The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

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

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

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

In short, you have assembled a multitude of hints, recollection of recollections of recollections, hearsays, controversial and obscure references, personal impressions etc., and have not subjected them to a rigorous and dispassionate analysis. In all my readings of your article I have never encountered even a modicum of doubt. This is not science; this is faith....

But please prove me wrong: just submit your paper to a respected, historical peer-reviewed journal and get opinions of the true specialists.

As you have already mentioned in the paper, Dr. David Alexander has expressed his negative opinion about your conclusions. Ask the Editor not to appoint him as a Referee.

With best wishes,
Ariel

Dear Ariel,

Hmmm...so you've changed your mind regarding the criticism that you gave my article in your earlier posting, eh? If not, then why didn't you answer my questions.

Now who's the naive one? Me for suggesting reasons why the Ottoman Sultans and Caliphs of Islam did not portray Dhu'l-Faqar on their flags; although the sword was in their possession? Or you for citing from unreliable modern references some nonsense definitions of why the sword was called "Dhu'l-Faqar"??? Didn't you get the definition of the " 18 intervals of damask waves" from that book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour, which was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies??? Do you even know the name of the author of this book??? If you did, I'll take off my hat for you!!! What about the other story of the sword being riveted within its scabbard, and then Caliph Ali forcibly unsheathed it and therefore broke its blade into two; each one ending in a point, and whoever looks at these tow points would have his eyesight robbed of him!!! WOW! I'm the one who speaks out of religious beliefs rather than scientific analyses!

NO! No source or reference said that "Dhu'l-Faqar" meant "having ridges"before I did. I dare you get me one before me that said so. In fact, among the new results that I was able to come with in my dissertation was the correct definition of "Faqra". The best that was said is "that the sword was called so because it had securing grooves in the middle of its blade"...or as David Alexander literally translated it: "It had 18 vertebrates".

There were many Arab swords that had grooves and ridges, but how many of them had 10 grooves (therefore with 9 ridges between them) on each face of the blade? ONLY ONE! Now how would I know that??? The answer is simple: If you ever knew the physical characteristics of an armor cleaving sword, you'd know that too many grooves may spoil the sword's cutting ability. The width of the grooving and ridging of this blade was 1.2 inches out of 3.6 inches; thus 1/3 of the width, and they're exactly in the middle of the blade. Wider grooving and ridging might ruin the blade's cutting ability; especially against thick mail, and its blows against lamellar plate armor. If you have ever investigated the blade of this sword, you would've seen unparalleled skill in the grooving and ridging done there; something that you won't see in any other sword; whether this sword were an Arab sword, or a non-Arab one. If you don't believe me, then look at those swords preserved in Topkapi and the Askeri Museum. You forgot to add to that the unparalleled immoderate dimensions of the blade for a sword that could be used in one hand with conjunction with a shield in the other hand.

You've then stated: " In short, you have assembled a multitude of hints, recollection of recollections of recollections, hearsays, controversial and obscure references, personal impressions etc., and have not subjected them to a rigorous and dispassionate analysis. In all my readings of your article I have never encountered even a modicum of doubt. This is not science; this is faith...."

My answer: Yeah yeah yeah! Perhaps the "scientific" thing you could do is to prove that this blade doesn't correspond with the historical characteristics of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade, and that it's just an ordinary 7th century Arab blade, or maybe a late 13th or early 14th century straight double-edged Seljuk sword that was used by Osman (founder of the Ottoman Turkish Empire) in his military campaigns!

In the end you've stated: "But please prove me wrong: just submit your paper to a respected, historical peer-reviewed journal and get opinions of the true specialists.

As you have already mentioned in the paper, Dr. David Alexander has expressed his negative opinion about your conclusions. Ask the Editor not to appoint him as a Referee."

Your proposal doesn't make sense at all; for the fact is that those readers of the respected journals have no idea about 7th century Arab swords, and you already might have known that.

As for David Alexander, he doesn't know Arabic, and has never read or understood al-Kindi's Treatise! His supervisor on his PhD thesis was Professor Priscilla Soucek, who according to him: "Had no idea about arms and armor".

What you're trying to do is to convince me to whirl around myself by asking to whirl around myself by asking recognition from academics specialized in Islamic arts but have no idea about Arab swords of the 7th century. In short you're asking me to put myself at the mercy of those who are not qualified to judge me on my subject of specialization, just because they're highly esteemed because of their academic titles. But remember: "Give the flour to its baker".

