Connect with us

The Horus Factor

Benson C Saili

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?

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.  

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

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.

Continue Reading


A Begrudged Child

21st June 2022

Princess Diana was at once a child of destiny and a victim of fate

It is no secret, General Atiku, that the British monarch constitutes one of the most moneyed families on this scandalously uneven planet of the perennial haves on the one hand and the goddamn havenots (such as you and me General) on the other hand.

In terms of residences alone, the House of Windsor lays claim to some 19 homes, some official, such as Buckingham Place and Windsor Castle, for instance, and the greater majority privately owned.
Arguably the most eminent of its private residences is Sandringham House at Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England.

It is at this sprawling, 8,100-hectare estate the Queen spends two months each winter, at once commemorates her father King George VI’s death and her own accession to the throne, and more often than not celebrates Christmas. King George VI and his father King George V both drew their last breath here.

A 19th century Prince of Wales, Albert Edward (who would later become King Edward VII), acquired Sandringham in 1862 and it has remained royal property ever since. On the death of King George VI in February 1952, the property passed to his successor Queen Elizabeth II, the incumbent monarch, who assigned her husband Prince Phillip its management and upkeep. The estate also houses a parish, St. Mary Magdalene Church, which the outwardly religious Queen attends every Sunday.

Albert, General, had several additional properties built on the estate the year after he acquired it, one of which was the ten-bedroomed Park House. The house was built to accommodate the overflow of guests at Sandringham House. In the 1930s, King George V leased Park House to Maurice Roche, an Irishman and a bosom friend to his second son, who at the time was Duke of York but would in future be King George VI.

Roche was the 4th Baron Fermoy, a title in the Peerage of Ireland created by Queen Victoria way back in 1856. He and his wife Ruth had three children born at Park House, the second-born of whom was Frances Ruth Roche (futuristically Frances Shand Kydd), born in January 1936.

In 1956, Frances married John Spencer, a fellow noble, and following an “uneasy spell” at Althorp, the Spencer family estate of 500 years, the couple took up residence at Park House, which would be their home for the next 19 years. On July 1, 1961, Frances, then aged 25, and John, then aged 37, welcomed into the world their thirdborn child and youngest daughter, Diana Frances Spencer.

She would, on a positive note, become Her Royal Highness Princess Diana of Wales and the most famous and popular member of the Royal family. On the flip side of the coin, she would, as you well know General, become the most tragic member of the Royal family.


If there was one thought that constantly nagged at Diana as a youngster, General, it was the “guilt” of having been born anyway. Her parents first had two daughters in succession, namely Elizabeth Sarah, born in 1955, and Cynthia Jane, born in 1957. Johnnie was displeasured, if not downright incensed, that his wife seemed incapable of producing a male child – a heir – who he desperately needed as an aristocrat.

He even took the trouble of having his wife see a series of doctors in a bid to establish whatever deficiency she possessed in her genetic make-up and whether it was possible to correct it. At the time, General, it was not known that it is the man who determines a child’s sex and not the woman.

John’s prayers, if we can call them that General, were as much answered as they were unanswered. The longed-for male heir was born on January 12, 1960. Named John after his father, he was, as per the official version of things, practically stillborn, being so piteously deformed and gravely ill that he was dead in a matter of only ten hours, a development of which Earl Spencer would in future remark thus, albeit with tongue-in-cheek: “It was a dreadful time for my parents and probably the root of their divorce because I don’t think they ever got over it.”

Again as per the official version, General, John was gutted and hurriedly got into stride, this time around utterly positive that having had two daughters in succession, it would be two sons in succession. But nature, General, is seldom that predictable or orderly.

The next child was in fact a daughter, the now iconic Diana, for the third time around. Although John is recorded as having marvelled at what a “perfect physical specimen” her newly-born daughter was, he was forlorn beneath the façade, as a result of which Diana, who as a child did sense a lingering frustration on the part of her father on her account, would openly intuit that she was an unwelcome child, a “nuisance to have around”, thanks to her “failure” to be born a boy. From a very age thus, General, Diana had concluded that she was not well-fated and presciently so!

