Connect with us
Advertisement

Lucifer is Created

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER…

He was the head of the angelic host and was created not by God but by the Paal Taal

The First Source, the Prime Creator we generally call God, resides in the Central Universe of the unum/ multiverse. As we posited last week, the unum is not all there is in existence: it is part of the greater omniverse, which is infinity, whereas the unum is not infinite though there are any number of unums in the omniverse. Although one single unum has limited capacity, within this limited capacity is inconceivably colossal room for expansion as we saw in last week’s illustration.

The First Source is not the only God in the greater universe known as the omniverse. He is simply one of an infinite number of Gods. But he is the God of his own region of the omniverse, the God of his unum. He is First Source only relative to us as his creation. He was not always God though: at one point in eternity past, he was just like you and I, an ordinary and primitive being in a cosmic context who arose in another unum as a creation of another God.

Then over time, he evolved both spiritually and knowledgewise and finally qualified to be a God in his own right and went on to found his own unum, just as we finally qualify to be full-fledged adults to begin our own families and run our own households. Every sentient being at long last becomes a God with his own unum.

Trust me, you and I, My Brother, shall be our own God in the fullness of time, with our own fiefdom of universes and with our own-created life forms! I can imagine my good friend Assam Makwinja as Almighty God presiding over his own unum and comparing notes with the likes of Henry Segopa and Boikobo Monakwane from their own unums! That is our preordained destiny in our evolution as spirit-souls.

The First Source rules over 7 superuniverses, also known as superdomains, in his unum. Our part of the unum is the very seventh of these superuniverses. The expression “I’m in the seventh heaven” is very well-informed indeed as all these superuniverses are heavenly (that is, cosmic) domains. Metaphysicists also say there are seven planes of being, also called dimensions, with this physical dimension we inhabit referred to as the Third Dimension. 

Even at the level of the astral, the realm we transition to after we die, it is said there are seven phases  of existence. The reason there is such recurring analogy centred around the number 7 has to do, primarily, with the baseline structure of our seven-part unum.

The First Source resides in the centremost region of the Central Universe as any God ideally would. Call it the hub of the Central Universe and the very nerve centre of the overall unum. He is not the sole dweller of the Central Universe though. There are other beings who occupy the Central Universe. These beings are known as the Central Race. At the cosmic level, they are known as the Paal Taal, meaning “Creator Gods”.

THE CENTRAL RACE

The Paal Taal are the first beings our God created, the firstborn of  First Source (when the apostle Paul referred to Jesus as “the Firstborn of all creation”, he simply meant Jesus was   an incarnation from the ranks of the Paal Taal). Although they too dwell in the Central Universe, they are well removed from the hub where God resides. The Paal Taal reside on the fringes, or the borderline, of the Central Universe because they have not yet attained a degree of holiness that qualifies them to be near God’s dwelling.   

The Paal Taal, also known as the Builders amongst other names, were created from God’s own essence, from the building blocks of his own substance we can loosely term as DNA. In other words, they were made in his own “image and likeness”, a phrase we also encounter in the opening verses of Genesis in relation to the Anunnaki’s genetic engineering of Adam and Eve.

God created the Paal Taal simply by thought, or sound, since thought is not silent: it is sound, though it can only be heard mentally and not through the physical senses. When you are God, you are capable of bringing about anything you desire simply by wishing or speaking it into existence.  

Why did God create these beings? Contrary to what the Bible or Christians say, he did not create them in order to worship him day and night and do his bidding vassal-style. Worship, in case you didn’t know, is vampirism: it sucks out the energy of the worshipper and bolsters the energy of the being who is being worshipped. 

He brought them into existence as a medium through which he could fan out into, populate, and constructively exploit his own domain.  In other words, he created them as his cosmic ambassadors, cosmic pioneers, cosmic explorers and ultimately cosmic inheritors. In bringing them into being, he was driven not by a sense of power and domination but by a sense of love and service to his creation as opposed to service to he himself.

In our case us human beings, when we produce children, the idea, fundamentally, is to propagate our genetic imprint, to perpetuate ourselves. That is a means by which we seek to ensure that the Saili flame, the Makwinja (Assam) flame, the Ramakoba (Thato) flame, the Daewood (Rakim) flame, the Kusasa (Tumelo Alexander) flame, the Matumo (Vincent) flame, etc, will keep burning for eons to come barring a catastrophe of some kind. God also wants to reproduce himself so that his progeny can take possession and occupancy of the inconceivably vast acreage of cosmic real estate at his disposal.

Otherwise, if he elected to occupy the unum alone, it would all be sheer waste, a nonsensical underutilisation. At the end of the day therefore, all sentient beings are one at their very basic essence inasmuch as this stems from the substance of one overall creator.     

According to the Corteum, the Aliens from Sirius B who have been working with the top-secret Labyrinth Group since the 1950s, the Paal Taal are divided into seven tribes to accord with the seven superuniverses they watch over. A renegade ex-member of the Labyrinth Group, Jamisson Neruda, says, “The galaxies in which the Paal Taal reside are approximately 18 billion years old and their genetics are immeasurably more developed than our own. They are the optimal soul carrier in that they can co-exist in the material world and the non-material dimensions simultaneously. This is because their genetic blueprint has been fully activated.”

GOD PRECSRIBES A FREE WILL UNIVERSE

Having created the Paal Taal, God proceeded to create the entire structure of his unum jointly with them as if from a cosmic assembly line with a view to teach them the tricks of the creation trade, just as we humans would want to teach our children, particularly the firstborn, certain moral and even occupational competences in life so that they are as virtuous and proficient as we are.  

Since the seven superuniverses that he had created needed to be seeded with life forms, God taught the Paal Taal how to create the whole spectrum of  life, from the highest to the lowest forms though at the time they concentrated on the higher life forms such as angels and humanoids.

God had decided that Superuniverse No. 7 was going to be a free will universe. In other words, the beings that were to dwell in it were to conduct their lives according to their own rules, wishes, and whims. Neither he, God, nor the Paal Taal   were to directly interfere with their affairs whatsoever. 

Says Stewart Swerdlow, who as an Illuminati instrument in a macabre project known as Montauk had occasion to interact with beings from other worlds for many years and so learnt a great deal about God and the universe: “God does not directly interfere with the personal lives of his thought-creations. He does not have an agenda. Contrary to popular belief, he does not judge, interfere, or change anything that is already created. He allows for freewill of all his creations. In this way, all possibilities unfold. Nothing is ever stopped from being.”

Be that as it may, the created beings were going to be responsible for their own misdeeds. In other words, they were going to reap what they sowed. If they made a shambles of things, they would suffer the full brunt of cosmic consequences. It would be a lesson for them not to repeat the same mistake if they were wise.   

Now, although God created the Paal Taal from pinches of his own energetic signature, he did not put them on an equal footing with himself. He did build into them the potential to be like him but they had to incrementally work toward the realisation of this potential.

Godhood was a status to be earned and not to be liberally and casually conferred.  The reason God refrained from making the Pal Taal exactly like he was – all-knowing and all-powerful straightaway – was because he had written into their energetic DNA the capacity to do good and commit evil. If he had wired them in such a way that they were inherently sin-free, that would have reduced them to robots inclined towards only a particular pre-programmed disposition.

It would have been tantamount to creating an artificial being, a kind of android, instead of a natural being prone to all possibility. He wanted his creation to be subject to the same regimen of  karmic experience as he had undergone himself in another unum, to be able to voluntarily exercise their freedom of choice and not to operate like a puppet Chester Missing style.    

That, however, did not mean his creation were going to be left wholly to their own devices. The do’s and don’ts, along with their ramifications, were spelt out to them in advance but it would be up to them to decide whether to heed them or disregard them altogether. God was no dictator.       

ANGELS APPEAR FIRST

The Paal Taal were the only species God directly created. The creation of other sentient beings was assigned to the Paal Taal themselves, who were to apply the creation cues God had given them. The Paal Taal, however, did not proceed to create every life form that we know. They restricted themselves to higher life forms. These were, first, what we call angels, and then humanoids, our genotype.

The angels were the intermediaries between the Paal Taal and humanoids. They were senior to humanoids in that they were created first and were superior in their capacities.  Yet they were limited in some ways than humanoids were.  For instance, whereas humanoids were capacitated to inhabit both the dense and finer realms (the spiritual world and the physical world), angels were not designed to incarnate into the material realms.   They were restricted to the same spiritual realms the Paal Taal dwelt in.

The role of angels was to watch on humanoids wherever they were and guide them wherever they asked for guidance (by way of thought) and comfort them where they needed comfort.   They were caretakers of the humanoid agent on behalf of the Paal Taal. Every one single humanoid was assigned his own guardian angel.  All the service rendered to humanoids by angels was to be done not physically but telepathically, that is, at the level of the mind.

Both the angelic and humanoid forms were not created by the Paal Taal all at once: they experimented many times over to finally come up with an ideal product. Remember, the Paal Taal were not God but creatures just like we are and therefore were not perfect.

Besides, they had to be careful in what kind of product they came up with as ultimately they would be responsible for all its deficiencies: God would make them accountable for every single one lapse.  Through continuous tweaking and fine-tuning of energetic DNA, the Paal Taal eventually became master geneticists.

It is the Paal Taal who designed our DNA at the spirit-soul level, that is, the energetic DNA. The physical DNA is simply a material and poor imitation of the energetic archetype designed by the Paal Taal. It is the Paal Taal who have a patent on our DNA.

That’s why even highly advanced humanoids such as the Anunnaki, who genetically engineered Earthlings into existence, still haven’t mastered it fully. Most of the genetic flaws that we carry are not the result of genetic rigging as such: they stem from the Anunnaki’s inability to fully understand the workings of our energetic DNA.

The Paal Taal did not create angels of the same level of sophistication. The first fine prototypes were much more advanced in ways.

These became what we generally refer to as archangels. Their overall leader was Lucifer. Note that I use the term Lucifer in its generic context, in the manner it is commonly understood by the mass of mankind. Lucifer’s actual name is not known. Every cosmic race has its own name for him.  In those primeval times, he was hundred percent loyal to the Paal Taal. He was not created by God as your pastor will readily preach: he was created by the Paal Taal.

NEXT WEEK: LUCIFER TAKES ISSUE WITH HIS CREATORS

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