Talk:Takbir

site by the name of allahuakbar

It has nothing to do with the article or the world. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise. Okrainets

See also my defination of Allaha Akbar at [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.176.172 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

early discussions

Libyan anthem as the only one not to mention the country? The Star-Spangled Banner doesn't mention the U.S., at least not by name. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:57, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Also true about the swedish anthem Du gamla, Du fria...

Nope. It's right there in the fourth verse. Nobody ever sings that many, however...

That's the additional verses added 1910. But you are right they are never sung. /15-02-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.251.183 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Elative doesn't seem to mean what this article claims it means. Maybe whoever added it meant superlative? - Gwalla 18:16, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

No, it seems OK to me. From that article: form of an adjective or adverb that indicates a global maximum, e.g. "the most beautiful woman on earth". –Hajor

Ah, I missed that. Whoops! Thanks. - Gwalla 01:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

the article says correctly that it's an elative (not a comparative). Yet the translation "God is greater" suggests that the phrase is unfinished. It is not: the elative may be a comparative, if a comparandum follows. If none follows, it's simply the elative, meaning "very great". think the proper translation should just be "God is very great", or even "God is great" (I imagine that *"Allahu kabir" would be quite blasphemous compared to it, translating to something like "God is quite great", so there is really no other way of saying "God is great"). dab 11:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Real Audio

Can we get an open source sound clip for this? Real Audio sucks. Thanks, Mark Richards 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Missing critical word

The opening phrase "Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله) is" seems to me to be missing the central word of the entire article -- namely the "Allahu" (in the Arabic)!? To clarify, shouldn't it say: "Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله أَكْبَر) is" ?

Just for reference, it is " أَكْبَر " which is "akbar" and " الله " which is "Allah," not the reverse.

Iranian Flag

The Iranian flag also appears to have the phrase Allahu Akbar as well. The 'hu' part is a mix of the Arabic 'ha' which is on the flag and a part of the word "Allah" and the letter 'wow' which, like many vowels, is understood and omitted from regular Arabic script. OneGuy removed it from the article, but I am going to reinstate it as per my argument here. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. mr100percent 3:23, 26 Feb 2005 (EST)

The same claim is made on our own Flag of Iran, on fotw.net, and in a "Flags of the world"-type book I just went downstairs to check. –Hajor 21:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "u" vowel is the actually the nominative case vowel (i.e. i`rab), which often is not pronounced in modern pronunciations of Arabic, but is in this fixed phrase. AnonMoos 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Although, there is no evidence for what?

Someone added "Although, there is no evidence in either the authentic Quran and Hadith for this." to the end of "The actual title of this phrase is takbīr (تَكْبِير), while the phrase itself is "Allahu Akbar". In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will yell "takbīr" and the crowd will respond "Allahu Akbar" in chorus."

I don't understand the purpose or what part of the preceeding sentence they are calling into question. Does the Quran not mention the word "takbir" or that the shout of "takbir" will be followed by "allahu akbar" instead of applause? The practice seems to be a contemporary practice or at least a practice that would not be prescribed in the Quran or Hadith. The test of authenticity of the practice is not the Quran, but whether or not it actually happens.

I'm removing the bothersome phrase as an ambiguous challenge.

JJLatWiki 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

This article merits some mention of the use of the term "Allau Akbar" by terrorists, particularly suicide bombers before they carry out their missions. While I agree that obviously most Muslims are law-abiding, peace loving people/citizens, there has been numerous documentation, including the videos of the Iraq beheadings where this phrase is shouted over and over again right before the terrorist acts are carried out. The article deserves a neutral, fact based statement to that effect. (This unsigned comment left by 68.194.26.4 (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved this latest addition to the talk page to the bottom, where new material is expected and easier to find.

Since this comment is from the user who slapped the POV tag on the page, I will assume this paragraph above is why he did so. I don't argree with his argument above - that connection doesn't belong in this entry in my opinion, and it *appears* to be pushing a anti-Muslim POV. Regardless of how one feels on that issue, the POV tag is not applicable here, and I'm removing it. --Krich (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think so? Were they to be saying "thank God" or something else similar which is common to English speech I doubt the same point of view would arise with regard to the English phrase in an English language article. Likewise, this point of view would never arise in an Arabic language article because the incredibly broad commonality of the phrase is better known to Arabic speakers. As such, a statement such as you are suggesting is really not capeable of being neutral for the simple fact that making it implies a degree of significance which doesn't really exist. --66.216.160.9 11:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually if I could find the original citation I'd add a section about the phrase's perception in Western media. Very shortly after 9/11 a major United States network broadcast a documentary about terrorism where one scene featured a group of men in a mosque saying "Allahu akbar" while a voiceover spoke about Muslim terrorists. I actually wrote to the network to complain (I think it was NBC). Imagine the equivalent: an Arabic language documentary editorializing about Christian terrorism while showing a Pentecostal religious service as the congregation calls out, "Praise the Lord!" This sort of presentation is distorted and inflammatory. Durova 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be mentioned about the phrase stating that most westerners who know about the takbir know it only in the context of terrorism (suicide bombers saying it, its usage in militant execution videos, etc.) Then it should be noted right after that, that the phrase is so commonly used by Muslims, the vast majority of whom are peaceful, that any suggested connotations regarding terrorism are ridiculous. -- unsigned comment by anonymous IP 129.2.213.93 22:12, 16 September 2006

It's a traditional battle-cry, and its use can be perceived as positive or negative depending on whether you support or oppose the group using it as a battle-cry. We can clarify that it's a traditional battle-cry (used in many contexts where "Praise the Lord" would not normally be used by Christians), but I don't know that it really has any special association with terrorism. AnonMoos 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Akbar versus Azam

On the Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family page (in the last section called Titles) we are having a fierce debate on the relative meanings of Ghusn-i-Azam versus Ghusn-i-Akbar. I'm claiming they mean essentially the same thing, or at least that Akbar means "Greatest" not "Greater" or even "Great" in this context. It seems your page here is also stating that Akbar means "Greatest" (the suprelative form) and not merely "Great-er" or "Great". If anyone want to come over to my page and make it clear, that would be great. Wjhonson 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

I'm updating a few of the definitions. Here are sources. I used two dictionaries:

1. Dr. Rohi Baalbaki (1995). Al-Mawrid (7th ed.). DAR EL-ILM LILMALAYIN, Beirut.
2. F. Steingass PhD, University of Munich (1970). Persian-English Dictionary, Including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in literature. Librairie Du Liban, Beirut.

Here is the root word:

1. Kabír: Great, big, large, sizeable, bulky, huge, senior...
2. Kabír: Great, large, bulky, immense, heavy, serious, senior, elder...

And here is Akbar:

1. Akbar: Greater, bigger, larger, major, senior, superior.
2. Akbar: Greater, greatest.

Cuñado - Talk 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Does this phrase come from Muhammad time? Is it enshrined in the Quran?

I think no.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.249.39 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

According to my Qur'anic lexicon, both the word takbiir and forms of the associated "Stem II" finite verb (kabbara / yukabbiru) are found in the Qur'an. AnonMoos 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What about other religions..

What about other religion? what do they say? Do they have such phrases?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.249.39 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

There are somewhat similar phrases in some cases (such as "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition", but none with the exact same range of use and connotations that I'm aware of, in Christianity at least. Medieval Christians would generally call out the name of their army's patron saint as a battle-cry (so Englishman would say "By St. George!", or something like that). AnonMoos

Is the Takbir mainly used as a warcry? Otherwise, "God almighty!" might be a good Christian equivalent to "God is great!". gigantibyte —Preceding comment was added at 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's used in a variety of contexts, but I don't see how it's a very close analogy to "God almighty!" -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Straight from Wiktionary: "Adjective, almighty, 1. Unlimited in might; omnipotent; all-powerful; irresistible." This is what I always understood Muslims meant when they uttered "God is great". "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" may be an analogy at times of war, but not for everyday use. - gigantibyte

Yes, the English phrase "Almighty God" has a similar lexical denotation to the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar", but "Almighty God!" (as an interjection with an exclamation point) is not really used in the same range of social contexts as "Allahu Akbar" is by Muslims (not in any English-speaking Christian community that I know about, anyway). As an attempt at an all-round general purpose functional equivalent, "Praise the Lord!" might be better (as discsussed above on this page). AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

and if we do not look at the usage but what is written...

then, what's about other religions...

After all, Muslims believe there is one God. This is the first pillar of Islam, and is probably the single most important aspect of Islam. This is the same God as People of the Book (including Christians): “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.” — Qur'an 29:46

Despite the possible existing critics against some parts of the bible, there are some texts in the bible which suggest that God is great, for instance “Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable.” — Job, 36-26

Each book has the specificities related to the context of its origins (some more ancient, some more modern) but I am wondering which one temporally precede which other, because translation might have different dates, or, in others words, Does one book confirm, or clarify the other in any way? Is there any source which deal with such things?

Duck And Cover?

In the opening paragraph the article cites; "This is usually yelled by Muslim suicide bombers. If an Arab yells this, the correct action is to duck and cover." -- User:Dangersteve

This would appear to me to be a flippant comment. Is it relevant?

This article is often vandalized... AnonMoos 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that's actually pretty damn funny, but I'd just offend everyone... 75.159.247.132 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Western infamy"

"the Western infamy originates particularly from beheading videos"

I'd say that the "Western infamy" is actually much-much older, going back especially to the Turkish onslaught on Europe in the 14th-17th centuries, where "Allahu Akbar" was of course a regular battle cry of the Turkish troops. Maybe the article could include some historical background material that goes beyond current news about terrorism and beheading videos? Lumendelumine 13:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Takbir or Takbeer

The title of this article is "Takbir" but the word is spelled "Takbeer" in the article itself. Understanding the difficulties of anglicizing words in other languages, is "Takbeer" the preferred spelling? If so, I suggest the article be moved to "Takbeer" with a redirection of "Takbir" to "Takbeer". Truthanado 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Transliterating تكبير into the Latin alphabet, a scholarly transliteration would be takbīr (with long vowel symbol), while omitting the scholarly diacritic gives takbir. "Takbeer" is an informal journalistic-type transcription, which should not be used as the main transcription in this article. AnonMoos 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Westerners?

"The term has gained infamy in the eyes of Westerners who view it as mainly a battle cry; the current Western perception is particularly influenced by the use of the phrase in beheading videos (AP 2006) and other militant acts - the more peaceful meanings of the term are rarely shown by the media."

