# Nation of Islam: Cult of the Black Muslims/Chapter 10

X. NOI VERSUS LAW AND ORDER
Elijah Muhammad has publicly denied that the NOI teaches or advocates the use of violence or disobedience to the "white man's laws" in order to achieve its goals. This disclaimer has been repeated in public by the ministers of the various NOI mosques throughout the country. The same message of denial is carried in "Muhammad Speaks."
While this attitude toward violence and disruption is publicly enunciated, a more militant approach is actually pursued. Violent action to prevent police officers from entering NOI meeting halls and to avenge what is considered unprovoked police measures is condoned. In addition, obstruction of police and prison officials, excessive requests for freedom to practice their "religion" in prison, and deliberate violation of certain laws are actions supported by NOI leaders and members.
Black Muslim conflict with authority and with the law and order of our civil society has been particularly evident in the areas of police jurisdiction, prison confinement, and FBI investigations.
Police departments in numerous cities have been involved in investigations pertaining to NOI representatives. The most publicized ​incident in recent years occurred in Los Angeles on April 27, 1962, when police officers, in a routine investigation, stopped two men apparently selling clothes from an automobile. The officers were thereupon attacked by the suspects, who were NOI members, and by numerous fellow members who poured from an adjacent mosque. In the melee, shots were fired. One NOI member was killed, and other members and some of the police officers were wounded. The NOI immediately charged police brutality. NOI leaders and ministers, to exploit sympathy, have widely shown a photograph of the dead member lying on the pavement at the scene of the altercation.
Court proceedings against NOI participants in the fight have been extensive and undoubtedly did not end with an October, 1964, decision of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles that affirmed the prior con victions of 11 Black Muslims on charges of assault and resisting arrest.
Another incident took place in Rochester, New York, on January 6, 1963. Two police officers, dispatched to investigate a call that a man with a gun was on the second floor of a building, were halted at the street entrance to the hall in which the NOI was holding a meeting. The NOI guard was told the purpose of the officers' visit and, as the police went up the stairs, the guard shouted a warning upstairs. The officers were met and assaulted by several N0I members who responded to the guard's warning. Upon the arrival of another police officer with a K-9 dog, the members retreated into the hall, ​where they were ordered to identify themselves to the police officers. Arrested were 15 NOI members, the majority of whom were visiting members from the Buffalo Mosque.
Four trials have been held as a result of these arrests. The first trial was terminated following picketing of the courthouse in which the trial was being held. The second and third trials resulted in deadlocked juries. Following new indictments returned by a grand jury, a fourth trial was held which ended in the conviction of the 15 members. All the defendants received four-year suspended sentences and were placed on probation for one year.
On October 27, 1963, three Flint, Michigan, police officers sought admission to an NOI meeting being addressed by Elijah Muhammad. NOI guards called on them to surrender their weapons before entering the hall, but the police refused to obey the NOI rule that only unarmed persons can enter their meetings. Elijah Muhammad then suspended the meeting. He later instituted a million-dollar damage suit against the police officers and the city attorney, charging that the constitutional immunities and guarantees of the NOI were violated by the police.
A Federal district court judge in July, 1964, dismissed the suit on grounds that the police had a legitimate right to enter the hall, that three police officers could hardly be considered too many when about 2,500 people ​were in the hall, and that the suit was merely an assertion by Elijah Muhammad that the Constitution gives him the right to conduct a public meeting or religious assembly in a public place with the public invited, free from police supervision.
A Trenton, New Jersey, patrolman approached two Negroes on September 27, 1964, to issue them a traffic ticket for double-parking. The two Negroes, later identified as NOI members, knocked the patrolman to the ground, kicked him repeatedly, and attempted to obtain his revolver. A third Negro seized the revolver and ordered the NOI members to release the patrolman. A passer-by telephoned for police assistance. The two NOI members resisted arrest. In the attack, the patrolman suffered a fractured elbow and torn thumb ligaments.
One of the NOI attackers was found guilty of traffic charges of failing to obey a signal of a traffic officer, failure to show a driver's permit and an automobile registration, illegal double-parking, and failure to notify the Bureau of Motor Vehicles of a change of address. In February, 1965, the NOI members were indicted for atrocious assault and battery against the police officers.
Individuals claiming to be Black Muslims and followers of Elijah Muhammad have created numerous problems for prison authorities in recent years. Some of the individuals involved were members of the NOI prior to ​confinement, while others professed different religious affiliation on entering prison and later claimed conversion to the NOI.
The problems created by NOI practitioners in prisons, reformatories, and detention centers have included outright violence, as well as preparation of petitions or legal suits alleging authorities were denying them their constitutional right of religious freedom. One of the most significant court battles between prisoners and prison authorities has involved NOI members or sympathizers in District of Columbia penal institutions.
Members of the NOI were first permitted to conduct weekly religious meetings in District penal institutions in 1955. In 1959, a group of Muslims nearly rioted in a recreation yard at the Lorton Reformatory in Lorton, Virginia, where District inmates are incarcerated. Some time later, prison officials isolated a prisoner for preaching the NOI program to his fellow prisoners.
The NOI follower brought a suit in Federal district court in Washington, D.C., charging discrimination for not being allowed to practice his religion. In July, 1962, a district court judge ordered him to be returned to the area of general prisoners and to be permitted to practice his religion. In his decision, the judge indicated that NOI adherents embraced a legally recognized religion, since they believed in ​a Supreme Being. The judge also stated that, while the prisoner deserved disciplinary action, the punishment given him had been excessive and was based principally on the fact that he had made complaints against District of Columbia officials.
Less than a month after NOI prisoners were granted permission to practice their religion, there were two riots in the Youth Center at the Lorton facility. Damage of several thousand dollars was caused by about 50 NOI followers and sympathizers. Prison authorities promptly banned further Muslim services in the Youth Center as dangerous to prison discipline and order. Services were still permitted in the adult section of the prison system, where NOI leaders were allowed to conduct services for the NOI inmates.
In 1964, a Federal district judge ordered District prison officials to permit NOI followers at the Youth Center to resume the practice of their religion. The order came in a ruling involving a suit filed by 15 NOI prisoners. The judge declared that to "justify the prohibition of the practices of an established religion at the Youth Center, the prison officials must prove by satisfactory evidence that the teachings and practice of the sect create a clear and present danger to the orderly functioning of the institution." There was no conclusive evidence offered, the judge held, to show that the 1962 riots had been instigated or led by members of the NOI.
​The extent of this problem is revealed in statistics issued in June, 1963. At that time there were 183 legal petitions and 42 appeals by NOI prisoners pending in the Federal courts of Washington, D.C., and Virginia. NOI prisoners were termed a "cult of harassment" by District of Columbia officials, who declared that the volume of complaints was causing administrative and investigative backlogs that interfered with the normal work of the Corporation Counsel's office.
Typical of the complaints from Muslim prisoners was a charge that Lorton officials had not lived up to an agreement to grant special concessions during Ramadan, the Muslim's month of fasting. Actually, Ramadan is the ninth month of the Mohammedan calendar year; but, on account of the Mohammedan year being a few days shorter than the Gregorian calendar year, this fasting month occurs during various months of our year. For convenience, therefore, Elijah established that the month of December would be Ramadan for his followers.
Lorton officials were cooperating with Elijah's rule when they allowed Muslim inmates special mealtimes during December so that they would be served before sunrise and after sunset, as is the Ramadan custom. Mealtimes for the Muslim prisoners were based on sunrise and sunset tables of the United States Naval Observatory. In spite of this consideration, Muslim prisoners protested that it was not dark enough to eat at the designated times ​because, according to Elijah's rules, there should not be enough light to distinguish between a black thread and a white thread.
In a study of 38 Muslims who were first permitted to hold religious services in District of Columbia penal institutions, authorities noted that each of the Muslim inmates violated prison rules sufficiently to warrant disciplinary action during his period of incarceration, whereas considerably less than half of an average group of prisoners ever committed violations that came to the attention of prison authorities. At the time of admission of these 38 inmates, 16 indicated Protestant religious preference; 10, Roman Catholic; nine, Muslim; while three indicated no religious preference. Thus, 75 per cent of these NOI members were recruited and trained during their confinement in jail.
While the legal proceedings concerning Muslim prisoners in District of Columbia penal institutions have not been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, that Court has been involved in a suit brought by a prisoner at the Illinois State Penitentiary who charged that he had been denied his constitutional right to practice his religion. The prisoner, sentenced in 1953 to two consecutive 100-year terms for two Chicago holdup murders, brought suit in July, 1962, in the Federal district court in Chicago alleging that prison officials prohibited him from buying and reading the Koran and Arabic language books and from seeing other inmates of his faith. Prison officials claimed that the prisoner was a troublemaker, who was isolated for several years for disciplinary purposes. ​In December, 1962, the Federal district court in Chicago dismissed the suit on grounds that it pertained to a matter not within the court's jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals in 1963 dismissed the complaint and held that the Black Muslim movement in this country was not a religion but a racist organization. Therefore, the court added, its members were not covered by the guaranty of religious freedom in the United States Constitution.
In June, 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the prisoner's complaint had asserted a proper cause of action and should not have been dismissed by the appellate court. The latter court was ordered to conduct hearings to determine if prison officials had improperly denied the prisoner his constitutional right to practice his religion. A hearing in this case has been scheduled for 1965.
In addition to resorting to the State and Federal courts for permission to practice their religion, NOI prisoners have used other means to protest prison treatment. Several years ago, for instance, the leader of an NOI group of prisoners died from gunshot wounds received from a prison guard during a disturbance between white and Negro prisoners in the exercise yard of the San Quentin, California, Adjustment Center. The Center, a portion of the California State Prison, is reserved for incorrigible inmates. ​The next day, about 70 Negro inmates assembled in the yard and refused to work. A spokesman presented to prison authorities several demands including segregation of NOI followers in the prison and a place for religious worship. The demands were denied and 59 of the protesting prisoners refused to go to work. However, after a brief period of isolation for these prisoners they returned to work. Word of the disturbance at San Quentin apparently spread, as several days later, NOI leaders in California came to the prison to present demands for special privileges for NOI prisoners. Their demands were refused.
Much publicity is given to the contention that NOI members are taught to live cleanly and to improve themselves physically, spiritually, and morally. While NOI adherents in prison have sought freedom to practice their religion and to follow the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, the sincerity and depth of their convictions are sometimes in doubt. While in prison, a Muslim often asserts devotion to his religion and claims his religious rights are being denied by prison authorities. Then, released from prison, he may violate religious principles unscrupulously.
For example, an NOI member confined in a New Jersey State prison filed a suit alleging that prison authorities discriminated against NOI inmates. His suit reached the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has yet to render a decision in this matter. However, this prisoner was paroled and, in 1964, ​while still claiming active NOI membership, he was arrested again, this time by New York City police, and charged with assault and battery, two narcotics violations, impersonating an officer, auto theft, possession of burglary tools, and concealing a dangerous weapon. He received con-current sentences of five to ten years on two counts of attempted robbery.
During investigations of NOI members coming within the purview of FBI jurisdiction, information has been developed showing how NOI literature and speakers have fostered the impression that violation of United States laws is cause for suspension or expulsion from the NOI. The facts, however, refute this law-abiding pose.
Primarily, NOI members in conflict with Federal statutes are involved in alleged violations of the Selective Service Act. Among NOI leaders found guilty and sentenced to prison in the past for such violations are Elijah Muhammad himself, b6 b7C In addition, numerous members have been investigated for similar violations.
NOI ministers give members confusing and contradictory instructions concerning Selective Service laws. The leaders remind NOI members that their allegiance is to the Muslim flag. They say that they cannot order members not to go to war, but that members should use their heads and decide for ​themselves whether to go into the Army or to jail, that Elijah Muhammad served time for not going into the Army and no other NOI member is better than Elijah.
b6 b7C in San Francisco, decided he was "no better than Elijah." He refused to report for induction, as ordered by his local draft board. From November, 1961, until July, 1963, he served time in a Federal prison. Immediately following his release, he returned to his NOI ministerial duties.
In one case beginning in 1963, an NOI member was convicted for failure to appear for induction as ordered by his local draft board. He was placed on probation on condition that he seek "employment of national importance" within 60 days. However, he failed to do so and in 1964 was sentenced to prison for two years for violating that condition.
In another case, a self-admitted NOI member was sentenced in 1964 to two years in prison for failure to report for induction. He had originally registered in 1958 with a draft board in South Carolina and had been classified 1-A. In 1961, he requested to be classified as a conscientious objector, a request that was denied. He was ordered to present himself for induction in 1962 but he failed to appear. He was then transferred to a local draft board in New Jersey, where he had taken up residence. At a preinduction examination in that State, he was found acceptable for military service.
On two occasions in 1963, however, he failed to report for induction. His request for deferment to attend school was turned down. His case was transferred back to the South Carolina draft board in late 1963, and he was again classified 1-A. When he neglected to report for induction in early 1964, he was arrested by FBI Agents in New Jersey and refused to give a signed statement concerning his failure to report for induction. He informed a United States commissioner that he was an NOI member and would not submit to induction into the armed services for either combatant or noncombatant duty, because of his religious beliefs.
A Federal grand jury in South Carolina indicted the NOI member for violation of the Selective Service Act, but he consented to stand trial in New Jersey. On pleading guilty, he was given a two-year sentence.
Several years ago, b6 b7C of the NOI, enunciated a policy governing NOI contacts with the FBI. He warned members not to sign any papers if requested by the FBI and to report immediately to NOI leaders if interviewed by FBI Agents.