swords of Mohammed, but what about...

Andrew · 4th January 2005, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

Rivkin, i'm glad you picked up on my sarcasm. Even 1400 yrs. ago is quite a long time. What actual proof do we have that any of the swords of Mohammed were ever really his swords at all? Hard to believe the gold and jeweled encrusted one saw any battles. I would think that a few generations past the death of Mohammed it might be very advantagious for a powerful Islamic leader to be able to produce one the "swords of the prophet" to strenghten his hold on power. Forgive me if i am speaking blasphamy here, but can we really be certain of anything, or are the swords of Mohammed purely a matter of faith?
As for the "Spear of Destiny", i was keeping it right next to that grail thingy....now where DID it get to?

Nechesh,

I don't think anyone is seriously positing that any of the swords in the Topkapi were actually Mohammed's. However, they appear to be extremely fine and, presumeably, valuable and important artifacts in their own right.

But I do agree that confirmation of such extraordinary provenance would require a miracle.

M.carter · 4th January 2005, 01:21 PM

Actually, of those nine swords, I have these beliefs,

The alleged "thulfiqar' is a fake. The 'Al-Battar' belongs to King David, not Mohammed. The 'Al-Ma'Thur' I believe is the real one that Mohammed used. The 'Al-Rasub' belongs to King David. The 'Al-Mukhatham' is clearly a fake, exactly identical to the style of swords produced in 14th Damascus. The 'Hatf' sword belongs to King David. I believe the 'Qali'i' sword is original, I mean it was used by Muhammad. The 'Al-Qadheeb' is a mystery. The 'Al-Adhb' is original.

Remember, all these swords were re-hilted during the 16th century, thats why the hilts look wrong on those straight blades. Nechesh, even the gold encrusted one was re-hilted so we must presume that the hilts were very different before.

The swords which I believe were actually the property of Muhammad are the 'Al-Ma'thur' , 'Qal'i' , and 'Al-Adhb'.

ariel · 4th January 2005, 02:06 PM

With all due respect, the attribution of any of those swords to King David (i.e 7th-8th century BCE!) is the most ridiculous of all. I would challenge anyone to produce another iron implement from that era that managed to be preserved in such an intact shape and to be executed in a style of 10th-13th century CE!
I have deep respect for people's religious beliefs, but the tendency to bolster their claims for authenticity by producing clear fakes has nothing to do with ethics, philosophy and law(that in fact comprise the definition of religion). This is pure snake oil and brings only dishonor and ridicule.
As a matter of fact, we already had this discussion and Yannis brought a beautiful link to the pictures of the Swords of the Profet.
See for yourself.
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001968.html
I fully appreciate the danger of converting this debate into something very ugly. I trust that all of us (I can vouch for myself) are motivated by purely academic and factual motives. Anybody's religious beliefs are his/her (you see, I am politically correct) private business and should be fully respected; validity of historical and material artefacts is a part of public domain and can be vigorously discussed.

Mark · 4th January 2005, 02:28 PM

I am drifting from the thread here, but I can't resist on commenting on something I actually know a little about.

One of the "Spear(s) of Destiny" (naturally there is more than one around) was found during the first Crusade (1098 AD) during the siege of Antioch. They Crusaders were bogged down, exhausted, hungry and diseased and everyone just wanted to go home. A monk, whose name I forget, had a dream wherein the location of the Spear of Destiny was revealed to him. They dug at the site, and found a rusted hunk of metal. This inspired the Crusaders, who proceeded to do their worst to the city. Other candidated were bought in the booming relic trade in the Levant, and brought back to Europe (they say that if all the finger bones of the Virgin Mary were genuine she would have had like 20 fingers). As for more recent history, I hadn't heard that it had been taken to Nurenburg, though I know that Hitler was keen on finding it, as he was of many esoteric items of purported spiritual power.