This part bothers me a lot. I am an agnostic swede (and thus a westerner,) and I doubt anyone I know primarily view it as a battle cry. Secondly, OUR media has not portrayed it in any special way in my opinion. So, to put it bluntly, I think the article confuses "westerner" with "american".81.235.136.245 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, it is actually used as a literal battle-cry, currently and historically. Secondly, there are a lot of people who never heard the phrase until they encountered it in a terrorist context. You may think it's unfortunare, but it's true... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

true or not, it needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Replace Westerners with Mid-Westerners perhaps? Not all "Westerners" are uneducated couch potatoes hooked on Fox TV. dab (𒁳) 06:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I respect the depth of your knowledge on many issues, but unfortunately you seem to very significantly overestimate the average depth of knowledge of Arabic-language catch phrases on the part of non-Muslims living in countries where Muslims are only a small minority of the overall population. Furthermore, I don't think that smug smarmy snide sneering remarks directed at alleged ignorant Americans or alleged ignorant midwestern "couch potatoes" accomplish anything whatsoever constructive in improving this article. AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not that I think its unfourtunate, the problem is that the article actually says that I am one of those people. This means that I know that this wording is incorrect, making this as big a factual error as saying the earth is flat to someone who is in orbit. I don't think its wrong to mention this, I just think we need to stay factual. There has to be some reliable source which mentions "allahu akbar" being seen by many as simply a battle cry. There also seems to be a small debate among muslims on the internet on how some muslims themselves use this mostly as a battle cry, and wether this is good or not. So I think there's room for this part to expand from just making a generalized claim about westerners to actually making some analyzis on how the word is used and percieved by different people.81.235.136.245 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've just now added the word "some" to avoid making any universalist claim -- I think the word "some" or "many" was previously in the article, but it apparently got dropped somewhere along the way. And the phrase "battle-cry" in that particular location in this article is something of a euphemism -- people were editing this article to define Allahu Akbar as a "terrorist slogan" or similar, so in a (partially successful) attempt to head off an edit war between the Islam haters and Islam defenders I put in the little bit about the battle-cry there (since it's historically well-established that Allahu Akbar has in fact been used as a battle-cry). If you think you have a clearer way of phrasing things, then by all means propose it here -- but without removing mention of the indisputable fact that many people first encountered the original Arabic-language phrase Allahu Akbar in a terrorist context (as you can relatively easily see by looking at various right-wing blog sites...). AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Overlooked the fact that all this is partially documented in section #NPOV Discussion directly above. AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this article can't be considered complete without some mention of the interpretation of this phrase in the western world vis-a-vis muslim terrorists.

Right now, the article reads:

"This phrase is recited by Muslims in numerous different situations. For example, when they are happy or wish to express approval, when an animal is slaughtered in a halaal fashion, when they want to praise a speaker, during battles, and even times of extreme stress or euphoria."

I think the text in bold is completely unnecessary. It casts Muslims in a negative light, as if "battling" is something commonplace. I think the line immediately following that includes this by definition anyway. F33bs (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim: "Allah can't be translated"

Dear Mussav, you may be an extremely pious Muslim, but if your skills in Arabic linguistics and grammatical analysis are weak, then all the piety in the world won't necessarily help you to usefully edit article "Takbir" (or the related section in the Flag of Iraq article). Furthermore, your idea that what is worshipped in Islam is completely different and separate from what is worshipped in other religions does not appear to be shared by many of your fellow Muslims, who have no hesitation in translating الله into other languages with the word which is normally used to refer to the monotheistic divinity in each language (in English, this word is "God" with a capital G). Not to mention that Arabic-speaking Muslims normally have no problem with Arabic-speaking Christians referring to what they worship by means of the word الله also. When the Malaysian government recently tried to force Malaysian Christians to avoid referring to the Christian God as "Allah" in print publications, this measure received very little support even within Malaysia, and the government soon had to back down. So it's inappropriate for you to edit Wikipedia to make it conform to your own personal viewpoint, which seems to be a minority viewpoint among Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is Shadda on the 2nd L (الله), you can't dived Allah name to 2 words. If you dived the word, it will be like this, AL LLAH (Double L) Because of the Shadda on the 2nd L, not AL ILAH just like you said. Ilah (means God), but Allah and Llah can't be translated. the west translated it as God, which it forbidden in Islam. Mussav (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an Islamic encyclopedia, so what is "forbidden in Islam" is wholly irrelevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

you are translating something cant be trasnalted, Unless you want to spread false facts. Mussav (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on this issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First, who was it who said that "it is forbidden in Islam to translate the word Allah"?? This does not appear to be a majority view among Muslims, so the burden of proof would seem to be on you.

Second, the linguistic claim (which has been accepted by many -- though not all -- Muslim scholars past and present), is that الله Allah is a special contracted form of إله Ilah with an added Arabic definite article prefix (so that the glottal stop of إله disappears). This hypothesis is not universally accepted, but there are several things which are very hard to explain unless you take it as a starting point (certainly it's difficult to relate Allah to any kind of normal triconsonantal root structure without referring to a الإلاه contraction explanation). Your point about shadda is absolutely useless to explain what you want it to explain, since exactly the same thing happens when ordinary words beginning with the letter lam are prefixed with al-. So if lisan is prefixed with al-, the result al-lisan اللسان is also written with a shadda over the second letter lam. AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilah means God, right? while if You dived Allah name you will get Al and Llah (which I already explained the Shadda situation, The Shaddad thing is the major point that what scholars and Shiekhs pointed it, if it has Kasra under the name of Allah, we will have Ilah, but it doesn't has Kasra, it has Shadda which it will never turn it to Ilah "God") there is no Ilah as you claim. Mussav (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this really doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. First off, the first lam consonant in Allah is actually completely SILENT, so that if you insist on dividing الله phonetically after the second letter, then you would actually get a- and -llah. But I have no idea what this procedure is supposed to prove, since if you insist on dividing اللسان phonetically after the second letter, then you would get a- and -llisan. What is the point of dividing the word allisan incorrectly as a-llisan instead of correctly as al-lisan; and from a morphological/phonological point of view, how does a-llah meaningfully differ from a-llisan??

Second, Al-'Ilah to Allah is a special contraction process, which was never claimed to be exactly the same as ordinary definite article prefixing. However, it's hardly the only special contraction in Classical Arabic; for example, امرؤ imru' when prefixed with the definite article becomes المرء almar' . Maybe your sheikhs can explain where the kasra of imru' goes when it becomes almar'.

Third, you still haven't provided any reference to back up the claim that "it is forbidden in Islam to translate the word Allah". Fourth, as explained elsewhere previously, Ilah does NOT mean "God" in the sense of the singular monotheistic God,; rather, it merely means "a deity, a god". AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't do that when we have Shadda in the 2nd Lam, which it will make the L doubled, Shadda will change al-(Tanween) of the word, and if we want to remove the Shadda it will be like this, ALLLAH. any way you can ask any Scholar or Shikeh and he will tell you (التفكير في ذات الله حرام). You can use God as an Alternative name for Allah, but Allah's name can not be translated. any way I found this (for now), Sheikh who is supporting the translating of the Qur'an to English but with Keeping Allah name untranslated. link. Mussav (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "tanwin" refers to certain features of indefinite case endings (إعراب), and so I have no idea what connection it's supposed to have to shadda (i.e. consonant doubling). If you're claiming that the word Allah takes indefinite case vowels (i.e. with tanwin nasal suffix), then that's simply false.

Furthermore, until you can explain how the shadda of الله is significantly different from the shadda of اللسان, then all your comments about the shadda of Allah prove exactly nothing. And one semi-randomly-Googled cybermullah is hardly impressive support for your position, given the fact that many Muslims in non-Arabic-speaking countries do translate Allah. AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have any Idea what is the connection? It's not my problem that Arabic Language is not your 1st Language, you should know what the connection, under the Shada on Lisan there is Kasra while there is no Kasra in Allah, there is Fatha. again, God is an alternative for Allah and not the transiting for it. can you trasnalte for me God and Allah from English to Arabic? God it will be Ilah, and Allah will stay Allah, can you see the different? maybe in Christianity it's Okay, but in Islam isn't Okay. Mussav (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the root of your misunderstanding. You cannot translate Allah from English into Arabic as it is not an English word. That's like asking me to translate fenestra from English into Latin... fenestra is Latin for the English word "window". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mussav, what difference does the following vowel make to the fact that a morpheme boundary CAN in fact occur inside lam-shadda (despite your many confused denials)? Furthermore, why do you keep saying that the Arabic word Ilah corresponds to the English capitalized word "God" (referring to the monotheistic God), when this is simply factually false????? Such blatant reiterations of falsehood do little to advance constructive discussion, or endear youself to your collocutors.

I'm sure that you learned a version of Arabic grammar concepts -- adapted for basic educational use -- which was reasonably adequate for its originally intended purposes, and that your ability to quickly sight-read long connected passages of Arabic text far exceeds mine. But unfortunately, these skills on your part do not necessarily qualify you to insightfully debate advanced etymological and historical linguistic issues. By contrast, my grounding in comparative Semitic linguistics, historical phonology, etc. leaves me incapable of conducting any conversation in Arabic beyond the most simplistically trivial, but it gives me a reasonably good understanding of the relevant linguistics involved in such etymologies. AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslims believe in the Creator and no one lese, you believe in trinity, try to translate God from English to Arabic and you will have Ilah, and Muslim shahada is there is no Ilah except Allah. so saying God is wrong. Shadda explain everything, Lisan doesn't have Shadda, it has Kasra, while Allah has Shadda, try to remove the Shadda from the word of Jawal, it will be Jawwal, try to remove the Shadda from Hashashon, you will get Hashshashon, try to remove the Shada from Allah, you will get ALLLAH not AL Ilah just like you claimed. again Allah page need to be edited. this is my final message, because I'm wasting my time here, do do you want to spread false info? It's up to you. Mussav (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly wasting both your own time and everybody else's time if you're just going to keep on repeating the blatantly factually false assertion that the Arabic word Ilah accurately corresponds to the English capitalized word "God" (referring to the monotheistic God). My level of patience with this particular nonsense is very rapidly diminishing with every new reiteration. AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my problem that Arabic is not your 1st Language. I know what I've said, if you translate "God" from English to Arabic you will never get "Allah", and you know it. you will get only Ilah, which in Islam it means any other God. any way as I said before I'm not inserted to continuo this conversation. Mussav (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: "Allah" translation issues

Should "Allah" be translated as "God" in the generic case for the takbir?

this is discussed in depth at Allah. No need to rehash this here, we can just state that some prefer the translation "God", while others prefer to leave it untranslated as a proper name. We cannot make recomendations, we'll simply note that both variants have their proponents. dab (𒁳) 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If this has been discussed elsewhere, that's fine... do we have a standard practice on Wikipedia? Does "Allahu Akbhar" translate as "God is great" or as "Allah is great"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

well, the Allah article has had "translation: God" in the infobox for ages now. I don't think we have actual guidelines on this though. I tend to favour "God is Great": actually, the elative ("great") is a much hairier problem in translation than the Allah. The history of the term Allah is precisely parallel to the history of the term God, and God (capitalized) is thus a very satisfactory translation. But we have to appreciate that there is a pov (shared by ultra-pious Muslims and Islamophobes, ironically), that Allah should be left untranslated. It is my view that we should translate God by default, and if necessary or if people insist mention the Allah-is-a-proper-name position alongside that as an alternative. But there is room for disagreement of course. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I have no WP:RS for this, but the point of leaving Allah untranslated (so that, eg Allahu akbar == Allah is great) is better accommodated by translating Allah as "the One God (by name)" rather than just "God", which despite the implied due emphasis on capitalization still invites more general philosophizing than really could apply. rudra (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

well, I don't think I quite agree. After all, Allah is the Arabic translation of "God" also in Christian texts. If God translates to Allah, why should not Allah translate to God. And then there is the ho theos monos translation of Allah. If Muslims in AD 700 felt they could translate Allah to ho theos monos, I see no reason whatsoever why the same shouldn't be permissible today. If you like, "The God is Greater", but that's not really English. dab (𒁳) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

However, we can recognize that the majority of Muslims seem to have no great problem with translating it. And it's also the majority view among linguistic scholars that Allah is in some way related to al- + Ilah. (Mussav seems to think that these issues are connected somehow, but it's not clear to me that they are...) AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that the translation is informed by the al+ilah hypothesis (which, as you say, is barely disputed). Either way, this is a valid discussion, of course, but one that belongs on Talk:Allah. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of All, Allah Page need to be Edited, but some people always revert it back, 2ndly I'm not the one who said that Allah name should be Divided, and if we dived Allah name we wont get the Al + Ilah thing, we will have something different because of Arabic Tanween, we will have something means nothing. Mussav (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mussav, it's comments such as this which make me question your grounding in formal Arabic grammar, since tanwin refers to the indefinite form of word-final noun-case endings, written with double diacritics and originally pronounced with a word-final [n] sound (though such an [n] is hardly pronounced at all in modern Arabic except in a few formal recitation contexts). You haven't given any comprehensible explanation whatsoever as to how the issue of the etymology of Allah is related to the phenomenon of Tanwin, and in fact there's no connection.

Meanwhile, if they're reverting your edits on article Allah, it's presumably because you're attempting to alter a long-standing consensus without convincing arguments. See further the links in the #Manual of Style subsection below... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When you study the Arabic language and be specialist, then you will know what the phenomenon of Tanwin, and you will know how it will affect and change the meaning of the words. that's all what I can say. peace. Mussav (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've studied the Arabic language quite well enough to know that many of the arguments you make simply don't support the conclusions that you're trying to assert. You would undoubtedly blow me out of the water when it comes to memorizing Qur'an verses, but I have a much more solid general linguistics background... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mussav, you may know Arabic, but it appears your problem is that you are not aware of the semantics involved in English God. To evaluate the merit of a translation, you need to be familiar both with the source and the target language. fwiiw, tanwin is a detail of Arabic inflection and rather irrelevant to discussions of etymology. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style

As pointed out on the Talk:Flag of Iraq page, there's already a quasi-official policy set out at Wikipedia:MOSISLAM#Allah, which was debated quite extensively at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/God vs Allah... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ok. the guideline is terse and sensible. Of course there is room for civil and informed debate in each instance where the topic crops up. This article, and the Allah article, of course merit an in-depth discussion of the question (while the guideline applies to any random article where mention of Allah happens to crop up). I think we agree that the full debate belongs on Talk:Allah, where anyone is welcome to make informed contributions. Allah has been remarkably stable, and a coherent proposal should be made before any substantial changes are made. For the purposes of this article, it should be sufficient to gloss Allah "[the one] God", pointing to the dedicated articles for in-depth discussion. dab (𒁳) 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that {{Allah}} yields God (Arabic: [[Allah|Template:Rtl-lang]] Allāh)... that might work, no? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

not bad, yes. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that 'God' and 'god' are two different concepts in Christianity. With this idea, 'llah' referring to 'a god' would be the same as the lower-case 'god' meaning. As Allah is often translated into God, and not 'god,' it would seem to follow that 'Allah = God, and llah = god.' There is a difference between 'god' and 'God' in Christianity, and I assume other similar religions as well. At least that's what I was taught when I was still attending church, raised as a Christian.--74.67.17.22 (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

translation

It should be "God is the greatest" or "God is greatest" not "God is great" radiant guy (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"God is Great" or "Akbar is God"

I read in my history book about the Mughal empire leader, Akbar. It says that the motto for its creed, "Divine Faith", was "Allahu Akbar" and translates it as either "God is great" or "Akbar is God". As it's an American textbook, I'm not too trusting of its Arabic translation. Is there any truth to this translation? If so, it should be mentioned in the article --98.209.70.216 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Allah(u) Akbar in Arabic cannot mean "Akbar is God" (due to the order of the words), but it might have been some kind of wordplay... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mughal empire were not arabs :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.139.206 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Elative

The article from Slate cited on this page directly contradicts the current article on Wikipedia. In the wikipedia article, you state that "God is greater" is not a possible translation. In the Slate article, it states that this is THE proper translation.

"Although newspapers often translate the phrase as "God is great," the proper translation is actually "God is greater." The phrase implies that no matter what you're doing, you should always remember that God is still greater."

If Slate is demonstrably wrong and this reading is not linguistically possible in Arabic, then provide several reliable sources that establish this. If there is debate about whether the phrase means "God is greater" or "God is greatest", then amend the article to show that both readings have supporters. Calypygian (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has replied to my previous post, and I am still worried by this sentence in the wiki article -

"The translation as comparative does not apply to the case at hand, because no comparandum is present."

The problem with the sentence is three-fold.

(1) The sentence is in blatant contradiction with the Slate article, which is one of the few sources that the wiki article cites. (2) The sentence doesn't provide any sources to back up the assertion. (3) I think that the sentence uses an incorrect grammatical term. (i.e. it says "comparandum" when what it really means is "secundum comparatum" or "comparatum")

I can't find any hard electronic sources to back up (3). As I understand it though, classical analysis of the sentence "John is taller than Steve" involves breaking it into a primum comparandum (John) and a secundum comparatum (Steve). The only source I can find on the internet that uses these terms, however, is analysing a simile rather than a comparative, so it doesn't provide hard evidence for this terminology. (http://www.anglistik.uni-freiburg.de/intranet/englishbasics/Style02.htm). Regardless, the lack of abundant examples of 'comparandum' or 'comparatum' on the web suggests to me that people don't use these terms that much, and if we use either term in the wiki we risk confusing people more. [NB - I just used "more" correctly without a "than" clause ;)]

I'm not suggesting we rewrite the article so that the translation used is always "God is greater". But I do suggest the article not rule out "God is greater" as a possible translation. Thus, I suggest we delete the offending sentence. Calypygian (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Actually the linguistics of the Arabic elative construction are by no means identical to the English comparative. AnonMoos (talk)

I know. Which is just one of many reasons why using terminology developed out of Greco-roman rhetoric seems rather ridiculous here. I'm holding back from making the change, however, because I don't read either MSA or classical arabic. However, the issue needs to be sorted out as one of the key sources for the wiki article directly contradicts the wiki article. This is not tenable. Calypygian (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Slate "article" terribly seriously. I don't have my Arabic grammar with me where I am right now, but the "akbar" form, the elative, really does mean "the greatest", but with no comparanda at all; it is an absolute superlative, like the Italian "grandissimo" or perhaps the English "excellent". The translation "(the) greater" is bizarre. --Macrakis (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Slate article is about one single phrase. If the writer of the Slate article is so ill-informed that his basic translation of that phrase is "bizarre", then should the article really be linked to from the wiki? If the article is being linked to from the wiki, however, I do think we need at least to address the disagreement. Otherwise it looks like we haven't read our own sources and it is rather shoddy. Calypygian (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else find find this article to be in huge violation of NPOV?

At least change the title of the section "Islamist Usage" to "Usage in Extremist Islam" or "Usage in Islam-related Terrorism."

It's ridiculous to imply, by keeping the "Islamist Usage" section, that the term "allahu akbar" is somehow directly related to terrorism. Its repeated over loud speakers an innumerable amount of times every day in liberal democratic countries, not to mention spoken regularly every day by open-minded and law-abiding Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.30.185.132 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, it's unfortunately true that a large number of people living in areas of the world where Muslims form a relatively small minority never heard the phrase "Allahu Akbar" until they first encountered it in an extremist/terrorist context (as previously discussed above). AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a re-naming of that section, to something like those listed above. It also seems like there is a bit of undue weight on the section as well. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look over the history of the article, you'll see that the length has fluctuated repeatedly (with some people wanting to delete any mention altogether). Whoever added the current version of the material obviously went to great pains to footnote it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree: the section "Islamist usage" is extremly absurd, and violates NPOV. As the article correctly states, this phrase is said in very different contexts, several times every day by millions of people, so I think it is not correct to imply that this phrase is directly linked to terrorism, by citing a few, arbitrarily choosen examples. Kolorado (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that this is Kolorado's 8th edit ever. As to the substance, what is noted are some of the more notable instances with regard to when it has been used in such a context. The article discusses the different meanings in different contexts, from which a reader can deduce that the phrase is a battle cry in some contexts but not in others, and the importance of the context.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the number of edits I have made has nothing to do with the fact that I may agree with other users suggesting at least to rename this section to be clearer. Anyway.--Kolorado (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda. Prejudice. Not only is this absurd - it is outright manipulative. Someone decided to use Wikipedia for dissemination of their hateful message. Change the title to Extremist usage. There are billions of muslims using this phrase, and probably hundreds of millions that consider themselves 'islamists' but would never condone violent extremist or terrorist action. Epeefleche - your argument is invalid, as Kolorado's edit count has zero relevance - only the validness of his arguments in the context of Wikipedia.

AnonMoos should consider the same. Is Wikipedia a vehicle for dissaminating the ignorance of those people who "never heard the phrase"? No, it is not. Wikipedia articles should maintain neutrality. At most, these extremists deserve a minor note in this article. Or, move the use to an article about extemist movements.

Neutrality of this article thus clearly shown to be questionable. Casimirpo (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether you like it or not, it's unfortunately true that a large number of people living in areas of the world where Muslims form a relatively small minority never heard the phrase "Allahu Akbar" until they first encountered it in an extremist/terrorist context, and that's a relevant fact about its perceived significance to many millions of non-Muslims. AnonMoos (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of edits an editor is made before a discussion for consensus has engaged in is indeed a fair subject for consideration. It is for that reason that at AfDs, for example, templates indicating "the editor has few edits other than in this discussion" are routinely added when that is the case. The same point would hold, btw, as to the number of edits by Casimirpo.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to disseminate the ignorance of millions. Millions of people think Santa Claus lives in North Pole, too. Note that I already changed the title, so in context of this article, this discussion is no longer relevant. Please do add a comment on the new title under the "Islamist use -section changed to Islamist Extremist" section of this discussion page. Casimirpo (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure whether "Islamist", "Islamist extremist", or "Islamic extremist" is best, off-hand I don't have an objection to any of them. Agree otherwise w/AnonMoos.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- Islamic extremists and terrorists do in fact use the Takbir phrase, so that much is simply not "ignorance". Furthermore, Wikipedia does have articles on Santa Claus, Easter bunny, Flat earth, and Geocentrism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche - the fact that you have to cling to the number of edits instead of arguments presented may means you ran out of real arguments. Substance, please. AnonMoos - While Santa indeed has an wikipedia article, it does not mean that article about Holiday greetings should be mostly about the people who fervently believe in Santa and their notable christmas presents. Does this really need to be spelled out? Casimirpo (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already responded, above and below. And these incidents are generally noteworthy incidents involving notable people -- including Umm Nidal, well known in the PA, who was elected to the PA Legislature following the incident that made her famous.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The notability or otherwise of the incidents or the people involved is not in question. The problem is the undue weight given to minority usage by having a semi-detailed summary of each incident, when a simple list of a few of the more notable examples would suffice. _wjemather^bigissue 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove major part of the article

allahu-akbar is uttered by millions of Muslims on a daily basis, in all forms of contexts (ranging from rather mundane settings to dramatic events). Having a section on instances were the term has been uttered is just as non-sense as trying to list every instance where the term Oh My God has been used. I thus suggest all insinuatory 'muslim=terrorist' passages be removed. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The length might certainly be considered to be disproportionate. However, as I wrote directly above, whether you like it or not, it's unfortunately true that a large number of people living in areas of the world where Muslims form a relatively small minority never heard the phrase "Allahu Akbar" until they first encountered it in an extremist/terrorist context... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that understanding. But if we are going to include a passage on 'In the West/Western popular culture, the phrase is often associated with...', them we need a reference for that statement, rather than counting incidents in which the phrase has been used. I can't find any such ref at the moment. Perhaps there is a passage in Reel Bad Arabs or similar work that could give a hint. --Soman (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's kind of missing the point; anyway, if there's nothing on it in the article, then multiple people are sure to come along and add mentions of terrorist/extremist uses which are less documented and probably even more unacceptable to you than what you deleted (as has been seen repeatedly in the past). AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I believe (although I have no ref at the moment to back it up) that the translation of the phrase in this article is erroneous. 'akbar' is not the superlative of 'kabir', the superlative would be 'al-akbar'. 'God is the greatest' would be 'allahu al-akbar'. 'allahu akbar' means 'God is greater', i.e. that in any possible comparison God is greater. --Soman (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's technically grammatically an "Elative". The nuances of translation can be endlessly argued about (for example, in traditional usage in English the "-er" suffix without an explicit comparison sometimes implies "of two" -- so "elder brother" means the oldest of a family of two brothers, while "eldest brother" implies the oldest of a family of more than two brothers). AnonMoos (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, just noticed there was an identical discussion above. Missed that one on the first reading of the page. --Soman (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Islamist use -section changed to Islamist Extremist

I corrected the invalid titling of the subsection.

Let us continue discussion here, comment if you do not agree on neutrality of this change. Casimirpo (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The title change had consensus, at this point, as reflected in above discussions. Your other changes did not, so I have reverted them.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Changes were made to 1) remove noise - bring the incidents of the use into the context of this article, 2) to bring the style of the subsection in line with encyclopedic style, and finally 3) included only the notables - the interview of the relative of some not-so-well-known-terrorist in some local TV station is not WP:NOTABLE. Casimirpo (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This subsection lends far too much undue weight to it's usage by "extremists". It is virtually half the entire content of the article. The specifics of each incident are not relevant here, so it would be better just listing two or three examples, in similar fashion to this version by Casimirpo. _wjemather^bigissue 16:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not undue weight, as it is not greater than the reflection of the usage of the term in RSs. That is the measure -- not whether extremists or non-extremists use it. Wje -- I hope you are not continuing to follow me about wikipedia. As to Cas's comments, I don't think the way they were listed reflected noise, but I will look at the two other issues raised.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight should not be given to fringe usage regardless of quantity of coverage. It is only natural that associations with terrorism will get more media attention, and mainstream usage is unlikely to receive that much. _wjemather^bigissue 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe" is of concern when a viewpoint is "fringe." That's not what is at issue here. Your reading is tantamount to saying, don't have such a large article on Nidal Malik Hasan, without the same coverage of others in his unit, because that is wp:undue. We take our cue from the RS coverage. Here, the correct approach is to follow wp:undue, and that the article fairly represent what has been published by reliable sources, and do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Again, as I have asked before, please stop hounding me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the policy: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views" and "...reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In short quantity of RS coverage is not a guide for determining how much weight is given to any given subject within an article. _wjemather^bigissue 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What about "Allahu Akbar" being uttered as part of a terrorist incident is a "minority view"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The section header, by including the word extremist, already makes it clear the it is a minority usage. Policy dictates that the section should be trimmed to also reflect that fact. _wjemather^bigissue 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Only a minority of Muslims are extremists, but whether extremists utter the Takbir is a simple and verifiable question of fact which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "Fringe theories" or "minority views" about the Takbir; in fact, it has nothing to do with "viewpoints" at all, so that most of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight is utterly irrelevant to what is actually being discussed here... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the policy is relevent. Drowning the article with commentary on extremist use gives the impression that it is a more common usage. _wjemather^bigissue 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be inappropriate if this article were to give the impression that "Allahu Akbar" is used mostly by extremists and terrorists (something which is factually false); however, most of the wording in the policies you cite is in fact not particularly relevant to what is being discussed here. AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I read it differently than does Wje, and similarly to AnonMoos, as already explained. Wje has either ... well, let's assume good faith ... Wje must not have read through the many RS references to the term, and accurately determined the proportion that refer to its use as a battle cry/otherwise by Islamist extremists. There is no other good faith reason I can think of for wje's position here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos has hit precicisly on the problem created by the excessive number of examples. I see it as a specific minority usage requiring minimal in depth coverage in this article, with the 9/11 example being sufficient for the purpose of illustration, and the rest of the incidents being nothing more that extra coats. The quantity or content of recent RS refs is not relevent. It would be entirely different if the title of the article was "Extremist usage of the takbir" (or similar), but it is not. _wjemather^bigissue 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have relatively minimal importance in some abstract overall detached grand scheme of things, but it has great prominence in the experiences of a quite significant number of people who first encountered the phrase "Allahu Akbar" in an extremist or terrorist context. If you downplay this too much, then there will be a continual stream of people who will add mentions of extremist/terrorist uses into the article which will be less dispassionate and less well-sourced than what has been there in the article recently, and so will be even less acceptable to you than what has been included in the article recently. This is what often happened in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If this topic, concept of noise and fringe are unclear to you, you should not be editing this article. Using Your or Others' ignorance is never valid argument for editing, or in this case reverting an wikipedia article, like Epeefleche did earlier [[2]]

If you do not understand why this article is NOT 1) 50% about the extremists' use, and why 2) the details about the related events do not belong here, and 3) What is fringe in respect to this particular article on Takbir, you can be helped to review these concepts on yourr talk page. But you should not edit this article based on your unfamiliarity with these concepts.

I suggest revert to my edit [[3]], i.e. removal of non-notable, mentioning events, not describing them and removal of related irrelevant. Casimirpo (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This weight accorded use of the phrase as a battle cry and/or by Islamists is not greater than the weight of the reflection of use of the term in the RSs. AnonMoos is correct here; he is an editor with over 30,000 edits, and from what he has said it is clear that he is not just experienced by correct, despite your personal attack on him (which you may wish to withdraw by crossing out) as being ignorant.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Get on topic. Drop the disinformation tactics, please. Do you have any real evidence towards Takbir being mostly about Extremists' use? Your argument of 'weight' is not supported by demographics. As there are roughly one billion muslims in the world, only a fraction of them would be in war, using Takbir as an battle cry. Vast majority would be using Takbir in everyday social situations and in muslim spiritual ceremonies.

Takbir is said more often during prayer than "amen" is said in christian prayers. For some reason the article doesn't reflect on this, and how takbir is used, elaborately, in Eid-prayer?

As testament to of the weakness of your counter-arguments, you again bring edit counts into this. Position of authority does nothing to factual arguments, it is irrelevant. As that seems to the position you want to defend from the article as-it-is now.

Perhaps Epeefleche is actually pointing out AnonMoos unhealthy attachment to this subsection of this article? Casimirpo (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- as for my alleged so-called "unhealthy attachment"[sic], I have rarely edited that section of the article at all, and the majority of my comments to this discussion page have been about Arabic grammar and translation semantics, as you can see above. That being the case, it would be nice if you could keep a civil tongue in your mouth and refrain from random epithets and loose scattershot allegations that bear little relationship to reality. Meanwhile, to take up the thread of discussions which are actually relevant to article improvement, I in fact agree with you that it would be undesirable to have the "extremism" section be completely disproportionate in length to the rest of the article, or to imply that it is mainly extremists who use "Allah Akbar" (an assertion which would be factually false). However, sliding over extremist uses in just a brief glancing euphemistic mention would also be undesirable, since that would ignore the plain and simple fact that millions of people living in areas of the world where Muslims form a relatively small minority never heard the phrase "Allahu Akbar" until they first encountered it in an extremist/terrorist context (whether you like it or not). Furthermore, the policies that you and Wjemather are continually invoking (such as "Fringe" etc. bla bla bla) are in fact almost completely irrelevant to the actual issues which are being discussed here, and the apparent conscious determination on the part of you and Wjemather to willfully and deliberately ignore this irrelevance would seem to indicate a certain disingenuousness on your part -- a disingenuousness which if you continue to persist in it, could soon start to rule out explanations other than intentional dishonesty. AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. You're not recognizing that the issue is preponderance of use in RSs, not preponderance of use in "real life". A review of the RSs indicates that the proportion in the article is not unduly weighted -- as compared to the proportion in RS references. If anything, it is downplayed. As to the word "amen", if x% of the RS references were to it as a battle cry, then it would be appropriate to give it that weight in the article. Again, please don't suggest your fellow editor is unhealthy -- that is uncivil, off-topic, and not appropriate for the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We can agree: we don´t agree. Only references count. Your argument is fundamentally avoiding the bigger picture, and the noted use in the references. Whoever shouts the most has the most weight in a WP article? This subsection seems to say: takbir is largely about rallying cries during terror attacks, despite references towards the contrary. This becomes disinformation about Takbir and thus attack against all muslims, which is agains WP:NEUTRAL. Not 'neutral' or even faithful to its references. Even if there were lot of RSs referring to extremists, from the body of references presented it is already known that they present a fraction of a fraction of muslims using takbir - literally fringe.

