Talk:Umar

• Talk:Umar/Archive1
• Talk:Umar/Archive2
• Talk:Umar/Archive3
• Talk:Umar/Archive4

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 Wikipedia:Editing policy before making large deletions. If, in your considered judgment, an article about Shi'a view should be created then simply do it yourself instead of deleting encyclopaedic content while asking the community to do it in your place. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. Thank you.

Example: Biographical article (i.e George Bush, Mandela, etc.) are not stricly limited to their supporters views. I hope the point is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Point 1 - ...Shia should not be commenting altogether - First, those are not comments but edits. Second, should is an imperative statement and therefore you should state who says that. A policy? See Criticism and public perception of George Bush as a good example. According to your logic, only Conservative Americans' views can be permitted in that article. Wrong Rami.

Point 2 - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum - What do you consider as forum discussions?

Point 3 - I understand your plea but believe me that i've been there before and i learned that stuff doesn't work that way in wikipedia. So please calm down and try to read some of the main policies and guidelines of Wikipedia before arguing about something you do not understand enough about. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also, you have to use the edit summary → Help:Edit summary. Also, you have to be aware of WP:3RR policy. So, that was just a start. Welcome to wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User: ITAQALLAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shiite View

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

Ibn Abi Hadid

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

Not so much of an original thesis

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

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

Bewildered?

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

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

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

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

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)

Date of Birth and age of Caliph Umar

Generally the age of Caliph umar at his death is given by historians as ... 55, 58, 60, and 63. the figure of 60, is a common one, and it had attained the level of being a sacred "age" to die as prophet (pbuh) died around this age.

the point to ponder is umar's own statement in which he says that he accepted islam when he was 27 years old. A slave of Caliph umar said that he (umar) was 26 years old when he accepted islam. Umar accepted islam in 6th nabwi, or 616 A.D. If he was 27 (according to lunar year), when accepted islam, it means he was 26 according to christain year and was born in 589 A.D and was 55 years old when died in 644 A.D. Which also confirms some historians claim that he was 55 when died.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my reversions and edits

• Umar is regarded by all Shi'a as an usurper, but to varying degrees. Zaydi still believe he was just, and Nizari Ismaili do not stress too much importance on these historical events.
• Umar's physical abuse of Fatimah in defense of his and Abu Bakr's caliphate should stay under his caliphate, and not simply just the Shi'a view since it is recorded in Sunni books to an extent.
• If you can find a source saying that it cannot be found in books any earlier than 900 CE, we can put that in here. But you need to use WP:reliable sources, and you can't WP:original research this. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please return the traditional Caliphate template

Wikipedia has some strange edits, why was it necessary to change the Khilafa template to this one anyway? The Khilafa template looks better and has more information regarding the extent of his Khilafa. Malik Al Assad (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked the versions back to like 2006 and can't see when it has been used at all. Looks like it maybe never was on this article. You should go ahead and add it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you check every single one? Or just basically click on the older 50 thing and choose one version? I am very very sure that once this article had the Khilafa template with the map of the extent of 'Umar (radhi Allah anhu)'s Khilafa. I am sure that Mohammad Adil guy can verify it for me since if I'm not wrong he's the one who created all that stuff and he knows in the ins and outs of the extent of the Khilafa. Malik Al Assad (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked back to 2006 which is far beyond 50 (I think I set it to 500, but still went back quite a bit). --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul comparison

Theres no point in it so I am going to delete it. Malik Al Assad (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank1829

who is this anti-Sunni polemicist? He adds things which were not mentioned by my sources, and cites answering-ansar. If you've sources, mention them instead of citing a website. 03:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Al Assad (talk • contribs)

Okay, seriously Shia's, stop it

"though his being a champion and warrior remains unsubstantiated from a primary source and may be sectarian embellishment in view of Ali's well-documented status as a champion."

seriously? are you guys serious? you call this neutral point of view? if you call it that, then cite a scholar with such a view, you can't? then I'm deleting it. Malik Al Assad (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Both sides butcher up articles pretty equally. If there is something that breaks WP:NPOV, just take it out, no need to yell at the few anonymous IPs and new users who come and try to ruin articles. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the Ismaili vandal is not shia nor sunni but he/she still vandalize sunni and shia articles that need to be stoped go and edit the ismaili articles what you have to do with shia and sunni articles and your are not one of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.14.131 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Rediculous

