Mankind is actually womankind and has Reptilian origins!
The world we live in, and even the cosmos itself, seems to be a domain in which men hold sway. It is taken as an article of faith that men rule the world. Even when we allude to supernatural beings, whether these be God, the First Source, or Lucifer, the so-called Devil, we use the pronoun “He”, never mind that as pure spirit-souls they are genderless. Our womenfolk are already resigned from the day they are born. “This is a man’s world”, every woman will gripe. Of the Old Testament gods, the Anunnaki, the most influential were male – Enki, Enlil (Jehovah), Nannar-Sin (Allah), Marduk, Utu-Shamash. Even the title of this column is male-chauvinistic, something Batsho Dambe-Groth correctly chided as blatantly “sexist” when I ran into her one day.
Yet the paradox of the matter is that our planet Earth was not founded by a race of male beings as most of the ancient records, including the famous Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets and cylinder seals, seem to suggest. It was founded by a race of females. Yes, the emissaries or scouts who did much of the leg work were males but the sovereigns were females. The overall monarch was a goddess, not a god. Just who this was we will unpack in due course but first let us demonstrate why we men are actually inferior to women, why we must acknowledge that we are secondary and females are pre-eminent.
MEN ARE ALTERED FEMALES!
As humans, we reproduce by sexual copulation. A male produces a male gamete called a spermatozoon and a female produces a female gamete known as an ovum or egg. It is the fusion of the spermatozoon with the ovum that produces an embryo. But there is a lot about the ovum and spermatozoon, and indeed the embryo, that we either take for granted as a people or do not bother about at all and leave entirely to biologists.
The ovum is the largest cell in the female body. The spermatozoon is the smallest cell in the male body. On that score, it is advantage women.
The ovum is 14,500 times larger than the spermatozoon. What does this say about the embryo? It means the embryo is 14,500 parts female to 1 part male. In other words, the embryo is by far more female than male. Equality does not at all factor into the equation here. A woman dominates the embryo 14,500 times. On that score therefore, it is advantage women again. But there is more.
Did you know that for the first six weeks of its life an embryo is female? We all start as females folks: it is only at the beginning of the seventh week that sexual differentiation begins, when males are clearly defined as males. For the first six weeks of our lives in the womb, Assam Makwinja, Thato Ramakgoba, Henry Kwabena Segopa, Rakim Daewood, and myself were girls even if we proudly celebrate masculinity! Says Dr Alfred Hoet, a distinguished endocrinologist: “During the first few weeks of development, the embryo remains sexually undifferentiated, though it is oriented towards femaleness … Left to its own devices, an embryo will always become a female.”
Did you hear that folks? The natural orientation of an embryo, the natural internal directive of life of all human embryos, is female. In the event that the embryo becomes male, it is the result of a kind of “intervention”. What is this intervention? It is testosterone, the principal male sex hormone. It is testosterone that transforms what began as a female into a male. In this respect again, it is advantage women.
Everybody who has done basic biology knows about the X and Y chromosomes. The X chromosome is carried by females, and the Y chromosome is carried by males only. On average, the X chromosome has 3700 genes, whilst the Y chromosome has 15 genes. In other words, there are at least 250 female genes for every male gene. So when an X chromosome unites with a Y chromosome in fertilisation, the resulting embryo is 250 parts female to 1 part male. Genetically therefore, we men are 250 times more female than we are male! Again, it’s advantage women.
Scientists say a Y chromosome is actually a deformed X chromosome. Men are innately deformed beings genetically. It is a woman who is a proper human being. Doctors says whereas cells need an X chromosome to continue to exist, they do not need a Y chromosome at all; they can do without it. But without the X chromosome, a cell will wither and die. What does that mean folks? It means the Y chromosome is not essential to an individual’s survival, whereas an X chromosome is. It means life on Earth needs an X chromosome but it does not need a Y chromosome. Even without the Y chromosome, it would be business as usual. That indeed bears out, for females have two X chromosomes whereas males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. It is males who need an X chromosome to exist; females do not need a Y chromosome because they have no use for it. Once again, advantage women.
