Is there any reason for this to have been started in the Pit in the first place. I see nothing in the OP that couldn’t have been discussed in GD. This really looks like an attempt to bait collounsbury, rather than an attempt to discuss the issue of whether the NoI is a sect of Islam or the propriety of declaring members of the NoI non-Muslim in relation to the propriety of declaring Mormons non-Christian.
This still going on?
Once again, Collounsbury’s response was perfectly appropriate as a rebuttal to december’s claims. Yes, it was a minor point and only tangential to the main argument, but it was still relevant to the argument.
Anyway, Farrakhan ( speaking for the NOI ) has made some noise about moving closer to orthodoxy. Most prominently in this meeting in 2000 :
However see below -
*When Farrakhan embraced Mohammed at his Savior’s Day convention in Chicago earlier this year, orthodox Muslims were led to believe that the Nation of Islam leader had finally disavowed what they view as heretical doctrines: that W. Fard Muhammad was Allah incarnate and that Elijah Muhammad was a divine messenger.
But Tony Muhammad, based in Los Angeles, said this week that the Nation hasn’t changed its doctrines. “We believe that Master Fard is the greatest manifestation of Allah that we know today,” he said. Told that orthodox Muslims don’t believe that humans can be divine, he said: “We beg to differ.”
He also said that members believe Elijah Muhammad was a “messenger of God,” which differs from the orthodox belief that the prophet Muhammad was God’s final messenger.*
From here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/nationofislam/nationofislam2.html
In point of fact the NOI may eventually reform itself enough to be considered an Islamic sect ( by my view ), but it’s not there yet. A quick look at the NOI site ( www.noi.org ) shows that they still make claims that are fundamentally incompatible with any standard definition of Islam. And as folks have pointed out, words do have definitions, however loose.
- Tamerlane
Well gobear, speak for yourself. I didn’t know you subscribed to the Muslim faith, but forgive me for not rejecting the teachings of other faiths.
Shodan, right on
With respect to those who have made a point that Jews for Jesus aren’t Jewish, is rthat because they allow goyim in their organization?
grienspace: IIRC, the Jews for Jesus isn’t considered a Jewish organization because it was started by a Christian church.
Jews for Jesus have two strong points running against them:
- they were created by a Baptist minister (whose grandparents were Jewish, although there is no evidence that he was ever an observing Jew) for the specific purpose of evangelizing Jews to become Christian. All of the founding members had never been Jewish, although they made the claim for the purposes of spreading their message. (Later members recruited from the Jewish community may have been raised Jewish.);
- they accept both the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus, so that whatever else they may do in following the Holiness Code or the rest of the 613 Mitzvot required of Jews, they are in direct opposition to the core of Jewish belief. No Jewish group, Orthodox, Conservative, or Reformed, has ever acknowledged that Jews for Jesus may be considered Jews.
(There is also a distinction in terms of distance between Jews for Jesus–universally reviled by Jews–and Messianic Jews, who are considered apostates or deluded, but who are not held in the same contempt. They are Jews who have, for whatever reason, chosen to adopt Christian beliefs without foregoing their Jewish religious practices. Believing in the Divinity of Jesus, they are considered to have abandoned Judaism, but since they were not formed by Baptists as a “stealth” evangelism sect, they are not utterly reviled.)
“goyim”?
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:
Why is it that I have only heard non-Jews use this word, usually in the context of assuming that Jews use the term all the time?
For the record, I’ve never once, in my entire life, ever heard a Jew refer to a gentile as a “goyim” in real life. (Yeah, in comedy routines, and in print as a gag, but never seriously)
Perhaps you should learn something about the groups you keep defending before spewing more ignorance. NOI don’t fit ANY reasonable definition of Islam and “Jews for Jesus” are stealth so-called Christian who lie about their background to try to trick Jews into becoming Christians. (Didn’t Jesus say something about NOT hideing your light under a bushel?) I don’t consider con-men to be legit Christians. Do you?
In any case, how 'bout an answer on my “Identity Movement” Christians question. Do you accept them as legitimate Christians? When the Jesus they worship came down specifically to save White Aryan Christians from “mongrel people”? That Eve mated with the Serpent to produce the “mongrel races”?
I can tell you that no Christian that I know would consider them Christians. Ignoring their loathsome hate-mongering, their theology isn’t even remotely compatable with Christianity as I understand it.
Fenris
This is really amazing.
I am not sure if I should be flattered or depressed.
Flattered that two nit-witted sub-morons have such hard-ons for me that they are willing to take on self-evidently absurd, even ridiculously stupid positions in some strange, even pitiful attempt to smear me, or depressed at the same insofar as one would think that anyone with two or three functioning neurons would be able to rationally compare the published precepts and history of NoI to general Islamic beliefs and see there is really zero overlap. Other than the simple name.
