Salaam (Peace) to all.
As I watched the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, I felt that eventually this "breath of fresh air" of a Candidate would eventually be given the inevitable test...the "FARRAKHAN" test. My intuition served me rightly.
Then a question came to me...
"Why is it that white people in power, in this country, make Minister Farrakhan the litmus test to determine just how they will deal with any black man who seeks to make advancement in their structure?"
"How come I never hear of a black man being given a Jesse test? ...or a Sharpton test? ...or a Jakes, Dollar or Price test?"
Why a "Farrakhan" test?
What is it about Louis Farrakhan, that white people need to know how black people feel about him ...and require that they "denounce and reject" him before they will admit them into their "hallowed halls" of power?
What has Minister Louis Farrakhan done to white people, that they despise him so?
He has not stolen from anyone.
He has not murdered anyone.
He has not encouraged his followers to commit violence against America.
In fact, he has taught us to be lovers and keepers of Peace.
So...what has Farrakhan done to be so despised and rejected by the ruling class of this nation, that black people's attitudes about him matter to them so much?
Consider the following:
JOHN 8
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Som'm to think about...
RM
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
Reporter calls Farrakhan a "figurehead"...
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.
As-Salaam Alaikum (God's Peace be Unto You), Mr. Sosibo.
My name is Reuben Muhammad, and I am a Member of the Nation of Islam under the Leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.
I am writing you in response to a recent article of yours, titled "Nation of Islam comes to town", dated March 1, 2008, and posted at the Mail & Guardian Online website.
I have somewhat researched your name via the internet, and it appears that you are well known in the circles in which you operate, for your journalism and critiques of certain literary works. This also suggests that you are, or should be, familiar with the principles of respectable journalism.
As you know, Mr. Sosibo, with the Divine Gift of Expression comes a Divine Responsibility to make sure that whatever communications or expressions we originate are as factual as possible, since those who are the recipients of our expression are directly affected by the content and quality of what we express.
To bear witness to the point, may I add that the Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught us that the Brain of Man is Created to think Right...which means "on the Basis of Truth". Since our actions, our words, our relationships, our decisions, etc. are all affected by what we THINK, then anything that affects or influences the THINKING of the Human Being also affects the entire Life of the Human being.
As long as the Mind is given Truth to operate on, then Sanity and Order prevail among the Human Family. However, if and/or when "falsehood" is introduced into the Mind, and accepted as Truth, the result is a misperception of reality. Once a person misperceives reality, his or her ability to effectively reason his or her way through Life is likewise hindered, causing him or her to make faulty associations, form faulty beliefs, make faulty decisions, and commit unjust actions against others.
From these principles we can easily see the advantages of being Truthful in our communications, as well as the disadvantages and dangers of being "not" Truthful in our communications...dangers which are all the more exaggerated in times of war and conflict (such as the present), where too many people are willing to sacrifice Truth - and apparently the lives and/or reputations of innocent people - for the sake of having their personal agendas prevail.
Please consider these words by the Hon. Elijah Muhammad regarding "Hiding the Truth":
"Hiding the truth is a very serious thing to do. It causes harm and disappointment and causes one to be misled. It causes loss of property and life. It causes loss of friendship, beloved ones and loss of confidence and trust. In court, it causes heavy penalties and someone's being sent to prison or to death for that of which they are innocent."
-Our Saviour Has Arrived, Chapter 4
Why am I bringing these things to your attention? It is because I found your article to be flawed in many respects, and an irresponsible attempt to express your position -- an attempt which could easily mislead your readers as to the Truth of the subject about which you wrote. There is much "false data" in your article which I believe needs to be addressed.
By "false data", I mean...
Data that is completely false, or
Data that is partly false, partly true, or
Data that is true, but incomplete, or
Data that is true and complete, but misrepresented or misunderstood, or
Any combination of the above...
...which inevitably causes the Mind to draw false inferences from the data provided.
You began your article by saying that "The Nation of Islam, a religious, social and political organisation most popular in the United States, has proclaimed that black people in South Africa need to reconsider their future under democratic rule, which, it says, is a hindrance to their collective prosperity."
