Talk:Umar/Archive 4

Pickthall reference
Striver, that is not the way to give a reference. If you want to cite Pickthall, give name and date, and preferably page numbers. Setting up a new article (!!!) to reference three websites is ... insane. Zora 05:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, i made a new article stub about a book. Do you have any objections to that?


 * Yes. It's a ridiculous waste of namespace. What, do we need an article for every one of the millions of books existing in various languages? I don't think so. We already have an article on the Qur'an. Separate articles for each translation of the Qur'an is madness. Zora 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Further, is your way of giving reference the only one available?


 * It's the customary way. It's not mine. Doing things the customary way is one less hassle for readers. Zora 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If yes, please inform me of that. If not, GET OF MY BACK. --Striver 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, "the customary way" dictates that one should not write in another ones text, like you just did, but do you see me call you names like "insane" and "madness"?


 * Yeah, lets do a stub for every **** book in the earth, im sure that would waste less space than all the blind revert you have made. If you are so sure its "insane" and "madness" to create that stub, why dont you vfd it? It will look nice in your vfd list that will be used in some future arbitration...


 * Your plea for followin "the customary way" is nonsen, you just violated it by cuting in my text and writing in it. But its ok, i have no big issue with that. Futher, "the customary way" became customary primarly on writen books that cant hyperlink, unlike WP. If books could hyperlink, you can bet they would hyperlink to the right book and page, and also a description of the book, instead of just writing who wrote the bookin wich year, since that says almost nothing to those unfamiliar with the author.


 * Im not telling you to stop giving referens the old "book" way, i just want you to stop harrasing me for using a more informative version of giving referens! --Striver 00:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't contain articles re all the millions of books referenced here. It just can't. Now there IS an argument for providing links to references that have been turned into ebooks. However, those references should go outside Wikipedia, to online libraries, or to Wikisource. Not to articles, unless the book is very very notable or controversial. I think the Bible and the Qur'an make the cut. The books you've been citing don't. Zora 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, when people see book reference, they are suposed to be able to get information about the book, and they wont be able to get it if there is not a link to it. How are they supposed to know what biharul anwar, Nahj al-balagha or Sahih Bukhari is, and what discusions it has caused if they are not able to read the article about it?--Striver 15:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon's evaluation of Umar's character
An anon added a bit re Umar's character. It sure reads like a copyvio to me, but I can't find it on the web. It may be from a book. Can anyone else find it?

I moved that bit from the top to the Sunni views section, as a temporary measure. I don't think it's the place of an encyclopedia to make judgments about Umar's character. I could be wrong about the anon being a Sunni -- can the anon clarify? Where does that opinion come from? Is it a copyvio? Zora 02:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think I kinda agree with what the anon said, but I don't want opinions enshrined as fact. Zora 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Margoliouth
Striver, it seems to me that you just want that quote there to blacken Umar's name. That's a hundred-year-old book! I can't afford to buy it now, but to judge from the outraged comments I found while googling, and from the fact that Margoliouth's books are listed on an anti-Islamic website, I suspect that this Church of England minister had a somewhat ... um ... sceptical viewpoint towards Islam. I suspect that his books contain comments about Ali and Muhammad you might find offensive. It's distortion to take an antique quote and put it forward as if it represented the Western academic view. Please stop insisting on this nugget of malice. Zora 01:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bring me one Muslim scholar that dissmises his views as anti-Islamic. Or a non-Muslim such. I dont care for you beliving he is anti Muslim. Source it or stop it. See you in ArbCom. --Striver 04:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Threatening me? Indeed. Zora 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes i am. I am now working on the RFC and will present it in a few days. During the time, i hope you give me plenty of evidence of your bad behavior, for a future ArbCom. --Striver 06:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * why dont you guys refer to accepted mainstream academic texts, such as written by Hugh Kennedy, Fred Donner, Moojan Momen, etc.? (or even the critical editions of at-Tabari's histories that are being published by SUNY Press) Margoliouth unquestionably represents the traditional 'orientalist' perspective -- but more importantly, using a 100-year-old quote neglects all the research and investigation that has occurred in the last century. it's not professional and its not academic. if one of you thinks that `umar happened to be particularly bad, there's nothing wrong with stating that this viewpoint exists, but it really isnt the general academic perspective, which views `umar as one of the most significant early caliphs of islam -- whether or not he was a 'good' person is up to each individual to decide, but the accomplishments that occurred under his reign are undeniable ... instead of trying to deny things, just add your viewpoint and support it with facts -- dont ignore or delete other viewpoints, especially if they're more mainstream than your own. -dgl

dgl, please don't include me in the "you guys". I'm trying to stop Striver from using the 100-year-old quote. He wants to include it because he hates Umar, as he believes all good Shi'a should, and he wants to "prove" that Umar was a uniquely bad man. I have several books by Donner and one of the Tabari series (it's going to take me time to afford them all). No Hugh Kennedy -- looks interesting. Moojan Momen looks like a Baha'i author -- never heard of him till now. If you care about accuracy, please look in on Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shia Islam, Misconceptions about The Shia, and other articles now being hammered by the Soldiers of the Hidden Imam . Zora 01:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Striver, Zora brings up a good point and you only talked about sending her actions to RfC. Is this author's work of 100 years in the past representative about academic though on Umar? For its inclusion as fact it must be so. If it was representative of 100 years ago I wouldn't be against including it but saying "the view 100 years ago was..." If it was not the major view either time I still wouldn't fully be against including it but it must be shown as what it is. "Margoliouth, contrary to most academics of the time believe that Umar was X while other academics tended to think he was Y". Striver, don't just revert, discuss this here, Zora is a well educated woman who has shown a great deal of academic integrity in her times here. I am sure if you can present a compelling case that she would change her mind. Dialogue is key, so have it, we don't need revert wars. gren グレン 04:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really do not see how her point is good. She claims something, but brings absolutly no proofs of it.


