Final Word on the Crucifixion
Columns
Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER…
This week we answer questions about the “execution” of Jesus
IF JESUS HAD BEEN NAILED TO THE CROSS AND LEFT THERE TILL HE WAS DEAD, HOW LONG WOULD HE HAVE LASTED AT THE MOST?
Maybe up to a week, or even slightly more. You should bear in mind that death on the cross could be occasioned by one of a number of factors. First, there was suffocation due to difficulty in breathing. Second, there was trauma due to the severity of injuries sustained from scourging where this had taken place. Third, there was hunger and dehydration since victims were not fed nor given water. It was rare that victims died the same day they were crucified.
COULD A PERSON NAILED TO THE CROSS SURVIVE IF HE WAS BROUGHT DOWN ALIVE NOT LONG AFTER BEING CRUCIFIED?
It was possible to survive yes. In The Jewish Antiquities, Flavius Josephus relates an incident where as he and Roman general Flavius Titus inspected the crosses upon which hundreds of Jews had been nailed during the course of the Jewish uprising in AD 70, they came across three Jews who were dear to Josephus. Josephus besought the general to spare their lives. Titus obliged and the three were brought down from the crosses. Following days of nursing by Roman military doctors, two died anyway but one survived.
IN A TYPICAL CRUCIFIXION, WERE THE DEAD BURIED OR LEFT TO ROT ON THE CROSS?
The Romans never buried victims of crucifixion. But they did hand over the bodies of the dead to their families if they claimed them. Otherwise, they were left on the cross to the mercy of the elements and wild animals. Typically, victims were crucified not too far above ground level so that in the event that they died and no one came forward to ask for their bodies, scavenging wolves and carrion birds such as vultures could reach them and therefore feast on them.
WHEN JESUS HUNG ON THE CROSS, WAS HE TOTALLY NAKED AS THE APOSTLE JOHN SUGGESTS OR AT LEAST HE HAD A LOIN CLOTH?
Firstly, Jesus was not nailed to a cross as I related. He was tied to a tree (see accompanying image) at Qumran. Crucifixion did not always entail nailing: sometimes, as in the case of Jesus, the victim was simply fastened to a tree and then fatally scourged left, right, and centre in that position. True, when Romans administered crucifixion of any kind, the victim was left stark naked, without a stitch on, to maximise the sense of humiliation (incidentally, even Jewish law dictated that a person who hung on a tree be completely naked). But the crucifixion of Jesus was a staged one: it was like a mock crucifixion. Money had changed hands between the Jewish establishment and the Roman authorities and hence there was a lot of informality. Thus Jesus did have an undergarment on. Besides, the crucifixion took place at Qumran and since the Essenes were puritans, there was simply no way they would have allowed a Son of David to be so humiliated as to be entirely without a covering. The gospel narratives should not be taken at face value as I have long underlined.
ACCORDING TO THE GOSPELS, JESUS TOLD ONE OF THE TWO “DYING THIEVES” CRUCIFIED WITH HIM THAT “VERILY, VERILY I SAY TO YOU TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE”. DID HE GO TO HEAVEN IN THE THREE DAYS THAT HE WAS DEAD?
He never did because he didn’t die on the cross: he simply lapsed into a deep stupor as per pre-arrangement. “Paradise” was a code word for the Qumran Cave in which Jesus was placed after he was untied from the tree and medically attended to. The conversation Jesus and the two “dying thieves” (Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot) had is a clear fabrication. It was written into the gospels to further vilify Judas. Judas was portrayed as mocking Jesus at Calvary whilst Simon Zelotes was portrayed as sympathetic. Simon Zelotes is made to say he and Judas’s crucifixion was deserved because the two were Zealots who indeed had masterminded the November 32 AD riots against Pontius Pilate, whereas Jesus was completely innocent. Judas is cast as mocking Jesus, daring him to save himself if he indeed was the Son of God (that is, if he was a Saviour Sun God, he didn’t have to die just as the Sun would never die off). Judas was a betrayer and the writers of the gospel had to cast him in as dark a light as possible. But we know from the pesher of the Dead Sea Scrolls that Judas had exculpated Jesus before Pilate. He had shown genuine penitence for attempting to embroil him in the uprising. Sadly, Judas was not allowed the chance to write his own gospel as he was eliminated the day after the crucifixion.
SOME WEEKS BACK, OUR PASTOR (I’M A PENTECOSTAL) PREACHED THAT DURING THE THREE DAYS THAT JESUS WAS DEAD, HE ACTUALLY WENT TO HELL AND PREACHED TO SOULS WHO HAD DIED BEFORE HIM SO THEY TOO COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO EMBRACE HIS MESSAGE OF REDEMPTION. DO YOU AGREE?
You haven’t quoted the scriptures your pastor must have referenced in that regard but I presume it must have been 1 PETER 3:18, which reads, “Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison”, and possibly ACTS 2:31, which says, “His soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption”. If you have been following my writings, you will perhaps have come to appreciate that the writers of the New Testament were seldom philosophically truthful. Even my favourite evangelist, Dr Luke, had his philosophical biases too although in terms of the broader historical backdrop he was remarkably accurate. The writers of the Jesus story lived under Roman rule and in an era where the Roman world worshipped several Saviour Sun Gods who were said to have wrought supernatural feats. They wanted to promote Jesus as being on the same divine footing as these various Saviour Sun Gods and so his story had to be substantially embellished if he was to make the grade. Jesus had to compete with Krishna, Horus, Mithras, etc, if he was to merit acceptance in the cynical Roman world as a worthwhile “God”. For instance, the Hindu Bible says Krishna “went down to hell to preach to the inmates of that dark and dreary prison, with the view of reforming them, and getting them back to heaven, and was willing himself to suffer to abridge the period of their torment”. It was written of the Greek god Adonis that, “After his descent into hell, he rose again to life and immortality”. The Caucasus god Prometheus was presented as “suffering and descending into hell, rising again from the dead, and ascending to heaven”. These are just a few examples. In order to measure up as a saleable God, the apostles also invented like experiences about Jesus. That’s what you should tell your pastor next time you meet him My Brother. As Kersey Graves pointedly puts it in his book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviours, “The story of their descent into hell was doubtless invented to find employment for them during their three days of hibernation or conservation in the tomb, that they might not appear to be really dead nor idle in the time”.
DID THE JEWS CRUCIFY THEIR OWN PEOPLE?
Yes they did. Flavius Josephus relates that in 162 BC, High Priest Alcimus had 60 Jews executed, among whom was the priestly scribe Jose ben Joezer. In 90 BC, King Alexander Janneus crucified 800 Pharisees following a failed revolt. In 80 BC, Shimon ben Shetah had 80 witches from Ashkelon crucified. The Jewish law provided for “hanging on a tree” (besides other forms of death such as stoning for instance) particularly for perpetrators of treason or blasphemy. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls also ordained that evildoers be “hung alive” on a tree. This was not exactly the same as crucifixion but it was partly interpreted as such (at the time the Torah was written, crucifixion by nailing to a stake was not known to the Jews and therefore it could not be specified as a form of punishment in their statutes. They learnt about crucifixion when they came under Persian rule in the 6th century BC).
WAS JESUS AWARE THAT HE WAS A SAVIOUR SUN GOD WHO HAD TO BE CRUCIFIED LIKE ALL SAVIOUR SUN GODS ALWAYS WERE?
No he was not. He was cast as a Saviour Sun God retrospectively, long after he had died. All Jesus knew was that he was a dynastic descendent of King David. The divine aspects about him were an invention, first by the apostle Paul and later by the early church fathers. There is very little that Jesus actually said or did that is recorded in the Bible. He never claimed to be God whatsoever. The people of his day knew him simply as a Davidic prince, a rabbi, and a crusading politician.
IF I GOT YOU RIGHT, YOU SAID THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS WAS ALL PART OF THE ANUNNAKI AGENDA. WHAT DID THE ANUNNAKI INTEND TO ACHIEVE BY HAVING JESUS CRUCIFIED (OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT SINCE YOU SAID HE WAS ACTUALLY NOT NAILED TO THE CROSS)?
