Talk:Umar II

Untitled

uring the reign of Caliph Umar II there was a massive land and sea assault by the Caliphate upon the Byzantine Capitol city of Constantinople, led by his brother Maslama. Almost the entire force of men and ships was lost, which totalled somewhere to almost 200,000 men and 2,000 ships. I'm going to put in a link to the Second Arab siege of Constantinople in this article because if it had succeeded, then the Byzantine Empire probably would have crumbled and the Islamic Caliphate would have expanded into the Balkans and Europe 800 years earlier than it did.

--bbcrackmonkey

I've removed this from Rashidun, please add it where apprpriate here.Bless sins 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Umar bin Abdul Aziz (Umar ІІ), who was one of the Ummayyad caliphs, is sometimes regarded as one of the Rashidun. This is mostly due to his sheer strict-but-just conduct and peace during his reign that resemebled his grandfather, the second caliph. Muslim tradition recounts many anecdotes of him passed through generations portraying him as a righteous caliph. In one tradition he is ntoed as the The Hezekiah of the Umayyads. --Elected??

Whos says he was elected? His blood made him caliph not the people. This is totally incorrect and what does it mean he was not a hereditary successor? so was the last Umayyid caliph..i'm removing this statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.146.57 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the more common name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Umar ibn AbdulAziz → Umar II – or Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. The first is by far the more commonly used name, while the second is also often found. The form "Umar ibn AbdulAziz" or even "Umar ibn Abdulaziz" is definitively rare by comparison. Constantine ✍ 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in order to clearly register my own preference, I prefer Umar II. Constantine ✍ 21:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Support I prefer Umar II, but wouldn't object to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - agree also with opting for Umar II.Aldux (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Treatment of Jews and Christians

To my knowledge, this Caliph forced Jews to wear discriminatory signs in public. His treatments of Christians was similar - one of the reasons for the many conversions which he address in the taxes. Why does it not appear in the article? -- Zz (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, scholarly sources that back those claims? Most sources describe the caliph as particularly tolerant. Also, this article isn't exactly high-quality, needs a lot of improvement. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not have them. I bet I could find them, but what I actually wanted to do is stir up a discussion for a general improvement of the article. If you have a bite, I will be glad. -- Zz (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Zickzack is right and the entry is deficient in this point. If Umar II has a reputation among Muslims for tolerance that has to do with his irenic approach to Shia and stopping the cursing of Ali in the prayer. Against dhimmi he is known as the first khalif to put their discrimination into formal law thus heightening the pressure against them... Kipala (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Name

His name was Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz not Umar II...he was a grandson of Umar ibn al-Khattab but he was an Umayyad and should be considered as an Umayyad...in fact he was the first ruler among the Umayyad's with the name Umar therefore he should be just known by his name182.182.55.56 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Umar II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311144448/http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par246/L21RHadithCriticism.htm to http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par246/L21RHadithCriticism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

6th Rashidun

Most of the scholar class Umar ibn Abdul Aziz as 5th Rashidun caliph. Infact he was the 6th Rashidun caliph not the 5th. The 5th Rashidun was a Hasan ibn Ali. He was chosen as caliph by people after the murder of his father. Prophet Muhammad had said that "caliphate in my ummah will remain only 30 years. After those 30 years, it will be a kingship." 30 years of caliphate isn't completed without counting 6 months of Hasan's caliphate as Muhammad predicted.— Hammad (Talk!) 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Public cursing of Ali

@Undercover Platypus: you mention that according to Ibn Kathir, the public cursing of Ali under the Umayyads is a false claim. However, Ibn Kathir is a primary source, and Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. In this case, the book by the expert scholar Khalid Yahya Blankinship that we are citing does not follow Ibn Kathir's view. Do you know of any modern scholar that does follow Ibn Kathir in believing that the public cursing did not take place? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Abd-Alziz ibn Hamid in his hialnaahiat ean taen 'amir almuminin mueawiatan p.72. Salih al-Lohaydan p.194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undercover Platypus (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Undercover Platypus! Please do not forget to indent your comments on talk pages (by putting 1 or more colons before them : ::) and to sign them with 4 tildes (~~~~).

We need to be able to check whether the sources you provide are reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. For this we need the name of the publisher (an ISBN or OCLC would also be really handy), and some examples of their authors' acceptance by the international scholarly community (e.g. are they cited by English-, French- or German-language sources? what does Google Scholar have on them?).

I'll be straightforward and tell you that I suspect that the sources you provided do not meet the reliability criteria, but if evidence of reliability is given I'm of course willing to take another look. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the information, but seeing as I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia or its reliability criteria, and considering that I am simply interested in Islamic history but am by no means an expert on the topic, I will refrain from further editing or arguing on the topic Undercover Platypus (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)