Originally published in December 2009

Introduction

I am tired of the pictures forwarded to me in email and of the videos posted on Facebook, Youtube, and numerous other mediums of internet media displaying a gross cornucopia of atrocities against Muslims across the globe. There’s the visibly overwhelmed Muslim woman getting her hijab (headscarf) yanked off, the Muslim being malevolently run over by a car repeatedly, and the countless dead Muslim babies buried in rubble. I loathe it all. It has become a sickness amongst Muslims to find some perverted sense of satisfaction in displaying to the world, “Look! I am the victim!” It is as if our era of glory was an opiate, and now we use self-victimization to ease the withdrawal. Some have identified that self-empowerment, rather than self-victimization, is more constructive. Yet, they still just don’t get it.

Peruse any variety of Muslim media sources and one will find no shortage of laudatory narratives on how the Muslims pioneered modern technology while Europe languished in the “Dark Ages.” Hearing that, a 16 year old European Muslim drop-out can beam with pride and feel that he, himself, bested the magnificence of the monolithic “West.” The Frenchman is no better than he, for his ancestors gave the world Algebra… albeit 1,250 years ago.

This leads to the oft-posited, and often frustrating, question: How do we get those glory days back? While patting themselves on the back for those long dead laurels, many Muslim proselytes and those inebriated by their opiates often miss is that this era of Muslim ingenuity was not founded at the hands of those who thirsted for the blood of their enemies. It was founded by a people who would be more concerned with the scientific study of apes and pigs, than calling their non-Muslim enemies the “descendants of apes and pigs.” It was founded by men of loftier priorities and ideals.

How do we get those days back? Perhaps, we should first identify how we lost them in the first place. We should rather ask: Where did we go wrong? My hypothesis is that we have gone backwards in how we view and treat our non-Muslim neighbors. We have regressed far behind the noble principles of coexistence dictated to us by the Qur’an, which were conveyed and displayed to us by our exemplary Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (peace be upon him). All cases of greatness in Islamic history will also yield remarkable examples of compassion and benevolence towards the Muslims’ non-Muslim neighbors.

Articles about the Muslim world’s contributions to science will be rife with names like al-Khwarizmi and al-Biruni. Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi and Abu Rayhan al-Biruni were both Persians of ancient Khwarezm who are iconic of the Muslim world’s contributions to science. The Prophet Muhammadﷺ had foretold that great knowledge was to come from the Persians ¹ to whom the baton of Islamic learning quickly passed. Yet, aside from the facts that both were devout and learned Sunni Muslims and polymaths, excelling in a jaw-dropping variety of scientific disciplines, they also strove to achieve a better understanding of the non-Muslims they encountered.

Abu `Abdillah Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khwarizmi (780-850 CE) penned his Treatise on the Extraction of the Jewish History,² which became the reference point for the later Jewish scholar Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, popularly known as Maimonides, in formulating the Hebrew Calendar which Jews all over the world use to this day. His work in this regard, and influence from al-Khwarizmi, is contained in his book Sefr Mishneh Torah.³ It is also worthy to note that Maimonides’ name is remembered today because of the freedom and liberty he enjoyed living under his Spanish and African Muslim rulers. Another famous Jewish scholar who used the works of al-Khwarizmi to codify the Hebrew calendar as it is known today was Abraham ibn Ezra,⁴ who in the process went as far as to fully translate Ibn al-Muthanna’s commentary of al-Khwarizmi’s Tables of Astronomy into Hebrew.

Another great Muslim genius who lived one hundred years after al-Khwarizmi was, likewise, a tremendous influence on Jewish scholars such as Maimonides and countless others from various non-Muslim demographics. He was Abu al-Rayhan Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-Biruni (973-1048 CE). Al-Biruni became a patron of the medieval Turkic Sultan of Khorasan, Mahmud bin Sebuktekin of Ghazni, and accompanied him during his exploits into India. Rather than immersing himself in all the glory, valor and riches, al-Biruni immersed himself into the non-Muslim population’s culture, language and tradition. He learned Sanskrit to such a high level that the Hindu clergy bequeathed him with the title Vidyasagar meaning “Ocean of Learning.”⁵ Al-Biruni did not limit his studies to their culture, but also became versed to a scholarly degree in Hinduism. He is, to this day, known as the de facto founder of religious anthropology. He contributed not only to the Jewish calendars but also to a greater understanding of the calendar systems of all religions and civilizations in his work The Surviving Monuments of Past Centuries.⁶

Some historians have sought to remove credit from Islam for the magnanimity and tolerance of these two scholars and many others like them and attribute it instead to the inherent tolerance of the Persians. However, a glance into the tolerance mandated by God in the Qur’an, embodied in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and carried on in the manners of his closest Companions (radiAllahu `anhum – May Allah be pleased with them) may hold some answers.

The Qur’an

Though Muslims are commanded in the Qur’an to call towards the worship of One God without partner, they are also instructed to come to common terms with their non-Muslim neighbors and to refrain from slighting their religious sensibilities in the process. God instructs the Muslims to address the People of the Book: “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you – that we will not worship except Allāh and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allāh.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]’” (3:64). The objective is to come to a mutual understanding. At the end of the day, we have to live with each other much to the chagrin of the extremists on all sides.

Furthermore, God instructs the Muslim believers in the Qur’an, “And do not insult those they invoke other than Allāh, lest they insult Allāh in enmity without knowledge”(6:108). Regarding this verse, the reputable Qur’anic exegete of Basra, Qatadah bin Di`amah, said, “The Muslims used to mock the idols of the non-Muslims, and the non-Muslims would, in turn, mock God. So God revealed the verse, ‘Do not mock those whom they call upon besides Allah…’”⁷ An atmosphere of mockery and derision is not something which God wants to foster between His devotees and those not privileged with a proper understanding of Him. Because the cycle is difficult to break, the Muslims are commanded to never initiate it. The late 13th century Islamic scholar, Ibn Taymiya, says about this verse, “It is known that the polytheists (of pre-Islamic Arabia) loved their pantheon of deities just as they loved Allah (as a part of it). Perhaps, they even loved their deities even more than they loved Allah and this is why they had no problem mocking Allah whenever their pantheon of deities was mocked. Hence, did Allah command, ‘Do not mock the ones they call upon besides Allah, for they will be driven in contempt to mock Allah in return out of ignorance.’”⁸

There is much in common between the three great Abrahamic religions . The Jews and the Christians know full well that “Allah” is the very same name of God, with slight variations, that they find in their sacred texts. The first verse of the first chapter of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, calls God by a direct etymon of this sacred name. ⁹ When Christ was on the cross, he called out to God in the Aramaic etymon, “Allaha!” This was even evidenced in the film The Passion of the Christ (2004). These are not facts unknown to our Jewish and Christian friends, yet none of it will matter when the cycle of derision has been initiated. We must obey God’s command in the Qur’an and not start such divisive conflicts. If we are subjected to it we must respond with what is better as God also instructs in the Qur’an: “And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend” (41:34). God really does know His creation as he also says in the Qur’an, “Does He who created not know?” (64:14)

The Prophetic Traditions

Zaid bin Sa`nah was a leading Jewish Rabbi who was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. His story has been authentically documented in the collections of Prophetic traditions, and it is a fine example of how Muslims should live with their non-Muslim neighbors. Rabbi Zaid related his own story to `Abdullah bin Salam, another Rabbi who had embraced Islam, who relates:

“Zaid bin Sa`nah said… Two or three days before the appointed time, the Prophet ﷺ went out for a funeral prayer of a man from the Ansar. With him were Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman and some of his other Companions (ra). When he completed the prayer, he sought to recline against a wall upon which I grabbed a hold of him and gave him a mean-faced stare and held him by shirt and cloak. I said to him, ‘Repay me what is due, O Muhammad! By God, I have not known you folk from the clan of `Abdul Mutalib to be such procrastinators! Perhaps, my impression of you all has been wrong!’ So I looked at `Umar and his two eyes were beset wide on his face like planets! He then struck me with his stare and said, ‘O you enemy of God! Dare you speak to the Messenger of God ﷺ as I have heard and behave as I have seen?! By the One Who has raised him up with the Truth, if Iwere less God-fearing I would have struck off your head with my sword!’ The Messenger of God was looking at `Umar (ra) with serenity and an amiable smile and said, ‘O `Umar, he and I required something other than this from you. You should have instructed me to repay him in a better manner and you should have instructed him to follow up in a better manner. Go to him, O `Umar, and repay him what is due to him and exceed that by 20 extra measure of dates.'”

