Isn’t the reason for the silence obvious? Malcolm and Elijah had a very violent split. FOI members attempted to kill Malcolm. NOI members firebombed Malcolm’s house while Betty and the children were in the house. “Rogue members” of the NOI were finally successful in assassinating Maloolm. Obviously there are hard feelings on both sides. What about the silence in NOI mosques regarding Malcolm’s important contributions to the NOI? I have encountered, on several occasions, numerous current members of the NOI who have had bitter words for the (in their words) “traitor” Maloolm. I think you raise a fair question, but you need a bit more balance. There has been silence on both sides of the equation.

Respecfully,
IB

Thanks for your comment. You are correct. Hard feelings remain.

To your point about silence in the Nation of Islam concerning Brother Malcolm’s contributions, I believe there is a new spirit created by Minister Louis Farrakhan’s openness on the subject. Please, study his in-depth and thorough remarks. His speeches are all available from The Final Call. Besides Min. Farrakhan, there are very few people in the Nation who can speak with authority on Bro. Malcolm. Bro. Abdul Akbar Muhammad, Min. Farrakhan’s International Representative was an assistant under Bro. Malcolm at Mosque No. 7, he has also written and spoken on the subject from time to time. And there are others in the Nation who knew him personally. My wife, among them.

Otherwise, most of the condemnation of the Nation by those who admire Bro. Malcolm (as though the two can be separated historically) come from people who were never with Bro. Malcolm when he was alive, either inside the Nation or outside the Nation! There were only 400 people in the Audubon Ballroom on Feb. 21, 1965 when Brother was assassinated. That was the day he said he would present his “program” for the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). I know two prominent Black intellectuals who told me that “they intended” to go to that meeting, but didn’t make it. (Not to make a joke of it, but it’s almost like those who now claim they were at the original Woodstock concert.) Those intellectuals were not in the Nation when Brother was representing Mr. Muhammad, they were not with Brother when he left the Nation, and they are not in unity in any organization today! It’s easy to lionize someone who is gone. The U.S. Postal Service even issued a Malcolm X commemorative stamp. Does that mean the U.S. government loved him? Of course not.

In an interview, Autobiography of Malcolm X co-author Alex Haley told me that he believed Bro. Malcolm wanted to find a way to return to the Nation before he was murdered. Surprisingly, others who knew him, thought that may have been true. Sadly, too many harsh words had been said…on both sides! Was he betrayed within his own organization by someone who said, Bro. Malcolm did not want a security check on the day he was murdered? Did those words come from his mouth to those who did not check the murderers for weapons? Bro. Malcolm was given mouth-to-mouth by a police infiltrator, the first person to reach him after he was shot. I’m told that’s the last thing to do for someone with an open chest wound! The Nation may have been an unwitting tool in the plot to silence Brother Malcolm, but don’t blame the Nation for his demise!

There is a lot more to this discussion than simply anger and frustration about Brother Malcolm, the treachery that was committed against him by jealous helpers who surrounded The Hon. Elijah Muhammad, and Brother Malcolm’s eventual betrayal of his teacher and mentor. That should be the subject of a separate symposium, and someone like the Schomburg, or others should present it, and invite Min. Farrakhan and speakers from the Nation who knew him, as well as the prominent biographers and scholars who have studied his life in depth.

But my article was not simply about Brother Malcolm. It was about the exclusion of the Nation and its contribution to shaping the culture of the Black Power movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Parenthetically, the important contribution of the Republic of New Africa, was also left out of this conference, along with a number of other important figures, including SNCC meber Willie Ricks (still alive) who coined the phrase “Black Power,” later made famous by Brother Kwame Toure (Stokeley Carmichael). That’s “shallow scholarship.” That’s “anti-historical.”

I dare say that if scholars were to make a list of the 25 most influential Black people in the 20th Century, every list would include Brother Malcolm, Muhammad Ali, and maybe Minister Farrakhan (convener of the Million Man March). If the list were expanded to the top 100 or so, the lists might also include Emam Warithudeen Mohammed, the son of Mr. Muhammad and leader of the American Muslim Community. I also suspect that if the lists from 20 or so scholars were compared, few if any of them would include the name of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, the mentor of all the men I just named! I don’t care what you may say about Mr. Muhammad, and his student Bro. Malcolm, and their relationship, that kind of emotional exclusion is “shallow scholarship!” That kind of intellectual blind spot is profoundly “anti-historical!” That is the point of my article. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room!

The Nation of Islam is not responsible for resurrecting Brother Malcolm’s reputation. He has legions of supporters for that. To the extent that Brother’s betrayal of the cause and teacher which transformed his life is an obstacle to the Nation performing its mission of “resurrecting,” uniting, and teaching Black people the knowledge of themselves and their Divine Destiny, then I suspect some people inside the Nation who do not understand the depth of Mr. Muhammad’s message of Unity, and Min. Farrakhan’s expansion and broadening of that “big tent,” some of those persons in the Nation may remain somewhat unforgiving of Bro. Malcolm, and that may be reflected in some of their comments.

But now, 44 years after his assassination, I insist that true “scholars” and “intellectuals” must get over their anti-Nation of Islam bias because the hero they fantasize about, but whom they never followed was struck down, not by the members of the Nation who were rounded up and framed for the murder by the enemies of both Mr. Muhammad and Bro. Malcolm, but by agents of those enemies!

Peace,
Askia

I’m following the discussion on Dr. Ball’s radio show. While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Muhammad’s intervention, I might suggest that one of the obstacles to a thorough inclusion of the NOI into a history of Black Power is a practical one. For instance, I would note that university-trained academic historians, like myself, face obstacles on researching the NOI as we are largely reliant on archives and personal papers in the course of our research. Without getting access to these building blocks of academic history, we are hindered in being able to make the sort of arguments that can refute the madness and misinformation that is currently prevalent.

While much of the existing literature that exists is dated, warped, and inaccurate, these omissions are paralleled by the fact that there are not many opportunities to get access to the NOI’s records. Where are the NOI’s archives? Where are Elijah Muhammad’s personal papers held? What materials, aside from Muhammad Speaks and Final Call, can one get access to in the course of doing one’s research?

While I’m sure there are good reasons why these materials are not easily accessible, I think the lack of accessibility is perhaps connected to the absence of the NOI in university-trained, academic histories. As contemporary scholars face obstacles in seeking to gain access to materials related to the NOI, they are also less likely to conduct research on it.

While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, Dr. Claude Clegg III addresses this problem towards the end of his biography of Elijah Muhammad, “An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad.”

Peace,

Toussaint Losier
Doctoral Candidate
History Department
University of Chicago