Navigation Menu
Signature Graffito of ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه
Jerusalem 32 – An Inscription Witnessed By Three Companions Of Prophet Muḥammad, 32 AH / 652 CE– Three Ṣaḥābah in One Memory
Brief Summary
Murakkab graffiti of ʿUmar b. al Khattab
An early Arabic graffiti group was found at al Murakkab, about 30 kilometres east of Najrān, during Franco Saudi epigraphic surveys in November 2012. Around fifty Islamic era graffiti were recorded on rock piles surrounding a natural cirque. The script is early angular Kufic, dated to the sixth and seventh centuries, and some examples show advanced writing practice, including line justification and underlining.
Two graffiti drew particular attention because the name “ʿUmar b. al Khattab” appears clearly. One graffito is an invocation expressing trust in Allah, with the wording “ʿUmar b. al Khattab yatiq bi Allah”, meaning trust in Allah. A second graffito is a simple signature bearing the same name, found in a natural rock fall that formed a cave.
The site also includes a graffito dated 59 AH, 678 to 679 CE, and a life size carved figure of a praying person with hands raised above the head. The combination of the natural cirque setting, multiple caves and rock shelters, the signature of a major early Islamic figure, the dated graffito, and multiple carved figures creates the impression of a sanctuary type site from the earliest period of Islam.
The signature is considered particularly striking because a name written on its own, without title, praise, or invocation, is often regarded as a genuine autograph of the person named. On that basis, the possibility that ʿUmar b. al Khattab was physically present near Najrān arises as a serious question, though without firm confirmation.
With three early Kufic graffiti now bearing his name, the epigraphic record reinforces his standing as a firmly attested historical figure from the earliest decades of Islam.
Jerusalem 32 inscription from 32 AH, 652 CE
A nine line Arabic inscription, carved on a large limestone ashlar and later reused in a small masjid outside the south western corner of the Temple Mount, remained difficult to interpret for decades because of heavy damage to several lines. The ashlar formed the eastern side of a mihrab in a small, simple masjid attached to the western side of the Temple Mount wall, near the south western corner. Stratigraphy places the masjid in the eighth to early ninth centuries CE, while the inscription is dated more than a century earlier, showing secondary reuse with no original connection to that later building.
The stone is described as a limestone block about 0.80 by 0.50 by 0.50 metres. The original stone could not be located in expected storage, leaving a plaster cast and photographs as the surviving basis for study. The script is early angular Kufic, without dot marks and without vowel marks, and the text is enclosed within a carved frame that gives a formal monumental effect. Damage occurred when builders chiselled the inscribed face to prepare it for plastering, leaving lines 2, 3, and 5 unread and concealing the full message.
The portion that remains readable begins with “Bism Allah al Rahman al Rahim”. A central phrase reads “the protection of Allah and the guarantee of His Messenger”. A witnessing formula follows, naming ʿAbd ar Rahman b. ʿAwf az Zuhri and Abū ʿUbaydah b. al Jarraḥ as witnesses, and naming Muʿawiyah as the writer.
The final line is read as “the year 32AH”, with uncertainty noted because of the damage.
The witnessing wording rules out a grave text and points toward a legal document, with named witnesses and a named scribe.
The combined expression of “protection” and “guarantee” matches a well known legal wording found in documents of protection, particularly in agreements concluded with Jewish and Christian communities after negotiated surrender.
The individuals named in the inscription align naturally with such a setting, as their historical roles correspond to the type of formal agreement in which such guarantees would have been recorded.
Abū ʿUbaydah’s death was around 17 AH–18 AH, which prevents the witnessed event itself from being later than that period, even if the inscription’s date line is read as 32 AH. This leads to the thought that the carved inscription may commemorate an earlier treaty or event, rather than recording a fresh event of 32 AH.
Muʿawiyah is understood to be Muʿawiyah b. Abi Sufyan on the basis of the name, his well known historical position, and the consistent description in major biographies of his role as a professional scribe. Later praise literature adds embellishments, but the core portrayal of him as a skilled writer remains firm.
