Jesus was biologically born in 7 BC and symbolically reborn in 6 AD
The gospel of Luke is my favourite by a long shot. This is because it is very historically accurate and the least theological of the four gospels. Luke was more interested in telling history than promoting a faith we today call Christianity or making a case that Jesus was God incarnate. He had his political biases but his is the most credible of the Jesus chronicles.
Luke is the author of two New Testament books, the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. He is the only Gentile, that is, non-Jew, on the roll of New Testament writers: he was of Greek stock and was domiciled in Antioch, Syria, the third largest city in the Roman empire after Rome and Alexandria. His career, however, was not that of a scribe: he was a medical doctor.
This is evident both from the testimony of Paul and intimations in his (Luke) own writings. For instance, he names diseases in the manner of a medical buff rather than simply attribute them to “demon possession”. Luke was not only Paul’s travelling companion but he was also his personal doctor. We learn this from his own work, Acts, and from the epistles such as 1 COLOSSIANS 4:14, where Paul says, “Our Dear friend Luke the Doctor and Demas send greetings”.
In penning his gospel, Luke did painstaking research and dared those who might criticise him by naming scores of people – both famous and ordinary – and several places. Now, if you relate your story in the wider context of global history and you even furnish names, you are in trouble if you are telling a lie. This gesture on Luke’s part is persuasive enough evidence that what he set down was indeed true: you don’t set booby traps for yourself if all you are doing is spinning a yarn.
This is how Luke introduces his gospel to underscore the fact that it was very well-informed: “1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (LUKE 1:1-4).”
From the above preamble, we learn three more things beside the fact of the meticulous research. First, there were numerous stories that had been written about Jesus and were in circulation at the time Luke wrote his gospel. Most of these have either been lost or form part of what we call the apocryphal – the accounts about Jesus that were excluded from the New Testament canon at the 325 AD Nicene Council, where the New Testament was collated. Second, part of the data that informed Luke’s gospel was provided him by people who knew Jesus personally.
These may have included the apostles themselves as well as the family members of Jesus, particularly his mother, brothers, and sisters. Thirdly, Luke wrote his two books at the bidding of or in deference to a venerable man known as Theophilus, who features in the opening statements of both the gospel and Acts.
Who was Theophillus? It is important that we make his acquaintance for then we will be in position to put a approximate timeframe to Luke’s embarkation on his literary projects. In any case, it is Theophillus we owe a debt of gratitude for Luke’s two seminal books: without him, there would never have been a gospel of Luke and an Acts of the Apostles, in consequence of which we would be greatly diminished in our understanding of the Jesus saga.
THE PRO-CHRISTIAN HIGH PRIEST
Luke addresses Theophillus as “Most Excellent”. There are only two other personages who are addressed likewise in the entire New Testament corpus. They were Roman governors in charge of Judea, namely Felix (ACTS 23:26) and Festus (ACTS 26:25). Inevitably therefore, Theophilus must have been a high-ranking political figure.
In gospel times, there was only one well-known VIP who went by the name Theophilus. This was Theophilus ben Annas, the son of the infamous Annas who presided over the trial of Jesus. He was High Priest from 37 to 41 AD. High Priests were appointed by the reigning King, himself an appointee of Rome.
The argument that this was the Theophilus Luke reverenced in his gospel is more than persuasive. First, this Theophilus was not a total stranger to Luke. As youngsters, the two were classmates under the tutelage of the great Jewish teacher Gamaliel. Theophilus, his two brothers Jonathan and Simon, and the apostle Paul were contemporaries at Gamaliel’s academy.
It makes sense, therefore, that if Theophilus wanted an authoritative brief on the life and times of Jesus, the name that immediately came to mind was Luke, who was not only a member of the Jesus movement but was a constant companion of Paul, the most famous propagator of the Christ message.
Luke is also the only one of the four evangelists to have mentioned the names Theophilus and Joanna. Joanna, the wife of Chuza, who was the chief steward of Galilean King Herod Antipas. Joanna is mentioned in LUKE 8:3 and 24:10.
She was one of the women who financially supported the labours of Jesus and one of the female witnesses to the resurrection. Now, according to an archaeological find, Theophilus had a granddaughter called Joanna, which explains why she was married to Herod Antipas’ Chancellor of the Exchequer: high society typically marries into high society.
When in his prelude Luke says to Theophilus that “you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”, he must have been referring to Joanna, one of the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” who obviously must have related the story of Jesus to her grandfather.
In the gospel, Luke addresses Theophilus as “Most Excellent”. In Acts, however, he simply addresses him as “O Theophillus”. What this implies is that by the time he wrote or concluded Acts, Theophilus was no longer High Priest. Why did Theophillus commission Luke to do a story on the Jesus epic? The most plausible reason is that he was persuaded by his granddaughter Joanna, with a view to alter his perception of the Jesus movement.
In a political climate where the Herodians were so antagonistic toward Christians (Stephen had been killed for instance), it was necessary to disabuse the High Priest of certain distortions about it. Indeed of the Annas priestly dynasty, Theophilus turned out to be the most sympathetic to Christians. Three years after he was removed from power, James the son of Zebedee was executed at the orders of King Herod Agrippa I.
With such a political backdrop, we can now confidently date the writing of the gospel of Luke. This was between AD 41 and 44. In fact, by AD 60, all the gospels had been written. What we have today are not originals but subsequent editions, which were revised by the authors themselves and over time embellished by editors with sectarian agendas.
TWO BIRTHDAYS OF JESUS
We have already asserted, from what we glean from the pesher of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that Jesus was born in 7 BC. Does the Bible agree with this date or otherwise?
