Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Allahu-Akbar
[ʔaɫ.ɫaː.hu ʔak.bar]
OED Definition:
‘God is (most) great’: the declaration of the Takbīr, used in Islamic liturgical forms and prayers, and by Muslims as a general exclamation of faith, thanksgiving, etc.
Term Variants: Allah akbar, Allahuakbar, Takbir
How this term should be used
The vast majority of usages of “Allahu Akbar” in Western media are to do with terrorism and violence.
Of course, when reporting on terrorism, journalists are well within their rights to report the usage of Allahu Akbar (which has been appropriated by terrorists) if it is certain that it was exclaimed and not based on hearsay, rumour or unreliable sources. We would urge caution in the reliability of individual eye-witnesses given how often they are proven wrong, and expect appropriate context to ensure its centrality to the story is not overstated, merely because it attracts readers.
Sometimes, “Allahu Akbar” is used by journalists as a proxy for the motive of the attack, apparently justifying greater prominence to the term. We would urge extreme caution in this approach, given the motive is often unclear during the initial period after a terrorist attack, and even if it is confirmed “Allahu Akbar” was proclaimed, the motive is not necessarily as clear-cut as may be inferred e.g. drugs, criminality, personal animus and mental health may all be greater drivers than any (mis-)interpretation of the faith.
On occasion, often by commentators and opinion writers, the usage of “Allahu Akbar” is used as a synonym for violence or terrorism – such usage is deeply offensive given its usage by ordinary Muslims far more often than its usage by terrorists.
The prominence and consistent association of Allahu Akbar with terrorists has real-world consequences for ordinary Muslims, which we believe should be considered when determining how to best report a terrorist attack and use the term “Allahu Akbar”. There are many stories of ordinary Muslims being asked to get off planes etc. because they happened to use the phrase in a prayer, and this will continue to happen for as long as it is not made clear that in the vast majority of cases, the term is not used as a marker for violence.
Where it is deemed necessary, context should be provided explaining how this expression has been misappropriated by terrorists and that this kind of usage is extremely rare.
It is a prayerful expression that is uttered by Muslims in a number of different contexts.
Call to Prayer
The adhan, or call to prayer, begins with the phrase “Allahu Akbar”, which is recited four times at the beginning of the call and twice near the end. It is also used several times during the prayer itself.
In the Vernacular
The term is frequently used by Muslims as an expression of joy and gratitude, even in situations that have no religious significance. In an interview with National Public Radio, the playwright Wajahat Ali gives two examples of such usage:
‘So literally, when my beloved Golden State Warriors beat the Spurs in a comeback, I said Allahu akbar. Two days ago, on my birthday when I bit into a succulent halal kabob at Ravi Kabob, I said Allahu akbar.’
[1]
As a Political Slogan
“Allahu Akbar” can be found on the flags of a number of nation states, including Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. It was also on the flag of the 1930s Waziristan resistance movement.
Misappropriation as a Terrorist Slogan
“Allahu Akbar” has been misappropriated by terrorists as a battle-cry and has been used as a declamatory statement to accompany acts of violence. Extremists who have used the phrase include the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood Shooter, Nidal Malik, the Midi-Pyrenees shooter, Mohammed Merah and others.
Statistical Trends
A database search using News of the Web Corpus shows the top 100 collocates of the phrase Allahu Akbar as found in the worldwide corpus. Of the top 100 word collocates of Allahu-Akbar:
- 10 contain the name of a weapon.
- 21 contain an aggressive action
- 24 describe a violent actor
- At least 34 highlight negative aspects/behaviours of Muslims
- 10 are from the semantic field of Islam
If we limit our search to articles from the British Press, then the results of the top 100 collocates of Allahu akbar are as follows:
- 6 contain the name of a weapon
- 20 contain an aggressive action
- 22 describe a violent actor
- At least 30 highlight negative aspects/behaviours of Muslims
- 5 are from the semantic field of Islam
Source information
|
Expanded context:
A huge spike in anti-Semitic attacks in this country, too — more than 200 in the last month; more in the last four weeks than the previous six months put together. But no mention, not even a hint, as to who might be responsible. A complete mystery, isn’t it? We are left to try to fathom our own explanation — and it is very difficult, isn’t it? I think the giveaway, though, is some of the graffiti which accompanies these attacks: Allahu Akbar! Jihad! Stuff like that. It’s obvious — unusually literate, fundamentalist swans. Here’s the thing. I will bet every penny I have and more besides that virtually all of the anti-Semitic attacks in this country — and in France and Germany and Belgium — have been perpetrated by Muslims.
In this op-ed, sourced from the Spectator, Rod Little uses Allahu Akbar to mark out terrorism, and to strengthen the connection, he decides to place it next to the word “Jihad” – which has long been used in the narrow sense of religiously inspired violence perpetrated by Muslims.
