When Speaking of Messenger Elijah Muhammad
There are at least three ways most people are viewed. 1. How we see ourselves; 2. How others see us; and 3. How we actually are. Bringing the 3 together produces a coherence that is rarely attained by most, but in Messenger Elijah Muhammad's case, we humbly ask that your judgment be reserved, because the jury is still out as to the profundity, significance and effect of his impact on the world. More
When speaking of Elijah Muhammad, the Last Messenger of Allah, very few are without a personal view or bias. Whether it is influenced by former students such as Minister Malik El Shabazz, also known as Minister Malcolm X, Cassius Clay, formerly known as Muhammad Ali, Louis Wilcox also known as Minister Louis Farrakhan or any host of other notables inside as well as out of the Nation of Islam, it's rare for anyone of age to not have a point of view, whether grounded or not. Movies and other biased media have influenced even those under age or on the outer fringes. With this in mind, our initial approach to the Messenger's history takes the above public predisposition into consideration, which is why we simply want to share this treatise or lengthy discourse from a point of view consistent with the Messenger's 40 year presentation and how he saw himself. For with anyone, there are at least three angles by which we all are viewed. First is how we see ourselves; secondly, how others see us; and thirdly how we actually are. Bringing the three together produces a smoothness or coherence that is rarely attained by most, but in Messenger Elijah Muhammad's case, we humbly request that your judgment be reserved, because the jury is still out as to the profundity, significance and effect of his impact on the world as we know it.
Contrary to many books written, the Messenger is not a product of white racism. This would then pre-suppose that if the whites cease their racist behavior and mistreatment of the so-called Negroes and darker peoples of the world in general, it would negate the message of Messenger Muhammad, but nothing could be further from the truth.
What is fallaciously characterized as racism: the white race's heinous, beast-like behavior, irrespective of time or geography against darker peoples of the planet, is not merely racism, but their very nature. To say it is a character flaw or some character defect, would then suggest that it could be inserted or even removed? This notion is completely false. Regardless of the time you find them in history or land mass, they demonstrate the characteristics of beasts in human form, even towards themselves.
Most of the general books written about Messenger Muhammad would make you believe that the Messenger's attitude is therefore reciprocal of the above and was formed as a result of our chattel slavery and eventual migration from the south to the north of America. We don't discount that his experience in the south had some bearing on his realization, but secondary at best. The universal doctrines and profound supreme wisdom coming from this man cannot be simply written off as a vendetta of an illiterate country boy from the south. The perpetuation of this view is to subtly deny the Messenger's claim that he in fact met God and was raised and missioned by Him. Those who perpetuate this notion do so to mask the truth of his identity or the truth of their own.