A Discussion on the Reality of God and Man

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.

The following is part of a discussion initiated with me a couple of days ago, by one Mr. Harry Watley, on the Concept of God and Man, and the Relationship between the two. I informed him that I intended to make the exchanges "open" for public reading, and he obliged.

============================================

... Greetings Mr. Reuben, You asked me a question concerning my concept of God. My concept of God lines up with the Quran’s concept of God. The Quran says, God neither begets, nor is God begotten and there is nothing like unto God.

The clear meaning of this concept is that what ever God is, God is not within the boundaries of our three dimensional world, which God created.

To beget means to give physical birth to any living thing. Begotten is when someone gives physical birth to any living thing. Consequentially, the Sura is declaring that God’s existence is not like ours. The Sura makes sure that the reader understands by going a bit further to say that, there is nothing like unto God.

God is an entity that I hold responsible for the creation or existence of man and all that I see and all that I do not see. It is outside of commonsense to believe that God could be a man as well as man be God. That is the same as to say that the creator and creation is one in the same. Only a man as naïve as Elijah was would believe that Mr. Fard Muhammad was God. However, there is absolutely no good reason for anyone of you having a greater education then Elijah should believe a man is God.

Man is a product of God’s supreme intelligence. Sometimes God is referred to as The Intelligent Designer. Man does not have the intelligence to have designed himself, since man is still studying how his body works. If man were God, man would already know how his body works. Man had no queue what his internal structure look like until he became curious to bisect a corpse. If man were God, it would not be necessary that man would be studying himself.

Now, the relationship between God and man is mental. In other words, it is through the mind and not the legs, arms or ears that God communicates or guides the Messenger or Prophet. In turn, the Prophet guides only his people from the inspiration of God. Jesus once said, as he began his pray to God, that he knows God sees and hears him all the time. Jesus did not mean that God sees Jesus through eyes balls or hear him with genuine ears. It is all happening, mentally speaking. Now, let me ask you this specific question. Is the Nation of Islam an organize religion? What say you?

===

Salaam (Peace), Mr. Watley...and thank you for your answer to my question.

You stated that your concept of God "lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God". Ok, we'll use that as a reference.

You also stated that "God is an entity...".

entity:
[1590–1600; < ML entitās, equiv. to enti- (s. of ēns), prp. of esse "to be" + -tās -ty]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.

exist(ence):
[L. existere, exsistere, "to step out or forth, emerge, appear", exist; ex "out" + sistere "to cause to stand, to set, put, place, stand still", fr. stare "to stand": cf. F. exister. See Stand.]
1. to have actual being; be:
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live:
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter:


So then, if we take your statement as true, that "God is an entity", then it is also true that God has "existence", meaning that God "emerged", or "stepped out or forth" from something.

What did God "emerge" or "step forth from"? And how can it be demonstrated that God "emerged" or "stepped forth" from something if God is not different from That which He "emerged" or "stepped forth" from? In other words, there must be some way to differentiate "God" from that which He "emerged" or "stepped forth" from, if we are going to say that God "exists".

To say that God "is an entity", by definition, is to say that God has existence; and to say God has "existence" is to say that God had a "beginning". How did God begin?

Remember, I am using only the words that you gave, as a base for this part of the discussion.

Now, you cite the Holy Qur'an wherein it says that God "begets not, and is not begotten". Well, on the physical level, maybe...in terms of the act of "sex". However, let's have a closer look at the word "beget".

beget:
[O.E. begietan "to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize," from be- + get (q.v.). Sense of "to procreate" is from 1205.]
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause to exist or occur; produce as an effect.


As we can see from the etymology (root meaning) of the word, its original sense is that of "causing to exist or occur", or "producing as an effect".

Thus we can see that God did indeed "beget" the Universe and Man, for did not God "cause" these things "to exist"? Did He not "produce" them as "effects".

You went on to say that "The clear meaning of this concept is that what ever God is, God is not within the boundaries of our three dimensional world, which God created."

Sir, this is not what the Qur'an says.

Consider the following verse:
"And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him -- and We are nearer to him than his life-vein." (50:16)

If MAN is "within the boundaries of our three dimensional world", and Allah (God) says He is nearer to Man than his own life-vein, then we cannot say that Allah (God) is NOT within the same boundaries. Whereever Man is, God is.

You state that "Man is the Product of God's Supreme Intelligence". The Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught us that the Intelligence of God "IS" the Intelligence of Man. God controls the material of the Universe...and Man controls the material of the Universe. Impossible, you say?

Of what is Man's Body composed, but systems?
Of what are Man's systems composed, but organs?
Of what are Man's organs composed, but tissues?
Of what are Man's tissues composed, but cells?
Of what are Man's cells composed, but organelles and molecules?
Of what are Man's organelles and molecules composed, but Atoms?

And of what are Man's atoms composed, but protons, neutrons and electrons? And, what is the difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons that compose Man's body; and those that compose the rest of the known Universe? There is no difference. Our bodies are PART of the Universe.

Where, then is the "I"...the Conscsiousness? Since it cannot be put under a microscope and pointed among the dense cloud of Atoms we call our "bodies", Where is the "I" of Man...and WHAT is it? It is clearly the Intelligence that governs that part of the Universe that we call our "bodies".

Is there more than ONE Force at work in the Universe? Is there more than ONE Intelligence at work in the Universe? If there is only ONE Intelligence at work in the Universe, and WE exist in this Universe and can demonstrate that we possess intelligence, then it is also clear that the Intelligence that Governs the Macrocosm is the same Intelligence that Governs the microcosm.

If, as one of the Attributes of Allah states, He is "the First", then everything that came AFTER Him, necessarily came FROM Him, and if it came FROM Him, then it is a reflection OF Him. Therefore, MAN is a "reflection" of God, and not just ANY reflection either...for the Holy Qur'an states that Allah created Man in "the best make"...meaning Man is the "best" reflection of God.

Second, Allah states in the Qur'an that He created man of black mud, fashioned into shape...and then "breathed into him" of His Spirit. In another place in the Qur'an, Allah says that He Created Man "from a single Essence". Here, we can see that Allah Created Man to be the Carrier of His Own Spirit and Essence. This is "God in Man". This is "the Qur'an's concept of God".

Additionally, in every single Qur'an that is considered "authentic", we can find the words, "Qul Huw Allahu Ahad"..."Say: HE, Allah, is One". ..."HE".

If Allah (God) is not Man, then why does He instruct us to refer to Him in Language that describes a Man? (He, Him, His)

Again, you stated: "what ever God is, God is not within the boundaries of our three dimensional world, which God created." This statement seems to suggest that you, yourself "don't know" what God is. If you admit that you don't know what God IS...how can you say you know what God "is not" (as in "Man").

You say that God is not within the boundaries of the Universe He Created. Why not? If I build a house, I can live in the house that I built. If God Builds or Creates a Universe, why can't He live in that which He Created for Himself?

Lastly, for this part of the discussion, you stated: "the relationship between God and man is mental. In other words, it is through the mind and not the legs, arms or ears that God communicates or guides the Messenger or Prophet."

Again, this is not lining up, completely, the Qur'an's concept of God. Remember, above, it is shown that the relation between God and Man is "spiritual", in that the Spirit of God is IN Man, and is the Essence of Man. Also, in the Holy Qur'an, we read: "We have made some of these messengers to excel others. Among them are they to whom Allah spoke..." (2:253)

If Allah "spoke" to "some" of His Messengers, then He didn't just communicate with them "mentally"...He "spoke" to them. What did Allah "speak" with?

There simply is no Truth to the idea of God being separate from Man. The very notion of being separate from the Creator is what renders man powerless against those who trick him into such false belief.

"Say: He, Allah, is ONE". ...Ok...let's look at it.

If Allah is "ONE", then from that One He Produces "another" (2)...and another (3)...and "from these two...spread many men and women..." Then, just as we can look at the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7....and so on, and see that "1" exists in every number that comes after it... likewise, we can look at "the One God" and His Relation to Man the same way...that God is IN Man, just as "1" is IN the numbers that come from/after "1".

Therefore, we have mathematical, scientific and Qur'anic evidence that there is no separation between God and Man, and there never can be. The question is not whether Man is Connected to God, but whether Man is in Harmony with the Essence and Nature of God within Him (Man).

If you say God is something separate from Man, I say, as the Hon. Elijah Muhammad said, "Show Him to me. I can show you my God. Show me yours." Sincerely,



Greetings, Mr. Watley... You stated:

"As I begin, I will say this to you as a general rule I have come to experience and accept. Almost all Negroes whether they be Muslims or Christians complicates everything, because they see everything complicated. Another nature that the Negro has is that they will argue about anything, just for the sake of arguing. We developed this adverse nature through slavery. This negative nature of ours prevents us from ever uniting. The Willie Lynch letter clearly justifies what I just said."

What does this statement, above, have to do with what we are discussing?



"...there is one amongst us who will firmly and constructively, set us, Black American people, who are descendents of slaves on the path of sovereignty rather than to tie us up in religious rhetoric of the Arabic people religion of Islam as Min. Louis Farrakhan continues to do.

If you recall, Mr. Watley, I asked you recently to NAME this "one amongst us", and you never answered my request. Who is this one you speak of? WHAT IS HIS NAME? WHERE is he located?

It was YOU, Sir, that said your concept of God "lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God". Are YOU tied up in "religious rhetoric of the Arabic people religion of Islam"? Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?

