Talk:Umar/Archive 4

message: An anon added a bit re Umar's character. It sure reads like a copyvio to me, but I can't find it on the web. It may be from a book. Can anyone else find it?
I moved that bit from the top to the Sunni views section, as a temporary measure. I don't think it's the place of an encyclopedia to make judgments about Umar's character. I could be wrong about the anon being a Sunni -- can the anon clarify? Where does that opinion come from? Is it a copyvio? Zora 02:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I think I kinda agree with what the anon said, but I don't want opinions enshrined as fact. Zora 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's evaluation of Umar's character 

message: Zora wrote:
:Now the Margoliouth quote might fit in a section titled "Academic views of Umar" or "Western views of Umar" -- except that I don't think most academics bother to have a "view" of Umar. They don't care about judging him as "good" or "bad". They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence
Note: She claimed that:
#the Margoliouth quote could fitt in a section titled "Western views of Umar" except  that she don't think most academics bother to have a "view" of Umar.
#They don't care about judging him as "good" or "bad". They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence
The first point implies that there is no point in having a "Western views of Umar", and that im tring to put in someone that has a "bad" view of Umar. Implying, that Margoliouth has a "bad" view of Umar.
In point two, she continues that most scholars just present what he did, implying that margolioutht did not do that. Lets se what the quote really says:
Compare that to the quote:
:"we have no record of any occasion on which Umar displayed remarkable courage, though many examples are at hand of his cruelty and bloodthirstiness; at the battle of Hunain he ran away, and on another occasion owed his life to the good nature of an enemy." Mohammed and the Rise of Islam 
Now, does that quote label him "good" or "bad", or does it just give a description? It does not attribute one present any such opinion on Umar, it just stats simple facts. It does not say "i belive umar is bad" or "Umar was good guy". No, it simply iterates his characteristics.
Remeber, Zora said that:  "They just describe what he did, so far as they can tell from the surviving evidence", and that is exactly what the quote does!
It begins by talking about "we have no record of any occasion" and than iterates What he did! It does JUST what Zora wanted! Shame on you, Zora! --Striver 04:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zora is talking nonsense

message: Im removing this part:
:They analyze his decisions primarily in military and political terms, and are less concerned with the religious or character judgments that interest Muslims. 
If it implies that they dont belive Umar is releavant to their personal life, then it is a obvious statements, since they are not Muslims.
If it implies that Non-Muslim scholars pay no intrest on Umar as a person outside of him being a political figure, then it is false.
I am therefore removing it.--Striver 12:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Sorry for taking long to answer, i have been doing edits on political issues.
Ok. Gren, you wrote:
:I don't think Zora was using those Sunni quotes for inclusion... she was just giving another to show that not everyone hated Umar... I think that was the point.  Especially just that passage.
Gren, what Zora did was to give links where Sunni praised Umar. We are talking about the non-Muslim view of Umar, and what Sunnis think about Umar is irrelevant. Of course Sunnis have a positive view of Umar, i dont understand what she thinks that will prove. 
Thanks for the link to the Margoliouth book, that may help some things... it is also on an anti-Islamic site... as you can expect from anything called Muhammadenism...  Striver, I'm still not sure why Margoliouth's work is representative of the modern Western view.  
Yes, its on a anti Muslim site. That does not mean anything, i have already demostrated that Margoliouth was not a Anti Islamic bigott, he praised many of Muhammads qualities, and also talked well about Abu Bakr. However, he did not belive in Muhammads prophecy, not surpring since he was a prominent Christian. That made him look at the whole issue with the aim of rejecting or even dicrediting Muhammads divine claims. For example, he atributed his revelations to epilepsi. And that is the reason his work is on a anti-Muslim site. However, i want to stress that this view did not extend to general earthly qualities. In other words. If you want a guy that discredits Islam divine claims, then Margoliouth is the guy for you, he had a christian bias. But at the same time, he is neutral on non-religious issues, like whether Muhamamd was inteligen or not, or whether he was a good politician or not or whether Abu Bakr was charming or not. And it is in that sense that Margoliouth view on Umar is unbiased.
The quote is making comments on whether Umar is valiant or not, and then on his "bloodthirstiness". None of those issues are related to religion. Further, he does not just say "Umar is a coward" or "Umar is cruel", rather that there are no records of Umar displaying great valor, and many of him being ruthless. So he is talking about sources, clearly meaning he did not belive or know of the Sunni hadith Zora is talking about.
But foremost: None of what i just wrote matters! I am not here to talk bout whether Margoliouth was right or not, just present his views.
Now, Zora object, saying his views are not represantative. I say "ok, show me someone that does not agree with him". Zora does not do that.
Rather, she goes on to say that non-muslins have no view on Umar, wich is silly, considering that we a talking about Margoliouth view.
But even if Margoliouth views where not representative, the other ones havnig a "non-view" or the opposite view, it would not mean that Margoliouth is not to be represented. In the unproven case of him holding a minority view, he still holds a minority view, and still needs to be represented as such.
However, do note that Zora has not proven that the Margoliouth view is a monirity view.
:I don't think most modern Western thinkers are calling him a coward or a hero... he's just Umar and he was a Caliph. 
You are entitled to that belief. However, we are not dealing with beliefs, we are dealing with sourced statements. Anyhow, ill repeat myself: Even if most did not hold a view, and only concluded he was a Caliph, the alledged minority view of Margoliouth would still need to be represented. He is notable and his views count, there is no way around that.
Again, do note that there are no sourced evidence caliming he held a minority view, only the oppinion of Wikipedia editors.
:Striver, I found something intersting.  Go to this book on the site you provided.  Go to the PDF version (or very near the end on Html) page 120/122 and see the quote about Omar... then look at the footnote.  That quote is by William Muir and says "I need hardly say that this sentiment is entirely at variance with the liberal and tolerant policy of Omar."  So, how would we interpret something like that?  
Well, the Muir quote is from 1880. The Margoliouth is from 1905. If the Muir quote is to be presented as evidence, then that renders the argumet of the Margoliouth quote being old as voided.
Anyhow, even if the Margoliouth  quote where to old to be relevant, wich they are not, it still would need to be represented as an "old view". As you told yourself, Muir is very famous and meaningfull still to this day.
Even if Muir contradicted Margoliouth, it would not warant the removal of the Margoliouth quote, mearly the need of both views being included. Further, Muir and Margoliouth  are partialy addresing diffent issues. Margoliouth is addresing valor in combat, while Muir is addresing whether he was liberal or not. Possibly regarding him being "bloodthirsty" and "tolerant" that they differ.
:He was a very important scholar... and, I had never heard of Margoliouth until now but Muir I did know of... 
The sources i quoted claims he was very notable and learned. We not having heard of him dosnt mean much, does it? unless you are educated in the field that is... I mean, look at Zora, she claimed Nasr was not notable, yet still he is associated with the Unated Nations.
:my point is... Zora was trying to say you weren't representing the whole picture by choosing Margoliouth... and, well, there's a part of the picture you're not showing.  One quote does not mean it's representative. And all my quote is trying to prove is that... we can't just accept your assertion that that was the prominent view of Umar. gren グレン 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, I'm not using that as an argument Striver... having two quotes just thrown out there isn't necessarily the best way to deal with this.  Plus, neither are modern sources.  I only found that quote to show that it was not safe to quote Margoliouth as representative.  I don't think quoting both without any real context (within the author's work, and the author in the scheme of scholarship) really shows anything about Umar.  So... gren グレン 23:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: respons 

message: Striver, it is infuriating that you insist on including that Margoliouth quote as representative of non-Muslim thought about Umar when you have not read the work from which it is excepted, nor, indeed, ANY works of Western Islamic scholarship. If I tell you that the Western historians I have read -- dozens of them, by this point -- say nothing in support of that jaundiced view of Umar, you dismiss me as "POV" and demand quotes. It is your usual tactic. You assert something that no sane person would believe, and then demand quotes to disprove it. Academics have better things to do than to go around disproving kook theories. 
You are going to have to find something besides a 100-year-old quote to show that non-Muslim scholars disapprove of Umar. Zora 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Muslim historians 

message: Zora, you moved views that you know are not held only by Shi'as to the "Shi'a view" section. You know that is incorrect, so i assumed you wount repreat that. --Striver 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver, your purpose is clear: insert stories that cast Umar in a bad light whenever you can. I agree that Sunni accept the stories re infanticide and the scolding of Hafsa as accurate; however, their placement is polemical. They make much more sense in the Shi'a section.  Furthermore, they interrupt the flow of the narrative for casual readers who just want to find out who Umar was. Zora 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, I decided to leave the Hafsa story there and end it with Sunni and Shi'a interpretations. Zora 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i see it this way: Its not Shi'a pov and does not belong in the Shi'a pov section. A Shi'a pov of the even belongs there, but not the event in it self. That is obvious. You moving non-Shi'a pov to the Shi'a pov section is a matter of bad faith in my book. The NPOV stays in the main article, the Shi'a pov goes in to the Shi'a pov section, and the Sunni pov goes to the Sunni pov section. --Striver 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Why does it state that Sophronius was the *Greek Orthodox* Patriarch of Jerusalem, nearly four centuries before the Great Schism?  He was simply the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Monsieurtode 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked and you're right. I'll change it. Zora 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: 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)
thread_title: Al-Aqsa Mosque

message: 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)
thread_title: 'Liberation'

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding alcohol and Umar's character 

message: 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)
replies: text: really from me umar is not more than dog --217.17.252.126 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we delete the above diatribes?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zora's recent edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gibbon quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: .. 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)
thread_title:  p.34,35 of Madelung.. 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact or opinion? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Umar the name doesn't Mean "Life"

message: 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)
thread_title: Please change his birthplace