The designation “its writer” is therefore taken to refer to the scribe of the original document being commemorated, rather than to the individual who physically carved the inscription into the stone.
Early historical reports about the capitulation of Jerusalem are brought into comparison by Moshe Sharon. A lengthy version preserved by al Tabari lists named witnesses and connects witnessing with writing, including ʿAbd ar Rahman and Muʿawiyah.
That version raises doubts because it is far longer than the usual Syrian surrender agreements and gives the impression of later expansion, shaped after Jerusalem had acquired greater sacred significance.
Other reports transmit much shorter and more typical surrender terms.
Some mention that witnesses were appointed, even if their names are not recorded. Abū ʿUbaydah consistently appears in conquest narratives as a leading negotiator of the surrender terms. His presence in the inscription aligns naturally with a treaty context.
On the basis of this overlap in names and formulae, the most plausible reading is that the damaged upper lines once contained a brief commemorative reference to the original surrender treaty concluded between Jerusalem’s Christian inhabitants and the Muslim conquerors.
Full Article
Signature Graffito of ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه
We have a direct inscription from ʿUmar ibn al Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه that was located in an area called Murabbaʿa, 30 km east of Najrān.
In November 2012, during the Franco-Saudi epigraphic surveys around Najran, Saudi Arabia, a truly remarkable discovery was made.
Amongst the 50 or so graffiti that were found, one was dated 59 AH / 678-679 CE and two others contained the name ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb, close companion of Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ and second successor of the early Muslim state, ruling around 10 years from 634-644 CE. Only this tantalizing inscription has been published. Other inscriptions from this epigraphic survey will be published in future.
Regarding the signature inscription Imbert comments, “More than the invocation as such [ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb yaṭiq bi-llāh], the signature remains quite intriguing. Generally, signatures of this type, when they are accompanied by no eulogy, title or invocation, tend to be considered an autograph affixed by their author.
Date – Before 23 AH / 644 CE.
Size – Not known.
Script – Kufic script.
Frédéric Imbert wrote a French article about this in 2013 where he talks about the discovery.
Frédéric Imbert is a French academic, and a specialist in Arabic epigraphy and early Islamic inscriptions.
He says that archaeologists found early Arabic graffiti near Najrān, including two inscriptions that clearly mention the name ʿUmar b. al Khattāb.
One is a short statement of trust in Allah, and the other is just a simple signature.
He points out that when a name appears on its own without any titles or praise, it is often treated as a real signature written by that person.
Because of this, he raises the possibility that the caliph ʿUmar may have been physically present in that area, although he does not confirm this and says the evidence must be studied carefully. He also notes that there are now three early Arabic inscriptions mentioning ʿUmar, which strengthens his place as a clear historical figure from the earliest period of Islam.
ANNEX: EPIGRAPHIC NOTE ON THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF ARABIC GRAFFITI MENTIONING THE CALIPH ʿUMAR B. AL KHATTAB (NAJRÂN, SAUDI ARABIA)
The Franco Saudi mission in charge of epigraphic surveys around the city of Najrân, in the south of Saudi Arabia, has recently made a surprising discovery. At the place known as al Murakkab, 30 kilometres east of Najrân, around fifty Islamic era graffiti were recorded on piles of rocks surrounding a natural cirque. All the inscriptions belong to the register of early angular Kufic script, from the sixth and seventh centuries, and some are very advanced in how the writing is formed, with ways of lining up the lines and underlining.
Among these epigraphic texts, two especially caught the mission’s attention. They are graffiti that clearly mention the name of ʿUmar b. al Khattab, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the second caliph who died in 24AH/644CE.
The first graffito is an invocation recalling the person’s attachment to Allah, “ʿUmar b. al Khattab yatiq bi Allah” (ʿUmar b. al Khattab trusts in Allah).
The second is a simple signature bearing the same name, found in a natural rock fall that formed a cave.
