be found in Pleiades, some of the sons of Persia would attain it.”[33]
HERACLIUS AND ABŪ SUFYĀN
Heraclius decided to satisfy himself about the contents of the Apostle’s letter. He ordered the search for a man from Arabia who could tell him about the Prophet . Abū Sufyān happened to be there on a business trip and so he was brought before him. The questions that Heraclius asked on this occasion show his deep insight into the scripture and the teachings of the prophets of yore and that he knew how and when God sends them and the way they are usually treated by their people. Abū Sufyān, too, acted like a true Arab for he considered it below his dignity to tell the Emperor anything but the truth.
The conversation between Heraclius and Abū Sufyān is significant enough to be quoted here in Extenso.
Heraclius: Tell me of his lineage.
Abū Sufyān: He comes of the best lineage.
Heraclius: Did anybody before him make the claim he does?
Abū Sufyān: No.
Heraclius: Has there been any king in his family.
Sufyān: No.
Heraclius: Who have followed him? Are they the poor and the weak or the nobles?
Abū Sufyān: They are all poor and weak.
Heraclius: Are his followers increasing or deserting him?
Abū Sufyān: Their numbers are growing.
Heraclius: Do those who enter his religion despise and leave him?
Abū Sufyān: No.
Heraclius: Did you find him telling lies before he made the claim?
Abū Sufyān: No.
Heraclius: Did he ever break the word given by him?
Abū Sufyān: Not as yet, but we have to see what he does in future.
Heraclius: Did you ever fight against him?
Abū Sufyān: Yes.
Heraclius: What was the result?
Abū Sufyān: The fortunes have varied, sometimes in our favour, sometimes in his.
Heraclius: What is it that he teaches?
Abū Sufyān: He asks us to worship One God, and not to associate aught with Him; to offer prayers; to be virtuous; to speak the truth; and to be kind to kinsmen.
Heraclius then asked the interpreter to tell Abū Sufyān: “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 enquired 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 if 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.” 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; to associate aught 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 that 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 to them he said, “You Chiefs of Rome! If you desire safety and guidance so that your kingdom shall be firmly established, then follow the Arabian Prophet.” Whereupon they all started off but found the doors closed. When Heraclius saw them getting sore, he despaired of their conversion; so he ordered them to be brought back. He said, “What I 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: he preferred his kingdom over the eternal truth. And, in consequence, he lost even his kingdom after a few years during the time of Caliph ‘Umar.
WHO WERE THE ARISIYYIN?
Arisiyyin or Yarisyyin was the word the Apostle used in his letter to Heraclius. No other letter written to any other Arab or non-Arab king and potentate contains the word whose significance is disputed by the scholars of hadith and lexicographers. According to one version it is the plural of Arisi which means the servants and the peasants.[34]
Ibn Manzür makes it out as a synonym for cultivators in the Lisan al-Arab and cites Tha’lab as the authority for this view. He also quotes Ibn al-Arabi in his support but, at the same time, he adduces a quotation from Abū 22Ubaydah to show that the word also means the chief or the elder who is obeyed or whose orders are carried out.[35]
Now the question arises that if Arisiyyin 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 Manzür 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 nicknamed the Magians the arisin which meant that they were peasants. Arabs also used to call the Persians fallahin or the peasants.”[36]
Arisin has also been interpreted as denoting Arians or the followers of Arius (280-336) who was the founder of a well-known Christian sect. The doctrine of Arius hovered for a long time between acceptance and rejection as the official creed of the Byzantine Empire, it upheld the Unity of God and denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. In other words Arianism maintained a complete distinction between the Creator and the creature, and subordinary 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, 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 a relative, he is Knowledge of the Father.[37]
James Mackinon writes in his book From Christ to Constantine:
Arius insisted that God alone is primeval, eternal and infinite; naught is consubstantial 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.[38]
The Church of Alexandria had, by the fourth century, come round to hold 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 AD. Arius left Alexandria but the controversy between him and Bishop Alexander continued to be fought out not only among churchmen and thinkers but in the barbershops and among the longshoremen. After trying hard to stay out of the quarrel, and urging the bishops to stop discussing it, Constantine realised that it needed to be settled, but he did not succeed in his effort. In 325 AD he summoned the first council of the whole of the church-a council called ecumenical, at Nicaea, across the straits from Constantinople, which was attended by 2,030 bishops. Constantine was disposed to the divinity of Christ, as God the Son, and he gave his decision in its favour although a large majority of the bishops favoured the doctrine of Arius. Only 326 bishops are reported to have cast their votes in favour 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.
