Connect with us

Who Fused Mankinds 2nd Chromosome?

Benson C Saili

One of molecular biology’s most staggering puzzles has Enki’s fingerprints all over it

Zechariah Sitchin’s insistence that modern-day “scientific discoveries” simply affirm knowledge that was commonplace in antiquity is no empty rhetoric.

Consider the matter of mankind being “made from clay”. In GENESIS 1:19, the Bible tells us man’s eventual fate is six-feet-under for “thou at dust and unto dust shall thou return”. The Koran categorically states that God “started the creation of the human from clay”.   

We have previously made the point that the Anunnaki, who fashioned mankind, characterised us as clay material simply as a sneer. “You are nothing but a lump of soul-less clay,” they seemed to say. Man may not be the product of clay but clay did play a part in his creation and vitally at that.

Do you know   what Enki decided to do after repeated failures to come up with the perfect model of Adam? He combined the genes not in a vessel made of Nibiru crystals but in a vessel made of Earth’s clay.

This course of action did not pay off immediately but the improvement was a quantum leap and at long last led to a flawless Adam, forcing Enki’s half-sister Ninmah, who did the mixing under Enki’s supervision, to ecstatically screech, “Mine hands have made it!” Enki, the foremost scientist of his day both on Earth and Nibiru, came to realise that had he not used a test tube made of clay, he would not have succeeded in fashioning Adam. Why was clay central to the process?

In his memoirs, Enki does not explain the centrality of clay but science does! In fact, it was not until the turn of the century that science had an answer to the clay question. On October 23, 2003, the US news network MNBC featured an article headlined “MAYBE WE CAME FROM CLAY AFTER ALL”.

The gist of the story read thus: “A team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said they had shown that materials in clay supported processes similar to those that may have given rise to life. Specifically, a clay mixture called montmorillonite not only helps form little bags of fat and liquid but helps cells use genetic material called RNA. That, in turn, is one of the key processes of life.”

It was another feather in Sitchin’s cap, who had highlighted the instrumentality of clay in the creation of Adam in his first book published in 1976. Sitchin’s source was not the Bible but clay tablets inscribed 6000 years ago by the Sumerians, the world’s best known civilisation of old. It were these same clay tablets  the Genesis scribes based their creation story on, tablets they had access to whilst in exile in Babylonia (which arose in the same area as the antecedent Sumeria) in the 6th century BC.


Did you know that Adam had not two but three parents? That’s exactly what the Sumerian tablets tell us folks. Adam, we will soon establish, was the first viable test tube baby. Adam was made from a mixture of a male Anunnaki’s sperm and Ape-Woman’s egg in a procedure known today as in vitro fertilisation, or IVF. But he was not carried in Ape-Woman’s womb: he was carried in Ninmah’s. Thus technically, Adam had three parents.

IVF, which is simply fertilisation of an egg by a sperm outside the body, has been common knowledge since 1978, when the first successful test tube baby Louise Brown was born. But Louise was the offspring of only two parents: she was the product of her father’s and mother’s sex cells and was carried in her own mother’s womb. It was not until the dawn of the new millennium that IVF went a step further.

On October 18th, 2003, New Science carried a story titled “IVF CREATES FOETUSES WITH THREE PARENTS”. The breakthrough was accomplished by a team of American scientists at a Chinese medical university. It concerned a woman who had failed to conceive because her embryos ceased to develop after two days.

The woman’s egg was removed and fertilised by her husband’s sperm in a Petri dish  as usual (note that the chemical composition of Petri dish or test tube glass  used in the process has a significant clay component) but the new twist was the  involvement of a third party, a woman (called a donor or surrogate mother).

The egg of the donor had its nucleus sucked out and discarded; then the fertilised material in the Petri dish was injected into the donor’s void egg, which in turn was implanted into the donor’s womb.

The resulting baby therefore technically had three parents – the father who provided the sperm; the mother who provided the egg; and the surrogate mother who provided the womb and something else besides.

Besides providing a uterine incubator for the developing baby, the donor contributed something else at a cellular level that made it possible for the embryo of the barren woman to grow to term this time around.  This was what is termed Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA. This is DNA which converts the chemical energy from food into a form that cells can use.

In humans, although mtDNA is present in both males and females, it is passed on only by the female. Although mtDNA resides inside the cell, this is outside the nucleus. Hence, although the nucleus that was removed from the donor’s egg cell did carry the DNA with it, mtDNA remained. It is mtDNA which enabled the embryo to grow fully in the donor’s womb. In other words, the donor’s mtDNA was more efficient than the barren woman’s: it was the barren woman’s inefficient mtDNA that was causing the embryos to abort after two days.  

In 1987, scientists were able to establish that mankind shared a common ancestor they called Mitochondrial Eve. They also reckoned that Mitochondrial Eve arose in East Africa over 200,000 years ago, which was within close range of what  Zechariah Sitchin had been saying all along. The scientists called our common woman ancestor Mitochondrial Eve because they studied mtDNA in the post-natal placentas of women from different races to help them estimate how long mankind had been in existence.    


Another remarkable case of the replication (whether wittingly or unwittingly we cannot say for sure) of Anunnaki bio-medical techniques came to light in 2004 through the internationally acclaimed magazine Newsweek in its January 26 edition.

In a ten-page cover story titled  “THE NEW SCIENCE OF SEX SELECTION”, the magazine lauded the wonders of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosys, or PGD, whereby the sex of a unborn baby could be determined using IVF. PGD entails creating a number of embryos outside the womb, that is, in a test tube, examining them for their gender, selecting a number having the desired sex, and then implanting these into the womb.

What stirred a familiar echo was the number of embryos that were created in the case featured in Newsweek. The story said, “Last November, Sharla’s eggs and Shane’s sperm were mixed in a lab dish, producing 14 healthy embryos, seven male and seven female… The lab transferred three of the female embryos into Sharla’s uterus, where two implanted successfully. If all goes well, the run of the Miller boys will end in July with the arrival of twin baby girls.”

Indeed, the couple, who hitherto only had boys, was blessed with twin baby girls as per deliberate design nine months later. The interesting aspect about the process was that it was exactly what Enki had done 300,000 years ago in his attempt to create mankind.

Enki at first used 14 volunteer “Birth Goddesses” suggested by Ninmah to become pregnant with 7 males and 7 females using a combination of cloning and IVF. It was only when he decided this process was burdensome on the part of the Birth Goddesses that he decided to fashion Adam and Eve, finally getting the couple to procreate after a bone marrow transplant operation. Details of the creation of Adam and Eve will be engaged in the next few weeks: just watch this space.


Let’s at this juncture learn something about chromosomes.

If you took the DNA from all the cells in your body and lined it up, end to end, it would form a strand 6000 million miles long, albeit a very thin microscopic line. To efficiently and usefully store this important material, DNA is packed into compact structures called chromosomes.

A normal human cell should contain exactly 46 chromosomes, made up of 23 pairs. Pairs 1 through 22 (called autosomes) are numbered in descending order of size and are the same in males and females. The largest chromosome, Chromosome 1, contains about 8000 genes. The smallest chromosome, Chromosome 21, contains about 300 genes (Chromosome 22 should be the smallest, but the scientists made a mistake when they first numbered them!).

The 23rd pair is referred to as the sex chromosome because it is the one that determines whether the baby will be male or female. Whereas other cells in the human body contain a full set of 23 pairs of chromosomes to make a total of 46, the gametes (eggs and spermatozoa) contain only 23 single chromosomes apiece so that at fertilisation when the egg and spermatozoon fuse, the full complement of 46 is restored. 

Typically, females have 2 X chromosomes, while males have an X and a Y. Thus the sex chromosomes determine whether you are a boy (XY) or a girl (XX). The X chromosome is significantly longer than the Y chromosome and contains hundreds more genes. The Y chromosome carries only 26 genes.

During fertilisation, the sex of a baby will be determined by the spermatozoon. If the spermatozoon that attaches to the egg on-passes a X chromosome only, the baby will be female; if it on-passes a Y chromosome only, the baby will be male. On very rare occasion, “anomalies” occur when the spermatozoon on-passes an X and Y chromosome at once. When that happens, the baby is both male and female (with two sexual organs) called a hermaphrodite. The person is then sexually identified by the organ that expresses itself more in terms of size.  

