Talk:Umar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Neutrality of 'formation of caliphate' section

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

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

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

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

Umar and Khalid

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

i cant actually get wht u meant to say

explain plz

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

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

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

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

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

- sufficient?

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

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

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

I do not agree with you, Information technology +, but I’m just one editor among countless others. If another editor agrees with you then he or she can edit as they like. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:GorgeCustersSabre. What is your position on the Khalid and Umar issue? Regards Information technology + (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Omar's execution of his son

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed additional content

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

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

The Title "Al farooq"

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Requesting new section

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

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

your thoughts ?

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

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

Kaab Al-Ahbar

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

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

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

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

Coup d'état

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotations

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

Section on Taraweeh

It should include references or be re-worded, or left out of the article. It can be shifted to the Taraweeh article - actually, Umar did not start the Taraweeh - he saw some people performing it and approved of it. I will search for the reference later.

Here is the reference for you... "Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari said, "I went out with Umar ibn alKhattab in Ramadan to the mosque and the people there were spread out in groups. Some men were praying by themselves, whilst others were praying in small groups. Umar said, 'By Allah! It would be better in my opinion if these people gathered behind one reciter.' So he gathered them behind Ubayy ibn Kab. Then I went out with him another night and the people were praying behind their Qur'an reciter. Umar said, 'How excellent this new way is, but what you miss while you are asleep is better than what you watch in prayer.' He meant the end of the night, and people used to watch the beginning of the night in prayer." Muwata Imam Malik 249

"Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad ibn Yusuf that as- Sa'ib ibn Yazid said, "Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered Ubayy ibn Kab and Tamim ad-Dari to watch the night in prayer with the people for eleven rakas.The reciter of the Qur'an would recite the Mi'in (a group of medium-sized suras) until we would be leaning on our staffs from having stood so long in prayer. And we would not leave until the approach of dawn." Muwata Imam Malik 250

"That he was informed by `Aisha, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out in the middle of the night and prayed in the mosque and some men prayed behind him. In the morning, the people spoke about it and then a large number of them gathered and prayed behind him (on the second night). In the next morning the people again talked about it and on the third night the mosque was full with a large number of people. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out and the people prayed behind him. On the fourth night the Mosque was overwhelmed with people and could not accommodate them, but the Prophet (ﷺ) came out (only) for the morning prayer. When the morning prayer was finished he recited Tashahhud and (addressing the people) said, "Amma ba'du, your presence was not hidden from me but I was afraid lest the night prayer (Qiyam) should be enjoined on you and you might not be able to carry it on." So, Allah's Apostle died and the situation remained like that (i.e. people prayed individually). " Bukhari 2012

"The Prophet (ﷺ) took a room made of date palm leaves mats in the mosque. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) prayed in it for a few nights till the people gathered (to pray the night prayer (Tarawih) (behind him.) Then on the 4th night the people did not hear his voice and they thought he had slept, so some of them started humming in order that he might come out. The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, "You continued doing what I saw you doing till I was afraid that this (Tarawih prayer) might be enjoined on you, and if it were enjoined on you, you would not continue performing it. Therefore, O people! Perform your prayers at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer." Bukhari 7290

I hope this will help you.

Shaad's space ^talk 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Books confirming marriage

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

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

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

Minor errors

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

Ömer

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

Hadith of the Pen and Paper

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

Request for comment

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

Office

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

MS = "Halifah yang kedua daripada ________ ________"

EN = "The second halifah from _________ _________"

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

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

Hoopla?

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

PBUH

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

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

Umar went to Rome

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

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

My edits

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

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

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

17 AH

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

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

Semi-protect the page

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

Conversion age & born

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

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

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

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

More sources favour the earlier date. His daughter Hafsa was born in 605, so we wouldn't expect Umar to have been born much later than 590.

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

Conversion to Islam

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

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

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

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

I previously wrote the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah section as follows (italics added):

In 628, Umar was among the approximately 1,400 companions that accompanied Muhammad when he went to Mecca to perform Umrah, an Islamic pilgrimage. However, when the Muslims reached Mecca, the Quraysh of Mecca refused to let the Muslims in the city to perform the pilgrimage. Muhammad explained the purpose of the Muslims' visit to Mecca to the Quraysh, and sent others to talk to the Quraysh as well, but the Muslims were still not allowed to enter Mecca. Muhammad then ordered Umar to enter Mecca to speak to the polytheists, but Umar refused Muhammad's command. Umar instead suggested that Uthman bin Affan enter the city to talk to the polytheists.