During the surveys of November 2012, the site appeared to us like a kind of sanctuary from the earliest period of Islam. Alongside the mention of ʿUmar, we recorded a graffito dated to 59 of the Hijrah, 678 to 679, next to which, carved into the rock at life size, a figure stands with hands raised above his head, in the position known as the praying person. (Surveys carried out by M. Arbach, S. Bin Tairan, F. Imbert, Ch. Robin, and S. al Theeb, as part of the archaeological mission Oasis of Arabia directed by G. Charloux, worksites Důmat al Jandal and Najrån, CNRS, UMR 8167, and the ANR–DFG Coranica project, co directed by A. Neuwirth and Ch. Robin.)
It will be necessary to analyse all these elements at their proper value, and likely relate them to one another:
- the site forming a natural cirque
- several caves and rock shelters
- the signature of one of the most notable persons of early Islam
- a date of 59/678
- multiple carved figures
More than the invocation itself, the signature remains fairly intriguing. Generally, signatures of this type, when they are accompanied by no eulogy, title, or invocation, or invocation, tend to be considered autographs, affxied by their author.
If it is indeed the famous “ʿUmar b. al Khattab (d. 24 AH)”, companion and caliph, it will be necessary to mention his presence near Najrân, before or after his election to the khilafah (caliphate), before or after the Hijrah (migration), before or after the emergence of Islam.
He then engraves three statements above the altar:
“May Allah grant you a safe return and may you quickly find your loved ones |
My heart feels for you both pity and fear |
I wrote in order to support you, so when you read, recognise my writing!” (A. F. al Isbahānī, Kitab adab al quraba, Beirut 1972, p. 23; P. Crone, S. Moreh, The book of strangers, medieval Arabic graffiti on the theme of nostalgia, Princeton 1999, p. 21)
Election to the khilafah (caliphate), before or after the Hijrah (migration), before or after the rise of Islam. In any case, the early Kufic graffiti mentioning ʿUmar b. al Khattab are now three in Arabic, making him an unavoidable historical figure of the first decades of Islam. (A. AL GABBAN, The inscription of Zuhayr, the oldest dated Islamic Arabic inscription from the year 24/644–45, Arabia: review of Sabaeology 1, 2003, p. 293–343)
Graffiti arabes de Cnide et de Kos : premières traces épigraphiques de la conquête musulmane en mer Egée pg 757–758
Jerusalem 32 – An Inscription Witnessed By Three Companions Of Prophet Muḥammad, 32 AH / 652 CE– Three Ṣaḥābah in One Memory
The earliest source of it’s mention is from Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah’s sīrah. He is a little earlier than Ibn Isḥāq, because Ibn Isḥāq passed away in 767 and Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah passed away in 758.
So he wrote quite early on.
Mālik ibn Anas spoke highly of him during his time.
693 — Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah, the brother of Ibrāhīm and Muḥammad, the sons of ʿUqbah, a client of al Zubayr ibn al ʿAwwām. His kunyah was Abū Muḥammad, known as al Muṭarraq. He met Ibn ʿUmar and saw Sahl ibn Saʿd. He narrated from his mother, the daughter of Khālid ibn Maʿdān, and from Umm Khālid, the daughter of Khālid ibn Saʿīd ibn al ʿĀṣ.
He was narrated from by al Thawrī, Mālik, Shuʿbah, Wuhayb, Ibn ʿUyaynah, al Dārāwardī, Ḥātim, Ibn Abī al Zinād, ʿAbd al ʿAzīz ibn al Mukhtār, and Ibn al Mubārak. My father said this.
ʿAbd al Raḥmān narrated to us, he said: Mūsā ibn Abī Mūsā al Kūfī narrated to us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn al Mundhir narrated to us, he said: Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā said: Mālik ibn Anas used to say, when it was said to him, “From whom should we write the Maghāzī?” he would say, “Hold fast to the Maghāzī of Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah, for he is trustworthy.”
