THE TITLE ‘ABD ALLĀH AS A SIGN OF ABANDONING A CLAIM OF DESCENT

FROM THE GODS FOR THE RULER

Consequently, the term ‘Abd Allāh replaced the Sassanian official titulature mzdsn bag . . .
shāhān shāh ēran kē cihr hac yazdān in the inscription of Mu‘āwiya. The Sassanian titulature
read: “The worshipper of [Ahura-] Mazda, the divine . . . , the King of Kings of Iran, whose
heritage is from the gods.”54 Against this presentation, Mu‘āwiya placed his title: “The
servant of God (a human and a Christian), MAAWIA, the leader of the protectors.”

The term ‘Abd Allāh thus stands in opposition to the long-standing claim of the Iranian rulers
that their heritage was from among the gods. One can see that the question of the term ‘Abd
Allāh concerns a title of authority from its use in connection with the naming of the ruler. A
brother of the ruler, ‘Abd al-Malik, ordered the building of a canal bridge in Fusṭāṭ in Egypt;
the name of the brother was ‘Abd al-‘Azīz bn Marwān, al-Amīr. His function was that of an
emir, and so his name was not preceded by any title; the title of ‘Abd Allāh was reserved for
the rulers of the Arabian Empire.55 We can, therefore, take away from the inscriptions that
the title of the Arabian rulers in the former Sassanian Empire and in the former Byzantine east
was ‘Abd Allāh. The title caliph/khalīfa, given in the literature of Islamic studies and in the
historical literature of the time of the Abbasids, does not appear in the written witnesses to the
early period.

This opposition—divine nature and heritage on the part of the Zoroastrian god-kings of Iran,
human nature and heritage on the part of the Arabian Christian leaders of the protectors—is
also of interest for the meaning of the term ‘Abd Allāh in the inscription on the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem. There one reads: muḥammadun ‘Abdullāhi wa-rasūluhu (= “praised [sic]
be the servant of God [a human being in the line and the understanding of the prophets] and
his apostle”).

THE ERA OF THE ARABIANS IN A GREEK INSCRIPTION

The way in which a building inscription of Mu‘āwiya in Palestine was carried out reveals how
the term ‘Abd Allāh is to be understood during his time. This inscription, from the year 42 of
the Arabian era, bears the sign of the cross at the beginning of its first line. This cross is part
of the inscription, which then follows in the Greek language and script:

In the days of Mauia, the servant of God, the leader of the protectors, the hot baths [cibanus]
were preserved and renovated by the councillor [emir] ‘Abdallah, son of Abuasemos, on the
fifth of December, on the second day [of the week], in the sixth year of the indiction, in the
year 726 from the founding of the city, in the year 42 following the Arabs [662/3], for the
healing of the sick, under the supervision of Johannes, the magistrate of Gadara.56

The title of "councillor" (symbolos) mentioned in the inscription certainly corresponds to the
Arabian emir. From this correspondence has surely arisen the misunderstanding that
Mu‘āwiya held the Byzantine title of protosymboulos, or "prime councillor." Wellhausen is
misunderstood here, in that he invoked only Theophanes as a witness to illustrate the way in
which Mu‘āwiya had conducted the business of government, namely, as a prime councillor
among councillors, or to use Wellhausen’s words, "like an old Arabian sayyid."57

The emir who carried out this public building project was named ‘Abd Allāh, as is still the
case today among many Christians in Syria. His title shows him to have been a member of a
bureaucracy, carried forward from the traditions of Rome and Byzantium, just as the tradition
of the Arabian authorities in Syria was carried over from the previous century. Already in the
sixth century, officials in the Arabian government in Syria had borne high Byzantine titles.
The fact that the inscription was made in Greek is a sign of the imitatio imperii (imitation of
the Byzantine ideas of "doing empire") employed by Mu‘āwiya’s government in Syria. In this
sense, one can say that Mu‘āwiya appears to have also furthered the Sassanian practice of
government in the East. In Arabia he was an Arabian Arab. There he followed the practice of
the Ghassanids, his Arabian predecessors in this region, who tended to make their inscriptions
in Arabic.58

