Talk:Umar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Quote

On the other hand, David Samuel Margoliouth offers this assessment of Umar: “ We have no record of any occasion on which Umar played remarkable courage, though many examples are at hand of his brave on another occasion owed his life to the good nature of an enemy (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, pg 164) ”

Does this make sense to anyone? I think it should be removed/replaced.Jamal (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Aqsa Mosque

After Jeruslam had been captured, Umar could not have 'asked the Patriach to lead him to the place of the Al-Aqsa Mosque' for the simple reason that it did not yet exist! It was the site of the old Temple of Jerusalem and would have been known as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.187.176 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Liberation'

When an area is captured for the first time, it cannot be described as 'liberated', no matter how merciful the captors are. 'Liberation' is too biased a word to use in relation to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in exactly the same way as it would be inappropriate for the later Christian conquest during the First Crusade or the Jewish conquest in 1967. Some people might think the term theologically acceptable but it is certainly not acceptable in a historical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.176.109 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding alcohol and Umar's character

Zora, your edit inserted the following Lines:

"Shi'a Muslims point to these claims as proof of Umar's bad character. Sunni Muslims say that it is unfair to criticize him for following the ways and customs of his people before he converted, given that he regretted and completely abjured his former way of life."

I have not heard of these claims. All pre-Islamic Arabia drank alcohol. Where is it claimed that Shias use this as a mark of bad character? If there is no source, I would like to delete this addition. --AladdinSE 02:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've read in some Shi'a sources on Umar that his pre-Islamic behavior showed his evil character. The Shi'a contrast Umar's behavior to the behavior of Muhammad and Ali, which they say was pure and Islamic from birth, even before the formal proclamation of Islam. I should also note the insistence of the Shi'a editors on including the bits re infanticide and wine drinking seemed (to me at least) to indicate a concern with blackening his character. Zora 14:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's obvious those edits were intended in those veins. I'm deleting the alcohol claim until the source is cited. It's so strangely put. He was not a drunkard, he drank as all Arabia drank before Islam. --AladdinSE 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting blanking of sections

A new user calling himself "Imam Mehdi" blanked chunks of the talk page and inserted some diatribes. I'm restoring the blanked parts, and I'll copy the diatribes here.

I'm "Dajjal" and I'm looking for "Imam Mehdi" to get back for the mischieve he made here. Beware, "Imam Mehdi"~ I'm a fierce dog ready to bite you to make you a good boy. Have anyone seen him?

[edit] Can we delete the above diatribes?

I conscientiously copied out all the diatribes pasted by "Imam Mehdi" and didn't realize how LONG they were. I don't think they contribute anything to the article. Can they be deleted? Or should I make a special archive for them? Zora 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

really from me umar is not more than dog --217.17.252.126 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the bit about him being harsh to Hafsa because it was misquoted. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/009.smt.html#009.3507) 1) It wasnt just a comment out of the blue. because of some reasons Muhammed had completely left his wives and gone into complete seclusion from them, so Umar was incensed by the fact that his daughter might have been instrumental in causing such kind of hurt to Muhammed that he completely leaves all his wives. 2) He had first approached Ayesha, the daughter of Abu Bakr to ask her about what had happened, but she told him that she has nothing to do with him and he has nothing to do with her. Also, I do not see why a person wanting to know who Umar was would be interested in such kind of subjective chatter. i said it before and im saying it again, this aint a forum to publicise your sect.--Blingpling 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora's recent edits

I've got too many articles on my watchlist and evidently haven't been keeping a close eye on what's happening here. I think we've had vandalism and reverts and edit wars. Some information disappeared, leaving stubs of sentences behind. I tried to rewrite and restore. Zora 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbon quote

I reverted a legend that an anon had entered, without any refs, and I also removed the quote from Gibbon "proving" that Umar burned down Ali's house. That is just plain ridiculous. Gibbon wrote in the 18th century, before modern academic scholarship on Islam had really begun, and he was NOT particularly learned in matters Islamic. His opinion has zero, zip, zilch weight. He is still remembered, and read, but for his prose style and as an example of old-fashioned history, not as an authority on matters Islamic. Zora 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding shia view of Umar, it is incorrect. Zaidi Shia's still regard Umar, as well as, Abu Bakr Highly. The section title should be either changed or reflect that of the Zaidi Shia's. Aalzaidaalzaid

Than please fix it where it requires fixing and provide references. Salam. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction of this article says nothing about what Umar accomplished as caliph, and thus why he is important in world history. Arguably, he was more important as a political figure than a religious figure, but you don't get any sense of who he was from this article's brief intro. I think at least a paragraph or two about his impact on the course of Middle Eastern history would be appropriate for the intro section. Kaldari 07:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] p.34,35 of Madelung..

