| By ,
on 18-07-2002 22:17
|
Views : 1043  |
Favoured : 39 |
Published in : , Articles |
Part 1
If our peoples Christianity is not a White mans creation, then what is it?
SHERMAN NUNN ABDUR-RAZZAQ
Accept me…please?
And those who do get an education or establish themselves in legally acceptable jobs are not free from concern. There are still obstacles to acceptance by the mainstream society, and the children of the middle class often get caught in the undertow of sexual and chemical enticements.
The above passage from Mr. Gilmers article exemplifies the mentality behind several movements by the Afrikan-American that sought "equality" with the European-American. From emancipation up until now, our generations have been told that all we need to do is get an "education" so that we can obtain good jobs, exit lower class status and ultimately be "accepted by the so-called dominant culture" of this country. For the early periods after slavery, it can be overstood how this mentality was useful in the Black community, but today in 2000, this is absolutely "tail-backwards" thinking. Today, Afrikan-Americans have access to far more information and are beginning to see for themselves what prior generations apparently could not or perhaps in some cases did not want to see. The idea expressed by Mr. Gilmer caters to the European-Americans blueprints for maintaining the status quo, for his providing of "education" is no more than a façade.
Behind the mask of education, a thinking man will see that a college degree or high school diploma is no more than a certificate - a "certification to work on the concrete plantation". Let us look at this objectively. During a pupils school career, he dedicates at least 8 hours a day towards memorizing information, but not to think about nor build his intellect from it. True education can only be provided by the individual for himself, as he strives beyond the immediate task that is handed to him. For example, learning to memorize the meanings of words can be a part of a curriculum that requires it for certification. Looking into the etymology of words for a deeper overstanding of their meaning can be an independent venture stemming from the required one, thus building the intellectual capabilities of the student. THIS is what an education is all about.
Way back in the First Grade (at a Catholic school), my Religion Class teacher told us that "if anyones name other than your own ever appears on your paycheck, YOU ARE A SLAVE." I never forgot that statement and as time proceeded, the statement proved to be nothing less than the absolute truth. Being an employee of someone else gives that person certain control over you. That person determines how much he will pay you, thus determining where you may be able to live which in turn determines the quality of schools that will be available to your children. Smaller categories include controlling everything from the quality of the food that you are able to buy to the quality of clothing that you can afford to put on your back.
Much of our school system does not intend to educate anyone, but rather program him or her to serve on the concrete plantations of Corporate America. If anyone feels that I am incorrect, then please tell me why certification from certain schools carries more weight than from others? Being certified by Yale, Harvard, or Princeton will no doubt overshadow a certification from Jackson State or Alcorn State, and we need not discuss the ethnicity of any mentioned institution in this regard. The facts surrounding the issues speak volumes for people of overstanding.
We should ask WHY is it that acceptance by the "dominant culture" is still on the agenda of many Blacks in America? I firmly believe that if you hop into the back seat of someone elses car (or perhaps I should say bus), then you should be prepared to go where that person takes you without a complaint. Only the most dedicated of "Negro Enthusiasts" would to this day still be concerned about acceptance by Whites, or anyone other than him or her own self for than matter.
The day of the Negro has passed, but yet some would honor his memory by attempting to assimilate, and be willingly "absorbed" into the so-called "majority". These people willingly accept being told that they are MINOR human beings (a MINORity) by the ruling class, and this is the very substance of Negroistic thought. Is it any wonder that we still see men and women cooking their black hair to "kill the kink"? Dying it blonde to help bring out their blue contacts? These are only some of the results that have branched from that "innocent" little picture of Jesus that the slave master gave us so very long ago. To any affect, no follower of God, no matter what you choose to call Him, has any business whatsoever using a yardstick other than Gods own to measure him or herself.
Charles Gilmer is most definitely right by saying that "Middle-class Blacks" are not free from concern. If we make it to the "middle-class", are we to just forget about our other brothers and sisters who have not "made it"? Are drugs and sexual deviation only a problem if you have "made it" and no longer consider yourself "lower-class"? Why should we even play the game of "class-placement" that the European-American has sent us to the field to play? He likes to build himself up based upon status, which is no more than counting self worth based upon material gains. If we continue to play his games and further divide ourselves, then and only then can we say that "we do not have God in our lives" because we are following someone elses doctrines other than Gods.
In Christianity as well as Islam, we are taught against divisions and thinking ourselves better than others. In Islam, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (NO, not Elijah Muhammad, but the true Prophet of Islam who lived 1400 years ago in Arabia) has taught us that "no one truly believes until he wants for his brother that which he wishes for himself". It is truly a sad day that would likely bring tears to even Jesus eyes when people who are assumed to be "educated" and claim to follow him would separate themselves from their less fortunate brothers. This shows a severe lack of progress and is a throwback to the days of the literal "house nigger and field nigger". A word to the wise is that it is a very short walk from the house to the field, and the master just may not like his dinner one day.
And now, we gonna go back……waaaaayyy back…..
Charles Gilmer makes yet another true and interesting point in his article. He says, "we can still return to the God of our Fathers". The point is only effective on terms of how far back you can or are willing to go. "Jesus" definitely was not the God of the Fathers that I am thinking of, who were of the ilk of the physical father of humanity itself. Was Jesus the God of Adam? Of Moses or Abraham (Peace be upon them)? NO! Jesus could not have been their God, especially when he often prayed to and relied upon that same God. THAT is the God that we need to return to, for there are none besides him.
When Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane, facing his greatest challenge, to whom did he pray? Certainly, he did not pray to himself. Who should we then turn to while facing our greatest challenges? We must develop an overstanding of the fact that the Biblical personalities were Black Afrikan men and women, and were definitely our mothers and fathers. Why should we only go as far back as our enslaved generations for spiritual inspiration? Who did they use for inspiration before slavery? Sometimes "the goods" may be a little farther back on the shelf but if we are hungry enough, we can still get them and eat very well. This is what the Afrikan-American of today is doing with all of the information that is now available. He has a new way of thinking and is truly educating himself with the God given common sense that he possesses.
There are several references in The Truth About Jesus implying that Afrikan-Americans are turning around from the Black-Church. Could it be possible that as we continue to grow spiritually, a stronger, more sensible doctrine is needed? Not a soul can honestly deny that Afrikans of America have grown in knowledge, sense of education, and vision. As time marches on, nothing stays the same and no one in their right mind would attempt to put babys clothes on as an adult. When you have outgrown something, it is simply time to find a better fit to ensure comfort. As we discover and contemplate the truths about the whos, whats, whens, wheres, whys, and hows of our affiliation with Christianity among other things, change becomes inevitable for most of us. The slave/Negro mentality that was sought by the slave masters gagging us with his version of spirituality becomes invalid and a desire for separation from all things associated with the process permeates our existence. For those of us who reach this level with sincerity, the only acceptance that matters is Gods and that of our own towards ourselves.
Which one? The master or the minister?
Once more, I will say that I am a Afrikan-American Muslim although I am not a member of Minister Louis Farrakhans organization. I do, however, have a great amount of respect for what he has done to help uplift the Afrikan-American people from the Hell on Earth that we experience daily, and I do agree with him on most politically charged issues. I especially applaud his message that beckons us to stop our waiting on Jesus or anyone else and getting up to do something for ourselves. This is the only relevant message for our socio-economic predicament. "Also, in the process of this, clean yourselves up!" is what I hear from the ministers messages. An intelligent Afrikan-American will at some point weigh and balance the value between the ministers message as it applies to himself. This review will often be weighed against a preacher (but sadly, not a teacher) delivering a message of complacency that only serves to maintain the status quo for the powers that be.
Any Afrikan-American that has sought truth and dared to be honest with himself knows that Minister Farrakhans message is not the message of the Christianity found in the Black Church. If it is, then why do we have hundreds of churches in the Black Community, yet right outside their doors is a world of despair? What have they effectively done to help our people clean themselves up? Even inside of their doors, you can see events that run like the script of television soap opera. "Brother So and So sleepin wit Sister So and So." "Girl, let me tell ya, Sister So and Sos little daughter pregnant again!" For those who overly admire the female body, even the church can be a good place to be today, as some of the most bizarre and revealing outfits are worn there with no shame at all.
Islam, whether it is the authentic teachings or as it is conveyed by Minister Farrakhan, simply does not tolerate us being less than what we are, and that is children of almighty God. There is a word for one who would preach against the very things that he tolerates - HYPOCRITE. How many times have we heard brothers and sisters say "I would go to church, but I get so tired of the hypocrisy!" It is true that they should only be going for themselves, but undoubtedly, it is not easy to soar like an eagle amongst the vultures. Putting it very simple, "they aint sayin all that just to be talkin.
