The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[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 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.

Salaams Alex, Last point first if I may?

This is serious academic research. It is based upon probably the finest collection of weapons at Topkapi . The facts are not only verified but expanded into by the treatise. This group of swords (that I have now viewed since the author kindly PM'd me with the entire group) is so important to the student of Ethnographic Arms n' Armour... As you know the Topkapi represents a crucible of data and learning unrivaled in other parts of the world...and is "The Centre" for research into a host of Islamic arms and armour worldwide.

It is good that you agree with Ariel who argues his corner well and makes people think ... that's what I like about the Forum; the ability to free think an idea without prior constraints, rules or laid down doctrines... exactly what the author has done here. The previous experts and masters are held to question... quite right ! since it appears they were mistaken...They were only human no?

I also like your terminology using the word "Science," though, it seems the result was achieved not so much from any use of technical gadgetry but more by using knowledge and the mark one eyeball coupled with the art (or science) of deduction. The mark of a true detective. The essence of research and the banner to which we all aspire...as members of this Forum.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ALEX]

I am not questioning the importance of weapons at Topkapi. They have quite important swords, but regretfully cannot differentiate between Safavid and Qajar, Persia and India, even new from old to begin with. Evidently, one must ask: what are their authority and research methods?
We have a nice effort and theory here. As any theory, it has to gain traction and consensus from some well-known experts before becoming something tangible. Until then, as Ariel said, it remains a "momentous discovery".

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi ALEX,

Wasn't my article about that? Did you read it thoroughly? I hope you've enjoyed the facts that are in it!

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[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

[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

[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

[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