There were two parties with vested interests in the crucifixion of Jesus. These were the Jewish establishment directly and the Anunnaki behind the scenes. In the case of the Jewish establishment, their aim was to defame him before the Jewish masses and elevate his younger brother James the Just in his stead. The Jewish establishment resented the fact that he was too politically ambitious. He wanted to be both King and High Priest of a liberated Israel. But like the Illuminati of our day, the Jewish establishment simply wanted him to be a ceremonial King, like the British monarch is in our day, and have nothing to do with the priesthood whatsoever. They wanted an elected High Priest, like the way the Pope is elected in our day. Jesus was adamant that he had to be Priest-King (Melchizedek) and that this status had to be hereditary and not elective. James, on the other hand, was content to be the ceremonial Jewish King and was not interested in the priesthood. That’s how he endeared himself to the establishment. If Jesus was to be defamed irretrievably, his dynastic standing had to be sullied. Crucifixion was the surest way to achieve this. The Torah said, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree” (DEUTERONOMY 21:22-23). In the eyes of the Jews therefore, Jesus could not be the Messiah because crucifixion made him accursed of God. It automatically disqualified him from the Davidic heirship. It explains why some of the people who saw him on the crucifixion stake mocked him and said, “If you indeed are the King of the Jews, extricate yourself from the tree”, meaning only then could he qualify as the bonafide King of the Jews as the King of the Jews was not expected to be crucified. It also explains why Paul in his epistles went to great lengths to spin the crucifixion as a blessing to mankind rather than an enduring curse on Jesus. The Jews struggled to come to terms with the acceptability of a Messiah who had been crucified and therefore cursed. On the part of the Anunnaki, they wanted to achieve two goals. First, they wished to set Jesus up as a Saviour Sun God (a goal Paul partially promoted) so that he could over time become an object of worship and veneration to the mass of mankind. The Anunnaki knew that people who worshipped a fellow creature were very easy to manipulate and they would never come to realise their own innate power as gods in their own right being bearers of the essence of the true God. Secondly, they wanted to set up the Jewish race so that it would become the most hated race in the world for “killing the Son of God”. That way, the Jewish Anunnaki god Enlil, called Jehovah in the Bible, would partly achieve his declared, systematic chastisement of the Jews for “prostituting themselves to other gods”. Indeed, Jews have been persecuted over the ages because of the fabricated indictment and admission that they crucified Jesus (“Let his blood be on us and our children” as per MATTHEW 27:25).
YOU SAID JESUS WAS NOT NAILED ON A CROSS BUT WAS TIED TO A TREE AND FLOGGED IN THAT POSITION. BUT THE GOSPELS ARE CATEGORICAL THAT HE WAS NAILED TO A CROSS. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS CONTRADICTION?
I thought I sufficiently explained that point in one of my articles. The English word cross is derived from the Latin term crux. In antiquity, a crux was not always a cross in the way we understand it today: it could also be a vertical object of wood, such as a pole, an erected beam, or a trunk of a tree (I recommend the 2011 book Crucifixion in Antiquity by Gunnar Samuelson in this connection.) I also did underline that crucifixion was not standardised as a practice. It was not always that the victim had nails or spikes driven through their limbs. One authority that backs me in this assertion is Joseph A Fitzmeyer, who in a research paper titled Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine and which was published in 1978 wrote that, “In pre-Republican times, the Romans sometimes punished disobedient slaves by fastening them to barren trees and scourging them to death”, that is, without being nailed at all although the act overall was referred to as crucifixion anyway. In any case, the Bible does not employ the term cross through and through in referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. For example, ACTS 5:29-30 says, “Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” (also see ACTS 10:34-41 and 13:27-31). Thus simply being hung on a tree, being fastened to a tree by means other than spikes and scourged to death, or being nailed to a conventional cross all constituted crucifixion.
NEXT WEEK: QUESTIONS ON THE HOLY FAMILY
Columns
GONE FISHING
In recent years, using personal devices in working environments has become so commonplace it now has its own acronym, BOYD (Bring Your Own Device). But as employees skip between corporate tools and personal applications on their own devices, their actions introduce a number of possible risks that should be managed and mitigated with careful consideration. Consider these examples:
Si-lwli, a small family-run business in Wales, is arguably as niche a company as you could find, producing talking toys used to promote the Welsh language. Their potential market is small, with only some 300,000 Welsh language speakers in the world and in reality the business is really more of a hobby for the husband-and-wife team, who both still have day jobs. Yet, despite still managing to be successful in terms of sales, the business is now fighting for survival after recently falling prey to cybercriminals. Emails between Si-Iwli and their Chinese suppliers were intercepted by hackers who altered the banking details in the correspondence, causing Si-Iwli to hand over £18,000 (around P ¼ m) to the thieves. That might not sound much to a large enterprise, but to a small or medium business it can be devastating.
Another recent SMB hacking story which appeared in the Wall Street Journal concerned Innovative Higher Ed Consulting (IHED) Inc, a small New York start-up with a handful of employees. IHED didn’t even have a website, but fraudsters were able to run stolen credit card numbers through the company’s payment system and reverse the charges to the tune of $27,000, around the same loss faced by Si-Iwli. As the WSJ put it, the hackers completely destroyed the company, forcing its owners to fold.
And in May 2019, the city of Baltimore’s computer system was hit by a ransomware attack, with hackers using a variant called RobinHood. The hack, which has lasted more than a month, paralysed the computer system for city employees, with the hackers demanding a payment in Bitcoin to give access back to the city.
Of course, hackers target governments or business giants but small and medium businesses are certainly not immune. In fact, 67% of SMBs reported that they had experienced a cyber attack across a period of 12 months, according to a 2018 survey carried out by security research firm Ponemon Institute. Additionally, Verizon issued a report in May 2019 that small businesses accounted for 43% of its reported data breaches. Once seen as less vulnerable than PCs, smartphone attacks are on the rise, with movements like the Dark Caracal spyware campaign underlining the allure of mobile devices to hackers. Last year, the US Federal Trade Commission released a statement calling for greater education on mobile security, coming at a time when around 42% of all Android devices are believed to not carry the latest security updates.
This is an era when employees increasingly use their smartphones for work-related purposes so is your business doing enough to protect against data breaches on their employees’ phones? The SME Cyber Crime Survey 2018 carried out for risk management specialists AON showed that more than 80% of small businesses did not view this as a threat yet if as shown, 67% of SMBs were said to have been victims of hacking, either the stats are wrong or business owners are underestimating their vulnerability. A 2019 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests the latter, stating that the majority of global businesses are unprepared for cyber attacks.
Consider that a workstation no longer means a desk in an office: It can be a phone in the back of a taxi or Uber; a laptop in a coffee shop, or a tablet in an airport lounge. Wherever the device is used, employees can potentially install applications that could be harmful to your business, even from something as seemingly insignificant as clicking on an accidental download or opening a link on a phishing email. Out of the physical workplace, your employees’ activities might not have the same protections as they would on a company-monitored PC.
Yet many businesses not only encourage their employees to work remotely, but assume working from coffee shops, bookstores, and airports can boost employees’ productivity. Unfortunately, many remote hot spots do not provide secure Wi-Fi so if your employee is accessing their work account on unsecured public Wi-Fi, sensitive business data could be at risk. Furthermore, even if your employee uses a company smartphone or has access to company data through a personal mobile device, there is always a chance data could be in jeopardy with a lost or stolen device, even information as basic as clients’ addresses and phone numbers.
BOYDs are also at risk from malware designed to harm and infect the host system, transmittable to smartphones when downloading malicious third-party apps. Then there is ransomware, a type of malware used by hackers to specifically take control of a system’s data, blocking access or threatening to release sensitive information unless a ransom is paid such as the one which affected Baltimore. Ransomware attacks are on the increase, predicted to occur every 14 seconds, potentially costing billions of dollars per year.
Lastly there is phishing – the cyber equivalent of the metaphorical fishing exercise – whereby cybercriminals attempt to obtain sensitive data –usernames, passwords, credit card details –usually through a phoney email designed to look legitimate which directs the user to a fraudulent website or requests the data be emailed back directly. Most of us like to think we could recognize a phishing email when we see it, but these emails have become more sophisticated and can come through other forms of communication such as messaging apps.
Bottom line is to be aware of the potential problems with BOYDs and if in doubt, consult your IT security consultants. You can’t put the own-device genie back in the bottle but you can make data protection one of your three wishes!
Columns
“I Propose to Diana Tonight”
About five days before Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed landed in Paris, General Atiku, a certain Edward Williams was taking a walk in a woods in the Welsh town of Mountain Ash. Williams, then 73, was a psychic of some renown. He had in the past foretold assassination attempts on US President Ronald Reagan, which occurred on March 30, 1981, and Pope John Paul II, which came to pass on May 13, 1981.
As he trudged the woods, Williams had a sudden premonition that pointed to Diana’s imminent fate as per Christopher Andersen’s book The Day Diana Died. “When the vision struck me, it was as if everything around me was obscured and replaced by shadowy figures,” Williams was later to reminisce. “In the middle was the face of Princess Diana. Her expression was sad and full of pathos. She was wearing what looked like a floral dress with a short dark cardigan. But it was vague. I went cold with fear and knew it was a sign that she was in danger.”
Williams hastily beat a retreat to his home, which he shared with his wife Mary, and related to her his presentiment, trembling like an aspen leaf as he did so. “I have never seen him so upset,” Mary recounted. “He felt he was given a sign and when he came back from his walk he was deeply shaken.”
The following day, Williams frantically sauntered into a police station to inform the police of his premonition. The officer who attended to him would have dismissed him as no more than a crackpot but he treated him seriously in view of the accuracy of his past predictions. He took a statement and immediately passed it on to the Special Branch Investigative Unit.
The report read as follows:
“On 27 August, at 14:12 hrs, a man by the name of Edward Williams came to Mountain Ash police station. He said he was a psychic and predicted that Princess Diana was going to die. In previous years, he has predicted that the Pope and Ronald Reagan were going to be the victims of assassination attempts. On both occasions he was proved to be correct. Mr Williams appeared to be quite normal.”
Williams, General, was spot-on as usual: four days later, the princess was no more.
Meanwhile, General, even as Dodi and Diana were making their way to the Fayed-owned Ritz Hotel in central Paris, British newspapers were awash with headlines that suggested Diana was kind of deranged. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana in Pursuit of Love: “In The Independent Diana was described as ‘a woman with fundamentally nothing to say about anything’. She was ‘suffering from a form of arrested development’. ‘Isn’t it time she started using her head?’ asked The Mail on Sunday. The Sunday Mirror printed a special supplement entitled ‘A Story of Love’; The News of the World claimed that William had demanded that Diana should split from Dodi: ‘William can’t help it, he just doesn’t like the man.’ William was reportedly ‘horrified’ and ‘doesn’t think Mr Fayed is good for his mother’ – or was that just the press projecting their own prejudices? The upmarket Sunday Times newspaper, which had first serialised my biography of the princess, now put her in the psychiatrist’s chair for daring to be wooed by a Muslim. The pop-psychologist Oliver James put Diana ‘On the Couch’, asking why she was so ‘depressed’ and desperate for love. Other tabloids piled in with dire prognostications – about Prince Philip’s hostility to the relationship, Diana’s prospect of exile, and the social ostracism she would face if she married Dodi.”
DIANA AND DODI AT THE RITZ
Before Diana and Dodi departed the Villa Windsor sometime after 16 hrs, General, one of Dodi’s bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones furtively asked Diana as to what the programme for the evening was. This Trevor did out of sheer desperation as Dodi had ceased and desisted from telling members of his security detail, let alone anyone else for that matter, what his onward destination was for fear that that piece of information would be passed on to the paparazzi. Diana kindly obliged Trevor though her response was terse and scarcely revealing. “Well, eventually we will be going out to a restaurant”, that was all Diana said. Without advance knowledge of exactly what restaurant that was, Trevor and his colleagues’ hands were tied: they could not do a recce on it as was standard practice for the security team of a VIP principal. Dodi certainly, General, was being recklessly by throwing such caution to the winds.
At about 16:30, Diana and Dodi drew up at the Ritz Hotel, where they were received by acting hotel manager Claude Roulet. The front entrance of the hotel was already crawling with paparazzi, as a result of which the couple took the precaution of using the rear entrance, where hopefully they would make their entry unperturbed and unmolested. The first thing they did when they were ensconced in the now $10,000 a night Imperial Suite was to spend some time on their mobiles and set about touching base with friends, relations, and associates. Diana called at least two people, her clairvoyant friend Rita Rogers and her favourite journalist Richard Kay of The Daily Mail.
Rita, General, was alarmed that Diana had proceeded to venture to Paris notwithstanding the warning she had given Dodi and herself in relation to what she had seen of him in the crystal ball when the couple had consulted her. When quizzed as to what the hell she indeed was doing in Paris at that juncture, Diana replied that she and Dodi had simply come to do some shopping, which though partially true was not the material reason they were there. “But Diana, remember what I told Dodi,” Rita said somewhat reprovingly. Diana a bit apprehensively replied, “Yes I remember. I will be careful. I promise.” Well, she did not live up to her promise as we shall soon unpack General.
As for Richard Kay, Diana made known to him that, “I have decided I am going to radically change my life. I am going to complete my obligations to charities and to the anti-personnel land mines cause, but in November I want to completely withdraw from formal public life.”
Once she was done with her round of calls, Diana went down to the hair saloon by the hotel swimming pool to have her hair washed and blow-dried ahead of the scheduled evening dinner.
THE “TELL ME YES” RING IS DELIVERED
Since the main object of their Paris trip was to pick up the “Tell Me Yes” engagement ring Dodi had ordered in Monte Carlo a week earlier, Dodi decided to check on Repossi Jewellery, which was right within the Ritz prencincts, known as the Place Vendome. It could have taken less than a minute for Dodi to get to the store on foot but he decided to use a car to outsmart the paparazzi invasion. He was driven there by Trevor Rees-Jones, with Alexander Kez Wingfield and Claude Roulet following on foot, though he entered the shop alone.
The Repossi store had closed for the holiday season but Alberto Repossi, accompanied by his wife and brother-in-law, had decided to travel all the way from his home in Monaco and momentarily open it for the sake of the potentially highly lucrative Dodi transaction. Alberto, however, disappointed Dodi as the ring he had chosen was not the one he produced. The one he showed Dodi was pricier and perhaps more exquisite but Dodi was adamant that he wanted the exact one he had ordered as that was what Diana herself had picked. It was a ploy on the part of Repossi to make a real killing on the sale, his excuse to that effect being that Diana deserved a ring tha was well worthy of her social pedigree. With Dodi having expressed disaffection, Repossi rendered his apologies and assured Dodi he would make the right ring available shortly, whereupon Dodi repaired back to the hotel to await its delivery. But Dodi did insist nonetheless that the pricier ring be delivered too in case it appealed to Diana anyway.
Repossi delivered the two rings an hour later. They were collected by Roulet. On inspecting them, Dodi chose the very one he had seen in Monte Carlo, apparently at the insistence of Diana. There is a possibility that Diana, who was very much aware of her public image and was not comfortable with ostentatious displays of wealth, may have deliberately shown an interest in a less expensive engagement ring. It may have been a purely romantic as opposed to a prestigious choice for her.
The value of the ring, which was found on a wardrobe shelf in Dodi’s apartment after the crash, has been estimated to be between $20,000 and $250,000 as Repossi has always refused to be drawn into revealing how much Dodi paid for it. The sum, which enjoyed a 25 percent discount, was in truth paid for not by Dodi himself but by his father as was the usual practice.
Dodi was also shown Repossi’s sketches for a bracelet, a watch, and earrings which he proposed to create if Diana approved of them.
DIANA AND DODI GUSH OVER IMMINENT NUPTIALS
At about 7 pm, Dodi and Diana left the Ritz and headed for Dodi’s apartment at a place known as the Arc de Trompe. They went there to properly tog themselves out for the scheduled evening dinner. They spent two hours at the luxurious apartment. As usual, the ubiquitous paparazzi were patiently waiting for them there.
As they lingered in the apartment, Dodi beckoned over to his butler Rene Delorm and showed him the engagement ring. “Dodi came into my kitchen,” Delorm relates. “He looked into the hallway to check that Diana couldn’t hear and reached into his pocket and pulled out the box … He said, ‘Rene, I’m going to propose to the princess tonight. Make sure that we have champagne on ice when we come back from dinner’.” Rene described the ring as “a spectacular diamond encrusted ring, a massive emerald surrounded by a cluster of diamonds, set on a yellow and white gold band sitting in a small light-grey velvet box”.
Just before 9 pm, Dodi called the brother of his step-father, Hassan Yassen, who also was staying at the Ritz that night, and told him that he hoped to get married to Diana by the end of the year.
