Echoes of the First Encounters - Syriac Testimonies on Islam’s Emergence (EFE) - III - From Church History to Arab Conquest: A Syriac Chronicle of a Vanishing World

From Church History to Arab Conquest: A Syriac Chronicle of a Vanishing World

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ 

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

The Chronicle of 660, also known as the Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam, is among the earliest historical testimonies to record the Arab conquests from the vantage point of a Syriac-speaking Christian deeply embedded in the fading world of late Sasanian Iran. Less theatrical than apocalyptic texts and more rooted than esoteric monastic visions, this chronicle speaks in the voice of a provincial ecclesiastical intellectual—observant, partisan, but not prone to hyperbole.

Composed in Syriac by a member of the Church of the East, the work unfolds from the reign of Hormizd IV (r. 579–590) to the final death throes of the Sasanian Empire and the early decades of Arab rule. The chronicler is anonymous, but not without voice. He is no imperial courtier; rather, he writes from the margins, chronicling a world unraveling not in an imperial capital but in borderlands where bishops debated heresy, armies clashed, and cities changed hands with dizzying speed. His language is vivid yet precise, laced with biblical parallels and East Syrian theological conviction, and his geographical consciousness is rooted in northern Mesopotamia—perhaps even near Ctesiphon.

Despite the chronological title “660,” the Chronicle defies simple dating. Scholars have long debated when exactly it was composed, and internal clues offer a narrowing window rather than a fixed point. The consensus places its final form somewhere between 660 and the early 670s, yet a stronger case can be made for a date around 661. One compelling piece of indirect evidence comes from a striking passage in the Chronicle itself. 

Following his notice of Emperor Heraclius’ death, the chronicler reflects on the scope of the Arab conquests, writing: “Indeed, the victory of the Ismaelites, who defeated and conquered those two strong kingdoms, was from God, who, however, has not yet permitted them to take Constantinople; for that reason, victory must be attributed to God Himself, not to the Arabs.” This curious theological qualification—crediting the conquest to divine will while denying the Arabs personal agency—would appear rather odd unless the Muslims had in fact recently attempted to besiege Constantinople.

This aligns closely with the testimony of the Armenian bishop Sebeos, who describes a dramatic (though failed) Muslim naval assault on Constantinople around 654 CE. While Sebeos' account lacks direct corroboration in the Greek sources, with a short mention in Arabic sources, the Chronicle offers this subtle but meaningful echo. The phrasing suggests a moment of perceived divine restraint, as if the Arabs had overstepped or nearly succeeded but were providentially checked at the threshold of New Rome. It reflects a theological lens in which Constantinople remains safeguarded—not by the Romans themselves, but by God, who alone determines the limits of Arab expansion.

Other contemporary sources from the Latin West—like the Chronicle of Fredegar—similarly refer to a cessation of tribute payments from Constans II to the Arabs after “three years and more,” possibly linked to the aftermath of the failed siege and the beginnings of Muslim internal conflict. Taken together, these sources suggest that the Chronicle was likely written shortly after this failed attempt on Constantinople but before the Arab civil wars would dominate the decade's political horizon—placing its composition around 660–661.

Equally significant is the way the Chronicle narrates the Arab conquests. In contrast to apocalyptic texts such as the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the Chronicle does not frame the rise of Islam as a divine punishment, eschatological sign, or cosmic rupture. Nor does it mythologize the Arabs as divine scourges, Gog and Magog, or harbingers of the end times. Instead, its tone is one of pragmatic, almost resigned realism. Islam is recognized as a rising power, a military and political reality that has decisively reshaped the map—but not yet as a theological or eschatological crisis. It is something to be recorded, perhaps lamented, but not yet interpreted in cosmic terms.

In this silence—or restraint—we detect something rare: a moment before Islam became mythologized in Syriac Christian discourse. For the author, writing as an eyewitness or at least a near-contemporary, the Arab conquests were part of the brutal logic of history, no more (and no less) than the ebb and flow of empires. That the Romans still held Constantinople and the Church still stood offered some assurance that the world, while shaken, had not yet ended.

Remarkably, the author appears to have drawn on official Sasanian sources, perhaps even a version of the Khwadāy-nāmag, and was fluent in Middle Persian titles and court structures. His accounts of royal chronology, noble intrigues, and local battles are far more detailed than one might expect from a Christian cleric. And while his ecclesiastical biases are clear—Miaphysites and Manichaeans come in for heavy criticism—his treatment of Zoroastrianism is surprisingly cautious, perhaps reflecting a diplomacy born of living under Sasanian oversight.

The Chronicle survives in a manuscript tradition shadowed by loss. The original copy, once housed at the Monastery of Our Lady of Seeds near Alqosh, vanished in the 20th century. What we have today derives from an 1871 copy preserved in Vatican Syriac 599. Its preservation, transcription, and eventual English translation—now finally made accessible by Nasir al-Kaʿbi—represent a major recovery of a voice long obscured.

In this post, we examine the Chronicle’s layered witness to the Arab conquest: its integration of imperial, ecclesiastical, and local perspectives; its linguistic and theological color; and its early, unfiltered reactions to the emergence of Islam. Through the eyes of this provincial historian, we catch sight of a civilization in twilight, staring, perhaps uneasily, into the light of a new and unfamiliar dawn.

Commentary on the Chronicle of 660

Section I – “Neither Walls Nor Shields”: Persia’s End and the Arab Advance on Rome

Text:

“Boran, the wife of Shīroe [i.e. Kawad II], who reigned over the Persians, ended up dying by suffocation.”

Commentary:

The Chronicle begins midstream in a dynastic crisis. Boran (also spelled Bōrān), daughter of Xusro II and briefly queen of the Sasanian Empire (r. 630 and again c. 631), is remembered here not merely for her reign but for her manner of death. The detail that she died by suffocation suggests a violent or politically motivated end, aligning with traditions that portray her as one of several victims of court intrigue following the collapse of Khusrow II’s house.

That she is introduced first—before Yazdgird III—is noteworthy. It reflects the chronicler’s interest not in grand beginnings, but in transitional figures, moments of rupture, and political instability. It also signals a deliberate departure from epic royalist narratives: Boran is neither glorified nor mourned, merely noted as a fallen queen—a sign of empire unraveling.

---

Text:

“[The Persians] set up over themselves as king, in the city of Iṣṭakhr, Yazdgird [III], of royal ancestry, and with this one, the Persian kingdom ended.”

Commentary:

This line functions as a eulogy for the Sasanian dynasty. Yazdgird III, often portrayed in Islamic and Persian historiography as a tragic last scion, is here introduced with a clinical brevity: a last-ditch coronation “in the city of Iṣṭakhr”, followed swiftly by the blunt pronouncement that “the Persian kingdom ended.”

The phrasing, “and with this one the Persian kingdom ended,” is crucial. There is no nostalgia or grandeur, no lamentation for the end of a centuries-old imperial tradition. Instead, the chronicler emphasizes finality—the rupture has come, and history has moved on. The choice of Iṣṭakhr over Ctesiphon also underscores the marginal nature of this last enthronement: the core of Sasanian power had already been lost.

---

Text:

“He moved and came to Māḥōzē [Ctesiphon], and appointed for him a commander whose name was Rustum.”

Commentary:

Here, Yazdgird III attempts to regain imperial initiative by relocating to Māḥōzē (the Syriac name for Ctesiphon) and appointing Rustum as his military commander—the same Rustum Farrokhzād who would die at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah (636). This reflects a key moment of resistance before the Arab conquest fully unfolded.

Māḥōzē—meaning “the cities”—was not just a geographical space but a deeply symbolic one: the imperial capital, the heart of Sasanian administration, and a hub of religious and cultural complexity. Yazdgird’s choice to entrench himself there represents both a strategic and symbolic gesture—the last gasp of centralized Sasanian resistance.

---

Text:

“Then God brought up against them the sons of Ishmael, who were [as many] as the sands on the seashore. Their leader was Muḥammad.”

Commentary:

This is perhaps the most theologically charged moment in the entire Chronicle. The Arabs—“the sons of Ishmael”—are introduced with a powerful biblical image: “as many as the sands on the seashore.” This metaphor, rooted in Genesis and traditionally applied to God’s promise to Abraham, subtly acknowledges the Abrahamic lineage of the Arabs, even as it invokes their overwhelming numbers and divine sanction.

What is remarkable is that Muḥammad is mentioned by name—making this one of the earliest known non-Muslim sources to do so. However, he appears only in passing, and not in a prophetic or religious role. He is simply “their leader.” There is no eschatology, no theological attack, no mention of the Qur'an or Islam as a religion. This is political theology, not polemic.

The agency is attributed not to Muḥammad, but to God: “God brought up against them…” The tone is sober, not apocalyptic; the conquest is not framed as divine wrath against Christians or as a cosmic upheaval. This stands in stark contrast to later Syriac texts such as the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, where the Arabs are instruments of divine punishment. In the Chronicle of 660, they are simply the new instruments of God’s historical will—devastating, yes, but not satanic.

---

Text:

“Neither walls nor gates stood up before them, nor did weapon or shields, and they dominated the entire land of the Persians.”

Commentary:

This is a sweeping statement of collapse. The language evokes biblical siege poetry—reminiscent of Jeremiah or Isaiah—where cities fall before unstoppable enemies. It reflects the perceived totality of the Arab conquest: not just a series of battles, but the erasure of an entire imperial defense system.

Note the progression: walls (fortification), gates (control), weapons (offense), shields (defense)—all useless. The passage dramatizes not only the military power of the Arabs, but the futility of resistance, casting the conquest as inevitable, unrelenting, and divinely ordained.

---

Text:

“Now Yazdgird sent countless troops against them, but the Arabs destroyed all of them and killed Rustum too.”

Commentary:

This is the Chronicle’s condensed version of al-Qādisiyyah, the battle that sealed the fate of the House of Sasan. The Arabs’ victory is total, and Rustum’s death marks the symbolic decapitation of Sasanian resistance. Once again, Yazdgird’s agency is downplayed—he sends “countless troops,” but they are annihilated. The narrative gives the impression of a passive, almost doomed, royal figure overwhelmed by an unstoppable storm.

 Text:

“Yazdgird enclosed himself within the walls of Māḥozē, and at the end, he escaped fleeing. He went to the lands of the Hōzāyē and the Marōzāye, where he died.”

Commentary:

This short line is, in truth, a quiet requiem for the Sasanian Empire. It compresses the tragic unraveling of one of antiquity’s most formidable powers into a few stark strokes. Unlike the Persian epic tradition—where Yazdgird III is elegized as the last heroic flame of an ancient monarchy—the Chronicle of 660 strips his final days of romance or dignity. There is no fire, no martyrdom, no crown cast into the Tigris. There is only flight, exile, and death, tthe verb “enclosed himself”  implies more than physical retreat—it evokes entrapment. Yazdgird is not simply taking refuge in Māḥozē (Ctesiphon), but is increasingly hemmed in by events, isolated in a decaying imperial shell. Māḥozē, once the proud seat of royal power, is here a claustrophobic tomb, a city ringed by Arab conquest, from which the last king must ultimately flee.

His flight “to the lands of the Hōzāyē and the Marōzāye” places him at the far eastern margins of his own crumbling realm. The Hōzāyē refers to the region of Harēw (Middle Persian: 𐭧𐭥𐭩𐭥 Harēw), centered around modern-day Herat in western Afghanistan. The Marōzāye is a Syriac rendering of Merv (Mārw), a historically significant oasis city and a bastion of eastern Sasanian administration. These are not arbitrary destinations. These regions—Harēw and Marw—formed part of the eastern military frontier and were often used as safe zones or redoubts by Sasanian royalty and aristocracy in times of upheaval, the linguistic construction of these regional names reflects a typically Syriac rendering of Middle Persian geography. In the Syriac script, ܗܘܙܝܐ (Hōzāyē) and ܡܪܘܙܝܐ (Marōzāyē) demonstrate how Syriac scribes adapted Persian place names into their own phonetic and grammatical frameworks, often adding the plural nominal ending -ayē to denote regional groups or inhabitants.

Here, Yazdgird dies at the edge of empire—not in battle, nor as a martyr, but as a fugitive monarch whose only companions are the silence of obscurity and the dust of the desert. The Chronicle offers no pathos, no funeral, no speech. His death occurs off-screen, beyond the sight of cities, churches, and chronicles. It is historical death as dissolution.

This account contrasts sharply with later sources like Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāmeh, which would immortalize Yazdgird as a tragic, almost Christ-like figure—the last righteous flame extinguished by foreign conquest. Here, however, the tone is unsparing. There is a theological chill to the Chronicle’s minimalism. Yazdgird’s death is not framed as the end of a civilization, but as the just epilogue of a fallen house, implicitly abandoned by God and empire alike.

We might also detect in this ending a muted echo of biblical laments—those for Saul, Zedekiah, or the kings of Judah—who, having failed to defend their people, are left to perish far from the Temple, in exile and disgrace. Yazdgird becomes a Persian Zedekiah, cast into the outer lands as divine judgment falls upon the center, and yet, this theological judgment is delivered without fire or fury. The Chronicle neither mourns nor exults. It simply notes his passing, a fallen king of a fallen world, swept aside by the sands of Herat and Merv.

Text:

“The Arabs took control of Māḥōzē and of all the lands. They also went to the Roman lands, plundering and ravaging all the lands of Syria. Heraclius, the Roman king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than one hundred thousand of them.”

Commentary:

Here the Chronicle of 660 executes a narrative pivot—from the Sasanian collapse to Roman catastrophe. The transition is swift but deliberate: once the Arabs take Māḥōzē (Ctesiphon), the symbolic and administrative heart of the Persian world, they cross westward into Syria, the Christian world’s eastern bastion. This is not merely geographic expansion—it is a crossing of civilizational frontiers. Persia was alien; Syria was familiar. The devastation of Syria marked the conquest of the Arab conquests into a sacred and culturally proximate space.

The phrasing—“plundering and ravaging all the lands of Syria”—evokes the traditional Syriac views of conquest narratives. The Chronicle draws on a long liturgical and literary heritage where invaders are described as laying waste to Christian lands. Yet, like elsewhere in the text, there is a curious lack of eschatological framing. There are no cosmic signs, no angels of wrath, no divine explanations. This is conquest as brute historical reality—bloody, effective, and final.

The reference to Heraclius is especially significant. In Syriac Christian memory, Heraclius was no ordinary ruler. He had been hailed in earlier decades as a new Constantine, the triumphant restorer of the True Cross, the emperor who had finally broken Sasanian power in the great war of 622–628. But here, that triumphant figure is reduced to impotence. “Heraclius, the Roman king, sent armies against them, but the Arabs killed more than one hundred thousand of them.” The scale of the loss is stark, almost mythic. It is an image not of imperial struggle but of imperial annihilation.

This passage refers to the Battle of Yarmūk (636 CE), one of the most decisive battles in Late Antique history. It marked the end of Roman rule in Syria and Palestine and the beginning of Muslim dominance in the region. The loss was not only military but symbolic: the Eastern Roman Empire, which had defined Christian identity for centuries, was now irreversibly fractured in the East.

The figure of “more than one hundred thousand” casualties may be hyperbolic, but it reflects the psychological magnitude of the defeat. For the chronicler—and for his community—it likely felt like the end of the world they had known. The Persian Empire had just collapsed. Now the Eastern Roman presence in the Levant had been fatally pierced.

And yet, the tone remains subdued. There is no polemic, no curses, no invocation of divine retribution or sin. The Arabs are not called pagans or demons; they are not cast in the mold of Gog and Magog or the armies of the Antichrist. They are simply “the Arabs”, whose terrifying effectiveness is presented as a fact of life. This is what makes the Chronicle so valuable: it offers a window into a moment before theological categories had caught up with geopolitical change.

Heraclius here becomes a mirror of Yazdgird: a defeated ruler, trying in vain to hold back the tide. Both monarchs, one Zoroastrian, one Christian, both “kings” in the Chronicle’s description, are bested by a force that neither empire fully comprehended, much less anticipated. It is the closing bracket on an age that had been defined by Roman-Persian dualism. With both halves of that binary humbled, the chronicler gestures—perhaps unintentionally—toward the beginning of a new dispensation, in which the Arabs, and by extension Islam, were no longer peripheral actors but central players in the unfolding of history.

In a few bleak lines, the Chronicle eulogizes not just the fall of cities or kings, but the collapse of the old geopolitical world. The silence that follows is almost heavier than words. The empires are gone. The landscape has changed. Something new has begun.

