Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
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