Talk:Takbir/Archive 2

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 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! [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] 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)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzhJlRl1H5o


 * Allah is HU = HU is Allah


 * Ya HU = O HU:


 * Hu is Hubal
 * Hu is Allah


 * Hubal is Allah
 * Allah is Hubal

The completed sentences:

Allah as Moon-god Hubal    --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:

A complete sentence:
 * Allah Hu akbar: Allah Hu is greater


 * 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.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Takbir&oldid=629455436 --AllaHuBel (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya Hu - Ya Hoo: O Hu (English)


 * 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). Sina-gog: 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)

Tammuz and Ishtar's sexual relationships:

Crescent(Allah) and Pentagram(Muhammad):

Vav = 9 = Demons: According to the upside down pyramid 6 is 9. A 69 made ​​of vavs: Arabic letter vav symbolize demons and similar to the number 9. Latin letter "V" (V: Upside down pyramid) symbolize demons again. 96 (HU) and vav (Right to left 69): Vav(Demons) with tulip(Satan):   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: Hynosis spiral: 6 and 9 symbol:

Tulip is pictured here together with the letter vav: Tulip is a symbol associated with Marduk and Baal. Tulip also represents Allah in Islam:  Rose represents Ishtar (Samiramis). Rose (Samiramis) and Cross (Tammuz). Rose-Cross:. Rose represents Muhammad in Islam. Tulip (Allah) and Rose (Muhammad):

Tulip represents serpent = satan: Fork tongued snake and tulip: tulips and forked tongue:

Mihrab shovels: 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)

early discussions
NPOV issues, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.186.50 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2003 (UTC)

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)

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)

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".

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

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 one external links on Takbir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

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)


 * 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.  nagual  design   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   17,000 on takbir . 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 2 September 2017 (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 discussed above on this page). AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2017

 * 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In plain English please, what are you asking exactly? And how does that relate to Wikipedia? (See WP:NOTFORUM.)  nagual  design   23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page is getting rather unwieldy. I suggest that automatic archiving be installed/initiated, although I haven't the foggiest idea how that's done or by whom.  nagual  design   19:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have personal experience with that, but there's info at Help:Archiving a talk page... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I did have a look at WP:Archiving (same page, I think) after posting the above comment, and even got as far as User:ClueBot III (which deals with archiving) but I decided that it was a can of worms, and it would probably be a good idea to leave it to someone who knows what they're doing.  nagual  design   01:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to your message on my talk page, I've set up archiving on this page using lowercase sigmabot III. The archive links will come up as part of the talk page header once the archives have been created. Graham 87 05:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. Thanks for that, Graham.  nagual  design   18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oversectioning
We have a problem with oversectioning at Takbir. We can't create a new section every time someone uses "Allah Akbar" in a notable event. For now, I'm removing the sections and listing all the notable events in the form, Allahu Akbar has been used in incident A, incident B, incident C etc.

Some of the sections gave details of the events, which again aren't necessarily relevant to this article. The detail of events can be found in the article on those events.VR talk 14:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How can jai shree Ram is war cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Shri_Ram and Allah hu akbar not terrorist war cry RamTripathi33 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove 'Usage in christianity'
Allah Akbar means "ALLAH (THE ISLAMIC GOD) IS GREAT" so, Arabic Christians can't use it they may use the phrase ILLAH AKBAR as saying "GOD IS GREAT". I want it to be removed. Here are some links supporting it: https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/6044899 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNgdqgduC7Q (the first few minutes in the video explains it) WikiSilky (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That idea was pushed in the past by User:Mussav, as you can see at Talk:Takbir/Archive_1, but he did not have any useful sources (and his knowledge of the Arabic language was not as thorough as he thought it was), so the article was not changed. Certainly Youtube videos are not acceptable.  Furthermore, Christians have used the word "Allah" -- see here for the latest Malaysian development. AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't put individual uses of the phrase in the article.
1 The repeated reverting of edits without any explanation is not in the spirit of WP:Cooperation.

2 "We don't put individual uses of the phrase in the article" , is a fallacious excuse as the article contains many examples of "individual uses".

H.B.Johns (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, when reverted the onus is on you to come to the talk page to persuade others. This is explained in WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Secondly, you sourced it to the Daily Mail - the Mail is not reliable and can't be used. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Thirdly, please refer to earlier discussions on this talk page - see the one headed "Every single passing mention of Allah Akbar". DeCausa (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 possibly, but there has been a lack of WP:Cooperation
 * 2 added other cites - see below
 * 3 this is not "every single passing mention" this is an Allah Akbar celebration of an event which had involved the death of 100s possibly 1,000s including women and children.


 * A possible revision :
 * In October 2023, an Australian Muslim preacher praised Palestinians with the crowd celebrating and chanting, 'Allahu Akbar'

H.B.Johns (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely an example of "every single passing mention". Don't conflate the deaths with what this non-notable cleric has said. An event involving 100s of deaths in Israel/Gaza = highly notable. Obscure non-notable cleric says it in Australia = so what? DeCausa (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, WP:COOPERATION doesn't link to or mean what you think it does. What you should have linked to was WP:BITE because you're a new user and didn't get an adequate explanation! DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about the cleric, it was the large crowd who chanted 'Allah Akbar'. How about this revision?
 * In relation to the October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict, Australian supporters of Palestinian celebrated and chanted, 'Allahu Akbar'
 * H.B.Johns (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But why do we care what a crowd in Australia 12,000 miles from the notable event did? DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is the strangest (and weakest) argument you have provided to-date. H.B.Johns (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad to see you've come around to my thinking. Others might think you are violating WP:POINT, but I am happy with your edit. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * your pointy edits are getting out of hand. Removing a source that you haven't checked and attributing its content to another is very disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

About the root of word
Tekbir, (tek bir) means "the only one" in Turkish. And after Tekbir Allahuakbar comes. Translation of Allahuakbar is: Allah is the greatest. So the tekbir means "the only one". I don't need to explain to Turkish impact on Islam. The part about the etymology of the word is incorrect. AvsarAta (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The word originates in Arabic, and the great majority of Arabic etymologies (like those of other Semitic languages) are by Consonantal roots, in this case, root k-b-r. Look at pages 947 to 949 in the fourth edition of the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic to see in more detail than you probably want to know how "takbir" and related terms are derived from root k-b-r  -- though it may be hard to understand without some basic knowledge of the Arabic alphabet and language.  I don't want to gratuitously insult you, but it's possible that you may have spent a little bit too much time studying Sun Language Theory... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I know Arabic language. Akbar means greatest. كبير means great or big and the اكبر means greatest. You can't insult me. KBR doesn't have any connection to word tekbir. Oc AvşarAta (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the entry on the bottom of page 948 and the top of page 949 of the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (4th ed.) says differently... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Every single passing mention of Allah Akbar
Some of the sources in the article contain a passing mention of Allah Akbar (like this) without any substantial coverage of the term or its significance. If we scavenge the web for all such passing mentions the resulting article won't be very encyclopedic. I suggest we limit ourselves to reliable, secondary sources that actually give significant coverage to this topic and have something meaningful to say. This is sort of like how every mention of "cat" in the news doesn't belong at Cat.VR talk 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, gave a better analogy VR talk 04:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support your efforts to create due weight in the article beyond the lead discussion. Unfortunately, the weight problem does not only concern the massive trivia dumping about perpetrators shouting "Allahu akbar!", but also the lack of basic infomation about the phrase in its original religious context. It is e.g. just mentioned in passing that it does not occur verbatim in the Qur'an, but nothing is said about where it actually is first attested (Ahadith). The section "During the Eid Festival and the Hajj" suggest that the Eid-takbir is only associated with Eid al-Adha, but there's nothing about Eid al-Fitr, and so on. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