Kitāb al Jarḥ wa al Taʿdīl by Ibn Abī Ḥātim 8/154
This inscription was unearthed at the south-west corner of the Ḥaram al-Sharīf in Jerusalem during excavations conducted by Professor Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1968. (The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Preliminary Report of the First Season, 1968)
Muʿāwiyah is the one who wrote it.
Right here is the handwriting of Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān. The reason why the date 652 is obviously not the actual date of the meeting is that Abū ʿUbaydah had already died.
So now we know through early history records that Abū ʿUbaydah, ʿAbd al Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, and Muʿāwiyah were all in this location.
Muʿāwiyah was appointed governor around 639–640.
So all of them met there because Abū ʿUbaydah was the leader of the army when they entered, and ʿAbd al Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf was with him.
Muʿāwiyah is making a tribute on their behalf.
A paper called “Witnessed by Three Disciples of the Prophet: The Jerusalem 32 Inscription from 32 AH/652 CE” by Moshe Sharon, who speaks in detail about this magnificent inscription.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26740639?if_data=e30%3D&seq=1
He says the nine line Arabic inscription known as “Jerusalem 32”, dated to 32 AH, 652 CE. The central claim is that the surviving words, especially “witnessed”, plus the named witnesses and writer, fit best with a formal agreement, most likely a surrender treaty connected to the Muslim capitulation of Jerusalem, rather than a grave text or a casual graffito.
Discovery Context And Findspot
The inscription was uncovered in 1968 during excavations led by Professor Benjamin Mazar, outside the south western corner of the Temple Mount. The inscribed stone was reused in a small, simple masjid attached to the outside of the Temple Mount wall, and the stone formed the eastern side of a mihrab. Sharon notes that it is not clear why someone built a small masjid there when the major masajid were already on the Haram platform above.
Dating Of The Small Masjid Versus The Inscription
The stratigraphy suggests the small masjid belongs to the eighth to early ninth centuries CE. The small masjid is dated to the eighth to early ninth century, whereas the inscription is dated more than a century earlier. On that chronological gap, the stone carrying the inscription cannot have been carved for that building. The ashlar was therefore reused, brought from an earlier context and incorporated into the later structure.
Technical Description Of The Stone And Current Evidence
It is a large limestone block, about 0.80 by 0.50 by 0.50 metres. He says it should have been kept in the IAA storage facilities, but it could not be found there. He saw it in place after the masjid was cleaned and the plaster covering was removed. At the time of writing, the usable evidence was a plaster cast and several photographs, credited to Eilat Mazar.
Why So Much Is Unreadable
Moshe explains that, during reuse in the later building, the builders chiselled down the inscribed face to prepare it for plaster, which destroyed parts of the writing. Because of this, Sharon says he could read only a portion, and lines 2, 3, and 5 still resisted all attempts to decipher them, even after decades of effort.
Why Moshe Says It Is Not A Grave Text
Moshe says the inscription is clearly not an epitaph. The verb at the start of line 6, meaning “witnessed it”, is taken as a strong indication that the text refers to a legal document or formal agreement, in which named individuals served as witnesses to confirm what had been written.
ʿAbd ar Rahman b. ʿAwf, Why Sharon Explains His Background
Sharon gives an extended biography of ʿAbd ar Rahman b. ʿAwf because the inscription names him as a witness, and because the date line can be read as 32 AH, which overlaps with reported dates for his death. Sharon covers:
- Early conversion and close support of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and being related by marriage.
- Being counted among the closest companions, and being described with the “disciples” comparison used in some sources.
- Migration to Abyssinia, then being among the first migrants to Madinah.
- The Prophet establishing bonds of brotherhood for him, with differing reports on which companion was paired with him.
- His refusal to take gifts from his Ansari “brother” in Madinah, asking only to be shown the market, and quickly gaining wealth through trade.
- Participation in Badr and Uhud, including reports of many wounds and a lasting limp.
- Participation in later campaigns, including a mission to Dawmat al Jandal and marriage into the tribe once terms were agreed.
- Reports that the Prophet placed his turban and that the Prophet once prayed behind him when he led salah.
- Being included among those promised Jannah while alive, alongside discussion of differing claims about who counted as a “disciple” in that special sense.
- Receiving a share of property connected to Banū Nadir.
- His wealth and generosity, including reports of freeing many slaves in one day, giving a whole caravan in charity, and giving large sums of money at once.
- Reports that the Prophet called him trustworthy in heaven and earth.
- His closeness to Caliph ʿUmar b. al Khattab, including being entrusted with leading the Hajj early in ʿUmar’s rule.
- A report used to treat the Majus as “People of the Book”, by applying to them the same rules.
- Being one of the six members of the shūrā, then stepping aside from candidacy and becoming responsible for choosing the next caliph, resulting in the selection of ʿUthman b. ʿAffan.
- After the killing of ʿUthman, being among prominent Muslims who refused to pledge allegiance to ʿAli b. Abi Talib.
The Date Of ʿAbd ar Rahman’s Death, And Why It Matters For “32 AH”
Sharon says differing reports for the year of ʿAbd ar Rahman’s death, including a report placing it in 32 AH and another placing it in 31 AH. He then says that, even if the inscription ends with “year 32AH”, the date likely reflects something about when the inscription was carved, or when a document was written down, not necessarily the date of the original event being witnessed in the upper lines.
The possible date of 52 AH is not given in his editio princeps and the date 32 AH cannot be discerned from the photographs given in the publication. Youssef Ragheb received an image of the inscription from Sharon and lists the date in his article as 32 AH rather than 52 AH, suggesting that Sharon had since moved away from this date as a possibility. Unfortunately none of this is discussed by Sharon.
Abū ʿUbaydah b. al Jarrāḥ, And The Dating Problem
Sharon also speaks about Abū ʿUbaydah because the inscription names him as a witness, but the historical reports place his death much earlier, in 17 AH, 638 CE, or `18 AH, 639 CE. S
Moshe Sharon uses this to argue that the inscription cannot be describing something that happened after Abū ʿUbaydah’s death, if it is describing a witnessed event. This becomes one of the reasons the inscription is understood as commemorative, meaning it may preserve the names of earlier figures even if the carving itself was made at a later date.
Abū ʿUbaydah’s Role In The Conquest Narratives
Sharon says Arabic chronicles often treat Abū ʿUbaydah as the supreme commander of Muslim armies in the conquest of Syria. He is also counted among the Sahabah promised Jannah. Sharon highlights that the sources consistently connect his death to the plague of ʿAmawas, in 18 AH, 639 CE, around a year after Jerusalem fell.
Abū ʿUbaydah’s Tomb Traditions And Travel Reports
Sharon includes later traditions about where Abū ʿUbaydah’s tomb was shown. He explains that the reported tomb location shifts across time and place, including claims in Tiberias and Damascus, and later identification in a village in Transjordan. He quotes travel reporting that openly admits uncertainty, listing multiple claimed locations and ending with “Allah knows best”.
The Hadith Material About Abū ʿUbaydah’s Trustworthiness
Sharon adds hadith reports, recorded in al Bukhari and Muslim, describing Abū ʿUbaydah as the “trustworthy one” of the ummah, and he notes other titles attributed to him in the tradition.
Muʿāwiyah As “The Writer”, And Why Sharon Says This As Plausible
Sharon says the inscription’s “writer Muʿāwiyah” as almost certainly Muʿāwiyah b. Abi Sufyan. He summarises key points relevant to scribal identity:
- Muʿāwiyah served as governor of Syria for about twenty years, appointed in 19 AH, 640 CE, and later ruled as Commander of the Faithful from 41 AH, 661 CE, to 60 AH, 680 CE.
- Moshe Sharon insists that Muʿāwiyah is described as a professional scribe.
- Sharon mentions large amounts of praise literature portraying him as a key companion chosen as the Prophet’s scribe for revelation and correspondence, while also noting that much of this praise includes legendary and propagandistic material.
