PDA

View Full Version : Is the Nation of Islam an "Extremist" Group?


Mr. Muhammad
06-01-2009, 04:27 PM
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah,
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

What Exactly is an "Extremist"?

I read an article, this morning, about the four men who were arrested and charged with plotting to commit hate crimes against the Jewish Community and certain U.S. Military entities. Apart from the obvious shoddiness of the case contrived against these men, I noticed that the writer of this article indirectly referred to the Nation of Islam as, among other things, an "extremist" group:

"Tough drug laws since the 1980s led to the incarceration of large numbers of African-Americans, many of whom joined the Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views..."

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090531/FOREIGN/705309920/1014/ART

I found it interesting that this writer manages to paint "large numbers of African-Americans" as predisposed to drug use, and inclined toward the "Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views...". Why make such a juxtaposition? Is the writer suggesting that the Nation of Islam is primarily comprised of convicted drug users/pushers who are attracted to the Nation of Islam because of its "extremist views"?

Well, naturally, being a Member of the Nation of Islam, I was a bit concerned about this categorization of Us and our Beliefs. So, before I positioned myself to hurl my "retort" at this writer, I decided to look up this word, "extremist", so that I might get a clearer idea of just what this person was/is attempting to communicate.

The word "extremist" has as its root, the word "extreme":

extreme (adj.):
{c.1460, from L. extremus "outermost, utmost," superl. of exterus (see exterior).}
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.
6. going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.: an extreme conservative.
7. last or final: extreme hopes.

Therefore, an "extremist" is one whose ideas and actions are considered "far removed from the [what is accepted as] ordinary or average", or are "exceeding the bounds of moderation".

This begs the question, "Who determines what is 'ordinary', 'average', 'normal', or 'moderate'?" What is the standard by which something is determined to be "normal"? Is it a fixed standard? Is it a varying standard? Does it remain constant regardless of time or place? Or, does it change with time, and differ with culture or environment?

I also noticed that there was no definite "moral" connotation included in the definition. Does this suggest that there are certain instances where it is "good" to be "extreme"? Are there instances where "normal" or "ordinary" is "bad"?

There are areas where poverty is "ordinary" and "average". Would it be "wrong" to break from that "norm" to establish a better, healthier reality in such areas?

Were not the "founding fathers" of the United States considered "extremists" by the British Crown?

When Patrick Henry proclaimed, "...Give me Liberty, or give me death!", was that not an "extreme" statement born of an "extreme" conviction? What was the "norm" in his day that moved him to make such a statement?

In that vein, could not Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and all the Prophets of God be considered "extremists"?

Were any of them inclined to drug use or criminal activity? Most would say "No", and History certainly doesn't give us any indication otherwise.

Well, then...how did this term "extremist" take on such an ugly connotation? Why is it used so liberally to demonize people who dare to speak up and speak out against intolerable and unjust "norms" in a given society?

It is because those who occupy the seats of political and economic power in this world DEPEND on the maintenance of the status quo (the "ordinary"): The Rich "bloodsuckers of the poor" staying rich by keeping the poor in poverty.

In one sense it is valid to say that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views, because we see and understand that human beings are being held in "extreme" spiritual (if not economic) poverty, which has led to the extreme corruption and immanent collapse of the society, demanding "extreme" measures to reverse the trend toward disaster that the world is currently in.

But to suggest that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views along the lines of "criminal" or "terrorist" ideologies is both deceptive and detrimental to the overall well being of the global community; for such mischaracterizations prevent the people from benefitting from the Guidance found in the Nation of Islam that has an UNMATCHED record of transforming human lives from "destitute" to "progressive", from "criminal" to "honorable", from "hopeless" to "vibrant".

The Hon. Louis Farrakhan, by the Help and Guidance of Allah (God), has taught us, and the world, what a truly "Civilized" human being looks like, walks like, talks like, LIVES like; and has reproduced his example in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands -- if not MILLIONS -- of human beings who have been literally LONGING for SOMEONE to free them from the bonds of the "ordinary", the "average", and the "norms" that are so comfortable and convenient for the rich elite; but have been the literal "hell" for the disenfranchised.

For that, He...and WE...Make no apologies.

Does the Nation of Islam have "extremist" views? No more than those of the Prophets of God.

Does the Nation of Islam deserve to be characterized as an enemy to the peace of Humanity? Not nearly as much as the governments and rulers of this present age.

The Nation of Islam did not start the war in Iraq...or Afghanistan...or anywhere there are wars raging on our planet as a result of the "ordinary" foriegn policies of the West.

RM

diggy
06-01-2009, 05:27 PM
There is a trend amongst white supremacists to be racist without the appearance of being racist (imo).

The old racist would just say he hates a certain ethnicity.

The new racist would say he hates an idea amongst a certain ethnicity.

The new racist hides behind hating 'islam' which many ethnicities claim as their way of life - African Americans, Arabs, South-East Asians, Persians, etc.

The new racist targets Arabs and Arab-looking people and his reason is "they attacked us on 9-11." Some of the white supremacists' victims are not even Arab or muslim, and none of them had anything to do with what happened on 9-11.

When black Christans are committing crimes, you do not hear of their religion associated with it. But when someone identifies with being a 'Muslim' their religion gets associated with their criminal act.

They (white supremacists) are not so good at hiding their hatred and double standards.

Prolifical ENG
06-01-2009, 05:40 PM
In general, one could call any group that deals with politics and has no official power in the government an extremist group. In the past it was just a left or right wing oriented group but you're right the concept is changing to make it more negative and extremist is more relative.

RALPH WIGGUM
06-01-2009, 05:45 PM
Labelling a group extremist is the way for a government or any influencial group to prevent the people to listen to any of what this group says. Its propaganda. Its used to scare people.

Drunken Monk
06-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Luv allah

Drunken Monk
06-01-2009, 06:28 PM
stop this no sense against muslims

LORD NOSE
06-01-2009, 07:53 PM
beautiful thread RM


have yall ever experienced someone justifying their dog biting someones child ?

and willing to fight you for complaining about it ?

LORD NOSE
06-01-2009, 08:02 PM
They (white supremacists) are not so good at hiding their hatred and double standards.


do you think they have any reason to have any hatred toward anyone ?

there are people who are white supremest and who are black but don't know it

a blue black brother named tommy washington can be one of the worst white supremest - the ideology has been forced and promoted - - the whole world is is on this trip


yes - every group on the planet has had their share of wars and bloodshed

but poisoning the air and water - atomic and nuclear bombs - artificially colored and flavored food - directly from the devil

why is sugar bleached ?

why is wheat flour bleached ?

bleaching foods takes the nutritional value out of that food - so why bleach foods ?

why bring food through such an unnatural process and cause so much pain, death and suffering ?

what kind of minds do these foods and ideologies produce ?

diggy
06-01-2009, 08:39 PM
do you think they have any reason to have any hatred toward anyone ?

No.

there are people who are white supremest and who are black but don't know it

True.

why is sugar bleached ?

why is wheat flour bleached ?

bleaching foods takes the nutritional value out of that food - so why bleach foods ?

why bring food through such an unnatural process and cause so much pain, death and suffering ?

what kind of minds do these foods and ideologies produce ?


I would like to know the answers to the above questions.