Now let me reiterate, my contempt for NoI arises from the racialist content, not a lack of orthodoxy on their part vis-a-vis the Sunnah. I could give a fuck about the later, except insofar as it made sense for December to trot them out as part of his little smear against Muslims.
However, words have meanings, unless Shodan has suddenly converted unconsciously or not over to the despisedly Liberal deconstructionist camp – something I will not exclude given his empty opportunism here. Positively an honor to be called a blowhard by him.
Now, if the two idiots with the analytical capacities of lobotomized gibbons would stop their yammering and posturing and find something else, we can let this die away.
However, a last pt: Captain. I am not a deep follower of NoI, they are a triviality in the end, but I believe the visit you’re ref’ing to by Farrakhan was part of a Mid East tour in a quasi state visit context. Politics.
It may be that Farrakhan also pretended he was converting to orthodox beliefs, he’s quite clearly a weasely greasy fuck so who knows. the Saudis would love to have a Wahhabite group in the US in the end, so I would not exclude this as a maneuver to get their $$.
In the end, I do not know if he actually did Umrah (which is not the Hajj mind you) or not, I was under the vague impression it was simply a quasi state visit.
Certainly Farrakhan touring the region pretending to speak for American Muslims provoked no small degree of ire on the part of Muslims familiar with the NoI. (and would you want to be assoc. with a group with the beliefs that we have documented here? About one step away from the Raelians.)
Collounsbury, please tone it down. Your knowledge is too vital to this board’s purpose to let it be banned on account of temper. We all agree that ignorance must be fought – but remember you are on an anonymous message board and not in a board room.
Again, fight the ignorance (for the many who learn from you) and not the ignoramus (for the many who despise you). The fight cannot be won (or fought, for that matter) if you are not able to speak.
Erm, this is the pit?
Yes, it is the Pit, where invective can be used to substitute for rational thought.
FWIW, I believe Malcolm X defined his pilgrimage to Mecca as the point at which he moved from the racism of the Black Muslim movement to a more accepting version of Islam not based on racial identification. It happened (IIRC) during the time that he had been “silenced” by Elijah Mohammed. So I suppose you could quibble about whether he had been excommunicated by the NoI (or its moral equivalent - I suppose you could interpret violent attacks against you as a sign that you were persona non grata).
Although much earlier in his autobiography, Malcolm X describes ritual ablutions as one of the main parts of the life of a converted Muslim (an NoI Muslim, at that point in the book) as well as the five-daily prayers. So even that early on, they were covering some of the Pillars of Islam, and his pilgrimage to Mecca seems to have been taken for granted as appropriate to a Muslim even after ‘silencing’. And the first thing Malcolm was told when he was first being evangelized (in prison) was to abstain from pork and cigarettes. So even some of the dietary restrictions were in place during the early days of the NoI.
The issue remains:
[ul]
[li]Some Muslims (and others) consider the Nation of Islam to be either a heretical sect within Islam, or a separate religion altogether, and this is OK.[/li][li]Some Jews consider Messianic Judaism to be a heretical sect within Judaism, and this is OK.[/li][li]Some Jews consider Jews for Jesus to be a separate religion from Judaism, and this is OK.[/li][li]Some Christians consider the LDS to be either a heretical sect within Christianity, or a separate religion altogether, and this is not OK.[/li][li]Some Christians consider even the Roman Catholic church to be a heretical sect within Christianity, or a separate religion altogether (the Whore of Babylon and the Death Cookie, and all that). This is not OK.[/ul][/li]Why the distinction? Because one sect endorses doctrines considered heretical by the mainstream? True for all. Because one sect embraces foundation myths (the Book of Mormon/Mr. Yacub and the Mother Ship/the patristic traditions) that are not shared by all adherents? True for all.
I don’t see why Jack Chick can’t do it, but the SDMB can. Which I thought was the point of the OP.
And thanks, Monty, for being able to see my point. I am very emphatically NOT trying to decide whether or not the Mormons are Christian. I am looking for the rules by which we can decide who is a member of a religion, and who is not. And who gets to apply them, whether Jack Chick or someone else.
Regards,
Shodan
What you are arguing for, Shodan, is that words have no meaning, a proposition that I’m afraid I can’t support. One of the criteria for testing the legitimacy of NOI’s claims to be Isdlamic are its adherence to the tenets of Islam. NOI’s claim that Elijah Muhammad is a messenger of God contradicts the rockbottom tenet of Islamic faith, namely, that Mohammed was God’s final and greatest messenger.
Certainly the differing denominations of Islam all disagree with each other on doctrinal issues, but they all agree on the status of the Prophet and the primacy of the Qu’ran as God’s complete revelation of His will for humanity. Moreover, NOI’s racism disqulaifies it from being legitimately Islamic.
Let’s ask the Muslims about NOI.
