The Egyptian Court and the Seal of the Prophets: The Letter to Al-Muqawqis

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

The Sasanian occupation of Egypt from 619 to 629 CE stands as one of the most extraordinary yet understudied chapters in the centuries-long Roman–Persian wars. At the peak of his military successes, the Persian shah Xusro II Parwēz had extended his empire across the Near East, conquering Syria, Palestine, and Egypt—lands long held by Rome. In Egypt, a new Sasanian administrative regime was established, replacing Roman governors with Persian generals, and inserting Zoroastrian rule into the heart of an ancient and diverse land. But by April 628, the empire that had risen so spectacularly was unraveling. After a protracted and ruinous war, the Persians were forced into a humiliating peace agreement with the Romans. Just weeks earlier, Xusro II had been overthrown and executed by his son Kawād II Šērōē, and the once-mighty Sasanian Empire had begun a rapid descent into civil war and fragmentation.

Egypt, at this moment, was a province in flux. Though still under Persian control, the fate of the region was now uncertain. It is precisely within this moment of political instability that Islamic tradition places a remarkable diplomatic gesture: the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sending a letter to the ruler of Egypt, calling him to Islam. The recipient of this letter is referred to in Arabic sources as al-Muqawqis (Arabic: المقوقس), a name that has puzzled historians for centuries.

Traditionally, Islamic scholars and later historians identified al-Muqawqis with Cyrus (Qūris), the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria and imperial prefect of Egypt under Emperor Heraclius. However, Cyrus only arrived in Egypt in late 631 CE—several years after the Prophet’s letter is said to have been sent (commonly dated to 628). This chronological mismatch has led some to conclude that the tradition contains an anachronism. Yet this apparent contradiction may instead be a clue: the title al-Muqawqis may not have referred to Cyrus at all, but to someone else—someone with actual authority over Egypt in 628. That figure, as historical evidence increasingly suggests, was none other than the Sasanian general and de facto ruler of Egypt and Syria: Šahrwarāz.

The case for identifying al-Muqawqis with Šahrwarāz is compelling, particularly when linguistic, administrative, and political factors are taken into account. The Arabic al-Muqawqis is widely believed to derive from the Greek Μεγαυχής (Megauchēs), meaning "great one" or "one of high rank." In Late Antique usage, it could denote a high-ranking official, a usage consistent with the prestige of a provincial governor or military commander. It is unlikely that local Egyptians would have used this title for a bishop alone—particularly one not yet present in Egypt. The use of such a Greek honorific fits far better with the powerful Sasanian overlord who controlled Alexandria in 628: Šahrwarāz.

Šahrwarāz—whose name means “Imperial Boar”—was a renowned Persian general bearing the high title Šahrālānyōzān, often translated as “Warder-off of the Alans” or “imperial Alan-fighter,” likely referencing military campaigns against the Caucasian Alans. He was one of the most powerful men in the Sasanian Empire, and after the death of Xusro II, he exercised independent control over both Syria and Egypt. Sources as varied as al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233), and Armenian chronicles—including the History of the Albanians (wrongly attributed to Movsēs Dasxurants‘i but based on a reliable seventh-century source)—attest to Šahrwarāz’s prominent role in this period.

Moreover, as noted by scholars such as James Howard-Johnston and Geoffrey Greatrex, Šahrwarāz held military and civil power across the western provinces even after Persia fell into disarray. He had the status of spāhbed (general) of the West, according to al-Masʿūdī, and maintained authority over Egypt despite the empire’s internal collapse.

What remains clear, however, is that in 628 CE, the only plausible authority figure capable of receiving the Prophet’s letter in Egypt was Šahrwarāz. If the letter was indeed sent and delivered in this window—between the death of Xusro II and the Roman reconquest—then al-Muqawqis must refer not to a Roman patriarch but to the Persian general who ruled Alexandria and beyond.

This blog will reassess the identity of al-Muqawqis through a close examination of Islamic tradition, Greco-Arabic linguistics, and the administrative structures of Sasanian-occupied Egypt. Rather than dismissing historical inconsistencies, we will embrace them as entry points into a deeper, more nuanced reconstruction of late antique geopolitics. In doing so, we aim to shed light on the twilight of Persian Egypt and a pivotal moment in the unfolding of Islamic history—when the message of Islam was carried to the very edges of empire.

This is the story of a land in transition, an empire on the brink of collapse, and a letter bearing the seal of the Prophet ﷺ, addressed to the heart of a foreign court perched between fire and faith.

Who Was Al-Muqawqis? Examining the Arabic Sources

To understand the identity of al-Muqawqis, we must closely examine the classical Arabic sources that reference him—primarily in the context of his correspondence with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his role as a ruler of Egypt during a critical transitional period. These sources offer valuable, though sometimes ambiguous, titles and descriptions that help us establish criteria for identifying who al-Muqawqis may have been. This section will outline those criteria and set the stage for comparing two key historical figures often associated with the name: Cyrus of Alexandria and Šahrwarāz, the Persian general.

Criteria for Identifying Al-Muqawqis in the Arabic Sources

1. Ruler of Alexandria and Egypt in 628

Arabic sources refer to al-Muqawqis explicitly as the Ṣāḥib al-Iskandariyya (صاحب الإسكندريّة), meaning "Governor" or "Ruler of Alexandria." This denotes a position of real political authority, particularly over Alexandria, Egypt’s most important city at the time—its cultural capital, main port, and administrative center.

He is also called Malik al-Qibṭ (ملك القبط), meaning "King of the Copts," and in some cases ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ (عظيم القبط), or "the Great One of the Copts." In Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd, he is described as:

"Ṣāḥib al-Iskandariyya ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ"
(صاحب الإسكندرية عظيم القبط)
"The Ruler of Alexandria and the Magnate of the Copts."

These epithets suggest not merely a religious or symbolic role, but substantial political sovereignty—likely held by someone acting as a provincial head of state or military governor.

2. Favorable and Diplomatic Reception of the Prophet’s Letter

Despite not embracing Islam, al-Muqawqis received the Prophet’s ﷺ letter with respect and diplomacy. He did not dismiss it outright nor respond with hostility. Instead, he acknowledged the message courteously, demonstrating political caution and diplomatic tact.

His response reflects a ruler keen to maintain stable relations with rising Arab power, without undermining his local religious base. This approach aligns with someone governing a diverse and contested province—caught between imperial centers and shifting allegiances.

3. Gifts Sent to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

As part of his diplomatic reply, al-Muqawqis is said to have sent several notable gifts to the Prophet ﷺ, including:

A mule (Duldul)

Fine garments and money

Two Coptic concubines, one of whom was Māriya al-Qibṭiyya, who became the mother of the Prophet’s son Ibrāhīm.

These gestures were clearly tokens of goodwill and respect, underscoring both diplomatic courtesy and a willingness to engage politically with the emerging Islamic state. That such gifts came from a ruling court and not a minor bishop or priest supports the idea that al-Muqawqis held substantial political power.

The Political Context of Al-Muqawqis’s Rule

Taken together, these criteria portray al-Muqawqis as a powerful regional authority during a time of geopolitical uncertainty. The way he received the Prophet’s ﷺ letter—with reverence but without conversion, and accompanied by gifts—demonstrates a pragmatic and cautious approach to foreign diplomacy. His goal appears to have been maintaining internal stability and avoiding provocation during a period when both Roman and Persian control over Egypt was contested.

Transition to the Next Section

With these criteria established from the Arabic sources, we now turn to the two most plausible historical figures behind the name al-Muqawqis:

Cyrus of Alexandria – the Chalcedonian patriarch and imperial prefect who governed Egypt under Emperor Heraclius, arriving in Egypt around 631 CE.

Šahrwarāz – the formidable Persian general and spāhbed of the West, who controlled Egypt during the final years of Sasanian rule (619–629 CE) and was arguably the de facto ruler of Alexandria when the Prophet’s letter was sent in 628 CE.

By comparing their timelines, roles, and titles with the criteria above, we aim to determine who best fits the historical and textual profile of al-Muqawqis—and, in doing so, illuminate a critical episode at the crossroads of Persian, Roman, and Islamic history.

Cyrus of Alexandria: The Melkite Patriarch

Cyrus of Alexandria (Greek: Κῦρος Ἀλεξανδρείας) was a prominent and polarizing figure in the 7th-century history of Roman Egypt. He served simultaneously as the Chalcedonian (Melkite) Patriarch of Alexandria and the imperial prefect of Egypt—one of the last Roman officials to hold such dual authority. His legacy is defined by theological controversy, religious persecution, and his role in the final Roman struggle to retain control over Egypt.
Originally the Bishop of Phasis in Colchis, Cyrus rose to imperial prominence in the late 620s. Around 626 CE, he became a key figure in Emperor Heraclius’s campaign to reconcile the Miaphysite and Chalcedonian factions of the Christian world through the controversial doctrine of Monothelitism—the belief that Christ had two natures but only one divine will. Despite initial support from Pope Honorius I and Heraclius, Monothelitism was later condemned at the Lateran Council of 649 and the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681).
Cyrus was appointed Patriarch of Alexandria in 630 CE, during a period of profound religious division and political instability. His tenure was characterized by harsh repression of the Coptic (Miaphysite) population, whom he sought to force into conformity with the imperial Chalcedonian faith. His campaign of persecution included the arrest, torture, and execution of Coptic clergy, most notably Mennas, the brother of Pope Benjamin I, who was reportedly tortured and drowned for refusing to recant.
Politically, Cyrus was caught in an impossible position as Arab-Muslim forces under ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ advanced rapidly into Egypt. Although initially resistant, Cyrus ultimately negotiated a capitulation treaty with the Muslims, leading to the surrender of Alexandria in 641 CE. While the treaty helped avoid bloodshed, it was widely viewed by both Roman elites and local populations as a betrayal. Cyrus died the following year in 642 CE, likely a victim of political disgrace, religious alienation, and personal despair.
Cyrus's legacy remains deeply conflicted: a figure of doctrinal zeal and imperial loyalty, yet one whose intolerance and misjudgment hastened the Roman collapse in Egypt. Given that he did not arrive in Egypt until 630 CE, two years after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is said to have sent his letter to the ruler of Egypt, the traditional identification of al-Muqawqis with Cyrus presents a clear chronological inconsistency.

Šahrwarāz: The Imperial Boar

If Cyrus of Alexandria is anachronistic, then the more historically plausible candidate for al-Muqawqis is the Sasanian general Šahrwarāz (Middle Persian: 𐭱𐭠𐭫𐭥𐭫𐭠𐭰), one of the most powerful military and political figures in the late Sasanian Empire and governor of Egypt during the Persian occupation from 619 to 629 CE.
His official title, Šahrālānyōzān (𐭱𐭠𐭫𐭫𐭠𐭭𐭻𐭥𐭦𐭠𐭭), meanig “Imperial Alan-fighter,” is attested in multiple Greek and Middle Persian sources from Egypt. This title reflects not only his military achievements but also his supreme administrative authority in the province.

