Talk:Nation of Islam

Welcome to the Talk Page for the Nation of Islam article. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of the page, and do not delete messages of others.

Avoiding edit wars

I am a Wikipedia administrator and I feel that I personally can take a NPOV on this article. My involvement was simply that I write about the Beltway Sniper Attacks and follow-ups as the trials, etc. have progressed. My main focus is other things related to Virginia. I do not have strong feelings about NOI one way or the other.

This article has been going through edit and revision "wars", which is not unusual for controversial Wikipedia subjects. However, that is not the best way for us all to end up with articles which meet Wikipedia standards. I respectfully suggest that, if you want to add factual content to the article, fine. If you want to dispute what someone else had written, this is a good place to bring your case and cite your sources. If what you are writing is controversial, it won't hurt to say so. We want the article as whole to present a neutral point fo view, so POV positions while be so labeled and there will be every attempt at balance of facts to reach a NPOV in the presentation. Anyone who wants to can leave me messages on my Talk page (User Talk:Vaoverland as well as here. Mark in Richmond Vaoverland 19:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Racism

Don't reply racism with racism. We are all human beings, I hope the Nation of Islam doesn't still think we're "demons created from the evil scientist Yakub", because we're not. There are good and bad people in every race. I'm Irish and the Irish did not enslave anyone, it was the English who did that. My ancestors were immigrants who had to become indentured servants to pay off their debts and they supported freedom for African-Americans. - Anonymous.

This sentence makes no sense: --Chuck Smith

It was based on the doctrine that out of all the nations of the earth, Black people, the only nation without any knowledge of their past history, no control of their present lives, and had no guidance for their future.

NPOV complaint

This article seems seriously non NPOV. Especially with regard to the demons decleration. Even if the NOI does refer to white people as demons, from what I have read about them they would appear to be using a word in a different sense then most would immediately think, and therefor the word should at least be better defined in article.

Is the NOI really a black supremacy group? Do they really (or still?) teach that white people are literally and no foolin' non-human demons rather than real live humans who are inhumanly wicked and demonic? --Uncle Ed 19:19 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. In English the word "demon" has always been used in a variety of ways. As for the useage in this article, there is no problem because this article defines precisely what it is the that NOI adherents teach about whites as demons: They teach that all white people are genetically engineered monsters that are designed to murder and lie. We may find their teachings bizarre, false and reprehensible, but we have an obligation to present them accurately, with their own terminology. RK 17:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

This "cult" website says so [1] (http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/islam.asp), but I don't automatically trust groups who claim to describe what "cults" believe. On occasion, I have found major distortions of the actual teachings in these sites. --Uncle Ed

I much prefer the tone of this webpage (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Nofislam.html), from a univeristy website which has a very accurate and comprehensive article on my church (the Unification Church) as well. --Uncle Ed

That page is incomplete, and doesn't examine all of these issues in the same depth that our article exmaines them. RK 17:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It would appear from the page you have linked directly above that the premise of the white man being the devil is still one that can be associated with the movement. I am highly wary of the namb.net site you list above, and I wouldn't base any wikipedia text on a site so blatently non-neutral Tompagenet 17:22 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the major US watchdogs that focuses mostly on Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, considers the NOI a hate group, and lists it on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan, New Black Panther Party, World Church of the Creator, and other such racist groups. --Delirium 13:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Edit justification

I removed the sentence below because the referenced article did not actually discuss the beliefs or policies of the organization, Nation of Islam. The article consisted solely of quotes by Louis Farrakhan. While there may be some connection based on Farrakhan's lengthy leadership of the organization and the failure of the organization to publicly repudiate those views, I believe they are better discussed in the Farrakhan article. Rossami 06:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A separate article, Nation of Islam anti-semitism, describes this group's history of anti-Semitic preaching.

That makes no sense. Louis Farrakahn is the leader of the movement. It is his job to define the movement's teachings. Would you say that the teachings of Popes have no role in an article on Catholicism? We should not remove POVs to whitewash this article. I am not reverting your edit, but am disagreeing with your premise that Farrakhan doesn't belong in this article. RK 17:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad - a prophet?

The Nation of Islam has never made any claim that Elijah Muhammad was a prophet. Where did this come from?

In the autobigraphy of Malcolm X the text concerning the Nation Of Islam says so... Don't know more about it

The Nation has always referred to Elijah Muhammad as a prophet! deeceevoice 09:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad referred to himself as a Messenger of (or from) God. 216.158.31.195 13:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current relationship with Sunni Islam

Haven't they recently officially become Sunnis?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan has attempted to bring about a reapproachment with mainstream Orthodox Islam, specifically Sunni Islam. However, he has not repudiated any of the traditional beliefs of the Nation of Islam's theology (see the new section within this article.) Therefore most Sunni Muslims see these outreach efforst as a publicity stunt. Those Sunnis who know the details of NOI theology totally reject any cooperation with NOI adherents, unless they reject NOI theology. However, I am sure that there are many Sunni Muslims around the world who know nothing of the NOI's controversial teaching's and beliefs, and thus may be willing to accept them as Muslims based solely on their name (i.e. The Nation of Islam.) Some individuals within the Nation of Islam have denounced NOI theology and have embraced orthodox Islam. I have no idea if any numbers are available on this issue. RK 16:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Many of Farrakahn's peers have clarified the issue: Farrakhan still believes that W.D. Fard is god incarnate, and that Elijah Muhammed still should be thought of as an actual messenger from god, i.e. a prophet. RK 17:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Revisions for sections controversial items

My point is, for the good of the article and WP readers, let's separate the undisputed facts and history, present them in an organized and NPOV way, and list the controversial matters as just that, and try to provide room for the various points of view, with the understanding that they are, by their very nature, controversial.

Too much has been in the news media about Michael Jackson and John Allen Muhammad to not mention them, and provide some balance in discussions. I will watch the article and help try to follow what I have just said. I hope other contributors, whatever their views, can accept that as a good attempt at fairness. I also run spell checkers fairly often, and I think that I cleaned up some spelling errors without damaging content. I recommend the free ieSpell program as an easy one if you are a contributor. Thanks to all. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

So-called "controversies"

I agree wholeheartedly with Vaoverland.

