First of all, thanks for teh correction about the Panthers. They wactually were quite effective with their community policing., They also set up a bunch of free clinics, schools, etc. and helped provide a political alternative in coalition with the Peace and Freedom Party, and inspired a lot of people with their rhetoric. i've read portions of Huey Newton's book, and though he may eventually, sadly, have been largely innefective. I still aggree with most of the principles tehrein. My point was only that teh Panthers' actual achievements (mostly through no fault of tehir own) fell radica;ly, and tragically, short of their idealistic goals. Remember Huey said 'Revolutionary suicide means....that our hopes and goals are so high for this world that we must achieve them or die in the attempt" or something to that effect. Now given that those goals, of building a society free or war, oppression and hatred were the PAnthers' avowed goals, how effective do you think they were, BY THEIR OWN LIGHTS?: What makes you say so? Malcolm X may have said things that you, personally, disagree with, but calling him a "false prophet" is completely non-sensical.
It's not just me who disagrees with them. How about, 'every major religion' disagreeing with what he said about racial essentialism, casual use of violence, and his easy acceptance of the principles of revenge or retribution. This has little in common with anything said by Jesus Christ, the Buddha, the Hindu sages, or just about any other religious leader. True religions are not about hatred. Even Marxism,a secular religion to some, completely rejected and laughed at any kind of essentialism. Too bad Malcolm X didn't see things the same way.
:Aside from being a matter of personal aesthetics (as any religious belief is, ultimately,) it is historically inaccurate.
My religious belief is hardly a matter of personal aesthetics, although that does play a part- I won't deny that I can only see beauty and meaning in the world if I accept the existence of an afterlife and of a divine plan. First of all, such aesthetics are universal, not personal, as the universailty fo religion and the commonality of the different religions demonstrates. 'God is one, the sages call him by many names'. Second of all, I believe that I have received evidence that God exists, things that frankly don'rt make much sense to me in the absence of God. Things in the world (why does the universe act according to rational laws of science, if not because their was a rational lawgiver) in my experience (certain strange dreams I have had) as well as in the experience of others (people being saved from certain death on the gallows, stories like that). My decision is tehrefore not based purely on eprsonal aesthetics. Also, what meaning does life have if God is absent? Graham Greene in his novel 'The Power and teh Glory' summed up in a brilliant phrase what atheism had to offer. "A vacant universe, a cooling [referring to the heat death of the universe] world, and the right to be happy in whatever way they chose."
: It's roughly the equivalent of calling G.W. Bush a shoddy race-car driver. Minister Malcolm was not prophesying, he was a social critic. The fact that he based his critique on religious principles is beside the point. Now if you want to say that you don't agree with that critique, that's fine, but as he was not a prophet at all, calling him a "false prophet" is just silly. Besides, even if he was prophesying, it's still out of line to call someone's religious beliefs "false." Silly, sure, ridiculous or even insane, fine, but not "false." Religious beliefs can't be evaluated on a "true/false" axis. (How many times am I going to have to say this?)
: -Floyd
Back to MX. If I believe that certain religious docxtrines are true (for reasons I stated above) then I must believe that beliefs which blatantly contradict them are false (even if I eblieve that all religions are true TO SOME EXTENT). Secondly, if I believe that all religions have truth within them, as Gandhi did, then how can I repsond to a philosophy that denies many of the tenets of almsot ALL religions? What Malcolm was saying, and the vision he had, was false and disingenuous ina number of ways. Consider the following,
Exhibit A. Malcolm X preached that whites, Chinese, Native Americans, Indians etc. were all created in the lab of a mad scientist on the island of Patmos, named Yacoob. I am not making this up. Apparently MX really believed this.
Exhibit B. Malclolm X baldly lied when he said that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima as an act of racism. The absolute nerve of implying that the Japanese of all peopelw ere victims of 'racism'? The people who, in South Africa, were classified as 'white' because of their economic status? The people who treat Koreans and Chinese to this day as second class citizens? The people who arrogated to themselves the right to rule all Asia? The country who massacred the Chinese, the Philipinos, the Burmese, the Koreans, the Russians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Malays.....Malcolm was surely aware that teh JApanese were no strangers to teh art of racism, and that to this day they are hated by many throughout East Asia. who remember the '30s and '40s.
Exhibit C. Malcolm complained about racism in America, yet he ate at teh table of the Saudi Royal Family, in a nation which, in that same decade of the 1960s, STILL HELD BLACK SLAVES!!!! The incredible hypocrisy is beyond belief! We may have been making our way far too slowly towards eqality in teh sixties, but at least WE DIDN"T AHVE SLAVERY! Malcolm X just swept under the table the CENTURIES, nay MILLENIA of Middle Eastern oppression of black Africans. And he DENIED the fact that ISlam was JUST AS BAD as ANY OTHER RELIGION in terms of countenancing racsim and slavery. now certainly the Prophet Muhammed was a believer in racial equality and opposed slavery. So did Jesus Christ. The fact remains that slavery persisted in the Middle East long after Europe had done away with it. The fact that MX portrayed Islamic counrteis as a paradise of social equality and racial harmony, in comparison with christianity, just blows my mind, and frankly i don't knwo what to make of it. I can only see him as someone who was more than willing to distort the truth.
Exhibit D. MX glorifoied revenge, violence, and armed citizenry, etc. He had little tiem for teh diea that violnce on one side isn't necessarily a blank check to commit violence in recation. if it were, then the cycle would never end.
Exhibit E. MX often used evdience out fo context. He cited Gandhi as an inspiring example, but completely left out Gandhi's pacifism.
I hope that's enough evidence of why MX was a false prophet.