This site gives aside-by-side comparison of the beliefs of NOI and Islam:
Yawn. No, it’s the pit where rational thought is actually as good an idea as in any other forum, but you probably won’t get banned for calling someone names (unless they’re very naught names indeed)
If you really don’t see why people might make a distinction between Nation of Islam and Muslims in a discussion about profiling Muslims as likely terrorists, I am surprised.
As a more likely hypothesis, I would suggest that some people are frantically clutching at straws to pick a fight with a poster they’ve had previous disagreements with. That certainly seems more logical than some of the arguments raised so far.
I agree, Gary. I suspect they’re baiting Collunsbury to see if they can’t get him to flip out and possibly be banned again.
:rolleyes:
It was sooooooo much nicer around these parts when he was banned.
:rolleyes:
Didn’t take long for my prediction to come true, did it?
And what exactly have You contributed around here?
No, I’m not, at least I don’t think so and hope not.
What I am asking - and it is a question rather than an assertion - is who decides what it means to be Islamic, or Christian?
Jack Chick claims that Catholics and Mormons are not Christian. Some on this messageboard claim the NoI are not Muslim. Both give the same reasons, that the out-groups do not abide by core tenets of the faith. But one is acccepted, and the other provokes ridicule. Go figure.
It reminds me very strongly of the discussions about whether or not Gentile Christians of the early church should be obligated to accept circumcision and abide by the dietary laws of Judaism. I thought while I was studying the period that my time was being wasted. Until the same sorts of discussions came up with regard to Mormons, Jews for Jesus - and the Nation of Islam.
For the record, I have tried not to express or imply an opinion on whether or not Mormons are Christian, and I have no more interest in whether or not the NoI are Muslim than I do in the disagreements between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims. FWIW, I thought the Nation of Islam had split into a more traditionally Islamic organization, headed IIRC by one of the sons of Elijah Muhammed, and the other, more ‘traditionally’ racist, black supremacist group headed by Farrakhan. But I thought the OP pointed out an inconsistency, and here we are.
Incidentally, it seems to be implied that this thread is motivated by the desire of some to bait Collounsbury into over-reacting and getting banned again. I don’t hold any such desire, and in order to avoid this, I think I had better drop out of the thread.
Thanks to all for your thoughts.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve just found this thread, and it’s somewhat a side issue, but I thought I should bring it up. Despite what tomndeb says, and despite my high regard for his (his and hers?) writings, I have to note that a lot of Christians, in Salt Lake City at least, do not consider the LDS Christians. I bring this up not out of spite but out of surprise – at any rate, it surprised me. I found myself briefly Chairman of the Education committee at a SLC Catholic community, and had to forage for speakers, and found this classification of LDS as non-Christian quite often. I was very surprised – LDS use the King James Bible and have quite a few tenets in common with groups that certainly do call themselves Christian. But I suppose that for a lot of people the belief in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price and D&C carries them into another classification, which “Christian” does not even form part of the name of.
Anybody who wishes to make a distinction. People are free to agree or disagree based on the merits of their arguments. People are also free to contend ( as you and grienspace seem to ) that no distinction can be made and the only determinant is self-identification. But personally I’m just a little too reductionist to accept such a loose definition.
It’s pretty easy to figure, in my estimation.
Jack Chick uses his arguments to deliberately defame, ridicule, and condemn to eternal torment those who disagree with his definition of Christianity. To Mr.Chick, thosewho do not share his theology are automatically evil. In contrast those arguing about the status of the NOI on the SDMB mostly are making a neutral judgement as to whether or not the NOI meet even a broad definition of Islam. In this case, there is no intent to say those that are not Islamic are inherently evil or inferior - Just that they probably don’t qualify as Muslims by most standards.
Also many seem to view Mr.Chick’s criteria as being suspiciously weak and have argued that his factual case is not very robust. Whereas it may be those same people regard the evidence against the NOI’s inclusion in Islam as being rather stronger.
Do the LDS meet the core values expressed by Fenris’ friend in the last page? As far as I know they do. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that it was unequivocally the final revelation and no others would be forthcoming? If it doesn’t ( and I honestly don’t know ) then the LDS are on solid ground, far as I can see.
Ah, but I do have an academic interest in the latter, which requires one define which is which.
Correct. Sort of - What happened is that over a period of years W. Deen Muhammed rejected all those accretions that were considered heretical and sought a rapproachment with orthodox Sunnism. This group is now fully accepted as being Islamic and is in fact the largest Muslim denomination in the U.S… It changed its name ( several times ) and is no longer referred to as the NOI and is not the organization under discussion.
Farrakhan’s NOI splintered off the larger group in protest and retains both the name and the theology of the original group. Depending on who’s counting, the NOI today is anywhere from 1/10 to 1/100 the size of the reformed parent group.
- Tamerlane
Part of it also might be that there are more Catholics and Mormons on this board than there are members of the NoI. So, on this board, Catholics and Mormons, who consider themselves to be Christian speak up and say that, while member of the NoI, who consider themselves Muslim, don’t.
Personally, I agree with Tamerlane