Šahrwarāz in the Papyrological Record

Extensive evidence for Šahrwarāz’s rule over Egypt comes from Greek papyri and official documents bearing his seal:

Greek Papyri (Oxyrhynchus and Others)

His name appears as Σαραλανεοζαν (Saralaneozan)—a Hellenized form of Šahrālānyōzān—in several key papyri, including:

P.Oxy. 3637 and P.Oxy. 3797 (dated to 623/4 CE), which document gold shipments and taxation, suggesting his control over Egypt’s fiscal infrastructure.

P.Oxy. 1843, written in the same handwriting, further confirms his administrative centrality.

SPP X 251 and BGU II 377 mention him in the context of estate management and taxation, highlighting his role in the economic governance of the province.

Šahrwarāz’s Control of Egypt (619–629 CE)

Šahrwarāz exercised de facto sovereignty over Egypt during its decade-long Sasanian occupation:

Military Command: He commanded Alexandria, Egypt’s most important city and naval port, maintaining control even during the broader Sasanian collapse.

Diplomatic Role: In 629 CE, he negotiated directly with Emperor Heraclius for the peaceful surrender of Alexandria, demonstrating his independent diplomatic agency.

Cultural Integration: Greek sources even refer to him with the honorific title “Paneuphēmos” (πανούφημος)—meaning “all-praiseworthy”—a term usually reserved for high-ranking Roman officials, indicating his recognition by the Egyptian elite.

Family Ties: According to Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, Šahrwarāz’s daughter Nike and son Niketas converted to Christianity and were married into Roman aristocracy, further cementing his integration into the local power structure.

Al-Muqawqis in Light of Šahrwarāz

Arabic sources describe al-Muqawqis as:

Ṣāḥib al-Iskandariyya (صاحب الإسكندريّة) – Ruler of Alexandria

ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ (عظيم القبط) – Magnate of the Copts

Malik al-Naṣārā bi-Miṣr (ملك النصارى بمصر) – King of the Christians of Egypt

These titles align more closely with Šahrwarāz’s actual status in 628 than with Cyrus, who was not yet in Egypt at the time. Furthermore, the name al-Muqawqis is derived not from Coptic but from the Greek μεγαυχής (megauchēs)—a Hellenistic honorific meaning “great one” or “high official”, fitting for a provincial overlord like Šahrwarāz.

Comparison Table: Who Better Fits the Profile of Al-Muqawqis?

Criteria Šahrwarāz ✅ Cyrus of Alexandria ❌
Ruled Egypt in 628 CE ✅ Yes ❌ No, arrived in 631 CE
Received the Prophet’s letter ✅ Likely ❌ Unlikely
Held authority over Alexandria and Copts ✅ Yes ✅ Yes (but later)
Title matches Arabic al-Muqawqis ✅ Megauchēs → Al-Muqawqis ✅ but anachronistic
Engaged in diplomatic relations ✅ Documented ❌ Not until 640s
Religious affiliation ❌ Zoroastrian (but pragmatic) ✅ Christian (Monothelite)
Sent gifts to the Prophet ﷺ ✅ Plausible ❌ No direct evidence
Conclusion: The Strongest Candidate for Al-Muqawqis

Criteria	Šahrwarāz ✅	Cyrus of Alexandria ❌
Ruled Egypt in 628 CE	✅ Yes	❌ No, arrived in 631 CE
Received the Prophet’s letter	✅ Likely	❌ Unlikely
Held authority over Alexandria and Copts	✅ Yes	✅ Yes (but later)
Title matches Arabic al-Muqawqis	✅ Megauchēs → Al-Muqawqis	✅ but anachronistic
Engaged in diplomatic relations	✅ Documented	❌ Not until 640s
Religious affiliation	❌ Zoroastrian (but pragmatic)	✅ Christian (Monothelite)
Sent gifts to the Prophet ﷺ	✅ Plausible	❌ No direct evidence

All historical and linguistic evidence points to Šahrwarāz as the most likely recipient of the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letter to Egypt. He:

Ruled Alexandria and Egypt at the relevant time (628 CE),

Engaged in high-level diplomacy,

Controlled taxation, military, and administration across Egypt,

And possessed the political stature and diplomatic reach necessary to warrant a direct letter from the Prophet ﷺ.

Rather than viewing Islamic tradition as historically inaccurate or anachronistic, a reassessment grounded in contemporary documents and linguistic precision suggests that al-Muqawqis was not Cyrus, but rather Šahrwarāz—the last great Persian ruler of Egypt.

Part II: The Historical Context of the Prophet’s Letter to Šahrwarāz

The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ did not dispatch his letters in a historical vacuum. His diplomatic outreach to rulers across the region—including Šahrwarāz, the Sasanian commander and de facto governor of Egypt—unfolded amidst profound political upheaval. By April 628 CE (Dhu al-Ḥijjah, 6 AH), the world had shifted dramatically, presenting both new opportunities and complex challenges for the nascent Islamic community.

1. The Political Landscape in 628 CE: Persia, Rome, and Arabia

By early 628 CE, the geopolitical balance in the Near East was in flux. The two great superpowers—the Roman and Sasanian Empires—had just concluded one of the most ruinous wars of Late Antiquity (602–628 CE). The aftermath reshaped power dynamics, leaving both empires battered and destabilized.

📌 The Fall of Xusro II and the Persian Civil War

The Sasanian Empire, long a dominant force, was now unraveling. Emperor Heraclius of Rome had launched a series of counteroffensives (622–627 CE), culminating in a decisive Roman victory at the Battle of Nineveh (December 627 CE). Soon after, Xusro II was deposed and executed by his son, Kawād II, plunging Persia into a succession crisis.

Kawād II ruled for only a few months before dying of plague, accelerating the empire’s disintegration.

Between 628 and 632, at least ten different rulers claimed the throne, many reigning for mere weeks.

Šahrwarāz, a prominent Sasanian general, broke with the central authority and negotiated a separate peace with Heraclius, effectively acting as an autonomous ruler in Egypt.

📌 The Roman Reconquest of the Near East

With Persia in turmoil, Heraclius seized the opportunity to reclaim lost Roman provinces.

By mid-628, Heraclius was preparing to reintegrate Egypt, though the province remained under Persian control until 629.

Šahrwarāz, recognizing the tide turning in Rome’s favor, began secret talks to defect, attempting to preserve his position amid the shifting allegiances.

📌 The Rise of Islam and the Prophet’s Diplomatic Mission

Meanwhile, in Arabia, Islam was emerging as a unified spiritual and political force. In March 628 CE, the Prophet ﷺ had just concluded the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah with Quraysh, securing a truce that allowed the Muslim community to refocus on broader diplomatic efforts.

With hostilities with Mecca temporarily suspended, the Prophet ﷺ turned his attention outward, initiating correspondence with key regional leaders.

These letters were not mere religious summons—they were strategic declarations of Islam’s presence on the global stage.

The Prophet ﷺ targeted rulers of critical geopolitical regions: Rome, Persia, Abyssinia, and Egypt.

2. Why Did the Prophet ﷺ Send a Letter to Šahrwarāz?

The letter to Šahrwarāz (known in Islamic tradition as Al-Muqawqis) must be understood against this backdrop of collapsing imperial order and volatile loyalties. Though technically a Sasanian governor, Šahrwarāz was operating independently in Egypt by April 628 CE.

Strategic Motives:

Egypt’s Strategic Importance: Egypt was the wealthiest province in the Near East, vital for its grain and its access to the Mediterranean.

Šahrwarāz’s Position of Power: He controlled a key Persian outpost far from the fractured court in Ctesiphon, making him a unique diplomatic target.

Influence Over Arab Allies: A favorable or even neutral response from Egypt could impact Arab tribes and client states allied to Persia.

To carry this letter, the Prophet ﷺ dispatched Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah—a diplomat with Lakhmid roots, a people historically connected to the Sasanian world. His selection underscores the Prophet’s careful consideration of regional dynamics and cultural affinity.

3. Egypt Under Persian Rule: Šahrwarāz’s Fragile Authority

Šahrwarāz had governed Egypt and much of the Levant since the Persian conquests of the early 7th century. However, by 628, his grip on power was eroding.

📌 A Precarious Position

With Persia fractured, Šahrwarāz’s authority was increasingly insecure.

Roman preparations to reoccupy Egypt threatened his autonomy and forced him into a delicate balancing act.

📌 Relations with Egypt’s Population

Initially, the Persians had won favor with the Copts by reducing the influence of the pro-Roman Melkite Church.

Over time, however, taxation, military levies, and economic strain under Persian rule generated resentment among Egyptians.

Šahrwarāz needed to maintain local support while navigating the possibility of Roman reoccupation.

📌 The Response to the Prophet’s Letter

Šahrwarāz faced three options:

Reject the Letter – risking alienation from Arab tribes and further destabilizing his rule.

Publicly Embrace Islam – unlikely, as it would isolate him from both Persian and Roman spheres.

Respond Diplomatically – the safest course, allowing flexibility without committing.

According to Islamic tradition, Al-Muqawqis (Šahrwarāz) responded with respect. He sent diplomatic gifts—including two Coptic women, one of whom, Māriya al-Qibṭiyya, became the mother of the Prophet’s son, Ibrāhīm—indicating a cautious yet respectful reply.

Conclusion: Diplomacy in a World on the Brink

The Prophet’s letter to Šahrwarāz was more than a religious invitation—it was a diplomatic gesture aimed at a ruler positioned at the crossroads of crumbling empires.

Šahrwarāz, a pragmatic military leader, offered a measured and noncommittal response.

His reply reflected the uncertain future of Egypt as Persian rule collapsed and Roman forces returned.

Within a year, Egypt was reconquered by the Romans, and Šahrwarāz was assassinated—marking the end of Persian authority in the province.

In this context, the Prophet ﷺ’s letter stands as an early example of Islamic diplomacy engaging with the great powers of the age—not as a marginal force, but as a rising polity seeking dialogue on equal terms.

The Messenger of the Letter: Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah

Before exploring the content of the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ letter to Al-Muqawqis, it is essential to consider the man who carried it: Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah—one of the Prophet’s ﷺ early and trusted Companions. His selection for this diplomatic mission to Egypt reveals much about his status, experience, and character. He was more than a mere courier; he was an emissary of Islam, representing the Prophet ﷺ to one of the most powerful regions of the time.

📌 Who Was Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah?

Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah was originally from Yemen, of the Lakhm tribe, and later settled in Mecca. There, he became a ḥalīf (client-ally) of the Banū Asad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā, a prominent sub-clan of the Quraysh. Though not Qurayshi by blood, his association with the Meccan elite placed him at the heart of pre-Islamic and early Islamic society.

Among his most notable achievements:

✔ Veteran of Badr – Ḥāṭib was among the 314 Muslims who fought in the Battle of Badr (624 CE), earning him the esteemed status of a Badri Companion. Participation in Badr was considered a badge of distinction among the Sahābah.

✔ Active in All Major Campaigns – He fought in nearly every significant battle of the Prophet’s ﷺ lifetime, including Uḥud, Khandaq (the Trench), and Ḥunayn, demonstrating unwavering loyalty and courage.

✔ Skilled Marksman – He was renowned as one of the designated archers in the Muslim army, valued for his precision and combat effectiveness.

