[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.