![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
A major task of any encyclopedia is to explain the beliefs and teachings of religions. We are obligated to do this even if their beliefs make us uncomfortable. This is true for the NOI: One of the basic tenets of NOI teachings is that only blacks are fully human. White people are considered to be genetically and spiritually inferior to black people. They have been preaching this publicly for many years, and it simply is not honest or acceptable to deny this reality. Please do not censor this article by removing information on this point, especially since this point is already sources in three ways within the article, and more sources can readily be added.
An article can explain why its adherents accept these beliefs as true; it can explain how the adherents of this faith justify their beliefs, we can offer varying sources from the groups leaders, but we may not deny that these central teachings exist. RK
We have never said that whites aren't fully human. We say that they are not original. When you get a cd it is not the original cd but it is a copy. It still plays just as well but it just isn't held in as high a standard because you can go and create more cd off of the original. Black people are the original people so we are naturally made better equipped to handle the rough terrain of the earth better then white people. They're still human and even though scientifically the copy isn't as strong as the original we still treat the copy just like we treat the original, with justice.
OPPOSE: White people, brown people, black people regardless of who you are... are just as original as the person who precedes them. Just as you are just as original and human as your parents who preceded you or their parents who preceded them. The Nation of Islam is what it is... A black nationalist movement deadbent on the uplifting of the spirits of the black man and woman. Just as the Revolutionaries, Black Panthers and other such movements made noble efforts in. "The Nation" cannot attribute itself to "Islam" without the basic tenets of Islamic belief. Believing that there is "There is nothing worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger and last prophet." When Muslims speak of God they speak of Allah, not a man who claimed he was God or God incarnated in person. When Muslims speak of Muhammad they speak of Muhammad ibn Abdullah of 1400+ years ago who received the revelation from the Angel Jibril given orders from Allah NOT of Elijah Poole turned Elijah Muhammad after receiving enlightenment from another man who preached aggression and transgression. If the Nation of Islam was the "correct" way then why is it that the "Nation" was not the original practice of the Muslims? The obvious reason is because it is not the correct way at all. The original man was Adam. Not some race of pre-Adamites the Nation beliefs were here before Adam and Hawaa (Eve). Our Prophet Jacob is not some wild deranged scientist who wanted to "get back" at his people and came up with an elaborate scheme to develop "white" people by cancelling out the black gene... cross breeding lighter and lighter until white people became the majority and the rulers. Bogus, unintelligible rhetoric and feeble thoughts. We are not on Dr. Zhivago's Island! No man is greater than another in other than piety is the true belief of Islam. "You are not a true muslim until you want for your brother what you want him what you want for yourself" is what the true Prophet Muhammad said. "Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion. . ." The Qur'an 3:19, ... not "Nation of Islam", not the "Lost Found Nation", and not "The Nation of Gods and Earths (5% Nation of Islam)". Our Holy book is the Holy Quran NOT the "Message to the Black Man". Our examples of correctness is in the Sunnah and Hadith's of the Prophet Muhammad not in "Muhammad Speaks". I protest against the Nation and its wicked ideologies under the guise of "Al-Islam" and all who read should do the same, learn of their lies and if you are in then remove yourself immediately. The last 3 questions in the grave are "Who is your lord, who is this man and what is your religion?" At NO TIME!!! will my answers involve W.D. Fard Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad or Nation of Islam and God Willing none of yours will either or a horrible torture will befall us all. ----VeiledOne
OPPOSE:
That is the dumbest bullshit I have ever heard...
You NOI people are so delusional. Makes good sense why your cult is so damned small like Scientology or such.
We can all look up what Farakhan has said. What your ministers have said. The racist, and crazy statements about White People being created by a mad scientist and blah blah blah. Come on.. Why do NOI people get a say in how this is written. Just as I think it is advantageous for Libertarians to not write articles about Libertarianism or Mormons to write about Mormonism. Or Jews to write about anti-semetism.
AGREE:
We didn't say Yacub was a mad scientist, he was quite sane. Lets look at it this way, if you can't get black people from white or blacks from yellow or black from brown or black from red and black was first and the rest came and black have been here for millions of years before 6,094 years ago then white people came then there had to have been a conscious decision in bringing white people to this earth right?
OPPOSE:
YOur gonna get a crappy article with lots of bias, and over time the article becomes a propoganda page with edit wars and such. Let us find fact. We should use only fact to write about something. Save the bias for criticism sections or criticism pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire notion of "the Blackman (sic) is the Original Man and whites must be inferior copies" is profoundly devoid of logic. The current population of sub-Saharan Africa is not the unchanged, direct scion of the original homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago, and in fact no one knows what the first humans looked like. Most anthropologists guess that they were something like the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who have traits of many modern "races" of man. In Northern Europe natural selection favored fair skin that was able to absorb more vitamin D from limited sunlight, it makes perfect evolutionary sense and in no way demands ancient genetic engineering as an explanation. By claiming to be "Original", the NOI is ironically suggesting what has fueled white supremacist pseudo-science for centuries, the idea that blacks are closer than whites to the lesser great apes with whom we share common ancestry, that they're somehow "less evolved" and therefore less human. 76.19.26.248 ( talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"New and Improved White People!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.139 ( talk) 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Zebra Murders were a natural result of NOI's racist pseudo-theology which dehumanizes whites. Naturally they aren't mentioned here. (And naturally no one atlks about them in San Francisco anymore.) This page is propaganda.
I think there's a point to this complaint. The Zebra murders were a major historical event and the relationship between the murders and NOI is still a festering controversy that shouldn't be ignored. If there is a more authoritive source on the Zebra murders than the Clark book, I haven't been able to find it. Unfortunately, the book is a New Journalism effort, and often hides its sources and dramatizes events, thus obscuring what solid evidence existed. But it appears he did do considerable original research. I propose that we add something such as this:
There is considerable controversy over the existence or the extent of NOI involvement in the Zebra killers of 1973-'74 in San Francisco. Howard Clark's book "Zebra" cites Richard Walley of the California Department of Justice Intelligence Analysis Unit as believing that the conspiracy and the murders were more widespread than those attributed to the four convicted members of NOI and that they were NOI inspired [pp. 238,264]. He also quotes the Imam of San Quentin Prison (of World Community of Islam, which Clark says at the time of his writing, 1979, had replaced the NOI), as stating "although it will take us quite some time to erase our old image we will do just that by promoting brotherhood among all men" (14). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.23.156 ( talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is shockingly biased in favour of the NoI in that it describes the orginization as merely existing to help the "condition of black men and women". At the same time, there are multiple examples of high ranking NoI members stating that whites are unevolved, subhuman, demonic, inferior, and that white women and children need to be murdered. NoI members have been guilty of race based serial killing (DC sniper was for example, a NoI member as were many other men convicted of violent hate crimes), and yet NoI is not classified as a racist or hate group of any sort? The KKK has stated that it is not a racist or hate group, only looking out for white interests despite its violent past, yet nobody believes them. This is mirroring the NoI, yet the NoI seems to be fully pardoned, the articles introduction could even be considered praise and describing NoI as a civil rights group. Why is this? Can we please create a new introduction fitting for such a violent, hateful group closer to that of the KKK, regardless of what each one publically 'states' its 'goals' are despite all of their activities and history. And can we please learn the difference between hate groups like NoI and black activist groups that instead publically oppose racism such as the original black panther party, rather than advocate murder based on skin color the way NoI does?
Ive added that they are a racial segeregationist orginization in the intro, this is the very least that should be said in such a misleading article that paints a group who openly support genocide as a human rights resistance of some sort. If you need any justification for my claim that they are segregationist then here is one of their demands: "9. We want equal education -- but separate schools up to 16 for boys and 18 for girls on the conditions that the girls be sent to womens' colleges and universities. We want all black children educated, taught and trained by their own teacher."
