Hi Emanuel,

Of course a broader group of language professors would be better, but the fact is that I've taken the help of Professor Tahsin Taha-Oglu himself, who helped Prof. Yucel in reading the inscriptions on the swords of Topkapi. I've also consulted with Iranian academics who clarified that the first line was in older Persian; especially that includes the word "ZAR-USH" instead of "DAR-ESH" or "DAR-USH". Please note that in the Ottoman court at that time, Persian was the language of literature and poetry, while Arabic was the language of religion.

Suggesting that the Ottoman Sultans were liars when they claimed that this sword was Dhu'l-Faqar is not a prudent thing to do; especially that they were very careful in tracing these swords back to their origins; except for a few swords, like that which is erroneously attributed to Prophet David (PBUH). Do not forget that the dimensions of the sword in Topkaki reveal that it was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed; along with the grooving, damask, etc. In fact, the real challenge would rest upon those who would claim that this blade is NOT that of Dhu'l-Faqar.

The heavy decoration of the sword PLUS the fact that it was used in as the primary sword in the ascension ceremonies of the Ottoman Sultans - who were also Caliphs of Islam - is solid proof that the Ottoman sultans and caliphs knew that this was Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) sword...and not just that, but it was the most important of the 3 swords of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that they possessed.

The art of reconstructing a sword from older sources was not known in the middle ages nor the early modern ages. You need to prove that in order to claim that it was a replica. In fact, both Topkapi and the Askeri Museum have many double-pointed swords that are clear to be attempts to replicate the original Dhu'l-Faqar.

No, I didn't say that Dhu'l-Faqar HAD TO BE IN TOPKAPI; except after I found the blade that matches with what the very early Islamic sources said about how the blade of Dhu'l-Faqar looked like and how much the sword weighed and other stuff. Please read the article thoroughly.

Thanks a lot for your kind and encouraging words...but please ask yourself this question: Was the work done by the previous prominent academics regarding the swords of Topkapi THAT RELIABLE? Why didn't any of them even suggest that this blade was EVEN a replica of Dhul-Faqar's? Were their conclusions even trustworthy? Also, why would you evaluate my work based upon comparing it to the work of the earlier academics; like Stockelin, Oz, Yugel, Eleiwa, and Alexander...and even Nicolle? I'll leave the answer for you you to decide.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Dear Ariel,

Hmmm...so you've changed your mind regarding the criticism that you gave my article in your earlier posting, eh? If not, then why didn't you answer my questions.

Now who's the naive one? Me for suggesting reasons why the Ottoman Sultans and Caliphs of Islam did not portray Dhu'l-Faqar on their flags; although the sword was in their possession? Or you for citing from unreliable modern references some nonsense definitions of why the sword was called "Dhu'l-Faqar"??? Didn't you get the definition of the " 18 intervals of damask waves" from that book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour, which was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies??? Do you even know the name of the author of this book??? If you did, I'll take off my hat for you!!! What about the other story of the sword being riveted within its scabbard, and then Caliph Ali forcibly unsheathed it and therefore broke its blade into two; each one ending in a point, and whoever looks at these tow points would have his eyesight robbed of him!!! WOW! I'm the one who speaks out of religious beliefs rather than scientific analyses!

NO! No source or reference said that "Dhu'l-Faqar" meant "having ridges"before I did. I dare you get me one before me that said so. In fact, among the new results that I was able to come with in my dissertation was the correct definition of "Faqra". The best that was said is "that the sword was called so because it had securing grooves in the middle of its blade"...or as David Alexander literally translated it: "It had 18 vertebrates".

There were many Arab swords that had grooves and ridges, but how many of them had 10 grooves (therefore with 9 ridges between them) on each face of the blade? ONLY ONE! Now how would I know that??? The answer is simple: If you ever knew the physical characteristics of an armor cleaving sword, you'd know that too many grooves may spoil the sword's cutting ability. The width of the grooving and ridging of this blade was 1.2 inches out of 3.6 inches; thus 1/3 of the width, and they're exactly in the middle of the blade. Wider grooving and ridging might ruin the blade's cutting ability; especially against thick mail, and its blows against lamellar plate armor. If you have ever investigated the blade of this sword, you would've seen unparalleled skill in the grooving and ridging done there; something that you won't see in any other sword; whether this sword were an Arab sword, or a non-Arab one. If you don't believe me, then look at those swords preserved in Topkapi and the Askeri Museum. You forgot to add to that the unparalleled immoderate dimensions of the blade for a sword that could be used in one hand with conjunction with a shield in the other hand.

