[Editor�s Note: The following is from "Farrakhan: God�s Man on the Straight Path."]

Mr. Asad�s translation of the Arabic of the Wise Man�s words are: "And I did not do (any of) this on my own accord: this is the real meaning of all (those events) that thou weren�t unable to bear with patience." Mr. Dawood translates the same words: "What I did was not done by my will. That is the meaning of what you could not bear to watch with patience."

In a footnote Mr. Asad commented that the Wise Man�s position implied "that whatever he had done was done under the impulsion of a higher truth�the mystic insight which revealed to him the reality behind the outward appearance of things and made him a conscious particle in God�s unfathomable plan. This explains the use of the plural "we" in verses 80-81, as well as, the direct attribution in the first paragraph of verse 82, of a concrete human action to God�s will... ."

Mr. Asad seems to have gone as far as he could on this vast subject. However, today Allah has fully revealed Himself. Minister Louis Farrakhan is representing his teacher, to whom Allah fully revealed Himself. Allah guides the Minister and is�"the reality behind the outward appearance of things." This is relevant to the scriptures� constant warnings to us against judging by appearances.

Now, with all that we�ve looked at, thus far, suppose you were a juror in the court where the Wise Man was on trial? His defense was that he did what he did by the guidance and the will of God. How would the prosecutors of the system of justice of this world receive such a defense? What is your understanding of his defense? How would you judge this case? If your verdict is in favor of the Wise Man, what convinced you of the rightness of his acts?

What would convince you of the rightness of the Wise Man�s actions to the extent that you would even go out into the public and defend him with your life? What evidence would satisfy your mind and heart that the Great Master of the universe was the Ultimate Author of this man�s acts and, therefore, he was 100 percent justified in doing as he did?

You say you would defend him? Would you really? Ok. Let�s see.

Suppose the boat that he damaged was YOUR boat? YOUR car? YOUR horse? YOUR entire wardrobe? YOUR jewelry? YOUR furniture? YOUR whatever YOU own of material possessions? Would YOU still defend him?

Now, suppose that boy, who was killed, was YOUR boy? Would YOU still publicly defend him? What would be YOUR response after YOU got over the initial confusion, and the shock and the pain? And after YOU got over the after-shock? And more pain? Come on now. Tell the truth. Would not you say, instead, �This has gone too far. I reject this man. He is no wise man. He is a #@$^-></+*X" �.?�

Many would say, "No! That would not be my answer." Then what is your defense of the Wise Man?

Put your self in the shoes of those parents, in that passage of the Holy Qur�an, wherein their little boy (other translations say he was a young man) was killed for apparently no good reason at all. Would YOU accept the Wise Man�s explanation? Or, would YOU consider him an insane, evil fool, with no divine backing at all?

We can now understand Allah better than ever, even such acts as described in the Wise Man�s behavior, which contains lessons of similar behavior in God�s servants, whom He is today using to help others�if our hearts are open to this understanding. Allah now wants to be fully known.

In one of his Theology of Time talks, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said, "Allah came to get some that He could use to help others. He said more which is vital and must be covered shortly that we may get more from what we are discussing.

Meantime, it should be obvious that Minister Farrakhan is chief among His servants among us, whom Allah is using to help others.

Prophet Joseph was such a chosen vessel of God�s will. His power to love and to forgive was rooted in that which was contrary to the ways of this evil world.

In an earlier chapter, I mentioned a quote I made from a book that I copied into a Bible in 1962. These words were on "love." Although it does not cover all that divine love is, let us consider it again, in light of Joseph�s behavior in bringing his family into divine unity. It was:

"Love is a capacity for the experience of concern, responsibility, respect and understanding of another person and the intense desire for that person�s growth."

Now, the word "forgive" implies giving up all claim to punishment, as well as any resentment or vengeful feelings, according to page five of Webster�s Second College Edition�New World Dictionary where it is contrasted with "absolve," "acquit," "exonerate," "pardon," and "vindicate."

Despite their evils against him, he never stopped loving them. His capacity for love was divine. From his love, he patiently set up the circumstances�with Allah�s help�that produced a crisis for them. His plan helped bring changes in his brothers. It also helped them to see their evils and grow to seek and receive forgiveness and to sincerely repent. Then they saw the wisdom of Allah�s choice of him over them for the family�s benefit.

Key to this skillfully executed plan, was its power to get under their envy and uproot it. His plan manifested the wisdom of the Wise Man.

Surah twelve is called the most beautiful of narratives. Some use the word "accurate" rather than "beautiful." In it is a sign of a mathematically beautiful plan now in force for our benefit.

As I write these words, I am thinking of the modern Joseph, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and the multi-million dollar drive he is leading for the reacquiring of the properties originally gained by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, for the benefit of our people.

The purpose for which this drive was propelled was due, in large measure, to Minister Farrakhan�s capacity for love. The capacity for love and forgiveness, of which Minister Farrakhan was given a large measure, should not be mistaken for weakness. The capacity for love, greatly determines ones� capacity to forgive. This is divine power. There is also another side to this power, which we�ll look at later.

Let�s suppose that charges, similar to those made by �Moses� against the Wise Man, were made today by his modern counterparts, against the modern counterparts of the Wise Man? Just suppose they were brought up in the judicial system of this world, or its court of public opinion?

If the wise man sought to defend his acts, that were deemed violations of morality and of law, would not he have to first establish his credentials? What could he produce as credentials that would satisfy this world�s judicial system, or its court of public opinion? What did the Wise Man say or do, that proved that he had the authority and was totally justified in his acts?

Would not this involve the invoking of higher laws, based on greater principles that encompassed the principles on which accusations against him were based? Of course, if the Wise Man was to be condemned and sentenced, by the wicked, these higher laws would have to now be enforced, by the God Who backed the Wise Man.

The Wise Man knew that which his student did not know. He knew there was a treasure beneath the wall, which was on the point of falling. He knew evil persons would benefit from the repairing of the wall. He also knew that there was a hidden treasure that belonged to two orphan boys, who would get it in the future. The wall had to be repaired to continue to hide their treasure. He asked Moses to help him repair the wall. Moses knew not what the Wise Man knew. So, out of his ignorance, he spoke insultingly to the Wise Man.

The acts of the Wise Man grew out of a special knowledge of the past, present and the future granted to him by Allah. Moreover, Allah guided him in the use of this knowledge. The fact of the coming of the unjust king, who would seize the boat, was not in the too distant future. The matter concerning the boy involved knowledge of that which was far more complicated and would become manifested in the more distant future. We�ve just look at his acts respecting the boys.

In all of this, the Wise Man had a comprehensive knowledge, which, if Moses had the same, he could have had patience with him (the Wise Man.) This special knowledge could produce special patience, if accepted. Without that knowledge, faith was an absolutely necessity in order for him to follow the teacher. But did Moses show faith?

We can imagine a situation where maybe Moses could possibly have reasonably deduced that the king might well do as the Wise Man said he did and not go off on the Wise Man. But, what of the boy? How could he prove that this boy�s evil had already reached the point that he would inevitably involve his innocent parents in gross sin?

The Wise Man used the word "I" in explaining what he did to the boat. He used the word "We" when explaining his actions in killing the boy. The second situation required greater insight, wisdom, greater resolve, and even a greater defense, or justification, to deal with than the first case. Far greater proofs must be given to overcome the charge that he was totally unjust in killing the boy than in the case of his destruction of the boat.

The wisdom of the Wise Man is wisdom that only Allah has or could reveal.

More next issue, Allah willing.