Baltimore Sun’s BEST party in 2 weeks

Nation of Islam bigot an insincere hypocrite


I'm very disappointed in Khalid Abdul Muhammad, the well-known bigot and hatemonger. It appears that he might be a faker and a hypocrite.

As the spokesman for Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, he became an instant national figure by his attacks on whites and Jews in particular.

To hear him tell it, Jews are the blacks' worst enemies and are responsible for most of their social and economic woes.

Of course, he isn't easy on other whites. He urged South Africa's emancipated blacks to kill all whites: men, women and children. And he called the Polish-born pope a "cracker."

In his hate parade, though, Jews have a special place. Making his first speech after he was wounded in the leg by a defrocked Nation of Islam minister, Muhammad said the shooting was part of a plot by American Jews and the federal government.

But is he really sincere? Does he truly believe all the blather he feeds his cheering audiences?

There is growing evidence that he doesn't, that it's show biz.

I began to suspect this after he was shot and rushed to a hospital for treatment.

When he arrived, his wound was treated by a white physician.

You would think that the white-hating Muhammad would have said: "I refuse to let some cracker mess with my body. I demand that you provide me with a doctor who is a soul brother."

Muhammad might also have asked the white physician if he was Jewish. The physician would have told him that he was, indeed, a Jew.

In which case, I would have expected Muhammad to shout: "Help, murder, fire, police, anybody! I have fallen into the clutches of a hated, conspiratorial Jew who is about to victimize me by sticking needles in my body and cutting me with a scalpel."

But did he? Absolutely not. He meekly allowed a white Jewish physician to give him tender medical care. Not once did he accuse the doc of conspiring to enslave or disenfranchise him.

What kind of hater is this guy? The very least he could have said is: "I am being dissed."

His speech provided even more evidence of his insincerity.

In it, he called upon his audience to support O.J. Simpson, while declaring that Simpson was innocent of charges that he murdered his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman.

There's nothing wrong with Muhammad's believing that Simpson is not guilty, since Simpson is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. Millions of other Americans have opinions on the Simpson case, one way or the other, so Muhammad is entitled to his.

But he mildly criticized Simpson for having "left his black wife and decided to live a life sleeping with the enemy."

By that, he meant that Simpson's second wife was "the enemy" because she was white.

Well, how is that for hypocrisy? He knocks Simpson for sleeping with the enemy. But he doesn't express one word of remorse for not making even a peep of protest when his owwie is mended by a white Jewish doctor, who surely qualifies as a member of the "enemy" camp.

That isn't the worst of it.

No, what should make Muhammad hang his head in shame is that he didn't say even one word about Simpson's choice of lawyers.

He should have been hopping up and down, screaming, pounding his fist on the lectern, tearing his hair, gnashing his teeth, and otherwise expressing his displeasure.

Why? Robert Shapiro, Simpson's lead lawyer, is white and Jewish. So is at least one other member of the all-white defense team.

If he is sincere about identifying the enemy, how can Muhammad ignore Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz and those other white defense lawyers?

If this sinister anti-black conspiracy exists, how can Muhammad ignore the possibility that Simpson's lawyers could be part of that conspiracy? Especially those lawyers who might have a highly suspicious fondness for bagels and cream cheese.

After all, there are many fine black lawyers in California and elsewhere. Muhammad could have demanded to know why Simpson didn't hire them, instead of turning to the "enemy."

The Nation of Islam has long preached that blacks should do business with other blacks, thus keeping their money in the black community.

Aren't black lawyers part of the black community? Shouldn't they have a chance to glom on to Simpson's multimillion-dollar legal fees? Isn't Simpson's choice of lawyers an act of disunity, disloyalty and every other diss you can think of?

I tried to phone Muhammad to ask him those questions, but he is a hard guy to reach.

Next, I phoned the Nation of Islam office in Chicago and asked to speak to Minister Farrakhan, who is Muhammad's boss and mentor.

Farrakhan wasn't around, so I asked his press stand-in: "If the Nation of Islam feels so strongly about the Jews' negative relationship with the black community, how come O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson all have Jewish lawyers?"

A reasonable question, I believe.

But the press person said: "Are you joking?"

No, it is a serious question about a serious matter.

"I can't answer that, and the minister is not available."

Well, I hope Muhammad or Farrakhan addresses this obvious inconsistency soon.

After all, talk is cheap, but million-dollar lawyers aren't.

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad