The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[ariel]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Hello Robert,

I'll try my best in being an abiding member in this great forum. Thank you for your warning.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!