|Defamation: The worst form of character assassination|
This, and the next five articles,
As we saw, in Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) the worst form of murder “… includes not only anger, hatred and revenge, but also every other unlawful and unjustifiable motive.” [Emphasis mine.]
Malice is a dominant factor among the motives of those who commit murder. Just how much difference is there in the motives of those who commit premeditated murder, in comparison to the motives of those who commit the worst form of the defamation of another, which is called character assassination? Not much. Furthermore, how much difference is there between one who murders another, in comparison to one who works to motivate another to commit murder? Not much.
The murdered one has no opportunity to restore them to life. The one who is the victim of character assassination, but is not physically dead, may—and I emphasize the word may—be able to restore their good name.
The murdered one can never restore, or be helped to restore his or herself to life. However, if in addition to being murdered, the victim was also slandered and/or libeled, the help of others is an absolute requirement for the restoration of their good name. They cannot do that for themselves.
The one, who has been victimized, through the evil of character assassination, even though alive, is likewise never in the position to have their good name restored without the help of others.
There are people who have been victims of character assassination to the extent that even after decades they went to their graves never able to get back their good name. Their families suffered. Oftentimes many years passed before their good names were restored. Even then that was always inadequate. The victim can never know it.
In America, countless innocent Black people have been murdered for centuries, in every way possible. Most of the murderers were never brought to justice. Black people in America, as an entire people, have been slandered and libeled continuously, beyond that which any other group of people have ever experienced. We were robbed, spoiled, mocked, made the laughing stock of the world and then blamed for our own condition by our tormentors.
Then when a Black man arises, such as the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, with the Million Man March—which in one day changed the perception of billions concerning the Black man in America—white men became more hate filled and angrier than ever, at him and seek his life. They hate the loss of their control over Black people.
So as it has been throughout the history of Black people, under white rule in America, plot after plot after plot after plot was planned and executed and Black people have suffered, suffered and suffered.
Now, Mike Wallace, Mr. Don Hewitt, and the others, who were responsible for the public segment of CBS’s “60 Minutes,” totally and maliciously misrepresented Minister Farrakhan. It was wicked. It was indecent. It was patterned after every other plot of every one of the countless plotters against the rise of Black people towards freedom, justice and quality equality.
I was among those who were present when Sister Attalah Shabazz, Mike Wallace and the “60 Minutes” crew, arrived here in Phoenix, Ariz., at Minister Farrakhan’s home. I was among those present during the entire videotaped discussion/interview between Sister Shabazz, Mike Wallace and Minister Farrakhan. Unlike millions of others, whose views were shaped primarily by white persons of America’s unfair media, I personally witnessed exactly what happened that day.
Before millions on millions of viewers, Mike Wallace gave the false impression that Sister Shabazz sat there during the whole time while Minister Farrakhan dominated the discussion, and finally, only at the end, after she was thoroughly exasperated she spoke up and against Minister Farrakhan. That is not the way it happened. Mike Wallace knew better. Mike Wallace lied!
The people who were directly responsible for the airing of the 12-minute segment that America saw, used this doctored scenario, represented by Mike Wallace, to present that portion of what Minister Farrakhan said that contained the word “complicit.” Why? What is the real explanation for their choice of this particular section from this very long discussion between them?
“Complicit.” Minister Farrakhan did use this word. Why? Mike Wallace and “60 Minutes” wanted the world to focus on this word. Why? Moreover, Almighty God permitted their complete misrepresentation of Minister Farrakhan’s clear intent and his deeper pure motivation, in his use of the word “complicit.” Their presentation was so perverted that it was nearly a total lie. Nevertheless, Allah permitted their lies to go all over the world, even though He had full power to prevent it. Why?
It is a fact that the enemies of God corrupted His revelations through His prophets. They then positioned themselves as God’s true representatives and the ones best qualified to interpret Him, His prophets, and His revelations to others the world over.
From mixed motives, they formed what He revealed through His prophets into a book that they called the Bible. Despite the fact that God, His prophets and the righteous are grossly misrepresented, in the Bible, along with wonderful truths, the Almighty permitted this. Why?
The Bible is a mixture of both the words of God and the words of His enemies. It has an enormous impact on human beings the world over? And, God has permitted this. Why?
I am not saying that white people haven’t reported many truths about Minister Farrakhan. Again, I am not saying that there isn’t plenty of truth in the Bible. I am saying that there is unsurpassed wisdom in God’s permission of the worldwide power of America’s media. And, I am saying that the lies told on Minister Farrakhan through “60 Minutes,” at this time, was strictly by the permission of the unsurpassed wisdom of the Divine Supreme Being.
AND I am saying that there is the most profound relevance between His permission for them to spread the Bible to every part of the earth, to His permission of the spread of information—both good and evil—about and of Minister Farrakhan, throughout the earth. This, of course, includes the latest spread of worldwide disinformation (lies) about him, through CBS.
I am using the word “permission,” respecting God, as I have, because this word implies that there is the deepest significance in whatever He had permitted. In God’s act of “permission” there is always the greatest significance, as He never says or does anything, nor does He ever permit anything, without a meaning that originates within Himself.
There are an increasing number of people of good will, influence and power—in addition to the so-called little people—who are growing to see the correspondence between what is written in the scriptures, and what has and is going on in America—especially as it concerns Minister Farrakhan. This is Allah’s doing.
On the morning of Saturday, May 6, I had a wonderful conversation with Minister Farrakhan. A part of our discussion revolved around the media’s charge that he admitted “complicity”—in the sense of direct involvement—in Malcolm’s murder. He vigorously denied it in the course of clearly defining what the word complicity meant. I vigorously agreed.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “complicity” to mean: “Accomplice; Conspiracy. State of being an accomplice; participation in guilt. Involvement in crime as principal or as an accessory before fact.” Then the reader is told to “See Accomplice; Conspiracy.”
Then under “Accomplice” is: “One who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. [Cases are then cited.] One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an accessory. [Cases are again cited.] Equally concerned in the commission of a crime. [Cases are cited.] One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.”
Then it says: “See also Abet; Aid and abet Accessory.” I did. I won’t go further into these definitions here. You can do that for yourself, if you are so inclined.
Here is my point. Search all you want and into everything that you can, as some have already done. You will find that Minister Farrakhan was and is absolutely innocent of any criminal participation of the death of the father of Sister Attalah Shabazz.
Moreover, the persons responsible for that despicable 12-minute segment of “60 Minutes” are fully aware that they lied on Minister Farrakhan to America and to the world.
But Allah permitted this to happen. Why?
More next issue, Allah willing.