 * The quote section made three claims:


 * some western scholar claimed there is no evidence of Umar doing anything exraordinary valiant.
 * some western scholar claimed Umar fled the bettle of Hunain, proving him not being valiant.
 * some western scholar claimed Umar was cruel.


 * now, Zora claimed that it is not true that some western cholars hold this beliefs. I replied that if she would bring 3 scholars not agreeing with those claims, ill remove the claim that some western scholars belive that. Zora did not event present a single one. Not even one.


 * Umar did many things during his caliphat, im not saying he did not, neither is the quote. It simply stated he was not valiant, rather he fled the field in at least one occasion. Zora claims that not even some scholars have that view, but she does not even prsent one single scholar holding a diffrent view. That behavior is very objectionable, and worthy of a RFC.


 * In either case, i have changed the text, it now does not even claim that some western scholars hold that view, even if Zora have not presented one single scholar contesting that, not even a single one.--Striver 19:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But Margoliouth is not a Shi'a, so enrolling him in the Shi'a view of Umar is completely wrong. You are trying to use Wikipedia to ARGUE for the Shi'a POV and that's just not OK. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Now the Margoliouth quote might fit in a section titled "Academic views of Umar" or "Western views of Umar" -- except that I don't think most academics bother to have a "view" of Umar. They don't care about judging him as "good" or "bad". They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence, and argue about the meaning or motivation of some of his actions. None of them credit any of the wilder Shi'a invective about Umar, I can tell you that!

Striver, it seems to me that you're pulling all these old quotes from Shi'a websites, without having read the original, or knowing anything about academic Islamic scholarship. You seem to be favoring highly-colored quotes from Christian commentators on Islam, who had a negative view of ALL Muslim historical figures, and singling out any of their comments that apply to the people that Shi'a hate. In that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to make people think that these long-dead authors agreed with the Shi'a, when in fact they criticized Muhammad and Ali as well as Abu Bakr and Umar. Zora 02:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora made three points:

1: It should be moved into a "non-Muslim" section. I agree.

2: Most western scholars dont agree with Margoliouth. No evidence provided for that statement, therefore, ignored as original research.

3: Margoliouth holds a anti-Muslim bias, he says equaly pejorativ things about Ali and Muhammad. No evidence provided for that statement, therefore, ignored as original research.


 * --Striver 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora is talking nonsense
Zora wrote:


 * ''Now the Margoliouth quote might fit in a section titled "Academic views of Umar" or "Western views of Umar" -- except that I don't think most academics bother to have a "view" of Umar. They don't care about judging him as "good" or "bad". They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence

Note: She claimed that:


 * 1) the Margoliouth quote could fitt in a section titled "Western views of Umar" except that she don't think most academics bother to have a "view" of Umar.


 * 1) They don't care about judging him as "good" or "bad". They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence

The first point implies that there is no point in having a "Western views of Umar", and that im tring to put in someone that has a "bad" view of Umar. Implying, that Margoliouth has a "bad" view of Umar.

In point two, she continues that most scholars just present what he did, implying that margolioutht did not do that. Lets se what the quote really says:

Compare that to the quote:


 * ''"we have no record of any occasion on which Umar displayed remarkable courage, though many examples are at hand of his cruelty and bloodthirstiness; at the battle of Hunain he ran away, and on another occasion owed his life to the good nature of an enemy." Mohammed and the Rise of Islam

Now, does that quote label him "good" or "bad", or does it just give a description? It does not attribute one present any such opinion on Umar, it just stats simple facts. It does not say "i belive umar is bad" or "Umar was good guy". No, it simply iterates his characteristics.

Remeber, Zora said that: "They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence", and that is exactly what the quote does!

It begins by talking about "we have no record of any occasion" and than iterates What he did! It does JUST what Zora wanted! Shame on you, Zora! --Striver 04:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit
Im removing this part:
 * ''They analyze his decisions primarily in military and political terms, and are less concerned with the religious or character judgments that interest Muslims.

If it implies that they dont belive Umar is releavant to their personal life, then it is a obvious statements, since they are not Muslims.

If it implies that Non-Muslim scholars pay no intrest on Umar as a person outside of him being a political figure, then it is false.

I am therefore removing it.--Striver 12:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora uses dirty tricks
Zora wrote:


 * ''You seem to be favoring highly-colored quotes from Christian commentators on Islam, who had a negative view of ALL Muslim historical figures, and singling out any of their comments that apply to the people that Shi'a hate. In that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to make people think that these long-dead authors agreed with the Shi'a, when in fact they criticized Muhammad and Ali as well as Abu Bakr and Umar. Zora 02:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, for the record, Zora claims:


 * 1) I choose a Muslim hater
 * 2) I singled out the quote where he "hates" Umar, when he in fact hates Muhamamd and Ali as well
 * 3) I did so "intentionally deceptive"

This is outraguos! Every single point she raised is fundamentaly flawed!

She just accused me of the worst things possible! I really hope she will get a punishment for this.

Now, lets prove her wrong:

As for point one "choose a Muslim hater":

britannica.com writes:


 * ''David Samuel Margoliouth
 * ''born Oct. 17, 1858, London, Eng.
 * ''died March 22, 1940, London


 * ''English scholar whose pioneering efforts in Islamic studies won him a near-legendary reputation among Islamic peoples AND Oriental scholars of Europe.

Note that britannica.com states he won "near-legendary reputation among Islamic peoples"

Would a Islam hater achiev that? Or is Zora talking non-sense in a atempt to discedit me?

britannica.com continues:


 * ''At Baghdad and in the surrounding area, he came to be regarded as more knowledgeable on Islamic matters than most Arab scholars.

Shame on you Zora!


 * ''His works on the history of Islam, which became the standard treatises in English for at least a generation, include Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (1905),

Shame on you Zora!

As for point two, "I singled out the quote where he "hates" Umar"

Now, lets see what Margoliouth wrote on the preface of that book:


 * ''The standpoint from which this book is written is suggested by the title of the series, Heroes of the Nations. I regard Mohammed as a GREAT MAN, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty,-the construction of a state and an empire out of the Arab tribes. I have endeavored, in recounting the mode in which he accomplished this, to do justice to his intellectual ability and to observe towards him the respectful attitude which his GREATNESS deserves; but otherwise this book DOES NOT aim at being either an apology or an indictment. Indeed neither sort of work is now required. The charming and eloquent treatise of Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, is probably the best achievement in the way of an apology for Mohammed that is ever likely to be composed in a European language, whereas indictments are very numerous-some dignified and moderate others fanatical and virulent. These works are ordinarily designed to show the superiority or inferiority of Mohammed's religion to some other system; an endeavour from which it is hoped that this book will be found to be ABSOLUTLEY FREE.

- From the Preface

Do note that my Umar Quote comes fron this very book!

SHAME ON YOU ZORA!!!

I hope that clearly addresses whether Margoliouth was unbiased, islam hater or anything of the sort. Further, he was not, NOT, NOT a biased and obsolet gook, as Zora tries to imply.

as for point three, "I did so "intentionally deceptive".

How could i do that when point one and two are false?

Could a admin please admonish Zora for this blatantly wrong and unjust try to misscredit me, and going so far as calling me "intentionally deceptive" ? May God and the admins give you what you deserve.--Striver 05:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, you're being a tad histrionic. Zora said "[i]n that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to make people think that these long-dead authors agreed with the Shi'a, when in fact they criticized Muhammad and Ali as well as Abu Bakr and Umar." It wasn't a personal attack so please drop that issue.  You have provided information that is useful in this discussion and that is good.  As I have read below Zora responded with a reasonable view.  This is not a matter of you being right and Zora being wrong Striver and I don't think any admin will admonish her.  She has not been trying to discredit you but just show that she doesn't believe your source.  I haven't read the literature on this... so I really don't know what is correct... but, if you look at the debate Zora is bringing up good points.  I think what you provided about Britannica and being liked by Muslims says something about the author, but it doesn't seem that you show that this quote is representative on the scholarly view of Umar... and, sadly, it makes it harder to sort out since we do know your point of view, and miraculously this quote fits it.  So, I really don't know Striver, but this is not something to admonish Zora about... I'm sure she's thinking about the information given to her. gren グレン 14:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is calling me someone that uses "intentionally deceptive" not a personal attack?


 * "''[i]n that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to...


 * That was not addresing me?


 * "[i]n that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to make people think that these long-dead authors agreed with the Shi'a, when in fact they criticized Muhammad and Ali as well as Abu Bakr and Umar."


 * I did not try to do that, i simply claimed they agreed with the Shia view of Umar in this regard. Which he evidently did!


 * "[i]n that sense, the quotes are intentionally deceptive -- you're trying to make people think that these long-dead authors agreed with the Shi'a, when in fact they criticized Muhammad and Ali as well as Abu Bakr and Umar."


 * Gren, what makes me angry is that she just gets things out of her hat, and demands it to be accepted as facts. First she tried to argue that Margoliouth was a nobody, even though he helped to shape the western view of Islam. Then she goes to claim Margoliouth is a biased Islam hater, when he infact haves "near legendary status" among Muslims according to britanica. Then for a third out of the hat comment, she sais that Margoliouth also hated Ali and Muhammad, when he infact used his preface to hail Muhammad! That is three nonsensical, out of the hat, she has no idea what she is talking about, dead wrong statments in the same topic!


 * She is here confronted with a issue she does not like. I have given flawless refernce. She does not like it. So what does she do? Does she bring a scholarly quote to balance it? No. I invited her to bring some quotes to balance it, but she did nothing of the sort. Did she try to refute it? No. i told her that if she brough refutations of it, i would stop. That would have been the normal and civil ways to do it, the Wiki way. Bring sources and make your statment.


