Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad: A Historical Analysis of Their Conflict

Introduction: A Pivotal Chapter in American History

The split between Malcolm X and his teacher, the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, in 1963–1964 shook the foundations of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and remains one of the most pivotal and debated chapters in American history. Their falling out—culminating in Malcolm X’s public break from the NOI and his assassination in 1965—involved personal betrayal, ideological divergence, and the turbulent social context of the 1960s.

In 1993, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan—a devoted student and National Representative of the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, who was also mentored by Malcolm X—delivered a lecture titled “Farrakhan Speaks on Malcolm X’s Separation from the Honorable Elijah Muhammad.” Speaking nearly three decades after the feud, Farrakhan offered a powerful narrative on what led to the rift. This article offers a neutral, historically grounded commentary on the root causes of the Malcolm X–Elijah Muhammad fallout, interweaving Minister Farrakhan’s 1993 reflections with broader historical context and external evidence.

Why did Malcolm X separate from Elijah Muhammad and the NOI? This piece explores the chain of events—from Malcolm’s meteoric rise in the Nation to the controversies that drove them apart—and examines how Farrakhan presented the events. Along the way, key moments (e.g., the JFK comment) are referenced to understand how each man’s principles and decisions contributed to the schism. The goal is to understand this pivotal moment not through rumor or myth, but through documented facts, contemporary accounts, and the retrospective lens provided by Farrakhan’s 1993 lecture.

Early Alliance: Malcolm X’s Rise under Elijah Muhammad

In the 1950s, Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little, later El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) emerged from prison as a fiery minister of the Nation of Islam. Elijah Muhammad, the NOI’s leader since 1934, became a father figure and spiritual guide to Malcolm. By all accounts, Malcolm X was instrumental in the NOI’s growth during the 1950s and early 1960s. He established new temples, recruited thousands of members, and gained national attention as the NOI’s chief spokesman.

Elijah Muhammad’s teachings—advocating Black self-reliance, moral discipline, and separation from white society—resonated deeply with Malcolm. The two men shared a relationship akin to mentor and star pupil: Malcolm often praised Elijah as “the Messenger of Allah” and strictly adhered to NOI discipline.

However, as Malcolm’s fame grew, tensions quietly brewed within the Nation’s leadership. Some senior ministers (and possibly Elijah Muhammad himself) felt overshadowed by Malcolm’s celebrity and uncompromising rhetoric. By 1963, Malcolm X was arguably the most visible representative of the NOI, more quoted in the media than Elijah Muhammad himself. This prominence set the stage for conflict: Elijah Muhammad expected absolute loyalty and discretion from his ministers, while Malcolm’s rising profile gave him an influence that may have been seen as a threat. According to later FBI files, as early as 1963, Elijah was cautioning Malcolm to moderate his public statements and was considering others—like the then up-and-coming Louis Farrakhan—for key roles.

Breaking Point: The JFK Comment and Suspension (1963)

The immediate trigger of Malcolm X’s rupture with Elijah Muhammad was a remark Malcolm made following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. On December 1, 1963, speaking in New York, Malcolm X characterized JFK’s assassination as “the chickens coming home to roost”—implying that America’s history of violence had led to this killing. This blunt comment caused public outrage.

Importantly, Malcolm’s statement violated a direct order from Elijah Muhammad: all NOI ministers had been instructed not to comment on Kennedy’s death. Elijah saw the popular young president’s murder as a delicate matter; Malcolm’s eagerness to weigh in was viewed as a serious breach of discipline.

In response, Elijah Muhammad suspended Malcolm X from public speaking for 90 days on December 2, 1963. This suspension was a dramatic rebuke—effectively silencing the Nation’s best-known voice. For Malcolm, who lived and breathed the movement, the punishment was humiliating and isolating. It also came at a time when Malcolm was grappling with disturbing allegations about Elijah Muhammad’s personal life. Feeling misused and muzzled, Malcolm grew increasingly disillusioned during the suspension. He later described himself as “crippled” by being barred from teaching for those months and sensed that enemies within the NOI were happy to see him sidelined. The suspension marked the beginning of the end of Malcolm’s time in the Nation of Islam.