Later that same evening, both Dodi and Diana would talk to Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s dad, and make known to him their pre-nuptial intentions. “They called me and said we’re coming back (to London) on Sunday (August 31) and on Monday (September 1) they are
Columns
RAMADAN – The Blessed Month of Fasting
Ramadan is the fasting month for Muslims, where over one billion Muslims throughout the world fast from dawn to sunset, and pray additional prayers at night. It is a time for inner reflection, devotion to Allah, and self-control. It is the ninth month in the Islamic calendar. As you read this Muslims the world over have already begun fasting as the month of Ramadan has commenced (depending on the sighting of the new moon).
‘The month of Ramadan is that in which the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for people, in it are clear signs of guidance and Criterion, therefore whoever of you who witnesses this month, it is obligatory on him to fast it. But whoever is ill or traveling let him fast the same number of other days, God desires ease for you and not hardship, and He desires that you complete the ordained period and glorify God for His guidance to you, that you may be grateful”. Holy Qur’an (2 : 185)
Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars upon which the structure of Islam is built. The other four are: the declaration of one’s belief in Allah’s oneness and in the message of Muhammad (PBUH); regular attendance to prayer; payment of zakaat (obligatory charity); and the pilgrimage to Mecca.
As explained in an earlier article, fasting includes total abstinence from eating, drinking, smoking, refraining from obscenity, avoiding getting into arguments and including abstaining from marital relations, from sunrise to sunset. While fasting may appear to some as difficult Muslims see it as an opportunity to get closer to their Lord, a chance to develop spiritually and at the same time the act of fasting builds character, discipline and self-restraint.
Just as our cars require servicing at regular intervals, so do Muslims consider Ramadan as a month in which the body and spirit undergoes as it were a ‘full service’. This ‘service’ includes heightened spiritual awareness both the mental and physical aspects and also the body undergoing a process of detoxification and some of the organs get to ‘rest’ through fasting.
Because of the intensive devotional activity fasting, Ramadan has a particularly high importance, derived from its very personal nature as an act of worship but there is nothing to stop anyone from privately violating Allah’s commandment of fasting if one chooses to do so by claiming to be fasting yet eating on the sly. This means that although fasting is obligatory, its observance is purely voluntary. If a person claims to be a Muslim, he is expected to fast in Ramadan.
The reward Allah gives for proper fasting is very generous. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) quotes Allah as saying: “All actions done by a human being are his own except fasting, which belongs to Me and I will reward it accordingly.” We are also told by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that the reward for proper fasting is admittance into heaven.
Fasting earns great reward when it is done in a ‘proper’ manner. This is because every Muslim is required to make his worship perfect. For example perfection of fasting can be achieved through restraint of one’s feelings and emotions. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that when fasting, a person should not allow himself to be drawn into a quarrel or a slanging match. He teaches us: “On a day of fasting, let no one of you indulge in any obscenity, or enter into a slanging match. Should someone abuse or fight him, let him respond by saying: ‘I am fasting!’”
This high standard of self-restraint fits in well with fasting, which is considered as an act of self-discipline. Islam requires us to couple patience with voluntary abstention from indulgence in our physical desires. The purpose of fasting helps man to attain a high degree of sublimity, discipline and self-restraint. In other words, this standard CAN BE achieved by every Muslim who knows the purpose of fasting and strives to fulfill it.
Fasting has another special aspect. It makes all people share in the feelings of hunger and thirst. In normal circumstances, people with decent income may go from one year’s end to another without experiencing the pangs of hunger which a poor person may feel every day of his life. Such an experience helps to draw the rich one’s conscience nearer to needs of the poor. A Muslim is encouraged to be more charitable and learns to give generously for a good cause.
Fasting also has a universal or communal aspect to it. As Muslims throughout the world share in this blessed act of worship, their sense of unity is enhanced by the fact that every Muslim individual joins willingly in the fulfillment of this divine commandment. This is a unity of action and purpose, since they all fast in order to be better human beings. As a person restrains himself from the things he desires most, in the hope that he will earn Allah’s pleasure, self-discipline and sacrifice become part of his nature.
The month of Ramadan can aptly be described as a “season of worship.” Fasting is the main aspect of worship in this month, because people are more attentive to their prayers, read the Qur’an more frequently and also strive to improve on their inner and outer character. Thus, their devotion is more complete and they feel much happier in Ramadan because they feel themselves to be closer to their Creator.