Actually I don't believe we are in an argument here, but in a discussion expressing opinions and presenting any evidence we can to examine all aspects possible.
In a similar case mentioned before, that of Andrea Ferara with the fabled Scottish swords. There seems a good degree of evidence which establishes him and his brother Donato in Belluno in the mid 16th century, but as yet this is not compellingly proven.
What seems most interesting is that his name seems almost tailor made to the Scottish circumstance, as 'Andrew' was synonymous in parlance with good/true, not to mention that St. Andrew was the patron Saint of Scotland, and aligned with 'ferara (Lat. = iron). Is there evidence that this Andrea Ferara actually went to Scotland to teach the Scots the forging of swords ? Not as far as I have known, but it can not ever really be eliminated entirely.
So it must be with the Assad Allah case, and it seems there are several other instances which support an actual person in manuscripts, but all refer to him as Assad, not Assadollah and only one includes the name Esfahani (according to the M. Khorasani article). Could this name have become a tailored eponym used in a talismanic or invocative placement on blades over time in similar manner, I should think so .
In my view, it is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but I think all aspects and observations should be included in discussion. We all hold our own opinions, but for me, I am inclined to go toward whatever evidence is most compelling, and admittedly often times it is not my own. It is about learning, and that is the positive side to 'discussions'.......not debates, which are inherently usually counterproductive.
|