Louis Farrakhan on Jesus at the Million Man March

ThatRobGuy · Aug 8, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Where is that taught in the Koran?

That's a case of double speak.

A couple things

I'd refer you to the verses that make reference to the concept of "paying Jizya"

As well as this one
Al-Baqarah - The Cow - 2:193 (Sura: 2, Verse: 193)

Saying that "it's not compulsion, it's your own choice" is a bit disingenuous if one knows their choice could end in death if they don't make "the right choice" according to the person holding the sword.

Basically
If I'm holding the sword and tell you "hey I'm going to keep attacking until you freely choose to see things my way, but I can't make up your mind for you, it's your choice, what's it gonna be?" And you predictably comply (like many people would because you don't want to get hurt or killed), it's dishonest to say that it was uncoerced conversion.

And then when you have other passages like these:
Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.
Fight until no other religion exists but Islam.

We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.

Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks

I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike them above the necks, smite their finger tips

...it's pretty hard to suggest that there isn't some forced conversion there. Fight against them until there's no dissention doesn't sound like like free conversion, that just sounds like make them so scared that they convert out of fear for their own lives, and then pretend that it was an uninfluenced choice.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 8, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
That's a case of double speak.

A couple things

I'd refer you to the verses that make reference to the concept of "paying Jizya"

As well as this one
Al-Baqarah - The Cow - 2:193 (Sura: 2, Verse: 193)

Saying that "it's not compulsion, it's your own choice" is a bit disingenuous if one knows their choice could end in death if they don't make "the right choice" according to the person holding the sword.

Basically
If I'm holding the sword and tell you "hey I'm going to keep attacking until you freely choose to see things my way, but I can't make up your mind for you, it's your choice, what's it gonna be?" And you predictably comply (like many people would because you don't want to get hurt or killed), it's dishonest to say that it was uncoerced conversion.

And then when you have other passages like these:
Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.
Fight until no other religion exists but Islam.

We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.

Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks

I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike them above the necks, smite their finger tips

...it's pretty hard to suggest that there isn't some forced conversion there. Fight against them until there's no dissention doesn't sound like like free conversion, that just sounds like make them so scared that they convert out of fear for their own lives, and then pretend that it was an uninfluenced choice.

Humble_Disciple said:
In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites, on several occasions, to slaughter entire Gentile villages, including infant children.

Peter, on the night of Jesus' betrayal, cuts the ear of a man with the very sword which, in Luke, Jesus told him to purchase.

In Revelation, Jesus returns to slay the wicked of the earth.

Hammster · Aug 8, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites, on several occasions, to slaughter entire Gentile villages, including infant children.

Peter, on the night of Jesus' betrayal, cuts the ear of a man with the very sword which, in Luke, Jesus told him to purchase.

In Revelation, Jesus returns to slay the wicked of the earth.

Your point?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 8, 2021

Hammster said:
Your point?

The Koran is not a uniquely violent book, especially not compared to the Bible.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 9, 2021

Regardless of one's opinion on Louis Farrakhan, he's a musical genius:

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is a classically-trained violinist who was introduced to the violin at the age of five or six. He gave up playing the violin professionally and the entertainment industry as a whole just a few months after becoming a registered member of the Nation of Islam in the mid-1950s. However, he was blessed to return to his love of music in the early 1990s, a love that culminated in May 1993 with an acclaimed performance of Felix Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E minor, Opus 64 – he was accompanied by the New World Orchestra conducted by Michael Morgan. Nearly a decade later in 2002 he performed the Beethoven Violin Concerto in Los Angeles. A compilation album with many of today’s well-known artists will soon be released, where the Minister’s musical artistry will once again be on display. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has stated that he wishes to inspire young Black children to consider learning how to play classical music and stringed instruments.
https://brotherqiyamblog.com/children-of-the-most-high-the-sound-of-music/

Hammster · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
The Koran is not a uniquely violent book, especially not compared to the Bible.

Do you think God is too violent?

FireDragon76 · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
The Koran is not a uniquely violent book, especially not compared to the Bible.

It's actually got less violence in it. Most of the Quran is just theology or polemics.

FireDragon76 · Aug 9, 2021

RDKirk said:
Well, actually the NOI is heretical to Islam in several fundamental ways.

