Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 25:4 (1986)
MALCOLM X AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.:
WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT EACH OTHER
LEWIS V. BALDWIN
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. followed essentially different
paths as leaders of the black freedom movement. They did not work with
the same organizations, and they frequently disagreed with each other concerning love and hate, violence and nonviolence, separatism and integration, and
the relevancy of the Christian faith in the quest for equal rights and social
justice.' Such differences not only prevented the two men from becoming
closely connected by friendship or association, but were also of considerable
importance in determining how they viewed each other. However, it is my
contention that despite their differences, organizationally and ideologically,
Malcolm and Martin displayed a genuine love and respect for each other
which is seldom mentioned in the literature about both men.'
It is not possible t o pinpoint the exact time when Malcolm X and
Martin King first became aware of each other. Statements in Malcolm's
Autobiography seem to suggest that he knew about Martin as early as the
Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955-56.3 Martin came to know Malcolm
because of the latter's influence in Elijah Muhammad's Black Muslim Movement, which was also known as the Nation of Islam. The two leaders
probably comnlunicated for the first time in 1957, when the Black Muslims
tried unsuccessfully to start a dialogue with Martin's Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC).~ From that point, Malcolm made other
attempts t o meet with Martin, but was avoided like the plague. In July,
1960, Martin ignored his challenge t o "come to Harlem and prove that 'peaceful suffering' is the solution to the atrocities suffered daily by Negroes
throughout ~merica."' A month later, Martin refused an invitation to attend
a Harlen~rally hosted by Malcolm. Malcolm reacted calmly to the brushaffs,
and urged black leaders to forget their "petty differences" and to "reason
together and keep open minds." He was convinced that Martin and other
moderate civil rights leaders were avoiding him out of a fear "of irking their
white bosses (or) embarrassing their white liberal friend^."^ Yet Malcolm
© Dr Muhammad Hamidullah Library, IIU, Islamabad.
http://iri.iiu.edu.pk/
396
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
refused at this time to engage in a war of words with them before the white
media, and he even called Martin "a spokesman and fellow leader of our
people":
Now my feeling was that although the civil rights "leaders" kept
attacking us Muslims, still they were black people, still they were our
own kind, and I would be most foolish to let the white man manoeuver
me against the civil rights movement.'
It was only after 1960, when Martin had made it clear that he and his people
wanted nothing to do with the Black Muslims, that Malcolm became frustrated
and incensed to the point of levelling strong attacks against the person and
philosophy of Martin King. But these attacks were motivated by Malcolm's
desire to be recognized and heard-they did not surge up from a deep hatred
of the apostle of nonviolence. This image of Malcolm and Martin as bitter
enemies "in a great Manichaean contest, the forces of light against the forces of
darkness, with the future course of black protest at stake," was an image
created in the public imagination by the American mass media.8
After he officially announced his split with Elijah Muhammad, the top
man in the Black Muslim Movement, in March, 1964, Malcolm X still found
himself alienated and excluded from the main core of civil rights leadership.
Martin said passingly soon after the split that he would confer with Malcolm
about his position on guns, but he never did.9 Even after Malcolm's trip to
Mecca, which led him to stop making blanket judgments of people on the basis
of race' or colour, he was not welcomed by Martin and others on the front line
of the struggle. Peter Goldman, one of Malcolm's biographers, has commented
on how the Muslim leader-responded to continued efforts to ignore him:
They placed him in moral Coventry, and it wounded Malcolm; something
in him wanted acceptance, though never at the price he would have to
pay. "He really hungered to be -recognized as a national leader," one
friend said. "It hurt him when first Kennedy and then Johnson would
call King, Wilkins, Young, and Farmer to the White House. He wanted it
to be a fivesome instead of a foursome." King's celebrity particularly
rankled him, built as it was on a philosophy and style of action Malcolm
found degrading. lo
Recognizing that Martin King was not going to come to him, Malcolm
decided that he would go to Martin King. In the spring of 1963, he went to
Birmingham, Alabama, during the riots, only to be denied a chance to speak to
the people. This experience really infuriated Malcolm, and he lashed out at
Martin: "Martin Luther King is a chump, not a champ. Any man who puts his
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
397
women and children on the front lines is a chump, not a champ."" In August,
1963, Malcolm ventured to Washington, D.C. to observe the great march there,
and again he was ignored by civil rights leaders. He scoffed at Martin's "I
Have a Dream" speech, and later characterized the event as "'a circus" led by
"black clowns and white c l o ~ n s . " ' ~On March 26, 1964, in Washington. D.C..
he and Martin met face-to-face for the first and only time. and that meeting
happened because of Malcolm's initiative. Peter Coldman has described the
circumstances under which the meeting took place, noting especially how the
two men kindly greeted each other:
In March, 1964, just after Malcolm had quit the Nation, he visited the
U.S. Senate to take in a day of the civil rights fdibuster and later slipped
into the back row of a King news conference off the floor. King afterward left by one door; Malcolm popped out another into his path.
"Well, Malcolm, good to see you," King said. "Good to see you,"
Malcolm grinned. Reporters crowded around. Flash bulbs flared.
"Now you're going to get investigated," Malcolm teased, and then they
parted.'3
Such an encounter as this could not have occurred between two men who
hated each other. The two men actually greeted each other in the ancient
tradition of hospitality. The playful manner in which Malcolm greeted King
must have diffused the anxiety that they both must have felt; it was an act of
hospitality. Furthermore, David L. Lewis, who produced one of the best
critical studies of Martin King, claims that the 1964 meeting had significant
implications for the civil rights movement because Malcolm and Martin
expressed a unity of purpose on a pressing issue facing black America for the
first time:
The civil rights propaganda value of this meeting was considerable, as
both men pledged to concert their efforts to pressure Congress into
passing the pending civil rlghts legislation. Practically, however, it represented little in the way of intrinsic collaboration. Ideologically, they still
appeared to be antithetical personalities. But Malcolm was a mind in
flux, finally liberated from the cult of white deviltry preached by Elijah
Muhammad, and profoundly troubled by the light-skinned Algerian and
Egyptian revolutionaries whom he had encountered during his recent
roving tour of ~ f r i c a . ' ~
Early in February, 1965, shortly before his death, Malcolm travelled to
Selma, Alabama, to support the struggle there. He was apparently invited to
appear there by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). It is
398
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25 :4 (1986)
reported that Malcolm's unexpected appearance "sent SCLC officials in a
tailspin," and Martin King, who was in jail in Selma, expressed amazement that
he would invade "my own territory down here.'"'