—HOW IS THIS EVEN AN ISSUE??? I am a white American Muslim. I have read the Qu'ran in English and am on my way through it again. I am also taking Arabic classes, in part to learn to read this sacred text in its original Arabic form. My husband is a Sunni Muslim from the Middle East. We have regular discussions about the Qu'ran. I know for a fact that the Qu'ran NEVER states anything about black people being original and white people coming from black people. It is the LITERAL WORD OF ALLAH and it states that Allah, in his magnificent creativity, created people of all colors. Allah is the Creator, not humans. Allah made all that is on the earth and all that is in the universe. White people did not come from black people. All people were created by God. That is what the Qu'ran really says. If you don't believe this then you don't really understand a whole lot, do you? If you claim to follow Islam, maybe you should read the Qu'ran to get the facts about the creation of humans. We were not created to fight each other over who is or is not original or copied. We are all from Allah and all equally and beautifully created. Islam teaches thoroughly that Muhammad is the FINAL messenger of Allah. THERE WILL BE NO ONE ELSE. We are equal. Real muslims are peaceful and do not care about the color of skin, only the condition of heart. Instead of trying to fight about who is better or who is and is not racist, try seeking Allah. The Qu'ran is packed with scientific proof to back up all its claims. Where is the scientific proof that black people are original and white people are copied? The closer you get to the equater, the darker the inhabitants skin is. This is due to the fact that the suns rays are less blocked than in, say North America or England. The skin MUST be darker to protect the body from sun damage to the skin leading to CANCER, in this region of the world. In England, the sun is almost never out, which leads to paler skin because protection from the sun is not as vital. There you go. All this is scientifically proven, so go research it. -R Al-Tbour
You must have forgotten about genetics and how the dark genes are dominant and light genes are recessive. You can't get a dark color from a light color but you can get light colors from dark colors. The Earth was also once all connected and mostly every continent was near the equator so all would've been dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Rell ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User:JohnBlaz removed the classification of NOI as a hate group by the SPLC citing it as POV. I restored it. Other hate groups are noted as such in the lead (see KKK or New Black Panther Party and the SPLC is a widely-respected source when it comes to labeling groups as hate groups. I also added the ADL classification of NOI as racist and anti-semitic. I'm bringing this here in order to avoid an edit war and if there's a consensus that it doesn't belong, then so be it. Lordjeff06 ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does this have a {{refimprove}} tag at the top? Is there a doubt about the veracity or notability of NOI? Sure, if certain elements are being contended, hit them with a {{cite}} or {{fact}} tag, but the entire article has enough citations to support it, doesn't it? Padillah ( talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"From 1978 to the present, Louis Farrakhan has been the leader of a reconstituted Nation of Islam, the original organization having been renamed and dissolved by Warith Deen Muhammad. The Nation of Islam's National Center and headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois, and is also home to its flagship Mosque No. 2, Mosque Maryam."
...so, what "Nation of Islam" actually is? A country? A religion? A fast food chain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. 66.57.187.206 ( talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The intro should be near the end, at least. An editor should correct this so no edit wars will occur.--neolandes 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neolandes (
talk •
contribs)
Location: Detroit - 11529 Linwood Ave
In June 1953, Malcolm X was named assistant minister of the Nation of Islam's Temple Number One.
Location: Chicago - 7351 S. Stony Island (Mosque Maryam)
In either late 1933 or the start of 1934, Temple No 2 was founded.
Location: Milwaukee, WI - 2507 N. 3rd. St.
Location: Washington, DC - 1525 Ninth Street, NW
Nation of Islam Temple #4, established in the early 1940s by Elijah Muhammad, was the first place of worship for Black Muslims in Washington, DC. The Nation of Islam was founded in the early 1930s as a religious movement grounded in the teachings of the Koran and adapted to the experiences of African Americans in the United States.
Sources: Claude Andrew Clegg, An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad (New York: St. Martin's University Press, 1998). Cultural Tourism DC: African American Heritage Trail
Location: New York (Masjed Aqsa)
Founded in 1946. In May 1954 Malcolm X was selected to lead the Nation of Islam's Temple Number Seven in Harlem.
Location: Boston
1952 - Malcolm X begins preaching for the Nation at Temple 11 in Boston
Location: Philadelphia
In March 1954, Malcolm X expanded Temple Number Twelve in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
By the time Elijah Muhammad died in 1975, there were 75 Temples across America. Muhammad's Temple of Islam, Information taken from the October 4, 1974 edition of Muhammad Speaks Newspaper
Location: St. Louis
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Location: Saint Petersburg, Florida
Having read 'The Fire Next Time' recently, I am displeased with the nature of the James Baldwin quote. Although Baldwin did express his recognition of the positive aspects of NOI, the essay from which the article quotes is much more critical of NOIs views, attitudes and strategies than complimentary... thus this to me is misleading, and only seems to support peoples comments about the lack of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.41.26 ( talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Mfm2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Those who follow the teachings of the NOI are NOT true Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine20 ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This article should really have a section on the organization and hierarchy of the NOI. I've been looking around for a source for this without much luck. I know there is an NOI constitution (and a new one under review), though I cannot find a copy online. I think the temple operate independently and kick up an administrative fee to the national organization, but again, no source. I read that there is a board of directors but finding it's membership has proved tricky. Any ideas? Links? NOI's website isn't much help. Njsamizdat ( talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it seems that the opening paragraphs are missing any mention of the most dominant force in the NOI history, namely Elijah Muhammad (born Elijah Poole). Why?! Why leave out the person who controlled (some would say molded and dominated) the NOI for more than 40 years? It seems like a ridiculous omission. Thank you. 123.218.147.5 ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In the History section of the article, W.D. Fard was referred to as a "child molester". I suspect this is vandalism, so removed it. If there's any source to this, it can be re-installed with ref. Papppfaffe ( talk) 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone knowledgeable on doctrine should help out making revisions to the Yakub (Nation of Islam) page. -- YakbutterT ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
From NOI.org "WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."
This statement clearly admits that the nation of Islam does not believe in one of the fundamental beliefs of all muslims that There is nothing worthy of worship but God and that Muhammad is His last messenger. That Allah is one and has no partners.
This should be addressed in the FIRST paragraph as one of the CORE beliefs of the Nation of Islam and "mainstream muslims" do NOT even believe the Nation of Islam to be muslims. If they do then they are clearly mistaken and have not researched the ideologies of the Black Nationalist Movement group. There is no Islam without the belief that Allah is God, without partners and Muhammad ibn Abdullah is his last servant, prophet and messenger. NOT MISTER Fard Muhammad or Elijah Poole Muhammad. VeiledOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veiledone ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And also, they don't hate anyone because of their color. I know plenty of muslims on the NOI who have white friends. Even Farrakhan has white friends. So if their leader has white friends, they can't hate white pe AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)ople.
OPPOSE: Awesome the nation believes that. I have heard what was said also. In 1997, for example, the Clarion-Ledger reported Farrakhan's characterization of "the white man" as the "anti-Christ." In March 2000 the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Farrakhan saying, "White people are potential humans ... they haven't evolved yet." At other times, he has referred to whites as "vicious beasts" and "the skunks of the planet."
They also do believe in God in the flesh according to such books as How to Eat to Live and Message to the Blackman and Comer by Night, where they repeatedly state "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad" and that Elijah Muhammad is the messenger. So NO they are not muslims because of the basis of their shahadah (testimony) that states I believe in Allah who came in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad and I believe in the messenger of Allah, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and his warner Louis Farrakhan". That is not the shahadah of the muslims. The NOI commits shirk (associating another being with Allah, as the NOI does!). Therefore Shirk takes them out of the fold of Islam. --Veiled One
I tried to be nice... yes, Farrakhan did say whites haven't evolved yet. But he also said that blacks weren't complete humans either. And yes, they do believe that Fard Muhammad is god. But, as I said, they worship Allah, not him. What about before Fard was born?
Also, why do you keep taking quotes from magazines? Is it that you don't hear Farrakhan with your own two ears? The magazines always take whatever he says and leaves part of it out to make it sound racist. This...means that something got left out. That's why they put it there.
And wherever you got that testimony from, it's wrong. The testimony is "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad(meaning Elijah Muhammad) is his Messenger". So that means that they believe that Fard Muhammad is Allah, not paired with Allah. And they sometimes also say "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad". That means that Allah is literally in the person of Fard Muhammad, not that he is with Fard Muhammad. So shirk does not exclude the NOI from the fold of Islam. AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
OPPOSE APMC: Again you are clearly mistaken again with the assumption that "I" am white and thus calling Fard and the Nation of I followers racist. I am quite African American and blatantly saying that they commit Shirk. So where in the Quran does it say that Allaah is "IN" a person? That is heretical in belief. Humans are fallible, Allaah is infallible. In one Surah it wipes out the entire belief of the Nation of I, Suratul Ikhlaas Qul huwa Allaahu ahad - SAy Allaah he is one Allaahus Samad - Allaah is ABSOLUTE Lam Yalid wa lam Yulad - He does not give birth, nor was given birth to (pay attention here) Wa lam yaqullahu kufuwan ahad There is NONE likened unto him. And FYI Muhammad in the actually Shahadatain of the Muslims upon al-Islam is referring to Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim etc. etc. whose lineage can be traced down to Ibrahim (The Prophet Abraham) and then to the tribes of Adam. This is proof of the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad not just some random joker who claims Islam (and a mixture of Masonic beliefs, Christian beliefs, Moorish Temple beliefs and a boatload of others). Where it is also mentioned in the Quran that the belief of the Christians are complete shirk and falsehood... so why doesthe "Nation" still teach out of the Bible that has been rudely tampered with and includes every kind of falsehood and NO you cannot discern what is falsehood and what is not when you are living in shirk and falsehood. And while Farrakhan speaks a great game to assist the African American brothers in uplifting themselves and strenghtening the race... this is not religion but rather a Black Nationalist Movement as I stated before. ONE quote I made came from a magazine... THE REST came from the books printed by the Nation of I and also from the FINAL CALL the actual newspaper printed for the Nation of I members. No I TRIED TO BE NICE... now you have brought nothing but ridiculous conjecture and feeble whims. Again incorrect information. SHIRK excludes ANY muslim from the fold of Islam. The Shahadatain is incorrect. Since the Shahadah is the first pillar of Islam and what ACTUALLY makes a Muslim into a Muslim.... the Nation of I are most definitely NOT Muslims. Whether they state Fard is Allaah, walks beside Allaah, has Allaah in him... is a God himself or whether they state that Elijah Poole Muhammad is the Messenger of the Fard Muhammad "spirit"... either way... the Shahadah is incorrect and therefore they are not MUSLIMS. Period... either way you look at it. Oh and FYI... the spirit or "Ruh" of Allaah that the Quran speaks about is the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) who brought Muhammad ibn Abdullaah (not Elijah Poole) the Quran. Without the REAL HAQQ, the true Islam... the Nation would have nothing to stand on.