Fig. 1: “The Greek inscription of Mu'awiya on the baths of Gadara, with a date following the “Era of
the Arabians” (arabas)”

PROBLEMS OF DATING

The method of dating the inscription on the baths of Gadara is of great importance for
marking off a "historical" history for this region from a theological one, as is handed down,
for example, in the Islamic traditional literature. That Mu‘āwiya continued Roman traditions
by renewing a historical hot bath, and that his inscription (apart from the sign of the cross set
at the beginning) contained no elements of religious content, allows some definite conclusions
to be drawn concerning his self-understanding and style of life. It is not without good cause
that his successor, ‘Abd al-Malik, presented him as a "Saul," in the sense of the Old
Testament tradition, while presenting himself as a "new David," indeed, naming his own son
Sulaymān (Solomon).

In the place of a religious opening formula—an element that would not have been uncommon
at the time—stands the sign of the cross. Concerning the problem of dating, one notices that
first place at the appropriate point in the inscription is given to noting the Roman-Byzantine
tax year. Following this method of dating, the era of the city (colonia) is given, followed only
then by a date giving "the year . . . following the Arabs." The "year . . . following the Arabs,"
then, does not replace the date following the system of the empire; the era of the Arabs is, one
method of dating among many but complementing the traditional date-forms without
replacing them.

This points to the existence of an era of Arabian authority allows a new evaluation of many
datings given in the region of former Sassanian rule. Until now scholars have accepted the
thesis that datings given there were to be considered as either still in the era of the last
Sassanian ruler, Yazdgard, or else in a "post-Yazdgard era." This acceptance, however, has
caused the dates deduced to be off by many years. By means of this (faulty) interpretation,
scholars have been able to harmonize the dates given on extant coins with the dates provided
in the historicizing Islamic literature. An example of this synchronization with the information
given by the historicizing literature (e.g., Balādhurī, Ṭabarī) is the date given for the
beginning of the rule of Muāwiya's direct successor, ‘Abd al-Malik. A coin in the name of
‘Abd al-Malik from Dārābjird in Iran gives its date as the year 60. Since the discovery of the
Greek inscription of Gadara, we know that this dating follows the Arabian era. The
historicizing literature of the Abbasid period, though, has ‘Abd al-Malik assuming rule in the
year 65 of the Hijra. This was possible in the historicizing presentation of Ṭabarī because, in
the meantime, Ibn Hishām's edition of the biography of the Prophet had appeared;
consequently, the circumstances of the Hijra of the prophet of the Arabians have become
known to the public. In the early period of Arabian self-governance, people were not
concerned with such points of connection; since the biography of the prophet of the Arabians
was not yet known, and since people had not yet heard of the Hijra of the prophet of the
Arabians, they could not name a method of dating after it.

At the time of Muāwiya's rulership, the exciting life history of the pugilistic prophet of the
Arabians was not yet known. People were content with (and historically correct in) calling
their method of dating "of the Arabian era." This method began with the takeover of power in
Iran by the Arabs following the battle of 622, a total loss for the Sassanians. Muāwiya clearly
had no problem with writing his Aramaic name MAAUIA in the context of the inscription, for
he did not yet have to be an Arab, following the ideal type of "the Arabian Arab from the
Arabian peninsula" created by the later historicizing literature of the Abbasid period. In his
inscriptions he was still able to embody the Christian Arabs of Mesopotamia, to whom Greek
was not a foreign language either (the philosophers of the Athenian Academy had emigrated
to the Sassanian Empire after the school was closed in 529 by the order of the Byzantine
emperor Justinian I).