You've then stated: " In short, you have assembled a multitude of hints, recollection of recollections of recollections, hearsays, controversial and obscure references, personal impressions etc., and have not subjected them to a rigorous and dispassionate analysis. In all my readings of your article I have never encountered even a modicum of doubt. This is not science; this is faith...."

My answer: Yeah yeah yeah! Perhaps the "scientific" thing you could do is to prove that this blade doesn't correspond with the historical characteristics of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade, and that it's just an ordinary 7th century Arab blade, or maybe a late 13th or early 14th century straight double-edged Seljuk sword that was used by Osman (founder of the Ottoman Turkish Empire) in his military campaigns!

In the end you've stated: "But please prove me wrong: just submit your paper to a respected, historical peer-reviewed journal and get opinions of the true specialists.

As you have already mentioned in the paper, Dr. David Alexander has expressed his negative opinion about your conclusions. Ask the Editor not to appoint him as a Referee."

Your proposal doesn't make sense at all; for the fact is that those readers of the respected journals have no idea about 7th century Arab swords, and you already might have known that.

As for David Alexander, he doesn't know Arabic, and has never read or understood al-Kindi's Treatise! His supervisor on his PhD thesis was Professor Priscilla Soucek, who according to him: "Had no idea about arms and armor".

What you're trying to do is to convince me to whirl around myself by asking to whirl around myself by asking recognition from academics specialized in Islamic arts but have no idea about Arab swords of the 7th century. In short you're asking me to put myself at the mercy of those who are not qualified to judge me on my subject of specialization, just because they're highly esteemed because of their academic titles. But remember: "Give the flour to its baker".

I will answer any other questions later on.

Cordially,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

I rest my case :-)

Gentlemen, I think that before this thread disintegrates into an out and out shouting match, for the present I will ask that everyone keep your replies civil or I will be forced to close this from further discussion. Remember the rules,"Civility and respect towards other participants are unconditionally expected." There will be no further warnings.

Robert

Hello Robert,

I'll try my best in being an abiding member in this great forum. Thank you for your warning.

Salaams all,

To bring this thread back to track and arguements aside, may I make the point that this treatise, in its field, is perhaps the most important piece of work to arrive on our pages for many years; if not ever. Failure of members to properly read the document carefully may be their excuse for improvised assessment ideas and criticism, however, by looking at the thesis properly and researching the references thoroughly it becomes clear that this is indeed an extremely important addition for our library.

The project took more than half a decade to complete and is accurate and precise and uses the finest line up of references in support. For the student of Islamic Arms and Armour this is a vital building block in understanding their chosen field. It is a vital source document for Ethnographic Weapons. It is key in the positioning of this Forum Library as the finest resource available today.

It is surely not for us to destructively criticize such an excellent study... nor to suggest that the author take it to some far off other body for support or assessment ... We do not rubber stamp, assess or certificate efforts of Forumites, moreover, we consider, support and debate. What we can do however is raise this on its own pedestal within our pages thus I propose it be elevated to Classic status.

I have to say that I have made private representation already for the treatise inclusion on Classics because this is a brilliant research paper and deserves no less. Members of this forum... I urge that this be so and request moderator support to make it happen.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. :shrug:

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thank you very much for your very responsible actions. I find you a very serious student of arms and armor, who really knows what he's doing. I very much appreciate your concern. I am greatly indebted to your opinions and actions regarding my work. Once again, thank you very much, sir!

Hello Ahmed,
The "Swords and Armour" is an exhibition catalogue that is not serious in my opinion. It has pictures of some pretty swords... that's it! Most of them are composite pieces, all are gravely mis-dated. I'd not consider it as being serious reference. Apart from this, here's a better closeup of the sword, which is truly a magnificent piece or art.

Ahmed, I would just like you say that in my opinion you have beautifully responded here to the entries of participants and I think we have had a well developing thread with slight exceptions (as noted in activity). While I am far from well versed in the field of Islamic arms, and have admittedly not read through your article thoroughly, I do very much look forward to doing so.
The tenacious and well structured research evident in your entries here are to my view, reflective of outstanding work in the serious advancement of arms and armour study and deserve sincere and constructive observations and critique without unfortunately worded comments.

I very much agree with Ibrahiim that with this very well presented work we can move forward on this powerfully important topic. I also believe that the outstanding knowledge base of the members here will add comments and perspective which will become helpful in the comprehensive understanding
and appreciation of this most important article.

Thank you for presenting your work here Ahmed, and for your equally impressive and well supported entries on this thread.

My compliments Sir!

