|
|
|
18th November 2013, 06:26 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 09:29 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 12:58 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 01:58 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 10:46 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
I rest my case :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 08:26 AM
|
#6 |
|
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Centerville, Kansas
Posts: 2,196
|
Gentlemen, I think that before this thread disintegrates into an out and out shouting match, for the present I will ask that everyone keep your replies civil or I will be forced to close this from further discussion. Remember the rules,"Civility and respect towards other participants are unconditionally expected." There will be no further warnings.
Robert |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 11:51 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
I'll try my best in being an abiding member in this great forum. Thank you for your warning. |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 02:12 PM
|
#8 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
Salaams all,
To bring this thread back to track and arguements aside, may I make the point that this treatise, in its field, is perhaps the most important piece of work to arrive on our pages for many years; if not ever. Failure of members to properly read the document carefully may be their excuse for improvised assessment ideas and criticism, however, by looking at the thesis properly and researching the references thoroughly it becomes clear that this is indeed an extremely important addition for our library. The project took more than half a decade to complete and is accurate and precise and uses the finest line up of references in support. For the student of Islamic Arms and Armour this is a vital building block in understanding their chosen field. It is a vital source document for Ethnographic Weapons. It is key in the positioning of this Forum Library as the finest resource available today. It is surely not for us to destructively criticize such an excellent study... nor to suggest that the author take it to some far off other body for support or assessment ... We do not rubber stamp, assess or certificate efforts of Forumites, moreover, we consider, support and debate. What we can do however is raise this on its own pedestal within our pages thus I propose it be elevated to Classic status. I have to say that I have made private representation already for the treatise inclusion on Classics because this is a brilliant research paper and deserves no less. Members of this forum... I urge that this be so and request moderator support to make it happen. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. 
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 07:51 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
The "Swords and Armour" is an exhibition catalogue that is not serious in my opinion. It has pictures of some pretty swords... that's it! Most of them are composite pieces, all are gravely mis-dated. I'd not consider it as being serious reference. Apart from this, here's a better closeup of the sword, which is truly a magnificent piece or art. Last edited by ALEX; 20th November 2013 at 08:28 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 09:49 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
Thanks a lot for posting this beautiful photo of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade and its Ottoman hilt. But you seemed to have misunderstood me; as I was telling Ariel that he (i.e. Ariel) took the suggestion of one of the meanings of "Dhu'l-Faqar" to mean it "possessed 18 intervals of damask waves" from a book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour" that was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies. I never stated that it was a reliable reference or anything. In fact, you'll see in that book, another sword which the other says "it possesses 53 intervals of damask waves". Sorry you misunderstood me, but I felt that I had to correct and explain this misunderstanding! Cheers, Ahmed Helal Hussein |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 06:23 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
Quote:
 I hope we'll be focusing on the source, and not the person who took suggestion from it I wanted to ask how do you see the purpose of "Dhu'l-Faqar"? Was the assumption made that it was a weapon? A two-pointed shape was quite important early Islamic symbol, so split/double blade could be another of it's representations in a form of purely ceremonial object. As such, the discussion on its functionality as a weapon, as well as why it is impractical, would not apply. You listed it as one of the reasons why "Dhu'l-Faqar" could not be two-pointed. Please help me understand, I may be missing something. |
|
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 01:18 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