That's one of the reasons Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad's own son left the organization and started a more orthodox organization for black American Muslims.

I had a Turkish friend in highschool that told me more or less the same thing, it's not regarded as real Islam by actual Muslims.

My impression is that it began among followers of Marcus Garvey that were LARPing at being Muslims, but brought alot of their prejudices and assumptions with them into the new religion.

FireDragon76 · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
...yet somehow black civil rights organizations, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus, do.

Everybody has their blind spots. NoI and similar new religious movements are popular in some parts of the African American community, and alot of politicians want to ingratiate themselevs to a wide constituency, even if those movements are considered racist and homophobic by society at large.

RDKirk · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:

There are a lot of people who believe Farrakhan had a role in Malcolm's assassination.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 9, 2021

RDKirk said:
There are a lot of people who believe Farrakhan had a role in Malcolm's assassination.

If that were true, why did none of the newspapers imply it at the time and why was he never prosecuted?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 9, 2021

Please don't get me wrong. I denounce violence and racism. I just so happen to also see the positive in Louis Farrakhan as a civil rights leader, especially in what he did by putting on the Million Man March, which had a positive impact on many people's lives.

Hammster · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Please don't get me wrong. I denounce violence and racism. I just so happen to also see the positive in Louis Farrakhan as a civil rights leader, especially in what he did by putting on the Million Man March, which had a positive impact on many people's lives.

What positive impact did it have?

RDKirk · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
If that were true, why did none of the newspapers imply it at the time and why was he never prosecuted?

What is true is that a lot of people thought Farrakhan had a hand in it. Even Betty Shabazz thought so.

But there was no Internet at the time, police and politicians were glad Malcolm was gone (regardless how it happened), and police prosecuted on the basis of having prior evidence, not Twitter outrage.

RDKirk · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Please don't get me wrong. I denounce violence and racism. I just so happen to also see the positive in Louis Farrakhan as a civil rights leader, especially in what he did by putting on the Million Man March, which had a positive impact on many people's lives.

I give Farrakhan this credit: He is behaving as an actual leader among blacks. Everyone one else that has been acclaimed as a "black leader" has actually been in the role of a "shaman," the person who entreats with the powers-that-be for a benign environment. A true leader--a "chief"--is the person who speaks to the people and directs them in the way they should behave and the things they should do for themselves and the group. Farrakhan has taken that role, and nobody else has.

The Million-Man March is a case in point. It was not a march on Washington to entreat politicians to do anything for black people, it was group meeting for a leader to tell his own people what they should be doing.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 9, 2021

RDKirk said:
Even Betty Shabazz thought so.

Why would she speak at the Million Man March, if that were the case?

TLK Valentine · Aug 9, 2021

Blindish post here:

I consider Farrakhan to be an race-baiting opportunist and political animal, and all else being equal, I trust him about as far as a could shot-put a Toyota.

However, aside from "he's a bad, bad man...." what's the theological rebuttal to the OP?

RDKirk · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Why would she speak at the Million Man March, if that were the case?

She stopped talking about it and came to terms with it. She did not, after all, intend to leave the NOI, so she came to terms with it.

ThatRobGuy · Aug 9, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
The Koran is not a uniquely violent book, especially not compared to the Bible.

I don't think anyone said it was...

I even acknowledged that the violence in the OT exceeded that of the Koran.

However, I outlined key distinctions between the books (and more specifically, the "hero of the story" from each book) that explains some of the disparities in terms of the "acting out in violent ways in the name of the religion".

As I stated before, despite having more violence in their book, nobody lays awake at night worrying about the Amish.

RDKirk · Aug 9, 2021

ThatRobGuy said:
I don't think anyone said it was...

I even acknowledged that the violence in the OT exceeded that of the Koran.

However, I outlined key distinctions between the books (and more specifically, the "hero of the story" from each book) that explains some of the disparities in terms of the "acting out in violent ways in the name of the religion".

As I stated before, despite having more violence in their book, nobody lays awake at night worrying about the Amish.

What, you never watched "Amish Mafia?"

Louis Farrakhan on Jesus at the Million Man March

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Part of the IT crowd

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads