The Prophet’s Letters and the Late Antique World (PLAW) – IV – Across the Sea to Aksum: The Letter to the Negus
Across the Sea to Aksum: The Letter to the Negus
"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
By the dawn of the 7th century, the Aksumite Kingdom, once a dominant force in the Horn of Africa, stood at a crossroads. Situated at the nexus of ancient trade networks, it linked the African interior to the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the vast commercial hubs of the Indian Ocean world. For centuries, Aksum’s fleets and caravans carried ivory, gold, frankincense, and myrrh across the known world, fueling an economy that made its rulers among the wealthiest in late antiquity. However, by this period, Aksum’s maritime influence had begun to wane. Internal strife, shifting trade routes, and growing geopolitical pressures from both Persia and Rome placed the once-mighty kingdom in a precarious position. Yet, Aksum’s prestige as a Christian empire remained unshaken. With its monumental stelae, intricately decorated palaces, and a legendary connection to the Queen of Sheba and the Biblical King Solomon, Aksum was still regarded as a land of wealth and sanctuary.
Despite its declining fortunes, Aksum maintained a formidable presence in Red Sea politics, navigating an increasingly turbulent world. The rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula marked a transformative moment in the region’s history. Islamic sources recount that he Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sent diplomatic letters to the great rulers of his time—Heraclius of Rome, Xusro II of Persia, and the Negus of Aksum. Unlike the Persian king, who scornfully tore his letter apart, the Negus is said to have received the Prophet’s call with reverence. However, a crucial detail preserved in Sahih Muslim (1774) complicates this narrative: the Negus who received the letter was not the same ruler for whom the Prophet ﷺ later performed funeral prayers (ṣalāt al-janāza). This suggests that at least Aksumite rulers bore the title of Negus during the Prophet’s lifetime and that their identities may have been conflated over time.
The distinction between these rulers is significant. The Negus most frequently mentioned in early Islamic history—Ashamah—was the monarch who granted asylum to the Prophet’s followers during the First and Second Hijra to Abyssinia (615–616 CE). Defying pressure and bribes from the Quraysh, Ashama protected the Muslim refugees, prompting the Prophet to instruct his followers: "Leave the Abyssinians alone, as they leave you alone." However, if the letter sent in 628 CE was addressed to a different Negus, likely a successor, then the question of Aksum’s ongoing relationship with early Islam demands closer scrutiny.
Reconstructing the political landscape of Aksum during this period presents significant challenges. Ethiopian traditions place the Negus’s burial at Weqro, away from Aksum’s royal necropolis, suggesting that the capital had already lost its central political role by this time. Furthermore, reports of internal unrest, including a possible revolt against Ashama, hint at instability within the kingdom. If the Aksumite court was embroiled in succession disputes, this could explain why multiple rulers bore the title of Negus within a short period.
The numismatic record provides tantalizing insights into Aksum’s final rulers. Once a symbol of royal legitimacy, Aksumite coinage saw a sharp decline in the early 7th century. The latest known Aksumite king to issue coins was Armah, whose silver issues display Christian iconography, including crosses and architectural motifs that some scholars link to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. These coins, struck around 630 CE, coincide with the Roma recovery of the True Cross from the Persians—a major event in Christendom. Could Armah have been the Negus to whom the Prophet’s letter was addressed?
Aksumite rulers frequently adopted multiple names and throne titles, complicating efforts to match Islamic accounts with historical evidence. Islamic sources may have preserved a fusion of names and events spanning multiple generations of Aksumite rulers, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact recipient of the Prophet’s letter.
We must adopt a forensic approach to separate myth from history, piecing together numismatic data, historical chronicles, and archaeological findings. The convergence of Islamic narratives, Ethiopian traditions, and Aksumite coinage raises critical questions: Was Ashamah truly the Negus who received the Prophet’s letter, or was it his successor Armah? Who even was Ashama? Did the Aksumite ruler’s response reflect genuine religious conviction, or was it a calculated diplomatic maneuver? And how did Aksum’s internal struggles shape its relationship with the emerging Islamic state?
This blog seeks to reassess the identity of the Negus by critically examining historical sources, Ethiopian and Islamic traditions, and the final phases of Aksumite coinage. Rather than accepting inherited narratives at face value, we will strive to untangle them—reconstructing the twilight of Aksum’s golden age and shedding new light on a pivotal chapter in early Islamic history.
Who Was the Negus? Reexamining the Arabic Sources
To understand the identity of the Negus (Najāshī) to whom the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ sent a letter, we must first examine the Arabic sources that provide key descriptions of his interactions with early Islam. Islamic tradition records that two Aksumite rulers bore the title of Negus during the Prophet’s lifetime, leading to centuries of debate regarding their individual roles in Islamic history. Below, we analyze the historical evidence that differentiates these two rulers.
The Testimony of Ibn al-Qayyim: Two Neguses, Two Legacies
The renowned scholar Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH / 1350 CE), in his work Zād al-Maʿād, makes a critical distinction between the two Neguses:
"The first of them was ʿAmr ibn Umayya al-Ḍamrī, whom the Prophet ﷺ sent to the Negus, whose name was Ashamah....He honored the Prophet’s letter, accepted Islam, and bore witness to the truth. He was among the most learned of people in the Gospel. The Prophet ﷺ performed funeral prayers for him when he died in Abyssinia. This is what a group of scholars, including al-Wāqidī and others, have stated. However, this is not the case. The Negus for whom the Prophet ﷺ performed funeral prayers was not the same one to whom he sent the letter. The latter’s Islam is unknown, whereas the former died a Muslim." (Zād al-Maʿād)
This passage highlights a crucial point: the Negus who protected the early Muslim emigrants and granted them asylum was not the same ruler who received the Prophet’s letter in 628 CE. Instead, two distinct rulers bore the title "Negus" during this era, and their identities have been merged in later traditions.
The Narration of Anas ibn Mālik: A Call to Kings
The companion Anas ibn Mālik further corroborates this distinction in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (1774):
"The Messenger of God ﷺ sent letters to Xusro, Caesar, and the Negus, and to every great ruler, inviting them to God. However, this was not the same Negus for whom the Prophet ﷺ performed funeral prayers." (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb al-Jihād wa al-Siyar)
This narration makes it clear that the Negus who received the letter was a later ruler, separate from the earlier Negus who had embraced Islam and protected the early Muslims.
