# Talk:Nation of Islam

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)

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 [1] and, on being reverted, again in November 2023 [2] and again, just now, in December [3]). 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)
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)
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)
I was just thinking the same thing!  J E F-T (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nation of Islam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Penultimate supper (talk · contribs) 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy to review this; I have a moderate amount of knowledge about NOI, mostly focused on prominent individuals in the history of the movement, but am by no means well-versed. The article looks very thorough at my first read-through and I'm looking forward to diving into it more deeply. Will try and provide detailed comments soon. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks penultimate_supper. Looking forward to seeing your review when it's ready. I hope that you enjoy reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, it's taken me a bit longer than I'd hoped, schedules are unpredictable with an infant in the house. I'll hopefully get it to you today, but Friday at the latest. It's a very well written article, and handles some difficult issues very thoughtfully; I've appreciated diving into it.   — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is my first second (but first in 5+ years) GA review, so if there's anything I've missed, done poorly, or which would be helpful for me to include, please let me know.
I'm comfortable passing this right now. I have suggestions for a few sections below, and minor notes on a few sources. I think there are some areas that could be expanded further and I think source material exists to do so (e.g., Relationship betwen the NoI and mainstream Muslim groups, Farrakhan's role as a controversial political figure, NoI educational efforts) but due to the length of this article, that should probably be done in seperate articles, and isn't exactly relevant to this review. Overall this is a thorough, thoughtful, and informative article that covers a complex topic comprehensively without being distracted by diving into unnecesary detail on any of the many fascinating areas that could have unbalanced the article. 
Thanks for all your hard work on the article @Midnightblueowl:! — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


### GA review
see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Strongly complies with all MOS guidelines, even on some difficult areas such as contentious labels, which are all well sourced and seem to present the majority view among sources. A few small thoughts about words to watch are suggested on a section-by-section basis below.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Done very well, more details in the source review section below.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Not finding any issues using earwig, manual searching, or my 10% source review.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
I think it does this very well, relying on reliable sources and appropriate voices.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No ongoing edit wars or content disputes, and any disagreements over minor issues of terminology seem be have been handled thoughtfully and through discussion over the last year+.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
No concerns here, everything seems to be in order, and nothing included is non-free.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


#### Section notes
Nothing here is critical, just some thoughts about article improvements.

Lede
Adheres to all aspects of the MOS on ledes. Introduces core elements at a accesibille level; clearly explains why the NoI is notable with regards to prominent members, controversies, and role in wider Black nationalism; everything mentioned in the lede is included in other sections, and while not sourced in lede, is sourced in the article.
I tend to prefer capitalizing "Black" as an ethnic term, and the Black nationalism article and some of the sources here do so I think there's a strong argument for doing so, but the capitalization choice is used consistently throughout the article.
History
It'd be helpful if history were moved forward to be before beliefs. Even with the strong lede and my above-average knowledge of the subject going in, I still found myself a bit confused by references to the roles of specific individuals, or to organizational aspects such as the Fruit of Islam before getting to the history section. Some solid articles on other NRMs use a history-first approach, but others mirror the current layout, so there are obviously reasons for either approach, but I think this article would be improved by the swap.
Organization
This section focuses a lot on the NoI as an organization, but I would have expected more coverage of how it is organized, including questions such as: what sort of ministerial leadership exists, how are leaders chosen, what is the relationship between local chapters and the national organization. Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization includes some of what I mean in the first two paragraphs.
There might be some concern about the repeated used of reveal or revealed here and in a few other sections as unnecessarily implying that things are hidden when it is not explicitly being stated—and cited—that this is so. I think they are all pretty justified and probably intentional, but perhaps there could be inclusion of a statement of a general trend towards opacity/secrecy in this section to strengthen that, if sources support it, or a less intense word chosen if that's not the directio sources support.
Accusations of prejudice
Should ' Further information: Antisemitism in Islam and Islamic–Jewish relations' be here if the article is taking such a clear position that NoI is a post-Muslim NRM? Doesn’t seem right to treat their potential anti-semitism as connected to Islam is they are a separate religious movement. Seems like it unintentionally implies that anti-semitism come to them via their Islamic roots, rather than being a distinctive characteristic, which I don’t think the article supports.
External links & footer
The navboxes get a little overwhelming, on my laptop they take up three whole screens worth of verticals space. Pruning them might be helpful. At the very least I'd suggest getting rid of the scientology navbox, as the connection with dianetics takes up very little of the article space. People interested in dianetics may want to get here, so there may be an argument for adding NoI to that navbox, but It doesn't feel like people reading about the NoI need quick access to all the topics included in that navbox.


