: The following interview is reprinted from a little book titled, “RELIGION IN BRIEF Station W.C.N.B., Detroit, Michigan 1933 ‘Wallace Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein’” that was obtained by Muhammad Speaks in early 1997. There was no author, no address and no copyright to obtain information on how to acquire additional copies or to obtain permission to reprint the material. There was not even a price listed on the book.
The only information, printed on the cover of this book, as to who was responsible for this wonderfully historic work was “@ 1996 Malik Publishing Inc.”
We wanted to share this information with our readers and say THANK YOU TO MALIK PUBLISHING INC. for this treasure you have shared with all of us.
Muhammad Speaks has no concrete proof that this work is authentic. We have researched tirelessly since receiving this book in early March 1997 to try to find out whether this interview actually did take place.
During our research we checked microfilm for the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press for a listing of W.C.N.B. radio station and found nothing. Historians informed us, however, that Black radio stations and/or programs were probably not listed in the Detroit News and Free Press in 1933.
We found during our research, that the only kinds of radio programs Black people were allowed to speak (not sing) on in Detroit in 1933 were religious ones. In confirming the historians’ guess, we found that in 1933, many buildings, including 3408 Hastings Street, (the building that Messenger Elijah Muhammad and the Saviour taught Islam in) that were occupied by Black people, at that time, were either not listed in the “City of Detroit Directory: or listed as “vacant”.
So we decided to try to find out whether or not Albert Einstein was in Detroit at any time in 1933. And if so, would he have made an appearance on a Black religious radio program.
We found that Einstein did visit Michigan in 1933, but according to a librarian in the History and Travels department of the Detroit Public Library “since his travel to Detroit may not have been significant enough, his stay may not have been recorded at all.”
We narrowed it down that the interview would have to had taken place sometime between January 1 and May 26, as we know that Messenger Elijah Muhammad taught us that The Savior left Detroit on May 26, 1933. And according to the Tuesday, January 10, 1933 edition of The New York Times, Albert Einstein was in Los Angeles, California on January 9, 1933 to visit the California Institute of Technology.
The book, Einstein in America (page 7) says, “Einstein was in Pasadena on January 30, 1933.” And that “He remained in Pasadena until the middle of March, 1933.”
In studying the life of Mr. Einstein, who deemed himself “sympathetic” to blacks, yes, he might have appeared on a black religious radio show.
Page 219 of the book Einstein in America reads Einstein was more frequently critical of various aspects of American society in his later years that he was in the period before 1945. He felt that the most offensive aspect of life in the United States was the unjust treatment of its black citizens. The “worst disease” in American society Einstein once wrote, is “the treatment of the Negro…”
The book also states that “In the late 1930′s Einstein…became friends of Marian Anderson (the Black woman singer of Negro Spirituals)” and that Anderson stayed with Einstein and his wife whenever she sang in Princeton.
While studying the language of Mr. Einstein, we found in the book The Drama of Albert Einstein, by Antonia Vallentine, on page 102: “The practicing Jews wanted to know whether he was really one of them, and as this was America, where matters of conscience are made public, a New York rabbi cabled to him in advance as though examining his credentials: “Do you believe in God?” Einstein cabled back this truthful and brief reply: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God…’”
The sister who passed this little book (“Wallace Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein”) on to Muhammad Speaks told us that the young man (whose name she did not remember) told her that it was taken from an old phonograph recording owned by a 90-year-old brother whose name we were not able to obtain.
Note: 1440 AM is still an “All Gospel” Radio Station. The current owners say that they brought the station from Bell Broadcasting (a Black-owned company). The owners of Bell Broadcasting say that they have no knowledge of the owners of W.C.N.B. in Detroit, in 1933.
On October 22, 2004 Brother James D. Muhammad of Greenbelt Maryland, questioned the authenticity of “The Interview” when he emailed Muhammad Speaks saying:
Up until receiving the email from Brother James Muhammad, we (at Muhammad Speaks) had accepted the following interview as Truth. Out of all the responses we received concerning “The Interview” and even our own investigation of it’s authenticity, we had never considered the observation made by Brother James D. Muhammad. And we regard him as a hero for coming forth and sharing his view with us.
On October 31, 2004 MUHAMMAD SPEAKS received an email response from Brother R. Narkim Muhammad to our “update” regarding Brother James D. Muhammad’s observation.
The following are words of BROTHER R. NARKIM MUHAMMAD:
Brother R. Narkim is an even greater hero for pointing out the answer to Brother James D. Muhammad’s observation. And we thank him for sharing this VERY IMPORTANT FACT FROM MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD!!!! Thanks to Brother R. Narkim, we, at Muhammad Speaks, have returned to regard the following interview to be truth, because of the above evidence, but still, Muhammad Speaks would be grateful to anyone with more information as to the authenticity of this interview.
