Connect with us

The Lords Mother-In-Law

Benson C Saili

She was called Helena-Salome, the mistress to Simon Zelotes

Over the ages, the name Mary Magdalene has been loved and loathed in equal measure. Apostles such as Simon Peter and Paul hated her like the plague. For a long time, the Catholic Church had her designated a whore. Then in 1969, the Church reversed full cycle when it declared her a saint. Yet over the centuries, she has been one of the most positively depicted of all classical figures. There are numerous portrayals of her at the tomb and at the crucifixion.

She was a most special woman but both the early Church and Catholic Church vilified her. Why? Because she represented a major threat to their theological dogma. Having declared  Jesus as God, they didn’t want it to be openly known that actually he was a mere mortal who even had a wife and children. Religion, as the great Karl Marx said, is the opium of the masses.

Be that as it may, the assertion that Mary Magdalene  was a whore was not exactly far-fetched. It did have a near-credulous  foundation only this foundation was somewhat askew. The ascription of harlotry to Mary Magdalene had to do more with her mother than she  herself. For her mother was Helena-Salome, the consort of Simon Zelotes, Jesus’s foremost disciple. This fact we learn directly from extra-biblical sources and indirectly from the gospels themselves.

The fact that Helena-Salome was Mary Magadalene’s mother makes Simon Zelotes a father-in-law to  Jesus. It is small wonder then that Simon Zelotes was the closest of Jesus’s so-called disciples – or rather his closest associate – whereas Mary Magdalene was his closest female associate. All these three – Simon Zelotes, Helena-Salome, and Mary Magdalene feature prominently in the New Testament, the first two under various guises most Christians and most pastors are not aware of.

Simon Zelotes is the same person as   Simon the Zealot;  Simon the Canaanite; Simon the leper;  Simon the tanner;  Simon of Cyrene; Zebedee;  Lazarus; Ananias; “the great power of God”; Demetrius the silversmith; Beelzebub; and Beast 666. He also has symbolic names such as “Lightning” and the titular name at some stage of “Father” or “Pope”. Outside the Bible, he was best known as Simon Magus, that is, Simon the Magician.

In the Bible, Helena-Salome appears under the names "daughter" of Herodias; Syrophoenician woman;   woman of Samaria;  mother of the sons of Zebedee;  sister of Mother Mary; Martha; Joanna;  Salome; Sapphira; and Jezebel. She was also characterised as “Wisdom of God”. Outside the Bible, she also features under the names Justa; Luna; and Paulina.

Helena-Salome is an enigmatic figure. Her real name is not known for certain. The name Helena was  given to her by Simon Zelotes, who believed she was the reincarnation of  Helen of Troy – Inana, the most famous daughter of  the god Zeus, who was actually the Anunnaki god Nannar-Sin. Simon Zelotes thought she was the divine “Thought of God” because of her surpassing wisdom.  She could also have been called Helena because she was the spiritual advisor of Queen Helena of Adiabene (located in parts of modern-day Iraq, Kurdistan, and Armenia), when she converted to Judaism in about 30 AD.

The name Salome has two possible explanations. The first one has to do with her status in the Essene community. She was the female head of the order of Asher, whose members were gentile converts to Judaism. The order of Asher was founded by Queen Salome Alexandra, the last woman to rule over Judea and one of only two females to have ever done so, in the first century BC. “Salome” thus became the title of every woman head of the order of Asher. The second explanation derives from her being the chaperone of Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas, and godmother to Herodias’s daughter Salome.    

Helena-Salome was a Canaanite from Phoenicia, a narrow coastal territory corresponding to much of today’s Lebanon.  Phoenicia meant “land of purple” in Greek as the territory was famed for its purple dyes, which were made from shell fish. Phoenicia was organised into city states, the most eminent of which were Tyre and Sidon. In 64 BC, Phoenicia was annexed to the Roman province of Syria and henceforth became known as Syro-Phoenicia. It therefore makes sense that the Syro-Phoenician woman we encounter in MARK 7:25-30 and the Canaanite woman we encounter in MATTHEW 15:21-28 was Helena-Salome and not simply a chance woman.