This is what Mr. Gilmer says about Minister Farrakhan in his article:
We have been looked down on so long and so pervasively, and our people disappoint us so often, we can begin to wonder if the negative stereotypes are really true. In this vulnerable state we are susceptible to the persuasiveness of eloquent orators like Louis Farrakhan or anyone else who will tell us that we are the best, brightest, most noble people on the earth. It is easy to buy into ideas that lift black people above all others. Our righteous anger is easily manipulated to get us to buy into theories of a white conspiracy to hold us back.
I overstand the direction from which Charles Gilmer comes as an advocate of Christianity, but immediately after reading this paragraph, a series of hard questions filled my mind. Is this to say that we should instead continue listening to Negro preachers who preach but fail to teach, tell us "turn the other cheek and let Jesus fixit fuh ya!" in regards to extreme social, political, spiritual, physical and mental turmoil? Should we then continue to listen to them preach a time-worn doctrine that has repeatedly told us in some form or fashion that we are the "worst, most unintelligent and least noble" sector of humanity, and in some cases less than human? Let us ask ourselves WHY these uplifting messages are so potent amongst Afrikan-Americans. If someone gives me fresh, clean meat when all that I have had is rotten meat, naturally I will take the better alternative. How I choose to cook and share that meat is what makes the difference with myself.
Did not the European teach that Afrikans or better yet, people of hue, were "cursed to be black and fit for nothing more than servants and slaves"? ( see Why Noah Cursed Canaan) This was the popular European interpretation of Noah (Peace be upon him) cursing the seed of Ham in the Bible. In some instances, they conveniently even taught that God induced the curse! Was all of this not along the pattern of thought by those responsible for giving Christianity to the enslaved Afrikan-American? Earlier in this writing, I discussed how Mr. Gilmer himself admitted that slave masters saw Christianity as a means to make us "better slaves", so how did their "concern for our spirituality" ever make it to the table other than from a senseless defense of the master by his slaves?
I will present to Mr. Gilmer the same question that so many others before him have been unable to answer. "If the European saw you unfit to live next to and unfit to even lie dead next to in this life, why in Gods name would he sincerely give you something that will supposedly place you into the same eternity with him? The answer is either A.) He lied to you. B.) He did not even believe his own doctrine or C.) All of the above. Personally, I opt for "C", which has been proven even by Mr Gilmer who in his article, discussed slave masters conduct being other than what their Christianity detailed. In instances such as this, we may take the advice of Mr. William Shakespeare and "to thine own self, be true".
Will the real Jesus please report to the front?
I would not expect Mr. Gilmer as a Christian, to cite any other source of hope besides Jesus, but his emphasis on reviewing facts leads to further questions. He uses this Biblical passage to extend his justification for Afrikan-Americans maintaining Christianity as a part of their lives:
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. So, if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." John 8:34,36
This is an excellent reference, but Jesus also gave a staggering amount of evidence in the Bible that proved his belief in one higher than himself. In response to the above verse in particular, I will refer readers to John 5:30 where Jesus says plainly, "I of mine own self CAN DO NOTHING. A man can be defined by his words, proving that Jesus himself did not dare define himself as being God. Some may argue that Jesus "was not a man" in the classical sense, but then we must question what exactly is a "son of man", which he referred to himself as a number of times in the Bible. Let us look briefly at a few other things that Jesus said according to the Bible:
"My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me". John 7:16
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" Mark 10:1
"Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from me: nevertheless not my will, but Yours be done." (From the Garden of Gethsemane) Luke 22:42
"But that day (Judgement Day) and hour no one knows, not even the angels of Heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36
Very clearly, these and a host of other Biblical passages prove that Jesus answered to a higher authority just as we all do, and thus could not himself, been God.
Many Afrikan-American Christians yet insist that Jesus was the unique "Son of God" and base this belief on John 3:16. What does the Bible say that God said about a "unique" Son of God? Let us observe:
"And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born." Exodus 4:22
"He (Solomon) shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father and he shall be my son." Samuel II 7:13-14
"I am Father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)
"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me (David) that, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Psalms 2:7
The Bible itself destroys the myth that God has a unique son that is equal to Him. Some modern Negro-preachers even go as far as to say "…but we no longer acknowledge the Old Testament, we only go by the New Testament because Jesus is the New Covenant." Once more, let us rely on God given common sense. If Jesus had mastered the scriptures and its laws, from where was he getting his information? It surely could not have been from any "new" testament because he was busy living out the New Testament! It was the Hebrew Torah (the Old Testament) that Jesus taught from and lived by. Did Jesus not say in Mattew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"?
Who are we to discredit the very sources that Jesus himself relied upon? It would surely make more sense to do what he did if we sincerely wish to be like him. Jesus submitted his will to that of Gods, and that is exactly what Muslims do, hence the title Muslim - "one who has submitted his or her will to that of Gods." The Bible also states that all righteous people are the children of the Most High (I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High). Psalm 82:6. Indeed, we should accept that title properly and do as Jesus did in his lifetime, not as our slave masters had us to believe in our lifetime
It is also necessary to note that the Allah, which is the Arabic term for God, is literally translated as "The Most High". This corresponds with the Bibles original Hebrew term of "Eloh". "God" is actually not strong enough to represent the Creator of all, hence the Bibles attributing that title to men in various places. According to the Bible, perhaps the N.O.Is teaching is not completely without merit. What did eating the fruit from the forbidden tree make us?
WHAT??????
At a climactic point in his article, Charles Gilmer offers this very bizarre detail of how Christianity came to be:
You see, God is holy. As such, He cannot tolerate the presence of sin. It is contrary to His nature. So, sin must be dealt with, or judged, and punished. Yet, God is loving. How could He be both just and loving toward us rebellious, sinful human beings? He resolved this dilemma by taking on human flesh Himself, walking this earth, and dying a painful, humiliating death to pay for the punishment of our sin. How could one mans death pay the penalty for the sin of billions of humans? Because He is God, both infinite and eternal.
There are literally TOO MANY verses from the Bible and ayats from the Holy Quran that would render the above statements as being no more than a mysteriously induced fantasy. Rather than once more quoting these passages, I will rely on common sense again and ask the author questions that immediately come to the mind of a thinking person:
1. If God cannot be in the presence of sin, then is he still all-powerful?
2. Has not God been in the very presence of Satan himself? (If God cast Lucifer and his minions out of Paradise, surely he was in their presence. Why was He not "in the flesh" then? Isaiah 14; 12-14, Holy Quran 7: 11-18))
3. Is not the nature of a "god" that of knowing good AND evil (sin)? (see GENESIS 3:5)
4. Why would God have to lower Himself to the level of one of his creations to resolve anything at all? Is He not the most powerful being in existence?
5. How could God be killed? (quote: He resolved this dilemma by taking on human flesh Himself, walking this earth, and dying a painful, humiliating death).
6. If God "can not tolerate the presence of sin", then who will send the sinners to the Hellfire during the Judgement? (NOT JESUS. In fact, Jesus will deny even knowing those who proclaimed to do things in his name on Judgement Day! - Matthew 7: 21-24)
7. If "God died to pay for the sins of mankind", then are we safe in saying that He is a failure because sin still exists? Would all of this mean that man is more powerful than God? If so, why do we need Him?
These are only a few questions that arise in the thinking mind from Mr. Gilmers account of Christianitys nature. The fact that these are the opinions and observations of one other than God Himself, a human being, says much in favor of the fallacy of these blasphemous, unauthorized statements.
The lie will set you in bondage
Charles Gilmer mentions one of the most famous quotes of Jesus near the end of his writing. "The Truth will set you free" is a statement that has rang though out the world like a mighty bell of prophecy for hundreds of years. An interesting point concerning this statement is that its opposite also holds true. For certain, if the truth can free you, then a lie can place you in bondage. Just ask any proven innocent man that has been to prison. Has it not been the lies, deceit and trickery of slave masters that kept us in physical bondage so long and keeps us in mental/spiritual bondage now? Of course it has! This is why we have to become truly educated and seek out the truth for ourselves. Just like preachers and other leaders can interpret information for us, we can do it for ourselves. Believe it or not, these people have no exclusive rights to scripture or any other book that is available to the public. Just as they read this information (or claimed to), we can do the same and make up our own minds for our own benefit. Truth certainly has extraordinary emancipating power, hence Islams teaching that "the truth" is one of the many names of God (Al-Haqq). Ultimately, it is God that frees us from any vice, not anyone nor anything else.
