|
18th November 2013, 06:11 PM
|
#31 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
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.
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 06:22 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 06:37 PM
|
#33 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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??? |
|
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 06:51 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 07:01 PM
|
#35 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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?? |
|
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 07:14 PM
|
#36 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
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". |
|
|
|
|
18th November 2013, 07:26 PM
|
#37 | |
|
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, 10:29 PM
|
#38 |
|
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, 01:58 AM
|
#39 |
|
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, 01:57 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 02:18 PM
|
#41 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
19th November 2013, 02:58 PM
|
#42 | |
|
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, 11:46 PM
|
#43 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
I rest my case :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 09:26 AM
|
#44 |
|
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, 12:51 PM
|
#45 | |
|
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, 03:12 PM
|
#46 |
|
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, 06:55 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 08:51 PM
|
#48 | |
|
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 09:28 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2013, 09:55 PM
|
#49 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,946
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 12:13 AM
|
#50 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
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 Last edited by ariel; 21st November 2013 at 04:20 AM. |
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 06:40 AM
|
#51 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,946
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 10:34 AM
|
#52 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
I'm very thankful for your positive and generous review to my article. I've also felt very flattered for your kind and encouraging words. Of course I do not claim my article to be flawless, but one major problem that most -if not all- of the reviewers would face, when reading this article, is that they've read it before reading and digesting my masters dissertation; which came out with many findings. If one wanted to understand this article very well and digest its data without referring to my masters dissertation (which was written in Arabic only), one had to be a very serious student of Islamic arms and armor; especially when it comes to arms and armor in the first two centuries of Islam. As the anonymous reader of my article that was chosen by Muqarnas journal (which belongs to Harvard University) said stated in her comments regarding my article: "As an overall, the article suggests the sorts of insights that could be obtained by a researcher, with thorough knowledge of arms and armor, along with a knowledge of Islamic history." Because of this, I have faced many problems when I submitted this article for publication. Here are some examples: 1- When I submitted the article to Muqarnas, the anonymous reader (who was a professor of Ottoman art and architecture...yes! I later on knew!) took more than 6 months to review my article. Although she agreed that this sword may have been Dhu'l-Faqar, she was very upset at why I didn't use a good portion of my article on the Ottoman hilt and the Ottoman decorations of the sword. She wanted me to speak about how these decorations reflected the political atmosphere of the late 16th century (i.e. the time of Ottoman decorations of the sword); especially in the Ottoman court, at that time. She was also upset by the fact that I did not know how to speak Turkish fluently! She was also upset for me choosing the opinion that the Ottoman sultans became Caliphs of Islam before the mid-16th century; although I explained that Professor Colin Imber had already given solid proof that this was true. She also complained that I provided "too much proof" for my emphases; something that made my article somewhat very long! Finally, it was clear from their language, that the editorial board of Muqarnas were a bit uneasy about allowing me (who is only an M.A.) to publish my work alongside the works of other academics who were regarded as "established professors" of Islamic art and architecture. Finding that the terms of modifications were too harsh for the article, and would in fact ruin it, I decided not to submit it for publishing by Muqarnas, and I withdrew from there. 2- Going to Dr. David Alexander, whose PhD in 1984 was titled "Dhu'l-Fakar", and who later composed "Dhu'l-Faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah" (which was published by Gladius in 1999), I contacted him a lot; whether by email, or even by making many international phone calls and talking to him personally. If you read the above-mentioned article that he published in Gladius, you'll understand the many errors he underwent in Islamic swords. Among these were his suggestion that Dhu'l-Faqar may have been an ancient Roman gladius (short sword forged from wrought iron that was case-hardened)! He also said that Dhu'l-Faqar was "probably grooved"! Along with many countless errors he committed in his compositions, he told me that the sword-blade which I claimed to be that of Dhu'l-Faqar "had nothing to do with that of Dhu'l-Faqar"! He even said that this blade "wasn't even a replica of the original Dhu'l-Faqar's blade"!!! When I invited him to a debate in front of audience, he laughed and claimed that he wasn't interested! Then he told me that I could discuss my article with anyone I wanted; provided I'd stay away from him. But what's funny is that, whenever I wanted to discuss this topic with someone, this someone would emphasize that I had to take Dr. David Alexander's approval first!!! I hope you understand my situation well. Please read Dr. David Alexander's article "Dhu'l-Faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah" (published by Gladius in 1999). It's available online. Please read it thoroughly and read my article thoroughly. Then please compare between the two articles, and then put in mind that Alexander's article was approved for publishing in a highly esteemed journal like Gladius, and then decide whether my article deserves to be published or not. I repeat my request: Please do it, sir! PLEASE! Thanks a lot in advance, sir! With best regards to all, Ahmed Helal Hussein |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 10:49 AM
|
#53 | |
|
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, 10:54 AM
|
#54 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
Cheers! Ahmed Helal Hussein |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 07:23 PM
|
#55 | |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 07:38 PM
|
#56 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 08:22 PM
|
#57 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2013, 09:58 PM
|
#58 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
22nd November 2013, 08:42 AM
|
#59 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cairo, Egypt.
