Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 June 2

= June 2 =

Takbir
ʾAllāhu ʾakbaru (ٱللَّٰهُ أَكْبَرُ, pronounced [ʔaɫ.ɫaː.hu ʔak.baru] (listen)), meaning "God is the greatest".

I am not Muslim. When I first read the translation, one English newspaper mentioned the translation as "God is Great".

Then I read "God is Greatest". Now "God is the Greatest"

I think Muslims believe in one God only. Now does using 'the' before greatest, mean that there are other greatest, and we need to use 'the' to point to a particular greatest among other greatest?

If we use only greatest, not 'the' does it mean God is only greatest? SpartanTasrdas (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What we have on the Arabic superlative construction is at the semi-cryptic title Elative (gradation). The Arabic superlative is automatically definite in meaning, so that's not really an issue.  In any case, there's no real reason why it should be interpreted as "greater than any other god" rather than "greatest of all things"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So 'God is greatest' and 'God is the greatest' means same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartanTasrdas (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The meaning is the same. Which one to use is a matter of stylistic preference. --Lambiam 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As a side note, may I draw your attention to Deuteronomy 10:17 (pertinent to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike): "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords..."  Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the Hebrew original doesn't imply a multiplicity of gods, as Elohim is plurale tantum. 213.137.65.242 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be too sure of that. "Let us create man in our image." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But see Majestic plural. --Lambiam 09:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the context, with the parallel "Lord of lords", it is obviously a plural. However, the construction "X of Xs" ("King of Kings", Song of Songs, ...) is idiomatic, and its use in Deuteronomy 10:17 is generally not seen as having a theological implication. --Lambiam 09:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading Elohim as referring to the (singular) God of Israel results in a theological absurdity:
 * (implying that Israel's God has a god, who happens to be Himself). --Lambiam 10:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Mysterious ways, indeed... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And don't forget that – according to the KJV – He is not only a great God, but a terrible to boot. --Lambiam 21:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And don't forget that – according to the KJV – He is not only a great God, but a terrible to boot. --Lambiam 21:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Treating "Elohim" as a singular is not derived from abstruse theological interpretation, but is a matter of basic grammar -- in the vast majority of cases in the Hebrew Bible when the word's intended meaning is the God of Israel, it takes singular adjective agreement, verb agreement, and pronoun reference. (The few counterexamples are very much the exception.) AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And its use in Deuteronomy 10:17 is one of these few exceptions. --Lambiam 21:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)