Talk:Nation of Islam

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

Anti-American category[edit]

MagicatthemovieS, I can only guess as to why NoI equates the US with the biblical Babylon since the article doesn't clarify that and I cannot access that source. I presume it is a reference to the biblical Israelites being in bondage and presumably analogises African Americans' position in the US. I am fairly certain that it is WP:OR to immediately translate that into NoI belongs in anti-American category though.

Most significantly, in WP terms, do most sources describe NoI as being anti-American and more precisely, why beyond this vague analogy? I have never seen any sources that do describe NoI thus, though of course being highly critical of the position of African Americans in the US and of US racism in general are very much defining features of NoI.

On a more prosaic level, puritanical/socially conservative US churches, especially protestant ones perhaps, routinely compare modern US or Western society to Sodom and Gomorrah. Are they all anti-American too? Or is that simply them employing a biblical analogy to express disapproval?

I'm going to revert your addition, since the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that being "Anti-American" is seen by sources as being a defining feature of the NoI. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I didn't know my edits were gonna get immediately published[edit]

If someones upset about my edits I'm sorry please remove my edits. Also it seems the page expanded a lot after I edited. I just think they are a legitimate school of Islam. Ruston Barbour (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also

I removed the white race and changed it to the wicked ones who have not accepted Islam in spirit... because I don't think they are calling for racial genocide, they are just telling it like it is. Ruston Barbour (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heir apparent to Farrakhan, and Minister of Mosque No. 7[edit]

For some reason deleted .. seems notable enough for inclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nation_of_Islam&diff=1127553324&oldid=1127368763 2603:7000:2143:8500:6D0D:C3C7:DCA6:FCCD (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Heir apparent" is just journalese of course - not an official, or even widely used term. I would not object to a mention, a sentence or two, or what used to exist, a "members and former members" section. But I agree with the remover that this coverage was excessive - he isn't regarded as very important in most histories of the NoI AFAIK - unlike Malcolm X for example. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cult?[edit]

It's been called a cult over and over. Let's reflect that on this page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

This is how this 1951 source is described on the site which published (parts of) it in 1995: While Dr. Sahib was undoubtedly fluent in his native language, the same cannot be said for his writing skills in English. For this reason one can only speculate as to whether the carefree syntax which often infuses the transcribed interviews of NOI members is mainly the product of the interviewer or the interviewee. Like most theses, Sahib' was hardly intended for publication in its original form and would have required extensive revision had he submitted it or sections thereof, to a journal or publishing house.
So this doctoral thesis from 1951 - was at the time unpublished and unpublishable. This is not a good source upon which to describe the NoI in the lead or infobox, and I have reverted the addition. Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MagicatthemovieS, you are asking the question the wrong way round, the question isn't "where is the source that justifies NoI being a cult, the real question is "do the majority of sources say it is a cult?". If not it doesn't belong in the lead and if only a relatively small number of recent sources say so, then it may or may not deserve a mention in the body as a criticism, rather than as a fact. If almost none, then no mention at all. Some people will always think that all religions are cults, or cult-ish, Pincrete (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources need to call it a cult before we can call it a cult? I don't get why it would be an issue if all the sources were new.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
How many sources need to call it a cult before we can call it a cult? the answer to that isn't a number, but it would need to be a clear majority of good sources to describe it thus as a fact. A smaller number would make it an (attributed) accusation. Seriously out of date ones or newspaper 'opinion pieces' from non-notables or in non-notable sources, would hardly justify a mention. Some atheist after all think all religions are cults! Pincrete (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So most of the good sources used in the article have to use the word "cult" before we can?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Before we can state it as a fact, and give it prominence, yes. If a respected org or a significant number of lesser sources have it as an opinion, we can record that opinion - much as we record its reputation for anti-Semitism and anti-gay rhetoric toward the end of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
The issue with these newer edits is that AFAIK we still lack a legitimate authority/expert that the statement can be properly attributed to. The "Forward" piece is written by a student with no qualifications; it's a "reader letter", so it doesn't count as a reliable source. I'd also not use Derek Brown, who's a journalist rather than a respected authority on cults; and I'd not use Christopher Hitchens, who called many things cults, and is also not an authority there. DFlhb (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[link] says cult experts Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross called the group a cult. Is this enough for a line saying "Cult experts Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross have classified the group as a cult?"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Yes; thanks, that really looks like a great book. Feel free to add that; that book has quite a bit more on NoI that I'll try adding later if I have time. DFlhb (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: Thoughts?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
a). The link you give says Hassan and Ross mention NoI on their website (dedicated to fighting cults) … that doesn't outright mean they say it IS a cult - they may simply mention in passing. I couldn't follow the cite in the book to verify that … b) content should be in the body before being in the lead, since the lead is simply a summary of the whole article,. Otherwise it seems OK for an attributed mention as you propose. I agree with DFlhb, on a quick look there appears to be other good stuff in 'your' book - including about NoI's relationship with mainstream Islam. Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the sentence I came up with OK? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IF they actually do describe it as a cult … the source isn't that explicit whether they do, or simply mention NoI. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On page 22 of Hasan's dissertation, he cites an NOI incident as an example of "Litigation involving cults."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
A passing mention in a doctoral thesis would be a very poor source for such a claim. Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are theses unreliable?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
That's not the issue, although some might be. A passing mention is probably WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://inthesetimes.com/article/an-exemplar-of-reconciliation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked both. Ross is available at [1]. He only links to press reprints, only a single one of which includes the word "cult" (in a quote of Michael Jackson's ex-wife). His site has a prominent Disclaimer that says the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult", and since he provides no commentary of his own calling it a cult, this isn't usable.
Hassan's site includes a very similar disclaimer, and also provides no commentary of his own. All reprints he links that call NoI a "cult" are from Islamic leaders, but we already cover their criticism inline, and they only mention the term "cult" in passing (rather than being a serious analysis of whether it's a cult), so the term "cult" wouldn't even be due if attributed to them.
So I retract what I said; the sources still don't support adding this. DFlhb (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Unequivocal Presentation of the NOI as a Form of Islam[edit]