98.233.105.177 (
talk)
20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne Veiled One 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne
Reading this page, most of what I see is people talking about how racist the NOI is, and how all they want to do is kill white people. You all sound more racist than anything I've ever heard from the NOI. I especially hate how veiled one keeps taking quotes from magazines, but doesn't want to say anything in full sentences, or take it from where it really came from. I really don't like to argue, but I won't sit here and let you keep lying without saying something. So Tell me ANYTHING Farrakhan said that you think is racist, and I'll explain why it's not.-- AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What you say is that God appeared in Wallace D. Fard then what god is that which needs an assistance in appearence?????
What type of your god is that is dead himself????
If he cannot control his death than he is not the GOD?????
What is the proof Elijah Muhammad is the prophet?????
Does he did any miracle which he shown to the whole world that proves his prophecy?????
Was that miracle been recorded and shown to the rest of the world?????
If black race is superior than why does the black race wants any other race to live in this world?????
What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????
What Black scientists did because neither in Quran and nor in Bible anything discussed about your Wallace D Fard (god),Black Scientists or anything else?????
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS ON FALSE BELIEFS AND THEOLOGY
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE AND TO THE MANKIND
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS MISGUIDING AND UNTRUTHFUL
Secondly, the Nation of Islam does not believe that Fard Muhammad is dead. They believe that he is on the mother plane, or as they are better known as, UFOs.
The Muslims believe that he will live to be at least 400 years old, but that he still has to die, because although he is God, he is still Human, and anyway, no one would want to live forever. Everyone you knew would die, and to keep everyone alive would eventually overcrowd the planet.
Even from a non-Muslim viewpoint, Elijah Muhammad can be considered a MESSENGER (not a prophet, because, according to the Muslims, he come to tell of things that WERE happening, not things that WOULD happen) because nothing he has ever said has been disproved. It has all been disputed, but never disproved.
A few months ago, I was on vacation in Chicago, and I saw six UFOs, and when I drove to the spot they seemed to be hovering over, I found that they were over MOSQUE MARYAM IN CHICAGO.
Very few incidents like this have been recorded, and unfortunately I did not have my camera at the time, but I have heard plenty of stories, most with many witnesses.
They do not believe that blacks are superior to any other race. According to the NOI, all races are equal, blacks just came first(technically blacks and Indians as well, but the NOI deals with mostly blacks, so they normally just say blacks, or they may consider blacks and Indians as one race, I'm not completely sure). And evolution actually supports this, because according to evolutional theory, the first people were from africa and had dark skin, but as they traveled away from africa, the temperatures became colder, any they no longer needed melanin as much, so their skin became lighter in color.
As for the question "What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????" I can't really understand it because of how you said it, but if it means what I think it means, then God has his own plans for the world, and if God is independent, as you so heavily emphasize, then why would he need some scientist or Bill Gates or some other rich man to do it for him.
As to your last question, you just sound stupid. If Fard Muhammad is Allah, then more is discussed of him that anything else in the Quran or Bible. Of course, it says Allah, not Fard Muhammad, why I could not tell you, but it does, this question makes no since. Also, according to the NOI, it was the 23 scientists(of that time) that wrote the Quran, which was written to summarize the events of the next 25,00 years, and they would not be alive in the next 25,000 years, so they had no reason to write about themselves. AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on Earth is this article placed in this category? These people are certainly not Muslims, regardless of what they call themselves (that is not opinion; it is FACT - read the Quran, and compare its contents to what these people believe). Josh ( talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I always thought that Nation of Islam didn't saw themselfs as part of Islam, but this article by Elijah Muhammad says that the whites should have joined Islam and criticizes them for not doing that. [1] So, from this article, there are some questions the entry should develop. What was generally speaking the view of whites according to the Nation of Islam? This article doesn't say they are naturally "evil" but that they should join mainstream Islam, obviously not the Nation of Islam that even today only is open to people from black origin. This entry needs someone with a better knowledge of the Nation of Islam that can clarify what are the current views of the Nation of Islam about whites and mainstream Islam, both Sunni, Xiite and Sufi. It also should show a bit more about their tenuous expansion to other countries. Mistico ( talk) 02:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has multiple violations of WP:NPOV. The talk page is nothing but biased arguments that have no place on Wikipedia. The article should follow Wikipedia's standards and that's all that matters.That's my two scents 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Why has all mention of the Southern Poverty Law Center's classification of Nation of Islam as a hate group been removed? SPLC does an extremely serious analysis before making this classification. Any organization that meets their criteria should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary sources, as their selections of material are essentially Original Research (OR), which is prohibited. Wikipedia defines "Reliable references" for editors to use as third-party sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. The NOI has been around long enough for substantial studies and articles to have been written about it. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources. Parkwells ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to add to the entry the stances of the Nation of Islam in several controversial issues. They are similar to mainstream Islam, since Nation of Islam also condemns abortion, euthanasia and same-sex unions. I think they also oppose the death penalty, from a article I once found in their official website. Mistico ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of homosexuality, the Nation of Islam view is very similar to mainstream Islam. Louis Farrakhan speaks for his religious group, when he states that he believes in the sublimation of homosexual instincts, according to his source [2]: "In his speech in Boston in August 1997, Farrakhan made the following statement about homosexuals: 'It seems like being gay or whatever sin you wish to be a part of is okay ... but I have the duty to lift that gay person up to the standard to ask if they want to live the life that God wants them to or live the lifestyle that they want to live." Mistico ( talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam is also pro-life. Louis Farrakhan and other members openly support pro-life movements in the United States. Louis Farrakhan is quoted at the Priests for Life official website as having stated at the Milliom March Family [3]: "Now, my dear sisters, I want to say something specifically to you, all the women that are here. Sisters, your womb is sacred./(...) Your womb is the workshop of the creator. I want you to hear me clearly. Every human being that we love and admire came from the womb of a female./How do your prayers get answered? Every one of us say a prayer. And those of us who saw loved ones die from cancer, have not you prayed that somebody would find a cure? Look at the children suffering from muscular dystrophy, from sickle cell anemia, from multiple sclerosis, those suffering from prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, but there are some medicines, but not cures. Wouldn't you like to find the cure for all these diseases? Where do you think the cure is going to come from? It's going to come from the womb of some woman, maybe some sister that is in this audience today./My dear sisters, I understand why you fight for pro-choice./Because you are tired of men using you for procreation and pleasure, and you want the right to say, "I don't want this life." I understand that. But don't let the extreme ignorance of the male cause you to react in a way that is not good for yourself or the future of humanity. You have the right to choose. Choose well the man that you're going to give yourself to./(...)Make a good choice, sister. Don't give yourself to a man just because he asks for you. Make sure he's the right man. That's pro- choice./(...)Now listen, in the Bible it says, "I set before you this day two signs, one of life, one of death. Choose life that you and your seed may live." Beloved sisters who are listening to me this afternoon, if you are now expecting a new life, I'm begging you, on behalf of almighty God, do not abort that life./(...)For that life that you are carrying, I promise you in the name of Allah, that life will be a blessing to you and a blessing to this nation and a blessing to the world. Every woman that is pregnant, put your hand on that life and hear me. I am telling you, in the name of almighty God, Allah, that what you are carrying in your womb is an answer to the prayer for peace./Because peace cannot come unless there's a peace- maker, and all peace-makers have come from the womb of a woman. Keep your hand on your womb and say, "I vow what is in my womb to almighty God, to serve him and to serve my people and humanity." And if you will let that life live, your seed will be blessed from now into the future." This is quite eloquent about their stance. Mistico ( talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This is their view on euthanasia [4]: "The nation of Islam says, "...the concept of a life not worthy living does not exist in Islam."(Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide) They do not agree with the fact that some doctor can come along and inject something into you and your dead. Even in cases of extreme human suffering, where you would expect a normal compassionate person to side with the man who is suffering, they say that the suffering is necessary, and part of God's plan." It's not the best source but confirms their oposition to euthanasia. Mistico ( talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam seems to support the death penalty from what can be found in this book: [5]. I don't know if they changed their official stance in the issue but some individual Nation of Islam members already took stances against the death penalty. 81.193.26.125 ( talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The chart comparing the beliefs of mainstream Islam to NOI seems accurate but a bit POV to me--rhetoric like "Not followed, created own, such as 4-6pm meal or avoid white-flour cake meals" contrasting the NOI with mainstream Sharia seem to characterize mainstream Islam as a more legitimate belief system. 131.191.106.197 ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not biased against Nation of Islam at all. The chart is there to show how Nation of Islam has unique beliefs, not shared by orthodox Islam. It would be like showing the main differences between the Church of Latter-Day Saints and orthodox Christianity. 85.240.20.167 ( talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As long as we are advertising in the article and especially in the lead can we please do it correctly? Listing the time Sunday school starts is good but probably not a complete list of church schedules. We could also list other church functions that surely would fall under the auspice of a good encyclopedia. I will concede that maybe the lead is not the best place but surely the second paragraph in the main body. I realize someone may think my comments facetious but I think the same thing of advertising church times in an article let alone the lead. I would think this article was well watched and would also think someone would question this. I am fairly new and learning every day so if there are exceptions to the advertisement policy for religious articles I apologize and my beginning suggestion for a complete list still stands. Other than that I think someone should look at WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, #1, and #5. #1 states, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious...", and #5 states, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.". Otr500 ( talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is a joke. It amounts to an extensive denial of the well established fact that the Nation of Islam is a racist and anti-Semitic organization. Farrakhan hasn't 'modified' his views on race and in fact his anti-Semitic ravings have actually intensified over the past few years, with the NOI newspaper "The Final Call" regularly featuring 'articles' drenched with paranoid anti-Semitism. Every issue promotes the anti-Semitic tome "The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews", which makes the absurd claim that Jews were the main driving force behind the enslavement of blacks, a book aggressively promoted by Farrakhan.