, I agree and I'll try to add stuff. And thanks for clearing this up.VR talk 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read this discussion. In the meantime (to avoid wasting my valuable time "pretending to have an interesting discussion" with another SPA), I will ping and  who are familiar with the WP:UNDUE policy and actually read what is said in the edit summaries. M.Bitton (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of encyclopedic balance in the current presentation. they are certainly right about that. A handful of events are given UNDUE weight in an article about an expression that is repeated billions of times per day. Normally, per WP:FALSEBALANCE, such Fringe nonsense should not be included at all. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in favor of expanding quality information based on quality sources. This also includes the highly mediatized topic of the role of the takbir in connection with terrorist attacks. But not with the source that is being heavily promoted here (COI?). IJSCL is a predatory journal, and the article has 4 citations on Google Scholar 4 years after its publication. This speaks for itself (and against inclusion here). –Austronesier (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: the paper in question was not published in the International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, as erroneously claimed in the text and edit summaries. So maybe it is not about WP:COI but WP:CIR. –Austronesier (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Allah Akbar is a Cinematic trope
Give us a break!

, you say, "I'm very much in favor of expanding quality information based on quality sources. This also includes the highly mediatized topic of the role of the takbir in connection with terrorist attacks". Austronesier, I can not find any evidence of you doing this.

Prove me wrong.

, says, the use of "takbir in connection with terrorist attacks", is just  "Fringe nonsense" - a  "POV". M.Bitton. Suggest you mean a 'POINT OF VIEW NOT CORRESPONDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S LEFT OF CENTER POSITION'  a   WP:POVNCTWLOCP

Prove me wrong.

Calbruce67 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please seek consensus here for your edits.VR talk 03:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Prove me wrong" is not going to get you very far [[User:EvergreenFir|''' Eve

rgr een Fir ''']] (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's exactly what I said (in response to your edit summary):
 * There is a lack of encyclopedic balance in the current presentation. they [you] are certainly right about that. A handful of events are given UNDUE weight in an article about an expression that is repeated billions of times per day. Normally, per WP:FALSEBALANCE, such Fringe nonsense should not be included at all.
 * I obviously stand by it and you're more than welcome to challenge it. M.Bitton (talk)
 * 1 star   Q.E.D   Calbruce67 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism
Why was the section on its use as an Islamic fundamentalist war cry nearly completely deleted? Given all the RS coverage of it? And it’s use by Hamas in countless videos in the news today? 147.235.212.71 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
In order to circumvent the RfC result about not having the term "war cry" in the lead, an edit warrior who has a tendency to cast aspersions, has added the word "battle" to the lead and removed relevant and NPOV content without a valid reason, or even an explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging those who edited the article lately (minus the socks) your input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I also find the changes unproductive, not least in the strange ordering and the emphasis on halal slaughter first and foremost, especially when this is mere coincidental usage as part of wider prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the RFC is pretty clear on what the lede should not include. Furthermore, we should be careful to not display English-language bias; this phrase has wider significance to Muslims but a lot of English sources have no reason to cover it except for in the context of radical Islamic terrorism.  Bremps  ...  17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is most relevant here to establish due weight. We go by reliable sources about the topic and what these sources consider worth mentioning about it, and not sources about something else that happen to mention the topic. So the part about "the halal slaughter of animals" is inadequately sourced. The "battle" source meets this criterion. The entry in the Historical Dictionary of Islam reads in full: ALLAHU AKBAR. “God is most great.” A formula in Islam, called the takbir, occurring in ritual prayers, as a call to prayer, or as a battle cry during war.
 * But this is just one source. To establish due weight, we need more than just one source that includes the use of the Takbīr as battle cry as a significant aspect of its usage.
 * In any case, the lede summarizes the article. Whenever the lede is heavily edited without matching the rest of the article, something is wrong. I recommend to build the article from bottom-up, based on sources that primarily cover the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any reason to continue this discussion now that the disruptive editor has been indeffed as yet another sock (I am as shocked as you probably are). Many thanks to all of you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)