All best regards,
Jim

Jim,
I agree with Ahmed, Ibrahim and yourself that, if true, identification of the sword in question as a true Dhu'l Fakar would be an incredibly important discovery.
I am still not convinced that this is the case. Discoveries of such magnitude demand irrefutable proofs.

As the barest minimum, one would like to know with high degree of certainty that this sword could be confidently dated to not later than the beginning of 7th century. If such a proof is not available, the entire argument of this sword belonging to Muhammed who died in 622 C.E. loses a leg to stand on. Am I missing something here?

With best wishes to all the participants,
Ariel

Ariel,
The subject of this article is probably one of the most formidable in the history of arms and armor, and quite frankly I am not sure that any measure of irrefutable proof can ever be presented empirically to resolve this mystery entirely. The point is that this article (which I have now read through) is actually (in my opinion) brilliantly presented, and Ahmed has perfectly and meticulously addressed many important aspects of the history of Dhu'l-faqar and categorically explained and supported his claims.

He has taken the time and tenacious effort to cite and note references, sources and contacts reflecting the outstanding research he has undertaken in pursuing support for his theory, and in my opinion beautifully explained these often complex aspects in an easily read style. As I mentioned, I am far from being a scholar on Islamic arms, but I could well understand his carefully explained and detailed deductive reasoning. I found this intriguing and offering a profoundly compelling case for his theory on Dhu'l-faqar's true identity.

My point is that regardless of whether one accepts or refutes Ahmed's theory in this article, I believe he deserves the respect that should be afforded anyone who has the courage to publish or openly present their work for constructive review. I do not believe that terms like 'sophomoric' or 'naieve' are particularly helpful or for that matter constructive among other reasonably understandable observations.

I also find the invitation for Ahmed to take this superbly researched and written article elsewhere to be rather harshly issued and unwarranted. I personally do believe our forums to indeed be the place for monumental discoveries, and over many years we have all worked together to indeed achieve a number of them, you included.

Hopefully we can all continue that spirit here, and add to the comprehensive data presented in this article with objective observations toward either supporting or rebutting all aspects which may be in question.

All best regards,
Jim

Dear Jim,


I'm very thankful for your positive and generous review to my article. I've also felt very flattered for your kind and encouraging words. Of course I do not claim my article to be flawless, but one major problem that most -if not all- of the reviewers would face, when reading this article, is that they've read it before reading and digesting my masters dissertation; which came out with many findings. If one wanted to understand this article very well and digest its data without referring to my masters dissertation (which was written in Arabic only), one had to be a very serious student of Islamic arms and armor; especially when it comes to arms and armor in the first two centuries of Islam. As the anonymous reader of my article that was chosen by Muqarnas journal (which belongs to Harvard University) said stated in her comments regarding my article:

"As an overall, the article suggests the sorts of insights that could be obtained by a researcher, with thorough knowledge of arms and armor, along with a knowledge of Islamic history."

Because of this, I have faced many problems when I submitted this article for publication. Here are some examples:

1- When I submitted the article to Muqarnas, the anonymous reader (who was a professor of Ottoman art and architecture...yes! I later on knew!) took more than 6 months to review my article. Although she agreed that this sword may have been Dhu'l-Faqar, she was very upset at why I didn't use a good portion of my article on the Ottoman hilt and the Ottoman decorations of the sword. She wanted me to speak about how these decorations reflected the political atmosphere of the late 16th century (i.e. the time of Ottoman decorations of the sword); especially in the Ottoman court, at that time. She was also upset by the fact that I did not know how to speak Turkish fluently! She was also upset for me choosing the opinion that the Ottoman sultans became Caliphs of Islam before the mid-16th century; although I explained that Professor Colin Imber had already given solid proof that this was true. She also complained that I provided "too much proof" for my emphases; something that made my article somewhat very long! Finally, it was clear from their language, that the editorial board of Muqarnas were a bit uneasy about allowing me (who is only an M.A.) to publish my work alongside the works of other academics who were regarded as "established professors" of Islamic art and architecture.

Finding that the terms of modifications were too harsh for the article, and would in fact ruin it, I decided not to submit it for publishing by Muqarnas, and I withdrew from there.

2- Going to Dr. David Alexander, whose PhD in 1984 was titled "Dhu'l-Fakar", and who later composed "Dhu'l-Faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah" (which was published by Gladius in 1999), I contacted him a lot; whether by email, or even by making many international phone calls and talking to him personally. If you read the above-mentioned article that he published in Gladius, you'll understand the many errors he underwent in Islamic swords. Among these were his suggestion that Dhu'l-Faqar may have been an ancient Roman gladius (short sword forged from wrought iron that was case-hardened)! He also said that Dhu'l-Faqar was "probably grooved"! Along with many countless errors he committed in his compositions, he told me that the sword-blade which I claimed to be that of Dhu'l-Faqar "had nothing to do with that of Dhu'l-Faqar"! He even said that this blade "wasn't even a replica of the original Dhu'l-Faqar's blade"!!! When I invited him to a debate in front of audience, he laughed and claimed that he wasn't interested!

