Connect with us

Man, The Evolutionary Enigma

Benson C Saili


… but Genesis and Darwin do agree rather than conflict

We are called human beings, mankind, earthlings, or simply man.  We’re earthlings because we’re native to planet Earth: we evolved here. However, we’re not pure earthlings. We’re a hybrid race, or LULUs in Sumerian language.  We’re part extraterrestrial, part  ape. The extraterrestrial component arises from the fact that we have Anunnaki blood in us. There’s Sirian (of Sirius), Aryan (of Orion), and Reptilian (of Draco) blood in us – Alien DNA. There are smaller traces of other  ET races in our DNA still.  

We’re a hybrid race because the Anunnaki tampered with us. If  they hadn’t, we would still be pure earthlings but primitive ones, albeit fully content with our way of  life. We would still be Ape Man. You may not be aware of this, but  zoologically, mankind is  classified as ape. We belong to the same family (called a genus) as gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gibbons. These are tailless primates. Primates with tails include monkeys and baboons – it’s a broad family we belong too folks.  

In the ape family, the closest to  mankind is the chimpanzee. Genetically, the difference between mankind and  the chimpanzee is only 2 percent.  This is because mankind and chimpanzees are descended from the same hominid ancestor, making the chimpanzee our most immediate cousin. The chimpanzee is still a chimpanzee because it hasn’t been genetically tampered with by biomedically advanced ETs such as the Anunnaki. In our case, we were genetically tinkered with  at some stage in the course of our evolution.  

At the time we were genetically manipulated by the Anunnaki, we had reached an evolutionary stage we today call Homo Erectus.   Homo Erectus was a hominid that walked in an erect posture, was able to make fire, and fashion primitive tools from stones. His body was hairy but his facial features were closer to what we look today than they were to apes. Then 300,000 years ago, the Anunnaki created Adam and Eve, the first Homo Sapiens.   

How does the creation of Adam and Eve by the Anunnaki, a topic we shall address exhaustively sooner than later, exactly reconcile with biomedical science and the theory of evolution? Is the Biblical take really in agreement, if at all, with these fields
of inquiry?

First, some clarity. When I say the  Anunnaki created mankind, I use a conventional figure of speech, something that most of our readership will have realised by now. The Anunnaki, or to be more specific, Enki, did not create Adam and Eve per se; he fashioned them out of already existing matter in Ape-Woman, or Homo Erectus, and the Anunnaki themselves.  Ape-Woman eggs were infused with Anunnaki genes – a genetic engineering technique best known as cloning – to yield Adam and Eve some 300,000 years ago.  How do we know Adam and Eve appeared on the scene 300,000 years ago and in the era of Homo Erectus?


In 1859, the famed naturalist Charles Darwin published a seminal book titled On the Origins of Species in which he put forward what has become known as the theory of evolution. According to this theory, all living things evolved from lower forms, such as an amoeba, to a higher form, such as an ape, by a process known as natural selection. 

Natural selection can be explained thus:  because of the rigours (trials and tribulations) of existence inherent in the natural environment, those organisms that are able to cope survive (that is nature gives them a “pass”), whilst those unable to cope die off (that is nature gives them a “fail”). As the capable organism forges through existence, it evolves into a more sophisticated species. This evolution does not take place in jumps; it is so glacially and imperceptibly slow it takes many millions of years.

What is the most obvious evidence that man is a product of evolution? It is the way we develop when we are in the womb. Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that at some stage of its development, the human embryo is no different from that of a bird,  reptile, or any other mammal. At one point, it even has gills, like a fish. In other words, the human embryo developing in the womb passes through stages of its evolutionary ancestry.

One profile of  the development of  the human embryo I read in a biology encylopaedia says at 5 weeks, the embryo has “a distinctly reptilian aspect … The embryo still has a tail and cannot be distinguished from pig, rabbit, elephant, or chick embryo”. At 7 weeks, “the face is mammalian but somewhat pig-like”. It is only when it is ten weeks old that the human embryo is distinctly human.

Man’s intra-uterine cycle was one of the major clues that gave Darwin and his co-discoverer Alf Wallace the idea that we are creatures of evolution. But Wallace was more matter-of-fact: he stated that some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of man. Why did he say that? As stated above, mankind belongs to a animal category known as hominids or primates. This category includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, baboons, gibbons, and your ordinary monkey. Evolutionists say hominids had a common ancestor eons ago.

Man’s closest cousin is the chimpanzee. A type of chimpanzee called the bonobos is remarkably human-like in character: for instance, it also copulates face to face. Mankind and chimpanzees   share a common, relatively recent ancestor, from which they split 6 million years ago Indeed genetically, the difference between mankind and a chimpanzee as asserted above is only 2 percent. Mankind came through the line of Homo Erectus, or Ape-Man, who appeared on the scene around 2  million years ago.  

For Homo Erectus to evolve into modern man, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, he should by rights have taken millions of years. The biologist Thomas Huxley says, “Large changes (in species) occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones (macro changes) take a hundred million years or so”.  Yet Homo Erectus, for reasons that baffled Darwin and Wallace, disappeared a mere 2 million years after emerging, which in evolutional terms is overnight. The moment Homo Erectus vanished, that is, 300,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens suddenly emerged, as if by magic!

Over a hundred years since Darwin’s day, scientists remained puzzled by this anomaly. In 1984, anthropologist Roger Lewin said, “The origin of  modern humans denoted by the subspecies Homo Sapiens remains one of the great puzzles of palaeoanthropology (the study of ancient humans as found in fossil hominids)”.  In 1995, The Sunday Times of London reported that “scientists themselves are confused”. In regard to mankind’s Ape-like ancestors, the highly respected paper said, “Their relationships to one another remain clouded in mystery and nobody has conclusively identified any of them as the early hominid that gave rise to Homo   Sapiens”. In other words, even Homo Erectus does not exactly qualify as mankind’s undisputed ancestor.

