The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Iain

Apologies, I just edited the link. Can you have a try now and let me know if it's working for you?

worked perfectly. thanks.

interesting illustrations. the dissertation makes sense. all previous info i've seen seemed to indicate a real split tip, or 2 tined forked tip. which would be somewhat unpractical for sword. the one illustrated solves the problem and appears to be a fine weapon such as would have been loved by the prophet (peace upon him). shame the original scabbard & harness did not survive as well.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by kronckew

worked perfectly. thanks.

interesting illustrations. the dissertation makes sense. all previous info i've seen seemed to indicate a real split tip, or 2 tined forked tip. which would be somewhat unpractical for sword. the one illustrated solves the problem and appears to be a fine weapon such as would have been loved by the prophet (peace upon him). shame the original scabbard & harness did not survive as well.

Thank you very much for your positive reply, sir. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding this article, and I'll be more than glad to answer you.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Horsa]

Thanks very much. Great research and accompanying photos.

Horsa

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Horsa

Thanks very much. Great research and accompanying photos.

Horsa

Salaams Horsa,

Thank you very much for your positive review. Glad you liked it!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[ariel]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by ariel

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Salaams Ariel, You admit that yours are just quick notes. Perhaps you also noted that the work your quick notes reflect took 6 and a half years of painstaking research. The references are immaculate. The subject is controversial and fraught with difficulties probably more than any other subject in the Ethnographic arms field it is handled with great expertise and professionalism.

The structure and method used in this treatise are extremely well executed and it is for this as well as other reasons set out below why I recommend this work to the Classic register.

It is an example of the way proper research can be applied to the often nebulous, clouded areas which require illuminating. ..The focus of the treatise is accurate, well balanced and technically excellent.

Naturally people get a little uneasy when delving into this subject because of the intense possible religious misconceptions attached to it.. but the author has managed to frame his discourse without stepping into those contentious areas. Moreover it is written with strong leanings to the historical not the religious, thus, he keeps it as factual as possible but where it touches on the philosophical I believe he treats that decently and absorbs those narratives well.

You state essentially that momentous discoveries are not the domain of Forum...

Momentous discoveries and minor ones are the domain of this Forum. This topic is full of minor revelations about detail missed or misconstrued..is that not the work of an ethnographic arms detective? I believe it is the essence of a diligent researcher. Why should we abstain from making momentous discoveries? The world was flat once.

Am I suggesting this become a topic for Classic inclusion because I think it is all correct or because I think it is momentous? Neither, in fact.

My suggestion for Classic inclusion is because this is a finely presented document upon a delicate and difficult subject, carefully researched and with superb references. It carries within it the essence of Forum enthusiasm, accuracy, excellence and effort... Should that not be rewarded..is that not what the Classic file is for?

A topic of this nature is not made bulletproof simply because it is a Classic... far from it...It is not written in stone. It is still a working thread, capable of being added to, criticized and replaced if something better comes up! Should it not be reserved for the best we have to date on a particular topic?

My recommendation to the Classics therefor stands.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Ariel, You admit that yours are just quick notes. Perhaps you also noted that the work your quick notes reflect took 6 and a half years of painstaking research. The references are immaculate. The subject is controversial and fraught with difficulties probably more than any other subject in the Ethnographic arms field it is handled with great expertise and professionalism.

The structure and method used in this treatise are extremely well executed and it is for this as well as other reasons set out below why I recommend this work to the Classic register.

It is an example of the way proper research can be applied to the often nebulous, clouded areas which require illuminating. ..The focus of the treatise is accurate, well balanced and technically excellent.

Naturally people get a little uneasy when delving into this subject because of the intense possible religious misconceptions attached to it.. but the author has managed to frame his discourse without stepping into those contentious areas. Moreover it is written with strong leanings to the historical not the religious, thus, he keeps it as factual as possible but where it touches on the philosophical I believe he treats that decently and absorbs those narratives well.

You state essentially that momentous discoveries are not the domain of Forum...