The people quoted defending the NOI against charges of racism do not represent the mainstream view of the organization, creating a dishonest image of the organization and how it is perceived.
The Nation of Islam's teachings on race are well documented. They teach that whites are devils created 6000 years ago by a mad scientist named Yakub.
Aside from his racism, Farrakhan has repeatedly made statements which suggest he is mentally unstable, such as his statement about being abducted by a UFO in the 80s (he's told many different versions of this tale over the years, changing it based on current events at the time).
In short, this article needs to be radically improved or else nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary, self-serving sources, especially as other academic studies are available. Wikipedia defines "Reliable sources" for editors to use as secondary sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of leaders' speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources. Parkwells ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I was reverted by an admin asking me to discuss the change on the talk page. I believe the table should be removed, again, for what I stated in my edit summary: "poorly sourced (possibly plagiarism), poorly worded, and not very enlightening ("all men are equal" - "all men are equal, but Blacks were first" - is that a divide?))"
The table is completely unsourced and it's not clear to me what it contributes to the article but an air of amateurism. 126.59.94.251 ( talk) 07:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The table comes from here. Pg 90. While the organization of the table is somewhat similar, the wording is substantially different - so I don't think it's a copy vio. To some extent even, I think the article table differs from the book table in a way that can't really be supported by the source. For example "Black people are pre Adam and Eve" is not in there (I don't know if this is a accurate statement about NOI beliefs). VolunteerMarek 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is a POV mess. It doesn't even use the word religion to define the Nation of Islam. Many of its sources are nonsense— this is cited, as are opinion columns—and it's a cherry-picked diatribe. I wonder if it would be better to blow it up and start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed two sources that didn't mention black supremacy. A third is missing a page number. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages us to think rather than blindly copy (or paraphrase) sources. I actually happen to agree that black separatism does not necessarily mean black supremacy, so I will go ahead and remove the "lesson plan" (still not sure what you mean by that). Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)WP:NOR requires that we edit based on what the sources say, not what we "really really think".
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Nation of Islam → Nation of Islam (religious movement) – I moved this article to Nation of Islam (religious movement). Please discuss why this is controversial? 'Nation of Islam' as a primary topic per its literal meaning refers to the Muslim world or the Islamic world. It can also refer to Ummah / Muslim Ummah, which is its literal Arabic translation and a notable term - and I see that it has a separate article from Muslim world for its use as a term (an insight for the consensus about its notability). This should be moved back. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{other uses}}
template will work just fine.)
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{other uses}}
template (for instructions on how to use it, please click
here).
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If a quote is overly long, we usually trim it to leave the essential parts. In Farrakhan's case, as any other successful public speaker, there are many "decorative" words that should be omitted when presenting the quote in an encyclopedia. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV, as long as it does not change the actual meaning of the quote – and in the Hitler quote case, it doesn't. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The movement's statements and practices correspond to the definitions of black supremacy and anti-Semitism, and that is covered by more than enough secondary RS. Therefore, saying "its critics accuse" is kind of like saying that "critics of lemons accuse them of being sour", naturally, violating WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
NOI is for black supermacism but i dont believe antisemitism..why has NOI been called antisemetic for believing jews had something to do with the slave trade? maybe their academics are off but it certainly doesn't make them anti jewish for it..black supermacism and racism is enough to describe the NOI Baboon43 ( talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of RS that describe their antisemitic behavior in a very detailed manner. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
when most people search to know about nation of islam they are not looking for weather they are antisemitic or not..the history of nation of islam has nothing to do with being antisemitic although it should be included in the article that they do attack jews it shouldnt be in the opening paragraphs..the start should be something like "(“Black Muslims”) are members of an American religious movement which initially only accepted African Americans as members. They considered whites as “devils,” supported the separation of black and white races, and desired to establish an independent black nation. Rather than using the term “Black Muslims,” which was coined by Lincoln in 1960, they prefer to be called Muslims of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam was founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace D. Fard" from brillonline...its unprofessional to jump to "its critics accuse it of... Baboon43 ( talk) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
a proper encyclopedia would not include critics "accuse it of" in my opinion but no doubt it should be in the article.. antisemitism came up in the late 90's...nation of islam is known by the world for their racism so i dont know why there's special wording to declassify types of racism by listing such antisemitism..tell me should Mel Gibson's bio include antisemitism in the lead? or you can list one or two critics and put down that they call it a hate group than the content should explain the specific issues Baboon43 ( talk) 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the other half of the statement that Whiteguru partially copied above: "there are plenty of secondary sources that reinforce the attribution of the organization's statements and deeds to anti-Semitism and black supremacy, so... no, it's not just criticism, these are plain definitions." Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
i dont think there's anything wrong with "its critics accuse it of" but since its in the lead it looks like a lazy summary of this organization..take a look at NOI overview on this website http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nation_of_Islam.aspx ..clearly racism is not even mentioned and also antisemitism critics are towards the end of this article..by the way can you give me sources for antisemitism and racism being different UN resolution? and NO based on my research its critic accusation not plain definitions of antisemitism but im not sure about black supremacy. Baboon43 ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Malik, you just pointed to a different essay, try reading the one I provided earlier... Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
so what exactly are you suggesting the header should say? can you type it in the talk page so we can go from there. also if you look at the New Black Panther Party article which is similar to NOI group has more of an NPOV heading than this one. Baboon43 ( talk) 08:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioning anti-Semitism in the article at all would be as anti-NPOV as it gets. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
its quite clear the articles lead is either bias or the editor was too lazy to do extensive research so he/she included the recent antisemitic allegations that happened in the late 90's and also included racism by critics but doesn't even care to mention who the critics are..lets not make wikipedia a newspaper..keep it encyclopedia standard Baboon43 ( talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
really? is it necessary to read the entire thread..probably in the next few months i think ill make an edit so you know where i stand as discussion is not really getting anywhere..since WP:CYCLE is effective. also WP:LABEL is quite clear in the article. Baboon43 ( talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At the time of closing, the first section of the lede reads:
"The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a syncretic new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity. Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic."
No single consensus has emerged from the conversation above. Some have argued that the 'Its critics...' wording should go, and that the narrative voice should baldly state that NoI is supremacist and antisemitic. Others have argued that it is neither of those things. On balance I think the form of words above iss a good, encyclopaedic compromise. It describes NoI in its own terms, and then in those of its critics (properly sourced). I do not intend that this wording should be seen as sacrosanct or set in stone. Doubtless it could be improved and may change with time. But for now it's a good, sourced, neutral statement meeting WP:NPOV. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
A major task of any encyclopedia is to explain the beliefs and teachings of religions. We are obligated to do this even if their beliefs make us uncomfortable. This is true for the NOI: One of the basic tenets of NOI teachings is that only blacks are fully human. White people are considered to be genetically and spiritually inferior to black people. They have been preaching this publicly for many years, and it simply is not honest or acceptable to deny this reality. Please do not censor this article by removing information on this point, especially since this point is already sources in three ways within the article, and more sources can readily be added.
