Posted by
Mhu Cao on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:45:45 PM
I've noticed, with some amusement, how many seem to confuse Obama's ties to Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam, with ties to Muslims and Islam.
Apparently, the people who call themselves "Black Muslims" aren't Muslims at all. The Nation of Islam isn't a legitimate version of Islam. It is a socio-political organization using the appearance of a religion as a way to deter scrutiny.
Louis Farrakhan's odd mixture of passages from the Qur'an (Koran) and scriptures from the Holy Bible always puzzled me. Although there is a historically common heritage between the Bible and the Qur'an, Farrakhan's intermingling of the two holy tests with his own brand of vengenace, hatred, and racism never seemed to jibe with either Judaeo-Christian or Islamic principles. Farrakhan
On first glance, the anti-American radical islamists demanding jihad against Western countries ought to despise the outright corruption of Islamic dogma by the Black Muslims. However, in the honor-based society in which the jihadists flourish, "an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine," giving the Black Muslims a pass. This is very unfortunate for the many good Muslims in the US and around the world.
The distorted hatred spewed by the Nation of Islam should not be confused with the teachings of Islam. A member or affiliate of the Nation of Islam may be a Muslin but they also may be a Christian.
In many ways, Farrakhan's teachings are considered to be heretical to traditional Muslim prinicples and tenets. Likewise, the Nation of Islam is not considered to be a legitimate Islamic entity.
Although to avoid extreme controversy, some Muslims deem the NOI as a "religion," they make clear that it isn't part of their religion (Islam). For example,
ISLAM, and so-called "NATION OF ISLAM," are two different religions. The only thing common between them is the jargon, the language used by the both. "The Nation of Islam" is a misnomer; this religion should be called Farrakhanism, after the name of its propagator. The religion of Elijah Muhammad and W.D. Fard died with their death because their officially and popularly elected successor, W.D. Muhammad, integrated the community with the Muslim community at-large, following the Qur'an and Hadith of Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Louis Farrakhan joined W.D. Muhammad and gave his pledge of allegiance to him after Elijah Muhammad's death; he later rebelled and broke his oath with impunity, or without paying any expiation, and restarted "The Nation of Islam."
* * *
On the topic of God/Allah Alone:
ISLAM: One Unique, never appeared in any physical form; hence, no physical representation is possible. He is recognized through his 99 names.
FARRAKHANISM: "...Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July 1930; the long awaited 'Messiah' of the Christians and the 'Mahdi' of the Muslims."
taken from
Islam FAQ (Part 10/15): Islam: Farrakhism & Malcom X
Again, a member or affiliate of the Nation of Islam may be a Christian or a Muslim, or anything else.
Why is this relevant? Because Obama support from the NOI does not mean that Obama is a Muslim.
If a man is known by the company he keeps, and birds of a feather flock together, then it is not mere coincidence that Obama's spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan constitute a mutual admiration society.
Both Wright and Farrakhan are black separatists.
Both demand slavery reparations.
Both have spoken Obama's praises from their pulpits (federal law be damned).
Both have embraced and endorsed Obama.
Farrakhan is known to call for the destruction of America, and for overthrowing the US government other than by Constitutional means. Farrakhan is a known anti-Semite, anti-white, anti-Asian ...
Guilt by association? No.
Obama is not being condemned for associating with these men. However, these circumstances suggest that a reasonable inquiry be made into Obama's beliefs on the issues, which Wright and Farrakhan hold so dearly.
Farrakhanism isn't Islam, and Farrakhan's motives for endorsing Obama ought not be shielded by First Amendment deferences to religion.