Momentous discoveries and minor ones are the domain of this Forum. This topic is full of minor revelations about detail missed or misconstrued..is that not the work of an ethnographic arms detective? I believe it is the essence of a diligent researcher. Why should we abstain from making momentous discoveries? The world was flat once.

Am I suggesting this become a topic for Classic inclusion because I think it is all correct or because I think it is momentous? Neither, in fact.

My suggestion for Classic inclusion is because this is a finely presented document upon a delicate and difficult subject, carefully researched and with superb references. It carries within it the essence of Forum enthusiasm, accuracy, excellence and effort... Should that not be rewarded..is that not what the Classic file is for?

A topic of this nature is not made bulletproof simply because it is a Classic... far from it...It is not written in stone. It is still a working thread, capable of being added to, criticized and replaced if something better comes up! Should it not be reserved for the best we have to date on a particular topic?

My recommendation to the Classics therefor stands.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thank you very much for your opinion regarding my article. Of course, nobody is perfect, but I'd like to add that these 6 1/2 years of restless research produced a composition of 1,718 pages of academic work; something that had to be reduced for the dissertation to be accepted for discussion, so I sized it down to 1,236 pages! Unfortunately, the university laws in Egypt maintain that a masters degree is an inevitable step before obtaining a PhD, so after all this effort, I was stunned to find the academics asking me to make a PhD, and I found myself at the age of 32! In many universities of the world, PhD students start their dissertation immediately after their BA, and after composing a dissertation much smaller than mine, they usually earn their PhD at the age of 25-29!

Nonetheless, I intend to reply to Ariel's review and doubts. I hope everyone participates in this coming discussion. Please enjoy!

I repeat my great thanks to your appreciation of my work and your insistence that my humble article would be in the Classic register.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[kronckew]

like western christian relics and pieces of the true cross, the turin shroud, etc. - it sometimes comes down to a matter of faith, with the ';truth' possibly never to be known. could it be the true sword - yes - could it be otherwise? also yes. could there have been modifications over it's life. possible. in the end, it's like the print in the rock under the golden dome. faith. it is true because we want it to be, as much as it really is. if enough people believe it is, their belief imbues the object with their energy and the myth becomes reality.

and maybe it always was.

[ALEX]

I am with Ariel here. We live in a quite advanced technological age and can use the science to unveil many mysteries. And so we should. The Turin shroud was scientifically proven to be much later then claimed, in addition of being "geometrically unrealistic". yet, many choose to ignore it and believe that it's real deal. It's up to individual to believe in facts or what they're told. However, when it comes to a serious academic research - it needs to be based on confirmed and verified facts.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kronckew

like western christian relics and pieces of the true cross, the turin shroud, etc. - it sometimes comes down to a matter of faith, with the ';truth' possibly never to be known. could it be the true sword - yes - could it be otherwise? also yes. could there have been modifications over it's life. possible. in the end, it's like the print in the rock under the golden dome. faith. it is true because we want it to be, as much as it really is. if enough people believe it is, their belief imbues the object with their energy and the myth becomes reality.

and maybe it always was.

Salaams kronckew ~ I think the Turin Shroud is an excellent example and would have agreed in fact that this sword was an untouchable subject before I read the fine work now submitted... Nicely put Sir.

I also would have agreed on the religious nature which incorporates philosophical and mythical beliefs which we often shy away from...though occasionally dipping into that rich area through Talismanic influences and so on... very much part of Ethnographic research.

It is a great arms detective that can separate the difficult, nebulous issues of belief, religion, dreams, emotions and facts...yet remain on course finally to place the record straighter...I think that has been achieved.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Salaams Ariel!

Thank you for this review, which I genuinely believe was hastily done before you were able to digest the article. Nonetheless, I find myself interested in answering your review. For the moment, I'll answer you with logical questions; or at least questions that I might find logical!

1- You've stated: " Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive."

