Talk:Umar

Neutrality of 'formation of caliphate' section

Hi all. I was just going through the passages relating to the Saqifa episode on this article and I have to comment that there's a distinctly negative tone with regards to Umar's actions during this time. There's also a number of unverified assertions as well. The section is solely reliant on Madelungs book on the topic which according to a number of reviewers does possess a degree of judgement bias which in general terms you don't find across the other academic accounts. This has been discussed a while back but the way to move forward is to take into account these value-judgements offered by Madelung and utilise other sources in places where such skews occur. For now I'll tag the respective section. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, I personally dont feel that tone to be negative it highlighted his shrewd politics and political prowess. Practically politicians have to do such things, otherwise by only being pious they cant rule or built an empire could they ? and thats wht actually Madelungs was intended to emphasize, i personally found his research and arguments quite reasonable and logical, beside this i dont think there is any other third party source that have such a detail research work on this topic. If u know any of such source feel free to add, i found Madelungs's succession to mohammad one so i added material from it. and if there is as such a negative tone issue u can copy-edit it, dont know about others but at least i dont have any objection to it.

The problem is that you can't find this account in any other work besides Madelungs. Madelung himself is a scholar of ismaili shia islam and recepient of awards for his contributions to islamic scholarship by the Islamic republic of Iran. This series of events stands in stark contrast with most mainstream accounts of the succession. Not that this view of saqifa is not historically signifigant as it probably represents an important part of the shia narritive I just thinks it needs to be moved to the shia view section for its lack of sunni and western sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.182.62 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Umar and Khalid

Without any evidence, Umar's late commending of Khalid is seen by some as regretting giving Khalid's position to Abu Ubaydah. Actually it is attributed to Umar saying that while there was nothing wrong with Khalid himself, Umar wanted to remind the Muslims that victory was in God's Hands rather than in Khalid's. This should be noted so that the article is edited accordingly. -- AMSA83 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

i cant actually get wht u meant to say

explain plz

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on umar dealing with Khalid needs to be removed. To say that umar saw khalid as a menace and potential threat to his rule is laughable due to its dishonesty. - the reason he removed him is because some ppl began to believe he was a good luck charm. When Umar personally explained this to Khalid, he replied "hikmah" -showing it was a wise decision. Information technology + (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Information technology +, the key is to make a case based on reliable third-party sources as EVIDENCE. Try that on the talk page so that other editors can evaluate your position. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at abu Ubaidah's wiki page it says - On 22 August 634, Caliph Abu Bakr died and Umar became caliph. Umar relieved Khalid ibn al-Walid from the command of the Islamic army and appointed Abu Ubaidah as the new commander. This was DONE TO DISPEL THE IMPRESSION that the victories were due to Khalid. Moreover, Khalid was an overtly generous person, who according to some would often waste his money in giving gifts to his soldiers as a reward for their bravery in the battles. So why should this page contradict obvious fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Information technology + (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"I did not dismiss Khalid ibn al Waleed because I am angry with him or because of betrayal of trust or responsibility but the reason was just that I wanted people to know that it is Allah who gives victory".

- sufficient?

Dear GorgeCustersSabris that sufficient for you to change your mind and revert the page to the eduts i made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Information technology + (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this section for the talk page AMSA83, at 22:34, on 7th January 2010, makes the same point.

I really feel i have a case here guys please reply Information technology + (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Information technology + (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Omar's execution of his son

az-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, called Abu Shahmah RA was executed in Omar R.A's reign. The charge of forced sex was made by a woman and Abu Shahmah R.A admitted to it. He was given a punishment of 100 lashes and he died somewhere between 80 and 90. This story depicts an important aspect of Omar's diligence and strictness to enforce Islam. I propose that this should be incorporated in article in fewest possible words with credible and impartial sources.  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

i thought to add this but neither could i found an appropriate place for it nor any source, i used al faruq,umar by m.hussain hykal, n tht book didnt had tht story.

any ways if u could find any source, feel free to add it in any appropriate section.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, a subpage should be created. Or a thread on talk page (which should not go to archives even if it becomes old). This page/thread should list in bullets the contents that are important and should be added in the article in fewest possible words because this article is already very long and may need some trimming. I am starting this thread below. Keep it this way to make a subpage out of it. As you like.  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 10:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed additional content

I've created this thread to list the content that should be added to the article whenever an appropriate source could be cited.

• az-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, called Abu Shahmah RA was executed in Omar R.A's reign. The charge of forced sex was made by a woman and Abu Shahmah R.A admitted to it. He was given a punishment of 100 lashes and he died somewhere between 80 and 90. This story depicts an important aspect of Omar's diligence and strictness to enforce Islam. I propose that this should be incorporated in article in fewest possible words with credible and impartial sources.  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Title "Al farooq"

According to the article it has some bad grammar, one of those is: Al-Farooq's translation to english, (The one who distinguishes between good and bad), which makes him differintiate the good between the bad, which isnt true. It should be: (The one who distinguishes between right and wrong). Maverick821 (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A second problem is that the intro says the title "al Farooq" was given for his justice, but later in the article a different origin is given - that it came from his conversion making "the difference" for Muslims to worship openly. I don't know enough about Umar to know which is correct. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.170.221 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction, "Farooqi the Great batty boy" is really inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcyndycyn (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Several famous Sunni scholars mentioned the Hadith giving title Farooq to Umar is not autentic. I have listed some of them here: Ibn Juzayy, al-Huthaimi, Dhahabi, Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ibn Haban, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Kathir --Aliwiki (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid giving primary sources as a matter of fact they cant be verified by any means (not all libraries have them), see this wikipedia policy WP:NOR-PST that, due to this reason of verifiability, stress more on the usage of secondary and tertiary sources, its known that shia dont consider the title al farooq and sidik for umar and abu baker rather they claim it was ali who was given that title etc etc, so providing endless sources, like you are on some shia sunni discussion forum, wont help. Its encyclopedia and to prove your point (specially) when its controversial you gotta provide a research work that verifies that those claims by shia are true, or at least give their own independent judgment. see WP:RS for more details, waiting for your unbiased source. General shia practice of providing sunni sources (usually wrongly quoted) to sunni muslims and trying to prove that "see your own sources says that .. so come on accept that we are sying the right thing" this type wont work here it encyclopedia dear.

same is the reply for Abu Bakr's article reversion. Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting new section

The section should be about Umar's pioneer affairs It should read: He was the first to be called the Commander of the Faithful, He was the first to make the lunar year the official calendar for muslims, He was the first to introduce a public ministry system (where the salary and records of officials and soldiers were established, it also kept a record of the messages he sent to Governors and head of states), he was the first to appoint police forces to keep civil order. Should we add it? Maverick821 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think such a style will be hardly encyclopediac, i suggest try including these facts in the relevant sections of the article.

your thoughts ?

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...thats an idea, how about we add it in the section "Political and civil administration"? Sincerely, Maverick821 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaab Al-Ahbar

I was reading the assassination section and among the four conspirators listed, one is Kaab al-Ahbar. I checked the sources and I believe that both are Shi'ite sources. The songofazrael website explicitly mentions it and the other one is apparently shiite from the style of writing. I tried to find this fact in various books on googleBooks. Most of them are predominantly Shi'ite sources. Indeed, the sunni source mentioned in al-islam website is authentic. But my point was that this fact is predominantly cited by shiite sources. So, I am introducing the word Shi'ite in this sentence. I assume that there will not be any objections. Otherwise we can discuss it here. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

the sunni secondary source for this claim is Mohammad hussain haikal's farook the great, any ways i have no opposition to it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of the primary sunni source, if any?—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Coup d'état

"Shia Muslims view him doing Coup d'état against Ali's right to successorship"

the term Coup d'état means to overthrow a government according to the wikki page the word is linked to, no government existed in the time of Abu bakr who essential began the first Islamic government so there was nothing to overthrow. does any one object to changing this term to something more accurate.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I answered you in Abubakr's page; What Umar did was exactly Coup d'état for Shia Moslems.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

why should shia be in charge of a sunni figures biography, the shia did not even exist in his time. No government existed for him to overthrow please learn English before attempting to teach the English their own language.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia policies before making comment. Umar was a historical figure, and he doesn't belong to any group.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

so then why insist on injecting shia beliefs into his page? along with statments that dont makes sense in English are you trying to redefine the language?

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the last paragraph, the Muslims views on Umar, including Umar, are reported.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Death: 3 November or 7 November 644?

Which date is correct time of death - 3 November or 7 November 644? Sources? Peltimikko (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The date was 26 Dhu al Hijja 23 AH, which was 3 November 644 by the Julian calendar and 6 November 644 by the Gregorian.

Argument for citing a Julian date: this was the calendar in use in Europe in Umar's lifetime. Gregorian did not exist.

Argument for citing a Gregorian date: this is the calendar in use today because it is more accurate in terms of the earth's movement around the sun.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotations

50-80% of the quotations on this page need to be removed. Some of them are so long that they could violate fair use rules. Even if they aren't, it is not appropriate WP style to just copy large chunks of other people's texts. Instead, we need to summarize that info, quoting only those phrases that are exceptionally well-phrased and have no easy way to summarize. I can't go at this right now, but I may come back in a few days/weeks. I strongly encourage others with more subject matter knowledge to try tackling this if possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on Taraweeh

It should include references or be re-worded, or left out of the article. It can be shifted to the Taraweeh article - actually, Umar did not start the Taraweeh - he saw some people performing it and approved of it. I will search for the reference later. Shaad's space ^talk 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Books confirming marriage

