Talk:Umar/Archive 3

message: I am not completely fluent in Arabic, therefore I come to you all for clarification. When Umar apparently questions the Prophet's (Peace Be Upon Him) authority as the Apostle of Allah, is he really questioning his authority, or instead saying 'O Bakr, isn't he the true Apostle of Allah?' in the same vein as 'O Bakr, isn't he the greatest?', instead of 'O Bakr, is he really the Apostle of Allah?'?
Again, I am by no means fluent in Arabic, and do not grasp the connotations behind the words used. Can someone please clarify this for me? Many thanks.
Salam brother!
Whell, you dont need to be fluent in arabic to see that, just look att the context:
1)Umar want to go to Hajj that year
2)Umar dont get to go to Hajj year
3)Umar tell Muhammad, peace be upon him, "Arent you the true Apostle of Allah? Why are we not going to Hajj?"
Does "O, how great you are for not going to hajj, even if you said so" make sense?
And then going to Abu Bakr to reiterate the same complaints?
Dont forget they where complaint and not praise :)
ma salam
--Striver 11:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Umar Questioning the Authority of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him 

message: The subsection on Hafsa, if nothing else, was either academic dishonesty or just sloppy research.  I understand that there are different sects and they believe different things, but to take things out of context or not to point out context is clearly dishonest.  It is clear from the link used as reference that Muhammad did love Hafsa, but had a spat (as all married couples do), and vowed to stay away from his wives for a month.  It was at this point that the people, observing Muhammad's actions, had thought that he was divorcing them, not knowing the true story. Umar was informed of this, and made his statement.  I have to go referee a soccer match, but I probably will continue this discussion later. --GNU4Eva 15:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's being taken out of context.  To say that this is the type of father or advice {ignoring the fact that it's not really advice but was based on hearsay} that Umar gives is to take one incident and paint his whole life or a major part of his life based on it.  --GNU4Eva 21:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore while your intent is to show Umar in a negative light Islamically, I'm sure even you'd agree that his allegiance should be to Allah first, then the Prophet, then anyone else can come after that.  " Umar refused to take his daughter's side" -- over Muhammad? You'd be all over him if he actually did that, so either way it's clear that Umar is not going to satisfy you no matter what he did. --22:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy editting made to Hafsa subsection 

message: Should we remove the tag?
--Striver 14:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I'd like to propose that this page be moved to Umar.  He is by far the most famous Umar, and his filiation is not generally known to English-speakers.  We could move the current Umar page to Umar (disambiguation).  I'm going to propose the same for Uthman and Ali. john k 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move 

message: What is the current understanding of Arabic??? Are these names better translittered with O or U?? Omar or Umar??  I mean, I always read history books (and other literature too) where always was Omar, never Umar. 217.140.193.123 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This represents a shift in the transliteration of Arabic vowels over the last couple of decades. Mohammed → Muhammad, Moslem → Muslim, Omar → Umar. The last is confirmed by the discussion on this talk page. Unless a history was written within the last decade, it probably used the old transliteration. Nevertheless, old habits are hard to break—I have seen recent articles in scholarly Islamic publications that still use the old transliterations. The Umar page should reflect the current transliteration with a redirect from the old transliteration. — Joe Kress 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I know my response comes quite late, but I just thought I'd add that Arabic lacks the vowels O and E, as far as I know.  Of course, it isn't written with these letters, and they aren't directly correlative in pronunciation, but it's usually accepted by those who familiar with the language that the vowels of Arabic are A, I, U, and their corresponding long versions.  --LakeHMM 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  u/o 

message: You cant have it both ways
Either: 
*1)you add all the stuff he did to the main article, 
*2)or we shuve it to the Shia view, 
*3)But you cant remove what he did, remove the shia link and also remove the warning that everything is not included.
If your going for #1, add all the changes he did to the general view, like his death sentence, tayamum, triple talaq, Mut'ah of Hajj and so on... you can not included, not link to the shia view and not warn that its not in the main!
--Striver 15:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora 

message: Could somebody deal with that, i dont want to start a shia-sunni thing about that... beter if a sunni or budhist takes care of that...
--Striver 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anon 

message: Zora, why do you add that he converted after reading that Surah? 
I have read in several places that he convereted after going to the house of Arqam, where Muhammad (as) was, he got surounded and unarmed and Muhammad (as) rebuked him in a prophetic manner, causing him to convert. Could you give me a source that explicitly says he converted excludingly due to the Surah?
--Striver 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq later describes Umar as going to the house where Muhammad was, intending to give his submission and -- if I recall correctly -- the people there fearing that he had come to kill Muhammad, and only relaxing after it was clear he had come to submit. You might be remembering that. Zora 07:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sura Ta ha 

message: Various anons objected to the caveat re combatant numbers. Sorry, but we really can't trust the old chroniclers' figures the way we can trust modern troop figures. The figures are estimates, and quite hazy. When a chronicler seems to work in sizes of 1000, 5000, 10,000, 15,000, etc. you know there's some serious rounding going on. Plus there's always the tendency to exaggerate -- like fishing stories. This is especially the case when you have a small force fighting a big one -- if the small force wins, it's always over incredible odds, and those odds seem to increase with each telling. 
Same problem with population figures. One traveler says it's a town of 10,000 people, another says 40,000. You don't know where they got their figures or who to believe. Most pre-modern figures are guesses! 
An exception might be made for engagements like the Battle of Badr, where each death had a name. But even then, there's a problem, in that later Muslims liked to boast of having an ancestor who fought at Badr ... which would lead you to estimates of many thousands on the Muslim side! <g>
Now that warning should probably be attached to lots of figures in Wikipedia, but we need to start somewhere. Zora 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatant numbers 

message: Zora, then fix the english, dont remove the contents!
Please included in a non-substandard english that the Banu Hashim felt that Ali should have been the first Caliph, thx. And also, remove in a non-substandard english way the "manny" from the "manny shia" --Striver 02:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Standard