I will answer any other questions later on.

Cordially,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[ariel]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Dear Ariel,

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

I rest my case :-)

[Robert]

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

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Robert

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

Hello Robert,

I'll try my best in being an abiding member in this great forum. Thank you for your warning.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Hello Robert,

I'll try my best in being an abiding member in this great forum. Thank you for your warning.

Ahmed, I would just like you say that in my opinion you have beautifully responded here to the entries of participants and I think we have had a well developing thread with slight exceptions (as noted in activity). While I am far from well versed in the field of Islamic arms, and have admittedly not read through your article thoroughly, I do very much look forward to doing so.
The tenacious and well structured research evident in your entries here are to my view, reflective of outstanding work in the serious advancement of arms and armour study and deserve sincere and constructive observations and critique without unfortunately worded comments.

I very much agree with Ibrahiim that with this very well presented work we can move forward on this powerfully important topic. I also believe that the outstanding knowledge base of the members here will add comments and perspective which will become helpful in the comprehensive understanding
and appreciation of this most important article.

Thank you for presenting your work here Ahmed, and for your equally impressive and well supported entries on this thread.

My compliments Sir!

All best regards,
Jim

[ariel]

Jim,
I agree with Ahmed, Ibrahim and yourself that, if true, identification of the sword in question as a true Dhu'l Fakar would be an incredibly important discovery.
I am still not convinced that this is the case. Discoveries of such magnitude demand irrefutable proofs.

As the barest minimum, one would like to know with high degree of certainty that this sword could be confidently dated to not later than the beginning of 7th century. If such a proof is not available, the entire argument of this sword belonging to Muhammed who died in 622 C.E. loses a leg to stand on. Am I missing something here?

With best wishes to all the participants,
Ariel

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
I agree with Ahmed, Ibrahim and yourself that, if true, identification of the sword in question as a true Dhu'l Fakar would be an incredibly important discovery.
I am still not convinced that this is the case. Discoveries of such magnitude demand irrefutable proofs.

As the barest minimum, one would like to know with high degree of certainty that this sword could be confidently dated to not later than the beginning of 7th century. If such a proof is not available, the entire argument of this sword belonging to Muhammed who died in 622 C.E. loses a leg to stand on. Am I missing something here?

With best wishes to all the participants,
Ariel

Ariel,
The subject of this article is probably one of the most formidable in the history of arms and armor, and quite frankly I am not sure that any measure of irrefutable proof can ever be presented empirically to resolve this mystery entirely. The point is that this article (which I have now read through) is actually (in my opinion) brilliantly presented, and Ahmed has perfectly and meticulously addressed many important aspects of the history of Dhu'l-faqar and categorically explained and supported his claims.

He has taken the time and tenacious effort to cite and note references, sources and contacts reflecting the outstanding research he has undertaken in pursuing support for his theory, and in my opinion beautifully explained these often complex aspects in an easily read style. As I mentioned, I am far from being a scholar on Islamic arms, but I could well understand his carefully explained and detailed deductive reasoning. I found this intriguing and offering a profoundly compelling case for his theory on Dhu'l-faqar's true identity.

My point is that regardless of whether one accepts or refutes Ahmed's theory in this article, I believe he deserves the respect that should be afforded anyone who has the courage to publish or openly present their work for constructive review. I do not believe that terms like 'sophomoric' or 'naieve' are particularly helpful or for that matter constructive among other reasonably understandable observations.

I also find the invitation for Ahmed to take this superbly researched and written article elsewhere to be rather harshly issued and unwarranted. I personally do believe our forums to indeed be the place for monumental discoveries, and over many years we have all worked together to indeed achieve a number of them, you included.

Hopefully we can all continue that spirit here, and add to the comprehensive data presented in this article with objective observations toward either supporting or rebutting all aspects which may be in question.

All best regards,
Jim

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
I agree with Ahmed, Ibrahim and yourself that, if true, identification of the sword in question as a true Dhu'l Fakar would be an incredibly important discovery.
I am still not convinced that this is the case. Discoveries of such magnitude demand irrefutable proofs.

