The Original Dhu'l-Faqar

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

... the " 18 intervals of damask waves" from that book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour, which was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies??? Do you even know the name of the author of this book??? If you did, I'll take off my hat for you!!!

Hello Ahmed,
The "Swords and Armour" is an exhibition catalogue that is not serious in my opinion. It has pictures of some pretty swords... that's it! Most of them are composite pieces, all are gravely mis-dated. I'd not consider it as being serious reference. Apart from this, here's a better closeup of the sword, which is truly a magnificent piece or art.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
The "Swords and Armour" is an exhibition catalogue that is not serious in my opinion. It has pictures of some pretty swords... that's it! Most of them are composite pieces, all are gravely mis-dated. I'd not consider it as being serious reference. Apart from this, here's a better closeup of the sword, which is truly a magnificent piece or art.

Dear Alex,

Thanks a lot for posting this beautiful photo of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade and its Ottoman hilt. But you seemed to have misunderstood me; as I was telling Ariel that he (i.e. Ariel) took the suggestion of one of the meanings of "Dhu'l-Faqar" to mean it "possessed 18 intervals of damask waves" from a book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour" that was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies. I never stated that it was a reliable reference or anything. In fact, you'll see in that book, another sword which the other says "it possesses 53 intervals of damask waves".

Sorry you misunderstood me, but I felt that I had to correct and explain this misunderstanding!

Cheers,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

Dear Alex,

Thanks a lot for posting this beautiful photo of Dhu'l-Faqar's blade and its Ottoman hilt. But you seemed to have misunderstood me; as I was telling Ariel that he (i.e. Ariel) took the suggestion of one of the meanings of "Dhu'l-Faqar" to mean it "possessed 18 intervals of damask waves" from a book called "Islamic Arms: Swords and Armour" that was published by King Faisal's Center of Islamic Studies. I never stated that it was a reliable reference or anything. In fact, you'll see in that book, another sword which the other says "it possesses 53 intervals of damask waves".

Sorry you misunderstood me, but I felt that I had to correct and explain this misunderstanding!

Cheers,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

Sorry if I misunderstood this, Ahmed. Its all clear with me now I hope we'll be focusing on the source, and not the person who took suggestion from it
I wanted to ask how do you see the purpose of "Dhu'l-Faqar"? Was the assumption made that it was a weapon? A two-pointed shape was quite important early Islamic symbol, so split/double blade could be another of it's representations in a form of purely ceremonial object. As such, the discussion on its functionality as a weapon, as well as why it is impractical, would not apply. You listed it as one of the reasons why "Dhu'l-Faqar" could not be two-pointed. Please help me understand, I may be missing something.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Sorry if I misunderstood this, Ahmed. Its all clear with me now I hope we'll be focusing on the source, and not the person who took suggestion from it
I wanted to ask how do you see the purpose of "Dhu'l-Faqar"? Was the assumption made that it was a weapon? A two-pointed shape was quite important early Islamic symbol, so split/double blade could be another of it's representations in a form of purely ceremonial object. As such, the discussion on its functionality as a weapon, as well as why it is impractical, would not apply. You listed it as one of the reasons why "Dhu'l-Faqar" could not be two-pointed. Am I missing something? Thanks!

Dear Alex,

It's all right, as long as you've understood the misunderstanding ;-)

As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor.

As for the two-pointed sword, it was a symbol for the martyrdom of al-Hamzah (one of the uncles of Prophet Muhammad PBUH) at the Battle of Uhud in 624 CE, and this was the interpretation of the Prophet's vision, a few days before the Battle of Uhud.

But then I have made this clear in my article, no?

I hope I've answered your question.

BTW, the depiction of Dhu'l-Faqar as a two-pointed or double-bladed sword, was known in Islamic art as early as the Mongol Period (in the 14th century CE). There are false replicas of Dhu'l-Faqar; featuring it as a double-pointed or double-bladed sword, that date back to the 14th century CE. Please read David G. Alexander: Dhu'l-faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet: Mirath Rasul Allah, Gladius, 1999. This article is available online, btw.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by AhmedH

...
...As for the purpose of the original Dhu'l-Faqar, it was primary a war sword capable of finishing off armored opponents. It was used primarily for cutting; especially through chain-mail, and even cracking lamellar plate armor ....
...

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Hi Alex,

The idea that these huge swords were claimed to be "ceremonial" came from a continuous erroneous build up of information falsely claimed by European historians and early arms and armor "experts". Please let me explain more:

There has always been a misconception that during the Middle Ages (even the early Middle Ages), the Christian European warrior was usually heavier armed and armored than his Muslim counterpart. You'll find that in the writings of Gibbon, Creasy, Lane-Poole, Runciman, Meyer, Dupuy, Regan, Newby, etc. Even Dr. David Nicolle, who tried to refute many of such claims, found himself repeating many of these misconceptions. European historians and arms and armor experts have thought that in the period between 500 to 900 CE, European swords were longer, broader, and heavier than their Arab and Muslim counterparts. The same was believed with the armor, and other military accoutrements. To be frank with you, this had to do with bias, along with anti-Islamic sentiments. If you read a lot in history, you'll always find Western historians giving materialistic explanations to the victories made by the Germanic tribes against the Romans (and later the Byzantines). You'll find them doing the same thing with the victories of the Huns, and later the Mongols. But when it comes to the early Islamic victories of the 7th and 8th centuries C.E., and even the later on victories, these historians shall not give materialistic reasons for the Muslims victories; other than that the Muslims had far more numbers, and that there may have been a "fifth column" within Christian ranks. Others added that the Muslims usually had far more archers, and that the Muslims didn't care about their lives. But you'll find nothing being said about superior Arab and Islamic arms and armor; especially in terms of combat capabilities. This intended ignoring was done despite the fact that the Islamic sources are full of detailed information of how the Arabs and early Muslims were armed and armored; mush more information than that that speak about Germanic and Mongol arms and armor. When, at last, Western students of arms and armor started translating Islamic sources regarding the arms and armor of the Muslim warriors many errors were done, and I do not know why these errors ever happened. For example:

The Arabic word "faris" literally means "knight"...instead, Western scholars erroneously translate the word to "light horseman"!!!

The Arabic word "ratl" literally means "pound" (i.e. 16 ounces, or 453.7 grams). Instead, Western scholars translated it to 0.6 pounds!!!

A "sibr" means "span"...so, 4 "shibrs" (spans) would equal 36 inches (thus 91.44 cm), right? But the Western scholars claimed it would equal 31.5 inches (80 cm) only!!!

...And so on! Via such bias, the erroneous belief that those huge swords in Topkapi were ceremonial swords appeared. Al-Kindi states that while Frankish swords of the 8th and 9th centuries C.E. weighed 1.75 to 2.5 ratls (pounds); and this is what Hank Reinhardt and others (like Oakeshott) have stated in their compositions, he also stated that there were Arab swords that weighed up to 5 lbs were used by the Muslims at that time!

Instead of referring to al-Kindi, and holding the erroneous belief that Arab swords were lighter than their European counterparts, those who investigated the swords of Topkapi came quickly to an unfounded conclusion that these huge swords (some of which weighed as heavy as 5 lbs) were nothing more than ceremonial swords used by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks for their elite royalty!!!

Now you understand from where the claim that the swords in Topkakpi were ceremonial swords came from??? If you need more clarification, please say so. OK???

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello Ahmed,
There was a reason I asked if the sword could be ceremonial. Noone can prove it of course, just like noone can prove it was not. And it does not really make any sense to discuss it's fighting abilities. It does not prove much at all.

I believe this is one of the largest, if not the largest, inscribed sword in Topkapi. As such, which one would Ottoman Sultans select to be their sacred ceremonial symbol? One can argue that it was this sword simply because of its imposing physical appeal, not presumed provenance. Noone can win this argument without a solid evidence. The only viable reasons are the 9 ridges and inscription. But is it enough to clearly prove it?

I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered.

Welcome back, Alex!

A quick correction: It's "shibr" and not "sibr" that means "span" (i.e. 9 inches or 22.86 cm).

Among the other erroneous translations:

"Sayf"; which means "sword", was erroneously translated to "short sword" instead!!!

When al-Kindi said that some sword blades were "4 fingers wide"; thus their width (immediately after the hilt) was 3 inches, the Western scholars explained that to a much slimmer width (can't remember exactly what their calculations were, but it was considerably less than 3 inches, anyway), and so on.

As for testing the cutting ability of the blade of the sword now preserved in Topkapi under inv. no. 2/3775, I don't think anyone will EVER be allowed to do so...so, I can't really get your point from what you said regarding that. Do you mean to say that the answer to this sword shall remain vague forever? Please explain more.

BTW, the Ottoman curved hilt (referring to the 16th century CE) for this straight double-edged broad and heavy blade makes it almost impossible for one to wield the sword; except by two hands; one gripping the grip, and the other holding the blade from its middle, or near the blade's point.

No, this sword is not the largest sword referring to the 7th century CE. There's a sword attributed to Ja'far ibn Abi-Taleb (d. 629 CE) that has a longer and heavier blade than the sword of my article.

BTW, do you have any references...or have you read some of these references that deal with the history of the passing of the Prophet's relics from one ruling dynasty to another?? I believe Ahmed Taymour Pasha's work regarding this issue is top notch. His book even explains why the Prophet's relics were not lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258 C.E.

Again, it would be much more logical if one were to compare the 7th century Arab swords preserved in Topkapi with what al-Kindi, al-Kateb, al-Biruni, and the countless 7th-9th century Arab poems said about the Arab swords back then, and see if they coincided (and actually they did very precisely!); rather than to make a quick and unfounded claim that these swords were ceremonial swords manufactured between the 14th and 17th centuries CE, just because of their immoderate dimensions and weights, along with their excessive decorations and ornamentation. Now the latter procedure would be nothing more than repetitions of repetitions of erroneous beliefs based on false information that was passed without any revision, correction, or even questioning.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[AhmedH]

ALEX said: "I am also joining others in thanking you for sharing your research, and in wishing you all the best. Perhaps your theory will gain traction, more research done and new evidences discovered."

Dear Alex,

It is I who am thankful for you sharing my humble research. I also am very thankful for your best wishes. I do hope my theory will gain traction. Thanks a lot!

Just keep on asking and doubting. I think that my responses to your questionings and doubts shall reveal more evidence and corrections.

Truly, I was afraid that someone else might claim this identification before I revealed my work to the outside world! I mean the sword-blade is crying out loud: "I'M DHU'LFAQAR!!!" and is staring every researcher in the eye. I even had nightmares about this!

Best wishes,
Ahmed Helal Hussein

[VANDOO]

WHILE THIS IS NOT MY FIELD I CONGRADULATE YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO CHOOSE SUCH A TIKELISH SUBJECT.
WHEN LEGEND AND RELIGION COMBINE THE CLEAR WATERS OF HISTORY ARE MUDDIED MOST OF ALL. THE DISCUSSION OR SAILING OF SUCH WATERS ALSO BECOME PERILOUS AS WELL AND YOU CAN BE SURE TO HAVE MANY BARBS THROWN AND FIND MANY REEFS TO RUN AGROUND ON. CONGRADULATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BEAT ABOUT A BIT BUT HAVE STAYED THE COURSE AND MAY YET FIND LANDFALL.
THE DESIRE TO HONOR AND ENSHRINE OBJECTS BELONGING TO FAMOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION DOES PRESERVE THEM BUT OFTEN ALTERS THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION. THEY ARE OFTEN ENSHRINED AND COVERED WITH GOLD, JEWELS AND SUCH OR PUT IN A RELIQUIM WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. THE OBJECTS NO DOUBT DO EXHIST BUT WHERE AND IN WHAT FORM? ITS A QUEST WORTHY OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
IN CHRISTIANITY (WHICH I CHOOSE AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS MY RELIGION) IN THE EARLY DAYS EVERY LARGE CHURCH WANTED A
HOLY RELIC. SOME NO DOUBT OBTAINED A REAL PIECE OF THE CROSS OR THE BELONGINGS OF AN APOSTLE , SAINT OR MARTYR BUT MANY MORE NO DOUBT GOT A MANUFACTURED RELIC. WITH THE INSISTANCE OF SEVERAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES OR PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE AND ONLY OBJECT BE IT HOLY GRAIL, ARK OF THE COVENANT OR SWORD ADDS TO THE CONFUSION. AS A RESULT OFTEN THESE OBJECTS ARE GAUARDED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SEE OR TEST THEM AS EVERYONE IS SURE THEY HAVE THE REAL RELIC BUT JUST TO BE SAFE THEY WON'T RISK FINDING THEY ARE WRONG.
A PERILOUS PAPER INDEED I ENJOYED IT AND FEEL YOU DID YOUR BEST. NEW INFORMATION MAY BECOME AVAILABLE BUT YOU HAVE DONE GOOD RESEARCH AS FAR AS I CAN SEE AND MADE SOME GOOD POINTS AS WELL AS BROUGHT UP A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHILE THIS FORUM NO DOUBT FINDS LITTLE CREDENCE OR FAVOR IN HIGHER ACADEMIC CIRCLES STILL TRUTHS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED UP OR IGNORED THERE MAY FIND THE LIGHT HERE.

[AhmedH]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

WHILE THIS IS NOT MY FIELD I CONGRADULATE YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO CHOOSE SUCH A TIKELISH SUBJECT.
WHEN LEGEND AND RELIGION COMBINE THE CLEAR WATERS OF HISTORY ARE MUDDIED MOST OF ALL. THE DISCUSSION OR SAILING OF SUCH WATERS ALSO BECOME PERILOUS AS WELL AND YOU CAN BE SURE TO HAVE MANY BARBS THROWN AND FIND MANY REEFS TO RUN AGROUND ON. CONGRADULATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN BEAT ABOUT A BIT BUT HAVE STAYED THE COURSE AND MAY YET FIND LANDFALL.
THE DESIRE TO HONOR AND ENSHRINE OBJECTS BELONGING TO FAMOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION DOES PRESERVE THEM BUT OFTEN ALTERS THEM BEYOND RECOGNITION. THEY ARE OFTEN ENSHRINED AND COVERED WITH GOLD, JEWELS AND SUCH OR PUT IN A RELIQUIM WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. THE OBJECTS NO DOUBT DO EXHIST BUT WHERE AND IN WHAT FORM? ITS A QUEST WORTHY OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
IN CHRISTIANITY (WHICH I CHOOSE AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE ITS MY RELIGION) IN THE EARLY DAYS EVERY LARGE CHURCH WANTED A
HOLY RELIC. SOME NO DOUBT OBTAINED A REAL PIECE OF THE CROSS OR THE BELONGINGS OF AN APOSTLE , SAINT OR MARTYR BUT MANY MORE NO DOUBT GOT A MANUFACTURED RELIC. WITH THE INSISTANCE OF SEVERAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES OR PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE AND ONLY OBJECT BE IT HOLY GRAIL, ARK OF THE COVENANT OR SWORD ADDS TO THE CONFUSION. AS A RESULT OFTEN THESE OBJECTS ARE GAUARDED AND NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SEE OR TEST THEM AS EVERYONE IS SURE THEY HAVE THE REAL RELIC BUT JUST TO BE SAFE THEY WON'T RISK FINDING THEY ARE WRONG.
A PERILOUS PAPER INDEED I ENJOYED IT AND FEEL YOU DID YOUR BEST. NEW INFORMATION MAY BECOME AVAILABLE BUT YOU HAVE DONE GOOD RESEARCH AS FAR AS I CAN SEE AND MADE SOME GOOD POINTS AS WELL AS BROUGHT UP A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS.
WHILE THIS FORUM NO DOUBT FINDS LITTLE CREDENCE OR FAVOR IN HIGHER ACADEMIC CIRCLES STILL TRUTHS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED UP OR IGNORED THERE MAY FIND THE LIGHT HERE.

Dear Vandoo,

Thank you very much for this. The reason why I wanted to have recognition in this forum was because the members here love to learn and teach arms and armor. Unfortunately, higher academics will switch any topic on arms and armor to the history of art or Islamic art, or whatever. There's no faculty department called "arms and armor:; although there is such a department in many respectable museums, and some museums are devoted solely for arms and armor.

Life has taught me that higher academics could ruin a lot of good work regarding history and archaeology. Ask those devoted guys at the Napoleon Series Forum (headed by Bob Burnham). They simply said they weren't ready for university professors ruining their already tremendous work and their vast knowledge of military history during the Napoleonic Era.

Once again, I thank you for your kind and encouraging words, Sir. I'm indebted to you for your magnanimity.

Best regards,
Ahmed Helal Hussein