The Hon. Louis Farrakhan is Teaching us the Truth of Islam, that it is NOT an "Arab" religion. Since you stated that your concept of God "lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God", then you must know that Allah refers to Islam as "the Nature made by Allah in which He has Created Man"...Not a "religion" in that narrow sense, but the NATURE in which God Created Man. Therefore, ISLAM -- According to the Qur'an which you say you align your concept of God with -- Is the NATURE of Man...and the Natural Religion (Way of Life) of Man.

You have no logical "leg" to stand on, here, especially when you say you agree with the Qur'an's concept of God...since the Qur'an's concept of God is the Essence of the entire Book.



"...God will do for us the same as when Moses was guided and inspired by God to do for his Hebrew people in Egypt."

I agree with you here...the only exception being in the "tense" used. You are speaking in the "future" tense, that God WILL do; while the Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught and demonstrated...and FULFILLED...the fact that God HAS DONE it already. The History and Work of the Hon. Elijah Muhammad among us is UNMATCHED in its parallel to the Prophetic account of Moses and Aaron and the Children of Israel in Egypt...and that INCLUDES the person and work of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan (Aaron). So we agree in principle on this point...just differ in the time of its fulfillment...and of course the persons who will fulfill it.



"Okay, let me broaden your understand of the word, ‘entity’. Yes, the word entity does mean existence. At this junction the question becomes, are there different sort of existence. Of course there is different sorts of existence. Your mind should be able to comprehend that very easily. What happened is that you have jump to the conclusion that God’s existence is the same as man’s existence. If you cannot understand through common sense reasoning that the essence of one type of existence compared to something else could be entirely different. This is the precise junction of our argument that you are not connecting. You are assuming that the nature of all existence is the same."

Mr. Watley...Again, you are contradicting yourself. You started out by suggesting that I was making things "too complicated" in my explanation of the reality of God. Now, however, you are saying that I "jumped" to a conclusion...meaning, took a mental "short cut".

If you examine my post again, you will see a Mathematical explanation ...from point to point...in accord with easily observable phenomena in Nature, which cannot be said to be a "jump". So, you must decide...either I am "making things too complicated"...or I am "jumping to conclusions".

I simply defined the word "existence" according to the dictionary, including its etymology (root meaning). I know you would like for me to "ignore" the actual meanings of certain words, so it would be easier for me to accept your loose usage of them; but that would be a betrayal of my own intelligence.

WORDS have exact meanings, and if you mean something other than what the dictionary gives as the definition of "entity", then you should use another word. I only took the words YOU used, and opened up their actual meanings...not their "loose usage", which changes from time to time.

The FACT is, either something "exists", or it doesn't. If we say something "exists", we are saying it has "emerged" or "stepped forth" from somewhere, and has become distinctly different from "non-existence"...AND, we are saying that it has a "beginning". Thus, that which "exists" must be "measurable" in some fashion. When you say God is "an Entity", that is a "noun"...and we are taught in school that a "noun" is a "person, place or thing". ALL of these "exist" within 3-dimensional space.



"...the material mass of God’s existence is different from ours. Like wise, out of space Martians material mass is entirely different from ours. I am saying the same thing as the Quran is saying. In essence, the Quran is saying that the nature or material mass of God’s existence is different from ours, and there is nothing in this three-dimensional world you can use to compare God’s existence to. Whatever material mass God is, it is different from ours."

Here, again, you are helping to prove my point. You are stating that "God's existence" has "material mass"...let us look up those words:

material:
[c.1386 (adj.) "pertaining to matter," a term in scholastic philosophy and theology, from L.L. materialis (adj.) "of or belonging to matter," from L. materia "matter, stuff, wood, timber" (see matter).]
–noun
1. the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material.
2. anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.
3. any constituent element.
4. a textile fabric: material for a dress.
5. a group of ideas, facts, data, etc., that may provide the basis for or be incorporated into some integrated work: to gather material for a history of North Carolina; to write material for a comedy show.
6. materials, the articles or apparatus needed to make or do something: writing materials.
7. a person considered as having qualities suited to a particular sphere of activity: The boy's teachers did not think he was college material.
–adjective
8. formed or consisting of matter; physical; corporeal: the material world.
9. relating to, concerned with, or involving matter: material forces.
10. pertaining to the physical rather than the spiritual or intellectual aspect of things: material comforts.
11. pertaining to or characterized by an undue interest in corporeal things; unspiritual.
12. of substantial import; of much consequence; important: Your support will make a material difference in the success of our program.
13. pertinent or essential (usually fol. by to): a question not material to the subject at hand.
14. Law. likely to influence the determination of a case: material evidence.
15. Philosophy. of or pertaining to matter as distinguished from form.