You allege, by the structure of the statement, that "the Nation of Islam", as an Institution, holds this position. Yet, you do not cite any words of the Leader and National Representative of the Nation of Islam - the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan - to support this claim. Why not?
Instead, you referenced the words of one "Sultan Ala Deen", whom you assert is a "representative" of the Nation of Islam; but you fail to mention in what capacity he "represents" the Nation of Islam. This creates a false association where the reader is now programmed to equate every subsequent statement by Bro. Sultan with "the official position of the Nation of Islam."
In truth, every Member of the Nation of Islam carries as part of his or her function, the responsibility to properly "represent" the Nation of Islam, to which he or she belongs; but NONE of us are qualified to Officially "represent" the position of "the Nation of Islam" EXCEPT the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan...and whomsoever He designates to do so.
Did you take time to verify Brother Sultan's relation to Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam before you printed this article?
Did you attempt to contact the Hon. Louis Farrakhan and verify the "position" you attribute to the Hon. Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam by virtue of Brother Sultan's alleged comments?
If you did, then why did you not post the words of confirmation from the Hon. Louis Farrakhan?
If you did not, why not?
Why did you not post exactly what Bro. Sultan said on the issue, instead of posting your "summary" of what he said, forcing the reader to trust your interpretation? How do we know the few words which you cited of his comments are in context?
In my humble opinion, Mr. Osibo, this is irresponsible, at best, given the implications of having alleged comments of a reported "member" of the Nation of Islam transformed into the "Official Position" of "the Nation of Islam", without first verifying such position WITH "the Nation of Islam" and its Leader - the Honorable Louis Farrakhan.
The next, and most crucial, error in your article is the way in which you represent the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, himself. You referred to our Leader and Teacher as the Nation of Islam's "figurehead".
figurehead: a person who is head of a group, company, etc., in title but actually has no real authority or responsibility.
I beg your Pardon!
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is regarded by us, IN the Nation of Islam as the Duly and Rightfully Designated Supreme Authority in the Nation of Islam; said Authority being Bestowed upon him by Almighty God, Allah, Himself; and His Christ - the Honorable Elijah Muhammad! THIS is OUR position, which is verified by the Scriptures of the Holy Qur'an and Bible, and verified by the Work and History of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan in comparison with such Scriptures.
Why did you use the word "figurehead" with regard to Minister Farrakhan, when you well know what the word means and implies?
How did you come to evaluate the Hon. Louis Farrakhan, a Man who is well known and much loved as a Champion for Freedom, Justice and Equality for Black People, not only in America, but even across the continent of Africa, and reasoned that he is but a "figurehead"? By what standard have you evaluated such a Man? Please be specific!
What perception of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan are you attempting to produce in the minds of your readers? It is obvious that you want your readers to accept YOUR perception of Minister Farrakhan as their own. This is DANGEROUS! Your perception of Minister Farrakhan is incorrect!
What do you think will be the effect of imposing your incorrect perception on the Minds of Human Beings whom you did not Create?
Considering the Supreme Value of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan to the Survival of our People all over this planet, as ordained by God, Himself; how would you categorize your article?
Will it help your readers to see this Divinely Guided Man more clearly? ...or Less clearly?
Do you want to be responsible for corrupting the perceptions of your readers, ill-affecting their Minds with false information so that they misperceive the Man that God has Given them for their Guidance? Do you want that burden on your head? Do you wish to be an opponent of God's Will?
In my humble opinion, Mr. Osibo, the PROPER thing to do...the Right and Wise thing to do...would be to Contact the Headquarters of the Nation of Islam and get verification from the Honorable Louis Farrakhan's Office before posting the words of a "member" (if he is, in fact, a Member) as the "official position" of the "Nation of Islam".
Also, I, personally, find your reference to the Honorable Louis Farrakhan - the Man whom God has used to Inspire and Save the lives of untold Millions of Human Beings - as a mere "figurehead" HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, and I am DEMANDING a PUBLIC APOLOGY from YOU and from the "Mail & Guardian Online" Website for publishing such an insulting reference to our Leader and Teacher.