Mr Gilmer closes his writing with a suggestion for praying to Jesus. Imagine for a moment who slaves and Negroes must have pictured as they prayed to Jesus. We can now see how this relation serves to keep these oppressed people in their position. When they thought about rising up against the master, their mind told them that they were rising up against Jesus, and that just could not be. I doubt very seriously if there is a Christian in existence who at some time or another has not stopped to wonder just who is he to be more indebted to, God or His "son"? God surely did not intend for any of this to be, for the first commandment plainly states "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and even Paul has written in " I Corinthians. 14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace".
With sincere respect, I find the article, The Truth About Jesus to be very interesting and it offers some insightful thought on behalf of Charles Gilmer, its author. As a Christian, we cannot expect anything from him other than defense of that doctrine, but on a higher level we must ask what exactly it is that he is defending. At best, the article leaves the thinking reader with several unanswered questions, such as "Why do you even have a Black-church and a White-Church, arent they all Christians?" "Why are Afrikan-Americans the backbone of Christianity in America when we got a hold of it second-handedly?" "What has really changed for us since the immediate end of slavery and how much can truly be attributed to Christianity?" "If Jesus died to save us from sin, why are so many of us still caught in its clutches?" "If European-American Christians are the brothers of Afrikan-American Christians, why cant we all just get along?"
The question marks over the heads of Afrikan-Americans contemplating their spirituality will not disappear overnight and the road to freedom cannot be paved with doctrines that support and tolerate injustice, inequality, immorality, untruths and unawareness. The first step towards truth is acceptance, and if one cannot accept a certain pattern or mode of thought, then why should he force himself to? Our minds and souls tell us when something is wrong, and it is a wise person that takes heed to these inclinations. If we cannot accept something, then our minds naturally seek to rise above it and move beyond it. Upon coming into the knowledge of certain truths regarding Christianitys place in Afrikan-American history, the only choices for most are to either "turn the other cheek" or keep rising like the Sun, radiating a light that was non-existing prior to the time at hand.
The truth of the matter cannot be denied; we were not given a white mans religion, but certainly were forced to digest his distortion of it. In this time and age, if we choose to continue our defense of the European-American and his Christianity, then we also forfeit our right to seek a better spiritual existence. Under these conditions, his plans for having "better slaves" have indeed been a success.
We now refer to ourselves as "Afrikan-Americans", but it appears that we value this attribute only on our surface value. Some of us are "Afrikan from the outside in" but the experience of change is no doubt richer when we allow ourselves to reclaim our Afrocentricity "from the inside out". "Blackness" is not achieved by melanin alone. If we have a sincere desire to reclaim our stolen heritage, then we must be willing to carefully scrutinize each and every aspect of our being, not exempting our spirituality. Who we are now and how we got to this point must be weighed against who we were and howand why that part of us was taken away. As more of us begin to honestly seek the truth and find it, much of what we have held on to for so long must very simply, be let go.
The generations of our past have held on to Christianity and their masters/former masters due to a lack of information and overstanding concerning our situation. There was no other choice for the most part, but now a new way of perceiving information and new ways of educating ourselves have begun to turn the tables on our former oppressors and the doctrines that they forced upon us. If we are to truly become AFRIKAN-AMERICANS, we must be willing now to "let go of the Negro". The "truth" about Jesus can best be sought through the "truth" about ourselves. 过
Sherman Shabazz Nunn Abdur-Razzaq
He is a native of Chicago, Illinois, where he was a student in the city’s Catholic School System until completing high school in 1987. He then attended Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi where he studied Radio/Television Broadcasting and Political Science.
During these years, he became a well known broadcaster in Jackson on radio and as a Weatherman/Reporter for WJTV, Jackson’s CBS affiliate. Before returning home to Chicago, he declared Shahadah (declaration of faith) in Sunni (orthodox) Islam. Sherman has continued his communicative ventures in Chicago as an Islamic and human rights advocate, a writer and a public speaker. In addition to writing and speaking, Sherman also contributes his talents to RadioIslam, an online source for Islamic information. He is also continuing his education through National Louis University where he is studying Applied Behavioral Science. He now resides in Jackson, Mississippi with his wife, Clarisa and two sons, Maurice and Abdul-Khaaliq. Currently, Sherman is serving as Curator/Public Relations Manager for Jackson’s International Museum of Muslim Cultures, the first and only Islamic Museum in the United States.
Last update : 18-07-2002 22:17
|
|
|
(0 vote)
