In the 15th verse of the 49th Surah of the Holy Qur'an we read: 'The believers are only those who believe Allah and His Messenger, then they doubt not…"

To doubt not, in this context, is to have confidence in Allah and His Messenger.

That same word "confidence" is contained in the much misused passage from the 1964 article (by The New York Post, in March 1994, and others)-which appeared in the Muhammad Speaks-under Minister Farrakhan's name, which reads, in part, "if it had not been for Muhammad's confidence in Allah for victory over the enemies."

What was/is "Muhammad's confidence in Allah?" Some say, "Well, I don't know the Honorable Elijah Muhammad."

Then look at the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. He is easy to see. He is easy to hear. Does he speak of Allah and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad with doubt or with a lack of confidence? No. So, what is the source and root of his confidence?

Is the root or the source of Minister Farrakhan's confidence, in what he teaches, the same as that of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad? Yes. Can we learn to develop the same in ourselves? Yes.

Look at the tapes and the writings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Can we honestly claim that we see doubt coming through his words? No. Why not?

What was the root of his confidence, which was without arrogance, in the Honorable Elijah Muhammad? Is his confidence ultimately rooted in his personal knowledge of and experience with God Himself?

Could the Honorable Elijah Muhammad have had the confidence to work and sacrifice as hard as he did for 44 straight years, if the God Who raised and taught him lacked Self-confidence in Himself? No. God has Self-confidence, What is the root or the source of God's Self-confidence?

Not in one place in the Holy Qur'an do we find doubt-not even when Allah refers to the distant future. Why not?

The Holy Qur'an teaches about three degrees of certainty. (Consider "This Is The One," Volume One, the 1996 edition, which contains the January 10, 1996 interview of Minister Farrakhan, on pages 275-278; 94-104; 124, for most of the areas in that book which defined the conception of "certainty" as used here).

Do those who oppose Minister Farrakhan have the highest degree of certainly, that they are on the right course, in their efforts to destroy us? If so, why do they continue to use every form of deception to make their case? Why are they not confident in truth?

We will win this case regardless to what the judges finally determine. This is not bravado.

Our opponents are not sure of themselves. If they were they would not continue to use all forms of underhanded methods, every method of lying, (slander and libel), intrigue, bribes; false promises; threats; taking of advantages of weakness in others; misdirecting misunderstandings; fostering of divisions; the loss of income; murder. These are the same tools they used in enslaving us and others throughout the world, only now they use these tools with greater sophistication.

Some of them are so distracted and frustrated, in their efforts over the decades to get rid of the Nation of Islam, they advocate outright murder of all of us. They have gone insane. Their planning includes killing their own kind in order to kill us all.

Read Dr. Horowitz's book "Emerging Diseases: AIDS and Ebola." Could it be that there are white people, so wicked, that rather than see Blacks get any kind of justice, they would rather commit mass suicide-killing everyone-themselves and their own kind too? Yes.

This is not the first time that someone has had this idea and the power to do it. They failed. So will these.

The more alert of them see that this country is under divine plagues. They know that this is from the same God Who guided and backed the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and Who now clearly guides and backs the Minister Farrakhan.

The case being fought in New York City, in which Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam is suing The New York Post, and others, for $4,400,000,000, perfectly illustrates the emptiness of the arguments poured out on Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam and others who seek freedom from Satan's enslaving grip.

In the brief which the attorneys for Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam filed, to reverse the deliberate error of Judge Arber, we read on page 17: "showing the publisher's state of mind is sine qua non to plaintiffs success."

Sin qua non means that this is absolutely essential and that without this we cannot prove our case: we cannot succeed.

The brief continues: "In almost every case, that can only be accomplished through the development of circumstantial evidence. For that reason, the Supreme Court consistently allows circumstantial evidence relating to the defendant's behavior."

On page 18 the attorneys provide the examples, which they follow up with proof that these all apply in this case. They are:

"(1) where defendant fails to seek corroboration from the most obvious source;

(2) where publishing the source's statements without more, under all the circumstances, constitutes purposeful avoidance of the truth:

(3) where a source is of doubtful reliability with a known or obvious grudge against the plaintiff:

(4) where there is failure to check existing documents, notes or recordings."

After stating the source in the law books the attorneys continued: "Additional circumstances identified by the United States Supreme Court include:

"(5) where there is reliance on questionable sources…

(6) where there are indications that the publisher has a preconceived plan "to get" the plaintiff..

(7) where there is international misstatement of charge to make it seem more convincingly condemnatory that it is…"

The ellipsis refers to the law books cited by Minister Arif Muhammad and Minister Ava Muhammad.

The attorneys continued: "Every one of the foregoing factors and more have been properly asserted by plaintiffs in the instant case and combined to support a finding of 'actual malice."

Our lawyers then demonstrated the evil of the lower court's error, in dismissing the case, thus forcing us to appeal to a higher court. I won't go into certain details, at this point, except to mention a principle, which was skillfully and clearly brought out by our attorneys in several instances. It is, in part:

"On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence favorable to the opposing party must be accepted as true." We are the "opposing party."

They continued: "As discussed below, plaintiffs, in opposing papers, submitted two affidavits which directly challenge Newfield's claims as blatantly false, thereby precluding summary judgment."

To preclude means: to make impossible, as by action taken in advance; to prevent; to exclude or prevent or someone from a given condition or activity.

Our lawyers continue: "On a motion for summary judgment, the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or arguably there is a genuine issue of fact."

They state that "a significant part of the false and defamatory character of the article consists of the following," which I'm giving most of with emphasis added:

"New evidence from FBI files has established that Farrakhan was in the Newark temple of the NOI at the hour Malcolm was assassinated in Harlem. He was supposed to be in Boston, where he was the chief minister. [Emphasis added]. Farrakhan drove from Boston to Newark at 1:30 a.m. on February w1, 1965, according to FBI files. This is relevant because the four assassins named by Thomas Hayer-who is still in prison for the murder-as is his co-conspirators were all members of the Newark mosque, which was allied with Farrakhan. The four shooters named by Hayer in a 1978 affidavit were…" and their names are given.

I found the following curious. Of the four names Newfield gave, in his March 1994 article, all of the Brothers had an "X" between their first names and their slave names. In Attorney Kunstler's book, "My Life As A Radical Lawyer," on page 385, where he reports that when Talmadge Hayer (now known as Mujahid Abdul Halin) gave him the names of the others involved in the murder of Malcolm, only one of the Brothers has an "X" between his first and slave name.

What does this mean? Are we to think that Hayer (Halin) and Attorney Kuntsler made a mistake or is it more likely that Newfield deliberately changed and added "X's" where there were none originally? I am not saying what this means, in terms of whether or not these Brothers were registered Muslims in the Nation of Islam, at that time or not. I just don't know. Maybe it means little or nothing. Maybe. But I will wonder about this until it is explained.

Newfield lied when he wrote that is was "New evidence" that Minister Farrakhan was in the Newark temple of the Nation of Islam. This ties into a point mentioned earlier by our attorneys "that the publisher has a preconceived plan 'to get' the plaintiff… ."

The Holy Qur'an contains the knowledge of this plan, and its utter failure, long before these evil planners were ever born. Of this there are some of us who are very confident in the truth of our position. All of us will be confident in God's truth. Soon.

More next issue, Allah willing.