The biblical clues on Jesus’ birth date are furnished by Matthew and Luke. We will begin with Matthew. Matthew indicates that Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born. Herod died in 4 BC, meaning Jesus could not have been born later than this date. Luke’s assertion, however, remains a moot point. Scholars actually continue to pan him for his timeframe, charging that he was grossly mistaken as he was more than ten years off the mark. Well, I beg to differ.
When it comes to the timing of events, Luke is infallible. Scholars are a swell-headed lot who think they know it all when they actually do not. So what has made scholars cast cynical aspersions at Luke in relation to the birth date of Jesus?
Luke situates the birth of Jesus in the year Quirinius was governor of Syria and when there was a census “throughout the Roman world” as decreed by Emperor Augustus (LUKE 2:1-3). Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in AD 6.
In that year, Archelaus, the Herodian ruler of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea was deposed by Augustus and his three territories came under direct Roman rule, with a Roman prefect, also called procurator, mandated to take charge of them. At the same time, the three territories, now known as Iudaea, were made subordinate to the legate of Syria, who was also referred to as governor.
The first such legate was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, an iconic and decorated Roman general. Since Iudaea was now under direct Roman administration, Quirinius was instructed by Emperor Augustus to conduct a census in the region for purposes of taxation. Being the first one of its kind in Palestine, the census sparked a Zealot uprising led by Judas the Galilean (ACTS 5:7).
In AD 6, Herod the Great had been dead for nine years and it is such a scenario that makes scholars sneer at Luke. This is unfortunate because as always Luke was correct. How do we know? The answer is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which few scholars have bothered to read and decipher.
In March AD 6, Jesus turned 12. At this age, he had to undergo a ceremony known as Bar Mitzvah, a coming-of-age ritual. Whilst mainstream Jewry celebrated Bar Mitzvah at age 13 for a boy and with hardly any fanfare, the Essenes did so at age 12 and with an elaborate ceremony particularly for a dynastic child. The Essenes regarded Bar Mitzvah as a symbolic rebirth. At the ceremony, therefore, they reenacted the actual birth of the person concerned.
To the Essenes, Bar Mitzvah was more important than even the biological birth date because at age 12 the person was conferred a grade in the Essene hierarchy – 18, the lowest grade. Thus the birth Luke alludes to in his gospel is not the year Jesus was actually born: it is the year he was re-born, when he was initiated into the Essene hierarchy. Calculating backwards from AD 6 to the 12th year gives us the year 7 BC as the birth date of Jesus (there was no year 0)!
By highlighting the Bar Mitzvah date of Jesus instead of his actual birth date, Luke was signalling two things to discerning readers – that Jesus was an Essene and that he became the legitimate heir to the Davidic throne in AD 6. Exactly how did the latter come about?
JAMES INAUGURATES AD ERA
The acronym BC means “Before Christ”. How then could Jesus have been born in 7 BC, before he was actually born? The official explanation is that one Roman monk called Dionysius Exiguus erred in his calculations done in the year 526 AD. He first dated Jesus’ birth as 753 years after the founding of Rome. The birth date was designated AD 1, with AD being a Latin acronym for “Anno Domini”, meaning “In the Year of our Lord”. In due course, however, it transpired Dionysius had made a mistake as Jesus was actually born between 746 to 749 years after the founding of Rome as we now know, meaning Jesus’ birth date now relocated into the BC era.
The “official” version, however, is not true as is often and typically the case. The demarcation between the BC era and the new, AD dispensation was determined at Qumran, by the Essenes. What happened was that when the powers-that-be, the Temple priesthood led by then High Priest Simon Boethus, refused to recognise Jesus as the Davidic heir as he was technically born of fornication and at the wrong time for a dynastic heir (March instead of September), Joseph was now under obligation to produce a “bona fide heir”. According to the Essenes’ procreational rules, Joseph had to embark on this assignment six years after the birth of Jesus. Joseph paid due heed and his second-born son James was born when Jesus was seven years old.
In the year James was born, the High Priest was a son of Boethus, Joazar, and as per the Boethusian stance James was eagerly embraced as the Davidic messiah as not only was he born in strict adherence to dynastic procreational rules but he was born in the holy month of September. It was with the birth of James that the Essenes inaugurated a new world order and therefore designated his birth year as Year 1, what we now call AD 1. Since Jesus had now been sidelined, his birth date was referred to as “7 years before the beginning of the new era”, or 7 BC as we refer to it today.
Yet Jesus was not to be marginalised forever. In AD 6, when he turned 12, there was a change of the guard at the helm of the priesthood. The new High Priest de-recognised James as the Davidic heir and reinstated Jesus. The name of the High Priest was Annas ben Seth. How and why did this state of affairs came about?
We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.
Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.
Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?
The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.
There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill. Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.
What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”. Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe: And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.
All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.
And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”
It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.
Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.
If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.
To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels. Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter. Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.
Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said. “If he dies, he will die immediately; otherwise he’ll survive.”
It came to pass, General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak: Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”
Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room. ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all. “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”
As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.
But Raine, General, was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”
Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.
R.I.P. EARL SPENCER
It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the Austrian Alps along with her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.
When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”
Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe, “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’
At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”
Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.
PRINCE CHARLES FINALLY OWNS UP TO ADULTERY WITH CAMILLA
In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.
In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.
The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable. Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.
BASHIR INTERVIEW BODES ILL FOR DIANA
If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.
The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people, conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.
And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne. Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.
It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?
SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim
Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.
To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:
Right to life
The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex
Right to Equality
The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.
Right to justice
Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice. The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v 8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.
Right to freedom of conscience and religion
The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.
Right to personal freedom
No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.
Right to Protection of Honour
Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49 : v 11-12).