The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[AhmedH]

Salaams all,

I just wanted to share this with all those who are interested in knowing the original Dhu'l-Faqar; the famous sword of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), that later on became the symbol of the Islamic Caliphate.

The sword is a Mashrafi (Yemeni War Sword); dating back to either the very late 6th century, or the early 7th century C.E. It is now preserved in Topkapi Museum; especially in the Sacred Treasures section, under inventory number 2/3775.

I will later on send the article, photos, and figures supporting my identification (which occurred in either late 2000, or early 2001). But first, I'd wish to know how you fancied the original Dhu'l-Faqar looked like, what its dimensions were, etc.

Thanks a lot in advance.

[spiral]

Sounds Fascinating!

I look forward to it!

Spiral

[AhmedH]

Dear Spiral,

Thanks a lot for your encouraging reply. Attached is the article, and the photos and figures; the article being in a document, while the photos and figures are in a separate document. Here are both:

[ariel]

I am delighted that the mystery of Dhu'l-Fakar was finally solved. Congratulations! The only thing left is to prove it.


I am looking forward to the pictures.

There is not much sense for us guessing the features: this had been done for centuries with no agreement between the scholars.

Please show the pics and the supporting materials.
With best wishes.

[AhmedH]

Here's the article that I've composed as an appendix of my master's dissertation in defense of the identification of the original Dhu'l-Faqar:

[AhmedH]

I believe I'm having problems sending the attachment that includes the photos and figures. They say it's too large (1.76 MB). I wish I were able to divide this file into 3 smaller files, but I don't know how.

Any help, please?

Thanks a lot in advance.

[AhmedH]

I believe I have been able to overcome this silly problem. Here we go:

[AJ1356]

One should take the claims made by the Topkapi museum with a few grains doubt. I was there a few weeks ago and they were making some really bold and unfounded claims specially in the sacred treasures area. To me it was all a show to sell tickets, they have nothing backing those claims, specially the claims made in regards to the artifacts belonging to the Prophet (PBUH), his companions and his family.
One sword that made me almost laugh was this HUGE 5 ft something tall and about a foot wide one resembling ones shown in Final Fantasy video game. It is claimed that it belonged to the 3rd Khalif Hazrat e Osman, now every Muslim knows the he was not a warrior nor a tall man, why go a claim that huge sword belonged to one who was of a smaller build?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I am delighted that the mystery of Dhu'l-Fakar was finally solved. Congratulations! The only thing left is to prove it.


I am looking forward to the pictures.

There is not much sense for us guessing the features: this had been done for centuries with no agreement between the scholars.

Please show the pics and the supporting materials.
With best wishes.


Salaams ariel ~ I agree absolutely. It is clear that these swords said to be of such provenance have been worked on by great and famous craftsmen but such are the alterations that no one can reverse engineer what they originally may have looked like. Most scholars simply accept that "they are what they are". It would be a brave researcher indeed who would try to process the answer with any degree of accuracy.. As you say... "prove it" !

AhmedH Maybe you are that brave researcher!! and to support your claims I'm sure you will present some interesting Topkapi and other photographs which I also look forward to seeing.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams to all,

I'm extremely sorry, but the file regarding the photos and figures seems impossible (for me) to send to this great and wonderful site. I believe and hope that the file containing the article itself has been able to be sent. It just takes many hours to be approved.

So, if you're really interested in seeing and studying the photos and figures, I could send you the file that contains them via email. So, please do not hesitate to send me your email addresses and I'll be more than glad to send you the file containing the photos and figures.

I repeat my apology, but I've done my best to send that file to this great site. Not being that capable in computer skills, I must admit my partial failure!

Please accept my apologies and limitations.

[ariel]

Topkapi collection number 2/3775 was mentioned by AhmedH.


Yucel's book shows # 21/3775, a supposedly Umayyad sword, supposedly attributable to Uthman ibn Affan.

Are we talking about the same one?

[AhmedH]

Topkapi collection number 2/3775 was mentioned by AhmedH.


Yucel's book shows # 21/3775, a supposedly Umayyad sword, supposedly attributable to Uthman ibn Affan.

Are we talking about the same one?

Yes, it's that sword that is erroneously attributed to either Caliph Uthman ibn Affan or Osman I.

Please read the article that I've submitted.

Thanks a lot in advance.

[Iain]

I believe I'm having problems sending the attachment that includes the photos and figures. They say it's too large (1.76 MB). I wish I were able to divide this file into 3 smaller files, but I don't know how.

Any help, please?

Thanks a lot in advance.

If you email the files to me at iain.norman@live.com I'd be happy to split them up for you.

[Iain]

Having seen the files and determining with Ahmed the best way to make these available is a weblink.

This ZIP file (http://takouba.org/dhul-faqar-revised.zip) contains the illustrations and the article.

[kronckew]

file gives error that it is missing split parts, ie the . z01 & .z02...

[Horsa]

I visited the Topkapi. Legendary arms and armour exhibit and one of the best collections of European arms and armour too that was taken during their Empire - however many of the mystical objects could not possibly be as old as claimed. For example the staff of Moses and turban of Joseph were in remarkably good condition for millenia old objects.

These items would have been miraculously "found" during the days of the Ottoman empire and used by the Empire as symbols and to gain legitimacy.

Didn't the sword dissapear when the Mongols sacked Baghdad? Last century during the communist takeover of Mongolia, Ghengis's original horsehair also dissapeared in the same manner. Possibly burned by some communists eager to get rid of such national symbols. This morning I was reading about all the objects looted from Egypt's museums during the current upheavals. It is sad when these priceless objects are lost forever.

Maybe it is the original sword. Who knows?

[Iain]

file gives error that it is missing split parts, ie the . z01 & .z02...

Apologies, I just edited the link. Can you have a try now and let me know if it's working for you?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Here's the article that I've composed as an appendix of my master's dissertation in defense of the identification of the original Dhu'l-Faqar:



Salaams AhmedH~ I have so far read about one third of your attachment and I have to say I find it brilliant... not only in the way you have openly accepted the mistakes and pitfalls of others but in the logical and informative structure of your dissertation. This is a very real pleasure to read. I look forward to reading more and it is a delight to see the references of the great masters being used so effectively...Brilliant !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Dear Ibrahiim,

Thanks a lot for your very positive and encouraging review of my article so far! I felt very flattered! Thanks a lot!

I hope you enjoy reading the rest of it.

Thanks again for your very positive reply. Any questions you ask me shall be answered thoroughly; as best as I could.

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[AhmedH]

I visited the Topkapi. Legendary arms and armour exhibit and one of the best collections of European arms and armour too that was taken during their Empire - however many of the mystical objects could not possibly be as old as claimed. For example the staff of Moses and turban of Joseph were in remarkably good condition for millenia old objects.

These items would have been miraculously "found" during the days of the Ottoman empire and used by the Empire as symbols and to gain legitimacy.

Didn't the sword dissapear when the Mongols sacked Baghdad? Last century during the communist takeover of Mongolia, Ghengis's original horsehair also dissapeared in the same manner. Possibly burned by some communists eager to get rid of such national symbols. This morning I was reading about all the objects looted from Egypt's museums during the current upheavals. It is sad when these priceless objects are lost forever.

Maybe it is the original sword. Who knows?

Please read the article, and you'll find answers to all your questions. No need to hurry, sir. Please, read it thoroughly and enjoy!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[kronckew]

Apologies, I just edited the link. Can you have a try now and let me know if it's working for you?
worked perfectly. thanks.

interesting illustrations. the dissertation makes sense. all previous info i've seen seemed to indicate a real split tip, or 2 tined forked tip. which would be somewhat unpractical for sword. the one illustrated solves the problem and appears to be a fine weapon such as would have been loved by the prophet (peace upon him). shame the original scabbard & harness did not survive as well.

[AhmedH]

worked perfectly. thanks.

interesting illustrations. the dissertation makes sense. all previous info i've seen seemed to indicate a real split tip, or 2 tined forked tip. which would be somewhat unpractical for sword. the one illustrated solves the problem and appears to be a fine weapon such as would have been loved by the prophet (peace upon him). shame the original scabbard & harness did not survive as well.

Thank you very much for your positive reply, sir. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding this article, and I'll be more than glad to answer you.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Horsa]

Thanks very much. Great research and accompanying photos.

Horsa

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all,

I just wanted to share this with all those who are interested in knowing the original Dhu'l-Faqar; the famous sword of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), that later on became the symbol of the Islamic Caliphate.

The sword is a Mashrafi (Yemeni War Sword); dating back to either the very late 6th century, or the early 7th century C.E. It is now preserved in Topkapi Museum; especially in the Sacred Treasures section, under inventory number 2/3775.

I will later on send the article, photos, and figures supporting my identification (which occurred in either late 2000, or early 2001). But first, I'd wish to know how you fancied the original Dhu'l-Faqar looked like, what its dimensions were, etc.

Thanks a lot in advance.


Salaams AhmedH, For reasons I cannot fathom I am unable to download any pictures and in particular I would like to see all 9 swords from the Topkapi and the subject sword; Dhu'l-Faqar. I think that once displayed the details should then be considered as classic material on Forum. ( Was it Rheinhardt himself who also prescribed pictures? :) )
This is indeed a thoroughly prepared delivery on the truth behind the myriad of accidental errors tripped over by experts and masters and shrouded in myth and legend now brought to life and identified in this research paper so amazingly well.
I therefor submit that this fine thread be placed on the Classic register.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams AhmedH, For reasons I cannot fathom I am unable to download any pictures and in particular I would like to see all 9 swords from the Topkapi and the subject sword; Dhu'l-Faqar. I think that once displayed the details should then be considered as classic material on Forum. ( Was it Rheinhardt himself who also prescribed pictures? :) )
This is indeed a thoroughly prepared delivery on the truth behind the myriad of accidental errors tripped over by experts and masters and shrouded in myth and legend now brought to life and identified in this research paper so amazingly well.
I therefor submit that this fine thread be placed on the Classic register.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thanks a lot for your very encouraging comments!

Please send me your email address and I'll send you the photos and figures. BTW, which 9 swords in Topkapi did you mean? Hank Reinhardt commented on 2 photos of Dhu'l-Faqar that I've sent him.

Thanks a lot, Ibrahiim! I felt very flattered. I wish this article would be placed on the Classic register; though it needs a few corrections.

Please don't forget to give me your email address so that I'd be able to send you the file with the photos and figures.

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[AhmedH]

Thanks very much. Great research and accompanying photos.

Horsa

Salaams Horsa,

Thank you very much for your positive review. Glad you liked it!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[ariel]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Salaams Ariel, You admit that yours are just quick notes. Perhaps you also noted that the work your quick notes reflect took 6 and a half years of painstaking research. The references are immaculate. The subject is controversial and fraught with difficulties probably more than any other subject in the Ethnographic arms field it is handled with great expertise and professionalism.

The structure and method used in this treatise are extremely well executed and it is for this as well as other reasons set out below why I recommend this work to the Classic register.

It is an example of the way proper research can be applied to the often nebulous, clouded areas which require illuminating. ..The focus of the treatise is accurate, well balanced and technically excellent.

Naturally people get a little uneasy when delving into this subject because of the intense possible religious misconceptions attached to it.. but the author has managed to frame his discourse without stepping into those contentious areas. Moreover it is written with strong leanings to the historical not the religious, thus, he keeps it as factual as possible but where it touches on the philosophical I believe he treats that decently and absorbs those narratives well.

You state essentially that momentous discoveries are not the domain of Forum...

Momentous discoveries and minor ones are the domain of this Forum. This topic is full of minor revelations about detail missed or misconstrued..is that not the work of an ethnographic arms detective? I believe it is the essence of a diligent researcher. Why should we abstain from making momentous discoveries? The world was flat once.

Am I suggesting this become a topic for Classic inclusion because I think it is all correct or because I think it is momentous? Neither, in fact.

My suggestion for Classic inclusion is because this is a finely presented document upon a delicate and difficult subject, carefully researched and with superb references. It carries within it the essence of Forum enthusiasm, accuracy, excellence and effort... Should that not be rewarded..is that not what the Classic file is for?

A topic of this nature is not made bulletproof simply because it is a Classic... far from it...It is not written in stone. It is still a working thread, capable of being added to, criticized and replaced if something better comes up! Should it not be reserved for the best we have to date on a particular topic?

My recommendation to the Classics therefor stands.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

:shrug:

[kronckew]

like western christian relics and pieces of the true cross, the turin shroud, etc. - it sometimes comes down to a matter of faith, with the ';truth' possibly never to be known. could it be the true sword - yes - could it be otherwise? also yes. could there have been modifications over it's life. possible. in the end, it's like the print in the rock under the golden dome. faith. it is true because we want it to be, as much as it really is. if enough people believe it is, their belief imbues the object with their energy and the myth becomes reality.

and maybe it always was.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ariel, You admit that yours are just quick notes. Perhaps you also noted that the work your quick notes reflect took 6 and a half years of painstaking research. The references are immaculate. The subject is controversial and fraught with difficulties probably more than any other subject in the Ethnographic arms field it is handled with great expertise and professionalism.

The structure and method used in this treatise are extremely well executed and it is for this as well as other reasons set out below why I recommend this work to the Classic register.

It is an example of the way proper research can be applied to the often nebulous, clouded areas which require illuminating. ..The focus of the treatise is accurate, well balanced and technically excellent.

Naturally people get a little uneasy when delving into this subject because of the intense possible religious misconceptions attached to it.. but the author has managed to frame his discourse without stepping into those contentious areas. Moreover it is written with strong leanings to the historical not the religious, thus, he keeps it as factual as possible but where it touches on the philosophical I believe he treats that decently and absorbs those narratives well.

You state essentially that momentous discoveries are not the domain of Forum...

Momentous discoveries and minor ones are the domain of this Forum. This topic is full of minor revelations about detail missed or misconstrued..is that not the work of an ethnographic arms detective? I believe it is the essence of a diligent researcher. Why should we abstain from making momentous discoveries? The world was flat once.

Am I suggesting this become a topic for Classic inclusion because I think it is all correct or because I think it is momentous? Neither, in fact.

My suggestion for Classic inclusion is because this is a finely presented document upon a delicate and difficult subject, carefully researched and with superb references. It carries within it the essence of Forum enthusiasm, accuracy, excellence and effort... Should that not be rewarded..is that not what the Classic file is for?

A topic of this nature is not made bulletproof simply because it is a Classic... far from it...It is not written in stone. It is still a working thread, capable of being added to, criticized and replaced if something better comes up! Should it not be reserved for the best we have to date on a particular topic?

My recommendation to the Classics therefor stands.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

:shrug:

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thank you very much for your opinion regarding my article. Of course, nobody is perfect, but I'd like to add that these 6 1/2 years of restless research produced a composition of 1,718 pages of academic work; something that had to be reduced for the dissertation to be accepted for discussion, so I sized it down to 1,236 pages! Unfortunately, the university laws in Egypt maintain that a masters degree is an inevitable step before obtaining a PhD, so after all this effort, I was stunned to find the academics asking me to make a PhD, and I found myself at the age of 32! In many universities of the world, PhD students start their dissertation immediately after their BA, and after composing a dissertation much smaller than mine, they usually earn their PhD at the age of 25-29!

Nonetheless, I intend to reply to Ariel's review and doubts. I hope everyone participates in this coming discussion. Please enjoy!

I repeat my great thanks to your appreciation of my work and your insistence that my humble article would be in the Classic register.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[ALEX]

I am with Ariel here. We live in a quite advanced technological age and can use the science to unveil many mysteries. And so we should. The Turin shroud was scientifically proven to be much later then claimed, in addition of being "geometrically unrealistic". yet, many choose to ignore it and believe that it's real deal. It's up to individual to believe in facts or what they're told. However, when it comes to a serious academic research - it needs to be based on confirmed and verified facts.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

like western christian relics and pieces of the true cross, the turin shroud, etc. - it sometimes comes down to a matter of faith, with the ';truth' possibly never to be known. could it be the true sword - yes - could it be otherwise? also yes. could there have been modifications over it's life. possible. in the end, it's like the print in the rock under the golden dome. faith. it is true because we want it to be, as much as it really is. if enough people believe it is, their belief imbues the object with their energy and the myth becomes reality.

and maybe it always was.


Salaams kronckew ~ I think the Turin Shroud is an excellent example and would have agreed in fact that this sword was an untouchable subject before I read the fine work now submitted... Nicely put Sir.

I also would have agreed on the religious nature which incorporates philosophical and mythical beliefs which we often shy away from...though occasionally dipping into that rich area through Talismanic influences and so on... very much part of Ethnographic research.

It is a great arms detective that can separate the difficult, nebulous issues of belief, religion, dreams, emotions and facts...yet remain on course finally to place the record straighter...I think that has been achieved.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Salaams Ariel!

Thank you for this review, which I genuinely believe was hastily done before you were able to digest the article. Nonetheless, I find myself interested in answering your review. For the moment, I'll answer you with logical questions; or at least questions that I might find logical!

1- You've stated: " Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive."

My answer: What do you mean by "similar construction"? Did I say that the reason that this sword has special status is simply because "it has 9 shallow fullers"? Are you reading my article or Professor's Yucel's work?! Didn't I say "10 narrow grooves; with 9 ridges between them on each face of the blade"? Was that the only physical or structural characteristic that made the sword of special status?

You've then stated: "The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees)."

My answer: In his treatise, al-Kindi states how you would know the cutting ability of a certain sword. Didn't I mention this in the article? Along with Hank Reinhardt's lectures regarding the properties of an armor-cleaving sword? Didn't I speak about the dimensions, damask, elasticity of the sword? Do you believe the curators at Topkapi would have allowed me to strike a mail-shirt with this sword?! Oh, and did you think Topkapi allowed me to handle and investigate the sword without countless painstaking procedures of bureaucracy; one of which involved me returning back to Egypt, and waiting there for 2 months, before coming back to Istanbul and taking their OK?!!

You've stated: "The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence."

My answer: Oh! So you didn't know about the many international phone calls (from Turkey and Egypt to the US) and the countless emails between me and Mr. Reinhardt on how one should determine the cutting ability of the swords I'm studying? Again, does any museum allow its swords or axes to be tested by means of using them to strike metal armor???

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I am with Ariel here. We live in a quite advanced technological age and can use the science to unveil many mysteries. And so we should. The Turin shroud was scientifically proven to be much later then claimed, in addition of being "geometrically unrealistic". yet, many choose to ignore it and believe that it's real deal. It's up to individual to believe in facts or what they're told. However, when it comes to a serious academic research - it needs to be based on confirmed and verified facts.


Salaams Alex, Last point first if I may?

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

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

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

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Welcome back, Ariel!

You've stated: " The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

My answer: Didn't I state that this sword was the primary sword used in the ascension ceremonies of the Ottoman Sultans; who from the days of Suleyman I (or even Selim I) were also Caliphs of Islam? Didn't I cite Yucel's statement that the decorations of its scabbard were similar to those of the Holy Mantle of the Prophet (PBUH)?

You've stated: " I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century."

My answer: So, is this my fault?! Or are you claiming that I'm a liar? Perhaps you could call IRCICA and ask Professor Tahsin Taha-Oglu, or maybe those in the Topkapi Museum, like Emine Bilirgen and Hilmi Aydin. What are you trying to tell exactly??

You've stated: " The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking."

My answer: Uncertain? Why?! Did you read what I wrote? Or did you read what I understood before Professor Taha-Oglu came and read it for me and the curators of Topkapi, before translating it to us? Was anything missing other than "No youth (or champion) could match Ali"??? Where's the sophistry, fantasy, and wishful thinking???

You've stated: "A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's."

Did Osman (the founder of the Ottoman Empire who died in 1326 CE) use huge 5-5.5 lb Yemeni Mashrafi swords (that resembled those used by the Arabs in the early days of Islam)??? Prove it, please! Now that would be something significant you've just added to the study of Islamic arms and armor!!! Didn't you ask yourself this question: Why was the hilt of the sword so inappropriate for the blade??

[ALEX]

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

[AhmedH]

This article purports to prove that one of the swords in the Topkapi collection, traditionally attributed to Uthman ibn Affan is, in reality, the famous Dhu'l Fakar. This fact was, in author's interpretation, consciously concealed by the succession of the Ottoman Sultans and their close retinue for some uncertain, but likely political purposes. Thus, the identification of this sword as the true Dhu'l Fakar is a momentous discovery in Islamic history as well as in the history of arms and armour research.

The author has to be applauded for his perseverance and hard work.

However, IMHO, the author falls short in proving his hypothesis.

The proof rests on 3 main arguments:



1. The construction of the sword blade is similar to the description of what was advertised as Dhu'l Fakar by its various owners ~ 1000 years ago. Also, this blade is uniquely suited for cleaving armour.

2. It is unusually rich in decoration.

3. The inscription mentioning the name Uthman was found by the author on the blade, and interpreted as indicating Muhammed as its original owner.

None of this "proofs" hold water, IMHO.

1. Ther must have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of early Islamic and pre-Islamic swords of similar construction. Granting special status to this blade simply because it has 9 shallow fullers is naive. The mechanical properties of this blade had never been tested ( although I marvel at the cavalier attitude of the Topkapi curators allowing a straight-from -the- street visitor not only to handle the sword, but also to bend the blade at 45 degrees). The endorsement of Mr. Reinhardt who , just by looking at the photographs, determined the superior abilities of the blade, is totally discountable as verifiable evidence.

2. The reason why did the palace jewelers chose this particular sword for excessive decoration is unknown. Stating that this was done because the sword belonged to Muhammed, and therefore, its lavish decoration proves Muhammed's owneship, is a classic example of " circular argument".

3. I am surprised that the author, after only minutes of viewing the sword, was able to find an inscription on the blade that was missed by generations of previous handlers and by reputable researchers of the 20-th century.
The meaning of the inscription is uncertain ( although the fact that most of its text is eaten away did not prevent the author to insert missing fragments), but claiming that it attributes the blade to Muhammed is an exercise in sophistry, fantasy and wishful thinking.
A simpler interpretation would tie this sword to Osman, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. This would perfectly explain the reason why this sword was used by the Sultans as their ascension sword. The readers of this comment are invited to supply their own versions and those will be just as believable ( or far-fetched) as mine or the author's.

A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David.


These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies.


I am definitely against putting this sophomoric treatise as a Classic on the Forum page.

Moreover, this Forum is not an appropriate stage for " momentous discoveries".

I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful.

Welcome back again, Ariel!

You've stated: "A cautionary note: the very attribution of the Topkapi collection to Muhammed and his companions is questionable. The comments of Yucel clearly show his doubts, tempered by his unwillingness to rock the boat and say plainly that there is no evidence whatsoever that those swords were of the 6-7 century provenance.
The islamic legend cited repeatedly by the author that the Uthman's sword ( the alleged Dhu'l Fakar) was originally gifted by Queen Bilkis to the King of Israel Shlomo ( Solomon) is just as unsupportable as the attribution of the other sword from the same collection to King David."

My answer: Did you not apply al-Kindi's typology on the early Islamic swords of Topkapi? Or are you just repeating the "claims" of the earlier academics that I've already answered at the start of the article? Didn't I say that the story that was Dhu'l-Faqar was sent as a gift by Queen Bilkis to Prophet Solomon (PBUH) was legend? Didn't I say that the blade was manufactured in the Arabian Peninsula (especially Yemen) in either the late 6th century or early 7th century CE? Did Bilkis and Solomon (PBUH) live in the 6th century CE or the 10th century BC?!

BTW, in my dissertation, I refuted the idea that the Yemeni sword attributed to Prophet David (PBUH) was his. In fact, the damask on the blade's surface proves it was made of wootz steel; something that was not known in the 11th-10th centuries BC in the Middle East.

You've also stated: "These are just quick notes. Line-by-line reading of the opus can find a multitude of inconsistencies, mis-interpretations and wishful fantasies."

My answer: Could you please send more of these notes and objections? Please?

You've then stated: " I suggest that the author sends his article to one of the respectful European historical journals and obtains a real-life peer review. Suffice it to say, that previous attempts by the author to enlist prominent arms historians to his camp were unsuccessful."

My answer: I've done that before. When it comes to one-on-one talk, they all praised my work. Among those were David Nicolle, Oleg Grabar, James W. Allan, Brian Gilmour, and Robert Hoyland...and also Christoph Amberger. But when it came to publishing, those journals required a lot of reduction and some alterations that would ruin the article...so, I refused. I'll send the email in which Dr. David Nicolle commented on this article.

[Emanuel]

Hello Ahmed,

You put in a lot of work for this appendix to your thesis.

I found your review of the old Arab sources very interesting. To me it sets out the typology of the original sword very well. I also found your explanation of the Dhu'l-faqar name and of the misconception surrounding the "double-tipped" description enlightening.

I am, however, cautious about your interpretation of the inscriptions on the sword. I suggest you submit the remnants of those inscriptions to a broader group of experts, and identify the meaning that is there, not the meaning you would expect to see on Dhu'l-faqar. If the line "This blade is that of Dhu'l-faqar, which is mentioned in the Hadith" is correct, then I think that is a good clue, but not necessarily true. The inscription could have been added to increase the sword's value, for example.

I am also cautious about your regard for the heavy decoration and embellishment of the sword. This sounds like a secondary point in support of your identification, not a primary clue by itself. Lastly, I agree with Ariel that there might have been many swords of very similar construction, owned and used by many of the early Arabian elite. Your assumption that Dhu'l-faqar must be in what now remains of the Treasury collection limits your search, in my opinion.

What I take from your article is a new ides of what Dhu'l-faqar might have looked like, a better understanding of swords from the early Islamic period, and a confirmation that Indian wootz was traded far and wide and that its properties were highly valued. Given this understanding, I now have the feeling of knowing what Dhu'l-faqar might have been, so location and continued existence of the actual sword has been rendered less relevant.

I am also very pleased to see a long list of Arab scholars whose works I will now be able to search and read for myself.

Thank you for this.

Regards and good luck with the rest of your continued research!
Emanuel

[ariel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

With best wishes,
Ariel

[AhmedH]

I am with Ariel here. We live in a quite advanced technological age and can use the science to unveil many mysteries. And so we should. The Turin shroud was scientifically proven to be much later then claimed, in addition of being "geometrically unrealistic". yet, many choose to ignore it and believe that it's real deal. It's up to individual to believe in facts or what they're told. However, when it comes to a serious academic research - it needs to be based on confirmed and verified facts.

Hi ALEX,

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

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Hello Ahmed,

You put in a lot of work for this appendix to your thesis.

I found your review of the old Arab sources very interesting. To me it sets out the typology of the original sword very well. I also found your explanation of the Dhu'l-faqar name and of the misconception surrounding the "double-tipped" description enlightening.

I am, however, cautious about your interpretation of the inscriptions on the sword. I suggest you submit the remnants of those inscriptions to a broader group of experts, and identify the meaning that is there, not the meaning you would expect to see on Dhu'l-faqar. If the line "This blade is that of Dhu'l-faqar, which is mentioned in the Hadith" is correct, then I think that is a good clue, but not necessarily true. The inscription could have been added to increase the sword's value, for example.

I am also cautious about your regard for the heavy decoration and embellishment of the sword. This sounds like a secondary point in support of your identification, not a primary clue by itself. Lastly, I agree with Ariel that there might have been many swords of very similar construction, owned and used by many of the early Arabian elite. Your assumption that Dhu'l-faqar must be in what now remains of the Treasury collection limits your search, in my opinion.

What I take from your article is a new ides of what Dhu'l-faqar might have looked like, a better understanding of swords from the early Islamic period, and a confirmation that Indian wootz was traded far and wide and that its properties were highly valued. Given this understanding, I now have the feeling of knowing what Dhu'l-faqar might have been, so location and continued existence of the actual sword has been rendered less relevant.

I am also very pleased to see a long list of Arab scholars whose works I will now be able to search and read for myself.

Thank you for this.

Regards and good luck with the rest of your continued research!
Emanuel

Hi Emanuel,

Of course a broader group of language professors would be better, but the fact is that I've taken the help of Professor Tahsin Taha-Oglu himself, who helped Prof. Yucel in reading the inscriptions on the swords of Topkapi. I've also consulted with Iranian academics who clarified that the first line was in older Persian; especially that includes the word "ZAR-USH" instead of "DAR-ESH" or "DAR-USH". Please note that in the Ottoman court at that time, Persian was the language of literature and poetry, while Arabic was the language of religion.

Suggesting that the Ottoman Sultans were liars when they claimed that this sword was Dhu'l-Faqar is not a prudent thing to do; especially that they were very careful in tracing these swords back to their origins; except for a few swords, like that which is erroneously attributed to Prophet David (PBUH). Do not forget that the dimensions of the sword in Topkaki reveal that it was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed; along with the grooving, damask, etc. In fact, the real challenge would rest upon those who would claim that this blade is NOT that of Dhu'l-Faqar.

The heavy decoration of the sword PLUS the fact that it was used in as the primary sword in the ascension ceremonies of the Ottoman Sultans - who were also Caliphs of Islam - is solid proof that the Ottoman sultans and caliphs knew that this was Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) sword...and not just that, but it was the most important of the 3 swords of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that they possessed.

The art of reconstructing a sword from older sources was not known in the middle ages nor the early modern ages. You need to prove that in order to claim that it was a replica. In fact, both Topkapi and the Askeri Museum have many double-pointed swords that are clear to be attempts to replicate the original Dhu'l-Faqar.