You also seem to ignore the point that this subsection has included irrelevant information, that I called 'noise' earlier. Details of the terror attacks, such as where the letters were and how many copies there were are completely irrelevant in the context of this article and are described in depth the respective articles. I understand the emotional attachment, but removing this noise would improve both readability and at least the appearance of neutrality.

Also, I´m not "suggesting" anything about anyone as you claim, simply pointing out that personal or others' ignorance is never valid motivation for editing WP. Casimirpo (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Added In distress -section

I added new section on the use of Takbir during emergencies and as an expletive, 1997 Garuda pilot screaming takbir during crash added. Please comment. Casimirpo (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good add. I've cleaned it up a bit, polishing it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

God is Greater

I was told actually by an Antiocheian Greek Orthodox priest, that it means God is Greater. He explained further this makes far more sense, because if it were to mean "God is Great" then it might not be any better than saying any other thing, like "the Moon is Great"; if it were to mean "God is the Greatest" (as suggested), it is OK, there is nothing greater than God, but it still introduces some notion of absolutes, in some sense there is a limit to God's greatness; however if one were to say "God is Greater" then somehow there is no limit, rather like infinity always being greater.Eugene-elgato (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The translation of the Arabic "elative" construction has been debated multiple times above, as you can see. My conclusion is that "God is greater" is not really a very natural-sounding English sentence, and that any attempt at a simple rigid literalistic translation between Arabic and English ("indefinite=comparative, definite=superlative" or whatever) is probably misguided... AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right of course it has been discussed quite extensively and I havem't added any value to this linguistically specially since I don't actually know Arabic. My priest's point seems normative and he was trying to convey his love of God but also respect for Moslems especially since they all live together there in Syria.Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be an interesting point of philosophy, but it's only of limited help in translating the Arabic into English, and the Wikipedia rules are that we usually go with what's most widely-accepted... AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If Akbar is the elative, why does the little graphic at the top of the article show "God is great" as the translation?

If this is an application of a Wiki rule that general understanding, common parlance, defines word usage, then what is the purpose of this article and of dictionaries in general?Chrisrushlau (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because "God is great" is the probably the most commonly-used English translation, and also arguably the one with the fewest problems in connotations ("God is greater" is a rather awkward English sentence, while "God is the greatest" sounds like teenage slang or a snappy advertising slogan). AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jesuits have a slogan, "God is always greater." My suspicion is that this originated with founder Ignatius of Loyola, who grew up in Spain and encountered a Muslim there during a famous spiritual crisis--"God, steer my horse: if it leads me past the Muslim, I will kill him for your honor . . ."! The entire point of the saying, for both Jesuits and Muslims, surely, is to relativize all human conceptions--so that God is entirely other, and thus worthy of complete honor--I want to say "dread". It is almost a definition of God, and indeed a definition Scholastisicm would find quite comprehensible. The unmoved mover, the thing greater than which cannot be imagined, etc. And you cause me to regret my reference to dictionaries in my first comment--I over-simplified.Chrisrushlau (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"God is always greater" is certainly a better English sentence than "God is greater", but there's nothing in the Arabic sentence Allahu akbar which directly corresponds to "always". In general, we have to translate according to accepted translation practices, rather than someone's abstract philosophy, as discussed in the section immediately above on this page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy clarifies statements. The principle of translation is to convey to the non-speaker the intent of the speaker. "Great" empties the term "akbar" of any content--the simple "kabeer" would suffice. It also makes the use of the term "elative" spurious. Your standard of what is most widely accepted must refer to acceptance among those with grounds to be believed: Arabic-speakers. To simplify, as in the graphic illustration above this article, is to present the essential, not eliminate the inconvenient or uncongenial--from the Latin, "simplex", meaning "whole", as opposed to "complex", "divided". If an Arabic speaker wanted to say God was great, big, old, etc. (the various translations of "kabeer"), the term would be readily to hand. Why do you read more into the matter than that: does the speaker's intent not matter to you?Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Allah Akbar

Should there be mention of "Allah akbar" as this is a common (apparently mistaken) version used by English-speakers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it's mistaken so much as using a more ordinary style (with omitted i'rab) in a context where elevated style is customary... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Useless phrase

It has been used in prayer, in times of distress, Islamist protests when facing regime clashes like in the Arab spring, Islamic extremism, and Islamic terrorism

Even in other religions the people says "if God want" or "in the name of God", but no one is talking about Terrorism or so... who wrote this phrase has to review is general behaviour and be more tolerant. The Admin should be ashamed for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.53.17 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been used in several cases which have become notorious, as documented in that section. Christianity had its Deus lo vult, but that doesn't change the facts about how some Muslims have used "Allahu akbar"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I agree with you that there's no reason why terrorism should be mentioned in the first sentence at the top of the article (if that's what you were trying to say). AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

wp:lede; edit warring

An editor keeps on changing the lede, deleting language that accurately summarizes the RS-supported text of the article, and replacing it with language that instead reflects his POV. That is not correct. Per wp:lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I really see no reason to mention terrorism or extremism in the brief paragraph in the top of the article. Such uses are important in some ways, but they're not really first-paragraph-worthy material, considering how the Takbir is most frequently used by most Muslims overall. How about, "It has been used in prayer, in times of distress, to express celebration or victory, or to express determination and resolve."? -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos for the first part. For the formulation, the point is that it is a traditional custom and expression, said for about every moment in traditional muslim culture. So I think we must keep on saying it's mainly used in prayer and as a traditionnal use, without focusing on any particular use. Underlining a particular polemical occurrence really is POV, something that the first contributor of this section tries to promote, using the old tactic of accusing others doing it. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche has WP:MOSINTRO on his side in this case. The lead is meant to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Given the structure of the article, this sentence fairly summarizes what the readers can expect to encounter when they're done reading the lead: "...it is a common Islamic Arabic expression, invoked by Muslims in various contexts – in formal prayer, in times of distress, in some Islamic extremist contexts, in battle, and in politics."—Biosketch (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the fine parsing of Wikipedia policies, but while extremist/terrorist uses have become notorious in certain cases (and are certainly worthy of some mention on the article), they're really NOT remotely of such importance or frequency in the overall context of Islam or daily Muslim habits that 50% of a brief introductory paragraph should be devoted to them. That would give uninitiated readers who know nothing about "takbir" a highly distorted and inaccurate picture of the overall situation... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Bio is correct as to the wp policies, but in any event the mention in the lede is now only 4 words long, far below the 50% level, and also at the end of a long list of uses.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree and I see no consensus, so no reason to impose your move: Takbir is used since centuries in the muslim culture without terrorism intentions, so the intro does not have to focus on a recent political and minor issue which does not reflect the traditional use and is moreover intentionally polemical. It's clearly pov. Not to mention that the article has a overlenghty paragraph that supersedes all others about that: so that the arguments given here for the intro are clearly dubious. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If the article has an overlengthy paragraph about a use of the takbir, that's all the more reason to mention it in the lead – again, per MOS:INTRO. Discussing how exactly to word the mention is one thing, and that's really what our energies here should be invested in, but trying to censor it is something else entirely and not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines.—Biosketch (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, I don't know that the section is "overlengthy". The subject is somewhat controversial, with strong feelings on both sides, and the answer that was found was to be as specific, detailed, and concrete as reasonably possible, and to source the heck out of everything. Any other strategy would invite people to add unsourced and unsupported sweeping generalized statements, as was found previously. However, the fact that this section has developed "protective" detail and sourcing really doesn't mean that it's the most important aspect of the topic as a whole. Extremist/terrorist uses are a significant issue which deserves to be included in this article, but it's not a major aspect of the overall uses of takbir within Islamic culture or Muslim societies, and should not be elevated to phoney major status by the introductory paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Islam; it is an encyclopedia. As wikipedians, our job here is to neither promote the religion nor demonize it. Islam is not well understood in the Western World and many reader’s first exposure to the term “Allahu Akhbar” is on TV where they hear the words being uttered during acts of violence such as the Fort Hood shooting. Realities like these, as unfortunate as they are, are a genuine part of what makes the phrase notable for English-speaking readerships (which en.Wikipedia serves). Thus, mentioning in the lede …to express resolute determination or defiance, in Islamic extremism, and in Islamic terrorism is topical, encyclopedic, and accurate, and best serves its readership. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worthy of inclusion in the article as a whole, but whether it's worthy of inclusion in a very brief opening paragraph is very doubtful. Certainly the situation as recently as 00:09, 6 November was disproportionate nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m not going to repeat myself. Everything I need to say on this issue is in my above post. And the most important point of my above post is conveyed in the first sentence. That principle (Wikipedia is not Islam but is an encyclopedia) underlies such realities as Wikipedia containing images of Muhammed. Many editors take offense to our sexual-related articles too. Greg L (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- I am not a Muslim, and I am not "offended" by anything in this article, and I am not proposing that any information whatsoever be removed from this article (and in fact if you'll cast your eyes above to previous sections, you'll see that in the past I was opposed to removing sourced and relevant information from the article). However, if the prominence of the mention of extremist/terrorist uses in the very brief lead paragraph is greatly disproportionate to their actual real importance within the subject-matter considered as a whole, then that's a problem -- and I don't see how ultra-technicalistic or bureaucratic parsing of the fine print of Wikipedia policies can make it not be a problem. If you don't know much about the details of the topic, then you may not be the best person to make such judgments... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And being mentioned in the headlines of Fox News does not make it encyclopedic. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon -- you are commenting on an old version, that was not the version at issue at the time of your comment. In your second above post, you spoke of the lede devoting 50 per cent to this. But the point that TwoH is continuing to edit war with multiple editors over is the inclusion of 4 words, out of 121 words, in the lede. That's by no means undue. And certainly appropriate, per our guidelines, which Bio refers to above. Your 50 per cent concern is not a concern. And it is against wp policy to, as TwoH seeks, censor the article by deleting those four words--that does smack of censorship.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but it really escapes me why mentioning terrorism in the lede placed undo emphasis on that aspect of the phrase. The current article expands upon certain aspects: 1) In prayer 2) In times of distress, 3) Islamic extremism usage, and 4) In warfare and politics. The lede provides an overview of the first three and not the fourth (warfare). It seems that the last two (extremism and warfare) are fairly combined as a third aspect: “terrorism.” That hardly seems placing WP:UNDO on the terrorism angle. But if someone thinks it fairer to touch upon the last two (Islamic extremism and warfare & politics) separately, that’s fine with me. What we can’t have is leaving those last two off and having only the favorable aspects in the lede; that would be non-compliant with WP:NPOV, which is to say: POV-pushing to unfairly slant the topic. Greg L (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Encyclopedic consideration must take into account the meaning that prevailed during centuries. Mentioning the term "terrorism" here is extreme POV-pushing and anachronism. Mentioning in the intro means putting emphasis in a controversial interpretation not universally acknowledged. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 00:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And now, TwoHorned, with this edit, you are just editwarring and POV-pushing so as to have only two aspects (of four mentioned covered in the article) in the lede, and those two aspects slant and biase the lede. You are flagarantly edit warring against consensus and against policy. Your argument that the article’s lede must reflect what Islam meant for centuries and can’t reflect what it means now and can’t fairly represent the contents of the article is shear nonsense. I have better things to do than take a POV-pushing editor like you to ANI. I’ll have nothing further to do with you and this fucking article. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TwoHorn -- there is significant coverage of all aspects of usage of the phrase in the article. The use of it in very high-profile, highly reported events that you are seeking to censor out has been widely covered in the RS media. The lede mentions it in 4 words. Out of 121. That is not by any means undue; if anything, it is quite muted. Your edits seek to delete those 4 words. That does not follow the wp guidelines on censorship, and does not follow the guidelines that Bio pointed to as to mos:intro. We have now discussed this issue with three other editors here. Two disagree directly with what you are doing. The third is against an undue focus on this, and at one point was saying that he though a fifty-percent focus on it in the lede was not appropriate, but it only has a 3-4 per cent focus in the lede. There is no consensus support for your deletions, in addition to them being against policy. Please stop edit warring against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche -- removing brief mentions from the lead paragraph of things which are still discussed at length and in detail down in the body of the article is not "censorship"[sic]. It may be a helpful or unhelpful move in the context of the article as a whole, but to claim that it's censorship is not useful... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be censorship. And here, it is. The removal doesn't have to be of large swaths to constitute censorship. Removal of brief mentions here is censorship, per wp:CENSOR, precisely because it is relevant to the article; it is not sufficient to say -- but, it is discussed in the body (as it should be). The lede is meant to summarize the body. Not to only include the material that is in the body that a minority editor(s) likes. Ignoring what has been widely covered in the RS press. The key here is that this material is relevant to the subject of the article, and broadly covered by RSs, even if our friend thinks the RSs are completely wrong-headed to have covered it. As recently as these past two weeks, the meaning of the phrase has been important, and covered in many RSs, with regard to this usage -- see this Washington Post article. To delete completely mention of this usage -- especially in as you put it such "brief mentions" -- from the lede is in my view exactly what wp:CENSOR is guarding against. And, of course, it is completely contra MOS:LEDE to say -- hey, it is discussed in the body as it should be, but lets delete entirely its brief mention in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, just cut to the chase and revise the leded so it covers all four aspects of the article’s contents in the exact same order: 1) In prayer 2) In times of distress, 3) Islamic extremism usage, and 4) In warfare and politics. That’s the only way to handle this to ensure the article is properly balanced. Wikipedia is famous for its pithy ledes and many readers stop at the lede. TwoHorned knows that, which is why he’s editwarring. I won’t touch that damned text myself when there is an editor who is editwarring. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Greg_L: Unfortunately your idea of "balance" appears to be rather purely formalistic, based on tallying the number of words in each of the article's subsections". Those who know something about the subject-matter of the article may have very different ideas of what balance should mean... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede has 121 words. The part TwoH continues to delete is 4 words long. Of the editors responding to TwoH's view here, three of the four have disagreed with him. The concern of the fourth is addressed at least in part, I would hope, by the fact that the lede at this point at least only devotes under 4 per cent of its words to what irked him as undue, rather than what he indicated he felt was 50 per cent. I don't expect TwoH will edit-war any longer against consensus, and I've requested that he not. I expect he will respect consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche -- In the article as it stands right now, it's seven words, and includes the only two links in the second sentence of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the edit warring is about the words "in" and "and". Not counting those, we are only speaking of 4 words. Out of 121 words. (And even seven words out of 121 would be far below the 50% line that you mentioned above). I've now, in respect of your comment, added in three other links in that sentence. And made it the third sentence in the article (rather than the second). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche and Greg, I contest the encyclopedic value of your lede counting: it is based on the length of an artifically expanded paragraph whose encyclpedic value is null: reference 5 is a dead link and non-academic, the scholar reference 6 is a dead link also in google books, the rest is newspaper stuff. It's the second time Epeefleche is using dead links to impose his POV. And what is the encyclopedic value of a sentence uttered by an individual ? And, moreover, Greg, if this is a ****ing article, then don't talk about it in the tp. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more "protectively expanded" than "artificially expanded" -- see comment of 18:36, 8 November 2011 above. However on the other side, neither giving irrelevant patronizing condescending basic "Wikipedia is not censored" lectures nor mechanistically counting the words in the various subsections of the article is very useful in the current context... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK for "expansion". Agree with you also. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is referred to above; I'm sorry if it seems patronizing, but I sought to seek to its meaning and verbiage. As to "counting words", I was simply seeking to respond to the mention -- not by me -- as to a 50% coverage issue. At this point, it is far below that; I'm not sure how to respond to such a statement, in keeping with the comment of the commentator, without counting ... I was simply seeking to address the comment as it was stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(I was actually referring to counting the words in the different subsections of the article to determine what should be included in the lead paragraph.) AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/the majority of editors here that it is fine as is -- especially w/the revisions meant to address Anon's voiced concerns, and given the points made by a number of editors above.