I am confident that I am not the only one who holds this position.
I pray that you will carefully consider the seriousness of this matter, and take the appropriate action(s).
Respectfully,
Reuben Muhammad
I bear witness that there is no god but Allah,
And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
As-Salaam Alaikum (God's Peace be Unto You), Mr. Sosibo.
My name is Reuben Muhammad, and I am a Member of the Nation of Islam under the Leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.
I am writing you in response to a recent article of yours, titled "Nation of Islam comes to town", dated March 1, 2008, and posted at the Mail & Guardian Online website.
I have somewhat researched your name via the internet, and it appears that you are well known in the circles in which you operate, for your journalism and critiques of certain literary works. This also suggests that you are, or should be, familiar with the principles of respectable journalism.
As you know, Mr. Sosibo, with the Divine Gift of Expression comes a Divine Responsibility to make sure that whatever communications or expressions we originate are as factual as possible, since those who are the recipients of our expression are directly affected by the content and quality of what we express.
To bear witness to the point, may I add that the Hon. Elijah Muhammad taught us that the Brain of Man is Created to think Right...which means "on the Basis of Truth". Since our actions, our words, our relationships, our decisions, etc. are all affected by what we THINK, then anything that affects or influences the THINKING of the Human Being also affects the entire Life of the Human being.
As long as the Mind is given Truth to operate on, then Sanity and Order prevail among the Human Family. However, if and/or when "falsehood" is introduced into the Mind, and accepted as Truth, the result is a misperception of reality. Once a person misperceives reality, his or her ability to effectively reason his or her way through Life is likewise hindered, causing him or her to make faulty associations, form faulty beliefs, make faulty decisions, and commit unjust actions against others.
From these principles we can easily see the advantages of being Truthful in our communications, as well as the disadvantages and dangers of being "not" Truthful in our communications...dangers which are all the more exaggerated in times of war and conflict (such as the present), where too many people are willing to sacrifice Truth - and apparently the lives and/or reputations of innocent people - for the sake of having their personal agendas prevail.
Please consider these words by the Hon. Elijah Muhammad regarding "Hiding the Truth":
"Hiding the truth is a very serious thing to do. It causes harm and disappointment and causes one to be misled. It causes loss of property and life. It causes loss of friendship, beloved ones and loss of confidence and trust. In court, it causes heavy penalties and someone's being sent to prison or to death for that of which they are innocent."
-Our Saviour Has Arrived, Chapter 4
Why am I bringing these things to your attention? It is because I found your article to be flawed in many respects, and an irresponsible attempt to express your position -- an attempt which could easily mislead your readers as to the Truth of the subject about which you wrote. There is much "false data" in your article which I believe needs to be addressed.
By "false data", I mean...
Data that is completely false, or
Data that is partly false, partly true, or
Data that is true, but incomplete, or
Data that is true and complete, but misrepresented or misunderstood, or
Any combination of the above...
...which inevitably causes the Mind to draw false inferences from the data provided.
You began your article by saying that "The Nation of Islam, a religious, social and political organisation most popular in the United States, has proclaimed that black people in South Africa need to reconsider their future under democratic rule, which, it says, is a hindrance to their collective prosperity."
You allege, by the structure of the statement, that "the Nation of Islam", as an Institution, holds this position. Yet, you do not cite any words of the Leader and National Representative of the Nation of Islam - the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan - to support this claim. Why not?
Instead, you referenced the words of one "Sultan Ala Deen", whom you assert is a "representative" of the Nation of Islam; but you fail to mention in what capacity he "represents" the Nation of Islam. This creates a false association where the reader is now programmed to equate every subsequent statement by Bro. Sultan with "the official position of the Nation of Islam."
In truth, every Member of the Nation of Islam carries as part of his or her function, the responsibility to properly "represent" the Nation of Islam, to which he or she belongs; but NONE of us are qualified to Officially "represent" the position of "the Nation of Islam" EXCEPT the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan...and whomsoever He designates to do so.
