A question about Islam & Nation of Islam

[papabryant]

This is going to sound like a "gotcha" question.

​

We know that for Muslims, like Christians and Jews, a Prophet is not a true prophet unless he tells the truth - no mistakes and no lies.

We also know that ***'s own word is true, otherwise it is not the word of ***.

According to the Nation of Islam website, Master W. Fard Muhammad was the long awaited Mahdi (or Messiah) and Elijah Mohammed was a Prophet of ***, appointed to right the wrongs done to people of African descent in the New World. The following quote from the Nation of Islam website makes this clear (emphasis mine):

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htmhttp://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm


http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm
http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htmhttp://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm 

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm
IN 1931, THE MASTER WAS preaching this Great Truth of salvation when He met a man named Elijah Poole in Detroit, Michigan. He chose him to be His Divine Representative in continuing this most difficult task of bringing truth and light to His lost and found people. For 3 1/2 years He taught and trained the Honorable Elijah Muhammad night and day into the profound Secret Wisdom of the Reality of ***, which included the hidden knowledge of the original people who were the first founders of civilization of our Planet and who had a full knowledge of the Universal Order of Things from the beginning of the Divine Creation.

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm 

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm
Upon the Master's departure in 1934, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad labored tirelessly to bring life to his mentally and spiritually dead people until his return to the Master in 1975. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad identified the Master as being the answer to the one that the world had been expecting for the past 2,000 years under the names Messiah, the second coming of Jesus, the Christ, Jehovah, ***, and the Son of Man. When the Honorable Elijah Muhammad asked Him to identify Himself He replied that He was the Mahdi. He signed His name in 1933 as Master Wallace Fard Muhammad to express the meaning of One Who had come in the Early Morning Dawn of the New Millennium to lay the base for a New World Order of Peace and Righteousness on the foundation of Truth and Justice; to put down tyrants and to change the world into a Heaven on Earth.

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm 

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm
During the Honorable Elijah Muhammad's initial 44 years, he suffered persecution & rejection from the very people whom he was appointed as a Servant of ***. He was rejected and despised by the 10 percent leaders of America and the world because he revealed a Greater Truth and Wisdom that would end the old world of Satan's rule and dominion. He was not self-taught or self-made but ONE MIGHTY IN POWER had taught him what he knew not. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad had never received any more than a fourth grade education, yet his heart was true in what he saw and he saw the greatest of the Signs of his Lord.

http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm


http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm

According to Sura 33:40 Mohammed was the Syed Ali Ahsan, or "seal of the Prophets".

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/
Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/View attachment 796 Baset - View attachment 796 Hussari - View attachment 796 Minshawihttp://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/


http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/
33:40 [And know, O believers, that] Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men,Asad(33,50)

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/[50] but is ***’s Apostle and the Seal of all Prophets.Asad(33,51) [51] And *** has indeed full knowledge of everything.


http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/


http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

And this is confirmed by Islamic Scholars:

Seal of the Prophets and His MessageLessons on Islamic Doctrine Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari

For free literature by Sayyid Lari, please visit www.musavilari.org

Translated by:Hamid Algar

Published by the Islamic Education Center, 7917 Montrose Road, Potomac, MD 20854

http://www.al-islam.org/Seal/index.html​

The sealing of prophethood has always been regarded as one of the fundamental components of belief in Islam; it negates the possibility of the emergence of any Messenger after the Prophet of Islam.

In any discussion of Islam, we cannot overlook the role played in it by the sealing of prophethood with the Prophet Muhammad.

What Muslim is there who does not immediately think of the Prophet's aspect as seal whenever he call him to mind, or who has any doubt that the Quran is the final revealed message of ***?

No religion is known to us that like Islam proclaims the sealing of revelation, nor any heavenly personality who has claimed eternal validity for his message.

So, given that ***'s word must be true and a Prophet must be true, the question is which one is lying, the Qur'an or Elijah Mohammed?

​

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

So, given that ***'s word must be true and a Prophet must be true, the question is which one is lying, the Qur'an or Elijah Mohammed?

They are BOTH lying.

 

[fullauto]

I would have to say that both the Qu'ran, and Elija are bending ORIGINAL truths to suit their own needs... And don't take that the wrong way... I don't feel there is a whole lot of truth in the Qu'ran, but Like the Torah, The Bible (every version), and let's say the Rig Veda, these are all based on earlier writtings lost in translation and time... These stories are told and retold to the needs to the society that rewrites them... And in Every case, The original 'truths' (if that's what you choose to call them) is manipulated in such a way to benefit those in power.... who incidentally happen to be the same people rewritting the books...

If you want to know about 'Truth' (as far as it can be understood anyways) you have to read original texts... Before the power struggles between men... When First the GODS ruled, then the Kings (Nobles)... Because once men got a hold of ****, truth became the first casualty...

 

[Hamza123]

I hope you know that just because you're in NOI, doesn't mean you follow the Quran.

