I have read many thousands of books since I was a child. I count The Autobiography of Malcom X as among the very best. Of the many biographies, autobiographies, and memoirs I've read, only David Horowitz' Radical Son comes close to matching its startling force, unflinching personal honesty, fierce intellectual integrity, and deep historical significance. Love the man or hate him, I don't see how anyone could come away with his worldview unchanged after reading that book.
One thing that's long bothered me is that very few people who talk about Malcolm X ever bother to note the most riveting part of his story:
Namely, the last two years of his life, where he became a mainstream Sunni Muslim, changed his name to Malik Shabazz, rejected his earlier racism and hatred, embraced whites as brothers, disavowed the insane and thoroughly non-Muslim views of the Nation of Islam--and was killed for it.
Among moderate, peaceful Sunni Muslims in North America, he is recognized more for his rejection of the Nation of Islam hate-cult than anything else. I often wish more people would remember this about him, or at least make a point of mentioning it.
Thus it was with mild dismay that I read Daniel Pipes' recent column on black Muslims in America. In many ways, it struck me as a courageous column. There's a great deal of obvious truth to it, and it's the sort of truth people are often afraid to say out loud. The part about being afraid to address why so many young black men are so profoundly disaffected by their country rings truest of all.
Yet Pipes claims that Malcolm X said "I am not an American" after he broke with the Nation of Islam hate-cult. This doesn't ring true for me in the way Pipes uses it. I have normally found Pipes a cogent, thoughtful, and responsible observer, but it just doesn't sound right. When I hear this quote, I ask myself, "Was it before Malcolm completed the Hajj? Was it perhaps something he said where he meant he was part of the universal brotherhood of Islam?"
The important message of the life of Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X) has, to me, always been that he rejected all that hatred at the end. Even better, he worked hard to keep the healthy parts of the Nation of Islam's message--self-reliance, self-improvement, dignity, respect for others, a strong work ethic--and rejected the horrible parts. I always admired that, and I wish more people would take that away from his life--and his murder.
I may send a note to Dr. Pipes to ask him about this.
Brother Malcolm has long been one of my personal heroes. I believe his death was fully as damaging to this country as that of JFK.
Malcolm X's book (masterfully written by Alex Haley) did indeed contain the passages that Pipes refers to.
But it might be considered unfair to view those passages out of context. In doing so we might lose the greater impact of his movement away from the hate-filled rhetoric of the NOI and toward a greater humanity.
This evolution was the truly extraordinary thing about Malcolm's life and it was the thing most tragically cut short when he was assassinated in his late 30's.
In light of Bali, Moscow, 9/11, the Beltway snipers, the July 4th LAX shooter, the Washington (state)- Oregon conspiracy, the Kuwaiti Marine shooting, the regular stream of Palestinian homicide bombers, and the Jordan incident - I'm not sure it's beneficial to talk about the virtues of Islam.
Everyone from Oprah to Bush tout this religion as one of peace. It has evolved to a point where the media refuses to discuss the religious beliefs of the snipers, at least in the context of the motive.
Correlation is not causation. This is a fundamental rule of logic.
That Islam has often been a religion of peace is simply a demonstrated fact. It is no more disputable than the fact that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. Ditto the existence of millions of faithful Muslims who are not violent.
It strikes me as entirely relevant to question whether Muslims worldwide have done enough to repudiate and stop the violent elements within their religion. It also strikes me as entirely relevant to ask, when encountering a terrorist attack of some sort (including the Beltway sniper attacks) whether or not the perpetrators were Muslims.
But it also trikes me as very reasonable to continue to assert that we are not at war with Islam, and to acknowledge that most Muslims are peaceful. As a bare minimum, we should do so to avoid having over 1 billion people decide that we are truly their enemy. You can be assured, for example, that we would lose the support of the governments of Indonesia and Pakistan were we to make such a declaration, and quite likely several others as well who give us either direct or indirect assistance now.
I'll go further: it strikes me that obsessing over whether or not Islam is by its very nature the absolute cause of terrorism borders on destructive toward the ends of defeating terrorists. Not unlike the way rabid anti-communists set back the anti-communist movement. (The John Birch Society wingnuts come to mind as a perfect example.)
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, Dean, but I'm pointing out that there are dangers to getting too wound up over some issues. You can start to lose perspective, which is a classic trap that too many people fall into. (Can you say "Oliver Stone?")