Not only are Shia editors trying to inject fabricated stories into the context of the biography instead of confining to a section of their own beliefs, but they are actually outright lying and fabricating that their stories exist in Sunni references! What do you think? That people who would HAVE copies of such references like Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal would NOT be deeply enough involved in checking and editing Wikipedia pages? The lies in the Shia section about Sunni references having any mention of their Umar beating Fatima and causing a miscarriage is hereby removed. Keep imaginary stories references into your own books. Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal does NOT have the slightest reference to this fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you brought this up. From my knowledge, all the hadith in Musnad ibn Hanbal can be found within Sahih Bukhari today. I decided to go ahead and search every reference of Fatima within Sahih Bukhari and found hadith mainly relating to Fadak. If you would like, you can just delete the Musnad ibn Hanbal source, the other sources have yet to be proven invalid, and at Umar at Fatimah's house other Sunni sources are cited. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I rechecked and apparently there are hadith in Musnad ibn Hanbal that do not appear in Sahih Bukhari. We can't delete these references yet. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Sunni references

Making up the word "Sunni references" and posting idioting modernisation books is not acceptable. The page is reverted and it will continue to be reverted as long as fabricated references are made to give the illusion that Shia claims are are substantiated by Sunni books. Sahih Al-Bukhari has no mention whatsoever of that incident, and the page you published on Mosnad Ibn Hanbal p.259 does not contain any reference to the whole subject. Both Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim mention very clearly that Fatima only had a problem with Abu Bakr that when she asked for her inheritance from the prophet, he refused citing the prophet's dictation that all prophets cannot be inherited and all their belongings are Sadaqa, for which she was cross with him. If you believe that fabricated story about the trusted companions of the prophet killing the prophet's daughter (who by the way is INFALLIBLE and in sahih Hadith said he knew all hipocrites, and therefore would have known UP FRONT if Abu Bakr or Umar would be so, and wouldn't have left the quran for them and let Abu Bakr lead the prayer when he was sick) or causing the miscarriage of a son called Mohsen (As if Umar would hit a pregnant woman but keep his servants riding his camel in his stead, or that they would have named a stillborn miscarried foetus anyway?!!!) it is your business. However if you say the story is referenced in Sunni books then you are lying through your teeth and you are manipulating a Biography. I am camping on the page and will revert it every time you mention fabricated evidence in Sunni books. You don't have an exclusive right on research, so whatever thoughts you have you can put it under "ISmaili views" or "Shia views" and keep away from fabricating sunni sources. --Sampharo (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to revert pages and delete cited content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are not the only books of Sunni hadith there are many others. And we have a reliable secular source and another published by Yale that states that this story is found in Sunni sources as well as Shi'a sources. This talk page is not to debate issues of Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam, it is used to only improve this article. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about your Yale sources or secular books being mentioned, mention them if you like but call them Yale and secular sources!! You however will NOT CALL them "Sunni sources". Your mention of Mosnad Ibn Hanbal as a source is FALSE AND FABRICATED, I have the book and it's not there. If YOU keep rementioning that, I will report YOU to be blocked for fabricating references and I along with others now will just keep coming back to correct Umar's page. --Sampharo (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I deleted the reference to Musnad ibn Hanbal. Also, the secular sources state that this specific event can be found in both Sunni and Shi'a sources, which is why we can state that it is found in both! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why admit that only in a private message?

If you are going to admit that Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was not a valid source and reference and was disproven, then why are you doing it in a private message, and more importantly why are you REMENTIONING it in the article. Quote from pashtun Ismailiiya in a PM: "This is an encyclopedia and must mainly use reliable secular sources: do not simply delete content because of what they say. If you can disprove a source used, such as you did with Musnad ibn Hanbal, it will be deleted."

Yes, I deleted Musnad ibn Hanbal long time ago from this article. I have kept it out of the article, because you stated it was incorrect. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, who do you think you are to suggest that you have an authority to write Umar Ebn El-Khattab's page from a secular point of view, when your own signature signifies how proud you are of your Shia sect? By the way, Sunni resources in TOTALITY consider Ismailiya and most Shia sects to be NOT OF ISLAM at all since they give divine standing to humans and have corrupted two of the basic 5 pillars of Islam, all but Zaidiya and Ethnay Ashareyya. So stop using Shia terms in the article like "Fatima is the most important female figure in Islam" and then claim to be neutral and/or secular. Your brazen bias will continue to be contested and exposed. If you wish to write a separate article saying "Shia view of Umar's life", be my guest. We will still remove any false references you make there to Sunni books however. A reference means that you extracted that information from that book and when it's actually not there then you are LYING and WILL be edited.