At last Constantine himself wavered; the ban placed on Arianism was lifted. Athanasius succeeded Alexander, the bitterest opponent of Arius, but he was exiled and Arius returned to Alexandria. He was recalled by Constantine who ordered him to be restored; in fact, Constantine was about to accept Arianism as the official creed or the realm but Arius died suddenly.[39]
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 favour, and seventeen for the semi-Arians: in all forty-five.[40]
The formulation of One God in three persons was, in point of fact, not solidly established in Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the fourth century. The mystery of Trinitarianism was truly unravelled by the second half of the nineteenth century when Biblical theologians came round to acknowledge that when “one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quarter 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.”[41]
The Nicene dogma of the Trinity violated the plain and simple teachings of Christ. Both competed, for a long time, to possess 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 Theaosodius 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 offence and suppressed ruthlessly. Arians went underground but traces of Arianism remained in Christendom for a couple of centuries after the Council of Nicaea.
The word aristyvin 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.
Strange to say, but some of the learned scholars of the earliest times have also favoured this interpretation of the word in question, as, for example, Imām Tahāwi (d. 321 AH) writes in Mushkil al-Āthār:
Some of the knowledgeable scholars say that a sect among the courtiers of Heraclius, known as arisin, 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 arasiyin or arisin, as known to the scholars of Traditions.”[42]
Nawawi (d. 676 AH), the commentator of the Ṣahih Muslim, has also expressed a similar opinion in this regard. He says:
Others say that they were the Jews and Christians who followed ‘Abdullah ibn Arīs.[43]
LETTERS TO THE ARAB POTENTATE
The Prophet also sent letters to Mundhir ibn Sāwā, ruler of Bahrain;[44] Jayfar ibn al-Julanda, and ‘Abd ibn al-Julanda[45] Azdi, rulers of Oman; Hawdhah ibn ‘Alī, the ruler of al-Yamāmah[46] and Hārith ibn Shammār al-Ghassānī, Mundhir ibn Sāwā and the two sons of al-Julanda, Jayfar and ‘Abd embraced Islam. Hawdhah ibn ‘Alī wrote back to say that he would accept Islam provided he was allowed to share the dominion with the Muslims. The Apostle turned down his request and he died soon thereafter.
***
[1] The letters were lent, as Wāqidi says, in the month of Dīhū ‘l-Hijjah, 6. AH, which coincides with 627 AD. One of these letters was sent to Chosroes Pervez, the Emperor of Iran, who was killed in March 628 AD. The letter to Heraclius would have also been sent in 627 AD but he set out on tour to Armenia during 628 AD. 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 Sa’d (Tabaqāt, vol. II, p. 23) and Suyūti (Al-Khaṣā’iş al-kubrā, vol. II, p. 11), the Apostle’s ambassadors received the miraculous gift of languages and were able to speak in the language of the country to which they were sent. While a miracle similar to that conferred on the disciples of Jesus on the Day of Pentecost cannot be ruled out, for, the Prophet of Islam worked many a wondrous miracle mentioned by his earliest biographers, it appears more reasonable to expect that the Prophet had selected envoys who could speak those languages. The envoys were sent only to four foreign countries: Byzantium, Egypt, Iran and Abyssinia which had very close trade relation with Arabia. The Arabs fitted out caravans to these lands and we also find the nationals of these countries visited Arabia or even settled down there. It was, therefore, not at all difficult for the Prophet to select such men who could already speak the languages of these countries. The embassies to Arab chiefs should, however, have presented no difficulty since all of them spoke Arabic.
[3] Bukhāri: Kitâb al-jihād and Shamā’il at-Tirmidhi
[4] The original letter of the Prophet to Heraclius was in Spain for many centuries and it has reappeared now (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasūlullah, p. 211).
[5] The Arabic word used by the Prophet was Yarisiyyin or arissen variously translated by latter biographer, which has been discussed later on in this Chapter.
[6] Bukhāri, “How the Revelation to the Prophet Began.”
[7] Al-Tabari, vol. III, p. 90.
[8] The original letter exists at Damascus (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasihullah, p. 216).
[9] Tabaqat Ibn Safi, vol. III, p.15.
[10] The original letter of the Prophet to Muqawqis is exhibited in the Topkapi Museum at Istanbul (Muhammad Hamidullah, Muhammad Rasihullah, p.216.
[11] Mawahib Ladumiyah, vol. III, pp. 247-48.
[12] The extent of its boundaries have been given in chapter I under the subtitle “The Eastern Roman Empire.”
[13] E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London, 1908, vol. V, pp. 70-72 and Irán Ba ŷhá Sasányiān.
[14] E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. V, p. 74. Also see the Chapter “Romans in the Qur’ān” and the author’s article: “Prediction of the Victory of Romans in the Qur’ān.”
[15] Fath al-Bāri, vol. I, p. 21.
[16] The Apostles letter was sent to the ruler of Busrâ to be forwarded to Heraclius, but as the latter was pre-occupied with the affairs of the State on return from War and Constantinople was far away, the letter could not be sent to him earlier. Heraclius was also away from his capital to subdue a resurrection in Armenia. Thus the letter reached him in Jerusalem in 629 AD.
[17] E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. V, p. 76.
[18] Irān fiʒʌhd Sasāniyān, p. 602.
[19] Tarikh Tabari, vol. II, (Egypt), p. 137.
[20] Ibid., p. 995.
[21] A. J. Butler: The Arab Conquest of Egypt}, Appendix C, pp. 508-26.
[22] An-Nujim az-Zahirah by Ibn Taghrī Bardi, vol. I, p. 32.
[23] See Art. “Egypt” in Muhammad Farid Wajdi’s Dā’irat al-Ma’arif al-Qarn al-Ishrin. 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 million at present.
[24] Husn al-Muhādarah by Suyūṭi.
[25] De Lacy O’Leary, Arabia before Mohammad, London, 1927, p. 119.
[26] A. H. M. Jones and Elizabeth Monroe, A History of Abyssinia, Oxford, 1935, p. 32.
[27] Ibid., p. 120.
[28] Ibid., p. 63.
[29] Sahih Muslim, vol. V, p. 166.
[30] Ḥabari, vol. III, pp. 90-91.
[31] See “The last days of the Sasanid Empire” in Irān ba Āhd Sasāniyān.
[32] Ibn Kathir, vol. III. p. 513 and Muslim.
[33] Musnad Imām Aḥmad, vol. II, p. 399.
[34] See Nawawi’s Commentary on Muslim, and Majmā’ Bihar al-Anwar by Muhammad Patni.
[35] Lisan al-Arab, see “Aris.”
[36] Lisān al-‘Arab, see Ars.
[37] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. I, Art. “Arianism” p. 777.
[38] James Mackinon, From Jesus to Constantine. London, 1936, (rendered from the Urdu translation).
[39] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, art. “Arianism.”
[40] J. W. Draper, History of Conflict between Religion and Science, London (1910), p. 205.
[41] The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), art. “The Holy Trinity”, vol. 14, p. 295.
[42] Mushkil al-Āthār, vol. II, p. 399.
[43] Nawawi appears to be mistaken in holding ‘Abdullah ibn Arīs as the founder of the sect, but he wrote at a time when Arians had been completely suppressed and hardly any reliable information about them was available. In any case, Arius was not an Arab and could not have had an Arabic Name. (Nawawi, Sharh Muslim, vol. II, p. 98).
[44] Bahrayn forms part of Najd and is now known as al-Aḥsa’. The party sent under Abū ‘Ubaydah to raid the coast was dispatched to this region where it found a whale from the sea. The traditions refer to this region as al-Bahrayn. The name is now applied to another region, a Sheikhdom on the coast of Persian Gulf. The tribes inhabiting the region belonged to Banū ‘Abd al-Qays, Bakr ibn Wā’il and Banū Tamim. When the letter was written the ruler of the area was Mundhir ibn Sāwā, the Chief of Banū Tamim.
[45] Al-Julanda was not the name of any person but a title meaning Chief or the religious leader in the dialect of Oman. Jayfar, being the eldest brother, was then the Chief of Oman.
[46] Hawdhah ibn ‘Alī al-Hanafī was the King of Yamāmah, who professed Christianity. Salit ibn ‘Amr was commissioned to deliver the Prophet’s letter to him. Yamāmah was then a vast region between Bahrayn, to the east, and Hijāz, to the west. Banū Hanifah were settled in this region. Musaylamah belonged to this tribe, who was nicknamed Kadhdhab or the liar after he made a claim to apostleship.
← Previous: The Truce Of Hūdaybiyyah
Contents
The Expedition To Khaybar →