---

Section II – Bishops, Heretics, and Martyrs: Ecclesiastical Life under Early Arab Rule

Text:

“Now the Catholicos Ishōʿyahb, when he saw Māḥozē ruined by the Arabs and its gates carried off to ʿĀqūlā, and those who remained inside it were consumed by hunger, went to reside in Bēt-Garmai in the village of Karkā.”

Commentary:

This opening scene marks the ecclesiastical consequence of imperial collapse: the physical destruction of Māḥozē (Ctesiphon) not only signifies the end of the Sasanian capital but also triggers a shift in the geographical center of the Church of the East. Catholicos Ishōʿyahb II, the head of the Church, relocates to Bēt-Garmai, a district in the heart of northern Mesopotamia, specifically to the village of Karkā, a known ecclesiastical center since late antiquity.

The detail of the gates being carried off to ʿĀqūlā (the city that would later be part of the City of Kufa) emphasizes the symbolic dismantling of power. City gates were not only physical defenses—they symbolized authority, honor, and continuity. Their removal suggests the literal unmaking of the Sasanian order.

The famine afflicting those left inside Māḥozē adds another layer of crisis: not only was the city conquered, but it was left to decay. There is no indication here of Muslim administration intervening with governance or provisioning. Hunger becomes an emblem of abandonment, and in such a context, the Church's leadership shifts to the periphery—not out of choice, but necessity.

Text:

“Cyriacus of Nisibis died, and because of the hatred that the people of Nisibis had toward him, they denounced his disciples before the amīr-governor of the city who sent to imprison them. They also pillaged the cell of Cyriacus and the treasury of the Metropolitan see of Nisibis. They found in the cell of Cyriacus many garments and tunics of silk and golden dresses and saddle cloths, things that do not befit the disciples of Christ.”

Commentary:

With this passage, the Chronicle of 660 moves from imperial collapse to ecclesiastical crisis, shifting its gaze from the battlefield to the Church’s own troubled house. The death of Cyriacus of Nisibis, metropolitan bishop of one of the most important sees of the Church of the East, becomes the spark for a public denunciation that exposes longstanding tensions within the Christian community. The chronicler spares no words: Cyriacus was hated, and his opponents, perhaps previously powerless, now seize the opportunity provided by the new Muslim administration to strike.

The mention of the amīr (Arabic: أمير)—the city’s Arab governor—as the authority who orders the imprisonment of Cyriacus’ disciples is a powerful detail. This is likely a reference to Umayr ibn Saʿd al-Anṣārī, who became governor of the Jazira after the deaths of Iyād ibn Ghanm al-Fihrī (d. 641) and Saʿīd ibn Hidhyām (d. 642). Umayr’s appointment under Caliph ʿUmar placed him over a region that included Nisibis, Harran, and Edessa—and his governorship marked the early institutional consolidation of Muslim rule in Upper Mesopotamia.

The fact that Christian internal affairs are being reported to and arbitrated by Muslim governors is a sign of the new political reality: Arab rulers had become enforcers of local order—even in the affairs of non-Muslim religious communities. What might once have been a purely ecclesiastical quarrel now played out within the larger framework of dhimma governance, where Christian elites had to navigate both their own factions and a new overlordship.

More than that, the Chronicle’s narrative moralizes the downfall of Cyriacus’ camp. His disciples are imprisoned, but it is the material culture of his cell that draws the most damning attention. Silk garments, golden tunics, and saddle cloths—symbols of luxury and elite lifestyle—are found where ascetic rigor should have prevailed. These details serve a dual polemical purpose:

A critique of internal corruption: The Chronicle seizes the opportunity to indict ecclesiastical decadence. Cyriacus’ wealth, once perhaps tolerated under Persian rule, is now scandalous in a time of spiritual and national crisis. The author implies that such materialism was not only unbecoming but directly linked to the collapse of episcopal authority.

A contrast with Arab austerity: While the Chronicle is not overtly praising the Muslim conquerors, the implicit comparison is unavoidable. The Arabs, despite their foreignness, are portrayed as politically efficient and morally empowered. In contrast, Christian leaders like Cyriacus are depicted as spiritually compromised, dependent on luxury instead of faith.

In this way, the Chronicle uses this incident to diagnose the Church’s condition: divided, decadent, and—perhaps most painfully—subject to judgment not only from God, but from earthly powers once deemed outside salvation history.

This episode thus becomes an early Syriac reflection on the reality of life under the conquerors: not just survival, but exposure, reform, and reckoning.

---

Text:

“Then the Catholicos Mār Ishōʿyahb sent to bring Bar-ṣawmā, the interpreter of Ḥirtā, whom he established as Metropolitan in the monastery of the Mār Sergius, which was outside the city, so that the citizens may reconcile with him and accept him but they did not agree.”

Commentary:

Here we witness the ecclesiastical attempts at mediation and reconstruction. With Cyriacus gone and his disciples imprisoned, Ishōʿyahb tries to appoint Bar-ṣawmā, a figure from Ḥirtā (i.e Al-Ḥīrah, a historically significant Christian center near Kufa), to heal the fractured see of Nisibis. That he is stationed outside the city—at Mār Sergius monastery—rather than enthroned within the urban cathedral, is telling. It reflects both popular resistance and political sensitivity.

The rejection of Bar-ṣawmā by the citizens of Nisibis—despite the Catholicos’ efforts—shows the limits of ecclesiastical authority in a period of widespread instability. Bishops were no longer guaranteed popular support, and even the patriarch’s endorsement could not overcome local resentment or factional division.

---

Text:

“Mār Ishōʿyahb led the patriarchate for eighteen years. His body was buried in the martyrium of the church of Karkā d-Bēt-Garmai.”

Commentary:

This brief obituary for Mār Ishōʿyahb II (r. 627–645 CE) belies the significance of his patriarchate. Eighteen years is not a long reign by ecclesiastical standards, but it coincided with the most seismic political transformations the Church of the East had ever experienced: the collapse of the Sasanian Empire, the Arab conquest of Persia, and the early formation of the Islamic caliphate. His death in 645 CE, only three years after the fall of Ctesiphon (Māḥozē) and shortly after the conquest of the Jazira, places him firmly in the first generation of Christian leaders to govern under Muslim rule.

That Ishōʿyahb was buried not in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the traditional see of the Catholicos-Patriarch, but in Karkā d-Bēt-Garmai, is a striking detail. Karkā—located in the central highlands of northern Mesopotamia—was historically a provincial town, known for its monasteries and learned clergy but never the center of ecclesiastical gravity. Its elevation to the seat of burial for a patriarch marks a symbolic decentralization of the Church's power.

In earlier centuries, the Church of the East had aligned itself with the Sasanian state, with the Catholicos functioning as both spiritual head and imperial interlocutor. Bishops were often political agents, the Church deeply embedded in the machinery of the Persian crown. But with the fall of the Sasanians and the emergence of Muslim governance, that framework disintegrated. The Church now had to reorganize in a non-imperial space, surviving not through patronage but through local strength, monastic networks, and diplomatic neutrality.

Karkā’s martyrium, where Ishōʿyahb was laid to rest, serves both as spiritual refuge and political retreat. It reflects the Church's shift away from the urban aristocratic centers of Sasanian prestige to the safer, more autonomous rural landscapes where monasticism and clerical authority still thrived.

Moreover, Ishōʿyahb’s burial outside the traditional patriarchal center signifies the institutional instability the Church faced. The Chronicle presents this without lamentation, but the subtext is clear: the old order was gone, and new geographies—physical and spiritual—were taking shape.

In sum, Ishōʿyahb II emerges in this passage as a transitional patriarch, not only historically but theologically. He straddles two ages: the imperial Church of Persia, and the surviving Church under Islam. His death and burial in Karkā d-Bēt-Garmai mark the moment when that transition became irreversible.

---

Text:

“Mārammē was established as patriarch in the church. This one was from the land of Arzen and the village Qozmeia. He was made Metropolitan for Bēt-Lapaṭ. Now he put on the monastic garment in the monastery of Mār Abraham of Izla, and was much praised on account of his monastic and metropolitan ways. After he was established for the catholicate rank, he was always esteemed by all the Ishmaelite administrators.”

Commentary:

The Chronicle’s portrayal of Mārammē, who served as Catholicos of the Church of the East from 646 to 649 CE, presents him as a model of spiritual integrity, administrative competence, and political tact—a vital combination in the volatile aftermath of the Arab conquests.

Originating from Qozmeia in Arzen, Mārammē’s background is both regional and respectable. His early formation in the monastery of Mār Abraham of Izla—a key center of East Syrian ascetic tradition—immediately casts him in contrast to the recently discredited figure of Cyriacus of Nisibis, whose luxury and corruption had provoked scandal and backlash. By contrast, Mārammē represents a return to the monastic ideal, the kind of bishop who gained esteem not through wealth but through discipline, humility, and service.

But Mārammē was not merely a cloistered ascetic. He was also a politically savvy administrator, with direct experience of the Islamic conquest. Before becoming Catholicos, he served as bishop of Mosul, where he is credited with assisting the Muslim army during its conquest of the city. According to the Chronicle of Seert and Mārī’s Faṭārikat, he provided food and supplies to the Muslim forces and gained the confidence of their commanders—an act of pragmatic cooperation that would have lasting consequences.

So trusted was Mārammē that Arab officials themselves supported his appointment as Catholicos, recognizing in him a figure who could ensure Christian stability under the new order. His selection is thus emblematic of an early Islamic policy of leveraging local elites—including Christian bishops—to maintain order, collect taxes, and administer minority communities. In the early phase of Muslim rule, before the development of formalized dhimma policies, figures like Mārammē were indispensable.

The Chronicle of 660 echoes this reality succinctly: “he was always esteemed by all the Ishmaelite administrators.” That “esteem” was not passive tolerance. Other sources suggest he may have received a written authorization from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib permitting him to act as protector of the Christian community—a claim that may reflect later confusion, as Mārammē’s actual patriarchate (646–649 CE) falls entirely within the caliphate of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān. Nevertheless, the report attests to a perception of Mārammē as a recognized and empowered intermediary between Christian populations and their Muslim rulers.

This image—of a patriarch respected by Arab authorities and grounded in monastic virtue—stands in deliberate contrast to earlier ecclesiastical failures. Where Cyriacus had been accused of decadence and division, Mārammē is cast as a reconciler, restorer, and builder. His monastic formation, regional origins, and early cooperation with the Muslim authorities gave him legitimacy on multiple fronts: spiritual, communal, and political.

Through Mārammē, the Chronicle sketches a quiet but profound theological message: the Church can survive under Arab rule—if it is led by holy men, not worldly ones. Far from portraying the Muslim conquerors as persecutors, the Chronicle subtly suggests that Christian dignity can persist—even flourish—if the Church upholds its own moral standards and works prudently within the new political framework.

Text:

“It is said that there was a village entirely belonging to Jews, and was located between Māḥozē and Ḥirtā, and its name was Mātā-Masiā. When a student was passing by there one day, one of the sons of the crucifiers seized him, brought him into his house, and bound him for no little time to drag a millstone.”

Commentary:

This episode unfolds as a martyrological legend, blending miracle, polemic, and providential discovery. The phrase “one of the sons of the crucifiers” is especially charged—it echoes anti-Jewish tropes in Syriac Christian literature, identifying contemporary Jews with the killers of Christ. The phrase is almost formulaic, but its use here frames the entire episode as a kind of passion narrative, with the student cast in the role of a persecuted innocent.

The symbolic violence—dragging a millstone—evokes biblical imagery (cf. Matthew 18:6) and represents both literal servitude and spiritual defilement. The village’s name, Mātā-Masiā, might derive from the Syriac root msy’, meaning to anoint or Messiah—an ironic twist if intentional, given that it is here the site of Jewish brutality and hidden holiness.

---

Text:

“Then a Christian was dispatched at the order of the king to that village for a matter, and by divine providence he went into that house and resided in it. When that student saw him, he screamed and the Christian caught the householder who revealed the whole truth to him, saying: ‘If you forgive me this foolishness, I would reveal to you a precious treasure.’ And he showed him a place in his house where the bodies of the young men Ḥanania and his companions were laid, God chose that student so that the burial place of the bodies of the blessed ones is revealed.”

Commentary:

This passage brings the story into miracle territory. Through divine providence—a standard narrative formula—the hidden suffering of the student leads to the discovery of relics, namely the bodies of Ḥanania and his companions. These may refer to Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego)—figures associated with miraculous survival in the fiery furnace in the Book of Daniel.

The shift from cruelty to revelation transforms the village of Mātā-Masiā from a site of abuse into a hidden locus of sanctity. Such narratives served a dual function: condemning religious others while affirming that Christian truth remained alive, even under persecution and conquest. In a post-conquest world, finding hidden relics affirmed God’s continued presence and favor, despite the political loss of Christian dominance.

---

Text:

“It is said that one day, while Mār Mārammē was going from Māḥozē to Ḥirtā, it happened that he slept in that same village, and out of fear of him, they greeted him in great honour.”

Commentary:

The Chronicle closes this episode with divine vindication. The same village that once imprisoned a Christian student now honors the Catholicos himself, not out of love, but out of fear. It’s an inversion of power: the persecutors are humbled, and the Church is restored to a place of visible authority.

This type of moral reversal—the suffering of the righteous revealed as sacred, the persecutor exposed, the oppressor humbled—is common in late antique hagiographical literature, but here it takes on added meaning in the ambiguous terrain of early Islamic Mesopotamia.

Text:

“Mārammē rebuilt the church of the monastery of Mār Sergius in Mebaraktā that had been burned down, and decorated it with all beautiful things. This administrator was very rich in sublime virtues. He took care of Bēt-Lapāṭ and established for it a shepherd, Sergius bishop of Nehargul, a virtuous and righteous man. Also Mārammē went up to Nisibis to reconcile its people with their metropolitan, but they did not pay heed, and thus he sent to bring Isaac, the bishop of Arzen, whom he appointed over them. The latter was a chaste and virtuous man. In all the days of his life, he did not eat food from the Church of Nisibis, nor did he make use of its possessions, but brought what he and his disciples needed from his own homeland.”

Commentary:

This passage expands our view of Mārammē, portraying him not just as a shrewd ecclesiastical diplomat but as a builder, restorer, and cultivator of virtue. In the wake of war, religious upheaval, and internal division, Mārammē turns his attention to repairing what was physically destroyed, morally disfigured, and institutionally broken.

His rebuilding of the church of Mār Sergius in Mebaraktā, which had been previously burned, reflects a pattern familiar in post-conquest Mesopotamia: churches damaged during war, looted in sectarian strife, or neglected due to leadership vacuums were often restored by strong patriarchs as signs of ecclesial resilience and theological continuity. That Mārammē not only rebuilt it, but “decorated it with all beautiful things,” reveals his conviction that sacred space deserved beauty, not for vanity, but to reflect the glory of God amid the ashes of history.

This aesthetic investment also contrasts sharply with the material excesses condemned earlier in Cyriacus of Nisibis. Mārammē’s beautification is not personal enrichment—it is devotional restoration, the re-consecration of a violated sanctuary.

The Chronicle then praises Mārammē in direct moral terms: “very rich in sublime virtues.” This phrase is no accident. In a period where bishops were often accused of greed, divisiveness, or political opportunism, this kind of moral summary functions as vindication. The Chronicle not only describes his actions but confirms that his interior life matched his external deeds.

His pastoral attention to Bēt-Lapāṭ—a significant ecclesiastical and urban center in Khūzistān—demonstrates his geographical range and administrative care. By appointing Sergius of Nehargul, described as “a virtuous and righteous man,” Mārammē continues a pattern of elevating spiritually sound leaders into positions of authority. Leadership for him is not political loyalty or factional compromise—it is measured by virtue, chastity, and self-denial.

The next episode—Mārammē’s failed attempt to reconcile the people of Nisibis with their metropolitan—reveals the limits even of a capable patriarch. The Chronicle’s language is striking: “they did not pay heed.” Despite his authority and reputation, the deep rifts within the Christian community in Nisibis—likely legacies of the controversy surrounding Cyriacus—prove unhealable. But instead of abandoning them or retaliating, Mārammē once again takes the reformist route, appointing Isaac of Arzen, a bishop of impeccable ascetic credentials.

Isaac’s lifestyle is described in almost hagiographic terms. He refuses to eat food provided by the Church of Nisibis and brings all his provisions from his homeland. This is not merely a detail of personal piety—it is a public stance against ecclesiastical corruption. Isaac distances himself from local wealth, perhaps tainted by earlier abuses or factional claims. In doing so, he reinscribes moral authority into an office that had become morally suspect.

