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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.235.204 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Comparison with traditional Islam

Arthur Dent Lives, I have largely reverted your edits for two reasons. The first is neutrality, in the context of a belief, this means that we do not define a belief according to whether it conforms to another belief. Were we to do so, Anglicanism and Protestantism would be simply defined as 'heresies' (the RC position, and I even know of a Jewish academic who thinks all Christianity is a Jewish heresy). Ordinarily (and in this instance), we present the similarities and differences neutrally, without implying that either is 'fake'.

The second reason is that the source you used is poor, is Michael Young a noted Islamic scholar? Does he have authority to speak on behalf of 'mainstream Islam', or should this simply be treated as his opinion? I am prepared to believe that many Muslims see NoI as a 'heresy' or abberation, for that reason I left part of your text (Because of these differences, the Nation of Islam is not recognized by some mainstream Muslims.your ref), despite the poor sourcing.

Even with a controversial subject like Creationism, we ordinarily present the belief first, and then note that mainstream science largely dismisses this belief as unscientific, we don't use the dismissal to replace or characterise the belief. There may be stronger Islamic sources dismissing NoI, if so that would justify a stronger 'dismissal', however it could never justify dismissing NoI beliefs altogether. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

On a related point, the Italian Muslim Ass source simply does not include the long quote we use, nor does it discuss NoI's position on Hadj, Ramadan etc. in any detail. What appears to most offend the IMA is the NoI's interpretation of 'one God'. I am happy to think that many Muslims reject NoI, but to follow my analogy above, many European christians see N.American evangelical churches as, at best, incomprehensible, at worst, heresies, but we would not use a single journalist and a relatively obscure branch of Anglicanism, to pass judgement on them. Might I suggest that rather than including every 'snipe' in the 'differences' section, a subsection of criticism be created to put Muslim criticism of NoI and more authorative sources be found. Malcolm X himself was relatively critical late in his life and there surely are Islamic scholars who have questioned NoI's doctrines.Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I see what you are saying and I am somewhat new at editing wikipedia so I am not going to argue about the material. I tried to find better sources but none seem to exist in this case. Scholarly work exploring the perception of the NOI by other Muslim groups seems to be very scarce. My related work in Detroit has brushed up against the idea that Muslim Americans have distanced themselves from the NOI, but I have nothing published or seen anything on that in specific. This may be an ongoing issue for any topics related to Islam, as there is no central authority in the religion such as a Pope who can definitively make a decree on such a thing. Anyone could claim the status without embracing the core message of the religion. Without a rooting in the Christian and Judaism traditions, as Islam followed, it is difficult to believe that a religion can claim the relationship with Islam just by using the name and some aspects of the practice. Maybe we can figure out a way to improve wikipedia's approach to this type of issue, a "teach the controversy" type approach to discuss the possibilities in the absence of a referee that can make the call. Arthur Dent Lives --Arthur Dent Lives talk 14:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be fairly suprised if feelings between NoI and mainstream Islam were wholly fraternal. Especially as Islam is (relatively) homogenous (without the history of schisms, nor the variety of interpretation and practice of Christianity for example). I think it would be a legitimate addition to the article, if reliably sourced Islamic criticism were added. I think this would be best put in the 'criticism' section, rather than modifying the 'beliefs' section. If such criticism doesn't exist (for any reason), we can't wish it into being. I'm more aware of disagreements within Christianity, and there, authorities often simply ignore what they cannot fix, even when they don't like it. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete I see what you are saying, but are not weak sources better than no sources? The current section stands alone and is basically a parrot of NOI claims which are not sanctioned by any other body of Muslims. Islam is hardly homogeneous with the many sects of Sunni, sects within the Shia, Sufism, syncretic formulations with the Druze and Sikh. If the NOI believes that a scientist from millions of years ago created white people on an island, while Islam, along with Christianity and Judaism believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve, and that line of scripture, how is that not rooted in their beliefs? The five pillars of Islam are related to behavior and worship, and only touch on belief. There is not more published literature on the matter because NOI publishes saying they are part of Islam, and Muslim sources do not really both to engage much in what NOI is other than those websites that declare it kufir. --73.172.235.204 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)