The True Cross, at least the biggest hunk of it, was in Jerusalem until its conquest by Saladin. Queen Helena (Constantine's Christian mother) has found it during a trip to the Holy Land to find holy sites and relics. Saladin had it taken to ... um ... I forget. Damascus or Bagdad. I think he had been the Emir of Aleppo so maybe it was there. Anyway, it was made into the stoop of a mosque so that pious Muslims would be able to step over it every time they went to pray, to show the supremacy of Islam over Christianity. It was later destroyed apparently. There are lots of supposed slivers of it all over Europe.

Rivkin · 4th January 2005, 03:54 PM

Well, the Spear of Destiny was a treasure of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. It was recently analyzed, and under many layers of silver and gold happened to be a typical II century AD roman spear point. There are a lot of objections out there to such attributing of this spear, so I'm sure one can find something using google. Btw, the first objection against this relic, as well as many others was made by Martin Luther.

Concerning the swords of David - it's hard to believe that the man who is not survived by a single stone (his tomb is as controvercial as the borders of Israel during his reign) can be survived by 2 swords, in such a great condition. Well, there are actually two stones people attribute to his reign, but that's it.

The reason for multitudes of davidian items appearing in islamic countries is more related to the desire to have a connection to David and other "islamic" prophets of old, and the desire to be seen as "true" continuation of old beliefs.

Rehilting is a catastrophe, for the hilt is the only thing made from organics (wood) - proper dating now is impossible.

nechesh · 4th January 2005, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Nechesh,

I don't think anyone is seriously positing that any of the swords in the Topkapi were actually Mohammed's. However, they appear to be extremely fine and, presumeably, valuable and important artifacts in their own right.

But I do agree that confirmation of such extraordinary provenance would require a miracle.

Are you sure about that Andrew? The scholars at the Topkapi Museum apparently believe this. And Mr. Carter seems to have his own beliefs as well. I'm with Ariel on this one. Attributing swords to King David seems a bit far-fetched to me and this conversation could decline into a "my belief is stronger than your belief" argument. I am interested in provenance. MY "beliefs" would only scare people.

This looks like a job for Indiana Jones!

M.carter · 4th January 2005, 10:09 PM

My Beliefs might be absolutely wrong, they might seem crazy to others. No one can absolutely sure that these swords might have been the property of their alleged owners, but why not? I mean we do not have evidence that they aren't Mohammed's. Their style is identical to the swords of Arabia at the time of Mohammed. Also, the Arabian prophet isn't THAT old, he was around only 1400 years ago. With King Davids case, yes, it might be ridiculous, but why Mohammeds, his property is very sacred to all muslims, so they probably will take great care in keeping them and preserving them for future generations to see. Even King Davids property is probably very sacred to muslims, living in an arabian country, I have many muslim friends, and all of them highly praise ALL the prophets before their own prophet. Even the property of the Messiah, the only reason to what Saladin did to the true cross was that the muslims do not believe that Christ was crucified, they believe that he was sent up to the heavens by god, and another man who looked identical to him was sent down by god to replace him and be crucified, so what they think is that preserving the true cross is ridiculous because it didnt even exist, thats what they think, but lets not go into religion here, please.

Rivkin · 5th January 2005, 12:14 AM

I have couple of swords that look right for 7th century (even through they where made way later), I bet no one can prove that they never belonged to Mohammed.

The burden of proof is always on someone presenting the items and theories. Otherwise we would have Rembrandts going for 5$ per square feet.

Yes, it is quite possible that one of those guys is the original one. Again, one needs to have some facts to support such a claim, and without really knowing how these swords appeared into existance it's impossible to argue anything in support of that.

Concerning swords of David - well, taking in mind what was the history like for the past 2500, the chanse of such relic to survive is basically 0. It's not like Egypt where if you are lucky you can find a treasure cove with everything intact.

Concerning the respect that muslims would show to his pocessions - it's hard to show respect to something that in principle was never found. And this respect created much hatred and fighting for it caused the competition with jews and christians for the control over jewish and christian relics.

