As much as DNA can spontaneously improve, it can also be manipulated mechanically, in the laboratory, because it can be isolated. DNA can be manipulated not only to improve a living organism but to make it less sophisticated, less effective, less capable, or less advanced than it ideally should be and therefore basically sub-standard or sub-par.
Enki instructed his son Ningishzidda to send away all the medics at the Shurrupak laboratory and to fetch Adam and Eve from Eridu. When the two Earthlings arrived, they were spruced up and taken to an operating theatre, where they took beds alongside Enki and Ninmah respectively. Enki recounts what followed thus in his memoirs: “Upon the four, Ningishzidda a deep sleep caused to descend, the four he made unfeeling (that is, he gave them anaesthesia which sent them into a trance).
From the rib of Enki the life essence (DNA) he extracted, into the rib of Adamu the life essence of Enki he inserted. From the rib of Ninmah the life essence he extracted, into the rib of Tiamat (Eve) the life essence he inserted. Where the incisions were made, the flesh thereon he closed up. Then the four of them he awakened. It is done, he proudly declared. To their Tree of Life (DNA) two branches have been added, with procreating powers their life essences are now entwined!”
A fictionalised version of the same event is found in GENESIS 2:21-22. The passage reads: “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was asleep, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.” This deliberate distortion by the Genesis writers, who researched the creation story from Sumerian records when the Israelites were in captivity in Babylon in the 6th century BC, derived from their sexist proclivity.
Their aim, which is a recurring feature throughout the Bible, was to cast females as secondary human beings who were fashioned from man. Yet by this stage, Eve had long been created, not from Adam but through genetic cloning as we saw in earlier pieces. Note how the Genesis writers apply the term “God” to different Anunnaki personages. In the quoted passage, they are referring not to Enlil or Enki but to Ningishzidda, who performed the operation at the instruction of his father.
MODERN SCIENCE CORROBORATES ENKI
Now, what Ningishzidda performed was not an ordinary operation. It was what modern science calls stem cell transplant, also known as bone marrow transplant. The stem cells (blood-forming cells) were harvested from the bone marrow of Enki’s and Ninmah’s ribs and introduced into the bone marrow of Adam and Eve’s ribs respectively. That way, Adam and Eve’s DNA was altered, resulting in the increase of their chromosomes overall from 44 to 46 and their sex chromosomes from 22 to 23, just like the Anunnaki were.
The operation did not mean their entire physiology functioned like that of the Anunnaki, only aspects of it: DNA transplant does not necessarily mean you become exactly like your donor. Once again, we learn to our amazement just how advanced in biological engineering the Anunnaki were 300,000 years ago. Bone marrow transplant only became feasible in modern times relatively recently. In June 2007, I happened upon an article in the online version of The Washington Post which extolled the wonders of stem cell transplant. Titled “Scientists Report DNA Transplant”, it partly read as follows:
“Scientists said yesterday that they had transplanted a microbe's entire, tangled mass of DNA into a closely related organism, a delicate operation that cleanly transformed the recipient from one species into the other … The success confirms that chromosomes can survive transplantation intact and literally rewrite the identity and occupation of the cells they move into. That is a crucial finding for scientists who hope to make novel life forms by packing synthetic chromosomes into hollow, laboratory-grown cells.”
Now, bone marrow is found in every bone. But why did Enki instruct Ningishzidda to harvest stem cells from the rib cage in particular? In February 2009, Dr Georgia Purdom, a creation scientist HYPERLINK "http://creationwiki.org/Creation_scientist" o "Creation scientist" with a specialty in molecular genetics, wrote an article she titled “The Amazing Regenerating Rib”. This is what she said in the article: “Both men and women have 12 pairs of ribs … Ribs are one of the few bones that continue to make red marrow (and thus blood cells) in the adult.
Although all bones can repair themselves, ribs can regenerate themselves. Ribs are commonly removed during surgeries that require bone grafts in other parts of the body. The rib is removed from the periosteum (a tissue surrounding the bone) much like a banana would be removed from its peel while keeping most of the peel intact. The periosteum must remain, as it contains osteoblasts which build the new rib bone.” Enki chose the rib because ribs even when damaged or removed are capable of growing back like hair grows back when we cut it! DNA transplant works in roughly 1 in every 150,000 tries. Would Ningishzidda succeed at his first try?
JEHOVAH “POISONS” ADAM AND EVE
Although the happenings at Shurrupak were a closely guarded secret which Enlil was not to be made privy to, Enlil did come to suspect something fishy was going on. Enki had recalled Adam and Eve from their Eridu habitation on the pretext that the couple were due for their periodical medical examinations, which at surface was understandable enough. But why had Enki gotten rid of all other medical attendants whilst he examined the two Earthlings? And not only that: why had the two Earthlings this time stayed much longer in the health facility when in the past they had taken only a day or so?
Accordingly, not long after Adam and Eve were returned to their enclosure in the Eridu orchard, Enlil paid them a visit. Enlil was in the habit of checking on them once in a while not that he really cared for them: he did so, first, to embed in their minds that he was the planet’s Head Honcho and not Enki. Second, he wanted to ascertain that they were indeed as intellectually deficient as Enki promised they would be.
Third, he sought to be assured that Eve was not getting pregnant at all. Enlil, the Bible’s primary Jehovah/Yahweh, visited the couple at sunset – “in the cool of the day” as the Bible puts it – when the weather was much more palatable (Earth’s sunlight was just too intense for him) and when the two Lulus saw him, they would gleefully dash toward him and gambol around in the manner dogs do when they see their master, though he would issue a preemptive bark to keep them at bay (Enki, on the other hand, let them take as much liberties with him as they pleased).
Adam and Eve were at this stage more animal-like than human-like: they moved about naked, drank water with their mouths and not with cupped hands, and copulated animal-style. They were also rather matey with animals. What Enlil saw contented him, for it all seemed to bear out the fact that Enki had kept his undertaking to create a halfwit and not a mentally sophisticated Being.
Enlil, who was a stickler for protocol, took Adam aside and sat him under a tree in the centre of the garden whilst Eve watched at a distance. Enlil reiterated to Adam that here on Earth, he was the supreme Lord and Enki was his junior. He warned Adam to be wary of Enki, who was a “masquerade who poses as a God of Knowledge”. If anybody could lead them astray, it was Enki. In fact, if they tended to listen to him, Enlil would exact on them a death punishment in exercise of his executive power. The only person they should listen to was Enlil himself, who was their real creator: as long as they obeyed him, they would never die: they would live indefinitely, he assured Adam.
We encounter this scenario in GENESIS 2:16, which says, “And the Lord God (Enlil) commanded the man (Adam): You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (a metaphor for Enki), for when you eat of it you will surely die”. But there was another “tree” in the centre of Eden which Enlil did not make mention of to Adam. This was the Tree of Life. Just what was this tree and why did Enlil keep quiet about it?
THE SHEM, A GATEWAY TO “IMMORTALITY”
Let us at this juncture turn to GENESIS 2: 8-9. It reads: “8Now, the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden: and there he put the Man he had formed. 9And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”
One similarity with the Sumerian clay-tablet records, which predated the Bible by at least 2500 years (and from which the Genesis scribes researched the creation story) is that Adam lived in a garden setting, a combination of an orchard and horticultural patch. In fact, the garden, as we have already noted, was more of a botanical and zoological garden since it also contained, we are told in GENESIS 1:19-20, corralled wild beasts.
This is not surprising given that the garden was owned by Enki, a versatile scientist and researcher. The garden was not Eden per se: it was in Eden, and Eden was in the “east”, that is, Middle East. As we have pointed out on more than one occasion in the past, Eden was the Edin, the sprawl of city states located in today’s southern Iraq, which indeed is found in the Middle East. The Edin was the Anunnaki hub on Earth. The Sumerian records, however, specify exactly where this garden was: it was in Eridu, Enki’s jurisdiction and the Anunnaki’s first settlement when they arrived on Earth from their planet Nibiru 450,000 years ago. Eridu roughly translates as “A Home Away From Home” , or simply “A Replica of Home”.
The Sumerian records, however, do not bear the factor of two trees standing at the garden’s centre. So where did the Genesis writers get the idea of a Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge from? Well, first, the Anunnaki, when they described the palace of Nibiru King Anu, said it was guarded by “a god of the Tree of Truth and a god of the Tree of Knowledge”. These “gods” (Anunnaki royals) were the ones who ushered visitors or arrivals into the presence of King Anu.
The Genesis scribes wanted to portray the garden of Eden as a microcosm of “Heaven”, or Nibiru, so they built into the story the existence of literal trees of Life and of Knowledge. Second, the idea of the two trees was plain misunderstanding of their symbolic meanings on the Earth scene. As we have already intimated, the Tree of Knowledge stood for Enki as the Anunnaki’s God of Knowledge, particularly life science. On the other hand, the Tree of Life had several meanings as is often the case with most lingual terms. In one sense, it denoted DNA.
