The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

Dear Ahmed,
Don't get offended by my critiques: there is nothing personal.

However, you seem to equate quotation of many reference with establishing proof.
The former you did, and did admirably. The latter is highly questionable, if not outright unsatisfactory.
I am sure that Shi'a muslims will disagree with you: after all, according to their tradition, Dhu'l Fakar is still kept by the 12th Imam:-)
Your assertion that Dhu'l Fakar was not captured by Hulagu's hordes ( and likely lost forever) simply because other sacred swords survived the mongolian assault and are now in Topkapi, ignores the likely possibility that none of the Topkapi swords ever belonged to Muhammed and his companions. Yucel hints at that by cautious statements about his dating of the swords.
Your reasoning why didn't the Ottomans ever reveal the true identity of this sword is politically naive: nothing would have pleased them more and strenghtened their religious authority over the entire islamic community than the ownership of the True Dhu'l Fakar. Keeping its identity secret made no sense. You disagree? Well, my argument is just as strong if not stronger than yours.
The interpretation of the name of the sword, -Dhu'l Fakar, - as " Having Ridges" is not new: it is just one of the many possibilities mentioned in various sources. Other sources, for example, interpreted it as " Having Waves" , i.e. damaskus? serrated? And the designation Mufakkar would be applicable to the latter just as well. Yet others had a fantastic version of the blade being riveted within the scabbard, with Ali just tearing it out, splitting the blade at the tip.

How many pre, - or early-islamic swords had fullers and ridges? Taking into accounts that the curved saber became popular around 13th century, how many straight, double-edged swords were in existence over ~ 500 years of the early islamic warfare? What proportion of them had 9 ( or 10) fullers?

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....

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.

With best wishes,
Ariel

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