Talk:Zafarnama (letter)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thats not what happened and this is a very Pro Sikhism piece....
The Sikhs betrayed the Mughals and made war on them...
Aurangzeb did what he had to do to crush the revolt....
HISTORY OF SIKHS
The Sikhs retreived cannons for the Mughals from a river. In return the Mughals gave them Autonomy. But then they wanted more and more land. That is when they went to war. Have you ever heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Same concept here. To the Mughals he was a terrorist and to Sikhs he's a freedom fighter.....
ITS BEEN IN BLOOD OF ISLAM TO BETRAY. ONE PERSON FIGTING AND DOING MISDEEDS CAN BE A TERRORIST WHAT WILL YOU SAY ABOUT LACS. IT WAS AURANGZEB WHICH WAS ACTING LIKE TERRORIST FOR HINDUS BY FORCIBLY CONVERTING THEM TO ISLAM.
IF AURNAGZEB COULD NOT BECOME A GOOD SON TO HIS FATHER HOW WOULD ONE THINK OF BEING A GOOD TO OTHERS. ITS BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND THAT TO EVERY TIME A FORCE IS THERE TO PROTECT THE OPRESSOR.
MAY BE ITS JESUS, PROPHET MOHAMMED OR IN FORM OF GURU GOBIND SINGH JI.
AURANGZEB HAS DONE EVERYTHING WRONG IN HIS LIFE AND HE HAS TO PAYBACK FOR HIS MISDOINGS WHICH ONE CAN SEE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS OWN EMPIRE.
Well your notion that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is rather naive in this context considering we are talking about Aurangzeb here. The persecution of Sikhs wasn't based on fiscal problems it was because of Aurangzeb's intolerance and his desire to create a one religion state, hence when given the choice to die on your feet or convert on your knees, the Sikhs chose not to give up their freedom. Also it must be noted that Guru Gobind Singh wasn't anti-Muslim, he had actually carried out good deeds to all peoples. Another note, people have failed to mention how this war was not necessarily "Hindus and Sikhs against Islam" it was as Guru Gobind Singh himself had said against oppression and tyranny.
mistaken views and clogged thinking! edit
if some people are led to believe that the article is not true than please spare us your biased and unproductive thoughts. you were not invited to express your views on Sikhs. i don,t understand from where did you get this canon story. persons like you refuse to see and accept the facts written by the great Guru himself and rely on malicious writings written by hostile minds some hundered years later.if you know history of sikhs than you would also know the great battle of Bhangani. Sikhs decisively defeated a coalition of 22 hill chiefs yet they did not take even an inch of their land.if Sikhs were considered revolts by mughals than think over this. Muslim rulers called the inhabitants of india infidels and treated them like dogs.hindus were subjected to great cruelties and all kinds of humiliations.Aurangzeb passed a law through which all non-believers were to be converted to islam ,he allowed the use of force if people resisted.there was great carnage to hindu life and property.if the khalsa rose and blocked the progress of this policy,that was the defeat of tyranny. at that time there was greater harmony between subjects of empire such as muslims,hindus,sikhs and various other communities.the fight of sikhs was againest tyranny of rulers. i will end this with a line from a great muslim sufi poet
'ALLAH YAAR KHAN JOGI' "na baat kahoon ab ki, na baat kahoon tab ki. na hote guru gobind singh, toh sunnat hoti sab ki"
(neither will i talk of present, nor of the past. but if there was no guru gobind singh,than everyone would have been circumcised)
Rajabrinder 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles like this are total rubbish edit
A lot of references used by fundamentalist Sikhs simply distort history better than any other religion. These fundamentalists even change their faith to suit their historical failures and change their history to suit their faith, its a common trademark among Fundamentalist Sikhs.
I think an article of Sikh Fundamentalism would be a good addition to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.37 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Rename to Zafarnama (letter) edit
The common name for this letter seems to be the Zafarnama. Google Scholar results since 1989:
Zafarnama is ambiguous, so Zafarnama (letter) should do it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk)
Why is the transliteration in Iranian Persian? edit
The Persian pronunciation is listed as zafarnameh which is modern Iranian Persian. Mughal Persian was an Eastern Dialect (like Dari and Tajik) not an Iranian dialect, so a final he would be -a not -eh. Mughal Persian was also a classical dialect so it had vowel length (unlike modern Iranian Persian) so the transliteration should be zafarnāma not zafarnameh. Sameerhameedy (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)