Elijah Muhammad’s Domestic Life and the Strain on Malcolm X

In his 1993 lecture at Mosque Maryam, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan addressed the painful chapter in the Nation of Islam’s history regarding the internal tension between Malcolm X and the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. One of the key factors that strained their relationship was Malcolm’s discovery that Elijah Muhammad had fathered children with several women who worked closely with him—women who were also registered members of the Nation.

Rather than labeling this as a scandal, Minister Farrakhan clarified that Elijah Muhammad’s actions were rooted in his interpretation and practice of divine guidance, as understood from the Qur’an and the example of biblical and prophetic traditions. According to Minister Farrakhan, Elijah Muhammad, as a Messenger of Allah, had the divine right to take wives—an act not based in immorality but in scripture and divine order.

Malcolm, who had previously been engaged to one of the women involved, was hurt both personally and emotionally by the revelation. Minister Farrakhan suggested that Malcolm’s pain was not solely about the act itself but stemmed from feeling blindsided and confused by something he had not yet fully understood within a theological framework. Farrakhan emphasized that Malcolm was not initially outraged in a public sense—he had come to Farrakhan privately to express his thoughts, and even asked that Farrakhan not tell anyone.

Farrakhan explained that Elijah Muhammad had kept this matter private not to be deceitful, but to protect the Believers, who at that time may not have had the spiritual maturity to process such information. He noted that had the Nation been told prematurely, it could have resulted in mass confusion, envy, and misuse of divine knowledge—especially by those unprepared to understand the weight and responsibility of divine law.

Rather than a narrative of betrayal, Farrakhan urged listeners to understand this situation as one of divine testing—of both Malcolm and the Nation. He shared that Elijah Muhammad tested all of his laborers, including Farrakhan himself, to see if they could withstand hardship and pressure without breaking. In his words, “Elijah Muhammad had to test the man he thought would one day sit in his seat.”

Ultimately, Farrakhan concluded that Malcolm’s reaction, though human and understandable, was shaped by pain, misunderstanding, and outside manipulation. He implored the audience to see beyond sensationalism and to recognize the depth of divine purpose and spiritual development that was unfolding behind the scenes.

Malcolm X’s Departure from the NOI (March 1964)

By early 1964, the situation had become untenable. Malcolm X’s 90-day suspension had expired, but instead of being welcomed back, he found himself increasingly isolated. The combination of his punishment over the JFK comment, the unresolved Elijah Muhammad scandal, and a general sense that “elements within the Nation were against him” drove Malcolm to a fateful decision: he left the Nation of Islam. On March 8, 1964, Malcolm X publicly announced his separation from Elijah Muhammad’s organization. In a press conference and subsequent statements, Malcolm explained that he was not abandoning Islam, but rather charting an independent path.

Notably, Malcolm’s initial tone toward Elijah Muhammad after the break was respectful, even deferential. “I am and always will be a Muslim. My religion is Islam,” Malcolm declared, emphasizing that “I still believe that Mr. Muhammad’s analysis of the problem is the most realistic, and that his solution is the best one. This means I too believe the best solution is complete separation…”. In other words, Malcolm continued to agree with Elijah Muhammad’s core message of Black unity and separation from oppressive whites, even as he parted ways with the NOI. At the outset, Malcolm did not launch personal attacks on Elijah – he framed his exit as the result of “internal differences” within the movement. “I did not leave of my own free will,” Malcolm would later say, implying he was effectively forced out by the circumstances.

However, after Malcolm’s departure from the Nation in March 1964, he traveled abroad, visiting Africa and the Middle East, including making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Minister Louis Farrakhan acknowledged in his 1993 lecture that Malcolm experienced a moment of spiritual clarity during this journey. However, Farrakhan strongly rejected the idea that Malcolm’s shift in tone was due to embracing a broader interracial brotherhood or a rejection of the Nation’s teachings. Instead, he emphasized that Malcolm was in a state of personal confusion and emotional distress, wrestling with internal contradictions and the pain of separation from his spiritual father, Elijah Muhammad. Farrakhan argued that rather than being guided by divine insight, Malcolm became vulnerable to manipulation by outside forces—including media, government agents, and even jealous insiders—who capitalized on his emotional state.