Did you take time to verify Brother Sultan's relation to Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam before you printed this article?
Did you attempt to contact the Hon. Louis Farrakhan and verify the "position" you attribute to the Hon. Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam by virtue of Brother Sultan's alleged comments?
If you did, then why did you not post the words of confirmation from the Hon. Louis Farrakhan?
If you did not, why not?
Why did you not post exactly what Bro. Sultan said on the issue, instead of posting your "summary" of what he said, forcing the reader to trust your interpretation? How do we know the few words which you cited of his comments are in context?
In my humble opinion, Mr. Osibo, this is irresponsible, at best, given the implications of having alleged comments of a reported "member" of the Nation of Islam transformed into the "Official Position" of "the Nation of Islam", without first verifying such position WITH "the Nation of Islam" and its Leader - the Honorable Louis Farrakhan.
The next, and most crucial, error in your article is the way in which you represent the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, himself. You referred to our Leader and Teacher as the Nation of Islam's "figurehead".
figurehead: a person who is head of a group, company, etc., in title but actually has no real authority or responsibility.
I beg your Pardon!
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is regarded by us, IN the Nation of Islam as the Duly and Rightfully Designated Supreme Authority in the Nation of Islam; said Authority being Bestowed upon him by Almighty God, Allah, Himself; and His Christ - the Honorable Elijah Muhammad! THIS is OUR position, which is verified by the Scriptures of the Holy Qur'an and Bible, and verified by the Work and History of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan in comparison with such Scriptures.
Why did you use the word "figurehead" with regard to Minister Farrakhan, when you well know what the word means and implies?
How did you come to evaluate the Hon. Louis Farrakhan, a Man who is well known and much loved as a Champion for Freedom, Justice and Equality for Black People, not only in America, but even across the continent of Africa, and reasoned that he is but a "figurehead"? By what standard have you evaluated such a Man? Please be specific!
What perception of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan are you attempting to produce in the minds of your readers? It is obvious that you want your readers to accept YOUR perception of Minister Farrakhan as their own. This is DANGEROUS! Your perception of Minister Farrakhan is incorrect!
What do you think will be the effect of imposing your incorrect perception on the Minds of Human Beings whom you did not Create?
Considering the Supreme Value of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan to the Survival of our People all over this planet, as ordained by God, Himself; how would you categorize your article?
Will it help your readers to see this Divinely Guided Man more clearly? ...or Less clearly?
Do you want to be responsible for corrupting the perceptions of your readers, ill-affecting their Minds with false information so that they misperceive the Man that God has Given them for their Guidance? Do you want that burden on your head? Do you wish to be an opponent of God's Will?
In my humble opinion, Mr. Osibo, the PROPER thing to do...the Right and Wise thing to do...would be to Contact the Headquarters of the Nation of Islam and get verification from the Honorable Louis Farrakhan's Office before posting the words of a "member" (if he is, in fact, a Member) as the "official position" of the "Nation of Islam".
Also, I, personally, find your reference to the Honorable Louis Farrakhan - the Man whom God has used to Inspire and Save the lives of untold Millions of Human Beings - as a mere "figurehead" HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, and I am DEMANDING a PUBLIC APOLOGY from YOU and from the "Mail & Guardian Online" Website for publishing such an insulting reference to our Leader and Teacher.
I am confident that I am not the only one who holds this position.
I pray that you will carefully consider the seriousness of this matter, and take the appropriate action(s).
Respectfully,
Reuben Muhammad
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Is Louis Farrakhan "Anti-Semitic"?
Salaam (Peace) to all.
In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Hon. Louis Farrakhan's expression of admiration for Sen. Barack Obama, which involves the age-old accusation that Minister Farrakhan has made "anti-Semitic" remarks in the past, I would like to offer the following for consideration:
In order to rightly understand the term "anti-Semite", one must first rightly understand what a "Semite" is.
Semite:
1) 1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited.2) A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
What has the Hon. Louis Farrakhan said that was against the "Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians"?
