“… but it was reasonable to expect them to ask themselves: how did Islam change those Arabs who responded to the call of the Prophet? How did they achieve such an unparalleled degree of discipline? Why did they attach greater value to enforcing the commands of the Prophet than to looting a wealthy city which had fallen to them after a long history of hostility?
“The people of Makkah looked at the Muslims as they prayed in congregation and admired their discipline and their dedication. They looked at the new bonds which Islam had cemented within the Muslim community and realized that pure love, for Allah’s sake, was the bond which replaced all past loyalties in order to forge out of those Arab tribes a single community, united by its dedication to the cause of Islam.” (“Muhammad: Man and Prophet” by Adil Salahi , page 593)
It’s impossible for most to believe, at present, but the world will soon witness an even far greater change for the better, among the original peoples of America than was witnessed in Arabia 1,400 years ago, due to Master Fard Muhammad’s will working through the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.
This next section requires careful reading.
“Now, the word ‘forgive’ implies giving up all claim to pun-ishment, as well as any resentment or vengeful feelings, ac-cording to page 5 of Webster’s Second College Edition–New World Dictionary where it is contrasted with ‘absolve,’ ‘acquit,’ ‘exonerate,’ ‘pardon,’ and ‘vindicate.’
“Under the right set of circumstances, that Allah guided him to bring about, Joseph forgave his broth-ers. But despite what they put him through, he never stopped lov-ing his brothers. His capacity for love had to be very, very, very large in order for him to patiently set up the circum-stances–with God’s direct help–that would bring his brothers to see the errors of their ways, sincerely repent and ask for-giveness from him (Joseph), for their sake and growth, and from God Himself. Take time and read how he did what he did–the method–in your Bible and Holy Qur’an. It is a nar-rative that contains pain; powerful insights and joy. It is called the most beautiful of narratives. Some scholars use the word ‘accurate’ rather than ‘beautiful.’ In any case it is very prophetic of these times.
“As I am writing these words, I am thinking of the modern Joseph, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and the multi-million dollar drive he led for the reacquiring of the properties originally gained by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, for the benefit of our people.
“The purpose for which this drive was propelled was due, in large measure, to Minister Farrakhan’s capacity for love. The capacity for love and forgiveness, which the Minister by na-ture was given a large measure of, should not be mistaken for weakness. The capacity for love, greatly determines ones’ ca-pacity to forgive.
“The Minister was raised, in 1955, with or by the wisdom and love of God, via the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Although he did not know it, at that time, he was marked out for a special service in the plan of Almighty God. He was raised in strength–divine strength–or power, and he reflects the quality of the forces by which he was raised and commissioned: love, wis-dom and strength, among other qualities. He speaks and is guiding others out of the power of the same wisdom by which he was raised. He speaks out of the power of the God Who pro-duced and governs the resurrection process. He speaks out of the love and will of Allah Himself!
“The vision God gave to, and fulfilled through Joseph, revolved around the redemption of his family. Through them, others were redeemed. This vision revolved around the rule of God through the redeemed. This vision is prophetic of what is tak-ing place today in Minister Farrakhan, and us, in America. The vision which God has publicly manifested through the Honor-able Elijah Muhammad–for our collective salvation–and now, in a more public way, through the Minister, is every day becoming a reality.
“Now, let us suppose that a charge, such as ‘Moses’ made against the wise man, was made by their modern counterparts. Just suppose he was brought to the court system of America, or some other legal system of this world.
“If the wise man sought to defend his acts, that were deemed violations of morality and of law, would not he have to estab-lish his credentials? And what could he state or produce to es-tablish his credentials? What could show that he had the right and that he was entitled to his position and that he had the au-thority to do as he did?
“Would he not have to show that he was totally justified in his acts? Would not this involve the presentation, or the demon-stration of higher laws, based on greater principles, that en-compass, and went beyond, the principles of justice embodied in the charges of his accusers?
“According to the text, the wise man knew facts that his student did not know. He knew there was a treasure beneath the wall. It was there when they found the wall on the point of falling, and after they repaired it. Again, Moses, at that time, did not know of the two orphan boys. He did not know that the treasure was intended for them, in the future.
“In the cases involving the boat and the boy, the acts of the wise man were related to a knowledge of the future. In the case of the boat the fact of the coming of the unjust king, who would seize their boat, was not in the distant future. The matter con-cerning the boy involved knowledge of that which would or could come in the relatively distant future.
“The wise man claimed a comprehensive knowledge, which, he said, if Moses had, he could have patience. This special knowledge could produce special patience. We can easily imagine a situation where Moses could learn of, and then, bear witness that there was a king doing what the wise man said he was doing. Therefore, Moses could reasonably deduce that the king might well do as the wise man said. But, what of the boy? How could it be proven that what the wise man said would happen in the future would indeed come to pass, if not prevented by his act of the killing of the boy in the present? How could he prove that this boy’s evil had reached the point that he would inevitably in-volve his innocent parents in gross sin?
“Maybe this touches the use of ‘I,’ in the case of the boat, and ‘We,’ in the case of the boy. The latter required greater insight, wisdom, and greater resolve, and even a greater defense, than the former. Certainly, far greater proof must be given to over-come the charge that he was totally unjust in killing the boy than in the case of his destruction of the boat.
“How would, or could, he know if the two orphan boys would live to attain their maturity to take out their treasury? Many more questions could be raised about the wise man’s acts, re-specting these boys. To mention a few: how would the boys learn of the treasury? How could he know if they would not be moved, or move from that town, before the time when they could obtain their treasure? How did the wise man learn of the treasury in the first place, and to whom it belonged? Why was the wise man so sure that if the wall was repaired the boys would later get their treasury?”
More next issue, Allah willing.