From Farrakhan’s perspective, the most grievous act came when Malcolm publicly revealed Elijah Muhammad’s personal affairs, not in the spirit of moral correction, but out of hurt, anger, and perceived betrayal. Farrakhan maintained that Malcolm’s actions violated the discipline of a nation and dishonored the very man who lifted him from obscurity. To the Nation of Islam, this was not just disobedience—it was a spiritual breach, a moment where Malcolm, clouded by bitterness, crossed a sacred boundary. Farrakhan insisted that even if Malcolm believed what he revealed to be true, his method and motive made it an act of rebellion, not righteous reform.

War of Words: NOI Reactions and Farrakhan’s Role

The Nation of Islam, under Elijah Muhammad’s direction, responded to Malcolm X’s defection with fierce condemnation. Malcolm was branded a “hypocrite” (one of the worst epithets in the NOI lexicon) and a traitor to the cause. Minister Louis Farrakhan, who’s a loyal student of Elijah and a former mentee of Malcolm, was elevated to Malcolm’s former post as minister of Mosque No. 7 in Harlem. Farrakhan defended his teacher Elijah Muhammad and denounce Malcolm. In the December 4, 1964 issue of Muhammad Speaks (the NOI’s newspaper), Farrakhan – writing under the name “Louis X” – excoriated Malcolm in an article that sent an unmistakable message. Referring to Malcolm’s fledgling new movement, Farrakhan wrote: “Only those who wish to be led to hell, or to their doom, will follow Malcolm. The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape…. Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death.” (emphasis added).

Despite decades of speculation and emotionally charged narratives, recent revelations and Minister Louis Farrakhan’s 1993 lecture at Mosque Maryam offer a deeper and more honest perspective on the events surrounding Malcolm X’s assassination. Contrary to the often-repeated claim that Nation of Islam leadership incited Malcolm’s death, Minister Farrakhan clarified that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad explicitly instructed the Nation: “Leave Malcolm alone.” Farrakhan acknowledged the emotional intensity and hurt felt by some members who believed Malcolm had betrayed the man who raised him, but made it clear that any retaliatory sentiment did not originate as an official directive from leadership. Meanwhile, historical records confirm that Thomas Hagan (also known as Talmadge Hayer), who confessed to participating in the assassination, consistently testified that the two other men convicted—Muhammad Abdul Aziz and Khalil Islam—were innocent. In 2021, both were exonerated after newly released documents showed that the FBI and NYPD had deliberately suppressed evidence during the original trial. Independent investigators and voices like Dick Gregory have also raised serious questions, including whether some weapons used during the attack were loaded with blanks—an allegation that remains unresolved. What is undeniable is that Malcolm X was targeted during a time of heightened tension, as COINTELPRO actively sowed discord between prominent Black leaders and organizations. The true weight of his assassination lies not only in who pulled the trigger, but in how government surveillance, media manipulation, and internal divisions collided to silence one of the most powerful voices of the 20th century.

Minister Louis Farrakhan has never denied the deep loyalty and reverence he held for the Honorable Elijah Muhammad—loyalty that, in the emotionally charged atmosphere of the 1960s, was shared by many members of the Nation of Islam. In his 1993 lecture, Farrakhan spoke openly about that period, acknowledging the intensity of feeling that arose when Malcolm X publicly criticized Elijah Muhammad. His statement — “I loved Elijah Muhammad enough that if you attacked him, I would kill you” — was not a confession of guilt, but rather a raw and honest expression of how fiercely protective many believers were of their spiritual leader. However, Minister Farrakhan made clear that Elijah Muhammad never ordered harm to come to Malcolm and had specifically instructed followers to “leave him alone.” The quote, “Was Malcolm your traitor or was he ours?” was delivered not as a threat, but as a rhetorical defense of the Nation’s right to handle internal affairs without outside judgment. Farrakhan’s words were often taken out of context, yet his full message emphasized restraint, mercy, and discipline, as well as recognition of how government agencies like the FBI and COINTELPRO worked to pit Malcolm and the Nation against each other. Rather than glorifying division, Minister Farrakhan’s lecture sought to clarify a painful history and begin a process of healing by telling the truth—unfiltered, complex, and rooted in love for both Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad.

It is important to note that no evidence has surfaced that Elijah Muhammad or Louis Farrakhan directly ordered Malcolm’s assassination. Three NOI members from Newark were convicted of the murder, and two of them (who long maintained innocence) were exonerated in 2021 after new evidence of FBI and NYPD involvement came to light. Historians continue to debate all the forces behind Malcolm’s killing. But what is undeniable is that the hostile rhetoric and “by any means necessary” posture towards Malcolm inside the NOI created an environment where violence was not only possible but, to some extremist followers, righteous. As the Los Angeles Times reported, by the time Malcolm was gunned down on February 21, 1965, the feud with Elijah Muhammad’s Nation had defined a hostile divide in the Black Muslim community that lingered for decades.

Farrakhan’s 1993 Perspective: “What Really Happened?”

In February 1993, Minister Louis Farrakhan, National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and leader of the reestablished Nation of Islam, delivered a powerful lecture at Mosque Maryam titled “The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and His Student Malcolm X: 28 Years Later – What Really Happened?” This address came during a renewed cultural interest in Malcolm X’s life, sparked by Spike Lee’s 1992 film. While mainstream narratives attempted to frame this moment as an admission of guilt or hostility, Minister Farrakhan used the opportunity to offer an inside account grounded in spiritual truth, loyalty, and historical correction.

Contrary to media spin, Farrakhan’s lecture was not a justification of violence nor an attack on Malcolm X. Rather, it was a heartfelt and honest attempt to contextualize a complex and tragic chapter in Black American history—from the perspective of a man who loved both the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and Brother Malcolm.

Farrakhan addressed the deep love he held for his teacher, stating, “I loved Elijah Muhammad enough that if you attacked him, I would kill you,” not as a literal threat, but to express the emotional depth and seriousness of spiritual loyalty within a disciplined Nation. He clarified that Elijah Muhammad never ordered harm upon Malcolm and repeatedly instructed Nation members to “leave him alone.” Despite Malcolm’s public criticisms and the betrayal many felt, Farrakhan emphasized that Elijah Muhammad’s love and mercy remained.

The 1993 message did not cast Malcolm solely as a villain, nor did it reduce Elijah Muhammad to a caricature. Instead, it explored how internal strain, outside interference (particularly from COINTELPRO and the FBI), and misunderstandings contributed to a devastating rift. Farrakhan described how government manipulation and internal jealousy stoked fires that ultimately harmed both men—and the larger Black movement.

Farrakhan acknowledged that Malcolm X shared personal allegations about Elijah Muhammad with him prior to his departure. Yet Farrakhan emphasized that his loyalty remained with the man whose teachings had transformed his life and the lives of thousands of others. He didn’t deny Elijah Muhammad’s humanity; he placed it in the prophetic tradition, explaining that prophets throughout scripture have had complex family dynamics. Farrakhan has repeatedly said of Elijah Muhammad’s children, “They are my brothers and sisters,” showing love, not shame.

In contrast to claims that Farrakhan “justified Malcolm’s death,” the 1993 lecture stressed restraint, respect, and nation-building discipline. When the audience responded to Farrakhan’s rhetorical question about Malcolm being “our traitor or theirs,” he was challenging outsiders’ intrusion into a spiritual family’s internal struggle. It was not a call for retribution, but a reminder of the emotional and organizational gravity of the separation.

Farrakhan’s commentary served to reaffirm the mission of the Nation of Islam: to uplift Black people from moral, economic, and spiritual death. He maintained that Elijah Muhammad had been divinely guided and that Malcolm X, while brilliant and powerful, had unfortunately stepped away from that guidance under pressure. However, Farrakhan expressed sorrow and compassion for Malcolm’s fate, acknowledging the pain felt by all who loved him.

In closing, Farrakhan highlighted the real culprit behind the feud: the U.S. government and COINTELPRO, which actively sought to destroy strong Black leadership by sowing discord and mistrust. He concluded that the greatest loss was not one man or another, but the unity and strength that could have been sustained had external forces not driven a wedge between two powerful servants of truth.

Far from being a cold dismissal of Malcolm X’s legacy, Farrakhan’s 1993 lecture was a call to reflection, responsibility, and reconciliation. It honored both Malcolm’s transformation and Elijah Muhammad’s divine mission—and ultimately pointed toward a higher understanding rooted in love, loyalty, and divine order.

Legacy and Lessons

The history between Malcolm X and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad is complex, deeply emotional, and often misrepresented by mainstream sources. The rift that emerged between student and teacher was not simply a matter of ego, betrayal, or ideology—it was part of a greater spiritual, social, and political evolution that involved intense external manipulation, miscommunication, and sincere, if painful, disagreements.

After Malcolm X’s departure from the Nation of Islam, tensions were high. Yet it must be made clear—according to Minister Louis Farrakhan’s 1993 lecture and the verified records of Nation of Islam members—Elijah Muhammad was not a hypocrite, and his personal life was consistent with prophetic examples found in scripture. As Minister Farrakhan explained, “the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s actions must be viewed through the lens of divine mission,” not the moral standards imposed by external critics unfamiliar with divine law or prophetic tradition.

Following the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s departure in 1975, his son Warith Deen Mohammed chose a different path, leading many into Sunni Islam. Minister Louis Farrakhan, recognizing the need to preserve the original teachings that had transformed countless Black lives, re-established the Nation of Islam in 1977. His mission was not driven by ego but by obedience to the vision of Elijah Muhammad and the will of Allah to continue the work of resurrection among Black people in America.

The portrayal that Minister Farrakhan ever took pride in Malcolm’s death is false. In fact, Minister Farrakhan has repeatedly expressed deep respect and love for Malcolm and grief over how the situation unfolded. He has acknowledged that, in his youthful zeal and defense of his teacher, some words may have been harsh—but never has he admitted complicity in the assassination. Those interpretations come from biased commentators with no connection to NOI history or spiritual culture. In 1995 and again in later years, Minister Farrakhan extended public gestures of reconciliation, including appearing on stage with Malcolm’s daughter, Ilyasah Shabazz.

The causes of the rift were multifaceted:

• Spiritual Testing and Divine Trial: Minister Farrakhan explained that Elijah Muhammad, like the prophets before him, had to test his students to see if they were fit to carry the weight of leadership. Malcolm, under pressure, faltered—not because he was evil, but because he was human. His departure was not expulsion—it was a choice.

• Government Interference: FBI COINTELPRO efforts are well-documented in sowing discord. Their own files reveal they worked to “widen the rift” between Malcolm and Elijah’s followers, using infiltrators, false correspondence, and media manipulation.

• Malcolm’s Inner Conflict: Malcolm had been wounded by private revelations, not understanding that Elijah Muhammad’s actions were consistent with the examples of past prophets. Rather than handling it privately, he went to the media—something Elijah Muhammad had trained all students to avoid.

• The Role of the Media and White Power Structure: Instead of healing, external forces weaponized the rift to destroy both men’s legacies. Spike Lee’s 1992 film, while artistically notable, was shaped by interests that had no loyalty to either Elijah or Malcolm.

Today, the Nation of Islam remains committed to truth, growth, and the spiritual upliftment of Black people. Both Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X made indelible contributions to that mission. Malcolm, despite his departure, remained a product of Elijah Muhammad’s transformative program. Minister Farrakhan made clear: “The Malcolm you love was made by a man you refuse to understand.”

This is not a story of traitors and hypocrites—it is a story of mission, maturation, and divine instruction. History must not be written by those outside the circle of sacrifice. It must be told by those who lived, bled, and labored inside it.

Let us honor the truth, the teacher, the student—and the lessons that still guide us today.

Conclusion

Malcolm X’s continued influence in popular culture and political thought is inseparable from the foundational teachings he received from the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Every speech, every powerful quote, and every evolution in Malcolm’s thinking was rooted in the wisdom of his teacher. To honor Malcolm without honoring the man who made Malcolm is intellectually dishonest.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s decision to silence Malcolm was not punishment—it was protection, both for Malcolm and for the Nation. As Minister Farrakhan has explained, leadership comes with divine trials, and sometimes those trials reveal areas where further growth is needed. Elijah Muhammad, as a Messenger of God, acted in accordance with divine wisdom, not personal malice.

Had the circumstances been different—had external forces like COINTELPRO not fanned the flames of division—there might have been room for healing within the Nation. But even then, accountability and order were required to sustain any divine mission. The ultimate lesson is that unity among Black leadership must be protected, and that divine guidance, even when misunderstood in the moment, always proves itself in time.

Malcolm’s legacy lives on—but it is inextricably linked to the divine teachings and spiritual discipline of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. That truth cannot be erased, revised, or replaced.

May we learn from both lives and recommit ourselves to the resurrection, transformation, and liberation of our people.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this history. May Allah continue to bless, guide, and protect the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, and our people in the Hells of North America.