Talk:Umar/Archive 3

On Umar Questioning the Authority of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him

I am not completely fluent in Arabic, therefore I come to you all for clarification. When Umar apparently questions the Prophet's (Peace Be Upon Him) authority as the Apostle of Allah, is he really questioning his authority, or instead saying 'O Bakr, isn't he the true Apostle of Allah?' in the same vein as 'O Bakr, isn't he the greatest?', instead of 'O Bakr, is he really the Apostle of Allah?'?

Again, I am by no means fluent in Arabic, and do not grasp the connotations behind the words used. Can someone please clarify this for me? Many thanks.

Salam brother!

Whell, you dont need to be fluent in arabic to see that, just look att the context:

1)Umar want to go to Hajj that year

2)Umar dont get to go to Hajj year

3)Umar tell Muhammad, peace be upon him, "Arent you the true Apostle of Allah? Why are we not going to Hajj?"

Does "O, how great you are for not going to hajj, even if you said so" make sense? And then going to Abu Bakr to reiterate the same complaints?

Dont forget they where complaint and not praise :)

ma salam

--Striver 11:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heavy editting made to Hafsa subsection

The subsection on Hafsa, if nothing else, was either academic dishonesty or just sloppy research. I understand that there are different sects and they believe different things, but to take things out of context or not to point out context is clearly dishonest. It is clear from the link used as reference that Muhammad did love Hafsa, but had a spat (as all married couples do), and vowed to stay away from his wives for a month. It was at this point that the people, observing Muhammad's actions, had thought that he was divorcing them, not knowing the true story. Umar was informed of this, and made his statement. I have to go referee a soccer match, but I probably will continue this discussion later. --GNU4Eva 15:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason of that quote is not to establish whether Muahmmad (sa) loved Hafsa or not, its to show what kind of fatherly advices Umar gave to his daghter.

--Striver 19:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's being taken out of context. To say that this is the type of father or advice {ignoring the fact that it's not really advice but was based on hearsay} that Umar gives is to take one incident and paint his whole life or a major part of his life based on it. --GNU4Eva 21:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore while your intent is to show Umar in a negative light Islamically, I'm sure even you'd agree that his allegiance should be to Allah first, then the Prophet, then anyone else can come after that. " Umar refused to take his daughter's side" -- over Muhammad? You'd be all over him if he actually did that, so either way it's clear that Umar is not going to satisfy you no matter what he did. --22:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shia viewpoints

Seemingly every article I'm reading that is Sunni based which the Shias don't agree with are heavily butchered and hard to read and follow. This is because everytime a statement is made that is positive with regards to issue discussed in the topic, the Shias interject and say, 'the Shias believe this'. While it is important to have opposing viewpoints, it should not be at the expense of readibility, efficiency, and professionalism. It is my suggestion that instead of these random insertions throughout the articles, that there may be a section that covers "Shia viewpoint of so and so". That way it's easy to read, and all the Shia viewpoints are still there and easier to find. --GNU4Eva 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Striver has had a free hand with this article for a while and it has to a great extent turned into a Shi'a indictment of Umar. I just haven't had the TIME to try to NPOV it again.

Originally most of the Islamic articles on Wikipedia had a Sunni bias, due to most of the editors being Sunni, or having read Western scholars who trained in Sunni countries. It's good to have Shi'a here noting and protesting the bias. Unfortunately, English is not Striver's first language and he is perhaps not the best representative the Shi'a could send here. Please don't let your feelings about Striver's edits influence your view of Shi'a in general.

I agree with you that turning every single section into a pro-con argument is making the article unreadable. How about trying to rewrite in three sections: Facts both Sunni and Shi'a would accept, Sunni views, Shi'a views. That way readers get an overview before they descend into the thick of the controversy. Zora 22:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went through and tried to add a Shia POV section, and moved all Shia commentary to that area (I also cleaned up some of the spelling and grammar mistakes. I believe I did a fair job in this and anyone who has an issue can definitely bring it up. That being said, it does need some clean up now as the transitions aren't always clean. I've tried to make the transitions from point to point as smooth as possible but I know that job is not done. --GNU4Eva 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia!!

I don't know how wikipedia can consider the arguments from Iranian shia. Umar ibn al-khatab conquered Iran(Persia) and as such it would be foolish to even consider there argument. 90% of shia are Iranian and shiism is different religion than Islam. let the shia write about Iran history and not about Islamic history. Its like letting a nazist to write about Jewish history thats how absurd it is, i hope wikipedia realize that before Muslims see this big comedy that can make end to any hope of muslims turning to this site in the future for information.

Striver represents Striver, not all Shi'a. He has been extremely active of late and the more centrist editors haven't had time to revise all his contributions. Please don't judge Wikipedia, or Shi'a, by the actions of a few editors.

I've been reading a book written by an Iranian liberal Shi'a, Reza Aslan. Actually, I dunno if he identifies as Shi'a now, but he was definitely raised Shi'a. He is a very good writer and extremely balanced on Sunni/Shi'a issues. I don't agree with Aslan about many things, but his ideas are definitely worth consideration. If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts about Iranian Shi'a <g>, try reading his book. Zora 5 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

I'm going to have to get a user account soon, just so I don't have to keep chipping in "Anonymous Coward" style. Regardless, I have removed the following segment from the beginning of the Shia viewpoint section, as it is clearly not only POV, but discussion.

After going threw your views we come to this conclusions about Umar that he was lier, coward, conspirator, usurper, hypocrite, thief, ignorant, criminal, violent, murderer and every thing which is negative. What can we call this view? I would call a pure Iranian propaganda. In every single of your arguments you vilified him. Can any one with objective mind consider taking your arguments? Even a Christian would give a better and more objective view about him than you. So instead of wasting peoples time write something thats not propagandistic and childish.

I have resisted a temptation to fix spelling on that-- painful, since that's the whole reason I've been mucking about in the Islam sections. (Anonymous Coward) 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

You are welcomed to wikipedia, my brother in Islam. It is no secret that Shia have a very dim view of Umar. Its not Iranian pov, its Shia pov.

--Striver 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

This is mockery, have the administrator taken the time to read what that kid have wrote. My God its pure insult to human mind. I will spread this link to established Islamic websites so they can see the comedy. It seems to me that every Tom and Harry can write in wikipeda. The shia view written by unknown "kid" is personal attack on Umar ibn al-khatab a great sahabi for Muslim.

I do admire your great akhlaq, its a role model for all of us. Umar might be a great sahabi for you, but he is not a great sahabi for Muslims.

--Striver 6 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

He is hero and the second rightly guided caliph of islam for Muslims who make 90% of Islam but not for shiia sect. Joust because you have hatred for him for ancestrial reason you don't have to make insulting article. But for you information in the end its you shia who will loose. people will refer to this article and shiism will be exposed. And all century of taqiya made by your shia scholar that they are not rafidah will be exposed. This will be used buy every one to show the weired believes of shia. So keep the good work and expose the every day taqiya made by your mullahs.

If you are refering to Sunnis, then think again, they are not 90%. About my disliking of Umar, its not due to ancestral resason's, im most greatful that Salam al-Farsi returned with Islam during Umar's era. Im not doing a insult article, im just honestly reporting what is belived to be authentic about Umar in Shia view. If you look closely, you will note that almost all referenses are from Sunni sources, albeit most of sunnis dont view them as authentic. Regarding people refering to this article, that is my ardent hope. I do really hope that people will look at this article and let the truth be heard. My ancestors where forced to either use dissilumination or face death. Even in this era we where faced with execution if we whent to Karbal during Ashura. Now, in the internet era, shias are at last free to express or views about Islams hitory. In our view, we have been the only one to not succumb to the umayyed and abbasid oppression and refused to accepet the white washed and inconsistent version of Islam that goes with the namn "wa al-jama'ah", a term coined by Ibn Umar to reffer to the unlucky day Muawiya came into power. Yes. you are totaly correct, the time for taqiya is over, let the world hear what we have salvaged with our blood: a consistent view of early Islam.

--Striver 6 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

Wheel you can say what ever but the truth is you are putting the shia in risk. They are minority and they still hide there heretical believes if you expose them thats fine. Your Iranian influenced hatred will only serve a t the hand of extremist. I used to defend the shia before telling them that there is no major difference between them and as. Until i was exposed to the real shiism and it was this kind of writing that i found in a shia website that really opened my eyes.