As the barest minimum, one would like to know with high degree of certainty that this sword could be confidently dated to not later than the beginning of 7th century. If such a proof is not available, the entire argument of this sword belonging to Muhammed who died in 622 C.E. loses a leg to stand on. Am I missing something here?

With best wishes to all the participants,
Ariel

A quick correction: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died in 632 C.E.; not in 622 C.E. which was the year of his Hijra (migration) from Makkah to Madinah.

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

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.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thank you very much for your very responsible actions. I find you a very serious student of arms and armor, who really knows what he's doing. I very much appreciate your concern. I am greatly indebted to your opinions and actions regarding my work. Once again, thank you very much, sir!

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

... 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!!!

Hello Ahmed,
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.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
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.

Dear Alex,

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

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Dear Alex,

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

Sorry if I misunderstood this, Ahmed. Its all clear with me now 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.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Sorry if I misunderstood this, Ahmed. Its all clear with me now 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. Am I missing something? Thanks!

Dear Alex,

It's all right, as long as you've understood the misunderstanding ;-)

As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor.

As for the two-pointed sword, it was a symbol for the martyrdom of al-Hamzah (one of the uncles of Prophet Muhammad PBUH) at the Battle of Uhud in 624 CE, and this was the interpretation of the Prophet's vision, a few days before the Battle of Uhud.

But then I have made this clear in my article, no?

I hope I've answered your question.

BTW, the depiction of Dhu'l-Faqar as a two-pointed or double-bladed sword, was known in Islamic art as early as the Mongol Period (in the 14th century CE). There are false replicas of Dhu'l-Faqar; featuring it as a double-pointed or double-bladed sword, that date back to the 14th century CE. Please read David G. Alexander: Dhu'l-faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah, Gladius, 1999. This article is available online, btw.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

...
...As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor ....
...

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Hi Alex,

The idea that these huge swords were claimed to be "ceremonial" came from a continuous erroneous build up of information falsely claimed by European historians and early arms and armor "experts". Please let me explain more:

There has always been a misconception that during the Middle Ages (even the early Middle Ages), the Christian European warrior was usually heavier armed and armored than his Muslim counterpart. You'll find that in the writings of Gibbon, Creasy, Lane-Poole, Runciman, Meyer, Dupuy, Regan, Newby, etc. Even Dr. David Nicolle, who tried to refute many of such claims, found himself repeating many of these misconceptions. European historians and arms and armor experts have thought that in the period between 500 to 900 CE, European swords were longer, broader, and heavier than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The same was believed with the armor, and other military accoutrements. To be frank with you, this had to do with bias, along with anti-Islamic sentiments. If you read a lot in history, you'll always find Western historians giving materialistic explanations to the victories made by the Germanic tribes against the Romans (and later the Byzantines). You'll find them doing the same thing with the victories of the Huns, and later the Mongols. But when it comes to the early Islamic victories of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., and even the later on victories, these historians shall not give materialistic reasons for the Muslims victories; other than that the Muslims had far more numbers, and that there may have been a "fifth column" within Christian ranks. Others added that the Muslims usually had far more archers, and that the Muslims didn't care about their lives. But you'll find nothing being said about superior Arab and Islamic arms and armor; especially in terms of combat capabilities. This intended ignoring was done despite the fact that the Islamic sources are full of detailed information of how the Arabs and early Muslims were armed and armored; mush more information than that that speak about Germanic and Mongol arms and armor. When, at last, Western students of arms and armor started translating Islamic sources regarding the arms and armor of the Muslim warriors many errors were done, and I do not know why these errors ever happened. For example:

The Arabic word "faris" literally means "knight"...instead, Western scholars erroneously translate the word to "light horseman"!!!

The Arabic word "ratl" literally means "pound" (i.e. 16 ounces, or 453.7 grams). Instead, Western scholars translated it to 0.6 pounds!!!

A "sibr" means "span"...so, 4 "shibrs" (spans) would equal 36 inches (thus 91.44 cm), right? But the Western scholars claimed it would equal 31.5 inches (80 cm) only!!!

...And so on! Via such bias, the erroneous belief that those huge swords in Topkapi were ceremonial swords appeared. Al-Kindi states that while Frankish swords of the 8th and 9th centuries C.E. weighed 1.75 to 2.5 ratls (pounds); and this is what Hank Reinhardt and others (like Oakeshott) have stated in their compositions, he also stated that there were Arab swords that weighed up to 5 lbs were used by the Muslims at that time!

Instead of referring to al-Kindi, and holding the erroneous belief that Arab swords were lighter than their European counterparts, those who investigated the swords of Topkapi came quickly to an unfounded conclusion that these huge swords (some of which weighed as heavy as 5 lbs) were nothing more than ceremonial swords used by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks for their elite royalty!!!

Now you understand from where the claim that the swords in Topkakpi were ceremonial swords came from??? If you need more clarification, please say so. OK???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Welcome back, Alex!

A quick correction: It's "shibr" and not "sibr" that means "span" (i.e. 9 inches or 22.86 cm).

Among the other erroneous translations:

"Sayf"; which means "sword", was erroneously translated to "short sword" instead!!!

When al-Kindi said that some sword blades were "4 fingers wide"; thus their width (immediately after the hilt) was 3 inches, the Western scholars explained that to a much slimmer width (can't remember exactly what their calculations were, but it was considerably less than 3 inches, anyway), and so on.

As for testing the cutting ability of the blade of the sword now preserved in Topkapi under inv. no. 2/3775, I don't think anyone will EVER be allowed to do so...so, I can't really get your point from what you said regarding that. Do you mean to say that the answer to this sword shall remain vague forever? Please explain more.

BTW, the Ottoman curved hilt (referring to the 16th century CE) for this straight double-edged broad and heavy blade makes it almost impossible for one to wield the sword; except by two hands; one gripping the grip, and the other holding the blade from its middle, or near the blade's point.

No, this sword is not the largest sword referring to the 7th century CE. There's a sword attributed to Ja'far ibn Abi-Taleb (d. 629 CE) that has a longer and heavier blade than the sword of my article.

BTW, do you have any references...or have you read some of these references that deal with the history of the passing of the Prophet's relics from one ruling dynasty to another?? I believe Ahmed Taymour Pasha's work regarding this issue is top notch. His book even explains why the Prophet's relics were not lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.

Again, it would be much more logical if one were to compare the 7th century Arab swords preserved in Topkapi with what al-Kindi, al-Kateb, al-Biruni, and the countless 7th-9th century Arab poems said about the Arab swords back then, and see if they coincided (and actually they did very precisely!); rather than to make a quick and unfounded claim that these swords were ceremonial swords manufactured between the 14th and 17th centuries CE, just because of their immoderate dimensions and weights, along with their excessive decorations and ornamentation. Now the latter procedure would be nothing more than repetitions of repetitions of erroneous beliefs based on false information that was passed without any revision, correction, or even questioning.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[VANDOO]

WHILE THIS IS NOT MY FIELD I CONGRADULATE YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO CHOOSE SUCH A TIKELISH SUBJECT.
WHEN LEGEND AND RELIGION COMBINE THE CLEAR WATERS OF HISTORY ARE MUDDIED MOST OF ALL. THE DISCUSSION OR SAILING OF SUCH WATERS ALSO BECOME PERILOUS AS WELL AND YOU CAN BE SURE TO HAVE MANY BARBS THROWN AND FIND MANY REEFS TO RUN AGROUND ON. CONGRADULATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BEAT ABOUT A BIT BUT HAVE STAYED THE COURSE AND MAY YET FIND LANDFALL.
THE DESIRE TO HONOR AND ENSHRINE OBJECTS BELONGING TO FAMOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION DOES PRESERVE THEM BUT OFTEN ALTERS THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION. THEY ARE OFTEN ENSHRINED AND COVERED WITH GOLD, JEWELS AND SUCH OR PUT IN A RELIQUIM WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. THE OBJECTS NO DOUBT DO EXHIST BUT WHERE AND IN WHAT FORM? ITS A QUEST WORTHY OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
IN CHRISTIANITY (WHICH I CHOOSE AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS MY RELIGION) IN THE EARLY DAYS EVERY LARGE CHURCH WANTED A
HOLY RELIC. SOME NO DOUBT OBTAINED A REAL PIECE OF THE CROSS OR THE BELONGINGS OF AN APOSTLE , SAINT OR MARTYR BUT MANY MORE NO DOUBT GOT A MANUFACTURED RELIC. WITH THE INSISTANCE OF SEVERAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES OR PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE AND ONLY OBJECT BE IT HOLY GRAIL, ARK OF THE COVENANT OR SWORD ADDS TO THE CONFUSION. AS A RESULT OFTEN THESE OBJECTS ARE GAUARDED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SEE OR TEST THEM AS EVERYONE IS SURE THEY HAVE THE REAL RELIC BUT JUST TO BE SAFE THEY WON'T RISK FINDING THEY ARE WRONG.
A PERILOUS PAPER INDEED I ENJOYED IT AND FEEL YOU DID YOUR BEST. NEW INFORMATION MAY BECOME AVAILABLE BUT YOU HAVE DONE GOOD RESEARCH AS FAR AS I CAN SEE AND MADE SOME GOOD POINTS AS WELL AS BROUGHT UP A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHILE THIS FORUM NO DOUBT FINDS LITTLE CREDENCE OR FAVOR IN HIGHER ACADEMIC CIRCLES STILL TRUTHS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED UP OR IGNORED THERE MAY FIND THE LIGHT HERE.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

WHILE THIS IS NOT MY FIELD I CONGRADULATE YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO CHOOSE SUCH A TIKELISH SUBJECT.
WHEN LEGEND AND RELIGION COMBINE THE CLEAR WATERS OF HISTORY ARE MUDDIED MOST OF ALL. THE DISCUSSION OR SAILING OF SUCH WATERS ALSO BECOME PERILOUS AS WELL AND YOU CAN BE SURE TO HAVE MANY BARBS THROWN AND FIND MANY REEFS TO RUN AGROUND ON. CONGRADULATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BEAT ABOUT A BIT BUT HAVE STAYED THE COURSE AND MAY YET FIND LANDFALL.
THE DESIRE TO HONOR AND ENSHRINE OBJECTS BELONGING TO FAMOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION DOES PRESERVE THEM BUT OFTEN ALTERS THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION. THEY ARE OFTEN ENSHRINED AND COVERED WITH GOLD, JEWELS AND SUCH OR PUT IN A RELIQUIM WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. THE OBJECTS NO DOUBT DO EXHIST BUT WHERE AND IN WHAT FORM? ITS A QUEST WORTHY OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
IN CHRISTIANITY (WHICH I CHOOSE AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS MY RELIGION) IN THE EARLY DAYS EVERY LARGE CHURCH WANTED A
HOLY RELIC. SOME NO DOUBT OBTAINED A REAL PIECE OF THE CROSS OR THE BELONGINGS OF AN APOSTLE , SAINT OR MARTYR BUT MANY MORE NO DOUBT GOT A MANUFACTURED RELIC. WITH THE INSISTANCE OF SEVERAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES OR PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE AND ONLY OBJECT BE IT HOLY GRAIL, ARK OF THE COVENANT OR SWORD ADDS TO THE CONFUSION. AS A RESULT OFTEN THESE OBJECTS ARE GAUARDED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SEE OR TEST THEM AS EVERYONE IS SURE THEY HAVE THE REAL RELIC BUT JUST TO BE SAFE THEY WON'T RISK FINDING THEY ARE WRONG.
A PERILOUS PAPER INDEED I ENJOYED IT AND FEEL YOU DID YOUR BEST. NEW INFORMATION MAY BECOME AVAILABLE BUT YOU HAVE DONE GOOD RESEARCH AS FAR AS I CAN SEE AND MADE SOME GOOD POINTS AS WELL AS BROUGHT UP A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHILE THIS FORUM NO DOUBT FINDS LITTLE CREDENCE OR FAVOR IN HIGHER ACADEMIC CIRCLES STILL TRUTHS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED UP OR IGNORED THERE MAY FIND THE LIGHT HERE.

Dear Vandoo,

Thank you very much for this. The reason why I wanted to have recognition in this forum was because the members here love to learn and teach arms and armor. Unfortunately, higher academics will switch any topic on arms and armor to the history of art or Islamic art, or whatever. There's no faculty department called "arms and armor:; although there is such a department in many respectable museums, and some museums are devoted solely for arms and armor.

Life has taught me that higher academics could ruin a lot of good work regarding history and archaeology. Ask those devoted guys at the Napoleon Series Forum (headed by Bob Burnham). They simply said they weren't ready for university professors ruining their already tremendous work and their vast knowledge of military history during the Napoleonic Era.

Once again, I thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Sir. I'm indebted to you for your magnanimity.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein