This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Michigan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements / Religious leaders Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is within the scope of Religious leaders work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article tries to create a mystery around his "disappearance". He was simply deported, or fled America to Fiji to avoid prosecution (he was also being investigated for being a spy and helping the Japanese) around 1934, then returned as "Muhammad Abdullah".

Sources: Finding W.D. Fard: Unveiling the Identity of the Founder of the Nation of Islam By John Andrew Morrow link

^Escanaba Daily Press (November 24, 1932) on the murder committed by Robert Harris. It says that Wallace Fard "is awaiting an immigration hearing. Officials said he came to the United States from Asia." link.

^His two findagrave.com profiles link, link

From his findagrave.com profile: "What is certain, is that he was in Fiji from 1934 until roughly 1959"

^Warith Deen Muhammad claimed that Fard had returned to the United States under the name Muhammad Abdullah. In 1976, W.D. had appointed Muhammad Abdullah as imam of Muhammad's Mosque #77 in Oakland, California. The November 26, 1976, issue of the NOI journal Bilalian News reports Muhammad Abdullah's first khutbah at the mosque and shows a photo. W.D. Mohammad did not state that Muhammad Abdullah was Fard until after Abdullah's death in 1992.

Here he is with Louis Farrakhan and Jim Jones in 1976:

https://calisphere.org/item/7c7690dd7f54dc713239e1a824301a26/ (source album: https://calisphere.org/collections/27519)

Video of him using the name Muhammad Abdullah in 1977:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgu33pkLsis&feature=emb_title (original source: https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfbatv/bundles/229337)

Video of him using the name Muhammad Abdullah in 1989:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0lnqQPybM

The content in this article is quite good but I think it is organized in a strange manner, different from any biography article I have seen. I think the content on his origins are encyclopedic and shouldn't be trimmed but the way we are currently presenting it strikes me as unsatisfactory.

We could split it into an article called maybe, Origins of Wallace Fard Muhammad, and then have a summary of that on this article as an "Early life" type thing. I think the speculations on his later life can stay here. There are other things we can do. As is though this feels very... odd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've meant to fork this off to a sub-article. Doing that now. Feoffer (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the requests/suggestions you've made. Writing in a vacuum is hard, very helpful to have an 'editor' who can help guide you. Thanks! Feoffer (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I feel that haha.

In any case, the article is now much better. Far clearer, good job. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from a trip and must say that I am delighted by the recent efforts of Feoffer and PARAKANYAA to clean this article up and split it into a Origin of Wallace Fard Muhammad article and add an additional Murder of James J. Smith article. It has needed something like this for awhile. Kudos to you both. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really do anything I was just complaining. Thanks anyway! PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanks! Ya gotta speak up! I have a million things on wiki that I'm "meaning to get around to", but it's much easier to take requests. Feoffer (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=fard+pronouned+farad TuckerResearch (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I was wondering if the other editors on this page think it may be appropriate to change the "In Popular Culture" section at the end of the article to something specifically about his legacy in black political thought and music, something like "Legacy in Black Political Consciousness". I have never been a fan of "trivia grabbag" sections and neither is wikipedia policy, so making this specifically about his legacy and influence in political thought would seem to be the right move. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.27.14.252 (talk • contribs)

"Black political consciousness" is a rather contrived phrase, what about "In media"? Feoffer (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added "in music" vs "in media" and I agree that is better. Thanks! 136.27.14.252 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. You've already made at least one suggestion that improved the project. Maybe make an an account. Feoffer (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a very long time since I have been on this site in the edit section. It has also been a long time since I visited the Wallace Fard Muhammad page. The FBI's search for Wallace Fard Muhammad is the largest FBI investigation in the history of the bureau that is not criminal in nature. The file makes it 100% clear that the bureau was fully aware that Wallie Dodd Ford was not Wallace Fard Muhammad. Making the connection between the two among the public has been a priority of the bureau for years. I see that this page has become a propaganda page by those who want to promote the Wallace Fard Muhammad is Wallie Dodd Ford disinformation effort. Clearly, the page cannot present Wallie Dodd Ford's history as if it is resolved that he is Wallace Fard Muhammad when it is resolved by the bureau that started the claim that he is not. Over the next month, I will redo this page so that it actually has known information about Wallace Fard Muhammad. It can include a history of how the bureau came up with the idea to claim that he is other people, including Wallie Dodd Ford. But it must include the history as it is known, without adding the propagandist wish list - where Dodd's picture has Fard's name under it. That's crazy. To the FBI and antidefamation league people on the page, you should probably come up with something that hasn't been completely disproven decades ago as a new tactic. In any regard, I'll deal with this page a little later. 2600:6C5A:527F:8EF2:49A0:7988:D83:FEB9 (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2600, for my part, I have no idea if the West Coast restauranteur was the same individual who founded NoI -- but our RSes, including modern pro-Fard scholars like Morrow, say its same person, and Wikipedia is just a summary of those RSes. We're not trying to share "FBI propaganda", but also, what does it matter if Fard was the West Coast restauranteur? How does that detract from his accomplishments in Detroit? Feoffer (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the FBI section to the top because almost all of the information on the page comes from the FBI and its admitted disinformation campaign. The FBI file and efforts against Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, and the Nation of Islam were extensive. Virtually everything referenced on this site finds its origins in their efforts. The reader should see that the effort to locate a history of Fard began with the FBI, and that they concluded their efforts not knowing his identity - even though they knew the identify of Wallace Dodd Ford and Wallie D. Ford. I know that contributors to this site will be passionate about presenting the Ford narrative as if it is definitely Fard. For this reason, I didn't remove that language. But it is important to begin where the research actually began and ended. I also removed the language about the guy who says there was a fingerprint match. A fingerprint match would have been the number one thing that the FBI would have pushed during its COINTELPRO efforts which lasted decades. The absence of that in their COINTELPRO files means it didn't exist. And they moved on and claimed that Fard was other people (people other than Ford) for many years. If someone writes a book and places an obviously incorrect statement in the book, we should not add the inaccurate information and state "such and such person says....." That doesn't take away the harm of presenting the known false statement. The Ford pictures are all over the place. I removed them from the top. Again, the reader should be allowed to navigate the information without having the Ford is Fard narrative shoved down their throats at the top of the page in that manner. Kwm1975 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KWM. So, I disagree with some of the specific changes you've made. I think the FBI material probably belongs section of the article where we talk about the 1960s, for example. I think pictures of Ford are useful to help the reader judge for themselves whether the two men are the same or not.

Some of the points you made are important. There is no question that the FBI of the 1960s was running a campaign to undermine and discredit NoI. My understand of the Reliable Sources is that they all agree the FBI was, essentially, lying when they accused Fard of having been a turkish-born Nazi agent -- he was friends with a Japanese man, that's all.

I think you're making an error however when you suggest that the FBI was lying about Fard having been Ford -- a lot of reliable sources who are NOT pro-FBI at all, but they still conclude the two men were the same person. Morrow is the first of many scholars to hold that position.

Do you have any other ideas for how we could add nuance? Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morrow wrote for the sole purpose of using what was written to influence this page. Years ago, I pointed out on this page that the FBI was the only source of information. Karl Evanzz wrote his book in 2001, and he was the go-to person for people who wanted to make reference to anything related to Fard. I made two points about that on this page. First, Evanzz did a Freedom of Information Act request for the FBI file on Fard and everything that he said came from that file. And second, the FBI's timeline was as follows: 1) began its efforts 1957 (which was 23 years after Fard's disappearance), 2) Wallie Ford's wife was interviewed and it was clear that he had no history related to any religious topic whatsoever, 3) FBI Feb. 19, 1963 memo states “in connection with efforts to disrupt and curb growth of the NOI, extensive research has been conducted into various files maintained by this office. Among the files reviewed was that of Wallace Dodd Ford.” The file goes on to outline Wallace Dodd Ford’s criminal history and family history, then it states “investigative efforts to verify this were negative.”, 4) Ed Montgomery publishes his article on July 28, 1963, with the FBI as his source, in the Los Angeles Evening Herald-Examiner “Black Muslim Founder Exposed As White.”, 5) Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X issued rewards for anyone who could link Ford and Fard and gave significant evidence disputing the claim - and this was after the FBI made claims that he was other people and concluded that they did not confirm that Ford is Fard, 6) everyone who ever wrote about Fard quoted the FBI and people who quoted the FBI - nothing else.

Shortly after this was mentioned on this page, Morrow wrote his book saying in a book the things that could not be successfully said on this page without the caveat that the true source was the FBI. Well now the same points are trying to be made saying, Morrow is the source because he did a pit-stop and wrote the debunked arguments in a book first. No one researched Fard until 23 years after he left, the only entity doing the research said that it brought up Ford for the purpose of disinformation, and they interviewed everyone who knew him and they found no corroborating evidence that Ford is Fard.

You know that there are books saying Jesus was a member of eastern religious movements who traveled into Jerusalem from the east, teaching eastern religions. Should the picture of those people on the page of Jesus with the name under it: Jesus? Of course not. I understand that people are emotionally invested in wanting Ford to be Fard. But it must be presented that ALL of those people started with the FBI narrative, chose to ignore their conclusion about the connection, then chose to believe it themselves. The Ford pictures are already below. I will remove them again at the top, as they do not belong there clearly. Kwm1975 (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morrow wrote for the sole purpose of using what was written to influence this page. Okay, but, it's our job to summarize his arguments on this page, along with those of other RSes. You and I might disagree with Morrow's conclusions, but we're not reliable sources so we don't count. And Morrow is far from alone in being a RS who identified Fard as the restauranteur -- don't virtually all scholars nowadays conclude they were the same person?

You're correct that the FBI was untrustworthy when it came to the NoI. Anything we can do to make it clearer the FBI's motives were far from neutral? Claims that Fard "was white" or "was a hardened criminal" are clearly lies. But when we summarize the historians, it won't work for me to dismiss them as just blindly quoting the FBI -- they're not. They've done their own independent digging. For example, scholars say that both men listed a birth day of February 26 and they have historical records to back up that claim. Feoffer (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we were to remove all information that traces back to either the FBI or the NOI, we would have nothing to say at all. We summarize what the RS say about it, which is what we are doing now. I don't think your edits are improvements to the situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following are facts: 1) the FBI is the source of the claim that Ford is Fard; 2) the FBI used its power to discredit the NOI in media sources and public records according to its own file, 3) the FBI concluded that Ford is not Fard, 4) Morrow relies upon media sources and public records (the same ones that the FBI admits to altering for the purpose of disinformation), 5) everyone who researches Fard quotes the FBI, the FBI's planted bread crumbs that they say they planted, and research done about Ford. All of the above means that anyone who does not begin their analysis talking about the FBI disinformation campaign is engaged in propaganda. Kwm75 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well take it up with academia, because that isn't the point of Wikipedia, whether that is or isn't true. If every work written on him is unreliable I guess we could delete the article, but that would be impractical. We are not here to publish original research, in any case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are scholarly works stating that Jesus does not exist. There are scholarly works stating that Jesus was a man from persia who taught far eastern religion. Do we lead with that on the page of Jesus? Why not? When there are known counternarratives, the reader is informed about the counternarratives first. One of the narratives is not given as gospel, when there are plenty of books with a counternarrative. All of the books start with the FBI. Everyone got the name Wallie Ford from the FBI. They wrote about him first. They conducted the investigations first. They claim that it was their largest investigation ever of a non-criminal matter. They should be the first ones discussed, with the explanation that there are counternarratives which spring from the FBI. Kwm75 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI file. Kwm75 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI said in May 1957 that they were beginning their attempt to find out who W.D. Fard is because they didn't have a clue. The wikipedia page includes a photo of Wallie Ford in 1932 were he is said to be interviewed by law enforcement about his teachings. If law enforcement interviewed him in 1932, the FBI would not be wondering who he is in 1957, attempting to find him determine his real indentity for the very first time. If their role does not lead the page, how could there be good faith? Please explain, given this history. They interviewed Wallie Ford's wife and said that they conducted the largest investigation in the history of the FBI in a non-criminal matter. At the conclusion, they say that they didn't find out his identity. How can failing to lead with them be in good faith? Kwm75 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If law enforcement interviewed him in 1932, the FBI would not be wondering who he is in 1957 Why do you think that? I know he was interviewed in 1932, but I don't know who he was befor that, and I'm in 2025!Feoffer (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There could be many reasons such as they could not confirm it was even the same person who was interviewed in 1932. Also, do we only use the FBI as a source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are following me. The page currently says that in 1932, Fard was arrested and a picture was taken of him and the picture is a picture of Ford. That would end the discussion. The FBI would know that Ford is Fard. But the FBI says that in 1957, they had no knowledge of who Fard was and they began an investigation where the name Ford brought back Wallie Ford only because they randomly included the name Ford in a name search. They then conducted a thorough investigation of Ford and ultimately determined that they don't know Fard's identity. In the meantime, they said that they manipulated media and public records and started a disinformation campaign in the public to make people believe that Fard is Ford to discredit the NOI. Today, all scholarly works quote the FBI and the media sources and public records that the FBI referenced in their campaign. How do you not lead with that? Kwm75 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that reads like wp:or do you have any RS backing any of this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the entire FBI file and it is contained inside of it. Kwm75 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly OR, we go by RS analysis of primary sources, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all scholarly works quote the FBI and the media sources and public records that the FBI referenced in their campaign. How do you not lead with that?

Because the scholars aren't stenographers and neither are we. The Reliable Sources, and we here at Wikipedia, are incredibly skeptical of taking the 1950s FBI at their word. The 1950s FBI report is a 'primary source', we don't just "trust" it, and none of the reliable sources are just trusting the FBI either -- they are all going back and redoing the analysis on their own.

According to the Reliable Sources (who KNOW J. Edgar Hoover tried to make Martin Luther King kill himself), there's still lots of good reasons to believe that Nation of Islam was founded by a hardworking cook and restauranteur who committed a minor substance violation during prohibition, was sent to prison, and came out a reformed man.

I know my words won't probably sway you, but please remember we at Wikipedia aren't not trying to say anything bad about Master Fard by suggesting he was the same guy who ran a restaurant. We're just summarizing what the RSes say.Feoffer (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency demands that this link be labeled with its source, the NOI. It may not be biased, but it's not dispassionate either, and the unaffiliated reader should be informed of that. Ralphie72 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response to the post above your post. It is for those reasons that the FBI is being placed back inside where it belongs. To do otherwise is propaganda. Not sure if that's your intention. Kwm75 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo with book in hand is obviously a different person. Look at the hair, nose and other things. That is likely that Indian guy known as Imam Mohammad Abdullah.--36.50.21.30 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Stop with OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources are reporting that multiple lines of evidence suggest Fard was of Indian / South Asian ancestry. We're just summarizing their views. Feoffer (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]