Posts: 142
|
Quote:
One of the many things I've taken against the reviews of higher academics was that they refused to recognize anything Hank Reinhardt wrote, and they insisted that any references composed by him and other non-academic arms and armor students be omitted from my article. I found this quite intolerable, because it was those great people who did not hold high academic titles that made me understand the physical properties of weapons and how they're used. One interesting anecdote is that one highly respected professor once commented on my work by saying: "Remember that you're an M.A.; not a butcher!" Another one asked me: "Are you a soldier or something? Why do you stress upon the lethality of the weapon in your work?" And so on. I genuinely believe that this forum is the right place for me to share my work and learn more about arms and armor. Hecklers shall be ignored, but I do hope they won't be able to influence your judgement badly. Until now, I felt quite at home, with so many arms and armor enthusiasts! I repeat my thanks for your kind and generous reviews and overtures. I must admit that I'm quite indebted to you, to Ibrahiim, and to all the positive members of this great forum with whom I had a wonderful experience until now. Best regards, Ahmed Helal Hussein |
|
|
|
|
|
26th November 2013, 12:24 AM
|
#60 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,946
|
Hi Ahmed,
It has been days now, and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to adequately read through your paper as thoroughly as I could. I also did retrieve Dr. Alexander's work on Dhu'l -faqar as you implored. I have been virtually immersed in rereading various parts of your paper and reviewing the content of Dr. Alexander's concurrently. As I have indicated earlier I do not purport to have any particular expertise on Islamic arms and armor, however I have what may be considered a reasonable working knowledge. I also will note I have no advanced formal education or degrees so I may be considered 'non-academic' as well. Therefore I very much appreciate your confidence and favor toward specialists in arms and armor technically outside academic circles. I must point out however that while the highly respected authorities you cite here, specifically Mr. Reinhardt; Mr. Clements and Mr. Oakeshott, are superbly informed and highly experienced, their expertise is primarily on medieval and renaissance arms and armor, which of course is fully many centuries later than that in which Dhu'l faqar is from. As I have been consulting every reference and resource I have at hand, I wish to emphasize that my objectives are to find support and if possible any kind of corroboration which might strengthen what I consider a remarkable paper. I reiterate that I very much like the deductive reasoning you have displayed in what is a profoundly innovative and provocative approach to the mysteries of this magnificent sword. It is important that I note here several things concerning Dr. Alexander's paper. I would point out that his work concerns Dhu'l faqar as it is perceived in history, literature and religious symbolism, rather than it's being located and substantiation of it's identity. In these respects, these papers are both resoundingly important in their quite different thesis' . I also want to note that I have discovered through well informed sources that Dr. Alexander does indeed speak Arabic, and would note that he did in degree use al-Kindi as a cited source for certain references in his work. I think it is important that we recognize him for the scholarship he has achieved and concentrate on the work you are pursuing with your paper here. At this point I hope to continue the discussion of your article here by finding more support or as required, alterations to the assertions made. I emphasize again, this is to be exercised constructively, and I hope that others here will join in analysis of this fascinating approach to this most important study. For example, I was having difficulty with absorbing the idea of this, or any sword for that matter, being an iron cleaving sword. I had overlooked that you had specified 'mail, not necessarily plate armor, so that indeed made much more sense. I then checked into "Oriental Armour" H.Russell Robinson, 1967 (p.24) where the armour used by the Arab caliphate of the 7th century closely followed Sassanian and Persian equipment remained essentially the same for some time. This consisted of mail shirt and lamellar breast plate. I looked into "By the Sword" (Richard Cohen, 2002, pp. 13,18,20) and found discussion regarding the increasing in thickness of armor, especially that of plate armor later with advent of gunpowder and firearms, but nothing more pertaining to warfare early enough to be of help. Of much more help was "An Introduction to Arms and Warfare in Classical Islam" Dr. David Nicolle ("Islamic Arms and Armour", R. Elgood, ed. 1979, p.163)..."...lamella and mail were not unknown but the most valued armor of that era was a long hauberk known as the 'dir'. So valuable was a dir that in the pre Islamic period, tribes would carry out raids specifically to capture them". This discussion refers to the period in which Dhu'l faqar would have been actively in use and illustrates that indeed, a heavy bladed sword such as this would have been conducive to the kind of crushing blows which would have tended to such armor of mail or lamellar. It would appear as well that armor which had been weakened either through damage or rusted as often could happen on campaign , might be defeated by blows by such a heavy weapon. I will say here though that I am not sure the nature of the grooves or fullering in this case would impact the success of blows toward this armor as the blade would not be expected to pass through the armor in the way a cut to flesh and bone would react. Again, this is what I mean as far as finding support or rebuttal toward the material, and meant to be entered respectfully with the goal of strengthening this work. With all very best regards, Jim |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