No, I didn't say that Dhu'l-Faqar HAD TO BE IN TOPKAPI; except after I found the blade that matches with what the very early Islamic sources said about how the blade of Dhu'l-Faqar looked like and how much the sword weighed and other stuff. Please read the article thoroughly.

Thanks a lot for your kind and encouraging words...but please ask yourself this question: Was the work done by the previous prominent academics regarding the swords of Topkapi THAT RELIABLE? Why didn't any of them even suggest that this blade was EVEN a replica of Dhul-Faqar's? Were their conclusions even trustworthy? Also, why would you evaluate my work based upon comparing it to the work of the earlier academics; like Stockelin, Oz, Yugel, Eleiwa, and Alexander...and even Nicolle? I'll leave the answer for you you to decide.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

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]

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]

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.

[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. :shrug:

[AhmedH]

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. :shrug:

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]

... 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.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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

Dear Jim,


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

[AhmedH]

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

[AhmedH]

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

[ALEX]

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]

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

[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. :D
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]

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. :D
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

[AhmedH]

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

Dear Jim,

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

[Jim McDougall]

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

[AhmedH]

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

Dear Jim,

I'm very thankful for the efforts you've undertaken for the sake of my paper; along with reading Dr. Alexander's article. I really don't know from where I should begin, but let's start with the topic regarding non-academic experts on arms and armor:

Now then, most -if not all of us- know that our field of interest and expertise (arms and armor) has no place in universities; except when it comes to the study of art (like Asian art, Near Eastern art, Islamic art, etc). The professors there usually focus in the decorations of these objects (weapons). In short, none of them usually has our interest, our love, and our knowledge with arms and armor. This is why when I submitted my article here, I believed I've come to the right place. Granted that you, Jim, may not be specialized in Islamic arms and armor, but I believe well that you know a lot of things about arms and armor that would qualify you to judge my work, and the works of others in Islamic arms and armor as well. I mean you know how a sword cuts, thrusts, how an armor cleaving blade looks like, whether the hilt was appropriate for the blade or not, if its temper and other heat treatments were superb or not, etc. Academics usually do not know that.

Regarding Dr. Alexander's ability to speak Arabic, I telephoned him from Cairo, Egypt to where he resides in Puycesi, France on March 3rd 2008, and I asked him whether he liked me sending him a copy of my article, and he said that he'd love to read it. I then asked him: "Do you speak Arabic?" He replied: "No", but then he said that I could send him the article and he'll try to capture what he could understand from it. I then asked him whether I should translate my article to English for him, and he replied that that would be better. He then laughed and commented: "Your English is very good!" So, I translated my article to English using my own skills in English. I also remember that when he asked me to connect him with the curator of the arms and armor department in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo, that the Egyptian curator had to speak English with him in order for the two to understand each other. They spoke by phone, and I remember that the curator was that fluent in English; yet the conversation wasn't in Arabic.

[AhmedH]

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

Welcome back, Jim!

Regarding Dr. Alexander and al-Kindi's Treatise, believe me when I tell you that I was stunned when, in a phone call between us on August 19th 2008, he told me that he hasn't read al-Kindi (although the treatise is mentioned in his work; as well as the bibliography of his sources and references), but that's what he told me.

As for Hank Reinhardt and Ewart Oakeshott, it's true that their primary focus was on European swords, but the fact remains that the European swords dating from 500 to 900 C.E. had a big share of their interest. In fact, it was during the time Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured that the golden age of the pattern-welded straight double-edged sword flourished in Europe. Both had great knowledge about the Migration Period swords. I think Dr. Lee Jones also has very vast knowledge about swords in that era. As for John Clements, he's well-known about how swords cut, and how duels occur; even in that period (7th century C.E.), so that's something.

[AhmedH]

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

Regarding Dr. Alexander's work, I usually thought that my work was complementary to his, but after I sent him my article to review, I discovered that he didn't look to it that way. He thought that his PhD, as well as his later work, had grasped "all aspects of Dhu'l-Faqar"; including how the blade would have looked like, the hilt, the scabbard, the combat qualities of the sword, etc. At first, he told me that he believed the blade of this sword to be manufactured in the 16th century CE (thus after Dhu'l-Faqar was manufactured with at least 9 centuries!), but it could be noted that in his article, he claims the blade of the sword in my article was manufactured in the 14th century C.E.! A week later, he told me that he was unable to thoroughly study and investigate this particular sword, unfortunately. He then told me stories of how the bureaucracy in Turkey badly affected his studies in Topkapi and the Askeri Museums; such a thing that did the same for me too!!! From his apologetic style, I was able to deduce that he was beginning to acknowledge that this was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed, but the sad fact was that all of our future calls and emails NEVER spoke about this issue again,...EVER! The sad fact was that he was not ready to debate with me regarding this issue anymore. In fact, it was his skill in making me shift my conversations with him to other topics; one of which he told me that he's been fasting the Islamic month of Ramadan for twenty something years! Very soon afterwards, I decided to stop any further contacts with him. It was clear that he was not ready to talk to me anymore on that topic, and that if I tried to do that again, he'll just change the subject.

[AhmedH]

Sorry for the typing error: I meant to say that the curator of arms and armor in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo WASN'T that fluent in English, yet Dr. Alexander spoke to him in English, instead of Arabic.

Regarding the grooves and ridges, they DO NOT increase the cutting ability of a sword, but they do help in absorbing the opposite force on the sword blade (that came as a result of the heavy blow of the sword and its wielder; especially against the metal armor). These grooves have other functions too.

Sassanian (and even Parthian) armor may have influenced Arab armor in the seventh century C.E., but that wasn't the main influence. The people of Yemen after c. 570 C.E. have decided to make a dramatic evolution for arms and armor in their country; something that also greatly influenced the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs of Syria, Palestine, and Southern Iraq, missed this great revolution and evolution; as they preferred being influenced by the Byzantines and the Sassanians. Wearing two full-length coats of chain-mail was very much well-known by c. 620; before that (probably around c. 580 C.E.), a full-length hauberk of mail with double-rings (6-in-1, or even 8-in-1, or 8-in-2) was known in Yemen. Full-length but sleeveless cloaks of lamellar steel plates were also worn by many warriors over their full-length full sleeved hauberks of chain-mail. Dir' was the name of a hauberk of chain-mail. The Arabs were also masters of the gambeson. They also wore raw silk and other non-metal armor in addition to their metal armor for increased protection.

[ALEX]

...
...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]

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]

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

[AhmedH]

ALEX said: "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."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

[AhmedH]

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Dear Richard,
Salaams!

Of course you're welcome to this discussion. You'll never be too late, I hope. But first, I gotta understand the meaning of metallographic first! I'll check it out very soon!

Welcome to the discussions, Ric!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Hello All,
I am coming into this discussion late and ignorant (as usual), but if there are any metallographic studies done on this or other similar blades I would like to see them.

This type of sword is on my radar and has been for some time, but there is scant physical studies on the subject.
With a bit more information on the metallurgy some reasonable experimental copies could be made for testing.

Ric

Welcome back, Richard!

Regarding metalographic studies done on this blade, I do not know any. However, I'll tell what I've experimented, observed, and concluded:

1- The blade is flexible and elastic; something which reveals it was made from superior steel with superior quenching and tempering. The blade springs back very well after you bend it. This proves the superiority of the steel from which it was forged.

2- The damask on the surface of the blade is rather small; even smaller than that of most other Arab blades preserved in Topkapi. This proves that the blade was made of crucible steel; as the blade is certainly not pattern-welded. The damask is what al-Kindi described as Indian damask; not Yemeni damask.

BTW, can you know, via metalography, the age of a certain blade? Please explain further...

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

[Richard Furrer]

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

[ALEX]

ALEX said: "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."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares :) It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

[AhmedH]

Sorry Ahmed,
I mean the study of the metal itself:
chemistry, crystal structure, hardnesses, impurities etc
as well as the particulars of the blade:
weight, length, width, cross-sectional changes

From a blacksmith point of view these are the most important to reconstruct the item. Its place in art, culture and religion is secondary. With a good basis of such information replicas can be made and tested....true replicas with similar properties.

Some swords are in poor enough condition that every time it is moved bits fall off...most of the time these bits are stored in the display case or in the box in the archives, but often they are thrown out....these bits can be analyzed and used to determine facts about the metal.

I am not aware of any studies about the metal in these pre-Islamic/early Islamic swords...that needs to change.

Ric

Dear Ric,

Thanks a lot for your clarifying post. Your postings are of great importance indeed. Regarding the weight, dimensions, etc...these are stated in pages 27-29.

BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

I very much agree with you regarding the blacksmiths point of view! I'm sure I've come to the right place, and am talking with the right people!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Determining age is not something that a chemical sampling can do...unless there is a bit of trapped charcoal in there and that assumes the tree died when the blade was forged and was stuck in a bad weld and survived the thermal treatment of the steel........not likely.

I caution against saying any given blade is superior until tests are conducted.
One can say a shape is good or a weight or a balance, but just bending is not enough as to find the elastic limit the blade must be bent till it take a set and does not return true. To gain any information from the "flex test"...if we dare call it a test..one must bend under measurement to get numbers for the amount of force needed to bend to what angle. Anything else is merely stating "gee that blade bends well" which is nothing really.

If the blade is thin then it will flex and this shows nothing about its "temper" or quality for the steel.
I have seen some early European blades that were so thin the handle is 6" above a table surface before the tip comes off the table....they flex greatly under their own weight.

As to crucible steel or not:
Highly forged and welded bloomery steel can appear slag free and very clean to the eye. To determine slag content a sample must be viewed either on the blade via polishing In Situ or removed from the blade and done in a mounted fixture..

Please can you tell me where in your article you state weight and dimensions of the sword. I must have missed it.
I assume if it is not very heavy then it must be very thin. One must account also for the weight of the hilt..gold being heavy so in this case I would estimate weight of the blade via measurements off the blade and working out the volume from there.

I'd like to hold this sword and others in the Topkapi, but I do not think such would be allowed.

Ric

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Hi Ahmed,
I agree with you, this sword has some enigma, It is magical indeed. I can see why it gives you nightmares :) It also impressed me the most out of everything I saw in Topkapi.
What I meant by ceremonial is the size being indicative of "status", i.e. attribute of beauty and power, not necessarily the superiority as a weapon. Just like some old Islamic dealers in the Middle East still measure the blade's value in finger-width exclusively in terms of it's aesthetics! So what I meant is that we'll never know the real reason for making these large blades. And it is quite irrelevant in this case. It has to be something that makes everyone not believe, but convinced that it is what is claimed to be. Hopefully this "something" will surface as a result of your work and collaboration of others. You have a great start. Good luck with your research.

Dear Alex,

Thank you very much for this. I look forward to your reviews and comments, Sir!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

Dear Ric,


BTW, there was a metalographic study for a sword attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now in Cairo, Egypt. The chemical analysis of the sword was undergone by a known chemist, who was later on, the vice-dean of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University. This analysis was published in the Faculty's journal in 1976.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

[Richard Furrer]

Welcome back, Ric!

All I can say is that people back in the 7th century CE did what I did, and from this, they knew a superior blade from an inferior one! They didn't even know that steel was iron+carbon until 1781, I believe! BTW, the blade can't be "too thin" since it's grooved at both faces; so how could it be too thin?? Also, it's clear that the original weight of the sword was anywhere from 5 to 5.5 lbs.

Yet still, I'm very much interested in what your saying. Your comments are very important to me. I'd advise that you should put in mind how the ancients knew a good sword from a bad one; it sure wasn't via microscopic analysis! Of course, modern science is a blessing, but I don't believe those ancients were that ignorant and misled.

Also, I wish you to comment on the damask (wave patterns) on the sword blade; which would suggest the sword-blade was made of crucible steel.

Looking forward to more of your comments, Sir.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

[ariel]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

[Richard Furrer]

Ariel,
I just wish to know what this particular sword's chemistry is and others in the collection would be good as well.
As to what that data proves?
It has to be placed into context with all the other data collected on other blades of the proposed time period.
BUT
no such comparable data exists.

We have wonderful analytical tools, but they are rarely used by museums for their weapons collections and one needs to start somewhere. Physical study of the metal itself is limited to a handful of data points at present.

Ric

[ariel]

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)

When I was in Topkapi, these swords were tightly guarded, set at a safe distance from the public and surrounded by rather athletic-looking "watchers". I am marveling at Ahmed's power of persuasion: to convince Topkapi's staff to let him, a 20-something year old undergraduate visitor from another country, not only to handle the coronation sword of Ottoman Sultans, but actually to bend it 45 degrees! One needs years of correspondence, tight connections, letters of recommendation, inter-museum contacts and who know what else just to be allowed to visit store rooms at the Hermitage and, likely, at any other serious museum in the world. Perhaps, he can convince his friends from Topkapi to donate a piece of this sword to you for careful study.

[VANDOO]

THE BLACKSMITHS POINT OF VIEW AND METALURGEY STUDIES HAVE ALLOWED MODERN BLACKSMITHS TO FORGE REPLICAS OF THE SWORD OF SUTTON HOO AS WELL AS THE OLD VIKINGSWORDS KNOWN AS ULFBERHT. THE STUDIES OF THE METAL AND TECKNIQUES USED IN MAKEING THESE SWORDS PROVIDED NEW KNOWLEGE AS WELL AS CONFIRMING ANCIENT TECKNIQUES. IT WOULD ADD A LOT TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT ISLAMIC WEAPONS AS IT HAS TO THE TWO MENTIONED ABOVE. A GOOD REPLICA CAN BE TESTED FOR ITS STRENGTHS AS WELL AS WEAKNESS.
THERE ARE POSTS IN THE FORUM ON THE SWORD OF SUTTON HOO AND A GOOD NOVA PROGRAM ABOUT THE ULFBERHT SWORD AS WELL. BOTH WELL WORTH WATCHING AND IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM THEY MIGHT GIVE YOU NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE STUDY OF THE SWORDS YOU ARE PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR CONTINUING QUEST.

[Richard Furrer]

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)


I obtained a few small samples for a 800-900AD Avar blade for study. The bits are very corroded so it may not yield much, but I will try.
At the right lab you can have a good look at the steel with minimal damage to the object. I am sure that some museum has a few corroded examples slowly rusting away never to see the light of day again.
The trick seems to be having the right benefactor say it needs to be done.

Vandoo:
I suggest looking at the ULFBERHT, Sutton Hoo as well as the Bamburgh Castle sword and the finds of Illerup Adal. It helps paint a broader picture of the skills involved.
You know I was the smith in the NOVA show right?

Ric

[AhmedH]

Ahmed,
Do you know the Author's name or Journal Name?

Ric

The author's name is Prof. So'ad Maher. The one who conducted the analysis was Prof. Saleh Ahmed Saleh. The journa'sl name is the Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology. The article's title is: "The Sword that is attributed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that is now preserved in al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo." Edition year: 1976.

Hope this helps!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[AhmedH]

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

I agree with most of what you say, but there's a question here:

Are you saying that wrought iron can be flexible and has the ability to spring back to its original position after you bend it to 45 degrees???