Another revision

I cut the article back down to a reasonable length and removed the huge swathes of Shi'a character defamation that Striver introduced. I summarized the attacks in one para. This is perhaps an over-reaction. It might be desirable to provide a Shi'a link for each of the points of accusation -- not a cut and paste of hadith, just a link to a site where the hadith supposedly proving the charge can be found.

I tried to keep the rest of the article as NPOV as possible. It is possible that there may be some Sunni-fied statements there that might need to be expunged or NPOVed. I would hope that Striver would point them out, rather than revert to his version, or introduce some more hadith cut-n-paste. Zora 9 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Hi Zora!

Ok, i will try to cooperate.

Say, what do you think about just having a version that both a shia and sunni could feel comfortable to, and then att the end have a sunni summary of what they think of Umar and then link to Sunni view of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and then a shia dito?

--Striver 9 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

So, i removed lost of stuff, whe can put them in the "view" links. What do you think?

--Striver 9 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

i Tought it was important to point out to the reader that information have been omitet in the article due to controversies. Otherwise the reader might belive that the article is covering all events and that there is only views in the links. Dont you agree that it is important to inform the reader about that?

--Striver 12:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, you want that "warning" there to push people towards your "Shia views" pages. As I said in my edit, we warn readers both at the beginning of the article and at the end that Umar is controversial. There is NO NEED for any extra warning. Most of the "information" that you insist is missing is hadith material of doubtful veracity. I would not regard that as missing information at all.

If you look the comments in your RFC, you will see that not one person editing Islamic articles is supporting your copious edits. We all of us realize that it's good to have a Shi'a involved, to make sure that there's no unconscious Sunni bias. But you write so badly, and introduce such doubtful info, that it's starting to seem that you're not helping us, you're simply creating damage. Please start trying to collaborate. If you see Sunni bias, try to articulate what it is that bothers you, specifically, and write about it in the talk pages. The rest of us will try to remove bias. If you can't stop your endless reverts and POV edits, we'll have to go beyond the RFC, to arbitration, and see about having you blocked from editing for a while, so that you have a chance to calm down and cool off.

You are not making friends for the Shi'a. Your actions are reflecting badly on the Shi'a. If you want to advance your cause, please either stop the POV editing, OR try to recruit a Shi'a friend who has a better command of English, some academic training, and a longer fuse. PLEASE! Zora 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Should we remove the tag?

--Striver 14:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Propose move

I'd like to propose that this page be moved to Umar. He is by far the most famous Umar, and his filiation is not generally known to English-speakers. We could move the current Umar page to Umar (disambiguation). I'm going to propose the same for Uthman and Ali. john k 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote against. Not because i dont like Umar, i vote against the Ali article being moved as well. Unless it be to Ali ibn Abu Talib. I vote for Muhammad being moved to include the rest of his name as well.

--Striver 22:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly not going to happen. Articles should not be in places that nobody would possibly guess at. I'm a relatively well-educated non-Muslim, non-historian-of-the-Islamic-world, and I have always just heard of the first four caliph as Abu Bakr, Umar/Omar, Uthman/Othman, and Ali. The locations of the current articles are completely unfamiliar to most people. john k 22:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats why we have the disambiguation pages.... i just made a test: Jesus. Guess what? I suported your sugestion. Im convinced, your idea seems to follow WP standards, so i vote for it. --Striver 23:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I support the proposed move. Until I found this page, I did not know his filiation, despite the fact that I was already fairly familar with him. — Joe Kress 00:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This should be moved to `Umar ibn al-Khattāb or `Umar ibn al-Ḥattāb because these would be the most precise names. In reference to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), Wikipedia:Redirect states "it's best to have an article at a well-defined, unambiguous term, with redirects from looser colloquial terms, rather than vice versa." --LakeHMM 20:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

u/o

What is the current understanding of Arabic??? Are these names better translittered with O or U?? Omar or Umar?? I mean, I always read history books (and other literature too) where always was Omar, never Umar. 217.140.193.123 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This represents a shift in the transliteration of Arabic vowels over the last couple of decades. Mohammed → Muhammad, Moslem → Muslim, Omar → Umar. The last is confirmed by the discussion on this talk page. Unless a history was written within the last decade, it probably used the old transliteration. Nevertheless, old habits are hard to break—I have seen recent articles in scholarly Islamic publications that still use the old transliterations. The Umar page should reflect the current transliteration with a redirect from the old transliteration. — Joe Kress 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I know my response comes quite late, but I just thought I'd add that Arabic lacks the vowels O and E, as far as I know. Of course, it isn't written with these letters, and they aren't directly correlative in pronunciation, but it's usually accepted by those who familiar with the language that the vowels of Arabic are A, I, U, and their corresponding long versions. --LakeHMM 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora

You cant have it both ways

Either:

• 1)you add all the stuff he did to the main article,
• 2)or we shuve it to the Shia view,
• 3)But you cant remove what he did, remove the shia link and also remove the warning that everything is not included.

If your going for #1, add all the changes he did to the general view, like his death sentence, tayamum, triple talaq, Mut'ah of Hajj and so on... you can not included, not link to the shia view and not warn that its not in the main!

--Striver 15:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

anon

Could somebody deal with that, i dont want to start a shia-sunni thing about that... beter if a sunni or budhist takes care of that...

--Striver 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sura Ta ha

Zora, why do you add that he converted after reading that Surah? I have read in several places that he convereted after going to the house of Arqam, where Muhammad (as) was, he got surounded and unarmed and Muhammad (as) rebuked him in a prophetic manner, causing him to convert. Could you give me a source that explicitly says he converted excludingly due to the Surah?

--Striver 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq later describes Umar as going to the house where Muhammad was, intending to give his submission and -- if I recall correctly -- the people there fearing that he had come to kill Muhammad, and only relaxing after it was clear he had come to submit. You might be remembering that. Zora 07:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you represent all Shi'a, Striver?

Striver, you garbled the para re the delay in preparing Muhammad's body, caused by Umar's intransigeance. Your view of the matter -- that he wasn't even pretending to be upset -- doesn't match what I remember reading on some Shi'a website. I realize that I've been much too kind to you in assuming that your opinions represent the majority Shi'a opinion, and not asking for any cites. I reverted the para, until you can come up with some cites for your version, that is, Umar just threatening anyone who wanted to bury the body, without seeming upset at all.

I should add that Ibn Hisham's notes to Ibn Ishaq throw a whole new light on this episode, which I should perhaps add. Umar is said to have told someone that he had not believed that Muhammad could die, because he expected the last judgement soon. He was sure that Muhammad would be at the head of his followers when the day came. Fred Donner, in one of his books, mentioned casually his thesis that the early Muslims were millenarians and that this is something that is NOT emphasized by Muslim religious scholars, Sunni or Shi'a, because it shows Muhammad and his followers as being mistaken. I really do have to try tracking this down; perhaps Donner has written an article I could cite.

One of the arguments that the Shi'a advance for the imamate of Ali is that Muhammad could of course see the future, knew that his followers would require continued divine guidance, and appointed Ali to provide that guidance. But if Muhammad expected the last judgement any day, there wouldn't be any need to make provisions for the future. Zora 07:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Now look at the completely different response upon the death of the Prophet (saaws), now Hadhrath Umar was holding his sword aloft threatening those who said that the Prophet (saaws) was dead. Alas if only that same vehemence had been adopted in Uhud... There was clearly more to it, something was happening and even the staunch Sunni scholar Numani admits that the actions of Hadhrath Umar in denying the death of the Prophet (saaws) and threatening to kill those who spread the news was because: ... If this is the case then Hadhrath Umar should have tried to suppress this information for as long as possible. He would have tried to convey these worries to Hadhrath Abu Bakr. But this did not happen on the contrary upon Hadhrath Abu Bakr confirming that the Prophet (saaws) was dead Hadhrath Umar's fear of a hypocrite conspiracy instantly vanished. answering-ansar.org

Happy? They spell it out, it was about suppresing INFORMATION, they do NOT argue that he was faking a mental breakdown, but they do refute the Sunnis for beliving it, and also quote a Sunni that did NOT bring mental breakdown as a explanation. So now im reverting to my version.