Then he told me that I could discuss my article with anyone I wanted; provided I'd stay away from him. But what's funny is that, whenever I wanted to discuss this topic with someone, this someone would emphasize that I had to take Dr. David Alexander's approval first!!!

I hope you understand my situation well. Please read Dr. David Alexander's article "Dhu'l-Faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah" (published by Gladius in 1999). It's available online. Please read it thoroughly and read my article thoroughly. Then please compare between the two articles, and then put in mind that Alexander's article was approved for publishing in a highly esteemed journal like Gladius, and then decide whether my article deserves to be published or not. I repeat my request: Please do it, sir! PLEASE!

Thanks a lot in advance, sir!

With best regards to all,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Dear Alex,

Thanks a lot for posting this beautiful photo of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade and its Ottoman hilt. But you seemed to have misunderstood me; as I was telling Ariel that he (i.e. Ariel) took the suggestion of one of the meanings of "Dhu'l-Faqar" to mean it "possessed 18 intervals of damask waves" from a book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour" that was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies. I never stated that it was a reliable reference or anything. In fact, you'll see in that book, another sword which the other says "it possesses 53 intervals of damask waves".

Sorry you misunderstood me, but I felt that I had to correct and explain this misunderstanding!

Cheers,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

A quick correction: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died in 632 C.E.; not in 622 C.E. which was the year of his Hijra (migration) from Makkah to Madinah.

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Sorry if I misunderstood this, Ahmed. Its all clear with me now :) I hope we'll be focusing on the source, and not the person who took suggestion from it :)
I wanted to ask how do you see the purpose of "Dhu'l-Faqar"? Was the assumption made that it was a weapon? A two-pointed shape was quite important early Islamic symbol, so split/double blade could be another of it's representations in a form of purely ceremonial object. As such, the discussion on its functionality as a weapon, as well as why it is impractical, would not apply. You listed it as one of the reasons why "Dhu'l-Faqar" could not be two-pointed. Please help me understand, I may be missing something.

Dear Alex,

It's all right, as long as you've understood the misunderstanding ;-)

As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor.

As for the two-pointed sword, it was a symbol for the martyrdom of al-Hamzah (one of the uncles of Prophet Muhammad PBUH) at the Battle of Uhud in 624 CE, and this was the interpretation of the Prophet's vision, a few days before the Battle of Uhud.

But then I have made this clear in my article, no?

I hope I've answered your question.

BTW, the depiction of Dhu'l-Faqar as a two-pointed or double-bladed sword, was known in Islamic art as early as the Mongol Period (in the 14th century CE). There are false replicas of Dhu'l-Faqar; featuring it as a double-pointed or double-bladed sword, that date back to the 14th century CE. Please read David G. Alexander: Dhu'l-faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah, Gladius, 1999. This article is available online, btw.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

WHILE THIS IS NOT MY FIELD I CONGRADULATE YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO CHOOSE SUCH A TIKELISH SUBJECT. :)
WHEN LEGEND AND RELIGION COMBINE THE CLEAR WATERS OF HISTORY ARE MUDDIED MOST OF ALL. THE DISCUSSION OR SAILING OF SUCH WATERS ALSO BECOME PERILOUS AS WELL AND YOU CAN BE SURE TO HAVE MANY BARBS THROWN AND FIND MANY REEFS TO RUN AGROUND ON. CONGRADULATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BEAT ABOUT A BIT BUT HAVE STAYED THE COURSE AND MAY YET FIND LANDFALL. :D
THE DESIRE TO HONOR AND ENSHRINE OBJECTS BELONGING TO FAMOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION DOES PRESERVE THEM BUT OFTEN ALTERS THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION. THEY ARE OFTEN ENSHRINED AND COVERED WITH GOLD, JEWELS AND SUCH OR PUT IN A RELIQUIM WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. THE OBJECTS NO DOUBT DO EXHIST BUT WHERE AND IN WHAT FORM? ITS A QUEST WORTHY OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
IN CHRISTIANITY (WHICH I CHOOSE AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS MY RELIGION) IN THE EARLY DAYS EVERY LARGE CHURCH WANTED A
HOLY RELIC. SOME NO DOUBT OBTAINED A REAL PIECE OF THE CROSS OR THE BELONGINGS OF AN APOSTLE , SAINT OR MARTYR BUT MANY MORE NO DOUBT GOT A MANUFACTURED RELIC. WITH THE INSISTANCE OF SEVERAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES OR PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE AND ONLY OBJECT BE IT HOLY GRAIL, ARK OF THE COVENANT OR SWORD ADDS TO THE CONFUSION. AS A RESULT OFTEN THESE OBJECTS ARE GAUARDED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SEE OR TEST THEM AS EVERYONE IS SURE THEY HAVE THE REAL RELIC BUT JUST TO BE SAFE THEY WON'T RISK FINDING THEY ARE WRONG.
A PERILOUS PAPER INDEED I ENJOYED IT AND FEEL YOU DID YOUR BEST. NEW INFORMATION MAY BECOME AVAILABLE BUT YOU HAVE DONE GOOD RESEARCH AS FAR AS I CAN SEE AND MADE SOME GOOD POINTS AS WELL AS BROUGHT UP A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHILE THIS FORUM NO DOUBT FINDS LITTLE CREDENCE OR FAVOR IN HIGHER ACADEMIC CIRCLES STILL TRUTHS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED UP OR IGNORED THERE MAY FIND THE LIGHT HERE. :)

