Connect with us

Jesus is Born Again

Benson C Saili

… and is formally  inducted into the Essene institutional  structure    

In March 6 AD, about three months before  the insurgency  of Judas of Galilee, Jesus turned exactly 12 years old, having been born in March 7 BC (there was no Year Zero; hence 1 BC was immediately followed by 1 AD). According to Essene custom, the order had to celebrate his coming of age, a ceremony known as Bar Mitzvah. In the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, the birth of the person was re-enacted. The Bar Mitzvah ceremony was therefore a symbolic rebirth. It is this symbolic second birth of Jesus that Luke records and not his biological birth. Jesus’ ceremony was particularly significant in that he was the de facto future King of Israel.  

The ceremony was held at the Queen’s House, exactly 1 km south of the Qumran HQ. Jesus had been born at the Queen’s House in accord with the edict of the then Jerusalem High Priest Simon Boethus as befitted a child who was conceived through “fornication”. The mistress of the Queen’s House was the Davidic Queen, who was Mary at the time. The Queen’s house was also referred to as the Manger and as Bethlehem of Judea in coded Essene language.   

Present at the ceremony was Simeon. Another prominent figure in attendance was Annas, who had succeeded Joazar as High Priest of the Jerusalem temple. Annas came to formally acknowledge Jesus as the Davidic heir, meaning James, who had been recognised as such by Joazar, was once again relegated to second in line.

Jesus was dressed in a swaddling band, wrongly translated as “swaddling clothes” in the gospels. This was a piece of fabric 15-18 feet long, which was wrapped around his body  all the way down to the ankles, the same way he had been dressed when he was born. As hosts and in mimicry of their  situation back in 7 BC, Mary and Joseph were symbolically  a live-together couple although in practice they  lived separately (a dynastic Essene husband was only allowed to live with his wife when it was time to produce a child; otherwise, he lived apart from his wife as a  monastic celibate). As such, the couple were not allowed into the Katalyma. This word is translated as “inn” in the gospels but it also means “upper room”. The upper room was the sacred dining chamber where a special meal was being had by separated celibates, a category which Mary and Joseph had in the circumstances provisionally forfeited. That is the explanation of the phrase, “there was no room in the inn” in the gospel of Luke.

Meanwhile, the next four highest ranking figures in the Essene hierarchy (after Annas, who was holding fort for the young John the Baptist; Simeon; and Joseph the father of Jesus) were busy at work at Ain Feshika, codenamed the “farm”. These were the Cardinal; the Archbishop; the Bishop; and the Presbyter. They specialised in pastoral duties and were presently ministering to pilgrims who had come to Qumran to co-observe the equinox as well as celebrate the forthcoming Passover feast.  In the gospels, the ministers are cryptically  referred to as “shepherds”, and the pilgrims as the “flock”, both terms of which are metaphorically apt as even today we figuratively refer to pastors as shepherds and the congregation as the flock.

Simeon, whose other title was the “Angel of the Lord”, called on the ministers  to announce the “good news”, accompanied by  Theudas Barabbas, who according to the pesher of the Dead Sea Scrolls was also known as the “Glory of God” – God being a title of  the late Zechariah and presently of Annas. Remember, Theudas Barabbas had broken ranks with the belligerent faction led by Judas of Galilee to align with the peace faction now led by Annas. The “good news” Simeon came to deliver was that  Jesus had been officially recognised by the new High Priest Annas as the Davidic messiah. With the announcement of such good tidings, Simeon, Barabbas, the four ministers, and the pilgrims – collectively referred to as the “host of heaven” in the gospels – burst into a hymn of praise titled “Peace on Earth” because they all belonged to the peace faction and both Annas and the new Roman governor of Judea Lucious Coponius had committed to forging peaceful relations with the Essenes. Simeon then told the ministers that young Jesus was being feted at the Queen’s House and described his attire. The ministers then hurried to the house, which was only 3 km away,  and when they got there they venerated Jesus in song.  

Whilst Joseph was elated by the euphoria over his son, Mary had mixed feelings. As far as she was concerned, she would rather the Davidic toast went to James once and for all rather than Jesus. This was not because she did not approve of Jesus: she was simply haunted by the fact that Jesus had been controversially begotten and therefore he would always carry this badge of “shame”. Annas had recognised him all right, but the High Priest who came after him could well de-recognise him again, just as Simon Boethus and Joazar had done before: his princely status would continue to ebb and flow. On the other hand, James had been sired procedurally and would therefore not be as susceptible to such vicissitudes. No one would ever call him a bastard whereas Jesus was already being so calumniated.  

On Day 8 of the ceremony, Jesus was dedicated to the evangelical cause of the Essene fraternity through admission into its ecclesiastical hierarchy. He was given Grade 18, the entry point, the highest grade being 0, that of the Zadok priest, also referred to as the “Lord God”. This dedication was euphemistically referred to as circumcision of the heart (ROMANS 2:29), meaning having a pure heart/being separated unto the works of the Creator God as directed by his earthly representative – the “Lord God’, who previously was Zechariah but now was Annas standing in for the youngster John the Baptist.

Luke is the only one of the four evangelists to have made mention of the characters Simeon and Anna. Anna is the subject of LUKE 2:36-38, which reads thus: “And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, 37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. 38 And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” What this passage reads in English is not exactly the way it reads in Greek, the language in which it was originally written. Furthermore, the underlying pesher language is significantly different from the surface language. I will therefore properly explicate for you in line with knowledge derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other extra-biblical sources.  

Just as Simeon was the highest ranking Essene after the death of Zechariah, Anna was the seniormost of the Essene womenfolk.

Anna belonged to the order of Asher. Women of the order of Asher bore the titles “Sarah”, “Rebecca”, and “Rachel”, the wives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob respectively. Anna was the Sarah of the day, actually the first Sarah of the Essene order.  She was born in 93 BC, meaning in 6 AD she was 98 years old (in one of his copious works, the legendary Jewish historian Flavious Josephus marvels at the longevity of the Essenes, owing, seemingly, from the medical wizardry of the Therapeutae).  The 84-years in the Luke passage is her age as counted from her symbolic rebirth – the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, which took place in 79 BC, when she attained 14 years, the age of early initiation for girls.

The Sarah of the Old Testament bore Isaac at age 91. As such, the Sarah of the order of Asher was classified as a “virgin” when she turned 91, which simply meant she had officially ceased to bear children and had figuratively speaking become a virgin again (in his book, Contemplative Life, Philo of Alexandria talks of “aged virgins” who were members of the Qumran Therapeutae). Since Anna turned 91 in 2 BC, in AD 6 she had been a virgin for 7 years.  

In the Essene hierarchy, Anna’s superior, the priest who initially supervised her when she was younger, was the Phanuel, an “angelic” title which had the same grade as the Raphael (“daughter of”, or “son of”,   sometimes meant “immediate subordinate of”).  The Phanuel was of Grade 3, the fourth from the top.  Anna was the Essene prophetess and intercessor, the counterpart of Simeon, who was the Essene prophet and intercessor as Josephus chronicles for us. She was therefore symbolically the mistress/wife of Simeon. She had actually been looked after by Simeon since she was widowed at age 84.  

When Jesus was presented at the Qumran temple, Anna, now frail, bent, and possibly immobilised, was present. She gave a vote of thanks to High Priest Annas, the acting “Lord God”, for recognising Jesus as the Davidic messiah and   also acknowledged Jesus as the redeemer of Israel, in a political sense, not in a spiritual sense. By spotlighting Simeon and Anna, therefore, Luke wanted to demonstrate that Jesus was endorsed as the Davidic heir by both the menfolk and the womenfolk of Qumran.

In LUKE 2:25-35, Simeon is explicitly made mention of as follows: “ Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, 29  “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,  according to your word; 30  for my eyes have seen your salvation 31  that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32  a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.” 33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

Once again, the Greek original more or less differs from the doctored English version. To give just one example, the correct translation for Verse 28 should be “he received him into his arms,” or better still “bear-hugged him”, which one can do for anybody of any age. This is actually the more apt scenario as Jesus was at this time not a baby who could be received up in the arms but a 12-year lad.  

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes had been awaiting two messiahs and one prophet. The two were the messiah of David and the messiah of Aaron, or the political and priestly messiah. Both messiahs had arisen in the persons of Jesus, born in March 7 BC, and John the Baptist, born in September 8 BC. In AD 5 and 6 respectively, the two had been symbolically reborn and assumed their ranks in the Essene pecking order.   

Simeon had long wanted to step down  from his priestly duties following the birth of the two messiahs but Joseph, the “Holy Spirit”, had dissuaded him against such a course of action till  Jesus had undergone the Bar Mitzvah ceremony at age 12. This had now happened. Furthermore, Zechariah, the highest ranking Essene and the father of John the Baptist, had been killed by Judas of Galilee. The fault lines in the Essene substructure were not only aggravating but were spilling blood in the very midst of the hitherto harmonious fraternity. Simeon therefore decided to quit as an active priest in pursuit of purely peaceful and spiritual causes, thereby detaching himself completely from the insurrectionist bent of the Zealots.  

As a prophet, Simeon did provide a preview of the kind of life Jesus was destined to live. When Jesus  was  presented at the Qumran temple, not only did Simeon invoke God’s blessings on Jesus but served notice that  he would be a contentious figure and cause some high-standing personages to either wane or wax. Exactly who rose or fell on the Davidic prince’s account?  We will get to know these as the Jesus Papers progress.     


Continue Reading



14th December 2022

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.


Continue Reading


Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022

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.




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.




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.




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?


Pic Cap

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.


Continue Reading


Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

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).

Continue Reading