How many of the above named peoples have accused Minister Farrakhan of being "anti-Semitic"?
Notice that "Europeans" are not included in this definition, and that the ones who are crying out "anti-Semite" with regard to Minister Farrakhan are EUROPEAN "Jews", who are not "Semitic" at all, but are European CONVERTS to the faith of Judaism.
Many have based their entire charge against the Hon. Louis Farrakhan of "anti-Semitism" on what they HEARD from some other source of the Minister's alleged reference to the religion of Judaism as a "gutter religion" or "dirty religion". However, when pressed to cite exactly what the Minister said on the issue, they begin fumbling over their thoughts and words, unable to prove the claim they have made.
Here is a citation of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan's actual words regarding the above:
"That nation called Israel has not had any peace in 40 years, and she will never have any peace; for there can be no peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying, murder, and deceipt, and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His Holy and Righteous Name."
Nowhere did the Hon. Louis Farrakhan express that "Judaism" is a "gutter" or "dirty" religion. What he expressed was, that which the Israelis were doing "under the shield" of "Judaism" was a "dirty" practice; and, in fact, they were "dirtying" their own religion by their unjust and wicked practices.
With all this considered, the question then should not be "is Louis Farrakhan anti-semtic"; but the question should be "Is Louis Farrakhan CORRECT in his estimation of the problem in that region of the world?"
If the Hon. Louis Farrakhan is to be classified as "anti-semitic" for condemning those who call themselves Jews, who are guilty of wicked behavior; then JESUS should be labeled likewise an "Anti-Semite", for he plainly referred to the Jews as "devils", or the children of the Devil, and the "Synagogue of Satan".
Was Jesus of Nazareth "anti-semitic"?
Is the New Testament "anti-semitic"?
Absolutely Not! Neither is the Hon. Louis Farrakhan!
If I condemn a Semite for the evil that he has committed, don't call me "anti-semitic", call me "anti evil".
The Hon. Louis Farrakhan condemns "evil", no matter who is the perpetrator of it.
He condemns the evils committed by Black people. Is he "Anti-Black"?
He condemns the evils committed by Arabs. Is he "Anti-Arab"?
He condemns the evils committed by Muslims. Is he "Anti-Muslim"?
He condemns evil, from the basis of Truth -- as we ALL should -- no matter who is guilty of it. Why should the Israelis and Zionists be exempt from criticism?
There are many Jews who oppose and criticize the State of Israel. Are THEY "Anti-Semitic"?
Come, now, let us Reason together.
RM
In light of the recent controversy surrounding the Hon. Louis Farrakhan's expression of admiration for Sen. Barack Obama, which involves the age-old accusation that Minister Farrakhan has made "anti-Semitic" remarks in the past, I would like to offer the following for consideration:
In order to rightly understand the term "anti-Semite", one must first rightly understand what a "Semite" is.
Semite:
1) 1847, "Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan," from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem "Shem," one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense "Jewish," but not historically so limited.2) A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
What has the Hon. Louis Farrakhan said that was against the "Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians"?
How many of the above named peoples have accused Minister Farrakhan of being "anti-Semitic"?
Notice that "Europeans" are not included in this definition, and that the ones who are crying out "anti-Semite" with regard to Minister Farrakhan are EUROPEAN "Jews", who are not "Semitic" at all, but are European CONVERTS to the faith of Judaism.
Many have based their entire charge against the Hon. Louis Farrakhan of "anti-Semitism" on what they HEARD from some other source of the Minister's alleged reference to the religion of Judaism as a "gutter religion" or "dirty religion". However, when pressed to cite exactly what the Minister said on the issue, they begin fumbling over their thoughts and words, unable to prove the claim they have made.
Here is a citation of the Hon. Louis Farrakhan's actual words regarding the above:
"That nation called Israel has not had any peace in 40 years, and she will never have any peace; for there can be no peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying, murder, and deceipt, and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His Holy and Righteous Name."
