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
|