Connect with us

Adam and Eve Prove Sterile

Benson C Saili


Enki flogs his mind to get to bottom of dilemma

Considering that Adam was carried in Ninmah’s womb, it followed that his female counterpart had to be carried in the womb of a royal too, not an ordinary Anunnaki like any of the Birth Mothers. Who would it be this time around? Enki this time excused his sister; instead, he tipped his wife Ninki (maiden name Damkina) to bear the burden, of course subject to her consent.

Ninki did not need overmuch persuasion as her sister-in-law had been through the process without any detriment to her health. It was not Ningishzidda, though, who transplanted the tiny foetus into Ninki’s womb; that was taboo given that she was his step-mother. It had to be Enki himself. 

Ninki was delivered in the tenth month, by Caesarian section. As per plan, the offspring was a girl. She was as healthy and adorable as Adam. However, there was a marked difference in their skin tones: the girl was nearly as light-skinned as the Anunnaki (what we would call a “coloured” today), whereas Adam was of a comparatively darker hue.

Clearly, in the gene tinkering process, Enki had Ningishzidda substantially tone down on the dark pigment melanin as he intended the female Earthling to be even more visually attractive. Enki’s gesture was also motivated, apparently, by some future scheme of his that he kept close to his chest. 

As with Ninmah in the case of Adam, Ninti had discretion to confer a name on the newly born girl. She suggested the name Tiamat. “Tiamat let her name be,” Ninti said. “Like the planet of old of which the Earth and the Moon were fashioned, let her be called.”

The creation of Tiamat, the biblical Eve, thus, was a symbolic commemoration of  the Celestial Battle that took place 4 billion years ago, when a primeval Nibiru smashed into a watery planet called Tiamat – which was located between Mars and Jupiter – to split it into Earth and the Asteroid Belt. One of Tiamat’s eleven satellites, Kingu, was dragged along to become our Moon. We dwelt on this subject earlier in the Earth Chronicles.

Initially, female Earthlings were to be mass-produced from Eve’s DNA  template, just as male Earthlings were  mass-produced from Adam’s DNA  template, that is,  using seven new Birth Mothers. Indeed, a year later, the Birth Mothers were clutching seven healthy baby girls.

Let us at this juncture turn to the Bible to cross-check these happenings.  We will begin with GENESIS 5:1-2. Summarising the creation of  man by God, the two scriptures read as follows: Verse 1When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Verse 2He (God)  created them male and female and blessed them.

And when they were created he called them ‘man’.  Do you see some seeming contradiction? Verse 1 talks about  “man”, but in Verse 2, man has become “male and female”. The contradiction arises only in the distorted English translation. In the Hebrew original, there is no contradiction at all.

A much more direct and minimally paraphrased  translation from Hebrew should read something like this: Verse 1When the Elohim (the royal Anunnaki) created the first Earthling, they made him in their own image and likeness and blessed him. Verse 2Then the Elohim  created more male  Earthlings and in due course  female Earthlings.

The Earthlings were called Adamites.  The Elohim are the Anunnaki leadership. But this also is too much of a generalisation:  as we saw in earlier pieces, it was Enki who said “Let us make man in our own image and likeness” (GENESIS 1:26), and as we have already demonstrated, it was Enki, assisted by his step-sister Ninmah and his genius son Ningishzidda,  who created both Adam and Eve.

Inevitably, it is Enki who pronounced blessings  on Adam and Eve. We have also explained that the  name Adam fundamentally means Earthling. It was both a name of the individual Adam, the first  viable Earthling,  as well as that of mankind in general.  Human beings are Adamites.

Sequentially, the creation of Earthlings first takes place in GENESIS 1:27, which reads, “So God (the Elohim, that is, Enki, Ningishzidda, and Ninmah) created man (Adam, the first viable human being) in his          (their) own image; in the image of God (the Elohim) he (Enki) created him (Adam); male and female he created them ( Adam and Eve)”.

The “male and female” statement refers to the stage when Birth Mothers alternated in groups of seven to  produce males patterned after Adam, and when they again alternated in groups of seven to produce females patterned after Eve. So the Genesis account is far from contradictory folks, at least in this context.    




Eve, like Adam, was to be preserved. Her DNA was to be used to produce female Earthlings, just as Adam’s DNA would be used to produce male Earthlings. It was actually decided by Enki that Eve join Adam at Eridu, his base in the Edin in Mesopotamia. This was all the more apt because Enlil, who greatly distrusted Enki, personally wanted to keep a close watch on the couple.

In the old Avestan language, a sister tongue to the Vedic Sanskrit of India, the Edin was referred to as Pairi Daize (from pairi [around]  and diz [to make, form, build]). A  Pairi Daize was therefore something of a castle – a  fortified, walled  building or groups of building  with watch towers for maximum vigil (the Setswana term Pharadisa, meaning “securely watched over”, drives the point crisply home).