The patterns were read by me via a magnifying glass; although at al-Kindi's time, people were content to see the patterns with their naked eyes!!!

Maybe you could ask Topkapi to bring you a small sample of the blade of this sword. Maybe they'll accept (though this is far-fetched). Who knows??!

[AhmedH]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Ariel,

Too many questions and doubts here! If you're REALLY interested in knowing the whole story, you could phone me, and I'll be glad to answer ALL the questions you want to know their answer. The fact is I'm a lazy typist, and the electricity has been cut very frequently those last days; including today; a few minutes ago!

Cheers!
Ahmed

[AhmedH]

Richard,
No argument here!
Of course, it would be fabulously interesting to know the metallurgy of the pre, - and early Islamic swords. The tools are available, but the material is scarce and jealously ( and rightfully so!) guarded. Where is a second Henry Moser to donate 6 of his wootz blades for destructive analysis? Moreover, wootz blades are small peanuts in comparison to the 6-7-8th century Arab swords:-)

When I was in Topkapi, these swords were tightly guarded, set at a safe distance from the public and surrounded by rather athletic-looking "watchers". I am marveling at Ahmed's power of persuasion: to convince Topkapi's staff to let him, a 20-something year old undergraduate visitor from another country, not only to handle the coronation sword of Ottoman Sultans, but actually to bend it 45 degrees! One needs years of correspondence, tight connections, letters of recommendation, inter-museum contacts and who know what else just to be allowed to visit store rooms at the Hermitage and, likely, at any other serious museum in the world. Perhaps, he can convince his friends from Topkapi to donate a piece of this sword to you for careful study.

Ariel,

The answer to all these questions would lay in a few words:

"Protocol; accompanied by almost endless bureaucracy procedures, luck, mutual understanding, and an innocent love story!"

As for your last proposal, I don't think this would be possible...EVER!

Cheers!
Ahmed

[ariel]

Ariel,

Too many questions and doubts here! If you're REALLY interested in knowing the whole story, you could phone me, and I'll be glad to answer ALL the questions you want to know their answer. The fact is I'm a lazy typist, and the electricity has been cut very frequently those last days; including today; a few minutes ago!

Cheers!
Ahmed

Ahmed,
I am a lazy caller :-)
We started this discussion on these pages and I would prefer to continue it the same way.
You are not lazy under any circumstances: you were typing long and detailed communications one after another :-) How about answering my questions n writing too, so that everybody on the Forum can read them and judge for themselves?

[ariel]

Ariel,

The answer to all these questions would lay in a few words:

"Protocol; accompanied by almost endless bureaucracy procedures, luck, mutual understanding, and an innocent love story!"



Cheers!
Ahmed


Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

[AhmedH]

Ahmed,
I am a lazy caller :-)
We started this discussion on these pages and I would prefer to continue it the same way.
You are not lazy under any circumstances: you were typing long and detailed communications one after another :-) How about answering my questions n writing too, so that everybody on the Forum can read them and judge for themselves?

Ariel,

I'm very flattered, but the fact is that it takes great effort for me to type; I even forget completing a long sentence that I've started. Please remember that English is but my second language.

OK, I'll type each paragraph and then post it. Actually, the disconnection of the ADSL as a result of electricity cuts really demoralizes me.

Cheers!
Ahmed

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

Ariel,

(Grin) No, the conclusions you've fancied are in no way like the true story. OK, here we go:

From a very young age, I developed a special love and interest for military history. This grew with time. It kept on growing until I became interested in many parts of military history; like the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus the Elder, Julius Caesar, and Surenas in ancient times, and Belisarius, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Musa ibn Nusayr, Saladin, Richard the Lion-Heart, Qutuz, Baybars, Edward III, and Henry V in the mediaeval times, and Mehmet II, Selim I, Gustavus II Adolphus, Eugene of Savoy, Duke of Marlborough, Frederick II, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Marshal Davou(s)t in modern history. My love for this turned into what you can call an addiction. Even when I took the IGCSE exam in history (which deals with the 20th century) in 1994, I was able to score an A+; although no one in Egypt ever scored more than a B! Along my love for military history rose my love for historical weaponry and the history of its evolution, its typology, etc. After I left the Faculty of Science (which my father pressed me into entering it) after only 5 months, and shifting to the Faculty of Archaeology (because the Faculty of Arts; which had the History Department did not accept me for not taking French in my IGCSE), I found myself greatly involved in the study of Islamic arms and armor; not because of any academic syllabus, but because of the immense presence of books that deal with this topic in the Faculty's library...along with other great libraries; including the Library of the Cairo University.

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

Of course, I had already a lot of knowledge regarding Islamic arms and armor from the time of my secondary enrollment, but this was nothing when it comes to what was in the books of these libraries that I've found when I went to the university. During the four-year enrollment to earn my B.A. (from 1995 to 1999), we had to make two researches every year; one in Islamic architecture, and the other in Islamic art. I usually chose my architectural research about castles, citadels, and city walls, while my art research dealt with arms and armor. After earning graduating in 1999, I started my post-graduate studies. That year, we had to do three researches; one in Islamic art, the second in Islamic architecture, and the third in Islamic painting. Again, all three researches had to do with castles and citadels, and arms and armor. Everywhere in my faculty I was known for my love of military archaeology! Till now, the members of my faculty staff call me "Ahmed of the swords!"

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

While I was still in my second year in the Faculty of Archaeology, I had the opportunity to get acquainted to the Imam of the Mosque near our house; where we prayed our Friday congregational prayer. That man was a lecturer in al-Azhar University, and he was very academic in his speeches and Friday lectures. When talking about the Battle of Uhud (624 or 625 CE), he kept on lecturing us for two years (i.e. about 104 Friday lectures)!!! He was very well-informed, educated, pragmatic, liberal, etc. After each Friday lecture, he would sit with his companions and talk with them until the afternoon prayer time came. From October or November 1996, I started being one of his companions; the youngest one actually...aged only 20 years!

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

In November 1996, while I was telling the story of the Battle of Kossovo Polje (1389 CE), I was interrupted by the Imam when he asked me:

"Out of the fourteen Turkish emirates in Anatolia, why was it the emirate of the House of Osman that was able to accomplish all these military successes, by means of victories and conquests? Why only this emirate?"

So, I answered that the Ottomans pursued a policy of conquests ambitiously and more vigorously than the other emirates. Then I spoke about the formation of the Janissaries, Spahis, etc...but the Imam was unconvinced. The 60 year-old Imam told me:

"Listen carefully: All nations have clever people, vigorous people, geniuses, braves, champions, heroes, etc...yet it's technological superiority that comes as a decisive factor that decides which nation triumphs over the other...let me give you an example: After losing the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 CE, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius I did not complain that the Muslim military leadership was superb, nor did he complain that the wars with Persia had exhausted him...NO! Rather he complained from the superiority of the swords used by the Arab Muslim warriors when he said: "My soldiers have spent their night waking up from the nightmares of the swords of the Arabs and their exceptional lengths!"

Then he added:

"That extra length in the Arab sword was something the Byzantine warrior found himself unaccustomed to and unable to deal with; something that made the Byzantine warriors frightened; especially that their casualties from these Indian swords (which the Arabs used) were tremendous."

...And it was then that I began thinking of writing about the Arab sword of the 7th and 8th century CE. Yes, that was the beginning!

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

And in the period between 1997 and 1999, I read a lot about Arab and non-Arab swords in the period 550 to 900 CE very vigorously, and I became more and more convinced that I should compose a book about this topic; especially that during this time, I was able to come out with new findings; some of which were very important.

After finishing and succeeding in my pre-masters academic year in 2000, I insisted upon doing my masters dissertation about the Arab sword in 600-750 CE. I consulted my Imam, and acknowledged that it was he who inspired me with this great idea, and he approved, and he promised me that this dissertation will be a great composition, one day.

Please put in mind that -according- to higher education statute in Egypt, you must have finished a masters dissertation and discussed it and received your M.A. before becoming a PhD student. This is why I wanted my masters dissertation to be somewhat short and useful...so that I'd save my energy for my PhD. However, the circumstances that followed didn't go in my favor, and in the next posting, I'll inform you of what happened next.

But for the time being, I need some rest...so please give me several hours before I could resume my story. I know that the overture had been long, but I feel it was necessary that I'd tell the whole story...OK?!

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

When I wanted to register my masters dissertation, I contacted Professor Salah el-Beheiry (former dean of the Faculty of Archaeology- Cairo University) in order to accept his supervision over my dissertation. I chose the title: "The Arab Sword in the Islamic World from the Dawn of Islam till the Fall of the Umayyad Caliphate in AH 132/ 750 CE". Though he was very happy that I chose him for supervision, he insisted that Professor Hussein Eleiwa (former dean of the Faculty of Arts- Mansourah University) to be associate supervisor of my dissertation. Professor el-Beheiry defended his decision by saying that Professor Eleiwa studied the swords in Topkapi and the Askeri Museum before (these were part of his field studies for his PhD thesis which he obtained in 1974).

Now the first thing Eleiwa did was to try to convince el-Beheiry that he was worthy of his choice. So very hastily, he informed el-Beheiry that this title was unacceptable. Why??? Because, according to the conclusion of the field studies that were done by Prof. Yucel (whom Eleiwa was the one who read him the Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman inscriptions) and Eleiwa himself, and later David Alexander, that these swords actually referred to much later periods; especially from the 14th to the 17th centuries CE.

Frankly, I found what he said to be laughable. I then confronted Prof. Eleiwa and told him that that could not be true. I even asked him the what the difference was between Arab blades referring to the 7th-8th centuries CE, and the straight double-edged swords that were manufactured by the Mamluks...but he got very angry. He started claiming that I was still "crawling in this field", and that I was "very young and inexperienced" and "flamboyant and euphoric"...but I knew what I was saying back then.

BTW, that was in September-November 2000. I was 24 years old back then.

I was greatly upset, and I even informed Professor el-Beheiry that there was no need for Professor Eleiwa to be an associate supervisor for my masters dissertation, because simply, he'll ruin it. But el-Beheiry replied that I had to do what Eleiwa shall dictate. I was forced to comply.

When I confronted Eleiwa again, he asked me why I wanted to take this particular topic, so I answered that the superior Arab arms have contributed to the victories of the early Muslims in their wars against the Persians, Byzantines, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and the Visigoths. So he said that the period of the swords that I'll study should range from 600 CE (although he claimed that I won't be able to find blades that refer to that period) until the fall of Baghdad in 1258 CE. He claimed that such a long period may offer some swords in Topkapi and the Military (Askeri) Museums.

Thus I had to study the swords of the Arabs and non-Arabs from 600 till 1258 CE...and compare between them...in a thorough study!!! That for my masters dissertation???????????!!!!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! So, it was. I very well remember before signing his acceptance of supervision that el-Beheiry looked at me with tears in his eyes and told me: "Wasn't the title that you chose better than this one?? It's a master dissertation after all??" So I replied: "You're the one who insisted on his supervision!" And so it was.

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

Now then, in order to make my field study, I needed to study the Arab swords now preserved in Topkapi and the Military Museums in Istanbul; along with the sword now preserved in al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo. In order to get permission for studying those swords in Istanbul, I had to do the following procedures:

1- Since I was a registered masters student in the Faculty of Archaeology - Cairo University, I was able to get certified requests from my University to the Turkish Embassy in Cairo; along with the Turkish Ministry of Culture and the Turkish Armed Forces General Staff.

2- In order to consolidate this request, I obtained from the Egyptian Military Intelligence the telephone and fax number of the Egyptian Military Attache in Ankara; along with his name, and a secret name that he knew that proves that this request came from the Military Intelligence. I then faxed him the request in both Arabic and English (which the Attache's Turkish staff translated to Turkish).

3- I also telephoned the Egyptian Cultural Attache in Ankara, and told him what I wanted. I then faxed him my request in Arabic and English; which was also translated to Turkish.

4- I then telephoned IRCICA, and spoke to Prof. Ihsanoglu for further advice.

5- Oh, I forgot! Before doing all that, I went to the Turkish Embassy in Cairo, and met the Turkish Cultural Attache, and it was he who advised me to do those procedures. He even gave me Prof. Ihsanoglu's telephone and fax numbers.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

And in the period between 1997 and 1999, I read a lot about Arab and non-Arab swords in the period 550 to 900 CE very vigorously, and I became more and more convinced that I should compose a book about this topic; especially that during this time, I was able to come out with new findings; some of which were very important.

After finishing and succeeding in my pre-masters academic year in 2000, I insisted upon doing my masters dissertation about the Arab sword in 600-750 CE. I consulted my Imam, and acknowledged that it was he who inspired me with this great idea, and he approved, and he promised me that this dissertation will be a great composition, one day.

Please put in mind that -according- to higher education statute in Egypt, you must have finished a masters dissertation and discussed it and received your M.A. before becoming a PhD student. This is why I wanted my masters dissertation to be somewhat short and useful...so that I'd save my energy for my PhD. However, the circumstances that followed didn't go in my favor, and in the next posting, I'll inform you of what happened next.

But for the time being, I need some rest...so please give me several hours before I could resume my story. I know that the overture had been long, but I feel it was necessary that I'd tell the whole story...OK?!

Cheers!
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Salaams AhmedH,
I view the inclusion of this work as ground breaking and very important to the field of Ethnographic Arms and Armour... and naturally to our understanding of Islamic Arms and Armour. It represents the equivalent of a researcher turning up the sword Excalibur in the Tower Armoury or the V and A Museum in London.

My reading of the treatise focuses on the very vital area of al Kindi since it was largely his work that lead to the logical sequence of proofs and theories of your detective work unveiling as has been described very nicely of this sword hiding in plain sight Certain experts must be somewhat frustrated that they overlooked this most important sword.

In looking to Al Kindi we discover not just a great mathematician, scientist and philosopher but a veritable metallurgist. Without doubt his records of sword making and descriptions have formed the backbone of your thesis. The other supporter of Al Kindi is Colonel Doctor Zaky another of your well placed references. I am very surprised many of the other experts ... paid such lightweight attention to these two authors.

I have to say that I have reservations on a number of the other experts but that it is not my intention to criticize their inclusion. I also think the perfect balance of any paper can be thrown slightly when you have been required to reduce it. I found it very interesting that the late Mr Reinhardt was selected to throw some light on the cutting actions and probable techniques of Medieval fencing so that you were able to reverse engineer the weapon as a formidable sword against the various armour combinations.

I am still searching amongst Al Kindi writings and hope I can add more later and as I gradually get into this work. Indeed the plot thickens as I see areas of joint interest opening around the Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani) which I have placed at 751 AD.

I am sure a lot of members are delighted with your efforts and how you are fielding some searching questions so well. Very well done Ahmedh !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

6- I then made a very big mistake: Instead of obtaining a STUDENT VISA from the Turkish Embassy in Cairo, I obtained a normal TOURIST VISA instead! The man issuing the visas told me that this was a big mistake, but it was still curable...if I were to go to the General Police Headquarters in Istanbul and asked for a change in the purpose of my visa.

7- When I arrived in Istanbul, I found all procedures went without the police's approval in the Military (Askeri) Museum. The Military Museum needs no permission or help from the Turkish Police.

8- The problem came from Topkapi, where I was told I needed to send a petition to the Turkish Cultural Minister in Ankara. This problem was solved when the photographer of the Military Museum told me he knew a friend of the Turkish Cultural Minister. On his bus trip from Istanbul to Iskenderun, the bus paused at Ankara, so he sent my petition to the Minister of Culture with the mediation of the Minister's friend! The Minister sent his approval.

9- When this happened, the curators of the Imperial Treasures Section (Emine Bilirgen and Sheyla Murat) enabled me to study and investigate "Dhu'l-Faqar". That had to be on a Tuesday. The problem was that this particular sword was suspended from its grip with a semi-circular transparent plastic lock. This was to protect the sword from falling from the show-case in case an earthquake occurred. That lock was wider than the grip, but slightly narrower than the pommel. So, I was able to turn the blade to the other face, but it was not possible to take the sword out of the show case. Since the lighting system in the Imperial Treasury Room was somewhat dim, I had to use more light to completely see all that was on the sword. From the first time, I was able to take all the data that I needed; except the full reading of the inscription that I discovered; though I was able to identify the other inscription that I discovered, which is "Sahh".

10- Regarding investigating the other swords, the curator, Hilmi Aydin, said that the approval of the Minister of Culture wasn't enough. He said I needed further approval from the Istanbul Police.

11- When I went to get approval from the Istanbul Police, they refused to give me permission. Why??? Because my visa was a tourist one; not a student visa. I showed them the Minister of Culture's approval...but they said that that was not enough. I had to go back to Cairo and get the Student Visa from the Turkish Embassy there!!! OH NO!

...So, I had to return back to Cairo...stay two months there to await getting my STUDENT VISA!

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

12- The guy issuing the visas at the Turkish Embassy in Cairo was very friendly and cooperative. He asked me for all the procedures that I've undertaken, and I even gave him the approval of the Turkish Minister of Culture. He promised me to do his best in order for me to receive my STUDENT VISA. A couple of weeks later, he told me that I had obtained my student visa, and I received my passport with the student visa in it.

13- Returning to Istanbul, I found Topkapi telling me that I could come and investigate the swords that I wanted there. Again, I started with "Dhu'l-Faqar", and then I went to investigate the swords in the Sacred Trust Section, and the Arab swords preserved in the Arms and Armor Section; both of which Hilmi Aydin was their curator.

[AhmedH]

Salaams AhmedH,
I view the inclusion of this work as ground breaking and very important to the field of Ethnographic Arms and Armour... and naturally to our understanding of Islamic Arms and Armour. It represents the equivalent of a researcher turning up the sword Excalibur in the Tower Armoury or the V and A Museum in London.

My reading of the treatise focuses on the very vital area of al Kindi since it was largely his work that lead to the logical sequence of proofs and theories of your detective work unveiling as has been described very nicely of this sword hiding in plain sight Certain experts must be somewhat frustrated that they overlooked this most important sword.

In looking to Al Kindi we discover not just a great mathematician, scientist and philosopher but a veritable metallurgist. Without doubt his records of sword making and descriptions have formed the backbone of your thesis. The other supporter of Al Kindi is Colonel Doctor Zaky another of your well placed references. I am very surprised many of the other experts ... paid such lightweight attention to these two authors.

I have to say that I have reservations on a number of the other experts but that it is not my intention to criticize their inclusion. I also think the perfect balance of any paper can be thrown slightly when you have been required to reduce it. I found it very interesting that the late Mr Reinhardt was selected to throw some light on the cutting actions and probable techniques of Medieval fencing so that you were able to reverse engineer the weapon as a formidable sword against the various armour combinations.

I am still searching amongst Al Kindi writings and hope I can add more later and as I gradually get into this work. Indeed the plot thickens as I see areas of joint interest opening around the Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani) which I have placed at 751 AD.

I am sure a lot of members are delighted with your efforts and how you are fielding some searching questions so well. Very well done Ahmedh !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

I'm very thankful and grateful for your positive and useful review of my work. I agree with all what you've said in your post. Being an expert in the Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani) makes you very familiar with my work. This is why I highly value your review of my work so much.

I would be happy to discuss with you any corrections you'd like to make to this article.

Thanks a lot, Ibrahiim. I look further to your future posts.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Never knew Turks to be so teary-eyed and gullible.... Must have been hell of a love story to force them to circumvent every known museum protocol:-)

1- You could investigate the swords of Topkapi in Tuesdays ONLY.

2- The "athletic" guard of "Dhu'l-Faqar" was a mustached tall guy called Kenan. He was told that this was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed. So when I asked him where's Dhu'l-Faqar, Kenan would point his right thumb on his chest and say: "It's my sword!"

3- Me, Hilmi Aydin, Emine Bilirgen, Suheyla Murat, and the other curators of Topkapi bacame very good friends. In fact, there was gossip that I fell in love with one of the female curators...which was partially true. The gossip reached the Military Museum too!!! Hilmi Aydin told me that if he had a sister that was single, he would have married her to me!

4- All the "athletic watchers" at Topkapi were my friends. We even prayed together (congregational prayer), with Hilmi Aydin laeding the prayers.

...I'll try completing any missing link(s) in my story...but I need some rest for the time being.

[AhmedH]

Salaams AhmedH,
I view the inclusion of this work as ground breaking and very important to the field of Ethnographic Arms and Armour... and naturally to our understanding of Islamic Arms and Armour. It represents the equivalent of a researcher turning up the sword Excalibur in the Tower Armoury or the V and A Museum in London.

My reading of the treatise focuses on the very vital area of al Kindi since it was largely his work that lead to the logical sequence of proofs and theories of your detective work unveiling as has been described very nicely of this sword hiding in plain sight Certain experts must be somewhat frustrated that they overlooked this most important sword.

In looking to Al Kindi we discover not just a great mathematician, scientist and philosopher but a veritable metallurgist. Without doubt his records of sword making and descriptions have formed the backbone of your thesis. The other supporter of Al Kindi is Colonel Doctor Zaky another of your well placed references. I am very surprised many of the other experts ... paid such lightweight attention to these two authors.

I have to say that I have reservations on a number of the other experts but that it is not my intention to criticize their inclusion. I also think the perfect balance of any paper can be thrown slightly when you have been required to reduce it. I found it very interesting that the late Mr Reinhardt was selected to throw some light on the cutting actions and probable techniques of Medieval fencing so that you were able to reverse engineer the weapon as a formidable sword against the various armour combinations.

I am still searching amongst Al Kindi writings and hope I can add more later and as I gradually get into this work. Indeed the plot thickens as I see areas of joint interest opening around the Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani) which I have placed at 751 AD.

I am sure a lot of members are delighted with your efforts and how you are fielding some searching questions so well. Very well done Ahmedh !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

I'm looking forward to your additions regarding my article. As I said before, you being specialized in Yamaani swords make you very knowledgeable of what I've written in my article.

I repeat my many thanks to your great review, Sir!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Hello Ariel!

It's quite ironic that I composed my article "Dhu'l-Faqar" while I was sitting on Hilmi Aydin's chair and writing on his desk in Topkapi in November-December 2001! Of course, I made some additions to the article when I returned to Cairo, Egypt.

The reason why Hilmi couldn't say it was Dhu'l-Faqar was because he promised me not to declare any of my discoveries before I did. Emine Bilirgen and the others in Topkapi did the same. It's a matter of ethics.

Also, Topkapi asked for a translation of my article to Turkish. I had to go to a translation center called Furqan in Fatih District in Istanbul, and pay two hundred US Dollars to get my article translated to Turkish; only to find the curators at Topkapi say to me that the Turkish translation was poor; as it lacked the ability in translating many sword terminologies.

Also, a Turkish newspaper called "Yeni Safak" (New Dawn) said they would like to publish what I've written, but then they said that the Turkish translation wasn't good at all.

BTW, Hilmi Aydin doesn't speak English...but Emine Bilirgen does.

Noteworthy is that when Hilmi Aydin called Tahsin Taha-Oglu to come and read the inscription that I found on the sword, Tahsin said that the identification of the Prophet's sword was a great event. After reading the inscriptions and informing Hilmi and Emine that this sword was Dhu'l-Faqar indeed, he told me: "Hey! You told me that you've identified the Prophet's sword, but this is Dhu'l-Faqar; Imam Ali's sword!" Then I told him that Dhu'l-Faqar was the Prophet's sword and then it passed to Ali...so he said: "Oh! OK!" and did not comment any further.

The curators at Topkapi -although they acknowledged that I had identified Dhu'l-Faqar- really accepted the event rather coolly. In fact, Hilmi once told me: "Big deal! We have 11,000 historical objects here in Topkapi!" When I told them that announcing that Dhu'l-Faqar was in Topkapi would add to the tourists visiting Turkey; especially Topakapi...the curators smiled and winked to each other.

However, it should be noted that Hilmi Aydin did have positive comments to give me like:

"You're very clever! Very clever indeed!"

"It's a scandal that a non-Turkish scholar would identify Dhu'l-Faqar; that sword that has been many hundreds of years in Istanbul, and that has been exhibited for almost 80 years!"

He also brought an article titled "Dhu'l-Faqar"; composed in Turkish by a scholar called Tapozoglu in the Encylcopaedia of Islam (In Turkish). The article was short, but it talked about Dhu;l-Faqar's features in older sources. He then opened Professor Yucel's book at the page of Othman ibn Affan's sword (which I identified as the true Dhu'l-Faqar), and at the same time opened the Islamic Encyclopaedia at Tapozoglu's article "Dhu'l-Faqar". Then he would take each description mentioned in Tapozoglu's article and correspond it with what's in the sword's photos (in Yucel's book), and then he would laugh in agreement with what I've told him and he'd say it out loud: "You're very clever! Very clever indeed!"

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel, I wanted to say that your concerns and observations are well placed and I appreciate your well written and detailed expression of them. I think that it is important to note that the details you have addressed are primarily those aspects and thoughts which are most likely to be experienced by many who will read this paper. This is exactly what I meant by 'constructive' in criticism as it reveals precisely where concerns or disagreement might develop in reaction to the material being presented. This way we are able to discuss these issues openly and not only better qualify details in the paper itself as required, but give us all the opportunity to express our own perspectives and all learn more in the process.


I am personally delighted to see the thread moving forward and the excellent entries by the other participants as well. In particular I am glad to see the fascinating entries by Richard as his well known expertise in metallurgy and blacksmithing are excellent perspective in adding to this discussion.

Whether we personally endorse or rebuke the theories presented in Ahmed's fascinating paper, they remain remarkably intriguing and well worthy of ongoing review and discussion.

"...discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen,
and thinking what nobody has thought."
-Albert von Szent-Gyorgy

I have not been to Topkapi but I have been grateful to those on these pages who have visited there and shared their experiences. From what I have gathered however, the forces of bureaucratic obstruction have often impeded many scholarly efforts. However, as with many museums and institutions there are from time to time those relatively miraculous moments when otherwise unheard of cases of extraordinary allowance can occur.
I experienced one myself when despite not having academic credentials nor associations I was able to be invited to personally handle and examine valuable manuscripts in a museum which also had a Gutenberg Bible and others at location. I had presented a very good case, and offered certain perspectives which apparently intrigued the curator and with letters of introduction I secured with prominent authorities and arms and armor figures I was granted entry.
When I told several important academics who were colleagues they were actually quite stunned! I guess the moral is, it can be done! :)

Onward and upward gentlemen!!! Excellent discussion, and outstanding interaction in keeping well on topic. Thank you all,

Jim

[VANDOO]

I obtained a few small samples for a 800-900AD Avar blade for study. The bits are very corroded so it may not yield much, but I will try.
At the right lab you can have a good look at the steel with minimal damage to the object. I am sure that some museum has a few corroded examples slowly rusting away never to see the light of day again.
The trick seems to be having the right benefactor say it needs to be done.

Vandoo:
I suggest looking at the ULFBERHT, Sutton Hoo as well as the Bamburgh Castle sword and the finds of Illerup Adal. It helps paint a broader picture of the skills involved.
You know I was the smith in the NOVA show right?

Ric
I HAD LOST TRACK OF WHO FORGED THE SWORD FOR NOVA "TOO MANY IRONS IN THE FIRE AS USUAL" :) HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE MORE INTERESTING STUDIES AND WORK IN PROGRESS AS I ENJOYED THE NOVA PROGRAM.
THE ONLY WAY THE STUDIES OF TOPKAPI SWORDS COULD BE DONE WOULD BE IF THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT AND THE MUSEUM WERE INTERESTED IN LETTING THE WORK BE DONE ( AS YOU MENTIONED THE RIGHT BENEFACTOR MIGHT MAKE IT POSSIBLE). IT WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE TO BE UNDER STRICT SUPERVISON MOST LIKELY AT THE MUSEUM. THEY WOULD ALSO DECIDE WHO WROTE THE PAPERS AND WHAT WAS IN THEM CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SWORD BEING STUDIED THAT IS REASONABLE. NO DOUBT THERE WOULD BE THOSE FOR THE STUDY AS WELL AS THOSE OPPOSED TO IT FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS SO AGREEMENT IS NOT LIKELY ON THAT PARTICULAR SWORD.
PERHAPS OTHER SWORDS WITH SIMULAR AGE AND CONSTRUCTION BUT IN RELIC CONDITION COULD BE STUDIED TO SEE THE DIFRENCES AND SIMULARITIES IN METAL AND TECKNIQUE AND DETERMINE IF CRUCIBLE STEEL WAS USED AND AN APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME FOR THE TECKNIQUES DISCOVERY. IT WOULD BE A INTERESTING PROJECT AND I AM SURE MUCH COULD BE LEARNED.

[AhmedH]

I kept quiet for quite some time and just read the discussion.



Metal composition, engineering features and mechanical properties are not sufficient to establish true identity and ownership. Among thousands upon thousands of early Islamic blades produced over several centuries there must have been many that shared similar features: length, width, fullers etc. I have an old Tulwar with a beautiful old crystalline wootz blade: can I clam that it belonged to Aurangzeb simply because there are miniatures showing him with a similar sword? Inscriptions could have been applied later and fake inscriptions on Islamic swords are dime a dozen: witness the case of Assadullah.