 * But what does Zora do? She keeps deleting it and gives out of the pocket nonsens arguments like "Margoliouth is old" or "Margoliouth is biased" or "Margoliouth hated Muhammad also".


 * I mean, c'mon, is it really ok to bring fourth original reseach arguments like that, refuse to source it, and then calling ME somone that uses "intentionally deceptive" methods? That really pisses me off!


 * And no, he was not "Shia", he did not hate Abu Bakr. From the same book:
 * (Abu Bakr) was a man of kindly and complaisant disposition, of charming manners and ready wit... his company much sought afterPDF: p84


 * See? Margoliouth repects Muhammad, and gives good words about Abu Bakrs characteristics. And i agree with him, Abu Bakr was smart, eloquent and charming. But not Umar, Umar was a brute, savage when given the upper hand, a coward when beliving he is in danger. I mean c'mon, we are talking about the man that killed his own daughter with his cold hands! That is also what Margoliouth writes, But Zora refuses to belive it. To Zora, anyone that agrees with the Shia view of Umar must hate Islam, Ali, Muhammad and also Abu Bakr. When it is evidently not so! Umar deserves the harsh words, that is why he gets harsh words when other do not get it!


 * Zora is such a bigot that when she finds sombody that does not agree with her, she starts to make up arguments and present them as facts, even if it contradicts reality! I mean, if Zora was sincere, she could easly have found out that Margoliouth is not a Islam hating bigot, but she insisted on having that view, anything to discredit what she does not like. I mean, she could at least have refained from making up alegations against the quote!


 * I strongly object to you for not admonishing Zora for giving made up arguments, that happened to totaly contradict reality. I Also object that you endors Zora implying that i use "intentionally deceptive" methods, when in fact she has no idea of what she is talking about what so ever.


 * And to remind everyione: Zora has yet so far not presented a single western scholar that contradicts the Margoliouth quote. --Striver 15:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Zoras answer
You haven't read Margoliouth and neither have I. I would have to order his books over the net. I'm going by comments I noticed on various Islamic websites, dismissing him as a Christian "missionary", by the fact that he is featured on several anti-Islamic websites, and by comments made by W. Montgomery Watt, who stated that Margoliouth was sympathetic to the Muhammad of Mecca and disapproving of the Muhammad of Medina. I could be wrong, but so could you. I stand by my words that you're picking up quotes from works you haven't read just because they confirm your preconceived notions about Umar, and I stand by my much more extensive reading in the academic literature.

As for the alleged cowardice of Umar -- one Islamic website has a quote from Ali that runs thus:


 * Also, the comment of `Ali ibn Abi Talib on the migration of `Umar has to be written by letters of light on the pages of history:


 * I never knew anyone migrated unless secretly except `Umar, for he, when he resolved on migration, girt on his sword and slung over his bow and grasped in his hand its arrows, and went to the Ka`bah where in its quadrangle were the chiefs of the Quraysh, and he went round about it seven times, then prayed two rak`ahs at the Station of Ibrahim, and went to each, one by one, in their circles and said, “May the faces be foul! If anyone desires that his mother be bereaved of him and his child be left an orphan and his wife a widow, and if there be such a one, let him meet me behind this valley.” But no one followed him.


 * Thus, while almost all the other Muslims left Makkah secretly, `Umar publicly declared that he was proceeding to Madinah. He even challenged the Quraysh tribe that if any one of them had the courage to stop him, he was welcome to try his strength with him. Not even a single member of the Quraysh had the courage to prevent him from completing what he was set on doing, and no one accepted the challenge to measure swords with him.

This is the guy you want to depict as a coward? When Ali doesn't seem to think that he was?

Hmmm ... let's see, I found this site that claims to refute your claim that Umar fled at Hunayn, and checked the references it gives. I confirmed the reference to Ibn Sa'd in my own copy (Umar stood firm). I can't confirm the hadith references, because I don't have a complete Bukhari (which would cost about $100, it seems).

I really don't understand this insistence on throwing mud at Umar. He could have misunderstood Muhammad's message and taken the Muslims down the wrong path (not that I'm saying that he did) even if he were brave, smart, charming, etc. His personal qualities don't necessarily have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of his ideas. Zora 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets start from all over. You wrote:


 * ''You haven't read Margoliouth and neither have I. I would have to order his books over the net.

Here is his book: PDF


 * ''I'm going by comments I noticed on various Islamic websites, dismissing him as a Christian "missionary", by the fact that he is featured on several anti-Islamic websites, and by comments made by W. Montgomery Watt, who stated that Margoliouth was sympathetic to the Muhammad of Mecca and disapproving of the Muhammad of Medina.

Yes, isnt that typical of western scholars? To endorse some things and dissprove of some other things? This shows that Margoliouth was not biased, rather he commented on what he saw. If he liked Muhamamds actions, he endosed it. If he didnt like some other actions, he dissmised it. That is the perfect non-biased non-muslim we want. Now, of course i dont like him dissmisng divine revelation as a epilecptic seizure, but that is not relevant to this issue. He belived Umar was a coward, we know he is not biased, and his quote stands unchallenged. Even if you do find a challenging quote, his quote still stands.