The Case for Two Neguses in Musnad Aḥmad
Further support for this distinction comes from Musnad Aḥmad, where the Prophet ﷺ states:
"I sent a letter to the Negus, and he tore it apart—so God tore apart his kingdom."
A companion, Ibn Khuthaym, was then asked about the contradiction:
"Wasn’t the Negus a Muslim? Didn’t the Prophet ﷺ inform his companions in Medina of his passing and perform funeral prayers for him?"
Ibn Khuthaym replied:
"Yes, that was so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. But this (the one who tore the letter) was someone else."
These narrations confirm that two distinct Aksumite rulers bore the title of Negus during the Prophet’s lifetime. The first, Ashamah, ruled during the First Hijra (615–616 CE), granted asylum to the early Muslims, and embraced Islam before his death. The second, likely Armah, ruled at the time of the Prophet’s letter (628 CE), rejected the message, and saw his kingdom decline soon after.
Was Ashamah Also Ella Gabaz? Examining the Evidence
Introduction
The identity of the Aksumite ruler who corresponded with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has been a subject of scholarly debate. Islamic sources name him Ashamah (أصحمة), while Aksumite numismatic and historical records refer to a ruler known as Ella Gabaz. This article explores the linguistic, historical, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence to determine whether Ashama and Ella Gabaz were, in fact, the same person.
1. The Name "Ashama" (أصحمة) in Linguistic and Epigraphic Context
Pre-Islamic Attestation of the Name "ʾṢḤM" in Safaitic Epigraphy
A significant piece of evidence for the authenticity of the name "Ashama" comes from the Safaitic inscription C 4211, discovered in Wādī Rušaydah, near al-Rušaydah in modern-day Syria. The inscription, dated to the pre-Islamic period, reads:
Transliteration:
{l} ʾs¹ bn mʿ---- w {w}gm ʿ(l-) ʾṣḥm
Translation:
{By} ʾs¹ son of Mʿ---- and {he grieved} {for} ʾṣḥm
This inscription proves that ʾṢḤM (أصحم) was a personal name used in pre-Islamic Arabia and was not a later Islamic-era fabrication. The phrase "wgm ʿl- ʾṣḥm" ("he grieved for ʾṢḤM") suggests that it refers to a deceased person, further affirming its use as a name.
The presence of "ʾṢḤM" in North Arabian Safaitic script supports the idea that the name existed independently of Islamic sources and could have been known in both Arabian and Ethiopian traditions due to extensive Aksumite-Arabian interactions.
Arabic Dictionary Definitions of ʾṢḤM (أصحمة)
The root ʾṢḤM (أصحمة) appears in classical Arabic lexicons with various meanings:
Color Descriptions:
سواد إلى صفرة (blackness with a tinge of yellow)
غبرة إلى سواد قليل (dustiness with slight blackness)
حمرة وبياض (redness mixed with whiteness)
صفرة في بياض (yellowish-white)
بلدة صَحْماءُ (a dusty or discolored land)
Natural Phenomena:
اصْحامَّ النَّبْتُ (iṣḥamma an-nabt): When plants turn dark green before becoming yellow.
اصْحامَّ الأرضُ (iṣḥammat al-arḍ): When vegetation withers due to drought.
اصْحامَّ الزَّرْعُ (iṣḥamma az-zarʿ): When crops begin to dry up due to cold weather.
These meanings reinforce the idea that ʾṢḤM was a name associated with color, natural cycles, and transformation—concepts relevant to royal and religious imagery.
Possible Ge‘ez and South Arabian Origins of ʾṢḤM
Despite the attestation of ʾṢḤM in Safaitic inscriptions, the name does not appear in standard Ge‘ez lexicons, suggesting it was not originally a native Ge‘ez word. However, its phonetic structure aligns with South Arabian and Semitic naming traditions, indicating possible linguistic diffusion across the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa, the structure of "ʾṢḤM" (أصحمة) follows patterns found in South Arabian and Semitic linguistic traditions:
- ʾ (𐩱) corresponds to Arabic ʾalif (ا) and Ge‘ez ʾälef (አ).
- Ṣ (𐩮) corresponds to Arabic ṣād (ص) and Ge‘ez ṣädä (ጸ), used in South Arabian languages.
- Ḥ (𐩢) corresponds to Arabic ḥāʾ (ح) and Ge‘ez ḥä (ሐ), a root often associated with life, favor, or divine attributes.
- M (𐩣) corresponds to Arabic mīm (م) and Ge‘ez mä (መ), a common suffix in Semitic names.
This phonetic breakdown suggests that ʾṢḤM could have originated as a South Arabian or proto-Ethiopic name.
Aksumite royal names frequently exhibited South Arabian elements due to centuries of close cultural, religious, and economic exchanges between Aksum and Yemen. South Arabian inscriptions, such as those from Saba and Himyar, demonstrate extensive linguistic overlap with early Ge‘ez, supporting the idea that ʾṢḤM could have been a borrowed name that entered the Aksumite lexicon through trade, migration, or political ties.
For instance:
- The Aksumite king Ella Amida (እላ አሚዳ) ruled during a time of strong interaction with South Arabian polities.
- The Ge‘ez script itself derives from South Arabian musnad script, illustrating deep linguistic ties.
- Aksumite rulers frequently adopted South Arabian throne names, reinforcing the idea that a name like ʾṢḤM could have been introduced through cultural contact rather than native Ge‘ez origins.
Geographical Considerations: The Distance Between Suwaydāʾ and Aksum
The Safaitic inscription C 4211, attesting to the name ʾṢḤM, was found in Suwaydāʾ (32.8°N, 36.8°E), a region in modern-day southern Syria. This location is more than 2,000 km north of Aksum (14°7′15″N, 38°43′40″E), raising the question of how a name found in northern Arabia could be linked to an Aksumite king.
Key factors suggest that the name ʾṢḤM could have traveled between Arabia and Aksum through established networks:
- Nabataean and Himyarite Trade Routes: Suwaydāʾ was located near major trade routes connecting South Arabia, the Levant, and the Red Sea ports, including Aksum. These trade corridors facilitated the exchange of goods, people, and names across vast distances.