Both scientists and evolutionists are at a loss as to why mankind, or Adam in the Hebrew language, defied the pace of nature and evolved basically in the twinkling of an eye from his hominid ancestor. And there is more. Why did we become intelligent whilst our nearest cousin, the chimpanzee, did not? Why have chimpanzees remained in evolutionary stagnation for 6 million years when we have woven clothes, built cities, and flown to the moon? Why is our brain size 50 percent larger than that of the chimpanzee?

In 1911, Arthur Keith, an anthropologist, investigated the peculiar characteristics that made a particular primate different from the rest.  The distinctive characteristics were as follows: gorilla 75; chimpanzee 109; orangutan 113; gibbon 116; and man 312. In other words, mankind was about three times more unique than any other primate. Why did we make such a leap? How did we attain such a level of sophistication not by degrees but practically in a flash in evolutional terms?

Still another jigsaw is this: apes are five to ten times stronger than humans. Where did our strength go? Why did we lose so much strength when it was vital to our survival? We are indeed a “revolutionary misfit” courtesy of another Earth Chronicles researcher Alan Alford.

The absence of a definite and necessary intermediate species between Homo Erectus and mankind evolutionists call the Missing Link.


Whilst scientists and evolutionists remained staggered by the mystery of the Missing Link, it was left to independent researchers to plug  the gap. In 1976, Zechariah Sitchin wrote the iconic book, The 12th Planet, in which he sought to enlighten the world on the fact  that in addition to the known 9 planets plus the Sun and Moon, there was a 12th eminent celestial body, a tenth planet known as Nibiru. Nibiru, which is seen by Earthlings only once in 3600 years, is the “Heaven” of the Bible, the abode of Old Testament “gods” – Jehovah/Yahweh and the like.

These gods were not supernatural beings but humanoids –  flesh-and-blood creatures like we are, only they were more advanced technologically.  It were these “gods”, or Anunnaki as they were best known in antiquity, who 450,000 years ago came to Earth in their spaceships and 144,000 years later created mankind as a worker race. They needed a worker race to help mine gold, a commodity that was needed to plug the gaping ozone hole on their planet. The Anunnaki did not create mankind from without: they employed genetic engineering to fuse their own genes with those  of Homo Erectus to give rise to  a reasoning species they called the Adam.     

Sitchin researched for thirty years, primarily from thousands of clay tablets and cylinder seals on which the Sumerians, the world’s best known civilisation of old, 6,000 years ago recorded mankind’s origins and other momentous events before he put pen to paper.  But the Illuminati, the diabolical forces who rule the world from behind the scenes, had known about Nibiru and the Anunnaki since days immemorial, a knowledge they had kept  inviolably secret though they did give hints of it through symbols, signage, movies, and rituals.     

In The 12th Planet, Sitchin wrote thus:  “Man is the product of evolution; but modern Man, Homo Sapiens, is the product of the ‘gods’. For  some time circa 300,000 years ago, the Nephilim took ape-man (Homo Erectus) and implanted on him their own image and likeness.”

By “gods”,  Sitchin meant the Anunnaki, whose royal ranks were known as the Nephilim. By “man”, he meant the two species that sprang from Homo Erectus: these were Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man, the latter of whom advanced into modern man. Whereas Neanderthal Man became extinct 30,000 years ago,  Cro-Magnon  man persevered.

On February 13, 2009, the highly respected journal Science reported that German  scientists had deciphered the genome of a female Neanderthal fossil  in a project that sought to establish when Neanderthal Man, the “failed species of humans”, separated from modern man. The New York Times reported that “the new findings document two important sets of genetic changes – those that occurred between 5.7 million years ago, when the human line split from the line leading to chimpanzees, and 300,000 years ago when Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern humans (that is, Cro-Magnon Man) parted ways”.  

Thus Sitchin’s reckoning, from the Sumerian tablets, that Adam came onto the scene 300,000 years ago was now scientifically corroborated.  But scientists still could not hazard a guess as to how modern man emerged and so suddenly at that. They should have listened to the Sumerians, who inform us  that it were the Anunnaki who jumped the gun on the evolutionary process and brought mankind into existence millions of years ahead of schedule through genetic engineering.  Neanderthal Man was the remnant of Homo Erectus who was not further  upgraded genetically by the Anunnaki.

In all his books, Sitchin makes the case that the Anunnaki came to Earth to look for gold because on their planet, Nibiru, they faced a very acute problem of a dwindling atmosphere brought about by natural causes and nuclear wars. To overcome this problem, Sitchin says, they needed to create a shield of gold particles in their upper atmosphere, which gold was extremely rare on Nibiru but abundant on Earth.

At an international conference held in Germany in May 2009, White House Science Advisor John Holdern punted “Geo-Engineering”, already under discussion by the US government as he spoke,  as a future answer to the problem of global warming.  He said using space technology yet to be devised, “particles will be shot into the Earth's upper atmosphere to create a shield that will reflect away from Earth the Sun's warming rays”. Holdern did not specify the nature of these “particles”, but as an Illuminati scientist, he was obviously aware that the Anunnaki had successfully tried the method on their planet using gold particles.

Reading of this development, Sitchin gleefully gushed thus: “Modern science is only catching up with ancient knowledge. The idea of 'geo-engineering' is borrowed from technologies of the Anunnaki.”    

How true!

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