 * ''I could be wrong, but so could you. I stand by my words that you're picking up quotes from works you haven't read just because they confirm your preconceived notions about Umar, and I stand by my much more extensive reading in the academic literature.

I have no problem with you saying that you dont think i have read his book, but please refrain from making up stuff and implying that the only reason i found a negative Umar quote is since Margoliouth was a biased Islam hater that hated Abu Bakr, Ali and Muhammad. And also, you owe me an apology from accusing me of using "intentionally deceptiv" methods, implying that i was cherry picking from a Islam hater, specialy since you hardly know how he is, or read anythin form him.


 * ''As for the alleged cowardice of Umar -- one Islamic website has a quote from Ali that runs thus:

Zora, you have always demaned that i should use only non-biased sources. When i gave you sources from both shia and Sunni sites claiming it as a fact that there is more than 100 000 sahab, you adamantly refused to let me add "muslims belive there where over 100 000 Sahaba" and filed an RFC against me.

When i quote Shia sources, you dissmis it as fables, even though Sunnis agree. You have always had a demand for presenting western non-Muslim sources. So, given that, what are you doing?

Are you giving a Sunni site to refute as westerner that agrees with the Shai view?


 * I gave that site as a reference to the Bukhari cites. I was able to check the quote from Ibn Sa'd, since I have the book and yes, it checked out. Ibn Sa'd is one of the four main sources for early Islamic history. If you throw him out as "Sunni", you're going to have to throw out Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, and Waqidi as well. Academic historians are not going to accept this. Zora 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that as a evidence of you not having anyting else to come with. You would have me banned if i insisted on having a Shia site refuting a Sunni-Western view, but you have no problem bringing a Sunni site to refute a Shia-Western view. why are you bringin evidence from islamonline.net, aka Salafi center?

C'mon, stop it. Give me a Western quote to prove that non-Muslims do not belive Umar was a coward, dont give me Sunni pov. The only thing that is good for is for the "sunni view of Umar" article.


 * Non-Muslims do not believe that Umar is a coward because there is no mention of that judgment in the many books re early Islamic history I have so far read. I don't have all, but I have most of the currently accepted major authors. You are repeating your tactic of making a way-out-there assertion and then demanding that I come up with cites to prove the negative. On the contrary, the burden of proof is on YOU. If you want to argue that academic historians support the Shi'a view of Umar, then you have to come up with something other than a 100-year-old cite from a Christian clergyman. Zora 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Also, the comment of `Ali ibn Abi Talib on the migration of `Umar has to be written by letters of light on the pages of history:


 * ''I never knew anyone migrated unless secretly except `Umar, for he, when he resolved on migration, girt on his sword and slung over his bow and grasped in his hand its arrows, and went to the Ka`bah where in its quadrangle were the chiefs of the Quraysh, and he went round about it seven times, then prayed two rak`ahs at the Station of Ibrahim, and went to each, one by one, in their circles and said, “May the faces be foul! If anyone desires that his mother be bereaved of him and his child be left an orphan and his wife a widow, and if there be such a one, let him meet me behind this valley.” But no one followed him.


 * ''Thus, while almost all the other Muslims left Makkah secretly, `Umar publicly declared that he was proceeding to Madinah. He even challenged the Quraysh tribe that if any one of them had the courage to stop him, he was welcome to try his strength with him. Not even a single member of the Quraysh had the courage to prevent him from completing what he was set on doing, and no one accepted the challenge to measure swords with him.

First of all, Umar hade protection from his tribe. Ali and Muhammad had not. It is no diplay of courage to ask for a fight when you have your entire tribe giving you protection, and also being a champion wrestler at the same time. Read this Bukhari :

"Who goes with you," asked Abu Jahl of Umayya. "He is Sa'ad," said Umayya. Then Abu Jahl turned to Sa'd and said, "You people have given shelter to the Sabaean". the non-Muslims of Mecca called Muhammad and the Muslims "Sabaeans", "the apostates".

I cannot bear to see you step into the Ka'ba. By my God, you would not have returned home, had not Umayah accompanied you." Sa'd replied, "If you let us not perform the Hajj, mind, we will stop your Medina route. He meant the trade route to Syria.

Se how brave he is when having protection? chalenging and stuff?


 * ''This is the guy you want to depict as a coward? When Ali doesn't seem to think that he was?

The narration claim that Umar was the last one leaving Medina, when we both know that Ali waited in Madina, after having risked his life in Muhammads bed, without clan protection. why would Ali claim that Umar was last to leave, when he himself waited in Medina to fix Muhamamds (pbuh) stuff? The narration smells fabricated.

And either way, having clan protection and picking fights does not make him brave, it makes him a brute that knows when he can pick fights. Sleeping in a deat-bed unprotected is bravery.

And either way, it does mean absolutly nothing, we are talking about western scholars, not the Sunni view, you are quoteing a Sunni that wished he was Umar.


 * ''Hmmm ... let's see, I found this site that claims to refute your claim that Umar fled at Hunayn, and checked the references it gives. I confirmed the reference to Ibn Sa'd in my own copy (Umar stood firm). I can't confirm the hadith references, because I don't have a complete Bukhari (which would cost about $100, it seems).