How can traditional Islamic numismatics proceed with the dating of a coin of 'Abd al-Malik
to the year 60? Because this dating makes no sense in light of the historicizing literature of the
Abbasid period, scholars emphasize that it must be understood in terms of a Persian era, the
former is seen as unreliable. With this emphasis, it is possible to understand a number "60" on
the coin as the Persian version of the year 72 of the Hijra. Such an understanding would also
allow the date to square with the dates of 'Abd al-Malik's rule as made known by the
traditional literature.

To speak clearly: it is from the perspective of the traditional literature that the numbers given
on the coins are evaluated. If a date squares with the dates made known by the traditional
Islamic literature of later centuries, then scholars consider it to be a dating after the Hijra of
the prophet of the Arabians; if it does not, then it is made to fit by adding twelve years and
explaining it as following the Persian tradition.

Whoever holds fast to the chronology presented in the theological history has no other choice.
Because the literature of the Abbasid period also mentions the reigns of the sons of Mu'awiya,
who were condemned to be destroyed, a period of five years must be added to his reign in the
construction of the theological history. As a result, the literature allows 'Abd al-Malik to enter
the scene in the year 65 of the Hijra. However, this is not historically accurate. If there had
been a reign of the sons of Mu'awiya, then this was not of significant length in
Syria/Palestine. No coins or inscriptions are known that name any sons of Mu'awiya as leader
of the protectors.

The synchronization of the dates given on the coins with those given in the literary sources
demands a high degree of intuition from the editors of those sources. Occasionally, scholars
cannot avoid statements of conscience. This phenomenon finds expressions in evaluations of
the following type: "The coins dated according to the Hijra would thereby be followed by a
'post-Yazdgard era' dating on the coins here under consideration. Although a clear sequence
of coins issues results, it seems incredible that dating would begin by following the Hijra,
only to be followed by a switch to a 'post-Yazdgard era' system."

After the dubiousness of this manipulation of dates becomes known to the editor, he consoles
himself with a reference to a "last analysis." This scholarly insurance policy results here in a
reference to a yet-to-be-created "system of coordination of primary data." This "system" is
supposed to become the definitive tool for making clear the "often hidden contours" in the
literary sources. By means of this revelation of the hidden contours, the good news will be
passed on concerning the connection between literary sources in the (merely) affirmative
function of the numismatic texts.

In his attempt to bring light into the darkness of the second civil war, which is purely a
dramatic notion on the part of the Abbasid authors in an attempt to master the historical
situation of great change after Muʿāwiya, Gernot Rotter suddenly found himself in a difficult
situation: “The historians leave us completely in the lurch concerning the first years of the
second civil war in the provinces of Fārs and Kirmān; here we are completely dependent upon
the numismatic evidence. However, this evidence provides surprising perspectives. The
numismatic finds present the information thus. . . .” One immediately recognizes, though, that
Rotter’s table does not give the numbers found on the coins; rather, it lists numbers for years
based on the processing of the numbers in Gaube’s work. This processing is at least as
questionable as that previously provided by Walker. In Rotter’s table, the coins appear
following the evaluation of their dates in Gaube, so that it is possible for them to be
incorporated into the traditional history—the editing of which was completed in the Abbasid
period. The numismatic documents, processed in this fashion, consequently become supports
for the literary tradition. This method, were it to be carried over into central European
situations, would mean that scholars could use late antique and early medieval coin
discoveries to bring together the documentary proofs for Wagner’s Bayreuth show, by means
of “clear sequences of issue” in terms of a “coordination system for primary data,” and
thereby take the contours of the festival plays, often hidden by the literary sources, and lay
them open in black and white.

In order to meet the standards established by the literary tradition, Rotter synchronizes the
coins according to varying eras. The normal places in Iran date their coins after the Hijra of
the prophet of the Arabians, but the royal residence in Persia, Dārābjird, always dates its coins
following the era of the last Sassanian ruler. Thanks to this game with the Hijra era and the
Yazdgard era, one finds the dates in the order previously given by Ṭabarī. Consequently, in
order to force the data given on the coins into the procrustean bed of a chronology following
Ṭabarī, one must employ the help of these various eras—Yazdgard, post-Yazdgard, and Hijra.