Michael Jackson: This should be removed. It does not rise above the level of trivia and has no bearing on the NOI. It belongs, if anywhere, in an article on Michael Jackson.

Beltway Sniper: This also should be removed. It has absolutely no bearing on the NOI. The killings were not carried out in the name of the NOI. JAM merely had a past affiliation with the NOI as a member. JAM's killings are no more connected to the NOI than, say, Hitler's atrocities are to the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, they're even less connected. If an entry of this type were inserted into Christianity every time a white Christian committed a heinous crime -- say, the James Byrd lynching, or the the murders committed by Jeffrey Dahmer -- the article would go on forever. Further, I live in Washington, D.C., the area where the killings occurred. Here, where people are more sophisticated/sensible about such things, there was no "controversy" over JAM's previous affiliation with the Nation. It was noted, and that was that.

This kind of tackily, incidental stuff reads like gossip and seems more appropriate (if it is ever appropriate anywhere) in The National Enquirer or some Midwestern, right-wing rag -- not on Wikipedia.

They've been deleted. deeceevoice 10:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am adding back the small section about beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad. The facts are 1. this man was a member of NOI 2. he used some of its teachings through some form of his twisted mind to influence his younger partner, and 3. together they pulled off this murderous rampage and attempted to extort $10 million.

I feel that it is better to mention all that and LK's handing than to try to ignore it completely. I do agree that the Michael Jackson item doesn't rise to that level to be worthy of mention. (IE so-and-so said that so-and-so said, etc.). However, court testimony, multiple published and attributed sources and LK's statement are all part of the Beltway Sniper tragedy.

The fact is that any religion can be twisted by individual(s) for personal gain. I am only glad for one (sad) thing: the victims crossed racial age and sex lines so no one can confuse the acts with racial motivation.

Vaoverland 10:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

White supremacists do the same thing -- twist Christian theology to justify their hatred of blacks and other people of color. In a few years' time, the fact that JAM once belonged to the NOI won't be of much interest to people. They'll see it for what it is -- an ancillary fact. The only reason it appears here is because the events in which he was involved are fairly recent. And there was no "controversy" about JAM's previous association with the Nation -- not even locally, where sensitivity over the killings was highest. Again, consider parallel events committed by other individuals/groups -- and then I invite you to investigate the article on the applicable religion. Do you see it referenced under "Controversies"? No. This should not be here. And, no. After reading your attempted justification for reinserting that information in the article, I certainly wouldn't provide information for you to write up! I prefer to write it myself. Thanks, but no thanks. Peace. deeceevoice 10:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We may not hide beliefs of any group or religion

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

Organizational beliefs and tenets vs. alleged and asserted statements

RK, your assertions of NOI beliefs obviously are not based on actual NOI organizational beliefs and tenets but rather external sources--many of which are obviously NOI-hostile--that certainly do not hold to NPOV encyclopedia standards.

Perhaps there should be another section called, "Non-Officially Stated Beliefs" where one can add such text but that seems quite illogical, IMHO.

Your claims are incorrect. Have you ever been to a Nation of Islam speech in person? I have. Have you ever read the articles in their newspapers? I have. Have you ever read "The Autobiography of Malcom X"? I have. Have you ever read "The End of White World Supremacy" (a book of four long speeches) by Malcom X? Have you ever read any of the speeches of Elijah Muhammed? I have. All these teachings are in there. This is what they have always preached to a black audience, and what they still preach today. None of this is a secret, and it is all very well documented. RK 22:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hezbollah

I think perhaps the information about Hezbollah would be more appropriate for the Farrakhan entry rather than this page. Is this NOI's official stance towards Hezbollah? What of other groups, both controversial and non-controversial? Unless we are going to begin including information about all these different groups and NOI's opinions on them, rather than singling out one group, I think it would best be removed, yes? Metaspheres 06:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOI does not teach Elijah Muhammad was a prophet

Metaspheres, you have repeatedly asserted that NOI doctrine teaches that Elijah Muhammad was a prophet. This is not true of NOI doctrine. My source for this is directly from NOI. What is your source? For references see NOI hosted International Islamic Conference:

1)Conference text: http://www.noi.org/conference2000

2)Conference opening session webcast: http://www.noi.org/conference2000

Sorry, but you sources are totally incomplete. Please see the new sources I have just added to the article. The Nation of Islam has always and public referred to Elijah Muahmmed as a prophet, and to W. D. Fard as God incarnate. The fact that you haven't read these many, many sources doesn't prove that they do not exist. It only shows that you need to stop self-limiting your research to that one webpage. RK 22:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Recent teachings about the mother plane?

For some reason, no one ever wrote anything about the belief of the NOI in the "Mother Plane", although this has always been a part of their theology/mythology. I have tried to rectify this omission today. From what I understand, Farrakhan still believes in the Mother Plane, and briefly spoke about it a few years ago at the Million Man March. Does anyone have any recent references (say, the last 5 to 10 years) about what Farrakhan and other NOI leaders have to say about this specific issue? RK 22:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

What about the NOI's work? Some suggested topics for inclusion

I notice there is absolutely no mention in this piece of the NOI's philosophy of "do for self," which resulted in the NOI owning and operating hundreds of businesses nationwide, employing thousands. They cleaned up drug addicts, reformed prostitutes, kept youth out of gangs, people out of prison, helped newly released ex-cons make a new start and stay out of jail, helped those in need, taught strict morality, taught people to carry themselves with dignity and purpose. This gave the NOI enormous street cred in the black community from the earliest days. This is the libration theology aspect of the NOI which is an absolutely key dimension of the organization. It was/is a black nationalist/separatist, self-help organization. It is these positive aspects of the Nation that many (most?) African-Americans associate with the NOI -- not some of the quirkier aspects of its religious dogma.

Further, there's no mention of Wallace Muhammad's major move to divest the NOI of these business holdings.

There's no mention of the Fruit of Islam, the paramilitary, self-defense, security arm of the NOI. There's no mention that housing projects in some U.S. cities during the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's employed FOI as security.

