MLK Jr and Malcolm X

 

How does the contrast between the sacred and the holy, or morality and ethics, appear in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ethic as expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”? 

          King’s understanding of the interdependence of people is what inspired the content of his letter in response to the white clergy who believed the civil rights movement was ‘unwise and untimely’.  In the letter, King states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly”.  
          King’s statement questioned the ‘sacred society’ of the white clergy and their morals; instead, he brought up ethics and the idea that humanity is not comprised of white individuals, but is actually a collective of different individuals that should be treated justly.  His inclusion of all humanity instead of just a specific society is what makes this a ‘holy’ act.  King’s audacity to question just laws is summed up in the following:  “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself”.  In this, he maintains that unjust laws are begging to be broken and a law that begs disobedience must be corrected to reinstate justice for all. 

 Describe Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “kitchen experience” and explain its significance for his spirituality and ethics.     

          Martin Luther King, Jr.’s  “kitchen experience” occurred in the early days of the Montgomery bus strike.  This event that occurred as his public career was burgeoning was a poignant experience in his life where he was finally able to overcome the fear of death.  Overcoming fear of mortality is an event vital to the life of a religious figure.
          In the story, it is recounted that King came home late from a boycott meeting and received a phone call:  “N*gger . . . we are tired of you and your mess now, and if you are not out of this town in three days, we’re going to blow your brains out and blow up your house”.  He had received many phone calls of this nature before, but this one in particular struck at his core for some reason that night; it made him think of losing his family or vice versa.  These thoughts left him restless and he decided to go to the kitchen for coffee; his rationale, his principles, and everything he used to make sense of the world around him was no longer comforting him.  
          In his desperation, he did what he knew best–he bowed down and prayed.  In a moment of vulnerability, he expressed his weakness to God and his belief in what he thought right.  God spoke back to him and told him to rise and stand for truth and if he did so, He would be with him and remain with him until the very end.  This self-induced salvation for King is what provided a direct experience with God that he would take with him for the rest of his life.  King’s spirituality and ethics were deeply rooted in his religion because of his “kitchen experience”–this example fits well with Masao Abe’s model for Christianity because his religious experience leads to ethics. 

Comment on the differences between the speeches made by Umar and Abu Bekr when Muhammad died.  What makes Bekr’s speech the more appropriate Islamic response?

          In his speech, Umar stated, “Some of the disaffected will allege that the Messenger is dead, but by God, he is not dead: he has gone to his Lord as Moses son of Imran went and was hidden [on Sinai] from his people for forty days.  By God, the Messenger will return as Moses returned and will cut off the hands and feet of men who allege that the Messenger is dead”.  Umar was making appeals to sacralize Muhammad in a way that should have only been reserved for Allah (from an Islamic perspective).  
          To clarify to the congregation inside the Mosque that Muhammad was not a deity to be worshipped or expected to return, Abu Bekr followed with a statement of his own:  “O men, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal”.  In this address, Fasching and deChant claim, “the true essence of Islam was reaffirmed, the very core of the first pillar, the shahada (confession) – there is no God but God”.  
          Bekr’s speech conveys the proper understanding of Islamic belief.  Muhammad is to be remembered as a special man among men who was chosen by Allah to be his messenger – the Messenger of his will, but not as an equal of God.  Likening him to a similar like a saint or lesser god would be considered shirk, or idolatry, and that would be going against Islam’s first pillar. 

What is the hajj, and why was it so important to Malcolm X?  What made Malcolm’s experience different from that of the Muslims he met during the hajj?
         
One of the Islamic pillars requires all Muslims to make a pilgrimage, or hajj, to the holy city of Mecca once in their lifetime if possible.  Fasching and deChant claim that this pilgrimage was “his own flight (hijra) from the sacred society of the Nation of Islam to the traditional Islam and a new vision of a holy community, open to all races and religions”.  
          Malcolm X, who once identified as a member of the sacred society of the Nation of Islam, was converted to a member of the holy community and no longer promoting black separatism, but seeking justice for the human collective instead of just the specific group he belonged to.  
          Malcolm’s experience was different than that of the Muslims he encountered during the hajj because his perspective was that of a member of the Nation of Islam.  It was on the hajj that he first learned to pray and posture himself.  Most importantly, he learned that Islam means “submission, peace, and unity of all peoples of the world”.  One could think being ignorant of these Islamic staples originally had him at a disadvantage, but Malcolm’s receptiveness to the holy event allowed him to absorb many universal and spiritual elements that made the hajj a priceless experience during his life journey.

There is no place to hide

FROM CHRISTIANS.

I wasn’t even hiding.

Today, after breakfast, I sat outside at a table and enjoyed a cigarette.  Once I finished, I got out my Cultural Anthropoloy textbook and pulled out my cell phone to keep an eye on the time.  I had about 45 minutes to read my assigned chapter and get to Russian class.  I knew I had plenty of time to complete the chapter and reflect because it was rather short.  16 minutes into my reading, an older gentleman walked up behind me and asked, “Studying hard?”  “Well, yes, of course.”   “What are you studying?” “Anthropology.”  “Ah, yes, the study of man.” “The study of humans,” I replied with slight disdain.  I attempted to get back to my reading, but I quickly realized he wasn’t going to let me after he sat himself down beside me.  Without even being polite enough to ask if it was available, might I add.  (The nerve of these people.  Their tunnel vision is so great that it depletes them of their ability to be considerate, polite, civilized individuals.)

But anyhow, enough of my bias.  Let’s discuss his.

He didn’t take long to reveal his agenda.  I felt it coming in the air tonight – or this morning.  He started his disjointed question by mentioning something about popular religions and conducting a survey.  I thought this might be fun and interesting.  I LIKE SURVEYS.  But then he segued (rather poorly) into something along these lines:  If you were standing before God, what would you say to avoid going to hell?

Whoa. WHOA.

(I KNEW I SMELLED A CHRISTIAN!@@#*@!)

What the hell?  Christ, couldn’t he have finessed his hidden (or not so) agenda a bit?  Is that too much to ask?

I get irked when people answer a question with a question, but he forced me to.

“What perspective are you asking from?”

“Any perspective”

“Uh, you can’t ask it like that.  Some religions don’t even believe in hell.  Some believe you can’t speak directly to God.  And others don’t even have a God or have more than one god.”

I could tell he didn’t want to say he wanted the reply from  a Christian perspective.   I pretty much had him fumbling all over himself until he asked another question about what my thoughts are on Jesus Christ.

I went on to say I think he was a charismatic, influential figure/prophet who will probably be remembered and written about for possibly several more millenia.

He didn’t like that very much.  He also didn’t like me comparing Jesus to The Buddha, Confucious, Martin Luther King, and he REALLY didn’t like me comparing him to the prophet Muhammad.

I started enjoying this conversation a bit, especially when he proclaimed Catholics aren’t Christians and that there’s is a religion unto themselves.  And he separated Protestantism as well, saying they believe good works get you into heaven.  Last I checked, that was reversed.

After getting under his skin some more he attempted to argue that Jesus is unique.  He is unique because he was the only one of those figures who said he was the son of God.  But he didn’t go far down that road because I think he realized that wasn’t gonna get me anywhere with him.  Unless he wanted me to tell him right then and there that I am Zoroaster reincarnated or that Jesus actually sent me, a hispanic female as his stand-in/understudy – Lawl (lol).

He at one point even asked me if I thought what Hitler did was right.   I don’t know where he was going with that, but that argument also faded as quickly as it was commenced.

After looking at my clock and seeing it was past 30 minutes after, I said I had to get to class because that bastard interrupted my reading.

He got up and handed me a cd.  He said, “Here, listen to this.  It’s about all the world religions.”

I looked at it carefully and read the text: The Uniqueness of Christianity.

“All religions?”

“Yes.”

“Okay, bye.”

I wanted to throw it inside the nearest receptacle, but something within me kept me from doing it.  My curiosity, I suppose.  I just wanted to prove him wrong.

I went to the library and started playing it.  I only got to listen to about 5 minutes but within those 5 minutes it was quite evident this was not an objective account of world religions.  The man speaking on the audio cd started his lecture stating that in regards to religion Christianity has no competition.  And that other religions are wrong and he backed it up (yeah right) with: In mathematics, there might be many ways to arrive at a solution that is close to the right answer, but there is only one right answer.  Uh…excuse me?  From what I recall, and some of you know mathematics isn’t my forte(pout), but there are many times when you can use different formulae/methods to arrive at the right answer.

I  quickly pulled the cd out and put it in my bag, satisfied with the knowledge that a Christian just pulled a car salesman lie on me.  But according to his beliefs, he’s still going to heaven.

Shame on him.