Battara · 7th January 2005, 01:46 AM

Here is an example of the "split sword" of the Prophet used as a talisman on a sword. Below is a Moro barong that is sultan class with gold, silver, and ivory. It comes from the book "The Gods of War" and once belonged to Stone (and is in his book as well). The talisman is silver inlay on the blade with other "arabic" talismanic writing as well: (one of the pics sent to Lee for resizing).

Battara · 11th January 2005, 11:31 PM

Here is an 19c Ottoman battle flag that has the "sword of the Prophet" on it. It was auctioned at Christies last year:

Federico · 12th January 2005, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

Here is an 19c Ottoman battle flag that has the "sword of the Prophet" on it. It was auctioned at Christies last year:

So that is the split sword of David. Thank you so very much Battara. I have a kris with a silver inlay with this symbol, and it always had me scratching my head as to why they would inlay a figure of a man. Unfortunately a good portion of the inlay has fallen out.

4th January 2005, 02:06 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	With all due respect, the attribution of any of those swords to King David (i.e 7th-8th century BCE!) is the most ridiculous of all. I would challenge anyone to produce another iron implement from that era that managed to be preserved in such an intact shape and to be executed in a style of 10th-13th century CE! I have deep respect for people's religious beliefs, but the tendency to bolster their claims for authenticity by producing clear fakes has nothing to do with ethics, philosophy and law(that in fact comprise the definition of religion). This is pure snake oil and brings only dishonor and ridicule. As a matter of fact, we already had this discussion and Yannis brought a beautiful link to the pictures of the Swords of the Profet. See for yourself. http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001968.html I fully appreciate the danger of converting this debate into something very ugly. I trust that all of us (I can vouch for myself) are motivated by purely academic and factual motives. Anybody's religious beliefs are his/her (you see, I am politically correct) private business and should be fully respected; validity of historical and material artefacts is a part of public domain and can be vigorously discussed. Last edited by ariel; 4th January 2005 at 02:26 PM. Reason: reference

7th January 2005, 01:46 AM	#9
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Here is an example of the "split sword" of the Prophet used as a talisman on a sword. Below is a Moro barong that is sultan class with gold, silver, and ivory. It comes from the book "The Gods of War" and once belonged to Stone (and is in his book as well). The talisman is silver inlay on the blade with other "arabic" talismanic writing as well: (one of the pics sent to Lee for resizing). Attached Images Last edited by Lee Jones; 8th January 2005 at 11:08 AM. Reason: to add full size picture

11th January 2005, 11:31 PM	#10
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Here is an 19c Ottoman battle flag that has the "sword of the Prophet" on it. It was auctioned at Christies last year: Attached Images

4th January 2005, 01:21 PM	#2
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	Actually, of those nine swords, I have these beliefs, The alleged "thulfiqar' is a fake. The 'Al-Battar' belongs to King David, not Mohammed. The 'Al-Ma'Thur' I believe is the real one that Mohammed used. The 'Al-Rasub' belongs to King David. The 'Al-Mukhatham' is clearly a fake, exactly identical to the style of swords produced in 14th Damascus. The 'Hatf' sword belongs to King David. I believe the 'Qali'i' sword is original, I mean it was used by Muhammad. The 'Al-Qadheeb' is a mystery. The 'Al-Adhb' is original. Remember, all these swords were re-hilted during the 16th century, thats why the hilts look wrong on those straight blades. Nechesh, even the gold encrusted one was re-hilted so we must presume that the hilts were very different before. The swords which I believe were actually the property of Muhammad are the 'Al-Ma'thur' , 'Qal'i' , and 'Al-Adhb'.

4th January 2005, 02:28 PM	#4
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I am drifting from the thread here, but I can't resist on commenting on something I actually know a little about. One of the "Spear(s) of Destiny" (naturally there is more than one around) was found during the first Crusade (1098 AD) during the siege of Antioch. They Crusaders were bogged down, exhausted, hungry and diseased and everyone just wanted to go home. A monk, whose name I forget, had a dream wherein the location of the Spear of Destiny was revealed to him. They dug at the site, and found a rusted hunk of metal. This inspired the Crusaders, who proceeded to do their worst to the city. Other candidated were bought in the booming relic trade in the Levant, and brought back to Europe (they say that if all the finger bones of the Virgin Mary were genuine she would have had like 20 fingers). As for more recent history, I hadn't heard that it had been taken to Nurenburg, though I know that Hitler was keen on finding it, as he was of many esoteric items of purported spiritual power. The True Cross, at least the biggest hunk of it, was in Jerusalem until its conquest by Saladin. Queen Helena (Constantine's Christian mother) has found it during a trip to the Holy Land to find holy sites and relics. Saladin had it taken to ... um ... I forget. Damascus or Bagdad. I think he had been the Emir of Aleppo so maybe it was there. Anyway, it was made into the stoop of a mosque so that pious Muslims would be able to step over it every time they went to pray, to show the supremacy of Islam over Christianity. It was later destroyed apparently. There are lots of supposed slivers of it all over Europe.

4th January 2005, 03:54 PM	#5
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Well, the Spear of Destiny was a treasure of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. It was recently analyzed, and under many layers of silver and gold happened to be a typical II century AD roman spear point. There are a lot of objections out there to such attributing of this spear, so I'm sure one can find something using google. Btw, the first objection against this relic, as well as many others was made by Martin Luther. Concerning the swords of David - it's hard to believe that the man who is not survived by a single stone (his tomb is as controvercial as the borders of Israel during his reign) can be survived by 2 swords, in such a great condition. Well, there are actually two stones people attribute to his reign, but that's it. The reason for multitudes of davidian items appearing in islamic countries is more related to the desire to have a connection to David and other "islamic" prophets of old, and the desire to be seen as "true" continuation of old beliefs. Rehilting is a catastrophe, for the hilt is the only thing made from organics (wood) - proper dating now is impossible.

4th January 2005, 10:09 PM	#7
M.carter Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 176	My Beliefs might be absolutely wrong, they might seem crazy to others. No one can absolutely sure that these swords might have been the property of their alleged owners, but why not? I mean we do not have evidence that they aren't Mohammed's. Their style is identical to the swords of Arabia at the time of Mohammed. Also, the Arabian prophet isn't THAT old, he was around only 1400 years ago. With King Davids case, yes, it might be ridiculous, but why Mohammeds, his property is very sacred to all muslims, so they probably will take great care in keeping them and preserving them for future generations to see. Even King Davids property is probably very sacred to muslims, living in an arabian country, I have many muslim friends, and all of them highly praise ALL the prophets before their own prophet. Even the property of the Messiah, the only reason to what Saladin did to the true cross was that the muslims do not believe that Christ was crucified, they believe that he was sent up to the heavens by god, and another man who looked identical to him was sent down by god to replace him and be crucified, so what they think is that preserving the true cross is ridiculous because it didnt even exist, thats what they think, but lets not go into religion here, please.

5th January 2005, 12:14 AM	#8
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I have couple of swords that look right for 7th century (even through they where made way later), I bet no one can prove that they never belonged to Mohammed. The burden of proof is always on someone presenting the items and theories. Otherwise we would have Rembrandts going for 5$ per square feet. Yes, it is quite possible that one of those guys is the original one. Again, one needs to have some facts to support such a claim, and without really knowing how these swords appeared into existance it's impossible to argue anything in support of that. Concerning swords of David - well, taking in mind what was the history like for the past 2500, the chanse of such relic to survive is basically 0. It's not like Egypt where if you are lucky you can find a treasure cove with everything intact. Concerning the respect that muslims would show to his pocessions - it's hard to show respect to something that in principle was never found. And this respect created much hatred and fighting for it caused the competition with jews and christians for the control over jewish and christian relics.