The significance of "allahu Akbar"

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[Peikko 1,575]

Not really, I am curious as to who is right on this one. From what I have read, it's a very, very common call and not confined to terrorist activists but what one reads and what is the common experience for the average muslim might be different so, I thought I would ask.

[Jenn! 918]

I think the average muslim would be offended by the fact that the average non-muslim most likely associates the call to prayer with terrorism.

And yeah, yeah, who is to blame for that? Surely the islamic terrorists who have hijacked the call...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I blame Admiral Ackbar and George Lucas.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[SMR 368]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

I think the question is, is a muslim a terrorist because he goes on a killing spree, or is a muslim a terrorist because he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and has a plan to kill in order to further a political agenda. Clearly for you the answer is if it's a muslim and it's a killing spree, it's terrorism.

The point about all this is not to fudge the issues or pretend that something isn't terrorism when it is, but to be able to make sensible decisions in order to prevent a repetition of this event. Jumping to conclusions is not sensible, ever.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Not really, I am curious as to who is right on this one. From what I have read, it's a very, very common call and not confined to terrorist activists but what one reads and what is the common experience for the average muslim might be different so, I thought I would ask.

You didn't know that?

Saying it at a wedding = good

Saying it while flying a plane into a building = bad

[Otto 83]

"Allahu Akbar is in no way tied to fanaticism, extremism, or violence. If a Christian shouted "Hallelujah" before going on a rampage, would that automatically make Hallelujah a word identifiable with violence or religious fanaticism?"

~Copied from a reply on a blog - not my words but thought it was an interesting reply.

[MrsCat 6]

To be honest, I thought it was just a word used by terrorists. Didn't know it had to do with prayer. Analogy to Hallelujah is a good one.

[SMR 368]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

I think the question is, is a muslim a terrorist because he goes on a killing spree, or is a muslim a terrorist because he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and has a plan to kill in order to further a political agenda. Clearly for you the answer is if it's a muslim and it's a killing spree, it's terrorism.

The point about all this is not to fudge the issues or pretend that something isn't terrorism when it is, but to be able to make sensible decisions in order to prevent a repetition of this event. Jumping to conclusions is not sensible, ever.

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

To be honest, I thought it was just a word used by terrorists. Didn't know it had to do with prayer. Analogy to Hallelujah is a good one.

If only it happened. Then it might be a good analogy.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's a very common phrase that is not a jihadist battle cry so much as a general call to prayer and praise of god. Should it transpire that indeed the Fort Hood murderer shouted this out before he opened fire, should this add fuel to the terrorist theory or not?

Not being a muslim, I don't know what the average muslim feels about this. Any takers?

I actually also thought of Admiral Ackbar, too, when I first heard it. Who can spot the geeks here?

Anyways, to the original question. I'm not a Muslim so I can't speak to how Muslims feel about it. Everything I have heard is that indeed it is a phrase that is used in many parts of Muslim life, including a daily call to prayer. However, I don't think that is really relevant here. If a person says, "Allahu Akbar," it doesn't make him a terrorist. However, if a person yells, "Allahu Akbar," and then starts shooting American soldiers, it lends some significant insight into why he did it.

I sort of liken it to a phrase such as, "In the name of God," or "Glory to God." If a person walks into a mosque and starts shooting, you might say that he is a random crazy person or that he had any other number of reasons to target someone in the mosque. If someone says, "In the name of God," you may think little of it. But if someone walks into a mosque, says "In the name of God," and starts shooting, you can sort of guess why he did it.

This whole issue is somewhat baffling to me. A man, who has in the past expressed his anti-American views, declared his real nationality to be Palestinian, glorified suicide bombing, attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, and communicated with a radical Muslim Imam who worked with the 9/11 hijackers, walks into an army base, states as explicitly as possible in two words that he is acting in the name of his religion (I won't disrespect peaceful Muslims by saying he was acting in the name of Islam), and kills 13 soldiers before he is stopped by return fire. And then instead of connecting the obvious dots, some in the government and media decide that post-traumatic stress disorder is probably contagious. I'm not trying to say that all Muslims are bad or that we shouldn't allow them in the military. But let's dig our heads out of the sand and call a Muslim terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

I think the question is, is a muslim a terrorist because he goes on a killing spree, or is a muslim a terrorist because he is affiliated with a terrorist organization and has a plan to kill in order to further a political agenda. Clearly for you the answer is if it's a muslim and it's a killing spree, it's terrorism.

The point about all this is not to fudge the issues or pretend that something isn't terrorism when it is, but to be able to make sensible decisions in order to prevent a repetition of this event. Jumping to conclusions is not sensible, ever.

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

Don't bother trying to enlighten libs with facts. They've heard the facts over and over and over, and still defend this guy tooth and nail but would just as soon crucify any Christian who did anything wrong. If it were a republican president, it would be ok to call it terrorism. However, since it is a democrat and more importantly, Obama, who set out to inspire and unite muslims and non-muslims - this incident cannot be called terrorism because it happened on Obama's watch.

[alienlovechild 75]

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

She probably read it but knows nothing about the background of MAJ Hasan nor cares to. To Cleo, the stuff you mentioned isn't relevant. She still trying to prove he was insane at the time and not having much luck on that theory. Still waiting for more "proof".

It's not PTSD as Hasan had no experience in a combat zone (pretty easy to find on a service record by now) unlike 1.5 million American troops from the Iraq War or the Afghan War who haven't gone a killing spree against anyone. Nobody mentions that but if does happens, all vets ffrom the present war will be regarded with suspicion as drug addicts, losers and baby killers as they were after the Vietnam War.

[SMR 368]

Did you read my post? I actually mentioned the fact that he had a political agenda (anti-American, call himself a Palestinian) and made contact with several agents of organized Muslim terrorism (communicated with the same Imam who also helped inspired 9/11). He also was found to have attempted to contact others (Al-Qaeda). There's a difference between jumping to a conclusion and simply accepting the only reasonable conclusion that explains all of the facts. Or do you think that PSD is contagious?

She probably read it but knows nothing about the background of MAJ Hasan nor cares to. To Cleo, the stuff you mentioned isn't relevant. She still trying to prove he was insane at the time and not having much luck on that theory. Still waiting for more "proof".

It's not PTSD as Hasan had no experience in a combat zone (pretty easy to find on a service record by now) unlike 1.5 million American troops from the Iraq War or the Afghan War who haven't gone a killing spree against anyone. Nobody mentions that but if does happens, all vets ffrom the present war will be regarded with suspicion as drug addicts, losers and baby killers as they were after the Vietnam War.

Yeah, that's the funny part. It's not PTSD. They claim that PTSD is contagious. That is, he was never in combat but got it from talking to people who were in combat.