Once again you present a Sunni apologetic as evidence. Why is that not against your own principles? I can already see that the writer is lying reagarding what Hajar means, so i give him low or none credidbility regarding the rest of his excuse, not that it would matter. The information in that article could maybe do in a "Sunni view of Umar", but it has no value whatsover in this issue. You have claimed that the quote is unrepresentative of even some western scholars. You cant do that by presenting a Sunni view. You know that, and i dont get why you are wasting our time with that kind of non-sense. Clearly the western quote does not agree with the Sunni view, you presenting a Sunni apologetic means absolutly nothing. We are not here to figure out what he did in hunayn, even less so what sunnis think he did in hunayn. Give me a western quote, or stop wasting time!


 * ''I really don't understand this insistence on throwing mud at Umar. He could have misunderstood Muhammad's message and taken the Muslims down the wrong path (not that I'm saying that he did) even if he were brave, smart, charming, etc. His personal qualities don't necessarily have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of his ideas. Zora 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not "throwing mud at Umar", im insisting on givin the right picture. You dont want any of the faults Umar did in the main page, even if Sunnis agree. It is unfairly shuved into the Shia view articel, as if only shia bevlived that. That is going to stpo from now on.

You said it yourself: "His personal qualities don't necessarily have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of his ideas.". Im not after discrediting his rightueness with mud, i want the truth to be represented, not some watered down version, and shuving the rest in the Shiva view.

I have no problem in givin merits where they belong there.

I insisted to include the list of people Abu Bakr so rightuesly liberated, but you did not want it there. I have no problem with saying Abu Bakr was smart and eloquent and charming.

Uthman did not let go of Islam, even though is uncle beat him for it. Khalid was a great military strateg. Yazid was.... was... was... never mind.

Im not alergic to giving good qualities when they are deserved, at the same time i want bad qualities to be there. Margoliouth hade the same aproach, Abu Bakr is called charming, Muhammad is called inteligent and Umar is Umar.

why are you insiting on not having that quote there? You have still not brought forth a single western not agreeing with him, but refuse to have him as a representant of some western.

You still owe me a apology for saying i use "intentionally deceptive" methods. --Striver 16:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Zora was using those Sunni quotes for inclusion... she was just giving another to show that not everyone hated Umar... I think that was the point. Thanks for the link to the Margoliouth book, that may help some things... it is also on an anti-Islamic site... as you can expect from anything called Muhammadenism...  Striver, I'm still not sure why Margoliouth's work is representative of the modern Western view.  Especially just that passage.  I don't think most modern Western thinkers are calling him a coward or a hero... he's just Umar and he was a Caliph. But, thanks for that site, it has interesting books linked. gren グレン 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quick aside. Zora, I wonder if those pages could be used as scans for a DP project? gren グレン 21:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't access the scans. I have tried numerous times, with two browsers (Firefox and IE), and all I get is an error message from the site, page not available. (I had tried to access those books BEFORE Striver posted the URL.) I'd put the scans through DP quick as a wink if I could access them. I dunno what is going on. I have the latest Adobe Reader update, but Firefox will NEVER read any PDFs. Usually I can access them through IE, but in this case IE fails me too. Zora 21:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have e-mailed you the book... so, now we can tell if it's an error with your internet browsers or with your acrobat. They aren't exactly scans... so.. I'm not sure if DP would accept them... but, they should be facsimile's of the original... if you can open them then please do and show me the DP project... I'll do some proofreading. gren グレン 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I found something intersting. Go to this book on the site you provided. Go to the PDF version (or very near the end on Html) page 120/122 and see the quote about Omar... then look at the footnote. That quote is by William Muir and says "I need hardly say that this sentiment is entirely at variance with the liberal and tolerant policy of Omar." So, how would we interpret something like that? He was a very important scholar... and, I had never heard of Margoliouth until now but Muir I did know of... my point is... Zora was trying to say you weren't representing the whole picture by choosing Margoliouth... and, well, there's a part of the picture you're not showing. One quote does not mean it's representative. And all my quote is trying to prove is that... we can't just accept your assertion that that was the prominent view of Umar. gren グレン 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

respons
Sorry for taking long to answer, i have been doing edits on political issues.

Ok. Gren, you wrote:


 * ''I don't think Zora was using those Sunni quotes for inclusion... she was just giving another to show that not everyone hated Umar... I think that was the point. Especially just that passage.

Gren, what Zora did was to give links where Sunni praised Umar. We are talking about the non-Muslim view of Umar, and what Sunnis think about Umar is irrelevant. Of course Sunnis have a positive view of Umar, i dont understand what she thinks that will prove.

''Thanks for the link to the Margoliouth book, that may help some things... it is also on an anti-Islamic site... as you can expect from anything called Muhammadenism... Striver, I'm still not sure why Margoliouth's work is representative of the modern Western view.

