|What is the duty of a ruler?
The late Mr. John F. Kennedy Jr. interviewed the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, on July 31, 1996, in Chicago, Illinois, in The National House of The Nation of Islam.
The expression “the devil’s advocate,” means “a person who advocates an opposing view, as for the sake of argument.”
At one point, in this fascinating interview, Mr. Kennedy took the part of “the devil’s advocate,” when he raised this question:
Mr. Kennedy: The question that I always puzzled over is: whenever there is a presidential election, Reverend Jackson and others say, “The Democratic Party shouldn’t take Blacks for granted.”
But why shouldn’t they? Why should these politicians listen to Black leaders when Blacks vote in minimal proportion; they give little money to campaigns; the benchmarks of political power—the normally accredited benchmarks of political power—doesn’t come out of the Black community. Why should they listen?
Minister Farrakhan: Yes. That’s a very good question. And what does that say? What does that say about our immaturity in giving us the right to vote but not educating us to the responsibility that goes with that right and how to affect those in positions of power?
What you are saying, Mr. Kennedy, in effect is, “You got the right to vote. You’re with us. But we shouldn’t listen to you and pay attention to your legitimate cries because you don’t give money in sufficient numbers. So we’re going to listen to those who give us money.”
That says you cater [to the rich and the powerful] É you care nothing for those who are poor and weak and ignorant. That’s why your country, or I should say it better, our country, is going to hell.
As a Catholic, I believe you’re a Catholic É and a Christian, Jesus talked about judgment and he talked about the separation of nations.
There was a standard that Jesus raised that was the basis of a separation of nations and people, for the judgment of destruction and for the judgment of salvation. It hinged on a question that a disciple asked Jesus.
He said, “Master, when were you hungry and we fed you not? When were you naked and we clothed you not? When were you out of doors and we gave you not shelter? When were you sick and in prison and we ministered not unto you?’”
Jesus answered unto them, saying, “Inasmuch as you have not done this unto the least of these, my brethren, you have not done it also unto me.”
That, my dear Sir, is the failing of the U.S. government.
Mr. Kennedy: That’s why they’re politicians and not men of God because they’re pragmatists.
Minister Farrakhan: If you were a real pragmatic, you would be a man of God É because pragmatism has gotten you into the quagmire that you’re in, that men of God got to come and pull you out of, because your practicality is based on immorality. And that’s why you’re failing.
Look. If you are a politician, and you have these people in your political party, and they are ignorant of how to maximize their vote and their strength, what is your duty? Is your duty to ignore them? To let them cry?
Then somebody who’s strong needs to look out for the weak. And that’s the failure of the government.
Contact The Final Call and get this interview, which is packed with Minister Farrakhan’s insight, ASAP!
According to history, God Almighty raised persons to warn, and advise, and instruct rulers to depart from the self-destructive paths on which they traveled and led their people.
Those who accepted these God- raised-men were blessed. Those who refused such guidance were destroyed.
What is the source for such history? The Bible and the Holy Qur’an. How valid are these books? Has their validity been scientifically established?
Over two billion people claim to be believers in these books, among whom are this world’s rulers.
Are these world rulers, especially in America, governed by the precepts and the historical precedents contained in these books?
Do these rulers believe in the prophecies of these books of the end of time?
In the 24th chapter of Matthew, we read that his (Jesus’) disciples asked him, in part, “É what will be the sign of your return and of the end of the world?” Some translations used the word signs.
America rules the planet earth. Thirteen days from (the time of this writing), the rulers and the ruled of America will celebrate the birth of Jesus. Do their beliefs really include his return? Do they eagerly and joyfully look forward to his return? Are they looking forward to accepting his rule? Will they willingly accept his authority?
Is the sign(s) of his reappearance now present? Is the Messiah here? Where is he?
The scriptures teach that he’ll have a representative. If the Messiah has arrived, who is his representative? Will the rulers accept and help him? What of the millions of Caucasian Shriners?
Jesus gave the signs of the times of his return in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 17 and 21. Read of Ezekiel, chapters 1 and 10. Is Ezekiel’s vision of the wheel-like Mother Plane, which is often seen over America, “a” sign, or “the” sign of his return?
If we are, the Messiah is present. If we are, the Mahdi is present. If we are, Their representative is present. If this is so, this explains the scriptures’ teaching of the total change that would occur at the end of one time, or world, and at the start of another.
If the rulers of America know this to be true, they are engaged in the “mother of all cover-ups,” or one right next to it. To try to hide God from the masses of the earth, after He has arrived, well, this is pretty heavy.
Now, look at the intent and motive of Minister Farrakhan—as well as us all—respecting these most critical of all subjects.
There is more than one source to define these three terms. Here is a part of these definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, The Sixth Edition, on page 810, under “Intent,” reads: “Intent and motives should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted.”
On page 1014, under “Motive” we read: “In common usage intent and ‘motive’ are not infrequently regarded as one and the same thing. In law there is a distinction between them. ‘Motive’ is said to be the moving course, the impulse, the desire that induces criminal action on part of the accused; it is distinguished from ‘intent’ which is the purpose of design with which the act is done, the purpose to make the means adopted effective.”
On page 196, under “Burden of proof,” we read, it’s “the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause.”
Minister Farrakhan is fulfilling one of the greatest assignments any human being has ever been given. We must understand his motives and intentions if we are to improve our efforts to help him.
More next issue, Allah willing.