The discovery of Muāwiya’s inscription on the baths of Gadara, dated to the year 42 of the
Arabian era, makes it possible to pass by the commonly accepted chronology and to
understand the data on the coins as datings following the era of the Arabians. Followers of the
traditional conceptions may want to note that the sign of the cross at the beginning of
Muāwiya’s inscription serves as a sign of “Islamic tolerance.” What may be difficult for the
followers of the traditional conceptions to explain is the naming of the era as the “era of the
Arabians.” In the understanding of the traditions of Islam and Islamic studies, Muāwiya is
hardly an exemplary Muslim, even if he is undoubtedly Muslim, because he belonged to the
Quraysh of the theological history, the holy family of the prophet of the Arabians. He is also
one of the founders of the taqiyya, because he—following the traditional literature—knew
how to conceal his support for the prophet of the Arabians for quite a long time.

Even if Muʾāwiya’s use of Christian symbols and behavior toward Christians as an extremely
Christian ruler may have made obligatory his understanding of the use of taqiyya, by naming
his own method of dating as an "era of the Arabians" rather than as an "era of Islam" or an
"era of the Hijra," he nonetheless betrays the fact that the prophet of the Arabians, as well as
the "era of the Hijra," are not yet known to him.

Fig. 2: Reverse of a Christian Arabian coin from Damascus, with the monogram of the
emperor Heraclius over the denomination M.

Fig. 3: Obverse of a Christian Arabian coin from Damascus, with a frontal image of the
Christian Arabian ruler following the typical depiction of the emperor of Byzantium, and with
a bird (of prey?) on the left.

WHY DID MUʾĀWIYA CHOOSE DAMASCUS AS HIS RESIDENCE?

It may have been quite pragmatic considerations that moved Muʾāwiya to choose Damascus
as his residence. Rule by Arabians in this area of formerly Sassanian authority was no longer
in danger. Further, rule by Arabians in the formerly Byzantine east was not yet ensured for the
future, as long as the Byzantines had not yet shared the fate of the Sassanians. In this
environment, Muʾāwiya continued the political policies of the Sassanians against the
Byzantines. In addition to an army from the formerly Sassanian east, he also took hold of the
fleet from the formerly Byzantine east and thereby avoided the earlier weaknesses of the
Sassanian plan of attack against Constantinople. It was under Muʾāwiya that such a two-
pronged attack was possible for the first time.

However, Muʿāwiya was only able to ensure his authority in the West by returning to an
Arabian tradition of the exercise of authority, namely, the connection of authority with the
protection of a holy place. As a Christian, he naturally chose a Christian holy place—the tomb
of John the Baptist and his basilica in Damascus.

One can already see this traditionally Arabian practice in the exercise of authority during the
time of Muʿāwiya’s Arabian predecessors in Syria. The Ghassanids sponsored the holy place
of the martyr Sergius in Ruṣāfa. Following older Roman tradition, they built up the water
supply of this desert locale. Because the emperor and his church still controlled the holy
place, they were only able to erect a church of their observance outside the walls. It was only
in Ruṣāfa that the Ghassanids would meet with messengers of their Byzantine overlords; this
was because the status of the holy place protected them from threats of compulsion.

This type of care for a holy place also led to increased revenue. Pilgrimages to the tomb of the
martyr Sergius in Ruṣāfa constituted a thriving business, so much so, in fact, that the
Byzantine emperor Anastasius took for himself a portion of the income by bringing one of the
martyr’s thumbs from Ruṣāfa to Constantinople, and the reputation of the wonder-working
power of the reliquary made its way from the capital city as far as distant Gaul, as Gregory of
Tours reports in his chronicle of the Franks.

Others went further east quite aggressively and erected a substitute holy place of the same
style and size, in order to cut off the flow of pilgrims from the Sassanian Empire in the East
and redirect them to a holy place for which they themselves served as patrones.

In Damascus, Muʿāwiya was able to put himself forward as the protector of the holy places of
the grave of John the Baptist. The holy place of the Baptist lay in a crypt in a former temple
district, where the reliquary of the head of the Baptist was kept safe. The Arabs held John the
Baptist in their memory as a prophet “who encouraged the Jews to strive toward perfection by
exhorting them to practice righteousness toward one another and piety toward God and,
thereby, to come to baptism. Only then, as he said, would baptism be pleasing to God,
because they practiced baptism for the healing of the body but not for the forgiveness of sins;
the soul would then have already been cleansed by means of a righteous life.”

Fig. 4: Reverse of a coin with the denomination M (40 nummia); above appears the monogram of
emperor Heraclius, to the right 17, the number of the year according to the era of the Arabians (639),
and below DAM (Damascus), the name of the mint.

Fig. 5: Obverse of an anonymous coin from Damascus, with the image of the Christian Arabian ruler
depicted in the typical manner of a Byzantine emperor.

Such teaching of “right action” must have made a significant impact on the Arabians; it must
also have struck a chord with the tenor of their Qurʾānic materials and with their
understandings of the Dīn Allāh. As a holy place, the crypt with the head of John the Baptist
stood in competition with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The emperor in
Constantinople served Christology, so to speak, as the representative of Christ on the earth.
Without the Baptist, however, the history of Jesus, in terms of prophethood, made no sense.
The Baptist was the prophet and the defender of right action. He stood for “prophethood,” an
institution that would become a central idea of the Arabian Church in the Arabian Empire.⁶ ⁹
Muʾāwiya was able to treat the place of the Baptist’s tomb, located in a temple district of
Damascus, as a ḥaram; the Arabian tribes’ control of Syria made it possible for him to protect
it.

Fig. 6: Reverse of an anonymous coin from Damascus, with the denomination M; above
appears a variant of Heraclius's monogram, to the right information in Arabic concerning the
name of the mint (from above right to below right). This type of writing corresponds to the
Sassanian tradition, where one finds inscriptions written in the field, to the right and left of the
fire-altar, from above to below.

The respect that was paid to the holy place (iḥtirām) also passed over to the protector of the
location, making it possible for him to turn to tribal law and thus ensure security (amān). 70

Fig. 7: Obverse of an anonymous coin from Damascus, with the image of John the Baptist; to
the right appears a reliquary for a head in a container, and to the left appears a globe-cross,
with a palm branch above it.

Fig. 8: Reverse of an anonymous Christian Arabian coin with the denomination M; above
appears a cross, and to the left a crowned head (of John the Baptist?).

Images of the reliquary of John the Baptist’s head appear on coins from the Damascus of this
period. On the obverse of the coins, one typically finds the image of the ruler, facing front,
with a lance in his right hand. To his right in the portrayal, one sees a bird, perhaps a dove.
The left hand of the ruler rests upon a vessel containing the head of the Baptist. The
connection between the depiction of the dove and the Gospel narrative of the baptism of Jesus
by John is obvious.

There are also many coins that, until now, have been ascribed to the caliph ‘Umar and his
general Khālid ibn al-Walīd, both known from Islamic historical literature; these coins are
most likely also connected with the cult of the Baptist in Damascus. As a destroyer of idols
and leader of a military division on its way from Mecca to east Arabia, through Ur in Chaldea
to Ḥarrān and Damascus in Syria, General Khālid ibn al-Walīd took the role of an Islamic
Abraham in the revival production of the history of Israel as the history of the Arabians.

These coins depict the agnus Dei (“lamb of God”) and should be connected with the cult of
the Baptist, as the lamb was attested as an attribute of the Baptist from as early as the sixth
century. The depiction of the lamb in ways other than as a portrait of Christ was forbidden in
canon 82 of the Council in Trullo of 692.

