Connect with us
Advertisement

The John Conspiracy

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER…

Was Jesus among the cabal that plotted the death of the Baptist?

Why did Herod Antipas have John the Baptist killed? There are two versions on the subject. One is found in the gospels and the other in the works of Josephus. The Josephus account is recorded in The Jewish Antiquities as follows in part:


“Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.”


 The gospel version goes as follows:


17 “For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him. 21 Finally,  the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, ‘Ask me for anything you want, and I’ll give it to you. 23 And he promised her with an oath, ‘Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.’24 She went out and said to her mother, ‘What shall I ask for?’ ‘The head of John the Baptist,’ she answered. 25 At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: ‘I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter.’ 26 The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27 So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28 and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother” (MARK 6:17-28.  Same event related in MATTHEW 14:1-12).


From the above accounts, we see that whereas Josephus attributes the Baptist’s death to power politics, the gospels attribute it to a scheming queen. Which of the two versions is true?

WHERE GOSPELS GOSSIPY?
Let us begin with the gospel version. Although it does have a core of truth, it contains aspects that smack of naivety.  Why it comes across as such we shall explain shortly.  


The central villain in the gospel version is Herodias, along with her unnamed daughter. Thankfully, Flavius Josephus supplies the name for us: she was Salome. Salome was Herod Antipas’s  stepdaughter. Herodias was first married to her uncle, Herod II, also known as Phillip I (not to be confused with the tetrarch Phillip II, another uncle). In the gospels, Phillip I is also referred to as Thomas, one of the so-called disciples of Jesus.  Thomas was the fourth son of King Herod the Great (37 BC to 4 BC) and was a half-brother to Herod Antipas, the youngest of the Herod scions. It was with Thomas that Herodias had Salome.


Why did Herodias ditch Thomas for Antipas? Thomas had been in line to succeed King Herod but was disinherited in the waning years of King Herod when his mother Mariamne II was implicated in a plot to poison the King.  The gorgeous and deathly ambitious Herodias, however, saw herself as a future Queen and so when Antipas proposed marriage to her, she had no compunctions about tying the knot with him without legally divorcing Thomas. Antipas was at the time already married to Phasaelis, a daughter of Aretas IV, King of neighbouring Nabatea (modern-day Jordan).

This was clearly a politically expedient marriage. Antipas decided to hitch Herodias to again make political capital out of her pedigree: not only was she a Jew but she had Hasmonean blood. The Hasmonean line had ruled Palestine for nearly 100 years and was held in higher esteem than the Herod dynasty. Aware of her marquee value, Herodias insisted to Antipas that he could only take her hand in holy matrimony if he divorced Phasaelis. A hooked Antipas did likewise, a move that led to a  disastrous war with Nabatea, which Antipas nearly lost.


The gospels say it was Herodias who was behind the killing of John the Baptist owing to his unstinting condemnation of her unlawful marriage to Antipas, that Antipas had John beheaded after making an inviolable pledge to little Salome (the Greek word associated with her in the gospel of Mark suggests she was a very young girl, probably aged 12 or thereabouts), whose exquisite dance moves stupefied him out of his senses. Of course the story cannot be taken on its face value: there was no way Herod would have promised little Salome half of his kingdom in honour of her wish, a kingdom which he did not have.

Antipas was Rome’s client king (quarter-king actually), meaning he ruled under the mandate and at the pleasure of the emperor. He had no powers whatsoever to parcel out the territory in which he had jurisdiction to anybody he wished.  Remember, even Herod the Great’s will, whereby he divided Palestine amongst his three sons, had to be ratified, and was even altered, by Caesar Augustus and unlike Antipas, Herod was a King with full stripes but who nonetheless had to defer to Rome.  The gospel account therefore sounds gossipy and borders on fable.     

THE JOSEPHUS VERSION

It is Flavius Josephus who provides a more credible explicit account of the  death of the Baptist. Josephus documents that  Antipas had the Baptist arrested by virtue of his rock-star popularity. John the Baptist was indubitably the most popular figure of his day and to the extent where he had to “command” the Jews to repentance and not appeal to them. Whenever and wherever he held  a crusade, be it in the  village square or some river valley, thousands thronged there. Antipas therefore must have feared that with such a hold on  the masses, John could easily incite them to rebellion against his rule. Such a scenario could only be forestalled if the Baptist was erased from the face of the Earth.


What we see, therefore, is that Josephus did not draw a causal connection between Antipas’s marriage to Herodias and his decision to have the Baptist executed. Now, in  relating the death story of John, Josephus was not simply writing as a historian: he did have near-firsthand knowledge of the circumstances of the Baptist’s death. Josephus was born in 37 AD, six years after the death of John. But as a teenager, Josephus spent time in the wilds with a man called Banus, who to all intents and purposes was  a former disciple of the Baptist to judge by his ascetic and unconventional life style that mirrored that of John. The following is Josephus’s account of his encounter with Banus according to his most famous work, The Jewish Antiquities:


“When I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: – The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all.

Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.”


Banus certainly must have recounted to Josephus the manner of the Baptist’s death, but was Banus fully conversant with the cutthroat politics against whose backdrop John met his fate?

SIMON ZELOTES SUCCEEDS BAPTIST

The gospel version of the Baptist’s death, it turns out, is not as legendary as may be suggested on the surface. It is actually factual. But the factuality is not apparent: it needs discernment with the help of the vital pesher instrument.  Just to recap, pesher is a device whereby the real story is told beneath the surface story using the familiar language but which has a double, underlying meaning only known to the writer and people privy to the secret language.   


In the gospels,  “Daughter of Herodias” does not mean Salome, the stepdaughter of Antipas.  It stands for Helena-Salome, a namesake of Antipas’ stepdaughter, which explains why the evangelists did not name her. Helena-Salome, who is actually the most significant woman in the gospels after Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, was the mistress of Simon Zelotes, Jesus’s lead disciple. Helena-Salome was nicknamed “Daughter of Herodias” because of her scheming with Herodias about  the Baptist. John the Baptist had 30 disciples and of these only one was female – Helena-Salome. Whilst Simon Zelotes belonged to the Jesus party, his mistress stayed with the Baptist as Simon’s mole and agent provocateur. It was Simon Zelotes and Helena-Salome who orchestrated the killing of John.


Helena-Salome (who goes by several names in the Bible and of whom we will talk about in detail at a later stage), was a former priestess of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus in Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey.  As a priestess, she performed orgiastic dances to the Anunnaki goddess Artemis. It was these sexually provocative dancing skills that she put on display before a spellbound Herod Antipas at the Fortress of Machaerus in September AD 31. That’s how she wrung a pledge from a literally hypnotised  Antipas  to instantaneously render her a gift of her asking as a reward for her lewd contortions and gyrations. Helena-Salome was rooting for her consort Simon Zelotes to take over from John the Baptist as Pope, as a result of which she and Simon strategically endeared themselves to Antipas and Herodias, having capitalised on the Baptist’s incessant tirades at the illegality of the couple’s marriage.


As such, Helena-Salome’s request for the “head of John” had two meanings. The surface meaning was the execution of John. But the pesher meaning was John’s headship – the papacy, which she wanted conferred on Simon.   Antipas, who had made the promise before a dignified gathering, was cornered and had no option but to make good on it. He would never recover from this grisly deed.  Meanwhile, the Baptist had ceased to be Pope after his incarceration and Nathaniel had become the acting Pope. Whilst Nathaniel was Pope, Simon Zelotes had lobbied Jesus to support him to take over from him in case John permanently forfeited the position and Jesus had agreed. (This story can be deciphered using the pesher code from Jesus’s conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman (MARK 7:25-30/MATTHEW 15:21-28), who as we shall later demonstrate was actually Helena-Salome).  


Meanwhile, the incarcerated John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to tell him to his face that he (John)  was justified to endorse James (the younger brother of Jesus ) as the Davidic messiah as Jesus had done nothing whatsoever to help set him free. Jesus’s response was that the  messengers should not bother  persuading  him (the Baptist) that he was indeed messianic material but simply relate to him his epic deeds (MATTHEW 11:1-6/LUKE 7:18-23). Jesus’s statement in this regard that “blessed are those who are not offended by me” is as plain as plain can be that he and the Baptist were not on good terms.  


Following the execution of the Baptist at only age 38, Simon Zelotes was elected as Pope, having been supported by Jesus and Antipas himself, and Nathaniel accordingly stepped down. Simon then appointed Judas Iscariot as his No. 2 and Jesus as his No.3. Note that this was in terms of the priestly hierarchy, which was the most prestigious. Politically, Jesus was still head of the 12 so-called disciples, who included Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot. As successor to John the Baptist, Simon Zelotes also took the headship of the 30-man apostolate that John had headed.


The fundamentalist Essenes, however, who were diehard loyalist to the Baptist, directed their wrath not at Simon Zelotes but at Jesus. As far as they were concerned, it was he who instigated the death of  their leader. Jesus consequently became a marked man in Judea,   as a result of which he  relocated from there to Galilee, where he enjoyed the protection of Antipas as Galilee was the latter’s jurisdiction.     

NEXT WEEK: THE WOMAN IN THE LORD’S LIFE!

Continue Reading

Columns

STRESS TEST

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.

QUOTE

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

Columns

Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022
I

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?

 

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.

NEXT WEEK: DIANA REVERTS TO SINGLENESS

Continue Reading

Columns

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