Connect with us

Sols Family of Twelve

Benson C Saili

“Sumerian knowledge of the origin and makeup of our Solar System included a host of other aspects that modern science has been rediscovering in recent times.”

These pointed words were said by the great Sumerologist Zechariah Sitchin.

They ring very true indeed.

The game, folks, is “Catch-Up”. Most of the present-day “discoveries”, particularly in the field of planetary science, are little more than affirmations of what the ancients – the Sumerians in particular – already knew  and had documented in one form or the other. It is not my wish to deluge you with celestial facts Sumerians had already garnered 6,000 years ago that we either got acquainted with in the last century or so or are just beginning to grasp now. A few examples will suffice nonetheless.  

Let me first take you back to 1983, when the “discovery” of Nibiru, or Planet X, was announced by NASA. Though the announcement was hurriedly but naively withdrawn the following day (because the real, behind-the-scenes rulers of this world were wroth), some mavericks among the ranks of NASA staff continued to trumpet the discovery anyway – through tactical leaks and confided tips. The most unguarded of these was Dr Robert Harington of the United States Naval Observatory, who was in charge of the official US government search for Planet X and who consequently paid with his life.   

Harrington spoke about the planet as a matter of fact, not as a mere hypothesis or supposition. He told, among other things we will hark back to in due course, that Planet X was at the very least four to five  times the size or mass of Earth and at most about the size of Neptune. What did the Sumerians know and say about Nibiru?   

Now, astronomers and planetologists tell us that of the Solar System’s “9” planets, only Mars, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn were known to the ancients because these five  can be seen with the unaided eye. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were unknown, we’re told, till they were discovered in 1781, 1846, and 1930 respectively. We have also been given to understand that it was not until circa AD 1540 that Nicholas Copernicus discovered it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun and not   the other way round.

Well, I beg to differ folks: the Sumerians very much knew, 6,000 years ago, that that the Sun, known as Sol in astronomy, was the centre of the Solar System and that the Earth and its fellow planets drifted around it.  They also were very much aware of the existence of all the members of the Solar System including one more – Nibiru, the planet of the Old Testament gods.

As we have already pointed out, the ancients in fact had a name for each of the 12 eminent members of the Solar System from the point of view of our planet.  The Sun was Apsu; Mercury was Mummu; Venus was Lahamu; Earth was Ki; the moon was Kingu; Mars was Lahmu; Jupiter was Kishar; Saturn was Anshar; Uranus was Anu; Neptune was Ea; Pluto was Gaga; and the 10th planet but the 12th major celestial member of the Solar System was called Nibiru in Sumerian times and Marduk in Babylonian times.  These guys were familiar with the entire Solar System folks, not just six planets plus the Sun and moon as modern astronomers would have us believe.   


Take a peek at the picture accompanying this article. What you are looking at is a Sumerian cylinder seal that is at least 4,500 years old according to modern scientific dating techniques.  When we move from left to right, we see that between the first and second human figures is the Sumerians’ impression of the Solar System as they knew it. The largest object, the one in the centre, is the Sun and dotted around it are the planets. Now, if you count the other celestial bodies, you will find that they are 11, that is, the 9 planets we are familiar with plus 2 others. Of the latter two, the one is the moon. And the other? The planet Nibiru, which, ideally, is  the 10th planet but is designated 12th in the Sumerian cosmogony, in which the  Sun and moon were also included by virtue of the  significance of  the number 12 in cosmic numerology.  

Where in the depiction then is Nibiru? The depiction is not exactly according to scale, but you can see that the planets differ in size anyway. One of the smallest, the one in the upper right-hand corner, is the moon and obviously the planet next to it is Earth. Another small celestial body is the planet at the base of the sketch; this must be Pluto. The two biggest planets to the left of Pluto must be Jupiter above and Saturn below, whereas the two planets to the right of Pluto must be Uranus and Neptune in that order. Of the two planets above Neptune, the smaller one is Mercury, whereas the bigger one is Venus (it is at this place, where Mercury and Venus are, that the depiction starts and proceeds anti-clockwise).  We’re now left with only two planets. The one to the left of Earth obviously is Mars. The remaining planet, the one between Jupiter and Mars (top left-hand corner) is … Nibiru! Indeed, it is larger than every other planet except Jupiter and Saturn.