What emerges from this entire passage is a picture of Mārammē as a moral renovator of the Church: rebuilding churches, reconciling cities, appointing righteous men, and promoting ascetic purity as the basis of leadership. His actions are theological in themselves—every appointment, every rebuilt wall, every refusal of communal wealth is a testimony to what the Church should be in the wake of conquest: not a court of wealth and politicking, but a holy remnant rooted in simplicity, chastity, and service.

In a world dominated by a new Islamic regime and still reeling from imperial collapse, Mārammē’s vision is not revolutionary—it is restorative. But in its quiet way, it is also radical: a Church that survives by turning inward, purifying itself, and radiating sanctity outward, one bishop, one monastery, and one rebuilt sanctuary at a time.

Text:

“At that time a Jewish man from Bēt-Ārāmāyē, from the village named Falugta where the waters of the Euphrates are divided to irrigate the lands, appeared. He said that the Messiah came, and gathered to him weavers, barbers, and fullers, some four hundred men. They set fire to three churches and killed the governor of the land. Then forces came against them from ʿĀqūlā and killed them along with their wives and children. As for their leader, they crucified him in his own village.”

Commentary:

This passage stands out in the Chronicle of 660 as a blend of anti-messianic polemic, sociopolitical commentary, and symbolic judgment, placed firmly within the context of post-conquest religious unrest. Its terse report of an unnamed “Jewish man” from Falugta proclaiming the arrival of the Messiah and leading a violent uprising encapsulates the anxieties of a world in religious and imperial flux.

The location—Falugta (ܦܠܘܓܬܐ), Arabic: al-Fallūjah—is not incidental. As Syriac, Arabic, and Persian sources confirm, Falugta was a well-known agricultural village situated on the Euphrates, where the river branches to irrigate the lands of Upper Bihaqabād. Its name, according to Sokoloff and Ibn Manẓūr, literally means “plowable land,” and in Arabic geographical literature it appears as part of the Falālīj al-Sawād, the canal-fed breadbasket of lower Iraq.

Falugta was also a site of historical significance: it lay near the academy of Pumbedita, one of the two great rabbinic centers of the Babylonian Talmudic world. The Chronicle does not name the rebel, but his origins near Pumbedita suggest a deliberate allusion to the heartland of Babylonian Jewry—making the rebellion’s claim to messianism both locally plausible and symbolically potent.

That this figure attracts “weavers, barbers, and fullers”—the working poor—is deeply telling. These were manual laborers and craftsmen, often unlettered and economically vulnerable. As Ghulām Ḥussein Ṣadīqī and Patricia Crone have shown, popular religious movements in the early Islamic centuries frequently emerged from these rural and lower-class demographics, who were disoriented by the collapse of the Sasanian state and the uncertain emergence of Islamic rule. In the void between empires, charismatic populism flourished—especially when tied to messianic promises.

This movement quickly veers from religious excitement to political and religious violence: the burning of three churches and the assassination of a regional governor reflect a revolt not only against religious rivals, but also against the fragile post-conquest order. In the absence of fully institutionalized Muslim governance, such acts of rebellion were not uncommon—but here, they are portrayed by the chronicler as an assault on Christendom itself, compounded by theological delusion.

The Arab response is swift and brutal: troops from ʿĀqūlā (a prominent city near Kufa, formerly a Sasanian garrison town) are dispatched and utterly annihilate the movement—men, women, and children. This extermination, including the crucifixion of the messianic leader in his own village, is presented not just as political reprisal, but as divine retribution.

Crucifixion in this context operates as literary and theological inversion. Where the Christian Messiah suffered unjustly and redemptively, this “messiah” dies condemned and discredited, offering no salvation, only judgment. The location of his crucifixion—in his own village—adds to the symbolic defeat: his vision fails at its point of origin, collapsing in the very land that birthed it.

Crucially, the Chronicle refrains from explicitly attributing this act of vengeance to divine intervention. But the structure of the story—false messiah, sacrilege, swift judgment—mirrors biblical apocalyptic tropes, especially from the Gospels (cf. Matthew 24:24: “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear...to deceive, if possible, even the elect”). Here, even under Muslim rule, the moral logic of Christian eschatology holds sway: truth will triumph, heresy will be exposed, and justice—however secular—will find its mark.

The presence of Arabs in Falugta early in the conquest is corroborated in Arabic annals. Al-Ṭabarī records that Khālid ibn al-Walīd entered the town in 633 CE (12 AH), and al-Yaʿqūbī reports that the local Persian landholder (dihqān) cooperated with the Arab army and received gifts from Caliph ʿUmar. Thus, by the time of this Jewish messianic episode, Falugta was no longer an isolated rural village—it was a contested and politically charged space, caught between imperial memory, religious legacy, and a new Islamic order still solidifying its grip.

In the Chronicle's worldview, this episode affirms that even in such zones of instability, divine sovereignty remains active. Heretical violence and anti-Christian uprisings, however local or marginal, are still subject to judgment—often, paradoxically, through the very rulers who had conquered the old Christian lands.

Text:

“Also in the land of Bihaqabād, in the village called Shaṭru, Manicheans were captured too. It is said that at the start of the year, they would imprison a man underground in a house, feeding him throughout the year all that he would desire. Then they would kill him as sacrifice to the Devils, and practice sorcery and divination with his head during the whole year. Every year they would slaughter one man. Also, they would bring a virgin untouched by a man with whom all of them sleep and the one who would be born of her, they would immediately boil until his flesh and bones turn like oil. They would then grind it in a grinder and mix it with wheat to make out of it small cakes; they give one cake to he who adhered to them to eat and he would never deny Mani. But they were all caught, thanks to divine act, through a student whom they sought to capture but who had fled from them. They were crucified together with female prostitutes who were detained by them and with whom they used to commit adultery. They were about seventy people.”

Commentary:

This episode is the most grotesque and mythologized in the Chronicle of 660, and it functions less as reportage than as polemical theology—a horror story meant to warn, define boundaries, and dramatize the cosmic war between Christian truth and religious deviance.

The location is significant. The land of Bihaqabād, mentioned here, was a region restructured under the Sasanian king Kawad I as part of a major reform of taxation and irrigation. There were three known Bihaqabāds—upper, middle, and lower—lined along the Euphrates between Fallūjah and Iblā, with Shaṭru (or Shaṭrā) near the southern end. This village, located where the Euphrates begins its slow descent into the marshlands, was remote enough to be imagined as a dark periphery, a stage for religious perversion far from episcopal oversight.

The villains in this tale are the Manichaeans—followers of Mani (216–274 CE), a Persian prophet who synthesized Zoroastrian, Christian, and Buddhist elements into a radically dualist religion. Though officially persecuted under Sasanian rule (especially by Wahrām II), Manichaeism persisted underground and re-emerged after the collapse of Sasanian imperial structures, especially in rural and southern Iraqi regions—areas historically associated with Mani’s own missionary journeys.

The Chronicle’s depiction of these Manichaeans is highly polemical, drawing on a well-established genre of “versus literature” in Syriac Christian writings. Here, the Manichaeans are presented as ritual murderers, sorcerers, and cannibalistic perverts—a blend of ancient accusations also found in anti-pagan, anti-Gnostic, and later anti-Jewish and anti-Christian polemic.

The core narrative structure is terrifying:

A man is kept underground, fed lavishly, then sacrificed to “the Devils.”

His head is used for divination—a literal demonic oracle.

A virgin is defiled, and her child is ritually killed and turned into sacramental food, eaten to bind allegiance to Mani.

This perverse parody of Christian Eucharist and martyrdom is designed to shock the reader into theological vigilance. The Chronicle’s purpose here is not historical documentation but spiritual boundary enforcement: to show that even after the fall of Persia and under Arab rule, heresy remains a dire threat, and one that the Church (and, paradoxically, the divine will through state power) must continue to confront.

Modern scholars like Amir Harrak and E. Beck have rightly classified this account as propaganda, reflecting the depth of the anti-Manichaean obsession in Syriac literature. Figures like Ephrem the Syrian and ʿAbdishoʿ of Nisibis devoted entire tracts to attacking Mani and his followers, often attributing sexual immorality, magical rites, and blasphemous liturgies to them. These accusations served to construct Manichaeism not merely as doctrinally false, but as morally and cosmologically evil.

Yet, buried in the horror, the story follows a familiar narrative arc: divine intervention through a humble agent. A student—possibly a Christian novice—is targeted by the Manichaeans but escapes. His escape leads to the community’s exposure, their capture, and crucifixion. Like the Jewish messianic figure in Falugta, these Manichaeans are also crucified—a punishment that functions theologically as much as judicially. The reversal of the Christian Passion is clear: false religion dies in shame, not in redemption.

The number of the condemned—seventy—may also be symbolic, representing a complete sect, a total eradication. Their crucifixion alongside women called prostitutes adds another layer of moral defilement, presenting the community as sexually, spiritually, and ritually polluted.

This account ultimately reflects not only fears of religious deviance, but also the post-conquest psychological terrain. In a world no longer anchored by the imperial Christian-Persian binary, the dangers of heterodoxy loomed larger than ever. The Chronicle positions the Church as the last bastion of moral order, under siege not only from external conquests but from internal demonic contagion—whether in the form of false messiahs or ancient heresies rising again from forgotten villages.

Text:

“Mārammē assumed the leadership for three and a half years and then died. His body was buried in the monastery of Mār Sergius of Mebaraktā.”

Commentary:

The death of Mārammē, after only three and a half years as Catholicos, is marked with simple dignity. His burial in the monastery of Mār Sergius at Mebaraktā, which he himself had restored and adorned earlier in his tenure, signals a return to monastic ideals and regional sacred space. Unlike the earlier Catholicoi of the imperial age who were entombed in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Mārammē, like Ishōʿyahb II before him, is buried far from the centers of Sasanian power. The Church’s geography has been decisively remapped—now rooted in holy places, not imperial capitals.

Text:

“During this time the following metropolitans and bishops were illustrious: Mār Sabr-Ishōʿ of Karkā – his food was herbs [only] in all his life; Isaac of Nisibis; Sabr-Ishōʿ of Ḥirtā; Yezdefna of Kashkar; Aristotle of Nehargul; Moses of Nineveh; John of the Zābs; Sabr-Ishōʿ of Tayrahan; and Sergius of Bēt-Lapaṭ.”

Commentary:

This list of illustrious bishops reads almost like a monastic catalog of sainthood. Their diversity—from Karkā d-Bēt-Slōk in the north to Bēt-Lapaṭ in Khūzistān—shows the breadth of the Church’s endurance, even in a fractured world. In naming them, the Chronicle builds a counter-image to the heretics and false messiahs previously described. Here are the true shepherds—chaste, austere, learned, and stable.

The mention of Sabr-Ishōʿ of Karkā, who ate only herbs his entire life, is a particularly vivid ascetic ideal. This hagiographic note serves as an anchor: virtue persists, even when empire has fallen and new powers reign.

Text:

“Elijah, the metropolitan of Merv, converted many people among the Turks and of other nations.... It is said concerning this Elijah, metropolitan of Merv, that when he was going around inner lands within the outside borders, a kinglet who was going to war with another king, met him, and while Elijah was urging him at length to cease from warfare, the latter said to him: “If you show me a sign as the priests of my gods do, I would believe in your God.” The kinglet ordered the priests, servants of the Devils, who were with him, and they called upon the Devils whom they worshipped, and at that very moment the atmosphere became densely cloudy, and winds, thunders, and lightning raged. At that point, Elijah was moved by divine power, made the sign of the heavenly cross, and stopped the fantasy that the rebellious Demons had concocted and it suddenly disappeared entirely. When the kinglet realized the thing that the blessed Elijah had done, he fell, paying homage to him, and accepted the Faith, him and his entire retinue. He [=Elijah] brought them down to a river and baptized all of them. Then he appointed priests and deacons for them, and returned to his land.”

Expanded Commentary:

This extraordinary episode—tucked deep within the Chronicle of Khuzistan (or Chronicle of 660)—shatters expectations and reconfigures the narrative arc of decline that haunts much of early post-Sasanian Christian historiography. While the early parts of this chronicle dwell on disillusionment—false messiahs, heretical bishops, Arab conquests, and institutional erosion—this miracle account of Elijah, the metropolitan of Merv, bursts forth like a desert bloom, alive with supernatural light and missionary triumph.

Where many earlier passages recount suffering and fragmentation, here we encounter not retreat but expansion, not passive endurance but missionary conquest—a conquest of hearts, not cities.

Merv (in modern-day Turkmenistan) was the great northeastern edge of the Sasanian ecumene, long a frontier outpost between settled Iranian civilization and the nomadic world of the steppes. That a bishop from here—Elijah (Iliyāʾ), Mutrān of Marw—was evangelizing among inner Asian peoples, specifically Turks and their vassals, testifies to the enduring trans-regional vitality of the Church of the East. Even after the fall of the Sasanian Empire and amidst the rise of Islam, the Church did not merely survive—it moved. The frontiers did not mark its limits; they became its laboratories.

The narrative structure of this passage draws from familiar biblical typologies—most obviously, the prophet Elijah’s confrontation with the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18. The setting is similar: a dramatic faceoff between a solitary prophet and a cadre of pagan priests. The climax is likewise similar: pagan ritual attempts to summon divine power through incantation and spectacle, while the true prophet intervenes with a gesture—the Sign of the Cross—and reveals the impotence of the demonic. The storm vanishes. Pagan illusion is exposed. A soul is won.

Yet this is not mere hagiographical theatre—it is ideological counter-history. In a world where Arab rule is rapidly dissolving Christian political frameworks and turning once-vibrant sees into relics, this tale reminds the reader that divine power has not withdrawn. God has not abandoned His Church to conquest. His miracles now occur not in Antioch or Seleucia-Ctesiphon, but on the steppe, at the edges of civilization, among “barbarians” open to truth.

Indeed, the miracle’s setting is its message. This event does not unfold in the sanctified shrines of Mesopotamia or in the ruins of fallen cathedrals. It takes place “within the outside borders”—in a place both geographical and symbolic: a liminal zone where empires fade and new spiritual frontiers begin. It is here, in the blurred margins of the known world, that the Gospel takes root most dramatically.

The conversion is not limited to the kinglet alone. Like the biblical Nineveh, the entire retinue follows suit, is baptized, and ordained leadership is established. This is not only a conversion; it is the foundation of a church—a microcosmic reenactment of Pentecost on the frontier.

---

Intertextual Echoes: al-Ṭabarī and the Burial of Yazdegerd III

The historical authenticity of a bishop named Elijah in Merv is reinforced—astonishingly—by al-Ṭabarī’s Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk. In a moving and politically charged episode, Ṭabarī records that Iliyāʾ, the archbishop (mutrān) of Marw, recovered and honorably buried the body of Yazdegerd III, the last king of the Sasanian dynasty, after his assassination by a miller near the Oxus.

“A man from Ahwaz named Iliya', who was the archbishop (mutrān) of Marw, learned of the murder. He assembled the Christians under his authority and said to them: ‘The King of the Persians has been murdered... This king had a Christian lineage... Now I think it right that I build a tomb (nawus) for him and bear his body in honor in order to inter it there.’”

This historical Elijah is not merely a miracle-worker of legendary fame but a real ecclesiastical authority who led his flock in a collective act of piety and political grief. His invocation of Yazdegerd’s Christian ancestry through Shīrīn (the Christian wife of Khosrow II) and his benevolence to Christians underlines a deep and abiding memory of Sasanian-Christian diplomacy. In honoring Yazdegerd’s body, Iliyāʾ does not just bury a dead king; he buries an age, and in doing so anchors Christianity as a faithful custodian of that legacy.

This account is not Christian fantasy. It is preserved by a Muslim historian, and it shows us an Elijah who is both a man of miracle and a man of mourning, both a frontier missionary and a civilizational witness.

---

Resilience at the Margins: Theological Arc of the Chronicle

Together, the miracle narrative and the historical burial scene deepen the theological arc of the Chronicle of 660. Section II of the text, which begins with devastation—the fall of cities, crucifixion of dissidents in Shaṭru, schisms among bishops—ends not in despair but in resurrection.

The final word belongs not to Arab military conquest or doctrinal chaos, but to a bishop with nothing but a cross. This editorial decision is telling. It reframes the Church not as an institution in decay, but as a vessel of divine power—still sailing, still planting, still baptizing.

The paradox of the Chronicle is now laid bare: while Christianity’s political patronage collapses in its ancient heartlands, the faith radiates into new zones, fueled not by imperial decree but by divine power, personal sanctity, and missionary zeal.

Elijah’s confrontation with the kinglet becomes a microcosm of the post-Sasanian Church: stripped of state power, surrounded by foreign beliefs, but still—somehow—commanding the storm.

---

Conclusion: From Empire to Evangelism

The story of Elijah of Merv, as captured in both Christian and Islamic sources, offers one of the most compelling illustrations of how faith persists and even thrives in the wreckage of empire. In the wreckage of the old world, where Xusro’s heirs lie in tombs and patriarchs are driven into exile, we do not find only ashes.

We find missionaries.

We find miracles.

We find the Church—not in the halls of power—but at the riverbanks, baptizing strangers, naming new priests, and moving forward.

As if to say: the Gospel has no permanent city. But it has every land.

Section III – The Quiet Conquest: Islam, Geography, and the End of Resistance

Text:

“At the time of which we spoke above, once the Arabs subjected all the lands of the Persians and the Romans, they also marched and invaded Bēt-Hozāyē, subjecting all the fortified cities, that is Bēt-Lapaṭ, Karkā-d-Leddan, and the fortress of Susa. Susa and Shushtra remained (untouched) because they were much fortified, and none of all the Persians remained resisting the Arabs except for King Yazdgird and one of his commanders whose name was Hormizdan of Media, who gathered forces and held Susa and Shushtra, This Shushtra is very extensive in habitation and much fortified by the powerful rivers and canals that surround it on every side like ditches. One of the [rivers] is called Ardashīragan, after the name of Ardashīr who dug it, another one which passes by it is named Samiramis, after the name of the queen, and another one [is named] Darayagan after the name of Darius. The largest of all them is a mighty stream which flows down from the northern mountains.”

Commentary:

With this passage, the Chronicle resumes the narrative of conquest, but in an almost geographical key. The focus shifts to Bēt-Hozāyē—the Syriac name for Khūzistān, the rich, canal-woven lowland province in southwestern Iran, long famed for its imperial cities and irrigation networks. But instead of dramatic descriptions of battle or divine intervention, the Chronicle gives us something more methodical: a military catalog of fortresses and rivers, a landscape report filtered through the memory of conquest.

The cities named—Bēt-Lapaṭ, Karkā-d-Leddan, Susa, Shushtra— were all part of the Sasanian provincial heartland, especially important for their economic productivity and Zoroastrian religious institutions. Their fall to Arab armies marked the final unraveling of Sasanian resistance in the west. Yet the Chronicle offers no pathos. No lament for lost glory. No apocalyptic framing. Only the fact that Yazdgird III, now reduced to a wandering claimant, and Hormizdan of Media, his commander, remained in opposition.

The text praises Shushtra (Shushtar) as a marvel of natural and engineered defense, encircled by rivers with legendary names: Ardashīragan (dug by Ardashīr I, founder of the Sasanian dynasty), Samiramis (linked to the legendary Assyrian queen), and Darayagan (after Darius, the Achaemenid king). The Chronicle not only remembers conquest—it memorializes the landscape, preserving the Persian imperial imagination even as it acknowledges its defeat. This suggests a respectful historicism, even toward a fallen rival civilization.

The military narrative is also strikingly unemotional. There are no eschatological portents, no proclamations of divine punishment, and still—not a single mention of Muhammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic belief. This is conquest as chronology, not as theology.

What is also notable here is that while the Chronicle clearly sees the Arab conquests as a turning of the age, it still treats them as continuations of war, not divine interventions. Yazdgird’s final resistance in Shushtra is treated with a kind of neutral dignity, not mockery or martyrdom. Hormizdan is not vilified; he is just another general standing against the tide.

This passage, then, marks a resumption of imperial disintegration, but within the framework of measured, observational historiography. The conquest here is not cosmic—it is logistical, geographical, and inevitable. 

---

Text:

“Then one of the Arab commanders, called Abū Mūsā, marched up against Hormizdan of Media.”

Commentary:

This brief sentence introduces a major historical actor with minimal commentary—Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (d. c. 662 CE), a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and one of the key figures in the early Islamic military expansion into Iraq and Persia. That he appears in the Chronicle of 660 is a remarkable intersection between Syriac provincial memory and the early Islamic tradition.

Abū Mūsā is referred to here simply as “one of the Arab commanders,” suggesting that the Chronicle's author either did not seek to highlight his religious pedigree, or more likely, simply had no theological interest in Islam itself. Yet from Islamic sources, we know that Abū Mūsā was a major participant in the conquest of Khūzistān, particularly during the campaigns to secure Susa and Shushtar—the cities referenced just above in the Chronicle.

Born in Zabīd, Yemen, of the al-Ashʿarī tribe, Abū Mūsā had migrated to Mecca as a trader before the Prophet's rise. He converted to Islam before the conquest of Mecca in 8 AH / 630 CE, and was later entrusted with command posts by the Prophet himself. Under Abū Bakr, he played a pivotal role in the Ridda Wars, suppressing rebellion in Arabia and reinforcing the fledgling caliphate. By the reign of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, he was appointed governor of Kūfā, one of the major Arab garrison cities and a base for the eastern campaigns.

His engagement with Hormizdan of Media—a prominent Sasanian commander loyal to Yazdgird III—fits securely within the historical record. Hormizdan was one of the last serious Persian military leaders resisting the Arab advance in Khūzistān, and his confrontation with Abū Mūsā would have taken place in the final phases of the Persian collapse, perhaps around 642–644 CE.

Notably, the Chronicle offers no eschatological framing, no demonization, and no glorification. The name "Abū Mūsā" is given without fanfare, even though Christian readers of the time may have heard of him as a governor of Kūfā or a judge in the aftermath of the Battle of Ṣiffīn. The Syriac author’s concern is not with the ideological profile of Islam, but with who won, who ruled, and how regional order changed.

This subtle neutrality is powerful. Even when referencing a ṣaḥābī—a man close to the Prophet and essential to early Islamic history—the Chronicle treats him as another actor in the long arc of imperial conflict, not as a harbinger of a new religion or apocalyptic disruption. In this, the Chronicle continues its remarkable tone: Islamic rule is an administrative and military fact, not yet a theological rupture.

---

Text:

“The former built Baṣra as a settlement for the Arabs, where the Tigris pours into the Great Sea, situated between cultivated land and a desert.”

Commentary:

In this passage, the Chronicle of 660 attributes the founding of Baṣra (ܒܨܪܐ)—one of the first Arab-Muslim garrison cities—to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, describing it as an Arab settlement on the threshold between desert, farmland, and sea. While the geographic details are loosely rendered (Baṣra lies near the Shatt al-ʿArab, not where the Tigris empties into the Persian Gulf), the Chronicle accurately captures the site’s liminal and strategic significance. This was not just a city—it was a military frontier, a logistical hub, and a new axis of Muslim rule in southern Iraq.

That the Chronicle credits Abū Mūsā with the city’s construction reflects a common confusion between foundation and formal governance—a conflation echoed in several early Arabic sources. In Islamic historical accounts, the actual initial founding of Baṣra as a military encampment is typically credited to ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān, while Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī is recognized as its first enduring political governor, appointed by Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.

---

Reconstructing the Founding of Baṣra: From Camp to City

The foundation of Baṣra (البصرة / ܒܨܪܐ) cannot be reduced to a single year or founder. The Chronicle of 660 attributes the creation of this southern Arab settlement to Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, a Companion of the Prophet and early Muslim governor. But as with many early Islamic cities, Baṣra emerged in stages—from makeshift encampment to permanent garrison town, and finally to an urban, administrative hub.

In Islamic historical sources, especially Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ, Dīnawarī, al-Ṭabarī, and al-Balādhurī, we find varying reports of the city’s foundation, ranging from 14 AH / 635 CE to 16 AH / 637 CE, depending on whether the writer emphasizes the military founding, the official commission, or the urban and governmental transformation under later governors like Abū Mūsā.

---

 1. The First Foundation – 14 AH / 635 CE

According to Khalīfa ibn Khayyāṭ and Dīnawarī, Baṣra’s earliest phase began in 14 AH / 635 CE, when ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān—a close associate of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb—established a military outpost near the edge of Khūzistān. This first site, made of reeds and tents, was not intended as a permanent city but as a temporary frontier base to:

• Launch raids into Sasanian territory,

• Secure the Persian Gulf trade routes, and

• Provide a staging point for further military operations eastward.

Baṣra’s strategic value lay in its location between cultivated Mesopotamian lands and desert routes—ideal for Arab logistics and cavalry movement. The terrain was dry, yet fertile, offering water access through the Tigris delta, while avoiding the marshy conditions that had made Ctesiphon inhospitable for Arab soldiers.

---

 2. Consolidation and Planning – 16 AH / 637 CE

By 16 AH / 637 CE, we begin to see Baṣra transitioning from a reed-built camp to a purpose-built garrison town. According to al-Ṭabarī and al-Balādhurī, ʿUtba was now formally commissioned, possibly by Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, to establish a structured military city. Though some sources attribute the commission directly to Caliph ʿUmar, others note that Saʿd, as the commanding general in Iraq, issued the orders in line with caliphal strategy.

This second phase involved:

• Laying out tribal quarters,

• Establishing a Friday mosque (Jāmiʿ),

• Digging irrigation channels, and

• Creating a military marketplace and logistics base.

The location was selected with clear strategic logic. According to al-Balādhurī, ʿUmar specifically instructed that Baṣra be established outside the Tigris basin, in an area easily accessible to the Arabian Peninsula, to avoid replicating the isolation of pre-Islamic Arabia or dependence on older Persian capitals.

---

3. Governance and Urbanization – 16–18 AH / 637–639 CE and beyond

Following ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān’s death (ca. 639 CE), Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī was appointed governor of Baṣra by ʿUmar. From 16–29 AH / 637–650 CE, Abū Mūsā oversaw the formal development of the city and turned it from a military station into a full-fledged urban center. His tenure was marked by:

• Construction of administrative institutions and a court,

• The establishment of mosques and schools,

• Supervision of judicial and financial systems, and

• Launching campaigns deeper into Fārs, Ahvāz, and Sīstān.

His role in provisioning and stabilizing the city is what likely led the Chronicle of 660 to call him its “builder”—not in the architectural sense, but in the civilizational one.

---

Reconciling the Dates and Attributions

The apparent contradiction between sources that credit ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān with the founding of Baṣra and those that emphasize Abū Mūsā’s role can be resolved by distinguishing stages of foundation:

Date (AH)	Date (CE)	Event	Key Figure	Description
14 AH	635 CE	First military encampment established near Khūzistān	ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān	Reed huts and tents used as a frontier post
16 AH	637 CE	Official commissioning of Baṣra as an Arab garrison city	ʿUtba (under Saʿd & ʿUmar)	Planning of urban layout, tribal quarters, and infrastructure begins
16–18 AH	637–639 CE	Appointment of a civilian governor, expansion of city life	Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī	Institutional and religious governance; city becomes a true urban center

Thus, the Chronicle’s attribution—“The former built Baṣra as a settlement for the Arabs”—is not incorrect, but compressed. It reflects a provincial Christian's recollection of who ruled, who governed, and who brought order. The memory of ʿUtba’s military founding may have faded from ecclesiastical circles, but Abū Mūsā, who governed, arbitrated disputes, and protected religious minorities, would have been remembered vividly by the Christian inhabitants of the region.

 Conclusion:

Baṣra’s creation was not a single act, but a layered unfolding: founded in the field, built through planning, and remembered through governance. If ʿUtba pitched the first tent, it was Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī who made it a city—and it is that memory which the Chronicle of 660 preserves. For its Syriac Christian author, the true builder was not the soldier with the hammer, but the governor with the pen—the one who turned conquest into continuity, and chaos into administration.

Text:

“Likewise, Saʿad, the son of Waqqāṣ, built the city of ʿĀqūlā, which was called Kūfā after the term ‘the turning around’ of the Euphrates, as another settlement for the Arabs.”

Commentary:

This passage in the Chronicle of 660 parallels its earlier note on Baṣra, now crediting Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ with the foundation of ʿĀqūlā, later known as Kūfā. As with Baṣra, the Chronicle collapses multiple phases of development—military settlement, formal urban foundation, and administrative consolidation—into a single gesture: "he built the city."

From a Syriac Christian perspective, this memory is not about architecture, but about imperial transition: the founding of cities that signaled not just Arab presence, but Arab permanence. These new garrison cities—amṣār—were not like the ancient metropolises of Ctesiphon or Antioch. They were new, Arab, and oriented toward strategic control and tax collection. They also, paradoxically, became places of relative security for Christian communities.

The Founding of Kūfā: A Phased Emergence

The origins of Kūfā (الكوفة / ܟܘܦܐ)—one of the most pivotal Arab-Islamic cities in early Islamic history—are obscured not by silence, but by an overabundance of memory. Various Islamic sources offer overlapping, contradictory dates for its creation, ranging from 14 AH / 635 CE to 19 AH / 640 CE, depending on whether they emphasize the initial encampment, the formal foundation, or the completion of administrative and urban development. The Chronicle of 660 reflects this fluid memory by attributing the city’s establishment to Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, while describing it as a strategic Arab settlement “where the Euphrates turns,” tying the city's geography to its name.

To understand Kūfā’s development, we must consider it as a process, not a moment. The settlement passed through three major phases, each marked by a different kind of activity—occupation, urbanization, and institutional consolidation.

---

Early Phase – 14 AH / 635 CE: The Camp of Tents and Reeds

According to al-Yaʿqūbī and other early Arab chroniclers, the first Arab presence at the site that would become Kūfā began around 14 AH / 635 CE—possibly even before the foundation of Baṣra. This earliest phase was not a city, but a military encampment, a makeshift installation constructed from reeds, tents, and animal skins, much like the earlier amṣār such as Basṭām and Dūmat al-Jandal.

Its location was deliberately chosen: on the bend of the Euphrates, near ʿĀqūlā, at the border between cultivated Mesopotamian land and the Arabian desert. The site’s strategic value lay in its access to both riverine transport and open desert routes, making it ideal for a mobile Arab army staging conquests into Khūzistān, Media, and Fārs.

This early phase corresponds with the “gathering place” etymology of both ʿĀqūlā and Kūfā. As Islamic linguists and geographers would later point out, both names may derive from roots that suggest binding, hobbling, or gathering together (ʿ-q-l and k-f-f), referring either to the geographic curve of the river or to the congregation of soldiers and later citizens in a single defensible space.

Urbanization – 17 AH / 638 CE: The Transition to Cityhood

By 17 AH / 638 CE, according to al-Ṭabarī, al-Balādhurī, and Yāqūt, the camp was formally transformed into a garrison city by order of Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, who tasked Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ with leading the project. Saʿd, a Companion of the Prophet and seasoned general, had already directed key campaigns during the conquest of Iraq. Under his leadership, the military encampment took on the infrastructure of permanence:

Barracks for various tribal contingents,

A central mosque (Jāmiʿ),

A market,

Administrative facilities, and

A system of stipend distribution for veterans (ʿaṭāʾ).

It was likely during this phase that the name Kūfā began to overtake ʿĀqūlā in usage. The term kūfā was said to refer to a winding, circular landscape or a gathering ground, both fitting for the new city’s topography and social function. Syriac-speaking Christians of the region preserved similar interpretations, and the Chronicle of 660’s explanation—“the turning around of the Euphrates”—reflects this semantic continuity between Arabic and Syriac understandings of the site.

Importantly, Caliph ʿUmar is reported to have deliberately avoided selecting Ctesiphon (al-Madāʾin)—the great Sasanian capital—for Arab settlement, citing its unfamiliar climate, dampness, and dense vegetation. In contrast, Kūfā’s arid, open surroundings were “fit for sheep and camels,” in his words—a climate suitable for Arabs and for governing the new frontier from within, not as foreigners occupying a foreign court.

Full Consolidation – 18–19 AH / 639–640 CE: Institutional Maturity

Still other sources push the official “foundation” of Kūfā forward to 18 or 19 AH / 639–640 CE, suggesting that while the site had been chosen and settled, its urban features and administrative apparatus were only finalized a year or two later. These sources likely refer to:

The final layout of the city, with tribal wards (miṣr districts),

The appointment of judicial and tax officials, and

The integration of Kūfā into the broader caliphal administrative structure, especially as a counterweight to Baṣra in the south.