The reason I have twice removed this list is because the exact nature of those books is not clear from the list given. If those are supposed to be reliable sources that verify claims in the text, they need to be added as citations or in a "Further Reading" section at the bottom of the article. Either way, the editor must provide full, clear publication information--that is, authors, publishers, and year of publishing, at a minimum. If, however, those are actually primary sources (that is, original religious documents), as I suspect they may be, they don't qualify as reliable sources for this claim and thus don't belong in the article at all. If I'm somehow misunderstanding what's going on with that list, please explain here, but please do not re-add without explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Omar-Bin-Alkhattab.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Omar-Bin-Alkhattab.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Omar-Bin-Alkhattab.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor errors

In the Early life section we have "several journeys to theRome and the Persia", I understand that these links are supposed to be "The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire", but as it stands the "The" in both of them is extraneous. I'm going to go ahead and edit it to "several journeys to Rome and Persia" for now. However, the best setup would be to simply make the links more descriptive than simply "Rome" or "Persia" by changing them to "The Byzantine Empire" and "Sassanid Empire", but I lack the skill to do that hehe. Festus Mcracken 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festus Mcracken (talk • contribs)

Ömer

Böri (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hadith of the Pen and Paper

Given that Shia and Sunni disagreement stems from the Hadith of the Pen and Paper, surely this is a significant enough event to be mentioned in brief factual form in an article on Umar? Daniel De Mol (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Office

I was wondering about this section. I read it in jawi(Jawatan), but I just caouldn't rewrite it into rumi. It was this part:

MS = "Halifah yang kedua daripada ________ ________"

EN = "The second halifah from _________ _________"

I think it's "... Khalifah al-Rasyidin", am I right, or am I not right(not)?

--Brainiac Amin (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Amin Shah A.K.A - Brainiac Amin

Hoopla?

"the assassins started the hoopla of Umar's possible death that year". Doesn't sound enyclopedic to me. I would change it, but I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Tigerboy1966  07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

PBUH

PBUH title is being used with Muhammad's name through out the article. While religious sensibilities of Muslims are understandable and need to be respected, it needs to be kept in mind that this is a secular encyclopedia. The language must remain neutral and within the confines of wp:NPOV and generally accepted academic discourse. Please correct this bias in this article. --History Sleuth (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Though it is against my religious norm, still I've corrected it for the sake of NPOV. But I see no reason to call it bias. -AsceticRosé 00:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Conversion age & born

He either was not born in 579 or he cannot be 27 in 616 he would be 37. I cannot check the reference hence commenting here.--Hiwakan (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right. There is dispute about his age in the early sources, and here in the article someone has combined two incompatible references.

[Umar] "became Muslim in the sixth year of prophethood at the age of twenty-six." (Ibn Saad/Bewley vol. 3 p. 207.) This would place his birth c.590.

"Umar ibn al-Khattab was stabbed on Wednesday 26 Dhu al-Hijja 23 AH ... Umar died when he was sixty-three." (Ibn Saad/Bewley vol. 3 pp. 286-287.) This would place his birth c.583.

More sources favour the earlier date. His daughter Hafsa was born in 605, so we wouldn't expect Umar to have been born much later than this.

Small differences of a year or two are probably do with the difficulties in converting the calendars; but a difference of a whole decade means that someone somewhere has made a mistake.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Umar went to Rome

He never went to the city Rome, he went to trade in Syria which was under Roman (Byzantine) rule.

Someone please correct this in 'Early Life'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.69.142 (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

He was from the tribe of Bani Sahm who were our allies during the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. What in blazes is a sentence like this doing in Wikipedia? It's too hard to even list all the things wrong with it. 173.88.232.118 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

never heard was from Banu Sahm. what's reference of that?Ahendra (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's the point. Every reliable reference, without any dispute, gives Umar a complete pedigree to the Adi clan. It's difficult to imagine how this mistake even arose. The Sahm and Juma clans were the allies of the Adi, and Umar married off his daughter to a man of Sahm. But it's still quite a jump to claim that Umar himself was from Sahm.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My edits

I've carefully made many small edits to this page in recent days because it was, in my assessment, clumsily written, repetitive, hyperbolic and poorly referenced. I have tried to tighten the prose and remove repetition and to remove exaggerated claims based on weak sources. Where no sources support claims, I've added "citation needed" tags. In particular, I follow the verifiability and neutral point of view guidelines.

If you disagree with my approach, please bring your thoughts to this talk page for discussion. I'm happy to work with other editors. Thanks, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @GorgeCustersSabre:, I have had a look at the article and support the addition of the "citation needed" tag where needed and the improvements in the readability of the article. Another user has already reinserted the edits you made with the exception of references to this link. I'm not sure if this book falls within WP:RS but would be inclined to keep it for now. RookTaker (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

17 AH

As 17 AH corresponds mostly with 638, 18 corresponds to 639, or may be the extreme where 639 corresponds to 17. AstroLynx can you check? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this online Islamic calendar converter 17 AH corresponds with 23 January 638 to 11 January 639 (± 1/2 days). 18 AH corresponds with 12 January 639 to 1 January 640 (± 1/2 days). If you know the month when Umar reformed the calendar one could of course be more precise. AstroLynx (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect the page

Can somebody semi-protect the page? Actually, not just this. Please, it's important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elazar Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)