The iron-clad secrecy that is planet Nibiru, also known as Planet X, is such that any matter-of-fact mention of it by career astronomers could entail dismissal at best or tactical riddance from the face of the Earth at worst!
Take the case of Robert Harrington, once Chief Astronomer of the US Naval Observatory. Harrington had been assigned charge of the search for Planet X, which quest he launched with colleague Thomas Van Flandern in 1979. In 1990, Harrington took his 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, which is said to be “one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X”. There, Harrington came up with a veritable deduction of the existence of Nibiru. On August 30 1990, Harrington invited Zechariah Sitchin, the most accomplished chronicler of the saga of the Anunnaki, to his office at the NASA complex and on camera (you can watch snippets of the interview on the Internet or purchase the full version on Amazon.com at $18) revealed the following to Sitchin:
That a planet at least 4 times the size of Earth was heading toward Earth;
That the planet had an atmosphere and it was habitable.
Harrington even drew a sketch of the planet’s orbit and much to Sitchin’s glee, the sketch was identical to the one Sitchin had postulated regarding Nibiru in his books dating back to his very first, The 12th Planet, which was published in 1976!
Harrington’s interview with Sitchin was not meant for public consumption yet, for Harrington intended to make public his findings in the fullness of time (Sitchin only availed the interview to the public in 2005). But NASA’s head honchos, when they heard about the interview, were indignant. The price came on January 23 1993, when Harrington died of “oesophageal cancer” after what was described as a “short but determined battle”. The illness was sudden and short-lived: his last medical check-up had given him the all-clear.
“It is extremely unlikely that a man would contract cancer and die within a matter of days, suffering the sudden impact of pain and debilitation characteristic of rapid onset cancer, while miraculously travelling on a physically demanding expedition and performing intensive astronomical operations,” one obituary lashed out.
Following the curious death of his colleague, Flandern developed cold feet: he decided his life was far more precious than a principled but perilous stand on the existence of Nibiru. He suddenly became tight-lipped in what was suspected as a self-imposed gag order. When he came out of his cocoon, it was in 1999 and he had, as expected, “sanitised” his position on our tenth major celestial body. This is what he told Meta Research Bulletin in September 1999:
"Three more trans-Neptunian objects confirm the presence of a second asteroid belt in the region beyond Neptune. This probably indicates that the hypothetical Planet X is now an asteroid rather than an intact planet."
Now, that was some U-turn, which was all the more amazing given that NASA itself had in the same year of Harrington’s death issued this statement: “Unexplained deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune point to a large outer Solar System body of 4 to 8 earth masses on a highly tilted orbit, beyond 7 billion miles (about 11 billion kilometres) from the Sun.”
DISCOVERIES ARE REDISCOVERIES
Throughout his long life, Zechariah Sitchin never tired of pointing modern astronomers and rocket scientists to the Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals, which were in plain display in the world’s leading museums. He kept saying that the day NASA and its ilk ceased regarding the Sumerian records as mere myths, they would make a giant leap forward in understanding both the origins of mankind and the saga of the Solar System. And because NASA was notorious for paying a stubborn, deaf ear to Sitchin, he always had the last laugh.
In 1977, NASA sent a unmanned aircraft named Voyager 2 towards Jupiter and other outer planets. In August 1989, Voyager 2 flew by Neptune and beamed back tantalising pictures of the beautiful planet, which pictures had people riveted to their television sets. In their running commentaries, astronomers said this was the first time mankind had gotten an intimate knowledge of the planet, which was “discovered” in 1846. Sitchin took very strong exception. In June 1989, two months before Voyager 2 entered the Neptune orbit, Sitchin had written articles for several US, European and South American periodicals. In them, he argued that Neptune was not first seen by mankind in 1846. “Neptune was known in antiquity,” Sitchin wrote, “and the discoveries that Voyager 2 will make will only confirm ancient knowledge.”
Sitchin averred that Voyager 2 was going to show that “Neptune is blue-green, watery, and has patches the colour of swamp-like vegetation”. Indeed, when Voyager 2’s pictures were relayed in August, they perfectly dovetailed with Sitchin’s prediction: Neptune was indeed blue-green; was made in great part of water; and did have patches whose colouration looked like swamp-like vegetation! Why was Sitchin so doubly sure of what he said? “It is all there in the Sumerian tablets of 6,000 years ago,” he said with a huge smile on what was ordinarily a mirthless face. And this was not the first or last time that Sitchin had been proved correct courtesy of the Sumerians of old.