This kind of usage is typical of the Spectator’s opinion pages, in which the connection between the phrase “Allahu Akbar” and violence carried out in the name of Islam is among the most explicit in the British Press. The following from Douglas Murray is a similar example:
Source information
|
Expanded context:
Instead, speculation about the shooting happening on the fifth anniversary of Anders Breivik’s terrorist assault in Norway meant that every-one could ignore the Muslim eyewitness who heard Sonboly shout’ Allahu Akbar‘ and headline on Breivik instead. Meaning that in Europe in 2016 a child of Iranian parents can be portrayed as a white supremacist, while no amount of Mohameds shouting’ Allahu Akbar‘ can be said to have any connection to Islam.
Here is an example in which the fact of Sonboly shouting “Allahu Akbar” is used to suggest that there is something intrinsically violent about Islam. There is no suggestion that the term has been appropriated by terrorists, no caveat suggesting that it has a number of different applications. Rather, the point Murray seems to be making is that the media hasn’t been explicit enough in highlighting the connection between Islam and violence.
To this end, the ironic phrase “no amount of Mohameds shouting Allahu Akbar” is a deliberate construction. The word used to connect the proper noun “Mohammed, which is the name of the Prophet of Islam with “Allahu Akbar,” which is one of the most widely used phrases in the Islamic world, is the verb “shouting”, a verb of aggression that connotes anger, irrationality and loss of control
Here it may very well be argued that the Spectator occupies a particular niche in the British media landscape and is known for the provocative right-wing views of its writers. The question then arises, is the phrase “Allahu Akbar” being given a different treatment in more liberal outlets?
Moderate Publications
Source information
|
Expanded context:
In their rush to connect this attack to international terrorism, journalists and politicians are missing a key fact. It takes no special training to run people over with a vehicle. You don’t need to be a dangerous foreigner to buy fake weapons like a paint gun or a pellet gun. Anyone can shout “ Allahu Akbar “. It’s easy to say you claim allegiance to Isis.
In this example, sourced from the left-leaning Guardian, the writer, Moustafa Bayoumi perhaps unwittingly, shows us the extent to which the term “Allahu Akbar” has become synonymous with terrorism. The first thing to note is the connection between the sentences “Anyone can shout ‘Allahu Akbar’” and “It’s easy to say you claim allegiance to Isis”. They are placed one after the other and used as related, inter-dependent premises with which the writer hopes to strengthen the thrust of his conclusion that the Manhattan terrorist attack “was the sole action of a mentally unstable individual.”
In doing so, however, he makes it seem as if saying “Allahu Akbar” and pledging allegiance to Isis are not particularly different. His conclusion may be a liberal one, but the writer has fallen into the trap of closely associating one of Islam’s most common prayerful phrases with the actions of terrorists.
Source information
|
Expanded context:
Witnesses said the man had entered the shop screaming “ Allahu Akbar, I’ll kill you all “, before declaring allegiance to Isis and demanding the release of Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam.
Here we see an even more striking example of how “Allahu Akbar” has become synonymous with terrorism. The term is included even though it adds nothing to the article. Had the writers of the piece decided that – for the sake of sensitivity – they would omit the term “Allahu Akbar” in their report, the reader would still have known that:
- The man had threatened to kill everyone.
- The man had declared allegiance to ISIS.
- The man had demanded the release of Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam.
Of course, it is wrong to blame journalists for reporting witness accounts of an atrocity, and that is not the purpose of this analysis. If a journalist is told that a man entered a shop screaming “Allahu Akbar, I’ll kill you all!” then they are well within their rights to publish it. But given that the man’s utterance of Allahu Akbar” adds nothing to the report, there is an argument to say that it would have been more sensitive not to include it. Indeed, to omit the terrorist’s use of the phrase “Allahu Akbar” would not have had any detrimental effect on the article. It would, however, have gone a little way in correcting the impression that Allahu Akbar is primarily a terroristic phrase.
Furthermore, there may also be occasions when the constant use of Allahu Akbar in this narrow way may confuse both the reader as well as the journalist. See for instance the following example from Wired:
Source information
|
Expanded context:
At dusk on 20 August, 2011, a cry rose up from the loudspeakers of the mosques of Tripoli: Allahu Akbar. God is great. For the past few days, a rumour had spread through the city that the signal for the final assault would come from the mosques. Now that call had arrived.
In this example, the writer expects us to believe that the cry of Allahu Akbar, issued from the loudspeakers of the mosques of Tripoli, is the signal for the final assault on the Presidential Palace. But how do we know this for certain? Is it not far more likely that this is the call to Maghrib, the prayer offered by Muslims just after sunset? Even if we take the writer at his word that there is a rumour that the signal for organised violence is to be given by the mosques, should he not at least acknowledge the possibility that it might be the Adhan? At a bare minimum, should he not at least acknowledge in a parenthetical clause that the term Allahu Akbar is a doctrinal part of the call to prayer?