Evolutional biologists say the Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome. In other words, the X chromosome came first; the Y chromosome came later. The same evolutional biologists say the Y chromosome began to appear on Earth about 130 million years ago. If, as is reckoned, life on Earth began 4.1 billion years ago, then for the first 4.08 billion years or thereabouts, there were no Y chromosomes on Earth. There was no male life on the planet for the first 4 billion years: only female life.
One piece of physical evidence in grown adults that we men are fundamentally female is that we have nipples. We don’t need nipples because we don’t suckle babies. So why do we have them when they serve no purpose? They are there simply as testimony to the fact that we were on course to be girls until testosterone intervened and threw us off course at 7 weeks of age in our mothers’ womb.
Another piece of glaring evidence that we began as girls are those dangly bits down under and our vaunted prick. Most people are not aware that those precious balls began as ovaries and that imperious Dick began as a clit. That is the long and short of it. Ultimately, every single man on Earth is an altered female.
An expert puts the argument in context thus: “A seed that will naturally become a rose is a rose seed. A seed that will naturally become a sunflower is a sunflower seed. If the seed of a rose is bathed in chemicals that cause the seed to yield another kind of flower, that new flower is an altered rose. If the seed of a sunflower is bathed in chemicals that cause the seed to yield another kind of flower, there is no question that the new flower is an altered sunflower. An embryo that will naturally become a female is therefore a female embryo. Therefore, if a female embryo is bathed in chemicals (testosterone) that cause it to yield another kind of human being, that new human being is an altered female.” How true!
OF VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE OJIBWE CASE
If for the first 4.08 billion years there were no male life forms on our planet, then how was reproduction possible? Well, this was achieved by what is known as virgin birth Jesus style! You may be surprised to learn that a virgin birth is not only possible but is demonstrable. There is even a scientific word for it – parthenogenesis. This is a form of reproduction where an ovum develops into fully functional offspring without being fertilised by a male sperm cell.
About 100 years ago, the famous biologist Jacques Loeb said: “The male is not necessary for reproduction. A simple physio-chemical agent in the female is enough to bring it about." True, parthenogenesis has been observed in the animal kingdom. It was first documented in 1845 by the Swiss naturalist Charles Bonnet. Bonnet noted that female aphids (small sap-sucking insects) laid eggs which developed to full adulthood without mating with a male. Parthenogenesis has since been observed in a range of insects (e.g. ants and honeybees), reptiles such as komodo dragons, monitor lizards, and snakes, as well as sharks. In June 2012, an 11-year-old reticulated python produced six babies without mating with a male snake at Louis Zoo in Kentucky in the US.
Parthenogenesis does not naturally occur in mammals but it can be induced, that is, artificially engendered. For instance, in 1936, Gregory Goodwin Pincus successfully induced parthenogenesis in a rabbit. In April 2004, scientists at the Tokyo University of Agriculture created a mouse using pathogenesis. Monkeys have also been produced using the same process. The snag with mammals arising from artificial parthenogenesis is that they either do not live to a ripe age or develop certain abnormalities that seriously handicap them in one way or the other.
What about humans? As we have underscored above, the female was the first physical species. For eons, females reproduced their kind by parthenogenesis. Males came later when the “gods” decided not only to vary the species but to wrest universal sovereignty from the “goddess”. As the American botanist, paleontologist, and sociologist Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913) aptly put it, “Women are the race itself – the strong primary sex – and men the biological afterthought.”
Parthenogenesis is not actively operative in human females but remains latent, meaning it could occur if intently and painstakingly stimulated. In 1933, Dr Walter Timme, a famed endoctrinologist, delivered a lecture to the New York Academy of Medicine titled “Immaculate Conception – A Scientific Possibility" in which he persuasively argued that a virgin birth was physiologically possible. This was because the parovarium (a group of tiny, tube-like structures often found near the ovary or oviduct) in some cases did produce male reproductive cells capable of fertililising the eggs in the same body, causing them to develop without the participation of male gametes. The parovarium have been known to appear in young girls aged 8 to 16 with intact hymens, that is, who have never had sex.