For example, a highly popular concious rapper in the states, Mos Def, who is a Muslim and Black, you'd think he would support NOI.

I think the NOI, in general, is an organization that is just capitalizing off the misery of black folks. As a Muslim, I think they are a terrible wedge in the American public's understanding of true Islam. That's part of the reason why they receive such wide media coverage -- as long as America or some part of the global community believes that the NOI represents true Islam, people are not going to be receptive to Islam.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:tq0ollwySKEJ:www.o-dub.com/ontherun/mosdef98.html+mos+def+NOI&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

 

[quarky]

They both full of ****,

but wait that is all religions

 

[papabryant]

I hope you know that just because you're in NOI, doesn't mean you follow the Quran.
For example, a highly popular concious rapper in the states, Mos Def, who is a Muslim and Black, you'd think he would support NOI.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:tq0ollwySKEJ:www.o-dub.com/ontherun/mosdef98.html+mos+def+NOI&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

I do understand this Hamza, rest assured.

I simply thought about this after stumbling upon the NOI website. It shows that the intellectual underpinnings of the NOI are not solid.

And I like Mos Def (never heard his music - rap's not my thing), who was great in "The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy".

 

[Hamza123]

Oh yeah he's a great rapper. Even if you don't like rap, you will like his message in his Music.

I understand what you mean. I was talking to my parents about NOI, and although they're an attempt at establishing peace as viewed by some, they are not totally on the table... They're quite corrupt infact. I really hate to admit it.

You're right, NOI think they can trick people, when really they've been fooling Muslims, and of all people, Papabryant (presuming you're not Muslim), found a flaw.

 

[papabryant]

I'm not Muslim, Hamza. I am a Christian, and studying for the ministry (focusing on historical and philosophical apologetics).

Given this flaw I am surprised that NOI is as popular as it is. I probably shouldn't be: people in our secular society are trained to not believe in anything, which makes them succeptable to everything. And when you have a group (as I would venture to say is the case of NOI Imams) that deflects scrutiny from the logical and theological problems apparent on close examination... Well.

And even if the problems are not actual, but only apparent on first glance there are those that will discourage inquiry with an appeal to authority.

As I see it the problem is not unique to NOI or Islam; we evangelicals have our share that do the same. There is 3500 years of examination of the Hebrew and Christian testaments to draw upon, so its safe to say every concievable objection that can be raised probably has been and has been answered by the Faith as a whole. Yet in certain denominations if a believer asks questions they are told not to question, but to "just believe", as if the inquiry will weaken belief instead of strengthen it.

This is because (at least in the West) we have allowed the secularist to define faith as "belief without evidence". I know the Bible doesn't define faith this way, and I would venture Islam doesn't either. We of the Abrahamic faiths should know better.

Peace, my friend,

Tom

 

[papabryant]

I would have to say that both the Qu'ran, and Elija are bending ORIGINAL truths to suit their own needs... And don't take that the wrong way... I don't feel there is a whole lot of truth in the Qu'ran, but Like the Torah, The Bible (every version), and let's say the Rig Veda, these are all based on earlier writtings lost in translation and time...

Well, not to sound like a challenge, but I would say that - at least as far as the Tanakh and New Testament are concerned - you are incorrect in general principle.

You are right in saying that we do not have the autograph (originals) of any of the documents that make up the Bible, but the copies we have are close enough to the time of autograph that the people who wrote the documents were still alive to protest any changes. And they didn't.

There is a common misconception that there are wholesale changes in the Bible over time. This simply isn't true.

For example, the earliest full copy of 1 Cor. we have is dated to within 50 years of autograph. And there is a fragmentary copy dated eariler than that. The fragment section and the full copy are identical for that section. Word for word.

The fact is that most of the differences - 95% by scholars estimates - are either spelling errors or regional variations (such as saying "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ". The rest come from known sources that explain the variations, such as the Gnostics and their "continuing revelation" additions to the texts.

Nor is it a case of trying to "suppress" certain groups. The early Church strove to keep their beliefs pure and free from what they saw as corrupting influences. The Council of Nicea, far from being about suppression, was about purity. 20 of the 27 books of the NT were chosen on their first vote, and those that were rejected or tabled for later were done so because authorship was in question. If you took a copy of Luke from Tarsus and a copy from Alexandria, you would find they were identical. But take a copy of Thomas from Tarsus, Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, Jerusalem, Britain, Athens, and Damascus and compare them and they were all different, thanks to the Gnostics penchant for adding "gnosis". So which one was the original? Or at least the one with the least changes?

They couldn't tell either.

So this idea that the Bible was changed as part of a power grab is an urban myth, but one that just won't seem to go away inspite of the evidence to the contrary. There were no changes and it wasn't about power. This is not to say that abuses did not occur or that EVERY heretic was treated in the epitome of Christian tolerance and love. Anecdotal evidence shows this. But they were the exceptions, not the rule.

Tom