I did not write this article, this article has many Shi'a biases and we can fix them, however you cannot deleted cited content. Do not make any attacks against me, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. We are using secular sources, if you delete those sources, citations, and content you are breaking Wikipedia rules. My own beliefs are out there, however that does not mean I can break Wikipedia rules either. I am enforcing them, I am not enforcing my own point of view. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of all this, show me please your exclusivity card on Umar Ibn El-Khattab Biography? What makes you think you have the right to decide what will go on that page ANYWAY? Like wikipedia clearly says: If you don't want your work to be mercilessly edited by others, don't publish it. As wikipedia note has said though, I WILL look to recruit a proper muslim scholar to rewrite the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not write this article, many others did. I don't have any exclusive claim to this article, however, you are deleting valid sources from Wikipedia and you can be blocked for doing that. Please stop. Ismaili, unlike the Twelvers or old Zaydi, do not hate the sahaba so why would I be biased? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop fighting dudes !

Hi, i know this article have became a tug of war between sunni and shia muslims. I am working on writing a comprehensive biography of Caliph Umar. This would have been completed in couple of days, but i was badly occupied by rewriting Muslim conquest of Egypt and Muslim conquest of Persia, the latter article was for me more then an orphan !

Now i am almost done with these two article and i will return to write about Caliph Umar. My hard luck is that today is last day of my vacations and i will be leaving tomorrow, i will try my best to to work on Caliph Umar's article and complete it today. If i couldn't, i then it will take another week to complete it. The maps for Caliph umar's empire have been already completed. i will upload them with new article. the maps include

• Extent of Umar's empire in 644.
• conquest of Egypt
• Conquest of Iraq
• Conwuest of Persian Empire
• Conquest of Roman Syria
• conquest of eastern Anatolia and Armenia

as a source for this article i am using the famour book by Egyptian author Muhammad Husayn Haykal. The book is not religiously bias and is a must read book for a student of History. it named Al Farooq, Umar In addition to it i am using several other reference books mainly tabqat ibn saad and Tabri. Mohammad Adil (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks brother, hopefully you can fix things up. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me

I think that's a good idea to rewrite it from a source of authority that has studied the history books IN THEIR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE I might add. However, if this user is edit-warring on the page and reverting just because he wants erroneous and fabricated references THAT HE KNOWS AND ADMITTED to not be there (Why did you put it in the first place, Pashtun Ismailiyya, if you didn't read the book? ANd if you didn't put it there, why are you protecting false information?) then I don't think he will leave your version alone either, and will come up with "secular" sources written actually by Shia and then calling them Sunni again to add the false air of legitimacy and shrug his shoulders saying "don't attack me, I didn't write this".

First of all, I am a she not a he. My religious views do not make me biased, in fact Ismaili unlike ithna'Ashariyya do not view the sahaba in a negative light, we do not view them negatively. I didn't put most of these sources here, however we cannot just take out all sources because one person states they are incorrect. You said you looked up in Musnad ibn Hanbal and said it wasn't there, I deleted it: show me where it is on this page. I didn't say the rest of the information is false, I have cited secular sources including Yale stating that the event in hand has been found in Sunni sources. If you can show the rest of these sources do not have the event in hand, we can delete them too just like I deleted the musnad. A writer published by Yale, which is a WP:reliable source, stated that the event can be found in Sunni sources. This means it can be found in Sunni sources. You cannot use WP:original research to state otherwise. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC):The writer published by Yale does not mean his book unbiased in whatsoever way!! He can fabricate whatever he wants under freedom of speech. Your references did not check out, so they were removed, and you cannot use a 1987 Shia manual printed in a university as a neutral book to dictate what is brazenly not true. You still mention Ibn Hanbal and other Sunni books blindly when we have studied these books and there is no such story in them. Unverified citations and references will be removed, and Shia stories will be limited to Shia section. --Sampharo (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun, you are lying through your teeth as we all sit here and can SEE with our own eyes that you still have Ahmed Ibn Hanbal false reference in the article and ambiguously referring in another area to "according to Sunni sources". I am not going to revert the page just yet because I am waiting for the administrators to check it themselves. You have been reported for breaking the 3RR of wikipedia (you have reverted the page more than three times in under 24 hours), edit warring, Violating neutrality, and unverified references. Like I said before, false references will not be tolerated and left on this page. I have nothing more to say to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are breaking WP:good faith, have good faith that I am not being biased just like I have good faith you are not being biased. You keep saying I am lying through my teeth, and calling these beliefs "Shia myths". I deleted any reference to the Musnad ibn Hanbal. Go to Umar and press CTRL-F and try to find the word "Musnad" any place on the page: it isn't there, I took out the source, delete that if you can find it. Any reference I have personally added I have verified, and I have not broken WP:NPOV. Also, I only had 3 edits within 24 hours. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?!

This is not regarding your comments above here because I already said I have nothing else to say. Thank you however for coming clean regarding you being a Shia and therefore completely removing the veil of neutrality and "secular" sources that you speak of.

This is however regarding the private edit you sent me:

"Here is a another source <http://books.google.com/books?id=zot5IK1csp0C&pg=PA19&dq=umar+fatima+house+burn&lr=>, published by Yale which also states it is found in both Sunni and Shi'a sources. Unless you have a WP:reliable source which contradicts this, you cannot do WP:original research to attempt to disprove it yourself. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)"

I followed the link and what a surprise, your RELIABLE NEUTRAL SECULAR Yale published book is "Introduction to SHi'i Islam"!!! THAT is the neutral secular source that has the authority to mention what is in the Sunni books?! On that basis am I supposed to give you Good faith?! You just demonstrated to every one here that neutrality and good faith has nothing to do with what you're editing and you're just trying to raise sectarian propaganda. Anyway it's up to the administrators now to check the page, and the references are still there and the page has been refreshed.

In the article you now say "according to Ahmed Ibn Hanbal" instead of "Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal". That is not a difference and your new claim is still false, but now it is unsubstantiated reference as well. Editing the page three times in 24 hours IS a violation and you were warned about it before. I removed unsubstantiated references because they do not exist in reality, I did not touch those that I don't know about. It is not possible for me to link to whole books and say that something is NOT there, but the page numbers and references that were made was fabricated, and you do not have the right to mention sources and insist on keeping them when they are NOT substantiated. YOU NEED To prove these sources, not me, and you're incapable and have started an edit war and violated the 3RR rule. Enough said.

Now that is said, I would like to really change fields here and speak from a much more real "good faith" point of view and just say something separatrely for your and other's knowledge: Ismailiyya is a Shia sect. It is recognized by ALL and I MEAN ALL muslim scholars, the four Imams of Sunni math-hab, as well as the two main moderate Shia sects Zaydeyya and EthnayAshereyya, to be apostating out of Islam and in conflict with the core of the message. This is not because of Sahaba bashing (which is big deal but not necessarily apostating), but because of applying divinity on Ali and his lineage, and tampering with the core five pillars. The prayers and Zakat are two out of the five pillars of Islam that their denial or tampering with has been agreed by ALL scholars to be apostating out of the religion. May God guide you to true Islam.

Look Pashtun, no muslim has ever written an Islamic page from a Sunni standpoint and falsely (or even rightly!) used Shia references whether real or not. It is grievous and misleading and bad faith to do the opposite, falsely say that Sunni sources are confirming a Shia belief, something that is untrue since all Sunni sources (proper Sunni sources, like Saheeh El-Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim, AND MOSNAD AHMED IBN HANBAL, not collective modern books that mention stories from Shia as well as Sunni that you insist on using and calling them Sunni sources like in Fatima's house wiki page) all the Sunni sources chronologically dictate the events from the day of the death of the prophet and choice of Abu Bakr that they Fatima's altercation with Abu Bakr was ONLY regarding her inheritence that Abu Bakr denied because he was told by the prophet that prophets cannot be inherited and all their belongings are charity. Ali stayed away while his ailing wife was sick and went to apologize and make up with Abu Bakr after 6 months. Umar was never a part of this. The man who was too afraid to ask his servant to get off his camel upon entry into Jerusulum is not going to beat the prophet's daughter into submission and miscarriage when it's not even his own Khilafa that's the issue but that of Abu Bakr, and which did NOT need Ali's immediate bayaa to be valid anyway because the majority has already made their bayaa and the Khilafa was confirmed. All the while walking with a ring that sayd "There is enough warning in death Oh Umar to mind what you do"!! --Sampharo (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please the Ismaili vandal is not shia he is Ismaili who vandalize both shia and sunni article to golrify the Ismaili faith --193.188.117.66 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)