It was around this time that Kūfā began to assume the role it would hold for decades to come: a religious, political, and military nerve center for the Islamic East. Later, it would serve as the base for the caliph ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the heart of various theological schools, and a crucible of early Islamic jurisprudence.

Reconciling the Dates

So how do we make sense of the conflicting dates—14, 17, 18, 19 AH?

The answer lies in distinguishing different types of founding:

Date (AH)	Date (CE)	Event	Nature
14 AH	635 CE	First military encampment at the site (ʿĀqūlā)	Temporary occupation
17 AH	638 CE	Urban planning under ʿUmar; Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ initiates city construction	Formal foundation
18–19 AH	639–640 CE	Completion of infrastructure; administrative maturity; name “Kūfā” standardizes	Institutional consolidation

The Chronicle of 660, consistent with its provincial, ecclesiastical vantage point, collapses these phases into a single memory of power and transformation: Saʿd built Kūfā. This is not a contradiction—it is a distillation, filtered through the experience of Syriac Christians who saw their world reshaped not in paperwork or blueprints, but in the arrival of garrisons, taxes, governors, and mosques.

Conclusion - So, did Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ build Kūfā?

From a Syriac Christian perspective: yes. He was the visible embodiment of the new Arab authority—the general under whose leadership a transient military camp crystallized into a permanent, functioning city. His name, not the engineers or early scouts, was tied to the transformation that mattered.

From the standpoint of Islamic historiography: yes—and no. Saʿd oversaw the planning, layout, and governance of Kūfā as a formal settlement, but the site had seen occupation earlier—perhaps as early as 14 AH / 635 CE—as a rudimentary encampment, long before it matured into an organized garrison city.

The Chronicle of 660, in its distinctive narrative style, does not concern itself with these nuances. It records not the moment a stake was planted, but the moment power took form. Abū Mūsā built Baṣra because he governed it and gave it structure. Saʿd built Kūfā because, under his command, the landscape changed—from open field to city, from tactical mobility to political permanence.

And for the Chronicle’s Christian author—living in a world where the Sasanian past had collapsed and the Arab future had begun to take root—cities like Kūfā were more than military installations. They were signs of permanence. Signs that the Arabs had come not just to raid, but to rule. If Christians could not halt that advance, they could at least preserve a memory of its architecture of authority: who built, who governed, and how the world was remade.

Text:

“When Abū Mūsā marched up against Hormizdan, this Hormizdan concocted tricks so as to prevent him from waging battle with him until he would gather an army. He wrote to Abū Mūsā to desist from taking prisoners and destroying, and he would send him whatever tribute they would exact from him. They remained in this state two years. But then, Hormizdan, trusting in his walls, broke the truce between them, killing the men who were doing embassy between them. One of these was George, bishop of Ulay, while he imprisoned Abraham, metropolitan of Prat, He sent large forces against the Arabs but the Arabs crushed all of them....”

Commentary: Diplomacy, Deceit, and the Fall of Susa

This dramatic section of the Chronicle of 660 recounts the final Sasanian resistance in Khūzistān, centered on the fortified cities of Susa and Shushtar, through the figure of Hormizdan of Media—likely a high-ranking Sasanian general or noble, and one of Yazdgird III’s last loyal commanders west of the Zagros.

 1. A War Delayed by Truce: Two Years of Tactical Stalling

Hormizdan’s request to delay combat through promises of tribute aligns with both Sasanian and early Arab military norms. It was common in this period to engage in staggered conquests, where tribute and partial surrenders were used to delay sieges or buy time. The Chronicle notes this standoff lasting two years—likely from ca. 15–17 AH / 636–638 CE—during which time Hormizdan was gathering forces, hoping to turn the tide.

Yet this peace ends in betrayal. Hormizdan kills the Arab envoys, including George, bishop of Ulay, and imprisons Abraham, metropolitan of Prat—an action that would have especially shocked the Chronicle’s Christian author. Diplomats, particularly bishops, were often used by the Arabs (as they had been by the Sasanians) as trusted intermediaries, precisely because of their religious standing and perceived neutrality. Their murder violated not only a truce, but the sacred customs of negotiation. Arab sources confirm that bishops were regularly employed in truce negotiations (see al-Ḥimyarī, al-Rawḍ al-Miʿṭār, p. 329).

 2. The Siege and Sack of Susa: Between History and Memory

Text:

“The Arabs rushed to lay siege against Susa and subjugated it after a few days. They killed all the prominent people in it, seized the church in it called the church of Mār Daniel, and took the treasure which was stored there, protected by royal edict since the days of Darius and Cyrus. They broke the silver sarcophagus in which a mummified body was laid, said by many that it was of Daniel, but others (claim) that it was of Darius the king, and carried away its contents.”

Commentary: 

This dramatic passage illustrates how, in the memory of the Chronicle, the fall of Susa was not only a political rupture but a profound spiritual desecration. An ancient city, once a seat of Elamite, Achaemenid, and Sasanian glory, is here reduced to violent plunder. The Chronicle focuses not on the military mechanics of siege, but on its consequences: the slaughter of elites, the seizure of sacred treasures, and the violation of a burial site hallowed by centuries of royal and religious reverence.

Arabic sources such as al-Balādhurī confirm that the city fell swiftly once provisions ran out. An amān (guarantee of protection) was granted only to a select group—some 80–100 people. The Sasanian marzbān, who failed to include himself, was executed, and the treasury confiscated. Some residents converted to Islam, according to the Arabic accounts, “out of fear.”

But the Chronicle’s emphasis falls on the church of Mār Daniel, its silver sarcophagus, and the mummified body said to belong either to the prophet Daniel or to Darius. This was no ordinary plunder: it symbolized, for the Chronicle's author, the eclipse of sacred time. The treasure was not simply stolen—it had been “protected by royal edict since the days of Darius and Cyrus,” tying the church’s sanctity to the foundational dynasties of Iran. Its violation is presented as a civilizational breaking point.

In Islamic tradition, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī is indeed said to have discovered a preserved body—likely the same described here—and consulted Caliph ʿUmar, who ordered it reburied in secret beneath a river tributary to prevent its veneration (Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-ʾArḍ; al-Harawī, al-Ishārāt). This confirms that such an event was remembered—though in very different theological terms.

 3. The Long Siege of Shushtar: Betrayal and Bloodshed

Text:

“They also laid siege to Shushtra and fought for two years to conquer it. Then a man from Qaṭar among the inhabitants there befriended a man whose house was near the wall, and the two of them secretly conspired. They went out to the Arabs and said to them: ‘If you give us a third of the spoil of the city we would take you into it.’ They made an agreement between them, dug tunnels from the inside underneath the wall, and let the Arabs go into it and they captured Shushtra. They shed in it blood like water, killed the city’s Interpreter [of the Scripture] and the bishop of Hormuz-Ardashīr, along with students, priests, and deacons whose blood they shed in the sanctuary. As for Hormizdan, they captured him alive.”

Commentary: 

The Chronicle continues with the siege and fall of Shushtar, an episode marked by two years of deadlock, before the city was finally breached through internal betrayal. A man “from Qaṭar” (referring to an Arab of the eastern Gulf coast) conspires with a local resident to tunnel beneath the city walls in exchange for a third of the loot. The Chronicle’s account of this tunnel-based infiltration is corroborated by Arabic sources, which name a certain nobleman, Sīna, who made contact with the Arab army under similar terms.

Once inside, the Arab forces massacre the city’s defenders, including the Interpreter of Scripture, the bishop of Hormuz-Ardashīr, and numerous priests, deacons, and students—a scene of religious violence presented in shocking detail:

“They shed in it blood like water… their blood they shed in the sanctuary.”

While Arabic sources such as al-Ṭabarī and al-Balādhurī do not linger on this massacre, they acknowledge that those not covered by amān were put to the sword. The Chronicle, from a Christian perspective, expands this into a theological tragedy—the sanctity of the church, its clergy, and even its bloodstained sanctuary become symbols of a faith wounded but still bearing witness.

At the end, Hormizdan was captured alive—marking the symbolic end of organized Sasanian resistance in the southwest. Islamic accounts report that he was sent to Medina, where he later converted, he was later killed by Ubaydallah ibn Umar after the death of his father in 644.

Reconciliation of the Historical Threads

Event	Chronicle of 660	Islamic Historiography	Approx. Date
Truce with Hormizdan	Two years of non-hostility; tribute offered	Plausible but unmentioned; delayed campaign confirmed	636–638 CE
Murder of envoys (incl. Bishop George)	Yes; used to justify resumption of hostilities	Not reported, but within standard patterns of violated truces	~638 CE
Siege and sack of Susa	Fast fall; prominent killed; church of Mār Daniel desecrated	Amān granted to few; treasure seized; tomb of Daniel removed	638 CE
Siege of Shushtar	Two years; entry via tunnel dug by collaborators; massacre in sanctuary	Siege confirmed; betrayal by Persian noble; massacre acknowledged tersely	638–639 CE
Capture of Hormizdan	Taken alive	Sent to Medina; killed after the death of Umar	639 CE (or slightly later)

This sequence—Susa and Shushtar—is among the most visceral passages of the Chronicle. Here, war is not abstract. It is seen, heard, and wept over: mummified bodies unearthed, clergy slaughtered, sanctuaries awash in blood. The Chronicle’s author, likely writing within decades of the events, does not attempt neutrality. He writes as one whose world was not merely conquered but disfigured.

Yet even in this grief, the Chronicle preserves valuable data: timelines, names, places, and political tactics. It acknowledges the bureaucratic sophistication of Arab war-making—their use of envoys, truces, tunnels, and urban logistics. And, perhaps most poignantly, it records the Christian experience of conquest not just in terms of power lost, but sacred space defiled.

These aren’t merely accounts of cities falling. They are accounts of orders unraveling, of gods displaced, and of a new world taking shape—not entirely unfamiliar, but reshaped in the image of a rising empire whose soldiers now walked through the halls of Daniel and Darius.

 1. Khālid ibn al-Walīd’s Western Campaign and the Battle with the Romans

Text:

"Thereafter, a man called Khālid came out from among the Arabs, and went to the West, seizing lands and cities up to ʿAraba. Upon hearing this, Heraclius, the king of the Romans, sent against them a large army, whose leader was named Sacellarius, and the Arabs triumphed over them. They destroyed among the Romans more than a hundred thousand strong and killed their leader."

Commentary:

The Chronicle credits Khālid ibn al-Walīd (582–642 CE) with leading this western campaign against the Roman Empire. Khālid, known as "the Sword of God" (سيف الله), played a pivotal role in the early Islamic conquests. Initially a prominent Meccan warrior from the Makhzūm clan of Quraysh, Khālid became one of the earliest converts to Islam after having fought against the Prophet Muhammad in the Battle of Uhud. He was known for his military brilliance, including his roles in the Wars of Apostasy, the conquest of Iraq, and the Levant.

His participation in the Battle of Yarmūk cemented his legacy as one of Islam's greatest military commanders. Under his leadership, the Arab forces were able to decisively defeat the Roman army, pushing deep into the Roman territories. His strategy, including his use of cavalry and mobile warfare, was crucial in the collapse of Roman defenses and the eventual Arab conquest of the region.

The Chronicle also states that Khalid "went to the West, seizing lands and cities up to ʿAraba." At first glance, this might seem like a generic geographic note, but the mention of ʿAraba (ܥܪܒ) is actually quite significant and may be a stylized reference that signals the southern limits of early Arab campaigns in the Levant.

What is ʿAraba?

• The term ʿAraba (Arabic: ʿArabah, Hebrew: ʿAravah) refers to the valley strip running from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba.

• Spanning around 166 kilometers, this region marked a geological depression and served as a strategic frontier zone between the Hejaz (Arabia proper) and southern Palestine.

Historically, the Araba:

• Was known in Biblical times as a center of copper production, associated with the mining ventures of King Solomon.

• Served as a trade corridor linking northwestern Arabia with the Levant.

• Appears in early Islamic military records as a borderland where skirmishes and raids took place during the expansion northward from the Hijaz into the Roman Levant.

Why Mention It Here?

The reference to ʿAraba in this context is not just geographical—it’s rhetorical. The Chronicle’s author is drawing the western boundary of Khalid’s conquests in a way that evokes the edge of the Roman-controlled Levant, possibly symbolizing the final limit of that specific campaign.

It’s also possible that the Chronicler is using ʿAraba as a literary anchor—just as references to the Euphrates or the Nile delineated the eastern and southern zones of conquest, ʿAraba serves here as the western border of a new Islamic world.

In Islamic sources, we find less emphasis on ʿAraba itself, but Yāqūt’s Muʿjam al-Buldān notes that battles did occur in this area in the early Islamic period. This lends weight to the Chronicle’s mention: it may preserve a vestige of local memory or oral tradition about an otherwise obscure military movement.

The Battle of Yarmūk (636 CE): A Stylized Account

The Chronicle’s narrative here presents a stylized, dramatic account of one of the most decisive battles of the early Islamic period: the Battle of Yarmūk. Fought in 636 CE, the battle marked the culmination of a series of engagements between the Arab forces and the Roman Empire, decisively shifting the balance of power in the Levant in favor of the former.

In this passage, the Chronicle’s tone amplifies the scale of the battle’s outcome. By claiming that the Arabs “destroyed among the Romans more than a hundred thousand strong,” it elevates the scale of defeat to almost apocalyptic proportions. 100,000 slain is a dramatic overstatement, but the Chronicle’s hyperbole reflects the immense impact that the Arab triumph had on Christian historiography, where such victories were understood not only as military defeats but as divine interventions.

The historical reality likely involved a much smaller number of casualties, though still substantial. Islamic sources and Roman accounts both agree that the Roman army suffered heavily, but the numbers rarely exceed 30,000 to 40,000 slain, with others being captured or retreating. This exaggeration of the defeat is meant to underscore the devastating loss the Romans faced, especially as it marked the beginning of the end of Roman control over Syria and Palestine.

“Sacellarius”: A Confusion of Titles

The Chronicle’s reference to the Roman leader as "Sacellarius" likely stems from a misunderstanding of the role. Sacellarius (derived from the Greek title sakellarios), a term meaning “treasurer”, was not a general, but rather a high-ranking administrative official responsible for the empire's finances. The actual Roman military commander at Yarmūk was Theodore Trithyrius, who was entrusted by Heraclius to lead the defense. This confusion may stem from the title’s association with high-ranking officials in the Roman system, which the Chronicle appears to conflate with military leadership.

This point highlights a linguistic misunderstanding in the Chronicle, as it interprets a title traditionally associated with financial administration in the Roman Empire as the name of a military commander. The Chronicle, in turn, may be distorting historical reality by equating the sacellarios with a military leader.

The Scale of the Defeat: Military and Symbolic Collapse

The hyperbolic claim of 100,000 dead emphasizes the symbolic rather than the literal scale of defeat. This exaggeration serves to dramatize the collapse of Roman authority and to emphasize the divine intervention in the battle’s outcome. In Christian historiography of the time, the defeat of Heraclius’ forces would have been seen not only as a military setback but also as a sign of divine punishment for a failing Roman empire.

The historical reality is that Yarmūk marked a crucial turning point for the Romans. The defeat shattered their ability to recover in Syria and Palestine, signaling the eventual loss of these territories. The Arab victory at Yarmūk, followed by the rapid Arab advance, was pivotal in the rise of Islam as a political and military force, altering the geopolitics of the region.

Conclusion: Memory and History

In the Chronicle’s depiction of Khālid ibn al-Walīd and the Battle of Yarmūk, history and memory intersect. The battle’s impact is inflated to communicate its catastrophic significance, reflecting not only the military outcome but the spiritual interpretation of Arab triumphs. The Chronicle’s portrayal of the victory goes beyond simple military facts, embedding the battle within a theological framework in which divine favor plays a crucial role in the Arabs’ success.

By exaggerating the scale of the victory and attributing it to divine intervention, the Chronicle underscores the transformation taking place in the Middle East: a new political order, under Arab rule, is emerging from the ashes of the old Roman and Sasanian empires. The exaggeration of the Roman defeat serves as a testament to the power of this transformation, emphasizing the significance of the battle in shaping the future of the region.

 2. Death of Clergy in War: Ishōʿdad and ʿAbd-Meshīḥ

Text:

"They also killed Ishōʿdad, bishop of Ḥirtā, who was there with ʿAbd-Meshīḥ, who was undertaking embassy between the Arabs and the Romans."