The narration in al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan ends here, but the narration in al-Tabarani’s Mu`jam goes on to detail the interaction that transpired when `Umar caught up with Rabbi Zaid. As it turned out the Rabbi had been following the Prophet Muhammadﷺ and was testing his behavior in the face of insolence. When the angry `Umar returned to him sober and friendly, he marveled at how the Prophet Muhammadﷺ could change this angry man into the docile character he was now dealing with. Rabbi Zaid embraced Islam and dedicated the rest of his life to its cause until he ultimately met his end at the Battle of Tabuk. He went from a widely reputed Jewish Rabbi to a hero of Islam, not because of any theological debates or polemics, but because of the goodness displayed by the Messenger of God ﷺ.

The Prophet’s Companions and Successors

This tradition of good conduct towards the non-Muslims carried on into the era of the Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ after his passing. The Fourth Caliph of Islam, `Ali bin Abi Talib, lived in a time when the Persian Empire fell before the feet of the Muslims. He was reported to have actually met with the father of the earliest of the four great Sunni Imams, al-Nu`man bin Thabit, popularly known as Abu Hanifa. Imam Abu Hanifa was from Kabul, Afghanistan,¹⁰ which was largely Zoroastrian prior to the Muslim conquests. Though they had become Muslims, the traditions and cultural practices remained. Imam al-Dhahabi, a highly regarded student of Ibn Taymiyyah, states about Imam Abu Hanifa in his voluminous work on the notables of Islamic history, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’:

“Nu`man bin Marzban, the father of Thabit,<sup>11</sup> was the one who gifted `Ali bin Abi Talib with Faluda on the day of Nawruz (the Persian New Year). `Ali said, ‘May every day be like Nawruz!’ It was also said, ‘This is done as part of Mehregan (a Persian harvest festival with origins possibly pre-dating Iranian culture).” So he replied, ‘May every day be as Mehregan!” ¹²

`Ali did not belittle their cultural practices, so he took the gift, but subtly hinted that, according to Islam, this day was like any other day. He did not endorse the significance of the day, but he did not revile their cultural practice either. He exercised wisdom. Similarly, the other Companions behaved the same towards the Zoroastrians they encountered. The Prophet’s ﷺ wife `A’isha (ra) instructed the Muslims to avoid meats offered to them as gifts on Nawruz but to feel free to eat from the fruits and vegetables. Yet, was this mostly due to the general ruling regarding the meat of the Zoroastrians and not so much having to do with Nawruz? Mujahid said that in general only fruits and vegetables of the Zoroastrians should be consumed, but nothing else from them.¹³ Their slaughtered meat was largely viewed as unsuitable for consumption by the Muslims.

A Dirham for Thought

It is said that a picture can equal a thousand words and, in this case, hard archaeological evidence can speak volumes. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the two great mighty empires whom the Muslims encountered were the Persian Sassanids and the Greco-Roman Byzantines. The Sassanids, at their height, ruled everything between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. They reigned from 205 CE until they finally met their end when defeated by the Muslims under the 2nd Caliph, `Umar ibn al-Khattab. After the era of the Four Pious Caliphs had passed, parts of the newly conquered Persian domains fell under the rule of the Umayyads, the loyalists of `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and others. Yet, in spite of the turf wars that occurred between the various Muslim factions, one thing remained strikingly in common between them: the respect they showed to their newly conquered subjects. It was a time when all the splendor of the Persian Empire literally fell at the feet of the Muslims. This, like many of the events that transpired immediately after the passing of the Prophet Muhammadﷺ, was foretold by him. He warned the Muslims that, though they will have the power to do what they want over the Persians, they should not plunder them nor get tangled up in the priceless spoils they would acquire. Fortunately, the Companions listened, and those Persian lands are still Muslim today. It might have been different had the Muslims reveled in the riches and pounded the population into serfdom. The harrowing empty mosques of Romania, a land ruled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years yet yielding only a 0.3% of Muslim population today, bear a painful testimony to this.

So how did the Muslims treat their newly conquered Zoroastrian subjects? The story of `Ali ibn Abi Talib’s interaction with the Persian family of Abu Hanifa has already been told. Yet, there is more to be discovered when analyzing the archaeological evidence from the time period in question. One may be shocked to find that there are numerous extant Arab-Sassanid coins throughout the reigns of Uthman ibn `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib and Mu`awiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan with busts of Khosrow and the Zoroastrian fire altar.

Similarly, coins were minted during the reign of `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, a close Companion of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, in the regions of Persia loyal to him (Sistan) with a bust of Khosrow and Zoroastrian symbols.

There are also instances of Arab-Byzantine coins from the newly conquered Roman territories where the crosses were very slowly and subtly removed from the coinage possibly over the period of a decade.

The horizontal bar would gradually be removed from the crosses on all mintage leaving just a vertical pole, and the Muslim declaration of faith was added to the obverse margins. So the coins would go from the original Byzantine coin:

To the coin following the Muslim conquests:

To, ultimately:

These coins¹⁴ are not great rarities. They are so abundantly available that if you look hard enough you can buy them yourself over the internet. So let there be no doubt about this. The early Muslims went through such great pains not to offend the local non-Muslim populations whom they had quite thoroughly conquered. They could have done whatever they wanted to them. Yet, out of the fear of their Lord, they refrained from offending their non-Muslim subjects.” Compare that to how Muslims today, many of whom can barely even rule their own households, and treat those around them with respect – Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Conclusion

Albert Einstein supposedly said: “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.”

With all the apocalyptic clamor about ruling by Shari`ah and re-establishing a Caliphate in our times, what is sorely missing in these Muslim revolutionaries is an insight into the hearts of those who set the standards for establishing a successful society that was truly Islamic. As the answer to where we went wrong becomes increasingly clear, we can then go back to the question, “How do we get those glory days back?” Much work is to be done to achieve that, but it won’t be by strength of arms. It must be in the classrooms, homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation centers, mentoring programs and other social and civic means by which Muslims can forge a better society wherein all mankind, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, can flourish. Only then will we have exemplified God’s description of the role we play in this world:

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allāh.” (Qur’an, 3:110)

Vlad Țepeș (Dracula) Source: Wikipedia

Born in the Ottoman Principality of Wallachia, Romania in 1435 AD, he was known as Radu al III-lea cel Frumos to his Romanian countrymen, Yakışıklı Radu Bey to the Turks, Radu al-Wasim to the Arabs, and Radu the Handsome in English. This ally and childhood friend of Sultan Mehmet II was instrumental in the conquest of Constantinople for Islam. Radu’s participation in that conquest ensured that Mehmet II would go down in history as “Fatih,” or “Conqueror.” Radu was the Ottomans’ secret weapon against the Safavids to the East and the Serbs, Romanians and Hungarians to the West. The Muslim world owes much to this hero of Islam, yet they recorded little other than cursory references to him, perhaps for fear of taking away from Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s limelight. The Byzantines recorded Radu as a reviled despot due to their hatred for his conversion to Islam and instrumental role in ending the Byzantine Empire.

Yet, this Ottoman general had a greater war, a war against darkness. He hunted the very progenitor of the vampire legend who impaled his enemies and drank their blood – Vlad al III-lea Ţepeş, also known as Vlad Drăculea, who would go down in infamy as, simply, Dracula. The character of Professor Abraham Van Helsing was no more than a figment of Bram Stoker’s terrifying imagination, but Sultan Mehmet II and Radu cel Frumos were perhaps the first and only true vampire hunters in history.

The Blood Brothers

Looking back, Radu’s devotion to Islam and to Sultan Mehmet II could be traced to the political alliance of their respective fathers before them. Vlad II from the House of Drăculeşti (“House of the Dragon”) was an ally and vassal of Sultan Mehmet’s father, Sultan Murad II. Vlad II had 4 sons: Mircea II, Vlad IV Călugărul (“The Monk”), Vlad III who would come to be known as Dracula, and Radu III cel Frumos (“The Handsome”). As a gesture of unity with the Sultan, Vlad II offered his sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve the Ottoman Sultan. Under the Janissaries they studied the Qur’an, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Islamic Theology and Jurisprudence, and, coveted above all, Turkish military strategy and tactics of war.

The Ottoman special forces who held a higher status both militarily as well as socially than the rank and file were the Janissaries and the Sipahis. The Janissaries were the elite infantry of the Ottoman military as well as the personal bodyguards of the Sultan and his family. The Sipahis were the elite cavalry who surrounded the Sultan in battle and would be sent to deal with the most stubborn of adversaries. They were the commandos and special forces of their day. Though the Sipahis were almost exclusively Turkic in origin as demanded by Sultan Mehmet II himself in his treatise of law entitled Kanun Nameh-e-Sipahi (“Law Book of the Sipahis”), the Janissaries, within whose ranks Dracula and Radu found themselves, were conversely converts to Islam.