Exactly how do gametes reproduce themselves? They do so by a process known as meiosis – dividing by halving.    At puberty, the first sperm cell a male produces is called a sperm mother cell, whereas the first ovum a female produces is called an ovum mother cell. Each of these mother cells has 46 chromosomes. When a sperm mother cell divides, it will first become four separate but identical gametes or spermatozoa.  Each of these four cells will contain 23 chromosomes each. The division process continues until there are about 500 million spermatozoa in one ejaculation.

When a ovum mother cell divides, it too becomes four separate cells initially. However, unlike the case of a mother sperm cell, only one of these four resulting cells matures to be a gamete; the other three die out.

The surviving gamete contains not 46 chromosomes but 23 as per the dividing and halving rules of meiosis. This sole surviving gamete is not produced in millions through repeated division all the time as is the   case with male gametes: it is produced only once in 28 days , so that at ovulation time, all 500 million sperm cells  will be gunning for only one egg after ejaculation.  

Only in very rare cases are more than one egg produced in a month, the result of which could be fraternal twins or additional sets of twins. In still rare cases, one fertilised egg divides into two, three or four copies and the result are identical twins, triplets, etc.  


The one puzzle that has plagued scientists since days immemorial is, who tampered with mankind’s DNA?  There are just too many things about our DNA and genetic structure that just do not seem to add up.  One riddle is that of all living organisms, we have the longest DNA molecule. Yet we only use about 2  percent of it: the rest, a whopping 98 percent, is what is called junk DNA, a mere waste. It has no use whatsoever. All other living things use far much more of their DNA than we do; some animal species use up to 98 percent.

If God is the one who physically created us, why would he pack us with a surfeit of DNA which we hardly use? Obviously somebody must have deliberately switched off the greater part of our DNA and that somebody was not God. No wonder we use less than 10 percent of our brain capacity.    

Another mystery  is that as complex as we are, we have a smaller gene aggregate than organisms that are less complex than us. A chimpanzee, for instance, has more genes than the much smaller species such as the mouse, chicken, zebra fish, and fruit fly. Yet curiously, we have fewer genes than our closest cousin, the chimpanzee. As if that is not embarrassing enough, we have fewer genes than a chicken and a mouse and are practically level with a roundworm. This, of course, was a deliberate intervention by some superior intellect: we were genetically engineered as such.

Perhaps the most bamboozling aspect about human genetics is the structure of  our genome. We have underscored the fact that mankind has 46 chromosomes made up of  23 pairs. Apes have 48 chromosomes made up of 24 pairs. Since the line that led to mankind and the line that led to chimpanzees share a common ancestor from which they diverged 6 million years ago, logic dictates that man and apes should have the same number of chromosomes – 24 pairs.

But hear this: Chromosome 2 in mankind is not a single chromosome: it is made of two chromosomes, 2A and 2B, which were fused to form a composite Chromosome 2! Put differently, the second chromosome has another entire chromosome "tacked" on to it to carry 24 chromosomes in the space of  23. The world’s most respected science magazine, Nature, says Chromosome 2 “arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes”. In other words, Chromosome 2 did not naturally arise; it was a manipulation. Who was behind this manipulation?

“The only way that this could have happened,” says one scientist “is that at one point a mother (primate) with 24 chromosomes had to have an egg removed from her body, and the 2nd-3rd chromosomes fused. And this is the important part:  the father had to have a natural 23 chromosome-half  to contribute.” Who was the “father”? How did the 24 chromosome – half from the mother primate – fit into the space of 23  while still carrying the 24th chromosome?

Answer: the “father” was Enki, the great Anunnaki who genetically engineered mankind from the biological essences of Ape-Woman and the Anunnaki’s. It was Enki who, like the scientific genius he was, slotted 24 chromosomes in the space of only 23 so that mankind could resemble the Anunnaki, who were born with 23 chromosomes!

How I love Lord Enki folks!


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