---

The Crossfire of Empires: Clergy as Casualties of Diplomacy

This terse but powerful sentence marks a moment of profound tragedy in the Chronicle: the death of Ishōʿdad, bishop of Ḥirtā, alongside ʿAbd-Meshīḥ, during a diplomatic mission between the Arabs and the Romans. While the Chronicle offers no extended lament, the implications are rich with meaning—revealing how, amid the wreckage of collapsing empires, even bishops and emissaries were no longer safe.

This passage stands out as a mourning line within a military chronicle. It reminds the reader that while armies marched and cities fell, Christian leaders were still trying to negotiate, mediate, and preserve peace, only to be crushed by the weight of geopolitical transformations.

---

Ishōʿdad of Ḥirtā: A Bishop in the Fray

Ishōʿdad is not known from any other historical source, making the Chronicle of 660 our only witness to his fate. Scholar Jean Maurice Fiey has suggested that he may have been killed during the fall of Shushtar, indicating that his role was likely that of a peace envoy or intermediary during the last efforts to mediate between the Sasanian remnants, the Christian populations, and the Arab armies (Fiey, Assyrie Chrétienne, vol. 3, p. 204).

The mention of his death here, outside the immediate context of Shushtar, might reflect a conflation of events in the Chronicle’s source material. But regardless of the exact location, the symbolism is stark: a bishop of Ḥirtā—once a stronghold of East Syrian Christianity—is killed not on the pulpit, but on the road of diplomacy, between rival powers who no longer respected traditional religious mediators.

---

ʿAbd-Meshīḥ: A Name Carried by Many, a Fate Shared by Few

The Chronicle provides no further details on ʿAbd-Meshīḥ, though the name (“Servant of the Messiah”) was common among Christians of the seventh century. One well-known figure bearing that name was ʿAbd-Meshīḥ ibn Buqaylā, who had negotiated with Khālid ibn al-Walīd on behalf of the Christians of al-Ḥīrā.

Archaeological evidence and inscriptions mention others with the same name—particularly one uncovered at Ḥīra in recent excavations (see Naṣīr al-Kaʿbī, Report on the Excavations of Ḥīra, 2010–2011)—but none can be definitively identified with the man in the Chronicle. That ambiguity only deepens the pathos: a name common to many Christians, a death remembered by few.

---

The End of Christian Mediation?

The deaths of Ishōʿdad and ʿAbd-Meshīḥ symbolize the waning influence of Christian diplomacy during the period of Arab expansion. In the late Sasanian and early Arab era, Christian bishops often acted as intermediaries—not only between rival kingdoms, but between conquerors and the conquered, leveraging their respected social roles to mitigate violence, negotiate terms, and preserve their communities.

But by the time of this account, the situation had changed. Arab commanders no longer needed Christian mediators—they were becoming the sole arbiters of power. The world that had once balanced Persian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian patriarchs was giving way to a new, unitary order: one in which Arab military authority alone dictated the terms.

The deaths of Ishōʿdad and ʿAbd-Meshīḥ are not merely tragedies—they are signals. Their failure to survive is not just about personal fate but about institutional obsolescence: the Christian clergy’s diplomatic relevance was diminishing as the Arab conquests entered their consolidation phase.

---

Conclusion: Martyrs of a Shifting World

The Chronicle gives no eulogy, no hagiography—only a line: “They also killed Ishōʿdad… and ʿAbd-Meshīḥ.” Yet within that line is a world in collapse: one in which Christian diplomacy, once essential to the balance of power, was now being buried—literally and metaphorically—by the surge of a new empire.

Their deaths, like the fall of cities and the breaking of tombs elsewhere in the Chronicle, reflect the trauma of transition. The old world could not save its mediators. The new one would not need them.

---

 3. The Conquest of Syria and Palestine

Text:

"The Arabs ruled all the territories of Syria and Palestine..."

A Christian Heartland Falls

This short but sweeping line marks one of the most consequential shifts in Late Antiquity: the fall of the Levant—Syria, Jordan, and Palestine—to Arab-Muslim rule. What the Chronicle captures in a single sentence was in fact the culmination of a fast-moving campaign spanning less than a decade, waged from 634 to 638 CE, across some of the most heavily Christian regions of the Eastern Roman Empire.

These territories were not marginal provinces. They included:

• Antioch, a former imperial capital and patriarchal seat.

• Damascus, a major Roman stronghold and trade hub.

• Jerusalem, the holy city, site of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, and spiritual center of Christian pilgrimage.

The fall of Jerusalem in 638 CE—with Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb personally entering the city to accept its surrender—was especially symbolic. According to al-Balādhurī and al-Wāqidī, the conquest of the Levant was a measured campaign, often involving negotiated surrender (amān) and the continuation of local religious institutions under Arab suzerainty.

But from the perspective of the Chronicle, this was not merely a change in administration. It was a religious eclipse—Christian lands, once protected by Roman emperors and sanctified by centuries of pilgrimage, were now under the rule of the sons of Ishmael, as the Chronicle calls them.

---

 4. The Failed Defense of Egypt and the Fall of Alexandria

Text:

"...they also wanted to invade Egypt, but they could not, because the border was secured by the patriarch of Alexandria with an army and much power. He also sealed the entrances and the exits of the land and built walls along all the banks of the Nile in all the region. In spite of the high [walls], the Arabs managed to invade and seize the lands of Egypt, Thebes, and Africa."

Cyrus of Alexandria: Resister or Collaborator?

The Chronicle presents Cyrus of Alexandria in a dramatically different light from that found in Islamic historiography. In the Chronicle, he is no mere bureaucrat — he is the military soul of Egyptian resistance, a patriarch who not only holds spiritual authority but also commands armies, seals borders, and fortifies the banks of the Nile in a desperate attempt to block Arab attacks.

“...the border was secured by the patriarch of Alexandria with an army and much power. He also sealed the entrances and the exits of the land and built walls along all the banks of the Nile in all the region.”

This depiction casts Cyrus in a heroic, even defiant role: a Roman loyalist who resisted the tide of conquest. In this version, he appears almost as a Christian general-patriarch, embodying both the spiritual identity of the Church and the final flickers of Roman imperial authority in Egypt.

---

The Islamic Perspective: A Diplomatic Figure

In contrast, Islamic sources such as Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam and al-Balādhurī remember Cyrus very differently:

He is portrayed as a politically astute administrator, the last Roman prefect of Egypt and a Monothelete patriarch.

These accounts present him as negotiating terms with ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, seeking to minimize destruction, preserve lives, and retain ecclesiastical structures under Arab rule.

In some narratives, he appears almost sympathetic to the Muslims, either out of theological alignment (due to his Monothelete leanings) or political realism in the face of an unstoppable army.

Far from a militant defender, Cyrus is depicted here as a pragmatist, possibly even a collaborator — a man who made peace with the Arabs in order to retain some measure of order and influence in a collapsing province.

---

The Coptic and Syriac Tradition: A Martyr of the Empire

The Chronicle’s narrative, however, aligns more closely with the Coptic bishop John of Nikiu, who offers a grim and visceral portrayal of the Arab conquest. In John’s Tārīkh Miṣr, we hear no talk of smooth negotiations or amicable transitions. Instead, we find bitterness, bloodshed, and betrayal.

In this tradition, Cyrus is not a collaborator — he is the last guardian of a Roman Christian Egypt, overwhelmed not by his own failings, but by the weight of imperial decline and divine judgment. His fortifications fail not because he lacked loyalty, but because God had ordained the end of an age.

This view reflects the despair of Christian leaders watching the old order vanish before their eyes. It was not that Cyrus chose to surrender — it was that resistance itself had become futile.

---

 Reconciling the Two: Cyrus as a Tragic Bridge

So, who was Cyrus of Alexandria? A resister or a collaborator?

The historical truth may lie between the two portrayals. There is evidence that:

• Cyrus did negotiate with the Arabs to prevent further destruction in Alexandria.

• He was restored to power after falling out with Heraclius, suggesting a complex position between two crumbling powers — Roman and Arab.

• His Monotheletism isolated him from both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christians, leaving him politically and theologically exposed.

In this sense, Cyrus may be best understood as a tragic figure caught between empires:

• To the Muslims, he was a political mediator, a governor who yielded to necessity.

• To the Syriac and Coptic traditions, he became a symbol of shattered resistance, a man remembered not for what he negotiated, but for what he could not prevent.

---

Final Thought

The Chronicle’s image of Cyrus — fortifying the Nile, walling the land, resisting to the end — is not a literal history, but a poetic memory of defiance. It reflects a world where Christian leaders were expected to guard not just doctrine, but cities, borders, and peoples.

The real Cyrus, perhaps, was neither coward nor hero — but a man who tried to hold together an unraveling world. And in the eyes of the Chronicle, that attempt, no matter how doomed, was worth remembering.

---

Nile Fortresses and Symbolic Walls

The Chronicle also describes Egypt’s defenses in grand, almost apocalyptic terms: walls lining the banks of the Nile, sealed entrances, and the patriarch himself wielding both ecclesiastical and military power. While these may not align exactly with the archaeological or architectural record, they serve as powerful metaphors for the last stand of Christian rule along the river of civilization.

The Arab conquests, led by ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, overcame these defenses between 639 and 641 CE, culminating in the fall of Alexandria—the intellectual jewel of the Christian world, home to the ancient library, the patriarchate, and a vibrant Greco-Egyptian Christian culture.

---

A Christian View of the Conquest: Resistance and Rupture

The Chronicle, together with sources like John of Nikiu, offers a counter-narrative to the often pragmatic Islamic accounts. Here, the conquest is not the orderly transfer of power, but a violent, disorienting rupture—a moment when the rivers of Egypt, once symbolically lined with Christian walls, became channels of attack.

This divergence in accounts—Cyrus the negotiator vs. Cyrus the defender—is not simply a dispute over historical fact. It reveals deep theological and psychological differences:

• For Muslims, Egypt was a prize of military prowess and a sign of divine favor.

• For Christians, it was a lost paradise, betrayed by imperial weakness and overwhelmed by a new and foreign power.

The Chronicle’s version of Egypt’s conquest—though differing from Islamic historiography—preserves a valuable Christian memory of resistance. It depicts a churchman defending the last bastion of Roman faith and civilization, whose fall signaled not just the loss of territory, but the eclipse of a whole religious world.

---

5. The Death of Heraclius and the Theological Framing of Arab Victory

 Text:

"Heraclius the king, out of the distress that befell him over the losses of the Romans, marched up to his capital, fell ill, and died. He co-reigned with his son for twenty-eight years. Now the triumph of the sons of Ishmael, who prevailed over and subjected these two strong kingdoms, was from God. But God did not yet let them rule Constantinople, because victory is his."

 The End of an Era: Heraclius’ Death and the Fall of the Roman East

In this brief but emotionally charged passage, the Chronicle of 660 captures the death of Heraclius (r. 610–641 CE) not merely as a historical event, but as a symbolic rupture—the twilight of Christian imperial sovereignty in the Eastern Roman world. This is not the passing of a man, but the passing of an age.

Heraclius is said to have "marched up to his capital", described in Syriac as medīnat malkūtā—the royal city, a phrase derived from Akkadian āl šarrūti, often used to denote Constantinople, though it is never named directly. This subtle linguistic choice hints at the city's cosmic stature: not merely an urban center, but the very embodiment of Christian empire.

The Chronicle says Heraclius “fell ill, and died,” overwhelmed by distress over the sweeping Arab victories—the loss of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Africa, all regions central to Roman identity and deeply embedded in the Christian sacred geography. For the chronicler, these were not just military setbacks; they were signs of a divine reordering of history. The man who had once restored the True Cross to Jerusalem and crushed the Sasanian Empire now dies broken, not on the battlefield, but in his palace, seemingly defeated by God's new instruments: the sons of Ishmael.

The Chronicle then notes that Heraclius “co-reigned with his son for twenty-eight years.” This is an important temporal marker, corresponding precisely to the coronation of Constantine III (b. 612/13, r. co-emperor from 613), Heraclius' eldest son by his first wife, Eudokia. Constantine was crowned on 22 January 613, and Heraclius died on 11 February 641—a span of twenty-eight years to the day.

This identification matters. Constantine III, not Heraklonas, is the son referenced here, and the Chronicle preserves his memory as part of the Heraclian project—one of dynastic continuity, albeit one that could not forestall collapse. The phrase “co-reigned for twenty-eight years” thus becomes a funeral epitaph for the Heraclian vision itself: born in the triumph of war against Persia, it ended in internal division and imperial contraction.

Constantine III would go on to reign briefly, dying of tuberculosis—or possibly poison—just three months after his father, on 25 May 641. His death left the empire in the hands of his younger half-brother Heraklonas and their controversial stepmother, Martina. The Heraclian dynasty quickly became mired in accusations, purges, and crisis of legitimacy.

This context deepens the Chronicle’s sense of spiritual exhaustion. From a Christian perspective, the Roman Empire as the bulwark of the faith had begun to dissolve—internally through dynastic rot, and externally through Arab conquest. Heraclius’ death is thus both the end of a ruler and the extinguishing of a Christian geopolitical order that had lasted nearly four centuries in the East.

In just a few lines, the Chronicle preserves this world-historical grief—not through elaborate rhetoric, but through a sequence of sparse, factual observations that together mark the end of Christian Rome in the East.

---

The Triumph of the Sons of Ishmael: A Theology of Defeat

"Now the triumph of the sons of Ishmael, who prevailed over and subjected these two strong kingdoms, was from God."

This is perhaps the most remarkable sentence in the entire Chronicle. The Syriac Christian author acknowledges the Arab victory not simply as a military achievement, but as an act of divine will. In this succinct line, the Chronicle reframes the defeat of the Romans and Persians from a political and historical tragedy into a cosmic event. The "sons of Ishmael", a term drawn from the Genesis account, are not portrayed merely as conquerors or invaders. Instead, they are depicted as instruments of God's judgment, fulfilling a divine purpose in the unfolding of world history.

The defeat of two mighty empires—the Romans and the Persians—is framed not as a contest of arms, but as the inevitable outcome of divine will. From a theological perspective, the Arab conquests are not just a geopolitical shift; they are a cosmic reckoning. These empires, both of which had long dominated the region, were now laid low, not by the strength of the Arabs alone, but by what the author sees as a higher power.

This acknowledgment of divine purpose speaks to a theological resignation, as the Christian world—represented by the Romans and the Sasanians—came to terms with the realization that God had allowed the Muslims to take control of vast territories in a manner unprecedented in scale and speed.

---

The Remarkable Speed of the Conquest: From Merv to Tripoli in One Generation

The historical speed of the Arab conquests is nothing short of staggering. From the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE, when the Islamic state was still in its infancy, to the death of Yazdgird III in 652 CE, the Muslims transformed the geopolitical landscape in just one generation. In this span of twenty years, they succeeded in conquering nearly the entirety of Persia and Roman lands in the Levant, establishing an empire that spanned from Merv (in modern-day Turkmenistan) to Tripoli (in present-day Lubya), and from Tiflis (Georgia) to Aden (Yemen).

The Muslim conquest surged through lands once dominated by the Romans and Persians, and in only 20 years, they swept across everything but the Dabuyid dynasty in Persia. By the time of Yazdegerd III's death in 652 CE, the Muslim forces had decimated the Sasanian Empire, and they had secured control over almost all Roman territory south of the Taurus Mountains, including Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.

This was a staggering shift in the geopolitical order. To put it in perspective, for the previous 681 years, from 53 BC at Carrhae to 627 CE at Nineveh, the Roman and Persian empires had engaged in 22 major wars. These two great empires had fought each other for centuries, with battles and confrontations across the ancient world. And yet, within a single generation, the Muslims had managed to conquer nearly the entire expanse of both empires, in a remarkably brief period.

This rapid conquest—especially considering the longstanding conflicts between the Romans and Persians—was nothing short of historic. The entire region was transformed in the blink of an eye.

• From Merv to Tripoli, from Tiflis to Aden, the Arab forces expanded their control rapidly, sweeping through territories once dominated by the Romans and Persians. In just two decades, the Muslim conquests reshaped the political, religious, and cultural fabric of the ancient world.

This development is not just a military feat; it is viewed by the Chronicle as a divine fulfillment. In the eyes of the Syriac author, the “sons of Ishmael” were not merely fulfilling military ambition but serving as instruments of divine will that overthrew these two powerful kingdoms—the Romans and the Persians—in a matter of just one generation.

---

The Historical Legacy: A Shift in World Power

The incredible speed of the Arab conquests and their theological framing in the Chronicle underscores an important historical and religious shift. Not only were these lands rapidly absorbed into the Islamic world, but the Christian and Persian empires, which had been the dominant powers for centuries, now faced an unprecedented collapse. This was a world-shattering event for the Christian world.