Statistics on the enormous strength of the Nation at its height? Number of Mosques? Wealth? Similar statistics now? What about the movement and its membership overseas? deeceevoice 10:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Based on your words and ideas here, I created just such a section. RK 17:31, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

To deeceevoice

How about giving some sources for your comments in the previous section, and write them up to add to the article. You seem well spoken, but if you are uncomfortable in compiling the actual text for the article, I'll give it some attention. I am committed to trying to help keep this article on balance. Vaoverland 10:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Well spoken"? lol A tip: it helps not to use that phrase when communicating w/black folks about black folks. Just trust me. (I realize you meant no offense, so no offense taken.) No, I'm not uncomfortable -- just short on time. Thanks, but I'd rather write it myself. I'll return to the subject when I'm less pressed. Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice 10:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting Christian points of view

User: Firebug is making claims I consider offensive against me. He is claiming that I am inserting my own "point of view" by adding Christian points of view. He seems intent on removing all points of view other than those from Jewish groups, to "prove" that only Jewish people have these views. That, however, is false. Firebug is damaging this article by deleting links to related topics. A part of this article became very long, and so in accord with Wikipedia policy was spun off into its own article. Firebug keeps reverting the link to this spin-off article. This article needs close monitoring. RK 17:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I stated you were injecting your POV into the article is that this is what you were doing. You do have a history of axe-grinding on subjects related to Judaism and anti-Semitism. This is why you were [ordered by Arbcom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK) not to edit articles related to Judaism for one year effective starting October 14, 2004. Arbcom convicted you of POV insertion on a 4-0 vote. "Intransigent reverting and edit-warring" was their exact words. While you have appealed this and the injunction has been temporarily lifted, it is clear that I am far from the only user who has found your objectivity on these matters wanting. I reject your accusation that I am deleting "Christian points of view". I had deleted statements by the Catholic League - and I do not believe that uncorroborated statements by political pressure groups are generally worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the subject of those attacks, unless the attacks themselves were particularly newsworthy. Do you think that every TV show condemned by Christian fundamentalist pressure groups should include these accusations in their encyclopedia articles? These should only be included if they were significant enough to be newsworthy in and of themselves. Like hearsay in court, they should only be introduced to prove the statement was said, not to prove the truth of the positions involved. Firebug 01:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: RK attempted to delete the above comments from this discussion page. I have restored the above paragraph without reverting, since doing so would have wiped out other user comments. Deleting other users' comments from Discussion pages is not acceptable. Firebug 05:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attacks and threats

What can I do about User:Firebug's personal attacks and threats towards me? Wikipedia has an official policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and no threats. Further, our policy is that discussion pages are only for the contents of an article. They are not for someone's personal take on me and my work here. Firebug's anger does the article no good service, and his recent threat puts him in a bad light. The sad thing is that I have attempted to work with him in good faith, and have even agreed with some of his proposals. (See my recent comments on the article's discussion page.) Yet in return he treats me with nothing but hostility. That is just sad and unacceptable. Any thoughts? RK 17:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Vaoverland

I have reviewed the edits and sources. The whole subject is obviously not an easy item for NPOV presentation since it covers an area where there is great disagreement. I would respectfully remind all parties that all Wikipedia editors are strongly urged to cite your sources when stating information as factual.

I believe that User: Firebug is deleting meaningful content which is undoubtedly controversial, but nevertheless, seems to be factual and relevant to the article. If Firebus wants to present different or additional facts, there is ample space to do so also. He may also add facts that present opposing views, so long as we cite sources. However, the deletion of the other editor's work is not justified in my opinion.

Firefox also again deleted the section about the Beltway Sniper attacks, which were unfairly linked excessively to NOI and Louis Farrakhan by the news media. The item presents a NPOV but does not ignore the incident. This was also covered in a talk item earlier today.

It would be best to not have edit wars. A reasonable action is that, if you are going to change someone else's work, at least read the Talk page and leave a comment to justify your action.

It is better to present both sides of the issues and properly label them as opposing., controversial, etc. If we cannot reach a consensus, there are higher powers in Wikipedia to help us. As a Wikipedia administrator, I will lead us there if needed.

If Firefox is offended by the above, please, no offense is intended by me. Tell us your feelings or thoughts here. I would rather us resolve it here, and please, let us not threaten or disrespect each other, folks. Vaoverland 18:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vaoverland, I'm not offended by your comments, and I am willing to discuss this issue here. Like you, I do not have any particular axe to grind with regard to this article. I don't have particularly strong feelings on the NOI one way or another. The reason that I deleted the Beltway Sniper section is that I feel that its very inclusion violated NPOV. The article on the Catholic Church does not point out the fact that Adolf Hitler was a baptized Catholic and was never excommunicated. The article on Fundamentalist Christianity does not smear fundamentalism by association with Jeffrey Dahmer or other notorious criminals who have been fundamentalists or converted to fundamentalism in prison. Nor should either of these articles do these things. Articles on religion shouldn't need to point out that notorious criminals claimed to be members of those religions. It's only worth mentioning in the article on the religion itself if (a) a specific church doctrine was used as a justification for the crime (Inquisition for Catholic Church, September 11, 2001 attacks for Wahhabism), or if the church hierarchy was complicit in soliciting or covering up the crime (Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal). I don't think that the Beltway Sniper incident deserves mention here either. It's fine to point out in the article on John Allen Muhammad that he had converted to the NOI, but to put this on the NOI page itself is unwarranted in my opinion. Firebug 01:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with some of Firebug's other edits', I think on this point he makes a valid argument. His comparison with the acts of the specific Christians, versus actual Church teachings, is an important point. I agree with the decision to remove that topic from this article. RK 17:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beltway Sniper item

The inclusion (or not) of this item is an area where there is some disagreement. At least one other writer seems offended by the wording used by others and me. Do others here feel that it it inappropriate for inclusion or should be worded differently? I would think it is more NPOV to present it than to pretend nothing happened. When the identity of JAM was first reported and his apparently minimal involvement with NOI years earlier was made public, the "right wing" media went severely overboard. Obviously, Mr. Farrakhan felt it was important enough to hold a press conference. Thus, I do not see how you can say it has no bearing on the NOI. Just do a websearch on NOI and watch the stories pop up.

However, rather than engage in an edit war, I would like to see what others think, and whether it is proper to include. If not, then out it goes. Even if it is proper to include the item, if the wording is wrong or offensive, please advise how it should be better worded. Vaoverland 19:53, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm for deleting the item because it's ridiculously pointless. The attack was a single incident. Literally, one man out of 40,000 of Farrakhan's followers shoots some people and its newsworthy that the guy was from the NOI? I doubt Catholics would be very happy if history textbooks excessively noted the fact that Hitler was a baptized Catholic, and insinuated that the Church had tought him to kill Jews, as this piece of the article is clearly attempting to do in not so many words. Mentioning it is pointless.

TheBurningHelm Apr 3, 2005

Okay. That makes User:deeceevoice (me), User:Firebug and TheBurningHelm all opposed to inclusion of this information. I just read Firebug's amplification of my earlier remarks, and I think his argument is highly persuasive. We live in a society where the media write what they do to sell papers and capture high viewer ratings. Prosecutorial rhetoric in the courtroom is often targeted at inflaming the passions of the jury and the press. What passes for "information" and "evidence" is often merely pulp for the tabloid paper mills and does not rise to the level of judgment/discernment/analysis required for an encyclopedic entry. As I said before, a few years hence, the fact that JAM was once affiliated with the NOI will be treated as it was here locally, where the sniper killings occurred: as a mere footnote to the matter. (Washington, D.C., is far more sophisticated in matters such as this than the rest of the nation.) Such information belongs in an entry on the killings themselves, on JAM, or his accomplice -- nowhere else. If the NOI were a mainstream, Christian denomination, such information would never have made headlines; and it certainly would not have been included here. Wikipedia should show a little more sophistication, a little more common sense, than other forms of media in American society, which pander to a mentality that is more comfortable preoccupied with soap operas, "Jerry Springer," tabloid journalism, and watching people scarf down pigs' rectums for entertainment than engaged with anything remotely associated with true learning and honest intellectual inquiry. I mean the idiots voted Dubya in for another term, for God's sake! This is a nation of reactionary, brain-dead morons! Let's try to set the bar a little higher -- shall we? deeceevoice 10:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the beltway sniper item. I also found firebug's argument to make sense. Vaoverland 16:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic, not Anti-Christian

To state that the NOI is anti-Christian, is, naturally, moronic. The Final Call, at www.finalcall.com, shows many times in which Farrakhans quotes from the Bible. In fact, he quotes more from the New Testament than he does from the Quran. Anti-Catholic, is possible, though improbable. A while back a white Bishop invited Farrakhan to speak at a Catholic Cathedral of mainly African-American Catholics in New York or Philidelphia I believe, I'll look for a link to the news article and post it when I find it. The "Anti-Catholic" stigma arose from the fact that he claimed on Oprah Winfrey that there was "hatred coming at us from the Church" regarding two indicents in a single year when white Catholics in two different cities beat up a black person after coming out of church. It's hard to take a charge like that seriously. Also, the "The Pope is the antichrist" quote seems to be entirely fabricated, because I've never seen a trusted source list it. Not even the ADL claims that. - TheBurningHelm

Here I also agree with [[TheBurningHelm]. The only statements by the NOI over the years that remotely could be construed as "anti-Christian" criticize the use of Christianity to brainwash enslaved Africans, to teach black folks to "turn the other cheek" to white injustice and violence, to obey one's master; a criticism of pervasive images of a blond, blue-eyed Christ, etc., etc., etc. Hell, lots of black Christian ministers also have said as much. That's not anti-Christianity; that's anti-Christianity used as a tool of white oppression and subjugation of black people. Islam, in fact, is the third Abrahamic religion, along with Christianity and Judaism. As noted in the article, Mosque Maryam is named after Mary, mother of Jesus -- "Isa" in Islam -- who is celebrated as a prophet and holy man. "Anti-Christianity" indeed! That's just garbage. deeceevoice 10:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, your argument is not logical. Just because someone quotes from the Bible does not make them friendly to Christians, especially Catholics. For instance, many Protestant fundamentalist Christians quote from the Bible, but have a virulent hatred of Catholics. Many Christian Identity adherents quote from the Bible, but also hate Catholics, liberal Protestants, and many Christians. And finally, the fact that the Nation of Islam preaches hatred against Catholics is an established fact, not an opinion. Calling the Pope a "cracker" is just one example. We have an obligation to present theit point of view. We may not hide it or misrepresent it in order to make them conform to our own ideas of religious tolerance. RK 14:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Where is an honest source that shows Louis Farrakhan calling the pope "A cracker". Indeed, he was called a "cracker", but not by Farrakhan. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who LEFT the NOI called him a cracker, and obviously you can't take that guy as a serious representative of the NOI, since, unlike the rest of them, he was a certifiable lunatic. If members of the NOI on occassion say something bad about "Catholics", what they obviously mean is "White Catholics", since Italian/Irish-Americans have at times feuded with African-Americans, especially in places like Boston/Phili/NYC, and since African-American Catholics are only a minority, the image of Catholics may be the truly "white thing". Your point about protestant fundamentalists hating Catholics doesn't really have to do with this subject, since they don't quote from Catholic doctrine. The Bible is a broad tool and obviously can be utilized by groups that oppose one another. However, it seems pretty unlikely that Farrakhan could have such a strong relationship with Sharpton or Jackson while being "anti-christian". Perhaps he's "anti-WHITE Christian", however anti-christian seems absurd at this point, especially given the NOI's attempts to "solidify" relationships with other minorities in the U.S., Latinos most prominently, who are overwhelmingly Roman-Catholic. theBurningHelm

Who said anything about "quoting from the Bible"? I think you have me confused with someone else. You may find this hard to stomach, but a lot of black folks call white folks "crackers" all the time -- I know I do --when speaking of a particular mind-set. Further, a lot of whites use the term self-referentially. The same with "peckerwood." What was the context of the remark? Serious question. deeceevoice 16:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with [[TheBurningHelm]. The accusation of Anti-Catholicism is absurd. Nation of Islam members have been welcomed on occassion to some Catholic churches. For example, Louis Farrakhan has been invited by The Rev. Dr. Michael Louis Pfleger to speak at Saint Sabina Church in Chicago (see www.saintsabina.org) as well as Father George Stallings' hosted Farrakhan at his Catholic Church in Philadelphia (Philadelphia Tribune, 03-29-94). JohnBlaz, 20:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the NOI actually teach about Yacub?

Listen, we all know about Yacub and that certain members of the NOI embrace the philosophy, however, what remains to be seen at this point is if they actually engage in the practice of teaching their adherents the story of Yacub or not. The NOI, above anything else, seems to be confused to the point of being bat-shit-insane. Elijah Muhammad seemed to have "Theorized" the idea of Yacub more than actually indoctrined it into NOI teachings. I may be wrong, but that's why I'm asking. Is there actual proof anywhere that NOI ministers preach about the evil white devils every single week? I know that Farrakhan believes it (Well, he says he does, I don't believe that guy actually believes anything that he says and does it all for the money, which some of his former ministers have said after leaving the NOI) but is it an actual teaching in NOI? Or is it like the perceptions of Jews among some mainstream Protestant faiths such as Presbyterian or Anglican, that being that the minister doesn't actually get up in front of the podium every Sunday and say "Those Jews are rejecting Jesus, and he'll drop them into a lake of fire for it!", but it's kind of assumed or at least so among some of its members, whereas it's not an actual teaching. Just curious, does anyone really know, or are we all know making the assumption? --TheBurningHelm 00:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) That's odd, did someone erase my sig?

"Bat-shit insame"? Man, you got me rollin' up in here! lol

It's like I said in the discussion about black supremacy, none of the adherents I've known personally ever gave a crap about all that stuff and paid it no mind. It's like that silly stuff about pigs being "one third cat, one third rat and one third dog." They take it with a grain of salt. What this article doesn't address at all is the fact that the NOI's works in the black community is what gave, and continue to give, it street cred. Christian denominations know that back in the day, when they turned their backs on prostitutes and drug dealers and addicts, the NOI got 'em off the street and turned them around into respectful, respectable, contributing citizens. When ex-cons couldn't get work anywhere else, the NOI took them in and gave them second, third and fourth chances. The NOI -- with the sisters in their white head scarves and the brothers in their black suits, bowties and starched white shirts; the paramilitary FOI disciplined and trained in the martial arts; with its multi million-dollar network of black bakeries, barbershops, salons, cleaners and other businesses, its schools -- was an impressive and formidable force to be reckoned with. They'd fight the cops if they had to -- and get away with it. They scared the beejeezus outta white folks at a time when black folks were steady bein' lynched elsewhere and often afraid to walk the streets at night for fear of police harassment/brutality. And the funny thing was they didn't have to do anything in order be perceived as threatening by whites. Impeccably attired in dark suits, disciplined in comportment, from behind a pair of dark shades, an FOI brother was the embodiment of cool. And he was dangerous, because he had an organization of like-minded brothers and sisters who could give as good as they got -- in a street fight or in court. That was the implicit threat. Back in the day, the Nation was fierce.

Neither the black community at large nor many of the "faithful" focused on the silly spaceship business, or notions of black supremacy or any of that. All they cared about was that the NOI engendered pride and purpose and helped make their communities safe and livable. They went to temple, eschewed pork, fellowshipped with black folks who talked about doing for "self" -- for black people -- and who acted on that talk. They were respected, and saw the NOI as making a positive difference in their lives and in the lives of their loved ones.

You are being grossly dishonest. No one made any such claim. No one ever claimed that the black community at large believed in any of the crazy teachings of the Nation of Islam, or of any other faith. In fact, most blacks are not even NOI members! Rather, this article is describing the teaching of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam, and they do have such teachings, and they have preahced them consistently for the last forty years. RK 21:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Further, the business about the white man being a "devil" was something they already knew from their history, something generations of their own families passed down stories about through the years -- slavery, swindling blacks off their land or outright stealing it, the exploitation of sharecropping, the brutality, the discrimination, the segregation, the blatant bigotry and racism, the frequent lynchings, jailing of innocents. And it was something they experienced in their daily lives. They knew firsthand of the evils whites perpetrated against black people, that a whole lot of white folks meant black folks no good.

Did/do they literally believe a white man (or woman) is a devil? Hell, naw! You gotta be some kinda simpleton to really buy that.

And they'd rather hear the white man was the devil straight from the pulpit, to have someone acknowledge and validate their anger and resentment and mistrust, than have someone tell them they should "turn the other cheek" to some unrepentant, racist "crakkka" (yes, I mean "crakkka"; we're talking mind-set here) giving you grief on the job, restricting your access to decent housing, decent schools, loans -- you name it -- and manipulating you and your children's futures with impunity.

That was the appeal of the NOI. And black folks who were not members of the FOI got a kick out of hearing black NOI ministers "tell it like it is," unapologetically and without concern about reprisals -- because they owned their own businesses and answered to no one. Yes, it's Christian to forgive; but it also feels damned good to vent sometimes -- and to do so without someone self-righteously chastizing you about it, talkin' about, "Now, what would Jesus do?"

And that's what a lot of nonblacks don't get. All of that rhetoric is tied up with the black oral tradition. Most African-Americans steeped in the culture understand almost instinctively what is literal, what is metaphor, what is allegory, what is bluster, what is exaggerated, what is joking, what is woofin', what is said purely for effect and what is dead serious, what is rhetoric, what is preachin', what is teachin', what is testifyin', what is signifyin, what is just rappin' or riffin' and what is real. And the NOI throughout its history has been summa alla dat.

And, yes. There's some rhetoric that's been totally off the wall. No doubt about it. And a case in point: Kallid Muhammad is was definitely a head case. (He died of a brain aneurism in 1991! I googled him because I hadn't heard anything from him in a while. I was wondering what happened to the guy. I didn't realize Shabazz was actually his successor and not just another NBPP mouthpiece.) deeceevoice 21:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that most black people understand all of these teachings as metaphors? I have never seen any evidence that any significant number of NOI adherents understand these teachings in the way that you describe. You seem to be describing the beliefs of people who are not NOI members, and who are looking for a way to reinterpret their teachings. Remember, this article is about the NOI and its adherents, and not about how other people might view their teachings. RK 17:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

People took my "bat-shit-insane" message to personally. I didn't mean the beliefs were necessarily bat-shit-insane, even though I believe that and believe most belief systems are bat-shit-insane, I simply meant to illustrate that at this point the NOI doesn't seem to know what it's even talking about. Does anyone have a real clue how the NOI sees the world? I sincerely doubt the NOI has a strong doctrinal teaching of black supremacy and white inferiority, about Yacub or the destiny of the black race, the significance of Elijah Muhammad or even Farrakhan. My point in saying "bat-shit-insane" is the fact that what you've basically got is a religion in case that doesn't understand what it's about. To give you an example, I personally considered the Catholic Church pre-John Paul II bat-shit-insane, not because of what they believed, but because the changes made by the Vatican II had thrown the church's traditions into chaos and different bishops were teaching different things (mainly in regards to abortion/contraception/condoms/female role in church/relationship with Jews/muslims, etc...). However, when John Paul II came along he finally put his foot down and drew a line in the sand, illustrating what the church stood for, regardless of whether or not people liked it. At this point Farrakhan hasn't drawn a line in the sand because most people still don't understand what the NOI teaches. They obviously do a lot of preaching about "God", however their teachings about Jesus seem to be very tenuous, given that they quote regularly from the New Testament and yet state on the FinalCall.com that the legacy of Jesus was "deviously altered" which is the basic line of most Muslims, however most Muslims don't go so far as quoting from the New Testament since they don't necessarily trust it. My point is that the NOI, despite the fact that we can obviously pick out SOME of their teachings, is in theological chaos because we don't know if Yacub, or black divinity, or Ward Muhammad's divinity, or Elijah Muhammad's flying saucer, are taught regularly and universially within the NOI, or if the NOI has simply deteriorated into a simple spiritual and cultural outlet at this point and is simply fostering a broad, almost secularized, belief in the one God and encouraging good behaviors. --TheBurningHelm 00:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You make some good points that should be examined: Are there any studies or surveys on what your average NOI minister preaches, or what NOI adherents believe? Also, are there any articles that critically examine the consistency of NOI theological teachings? Reading the various quotes by Elijah Muhammed, Louis Farrakhan, Malcom X (when he was a member) and Khalid Abdul Muahmmed, it appears to me as if they are often contradicting themselves. It reminds me very much of L. Ron Hubbard's science-fiction-based religion, Scientology. RK 17:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they still do teach about Yacub! I have personally been to one of their larger lectures at a New York state university, just a few years back, and they were selling pamplets teaching the classical NOI theology described in this article. They also still preach this on many NOI-affiliated websites. Does every single NOI adherent believe all this? Probably not. I would be interested in reading any surveys on this issue. RK 17:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No original research

No, RK. Again, there are no "studies or surveys." How do I know? Because I know/have known a number of "black Muslims" over the years and have spoken w/them specifically about their faith. And, no, I doubt that they would speak to a journalist about how their personal beliefs differ from the party line. It's not in the nature of adherents to do so. This matter hasn't been of particular interest to black journalists, and they certainly aren't likely to speak to whites about it. It's kind of like the discussion I had with another Wikipedian about whether or not the majority of African-Americans speak some form of AAVE. I contended that the vast majority of us do. The white guy said he didn't buy it. But, hey, black folks "code switch." Many of us speak one way in front of white folks and another way amongst ourselves. So, it's not likely a white person would have any idea how many of us do or don't speak AAVE. The fact of the matter is that certain aspects of African-American culture are simply far from transparent to the white, majority culture; and writing about them authoritatively is, for us, sometimes extremely difficult, if not impossible, beyond citing simply anecdotal evidence. Same thing about the business of quilts being used to send signals to travelers on the Underground Railroad. While the lore exists in several A-A families that I'm aware of, it's challenged by white historians because there's no written record of the practice until the early 1990s. It's almost like our history and culture don't officially exist until white folks say they do. Absurd business dat. You can chastize me all you want, but we know our history and culture, but Wiki policy requires us to sit by and remain silent while often ignorant or biased white folks write what they will because there's "documentation" for the opinions they cite. Sometimes the opinions or information are even correct, but the absence of the information that doesn't rise to the bar understandably set by Wikipedia prevents inclusion of other information that would bring balance or another dimension to subject matter. Sometimes the information presented does the subject matter an injustice, as in this case. It's annoying as hell -- and the requirement of documentation in some circumstances is -- yes -- sometimes just downright silly crap as in the information about comparative religion that was expunged from the other article. deeceevoice 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"No original research" should be moderated by common sense; personal experience does guide the writing of articles, frequently without explicit sourcing, and this is usually good insofar as it prevents the insertion of false but nonetheless publicized claims. But in this particular case, the converse question should also be asked: bearing in mind that understanding sacred teachings as metaphorical is an extremely widespread phenomenon throughout America today, what evidence do you have that most black people do not understand all of these teachings as metaphors? If there is no evidence either way, they certainly should not be stated in a way that assumes that they must be taken literally. - Mustafaa 23:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mustafa, you have been misled. No one here is talking about what most blacks believe. Nor were we talking about what most Black Muslims believe. Rather, we were discussing a much more limited case: What does the Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam teach and preach? You have allowed yourself to be misled by DeeCeeVoice's attempt to confuse the discussion by changing the subject! Indeed, the vast majority of black people who are Muslims will have nothing to do with this Nation of Islam. RK 21:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Take a chill pill and save your fingers. You don't need to lecture me on "no original research" or "personal experience." Note that I wrote, "...but the absence of the information that doesn't rise to the bar understandably set by Wikipedia prevents inclusion of other information that would bring balance or another dimension to subject matter." Given Wiki policy which understandably seeks to safeguard the validity/veracity of the information it provides, it still poses substantial challenges to writing authoritatively on certain subjects not traditionally documented in the literature. The importance of such a Wiki policy does not stop it, still, from being obstructive of the inclusion of certain important truths in the information it presents. Nor does it prevent such, again, understandable policy from being frustrating/annoying as hell. I presented the information on the talk page to inform readers whose knowledge of the NOI seems to have been acquired from a great distance and who have a seemingly unbalanced view of the organization as a result -- to present here what thus far has not been, or could not be, presented in the article itself. In the case of "undocumented" information, my purpose is not to argue for its inclusion in the article; I already know how pointless such efforts can be. However, the information about the works of the NOI in the black community are widely known and well documented and, I'm certain, will be added -- if not by me, by another contributor. deeceevoice 13:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hang on - you thought I was lecturing you? I was agreeing with your point. - Mustafaa 07:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I read your response too quickly -- sorry. I particularly think the assessment of the commonsense comment about comparative religion as needing documentation was pretty silly. deeceevoice 20:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A note for the prolific Anon Contrib and Deeceevoice