- Aksumite Presence in Arabia: By the early 6th century, Aksumite forces controlled Yemen under Abraha, leading to increased interaction between Aksum and Arabia. This political and military presence ensured a strong cultural and linguistic influence in the region.
- Arabian Mercenaries and Diplomacy: Aksum often recruited Arabian tribes as allies or mercenaries, making it likely that names were transmitted across regions. Arabian auxiliaries served in Aksumite military campaigns and were part of diplomatic missions involving Rome, Persia, and local Arabian polities.
- Migration and Cultural Interaction: Northern Arabs, including the Kindites and Lakhmids, had strong ties with both South Arabia and Aksum, facilitating the spread of linguistic elements. These groups, often acting as intermediaries, contributed to the transmission of names and cultural influences between regions.
Thus, while the Safaitic inscription is geographically distant from Aksum, its linguistic connection suggests that ʾṢḤM was a name in circulation across a broad region, possibly originating in South Arabia before appearing in both Arabian and Aksumite contexts.
The Role of Abraha in Aksumite-Arabian Relations
The reign of Abraha (c. 530–570 CE) is crucial in understanding the transmission of names, power dynamics, and the influence of Aksum in Arabia. Abraha's rule over Yemen strengthened Aksum's ties to the Arabian Peninsula and reinforced Aksumite presence along key trade and political routes.
Abraha's reign exemplifies the interconnectedness of Aksum and Arabia. Names, titles, and cultural influences flowed between regions through diplomacy, warfare, trade, and migration. The presence of ʾṢḤM in a Safaitic inscription from northern Arabia aligns with these historical interactions, reinforcing the idea that Aksumite names and titles were known and used beyond the Ethiopian highlands.
The geopolitical shifts following Abraha's death marked the decline of Aksumite power in Arabia but not the end of its influence. The legacy of Aksumite rule persisted through the continued exchange of goods, people, and ideas between Africa and Arabia.
Thus, the name ʾṢḤM, while appearing in an inscription far from Aksum, is consistent with the broader historical and cultural exchanges between these regions.
Aksumite kings traditionally held both a personal name and a throne name, a practice rooted in their royal and religious authority. The throne name "Ella Gabaz" (እላ ጋባዝ) follows this convention and is best translated as "He who protects" or "He who provides." Given that the Aksumite king who received the early Muslim refugees was seen as a benevolent and just ruler, this name aligns well with his historical role.
Aksumite Throne Name Conventions
Many Aksumite rulers adopted throne names that emphasized divine favor, strength, and protection. Some prominent examples include:
- Ella Asbeha (እላ አስበሀ) → "He who brings the dawn"
- Ella Amida (እላ አሚዳ) → "He who strengthens"
- Ella Gabaz (እላ ጋባዝ) → "He who protects"
The Ge‘ez root "g-b-z" (ጋብዝ) carries meanings related to protection, tribute collection, and offering, making it an appropriate title for a ruler known for his generosity and asylum policies. Additionally, the Aksumite cathedral of St. Mary of Zion was known as "Gabaza Aksum" (Protecting Aksum), suggesting a possible ideological or religious link between the king’s name and the city’s sacred status.
Ashama = Ella Gabaz?
If the ruler Ashamah was indeed an Aksumite king, then it is likely that "Ashama" was his personal name, while "Ella Gabaz" was his throne name, following the Aksumite naming tradition. This dual naming convention would explain why Islamic sources refer to him by his personal name while numismatic and Ethiopian records mention his royal title.
3. Numismatic and Historical Evidence
Numismatic Links Between Ashama and Ella Gabaz
Research by Wolfgang Hahn and earlier studies by Stuart Munro-Hay have provided critical insights into Aksumite coinage and its rulers. Key numismatic evidence linking Ella Gabaz to the early 7th century includes:
Refining the Numismatic Sequence
Hahn’s reanalysis of Aksumite coinage suggests a necessary reordering of throne names based on typology and secret marks:
These findings significantly strengthen the case for identifying Ashamah with Ella Gabaz, as numismatic evidence places Ella Gabaz in the exact timeframe when Ashama is said to have ruled.
4. Historical and Political Context: Aksum’s Role in the 7th Century
Aksum’s Last Coin-Issuing Kings
Aksumite coinage gradually declined in the early 7th century, with the last known issuers being:
Ella Gabaz (Early 610s – February 630 CE)
- Likely identical to Ashamah, the righteous Negus who protected the Muslims.
- Issued silver coinage (H.69) featuring Christian iconography linked to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
- His reign aligns with Aksum’s gradual decline but still had held influence over Red Sea trade routes.
-
Armah (March 630 CE – Late 630s / 640s CE)
- Succeeded Ella Gabaz (Ashama) in early 630 CE, likely his son.
- Issued silver coinage (H.71) celebrating the restoration of the True Cross (March 630 CE) under Emperor Heraclius.
- Received and rejected the Prophet’s letter, which was later referenced in 630 CE at Tabūk.
- His reign marked the final phase of Aksumite power, with a sharp decline in international influence and trade.
-
The End of Aksumite Coinage (~Mid-7th Century CE, c. 650 CE)
- Armah’s coinage was among the last issued Aksumite coins before the disappearance of Aksumite monetary production.
- Aksum’s capital was possibly abandoned in the mid-7th century, coinciding with Islamic expansion altering the Red Sea trade.
- Political fragmentation led to the gradual decline of the kingdom, with the rise of regional warlords replacing central Aksumite authority.
This suggests that Ella Gabaz ruled just before or during the time of the first Hijra (615–628 CE), making him the most likely candidate for the "Negus" who granted asylum to the early Muslims.
The Broader Political Landscape
The early 7th century was a time of intense geopolitical upheaval, with three major forces shaping the Near East:
It is within this context that the Negus protected the Muslims, likely viewing their migration as a strategic move to maintain influence over the Hijaz and Red Sea trade routes.
5. Conclusion: Ashamah = Ella Gabaz?
The combined linguistic, numismatic, and historical evidence strongly suggests that Ashama, the Negus who gave refuge to the early Muslims, can be identified with Ella Gabaz, an Aksumite ruler from the early 7th century. While no inscription explicitly names both together, the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence makes this identification highly compelling.
