Talk:Umar/Archive 1

Give me prove, i dont belive it

Why Umer nominated Abu Baker as Khalifa despite Profit Muhammed announced Ali (A.S) as Mawla to all by the order of Allah after the last Sermon at Ghadeer Khum? WAS REALLY UMAR ACCEPT ISLAM FROM HIS HEART?

"Umar was a close companion of Muhammad and participated prominently in all of the Muslim battles against the Quraish" gg Prominently?

Who did he kill, what did he acomplish?

Except for questioning the Prophets authority, like bukhari states: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/050.sbt.html#003.050.891 (search for "Aren't you truly the Apostle of Allah?")

"It is said that he initially refused to believe that Muhammad had died." Yea, and threatened to kill anybody that spreaded the news. Of course, cuz he didnt want people to give aliegense to Ali.

"Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor prior to his death in 634. He was elected to the office thereafter."

O yeah? Who did elect Umar, execpt for Abu Bakr? One persons say isnt a election.

"Ali ibn Abi Talib, who had sought the Caliphate at Abu Bakr's death, willingly served under Umar, as chief justice and advisor"

Served? Rather, pointed out to him his silly mistakes like: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4385

When did he "serve" Umar?

"Umar also awarded pensions to the surviving members of Muhammad's family." Yeah, from the Prophets inheritance, and for that he was called a "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest." by Ali and Ibn Abbas

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4349

"The Sunni/Shi'a schism, however bitter in later years, seems to have been dormant during Umar's caliphate. Ali's acceptance of the election, and submission to the authority of Umar, are considered by many historians to be the prime reasons for the stability of the period."

OMG!

Dormant? Does "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest." sound dormant in your eyes?

"acceptance of election" What election? An election with one candidate, Saddam style?

"submission to the authority of Umar" ?

• giggles*

He just stoped opposing him openly.

"Umar also began the process of codifying Islamic law."

Yeah, by thinking he made the sunna himself: "By Allah, if I were to do it, it would become a sunna. " http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/002.mmt.html#002.2.21.85

Not to mention all the changed he did to the prophets sunna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_to_the_Sunnah_made_by_the_Rashidun#According_to_Sunnis

Quoting Ali: "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet on the saying of somebody." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/026.sbt.html#002.026.634

"In 638, he married the Prophet's granddaughter, Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Ali and Fatima. "

No he didnt, thats a lie. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umme_kulthum/en/index.php

" A strong ruler, he was universally respected for his justice and authority."

Yeah, right...

The guy didnt even know how to make tayammum!

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/003.smt.html#003.0718

Wich resulted in disorder: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/003.smt.html#003.0716

Yeah, we all love Umar, the guy that bunred Fatimah (phuh) house and gave her a misscarrige... http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/index.php

Funny you mention Fatima. Wikipedia has become so biased and anti-Shi'a in its articles that they dont even mention anything about her death on her own biography page: Fatima Zahra. As if trying to hide how she died.--Zereshk 22:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they picture it as thoug she died happy and content, and they all loved each other ever after...

I REALLY REALLY REALLY tried to add that to wikipedia, that she wanted her graver to be in secret and that Abu Bakr was not informed of this, but even though i added *DIREKT* Sahi Bukhari rederences from a *SUNNI* site, it got deletet as "whorthless shia POV".

Not the passage i rote, THE WHOLE ARITCLE i wrote, [Fadak and the Prophets inheritence] was deleted as "worthless shia POV"...

It really got me frustraded that the *MOST* anti shia collection, Sahi Bukhari, is considered "shia POV" and i was not allowd to cite it.

So **** you all for oppresing me and not letting me show whats in your own book, you know who you are...

I gues it cant be helped if you have Umar & Bin Bazz & Al-Wahhab as your demigods...

O, And by the way, i DO have the right to speak up if im oppresed, the Koran gives me that right, so may you get what you deserve, you know who you are...

[42.41] And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed, these it is against whom there is no way (to blame).

[42.42] The way (to blame) is only against those who oppress men and revolt in the earth unjustly; these shall have a painful punishment.

[22.60] That (shall be so); and he who retaliates with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed, Allah will most certainly aid him; most surely.Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

Ok, i didnt retaliate "with its like", cuz i cant go delet some sunni POV article, so ill be satisfeid to bad-moth you...

Persistence is the key my friend. Persistence. No matter how many times they delete what you say, keep repeating it, never back off if you are sure you are right, and stay cool and calm. That's a wining combination. Fitnah comes in many forms.--Zereshk 01:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Notes on the Revision

This is an article about the caliph Umar, not Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr's election is described where it ought to be, in the Abu Bakr article. Also, the Caliphs, from the first four "rightly Guided" to the last Ottoman Sultan are what are accepted in history as the actual holders of that office, without prejudice to Shi'a doctrines. Please do not confuse the Caliphate with the Shi'a Imams.

I did some other rewordings and minor edits.

Also, let's not "dumb down" our text, and keep it encyclopedic as much as possible. --A. S. A. 09:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired and a little upset. You seem quite attached to your prose, which you have restored as much as possible, even when it meanders, crawls through loooong sentences, and crams disparate matter into one paragraph. You have also removed any mention of the Sunni/Shi'a dispute, even though it is RELEVANT in the context of all the caliphs preceding Ali. You can't say that "we've covered that in Abu Bakr", because someone coming to look up Umar will not have read Abu Bakr.

I'd suggest reading Strunk and White. Verbosity is not to be confused with brilliance. Zora 10:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I believe replacing "literate" with "able to read and write" is by no means curtailing verbosity, and most certainly "dumbing down." What's more, I have not removed all mention of the Sunni/Shi'a dispute, and the reference to the schism is cleary visible. The election of Abu Bakr belongs in the article on Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr's article is linked in this one.

I have already read Elements of Style, thank you. I'd suggest not commenting when you're tired and upset.--A. S. A. 11:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Literate is a good replacement, and it was probably a mistake to post when I was tired. Nonetheless, your prose is often open to criticism -- as is mine. We obviously will have to fight this through sentence by sentence. Zora 20:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You mistakenly suppose that I am excessively attached to my own prose. I hope I am not quite as vain as that. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that most of the text to which I have reverted some of your edits, are in fact the work of previous contributors. I simply made a judgment on which version was superior. Much of your own contributions remain, and have not been changed for the same reason, they were superior. Even the "literate" reference was not my own original contribution. I reverted the change to "able to read and write" because it was a clear-cut dumbing down that was inappropriate for a proper encyclopedia. As for my work being open to criticism, that goes without saying of course. Your many edits to my work on this article and others would not have survived if I disputed this. I have often reflected with satisfaction on the central genius of Wikipedia, that of evolving collaborative excellence.--A. S. A. 03:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

OK, blow by blow. It is unfair to Shias to refer to the first three caliphs as if everyone accepted them as the legitimate successors. Everyone doesn't. There should be some disclaimer or caveat there. If you don't like my formulation, there are perhaps other ways to do this. Perhaps an article on "Shi'a views of the first three caliphs" would work, and then the articles on Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman could be linked to that. As long as readers know that there is a controversy.

Literate is OK, but "exceptional" is not. Yes, it would have been exceptional for a bedouin to be literate, but Umar lived in a city said to be a center of trade. Merchants are much more apt to be literate, as it's an advantage to be able to write letters and keep accounts. Umar may not have been exceptional at all, at least in Mecca. Uncommon is less strong and may be preferable. (BTW, I've read one article, somewhere, suggesting that the religious demand for Jews to be literate led to Jewish involvement in trade. Trade made some commercial use of the time and energy spent learning to read.)

"Take as a sacrilege upon" is unnecessarily convoluted, and doesn't, I think, quite describe the resistance to Islam. If you don't like my formulation, please don't just revert to your old phrasing, but try something new. If we both keep trying NEW phrasing, something acceptable will emerge. Zora 20:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of your copyedit was fine, including "exceptional/uncommon" and the rest of it. The obsessive insertion of the Shi'a doctrines into every Caliphal article is not. The office of the Caliphate has certain occupants across the centuries, those men are universally recognized as the actual caliphs. Rival doctrines and claimants are not viewed, by history, as a caliphs. Readers clearly see that Ali sought election, lost, accepted, served under the first three, then got elected himself. The Shi'a/Sunni schism is also clearly referenced, as is Abu Bakr's article. I myself even amended Wikipedia's Schism article to include reference to the Sunni-Shi'a split. Now, are we to go into every article on every pope and insert some inane reference to the East-West Schism and the rival claimant to the Supreme Governance of Christendom that Patriarchs of Constantinople have put forwards for centuries? Of course not. The proper description of the schism belongs on the article of the Pope and Patriarch in whose reign it occurred, as well as the extensive article on the Schism itself. I wonder that you should insist on these insertions now. Your previous edits to this article contained none of this incessant cross-referencing.--A. S. A. 03:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a viewpoint

I realized that I'm operating under a handicap in that I'm trying to stand up for the Shi'a when they aren't represented in Wikipedia AND I'm not one, so I'm not always what they'd think, say, or argue. So I'm methodically plodding through a work on Islamic history written by a Shi'a and posted on a major Shi'a website. I'm coming to the conclusion that I should, after all, try to write an article that outlines the Shi'a outlook on the caliphate which can then be linked to every single #$%@#$ caliphate article. That way it doesn't have to be incorporated in the text of the article, but it's there for readers.

So far, the Shi'a book does not endorse your assertions that everyone accepts and respects the first four caliphs. Far from it. Zora 05:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs are universally accepted and respected. Universally here means that acceptance by scholars, historians, and historical references is so prevalent and consistent, that the occasional crackpot dissenter can be dismissed. The Caliphs after Ali are also the only Caliphs certified as such in history, without prejudice to the Shi'a viewpoint about the nature of the Caliphate. Regardless of the minority opinion of the blood right to succeed, the fact is that the Umayyad, Abbassid and various other dynasties did in fact hold the caliphate for centuries and there are no other caliphs recognized by history. When rival caliphates like the Fatimid and Cordoba-Umayyad were set up, they are still regarded as peripheral claimants, and the Abassid caliphate is recognized as the real McCoy. That's more even that what can be said of the Papacy, where there were various parallel anti-pope lines (simultaneously recognized by the Roman Catholic Church) and even, during the western schism, 3 rival popes at one point in time elected by the same electors, and one ecumenical council. There are also the Shi'a Imams to consider. Their line is Shi'a-only and has no rival claimants. My main point is that it is unnecessary, distracting, and encyclopedically unsound to insert the Sunni-Shi'a schism into ever God blessed caliphate article. An external link to a proposed Sunni-Shi'a Schism article is something I would be prepared to accept, but even that I fear would be superfluous, because the Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam articles I think deal sufficiently with the schism. --A. S. A. 12:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article is pretty accurate.

A thought

This talk page is a bit long.

--Striver 16:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A Reminder to Muslims

---

For those who are against The first three Caliphas (Shi'a) check this site: http://www.albrhan.com/

Plus, Why talking about History when you muslims now are the weakest nation in the world. Moreover, Instead of looking at Omar in negative way, you should appreciate how he spreaded Islam to Persia (where most shia are now),Africa,Asia and so on. He expanded the message of Allah to unknown lands. Shi'a just makes things worse they argue about History of the three calipah plus Ali, but they did nothing in the islamic history except wars and conflicts. they are the ones who weakened the islamic nation many times throughout History.

Thanks for the link, but i dont know Arabic.

Muslims are not the weakest nation in the world. Acording to this website, its the USA.

Umar didnt spread Islam nowhere, all he did was further his own agendas of enlarging the nation he stole. Luckly, that didnt stop true belivers from spreading Islam, albeit with a handicap they wouldnt have if Ali would have ruled from the begining.

Anyway, acording to the Prophet(pbuh,) Persians would have found Islam even if it was i Pleiades, so who cares about what Umar did thought he did. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.420

Due to Umars numerous inovations the spreading of Islam did not go so smoth and painless as it would have, just look att his favorite line, "let me chop his head of".

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.437 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.251

And here you go for Umars sense of timing, justice and mercy: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.150

As if Umar was greater than Islam, as if Islam would have been doomed and isolated wear it not for Umar. Well, do you remember this line of Umar "wear it not for Ali, Umar would have perished"?

Dont get me started on all the inovations Umar did to the Prophets sunnah, or his incompetense, the guy didnt even know that it is allowed to make tayyamum, even though it has, not one, but TWO Quranic verses about it, and EVEN tough Ammar ibn Yasir reminded him! Even then he deemed it as not allowed! Now, how in the world do you regard such an ignorant man as wise?

Are You kiddng me, Shias are responsible for all the wars and conflits? Are you totaly blinded by Salafi propaganda? It would'nt surprise me if you belived the Ibn Saaba myth to. Lets just ask ourself who started this conflicts, and if they where Shia:

1)Who Made Fatimah Angry?

2)Who Made here wish to get burried in secred?

3)Who killed people just because they didnt want to pay Taxes to Abu Bakr?

4)Who defended Khalid ibn Walid when he "married" (sic) the widow of the muslim he just killed the same day?

5) Who wanted to kill people that did not deserve it, just out of ignorance?

6) Who made fatwas out of ignorance that made people disunite?

7) Who started to kill people just becuse he didnt like the Prophets sunnah?

8) Who send Abu Dhar, the great Sahaba, to exile, and broght back Marwan Ibn Hakam, the guy that was sent to exile buy the Prophet?

9) Who was so gready and unfair that people surounded his house in disgust and killed him?

10) Who could not bear that Ali was selected Caliph and (a) went out to war against him, (b) AGAINST the Prophets explicit prophibiation and (c) the Koran Surah 33:33, (d) and justifiyed it through wanting to avenge a guy she wasnt even related to (e) wich caused the first civil war and killed over 10 000 people, (f) even though Ali tried to negotiate peace?

11) Who neglected point 10, but sudenly when he was dissmissed from his work he remembered that he to must avenge Uthamn, wich resulted in war, even though Ali tried to negotiate peace??

12) Who was about to go to war agains Ali first son?

13) Who butchered Ali second son and allmost all his male relatives and friends?

14) Who atacked medina and made 1000 girls pregnent?

15) Who atacked the Kaba with burning stones?

16 - 23) Who killed the forth to the elventh Imam and killed and persecuted all their relatives and companions?

Here are the answeres:

1) Abu Bakr

2) Abu Bakr

3) Abu Bakr

4) Abu Bakr

5) Umar

6) Umar

7) Umar 2

8) Uthman

9) Uthman

10) Aisha

11) Muaviya

12) Muaviya

13) Yazid ibn Muaviya

14) Yazid ibn Muaviya

15) Yazid ibn Muaviya

16 - 23) Sunni Kalifs

Now, how manny of this people are Shias? Makes me angry to hear uneducated non-sense like that.

Yea, its we that weakened the Islamic nations, isnt it? Isnt Iran the nail in USAs eye that they cant touch? Wasnt Hizzbolah the guys that gave Israel a bleeding nose?

Here are the sell-outs!

Do they look Shia to you?

Dont give me "its was history, dont care about it now" polemic, history is what drive today, its only becus Imam Hussains sacrifice that Yazid didnt totaly demolished the Kaba and suceeded in anihlating Islam. Not becus of Umar, remember that. It was Becus of Umar that Uthman came in power, and becuas of Uthman that Muavya and Marwan got a grip of power. Her you, read a bit About Marwan, the guy the Prophet exiled and Uthman brought back:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/015.sbt.html#002.015.076

If it wearent for Umar, Ali would have lead the Islamc nation, and Hussain wouldnt have to sacrifice himself.

If you think that is old news, not relevant today, why do you think that Saddam forbade to comemorate Karbala? If its not important, why do you think that Saudi Salafi Ibn wahab worshipers suicide killed over 100 persons att karbala evry year since Saddam went away? Because it matters, It matters what Umar did, it matters that he was a selfish, ignorant Yazid enabler!

--Striver 12:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Where are the Shia today? While the Sunna are busy fighting evil, the Shia are busy fighting on internet forums over history.

Was it not the Mujahideen Sunna in Afghanistan who defeated the USSR?

Is it not the Sunna in Chechnya who are defending Islam?

Is it not the Sunna in Palestine who are fighting the worlds most brutal killing machine for over 50 years?

With the exception of (Muqtada Al Sader) who is being fought by the Shia themselves - is it not the Sunna who are fighting the evil Americans in Iraq?

What exactly have the Shia ever done, than betray Imam Ali, Al Hassan, Al Hussain and the prophet himself?

If it were not for the betrayal by the people who then labelled themselves as Shia, this would have never happened. If you had loved them so much, you would not have invited them to fight evil and then hide in your homes, or even worse fuel the “fitna”. Get your facts right bro and lets put an end to this silly dispute that has been degrading Islam, and allowing the enemy to conquer us.

Today we can see that scum of the earth have reached a stage of confidence (due to our weakness) that allows them to desecrate Allah holiest book. Wake up.

Sunni View

I think the sunni view of umar is most correct.