Parts of the Edin were as fortified and as tightly guarded because, first, they housed the royal Anunnaki (the “gods”), and second,  they harboured the highly prized shems, or rocket ships. But the Edin  was more than that. It had an orchard, a zoo, a royal park, acres of cultivated land, pastoral animals, a sprawl of lush green lawns,  and tracts of pastureland.

It is from Pairi Daize  we get the English word Paradise. In time, Paradise would assume several derivative meanings, including    idyllic place, utopia, Heaven,  dwelling place of God, etc.

In the ethereally beautiful Edin, the two prototypes  roamed about freely and happily, with a conducive cage as their lodging. Note that Adam and Eve were not as civilised as we are; they were probably only half so. They could talk and take instructions all right, but they still retained a strong animal persona.

Thus, they went about naked without a care in the world, prancing about with some corralled animals and gorging themselves on fruits and wild roots, and the occasional roasted meat.  When the Bible talks of the “Garden of Eden”, it is actually referring to this orchard: it was not Eden (the Edin ) itself,  but it was in a section of the Edin, the Anunnaki’s confederate of city states established in modern-day southern Iraq.




Meanwhile, at the Bit Shiimti in East Africa, Ningishzidda kept constant vigil over the bunch of other Earthlings begotten through the Birth Mothers. They too had been set up in cages amongst the surrounding woods because on several occasions when they were allowed a bit of freedom, they stole away into the jungles, their animal instincts being rather pronounced.

As they neared puberty, Ningishzidda observed them day and night. When he saw that they were now copulating, he breathed a sigh of glee: soon kids would be on the way and soon the Anunnaki miners would be headed back to Nibiru. These Lulus, however, were not reproducing. What had gone wrong?

Ningishzidda, who was a reputed DNA expert, sought his father’s take and after pondering the matter deeply, Enki understood why! The Lulus were hybrids: they were a combination of two species – the Anunnaki, who were humanoids, and Ape-Woman (Homo Erectus), who was an animal. “By two kinds combined, a curse has been created!” Enki realised.

How true! Even in our modern-day, we know that hybrids do not innately reproduce: they can only do so after painstaking genetic re-engineering by  scientists.  The best example is a mule – a cross between a male donkey and a female horse. Mules don’t produce young in that they are the result of two different species.

Enki suggested that they study the DNA of Adam and Eve much more profoundly this time. This they did in a laboratory at Shurrupak, the Edin city-state under Ninmah’s charge. Enki and Ninmah watched as Ningishzidda dissected the DNA of the two prototypes.

“The essences (DNA) of Adamu and Tiamat were contemplated,” Enki relates in his memoir. “With the life essence of Anunnaki males and females they were compared. Like 22 branches on a Tree of Life were the essences. Their bits were comparable, the images and likenesses they properly determined.

Twenty-two they were in number; the ability to procreate they did not include! Another two bits of the essence in the Anunnaki present Ningishzidda showed. One male, one female; without them there was no procreating, so he was explaining. In the moulds of Adam and Tiamat, in the combining they were not included!”

Now,  the information I’m imparting to you originally came from clay tablets inscribed 6000 years ago by the Sumerians. The Sumerians, My Brother, knew  6000 years ago  about man’s genetic blueprint called DNA. They knew that DNA was made up of two entwined strands.

They knew the number of chromosomes (bits)  in each sex cell. Yet modern science only came to know about the existence of DNA in the second half of the 20th century. Who endowed the Sumerians with this kind of knowledge? It was the Anunnaki of course, as Enki’s writings clearly confirm. And we say the ancients were unlettered, benighted dunderheads! This Earth, My Brother…     



In Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, commonly known as the Old Testament, we are told that the Garden of Eden had two trees that stood at its centre. They were the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Christian clergy has taken this characterisation literally: they portray them as real, fruit-bearing  trees indeed.

That is self-deluding. The Trees were no trees at all: they were images of something much more profound (Note, though, that there did exist a “plant of life”, which Ninmah had brought from Nibiru, but this does not apply in the Eden context).

Let us first put into  perspective, once again,  exactly where Adam and Eve were based. They were in the broader, mid-eastern  region called the Edin or Eden as per Genesis. The Edin was made up of several city-states, 7 in all. Although Enlil, the Bible’s primary  Jehovah/Yahweh, was the governor-general of the Edin, each of the 7 city-states had its own overseer.

Only Nippur, the spaceport, was directly overseen by Enlil: the remaining six city-states had its own direct overseer. Eridu, for instance, was under the rulership of Enki, notwithstanding the fact that he spent most of his time in the Abzu, Africa. It was on the outskirts of Eridu, in an orchard surrounded by a zoo, that Adam and Eve lived.  