Actual Excerpt taken from station W.C.N.B. in Detroit, 1933. Religion in Brief. – Guest speakers tonight include Mr. Wallace Fard and world-renown mathematician, Mr. Albert Einstein.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Yes, I’d be glad to. First, I’d like to say thank you Mr. Brandon for inviting me on your show tonight. I feel comfortable and it is a pleasure to be here. At this stage of my work, I am involved in certain experiments, which covers the scope of “Atomic enlightenment” as well as developments for this country, in case of nuclear warfare. Second, Mr. Brandon, they refer me as being a scientist, opening up new channels to the principles of relativity. Now I say, my work includes the science of matter and energy, and of the interaction between the two. Thus, I would rather be known to the world as a theoretical physicist in the mathematical view of relativity.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me, Mr. Muhammad, may I cut you off for a second?
(MR. EINSTEIN): Before we move into a different topic, please let me ask you this: If certain individuals stored their religions, philosophies and spiritualism for another’s beliefs, because they might not feel sound, is that not a sin to those of a higher nature?
(MR. BRANDON): We have seen also that the same laws govern the whole Universe, and that if man can understand some of the laws governing, as Mr. Muhammad said Himself, the tiniest atom, he will have a clue to those which govern the solar system to which they belong; but it would be very difficult to believe that our sun was part of an atom in the cell of a solid body.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Some scientists now claim that the outer-shell is denser than the planets that swing through it. So you see, we must reserve ideas about solidity until we are a little more informed.
(MR. BRANDON): The point that I am trying to make is that through visualizing our vast giant solar system, we can better understand the intimate relation in which the stars stand to each other.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Don’t worry Mr. Brandon. The astrologers make careful calculations of the chemical and spiritual influences set up be the continual changing of the relative positions of the planets and luminaries (Sun and Moon) which is man. So let us resolve our arguments concerning that study please.
(MR. BRANDON): Mr. Einstein, there’s a word that you are an atheist. Let me ask you this: Do you believe in God?
(MR. EINSTEIN): I believe in Spinoza’s god?
(MR. BRANDON): You did say Spinoza’s God?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes he did, S.P.I.N.O.Z.A., but you see Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Brandon, Spinoza was a mere mortal, who was a philosopher in the 17th century. His full name was Baruch De Spinoza. he was a Dutch-Jewish philosopher who died at the age of 45 (1632-1677). His concept was that the Universe is formed of one substance, which is God, and the reality of mind and matter are the attributes, and that beings such as us are only changing shape in our composition. The concept (Spinozaism) is meritless. The whole theory collapses under its own weight of inaccuracy.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me Mr. Muhammad, but I am very…what you call cabalistic. I rely not on external experimentation, but on intellect, logic, and intuition. The logic of theory must stem from an inner coherence, not because external evidence makes it most logical over other theories.
(MR. BRANDON): Excuses me gentlemen, let me interrupt you two for a second. Mr. Einstein sir, tell me a little of Spinoza.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Though I cannot here expound the philosophy of Spinoza; I can speak briefly on its aspects: Spinoza attempted to lay the foundation for a new free society, ruled by law, yet also in accord with divine nature. On the one hand, Spinoza presented religion as a product of imagination; leading to piety. On the other hand, Spinoza held that reason and intuition led a man to a union with the source of all things, which is called the intellectual love of God. God, he said, is nature. God is whatever truly lives. In knowing Him we love Him and it is this knowledge of Him which makes man’s mind immortal.
(MR. MUHAMMAD): In those days, Mr. Einstein, that was a dangerous doctrine of immortality; and laid Spinoza open to misunderstanding and invectiveness.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Yet God Himself was ever present in all Spinoza’s writings; so much so, that one commentator did aptly called him a God intoxicated man.
(MR. MUHAMMAD): Your philosophy is just heritage. You are merely an abstraction of Spinoza, and indefinable expression of a creed, not universal reasoning and intuition as you state, and not a unity factor when understood completely. It is the illumination of the spiritual understanding which demonstrates the capacity of the soul, not of material senses, such revelation whatever constitutes and perpetuates harmony, enabling one to do good, but not evil (thus there is no unity in this intuition) you will…well, not you two, reach the perfect science of self when you are able to read the human mind. After this manner and discover the error you would destroy.