Yes, its on a anti Muslim site. That does not mean anything, i have already demostrated that Margoliouth was not a Anti Islamic bigott, he praised many of Muhammads qualities, and also talked well about Abu Bakr. However, he did not belive in Muhammads prophecy, not surpring since he was a prominent Christian. That made him look at the whole issue with the aim of rejecting or even dicrediting Muhammads divine claims. For example, he atributed his revelations to epilepsi. And that is the reason his work is on a anti-Muslim site. However, i want to stress that this view did not extend to general earthly qualities. In other words. If you want a guy that discredits Islam divine claims, then Margoliouth is the guy for you, he had a christian bias. But at the same time, he is neutral on non-religious issues, like whether Muhamamd was inteligen or not, or whether he was a good politician or not or whether Abu Bakr was charming or not. And it is in that sense that Margoliouth view on Umar is unbiased.

The quote is making comments on whether Umar is valiant or not, and then on his "bloodthirstiness". None of those issues are related to religion. Further, he does not just say "Umar is a coward" or "Umar is cruel", rather that there are no records of Umar displaying great valor, and many of him being ruthless. So he is talking about sources, clearly meaning he did not belive or know of the Sunni hadith Zora is talking about.

But foremost: None of what i just wrote matters! I am not here to talk bout whether Margoliouth was right or not, just present his views.

Now, Zora object, saying his views are not represantative. I say "ok, show me someone that does not agree with him". Zora does not do that.

Rather, she goes on to say that non-muslins have no view on Umar, wich is silly, considering that we a talking about Margoliouth view.

But even if Margoliouth views where not representative, the other ones havnig a "non-view" or the opposite view, it would not mean that Margoliouth is not to be represented. In the unproven case of him holding a minority view, he still holds a minority view, and still needs to be represented as such.

However, do note that Zora has not proven that the Margoliouth view is a monirity view.


 * ''I don't think most modern Western thinkers are calling him a coward or a hero... he's just Umar and he was a Caliph.

You are entitled to that belief. However, we are not dealing with beliefs, we are dealing with sourced statements. Anyhow, ill repeat myself: Even if most did not hold a view, and only concluded he was a Caliph, the alledged minority view of Margoliouth would still need to be represented. He is notable and his views count, there is no way around that.

Again, do note that there are no sourced evidence caliming he held a minority view, only the oppinion of Wikipedia editors.


 * ''Striver, I found something intersting. Go to this book on the site you provided.  Go to the PDF version (or very near the end on Html) page 120/122 and see the quote about Omar... then look at the footnote.  That quote is by William Muir and says "I need hardly say that this sentiment is entirely at variance with the liberal and tolerant policy of Omar."  So, how would we interpret something like that?

Well, the Muir quote is from 1880. The Margoliouth is from 1905. If the Muir quote is to be presented as evidence, then that renders the argumet of the Margoliouth quote being old as voided.

Anyhow, even if the Margoliouth quote where to old to be relevant, wich they are not, it still would need to be represented as an "old view". As you told yourself, Muir is very famous and meaningfull still to this day.

Even if Muir contradicted Margoliouth, it would not warant the removal of the Margoliouth quote, mearly the need of both views being included. Further, Muir and Margoliouth are partialy addresing diffent issues. Margoliouth is addresing valor in combat, while Muir is addresing whether he was liberal or not. Possibly regarding him being "bloodthirsty" and "tolerant" that they differ.


 * ''He was a very important scholar... and, I had never heard of Margoliouth until now but Muir I did know of...

The sources i quoted claims he was very notable and learned. We not having heard of him dosnt mean much, does it? unless you are educated in the field that is... I mean, look at Zora, she claimed Nasr was not notable, yet still he is associated with the Unated Nations.


 * ''my point is... Zora was trying to say you weren't representing the whole picture by choosing Margoliouth... and, well, there's a part of the picture you're not showing. One quote does not mean it's representative. And all my quote is trying to prove is that... we can't just accept your assertion that that was the prominent view of Umar. gren グレン 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bro, Gren, you just did what i have beged Zora to do for ages: Give me a courced quote.

Now, we can have both qoutes in, having both vies represented. Im going to do that. Peace! --Striver 12:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But, I'm not using that as an argument Striver... having two quotes just thrown out there isn't necessarily the best way to deal with this. Plus, neither are modern sources.  I only found that quote to show that it was not safe to quote Margoliouth as representative.  I don't think quoting both without any real context (within the author's work, and the author in the scheme of scholarship) really shows anything about Umar.  So... gren グレン 23:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslim historians
Striver, it is infuriating that you insist on including that Margoliouth quote as representative of non-Muslim thought about Umar when you have not read the work from which it is excepted, nor, indeed, ANY works of Western Islamic scholarship. If I tell you that the Western historians I have read -- dozens of them, by this point -- say nothing in support of that jaundiced view of Umar, you dismiss me as "POV" and demand quotes. It is your usual tactic. You assert something that no sane person would believe, and then demand quotes to disprove it. Academics have better things to do than to go around disproving kook theories.

You are going to have to find something besides a 100-year-old quote to show that non-Muslim scholars disapprove of Umar. Zora 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam is at the weakest
Look around.....

The West can do anything. We can just look.

Iraq was under siege, we still go to haj few thousand miles away.

Palestenian killed almost everyday for decades. But we still go to haj.

Selfish muslims. anly think about yourself. Go to haj and youre purify.

What about your unity? Who is your leader?

You are disunited and leaderless.

And arguing about the very thing happened more than a millenia ago, where nobody can assurely provide you with any truth.

So you will be arguing and arguing until 2 or 3 millenia has come to pass....

We are still leaderless and weak.

Why? none refered to the Koran for reference. It provides perfect solution. Muhammad pbuh brought up Islam in 23 years...why cant we... billions of people even do it in more than a millenia?

Go back to Koran....Words of God is your saviour. Not oral traditions that changes thru the ages.

Becareful - Place your trust to the worthy - God.

Salam

-- unsigned comment by user 60.49.39.50

Zora
Zora, you moved views that you know are not held only by Shi'as to the "Shi'a view" section. You know that is incorrect, so i assumed you wount repreat that. --Striver 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Striver, your purpose is clear: insert stories that cast Umar in a bad light whenever you can. I agree that Sunni accept the stories re infanticide and the scolding of Hafsa as accurate; however, their placement is polemical. They make much more sense in the Shi'a section. Furthermore, they interrupt the flow of the narrative for casual readers who just want to find out who Umar was. Zora 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I decided to leave the Hafsa story there and end it with Sunni and Shi'a interpretations. Zora 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, i see it this way: Its not Shi'a pov and does not belong in the Shi'a pov section. A Shi'a pov of the even belongs there, but not the event in it self. That is obvious. You moving non-Shi'a pov to the Shi'a pov section is a matter of bad faith in my book. The NPOV stays in the main article, the Shi'a pov goes in to the Shi'a pov section, and the Sunni pov goes to the Sunni pov section. --Striver 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora, what you aim to do is to put everything that is critical to Umar in the Shi'a view section, even if the material is NPOV. That is not the correct way of doing things. It is true that Shi'a are the ones that are most critical to Umar, but NPOV and uncontested information remains where all other NPOV and uncontested informatin is: In the main article. --Striver 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anachronism
Why does it state that Sophronius was the *Greek Orthodox* Patriarch of Jerusalem, nearly four centuries before the Great Schism? He was simply the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Monsieurtode 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked and you're right. I'll change it. Zora 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomination
Why Umer nominated Abu Baker as Khalifa despite Profit Muhammed announced Ali (A.S) as Mawla to all by the order of Allah after the last Sermon at Ghadeer Khum? unsigned comment by user 195.229.241.187

STRIVER,

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)

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)

'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)

Regarding alcohol and Umar's character
Dear Sunni brothers, I have read your books and found out that all you have heard about shias are actually rumours. I would like to have a healthy discussion regarding the companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) with you.

Is it true that you regard the Companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) next in importance to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself? Is it also true that you regard Sahih-Muslim and Sahih-Bukhari the most authentic books on Hadith compilation and the most authentic books after the Holy Quran? If yes, then I would like to say that in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim, it is stated that during the Treaty of Hudaibya, Hazrat Umar questioned the Holy Prophet that isnt He truly the Prophet of Allah as he had promised them that they would perform pilgrimage. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) then asked him if He (PBUH) had promised pilgrimage the same year. Hazrat Umar replied that he had not. This questioning shows that Hazrat Umar had started negative questioning against the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) whereas Allah has prohibited anyone to raise their voices above the voice of the Prophet (PBUH). This is found in the Holy Quran : 49:2. Another event found in Sahih al-Bukhari and al-Muslim is "the Calamity of Thursday" in which the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had arranged a meeting with his Companions in his house exactly 3 days before he died. He asked for a bone and inkpot so that he could make a statement for them which would prevent them from straying from the right path. The companions differed among themselves. Hazrat Umar went as far as by saying that the Prophet was under the spell of the pain and that they had the Quran which was sufficient for them. The Prophet was so angered by this that he ordered them out of his house. When this question was asked from my Sunni brothers they replied that Hazrat Umar recognized that the Prophet's (PBUH) pain was advancing and he wanted to comfort him and relieve him from any pressure. This is a totally illogical argument as the Holy Quran states that The Holy Prophet (PBUH) speaks of what Allah tells him to and not of his own. I have so far been through these two events whereas at least a dozen are present with me. I am requiring a reasonable explanation for these questions then I would proceed with more. I would request that you answer these questions without being biased and be using logical reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.201.195 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 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)

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)
 * al-islam.org isn't a reliable nor objective source;
 * 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;
 * 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);
 * 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 REDACTED SPAM LINK

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)

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

Fact or opinion?
I feel that opinions are presented in this piece as fact, for example Although Umar was a very well respected and honourable man, and came from a family of noble descent, he was just like the rest of Quraysh.‘Omar was like most of Quraysh before Islam, yet after Islam he became one of the greatest men to walk this earth

By adding "Muslims beleive" to the final sentence one credability could be re-gained. The rest of the paragraph would need some work as well.

At the moment this reads like a Muslim view of Umar's life not the secular view one would expect from Wikipedia. Whilst the Muslim view should be included it needs to be qualified.

We can do better than this. --DaviMurph (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Umar the name doesn't Mean "Life"
The word of Umar عمَر doesn't mean Life as what been writen, Because umr is diffrent than umar, the both has the same look but it's diffrent in speaking, Umr عمر means life, But UMAR عمَر means who live longer, or who has long life, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.139.222.193 (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please change his birthplace
He wasn't born in Saudi Arabia it didn't exist!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.213.222 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)