[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Hello Ahmed,

You put in a lot of work for this appendix to your thesis.

I found your review of the old Arab sources very interesting. To me it sets out the typology of the original sword very well. I also found your explanation of the Dhu'l-faqar name and of the misconception surrounding the "double-tipped" description enlightening.

I am, however, cautious about your interpretation of the inscriptions on the sword. I suggest you submit the remnants of those inscriptions to a broader group of experts, and identify the meaning that is there, not the meaning you would expect to see on Dhu'l-faqar. If the line "This blade is that of Dhu'l-faqar, which is mentioned in the Hadith" is correct, then I think that is a good clue, but not necessarily true. The inscription could have been added to increase the sword's value, for example.

I am also cautious about your regard for the heavy decoration and embellishment of the sword. This sounds like a secondary point in support of your identification, not a primary clue by itself. Lastly, I agree with Ariel that there might have been many swords of very similar construction, owned and used by many of the early Arabian elite. Your assumption that Dhu'l-faqar must be in what now remains of the Treasury collection limits your search, in my opinion.

What I take from your article is a new ides of what Dhu'l-faqar might have looked like, a better understanding of swords from the early Islamic period, and a confirmation that Indian wootz was traded far and wide and that its properties were highly valued. Given this understanding, I now have the feeling of knowing what Dhu'l-faqar might have been, so location and continued existence of the actual sword has been rendered less relevant.

I am also very pleased to see a long list of Arab scholars whose works I will now be able to search and read for myself.

Thank you for this.

Regards and good luck with the rest of your continued research!
Emanuel

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