matter:
–noun
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. something that occupies space.
4. a particular kind of substance: coloring matter.
5. a situation, state, affair, or business: a trivial matter.
6. an amount or extent reckoned approximately: a matter of 10 miles.
7. something of consequence: matter for serious thought.
8. importance or significance: decisions of little matter.
9. difficulty; trouble (usually prec. by the): There is something the matter.
10. ground, reason, or cause: a matter for complaint.
11. the material or substance of a discourse, book, etc., often as distinguished from its form.
12. things put down in words, esp. printed: reading matter.
13. things sent by mail: postal matter.
14. a substance discharged by a living body, esp. pus.
15. Philosophy. a. that which by integrative organization forms chemical substances and living things. b. Aristotelianism. that which relates to form as potentiality does to actuality.
16. Law. statement or allegation.
17. Printing. a. material for work; copy. b. type set up.
18. Christian Science. the concept of substance shaped by the limitations of the human mind.

mass:
[c.1400, from O.Fr. masse "lump" (11c.), from L. massa "kneaded dough, lump, that which adheres together like dough," from Gk. maza "barley cake, lump, mass, ball," related to massein "to knead,"]
–noun
1. a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size: a mass of dough.
2. a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body: a mass of sand.
3. aggregate; whole (usually prec. by in the): People, in the mass, mean well.
4. a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity: a mass of errors; a mass of troops.
5. bulk, size, expanse, or massiveness: towers of great mass and strength.
6. Fine Arts.
a. Painting. an expanse of color or tone that defines form or shape in general outline rather than in detail.
b. a shape or three-dimensional volume that has or gives the illusion of having weight, density, and bulk.
7. the main body, bulk, or greater part of anything: the great mass of American films.
8. Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion. Abbreviation: m Compare weight (def. 2), relativistic mass, rest mass.
9. Pharmacology. a preparation of thick, pasty consistency, from which pills are made.
10. the masses, the ordinary or common people as a whole; the working classes or the lower social classes.

So, again, you are contradicting yourself because BOTH "material" and "mass" are defined as "existing" within 3-Dimensional space...just look at the definitions of the words. They suggest "shape" and "form", and "occupying space". Again, these are the words YOU used. I'm only providing the actual definitions for the words...what they actually MEAN. So, like I said before, if you MEAN something different from what these words MEAN, then you need to use different words to get your idea over; because your own words used thus far only confirm what the Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught.

Language is like Mathematics. Every symbol MEANS something, and if we misplace a symbol, or don't understand a symbol, it causes wrong answers and confusion. We can't be "loose" with Language any more than we can be "loose" with Mathematical Calculations...IF we want to get the correct answer.



"I said that the proper definition for God is the entity responsible for all creation. The proper definition of the title of God is the one responsible for all creation. You are not really trying to understand what I am saying as much as you are trying to defeat me. We are on the same sides, supposedly we both want the same thing and that is sovereignty for our people on a portion of this continent we can call our own country with borders. We are far from this goal, intelligently speaking, yet we will get there.
So, entity does mean to existence. However, there are different kinds of existence, and this is what I cannot get across to you."

Pardon me, Sir...but it was YOU who came to me saying that the Hon. Elijah Muhammad was "wrong"...and not God sent, and YOU proceeded to try to "defeat" His arguments. I am only defending the Truth...WITH Truth...and with a little help with your own words...(smile).



"Now, as far as the word begets goes. You are miss applying the word, beget for what you really wants to say, beget is not the word. When you said that God begets the universe and man since God caused the existence of both is wrong. The choice word that you should be using is,’ CREATE’ and not beget or cause. It is the art of good communication to use the right words to convey your thoughts precisely as it lines up with common sense and reality. In other words, God did not cause anything, since God created everything. Human beings cause things to happen. Human beings beget and are begotten. Human beings can be compared to many different things in this three dimensional world. However, the essence of God’s existence, there is no comparison. I cannot make you understand and when it gets beyond my powers then, only Allah’s favors can have you to understand."

Mr. Watley, you say that God didn't "beget", or "cause anything". Are you saying that God did not Cause the Universe to "exist"? Are you saying that God did not "Cause" the Universe to "emerge" or "appear" or "step forth" from non-existence? You say that God "created", but didn't "cause". Ok, let's look at it. Here's what I stated earlier regarding "beget":

beget:
[O.E. begietan "to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize," from be- + get (q.v.). Sense of "to procreate" is from 1205.]
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause to exist or occur; produce as an effect.

As we can see from the etymology (root meaning) of the word, its original sense is that of "causing to exist or occur", or "producing as an effect".

Thus we can see that God did indeed "beget" the Universe and Man, for did not God "cause" these things "to exist"? Did He not "produce" them as "effects".

Now, let's look at the definition of the word "create".

create:
[1350–1400; ME creat (ptp.) < L creātus, equiv. to creā- (s. of creāre to make) + -tus ptp. suffix]
–verb (used with object)
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

Do you see the parallel? Both words carry the same meaning...not according to YOU or ME...but according to the Dictionary, which is a book containing the actual meanings of words used in Language.

