Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation for universal rejection of Yakub by monotheistic branches[edit]

"All other branches of Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism, reject these assertions" (that Yakub is the biblical Jacob).

This statement sounds broadly true. I don't need a reference to know that the Vatican rejects the story of Yakub. However, there are thousands of branches of Christianity / Islam / Judaism. We can't say that all branches reject Yakub unless we interview the heads of each of these branches.

"Shocked" Muslims[edit]

Observant Muslims might well have "reacted with shock" to the doctrine of Yakub because both the separate creation of different races, and the accompanying racial superiority/inferiority, are both contrary to Muhammad's rather specific comments in his last sermon, one of the great foundational texts of Islam.

Specifically, the relevant part of the Last Sermon reads in translation as:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white — except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

With superiority that means who has authority over another. That person doesn't control me and i don't control him. His skin color is weaker then a black person's because a black person's skin color would show up more then a white person if those two races had a baby.

I imagine that the "shock" was mostly their realization that they were talking to a crazy person. -- The Anome 10:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone crazy give measurements of the Earth that Albert Einstein, one of your smartest men, couldn't do. In the 1930's we knew the measurements of the Earth and universe. You're crazy not to belive him.

Are you people telling me that people in modern-day America believe that anglo-Americans were created by an "evil black scientist" on a Greek island a few thousand years ago? If black people are stupid enough to believe that, no wonder they are easily dominated by the white man, as they cliam. -195.93.21.134
That's a racist comment if I've ever seen one. We are born with the intellect that God gave us, no more, no less. African Americans may embrace a number of unconventional ideas that seem foreign or even "stupid" to you and I, but for you to disparage them for it is just ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of their constant struggle to survive in an advanced society. -TrevorMay 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that black people "struggle to survive in an advanced society" is racist and patronising in itself. Stupid ideas are just as stupid whoever has them, and to treat one group more indulgently is act as if they are children, who can be forgivern for having naive ideas. That's truly insulting. Paul B 06:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically speaking, members of some groups in general have more or less difficulty prospering in an advanced society. Some of this stems from the ability to handle math, science, language, etc. This is not racist, it is just the way things are. If somebody is born with less intellectual capacity than yourself, it is your duty as a human being and as a member of the civilized world to treat them with respect, understanding, and dignity, even if they wind up making a number of poor decisions or holding beliefs that you find irrational. -TrevorMay 04:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor, you have got to be a social worker or other liberal. Paul, I agree with you. Liberal racism is just as strong as ever, and allows the "niggaz," as they tend to refer to themselves, to continue to think they are superior to other people.JBDay 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. And I thought Christian Fundamentalists were crazy. -Neural 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's perfectly understandable for foreign cultures that are less "enlightened" to modern sciences and logic will come out with what we Westerners would call "stupid". But I'm sure to a manual labourer who's never seen a post-comprehensiv e education will not see this in the same way as us. To me personally, this is just as "stupid" as Christianity. Henners91 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia.

the lads who dreamt this up were a crowd of washers away with the fairies

So if the black man made the white man then they have no one but themselves to blame for their problems. I like this idea. It isn't the white devil's fault, its the black man's. But seriously, how did a black genetic scientist come to be on the Island of Patmos 6,000 years ago when scientist didn't exist at the time?

Irony[edit]

If one wishes to play word games as Yakub-ists are wont to do, then how is it reconciled that Heather Locklear's middle name is "Deen," which is an Arabic word essentially meaning "all-encompassing/lifestyle?" It has a strong meaning in Islam specifically, but other faiths use it as well. Her father is Lumbee, and they have +- 50% SSAfrican genetic material in their DNA. The Lumbee may have Moorish/North(East) African ancestry as well, as most likely do a lot of triracial groups. Perhaps that is originally where "Deen" in her family came from, although Sephardic Jews and or Christians from that region may have contributed as well. Farakhan told black men to stay away from "Heathers," meaning "white" women, but blacks fall for every scam perpetrated by darker skinned eastern Caucasians such as Fard? Word games...In Malta, they call "God," "Alla," no "h." JBDay 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESQ TIENE UN NOMBRE MUY FEO SE DEBERIA LLAMAR BRAWAN QUE SE PRONUNCIA BRAWAN BUENO PERO EL NOMBRE DE YACUB NO ES PARA EL ES LA VERDAD.

