The baptism of Jesus was fraught with Anunnaki symbolism
In AD 29, Jesus was baptised in the River Jordan by John the Baptist. The baptism was to remain a moot point for a long time to come.
For those who limit their inquiry into the Jesus story to the Bible only and who settle for the surface message of the scriptures, the implications of this baptism can be obscure. It is only when the gospels are read through the prism of the pesher device and relevant passages in some of the extra-biblical literature (including the so-called apocrypha that were excluded from the New Testament canon) are taken into account that one gets to the crux of the matter.
The baptism of Jesus by John militated against Pauline Christianity, which projected Jesus as the equal of God and therefore incapable of sin. People were therefore understandably forced to ask: if Jesus was inerrant, why did he have to be baptised by John for the remission of sins when he had no sins to repent of? Furthermore, in the context of ancient Judaism, rabbis or teachers baptised
their disciples: as such, Jesus’s baptism by John suggested rather persuasively that he was subordinate to and was mentored by the latter.
In the 40s AD, when the earlier versions of the gospels, as well some of the epistles of Paul, were written, both Jesus and John the Baptist were no longer on the scene but each had spawned his own movement and consequently his own following.
Thus the Johannites maintained that John was the greater of the two and the Christians were adamant that John was beneath Jesus. One reason, if not the principal one, the gospel of John arose was an attempt to rebut the view that the Baptist was superior to Jesus.
It explains why the writer of the Johannine gospel ensures that virtually every time he mentions the Baptist, he diminishes him relative to Jesus. In the gospel of John, the Baptist is made to deny that he was not the messiah, Elijah, or “the prophet” and to expressly admit that Jesus was greater than he. Clearly, this is not history we’re reading but political propagandism.
A disinclination to unequivocally admit to the “Lord’s” baptism by John is more than apparent in all the four gospels. Mark makes a point of mentioning that Jesus may have been baptised by John all right but the Baptist made it clear Jesus was preeminent in the greater scheme of things. Matthew categorically states that John was reluctant to baptise Jesus and that it was at Jesus’s insistence that John subjected him to the rite of immersion.
Luke equivocates: the message he seems to put across is that Jesus was not directly baptised by John (he makes mention of Jesus’s baptism only after John’s imprisonment). In the gospel of John, the baptism of Jesus by John is not even mentioned at all although it is implied. Just what exactly transpired?
THE ANUNNAKI CALL THE SHOTS
First, let us recognise that the course of Jesus’s life was not spontaneous: it was being driven by the Illuminati of the day practically every step of the way, just as they today chart the course of affairs behind the scenes. These were the Anunnaki, the Old Testament gods who we now know were not gods at all but Aliens from another planet. Jesus was aware of their existence and their influence. The apostle Paul too did come to know about them though by the time he did it was too late to turn back the clock and begin it all over again.
Just as the Illuminati of our day are obsessed with the bloodline thing (that is, dynastic genetics), the Anunnaki also were sticklers for lines of descent. The ancestry of Jesus did not begin with Abraham: it began with Adapa (who is not the same as Adam but like the rest of the human race stemmed from Adam), the first civilised human being who was fathered by Enki, the step brother to Enlil, called Jehovah in the Bible.
The line from Adapa all the way to Jesus and beyond was called the Sangreal. In English, this translates to “Holy Grail”. It was through the Sangreal that the Anunnaki had undertaken to indirectly rule the world. Although they were in two factions, the Enlilites, led by Jehovah, and the Enkites, led by Enki, they typically intermarried just to ensure they had equal claim to world rulership through the conjoined Sangreal line.
Now, the Anunnaki have a cyclical as opposed to a linear way of conducting the affairs of Earth. They to a lesser or greater degree duplicate events between time periods. King Solomon was very much aware of this phenomenon and hence his assertion that, “There is nothing new under the sun. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again” (ECCLESIASTES 1:9).
It is small wonder that when we read the history of “Saviour Sun Gods”, we find that the lives of Horus of Egypt, Krishna of India, and Jesus of Nazareth bear very striking parallels, a characteristic that has made modern-day historian naively dismiss such stories as the stuff of myth and legend.
Of course not every aspect of Jesus’s life as related in the gospels is historically true: there was a lot that was inserted to make the Jesus story more or less coincide with the Horus story. Such a scheme has been more than amply showcased by Gerald Massey in his book Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World.
Massey has shown that two Johns were associated with Horus, the Egyptian Anunnaki god who was a great great grandson of Enki and who ruled Egypt for 300 years from the year 8683 BC. There was a John who baptised him and a John who wrote his story – the Two Witnesses. In the life of Jesus too is found two Johns: the John who baptised him and the John who wrote the book of Revelation, which unbeknown to most people is a continuation of the life of Jesus and his family.
My brilliant friend LM Leteane, a columnist, author, and researcher, has convincingly demonstrated that the John who was officially commissioned to document the saga of Jesus was Stephen (Stab-Aan, meaning “one like John”) but after he was killed at the instigation of Paul, another John, the author of Revelation, stepped into the breach.
Jesus was baptised in the river Jordan and Horus was baptised in the river Iarutana, which is the same name pronounced differently. The John who baptised Horus was killed by decapitation and John the Baptist also died in exactly the same fashion.
The Bible, folks, has to be read with an informed mind. If you take it at face value, as most of the Christian clergy have, you will be under the impression that you are very knowledgeable about it when you actually know nothing! It is not seminary education or even a PhD in theology that will correctly illuminate you: it is your own quest for the real truth as institutional education, needless to say, is pure indoctrination for the most part.
JESUS AS NEW HORUS
According to the gospels, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was marked by two “supernatural” incidents. First, the “Holy Spirit” in the form of a dove descended on him. Second, a voice from overhead bellowed out, saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I’m well pleased: listen to him”.
My fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ will be disappointed to learn that nothing of the sort happened. This embellishment was interpolated into the gospel by redactors who were acting under the say-so of the Anunnaki. It was the Horus story being grafted onto the Jesus story: it all harps back to ancient Egypt. Once, in ancient Egypt was the trinity of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (which simply meant sage, guru, or elder statesman).
These were Osiris, his son Horus, and his father Ra (Marduk) respectively – the Anunnaki, who were addressed as gods by Earthlings. This was the clan of Enki that ruled ancient Egypt for 12,300 years according to the Egyptian priest Manetho, who chronicled the history of Egypt in the 3rd century BC.
How many Christians are aware that when they are baptised in the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, they are actually being baptised in the names of three Anunnaki gods? Now you will understand why throughout my more than 30 years as a Christian, I have stoutly refused to be baptised.
Horus was born “miraculously” so to speak. His father Osiris had been killed by Set, his half-brother, in the jockeying for the rulership of the whole of Egypt, and his body cut into pieces and scattered or over the Egyptian wilds, then lushly forested. Osiris’s wife Isis, however, managed to retrieve all the pieces except the most vital – the phallus, which she needed to extract sperm cells and produce a heir. Having failed to locate the phallus, Isis turned to her uncle Ningishizidda (Thoth).
Ningishzidda, who like his father Enki an all-knowing genius, produced sperm cells from the non-sexual cells of Osiris’s remains using a process known as artificial meiosis (which in our day still resides in the realm of theory). Isis then inseminated herself with these fashioned male gametes and that was how Horus was born. The virgin birth attributed to Jesus in the surface narrative of the gospels derive from the Horus story.
When Horus was baptised at age 30, the rite fundamentally marked three milestones. One of these was that he was now officially adopted by his grandfather Ra, the Holy Spirit, as his son (having been fatherless). When he emerged from the water, Ra, who was in attendance, formally acknowledged him as his “beloved son” just as the voice of God asserted in respect of Jesus. It was at this juncture that Horus adopted the symbol of a dove (indeed, Horus is in ancient depictions portrayed as a human with the head of a bird).
This not only was the seal of approval by his new foster father Ra but it also denoted embodied wisdom. That’s why the word translated “Holy Spirit” in the Bible actually means wisdom. We see, therefore, that the dove imagery as well as the “voice of God” at the river Jordan is not historical. The event does have some underlying fact but is strongly overlayed with Egyptian Anunnaki ritual
ORDAINED AND PREPARED FOR TEMPTATION
Besides marking his official adoption by his grandfather Ra, Horus’s baptism had two other principal purposes. First, it ordained him as the chief minister of the god Ra. We see the same thing with Jesus for it is only after the baptism that the ministry of a now “spirit-filled” Jesus commences in earnest.
It is only after the baptism that we encounter statements like, “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit” (LUKE 4:1/MATTHEW 4:1) and, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: he hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. To-day hath the scripture been fulfilled in your ears” (LUKE 4:18-19). Paraphrased, what all this serves to underscore is that Jesus was the new Horus whose mission had been commissioned by the Anunnaki, the Enkites in particular as opposed to the Enlilites.
The other purpose of the baptism of Horus was to prepare him for a showdown with his arch-rival Set – the man (his uncle) who had murdered his father Osiris – for the throne of Egypt. Set‘s full name was Set-En, meaning Prince Set. Set-en is Satan in our day, a byword for “Devil”. This is exactly what we see in the Jesus story. MATTHEW 4:1, which comes just after the baptism says, “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil”.
All in all, the so-called supernatural events that took place at the River Jordan were not history: they were interpolations lifted from the factual saga of the Anunnaki gods of ancient Egypt. They were inserted purely as political statements. For example, if God indeed volubly spoke at the baptism of Jesus, why did John later doubt Jesus when he was in prison, when he sent a message to Jesus wondering whether he was “the one to come or should we look for another?” (MATTHEW 11:3).
Yet just as Jesus was the Horus and John was the Anup, the gospel times had their equivalent of Set, the Satan or the Devil. Again this was not a supernatural being but a flesh-and-blood being.
His name was Judas Iscariot. It was Judas Iscariot who administered the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.
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).