1️⃣ The Name "ʾṢḤM" (أصحم) Predates Islam
- The Safaitic inscription C 4211 confirms the existence of the name ʾṢḤM (Aṣḥama) before Islam, proving that it was neither an invention of later Islamic sources nor an exclusively Aksumite name.
- This name's presence in northern Arabia highlights the strong linguistic and cultural interactions between Arabs and Aksumites before and during the early 7th century.
2️⃣ "Ella Gabaz" Aligns with Ashama’s Historical Role
- The Aksumite throne name Ella Gabaz translates to "He who protects", which perfectly corresponds with Ashama's historical role as a protector of the early Muslim emigrants during the First Hijra (615 CE).
- This protective role was recognized by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who referred to the Negus as a just and righteous king—a description that aligns with the meaning of "Ella Gabaz."
3️⃣ Aksumite Kings Had Both Throne and Personal Names
- It was a common Aksumite practice for rulers to have both a personal name and a royal throne name—as seen with Kaleb (Ella Atsbeha) and other kings.
- This makes it highly plausible that "Ashama" was the Negus’s personal name, while "Ella Gabaz" was his royal title.
4️⃣ Numismatic Evidence Supports a 7th-Century Dating
- Coins bearing the name Ella Gabaz place his reign precisely in the early 7th century, which coincides with the period of the First Hijra and the Negus’s interactions with the Muslims.
- The fact that Ella Gabaz's reign aligns with Islamic historical sources describing the Negus of the Hijra strongly supports his identification as Ashama.
⚠ Absence of a Direct Inscription
- While no direct inscription explicitly links "Ashama" with "Ella Gabaz," the circumstantial evidence from linguistics, numismatics, and historical sources is overwhelmingly in favor of this conclusion.
- Given the fragmentary nature of Aksumite records, this gap is not unexpected but does not weaken the broader argument.
Final Assessment
Reassessing the Timeline: The Death of Ashamah and the Prophet's Letter to Aksum
The question of when Ashamah (Ella Gabaz) died has been subject to scholarly debate, with sources providing different interpretations. While some early historians, such as Al-Dhahabī, mention Rajab 9 AH (October 630 CE), the wording "فنقل بعض العلماء" ("Some scholars have reported") suggests this is a later scholarly estimation rather than an absolute date. Given the speed of communication between Aksum and Medina, numismatic evidence, and geopolitical events of the time, we can critically reassess this timeline.
Speed of Information Between Aksum and Medina
The travel time between Aksum and Medina depended on two primary routes:
-
Sea Route (Fastest Option):
- From Adulis (Aksum’s port) to Jeddah/Yanbu (~600–700 km by sea): 5–7 days.
- From Jeddah/Yanbu to Medina (~250–300 km by land): 5–7 days by camel.
- Total Estimated Time: 10–14 days.
-
Overland Route Through Yemen (Slower Option):
- Via Najrān and Mecca (~2,000 km total distance): ~40+ days.
Historical precedent suggests that diplomatic messages could travel within weeks. For example, the Prophet’s letter to Heraclius (628 CE) and the news of the Battle of Mu'tah (629 CE) reached Medina in about 10–15 days. Therefore, news of Negus’s death could have arrived in March or April 630 CE at the latest.
Numismatic Evidence: Armah and the Restoration of the True Cross
Wolfgang Hahn’s numismatic analysis provides a crucial clue:
- Armah’s silver coins (H.71) commemorate the restoration of the True Cross in March 630 CE.
- Since Armah was already issuing coins at this time, he must have been ruling by March 630 CE, meaning his predecessor, Ashama, had likely died before then.
This places Ashama’s death in February 630 CE (Safar 9 AH), allowing for an orderly transition of power and enough time for news to reach Medina.
The Prophet’s Funeral Prayer for Ashamah
As recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
"عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَعَى النَّجَاشِيَّ فِي الْيَوْمِ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيهِ وَخَرَجَ بِهِمْ إِلَى الْمُصَلَّى فَصَفَّ بِهِمْ وَكَبَّرَ عَلَيْهِ أَرْبَعَ تَكْبِيرَاتٍ." (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 1333, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 951)
Translation: "Abu Hurayrah reported that the Messenger of God ﷺ announced the death of the Negus on the very day he died. He then took them to the prayer area, arranged them in rows, and led them in four takbīrs over him."
This narration confirms that the Prophet ﷺ performed the funeral prayer immediately upon receiving the news. If Ashama had died in February 630 CE, and his death was confirmed in Medina by March or April 630 CE, the Prophet’s prayer for him in October 630 CE was likely a reaffirmation rather than an immediate response.
Resolving the Confusion Concerning the Negus' Conversion
The evidence from early Islamic texts strongly supports the claim that Ashamah (Ella Gabaz), the Negus of Aksum, secretly converted to Islam before his death. The Prophet ﷺ performed the funeral prayer (ṣalāt al-janāzah) for him, a privilege exclusively granted to Muslims. Several historical sources affirm his conversion, explaining why it remained undisclosed to his subjects, If the Negus of Aksum, Ashamah (Ella Gabaz), secretly converted to Islam, how could he have concealed this from his subjects, court, and even his closest servants? Given that he ruled a staunchly Christian kingdom, any public declaration of Islam would have been catastrophic. Below is an in-depth analysis of how he might have successfully maintained his Christian public persona while practicing Islam in secret.
Aksum was a Christian empire with deep ties to the Roman world and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Publicly converting to Islam would have:
Thus, the Negus had no option but to conceal his faith while outwardly maintaining Christian rule.
Controlling Information: How the Negus Kept His Faith Private
For the Negus’s Islam to remain a secret, he needed to carefully control who knew about it.
2.1. Restricting Access to His Personal Life
As an absolute monarch, the Negus had complete authority over his personal chambers. Unlike common people, his daily life was not always public:
2.2. Maintaining a Public Christian Persona: How the Negus Kept His Faith Concealed
For Ashamah (Ella Gabaz), the Negus of Aksum, concealing his Islam required an exceptional balancing act. He ruled over an empire that was deeply Christian, with an entrenched Miaphysite Orthodox clergy, close ties to the Roman world, and a longstanding role as a protector of Christianity in the Red Sea region. Any open declaration of Islam could have been disastrous, leading to rebellion, political instability, and loss of trade partnerships.
