In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.
In the Bible, we read that Jesus instructed his disciples that, if they wanted to see the Kingdom of God, they must be "born again".
I was thinking on this today, while selling the Final Call, and something occurred to me.
Let us consider that, to be "born" at all, one must first be "conceived". To "conceive" means to "take with", or to "catch with".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceive
A looser, implied meaning would be to "bring parts together as one complete unit".
As regards reproduction of the Human Form, to "conceive" means to bring together, as one, the respective male and female life germs -- the "fundamental" or "foundational" material of the new life that is to be "born".It is upon this "foundation" that the remainder of the development of the fetus rests.
This (conception) is what is required, then, as a "precondition" of being "born". What, then, would be the required precondition for being "born AGAIN"?
Similar to the example given above, in order to be "born AGAIN", one must first be "conceived" again; that is, one must have a "New Foundation" upon which to base his interpretation of Reality, his thoughts, his words and his actions.
The "old" foundation must be exposed, dismantled and uprooted altogether. This means that even our initial impressions of "The Teachings" -- being laid upon the "old" foundation (mind) -- must eventually be relinquished. We need an entirely New Foundation!
Until we have a New Foundation -- a New and Truer set of Fundamental Assumptions -- we cannot have a New or Better Understanding of Allah, Ourselves, Life and It's Divine Purpose. At best, we will be able to "talk" ABOUT the New, while still harbouring the "old" in our hearts.
This will not gain us entry into the Kingdom.
We must be Born Again!
Respectfully,
Bro. Reuben
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
A Beautiful Testimony of God's Love and Healing Power!
Aphasia 8
Medical Update #1
This is a confidential update regarding Brother Jabril Muhammad’s medical condition. Anything having to do with one’s medical condition is considered to be confidential. Brother Jabril wants to share this with the readers. Before this report was sent publically, I gave Brother Jabril a copy of it, for his review. For those of you who know Brother Jabril, you know that he is a “context” and “detail” person. As you read this report, the words that are in bold are the part that I omitted that he wanted included in this update. (He told me to please read The Final Call for his reasons. Smile.) He gave me these words today Monday June 8, 2009, the same day I wrote this report. He told me that his reason would appear, Allah Willing, in next week’s issue of The Final Call.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
On Wednesday May 27, 2009, Brother Jabril Muhammad was admitted to the hospital. His diagnosis was unresponsive and seizure disorder. He went into respiratory failure while in the emergency room and was intubated. He was not breathing on his own. The emergency room doctors worked to stabilize his condition before transferring him to Neuro ICU. One of the emergency room doctors wrote in his dictated medical report, “He (Jabril) was admitted and was witnessed to have convulsions in the ER, now in respiratory failure and on a ventilator, without showing signs of recovery.” Throughout his medical records, other words to that effect were stated. He was in extreme critical condition, with his arterial blood gases “all over the place.”
I witnessed everything that took place in the emergency room helping the doctors help Brother Jabril. I informed them what medicines works best for him while he’s in this condition etc. I also witnessed that he was unresponsive, even to pain!
After I informed the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, from the emergency room, of Brother Jabril’s condition, he was very sorry to hear of what happen. Minister Farrakhan was already scheduled to come to Phoenix on another matter. So the next morning, Brother Minister and his two sons arrived at the hospital, straight from the airport. They arrived, in the room, approximately one minute or less after five or six Neurologists arrived in his room. I was in the process of giving all the doctors a complete medical history of Brother Jabril’s condition. I informed them of what medications and dosage of medications he’s taking; how often he has these episodes; how to prevent these episodes from getting to the point where he’s intubated etc, etc. They asked a few questions, which I answered and at one point, I politely advised them to decrease one of his IV medications and gave my reasons, which they agreed to do and they did. They also told me of their plans, of which I was 100 percent in agreement.
Minister Farrakhan witnessed Brother Jabril on the ventilator, hand strapped to the bed, to prevent him from pulling out his tubes. After the doctors left, Minister Farrakhan remarked, “I’m so sorry this happened to you, but Allah is the Best Knower. Brother Minister then leaned over to Brother Jabril and said in a loud voice, “Jib, get up out of this bed, we have work to do.” Brother Jabril opened his eyes and immediately recognized Minister Farrakhan. Brother Jabril tried to speak, but choked and starting coughing because of the tube he had down his throat to help him breathe. Brother Minister then quieted Brother Jabril and told him in a soft voice that he will be back once the tube is removed from his throat.
Absolutely, Allah is the Best Knower. A few hours after the visit from Minister Farrakhan, Brother Jabril was extubated, meaning that he was taken off life support. Brother Jabril’s first words after being extubated was, “How long have I been here?” Because of the heavy sedation, Brother Jabril was given over the last 24 hours; he slept the rest of that day. He awoke the next morning around 5:00 AM and told me that he saw Minister Farrakhan, face to face and that it was real. He said that he saw him in “this same building.” He then asked me, “What’s up?” [Keep in mind, Brother Jabril is just waking up from heavy sedation; from being on a ventilator—life support and he dose not realize that he is in a hospital.] But, one thing for sure, he told me that he knew that he saw Minister Farrakhan.
After orientating Brother Jabril to place and time, I informed him that he, did indeed, see Minister Farrakhan. I also informed Brother Jabril that he had a tube down his throat to help him breathe and could not talk to Minister Farrakhan although he tried and that Minister Farrakhan will be coming back this morning to see him.
Minister Farrakhan and his son Joshua came that morning to see Brother Jabril. I can say that I witnessed a very powerful and significant meeting between the two of them. Sister Monette, who works for me and is one month away from getting her RN degree, witnessed what she did. Allah willing, we’ll hear from her in Aphasia 9 (medical update #2). In the one-hour plus meeting, I could see that they were being affected by one another’s spirit. At the end, of their meeting, Minister Farrakhan actually mentioned that this meeting helped his spirit. I know, from a medical standpoint, that Brother Jabril was helped in many ways. I believe this accounted for his speedy recovery.
In 2006, I was blessed to be present during some of the questions raised by Brother Jabril to Minister Farrakhan for the Closing The Gap book. This meeting between the two of them reminded me of that time period. They were ready right then and there to go to work. As Minister Farrakhan told Brother Jabril on the first day of his visit to Brother Jabril, despite Brother Jabril’s condition, that “we have work to do.” That caused Brother Jabril to open his eyes.
I must make this very clear. I’ve heard rumors (even as of yesterday) that Brother Jabril is in and out of a coma. That Brother Jabril is “mentally off” due to the stroke he suffered in February 2007. Both of those statements are completely false and baseless. For those who continue to spread these kinds of rumors, over the last 2 ½ years, since his stroke, of February 2007, where is your proof? Remember what the Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us, that Minister Farrakhan continues to teach and remind us of, that, if you repeat slander three times you become a part of it.
For those of you who have known Brother Jabril for however many years, he is still the same Brother. Well, let me put it this way. He is not the same Brother. Nobody goes through a ‘near-death experience’ and comes out of it the same. Brother Jabril had more than one ‘near death experience.’ Our Brother is stronger mentally. The part of his brain that was affected by the stroke was the part that controls speech. Brother Jabril can speak. Brother Jabril can write. Brother Jabril can read. He has problems retrieving words, but if one is patient with him, he can get the word out that he is searching for. Please study conduction aphasia and go back over Aphasia 1-7 that he produced.
This Aphasia condition has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. His intelligence is above average. He can make informed decisions for himself. I must state, for the records that a seizure that he just suffered, does not cause brain damage. I pray Allah that this short writing will clear up some of the major misunderstandings about our Brother’s condition.
I was talking to a few Neurologists at the hospital. All of us agreed that Brother Jabril has an above average intelligences and thought process. That part of his brain that processes thoughts and intelligences carries over to the language part. He uses many, what you called, “Coping strategies” to communicate due to his condition. Coping strategies are verbal or nonverbal methods of communicating used by people who have aphasia. He can make himself very clear when he speaks.
It’s been one week since Brother Jabril was discharged from the hospital. If you were to see him now, you would hardly believe that he, just a few days earlier, was seconds away from death and on life support. Many have told me that he looks even younger or healthier now, than he looked before this most recent hospitalization, even though he’s not out of it yet. In Aphasia #9 or medical update #2, I intend to go into this.
I agreed with Minister Farrakhan’s words, 1000 percent when he said that Allah is the best knower. I can say this; he is speaking better than he was before this most recent episode. All praises are due to Allah.
Thank you for reading this short update. Please continue to visit as more updates are forthcoming, Allah’s Willing.
Patina Muhammad ND, CNC
June 8, 2009
http://cuttingedgeknowledge.org/
RM
Monday, June 01, 2009
Is the Nation of Islam an "Extremist" Group?
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah,
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
What Exactly is an "Extremist"?
I read an article, this morning, about the four men who were arrested and charged with plotting to commit hate crimes against the Jewish Community and certain U.S. Military entities. Apart from the obvious shoddiness of the case contrived against these men, I noticed that the writer of this article indirectly referred to the Nation of Islam as, among other things, an "extremist" group:
"Tough drug laws since the 1980s led to the incarceration of large numbers of African-Americans, many of whom joined the Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views..."
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090531/FOREIGN/705309920/1014/ART
I found it interesting that this writer manages to paint "large numbers of African-Americans" as predisposed to drug use, and inclined toward the "Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views...". Why make such a juxtaposition? Is the writer suggesting that the Nation of Islam is primarily comprised of convicted drug users/pushers who are attracted to the Nation of Islam because of its "extremist views"?
Well, naturally, being a Member of the Nation of Islam, I was a bit concerned about this categorization of Us and our Beliefs. So, before I positioned myself to hurl my "retort" at this writer, I decided to look up this word, "extremist", so that I might get a clearer idea of just what this person was/is attempting to communicate.
The word "extremist" has as its root, the word "extreme":
extreme (adj.):
[c.1460, from L. extremus "outermost, utmost," superl. of exterus (see exterior).]
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.
6. going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.: an extreme conservative.
7. last or final: extreme hopes.
Therefore, an "extremist" is one whose ideas and actions are considered "far removed from the [what is accepted as] ordinary or average", or are "exceeding the bounds of moderation".
This begs the question, "Who determines what is 'ordinary', 'average', 'normal', or 'moderate'?" What is the standard by which something is determined to be "normal"? Is it a fixed standard? Is it a varying standard? Does it remain constant regardless of time or place? Or, does it change with time, and differ with culture or environment?
I also noticed that there was no definite "moral" connotation included in the definition. Does this suggest that there are certain instances where it is "good" to be "extreme"? Are there instances where "normal" or "ordinary" is "bad"?
There are areas where poverty is "ordinary" and "average". Would it be "wrong" to break from that "norm" to establish a better, healthier reality in such areas?
Were not the "founding fathers" of the United States considered "extremists" by the British Crown?
When Patrick Henry proclaimed, "...Give me Liberty, or give me death!", was that not an "extreme" statement born of an "extreme" conviction? What was the "norm" in his day that moved him to make such a statement?
In that vein, could not Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and all the Prophets of God be considered "extremists"?
Were any of them inclined to drug use or criminal activity? Most would say "No", and History certainly doesn't give us any indication otherwise.
Well, then...how did this term "extremist" take on such an ugly connotation? Why is it used so liberally to demonize people who dare to speak up and speak out against intolerable and unjust "norms" in a given society?
It is because those who occupy the seats of political and economic power in this world DEPEND on the maintenance of the status quo (the "ordinary"): The Rich "bloodsuckers of the poor" staying rich by keeping the poor in poverty.
In one sense it is valid to say that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views, because we see and understand that human beings are being held in "extreme" spiritual (if not economic) poverty, which has led to the extreme corruption and immanent collapse of the society, demanding "extreme" measures to reverse the trend toward disaster that the world is currently in.
But to suggest that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views along the lines of "criminal" or "terrorist" ideologies is both deceptive and detrimental to the overall well being of the global community; for such mischaracterizations prevent the people from benefitting from the Guidance found in the Nation of Islam that has an UNMATCHED record of transforming human lives from "destitute" to "progressive", from "criminal" to "honorable", from "hopeless" to "vibrant".
The Hon. Louis Farrakhan, by the Help and Guidance of Allah (God), has taught us, and the world, what a truly "Civilized" human being looks like, walks like, talks like, LIVES like; and has reproduced his example in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands -- if not MILLIONS -- of human beings who have been literally LONGING for SOMEONE to free them from the bonds of the "ordinary", the "average", and the "norms" that are so comfortable and convenient for the rich elite; but have been the literal "hell" for the disenfranchised.
For that, He...and WE...Make no apologies.
Does the Nation of Islam have "extremist" views? No more than those of the Prophets of God.
Does the Nation of Islam deserve to be characterized as an enemy to the peace of Humanity? Not nearly as much as the governments and rulers of this present age.
The Nation of Islam did not start the war in Iraq...or Afghanistan...or anywhere there are wars raging on our planet as a result of the "ordinary" foriegn policies of the West.
RM
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah,
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
What Exactly is an "Extremist"?