.. says the following (p.34,35):

When Umar succeeded to the caliphate, he met Sa'd by chance and asked him whether he still held onto his position. His answer was 'Yes, I do so, since 'this matter [the reign] has devolved on you. Your companion, by God, was preferable in our eyes to you, and I have come to loathe your neighbourhood.' Umar suggested that he leave, and Sa'd went to Syria, where he died in Hawran, probably in the year 15/636. His grandson Abd al-Aziz b. Sa'id reported that the jinn were heard chanting from a well that they had killed the lord of Khazraj. Abd al-Aziz did not speculate whether the jinn were acting at the behest of God or of Umar.

the derive this from the above is a misrepresentation of the source. there is no indication that Umar ordered the assassination of Sa'd, only that Umar had seemingly exiled him. ITAQALLAH 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umar ordered the assassination of the Kazraji leader, the companion of the prophet

Well, this reference as well as the Muslim sources state what is mentioned about the event of Sakifa and the jinn assassination of Sa'd but also the name of the real person who killed Sa'd. It is the golden glow approach as you are trying implement here in order to depict Umar as a combination of saint and hero. Well that is all right as long as it does not contradict with history

Suhrawadi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suhrawadi (talk • contribs) .

you are referencing Madelung, yet it has been proven that Madelung says no such thing, while adding in your own POV. that is deliberate manipulation of the sources, and certainly not welcome here. you do not seem to note the idiom on p. 78 which when read in the correct spirit (and not an advantageous literalism) shows he did not order any assassination and did not even actively work against Sa'd. your contribution violates the wikipedia neutral point of view and verifiability policies. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Proven? By whom? Here are the exact extracts that I'm using:

Uthman's wrongdoings, it should be emphasized, must seem trivial from the perspective of later generations. Not a single Muslim was killed on his order, except in punishment for murder or adultery. The arbitrary acts of violence of which he was accused were confined to beatings, imprisonment and deportations. The sanctity of Muslim life enjoined by Muhammad was still respected. Abu Bakr had been forced to declare those refusing to pay the alms-tax to him apostates in order to make war on them. Umar had to call on God and rely on the help of the jinn to get rid of his political enemy Sa'd b. Ubada. Uthman by nature was averse to bloodshed, found it easy to comply with the prophet's injunction.(Madelung, Wilferd, The Succession to Muhammad, p78, Cambridge University Press,1997)

Another reason for Umar censure the Saqifa meeting as a falta was no doubt its turbulent and undignified end, as he and his followers jumped upon the sick Khazraji leader Sa'd b. Ubada in order to teach him a lesson, if not to kill him, for daring to challenge the sole right of Quraysh to rule. This violent break-up of the meeting indicates, moreover, that the Ansar cannot all have been swayed by the wisdom and eloquence of Abu Bakr's speech and have accepted him as the best choice for the succession as suggested by Caetani. There would have been no sense in beating up the Khazraji chief if everybody had come around to swearing allegiance to Umar's candidate. .(Madelung, Wilferd, The Succession to Muhammad, p33, Cambridge University Press, 1997)

Where is the idiom here? You have just been rehashing and recycling tired arguments of Umar’s devout admirers who tend to assess the role of Umar in the golden glow approach. This approach depicts Umar as a combination saint-hero and genius. But as Madelung shows us, as well as to many well-known Muslim references, this approach of your is divorced both from reality and history. At the end of the day, Umar was, as all the companions of the prophet were, just humans like the rest of us and they too vied for power and in the process many crimes were committed in order to reach and protect their interests. So It seems that you my friend is the one, whose your contribution violates the wikipedia neutral point of view and verifiability policies.

--Suhrawardi 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, and as demonstrated by the quote provided on page 34-35, it shows that Umar did not literally seek the help of jinn. in the same way one says (for example) 'the traveller had to rely on the stars to navigate', it doesn't mean he literally went and asked the stars, but rather the action of the stars (i.e. positionining, light) was ultimately beneficial for the traveller. similarly, it can be derived that the action of the jinn was politically beneficial for Umar, not that he necessarily had a part to play (and in reality he is vindicated on 34/35). you are focusing on one sentence while neglecting its context: the whole passage is talking about how the caliphs did not order for muslims to be killed, which totally disproves what you are postulating. the second passage only indicates tensions, not any indication of intention to murder then or later. how fallacious then is it that you try to smudge these two phrases together to present a different picture entirely.
as for your attempted characterising of my stance: keep it to yourself please. i only see misuse of a source on your part to forward your own skew of events. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What a great development, you now saying that the Jinn were indeed responsible Sa'd's murder...that is indeed a remarkable remark. So it is again a question of good faith in Umar, rather than a question of history as you are ready to advance the most flawed argument, just to clear the side of Umar. Still you did not did not speculate whether the jinn were acting at the behest of God or of Umar? --Suhrawardi 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say the jinn were responsible, this seems to be what Madelung alludes to. she does not say that Umar was behind the death, yet you try to weave unrelated texts to draw this conclusion which is not supported by the texts. you are deliberately inserting misrepresentations of texts and original research, and i will have to ask you to stop. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sandbox

