Talk:Zulfiqar

No given names, please.

I've removed mentions of personalities bearing the name Zulfiqar. As noted with the edit, this is becoming a self-glorifying pamphlet... just having similar names, or having being named after the sword should not warrant inclusion, regardless of credintials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.149.58 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

ذوالفقار is the correct spelling

The correct Arabic spelling is ذوالفقار . It begins with "Dhaal" ذ and not "Zaay" ز. Most people think it begins with ز becuase a popular nickname "Zulfi" is often written with ز and not ذ, thus confusing most. ذ is the correct letter. Another common similar word beginning with ذ is the Quranic name for Alexander the Great, called Dhul'Qarnain ( ذوالقرنين )

Total letters are 8

ذ + و + ا + ل + ف + ق + ا + ر

There is always a silent ا "alef" before ل "laam".

I agree, Thulfiqar/Dhulfiqar are better spellings that reflect the original Arabic name. "Zulfiqar" must have reached English through Persians who pronounce (ذ) as (ز).

94.97.167.207 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is by no means clear if it is Alexander of Macedon who is referred to as Dhul'Qarnain by the Koran. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad--the first minister of culture of the independent India, set out to prove that Dhul'Qarnain was in fact king Cyrus the Great of Persia who is celebrated as Messiah in the Old Testament and the liberators of the Jews, the first People of the Book from their Babylonian Captivity

transliteration

In Arabic the name is commonly transliterated as Zulfiqar, Thulfeqar, Dhulfiqar, Zoulfikar, Zulfeqhar etc.

I am amazed to learn that in Arabic the name is transliterated at all, let alone to Latin letters. —Tamfang (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Extreme bias and bad research in the "Sunni View" section

I will preface this by saying that I am a Sunni Muslim. The section of this artcle that purports to present the Sunni view is grossly biased and does not accurately reflect majority Sunni views on Dhulfiqar, and is largely unsourced. I do not, at the moment have the time to academically refute its inaccuracies, but I ask that it at least be edited for a more neutral tone (for example, changing generalized statements be changed to more limited ones, as in "Sunni Muslims believe" changed to "some Sunni Muslims believe") and any unsourced statement be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1210:8673:687D:2E18:5DD4:CD70 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear friend, there's no hurry. Edit it when you can. But please don't add anything without reliable and published third-party sources. Best regards,George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Sunni views" section was indeed a spurious, badly researched addition ("extreme bias" may be a stretch, it was just poorly put together).

Such additions should just be reverted on sight, as they contribute to degrading article quality.

I have kept the following as the referenced core of what had been added:

Al-Tirmidhi attributes to Ibn Abbas the tradition that Muhammad acquired the sword on the day of Badr, after he had seen it in a dream concerning the day of Uhud [reference: at-Tirmidhi, Abu `Isa Muhammad. The Book on Military Expiditions: Hadith 1561.]

--dab (𒁳) 07:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed and history needs to be reviewed on qzalbash section

The poem reads

Quwat-e-Khuda,

and translated correctly as Might by the most high (God),

but the arabic script does not indicate the word Quwat but rather Qudrat, which also means strength, and the question is who had the correct word originally, translator or transliterator. Don't have time to review history of this article and look up citations, but someone should — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.82.15 (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the poem as unreferenced. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of word "Talisman"

I don't know if the use of the word Talisman is appropriate in the way it is being used here. While some people may use it as such I believe most people who wear the Zulfiqar on an necklace or elsewhere are not using it as a "Talisman". Islamic theology would refute such uses. If it has to be included I think it should be stated somewhere saying something like "some may wear the Zulfiqar as a talisman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitts.nordera (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The reference cited here is entitled The Decipherment of Arabic Talismans. What you are proposing is just introducing weasel wording based on diffuse sentiments you hold personally. If you have a quotable academic reference that makes a point in the direction of what you want to introduce just cite it, "Author (year) argues that", or "In the opinion of Author (year)", etc. Don't introduce weasel words like "some may" without saying whose opinion on what exactly you are referencing. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Presently, there is insufficient analysis of sources, online and offline, to determine the WP:COMMONNAME of this item. The proposed title gets to be a redirect for now though. However, it is also of note that there are already variants of the proposed title existing as redirects to the article, i.e. DhulfiqarDhulfiqar. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Zulfiqar → Dhul faqarDhul faqar – "Zulfiqar" is the Persian variant; the sword's original name is in Arabic. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Reliable sources use the Persian spelling. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Info: I have two books by the British art historian J. M. Rogers in which it's written Dhu'l-Faqar. There's a quote from one of them here. The Encyclopedia of Islam writes it Dhū l- Faqār. Not a systematic survey of sources, obviously, but I dispute that reliable or scholarly sources are agreed on the "Zulfiqar" form. Since Zulfiqar/Dhul-faqar is also a personal name, this makes it very hard to get a quick comparison of names for the sword. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modern claims

The section modern claims only has unreliable sources. I've been unable to find WP:RS. I propose that it be removed. See also this edit which removed similar material. --mikeu ^talk 20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've removed that entire section for lack of WP:RS. See this edit if anyone want to try to salvage anything. --mikeu ^talk 02:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed addition concerning the Swiss collection and the attribution debate

I have a conflict of interest because I am connected with the research project concerning the privately held sword discussed below. I will not edit the article directly and ask uninvolved editors to consider the following proposed addition.

I propose adding the following subsection to the article:

Swiss collection and attribution debate

A sword now held in a private collection in Switzerland was exhibited in 2007 by the Trakai History Museum in Lithuania and described in the exhibition catalogue as an Indian talwar made in imitation of Zulfiqar.

On 5 February 2025, the Swiss news portal Presseportal Schweiz reported that an international research project had proposed identifying the object as the historical Zulfiqar. The claim was subsequently reported by the Russian news agency TASS.

The proposed attribution generated international media discussion. The National quoted two specialists from the American University of Sharjah who questioned the interpretation of the inscriptions, the precision of the proposed dating, and the absence of historical evidence directly connecting the object with Muhammad or Ali. A response defending the research project and challenging that criticism was later published by Eye of Riyadh and other Middle Eastern outlets.

On 1 September 2026, the Turkish magazine Simge Dergisi published an extensive 64-page illustrated feature presenting the object’s documented provenance and the research project’s arguments concerning its inscriptions, metal, construction, and proposed historical attribution. The identification of the object as the historical Zulfiqar remains the subject of public and expert debate.

The proposed wording does not present the attribution as an established fact. It records the object’s documented public history, the chronological development of the claim, the subsequent criticism and responses, and the later extensive publication by Simge Dergisi. I welcome revisions by uninvolved editors.

Project Sword (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)