Also, if Ahmed indeed proved his case to multiple Turkish researchers in 2001, why there no mention of this truly momentous discovery ( I am not being ironic!) in the book by Hilmi Aydin published as recently as 2007? What possible benefit could be derived by the modern Turkish governmental authorities and by the staff of Topkapi museum from suppressing the true identity of Dhu'l Fakar in their possession or, at the very least, mentioning it as a serious possibility? How does Ahmed accomodate his belief that the true Dhu'l Fakar is stored at Topkapi with the Shia's insistence that it will be brought back to this world only as part of Al-Jafr by the Twelfth Imam? What evidence ( not supposition) do we have that this blade was made at the latest before Muhammed's death in 632 CE? ( sorry for the typo in the first draft and thanks for pointing it out)

What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar.

The former is an interesting and potentially useful hypothesis, the latter is an unverified claim.

And BTW, can we see actual photographs of the inscription discovered by Ahmed and missed by multiple previous and subsequent researchers, including Unsal Yucel himself?

Regarding the last part of your question: I'm sorry that I was unable to photograph this sword in particular. I was unable to take the sword out of its exhibition showcase. As I said before, it was suspended in fear of an earthquake. But I was able to investigate everything in that sword. Regarding photographing, the Impearial Treasury Section has dim lighting. I had to use a light ray in order to investigate the sword thoroughly. The showcase opened from downwards to upwards; around 45 degrees only, so we had to duck until we were between the opened glass window and the sword itself, then we'd straighten ourselves again.

Kenan "the watcher" was with us; using a security wireless phone, and always answering to the main security office. I remember him receiving a question from there where he always answered by "Bilmiyorum" (I don't know). It was clear that they were asking him (when shall they finish?).

I held, investigated, and studied each sword two times; except "Dhu'l-Faqar" which I did 3 times. Worthy to note is that when I investigated the swords of the Sacred Trusts Section in the Topkapi Library (because it was warm there in late November!), I met some American scholars investigating Ottoman manuscripts (especially those dealing with Ottoman paintings). Yes, it was very weird for the tourists to see me and the curators inside the showrooms taking the swords in front of them in order to investigate and study them!

Regarding bending the blade, I did it with every sword; little by little: Bend it to say 10 degrees, then let go...it springs back...then bend it to 20 degrees, and then let go...it would then spring back right where it used to be...and so on. Of course, some swords were more elastic than others. Blades with a central ridge (of diamond cross-section) weren't tested for their elasticity.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all ~ Note to Library. Not everyone will have at their fingertips much of the specialists content referred to in the thesis of Ahmedh. It is however apparent that four in particular are outstanding and it is this group that attracts my focus as , Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni and Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Very clearly the trigger for the entire work is a combination of the authors brilliant tenacity coupled with the initial work by the famous early Islamic metallurgist (philosopher scientist mathematician etc) Al Kindi.

Col. Dr Zaky in our time has added such superb references and guides that his work is of an extremely useful calibre.

For very nice background detail please see http://www.history-science-technology.com/articles/articles%205.htm

See http://books.google.com.om/books?id=FW5FaeZEVAsC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=al-Biruni+on+swords&source=bl&ots=PgMTakssrg&sig=bsay6-_fMdeuepla1TM for some very interesting notes by Al Biruni on wootz and crucible steel.

Regards,
Ibrahiim ala Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Here's the article that I've composed as an appendix of my master's dissertation in defense of the identification of the original Dhu'l-Faqar:


Salaams AhmedH, I have a much clearer understanding now of how you have arrived at what I believe is an extremely important discovery. I have boiled it down to solid research based upon a handful of specialists...

The Big Four. viz;

Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni, Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Al Kindi was the real information linkage and the trigger.
Col Dr Zaky the magnifying glass whose brilliant work helped you clear up much of the previous confusion and the other two experts Al Biruni and Abdel Hameed al Kateb whose vital doctrines and research cemented the whole theory together. It is indeed remarkable that with so many other specialists in the mixture that you were able to stay on track and with so many having differing views (as experts often have) it is a miracle you have remained focused.

I mentioned a handful ... normally reserved for up to 5 or so names... Yours is the 5th name for without your amazing insight and vision this gem of information could have remained buried... lost in plain sight ...forever. :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams all ~ Note to Library. Not everyone will have at their fingertips much of the specialists content referred to in the thesis of Ahmedh. It is however apparent that four in particular are outstanding and it is this group that attracts my focus as , Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni and Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Very clearly the trigger for the entire work is a combination of the authors brilliant tenacity coupled with the initial work by the famous early Islamic metallurgist (philosopher scientist mathematician etc) Al Kindi.

Col. Dr Zaky in our time has added such superb references and guides that his work is of an extremely useful calibre.

For very nice background detail please see http://www.history-science-technology.com/articles/articles%205.htm

See http://books.google.com.om/books?id=FW5FaeZEVAsC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=al-Biruni+on+swords&source=bl&ots=PgMTakssrg&sig=bsay6-_fMdeuepla1TM for some very interesting notes by Al Biruni on wootz and crucible steel.

Regards,
Ibrahiim ala Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a trillion for your post! It was very informative and direct to the point. I hope the other members would open and read the links that you've provided.

I thank you, once again, for the effort you've undertaken to read, review, and evaluate my work. Thanks a lot, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a trillion for your post! It was very informative and direct to the point. I hope the other members would open and read the links that you've provided.

I thank you, once again, for the effort you've undertaken to read, review, and evaluate my work. Thanks a lot, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-


Salaams Ahmedh... All thanks to Al Kindi !! Wa anta !!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams AhmedH, I have a much clearer understanding now of how you have arrived at what I believe is an extremely important discovery. I have boiled it down to solid research based upon a handful of specialists...

The Big Four. viz;

Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni, Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Al Kindi was the real information linkage and the trigger.
Col Dr Zaky the magnifying glass whose brilliant work helped you clear up much of the previous confusion and the other two experts Al Biruni and Abdel Hameed al Kateb whose vital doctrines and research cemented the whole theory together. It is indeed remarkable that with so many other specialists in the mixture that you were able to stay on track and with so many having differing views (as experts often have) it is a miracle you have remained focused.

I mentioned a handful ... normally reserved for up to 5 or so names... Yours is the 5th name for without your amazing insight and vision this gem of information could have remained buried... lost in plain sight ...forever. :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

I'm very thankful indeed for your review. I also agree 110% with all what you said...and I felt very flattered for you adding my name to the other BIG FOUR! That was very encouraging and flattering indeed.

I really wish I could have been able to send you my whole masters dissertation; as it's full of lots and lots of new insights regarding the Arab swords in 550 to 1300 CE; especially the Yamaani sword that you prefer (and which I prefer too!).

BTW, though I'm a strong believer in inspiration, I also believe in luck. If we add to those a strong love for the subject and great devotion to it; coupled with hard work...then the composition or results shall be very good, GOD willing.

Once again, I genuinely believe that I have come to the right place; when I submitted my article to this very great forum.

Thanks a trillion, Ibrahiim! I owe you, buddy!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmedh... All thanks to Al Kindi !! Wa anta !!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

And to you too, of course, buddy!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[AhmedH]

Ariel said:

"What can be cautiously claimed from the voluminous circumstantial materials assembled by Ahmed is that, based on texts and recollections of ancient authors, Dhu'l Fakar COULD have been similar in its appearance to the Topkapi example, as opposed to the forked pattern uniformly agreed upon by generations of Islamic scholars. But in the absense of an iron-clad provenance tracing this sword backward from owner to owner, one cannot prove that this is THE TRUE Dhu'l Fakar. "

Please note that Topkapi doesn't hold any private collection...in fact, the Ottoman sultans -who later on also became caliphs of Islam- took these swords and other holy relics from the Abbasid caliphs who were in Cairo. Some of these relics were also stored in Makkah and in Yanbu' (in what is now Saudi Arabia). The storing of these relics in Makkah and Yanbu' was several years before the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.

As for the Abbasids possessing Dhu'l-Faqar...well this was during the reign of Caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775 - 785 C.E.), or even towards the end of reign of al-Mansur (r. 754-775 C.E.); and since then, that great sword was in their possession; until the Abbasids renounced their right of the caliphate to either Sultan Selim I, or his son, Sultan Suleyman I. The two stories mentioned by al-Asma'i reveal that Dhu'l-Faqar was in possession of Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786-809 C.E.). There are poems mentioning 9th century C.E. Caliphs possessing Dhu'l-Faqar.

BTW, Professor Gulru Necipoglu of Harvard University has told me in 2009 that during her Sabbatical leave to Topkapi Museum Archives, she was able to obtain archival data that reveals that THIS SWORD was indeed Dhu'l-Faqar, and that the Ottoman sultans and court knew that THIS SWORD was Dhu'l-Faqar INDEED. You could email her or even call her to verify what I've told you (and I think I've told you about that before, no?).

Remember again, that I didn't find this sword in some auction, or some private collection in a wealthy man's house or something...NO! I found this sword preserved in the Imperial Treasury Section in Topkapi Museum; that Museum in which the possessions of the LAST CALIPHS OF ISLAM are preserved...so, please understand.

Cheers,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Typing error: "Please note that Topkapi doesn't hold any private collection" should be corrected to: "Please note that Topkapi doesn't JUST hold any private collection".

I apologize for the typing mistake...and please bear in mind that English is but my second language!!!

[ariel]

BTW, Professor Gulru Necipoglu of Harvard University has told me in 2009 that during her Sabbatical leave to Topkapi Museum Archives, she was able to obtain archival data that reveals that THIS SWORD was indeed Dhu'l-Faqar, and that the Ottoman sultans and court knew that THIS SWORD was Dhu'l-Faqar INDEED. You could email her or even call her to verify what I've told you (and I think I've told you about that before, no?).



Cheers,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Well, it gets curiosier and curiosier....

A Harvard professor finds archival data confirming this sword's identity as "True Dhul' Fakar" and, moreover, proof of conspiracy at the Ottoman Court to keep this fact secret, and she does not publish it ?????

I know quite a lot of Harvard faculty and every one of them would kill his/her grandmother for a publication of that caliber:-)

Hilmi Aydin, a curator of swords at Topkapi, waits 12 years for your article to be published and , - also!, - doesn't publish the sensational story?

Multiple other researchers who know the "secret of Dhu'l Fakar" are all still silent?

Well, Ahmed, they all must love you a lot and are ready to sacrifice their academic glory to give you a leg up....

Please, don't complain about academic conspiracies against you anymore : you are surrounded by unbelievably generous and supporting people.

[Andrew]

Point made, I would say. Let's move on, please.

[AhmedH]

Point made, I would say. Let's move on, please.

All right, Sir!

Any dear member wishing to make a constructive comment is welcome, and I'll be more than happy to answer him/her.

[AhmedH]

Salaams AhmedH, I have a much clearer understanding now of how you have arrived at what I believe is an extremely important discovery. I have boiled it down to solid research based upon a handful of specialists...

The Big Four. viz;

Al Kindi, Colonel Dr Zaky, al Biruni, Abdul Hameed al-Kateb.

Al Kindi was the real information linkage and the trigger.
Col Dr Zaky the magnifying glass whose brilliant work helped you clear up much of the previous confusion and the other two experts Al Biruni and Abdel Hameed al Kateb whose vital doctrines and research cemented the whole theory together. It is indeed remarkable that with so many other specialists in the mixture that you were able to stay on track and with so many having differing views (as experts often have) it is a miracle you have remained focused.

I mentioned a handful ... normally reserved for up to 5 or so names... Yours is the 5th name for without your amazing insight and vision this gem of information could have remained buried... lost in plain sight ...forever. :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams all,

I would like to add that the Arabs regarded the best swords to be those that were "made of Indian [crucible] steel and were of Yemeni forge". Even the mentioning of "Hindi", "Muhannad", or "Hunduwani" for swords didn't mean that these swords were Indian; but rather "made of Indian crucible steel (or what is now known as wootz)".

Of course, Indian crucible steel had its disadvantages; especially that it became brittle in very cold temperatures (at -13 degrees Celsius, sword blades made of wootz when hitting armor would break like glass). This was noted by the early Islamic warriors in their campaigns in the Caucasus and Central Asia; something that made many of those warriors seek sword blades made of milder steel, or even pattern-welded blades.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you very much Ahmed for adding these important and intriguing observations on these swords with information most helpful in better understanding them. It seems I had heard of the wootz blades becoming terribly brittle and literally shattering in some cases, but wasn't clear in recalling the circumstances. Also confusing to me was the reference to Arab swords 'from' India, and your explanation is most helpful.
As you noted in your previous post, what is important in our discussion is constructive material, comments and questions.

All best regards,
Jim

[AhmedH]

Thank you very much Ahmed for adding these important and intriguing observations on these swords with information most helpful in better understanding them. It seems I had heard of the wootz blades becoming terribly brittle and literally shattering in some cases, but wasn't clear in recalling the circumstances. Also confusing to me was the reference to Arab swords 'from' India, and your explanation is most helpful.
As you noted in your previous post, what is important in our discussion is constructive material, comments and questions.

All best regards,
Jim

My pleasure, my duty, Jim. Actually, the study of medieval arms and armor; especially medieval Arab swords, was something that captured my interest for many years. That there are more than 100 Arab swords dating back to 600-1260 CE in Topkapi, Askeri Museum, and some private collections is something very intriguing for serious study. Add to that the many great sources in the form of treatises, historical narrations, poems, etc; all that makes the study of Arab swords in the aforementioned period enjoyable; since the data is available and exists in abundance.

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Ahmed,
Yes and no.
I have held thousands of swords and tested quite a few. On a trip to India in 2007 the curators from The Wallace Collection had a vickers micro hardness tester and sampled many knives and swords with the device. Many were very good blades indeed, but not all. Many old blades are crap...very poor in construction, heat treating and chemistry...just like items of today.
One can only tell so much by looking and before sating anything is good or of particular metal it should be tested.

I am cleaning shop at present, but when I settle back into work I'll prepare a rough analog to the blade in question with 99% pure iron (modern material) and another in quenched and tempered crucible steel of 1.6% carbon. I think you will find the results, as I expect, to be nearly identical in a 45 degree flex. Heat treatment does not effect flex..it does dictate weather or not a blade takes a set at a given angle. If you want it flexible then make it thin.

As to what the ancients knew:
Not knowing what the elements are (i.e. carbon) means little..it was a craft not a modern science and craft folk need to know the material not the science...though an intimate knowledge does develop over time which one may say is akin to science in some fashion.
However, in order to discuss the item in question we need to have a means of conveying information and numbers are a way of doing this...numbers for chemistry,for resistance to flex for bend angle etc.


As to too thin...one can make a groove till one sees daylight out the other side..too thin is indeed possible. I have a micrometer which has a cut away center to allow for measuring the various thicknesses of blades. Some Arab daggers are so thin one may scarcely say they are there at all.
You held the sword so I am not in a position to argue what you saw and felt.

It appears to me that the grooves would have been cut/scraped cold and not hot forged. They are of a style that favors that technique.

As to blade pattern:
I can not tell from the photos what the steel may or may not be.
Pattern in blades can be due to many things...yes crucible steel is one, but so too is finely forged bloomery steel and even alloy banding.