✔ A Merchant and Trader – In peacetime, Ḥāṭib was a businessman involved in the food trade, which brought him into contact with diverse peoples and lands, particularly in the Red Sea and Nile corridor.

According to al-Wāqidī and al-Ḥākim (in al-Mustadrak), he was described physically as:

“Strong-bodied, of average height, with a light beard, stout fingers, and keen eyes.”

✅ Why Was Ḥāṭib Chosen for the Mission to Egypt?

The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ chose each of his messengers carefully, selecting individuals who possessed personal integrity, diplomatic skill, and deep loyalty to Islam. In the case of Egypt—a powerful, multicultural province of immense strategic importance—the choice of Ḥāṭib was deliberate.

✔ Diplomatic Experience – As a merchant, he was well-versed in intercultural negotiation, court etiquette, and the geopolitics of the Red Sea region.

✔ Eloquence and Intelligence – He had a clear and persuasive speaking style, critical in delivering the Prophet’s ﷺ message effectively.

✔ Courage and Resilience – The route to Egypt was long and fraught with danger. It required a man of unshakable resolve, capable of representing Islam under any circumstance.

✔ Trustworthiness – Despite a brief controversy involving his pre-conquest communication with the Quraysh (for which he was forgiven by the Prophet ﷺ), Ḥāṭib was ultimately a man the Prophet ﷺ deeply trusted and honored.

📜 Ḥāṭib’s Journey with the Letter to Al-Muqawqis

On or around April 12, 628 CE (Dhū al-Ḥijjah, 6 AH), the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ entrusted Ḥāṭib with a historic mission: to deliver a letter to Al-Muqawqis, the governor and de facto ruler of Egypt—almost certainly referring to Šahrwarāz, the Sasanian general who then controlled the region. Alexandria, still Egypt’s capital in practice, was a wealthy and cosmopolitan city under shifting Roman and Persian influence.

Ḥāṭib departed from Madinah, traveling northward through the Hijaz and into the Sinai Peninsula, eventually reaching Alexandria—a hub of trade, theology, and diplomacy. There, he delivered the letter in person, marking one of the earliest diplomatic interactions between Islam and Egypt.

💡 More Than a Courier

Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s mission was not merely about delivering a message; it was a symbolic encounter between the emerging Islamic civilization and the ancient Mediterranean world. His calm confidence, persuasive diplomacy, and commitment to the Prophet ﷺ allowed him to represent Islam at a critical junction in history—ushering in a new era of cross-cultural engagement and religious dialogue.

Stage I: Madinah – The Beginning of the Journey

📌 April 12, 628 CE – Madinah (يثرب / 𐭩𐭲𐭥𐭧𐭡 / ܝܬܪܒ )
The journey of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah began in Madinah, the nascent capital of the growing Islamic state. Known in pre-Islamic times as Yathrib, the city was a fertile oasis in western Arabia, strategically positioned along trade routes linking southern Arabia with the Levant and Egypt.

However, after the migration (hijrah) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in 622 CE and the establishment of an Islamic government, the city became known as al-Madīnah al-Munawwara (“the Illuminated City”) or simply Madinah, marking a new era in its history.

Madinah was an oasis city with a unique economic and social structure. The presence of abundant date palm groves, wells, and fertile soil made it a center for agriculture in the otherwise arid Hijaz region. These agricultural resources made Madinah more self-sufficient compared to other Arabian cities, such as Mecca, which was more dependent on trade, the city's strategic location placed it at a crossroads between:

The southern Arabian trade networks, where goods such as frankincense and myrrh were transported.

The northern Levantine routes, connecting Arabia to the Persian-controlled territories in the Roman Near East.

The western Red Sea ports, which linked the city to East Africa and Egypt.

By April 628 CE, Islam had secured a major diplomatic victory. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, signed a month earlier (March 628 CE), was a truce between the Muslims and Quraysh of Mecca, allowing the Prophet ﷺ to truly focus on diplomatic outreach beyond Arabia.

Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s mission to Egypt was one of the most critical of these diplomatic efforts, as Egypt was a key political and economic center under Persian rule.

Setting out on April 12, 628 CE, Ḥāṭib traveled northwest, following the Red Sea trade route—one of the most ancient and vital caravan paths in Arabia. This route was well-established and safe, ensuring access to water sources and settlements along the way.

Ḥāṭib’s mission was not only a diplomatic effort but also a strategic move, as Egypt was a critical region within Persian-controlled Roman territories. The success of this mission would set the stage for future Islamic-Egyptian relations, eventually leading to the Muslim conquest of Egypt a decade later (639–642 CE).

Stage II: Madinah to Yanbuʿ – Reaching the Red Sea
📌 April 15, 628 CE – Yanbuʿ (ينبع / 𐭩𐭢𐭭𐭡𐭥𐭩 / ܝܢܒܘܥ)
After three days of travel, Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah reached Yanbuʿ, a bustling port town on the Red Sea coast. This strategic location made Yanbuʿ an essential waypoint for merchants, diplomats, and travelers passing through the region. It held a critical role in connecting inland Arabia with the maritime trade routes, further cementing its importance as a hub for commerce, travel, and military movements.
For centuries, Yanbuʿ had been a central point in the trade networks of Arabia. Its location on the Red Sea made it one of the most vital ports, linking the Arabian Peninsula with Egypt, the Levant, and the wider Mediterranean world. Yanbuʿ acted as a crucial intermediary, especially for goods like frankincense and myrrh from southern Arabia, which were shipped to markets across the Roman Empire and beyond.
Notably, Sharm Yanbu (Arabic: شرم ينبع), historically known as Charmuthas, is located just north of the city. This small peninsula was mentioned by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus as an ancient port used in trade routes between Yemen and Egypt. Sharm Yanbu’s position along the maritime routes made it an ideal location for merchants to dock, restock supplies, and wait for favorable winds or tides for their voyages. The port’s sheltered waters provided a safe haven for ships, and its proximity to the spice and incense routes made it a significant trading point for centuries.
In addition to its role as a maritime hub, Yanbuʿ served as a resting point for caravans traveling across the harsh desert. The town offered vital supplies such as fresh water and food, making it an essential stop for merchants and travelers journeying through the arid region. Its strategic placement provided a break in the long, often grueling desert crossings that connected the central Arabian heartland to the Red Sea and further trade routes.
For Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah, Yanbuʿ marked an important juncture in his journey. After leaving Madinah, the town provided him with an opportunity to rest, resupply, and prepare for the next leg of his mission. The town’s significance as a departure site for naval transport also played a key role in his potential routes to Egypt. By sea, the journey could be completed more swiftly, though it would come with its own challenges.
At Yanbuʿ, Ḥāṭib had two possible paths ahead of him. He could either:

Continue by land, following the ancient caravan routes through northwestern Arabia, which were well-established, safer, and more familiar to travelers.

Or he could take the sea route, sailing up the Red Sea to reach Egypt more swiftly.

Given his status as a diplomatic envoy, it is likely that Ḥāṭib chose the land route, which was not only more secure but also better suited for the diplomatic nature of his mission. Traveling by land would allow him to maintain contacts with local tribes, further solidify political relationships, and avoid the unpredictability of the sea.
As Ḥāṭib continued his journey, he passed through a town rich in both historical and strategic importance. Yanbuʿ was not just a transit point but a symbol of the deep and enduring trade networks that linked Arabia with the Mediterranean world, shaping the economic, political, and military landscape of the region. The town’s strategic location, combined with its history of trade and alliances, made it a crucial point for anyone traveling between Arabia and the wider world, including the early Muslim envoys like Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah.

By April 15, 628 CE, Yanbuʿ had become more than just a temporary stop; it had shaped the future of Islamic diplomacy, contributing to the growing connections between the Muslim state and the regions beyond Arabia.
Stage III: Yanbuʿ to Aila – Entering the Roman East
📌 April 21, 628 CE – Aila (أيْلة / 𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠 / ܐܝܠܐ / Αἴλα)
Ḥāṭib's journey northward from Yanbuʿ brought him to the bustling port city of Aila (modern Aqaba, Jordan), a vital hub strategically positioned at the northern tip of the Red Sea. The city stood at the crossroads of trade and empire, where merchants and travelers from Arabia, Egypt, and the Levant converged. It had long been an important commercial center, flourishing under the Nabateans before becoming integrated into the Roman world.
By the 7th century, Aila remained a key trade center, linking the Roman Near East with the maritime networks of the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. The Via Traiana Nova, an essential Roman road stretching from Bostra through Petra to Aila, ensured the steady flow of goods, troops, and officials. Under Persian control at the time of Ḥāṭib's arrival, Aila served as a crucial administrative outpost in Šahrwarāz’s dominion over the Roman East.
Aila was home to a diverse population, including Christian and Jewish communities who had lived under both Roman and Persian rule. The city had an early Christian presence, as evidenced by the construction of one of the world’s oldest known churches, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century. It had also been a Roman military garrison, hosting the Legio X Fretensis after the Jewish Revolt, and continued to hold strategic significance into late antiquity.
During the Persian occupation, Aila's trade routes remained active, sustaining economic life despite the broader upheavals of the Roman-Persian wars. The Persian administration maintained control over taxation and commerce, allowing the city’s function as a trade hub to continue largely uninterrupted. Given its importance, it is likely that Persian garrisons were stationed in Aila to secure the city's position as a link between the Arabian Peninsula and the wider Mediterranean world.

Ḥāṭib’s arrival in Aila would have been met with the sights and sounds of a thriving port—merchants haggling over spices and textiles, the creak of ships laden with goods from distant lands, and the chatter of diverse peoples exchanging news of the turbulent political landscape. Here, he likely rested, resupplied, and perhaps even interacted with local Persian officials before setting out once more, heading inland toward Petra, another city with deep historical significance in the region.

Stage IV: Aila to Petra – Across Nabataean Lands

📌 April 23, 628 CE – Petra (البتراء / 𐭯𐭡𐭲𐭫𐭠 / ܦܛܪܐ / Πέτρα)
After departing from Aila, Ḥāṭib made his way to Petra, a city of remarkable historical significance. Originally known as Raqēmō to its inhabitants, Petra became the capital of the Nabataean Kingdom in the second century BC. Situated in what is now southern Jordan, the city is renowned for its breathtaking rock-cut architecture, including tombs, temples, and an intricate water conduit system, which enabled the permanent settlement of an otherwise arid region. This earned Petra the nickname the "Rose City" due to the distinctive color of its sandstone structures.
Petra thrived as a critical hub for the incense trade routes, which made it a prosperous city. Despite its decline by the 7th century, Petra remained strategically vital, serving as a key checkpoint along the trade routes to Palestine and Sinai. Its rich history includes influences from Arabian, Hellenistic, and Roman rule, with Greek and Latin widely spoken among its inhabitants. The Romans annexed Petra in AD 106, renaming it Arabia Petraea, and the city continued to be a prosperous center under their rule. However, after an earthquake in 363 and the rise of sea trade routes, Petra’s prominence faded. By the early Islamic era, it was largely abandoned, though still frequented by travelers due to its location.
The Nabataeans, a nomadic Bedouin people, settled in Petra in the 4th century BC. Their expertise in agriculture, stone carving, and rainwater harvesting allowed them to flourish in this otherwise desolate environment. Petra's significance was rooted in its geography, acting as a crossroads between Arabia, Egypt, and the Levant. This made it a bustling trade city where goods such as frankincense and myrrh were exchanged.
Though Petra’s role as a political capital diminished after its annexation by the Romans, it retained its religious importance, with various temples dedicated to deities like Dushara and al-Uzza. During the Late Roman Period, Christian churches were established in the area, but by the time of the early Islamic conquests, Petra had mostly faded from the historical record, leaving only ruins and memories of its former grandeur.

In 628 CE, Ḥāṭib’s journey through Petra would have likely revealed a city in decline, but still holding its strategic significance as a key point in the vast network of trade and religious exchange that connected the Arabian Peninsula with the Mediterranean world.

Stage V: Petra to Gaza – Entering the Coastal Road

📌 April 26, 628 CE – Gaza (غزة / 𐭦𐭣 / ܓܙܐ / Γάζα)
After leaving Petra, Ḥāṭib continued his journey northwest, reaching Gaza, a prominent ancient coastal city with a rich history as a key trading hub. Gaza’s strategic location along the Mediterranean made it a vital crossroads for commerce and military movements. By the 7th century, Gaza had evolved into a major center with several notable characteristics:
✔ A Major Hub Along the Via Maris: Gaza lay on the Via Maris, the principal coastal highway that connected Egypt with the Levant. This trade route facilitated the exchange of goods between Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
✔ An Economic Center: Gaza's markets were known for the diversity of goods traded, especially Arabian products such as spices, textiles, and incense. The city played a crucial role in the economy of the region, functioning as a gateway for goods flowing between Egypt and the Levant.
✔ Religious Diversity: Gaza was home to a mix of Christian, Jewish, and pagan communities. This diversity made it a melting pot of various cultures and beliefs, reflected in its temples, churches, and synagogues.
Gaza had been under Roman control for centuries, but by the 7th century, it found itself under Persian occupation, which significantly impacted the city's military and administrative importance in the region. However, Gaza had long-standing ties to the Roman Empire, particularly through its incorporation into the Roman province of Judaea in 63 BCE.

Gaza's cultural importance continued during the Late Roman period, as evidenced by the presence of the Christian philosopher Aeneas of Gaza, who famously called his hometown "the Athens of Asia." The 6th century also saw the construction of a large synagogue, further reflecting the region’s religious diversity. However, as the Roman Empire faced its own internal and external challenges, Gaza's prominence began to wane by the early 7th century, just as the region was on the cusp of the Muslim conquest.

As Ḥāṭib arrived in Gaza, he found himself in a city steeped in history—once a bustling trade hub under Roman rule, it was now transitioning into a new era of geopolitical change. The remnants of its Roman heritage would remain part of Gaza’s identity, even as the political landscape shifted with the impending rise of Islam.

Stage VI: Gaza to Raphia – The Last Levantine Outpost

📌 April 27, 628 CE – Raphia (رفح / 𐭧𐭥𐭦 / ܪܦܝܐ / Ῥαφία)

Ḥāṭib’s next stop was Raphia, a smaller but historically significant town near the Egyptian frontier. Raphia, strategically located, had witnessed countless chapters of history, from the ancient civilizations of the Bronze Age to the conflicts of the Hellenistic and Roman eras. By this time in the 7th century, it had long been a focal point of military, trade, and cultural exchange.

The Battle of Raphia (217 BCE): Raphia was famous as the site of one of the largest battles ever fought in the Levant. In 217 BCE, the forces of Ptolemy IV of Egypt faced Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire. The battle, which involved over a hundred thousand soldiers and a host of war elephants, was a decisive victory for the Ptolemaic forces. The struggle between the Ptolemies and Seleucids at Raphia marked one of the defining moments of the Hellenistic period, ensuring Egypt's control of the region.

A Strategic Military Outpost: Raphia's location at the northeastern border of Egypt made it a critical military outpost guarding Egypt's access to the Levant. As a key point along the trade routes into the Sinai Peninsula, Raphia played a vital role in both commerce and defense.

A Trade Station: The town was also an important stop along the caravan routes leading into the Sinai Peninsula, facilitating trade and communication between Egypt and the broader Levant.
From Raphia, Ḥāṭib began the difficult journey across the Sinai Desert, marking a pivotal point in his embassy.

Stage VII: Crossing the Sinai Desert – The Arduous Trek

📌 April 29 – May 3, 628 CE – Sinai Peninsula (سيناء /𐭮𐭩𐭭𐭠𐭩 / Σινᾶ / ܣܝܢܝ)
The Sinai Peninsula, a vast and harsh desert, was part of a well-established caravan network. Despite its inhospitable landscape, Ḥāṭib’s route would have taken him through Persian-occupied Roman military stations, ensuring safe passage, and across desert oases, where he could replenish water and food supplies. While the journey was arduous, it was necessary to reach Egypt’s eastern frontier.
In the context of its environmental and historical significance, the Sinai Peninsula held different meanings for different cultures. For Greco-Roman pagan society, it appeared barren and unimportant, with minimal rainfall and no cities. It was not a place of wealth, and thus, not of great interest to the Roman Empire. However, to early Christians, the Sinai was a region of profound biblical significance, tied to the events of the Exodus. The Sinai’s emptiness provided the ideal environment for Christian monks, who saw the solitude (hēsychia) as an opportunity for spiritual reflection and devotion.
Though sparsely populated, the Sinai was not empty of people. The indigenous nomadic populations, described by early Christian sources as cruel, barbaric, and unrepentantly pagan, were referred to as Saracens. This term, originally used for nomads in the Sinai and surrounding regions, would later be applied to Muslims during the early Islamic period. Christian monks, particularly those settling in the Sinai by the fourth century, often portrayed these nomads in a negative light. They described them as violent, untrustworthy, and practicing impure religious practices, including black magic and human sacrifice. These Sinai Martyr Narratives painted the Saracens as a constant threat, portraying their attacks on Christian monastic settlements in gruesome detail.
The monks sought to secure the sanctity of the Sinai by linking biblical events to specific locations within the region. By identifying sites mentioned in the Exodus and building religious structures, the monks solidified their claim to the land, claiming its biblical significance for Christianity and reinforcing their narrative of martyrdom. Despite the negative portrayal of the nomadic groups by the monks, these communities were seen by some imperial authorities as strategic allies, particularly in defending Roman borders against the Sassanid Persians and other nomadic tribes.

As Ḥāṭib’s journey crossed through this desolate but spiritually charged landscape, the Sinai Desert was not just a physical barrier but also a region shaped by these historical and cultural tensions, where ancient traditions, imperial aspirations, and religious claims intersected.
Stage VIII: Entry into Lower Egypt – Pelusium
📌 May 4, 628 CE – Pelusium (الفرما / Πελοῦσιον / ܦܠܘܣܝܘܢ)

Pelusium, known in ancient times as Per-Amun or Sin, was a strategically important city located at the eastern extremities of Egypt’s Nile Delta, about 30 kilometers southeast of modern-day Port Said. Positioned at the mouth of the Nile and close to the borders with Palestine, Pelusium served as a crucial military outpost throughout its history, particularly under various empires, including the Romans.
At this time, Pelusium stood as a fortified frontier city, protecting Egypt’s borders from invasions and acting as a gateway to the interior of the country. Its location made it a critical military and logistical center, not just for defense, but also as a point of entry into Egypt. The city guarded the approach to key cities like Memphis and Alexandria, both of which were vital centers of power and culture.
During the Sasanian period, under Šahrwarāz’s command, Pelusium had been a stronghold on Egypt’s eastern border, instrumental in protecting the region from threats coming from the Arabian Peninsula and the seas. Its strategic position on the frontier made it a constant site of military action, often besieged, and the stage for important battles.
As Ḥāṭib entered Persian-controlled Egypt, he found himself approaching Pelusium, one of the first significant cities standing between him and Alexandria, which was pivotal to the region. The Persian garrison stationed at Pelusium was one of the last lines of defense, ensuring that the Sasanian Empire's interests in Egypt were maintained. In this context, Pelusium's role was both as a defensive stronghold and a critical gateway to Egypt's heartland.

Pelusium has a rich history dating back to ancient times. The name itself is derived from the Egyptian Per-Amun, meaning "House of Amun," referring to the ancient Egyptian god of the sun, Amun. Its strategic importance grew throughout successive periods of Egyptian history, including the Old Kingdom and the Late Period, as it lay on the frontier of Egypt’s eastern territories.
In the Roman period, Pelusium was integrated into the empire’s defensive network and became a significant military and administrative center. It was also the site of the famous Battle of Pelusium in 525 BCE, where the Persians under Cambyses II defeated the Egyptians, transferring control of Egypt from the pharaohs to the Persian Empire. This event marked a pivotal moment in the region's history, with Pelusium serving as the key battleground for the rise and fall of empires.
Pelusium was located between the marshlands of the Nile Delta and the Mediterranean coast. This position not only made it a military stronghold but also a vital trading hub. Known for producing flax of fine quality, Pelusium was an important center for Egypt’s agricultural and industrial output. The nearby marshes and waterways made it a unique point of defense and control for anyone seeking access to Egypt.
However, Pelusium's position also made it highly vulnerable. Throughout history, the city was besieged several times by various invaders, including the Persians, Greeks, and later Romans. Despite these challenges, Pelusium held an enduring presence as a stronghold on Egypt’s eastern frontier.

By the time of Ḥāṭib's journey, Pelusium had already witnessed centuries of conflict and conquest. As a strategic city, it was directly exposed to invasions and invasions from the east, including Persian incursions. Yet, by the 7th century, under Persian rule, Pelusium had become a well-fortified city, essential for controlling access to Egypt.

Stage IX: Through the Nile Delta – The Land of Pharaohs & Caesars

📌 May 5 – May 7, 628 CE

As Ḥāṭib continued his journey through Egypt, he ventured into the lush and historically rich Nile Delta. This region, known for its fertile lands and vibrant trade routes, was both the heart of Egypt’s agriculture and a bustling hub of culture. As he made his way through this region, Ḥāṭib passed through several key cities that stood as symbols of Egypt’s blend of ancient history and modern trade, each with its unique legacy and significance.

Bubastis: The first major city on Ḥāṭib’s path was Bubastis, one of Egypt’s most prominent religious centers. Dedicated to the goddess Bastet, the city was famed for its grand temple and the vibrant religious festivals that drew thousands of pilgrims. Bubastis was not just a spiritual hub but also a bustling trade city, linking the Delta to the wider Mediterranean world. Here, Ḥāṭib would have found a place for rest and resupply, surrounded by the aroma of incense and the sounds of traders from various regions.

Naucratis: Moving further into the Delta, Ḥāṭib reached Naucratis, a city whose Hellenistic roots were deeply embedded in its architecture and culture. Once a Greek trading colony, Naucratis was a melting pot of Egyptian and Greek influences, a crossroad where merchants and diplomats from different lands converged. The legacy of Greek thought and trade was palpable in the streets and markets, and Ḥāṭib would have experienced the fusion of Egyptian and Greek cultures, a vivid reflection of the ancient world’s interconnectedness.

Hierakonpolis: As Ḥāṭib continued his journey, he passed by Hierakonpolis, an ancient city with deep historical and religious significance. Known as the site of the first royal tombs and a place tied to early Egyptian kingship, Hierakonpolis was a monument to Egypt’s early dynastic period. For Ḥāṭib, this city was more than just a waypoint; it was a reminder of the millennia of Egyptian civilization that had preceded him. The relics of Egypt’s powerful past would have been inescapable as he made his way through this ancient land.

As Ḥāṭib moved through these cities, he not only interacted with the vibrant commercial life of Egypt but also encountered the rich tapestry of its history. The Nile Delta, with its lush landscapes and bustling cities, was a microcosm of Egypt’s enduring influence on the region, a blend of the sacred and the secular, the ancient and the modern.

In the broader historical context, Egypt during this period was experiencing a delicate balance of continuity and change under Persian rule. While the initial stages of Persian conquest were marked by violence, the aftermath saw a return to normalcy for the people. Daily life continued with minimal disruption, as evidenced by several Coptic papyri from the time, such as one dated to 626 C.E., which records a business transaction between a Persian official and local villagers. The document mentioned the payment of 1980 phorai (units of flax), showing that commerce and trade continued to flow despite the foreign rule.

In religious matters, the Persians allowed the Egyptians to practice their faiths with little interference. The Coptic Christians, who differed from the Greek Orthodox Christians, found themselves supported under Persian rule. This tolerance helped the Coptic Christians gain more influence, including control over several Orthodox churches. The Persians refrained from imposing Zoroastrianism, allowing Egypt’s diverse religious landscape to thrive.

The administrative systems of Egypt also maintained their stability. The Persians used the existing Roman systems for tax collection, ensuring a smooth transition and continuity in governance. A letter from 623 C.E. records the shipment of gold solidi (a Roman currency) to the Persian king, highlighting the continued functioning of the financial systems. Strategic posts were established in cities like Elephantine and Herakleia, strengthening Persian control over the region.

Despite the changes in political power, the Persian occupation of Egypt seemed to integrate rather than disrupt daily life. The bustling trade routes, vibrant religious practices, and stable administrative systems that Ḥāṭib encountered in the Delta were a testament to the resilience of Egypt’s cultural and economic foundations, even under foreign rule. These cities, with their ancient roots and thriving marketplaces, provided Ḥāṭib with not only the material support he needed for his journey but also a deeper connection to Egypt’s storied past and its role as a bridge between the ancient world and the expanding Persian Empire.

Stage X: Pelusium to Alexandria – Arrival in the Persian Capital of Egypt

📌 May 8, 628 CE – Alexandria (الإسكندرية / Ἀλεξάνδρεια / ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܝܐ / 𐭠𐭧𐭫𐭩𐭦𐭭𐭣𐭩𐭠)
After nearly 40 days of arduous travel, Ḥāṭib finally reached Alexandria, the administrative center of Persian Egypt under Šahrwarāz. Alexandria was an essential hub, both politically and culturally, within the Sasanian Empire. It was not only the seat of Persian administration but also a city renowned for its intellectual and cultural significance, with a thriving Christian population. At the time, Šahrwarāz governed as the de facto ruler of the Roman East, and the city was a stronghold of Persian influence.
Ḥāṭib’s arrival in Alexandria marked the first significant diplomatic contact between the nascent Islamic state and Egypt, setting the stage for his crucial meeting with Šahrwarāz. This would become a pivotal moment in the history of early Islamic diplomacy.

By May 628, Alexandria stood as the gateway to the broader geopolitical dynamics of the region, and Ḥāṭib's mission to establish diplomatic relations with its ruler, Al-Muqawqis, would lay the foundation for future interactions between Islam and Egypt.
The Timeline of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s Journey to Alexandria

Route Distance Travel Mode Travel Time Arrival Date
Madinah → Yanbuʿ ~160 km (~100 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) 2 days April 15, 628 CE
Yanbuʿ → Aila ~500 km (~310 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) 6 days April 21, 628 CE
Aila → Petra ~130 km (~80 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) 2 days April 23, 628 CE
Petra → Gaza ~200 km (~125 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) 3 days April 26, 628 CE
Gaza → Raphia ~30 km (~20 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) <1 day April 27, 628 CE
Raphia → Pelusium (via Sinai) ~270 km (~170 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day, delays in desert terrain) 4 days May 1, 628 CE
Pelusium → Alexandria ~200 km (~125 miles) Lone Horseman (~80 km/day) 3 days May 4, 628 CE

The Messenger Speaks, The General Listens

The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ letter to Al-Muqawqis (Šahrwarāz) is one of the key moments in early Islamic diplomatic history. Unlike Xusrō II, who violently rejected the Prophet’s call, Šahrwarāz was a seasoned military commander navigating a politically unstable Egypt under Persian control. His response, therefore, was markedly different from that of the Sasanian Shahanshah. Below is a detailed reconstruction of the event.

I - بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

Šahrwarāz, a Persian general ruling over Christian-majority Egypt, would have approached the Bismillah invocation with pragmatism rather than religious sensitivity. Unlike the Sasanian court, where the king’s authority was deeply tied to Zoroastrianism, Šahrwarāz’s rule was more politically and militarily driven. While the phrase would have been unfamiliar to him, it would not have been seen as an insult. His familiarity with monotheistic religions—particularly through his dealings with the Christian emperor Heraclius—would have made the invocation less jarring. Šahrwarāz would likely interpret it as a formal, respectful greeting, rather than a challenge to his authority.

Key Differences from Xusrō II’s Court

In contrast to Šahrwarāz, Xusrō II of Persia would have seen the invocation of a foreign deity as a direct insult. The Sasanian court was deeply religious, with the king’s divine legitimacy linked to Zoroastrianism and the concept of Xwarrah (divine glory). A foreign God would have been seen as a challenge to the king’s sacred authority.

Šahrwarāz, however, was less concerned with religious orthodoxy. His power in Egypt was based on military control, not divine legitimacy, and he ruled over a Christian population. Thus, the Bismillah would not have posed the same ideological threat as it would have in the Sasanian court.

In short, Šahrwarāz would have viewed the Bismillah as a respectful, monotheistic greeting rather than a theological challenge, unlike Xusrō II, who would have seen it as an affront to his divine authority. This highlights Šahrwarāz's more pragmatic, politically-driven rule compared to the ideologically rigid Sasanian monarchy.

II - من محمد بن عبد الله إلى المقوقس، عظيم القبط

"From Muhammad, the son of ʿAbdullāh, to Al-Muqawqis, the Great One of the Copts."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

The Prophet ﷺ addressed Šahrwarāz as ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ ("Great One of the Copts"), a diplomatic choice that reflected a strategic approach. Unlike the letter to Xusrō II, where the Prophet ﷺ avoided using a Persian royal title, here he referred to Šahrwarāz by a title linked to his local rule over the Coptic Christian population. This was a subtle but important shift: rather than emphasizing Šahrwarāz's Persian origins, the Prophet ﷺ acknowledged his leadership over the Egyptians, reinforcing Šahrwarāz’s position as a ruler of the local people.

Šahrwarāz, despite being Persian, governed a predominantly Christian Egyptian population. The title ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ was a respectful acknowledgment of his role as a ruler of the Copts rather than as a foreign conqueror. This recognition would have been acceptable and even advantageous to Šahrwarāz, as it reinforced his legitimacy as the leader of Egypt and distinguished him from the foreign Persian invaders. Had the Prophet ﷺ used a Persian title, it could have been seen as a challenge to Šahrwarāz’s authority, potentially stoking local resistance.

The Prophet ﷺ’s choice to address Šahrwarāz as ʿAẓīm al-Qibṭ highlights a key diplomatic move to avoid alienating him by using Persian titles. It was a subtle but effective way to acknowledge his rule over Egypt’s Christian population, which Šahrwarāz would likely have viewed as a wise and tactful gesture rather than a threat. This approach reinforced Šahrwarāz's local authority, distancing him from Persian occupation and aligning his leadership with the interests of the Coptic people.

III - سلام على من اتبع الهدى

"Peace be upon those who follow guidance."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

Unlike Xusrō II, whose authority was rooted in divine favor, Šahrwarāz ruled as a military governor, with power derived from conquest and political pragmatism. Therefore, the phrase "Peace be upon those who follow guidance" would not have been perceived as a direct challenge to his legitimacy.

For Xusrō II, the phrase might have been seen as an insult, as it implied a lack of divine guidance on his part, challenging his claim to divine right. However, Šahrwarāz did not claim to rule by divine authority but through force and political strategy. As such, he would not have felt personally attacked by this statement.

The phrase "Peace be upon those who follow guidance" could also be seen as resonating with Christian theological ideas of divine guidance (hudan). Given that Šahrwarāz was ruling over a Christian-majority population, the Copts in his court would likely have understood this phrase in a positive light, aligning it with their own religious beliefs. Thus, it would not have offended them.

Šahrwarāz may have taken note of the phrase, but it would not have triggered a hostile response. While Xusrō II might have interpreted it as an affront to his divine legitimacy, Šahrwarāz, focused on military and political authority rather than divine favor, would have seen it as a diplomatic or neutral expression, unlikely to challenge his authority or provoke aggression.

IV - فإني أدعوك بداعية الإسلام ، أسلم تسلم ، وأسلم يؤتك الله أجرك مرتين

"I invite you to Islam. Accept Islam, and you will be safe, and God will grant you a double reward."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

This phrase was a direct call to abandon previous beliefs, similar to the invitation sent to Xusrō II. However, Šahrwarāz's perception of this invitation would have differed significantly from that of Xusrō II, given his pragmatic approach to rule and his military background.

Unlike Xusrō II, whose authority was deeply tied to Zoroastrian orthodoxy, Šahrwarāz was not a devout Zoroastrian. His power came from military conquest and political maneuvering, not religious legitimacy. While the call to Islam might have unsettled him, it was not an immediate personal challenge to his identity in the same way it would have been for the Zoroastrian emperor.

Xusrō II, as the head of the Zoroastrian religion, would have seen this invitation as a direct attack on his faith, something that would provoke intense hostility. However, Šahrwarāz, known for his military prowess and pragmatic leadership, was not as ideologically rigid. He had already shown flexibility in his dealings with Christians and was more concerned with maintaining control over Egypt than with religious orthodoxy. While he may have viewed the invitation to Islam with some disdain, it would not have been an affront that would stir immediate rage.

Šahrwarāz was known for his military acumen and pragmatism, with his nickname "imperial boar" reflecting his skill and effectiveness in battle. His focus was on power dynamics and governance, not theological disputes. The invitation to Islam might have struck him as a religious issue, but one that he could afford to ignore, provided it did not interfere with his authority.

Šahrwarāz would likely have seen the call to Islam as a challenge to the religious status quo, but not an existential threat. As a general focused on maintaining power, he would not have reacted with the same anger that Xusrō II might have. He might have been displeased, but his pragmatic mindset would have prevented a fiery response, allowing him to focus on the political and military aspects of his rule.