According to the definitions...

"beget" means "to cause to exist or occur"
"create" means "to cause to come into being, to cause to happen"

I think we can agree that to "exist" is congruent with to "come into being"; and that "occur" is congruent with "happen".

Thus, we can conclude that both words carry the same meaning "to cause".

Now, in Mathematical terms, we can further prove the statement.

IF a = c, and b = c, then a = b.

And if we set up the following evaluation:

a = beget
b = create
c = cause

Then we can restate the equation like so:

If "beget" = "cause", and "create" = "cause", then "beget" = "create".

So, from your own words, you have confirmed the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's Teaching that there is no separation between God and Man.



"Mr. Reuben, this verse (50:16) is telling you that God created man and how close God is to man. This verse does not say anything about what God’s existence is, and that is what this dialoguing is all about. Please accept this with love; you need to improve the quality of your understanding of things.
The nearness that God is to man, is mentally. The expression of the jugular vein is just an example for the reader to mentally grasp how close God is to man and not that man is God or God is man."

Ok, let's say that I accept that statement. It still is a contradiction of what you initially claimed, that God is "not within the boundaries of the 3-dimensional universe". Here, you are admitting that God is "close" to Man. How can God be "close" to Man if God is somewhere outside the Universe, trillions of miles away? Can you see the contradiction here? It's not making logical sense, Mr. Watley.



When I said that, man is the product of God supreme intelligence, it has nothing to do with the universe. What I said, concerns God’s intelligence and man. You go on about neutrons, protons, and electrons, which have nothing to do with the topic of God’s existence, being different from human existence. You have the tendency to go off on different tangents. For you to bring the universe in, shows me you have serious problems comprehending things.

Mr. Watley, you did say that "man is the product of God's supreme intelligence". You used the word "product", which means "something produced". Therefore, if "man is the product of God's Supreme Intelligence, then God's Supreme Intelligence "produced" Man.

Now, if God's Supreme Intelligence "produced" Man, then let's look at that word "beget" again...

beget - "to cause to exist or occur; PRODUCE as an effect.

Thus, we could also say that God "begat" Man...according to your own word usage, and the DEFINITIONS of those words. Is that NOT what you mean? Then you need to find different words to better express your ideas.



"When the Quran refers to Allah as He, His and Him it is just for clarity of understanding and language."

If God is NOT a "HE", then to use the word "HE" to refer to God is INCORRECT, right? So Please tell me, Mr. Watley, How does using "incorrect" language bring clarity of understanding? Please explain that to me...



"If you have noticed when I refer to God, I do not use any gender."

That's fine...that's your choice to use whatever language you like. However, when you say YOUR concept of God "Lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God", and the Qur'an uses "HE" and "HIM" and "HIS"...gender references...God is referring to HIMSELF in terms of Gender...are you saying that you know better than GOD how to refer to Him? Come now, Mr. Watley, you can't be saying that...can you?



"No, I do not know what God material mass is, but I do know what man’s material mask is. Therefore, I can say with certainty that God is not man. When you know, what something is, you can then exclude everything else. Is not that common sense thinking?"

Yes, when you know what "something" is, you CAN exclude everything else. However, you openly admit that you DO NOT KNOW what God is! So you can't "exclude" ANYTHING from the equation of what God is...because you DON'T KNOW...you admit that, right?

You say you know what MAN is, and if that were true, then you could exclude everything that you know Man is "not". However, do you REALLY know what Man is? You couldn't even bring yourself to confront the reality of Man's physical composition, all the way down to the atoms, where it becomes clear that the Body of Man is just as much a part of the Universe as is any Star in the "heavens", and that the Root of Man is NOT His "body", but a Single, Omni-Present Intelligence that finds its fullest expression IN and THROUGH "Man". You and I are but temporary individual manifestations of that ONE, ETERNAL SPIRIT or INTELLIGENCE, and for Such was the body of man Created, to give Expression to the Intelligence of God. There can be no separation between the two...only disharmony.



"When the Quran says that God spoke, it is a figure of speech. It is not necessary to audibly speak since the Spirit of God inspires and guides the Messenger, mentally.

I am going to close here, because I do not like to write too much, because when I you do, the point get lost in to many words.

So, what I have said is this, God’s existence is different from the existence of man. The verse I used from the Quran, explaining God’s existence cannot be explained any better for the average intelligent person to understand.

Furthermore, I had asked you, do you believe that the religion of Islam that you practice and is preached in Mosque Maryum, if it is an organized religion? Now, bear in mind that what we want more than anything else is sovereignty on a portion of this continent we can call our own country with borders. So again, are the Black Muslims, who are followers of Min. Louis Farrakhan involved in an organized religion and comes to worship every Sunday in Mosque Maryum?

Now I know the answer to my question to you. The answer is absolutely, yes.

What say you?"

Mr. Watley, with all due respect, Sir, it is clear that you are expressing yourself from your own imaginations and not from ACTUAL FACT. Allah, in the Holy Qur'an, uses BOTH words to describe how He communicates to His Messengers. He uses "inspiration" and "spoke". The Arabic word for "inspiration" is no doubt different from the Arabic word for "spoke". What purpose would it serve to use to different words, with different meanings, to express the same idea? That would only cause confusion, and we know that God is not the author of confusion, right? God is not given to the use of loose language like a "figure of speech". Indeed, the maintence of that which He Created demands strict adherence to very precise laws and expressions, Language being one of them. So, we can't say that "spoke" is a "figure of speech". Allah says what He MEANS, and MEANS what He says. It is "fallen man" that gives to the use of loose expression. Indeed, that is exactly why man is "fallen".

Now, regarding your question about whether or not the Nation of Islam is an "organized religion". Sir, have you forgotten that you live in an "Organized" Universe? Have you forgotten that "Organization" is Essential to Life and Progress? When you use the term "organized religion", do you mean as opposed to "dis-organized" religion?

And if GOD has "organized" a religion, then what is wrong with it?

The Nation of Islam is a NATION...based on the Principles of ISLAM, which is, as pointed out in the Holy Qur'an, "the Nature made by Allah in which He has created man."

Do you deny that when you are trying to save a lost and divided people that you must first UNITE and ORGANIZE them according to their NATURE?

If you do not want "Organized" Religion...would you prefer "dis-organized" religion? Or, "Dis-organized Spirituality"? Well you must know that is a lost battle, for we can see from our own experience that an "organized lie" is more powerful than "disorganized" Truth.

So, the real question, Sir, is not whether the Nation of Islam is an "Organized Religion". The REAL question is whether or not the Nation of Islam is founded by GOD on the principles of TRUTH, FREEDOM, JUSTICE and EQUALITY.

I think it has been demonstrated here, by the Help of Allah, that the answer is "YES".

I look forward to your response, Sir.



Greetings Mr. Reuben,

Let me give you an example of what I meant that Negroes complicates anything as well as argue about everything. Take your argument of the word beget, cause and create. The word creates, if used properly, can only be associated with God. Notice number one under the definition, create. It says this, “1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.” Therefore, man cannot create. Man can only beget or cause.

You have taken this simple understanding and complicated it into mathematical formulas and different meanings.

Negroes are a people, who you can give an object to assemble with instructions and recommended tools and that Negro will screw the whole job up. When you examine what was done and why it was done, it will be clear to see that Negro complicated the situation and make it worse. You know that what I am saying is right.

Now, about the one that is amongst us to do what Mr. Elijah and Min. Farrakhan cannot do concerning our sovereignty. My answer is that you will know him when you see and hear him.

Now, this Sunday’s service in Mosque Maryum will be the same old religious rhetoric. Nothing is ever said from the rostrum about the impending sovereignty of Black Americans. Many Black Americans was under the impression from all the barking and the loud noises Mr. Elijah Muhammad was making in the 60s. Everyone, subliminally speaking thought that the NOI was the Big Black Hope. However, since our predicament is as divine as the Hebrew people were, it will take a genuine divine man, as Moses was divine to lead us into sovereignty. We know Mr. Elijah could not have been though one since Mr. Elijah had embraced a pre-existing religion that belongs to Prophet Mohammed tells us that Elijah was not the one. Our first genuine Prophet must be a man null and void of any pre-existing religion or prophets, since we will have all things new. We want our sovereignty and neither the holy Quran nor the Bible has our salvation of sovereignty within them. Our first genuine Prophet will not have nor will he becoming from any pre-existing religious books. Our Prophet will be as new to us as Moses was new to the Hebrew people, except for their religion of Judaism, which was given to them by Abraham.

Now, my agreement with the Quran’s concept of God does not mean I agree with the Quran and Islam in whole for our people. The Quran is a very thick book, and one short Sura does not qualify total agreement. On the other hand, I favor the story of creation in the Bible over the Quran’s version. That does not mean I agree with the Bible in whole for our people either. If you would only give yourself some room in your brains to try to understand what I am saying rather than trying desperately to prove me wrong, we can get somewhere. If I am wrong, it will come out on its own.

Now, you mentioned that Minister Farrakhan is teaching you all the truth of Islam. Prophet Mohammed has already taught his Arab people the truth of Islam. Mr. Farrakhan is out of his bounds of teaching the truth of Islam to Black Americans. Islam is not our religion. Black Americans are not Arabs. Prophet Mohammed originated Islam, Muslim and the holy Quran. Mr. Farrakhan is supposed to be teaching you how to achieve sovereignty on a portion of this continent we can call our country, with borders. However, you and I know he does not have this sort of divine knowledge. Now, I would give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Farrakhan that he means well for us. Nevertheless, he is misleading us, as a people.