Dear Vandoo,

Thank you very much for this. The reason why I wanted to have recognition in this forum was because the members here love to learn and teach arms and armor. Unfortunately, higher academics will switch any topic on arms and armor to the history of art or Islamic art, or whatever. There's no faculty department called "arms and armor:; although there is such a department in many respectable museums, and some museums are devoted solely for arms and armor.

Life has taught me that higher academics could ruin a lot of good work regarding history and archaeology. Ask those devoted guys at the Napoleon Series Forum (headed by Bob Burnham). They simply said they weren't ready for university professors ruining their already tremendous work and their vast knowledge of military history during the Napoleonic Era.

Once again, I thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Sir. I'm indebted to you for your magnanimity.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Dear Jim,

One of the many things I've taken against the reviews of higher academics was that they refused to recognize anything Hank Reinhardt wrote, and they insisted that any references composed by him and other non-academic arms and armor students be omitted from my article. I found this quite intolerable, because it was those great people who did not hold high academic titles that made me understand the physical properties of weapons and how they're used.

One interesting anecdote is that one highly respected professor once commented on my work by saying: "Remember that you're an M.A.; not a butcher!" Another one asked me: "Are you a soldier or something? Why do you stress upon the lethality of the weapon in your work?" And so on.

I genuinely believe that this forum is the right place for me to share my work and learn more about arms and armor. Hecklers shall be ignored, but I do hope they won't be able to influence your judgement badly. Until now, I felt quite at home, with so many arms and armor enthusiasts!

I repeat my thanks for your kind and generous reviews and overtures. I must admit that I'm quite indebted to you, to Ibrahiim, and to all the positive members of this great forum with whom I had a wonderful experience until now.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Hi Ahmed,
It has been days now, and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to adequately read through your paper as thoroughly as I could. I also did retrieve Dr. Alexander's work on Dhu'l -faqar as you implored.
I have been virtually immersed in rereading various parts of your paper and reviewing the content of Dr. Alexander's concurrently.
As I have indicated earlier I do not purport to have any particular expertise on Islamic arms and armor, however I have what may be considered a reasonable working knowledge. I also will note I have no advanced formal education or degrees so I may be considered 'non-academic' as well. Therefore I very much appreciate your confidence and favor toward specialists in arms and armor technically outside academic circles.

I must point out however that while the highly respected authorities you cite here, specifically Mr. Reinhardt; Mr. Clements and Mr. Oakeshott, are superbly informed and highly experienced, their expertise is primarily on medieval and renaissance arms and armor, which of course is fully many centuries later than that in which Dhu'l faqar is from.

As I have been consulting every reference and resource I have at hand, I wish to emphasize that my objectives are to find support and if possible any kind of corroboration which might strengthen what I consider a remarkable paper. I reiterate that I very much like the deductive reasoning you have displayed in what is a profoundly innovative and provocative approach to the mysteries of this magnificent sword.

It is important that I note here several things concerning Dr. Alexander's paper. I would point out that his work concerns Dhu'l faqar as it is perceived in history, literature and religious symbolism, rather than it's being located and substantiation of it's identity. In these respects, these papers are both resoundingly important in their quite different thesis' .

I also want to note that I have discovered through well informed sources that Dr. Alexander does indeed speak Arabic, and would note that he did in degree use al-Kindi as a cited source for certain references in his work. I think it is important that we recognize him for the scholarship he has achieved and concentrate on the work you are pursuing with your paper here.

At this point I hope to continue the discussion of your article here by finding more support or as required, alterations to the assertions made. I emphasize again, this is to be exercised constructively, and I hope that others here will join in analysis of this fascinating approach to this most important study.

For example, I was having difficulty with absorbing the idea of this, or any sword for that matter, being an iron cleaving sword. I had overlooked that you had specified 'mail, not necessarily plate armor, so that indeed made much more sense. I then checked into "Oriental Armour" H.Russell Robinson, 1967 (p.24) where the armour used by the Arab caliphate of the 7th century closely followed Sassanian and Persian equipment remained essentially the same for some time. This consisted of mail shirt and lamellar breast plate.
I looked into "By the Sword" (Richard Cohen, 2002, pp. 13,18,20) and found discussion regarding the increasing in thickness of armor, especially that of plate armor later with advent of gunpowder and firearms, but nothing more pertaining to warfare early enough to be of help.

Of much more help was "An Introduction to Arms and Warfare in Classical Islam" Dr. David Nicolle ("Islamic Arms and Armour", R. Elgood, ed. 1979, p.163)..."...lamella and mail were not unknown but the most valued armor of that era was a long hauberk known as the 'dir'. So valuable was a dir that in the pre Islamic period, tribes would carry out raids specifically to capture them".

This discussion refers to the period in which Dhu'l faqar would have been actively in use and illustrates that indeed, a heavy bladed sword such as this would have been conducive to the kind of crushing blows which would have tended to such armor of mail or lamellar. It would appear as well that armor which had been weakened either through damage or rusted as often could happen on campaign , might be defeated by blows by such a heavy weapon.

I will say here though that I am not sure the nature of the grooves or fullering in this case would impact the success of blows toward this armor as the blade would not be expected to pass through the armor in the way a cut to flesh and bone would react.

Again, this is what I mean as far as finding support or rebuttal toward the material, and meant to be entered respectfully with the goal of strengthening this work.

With all very best regards,
Jim

Dear Jim,

I'm very thankful for the efforts you've undertaken for the sake of my paper; along with reading Dr. Alexander's article. I really don't know from where I should begin, but let's start with the topic regarding non-academic experts on arms and armor:

Now then, most -if not all of us- know that our field of interest and expertise (arms and armor) has no place in universities; except when it comes to the study of art (like Asian art, Near Eastern art, Islamic art, etc). The professors there usually focus in the decorations of these objects (weapons). In short, none of them usually has our interest, our love, and our knowledge with arms and armor. This is why when I submitted my article here, I believed I've come to the right place. Granted that you, Jim, may not be specialized in Islamic arms and armor, but I believe well that you know a lot of things about arms and armor that would qualify you to judge my work, and the works of others in Islamic arms and armor as well. I mean you know how a sword cuts, thrusts, how an armor cleaving blade looks like, whether the hilt was appropriate for the blade or not, if its temper and other heat treatments were superb or not, etc. Academics usually do not know that.

Regarding Dr. Alexander's ability to speak Arabic, I telephoned him from Cairo, Egypt to where he resides in Puycesi, France on March 3rd 2008, and I asked him whether he liked me sending him a copy of my article, and he said that he'd love to read it. I then asked him: "Do you speak Arabic?" He replied: "No", but then he said that I could send him the article and he'll try to capture what he could understand from it. I then asked him whether I should translate my article to English for him, and he replied that that would be better. He then laughed and commented: "Your English is very good!" So, I translated my article to English using my own skills in English. I also remember that when he asked me to connect him with the curator of the arms and armor department in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo, that the Egyptian curator had to speak English with him in order for the two to understand each other. They spoke by phone, and I remember that the curator was that fluent in English; yet the conversation wasn't in Arabic.

Welcome back, Jim!

Regarding Dr. Alexander and al-Kindi's Treatise, believe me when I tell you that I was stunned when, in a phone call between us on August 19th 2008, he told me that he hasn't read al-Kindi (although the treatise is mentioned in his work; as well as the bibliography of his sources and references), but that's what he told me.

As for Hank Reinhardt and Ewart Oakeshott, it's true that their primary focus was on European swords, but the fact remains that the European swords dating from 500 to 900 C.E. had a big share of their interest. In fact, it was during the time Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured that the golden age of the pattern-welded straight double-edged sword flourished in Europe. Both had great knowledge about the Migration Period swords. I think Dr. Lee Jones also has very vast knowledge about swords in that era. As for John Clements, he's well-known about how swords cut, and how duels occur; even in that period (7th century C.E.), so that's something.

