Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (6 delete, 7 keep, 2 merge, 1 abstain). Eugene van der Pijll 15:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab
Delete-The Shia "view" necessitates deletion. The Shia are a 10-15% sect in the Islamic world. Their theological and historical views deserve as much they represent: 10-15%. A good encyclopedia does not allow theological partisanship to dominate its pages. The entries for Jesus and Christianity do not contain "refutations" by Muslims, nor criticisms of the majority by minority sects such as the Monophysites of old Catholicism. Why then should the Shia view be held in such high regard? The vast majority of the Islamic community views the history of Umar in diametrical opposition to the Shia. That is to state, the Sufis, Sunnis, Salafis, Ibadis, and Kharwarij.

Another of Striver's attempts to use Wikipedia as a Shi'a soapbox. The Shi'a view of Umar is well-represented in the current version of the Umar article. The only material missing from the Umar article, but present in this one, are the cut-and-pasted hadith, or oral traditions, lifted from other websites. Hadith are often of dubious historical value and should not presented as "true" without further qualification. Zora 10:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Coment Smear campaign - Everything in that article is not represented in the Umar article. The Umar article contains a mere stup of what and why shia belive as they do.
 * Delete without looking at the relevant articles in a lot of detail, the approach adopted by this author presents all sorts of problems. Ultimately, with every controversial figure, we could end up having seperate pages for supporters' views and detractors' views.  Anything useful should be moved to the main article on Umar. PatGallacher 11:51, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, aint that a great argument: "lets delet the shia pov, otherwise, it might spread"
 * Not delet I dont get you folks. First we had a Shia version of him on the main page, but that could not be tolerated, so we moved it to its own article. Now you want to delet it to? --Striver 15:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a good article showing what the Shia's think of Umar, what is wrong with that? --Ya Ali 19:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does seem that Zora, having tried to keep most of the Shia material from the main article, is now trying to delete the separate article that was created in response.  The current Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab is, however, bloated, and in serious need of attention.  At the moment it virtually reproduces the main article, and adds the relevant material.  It should be cut down to what it says: the Shia view. Biographical information can be found in the main article. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't want to keep Shi'a views out of the Umar article -- I want to keep them from dominating the Umar article. I think all of Striver's accusations against Umar are listed there at the end -- all that's gone are the endless hadith dumps he keeps inserting in articles. That is a pietistic mode of argument and not very encyclopedic. Striver cites hadith that he thinks prove his point; a Sunni would cite different hadith; then general mayhem ensues, as the Shi'a and the Sunni try to blacken the names and veracity of the various transmitters of the oral traditions. Meanwhile, academic historians watch from the sidelines and say, "Well, hadith are extremely dubious historical material, to be handled with caution." I think that part of the problem is that Striver does not really know how to make an argument to a non-Muslim. He presents a hadith with a "so-there" attitude, and the reader is supposed to divine from the hadith exactly what it is trying to prove, and contra whom. I have sometimes been able to replace or supplement Striver's hadith with more discursive explanations -- with which he often agrees -- based on outside reading. But if you don't know what he's trying to prove, or the context of the argument, his hadith are completely opaque. Zora 23:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever isn't copied back into the original Umar article. After comparing the pages, it seems redundant. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 17:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Coment I agree with you 100%. Problem is, Zora does not. She does not want stuff that shia and Sunni agree that Umar did on the main ppage, simply because it ruins her prose or since it "does not fitt the general sunni view of Umar". So i have no other chooise than reetell his biography, with the part she refuses to have on the main page. If she wants to add those episodes on the main page, i whold be delighted...
 * Keep. "I disagree with the religious viewpoint described by this article" ain't enough for deletion, and the topic is certainly one on which there is ample non-original research.Nandesuka 18:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per PatGallacher; the Umar article is the place to present varying views about Umar. If you can't agree on how to do that fairly, the solution is to find a compromise, not to create a new article.  Dcarrano 18:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge next year.     20:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * POV fork; Shia views are already mentioned in Umar, while a hadith-by-hadith summary of Shia arguments (or indeed Sunni ones) is unencyclopedic. Delete (see below). - Mustafaa 23:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

coment I could agree to not quote all hadith, but i want all events to be fully described, not just present what Shia think of him, but WHY and WHICH events is the source for our belife.--Striver 23:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment If Christian views of slavery is legit, why is Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab not legit`?


 * Jewish view of Jesus
 * Christian views of Jesus
 * Mormon view of Jesus
 * New Testament view on Jesus' life

Self evident ?

This findings just increased my anger towards Zora. --Striver 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. I'd personally be inclined to delete all of the above, but that does set a precedent for "X views on...", which is my biggest objection. Abstain. - Mustafaa 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment That is why i respekt you, my dear Sunni brother - you have integrity.

--Striver 00:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: POV fork. Striver, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Please get a clue. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Should we delet all the others as well? Thanks for the personal comment, much appreciated. --Striver 00:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per PatGallacher. JamesBurns 08:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment "
 * Jewish view of Jesus
 * Christian views of Jesus
 * Mormon view of Jesus
 * New Testament view on Jesus' life", These were created before "Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab", so they should be deleted first and if those are not deleted then Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab cannot be deleted either. --Ya Ali 09:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles you've listed haven't been deleted because none of them are POV forks. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

coment what is the diffrens between Christian views of Jesus and Shia view of Umar ibn al-Khattab? --Striver 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No delete. If the Shi'a viewpoint cannot be represented fairly and independently, then the Sunni viewpoint should also not be represented. "Soapbox"es should not be descriminatory.--Zereshk 22:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. "Representing the Shi'a POV" doesn't mean Shi'a can do whatever they want, without copyediting or criticism. The problem is Striver, not the Shi'a POV. Bring us an editor like Reza Aslan! Zora 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sister, you dont get it, do you? Its not only me, im backed by all Shias that know what im doing. I have never ever been corrected by a Shia, in any way, regarding facts or pov.

--Striver 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Jewish view of Jesus
 * Keep - Like Ya Ali said, the following articles should be deleted first:

Christian views of Jesus & etc. and its not like the article is misguiding people or the information in the article is wrong. If Shia's can not show their views in the main article then they should be allowed to do it on a seperate article. --Khalid! 15:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Umar, POV forks considered harmful. Gazpacho 01:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Create Sunni view of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Create pages for any other group that has a view. It's only our Westocentrism that allows us to feel Jewish views of Jesus is any more or less acceptable. Agree with Mel Etitis that the article should not look so much like a POV fork. Also feel that Zora should be admonished to remember to step back from eir personal religious beliefs and allow the Umar article to be edited in an NPOV fashion. We'd ideally like something that both ey and Striver are happy with, however impossible that seems. Grace Note 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is so obviously a smear campaign it's not funny. It should be deleted. -- Hugh


 * No. It reports the Shia view. Its true that Shia have a "smeary" view on Umar. But thats it. The article does not "campaing" the "smear", it only reports that Shia belive it. And by the way, Umar was "smeary". In my view. No offence.

Comments
--- Did any one takes the time to go true the shia argument? its nothing but personal insults on Umar. Nothing objective is to be found there, the conclusion people get about Umar from the article is 100% negative, its propaganda. I think its time you reallies that an Iranian shia cannot be objective about an Arab like Umar ibn al-khatab who was the masterminder behind the conquest of Iran. let Jesus for Christians and Umar for Sunnis and Ali for shias thats what i think and dont let people who have historical enmity to write about there enemies. Delete Ayubi1187

-- Isn't the porpoise of this website to give complete historical fact about People. The shia article don't give any valuable information about Umar only propaganda. Sens shia don't have broad information about Umar and only narrow information that he was usurper,lier, hypocrite and so on this view cannot be considerate as complete information to be listed as separate article. The main article give complete biographical story of Umar something you don't find in the shia view of Umar only backbiting. Its very clear from the article that shia don't have complete history about Umar's life to contribute beside the negative story's. It should be enough with the main article of Umar and in the bottom it should be written that "shia view Umar as evil man and sens they don't have complete biography about him beside he was evil there view will be not listed in separate article" or something similar. I think thats very reasonable if the objective of wikipedia is to give broad picture about different personalty's and not narrow. Ayubi1187

