[Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint and was published online on February 14, 2006.]
“The Prophet and his companions stayed three days in Makkah, according to the terms of the peace agreement. They moved about the city without fear. This in itself was a great act of public relations on the part of the Muslims. The people of Makkah were able to see how close-knit the Muslim community was. They realized that the Muslims harboured the most brotherly feelings to one another.
“Every one of them loved every other Muslim. Their dedication to the cause of Islam was clearly visible in the way they talked to one another, in their high respect for the Prophet, in the total absence of any division between them. The people of Makkah could not suppress their feeling of admiration and envy as they realized that the Prophet was able to achieve that great degree of unity among the Muslim community despite the fact that his followers belonged to many tribes which had been, until recently, at war with one another.
“They also realized that the predominant feelings with the Muslim community were those of mutual sympathy and solidarity. Its objectives were noble and its dedication was complete. Its submission to Allah was undoubted. The chiefs of Makkah were worried that their own people might start to have second thoughts about Islam, as they realized how profound its effect was on the people of Madinah and on Muslims generally.” (Emphasis mine. See page 537 of “Muhammad: Man and Prophet” by Adil Salahi)
Master Fard Muhammad and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad are backing the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan to build a Brotherhood/Sisterhood out of the Black man and woman, and other Original People of America sooner than most everyone can imagine–right now!
Now, back to what I wrote nearly 18 years ago on “Moses and the Wise man.”
“If we look into the lives of the prophets, we see incidents that seem immoral, according to accounts given in the Bible. The scholars of the Jews, Christians and Muslims have differing views on this subject. For instance, Muslims cite the fact that the Holy Qur’an, unlike the Bible, makes very clear that the prophets were sinless men. The Holy Qur’an not only refuses to mention that which the Bible writers state of the supposed sins of God’s representatives, but they refute in the strongest terms that these men were sinners, wicked or evil.
“Now, did the prophets do what the Bible writers claimed they did? If they did that which the writers say they did, they would be judged as wicked men by this so-called civilized world, even though the Holy Qur’an clears them. But are they so charged by the learned of this world and even the masses of the people? Generally, the answer is no. Why? Is it because the truly learned know better and the masses don’t care? Is it due to ignorance or, as some claim, the drug-like effect of “religion?”
“There are Christian scholars who have said over the radio that David violated nine of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses. This writer has never looked this up to verify these charges or not. That is immaterial. What is important is God’s view and what we are to learn by this material being in the Bible in the first place. These Christians scholars, like most, who are aware of David’s history, as given in the Bible, know of the events involving David and Bathsheba. But is it not true that David is yet honored as a man after God’s own heart and a great forerunner of Jesus?
“Even if the drug-like effect were so, that still does not meet the position of the Holy Qur’an, written by One who outright tells the reader–and the world–that He is the Best Knower. He declares all of His prophets to be sinless. So, let us ask which view is right: the view of this evil world, which accuses and condemns the Prophet of immorality, or gives a phony explanation for their actions; or is the view of the Holy Qur’an, respecting the moral lives of the prophets, the right one? If Allah is right–and He is–then with respect to the prophets, what seemed wicked was not. Makes sense? Does it? Hopefully, we will see better by going deeper, or higher, or both.
“Consider two men sitting on a log. Each has his chin in his hand. Each has his eyes closed. Each sits very still. Are they the same? One may be day-dreaming or sleeping. The other may be deep in thought; planning his next move. So what seems alike may not be alike at all.
“Three men in three parts of the same city on the same day run over three other men. All three die. The first driver, after a full investigation and a fair trial, is sent to the electric chair. The second driver is also arrested, but later is acquitted. The last driver is allowed to leave the scene right after questioning. What accounts for these different outcomes in these cases?
“Was it a matter of such factors as the prevailing circumstances and the intentions of each driver? If actions are to be judged, evaluated and understood in terms of the intentions or the motives–the very spirit out of which the acts were done–and if this was the criterion used in these cases where the three men were killed, this would account for the different ways each driver was treated by those invested with authority to judge and execute judgement.
“If the first driver fully intended to hit the other, and the victim was properly crossing the street, and if intent to commit murder was established, the driver should be punished severely. If the second driver did not intend to hit the man, but in some regard was negligent, he should be dealt with differently, with far greater leniency than the first driver. In the third case, it could be a matter of the driver doing all the proper things with and in his car, but the victim ran out from between parked cars unexpectedly. If there was no way for the driver to stop in time, and if there were also eyewitnesses to verify this event, this would explain why this driver would be permitted to leave the scene, tragic though it was, without even being cited for wrongdoing.
“It was their intentions, their respective states of minds and the circumstances that determined what was the truth. This is what enabled the authorities to tell what was the most equitable thing to do in each case. (The use of the word ‘equitable’ rather than the simpler concept in the word ‘just.’)
“Yes, all three hit three others and all three were killed. But, is that the whole of the truth? In all three cases, we would come to unjust verdicts–certainly in two of the three cases if we sent all three drivers to the electric chair solely on the basis of the ‘truth’ or the clear fact that all three killed three others.
“Now, would the courts and the judges of this world accept the Wise man’s statement, as given in the Holy Qur’an, Surah 18, verse 79? Here are his words: ‘As for the boat, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I intended to damage it for there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force.’ (Muhammad Ali translation.)
“Would they accept this statement as grounds to exonerate and absolve the Wise man from the charge, in the words of Moses, to the effect, that his teacher intended to drown its owners who occupied it (18:71), in addition to damaging their property?
“Which of the legal systems of this world (especially of the West) would accept the Wise man’s position, in verse 80: ‘And as for the boy, his parents were believers and We feared lest he should involve them in wrongdoing and disbelief. So We intended that their Lord might give them in his place one better and nearer to mercy.’ (Muhammad Ali translation, Surah 18, verse 80.)”
More, next issue, Allah willing.