(MR. BRANDON): Mr. Muhammad, acquaintance with this science, as you say, will enable one to commune more largely with this spiritual understanding?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): I say it is a science, because it is! One second I referred to spirit as mind. and not like you two took it. To understand that mind is infinite, not bound by corporeality; not dependent on the ear and eye for sound or sight, nor upon the muscles and bones for locomotion, is a step forward. The mind science by which we discern man’s nature and existence. This true conception of the Blackman being God destroys the belief of spiritualism and Spinozaism at is very inception, for without the concession of immaterial personalities called spirits, Spiritualism has no more basis upon which to hold. Take the little Black Child for instance…
(MR. BRANDON): Excuse me Mr. Muhammad, we must take a break at this time. We’ll be back in sixty seconds.
(MR. BRANDON): We’re back and this is Religion in Brief. My name is Keith Brandon your host and tonight we are talking with Mr. Fard Muhammad, and Mr. Albert Einstein. Mr. Muhammad, while we were taking that break you commented about certain expressions of the child, or little children, so to speak, and their…
(MR. MUHAMMAD): Excuse me sir, I said the little Black Child.
(MR. BRANDON): Oh, I’m sorry. The little Black Child, and their awareness process which leads up to adulthood.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me Mr. Brandon, one second Mr. Muhammad, sir, what is the difference between awareness and sensitivity.
(MR. MUHAMMAD): I wonder if there is any difference. You know, when you ask a question, what is important is to find out for yourself the truth of the matter and not merely accept what someone else says. So let us find out together what it is to be aware. When you observe you reactions to what people say to you and how your mind is always evaluating, judging, comparing, and condensing. This is all part of awareness, which begins on the surface and then goes deeper and deeper, but for most of you, awareness stops at a certain point. But unalike the Blackman, who is surely without doubt the True God of the Universe, Whose proper name is Allah, has no point of end to their awareness. For their brain capacity is 7-1/2 ounces of pure…
(MR. BRANDON): Did you say their brain capacity is 7-1/2 ounces?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes, 7-1/2 ounces. The seven is ‘urim’, which is Light, the illumination of science, the only fit preparation for admission to the PRESENCE AND POWER OF THE MOST HIGH. The 1/2 is ‘Thummin’ (check you Bible–Exodus and Ezra) which is Extraordinary Perfection, which does not sleep; only alertness; and if you go into it still more deeply, you will find that there is no division between the person who is aware and the object of which he is aware. Now what does it mean to be sensitive? To be cognizant of color and form; to be considerate, good manners, listen attentively, without being bored, to everything that is said. So is there much difference between sensitivity and awareness? I don’t think so.
(MR. BRANDON): In dealing with facts that contradict some of the things you say, would you still say that the Colored man, the American Negro is truly God?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): The Colored man is your kind, *(pointing to Mr. Einstein), and the only contradiction I’ve heard in the last seconds was ‘American Negro’. Now the broadest facts array the most false lies against themselves; for they bring error from undercover. It requires courage to offer truth, courage such as my Brother, Jesus had. You see the higher Truth lifts her voice, the louder will error scream; until its inarticulate sound is forever silenced in oblivion.
(MR. EINSTEIN): You mentioned Jesus as your Brother, to my knowledge Jesus was a Jew. And if you view the Jesus’ achievement through materialistic eyes: seeing only an insignificant minority in possession of a little land and a few battalions; this will seem improbable. It will not seem improbable if a man discards the blinkers of prejudice and views the World not as a ‘thing’ but as an ‘Idea’! Then we may see that two-thirds of the civilized world is already governed by the ideas of the Jews. The ideas of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Spinoza, Marx, Freud. Will the World in the next two thousands years embrace the morality of the Torah, the social justice of the Prophets, the ethics of the Jewish Patriarchs? If so, then in the words of Isaiah; ‘There will be Peace! Peace to him that is far off, and Peace to him that is near’.
(MR. BRANDON): Yes Mr. Muhammad, what Mr. Einstein says I can understand. If Islam is your religion, how can it claim Jesus as one of its chief Prophets when Jesus was a Christian?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): I do not blame Mr. Einstein for his misled knowledge. For I am aware of the origin of this knowledge. Jesus was neither Christian nor Islamic. Christianity was not yet born when Jesus walked the earth, and Islam was not yet named by our Prophet at that time. Jesus taught Love, Freedom of error, Justice in terms of Equality. This making him the Messiah the people were talking about. This was then the political atmosphere into which he stepped, when he had chosen to reveal publicly that he was the Messiah. His destination was the Temple. His aim was to reform some of its practices. Not to destroy them, but reform them; for the Skunk Race still had another 1,914 years left to rule in their ghettoes and their darkness.