Some weeks later while
testifying in 'Ihe WilIiiuns Vs Walkce a s e , which involved an SCLC suit
against Alabama authorities, Martin vehemently denied that he had anything to
do with Malcolm's trip to Selma:
I couldn't block his coming, but my philosophy was so antithetical t o the
philosophy of Malcolm X-so diametrically opposed, that 1 would never
have invited Malcolm X to come to Selma when we were in the midst
of a nonviolent demonstration, and this says nothing about the personal
respect I had with him. I disagreed with his philosophy and his
methods.I6
As it turned out, Malcolm was given an opportunity to speak to the
supporters of SCLC and SNCC at the Brown's Chapel African Methodist
Episcopal Church (AME) whiie he was in Selma. Some of SCLC's officials
tried t o coach him concerning what he should and should not say, insisting that
his mere presence could incite acts of violence.. Malcolm listened quietly,
and bluntly reminded them that "nobody puts words in my mouth."" After
his speech, Malcolm had a friendly conversation with Martin's wife, Coretta
Scott King, assuring her that "I want Dr. King t o know that 1 didn't come to
Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking that I could make it
easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be
more willing to hear Dr. King." There is obviously an element of respect and
concern for Dr. King in this remark. This gesture of goodwill was apparently
appreciated by Martin King, and Coretta would later write about how she
. . . was impressed with Malcolm's
sincerity, but found it difficult to
reconcile with some of the Muslim principles which were so different
from our thinking. They advocated separation of the races and
condoned violence so that they were open t o the charges of teaching hate
and violence. Martin insisted that violence was the derivative of despair;
both Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm had suffered terribly at the hands
of white racism and their bitterness was a derivative of the suffering."
Considering what has been said so far, the following questions come to
mind: Why did Martin find Malcolm unacceptable as an intimate friend and
associate? Why did he consistently amid Malcolm? At what point did
Malcolm and Martin change their perceptions of each other, and why? Were
they moving closer together, personally and ideologically, at the time of their
deaths? There are no simple answers to these questions. Answers to some of
them are suggested in the discussion above, but they all must be explored
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
399
further if we are to understand the true nature of the relationship between
Malcolm X and Martin King.
Malcolm's image as a flamboyant, intimidating, and controversial figure
made him unacceptable to Martin and SCLC. Peter Goldman asserts that
Malcolm
. . . challenged the leaders and the orthodoxies of the civil rights movement in the midst of its glory days, and he paid for it; the cost was a
kind of quarantine that lifted only with his death. Alive, he made the
elders of the movement uncomfortable. They thought him a genuine
danger to the cause of racial comity; they resented his running attacks on
them; they envied his easy access to radio and television; they were
embarrassed by his claim to the allegiance of a ghetto lumpenproletariat
they had talked about but never reached.Ig
Ideological differences constituted the greatest obstacle to unity between
Malcolm X and Martin in^." Malcolm was convinced that Martin's gospel
of love, nonviolence, and integration played into the hands of white oppressors.
He joined fellow Black Muslims as early as 1960 in denouncing Martin for
turning scores of potential freedom-fighting blacks into "contented, docile
slaves," and he constantly castigated Martin in speeches, magazine interviews,
and on radio and television as "a fool", "a traitor," "a false shepherd," and
"a twentieth century religious Uncle Tom" who had sold out to white devils:
The white man supports Reverened Martin Luther King, subsidizes
Reverend Martin Luther King, so the Reverend Martin Luther King
can continue to teach Negroes to be defenseless-that's what you mean
by nonviolent-be defenceless in the face of one of the most cruel beasts
that has ever taken people into captivity-that's the American white man,
and they have proved it throughout the country by the police dogs and
the police clubs. . . . Just as Uncle Tom, back during slavery, used t o
keep Negroes from resisting the bloodhound or resisting the Ku Klux
Klan by teaching them to love their enemies or pray for those who use
them despitefully, today Martin Luther King is just a twentieth century
or modern Uncle Tom or religious Uncle Tom, who is doing the same
thing today t o keep Negroes defenceless in the face of attack that Uncle
Tom did on the plantation t o keep those Negroes defenceless in the face
of the attack of the Klan in that day.21
What Martin no doubt sincerely considered t o be wisdom or prudence,
Malcolm saw as a compromising yielding which was bound t o produce no
400
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
concrete results. Malcolm's uncompromising opposition to nonviolence and
integration led him at times t o publicly excoriate Martin King in a manner
whicii bordered o n the humourous. Louis E. Lomax recalled an occasion when
he referred t o Martin as "reverend Dr. Chickenwing," an obvious reference to
the Southern legend that black preachers love fried chicken.22
Malcolm X had a reputation as a skillful and effective debater, and this
made him even more intimidating t o the men of SCLC. Despite the fact that
his formal education was limited t o the eighth grade, Malcolm was known t o
hold his own in debates with Ph.D.'s. It was always difficult t o find someone
in Martin's camp who was willing t o challenge him in a debate. According to
Peter Goldman,
A few were willing t o debate him-Rustin, for one, and the late writer
Louis Lomax, for another; and James Farmer of CORE, until he and
Malcolm finally agreed between themselves t o quit putting o n black
family quarrels for the amusement of white people. But King wouldn't
meet him (he once threatened t o cancel out of a David Susskind television panel if Malcolm was invited), and neither would Roy Wilkins or
Whitney Young. The two of them tried unsuccessfully t o talk Farmer
out of one TV confrontation with Malcolm; Young argued that the only
black he had ever seen hold his own against Malcolm was the ultraconservative columnist George Schuyler, which proved that you couldn't
be moderate or liberal or even conventionally militant and hope to
win. 23
Martin King's refusal t o debate Malcolm X in public did not stem from a
fear of the dynamic young Muslim spokesman. Burdened with the day-today
events of the movement, and seeking to avoid negative publicity concerning the
movement, Martin apparently could see no point in publicly clashing over ideas
and methods with Malcolm. After all, their philosophies and methods were
well known, and the movement had nothing to gain from the two men airing
their differences in public. Malcolm found it strange and amusing that Martin,
a Ph.D., would not debate him, and he declared on one occasion that Martin
would lose a debate with him on integration:
Why King? Because integration is ridiculous, a dream. I am not
interested in dreams, but in the nightmare. Martin Luther King, the rest
of them, they are thinking about dreams. But then really King and 1
have nothing t o debate about. We are both indicting. I would say to
him: "You indict and give them hope. I'll indict and give them no
hope."24
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 2 5: 4 (1986)
401
Stephen Oates, the author of a full and brilliant biography of Martin
King, thinks that some of Malcolm's diatribes against Martin "may have
stemmed from jealousy." In a Newsweek poll taken after the Birmingham
movement, black Americans ranked Malcolm and the Black Muslims last of all
black groups "in terms of popularity and effectivenes~."~~Martin was
obviously the most prominent black leader in terms of visibility and influence.
He had personal access to presidents and world leaders, and could prevail upon
the great and powerful to act. Furthermore, Martin was more successful than
Malcolm in developing an overall philosophy, programme, and movement for
black ~ i b e r a t i o n . ~It~ was not always easy for Malcolm to deal with these
realities. At times he appeared slightly resentful of Martin's popularity, as was
the case when he said:
If you tell someone he resembles Hannibal or Gandhi long enough, he
starts believing it-even begins to act like it. But there is a big difference
in the passiveness of King and the passiveness of Gandhi. Gandhi was a
big dark elephant sitting on a little white mouse. King is a little black
mosue sitting on top of a big white elephant.27
When 'Harlem staged a rally to celebrate Martin King's Nobel Peace Prize early
in December, 1964, Malcolm showed some bitterness, and complained that "he
got the peace prize, we got the problem":
1 don't want the white man giving me medals. If I'm following a general,
and he's leading me into battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards,
or awards, I get xspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award
before the war is over.28
Later in a panel discussion at Harvard University, Malcolm reiterated this point,
but insisted that "I have no commeqt to make about my good friend, Dr.
King."29 Even if he was sllghtly jealous of Martin, that jealously was not malicious in nature. It is also possible that Martin felt similarly towards Malcolm,
especially considering the latter's influence in the black ghettoes of the ~ o r t h . ~ '
Martin was visibly shaken and hurt by the harsh criticism he received
from Malcolm and the Black Muslims. He was certain that "they've heard
those things about my being soft, my talking about love, and they transfer
their bitterness toward the white man toward me." He really believed that "all
this talk about my being a polished Uncle Tom" would eventually fade and
that his philosophy would
When asked about Malcolm's charge
that his teaching "disarms the Negro and fits into the stereotype of the Negro
as a meek, turning-the-othercheek sort of creature," Martin responded:
402
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
Now, my feeling has always been, again, that they have never understood
what I was saying, because - they confuse - they don't see that there's a
great deal of difference between nonresistance to evil and nonviolent
resistance. And certainly I'm not saying that you sit down and patiently
accept injustice. I'm talking about a very strong force, where you stand
up with all your might against an evil system, and you're not a coward;
you are resisting but you come to see that tactically as well as morally it
is better to be nonviolent. I can't see anything that - even if one didn't
want to deal with the moral question - it would just be impractical for
the Negro t o talk about making his struggle violent.32
Martin King did not simply complain about Malcolm's and the Black
Muslim's attempts to undermine his prestige, nor did he spend a lot of time
trying to disprove their charges against him. Occasionally, he took the offensive and levelled attacks against them. As early as August, 1959, in an address
before the National Bar Association in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Martin, clearly
speaking of Malcolm and the Black Muslims, alluded to
.
. . a dangerous philosophy that is being taught by some elements of the
Negro community. There are hate groups arising in our midst which
would preach a doctrine of black supremacy. Black supremacy is as bad
as white supremacy. God is not interested merely in the freedom of
black men and brown and yellow men; God is interested in the freedom
of the whole human race.33
Without being overly harsh and judgmental, Martin categorically rejected the
hatred and the separatist ideology of the Black Muslims, describing them as
"people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated
Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible
'devil' .7934 He criticized their "strange dream of a black nation within the
larger nation," and declared that "at times the public expressions of this
group have bordered on a new kind of race hatred and an unconscious advocacy of violence." Martin readily admitted, however, that "I can well understand the kind of impatience that leads to this kind of reaction." Yet he was
confident that he and SCLC represented the most attractive alternative to
Malcolm and the Muslims, and Malcolm and the Muslims felt likewise about
themselves in relationship to Martin's mo~ement.~'
Martin King seldom commented publicly on Malcolm X specifically,
and in such cases he was almost always responding to questions addressed to
him about Malcolm. Malcolm did not fit his profile of a sane, responsible
leader, especially while he was affiliated with the Black Muslim Movement.
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
403
In referring to Malcolm, Martin is said to have sometimes used labels like
"crazy," "tragic," and "demagogic."36 He considered Malcol~iito be the
personification of the kind of social unrest t o which Black Power ideas could
lead. He sensed that Malcolm's rhetoric was partly responsible for the riots
that occurred in New York in July, 1964. Martin was probably thinking of
Malcolm when he gave these remarks concerning the riots in Rochester and
Harlem:
Though it is never expressly stated, there are numerous implications
that in some strange way, the Negro leadership is fundamentally responsible for the acts of violence and rioting which have occurred within
these Negro communitie~.~'
Martin also had Malcolm in mind when he told a Phyboy interviewer in 1965
that "more riots have occurred in the North" than in the South "because the
fellow in Harlem, to name one Northern ghetto, can't see any victories."
Martin continued: "He remains throttled, as he has always been, by vague,
intangible economic and social deprivations. . . . The longer our people see
no progress, or halting progress" in housing, jobs, and schools, "the easier it
will be for them to yield to counsels of hatred and demagoguery." In that
same interview, Martin admitted that Malcolm was "very articulate," but
emphatically denounced his view that black people should practice "an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" when attacked by white racists:
I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views at least insofar as I understand where he now stands. I don't want to
seem to sound self-righteous, or absolutist, or that I think I have
the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answer.
I don't know how he feels now, but I know that I have often wished
that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to
solve our problem. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the
Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that
Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Fiery,
demagogic oratory in the black ghettoes, urging Negroes t o arm themselves and prepare t o engage in violence, as he has done, can reap
nothing but grief.38
According t o William R. Miller, Martin King "wanted fervently, even if
the effect seemed quixotic, to refute the growing insistence of people like
Malcolm X that whitey was unredeemab~e."~' He wanted t o show that
Malcolm was a dangerous extremist, but, as Louis Lomax has observed, this
was not easy t o accomplish under the circumstances:
,
404
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25 :4 (1986)
Tne white South made it increasingly difficult to counter Malcolm.
There were the dogs and the fire hoses at Birmingham and Selma;
then Malcolm could say, "Any man who will sick four-legged dogs on
black women and children is a two-legged dog"! There were the white
riots at Southern schools; then Malcolm could say, 'only a fool would
want to integrate with people who throw bricks at little black school
children"! The now famous "March on Washington" proved Malcolm
was an excellent mark~man.~'
Martin made several trips t o Harlem between 1958 and 1965, and
seldom passed up a chance t o counter Malcolm's influence there. He knew
that Harlem was Malcolm's stomping ground - that it was enormously
important in black America's freedom struggle - and he felt that something
had t o be done to prevent Malcolm and other black nationalists from instigating an endless cycle of violence there. Martin was further convinced of this
by the riots in July, 1964."' !3ut Harlemites loved Malcolm perhaps more
dearly than any other black leader because he was their own, and they sometimes resented Martin King's attempts t o move on their turf. Martin was
aware of this, and he wondered if Malcolm and the nationalists were in some
way responsible for several attacks on his person in Harlem. On September
20, 1958, while autographing copies of his first book in a Harlem department store, Martin was stabbed with a letter opener by a crazed woman
named Izola Curry. He later said that
. . . it may be that she had been around some of the meetings of these
groups in Harlem, Black Nationalist groups, that have me all the time as
a favourite object of scorn, and hearing this over and over again she
may have responded t o it when I came t o ~ a r l e m . ~ ~
Though Martin quickly added: "it may be that she was just so confused that
she would have done this t o anybody whose name was in the news. We will
never know."43
In June, 1963, Martin's car windows were splattered with eggs as he
drove through Harlem. He conceded that he was very depressed because
"these were Negroes throwing eggs at me," and he was certain that Malcolm
and the nationalists were somehow behind this deed:
I think that was really a result of the Black Nationalist groups, and a
feeling - you know, they've heard all of these things about my being
soft and talking about love and the white man all the time.. . . And I
think it grows right out of that. In fact Malcolm X had a meeting the
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
405
day before and he talked about me a great deal and said - told them
that I would be there the next night, and said, "you ought to go over
there and let old King know what you think about him." And he had
said a great deal about nonviolence, criticizing nonviolence, and saying
that I approved of Negro men and women being bitten by dogs and the
fire hoses, and 1 say go on and not defend yourself. So I think this kind
of response grew out of the build-up and the - all of the talk about my
being a sort of polished Uncle om.^^
In a statement t o me New York Post, Malcolm X adamantly denied that his
followers were involved in the egg-throwing incident .45
In July, 1964, in the wake of the Harlem riots, Martin King was again
the object of attack by Harlemites. He had gone to Harlem for a series of
meetings with black leaders and New York Mayor Robert F. Wagner, hoping
that the riots could be stopped. Malcolm was touring Africa and the Middle
East at that time. Stephen B. Oates reports that
The trip was a disaster. While King toured the riot sites, embittered
Harlemites booed him and spouted anti-Semitic vitriol that made him
grimace. At the same time, local Negro leaders fumed that no "outsider" imported by the Mayor had the right to invade their territory
and tell them what t o do.46
Even in the most heated moments of their attacks upon each other,
Malcolm and Martin realized deep within the damage that such conflict could
do the black movement. This explains why King was so careful and restrained in his remarks concerning Malcolm. In a similar way, Malcolm urged black
leaders t o "go into the closet" and settle their differences instead of bickering
before those who wished to "divide and conquer" the black masses:
America's strategy is the same strategy as that which was used in the past
by the colonial powers: divide and conquer. She plays one Negro leader
against the other. She plays one Negro organization against the other.
She makes us think we have different objectives, different goals. As soon
as one Negro says something, she runs t o this Negro and asks him what
do you think about what he said. Why anybody can see through that
today -- except some of the Negro leader^.^'
Strangely enough, beneath all of the fiery rhetoric and namecalling,
Malcolm and Martin demonstrated a great deal of respect, affection, and
concern for each other. Malcolm regarded Martin as a black brother and a
406
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
fellow struggler in the cause of freedom for black people, and he was genuinely
moved and angered by the physical and verbal abuses visited upon him in parts
of the South. In the spring of 1964 he wired Martin, offering to send some of
his followers South "to give the Ku Klux Klan a taste of their own medi~ine."~:
Early in 1965 Malcolm sent a telegram to George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of
the American Nazi Party, warning him that
I am no longer held in check from fighting white supremacists by Elijah
Muahmmad's separationist Black Muslim Movement, and if your present
racist agitation against our people there in Alabama causes physical harm
to Reverend King or any other black Americans who are only attempting
to enjoy their rights as free human beings, you and your Ku KIM Klan
friends will be met with maximum physical retaliation from those of us
who are not handcuffed by the disarming philosophy of nonviolence, and
who believe in asserting our right of selfdefence by any means necessary?9
Malcolm would later recall the pain he experienced when he saw Martin King
brutalized by racists on television:
I saw the man knock him in his mouth. Well, that hurt me, I'll tell you.
Because I'm black and he's black - I don't care how dumb he is. Still,
when I see a black man knocked in the mouth, I feel it, because it could
happen to you or me. And if I was there with King and I saw someone
knocking on him, I'd come to his rescue. I would be misrepresenting
myself if I made you think I wouldn't. Yes, and then I'd show him, see,
he's doing it the wrong way - this is the way you do it.''
Knowing that Malcolm could pose a serious problem for his campaigns
in the South, Martin refused to respond to his offers of assistance. This was no
surprise to Malcolm, who admitted that "I was curious to fmd out how Dr.
King would react.""
Nevertheless, it is clear that Malcolm had good intentions, and that he really was concerned about the welfare of Martin and other
b\acks who put their lives on the line for the cause. He was willing and anxious
to help because he, "at his most mannerly," sincerely believed that King,
though terribly naive, "probably meant well sending women and children out
to conquer an armed enemy with 10ve."'~
Martin King's refusal to accept Malcolm X's assistance was not tantamount to a rejection of the person himself. He would have acknowledged
without hesitation that he had nothing against Malcolm personally - that their
differences were merely philosophical and political in nature. Even in cases
where the two men strongly differed, an atmosphere of mutual respect and
admiration was evident. Coretta Scott King remembered that
They had talked together on occasion and had discussed their philosophies in a friendly way. At the same time, I know that, though he never
said so publicly, Malcolm X had deep respect for Martin. He recognized
that Martin was unique, not alone in talent or eloquence, but in fearlessness and courage. Malcolm admired manhood and he knew how
supremely Martin exemplified it.53
Martin, too, admired Malcolm's manhood, dignity, and self-respect, and they
both shared "a fierce desire that the black American reclaim his racial pride, his
joy in himself and his race - in a physical, a cultural, and a spiritual rebirth."54
Martin knew that Malcolm and the Black Muslims had given thousands of black
people new confidence in their potential to be creative and productive, and he
pointed to their high moral standards as an ideal for which all blacks might
strive:
While I strongly disagree with their separatist black supremacy philosophy, I have nothing but admiration for what our Muslim brothers have
done to rehabilitate exconvicts, dope addicts and men and women who,
through despair and self-hatred, have sunk to moral degeneracy. This
must be attempted on a much larger scale, and without the negative
55
overtones that accompany Black ~uslimism.
On another level, Martin King regarded the Black Muslims as a challenge
because he recognized that their militancy might help make his moverpent
more acceptable t o the larger white society. Many whites embraced Martin and
SCLC as a lesser evil, fearing that Malcolm and the Muslims were unwilling to
accept any change that did not involve revol~tion.'~ Perhaps this is what
Lerone Bennett, Jr. had in mind when he declared that "Malcolm X, in sum,
prepared the way for Martin Luther King's rebellion.""
Colin Morris has
made the same argument in more specific terms:
1 am not denying passive resistance its due place in the freedom struggle,
or belittling the contribution to it of men like Gandhi and Martin Luther
King. Both have a secure place in history. I merely want t o show that
however much the disciples of passive resistance detest violence, they are
politically impotent without it. American Negroes needed both Martin
Luther King and Malcolm X,just as India had to have both Candhiand
Nehru. '* (italics added)
408
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4 (1986)
According to Stephen B. Oates, Martin King also recognized the
challenge of Malcolm X and the Black Muslims from a slightly different angle:
"they made him and SCLC work with renewed vigor t o eradicate racial discrimination and all other forms of exploitation that fed hate groups like them."59
Martin evidently found the post-Mecca Malcolm, renamed El Hajj Malik
El Shabazz, to be more attractive than Malcolm, the Black Muslim. He knew
of Malcolm's travels to Africa and the Middle East in 1964, and was apparently
pleased that Malcolm's experiences had caused him to reevaluate his thinking
about white people. Stephen B. Oates has reported that "King thought it a
propitious sign that this proud and brilliant man seemed to be moving away
from racism."60 He and his people even considered Malcolm "dimly as somebody who might be 'valuable' to them if and when they got their crusade going
in the ~ o r t h . " ~However,
~
the assassination of Malcolm in February, 1965
kept this idea from materializing.
The brutal assassination of Malcolm X deeply disturbed and wounded
Martin King. It was as if one of his own close associates had been struck down.
He reacted to this tragic event at a press conference in Los Angeles, and in
newspaper and radio interviews. When asked if he would attend Malcolm's
funeral, Martin replied to an interviewer in Los Angeles:
No, because of the engagements that I have here. But I will certainly
extend my sympathy t o his wife and to his family and, as I said, this has
come as a great shock to so many of us, and although we had constant
disagreements, I had a deep affection for Malcolm X and I am very sorry
about this whole thing.62
The telegram Martin sent to Betty Shabazz, Malcolm's widow, carried essentially the same message:
I was certainly saddened by the shocking and tragic assassination of your
husband. While we did not always see eye to eye on methods to solve
the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt
that he had the great ability to put his finger on the existence and root
of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and
no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the
problems that we face as a race. While I know that this is a difficult hour
for you, I am sure that God will give you the strength to endure. I will
certainly be remembering you in my prayers and please know that you
have my deepest sympathy. Always consider me a friend and if I can do
anything to ease the heavy load that you are forced t o carry at this time,
please feel free t o call on me.63
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
409
Martin felt that
. . . it is even more unfortunate that this great tragedy occurred at a time
when Malcolm X was reevaluating his own philosophical presuppositions
and moving toward a greater understanding of the nonviolent movement
and toward more tolerence of white people, generally .64
Coretta Scott King echoed this same sentiment in 1969, a year after her husband's assassination, as she reminisced about the relationship between Martin
and Malcolm:
The death of Malcolm X affected me profoundly. Perhaps that was
because I had just met him, and perhaps it was because I had begun to
understand him better. Martin and 1 had reassessed our feelings toward
him. We realized that since he had been to Mecca and had broken with
Elijah Muhammad, he was moving away from hatred toward internationalism and against exploitation. In a strange way, the same racist attitude
which killed others who were working for peaceful change also killed
Malcolm X. . . . I said to Martin, "What a'waste! What a pity that this
man who was so talented and such an articulate spokesman for black
people should have t o die just as he bas reaching for something of real
value." Martin believed that Malcolm X was a brilliant young man who
had been mi~directed.~'
As Martin King saw it, the tragedy of Malcolm's death was compounded
by reports that he died at the hands of black men - men who were victims like
he was. Although Martin refused to accept such reports as fmal, he did caution
that
The American Negro cannot afford to destroy its leadership any niore
than the Congo can. Men of talent are too scarce to be destroyed by
envy, greed and tribal rivalry before they reach their full maturity. Like
the murder of Lumumba, the murder of Malcolm X deprives the world of
a potentially great leader. I could not agree with either of these men, but
I could see in them a capacity for leadership which 1 could respect, and
which was only beginning to mature in judgement and statesmanship.66
Martin interpreted Malcolm's assassination as being symbolic of the kind
of violent climate that America and Western society as a whole had created.
He expressed this view in several statements which left no doubt about his high
regard for Malcolm. On the day of Malcolm's death, Martin wrote:
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4
(1986)
We must face the tragic fact that Malcolm X was murdered by a morally
inclement climate. It reveals that our society is still sick enough to
express dissent through murder. We have not learned to disagree without
being violently disagreeable. This vicious assassination should cause our
whole society to see that violence and hatred are evil forces that must be
cast into unending limbo.67
In a much more extensive statement, in which Martin revealed that he was
quite knowledgeable about Malcolm's youth and rise to prominence as a Black
Muslim spokesman, he said :
Malcolm X came to the fore as a public figure partially as a result of a TV
documentary entitled, "The Hate That Hate Produced." That title points
clearly to the nature of Malcolm's life and death .... Malcolm X was
clearly a product of the hate and violence invested in the Negro's
blighted existence in this nation. He, like so many of our number, was a
victim of the despair that inevitably derives from the conditions of
oppression, poverty, and injustice which engulf the masses of our race.
But in his youth, there was no hope, no preaching, teaching or
movements of nonviolence.
He was too young for the Garvey
movement, too poor to be a Communist - for the Communists geared
their work t o the Negro intellectuals and labor without realizing that the
masses of Negroes were unrelated to either - and yet he possessed a
native intelligence and drive which demanded an outlet and means of
expression. He turned first to the underworld, but this did not fulfill
the quest for meaning which grips young minds. It is a testimony to
Malcolm's personal depth and integrity that he could not become an
underworld Czar, but turned again and again to religion for meaning and
destiny. Malcolm was still turning and growing at the time of his brutal
and meaningless assassination.... In his recent visit t o Selma, he spoke
at length t o my kife Coretta about his personal struggles and expressed
an interest in working more closely with the nonviolent movement, but
he was not yet able to renounce violence and overcome the bitterness
which life had invested in him. There were also indications of an interest
in politics as a way of dealing with the problems of the Negro. AU of
these were signs of a man of passion and zeal seeking a program through
which he could channel his talents .... But history would not have it so.
A man who lived under the torment of knowledge of the rape of his
grandmother and murder of his father, and under the conditions of the
present social order, does not readily accept that social order or seek to
integrate into it. And so Malcolm was forced to live and die as an outsider, a victim of the violence that spawned him, and with which he
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
411
courted through his brief but promising life .... Surely the young men of
Harlem and Negro communities throughout the nation ought t o be ready
to seek another way. Let us learn from this tragic nightmare that
violence and hate only breed violence and hate. and that Jesus' words
still go out to every potential Peter, "put up thy sword." Certainly we
will continue to disagree, but we must disagree without becoming
violently disagreeable. We will still suffer the temptation to bitterness,
Ldt we must learn that hate is too great a burden to bear for a people
moving on toward their date with destiny.68
This statement shows that Martin had a deep understanding of the forces that
shaped the personality of Malcolm X. Indeed, a more perceptive and sensitive
view of Malcolm's life and work cannot be found even among the works of the
most brilliant Malcolm X scholars.
It is widely held that Malcolm's death took place at a time when he
iind Martin King were coming closer together personally and ideologically.
James Baldwin contends that "By the time each met his death, there was practically no difference between them."69
There is some basis for this
contention, as the discussion above indicates. As Malcolm became more moderate and Martin more radical, it became increasingly evident that they were not
men with entirely different philosophies, goals, standards, and achievements.
Malcolm ceased to characterize all white people as "devils," and, a month
prior to his death, stated that he was no longer vehemently opposed to integration and intermarriage. Furthermore, Malcolm was beginning t o entertain the
possibility of coalitions between progressive-minded blacks and whites, a stand
~ ' remained enormous differences
that was more consistent with ~ i n ~ " s .There
between Malcolm and Martin in terms of education and status, but they
became one in terms of that essential quality of caring, and in terms of their
essential belief in human community.71 As they moved closer together on
these matters, their perceptions of each other began to take on a more positive
tone. Malcolm no longer denounced Martin publicly as an "Uncle Tom," and
Martin began to consider the possibility of meeting with Malcolm to discuss
matters of a civil rights nature, knowing that his movement in the North could
not be successful without drawing on Malcolm's insight and the support he had
from blacks in the ghettoes. Each man came t o realize that the other was not
afraid even t o face death for the cause of equal rights and social justice.
But does this necessarily mean that they would have formed a real
alliance? No one can answer this question with certainty. There is a touch of
irony in the fact that Attallah Shabazz and Yolanda King, the daughters of
Malcolm and Martin, have been able t o achieve a unity that their fathers never
412
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25:4
(1986)
achieved. These two bright young women, who believe that "we were destined
to come together." formed an eight-member theatre troupe in New York in the
fall of 1983, H hose play, "Stepping lnto Tomorrow," is "carrying their fathers'
voices to schools, churches and community centres across the country."72
In a recent interview. Attallah and Yolanda testified to the affection and
respect that ~ a l c o l mand Martin had for each other. "When my father was
jail," observed Yolanda. "Malcolm sent him a telegram. When Malcolm was
klled. Daddy sent Attallah's mother a telegram. Nobody knows about that.
All they hear is, 'Well. Dr. King said deededee and Malcolm said dah-dedah.'
So that must mean they are completely opposed and don't like each other,
which was not the case." "If they had lived just five more years together,"
Attallah added, "that's all our families and this country would have needed."73
Whatever may become of the alliance between Attallah and Yolanda, one can
be sure that the spirits of their fathers are applauding their efforts.
'
In conclusion, it is not excessive to argue that despite what they thought
about each other, Malcolm X and Martin King needed each other, and they
helped make each other. Unfortunately, they never had the chance to acknowledge how much they owed each other in this life. We can only hope that the
world beyond has afforded them such an opportunity, and that they are
celebrating together.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Louis E. Lomax, To Kill a Black Man (Los Angeles, Ca.: Holloway House Publishing Co.. 1968), p. 10; Gaye Todd Adegbalola. "A Conversation with Martin and
Malcolm." m e Bhck Collegbn. Vol. 8. No. 3 (January-February. 1978), pp. 4.
6, 8,and 83;Peter Goldman. m e Death and Life o f Malcolm X (New York: Harper
& Row. Publishers. 1973). pp. 383-392; and Peter J. Paris, Bhck Leaders in
Conflict: Martin Luther King. Jr.. Malcolm X,Joseph H. Jackson, and A&m Chyton Powell. Jr. (Philadelphia: The Pilgrim Press, 1978), pp. 70-107 and 140-174.
Typical of such literature are Paris, Bhck Leaders in Conflict. pp. 9ff.; Coldman,
m e Death and Life of Malcolml X, pp. 383-392;and Jim Bishop, m e B y s of
Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1971), pp. 374-379.
Bishop claims that Martin Luther King. Jr. "never admired Malcolm X, or Elijah.
or ar.y of the other militants whom he called 'the crazies'."
Malcolm X and Alex Haley. ZRe Autobiography o f Malcolm X (New York: Grove
Press. Inc., 1966), p. 269.
David L. Lewis, King: A Critical W'ography (New York: Raeger Publishers, 1970).
p. 125.
Ibid., C. Eric Linwln. m e Black Muslims in America (Boston: Beawn Press, 1973).
p. 163;and New York Courier (July 22. 1960). pp. Iff.
Lincoln. m e &ck MusIim, p. 146;and Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks: Selected
Speeches and Statements, ed. by Gwrge Breitman (New York: Merit Publishers.
1965), p. 4.
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
Malcolm X and Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X , p. 269.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X , p. 74.
Ibid., pp. 17, 142,and 186. According to Goldman, Martin Luther Ring, Jr. had
privately predicted the split between Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad.
Ibid., p. 17.
Archie Epps, ed., 7he Speeches o f Malcolm X at Harvard (New York: William
Morrow and Company, Inc., 1968). p. 75;and Louis E. Lomax, When the Word
is Given: A Report o n Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm X , and the Bhck Muslim World
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1963), p. 74.
Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks. p. 17.
Coldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X, p. 95.
Lewis, King, pp. 125 and 27 1-272. The Lewis account of what happened during
this brief meeting is different from that of Peter Goldman. I:or another account
which agrees with Lewis, see Wilson 1. Moses, Black Messiahs and Uncle Toms:
Social and Literary Manipulations o f a Religious Myth (University Park, Pa.: The
Pennsylvania State University Press. 1982). p. 141.
Alvin Adams, "Malcolm X 'Seemed Sincere' About Helping Cause: Mrc uing." Jet
(March 11, 1965), pp. 28ff.; Stephan B. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound: 171e Life
of Martin Luther King. Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, l982), p. 341;
and Goldman. 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X . pp. 230-231. Goldman reports
that the people of SNCC felt left out of the Selma campaign, and that "their invitation t o Malcolm had an edge of provocation to it."
A l'kanscript of Testimony i n Williams Vs. Wallace (March, 1965). pp. 74-75;and
David J. Garrow, Rotest at Selma: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), pp. 111-112,272 n5,
278 n43. King gave this testimony in the Williams Vs. Wallace case a week or so
after the assassination of Malcolm X.
Oates, Let the Dumper Sound, p. 341; Adams, "Malcolm X 'Seemed Sincere'
About Helping Cause," p. 30; Malcolm X. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 225;and Coretta
Scott King, My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Avon Books. 1969),
pp. 259-260.
Adams, "Malcolm X 'Seemed Sincere' About Helping Cause," pp. 28-30;Oates, Let
the Dumper Sound, p. 341;and Coretta S m t t King, My Life with Martin Luther
King. Jr., pp. 259-260.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life o f Malcolm X, p. 16. For an interesting and informative discussion of Malcolm's relationship to the civil rights leadership, see James
Farmer, Loy Bare the Heart: A n Autobiography o f the Civil Rights Movement
(New York: Arbor House, 1985), pp. 222-238.
Malcolm X has been called Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "ideological nemesis." See
Lewis, King. p. 258.
Lincoln, 7he Black Muslims, p. 161;Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, pp. 251-252;
Lomax, When the k r d is Given, p. 174; Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, pp.
12-13;Kenneth B. Clark, 7 h e Negro Rotest: James Baldwin, Malcolm X. Martin
Luther King Talk with Kenneth R Clark (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963). pp. 26-28;
Benjamin Coodman, ed., 7he End o f White Supremacy (New York: Merlin House,
Inc., 197 11, pp. 68, 109, 1 1 6-117, 135 and 140;and "Emancipation 11," .4merica,
CVIII (June 1. 1963). pp. 790-791.
Lomax. T o Kill A Black Man, p. 79;and Goldman, The Death and Life o f Malcolm
x, pp. 74-75.
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 2 5 : 4
414
(1986)
Goldman, 7he Death and Life o f Malcolm X , pp. 16-17.
Harper's Magazine (June, 1964), pp. 54-61.
Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, p. 252 n.
This statement is not meant to undermine Malcolm X's tremendous influence on
dvil rights in the 1950's and 60's. The extent of his influence in this regard is
treated in sources like Goldman, m e Death and Life of Malcolm X, pp. 383-392;
and "James Cone Interview: Liberation. Black Theology, and the Church," Radix
Magazine (September/October. 1982). pp. 9-10.
Oates, Let the 'Ihtmpet Sound, p. 25 1;and "Angry Spokesman Malcolm X Tells
Off Whites," Life (May 31,1963), p. 78.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X,p. 17.
Epps, ed.. m e Speeches of Malcolm X at Harvard, p. 181.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X,p. 16.
Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, pp. 253-254.
Clark, Z?re Negro Protest, p. 41 ;and "An Interview with Martin Luther King, Jr.."
in Robert P. Warren, Who Speaks for the Negro? (March 18, 1964), Tape No. 2,
p. 7.
Martin Luther King. Jr., "Address Before the National Bar Association," Milwaukee, Wisconsin (August 20, 1959). p. 9.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Om't Wait (New York: The New American
Library Inc.. 1964). p. 87.
Oates, Let the 'Ihtmpet Sound, p. 252; John A. Williams, 7 3 e King God DSdn't
&ve (New York: Coward-McCann. Inc., 1970). p. 77; and "An Interview with
Martin Luther K i g , Jr.," in Warren, Who Speaks for the Negro?, Tape No. 2, p. 3.
Bishop, 7he aDys of Martin Luther King. Jr., pp. 4 and 379; "King Views Malcolm
as Tragic," New York Amsterhm News (March 28. 1964). pp. lff.;and "Playboy
Interview with Martin Luther King," Hayboy, XI1 (January, 1965). pp. 73-74.
Martin Luther King. Jr., "Statement Regarding Riots in Rochester and New York
City" (July 27. 1964). p. 1.
"Playboy Interview with Martin Luther King," pp. 73-74; Oates, Let the 'Ihtmpet
Sound, p. 253; and King, "Statement Regarding Riots in Rochester and New York
City," pp. 14. Martin Luther King, Jr. never meant to place the total blame for the
New York riots squarely on'the shoulders of Malcolm and other black nationalists.
He held that "the conditions of poverty, social isolation and the conditions of
despair" were primarily responsible for blacks turning to violencz in the ghettoes.
In light of such conditions, King argued that it was "folly" and "unrealistic" to
expect "any Negro leader in America today t o keep the civil rights struggle nonviolent
W i m R. Miller. Martin Luther King, Jr.: His Life. Martyrdom and Meaning for
the World (New York: Weybright and Talley, Inc., 1968), p. 186.
Lomax. To Kill A Black Man, p. 80.
King, "Statement Regarding Riots in Rochester and New York City," pp. 1 4 ; King,
"Press Conferenoe Statement on New York Riots" (July 29, 1964), pp. 1-3; King.
"Press Statement Regarding Meeting with New York City Mayor Wagner" (July
30, 1964). pp. 1-2; King, "Statement Regarding the Civilian Review Board in New
York City" (July 3 1.1%4), p. 1;and Newsletter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Vol. 2, No. 8 (July-August, 1964), pp. Iff. All of these sources are
housed at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in
Atlanta, Georgia.
...."
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25: 4 (1986)
415
"An Interview with Martin Luther King, Jr.," in Warren, Who Speaks for the
Negro?. Tape No. 2, pp. 5-6.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Lewis, King, p. 211; and "Malcolm X Denies Sect Pelted Martin Luther King."
New YorkPost (July 1,1963). pp. Iff.
Oates, Let the Pumpet Sound. p. 306.
Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, p. 6; G.K. Osei, ed., 7he Wisdom of Malcolm X
(London: The African Publication Society, 1985), p. 38; and Malcolm X and Haley.
7he Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 269.
Goldman, The Death and Lifie of Malcolm X, pp. 187-188.
Malcolm X, Malcolm X on Afro-American History (New York: Pathfmder Press,
Inc.. 1970). pp. 43-44; and "Rockwell Gets Warning from Malcolm X." 7he
Militant (February 1.1 %5). p. 8.
Malcolm X. Malcolm X on Afro-American History, p. 44.
Ibid.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X. p. 391.
Coretta Scott King, My Life with Martin Luther King. Jr., pp. 261-262.
Ibid., p. 260.
Martin Luther King. Jr., Where Do We Go l+om Here: Chaos or Communitv?
(Boston: Beacon Press. 1967). p. 125.
Moses, Black Memahs and Uncle Toms, pp. 212 and 224; Goldman, The Death and
Life of Malcolm X, p. 232; and King, Why We can't Wait, p. 87.
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Confrontation: Bhck and White (Chicago: Johnson Publishing
Company, 1965). pp. 205-207,211-213,216,276, 278,290, and 294.
Colin Morris, Unyoung, Uncolored, Unpoor (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 19691, pp.
9Ck91.
Oates. Let the k m p e t Sound, p. 252.
Ibid., p. 341; and Coretta Scott King, My Life with Martin Luther King. Jr., p. 261.
Goldman, 7he Death and Life of Malcolm X, p. 391.
"Transcript of a Press Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr.," Los Angeles.
California (February 24, 1965). pp. 1-2 and 6. This interview is on file at the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Centre for Nonviolent Social Change. In this interview
Kign declined to speculate, as did black leaders like James Farmer, about the possibility of an international conspiracy in the case of Malcolm's death. When asked
about this, he simply stated: "Well. I don't know about that. I have no knowledge
to follow through or make such a statement. This may well be but my knowledge
doesn't reveal this and I don't try at this point t o even further a speculation as to
who assassinated Malcolm X. The Police Department of New York, I assume, is
vigorously investigating this and I think that until the investigation is finished I
would withhold any statement about the person or persons who perpetrated this
dastardly act."
"A Telegram from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Mrs. Malcolm X," Faith Temple
Church in Harlem, New York City, New York (February 26,1965). This document
can be found at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change.
"Transcript of a Press Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr.," Los Angeles,
California, p. 6; and "King and Roy: On Malcolm's Death," New York Arnsterdom
News (February 27,1965), p. 27.
Coretta Scott King, My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 261..
ISLAMIC STUDIES, 25 :4 (1986)
Martin Luther King. Jr, "The Nightmare of Violence: Regarding the Death of Malcolm X (February 26. 1%5). pp. 2-3. This unpublished piece is among the holdings of the Martin Luther King. Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change.
Martin Luther King, Jr.. "Statement Regarding the Death of Malcolm X (February
21. 1965). p. 1. This statement also exists at the Martin Luther King. Jr. Centre for
Nonviolent Social Change.
King. "The Nightmare of Violence." pp. 1-3. Apparently. Martin King had carefully studied the life of Malcolm X. probably using C. Eric Lincoln's work on the
Black Muslims as a source. It is highly unlikely that he had had a chance at this
point to read Malcolm's Autobiography, which was issued sometime after
Malcolm's death.
James Baldwin. "Malcolm and Martin." Esquire. LXXVII (April. 1972). pp. 94 and
201; and Williams. n e King Cod didn't Bve. p. 77. Williams claims that in a
conversation he had with Malcolm X in Lagos early in 1%4, "it was apparent that
the distance that seemed to have existed between himself and King was small
indeed. although he never gave up the idea of selfdefence for blacks. Malcolm was
even willing to sing 'We Shall Overcome.' just as long as all who were singing had
.45's firmly in hand." The notion that Malcolm and Martin were moving closer
together is also expressed in works such as Harold Cruse. fie CZisis of the Negro
Intellectual (Ncw York: William Morrow & Company. 1967). pp. 442. 548, and
561564; Lewis. King, p. 272; Lomax. To Kill A Black Man, pp. 10-11 and 131;
John Morgan. "Malcolm X's Murder," New Statesman (February 26,1365). p. 310;
Moses. BIcrck Messiahs and Uncle Toms. pp. 224 and 229; and Jet (March 11,
1965). p. 12.
Malcolm X. Malcolm X Speaks, pp. 1%-198.
In the film. "El Had Malik El Shabazz." Part 11, which covers Malcolm's visit in
Selma. Alabama with Mrs. Martin King in January, 1965, Malcolm plainly stated
that he was for a society that practices love and brotherhood. This part of
Malcolm's speech at Brown's Chapel A.M.E. Church in Selma is often ignored in
scholarship on Malcolm X. However, v.e must emphasize that Malcolm did not
share King's deep optimism regarding thc possibility of the realization of an integrated society of love. justice, and brotherhood in history.
'The Daughters of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Team Up to Bring a Play of
Hope to Kids." People Weekly. Vol. 20. No. 10 (September 5. 1983). pp. 99-100
and 104; and A. Peter Bailey, "The Ties That Bind: The Daughters of Martin
Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X Today ," Essence: m e Magazine of Today's Mack
Woman (January. 1982). pp. 78-79.102. and 107-108.
"The Daughters of Malcom X and Ma I Luther King Team Up." p. 104.