The young Dracula continually abused and rebelled against his hosts earning himself imprisonment and castigation. Due to the heavy handedness of the Turks in response to his insolence, he developed a compounded and complex series of grudges. He hated his father for allying with the Turks, which he saw as a betrayal of the Order of the Dragon to which his father had sworn an oath. The Order of the Dragon was a Christian fraternity whose sole aim was to wipe out Islam from the Balkans forever. Dracula hated Radu for his successes and the favor the Turks bestowed upon him. He was filled with jealousy for the then young Mehmet II who, like him, was a prince, but, very unlike him, lived in splendor. He was also jealous of his brothers Mircea and Vlad the Monk due to what he perceived as his father’s preference for them. His sentiments for Mircea however, would teeter between jealousy and awe. It is from him that the young Dracula learned the terror tactic of impaling thousands to create forests of the dead.

Radu remained faithful to Islam and the Sultan and spent his entire life in battle on the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, vanquishing the most difficult adversaries of the Empire. His natural knack for battle was unparalleled even amongst the Janissaries and elite Sipahis of the Ottoman military, and he would be called upon frequently to subdue any foe that seemed insurmountable. It is reported that he turned the very course of Near Eastern history when he stopped the mighty Ak Koyunlu from overrunning the Ottomans, an event that, if not stopped, would have definitely changed the faces of both the Middle East and Europe today. For this very reason, he was called upon to face the threat from his homeland of Wallachia that neither the elite Janissaries nor the Sipahis could route.

The Conquest of Constantinople

“On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.” (George Sphrantzes, 1401-1478, Byzantine Christian chronicler and witness of the fall of Constantinople)

It was a time of relief and rejoicing. It was a relief for the inhabitants of Constantinople who expected a prompt culling following the fall of their city. It was a time of celebration for the entire Muslim world for this historical conquest of a city that has remained, to this very day, the capital of the Turks. Yet as Sultan Mehmet II rode into the city victorious, a glance over to his childhood friend and chief of the Janissaries, Radu cel Frumos, son of Vlad II Duke of Wallachia, may have served as a sobering reminder that to the North, beyond the spoils of Byzantium, their fiercest enemies lay in wait. Among those enemies was the most feared of them all, Dracula, who just so happened to be Radu’s own brother.

The Rise of Dracula

Opportunistic betrayal was the way of Wallachia’s rulers and in one such brief betrayal, Vlad II silently allowed his older sons, Mircea and Vlad IV, to launch an insurrection after which Mircea impaled all his prisoners upon stakes. The young Dracula loved the sight of this and later joined Mircea in further insurrections against the Ottomans as well as the rival Dăneşti clan supported by the Hungarian warlord, John Hunyadi. Ultimately, Hunyadi overran Dracula’s father, slew him in the marshes of Bălteni and blinded and buried Mircea alive at Târgovişte. Hunyadi installed a Dăneşti prince, Vladislav II, over Wallachia. In his ambition and lust for power, Dracula put aside any vengeful sentiments for his slaughtered father and brother and allied with Hunyadi and served him as an adviser. As John Hunyadi went to face the Turks at Belgrade in modern day Serbia, Dracula attacked and slew Vladislav and took the throne for himself. As fortune would have it, a plague broke out amongst Hunyadi’s camp, infecting him which lead to his death. Sultan Mehmet was severely wounded in the battle. These events left Dracula to rule Wallachia uninterrupted for 6 years. It was the only time he ruled his home for so long.

The Impaler

“I have killed men and women, old and young… We killed 23,884 Turks and Bulgarians without counting those whom we burned in their homes or whose heads were not cut by our soldiers.” (Dracula, in a letter to Matthias Corvinus bragging of his tyranny)

As Sultan Mehmet approached what appeared to be a fetid balding forest of rotting trees in the distance he soon realized the horror of what he approached. They were so close to their destination – the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște -that he was in no mood for this puzzling sight. But the figures became more clear as the steeds in the cavalry grew unruly and the infantry felt ill. Before him stood 20,000 impaled bodies of innocent men, women and children, all victims of Dracula in that winter of 1462.

Dracula’s Muslim upbringing, albeit abandoned in deference to opportunity, and fluency in Turkish enabled him to move about the Ottomans’ most secured camps freely as a Turk without being noticed. This had deadly consequences for the Muslims. Dracula had entered Serbia with his men all dressed as Turkish Sipahis and slaughtered all the Muslim villagers, and those non-Muslims friendly to them that they could find. The intent was to leave a horrifying memento for Sultan Mehmet whom they knew to be soon taking their capital city. They erected this unholy monument in a bid to alarm the Sultan and terrorize his troops in hopes that they might turn around and retreat home.

What is remarkable is that there are no records of mass desertion of Ottoman troops after witnessing this. They pressed on unflinchingly. However, some historians have suggested that Sultan Mehmet II lost his taste for hunting down the ‘vampire’ following this invasion of Wallachia and left the task up to the only one who was capable of hunting down Dracula and killing him. After taking the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște, Mehmet returned home, leaving the hunt to Radu. After all, it would take someone who knew the mind of Dracula to defeat him, and none fit this bill better than his own brother.

This event earned Dracula the name of Vlad Ţepeş, the Romanian word “Ţepeş” meaning “Impaler”. Legend has it that if you look closely at the word you can see Dracula’s fangs dangling beneath as a hidden warning to the vampire’s terrible lust for blood.

Radu vs. Dracula: Brothers in Blood

As Târgoviște was taken, Dracula fled towards Transylvania in hopes of finding refuge with John Hunyadi’s son Matthias Corvinus. As was typical of Dracula’s opportunism and lack of reverence for religion, he offered to become Catholic in order to win Corvinus’ favor. He scorched the earth and slaughtered all the living in his path leaving a wake of desolation and writhing impaled bodies. He would not give up his homeland to the Muslims that easily. He began a beleaguering campaign of guerilla warfare that the elite Ottoman Sipahis could not endure. It is said he slaughtered 15,000 of the Ottoman soldiers in one single night. Still, as the mightiest of the Ottomans fled, Radu was undeterred seemingly driven by what can only be interpreted as an austere piety, to end the bloody reign of his haplessly misguided brother. None remained to fight Dracula save Radu and his fellow Romanian Muslim Janissaries.

The brothers fought lingering battles for the throne of Wallachia and Radu’s control of the region increased staggeringly with Dracula receiving less and less support from Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. In a strange twist of fate, Corvinus, the one to whom Dracula retreated, had him imprisoned for 12 years on charges of high treason. The people of Wallachia and their Christian nobles had enough of Dracula’s terror and put their support behind Radu who was pronounced Voivod, Prince and Ruler of Wallachia in 1462. Radu ruled the land prosperously for 11 years until his death while Dracula wasted away in a Budapest prison patiently waiting to rise again from the darkness.

Dracula’s Release and Final Battle

After Radu’s death in 1473, Dracula was released from prison. He immediately assembled an army and invaded Bosnia, slaughtering its Muslim population and impaling 8,000 on stakes in a forest of human bodies. Once again, Dracula had arisen from the darkness with the objective of eliminating Islam from the Balkans forever. He finally acquired the throne of Wallachia after his departed brother, but only for a month. Sultan Mehmet invaded Wallachia to remove this profanity from the throne his dear friend Radu had vacated in death. In 1476 the forces of Sultan Mehmet faced the forces of Dracula in Bucharest, Romania. Dracula’s army was overrun in a blitz and all were killed, including Dracula himself. The vampire had been slain. News of this did not suffice. His head was cut off and preserved in a jar of honey and sent to Constantinople. There, in a fitting end, Dracula’s head was impaled upon a stake in the center of Constantinople for all to see. There was to be no doubt or mystery.

The Muslims had finally, at last, killed Dracula.

Author’s Note 10-10-2014: I wrote “How the Muslims Killed Dracula” in 2010 in hopes of telling the little known story of an unsung hero, Radu cel Frumos the Voivod and warrior of Wallachia who led the battle against the genocidal mania of his own brother, Vlad Ţepeş, known in infamy as Dracula. Since then, the article has been shared thousands of times, translated into multiple languages and built upon by other talented authors with greater detail than presented in my article. Unfortunately, it has also been copied not so discretely or elegantly without any credit to me. In one instance it was even plagiarized by an infamous sympathizer of terrorism twisting the information in the article for his nefarious ends. Simply put —mostly good, but occasionally bad— it got around. I thank you for that and I am sure Radu and his dear friend Sultan Mehmet II thank you as well.

Who would have thought that 117 years after Dracula was introduced to the western world by Bram Stoker he would ever be seen as a hero. But, sadly, in today’s geopolitical climate and all its medieval saber rattling it seems that anyone who ever brutally massacred Muslims will be reinvented as a hero. But this weekend a seemingly ridiculous sci-fi/quasi-historical film that butchers the historical narrative of Vlad Ţepeş and completely reverses the antagonists with the protagonists will be hitting a theater near you. The film tries to evoke parallels to Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” by painting a picture of an invading army, who happen to be Muslims, being opposed by a local prince who must resort to the most grotesque forms of violence in order to repel them. As many of you may be seeing the film —though I actually hope you don’t— I’d like you to take some points into the theater with you:

The film depicts an invading Muslim army demanding the children of the poor conquered Christians from whom Vlad Ţepeş (whom I will henceforth refer to as Dracula) supposedly rises as a rebel leader. This is pure nonsense.

Dracula’s father Vlad Dracul II and their clan, the House of Drăculești, had been dutiful allies of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Turks actually fought John Hunyadi, the bitter enemy of the House of Drăculești, in order to place Vlad Dracul II upon the throne. So, not only were the Ottoman Turks not the enemies of Dracula’s family, they actually fought to put them in power. (As an aside, John Hunyadi is the patriarch of the Corvinus family who are portrayed as vampire royalty in the “Underworld” films.)

Furthermore, the father of Dracula himself offered the Ottoman Turks the military service of Wallachia’s young boys to train in the Ottoman Turkish military which was, by far, the greatest military in the world at that time. Not only that, he even offered his own two sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve in their army and to be raised as Muslims. You can read about their childhood in Ottoman Turkish military service in my article.

So why did Dracula rise up against the Ottomans? The opportunist that he was, the reason is simple: Gold. Even though the Christians had lost nearly every single Crusade against the Muslims, in 1459 at the Council of Mantua, Pope Pius II called for yet another Crusade against the Muslims. At that time, the Muslim world was championed by the Ottoman Empire. Pope Pius II gave Matthias Corvinus, Dracula’s rival and son of John Hunyadi who was Dracula’s father’s rival, an astounding amount of gold. No less than 40,000 gold pieces which was enough, in and of itself, to raise and build a whole new army and navy. Dracula simply wasn’t going to let his rival get all the pie to himself. It was at this point that Dracula took the House of Drăculești from being allies of the Ottomans to being their enemies.

We often bemoan the negative portrayal of Muslims in film and television. We get angry when we see absurd portrayals of our prayers and traditions on shows like “Homeland”. But who is to blame when we have absolutely no presence in popular media? I’m sorry to say, we are ultimately to blame. If we will not get involved in and excel in the media from journalism to producing, acting and directing and the plethora of niches in-between and beyond, then we risk our stories almost certainly being told by those who do not favor us. Case in point, in the 4 years since my article was written, I’ve had multiple hit-and-run queries to join an effort to tell this amazing story of the real historical Dracula in film. But in the end, no Muslim, nor even parties sympathetic to just plain telling the truth, ever took up this project. So guess what happened? “Dracula Untold.” That was an opportunity lost. But this is a story that has been told countless times over. It’s not too late for Radu, the heroic brother of Dracula, to have his day.

References

• Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad Ţepeş, Kurt W. Treptow
• Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula, Kurt W. Treptow
• The Complete Dracula, Radu Florescu, Raymond T. McNally
• Vlad Ţepeş, Prince of Walachia, Nicolae Stoicescu
• Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah  fi-l `Usur al-Wusta (Arabic), Dr. Mahmud al-Huwayri
• Al-`Uthmaniyin fi-l Tarikh wal-Hadharah (Arabic), Dr. Muhammad Harb
• Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah (Arabic), Dr. Ali Hassoun
• Al-Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih (Arabic), Dr. Sayyid Ridwan `Ali

This is a small glimpse of the trials Sultan Muhammad II faced in his struggle to conquer Constantinople, currently known as Istanbul. Reading from books and watching documentaries about his life and accomplishments, I’ve found this story to be the most difficult to accept. My reaction to it, as that of many I’ve talked to, was, “Ugh, that’s tough.” We’re so used to hearing the question, “How can you judge people when only Allah knows their intentions?!” to the degree that we no longer differentiate between judging people and holding them responsible.

Subhan’Allah. We forget that this sultan and his army were described by the Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him) 800 years prior:

The Prophet ﷺ said, “Indeed Constantinople will be conquered, and verily what a great prince its prince is, and verily what a great army that army is.” (Musnad Imam Ahmad)

The Prophet’s praise of Sultan Muhammad II and his army shifts the lens through which we analyze this story. Instead of thinking about how “tough” Al-Faatih treated Baltughlu, think about what a high standard of achievement the sultan and his army held for themselves.

Sometimes we let mistakes slide, even if they hurt others, using the alibi that we do not want to be tough or judgmental. Yet, whether it is done consciously or not, we let the mistake slide because we too do not want to be punished if we make the same mistake. Unfortunately, this culture of irresponsibility and lower standards leads to many losses in our community, from keeping unqualified individuals in positions of power and influence to allowing aggressions our children commit against each other pass as “kids horsing around,” only to find that these aggressive qualities only grow bigger.

Divine Guidance in Responsibility and Justice

As humans, we do not know the intentions of others, and hence, can only hold each other accountable by our actions. On the other hand, Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala – exalted is He) is All-Knowing and judges our actions by the intention and the means used. Yet His judgment is not limited to intentions, for He has set a high standard of justice and integrity for the believers’ actions.

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” [Qur’an, 5:8]

In this ayah (verse), Allah (swt) holds us to the highest standard of justice: to be just even to people we hate. Moreover, He commands us to be just, even if justice served will be against ourselves or our families.

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” [Qur’an, 4:135]

As a reward for those who live up to the high standard of righteous deeds and integrity while being a believer, Allah (swt) promises success in this life and in the hereafter. We notice that Allah (swt) recurringly describes the righteous in the Qur’an as (1) those who believe and (2) do righteous deeds. Allah’s judgment encompasses both the actions and the intentions.

“Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer – We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do.” [Qur’an, 16:97]

So, Allah (swt) also promises higher worldly status for those who believe and live up to the high standard of righteous deeds.

“Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient.” [24:55]

We see an example of how Allah (swt) substitutes fear with security for those who hold themselves to a high standard of righteousness in the continuation of the story of Sultan Muhammad II and his army. It is an amazing to see how they were granted victory after failing to intercept the Venetian warships.

May Allah (swt) make us live up to the highest standards of integrity and justice to gain His pleasure. Ameen.

by Reem Rahman

Know the true meaning of Malcolm X, and you cannot help but be moved. You cannot help but stand up taller and aim to live with greater courage, committed to the upliftment of oneself and of all people. The life and death, struggle and change he underwent from 1925 to 1965 still stands as a powerful source of learning and inspiration. The burden now falls upon those of us who know to ensure that new generations aren’t deprived of also truly knowing Malcolm, and living better because of it.

The challenge, however, is in conveying just what is meant by his legacy. The most popular sources on his life are good places to start, including Malcolm X’s autobiography as told to Alex Haley, which was hailed as one of the ten most important nonfiction books of the 20^th century, and Spike Lee’s hugely popular 1992 film starring Denzel Washington. Both have undoubtedly served to introduce Malcolm X to generations of people across the world, but neither is free of critique nor fully captures the complexity and impact of his life, much of which continues to be misunderstood, oversimplified, or just plain commercialized. How is it, for example, that he’s still thought of as “controversial” – and yet he received one of the highest forms of honor to any American citizen, commemoration on the United States postal stamp? How is it that in 1964, as one of the most widely quoted men of his time, Malcolm so powerfully spoke about Mecca and thereby Islam as “the fountain of truth, love, peace, and brotherhood,” and yet Islam is one of the most stereotyped and misunderstood religions in the West today?

The following resources and selected quotes have been gathered as a brief, introductory primer for those unfamiliar with Malcolm X (see “Introductory Resources”). For those who are already familiar, the resources are a way to reengage with his life and the continued scholarship on his legacy with greater depth (see “Additional Recommendations” and “Reference”). Among the suggested readings is Malcolm X’s autobiography, which is strongly recommended as a must-read for all youth today, especially Muslims.

Ossie Davis’s words capture the intent of this primer, ringing as true today as they did the day he delivered his eulogy to Brother El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (Malcolm X): “I say this to you, as I say to myself: If Malcolm and his message – so strong, so bright, and so pure – was too good for those of us who have already reached manhood, there is a generation who is not yet spoiled, not yet degutted, not yet de-bold, not yet emasculated, who when they come to the light of this truth will rise up and redeem him and us and all of the rest of the world. That is the meaning of Malcolm X.”

May we be that generation.

This is meant as a primer on Malcolm X and is by no means comprehensive. We look forward to seeing your own recommendations in the comments!

Introductory Resources (for an extremely basic introduction)

• (April 1964) “Letter from Hajj“ The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Chapter 17  -Mecca.
• (1964?) Malcolm X’s Press Interview “On leaving the ‘Nation of Islam’ and not fearing death”: 3:10 min.
• (1966) Response to magazine editor’s question: Why did you Eulogize Malcolm X? by Ossie Davis
• (May 1925 – Feb 1965) Brief Chronology – Official Malcolm X Site

Additional Recommended

Reading

• (1965) Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley (This book was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 10 most important nonfiction books of the 20th century)
• (1964) “I am prepared to die” speech by Nelson Mandela, (see concluding remarks echoing Malcolm’s famous “By Any Means Necessary” quote)
• (1963) Letter From Malcolm X to Martin Luther King Jr – Calling for Unity

Video

• Malcolm X (film) Directed by Spike Lee, 1992  – Official Trailer | Clip 1 | Clip 2 | Entire Film on Youtube
• (1963) “On slavery’s destruction of history, media distortion, and school integration” – Malcolm X Interview, “City Desk”, Chicago [9:42 min]
• (May 21, 1964) Interview after Hajj [53 sec.]
• (June 8, 1964) “I’m probably a dead man already” [1:28 min]
• (1964?) “Prayer (dua) for the crowd and on KuKlux Klan as cowards” – Malcolm X [1:15 min]
• (1964) Oxford Union Speech – Malcolm X; excerpt [7:36 min]
  

Reference

• Speech by Ossie Davis at the Apollo Theater , February 27, 1965
• Research Site: http://www.brothermalcolm.net/
• Dyson, Eric M. Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X. (Oxford University Press 1995)
• Lumpkins, C., What would Malcolm X say about Obama? , February 28, 2008
• Malcolm X – Religious Transformation – Overview, “(adapted from the pamphlet Malcolm X : Why I Embraced Islam by Yusuf Siddiqui)
• (April 12,1964) “Ballot or Bullet” Speech by Malcolm X, (see first 10 minutes on Black Nationalism) [53:37]
• The Missing Malcolm X: the Lost Chapters from Haley’s Autobiography. Interview of Dr. Marble Manning. February 2009.
• Malcolm X Project at Columbia University: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/ Research site by Louis DeCaro, author of On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X and Malcolm and the Cross: The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X and Christianity
• Research Guide: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/researchguides/areacultstudies/Malcolm_X.html
• Aidi, Hishaam. 2002. Jihadis in the Hood: Race, Urban Islam and the War on Terror. Middle East Report 224.
• Boyd,T and Shropshire,K. (eds.) “View the World From American Eyes: Ball, Islam and Dissent in Post-Race America,” in Basketball Jones: America Above the Rim, Chapter 14, p.198-214, New York University Press (2000)
• Clasby, Nancy. The Autobiography of Malcolm X: A Mythic Paradigm, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, September. Publications, Inc. (1974)
• Burrow, Rufus, Jr. Malcolm X was a Racist : The Great Myth , Western Journal of Black Studies, vol.20, no.2, (Summer, 1996), p.104-113

Topical Quotes

The following are just a few excerpts intended to introduce some of the themes and rich scholarship involved in understanding and demystifying the legacy of Malcolm X.

Malcolm as “Controversial”?

“What this means is not quite clear, but in effect everyone admits that a controversial intellectual is one whose thought does not leave people indifferent: some praise it, others criticize it, but in any case it causes them to react and think.” – Tariq Ramadan, “What I Believe”

Self-Identity, Black Consciousness, and Challenging the Legacy of Slavery

“One black leader, perhaps more than any other in modern times, was responsible for  developing a black consciousness that could reject the white interpretation of history and the white heroes, in search of its own past and glory – Malcolm X.” – M. Worth Film Review[ii]

“The important thing [in putting the life of Malcolm X] in perspective is an emphasis on the legacy of slavery and the creative ways that African Americans revitalized their connection to Islam as a source of political protest, whether through the Moorish Science Temple and Nation of Islam (NOI) or mainstream Islam.” – Dr. Junaid Rana

Dr. Martin Luther King & Civil Rights Movement

“Cone makes clear that Malcolm X’s unbridled anger toward white racism provided a strong counterpoint to King’s integrationist philosophy, making King’s views, once deemed radical, seem acceptably moderate by comparison.” – Martin & Malcolm Review[iii]

Global Identity & Human Rights

“Malcolm X placed a territorial dimension at the heart of the Civil Rights Movement and in so doing re-conceptualized the theoretical and practical linkages between the African American movement and other ‘Third World’ movements” – J. Tyner[iv]

Malcolm’s Famous “By Any Means Necessary” Quote echoed in the words of Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela speech on being “Prepared to Die,” upon release from decades of imprisonment and emerging as an icon of freedom and justice:

“In conclusion I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are true today as they were then: ‘I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.’[v]

The Appeal and Meaning of Malcolm X to new generations – by iconic actor Ossie Davis

“Malcolm came from the lowest depths. And therefore, in measuring the man we have to measure the place from whence he came. All of us sitting here tonight, men and women, black and white, can stand a little taller because a man like Malcolm X walked on our earth, lived in our midst, smiled his smile on the face of Harlem…

“I say this to you, as I say to myself: If Malcolm and his message so strong, so bright, and so pure, was too good for those of us who have already reached manhood, there is a generation who is not yet spoiled, not yet degutted, not yet de-bold, not yet emasculated, who when they come to the light of this truth will rise up and redeem him and us and all of the rest of the world. That is the meaning of Malcolm X.” – Ossie Davis, delivering the eulogy for Malcolm X at the Faith Temple Church of God, February 27, 1965.

The Appeal and Meaning of Malcolm X to new generations – by iconic leader Nelson Mandela

“As brother Malcolm said, we declare our right on this earth to be a man. To be a human being. To be given the rights of a human being. To be respected as a human being. In this society. On this earth. In this day. Which we intended to bring into existence, by any means necessary. – Nelson Mandela, speaking in 1992 Film “Malcolm X” directed by Spike Lee

—

[ii] Review: [untitled] Bernard Weiner. Reviewed work(s): Malcolm X by Marvin Worth; Arnold Perl Film Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 1972-1973), pp. 43-45

[iii] Review: Martin and Malcolm Michael Eric Dyson. Reviewed work(s): Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare. by James H. Cone, Transition, No. 56 (1992), pp. 48-59 Available on JSTOR

[iv] James A. Tyner. Territoriality, Social Justice and Gendered Revolutions in the Speeches of Malcolm X Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 330-343
[v]Nelson Mandela’s Address to Rally in Cape Town on His Release From Prison (February 11, 1990).

Longer Concluding Excerpt from Speech: “Our struggle has reached a decisive moment. We call on our people to seize this moment so that the process towards democracy is rapid and uninterrupted. We have waited too long for our freedom. We can no longer wait. Now is the time to intensify the struggle on all fronts. To relax our efforts now would be a mistake which generations to come will not be able to forgive. The sight of freedom looming on the horizon should encourage us to redouble our efforts.

“It is only through disciplined mass action that our victory can be assured. We call on our white compatriots to join us in the shaping of a new South Africa. The freedom movement is a political home for you too. We call on the international community to continue the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid.

“Our march to freedom is irreversible. We must not allow fear to stand in our way. Universal suffrage on a common voters’ role in a united democratic and non-racial South Africa is the only way to peace and racial harmony.

“In conclusion I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are true today as they were then: ‘I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.’”

The Missing Malcolm: An Interview with Manning Marable

IN YOUR new biography of Malcolm, Malcolm X: A Life of the Invention, you discuss three missing chapters from Alex Haley’s collaboration with Malcolm, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. What’s happened to them? And what’s their importance to understanding Malcolm’s life?

THEY’RE IN the safe of an attorney named Gregory Reed. He’s in Detroit, Michigan. They’re in his safe. And, he has them and doesn’t show them to people. Now why does he have them? How did that happen? Well, in late 1992, I believe October, there was an auction of the Alex Haley estate and for $100,000, he bought these chapters that were discarded from the autobiography.

Alex Haley was the ghostwriter and co-author of the book. You have to remember that Haley went on to great fame as the author of Roots, one of the largest-selling books in American history and a docudrama on television that had a profound impact on race relations in the late 1970s. Haley was deeply hostile to Malcolm X’s politics. He was a Republican, he was opposed to Black nationalism, and he was an integrationist. He had been in the Coast Guard for twenty years. But, he also knew a good thing when he saw it.

A charismatic, handsome, articulate Black leader who had a controversial past as a hustler, a pimp, a drug addict, a numbers runner, “Detroit Red,” “Little Gangster,” “Little Bugsy Siegel,” who supposedly terrorized the Harlem community in the 1940s and went to jail and was given ten years in prison. He goes through a metamorphosis, he becomes a Black Muslim, he comes out, he explodes onto the scene. He creates seventy to eighty new mosques in less than ten years, turns a small sect of 400 people into fifty- to one hundred thousand by 1960–62. Then, he turns more overtly to politics, he breaks from the Nation of Islam (NOI), he builds two new organizations, the Muslim Mosque Incorporated in March 1964 and the Organization of Afro-American Unity in May 1964. He goes to Africa and the Mideast. He is treated as the head of state. He is welcomed at the Fateh by the Saudi royal household. He sits down with Gamal, eats breakfast with Anwar Sadat in Egypt. He caucuses and meets and gets to know Che Guevara while he’s in Africa, as he alludes to in a talk in 1964 at the Audubon Ballroom. So Malcolm is this extraordinary figure, dies at the age of thirty-nine. It’s a hell of a story. Haley understood that. And so, it was on those terms he agreed to work with Malcolm to write the book. But, what Malcolm didn’t know was that Haley already was compromised and had basically been a purveyor of information—a kind of, not informant, but a client of the FBI in this disinformation campaign against the NOI. Haley had collaborated with the FBI. Malcolm never knew that. In the summer of sixty-four when Malcolm was in Egypt, Haley was taking the book manuscript and giving it to an attorney, William O’Dwyer, rewriting passages of the book trying to get it passed as Malcolm’s survey. Malcolm’s on the run, people are trying to kill him, they’re trying to poison him in Egypt. He’s not going to have time to look at the book carefully. Then, he dies.

Haley adds a seventy-nine-page appendix to the book where he has his own integrationist and liberal Republican interpretation. And then, they have M.S. Handler of the New York Times writing in the front of the book. I mean, you know Malcolm respected Handler. But this is not who you want to lead in to a Black revolutionary’s text. So Haley did a variety of things to reframe the book. And, toward the end of the book, there’s a lot of language in it that simply doesn’t sound like Malcolm. It doesn’t sound like him. There’s a lot of information that is just wrong in the book. They misspelled “As-Salamu Alaykum” several times. They give the story of Johnson Hinton. They have Hinton Johnson. They put the date of this very tragic beating of this brother who’s in the Nation, Brother Johnson, in 1959, rather than the year it actually occurred, which was April 1957. So there are simple mistakes in dates, of names, events that clearly show Malcolm did not have access to the final manuscript. He didn’t see it. And it was published nine months after Malcolm’s death. Betty Shabazz was in no shape to check and recheck facts. So all that says to me is you have to read the autobiography very, very carefully, very suspiciously. It’s a wonderful book. It is a great work of literature. But it is a work of literature. It is not an autobiography. It’s a memoir. And it’s gone through the prism of Haley who was a Republican, integrationist, and a defender of U.S. power. You should read the anticommunist articles he wrote for the Reader’s Guide in the mid-fifties on Hungary. This is the man you’re dealing with. So we must be very careful. I learned I had to deconstruct the autobiography to write the biography. If you go to www.malcolmxproject.net, you will see my biography, the architecture of that, and how I had to deconstruct the autobiography. That’s why we put up the Web site.

WHAT DO you suspect is contained in these missing three chapters?

WELL, I’VE seen them for about fifteen minutes. I met with Gregory. I’ve written about this in my book, Living Black History, which came out last year. Living Black History has a whole chapter on this. I couldn’t use it in the autobiography, but I had to tell the story to somebody. I talked with Gregory on the phone. He’s an attorney. He bought it for $100,000. He wanted to make money off of the material. So I phone him up, we talk. He says, “Fly out to Detroit. Meet with me. Come to my law office. There, I’ll show you the chapters.” As honesty suggests, I get to Detroit. He said, “Don’t come to my office. Are you downtown?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Meet me at this restaurant in an hour.” I go there. He’s about a half hour late. He eventually shows up. And he’s carrying a briefcase. And then he said, “I’ll let you see these for fifteen minutes.” I’ve flown from New York and I have fifteen minutes to read the text. “I’ll let you sit here and read them and I’ll leave and I’ll come back.”

I’m sitting here frantically reading these pages. But it only takes me a few minutes to recognize what they are. They were obviously written sometime between August 1963 to December 1963. There’s a presumption in the text that Malcolm is still in the Nation of Islam. So he hasn’t broken with the Nation yet. What they call for is the construction of an unprecedented Black united front, uniting all Black organizations, led by, get this, the Nation of Islam. So Malcolm is envisioning the Nation actively participating in antiracist struggles and building various types of capacities: economic strategies, housing strategies, health-care strategies with the NAACP, with the Urban League, with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). So he wanted to push this religious kind of semi-Islamic organization into Black civil society in an aggressive way. He wanted to open up the Nation. And, I strongly suspect that Malcolm’s drive and push to reach out to the civil rights community and SNCC and CORE is what got him into trouble inside of the NOI, because the bulk of the NOI had been thoroughly against Malcolm’s proselytization efforts that brought in tens of thousands of new members. The old guard felt threatened by that. Then on top of that, since April 1962, the turning point in Malcolm’s career was the murder of Ronald Stokes in the Nation of Islam’s mosque in Los Angeles. Malcolm flies out to LA and spends over a week there and he calls for a grand coalition, very much like the coalition he talked about in the deleted chapters, with CORE, the NAACP, with SNCC that would be anti-police violence against Black people. And, he was talking about the Nation of Islam participating in that coalition. Elijah Muhammad said “time out,” called Malcolm down and said “you better chill that out and get the hell out of Los Angeles.” Malcolm was deeply embarrassed and humiliated that they had to end the mobilization after they had a member murdered by the LAPD. Other men in the Nation in the mosque were dragged outside, strip-searched naked to humiliate them. And Malcolm had mobilized people and he had to back down.

Malcolm came back to New York and by July 1962 is speaking at a Local 1199 union protest. I have a photo of him speaking at a protest rally in July for the labor union, King’s favorite union, 1199, the largest union today in New York City. In Christmas time in 1962, two members of the Nation, who were selling Muhammad Speaks in Times Square, get arrested by the police. How does Malcolm respond? He puts 140 to 150 Fruit of Islam members—the paramilitary organization, the men in the NOI—demonstrating in Times Square on New Year’s Day. Elijah Muhammad called for no demonstrations, no overt political activity. That’s not what Malcolm’s doing. That’s exactly what he’s doing. And he starts doing that a year and a half before the silencing, before the break.

So you know what happens? The Nation of Islam’s newspaper Muhammad Speaks in late 1962 stops covering Malcolm X. If you go through methodically the last year from December 1962 through December 1963, guess what? You see Malcolm once in his own newspaper. And he’s the national spokesman. You see him more often in the New York Times. And this is like a year before the break. So you can already see where he’s going. It doesn’t take a mind reader to see that Elijah Muhammad only used the “chickens coming home to roost” statement [by Malcolm X, in response to John F. Kennedy’s November 1963 assassination] as an excuse to do what they wanted to do, which was to eliminate Malcolm’s influence, curb his politics. I think that they believed he would submit. Most of Malcolm’s closest followers within the Nation thought he would also submit. They weren’t prepared for a break. Malcolm contemplated a break. I think maybe he wasn’t prepared either. But he did anticipate a possibility of it.

He began, in early 1964, talking with a number of people outside of the Nation of Islam to develop the OAAU, the Organization of Afro-American Unity. When he left the Nation, very few members of the NOI went with him, perhaps maybe 100. The mosque in Harlem had as many as 7,000 members. Only 100–150 left. They became the Muslim Mosque Incorporated (MMI), and Sunni Muslims. But the OAAU was the secular organization with largely working-class and middle-class Blacks and many professionals, writers like Huey and Mayfield, historians like John Henrik Clark. The key organizer was Lynn Shifflet of NBC News, a producer, a young Black woman in her late twenties. There were real tensions between the OAAU and the MMI over ideology and their relationship to Malcolm, because Malcolm increasingly was moving toward the politics of the OAAU, away from the MMI, even though these were people who had put their lives on the line to leave the NOI out of personal loyalty to him. So there were tremendous tensions between these two groups, which I will document in the biography.

SO THE Organization of Afro-American Unity really is the culmination of, or the product of, the development of Malcolm’s thought that was written about by Haley in these last three chapters?

THE CHAPTERS that are missing are written prior to the split. Haley says that Malcolm changed his mind after he went to Mecca and decided to deep-six the chapters. Maybe that’s true. We’ll never know. What is true is that it would be nice to print the things that were deleted, put an addendum and appendix on the autobiography. It would be nice to see it. Well I’m not sure. Don’t hold your breath. I saw it for fifteen minutes. Maybe I’m the lucky one. But eventually they will appear. We will see them.

There has been an active suppression of Malcolm’s work and his intellectual legacy for more than forty years. And the suppression has been deliberate and for various reasons. First, many of the key people in his entourage in the Nation and in the OAAU had to go underground. I just interviewed this week James 67X Shabazz (Abdullah Razzaq) who went underground and lived in Guyana for nineteen years, because he was threatened with murder and also threatened by the FBI. So it’s only now in his mid-seventies that he’s returned to the United States several months a year. He lives in Brooklyn with his son. James 67X was Malcolm’s chief-of-staff and his secretary for many years. The others who were closest to Malcolm are now dead. There is Herman Ferguson who is the best eyewitness to the murder. I’ve interviewed him several times and I’m interviewing him once more next week, which will be fun. His eyewitness to the murder, his recount to me, which has partially been published in my journal Souls, is absolutely stunning and it raises many questions about the assassination.

We have, over the last seven years, worked very hard to develop a forensic accounting of the murder. And, we believe we have figured out how the murder took place. That is, the forensics of it. We think we know how that happened. We don’t know who gave the order. But I can tell you what our theory is. The murder took place on February 21, 1965, as a result of the culmination of three separate groups. There was no classic conspiracy, no direct collusion, but, rather, a convergence. Three things had to happen for the murder to take place, and they all did. Law enforcement, the FBI and the NYPD, and its Bureau of Special Services (BOSS), which was its red squad, actively wanted to do surveillance disruption of Malcolm X and possibly eliminate him; certainly the FBI, because their nightmare was seeing King and Malcolm embrace. That was their nightmare. And they realized much to their horror that they were far better off with Malcolm in the Nation of Islam than outside of it, because then he was being treated like a head of state in Africa. They had never anticipated that he would be a houseguest of a Saudi royal family, or that he would be speaking to parliaments from Kenya to Ghana to French Guinea. Malcolm goes to Alabama, three weeks before he’s murdered and reaches out to Dr. King. King is in prison after leading demonstrations. Malcolm goes to Coretta Scott King and he says, “I want you to convey to your husband my deepest respect for him and that I am not trying to undermine Dr. King’s work. My goal is to be to the left of Dr. King, to challenge institutional racism so that those in power can negotiate with King. That’s my role.” So Malcolm understood what his role was. This was the FBI’s nightmare. And so they actively wanted to curtail his influence, if not silence him permanently.

Then you have the Nation of Islam. But what people need to understand is that there were different points of view in the NOI about Malcolm. Some of the leadership, especially in Chicago, the national secretary John Ali, the national head of the Fruit of Islam Raymond Shareef, Elijah Muhammad’s son-in-law Herbert Muhammad, the sons of Elijah Muhammad, Jr., and several others wanted to silence Malcolm permanently. Joseph X, who was a captain of the Fruit of Islam and the Northeast regional security director at Mosque No. 7, formerly Malcolm’s associate and friend, as was John Ali—they actively sought to eliminate him, to blow him up with bombs, to kill him, or firebomb his home or whatever. But other members of the Nation of Islam were against the murder and it is questionable if Elijah Muhammad ever gave the order. It could have been a situation very much like Henry II and Thomas Becket where somebody’s ridding him of his priest. So he doesn’t have to give the order, but the deed is done. It’s understood what needs to be done. But he doesn’t technically give the order.

Then there’s a third group and that’s Malcolm’s own entourage. There were police informants in the group. Gene Roberts who tries to resuscitate Malcolm after he’s shot is an NYPD police officer. He’s a police officer who walks right directly out of the line of fire only seconds before the fuselage goes off—maybe by accident, maybe by design. What is true is that whenever Malcolm spoke, there were at least two dozen cops. There were only two police officers in the Audubon that day and they were assigned as far away in the distance as possible in the building. They were in the rows, in very small-rows in a ballroom adjacent to the large grand ballroom, but separated by a wall and then a vestibule. It was impossible for them to protect Malcolm. There was one police officer in a small park directly across the street from the entrance of the Audubon. No other police officers. They’d been pulled back to the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital four blocks away. No captain, and the guard is usually sitting in the second floor in a booth where they collect money that directly faces the ballroom. You have to walk right past it to get out of the building. No police in the building. Why?

Malcolm gets shot. The hospital, they try to get the ambulance. They can’t get an ambulance. It’s only four blocks away. So men run to the hospital’s emergency room, grab a gurney, and carry his body in a gurney in the street. Seems odd, doesn’t it? His own men, no one checks for weapons at the door. None of the guards are armed. I’ve gone through New York’s Municipal Archives, the police reports of all the guards that day, of every guard. We’ve gone through all that. We know who they were and their names and the changes of the guards. There were three changes of the guards. One around 2:00, one around 2:30, and one about 2:55. We know that several people who were guarding Malcolm that day were not generally part of the OAAU and were assigned to sensitive positions. Guards like William George, who normally guarded Malcolm on the roster were assigned to be as far away from him as possible that day at the front of the building, not next to Malcolm on the rush. The guards who were there rolled out of the way. And Malcolm was naked and alone on the stage.

There’s only one man who could have placed the guards there that way and that was Malcolm’s head of security, Reuben Francis. Francis is the one who does shoot Hayer, who did indeed shoot Malcolm. But Hayer is interviewed very briefly by the NYPD, he’s arrested briefly. They let him go on bond. Then he disappears off planet Earth. And the FBI said, “We can’t find him. We believe he’s in Mexico.” But prior to his disappearance, he’s not even called to the grand jury, even though he’s the only one who shot anybody who was an assassin.

The NYPD doesn’t even interview Capt. Joseph, the head of the Fruit of Islam, at Mosque No. 7, even though, to a room of over 120 people, he cold orders Malcolm’s death. There are witnesses to this. And the FBI doesn’t interview him? We found a folder that said Joseph X and it was empty. There were six men who killed Malcolm, not three. Two of the men who were incarcerated and given life sentences were innocent, Norman Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson. They were innocent. They were sent to prison for life. Why? They weren’t even physically there. Johnson used to be Malcolm’s chauffeur. He used to stand out in the rain in front of Mosque No. 7 or in the snow, holding and reserving a parking space for Malcolm when he drove up. He used to phone him and tell him that he was coming before he arrived. Once a month, he went to go grocery shopping for Betty, Malcolm’s wife. You would know this guy if he came to kill you. Everybody would’ve known him if he had walked into the Audubon that day. He wasn’t there that day. Butler was an enforcer for Capt. Joseph. He was a notorious thug in the Nation. They would have known if they walked into the Audubon that day. The two men weren’t there that day and yet they were convicted of murdering Malcolm X. Why?

I believe the district attorney was protecting informants within Malcolm’s group and within the NOI. And perhaps some of those informants were collaborators and committed the crime. So they convicted the wrong people to cover and protect the anonymity of their own agents. That’s a theory. I can’t prove it, but I think we ought to explore it and we should reopen this case. And, hopefully my book will help reopen it. William Kunstler tried to reopen it back in 1977–78 and he failed because he didn’t have the evidence I have. Hopefully, we can reopen it again.

THE DOMINANT understanding of Malcolm’s life and meaning in mainstream American popular culture really comes from two sources: Haley and Spike Lee’s film. Spike Lee’s interpretation of the assassination shows a Malcolm, who seems to be prepared for his own martyrdom and orders his guards not to be armed on that day, in a way that King with his mountaintop speech also appears to be prepared for what he seems to think is his inevitable fate. Is that a damaging interpretation?

NO, IT’S not and it may be true. Malcolm clearly knew he was going to die. He didn’t know when and I strongly suspect that Malcolm was not going to run away from death and he had the courage to face death. Not that he wanted to die, he didn’t have a death wish. But he had the courage to face death. There is a story, a very influential legend within Shia Islam, about Ali and his son Husayn, both of whom perished in a kind of murder in the cathedral, in the case of Ali in the mosque, and in his son’s case at Karbala where he was killed in, I believe, 682 in common era. About four years later, women came to Karbala, in today’s Iraq, and began to beat themselves and lament that they had not protected the son of Ali. In Shia, Ali is the Shia that we have today. They still gather every year at Karbala. Now hundreds of thousands and maybe a million people lament the events of Karbala. There is nothing greater in Shia Islam than martyrdom, the embrace of death for a higher belief. And to some extent, I think that Malcolm embodied that at that moment. Not that he sought death, but that he did not fear it. That he saw in his martyrdom a way to transcend death that there would be a life after death. I’m sure he was familiar with the legend. Who knows? Perhaps that influenced his actions.

WHAT WILL your biography broadly do to assert a new Malcolm X, itself a reinvention of Malcolm X, as your book is titled, because he reinvented himself many times? What will it do to displace Haley and Spike Lee as the dominant understanding of Malcolm X’s life and meaning?

THERE ARE three core things in the book. The first is what I call a kind of a life of reinvention. Malcolm’s tale is a hero’s tale that’s not unlike Odysseus—a story of travel, of learning, of experience, of ordeals and tests, a classic kind of hero story. It’s a classic Greek story, which frequently or usually ends in death. But at the end, there’s a broader, richer, deeper, critical consciousness that’s achieved. The thing about that story is that Malcolm’s growth comes through a series of artful creative reinventions. He reinvents himself even to the point these reinventions have different names. He was “Jack Carlton” in the summer of 1944. When he was nineteen years old, he wanted to break into show biz and he was at Lobster Pond bar on Forty-Second Street in Midtown Manhattan working as a drummer and professional dancer for about three or four months. He doesn’t write about that in the autobiography. You just have to find out about that. He worked in a bar and grill in Harlem, Jimmy’s Chicken Shack, alongside of the funniest dishwasher and server in Harlem, a guy who had red hair. Malcolm had red hair. So they called Malcolm “Detroit Red” cause nobody had ever heard of Lansing, Michigan, and they called the brother from Chicago “Chicago Red.” His last name was Sanford. We know him today better as Red Foxx, the comedian. So Malcolm and Red Foxx worked in the same restaurant in 1943 and early 1944. He does mention something of this in the autobiography. Malcolm in prison called himself at times Malachi Shabazz. He was Malcolm X. He was El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. He had many, many different names: “Detroit Red,” “Homeboy,” “Mascot,” “Satan” when he was in prison. Yet, through these transformations, he was able to navigate brilliantly a life of reinvention.

What makes Malcolm different from every signature Black figure in American history is that he combines the two central characters of Black folk culture. He is both the trickster and the minister. He’s both. That’s “Detroit Red”—the hustler, the gambler, the outlaw. And, he is also the minister who saves souls, who redeems lives, who heals the sick, who raises the dead. He’s both. King is one. Jesse Jackson is one. Malcolm’s both and he understood the streets and the lumpen proletariat. I hate that phrase, but it comes from Marx. As well as, he saw himself as a minister and an Amun, a cleric. He was always this. And he embodied the cultural spirit of Black folk better than anyone else. When I asked one student about a decade ago, “What was the fundamental difference between Malcolm and Martin?” He said, “Dr. Marable, that’s easy. Martin Luther King, Jr., belongs to the entire world. Malcolm X belongs to us.” There is a tremendous degree of identification on the part of people of African descent, and globally on the part of Muslims, invested in the figure of Malcolm. The very first postage stamp honoring Malcolm X was issued not by the United States but by the Ayatollah Khomeini government of Iran, in 1982, by the Shia Muslims. Perhaps they knew something that everybody else didn’t know.
The second theme in the book is a spiritual journey and Malcolm’s growth in a spiritual sojourn from the periphery of Islam represented by the Nation of Islam to Sunni Islam. There was a price in the journey because he also had to embrace Nasser’s definition of what Islam was in the Pan Arab world. So we have some excellent very interesting articles and speeches Malcolm gave in Cairo. The writings that he did, very critical of the state of Israel in the summer and September 1964, cast Malcolm in a very interesting kind of light as it relates to the Arab struggle and the Palestinian struggle, that heretofore, in the United States, we have rarely seen.

The third theme is betrayal. Malcolm had a capacity ethnographically to read an audience better than any public speaker of his generation. He knew people. He could walk into an audience, read it and give a brilliant address. He could debate at Harvard and Oxford, as well as on 125th Street and Lenox Avenue/Seventh Avenue. He was just a remarkable public speaker. But where his failure came was his consistent inability to make critical accurate judgments of the people closest to him who would betray him. And those included his two brothers Philbert and Wilfred Little who sided with Elijah Muhammad against Malcolm; his chief protégé Louis X/Louis Farrakhan who proclaimed Malcolm to be a man worthy of death, who led the jackal’s course leading to his murder. How do we explain Farrakhan? I sat down with Louis for nine hours in an interview a year and a half ago. We had a fascinating conversation about it. The question I ruminate over is, how much of it is true? Then we have Joseph X, the leader of the Fruit of Islam at Mosque No. 7, who Malcolm had promoted, pulled out of the gutter in Detroit in 1952–53, raised him up to be his chief right-hand person, who then would be betray and try to murder him. John Ali, who had been Malcolm’s secretary at Mosque No. 7, who he promoted to the national leadership, who then conspired to murder him. A variety of people. His closest personal friend Charles Kenyatta had been turned out by the police and was probably a police agent, Malcolm’s best friend, which I’ve only just discovered last week because I just got the file. We have some interesting info. So I think between this data and the other things, a big chunk of the book is about the forensic discussion of the murder and our theory of the murder. I think people will have more than enough information.

LET’S BRING this full circle. We’re now sitting in your office in 2007 in Bloom?berg’s New York. We’ve gone through a period of social cleansing that was Giuliani’s New York, characterized by police brutality, intense gentrification, privatization of public housing. And I was today at Friday Juma at the Malcolm Shabazz Mosque in Harlem and the message today was one about homosexuality, as an abnormal and immoral practice. The other message was about self-help and the idea of the community needing to raise itself up and take care of its own problems. What does the Malcolm X of your book say to this current political economic conjuncture?

WELL, AN honest representation of Malcolm should show the whole person and his trajectory and his evolution. The trajectory of Malcolm was increasingly anti-corporate capitalist. He talked about the need not to appeal to the United States to redress grievances, but to take the criminal to court, that is, the court of world opinion at the United Nations. He called for what is today known as a South-South dialogue, that is, between the Caribbean, Blacks in Latin America, Africa, and South Asia that would span across continents that would be in part Arab and Muslim, and part Black and Brown. And, he envisioned a global kind of jihad of worlds against Western imperialism and a need for people who had experienced colonialism to take back the power through international bodies that built broad-based unity transnationally. That was what Malcolm’s politics were. It was not bootstrap capitalism, nor was it gentrification. Nevertheless, once you’re dead, your image is up for grabs. By 1972, Richard Nixon had invited, and Betty Shabazz had agreed to be on the dais of the re-elect Richard M. Nixon for president dinner party in Washington, D.C. This was only six or seven years after Malcolm X’s assassination. So once you’re murdered, you can’t control what people who had some sort of relationship to you—whether they’re married to you, or they’re political affiliates or associates—what choices they make. Sad but true. It is particularly sad that from the masjid or mosque, one hears a kind of message that’s more appropriate to Booker T. Washington than Malcolm X. But, nevertheless, the struggle continues.

MANNING MARABLE is a professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, History and African-American Studies at Columbia University in New York City, and the founder of the Center for Contemporary Black History (CCBH) at Columbia University. He is the author of numerous works, including How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (Boston: South End Press, 1983), Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945–1990 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1991), and Living Black History: How Reimagining the African-American Past Can Remake America’s Racial Future (New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2006). His current works in progress include a new comprehensive biography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Viking, 2009).

Simon J. Black, a freelance writer and PhD student at York University in Toronto, interviewed Dr. Marable in New York City. You can find his writing at www.simonjblack.com.

Originally published here