… as Jehovah cracks whip over the Adam “treachery”
GENESIS 3:1-5 reads as follows: 1Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. 2And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
The above passage is taken from the Hebrew Interlinear version of the Bible. This version and another one called the Anchor Bible are by most accounts reputed to be the most accurate translations and I strongly recommend them.
Both give, first, the direct translation, word for word, from the original Hebrew, then alongside that the syntactical English translation, which is the one I quote above. The mainstream versions, the so-called modern versions, such as the NIV, RSV, TEV, etc, all almost border on the fictitious because they are translations by people with a vested theological interest – the Illuminati agenda.
In fact, of the mainstream versions, the King James Version is the closest to the original languages, that is, Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. In future, all my scriptural references will derive either from the Hebrew Interlinear Bible or the Anchor Bible.
To the modern Christian and indeed in today’s parlance, serpent simply means snake. It was the Devil, so it is preached, who assuming the form of a snake tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God and partake of the forbidden fruit.
It is the classic case of a lie which when repeated time and again becomes an unassailable truth, such that when one offers a contrary take, he or she is branded a heretic at best or a Devil-worshipper masquerading as a believer at worst. Religion is on balance a good thing, but it is mental slavery because it does not allow for divergence of opinion or an interrogation of the popular dogma even if it clearly rests on very shaky foundations.
ENKI AS “THE SERPENT”
In the quoted passage, the word translated “serpent” is the Hebrew word NAHASH, which indeed means snake. However, that is a secondary meaning. The original meaning was “one who knows secrets”, or put simply, a savant, genius, or a distinctly knowledgeable person.
Those who have been following this column will be aware by now that all thesewere attributes of Enki. Enki not only was Nibiru’s greatest and most versatile scientist of all time but he was also the most esteemed Anunnaki in that there was nothing, it seemed, that he did not know. Whenever the Anunnaki were in a conundrum of some sort, they would simply say, “ask Enki who knows everything”.
One of the Anunnaki’s most meticulously guarded secret was knowledge of DNA. And who had mastery of the workings of DNA here on Earth? It was Enki and his genius son Ningishzidda. The Sumerian symbol for Enki was two entwined snakes.
Why? Firstly, the name Enki had become synonymous with snake because when he arrived on Earth, he kept a snake pond in his backyard so as to study the creature closely since it resonated with him the most (see point three below). The aphorism “Be as wise as serpents” derives not from snakes themselves but from the Being for whom they became a byword – Enki.
Secondly, Enki’s other symbol of two entwined snakes derived from his pioneering knowledge of DNA. When seen under a microscope, DNA looks like two entwined serpents. It was Enki’s surpassing knowledge of DNA that enabled him to create Adam and Eve as well as to get them to procreate. Thus, the DNA emblem was a tribute to Enki.
Even in our day, modern medicine continues to permanently invoke Enki’s name by its adoption of the caduceus (winged staff with two snakes wrapped around it) as its symbol. Once again, the winged aspect of the caduceus connotes Enki’s association with his planet Nibiru, which was typically depicted in antiquity as a winged disc.
Enki’s entwined-serpent motif was the symbol of his cult centre Eridu and of his African domains as a collective. Virtually every Sumerian cylinder seal depiction of Adam’s creation is backdropped by entwined serpents in deference to Enki.
Thirdly and perhaps fundamentally, Enki originated from Orion, the only such of the Anunnaki who came to Earth (Enlil and others originated from Sirius). Arians (beings of Orion) evolved from a snake species as we set out in detail in our earlier pieces.
They were originally known as the SURBAH. SURBAH is a compound word, with SUR standing for “majestic” and BAH meaning “being”. SURBAH therefore meant “Royal Race”. It is the term SURBAH which gives us the Sanskrit word sarpha; the Latin word serpens; and the English word serpent.
In the same quoted passage, there are five references to “God”. In the Hebrew, the words used are YAHWEH-ELOHIM (Verse 1) and simply ELOHIM in the remainder of the verses. For your own information, the term ELOHIM (meaning “lofty ones”, “tall ones”, “shining ones”, “exalted ones”, etc ) occurs 2570 times in the Hebrew version of the Bible and zero in popular English translations.
Obviously, this is by deliberate design – to conceal the fact that “God” was not one individual as such but a collective reference to a pantheon of “gods” – the Anunnaki from planet Nibiru.
In Verse 1, the writer indirectly and rightly acknowledges that Enki was the most brilliant of all creation but he misrepresents that Enki was created by Enlil (Yahweh) because he is writing retrospectively: by the time he was doing the writing in the 6th century BC, Enlil was already the god of the nation of Israel and Enki had long been cast as his adversary – the “evil serpent”.
Enki again features in Verse 3 as “the tree in the midst of the garden” which Enlil had forbidden Adam and Eve not to associate with if they cherished their lives. It is Enki who in Verse 5 assures the couple through Eve that listening to him would actually elevate them intellectually to the level of the Anunnaki themselves – the “gods”.
I exhort that every time you come across the term “God” or “Lord” in the Old Testament, you ask yourself as to who exactly is being referred to: is it Anu, Enlil, Enki, any other member of the Anunnaki royalty, or the planet Nibiru itself? That way, you will understand the story better.
ADAM’S AWAKENING INFURIATES ENLIL
Enki stayed with Adam and Eve at Eridu for an extended period of time to educate them about themselves so they did not see themselves as and behave like animals. By the time he was done, Adam and Eve were so intellectually enlightened they no longer behaved like animals. In the past, they operated largely on instinct in that there was more of the animal than the Anunnaki in them; now they had a moral consciousness – they, like the Anunnaki, knew the difference between what was right and what was wrong.
As such, they could no longer move around naked but improvised loin coverings from leaves as Verse 7 clearly demonstrates. The moment Enki saw this, he knew his painstaking lessons (it’s not easy to teach and re-orientate a primitive person) had yielded dividends.
He rewarded them with clothes, a very significant gesture as we shall see. Enki also urged them to copulate regularly so they could produce their own children who would look after them when they were old and infirm. He also assured them that he was ready to defend them against any harm by Enlil for listening to him. Then promising to visit them soon, he got onto his sky chamber and flew back to the Abzu.
Not long after Enki had departed for Africa, Enlil, the Bible’s primary Jehovah/Yahweh, decided to check on Adam and Eve to determine whether they had heeded his injunctions. When he called out to them, they were hesitant in emerging for they knew that the clothes they were donning were a give-away: Enlil would straight off know it was all the work of Enki.
But finally, after some threats, they emerged and the moment Enlil saw them he was livid. Although Eve had kept her clothes on, Adam had hastily taken them off in dread of Enlil. Enlil demanded an immediate explanation from Adam as he frothed at the mouth with rage.
A shaken and unnerved Adam pointed to his wife Eve as the one who got him to listen to Enki. Eve in turn said she just could not resist Enki’s ratiocinations. The scenario is captured with a bit of spin in GENESIS 3: 8-13.
Cursing under his breath, Enlil not only called Enki a “Son of Bitch” but also “the Bloody Devil”. Still fuming, he radioed his erring brother to report to Eridu immediately.
ENKI IN DETENTION
Enlil’s fury was not merely the result of Adam’s disobedience. It had a number of ramifications, one of which had to do with their attire. “Clothes were a prerogative of the masters,” explains Earth chronicles researcher Lawrence Gardner.
“Adam and Eve’s original state of nakedness … was a reflection of their subordinate status in the prevailing environment and their covering of themselves … had to do with the fact that servants and workers of the Anunnaki were naked in those days, as depicted in reliefs of the era.
When Adam’s and Eve’s eyes were opened, they gained the knowledge of their true station – a station akin to that of domestic animals. Prior to that, they had thought nothing of their nudity, but on becoming aware that they were inferior beings (naked subordinates) they were immediately struck with the embarrassment of their situation and sought to rectify the matter.”
Thus, by clothing Adam and Eve, Enki had unilaterally elevated “inferior Earthlings” to the status of the Anunnaki. They now would enjoy the same dignity and respectability as the Anunnaki and not as the Lulu Amelu – the primitive worker – they were primarily meant to be. Enki’s action, consequently, was not only ultra vires but it was a breach of cosmic mandate.
Further, Enki’s intellectual upgrade of Earthlings meant they would advance much quicker in all endeavours as their planet, Earth, had a far much quicker cycle. A year on Nibiru, called a shar, was 3600 Earth years: what progress the Anunnaki could make in 3600 Earth years Earthlings would make in simply one Earth Year.
So if it had taken the Anunnaki to attain space flight 360 000 Earth years, for example, it would take Earthlings only 100. It followed, therefore, that just within a shar or two, Earthlings would be a far superior force by any measure to the Anunnaki. They might even turn tables on the Anunnaki and colonise them on their own planet Nibiru!
Enlil was certain Enki had secretly done more to sophisticate the Earthlings than he had let on. King Anu would certainly not take kindly to Enki’s “treachery”. Enki arrived at Eridu in the company of his son Ningishzidda and his half sister Ninmah.
The moment he showed up, Enlil served him with a warrant of arrest: he was to be detained and interrogated over the matter of Adam and Eve and depending on the outcome of the interrogation criminally charged, tried, and sentenced.
Enki meekly yielded as his son and sister looked on with bewilderment. He seemed not to care less as he saw himself as a prisoner not of any mortal crime but of conscience.
In the interrogation session at Eridu, Enlil was bristling.
“What is the idea of the clothing of the Lulus?” he demanded of Enki.
“It’s a bestowal of honour on humanity’s First Couple,” Enki replied calmly. “I decided that they must be so recognised by elevating them to our level both morally and rationally. They are not exactly like us in these respects; they are still a long way off. And remember, it’s only Adam and Eve: their offspring won’t enjoy the same privilege. Trust me, their offspring will be left as primitive workers as per the original plan.”
Enlil rose from his seat.
“Their offspring? You mean you have given them the ability to reproduce like we do Enki? You are telling me they are now capable of procreating?”
Enki nodded his head.
“I’m afraid that’s true my brother.”
“Who mandated you to do that Enki? It was neither me nor Dad! All that was required of you was to make a slight genetic improvement on Ape-Man so he could be able to take instructions and handle tools. Under no circumstances were you to go beyond that Enki! That I made very clear!”
“But tell me my brother,” Enki responded, still unruffled. “Which of these is a sensible option: to forever use our own Anunnaki females as brood mares or to allow the worker race to produce their own offspring naturally? Why should we turn our own women into manufacturing machines in perpetuity when there is a better solution?”
“You must have lost your marbles Enki!” Enlil thundered, regarding Enki as though he intended to swallow him alive. “We’ve all had the impression you were the smartest of the Anunnaki race yet little did we know you were actually a shithead! Do you know what you have done Enki? Earthlings will no longer consider us superior: they will think we’re at par with them only we came into existence earlier.
Now that they can reproduce, they will so multiply you and I won’t have space to stand in Enki. Not only will they subdue the Earth, they will eventually subdue us: they will rise against us because this is their planet, not ours.
We have legal ownership of it all right but they have natural ownership of it. They will fight us to the death till they either send us packing or drive us into the seas! And because Earth has a much shorter and faster around-the-sun cycle than Nibiru, Earthlings will advance at a much more rapid rate than we do: at one point, which is only within a shar or two, they will overtake us scientifically and technologically.
The student will become the teacher; the servant will become the master! We might even end up being subjugated on our own planet by the very people we created! Do you get that into your thick head Enki? Do you?”
Ignoring his brother’s deprecations, Enki said: “Well, my brother, if Earthlings were destined to become a race even greater than us, there’s nothing we can do to prevent it. After all, we interfered in their evolutionary process. Maybe whatever transpires in the future is the price we have to pay for tampering with the wheel of nature.”
“You interfered in their evolutionary process Enki: you did it singlehandedly!” Then abruptly turning to the Sergeant-at-Arms, Enlil barked: “Get Ninmah and Ningishzidda in here!”
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).