Talk:Nation of Islam

Beliefs

That portion of the entry is inadequate. No mention at all of the explicit racism of NOI? Dare I say this article is a whitewash? Nicmart (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't complain, edit. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It is also inaccurate because it cannot be similar to mainstream Islam which believes in the same cosmology as Christianity and Judaism, Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, etc. The NOI is a completely different imagination of creation and people's interaction with God. I have edited several times that become "fixed" back to the same nonsense that the NOI is similar to mainstream Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Islam and slavery

How does the NOI reconcile the historical fact that Islamic slave traders sold their ancestors into bondage? Why would they take on the religion of their oppressors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.225 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Because they are hate-ridden ignoramuses. Quis separabit? 03:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New religious movement

The group should be described as a new religious movement

SAGE knowledge [1] Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452244723.n356)

"The Nation of Islam is known as a religion, empowerment organization, new religious movement, or black nationalist/separatist group, depending on the speaker and audience"

Calling the group an "Islamic religious movement" is a POV issue, given the section on divergence from mainstream Sunni Islam. WP:LEAD says to summarise the article. -- Callinus (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We call Mormons Christians despite their extreme deviation from traditional Christianity, how is this different? Doug Weller talk 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Islam believes in the creation of the universe in agreement with Judaism and Christianity. The NOI has a completely different idea of how the world was made, and is not fundamentally related to mainstream Islam. Claiming the status does not change the fact they have fabricated their own beliefs from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. I'm sure we could pile up sources that refer to the Nation of Islam as a "new religious movement" or as an "Islamic religious movement" (a description you replaced, Callinus) and I suspect the two piles would be of about equal height. I did a very quick look, and it appears that most of the religions described as new religious movements in New religious movement#History are not so described in the first or second sentences of their articles.

To me, there are two questions. The first is must we choose between the two descriptions, when both are clearly right? The second, and in my mind more important, is which conveys more useful information to the reader? The second half of the first sentence of this article is "founded in Detroit, United States, by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930." What does "new religious movement" add before that? What does "Islamic religious movement" add before that? Which phrase better serves the reader of the first paragraph of the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Malik's analysis and think 'Islamic' more useful, so long as the article is clear about the distinction between 'Islam' and -ic.Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Identifying Reliable Sources means finding legitimate, secondary sources from places like academic publications, and preferencing those over self-published materials.

"two descriptions, when both are clearly right" - no, "Islamic religious movement" is self-declared by the group, who assert themselves to be a form of mainstream Islam, in their own self-published sources. NRM is a term used by third party academics who describe the group's syncretism of religious tradition into their novel movement. The former description is clearly wrong. Wikipedia does not need to give false balance when one side has no evidence except self-published works. You assert there is an "equal height" of sources declaring the NOI to be an "Islamic religious movement". Are they published by reliable, secondary sources academic as required by WP:IRS?

Try a google books search for "nation of islam" "islamic religious movement" and "nation of islam" "new religious movement". You will find that the term "islamic religious movement" is used only three times in print, two of which are 2016 books plagarizing wikipedia. The term "New religious movement" has a history of being used in real, secondary, academic works that appear in print (eg "The A to Z of New Religious Movements" "A guide to new religious movements" "Essentials of Sociology" "The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements"). @Malik Shabazz: -- Callinus (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See Religious Outsiders and the Making of Americans 1987 - something that pre-dates Wikipedia plagarism by lazy authors and journalists. -- Callinus (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Do you think you're the only editor here who has read WP:V and WP:IRS? What makes you think your academic definition is the only right one, and any other is "clearly wrong"? What chutzpah!

What makes you think I did a goddam Google search? Do you think I'm too stupid to use a library? Do you think the sources I've used to write featured articles come from the bottom of a goddam box of Cracker Jack?

Is Herbert Berg, author of Elijah Muhammad and Islam (2009, New York University Press), and who knows a thing or two more about the Nation of Islam than you ever will, clearly wrong? Is Edward E. Curtis IV, author of Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960–1975 (2006, University of North Carolina Press), clearly wrong?

You know what? I don't need this shit from an editor who just discovered this article yesterday. I'll be back when the swelling in your head has gone down. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is incorrect on wikipedia. The NOI should be defined as a new religious movement that claims to be associated with Islam but has no factual basis for that relationship and a completely alternate creation myth.

"Black Muslims"

I restored the statement that the movement is/was referred to as the Black Muslims. This term isn't used much since the 1970s, but certainly was a name used for the Nation especially in the prisons, even if it's not used much now.[2] generic_hipster 11:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've linked to the DAB, Black Muslims which makes it clear that the term is sometimes NoI, sometimes off shoots, sometimes other fringe US groups, sometimes any black Muslim. Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe the name came from C. Eric Lincoln's The Black Muslims in America (1961), the first or second book about the Nation of Islam. As Malcolm X wrote in his autobiography (I'm paraphrasing), "we didn't like the name, but it stuck." — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have access to Lincoln's book, I see that he wrote in the preface:

The racial emphases peculiar to this rapidly growing, Chicago-centered movement suggested the descriptive phrase "Black Muslims," which I coined in 1956 and which has been widely used since to designate this group.

As far as what Malcolm X wrote:

Just as the television Hate That Hate Produced title had projected that "hate-teaching" image of us, now Dr. Lincoln's book was titled The Black Muslims in America. The press snatched at that name. "Black Muslims" was in all the book reviews ... The public mind fixed on "Black Muslims." From Mr. Muhammad on down, the name "Black Muslims" distressed everyone in the Nation of Islam. I tried for at least two years to kill off that "Black Muslims." Every newspaper and magazine writer and microphone I got close to: "No! We are black people here in America. Our religion is Islam. We are properly called 'Muslims'!" But that "Black Muslims" name never got dislodged.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

86.137.60.115 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)