Regarding Dr. Alexander's work, I usually thought that my work was complementary to his, but after I sent him my article to review, I discovered that he didn't look to it that way. He thought that his PhD, as well as his later work, had grasped "all aspects of Dhu'l-Faqar"; including how the blade would have looked like, the hilt, the scabbard, the combat qualities of the sword, etc. At first, he told me that he believed the blade of this sword to be manufactured in the 16th century CE (thus after Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured with at least 9 centuries!), but it could be noted that in his article, he claims the blade of the sword in my article was manufactured in the 14th century C.E.! A week later, he told me that he was unable to thoroughly study and investigate this particular sword, unfortunately. He then told me stories of how the bureaucracy in Turkey badly affected his studies in Topkapi and the Askeri Museums; such a thing that did the same for me too!!! From his apologetic style, I was able to deduce that he was beginning to acknowledge that this was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed, but the sad fact was that all of our future calls and emails NEVER spoke about this issue again,...EVER! The sad fact was that he was not ready to debate with me regarding this issue anymore. In fact, it was his skill in making me shift my conversations with him to other topics; one of which he told me that he's been fasting the Islamic month of Ramadan for twenty something years! Very soon afterwards, I decided to stop any further contacts with him. It was clear that he was not ready to talk to me anymore on that topic, and that if I tried to do that again, he'll just change the subject.

Sorry for the typing error: I meant to say that the curator of arms and armor in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo WASN'T that fluent in English, yet Dr. Alexander spoke to him in English, instead of Arabic.

Regarding the grooves and ridges, they DO NOT increase the cutting ability of a sword, but they do help in absorbing the opposite force on the sword blade (that came as a result of the heavy blow of the sword and its wielder; especially against the metal armor). These grooves have other functions too.

Sassanian (and even Parthian) armor may have influenced Arab armor in the seventh century C.E., but that wasn't the main influence. The people of Yemen after c. 570 C.E. have decided to make a dramatic evolution for arms and armor in their country; something that also greatly influenced the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs of Syria, Palestine, and Southern Iraq, missed this great revolution and evolution; as they preferred being influenced by the Byzantines and the Sassanians. Wearing two full-length coats of chain-mail was very much well-known by c. 620; before that (probably around c. 580 C.E.), a full-length hauberk of mail with double-rings (6-in-1, or even 8-in-1, or 8-in-2) was known in Yemen. Full-length but sleeveless cloaks of lamellar steel plates were also worn by many warriors over their full-length full sleeved hauberks of chain-mail. Dir' was the name of a hauberk of chain-mail. The Arabs were also masters of the gambeson. They also wore raw silk and other non-metal armor in addition to their metal armor for increased protection.

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it? :)

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Hi Alex,

The idea that these huge swords were claimed to be "ceremonial" came from a continuous erroneous build up of information falsely claimed by European historians and early arms and armor "experts". Please let me explain more:

There has always been a misconception that during the Middle Ages (even the early Middle Ages), the Christian European warrior was usually heavier armed and armored than his Muslim counterpart. You'll find that in the writings of Gibbon, Creasy, Lane-Poole, Runciman, Meyer, Dupuy, Regan, Newby, etc. Even Dr. David Nicolle, who tried to refute many of such claims, found himself repeating many of these misconceptions. European historians and arms and armor experts have thought that in the period between 500 to 900 CE, European swords were longer, broader, and heavier than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The same was believed with the armor, and other military accoutrements. To be frank with you, this had to do with bias, along with anti-Islamic sentiments. If you read a lot in history, you'll always find Western historians giving materialistic explanations to the victories made by the Germanic tribes against the Romans (and later the Byzantines). You'll find them doing the same thing with the victories of the Huns, and later the Mongols. But when it comes to the early Islamic victories of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., and even the later on victories, these historians shall not give materialistic reasons for the Muslims victories; other than that the Muslims had far more numbers, and that there may have been a "fifth column" within Christian ranks. Others added that the Muslims usually had far more archers, and that the Muslims didn't care about their lives. But you'll find nothing being said about superior Arab and Islamic arms and armor; especially in terms of combat capabilities. This intended ignoring was done despite the fact that the Islamic sources are full of detailed information of how the Arabs and early Muslims were armed and armored; mush more information than that that speak about Germanic and Mongol arms and armor. When, at last, Western students of arms and armor started translating Islamic sources regarding the arms and armor of the Muslim warriors many errors were done, and I do not know why these errors ever happened. For example:

The Arabic word "faris" literally means "knight"...instead, Western scholars erroneously translate the word to "light horseman"!!!