Nowhere did the Hon. Louis Farrakhan express that "Judaism" is a "gutter" or "dirty" religion. What he expressed was, that which the Israelis were doing "under the shield" of "Judaism" was a "dirty" practice; and, in fact, they were "dirtying" their own religion by their unjust and wicked practices.
With all this considered, the question then should not be "is Louis Farrakhan anti-semtic"; but the question should be "Is Louis Farrakhan CORRECT in his estimation of the problem in that region of the world?"
If the Hon. Louis Farrakhan is to be classified as "anti-semitic" for condemning those who call themselves Jews, who are guilty of wicked behavior; then JESUS should be labeled likewise an "Anti-Semite", for he plainly referred to the Jews as "devils", or the children of the Devil, and the "Synagogue of Satan".
Was Jesus of Nazareth "anti-semitic"?
Is the New Testament "anti-semitic"?
Absolutely Not! Neither is the Hon. Louis Farrakhan!
If I condemn a Semite for the evil that he has committed, don't call me "anti-semitic", call me "anti evil".
The Hon. Louis Farrakhan condemns "evil", no matter who is the perpetrator of it.
He condemns the evils committed by Black people. Is he "Anti-Black"?
He condemns the evils committed by Arabs. Is he "Anti-Arab"?
He condemns the evils committed by Muslims. Is he "Anti-Muslim"?
He condemns evil, from the basis of Truth -- as we ALL should -- no matter who is guilty of it. Why should the Israelis and Zionists be exempt from criticism?
There are many Jews who oppose and criticize the State of Israel. Are THEY "Anti-Semitic"?
Come, now, let us Reason together.
RM
Friday, January 11, 2008
Mental Illness and Black People
I read an article the other day that asked a question about mental illness among African Americans. Since I am a so-called "African American", and since I work in the field of Mental Health, this article was of particular interest to me.
The more I reflected on the question, the more I became convinced of a certain reality -- that whether we want to believe it or not, mental illness is more prevalent among our people than we realize.
Like many physical illnesses, mental illness can manifest in many different forms and degrees...sometimes quite noticeable, sometimes barely noticeable. In fact, it is possible for an entire society to be "mentally ill" and yet regard itself as "sane"; while often labelling the few truly sane among them "insane" or "mentally ill".
There is no way that we, as a people, could experience over 400 years of the worst treatment ever inflicted on any people, and not fall into some form or degree of mental illness.
The GOOD NEWS is that, in most cases, the remedy is simple...although often very time consuming.
What IS "mental illness", exactly?
mental:
1) Of, or relating to, the mind;
2) Of, or relating to, the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to his environment.
mind:
the record or collective of experiences of a Being by which he or she assigns meaning to his or her subsequent experiences, and to his or her own existence; and by which he or she makes evaluations and decisions concerning his or her past, present and future.
ill(ness):
1) involving or demonstrating dysfunction or difficulty;
2) not optimum; unfavorable.
Therefore, "mental illness" is a state or condition wherein a Being has consistent difficulty (or the inability) responding appropriately to his or her environment or surroundings. "Appropriately" meaning "in a manner that promotes the well being of Self and Others."
If a Being can accurately perceive a situation in his or her environment, and then appropriately respond to the situation, that Being is said to be "rational", or, responding exactly (in a "one to one" ratio) to the demands of the situation, so that the situation ceases to exist, and thus requires no further attention. This is also known as "sanity", and Sanity is absolutely dependent upon the presence and proper understanding of TRUTH.
With the exception of cases where there is physical damage to the Brain, Mental Illness is the result of accepting "false data" as "true data".
What is “false data”? False Data can be any information in the Mind that does not allow a Being to produce a “true” or appropriate answer to a given question or problem.
False data can be said to be of four basic types:
1) Data that is completely false.
2) Data that is partly true and partly false.
3) Data that is true but incomplete.
4) Data that is true and complete, but misunderstood.
Much, if not MOST, of our fundamental assumptions about Life, about Self, about Love, etc., are based on “false data” that has been accepted as True. This presents a problem for a Mind that is Designed to function on TRUTH.
