Talk:Yakub (Nation of Islam)

Citation for universal rejection of Yakub by monotheistic branches

"All other branches of Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism, reject these assertions" (that Yakub is the biblical Jacob).

This statement sounds broadly true. I don't need a reference to know that the Vatican rejects the story of Yakub. However, there are thousands of branches of Christianity / Islam / Judaism. We can't say that all branches reject Yakub unless we interview the heads of each of these branches.

Hoax?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yakub_Islam#Hoax.3F makes the argument that

"The late David Mills, a writer who worked on the TV series The Wire and owner of the blog Undercover Black Man, declared Yakub Islam to be a hoax ... Mills, meanwhile, concluded that the hoax was the work of a white supremacist. 'If Yacub and the "Negro Sun Worshippers" were indeed a "fast-growing movement" across the country, there'd be black people talking about it online', he said. 'but the only places online where you'd see discussion of it is was largely white forums, even neo-Nazi forums. That's where the troll was spending is [sic] time. Why? Because he wanted white people to read his websites. A genuine "black supremacist" would want black people to read his website.' "

Now of course rationalwiki isn't a RS, but like Wikipedia, the entry links to citations, at leas some of which might be OK.

There is an obvious counterargument to this theory, Beliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam#Teachings on race contains a direct quote from Elijah Muhammad talking about Yakub. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that whole section is sourced to a couple blogs. I don't see how the opinions of some non-expert bloggers is at all relevant to this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the blogspot post that the RationalWiki cite links to, I don't see how it even vaguely supports the claims made. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

From reading the ratwik (not derogatory, I just want to save some syllables and make it flow -- rats are cool! they like small vehicles!) page, it does not seem like "Yakub Islam" is the same religion of NOI, or even a splinter group with a closely related theology. Hence I do not think the "Hoax" part applies to the concept of Yakub in NOI.

In fact, ratwik has a page dedicated to NOI, where there is a serious mention of Yakub. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Dudsud How does the footnote that is the source back this? “ Historians have noted the story's parallels with some comparable historical events, but doubts have been raised about its overall legitimacy.<ref name="mos" /“?

And what exactly is this:[1]? No author, no context, doesn’t seem to meet WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the improperly sourced additions to the article. Dudsud (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dudsud Much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Allen 2000, pp. 192, 213 source

Allen, Ernest, "Identity and Destiny: The Formative Views of the Moorish Science Temple and the Nation of Islam" in Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad; John L. Esposito, Muslims on the Americanization Path?, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.192 (footnote, p.213). Needs to be fixed, I will if I have time. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Respectfully, what is the issue with the source? I am not sure what is wrong. Is it the footnote?

Sorry if my attempted source standardization screwed anything up D: long term I want to try to get this article to GA, apologies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA It's just that citation1 only says " Allen 2000" which isn't enough for the reader to find it. There's also been a debate about that source which you can see in the history. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Franks vs Castillians

This is not as claimed by a bluesky issue ask claimed by User:Andro611. "Franks" are mentioned for 1195 and later.. [2] says 1195, search for Franks 1195 Alarcos. Same search at [3]. Alfonso VIII of Castile has Franks in 1212. Are you going to delete that? Seventh Crusade 1242, Franks participated. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

See alsos Crusades and Crusader states. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue in using Castilians. Could it be that Muslim sources used “Franks” as a by-word for all western European christians? But why should we follow medieval islamic conventions instead making the text accessible to readers. Especially considering Castilians aren't Franks. Andro611 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andro611 We follow the sources, which don't seem to be Muslim. Can you find a source that backs what you say about it being a catchall phrase, as that would be useful. As would a quote (including context) from the source you used for Castilians. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This book[4] is useful. It says "1065-1109) more than a century earlier, in 479 H/1086 CE. Concerning the combatants at the Battle of Alarcos, the numbers stated by KhvandamTr are heavily exaggerated: by his account 100,000 Muslims fought under Abu Yusuf Ya'qub against 240,000 "Franks" (i.e. the Castilians), leaving 146,000 of their enemies dead, although Alfonso VIII (malik-i farang/farangistan, "king of the Franks") managed to escape. " which could be useful. Perhaps there are other sources saying the same thing more or less. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Dwight York

As was previously included in the page (but was removed for citing nothing reliable) cult leader Dwight York had an alternate version of this that is somehow more insane. His version of the story is also what the popular visual depiction of Yakub online is from (well, a really terrible colorized version). I recall it being mentioned in some of the sources discussing Yakub/the Nuwaubian Nation (though none currently present on this page), so that can probably be added back in eventually when I or someone else gets around to it, though I'm not sure how much would be due weight since the primary version is the NoI's. In the meantime please stop adding it without any citations pls PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI, here is a link to York's account of Yakub's story. Per his account, Yakub's 'scientists' traveled to North Africa and met Gnawas to create his 'laboratory', creating an 'Aryan' race in the name of Hitler. (who has no relation with the German dictator and is simply the 80th of the 200 fallen demons)

Some secondary sources shows that the Nuwaubians believe in the Yakub tale, but I have yet to encounter one addressing York's version of the tale. Considering that most Nuwaubians (up to 2,000) actually believed this, it's probably worth mentioning. NAADAAN (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So long as there are reliably published secondary sources, right? Doug Weller talk 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I found one! doi:10.1080/08854300600950277. It's accessible through the Taylor & Francis WPL resource. Goes a bit into their version - not as much detail as NoI, but enough to include it, since other sources mention it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Love the WPL! Doug Weller talk 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)