A persuasive demonstration that a virgin birth in humans is feasible is the documented case of the Ojibwe. The Ojibwe are a North American Red Indian race who are found both in the US and in Canada. Red Indians are probably the race I admire the most in the whole wide world. That is because they are bearers of very valuable ancient knowledge that has helped me understand the world much better than I would otherwise have (for instance, the teachings, revelations, and insights of Robert Morning Sky, a Native American of Hopi and Apache stock, are a golden nugget). It is one, if not the major, reason the Illuminati have deliberately ostracised them and once upon a time desired to have them disappear from the face of the Earth (In the 60s/70s Cowboy movies, for example, Red Indians were always cast as bow-and-arrow wielding villains who had to be exterminated by horse-mounted, rifle-bearing Westerners).
In 1971, my friend Den Poitras, who like Robert Morning Sky is an outspoken male feminist, reviewed a book about the Ojibwe that documented their traditional practices long before Westerners invaded and appropriated the Northern American land mass from them. This is what Poitras says about the subject of the book: “One story (in the book) was that wise-women of the tribe looked for certain young maidens that possessed grace, intelligence, and compassion. Sometimes a candidate for conceiving and giving birth this way wouldn't show up for a generation or two. Nevertheless, these wise-women kept an eagle-eye open for her. When found, men were not allowed to court her. When she reached the age of fertility, her first period, she was instructed to fast for several days and, if willing, was required to dance around a fire in a sacred women's lodge built far away from the village. This ceremony occurred while she was ovulating. Ideally, a state of bliss or ecstasy was reached during which, according to hidden wise-women knowledge, it would be possible for her to conceive and give birth in the ‘old way’ (virgin birth). They also knew that a child born this way would be blessed with gifts of healing, clairvoyance or leadership. The Great Spirit would give to the child whatever tools the tribe might be in need of.”
Clearly then, a virgin birth in humans, in the manner Jesus is said to have arisen, is not outlandish: it is possible and has happened, at least in ages past.
WE ARE FROM ORION
If life on Earth began 4.1 billion years ago, how was it incepted and who incepted it? The Sumerian records, which preceded the Genesis record by more than 1000 years, relate that life on Earth originated from outer space, when a stray, life-bearing giant planet from the Sirius star system collided with another planet called Tiamat, the original Earth, when both planets were in their formative stages.
The Theory of Panspermia seems to concur with the Sumerian records. It says “seeds of life” came to Earth on the backs of meteorites that crashed into our world billions of years ago. These seeds of life were not Y-chromosome-based: they were X-chromosome-based because as we have demonstrated above, the Y chromosome is a recent arrival, having debuted only 130 million years ago.
Why did X-chromosome life have to precede by Y-chromosome life? It is because female life forms can reproduce on their own, whereas male life forms cannot.
Now, these X-chromosome life seeds did not come from without: they had “star ancestors”, that is, cosmic ancestors. Whether the seeds of life came to Earth by accident or by design, their ancestors were obviously X-chromosome based. But we know life on Earth was purposefully seeded by intelligent beings because nothing happens by accident in the universe; everything has a purpose even if we may not understand that purpose.
If the intelligent beings, our star ancestors, who sowed the seeds of life wanted X-chromosome life to flourish first on our planet, then they themselves must have been X-chromosome based. They must have been female. Cosmic history indeed does bear that out. Contrary to what the Sumerian chronicles suggest, life on Earth was seeded not by male extraterrestrials but female extraterrestrials. And for these female extraterrestrials to have that kind of clout, they must have had overriding power and authority in the greater scheme of cosmic geopolitics.
Who were these powerful race of extraterrestrial females who spawned life on Earth?
Well, we know who they are because their history is documented in the cosmic archives. They were the Ari-ans, meaning “The Divine of Heaven”, Heaven in this case standing simply for the star system in which they dwelt. In its anglicised form, Ari-an becomes … Orion!
Our star ancestors were the ruling race of females from the Orion star system. And not only that: they were Reptilians!
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.
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?
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.
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).