As to "encyclopedic value", I don't see TwoH's comments -- unsupported by consensus -- as being anything other than a reflection of his POV. What he is seeking to delete is properly covered in the article, and is covered by all manner of RS. He may not like it, and may have a personal view that it should not be in the lede when it is in the article and robustly covered by RSs, but that is addressed by the already-mentioned guidelines.

As to dead links, which TwoH raises -- that's odd. I think I had just discussed Wikipedia:DEADLINK with TwoH at another article in which his edits also went against that policy, directly before he appeared here and engaged in the above. TwoH -- are you following me?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not: I contest the encyclopedic value of the paragraph on extremism, which is very badly sourced by non-academic refs and with dead links, and that does not add to its value. In such a context, what is the value of your lede arguments if counting uses a paragraph not respecting WP principles ? You may think that I engage into war-edit here to take revenge from your confusion on another artcle, but that's pretty weak: in the other article consensus went to my edits, not yours, so your continued insistance in relying on refs you don't even read is more than problematic. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

TwoHorned -- It remains a fact that many people who live in regions of the world which have a relatively small Muslim population first heard of "Allahu Akbar" in extremist/terrorist contexts, and if we don't include a relatively sourced section on specific concrete incidents, then it will be an open invitation for many passing editors to add sweeping unsourced generalizations (which you would find to be even more unsatisfactory), as seen repeatedly in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon, you're right, I'm just questionning the proportion given to that section, its oversized importance w.r.t. to traditionnal use of Takbir, its poor sourcing with dead links, and its presence in the intro. I'm not Christian, but if for instance I'd read an article on the Holy Spirit that overfocuses its purported invocation in some Vatican politics I really would be shocked and suspecting pov-pushing. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy is not too great, since the Takbir was used by Muslim soldiers going into battle for many centuries, and therefore "forceful" or quasi-military connotations of the phrase are not exclusively recent, and are not really out of the Muslim mainstream. I never heard that Christian soldiers went into battle calling on the Holy Spirit -- though they sometimes did call on St. George or St. Michael. The "Banner of the Trinity" that Henry V flew at Agincourt (which would have looked like File:Shield-Trinity-medievalesque.svg, but with the shape of the red area changed to be suitable to fly from a flagpole) did mention the Holy Spirit, but this is a very minor and obscure oddity of iconographic usages (notice that the banner didn't include the standard symbols of the Holy Spirit, such as the dove -- even the medieval mind might have found something incongruous in marching into battle under a dove flag...). AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say is not great too, because the "war use" belongs to its traditionnal usage, while "terrorism" and "extremism" refer to something different, something not just. If you prefer another example, then take the Labarum if you like, which was flagged by Constantine and used extensively in wars. I don't see any connexion to this in the intro of its wikipedia article, and for good reason: its use as a ritual in war preparation and flagging is minor wrt its main symbolism. I doubt having seen any "extremism" interpretation of Chiro in the Dublin museum. And if one day someone uses it in bombing, I doubt mentionning its "terrorist" signification would be very useful. And encyclopedic. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE

This article gives UNDUE weight to a topic that is relevant to all Muslims. Seriously, mentioning terrorism in the first paragraph is like mentioning Osama Bin Laden as a prominent example in the first paragraph of Muslim. Similarly the article devotes a tremendous amount of space to the terrorism section.

On the other hand, I don't mind the lead mentioning that the Takbir is used during politically-motivated activities - this would cover acts of terrorism, and protests, including the Arab Spring.VR _talk 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold... However, the "tremendous amount of space" is due to things being questioned, then sourced, so that the details were built up in response to challenges... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially what that means is that genuine editors should add neutral content to this article: the historical background of Takbir (and how Muhammad used it), its usage in various Islamic prayers (like Salat). There are also some national significance of it: its been used on flags and anthems of countries. Its really unfortunate that the media often associates Muslims with terrorism - because terrorists only form a very tiny part of the 1.2 billion people that make up one-fifth of humanity.VR _talk 23:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Go nuts in adding relevant sourced information! However, as discussed in sections above, it's also true that millions of people who live in parts of the world where Muslims are a minority first heard "Allahu Akbar" in an extremist context... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, does that mean it is of encyclopedic value ? And what about the almost billion in the other part that don't hear it that way ? - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 16:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, wikipedia can't perpetuate a false stereotype, even though a lot of people may have heard of it. For example, Holocaust denial isn't mentioned in Holocaust. There is very little criticism of Islam in Islam. And certainly these things aren't mentioned in the leads of either article.VR _talk 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I came here because the papers are full of the use of this word in the sense of terrorism. Of course the first paragraph should say its other usage exists. But it should also mention that is is used in terrorism. that is what the papers talk about when they talk about it. readers like me come here to understand that context. why would we censor that out of the first paragraph? the readers want knowledge. so what if editor x wants to deprive them of the knowledge. this should not be about editor x hiding from me and other readers the very information we want to find out. i was very disappointed to see that some people want to use this to hide that information. of course it is important,it is in the headlines for this reason. even if mangy people used it this week to pray it was used instead in headlines because it was a battle cry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.132.137 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like some writers want to hide something. The main media covers it. Why would Vice want to hide it? This isn't what he call a false stereotype. It is honestly how it has been used and the media has covered it for this usage. --24.103.47.173 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anon. 12.38.132.137 and 24.103.47.173, please assume good faith and don't make personal attacks insinuating things about another editor's character and motives so spuriously. He made a perfectly reasonable point. Peter Deer (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Exposed to extremism" POV?