#### Source review
I reviewed around 10% of the citations—selected randomly—although because I had only limited access to the Gardell source and didn't want to delay the review because of it to wait for it to arrive from the library, I didn't review 100% of the randomly selected citations from that source once I'd reviewed enough to be sure it was being used well.  Overall, the article draws from a wide variety of reliable sources, and does a great job at selecting which claims to include in wikivoice vs in the voice of a source, and making sure only to inlcude claims that enjoy widespread support in wikivoice. I fixed one tiny error, but otherwise the article makes immaculate use of SFN citation templates and well-formed references. 
A few citations that I had minor concerns or suggestions about:

101 - Barnett 2006, p. 882
The group deems Christianity a tool of white supremacy used to subjugate black people, doesn't really seem the right wording for the claim made in Barnett, which is that the NoI sees "mainstream Christianity" as perpetuating white supremacy, which isn't quite as strong a claim as what's made in the article, and has a different sense of instrumentality that seems significant to me.
196 - Barnett 2006, p. 888
Male members typically cut their hair short, sometimes shaving the head entirely, and do not usually wear beards. The point about beards seems to be made on 889. There is a point about beards made in 888, but it's not  a descriptive claim about the NoI, but part of a typology of religiosity the author is advancing.
Penultimate supper, I'm an accidental 'watcher', rather than an author on this article, and claim no credit for myself, but I would like to commend you on the thoughtfulness and acuteness of your GA review. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete:, thank you for the kind words! It was my first review in a long time, and I'd only done one before, so I'm glad to hear it seemed thorough and helpful!  — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, and wasn't able to 'google' anything helpful, but am sceptical about this addition,  "(NoI) believes dinosaurs to be a hoax created by members of the white race". Whilst creationists of all flavours have 'novel' explanations for fossil and similar evidence, this one I have never heard before, but am reluctant to revert as it is plausible that it would have been part of NoI teaching at some point. Pincrete (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source: The NOI asserts that dinosaurs never existed except in the imagination of white scientists. They point to the fact that "scientists at the Smithsonian acknowledge that their displays are based on artists' conceptions and limited fossil findings." Ava Muhammad claims these fossils to be manufactured to promote the hoax and views Steven Spielberg's 1993 hit movie Jurassic Park as yet another "manifestation of the power of the Caucasian people to deceive." StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
"A hoax created by white scientists" would seem to be a better summary. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I cannot find any other source that suggests otherwise, so that change should be fine. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The article currently (and at the time of its recent passage of WP:GA) has a section about accusations that NoI is a hate group, antisemitic, etc.  This section is, quite appropriately, titled "Accusations of prejudice".  Another editor boldly changed this to the argumentative title "Prejudice and racism", which I reverted because it does not fit the section contents and also violates WP:NPOV.  That editor has reverted again (and thrown in some personal attacks); I am opening this section for other editors to weigh in on which heading is better. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The accusations are entirely about 'race', so I find the newer title more specific and don't find it at all offensive. The text itself makes very clear that these are accusations, not facts, though various NoI leaders' anti-semitism is widely documented, so I don't find it non-PoV. The oldertitle could be seen as a bit weasel-ly, so I slightly prefer the newer. If the old were used, it probably should be "Accusations of racism", since all the accusations relate to 'race', to broadly include Jewish-ness.Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Antisemitism is only partly about race, and the section also mentions anti-LGBT prejudice.  Moreover, the actual content of the section is two types of sentences: attributed accusations and uncharacterized quotes.  If you think there’s a problem with that, you should start with the text (or maybe the sources, I haven’t looked deeply), not the section heading. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I haven't edited the section heading, I'm simply responding to your post, and largely disagree with your analysis, though I would never have bothered to make the initial change. I'm sorry, but anti-semitism is a form of racism, that Judaism may not be wholly about 'race' (which is a pretty nebulous term anyway), is largely academic. The anti-LGBT prejudice is little more than a passing mention in the SPLC sentence. The section is largely about various forms of racial prejudice, and it's hardly novel that NoI has often been seen (in its leaders' rhetoric at least) as anti-semitic and/or racist. The text is what mainly counts anyway, the heading is secondary and that clearly states the charges against NoI and some of its leaders as 'accusations'. If there are unattributed quotes then they should go, not 'weasel' the accusations IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you and I disagree very much.  I agree with you that the section is mostly about race, I objected only to your statement that "all the accusations" were about race.  To clarify the last sentence of my previous message, which included an imprecise use of the generalized "you": I meant that if there's a problem here, it should be addressed by addressing the content of the section first, not by changing the section header. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The biggest issue I see is that the section paints the entire century-old organization with too broad a brush.   You have white-passing W.D. Fard who calls all non-believers "devils" and recommends the teachings of Rutherford and Ford.  You have Elijah Muhammad, who's decidedly anti-white but probably not much more anti-Semitic than your typical 1930s Detroiter.  You have Warith Dean Muhammad, who is explicitly anti-racist, and then you have Farrakhan who was probably one of the most prominent voices of open anti-Semitism in his era.