In January 1986, the spacecraft Voyager 2 flew by the planet Uranus. It found that the planet was greenish blue – or bright greenish – in colour. That was exactly the way the Sumerians, without telescopes, had described it. The Sumerians called the planet Uranus MASHSIG, which means “bright greenish”. This characteristic Sitchin had already recorded in The Twelfth Planet – ten years before Voyager 2 photographed Uranus! What did this all mean? “It meant,” said Sitchin, “that in 1986, modern science did not discover what had been unknown; rather, it rediscovered and caught up with ancient knowledge. It was therefore because of that 1986 corroboration of my 1976 writings and thus of the veracity of the Sumerian texts that I felt confident enough to predict on the eve of the Voyager 2 encounter with Neptune what it would discover.”
In the Sumerian texts, Uranus was also described as KAKKAB SHANAMMA, meaning “Planet Which Is The Double” of Neptune. In other words, the Sumerians saw Uranus as basically the twin, in terms of features and characteristics, of Neptune. Has modern science confirmed that? Very much so. Writes Sitchin: “Uranus is indeed a look-alike of Neptune in size, colour, and watery content: both planets are encircled by rings and orbited by a multitude of moons … Both have an unusually extreme inclination relative to the planets’ axes of rotation – 58 degrees on Uranus, 50 degrees on Neptune … Neptune’s temperatures are similar to those of Uranus, which is more than a billion miles (1.6 billion kilometres) closer to the Sun.” The two planets also have almost the same day-lengths: sixteen hours for Uranus and seventeen hours for Neptune.
“Planet which is of the double,” said the Sumerians of Uranus in relation to Neptune. “… size and other characteristics that make Uranus a near twin of Neptune”, announced NASA scientists. The two statements were exactly the same but were made 6,000 years apart even though the second one was touted as a “discovery”. “In the case of these two planets, it seems that modern science has only caught up with ancient knowledge,” reiterated Sitchin. Sadly, our big-brained rocket scientists would never bring themselves to admit that the people of 6,000 years ago had a headstart over them in this kind of knowledge. But just who were the Sumerians, the people who had such seamless knowledge of the cosmos that modern science is only beginning to grasp?
THE “GODS” CALLED DINGIR
GENESIS 10:10: And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh in the land of Shinar. GENESIS 11:2: And it came to pass as they journeyed from the east that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there …
Shinar (Sinar in Hebrew) is the Old Testament term for Sumer. Sumer is the English corruption of “Shumer”. Shumer is an Akkadian term, Akkadian being the parent language of Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people. Shumer means “Land of the Bright Ones”; “Land of the Shining Ones”; “Land of the Pure Ones“; “Land of the Guardians”; or “Land of the Watchers”. In other words, Sumer was the land of light-skinned, phosphorescent beings – “Lords of Brightness” – who watched over and safeguarded … well, who?
The Sumerians did not call their land Shumer. They called it KIENGIR, which means “Land of the Lords of the Blazing Rockets”. The Sumerians referred to themselves as UGSAGGIGGA, meaning "The Black-Headed People". This way, they distinguished themselves from people they called the DINGIR, or the “Righteous Ones Of The Rockets”. These DINGIR were very light-skinned, almost albino-like; blue-eyed in the main; and predominantly blonde-haired. The Sumerians regarded and actually deferred to these people as their “gods”. They revered and worshipped the DINGIR. Why?
According to the Sumerian records – on clay tablets and cylinder seals that are awash in the world’s leading museums – the DINGIR were the first inhabitants of Sumer, predating the Sumerians by several hundred-thousands of years. These DINGIR were acknowledged by Sumerians and other Earthlings before them as the creators of mankind: the DINGIR themselves were said to have come from another planet, the twelfth member of the Solar System called Nibiru, hence the Sumerians’ reference to Nibiru as “The Planet of the Gods”(In truth; this was their secondary place of origin. Their real origin was the Orion and Sirius star systems.) The DINGIR seemed immortal: they never died.
They did age all right, though imperceptibly slowly, but they just could not die: no one remembered a death of any one of them though history did record their death but only by violence. The DINGIR were by far physically bigger than ordinary mankind. They were at least a third taller and averaged about 12 feet (archaeologists have unearthed skeletons of ancient people measuring up to 15 feet in height). The DINGIR were capable of extraordinary, actually miraculous feats in the eyes of ordinary mankind. They possessed things that could perform wonders – produce light, kill people en masse, fly like a bird in the sky, etc. The things that flew like a bird (and in which the DINGIR rode) the Sumerians depicted, in their pictographic inscriptions, like a modern-day rocket! No wonder they referred to these wondrous beings as Lords of the Blazing Rockets.
The Sumerians lived with and under their gods – physical, flesh-and-blood gods, not imaginary, faith-based ones. They served and worshipped these gods, particularly the preeminent ones (called Patron Gods or Goddesses), in their residences. The residences of the gods were called ziggurats, the pyramid-like temples of those days. The gods lived in these temples, where the Sumerians came to worship them, pay homage, tender gifts, and make animal and human sacrifices to them. In turn, the gods pledged to watch over and safeguard their “people” – pronounce blessings over their lives and land and (naturally, not supernaturally) help them defeat or ward off their enemies in war through the use of sophisticated weaponry, which Sumerians deemed magical or miraculous. But when the people seriously transgressed, the gods punished them accordingly, such as abandoning them to be taken into slavery or captivity by their enemies (as when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to take the Jews into captivity by their god Yahweh in 587 BC).
HEAVEN WAS PHYSICAL
The DINGIR were believed to have come from “Heaven”. The commonplace term for the DINGIR was Anunnaki, meaning “Those Who From Heaven To Earth Came” as per popular interpretation though there is another, much more spot-on meaning we shall go into at a later stage. The Bible refers to the DINGIR as the Elohim, the Nephilim, or the Anakim. The Anunnaki, folks, were the creators of mankind. (Even the Bible, when it is read objectively – especially in its Hebrew original and not in doctored, vested-interest English translations that almost render it fictitious – clearly demonstrate so.)
We did mention at one stage that to the ancients, Heaven was not a spiritual realm of existence where the First Source dwells, the way it is understood in modern-day religion. To the ancients, Heaven was the home of the Mother Goddess primarily. The Mother Goddess, again, was not a spiritual being: she was the Queen of Orion, the most powerful sovereign in the Peshmeten, the 9th Sector of the Shagari stars (that is, the Orion star system together with its subject worlds in neighbouring star systems). Orion was actually Ori-An, with Ori simply meaning “Holy” or “Master Race” and “An” meaning “Heaven”. An was also a title of the Orion Queen. Thus Orion was the abode of the Holy Goddess.
In due course, when the Sirius star system became the companion empire to Orion as opposed to a subsidiary empire, which it was before (a subject we shall explore at an appropriate time), and was now ruled by Kings instead of Queens, the Kings of Sirius also adopted the same title An, or Anu. Consequently, Sirius also came to be known as Heaven, with its King being referred to as the Supreme God. In Sumerian times, the Orion Queen was actually only minimally directly adored: it was the Siriun King, Anu, who was worshipped either directly or through proxies – his offspring who were now directly ruling Earth. The Orion Queen was not completely discarded: she too was venerated but through her offspring too. Just who these were we will dwell upon very soon.
Anu was also by extension the King of planet Nibiru. Although he was based in the Sirius star system, he did spend a great deal of time on Nibiru. Much of the political dynamics Zechariah Sitchin relates in his books in connection with Nibiru actually took place in Sirius, something he was aware of but deliberately swept under the rug or of which he was simply ignorant.
On the rare occasions that Anu came to Earth on a state visit, he came not directly from Sirius but via Nibiru. As such, the ancients referred to Nibiru as “The Lord”, amongst other names. This denoted, first and foremost, that Nibiru was the seat of the god Anu. Secondly, it exalted Nibiru as the most prominent planet of the Solar System. In the event, Nibiru too became known as Heaven, which simply meant the abode of the god Anu.
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).