OMAN. See ARABIA.
OMAR I., ABU HAÏSSAH IBN-AL-KHATTAB, the second khalif of the Mussulmans, was the third cousin of Abdullah, the father of Mohammed. So inveterate an adversary was he at first to the new creed of Islam, that he set out one day to murder the prophet. Chancing, however, by the way to take up a copy of the Koran, and to read the 20th chapter, he was converted on the spot, and became from that hour the most zealous of the Moslems. His military
talents and intrepid valour were forthwith devoted to the service of the founder of his religion. Among many other instances of fidelity that he gave was the promptness with which on one occasion he struck off the head of a plaintiff who had dared to question the justice of one of the prophet's judicial decisions. In fact, a spirit kindred to that which influenced his master seemed to influence him. "If God should wish," said Mohammed, "to send a second messenger to this world, his choice would undoubtedly fall on Omar." The self-sacrificing zeal of Omar came out into greater prominence at the death of the prophet in 632. When he saw the Mussulmans about to come to a schism touching the respective claims of himself and Abu Bekr to the caliphate, he put an end to the dangerous dispute by declaring for his rival. He then submissively undertook, and faithfully discharged, the duties of chamberlain to the khalif. Even when in the following year he was appointed successor to the khalifate by the death-stricken Abu Bekr, it was with reluctance that he accepted the appointment. "I have no occasion for the place," he said. "But the place has occasion for you," replied the dying khalif. In the position of "Emperor of the Faithful" the kingly spirit of Omar found its proper sphere. In no long time he communicated his prompt vigour and high-toned fanaticism to the whole military administration. Devoted lieutenants were placed in command of the several armies; the soldiers were disciplined by severe abstinence, and animated by hopes of a voluptuous paradise; and the Saracen conquests extended themselves with a rapidity greater even than in the days of the prophet himself. In 637 Saad Ibn Abi Wakkass took Maikayn, the capital of Yezdejerd, King of Persia; in the following year Abu Obeydah Ibn Jerrah and Khaleel Ibn Walid completed the reduction of Syria; in 640 Amru Ibn-al-Ass had subjugated Egypt; and in 641 Mugheyrh subdued Armenia. A similar prosperity meanwhile pervaded the civil administration. The khalif was ruling in Medina with a wise and self-denying beneficence that rendered him in reality the father of his people. The poorest subjects ever found him an impartial judge between them and their high-born oppressors. It was his custom every Friday night to expend all the contents of the treasury upon public and charitable purposes. A part of the money was given as regular pay to the soldiers, another part constituted pensions for meritorious officers, and the rest was distributed among his dependants, according to their necessities. He reserved nothing to support his own state, but he lived in primitive simplicity on a small pittance which he earned by manufacturing leather belts. His food was barley bread, his drink water, and his garb an old gown torn in twelve places. Unarmed and unguarded, he mingled with his people, took his daily walks out into the country, and enjoyed his noontide repose under a wayside tree, or on the steps of the great mosque, among the beggars. At the same time, he was exhibiting in his life a model of Mohammedan piety. Much of his time was occupied in praying and preaching at the tomb of the prophet; occasional pilgrimages were made to Mecca; and the words of the Koran and the precepts of wisdom were ever upon his lips. Such a severely pure and sublimely simple morality could not fail to awaken in some minds an overpowering reverence and awe. Accordingly, it was said that the staff of Omar was more dreaded than the sword of his successors. In other minds it could not fail to excite hatred and revenge. Accordingly, an arrogant Persian slave, who had applied in vain to the khalif to be relieved of half the tribute paid to his master, swore to be avenged on the inexorable judge. Attacking him while saying the morning prayers in the mosque, he inflicted upon him three mortal wounds. After languishing for some days, Omar died in 643. It was in the reign of Omar that the famous Alexandrian library was burnt, and that several of the Mohammedan institutions began to be
formed. (See Ockley's Saracens; Gibbon's History; Planck's Dissertatio de Omaro Chalifa, Lund. 1806; and Von Platen's Geschichte der Tödtung des Chalifen Omar, Berl. 1837.)
OMAR II., the eighth khalif of the dynasty of the Ommiades, was the great grandson of Omar I., and succeeded Solomon in 717. In the midst of a luxurious and contentious people, he imitated the temperance and charity of his great ancestor. The chief purpose of his reign was to reconcile the followers of Omar and Ali, the two sects into which the Mussulmans were then divided, and to restore the latter to their property and privileges. Yet it was this generosity that led to his ruin. The Ommiades, dreading the fall of their faction, put him to death by poison in 720.
OMEN literally signifies a sign or indication of some future event, taken from the language of a person speaking without any intention to prophesy. This appears from the archaic form of the word, which was osmen. Varro says (De Lingua Latina, lib. v., c. 7, § 76) "osmen quod ex ore primum elatum est, osmen dictum;" and Freund conjectures that this original form of the word may again be related to ὄσσα and ὄψ, which signified primarily a prophetic voice. Cicero remarks (De Divinatione, i. 45) that the Pythagoreans attended to the words not only of gods, but also of men, which they called omens. The term omen became subsequently applied to all signs, of whatever nature, from which men believed themselves capable of extracting any knowledge of future events. Omens are distinguished from all other modes of divination by their purely accidental character. To trace the history of this superstition, it would be necessary to begin almost with the origin of the race. There is perhaps no form of erroneous belief so common to all nations, and so similar in its special development, as that of omens. The causes of this uniformity are not far to seek. The desire, so peculiar to man, of drawing aside the curtain of mystery which hangs over his life, combined with the general sameness of human experience throughout the world, are sufficient to account for the striking coincidences often traceable between the ominous events of an eastern king and an ancient Roman, between an old Greek and an ignorant Englishman. Lightning, thunder, &c.; the motions and voices of animals, and particularly of birds; personal sensations of body and mind, &c., were regarded by the Greeks and Romans as peculiarly ominous. The Romans especially carried this superstition to an extravagant extent. (See AUGUR.) One curious variety in ancient divination is, that to a Greek the right hand denoted good luck, and the left the contrary; while the Roman exactly reversed this order.
The portentous or supernatural omens were either external or internal. Of the former kind were those showers of blood so frequently occurring in the Roman history, which were much of the same nature with the adventure of Æneas, which he calls monstra deum. Of the latter kind were those sudden consternations, which, seizing upon men without any visible cause, were imputed to the agency of the god Pan, and hence called panic terrors. But indeed there was hardly anything, however trivial, from which the ancients did not draw omens. That it should have been thought a direful omen when anything befell the temples, altars, or statues of the gods, need excite no wonder; but that the meeting of a eunuch, a negro, a bitch with whelps, or a snake lying on the road, should have been looked upon as portending bad fortune, seems absurd enough.
Of the countless occurrences still regarded by the ignorant and superstitious as of ominous import, the following may be cited as examples:—To break a looking-glass is extremely unlucky; for the party to whom it belongs will lose his best friend. If, going a journey on business, a sow cross the road, you will probably meet with a disappoint-
ment, if not a bodily accident, before you return home. To avert this you must endeavour to prevent her crossing you; and if that cannot be done, you must ride round on fresh ground. If the sow be attended with her litter of pigs, it is lucky, and denotes a successful journey. It is unlucky to see first one magpie, and then more; but to see two denotes marriage or merriment; three, a successful journey; four, an unexpected piece of good news; and five, that you will shortly be in a great company. To kill a magpie will certainly be punished with some terrible misfortune. If in a family the youngest daughter should be married before her elder sisters, they must all dance at her wedding without shoes. This will counteract their ill luck, and procure them husbands. If you meet or pass a funeral procession, always take off your hat. This keeps all the evil spirits attending the body in good humour. If, in eating, you miss your mouth, and the victuals fall, it is very unlucky, and denotes approaching sickness. It is lucky to put on a stocking the wrong side outwards; changing it alters the luck. When a person goes out to transact any important business, it is lucky to throw an old shoe after him. It is unlucky to present a knife, scissors, razor, or any sharp or cutting instrument, to one's mistress or friend, as they are apt to divide love and friendship. To avoid the evil effects of this, a pin, a farthing, or some trifling recompense, must be taken. To find a knife or razor denotes ill luck and disappointment to the party that finds it. (For much curious information on this subject, see Brand's Popular Antiquities, Bohn's edition, vol. iii., pp. 110-255.)