Although the heir, Charles Spencer (the future Earl Spencer) finally arrived on May 20, 1964, Diana perceived very little if any change in the way she was contemplated by her parents. In fact, both she and Charles could not desist from wondering whether had John lived, they would have been born at all. Seemingly, they came to be simply because their father was desperate for a heir and not necessarily that he wanted two more children.  With the birth of Charles, General, John called it a day as far as the process of procreation was concerned.


Why was Diana so named, General? Throughout her life, it was taken as an article of faith that her name derived from Lady Diana Spencer, a member of the Spencer clan who lived between 1710 and 1735, dying at a pitifully tender age of only 25. Certainly, the two namesakes turned out to have precious much in common as we shall unpack at a later stage, as if the latter-day Diana’s life was deliberately manoeuvred to more or less sync with the ancestral Diana.

It emerged, however, General, that the connection to an ancestor was actually secondary, or maybe incidental. The primary inspiration of the name was at long last disclosed by Earl Spencer on September 7, 1997, the day of Princess Diana’s burial. Delivering the elegantly crafted eulogy, Earl Spencer had this to say in relation to her naming: “It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this – a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age.”

It is significant, if not curious, General, that of John’s three daughters, only Diana was given the name of a goddess. Clearly, there must have been a special reason for this as aristocrats do not confer names casually: every name carries a metaphorical, symbolic, or intentional message. Typically, it honours an iconic personage or spirit or somebody lesser but who evokes memories anyway.

Elizabeth Sarah, for instance, was in all probability named after the Queen’s mother, whose decades-long inner circle included Diana’s paternal and maternal grandmothers, and an ancestor going by the name Sarah Jennings (1760-1744). Charles Spencer was named after the family’s greatest forbearer, King Charles 1 of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1625-1649. The ill-fated John was of course named after his father, who in turn was likely named after the 5th Earl Spencer, John Poyntz Spencer (1835-1910).

On occasion in occultic families, as the Spencer family latterly have been, a name, General, connotes a bad futuristic omen associated with its bearer and that was precisely the case with Diana.


In its ancient rendering, the name Diana meant “The Heavenly One”, or goddess being a feminine style. The first Diana, General, was Inanna, an Anunnaki goddess whose Akkadian name was Ishtar – Esther in English. As you well know General, the Anunnaki are the Old Testament gods, Aliens from the planet Nibiru, the Solar System’s little-known planet which is seen only once in 3600 years, and who came to Earth 432,000 years ago as we comprehensively set down in the Earth Chronicles series.

The name Inanna is Sumerian, the Sumerians being the best-known civilisation of old who thrived around modern-day Iraq (called Sumer in ancient times) about 6000 years ago and who were indirectly governed by the Anunnaki. It was abbreviated from Nin-An-Ak, meaning “Lady of Heaven and Earth” or “Lady of the God of Heaven and Earth”.

She was so-called, General, not because she had particularly special godly qualities but owing to the fact that she was the earthly mistress of Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, the King of the planet Nibiru, which humans of the day perceived as Heaven.

Anu was the father of Enlil, the principal Jehovah of the Bible. Enlil in turn had a second-born son called Nannar-Sin, the first Anunnaki to be born on Earth and who eventually became the Allah of Islam. It was Sin who fathered Inanna. Thus Inanna was Anu’s great-granddaughter but every time he visited Earth, Anu was sexually entertained by the stunningly beautiful Inanna, an act which in Anunnaki culture was not frowned upon.

Inanna was amongst other appellations known as the Goddess of Hunting (because of her penchant for, and skill in, waging war) and the Goddess of Love (in the sense of licentious love-making and not conventional moral love). Her other names in different parts of the world and across the ages were Irnin; Anunitu (Beloved of Anu); Aphrodite; Ashtoreth; Astarte; and Artemis, to mention only a few.

Although her celestial counterpart was the planet Venus, she was also loosely associated with the constellation Virgo as well as the moon. Once upon a time, when she was a virgin, Virgo was dedicated to her by her grandfather Jehovah-Enlil, who was Earth’s Chief Executive until circa 2024 BC. With regard to the moon, it primarily had to do with her twin brother Utu-Shamash, whose celestial counterpart was the sun: as such, Inanna’s inevitably had to be the moon. That, however, was only in a putative sense in that the operative moon god of the day was her father Sin.

Since moonlight effectively turns darkness into relative daylight, Inanna has in legends been referred to as Diana Lucifera, the latter term meaning “light-bringer”. Inanna’s association with the moon, General, partly explains why she was called the “Heavenly One” since the moon is a heavenly body, that is, a firmament-based body. It also explains why she was also known as Luna, which is Latin for moon.


Now, children of royals, aristocrats and other such members of high society, General, are invariably named before they are born. True, when a Prince William or Prince George comes along, the word that is put out into the public domain is that several names have been bandied about and the preferred one will “soon be announced”. That, General, is utter hogwash.

No prince, princess, or any other member of the nobility for that matter, is named at or sometime after their birth. Two names, a feminine and a masculine one, are already finalised whilst the child is in the womb, so that the name the child eventually goes by will depend on no other factor beside its gender.

Princess Diana, General, was named a full week after her birth, as if consultations of some sort with certain overarching figures had to be concluded first and foremost. Apparently, the broader outlines of her future first had to be secretly mapped out and charted in the manner of a child of destiny, though in her case she was as much a child of destiny as she was a doomed child. In her childhood reminiscences, Diana does hint at having been tipped to the effect that she was a special child and therefore had to scrupulously preserve herself.

“I always felt very different from somebody else, very detached,” she told her biographer Andrew Morton as per his 1992 book Diana Her True Story – In Her Own Words. “I knew I was going somewhere different but had no idea where. I said to my father when I was 13, ‘I know I am going to marry someone in the public eye’.” That, General, speaks volumes on the deliberately designed grooming she was subjected to in the formative years of her pilgrimage in life.

Since it was repeatedly drummed in her highly impressionable mind that there was something big in store for her along the way, Diana, General, remained chaste throughout her upbringing, if not an outright virgin to in all probability conform to the profile of the goddess Diana/Inanna before she exploded into a lecherous, loose-mannered nymphomaniac in her adult life as we underscored in the Earth Chronicles series. “By the time I got to the top of the school,” Diana said to Morton, “all my friends had boyfriends but not me because I knew somehow that I had to keep myself very tidy for whatever was coming my way.”


Unusual for an aristocrat, General, Diana was born not in the rather apt precincts of a high-end hospital but within the banality of Park House itself. Whether hired midwives were on hand to help usher her into the world or it was only her dad, mum and closer womenfolk relations who did we can only speculate.

If for one reason or the other her parents were desirous that she be delivered at home, what secret rites did they perform as her mother’s waters broke, General? What incantations, if at all, did John utter over her? Was her birth an occultic one with all the attendant paraphernalia as opposed to a conventional one?

That Diana’s arrival was not a particularly cherished event, General, is evidenced by the fact that she was christened within the Sandringham Estate, at St. Mary Magdalene Church, with only well-to-do commoners in attendance, whereas the more prized child, her younger brother Charles, was christened at Westminster Abbey, in the presence of the Queen, who was designated as his principal godmother.

Anyhow, it was just as well, General, that it was in the hallowed environs of St. Mary Magdalene Church that Diana was committed to the “The Lord” as she was in a manner of speaking the Mary Magdalene of our day.


Continue Reading


Challenges in our lives

21st June 2022

Allah Almighty reminds us: ‘On no soul does Allah place a burden greater than it can bear’ (Qur’an 2:286). Also: “Be patient. Surely, Allah is with those who are the patient.” [Qur’an 8: 46].

Without fail, whether we like it or not there are times in our lives when many things seem to go wrong and as mere humans we go into a panic syndrome and are left wondering; why me? Why now? What have I done to deserve this? We are all tested with adversity, hard times and pain, but these tribulations are the Almighty’s way of transforming us and help us develop spiritually.

As mere humans we all have different reactions when something good or bad happens to us, and usually our reactions depend on the strength of our religious belief and of our righteous deeds and actions.

One person may receive blessings and goodness with gratitude and accepts the bad challenges and patches in his life with perseverance and endurance. This positive attitude brings him peace of mind and happiness, causing his grief, anxiety and misery to ease. Thus, this positivity brings a balance and contentment in his life.