We will not address ourselves to the Tree of Life at this stage: we will do so in due course. At this juncture, we will restrict ourselves to the Tree of Knowledge. As the Anunnaki’s greatest scientist and greatest intellect, Enki was dubbed the God of Knowledge.

And as a master geneticist, he was synonymous with DNA, which was figuratively referred to as the  Tree of Knowledge (that is, knowledge related to programming life). Thus the Tree of Knowledge that stood in the centre of the Garden of Eden denoted Enki. Enki and Enlil were the central figures of the Edin. In particular, Enki, being  the head of Eridu, was the city-state’s central figure.  Please bear that in mind.




When Enki said he wanted to create a primitive worker (Lulu Amelu) and Enlil was finally  obligated to lend his blessings to the project by King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”,   he did so subject to several preconditions. Although we have outlined these in an earlier piece, we will here restate a few.

The first precondition was that the primitive worker had to be intellectually inferior to the Anunnaki, basically primitive: it was enough that he was able to handle tools and follow simple instructions. The second was that he had to be much smaller in build to underline the point that he was indeed inferior and to  prevent him from harbouring delusions of either equality or grandeur.

The third was that  he should not have the same lifespan as the Anunnaki. If the Anunnaki  were to embed in him the belief that they were gods, his lifespan had to be  only a fraction theirs (the Anunnaki could live up to a million Earth years).  Finally, Enlil insisted that the worker race was not to reproduce on their own:  they were to arise only through the part-natural, part-artificial  process of cloning.

Whilst Enki did undertake to abide by Enlil’s terms, by way of DNA manipulation, that is, he secretly reserved the right to relax some of them. Thus the efforts to  get Adam and Eve to reproduce were done without the knowledge and sanction of Enlil. As hinted above, one reason Adam and Eve were transferred to Eridu was in order for  Enlil to keep tabs on them just in case something  untoward developed.   

Every time living things reproduce, DNA is copied so that basic characteristics are passed on. We look  or behave more or less like our parents, for instance, because we carry their DNA. DNA is innately  dynamic: it improves itself with the passage of time although it can also degenerate.

A million or so years down the line, mankind will be much bigger and taller than he is today and better adapted to Earth’s  environment. Our brain capacity will also be vastly  improved.  We will be more resistant to diseases to which we are all too susceptible today.

Let us now go back to the laboratory at Shurrupak, where Enki, Ningishzidda, and Ninmah were reviewing Adam and Eve’s DNA after noticing that the Lulus  at their East African-based R&D facility, the Bit Shiimti, were not producing  kids. Examining the sex cell DNA and comparing it with that of the Anunnaki, Ningishzidda noted that the two were not identical.

Anunnaki sex cell DNA contained 23 chromosomes, whereas the Lulu’s  sex cell DNA had 22 chromosomes (DNA is made up of pieces called chromosomes and each chromosome has thousands of genes. An ordinary cell in mankind has 23 pairs of chromosomes, or 46 in total.

But the sex cells, that is, the sperm and ovum,  carry only half that number so that when fertilisation takes place, the combination of 23 chromosomes each from a male and a female restores the total to 46). Why were the  numbers different? Obviously this was the result of an oversight in the genetic tinkering by hands-on man Ningishzidda, which he did admit, but scientifically how can that be explained?

As hinted above, Mankind (Adam and Eve) was not a species. He was a hybrid, a mixture of two different species. These two species were the Anunnaki and Ape-Woman, Homo Erectus. Because mankind was a hybrid, he did not have the same number of chromosomes as Ape Woman nor did he have the same number of chromosomes as the Anunnaki.

Every species has a distinct number of chromosomes. A dog has 78, for instance. The Anunnaki had 23 sex chromosomes and Ape-Woman in all probability had 24 (our closest cousins as primates, the chimpanzees, have 24). Mankind had 22.

Hence, were Adam and Eve  to mate, fertilisation would not taken place because the absence of the 23rd and 24th chromosome  meant there wasn’t a genetic definition in their genome of exactly what to produce – whether an Anunnaki embryo or a Homo Erectus embryo.  The reproductive slot was therefore blank.  

Enki suggested to Ningishzidda that an operation be conducted both on the two Earthlings and two opposite-sex Anunnaki which would introduce the 23rd chromosome into the Earthlings’ gene pool. In males,  the 23rd sex chromosome can take the form of either X or Y, something chosen at random by nature.

In females, the 23rd sex chromosome is always an  X. What this meant was that Enki had to on-pass his 23rd sperm chromosome to Adam and Ninmah had to on-pass her 23rd  egg chromosome to Eve. Exactly how was this to be done? 


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