An article can explain why its adherents accept these beliefs as true; it can explain how the adherents of this faith justify their beliefs, we can offer varying sources from the groups leaders, but we may not deny that these central teachings exist. RK
We have never said that whites aren't fully human. We say that they are not original. When you get a cd it is not the original cd but it is a copy. It still plays just as well but it just isn't held in as high a standard because you can go and create more cd off of the original. Black people are the original people so we are naturally made better equipped to handle the rough terrain of the earth better then white people. They're still human and even though scientifically the copy isn't as strong as the original we still treat the copy just like we treat the original, with justice.
OPPOSE: White people, brown people, black people regardless of who you are... are just as original as the person who precedes them. Just as you are just as original and human as your parents who preceded you or their parents who preceded them. The Nation of Islam is what it is... A black nationalist movement deadbent on the uplifting of the spirits of the black man and woman. Just as the Revolutionaries, Black Panthers and other such movements made noble efforts in. "The Nation" cannot attribute itself to "Islam" without the basic tenets of Islamic belief. Believing that there is "There is nothing worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger and last prophet." When Muslims speak of God they speak of Allah, not a man who claimed he was God or God incarnated in person. When Muslims speak of Muhammad they speak of Muhammad ibn Abdullah of 1400+ years ago who received the revelation from the Angel Jibril given orders from Allah NOT of Elijah Poole turned Elijah Muhammad after receiving enlightenment from another man who preached aggression and transgression. If the Nation of Islam was the "correct" way then why is it that the "Nation" was not the original practice of the Muslims? The obvious reason is because it is not the correct way at all. The original man was Adam. Not some race of pre-Adamites the Nation beliefs were here before Adam and Hawaa (Eve). Our Prophet Jacob is not some wild deranged scientist who wanted to "get back" at his people and came up with an elaborate scheme to develop "white" people by cancelling out the black gene... cross breeding lighter and lighter until white people became the majority and the rulers. Bogus, unintelligible rhetoric and feeble thoughts. We are not on Dr. Zhivago's Island! No man is greater than another in other than piety is the true belief of Islam. "You are not a true muslim until you want for your brother what you want him what you want for yourself" is what the true Prophet Muhammad said. "Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion. . ." The Qur'an 3:19, ... not "Nation of Islam", not the "Lost Found Nation", and not "The Nation of Gods and Earths (5% Nation of Islam)". Our Holy book is the Holy Quran NOT the "Message to the Black Man". Our examples of correctness is in the Sunnah and Hadith's of the Prophet Muhammad not in "Muhammad Speaks". I protest against the Nation and its wicked ideologies under the guise of "Al-Islam" and all who read should do the same, learn of their lies and if you are in then remove yourself immediately. The last 3 questions in the grave are "Who is your lord, who is this man and what is your religion?" At NO TIME!!! will my answers involve W.D. Fard Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad or Nation of Islam and God Willing none of yours will either or a horrible torture will befall us all. ----VeiledOne
OPPOSE:
That is the dumbest bullshit I have ever heard...
You NOI people are so delusional. Makes good sense why your cult is so damned small like Scientology or such.
We can all look up what Farakhan has said. What your ministers have said. The racist, and crazy statements about White People being created by a mad scientist and blah blah blah. Come on.. Why do NOI people get a say in how this is written. Just as I think it is advantageous for Libertarians to not write articles about Libertarianism or Mormons to write about Mormonism. Or Jews to write about anti-semetism.
AGREE:
We didn't say Yacub was a mad scientist, he was quite sane. Lets look at it this way, if you can't get black people from white or blacks from yellow or black from brown or black from red and black was first and the rest came and black have been here for millions of years before 6,094 years ago then white people came then there had to have been a conscious decision in bringing white people to this earth right?
OPPOSE:
YOur gonna get a crappy article with lots of bias, and over time the article becomes a propoganda page with edit wars and such. Let us find fact. We should use only fact to write about something. Save the bias for criticism sections or criticism pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satv365 ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire notion of "the Blackman (sic) is the Original Man and whites must be inferior copies" is profoundly devoid of logic. The current population of sub-Saharan Africa is not the unchanged, direct scion of the original homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago, and in fact no one knows what the first humans looked like. Most anthropologists guess that they were something like the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who have traits of many modern "races" of man. In Northern Europe natural selection favored fair skin that was able to absorb more vitamin D from limited sunlight, it makes perfect evolutionary sense and in no way demands ancient genetic engineering as an explanation. By claiming to be "Original", the NOI is ironically suggesting what has fueled white supremacist pseudo-science for centuries, the idea that blacks are closer than whites to the lesser great apes with whom we share common ancestry, that they're somehow "less evolved" and therefore less human. 76.19.26.248 ( talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"New and Improved White People!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.139 ( talk) 20:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Zebra Murders were a natural result of NOI's racist pseudo-theology which dehumanizes whites. Naturally they aren't mentioned here. (And naturally no one atlks about them in San Francisco anymore.) This page is propaganda.
I think there's a point to this complaint. The Zebra murders were a major historical event and the relationship between the murders and NOI is still a festering controversy that shouldn't be ignored. If there is a more authoritive source on the Zebra murders than the Clark book, I haven't been able to find it. Unfortunately, the book is a New Journalism effort, and often hides its sources and dramatizes events, thus obscuring what solid evidence existed. But it appears he did do considerable original research. I propose that we add something such as this:
There is considerable controversy over the existence or the extent of NOI involvement in the Zebra killers of 1973-'74 in San Francisco. Howard Clark's book "Zebra" cites Richard Walley of the California Department of Justice Intelligence Analysis Unit as believing that the conspiracy and the murders were more widespread than those attributed to the four convicted members of NOI and that they were NOI inspired [pp. 238,264]. He also quotes the Imam of San Quentin Prison (of World Community of Islam, which Clark says at the time of his writing, 1979, had replaced the NOI), as stating "although it will take us quite some time to erase our old image we will do just that by promoting brotherhood among all men" (14). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.23.156 ( talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is shockingly biased in favour of the NoI in that it describes the orginization as merely existing to help the "condition of black men and women". At the same time, there are multiple examples of high ranking NoI members stating that whites are unevolved, subhuman, demonic, inferior, and that white women and children need to be murdered. NoI members have been guilty of race based serial killing (DC sniper was for example, a NoI member as were many other men convicted of violent hate crimes), and yet NoI is not classified as a racist or hate group of any sort? The KKK has stated that it is not a racist or hate group, only looking out for white interests despite its violent past, yet nobody believes them. This is mirroring the NoI, yet the NoI seems to be fully pardoned, the articles introduction could even be considered praise and describing NoI as a civil rights group. Why is this? Can we please create a new introduction fitting for such a violent, hateful group closer to that of the KKK, regardless of what each one publically 'states' its 'goals' are despite all of their activities and history. And can we please learn the difference between hate groups like NoI and black activist groups that instead publically oppose racism such as the original black panther party, rather than advocate murder based on skin color the way NoI does?
Ive added that they are a racial segeregationist orginization in the intro, this is the very least that should be said in such a misleading article that paints a group who openly support genocide as a human rights resistance of some sort. If you need any justification for my claim that they are segregationist then here is one of their demands: "9. We want equal education -- but separate schools up to 16 for boys and 18 for girls on the conditions that the girls be sent to womens' colleges and universities. We want all black children educated, taught and trained by their own teacher."
—HOW IS THIS EVEN AN ISSUE??? I am a white American Muslim. I have read the Qu'ran in English and am on my way through it again. I am also taking Arabic classes, in part to learn to read this sacred text in its original Arabic form. My husband is a Sunni Muslim from the Middle East. We have regular discussions about the Qu'ran. I know for a fact that the Qu'ran NEVER states anything about black people being original and white people coming from black people. It is the LITERAL WORD OF ALLAH and it states that Allah, in his magnificent creativity, created people of all colors. Allah is the Creator, not humans. Allah made all that is on the earth and all that is in the universe. White people did not come from black people. All people were created by God. That is what the Qu'ran really says. If you don't believe this then you don't really understand a whole lot, do you? If you claim to follow Islam, maybe you should read the Qu'ran to get the facts about the creation of humans. We were not created to fight each other over who is or is not original or copied. We are all from Allah and all equally and beautifully created. Islam teaches thoroughly that Muhammad is the FINAL messenger of Allah. THERE WILL BE NO ONE ELSE. We are equal. Real muslims are peaceful and do not care about the color of skin, only the condition of heart. Instead of trying to fight about who is better or who is and is not racist, try seeking Allah. The Qu'ran is packed with scientific proof to back up all its claims. Where is the scientific proof that black people are original and white people are copied? The closer you get to the equater, the darker the inhabitants skin is. This is due to the fact that the suns rays are less blocked than in, say North America or England. The skin MUST be darker to protect the body from sun damage to the skin leading to CANCER, in this region of the world. In England, the sun is almost never out, which leads to paler skin because protection from the sun is not as vital. There you go. All this is scientifically proven, so go research it. -R Al-Tbour
You must have forgotten about genetics and how the dark genes are dominant and light genes are recessive. You can't get a dark color from a light color but you can get light colors from dark colors. The Earth was also once all connected and mostly every continent was near the equator so all would've been dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Rell ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
User:JohnBlaz removed the classification of NOI as a hate group by the SPLC citing it as POV. I restored it. Other hate groups are noted as such in the lead (see KKK or New Black Panther Party and the SPLC is a widely-respected source when it comes to labeling groups as hate groups. I also added the ADL classification of NOI as racist and anti-semitic. I'm bringing this here in order to avoid an edit war and if there's a consensus that it doesn't belong, then so be it. Lordjeff06 ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does this have a {{refimprove}} tag at the top? Is there a doubt about the veracity or notability of NOI? Sure, if certain elements are being contended, hit them with a {{cite}} or {{fact}} tag, but the entire article has enough citations to support it, doesn't it? Padillah ( talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"From 1978 to the present, Louis Farrakhan has been the leader of a reconstituted Nation of Islam, the original organization having been renamed and dissolved by Warith Deen Muhammad. The Nation of Islam's National Center and headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois, and is also home to its flagship Mosque No. 2, Mosque Maryam."