Whilst a Temple Virgin at the Temple of Artemis (Innana-Ishtar) at Ephesus, the voluptuously beautiful Helena-Salome was tricked into having sex with a man who disguised himself as a “god” (He may as well have been the Anunnaki god Utu-Shamash – known to Greeks as Apollo – who was a twin brother to Innana). The result was a pregnancy leading to the birth of a daughter.

The daughter would in future come to be known as Mary Magdalene. Helena-Salome, however, strongly believed that she indeed had slept with a god and therefore vowed that she would never desecrate herself by ever sleeping with an ordinary mortal. She was to abstain from sexual activity for the rest of her life.

Since Helena-Salome had decided to live a chaste life forever, she bought two boys to adopt as sons. According to the Clementine literature (that is, the Clementine Homilies and Clementine Recognitions),   the two boys were illegitimate sons of  Julia the Elder, the only natural child of Augustus Caesar. Julia had sold them to slave traders but had at the same time asked Helena to buy them off and promised to help her with the finances needed for their upkeep. In the process, Helena became a very affluent   lady.  The two boys were given the Jewish names Niceta and Aquila but they were to be best known as James and John respectively, the gospels’ sons of Zebedee who  were among Jesus’s inner circle of 12  associates.  

Because of her ethereal beauty and glittering intelligence, Helena easily caught the eye of men. One of these was  Syro the Jairus, a chief priest of some synagogues in Syria and Galilee and a descendent of Ira the Jairite, who was an ancillary priest to King David of Judea. Jairus  proposed and soon the two had tied the knot. Of course Helena was not his first wife.

The marriage did not last as Helena was adamant that she was not going to be intimate with anybody ever again. Resultantly, Syro sent her packing but her daughter had already gained a reputation  as Jairus’s daughter, perhaps because of her staggering beauty (more so if she had Anunnaki blood in her). Helena moved to Tyre where she set up  her own temple that was dubbed a brothel. This, of course,  was a vilification.

Helena’s temple was far from a brothel.  Helena had been a Temple Virgin at the temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Temple virgins were known as Sacred Priestesses. They were also referred to as Scarlet Women.  The reason they were so-called was because they  were a specially designated source of menstruum, from which a number of  medicinal products were made.

This practice was called ritu, meaning “redness” because of the blood element  of  the ceremony. Ritu is the origin of the term “ritual”.  Most  people are not aware that menstruum has a whole host of medicinal uses which Illuminati doctors are aware of but which they do not share to the wider world.  In ancient times, the Earth-based Anunnaki  used menstrual extracts to lengthen their lives! This “elixir of life” was called Star Fire and was taken only from Temple Virgins.

In Greek, Temple Virgins were known as hierodulai, that is, Sacred Woman. In medieval French and English, hierodulai became “harlot”. In the early Germanic tongue, Temple Virgins were known as “hores” (meaning “beloved ones”  because of their highly venerated role), a term which was to transform to the now despicable  “whores”.  The temple that Helena founded in Tyre was meant to groom Temple Virgins for  purposes of ritu but her detractors deliberately twisted this to a brothel temple.

It was at her Tyre temple that Simon Zelotes met Helena and decided to hitch her up. However, Helena was to be only his consort and not his wife as she was unflinching in her volition to abstain from sexual relations. Simon Zelotes, who was smitten by her resounding wisdom and her resoluteness of purpose, raised no objections. Indeed,  throughout all extra-biblical literature, Helena is always referred to as the consort (partner)  of Simon and never his wife. 

Among the Essene community, she was often referred to as a “rich widow”, widow in this context meaning  divorcee. Remember, Essenes had their own lexicon, such that words which on surface had familiar meanings actually had special underlying meanings. This  coded language was called Pesher.  

Simon Zelotes adopted Mary Magdalene and the boys James and John. Since Simon’s other name was Zebedee, meaning “My Gift”, the two boys were typically  referred to as the sons of Zebedee.  Later in their adulthood, they would switch their political loyalties in the Jesus party from the “Lightning” faction headed by Simon Zelotes, to  the “Thunder” faction headed by  Simon’s main rival, Nathaniel. They were therefore now addressed as the “Sons of Thunder”.

While Nathaniel was Pope/Father (successor to John the Baptist), Helena spiritedly promoted her two boys to Jesus so that they would be his deputies in his capacity as Priest-King in  an independent Israel (MARK 10:35-45/MATTHEW 20:20-28).  A politically correct Jesus stoutly refused to commit to that  and instead referred her to Nathaniel. This was because as things presently stood, Nathaniel was the future High Priest of an independent Israel and it was up to him to choose his two deputies.  

In the Essene community in the 20s AD and onward, Helena-Salome was the most highly regarded woman alongside Mary the mother of Jesus. She actually fancied herself as the Essene priestess and called herself Justa, meaning “crown princess” or “future queen”. This was at the time when Simon Zelotes was Pope and therefore the highest ranking Essene – a king to her own mind. Because of her high social standing, she was entrusted headship of the Essene’s female  order of Asher, which alongside with the order of Dan, had strictly Gentile membership. 

The order of Asher was headquartered in Tyre, the capital of Phoenicia, because Phoenicia had been the territory of the Israel tribe of Asher.  The title of the female head of the order of Asher was Sarah-Salome. She would in due course assume another title, that of  Martha. Her daughter Mary Magdalene, however, belonged to the order of Dan.

Whereas members of the order of Dan were not allowed to own private property, those of Asher could. This allowed Helena to be a very “rich widow” as she had plenty of property courtesy  of the lavish material support she had been receiving from the wealthy Julia the Elder, the real mother of John and James.  Mary Magdalene would have been in line to inherit this wealth but when she became a Mary at her engagement to Jesus, she had to join the order of Dan, whose female members were not allowed to own property whatsoever: whatever personal assets they had was forfeited to the Essene community as a collective.  

Since she was so strikingly intellectual, Helena was the only woman disciple of John the Baptist. John had a total of 30 disciples to correspond with  the number of days in the month and Helena was designated as the 29th, to accord with a lunar month in a leap year. Her other name therefore was Luna.  For the most part though, Helena, just like her consort Simon Zelotes, was regarded as too ambitious and a schemer who knew no limits. Her male contemporaries therefore went out of their way to tarnish her name, often unjustifiably. Her putative involvement in the death of John the Baptist may just have been one such smear.

The church father Eusebius  also joined in the chorus of slurs. In his Church History, he wrote thus of Helena:  “And there went around with him (Simon Magus) at that time a certain Helena who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia.”

Clearly, Eusebius too misunderstood the purpose of the Virgin Temple she opened up in Tyre (she later shut it down anyway). Her own adopted son James and John never once impugned her. This is what James reported according to the Clementine literature: “They (the slave traders) sold us to a certain widow, a very honourable woman named Justa. She having bought us treated us as sons, so that she carefully educated us in Greek literature and liberal arts.”

John the Baptist was a puritan who never compromised his principles. There simply was no way a prostitute would have been part of his apostolic band and taken pride of place. The commonplace claims therefore that Helena-Salome was a harlot belong to the dustbin. Sadly, this character assassination stuck and unduly rubbed off on her only natural child – Mary Magdalene.  


Continue Reading



14th December 2022

We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.

Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.

Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?

The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.

There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill.  Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.

What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”.  Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe:  And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.

All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.

And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”

It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.

Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.


The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.

If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.

To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels.  Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter.  Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.


Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.


Continue Reading


Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022

In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father  John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said.  “If he dies, he will die immediately;  otherwise he’ll survive.”  

It came to pass,  General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak:  Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”

Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room.  ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all.  “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”

As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process  people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.

But Raine, General,  was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”

Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.




It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the  Austrian Alps along with  her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.

When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”

Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore  prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe,  “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’

At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”

Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.




In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.

In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.

The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The  Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his  notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable.   Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle  contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.




If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s  current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.

The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people,  conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was  a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.

And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious  doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne.   Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate  in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.

It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?


Pic Cap

SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.


Continue Reading


Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim

Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.

To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:

Right to life

The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex

Right to Equality 

The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.

Right to justice

Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice.  The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v  8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.

Right to freedom of conscience and religion

The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.

Right to personal freedom

No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.

Right to Protection of Honour

Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49  : v 11-12).

Continue Reading