WEB POSTED 2-1-2000

The good and bad roots of critics and questions

Think over any area of knowledge and skill that you possess. Let’s also say that what you know and can do effectively, you know and can do better than the average person, in that area.

Think over someone who is speaking or writing in that area of knowledge that you possess. Think over them doing so in the public.

Now, because of your expertise, in the area in which the other is speaking (or writing), it becomes clear to you that this person really does not know enough about the subject, to justifiably command the attention and the respect of the public as an authority.

America is supposed to be a place where you can say whatever you please—even about others—within reason or limits. But, as we all know, people speak and write outside of what is reasonable, and even true, every day in this country.

Now, what gives any of us the right to speak or write anything on any subject when we don’t really know what we are speaking or writing about? Nothing! Or, nothing that the universal order of God’s creation would justify, anyway.

Consider this. You are asked to listen or read the words of someone who either presents him or her self as an expert—or is so presented—about this or that person, group or thing. You listen. You read.

Later you learn that this person really did not study their subject as they made you think that they did. Suppose you learn that there is truth mixed with falsehood, and outright lies, with many half-truths, and slander in their presentation? Suppose you further learn that this person was motivated by selfishness; or by jealousy and/or envy; or by an inordinate desire to be known and to be seen as important; or by unbridled hatred born of bias or prejudice that has poisoned and thus warped their thinking and emotions to the point that the person either won’t or can’t examine the roots of the position of him, her (or those) against whom this presenter publicly speaks or writes?

There are many such people. Can we continue to regard such presenters as experts? What ought we ultimately do with their views? Trash them? How? If we are to trash them, how can we do this without trashing ourselves?

This does not mean that we ought to dismiss such presenters altogether, at first anyway. We ought to be able to learn from everyone we see, hear, read of or from, as well as from everything else we see or hear. This, of course, includes those with whom we disagree, even those who lie on us. Study all.

None of us are above criticism except Allah. Fair comment and criticism is beneficial for us all. However, if you make a proper study of the current crop of critics—those who falsely pose as experts on the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan—you’ll find that they generally fall into one of these two categories.

There are those who have not studied the basis of Minister Farrakhan’s (and our) position; or have not done so carefully; or who have dismissed the foundations of what he represents as foolishness; or a waste of their time or as what they superficially call “religion,” which they think they already understand, but don’t.

Then there are those who have made a careful study of Minister Farrakhan, the foundations of what he represents and more. Then they lie. They deliberately distort what they know to be the truth. They do it in such a way so as make it appear to be true, or at least plausible. They make spiritual crack-cocaine.

It is one thing to be sincere and critical, but mistaken about Minister Farrakhan; or about anyone else. It is another thing to be insincere, critical but deliberately false about Minister Farrakhan; or anyone else.

Most of the critics, whose public writings about Minister Farrakhan’s statements in his press conference, that I’ve read so far, represent both categories, plus others with various gradations in the quality of their views.

Frankly, I don’t see that these critics are any wiser or insightful than the critics of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad about whom I wrote in the book titled, “This Is The One,” back in the 1960s.

The same line of reasoning the critics used against the Honorable Elijah Muhammad back then, is used today by the critics of Minister Farrakhan.

They don’t seem to have learned very much from the former failed critics. Maybe they have. However, thus far they have not shown greater insight, if they have gained any.

Based on past experience, I don’t doubt that at the press conference held by Minister Farrakhan were those who have studied him over time and have concluded that he is not only sincere but he is right and that he teaches the truth.

They go back to their newspapers and find that their words are going to be twisted so that what they report will go to the public distorted. One day they may rebel on their editors and the evil policies of the powerful persons in the mega-corporations, which bankroll the newspapers for which they write.

Then there are those whose degree of wickedness won’t allow them to acknowledge the truth of what they see of and hear from Minister Farrakhan.

Then there are those who, due to aspects of their upbringing which they have not yet outgrown, wistfully think that Minister Farrakhan is making a change from that which they think they understand, but don’t, to that which they likewise think they understand, but don’t.

Among these so-called experts on the Nation of Islam are those who don’t want any degree of unity between Imam Warith D. Mohammed and Minister Farrakhan. Oft times it is not that, so much as it is that they wish to continue to smear Minister Farrakhan, in the public, with anything they can.

They seem desperate. Why? Is it that they are scared “to death” over the prospects of unity among Muslims?

In The Atlanta Journal Constitution, dated November 10, 1999, there was an article about a speaking engagement of Imam Warith D. Mohammed at Emory University that night. Part of it contained an interview with the Imam. Here I quote an answer the Imam gave in that interview.

“Q: What is your relationship with Farrakhan?

“A: He’s a great friend of mine. He’s been friends with me all my life. I differ with him on religion, but I never stopped thinking of him as a close friend.”

More next issue, Allah willing.