To avoid these risks while staying true to his new faith, the Negus maintained an outwardly Christian persona, ensuring that his public actions remained indistinguishable from those of a devout Christian ruler. By doing so, he shielded himself from scrutiny and preserved his throne while practicing Islam in secret.
Attending Church Services While Internally Adhering to Islam
One of the most critical ways the Negus maintained his Christian image was by continuing to attend church services.
This strategy of passive participation allowed him to remain outwardly Christian while internally holding Islamic beliefs.
Retaining Christian Court Rituals and Religious Festivals
The Negus had to ensure that his court life and public engagements reflected Christian traditions to avoid suspicion from the powerful Miaphysite clergy and nobility.
By keeping up appearances, he avoided potential rebellion from his own court and maintained control over his kingdom.
Issuing Christian-Themed Coins to Prevent Speculation
Aksumite kings issued gold and silver coins that bore Christian symbols particularly crosses and inscriptions glorifying Christ. Coinage was a crucial means of state propaganda, signifying the ruler’s legitimacy and religious alignment.
By preserving traditional coin designs, the Negus ensured that his subjects—and his foreign trade partners—remained unaware of his true faith.
Hiding His Faith from His Servants
Even the Negus’s closest personal attendants could have posed a risk if they detected his conversion. To prevent exposure:
✔ Using Trusted Muslim Attendants – Some of the early Muslim refugees who stayed in Aksum may have served in his personal court.
✔ Excusing Himself for Private Worship – Ethiopian kings often spent time alone in prayer and reflection. The Negus could have claimed religious solitude to perform ṣalāh.
✔ Timing His Prayers Discreetly – He could have prayed at night or during private hours, ensuring no one saw him.
✔ Modifying His Worship Style – Ethiopian Christian prayer already included prostration. If the Negus adapted his prayer posture subtly, his attendants might not have recognized the difference.
Thus, by carefully managing his inner circle, the Negus could have successfully hidden his Islam even from his personal staff.
Public Declarations of Christian Faith Without Compromising Islam
One of the most sophisticated ways the Negus may have hidden his Islam was by using ambiguous religious language. Historical Christian-Muslim encounters demonstrate that theological adaptability was a common survival strategy.
The Disputation between a Muslim and a Monk from Bēt Ḥālē (c. 720s CE), a debate between an East Syrian Christian monk and a Muslim notable, sheds light on how Christian rulers and scholars engaged with Islam without outright rejecting their faith.
The Negus could have used a similar approach:
By skillfully navigating religious discourse, the Negus could profess monotheism while avoiding outright confrontation with his Christian subjects.
The Prophet’s Ṣalāh for the Negus: A Final Proof of His Islam
The Prophet ﷺ performed ṣalāh al-janāzah (funeral prayer in absentia) for the Negus. This was an exclusive honor given only to Muslims:
This confirms that:
Conclusion: A Masterfully Executed Balancing Act
To remain undetected, the Negus had to carefully craft his public persona while holding Islamic beliefs in secret. He did so by:
Through this delicate balancing act, the Negus ensured that his kingdom remained stable, his throne secure, and his faith intact, proving that his conversion to Islam was not only possible but historically plausible.
The Messenger Who Delivered the Prophet’s ﷺ Letter to Aksum: ʿAmr ibn Umayya al-Ḍamrī
Among the Prophet Muḥammad’s ﷺ many envoys to foreign rulers, few combined daring, diplomacy, and survival instinct like ʿAmr ibn Umayya al-Ḍamrī. Tasked with delivering a personal letter to the Negus (al-Najāshī) of Aksum after the death of Ashamah (also known as Ella Gabaz), ʿAmr's mission marked a critical point in Islamic-Aksumite relations. No longer a routine gesture of diplomacy, this journey was a test of Abyssinia’s continued goodwill, the fate of the Muslim refugees still residing there, and the potential for a renewed alliance under a new Christian monarch.
1. His Background and Early Life
ʿAmr ibn Umayya ibn Khuwaylid ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Iyās, Abū Umayya al-Ḍamrī, hailed from the Banū Ḍamrah, a branch of Kinānah long associated with Quraysh and known for its neutrality in early tribal conflicts. His tribal background afforded him a network of protection and familiarity across the Red Sea trade routes and desert tracks of western Arabia.
Before accepting Islam, ʿAmr fought against the Prophet ﷺ:
-
He was present with the polytheists at Badr (624 CE) and Uḥud (625 CE), as noted by al-Dhahabī via Hārūn al-Ḥammāl.
-
However, after Uḥud, witnessing the unshakable resolve of the Muslims, he embraced Islam, according to Ibn Saʿd, and pledged his loyalty to the Prophet ﷺ.
-
His first battlefield appearance as a Muslim was at Biʾr Maʿūnah, a harrowing ambush that claimed the lives of many Companions.
-
Despite past opposition, he became one of the Prophet’s most daring and trusted envoys, regularly selected for high-risk missions involving both diplomacy and intelligence.
2. His Role as a Diplomat, Spy, and Soldier
The Prophet ﷺ frequently dispatched ʿAmr alone, knowing he had the wit and courage to operate behind enemy lines, assess rulers’ temperaments, and deliver critical messages. Al-Dhahabī records that:
-
He was entrusted with solo military raids (sarāyā), including covert expeditions behind enemy territory.
-
He participated in campaigns alongside the Prophet ﷺ, in both military and diplomatic capacities.
-
He was once nearly assassinated on a covert mission, yet survived by sheer resolve and sharp awareness.
-
He also narrated hadiths—one notable report describes the Prophet ﷺ eating from a shoulder of meat and praying without performing fresh ablution (as related by his son Jaʿfar ibn ʿAmr, through al-Zuhrī).
In another revealing anecdote preserved by Ibn Isḥāq and cited by al-Dhahabī, ʿAmr accompanied a man named ʿAlqamah ibn al-Fughwāʾ al-Khuzāʿī on a secret charitable mission. The Prophet ﷺ had instructed ʿAlqamah to take wealth to Abū Sufyān, still a pagan, to win over the Quraysh poor. When ʿAlqamah chose ʿAmr as his escort, the Prophet ﷺ cautioned him:
“Be wary of your brother from Banū Bakr. I have heard the saying: Your brother is the Bakrite—but never fully trust him.”