Speaking of "Bat-shit insane". How about nearly TWO BILLION MAINSTREAM "perfectly sane people" (many identified as Christians, Muslims and Jews) who believe and/or teach in a friggin pregnant VIRGIN woman giving birth, a Saviour being shanked in the hands and heart, hung on a stick, buried and coming back alive, an Easter jack-rabbit that lays colourful chicken eggs for children to find, some mysterious 4th-Dimension on cloud-nine called heaven with milk and honey but miraculously.. no cows and bees, the 5th-Dimension somewhere near the Earth's core called hell that is presided over by a deceptive humanoid monster with beady eyes who is rumored to wear a red suit and hoody and carry a pitchfork. Don't even mention the odd connection between Jesus Chrsit and the illogical celebration of a fat-ass red-face beer gut man bearing gifts to strangers.

If you sense a bit of sarcasm, you are not imagining things. Balance should be maintained when discussing what is deemed to be out of the mainstream otherwise you may as well trash all these "silly" religious notions. --JohnBlaz 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blaz, finding humor in a remark doesn't mean agreement. I wrote this for Black supremacy with regard to the Doctrine of Yakub:

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first ~~early~~ [must've been someone else's later insertion] human beings evolved in Africa. In the context of comparative religious study, the "Doctrine of Yakub" has been viewed as simply an allegory for the evolution of whites from blacks as a result of climatic differences as humanity migrated out of Africa and populated other areas of the globe. Such colorful storytelling, some argue, is little different from the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib, or the creation of heaven and earth in six days.

Guess what? It was deleted for "lack of documentation." This is the stupid kind of crap that goes on on Wikipedia all the time. deeceevoice 07:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find your attitude lamentable. You made a claim that has no proof or support. We merely asked that you provide evidence that some significant fraction of people actually have such beliefs. It is a reasonable request to follow Wikipedia official policy. The fact that you refuse to provide references, and attack our policy as "stupid crap", tends to reduce your credibility. RK 17:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Lamentable"? LOL Read my comments in the subsection above. Yes, "silly crap." deeceevoice 22:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two further points that need to be addressed

My first note - personally, as a white guy, I find the NOI's teachings completely harmless because I've never heard, as Farrakhan once put it, "Of a single member of the Nation of Islam committing a hate crime". However, one thing that really disturbed me that I think needs mentioning, was the fact that Farrakhan, back in the mid 90's, engaged in a dispicable propaganda campaign to cover up the black African slave trade in the Sudan, and the massive number of black Africans being killed by the Arab run northern Sudanese government. It was only recently when they finally figured out how bad it was when the Sudanese government went after Darfur too, because before they were only picking on the Christians in the south. Farrakhan flat out denied that there was a slave trade in Sudan and called it a "western fabricated to smear a Muslim government". Coincidentally, the Libyan government, a close ally of Sudan and an arguable partner in the disappearing slave trade, offered Farrakhan 1,000,000,000 to build schools and such after he made these statements, so it's pretty obvious what he was in it for. Since the NOI's leadership fell into line and helped him try to divert media attention away from Sudan, in one instance by calling the Boston Globe a "Zionist run organization", the NOI injected itself directly into the situation and therefore warrants being mentioned as such in the article. -- TheBurningHelm 00:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A second note - the upcoming Million Man March 2005. For those of you who don't know, Farrakhan is reconvening the Million Man March for the 10th anniversary of the march. I doubt that word is spreading much and I don't think as many people will show up (Well, depending on what Bush does to piss off the black community as many as 10 million might show up). However, I think perhaps this deserves a little footnote in the article unless anyone seriously disagrees. --TheBurningHelm 00:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. The Nation of Islam's denial that many blacks engaged in the slave trade, and that many black Africans still enslave and systematically murder othert black Africans, must really be reported. This is what they teach. Of course, we must also add the fact that all mainstream scholars of African culture and history totally disagree, and that many of them have accused the NOI of justifying and allowing the continuation of black slavery and murder. RK 17:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

We must also remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Points of controversy should be mentioned briefly, not sought out one by one and dwelt on until they overshadow the main focus of the article. The best way to keep an article NPOV, in my experience, is not to summarize all views on as many controversies as possible, but to remember that facts are much more encyclopedic than POVs, sourced or unsourced. The appropriate place for a lengthy discussion of the existence and denial of slavery in Sudan is the article of that name. - Mustafaa 23:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are you reverting spelling fixes?

Why did someone change "Sharpton" back to "Sampson"? Is there some controversy regarding the Reverend's name that I am unaware of? 63.173.114.141 01:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the writer was refering to the right Reverend Albert "Al" Sampson of of Fernwood United Methodist Church in the windy city. [2] (http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=329&category=religionMakers) --64.12.116.65 04:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sugar Coating NOI Hate

This article is so soft in its treatment of the racist nature of the NOI, it comes across as less an objective article as a pro NOI propoganda piece, intended to whitewash the racist nature of this organization. The Nation of Islam is and has always been an internationally recognized hategroup. Racism and antisemitism are not something peripheral to the organization or limited to a few extreme members - it is the organization's raison d'etre. I am forwarding a copy of the article in its entirety to the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and several other reputable, main stream watch dog groups who are comitted to challenging this sort of propoganda.

Imagine a comparable treatment of a white hate group, such as the Klu Klux Clan (or even the John Birch Society for that matter) that failed to mention the racist beliefs of the organizations until the end of the article, and then only in brief and couched in equivocating weasel terms like 'some consider the group racist', as though it were some peripheral opinion? The mainstream, widely acepted view is that the NOI is a racist hate group - those challenging this are on the fringe. This is precisely the opposite of what the article suggests.

In short, by suggesting that the charge that the NOI is a racist organization with wacky ideas about the origins of the white race is in any way controversial or the object of serious dispute is not only a failure to maintain NPOV, it reflects either an intolerable degree of ignorance about the NOI or worse - a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader about the true nature of this organization.

WikiEditor 09:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think those organizations are well aware. I have tried to maintain a NPOV, and make sure such accusations (as properly attributed) get equal hearing with those would would delete factual statements. I personally find it offensive that NOI's messengers walk through traffic apparently avoiding cars with white and Hispanic people in them, at least here in Richmond, but such seems to be the price of freedom: tolerance. I don't doubt that other groups would treat them the same way. I am sad to say I remember separate (and far from equal) restrooms and accommodations and families of color afraid to travel through Virginia at night (I pumped gas in the 1960s). I have been on referee break, but I'll take a fresh look. I am too busy to get into edit wars on conflicts that seem impossible to resolve, but we have achieved a better balance than what was happening here. BTW, if you are able, how about leaving a user name with messages, and make more of a difference than just an anonymous complaint, and your credibility will increase as we seek a good WP article. Vaoverland 04:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The above is a copy of what I left on my user page. I do not intent to imply that I am some kind of official or unoffficial moderator, cause I am not. Fortunately, we have some other calm heads here. Mark In Richmond. Vaoverland 04:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that this article "sugar coats" the allegations of racial hatred. See section on controversies. It's reasonably balanced on a difficult subject. That's my 2 cents worth. Vaoverland 05:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I do think the neutrality flag is appropriate, so that readers can also see what we are debating herein. Vaoverland 10:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The notion that this article is "sugar coated" is a bit ridiculous (IMHO). Rather than becoming another Anti-Defamation League conceived dossier (as some desire), this current article shows a bit more neutrality by attempting to stick to facts rather than subjective feelings. Also I must say, regarding the alleged Ku Klux Klan parallels, this is pure nonsense! By virtue of historical record, the NOI simply cannot be compared to a terrorist group like the KKK whose non-refuted recreation was bombing, burning, raping, hanging and state sanctioned persecution of Black men, women and children for over a hundred years. --JohnBlaz 14:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have not even allowed the people who accuse NOI of anti-Semitism of stating what they view as anti-Semitic; rather, you only allow the NOI apologetic to stand in place of the actual accusation. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the real nonsense here? The fact that the NOI does not have the murderous history of the KKK therefore the two can not be logically compared or my stated opinion that this article should not become another ADL dossier? The fact of the matter is that you already have an exclusive ADL POV-based article called NOI and anti-Semitism which is clearly the antithesis of NPOV. --JohnBlaz 02:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources of that article are hardly exclusively ADL, and the fact that you don't like a topic doesn't make it POV. No, the real nonsense is that you can't even stand to have the statements of those who criticize the NOI to stand on their own; instead you insist on inserting the arguments you would have preferred them to make instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make this a personal argument on feelings, you can have at it.. without me. This article does a reasonably good job at presenting balance on a controversial group and it does in fact present anti-NOI excerpts and arguments from the ADL's and like-minded individual's POV. This particular subject seems more like a protest against neutrality than anything else. --JohnBlaz 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You've misrepresented both my argument and WP:NPOV policy; it's not about presenting one point of view, but rather allowing each group to present its own point of view. On the subject about which I am speaking, only the NOI POV has been allowed to be expressed, and other views have been suppressed. And it's your doing, no need to pretend otherwise, since you were the one making the edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi JohnBlaz - I would agree that the NOI does not have the body count of the KKK, but this has more to do with the fact that it is a minority organization with little power and influience for most of its existence than anything else. Elijah Mohammed, Farrakhan and their NOI followers have openly fantasized about killing white people on many occasions. There are several cases in which NOI rhetoric has been cited as the motivating factor in killings of whites by blacks. In one interesting such case recently in NY, a black man turned himself in for the murder of a white he had committed decades ago, which was inspired directly by NOI rhetoric. In another famous case that took place in the early 70s, an NOI mosque in NYC called NYC police and once they got their, shot them dead. The bottom line is, we don't know how many murders the NOI has inspired -but it is known that NOI rhetoric has been cited as an incitement to murder of both whites and black members of the group who have fallen into disfavor(the most famous example of the latter being Malcolm X, whose murder was publicly incited by Farrakhan - another fact not mentioned on the article). In any event, a hate group need not have a body count to be a hate group - all it need do is spread hateful rhetoric. I am aware of no one murderd by David Duke's NAAWP for example - this doesn't mean they pose no threat to society. 07:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree. The KKK (and like minded organizations and inviduals) was a known terrorist group with a policy of murder, lynching and terrorist intimidation of Blacks that was in many cases government sanctioned.[3] (http://www.americanlynching.com/photos-old.htm) According to statistics that were not even recorded for many years, thousands of Black men, women, children and whole families were murdered via lynching, bombings, burning and other heinous methods.[4] (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html) The NOI which has existed and has become ingrained in America (specifically Black America) for over 70 years has never had such a policy toward Whites and this was not due the very weak notion of lack of influence. That shoe simply does not fit. If anything, the influence of the NOI has restrained a lot of frustrated Black people from actually going out and killing Whites by channeling that frustration and bitterness at racism into helping themselves. --JohnBlaz 15:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi JohnBlaz - I accept your objection to a one to one correspondence between the Klan and the NOI on the basis of the former's extraordinary record of domestic terrorism. Fair enough. This is ultimately irrelevant however to the larger issue addressed here, which is that the NOI is fundamentally a hate group with bizarre ideas, not some socially responsible mainstream religious movement dogged by a few controversies or a handful of eccentric members. The 'Promise Keepers' they ain't. I'm disturbed by your description of a group like the NOI, which foments hate (regardless of how reguarly their rhetoric leads directly to violence) as 'positively channeling frustration'. Would you be comfortable with an organization whose rhetoric channeled the 'frustrations' of whites in such a manner? I don't think so. And as I've already pointed out, while the NOI ultimateky should not be compared to the KKK (the worst domestic terrorist group in American history to date), the organization does nevertheless does have blood on its hands, and we don't decriminalize assualt and robbery because rape and murder are more serious crimes. Special circumstances of race, history, and culture have conspired in the case of the NOI to bring about a uniquely creepy organization which combines aspects of a hate group, a religious cult and organized crime into one. WikiEditor 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Nation_of_Islam"