Black Spirituality Religion : The Difference Between the Religion of Islam and the Nation of Islam

Aqil said:
Back to the topic of my thread:

The Difference Between the Religion of Islam and the Nation of Islam

By Mustafa El-Amin

AQI, we must be careful in utilizing EL-AMIN's perspective on the NOI here, as he has been known to take a literalists stance against it.

As much as EL-AMIN presents some good points, his perspective is not untennable, to the point of sometimes being fallacious.

For example:

For about fifty years the teachings of the NOI was the dominant message in America concerning Islam and Muslims. Most people, particularly African-Americans, saw the teachings of the NOI as the “pure message” of Islam. However, upon the death of Elijah Muhammad in 1975 and the assuming of the organization's leadership by his son Wallace – who is now Imam Abdul Warithudin Muhammad – the old message of the NOI began to fade away and a new message and teaching came into existence.

This is obviously outdated info. The NOI, in it's various forms is still up and kicking, and doing better in many instances than WALLACE's movement is/was.

The new message was based on the Holy Qur’an (Muslim holy book) and the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (saw), the last Messenger of Allah (swt). It is not a completely new message or teaching in the sense that it has never been taught or heard in the world before; but it was called “new” because it was new to the ears of the members of the NOI. They never heard the pure and true teachings of Islam before...

The majority of the members of the former NOI were able to grasp the new message, and have changed and accepted the religion of Islam as it is practiced by over 1.5 billion Muslims the world over. However, the majority of the American people still have not had the same opportunity to hear the clear message of the Islamic religion, and most African-Americans are still deprived and denied the opportunity to hear the true teachings of Islam...

The Concept of God According to the Religion of Islam

“It is Allah who is God in Heaven and God on Earth, and He is full of wisdom and knowledge.” (Sura 43:84)

Allah (God), according to the religion of Islam, is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He is in total charge of the entire creation. He has no beginning or ending. He was never born and will never die. He has always been in existence. Allah (God) is not a physical being. The Qur’an says, “No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision and He is above total comprehension, yet He is well acquainted with all things.” The Qur’an also states: “Say He is Allah, the one and only; God the eternal, absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” (Sura 112)

The religion of Islam teaches that Allah (God) is one and He has no sons or daughters.

The problem with such a statement, is that it is simply not correct.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, ALLAH did indeed have daughters: ALLAT, MANAT and AL-UZZAH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allat

This is even mentioned in the QUR'AN, Surah 53. How is this explained? And why does the Orthodox Muslim world seek to overlook this, especially in their campaign to discredit any non-Orthodox Muslim group that doesn't agree with the "general consensus", infallible though it may be.

He is neither male nor female.

Listen to the very grammatical contradiction: "HE is neither male......." Does this make any earthly sense?

For that matter, how does a "HE" possess 3 daughters, without the assistance or utilization of another female presence?

The God of the Nation of Islam is called "Master Fard Muhammad," an Arab who was born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia on February 26, 1877. “We believe that Allah (God) came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930,” it says in The Final Call newspaper. On p. 11 of Elijah Muhammad’s bookThe Supreme Wisdom: Solution to the So-called Negro’s Problem, it states that “Allah came to us from the Holy City of Mecca in 1930.” And on p.67 of his book Our Savior Has Arrived, there is the following statement: “The Muslims worship one God, Allah. ‘Say: He (Allah) is one God.’ Yet 99% of the Old World Muslims think that Allah is only a spirit and is not a man.”

Yet another oversimplification of NOI teachings, on the part of Mr EL-AMIN.

That I can recall, no where within the NOI doctrine, does it state that MASTER FARAD MUHAMMAD is to be worshipped as GOD.

According to the teachings of the NOI there were several gods from the beginning of time. They teach that these gods live and die and pass their knowledge and godship from one to another. They teach that God is a man and He always was a man, and that the First God created Himself from and out of total triple darkness (!)

Apparently, according to the teachings of pre-Islamic Islam, this is the very same teaching. Reference ALLAH, ALLAT, etc from above.

The God of the Nation of Islam marries, has sex, eats food and makes mistakes; he is a human being.

Apparently the "ALLAH" of the QUR'AN can do this as well, since "HE" gave birth to 3 daughters.

How can "ALLAH" have daughters, without the means of sex? How does a being that is "neither male nor female" have sex, without the usage of female or male genitalia? Did "HE" have sex out of wedlock, or was "HE" married to the other being that helped "HIM" to give birth to these daughters?

As you can clearly see, the concept of God in the religion of Islam is extremely different from that of the Nation of Islam.

Not really, especially when we take a clear, thorough look at the history of Islam from ancient times, as well as a clear thorough look at NOI teachings.

Over 1.5 billion Muslims believe and accept the concept of God as it is presented in the religion of Islam and the Holy Qur’an.

So this means that 1.5 billion people believe that ALLAH had daughters, "as it is presented in the Holy Qur'an"? :confused:

The reality is, that very few out of that 1.5B have actually even read the QUR'AN in its entirety. Just like very few Christians have ever actually read the entire Bible.

Most people don't even have a sufficient clue of what's in their respective Holy Book. They most just go by what they've been told.

The Concept of Man According to the Religion of Islam

The Qur’an says that Allah (God) created man with a good nature. He created the human being “in the best mold.” Every human being is created in nobility. According to the religion of Islam every human being has a natural inclination towards good, righteousness and truth.

According to Islam every human being is created by one God, Allah (swt), The Most High. Prophet Muhammad (saw) stated in his farewell address that there is no superiority of a black over a white or a white over a black, or an Arab over a non-Arab, etc. Islam teaches that all humans have the same potential for progress. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “every person is born a Muslim.” Any human being can become a Muslim. Islam is not just for a particular group of people. Man is created perfect in his nature...

The White ARAB has never believed this. In fact, there are numerous HADITH that indicate just precisely what they think of Blacks:

"RAISIN-HEAD........MONKEYS..........SEX-CRAVING HEATHENS........etc"

Islam makes a clear distinction between the God Allah (swt) and man. Allah (swt) is all-powerful and independent, whereas man is totally dependent on Allah (swt) for everything. However, Allah (swt) has given us the freedom to think and reason, and He has blessed us with intelligence. The Holy Qur’an says that man was created to worship Allah (swt); “Nay, but worship Allah and be of those who give thanks.” (Sura 39:66)

The Concept of Man According to the Nation of Islam

Not only does the NOI teach that there are two different types of human beings, they also teach that they (black and white people) were created by different “gods.” They teach that the Black man is self-created, and that the white man was created by a Black man named “Yakub” 6,000 years ago. Yakub taught the white man wickedness; he also taught them how to rule the Black man (See Message to the Black Man, pp.103-122)

Apparently this is not entirely different from what the White Arab teaches, especially about the Black man.


The NOI does not teach that the Qur’an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (saw) by Allah (swt).

This is just an outright LIE. No where within NOI doctrine is it explicitly stated that the QUR'AN that is in use now, was not revealed to PROPHET MUHAMMAD.


MA'SALAAM
 
"The religion of Islam teaches that Allah (God) is one and He has no sons or daughters."

SAMARAI36 said:
The problem with such a statement, is that it is simply not correct.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, ALLAH did indeed have daughters: ALLAT, MANAT and AL-UZZAH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allat

This is even mentioned in the QUR'AN, Surah 53. How is this explained? And why does the Orthodox Muslim world seek to overlook this, especially in their campaign to discredit any non-Orthodox Muslim group that doesn't agree with the "general consensus", infallible though it may be.
It is also entirely wrong to say that "Al-Lat" was a feminine form of Allah. Besides Allah, the different tribes of the Arabs believed in their tribal gods. "Al-Lat" was the tribal god of the Thaqif tribe who lived in the city of Taif (where there was a shrine with an idol of Lat). The Quraish worshipped "Uzza" as their tribal god, and similarly with other tribes.

So it is simply incorrect to say that the Arabs regarded "Lat" as being a female equivalent of "Allah." "Allah" was, as said above, regarded by them as their supreme God. "Lat," "Manat," etc., were believed in as tribal gods.

Moreover, "Lat," "Manat" and "Uzza" were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Qur'an says:

"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).

The Qur'an is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat, being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.

In Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the words ilah (god) and Allah occur under the root A-L-H, but the word "Al-lat" is given under an entirely different root, L-T. Therefore, "Al-lat" is not the feminine form of the word Allah (for in that case it would occur under the same root as for "Allah"), but is derived from a completely different root with a totally different meaning.

The root from which "Al-Lat" comes means (among other things) "to moisten." Lane quotes several reports on how the idol came to be so-called. It is named after a man called "Al-Lat." Sometime before Islam, there was a man who used to give pilgrims a barley meal moistened with either water or clarified butter. He thus became known as "Al-lat." After he died, the rock where he was buried came to be worshipped, and was known by his name. And thus there came to be the idol named "Al-lat."

http://www.muslim.org/islam/allah.htm
 
Aqil said:
"The religion of Islam teaches that Allah (God) is one and He has no sons or daughters."

It is also entirely wrong to say that "Al-Lat" was a feminine form of Allah.

Actually, that's not my assertion. In all actuality, "ALLAT" is indeed the masculine, "ALLAH" being the feminine.

But that is not what is at issue here.

The main focus, is that

Besides Allah, the different tribes of the Arabs believed in their tribal gods. "Al-Lat" was the tribal god of the Thaqif tribe who lived in the city of Taif (where there was a shrine with an idol of Lat). The Quraish worshipped "Uzza" as their tribal god, and similarly with other tribes.

True indeed, but in ancient times, all of these deities were considered to be feminine, as were many of the deities in the Arabian pantheon of divinity.

That, in my understanding, is what is meant by them "keeping the males for themselves".

So it is simply incorrect to say that the Arabs regarded "Lat" as being a female equivalent of "Allah." "Allah" was, as said above, regarded by them as their supreme God. "Lat," "Manat," etc., were believed in as tribal gods.

Again, that is not the assertion here.

The assertion is that ALLAH is the "father" (or otherwise parent) of ALLAT and co. The child is NEVER to be seen as the equivolent to the parent. :nono:

Moreover, "Lat," "Manat" and "Uzza" were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Qur'an says:

"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).

The Qur'an is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat, being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.

I agree, and that is my point all along. All this verse is doing, is pointing out the male chauvinism on the part of these men.

However, that does not discount the fact that according to pre-Islamic theology, ALLAH was seen as the parent deity to ALLAH, MANAT and UZZAH.

This is no different than, as it is stated in Kemetic Theology, that NUN and NUT are the parents of AUSAR, AUSET, SET and NEB-THET.

The former duo of deities are not "equivolent" to the latter quartet of deities.

In Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the words ilah (god) and Allah occur under the root A-L-H, but the word "Al-lat" is given under an entirely different root, L-T. Therefore, "Al-lat" is not the feminine form of the word Allah (for in that case it would occur under the same root as for "Allah"), but is derived from a completely different root with a totally different meaning.

This is a point that needs not be further argued, as it is agreed.

The root from which "Al-Lat" comes means (among other things) "to moisten." Lane quotes several reports on how the idol came to be so-called. It is named after a man called "Al-Lat." Sometime before Islam, there was a man who used to give pilgrims a barley meal moistened with either water or clarified butter. He thus became known as "Al-lat." After he died, the rock where he was buried came to be worshipped, and was known by his name. And thus there came to be the idol named "Al-lat."

Where is "Lane's" documentation for this?

This actually sounds like the usual attempts to differentiate pre-Islamic theology from post-Islamic theology, from both having the same root or source or origin.

This is old-hat, as far as I'm concerned.

However, the fact remains that out of the 360 some deities of Arabia during that time, ALLAH was merely another one of them, and apparently He had no more superlative preference than any other deity.

SALAAM
 
Moreover, "Lat," "Manat" and "Uzza" were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Qur'an says:

"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).

The Qur'an is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat, being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.

WRONG!


"53.19": Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza,

"53.20": And Manat, the third, the last?

"53.21": What! for you the males and for Him the females!

"53.22": This indeed is an unjust division!

"53.23": They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any authority. They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top