The Chronicle presents this victory of the Arabs not simply as an upheaval of power but as a divinely sanctioned victory, and in doing so, it reflects a profound theological shift in how Christians viewed the political landscape. The fall of the Romans and the Persians was not just the fall of great empires—it was seen as part of a divine plan, orchestrated by God.

In just one generation, the sons of Ishmael had swept across two great empires, fundamentally altering the course of history. The Chronicle reflects this monumental transformation, framing the Arab conquests as God's judgment, and marking the end of one era and the beginning of another.

---

 The Wall That Still Stands: Constantinople and the Limits of Conquest

“But God did not yet let them rule Constantinople, because victory is His.”

In this single sentence, the Chronicle of 660 offers one of its most subtle yet profound theological reflections. After narrating the swift and near-total collapse of the Roman and Persian empires under Arab expansion, the Chronicle pauses to note that Constantinople still stands. Not by its own might. Not by Roman arms or ingenuity. But by the will of God.

This is a theologically loaded moment. Even after the sons of Ishmael have swept through Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia, Constantinople remains untouched. The Roman capital, the seat of Christian imperial sovereignty, is spared—not by strategy, but by divine restraint. The implication is clear: God permits the fall of kings and empires, but not yet of Constantinople.

The phrase “victory is His” encapsulates a central theme of the Chronicle: that all earthly triumphs are ultimately subordinated to divine authority. No matter how swift or shocking the rise of the Arab-Islamic order may be, God remains the final arbiter of conquest.

---

Historical Context: The Siege that Failed

While the Chronicle’s author was likely writing before or around the time of the first major Arab attempt on Constantinople, later sources—both Christian and Islamic—record precisely such an attempt, giving further weight to the Chronicle’s theological pause.

In 654 CE, Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān, then governor of Syria under Caliph ʿUthmān, launched what may be considered the first siege of Constantinople. The Armenian historian Sebeos describes this campaign in epic and apocalyptic terms:

All the forces of the Islamic East—from Persia, Khūzistān, India, The Jazirah, and Egypt—gathered under Muʿāwiya’s command.

300 great ships, each carrying 1,000 elite cavalry, were prepared, alongside 5,000 lighter vessels designed for maneuverability.

Siege engines, mangonels, flame-throwers, and stone-hurling machines were loaded aboard, in preparation for a naval siege of the great city.

Muʿāwiya advanced to Chalcedon, directly across from Constantinople, and awaited the naval force from Alexandria.

What followed, according to Sebeos, was a scene of divine intervention:

“When they were about two stades from the dry land… there arose a storm, a great tempest… The towers collapsed, the machines were destroyed, the ships broke up, and the host of soldiers were drowned in the depths of the sea… Not a single one of them remained… On that day, by His upraised arm, God saved the city…”

For six days, the sea raged. The entire fleet was destroyed, and the survivors fled under cover of night. The Ismaelites, witnessing the storm, recognized it not as coincidence, but as the “fearsome hand of the Lord.”

---

 The Chronicle’s Pause: Memory and Theology

In this context, the Chronicle of 660 is not merely reporting a military stalemate. It is prefiguring a known historical event—the failed Arab siege of Constantinople—and interpreting it in spiritual terms:

The Arabs have overthrown the world.

They have conquered “the two great kingdoms.”

But they have not yet taken Constantinople, because God has not permitted it.

This limits Arab victory, not out of imperial nostalgia, but as a reaffirmation of divine sovereignty. It also offers hope—not just that the empire might revive, but that God remains in control, even when emperors fall.

---

 Conclusion: Theology at the Gates

This final line of the Chronicle’s conquest narrative is not a flourish—it is a cliffhanger of cosmic proportions.

It does not deny the overwhelming success of the Muslim armies. Instead, it reframes it:

The Arabs rise—not solely by their swords, but because God allowed them to rise.

The Christian world falls—not by accident or failure, but as part of a divine reshaping.

Constantinople endures—not by fortifications alone, but because God has stayed the hand of judgment.

In the Chronicle’s world, the conquests of Islam are not the end of the Christian story. They are the beginning of a new spiritual reckoning. The cities have fallen. The saints have been martyred. The empire lies in ruin. And yet—God’s hand has not withdrawn.

As the waters of the Bosphorus lap quietly against the walls of the still-standing city, the Chronicle ends its history of conquest not with despair, but with watchful theology.

The storm has not yet passed. But the city still stands.

---

Section IV: Sacred Foundations and Storied Sands: The Dome of Abraham and the Geography of the Arabs

Text:

 “Concerning the dome of Abraham, we did not find what it is, but because the blessed Abraham enjoyed property and also because he wanted to distance himself from the jealousy of the Canaanites, he opted to dwell in the faraway and open lands of the desert. Since he was dwelling in tents, he built that place for the worship of God and for the offering of slaughtered sacrifices. From what had happened it took its current name, and the memory of the place was kept by the generations of the tribe. It was thus not new for the Arabs to worship there, but from the past and their early days they showed reverence to the father and the head of their nation.”

---

Interpreting the Reference: The Kaʿba through Christian Eyes

This brief, enigmatic paragraph contains one of the earliest non-Muslim references to the Kaʿba—called here the “dome of Abraham” (ܕܐܒܪܗܡ ܩܘܒܬܗ). Though the chronicler confesses uncertainty about the precise nature of the site (“we did not find what it is”), what follows is a theologically sophisticated and deeply respectful account of a structure central to Arab identity and worship.

From a Christian Syriac standpoint, the Kaʿba is interpreted within a Biblical-Abrahamic framework:

• Abraham, “the father and the head of their nation,” is remembered not just as a patriarch, but as theological common ground between Arabs and Christians.

• His retreat into the wilderness, building a place of worship, and offering sacrifices, all echo Genesis 12–22 and align closely with Islamic tradition, which holds that Abraham and his son Ishmael constructed the Kaʿba (Qurʾān 2:125, 3:97).

• This narrative gives antiquity and legitimacy to Arab veneration of the site: “It was thus not new for the Arabs to worship there…”—a striking statement from a Christian source, implicitly validating the pre-Islamic sanctity of Mecca and the Kaʿba.

---

“The Dome” — Architecture, Memory, and Name

The use of the word “dome” (Syriac ܩܘܒܬܐ / Arabic قبة) to describe the Kaʿba may surprise readers familiar with its cube-shaped form. However, this term likely reflects:

• A general Semitic metaphor for sanctuary or sacred space, not necessarily the building’s geometry.

• The visual impression of the Kaʿba’s roofed structure in Late Antiquity, which may have included a canopy-like covering.

• A parallel with “the dome of the rock” in Jerusalem—another site tied to Abraham—which would later reinforce Islamic sacred architecture using similar language.

The chronicler’s linguistic choice connects the Kaʿba to a universal religious architecture of memory—a “dome” for a patriarch, a house of worship rooted in desert tradition.

---

Comparative Notes: Qurʾān and Islamic Tradition

The Qurʾān speaks explicitly of “Maqām Ibrāhīm”—the “station of Abraham”—in connection to the Kaʿba:

Surat al-Baqara 2:125:

“Take the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.”

Surat Āl-ʿImrān 3:97:

“Whoever enters it [the Kaʿba] attains security.”

In early Islamic sources, Abraham is described as the builder of the Kaʿba, alongside Ishmael. These ideas were already widespread by the early 600s, and this Syriac chronicler’s knowledge of them—only 30 years after the Prophet’s death—demonstrates how quickly such themes circulated across religious boundaries.

---

A Memory Shared Across Faiths

While the Chronicle’s author expresses some uncertainty about the Kaʿba’s exact identity, he does not reject it. Instead, he offers a Biblical reinterpretation:

• The Kaʿba becomes an Abrahamic sanctuary, a natural extension of desert piety and tribal memory.

• Arab reverence for the site is seen not as idolatry or invention, but as ancestral devotion—something rooted in faith and familial heritage, not innovation.

This is especially remarkable given the Chronicle’s broader tone elsewhere, which does not shy away from lamenting Christian loss in the wake of Arab conquest. Here, however, there is no polemic, only recognition of a shared past.

---

Conclusion: The Kaʿba, Seen from 661

In this small paragraph, the Chronicle of 661 preserves a moment of interreligious insight that is almost unparalleled for its time. It presents the Kaʿba not as a political symbol or sectarian threat, but as a site of ancient worship, tied to Abraham—a father to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

It is, in many ways, the first known Christian acknowledgment that the Arabs’ central sanctuary was not a novelty of Islam, but a continuation of tribal memory and sacred geography. It reminds us that early Islamic sacred space was not built in isolation, but understood—if imperfectly—by neighbors watching the dawn of a new faith.

---

 1. Ḥaṣor – “Head of the Kingdoms”

Text:

“Also Ḥaṣor, which the Scripture mentions as being the ‘head of the kingdoms,’ belongs to the Arabs.”

Commentary:

In this brief but symbolically potent sentence, the Chronicle gestures toward a sweeping reallocation of biblical geography — one that reflects both theological memory and contemporary political reality.

The city of Ḥaṣor (Hazor) is referred to in the Book of Joshua (11:10) as the “head of all those kingdoms” — a prestigious center of Canaanite power before being destroyed by the Israelites. Located in northeastern Palestine, it held a commanding position in the biblical landscape as a symbol of imperial resistance to divine destiny — and ultimately, divine judgment.

By stating that “Ḥaṣor… belongs to the Arabs,” the chronicler is doing more than recording a geographic transfer. He is signaling a theological realignment: cities once defiant of God’s will, or central to Israelite salvation history, are now incorporated into the dominion of the “sons of Ishmael” — the Arabs.

From Canaanite Capital to Arab Possession

The Chronicle notes that Ḥaṣor was once colonized by Nebuchadnezzar with an Arab population, reflecting the passage in Jeremiah 49:28–33 (not 28:33 as misreferenced), where Ḥaṣor is depicted as a land of Arab tribes — “dwellers in tents” — targeted for destruction.

“Flee! Run far away! Deeply hide, you inhabitants of Ḥaṣor,” declares the Lord.

“For Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has plotted a plan against you.” (Jeremiah 49:30)

Thus, even in prophetic literature, Ḥaṣor was associated with Arab tribal identity, not just Canaanite royalty. The Chronicle picks up on this dual biblical inheritance — both judgment and dwelling — and retroactively claims Ḥaṣor as part of the Arab sacred landscape.

Theological Implication: Reclaiming Scripture

This moment functions as a kind of sacred cartography: the chronicler is mapping Arab presence into the biblical world. It affirms that the Arab peoples are not foreign interlopers in the Holy Land, but heirs to its spiritual geography — part of the divine unfolding from Abraham to the present.

In short, this reference does three things at once:

• Echoes Scripture (Joshua and Jeremiah),

• Validates Arab presence in biblical territory,

• And subtly implies a divine hand in the Arab rise — even over ancient “head kingdoms.”

---

2. Madina / Midian / Yathrib – A Triple Identity

Text:

“Madina was named after Midian, the fourth son of Abraham by Ketura, and it is also called Yathrib.”

Commentary:

This line in the Chronicle of 661 is a remarkable window into how early Christian authors interpreted the Islamic heartland through a biblical genealogical lens. It identifies the city we now know as Madina (al-Madīna) with Midian, the fourth son of Abraham by Ketura (Genesis 25:1–4), while also recognizing its older name, Yathrib.

This layering of names—Madina, Midian, Yathrib—suggests an attempt to link Islamic sacred geography back to Abrahamic heritage, thus inserting the Prophet Muḥammad’s adopted city into the biblical continuum.

---

Yathrib: The Pre-Islamic Name

• The name Yathrib is the oldest attested name for the city, appearing in both Greek and Nabataean inscriptions, It also appears once in the Qurʾān (33:13), where it is used by hypocrites opposing the Prophet, hinting at its association with the older, pre-Islamic identity of the city.

• In Islamic tradition, Yathrib is what the city was called before Muḥammad’s arrival during the Hijrah (622 CE). After that, it was renamed al-Madīna (short for Madīnat al-Nabī, "City of the Prophet").

---

Madina: The Islamic Transformation

• The Qurʾān only uses the word Madīna once (Sura 9:120). According to Islamic sources, the Prophet Muḥammad himself renamed the city, desiring it to reflect its new religious status as the spiritual and political center of the early Muslim community.

• The term al-Ṭayyiba ("The Good") was also promoted as a poetic or spiritual epithet, but it’s clear from early usage that Madīna became the dominant name after Islam’s rise.

---

Midian: The Abrahamic Connection

• The Chronicle’s claim that Madina derives from Midian, Abraham’s son by Ketura, is not linguistically accurate, but genealogically meaningful. In Genesis 25:1–4 and 1 Chronicles 1:32, Midian is listed among the sons of Abraham by his second wife Ketura, and his descendants were long associated with Arabia.

• Midianites in the Bible are desert-dwelling tribes with connections to Moses (his father-in-law Jethro was a Midianite priest), thus already linked to prophecy and sacred desert geography.

• By associating Madina with Midian, the chronicler is asserting that the city is not just Islamic, but Abrahamic in origin—part of a shared religious heritage that spans Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

---

Interfaith Implication:

This interpretive move is significant: rather than presenting Madina as a novel Islamic innovation, the Chronicle ties it into longstanding biblical genealogies, softening its Islamic identity by placing it in the wider story of Abraham’s descendants. It reframes Islamic sacred space as part of the broader family of Near Eastern monotheisms.

It’s a subtle act of theological diplomacy: acknowledging the rise of Islamic power while claiming for Christians a shared memory of the place.

---

 3. Dumat-Jundal and the Land of the Ḥāgarāyē

Text:

“Dumat-Jundal and the land of Hāgarāyē are abundant in water, palm trees, and fortified buildings…”

---

Dumat-Jundal – Crossroads of the Desert

Historical Overview:

The city of Dumat-Jundal (دومة الجندل), referenced in Syriac as ܓܢܕܠ ܕܘܡܬ, stands as one of the most ancient and strategically placed settlements in northern Arabia. Known in Akkadian inscriptions, Roman accounts, and Arab tradition, the name combines Duma—said to be a son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:14)—with Jundal, a reference to its distinctive stone construction (jundal = stones).

Dumat-Jundal was situated in what is today al-Jawf province in northwestern Saudi Arabia. Its strategic importance is attested by Arabic geographers who noted its centrality between Ḥijāz, Levant, Madina, and Kūfā—an intersection of military, commercial, and religious routes.

Cultural Significance:

• Arab tradition holds that Akaydar al-ʿAbadī, originally from al-Ḥīrā, rebuilt the city using fallen stones, giving it the stone-built character that distinguished it from other oases.

• The city hosted major seasonal markets attracting merchants from the Levant and Mesopotamia.

• It was also known—less flatteringly—for the practice of prostitution, making it proverbial among pre-Islamic Arabs for moral ambiguity.

Islamic Conquest:

In 9 AH / 630 CE, Dumat-Jundal was captured without resistance by Khālid ibn al-Walīd, one of the Prophet Muḥammad’s most renowned generals (al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, p. 68).

Why it matters in the Chronicle:

For the Syriac author of the Chronicle of 661, Dumat-Jundal exemplifies the Arab control of settled, fortified, and economically viable cities—it wasn’t just the desolate desert that fell under their rule, but established centers rich in infrastructure and history.

---

The Land of the Ḥāgarāyē – From Hagar to Hājar

Toponymy and Location:

The land of the Ḥāgarāyē (ܪܝܐ̈ܗܓ) is tied to the Arabic toponym Hājar (هَجَر), located in the region of ancient Baḥrain, which encompassed the eastern coast of Arabia, including parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain.

Origins and Interpretations:

Etymologically and culturally, there are several readings:

• From the Arabic root HJR (هجر), meaning "to migrate."

• As a reference to beauty, via the term mahjūr.

• Or from the Ḥimyarī language, meaning simply "villages."

One legend connects the name to Hājar, daughter of al-Mukallif ibn al-ʿAmālīq, reinforcing a local mythological identity independent of scriptural Hagar, but linguistically entangled with her.

Economic and Religious Identity:

• Famous for its date palms, Hājar was a prosperous agricultural city.

• Notably, it retained a pluralistic religious identity during the Islamic conquest:

  • In 10 AH / 631 CE, al-ʿAlāʾ al-Ḥaḍramī took the city for Islam.