Okay, you said that Elijah taught, demonstrated and fulfilled our sovereignty, because the works of Elijah is unmatched. Mr. Reuben let us not play games. We as a people are not sovereign. So please do not confuse Elijah’s works with our sovereignty. I know that you love Mr. Elijah, but loved the truth of the things I say more than you love Elijah or Farrakhan. You do not see sovereignty around us. When Mr. Elijah’s works was at its peak, we were still a subjugated people in White America as we are today.

Mr. Reuben there is different kinds of existence. I am trying to tell you that our kind of existence is different God’s existence. For instance, people who have had near death experience, all of them tells you almost the same thing. They would say that they were out of their body and witnessed the entire operation performed on their body and would say things that they should not know. This is a type of existence that humans do not exist in. How hard it is for you to understand what I am saying. You think that the only type of existence is how you exist. Your type of mind has not the ability to perceive ideas, be objective, inventions or even speculate. You do not have a scientific mind. That is all right because it takes all types of minds to make the world go round.

Now, when I say God’s material mass, it is for clarity of conversation. I am saying that God’s existence is different from ours and not necessarily, that God’s composition is material mass, as we know material mass to be in this three-dimensional world. You hang yourself up on the phase material mass since your mind does not have the ability to understand. I am not saying God’s material mass is this or that, because I do not know. Again, all that I am trying to point out is that God’s existence is different from ours.

I believe that I do express my ideas very well. The problem is that you take what I am saying and complicates the message to the extent that you do not understand the point that is being made. Let me show you another example of how you complicate things for yourself. I had explained to you why the pronouns He, Him and His is used in the Quran, referring to Allah. These pronouns are used for the purpose of clarity of conversation. It is not that the Quran has assigned a gender to Allah. Now, because of my ability to reason, if you should use any of the masculine pronoun to me for Allah my mind does not automatically connects to a man, since I know God is not man, neither could man be God. You have not reached this mental level, yet.

The point that I am making about an organized religion is this. Your organized religion of Islam is not our sovereignty. I will pardon, Bishop TD Jakes, since his organized Christian religion is to bring souls to Christ. The Nation of Islam is supposedly to bring sovereignty to Black Americans who are descendents of slaves. However, all that the NOI is doing is the same thing Bishop TD Jakes and Rev. Billy Graham have been doing to our ignorant people for hundreds of years. Therefore, spare me the rhetoric of Truth, Freedom, Justice and Equality.

I want you to understand that I want sovereignty for my people as Moses wanted the same for his people. The preparation for our sovereignty began not quite two years ago. It began with God’s anointing of our first genuine Messenger.

============

Salaam (Peace) to you, Mr. Watley.

Sir...you are going off topic again. As I said before, at the Root of your disagreement with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad is your inability (refusal) to acknowledge the reality of God. Therefore, before we get caught out in the "branches", we must start at the Root.

So let's stay on topic, shall we?

The Topic is "The Reality of God and Man, and the Relationship between the two." You agreed to take up this topic. Are you now unwilling to continue?

You want me to accept what you call "simple understanding", but understanding starts with "knowledge", and knowledge is the accumulation of usable data, or information.

Therefore, before we can talk about "understanding", we have to make sure we have sufficient "knowledge". Of the Three, "Knowledge", "Wisdom" and "Understanding"; "Knowledge" comes FIRST...because it answers the question "what?". Then comes "Wisdom"...because it answers the question "how?". LAST comes "Understanding", because it answers the question "why?".

To go after the "why?" of a thing, before first establishing the "what?" and the "how?" is ok for elementary understanding, but for FULL Understanding one must start with the Foundation (Knowledge), and then Build Upwards to Understanding.

So, again, before we can settle on a "simple" understanding, we have to have a basic grasp of elements that contribute to understanding.

You may not like the "Mathematical Approach", but it is the best way to ensure accuracy of meaning and to avoid confusion. You want me to forsake the "Mathematical Approach" because, in Truth, you have no defense against it...you cannot argue against it, because it is plain Truth. But you don't want plain Truth, you just want to be seen as "right"; and any Truth that does not agree with your sense of "right", you cannot accept.


Mathematics is an "exacting science", and demands precision of application, as it is with the Science of Life, itself. Show me, Mr. Watley, using the principles of Mathematics, where anything I have said is incorrect. Not according to your self-proclaimed "wisdom", but according to the Universal principles of Mathematics. Show Me...

Now, Mr. Watley, to the topic at hand.

You stated earlier that your concept of God is "in line with the Qur'an's concept of God." You didn't say "in line with Sura 112's explanation of God". You said "the Qur'an's concept of God". The WHOLE of the Qur'an is precisely designed to acquaint the reader with the "concept of God", and more specifically, the "Truth of God".

NOW, however, you are suggesting you do not "agree with the Qur'an and Islam in whole for our people."

