Talk:Takbir/Archive 1

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

Missing critical word
The opening phrase "Allahu Akbar (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;) 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: &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1571;&#1614;&#1603;&#1618;&#1576;&#1614;&#1585;) is" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.103.190 (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, it is " &#1571;&#1614;&#1603;&#1618;&#1576;&#1614;&#1585; " which is "akbar" and " &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; " which is "Allah," not the reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.160.9 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 &#1578;&#1603;&#1576;&#1610;&#1585; 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)

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 &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1604;&#1575;&#1607; 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 &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1587;&#1575;&#1606; 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 &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1587;&#1575;&#1606; 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, &#1575;&#1605;&#1585;&#1572; imru'  when prefixed with the definite article becomes &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1585;&#1569; 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 (&#1573;&#1593;&#1585;&#1575;&#1576;), 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 &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1587;&#1575;&#1606;, 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)

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)

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  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 MOSISLAM, 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 yields God (Arabic: الله 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)

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 unfortunate, 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 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)

"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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.53 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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 Neutral point of view 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 []
 * 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 [], 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)

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)