  • The Persian governor (Marzbān) Sibukht converted, but the Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian populations remained, agreeing to pay jizya (poll-tax) while retaining their religions.

Why it matters in the Chronicle:

The Chronicle’s mention of the abundance of water, palm trees, and fortifications is significant. It recognizes the Arab domains as encompassing both desert and oasis, nomad and urban, and above all, settlements of rich cultural-religious complexity.

This is not just a geographic observation. It's a statement: the sons of Ishmael now possess lands of sacred history, economic vitality, and deep biblical connection.

---

 4. Ḥaṭṭa and the Islands of Qaṭar – A Verdant Shoreline

Text:

“…and in the same way the land of Ḥaṭṭa, located on the seashore near the Islands of Qaṭar, is abundant and dense too in many kinds of plants.”

---

Ḥaṭṭa / al-Khaṭṭ – The Line Along the Gulf

The term Ḥaṭṭa (ܚܛܐ), rendered in Arabic as al-Khaṭṭ (الخط), refers to a coastal region of the Persian Gulf, extending along the modern-day eastern shore of Saudi Arabia, including the area of modern Qaṭar. The name literally means "the line," a likely reference to the long, flat coastal strip stretching from Baṣra in the north to Musandam in Oman in the south.

According to classical Arabic geographers such as Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī and al-Ḥimyarī, this was a notable trading and military region. It was especially known for:

• Its port, through which arms and spears manufactured in India were imported.

• Its strategic position as a hub linking the Gulf's interior oases with the maritime trade networks of the Indian Ocean.

• Its dense vegetation, fed by underground water reserves and seasonal monsoon rains.

The Chronicle’s reference to “many kinds of plants” aligns with this tradition of fertility and abundance—not typical for the Arabian desert in popular imagination, but certainly true of coastal oases and marshes along the Gulf.

---

Rhe Islands of Qaṭar (Bēt-Qaṭrāyē) – Christians by the Sea

The Islands of Qaṭar (ܪܝܐ̈ܩܛ ܒܝܬ)—or more properly Bēt-Qaṭrāyē, “the House of the Qaṭrāyē”—refer not only to the modern peninsula of Qatar, but also to a broader cultural and ecclesiastical region encompassing:

• The eastern Arabian littoral, including parts of Yamāmā, Ḥaṭṭa, and modern Bahrain.

• Possibly extending even toward Musandam and parts of Oman.

This region is especially significant in Syriac Christian history. From the Synod of 410 onward, Qaṭar figures prominently in the Church of the East. By the sixth and seventh centuries, Bēt-Qaṭrāyē had produced:

• Isaac of Nineveh, the mystical theologian revered across Eastern Christianity.

• Dādīshoʿ Qaṭrāyā, a monastic leader.

• Gabriel Qaṭrāyā and Abraham Qaṭrāyā bar Lipeh, both respected authors and thinkers.

Christians from this region not only thrived in monastic and intellectual circles, but also served as translators and bureaucrats at the Sasanian court—testimony to their cultural fluency and bilingual command of Syriac and Middle Persian.

---

The Chronicle’s Implication

This passage may seem like a simple geographic statement, but it subtly reinforces a layered identity:

• The Arab world is not only expansive in territory, but rich in resources—coasts, palm groves, and fortified towns.

• These lands were not merely Bedouin strongholds, but were home to Christian communities, trade ports, and learned centers.

• The Syriac author is not estranged from these places—they are part of his world, part of Christian memory and continuity, even under new rule.

---

 5. Mazun – The Coastal Expanse of Oman

Text:

“Likewise is the land of Mazun, also situated on the seashore – its land measures more than a hundred parsang…”

Mazun = Oman

The term Mazun (ܡܙܘܢ) is a classical Syriac rendering of what later Islamic and Arabic geographers would identify as ʿUmān (Oman). This usage is attested in early Christian sources, including the Oriental Synod of Mār Ezekiel in 576 CE, where the bishop of Mazun was recorded as a participant. Such references underscore the presence of organized Christian ecclesiastical structures in Oman prior to Islam.

Oman was geographically east of Hāgar (present-day eastern Arabia) and lay along the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf coastline, covering an extensive coastal strip known for:

• Fortifications, guarding key caravan routes and coastal settlements.

• Agriculture, with famed date palm plantations and a wide variety of fruit orchards.

• Trade, boasting ports that connected Oman to India, East Africa, and China. The region's sailors and merchants were already well-established in maritime commerce by late antiquity.

Geographers like al-Bakrī, Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, and the anonymous author of Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam emphasize Oman’s wealth, trade power, and cultural independence.

---

“More than a hundred parsangs”

The mention of Mazon stretching “more than a hundred parsangs” (a unit equal to about 3.5–4 miles per parsang) reflects the chronicler’s view of Oman as a massive and self-contained coastal domain. This matches descriptions in Arabic and Persian sources of Oman’s regional autonomy, often seen as a “state within a state” due to its terrain, strategic sea access, and tribal cohesion.

---

Islamicization and Apostasy in Early Oman

Oman was among the first Arabian regions to embrace Islam, with Zayd al-Anṣārī sent by the Prophet Muḥammad to convert the local leaders in 8 AH / 629 CE. However, after the Prophet’s death in 632, the region revolted repeatedly during the Ridda Wars:

• The Azd tribes, dominant in Oman, apostatized and had to be militarily subdued by al-Ḥudhāfah ibn Mihṣan and ʿArfajah ibn Harthamah.

• Despite initial resistance, Oman remained within the Islamic polity, and its ports soon became vital for expansion into India and East Africa.

---

Christian Memory and the Chronicle’s Outlook

The Chronicle’s inclusion of Mazun reflects two things:

1. Its remembered importance as a distant Christian outpost—a place not forgotten even from the perspective of Mesopotamian scribes.

2. A cultural acknowledgment: Oman, though Arab and seaborne, was historically tied into the Syriac Christian world, via both trade and ecclesiastical ties.

Thus, this short line in the Chronicle contains much beneath the surface: it registers a memory of a once-Christian region, now absorbed into a changing religious landscape, but still notable for its size, fruitfulness, and strategic significance.

---

 6. Yamāmā and Ṭāʾif – Desert Heartlands

Text:

“…the land of Yamāmā located in the middle of the desert; the land of Ṭāwef (Ṭāʾif)…”

Yamāmā – The Oasis of Central Arabia

The land of Yamāmā (ܝܡܡܐ), described in the Chronicle as being “in the middle of the desert,” was indeed a central node in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia. Its name, possibly derived from Jaww al-Yamāmā or from the yamām wild pigeon, reflects its deep roots in Arab memory and folklore.

Geographically located south of Najd, Yamāmā was:

• Rich in freshwater springs and flanked by two valleys, making it agriculturally viable despite its desert surroundings.

• A key wheat producer, on which cities like Mecca and Ṭāʾif relied, per Ibn al-Faqīh.

• A cultural stronghold of the banū Ḥanīfa, one of the more politically assertive Arab tribes in the peninsula.

Historically, Yamāmā is most famous as the homeland of Musaylima al-Kadhdhāb ("the Liar"), the prophetic rival of Muḥammad. When Musaylima led a rebellion after the Prophet’s death in 632 CE, Yamāmā became the center of resistance during the Ridda Wars. The rebellion was finally crushed by Khālid ibn al-Walīd in 12 AH / 633 CE.

This context makes the Chronicle’s neutral listing of Yamāmā notable—it avoids polemic and presents the region as a recognized Arab land of wealth and antiquity, rather than as the base of apostasy. Such a tone may reflect the Chronicle’s Syriac lens, which is more interested in place than polemic.

---

Ṭāʾif – The Highland Market

Ṭāʾif (ܛܘܦ / Ṭūf), appearing here as "Ṭāwef," was a well-known fortified city in the Hijāz—some 65 kilometers southeast of Mecca. The name likely derives from its encircling wall (ṭāfa = to encircle), and it stood out for:

• Its agricultural bounty, particularly grapes and dates, due to its higher elevation and cooler climate.

• A diverse population, including pagans, Jews, and later, Muslims.

• Its status as the base of the Thaqīf tribe, known for resisting Muḥammad during his lifetime.

Ṭāʾif famously repelled the Prophet’s early preaching. In 8 AH / 629 CE, Muḥammad laid siege to the city following the Battle of Ḥunayn, but failed to capture it outright. It was only later—after the Battle of Tabūk and subsequent political and religious realignments—that Ṭāʾif formally embraced Islam.

---

Significance in the Chronicle’s Geography

Together, Yamāmā and Ṭāʾif represent two poles of Arab identity in the pre-Islamic and early Islamic imagination:

• Yamāmā: Politically volatile, agriculturally rich, and symbolically important for its role in the Ridda Wars.

• Ṭāʾif: Culturally refined, economically vital, and religiously complex.

The Chronicle, writing from a Christian Syriac point of view, registers these places not for their religious past but for their stability, prosperity, and long-standing Arab character. This hints at a broader theme running through the text: the Arabian Peninsula was not a void before Islam, but a tapestry of established urban cultures, agricultural communities, and sacred geographies.

---

7. Ḥīrā and the Lineage of the Ishmaelite Kings

Text:

“…and the city of Ḥirtā [Ḥīrā] which was established by King Mundhir who was called ‘the Mighty’ – he was the sixth since the beginning of the Ishmaelite kings.”

Ḥīrā – The Desert Capital of Pre-Islamic Arab Kingship

The city referred to as Ḥirtā is none other than al-Ḥīrā, the famed capital of the Lakhmid dynasty in late antiquity. Located near modern-day Najaf in southern Iraq, Ḥīrā served for centuries as the Arab client kingdom of the Sasanian Empire and stood as a critical center of Arab-Christian culture.

The Chronicle’s phrasing—that the city was established by King Mundhir, “the Mighty,” and that he was the sixth of the “Ishmaelite kings”—is packed with layered memory:

• The “Mundhir” in question is likely al-Mundhir ibn al-Nuʿmān ibn Imruʾ al-Qays, who died in 554 CE. According to Ibn Qutayba’s al-Maʿārif, he is indeed counted as the sixth Lakhmid king of Ḥīrā.

• He is to be distinguished from al-Mundhir ibn al-Nuʿmān, the Bahraini ruler slain in the Ridda Wars in 633 CE, though the Chronicle’s ambiguity may subtly fold both figures together—a testament to how dynastic names echo across time.

The title “the Mighty” (possibly rendered from Arabic al-Gharūr, “the strong one”) emphasizes not only royal authority but also the martial stature of the Lakhmids. These Arab rulers were culturally bilingual, militarily active, and religiously diverse—many being Nestorian Christians, others remaining pagans.

---

The “Ishmaelite Kings” – Rewriting Arab Lineage

What makes this passage particularly significant is its genealogical language: the kings of al-Ḥīrā are referred to not just as Arabs, but as “Ishmaelite kings.” This term, common in Syriac Christian historiography, connects the Arabs to their biblical ancestor Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar.

By referring to the Lakhmids in this way, the Chronicle:

• Aligns Arab history with sacred time, casting their kingship as an inheritance that stretches back to the patriarchal age.

• Embeds political history within a biblical framework, subtly reclaiming these rulers as part of a divinely permitted order—even if one ultimately superseded by Islamic conquest.

This way of writing history reflects a Christian historiographical tradition that sought to integrate the rapid expansion of Islam into a providential worldview. Even Arab kings are made legible through the scriptural past.

---

Closing Words: Memory in a Time of Upheaval

"Here end some of the notes and information drawn from ecclesiastical history."

With this gentle colophon, the Chronicle of 661 CE draws to a quiet close. The final line does not thunder with prophecy, nor end in lament. Instead, it speaks with restraint, as if the author were aware of the sheer scale of the upheaval he was attempting to describe—and the impossibility of doing it full justice.

Nonnullae notitiae: just “some notes.” But what a world those notes contain.

When this Commentary of this Chronicle begins, Queen Borān, the last effective monarch of the Sasanian Empire, has just died in 632 CE. Persia is politically fragmented, Rome is weakened, and the Prophet Muḥammad has just passed from the scene. The old imperial order is cracked—but not yet broken.

By the time the Chronicle ends in 661 CE, the map of the known world has been redrawn:

• The Sasanian Empire, which had dominated the Iranian plateau for over four centuries, is gone—its last shah, Yazdgird III, hunted and killed near the Oxus River.

• The Roman Empire, though still alive in Constantinople, has lost Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa—lands it had held for six hundred years.

• The Arabs, once marginalized desert dwellers, now rule a transcontinental empire stretching from the Caucasus to Cyrenaica, from Merv to Thebes, from Tiflis to Aden—all conquered within just twenty years of the Prophet’s death.

• The sons of Ishmael, as the Chronicle calls them, have overcome two superpowers in a single generation.

And yet, the Chronicle is not a simple account of conquest or catastrophe. It is a Christian attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible—to process defeat without despair, and to read history theologically even when history turns against you.

What emerges is a rare kind of historical writing: an ecclesiastical chronicle that becomes a meditation—on divine judgment, on providential history, and on the fragile endurance of memory. From the plundering of sacred cities to the sparing of Constantinople, from the deaths of bishops to the rise of new rulers, every event is weighed not just in political terms, but in the scales of faith.

Even in loss, the Chronicle insists on order. Even in upheaval, it finds meaning. And in the final gesture—signing off with a modest phrase about “some notes from ecclesiastical history”—the author entrusts this memory to the generations to come.

It is a Christian voice watching history turn, not away from it, but within it.

THE END

Works Cited 

- 

Primary Sources

al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Futūḥ al-Buldān [The Conquest of the Lands: A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān]. Translated and annotated by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, 2022.

al-Dīnawarī, Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd. al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl [The Lengthy Reports]. Edited by ʿAbd al-Munʿim ʿĀmir, reviewed by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Shayyāl, Egyptian Ministry of Culture, 1960. Originally published by Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya.

al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Tārīkh al-Islām wa-Wafayāt al-Mashāhīr wa-al-Aʿlām [The History of Islam and the Deaths of the Famous and the Great]. Edited by ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām al-Tadmurī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1993. 52 vols.

al-Khallāl, Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ. Tārīkh Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ [The History of Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ]. Edited by Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, 2nd ed., Dār al-Qalam & Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1977.

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium: Scriptores Syri, Versio Series Tertia Tomus IV, Chronica Minora Pars Prior. Edited by J.-B. Chabot, I. Guidi, H. Hyvernat, and B. Carra de Vaux, translated by Ignatius Guidi, Typographeo Reipublicae, 1903.

Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnīn, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999. Mediaeval Sources in Translation, vol. 36.

Humphreys, R. Stephen, translator and annotator. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume XV: The Crisis of the Early Caliphate. By al-Ṭabarī, edited by Ehsan Yar-Shater, State University of New York Press, 1990. Bibliotheca Persica, SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies.

Ibn al-Athīr, ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh [The Complete History]. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1997. 10 vols.

Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Aḥmad. Kitāb al-Futūḥ [Book of Conquests]. Edited by ʿAlī Shīrī, Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1991.

Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar. al-Bidāyah wa-al-Nihāyah [The Beginning and the End]. Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 2003. 20 vols.

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

Palmer, Andrew, translator. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. With translations and annotations by Sebastian Brock and historical commentary by Robert Hoyland, Liverpool University Press, 1993. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 15.

Penn, Michael Philip. Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

———. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.

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

Yar-Shater, Ehsan, editor. The History of al-Tabari: Volume XIII: The Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia, and Egypt. Translated and annotated by Gautier H. A. Juynboll, State University of New York Press, 1989.

---

Secondary Sources

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

Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise, and Muriel Debié. The Syriac World: In Search of a Forgotten Christianity. Translated by Jeffrey Haines, Yale University Press, 2023.

Crawford, Peter. Emperor Leo III the Isaurian: Imperial Saviour, Christian Icon Breaker? Pen & Sword History, 2024.

---. The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword Military, 2013.

Daryaee, Touraj. Sahrestaniha ī Ērānshahr: A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History. Mazda Publishers, 2002.

----. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.

Deadman, William M., et al. “Locating al-Qadisiyyah: Mapping Iraq’s Most Famous Early Islamic Conquest Site.” Antiquity, vol. 99, no. 403, 2025, pp. 1–8.

Donner, Fred McGraw. The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, 1981.

Hoyland, Robert G. In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford University Press, 2015.

———. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin Press, 1997.

O'Sullivan, Shaun (2004) Sebeos' account of an Arab attack on Constantinople in 654, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 28:1, 67-88

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

Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Da Capo Press, 2007.

King, Daniel, editor. The Syriac World. Routledge, 2019.