(MR. EINSTEIN): But the darkness was Light enough! If the Christians looked with derision upon the ridiculous ghetto Jews: The Jews looked with contempt upon those who jeered at them, namely Jesus! As a group they were still the most learned men in the East, Europe, excuse me….They were the only ethnic group in Europe having Universal Education. Into the ghetto they took with them their 3,500 years of cultural heritage, their Talmud, Old Testament, which illuminated their bleak physical existence with intellectual and religious comfort; and the veil of the Jewish women were a sign of the spiritual compensation given by their laws.
(MR. MUHAMMAD): I beg your pardon, Mr. Einstein, but I SPEAK THE TRUTH OF THE ORIGINAL MAN BEING GOD, hear Me when I say what is right! A veil, sir, is a cover -- it is a concealment, hiding hypocrisy! The Jewish women wore veils over their faces in token reverence and submission and in accordance with Pharisaic notions of the Judaic religion consisting mostly of rites and ceremonies. The motives and affections of a man were of little value; if he only appeared unto men to fast. The Great Nazarene, AS MEEK AS HE WAS MIGHTY, rebuked the hypocrite who offered long petitions for blessing upon material methods; but cloaked the crime latent in thought, which was ready to spring into action and hypocrisy. Allah’s Anointed One, Jesus. THE MARTYRDOM OF JESUS WAS THE CULMINATING SIN OF PHARISAISM. IT RENT THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE. IT REVEALED THE FALSE FOUNDATION AND SUPERSTRUCTURE OF THE SUPERFICIAL RELIGION. TORE FROM BIGOTRY AND SUPERSTITION THEIR COVERING AND OPENED THE SEPULCHRE WITH DIVINE SCIENCE OF ALLAH.
(MR. BRANDON): Well that concludes our broadcast for today, and I would like to thank both Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Muhammad for joining us here tonight.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Before we go Mr. Brandon, do I have a second?
(MR. BRANDON): Yes, a second.
(MR. EINSTEIN): Ah, Mr. Muhammad, do you speak Arabic? Would you know how to say my name in Arabic, Mr. Muhammad?
(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes, in Arabic you would say Yacub!
(MR. BRANDON): Thank you folks for listening to Religion in Brief on station W.C.N.B. I’m your host, Keith Brandon, and we’ll be back two Sunday’s from today. Until then, may the Lord bless you. Good Night.
- Irrefutable proof that the alleged "debate" between Albert Einstein and Wallace Fard/Ford never took place. [VIDEO] Proof the Fard/Einstein Debate is Fake
- So in order to prove that the debate never happened, you revealed that the two intellectuals involved were not only well read in the works of their contemporaries, but often quoted passages from the books they were fond of while in active discourse. Since that very common practice in fact describes every single learned intellectual ever, how does this prove the debate itself didn't happen again?
- Almost the entire "exchange" was plagiarized from Mary Eddy Baker and Jiddu Krishnamurti. MuhammadSpeaks even removed it from the website because for years they speculated that it was a fraud.
- I personally think it was irresponsible that MuhammadSpeaks took down the debate from their site for no other reason than because these two well-read scholars quoted from the works that made up their ideologies (especially in Fard's case). It's like none of you have encountered an actual scholar before. This is actually embarrassing.
I find myself disappointed that the NOI didn't provide any pushback to this, but I suppose none of their heavy-hitters were made aware of it. Or perhaps they just didn't think the effort was worth it. Your findings, Anton, do not prove the debate didn't happen.
- No, what is actually embarrassing is that you do not seem to know what "plagiarism" is. Plagiarism is more than simply where you quote someone. It's where you take their words, thoughts and ideas and pass them off as your own. In this case specifically, it was literally word for word. I provided the original sources of where the text was literally taken word-for-word, sentence-for sentence. There is no defense to this, my good brother.
It's plagiarized and there aren't any serious top ranked NOI members that accept this as genuine. MuhammadSpeaks was the last straw and they eventually removed it.
- Considering this was a radio debate, it wasn't plagiarism since that would involve stealing others' writings and passing them off as their own. This was a verbal contest in which the two had limited time to express their opposing positions on their pet topics. As scholars, quoting from memorized passages that make up portions of their ideologies is 100% normal and expected in this case. It's interesting that you've decided to double-down on that point since, again, it doesn't prove that the debate didn't occur for the reasons stated above.
- no brother, it's a work of fiction, which I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Jiddu Krishnamurti's work which this was plagiarized came out in 1964, over 30 years after this alleged debate happened. Also, let's reason with each other, brother: the host, Einstein and Fard would have had to script out their questions, responses and elaborations in advance in order to have had the exact same questions, answers and elaborations as Mary Eddy Baker and Jiddu Krishnamurti provided (with the later not being available until three decades later). There is also simply no corroborative proof that such a debate took place. Nothing in all of Einstein's biographies place him in Detroit at this time either. There is not even evidence that the radio station existed, lol. Elijah Muhammad never spoke of such an interview either, and the text of the debate did not surface until 1996 from a publication with no author, no copyright, or no evidence of authentication. Further, the bit on Einstein talking about nuclear weapons was a dead giveaway. With all these reasons considered, it is conclusive that the debate is a work of fiction. Sorry. The plagiarized verbatim sources I provided is airtight proof.
- Okay, now you're trying to bluff me. In the video clip it says Fard is quoting Krishnamurti from "various published interviews." So if the definitive published work of these collected interviews that you admit didn't come out until 1964, was from a figure that was known to have given interviews since at least the turn of the century, this is not an example of what you’re attempting to present it to be. The quotes could have easily come from published sources from before the 1964 publishing of the collected works. This much should be obvious.
Two, the "scripted out" hypothesis fails (and further demonstrates you've never actually met a scholar) because these are two intellectuals who are used to active debate, and active discourse with other highly-learned scholars. As mentioned above it is common practice for that particular demographic to quote favored passages from their dog-eared libraries, the content of which makes up the content of their ideologies. The 'plagiarism' charge is actually absurd in this specialized case, and far from the “airtight proof” you’d like it to be.
Three, your ‘atom bomb’ remark is also off the mark, since the theoretical implications of atom splitting were being debated heavily in physicist circles for at least a decade before Strassman and Hahn were able to definitively prove nuclear fission in their 1938 labs. That Einstein was able to mention the concept in 1933 was not unusual, since the topic had been discussed widely in the community. Einstein and his globe-wide contemporaries were the very people leading that discussion after-all. The secretive Manhattan Project was the multi-billion dollar effort to build the factories to actually make the working weapon itself, as all the talking and theorizing that needed to be done, had already been done in the decades before.
Four, the NOI publishers of the debate described in detail the unfruitful efforts to attain the needed primary source materials needed to definitively prove the debate occurred without a shadow of a doubt. The poor record keeping in the city when it came to the affairs of Blacks contributed heavily to this deficiency. This is not proof that the debate didn’t happen – since there’s nothing in the content of the discussion or in the little bit of information that we DO know that gives that impression – but only proof that there were no librarian/archivist technicians around to help save the materials needed for posterity. That’s the only thing about the matter we know for sure.
To conclude, from what we do have available, it is likely that the debate did occur as described. That the two intellectual combatants quoted from works that make up their learned opinions is not proof that the debate didn’t happen, in fact, it actually strengthens it. Please try harder in your debunking attempts.
- My good brother, nothing in the book Think on These Things implies that the interviews conducted were decades prior. The publication was from 1964 and nothing in the book, the editor’s notes or anything else implies that the interviews were from decades prior. If you assert that the interviews were prior to 1933, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence. In this book, Mr. Krishnamurti discusses the United States’ embroilment with Russia (which did not begin until after World War II ended in 1945), as well as China’s dispute with the United States and the West, which did not occur until after Mao’s Revolution in 1949. Also, Hitler is mentioned in the past tense, who was in power from 1933-1945. Another part he talks about Americans and their televisions, something that was not standard in the United States until the 1950s. If you can show me specific evidence that the interviews were conducted prior to 1933, I'm all ears. Together with the publication date (1964) as well as the various historical and technological issues mentioned, your point is invalid. Another point that conclusively proves your position wrong is that Max Dimont was also plagiarized by the person who conjured up this fictitious “debate” from his publication from 1962 (“Jews, God and History”).
I’ll gladly teach you what plagiarism is, brother. According to Webster, the definition is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source”. Another definition is “to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source”. Hence, if Einstein, Fard and the moderator all began to quote (verbatim) Mary Eddy Baker, Jiddu Krishnamurti and Max Dimont without giving credit to them, respectively, then they plagiarized by definition. If two scholars were debating and one began to quote word-for-word, sentence-by-sentence another scholar without giving them credit, their career would be severely hurt. The notion that all threeof them began to do that is bizarre and almost comical to picture. Think of that: the host would randomly ask the exact same question that Krishnamurti was asked, and the answer was the exact same as how Krishnamurti answered, letter-by-letter. It's difficult to believe you actually believe that. Moreover, the notion that Einstein, Fard and the host all “just to happened” to quote word-for-word the same three people is beyond the scope of reason, a point I think you well recognize. Without sounding arrogant, I believe you are displaying misology when claiming that I am not familiar with the concept of plagiarism. Any college professor would consider the taking of words and ideas (especially when the words are literally verbatim) without crediting the source plagiarism and their grade would result in an automatic “F” at least, and expulsion from the University at most, brother.
I am familiar with the history of the development of the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons, my dear brother. Please forward me literature which confirms your claim. Also, please forward me literature where Einstein specifically discusses nuclear weapons prior to 1933, as he supposedly casually said it in this alleged “debate”. Thanks, brother.
They cannot substantiate it because it did not happen. Over the years, I also “heard” from people that the person who wrote this debate wrote in as a college paper and later distributed it attempting to pass it off. Not a thing in this debate can be cross-referenced or independently substantiated. Not only is there no proof Einstein was in Detroit at the time, brother, but Elijah Muhammad never happened to mention that Fard debates the most renowned scientist in history, there is no records of this radio station, no record of this “Mr. Brandon” host, no record of a show called “Religion in Brief”, no evidence of it prior to 1996 (even through the height of their popularity in the 1960s and 1970s), and as I showed here, the contents are plagiarized, many from works not published until decades later.
Thus, to conclude, you will have to actually present evidence and will have to perform greater mental gymnastics to prove your point. Let’s have a recorded discussion in a Conference Call line on the matter that I will post. To repeat, no high ranking member of the Nation of Islam considers this to be authentic, with many of them either conceding it’s a fraud, with the last straw being MuhammadSpeaks. That speaks for itself.
- 1.) [From the Amazon book description] “The material contained in this volume was originally presented in the form of talks to students, teachers and parents in India, but its keen penetration and lucid simplicity will be deeply meaningful to thoughtful people everywhere, of all ages, and in every walk of life.”
~Think on These Things (Kindle Edition) by Jiddu Krishnamurti
As described, this book is a collection of speeches containing material that he had been preaching for years. The idea that he wouldn’t have repeated many of these same ideas before in the dozens and dozens of titles previously published is highly unlikely, since these figures often repeat themselves during such talks. Obviously the quotes used during the debate were from other earlier sources than this book you are currently fixated upon as the stiff-necked alpha & omega of your position.
2.) The fact that scholars have always quoted verbatim from memorized passages all the time – from Shakespeare to Hemingway, from the Old Testament to whatever field of study specific works that drive their body of work – it is quite feasible that both Fard and Einstein would do the same during this debate. We can certainly discuss whether they SHOULD have cited the materials as they were trying to dazzle one another with the force of their memories, but the radio talk show discussion was not as formal as the rules for citing works are in print, especially considering the obviously very limited time the two had to devote to the topic on the air. I disagree that their careers would be “severely hurt” by their decision not to do so, since there are no legal plagiarism rules in place, and such formal restrictions tend to be confined to both print work, as well as for people seeking to make a name for themselves, neither of which are relevant here.
3.) The “history of the development of the atomic bomb” isn’t what I was referring to, but the processes and procedures of documenting and making available the work in question that Albert Einstein would have had access to. You seem to be under the impression that Strassman and Hahn invented nuclear fission from start-to-finish in an overnight flash of brilliance. Naturally this is not the case. It is common practice to publish their findings regularly at key milestones along the journey in the prestigious scientific journals, to be reviewed by their scholarly peers in the community, thus Einstein was well aware of the work being conducted, of particular interest to him specifically as that was indeed his own field of study. Note that his mentioning it in passing to a lay radio audience while explaining who he was, is not at all the same as him “specifically discusses nuclear weapons” that you blew it up to be. Bear that in mind in the future while leveling the charge of “mental gymnastics” towards others if you please.
4.) I am aware that you would really, really, really like the radio show debate to have not occurred, based solely on your odd horse-blinder biases, but simply wishing for it not to have happened isn’t strong enough for our purposes I’m afraid, the MuhammadSpeaks cowardly retreat notwithstanding. It’s true that we unfortunately lack the primary source materials to definitively prove the event, but we do hold some measure of circumstantial materials to ponder. These, combined with the dialogue itself which holds up well both in historical context and content to convincingly be what it claims to be, is strong enough to at least keep the material on the shelves as a secondary reference work. I find your over-biased, and close-minded insistence that the debate was a fiction to be unreasonable. The lack of primary proof from a time period in which it is known that record keeping was poor is not definitive proof in the other direction either, Anton. At worst it simply means “We do not yet fully know until more evidence can come to light,”
which is the recommended moderate conclusion from those with a modicum of scholarly know-how, yet I find your own stance sadly lacking in this moderation. Did a renegade NOI member kill your parents in front of you as a small child or something similar? If so, at least it will in some small measure explain your frankly weird crusade that leaps high over reason as if it will singe your skin.
5.) I do not have to present evidence on an issue in which all the evidence available is already explained in the debate introduction. lol To the contrary, what is actually needed is an objective use of logic and reason to analyze what is available to draw a reasonable conclusion… this I have provided, while your own anti-NOI biased position has not. Please improve.
- Brother, it's important for me to stress that I have changed in my opinions regarding the Nation of Islam. I regret some of my videos and comments towards The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the teachings in general. I will, and have been, vigorously defending the teachings, especially now in this political climate. Hence, I believe that you and I, although disagreeing on this specific issue, agree on major topics regarding politics, race and history. I'll still address what you said:
1. You’re factually wrong, and I think you realize it by dear brother. Krishnamurti’s collected works are available which would allow you to verify that he made those statements prior to 1933. The evidence, the publication date and the context of the book shows that the interviews were conducted around the time of publication (1964). If you cannot find the publication dating prior to 1933 then your point is moot. Furthermore, you ignored the plagiarism by Max Dimont and his book “Jews, God and History”, which was not published until 1962.
2. You’re stretching again brother, and I think you’re aware of it. So Einstein and Fard are going to have a debate where nearly all they do is quote verbatim the same two or three people? And the host is “in” on it too by asking the exact same question Krishnamurti was asked? Do you realize how outlandish and far-fetched this sounds? You also assert that this is normal for scholars, so provide some more examples of debates where the two contestants, along with the host literally copied word-for-word other scholars in a fashion similar to this. If I am on the radio and literally begin to quote someone else without giving proper citations, it would still constitute plagiarism, by definition. A recent example of when Michelle Obama’s speech was plagiarized by Melania Trump last year. You seem to concede this issue.
3. You didn’t cite a single actual reference to substantiate your claim. In this forged “debate”, it attributed Einstein to say “nuclear warfare”, brother.
4. Ah, ad hominems. I was waiting for them to come, as it’s usually the last sigh of an exhausted mind. I would have loved for this debate to have taken place between Fard and Einstein. I have always been interested in Wallace Fard and find him fascinating. I have much love and admiration for Wallace D. Fard, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and The Honorable Minister Farrakhan. I certainly regret some of the comments I made and videos I made 6-7 years ago. If Minister Farrakhan is not a man of God, nobody is, in my estimation. He has changed my life for the better, as well as many people I love, and he is a man I consider family and I love him, as well as The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. I have been defending him much lately from vicious attacks asserting that he was behind the assassination of Malcolm X, from people claiming he’s a “fake Muslim”, and other ridiculous charges. Again, my opinion the past few years had dramatically changed regarding the Nation of Islam. Specifically regarding this issue though, solid facts are solid facts. It was plagiarized, brother. That does NOT take away from the genius and good work that Master Wallace D. Fard provided and dead people he rose up. This is why nobody in the top ranks of the NOI are pushing this debate as authentic. It’s not.
5. Your statement that you “do not have to present evidence” is telling, and interesting, brother. A few days ago I was debating someone on here who “knows” that The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad ordered Malcolm X to be killed. When I asked him for evidence, he said that he “does not need evidence”. That’s where we reach an impasse. I have provided actual quotes, publications, cross-references showing that the contents are plagiarized, and even into the history of when this debate magically popped up in the mid-90s, with nobody ever (not even Elijah Muhammad, who would surely have mentioned that he debated the most known scientist in the world), and the lack of evidence that Einstein was even in Detroit at the time, or the very existence of the radio station in general. And you just ignore it and like clockwork, resorted to good ole’ ad hominem attacks.
I want to reiterate again: I love the Nation of Islam, will defend them especially in the age of President Trump, and would debate on your side on probably 90 percent of general issues. But on this topic, I agree with most top NOI members: that the debate is a plagiarized fraud and there is a preponderance of evidence. Unless you want to have a voice-to-voice debate on this issue, it’s done brother. I'd rather ally with you and attack white supremacy and defend the teaching of The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad.
As-salaam alaikum to you and your family, my good brother.
- Stop. I'm an orthodox Muslim, Anton. I'm not a NOI member. You don't have to butter me up. I'm not arguing for "the honor of Fard" or whatever his acolytes do. I just think your position is sloppy, narrow-minded, and absolutely wrong.
Stand by for my extended response...
- M. Rasheed, take the "L" on this one, my good brother. I was nice enough to teach you what plagiarism is, offered sources and proved that the debate is plagiarized and gave you the chance to prove your claims with publications and actual evidence. You resorting to ad hominem attacks was a sign of your internal frustration and a signal that this is more of an emotional issue for you and not really a logical or rational one. You're still my brother.
- Take an "L" just because you want me to? lol No.
Do you feel attacked, Anton? My playful speculations as to why you’ve taken on the position you have wasn’t an attack since I genuinely have no idea why, I could only attempt to probe in order to get you to reveal it. Since you admit to not holding any animosity towards the NOI, I now REALLY don’t know why you are so insistent upon one particular angle, with your mind closed against any other possible explanations. Frankly, I think you just enjoy using the term “ad hominem.” lol
1.) I am not factually wrong; we simply disagree on how we interpret your findings. I know far too many people who routinely quote verbatim passages from works they are impressed by for a variety of reasons, including high-degree university professors, to accept your narrow-minded stance as the definitive one. The bottom line is that you just need to get out more. Perhaps not out all the way back to 1933, lol, but out enough so that this casual verse-quoting as discourse concept that has you so ‘witch-hunty’ (is that a word…?) over your pet plagiarism charge, won’t seem as alien as it does to you. From my perspective, it’s actually weird to see you go on-and-on over it this way. But everyone’s experiences are different. Here I’m just asking you to expand your perspective a tad, because you are quite off the mark. This was not presented as a formal debate, and the two intellectual giants – under extreme time constraints as you see – were by no means under any obligation to rattle off the authors and titles of the many passages that had so impressed them to memorize. Your Spanish Inquisition-like insistence of shoehorning the two into a situation in which the charge of ‘plagiarism’ was a serious thing, was quite lacking in the scenario they actually found themselves in.
Regarding the work of Max Dimont, considering he started working on the sequel to Jews, God and History in 1955 – seven years before he published the first one! – and he STILL didn’t finish it when he died in the mid-90s, we can see he obviously was in the habit of carting around his notes and thoughts about his philosophies for a very long time. How much older were the notes for Jews, God and History before he finally published it in ’62? Consider also that he was widely traveled, an obviously brilliant man, who I believe would have been eager to trade concepts with the great Albert Einstein. Obviously he did so, made a great impression on the scientist, who left the encounter thinking that ‘Spinoza’s God’ was the one for him. Elementary.
2.) Please do stop making such comments as “I think you realize it,” “I think you’re aware of it,” etc., etc., since we are very much polar opposite on these points. You’re better served spending that energy jumping right into the comment you wish to make, or at the very least replace them with some other witty placeholder. Either of which I will accept with pleasure.
Every single talk show host in history asks their guests about the topic they wish to discuss, and brings those notes with them in the actual interview. It’s especially noticeable when the guest is a stand-up comedian, and the host’s prepackaged questions merely help feed straight-man lines to the entertainer to enable him/her to smoothly slide from bit-to-bit. How Keith Brandon performed during the show, in light of your findings, was by no means unusual or untoward in that profession. Again I’m going to need you to get out more and learn more stuff so that relatively common place items such as this will not cause you to scream “The sky is falling!!” quite so often. Thanks, buddy.
The two combatants had a very limited amount of time to impress the audience with their philosophies, and impress the other with the force and scope of their ideological worldviews. That they chose to do so by stringing together memorized passages – little different than a hiphop rap battle – is neither unusual nor surprising. You may consider it the rough equivalent of the “elevator pitch.” In a very technical standpoint, it does function as theft of sorts, but it isn’t as serious here as you are trying to make it. The actual plagiarism charge is only a serious thing in very specific circumstances. This one here wasn’t it, and more importantly it also doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen.
3.) Are you seriously suggesting I need to provide proof that scientists must publish their findings for scholarly peer review along the way of getting their theory officially endorsed and accepted? Is this a real point or are you just messing with me?
4.) I am indifferent to your lengthy, flowery praise for the NOI as I am not a member of the group as I explained above. I bear witness that there is no God but the One God of Abraham, and the unlettered Arab prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him!) is His final messenger. I do admire Louis Farrakhan’s numerous speeches encouraging Black Empowerment, Economic Inclusion, and Self-Reliance in Black-owned business (and some other items) but I do not subscribe to their religious doctrine. Any apologies or regrets you harbor is solely between you and them.
5.) If you were indeed asking me to provide additional evidence to prove the debate was definitively real outside of what was described in the introduction, then not only can I not do so, but I find you trying to tear me down based on it to be intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were actually requesting? In any event, all the evidence was already on the table; what we have here is a battle of analysis in interpreting the findings. You want to label the whole thing a fiction and throw it out, while I want to keep it as a leaning-towards-possibly-authentic-until-more-facts-are-unearthed curio.
Wa Alaikum As Salaam.
***Anton has removed his entire YouTube channel since our argument***