Hello. I wanted to post in response to an editing dispute between User:SamuelRiv and I, to see if there are other editors who might want to weigh in. The issue in question surrounds whether the article should unequivocally present the NOI as a form of Islam. Given that the NOI's beliefs differ on almost every point from Islam, that no other Islamic group recognises them as Islamic, and that there does not seem to be a clear body of scholarship arguing that the NOI is Islamic, I do not think that we should be claiming, as if it were uncontested fact, that the NOI is a form of Islam. I think we should use more accurate language, such as that "The NOI presents itself as a form of Islam". SamuelRiv seems to disagree, believing that if the NOI calls itself an Islamic tradition, then Wikipedia should too. Perhaps this is something that might be settled with an RFC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it should be noted, in terms of the BRD process, that the longstanding status quo of the article has been to avoid unequivocally calling the NOI Islamic. This status quo has been changed repeatedly by SamuelRiv in recent months (in August 2023 [2] and, on being reverted, again in November 2023 [3] and again, just now, in December [4]). The appropriate course of action would be for them to self-revert and try to seek consensus first, rather than edit warring to impose their desired change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a previous consensus, as the issue hasn't been discussed on the Talk page in years, and never in depth. Lack of attention isn't consensus. I first came to this article in response to an RfC on using SPLC criticism in the lead, and that raised some similar issues but in the end only got a vote on what to do with that critical material. Maybe there's been a status quo of using weasel words in the lead, but that's not proper. The most recent discussion on NOI vs Islam from 2016 was two editors and argued essentially the same point I will -- that if WP is going to take a stance that a contemporary religion is not really the religion they claim to be (in cases when it's not simply some deception) then that's a slippery slope that's about as POV-pushing as you can get.
NOI is pilloried theologically in Fishman and Soage 2013 before asking why despite heterodoxy cum heresy cum apostasy, much of the global Muslim community largely embraces NOI. We may look from the outside say "A can't be part of B because it contradicts B", but that kind of thing happens all the time throughout history in the necessary intermesh of religion and politics. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing in here. Firstly I don't think present text (it practices a form of Islam, although this differs … ) does "unequivocally present the NOI as a form of Islam" - certainly not a mainstream form. I was concerned about the previous text (It identifies itself as practicing a form of Islam … ), not necessarily because I share the same concerns as SamuelRiv, but because it's a bit vague and ambiguous. The 'identifies itself as practising' implies that NoI says of itself we practice a form of Islam, whereas I'm sure they say we practice Islam. I'm sure we and sources agree that there are massive differences between NoI and 'Old World' Islam's beliefs and practices, and many 'Old World' muslims find NoI unrecognisable. But ecumenical considerations appear to outweigh any tendency to reject NoI outright - as incidentally happens with many US/Old World forms of Christianity. The beliefs and practices of 'privatised' US evangelical churches are often unrecognisable to European traditionalist Christian groups.
There may be a better way of recording how NoI differs from mainstream Islam, and how the two relate, but I don't think that the previous text achieved that. For reasons of clarity as much as anything, I endorse the present text until something better is proposed. Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking the same thing! J E F-T (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Differing from mainstream Islam" puts it very, very mildly. Just the initial premise that there were a number of mortal gods called Allah is enough by itself to place it beyond the pale of Islamic belief. "Quasi-Islamic" or "pseudo-Islamic" is a better description. The Fishman and Soage paper makes for fascinating reading on this. — The Anome (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Muslim sources that say that is nigh-on impossible in my experience. The source you give says: Although the NOI has done much to popularize Islam in the U.S., the Nation’s religious beliefs bear little resemblance to traditional Islamic theology. While the Nation shares a common vocabulary with Muslims around the world, the NOI’s teachings concerning God, cosmology, Prophet Muhammad and the afterlife can be deemed heterodox, or even heretical, by Islamic standards. But despite its vast ideological differences from the international Muslim community, the NOI has come to be seen like a partner, even an ally, by many in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Which is a pretty accurate summary, but what we can use from it, I'm not sure. Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it's pretty easy to find Christian sources arguing definitively that Mormons or Catholics or Lutherans (going back a bit on the latter) are not real Christians. Are we seriously discussing adding weasel words to what is both the self-identification and community identification of a religion? I mean, Shelly, c'mon! SamuelRiv (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find many more traditional European christian groups voicing an opinion on 'privatised' US Evangelical churches - whose theological beliefs (such as they have any), are more focused on Old Testament embracal of death penalty/gun-ownership/demonising Adam and Steve than anything which europeans would recognise as christian. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term "quasi-Islamic" describes the NOI quite accurately. See

Walker, Dennis (2018-10-03), Trompf, Garry W.; Mikkelsen, Gunner B.; Johnston, Jay (eds.), "Elevating the family in the Nation of Islam: discerning the "gnostic factor"", The Gnostic World (1 ed.), Routledge, pp. 553–562, doi:10.4324/9781315561608-52, ISBN 978-1-315-56160-8, retrieved 2024-01-08, So- called "Black Islam" can be examined as three integrally related Islamic or quasi-Islamic sects in America: the Nation of Islam led by theological inspirer Wali Fard Muhammad [...] and the new Nation of Islam conducted by Minister Louis Farrakhan Muhammad (1933–) since 1978.

for a source. — The Anome (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the majority of sources say a "quasi-islamic sect" - even this one doesn't say it unequivocally. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nation_of_Islam&oldid=1217246538"