Truth? English, please. JBDay 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those unsigned posts by registered users never fail to amuse me. Cowards.JBDay 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohistory[edit]

I deleted this category. I find it fanciful; even farcical, but this is a religious belief. Wikipedia does not take a position on truth. We are neutral and that category is anything but neutral when applied to religion or its beliefs. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) It is still psuedohistory just like the nephites of the book of mormon--Java7837 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put it under catagory of racism? JBDay 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Why not, indeed. Done.Kar98 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but while delete the "Sacred History" cat? Cannot a sacred history be racist? Me thinks so...--Rojerts 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to find this page in the category of 'racism' with no more discussion on the topic but the above. Your simple misunderstanding or disagreement with an historical perspective does not seem to me to qualify that perspective as racist. What, exactly, are the conditions to be included in the category, and on what basis does the history and teachings of Yakub thereby qualify? I'll delete this page from the category, pending the resolution of this discussion. Llamabr 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if "white race — a race of devils" does not qualify as racism, I don't know what does. Kar98 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


They won't put it under racism because the author of the belief is black. It's as simple as that. Trying looking up articles under racism, racist violence, etc., and you will find almost NO mention of anything that would indicate that a black person could be a racist. And the one single article I did find "beat up a white kid day" under racial violence that was black/hispanic on white violence, there were like dozens of people asking for the article to be deleted. Stating it was of local interest only - or one person who just said "oh that's so terrible, we just delete it and forget it because violence is wrong" Oh OK then, did that same person ask for any of the white on black racial violence to be deleted? NO - I checked. There is WAY TO MUCH BIAS on Wikipedia in the favor of minorities. If a black man calls caucasions "white devils" then that IS RACIST !! Are you being willfully ignorant or please tell me what it would take for something a black person does to be racist? From what I can tell, on wikipedia, even murder is not good enough.Rebeccaamerocco (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is properly placed in Category:Black supremacy, which is already a sub-category of Category:Racism. Of course this is racism, but we should avoid redundant categorization. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jew rant[edit]

"...to reposition him as the originator of white people as a whole (including Jews)."

What's the point of mentioning yews as also belonging to the white race, why must they be so distinctive? And there are jewish members of the black race (to be politically correct), so that kind of stands against NOI policies. I understand, yews have suffered a lot in the past. But why keep pushing it beyond all reason? They want the same rights as everyone else. Then why *must* they always be mentioned separately? I got nothing against jewish religion or, if it indeed is a separate race, jewish people, except that they try to overequalize themselves. I understand that many will now think of me as an "anti-Semitic nazi estonian" (as if it wasn't bad enought that extremist russians call us so), and I will leave the decision, whether it should be removed or not, to someone else, for maybe I am anti-Semitic and just do not acknowledge it. BlahBlah, Woof Woof... Too much writing over a small thing that isn't really that important. Graphomaniac Laur Joost 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for mentioning Jews specifically is because Jacob in the Bible is only the parent of the Isrealites - the forefathers of modern Jews. However in some versions of British Israelism the ten Lost tribes of Israel are construed as the forefathers of White People in general. The Yakub story evolves from that theory. Paul B 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakub the same as Jewish/Chrisitan/Islamic Jacob/Yacoub?[edit]

I wonder if the person referred to by this article is the same person referred to as Jacob/Yacoub in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.160.46 (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, is the "Yaqub" in Islam "the same" as the "Jacob" in Christianity? These are stories. Are the orcs in Tolkien "the same" as the orcs in Dungeons & Dragons? How are you going to identify characters in one story with characters in another? You need a "canon", and an authority fixing the canons. You then can then follow your authority, or else simply make up a couple of more stories on your own. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question should be, is the Yakub in Nation of Islam the same as the the prophet in Judaism/Christianity/Islam, because Yakub is certainly the same Jacob in Christianity or Yakob in Judaism. Note that there is no j sound in Hebrew. Yakob is spelled with a yod. The third letter gimel is a g sound and equivalent to the Arabic ǧīm. But while the Arabic ǧīm has a j sound, the Hebrew doesn't. So the Anglicized Jacob cannot be spelled in Hebrew, even if it can be closely approximated in Arabic. At any rate, the original name is Yakub/Yakob. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. But notable?[edit]

Notability would imply reception in independent, third party sources. Such coverage of NOI as I can find in a hurry dedicate typically a brief paragraph to Yakub. I am not sure this is sufficient for a standalone article. We could as well just briefly mention the idea in a discussion of NOI racism more generally at Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I find it interesting to note that current estimates place the first development of light skin to some 12,000 years ago: Wallace Fard Muhammad's "6000 years ago" aren't all that far off. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction needs to be re-written to provide clarity BUT This is a notable article and should be maintained - with some Neutral Point of View language revisions. --YakbutterT (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on light skin actually says the mutation occured 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. Stillwaterising (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP[edit]

I don't see that this page meets WP:GNG by means of doing a web search but I don't think that's an accurate picture. WP:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement has pages like List_of_Book_of_Mormon_people but I don't see notability being disputed there. What's important is that this is part of the core beliefs that influence NOI and Black supremacist. Whether this garners much attention in mainstream media isn't important; notability in this case is derived from it's influence on notable events and people. Therefore, Yakub (Nation of Islam) is an important footnote in the bigger picture of understanding those who believe in it. Stillwaterising (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to keep is becase 30 articles link to this page. Stillwaterising (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see zero reason for either the deletion or merging of this article, which has been in existence for many years now. And there are no arguments presented here to do so. Its notablility should not be in doubt. As any trawl of google books will indicate, the NOI Yakub myth has been the subject of extensive discussion. No-one has seen fit to add such tags in all the years that this article has existed. The tags were added after I drew attention to the fact that an NOI "believer" had attempted to rewrite the article to express literal belief in this story. That version is long gone. User:Simonm223 sees fit to refer to the current version as a "trainwreck of an article". I really wonder whether he has even bothered to read it. He has offered no useful suggestions whatever. If there is no helpful discussion I will remove the tags again after a week. Paul B (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archeological Evidence[edit]

The Patmos page says that archeological evidence shows that the islands first inhabitants were around 2000 BC. I would be interested in see what racial characteristics their bones have and what the DNA record may show on their ancenstry. It would round out the article to present some scientific evidence to help prove or refute the story. I'm sure there some apologetics views on this too. Furthermore, what's the scientific view of this theory in general? Stillwaterising (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that anyone has taken this story seriously enough to research the racial characteristics of bones on Patmos. It's not appropriate to introduce scientific evidence to refute the myth unless the extant literature does so, which I doubt. There is a fair deal of academic material on its socio-historical significance in the context of early 20th century Eugenics and millenarian ideology. Paul B (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how does their doctrine account for....[edit]

....the fact that Yakub was black himself? Never giving a motivation for why he wanted to create a "magnet race" that would rule over those like himself (black people) through "tricks and deceit" seems very counter intuitive being that would mean a future hegemony over those like himself. 98.246.62.216 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern View of the Yakub Story[edit]

The article once had these paragraphs, who were later removed: "In recent times, the doctrine of Yakub has been rationalized within the NOI as an allegory for the evolution of whites from the original dark-skinned human populations of Africa and as a parable warning of the dangers of eugenics. Yakub's 600-year experiment is seen as storytelling, similar to the way some modern Abrahamic religions view the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib. In his autobiography (written by Alex Haley), Malcolm X notes that, in his travels in the Middle East, many Muslims reacted with shock upon hearing about the doctrine of Yakub." Is this true or the Nation of Islam still helds to the belief of Yakub? Its a important question to be answered.Mistico (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, while Louis Farrakhan doesn't say it openly, he seems to still believe in that, according to this interview: "TR: Last year you gave an interview to Henry Louis Gates, a professor from Harvard, in New Yorker magazine where he asked you whether you still subscribe to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad on Yakub, a Black scientist who 6,600 years ago created the white man, and that by the end of the 20th century, a spaceship will come and rain down upon white people and people who don't embrace Islam. Do you subscribe to the teachings of Yakub, that Yakub, the black scientist, created the white man?

MLF: I subscribe to every word that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us. You know, it's not unreal to believe that white people-who genetically cannot produce yellow, brown or black-had a Black origin. The scholars and scientists of this world agree that the origin of man and mankind started in Africa and that the first parent of the world was black. The Qur'an says that God created Adam out of black mud and fashioned him into shape. So if white people came from the original people, the black people, what is the process by which you came to life? That is not a silly question. That is a scientific question with a scientific answer. It doesn't suggest that we are superior or that you are inferior. It suggests, however, that your birth or your origin is from the black people of this earth; superiority and inferiority is determined by our righteousness and not by our color."

NPOV: Pseudoscientific racist alternate history and not even addressed as such.[edit]

Well, this is embarrassing. Given the poor quality of this article and the fact that besides some damage control from mainstream Islam this story is presented as if it were factual (enough that some on the talk page are asking 'is this true', not to mention a brief google shows it cropping up all over black-supremacist propaganda sites,) this managed to hit Reddit's front page and generate a lot of controversy which is quite shameful as a redditor (Hi reddit! We're not racist here, we just can't police the quality of all articles, and the batshit insane will always flout their views in public as though real!) and a wikipedian on multiple levels.

Steel didn't exist when he was playing with it, nor did a means to magnetize steel. Meccans were at odds with Islam (see the Caravan Raids). It goes without saying the story is utter insanity wrapped in a bun, and where such pseudoscience and alt. history appears in other religions it is addressed as such for clarity.

I don't even know how this has stayed in such poor quality for so long without being noticed, I mean the line of where encyclopedic article stops where the insanity begins. It is, without doubt, pseudoscience. It's sole purpose is to denigrate the 'white race' with some alternative history racist take on Gargamel creating Smurfette. It's presented in a manner that makes it NPOV, and I literally double handed face palmed when I read it.

The problem is, given the fact I am utterly appalled by the state of the article and disgusted at the content of the subject being covered I cannot possibly be considered neutral--regardless of my ability to remain neutral the quality of neutrality could be challenged by anyone who knows me and my disdain for racism regardless of which 'race' is the victim--and thus have to simply ask it's current editors who aren't habitual crack smokers and have actually read an encyclopedia before to realize it's not a hate manual to please step up and try and fix this mess before it makes the news rather than just front page to one of the internets largest crowd-linked interest groups.

We ought to keep in mind the way that we manage issues like this in other articles, one article that immediately comes to mind is Black people and early Mormonism, although Mormon's realized the error of their ways and ceased racist policies gradually from the 1890's onwards with various retractions and expunging of racist doctrines. Again something that isn't even addressed, that these beliefs are still held. I will flag this as NPOV pending some attempt to make this article less despicable and of an encyclopedic quality. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about? It's a story. Of course no-one in their right mind believes it. The only thing that's ridiculous is the fact that you have spent several paragraphs earnestly explaining why it's unlikely! Of course if you can find scholarly discussion of the Yakub story, that can be added. The literature on NOI doctrine and history is still rather small. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Paul B. Of course. NPOV tag removed.--Farry (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to add some material on this. It would be good to get some stuff on whether there has been discussion within the NOI of Yakub as a symbolic rather than a literal figure. Paul B (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yakub (Nation of Islam). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience[edit]

We need to make it clear in the intro of the article that this person didn't exist and that the story is absurd and pseudoscientific. Plus, there probably should be a section dedicated to the absurditiy of this article's claims too. Karl.i.biased (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats how it works for all other crazy/conspiracy related stuff. I don't see why it should be different here. The article reads like this is scientific or historically accurate. Its obviously not and it is an insult to any right-minded human visiting this page, but we all know that not only right-minded people reads about this. There is a following believing in the authenticity of this story, hence it should be more obvious that this is dealing with fiction and/or pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.32.156 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is an article about a religious belief, not an article about a pseudoscientific belief. Should we identify Transubstantiation as pseudoscientific? Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has, and had when this discussion started, the words "in the beliefs of the Nation of Islam" in the opening sentence, so it does make it clear that these are not being presented as facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientific consensus rejects the historicity of this figure." seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And labeling it as a "belief" really cements that this is not science right off the bat. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OP was blocked as a sock last March. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that statement is cited to an article in a NoI publication expounding the thesis and attacking rabbis for saying otherwise. Surely we can do better. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement are we talking about? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the one that you brought up here. Try reading the source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snarky. I made the rather silly error of looking for a publisher with the name "noi". Now that I am looking at the right place, yeah, that source completely fails to meet our standards as a reliable source, plus the source doesn't match the claim. Removing it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?[edit]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yakub_Islam#Hoax.3F makes the argument that

"The late David Mills, a writer who worked on the TV series The Wire and owner of the blog Undercover Black Man, declared Yakub Islam to be a hoax ... Mills, meanwhile, concluded that the hoax was the work of a white supremacist. 'If Yacub and the "Negro Sun Worshippers" were indeed a "fast-growing movement" across the country, there'd be black people talking about it online', he said. 'but the only places online where you'd see discussion of it is was largely white forums, even neo-Nazi forums. That's where the troll was spending is [sic] time. Why? Because he wanted white people to read his websites. A genuine "black supremacist" would want black people to read his website.' "

Now of course rationalwiki isn't a RS, but like Wikipedia, the entry links to citations, at leas some of which might be OK.

There is an obvious counterargument to this theory, Beliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam#Teachings on race contains a direct quote from Elijah Muhammad talking about Yakub. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that whole section is sourced to a couple blogs. I don't see how the opinions of some non-expert bloggers is at all relevant to this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the blogspot post that the RationalWiki cite links to, I don't see how it even vaguely supports the claims made. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the ratwik (not derogatory, I just want to save some syllables and make it flow -- rats are cool! they like small vehicles!) page, it does not seem like "Yakub Islam" is the same religion of NOI, or even a splinter group with a closely related theology. Hence I do not think the "Hoax" part applies to the concept of Yakub in NOI.
In fact, ratwik has a page dedicated to NOI, where there is a serious mention of Yakub. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

User:Dudsud How does the footnote that is the source back this? “ Historians have noted the story's parallels with some comparable historical events, but doubts have been raised about its overall legitimacy.<ref name="mos" /“?

And what exactly is this:[1]? No author, no context, doesn’t seem to meet WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the improperly sourced additions to the article. Dudsud (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudsud Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)&oldid=1211575769"