About an hour or so, after my telephone conversation with the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, (on May 13), during which we discussed what we were learning of the news reports for the "60 Minutes" program (due to be aired the next day) I saw one of their promotional pieces on the Net.

As I looked at it, it was clear to me that they were going to misrepresent Minister Farrakhan and what really occurred during the discussion. Then I heard an interview with Mike Wallace on a radio program. That reinforced what I expected the public to see the next day.

I then took time to reflect over what really took place during that long interview, which I was privileged to witness. I thought of the millions who would not be able to know the truth. So I began to think over what I might write for The Final Call to help spread the truth.

All of the headlines of the many newspapers across America, I�ve seen, so far, are misleading the public about what Minister Farrakhan actually said in that interview.

Here is an example of a headline on a related case to what was done to Minister Farrakhan, and we who follow him. It helps make my point. This particular headline reads: " �Jesus� Loses Defamation Suit Against Churches."

The Reuters news service, on May 15, indicates that this article originated in Munich, Germany. It read: "Three theologians representing Jesus Christ sued the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches for bringing his name into disrepute�and lost in a German courtroom.

"The theologians, calling themselves �brothers in spirit� of Christ, sued under a law that lets people defend their dead relatives� reputations. They argued that the churches� role in wars had disqualified them calling themselves �Christians.�

" �In view of their bloody history, it�s a fraud,� one told the court in the staunchly Catholic Bavarian city of Munich.

"The judge threw out the case on the grounds that the German constitution guaranteed religious freedom�but not before he pointed out that, since Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead, his �brothers� had no right to bring a suit on his behalf."

That is the full "news" item the Reuters news service sent throughout the world. Is the headline supported by the full story? No. Jesus sued no one. So how could he have lost the case? So what was the motive of those who made the false headline?

Nor did the very large body of news stories�which were spread throughout every city in America and the world�that support the slanderous headlines about what Minister Farrakhan actually said in that interview.

On Wednesday, May 10 at 9:08 p.m. The Associated Press sent out a memo to all editors under the name Caption Correction. They wanted all of their editors to remove "reference to complicity in AP photos � ." I am looking at a copy of this directive even as these words are being typed.

Why did they (AP) send word to editors across America and throughout the world to pull back, to any extent, on what they had put out the day before?

Editors across America often use the guidelines in the book titled "The Associated Press/Stylebook And Libel Manual." I am also looking at the Sixth Trade Edition, edited by Norm Goldstein.

On page 297 there is a section titled "Procedures for Handling Kills and Correctives." It seems to me that they followed these and other procedures provided in that book when they issued the directive I just referred to.

It seems as though some followed this order. Others did not. The latter did what the false headline�" �Jesus� Loses Defamation Suit Against Churches"�was used for.

The question is: What was the motive of the persons responsible for that misleading headline? Was it designed to get the attention of the public to buy newspapers?

As I looked at the promo, I immediately and vividly recalled the Minister�s use of the word "complicit." With equal force, I recalled the context and the spirit in which he used it. I also recalled my immediate inner reaction at the moment he made the statement which included the word "complicit." And, I recalled, as best I could see, the outer reactions of others in that room to what he said.

When he was saying that which contained the word "complicit," I recalled thinking "Look how far he is going. He is sacrificing himself for her and for others."

To me, Sister Shabazz wanted from Minister Farrakhan something that was almost impossible for him to do. However, only he could do it. Mike Wallace apparently tried to be helpful in that very dramatic, touching and even painful part of that meeting. Let me explain.

If Minister Farrakhan were in any way involved in Malcolm�s death, America�s powerful governmental investigative agencies, would have long ago proven this to be the case. There simply is not a scintilla or a shred of evidence to establish his involvement in Brother Malcolm�s death as a fact.

Again, Minister Farrakhan would never have called on the opening of the government�s files on Malcolm if he was in on Brother Malcolm�s death. The government�s refusal to do so, and reopen the case, shows that they are hiding the truth. How different will things look once what they are hiding is brought to light?

Without exception, those who have tried to dig up or manufacture evidence to involve Minister Farrakhan directly in Malcolm�s murder have miserably failed. Without exception, every one of these persons hate Minister Farrakhan and what he represents. None of them make any pretense towards "objectivity," nor do they try to get to the real truth of the matter, as they sought to allege Minister Farrakhan�s direct involvement in Malcolm�s death. What are their motives?

I don�t know Sister Shabazz. The day of the interview was the first time I had ever seen or heard her in person. She impressed me as very intelligent. She also impressed me as still greatly impacted by the trauma of seeing her father shot down in front of her.

Especially towards the end of that long discussion/interview she seemed to seek, from Minister Farrakhan, something that would bring closure; something that would bring healing; something that would set her heart, and the hearts of her sisters, to rest.

How do you get from a man who had no direct involvement in the murder of your father that which would bring closure; bring healing and set the matter at rest? What do you say to him? What really do you ask him? What could he say that would satisfy her? He knows he was innocent. So, what could he really say?

Despite the obstacles, they reached a significant level of agreement. The process of reconciliation is ongoing.

They moved towards a kind of rapprochement or accord that, though imperfect (as the government and others still are hiding the full truth) brought the discussions between Sister Shabazz and Minister Farrakhan to a level that seemed to relieve and satisfy her.

Here was the key. They moved towards the fact that Minster Farrakhan sits in the seat of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, who, of course, was the visible authority over the Nation of Islam, when her father was gunned down.

(As I watched and listened to them the thought zipped through my mind that two innocent brothers spent over 20 years each in prison for Malcolm�s murder. What about their pain? What about the impact on their families and friends? Fleetingly, I thought about the government�s involvement and I especially thought of the hand of Allah over this entire matter.)

Some members of the Nation of Islam, may well have been, or were directly involved in this murder; that Minister Farrakhan, as the visible head of the Nation of Islam (somewhat like the recent apologies of Pope John Paul II) should apologize to her, in public for what he may have done with his mouth that indirectly, though unintentionally, contributed to her father�s death. He did and he asked Allah for mercy and forgiveness for all. But remember, the whole truth has not yet been revealed. More about this too next issue, Allah willing.

In the next article I hope to take you back to that crucial moment, which CBS thoroughly misrepresented, and then into it, by Allah�s help. I also intend to point out the boldface lie Mike Wallace told on Minister Farrakhan, with a straight face, before America and the world, during the "60 Minutes" program. Everybody who was in Minister Farrakhan�s office, here in Phoenix, where the filming was done of the interview, knows the outright lie I have in mind.

One hour after the "6O Minutes" false report on Minister Farrakhan this same (CBS) network showed Part One of "Jesus." More on this later.

In the Muhammad Ali translation of the Holy Qur�an, in part, we read this about the clearing of Jesus� name 3:51-54. Jesus "perceived disbelief" on the part of those to whom he was preaching his message. From the context one gets the distinct idea that this particular perception occurred toward the end of his mission. Further, one gets the idea that this disbelief, or resistance to Jesus, reached a point or intensity that became critical. His enemies were about to make an all out move to take his life.

We read that Jesus� enemies planned. So did Allah. He planned in such a way so as to make their plans against Jesus serve His (Allah�s) purpose.

More next issue, Allah willing.