THE STUDY OF THIS 4 BILLION 400 million dollar libel case, by the Honorable Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam against The New York Post, Ruppert Murdoch, as chairman of this newspaper, and others, is an education into an area most all of us have a great need to understand.

How often have any of us really studied slander (which in its written form is called libel)?

The Honorable Louis Farrakhan told me that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad told him that to pass slander on more than twice is to become a part of it. Suppose we have passed it on eight times; twenty times; one hundred and seventy-five times? Suppose we have been engaged in slander for two; five; ten; twenty or more years? How much a part of us has slander become?

We know that as pig eaters bacon smells "good." But when we stop eating it for a month or more we can hardly stand the smell, especially when it�s being cooked. Why is this so? Does this mean that eating pork is so destructive that, among other things, it has destroyed our power to smell, at least to the extent that we cannot smell its natural stench?

So it is with slander, backbiting, libel, spreading scandal, engaging in calumny, defaming others. It has, among other aspects of its destructive effects on ourselves, a dulling effect on our spiritual and moral senses. One of the main ways this is seen is when we stop doing it. We become more sensitive, aware, and in tune with the higher realities of life and of God's activities. We see and hear that which before we could not hear. People look and sound different.

It�s interesting to note that Surah 68 refers to the worst of the defamers, who go about with slanders as those whom Allah shall brand on the snout. Why does Allah use the word "snout" in this passage?

Then Allah warns us in Surah 104 "Woe to every kind of slanderer, backbiter... . " What does "woe" mean? Basically, it refers to that which brings grievous distress, affliction, or trouble; suffering, misfortune, calamity, adversity, misery, trial, tribulation; wretchedness, torment, agony, torture, sorrow, grief, heartache, anguish, dejection, gloom, anxiety, non-stop worry, melancholy, depression, despair, deep distress because of misery, as from profound grief; mental distress and anguish of the acute kind, heartbreak, sorrow, suffering, and overall deep mental pain..

It is a state of acute or sharp anguish and a deep sense of deprivation mixed with misery; miserableness, woefulness, which induces several forms of regret, wretchedness sorrow, sadness, desolation, suffering, agony, melancholy, and despondency.

Believe it or not, one of the prime functions of the Honorable Louis Farrakhan is to show us the way out of how we put ourselves into this mess.

Those who are the most malicious, in the spread of slander and libel against the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, shall suffer divine woes the worst.

Just before the attorneys for The New York Post were to depose (question) the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, according to the court order, they moved for summary judgment, or to put this in different words, they asked the judge to throw the case out. The judge unjustly granted what they wanted.

Now the attorneys for the Honorable Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, or every Muslim who says he or she is with the Minister and with the Two Who back him up (namely Master Fard Muhammad and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad), have filed an appeal.

Now, let us pause to ponder. This is the first time in our 66 year old history, that we have mounted an attack against slander and libel in an organized manner and in a forum where there should be a trial which could wipe out a great many lies which have been told on the Honorable Minister Farrakhan and we who follow him. This ought to cause everyone of us who are with him to help him remove slander and libel from among us once and for all. What would be the result of the removal of every form of slander and libel from among us who follow the Honorable Louis FArrakhan? What would this free us to accomplish?

Now the judge agreed with the defendants, that although they admit that they wrote what they did�and any one who can read already knows this�they did not do what they did out of malice. Why did they say this? One simple reason�and there are other deeper ones�they don't want to go to trial. This would mean a great deal of news, the world over. Our side of this matter would become clearer to the public�s attention. Then there would be a public trial. I don't know if it would be called the new trial of the century, but it would certainly draw intense international attention.

It would keep the Minister and the Nation of Islam in the news in a more accurate light. It would compel a more honest look by the media into the Minister and what he stands for. It would be deep. And heavy.

If the case goes to trial we would win. Then, among other things, it would be time to talk about money. A lot of money. We are asking from the slanderers (libelers) two billion dollars in compensatory damages and then another two billion dollars in punitive damages. For the Honorable Louis Farrakhan, who was/is the prime target of their malice, we want no less than $400, 000, 000 in compensatory and punitive damages. In a later article I want to expand the broader aspects of what I mean by "win" because (1) it goes infinitely beyond the matter of money and (2) even if we go to the highest courts of this land and lose we still win.

Really, even that is not enough when you think of the death of our brother as a result of the wickedness of The New York Post.

The common dictionaries define malice this way. It is deep seated mean spirited ill will and the intense desire to inflict harm or suffering on another. It is harmful intent on the part of a person who commits an unlawful act which is injurous to another. It is a desire to harm others, oftimes in the worst way one can think of at that time, or at the least, it is the desire to see another or others suffer. It is extreme ill will or spite in the heart with the desire to treat the other according to that spirit. It is a desire to inflict suffering upon another, out of malignance, and spite. It�s extreme hatred; vemon; grudge, rancor, resentment, animosity, antagonism, bitterness; evil disposition, uncharitableness, hardheartedness.

ACCORDING TO THE LAW malice is the intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

It is very important that we understand that if our lawyers prove, that malice was the intent of the writer and publisher in publishing what they did concerning Minister Farrakhan, it is an essential, crucial, or an indispensable ingredient without which it would be impossible to prove our case. We must, through our attorneys, show the publisher�s subjective state of mind, as a precondition, prerequisite or an essential requirement, in ordrr to prove our case.

The evidence is so overwhelminglly on our side that they have spent well over ten million dollars to keep this case out of court. I wonder if they ever thought that we would fight back as we did. But fight back we did when the Honoraable Louis Farrakhan made the move he did. Are the rest of us really going to join the fight for justice and the clearing of Minister Farrakhan's good name? He is innocent of their wicked lies!

Well, as long as we slander each other we are doing the work of The New York Post, and others who want the Minister dead and the Nation destroyed! Slander destroys friendships and makes other problems harder to solve.

On page 17 of our appeal, put forth by Minister Arif Muhammad and Minister Ava Muhammad, we read: "The United States Supreme Court recognizes the improbability that a defendant would ever admit publishing a statement while knowing it to be false. The public figure plaintiff in a libel case must show the subjective state of mind of the person (s) who decided to publish the libel. He or she must prove the reporters, editors, and publishers put the libel in circulation while entertaining doubts that it was true. Thus, an inquiry into the state of mind of the newspaper decision makers is always permitted."

Our attorneys have not had this justifiable opportunity to question anyone in the editorial process�not even the writer who wrote the offending article!

Why not? Because it is 100% clear that they are guilty of malice in their wicked libelous assertions against the Honorable Louis Farrakhan and they know it!

By the time this article is published the opposition should have filed their reply to our appeal, through our attorneys, that the judge's act of throwing out our case must now go to trial.

With things said, or in this case written, let us look directly at the main factors in this case which prove malice, even before depositions are done and we go to trial. This will have to include certain facts Minister Arif has put into the record. That will end this series. Of course, there will be oral arguments early next year. We all must keep up on this.
More next issue, Allah willing.