Talk:Takbir

message: Should the following text recently added to the lead section in Special:Diff/970457222/970590728 be included in the article?
— Newslinger talk 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, good sources about the takbir as a battle cry are easy to find, a Google Scholar search will lead you there. But it will also be clear that the use of the takbir as "battle cry" (or its Western perception as such) is not restricted to modern terrorist attacks, but has many historical precedents, including in contexts that do not count as "terrorism", but rather conventional warfare. The section "In Politics and warfare" offers good material about it, and the lead should summarize all aspects of that section, based on acadamic peer-reviewed secondary sources. But certainly, the appropriation of the phrase by modern extremists, and its ensuing perception as such by non-Muslims in public discourse deserve a mention in the lead. –Austronesier (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: *Add Maybe I should have been more clear. The notability of the abuse of the takbir by extremists cannot be separated from existence of the global right-wing bigot trope that Allahu akbar is "the Terrorist war cry". Peaceful Muslims are harassed, profiled or unduly come under suspicion just for uttering the takbir, the tahmid or just in sha'a llah in public, and that is notable, too. –Austronesier (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are sources that cover the phenomenon of people falsely hearing Allahu Akbar that might be interesting to cover in this article. Do you know of any sociologists, psychologists who might have written about this?VR talk 15:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't. Except with the Munich attack (where early media assumptions about the perp were very wrong), other claims - including many in the sources here - tend to be dubious, rather than consciously dishonest. "An unnamed witness says", "an unnamed police officer says that unnamed witnesses heard" … … . It's WP:OR on my part of course, but in all the confusion, noise and panic of a violent incident, people who don't know a word of Arabic are suddenly clear about what was shouted? I have heard interview tapes in which the interviewer is clearly leading fairly peripheral witnesses as to whether "Allahu Akbar" was what they had heard shouted. That this was said several times in the Charlie Hebdo incident is better sourced, and possibly on other occasions, "she said he left, shouting, “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar”,… … "She said they yelled “allahu akbar” or “God is great” before running out of the office", but neither of these uses could possibly be described, and is not described, as 'a war cry' and the characterisation of it thus is mainly a media cliche in my experience. If terrorist use is covered at all, it should not be as proposed here IMO. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

text: brother they won't answer you because they are hypocrites. 2402:8100:39EC:641D:D167:2D63:D28F:8182 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Terrorist war cry 

message: 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) 18:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: brother they won't answer you because they are hypocrites. 2402:8100:39EC:641D:D167:2D63:D28F:8182 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I added two additional sources for usage by extremists and terrorists in unrelated events in order to back the claim. M.Bitton reverted my changes.  It's not uncommon to have multiple sources and I don't see why this case should different. dindia (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, it's already sourced and there is no need for others (especially, second rate recent ones). It's also amply clear that your edits (since October 2023) serve no other purpose than to push a POV regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, specifically, the Hamas attack (when your edit warring started). M.Bitton (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources for usage by extremists and terrorists 

message: Responding to the (14 March 2024), puerile comment by  > "another day, another SPA. Please read the talk page and find something actually useful to add to the article".
The above 'Talk Page' discussion concludes that, "Consensus clearly exists that the specific statement is inappropriate for the lead". Not that, 'specific statements' are inappropriate in the body of the article. 
The article editing includes (random-editor-opinion) statements such as "random occurrences must not be quoted".   The article then proceeds to quote a random occurrence [cite 27] leading to an Allah Akbar example buried within a 19,000 word report.  ( and what is so special about this particular random occurrence? ), followed by 4 detailed POV rebuttals of, the (very subject of the section)  'usage by extremists and terrorists'.
The entire section, paradoxically-headed, 'Usage by extremists and terrorists', lacks encyclopaedic balance.
It is proposed that the following RS, scholarly inclusion, be added.
-----
The term Allah Akbar is often misunderstood by Western media.
DublinSunrise5 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section, 'Usage by extremists and terrorists' as it stands, is not balanced