I read an article, this morning, about the four men who were arrested and charged with plotting to commit hate crimes against the Jewish Community and certain U.S. Military entities. Apart from the obvious shoddiness of the case contrived against these men, I noticed that the writer of this article indirectly referred to the Nation of Islam as, among other things, an "extremist" group:
"Tough drug laws since the 1980s led to the incarceration of large numbers of African-Americans, many of whom joined the Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views..."
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090531/FOREIGN/705309920/1014/ART
I found it interesting that this writer manages to paint "large numbers of African-Americans" as predisposed to drug use, and inclined toward the "Nation of Islam, a US-born religious group much criticised for its extremist views...". Why make such a juxtaposition? Is the writer suggesting that the Nation of Islam is primarily comprised of convicted drug users/pushers who are attracted to the Nation of Islam because of its "extremist views"?
Well, naturally, being a Member of the Nation of Islam, I was a bit concerned about this categorization of Us and our Beliefs. So, before I positioned myself to hurl my "retort" at this writer, I decided to look up this word, "extremist", so that I might get a clearer idea of just what this person was/is attempting to communicate.
The word "extremist" has as its root, the word "extreme":
extreme (adj.):
[c.1460, from L. extremus "outermost, utmost," superl. of exterus (see exterior).]
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.
6. going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.: an extreme conservative.
7. last or final: extreme hopes.
Therefore, an "extremist" is one whose ideas and actions are considered "far removed from the [what is accepted as] ordinary or average", or are "exceeding the bounds of moderation".
This begs the question, "Who determines what is 'ordinary', 'average', 'normal', or 'moderate'?" What is the standard by which something is determined to be "normal"? Is it a fixed standard? Is it a varying standard? Does it remain constant regardless of time or place? Or, does it change with time, and differ with culture or environment?
I also noticed that there was no definite "moral" connotation included in the definition. Does this suggest that there are certain instances where it is "good" to be "extreme"? Are there instances where "normal" or "ordinary" is "bad"?
There are areas where poverty is "ordinary" and "average". Would it be "wrong" to break from that "norm" to establish a better, healthier reality in such areas?
Were not the "founding fathers" of the United States considered "extremists" by the British Crown?
When Patrick Henry proclaimed, "...Give me Liberty, or give me death!", was that not an "extreme" statement born of an "extreme" conviction? What was the "norm" in his day that moved him to make such a statement?
In that vein, could not Abraham, Lot, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and all the Prophets of God be considered "extremists"?
Were any of them inclined to drug use or criminal activity? Most would say "No", and History certainly doesn't give us any indication otherwise.
Well, then...how did this term "extremist" take on such an ugly connotation? Why is it used so liberally to demonize people who dare to speak up and speak out against intolerable and unjust "norms" in a given society?
It is because those who occupy the seats of political and economic power in this world DEPEND on the maintenance of the status quo (the "ordinary"): The Rich "bloodsuckers of the poor" staying rich by keeping the poor in poverty.
In one sense it is valid to say that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views, because we see and understand that human beings are being held in "extreme" spiritual (if not economic) poverty, which has led to the extreme corruption and immanent collapse of the society, demanding "extreme" measures to reverse the trend toward disaster that the world is currently in.
But to suggest that the Nation of Islam has "extremist" views along the lines of "criminal" or "terrorist" ideologies is both deceptive and detrimental to the overall well being of the global community; for such mischaracterizations prevent the people from benefitting from the Guidance found in the Nation of Islam that has an UNMATCHED record of transforming human lives from "destitute" to "progressive", from "criminal" to "honorable", from "hopeless" to "vibrant".
The Hon. Louis Farrakhan, by the Help and Guidance of Allah (God), has taught us, and the world, what a truly "Civilized" human being looks like, walks like, talks like, LIVES like; and has reproduced his example in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands -- if not MILLIONS -- of human beings who have been literally LONGING for SOMEONE to free them from the bonds of the "ordinary", the "average", and the "norms" that are so comfortable and convenient for the rich elite; but have been the literal "hell" for the disenfranchised.
For that, He...and WE...Make no apologies.
Does the Nation of Islam have "extremist" views? No more than those of the Prophets of God.
Does the Nation of Islam deserve to be characterized as an enemy to the peace of Humanity? Not nearly as much as the governments and rulers of this present age.
The Nation of Islam did not start the war in Iraq...or Afghanistan...or anywhere there are wars raging on our planet as a result of the "ordinary" foriegn policies of the West.
RM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)