V - فإن توليت فإن عليك إثم القبط
"If you turn away, then upon you will be the sins of the Copts."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?
This statement shifts the responsibility for rejecting Islam from the Copts themselves to Šahrwarāz. It implies that if he refuses the invitation, he would bear the sin of the Christian Egyptians under his rule. This places pressure on him to consider the welfare of his subjects and their potential spiritual consequences, not just his own authority.
Unlike the letter to Xusrō II, which directly challenged his Zoroastrianism, this statement doesn't challenge Šahrwarāz's personal beliefs but rather his responsibility as a ruler. It avoids directly attacking him while subtly indicating that his refusal to embrace Islam would have a moral and spiritual cost, not only for him but for his people. This allowed Šahrwarāz to navigate the message without provoking immediate hostility, even if he disagreed with the religious implications.
Given Šahrwarāz’s pragmatic nature, this statement would likely have been seen as a challenge to his political authority but not as a personal affront. It was less of an insult and more of a call to consider the broader implications of his rule. This approach gave him room to maneuver politically while maintaining his standing with both his Christian subjects and the broader Islamic message.

VI - ( يا أهل الكتاب تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ألا نعبد إلا الله ولا نشرك به شيئا ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضا أربابا من دون الله فإن تولوا فقولوا اشهدوا بأنا مسلمون )
"O People of the Scripture, come to a common word between us: that we will worship none but God, not associate anything with Him, and not take one another as lords besides God. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (Qur'am 3:60)."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?
Šahrwarāz, a Zoroastrian, ruled over a predominantly Christian population in Egypt. The Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ call to "People of the Scripture" (Ahl al-Kitāb) would have struck Šahrwarāz as an appeal to the Christian faith, particularly emphasizing the shared monotheistic foundation between Islam and Christianity. The call to worship none but God and to not associate anything with Him would have resonated with Christian beliefs, which also center on the worship of one God and reject polytheism.

This approach is distinct from the one taken with Zoroastrian rulers like Xusrō II, for whom the notion of shared divine worship would have been problematic. In contrast, for Šahrwarāz, this invitation to common ground might have seemed like a diplomatic gesture, designed to foster cooperation between Islam and Christianity rather than directly challenging his personal religious beliefs.
Šahrwarāz, although a Zoroastrian, was pragmatic and known for his flexibility in governing the diverse religious communities under his rule. The letter's appeal to religious cooperation would have been understood as an attempt to build a peaceful coexistence between Islam and the Christian Copts, who formed the majority of his subjects. However, Šahrwarāz would also recognize the potential political implications of such a call. Accepting or rejecting the message would not be a purely theological decision—it would affect his authority and his relationship with the Christian population.

As the de-facto ruler of Egypt, Šahrwarāz's primary concern was maintaining control over a complex and potentially volatile religious landscape. The Prophet ﷺ's suggestion that they "come to a common word" would have likely been seen as a diplomatic opening, an invitation to engage in dialogue while subtly reaffirming the Islamic message. However, Šahrwarāz would also be cautious about the practical consequences of allowing such a dialogue to flourish, especially if it led to divisions among his Christian subjects.
Šahrwarāz would likely have been wary of an overtly hostile response to this theological message. As a general and ruler, his approach was largely based on pragmatic control rather than religious zeal. He might not have seen this verse as a direct challenge to his authority but rather as an invitation to a more peaceful coexistence between religions. However, he would also be aware that embracing such an invitation could provoke resistance from more hardline factions, particularly among the Zoroastrian or Persian loyalists in his court, who might see this as a form of appeasement to the growing influence of Islam.

At the same time, Šahrwarāz might have seen this invitation as an opportunity to further consolidate his political control by aligning with the Christian majority in Egypt. The phrase "Bear witness that we are Muslims" would not have been immediately threatening to him as a Zoroastrian, but it would have required careful navigation to ensure it did not upset the delicate balance of power between the different religious communities in his realm.
For Šahrwarāz, this section of the letter would likely have been perceived as both a diplomatic invitation and a religious appeal. The focus on common ground between Islam and Christianity would have been more acceptable to him than an outright challenge to his beliefs. While the call to Islam itself might have been difficult to accept publicly, the underlying message of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect would have resonated with Šahrwarāz's pragmatic approach to governance. He would have seen it as a way to engage his Christian subjects without directly alienating them, while also carefully considering the political ramifications of the message in his diverse and politically charged domain.

Šahrwarāz’s Diplomatic Dealings in External Sources

To fully assess the plausibility of Šahrwarāz’s response to the Prophet’s ﷺ letter, we must compare the Islamic accounts with external sources. These sources provide critical historical context for understanding how Šahrwarāz conducted diplomacy at the time and whether he engaged in similar exchanges with other foreign powers.

1. Armenian and Roman Sources: Šahrwarāz’s Political Maneuvering with Heraclius

A. Sebeos’ The Armenian History (7th century CE)

Sebeos, writing in the 7th century CE, provides one of the earliest and most detailed accounts of Šahrwarāz’s diplomatic activities. He describes:

Šahrwarāz’s betrayal of the Sasanian regime after Xusrō II’s death in 628 CE.

His secret negotiations with Emperor Heraclius, where he agreed to withdraw from Roman lands in exchange for political survival.

His autonomous rule in Egypt, demonstrating that he was acting independently of the Persian central authority.

🔹 Significance:
Sebeos confirms that Šahrwarāz was actively engaging in diplomatic negotiations with foreign leaders in 628 CE, making it entirely plausible that he also received and responded to a letter from the Prophet ﷺ.

B. Theophanes’ Chronicle (9th century CE)

Theophanes (d. 818 CE), a Byzantine chronicler, echoes Sebeos in describing:

Šahrwarāz’s alliance with Heraclius, which helped secure victory over Persia.

His role as a key decision-maker in Sasanian foreign policy, even though he was officially a general.

🔹 Significance:
Theophanes portrays Šahrwarāz as a political survivor who leveraged diplomacy to secure his position—a characteristic consistent with his pragmatic response to the Prophet ﷺ.

C. Nikephoros’ Short History (Early 9th century CE)

Nikephoros provides additional details on:

Šahrwarāz’s direct communication with Roman officials.

His negotiations to secure his own rule, independent of Persia.

His ability to navigate shifting power dynamics, including dealing with both Persians and Romans.

🔹 Significance:
Nikephoros confirms that Šahrwarāz was engaging in high-level diplomatic exchanges during the exact time period in question (628–629 CE).

2. Persian and Islamic Sources: Šahrwarāz’s Complex Relationship with the Sasanian Court

**A. Al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk (10th century CE)**

Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923 CE), drawing from earlier Persian traditions, describes:

Šahrwarāz’s role in the Persian civil war following Xusrō II’s assassination.

His refusal to submit to Kawad II, instead ruling Egypt autonomously.

His ultimate betrayal of the Sasanian dynasty, seizing power for himself in 630 CE.

🔹 Significance:
Al-Ṭabarī portrays Šahrwarāz as an independent political actor in this period, confirming that he had the authority to engage in external diplomatic exchanges, including responding to foreign envoys.

**B. The Shāhnāma (Ferdowsī, 11th century CE)**

Though written centuries later, the Shāhnāma preserves legendary accounts of Sasanian history, including:

Šahrwarāz’s military prowess and cunning.

His ability to manipulate political situations to his advantage.

His betrayal of Persian nobility, emphasizing his opportunistic nature.

🔹 Significance:
While poetic, the Shāhnāma reinforces the idea that Šahrwarāz was a shrewd, pragmatic leader who valued power over ideological loyalty—a trait that aligns with his diplomatic handling of the Prophet’s ﷺ letter.

**C. The Khuzistan Chronicle (7th century CE)**

The Khuzistan Chronicle, an early Syriac source, provides an account of Šahrwarāz’s dealings with the Romans and his role in the chaotic succession crisis of the Sasanian Empire. It mentions:

His key role in brokering peace between Persia and Rome.

His independent governance in Egypt, separate from the Sasanian central authority.

🔹 Significance:
This confirms that Šahrwarāz was operating with near-autonomous authority at the time, making a diplomatic engagement with the Prophet ﷺ a realistic possibility.

Conclusion: External Sources Support the Islamic Narrative

Šahrwarāz was actively engaging in diplomacy with foreign powers during 628–629 CE.

Sebeos, Theophanes, and Nikephoros confirm his dealings with Heraclius.

Al-Ṭabarī and Persian traditions show he ruled Egypt independently at this time.

He was politically pragmatic and opportunistic.

His betrayal of Xusrō II and alliance with Rome demonstrate that he prioritized realpolitik over ideological considerations.

His cautious yet diplomatic response to the Prophet’s ﷺ letter aligns with his established behavior.

He did not reject the letter outright (unlike Xusrō II tearing the letter).

He sent gifts instead, mirroring Persian diplomatic customs.

Thus, the Islamic tradition of Šahrwarāz’s engagement with the Prophet ﷺ fits perfectly into the broader historical context of his known diplomatic activities.

The Gifts: A Reflection of Persian, Not Christian, Diplomatic Norms

The nature of the gifts sent by Šahrwarāz in response to the Prophet’s ﷺ letter is crucial in determining his identity and intentions. The most notable gifts included:

Māriyah and Shīrīn – Two high-status concubines.
A white mule (al-Duldul) – A prestigious mount.
A donkey (ʿAfīr) – A practical animal for travel.
A horse (al-Lazzāz) – A valuable warhorse.
A eunuch (Mābūr) – A trusted palace servant.
Gold and fine garments – Symbols of wealth and status.

These gifts align far more with Sasanian diplomatic customs than with the practices of a Christian patriarch like Cyrus of Alexandria. Below, we analyze why these offerings fit a Persian governor’s mindset rather than a Christian religious leader’s.

1. The Concubines: A Persian and Elite Tradition

A. Concubinage in Persian vs. Christian Culture

Concubinage was a well-established practice among Persian elites, including the Sasanian royal court and military commanders. In contrast, Christian doctrine had strongly opposed concubinage for centuries, making it highly improbable that a Christian patriarch would gift slave-women.

Sasanian Practice:

Persian kings and nobles kept extensive harems filled with high-status concubines.
Captured women, particularly from war or diplomatic gifts, were commonly integrated into royal and noble households.
The Shāhnāma and other sources describe Persian rulers receiving Arab, Roman, and Indian concubines as diplomatic gifts.

Christian Practice:

The Church condemned concubinage, and Christian law, dating back to Constantine I (r. 306–337 CE), forbade it.
Roman society did not practice unrestricted concubinage as the Persians or later Muslims did.
Christian clergy would never offer concubines as gifts, as it would be considered a severe moral transgression.

🔹 Conclusion: The gift of concubines aligns perfectly with Persian diplomatic customs but is entirely inconsistent with Christian traditions.

2. The Mounts: Horses, Mules, and Donkeys in Persian Diplomacy

A. The Prestige of Equine Gifts in Persia

The horse (al-Lazzāz), mule (al-Duldul), and donkey (ʿAfīr) were prestigious diplomatic gifts in Persian, Arab, and Roman traditions. However, their specific use in Persian culture makes this another clear sign of Šahrwarāz’s involvement.

Persian Royal Tradition:

Persian kings and nobles prized warhorses, often exchanging them as diplomatic gifts.
The Sasanians bred some of the finest cavalry horses in the Near East.
White mules were rare and highly valued, often used by governors and generals for ceremonial purposes.

Christian Perspective:

The Romans also valued horses but were not known for gifting mules and donkeys.
In Christian tradition, mules were often beasts of burden, rather than diplomatic gifts.
A Christian patriarch would not be expected to send an animal gift meant for a ruler or warrior.

🔹 Conclusion: The Persians commonly gifted elite horses and mules, while a Christian bishop would have no reason to do so. This again supports Šahrwarāz as the sender.

3. The Eunuch Slave (Mābūr): A Palace Administrator

Eunuchs played a central role in Persian court life, but their presence was rare in Christian circles and non-existent among Christian clergy.

Sasanian Role of Eunuchs:

Eunuchs were key figures in the Persian royal court, managing harems and administrative affairs.
They were frequently sent as gifts to foreign courts, where they served as trusted advisors or chamberlains.
Persian governors, including Šahrwarāz, would have had eunuchs among their servants.

Christian View on Eunuchs:

While some eunuchs held positions in the imperial palace of Constantinople, the Christian Church did not employ them as gifts.
The idea of a Christian patriarch sending an enslaved eunuch would have been highly inappropriate.

🔹 Conclusion: The gift of a eunuch aligns with Persian customs but not with Christian practices, further proving that Šahrwarāz, not a patriarch, sent the gifts.

4. Gold and Fine Garments: Symbols of Persian Diplomacy

Gold and high-quality textiles were standard diplomatic gifts in Persian tradition. The Sasanian court was famous for its luxurious silk and brocade garments, which were often exchanged as signs of goodwill.

Persian Diplomatic Norms:

The Sasanian Empire was one of the wealthiest civilizations of its time.
Gold and silk garments were symbols of status, often given to envoys and allies.
Persian governors, including Šahrwarāz, had access to these resources.

Christian Patriarchs & Monastic Simplicity:

Christian bishops and patriarchs followed a tradition of asceticism, avoiding excessive wealth.
While Roman emperors used gold and silk diplomatically, a Christian patriarch offering such luxury would be highly unusual.

🔹 Conclusion: The lavish nature of the gifts reflects Persian diplomatic practices, rather than the humility associated with Christian clergy.

Final Conclusion: Why These Gifts Confirm Šahrwarāz as the Sender

Every aspect of the gifts points to a Sasanian Persian origin, not a Christian one.

Gift Type	Persian Origin	Christian Improbability
Concubines	Common in Sasanian diplomacy	Forbidden in Christian practice
Eunuchs	Palace administrators and court servants	Rare in Christian society, never diplomatic tools
Horses & Mules	High-status Persian diplomatic gifts	Not a known Christian tradition
Gold & Garments	Symbols of Persian prestige	Contradict Christian monastic values

Why Did Šahrwarāz Send These Gifts?

Diplomatic Neutrality – He could not antagonize the Prophet ﷺ, but he also could not publicly support him.
Persian Custom – Sending gifts was a standard Sasanian way to acknowledge a foreign power without submitting to it.
Political Uncertainty – Šahrwarāz was already negotiating with Heraclius, and the Sasanian Empire was collapsing.
Maintaining Authority – By responding with lavish gifts rather than rejection, he avoided unnecessary conflict with a rising power.

Why Would a Christian Patriarch Not Send These Gifts?

Concubines were forbidden in Christian law.
Eunuchs were not diplomatic tools in Christian circles.
Christian leaders did not exchange animals as political gifts.
Luxury gifts contradict Christian monastic values.

Thus, the nature of the gifts is definitive proof that Šahrwarāz—not a Christian bishop—responded to the Prophet’s ﷺ letter.

Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s Meeting with Šahrwarāz in Alexandria: A Historically Accurate Reconstruction

Having critically analyzed all available Islamic, Roman, and Persian sources, while filtering out embellishments and anachronisms, we can now reconstruct the most historically plausible version of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s meeting with Šahrwarāz in Alexandria (c. 628 CE).

This reconstruction maintains the core details of the event while adhering to Sasanian diplomatic customs, Persian political realities, and Šahrwarāz’s known character.

Ḥāṭib’s Arrival in Alexandria

In 628 CE, as the Sasanian Empire faced internal collapse, Šahrwarāz ruled Egypt as a semi-autonomous Persian governor. His forces had controlled the region since 619 CE, but by this time, he was already in secret negotiations with Heraclius, seeking to secure his own position amid Persia’s disintegration.

Into this fragile political climate arrived Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah, the envoy of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, carrying a letter calling upon Šahrwarāz to embrace Islam.

Ḥāṭib entered Alexandria, where he was received with strict diplomatic protocol by Sasanian officials, who ensured he waited for several days before an audience was granted. This was standard Persian practice, especially when dealing with envoys from powers that were not yet formally recognized as equals.

During this time, he was accommodated as an honored guest but kept under observation, as the Persians sought to assess his political importance.

The Meeting with Šahrwarāz

Finally, Ḥāṭib was summoned to an audience with Šahrwarāz, who received him in the Persian governor’s palace in Alexandria. The setting would have reflected Sasanian court traditions, with military officers and Persian bureaucrats present.

Ḥāṭib presented the Prophet’s ﷺ letter, which called on Šahrwarāz to accept Islam and submit to divine authority.

Šahrwarāz listened attentively but remained diplomatic and measured in his response, he would have responded strategically, rather than emotionally. Unlike Xusrō II, who tore the Prophet’s ﷺ letter, Šahrwarāz was far more pragmatic, Šahrwarāz, following Persian diplomatic customs, sent gifts to the Prophet ﷺ. These included:

Two high-status Coptic concubines (Māriyah and Sīrīn).
A white mule (al-Duldul) – A prestigious mount for travel.
A donkey (ʿAfīr) – A practical gift for desert journeys.
A warhorse (al-Lazzāz) – A valuable Persian-style cavalry horse.
A eunuch servant (Mābūr) – A trusted palace administrator.
Fine garments and gold – Standard Persian diplomatic offerings.

These gifts were not a sign of submission, but a way to maintain neutral and possibly favorable relations with a rising power. They were entirely consistent with Sasanian customs, which often used lavish gifts to avoid outright alliances or confrontations.

Šahrwarāz also ordered the letter to be sealed in an ivory case and stored carefully, treating it with respect—another sign of his calculated diplomatic approach.

Ḥāṭib’s Departure from Alexandria and the Fate of Šahrwarāz

After receiving Šahrwarāz’s reply and gifts, Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah remained in Alexandria for several days under Persian hospitality. Unlike most foreign emissaries, who often waited weeks for an audience, Ḥāṭib’s swift reception suggests that Šahrwarāz viewed diplomatic ties with the Prophet ﷺ as a matter of strategic importance.

During his stay, Ḥāṭib was likely housed in one of Alexandria’s Persian-controlled administrative residences, treated with respect but also kept under watch by Sasanian officials. The governor’s court would have closely monitored his interactions—not out of fear of the local Egyptian population, but because Šahrwarāz was navigating a precarious political situation.

By this time, Šahrwarāz’s position in Egypt was tenuous at best. His relations with Heraclius were deepening, and the Sasanian Empire was on the verge of collapse following the execution of Xusrō II in 628 CE. Aware that the Prophet’s ﷺ power was rising in Arabia, Šahrwarāz could not afford outright hostility toward this emerging force, nor could he afford open allegiance. Thus, his non-committal yet respectful reply and the lavish gifts were his way of acknowledging Islam’s growing influence while preserving his own political flexibility.

Before Ḥāṭib departed, Šahrwarāz ensured that he was escorted safely out of Egypt by a detachment of Persian guards, following Sasanian diplomatic protocol. This safe passage ensured that no harm would come to the Prophet’s ﷺ envoy on his journey back to the Arabian Peninsula.

Upon returning to Madīnah, Ḥāṭib delivered the gifts and Šahrwarāz’s response to the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ, after receiving the gifts, remarked:

"The wretched man clung to his kingdom, but his rule will not last."

These words would prove prophetically accurate—within 2 years, Šahrwarāz would be dead, having briefly seized the Persian throne, only to be assassinated in a brutal coup.

The Fall of Šahrwarāz: Betrayal and Death

In April 630 CE, shortly after his secret negotiations with Heraclius, Šahrwarāz betrayed the Sasanian royal family by seizing the throne for himself. He orchestrated the assassination of the young king Ardaxšir III, a boy who had been placed on the throne following the death of his father, Kawad II.

This act was deeply unpopular—not only was Šahrwarāz not of royal blood, but his rise was seen as an illegal usurpation, his seizure of power was viewed as a violation of Sasanian legitimacy, triggering a backlash from the nobility and military elite.

One of his greatest mistakes was alienating the Sasanian court and aristocracy. Unlike past Persian rulers who had support from powerful noble houses, Šahrwarāz had no backing from the great families of Persia, making his rule inherently unstable.

His reign lasted only forty days. On June 9, 630 CE, while making an inspection of the imperial guards, he was assassinated by his own men.

How Did Šahrwarāz Die?

Different sources provide slightly varied but consistent accounts of his violent end:

🔹 Al-Ṭabarī's Account (Based on Persian Court Records)

Three Persian officers, led by Fus Farrukh, son of Māh Khurshidhan, conspired against him.

When Šahrwarāz rode out to review the royal guards, his own men attacked him with spears.

After he fell from his horse, they tied a rope around his leg and dragged his body through the streets.

High-ranking Persian officials, including Zadhan Farrukh and Mahyay, supported the coup and executed all those involved in Ardaxšir III’s murder.

🔹 The Syriac Chronicle of Khuzistan (c. 661 CE)

It confirms the timeline of his reign (forty days) and states that Šahrwarāz was struck from behind with a spear.

After he collapsed, he was trampled by the people, a sign of widespread hatred toward him.

🔹 Sebeos’ Account (Armenian Source - c. 661 CE)

Šahrwarāz dressed in royal robes and rode out to inspect his troops, attempting to assert his authority.

Suddenly, his own men turned on him from behind, stabbing him to death on the spot.

Each of these accounts highlights a common pattern—Šahrwarāz was murdered by his own forces, suggesting that his rule was never truly accepted, and his betrayal of the Sasanian dynasty sealed his fate.

Conclusion: A Turning Point in History, A Prophetic Warning Fulfilled

The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ words, “The wretched man clung to his kingdom, but his rule will not last,” proved to be a prophetic and accurate foreshadowing of Šahrwarāz’s brief and tragic reign. His desperate bid to retain power saw him betray Persia’s ruling family, lacking both noble and military support. This fatal mistake led to his downfall—his own soldiers turned on him in a brutal coup, and less than a year after receiving the Prophet’s ﷺ letter, Šahrwarāz was assassinated. His name was added to the long list of Sasanian rulers who perished amid the empire’s unraveling.

By the end of 630 CE, Persia had descended into a fragmented, leaderless realm, setting the stage for the Islamic conquests that would irrevocably reshape the region. This moment marked not just the demise of an individual, but the beginning of a new geopolitical era.

This reconstruction of events aligns with the historical contexts of Persia, Rome, and the emerging Islamic world. Stripping away embellishments, we uncover the reality of Šahrwarāz’s encounter with the Prophet’s ﷺ envoy. Rather than as a potential convert, Šahrwarāz engaged with the Prophet’s message as a calculating general, managing an empire in decline. His response was a diplomatic maneuver—acknowledging the message but avoiding any commitment. The gifts he sent were not an act of submission, but a continuation of Persian political strategy.

The return of Ḥāṭib to Madīnah marked a critical recognition of the Islamic state as a rising power. More significantly, the Prophet ﷺ’s prediction about Šahrwarāz’s doomed rule proved to be eerily accurate, underscoring the spiritual and political insight that guided the Prophet’s ﷺ actions. What seemed to be a mere episode of religious outreach was, in reality, a pivotal geopolitical moment at the crossroads of three great civilizations: Persia, Rome, and the emerging Islamic world.

THE END

Works Cited

-

Primary Sources

Ibn Kathīr, Abū al-Fidāʾ al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar). Al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah (The Beginning and the End). Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1966.

Abū Ṣāliḥ, the Armenian. The Churches & Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries. Translated by B. T. A. Evetts, notes by Alfred J. Butler, Clarendon Press, 1895.

Al-Jawzī, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. Al-Muntaẓim fī Tārīkh al-Umam wa-al-Mulūk. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā and Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā, Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1966.

Al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (The Lives of the Noble Figures). Edited by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dhahabī, 1st ed., Dār al-Maktabah al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995.

Al-Kaʿbī, Nāṣir, editor and translator. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam, 590–660 A.D. Gorgias Press, 2016.

Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik. The Prophetic Biography (Sīrah of Ibn Hishām). Translated by Muḥammad Mahdī al-Sharīf, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013.

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad ibn Saʿd ibn Munīʿ al-Zuhrī. Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā. Edited by ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿUmar, 1st ed., Maktabat al-Khānijī, 2001. 11 vols.

Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yaḥyā. ʿUyūn al-Athar fī Funūn al-Maghāzī wa-al-Shamāʾil wa-al-Siyar. Edited by Muḥammad al-ʿĪd al-Khaḍrāwī and Muḥyī al-Dīn Mītu, 1st ed., Dār al-Qalam, 1993.

Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk), Volume V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Translated and annotated by C. E. Bosworth, edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1999.

Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk), Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam. Translated and annotated by Michael Fishbein, edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1997.

Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, with assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Al-Ṣāliḥī al-Shāmī, Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf. Subul al-Hudā wa-al-Rashād fī Sīrat Khayr al-ʿIbād. Edited by ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd and ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ, 12 vols., Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1993.

Secondary Sources

Anthony, Sean W. Muhammad and the Empires of Faith: The Making of the Prophet of Islam. University of California Press, 2020.

Booth, Phil. “Egypt under the Sasanians (619–29): ‘Stability, Continuity, and Tolerance’?” Mélanges James Howard-Johnston, edited by Phil Booth and Mary Whitby, Travaux & Mémoires, vol. 26, 2022, pp. 233–258.

Brown, Jonathan A. C. Hadith: Muhammad’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, 2023.

Farridnejad, Shervin, and Touraj Daryaee, editors. Sasanian Studies: Late Antique Iranian World. Vols. 1–2, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2022–2023.

Fisher, Greg, editor. Arabs and Empires before Islam. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Fisher, Greg. Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Fortescue, Adrian. The Lesser Eastern Churches. Catholic Truth Society, 1913.

Fowden, Garth. Quṣayr ʿAmra: Art and the Umayyad Elite in Late Antique Syria. University of California Press, 2004.

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 Muhammad: A Historical Reconstruction. Claritas Books, 2021.

Hayward, Joel. The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad and War. Claritas Books, 2022.

Howard-Johnston, James. East Rome, Sasanian Persia, and the End of Antiquity: Historiographical and Historical Studies. Ashgate, 2006. Republished by Routledge, 2016.

Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Howard-Johnston, James. Witnesses to a World Crisis: Historians and Histories of the Middle East in the Seventh Century. Oxford University Press, 2010.

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.

Hoyland, Robert G. 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.

Jalalipour, Saeid. Persian Occupation of Egypt 619–629: Politics and Administration of Sasanians. e-Sasanika Graduate Paper 10, California State University, Fullerton, 2013.

Kaegi, Walter E. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Mirza, Sarah Z. Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet. Gorgias Press, 2022.

Mirza, Sarah Z. Oral Tradition and Scribal Conventions in the Documents Attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010.

Sanger, Patrick. “The Administration of Sasanian Egypt: New Masters and Byzantine Continuity.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 653–665.

Sarris, Peter. Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Sauer, Eberhard W., editor. Sasanian Persia: Between Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia. Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

Schoeler, Gregor. The Biography of Muḥammad: Nature and Authenticity. Translated by Uwe Vagelpohl, edited by James E. Montgomery, Routledge, 2011.

Schubert, Alexander T., and Petra M. Sijpesteijn, editors. Documents and the History of the Early Islamic World. Brill, 2015.

Silverstein, Adam J. Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Syvänne, Ilkka. The Military History of Late Rome: AD 602–641. Pen & Sword Military, 2022.

The Prophet’s Letters and the Late Antique World (PLAW) – III – The Egyptian Court and the Seal of the Prophets: The Letter to Al-Muqawqis

Who Was Al-Muqawqis? Examining the Arabic Sources

Criteria for Identifying Al-Muqawqis in the Arabic Sources

1. Ruler of Alexandria and Egypt in 628

2. Favorable and Diplomatic Reception of the Prophet’s Letter

3. Gifts Sent to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

The Political Context of Al-Muqawqis’s Rule

Transition to the Next Section

Cyrus of Alexandria: The Melkite Patriarch

Šahrwarāz: The Imperial Boar

Šahrwarāz in the Papyrological Record

Extensive evidence for Šahrwarāz’s rule over Egypt comes from Greek papyri and official documents bearing his seal:

Greek Papyri (Oxyrhynchus and Others)

Šahrwarāz’s Control of Egypt (619–629 CE)

Al-Muqawqis in Light of Šahrwarāz

Comparison Table: Who Better Fits the Profile of Al-Muqawqis?

Part II: The Historical Context of the Prophet’s Letter to Šahrwarāz

1. The Political Landscape in 628 CE: Persia, Rome, and Arabia

📌 The Fall of Xusro II and the Persian Civil War

📌 The Roman Reconquest of the Near East

📌 The Rise of Islam and the Prophet’s Diplomatic Mission

2. Why Did the Prophet ﷺ Send a Letter to Šahrwarāz?

The letter to Šahrwarāz (known in Islamic tradition as Al-Muqawqis) must be understood against this backdrop of collapsing imperial order and volatile loyalties. Though technically a Sasanian governor, Šahrwarāz was operating independently in Egypt by April 628 CE.

Strategic Motives:

3. Egypt Under Persian Rule: Šahrwarāz’s Fragile Authority

Šahrwarāz had governed Egypt and much of the Levant since the Persian conquests of the early 7th century. However, by 628, his grip on power was eroding.

📌 A Precarious Position

With Persia fractured, Šahrwarāz’s authority was increasingly insecure. Roman preparations to reoccupy Egypt threatened his autonomy and forced him into a delicate balancing act.

📌 Relations with Egypt’s Population

📌 The Response to the Prophet’s Letter

Conclusion: Diplomacy in a World on the Brink

The Messenger of the Letter: Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah

📌 Who Was Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah?

✅ Why Was Ḥāṭib Chosen for the Mission to Egypt?

📜 Ḥāṭib’s Journey with the Letter to Al-Muqawqis

💡 More Than a Courier

Stage I: Madinah – The Beginning of the Journey

However, after the migration (hijrah) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in 622 CE and the establishment of an Islamic government, the city became known as al-Madīnah al-Munawwara (“the Illuminated City”) or simply Madinah, marking a new era in its history.

By April 628 CE, Islam had secured a major diplomatic victory. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, signed a month earlier (March 628 CE), was a truce between the Muslims and Quraysh of Mecca, allowing the Prophet ﷺ to truly focus on diplomatic outreach beyond Arabia.

Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah’s mission to Egypt was one of the most critical of these diplomatic efforts, as Egypt was a key political and economic center under Persian rule.

Setting out on April 12, 628 CE, Ḥāṭib traveled northwest, following the Red Sea trade route—one of the most ancient and vital caravan paths in Arabia. This route was well-established and safe, ensuring access to water sources and settlements along the way.

Stage IV: Aila to Petra – Across Nabataean Lands

Stage V: Petra to Gaza – Entering the Coastal Road

Stage VI: Gaza to Raphia – The Last Levantine Outpost

📌 April 27, 628 CE – Raphia (رفح / 𐭧𐭥𐭦 / ܪܦܝܐ / Ῥαφία)

Stage VII: Crossing the Sinai Desert – The Arduous Trek

Stage IX: Through the Nile Delta – The Land of Pharaohs & Caesars

Stage X: Pelusium to Alexandria – Arrival in the Persian Capital of Egypt

The Messenger Speaks, The General Listens

I - بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

Key Differences from Xusrō II’s Court

II - من محمد بن عبد الله إلى المقوقس، عظيم القبط

"From Muhammad, the son of ʿAbdullāh, to Al-Muqawqis, the Great One of the Copts."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

III - سلام على من اتبع الهدى

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

IV - فإني أدعوك بداعية الإسلام ، أسلم تسلم ، وأسلم يؤتك الله أجرك مرتين

"I invite you to Islam. Accept Islam, and you will be safe, and God will grant you a double reward."

How Would Šahrwarāz Have Perceived This?

This phrase was a direct call to abandon previous beliefs, similar to the invitation sent to Xusrō II. However, Šahrwarāz's perception of this invitation would have differed significantly from that of Xusrō II, given his pragmatic approach to rule and his military background.

Šahrwarāz’s Diplomatic Dealings in External Sources

1. Armenian and Roman Sources: Šahrwarāz’s Political Maneuvering with Heraclius

A. Sebeos’ The Armenian History (7th century CE)

B. Theophanes’ Chronicle (9th century CE)

C. Nikephoros’ Short History (Early 9th century CE)

2. Persian and Islamic Sources: Šahrwarāz’s Complex Relationship with the Sasanian Court

A. Al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk (10th century CE)

B. The Shāhnāma (Ferdowsī, 11th century CE)

C. The Khuzistan Chronicle (7th century CE)

Conclusion: External Sources Support the Islamic Narrative

The Gifts: A Reflection of Persian, Not Christian, Diplomatic Norms

1. The Concubines: A Persian and Elite Tradition

A. Concubinage in Persian vs. Christian Culture

Sasanian Practice:

With Persia fractured, Šahrwarāz’s authority was increasingly insecure.

Roman preparations to reoccupy Egypt threatened his autonomy and forced him into a delicate balancing act.

**A. Al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh al-Rusul wa-l-Mulūk (10th century CE)**

**B. The Shāhnāma (Ferdowsī, 11th century CE)**

**C. The Khuzistan Chronicle (7th century CE)**