The Sumerian sketch reveals very interesting, if not awe-inspiring, titbits about their knowledge of the Solar System.

Nibiru is placed between Jupiter and Mars. Why? Because that is the position at which Nibiru is seen from Earth when it appears in our region of the Solar System once in 3,600 years. Nibiru means “Planet of the Crossing”. It was so named because when it approaches from deep in space, its path (an elongated one, like that of a comet) crosses the orbits of the outer planets – Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter in that order.  To judge from its size, Nibiru is a huge planet. This accords very well with what NASA astronomers have been saying about Planet X all along – that it is more or less “Neptune-sized”.       

Pluto appears between Saturn and Uranus,  when we have known it to be the small, tail-end planet (actually reclassified as a dwarf planet since 2006)  after Neptune. Why? Well, listen to this: since Pluto’s “discovery” in 1930, astronomers have always suspected that it is not a natural planet; it must have been a moon of one of the other nearby planets,   most likely Neptune. Then for reasons still not understood, “it got torn away from its attachment to Neptune and attained its independent orbit around the Sun”. Now, what do Sumerian cosmological texts say? They say that Pluto was originally a moon  of Saturn that was shunted out of its orbital path by an incoming Nibiru and therefore ended up in a new, unstable orbit that sometimes takes it between Uranus and Neptune though its permanent home is south of Neptune! There is more. When the ancients depicted Pluto pictographically,  they portrayed it as a man with two faces,  each looking in the opposite direction. In other words, they were trying to demonstrate that Pluto sometimes faced Neptune and at other times faced Uranus – exactly as it does in its highly erratic orbit! The ancients  knew better than we do folks and that was 6,000 years ago!


On further examination of the cylinder seal, we note that the moon is shown as a planet in its own right (all other planets save for Mercury and Venus – the two small moons of Mars are artificial – have their own moons but are not shown in the sketch). Is it simply masquerading or there’s a ring of legitimacy to its figuring? Again astronomers have been mystified by the size of the moon relative to Earth. Moons are by far much smaller than the planets they revolve around (that is the case with all other planets)  but our moon  is one-quarter the size of Earth, a size which in astronomical terms is uncharacteristically  gigantic.  As a result, astronomers have theorised that the moon was not always  a companion  of Earth; it was part of another huge planet and nature was about to “promote it” as an independent planet with its own orbit when some mysterious celestial body impacted it and threw it in  a new orbit around the Earth.

Exactly, say the Sumerians. In their rather detailed wealth of clay tablets, the Sumerians demonstrate that our moon, which they called Kingu, was originally the largest of a total of 11 moons of a huge planet called Tiamat that was located between Mars and Jupiter – where the asteroids roam today. Then just as Kingu was about to become  its own planet (as theoretically some moons eventually do), Tiamat was rammed  into by Nibiru. The one part of Tiamat was reduced to a bracelet of floating rock debris that are today’s asteroids and the larger, basically intact part was shunted into a new orbit to become our Earth. Earth dragged Kingu along with it, our today’s moon. Once again, the Sumerians knew so much more  than astronomers of our day.

The Sun is depicted as a disc with triangular rays extending from its round surface. But that is not the way we see the sun at sunset or at dawn with the naked eye: it is a perfect, smooth  globe. Well, how about this quote from one of Zechariah Sitchin’s books: “In 1980, astronomers of the High Altitude Observatory of the University of Colorado took pictures of the Sun with a special camera during an eclipse observed in India. The pictures revealed that because of magnetic influences, the Sun’s corona gives it the appearance of a disc with triangular rays extending from its surface.”  Isn’t that exactly what the Sumerians suggested 6,000 years ago on the very cylinder seal we are reviewing?