...so, what "Nation of Islam" actually is? A country? A religion? A fast food chain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. 66.57.187.206 ( talk) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The intro should be near the end, at least. An editor should correct this so no edit wars will occur.--neolandes 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neolandes (
talk •
contribs)
Location: Detroit - 11529 Linwood Ave
In June 1953, Malcolm X was named assistant minister of the Nation of Islam's Temple Number One.
Location: Chicago - 7351 S. Stony Island (Mosque Maryam)
In either late 1933 or the start of 1934, Temple No 2 was founded.
Location: Milwaukee, WI - 2507 N. 3rd. St.
Location: Washington, DC - 1525 Ninth Street, NW
Nation of Islam Temple #4, established in the early 1940s by Elijah Muhammad, was the first place of worship for Black Muslims in Washington, DC. The Nation of Islam was founded in the early 1930s as a religious movement grounded in the teachings of the Koran and adapted to the experiences of African Americans in the United States.
Sources: Claude Andrew Clegg, An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad (New York: St. Martin's University Press, 1998). Cultural Tourism DC: African American Heritage Trail
Location: New York (Masjed Aqsa)
Founded in 1946. In May 1954 Malcolm X was selected to lead the Nation of Islam's Temple Number Seven in Harlem.
Location: Boston
1952 - Malcolm X begins preaching for the Nation at Temple 11 in Boston
Location: Philadelphia
In March 1954, Malcolm X expanded Temple Number Twelve in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
By the time Elijah Muhammad died in 1975, there were 75 Temples across America. Muhammad's Temple of Islam, Information taken from the October 4, 1974 edition of Muhammad Speaks Newspaper
Location: St. Louis
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Location: Saint Petersburg, Florida
Having read 'The Fire Next Time' recently, I am displeased with the nature of the James Baldwin quote. Although Baldwin did express his recognition of the positive aspects of NOI, the essay from which the article quotes is much more critical of NOIs views, attitudes and strategies than complimentary... thus this to me is misleading, and only seems to support peoples comments about the lack of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.41.26 ( talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Mfm2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Those who follow the teachings of the NOI are NOT true Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine20 ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This article should really have a section on the organization and hierarchy of the NOI. I've been looking around for a source for this without much luck. I know there is an NOI constitution (and a new one under review), though I cannot find a copy online. I think the temple operate independently and kick up an administrative fee to the national organization, but again, no source. I read that there is a board of directors but finding it's membership has proved tricky. Any ideas? Links? NOI's website isn't much help. Njsamizdat ( talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it seems that the opening paragraphs are missing any mention of the most dominant force in the NOI history, namely Elijah Muhammad (born Elijah Poole). Why?! Why leave out the person who controlled (some would say molded and dominated) the NOI for more than 40 years? It seems like a ridiculous omission. Thank you. 123.218.147.5 ( talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In the History section of the article, W.D. Fard was referred to as a "child molester". I suspect this is vandalism, so removed it. If there's any source to this, it can be re-installed with ref. Papppfaffe ( talk) 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone knowledgeable on doctrine should help out making revisions to the Yakub (Nation of Islam) page. -- YakbutterT ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
From NOI.org "WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."
This statement clearly admits that the nation of Islam does not believe in one of the fundamental beliefs of all muslims that There is nothing worthy of worship but God and that Muhammad is His last messenger. That Allah is one and has no partners.
This should be addressed in the FIRST paragraph as one of the CORE beliefs of the Nation of Islam and "mainstream muslims" do NOT even believe the Nation of Islam to be muslims. If they do then they are clearly mistaken and have not researched the ideologies of the Black Nationalist Movement group. There is no Islam without the belief that Allah is God, without partners and Muhammad ibn Abdullah is his last servant, prophet and messenger. NOT MISTER Fard Muhammad or Elijah Poole Muhammad. VeiledOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veiledone ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And also, they don't hate anyone because of their color. I know plenty of muslims on the NOI who have white friends. Even Farrakhan has white friends. So if their leader has white friends, they can't hate white pe AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)ople.
OPPOSE: Awesome the nation believes that. I have heard what was said also. In 1997, for example, the Clarion-Ledger reported Farrakhan's characterization of "the white man" as the "anti-Christ." In March 2000 the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Farrakhan saying, "White people are potential humans ... they haven't evolved yet." At other times, he has referred to whites as "vicious beasts" and "the skunks of the planet."
They also do believe in God in the flesh according to such books as How to Eat to Live and Message to the Blackman and Comer by Night, where they repeatedly state "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad" and that Elijah Muhammad is the messenger. So NO they are not muslims because of the basis of their shahadah (testimony) that states I believe in Allah who came in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad and I believe in the messenger of Allah, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and his warner Louis Farrakhan". That is not the shahadah of the muslims. The NOI commits shirk (associating another being with Allah, as the NOI does!). Therefore Shirk takes them out of the fold of Islam. --Veiled One
I tried to be nice... yes, Farrakhan did say whites haven't evolved yet. But he also said that blacks weren't complete humans either. And yes, they do believe that Fard Muhammad is god. But, as I said, they worship Allah, not him. What about before Fard was born?
Also, why do you keep taking quotes from magazines? Is it that you don't hear Farrakhan with your own two ears? The magazines always take whatever he says and leaves part of it out to make it sound racist. This...means that something got left out. That's why they put it there.
And wherever you got that testimony from, it's wrong. The testimony is "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad(meaning Elijah Muhammad) is his Messenger". So that means that they believe that Fard Muhammad is Allah, not paired with Allah. And they sometimes also say "Allah, who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad". That means that Allah is literally in the person of Fard Muhammad, not that he is with Fard Muhammad. So shirk does not exclude the NOI from the fold of Islam. AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
OPPOSE APMC: Again you are clearly mistaken again with the assumption that "I" am white and thus calling Fard and the Nation of I followers racist. I am quite African American and blatantly saying that they commit Shirk. So where in the Quran does it say that Allaah is "IN" a person? That is heretical in belief. Humans are fallible, Allaah is infallible. In one Surah it wipes out the entire belief of the Nation of I, Suratul Ikhlaas Qul huwa Allaahu ahad - SAy Allaah he is one Allaahus Samad - Allaah is ABSOLUTE Lam Yalid wa lam Yulad - He does not give birth, nor was given birth to (pay attention here) Wa lam yaqullahu kufuwan ahad There is NONE likened unto him. And FYI Muhammad in the actually Shahadatain of the Muslims upon al-Islam is referring to Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim etc. etc. whose lineage can be traced down to Ibrahim (The Prophet Abraham) and then to the tribes of Adam. This is proof of the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad not just some random joker who claims Islam (and a mixture of Masonic beliefs, Christian beliefs, Moorish Temple beliefs and a boatload of others). Where it is also mentioned in the Quran that the belief of the Christians are complete shirk and falsehood... so why doesthe "Nation" still teach out of the Bible that has been rudely tampered with and includes every kind of falsehood and NO you cannot discern what is falsehood and what is not when you are living in shirk and falsehood. And while Farrakhan speaks a great game to assist the African American brothers in uplifting themselves and strenghtening the race... this is not religion but rather a Black Nationalist Movement as I stated before. ONE quote I made came from a magazine... THE REST came from the books printed by the Nation of I and also from the FINAL CALL the actual newspaper printed for the Nation of I members. No I TRIED TO BE NICE... now you have brought nothing but ridiculous conjecture and feeble whims. Again incorrect information. SHIRK excludes ANY muslim from the fold of Islam. The Shahadatain is incorrect. Since the Shahadah is the first pillar of Islam and what ACTUALLY makes a Muslim into a Muslim.... the Nation of I are most definitely NOT Muslims. Whether they state Fard is Allaah, walks beside Allaah, has Allaah in him... is a God himself or whether they state that Elijah Poole Muhammad is the Messenger of the Fard Muhammad "spirit"... either way... the Shahadah is incorrect and therefore they are not MUSLIMS. Period... either way you look at it. Oh and FYI... the spirit or "Ruh" of Allaah that the Quran speaks about is the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) who brought Muhammad ibn Abdullaah (not Elijah Poole) the Quran. Without the REAL HAQQ, the true Islam... the Nation would have nothing to stand on.