The Arabic word "ratl" literally means "pound" (i.e. 16 ounces, or 453.7 grams). Instead, Western scholars translated it to 0.6 pounds!!!

A "sibr" means "span"...so, 4 "shibrs" (spans) would equal 36 inches (thus 91.44 cm), right? But the Western scholars claimed it would equal 31.5 inches (80 cm) only!!!

...And so on! Via such bias, the erroneous belief that those huge swords in Topkapi were ceremonial swords appeared. Al-Kindi states that while Frankish swords of the 8th and 9th centuries C.E. weighed 1.75 to 2.5 ratls (pounds); and this is what Hank Reinhardt and others (like Oakeshott) have stated in their compositions, he also stated that there were Arab swords that weighed up to 5 lbs were used by the Muslims at that time!

Instead of referring to al-Kindi, and holding the erroneous belief that Arab swords were lighter than their European counterparts, those who investigated the swords of Topkapi came quickly to an unfounded conclusion that these huge swords (some of which weighed as heavy as 5 lbs) were nothing more than ceremonial swords used by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks for their elite royalty!!!

Now you understand from where the claim that the swords in Topkakpi were ceremonial swords came from??? If you need more clarification, please say so. OK???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Welcome back, Alex!

A quick correction: It's "shibr" and not "sibr" that means "span" (i.e. 9 inches or 22.86 cm).

Among the other erroneous translations:

"Sayf"; which means "sword", was erroneously translated to "short sword" instead!!!

When al-Kindi said that some sword blades were "4 fingers wide"; thus their width (immediately after the hilt) was 3 inches, the Western scholars explained that to a much slimmer width (can't remember exactly what their calculations were, but it was considerably less than 3 inches, anyway), and so on.

As for testing the cutting ability of the blade of the sword now preserved in Topkapi under inv. no. 2/3775, I don't think anyone will EVER be allowed to do so...so, I can't really get your point from what you said regarding that. Do you mean to say that the answer to this sword shall remain vague forever? Please explain more.

BTW, the Ottoman curved hilt (referring to the 16th century CE) for this straight double-edged broad and heavy blade makes it almost impossible for one to wield the sword; except by two hands; one gripping the grip, and the other holding the blade from its middle, or near the blade's point.

No, this sword is not the largest sword referring to the 7th century CE. There's a sword attributed to Ja'far ibn Abi-Taleb (d. 629 CE) that has a longer and heavier blade than the sword of my article.

BTW, do you have any references...or have you read some of these references that deal with the history of the passing of the Prophet's relics from one ruling dynasty to another?? I believe Ahmed Taymour Pasha's work regarding this issue is top notch. His book even explains why the Prophet's relics were not lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.

Again, it would be much more logical if one were to compare the 7th century Arab swords preserved in Topkapi with what al-Kindi, al-Kateb, al-Biruni, and the countless 7th-9th century Arab poems said about the Arab swords back then, and see if they coincided (and actually they did very precisely!); rather than to make a quick and unfounded claim that these swords were ceremonial swords manufactured between the 14th and 17th centuries CE, just because of their immoderate dimensions and weights, along with their excessive decorations and ornamentation. Now the latter procedure would be nothing more than repetitions of repetitions of erroneous beliefs based on false information that was passed without any revision, correction, or even questioning.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

ALEX said: "I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Dear Richard,
Salaams!

Of course you're welcome to this discussion. You'll never be too late, I hope. But first, I gotta understand the meaning of metallographic first! I'll check it out very soon!

Welcome to the discussions, Ric!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Welcome back, Richard!

Regarding metalographic studies done on this blade, I do not know any. However, I'll tell what I've experimented, observed, and concluded:

1- The blade is flexible and elastic; something which reveals it was made from superior steel with superior quenching and tempering. The blade springs back very well after you bend it. This proves the superiority of the steel from which it was forged.

2- The damask on the surface of the blade is rather small; even smaller than that of most other Arab blades preserved in Topkapi. This proves that the blade was made of crucible steel; as the blade is certainly not pattern-welded. The damask is what al-Kindi described as Indian damask; not Yemeni damask.

BTW, can you know, via metalography, the age of a certain blade? Please explain further...

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares :) It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

Dear Ric,

Thanks a lot for your clarifying post. Your postings are of great importance indeed. Regarding the weight, dimensions, etc...these are stated in pages 27-29.

BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

I very much agree with you regarding the blacksmiths point of view! I'm sure I've come to the right place, and am talking with the right people!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Dear Alex,

Thank you very much for this. I look forward to your reviews and comments, Sir!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?