Salaams Ariel, I think there is a difference in an author mentioning "something" on passing in a book and actually setting down a proof of "something" with considered notes and appraisals. It may be that the author genuinely believes it is true but it is quite different to a claim that it must be true because an author has casually mentioned it. I think that encroaches on being slightly "out of context."
Please see
http://auctionsimperial.com/om-the-p...lah/?locale=en (LA Mayer supports the fact and notes the myth that these swords are not made by the signaturee...and concludes there was no such person ...per se. )
~and the considerable work also of Dr Ann Feuerbach where the question is carefully considered. Further, in fact, no one person made these weapons but that many had a hand in doing so. Perhaps half a dozen workshops and individuals were responsible and that grouped together they may be associated as one broad school but with many craftsmen doing different parts of the sword... I find it perfectly plausible without taking away any of the mystique and without doggedly claiming that Assad Ullah was a real sword master when there is no proof he was...not that I would lose any sleep over this as it is quite irrelevant. I rather prefer the myth in this case.