Are you one of those persons mentioned in the Qur'an who "believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other"? (2:85) I wouldn't want to be classified as such a person, considering the consequences associated with such classification.

Here is the whole verse:
"85 Yet you it is who would slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits. And if they should come to you as captives you would ransom them, whereas their turning out itself was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of Resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement. And Allah is not heedless of what you do."

Now, you're giving all these "reasons" why you didn't actually mean what you said. You said, "My concept of God lines up with the Quran’s concept of God." You can't discern "the Qur'an's concept of God" by reading "one short chapter". You must read, study, and develop your understanding of the whole Book...not just "part of it".

You never answered my question, Mr. Watley. If God is NOT a "HE", then to use "HE" in reference to God is logically and Mathematically INCORRECT. This is simple reasoning. If you are not a "fish", then to use the word "fish" to describe you would be INCORRECT.

Yet, you say that the Bible and Qur'an use the word "HE" for the purpose of "clarity of conversation".

I ask you, again, Mr. Watley...

"How does using INCORRECT LANGUAGE produce 'clarity of conversation'?"

Please explain...

Additionally, you failed to answer my question as to whether you know better than Allah what language to use to refer to Allah, when Allah uses the Language "HE" and "HIM" in the Holy Qur'an, and these words have MEANING, and they indicate "masculine gender". ALLAH chose this Language, Himself. Now you are so wise that you can change the Language that ALLAH chose? Yet, you say your concept of God "lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God"?

You are either confused, or you are lying. It's that simple.

You openly state that you DON'T KNOW what God is...yet you reject the Wisdom of a Man who says he MET GOD, "FACE TO FACE", as MOSES DID...and JACOB, according to the Bible. Not "face to Spirit", but "face to FACE". You are effectively saying, "I don't know what God is, but nobody can tell me what God is, because I know what God is NOT." Can't you see how foolish this sounds, Sir? And you want me to accept YOUR view, when you can't even answer simple questions without contradicting yourself? No Sir!

I would be a FOOL to accept such confusion as Truth, ESPECIALLY after God has Come in Person and Blessed me to Know the Truth!

If you can accept the Reality of God and Man, and the True Relationship between the Two, then you will see the Hon. Elijah Muhammad, the Hon. Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and its Teaching, and YOURSELF, in the proper light. But in order to do that, you would have to give up your flawed notions of God, and your desire to be seen as some "Messenger"...but I doubt your pride (among other mental aberrations) will allow you to do that on your own.

I give you credit for wanting sovereignty for our people. We all should want that. But that "sovereignty" can only be brought about by the Sovereign Lord of Creation, God Himself, Who Came among us in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad...The Perfected Man, The Enlightened One, and as the Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught us, the "Mahdi" of the Muslims and the "Messiah" of the Christians.

Please consider these words from the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's Book, "Our Saviour Has Arrived":
"Allah is all of us. But we have a Supreme One that we can throw this name "Holy" upon. He is Allah, The One over all of us; The Most Supreme One, the Wisest One, the Mightiest One; The One that Sees and Hears that which we can't see and hear. That Is He. He Is rooted in all of us. Every righteous person is a god. We are all God. When we say "Allah" we mean every righteous person."

Lastly, regarding this "genuine messenger" you speak of... EVERY PROPHET or MESSENGER that Allah(God) ever chose, according to Scripture (with the possible exception of Jonah), immediately began to proclaim their Messengership to the Public, in an attempt to make their presence known, and make God's Will known.

What is YOUR "messenger" waiting on? If he's anointed by God, why doesn't he show himself?

With the world in such turmoil and darkness, why doesn't he show his "light" to the world? What's he waiting for?

If he is a "messenger", when are we going to hear his "message"?

God is ON TIME, and He NEVER waits until things are all but falling apart before He raises a Messenger.

Your man is LATE...and unknown.

Farrakhan is ON TIME...and Well Known...and is PROVING that He is Divinely Guided; not by "claiming" it...but by DEMONSTRATING it.

Guess which one I'm gonna follow...FARRAKHAN! (Til the Wheels fall off!)

Now please, we can go around this bush again and again, but I really am growing tired of it. So, unless you are willing to answer my questions, above, or unless you can provide some scriptural references to support your position, and/or some Universal principles that can clearly show that the Hon. Elijah Muhammad was incorrect, then let's end this.

You cannot defeat the Teachings of the Hon. Elijah Muhammad. Your arguments are poorly constructed, logically, and you switch claims every time you're cornered with Truth.

I'm sure you are sincere in your desire to help our people, but I sense your sincerity is polluted with inordinate ideas of self-importance. You don't prove your "greatness" by criticizing others. You prove your greatness by DOING GREAT WORK.

SHOW YOUR WORKS, or close your mouth.

Sincerely,

Reuben Muhammad
Nation of Islam