It's May 13, 2024, 02:35:37 AM
it's my understanding that the amm simply decided to embrace orthodox islam. the noi had more than a religious message, it had a political message that the amm probably would have stifled. it's hard to maintain a political agenda that revolves around black empowerment and at the same time supporting an all inclusive religious agenda. farrakhan now has allied and tries tomore closely associates the noi with the larger muslim world, but at the same time the noi preserves it's agenda of black empowerment.
let's take a step back. the noi message is largely focused on black empowerment, and uplifting the black community. i think we can agree that there is a level of inequality between the black community and the larger american community as a whole. because the noi is focused on empowering the black community, there is that sense of neglecting the larger community as a whole. it's not possible to focus on a sub-group without ignoring the larger community to an extent. additionally, the noi believes that the u.s. government continues to be biased against blacks in many ways, and against the muslim world as well. thus it calls for a rejection of american values & policies in many way. "america is unjust".
do you agree with the noi's assessment of american policies and agenda's? do you agree with the noi's desire for black empowerment?what black leaders do you feel have a better message and do a better job to realize these goals? i'd say there are few if any with the same level of visibility as farrakhan.
universalism...islam certainly accepts christianity and judiasm. the qu'ran does say to fight against oppression and to be wary of the motives of non-believers that don't respect and preserve peace with the believers. so the universalism seems to apply mainly to true believers of other faiths; but not necessarily to oppressed people and their oppressors. the separatism has evolved into this principle of blacks taking responsibility for their community, supporting black businesses...etc. farrakhan has always embraced christianity; he used to be criticized for preaching more from the bible than the qu'ran. he spoke very graciously in this speech here of true judiasm.
well, upon further research:sura 49:13O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).so the qu'ran definitely frowns on that sort of racial demagoguery that the noi engaged in.
eihtball:Quote from: Eihtball on February 22, 2006, 06:11:18 AMuniversalism...islam certainly accepts christianity and judiasm. the qu'ran does say to fight against oppression and to be wary of the motives of non-believers that don't respect and preserve peace with the believers. so the universalism seems to apply mainly to true believers of other faiths; but not necessarily to oppressed people and their oppressors. the separatism has evolved into this principle of blacks taking responsibility for their community, supporting black businesses...etc. farrakhan has always embraced christianity; he used to be criticized for preaching more from the bible than the qu'ran. he spoke very graciously in this speech here of true judiasm.well, upon further research:sura 49:13O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).so the qu'ran definitely frowns on that sort of racial demagoguery that the noi engaged in.
Yeah, I've never read the Qur'an in its entirety, but I couldn't imagine how orthodox Muslims could approve of the NOI's racial beliefs. I mean, the NOI claims white people were created through selective breeding and are inherently "devilish"...
Quote from: nibs on February 22, 2006, 07:43:03 PMsura 49:13O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).Who is the "We" that created us from the single pair?
sura 49:13O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
So I guess that means means that according to that God would need "partners" to get certain things done. (Infinite will love that theory). I don't get why a being that can do anything and everything wouldn't be able to come to Earth if he wanted to.
the qu'ran clearly states, as you suggest, that anything god wants done he can simply say "be" and it will be done.
There it is; ANYTHING God wants done can be done. So if God wanted an equal, God would have an equal. Now I am not using this to prove that Jesus was his equals because it does not prove that, but it does prove that you (not you presonally) cannot disprove the possibility that Jesus could be an equal.
Obviously as a Christian I have to believe that what is taught in the Quran with regards to Jesus is a lie, much like every Muslim has to believe that what is said in the Gospel with regards to Jesus is a lie; the whether he is the son of God part.
In Islam I find it wrong that a man can marry several wives but a woman is not allowed to (if I have this wrong then please correct me).
As for the partners; I disagree with you. God does have partners in the angels and even the prophets
I have no need to debate you. I believe what I belive and you belive what you believe. That was my point from the beginning.
When I read something like God can do anything I take it as that. Anything, with out limitations.
The only sect I know that believes that is Unitarian Christianity, which is a very small number.
I just wanted to make sure that the idea that Jesus is God is not something debated by Christians in general.
As for John the Baptist; that's a very easy one when answering from a Christian perspective. Gabriel came to Zacharias and told him that Elizabeth would bear him a son. Jospeh was visted by Gabriel after Mary was pregnant and he was told that child that had been conceived in her was of the Holy Spirit.
Christians who argue that Jesus never said he was the Son of God or anything of that nature must belive that the written Gospel is a lie and if it lies about that then it can lie about anything.