On the other hand another person receives blessings and goodness with arrogance and transgression; his manners degenerate and become evil; he receives this goodness and utilizes it in an unthinking and uncaring manner; it does not give him any peace of mind as his mind is always distressed, nervous and restless.

Thus when faced with loss and difficulty, due to his arrogant nature, he begins to ask why me? What have I done to deserve this and he may even damn and curse others and thinks that they are plotting his downfall.

But every now and then we should stop to ponder over the blessings both apparent and hidden from The Almighty upon us, it is only then that we will realise that our Lord has granted us abundant blessings and protected us from a number of evils; this will certainly ease our grief and anxiety and bring about a measure of happiness and contentment.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Look to those who are lower than you (those who possess less than you) and do not look to those higher than you; this will make you appreciate the bounties of Allah upon you.”

Whether we are believers or disbelievers, virtuous or sinful, most of us are to a certain degree able to adapt and condition ourselves to face adversity and remain calm during these moments of challenge, uncertainty and upheaval.

When people receive affliction with fear, discontent, sorrow and despair; their life becomes miserable, they panic and become short tempered. Such people are unable to exercise patience remain restless, stressed and cannot find contentment that could make life easier for them.

On the other hand, due to a believer’s strong faith and reliance on Allah, it makes him persevere and he emerges stronger than others in difficult situations as this reduces his fear and anxiety and that ultimately makes matters easier for him. If he is afflicted with sickness, poverty or any other affliction, he is tranquil and content and has no desire for anything which has not been decreed for him.

‘If Allah touches you with affliction, none can remove it but He; if He touches you with happiness, He has power over all things’ (Qur’an 6: 17).Therefore the believer prays to his Lord: ‘Our Lord, condemn us not if we forget or fall into error…lay not on us a burden greater than which we have the strength to bear’ (Qur’an 2:286)

However, the one who is weak in faith will be just the opposite; he becomes anxious, nervous, confused and full of fear. The anxiety and paranoia will team up against him because this person does not have the faith that could enable him to persevere during tough times, he is less likely to handle the pressures and will be left in a somewhat troubled and depressed state of mind.

It is natural that as humans we are always fearful of losing the things that we have acquired; we desire and cherish them and we are anxious to acquire more, because many of us will never reach a point where we are satisfied with the material things in life.

When certain frightening, disturbing or unsettling events occur, like emergencies or accidents we find that a person with sound faith is calm, steadfast, and able to cope with the situation and handle the hardship he is going through; such a person has conditioned himself to face afflictions and this makes his heart stronger and more steadfast, which gives him a level of tranquillity.

This shows the difference between a person who has strong belief and acts accordingly, and another who is not at this level of faith. Due to the strong belief of the true believer he is content with whatever Allah Almighty has decreed,

This life is full of ups and downs and uncertainties, but the only certain thing is that from the moment we are born we will be tested with life’s challenges throughout our entire lives, up to and to the final certainty, death. ‘Be sure We shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives, or the fruits of your toil, but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere’ (Qur’an2:155).

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “How wonderful is the matter of the believer! All of his matters are good and this is the case for nobody except a believer. If he is blessed with prosperity he thanks (Allah Almighty) and that is good for him; and if he is afflicted with adversity he is patient and perseveres and that is also good for him.”

During those challenging times you have three choices: either you can let them define you, let them destroy you; or you can let them strengthen you.

Continue Reading


Train Spotting

21st June 2022

Here in Botswana we are in the throes of winter chills, currently experiencing the tail-end of a deep freeze in South Africa which has brought snow to parts of the Karoo. Conversely, over in the United Kingdom, they are moving into summer and there is a mini heatwave happening, with temperatures in the thirties.

Both countries have one thing in common – they are heavily reliant on tourism revenues and both have accordingly suffered due to Covid which severely curtailed all movement and travel, most of all for leisure and pleasure. However, earlier this year the UK cast off the last of its Covid restrictions and travel requirements and basically declared the pandemic to be over. Britain was back in business!

So the very hard-hit hospitality sectors finally had some good news. The crowds would be returning, needing hotel and bed & breakfast accommodation, snacks and sit-down meals, pub lunches and all manner of ancillary services. Other related sectors also put out the metaphorical flags – theatres, cinemas, theme parks, camping & caravan sites, all of which had suffered hugely during the pandemic and all could now re-open their doors to paying punters.

If you’ve ever visited the UK you will know of its many attractions. London is not only a vibrant, multi-cultural city, it is also very historic, with centuries-old palaces and cathedrals and world-class galleries and museums. Outside the capital, there is glorious scenery, from rolling pastures in the south to the breath-taking Lake District and the Highlands and lovely lochs to the far north in Scotland plus all manner of coastal delights and cultural experiences.

For everyone even remotely involved in leisure, hospitality and entertainment, it was cash registers and swipe machines at the ready!

But then green for go suddenly and without warning changed to red for stop. It began with misery for air passengers. Only last week the UK Guardian reported ‘It has been another ” week of chaos at UK airports, with hundreds of flights cancelled and holidaymakers facing long queues, with reports of waits of up to eight hours. Pent-up demand for travel and staff shortages have combined to put pressure on airports and airlines.’

The Prospect union, which represents thousands of aviation staff, ” warned on Tuesday that “things could get worse this summer before they get better”, quoting staff shortages across the industry, with a huge reliance on overtime to get by day to day. The problem stemmed from the massive, industry-wide lay-offs over Covid and a sector seemingly taken by surprise by the lifting of travel restrictions. Airlines are now scrambling to replace staff made redundant, many of whom were forced to find employment in other sectors.

In addition some specialised staff such are aircrew had no option but to let their licences lapse and now find themselves technically not fit for flying duties. Ironically, one of the country’s largest and longest-established airline – British Airways – appears to be the one most severely affected with many of their former cabin crew members reporting that they had been laid off during the downturn with the promise of potential re-employment later but who are now being told their services are not required.

One BA pilot has warned of potential staff exodus and further delays that could last through to winter. When talking about ongoing staff shortages in the industry he predicted: “We might be correctly crewed by winter time. There is no chance this will be sorted this summer.

The last month (August) might be okay.” UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps put the blame squarely on the industry for the widespread chaos, saying some airlines had cut too many staff during the pandemic. “The decisions as to whether or not to lay off in the end were airlines’ decisions. They clearly in the end, looking back, cut too far on that,” he told the BBC.

Lufthansa is also joining the party in announcing cancellations. The airline will be scrapping 900 flights from its schedule, from next month. Affected flights will predominantly be on Fridays and weekends to a number of European destinations, from Frankfurt and Munich.

The airline stated: “After …two years of the pandemic, Lufthansa group airlines report high demand for air travel this summer……At present, however, the infrastructure has not yet been fully restored. The entire aviation industry, especially in Europe, is currently suffering from bottlenecks and staff shortages. This affects airports, ground handling services, air traffic control, and also airlines.”

Of course some flights are taking place and some tourists are managing to make it into the UK on a much-needed holiday but for many of them sadly, the airport might be as far as they get because to add to the flight misery, members of two large transport union, the RMT and Unite, will bring the London Underground to a grinding halt next week with planned strike action.

Simultaneously, but in a separate dispute, other RMT members will also be staging a series of strikes on Network Rail and other mainline UK train operators. So should those tourists wish to proceed to some of the country’s top holiday destinations, they’d be well advised to seek an alternative means of transport.

Economists are already predicting this wave of strikes to cost the UK economy at least £91million, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, proving devastating for the night-time and hospitality industries in particular. Hospitality chiefs estimated the national rail strike alone will cost the sector £540million over the week amid a 20 per cent drop in sales, the combination of which will hit ‘fragile consumer confidence’ and could ‘deliver a fatal financial blow’ to some firms.

In response, Transport for London (TFL), presumably in all seriousness, said its teams from Santander Cycles will be ensuring hire bicycles are ‘distributed at key locations according to demand’ and told commuters that ‘walking or cycling may be quicker for some journeys’ during the strike action.

Sounds to me like the message is ‘On yer bike’!

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!