comment There you have a good proposal: "since Shia dont like Umar, it should'nt be reported in detail" --Striver 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This article should be deleted, for three reasons. +  - First, the purpose of any encyclopaedia is to present facts impartially and without prejudice, sticking as closely as possible to the viewpoint that is generally agreed upon among competent scholars. The "Shia View of 'Umar" fails miserably along these lines: the goal of the article is obviously to tell people negative things about 'Umar. + - Second, allowing articles with such titles as "The X's View of Y" is merely an invitation to people to use this encyclopaedia as a forum for their propaganda. They should ALL be deleted. If we want to allow such articles, what will prevent their being an article called "The Sunni View of Shias", explaining that Sunnis regard the Shias obsessive-compulsive liars, cowards, bigots, and troublemakers with nothing of value to contribute to Islamic civilization? Do the Shias really want articles which explain exactly what the majority of Muslims think about them? + - Third, the Shia view of 'Umar is so devoid of any sound historical basis that it belongs in the same category as "The Ku Klux Klan's View of Blacks" or the "Flat Earth Society's Views of the Roundness of the Earth". It would surely be ridiculous for any respectable encyclopaedia to contain entries such as these, and the same goes for the "Shia View of 'Umar". [Omar Mirza]

comment
 * First: That is what "Shia View of 'Umar" does, reports accuratly how Shias view Umar.
 * Second: So go delet all the elder articles, why are you objection now and not before? As for "The Sunni View of Shias", i eagerly await it, it whould be nice to show everybody what Sunnis blive of Shias. Dont forget to include the al ahzar fatwa that made us the fifth madhab.
 * Third: Is Bukhari and Muslim "devoid of any sound historical basis" ? Cool, i didnt know that...

Execpt for Nahj al-Balagha, it only quotes Sunni sites. As for being devoided of historical basis: Its totaly irrelevant, its reports the Shia view, nothing more.

--Striver 23:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fifth madhab please!! Why douse it take one thousand year before a state appointed mufti come along and say somthing in fovaor of shia, is that the best recognition you have so far after 1000year? Nothing from a real scholar?-- Ayubi1187


 * Give me the name of a Islamic University more prestigious that al ahzar. --Striver 14:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You like to talk don't you. It was not fatwa by al-azhar as institution but the personal opinion of state appointed mufti Shaltoot other wise they would teach jafari madhab in al-azhar. Number two if you consider al-azhar the most prestige why did they never recognize this fifth madhab before? Ayubi1187

Thank you for the personal comment, much appreciated. If you make some reaserch, you will find that fatwa was the fruit of a decade long mutual research between shia and sunni representatives, aiming on unity, not some random fatwa given by some bribed nobody. It didnt came before since for a long time it was customary among sunnis to kill shias on sight.

--Striver 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I maintain this article should be deleted. I have explained my reasons above. Here I elaborate upon them. Capitals below are for emphasis: I'm not shouting.


 * First: The "Shia View of 'Umar" does NOT report accurately how the Shias view 'Umar. There are many important aspects of the Shia view of 'Umar that it leaves out. It does not tell us anything about the time-honoured practice of RITUALLY CURSING 'Umar, which is considered a religiously meritorious action by the Twelver Shia. It does not tell us about the "Supplication of the Two Idols of the Quraysh", that the Shia scholars have accepted as a good supplication, and which is used to curse 'Umar. It does not tell us anything about the fanatical desire of the Shia to have the grave of 'Umar removed from its position near the grave of the Prophet of Islam(s). It does not tell us anything about the CONFUSIONS that the Shias have concerning 'Umar (many of the Shias have long accepted the reports in their own sources whch admit that 'Umar was married to the daughter of 'Ali, while modern apologists find it more convenient to deny this fact.) It also does not tell us anything about Shia RACISM towards 'Umar, as in the poetry that Shias have composed making fun of his dark skin ('Umar was a quarter Ethiopian by ancestry). It does not tell us about the bizarre rituals of burning effigies of 'Umar that are popular in Shia countries. The article basically leaves out all the more paranoid and obsessive aspects of the Shia view of 'Umar, knowing about which would be important in a scholarly account. The article is a piece of propaganda, not an objective description.


 * Second: When an article is being used as a front for propaganda, it should be deleted. This is the case here.