Fig. 9: Depiction of John the Baptist, preaching on an anonymous Christian Arabian coin of
the seventh century, found in Syria.

Fig. 10: Obverse and reverse of a coin of Khālid of Tiberias. This Christian Arabian ruler is
depicted along with the lamb of God.

Fig. 11: Obverse and reverse of a Christian Arabian coin from Damascus with the image of a
Christian Arabian ruler with the lamb of God, a symbol of John the Baptist.

THE IDEA OF "ZION" AT THE TIME OF MUʿĀWIYA

There is one coin known from Jerusalem at the time of Muʿāwiya. The inscription is in Greek,
which shows Muʿāwiya’s respect for the heritage of the empire, as the Roman provincial
coins of the region also bore Greek legends. The obverse bears the image of a standing ruler,
shown frontally, holding the globe-cross in his left hand. On the reverse one sees the
denomination M, surrounded by the Greek legend IERO/SOLI/MON, or “belonging to
Jerusalem.”

Fig. 12: Obverse and reverse of a Christian Arabian coin from Jerusalem with the image of a
Christian Arabian ruler and, on the reverse, the indication of the mint surrounding the
denomination M.

The main hagiopolite holy place for the Byzantines was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Whether Muʿāwiya already had plans for a new sacred building on the Temple Mount is not
known. Conjectures that he had already begun erecting the Dome of the Rock are based on
accepting particular calculations for the building’s construction time. Because the beginning
of ‘Abd al-Malik’s reign is put at the year 65 (following the Islamic historiography), one often
thinks one has to accept the remaining time, that is, until the date “72” from the inscription, as
insufficient for the erection of a monument of this type and of imperial size. The construction
time of seven years, however, as given in the Islamic literature, may only have symbolic
meaning.

Further, because the beginning of ‘Abd al-Malik’s reign, following his coinage in Iran,
actually occurred in the year 60 of the Arabians (679/80), the number of years during which
the building was erected (in this case, twelve) is symbolic once again. Nevertheless, this
increases the likelihood that ‘Abd al-Malik was the only erector of the Dome of the Rock, as
is conjectured from the gap in the building’s inscription (where his name was most likely
originally found).

The conception of a “New Zion” was anchored in the Syrian church traditions of the “true
Israel.” One still sees the results of this in Ethiopia, where the capital city of Axum was called
a “New Zion.” Further evidence of the continuing influence of this Syrian tradition in
Ethiopia can be seen in the “Zion Festival” that began each month in the Ethiopian church.
Copper coins found in Palestine and bearing the legend “Zion” are a sign of the self-
conception of Arabian Christians at the time of the reign of Muʿāwiya in Palestine. They saw
themselves as heirs of the tradition of Israel and considered themselves to be the “true Israel.”

Fig. 13: On the obverse of a Syrian coin, a frontal depiction of an enthroned Christian Arabian
ruler; on the reverse the denomination M above a defective and retrograde text giving the
location of the mint as C(I)ON.

MUʿĀWIYA’S MILITARY VICTORIES

The political policy through which Muʿāwiya was able to bind the Iranians to himself was the
continuation of the series of Sassanian conquests of Byzantium, as well as the expectation of a
final victory. The eventual loss on the part of the Sassanians at Nineveh in 627 actually helped
the Arabian emirs of Iran achieve rulership; however, they were only able to defend this
authority by pursuing a project of an Iranian revenge. In the eyes of the Iranians, the dynasty
had changed, but the long-term interests of the Iranians had not. The dissolution of the
Sassanian dynasty sealed the fate of Zoroastrianism, and the living religion of Iran was from
now on only the Nestorian version of Christianity. Buddhism also held a prominent place in
eastern Iran.