If one could locate all the "false" data that one has accepted as "true", and then replace that false data with "true" data, the result would be a complete return to sanity. But, as with any process of healing, it requires great amounts of honesty, courage and commitment.
Just as “mental illness” is produced by the acceptance of falsehood as Truth, so “mental HEALTH” can be restored and maintained by the acceptance and understanding of TRUTH.
Please Click Here for more Info.
RM
The more I reflected on the question, the more I became convinced of a certain reality -- that whether we want to believe it or not, mental illness is more prevalent among our people than we realize.
Like many physical illnesses, mental illness can manifest in many different forms and degrees...sometimes quite noticeable, sometimes barely noticeable. In fact, it is possible for an entire society to be "mentally ill" and yet regard itself as "sane"; while often labelling the few truly sane among them "insane" or "mentally ill".
There is no way that we, as a people, could experience over 400 years of the worst treatment ever inflicted on any people, and not fall into some form or degree of mental illness.
The GOOD NEWS is that, in most cases, the remedy is simple...although often very time consuming.
What IS "mental illness", exactly?
mental:
1) Of, or relating to, the mind;
2) Of, or relating to, the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to his environment.
mind:
the record or collective of experiences of a Being by which he or she assigns meaning to his or her subsequent experiences, and to his or her own existence; and by which he or she makes evaluations and decisions concerning his or her past, present and future.
ill(ness):
1) involving or demonstrating dysfunction or difficulty;
2) not optimum; unfavorable.
Therefore, "mental illness" is a state or condition wherein a Being has consistent difficulty (or the inability) responding appropriately to his or her environment or surroundings. "Appropriately" meaning "in a manner that promotes the well being of Self and Others."
If a Being can accurately perceive a situation in his or her environment, and then appropriately respond to the situation, that Being is said to be "rational", or, responding exactly (in a "one to one" ratio) to the demands of the situation, so that the situation ceases to exist, and thus requires no further attention. This is also known as "sanity", and Sanity is absolutely dependent upon the presence and proper understanding of TRUTH.
With the exception of cases where there is physical damage to the Brain, Mental Illness is the result of accepting "false data" as "true data".
What is “false data”? False Data can be any information in the Mind that does not allow a Being to produce a “true” or appropriate answer to a given question or problem.
False data can be said to be of four basic types:
1) Data that is completely false.
2) Data that is partly true and partly false.
3) Data that is true but incomplete.
4) Data that is true and complete, but misunderstood.
Much, if not MOST, of our fundamental assumptions about Life, about Self, about Love, etc., are based on “false data” that has been accepted as True. This presents a problem for a Mind that is Designed to function on TRUTH.
If one could locate all the "false" data that one has accepted as "true", and then replace that false data with "true" data, the result would be a complete return to sanity. But, as with any process of healing, it requires great amounts of honesty, courage and commitment.
Just as “mental illness” is produced by the acceptance of falsehood as Truth, so “mental HEALTH” can be restored and maintained by the acceptance and understanding of TRUTH.
Please Click Here for more Info.
RM
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
"Regardless of Whom or What"
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.
Salaam Family!
In our Lessons from Master Fard Muhammad, we read the following:
11. Have you not learned that your Word shall be Bond, regardless of whom or what?
Ans. Yes. My Word is Bond, and Bond is Life; and I will give my Life before my Word shall fail.
Word - the spoken or written expression of a concept, idea or intention.
Bond - a binding agreement; a tie; a secure connection; an essential or fundamental link or affinity.
Life - purposeful or intelligent activity and the results or effects produced by such activity.
It has been my own personal experience and observation that, "Regardless of whom or what", each of us is bound, or securely connected -- by the law of cause and effect -- to every intention that we formulate and commit to; and the quality of our lives is directly affected by our ability to fulfill the intentions that we formulate and commit to.
The more unfulfilled intentions one has, the lower will be his quality of life, the poorer will be his performance in life, and the more dissatisfied he will be with his life.
This principle can be seen in the example of a computer that has trouble performing the task at hand (present) because there are too many "background" (past) programs running.
To start one program (intention) and then to start a second program without ever closing the first one; and then to start a third program without ever closing the first and second ones, and so on...creates a host of unfulfilled intentions that affect the Awareness of a person in much the same way that excess "background programs" affect the "awareness" or ability of a computer: they tie up the person's attention (memory) in the past, making it increasingly difficult to perform the task at hand, or to be in "present time", causing the "user" to often become dissatisfied, disappointed, and even depressed; unless he or she knows how to identify and "close" those mental "background programs" -- unfulfilled intentions.
This is one reason why it is so very important to implement the process of Atonement, and the Practice of Lawful Dialogue in our own personal lives -- to help relieve ourselves of the psychological burden of the unfulfilled intentions, unkept words, and broken promises which tie up so much of our awareness in the past, that we are barely functioning in the Present; and we can hardly even envision a future for ourselves.
Another negative effect of failing to complete or fulfill our intentions, is that after a while, it it sets up in our minds a "habit" of "not fulfilling" our intentions; and so we become chronic "starters", but weak "finishers"; which could easily convince a person that he or she "can't" finish or fulfill his or her own intentions; and then becomes dependent on "someone else" to motivate him/her or to tell him/her what to do.
Let us be careful what intentions we formulate and commit to; but when we DO commit to an intention, let us work hard to fulfill it -- not only for the sake of keeping the trust of those we interact with, but also for the sake of our own sanity and quality of life.
Let us Strive, always, to make our word Bond, regardless of whom or what!
Respectfully,
RM
Salaam Family!
In our Lessons from Master Fard Muhammad, we read the following:
11. Have you not learned that your Word shall be Bond, regardless of whom or what?
Ans. Yes. My Word is Bond, and Bond is Life; and I will give my Life before my Word shall fail.
Word - the spoken or written expression of a concept, idea or intention.
Bond - a binding agreement; a tie; a secure connection; an essential or fundamental link or affinity.
Life - purposeful or intelligent activity and the results or effects produced by such activity.
It has been my own personal experience and observation that, "Regardless of whom or what", each of us is bound, or securely connected -- by the law of cause and effect -- to every intention that we formulate and commit to; and the quality of our lives is directly affected by our ability to fulfill the intentions that we formulate and commit to.
The more unfulfilled intentions one has, the lower will be his quality of life, the poorer will be his performance in life, and the more dissatisfied he will be with his life.
This principle can be seen in the example of a computer that has trouble performing the task at hand (present) because there are too many "background" (past) programs running.
To start one program (intention) and then to start a second program without ever closing the first one; and then to start a third program without ever closing the first and second ones, and so on...creates a host of unfulfilled intentions that affect the Awareness of a person in much the same way that excess "background programs" affect the "awareness" or ability of a computer: they tie up the person's attention (memory) in the past, making it increasingly difficult to perform the task at hand, or to be in "present time", causing the "user" to often become dissatisfied, disappointed, and even depressed; unless he or she knows how to identify and "close" those mental "background programs" -- unfulfilled intentions.
This is one reason why it is so very important to implement the process of Atonement, and the Practice of Lawful Dialogue in our own personal lives -- to help relieve ourselves of the psychological burden of the unfulfilled intentions, unkept words, and broken promises which tie up so much of our awareness in the past, that we are barely functioning in the Present; and we can hardly even envision a future for ourselves.
Another negative effect of failing to complete or fulfill our intentions, is that after a while, it it sets up in our minds a "habit" of "not fulfilling" our intentions; and so we become chronic "starters", but weak "finishers"; which could easily convince a person that he or she "can't" finish or fulfill his or her own intentions; and then becomes dependent on "someone else" to motivate him/her or to tell him/her what to do.
Let us be careful what intentions we formulate and commit to; but when we DO commit to an intention, let us work hard to fulfill it -- not only for the sake of keeping the trust of those we interact with, but also for the sake of our own sanity and quality of life.
Let us Strive, always, to make our word Bond, regardless of whom or what!
Respectfully,
RM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)