Which is just to say, lots of work to be done. Feoffer (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The established section title, "Accusations of prejudice", is a lot more neutral than an alternative like "Prejudice and racism". Best to keep it as it is, in my view. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: Members of the NOI study the Quran, worship Allah as their God and accept Muhammad as their prophet This text was recently added, removed, restored by me and then removed by Midnightblueowl on the grounds that "This text is really quite misleading and overstates the similarities between NOI and Islam" . The source used is here and is part of a longer 'summary of beliefs' on a US gov website: "Members of the NOI study the Quran, worship Allah as their God and accept Muhammad as their prophet, while also believing in notions of Black Nationalism".
I think MBO and myself don't fundamentally agree that NoI and mainstream Islam are very different from each other, however, I thought it useful to briefly record how they 'overlap' in their beliefs before recording how they differ. The centrality of Quran/Allah/Muhammad seems a big 'overlap', even if NoI interpret these in an idiosyncratic way. Pincrete (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It sort of depends what era we're talking about.   Fard's NoI may or may not have taught that Fard himself was Allah.   Elijah's NoI did, Warith Dean's did NOT, Farakhan's certainly used to but I'm uncertain where they are modernly.   They've even incorporated Scientology now. Feoffer (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the issue to Talk, Pincrete. My concern revolves principally about accuracy, as I have severe doubts as to the reliability of the U.S. government source being cited here. The webpage offers a very short overview of the NOI (it is only seven sentences long) and gives no information as to who wrote this overview or what their credentials are. I suspect that the author is likely a government employee with little or no background knowledge regarding the NOI or other NRMs, but rather someone simply tasked with putting together a quick overview alongside their many other duties. Just because the website is a government source, doesn't automatically mean it's a WP:Reliable Source.
Part of the reason I say this is that some of the claims on that website contravene (or at very least misrepresent) what all of the Reliable Sources say regarding the NOI. The text on that website says that "Members of the NOI study the Quran" but the Quran does not appear to be a central aspect of the NOI's practice; as sources cited in the article make clear, the NOI has no central sacred text of its own but draws on elements of both the Bible and Quran. Emphasising the Quran in the opening sentence of paragraph two thus gives considerable WP:Undue Weight to something that is not a significant aspect of NOI belief.
The government website also states that the NOI "worships Allah as their God". This is technically true, in that the NOI does venerate a deity named Allah, however their concept of who and what this Allah is differs profoundly from that in Islam. For Muslims, Allah is an omnipotent, non-anthropomorphic monotheistic divinity. For NOI members, there is not one Allah but many, each taking on the role after the death of their predecessor, and these multiple Allahs are all mortal men. Adding "worships Allah as their God" to the article thus gives a highly misleading impression of NOI theology to the reader.
The third part of the problematic sentence states that the NOI "accept Muhammad as their prophet". Again, this is not necessarily untrue, but whereas Muslims typically understand Muhammad as the final and most important prophet of God, for the NOI he was simply one prophet among many, and has been followed by various more recent prophets. As reliable sources cited in the article make clear, the NOI places greater importance on Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad, the founder and second leader of the NOI respectively, that they do on Muhammad the Arabian prophet. For this reason, stating that the NOI "accept Muhammad as their prophet" at an early juncture of the lead is yet more misleading undue weight.
All things considered, the existing GA-rated text at the start of paragraph two is a far more helpful and accurate introduction to NOI belief than the proposed addition. The latter is profoundly misleading and will undermine the article's GA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for delay in replying, real world commitments! I don't think that we fundamentally disagree that NoI's interpretation of Islam is novel, to say the least and that many of its tenets and practices would be blasphemous or bizarre to mainstream/old-world Muslims (but that isn't unusual with US 'home grown' religious groups). However NoI does claim to be Islamic and its members believe themselves to be Muslims (some of its most prominent members have gone on to adopt 'Islam proper'), so I thought it worth recording where it aligns with 'Islam proper', before recording where it differs. On balance, you may be right, however, the addition may be too simplistic, as implied by Feoffer. Pincrete (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)