Muʿāwiyah’s Campaign Setting And The Possibility Of Treaty Drafting
Sharon says Muʿāwiyah’s scribal skills likely continued during the Syrian conquests when he accompanied his brother Yazid, and he mentions the conquest of Caesarea with its mix of sparse facts and later legends. Sharon then says it is plausible that a skilled scribe could be used to draft surrender agreements for major towns that capitulated by negotiated terms. This is part of why Sharon says Muʿāwiyah could have been in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time of its surrender.
Shorter, More Standard Surrender Reports, And Why Sharon Brings Them In
Sharon points to other accounts that preserve much shorter agreements, more like the standard surrender terms used elsewhere in Syria, sometimes only a few sentences. He draws attention to Yaʿqubi’s report because it is short and includes standard conditions, and because it explicitly says witnesses were appointed, even though it does not name them. Sharon says the phrase about appointing witnesses is important, since the inscription also centres on “witnessed”.
The Caliph’s Direct Involvement, And Busse’s Studies
Sharon says the direct involvement of the caliph in Jerusalem’s capitulation is questionable, even though many sources repeat it as fact. He notes that the many reports and traditions on this issue were studied in depth by Heribert Busse in two studies, one in 1984 and one in 1986.
Baladhuri’s Very Short Jerusalem Reports, And The Commander On The Ground
Sharon cites Baladhuri for brief reports that look more genuine. One report connects the siege to a commander under Abū ʿUbaydah, Khālid b. Thabit al Fahmi, and it summarises terms in a single sentence, distinguishing what is outside the walls from what is within. Another short report says Abū ʿUbaydah reached an agreement with Jerusalem’s inhabitants, without giving details. Sharon says Abū ʿUbaydah’s name as important because many reports make him the commander who negotiated the surrender terms that crystallised into a treaty.
Why Sharon Doubts The Longer Treaty Version
Sharon says he will not enter the full debate about authenticity of the alternate version of this inscription which is much longer, but he gives clear reasons for doubt:
- The document is far too long compared with other surrender agreements for Syrian towns.
- The wording gives the impression of later rewriting, after Jerusalem came to be treated as a holy city, which Sharon says was not the situation at the time of the original surrender.
- The date in that report is earlier than the usual dating found in other sources.
- Sharon reports that Goitein and Grabar described the long version as “worthless” and described its witnesses as “fantastic”.
Why Sharon Thinks The Inscription Is Unique Even With Missing Lines
Sharon says that there is no other stone evidence that brings three major early Islamic names together in this vivid way. He also adds a methodological point: even if only three unread lines remain, very short surrender statements exist in the historical record, so a small amount of text could still carry the whole meaning.
What Sharon Says About Year 32 AH In The Wider Chronicle Setting
Sharon briefly places 32 AH, 652 to 653 CE, in the wider historical scene. He places the year 32 AH within the closing phase of ʿUthman’s caliphate. That year coincides with the reported death of ʿAbd ar Rahman b. ʿAwf. It also falls during Muʿawiyah’s campaign against Constantinople and a period of military operations in the eastern regions. At the same time, the chronicles record no significant developments in Syria or Jerusalem specifically for that year.
More On The Small Masjid, Later Repairs, And Why The Stone Was There
Sharon returns to the findspot, saying Mazar’s analysis placed the small masjid above an eighth century street. Sharon adds that Muslim rulers across the century, Umayyads and ʿAbbasids, carried out repairs on the Temple Mount, as known from surviving inscriptions. He suggests the small masjid might have served workers, or a close group of worshippers, perhaps only five or six at a time.
Sharon’s Personal Note About 1968 And His Long Standing View
Sharon ends with a personal account. He says that when the inscription was found in 1968, Benjamin Mazar handed it to him. Sharon says he told Mazar soon after that he thought it was probably one of the oldest Islamic inscriptions uncovered and that it related to Jerusalem’s surrender. Decades later, he says he has no better proposal.