This is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. The phrase is said millions of times a day, most of which will never be documented. Focusing on 'documented' instances in a "non-extremist" context (what does that even mean?) misses the point. If there is such a thing as a POV of those who are "first exposed to it via extremism (an extremely doubtful claim)" it's not reflected in the "use in Islamic extremism which is just a shopping-list of various documented instances of the phrase when it appears in western news sources. The "use in Islamic extremism" section does not deserve to be there, and I can't see any persuasive argument to suggest otherwise. Slac speak up! 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The arguments are 1) It is a real phenomenon which exists in the world and is relevant to the topic of this article. 2) It is a fact that millions of people who live in parts of the world where Muslims are a relatively small minority first encountered "Allahu Akbar" in a news report about extremist uses. 3) The current section is somewhat long because it has acquired an elaborate apparatus of protective sourcing. If this section is deleted, then people will be constantly coming along and adding vague and unsourced allegations which you will like even less than what's there now (as has been seen repeatedly in the past).

I'm not opposed to a selective and judicious condensation of this section, and it certainly should not be given undue prominence in the lead section at the top of the article (as you can see me repeatedly arguing above), but deleting it wholesale is not really the answer to anything... AnonMoos (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. During the Boko Haram terrorist attack on Kano just last Friday, there was screaming of "Allahu Akbar". By contrast, a use of "Allahu Akbar" which many non-Muslim westerners were exposed to, and which could be seen as positive, occurs near the end of the movie "Slumdog Millionaire"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) To use the article from WP:UNDUE, the fact that flat eathers are real doesn't make the flat earth perspective significant in the article about the Earth.

(2) To reiterate what I said above, even if there is such a thing as the "people who aren't aware of the phrase's context" POV, a very doubtful contention in my view, the section itself doesn't reflect that purported POV. It's just a listing of terrorist attacks. By including the section we are insisting that an extensive knowledge of terror attacks is relevant to a neutral understanding of what the phrase is and means; this is patently not the case. There is no section in turban that documents violent acts by people wearing turbans, even though I'm sure there are uninformed people who think the two are related.

(3) If misinformation is added at any point, it should be removed, no matter how frequently it is readded. A (very) brief mention is enough; strictly speaking we should be asking for third-party sources where someone explicitly discusses "the phrase as used by terrorists", not a news article where we are making the link ourselves.

I will have another go at (drastically) trimming the section some time soon. Slac speak up! 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, there is no flat earth equivalency -- the material in that section is factual, as far as I can tell. And there's no attempt to "reflect the POV" of those who first encountered the phrase in an extremist context (a suggestion which sounds rather strange and bizarre to me); rather we note some of the same prominent incidents which they probably also encountered in news coverage. And I really don't know what "extensive knowledge of terror attacks is relevant to a neutral understanding of what the phrase is and means" means or is supposed to mean. On Wikipedia, material is evaluated for inclusion into articles on the basis of prominence, relevance, sourcing etc., and not on the basis of abstract metaphysical philosophical epistemology or whatever. The extremist uses have little relevance to how the majority of Muslims use the phrase in their ordinary daily lives, and we can make this clearer if you think it's insufficiently clear in the article now. However, extremist uses still have great prominence in newsworthy incidents, and sourced relevant material about such incidents can be included in the article on that basis. Unfortunately, you appear to have several misconceptions about how things are evaluated for usefulness on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What AnonMoos said.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. This is how most people hear of the phrase. -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, should we list the extremists usage of the term Hallelujah? The section is wildly disproportional to real-world usage; practicing Muslims use the phrase at least 17 times a day as part of their prayers. BrotherSulayman (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The article says it's widely used. It says, quite prominently, "It is a common Islamic Arabic expression."

But most people who come to this article probably don't know the phrase that way. It was not a non-practicing Muslim who wrote, "this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers." He became quite popular among a significant minority. He knew that it has meaning for the rest of the world, too. That meaning surely deserves a section.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BrotherSulayman -- There are several Christian phrases which have somewhat established aggressive interpretations, such as Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and Deus lo vult; "Halleluiah" is not one of them. In any case, there is not, and cannot be, a strict proportion between how many times something occurs in the world and how much space Wikipedia devotes to it. We have a lot more material on plane crashes than on the hundreds of thousands of flights which proceed thoroughly uneventfully ending in a smooth landing. I certainly agree with you to the extent that extremist uses are not so prominent as to merit a mention in the first paragraph at the top of the article (see previous section above), but unfortunately they are prominent enough (certainly in perceptions of Muslims by non-Muslims) to have a legitimate place on the article. Anyway, Allahu Akbar has been used as a military battle cry in completely "mainstream" Muslim usage for many centuries, so it's too late now for anyone to claim that its use is confined to strictly religious contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not confined to "strictly religious contexts" - the phrase is not so much equivalent to the comparatively more obscure Christian phrases you gave above as examples, but more closely akin to an extremely generic exclamation - "oh my God!" is probably a better equivalent example - or the use of "Amen!" as an expression of agreement. The takbir's use on a daily basis isn't evocative specifically of military conflict or terrorism or even violence. Slac speak up! 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Greater!!

I am confused... I am a native Arabic speaker, and I always understand Allahu Akbar as meaning God is GreatER. We always use it in that context. Akbar in Arabic means greatER. Great means Kabir! When someone steals my lunch in school, I tell him Allahu akbar, reminding him that if he thinks he is stronger than me, I am reminding him that God is Greater than all and than whatever he thinks he may be... That is the proper usage... I do not understand where this God is Great translation comes from! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.30.140 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's been partially discussed above. The meaning of "Allahu Akbar" can be considered comparative in Arabic, but that doesn't automatically mean that a translation using the English comparative construction is the best translation in English. The sentence "God is greater" is not very emphatic or declarative in English, and kind of leaves things hanging, raising the natural question of "greater than what?" It's really not always intuitively obvious to an English speaker that "God is greater" means greater than everything. In short, linguistic scholars who have considered the matter don't necessarily agree that there should always be a simple automatic correspondence between indefinite elative in Arabic with comparative in English, and between definite elative in Arabic with superlative in English... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but that still does not solve the problem which is that: God is Great simply means nothing when translated back into Arabic!! My car mechanic is great, so what?? I think this translation to English nullifies any kind of meaning this expression intends to convey. "God is greater" is clearly understood when it is in response to something. If someone claims he is great, you answer, well God is greater! I don't see any puzzles that needs to be solved in this case?71.232.30.140 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Arabic and English idioms could simply differ on this point, so that attempts to force one language into the mould of the other could be counterproductive. As pointed out above in the comment of "17:57, 2 January 2010", some would claim that the best English-language style is to use the comparative form without an object to mean "most of two" or "more than one other", and to use the superlative form without an object to mean "most of more than two" or "more than several or many others" (e.g. "older brother" when there are two vs. "oldest brother" when there are more than two). There's a whole theory of dynamic equivalence etc. in translations. AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested source in the lead

I put a source request on the God is Great phrasing and to be specific I am asking for an academic source that discusses the English translation of the Takbir and it's common usage in English. Hopefully the source would discuss the mistranslation as God is Great and how it's propagated across English (US) understanding of the Takbir. In this case I don't think it is appropriate for we editors to rely upon our own translation skills especially since there is controversy. I've heard it as God is Great for years (I'm suspecting an 11th grade history text and newspaper articles from the '90's) and so of course it should stay in the lead so I'm just looking to have clarification and preempt any more disputes over the translation. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(I searched but could only find unreliable sources and am hoping someone with a better source history can provide)97.85.168.22 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The exact translation semantics of the "elative" have been argued extensively, as you can see on this page above. However, beyond linguistic arguments, "God is great" is simply commonly-used as a translation into English -- sufficiently often to give rise to the answering book title God is Not Great, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Wiki goes out of their way to Point of View.. Pro point of leftist view, that is. To show that murders with the takbir are not shown. That is a damn shame. They hope the alligator may get them last, and frankly, a lot of them are the alligators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're complaining about. As a result of past extensive discussions which you can see above, it was decided that "Islamic extremism usages" definitely have a place on this article (if properly documented) -- just not in the brief summary in the first paragraph at the top of the article (which would be highly disproportionate). AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think they should be reflected in the lede. Without question. Per wp:lede. Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what? On counting words in the subsections below the lead paragraph? We already had that discussion above, and such mechanical word-counting was found to be controversial, and not a suitably accepted basis for rewriting the lead paragraph... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

MEMRI

When have they become reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkyum5 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As a source for grand philosophical speculations about the deep meaning of "Allahu Akbar" in Islam, they would not be reliable. However, the way that they're used in the article does not appear to be especially problematic... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bloated article and irrelevant details

This article is very bad. Most of it is spent on giving certain specific examples where an individual uttered the phrase "allah akbar". That is irrelevant.

When describing usage, it should be stated that it is something uttered by muslims in different situations, formal prayer, informal creed, to underline fear and worry, or to express happiness and success, as well as to express steadfastness or resistance (often in political demonstrations). Spending the majority of the article to describe "when person X did Y that day, he said the phrase" Dsdnva (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Speculative original research about paranormal origins of the phrase by User:AllaHuBel

An unfinished sentence: "God is greater ..." Religious expression may have a special meaning. This meaning can not be discerned in translation. Therefore, the original meaning of this particular phrase may also be specified. Thus, the unsaid part of the expression can be better understood. Mecca had 360 deities, but these were canceled. With this slogan, Shahada: lā ilāha illā-llāh = There are no gods but God. lā (360) ilāha illā-llāh = There are no 360 gods but God The second slogan: Allah HU akbar ... = Allah is greater ... = Allah is greater than 360 gods Sound HU: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzhJlRl1H5o Allah is HU = HU is Allah [10] Ya HU = O HU: [11] Hu is Hubal Hu is Allah Hubal is Allah Allah is Hubal The completed sentences: God HU is greater than 360 gods Allah HU akbar than 360 gods God HU is great Allah HU kabeer Allah as Moon-god Hubal [12] [13] [14] [15] --AllaHuBel (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Indirect censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllaHuBel I have added this article and immediately has been deleted. Does this type of article needs to be censored? Who did not like this article? Islam in Wikipedia articles have immunity? Maybe the editors are doing a hidden control? So, they do not want Muslims to read such articles! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Takbir&oldid=629455436 In warfare and politics Some religious expression has a special meaning. Allah Hu akbar is one of these. These statements may lose the original meaning in translation. Such statements may seem insignificant in today's environment. However, such statements are slogans that they were used in connection with historical events. This phrase is the motto at the beginning of Islam. This expression was used to eliminate 360 gods of Mecca. Allah Hu akbar is an unfinished sentence. Upon completion of this sentence becomes meaningful: An incomplete sentence: Allah Hu akbar: Allah Hu is greater A complete sentence: Allah Hu​​ is greater than 360 gods. The second slogan is as follows: Lā ilāha illā-llāh: There are no gods but Allah This slogan is still about 360 gods in Mecca. The word ilāha is plural and refers to the 360 idols. This sentence along with the number of the gods is as follows: There are no 360 gods but Allah Hu is Allah. Hu is also Hubal. Hubal and Allah's symbols are the same. The most important of these is crescent moon symbol: (Allah as Moon-god). Hu expression is specifically mentioned in the sentence. Hu arabic is a pronoun (English: He). And in this slogan refers to Hubal. In Zikr of Allah, Allah is used in conjunction with Hu. These statements are as follows: Allah Hu (Allah Hoo): God Hu. God is "He" (Hu) Hu Allah (Hoo Allah): Hu God. "He" (Hu) is god Another form of expression are directly related to Hu. Where Hu is still on Hubal.: Ya Hu - Ya Hoo: O Hu (English) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Takbir&oldid=629455436 --AllaHuBel (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC) This mostly seems to be quasi-personal speculation on your part. And unfortunately, one thing that you are claiming is quite clearly incorrect -- there is no word "hu" in Allahu Akbar. Rather, the "hu" there is the last consonant of "Allah" (apparent consonantal root ء ل ه) and the nominative singular i'rab vowel. Semitic etymologies largely proceed by triconsonantal roots, and if you don't have a firm grasp on the concept, then you're very unlikely to be able to contribute anything useful to the subject (or even properly understand what scholars have written)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I think you are right. Of course Hu is related to the Arabic grammar. You may be fully justified in terms of grammar. Also, my claim is my personal speculation. Any speculations can not find a place in an article. So there is no problem. On the other hand I still continue to think differently about Hu. I see it as part of spiritualism. Hu, even though correct in terms of grammar, it also is a word game. Just as in the word Rabb. An example is the Mihrab word in this regard. The RAB word is concealed in the word mihRAB: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mihrab&oldid=438106201 Another example relates to the word Rub el Hizb. This word is related to the still Rab word. But it appears as if it were not so. And is said different things about the meaning of this word. So there are actually two meanings. One is the normal meaning and the other is a hidden meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rub_el_Hizb&oldid=592822060 I just wanted to show different things about it. Everyone can evaluate them himself. Or if you want you can ignore them. It does not matter. --AllaHuBel (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Dude, I'm really really sorry, but unfortunately no one with real knowledge of the subject is likely to take most of what you say at all seriously unless you base your comments on a knowledge of triconsonantal roots where appropriate. Mihrab displays a very similar pattern as Maktab at the bottom of the table on the Semitic root page, traced back there to abstract consonantal root K-T-B. Therefore Mihrab comes from root Ħ-R-B (where ħ is a totally different consonant from h), while Rabb as in the Islamic term for "lord", comes from root R-B-B, and Rub as in Rub-el-Hizb comes from root R-B-ʕ (where ʕ is a voiced pharyngeal consonant, just as ħ is a voiceless pharyngeal consonant)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. Image:Nonconcatenative-muslim-derivation.png may provide a convenient visualization... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC) There is no problem with the grammar. For example, there is something similar in the Synagogue word (Sina-Gog - Sinai-Gog). [16] Sina-gog: [17] I suppose this word also has a grammatical description. I have no objection to any grammatical explanation. According to me there is a paranormal side of these issues. I wanted to draw attention to it. Everything may seem normal in terms of grammar. But it may have a different implication of the same thing. At least I think so. You can of course think differently. Let me try to explain by giving some examples: Cross and heart: Tammuz (Cross) and Ishtar (Heart: In fact hips of Samiramis) [18] Tammuz and Ishtar's sexual relationships: [19] [20] Crescent(Allah) and Pentagram(Muhammad): [21] Vav = 9 = Demons: According to the upside down pyramid 6 is 9. A 69 made ​​of vavs: [22] Arabic letter vav symbolize demons and similar to the number 9. Latin letter "V" (V: Upside down pyramid) symbolize demons again. [23] [24] 96 (HU) and vav (Right to left 69): [25] Vav(Demons) with tulip(Satan): [26] [27] Vav letters above the pyramid upside down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPiK4ckhf9A 69 = Satan(6)-Demons(9). Scales = Two pyramids (Normal and upside down). Yin and Yang symbol = 69: Front and rear views: [28] Hynosis spiral: 6 and 9 symbol: [29] [30] Tulip is pictured here together with the letter vav: [31] Tulip is a symbol associated with Marduk and Baal. Tulip also represents Allah in Islam: [32] [33] Rose represents Ishtar (Samiramis). Rose (Samiramis) and Cross (Tammuz). Rose-Cross: [34]. Rose represents Muhammad in Islam. Tulip (Allah) and Rose (Muhammad): [35] Tulip represents serpent = satan: [36] Fork tongued snake and tulip: [37] tulips and forked tongue: [38] Mihrab shovels: [39] [40] [41] [42] Some explanations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jinn&oldid=592072608#Ras.C3.BBl-.C3.BCs-Sakaleyn_-_The_Prophet_of_demons This issue is a separate issue in itself. And it covers a very large area. In short, all that are related to spiritism. It might sound silly, but to me they are paranormal phenomena. No problem for me as I mentioned before. You do not have to convince me. As I said, I just wanted to draw attention to the paranormal effects behind them. Of course, you do not have to accept it. Moreover, it is very difficult to describe them all, as well as my English is not enough. Despite the help of Google translation. We think probably different from the following aspects: You are talking about grammar (Mundane side) and I am not objecting to it. I draw attention to the paranormal side only (Spiritual side). Of course, you do not need to address this issue here. --AllaHuBel (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC) These are paranormal. To me, these are related to demons - jinn(s). Some spiritual beings are playing games with these people with paranormal influences. They deceive them with false religions and beliefs, and are torturing etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkI30HMgImY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26XJBwgONic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D640lTen1HM --AllaHuBel (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC) The contributions above by AllaHuBel are original research and speculation and certainly don't belong in the article. But they also don't belong here on the Talk page. Please stop wasting our time and yours with this material. There are no doubt other forums where this kind of material is welcome. --Macrakis (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Patience and Gratitude

Three things regarding what, as I am writing this, is Footnote 5, regarding Ibn Qayyim's "The Way to Patience and Gratitude".

1. The quote seems a bit long for a reference. But I don't care if you don't :-)
2. Maybe it should be either removed, or made clearer that this is the opinion of a translator who is not a renowned scholar (as far as I can tell via Google); this opinion has nothing to do with what the author, 14th century scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya is writing about in the actual text. The footnote in the book isn't actually even next to words of the author, but next to words the author is quoting (which also have nothing to do with what the takbir means). So the reference could easily lead to confusion of cannonicalness; as far as I can tell, the included text isn't much different than if some guy put his opinion in a blog or internet forum (knowing two languages doesn't give one authoritative insights).
3. There are actually a bunch of translators (at the moment there is a [who?] reference). Not sure how to deal with that. They are:

• `Abdel-Hamid A. `Eliwa
• Wa'il A. Shehab
• Muhammad M. `Abdel-Fattah
• Hanan M. `Amir
• Walid Bayyumi

--Djbclark (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As it's been a while and no replies here, I'm just going to remove it. I don't think the reference is worthy of inclusion due to both the uncertain authorship and the the lack of authority of any of the possible authors. However I personally would welcome a similar reference from an authoritative source; especially from an Islamic jurist who has his own Wikipedia page, such as Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. -Djbclark (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Takbir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050507175232/http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7225199%255E661,00.html to http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7225199%255E661,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090617072238/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both supporters and opposers, votes roughly split. Jenks24 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Takbir → Allahu Akbar – WP:COMMONTERM. – Article editor (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Fjmustak and Article editor: I would subject such a move to a discussion first. Takbir does not exactly mean 'Allahu Akbar'. It is the act of saying it (or what the phrase is referred to). Just like the Lord's prayer does not mean 'Our Father who art in Heaven...', but is the name used to refer to it. Other similar phrases in Islam are basmala and shahada --Fjmustak (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is the most common term in English, and the one by which readers are likely to look it up. Precision issues can be handled in the lead. Note also that in some Christian denominations the Lord's Prayer is better known as the "Our Father" or Paternoster, but the current page title of that article again reflects the most common usage in English. Wikipedia cannot debate systematic theology; we have to use common names. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons stated by Fjmustak. Takbir is the most common term, arguably the only proper term, in English (as a loneword) or any other language for the act of saying "Allahu Akbar". WP also uses Lord's Prayer (Paternoster is an article about elevators), so the above argument is moot. nagualdesign 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Takbir will draw a blank stare from the vast majority of English speakers. Allahu Akbar, by contrast, is a familiar phrase. A google news search shows 116,000 hits on Allahu Akbar [43] 17,000 on takbir [44]. Wikipedia needs to follow the realities of usage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Google News is not a proper measure of usage. Google Ngram Viewer on the other hand shows that 'takbir' really is more common. But more to the point, 'takbir' does not mean 'Allahu akbar' (see above). Stating that "Wikipedia needs to follow the realities of usage" (or "Wikipedia cannot debate systematic theology") does not reinforce your assertion.

Ngram is not "more accurate" than news counts; the two are counting different kinds of usage, books vs. news media. more to the point, Takbir is not familiar to or in ordinary use among non-academics and non-Muslims. Allahu Akbar is. Even if we decide to keep this article under the more formal, if non-English language, name, the phrase Allāhu Akbar ought to be bolded, to make the lede user-friendly, i.e. to reassure individuals coming to the page via searches that they have ofund the phrase they are looking for (we Anglophones are an impatient people). Being bols, bolding now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Fjmustak. The is the correct title for an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a dictionary entry). —  AjaxSmack  03:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

etymALAHUAKBAR

ifnotkoran,thenwhens?81.11.230.198 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

this should maybe be (semi)locked considering the ymount of 'funny' edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbsikh oscarlinux (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

removal from lead

The last paragraph was a collection of original argument (I wont even call that research) and material previously discussed and removed as not important enough for the lead. Ive removed it as such. nableezy - 04:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Takbir. 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/20130928054402/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130513/survivor-pulled-bangladesh-ruins-after-17-days to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130513/survivor-pulled-bangladesh-ruins-after-17-days
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jerrahi.org/library/articles/birth_school
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015192812/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=763&CATE=3 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=763&CATE=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5478%2C7225199%255E661%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527165219/http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/DetaineeBiographies.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/DetaineeBiographies.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622074944/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013081926_bomber06.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013081926_bomber06.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617021913/http://article.nationalreview.com/268429/the-911-connection/deroy-murdock to http://article.nationalreview.com/268429/the-911-connection/deroy-murdock
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan22/0%2C4670%2CIraqFlagDispute%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/id/2149455/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)