Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

ariel · 27th November 2013, 02:08 AM

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?

27th November 2013, 02:08 AM	#80
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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? Last edited by ariel; 27th November 2013 at 04:39 AM.