The name of Ningishzidda meant “Lord of the Tree of Life”, which was a tribute to his mastery of genetic knowledge just like his father. The other sense of the term is the more relevant in the Eden story. As Earth’s top two executives, Enlil and Enki each had his own rocket, called a SHEM, just as every president normally has his own presidential jet. This was in addition to their personal jets, which they called a MU, or sky chamber. Enlil’s rocket was based in his cult city, Nippur, which was Earth’s spaceport at the time. But Enki’s was stationed at his Eridu base, on a centrally located quadrangular.
What was special about a Shem? To the Anunnaki, it was simply a means of interplanetary travel. But to mankind, it was a symbol of eternal life. How? Because Earthlings were given to understand that Nibiru was Heaven and to get there one had to use a shem (that was before the advent of religion).
Hence to live as long as the Anunnaki did (Mankind thought the Anunnaki never died when all they enjoyed was a considerably longer lifespan that was explained, primarily, by Nibiru’s much longer orbit around the sun, which lasted 3600 Earth years), Earthlings pined to get onto a shem and be transported to Nibiru, where they expected to be presented the Food of Life and the Water of Life and therefore live forever either on Nibiru itself or back on Earth. But at this early stage, a primitive Adam and Eve had no idea what the shem parked in Enki’s precincts in plain sight was actually the Tree of Life. Enlil therefore had no need to make mention of it.
The Genesis writers also employed the dual tree symbols to demonstrate that the affairs of mankind were a function of the never-ending contest between Enlil and Enki. And since Enlil was their god and Enki was not (he was the god of Africans), they chose to cast him as the villain, the reasons for which we shall explore in due course.
ENKI GOES THE EXTRA MILE
It was Enki’s turn to come and check on the couple as per routine (to administer lessons to them that would broaden their knowledge vista and heighten their intellect) but fundamentally to find out if there were signs Eve was expecting in the wake of the Shurrupak operation. To his surprise, Adam completely avoided him, so ingrained was his brainwash by Enlil. Eve too tried to keep at a distance without necessarily shunning Enki. Mystified, Enki wondered aloud to Eve as to what was the matter.
Eve: We have been told by Lord Enlil that we should avoid you at all costs.
Eve: We are told you are bad company who could lead us astray and consequently to damnation. The Good Lord Enlil says he will punish us with death if we hang around with you. He also said he is the one who created us and therefore we are obliged to listen only to him.
Enki couldn’t believe what he was hearing. So this is what Enlil was up to? These chaps were his own creation and Enlil now wanted to turn them against him! Enki was so livid he now decided he was going to go the extra mile in “opening their minds”. He was going to camp right with them for as long as it took to effect the change he now desired for them and put Enlil to shame. He at once pleaded with Eve to fetch her husband and convince him to come over and listen to his side of things.
It took some persuasion and a bit of cajolery for Eve to heed Enki and for she herself to prise her husband from wherever he was cloistered so he could come and see Enki.
Sitting the couple down under a tree, Enki told them Enlil was a back-stabber who was simply out to drive a wedge between he and they. The reason Enlil didn’t want the couple to listen to him was because he, Enki, had their best interests at heart. He wanted them to be like the Anunnaki themselves – to be capable of reproducing themselves, whereas Enlil was dead set against that. He wanted the couple to be as civilised as his own species; Enlil’s wish was to keep them in perpetual ignorance and benightedness. Listening to Enki would never bring destruction unto them; to the contrary, it would jerk up their intellectual quotient.
“In fact from now on”, Enki said, “I’ll work round the clock to ensure I firmly set you on the road to be like us – to have a sense of moral consciousness so that you are not easily manipulable. For example, don’t you know that the fact that you move about stark naked whilst we move about fully clothed makes you closer to animals than to us? You are not animals; you are humans! I will work on expanding your sense of self-awareness so that you feel and think more or less like we do.”
Where in Genesis do we find a conversation of the sort?
We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.
Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.
Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?
The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.
There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill. Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.
What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”. Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe: And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.
All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.
And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”
It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.
Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.
If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.
To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels. Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter. Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.
Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said. “If he dies, he will die immediately; otherwise he’ll survive.”
It came to pass, General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak: Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”
Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room. ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all. “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”
As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.
But Raine, General, was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”
Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.
R.I.P. EARL SPENCER
It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the Austrian Alps along with her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.
When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”
Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe, “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’
At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”
Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.
PRINCE CHARLES FINALLY OWNS UP TO ADULTERY WITH CAMILLA
In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.
In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.
The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable. Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.
BASHIR INTERVIEW BODES ILL FOR DIANA
If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.
The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people, conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.
And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne. Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.
It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?
SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim
Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.
To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:
Right to life
The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex
Right to Equality
The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.
Right to justice
Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice. The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v 8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.
Right to freedom of conscience and religion
The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.
Right to personal freedom
No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.
Right to Protection of Honour
Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49 : v 11-12).