My answer: What do you mean by "similar construction"? Did I say that the reason that this sword has special status is simply because "it has 9 shallow fullers"? Are you reading my article or Professor's Yucel's work?! Didn't I say "10 narrow grooves; with 9 ridges between them on each face of the blade"? Was that the only physical or structural characteristic that made the sword of special status?

You've then stated: "The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees)."

My answer: In his treatise, al-Kindi states how you would know the cutting ability of a certain sword. Didn't I mention this in the article? Along with Hank Reinhardt's lectures regarding the properties of an armor-cleaving sword? Didn't I speak about the dimensions, damask, elasticity of the sword? Do you believe the curators at Topkapi would have allowed me to strike a mail-shirt with this sword?! Oh, and did you think Topkapi allowed me to handle and investigate the sword without countless painstaking procedures of bureaucracy; one of which involved me returning back to Egypt, and waiting there for 2 months, before coming back to Istanbul and taking their OK?!!

You've stated: "The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence."

My answer: Oh! So you didn't know about the many international phone calls (from Turkey and Egypt to the US) and the countless emails between me and Mr. Reinhardt on how one should determine the cutting ability of the swords I'm studying? Again, does any museum allow its swords or axes to be tested by means of using them to strike metal armor???

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Welcome back, Ariel!

You've stated: " The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

My answer: Didn't I state that this sword was the primary sword used in the ascension ceremonies of the Ottoman Sultans; who from the days of Suleyman I (or even Selim I) were also Caliphs of Islam? Didn't I cite Yucel's statement that the decorations of its scabbard were similar to those of the Holy Mantle of the Prophet (PBUH)?

You've stated: " I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century."

My answer: So, is this my fault?! Or are you claiming that I'm a liar? Perhaps you could call IRCICA and ask Professor Tahsin Taha-Oglu, or maybe those in the Topkapi Museum, like Emine Bilirgen and Hilmi Aydin. What are you trying to tell exactly??

You've stated: " The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking."

My answer: Uncertain? Why?! Did you read what I wrote? Or did you read what I understood before Professor Taha-Oglu came and read it for me and the curators of Topkapi, before translating it to us? Was anything missing other than "No youth (or champion) could match Ali"??? Where's the sophistry, fantasy, and wishful thinking???

You've stated: "A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's."

Did Osman (the founder of the Ottoman Empire who died in 1326 CE) use huge 5-5.5 lb Yemeni Mashrafi swords (that resembled those used by the Arabs in the early days of Islam)??? Prove it, please! Now that would be something significant you've just added to the study of Islamic arms and armor!!! Didn't you ask yourself this question: Why was the hilt of the sword so inappropriate for the blade??

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Welcome back again, Ariel!

You've stated: "A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David."

My answer: Did you not apply al-Kindi's typology on the early Islamic swords of Topkapi? Or are you just repeating the "claims" of the earlier academics that I've already answered at the start of the article? Didn't I say that the story that was Dhu'l-Faqar was sent as a gift by Queen Bilkis to Prophet Solomon (PBUH) was legend? Didn't I say that the blade was manufactured in the Arabian Peninsula (especially Yemen) in either the late 6th century or early 7th century CE? Did Bilkis and Solomon (PBUH) live in the 6th century CE or the 10th century BC?!

BTW, in my dissertation, I refuted the idea that the Yemeni sword attributed to Prophet David (PBUH) was his. In fact, the damask on the blade's surface proves it was made of wootz steel; something that was not known in the 11th-10th centuries BC in the Middle East.

You've also stated: "These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies."

My answer: Could you please send more of these notes and objections? Please?

You've then stated: " I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful."

My answer: I've done that before. When it comes to one-on-one talk, they all praised my work. Among those were David Nicolle, Oleg Grabar, James W. Allan, Brian Gilmour, and Robert Hoyland...and also Christoph Amberger. But when it came to publishing, those journals required a lot of reduction and some alterations that would ruin the article...so, I refused. I'll send the email in which Dr. David Nicolle commented on this article.

[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