Paging through the history books, one is constantly reminded that it was the Greek astronomer Hipparchus who divided the star systems into the 12 signs of the Zodiac in the 3rd century BC. That is very far from the truth. The Sumerians knew about the Zodiac 4,000 years before Hipparchus was born. And they used the same names and depictions we continue  to use today. The Sumerian  names for the Zodiacal signs were: GUANA (Taurus); MASHTABBA (Gemini); DUB (Cancer); URGULA (Leo); ABSIN (Virgo); ZIBAANN (Libra); GIRTAB (Scorpio); PABIL (Sagittarius);  SUHURMASH (Capricorn); GU (Aquarius); SIMMAR (Pieces); and KUMAL (Aries). Hipparchus must have researched from the Sumerian tablets without admitting he did.  

If our modern scientists were to put objectivity before vanity and turn Sumerian records into companion text book material, they would learn a great deal more about the cosmos than they presently do. But obviously, their conceit would never allow them  this concession to the fact that compared to the Sumerian scribes of 6,000 years ago,  the PhD-flaunting planetary scientists of the 21st century are minnows.


Another thing the Sumerians knew which they would not have known by their own experience is a phenomenon called Precession of the Equinoxes. This is what it means: when the Earth completes one orbit around the Sun in a year, it does not return to the same exact spot where it used to be: it is always out by a fraction of a degree because at the same time as the Earth is going round the Sun, the Sun is also going round the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, or sort of,  and carrying the Earth with it. As a result, there will always be different star patterns seen in the sky from one age to another – different Zodiacal signs.  

There are 12 Zodiacal signs. Each sign mathematically occupies 30 degrees of the celestial circle, which totals 360 degrees. It takes 72 years for Earth to pass through 1 degree of the Zodiac and 2160 years (72 x 30) to move from the house of Aries to the house of Pieces, for instance. And to complete its cycle through all the 12 houses of the Zodiac, Earth takes 25,920 years (2160 x 12). It is at the end of these 25,920 years (also called “The Great Year”) that the Earth will return to the same exact spot it set out from and begin the process all over again.   The Earth’s 25,920-year journey through all the constellations of the Zodiac is called the Precession of the Equinoxes.  

The Sumerians, certainly, would not have known about the  phenomenon of Precession; only people capable of living extraordinarily long lives could have witnessed its full cycle.  And these were the Anunnaki from Nibiru, whose life spans were in hundreds of thousands of years since for them a year on Earth was nothing when they came from a planet where one year amounted to 3,600 Earth years. It is the Anunnaki, it goes without saying, who enlightened the Sumerians about Precession.    

“Our gods taught us,” they repeatedly assert in their records, inscribed on zillions of clay tablets.  By “gods”, they referred to the Anunnaki, the extraterrestrial beings from Nibiru, or the Orion and Sirius star systems to be exact as Nibiru was simply a significant colony of theirs,  who came to Earth about 450,000 years ago  and thousands of years later created mankind – after their own image and likeness as the Bible  aptly puts it.

Planetary Science has yet to figure out  which of the Sun’s familiar 9 planets were formed first. The ultra-smart rocket scientists at NASA can’t even venture a hypothesis. My recommendation: consult the Sumerians. The Sumerians say the first planet to be spewed forth by the Sun (APSU, or “One Who Exists From The Beginning”, as they called it)  was TIAMAT  (meaning “Maiden of Life) – the original Earth. Mercury, which they called MUMMU (“One Who Was Born”) was second.   Then followed three planetary pairs – Venus and Mars; Jupiter and Saturn; and Uranus and Neptune in that order. Pluto was originally a moon of Saturn – a point we can’t emphasise enough.   

One day, planetary scientists will confirm the order in which the planets were formed as per  the Sumerian brief and will call this a “discovery”. This Earth, my Brother…  


Continue Reading



14th December 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


Continue Reading


Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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

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


Pic Cap

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


Continue Reading


Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

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

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

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

Right to life

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

Right to Equality 

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

Right to justice

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

Right to freedom of conscience and religion

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

Right to personal freedom

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

Right to Protection of Honour

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

Continue Reading