Fig. 14: Arabic imitation of a copper coin featuring the Byzantine imperial couple Justin and
Sophia. On the obverse, under the imperial couple, facing front and enthroned, one sees the
Arabian countermark “ṭayyib”; on the reverse there is the denomination M, with the sign of
the cross above. The dating follows the Byzantine system of indictios on the right and left,
with the location of the mint, namely, CION (Zion) underneath.

Consequently, it may not be shocking that the metropolitan of the Nestorian Christians from
Merv caused the last Zoroastrian king of Iran, the Sassanian Yazdgard, to be borne to his
grave. The sign of the cross on the Arabo-Sassanian silver coins from Merv amaze only those
who follow an Islamic history derived from the literary sources from the ninth century.

When the Lakhmid rulers of al-Ḥīra accepted Christianity, the Arabian Christians from that
area saw the completion of the development of their Arabian-Christian state. The great king of
the Sassanians, who as overlord was the defender of the Zoroastrian national cult, saw this as
well, and he summarily ended the authority of the Lakhmids in al-Ḥīra. The demise of the
Sassanian empire also brought the Zoroastrian national cult to an end. The Arabs, defenders
of Christianity (the living religion in west Iran), took power in the continuation of the war
against Byzantium. The course of this long conflict between Iran and Byzantium had already
changed into a war of religion by the time of Chosroes II.

This development was aided by the behavior that Byzantium had exhibited for a long time
with regard to its Arabian vassals. The resuscitation of the Syrian Church in the mid-sixth
century was a project of the Syrian Arabs. When Byzantium learned that the Ghassanids were
threatening to succeed in this project of authority, which was (also) ecclesiastically
independent, it put them aside as a political player in Syria. The developing alliance of
Monophysites in the Byzantine east, which had been under the leadership of the Ghassanids,
was greatly hindered by their removal. The full consequences, however (see, for example, the
removal of Byzantine troops from Palestine and Egypt in the seventh century, negotiated by
the local leaders), did not occur until the time of Muʿāwiya’s reign, but they could no longer
at this point be reversed.

The dominance of the military during Muʿāwiya’s reign is likely one main reason that he
implemented no drastic changes in the governmental structures in the areas he controlled. He
was not an Arabian Arabizer of freshly conquered regions, but rather an Arabian Iranian in
areas already conquered by the Sassanians. His goal must have been the consolidation of the
circumstances concerning the tradition of Persian rule. The imperial army of Iran was first
defeated in 622 in Armenia, and in 627 it was pushed to the brink of annihilation by the
Byzantines at Nineveh. However, the troops of the Arabian vassals of Iran, serving as
occupying forces in Syria and Egypt, survived this catastrophe unscathed. The Persians
abandoned their posts of authority in Syria in 628, following a truce forced by the Byzantines.
There seems to have been no official communication to the Arabian vassals of Iran to the
effect that they should pull out of Syria and Egypt.

Muʿāwiya showed himself to be a benefactor to the peoples of the occupied lands by

The situation at the time of Muʿāwiya was not a conflict between Arabian-Islamic conquerers
and a Byzantine-Christian emperor, as the later, historicizing literature of the Abbasid period
would have its readers believe. Rather, as shown by documents in the form of inscriptions by
the Arabian rulers, the conflict involved the Christians of the former Byzantine east—natural
allies of the Nestorian Christians of Iran and under the leadership of Arabian Christians of
Iran—on the one side, and the Christians of the emperor in Constantinople (as leader of
Greco-Roman Christianity) on the other. The conflict played out as a war of religion between
the eastern devotees of a Semitic understanding of Christianity and the defenders of the
Hellenistic and Roman counter-development.

Questions of Christology were still the central problem. Consequently, the inscription from
the year 72 of the era of the Arabians (691–692) inscribed on the Dome of the Rock in
Jerusalem, addresses Christianity as a whole: Yā ahla al-kitāb, or “Oh, you people of the
BOOK!” The Bible is undeniably meant as the “book” in question, and not the messages of
the prophet of the Arabians, whose biography would be written one-and-a-half centuries later
in the style of an Arabian “savior.”