here is something i am working on --Striver 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] move

I reverted a move that contradicted previous consensus. --Striver 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I deleted the views sections this is an encyclopedia not a discussion forum where we share our views. If shia hold a different view start your own page in a shia section.--Rami.b 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not aware of how stuff works in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Editing policy before making large deletions. If, in your considered judgment, an article about Shi'a view should be created then simply do it yourself instead of deleting encyclopaedic content while asking the community to do it in your place. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. Thank you.
Example: Biographical article (i.e George Bush, Mandela, etc.) are not stricly limited to their supporters views. I hope the point is clear. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break Sunni's are Islam by the very defanition of the word sunni, i dont think an article should be created but that shia should not be commenting altogether. If they wish to create one by all means they are welcome to. ""Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.

Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. Some consideration of Etiquette wouldn't hurt.""

Thus there view is not relevant in a biography which this is.--Rami.b 12:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Point 1 - ...Shia should not be commenting altogether - First, those are not comments but edits. Second, should is an imperative statement and therefore you should state who says that. A policy? See Criticism and public perception of George Bush as a good example. According to your logic, only Conservative Americans' views can be permitted in that article. Wrong Rami.
Point 2 - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum - What do you consider as forum discussions?
Point 3 - I understand your plea but believe me that i've been there before and i learned that stuff doesn't work that way in wikipedia. So please calm down and try to read some of the main policies and guidelines of Wikipedia before arguing about something you do not understand enough about. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

why dont i go and edit the article about imam Ali since it is entirely comprised of shia sources. If all i have to do is do my own research and that is enough for my writings to be credible [ a joke of a premise really] then any person with an ounce of logic can see the flawed nature of this place. I have opted for the easy way.

i think the real question is who should write history.--Rami.b 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, go edit whatever you like. Nobody owns any article. It is not an excuse for your mass deletions. I am alarming you that your actions will be reported and other admins (i can't deal w/ you as i am an involved administrator now). I think you have opted for the complicated way. You could simply add {{cn}} to the unreferenced edits so editors can reference them. Indeed, you are deleting sourced material (Sahih Muslim, Chapter of "Kitabul-Wasiyyah" in section "Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah", 1980 Edition) and that is counted as vandalism. You also have to read WP:CENSOR. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, you have to use the edit summary → Help:Edit summary. Also, you have to be aware of WP:3RR policy. So, that was just a start. Welcome to wikipedia. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: ITAQALLAH

I feel that there is a tendency of saint-worshiping in this article and There MUST be an alternative view, as it is the case with St. Paul or even with George W. Bush.

The Sunni classical view is expressed in the most panegyrical words and at even at a time was drawn from a Fatwa, I don’t think that would constitute a impartial language for encyclopedia entry.

So if the classical Sunni view is presented with all its subjective tone, I’m amazed what seems to be the only alternative view of Umar is being repressed on the alleged grounds of subjectivity.

As for the issue of original research, well, the first “original research” is drawn from Sahih Muslim which reports on the authority of Ibn Abbas that:

When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4016

For the Shiite view of this incident see for instance: A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims’ Sayed Ali Asgher Razwy http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/41.htm

For the connection drawn(what supposedly constitutes the second original research)it is provided in Al Muraja’at which is a dialogue between the head of the Sunni prestigious Azhar University Salim Bashir and the prominent Lebanese Shiite scholar Abd Al Hussain Sharaf Al Din, in which Umar according to Ibn Abi Hadid, admitted to Ibn Abbas that the prophet during his illness was about to name Ali but Umar prevented him, see the full Arabic text of the dialogue:

وحاوره مرة أخر، فقال له في حديث آخر: «كيف خلفت ابن عمك، قال: فظننته يعني عبدالله بن جعفر، قال: فقلت: خلفته مع أترابه، قال: لم أعن ذلك إنما عنيت عظيمكم أهل البيت، قال: قلت: خلفته يمتح بالغرب وهو يقرأ القرآن. قال: يا عبدالله عليك دماء البدن إن كتمتنيها هل بقي في نفسه شيء من أمر الخلافة؟ قال: قلت: نعم. قال: أيزعم أن رسول الله نصَّ عليه؟ قال ابن عباس: قلت: وأزيدك سألت أبي عما يدعي ـ من نصَّ رسول الله عليه بالخلافة ـ فقال: صدق، فقال عمر: كان من سول الله في أمره ذرو من قول لا يثبت حجة، ولا يقطع عذراً، ولقد كان يربع في أمره وقناً ما، ولقد أراد في مرضه أن يصرِّح باسمه فمنعته من ذلك… الحديث

Ref:Al Muraja’at, pp 501-502 , you can access this on the website of Sistani’s Centre of Belief Research http://www.aqaed.com/shialib/books/06/morajeat/murajaat22.html. For an English translation of this text see: http://www.al-islam.org/murajaat/106.htm#r4

By the by, I will add Suliman Bashear’s following re-assessment of Western scholarship of Umar to balance the article a bit:

Umar I, the second caliph of Islam, figures centrally in Muslim traditional sources as the consolidator of that religion and polity. This view was initially accepted on modern western scholars some of whom compared his role to that of St. Paul, “the second man” in Christianity. Gradually, however, few scholars expressed more caution in their assessment of the historicity of such role, owning to the subjection of the traditional reports on him to critical scrutiny and the exposition of a great deal of contradictions and obscurities. Lately, note was also made of the fact that no serious attempt was made at examining the religious aspects of the personality and role of the man especially by modern Muslim scholars who, instead usually present him as a prefect ruler fit even for twentieth century political ideals of democracy, etc. on the other hand, note must be made of the new line opened by the authors of Hagarism in the study of that personality and role where they suggest that the title “faruq” constitutes in fact an Islamic fossilization of certain Jewish idea of messianism

(The Title "Fārūq" and Its Association with 'Umar I, Studia Islamica, No. 72. (1990), pp 47-48)

Cheers, --Suhrawardi 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. al-islam.org isn't a reliable nor objective source;
  2. if you find areas where the tone is hagiographic, then the better option is to fix that wording instead of introducing material to try to neutralise it;
  3. the part of the section that was removed was original research, making tendentious inferences from a primary source (the latter, by the way, is not independently verifiable from a reliable source);
  4. as for Bashear's quote, you can summarise it if you like, but i think all instances of blockquoting need to be done away with and summarised appropritately. not sure why he is citing the theory of Hagarism, which has already been widely rejected by academic scholarship. ITAQALLAH


Shiite View

Al-islam.org represents the Shiite views and is being used to express their views on Umar, it is truly absurd to speak of objectivity when you use the Wahhabi website of islamweb and un-scholarly article from Radiance Viewsweekly to depict a subjective account of Umar. If you have problem with Shiite view, that’s fine, you are entitled to your own views, but why do you persist on removing an important element of their argument in the section of the article that reads: SHIITE VIEW ?

Ibn Abi Hadid

I’m a bit puzzled, is the primary reference of Ibn Abi Hadid’s difficult for you to verify because of the language barrier(whichin your case is not) or because of the fact that you don’t have access to the reference. In that case, here is a link to its online edition ,Dar Ehya’a al Torath Al Arabi, ed, Muhammad Ibrahim You can purchase a copy of the reference from here

Not so much of an original thesis

As for the book of Al Muraja’at and its content has been already endorsed by two Sunni scholars, namely Muhammad Fikri Abu Nasr( a scholar in Al Azhar university) and Dr. Hamid Hanafi Dawad of Ain Sham University of Cairo. See their forwards of the book here and here


So the report of Umar admitting to Ibn Abas during the former's reign, that the motive behind his refusal to allow Muhammad to dictate his will was to prevent the prophet from reproclaiming Ali as his heir is being reported by Ibn Abi Hadid and was drawn on in the above reference and this diminishes the allegation of original research.

Bewildered?

By the by, why did you remove the below report of Sahih Muslim, do you deem it not reliable?

When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.

If you don’t accept the Shiite interpretation of the hadith, that is ok, we can relocate it complemented with both Shiite and Sunni interpretations to The death of Muhammad section of the article if you want

--Suhrawardi 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Empire

"it was under his aegis that the Muslims expanded outwards from the Syro-Arabian steppe to conquer the great powers of the time, the Sassanid (Persian) and Byzantine (Roman) empires."

Umar didnt conquer the Byzantines, he captured much of their territory in Asia and Northern Africa but the empire itself stuck around for a few more centuries ;)

Hera52