"Muslims were millenarians"? What millenia? 610 AC?

"One of the arguments that the Shi'a advance for the imamate of Ali is that Muhammad could of course see the future, knew that his followers would require continued divine guidance, and appointed Ali to provide that guidance. But if Muhammad expected the last judgement any day, there wouldn't be any need to make provisions for the future." Non-sense. He did not choose Ali thinse he saw the future, he did so since God told him in this verse:

[5.67] O Apostle! deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.

Not delivered his MESSAGE if he failed this one revelation? Protect against the people? What people? This verse came at the very end, right before Ghadire Kumm. Protect against WHAT people, all where Muslims! Deliver what message? Of corse, its Alis wilayat, what could it else be?

Aslo, even sunnis have recorded in their most trusted sources the widely known hadith about the comming of the 12 imams after him.

I heard the Prophet saying, "There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world)." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, "All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish." ^bukhari

Note how the wahabi translator didnt like that it to be "imam", so he translated it to "ruler", and how he added his own pov parantheises. --Striver 00:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the homosexuality stuff, its one of the "hard core" critizism against Umar that shia have, but i havent touched, since not even my mainstream critizism are accepted many times. --Striver 00:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

i fear for your soul my brother......eldiavolo

Combatant numbers

Various anons objected to the caveat re combatant numbers. Sorry, but we really can't trust the old chroniclers' figures the way we can trust modern troop figures. The figures are estimates, and quite hazy. When a chronicler seems to work in sizes of 1000, 5000, 10,000, 15,000, etc. you know there's some serious rounding going on. Plus there's always the tendency to exaggerate -- like fishing stories. This is especially the case when you have a small force fighting a big one -- if the small force wins, it's always over incredible odds, and those odds seem to increase with each telling.

Same problem with population figures. One traveler says it's a town of 10,000 people, another says 40,000. You don't know where they got their figures or who to believe. Most pre-modern figures are guesses!

An exception might be made for engagements like the Battle of Badr, where each death had a name. But even then, there's a problem, in that later Muslims liked to boast of having an ancestor who fought at Badr ... which would lead you to estimates of many thousands on the Muslim side! <g>

Now that warning should probably be attached to lots of figures in Wikipedia, but we need to start somewhere. Zora 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sub Standard

Zora, then fix the english, dont remove the contents!

Please included in a non-substandard english that the Banu Hashim felt that Ali should have been the first Caliph, thx. And also, remove in a non-substandard english way the "manny" from the "manny shia" --Striver 02:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed some contentious material

I don't think it's right to say that all the Banu Hashim were Rafidi, or the core of the Rafidi. I don't think Muhammad's uncle, Ibn Abbas, who was supposedly the head of the clan, was a Rafidi. Indeed, it undercuts the Shi'a argument to say this, because it sounds like one clan with its nose out of joint over a claim to the succession. I believe, personally, that Ali DID have broad support, from many early Muslims, and that this is a testimony to his character.

As to the quote from Margouliouth -- that's from a work published in 1905, I believe, and the author is simply not reliable by today's standards. He believed that Muhammad's visions were to be explained by epilepsy, among other things. I would have no problem with including negative evaluations of Umar if they came from current authorities, but digging up old authors with a jaundiced view of Islam and cherry-picking anti-Umar quotes is NOT OK. Zora 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your thoughts about Margouliouth seem accurate, and i will add that to the text. It is of intrest that the book is published in 1905. However, even if his work is questionable, it is of value to show that there are/wher western scholars holding that view. In essence, if Umar hade made any great dead that where easy confirmable or widely reported or significant, surely nobody would have wrote the thing that Margouliouth wrote. So in that view, it is of intrest to have his view cited, not so much to prove it as a fact, rather that it possible to have a educated view of Umar and not find any heroic act. About Muhammad, pbuh, having epilecptic seizures, God forbid, is simply Margouliouths way of rationalizing with his non-Islamic view of the world. However, heroism or valor is unviersal in both christianity, atheism and Islam: To charge at the enemy when there is a eminent and great threat of death. And Umar simply did not do that.

About Banu Hashim. Yes, all of them where rafidis as i have understood it, i have not come acrose a single Banu Hashim that gava Abu Bakr baya, including Ibn Abbas. However, i have come over plenty of sources claiming that most of Banu Hashim where in direct and active opposition of Umar and Abu Bakr. yes that is correct, Ibn Abbas was a Rafidi. He did not give his baya to Abu Bakr. However, your other conclusion is incorrect, the whole of Banu Hashim being rafida does not diminish Ali wide support, there where plenty of non-Banu Hashim that supported him.

Basing on the above, i will revert, and ad the information you gave regarding Margouliouth work. Thanks for your motivation, and peace! --Striver 02:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You reverted to a version in which Umar is sometimes `Umar and sometimes Umar. I fixed that, standardizing on Umar, which is the usual English form.

If you want the Margoliouth quote, surely you can add it to your pet article, the Shi'a view of Umar, and keep it out of the main article. It does not represent the majority academic view of Umar by any means. It is misleading. As for the Banu Hashim, I'll have to do some research, but ... as I said, you're undercutting your own argument by this insistence on clan solidarity. Zora 05:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for any edits you make that raise the standard of the test, without ommiting facts, statements or sources. Regarding puting the Margoliouth quote in my "pet article", since "It does not represent the majority academic view of Umar by any means", i would like to have that proven. Bring me three western scholar in Islam that belives Umar is valiant, and refers to some incident to prove that, and i will agree that the Margoliouth quote is not representative and i will remove it. Be adviced that it is writen "SOME western scholars", not all of them. So bring me three that belive he was valiant and i will remove "some" and move the quote to my "pet" article. The burden of evidence is upon you.

Regarding the Banu Hasim statement "undercutting your own argument". It may be so, but it does not matter. The Shia scholars often refer to that, and that needs to be represented. --Striver 12:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

i also disagree with the assessment of 'all' banu hashim supporting `ali. there were a number of holdouts, particularly with respect to the succession of `umar, which was largely uneventful (given abu bakr's previous decree). now, if we were speaking about the succession of `uthman, you may be right. but it's inaccurate to state 'all'. in fact, one should generally refrain from using all forms of superlative in academic writing. unless one is God himself, it's impossible to ascertain what 'all' or 'every' or 'none' of the people were thinking and doing.

---

with respect to orthography, i spelled umar with the open apostraphe that indicates an `ayin. i think it's important to reflect the correct pronunciation and transliteration of his arabic name. furthermore, it does little to harm the flow of the article. wikipedia has a transliteration policy -- which does include indication of hamza and `ayin.

But if we're going to indicate hamza and ayn, we should use the proper characters, which are not yet supported by the Wiki interface. The most recent academic texts I've seen use small superscript semi-circles, facing right and left. That's a lot clearer than the use of right and left facing single quotes, or straight-up and left-leaning apostrophes. Not that I know much about this at all (not even having started learning Arabic) but I've read enough recent academic material to know what's standard. Zora 18:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

you are correct that some typefaces indicate hamzah and `ayin with superscript semi-circles, however, it is also acceptable to use open-quotes and close-quotes (the ones that would appear in Word if you typed them). also this symbol (`) would generally not appear in a printed text, it is generally accepted as an `ayin in email and other ASCII correspondence. if you can figure out how to get a semi-circle or even the real open-quote (that is more curved than this `), by all means, let me know how. otherwise, i still think it's best to represent `ayin, even if it's not the ideal character. cheers, dgl.

In the Hawaiian-related Wikipedia articles, we use this character: ‘, the ‘ okina or glottal stop. In the article on okina, it's explained that this is also used for ayin. ’ will do for the hamza. Perhaps we can start using those in the Arabic transliterations? Zora 17:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, those aren't showing up in the preview page. ʻ can work, but it depends on your browser. Let's see what happens if I save. Zora 17:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

the character you wrote above did not show up on my screen. as far as the earlier comment ... the problem with using the same character for hamzah and `ayyin is that in arabic, they are completely different sounds. the english reader would not catch that if they were transliterated in the same way. similarly, it would pose confusion to the novice arabic learner who would be unable to distinguish when an `ayyin was intended.

---

Ok, lets change it to "the Banu Hashim". --Striver 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)