Eventually, the Muslims made a treaty with the Quraysh, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Before the treaty was made, Muhammad asked his companions to renew their pledge of allegiance to him. Umar was among the approximately 1,400 who did so. Muhammad and Ali then made the treaty with the Quraysh, who were represented by Suhayl bin Amr. However, after the treaty was signed, Umar raised significant protests about it, despite having just renewed his pledge of allegiance to Muhammad. Shia and Sunni sources both state that, after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Umar stated that he doubted whether Muhammad was the messenger of God and that he doubted the truthfulness of Muhammad. Umar himself later said that if a hundred men had supported him, then he would have left Islam then.

This section was edited to contain the following (italics added):

In 628, Umar was among the approximately 1,400 companions that accompanied Muhammad when he went to Mecca to perform Umrah, an Islamic pilgrimage. The Quraysh of Mecca refused to let the Muslims in the city to perform the pilgrimage. The first messenger was handled roughly and threatened with death. Muhammad then asked Umar to enter Mecca to speak to the polytheists, but Umar refused, saying that he had no influential relatives in Mecca who could protect him and Umar suggested that Uthman bin Affan be sent instead. Eventually, the Muslims made a treaty with the Quraysh, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. After the treaty was signed, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God. This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness and asking Muhammad if he really was the Messenger of God. Umar later said that if a hundred men had supported him, then he would have left Islam then.

The new revision is historically inaccurate. It falsely claims that Muhammad refused to use the name of Allah on the treaty and that Muhammad refused to call himself the Messenger of God. Historians state that Muhammad wanted to write that on the treaty, but complied with the Quraishi demands to not have it on the treaty. He did not refuse to put it on the treaty; rather, he agreed with the demands. Further, Umar did not question Muhammad's truthfulness. Muhammad's truthfulness was not in question. This page, however, falsely claims that Umar "doubting Muhammad's truthfulness." Sources and historical facts do not support this. Therefore, this revision of the page is inaccurate and should be reverted to the former version.

Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

the revised version is accurate and referenced. I am not the author of this version. I just don’t want to see an edit war occur. I’d like to see what other editors think. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, after reviewing both versions, it appears that it is true that Umar questioned the truthfulness of Muhammad. Sorry about that. However, I still think that it is somewhat misleading to write that Muhammad refused to write those two points on the treaty, when he was actually complying with the Quraishi demands to have those two points not written on the treaty. I would also be interested to know what other editors might think about that. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

According to the sources which you first introduced, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God. Singling out just Omar for these criticisms of Muhammed is not presenting a balanced account. Likewise, pointing out Omar's refusal to enter Mecca without mentioning his reasons for the refusal is not giving a balanced account. One of the sources, Rawzy, says "Umar declared later that ever since he had accepted Islam, he had never had such doubts about the truthfulness of Muhammad as he had on the day the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was signed", so summing that up as "This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness" seems accurate to me. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said in my second comment, I now realize that the statement "This led to Omar having doubts about Muhammad's truthfulness" is historically accurate. I apologize for my earlier statement about that part. My concern is whether saying "Muhammad giving in to the Quraysh on most points, refusing to use the name of Allah, and refusing to call himself the Messenger of God" is somewhat misleading or not. This makes it sound as though Muhammad was surrendering to the Quraysh, which is not the case. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Attempts to delete sections

As you can likely see from the edit history, User:Wiqi55 has made multiple attempts to delete all information from the page that has a negative view of Umar. This is clearly against Wikipedia's guidelines, as Wiqi55 is deleting relevant and accurate information supported by 38 reference citations. Wiqi55 claims that the sources are not reliable, but it is a stretch to claim that all 38 reference citations are not reliable. (Noteworthy is the fact that the 38 citations include Sahih Muslim and the works of Tabari.) Wiqi55 has also cited WP:BURDEN to justify his mass deletions; however, WP:BURDEN suggests inserting a reference tag if the references are not reliable. Again, however, the idea that all 38 reference citations are not reliable is a stretch. It appears that Wiqi55 is simply trying to remove the page of all content that does not portray Umar in a negative light, which goes against the mission of Wikipedia. I would also like to note that the "Treaty of Hudaybiyya" sub-section was among the material that Wiqi55 deleted; that sub-section has been discussed on this talk page. I am putting this message here to attempt to avoid an edit war and invite other Wikipedia editors to join the discussion. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BURDEN more carefully. It requires providing a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You cite a Youtube video and a self-published work by Sayed Ali Asgher Razwy, which you have refused to take to WP:RSN. The other sources are copied verbatim from Razwy, who uncritically cites 19th- and early 20th-century orientalist works without assessment. Early orientalist works are considered outdated and often fail to handle the primary sources properly (for example, search wp:rsn's archive for William Muir and read his article). Furthermore, citing a primary source like Sahih Muslim for other than straightforward, descriptive statements of facts is not allowed per WP:PRIMARY. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can take Razwy's work to WP:RSN. However, you have also deleted many, many other sources. For example, you deleted information that was supported by Sir William Muir's biography of Muhammad, and that biography is listed on the List of biographies of Muhammad page on Wikipedia. You have also deleted information supported by works of ibn Hisham, who lived two centuries after Muhammad (so not a primary source); ibn Hisham also has his own Wikipedia page. Other information that you deleted was supported by Al-Tabarani, who lived over two centuries after Muhammad and has his own Wikipedia page. Information you deleted was also supported by source(s) from Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, and Wilferd Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad (both the author and the book have their own Wikipedia pages). You also deleted information supported by Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi. This information is supported by a variety of sources that span over a thousand years. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The other sources are cited here based on Razwy. Unless you can prove that Razwy is a reliable source, his choice of facts and sources should be removed as well. It is clear that Razwy is a self-published source by al-islam.org. The same goes for Youtube and other websites you're citing. The burden is on you to prove that Razwy is a reliable source for objective facts about Umar. By the way, I created List of biographies of Muhammad. It's a chronological list of all notable biographies regardless of them being unreliable or outdated. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It is untrue that the sources cited here are based on Razwy. They may describe the same information as Razwy, just as two different history textbooks may describe the same event; however, that does not that they are based on Razwy's work. Many sources, such as ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, William Muir, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi list the events included in this article that you tried to delete. Not all of those sources come from Razwy's work; in fact, only one of those sources that I just listed (William Muir) comes from Razwy's work. To say that they are all inaccurate just because you don't like Razwy's work is a stretch. Again, those sources are not based on Razwy; many of them predate Razwy's work by centuries; they just happen to describe the same event. Multiple sources are cited to avoid situations such as these, where someone tries to question the validity of the content and sources. (And, for the record, al-islam.org lists the World Federation as the publisher of Razwy's work; it's not self-published.) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Razwi's work is online and anyone can see the similarity to your contributions. One example is your reliance on obscure sources such as Tor Andre and R. V. C. Bodley, both found in Razwi. The book was published by "World Federation of Khoja Shi'a Ithnaasheri" a Twelver Shia organization. We should not encourage readers to rely on books published by religious organizations. The same goes for works long considered biased such as William Muir's. Also, why would anyone trust your summary and interpretation of primary sources? You're even calling al-Masudi "A Sunni historian", which shows a lack of basic knowledge and sloppy handling of primary sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What I mean by "only one" is that out of the sources that I listed in my above comment (ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, William Muir, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, and Al-Masudi), only one of those sources was included in Razwy's work. There are other sources that I did not list due to the sheer amount of supporting sources. (Some of the omitted sources are in Razwy's work, while others are from elsewhere.) We can debate how to describe Al-Masudi's work; however, the fact is that you are clearly generalizing sources. Some of the sources that are referenced that are not from Razwy's work include: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, ibn Hisham, Al-Tabarani, Ibn Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Qutaybah, Wilferd Madelung, Kanz al-Ummal, Al-Shahrastani, Al-Masudi, and Al-Ṣafadī. You also claim that anything that's in Razwy's book should not be published in the article. That is an absurd claim as Razwy's book includes many events, such as Umar's conversion to Islam, and removing an event from Wikipedia just because it's in Razwy's book is ridiculous. If content can be supported by other, independent sources, then it can stay. And, as I have listed, there is a significant number of sources supporting the content. There is now a total of almost 50 reference citations supporting content that you tried to delete. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

As Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H) said: •I saw in a dream that I was given a bowl of milk which I drunk and remaining I gave it to Umar. (Source ~ Tirmizi-Shareef) as another place Muhammad declared •If some else Prophet should have been proposed by ALLAH after me, would have been Umar bin Khattab. (Source ~ Tirmizi-Shareef) Syed Ali Shan Jilani (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing POV and undue detail added by User:Snowsky Mountain