True to the Prophet’s warning, ʿAmr attempted to betray ʿAlqamah during the trip at al-Abwāʾ, a territory of Banū Ḍamrah, but the mission was saved by ʿAlqamah’s quick thinking. Yet, despite this blemish, ʿAmr remained loyal after his full conversion, and the Prophet ﷺ continued to entrust him with the most delicate of tasks—a sign that he ultimately proved himself worthy of that trust.
3. His Selection for the Aksum Mission
By early 630 CE, Islam had swept through much of the Arabian Peninsula, culminating in the Conquest of Mecca. But across the Red Sea in Aksum, change was underway. The long-standing friend of the Muslims, al-Najāshī Ashamah, had passed away. It was unclear if his successor would maintain the hospitality and protection Aksum had granted to Muslim refugees nearly a decade prior.
The Prophet ﷺ selected ʿAmr for this sensitive mission for several reasons:
3.1. Securing an Official Diplomatic Alliance
Though informal ties already existed, a formal alliance would ensure safe passage, religious tolerance, and possibly trade between Islam and Aksum.
3.2. Testing the New Negus’s Religious and Political Attitude
Ashamah had been a Christian monarch sympathetic to Islam, His successor’s disposition was a wild card.
3.3. Reaffirming the Prophet’s Message
Now ruling from a position of strength and expansion, the Prophet ﷺ sent his emissaries far and wide to invite neighboring rulers to Islam. The letter to Aksum included this invitation, cloaked in diplomacy but firm in its monotheistic call.
4. The Stages of the Journey to Aksum
The journey undertaken by ʿAmr ibn Umayya spanned hundreds of kilometers, crossing land and sea, and navigating dangerous frontiers. The route can be broken into four primary stages:
4.1. Stage I: Madinah – The Diplomatic Hub of Islam
📍 Madinah
-
The Prophet ﷺ himself handed the sealed letter to ʿAmr.
-
ʿAmr likely received detailed verbal instructions and perhaps provisions for the long journey.
-
He departed under the protection of Muslim territory—but it would not last long.
4.2. Stage II: Madinah to the Red Sea – The Desert Route to Yanbuʿ
📍 Yanbuʿ
-
ʿAmr traveled southwest through the Hejāz, covering about 160 km (100 miles) over 3–4 days.
-
Yanbuʿ was the main port of western Arabia, a thriving center for Red Sea traffic.
-
There, he arranged for a ship or private vessel to transport him across the sea.
4.3. Stage III: Crossing the Red Sea – From Arabia to Adulis
📍 Adulis (ዓዱሊስ)
-
The maritime voyage spanned 700 km (435 miles)—possibly stopping at Dahlak Islands or Zula Bay.
-
Adulis, Aksum’s coastal hub, was a melting pot of trade from India, Arabia, East Africa, and the Nile Valley.
-
From there, ʿAmr began his inland journey.
4.4. Stage IV: Adulis to Aksum – The Overland Trek
📍 Aksum (አክሱም)
-
Traveling roughly 250–300 km (155–185 miles) northward and uphill, ʿAmr crossed plateaus and forests.
-
Aksum was a seat of ancient monarchy, its landscape dotted with stone obelisks, churches, and royal compounds.
-
There, ʿAmr presented the Prophet’s ﷺ letter to the new Negus, whose name is unrecorded in Islamic sources.
ʿAmr’s bravery, his complicated past, and his final loyalty make him a compelling example of how Islam transformed former foes into emissaries of faith. From fighting the Muslims at Badr to delivering letters to African kings, his life journey mirrors the larger transformation of Arabia itself—from tribal division to united ummah.
The Audience with the Negus – A Crucial Turning Point
4.1. The Reception at the Aksumite Court
- ʿAmr refused to bow upon entering the royal court, stating:
“We do not treat our Prophet in such a manner.”
- The Negus was intrigued, saying:
“He spoke the truth, leave him”
“We do not treat our Prophet in such a manner.”
“He spoke the truth, leave him”
4.2. The Debate Over Jesus
- Aksumite clergy accused ʿAmr of blasphemy, demanding his view on Jesus.
- ʿAmr replied:
“He is the Word of God and His Spirit.”
- The Negus agreed, saying:
“Jesus could not be anything other than that.”
“He is the Word of God and His Spirit.”
“Jesus could not be anything other than that.”
This exchange mirrored Qurʾān 4:171, showing initial openness to Islam.
The Reception of the Prophet’s ﷺ Letter by the Negus
The Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ diplomatic letter to the Negus of Aksum (circa 630 CE) was a defining moment in early Islamic-Aksumite relations. Unlike Ashamah (Ella Gabaz), who had received the Prophet’s previous letters with respect, his successor reacted with hostility, tearing the letter apart. To understand why, we must analyze the letter’s content and the possible reactions of the new Negus to each sentence.
Below is a detailed reconstruction of the event and how each part of the letter may have been perceived by the Aksumite court.
I. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
“In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.”
Why Was This Potentially Problematic?
- The opening invocation—Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim—was deeply rooted in Islamic theology and distinct from Christian formulations.
- Aksum was a deeply Christian kingdom, adhering to Miaphysite Christianity, and the customary Christian diplomatic opening would have been “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
- To the new Negus, this opening may have signaled an ideological conflict rather than a diplomatic approach.
- It also implicitly challenged the legitimacy of Christian theological concepts by affirming a monotheistic declaration outside of the Christian Trinity.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: A sense of unease—this letter did not align with Christian diplomatic traditions.
II. من محمد رسول الله إلى النجاشي عظيم الحبشة
“From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to the Negus, the Great One of Abyssinia.”
Why Was This Controversial?
- The phrase “Messenger of God” (رسول الله) asserted the Prophet’s authority.
- Unlike Ashama, the new Negus did not have the same exposure to Islam and may have seen this as a direct challenge to Christian teachings, where no further prophets were accepted after Jesus Christ.
- The title “Great One of Abyssinia” (عظيم الحبشة) was respectful, but it did not include any Christian honorifics. In Roman and Aksumite diplomatic traditions, Christian rulers were addressed with religious titles such as “Servant of Christ” (عبد المسيح) or “By the Grace of God” (بنعمة الله).
- The absence of religious deference could have been perceived as an intentional omission, signaling that Muhammad ﷺ did not recognize the Christian framework of divine rulership.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Annoyance at the lack of Christian acknowledgment and the assertion of Muhammad’s prophethood.
III. سلام على من اتبع الهدى
“Peace be upon those who follow guidance.”
Why Was This Offensive?
- This universal greeting was common in Islamic diplomacy, but in the Aksumite context, it implied that true guidance was not necessarily found in Christianity.
- To a Christian ruler, this could be seen as an implicit suggestion that he was not on the correct path.
- The new Negus may have viewed this as condescending, as if Islam was offering him salvation he did not need.
- Aksumite rulers were often regarded as defenders of Christian orthodoxy, and any suggestion that they needed “guidance” would have been unwelcome.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Resentment—as a Christian ruler, he did not believe he needed external guidance.
IV. أما بعد، فإني أحمد إليك الله الذي لا إله إلا هو، الملك القدوس السلام المؤمن المهيمن
“After this, I praise to you God, the One besides whom there is no god, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Source of Peace, the Guardian.”
Why Was This Problematic?
- The theological declaration “There is no god but God” was a direct contradiction to the Nicene Creed, which affirmed Jesus Christ as divine.
- The names of God used here emphasized His sole dominion, implicitly rejecting the divinity of Christ.
- This statement may have sounded like a refutation of Christianity, which taught that Jesus was divine and part of the Trinity.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Suspicion—this sounded more like a religious correction than diplomatic engagement.
V. وأشهد أن عيسى بن مريم روح الله وكلمته ألقاها إلى مريم البتول الطيبة الحسنة
“I bear witness that ʿĪsā (Jesus), the son of Mary, is the spirit of God and His word, which He cast into Mary, the pure, chaste, and righteous virgin.”
Why Was This Sensitive?
- This partially agreed with Christian beliefs but reinterpreted them within an Islamic framework.
- The phrase “Spirit of God and His Word” was similar to Christian terminology but was being redefined in an Islamic context.
- The absence of any reference to Jesus as the Son of God was a major deviation from Aksumite Christian doctrine.
- To the Negus and his clergy, this might have appeared as an attempt to subtly redefine Christian beliefs under Islamic theology.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Conflicted—Islam seemed to acknowledge Jesus but denied his divine sonship.
VI. فحملت بعيسى من روحه ونفخه كما خلق آدم بيده
“She conceived Jesus from His spirit and breath, just as He created Adam with His own hand.”
Why Was This Provocative?
- This statement equated Jesus’ creation with that of Adam, which denied his divine status.
- Aksumite Christianity taught that Jesus was co-eternal with God, not created like Adam.
- The implication that Jesus was merely a created being was a direct theological challenge to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Outrage—this was heretical to Miaphysite Christians.
VII. وإني أدعوك إلى الله وحده لا شريك له والمولاة على طاعته
“I invite you to God alone, with no partner, and to allegiance in obedience to Him.”
Why Was This a Direct Challenge?
- The core of Islamic monotheism directly opposed Christian Trinitarian beliefs.
- The phrase “with no partner” was an unmistakable rejection of Jesus as divine.
- To a ruler deeply connected to Roman Christian alliances, accepting this would be tantamount to apostasy.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Alarm—publicly accepting this could cost him his throne.
VIII. وإن تتبعني وتؤمن بالذي جاءني فإني رسول الله
“And if you follow me and believe in what has been revealed to me, for I am the Messenger of God.”
Why Was This Dangerous?
- This was an invitation to conversion, implying that Christianity was insufficient.
- To the Negus, accepting this would mean rejecting the authority of the Church, a move that could isolate Aksum from the Christian world.
➡️ Possible Reaction of the Negus: Fury—this was not just a diplomatic request but a call to abandon Christianity.
IX. وقد بلغت ونصحت فاقبلوا نصيحتي والسلام على من اتبع الهدى
“I have conveyed my message and given sincere advice, so accept my counsel. And peace be upon those who follow guidance.”
Why Was This the Final Insult?
- It suggested that the Prophet’s ﷺ message was final and binding.
- The conditional peace (“upon those who follow guidance”) implied that those who rejected Islam were in error.
- The Negus may have seen this as an attempt to place him under the Prophet’s authority, something no Christian king would accept.
➡️ Final Reaction of the Negus: He tore up the letter in anger, marking a decisive break between Aksum and Islam.
Conclusion: The Letter That Sealed Aksum’s Fate
The Prophet’s ﷺ letter was a test of faith for the new Negus, and he failed it. His rejection marked the turning point in Islamic-Aksumite relations. True to the Prophet’s prophecy, Aksum’s decline accelerated after this moment, eventually fading from the world stage.
5️⃣ Why Did the Negus Tear Up the Letter?
5.1. Pressure from the Aksumite Clergy and Church
- The Christian elite saw Islam as a threat and pressured the Negus.
5.2. The Need to Prove Loyalty to Christianity
- With the return of the True Cross to Jerusalem (March 630 CE), Aksum was reaffirming its Christian identity.
5.3. Fear of Internal Revolt
- If Ashamah had secretly accepted Islam, the new Negus needed to publicly reject it to secure his rule.
5.4. The Prophet’s ﷺ Response: A Divine Warning
When the Prophet ﷺ heard that the letter was torn, he declared:
“He tore up my letter—so God will tear up his kingdom.”
This prophecy was fulfilled within decades, as Aksum declined politically and economically.
6️⃣ The Consequences of the Mission
6.1. The Aftermath
✔ Aksum’s stance shifted from neutrality to mild hostility.
✔ The prophecy was fulfilled—Aksum’s decline began soon after.
6.2. The Historical and Prophetic Accuracy
✔ Trade disruptions weakened Aksum, isolating it from Arabian commerce.
✔ Numismatic evidence shows that Armah was the last major Aksumite ruler.
✔ The loss of naval control over the Red Sea sealed Aksum’s fate.
The Prophet ﷺ and the Final Diplomatic Exchange with Aksum
The diplomatic outreach of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ to the Negus of Abyssinia was one of the most significant engagements between early Islam and the Aksumite Empire. It marked the end of an era of Muslim-Aksumite relations, a chapter that had begun with the Hijrah to Abyssinia (615–616 CE) and culminated in the Prophet’s ﷺ final letter to the Negus in 630 CE. This mission, carried out by ʿAmr ibn Umayyah al-Ḍamrī, represents a moment of both opportunity and rejection—a diplomatic gesture that was met with hostility by the new ruler of Aksum.
📜 The Prophetic Method in Diplomacy
The Prophet ﷺ employed a meticulous diplomatic strategy, ensuring that his envoys were carefully selected and that his letters carried precise theological and political messages. This strategy was consistent with his broader outreach to world leaders, including Heraclius of Rome, Xusrō II of Persia, and al-Muqawqis of Egypt.
📌 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, in Fatḥ al-Bārī, explains the Prophet’s ﷺ diplomatic system:
"The Messenger of Godﷺ would send his military commanders, with one appointed for each expedition. He also dispatched envoys to rulers, sending one messenger to each king. His letters continued to be sent to his governors with commands and prohibitions, and none of his governors ever failed to execute his orders." (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 255)
📜 The Aksumite Rejection and Its Consequences
Unlike his predecessor Ashamah, who had shown sympathy toward Islam and converted, the new Negus of Aksum rejected the Prophet’s message and tore up his letter. This act of defiance prompted the Prophet ﷺ to declare:
"I wrote to the Negus, and he tore it up—so God tore up his kingdom."
This rejection had profound consequences for Aksum:
1️⃣ Religious Shifts in Aksum
🔹 The new Negus distanced Aksum from Islam, reinforcing Christian identity and realigning the kingdom with Christianity.
2️⃣ Aksum’s Declining Influence in the Red Sea
🔹 By 630 CE, Aksum’s dominance over the Red Sea trade routes was already under threat.
🔹 The rise of Muslim-controlled ports in Arabia, particularly in Mecca, Jeddah, and Aden, reduced Aksum’s control over maritime trade.
3️⃣ Fulfillment of the Prophetic Warning
🔹 The Prophet ﷺ warned that the kingdom of the Negus who rejected his letter would be torn apart.
🔹 By the mid-7th century, Aksum had lost its Red Sea supremacy and was retreating inland, no longer the dominant power it had once been.
📜 The Legacy of the Prophet’s Letter to Aksum
Despite its rejection, the Prophet’s letter to Aksum holds immense historical and theological significance:
The Prophet’s diplomatic efforts were not merely political, they were a part of a mission that reshaped world history. The consequences of this final exchange with Aksum serve as a reminder that the rejection of truth often leads to decline, while those who embrace it—like Bādhām of Persia or the tribes of Najrān—find themselves aligned with the unfolding destiny of Islam.
📜 Conclusion: The Closing of a Historic Chapter
Through divine wisdom and strategic diplomacy, the Prophet ﷺ reshaped the political and religious landscape of Arabia, the Red Sea, and beyond. The rejection of his message by Aksum was one of many pivotal moments that ultimately paved the way for the rise of Islam as a global civilization.
THE END
Works Cited
-
Primary Sources
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl. Sahīh al-Bukhārī (The Authentic Collection). 9 vols. Edited by Muhammad Fuwad Abdul-Baqi, 1st ed., Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1997. Print.
Al-Dhahabi, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad. Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (The Lives of the Noble Figures). Edited by ʿAbd al-Rahman al-Dhahabi, 1st ed., Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1995. Print.
Al-Mizzi, Jamal al-Din Abu al-Hajjaj Yusuf ibn ʿAbd al-Rahman. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl. Edited by Bashar ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 1st ed., Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1980–1992.
Fishbein, Michael, translator and annotator. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume VIII: The Victory of Islam. Edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1997.
Ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Muslim. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (The Authentic Collection of Muslim). 1st ed., Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2000. Print.
Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik. The Prophetic Biography (Sīrah of Ibn Hishām). Translated by Muhammad Mahdi Al-Sharif, 1st ed., Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2013. Print.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr. Zād al-Maʿād fī Hady Khayr al-ʿIbād (The Provision for the Hereafter: Guidance for the Best of Servants). 1st ed., Dar al-Fikr, 1998. Print.
Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad (The Collection of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal’s Ḥadīths). 1st ed., Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998. Print.
Ryckmans, G. “C 4211.” OCIANA: The Ohio State University Inscription Database. Accessed March 21, 2025.
Secondary Sources
Charles, Michael. “The Elephants of Aksum: In Search of the Bush Elephant in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Late Antiquity, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 166–192.
Fisher, Greg, editor. Arabs and Empires Before Islam. Oxford University Press, 2015.
———. Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Hatke, George. Africans in Arabia Felix: Aksumite Relations with Ḥimyar in the Sixth Century C.E. Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, 2011.
Hahn, Wolfgang. “Aksumite Numismatics – A Critical Survey of Recent Research.” Revue Numismatique, 6th series, vol. 155, 2000, pp. 281–311.
———. Numismatische Betrachtungen zur Geschichte von Aksum: Typologische und Metrologische Aussagen der Münzen zu Fragen der Chronologie. Universität Wien, 2015.
Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic): Geʿez–English, English–Geʿez with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Otto Harrassowitz, 1987.
Mirza, Sarah Z. Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press LLC, 2022.
———. Oral Tradition and Scribal Conventions in the Documents Attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad. University of Michigan, 2010. Dissertation.
Munro-Hay, Stuart. Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity. 2nd ed., British Library, 1991.
———, editor. “The Al-Madhāriba Hoard of Gold Aksumite and Late Roman Coins.” The Numismatic Chronicle, vol. 149, 1989, pp. 83–100.
Raven, Wim. “Some Early Islamic Texts on the Negus of Abyssinia.” Journal of Semitic Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, Autumn 1985.
Tieszen, Charles. The Christian Encounter with Muhammad: How Theologians Have Interpreted the Prophet. Bloomsbury Academic, 2021.
Universität Wien, Institut für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte. Mitteilungsblatt, vol. 41, no. 10, Wintersemester 2010/2011, ISSN 1563-3764.
Comments
Post a Comment