98.233.105.177 (
talk)
20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne Veiled One 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)VeiledOne
Reading this page, most of what I see is people talking about how racist the NOI is, and how all they want to do is kill white people. You all sound more racist than anything I've ever heard from the NOI. I especially hate how veiled one keeps taking quotes from magazines, but doesn't want to say anything in full sentences, or take it from where it really came from. I really don't like to argue, but I won't sit here and let you keep lying without saying something. So Tell me ANYTHING Farrakhan said that you think is racist, and I'll explain why it's not.-- AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What you say is that God appeared in Wallace D. Fard then what god is that which needs an assistance in appearence?????
What type of your god is that is dead himself????
If he cannot control his death than he is not the GOD?????
What is the proof Elijah Muhammad is the prophet?????
Does he did any miracle which he shown to the whole world that proves his prophecy?????
Was that miracle been recorded and shown to the rest of the world?????
If black race is superior than why does the black race wants any other race to live in this world?????
What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????
What Black scientists did because neither in Quran and nor in Bible anything discussed about your Wallace D Fard (god),Black Scientists or anything else?????
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS ON FALSE BELIEFS AND THEOLOGY
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE AND TO THE MANKIND
IN MY OPINION nation of islam IS MISGUIDING AND UNTRUTHFUL
Secondly, the Nation of Islam does not believe that Fard Muhammad is dead. They believe that he is on the mother plane, or as they are better known as, UFOs.
The Muslims believe that he will live to be at least 400 years old, but that he still has to die, because although he is God, he is still Human, and anyway, no one would want to live forever. Everyone you knew would die, and to keep everyone alive would eventually overcrowd the planet.
Even from a non-Muslim viewpoint, Elijah Muhammad can be considered a MESSENGER (not a prophet, because, according to the Muslims, he come to tell of things that WERE happening, not things that WOULD happen) because nothing he has ever said has been disproved. It has all been disputed, but never disproved.
A few months ago, I was on vacation in Chicago, and I saw six UFOs, and when I drove to the spot they seemed to be hovering over, I found that they were over MOSQUE MARYAM IN CHICAGO.
Very few incidents like this have been recorded, and unfortunately I did not have my camera at the time, but I have heard plenty of stories, most with many witnesses.
They do not believe that blacks are superior to any other race. According to the NOI, all races are equal, blacks just came first(technically blacks and Indians as well, but the NOI deals with mostly blacks, so they normally just say blacks, or they may consider blacks and Indians as one race, I'm not completely sure). And evolution actually supports this, because according to evolutional theory, the first people were from africa and had dark skin, but as they traveled away from africa, the temperatures became colder, any they no longer needed melanin as much, so their skin became lighter in color.
As for the question "What is god doing when scientists needs to make plans for the rest of the world?????" I can't really understand it because of how you said it, but if it means what I think it means, then God has his own plans for the world, and if God is independent, as you so heavily emphasize, then why would he need some scientist or Bill Gates or some other rich man to do it for him.
As to your last question, you just sound stupid. If Fard Muhammad is Allah, then more is discussed of him that anything else in the Quran or Bible. Of course, it says Allah, not Fard Muhammad, why I could not tell you, but it does, this question makes no since. Also, according to the NOI, it was the 23 scientists(of that time) that wrote the Quran, which was written to summarize the events of the next 25,00 years, and they would not be alive in the next 25,000 years, so they had no reason to write about themselves. AwesomePeopleMakeClay ( talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on Earth is this article placed in this category? These people are certainly not Muslims, regardless of what they call themselves (that is not opinion; it is FACT - read the Quran, and compare its contents to what these people believe). Josh ( talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I always thought that Nation of Islam didn't saw themselfs as part of Islam, but this article by Elijah Muhammad says that the whites should have joined Islam and criticizes them for not doing that. [1] So, from this article, there are some questions the entry should develop. What was generally speaking the view of whites according to the Nation of Islam? This article doesn't say they are naturally "evil" but that they should join mainstream Islam, obviously not the Nation of Islam that even today only is open to people from black origin. This entry needs someone with a better knowledge of the Nation of Islam that can clarify what are the current views of the Nation of Islam about whites and mainstream Islam, both Sunni, Xiite and Sufi. It also should show a bit more about their tenuous expansion to other countries. Mistico ( talk) 02:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has multiple violations of WP:NPOV. The talk page is nothing but biased arguments that have no place on Wikipedia. The article should follow Wikipedia's standards and that's all that matters.That's my two scents 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Why has all mention of the Southern Poverty Law Center's classification of Nation of Islam as a hate group been removed? SPLC does an extremely serious analysis before making this classification. Any organization that meets their criteria should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary sources, as their selections of material are essentially Original Research (OR), which is prohibited. Wikipedia defines "Reliable references" for editors to use as third-party sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. The NOI has been around long enough for substantial studies and articles to have been written about it. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources. Parkwells ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to add to the entry the stances of the Nation of Islam in several controversial issues. They are similar to mainstream Islam, since Nation of Islam also condemns abortion, euthanasia and same-sex unions. I think they also oppose the death penalty, from a article I once found in their official website. Mistico ( talk) 22:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of homosexuality, the Nation of Islam view is very similar to mainstream Islam. Louis Farrakhan speaks for his religious group, when he states that he believes in the sublimation of homosexual instincts, according to his source [2]: "In his speech in Boston in August 1997, Farrakhan made the following statement about homosexuals: 'It seems like being gay or whatever sin you wish to be a part of is okay ... but I have the duty to lift that gay person up to the standard to ask if they want to live the life that God wants them to or live the lifestyle that they want to live." Mistico ( talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam is also pro-life. Louis Farrakhan and other members openly support pro-life movements in the United States. Louis Farrakhan is quoted at the Priests for Life official website as having stated at the Milliom March Family [3]: "Now, my dear sisters, I want to say something specifically to you, all the women that are here. Sisters, your womb is sacred./(...) Your womb is the workshop of the creator. I want you to hear me clearly. Every human being that we love and admire came from the womb of a female./How do your prayers get answered? Every one of us say a prayer. And those of us who saw loved ones die from cancer, have not you prayed that somebody would find a cure? Look at the children suffering from muscular dystrophy, from sickle cell anemia, from multiple sclerosis, those suffering from prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, but there are some medicines, but not cures. Wouldn't you like to find the cure for all these diseases? Where do you think the cure is going to come from? It's going to come from the womb of some woman, maybe some sister that is in this audience today./My dear sisters, I understand why you fight for pro-choice./Because you are tired of men using you for procreation and pleasure, and you want the right to say, "I don't want this life." I understand that. But don't let the extreme ignorance of the male cause you to react in a way that is not good for yourself or the future of humanity. You have the right to choose. Choose well the man that you're going to give yourself to./(...)Make a good choice, sister. Don't give yourself to a man just because he asks for you. Make sure he's the right man. That's pro- choice./(...)Now listen, in the Bible it says, "I set before you this day two signs, one of life, one of death. Choose life that you and your seed may live." Beloved sisters who are listening to me this afternoon, if you are now expecting a new life, I'm begging you, on behalf of almighty God, do not abort that life./(...)For that life that you are carrying, I promise you in the name of Allah, that life will be a blessing to you and a blessing to this nation and a blessing to the world. Every woman that is pregnant, put your hand on that life and hear me. I am telling you, in the name of almighty God, Allah, that what you are carrying in your womb is an answer to the prayer for peace./Because peace cannot come unless there's a peace- maker, and all peace-makers have come from the womb of a woman. Keep your hand on your womb and say, "I vow what is in my womb to almighty God, to serve him and to serve my people and humanity." And if you will let that life live, your seed will be blessed from now into the future." This is quite eloquent about their stance. Mistico ( talk) 00:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This is their view on euthanasia [4]: "The nation of Islam says, "...the concept of a life not worthy living does not exist in Islam."(Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide) They do not agree with the fact that some doctor can come along and inject something into you and your dead. Even in cases of extreme human suffering, where you would expect a normal compassionate person to side with the man who is suffering, they say that the suffering is necessary, and part of God's plan." It's not the best source but confirms their oposition to euthanasia. Mistico ( talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam seems to support the death penalty from what can be found in this book: [5]. I don't know if they changed their official stance in the issue but some individual Nation of Islam members already took stances against the death penalty. 81.193.26.125 ( talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The chart comparing the beliefs of mainstream Islam to NOI seems accurate but a bit POV to me--rhetoric like "Not followed, created own, such as 4-6pm meal or avoid white-flour cake meals" contrasting the NOI with mainstream Sharia seem to characterize mainstream Islam as a more legitimate belief system. 131.191.106.197 ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not biased against Nation of Islam at all. The chart is there to show how Nation of Islam has unique beliefs, not shared by orthodox Islam. It would be like showing the main differences between the Church of Latter-Day Saints and orthodox Christianity. 85.240.20.167 ( talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As long as we are advertising in the article and especially in the lead can we please do it correctly? Listing the time Sunday school starts is good but probably not a complete list of church schedules. We could also list other church functions that surely would fall under the auspice of a good encyclopedia. I will concede that maybe the lead is not the best place but surely the second paragraph in the main body. I realize someone may think my comments facetious but I think the same thing of advertising church times in an article let alone the lead. I would think this article was well watched and would also think someone would question this. I am fairly new and learning every day so if there are exceptions to the advertisement policy for religious articles I apologize and my beginning suggestion for a complete list still stands. Other than that I think someone should look at WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, #1, and #5. #1 states, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious...", and #5 states, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.". Otr500 ( talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is a joke. It amounts to an extensive denial of the well established fact that the Nation of Islam is a racist and anti-Semitic organization. Farrakhan hasn't 'modified' his views on race and in fact his anti-Semitic ravings have actually intensified over the past few years, with the NOI newspaper "The Final Call" regularly featuring 'articles' drenched with paranoid anti-Semitism. Every issue promotes the anti-Semitic tome "The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews", which makes the absurd claim that Jews were the main driving force behind the enslavement of blacks, a book aggressively promoted by Farrakhan.
The people quoted defending the NOI against charges of racism do not represent the mainstream view of the organization, creating a dishonest image of the organization and how it is perceived.
The Nation of Islam's teachings on race are well documented. They teach that whites are devils created 6000 years ago by a mad scientist named Yakub.
Aside from his racism, Farrakhan has repeatedly made statements which suggest he is mentally unstable, such as his statement about being abducted by a UFO in the 80s (he's told many different versions of this tale over the years, changing it based on current events at the time).
In short, this article needs to be radically improved or else nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is flawed by over-reliance on quotes from the NOI website and statements of leaders. Editors are not supposed to use such primary, self-serving sources, especially as other academic studies are available. Wikipedia defines "Reliable sources" for editors to use as secondary sources, preferably in peer-reviewed (academic) or reliable publications. Editors need to use these rather than quote from the website and transcripts of leaders' speeches for material. This is why the banners for more citations and sources have been posted. In addition, when books or other sources are used, editors need to indicate the page of the reference, not just the overall source. Other readers need to be able to find the content themselves in the sources. Parkwells ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I was reverted by an admin asking me to discuss the change on the talk page. I believe the table should be removed, again, for what I stated in my edit summary: "poorly sourced (possibly plagiarism), poorly worded, and not very enlightening ("all men are equal" - "all men are equal, but Blacks were first" - is that a divide?))"
The table is completely unsourced and it's not clear to me what it contributes to the article but an air of amateurism. 126.59.94.251 ( talk) 07:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The table comes from here. Pg 90. While the organization of the table is somewhat similar, the wording is substantially different - so I don't think it's a copy vio. To some extent even, I think the article table differs from the book table in a way that can't really be supported by the source. For example "Black people are pre Adam and Eve" is not in there (I don't know if this is a accurate statement about NOI beliefs). VolunteerMarek 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is a POV mess. It doesn't even use the word religion to define the Nation of Islam. Many of its sources are nonsense— this is cited, as are opinion columns—and it's a cherry-picked diatribe. I wonder if it would be better to blow it up and start over with a new article, using neutral sources like The Black Muslims in America, The Nation of Islam: Understanding the Black Muslims, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, etc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed two sources that didn't mention black supremacy. A third is missing a page number. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages us to think rather than blindly copy (or paraphrase) sources. I actually happen to agree that black separatism does not necessarily mean black supremacy, so I will go ahead and remove the "lesson plan" (still not sure what you mean by that). Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)WP:NOR requires that we edit based on what the sources say, not what we "really really think".
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Nation of Islam → Nation of Islam (religious movement) – I moved this article to Nation of Islam (religious movement). Please discuss why this is controversial? 'Nation of Islam' as a primary topic per its literal meaning refers to the Muslim world or the Islamic world. It can also refer to Ummah / Muslim Ummah, which is its literal Arabic translation and a notable term - and I see that it has a separate article from Muslim world for its use as a term (an insight for the consensus about its notability). This should be moved back. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{other uses}}
template will work just fine.)
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{other uses}}
template (for instructions on how to use it, please click
here).
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If a quote is overly long, we usually trim it to leave the essential parts. In Farrakhan's case, as any other successful public speaker, there are many "decorative" words that should be omitted when presenting the quote in an encyclopedia. This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV, as long as it does not change the actual meaning of the quote – and in the Hitler quote case, it doesn't. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The movement's statements and practices correspond to the definitions of black supremacy and anti-Semitism, and that is covered by more than enough secondary RS. Therefore, saying "its critics accuse" is kind of like saying that "critics of lemons accuse them of being sour", naturally, violating WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
NOI is for black supermacism but i dont believe antisemitism..why has NOI been called antisemetic for believing jews had something to do with the slave trade? maybe their academics are off but it certainly doesn't make them anti jewish for it..black supermacism and racism is enough to describe the NOI Baboon43 ( talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of RS that describe their antisemitic behavior in a very detailed manner. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
when most people search to know about nation of islam they are not looking for weather they are antisemitic or not..the history of nation of islam has nothing to do with being antisemitic although it should be included in the article that they do attack jews it shouldnt be in the opening paragraphs..the start should be something like "(“Black Muslims”) are members of an American religious movement which initially only accepted African Americans as members. They considered whites as “devils,” supported the separation of black and white races, and desired to establish an independent black nation. Rather than using the term “Black Muslims,” which was coined by Lincoln in 1960, they prefer to be called Muslims of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam was founded in Detroit in 1930 by Wallace D. Fard" from brillonline...its unprofessional to jump to "its critics accuse it of... Baboon43 ( talk) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
a proper encyclopedia would not include critics "accuse it of" in my opinion but no doubt it should be in the article.. antisemitism came up in the late 90's...nation of islam is known by the world for their racism so i dont know why there's special wording to declassify types of racism by listing such antisemitism..tell me should Mel Gibson's bio include antisemitism in the lead? or you can list one or two critics and put down that they call it a hate group than the content should explain the specific issues Baboon43 ( talk) 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Brief neutral summary of the issue: Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization. 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the other half of the statement that Whiteguru partially copied above: "there are plenty of secondary sources that reinforce the attribution of the organization's statements and deeds to anti-Semitism and black supremacy, so... no, it's not just criticism, these are plain definitions." Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
i dont think there's anything wrong with "its critics accuse it of" but since its in the lead it looks like a lazy summary of this organization..take a look at NOI overview on this website http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nation_of_Islam.aspx ..clearly racism is not even mentioned and also antisemitism critics are towards the end of this article..by the way can you give me sources for antisemitism and racism being different UN resolution? and NO based on my research its critic accusation not plain definitions of antisemitism but im not sure about black supremacy. Baboon43 ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Malik, you just pointed to a different essay, try reading the one I provided earlier... Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
so what exactly are you suggesting the header should say? can you type it in the talk page so we can go from there. also if you look at the New Black Panther Party article which is similar to NOI group has more of an NPOV heading than this one. Baboon43 ( talk) 08:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioning anti-Semitism in the article at all would be as anti-NPOV as it gets. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
its quite clear the articles lead is either bias or the editor was too lazy to do extensive research so he/she included the recent antisemitic allegations that happened in the late 90's and also included racism by critics but doesn't even care to mention who the critics are..lets not make wikipedia a newspaper..keep it encyclopedia standard Baboon43 ( talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
really? is it necessary to read the entire thread..probably in the next few months i think ill make an edit so you know where i stand as discussion is not really getting anywhere..since WP:CYCLE is effective. also WP:LABEL is quite clear in the article. Baboon43 ( talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At the time of closing, the first section of the lede reads:
"The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a syncretic new religious movement founded in Detroit, Michigan by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in July 1930. Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States and all of humanity. Its critics accuse it of being black supremacist and antisemitic."
No single consensus has emerged from the conversation above. Some have argued that the 'Its critics...' wording should go, and that the narrative voice should baldly state that NoI is supremacist and antisemitic. Others have argued that it is neither of those things. On balance I think the form of words above iss a good, encyclopaedic compromise. It describes NoI in its own terms, and then in those of its critics (properly sourced). I do not intend that this wording should be seen as sacrosanct or set in stone. Doubtless it could be improved and may change with time. But for now it's a good, sourced, neutral statement meeting WP:NPOV. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)