During last one year the above user had been adding either bogus stuff with questionable sources to the article or adding decently sourced stuff which was unnecessary in the article. The article already gave due weight to all important view-points (including eg. shia view of Umar & forcing Ali for allegiance etc). But this user was on transforming this article into a shia blog, with focus only on issues they liked (expanding them by several thousands of bytes), and removing stuff that they didn't like. And there wasn't any consensus on talk page that Snowsky Mountain is referring to in their revert summary. They just exhausted the other users into silence. Also see the report filed at ANI about his editing in general and to this article in particular: Tendentious editing at Umar. As such I am restoring the page to earlier balanced revision. Latter Bot changes and other constructive edits by this and other users are retained. Thanks--AhmadLX (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I do have concerns about some of the sources used by Snowsky Mountain. In particular, A Shi'ite Encyclopedia and A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims seem to represent religious perspectives and I see no indication that they meet the requirements of WP:RS for being cited for statements of fact. However, Snowsky Mountain is also citing RSs like Madelung's book (whose conclusions are known to be closer to the traditional Shia interpretation than those of some other historians, but who is a leading academic authority on the subject), so I think you'll need to be more specific in contesting their additions. Eperoton (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: If you re-read the post, I have mentioned that some of their sources were unreliable, while some were indeed reliable sources. Point of contention is not of using reliable sources here, point is of POV pushing and undue weight. For example: Look at entire section of Umar#Life_in_Medina. It presents every major incident in one sentence. Snowsky Mountain added three paragraphs to stress that Umar disobeyed Muhammad. Now, the sources in this particular case were mostly unreliable, but even if all of them were reliable, what is point of adding three paragraphs to describe ONE incident in a section which summarily describes 10 YEARS of his stay in Medina in one paragraph? Similarly in section on death of Muhammad, article described major events, Saqifa gathering, Umar denying Muhammad's death etc in one paragraph. Snowsky Mountain added four paragraphs their. Umar#Foundation_of_the_caliphate mentions views of Shia and views of Madelung. It is not that it was missing, and they added for sake of broadness/completeness. They added some five paragraphs explaining from Wikipedia's point of view what Shia think of him. Hope I have made myself clear enough. Ping me if something is still unclear or if you want to discuss further. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: This is the right kind of reasoning to contest material from the standpoint of WP:NPOV. What's missing in your comments at the moment is grounding in RSs. Per NPOV, we need to determine how prominent different viewpoints and subtopics should be in the article based on their treatment in the body of RSs on the topic, and not based on our own views. In this case, we should consult RSs to see how historians present this material to determine whether there are in fact problems from the standpoint of WP:WEIGHT or WP:PROPORTION. Personally, I suspect that your concerns in this case may be justified, but I don't have time to do a review of RSs at the moment, and so I can't support your objection offhand. Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, looking more closely at the history of this dispute, it looks like the content has been contested by multiple editors and the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion remains to be fulfilled. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The death stated is incorrect, hazrat umar ra died on the 1st muharram, he was injured/attempted to be murdered on 26th dhul hijh after few days he died because of the wounds suffered, so correct date is 1st muharram.

This needs to be amended. Saeedrehman786 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

According to many other sources, People confirms that , the martyrdom date of Hazrat Umar Bin Katab. R.z was 1 Muhram. But still more versification needed for the perfect date. 121.52.158.248 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It's up to you to provide those sources. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

I request to add this in the conversion part:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another incident of Omar's conversion to Islam that, one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made word, but rather words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him. 43.245.122.62 (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@AaqibAnjum, Toddy1, Owais Al Qarni, GorgeCustersSabre, M Imtiaz, and Hammad: Please give your comment about adding this in the conversion section:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another account of Omar's conversion to Islam that, one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made words, but rather thay are words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him." 103.67.159.174 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Death: 3 November or 7 November 644?

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

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

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

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

The correct date is 3 November. Abdulsamadbhutto (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Date of Death of Hazrat Umar.

The correct date is 26 Zil Hajjah. According to Hijri Calender. The 1 Muharram date is fabricated by some Nasbis. References. 1. Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajr Askalani. 2. Haykani. 3. Tareekh al Khulafa by Imam Sayyuti. Page 215 4. Muktasar Seerat ar Rasool by Abdullah bin Muhammad. Page 773 5. Tareekh Tabari. By ibn Jareer Tabari. Volume 3. Page 234 5. Al Farooq by Maulana Shibli Naumani. Page 170. Please edit this article as soon as possible. Abdulsamadbhutto (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The original date of feath is 26 zill Hajj please change it Arslmirza (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The orignal Date of death of Hazrat Umer 26 Zill hajjah please correct,its a humble request Syed Tilmeez Hassan Naqvi (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Another reference is Athir, Ibn. Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah (2 ed.). p. 667. He was attacked on 23rd Dhul Hujja, martyred on 26th Dhul Hijja. The Caliph Uthman was selected on 29th Dhul Hajja. talk

Umer RA death date.

He was attacked on 26 zilhaj and he embarrassed shahadat on 1st Muhrram. Chamkani (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No this is wrong. He was attacked on 23rd...Martyred after 3 days on 26th Dhul Hijja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

103.209.52.227 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

its is not the Ist muharram of death of hazrat umaer second caliph of islam,actual death date is 26 of zoalhaj

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference is here Athir, Ibn. Usdul Ghabah Fi Marifat -us- Sahabah (2 ed.). p. 667. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Umar → Omar
• Omar → Omar (disambiguation)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Omar has always been the usual English name for this early Islamic leader, per this Ngram analysis. Using Umar in English is the equivalent of saying "Paulos the Apostle" – it may be more literal, but it is not common usage. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: the Omar page has content, so it must also be proposed to be renamed. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Don't think the Ngram use here is applicable. Umar/Omar are pretty common names and when I searched them up manually on Google Books, only one or two of the results on the first page referred to this specific individual.

Adding the patronymic "ibn Al-Khattab" or "bin Al-Khattab" alongside the names on Ngram (thus being specific to this individual) seems to show that "Umar" is the more common spelling.
Alivardi (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Support: Changing from my previous stance since Onceinawhile's arguments below seem valid and I don't see any further appropriate reason to oppose the move.
Alivardi (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: I also ran those two ngrams but excluded them because the numbers were so small. The top of the axis of your first chart is 0.000000130%, whereas my ngram shows 0.00130%. That means the number of books in your charts is just 1/10,000th of the available books. Of course, many of the books under Omar/Umar will be for other uses of the name. So to be sure we would need a bigger sample. I will try some others and revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How about this one [1], comparing Omar+caliph plus Umar+caliph? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi and Khestwol: what do you think of the ngram above? It seems to cover the relevant sources better than the previous attempts, with the top of the axis at 0.000550%. I also put these terms "Omar + caliph" and "Umar + caliph" directly into google books, which brought up books on the right topic - that has given me confidence that the search terms are appropriate and that Omar > Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Khestwol (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Next question to ask would be is this Umar/Omar really the primary topic over all the other entries on the Omar page? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Even though "Omar" may be more common, but most of the time, "Omar" seems to be used for persons other than the Caliph, while "Umar" is used mostly for the Caliph. Therefore, per WP:NATURAL, the current title should stay. On Google Books search, most of the results for "Umar" seem to be for Caliph Umar. For example, on the first page, 6 of the 10 results are for Caliph Umar. Khestwol (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khestwol, on this one, most references to the caliph in the "Umar" google books search you mentioned actually spell it 'Umar, with the first letter of the name "ع" being translated as ⟨ʿ⟩. That is not the case for the "Omar" search (i.e. there is no 'Omar). The u is technically just the diacritic. That means that there are three spellings out there: Omar, 'Umar, and Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Also see the relevant Wikipedia policy at WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Article titles. ...2. When there are several forms that occur often in English-language reliable sources, and for those that are used most often it is unclear which one outdoes the others in usage, choose among these the one that is closest to the basic transcription. Example: Jinn (not Djinn nor Genies). 3. In all other cases use the basic transcription. Example: Jabir ibn Aflah. In our case, the "basic transcription" is Umar. Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Khestwol, I don't think that is correct - per Omar (name) "In Arabic, its pronunciation differs based on the spoken varieties of Arabic and consequently in its transcription." In other words, it is pronounced both ways in Arabic. And per my comment just above, Umar is an incorrect transcription – the perfectly correct one in Fusha would probably be 'Umar per Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"O" is only a dialectal pronunciation, it is not the standard Arabic one. In WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Vowels, the vowel ◌ُ is transliterated to "u" (not "o") in both the strict and basic transcriptions. Khestwol (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So in our case, as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style Arabic, the strict transcription is ‘Umar while the basic transcription is Umar. WP:MOSAR states: Arabic words on Wikipedia should be represented by either a common English translation, a common transcription, or a basic transcription in that order of decreasing preference. The strict transliteration should be used only sparingly for etymology. Khestwol (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Khestwol, WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Consonants is explicit that the "ع" should be translated ⟨ʿ⟩. No where does it say that "basic translation" should omit the "ع", or else translate it with only its diacritic. Basic translation per WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Consonants and WP:Manual of Style/Arabic#Vowels would be 'Umar. So we either go with technically correct 'Umar, or common name Omar. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In WP:MOSAR#Examples, they used "al-Abbasiyun" (not "al-'Abbasiyun") as the "basic transcription". Also the Consonants table notes regarding ع ('ayn): The apostrophe should only be used if it appears in a common transcription; it is omitted in the initial position. Khestwol (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Khestwol, on your second point, you seem to be reading the wrong table (perhaps the Urdu one) - the Arabic table explicitly does not state that "it is omitted in the initial position" next to "ع", even though it does next to Hamza. On your first point, in the same table they use "Karbala' " as Basic; it seems to me that the rules for Basic are inconsistent and unclear. And finally, and perhaps most importantly in WP:MOSAR#Examples, only one out of the seven examples has the article name following the "Basic" technical transcription, presumably because WP:COMMONNAME trumps the technical. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Some more examples of Wikipedia articles where the underlying Arabic starts with عُ (ayn with dammah):
  • Oman (عُمان)
  • Oud (عود)

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The titles of most related articles (about medieval persons) where the Arabic names start with عُ use simply "U" in the English title. See for example Umar II and Uthman (two of the important caliphs after Umar). Khestwol (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @The Anome: who created all of these caliph articles with these “U” names back in 2002. This has never been discussed, so worth getting views now. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umar

Please change the date of death from 1st Muharram 24 AH to 26th Dhul Hijja 23 AH.

The reasons are porivded below with authentic and verified references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The date of death should be changed to 26th Dhul Hijja 23AH. Both at the right section and in the content It was 26th Dhul Hijja earlier but updated on 21st and 23rd of this month by few editors (the editor changed it to 1st Muharram 24 AH), which happened to be incorrect. If we check the history of edits, till 21st of August 2020, it was 26th Dhul Hajja and changed since then. The reference provided is incorrect and the actual correct reference is I hereby, request the change is made incorrectly and should be restored to the information available prior to the 21st August.

In addition to that, the resource says that the Caliph Uthman was assassinated on 18th Dhul Hajja 35 AH and his government stayed for 12 days less than 12 years. 35 - 12 = 23 AH and -12 days means he was selected on 29th Dhul Hajja 23 AH. This clearly means Caliph Umar died on 26th Dhul Hajja 23 AH as Uthman was selected after 3 days of Umar's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam Nazar (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Najam Nazar (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

I request to add this in the conversion part:

However, in the narrations of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Hisham there is another incident of Omar's conversion to Islam that, one night, Umar was following Muhammad while he was praying in front of the Kaaba. Then hearing the words of the Qur'an reciting by Muhammad, he thought, they are never man-made word, but rather words written by God. He then told Muhammad that Islam had entered his heart.

According to Bukhari, before converting to Islam, Umar ibn Khattab used to beat his sister Fatima and brother-in-law Saeed with ropes for converting to Islam. However, after his conversion to Islam, he was in a state of fear and made himself hidden from the public in the begining. When the locals found out that he had converted, they came to beat him and then Al-As ibn Wa'il saved him. 116.58.202.24 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as being neither uncontroversial maintenance, nor supported by existing talk page consensus. See WP:EDITXY for information on planning an edit request. To add this information to the article yourself, please create an account - you will be able to edit semi-protected articles (like this one) once your account is autoconfirmed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

The name is spelt UMAR not Omar. This should be changed it is not accurate!! 86.8.202.191 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It is noted in the article it is also spelled Umar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (2)

Name is Umar not Omar Fayeahmad (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC) It is noted in the article it is also spelled Umar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (2)

"change death date fro muharram to 26th zilhajj" 39.50.38.225 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Burial

Isn't it an anachronism to say that Omar was buried at the Green Dome which wasn't built until 600 years later. Tigerboy1966  07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

I have found some mistakes in the page "Omar" and I wanna correct these mistakes so that the world gets authentic information. Please help me edit those mistakes. Thanks. Hassan Tariq JMS (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (pinging Hassan Tariq JMS) — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hagarism

What would be the due weight to mention that Hagarism says that:

The Qur'an was a product of 8th-century edits of various materials drawn from a variety of Judeo-Christian and Middle-Eastern sources while Muhammad was the herald of Umar "the redeemer", a Judaic messiah

I haven't read the book and it is a minority position, but it may be worthy of mention. --Error (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct spelling of the name

In view of my recent dispute with User:Ishan87 over the correct spelling of the subject’s name, I think the most civilized thing to do would be to bring the issue to the main article’s talk page. I have no strong feelings about whether the page’s title should be Omar or Umar, but I strongly believe that per WP:TITLECON, any associated pages should have a spelling similar to this one; that is why I moved Asim ibn Umar to Asim ibn Omar, for example. It seems that Ishan87 thinks Umar is the correct form of transliteration and argues that "Umar is the name more accepted for Muslims and recognized by Western historians as well." This was discussed back in Sep 2020, but if his view garners enough support in this section, another RM can be opened and the appropriate titles will be determined based on the new consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 06:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I thought maybe you would like to chime in since you opened the RM in Sep 2020? Keivan.f^Talk 06:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's reslove this issue once in for all. Ishan87 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ishan87, thanks for participating. Yes; let’s solve the issue in a civilized manner. :) Keivan.f^Talk 06:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't care. Whether this website accepts as the og title, but since Umar is the arabic name and the correct pronunciation, I as well as most Muslims would agree that "Umar" should be the lead title of this page and "Omar" should be the alternative spelling. Ishan87 (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the part where you say most Muslims would agree that "Umar" should be the lead title needs sources. To be fair, and it may come as a surprise, but I think Ishan87 might be right. The majority of sources listed on this page call him Umar or 'Umar, not Omar, so I don’t know why the page was moved in the first place. But I wouldn’t rush into opening a new RM until I here Onceinawhile‘s arguments (if he participates though). Keivan.f^Talk 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My thoughts:

• Omar is, and has always been, the WP:COMMONNAME for this caliph; any ngrams analysis you look at will confirm this, for example: [2]which compares the usage of Omar (as caliph) to Umar (as caliph)
• Umar is a botched middle ground. The Arabic name is just three letters, of which the o/u is none of them. The actual first letter is ayn, which is transliterated as an apostrophe. The o/u is the dammah diacritic on the ayn. In short, the “correct” transliteration is ‘Umar.

The relevant policy is WP:TRANSLITERATE, which says: The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, Delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have linked this discussion at Talk:Omar (name), and Talk:Omar Khayyam; he is probably the second most well known historical Omar/Umar. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f 1st of all, thanx 4 admitting it. The problem isn't just Omar as a synonym of ‘Umar. You cannot just rename his 'issues' from ibn/bint Umar to ibn/bint Omar, it's just wrong bcz ibn/bint is Arabic and "Omar" is English. If you want to change it, you have to call that person- "son/daughter of Omar" everywhere. This is the very reason I was insistent on reverting your edits back on those pages. Ishan87 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I just noticed this discussion after I opened the RM. I pointed out there why using the + operator in Google Ngrams is a mistake, and that Ngrams actually shows that Umar is more prevalent than Omar when combined with words like al-Khattab or caliph. However, I will point out here that when you combine Omar/Umar with Khayyam, you do get (much) more results for Omar Khayyam than for Umar Khayyam, both in Google Ngrams and in Google Scholar. The reason for this is that while the dominant convention among Arabists is to transliterate ḍamma with "u", the dominant convention among Iranologists is to transliterate with "o" (see, e.g., the transliteration scheme used in Encyclopædia Iranica). Now even though Omar Khayyam had an Arabic name, he wrote in Persian, gets studied by Iranologists, and because of that is mainly known as Omar rather than Umar. On the other hand, because Umar ibn al-Khattab is exclusively studied by Arabists, scholarly convention is to call him Umar. Now it's also right to say that the actual transliteration should be ʿUmar rather than Umar. But the convention at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic) is to differentiate between 'basic transcription' and 'strict transliteration'. The basic transcription, which is preferred for article titles and for most other uses, leaves out the dots differentiating between s and ṣ (or t and ṭ, h and ḥ, etc.), leaves out the dashes above long vowels (a rather than ā, etc.), and replaces both hamza and ʿayn with ', except at the beginning of a word (where both are left out). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)