All for now,
Ric

Welcome back Richard,

I very much believe that a hard edge would reveal a sufficient carbon content; along with suitable quenching. As for the damask, the patterns on the surface of this blade were rather small and uniform; reflecting early medieval damask; not Yemeni damask.

When you're free, please share your thoughts with me; regarding early medieval Arab blades and their chemical composition. Would also be interested to know that hardness measuring device; the Vickers....

Thanks a lot in advance, sir.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmedh... All thanks to Al Kindi !! Wa anta !!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

This is very important, but have you ever heard of Yemeni swords found in the burial places of medieval pre-Islamic Yemeni people; especially their notables?

BTW, what are the oldest Yemeni swords in Oman? Referring to which century? Dr. David Nicolle mentioned in one of his books an Arab straight double-edged sword from Oman referring to the 6th-7th century CE. I believe the book's name was "Yarmouk 636 AD".

Please explain more...

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim,

This is very important, but have you ever heard of Yemeni swords found in the burial places of medieval pre-Islamic Yemeni people; especially their notables?

BTW, what are the oldest Yemeni swords in Oman? Referring to which century? Dr. David Nicolle mentioned in one of his books an Arab straight double-edged sword from Oman referring to the 6th-7th century CE. I believe the book's name was "Yarmouk 636 AD".

Please explain more...

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Salaams Ahmed .. Sadly no I have not heard of any Yemeni pre Islamic Burials but early Omani Tombs are well recorded. There was a big migration from the Mahrib region in Yemen which lasted for several hundred years parallel to the downfall, disrepair and decline of the Mahrib Dam in roughly the 3rd to 6th C.

One report I read of a sword coming from an Islamic burial site on Jebel Akhdar (a purely one off discovery) made a couple of hundred years ago..

Readers will note that it was not the done thing here to bury arms and armour with the dead. The old Omani Battle Sword you may find interesting since its local name is Sayf Yamaani.

Interestingly there is a place near Nizwa called Yemen in part of Izki town ...an old quarter... and it was my thought that weapons could have either come on the trade route from Hadramaut or were made in the region near Nizwa since that was the seat of Ibaathi Islam from 751 AD til today. Nizwa has always been a metalworking area....Copper and iron since they knew the hand bellows system of raising the temperature of the furnace.


My thread refers at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16482&highlight=omani+swords

You will see Yarmouk may refer to the University at which he was a faculty member? Yarmouk Jordan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nicolle

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed .. Sadly no I have not heard of any Yemeni pre Islamic Burials but early Omani Tombs are well recorded. There was a big migration from the Mahrib region in Yemen which lasted for several hundred years parallel to the downfall, disrepair and decline of the Mahrib Dam in roughly the 3rd to 6th C.

One report I read of a sword coming from an Islamic burial site on Jebel Akhdar (a purely one off discovery) made a couple of hundred years ago..

Readers will note that it was not the done thing here to bury arms and armour with the dead. The old Omani Battle Sword you may find interesting since its local name is Sayf Yamaani.

Interestingly there is a place near Nizwa called Yemen in part of Izki town ...an old quarter... and it was my thought that weapons could have either come on the trade route from Hadramaut or were made in the region near Nizwa since that was the seat of Ibaathi Islam from 751 AD til today. Nizwa has always been a metalworking area....Copper and iron since they knew the hand bellows system of raising the temperature of the furnace.


My thread refers at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16482&highlight=omani+swords

You will see Yarmouk may refer to the University at which he was a faculty member? Yarmouk Jordan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nicolle

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thanks a lot for this. It seems that researchers must be as brave, bold, or even as audacious as the European researchers who dug out hundreds (if not many thousands) of European swords dating back to the Migration Period (400 - 750 CE) and the Viking Age (750 - 1066 CE); not to mention the Middle Ages (1066 - 1450 CE). Both al-Kindi and al-Biruni speak of Yemeni Quboori (i.e. tomb) swords being buried with their possessors in their graves. al-Kindi stated that these swords were anywhere from 1.75 to 2.75 lbs in weight, and their blade lengths were anywhere from 30 to 36 inches. Of course there are much more characteristics given in these two sources, and yes, these swords were pre-Islamic.

I would've really loved to hear any replies confirming excavation processes undergone by archaeologists that would've ended with the un-earthing of many of these priceless swords. Maybe such excavations may occur in the near future. Who knows???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thanks a lot for this. It seems that researchers must be as brave, bold, or even as audacious as the European researchers who dug out hundreds (if not many thousands) of European swords dating back to the Migration Period (400 - 750 CE) and the Viking Age (750 - 1066 CE); not to mention the Middle Ages (1066 - 1450 CE). Both al-Kindi and al-Biruni speak of Yemeni Quboori (i.e. tomb) swords being buried with their possessors in their graves. al-Kindi stated that these swords were anywhere from 1.75 to 2.75 lbs in weight, and their blade lengths were anywhere from 30 to 36 inches. Of course there are much more characteristics given in these two sources, and yes, these swords were pre-Islamic.

I would've really loved to hear any replies confirming excavation processes undergone by archaeologists that would've ended with the un-earthing of many of these priceless swords. Maybe such excavations may occur in the near future. Who knows???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein


Salaams Ahmed.. I hope something will turn up ! ... You know what its like when the archeologists want absolute proof which means actually digging up a body with a sword in his hand!! :) Any excavated swords that do appear I will try to source... Hadramaut I suspect holds many clues on the old Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani)
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

PS..May I ask you to look at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17934 as I need to check a translation on a sword.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed.. I hope something will turn up ! ... You know what its like when the archeologists want absolute proof which means actually digging up a body with a sword in his hand!! :) Any excavated swords that do appear I will try to source... Hadramaut I suspect holds many clues on the old Omani Battle Sword (Sayf Yamaani)
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

PS..May I ask you to look at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17934 as I need to check a translation on a sword.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

I did what I could do in order to read and receive help in reading the inscriptions of Charles's sword. These are mentioned in the thread you linked me to.

BTW, have you ever heard about those excavations undergone in Syria some six years ago? I remember back in July 2008, Dr. David Alexander was telling me about excavations done in Syria that resulted in the unearthing of arms and armor dating back to the Crusades and the Mamluk period. He told me these included mail armor, swords, crossbows, etc. If my memory would not betray me, he said that many of these items would go to the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar. Do you have any idea about these excavations and their findings??

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim,

I did what I could do in order to read and receive help in reading the inscriptions of Charles's sword. These are mentioned in the thread you linked me to.

BTW, have you ever heard about those excavations undergone in Syria some six years ago? I remember back in July 2008, Dr. David Alexander was telling me about excavations done in Syria that resulted in the unearthing of arms and armor dating back to the Crusades and the Mamluk period. He told me these included mail armor, swords, crossbows, etc. If my memory would not betray me, he said that many of these items would go to the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar. Do you have any idea about these excavations and their findings??

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

Ahmed Helal Hussein

Salaams Ahmed ~ Interesting inscription on the CharlesS sword which seems to defy translation... I thought it was Farsi..?

Also interesting is the news of the big find in Syria ... friends brought back from Doha their magnificent catalogue but I think the items are not in that yet... I will check...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed ~ Interesting inscription on the CharlesS sword which seems to defy translation... I thought it was Farsi..?

Also interesting is the news of the big find in Syria ... friends brought back from Doha their magnificent catalogue but I think the items are not in that yet... I will check...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Some said the inscriptions were Arabic, while one said it maybe Farsi. Here are the quotes:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17934

There are numbers inscribed too! Please check!

As for the catalogue of the objects in the Doha Museum, are you sure they have ALL the objects in this catalogue? I mean, what about the items in the storerooms and such? Dr. Alexander told me that these objects were to be transferred to the Doha Museum...so please confirm.

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[archer]

The birds remind Me of Great Indian Bustards. Archer

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Some said the inscriptions were Arabic, while one said it maybe Farsi. Here are the quotes:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17934

There are numbers inscribed too! Please check!

As for the catalogue of the objects in the Doha Museum, are you sure they have ALL the objects in this catalogue? I mean, what about the items in the storerooms and such? Dr. Alexander told me that these objects were to be transferred to the Doha Museum...so please confirm.

Thanks a lot in advance, Sir!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

Salaams Ahmed .. Yes you are probably right ... The catalogue is really just a series of designer photographs with not a lot of detail and was done at the opening of the museum I think... Any later work entering the museum would, as you say, be put into their research department and or placed for conservation etc... I am not able to visit as its a very long haul by car and by plane but I will see if any friends are going that way...

I had a look at the inscription and yes I noted the numbers but couldnt read those. I also think its Farsi ... my accountant reads it as I put earlier but that may be incorrect... can you decipher the numbers?
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The birds remind Me of Great Indian Bustards. Archer


Regards archer, It may well be... I looked at birds of all the regions hoping to find a mythical bird matching the swords two .. no specific luck there... there are plenty to chose from.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. :shrug:

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed .. Yes you are probably right ... The catalogue is really just a series of designer photographs with not a lot of detail and was done at the opening of the museum I think... Any later work entering the museum would, as you say, be put into their research department and or placed for conservation etc... I am not able to visit as its a very long haul by car and by plane but I will see if any friends are going that way...

I had a look at the inscription and yes I noted the numbers but couldnt read those. I also think its Farsi ... my accountant reads it as I put earlier but that may be incorrect... can you decipher the numbers?
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a lot for the info regarding the Doha Museum and the possibility of its storerooms containing arms and armor dating back to the Crusades and the Ayyubids and Mamluks.

Sorrowfully, I'm unable to decipher the numbers. WOW! These inscriptions are harder to define and read far more than those on Dhu'l-Faqar! So your accountant was unable to read the "Farsi" inscriptions? Then these inscriptions are not Farsi, I suggest.

Please forgive me, Ibrahiim, but I'm doing what I could possibly do regarding reading these inscriptions. Please forgive me for my limitations, buddy!

Yours faithfully,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thanks a lot for the info regarding the Doha Museum and the possibility of its storerooms containing arms and armor dating back to the Crusades and the Ayyubids and Mamluks.

Sorrowfully, I'm unable to decipher the numbers. WOW! These inscriptions are harder to define and read far more than those on Dhu'l-Faqar! So your accountant was unable to read the "Farsi" inscriptions? Then these inscriptions are not Farsi, I suggest.

Please forgive me, Ibrahiim, but I'm doing what I could possibly do regarding reading these inscriptions. Please forgive me for my limitations, buddy!

Yours faithfully,
Ahmed Helal Hussein


Salaams Ahmed, The latest information from friends who just returned from Doha is that the Museum had an exhibition of weapons from the era you mention...and just recently.
You are doing great on these inscriptions on blades...many thanks.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed, The latest information from friends who just returned from Doha is that the Museum had an exhibition of weapons from the era you mention...and just recently.
You are doing great on these inscriptions on blades...many thanks.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

First of all: Thanks for your magnanimity! Second thing: WOW! That's great news! So what Dr. Alexander had told me back in 2008 has been fulfilled! It must have taken the restoration and preservation teams quite an effort to get these excavated items back to shape in order to be fit for such an exhibition. Any more information in that regard shall be highly appreciated, buddy.

Thanks a lot!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed, The latest information from friends who just returned from Doha is that the Museum had an exhibition of weapons from the era you mention...and just recently.
You are doing great on these inscriptions on blades...many thanks.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Here is some information about this exhibition:

http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/237209/mia-showcases-rare-swords-from-collection

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed, The latest information from friends who just returned from Doha is that the Museum had an exhibition of weapons from the era you mention...and just recently.
You are doing great on these inscriptions on blades...many thanks.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

I've found a few Arab swords dating back to the 12th-15th centuries CE (according to the data provided by the Museum). Here's the link:

http://www.mia.org.qa/en/collections/search-collections

It seems that this museum really has some serious stuff!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams Ibrahiim,

I've found a few Arab swords dating back to the 12th-15th centuries CE (according to the data provided by the Museum). Here's the link:

http://www.mia.org.qa/en/collections/search-collections

It seems that this museum really has some serious stuff!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein


Salaams Ahmed, Yes they have some top quality exhibits, however, I think what is shown in your link is the same as their big format catalogue which I have at home so I will check later...Perhaps they have a lot of work still being restored... in their vaults...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed, Yes they have some top quality exhibits, however, I think what is shown in your link is the same as their big format catalogue which I have at home so I will check later...Perhaps they have a lot of work still being restored... in their vaults...
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim,

Thank you very much for this very important information. The more swords there are, the better!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Salaams all!

It seems that, in this site, there's little to no interest in the early medieval Arab swords. It's quite clear that the real interest is in more recent swords and other edged weapons that could be owned privately. I understand this well.

Nonetheless, if anyone is interested in information regarding swords or other weapons that date back to the early centuries of Islam, I'd be more than happy to send my help.

Best wishes to all!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams all!

It seems that, in this site, there's little to no interest in the early medieval Arab swords. It's quite clear that the real interest is in more recent swords and other edged weapons that could be owned privately. I understand this well.

Nonetheless, if anyone is interested in information regarding swords or other weapons that date back to the early centuries of Islam, I'd be more than happy to send my help.

Best wishes to all!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-

Salaams Ahmed.. Not so ! :) This is an ultra specialized subject Ahmed and we are lucky to have your input on this hugely important Iconic weapon... of equal importance to say the Sword Excalibur in Western parlance and utterly vital in Eastern terms being of such provenance.
As you know I am of the opinion that this is a classic and I feel certain it will be admitted to that hall of fame soon... I would ask you for some pictures so that they can also speak volumes for your thesis and so that members and others can see at a glance what is staring up at them ... This subject is not only of vital importance from the Islamic viewpoint but across the frontiers of sword research ... and such is its importance that the Topkapi will have to make a special room for it if they have not already done so!!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. :shrug:

[VANDOO]

ITS NOT A LACK OF INTREST IN THESE SWORDS. ITS JUST THAT MOST OF US HAVE NO KNOWLEGE IN THE FIELD AND CAN ONLY FOLLOW IT SO FAR AND CONTRIBUTE LITTLE.
ALL POSTS COME TO A POINT WHERE EVERYTHING KNOWN HAS BEEN SAID AND THEY DRY UP. THE BEAUTY OF THE FORUM IS THE TOPIC IS PRESERVED AND CAN BE REFRENCED BY NEW PEOPLE AND WHEN NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE THE TOPIC CAN REOPEN AND NEW INFORMATION BE ADDED. WE ALL HATE TO SEE A TOPIC WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT CLOSE BUT ITS NOT THE END ITS JUST A PAUSE TO REGROUP AND FIND NEW IDEAS AND INFORMATION. :D

[AhmedH]

Salaams to Ibrahiim, Vandoo, and to all!

I did not mean "Dhu'l-Faqar" in particular. I meant ALL ARAB SWORDS dating back to the early centuries of Islam. As I've said in the introduction of my composition regarding "Dhu'l-Faqar", I have given almost equal care and study for ALL the Arab swords that refer to the period 600 to 1258 CE.

Ibrahiim, thanks a lot for your very kind and encouraging words. But you have to understand that I'm relatively new to this forum, and I would feel as an intruder if I kept on making new threads. I would've wished that you, Iain, or any member here with very good knowledge on Arab swords to start new threads regarding that. This is why I've decided to wait for that, but unfortunately, nothing popped out till now; except for your great composition(s) regarding the Omani Battle Sword; although there aren't examples that date to the above-mentioned date (600- 1258 CE).

Had it never occurred that someone would come out with a new thread like: "Comparison between European and Islamic swords during the Crusades" or "The swords and armour of the warriors of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates" or anything of that sort?

I would very much like to hear your opinions...all of you. I would be glad if you came up with new ideas. Frankly, I believe that most -if not all- of you have new ideas regarding these topics.

That said, I find myself completely at the disposal of this great forum, and all its great members.

Best regards to all,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams to Ibrahiim, Vandoo, and to all!

I did not mean "Dhu'l-Faqar" in particular. I meant ALL ARAB SWORDS dating back to the early centuries of Islam. As I've said in the introduction of my composition regarding "Dhu'l-Faqar", I have given almost equal care and study for ALL the Arab swords that refer to the period 600 to 1258 CE.

Ibrahiim, thanks a lot for your very kind and encouraging words. But you have to understand that I'm relatively new to this forum, and I would feel as an intruder if I kept on making new threads. I would've wished that you, Iain, or any member here with very good knowledge on Arab swords to start new threads regarding that. This is why I've decided to wait for that, but unfortunately, nothing popped out till now; except for your great composition(s) regarding the Omani Battle Sword; although there aren't examples that date to the above-mentioned date (600- 1258 CE).

Had it never occurred that someone would come out with a new thread like: "Comparison between European and Islamic swords during the Crusades" or "The swords and armour of the warriors of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates" or anything of that sort?

I would very much like to hear your opinions...all of you. I would be glad if you came up with new ideas. Frankly, I believe that most -if not all- of you have new ideas regarding these topics.

That said, I find myself completely at the disposal of this great forum, and all its great members.

Best regards to all,
Ahmed Helal Hussein


Salaams Ahmed, Yes I know how frustrating it may seem... but the only person I know of... on this forum who can tackle the great subjects ("Comparison between European and Islamic swords during the Crusades" or "The swords and armour of the warriors of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates" or anything of that sort?) is you!

With such a highly specialised subject as the "Dhu'l-Faqar" you see how easy it is for an entire and brilliant thesis to be put down in a few words echoing the so called masters you have already met.. and who equally dont believe a word of it !! :)

Do not be put off by them. Your thesis is well placed on our Forum. Hopefully it will achieve recognition.

I am in agreement with Vandoo and urge you to keep at this one... and add some pictorial shots to enhance the cosmetics of your thesis... I look forward to the day when it enters The Classics and urge again Moderators to react favourably in this regard.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Richard Furrer]

Salaams all!

It seems that, in this site, there's little to no interest in the early medieval Arab swords. It's quite clear that the real interest is in more recent swords and other edged weapons that could be owned privately. I understand this well.

Nonetheless, if anyone is interested in information regarding swords or other weapons that date back to the early centuries of Islam, I'd be more than happy to send my help.

Best wishes to all!

-Ahmed Helal Hussein-
Hello,
I am very interested in early swords of all locations. However the information I wish to know has not been gathered. The "nuts and bolts" of swords is the steel...and we have scant few analysis of the steels in these blades...and I fear we never will.

Ric

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ahmed,
I would like to note that for a newcomer to this forum, you have already established a considerable footprint, and your superb dissertation is compellingly presented and fascinating. As you have well noted, in many cases this very topic and subject matter has been inadequately approached and not properly pursued in certain degree and aspects.

With research in virtually any field, it always remains a work in progress, and as Vandoo has wisely noted, it is not a lack of interest which results in decrease in dynamics of thread topics, but that discussion of material at hand has run its course. The wonderful thing here, again as well noted, is that threads sometimes dormant for years, are ever revisited by persons searching the internet or new researches begun on the same topic. As seen recently, and often over time, these threads are recharged by either new evidence or revitalizing new questions or approaches.

In my own research I often use the internet to augment the resources in my own library and notes, and inevitably threads and posts here appear, much to my delight! It is great to see the work all of us here have done as a team to advance the knowledge and understanding of these topics.

In your previous post you noted you feel too new here to place new threads as you sense you would be intruding. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Actually you clearly have already thought of wonderfully placed thesis' in your suggestions, and it seems that you would be the best person to place such topics.
If I may, I would suggest however that the approaches be more specific and partitioned. One of the biggest problems in discourse on forums is that key topics which come up later in threads are often lost in the volume of the thread itself mostly due to the title heading.
For example, this thread is addressed of course to Dhu'l-faqar, not to the broader scope you mention, therefore many readers and contributors may not realize the subcategories exist within.

I would suggest that new threads addressing the topics suggested be initiated outside the perameters of this one. Again, queries which are placed too broadly instantly outscope themselves, such as 'what kind of swords did the Byzantines use?'. It is bewildering to try to fathom just what people of this huge empire; what period; what regions etc are being considered.
Naturally this analogy is simply a suggestive illustration and of course not directed toward you or anyone in particular and meant as an example.

One last thing I would note here. These forums are visited by a vast scope of individuals from advanced academics such as yourself, to collectors whether new or remarkably experienced; the curious; historians; dealers; writers; journalists etc etc. This will result in quite varied approaches and manner in postings with often vastly different perspectives.
With this kind of diversity, it is always rather amazing that we are able to accomplish the wonderful discussions we have here, and as seen, have had for years. We are fortunate to have you with us! and thank you again for your outstanding contributions here.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Hello,
I am very interested in early swords of all locations. However the information I wish to know has not been gathered. The "nuts and bolts" of swords is the steel...and we have scant few analysis of the steels in these blades...and I fear we never will.

Ric


Ric
I just noticed your post, and of course it is well established that your field is metallurgy , which has always been far beyond my own understanding. With your expertise in this topic, you would be the exact person to address this aspect of swords, and in threads focused on specific instances. There have been many studies made scientifically on blades (several early Islamic blades if I recall were actually sacrificed to this end), and the work of Dr. Ann Fuerbach has been phenomenal. Others such as Panseri, Figiel and numerous other works have well touched on many aspects, but as we have noted, there is far more to be done.

As noted in my post to Ahmed, these thesis' and titles are on topics which need to be addressed, and these are discussion forums which are the exact venue where this can be done.

All the best,
Jim

[AhmedH]

Salaams Ahmed, Yes I know how frustrating it may seem... but the only person I know of... on this forum who can tackle the great subjects ("Comparison between European and Islamic swords during the Crusades" or "The swords and armour of the warriors of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates" or anything of that sort?) is you!

With such a highly specialised subject as the "Dhu'l-Faqar" you see how easy it is for an entire and brilliant thesis to be put down in a few words echoing the so called masters you have already met.. and who equally dont believe a word of it !! :)

Do not be put off by them. Your thesis is well placed on our Forum. Hopefully it will achieve recognition.

I am in agreement with Vandoo and urge you to keep at this one... and add some pictorial shots to enhance the cosmetics of your thesis... I look forward to the day when it enters The Classics and urge again Moderators to react favourably in this regard.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Ibrahiim!

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging words. I felt very flattered, buddy! I agree with you regarding enhancing the cosmetics of my thesis with more pictorial shots, and I intend to start new threads regarding other Arab swords of the early centuries of Islam.

Perhaps you should give your opinion about your favorite type of sword in this thread here (please!):

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18180

See that broad-bladed straight double-edged sword; posted by Jasper?! Man! I'm very weak in front of these types of swords! You know what I mean, don't you?!

Once again, I'm very thankful for your very encouraging reply, Ibrahiim.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Hi Ahmed,
I would like to note that for a newcomer to this forum, you have already established a considerable footprint, and your superb dissertation is compellingly presented and fascinating. As you have well noted, in many cases this very topic and subject matter has been inadequately approached and not properly pursued in certain degree and aspects.

With research in virtually any field, it always remains a work in progress, and as Vandoo has wisely noted, it is not a lack of interest which results in decrease in dynamics of thread topics, but that discussion of material at hand has run its course. The wonderful thing here, again as well noted, is that threads sometimes dormant for years, are ever revisited by persons searching the internet or new researches begun on the same topic. As seen recently, and often over time, these threads are recharged by either new evidence or revitalizing new questions or approaches.

In my own research I often use the internet to augment the resources in my own library and notes, and inevitably threads and posts here appear, much to my delight! It is great to see the work all of us here have done as a team to advance the knowledge and understanding of these topics.

In your previous post you noted you feel too new here to place new threads as you sense you would be intruding. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Actually you clearly have already thought of wonderfully placed thesis' in your suggestions, and it seems that you would be the best person to place such topics.
If I may, I would suggest however that the approaches be more specific and partitioned. One of the biggest problems in discourse on forums is that key topics which come up later in threads are often lost in the volume of the thread itself mostly due to the title heading.
For example, this thread is addressed of course to Dhu'l-faqar, not to the broader scope you mention, therefore many readers and contributors may not realize the subcategories exist within.

I would suggest that new threads addressing the topics suggested be initiated outside the perameters of this one. Again, queries which are placed too broadly instantly outscope themselves, such as 'what kind of swords did the Byzantines use?'. It is bewildering to try to fathom just what people of this huge empire; what period; what regions etc are being considered.
Naturally this analogy is simply a suggestive illustration and of course not directed toward you or anyone in particular and meant as an example.

One last thing I would note here. These forums are visited by a vast scope of individuals from advanced academics such as yourself, to collectors whether new or remarkably experienced; the curious; historians; dealers; writers; journalists etc etc. This will result in quite varied approaches and manner in postings with often vastly different perspectives.
With this kind of diversity, it is always rather amazing that we are able to accomplish the wonderful discussions we have here, and as seen, have had for years. We are fortunate to have you with us! and thank you again for your outstanding contributions here.

All very best regards,
Jim

Salaams Jim!

Thank you very much for your generous and morale-raising reply, Sir! Believe it or not: I was intending to mention you by name in my last posting; and in fact I did, but I erased the request for you to answer my posting out of fear of appearing to be arrogant; yet your generosity and concern have made me at a loss of words, Sir. I'm very grateful to your reply.

Sir, I promise to follow what you advised me to do; in your generous and encouraging reply. Once again, I must admit that I feel that I've come to the right place by becoming a member in this great site with its fabulous forums. I've already gained a lot of information from reading and following many threads, and I'm extremely happy because of that.

Once again, I find myself completely at your disposal, Sir.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Hello,
I am very interested in early swords of all locations. However the information I wish to know has not been gathered. The "nuts and bolts" of swords is the steel...and we have scant few analysis of the steels in these blades...and I fear we never will.

Ric

Salaams Ric!

Thank you very much for your reply. I really understand how you feel, but I also feel handicapped to fulfill your desire for analyzing these swords; or even reading about earlier analysis of such valuable sword-blades. I'm sorry, but you know that this is almost impossible to happen.

One question, Sir: Have you ever analyzed a blade of a European medieval sword before? If yes, what did it take to do it? I mean: Did you completely destroy the sword-blade for analysis, or took a small piece of the blade, or what? Please explain, Sir.

Waiting anxiously for your reply, Ric!

As ever,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[Richard Furrer]

There are hundreds of metallurgical analysis of medieval and earlier European blades and dozens of chemical analysis...many published in various articles in "Gladius".
In general a small slice is taken from the blade (a triangle cut from edge to center not all the way across) and this is cold mounted in resin and polished then etched and photographed under the microscope. Pieces can also be spectrographed for chemistry. Neither is all that hard to do well, but there is a procedure.
Such can be done from poor examples of good provenance...many museums have such pieces which are not good enough to display and some even just sit and rust away on a shelf as conservation funds are low.

Once enough body of information is amassed one can make assumptions as to what is of a certain time and place. It makes fakes that much more difficult to pass as originals.

I suggest the work of Drs. Alan Williams and David Edge of The Wallace. As well as Drs. Janet Lang, Paul Craddock and Barry Ager of the British Museum. The Royal Armouries did some good work till they sacked the dept.
These are only a few British researchers..there have counterparts all over Europe.

Ric

[AhmedH]

There are hundreds of metallurgical analysis of medieval and earlier European blades and dozens of chemical analysis...many published in various articles in "Gladius".
In general a small slice is taken from the blade (a triangle cut from edge to center not all the way across) and this is cold mounted in resin and polished then etched and photographed under the microscope. Pieces can also be spectrographed for chemistry. Neither is all that hard to do well, but there is a procedure.
Such can be done from poor examples of good provenance...many museums have such pieces which are not good enough to display and some even just sit and rust away on a shelf as conservation funds are low.

Once enough body of information is amassed one can make assumptions as to what is of a certain time and place. It makes fakes that much more difficult to pass as originals.

I suggest the work of Drs. Alan Williams and David Edge of The Wallace. As well as Drs. Janet Lang, Paul Craddock and Barry Ager of the British Museum. The Royal Armouries did some good work till they sacked the dept.
These are only a few British researchers..there have counterparts all over Europe.

Ric

Salaams Ric!

Thank you very much for your clarification. I have Ewart Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons" and it includes analyses of some pattern-welded blades; as well as homogenous non-crucible steel sword-blades. I remember the average percentage of carbon in the pattern-welded blades was anywhere from 0.4 to 0.6%, while the carbon content in the Ulfber(h)t sword-blades was around 0.75% on average. Hank Reinhardt once wrote that the carbon content in European medieval swords could have reached as high as 1.2%, but he said the average percentage of carbon was around 0.8%.

Regarding the early Arab sword-blades, these were usually forged from Indian crucible steel. I do not know if any of the swords in Topkapi or the Askeri Museum in Istanbul were analyzed. But for Indian crucible steel, the average carbon content in the sword-blades was around 1.4 - 1.8%. I know that the appearance of the damask wave patterns also depends upon certain trace elements, like Vanadium and Molybdenum...and even Manganese may play a role. There are other proofs for the high-carbon content in these Arab sword-blades, like what the sources said that they became brittle during very cold temperatures. Also, the procedures mentioned in the early Islamic sources in order to know a good blade from a bad one, are very important to me.

Perhaps there are private collectors who maybe willing to donate one or more of their Arab sword-blades for analyses.

BTW, the Arab sword attributed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH); that is now preserved in al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo, Egypt has been chemically analyzed in the laboratories of the Cairo University. That was in the mid-1970s. The results have proven that it was forged from Indian crucible steel, with pearlite and cementite particles; if I could remember. The results were published in the Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology-Cairo University in January 17th 1976.

Thank you for giving me the names of the references that include the results of the analyses done to many medieval European sword-blades.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein