Talk:Umar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

i don't understand why shia is against umar(may peace be on him) Muhammad (peae be upon him) clearly says that my all saahabaas are janathi. it is also mention in several hadiths of our prophet muhammad(peace be upon him)that if someone follow my saahaba it is like he follow me. and imagine if he wasn't true muslim so why Allah buried him next to prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjadpushtun (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 August 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)

true, i see this as vandalism and extreme POV. sources are not mentioned anywhere is claimed here as (primary) and reiterating on events and giving opinions is like a blog forum, not wiki work. please improve the POV and state several sources for an event for a wiki work, otherwise the page may be locked for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.137.11 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think that these false insertions by "Pashtun Ismailiyya" need to be looked into and appropriate action taken. For those who do not know "Ismailiyya" is a small shia sect and does NOT represent in any way or form the beliefs that the mainstream Sunnis have. "Pashtun Ismailiyya" may have deleted the reference to Musnad ibn Hanbal but this does not wipe his slate clean, he/she is clearly fabricating stories and the tiny sect that he represents cannot be allowed to do so. If necessary, let him make a section on Ismaili beliefs of Umar, but to taint the Sunni section is clearly malicious and against Wikipedia guidelines. again, the fact that this individual has been caught red handed doing this needs to be looked into. User:plamkii —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 11 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)

Whatever Ismailis believe or don't believe can be put in a separate section which indicates Ismaili beliefs. Inserting false information on Sunni beliefs when one is not even Sunni, fails to live up to wikipedia standards, and is in fact in violation of wikipedia code of ethics. User:plamkii 11 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 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)

I agree that Pashtun Ismailiyya has been doing exactly as Sampharo describes. We must learn to respect each others views and not try to twist the others views. Let him write about Ismaili beliefs of Umar, I have no problem with that. But trolling Sunni beliefs about Umar, falsification and then edit warring, violating neutrality and unverified references is not the way. I hope the administrators look into this. user:plamkii 11 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Neutral?!

I dispute the neutrality of this article based on this statement: "There could be no better definition of the democracy and justice, then the historic words of Umar" - I mean WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.234.16 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• lolzzz WTF ? bro the words on which u r creating hue and cry are not my words they are words of britanica encyclopedia. Now keep on saying WTF it makes no difference.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

There are many religious people in academic fields: for example Bernard Lewis is Jewish and Edward Said is Christian. That does not make them biased in their fields, likewise, it does not make me biased for being an Ismaili Shi'a. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Yes, if it was "Introduction to Sunni Islam" it could still be a WP:reliable source: the publisher is not a publisher of religious apologetic texts, they publish texts that are accurate according to their own methodology. I am not trying to raise sectarian propaganda at all, I am trying to keep this article balanced. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

You can go ahead and delete that, I must have simply missed it (I CTRL-F for Musnad and deleted all references to it). I have not violated the revert rule, I reverted 3 times in 24 hours and made a minor edit once. These sources have been here for a long time, we need more evidence than just saying, "I'm pretty sure it can't be found here," to remove them. Just like I removed Musnad ibn Hanbal I can remove others, but we should do this one at a time. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Once again, we can take out these sources but a massive edit deleting them all at once is not correct. I deleted any reference to Ahmad ibn Hanbal I found, and according to you I missed one and I am sorry for that, please have WP:good faith. You all at once deleted several sources, deleted much material, and rewrote lots. One cannot do that without WP:CONSENSUS of the community. Here is what we can do: I want you to list all the sources and paragraphs you have issues with, and we will look at the sources, look at the content, and make edits from there. Please, please, have WP:good faith in me, I am asking you this much. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 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)

Your allegations about Ismailis are baseless and your allegations about the secular source are improper. A reliable secular source on Shi'i Islam is not a pro-Shi'a polemic. That's why they are called "secular", because they are not religious. Finally, your personal attacks on P.I. are not appropriate - and do not belong on a talk page even if they were.

This is not the place for religious polemics, which is what your anti-Ismaili screed is. This is an encyclopedia. Ogress _smash! 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a religious matter so you cannot dictate that it cannot have religious sources. This person has used Shia books and cited them as Sunni sources, bit by bit adjusting as the fabrication was being exposed. I did not say to remove Shia or Ismaili views, but insist that they are mentioned as so, not fabricate citations that it's in Sunni books. Sunni historical sources carry historical validity and that is why references attributed to them must be true and the page where such controversial claims is referenced be cited. Otherwise, as I have already proven the citations made to Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was fabricated, all anyone needs to plug in false information into the encyclopedia is to hide behind a double reference (I saw a book that says another book says! Prove me wrong!). Unsubstantiated claims to attribute stories like that to books that have been around for hundreds of years and considered by all to be solid references of knowledge will need to be shown, quoted with citation of page, otherwise based on knowledge of those books scholars and students have the right to correct them.

Once again, we need to know that these are actually fabricated. You said that the citation to Ahmed ibn Hanbal was fabricated (note I didn't check myself, I had WP:good faith in you and deleted all references I found, and you said I missed one and accused me of purposefully doing it; that wasn't the case). On Wikipedia we use WP:good faith for everyone involved, I have had WP:good faith in both you and the perosn who has originally put them in. Is it so wrong I am asking for the same respect that I have given you and the person who originally put those references in? I am citing a book published by Yale, if there are other references that are specified that it doesn't exist in, we can take those out! That's what I tried to do but I missed one and you kept saying I did it purposefully! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As for speaking that way to Pashtun, I have already proven the citations made to Ahmed Ibn Hanbal is fabricated, and as the conversation shows above she knew it, admitted it, and STILL left the reference in the article and dodged the issue right and left, and began an editting war. I think anyone can say that it is at the very least frustrating. If it wasn't for my digging through and uncovering the citation, and her sending the link, we wouldn't have found that the book she used was biased (where on Earth do you get to say that a book titled "Introduction to Shii Islam" written by a Shiite cleric is secular?! That's an oxymoron!), not to mention she herself is biased. As mentioned this has been brought to the attention of the administrators and as per Wikipedia rules, we as knowledgable public will continue to improve on this article by removing biased sentences that make false claims to established books of knowledge, or present specialized sectarian views as generalized muslim beliefs.

I deleted all references I found to it, which were around two or three, I missed one and you keep saying I did that purposefully. The reason "Introduction to Shi'a Islam" is secular is because it is published not by religious publishers, but by secular publishers, Yale, which keeps their texts secular. I am not biased, my job is to make sure large information is not deleted and that citations are not taken out for a reason. Once again, please have WP:good faith in me: I took your word for it and deleted the two to three references I found about Ahmad ibn Hanbal, I missed one and you say I did that purposefully. I didn't! That's a misunderstanding. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Sunni sources validate this story is an outright lie that every muslim scholar online and offline in every school of study around the World will tell you is false, and that everyone knows it. Sunni muslims have accepted that Shia believe that story and have laid the argument to rest, but they will not be quoted as confirming it and that their books validate it falsely!! For example I have the right to say George Bush is not liked by some people around the World, I have the right to say he killed hundreds of thousands and start a "we hate Bush" society even, and I certainly will find tonnes of publishers who will happily publish my book. I have no right however to say that according to Republican Party official records he personally attacked someone and did this and did that! And when the link and citation I made turns out to be false, I simply remove the link and say I read a book published by a printing press under Cambridge that says the republican party record says so! As I said, we are not removing Shia beliefs from the page, but will remove any false references to Sunni books that claim to validate the stories and incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I quoted a book from Yale that states it can be found in Sunni sources, now you and I can check if it actually does in the sources listed (the book itself doesn't list sources, I am speaking of the sources in this article). Once again, write a list of sources you feel are used incorrectly. You, the community, and I will go through these sources and see which ones were put in polemically and which ones are correct. But you need to have WP:good faith in me so we can fix things. Yes I am an Ismaili, is there a problem with that? You're a Sunni, but I know you want to just make this article better just like I want to make this article better. Please, I am asking you to realize there has been a big misunderstanding here (I deleted all references to Hanbal I found and I missed one by complete accident), I want to help fix this article with you, but I can't do that if you keep accusing me of being biased (I have never accused you of being biased once to my memory). --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted two more references I found to Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Did I miss any? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

the new article...!

This present introduction of Caliph Umar is good, but need to be a bit more comprehensive.

• any ways i failed to complete my article today. i fear that for next one week i will not be able to work on it. i was just trying to complete article of muslim conquest of Egypt and persia first, most importantly that of Persia, as it was the greatest triumph of Umar to conquere whole of Persian empire by well co-ordinated multi-prong attacks,isolating the targets and destroying them separately, (a rear example of its kind in military hsitory ), just with in two years from 642-644. and it must be included in the article. How can you image Alexanmder the great's article with out mentioning his brilliant conquest of Persia ! similarly no one historically can imagine Umar with out mentioning his greatest strategical triumph that marked his reputation as one of the political and military genius of history. i have completed the aticle of Egytp's conquest. but persia's conquest still need some work. my vacations are over, and i will be leaving this morning. this is what i was working for Umar's biography [1].

i hope i will be soon able to complete it, but what i fear the most is that i will not be able to work on them for a month or so !!!!!!!

• regards. and don't fight, Caliph Umar never liked disputes :)

Mohammad Adil (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the article from a Western perspective

I am a PhD student in Islamic history, so I have some knowledge of this topic. The article isn't terrible at this point, but it is chaotic and seems to be defined by Sunni/Shia edit wars. There is some description of his policies, such as the Treaty of Umar and Arab/non-Arab relations under his rule. This could be improved though. The writing is not very coherent.

Plus, there should be a more straightforward narrative of his unprecedented conquests. As Mohammad Adil said above, his role in the conquest of Persia should be discussed at length. His conquest and transformation of Persia does not compare with Alexander - it is more important! That's because the conquest brought Islam to these countries. He only ruled for 10 years, but if any Islamic military history matters, this is it. And then there is the cultural aspect of the conquest. How were the conquered Persians or Egyptians treated? Were the libraries really burned? We should note that Persian remained the language of administration, and I find this an interesting topic.

Lastly, the article strikes me as very medieval in a good and bad way. I do think the discussion of Umar's appearance (which reminds me of medieval biographical dictionaries) is excessive from a modern perspective. However, there is still a lot of valuable information in this article, especially on his relations with other major early Islamic figures. --Aghniyya (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs is blindly reverting any change that is made to the page, I'm sorry that's happening to you. We can go into many details about Umar's conquests, administration, and so forth. There has been lots of material in the articles about Persian history on Wikipedia (Islamic conquest of Persia) in regards to Umar's treatment of Persians. They go into details about how Persians were discouraged from converting to Islam by Umar's government, and I've read the library burning thing too, but I know Umar didn't do it in Egypt. We'll need to discuss other aspects of his reign, for example the strides made in economy and trade routes and currency, and the influence on future forms of government. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not even proper editing now

There is a lot to do with the article, I agree Aghniyya. I saw your work on the article and unfortunately it has been reverted again, and right before protection.

Pashtun, If you want me or anyone to assume good faith from you, you can start by not reverting my whole edit, which included cancelling corrected spelling mistakes and badly written sentences let alone uncited statements. And now someone else is still doing it, reverting it back once someone touches up on some of the mistakes or plugged propaganda.

I've worked on Wikipedia for years, and you're one of the few people who have not assumed good faith in me. WP:Good faith comes from me giving reasons for every reversion I made, going both to the talk page and to your talk page, adding sources when you were in doubt, deleting sources that certainly seemed wrong, and never doubting your own good faith or making WP:personal attacks against you or your religious beliefs. I please would wish if you too didn't attack me nor my religious beliefs. Last night I was reading the Qur'an before I went to sleep, Surah Ta-Ha, and when Moses when to Pharaoh he was instructed to speak to him gently. As one man once said, I am not worse than Pharaoh, and you are not better than Moses! I reverted most of your edits because if I had to start from one of the two versions (the previous version vs your version) the previous version seemed to me a much better start. It had been the default version for quite a while, meaning it had attained some WP:CONSENSUS of the community: we have lots of Sunni editors here already, not just Shi'a editors, and statistically wise we should have five Sunni editors for every one Shi'a editor. Generally when reworking an article on Wikipedia you start with the older version, not the newer version. Also, it's easier to subtract and fix errors then restore tons of sources deleted and rephrase things that were better in the original document. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I still insist that as per the majority of opinions you need exact reference citation before publishing, not publish whatever and then disprove one by one and I guess we'll need to wait until the protection is up to do so. Unless Mohammed Adil can rewrite it before then or admin finds an official muslim scholar to approve its sections and produce a fully scrutinized document. --Sampharo (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not looking for a Muslim scholar, bur rather a scholar on Islam. They can have any faith, many writers on Islam today generally are Jewish like Bernard Lewis. Someone's faith, as you have told me, does not limit what articles they can and cannot write. You are more than welcome to contribute to the article on Ismailism if you can write without bias, and the same goes for me and Umar. Also, since you have calmed down, don't try to attack one faith's viewpoint and make points about how their beliefs don't possibly make sense on talk pages. Websites like Answering Ansar do dirty things like that, if you want to debate Islam-Christianity Sunni-Shi'a Twelver-Ismaili you can e-mail any person you like on Wikipedia to do that (I've debated more than my fair share of these things), but on Wikipedia I ignored those comments from you because we are not here to prove or disprove any faith, but rather to fix and write articles. So, let's start with WP:good faith in each other and hope that takes us somewhere wonderful, insha'Allah! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether a Muslim scholar or a scholar on Islam, doesn't matter, however just a bunch of modern day writers just because they published a book does not make them scholars. The subject has not changed though and that is a claim that Sunni sources have validated the Umar attacking Fatima story is outrageous and citing exact references need to be to the page. And spelling mistakes along with weak sentences is something that EVERYONE should fix, and I think you should stand down from protecting illegitimate statements that have no citation whatsoever if you want to call yourself neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If they don't have citations I won't complain, but in this case they do have citations, however you are complaining they are not specific enough. Our job is to check, if possible, if these sources are legitimate at all. We do so far have a legitimate secular source published by Yale claiming that it is verified in Sunni sources, however it isn't specific. Things that are specific that we can check for sure are incorrect (as you did with Musnad ibn Hanbal), are what should be removed. We can take out other sources without checking, but we should do this via WP:consensus where you list each source and say what's wrong with it rather than making an umbrella statement that Umar at Fatimah's house simply doesn't exist in Sunni sources when we have published sources saying to the contrary. You are not happy with me and still have no WP:good faith in me ("...if you want to call yourself neutral"), so I am going to be removing myself from this conflict and I will let other editors deal with it to ensure balance. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly other editors are welcome to come and ADD to the page, delete spelling mistakes or false statements like I did, or improve on the section or the whole of the article. Not reverting to an inferior version by all standards to maintain the status quo that serves to bolster one particular personal beliefs, and then use every approach to keep it all the while claiming neutrality and good faith. As the administrators told me they will also be looking out for Sockpuppetry to make sure that new editors are not just the same person signing in under a new handle and supporting oneself or even just direct ip vandalism.

Any look at the above talk will see your signature on every post like you have sole controller rights over this article and dictating what is acceptable for it, so I think you can see clearly where the feeding force of this whole argument was coming from. I however happily accept your offer of taking yourself out of the conflict and thank you for bringing this to end.--Sampharo (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad this issue has been resolved amicably and hope sockpuppetry doesn't ensue User:plamkii 11 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

what was this ?

what was this ......... i was in a total shock when i read it. These are the most outrageous, horrendous and weird allegation on Caliph Umar !

just read it, i dont know who added this to the article, but seem like a part of shia controversy.

Umar was the first caliph to extend the dominion of the Arab empire into non-Arab lands, so in his defence it may be argued he faced new challenges. His response to the problem of converts to Islam who threatened to dilute the wealth of the Arab masters was the Mawali policy - non-Arabs had to first become token Arabs or clients of an Arab family, if the latter would have them. The non-Arab converts (blacks, Persians, Turks, Indians, central Asians) and who were all called mawalis, also had to pay the jizya or tax levied upon non-Muslims. This was done since Muslims were obligated to pay the zakat (Islamic charity/tax), although non-Muslims were not, since they were not Muslims. As a result, a separate tax was levied on them, so as to not oppress them with religious rulings which they did not belong to, while still collecting the necessary funds. Further the Mawalis were forbidden from entering Madina the centre of political authority and hence could not have a role in central government. The Mawali policy is regarded as the first semblance of Arab nationalism, with which Umar may be credited as its true founder. The issue of how the expanding and increasingly wealthy sons of the desert would deal with whole non-Arab nations did not raise its head before Umar. Umar's predecessor Abu Bakr had only enjoyed sovereignty over Arabia so the issue of how to deal with non-Arab nations was not relevant to him. Umar's successor Uthman continued the Mawali policy, however Ali and his successor Al-Hassan stopped the Mawali policy and encouraged conversion by non-Arabs. The Umayyad Moawiya however restored Umar's Mawali policy after Ali and Al-Hassan. Under the Umayyad caliphs the Mawali policy continued for almost 100 years.

such a big allegation, and still with out an authentic reference, one can easily guess that what actually it is..... the mentioning of name of Caliph Ali and his son Hassan opposing this policy, O' ya, thats an other purely shia allegation on a liberal Caliph.

• lets take a look at what was Umar's policy towards the non-Arab Muslim converts. It is mentioned in Illama Bulazuri's Fatuh al Buldan page 370 that Umar's policy towards the slaves and prisoners who converted to islam was that they should be freed and will recieve the equal allowance as other Muslims.

i have more refferences and proves, but i am waiting for the response from the one who added this. Mohammad Adil (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly if one of those guys could write about Umar having an unenvironmental 4x4, his driving being aggressive, or that he didn't buy local products, they could and would hail it as a catastrophe or something!! On what basis can such a paragraph start by mentioning in less than a sentence that he expanded the Islamic nation outside Arab lands, and uses that as a precursor for a singled-out negative spin-off on a policy that is then stuffed with a diarrhea of personal opinionated thoughts of no-bodies! Good delete.

Also could someone check the "Emperor of Egypt" addition, where did that come from? --Sampharo (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, who added back that mawali policy stuff ???? why dont you simply come here an put your claim to the test ?

its just a crap may be written by some shia fundamentalist writer of some arab nationalism freak. No reference to it is available in primary sources, nor in any authantic and popular biography of Umar written by Arab and non arab muslims !

Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just disappointing that we see Umar Ibn El-Khattab's page become a toilet for gossip and myths. The whole incident at Fatima's house is not only false to start with, but even if true is completely irrelevent and I do not understand why it is at the center of his mainstream biography as well as sits as a separate page and also a part of the Shia view on Umar page?! Mohammad Adil you said earlier you are rewriting this page, how long will the rewrite take, and should I begin adding information and sections to this one?--Sampharo (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• yes thats my bad, my work is in progress and now i think i have to work quickly on it, just give me few more days and my article will be completed. check here its so far progress [2].

Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Main tittle section

There's no need for numerous repetitions of the 'Shia view' on Umar's caliphate in the main title section when it clearly states that he is "regarded by Sunni Muslims as one of the Rashidun".Khokhar (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "alleged" and its context

In the section entitled Umar's family i have taken out the word alleged and changed some of the text to reflect the reality of the situation. Yes there exists a difference but referencing a website is primary research and Umar did not kill fatimah her mother as the line ignorantly suggests. i have changed the following line the main sunni view to my knowledge is that he did marry the daughter of ali. I have also taken out the word alleged from the name of the son and daughter as the disagreement is over who umm kulthum was not whether or not he married a women with the name of umm kulthum. this article clarifies the issue a little better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar%27s_marriage_to_Umm_Kulthum . --alpha.test —Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Enough Shia vandalism

Hmmmm. On one hand we hear Shia editors screaming that they are 15% of muslims and therefore should have greater leverage in polls because they are "the minority", yet they slash around the page with false information and unreal references (that you need to follow one by one to discover they are falsified) and remove editorial content like it's their 100% page. Above all, why is it that there is a Shia View of Umar wikipedia page Shi'a view of Umar that claims as a reason for existence that there is no Shia section on Umar's main page, yet here we are with huge Shia sections on this one?

It is mighty clear now that the majority and the proper sources of information are involved in the page and they are overwhelmingly agreeing with the fact that Fatima's house story is a Shia myth, yet all those editors have been respectful enough in leaving it be. What will NOT BE tolerated though and I will edit over and over is again re-instating lies about the incident being in history books, when we already went through the books written and it was established that those references were not correct. There is complete lack of good faith or neutrality here as the old paragraphs are being reverted even with the spelling and grammatical mistakes. The Fatima story was written twice for God's sake, and comprised 35% of the body of the bio!

Without introducing a system to allow authoritative knowledge to have staying ability, and vandalizing or ignorant fanaticals from being barred for a longer period of time, edit-warring will simply continue.

I don't know how to do this, but I wish to ask the guys here to take a poll regarding this: should this story remain on this page when it has a separate page, and is again fully mentioned on a third "Shia view of Umar" page?

Overall, this page has become an embarrassment. --Sampharo (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough SUNNI WHITEWASHING OF REFRERENCES

Hey

How dare you Sampharo!

STOP DELETING REFERENCES

Get it out of your head that there are no sunni references to the events in question. Stop lying. Stop lying. Umar is one of the most controversial men in Islam. Accept it. This site is not a temple of adoration of Umar.

I have posted references which you deleted which decimate your statements.

Ibne Qutayba is a sunni work. You removed the reference proving the references to Umar burning the House of Fatima were found in sunni works also which I provided and continue to threaten to ban me for providing references. Ibne Qutayba has several chapters documenting these events.

I want to now how to put in a formal complaint.

Stop making this topic of Umar a piece of sunni muslim propaganda. It isn't.

And stop threatening to ban people who are new to Wikipedia like me because they provide refrences arguments which contradict DOGMA you are spouting and have been without challenge.

Right now your behaviour is a disgrace.

You have lied!

You have lied!

Stop lying and let people make up their own minds.

What do people think? I have shown references that show Sunni books record the narrative of Fatima's house being burned and Ali physically assualted by Umar and his men. This man Sampharo and his sympathisers insist that there are no sunni references yet there are. So he keeps deleting the ones I give. I converted because of sunnis then left the Sunni faith because I saw the sheer state of enforced denial entrenched rigidly by the religion of the Arab kings, and now I see that kind of behaviour again.

It makes Wikipedia simply a platform for Religious Propaganda and Fascism aka Sampharo!

How can this matter of Sampharo deleting again and again references which invalidate his propaganda be dealt with?

Is it abuse of position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1829 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

it seems to me that every time a shia brother gets a hold of the conspiracy filled history books he thinks he has a right to "show" this conspiracy to the rest of world because hey we are all dumb and naive. Your uluma should do more to uncover the truth rather than allow the prorogation of such filth, i have personally spoken to shia brothers who worked at these publishing houses [they left because they could no longer handle what was occurring] there are people out there with a real agenda to put rifts between sunni's and shia through these books. These books are worded in such a way as to inspire hate, animosity and contempt in the reader, the passages are deliberately structured this way it inspires a sort of superiority complex in the individual causing them to think "hey we have the truth look at these blind sunni's there own books say what we believe but they ignore it" i've seen a few books that follow this formula and non more popular and utterly fabricated then the famous Peshawar nights. I geuss when a shia brother thinks he is on to something why bother checking the references his "superior" feeling will only deflate.Alpha.test (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

if anyone is interested in seeing how these works are fabricated they should read the following,

• Peshewar Nights The Art of Fictional Narration or
• Peshewar Nights The Art of Fictional Narration Alpha.test (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Try

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/burning_the_house/en/chap3.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1829 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

for a list PLUS facsimiles of original manuscripts. Further here are the list of references:

al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-30 Dhikr Bayya Abu Bakr

Tareekh Abul Fida Volume 1 page 156 Dhikr bayya Abu Bakr; we relied on the Urdu translation by Maulana Kareem'ud Deen al Hanafi pages 177-179;

Iqd al Fareed page 179

Tareekh al Tabari Volume 13 page 1818 Dhikr Wafaath Nabi, we relied on the English translation Volume 9 page 187

al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr Volume 1 page 246 Dhikr Abdullah in Abi Quhafa

Sharh ibn al Hadeed Volume 1 page 157

Al Mihal wa al Nihal Volume 1 page 77, Dhikr Nizameeya

Muruj adh-Dhahab by Abd al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al Masudi Volume 3 page 198

Izalath ul Khifa by Al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi Volume 2 page 226 (Urdu translation, Qur'an Mehal publishers, Karachi)

al Bayana Izalathul Khifa Volume 2 page 29

Tareekh Kamil by Ibn Atheer Volume 11 page 113

Tareekh Ahmadi by Ahmad Husayn Khan Sahib pages 111-112

Taufa Ithna Ashari, by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 292 Dhikr Muthain Umar

Al Murthada by Hafidh Abdul Rahman al Hanafi page 45 (Amritsar edition)

Mukhthasar Kanz al Ummal bur Hushiya Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume 2 page 184 (Egypt).

Kitab Mukhthasar fi Ahbar al Bashar Volume 1 page 156

Tahqeeq Mubashraab Sunni page 110 bu Maulana Waheedudin Khan al Hanafi

Ansar Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582-586

Tareekh Ya'qubi, v2, p116

Fathul Aineen page 88

al Faruq Volume 1 page 92 Dhikr Saqeefa Bani Sa'ada

Ruh al Mustafai Volume 3 page 36

No one says you have to believe the events these Sunni books narrate, which is the burning of the House of Fatima by Umar and the attack on Ali, but you ought not to delete these references when provided in the Wiki page and then say that no such references exist in Sunni Islam when they do in abundance. Further your trying to ban me and threaten me for providing references is if anything nothing more than Umar-type behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1829 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ive signed my comments so you shouldn't confuse who you are replying to, i have no authority to ban any individual. lets assume these references are real unlike countless other references that have been shown to be fake [read the article i posted br] your works have a tendency to take matters out of context and spin them in a new light not intended by the original historians, they use sunni works to bolster there position when in fact the sunni work in question does not agree with what is being said. You can take an event and manipulate it any way you like shia works are famous for it and thus unreliable. What in fact you are doing is referencing a work referencing another work and that is not the same as referencing the original because in reality you dont know what position the original work has taken on the matter or the particulars of the event in question just that it is mentioned.Alpha.test (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Children, take the Shi'a (Answering Ansar) and Sunni (Ahlelbayt) polemics to their respective sites (Shia Chat and Sunni Forum). Stay if you want to help write an encyclopediate and not yell at each other calling each other's religion a lie. Both of you are better than this! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The over all context of the article is the life of Umar and the major milestones in it since you can only sum up a life, so in that context the points of interest this shia br likes to raise have no real relevance to Umars [ra] overall life and the entry on this wiki. its only controversial or of any importance becouse shia place on an altar any minute detail relating to Ali's [my great ancestor btw] life. So just to put things into perspective "Umar ended the Persian empire he went on to burn down fatimas house" im sorry but to even compare the two issues and say the latter even deserves a mention in an encyclopedia entry about all he achieved in his life is laughable.Alpha.test (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Angry Frank

Sorry that you are this angry. But honestly do you think that yelling (figuratively speaking) and edit warring your view will force it onto this page? This is the reason why debates of this style when done verbally never succeed, because yelling one's own viewpoint seems to be the norm and the ears are constantly closed.

First off you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the paragraph that you kept re-instating. It was written long before you graced these pages, and in case you wouldn't look at the discussion, it was disproven. Do you understand what that means? It means those books were opened and it was found to be NOT there. The other books mentioned were secular books or simply books examining claims of Shia, in no way can be described as "Sunni history books". The story is mentioned and that frankly is already TOO much undue weight for a single event. Your reverts were stupid and backwards, and your latest edit changing the words from "According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur" to "Sunni Muslims sometimes enjoy stating that according to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history this entire story did not occur" was nothing more than a reversal of the paragraph meaning and a rude stab at the majority view that you may enjoy making in your privacy with your buddies but has no place on an encyclopedic article. The reference you refer to AGAIN fall into the category of either false references, or marginal books examining Shia allegations, which cannot represent the Sunni view or used to represent history, a statement you are trying to shove down everybody's collective throats.

Additionally, here are sample realities to your so called Sunni Hadith references that prove the incident of beating Fatima and causing her miscarriage:

1- Al-Imama Wal-Seyasa claimed for Ibn Qotayba: Disproven from being a book for Ibn Qotayba (reference Dr. Ali Salaby in his book "Caliphate Umaweyya: Factors of its rise and fall") It was found to have been brought into print after his death and upon review by several sources it was unanimously agreed to be manufactured and not written by the great Ibn Qotayba as per the following:

a) All his students, employees, and researchers of his time agreed that he was never working on the book and never mentioned it to them.

b) Information in it claim visiting Damascus and Morocco, when he never left Baghdad except to Dinor.

c) directly contradicts Ibn Qotayba's original book

d) Mentions quotations that were made directly to the author by Ibn Abu Layla, who died 60 years before Ibn Qotayba.

e) Completely unrelated to the writing style of Ibn Qotayba.

It was scratched as a forgery from that time and every single Islamic scholar today knows that and scores have written papers and books about it.

2- Tareekh (History) of Abi Al-Fida, A famous politician (got to grade of King of Hama in Syria under the Sultan) who lived in 1400's, sectarian source basically. Says the following verbatim: "Gamal El-Din Ibn Wasel has mentioned, that Abi Bakr Al-Seddiq after Saquifa sent Umar ibn Al-Khattab to Ali's house to summon him, when he went, Fatima was at the door and noticed he was with men and a torch, she asked him:"What do you want?" and Umar said: "For Ali to come and join the word of the muslims," Ali came out and went with Umar and made Allegience, reported from Ibn Abd Rabboh Al-Maghreby." So Frank, where are the bashed eye and the dead babies?! Let alone again, the narrative line is broken as in Islamic history science: Al-Maghreby, a poet in the 10th century reported this story, according to the mention by a 13th century Doctor, no source of actual report of the time.

3- Tareekh Al-Tabary: Amusing you say Volume 13 when the book had 11 Volumes. Not to mention that Al-Tabary himself said in the very introduction of the book: ( فما يكن في كتابي هذا من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه , أو يستشنعه سامعه , من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها من الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة ؛ فليعلم أنه لم يُؤْت في ذلك من قبلنا , وإنما أُتِي من قِبَل بعض ناقليه إلينا , وأنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا ) Translation: Some of the things in this book might cause surprise or denial from readers or hearers, considering that it was found to be incorrect or has found no relation to truth; may he know that we didn't bring it, but was presented by some reporters and we presented it as it is. In short it is history of all related stories, not verified historical accounts. The book is full of Hadith Mawdoo' (fabricated narrations as per comparative evidence) and two books detail the findings: "Narrations of Abi Makhnaf in Tareekh Al-Tabary" by Yehya Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Al-Yehya, and "Investigations of the Companions Positions in the Fitna between the stories of Tareekh Al-Tabary and its Innovations" by Prof. Mohammed Amhazon.

So the old silly arguments are known, and it has been for hundreds of years that Shia beliefs seeked legitmacy by quoting Sunni sources. It has been more than civilized to have so much evidence of the fabrication at every level and yet still let the story get mentioned as it is. For you to attempt to build more disproven false evidence around its support in Sunni history is just plain total lack of integrity on your part and would be complete lack of scrutiny on our side.

Considering that you are now more than served due notice and explanation, any further disruptive edits on this matter to Umar page will result in our full-fledged pursual of banning you permenantly from Wikipedia as a whole.--Sampharo (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Appalling Example of Gross Censorship on Wikipedia - Sunnis Hijacking the Umar Page

The current version is unacceptable as it endorses a fundamental falsehood - I have gone to pains to correct the controversial sentence you endorse (yet my references get deleted and I for which valiant effort I am threatened with bans). The sentence which I state is absolute falsehood is:

"According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur."

I provided innumerable references to Sunni books disproving the above statement. These references still get deleted, despite them running into the scores. Your arguments for endorsing this attitude is not the existence of the texts as such but whether what is written in the books is truth, or in one case because the author of one of the books was doubted by one person. This still means the story is written in these books. The reader can judge whether to believe them. You however have tried to delete fact, ie the existence of these books.

The books continue to exist and even you could not deny the fact that they are all sunni books (with one exception you suggested may not be, even though many sunni scholars endorse it as the work of Inbne Qutayba (see Abul A'la Maududi)).

With regard to all the other scores of books I provided references to - what of these? You effectively made a sweeping attack saying while the books exist you do no tbelieve the events are truly reported. Fine, but look at the sentence you endorse. That sentence, that these books do not exist, remains a lie.

Therefore regarding the statement "According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur."

... the above sentence is a gross untruth, an untruth you are perpetuating and which gives a lie to your credibility as an impartial contributor in view of your deleting mention of the Sunni books that prove your sentence a lie.

I am appalled. This is abuse of privilege. I want someone put in charge someone who understands english better, and preferably a non-muslim put in charge - your sunni sensitivities have caused you to obscure the truth, in fact worse, to perpetuate mistruths that these books do not exist - that is shocking for an editor and is tantamount to gross negligence. You are now illogical, you are a disgrace to honest conduct, you are effectively CENSORING Wikipedia.

I want a non-muslim involved to arbitrate this dispute over this sentence. It will not go away!

Meanwhile locking the page with that same obscenely false sentence you favour only serves your objective, which is to stop sunnis becoming shia by reading their own books.

This matter will bring wikiepdia into disrepute and calls for urgent action by an independent arbitrator. In effect despite abundant references being produced which conflict with a sweeping sentence these references are being censored because of sectarian agenda.

--Frank1829 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point here. The page was protected because I asked for it after seeing the constant edit warring. As per Wikipedia:Protection policy the page was protected by an uninvolved admin on the version that the page was at and is not an indication that the current version is correct or incorrect. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also urge the involved parties to work on a sandbox to come up with a version that is acceptable to all and within Wiki policies and guidelines. This edit war and the personal attacks have been going on for too long. Any further reversions without concensus after the protection expires will just ensure the page is protected for a longer period. → AA ^(talk) — 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, i have been continuously watching your edits and action. first of all your attitude here is more like a emotionally moved shia biased writer then an encyclopadiac writer. This is an encyclopedia and have some code of conducts. Firstly you must folly this policy of WP:NV neutral point of view. You edits should not be biased and a source of conflict between users, if they are so then you can discuss then in the discussion forum but following WP:C policy that stress on maintaining civility. You should avoid personal attacks on other user, as WP:NPA says not to do it or it could result in permanent ban on you. It is not like you just come up with any thing and add it to the article, you have to follow some procedure or ur edits ought to be reverted bu other responsible users. Firstly, when ever you are up to some major edits, come here in the discussion section, explain you edits and additions that you are going to make and have consensus on it you could add it to the article. Wikipedia says it here WP:C. For further guide of how to be "respectful" and useful editor on wikipedia you may ready this Wikipedia:List of policies.

• Now comming to your recent edits, then first of all here i had challenged accuracy and authenticity of mawali policy [3] It only a shia point of view that strongly conflicts with primary historical sources and that of Umar's authentic biography. You can discuss it if you want to defend it. It dont really know about what other thing you wanna add, they must be shia biased you obvious from your attitude towards the article. You have mentioned various sunni above claiming that certain narrations about Umar's alleged atrocities on ali and his family are also confirmed by sunni sources....... What i can deduce here is that you are trying to give an impression, (generally shia tends to give it when ever they discuss a controversial "sahaba" matter) that Even sunni sources agree with shia sources on the point that Umar did what is popularly known as "shia claim on Umar" i.e hurting Fatimah (r.a) and buring house of Ali etc.... Your alleged purpose of trying to prove it, is, so that you may add the "purely shia belive" as popular belive (that is agreed by both sunni and shia) in the article. You are apparently trying to prove that not only shia belive that Umar did all that but also it is proved from sunni sources that Umar did it, thus it is an agreed issue.

By making this issue molded in such a way that it look like it is a popular believe of both sunni and shia muslims, you are just helping your shia instinct to deform Umar's reputation and to transform history.

• First of all you and other Shia writers should know that when a sunni primary history book mentions any narration that seems to agree with shia believe, it dosen't mean that sunni source agree with shia on that point. To under stand this, one have to go back in history when these sources were being written and should give a solute and due appreciations to the Sunni historians to giving due respect to their profession by maintaining neutral point of view. The early sunni muslims historians acted more as "compiler" of historical narrations then authors. They compiled each and every narration available to them to maintain neutral point of view, unlike shia historians who just compiled pro-Ali and anti-Umar,Abu Bakr and Uthman narrations thus compiling a purely shia believed "book". what early sunni historians did, they compiled the narrations including the controversial narrations, and left the conclusion and deduction of result on the reader. They acted as compiler not as "commentators" and "writers". sunni Muslim historican until Ibn Khaldun didn't acted as commentators and researcher on history.

So i think i am crystal clear when i say that giving references from sunni sources and claiming that this and that believe is also a sunni believe and try to add that in the article as a popular muslim belive is a complete ignorance of historical facts.

We all know what popular sunni belive is and this believe has came into existence after a long and trying research of sunni scholars and have all adequate logical proves and facts to support it.

so whats the conclusion is, dont add what you want to add in umar's article udner general headings, add what ever you want to add under Shia believe. And as for that mawali policy, i challange you to prove it through primary sources, shia biased sources when claim it, they based it upon their hatred towards umar and love towards ali. So prove it using primary sources or forget it.

about two month earlier i said that i am writing a comprehensive article on umar, i was busy in some work that kept me away from working on it for along time. I have started working on it now and it will be completed soon inshallah with in a week. User:Frank1829 you can add into it any thing that you want under "Shia belive" heading. So just wait till it comes. here its so far progress [4].

Mohammad Adil (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Above all that Frank, Shias represent 15% of muslims and Sunnis represent 80%. The Shia point of view therefore violates undue policy if it is enforced onto the main body of the article with such concentration. We already explained what is and what is not a Sunni book of Hadith and you are not free to twist words in whatever misleading fashion the way you did. Not only is there a Shia view section that takes currently almost 20% of the size of the article, but there is a Shia view of Umar separate page that Sunni and non-muslim sectarians have not cared to be involved in. This article ANYWAY will be re-written very shortly because no biography should be littered with hate words and little useless tidbits, like "he's an illegitimate child" or "he hated this guy". Any of the companions blasting that Shia take for a requirement as part of their faith is religiously motivated and automatically violates POV and Neutral, aside from being a rude senseless thing to put in a biography. Yes, we know that Shia hate the Sahaba and that it's part of your religion to blast them. Do that in your prayers and in Shia websites all you want. Here we are trying to write some decent information. --Sampharo (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's come back to the sentence rather than getting distracted which only serves the Sunni propaganda machine. The following sentence remains a lie:

"According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur."

Sunni BELIEF is different to Sunni BOOKS. This sentence must be changed, it is false.

Further, the reference I gave to Shibli Numani, a great sunni scholar in india was deleted. He said regarding this issue that the sunnis sources documenting the burning of the House of Fatima are plausible in view of Umar's personality in particular his temper. So we have here Umar's biographer, a big sunni scholar with beard down to his pyjamas, endorsing a view RADICALLY different to the wikipedia editors who refuse to accept sunni scholars have said this. Now many (not all) sunni lay persons don't accept the event happened, some of their scholars DO. This fact also is covered up.

BTW No one has the right to lock Wikipedia because they are writing a new page. Behavi9our like this is outrageous and shows a monopoly

Sorry, this is going higher soon to stop the abuse of privilege here being done by some more established editors.

If sunnis wish to protect their beliefs I will state under Shia beliefs that Shias believe Sunni books contain the narration of Umar burning the House of Fatima (sa), I will provide references, and I will elaborate as much as I wish to. It will if anything undermine what the sunnis write because people say - odd, these sunnis say none of their books refer to this narration when they do!!!!! Good.

The issue of shias being 15% and sunnis 85% is irrelevant on an issue of scholastic truth - sunnis here refuse to recognise that belief is different to academic references. This is dishonesty.

How do things go further? Unlock the site please, do not lock it for your own tour de force in concealed propaganda to be written, that is disgraceful if that is what is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.34.229 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have missed what I wrote earlier. I didn't ask for protection for any particular version but for whatever version it was in at the time. I have no opinion as to which is the correct version but I will not un-protect or ask for it to be un-protected while it appears that an edit war will continue. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for the controversial sentence to be changed

Let's go back to the root issue - please address this sentence (which is controversial):

- "According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur."

An accurate sentence is:

- "While the following sunni books contain the description of these events (my references above), most sunnis do not believe the event occurred. Few sunni scholars comment on the issue, most seem uninformed or unaccepting of the records, however Umar's Sunni biographer the scholar Shibli Numani said the burning of Fatima's house by Umar was plausible in view of his bad temper."

- The above sentence is now accurate.

--90.197.34.229 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

regarding the scholar shibli numani [who is not a well known scholar outside his community] this is an opinion based on conjecture there is no actual evidence from any sunni source, read the quote carefully, he merely says the event is "plausible" [meaning there is a possibility it may have occurred but we dont really know] based on the understanding Umar had a temper. I can similarly conjecture that it is plausible umar murdered someone because he had a temper, the sentence is so vague that i could easily say Umar was capable of doing anything becouse of his bad tempar. i would guess [due the shibli's scholarly status] that he is being misquoted since any scholar in his right mind would not make a conclusion on such an issue due to its mere plausibility or possibility scholars make conclusions based on real evidence... there is a possibility the world could end tomorrow that doesn't mean that it will occur similarly there is a possibility that Umar could have done a number of things due to a bad tempar that is not evidence that they actually occurred.

The person who took that quote as being evidence for anything clearly misread it and is clutching at straws.Alpha.test (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

conclude the conflict

Hi, the article i was working on is almost in completing stages... The on going conflict must be concluded now with some productive results. first of all the user who is actively taking part in the discussion and is presumably User:Frank1829 , must sign his signatures in order to let me and other users know that to whom they are talking to.

• I wrote a detail post earlier to illustrate the fact that why narrations depicting shia point of view are also present in early sunni muslim history books. Those sunni muslims historians just acted as a compiler of the narrations not commentators to select only sunni point of view depicting narrations. Unlike shia historians who only wrote shia point of view narrations, sunni historians did at least justice with their profession.

• Any ways if you haven't read my above post, then go and read it before reading this post.

• First of all i suppose people posses common sense ! and if they have common sense then they must know that view of one sunni scholar dont represent the view of whole sunni scholars, community and historians. I can produce here a list sunni scholars who simply reject such narrations in early historical account on the bases that they were fabricated during the Ummayad and abbasid conflict period. I personally too belive this fact.

• so as we know that view of one scholar don't carry weight, so if you want us to give importance to your point, then bring some more sunni scholars who supported this incidence.

apart from all this, i presume that you know the meaning of "majority" and you must also then know what is the terminology "majority view" and if you know majority view too then you must also be aware of the famous quotation Majority is authority. So it dosn't matter if any individual sunni scholar e.g molana shubli nomani's or any other scholar says any thing, it will not change the view of millions of sunni muslims and scholars. Thus it is useless to say that sunni also believe what shia claim about Umar. so please now stop this childish argument.

• Leave Umar's temper, he had a great temper, his justice prevailed his temper. Decide your self, if a politician and a ruler have a loose temper will he be able to govern his empire ? will he be able to be known as "political genius" ???? will control his empire with iron fist ???? will people be found of him ????
  

No, and thats a BIG NO ! first of all politicians dont have loose temper, for if they had it, their politcal career would have ended before being actually started ! lolzzz its funny secondly, A ruler of a mighty empire cant be loose tempered, or his military officers, governors and people would have certainly revolted against him, in case of Umar we dont see nor heart of any revolt against him. A dictator can be of loose temper, not a caliph who's popularity depends upon his performance. Of being a loose temper guy, is the biggest allegation on umar. Umar's life and personality need a close study, i have been studing, researching and writing about him since i was in 10th class ! and what i conclude is that his personality has been badly pictured owning to some narrations that depict him in rage. Any ways for the above shia user, who so ever he was, my questions are ........ and you can not procede untill you answer these questions.

1. Can a single scholar represent a whole sunni community ?
2. What is majority sunni view about Umar ?

• I need User:frank1829 to prepare his version of shia views for the comming article of Umar (r.a). You can add all shia view in it but keep ur self from adding into it any sentense like .... "sunni sources also mention it etc etc " these sentences are not "encyclopediac" they look good in discussion forums and orkut etc etc.

The section that you prepare must be one sided, that is illustrates shia views in shia style and must not include any thing which is against the criteria of Wikipedia's good article. And you should note that it is encyclopedia and it have a perticular style and tone, and one shouls write in accordance to that style and tone. Prepare your version me and other users, if you want other shia users can edit it to make more encyclopedia type. Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting it all your way - it's not going to be that easy

In effect what you want is for the "My way or the highway because we are the majority" to prevail, with disdain for academic references. Shias cannot critique what sunnis say nor can anyone else outside of a little box you envisage called shia beliefs - ie effective censorship. In other words, the Umar page becomes a sunni propaganda page.

As for western standards of academia ... they're chucked in the bin by you also. Consider some more examples of hypocrisy stemming from the above:

1. Why do you even need to have a subsection saying what sunnis believe is illogical since your whole article as you plan it is what sunnis believe with one paragraph for shias. As for academic standards ... they're being thrown out. If you wish to have a sunni page, then you must say in big letters at the top that "This page of wikipedia is written from the sunni muslim perspective, and what sunni muslims believe, however unreferenced, is fact here. Shias, orientalists, ishmaelis, atheists, cynics, and critics in general are not allowed to edit outside their very small boxes at the bottom, in which they are not allowed to critique sunni books and opinions, only present their own."

2. Your logic of not allowing sunni references to be cited by non-sunnis makes it impossible for orientalists to contribute in a full way.

3. Academic References.. what references? Effectively in the current talk above these happily go in the bin if they conflict with sunni belief. Sunnis can say what they like about Umar if it sounds plausible and flattering for him, even if there is no actual evidence for it from a primary source e.g. a sunni can say that Umar as fond of praying all night even if there is no source for this belief beyond cultural beliefs, and that he was the champion of 50 battles despite no primary source syaing he was a champion in ANY battle, and that Umar was the most sexy and intelligent man in history, despite there being no reference but someone's teenage cousin had a dream about him. As an example, in the notes above you will see this kind of statement is already found in abundance on the current page and I pointed some out e.g. when I caveated the comments made by sunnis that umar was a brave warrior by saying there was no primary source for this belief, the voice of academic reason I gave got banned. When I however posted an interesting paragraph on Mawalis and apparent racial discrimination in Umar's policies to non-arabs, that got banned despite being referenced albeit to a modernist arab researcher.

4. Hypocrisy? Staggering. Take Shibli Numani - you guys say he's just one scholar, not well-known outside the indian subcontinent (where one third of muslims live), so you will not entertain his views - that's the reason you gave. On the other hand, you accept the views of a totally unknown writer about Ibn Qutayba, and use his unknown and lone voice to ban the reference to Ibn Qutayba.

You know you are not being fair.

I will not let all this go as at present it is envisioned by sunnis to be a temple for Umar, and you've said as much saying it's going to be a sunni majority story. This is wikipedia. Sad to see it being hikacked by people with their own religious agenda. Sorry, won't let wikiepdia come to this.

BTW Mohd Adil.

It's not for you to allow Shias anything...respectfully, you don't control this page as you have implied saying what you will allow and what you won't.

I also contest why you should be allowed to overhaul the whole page.

If you overhaul it at present you may get in trouble as there is no consensus yet on anything it seems.

I'm gonna stay here and stay here and i am not going to go away till this page abides by rigorous standards of fair, western - style referencing (no offence to the east, but given the current standard, something akin to an editorial police state is being run on the Umar page...you know, the kind you have in countries which have pictures of the dictator everwhere on show at the airport when you arrive, usually a guy wearing a military uniform with fake medals on).

--Frank1829 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is a joke.

Solution is arbitration by non-muslims

I've posted one.

Let's see if others respond.

Frank you want to post sunni references then be certain you are the one quoting the original work not quoting a shia book supposedly quoting the original sunni work, while i tend to agree with you from a scholarly perspective that "majority rules" is un-scholarly and un-islamic and not a criterion for right and wrong there are far to many clear examples of shia books fabricating sunni sources [i have provided an example of at least one popular work]. this isnt a comment on shia scholarship [for one shia scholars dont write these books] itself since i know many shia scholars themselves speak out against such works [you seem to favor] due to there unethical nature and intent.

You also have to consider the relevance of what you want to input in THIS encycopedia entry as apposed to history as a whole. The relationship Umar had with Ali and fatimah is not of any real importance or significance in THIS context. The relationship Umar had with Ali and fatimah is not the criterion for his standing with Allah which is something shia tend to ignore or overlook. If both sunni's and shia of today where practicing there religion properly the life of Umar, Ali, and Fatimah [raa] would not be what is important but the tenants of there faith and what it came to achieve.Alpha.test (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• @ User:Frank

Is there any joke going on here ? Presumably i am the most experienced writer here with almost 87 articles written by me ! and if you think you know wikipedia better then me, then you are wrong bro...... First of all i am completely unable to understand what you are trying to say. MAKE YOU SELF CLEAR What do you want to add to the article ?
Secondly mind your attitude while posting okey..... thats not any shia sunni discussion forum nor any orkut community.
Your funny claim that this article has been hacked by sunni writers is useless, you cant prove even if you bring 1000 more users, becasue this article isn't hacked at all ! First go and see Ali's article how it has been hacked by Shia then come here to make useless hue and cry.
Just do a little bit of research on internet you will come to know what western scholars says about Umar, they regard him as a military and political genius, its because he was like this and the same scholars regard Ali (with all due respect) a failed ruler !
What do you want ? You want this article to be made on shia perspective ? if you want this then just go away........ i tried to be good with you but your response was disappointing.

Do you know what a encyclopedic article is ? moreover when its a biography ! check this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). You are not here to advocate any perticular bvelive you are here to provide information that is widely belived to be authentic and regarded by majority of scholars to be true and most authentic version. This is what i am doing with Umar article, i have prepared it with the reference from the most famous and widely known biographys of umar one of them is Al Farooq, Umar By Muhammad Husayn Haykal. I am from Pakistan and i know shubli nomani better then you and i still doubt that he may not have mentioned it as a "fact". You need to first prove your claim that shubli nomani wrote it as a fact if you cant prove it dont show up here again ! Provide us with a scaned copy of his book's page where it has been written by him that umar did that, and by the way there is no need for it as well, as i said shubli nomani is just one scholar and his words are not word of God ! more over his work is outdated and more researched biographies of Umar are available now and all of them says that burning house etc is a shia claim can heardly be trusted. Therefore the incident of Umar buring Fatimah's house can only be mentioned under "shia views" becasue this is purely a shia beleive

• just grow up, see what you are saying , what you are claiming, you are claiming that its is a sunni view that umar burned fatimah's house !
  and look at what prove you have ? you have just one source that allegedly says thats. Its should be noted that, that source allegedly says that Umar may have did it, and now look at your self what hue and cry you are making over this one single source !
• Do you really think a neutral moderator will accept that one alleged source and will neglect that millions of Sunni sources that claim that event is fabricated by shia ? do you really belive it ? are you in your sense ? bro go to doctor right now you badly need it.

• You want a neutral source ? do you ? check this [5] its a jewish liberary's article, its glorifies umar too, its sin't written by sunni its written by any jewish scholar! see when the whole world agree on one thing that Umar was great then what weight will shia claim carry ? They just have their place in the section Shia views.

• More over the basic shia sunni conflict is on the religious views regarding Umar. The article that i am working on have and will cover this issue considerably, as for general biography of Umar, its primary sources are sunni, so it ought to be written from sunni sources when shia sources only talk about Umar's religious status, and dont talk about Umar's briography at all, then why do you want it to be written in shia way ? The most neutral way is to write it according to what "authantic" sources says and they must fullfil the Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria.

• I in the composition of my article, as you have saw i have also used various western sources, like the above jewish liberary's article.
• The article that i have wrote stress more upon Umar's achievements then his religious status, because here on wikipedia, religion is nothing to do with some one's biography.

• Regarding your claim of the strange mawali policy, then its a fabrication as well, its a pro-iranian shia view, no sunni source and no neutral western source have ver mentioned of this mawali policy, the prove is that Umar ruled over persian people for less then 3 months before being assasinated by a persian assasin. How can he device this alleged policy and practice it in three months ?

• Mawali policy

Lolzz... look what this policy claims, its says that Umar discouraged conversion of non-muslims to islam because the jizya they use to give was a source of income of Umar and umar didn't wanted to lost this source of income by letting them converted to islam. lolzzz its funny and strange man ! do you know how much jizya was collected from dhimmis or non-muslims ???? do you know that ? it was only 2 dirhams per head. and it was collected only from man of military age, women, childern, poor, monks, and old man were exempted from it !
Now just look at the self contradiction of the claim....... Umar didn't let non-muslims to convert to islam becaseu he didn't wanted to lose his source of income of jizya right ? and how much juzya was ? its was 2 dirhams per head, and only was collected from adult male citizens.
hahaha, 2 dirhams ? will umar be hungry for that 2 dirhams ? what will this 2 dirhams gonna add to Bait ul maal ? lolzzz when each muslims was given an average of 1000 dirhams of allowance.
Even the Zakat collected from muslims was greater in amount then then that 2 dirhams jizya per head , then what is the point left in the argument ???

To add to your knowledge let me tell you what were the sources of income of Umar's empire.....

1. Zakat
2. Ushr
3. Jizya
4. Fay
5. Khums
6. Kharaj

Jizya was only one of these six mighty sources of income. So whats the weight in the claim of mawali policy, defend it if you can, keep in mind you cant add it here, as no authentic and well known scholar, muslim or western have never mentioned nor discussed it. So forget it. More over your dearer scholar shubli noumani also haven't mentioned it, so just chill now and check page 130 of his book under the section treatment of non-Muslims.

As for your other claims, i have already told you that you can add it under shia views. The article by the way have a seperate section of religious legacy, with its sub-headings of sunni and shia views, and its fair enough, what else do you want ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoints

With respect to how any particular viewpoint is treated in an article is covered, to a certain extent, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The inclusion of any part of Umar's life should not be from either a Shia or Sunni standpoint but from reliable, and verifiable sources and conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Now if the burning of Fatimah's house is a minority viewpoint but can be reliably sourced then it would be advisable to put it into the article. However, it would not form a large part of the article and would be better covered in Umar at Fatimah's house. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

while they sound like reasonable ideas they miss a number of points. the majority of sources you would consider Sunni or shia there are no third parties that can be mentioned in terms of primary sources. Second in terms of Umars over all life and biography how important is this issue are we adding it for the sake of adding it and how do you propose you prove the shia source, the majority of experts believe it is a shia fabrication [which you shouldn't simply take as sunni's believe anything that comes from shia is automatically a fabrication] and if you where to check historically there have been many shia works fabricating sunni sources to stir the shia youth into a fevered hate, search peshawar nights on scribd and see for yourself how these works are worded and structured almost all sources in this book are a fabrication and it is one of the most popular works among shia youth who dont know how to research the veracity of its claims, you may like to read my link above for a more detailed expose of its claims.

For many its to late they have been exposed to this work and will never be able to look at the issue with impartiality again.Alpha.test (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cambridge for clarification

Even though it shortens my contributions! The shia-sunni view thing is not relevant to this article on wikipedia, only what substantiated references say. That is exatcly what I thought Wikipedia was. If Sunni or Shias don't like what the references say then tough. Umar burned Fatima's House, its substantiated in references. People don't have to believe the references. But the references (several) exist.

Another point - the Mawalis also get covered by this policy. Part of the nature of the mawali piece is speculative - delete THAT bit. I also was not the only contributor to it. Other parts were referenced. What happens when Mohd Adil got hold of it is that he deleted the WHOLE.

The references to the famous Arabist Albert Hourani's work were deleted alongside the other sections. --Frank1829 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please restore them. Put Hourani's reference back.

• User:Frank1829 you will not love to read it but thats a truth, just check this In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, in Wikipedia:neutral point of view, it clearly says what i said to you earlier, over which u made hue and cry that Adil has got hold of the article ! lolzzz So what is your opinion now ? i didn't made that policy, wikipedia did !
• As User:cambridgebyweather has said that if its written in (umar at fatimah's house) Wikipedia:Reliable sources then it can be added in the general article, other wise not, so no need to be happy you are still where you were yesterday.
• wikipedia relaible source ought to be a third party source but the main problem we have regarding relaible sources, is that there is no biography of Umar written by western historians, just search it at www.amazon.com and you will come know the truth.

In the absence of any third party source what we left with is a large amount of sunni work on umar's biography, and a small amount of shia work on "religious status" of Umar only !
As Wikipedia:neutral point of view,undue weight says that a majority view is to be consider and given weight and coverage, which in case of Umar is sunni work on his biography, so i think it is fair enough to give shia views a separate section rather then coverage as whole in the article. Wikipedia says it not Adil !

• moreover, shia sunni conflict is only on religious status of Umar, not his status as a ruler or administrator. Even third party sources, like this article of jewish library glorifies umar's political genius [6] So what i suggest is a seperate section of religous views on Umar under the heading "sunni views", "shia views" and "western views". Fair enough ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 01:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi all. Just dropping by to see what's going on here. A few points to mention:

• There's a lot of recently inserted content of polemical flavour which is not adequately sourced or is actually unsourced. These should be removed.
• I've seen a few of the sources used above in the arguments. On Wikipedia we must rely upon reliable secondary sources, namely academic material published by a reputed press. This way we will get around a lot of the partisanship that seems to be making editing rather difficult.

So long as there is a commitment to writing an a dry, clinical manner without undue weighting, with reliance upon high quality sources then the article has a chance to move forward. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mawali policy truth exposed !

The section of mawali policy as written by Mr.User:Frank1829 is this..........

Umar was the first caliph to extend the dominion of the Arab empire into non-Arab lands, so in his defence it may be argued he faced new challenges. His response to the problem of converts to Islam who threatened to dilute the wealth of the Arab masters was the Mawali policy - non-Arabs had to first become token Arabs or clients of an Arab family, if the latter would have them. The non-Arab converts (blacks, Persians, Turks, Indians, central Asians) and who were all called mawalis, also had to pay the jizya or tax levied upon non-Muslims. This was done since Muslims were obligated to pay the zakat (Islamic charity/tax), although non-Muslims were not, since they were not Muslims. As a result, a separate tax was levied on them, so as to not oppress them with religious rulings which they did not belong to, while still collecting the necessary funds. Further the Mawalis were forbidden from entering Madina the centre of political authority and hence could not have a role in central government. The Mawali policy is regarded as the first semblance of Arab nationalism, with which Umar may be credited as its true founder. The issue of how the expanding and increasingly wealthy sons of the desert would deal with whole non-Arab nations did not raise its head before Umar. Umar's predecessor Abu Bakr had only enjoyed sovereignty over Arabia so the issue of how to deal with non-Arab nations was not relevant to him. Umar's successor Uthman continued the Mawali policy, however Ali and his successor Al-Hassan stopped the Mawali policy and encouraged conversion by non-Arabs. The Umayyad Moawiya however restored Umar's Mawali policy after Ali and Al-Hassan. Under the Umayyad caliphs the Mawali policy continued for almost 100 years.

The reference that user frank gave was A history of the Arab peoples, chapter 1 By Albert Habib Hourani, Malise

here is the contant section of the book.. [7], in chapter 1 do you find any thing relevant to mawali policy ? it mainly deals with three thing.

• The world into which arabs cames
• Language and poetry
• Mohammad and appearance of islam

now check this, mawali is used only in page 30 [8]. you can read the whole chapter one of this book here [9], and find out where the mawali stuff, that user:frank wrote giving the reference of this book is present in this book ! I tried but i couldn't find it, becasue its actually isn't present in this book at all ! User:frank with all due respect, what do you think of wikipedia ? its isn'nt any orkut community where a shia guy can come say any thing he want to and give a fabricated reference in support of his claim. Where in the book Albert harouni has said that Umar was founder of mawali policy ? dont you feel shame while telling white lie ? what did you though of us ? are we dumb ? in the name of harouni you have mentioned what harouni never mentioned in his book at all ! The truth has been exposed, if i was at ur place i would have commited suicide ! what a shameful act you have done ? now i seriously doubt your intensions here on wikipedia, for me owing to ur this act of irreponsibility you are nothing but a shia propagandist, who is fabricating references, thinking ... "who's gonna check them ! " Shame on you it was very disappointing.

The truth is that mawali policy was a pre-arab practice, which was ment to give protection to the weak and freed slaves. like this source evaluates it [10], it continued during Prophet Mohammad's era and during rashiduns, but during Umayyad's era it became finally a class distinction of ruler and the ruled, as mentioned in the following sources...

• [11]

• [12]

, no where it is written that Umar founded it or practiced it as a mean of economic gains, as have been claimed in the above mentioned mawali policy section written by user:frank !
It was widely practiced by Ummayads, and it was during ummayyad's times when it became a class distinction which resulted in fall of ummayad and rise of abbasid where mawalis were elites.

Umar ibn abdul aziz, popularly known as Umar II, how ever took serious notice of it and tried to abolish this class distinction but was assasinated mainly because of his this act. check this [http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=I3mVUEzm8xMC&pg=PA43&vq=Umar+I&dq=A+History+of+the+Arab+Peoples+mawali&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0 ]
So from where you are putting all this with thousand other selfmade claims and stories on Umar ibn Khittab ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mawali response - Arab League statement - Umar began the Mawali tribe system!

Islam the straight Path edited by Kenneth W. Morgan, chapters by various academics The following chapter makes it clear the Mawali tribal system was created by Umar on page 51, link below, chapter “ideas and Movements in Islamic History”. The author is a senior Sunni writer, Shafiq Ghorbal (details on page xi of the page near the start), writing in his capacity as a member of the Institute of Higher Arabic Studies of the Arab league , Cairo, Egypt. The link to Google books is below, wherein the author says that the tribal system begun by Umar (ie mawalis since that is the subject of his talk) collapsed in Abbaside times:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ip1CkGgR0JgC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=mawali+umar&source=bl&ots=h8cvWXYhoA&sig=a_T8Rl34M81OEPifPH_4dX_6YPU&hl=en&ei=1tMZSt6QD9GTjAez5Pj7DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Mister Adil is misleading us again:

I also can't find anything in the references he gives to substantiate the following statments of his - other users can read these references also by following the links - they do not show the policy to be pre-islamic when he writes:

"The truth is that mawali policy was a pre-arab practice, which was ment to give protection to the weak and freed slaves. like this source evaluates it [10], it continued during Prophet Mohammad's era and during rashiduns, but during Umayyad's era it became finally a class distinction of ruler and the ruled, as mentioned in the following sources...

[11] [12] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1829 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

--Frank1829 (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This book on the subsequent page also challenges the dogma on the wikipedia page that Omar was unjustly killed by his slave Phirooz. It says Omar treated his slave badly, using the word unfair to describe his treatment of the slave. Maybe this can be referenced also.

BTW Hourani's book mentions the mawalis in a few places.

The Sunni History of Baladhuri is one I am checking out now - racism was begun by Omar in Islam and he was an arab nationalsit and racist pedagogue who banned non-arab muslims from entering Madina the capital unless they were his slave (as slaves could not get poloitical office) - the Baladhuri references are being obtained as we speak.

There are plenty of anti-islamic websites with stuff on Mawalis if you do a google search, but those are mainly hate pages and not referenced.

The Arab league is the official international body standing for arabs like the EU for europe - so it seems to be a majority opinion in the Arabs' official organisation that Omar founded the Mawalis, and this was a racist innovation if you read the whole chapter above by the Arab League representative.

I am getting the Baladhuri reference ordered. There's also the page above to start with. Shame you have not read Hourani's book from cover to cover.

BTW Thanks, someone should do a PhD on this exciting topic of mawalis and Omar

Ta Ta for now.--Frank1829 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Disgraceful editing, intellectual dishonesty that undermines everything that wikipedia stands for

Hi

As an academic from an Orientalist background I must strongly protest at the intellectual dishonesty being employed by certain 'contributors' to this page. It seems that such individuals need to familiarize themselves with what wikipedia is all about - it is an encyclopedia based meticulously upon references not dogma - otherwise pages relating to post modern political leaders would become their fan club pages, rather like this one. Wikipedia is and should be a reference resource - wherein contributors submit references to expand on a topic area. What we are seeing here is certain individuals seeking to act as the final say on what should or should not go into this page, with the decision based on biasness and bigotry. For your information wikipedia is not a Sunni / Shia or for that matter a site wherein any faith dictates materials. There is only one criterion as I see it, that whatever is said you be referenced - so that the objective research scholar can look into matters and assess the direction in which he intends to undertake further research. That is why I tell my students to utilize wikipedia - since it acts as that 'first stop shop' whereby they can get a whistle stop tour of a topic area that is referenced. Sadly this page has been overtaken by certain individuals keen to present a narrow / bias perception of Umar that will not tolerate any reference that portrays him in a bad light - that undermines everything that wikipedia is about. All because the majority of a Sect is pro Umar does not mean that anything that paints him negatively should be suppressed. It is left to the researcher to delve into such references and arrive at an appropriate conclusion; wikipedia contributors have no right to delete references simply because they conflict with their beliefs. The fact is Caliph Umar was a controversial character and his Mawali system evidences that he adhered to a racist agenda based around the concept of Arab superiority. It is interesting to note that this is a fact recognized by the Arab League, so it would be wrong to just dismiss this as baseless. Moreover I would be happy to cite Umar's Fatwa wherein he banned all non Arabs from entering Madina during his Caliphate (Musanaf ibn Abi Shaybah), if that is not racism then what is it?

Muhammad Adil has raised a preposterous interpretation of the wikipedia rules by stating that majority religious opinion on a topic should be adhered to, this is incorrect. Wikipedia endorses majority opinion with regards to reference sources. In relation to Umar burning Fatimas house there exist a plethora of historical references from major Islamic references (Sunni and Shia) that have been deleted by Muhammad Adil. Frank for all his shortcomings cited 22 Sunni references, yet Mr Adil provided a weak refutation to two of the sources. He needs to produce more than 22 Sunni references categorically stating the event never occurred, it is only then that he will be entitled to state that majority opinion based on references rejects this event. Ar Adil would thereafter need to address the 100 or so Shia references of the event.

Mr Adil’s approach of suggesting that no Sunni book suggests Umar attacked the home of Fatima, evidences that he is either ignorant of his history books, or is intentionally seeking to mislead wikipedia readers. It is one thing to say you don’t believe the reference to be correct but to suggest it is non existent is blatant dishonesty, and that is what I take issue with. Contributors have no right to reject a reference or deny its existence because it contradicts their indoctrinated beliefs. Academia is all about challenging thinking, stimulating the mind to think outside the box, look at matters outside the traditional comfort zone. It is deeply disturbing that the contributors are acting not like academics but bigots whose sole purpose motivated by the sole desire to propagate their beliefs as facts that no one can challenge, and anyone that has the audacity to do so should be silenced.

If these contributors continue to act in this bias, bigoted manner then I will lodge a formal complaint to the site admin about them.

--Marcus Dyer (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC) --Marcus Dyer (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that many [not intending all] shia sources posted thus far are fabricated [i dont say that with any bias towards shia people in general but as a matter of fact] and have been proven to be as such. While i agree with the spirit of what you are saying should we now have to disprove every single reference, mr frank sources his material from polemics sites not from the works themselves, in essence what you are saying is that they can make up all the references they like and people on this site are tasked with disproving every single one...as if that takes no effort or time. If mr frank would him self like to go to these works and directly quote them himself rather than posting the works of an entire website then i would say it would be reasonable for the readers here to also go to the sources to investigate them but that isnt what is occurring is it now. You also seem to suggest that as long as something is referenced it should be taken as truth you have not set up a criteria to judge the validity, accuracy or caliber of a source or is the controversial nature of the quote or source enough to feed our curiosity thus enticing us to forget all that is reasonable.Alpha.test (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm... I've never heard of an academic using words like "biasness." Tell me, Mr. Dyer - if you are an academic - what are you qualified in and where did you graduate from (and when)? If you work for a faculty - which is the implication given that you said you teach and have students - then please give me your faculty e-mail address so that I can verify your identity. ITAQALLAH 02:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So that's your response, you're nor accepting referenecs just because shias produced them. Some of them are even facsimiled by the shias and hence constitute avery high level of proof.

I could say "Well I don't accept any sunni reference . .. ner ner ner ner ner. and stick my tongue out at you."

Grow up.

You score ZERO as you have not produced one damn reference saying umar did not burn the House of Fatima

All U can say is 'well the shias are lying,' For God's sake, are they also lying when they produce facsimiles?

Is Montgomery Watt lying when he says Omar burned the house of Fatima?

Sorry, time to report this entire sunni hero worship page to the powers that be...i'll start the process.

Bye. (signed, Frank)

It's important to note that Montgomery Watt is considered WP:RS, even if the rest of the hadith and so forth break WP:OR by using primary sources. That alone does allow some inclusion into the article. Frank, could you post the reference in Watt's work? I think all the editors here would like that. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Montgomery watt may have some standing in his community but he is useless if we dont know what his source is since ultimately all western, orientalist sources have to base there opinions off sunni or shia primary sources there is no alternative.Alpha.test (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

None of us are in the position to criticise secondary sources unless we too are prominent scholars and could publish a paper detailing such criticism for the academia. On Wikipedia, you'd need to prove the secondary source in hand isn't a WP:RS, and doing that with Watt is nearly impossible. If Frank can supply the source, this moves Umar at Fatimah's house from simply a Shi'a view to a view that has credence among some Muslims (mainly Twelvers) and non-Muslims. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your last comment. It was never a case of 'Umar at Fatima's house' being a Shia view, it was their perspective about the event which was their 'view'. Of course the Umar/Fatima dispute will have been mentioned in Western sources, because they will report what has been related in Muslim sources. There is as you know debate as to the degree of historicity of reports related to the event, what happened, to what extent, and its consequences. What's required here is that we relate what's been reported in the academic sources and with due weight. This in my view should be no more than a few sentences, whilst its importance largely surrounds how it informs the view of a significant minority, it is of questionable significance to the general historical memory of Umar and not amongst the most significant chapters of his life. ITAQALLAH 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mawali policy and Umar, thruth exposed once again ...... !

lolzzz how pathetic was that ! Mr.Frank your source that you gave above just mentioned this one sentence ...when the tribal structure inherited from the days of Umar broke down
So ? whats new in it ? it isn't verifying your claim lozzz
use your brain man, if you hv one ! let me summarize what were claims pf our User:Frank

1. Umar was racist
2. Umar was Arab nationalist
3. Umar was unjust and prejudice to non-arabs
4. Umar created mawali policy !

our User:frank have already been humiliated for his fraudulent act of providing febricated reference to the book of albert harouni to support his allegations on Umar. So far as we all know he haven't gave a single source that verifies the above claim on umar. So is in an extremly pitiful condition hahaha....

So comming back to the argument, your source that you gave above says when the tribal structure inherited from the days of Umar broke down
so whats the argument, yes it was their at the time of Umar, it was their at the time of Ali and it was there at the time of Prophet Mohammad and even before prophet Mohammad, as it was a common pre-islamic practice among arabs. It was to provide protection to the weak and strangers by affiliating them to an arab tribe, it was essential for the sevival in hardcore tribal soceity of arabia.

• Here one can check the defination of Mawali [13]

As i said, it was a pre-islamic practice in arabs, these will justify my statement.

• check this [14] it says…..In the very benining of Islam Arab converts were regarded as “mawali of Mohammad”

• check this [15] giving the definition of Mawali it says: ….. usually translated as “client”, originally a stranger affiliated with the Arabic tribe with the expansion of islam it was used to designate a non-arab convert to islam, one who in the early years placed by the arabs (not islam) to an inferior status.

• check this [16] it says……… even in the pre-islamic period the idea of mawali or client, the admittance to a tribe of a stranger, who after certain probationary period, was accepted as a full member, was not unknown.

It was there even at the time of Prophet Mohammad, like we know Salman farsi was mawali of Banu hashim, bilal was mawali of banu taim (tribe of Abu Bakr), Suhaib romi was mawali of Banu mukhzum and Salim, the person umar wanted to be his successor, was mawali of Abu Hudaifa. Umar's clan banu addi, also some had remained mawali of banu ass bin wail, due to its weak status amoung quraish.

• check this [17] it says…..In the very benining of Islam Arab converts were regarded as mawali of Mohammad

Mawali were there under the caliphate of ali, contrary to the hypothetical claims of shia's they aided kharigies and fought against ali in neherwan check this [• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&pg=PA41&dq=umayyad+mawali]

Point to be noted, here is that Mawali was not a policy it was a practice, and more over it was a positive practice of providing security to the weak and strangers in the soceity by affiliating them with an arab tribe. As the early converts to islams, like Ashaab al sufa'a were considered as mawali of Mohammad, the later converts to islamc were also considered as mawali of any tribe, and it was just for protection purpose, now question arises when did this positive practice became a negative and gave birth to class distinction. The answer is widely known to the academics, and it is that it was under Ummayad Dynasty, who ruled as "Arab first" this became a discriminatory practice of class distinction. The following sources proves my statements.

• check this [18] it’s a shia source then cleary indicates that mawali practice became a discriminatory class distinction due to ummayad policies.

• check this [19]

• Check this [20] it clearly sates that it was ummayads of damacus who founded the arab nationalism by making mawali practive as a class distinction.

• check this [21] it clearly says ………” theoretically muslim mawali were equal to the arabs, however during ummayad period this equality was not fully conceded.

• check this [22] it clearly says that it was ummayad who made it a class distinction. It says “ to maintain the feeling of ethnic superiority, the marwanids continuously

• check this it says that the mawali became a problem during ummayad dynasty [23]

Our Frank1829's allegation on Umar that he created mawali policy and was nationalist racist etc etc rendered baseless lolzzz once again you lost my bro ! hahahaha...

During Umar's era, the mawalis were treated as equal to arab muslim, and it must be credited to Umar that his act of legalizing the fundamental rights of mawalis curbed all posibilities of this practice of becoming a discriminatory act.

the following source marks the end of discussion and decisive defeat of user:frank1829, this source clearly discuss the position of mawalis under umar, and his special instruction towards protection of their rights. Infact i will gonna add this passage to the article, its great !

• Check this [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ijdXih05lAYC&pg=PA216&dq=Umar+mawali&lr=

]

End of discussion results are obvious, as user:frank fail to prove any reference in support of his hypothetical allegations to Umar, so he lost. I have decisively proved Umar's innocence and his role in the well being of mawalis.

sorry my bro User:Frank1829, you lost once again, hahaha... infact i have a very good idea, how about changing your nick fron User:Frank1829 to Loser:Frank1829 hahahhaha...... man what a humiliation, but please dont commite suicide you are my bro lolzz.

I know what you gonna do now, will come and make hue and cry and play with words again, but here what we need is evidence not your stupidly long passages.

So just chill, a guy with a humiliation of being a fraudulent User, providing fabricated references and finally getting pissed of by others again and again, what a life man, thumbs up for you hahahaha....

Just realize the fact, you have been soundly thrashed, and now have no respect due to your childish attitude, lolzzz You know you didn't lost because you challanged me, but actually you have lost because of what Allah says in Quran:

“ Truth prevails and falsehood perishes, and falsehood by its nature is bound to perish. ”

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My fairness is shown here, Mr Adil's hypocrisy is also shown

It is indeed strange that plurality of references on the mawali issue is used by you to suggest a view for the article based upon those references YET the same plurality of references that says Umar burned the House of Fatima is used by you to ban that view those references endorse.

I am a fair man not a hypocrite. In view of my interpretation of wikipedia I will back down on the mawali issue as you have at present produced more refernces than me to substantiate your position, but why do you not back down when I produce more refernces than you (22 to none) on the Umar burning the house of Fatima matter? I produced them days ago and still you have refused to accept these.

I am not going to tear apart your references on the mawali issue, which I could as they are from secondary sources that are not providing any primary references, and I suspect are books you have just done an internet search on without reading.

I urge fair participants to think about what I am offering and the bias I am met with.

Some diehard sunni muslims are not open to any reasonable change to their positon, till everything goes his way.

I am not going to budge on the Umar burning the House of Fatima issue as it would amount to intellectual capitulation to editorial fascism. I produced 22 references for my position included FACSIMILES and a reference to State University of New York's publication of The History of Tabari. I am then told an opposite view, 110% unreferenced, must prevail because sunnis dont like what I said. All manner of pathetic and unheard of and innovated excuses are produced such as whether one of the 22 books I cited was written by the person, through to unheard of reasons like the references came from a shia website, neglecting the fact Mr Adil took some of his from a sunni website I have found. These all neglect the big picture. 22 REFERENCES TO NONE.

Sorry, not moving. I accept references. Mine have been outnumbered on the Mawali issue so I have backed down, but when mine outweigh Mr Adil and company on the burning issue, I am still expected to capitulate.

I have shown myself reasonable, the sunnis thoroughly unreasonable.

This is heading to arbitration.

Mr Adil you ALSO failed to answer a question someone asked above as to how we move to get arbitration on this matter.

Please will a non-muslim take over.

It also seems 2 or 3 have tried but Mr Adil and his protagonists attacked them for some silly spelling mistake and were deliberately rude to them so forcing mild people away.

In the end this page cannot move further and remains locked because sunni muslims refuse have one rule for themseleves and another for everyone else.

Mr Adil, Do you object to formal arbitration ?

I don't want to do this as it may be humiliating to another editor and you have produced some good stuff, but your continued refusal to accept the sheer weight of 22 references to none is shocking, althemoreso when you use the weight of references argument when it substantiates your own personal viewpoint elsewhere. --90.192.16.140 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After consedering the whole situation, and the conflict between the users Mohammad Adil and Frank1829.... User:Mohammad Adil is behaving like an indecorous guy.............. he should disscuss in a decorum way ! there are a number of policies regarding this type of behaviour user adil you should follow these policies :WP:NPA, WP:Civility

After seeing the preplexing disscussion , i completely argree with the user Mohammad adil, dispite his unwanted behaviour ! I am agree with his stance towards mawali policy and the role of Umar in it, i think we have been provided by user:Mohammad Adil with enough referebces and sources. The referebces clearly shows Umar's treatment of mawali. As, for user:Frank1829 so far he haven't provided any reliable source that justifies his claims you may know that without providing WP:RS, source nothing can be added to the articles. i will suggest user:Frank1829 that you should read the obove mentioned policies of Civility, and No personal attacks, because along with User:adil you are also delevering some unwanted comments. I will suggest that the implementation of the wikipedia policy NPV should not be ruled out. Moreover for the smooth ending of this conflict i will rather suggest WP:TO.

Colossal (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thanks user:colossal, i will take care of it next time, as for user:frank, tell me one thing ..........

• When did we had a discussion on Umar's burning Fatimah's house ?

we haven't discussed it yet. If you want to i can discuss it. Owning to wikipedia neutrality policy, i suggeted and will suggest that as its a religious issue so must have its place in shia views "only". As its not a general sunni view. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflicts) There is no such thing as a senior editor, all are the same. There are some editors with more tools than others that are called Wikipedia:Administrators and as can be seen, here, Mohammad Adil is not in the list so can't lock the page or block/ban an editor. Here is where the page was protected because I requested it and in neither case does Mohammad Adil's name appear. Now before jumping into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, which will probably be rejected, that the other options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution be tried first. In this case I would suggest that, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving disputes, one of the projects list at the top be contacted for assistance. I think that WikiProject Biography may be able to help. What is needed is a editor who is not involved and who also has access to the sources. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way Wikipedia:Third opinion won't work here as it requires a dispute between two editors but in this case there are several involved. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Colossal (you are I think Nabil Rais, a sunni name, which is relevant.)

You say you have not seen references to Umar burning the house of Fatima. All I can assume is your computer is not working or someone deleted them so here they are again.

I am printing them again, they include the History of Tabari including the posh academic version in english published by State University of New York Press, which is the most comprehensive history of islam ever written, as well as Masudi and Baladhuri and Shahrastani's polemical work. The list of 22 is (to which I have not even bothered to add hardcore shia writers yet):

Tareekh al Tabari Volume 13 page 1818 Dhikr Wafaath Nabi. In the English translation Volume 9 page 187 (State University of New York)

al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-30 Dhikr Bayya Abu Bakr. by Ibne Qutayba Dinawari

Tareekh Abul Fida Volume 1 page 156 Dhikr bayya Abu Bakr; we relied on the Urdu translation by Maulana Kareem'ud Deen al Hanafi pages 177-179;

Iqd al Fareed page 179

al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr Volume 1 page 246 Dhikr Abdullah in Abi Quhafa

Sharh ibn al Hadeed Volume 1 page 157

Allama Sharastani. Al Mihal wa al Nihal Volume 1 page 77, Dhikr Nizameeya. Standard reading in all good sunni madrasahs.

Muruj adh-Dhahab by Abd al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al Masudi Volume 3 page 198.

Izalath ul Khifa by Al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi Volume 2 page 226 (Urdu translation, Qur'an Mehal publishers, Karachi)

al Bayana Izalathul Khifa Volume 2 page 29

Tareekh Kamil by Ibn Atheer Volume 11 page 113

Tareekh Ahmadi by Ahmad Husayn Khan Sahib pages 111-112

Taufa Ithna Ashari, by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 292 Dhikr Muthain Umar

Al Murthada by Hafidh Abdul Rahman al Hanafi page 45 (Amritsar edition)

Mukhthasar Kanz al Ummal bur Hushiya Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume 2 page 184 (Egypt).

Kitab Mukhthasar fi Ahbar al Bashar Volume 1 page 156

Tahqeeq Mubashraab Sunni page 110 bu Maulana Waheedudin Khan al Hanafi

Ansar Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582-586

Tareekh Ya'qubi, v2, p116

Fathul Aineen page 88

al Faruq Volume 1 page 92 Dhikr Saqeefa Bani Sa'ada

Ruh al Mustafai Volume 3 page 36

Look I know you what is written in these books makes you feel deeply uncomfortable but the references are the references.

The Burning of the House of Fatima is also not just a religious issue - political assassination and a coup d'etat is also a historical issue . That's why the event is found in the HISTORY of Tabari, the HISTORY of Baladhuri, the HISTORY of masudi, and is why big fat western universities have taken the time and trouble to publish it. AND they have published it not as a sunni issue or a shia issue, but as a historical event.

--Frank1829 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of the historical works of these individuals were heavily religious in nature. For example, Sirat ibn Ishaq started off as a work of history too. Also, at this point Abu Bakr and Umar did have power however they wanted to secure its legitimacy through bayah of Ali and Fatimah. A parallel event wouldn't be Napoleon's coup, but we can't deny its place in the article. But just how much of the article should be dedicated to it compared with the many other things Umar did? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

State University of New York Editors' Version (Poonawala, Montgomery Watt, etc) - comments as historians (The History of Tabari), Leiden Version, Published by State University of New York Press. Opinion on the Burning of the House of Fatima.

The Editors write:

"

Although the timing of the events is not clear, it seems that 'Ali and his group came to know about the Saqifah after what had happened there.

At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatima’s house.

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance.

‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr.

The scene grew violent and Fatima was furious. "

Finally, some objectivity. NY University used these people and published something like 20 volumes of Tabari's book. Shias have nothing to do with the above statement of - it's Shia-free in that it is from an academic house of a major western university publishing from a secular perspective. I as a Shia do not object if wikipedia's section on Omar is based on the only objective commentary on the matter which is above.

If we're going to use the opinions of academic house authors from big universities, then I suggest based on the above that Wikipedia record:

"Umar and Abu Bakr were aware of the extent of Ali's claims to the caliphate. After the event of the Saqifah Umar and Abu Bakr were fearful of Ali and his supporters from amongst the companions of Muhammad, in particular that they were not accepting Umar's claim that Abu Bakr's caliphate was legitimate. Consequently Ali was sent for by the new regime of Abu Bakr and Umar to give his allegiance to Abu Bakr. Ali however refused. Ali and his supporters gathered in the House of Ali's wife Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad. Learning of Ali's refusal to accept Abu Bakr's leadership, Umar and Abu Bakr gathered an armed contingent to use violent force to extract the allegiance from Ali and his party. They surrounded the House of Fatima with their armed force. Umar warned those in the House that if Ali resisted Umar would set the House of Fatima with its inhabitants ablaze. Ali resisted, refusing to capitulate to Abu Bakr and Umar, and a violent conflict ensued between the warring sides at the House of Fatima." Reference: The History of Tabari, by Montgomery Watt, State University of New York Press.

In fact a great deal on this Umar page ought to be referenced appropriately to a neutral non-muslim major source like the above from State University of New York.

--90.192.16.140 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I believe most of the editors agree as well. Now that you've sourced this, they are just concerned that this single event has taken up a disproportionately large portion of the article. Umar was a military and political figure on a world level, is this event as nearly as important as his conquests and so forth? What do you think we should do about that? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The version above is comparatively brief compared to the amount of space currently given to this topic on the Umar page. I suggest we stick with therefore it.

Also, the separate sections on what shias think and what sunnis think, which are making the section long in the current version should be deleted. The references found there can be put into the Umar at Fatimah's House page.

The article as a whole is also too long and huge paragraphs dedicated to his physical appearance, use of olives for his complexion etc.

The whole page needs to be gone thru with a fine toothcomb to alter and remove where appropriate references to sectarian sources. In effect we will have to rely on what informed, major non-muslim sources say on Umar. It is good that they tend to focus on political events in his life.--90.192.16.140 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The event of burning Fatima's House is also important as it is a key event wherein Umar , according to Watt, sought to forcefully consolidate the caliphate he created at Saqifa, and to enforce it - the caliphate that was there founded was the predominant temporal islamic ruling institution for 1,400 years that dominated the world at several points in time.

In fact any page on Umar should higlight his instrumental role at the Saqifa, as the institution of caliphate was one his most long-lasting legacies. --Frank1829 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is clear mr watt is relying on shia sources for the event, sunni historians are known to record both the verifiable and fabricated accounts in there historical works so both are known, it is not enough to mention that a sunni work contains the narrations you have to be specific and mention if the historian was in favor of the account or simply recording various points of view. it has not been established that out of all the sunni sources mentioned thus far [if in fact the referencing is accurate] that they in fact recorded the event and verified it as being accurate.
  • here is a sunni view of the event, it is well referenceddon't mind the rhetoric.Alpha.test (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank's reference has Watt stating that the specific event happened. Obviously this isn't haqq, but it's his viewpoint. A viewpoint of a notable orientalist is more than enough for inclusion. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

this is one reference and not enough to include it as a main view it may be enough to include in the shia section but not the main article itself.Alpha.test (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How many references until it is "notable enough" though? There isn't a quantifiable rubric that says what can and cannot be stated in a main portion of an article and what must be confined to a single section, and the idea of having a single section for controversies is itself a controversy on Wikipedia. The best thing is to briefly mention this event with the historians (and religious groups) who support it, and move on with the article, on to Umar's military and political legacy. There is very little need for a Sunni/Shi'a/Twelver/Ismaili/Zaidi/Secular/Western view for every Islamic caliph. More and more I suggest it, more and more I realize how fallacious it is and how it makes the article infinitely worse. If anything, the editors who created the separate “Shi'a view of X” worsened the situation than rather if they incorporated it into the main body of the article. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

mr watt comes from an orientalist tradition that is hardly a neutral source considering there distortions of our religion, regardless it is still one reference supporting a minority shia view. The idea of a sunni and shia view is so each can express there beliefs as such since clearly we are not going to agree on one single view of history.Alpha.test (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, due to User:Franks's past record of providing fabricated references, i would suggest that all users should personally check this source to know that in which context this passage was written, or is it written by him at all. We all know what User:Frank did with mawali policy references !

I am going to check it. The introduction that i wrote in the article that i am writing is ....

“ Umar ([undefined] Error: {{Langx}}: invalid parameter: |a= (help), c. 586-590 CE – 7 November, 644), also known as Umar the Great or Farooq the Great was the most powerful of the four Rashidun Caliphs and one of the most powerful and influential Muslim ruler. He was a sahaba (companion) of Prophet Mohammad. He succeeded Caliph Abu Bakr (632-634) as the second Caliph of Rashidun Caliphate on 23 August 634. He was an expert jurist and is best known for his justice with Muslims and non-Muslim subjects alike, that earned him the title Al-Farooq (The one who distinguish between good and bad) and his house as Darul Adal (house of justice). Under Umar Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate annexing whole of Sassanid Persian Empire and more then two third of Eastern Roman Empire. His legislative abilities, his firm political and administrative control over rapidly expanding empire and his brilliantly coordinated multi-prong attacks against Sassanid Persian Empire that resulted in conquest of Persian empire in less then two years, marked his reputation as one of the political and military genius of the world.

It was Umar who for the first time in 500 years since expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land, allowed them to practice their religion freely and live in the Jerusalem. Religiously a controversial figure in the Muslim world, Umar is regarded by Sunni Muslims as one of four Rashidun or rightly guided caliphs who were true successors of Prophet Mohammad, in stark contrast, regarded by Shi'a Muslims as unjust in his usurpation of Ali's right to the caliphate, indeed as the principal political architect of opposition to Ali. According to Shia Muslims, Fatimah, wife of Ali and daughter of Muhammad, was abused by him and it is believed the event caused her to miscarry her child and eventually led to her death soon after. (see Umar at Fatimah's house).

”

In the introduction of the biography of historically military and political figure, it is fair enough to give this small event of religious importance, this large space. Similarly the Umar's sunni views also have been described briefly. He is mentioned to have been just Sahaba no further details are added here about his status as sahaba etc etc. Comments please.... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• here is the book under discussion, [24], all users are requested to check it, and it will be really kind of you user:frank if you tell us the page number.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

oppss thats not the book, its volume VII and have events upto 2 hijra, let me search more الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• First of all most of the users here dont know what actually user:frank arguing for ? They know about mawali policy and its truth exposed, but its is not clear to me that after mawali policy, what user frank wants to add, its fatima's house incident, all right, but, its already present in shia views section, so what do you want mr.user frank ?please make ur self clear, whats ur demands and plans etc etc ...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What Frank is Arguing For - A Secular Template for this Page ... !

No shia views, no sunni views, just sensibly references opinions from secular sources for a page which looks at things from a historical, academic perspective.

That's what i am arguing for.

Otherwise this page is just an extravaganza of religious iconism and sectarian polemics.

Maybe some individuals however have decided they will not allow any statement about Umar that can be perceived as critical of him to be presented as referenced fact outside of a caveat.

Instead they want it boxed off, contained, limited, and often the sense of the academically verifiable facts distorted, by caging it off under caveated 'minority' views. In these cages we have a cage for western thought, shia thought, jewish thought, and so on, while the king of the jungle, SOME of the sunnis, effectively write THEIR page on Umar, according to their agenda, and even discard their own references in favour where necessary of popular sunni culture. Makes me appreciate what being a Mawali must have been like ! (LOL)

Let's stop this retrograde behaviour. We're heading back to square one otherwise. The popular sunni religio-cultural sense of their history and its iconic figure of Umar should not be allowed to be the template for the Umar page, nor should any religion be allowed to dictate such templates for its iconic figures.

If sunnis or shias want their own page they should have other pages with links called Umar in Sunni Belief and Umar in Shia Belief.

This page is not about beliefs however, it is about historical facts.

We have an outstanding commentary on Tabari in 20 volumes written by a Panel of Scholars in the 1990s writing using standard academic criteria used by secular institutions (Watt is only one of several editors on the Committee of the State University of New York, in fact the Editorial Committee assembled for their massive Tabari project others on the Panel including Poonawala and so on.)

I suggest the sub-sections of shia beliefs and sunni beliefs be deleted on the Umar page. In the chronologically appropriate section the above section about the burning of the House I provided last night, based on the State University of NY committee's comments, be presented. Further discussion can be in separate links where sunnis and shias can discuss Umar according to their own beliefs, as opposed to the historical nature of this page.

Summary: This page is meant to follow the format of a historical biography of Umar. It is also quite patently relevant to religion, but as a historical biography it ought not be templated as before largely around religious perceptions and beliefs of any religion. Religion is about beliefs and doctrines not all of which are even metaphysically rational, history is however an academic discipline which is based on verifiable referenced facts. --90.192.16.140 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Holding Station, Recent Uploads Completed

Hello.

In accordance with the above lengthy discussion, I have massively shortened the section on Umar and the burning of Fatimah's House on this page.

I have put the agreed paragraph into its chronologically correct place alongside the contribution of Umar at the Saqifa in founding the institution of the caliphate. I have only included references to comments by secular authors.

I have cut and am temporarily holding below the large sections I have removed consisting of shia versions and sunni responses - now will someone please unlock the Umar at Fatima's House page so I can deposit the following cuts from this page there:

"According to the narratives written in the Shia books, following his election to the caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar with other companions went to Fatimah's house to forcefully obtain homage from Ali and his supporters. Umar and Khalid ibn Walid threatened to burn the house down if they did not submit. They broke in, set fire to the house, resulting in Fatimah's ribs being broken between the broken door and the wall, and she miscarrying an unborn son named Muhsin. According to Mas'udi, they dragged Ali out of the house and pressed Fatima between the door and the wall so forcefully that Muhsin, her unborn son, died of miscarriage. some saying Umar personally kicked Fatimah in the stomach, causing her miscarriage. Shia sources state that Muhammad later appeared in a dream to Fatima - he was cursing some of his companions for betraying Ali and Muhammad's spiritual legacy for the sake of political mastery over the Arabs after him, and he informed Fatima that she would be departing the world shortly thereafter to a better world by his side in Paradise. Fatimah informed her husband Ali and asked him not to allow those who had done injustice to her, to be involved in her janazah (prayer performed in congregation after the death of a Muslim) or take part in the burial. Shia sources maintain Fatima cursed Abu Bakr and Umar, never forgiving them. Shia sources are united in that Abu Bakr and Umar were banned from her funeral. Fatima was 5 years younger than Ali, and so was probably aged then about 29 or 30. She was buried secretly at night, and left the world either 3 or 6 months after her father. The mystery that surrounds Fatima's place of burial suggests a major controversy centred upon her very shortly after the departure of her father Muhammad, who breathed his last only a few months before his daughter. Fatima's grave is an enigma that endures, for even minor historical figures from the time-period have graves in the City of Madina that are very well-recorded and often marked - in the cemetery of Al-Baqi or in the Prophet's Mosque. It is hence intriguing that the grave of the most important feminine figure in Shia is unknown, especially since the city and its graves and shrines have been under Muslim control over since the time of Muhammad.

Shias maintain Fatima was deliberately buried secretly in Madina on her own instructions and those of Ali who buried his wife, so that enquirers in ages to come would become suspicious of the circumstances of her departure from the world and read the historical accounts of the time. Ultimately it is in his calamitous role in what they believe to be the sadistic persecution and murder of Fatima that Umar is most despised in many parts of the Shia world, yet revered in the Muslim one as a powerful king, facts which underline the controversy over Umar that exists to this day.

Sunni Sources regarding this incident

According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur. It states that Ali willingly gave oath of allegience to Abu Bakr, though maintained a distance from him out of respect for Ali's wife Fatima, because of an argument Abu Bakr had with Fatima over her inheritence. When Fatima died 6 months later, Ali went to Abu Bakr to re-establish closer relations. It is further refuted considering that Umar married Ali and Fatima's daughter, Umm Kulthum, whom he married after Abu Bakr taking Khilafa, showing the good relations he had with Ali at the time.

Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal mentions (section 025) that after Umar and Abu Bakr achieved the Byaa at Saquifa when the Ansar mooted their claim to nominate one of them for the Khilafa, Fatima asked Abu Bakr for her inheritence as the prophet's daughter, mainly Khaybar and Fadak, to which he responded that the prophet Mohammed said no inheritence is claimed from prophets and all their belongings should be charity, to which she was cross and would not speak with him afterwards.

Balathry book "Ansab El-Ashraf" (origins of the honourable), part 2, page 263, mentions that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb came close to the end of the Saquifa day, and said to Abu Bakr: I knew that the prophet -pbuh- gave you the right of leading the prayer, and that you were his companion in the cave during the migration, but I had the right of being consulted, however may you be forgiven." and reports that Ali gave his allegiance. This is also confirmed in "History of the Califs" by Al-Soyouty, page 56, and "Al-Mustadrak" (continuation) for Al-Hakim, part 3, page 66.

According to original books of Hadith (speeches and traditions of the prophet), Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Baihaqi relates on the authority of Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri: 'Abu Bakr ascended the pulpit and cast a glance on the people. He did not find 'Ali among them. So he sent for 'Ali and said, "O brother and son-in-law of the Prophet, would you like that the unity among Muslims should be torn to pieces ?" 'Ali replied, "I have no grudge or complaint, O Caliph, of the Prophet." He immediately swore allegiance to him. Al-Baihaqi adds that Ali uttered these words or this was their purport.

The historian Ibn Kathir adds in his book: "A significant aspect of this affair is that Ali took the oath of allegiance on the very first day or the day following the death of the Prophet. This is correct in point of fact since Ali never gave up Abu Bakr's companionship nor he absented himself in any congregational prayer."

It is commonly believed by Sunni based on the above that Ali made a distance with Abu Bakr in deference to the wishes and sentiments of Fatima. He took the oath publicly six months later when Fatima had died. Ibn Kathir and other historians are of the view that the subsequent oath of allegiance by Ali was in confirmation of the first one. A number of reports to this effect are on record in the six authentic compilations of the [Hadiths] and other books."

That's the end of the cut sections which need to go to Umar at Fatimah's House soon as it gets unlocked.

--Frank1829 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Umar burned fatimah's house, .......... truth exposed.

hey frank, guess what i just found ......... you will be happy to see it check it here [25]

It is mentioned in The Succession to Muhammad By Wilferd Madelung, the only book so far written by a western scholar on the topic of succession to Prophet. he writes on page number 43, about the event of umar's burning fatima'a house, and rejects it completely on the ground that are very logical... just read it.

The sources mention the actual use of force only with the companion az-zubair. Who had been together with some other muhajirins in the house of Fatima. Umar threaten to set the house on fire unless they come out to sore the allegence to abu bakr. Zubair came out with the sword in his hand but stumbled and lost it, thereof umar’s men jumped upon him and carried him off. There is evidence that house of Fatima was searched ali is later is reported to have repeatedly said that if he had forty men with him he would have resisted. To what extant the force was use on other cases is uncertain. In general the threat of it was probably sufficient to reduce the reluctant to comfort. Isolated reports of use of force against ali and banu hashim who unanimously refuse to swear alligence for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoked the sense of solidarity of majority of abdul mannaf who’s acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather isolating banu hashim as far as possible. Aisha’a comment that prominent people ceased to speak to ali until he realized his mistake and swear allegiance to abu bakr is significant.

So finally, this marks end of discussion, Umar didn't burned fatima's house, and this is exclusively shia claim and have no place in the article. Its a matter of common sense that if Umar had burned house of Fatima and had beaten her, this would have been discussed by the historians both muslim and western like the event of crucification of christ. Because she was after all daughter of prophet, only shia comment on it, while all other sources that either rejects it or dont even consider to worth discussing due to it ambiguous nature. the following source when discuss about the event of succession to mohammad, highlight only how ali was sidelined by political genius of umar and abu bakr, and says that he took oath after six, months, they reject the possibility of use of force to on ali or on any of banu hashim. and fatimah's house story is far too ambiguous to even secure place in the works of western historians.

you have all these sources and all of your life to do a PhD on the subject, ..... Check them ......

• [26]
• [27] it says .. for the sake of islam people gradually took oth of alliance to Abu Bakr as caliph and sho no opposition when he assumed office………….. it also says: many of them (supporters of Ali) took oath of alliance reluctantly and Ali himself did not give approval till six months later.
• [28] it says It was abundantly clear that general opinion would accept only Abu Bakr as the first successor to the prophet.
• [29]
• [30] it clearly says ..The Alids built up in the favor of Ali a highly ingenious but flatly fictitious narratives embracing the whole early history and exhibiting him as the true Khalifa kept from his right by one after the other first three and suffering it all with angelic patience
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34] it says ..but there is nothing in his previous life or in the attitude of prophet towards him that warrants any such surmise. He had indeed grievance but of quite a different kind.
• [35] it says No significant party appears to have backed his claim against abu bakr
• [36] it says Ali’s innate right to succession was not acknowledge by the muslim community in the immediate wake of mohammad’s death in 632, others were seen to have either superior or equal right of succession.

All this is sufficient enough to illustrate the western point of view in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So i think all is over, we have results for mawali policy, we have results for fatimah's house incident. As for rule, it is not necessary to add this burning the house section in the article at all, but still for the sake of neutrality and universality of the view i would support the addition of the event under the heading of shia views, as exclusively shia views.

User:frank have added the new section, i am completely agree with it, but the last paragraphy dipicting umar burniong fatima's house is useless in accordance with the above sources, and most importantly with the book "succession to Mohammad" which clearly rejects it. i am going to remove it or either i will edit to make it exclusively shia point of view. Cheers.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• i have edited the passage, making it more encyclopediac like in dry clinical tone. The views of western soholars regarding fatima's house incident has been added.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

the new article is here ..........

i have pasted the new article, edits required infact heavy edits for style, tone etc الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If Madelung did discount it we can't say western scholars think it unlikely. Since the editorial people from state university of ny hink it happened. So we have to say there is divergence of opinion amongst western scholars.

We also have a falling back to old shia and sunni opinions in this paragraph which should be eliminated. We can say most sunnis disagree with the viewpoint about abu bakr and umar being aware of ali's caliphate.

i am updating things to reflect this all.

Any objections?

Also can we have a page no for the madelung reference so i can cross-check it please.--Frank1829 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW Mr Adil you've produced a generally good version for what wikipedia needs. Just hope no one deletes it. The odd spell check may be needed --Frank1829 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later with the mawali stuff once i get some more references though it may take a bit of time as i'll have to check them thru an english-arab translator.--Frank1829 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

i think my post was crystal clear check this [37]

If you haven't read my previous post, then read them i had already mentioned that Madelung says it on page 43 you can check it i have given link above. You haven't provide any reference of use of force that you claim was exercised by Umar to intimidate umar, Madelung was very logical when he said that abu bakr was cleaver enough not use force as if will unite banu abdul manaf against him. So according to wikipedia policies, only a "claim" dont carry weight untill you provide authantic reference according to wikipedia reliable source. As you haven;t provided any thrid party refernce that says umar did attack ali's house, so you cant just go and edits the foundation of caliphate section saying that western historians differ on their opinion regarding it. I am removing it. and you are requested not to intervent untill you have a reference with you, that belong to thrid party i.e western scholar who says "clearly" that umar attacked ali's house beat fatima and burnt the house. More over make sure the reference you gave must have visual confirmation, give alink to the book as i have given so that the whole world can read it. now a mare reference carry no weight, in the case when users were subjected to fabricated references in past. More over, mawali policy debate is over ! i had provided you the direct reference that illustrates umar's policy towards mawalis. and if you check above, i had provided several references that clearly illustrated that mawali became a second class under ummayads. In case you provide a reference against it, ( i believe there is no such work as i had did a great search on this topic ) it will be discounted on the basis of minority view and could hardly be added to the article after consensus of other users.

Ragards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• one more thing i must say, there is a special tone of wikipedia article and its standard tone of encyclopedia articles, a reader should not feel like as if he is being convinced on some issue or his believes are being tried to be mold, the article must remain neutral. The foundation of caliphate section lacks it, i am fixing it. More over as this article that i have written was not revised by me, so it also need such edits. All users are requested to contribute for it.

i will also work on it shortly, as i need rest not lolzz الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have made the following changes to the Foundation of Caliphate section.

i have removed the word secret it cant became secret if ali didn't knew about it, umar knew about it and this implies that some one have told umar, obviously a muhajir had told him about it, which mean he must have told other about it too, and as the section says the meeting went for one or two days, so you cant kept such an important meating secret for two days ! Although narrations dont mention name of other muhajirs present there except for abu bakr and umar and abu ubaida, but in his book succession to mohammad, Madelung, Wilferd believe that there must be a large number of muhajirs, the supporters of Abu Bakr, other wise it wasn't easy for three men to over power two whole tribes.

• i have remov3ed this sentence....

Been fearful of Ali and his supporters from amongst the companions of Muhammad, in particular that they were not accepting Umar's claim that Abu Bakr's caliphate was legitimate

At one place we say The tribe is said to have posed no significant threat as there were sufficient men of war from the Madinan tribes such as the Banu Aws to immediately organize them into a military bodyguard for Abu Bakr
and at one place we say that "fearful of extent of Ali's claim ! how unrealistic ? Ali and his supporters ( who according to shia claim we so few that they all had gathered in fatimah's small house ) posed no threat to Abu Bakr, as he was already been widely accepted as caliph. And about 15,000 strong muslim army ( that he used in ridda wars) was at his disposal in madinah.

• moreover i have removed excessive use of "same" reference the Tabri.
• As i have explained above and have given several references (with visual confirmation links ), the western scholars either dont simply mention use of force by abu bakr in the caliphate struggle, or simple discard it as Wilferd Madelung did. For the time being we have only one source that is Wilferd's succession to mohammad, and this source discard the narration that claims use of force( see its page 43). Till we have some other western scholarly sources that claim use of force, we cant add the sentence that this matter is disputed among western scholars.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have mentioned the page number of Ockley's book to make the claim more convincing. More over i have removed the sentence that says "ccording to shia sources and a number of western sources "

By giving the reference to just one source you cant claim "number of sources". More over as you can read here on oage no: 83 [38] that ockley mentioned only threat of violence by Umar, not actual violance as shia scholars claims, that resulted according to shia in miscarriage of Fatimah's child due to Umar act of pressing a door against her and other fantasies of vicious clashes. So i have removed the sentence that says "Umar did use extremely violent methods "
Just check yourself what the author of the source that u have given says about the event:

Abubeker sent Omar§ to Fatima’s house, where Ali and some of his friends were with orders to compel them by force to come in and do fealty to him, if they would not be persuaded by fair means. Omar was just going to fire the house, when Fatima asked him what he meant. He told her, that he would certainly burn the house down unless they would be content to do as the rest of the people had done. Upon which Ali came forth and went to Abubeker, and acknowledged his sovereignty, || though he did not forget to tell him, that he wondered he should have taken such a step without consulting him.

Which thing sound to you like "extreme violent" in the above passage ?

---

good good very good how nice you rewrite the history. how about changing thousand year Innocent minds and some skepticism. on one hand you do not believe even in the infallibility of the prophet and on the other hand you defend thousands of companions a way as if they where pure angels.--92.61.178.65 07:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Obviously to a reader, the logic of Wilferd Madelung will sound more convincing in the light of hardcore tribal society of Arabia. regards...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There’s a lot of good cited information in this article, but it’s in need of a thorough edit. There’s quite a lot of spelling and grammatical errors. Just choosing a sentence at random here…

“During Abu Bakr's short reign as caliph he was mostly remained occupied with Ridda wars, Umar was one of his chief advisers and secretary”

The word “was” is improper in this sentence and should be deleted, and I also would add “the” before Ridda Wars. It would also be good to change this into two different sentences; here is what I have below for an example…

During Abu Bakr's short reign as caliph he mostly remained occupied with the Ridda wars. During this period Umar served as one of his chief advisers and secretary. Odin1 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, go ahead ...... article badly need a through check

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some gramatical changes to the article, it still needs work thoughAlpha.test (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics in article title: Umar Farooq (RA)

Hi, I see the article title has been changed from Umar to Umar Farooq (RA). This Acronym for "Radhiallahu anhu" is used when referring to close companions of the Prophet(SAW). It translates into "May Allah be pleased with him or her." Wikipedia doesn't use such honorifics, so others may object. See WP:MOSISLAM#Islamic honorifics. Maybe use Umar Farooq? Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 20:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)