The Prophet’s Letters and the Late Antique World (PLAW) – I – The Fall of the House of Sasan: The Letter to Xusro II (r. 590-628)
The Fall of the House of Sasan: The Letter to Xusro II (r. 590-628)
"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
The Sasanian Empire, long the dominant force in the Iranic world, faced its greatest existential crisis in the early 7th century. Decades of war, political intrigue, and dynastic instability had left the once-mighty kingdom vulnerable to both internal collapse and external conquest. While historians have long debated the exact chronology of Persia’s downfall, Islamic sources alike describe a momentous event: the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letter to Xusrō II (r. 590–628). This letter, a call to submit to Islam, was received with contempt, torn apart by the King of Kings—an act that, according to Islamic tradition, symbolized the fate that would soon befall the House of Sasan.
Yet, despite agreement on the broad contours of this episode, the historical sources present challenges. Various narrations appear to conflate events, blur the distinction between Xusrō II and his son Kawād II (Šērōe), and at times seem contradictory in their depiction of Persia’s unraveling. Was the Prophet’s ﷺ prayer for Persia’s kingdom to be "ripped apart" fulfilled with Xusrō’s execution, or did its true realization come with Kawād’s death and the ensuing civil war? Did Islamic chroniclers mistakenly merge the fates of these rulers, or did they merely reflect the complexity of an empire in rapid decline?
The purpose of this blog is to untangle the narrations, reconcile seemingly contradictory narratives, and create a cohesive, historically sound account of this event. Rather than dismiss discrepancies as errors, we will examine them critically—separating later embellishments from historically verifiable events. By cross-referencing Islamic sources, Persian records, and Roman accounts, we will reconstruct the letter's story to Xusrō II with precision, through this investigation, we gain not only a clearer picture of Sasanian Iran’s collapse but also a deeper understanding of how history itself is shaped by memory, narrative, and political context.
This is the story of an empire on the brink, a kingdom in turmoil, and a letter that would echo through the annals of time.
Who Was Xusrō II?
Before exploring the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letter to Xusrō II and its implications for the Sasanian Empire, it is essential to first understand who Xusrō II was—his rise to power, his reign, and why he remains one of the most pivotal and controversial figures in Iranian and Islamic history.
Xusrō II (r. 590–628 CE), known in Persian sources as Xusrō Parwēz ("the Victorious"), was the last truly powerful ruler of the Sasanian Empire. His reign saw both the empire’s most ambitious territorial expansion and the beginning of its rapid unraveling. To some, he was the last great monarch of Sasanian Iran; to others, he presided over the hubris and internal divisions that ultimately led to its fall under the Arab conquests.
Born into the House of Sasan, Xusrō was the grandson of the renowned Xusrō I Anōšag-Ruwān ("the Immortal Soul"), under whom the empire had flourished. His father, Ohrmazd IV (r. 579–590 CE), was a less fortunate ruler whose reign ended in violence and chaos, triggering a civil war that would dramatically shape Xusrō’s path to power.
A King Made by Rome: The Rise of Xusrō II
590 CE – Civil War and Crisis
The fall of Ohrmazd IV plunged the Sasanian Empire into civil war. Tensions between the crown and the nobility—especially the military elite and the Zoroastrian clergy—had escalated during his rule, as the shah sought to curb their influence in favor of centralized authority. His execution of leading aristocrats alienated powerful factions, ultimately leading to his downfall.
In 590 CE, the esteemed general Wahrām Čōbīn of the Mihranid family—a commander who had won victories in the East but was recently humiliated after a defeat by Roman forces—rose in rebellion. After receiving a woman’s dress from Ohrmazd IV as a public insult, Wahrām declared himself Šāhān Šāh ("King of Kings") and launched a rebellion that quickly gathered momentum.
Meanwhile, a palace coup in Ctesiphon—led by the influential noble Windoy, brother of Wistaxm—deposed Ohrmazd IV. The conspirators blinded and later killed him, installing his son, Xusrō II, as shah. But Xusrō’s hold on power was immediately threatened. Wahrām Čōbīn rejected his claim to the throne and marched on the capital, forcing Xusrō to flee—an unprecedented act for a Sasanian ruler.
591 CE – An Unlikely Alliance: The Roman Intervention
In a moment of desperation, Xusrō II sought asylum and support from the empire’s long-time nemesis: Rome. He arrived at the court of the Roman emperor Maurice (Flavius Mauricius Tiberius Augustus, r. 582–602 CE) in Constantinople and offered a remarkable bargain—military aid in exchange for Persian territory.
Maurice, ever the strategist, seized the opportunity. Installing a loyal client on the Sasanian throne promised regional stability on Rome’s eastern frontier. In return for Roman assistance, Xusrō ceded significant territories:
-
The frontier cities of Dara, Martyropolis, and Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia
-
Half of Armenia and swaths of the Caucasus, bolstering Roman dominance in the region
Never before had a Sasanian king willingly surrendered Persian land to a Roman emperor. The decision was seen as shameful by many Persian nobles, staining Xusrō’s legitimacy even before his return.
The Restoration and Its Costs
With Roman troops at his side, Xusrō re-entered Persia in 591 CE. A joint Roman-Sasanian force decisively defeated Wahrām Čōbīn near Ganzak (in present-day Iran), and the usurper fled to the Western Turks, where he was later assassinated. Xusrō II was restored as shah, but at great cost.
His throne had been secured not by Persian arms but by Roman intervention. Though victorious, his dependence on a foreign power and his territorial concessions provoked deep resentment among the Iranian nobility and military elite. His reign began not with triumph, but with the uneasy burden of Roman debt.
This alliance with Rome would come back to haunt him. When the Roman emperor Maurice was overthrown and killed in 602 CE, Xusrō used the murder of his benefactor as a pretext for launching the most destructive war in Roman-Sasanian history—a conflict that would exhaust both empires and open the door to the Arab conquests.
Xusrō II’s Ambitious Wars and the Peak of Sasanian Power
602 CE – The Apocalyptic War: Xusrō’s Wrath Upon the World 🔥
Between 602–628 CE, the world witnessed a conflict of unprecedented scale—a war described in apocalyptic terms by those who lived through it. The 7th-century Armenian historian Sebeos opened his chronicle with haunting words:
“A tale of the Aryans' raid over the world by the Sasanian brigand Parwez Xusro... disturbing the sea and the dry land, to bring destruction on the whole earth... torrents of fire and blood... the cry of demons and the roar of dragons... from east to west, from north to south.”
This was no ordinary war—it was a cosmic upheaval, a campaign of fire and ruin that shook the very foundations of the known world.
The Catalyst: The Murder of a Roman Emperor ⚔️
In 602 CE, Emperor Maurice, the very man who had helped restore Xusrō II to the Persian throne, was brutally executed by the usurper Phocas. His sons were slain alongside him, their severed heads paraded through Constantinople—a spectacle so gruesome that even seasoned soldiers recoiled.
To Xusrō, this was not just a political crisis—it was divine justification for war. Proclaiming himself Maurice’s avenger, he launched what would become the most ambitious Sasanian invasion in history—not to reclaim lost lands, but to destroy Roman power entirely.
The March of the Sasanian Host: Fire Upon the Lands 🌍🔥
The Persian armies swept westward like a storm. What began as calculated raids evolved into a total war of conquest:
The aftermath was devastating: churches desecrated, relics looted, the True Cross seized and taken to Persia. Thousands were slaughtered or enslaved, and Patriarch Zachariah was exiled.
622 CE – Xusrō’s Empire at Its Zenith 👑
By 622 CE, Xusrō’s empire stretched from the Oxus to the Nile, from the Indus to the Bosporus. It rivaled the domains of Darius the Great and Xerxes. The Roman Empire, battered and humiliated, was crumbling.
Cities like Ancyra and Nicomedia were reduced to ashes. One Syriac Chronicle mournfully asked:
“Was there any place which resisted him, which he did not destroy, whose men he did not kill, and whose people he did not deport?”
Ambition Becomes Overreach 💀
Xusrō’s war brought Persia to its greatest height, but also to its breaking point:
-
The empire was overstretched, its resources depleted.
-
Entire regions were devastated, the economy in tatters.
-
Xusrō’s pride and cruelty alienated his own court.
What began as a triumphant march ended in flames, betrayal, and the downfall of the House of Sasan.
The Contradictions of Xusrō II: A King of Extremes 👑
Xusrō II was a ruler of paradoxes—both magnificent and monstrous.
-
A patron of the arts, yet a tyrant.
-
A warrior-king, yet ruled by paranoia.
-
A defender of Zoroastrian tradition, yet undermined its religious institutions.
The God-King of Dastgird ✨
At his court in Dastgird, Xusrō lived in near-mythic grandeur:
-
Golden palaces draped in silk and silver.
-
Musicians, dancers, and poets in constant revelry.
-
Exotic animals—lions, tigers, and onagers—kept as symbols of dominion.
His love with his beloved wife Šīrīn, a Christian noblewoman, became the stuff of legend, immortalized in Neẓāmī’s epic romance Xusrō and Šīrīn.
But Behind the Curtain: Terror and Blood 🩸
As war turned against him (622–627 CE), Xusrō grew increasingly erratic:
-
He executed commanders for bearing bad news.
-
He purged officials, sowing fear throughout the court.
-
His paranoia isolated him from allies, nobles, and even his family.
A Devout Zoroastrian? A Troubled Faith 🔥✝️
As Šāhān Šāh, Xusrō was the religious head of Zoroastrianism—but his actions were divisive:
But...
This left him unsupported by the Magi, and distrusted by Christians and Jews alike—creating a vacuum of legitimacy.
Where his grandfather Xusrō I Anōšag-Ruwān had ruled with stability and Magian support, Xusrō II’s reign ended in division, violence, and collapse.
The Splendor of Sovereignty: Xusro II and Embodiment of Divine Splendour
To understand how Xusro II Parwēz, the last truly imperial Shahanshah of the Sasanian dynasty, projected his authority, we must look beyond the battlefield and into the language of attire — a ceremonial symbolism captured by the 10th-century Persian historian Hamza al-Isfahani, who offers a rare snapshot of royal spectacle:
"Khusraw [II] Abarwiz b. Hurmuz — His vest is pink and embroidered, his trousers are sky-blue, and his crown is red."
🎨 Color, in this brief but rich portrait, does not merely suggest aesthetic taste — it channels the cosmological and theological currents of late Sasanian kingship. Every hue speaks a language:
🟠 Rose of Mithra: Covenant and the Dawn of Kingship
➡ Pink (rose-colored) robes suggest not softness but divine favor, royal refinement, and a sacred visual identity deeply embedded in Iranian cosmology and ritual. While to a modern reader the color pink may evoke gentleness or romance, in the Zoroastrian and imperial Iranian world, its connotations were far more profound — grounded in celestial association and cultic resonance.
In Sasanian iconography and color semiotics, rose tones were frequently linked to Mithra (Mihr) — the exalted deity of light, justice, and covenant. Mithra was no passive solar spirit; he was a warrior god, a guarantor of oaths, and a cosmic judge who stood between truth (asha) and falsehood (druj). His very name meant “contract” or “binding agreement” — both legal and cosmic. To don his color was to be wrapped in the moral authority of divine kingship.
🌓 The rose hue of Xusro’s cloak, therefore, symbolized not effeminacy but an aura of truth-bound majesty — a public affirmation that the Shahanshah ruled not merely through arms but by divine pact. It signified that his reign was aligned with the celestial order, as defined by Zoroastrian ethical cosmology.
🌅 Moreover, pink — as the color of dawn — became a visual metaphor for new beginnings, messianic expectation, and imperial renewal. The moment of sunrise, called Havanghāh, held deep symbolic meaning in Iranian ritual, often associated with purification, illumination, and the defeat of darkness. Just as Mithra rode the chariot of the sun across the heavens, dispelling evil forces with each rising day, the Shah — cloaked in dawn-colored garments — projected himself as the one who brings light to a darkened world, restoring cosmic order (asha) after war, chaos, or internal disarray.
This was especially relevant in the context of Xusro II’s reign, which was marked by apocalyptic wars, imperial overreach, and religious turbulence. His choice of pink ceremonial robes may have been a calculated expression of messianic legitimacy — aligning himself with the xwarrah (divine glory) and with prophecies of a world-renewing king (saoshyant), long anticipated in Zoroastrian eschatology.
🌸 The rose-colored garment thus became:
-
A symbol of divine alignment through Mithra’s protection,
-
A color of ritual renewal, as seen in many fire temple rites,
-
And a cosmic aesthetic, proclaiming the emperor as a herald of new light, destined to restore balance between heaven and earth.
So when Hamza al-Isfahani tells us that Xusro wore pink, he is not merely describing a fashion detail — he is invoking an entire sacred ontology. This was clothing not just of silk, but of solar power, oath-bound legitimacy, and imperial rebirth — a shimmering sign that the king was more than a man: he was the visible face of order and covenant, standing at the dawn of history's next divine chapter.
🔵 Sky-Blue of Ahura Mazda: Sovereignty in Motion
➡ Sky-blue trousers evoke far more than mere fashion — they symbolize the celestial realm, the heavens of Ahura Mazda, and the active movement of divine kingship on earth. In the chromatic vocabulary of Zoroastrian cosmology, blue (specifically sky-blue or āsmānī rang) was not simply a pleasant hue; it was the sacred color of the upper world, where the seven Amesha Spentas — the divine attributes and emanations of Ahura Mazda — reside and govern the created order.
💠 These trousers were not passive garments, but cosmic statements. Draped in the color of the sky, Xusro II physically embodied the heavens — placing the seat of imperial motion, his very legs, within the sacred domain of celestial harmony. Just as the earth is upheld by the sky, the trousers metaphorically root the king’s body in divine sovereignty, suggesting that every step he takes is sanctioned by heaven.
But why trousers and not a blue tunic or robe?
This choice is particularly meaningful within the Sasanian context, where symbolism was never random and often followed a precise theological grammar:
🌀 In the Avesta and Middle Persian texts, the Amesha Spentas who dwell in the sky are not passive gods but cosmic regulators — spiritual embodiments of truth, justice, good thinking, and immortality. The blue trousers may have invoked not only Ahura Mazda, but also:
-
Šahrewar (Kshathra Vairya), the divine aspect of ideal dominion,
-
And Vohu Manah, the Good Mind, who inspires righteous kingship.
Thus, as Xusro walked through his golden halls, received envoys, or rode into battle, his sky-blue trousers signaled more than elegance. They proclaimed:
🌠 This is a king whose steps traverse the boundary between heaven and earth. Where he moves, divine will follows.
In the theater of Sasanian kingship, where clothing was both ideology and liturgy, this detail was no accident. The blue below the pink or red garments above created a sacred verticality: a body that flowed from celestial light (crown), through divine favor (tunic), into heaven-guided motion (legs). It was a walking cosmos — the Shah as the world in miniature.
Certainly — here's a deeply expanded and enriched version of your section on the red crown of Xusro II Parvēz, unpacking its symbolic dimensions within Zoroastrian cosmology, imperial ideology, and visual theology:
🔴 Red of Ātar and Vərəθraγna: Crowned in Fire and Fury
➡ A red crown, meanwhile, is no mere ornament. In the chromatic theology of the Sasanian court, red was a sacred and volatile color — the hue of fire, blood, victory, and divine fury. To wear it upon one’s brow was to invoke the powers of judgment and warfare, of cosmic protection and apocalyptic wrath.
🔥 In Zoroastrian ritual symbolism, red is the color of Ātar, the sacred fire — not merely a liturgical element but an eternal and witnessing force, believed to burn at the center of temples, homes, and the very soul of the Iranian realm. Ātar is more than flame: it is truth made visible, conscience externalized, and justice aflame. The Shah who wears red upon his head is crowned not by gold alone, but by the living element that binds the moral universe.
🩸 But red also channels the raw pulse of victory. It is the war-god’s breath — the divine energy of Vərəθraγna, the Zoroastrian deity of triumph, aggression, and heroic overcoming. Known from Avestan hymns and celebrated in royal iconography, Vərəθraγna appeared in multiple zoomorphic forms: a charging boar, a ferocious bird, a striding warrior. In Sasanian reliefs, especially those from Ṭāq-i Bustān, the victorious king is often flanked by fire and wild beasts — visual allusions to Vərəθraγna’s fury and animal might. By donning a red crown, Xusro II projected himself as the living channel of this divine power — the one through whom war is won, justice is enforced, and cosmic order is preserved.
👑 Moreover, the crown itself in Sasanian iconography was never generic. It was hyper-specific, often individualized for each monarch and inscribed with divine attributes. Xusro’s crown, depicted on coinage and investiture reliefs, sometimes bore:
-
Sunbursts and astral rays (Mithraic influence),
-
Crescent moons (Anāhitā and lunar time),
-
And upright flames (Ātar, fire-witness of oaths).
To make it red was to ignite it symbolically — to consecrate the monarch’s mind and soul to flame, purifying his rule and affirming his authority not by heredity alone, but by cosmic legitimacy.
🛕 In the sacred geography of the Iranian world, the crown was not simply a coronation object — it was a cosmic pole, a visible xwarrah (royal glory). Some later sources suggest that the crown of Xusro Parvēz was so heavy and holy that it was suspended from chains above the throne, never to touch human flesh. Its redness was the visual proof that it burned with firelight and war-god strength, reserved only for the chosen bearer of creation’s balance.
🔥 Thus, the three-color ensemble of Xusro II formed a sacred visual trinity — a palette of power rooted in theology, ritual, and imperial aesthetics:
Together, these colors did not merely dress the king — they declared his function as cosmic mediator, as one enthroned between heaven and earth, blessed by the gods, and visually coded as a semi-divine figure. He was at once:
-
A priest of fire (wearing its color),
-
A general of the gods (cloaked in their hues),
-
And a divine executor of order, whose body was itself an altar.
💫 When Hamza al-Isfahani tells us of this sartorial splendor, he is not relaying trivia. He is preserving a window into the royal theology of Iran’s last great shah — a man who understood that to dress like a god was to rule like one.
👑 The Throne at the Center: Xusro II as Cosmic Mediator
This deliberate invocation of the Zoroastrian pantheon through royal attire, iconography, and ceremonial behavior was not a matter of courtly fashion — it was a strategic theology. At its core was the Sasanian doctrine of divine kingship, in which the Shahanshah ("King of Kings") was no mere temporal sovereign. He was the axial figure of the cosmos, the living bond between the world above and the world below, radiating xwarrah — that elusive, blazing concept of divine glory bestowed by Ahura Mazda upon chosen kings.
🌟 Xwarrah (Middle Persian: khwarrah; Avestan: xvarənah) was not a metaphor. It was a real, metaphysical force — a brilliance, a light, a presence. In Zoroastrian cosmology, it hovered over the heads of rightful kings like a halo of destiny. It anointed, protected, and legitimated. To possess it was to be in the favor of the divine order (asha). To lose it — as tyrants or unjust rulers often did in the myths — was to be cast out into chaos (druj).
🛡 Even in his garments, Xusro II was performing liturgy:
-
His clothing was not cloth, but cosmic architecture, woven from divine attributes.
-
His body was a mobile altar, walking through palaces and battlefields as a channel of divine intent.
-
His presence was a sacred theater, where gods were invoked, myths enacted, and order embodied.
He was not simply dressed like a god. He functioned like one — not in arrogance, but as a custodian of cosmic balance.
⚖️ Heraclius, by contrast, emerges as a humble redeemer, his transformation shaped by Christian ideals of asceticism, penitence, and the suffering servant-king. His robes were sparse; his beard grew long in mourning; he wept publicly in Constantinople after losing the True Cross. His imperial persona was crafted through the language of humility — of a Christian emperor bound to God through weakness transfigured into strength.
But Xusro Parwēz was the mirror opposite. He did not ascend from the periphery, like Heraclius did from Carthage. Xusro radiated from the very center of an ancient cosmology — a kingdom of fire, stars, and warlike gods. His throne, temple, and crown were all linked by an axis mundi, a sacred vertical connecting the heavens, the Shah, and the earth. He wore the universe — its light, its breath, its fury — and called it sovereignty.
📜 In this divine context, the arrival of a letter from a Prophet ﷺ rising from Arabia was no mere diplomatic moment — it was a cosmological disturbance. A challenge not just to power, but to ontology itself.
The Prophet ﷺ, whose authority stemmed not from ornament, but from revelation, not from stars, but from the Voice behind them, stood as the antithesis of Sasanian grandeur. He came barefoot, with a book instead of a crown, with āyāt (signs) instead of sigils. Where Xusro radiated xwarrah, the Prophet ﷺ carried wahy — divine revelation.
🌌 This paradox — between the ornamented monarch and the unlettered Messenger ﷺ — is where the spiritual drama of late antiquity finds its sharpest tension. It is not merely East vs. West, Persia vs. Arabia, or court vs. desert. It is:
-
Xusro II, clothed in the gods of the old world,
-
Confronting a Prophet ﷺ, speaking for the One who created them.
⚔️ It is the moment when the sacred past meets the apocalyptic future — and only one can bear the weight of the world's next chapter.
The Great Fall: From Triumph to Total Defeat
By 622 CE, the tide of war had decisively turned against Xusrō II. What once seemed a steady march toward the final destruction of Rome soon became one of the greatest military reversals in ancient history.
622 CE – Heraclius Strikes Back ⚔️
For two decades, the Roman Empire teetered on the edge of collapse—its armies shattered, provinces ravaged, and even its capital, Constantinople, was threatened by Persian forces from Chalcedon. Confident in victory, Xusrō II believed Rome was finished.
But Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641 CE) refused to yield. In 622 CE, he launched a daring counteroffensive, choosing not to defend but to take the fight into Persian territory.
➡️ Heraclius’ Campaign Highlights:
-
624 CE: Sacked the sacred Zoroastrian fire temple at Ganzak in Adurbadagan.
-
625 CE: Raided Persian cities in northern Armenia, disrupting supply lines.
-
626 CE: Outmaneuvered Persian forces in the Caucasus, forcing them onto the defensive.
Furious and humiliated, Xusrō refused to face the crisis, sowing chaos within his military command.
626 CE – The Siege of Constantinople 🏛️⚔️
In alliance with the Avars, the Persian army marched to the gates of Constantinople itself. The moment seemed at hand—the heart of Rome was within reach.
But the siege failed.
The formidable Walls of Theodosius, combined with Heraclius’ naval defense, broke the attackers. The dream of destroying Rome evaporated.
The Catastrophe at Nineveh & the End of Xusrō ⚡
The decisive moment came in December 627 CE at the Battle of Nineveh—a brutal, grinding conflict where Roman forces, seasoned by years of warfare, crushed the Persian army. The Sasanian commander Rhahzadh was slain in single combat; the Persian forces were routed.
➡️ Roman and allied Göktürk forces advanced rapidly toward Ctesiphon, the Persian capital.
By early 628 CE, Xusrō fled to Dastgird, his opulent palace city, only to be abandoned by his own nobles and army.
The Coup and Death of Xusrō II 💔
As Persia unraveled, Xusrō’s own son, Kawād II (Šērōe), led a coup with noble support, seeing no future under his father’s disastrous reign.
-
Xusrō was imprisoned and forced to witness his sons and loyalists executed.
-
After days of suffering, on 28 February 628 CE, Xusrō II was dragged from prison and executed.
Why Xusrō II Matters
Xusrō II’s reign (590–628 CE) marked the last great chapter of Sasanian power, but also triggered its irreversible decline.
-
His ambition nearly destroyed Rome, yet his mismanagement fatally weakened Persia.
-
The apocalyptic wars of 602–628 CE exhausted Persia’s military and economy.
-
His ruthless purges and alienation of the nobility led to betrayal from within.
The empire that had resisted Rome for centuries collapsed from internal strife as much as foreign invasion.
The Letter to Xusrō II: A Message at a Moment of Ruin 📜
When the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sent his letter, it was not just a call to faith but a message to the most powerful monarch of the time, a king at his height yet doomed.
-
Xusrō’s tearing of the letter mirrored his own fate.
-
Within months, his court, family, and empire turned against him, fracturing his kingdom as he had torn that message.
The Death Knell of the Sasanian Dynasty ☠️
Xusrō II’s fall was more than a king’s death—it was the death knell of the Sasanian Empire.
-
Within four years, Persia descended into chaos.
-
Within a decade, Arab forces advanced into Sasanian lands.
-
Within twenty-three years, the House of Sasan vanished forever.
Part I: The Historical Context of the Letter
The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ was not writing in a vacuum—he was addressing the most powerful rulers of his time, and his letters arrived at a moment of great political and military upheaval.
1. The Timing of the Letter to Xusrō II and the Aftermath of the Battle of the Trench
The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sent his letter to Xusrō II in October 627 CE, just eight months after the pivotal Battle of the Trench (Ghazwat al-Khandaq) in March 627 CE. This was a calculated diplomatic move, reflecting a bold shift from defensive survival to assertive geopolitical engagement.
📌 March 627 CE – The Turning Point: The Battle of the Trench
The Quraysh, allied with powerful tribal confederations like Ghaṭafān, besieged Madinah with the aim of exterminating the Muslim community. However, a trench—suggested by Salman al-Farsī and unprecedented in Arabian warfare—halted their advance.
Key Outcomes:
📌 April–October 627 CE – Strategic Consolidation and Expansion
Following this turning point, the Prophet ﷺ intensified his campaigns to eliminate threats and build new alliances. The post-Trench period saw the neutralization of internal enemies and projection of Muslim power far beyond Madinah.
✔ April 627 CE – The Fate of Banū Qurayẓa
The Jewish tribe that had allied with the Quraysh was besieged and subdued. The male combatants were executed, and the women and children taken captive—ending Jewish resistance in Madinah and fortifying its internal security.
✔ June 627 CE – Expedition to Banū Lihyān
An expedition led by the Prophet ﷺ targeted a tribe known for killing Muslim envoys. Though they fled, the campaign showcased the Muslims’ expanding reach.
✔ June–July 627 CE – First Attempt at Khaybar
An early expedition to Khaybar, the fortified Jewish stronghold, was aborted due to logistical challenges. The successful conquest would occur in May 628 CE.
📌 August–October 627 CE – Sustained Raids and Mobilization
During these months, the Prophet ﷺ launched at least ten expeditions, consolidating Muslim control over critical routes and signaling Madinah’s dominance.
| Date | Location | Target | Commander | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 627 CE | Al-Qurṭāʾ | Bakr ibn Kilāb | Muḥammad ibn Maslama | Booty taken |
| July 627 CE | Ghurān | Banū Lihyān | The Prophet ﷺ | Tribe fled |
| Aug 627 CE | Al-Ghāba | Ghaṭafān | The Prophet ﷺ | Light fighting |
| Aug/Sep 627 CE | Al-Ghamr | Banū Asad | ʿUkkāsha ibn Miḥṣan | Booty taken |
| Sep 627 CE | Al-Jamūm | Banū Sulaym | Zayd ibn Ḥāritha | Booty taken |
| Sep/Oct 627 CE | Al-ʿIṣ | Quraysh | Zayd ibn Ḥāritha | Caravan captured |
| Oct/Nov 627 CE | Al-Ṭaraf | Banū Thaʿlaba | Zayd ibn Ḥāritha | Booty taken |
| Oct/Nov 627 CE | Ḥismā | Banū Judhām | Zayd ibn Ḥāritha | Booty taken |
Ibn Kathīr, citing al-Wāqidī, details numerous military expeditions occurring within the sixth year of Hijra, aligning with late 627 CE. These include the raid of ʿUkkāsha ibn Miḥṣan to Ghamr Murzūq, expeditions by Abū ʿUbayda, Muḥammad ibn Maslama, and Zayd ibn Ḥāritha. These confirm the Prophet ﷺ was actively managing regional campaigns during this period, making October 627 CE the most historically plausible window for the dispatch of his letter to Xusrō II.
October 627 CE – The Letter to Xusrō II: A Strategic Masterstroke
At this critical juncture, with the Quraysh weakened, tribal threats neutralized, and Madinah ascendant, the Prophet ﷺ turned outward—toward the global powers of the age. His letter to Xusrō II, titled “King of Kings,” was more than a religious invitation—it was a declaration of political presence.
Why Target Persia?
This was not just daʿwah—it was geopolitical signaling. The Prophet ﷺ was asserting Islam’s emergence on the world stage.
The Sasanian Crisis: A Moment of Opportunity
By late 627 CE, Xusrō II’s empire was unraveling. His brutal purges, execution of generals, and the devastating losses inflicted by Heraclius had plunged Persia into chaos.
The Prophet ﷺ saw that Persia’s Arabian vassals—like Bādām—might break ranks. A letter to Xusrō was a pre-emptive diplomatic challenge to Persian authority in Arabia.
A Message to Arabia: Islam Had Arrived
The letter to Xusrō II wasn’t just for Persia—it was a loud signal to Arabia.
This move undermined the Quraysh’s prestige, forced tribes to reconsider their allegiances, and recast the Prophet ﷺ not just as a tribal leader, but as a statesman of global vision.
Resolving the Chronological Issues in the Sending of the Letters and the Confusion Between Xusrō II and Kawād II
The historical accounts of the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letters to world rulers present several major chronological inconsistencies. These arise from differences in early Islamic historiography, the methods of narrative transmission, and confusion between the Sasanian rulers Xusrō II and his son Kawād II.
The Contradictions in the Timing of the Letters
Early Islamic sources give varying accounts regarding when the Prophet ﷺ dispatched his letters to foreign rulers. These discrepancies largely stem from two causes:
-
Historians often organized events thematically, not chronologically.
-
Oral traditions tended to generalize the letters into a single diplomatic episode, even though they were sent at different times.
📜 Conflicting Narrations on Timing:
-
Al-Ṭabarī’s Account (9th Century CE / 3rd Century AH)Al-Ṭabarī writes:
“In this year [6 AH], the Messenger of God sent out messengers. He sent out six persons in the month of Dhū al-Ḥijjah (April 12, 628 CE).”He then names the six envoys and their destinations, including ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī to “Xusrō.”
🔹 Problem: This implies that all six letters were sent simultaneously in April 628 CE. However, we now know this conflicts with the actual historical events.
-
Al-Wāqidī’s Account (8th Century CE / 2nd Century AH)
According to Al-Wāqidī (as cited by Ibn Kathīr):
“Al-Wāqidī stated that this occurred at the end of the 6th year, after ʿUmrat al-Ḥudaybiyyah.”
🔹 Problem: If taken literally, this would also place the letters after March 628 CE. But we know from external evidence that Xusrō II was already dead by then.
-
Ibn Kathīr’s Account (14th Century CE / 8th Century AH)
Ibn Kathīr attempts to reconcile the differing opinions:
“There is no disagreement that the letters were sent before the Conquest of Mecca (8 AH / 630 CE) and after Hudaybiyyah (6 AH / 628 CE).”He adds:“Ibn Isḥāq said: It occurred between Hudaybiyyah and the Prophet’s ﷺ death.”(وقال محمد بن إسحاق : كان ذلك ما بين الحديبية ووفاته ، عليه الصلاة والسلام ونحن نذكر ذلك هاهنا ، وإن كان قول الواقدي محتملا . والله أعلم )
🔹 Conclusion: There is general agreement that the letters came after Hudaybiyyah and before the Prophet’s ﷺ death, but specific dating remained vague.
Resolving the Question: When Was the Letter to Xusrō II Actually Sent?
We can now say with confidence that the letter to Xusrō II was not sent in April 628 CE, as suggested by Al-Ṭabarī or Al-Wāqidī, for the following reasons:
-
Xusrō II was executed on 28 February 628 CE. Any letter sent after this date would have reached Kawād II, not Xusrō II.
-
Islamic sources agree that Xusrō himself tore the letter, which must have occurred before his death.
-
Travel time and diplomatic logistics indicate that the letter was sent in late October 627 CE, well before the end of the year.
🗓️ Luckily, October 627 CE falls within 6 AH, which agrees with the year mentioned by early Islamic sources—but not the month. The traditional placement in Dhū al-Ḥijjah 6 AH (April 628) is simply too late.
📆 Here is a portion of the Hijrī–Gregorian calendar for 6 AH for reference:
| Hijrī Month | Gregorian Start Date | Day | Days in Month |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muḥarram 6 | 22 May 627 | Friday | 29 days |
| Ṣafar 6 | 20 June 627 | Saturday | 30 days |
| Rabīʿ al-Awwal 6 | 20 July 627 | Monday | 29 days |
| Rabīʿ al-Thānī 6 | 18 August 627 | Tuesday | 30 days |
| Jumādā al-Ūlā 6 | 17 September 627 | Thursday | 30 days |
| Jumādā al-Ākhirah 6 | 17 October 627 | Saturday | 30 days |
| Rajab 6 | 16 November 627 | Monday | 29 days |
| Shaʿbān 6 | 15 December 627 | Tuesday | 30 days |
The Confusion Between Xusrō II and Kawād II
Some historical confusion arises from conflating the deaths of the Sasanian rulers:
-
Al-Wāqidī writes:
“Xusro was killed by his son Šērōe on Tuesday night, ten days into Jumādā al-Awwal, 7 AH (September 12, 628 CE).”
🔹 Problem: This date corresponds not to Xusrō II’s death, but to Kawād II’s.
What Actually Happened?
-
28 February 628 CE – Xusrō II was executed by his son Kawād II (Šērōe).
-
September 628 CE – Kawād II himself died, only six months into his reign.
-
Later Islamic sources mistakenly attributed the September death to Xusrō II, creating a false timeline.
28 February 628 CE – Xusrō II was executed by his son Kawād II (Šērōe).
September 628 CE – Kawād II himself died, only six months into his reign.
Later Islamic sources mistakenly attributed the September death to Xusrō II, creating a false timeline.
📌 Resolution:
-
The letter was sent to Xusrō II in October 627 CE.
-
He received and tore it, confirming he was still alive.
-
He was overthrown and killed by Kawād II in February 628 CE, long before some narrations that place his death in 7 AH (September 628).
Conclusion: Reconstructing the Accurate Timeline
✅ The Prophet ﷺ’s letter to Xusrō II was sent in Jumādā al-Ākhirah 6 AH (October 627 CE), not in Dhū al-Ḥijjah or after Hudaybiyyah.
✅ Xusrō II was still alive when he received and destroyed the letter.
✅ Kawād II, his son, overthrew and killed him on 28 February 628 CE, and died himself by September 628 CE.
✅ Later historians likely grouped all diplomatic letters into a single event and confused the identities and death dates of the Sasanian kings.
This reconstruction not only resolves internal contradictions within Islamic historiography but also aligns it with independently verifiable historical data from the late Sasanian period.
Why Was the Prophet’s ﷺ Letter to Xusrō II (October 627 CE) Not Mentioned by Contemporary Sources?
A skeptic might reasonably ask: “If the Prophet ﷺ sent a letter to Xusrō II in October 627 CE, why do no contemporary Roman or Persian sources mention it?”
The answer lies in the unprecedented geopolitical crisis engulfing West Asia at the time. The Roman and Sasanian empires were locked in the final, most destructive phase of their 26-year war (602–628 CE)—a war that left both empires exhausted and internally fractured. Against this backdrop of chaos, a diplomatic message from Arabia would have seemed peripheral, if not entirely irrelevant, to court chroniclers and imperial scribes.
The Geopolitical Reality of October 627 CE: A Region on Fire
By the autumn of 627 CE, Emperor Heraclius—in alliance with the Western Göktürks—had launched a massive and destructive invasion deep into Persian-held territory. The Roman-Persian War, already two and a half decades long, was entering its climactic stage.
📌 The Invasion of Armenia (Spring–Summer 627 CE)
-
In early 627 CE, Heraclius forged a strategic alliance with the Göktürks, a powerful Central Asian confederation.
-
Led by Tong Yabghu Qaghan, Turkic forces joined the Roman campaign and crossed the Caucasus, sweeping into Persian Armenia.
-
By October 627 CE, this combined Roman-Turkic force had penetrated deep into Sasanian-controlled territory, advancing menacingly toward Upper Mesopotamia.
In early 627 CE, Heraclius forged a strategic alliance with the Göktürks, a powerful Central Asian confederation.
Led by Tong Yabghu Qaghan, Turkic forces joined the Roman campaign and crossed the Caucasus, sweeping into Persian Armenia.
By October 627 CE, this combined Roman-Turkic force had penetrated deep into Sasanian-controlled territory, advancing menacingly toward Upper Mesopotamia.
📌 The Burning of Greater Media (Mid-627 CE)
-
As the offensive escalated, Heraclius' forces devastated Greater Media, looting cities, burning fortresses, and annihilating garrisons.
-
This scorched-earth campaign undermined Sasanian control across the Iranian plateau and sparked revolts in the empire’s western provinces.
-
Xusrō II’s regime was thrown into disarray, as his generals failed to stop the rapid advance.
As the offensive escalated, Heraclius' forces devastated Greater Media, looting cities, burning fortresses, and annihilating garrisons.
This scorched-earth campaign undermined Sasanian control across the Iranian plateau and sparked revolts in the empire’s western provinces.
Xusrō II’s regime was thrown into disarray, as his generals failed to stop the rapid advance.
📌 Heraclius’ March to the Tigris (Late 627 CE)
-
While the Prophet’s ﷺ letter was en route in November 627 CE, Heraclius prepared for his most daring maneuver yet: a direct march on Nineveh and the Tigris River.
-
This campaign culminated in the Battle of Nineveh (December 627 CE), a devastating Roman victory that shattered Persian resistance.
-
In the aftermath, Xusrō II descended into paranoia, executing nobles and generals, including his own son, in a desperate attempt to maintain control.
While the Prophet’s ﷺ letter was en route in November 627 CE, Heraclius prepared for his most daring maneuver yet: a direct march on Nineveh and the Tigris River.
This campaign culminated in the Battle of Nineveh (December 627 CE), a devastating Roman victory that shattered Persian resistance.
In the aftermath, Xusrō II descended into paranoia, executing nobles and generals, including his own son, in a desperate attempt to maintain control.
Conclusion: In late 627 CE, the Sasanian Empire teetered on the edge of collapse. The court was gripped by military disaster, internal revolt, and panic. In such a climate, a diplomatic letter from an Arab religious leader, however provocative, would have received little attention from Persian chroniclers struggling to document their empire’s unraveling.
Why the Prophet’s ﷺ Letter to Xusrō II Still Matters
Despite being ignored by external sources, the letter’s historical significance remains profound—both symbolically and strategically:
✔ It was sent during one of the darkest hours of the Sasanian Empire, a time when imperial power was rapidly disintegrating. Within three months, Xusrō II would be overthrown and executed by his own son.
✔ It marked a turning point in the Prophet’s ﷺ diplomatic outreach: he was no longer addressing only local Arabian tribes but was now engaging global superpowers.
🚀 Final Thought: The absence of the letter in Roman or Persian texts is a reflection not of its insignificance, but of the cataclysmic conditions that obscured it. Like a spark amidst a wildfire, the letter went unnoticed by those watching the flames—but it foreshadowed a new fire that would soon reshape the region: the rise of Islam.
The Messenger of the Letter: ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī
Before turning to the content of the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letter to Xusrō II, it is vital to understand the man entrusted with carrying it: ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī. His selection was no accident. A companion distinguished by his early conversion, resilience under trial, deep loyalty, and unique diplomatic experiences, ʿAbdullāh exemplified the traits necessary for a mission that would place him face to face with one of the most powerful monarchs of the age.
📌 Who Was ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah?
ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah ibn Qays ibn ʿAdī, known by his teknonym Abū Ḥudhāfah, was a member of the Banū Sahm clan of the Quraysh, placing him within Meccan nobility. His lineage ties him to the broader Kinānah tribal confederation, known for its valor and oratory traditions.
He was among the early converts to Islam in Mecca and one of those who faced intense persecution under the Quraysh. In a testament to his faith, he was part of the first hijrah to Abyssinia, where he found refuge under the protection of the Negus. This experience not only shaped his resilience but likely exposed him to foreign courts and diplomatic etiquette, an invaluable asset for his later role as emissary to Persia.
Al-Dhahabī records that the Prophet ﷺ “dispatched him as a messenger to Xusrō,” and that he “narrated a small number of ḥadīths,” indicating his active role in the Prophet’s ﷺ service. His few narrations were transmitted by notable successors such as Abū Wāʾil, Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Masʿūd ibn al-Ḥakam, and others.
⚔ Participation in Battles and Bravery in Trials
Though early sources differ, some reports suggest that ʿAbdullāh was present at the Battle of Badr, the seminal confrontation between the Muslims and Quraysh. He also participated in Uḥud (625 CE) and other military campaigns. His character combined devotion with humor, a trait that earned him love and loyalty among his peers. One famous incident illustrates both his charisma and the seriousness of leadership:
During an expedition led by ʿAbdullāh, his playful nature led him to order his companions to leap into a fire—a test of obedience. When some were ready to comply, he stopped them and clarified he was only jesting. Upon return, the Prophet ﷺ stated, “There is no obedience in sin; obedience is only in righteousness.”
This episode became a foundational precedent in Islamic legal thought regarding the limits of obedience to authority.
🛡 The Persian Mission: Braving the Court of Xusrō II
In October 627 CE, shortly after the Prophet ﷺ had secured his position following the Battle of the Trench, he launched a far-reaching diplomatic campaign, sending letters to the emperors and rulers of the time. Among them was Xusrō II, the King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire. The Prophet ﷺ chose ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah for this perilous mission.
His journey would take him from Madinah to Ctesiphon, traversing deserts, warzones, and political frontiers. He was tasked with handing over a message that called the world’s most powerful monarch to recognize the final Prophet ﷺ.
Stage I: Madinah (Yathrib) – The Starting Point of the Mission
Madinah (يثرب / ܝܬܪܝܒ / 𐭩𐭲𐭥𐭧𐭡) – The Oasis City of the Prophet ﷺ
The journey of ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī began in Madinah, the city that had become the spiritual and political heart of the Islamic community. Before its transformation, the city was known as Yathrib, a name attested in Greek, Aramaic, and Arabic sources.
The earliest reference comes from an inscription found in Harran, attributed to the Babylonian king Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BCE), which records Yatribu (ia-at-ri-bu) among the towns of northwest Arabia where he traveled for a decade.
From the second half of the first millennium BCE, a Minaean inscription found near the ancient city of Maʿīn records a registration of women from non-Minaean lands, mentioning two originally from Yathrib (ytrb).
In the 2nd century CE, the Greek geographer Ptolemy recorded the town as Lathrippa (λαθριππα), placing it in Arabia Felix. It appears again in the mid-6th century CE, first in the work of Stephanus Byzantinus (c. 528–535 CE), who called it Iathrippa (Ἰαθρίππα) and located it near Hegra (al-Ḥijr). Around the same period, the Aksumite ruler Abraha mentioned Yathrib (ytrb) in a Sabaean inscription written shortly after 552 CE, listing it among the territories he brought under his authority.
By 627 CE, Madinah had evolved from a tribal oasis into a structured city-state, governed by the Prophet ﷺ and his followers. The city had:
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (March 628 CE) had secured peace with Quraysh, allowing the Prophet ﷺ to shift his focus toward diplomacy and international engagement. With Mecca neutralized, the Islamic State could now reach beyond Arabia.
On 25 October 627 CE, the Prophet ﷺ selected ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī for the mission to Xusrō II, instructing him to deliver the letter to Bahrain’s Persian governor first, who would then forward it to Ctesiphon.
ʿAbdullāh embarked eastward, heading toward Al-Yamāmah, the most prosperous region of Central Arabia.
Stage II: Madinah to Al-Yamāmah – The Crossroads of Arabia
Al-Yamāmah (اليمامة / ܝܡܡܐ / 𐭩𐭬𐭠𐭬𐭠) – The Heart of Central Arabia
Al-Yamāmah was a vibrant agricultural and trade center in central Arabia. It was:
✔ A hub of wheat cultivation, supplying food to Mecca and Ṭāʾif.
✔ Home to the Banū Ḥanīfah, an influential Arab tribe.
✔ Strategically positioned between Najd and Bahrain, making it a key stop for caravans.
By 627 CE, Al-Yamāmah remained non-Muslim and had rejected the Prophet’s call to Islam. This decision would later place it at the center of the Ridda Wars (Apostasy Wars) of 632 CE.
🚀 ʿAbdullāh’s Journey:
- Travel through Najd, a region known for its harsh deserts and fertile valleys.
- Arrival in Al-Yamāmah, where he rested and replenished supplies.
📌 Estimated Date of Arrival: 30 October, 627 CE
From here, he headed eastward toward Hajar, the Persian-controlled stronghold of eastern Arabia.
Stage III: Al-Yamāmah to Hajar – Entering Persian Territory
Hajar (هجر / ܗܓܪ / 𐭧𐭠𐭦𐭫) – The Jewel of Eastern Arabia
Located in eastern Arabia (modern-day Hofuf), Hajar was the capital of Bahrain, which at the time referred to all of eastern Arabia, not just the island.
✔ Controlled by the Sasanians, with a Persian marzban (governor) ruling the city.
✔ A key trade hub between Persia, India, and Arabia.
✔ Religiously diverse, home to Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, and Pagan Arabs.
🚀 ʿAbdullāh’s Arrival:
📌 5 November 627 CE – ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah delivered the letter to the Persian governor.
📌 6 November 627 CE – The Letter Was Sent to Ctesiphon via the Sasanian royal courier system.
Stage IV: Hajar to Prāt-Mīshān – The Persian Frontier
Prāt-Mīshān (ميسان فرات / ܦܪܐܬ ܡܝܫܐܢ / 𐭯𐭥𐭠𐭬𐭠𐭭 𐭠𐭫𐭣𐭧𐭩𐭫) – The Border of Mesopotamia
This city was an important Sasanian frontier post located on the eastern Tigris, serving as a strategic military and trade hub.
- A Military Stronghold: Prāt-Mīshān protected the vital Persian Gulf trade routes from incursions, acting as a defensive outpost for the Sasanian Empire.
- Multicultural Hub: The city was home to Arabs, Persians, and Christian communities, making it a melting pot of cultures and religions, including Manichaeism and Christianity.
- Historical Connections: It had strong ties to religious movements, such as Manichaeism and Christianity, and was historically linked to the metropolitan bishopric of Mayšān by 310 CE.
Prāt-Mīshān, a town and subdistrict in Maysān (lower Iraq), was known from the first century CE as a fortified terminus for caravan trade on the left bank of the lower Tigris. Located about 11 or 12 miles downstream from Charax.
The name Prāt-Mīshān was used in Syriac to refer to the city, which had already gained prominence as the seat of the metropolitan bishop of Mayšān by 310 CE. According to historical sources, the city was founded or rebuilt by Ardaxšīr I (r. 226/7–245 CE), the first ruler of the Sasanian Empire.
In 544 CE, the city was already recognized for its ecclesiastical importance, as it housed a bishop, who held the title of metropolitan of Mayšan.
10 November 627 CE – ʿAbdullāh continued his journey northward along the Tigris River toward Kaskar...
Stage V: Prāt-Mīshān to Kaskar – The Road to the Sasanian Capital
Kashkar (كشكر / ܟܫܟܪ / 𐭪𐭱𐭪𐭫) – The Gateway to Ctesiphon
✔ Ancient Sasanian City: Kashkar, also known as Kaskar, was a prominent Sasanian city strategically located on the west bank of the Tigris River. It became an important hub for Greek-speaking deportees from Syria, settled by Shapur I in the mid-third century CE. These deportees played a significant role in the cultural and linguistic landscape of the region.
✔ Christian Center: The city was a major Christian center, especially known for its Nestorian Christian community. According to Syriac tradition, Mar Mari, a revered missionary, preached and performed miracles in the region, converting many of its inhabitants to Christianity. Kashkar had its own diocese, falling under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal Province of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, which solidified its importance as a key religious hub in lower Mesopotamia.
✔ Strategic Location: Kashkar's location on the Tigris River made it a crucial stop for travelers heading to the Sasanian imperial capital, Ctesiphon. As a fortified city, it was positioned perfectly to control movement along the Tigris and provided a gateway to the Sasanian capital, ensuring its significance both militarily and economically.
📌 15 November 627 CE – ʿAbdullāh joined a Persian delegation heading toward the imperial capital, Ctesiphon, following the ancient route through Kashkar.
Ctesiphon, known as Māḥozē in Syriac and al-Madāʾin in Arabic, both meaning 'The Cities', was the capital of the Sasanian Empire and a glittering metropolis. It comprised a cluster of interconnected cities, making it a dominant political, economic, and cultural hub. It was home to royal palaces, bustling markets, and grand structures like the Ayvān-i Xusro, an architectural marvel that symbolized the empire's power and grandeur.
✔ Home to the Palace of the Sāssānids, The Ayvān-i Xusro, the most iconic and surviving monument of Ctesiphon, was one of the greatest achievements in Sasanian architecture. This grand archway, once part of the royal palace complex, stood as a testament to the artistic and engineering prowess of the Sasanian dynasty. The palace itself was the traditional seat of the Shahanshah (King of Kings) and played an essential role in the daily life and politics of the empire.
✔ The Political, Economic, and Religious Heart of Persia: Ctesiphon was not only the political and economic center of the Sasanian Empire but also the religious heart of the region. It housed the seat of the Catholicos, the highest religious authority of the Church of the East, and was a center for the Persian Zoroastrian priesthood. The city served as a melting pot of different cultures, faiths, and ideas.
By 226 CE, Ctesiphon came under the rule of the newly established Sasanian Empire, following the downfall of the Parthian dynasty. The Sasanians greatly expanded the city, transforming it into a flourishing metropolis. The oldest inhabited places of Ctesiphon were on its eastern side, which Islamic Arabic sources later called "the Old City" (Madīnah al-'Atīqah), where the residence of the Sasanian kings was located.
The Cities of Māḥozē: The Heart of the Sasanian Empire
The metropolis of Ctesiphon was actually a conglomeration of several cities situated along the Tigris River. These cities formed the broader metropolitan area of Māḥozē, meaning "The Cities" in Syriac. According to historical sources, the region consisted of several interconnected cities, each with its own unique significance:
-
Aspābūr (𐭠𐭮𐭯𐭠𐭡𐭥𐭫)
- Modern Persian: اسپاهپور (Aspāhbur or Asfābūr)
- Breakdown: Asp (𐭠𐭯) = "Horse" + Būr (𐭡𐭥𐭫) = "Son" or noble suffix
- Meaning: "Son of the Horse" or "Horse-lord’s city."
-
Wēh Ardaxšīr (𐭥𐭩𐭧 𐭠𐭫𐭣𐭦𐭩𐭥𐭫)
- Modern Persian: وه اردشیر (Weh Ardaxsir)
- Breakdown: Wēh (𐭥𐭩𐭧) = "Better" + Ardaxšīr (𐭠𐭫𐭣𐭦𐭩𐭥𐭫) = Name of the Sasanian founder
- Meaning: "The Good City of Ardaxšīr."
-
Hanbō Šābuhr (𐭧𐭠𐭢𐭥 𐭱𐭠𐭡𐭥𐭧)
- Modern Persian: هنبو شابور (Hanbu Shapur)
- Breakdown: Hanbō (𐭧𐭠𐭢𐭥) = "Camp, encampment" + Šābuhr (𐭱𐭠𐭡𐭥𐭧) = "Shapur"
- Meaning: "The Camp of Shapur."
-
Dārzānidān (𐭣𐭠𐭫𐭰𐭠𐭭𐭩𐭣𐭠𐭭)
- Modern Persian: درزانیدان (Darzānidān)
- Breakdown: Dārzān (𐭣𐭠𐭫𐭰𐭠𐭭) = "Long, extended" + -idān (𐭩𐭣𐭠𐭭) = Locative suffix
- Meaning: "The Land of the Long Fields."
-
Wēh Gundī Xusro (𐭥𐭩𐭧 𐭢𐭥𐭭𐭣𐭩 𐭧𐭥𐭱𐭫𐭥𐭩)
- Modern Persian: وه جندی خسرو (Veh Jundi-Khosrow)
- Breakdown: Wēh (𐭥𐭩𐭧) = "Better" + Gundī (𐭢𐭥𐭭𐭣𐭩) = "Army" + Xusro (𐭧𐭥𐭱𐭫𐭥𐭩) = "Xusro"
- Meaning: "The Good City of the Army of Xusro."
-
Nawēn-Ābād (𐭤𐭠𐭥𐭩𐭭 𐭠𐭡𐭠𐭣)
- Modern Persian: نوینآباد (Nawin-Abad)
- Breakdown: Nawēn (𐭤𐭠𐭥𐭩𐭭) = "New" + Ābād (𐭠𐭡𐭠𐭣) = "Settlement"
- Meaning: "New City."
-
Kardakād (𐭪𐭫𐭣𐭪𐭠𐭣)
- Modern Persian: کردکاد (Kardakād)
- Breakdown: Kard (𐭪𐭫𐭣) = "Built, fortified" + Kād (𐭪𐭠𐭣) = Toponymic suffix
- Meaning: "The Fortified Place."
These cities together formed the heart of the Sasanian Empire, housing the royal palace, religious centers, bustling markets, and significant institutions.
On 19 November 627 CE, ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah reached Ctesiphon, entering the magnificent Sasanian capital—a city that had long stood as a beacon of Persian power and influence in the ancient world. However, the king was not there; for nearly a generation, Xusro II had resided further north along the banks of the Diyala River, in Dastagird.
Stage VII: Ctesiphon to Dastagird – The Final Leg to the King
Dastagird (دَسْتْگِرْد / 𐭣𐭮𐭲𐭪𐭥𐭫𐭣 / دَسْكَرْتُ ٱلْمَلِك / ܕܣܟܪܬܐ ܕܡܠܟܐ) – The Royal Retreat of Xusro II
The final destination was Dastagird, a royal stronghold and palatial complex northeast of Ctesiphon. Though less famous than the imperial capital, Dastagird had, by the late Sasanian period, emerged as a favored royal retreat and alternate seat of government—especially under Xusro II (r. 590–628 CE). By 627 CE, as the Roman army advanced deeper into Mesopotamia, it was here—not in Ctesiphon—that the Shahanshah had resided in for 24 years.
Etymology and Evolution of “Dastagird”
The term “Dastagird” (Middle Persian: Dastgerd, Pahlavi: 𐭣𐭮𐭲𐭪𐭥𐭫𐭣) derives from two elements: “Dast”, meaning hand (cf. Semitic yad), and “kard/kart”, from the root kerdan – “to do, to make.” Thus, it literally connotes “the work of the hands.” As noted by Philippe Gignoux and Theodor Nöldeke, the term’s semantic field expanded over time. Initially used to denote agricultural estates—particularly those cultivated by slaves—it later came to designate castles, palaces, or walled fortifications constructed as symbols of royal and aristocratic authority.
By the fifth to third centuries BCE, the term Deskarta had evolved in Middle Persian to refer to these fortified structures, and their importance increased under Ardaxšīr I (r. 224–240), the founder of the Sasanian state, who commissioned the building of many such “royal enclosures.” This military-agrarian meaning is also attested in the Paikuli inscription (NPi 4), where dastkartastikan appears, signifying a fortified encampment.
Syriac sources from the fifth century onward describe deskarta as enclosed compounds, often sought out in times of plague or political chaos, as seen in hagiographic accounts like Mar Jabalaha where nobles found refuge in such structures during a sixth-century epidemic. This alignment of religious, agrarian, and military functions is key to understanding Dastagird’s role in the late Sasanian state.
A Splendid Refuge
Under Xusro II, Dastagird was no mere country estate. It was a monumental royal compound, featuring lavishly adorned palaces, monumental halls, high-walled fortifications, and immense treasure stores. He expanded the site to craft a residence that reflected imperial dignity while ensuring strategic distance from urban unrest and foreign invasion. Arabic sources such as Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī’s Muʿjam al-Buldān and Ibn ʿAbd al-Munʿim al-Ḥimyarī’s al-Rawḍ al-Miʿṭār describe "Daskarat al-malik " in rich detail, noting its imposing defensive walls and gates oriented westward toward Ctesiphon, designed specifically to repel assault.
Dastagird in the Historical Record
The Syriac form ܕܡܠܟܐ ܕܣܩܪܬܐ and the Arabic الملك دسكرت are both attested across ecclesiastical and geographical literature. These names emphasize its character as a “royal” deskarta, distinct from the many others scattered across Iraq and Khūzistān. Shams al-Dīn Maqdisī in Aḥsan al-Taqāsīm, and later geographers, list multiple deskartas, but the one between Ctesiphon and Shahrbān (modern Muqdadiyya) was the most renowned.
According to ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Muslim ibn Qutayba’s al-Maʿārif, the structure may date to the reign of Ohrmazd I (r. 270–271), although its monumentalization occurred under Xusro II. It remained an imperial seat into the early Abbasid period, with continued construction and military use until the fall of the Umayyads, as mentioned in Dīnawarī’s al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl.
Why Xsuro II Was in Dastagird – The Royal Encampment Amid Crisis
By 627, Xusro II had shifted his primary residence to Dastagird for strategic, symbolic, and personal reasons:
-
Imperial Oversight: Positioned northeast of Ctesiphon, Dastagird gave Xusro immediate access to the imperial frontier roads and better control over troop deployments and logistics. Its location allowed him to supervise operations, particularly in the empire’s western zones, as the long war with Rome escalated.
-
Internal Security: After decades marked by rebellion and civil strife—such as the near-overthrow by Wahrām Čōbīn—Xusro likely favored Dastagird’s fortified and self-contained environment over Ctesiphon’s aging sprawl and faction-ridden court politics.
-
Personal Symbolism: Dastagird became a manifestation of Xusro’s divine kingship. Its grandeur embodied his imperial ideology, especially during his peak military successes (602–615 CE). Lavish banquets, ceremonies, and imperial correspondence from Dastagird underscored his image as Shahanshah-ī Ērān ud Anērān (King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran).
According to al-Maqdisī, Dīnawarī, and Yāqūt, Dastagird served as Xusro's effective capital during this period. It housed not only the royal family but also the empire’s treasure vaults, court archives, military reserves, and symbols of dynastic legitimacy. It was the “work of his hands,” the crown jewel of his reign.
The Fall of Dastagird – A Royal Flight Before the Romans
In December 627 CE, the tide turned. Following his victory at the Battle of Nineveh, Heraclius rapidly advanced toward the heart of the Sasanian Empire. Rather than mounting a direct defense of the region, Xusro fled south, abandoning Dastagird to its fate.
On 23 December 627, Xusro II escaped from Deskarta (Dastagird) to Ctesiphon—a city he had not visited in twenty-four years, since 603 CE. He was accompanied by his beloved wife Shīrīn and three of his daughters, retreating from the royal palace complex that had once symbolized his glory. His long absence from Ctesiphon reflected how thoroughly Dastagird had replaced it in his imperial vision.
Heraclius, bypassing the massive defenses of Ctesiphon itself, instead chose to sack Dastagird. What he found was not only a luxurious court camp, but a symbolic heart of the late Sasanian state:
-
Vast treasures stored over years of Roman conquest.
-
Court luxuries that reflected decades of imperial pride.
-
Royal armories and supplies, now abandoned.
The psychological blow was profound:
-
It humiliated Xusro, shattering the illusion of divine favor and imperial invincibility.
-
It undermined court loyalty, sparking intrigue among nobles and generals.
-
It precipitated his fall—within mere months, his son Kawad II overthrew him and seized the throne.
The sack of Dastagird marked a turning point in Sasanian history. Though Ctesiphon still stood, the real blow had landed—not on stone, but on spirit. Dastagird, the Shah’s proud creation, had collapsed. And with it, the final shimmer of Xusro’s once-resplendent empire faded into twilight.
How the Prophet’s ﷺ Letter Reached Dastagird
Using established postal routes and estimated lone horseman travel speeds, we can reconstruct the plausible timeline for ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī’s journey to the court of Xusro II.
Timeline of the Letter’s Journey
Timeline Breakdown & Travel Analysis
| Route | Distance (Approx.) | Speed (Lone Horseman) | Travel Time | Arrival Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madinah → Al-Yamāmah | ~620 km / ~385 miles | ~80 km/day | 5–6 days | 30 October 627 CE |
| Al-Yamāmah → Hajar | ~500 km / ~310 miles | ~90 km/day | 5–6 days | 5 November 627 CE |
| Hajar → Prāt-Mīshān | ~600 km / ~370 miles | ~120 km/day | 5 days | 10 November 627 CE |
| Prāt-Mīshān → Kaskar | ~450 km / ~280 miles | ~100 km/day | 4–5 days | 15 November 627 CE |
| Kaskar → Ctesiphon | ~300 km / ~185 miles | ~75 km/day (slower pace) | 4 days | 19 November 627 CE |
| Ctesiphon → Dastagird | ~75 km / ~47 miles | ~35–40 km/day (with escort) | 2 days | 21 November 627 CE |
This updated timeline reflects both the logistical reality of ancient travel and the historical geography of late Sasanian Iran, ending with ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥudhāfah’s arrival in Dastagird, the de facto seat of the Sasanian monarchy at the twilight of its power.
The Messenger Reads, The King Rages
The reception of the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter by Xusrō II is one of the most debated moments in early Islamic diplomatic history. The event is significant not only for its implications in the Prophet’s time but also for understanding the Sasanian court’s strict diplomatic hierarchy and worldview. Below is a detailed reconstruction of the event.
I - بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ، من محمد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى كسرى عظيم فارس
"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Xusrō, the Great One of Persia."
"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to Xusrō, the Great One of Persia."
Why was this offensive?
1. "عظيم فارس" – A Diplomatic Misstep and Political Affront
The phrase ʿAẓīm Fāris (Great One of Persia) was politically inaccurate and diplomatically inappropriate. While seemingly respectful in Arabic usage, it violated Sasanian protocol in several ways:
-
Fāris (Persia) was merely one province of the empire, corresponding roughly to the southwestern region of modern-day Iran (Parsa/Fārs).
-
The Sasanians never referred to their realm as Persia, but rather Ērānšahr (𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠𐭭𐭱𐭧𐭥𐭫) – “Empire of the Iranians”.
-
Xusrō Parwēz carried the formal imperial title Šāhān Šāh Ērān ud Anērān (King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran) .
-
By calling him simply the “Great One of Persia,” the Prophet ﷺ implicitly downgraded Xusro II to a provincial status, equating him with local Arab tribal leaders instead of a world monarch.
This breach was not merely semantic—it was a blow to Sasanian imperial ideology, which was deeply rooted in hierarchy, cosmic legitimacy, and symbolism of universal kingship.
2. The Omission of Courtly Formulae and Imperial Praise
Sasanian court correspondence, modeled after Achaemenid and Parthian precedents, was highly formulaic. Letters to the Shahanshah were expected to begin with:
-
Formal greetings invoking the king’s divinely sanctioned glory (Xwarrah).
-
Repetitions of his full title and exaltation of his person, lineage, and divine mandate.
The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter broke with all precedent by:
-
Introducing no flattery or acknowledgement of Xusro’s divine status or noble bloodline.
-
Using direct, theologically assertive language that placed the sender—the Prophet ﷺ—as a higher authority, speaking on behalf of God.
In Sasanian terms, this wasn’t just discourteous—it was an existential challenge to the Shah’s supremacy and legitimacy on earth.
3. The Invocation of “Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim”
The letter began with:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمIn the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
This phrase, though customary in Islam, introduced a foreign theological claim:
-
The Sasanians were Zoroastrians, and royal authority was believed to be granted by Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord.
-
Kings were considered divinely chosen bearers of Xwarrah (𐭧𐭥𐭠𐭫𐭭)—a sacred radiance that symbolized the divine favor necessary for ruling.
-
Invoking a different deity altogether, one unknown to Zoroastrian orthodoxy, would have been viewed as heretical, subversive, or at minimum, deeply offensive.
Moreover, “al-Rahman” (The Merciful) was not a known divine epithet in Iranian religious tradition, and to Xusro II, who viewed himself as God’s regent on earth, receiving a command in the name of an unknown god would be tantamount to religious insubordination.
"Peace be upon those who follow guidance and believe in God and His Messenger, testifying that there is no deity but God alone, with no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."
"Peace be upon those who follow guidance and believe in God and His Messenger, testifying that there is no deity but God alone, with no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."
Why was this offensive?
- The Egalitarian Tone
The phrase "Peace be upon those who follow guidance" (salāmun ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā) may seem diplomatically polite from an Islamic perspective, but in Sasanian eyes it was profoundly offensive. It put Xusrō II—the King of Kings of Ērānšahr—on the same footing as ordinary people invited to submit to a higher religious truth.
In Sasanian political theology, the Shahanshah was no ordinary man. He was invested with Xwarrah (divine glory), a metaphysical legitimacy rooted in Zoroastrianism and expressed through kingship. Xwarrah was not earned—it was bestowed by the supreme god Ahura Mazda, and it legitimated the king's rule over the cosmos and society .
To instruct such a sovereign, especially from a newly emerged religious leader, was tantamount to undermining his very divine right to rule. In Zoroastrian imperial ideology, kings dictated terms to others, not the reverse. A message beginning with a conditional peace—granted only if the king “follows guidance”—implied that the Shahanshah had not yet done so, and thus stood in spiritual error. This reversal of hierarchy would have been intolerable to the Persian court .
Rejection of Zoroastrianism
The second layer of insult lay in the implied invalidation of Zoroastrianism, the imperial religion of the Sasanian dynasty. The Prophet’s statement:
"... and believes in God and His Messenger, testifying that there is no deity but God alone, with no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."
amounted to a direct theological challenge. It implicitly condemned Mazdaism, the Zoroastrian religion, as false guidance. From the Sasanian perspective, this was not merely a personal insult, but a cosmic and political affront.
The Shahanshah was not merely a political figure; he was the protector of ashā, the sacred order established by Ahura Mazda. The king's role was to uphold Zoroastrian orthodoxy and suppress heresy and foreign cults. To abandon Zoroastrianism was to betray the divine mandate. Hence, being told to "believe in God and His Messenger" amounted to a call for apostasy, a violation of his sacred duty.
III - وأدعوك بدعاء الله ، فإني أنا رسول الله إلى الناس كافة ، لأنذر من كان حيا ، ويحق القول على الكافرين
"I invite you to accept God’s call, for I am His Messenger to all people, to warn those who are alive and to make clear the truth against the disbelievers (Quran 36:70)."
"I invite you to accept God’s call, for I am His Messenger to all people, to warn those who are alive and to make clear the truth against the disbelievers (Quran 36:70)."
Why was this offensive?
- Universalism of Prophethood
The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ claim to be “the Messenger of God to all people” directly challenged the Sasanian worldview. Persian imperial ideology, especially under the Sasanians, upheld a strong civilizational hierarchy, with Ērān (Iran) at the center of the cosmos and non-Iranians (anērān) considered inferior or even barbaric. Religion and empire were intertwined—Zoroastrianism was not just a personal faith, but the ideological bedrock of the Sasanian imperial system. The king was seen as divinely sanctioned, ruling as the protector of asha (truth and cosmic order). Therefore, the idea that an Arab—considered by them a peripheral, uncivilized outsiders—could be a divinely chosen universal messenger was a direct insult to the Sasanian conception of cosmic and political order.
Mani, a previous universalist religious claimant from within the Sasanian realm, had similarly proposed a faith for all humanity. Though initially tolerated, Mani was eventually executed, and his movement suppressed by the Zoroastrian clergy. His example shows how the Sasanians dealt with those who proposed universal ideologies that threatened the state religion. Thus, the Prophet's ﷺ claim echoed a previous challenge to their religious-political framework—and this time, from outside the Persian world.
2. The Call to Convert
The phrase “I invite you to accept God’s call” was not merely a spiritual gesture—it was an explicit summons to abandon the state religion of Zoroastrianism and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam. To Xusrō Parwēz, this was not just inappropriate; it was an outrageous affront. In Persian royal ideology, the shāhanshāh was not merely a king, but the guardian of Zoroastrianism, whose legitimacy depended on upholding the faith. To demand that he convert was to imply that his own religion was false and that his kingship lacked divine approval—a statement that struck at the very foundation of Sasanian imperial authority.
IV - فإن تسلم تسلم ، وإن أبيت فإن إثم المجوس عليك
"If you submit, you will be safe, but if you refuse, then the sin of the Magians will be upon you."
"If you submit, you will be safe, but if you refuse, then the sin of the Magians will be upon you."
Why was this offensive?
An Ultimatum
This phrase was not diplomatic; it was confrontational. It was a formulaic ultimatum, one commonly used in the Prophet’s ﷺ letters to rulers. While in the context of Islamic revelation it implied both physical safety and spiritual salvation, to Xusro II it read like a demand for surrender—particularly galling given that Xusro was styled as the King of Kings and heir to centuries of Persian imperial prestige.
To the Sasanian court, such language suggested that Muhammad ﷺ considered himself sovereign over the Persian emperor, a concept that upended the regional order. No Persian monarch, especially not a Sasanian, could accept such an inversion of hierarchy without it being an affront to royal dignity.
Reference to the Magians (Zoroastrian Priests)Zoroastrianism was the state religion of Ērānšahr (the Sasanian Empire), and the Magi (Middle Persian: maguš) were the empire’s priestly elite. To say “the sin of the Magians will be upon you” implied that their belief system was not only false, but sinful—and that Xusro bore responsibility for it, this did three things simultaneously:
- Delegitimized Zoroastrianism as a valid path to Salvation.
- Accused the Persian emperor of propagating a false religion, thereby placing him in moral and spiritual jeopardy.
- Attacked the ideological foundations of Sasanian kingship, which were built on the king’s role as the protector of the Dēn (the Zoroastrian faith).
- Delegitimized Zoroastrianism as a valid path to Salvation.
- Accused the Persian emperor of propagating a false religion, thereby placing him in moral and spiritual jeopardy.
- Attacked the ideological foundations of Sasanian kingship, which were built on the king’s role as the protector of the Dēn (the Zoroastrian faith).
This was not a mere theological jab; it was perceived as an ideological declaration of war. Religion and kingship in Sasanian Iran were entwined; undermining one was a challenge to both.
Similar Precedents: The Ultimatum from the Western Göktürks (626 CE)
Just a year earlier, in 626 CE, the Western Turkic Khagan Tong Yabghu had sent an ultimatum to Xusrō II, demanding he withdraw from Roman territory. The letter addressed him as thus:
"The king of the north and lord of the whole earth, your king and the king of all kings, says as follows: ‘I shall set my face against you, governor of Asorestan (Mesopotamia), and I shall repay you double for the ills you brought upon him. With my sword I shall roam over all your borders, just as you roamed over his borders with your sword. And I shall not leave you be and shall not cease from dealing with you in accordance with the words which I have uttered to you"
Xusrō II was outraged by this insult, as it reduced him to the status of a provincial governor rather than the Shahanshah. This incident helps explain why he reacted so violently to the Prophet’s letter, which he saw as similarly degrading.
Xusro II’s Furious Reaction – Tearing the Letter in Contempt
The moment Xusrō II received the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter marked a watershed in early Islamic–Sasanian relations. His response, as recorded by Ibn Isḥāq, was one of immediate and explosive outrage:
فلما قرأه شقه ، وقال : يكتب إلي بهذا وهو عبدي ؟!“When he read it, he tore it apart and exclaimed: ‘He writes to me with such words while he is my slave?!’”
This was no mere emotional outburst. Ripping the letter was a deliberate, symbolic assertion of imperial superiority. Xusro’s fury stemmed not only from the content of the message, which challenged his authority and religion, but also from the audacity of its source: an Arab, whom he regarded as a subordinate from a marginal frontier of civilization.
To grasp the full weight of this moment, we must consider the physical act of tearing, the derisive words spoken, and the broader cultural message being sent. In Sasanian protocol, rejecting correspondence from another ruler—especially by destroying it—was a public declaration of disdain and dominance. It meant that the sender was beneath reply. In Xusro’s eyes, the Prophet ﷺ had violated the expected hierarchy of power, and this act of tearing the letter was his emphatic answer.
The Sasanian View of the Arabs – A People of No Consequence
For centuries, the Sasanians had regarded Arabia as a backwater, a land of warring tribes and petty kings, insignificant in the grand scheme of Ērānšahr (𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠𐭭𐭱𐭧𐭥𐭫, "Empire of the Iranians"). To the Persian court, the Arabs—whom they contemptuously referred to as the Tāzīgs (𐭲𐭠𐭰𐭩𐭪)—were nothing more than unruly nomads, a people whose lands were too barren to pose any real threat to Persia’s vast dominion.
The Sasanian attitude toward Arabia was shaped by several key factors:
✔ Lack of Urban Civilization – Unlike the Romans or the Persians, the Arabs had no great cities, temples, or centralized governments. The Majority lived in tribes, not empires.
✔ Military Weakness – Arab raids on Persian border towns were seen as mere nuisances, not as legitimate military threats.
✔ Vassalage, Not Conquest – Instead of directly ruling Arabia, the Sasanians relied on client kings like the Lakhmids of al-Ḥīrah or governors in Yemen and Bahrain.
✔ Trade, Not Respect – Arabia’s primary value to Persia lay in trade routes, not in governance or military alliances. The region was never seen as a potential equal.
Even when Arab tribes clashed with Persian forces, they were never perceived as real contenders for power. Shāpūr II (r. 309–379 CE) had ruthlessly crushed the Arabs, not because he feared them, but because he sought to punish them for their defiance. The Sasanians had spent centuries underestimating the Arabs, and now, at the twilight of his reign, Xusrō II was being confronted with the consequences of that arrogance.
The Shahanshah’s Divine Mandate – "King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran"
Xusrō II was not just any king—he was the Shahanshah Ērān ud Anērān (𐭭𐭥𐭩𐭠𐭭 𐭠𐭫 𐭠𐭭𐭧𐭩𐭱𐭠𐭭), the "King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran."
In Persian political thought, the King of Kings was more than a ruler—he was the divinely sanctioned sovereign of the world, the chosen one of Ahura Mazda, the embodiment of Xwarrah (𐭧𐭥𐭠𐭫𐭭, the divine glory of kingship).
Every province, every vassal, and every ruler outside Persia existed within a clear hierarchy. At the very top stood the Shahanshah—and beneath him, a structured order of client kings, satraps, and lesser rulers who paid him tribute and acknowledged his supremacy.
For Xusrō II, the idea that an Arab—a people long viewed as vassals or frontier raiders—would write to him as an equal was unthinkable. It was not just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a direct challenge to his legitimacy, a defiance of the divine order itself.
Tearing the Letter – A Statement of Absolute Rejection
In Sasanian royal etiquette, written correspondence was not just a means of communication—it was a weapon of diplomacy. Every detail in a letter, from the choice of words to the manner in which it was received, signified the hierarchy of power between the sender and recipient. In this system, the act of tearing a letter was the ultimate gesture of contempt, rejection, and humiliation.
When Xusrō II read the Prophet’s ﷺ letter, he did not merely dismiss it—he destroyed it, an act loaded with political meaning, this was no impulsive outburst. It was a deliberate statement, in line with Sasanian traditions of asserting imperial dominance.
The Prophet’s ﷺ letter broke every norm of Persian royal correspondence. Even subordinate Arab rulers, such as the Lakhmids of al-Ḥīrah, adhered to strict diplomatic protocols when addressing the Shahanshah.
The Prophet’s ﷺ letter, however, did not refer to Xusrō II as Shahanshah, it had used an egalitarian tone – Addressing the most powerful man in the world as an equal, and even issued an ultimatum – "Aslim taslam" (Submit and you will be safe)—an absolute command, not a request.
Even when Roman emperors wrote to Persia, their letters contained flowery language, acknowledging Persian sovereignty and might —even in times of war. The Prophet ﷺ did the opposite.
For Xusrō II, this was unacceptable. It was an act of defiance—one that demanded a public response, by tearing the letter, he symbolized Persia’s refusal to recognize a new power rising from the deserts of Arabia.
I. The Immediate Reaction: A Royal Decree for Arrest
After tearing the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter in anger, Xusrō II did not act impulsively but carefully orchestrated his response. Though enraged, he took several days to deliberate before issuing a royal decree. His order was clear and decisive—he commanded Bādām, his governor in Yemen, to arrest the Prophet ﷺ and send him to Dastgird.
After tearing the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter in anger, Xusrō II did not act impulsively but carefully orchestrated his response. Though enraged, he took several days to deliberate before issuing a royal decree. His order was clear and decisive—he commanded Bādām, his governor in Yemen, to arrest the Prophet ﷺ and send him to Dastgird.
Primary Arabic Account (Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīrah):
"ثم كتب كسرى إلى باذام، وهو نائبه على اليمن، أن ابعث إلى هذا الرجل بالحجاز رجلين من عندك جلدين فليأتياني به. فبعث باذام قهرمانه، وكان كاتبا حاسبا بكتاب فارس، وبعث معه رجلا من الفرس يقال له: خرخرة. وكتب معهما إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يأمره أن ينصرف معهما إلى كسرى، وقال لأباذويه: ائت بلاد هذا الرجل وكلمه وأتني بخبره."
"Then Xusrō wrote to Bādām, his governor in Yemen, commanding: 'Send two strong men from among your officials to bring this man from Ḥijāz to me.' Bādām sent his steward, who was an expert scribe in Persian administration, along with a Persian man called خرخرة. He wrote to the Prophet ﷺ, ordering him to accompany them to Xusrō. He also instructed أباذويه: 'Go to the land of this man, speak with him, and report back to me.'"
Political and Religious Context:Xusrō II’s decision to arrest the Prophet ﷺ was influenced not just by the perceived challenge to his authority but by the broader religious and geopolitical context. The rise of Islam under Muhammad ﷺ presented a challenge to the stability of the Sasanian Empire, particularly as Persia’s own state religion, Zoroastrianism, was tightly woven into the fabric of the Empire’s political structure.
Moreover, Xusrō’s imperial ambitions, especially in Arabia, would have led him to see any rival claimant to regional leadership as a direct threat. The Prophet’s refusal to comply with the emperor’s summons was seen as an affront to the Persian monarch's authority, and Xusrō’s response can be understood both as an attempt to neutralize a potential threat and to reassert the power of the Sasanian Empire in the face of a rising force in the Arabian Peninsula.
"ثم كتب كسرى إلى باذام، وهو نائبه على اليمن، أن ابعث إلى هذا الرجل بالحجاز رجلين من عندك جلدين فليأتياني به. فبعث باذام قهرمانه، وكان كاتبا حاسبا بكتاب فارس، وبعث معه رجلا من الفرس يقال له: خرخرة. وكتب معهما إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يأمره أن ينصرف معهما إلى كسرى، وقال لأباذويه: ائت بلاد هذا الرجل وكلمه وأتني بخبره."
"Then Xusrō wrote to Bādām, his governor in Yemen, commanding: 'Send two strong men from among your officials to bring this man from Ḥijāz to me.' Bādām sent his steward, who was an expert scribe in Persian administration, along with a Persian man called خرخرة. He wrote to the Prophet ﷺ, ordering him to accompany them to Xusrō. He also instructed أباذويه: 'Go to the land of this man, speak with him, and report back to me.'"
Reconstructing the Names: Middle Persian Identities Behind the Arabic Transliterations
As with many transmitted accounts from the early Islamic tradition, Arabic-language sources recorded the names of Sasanian officials using phonetically adapted forms. These adaptations often obscure the original Middle Persian structure and meaning of names that held significance within the Sasanian bureaucratic and aristocratic milieu.
To better understand the imperial response to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, it is essential to reconstruct the Middle Persian forms of three key figures mentioned in the sources: باذام (Bādām), the Sasanian governor of Yemen; خرخرة (Kharḵara), the Persian envoy; and أباذويه (Abādhūyah), another emissary dispatched to assess the Prophet ﷺ.
By using the Middle Persian script and phonetic system, as well as drawing on known patterns of name formation from late Sasanian administrative and courtly records, we can attempt plausible reconstructions of these figures’ original names and titles.
As with many transmitted accounts from the early Islamic tradition, Arabic-language sources recorded the names of Sasanian officials using phonetically adapted forms. These adaptations often obscure the original Middle Persian structure and meaning of names that held significance within the Sasanian bureaucratic and aristocratic milieu.
To better understand the imperial response to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, it is essential to reconstruct the Middle Persian forms of three key figures mentioned in the sources: باذام (Bādām), the Sasanian governor of Yemen; خرخرة (Kharḵara), the Persian envoy; and أباذويه (Abādhūyah), another emissary dispatched to assess the Prophet ﷺ.
By using the Middle Persian script and phonetic system, as well as drawing on known patterns of name formation from late Sasanian administrative and courtly records, we can attempt plausible reconstructions of these figures’ original names and titles.
Bādām: Reconstructing the Name of the Sasanian Governor of Yemen in Middle Persian
Among the Persian officials stationed in Yemen during the late Sasanian period, one figure appears in early Islamic sources with the name Bādām (باذام). While seemingly straightforward, this name invites deeper linguistic analysis, especially when we consider how it may have been rendered in Middle Persian (Pahlavi) and what it reveals about Sasanian nomenclature and ideology.
Among the Persian officials stationed in Yemen during the late Sasanian period, one figure appears in early Islamic sources with the name Bādām (باذام). While seemingly straightforward, this name invites deeper linguistic analysis, especially when we consider how it may have been rendered in Middle Persian (Pahlavi) and what it reveals about Sasanian nomenclature and ideology.
1. Arabic Form and Pronunciation
-
Arabic: باذام
-
Transliteration: Bādām
-
Pronunciation: /bɑːdɑːm/
The Arabic script preserves the long vowels clearly: alif (ا) after bā’ (ب) for /ā/, and final mīm (م) following another alif indicating the long /ām/ ending.
-
Arabic: باذام
-
Transliteration: Bādām
-
Pronunciation: /bɑːdɑːm/
The Arabic script preserves the long vowels clearly: alif (ا) after bā’ (ب) for /ā/, and final mīm (م) following another alif indicating the long /ām/ ending.
2. Not Just an Almond: Rethinking the Name
At first glance, Bādām resembles the modern Persian word for "almond" (بادام). However, this semantic resemblance is almost certainly coincidental. Given the high-ranking status of Bādām as a Persian governor in Yemen, his name is unlikely to derive from a fruit.
Instead, we should consider Bādām as an Arabicized rendering of a Middle Persian compound name, consistent with known Sasanian naming conventions. A compelling reconstruction is:
-
Pād (𐭯𐭠𐭣): from Avestan pā, meaning "protector" or "guardian"
-
Dām (𐭣𐭠𐭬): meaning "creature," "creation," or by extension, "people," "subjects"
Together:
Pād-dām (𐭯𐭠𐭣 𐭣𐭠𐭬) — Protector of the people / subjects
At first glance, Bādām resembles the modern Persian word for "almond" (بادام). However, this semantic resemblance is almost certainly coincidental. Given the high-ranking status of Bādām as a Persian governor in Yemen, his name is unlikely to derive from a fruit.
Instead, we should consider Bādām as an Arabicized rendering of a Middle Persian compound name, consistent with known Sasanian naming conventions. A compelling reconstruction is:
-
Pād (𐭯𐭠𐭣): from Avestan pā, meaning "protector" or "guardian"
-
Dām (𐭣𐭠𐭬): meaning "creature," "creation," or by extension, "people," "subjects"
Together:
Pād-dām (𐭯𐭠𐭣 𐭣𐭠𐭬) — Protector of the people / subjects
3. Middle Persian Transliteration and Script
-
Reconstructed Form: Pāddām
-
Middle Persian Script: 𐭯𐭠𐭣𐭣𐭠𐭬
Letter-by-letter:
-
𐭯 (p) = p
-
𐭠 (ā) = long ā
-
𐭣𐭣 (dd) = doubled d, phonemically preserved though not always marked in Pahlavi
-
𐭠 (ā) = long ā
-
𐭬 (m) = m
Although the Pahlavi script often omits vowel markings and doubling of consonants, the reconstructed form Pāddām remains phonologically plausible and consistent with how Middle Persian names were formed.
-
Reconstructed Form: Pāddām
-
Middle Persian Script: 𐭯𐭠𐭣𐭣𐭠𐭬
Letter-by-letter:
-
𐭯 (p) = p
-
𐭠 (ā) = long ā
-
𐭣𐭣 (dd) = doubled d, phonemically preserved though not always marked in Pahlavi
-
𐭠 (ā) = long ā
-
𐭬 (m) = m
Although the Pahlavi script often omits vowel markings and doubling of consonants, the reconstructed form Pāddām remains phonologically plausible and consistent with how Middle Persian names were formed.
4. Modern Persian Evidence and Etymological Support
This reconstruction is further supported by Modern Persian vocabulary:
-
Pād survives in compounds like Pādgān (پادگان) — "military garrison," literally place of protection.
-
Dām appears in dām-o-dast (دام و دست) and dām-dār (دامدار) — herds, livestock, or caretaking, derived from the idea of managing or protecting living beings.
These living words in Persian reflect the deep-rooted association of dām with creatures or dependents, and pād with guardianship or protection, thus, in this context, Pāddām would be a fitting name for a governor tasked with maintaining Sasanian authority and safeguarding a strategic province like Yemen.
This reconstruction is further supported by Modern Persian vocabulary:
-
Pād survives in compounds like Pādgān (پادگان) — "military garrison," literally place of protection.
-
Dām appears in dām-o-dast (دام و دست) and dām-dār (دامدار) — herds, livestock, or caretaking, derived from the idea of managing or protecting living beings.
These living words in Persian reflect the deep-rooted association of dām with creatures or dependents, and pād with guardianship or protection, thus, in this context, Pāddām would be a fitting name for a governor tasked with maintaining Sasanian authority and safeguarding a strategic province like Yemen.
Final Summary Table
Arabic Name Reconstructed Middle Persian Pahlavi Script Meaning باذام (Bādām) Pāddām 𐭯𐭠𐭣𐭣𐭠𐭬 Protector of the people / creation
This philological reconstruction highlights how an apparently simple name in Arabic sources may preserve, in distorted form, the echo of a deeply meaningful Sasanian title — one that fits both linguistically and ideologically into the world of late antique Iran.
| Arabic Name | Reconstructed Middle Persian | Pahlavi Script | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| باذام (Bādām) | Pāddām | 𐭯𐭠𐭣𐭣𐭠𐭬 | Protector of the people / creation |
Xwarrah-ī Xusrō: Reconstructing the Name of خرخسرهُ – “The Glory of Xusro”
1. The Arabic Source: خرخسرهُ (Kharkhasrah)
1. The Arabic Source: خرخسرهُ (Kharkhasrah)
In al-Ṭabarī's transmission of the Prophet’s ﷺ encounter with the envoys sent by Bādām, the name of one of the Persian envoys is given as خرخسرهُ (Kharkhasrah). This name is unusual in Arabic and does not conform to known personal names of Arabian, Syriac, or standard Persian provenance, suggesting it may be a corrupted transcription of a Middle Persian compound title or honorific.
In al-Ṭabarī's transmission of the Prophet’s ﷺ encounter with the envoys sent by Bādām, the name of one of the Persian envoys is given as خرخسرهُ (Kharkhasrah). This name is unusual in Arabic and does not conform to known personal names of Arabian, Syriac, or standard Persian provenance, suggesting it may be a corrupted transcription of a Middle Persian compound title or honorific.
2. Breaking Down خرخسرهُ
Let’s analyze it morphologically:
-
خرخسره (Khar-Khasrah or Khar-Khusrah) consists of two elements:
-
خر (khar/khur) – likely a rendering of xwarrah (𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭧), a core Middle Persian term meaning "divine glory," "royal splendor," or "fortune." This is a key Zoroastrian concept representing the divine, kingly radiance associated with legitimacy and success.
-
خسره (khasrah/khusrah) – almost certainly a rendering of Xusrō (𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭥𐭥), the Middle Persian form of Xusro, the royal name borne by 2 Sasanian kings, including Xusrō II.
The final هُ (hu or u) in Arabic likely represents a nominative ending or a phonetic accommodation to Arabic grammar (possibly influenced by the construct state), not necessarily part of the original name.
Let’s analyze it morphologically:
-
خرخسره (Khar-Khasrah or Khar-Khusrah) consists of two elements:
-
خر (khar/khur) – likely a rendering of xwarrah (𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭧), a core Middle Persian term meaning "divine glory," "royal splendor," or "fortune." This is a key Zoroastrian concept representing the divine, kingly radiance associated with legitimacy and success.
-
خسره (khasrah/khusrah) – almost certainly a rendering of Xusrō (𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭥𐭥), the Middle Persian form of Xusro, the royal name borne by 2 Sasanian kings, including Xusrō II.
-
The final هُ (hu or u) in Arabic likely represents a nominative ending or a phonetic accommodation to Arabic grammar (possibly influenced by the construct state), not necessarily part of the original name.
3. Middle Persian Reconstruction: xwarrah ī Xusrō (𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭧 𐭩 𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭥𐭥)
-
In Middle Persian, this would be written and pronounced as xwarrah ī Xusrō, literally meaning:
-
xwarrah = divine royal glory
-
ī = genitive marker "of"
-
Xusrō = Xusro
This compound, “The Glory of Xusro,” functions more like a title or honorific than a personal name. It fits with naming conventions where courtiers or royal agents might bear compound theophoric or royalist names, invoking divine legitimacy or loyalty to the monarch.
-
In Middle Persian, this would be written and pronounced as xwarrah ī Xusrō, literally meaning:
-
xwarrah = divine royal glory
-
ī = genitive marker "of"
-
Xusrō = Xusro
-
This compound, “The Glory of Xusro,” functions more like a title or honorific than a personal name. It fits with naming conventions where courtiers or royal agents might bear compound theophoric or royalist names, invoking divine legitimacy or loyalty to the monarch.
4. Cultural and Symbolic Context
The Sasanian court culture deeply venerated xwarrah, particularly as a quality possessed by legitimate rulers. In texts like the Khwadāy-Nāmag tradition and Zoroastrian literature (e.g., Dēnkard, Bundahišn), xwarrah is portrayed as a tangible spiritual force that departs from kings when they are unjust or doomed.
-
A name like Xwarrah-ī Xusrō would symbolically position the envoy not merely as a servant of the king, but as an embodiment or bearer of the king’s divine radiance.
-
This fits well with the gravity of the mission: delivering a royal summons to a prophet who had defied the Shahanshah's authority.
The Sasanian court culture deeply venerated xwarrah, particularly as a quality possessed by legitimate rulers. In texts like the Khwadāy-Nāmag tradition and Zoroastrian literature (e.g., Dēnkard, Bundahišn), xwarrah is portrayed as a tangible spiritual force that departs from kings when they are unjust or doomed.
-
A name like Xwarrah-ī Xusrō would symbolically position the envoy not merely as a servant of the king, but as an embodiment or bearer of the king’s divine radiance.
-
This fits well with the gravity of the mission: delivering a royal summons to a prophet who had defied the Shahanshah's authority.
5. Arabic Phonetic Constraints
Arabic lacks several sounds and orthographic conventions of Middle Persian:
-
xw often becomes kh or khu/khur.
-
s/r/w combinations are often transcribed in irregular ways depending on regional pronunciation.
-
Arabic scribes likely heard xwarrah as khurrah or khur, and Xusrō as Khusrah/Khasrah, rendering the full name as Kharkhasrah.
This mirrors similar adaptations seen in Arabic transcriptions of Persian names like:
-
Bōrān → بوران
-
Shāpūr → سابور
-
Kawād → قباذ
Arabic lacks several sounds and orthographic conventions of Middle Persian:
-
xw often becomes kh or khu/khur.
-
s/r/w combinations are often transcribed in irregular ways depending on regional pronunciation.
-
Arabic scribes likely heard xwarrah as khurrah or khur, and Xusrō as Khusrah/Khasrah, rendering the full name as Kharkhasrah.
This mirrors similar adaptations seen in Arabic transcriptions of Persian names like:
-
Bōrān → بوران
-
Shāpūr → سابور
-
Kawād → قباذ
Xwarrah ī Xusro in Armenian Memory: The Case of Smbat IV Bagratuni
The ideology of xwarrah ī Xusro—the divinely sanctioned glory of Sasanian kingship—extended beyond Iran’s borders. One of the most striking examples of this can be found in Sebeos, the 7th-century Armenian bishop and historian. He reports that Smbat IV Bagratuni, a noble of high standing, was awarded two titles by Xusro II, rendered in Armenian as:
-
Խոսրով Շում (Khosrov Shum) – “Formidable Xusro”
-
Յաւիտեան Խոսրով (Javitean Khosrov) – “Eternal Xusro”
These titles evoke an attempt to bestow upon Smbat a share in the imperial charisma—the xwarrah—by associating him with Xusro II’s own persona in both terrifying majesty and enduring sovereignty.
Խոսրով Շում (Khosrov Shum) – “Formidable Xusro”
Յաւիտեան Խոսրով (Javitean Khosrov) – “Eternal Xusro”
🡒 Title 1: Խոսրով Շում – “Khosrov Shum”
The title Խոսրով Շում (Khosrov Shum)—recorded by the Armenian historian Sebeos—may at first glance seem jarring to the modern reader. In Modern Persian, the word شوم (shum) typically carries negative connotations, such as ominous, ill-fated, or sinister. For example, in Persian poetry or modern usage, one might encounter phrases like:
-
فرجام شوم (farjām-e shum) – “an ominous end”
-
طلوع شوم (tolū‘-e shum) – “a sinister dawn”
However, in the context of Late Antique royal titulature, we must resist reading this title through the lens of contemporary meaning. Rather than denoting evil or misfortune, the use of shum in this setting is better understood in terms of awe, fear, and majesty—concepts that often blurred with dread in premodern kingship ideologies.
Linguistic Context: From Persian شوم to Armenian Շում
The Armenian շում (shum) is almost certainly borrowed directly from Middle or Early New Persian. It preserves the consonants and vocalization of the Persian word. But its use in an official royal epithet implies that its connotations were not merely pejorative, but also theologically or politically exalted.
This recalls the way terrible epithets were common in royal ideology—consider the Akkadian “King who inspires terror in the lands”
Here, dread and power reinforce, rather than contradict, divine legitimacy.
Middle Persian Reconstruction
In Middle Persian, the phrase would likely have been rendered:
Xusro Šūm
𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭥 𐭱𐭥𐭬
-
Xusro (𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭥) – the royal name Xusro, meaning "of good fame" or "with fair repute"
-
Šūm (𐭱𐭥𐭬) – dread, fearful, awe-inspiring (in this older usage)
Thus, Xusro Šūm would most naturally be interpreted as:
“Xusro the Formidable”
or
“Dread Sovereign Xusro”
Ideological Implication
The granting of this title to Smbat IV Bagratuni, an Armenian noble, suggests a deliberate projection of the Shah’s divine and charismatic aura (xwarrah) onto a loyal subject. It mirrors how Roman emperors would style client kings as rex amicus populi Romani ("king, friend of the Roman people")—embedding them within the empire’s ideological sphere.
This may also resonate with the Zoroastrian idea of divine dread—wherein the just king is both protector and punisher, the source of both order (asha) and terror to the wicked.
🡒 Title 2: Յաւիտեան Խոսրով – “Javitean Khosrov”
The Armenian title Յաւիտեան Խոսրով (Javitean Khosrov) is striking in its grandeur. It translates most naturally as:
"Eternal Xusro"
This title is clearly modeled on Iranian royal language and reflects the ideology of divinely sanctioned kingship, in which time and fate are subordinated to the ruler’s cosmic legitimacy.
Middle Persian Reconstruction:
In Middle Persian, the phrase would have been:
Jawidān ī Xusro
𐭰𐭥𐭩𐭣𐭠𐭭 𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭥
-
𐭰𐭥𐭩𐭣𐭠𐭭 (Jawidān) – eternal, everlasting, forevermore
(cf. New Persian: جاودان) -
𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭥 (Xusro) – Xusro, a royal name signifying "of good repute"
Thus, Jawidān ī Xusro literally means:
“Xusro the Eternal”
or
“The Everlasting Xusro”
Ideological Background:
The Sasanian world was steeped in a Zoroastrian cosmology, where eternity (zrvan / jawidānīh) was one of the highest ideals. Kingship itself was thought to partake in ahrārīh (freedom), xwarrah (royal glory), and jawidānīh (eternity).
By granting the epithet "Jawidān ī Xusro" to an Armenian vassal, Xusro II Parwez may have been:
-
Extending his royal charisma (xwarrah) to a subordinate
-
Projecting political immortality upon the Bagratuni house
-
Framing Smbat IV as a mirror of himself, a surrogate king
This echoes similar Sasanian expressions, such as:
-
ānōšag-ruwān (“of immortal soul”) – used in honorific inscriptions and tombs
-
šāhān šāh ī ērān ud anerān ānōšag-ruwān – “King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran, of blessed immortal soul”
Thus, “Javitean Khosrov” is more than poetic—it’s political theology.
Theological and Symbolic Power
To be called “Eternal Xusro” was to:
-
Be remembered forever
-
Be seen as a reflection of royal perfection
-
Be cast into the mold of divine kingship
This title turns Smbat IV into a shadow-Xusro, implying that royal dignity is not bound by ethnicity, geography, or even mortality—it is transferrable, eternal, and sanctified by imperial will.
خرخرة (Kharkhara): A Corrupted or Simplified Echo of xwarrah?
1. Ibn Kathīr’s Variant: خرخرة
Unlike al-Ṭabarī’s خرخسرهُ (kharkhasrah), Ibn Kathīr records the envoy’s name as خرخرة — which transliterates to kharkhara. This is clearly not an Arabic name and, again, has no native semantic meaning in Arabic. However, when analyzed phonetically and historically, it aligns strikingly with the Middle Persian xwarrah.
Unlike al-Ṭabarī’s خرخسرهُ (kharkhasrah), Ibn Kathīr records the envoy’s name as خرخرة — which transliterates to kharkhara. This is clearly not an Arabic name and, again, has no native semantic meaning in Arabic. However, when analyzed phonetically and historically, it aligns strikingly with the Middle Persian xwarrah.
2. Comparison to Middle Persian xwarrah (𐭥𐭫𐭥𐭧)
Arabic Transcription Possible Middle Persian Origin Notes خرخرة (kharkhara) xwarrah The repeated syllable (kh-r-kh-r) maps phonetically to the consonants in xwarrah خرخسره (kharkhasrah) xwarrah ī Xusrō A full compound: "the glory of Xusro"
Here’s why خرخرة aligns with xwarrah:
-
The Arabic script does not distinguish well between x (خ) and h (ه) sounds from Persian.
-
xwarrah contains a "war" or "warr" element, which often becomes kar/khur/khar in Arabic transcription due to lack of a w + r cluster and vowel harmonization.
-
Arabic authors or transmitters encountering xwarrah may have reduced or misheard the term as a reduplicated root: kh-r-kh-r, resembling common sound patterns in Arabic reduplication (like zalzala, waswasa, etc.).
-
The loss of Xusrō in the Ibn Kathīr version suggests either simplification or lack of understanding of the full compound name.
| Arabic Transcription | Possible Middle Persian Origin | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| خرخرة (kharkhara) | xwarrah | The repeated syllable (kh-r-kh-r) maps phonetically to the consonants in xwarrah |
| خرخسره (kharkhasrah) | xwarrah ī Xusrō | A full compound: "the glory of Xusro" |
-
The Arabic script does not distinguish well between x (خ) and h (ه) sounds from Persian.
-
xwarrah contains a "war" or "warr" element, which often becomes kar/khur/khar in Arabic transcription due to lack of a w + r cluster and vowel harmonization.
-
Arabic authors or transmitters encountering xwarrah may have reduced or misheard the term as a reduplicated root: kh-r-kh-r, resembling common sound patterns in Arabic reduplication (like zalzala, waswasa, etc.).
-
The loss of Xusrō in the Ibn Kathīr version suggests either simplification or lack of understanding of the full compound name.
3. How Arabic Handles Middle Persian Compounds
Arabic chroniclers — especially later ones like Ibn Kathīr — often inherited garbled versions of Persian names, especially those written in Pahlavi (which omits most vowels). For instance:
-
xwarrah ī Xusrō → heard or written as khurakhsra → simplified to kharkhara.
-
The repetition in kharkhara is likely a scribal or oral distortion of a misunderstood compound.
Arabic chroniclers — especially later ones like Ibn Kathīr — often inherited garbled versions of Persian names, especially those written in Pahlavi (which omits most vowels). For instance:
-
xwarrah ī Xusrō → heard or written as khurakhsra → simplified to kharkhara.
-
The repetition in kharkhara is likely a scribal or oral distortion of a misunderstood compound.
4. Cultural Context Again Supports the Thesis
Given the significance of xwarrah (royal divine glory) in Sasanian ideology, an envoy or noble associated with the court might indeed bear a name or title invoking this concept. That someone would be called “The Glory [of] Xusro” makes symbolic sense in the late Sasanian context, particularly when dealing with a new religious claimant like the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
Given the significance of xwarrah (royal divine glory) in Sasanian ideology, an envoy or noble associated with the court might indeed bear a name or title invoking this concept. That someone would be called “The Glory [of] Xusro” makes symbolic sense in the late Sasanian context, particularly when dealing with a new religious claimant like the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
A Name, a Title, and a Trace of Imperial Legitimacy
The name of the Persian envoy mentioned in early Islamic sources—خرخسرهُ (Kharkhasrah, per al-Ṭabarī) and خرخرة (Kharkhara, per Ibn Kathīr)—is not simply a personal name. Rather, it encodes a title of immense symbolic and ideological weight.
We can philologically reconstruct خرخسرهُ as Xwarrah-ī Xusrō in Middle Persian, a compound meaning “The Glory of Xusro”. This formulation would not be unusual in a Sasanian imperial context: xwarrah (𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭧) denotes royal divine glory, a central concept in Zoroastrian kingship, and Xusrō (𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭥𐭥) refers to Xusro II (r. 590–628), the archetype of late Sasanian grandeur.
| Arabic Source | Transcription | Reconstructed Middle Persian | MP Script | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| خرخسرهُ (al-Ṭabarī) | Kharkhasrah | Xwarrah-ī Xusrō | 𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭧 𐭩 𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭥𐭥 | The Glory of Xusro |
| خرخرة (Ibn Kathīr) | Kharkhara | Corruption of Xwarrah | 𐭧𐭥𐭫𐭧 | Royal Glory / Aura |
Symbolism and Sasanian Legitimacy
In Sasanian ideology, xwarrah was not a mere abstract noun—it was the metaphysical sign of divine favor, believed to radiate from the legitimate king and ensure his authority. By naming an envoy Xwarrah-ī Xusrō, the Sasanian court signaled not only political allegiance but the continuation of royal charisma (farr) through their imperial bureaucracy.
Thus, the individual identified in Islamic tradition was almost certainly not just a scribe or messenger. He represented the king’s divine aura—the visible face of Sasanian cosmic order confronting the emerging Islamic polity. His appearance in the Prophet’s ﷺ lifetime marks more than a diplomatic episode; it reflects a symbolic clash between two visions of sovereignty: one grounded in Zoroastrian kingship, the other in prophetic authority.
Reconstructing Bābawayh and Abādhūyah: Two Middle Persian Names in Early Islamic Sources
Among the personal names preserved in early Islamic sources—especially those connected with the Prophet’s ﷺ correspondence with Persian officials—two Arabic transcriptions have drawn scholarly attention: بَابَوَيْهِ (Bābawayh) and أباذويه (Abādhūyah). Both appear in Arabic texts, but they differ significantly in their phonological and cultural associations. A careful philological and historical analysis suggests that while Bābawayh reflects a post-Sasanian, Arabicized Persian naming pattern, Abādhūyah may in fact preserve a genuinely Middle Persian name rooted in the concept of prosperity, from the root ʾbd / abad.
I. بَابَوَيْهِ (Bābawayh): A Post-Sasanian Arabicized Name
This name appears frequently in Islamic-era historiography, notably in al-Ṭabarī, and continues into later Persian traditions (e.g., Ibn Bābawayh, the father of the famous Shiʿi scholar al-Ṣadūq). At first glance, it seems to preserve a Middle Persian name, but a deeper look reveals its Islamic-era origin.
Form Analysis:
| Arabic | Sound | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| ب | [b] | Consonant |
| ا | [ā] | Long vowel |
| ب | [b] | Consonant |
| و | [w] / [ō] | Glide or vowel |
| ي | [y] / [ē] | Glide or vowel |
| ـه | silent / [h] | Arabicized ending |
This can be reconstructed as:
Bābawayh (بابویه) ← bāb (gate, Arabic) + -wayh, a Persian diminutive or name suffix.
However:
-
The term bāb (باب), while common in Arabic and New Persian, is not native to Middle Persian. As established by Pahlavi dictionaries and texts, Middle Persian used:
-
dar (𐭲𐭥𐭫) = door/gate
-
darband (𐭲𐭥𐭫𐭡𐭭𐭣) = "barred gate", also used metaphorically for mountain passes
-
Thus, while Bābawayh sounds Persian, its use of bāb indicates that it likely arose after the Islamic conquest, when Arabic vocabulary began to influence Persian naming.
Conclusion: Bābawayh is a genuine name but reflects Arabic-Persian fusion, not a purely Middle Persian origin. It likely means "gatekeeper" or "man of the gate" in an Islamicized context.
II. أباذويه (Abādhūyah): “The Prosperous One” – A Forgotten Middle Persian Name?
This name, attested less frequently (e.g., in Ibn Kathīr), has traditionally been dismissed as a corrupted or garbled form of Bābawayh. But this assumption deserves reconsideration.
Linguistic Breakdown:
| Arabic | Sound | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| أ | [ʾ] / [a] | Glottal or initial vowel |
| ب | [b] | Consonant |
| ا | [ā] | Long vowel |
| ذ | [dh] | Arabic phoneme; unusual in Persian |
| و | [w] / [ū] | Glide or vowel |
| ي | [y] / [i] | Glide or vowel |
| ه | [h] | Arabicized name ending |
At first glance, the dh (ذ) appears anomalous. However, if we treat it as an orthographic variant—perhaps miswritten for d (د)—then Abādhūyah can be re-analyzed as derived from the Middle Persian root:
ʾbd / abād / abādān = cultivated, prosperous, settled
Evidence from the Concise Pahlavi Dictionary:
-
abādān – cultivated, prosperous
-
abād – populous
-
abādīh – prosperity
-
anabādān – uncultivated, desolate
abādān – cultivated, prosperous
abād – populous
abādīh – prosperity
anabādān – uncultivated, desolate
So Abādhūyah can plausibly be read as:
Abād + -ūyah, meaning “the prosperous one” or “the one from a cultivated place”
This aligns with known Middle Persian naming patterns, which often embed positive attributes like strength, prosperity, and divinity (e.g., Mihr-dād = "gift of Mithra", Ādur-farrōbay = "glory of the fire").
Conclusion: Abādhūyah is not a corruption but a plausible Middle Persian name built on the abād root, conveying prosperity or cultivation.
📊Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | بَابَوَيْهِ (Bābawayh) | أباذويه (Abādhūyah) |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistic Origin | Post-Sasanian, Arabicized Persian | Middle Persian (Pahlavi root) |
| Root Meaning | “Gate” (Arabic bāb) + suffix | “Prosperous” from abād / abādān |
| MP Authenticity | ❌ Uses Arabic bāb, unknown in Pahlavi | ✅ Root attested in Pahlavi texts |
| Attestation | al-Ṭabarī, biographical works | Ibn Kathīr, less frequent |
| Structure | Arabic noun + Persian suffix | Purely Iranian root + suffix |
| Cultural Implication | Bureaucratic (e.g., gatekeeper) | Moral or social status (prosperity) |
| Historical Context | Early Islamic Persian | Possibly late-Sasanian or transitional |
Final Verdict: Both Names Matter—But They Belong to Different Worlds
-
Bābawayh is an Arabicized Persian name that flourished under Islamic rule, reflecting the cultural fusion of early Islamicate Iran.
-
Abādhūyah, properly understood, may preserve a pure Middle Persian name rooted in ideals of prosperity and cultivated life. Its neglect in scholarship likely stems from orthographic misreadings and assumptions about Arabic script phonemes (e.g., dh vs. d).
Bābawayh is an Arabicized Persian name that flourished under Islamic rule, reflecting the cultural fusion of early Islamicate Iran.
Abādhūyah, properly understood, may preserve a pure Middle Persian name rooted in ideals of prosperity and cultivated life. Its neglect in scholarship likely stems from orthographic misreadings and assumptions about Arabic script phonemes (e.g., dh vs. d).
In re-reading Islamic sources and Persian names, it is vital to reassess “corrupt” forms not as errors, but as potential windows into pre-Islamic Iranian naming culture.
III. Why Did Xusrō II Order the Prophet’s Arrest?Xusrō II viewed the Prophet ﷺ as a heretic and a political threat, similar to the way the Sasanian Empire had dealt with other religious figures challenging its authority. One of the most prominent examples was the execution of Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, whose gruesome death in the 3rd century CE marked a pivotal moment in Late Antiquity. Mani’s fate and his universal religious message were seen as direct challenges to the divine authority of the Sasanian rulers, drawing sharp parallels with the Prophet ﷺ.
1️⃣ The Prophet ﷺ as a "False Prophet" in Persian Eyes
The Sasanians had a long history of persecuting religious movements that threatened imperial ideology. Mani, like the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, claimed to bring a universal message, one that transcended the traditional faith of the empire. Such movements were viewed not only as religious heresies but also as direct challenges to the king’s divine right to rule.
Mani's death is described in various sources, such as Kitāb al-Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadīm and Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk by al-Ṭabarī, which highlight his grisly execution under the orders of Wahrām I. Mani’s body was dismembered and displayed publicly as a deterrent to others. His fate was one of the most notorious moments in Sasanian history, and his execution was not just a religious act but a clear political statement.
Like Mani, the Prophet ﷺ represented a theological and political threat to the Sasanian empire. His growing influence in Arabia was viewed as a destabilizing force at a time when the Sasanian Empire was already weakened by internal strife and external pressures.
2️⃣ Political Instability and the Persian-Roman War
By the time of Xusrō II's reign, the Sasanian Empire was under immense pressure. The devastating counterattacks by Heraclius (622–628 CE) had pushed Persia back in the west, while the Gōktürks invaded the North. Meanwhile, internal revolts further eroded the empire’s strength. At a moment when Persia was struggling for survival, a new Arab prophet calling for submission to God was seen as a potential catalyst for rebellion.
This parallel between the Prophet ﷺ and Mani becomes even more poignant when we consider that the execution of Mani had significant political and religious implications. Mani was seen as a rival to Zoroastrianism, with his teachings reflecting a more universal message. Similarly, the Prophet ﷺ was challenging not only the religious establishment but also the political order, claiming divine authority in a way that threatened Persian rule. The manner of Mani’s death, described in sources like Dēnkard and Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, echoes the brutality and finality that Sasanian rulers often resorted to when confronting perceived threats.
IV. Conclusion: A Fatal Mistake
Xusrō II's decision to arrest the Prophet ﷺ was based on a series of miscalculations that would prove fatal for the Sasanian Empire. He saw the Arabs as insignificant nomads, Islam as another minor cult, and Persian power as unshakable. However, history would show that the Prophet ﷺ's message would far outlast the Sasanian Empire.
Just as the execution of Mani failed to eliminate Manichaeism—eventually spreading beyond Persia—the arrest of the Prophet ﷺ did not quash the rise of Islam. Instead, it marked the beginning of the end for the Sasanian Empire, which would fall to the very people it had long dismissed. Xusrō II’s attempt to silence the Prophet ﷺ ultimately sealed the fate of the Sasanian dynasty.
Timeline of Xusrō II’s Royal Decree and Its Execution
This reconstructed timeline presents the sequence of events following the delivery of the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter to Xusrō II, based on primary sources and logistical estimates rooted in Sasanian administrative geography and communications infrastructure. It considers not only the deliberate pace of imperial decision-making but also the geographic and climatic challenges faced by royal couriers traversing from Mesopotamia to southern Arabia.
| Event | Approx. Date | Location | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdullah ibn Ḥudhāfah delivers the Prophet’s ﷺ letter to Xusrō II | 21 November 627 CE | Dastagird (near Ctesiphon) (33°5′37″N 44°34′50″E) | The letter is delivered to the Sasanian court at Dastagird, Xusrō’s seasonal capital northeast of Ctesiphon. Upon hearing its contents, Xusrō tears the letter in anger, perceiving it as a political insult and religious challenge. |
| Xusrō II deliberates and issues a royal decree for arrest | 26–28 November 627 CE | Dastagird | While deeply offended, Xusrō does not react impulsively. According to patterns of imperial bureaucracy, a 5–7 day delay is plausible as he consults advisers and court priests (mōbads) before issuing a formal order to arrest the Prophet ﷺ. |
| Royal courier dispatched from Dastagird to Yemen | 29 November 627 CE | Dastagird → Hajar → Ṣanʿāʾ | A royal courier, likely on a fresh relay of horses, begins the 2,000 km journey to Ṣanʿāʾ, passing through key Persian outposts like Hajar (al-Ḥasā) in Eastern Arabia. Using elite mounted couriers (comparable to pirradazis in earlier Achaemenid systems), the journey would take roughly 17 days at high speed. |
| Courier reaches Hajar | 5 December 627 CE | Hajar (modern Hofuf) (25°23′N 49°35′E) | The courier covers approximately 1,100 km in 6–7 days, traveling across desert terrain with intermittent stops for water and remounts. Hajar was a vital Sasanian stronghold and administrative hub in Eastern Arabia. |
| Courier arrives in Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen | 15–16 December 627 CE | Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen (15°20′54″N 44°12′23″E) | The final leg through rugged highland and tribal territories adds another 900–1,000 km. The courier likely arrives by mid-December, having faced delays due to terrain, elevation, and political complexities. |
| Bādām receives the royal command | 16 December 627 CE | Ṣanʿāʾ | Bādām, Xusrō’s satrap (governor) of Yemen, receives the order and prepares to execute it. He selects two Persian envoys—his steward (qahramān, an administrator trained in Persian record-keeping) and a companion named Xwarrah-i-Xusro—to summon or detain the Prophet ﷺ and escort him to the imperial court. |
Would Xusrō II Have Waited to Pen the Order?
Yes — based on Sasanian court protocol and the tone of surviving sources, it is historically plausible that Xusrō II waited 5–7 days before issuing the royal decree in response to the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter. His outrage was genuine — he tore the letter in fury — but his next steps were calculated, not rash. As a monarch grappling with serious internal threats, including Roman offensives and the brewing rebellion of his son Kawād II, Xusrō could not afford impulsive decisions on sensitive diplomatic-religious matters.
The Sasanian court under Xusrō II was formal, ceremonial, and deeply bureaucratic, especially in its later years. Important decisions—particularly those involving foreign religion or potential political-religious insubordination—typically required consultation with several layers of elite advisers:
-
The wuzurg framadār (chief minister),
-
The mōbads (Zoroastrian high priests), and
-
Key court nobles, especially during moments of imperial instability.
Because the Prophet’s ﷺ letter was not only political but explicitly religious—declaring divine revelation and inviting submission—its reception would likely trigger religious interpretation by the mōbads, followed by legal and political framing: Was this heresy? Apostasy? A challenge to imperial majesty? The complex implications required sober deliberation.
Furthermore, Xusrō II was not on campaign or in transit when he received the letter. He was residing in Dastagird, his imperial palace-city and administrative seat since 603 CE, where bureaucratic processes were fully operational. This was not a battlefield camp demanding split-second decision-making, but a seat of power where court ritual, documentation, and deliberation were the norm.
Comparable precedents from late antique courts, including the Romans (e.g., Emperor Heraclius), show that rulers often took several days to respond to provocative or unusual foreign correspondence, especially when faith and sovereignty were involved. Even in crisis, Xusrō is known to have taken several days—rather than hours—to issue royal directives, unless facing immediate battlefield threats.
Therefore, a 5–7 day delay between receiving the Prophet’s ﷺ letter and dispatching a royal arrest order is not only plausible but well aligned with Sasanian governance patterns.
📦 How Was the Royal Decree Delivered? Horseback or Ship?
🐎 Horseback overland courier is far more likely — here’s why:
✅ 1. Sasanian Infrastructure in Arabia Favored Overland Couriers
-
The Sasanian Empire maintained an extensive system of roads and relay stations (like the older Achaemenid pirradazis) across Mesopotamia → Eastern Arabia → Southern Arabia.
-
Known strongholds like Hajar (al-Ḥasā) and Najrān were part of an integrated military and administrative corridor linking Mesopotamia to Ṣanʿāʾ.
The Sasanian Empire maintained an extensive system of roads and relay stations (like the older Achaemenid pirradazis) across Mesopotamia → Eastern Arabia → Southern Arabia.
Known strongholds like Hajar (al-Ḥasā) and Najrān were part of an integrated military and administrative corridor linking Mesopotamia to Ṣanʿāʾ.
✅ 2. Maritime Travel Was Riskier, Slower, and Seasonally Constrained
-
Late November marks the Northeast Monsoon — winds blow from land to sea, making southward sea travel extremely difficult.
-
Ships from Ubulla or Hormuz to Yemen would have to hug the dangerous coastline, navigating pirate-infested waters and unreliable ports in Oman and Dhofar.
-
Such a route could take weeks, not days, and would be ill-suited for urgent royal commands.
Late November marks the Northeast Monsoon — winds blow from land to sea, making southward sea travel extremely difficult.
Ships from Ubulla or Hormuz to Yemen would have to hug the dangerous coastline, navigating pirate-infested waters and unreliable ports in Oman and Dhofar.
Such a route could take weeks, not days, and would be ill-suited for urgent royal commands.
✅ 3. Urgency and Reliability Demanded Couriers
-
The Prophet’s ﷺ letter was viewed as a serious religious and political affront; responding swiftly with imperial authority was paramount.
-
Mounted couriers using relays could travel 150–200 km/day, far faster than sea travel under monsoon winds.
-
The overland route was secure, monitored, and regularly maintained — ideal for sensitive dispatches.
The Prophet’s ﷺ letter was viewed as a serious religious and political affront; responding swiftly with imperial authority was paramount.
Mounted couriers using relays could travel 150–200 km/day, far faster than sea travel under monsoon winds.
The overland route was secure, monitored, and regularly maintained — ideal for sensitive dispatches.
✅ 4. Precedent and Practice: Persia Used Land Routes
-
Since the Persian annexation of Yemen (572 CE), governance of South Arabia was conducted via land-based administration, not maritime connections.
-
Bādām, the Sasanian governor of Yemen, was embedded in this overland infrastructure and received regular directives via couriers — not sea messengers.
Since the Persian annexation of Yemen (572 CE), governance of South Arabia was conducted via land-based administration, not maritime connections.
Bādām, the Sasanian governor of Yemen, was embedded in this overland infrastructure and received regular directives via couriers — not sea messengers.
📏 Courier Speed: Calculations and Precedents
-
Dastagird → Hajar (1,100 km): ≈ 7 days
-
Hajar → Ṣanʿāʾ (900–1,000 km): ≈ 9–10 days
-
Total Travel Time: ≈ 16–17 days
Dastagird → Hajar (1,100 km): ≈ 7 days
Hajar → Ṣanʿāʾ (900–1,000 km): ≈ 9–10 days
Total Travel Time: ≈ 16–17 days
This matches known benchmarks from:
-
Achaemenid pirradazis (~150–240 km/day)
-
Roman cursus publicus (~130–160 km/day)
-
Relay station spacing (25–40 km intervals for remounts)
✴️ Conclusion
Xusrō II would have dispatched his royal arrest order via horseback overland courier, traversing established imperial relay networks from Dastagird to Hajar to Ṣanʿāʾ, arriving within ~17 days.
The Journey to Madinah
Reconstructing the Timeline and Travel Stages
In 628 CE, two Sasanian envoys, Abādhūyah & Xwarrah I Xusro departed from Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen, bearing a royal command from Shahanshah Xusrō II: to demand the submission of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and escort him to the imperial capital of Ctesiphon. This was no routine diplomatic venture—it was a deliberate assertion of Persian supremacy, a calculated response to what Xusrō perceived as an outrageous affront to his majesty and the Zoroastrian worldview. The mission symbolized Ērānšahr’s enduring claim to religious and geopolitical centrality, especially over regions it long deemed peripheral and tribally fragmented.
Tracing the Imperial Command
The Shahanshah’s letter originated from Dastagird, his royal residence near Ctesiphon, From there, it would have traveled overland, crossing the Arabian interior and making its way through imperial outposts and maritime hubs before reaching the Himyarite highlands. Given Sasanian courier speeds—typically 30–40 kilometers per day depending on terrain and conditions—it is plausible that the letter arrived in Ṣanʿāʾ by 16 December 627 CE, roughly 40–45 days after dispatch.
The 20-Day Gap: From Receipt to Response
While imperial urgency might suggest an immediate reaction, the historical record and logistical realities support a deliberate 20-day interval between the letter’s arrival (16 December 627) and the envoys’ eventual departure (around 5 January 628 CE). This gap reflects a convergence of administrative protocol, environmental conditions, and strategic planning:
1. Imperial Protocol and Clerical Consultation
Governor Bādām, though a military official, operated within the larger Sasanian bureaucratic and religious hierarchy. The contents of Xusrō’s command—effectively ordering the arrest or forced submission of a powerful prophet—were not to be acted upon lightly. Bādām likely consulted Zoroastrian mōbeds, Persian nobility, and military advisors, ensuring that the empire’s religious and diplomatic posture would be properly represented. Such consultations, possibly over several sessions, would take several days at minimum.
Historical parallels exist:
-
In Roman practice, replies to imperial correspondence—especially those touching on doctrinal matters—could take weeks, even under wartime pressure.
-
In Sasanian history itself, Yazdgird I’s responses to religious petitions from Christian or Jewish leaders sometimes took months, despite political urgency.
2. Selection and Preparation of Envoys
This was no errand for scribes or minor officers. The two emissaries would need to be high-ranking, well-briefed, and politically astute—likely men with military authority or noble background. Preparing such a mission involved selecting suitable personnel, provisioning them with imperial credentials, security escorts, and ensuring travel logistics: horses, translators, food stores, and tribal contacts. Such preparation—especially during the administrative turnover at year’s end—would naturally delay departure.
3. Environmental Hazards and Strategic Timing
Southern Arabia in December and January experiences heavy winter rains, especially in the highlands. Flooded wadis, landslides, and muddy terrain would delay movement and might even endanger the mission. Waiting for improved weather and confirming safer passages would have been prudent. Moreover, the envoys’ route would traverse sensitive tribal territories and strategic waypoints like Najrān, Hubasha, and Tabālah—all requiring diplomatic arrangements, local guides, or temporary safe-conducts.
Similar strategic delays are well-documented:
-
Roman envoys to Armenia or Persia routinely delayed winter departures to avoid mountain snow.
-
In early Islamic campaigns, armies would often wait weeks in hostile regions until terrain or local diplomacy allowed movement.
The Overland Journey to Madinah
Departing around 5 January 628 CE, the envoys took a northward route through the western Arabian highlands, avoiding the harsher desert interior. They arrived in Madinah on 27 February 628 CE, indicating a journey of approximately 50–55 days. This timeline is fully consistent with mounted diplomatic travel in Arabia, especially with tribal assistance and minimal baggage.
Despite best efforts, their progress would have been slowed by the same seasonal rains, complex tribal geopolitics, and logistical constraints. Yet the fact that they arrived in just over seven weeks is a testament to their preparation, official backing, and the seriousness with which the Sasanian court treated this mission.
Conclusion: Thoughtful Delay, Strategic Precision
Far from undermining the historicity of the account, the 20-day delay between Xusrō’s command reaching Ṣanʿāʾ and the dispatch of envoys reinforces the logistical credibility, diplomatic nuance, and administrative caution that marked Persian imperial conduct. Like many great empires, Ērānshahr acted with calculation, not rashness—even when vengeance was the aim.
Stage I: Departure from Sanaʿāʾ – The Capital of Sasanian Yemen (5 January 628 CE)
Sanaʿāʾ (𐭮𐭠𐭭𐭠𐭩 / صنعاء)
The mission of the Sasanian envoys began in Sanaʿāʾ, capital of the Persian-controlled province of Yemen. Once a Himyarite stronghold and later an Aksumite possession, the city had been under Persian rule since the late 6th century. By 628 CE, it functioned as the military and administrative hub of the Sasanian Empire in Arabia, governed by Bādām the Marzbān (𐭬𐭫𐭰𐭡𐭭), the empire’s appointed military governor.
Sanaʿāʾ’s position was crucial—atop the verdant Yemeni highlands and astride lucrative trade routes that linked India, Persia, and the Eastern Roman Empire through the incense roads and Red Sea ports. With fortified garrisons, Sasanian commanders, and tribal Arab allies in its periphery, the city was the beating heart of Ērānšahr’s southern dominion.
Imperial Orders from Xusrō II – The Mission Briefing
The Persian envoys received their final briefing in the grand hall of Bādām’s palace. There, under the banner of the Drafš-ī Kāvīān (𐭣𐭫𐭠𐭯𐭱𐭪𐭥𐭩𐭠𐭭)—the royal standard of Persia—they were handed a sealed scroll bearing the royal signet of Shahanshah Xusrō II (𐭧𐭥𐭮𐭱𐭫𐭥𐭩), the most powerful monarch in the world. The decree was uncompromising. As later preserved by Islamic historians like Az-Zuhrī, the Shah's message read:
"I have received news that a man from Quraysh claims to be a prophet. March against him! If he repents, leave him; otherwise, send me his head."
This directive was imperial in tone, almost ritualistic in its absolutism. It had two explicit objectives:
-
Secure Submission or Death – The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was to be brought to the court at Ctesiphon. If he submitted, he would live. If he resisted, he would die.
-
Deliver the Head – Should the Prophet ﷺ reject Xusrō’s authority, his head was to be dispatched to Persia as proof of obedience—or retribution.
Reflections of an Ancient Imperial Tradition: Assyria’s Echo in Persia’s Edict
Xusrō II’s directive echoes a deep-seated tradition in Near Eastern imperial ideology, particularly reminiscent of the Assyrian Empire’s methods of handling rebellious Arab rulers in the 7th century BCE. As scholars Jamie Novotny and Joshua Jeffers detail, the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal responded similarly when Arab allies, such as Abī-Yateʾ of the Qedarites, broke their oaths to Assyria and allied with Babylon:
“Despite the treachery of Abī-Yateʾ… the Assyrian king had compassion… [but] a few years later, Abī-Yateʾ… carried out raids on border towns and disrupted trade. A major campaign was undertaken by Ashurbanipal’s generals…”
The logic of imperial deterrence required that disobedience be punished and submission theatrically displayed. For the Assyrians, this meant public executions, deportations, or ceremonial reinstatements of client kings. For the Sasanians, it meant dispatching imperial emissaries into Arabia with orders to bring the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to heel—or sever his head from his body.
In this, Xusrō stood as the heir of Ashurbanipal’s iron will, wielding Persia’s authority in continuity with an ancient model of divine kingship and retributive justice.
Departure from Sanaʿāʾ
With scroll in hand and a detachment of soldiers accompanying them for the first leg, the envoys departed Sanaʿāʾ on 5 January 628 CE, traveling north toward Najrān. The pace was brisk—~37.5 km/day—suggesting the use of well-worn trade routes and perhaps urgency in fulfilling the Shah’s grim command. As they passed through the highlands and descended into the plains, the shadow of Ērānšahr followed them.
Their journey had begun—not only across the landscape of Arabia, but into the shifting sands of empire, prophecy, and resistance.
Stage II: Through Najrān – The Christian Stronghold (13–15 January 628 CE)
Najrān (𐭭𐭰𐭥𐭭 / نجران) – The South Arabian Christian City
Nestled along the southern trade routes of Arabia, Najrān was one of the most cosmopolitan and strategically significant cities in the region. A bastion of Christianity in the heart of the Peninsula, it featured impressive Roman-style churches, stone fortifications, and a vibrant religious community that had maintained close ties with the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) world. The memory of Dhū Nuwās’s persecution of Najrānite Christians—culminating in mass martyrdom—remained etched into the city's identity, reinforcing its role as a symbol of Christian resistance and perseverance.
Najrān’s significance was not only religious, but also geopolitical. As a major trade hub, it served as a commercial bridge between the interior of Arabia and the Mediterranean world, connecting caravans from Yemen to markets far north. For the Persian envoys, this city was a critical stop. It offered rest, resupply, and the opportunity to gather valuable intelligence about the state of the Ḥijāz—especially Mecca and Madinah—at a time of rapidly shifting alliances and spiritual upheaval.
Their brief stay likely involved diplomatic interaction with local Christian authorities, possibly cautious in light of the Sasanian identity of the mission. The religious and political nuances of the region were becoming increasingly pronounced, and Najrān stood at a cultural crossroads that reflected the complexity of late antique Arabia.
Stage III-A: Passing Through Ḥubāsha – The Marketplace of the Peninsula (21–24 January 628 CE)
Ḥubāsha (حباشة) – An Ancient Arabian Trade Nexus
Located in the lands of Bārīq, Ḥubāsha stood as one of pre-Islamic Arabia’s oldest and most prominent marketplaces. Known for its vibrant annual trading fair, this hub attracted merchants from across the Peninsula and beyond—trading in textiles, frankincense, honey, dates, wine from Ḥajar and Iraq, salt, ghee, imported Persian and Indian goods, and even slaves. Zayd ibn Ḥāritha, the adopted son of the Prophet ﷺ, was famously sold here after being captured in a raid. The Prophet himself had traded here on behalf of Khadījah before his mission began.
By early 628 CE, the Persian envoys—likely on a route parallel to pilgrimage and caravan paths—reached this famed market. The stop at Ḥubāsha would have provided them not only rest but also access to critical intelligence through merchant chatter and tribal interactions.
Stage III-B: Crossing Through Tabāla – The Town of the Idol Dhu’l-Khalāṣa (29–30 January 628 CE)
Tabāla (تبالة) – A Once-Prominent Pilgrimage and Religious Center
Tabāla, situated northeast of Ḥubāsha, was known for its palm groves, freshwater wells, and agricultural abundance. It was once a key stop along the Yemeni pilgrimage road to Mecca and a religious center that housed the idol Dhu’l-Khalāṣa, which many tribes venerated prior to Islam’s rise. Though its religious prominence was fading by 628 CE due to the growing appeal of monotheism, the town still retained strategic value.
Famed in pre-Islamic poetry and oral tradition, Tabāla was seen as a place of both natural beauty and historical gravitas. During their short visit, the envoys likely rested briefly, possibly for resupply or reconnaissance, before continuing their journey northward.
Stage IV: Entering the Ḥijāz – The Road to Ṭāʾif (5–7 February 628 CE)
𐭲𐭠𐭩𐭯 / الطائف – The City of the Thaqīf
The journey into the Ḥijāz brought the Persian envoys to Ṭāʾif, a fortified city nestled in the mountains southeast of Mecca. Known for its fertile lands, cool climate, and vineyards, Ṭāʾif had long been a prized stronghold in the region. It was under the control of the Thaqīf tribe, renowned for their economic prosperity and tight alliance with the Quraysh of Mecca. Its name, derived from the Arabic root ṭ-w-f, referred to the formidable walls that enclosed the city—a mark of its defensive strength and strategic importance.
Traveling roughly 180 kilometers over six days, the envoys arrived on 5 February 628 CE after a slow climb through the highlands of western Arabia, where the terrain’s elevation and cooler climate may have moderated their otherwise steady pace of ~30 km/day. Upon reaching Ṭāʾif, they would have found a city bustling with agricultural wealth, a mixed population of Arab pagans, Jews, and other monotheists, and a populace still bitterly opposed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ—who had once sought refuge there, only to be driven out years earlier.
Their entry into Ṭāʾif quickly became a moment of intelligence revelation and political ripple. They encountered a man from Quraysh—possibly a merchant or messenger—who informed them that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was no longer in Mecca but had relocated to Yathrib (Madinah). This information would redirect their mission and recalibrate their expectations. But more telling was the reaction of the city’s elites.
فخرجا حتى قدما الطائف ، فوجدا رجلا من قريش في أرض الطائف ، فسألوه عنه فقال : هو بالمدينة . واستبشر أهل الطائف - يعني وقريش بهما - وفرحوا ، وقال بعضهم لبعض : أبشروا ، فقد نصب له كسرى ملك الملوك ، كفيتم الرجل ..
“They left and arrived in Ṭāʾif, where they found a man from Quraysh in the land of Ṭāʾif. They asked him about Muhammad ﷺ, and he replied: ‘He is in Madinah.’ The people of Ṭāʾif, along with the Quraysh among them, rejoiced upon hearing this news. Some of them said to one another: ‘Rejoice! The King of Kings, Xusro, has set himself against Muhammad! You are now spared from dealing with him!’”
This moment was more than local schadenfreude; it was a reflection of the tribal-political psychology of the Ḥijāz. To the Quraysh and their allies in Ṭāʾif, the involvement of Xusrō II Parvēz, Shahanshah of the mighty Sasanian Empire, offered a divine reprieve. The fact that a figure of such global stature had now moved against Muhammad ﷺ was interpreted as an omen of the Prophet’s impending downfall. They felt vindicated and relieved, believing that the burdensome task of confronting Muhammad ﷺ directly had been lifted from their shoulders—outsourced to the might of Persia.
The envoys’ two-day stay (5–7 February) in Ṭāʾif likely served several purposes: diplomatic observation, collection of regional intelligence, and perhaps seeking confirmation of the Prophet’s location before heading onward. Ṭāʾif's strong Qurayshite connections made it a natural node for intelligence-gathering in a time when much of Arabia was still fragmented and oral transmission of news was vital.
On 7 February, with this new intelligence in hand and regional dynamics becoming clearer, the envoys departed Ṭāʾif, bound for Mecca. But the shift in tone—the jubilance of the Thaqīf and Quraysh—signaled that the conflict between Muhammad ﷺ and the Quraysh had reached not just a political but a geopolitical inflection point. The Sasanian mission had entered the Ḥijāz not merely as imperial functionaries but as players in the contest for the religious and political future of Arabia.
𐭲𐭠𐭩𐭯 / الطائف – The City of the Thaqīf
The journey into the Ḥijāz brought the Persian envoys to Ṭāʾif, a fortified city nestled in the mountains southeast of Mecca. Known for its fertile lands, cool climate, and vineyards, Ṭāʾif had long been a prized stronghold in the region. It was under the control of the Thaqīf tribe, renowned for their economic prosperity and tight alliance with the Quraysh of Mecca. Its name, derived from the Arabic root ṭ-w-f, referred to the formidable walls that enclosed the city—a mark of its defensive strength and strategic importance.
Traveling roughly 180 kilometers over six days, the envoys arrived on 5 February 628 CE after a slow climb through the highlands of western Arabia, where the terrain’s elevation and cooler climate may have moderated their otherwise steady pace of ~30 km/day. Upon reaching Ṭāʾif, they would have found a city bustling with agricultural wealth, a mixed population of Arab pagans, Jews, and other monotheists, and a populace still bitterly opposed to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ—who had once sought refuge there, only to be driven out years earlier.
Their entry into Ṭāʾif quickly became a moment of intelligence revelation and political ripple. They encountered a man from Quraysh—possibly a merchant or messenger—who informed them that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was no longer in Mecca but had relocated to Yathrib (Madinah). This information would redirect their mission and recalibrate their expectations. But more telling was the reaction of the city’s elites.
فخرجا حتى قدما الطائف ، فوجدا رجلا من قريش في أرض الطائف ، فسألوه عنه فقال : هو بالمدينة . واستبشر أهل الطائف - يعني وقريش بهما - وفرحوا ، وقال بعضهم لبعض : أبشروا ، فقد نصب له كسرى ملك الملوك ، كفيتم الرجل ..“They left and arrived in Ṭāʾif, where they found a man from Quraysh in the land of Ṭāʾif. They asked him about Muhammad ﷺ, and he replied: ‘He is in Madinah.’ The people of Ṭāʾif, along with the Quraysh among them, rejoiced upon hearing this news. Some of them said to one another: ‘Rejoice! The King of Kings, Xusro, has set himself against Muhammad! You are now spared from dealing with him!’”
This moment was more than local schadenfreude; it was a reflection of the tribal-political psychology of the Ḥijāz. To the Quraysh and their allies in Ṭāʾif, the involvement of Xusrō II Parvēz, Shahanshah of the mighty Sasanian Empire, offered a divine reprieve. The fact that a figure of such global stature had now moved against Muhammad ﷺ was interpreted as an omen of the Prophet’s impending downfall. They felt vindicated and relieved, believing that the burdensome task of confronting Muhammad ﷺ directly had been lifted from their shoulders—outsourced to the might of Persia.
The envoys’ two-day stay (5–7 February) in Ṭāʾif likely served several purposes: diplomatic observation, collection of regional intelligence, and perhaps seeking confirmation of the Prophet’s location before heading onward. Ṭāʾif's strong Qurayshite connections made it a natural node for intelligence-gathering in a time when much of Arabia was still fragmented and oral transmission of news was vital.
On 7 February, with this new intelligence in hand and regional dynamics becoming clearer, the envoys departed Ṭāʾif, bound for Mecca. But the shift in tone—the jubilance of the Thaqīf and Quraysh—signaled that the conflict between Muhammad ﷺ and the Quraysh had reached not just a political but a geopolitical inflection point. The Sasanian mission had entered the Ḥijāz not merely as imperial functionaries but as players in the contest for the religious and political future of Arabia.
Stage V: The Sacred City – Mecca (12–15 February 628 CE)
𐭬𐭩𐭪 / مكة – The Home of Quraysh
Mecca stood at the spiritual and commercial crossroads of Arabia. Revered as the site of the Kaʿba, the ancient sanctuary built by Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail (Ishmael) and later restored by the Quraysh, it was the heart of religious life for the tribes of the Hijaz, by 628 CE, that religious centrality was contested by a revolutionary monotheism.
When the Sasanian envoys arrived at Mecca on 12 February 628 CE, after five days of cautious travel across ~90 kilometers of rugged terrain, they did not rush straight in. As foreign emissaries representing the most powerful empire in the Near East, they likely paused outside the city, in keeping with regional diplomatic custom, waiting to be formally received or to assess the political temperature of the city before entering.
Inside Mecca, the climate was politically volatile. The Quraysh elite, once dominant over the religious and economic affairs of the city, had by then lost a large segment of their authority to Muhammad ﷺ and his growing Muslim community in Yathrib (Madinah). But they remained powerful and antagonistic. The envoys’ arrival stirred immediate interest. To the Quraysh, still seething from the Prophet’s earlier departure (Hijrah) and increasingly anxious about Islam’s spread, the appearance of imperial messengers from Persia—long-time hegemonic overlords—may have felt like providence.
The envoys, headed by Abādhūyah, delivered to Qurayshi leaders the Persian king’s decree: that Muhammad ﷺ should be captured and brought to the Shahanshah, Xusrō II Parwēz. Though they did not find Muhammad ﷺ in Mecca, they likely shared the nature of their mission with leaders such as Abū Sufyān, who still headed the Meccan opposition. This brief stay — from 12 to 15 February — served not just as a stopover, but as a crucial moment of intelligence sharing and symbolic pressure. The Quraysh, ever hopeful for Muhammad's downfall, would have interpreted the Shahanshah’s demand as validation of their own resistance to him.
Yet, their hopes would be misplaced. Despite their three-day presence in Mecca, there was no capture, no submission, and no sign of retreat from the Prophet ﷺ. What unfolded instead was part of a larger story in which the Prophet would soon negotiate the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with these same Quraysh leaders, a turning point that ironically came just months later and signaled the moral and strategic ascendancy of the Muslim movement.
In the meantime, after those tense three days, the envoys departed Mecca on 15 February, continuing their journey northward toward Yathrib (Madinah). Their failure to find the Prophet ﷺ in Mecca deepened the urgency—and tension—of the mission. But their very presence in Mecca, and the fact that they delivered the Persian king’s threat to the Quraysh, marked a moment where imperial and tribal politics intersected within the shadow of the Kaʿba — where Near Eastern kingship confronted Arabian prophecy.
𐭬𐭩𐭪 / مكة – The Home of Quraysh
Mecca stood at the spiritual and commercial crossroads of Arabia. Revered as the site of the Kaʿba, the ancient sanctuary built by Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail (Ishmael) and later restored by the Quraysh, it was the heart of religious life for the tribes of the Hijaz, by 628 CE, that religious centrality was contested by a revolutionary monotheism.
When the Sasanian envoys arrived at Mecca on 12 February 628 CE, after five days of cautious travel across ~90 kilometers of rugged terrain, they did not rush straight in. As foreign emissaries representing the most powerful empire in the Near East, they likely paused outside the city, in keeping with regional diplomatic custom, waiting to be formally received or to assess the political temperature of the city before entering.
Inside Mecca, the climate was politically volatile. The Quraysh elite, once dominant over the religious and economic affairs of the city, had by then lost a large segment of their authority to Muhammad ﷺ and his growing Muslim community in Yathrib (Madinah). But they remained powerful and antagonistic. The envoys’ arrival stirred immediate interest. To the Quraysh, still seething from the Prophet’s earlier departure (Hijrah) and increasingly anxious about Islam’s spread, the appearance of imperial messengers from Persia—long-time hegemonic overlords—may have felt like providence.
The envoys, headed by Abādhūyah, delivered to Qurayshi leaders the Persian king’s decree: that Muhammad ﷺ should be captured and brought to the Shahanshah, Xusrō II Parwēz. Though they did not find Muhammad ﷺ in Mecca, they likely shared the nature of their mission with leaders such as Abū Sufyān, who still headed the Meccan opposition. This brief stay — from 12 to 15 February — served not just as a stopover, but as a crucial moment of intelligence sharing and symbolic pressure. The Quraysh, ever hopeful for Muhammad's downfall, would have interpreted the Shahanshah’s demand as validation of their own resistance to him.
Yet, their hopes would be misplaced. Despite their three-day presence in Mecca, there was no capture, no submission, and no sign of retreat from the Prophet ﷺ. What unfolded instead was part of a larger story in which the Prophet would soon negotiate the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with these same Quraysh leaders, a turning point that ironically came just months later and signaled the moral and strategic ascendancy of the Muslim movement.
In the meantime, after those tense three days, the envoys departed Mecca on 15 February, continuing their journey northward toward Yathrib (Madinah). Their failure to find the Prophet ﷺ in Mecca deepened the urgency—and tension—of the mission. But their very presence in Mecca, and the fact that they delivered the Persian king’s threat to the Quraysh, marked a moment where imperial and tribal politics intersected within the shadow of the Kaʿba — where Near Eastern kingship confronted Arabian prophecy.
Stage VI: Arrival in Madinah (27 February 628 CE)
Madinah (𐭩𐭲𐭥𐭧𐭡 / يثرب) – The City of the Prophet ﷺ
The Persian envoys, led by Abādhūyah, finally reached Madinah on 27 February 628 CE. Their arrival was not merely a diplomatic event — it was a moment charged with the weight of empire. Bearing the insignia of the Shahanshah (King of Kings), Xusrō II Parwēz, Abādhūyah carried a message that was both imperial and threatening. Speaking with the authority of the world's most powerful monarch east of the Roman Empire, he declared:
“The Shahanshah, King of Kings — Xusrō — has written to King Bādhām commanding him to send someone to bring you to him. And he has sent me to you so that you may come with me. If you comply, I will write on your behalf to the King of Kings — and he will benefit you and refrain from harming you. But if you refuse, then you know who he is — he will destroy you, your people, and lay waste to your land.”
This stark ultimatum was more than a threat — it was a performance, a ritual of imperial dominance with deep roots in the political theater of the ancient Near East.
Madinah (𐭩𐭲𐭥𐭧𐭡 / يثرب) – The City of the Prophet ﷺ
The Persian envoys, led by Abādhūyah, finally reached Madinah on 27 February 628 CE. Their arrival was not merely a diplomatic event — it was a moment charged with the weight of empire. Bearing the insignia of the Shahanshah (King of Kings), Xusrō II Parwēz, Abādhūyah carried a message that was both imperial and threatening. Speaking with the authority of the world's most powerful monarch east of the Roman Empire, he declared:
“The Shahanshah, King of Kings — Xusrō — has written to King Bādhām commanding him to send someone to bring you to him. And he has sent me to you so that you may come with me. If you comply, I will write on your behalf to the King of Kings — and he will benefit you and refrain from harming you. But if you refuse, then you know who he is — he will destroy you, your people, and lay waste to your land.”
This stark ultimatum was more than a threat — it was a performance, a ritual of imperial dominance with deep roots in the political theater of the ancient Near East.
A Legacy of Threats: From Ashurbanipal to Xusrō
Such expressions of brutal sovereignty were not invented by the Sasanians. They echoed an ancient tradition dating back over a millennium to the Neo-Assyrian kings, such as Sargon II, Tiglath-Pileser III, and Ashurbanipal, who defined kingship not only through conquest but through terrifying spectacles of punishment. These kings projected power through vivid inscriptions and reliefs showing enemies flayed alive, impaled, dismembered — not merely as acts of vengeance but as performative strategies to assert divine kingship.
Consider Sargon II’s treatment of Ilu-biʾdī of Hamath in the 8th century BCE. After defeating his rebellion, Sargon claimed in an inscription:
“The brave one, fearless in battle who eradicated the land Hamath (and) dyed the skin of the rebel Ilu-bi’dī as red as red wool.”(RINAP 2, 43, 25)
This symbolic coloring of a rebel’s skin served a dual purpose: vengeance and visibility. It was not merely a hidden execution—it was a public performance. Such scenes were inscribed on palace walls, meant to awe subjects and humiliate enemies. As scholars Rollinger and Wiesehöfer note in their article “Emperor Valerian and Ilu-bi’dī of Hamath”, even centuries later Roman authors viewed “Oriental cruelty” as a cultural trope, where kings like Sargon or even Sasanian rulers were imagined to inflict spectacular punishments to affirm divine authority.
Indeed, even Lactantius, in his account of the Roman Emperor Valerian’s capture by the Sasanians, describes how his skin was dyed red after death — a likely echo of Near Eastern royal imagery. Whether historical or stylized, these accounts show the long endurance of threat-as-theater in the Near East.
Such expressions of brutal sovereignty were not invented by the Sasanians. They echoed an ancient tradition dating back over a millennium to the Neo-Assyrian kings, such as Sargon II, Tiglath-Pileser III, and Ashurbanipal, who defined kingship not only through conquest but through terrifying spectacles of punishment. These kings projected power through vivid inscriptions and reliefs showing enemies flayed alive, impaled, dismembered — not merely as acts of vengeance but as performative strategies to assert divine kingship.
Consider Sargon II’s treatment of Ilu-biʾdī of Hamath in the 8th century BCE. After defeating his rebellion, Sargon claimed in an inscription:
“The brave one, fearless in battle who eradicated the land Hamath (and) dyed the skin of the rebel Ilu-bi’dī as red as red wool.”(RINAP 2, 43, 25)
This symbolic coloring of a rebel’s skin served a dual purpose: vengeance and visibility. It was not merely a hidden execution—it was a public performance. Such scenes were inscribed on palace walls, meant to awe subjects and humiliate enemies. As scholars Rollinger and Wiesehöfer note in their article “Emperor Valerian and Ilu-bi’dī of Hamath”, even centuries later Roman authors viewed “Oriental cruelty” as a cultural trope, where kings like Sargon or even Sasanian rulers were imagined to inflict spectacular punishments to affirm divine authority.
Indeed, even Lactantius, in his account of the Roman Emperor Valerian’s capture by the Sasanians, describes how his skin was dyed red after death — a likely echo of Near Eastern royal imagery. Whether historical or stylized, these accounts show the long endurance of threat-as-theater in the Near East.
Xusrō’s Threat in Context
When Abādhūyah threatened to “destroy you, your people, and lay waste to your land,” he invoked this long-standing imperial register. Though the Sasanians, unlike the Assyrians, did not flay or mutilate as far as internal records show, their diplomatic rhetoric retained the intimidation of their ancestors.
What made this encounter remarkable, however, was the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ unwavering rejection of this imperial fear play. Where other rulers might have capitulated or stalled, he responded:
“Woe to you! Who commanded you to do this [shaving your beards and growing your mustaches]?”They replied, “Our lord did”—meaning Kisrā.The Prophet ﷺ replied: “But my Lord has commanded me to let my beard grow and to trim my mustache.”
This exchange was more than a critique of Sasanian grooming—it was a subtle repudiation of imperial submission. The Prophet ﷺ contrasted the king of kings of Persia with the true Lord (Allah). And in delaying the envoy’s business until the next day, he signaled that he was not a frightened subject, but a Messenger of God — on greater footing than the mighty Xusrō.
When Abādhūyah threatened to “destroy you, your people, and lay waste to your land,” he invoked this long-standing imperial register. Though the Sasanians, unlike the Assyrians, did not flay or mutilate as far as internal records show, their diplomatic rhetoric retained the intimidation of their ancestors.
What made this encounter remarkable, however, was the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ unwavering rejection of this imperial fear play. Where other rulers might have capitulated or stalled, he responded:
“Woe to you! Who commanded you to do this [shaving your beards and growing your mustaches]?”They replied, “Our lord did”—meaning Kisrā.The Prophet ﷺ replied: “But my Lord has commanded me to let my beard grow and to trim my mustache.”
This exchange was more than a critique of Sasanian grooming—it was a subtle repudiation of imperial submission. The Prophet ﷺ contrasted the king of kings of Persia with the true Lord (Allah). And in delaying the envoy’s business until the next day, he signaled that he was not a frightened subject, but a Messenger of God — on greater footing than the mighty Xusrō.
A Clash of Theologies and Theatrics
In this moment, two radically different worldviews met in Madinah:
-
The imperial absolutism of Xusrō II, heir to a tradition of performative kingship, in which rulers enacted divine vengeance on rebels to demonstrate legitimacy.
-
The moral and spiritual authority of Prophethood, which derived legitimacy not from military spectacle but from divine command and inner conviction.
The Persian envoy came expecting submission through fear, rehearsing the language of ancient despotism. But he encountered resistance through faith, a Prophet ﷺ who would not be cowed by worldly kings, and whose response would reshape the entire geopolitical order of the Near East.
In this moment, two radically different worldviews met in Madinah:
-
The imperial absolutism of Xusrō II, heir to a tradition of performative kingship, in which rulers enacted divine vengeance on rebels to demonstrate legitimacy.
-
The moral and spiritual authority of Prophethood, which derived legitimacy not from military spectacle but from divine command and inner conviction.
The Persian envoy came expecting submission through fear, rehearsing the language of ancient despotism. But he encountered resistance through faith, a Prophet ﷺ who would not be cowed by worldly kings, and whose response would reshape the entire geopolitical order of the Near East.
Timeline of the Envoy’s Journey from Ṣanʿāʾ to Madinah
(5 January – 27 February 628 CE, ~24.5 km/day average)
| Event | Approx. Date | Location | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Departure from Ṣanʿāʾ | 5 January 628 CE | Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen (15°20′54″N 44°12′23″E) | The envoys begin their 1,300 km journey. This date allows ample time for a diplomatic caravan to reach Madinah by late February. |
| Arrival in Najrān | 13 January 628 CE | Najrān (17°30′N 44°13′E) | ~300 km covered in 8 days (~37.5 km/day). The pace is brisk, possibly aided by established roads and initial energy. |
| Departure from Najrān | 15 January 628 CE | Najrān | Two days of rest for resupply or coordination. Najrān was a Christian stronghold and may have required diplomacy. |
| Arrival in Ḥubāsha | 21 January 628 CE | Ḥubāsha (19.430754, 41.623096) | ~200–220 km covered in 6 days (~33–36 km/day). Rested here 3 days. |
| Departure from Ḥubāsha | 24 January 628 CE | Ḥubāsha | Resume travel toward Tabālah. Possibly followed caravan or pilgrimage routes through foothills and wadis. |
| Arrival in Tabālah | 29 January 628 CE | Tabālah (19.997778, 42.229722) | 5 days over a straight-line distance of ~89.4 km (~18 km/day average). The pace suggests rugged terrain or longer rest stops. |
| Departure from Tabālah | 30 January 628 CE | Tabālah | Quick stop, suggesting they were tracking time closely. |
| Arrival in Ṭāʾif | 5 February 628 CE | Ṭāʾif (21°27′N 40°26′E) | ~180 km in 6 days (~30 km/day). The climb to Ṭāʾif's highlands could slow the pace. |
| Departure from Ṭāʾif | 7 February 628 CE | Ṭāʾif | 2-day stay in this Quraysh-aligned city suggests diplomacy and intelligence-gathering. |
| Arrival in Mecca | 12 February 628 CE | Mecca (21°25′N 39°49′E) | 5 days over ~90 km. A cautious approach, possibly pausing outside the city. |
| Departure from Mecca | 15 February 628 CE | Mecca | After 3 days in Mecca — time for political negotiation or waiting on clearance to travel north. |
| Arrival in Madinah | 27 February 628 CE | Madinah (24°28′N 39°36′E) | ~450 km in 12 days (~37.5 km/day). Longest leg of the journey, crossing semi-arid plateaus. Likely joined a caravan for safety. |
-
Total time: 53 days
-
Estimated distance: ~1,300 km
-
Overall pace: ~24.5 km/day (realistic for high-level diplomatic envoys in Arabia without Persian courier stations)
-
Ḥubāsha → Tabālah leg: 89.4 km in 5 days (~18 km/day), notably slower, possibly due to terrain or rest.
Total time: 53 days
Estimated distance: ~1,300 km
Overall pace: ~24.5 km/day (realistic for high-level diplomatic envoys in Arabia without Persian courier stations)
Ḥubāsha → Tabālah leg: 89.4 km in 5 days (~18 km/day), notably slower, possibly due to terrain or rest.
Stage VII: The Divine Revelation and the Prophet’s ﷺ Message to Xusrō’s Envoys
On the 28th of February, 628 CE, the Prophet ﷺ received news from the heavens regarding the fate of Xusrō II, the Persian monarch who had sent the envoys. The news came as a revelation from God and significantly altered the direction of the interaction.
The Prophet ﷺ was informed that Xusrō's son, Šērōe (Kawad II), had revolted against his father and had killed him. This occurred in a specific month and night, which the Prophet ﷺ was told in detail. The revelation was profound, confirming that the power of the Persian Empire was crumbling from within.
Translation of the original Arabic account:
وأتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الخبر من السماء ، بأن الله قد سلط على كسرى ابنه شيرويه ، فقتله في شهر كذا وكذا ، في ليلة كذا وكذا ، من الليل ، سلط عليه ابنه شيرويه فقتله . قال : فدعاهما فأخبرهما فقالا : هل تدري ما تقول ؟! إنا قد نقمنا عليك ما هو أيسر من هذا ، فنكتب عنك بهذا ونخبر الملك باذام ؟ قال : " نعم أخبراه ذلك عني ، وقولا له : إن ديني وسلطاني سيبلغ ما بلغ ملك كسرى ، وينتهي إلى منتهى الخف والحافر ، وقولا له : إن أسلمت أعطيتك ما تحت يديك ، وملكتك على قومك من الأبناء "
"And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was informed from the heavens that Allah had caused Xusrō’s son, Šērōe, to rise against him and kill him. This happened in such-and-such a month, on such-and-such a night. So he called the envoys and informed them, saying: 'Do you know what you are saying? We have already held grievances against you that are lighter than this. Should we write this down and inform King Bādām?.' The Prophet ﷺ said: 'Yes, tell him what I have said, and tell him that my religion and authority will spread just as far as Xusrō’s rule did, reaching as far as the feet and the hooves reach. Tell him: if he embraces Islam, I will grant him what is under my authority and give him leadership over his people.'"
To reinforce the seriousness of his message, the Prophet ﷺ gave the envoys gold and silver that had been presented to him by other kings. This was a gesture to demonstrate his influence and wealth, showing that he had the means to back up his words.
"By God, this is not the speech of a king! I see that this man is a prophet, as he claims. What he says will certainly come to pass. If he is indeed a prophet, then he is a true messenger. If not, we will see what happens with him."
His response reflects a significant moment in the encounter. His recognition of the Prophet ﷺ’s words as prophetic suggests that the message of Islam was beginning to make an impression on the Persian authorities, even if they had not yet fully embraced it. Bādām’s acknowledgment that the Prophet ﷺ might indeed be a prophet is a sign of the growing recognition of Islam’s legitimacy, even among non-Muslim powers.
Bold Words, Bold Worlds: Prophetic Speech and Imperial Legitimacy in Late Antiquity
Skeptics today often dismiss the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration of Xusrō II’s assassination as an ex eventu prophecy—a retroactively inserted boast to amplify his authority. Yet this view reveals more about the biases of modern secular historiography than the nature of early Islamic claims. In the rhetorical and political universe of Late Antiquity, such declarations were not anomalies, but core expressions of charismatic authority, often entwined with visions of divine sanction, imperial succession, and cosmic mission.
Seen through this lens, the Prophet’s ﷺ reply to the Persian envoy Bādām—declaring that Islam would reach the ends of the earth and that the Persian king would fall—is not merely a boast, but part of a wider genre of prophetic-imperial speech, whose legitimacy was tested not in peer-reviewed journals, but in the crucible of unfolding history.
“My authority will reach where the hoof and sandal reach”—this was not the language of a local preacher. It was the language of destiny.
Imperial Parallels: Prophecy, Destiny, and Empire
Across civilizations, such declarations were standard fare for founders and monarchs—and modern historians rarely scoff at them:
1. Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 BCE)
Alexander styled himself the son of Zeus-Ammon and declared he would conquer the "ends of the earth." After visiting the Siwa Oasis oracle, his image was one of a divinely guided hero, fulfilling the mission of unifying East and West under a universal order.
➡️ Parallel: Like the Prophet’s ﷺ response to imperial envoys, Alexander’s language fused divine favor, universal conquest, and inevitability. No modern scholar insists Alexander’s divine origin be “demythologized” out of existence.
2. Augustus Caesar (r. 27 BCE – 14 CE)
The first Roman emperor claimed to have restored the Republic, while simultaneously consolidating personal rule. His Res Gestae Divi Augusti is full of divine portents, fulfillment of fate, and territorial universality.
➡️ Parallel: Augustus’ fusion of divine sanction and imperial achievement is treated as statecraft, not delusion. The Prophet ﷺ, in contrast, is often accused of the opposite—despite making far more restrained and accurate claims during his life.
3. Ardaxšīr I (r. 224–242 CE), Founder of the Sasanian Empire
He claimed that the xwarrah (divine royal glory) had passed to him from the Parthians. In Zoroastrian ideology, he was the restorer of cosmic balance. His kingship was not merely military—it was cosmological.
➡️ Parallel: Just as Ardaxšīr claimed cosmic legitimacy in declaring the end of an old empire, so too the Prophet ﷺ announced the waning of the Sasanian order with confidence grounded in a theologically charged worldview.
4. Constantine the Great (r. 306–337 CE)
Before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 CE), Constantine claimed a vision of the cross with the message "In hoc signo vinces" ("In this sign, conquer"). His victory was cast as divinely ordained, and he legalized Christianity soon after.
➡️ Parallel: Constantine’s vision is regarded by modern historians as political religion, a masterstroke of timing. The Prophet’s ﷺ declaration of Xusrō’s death—made while the Sasanian Empire was still powerful—is more accurate yet treated more skeptically.
5. Napoleon Bonaparte (r. 1804–1815)
Centuries later, Napoleon explicitly tied himself to world-historical destiny, claiming, "I am the Revolution." He even commented on the Prophet ﷺ as one who founded an empire with both sword and scripture.
➡️ Parallel: Napoleon acknowledged the force of prophetic leadership. He saw the Prophet ﷺ not as a deluded figure but a political visionary who reshaped history with bold proclamations and conviction.
What Makes the Prophet’s ﷺ Claim Unique?
What separates the Prophet ﷺ from these other rulers is timing:
-
His declaration came not after victory, but before it.
-
Persia was still a superpower. Islam was a fragile movement centered in a small oasis city.
-
The prediction was specific (Xusrō’s death), public (via envoys), and improbable (given Persia’s strength).
It is one thing to interpret a dream after a battle. It is quite another to be declaring the end of one of the world's greatest monarchies while your own city is under siege.
Double Standards in Western Scholarship
Modern Western academia, shaped by Enlightenment secularism, often treats religious claims with selective skepticism:
-
Augustus is seen as savvy.
-
Constantine is viewed as a master of religious symbolism.
-
Ardaxšīr is treated as a cosmic restorer of Zoroastrian order.
-
But the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ? He’s portrayed as a tribal preacher who retroactively invented prophecy.
This selective demythologization is not neutral; it reflects an instinctive discomfort with the idea that a non-Western, non-Christian, non-secular figure could speak with truth and foresight before the fact.
To preserve “objectivity,” scholars avoid religious validation—yet they often tacitly validate divine destiny in Greco-Roman or Christian narratives by calling it “founding myth,” “imperial charisma,” or “political religion.”
Historical Vindication
Xusrō II was assassinated in February 628 as the same day as the Prophet ﷺ’s declaration. Within a decade, the Sasanian Empire crumbled. Within 25 years, Islam had surpassed the boundaries of both Roman and Persian spheres.
This did not happen because of vague dreams or passive submission. It happened because of leaders with bold conviction, capable of speaking history before it occurred.
And when one considers the Prophet’s ﷺ bold words in this light, the only reasonable response is awe—not cynicism.
Stage VIII: The Letter of Šērōe
Following the death of Xusrō II, Kawād II assumed control over the Sasanian Empire. In a dramatic shift, Šērōe sent a letter to Bāhām, the governor of Yemen, signaling not only the demise of Xusrō II but also his own rise to power. The letter was delivered to Bādām in Yemen and contained crucial instructions and a formal announcement.
"As for what follows, I have killed Xusrō, and I did not kill him except in anger for Persia, because of what he had permitted in killing their nobles and slaughtering them at their borders. When my letter reaches you, take the oath of allegiance from those under your control, and go to the man to whom Xusrō had written. Do not harm him until my orders come to you regarding him."
"As for what follows, I have killed Xusrō, and I did not kill him except in anger for Persia, because of what he had permitted in killing their nobles and slaughtering them at their borders. When my letter reaches you, take the oath of allegiance from those under your control, and go to the man to whom Xusrō had written. Do not harm him until my orders come to you regarding him."
This letter marked a significant moment in Persian history, as it represented the collapse of the Sasanian monarchy and the rise of Šērōe. The tone of the letter was one of both political consolidation and a desire for stability within the empire, even as Šērōe grappled with the consequences of his father’s rule, For Bādām (𐭯𐭠𐭲𐭠𐭬), this message carried earth-shattering implications.
Bādām had already been in contact with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, having sent his envoys to demand the Prophet’s submission on Xusrō II’s orders. However, the Prophet ﷺ foretold Xusrō’s death, a prediction that now seemed to have come true. Could this man truly be a Messenger of God?
🔹 “This Man is a Messenger” – The Moment of Realization
According to historical sources, when Bādām read Šērōe’s letter, he immediately reflected on the implications of what had transpired. He is recorded as saying:
This declaration was not made lightly. As a Persian noble and governor, Bāhām had been raised in the imperial traditions of the Sasanian court. The Shahanshah was seen as the Divine Manifestation of Ahura Mazda on Earth, the supreme ruler of Ērānšahr. For Bādām to question that legitimacy and acknowledge a man from the oasis of Yathrib as a true prophet marked an unprecedented shift in allegiance, the historian Ilkka Syvänne comments on his conversion, stating:
“Badhan decided that if the information about the death of Chosroes was true, he would submit to Muhammad. Consequently, when Siroes’s letter demanding obedience arrived, Badhan rather chose to convert to Islam and follow Muhammad...there were good geopolitical reasons for this decision. The Muslims were near, and the Persian realm was clearly in chaos.”
Bādām understood that the Sasanian Empire was crumbling. The once-mighty Persian realm was now fragmented by civil war, with rival factions vying for power. Meanwhile, the Romans were retaking lost territories, and the Western Turkic Khaganate was pressuring Persia’s eastern frontiers. The empire was no longer capable of controlling its distant provinces, including Yemen, his decision to reject the Sasanian monarchy and align with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ sent shockwaves through the Persian administration.
Syvänne further notes the economic consequences of this decision:
“The conversion of Badhan meant that the Persians had now lost control of the trade network that led from the Mediterranean to India and Africa. It weakened their position vis-à-vis the Romans even further.”
Yemen had long been a crucial part of Persian trade and commerce, connecting Persian ports in the Gulf to India, East Africa, and the Mediterranean. With his defection, Persian influence over these lucrative trade routes collapsed, further weakening the already battered empire.
The Spread of Islam Among the Persian Nobility in Yemen
Bādām’s conversion did not happen in isolation. His decision had a domino effect—the Persian soldiers and nobles stationed in Yemen soon followed his example. The sources state:
The term ‘Abnāʾ (الأبناء) referred to the Persian elite and military officers who had settled in Yemen after the Sasanian conquest of the region. Their conversion represented a monumental shift—for the first time, Persians of noble standing willingly abandoned Zoroastrianism and accepted Islam.
However, as Syvänne points out, this did not mean that all of Yemen immediately fell under Islamic rule. Many of the local Arab tribes, particularly those of Saba, Himyar, and Hadramawt, resisted, and conflicts continued until 632 CE. The region remained politically unstable, with rebellions, false prophets, and uprisings emerging even after the Prophet’s death.
Conclusion: From Imperial Command to Prophetic Legitimacy — The Enduring Echo of a Letter
The letter from Šērōe to Badam was more than a royal decree; it was the imperial capitulation that validated the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ divine mission in the eyes of one of the Sasanian Empire’s most critical governors. This moment symbolized not only the moral collapse of the Sasanian monarchy—shattered by fratricide, plague, and political turmoil—but also the dawn of a new religious order that would outlast it. Badam’s acceptance of Islam, alongside his Persian retinue in Yemen, marked the earliest Islamization of a major Sasanian-affiliated elite outside the Arabian heartlands, decades before the final fall of Ctesiphon.
With this peaceful transition, Yemen slipped from Persian hands without warfare, a rare occurrence amid the turbulence of late antiquity. The Sasanian effort to control southern Arabia through diplomacy and dynastic placements had ended not in battle, but in revelation. And as Zoroastrians across the empire would increasingly find in the coming decades, conversion to Islam offered not merely spiritual realignment but social and political continuity in a changing world order.
Ultimately, Šērōe's letter did not just dismantle Xusro II's legacy—it became a symbol of the eclipse of the old imperial cosmos and the rise of a new prophetic universalism. Through the pen, not the sword, Islam entered Yemen; and from there, it would spread with enduring consequences for the histories of both Iran and Arabia.
THE END
Works Cited
-
Primary Sources
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Al-Ṣaḥīḥ (The Authentic Collection). 2 vols. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Jamʿiyyat al-Maknaz al-Islāmī, 2001. Print.
Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalā (The Lives of the Noble Figures). Edited by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dhahabī, 1st ed., Dār al-Maktabah al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995. Print.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449). Fatḥ al-Bārī bi-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. 14 vols. Edited by M.F. ʿAbd al-Bāqī and M.D. al-Khaṭīb. Cairo: Maktabat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1959.
Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik. The Prophetic Biography (Sīrah of Ibn Hishām). Translated by Muḥammad Mahdī Al-Sharīf. Beirut: Dār Al-Kutub Al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013. Print.
Ibn Kathīr, Abū al-Fidāʼ al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar Ibn Kathīr). Al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah (The Beginning and the End). Bayrūt: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1966. Print.
Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-Mulūk), Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam. Translated and annotated by Michael Fishbein. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Print.
———. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-Mulūk), Volume V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Translated and annotated by C. E. Bosworth. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Al-Ṣaḥīḥ (The Authentic Collection). 2 vols. Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Jamʿiyyat al-Maknaz al-Islāmī, 2001. Print.
Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalā (The Lives of the Noble Figures). Edited by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dhahabī, 1st ed., Dār al-Maktabah al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995. Print.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449). Fatḥ al-Bārī bi-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. 14 vols. Edited by M.F. ʿAbd al-Bāqī and M.D. al-Khaṭīb. Cairo: Maktabat Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1959.
Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik. The Prophetic Biography (Sīrah of Ibn Hishām). Translated by Muḥammad Mahdī Al-Sharīf. Beirut: Dār Al-Kutub Al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013. Print.
Ibn Kathīr, Abū al-Fidāʼ al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar Ibn Kathīr). Al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah (The Beginning and the End). Bayrūt: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1966. Print.
Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-Mulūk), Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam. Translated and annotated by Michael Fishbein. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Print.
———. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-Mulūk), Volume V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Translated and annotated by C. E. Bosworth. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
Secondary Sources
-
Adams, Robert McC. Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Anthony, Sean W. Muḥammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. University of California Press, 2020.
Baca-Winters, Keenan. He Did Not Fear, Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire (570 CE–628 CE). Gorgias Press, 2018.
Brown, Jonathan A. C. Hadith: Muḥammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Revised ed., Oneworld Academic, 2018.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2023.
Farridnejad, Shervin, and Touraj Daryaee, editors. Sasanian Studies: Late Antique Iranian World. Vol. 1, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2022.
———, editors. Sasanian Studies: Late Antique Iranian World. Vol. 2, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2023.
Fisher, Greg, editor. Arabs and Empires before Islam. Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Görke, Andreas, and Gregor Schoeler. The Earliest Writings on the Life of Muḥammad: The ʿUrwa Corpus and the Non-Muslim Sources. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 27, Gerlach Press, 2024.
Hayward, Joel. The Leadership of Muḥammad: A Historical Reconstruction. Claritas Books, 2021.
———. The Warrior Prophet: Muḥammad and War. Claritas Books, 2022.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
———. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.
———. East Rome, Sasanian Persia, and the End of Antiquity: Historiographical and Historical Studies. Ashgate Publishing, 2006; republished by Routledge, 2016.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011.
———. The ‘History of the Kings of the Persians’ in Three Arabic Chronicles: The Transmission of the Iranian Past from Late Antiquity to Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2018.
Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
———. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
MacKenzie, D. N. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1971.
Mirza, Sarah Z. Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet. Gorgias Press, 2022.
———. Oral Tradition and Scribal Conventions in the Documents Attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010.
Novotny, Jamie, and Joshua Jeffers. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 5/1: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria. Part 1. Eisenbrauns, 2018.
———. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 5/2: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria. Part 2. Eisenbrauns, 2022.
Sarris, Peter. Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Sauer, Eberhard W., ed. Sasanian Persia: Between Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia. Edinburgh University Press, 2017.
Silverstein, Adam J. Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Schoeler, Gregor. The Biography of Muḥammad: Nature and Authenticity. Translated by Uwe Vagelpohl, edited by James E. Montgomery, Routledge, 2011.
Soudavar, Abolala. The Aura of Kings: Legitimacy and Divine Sanction in Iranian Kingship. Mazda Publishers, 2003.
Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome: AD 602–641. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.
Adams, Robert McC. Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Anthony, Sean W. Muḥammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. University of California Press, 2020.
Baca-Winters, Keenan. He Did Not Fear, Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire (570 CE–628 CE). Gorgias Press, 2018.
Brown, Jonathan A. C. Hadith: Muḥammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Revised ed., Oneworld Academic, 2018.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2023.
Farridnejad, Shervin, and Touraj Daryaee, editors. Sasanian Studies: Late Antique Iranian World. Vol. 1, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2022.
———, editors. Sasanian Studies: Late Antique Iranian World. Vol. 2, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2023.
Fisher, Greg, editor. Arabs and Empires before Islam. Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Görke, Andreas, and Gregor Schoeler. The Earliest Writings on the Life of Muḥammad: The ʿUrwa Corpus and the Non-Muslim Sources. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 27, Gerlach Press, 2024.
Hayward, Joel. The Leadership of Muḥammad: A Historical Reconstruction. Claritas Books, 2021.
———. The Warrior Prophet: Muḥammad and War. Claritas Books, 2022.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
———. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.
———. East Rome, Sasanian Persia, and the End of Antiquity: Historiographical and Historical Studies. Ashgate Publishing, 2006; republished by Routledge, 2016.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011.
———. The ‘History of the Kings of the Persians’ in Three Arabic Chronicles: The Transmission of the Iranian Past from Late Antiquity to Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2018.
Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
———. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
MacKenzie, D. N. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1971.
Mirza, Sarah Z. Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet. Gorgias Press, 2022.
———. Oral Tradition and Scribal Conventions in the Documents Attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010.
Novotny, Jamie, and Joshua Jeffers. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 5/1: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria. Part 1. Eisenbrauns, 2018.
———. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Volume 5/2: The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria. Part 2. Eisenbrauns, 2022.
Sarris, Peter. Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Sauer, Eberhard W., ed. Sasanian Persia: Between Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia. Edinburgh University Press, 2017.
Silverstein, Adam J. Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Schoeler, Gregor. The Biography of Muḥammad: Nature and Authenticity. Translated by Uwe Vagelpohl, edited by James E. Montgomery, Routledge, 2011.
Soudavar, Abolala. The Aura of Kings: Legitimacy and Divine Sanction in Iranian Kingship. Mazda Publishers, 2003.
Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome: AD 602–641. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.
Comments
Post a Comment