 * Third: The fact that the article cites only Nahj ul-Balagha and Sunni sources (as noted by Striver) shows clearly that THIS ARTICLE IS PROPAGANDA. Anybody with any experience of Shia missionaries knows that they make a big deal about proving their points from Sunni sources. If the article was a scholarly account of the Shia view of 'Umar, then it would cite only hadiths from their main sources, such as "Usul al-Kafi", NOT Sunni sources. Why does the article not mention any of the hadiths in the four main Shia collections? What is the point of citing Sunni sources in an article whose alleged purpose is to give the *Shia view*? Isn't the *Shia view* best expressed in SHIA SOURCES? Shia INTERPRETATIONS of Sunni sources are devoid of historical basis. So the article would be better if it stuck to a description of what is said in the Shia sources.

The fact that the author cites Sunni sources so much shows that the article is designed to convince Sunnis of the Shia point of view. This is just a piece of propaganda, and should be deleted.

[Omar Mirza]

--Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First: Well, then add it. I forgot about it, i dont ritualy curse him, but i do get a few lols when i read about him, and i do get angry when i see people blatantly ignoring his deeds. But you are right, go ahead and add those practises to the article, it belongs ther. Add also a link to the duas.
 * Second: Not true. It should be NPOVed.
 * Third: No, it only means that the only one contributing to it only have read that. But you are absolutly correct! It fills me with great joy to be enlightened to the fact that i can for once use Shia sources to expose him!

Another reason to delete this article: In addition to the obviously propagandistic nature of this article, the scholarly quality is VERY poor (this is common in Shia attacks on 'Umar). The Sunni sources it cites are from bad translations (e.g. the online "Sahih Bukhari".) It is obviously useful for a POLEMICIST to provide online links, whether these are bad translations or not. But in an encyclopaeida, the article-writers should be held to a higher standard. [Omar Mirza]

IF you belive it to be POV, then NPOV it. You only want the article deleted since you love Umar and cant stand to see a article reporting negative things about him. If you disagree with the translations or links or any other material for that matter, then fix it, that does not constitute a excuse to delet the article.

'''TO THE MODERATOR: MOST VOTES TO DELET THIS ARTICLE ARE POLITICALY BASED AND NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH. ALSO REMEBER THAT SUNNIS OUTNUMBER SHIAS BY FIVE TO ONE.

--Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is filled with inaccuracies. As you would expect from a polemic with little schol;arly value. For example, the author claims, against all evidence, that 'Umar was "not a valiant man", yet the great scholar Suyuti reports that


 * Ali said: I don't know of anyone who didn't emigrate in secret except for 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; because when he wanted to emigrate he strapped on his sword, put his bow over his shoulder, carried his arrows in his hand, and came to the Ka'bah where the nobles of Quraysh were in the courtyard. He performed seven circuits, and then prayed two raka'at at the Station (of Ibrahim). Then he approached their circle one step at a time and said, "What ugly faces! Whoever wishes to bereave his mother, orphan his children and widow his wife then let him meet me behind this valley." Not one of them followed him.

Sounds pretty valiant to me, frankly. The argument that he didn't answer Amr's challenge is also weak, since it is not known that he was even present at that part of the ditch: for all we know, he may have been stationed by the Prophet(s) elsewhere along the Ditch (which was very long).

Coment Or, he had protection from his tribe, while the Banu Hashim did not. The hadith you mentined, if authentic, does give a valiant impresion. Or, it could just show his usual spite for anyone he disagreed with, includint Muhammad (as), like in hudaybia or at his death bed. Do you have any report of Umar hurting or being hurt by a Mushrik? I have found none. Only him running away or implying Muhammad (as) was dead and discouringing people from entering battle.

As for the ditch, it might be true, or it might not, its conjecture. Even if he was on some other part, he hade plenty of time to be summoned, Amr breaching the treanch was not a minor event, i can not grasp Umar failing to notice that, or not being reported that. Again, its just conjecture.

--Striver 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Shia dud why are you distorting other peoples statements and insert your own words in the middle of Omars statement? Is that what answering-ansar teach you to distort the truth if you cannot refute? Ayubi1187

Where is he cited in a injustly whay? --Striver 13:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.