Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER
The Ark of the Covenant was an Ormus Manufacturing Device!
Arguably one of the most famous lost artefacts of all time (by deliberate design) is the children of Israel’s Ark of the Covenant. A copious amount of books have been written about it, with all sorts of theories bandied about with regard to what exactly was its function, not to mention its possible present whereabouts. Hollywood has had its share of the take on the matter, with Steven Spielberg’s 1981 movie Raiders of the Lost Ark (starring the iconic Harrison Ford) being a case in point.
According to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, Enlil, the Anunnaki god of the Jews, instructed Moses to build the Ark according to laid down specifications and meticulously spelt out materials. Moses appointed his top-notch artisan Bezaleel to the task. This was whilst the Israelites were camped at the foot of Mount Sinai about one year after the exodus from Egypt.
Essentially, the Ark was made of pure gold. The parts that were made of acacia wood were coated with pure gold. What was the Ark’s purpose? According to disparate Biblical accounts, it carried two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the Tablet of Testimony, the rod of Aaron, and a pot of manna. Yet its principal function was not that of a container of these four items: it was a communication device between Moses and the Anunnaki gods, an Ormus manufacturing equipment, a repository of this same Ormus, an electronic demolishing machine, a levitator, a path-finder, and a formidable weapon of warfare.
We will not at this juncture explore the Ark’s uses in full: that we will do in due course when we come to dwell on the life and times of Moses. All that we will do presently is to address the aspect of the Ark that relates to Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold.
A MOBILE PRODUCER AND CARRIER OF ORMUS
The term ark derives from Greek. In Latin, it is arca (a box or chest), which in turn gives us the English word arc. In electrical terms, an arc, also known as the arc light, is a luminous (light-emitting) discharge between two electrodes (electric conductors). The purpose of an electrode is to make contact with a non-metallic part of the circuit, an insulator. It turns out the Ark of the Covenant was an electrical mechanism, a producer of an arc light, which we may as well call an Ark Light.
In Hebrew, the Ark of the Covenant was not called as such. According to Strong's King James Concordance, it was known as aron. Aron meant “a gatherer”. The gathering referred to two things in the main. The first was the manufacture of Ormus from regular gold. The second was the gathering of an electrical charge to produce an arc light. How did the Ark produce electricity?
In 1822, the British chemist, Sir Humphrey Davey, the inventor of the arc lamp, placed two carbon poles a short distance from each other, connected them to an electricity supply, and produced a brilliant arc of light. Have you ever heard of what are called capacitors or condensers? A capacitor is a two-terminal (one negative and the other positive) electrical component that stores electrical energy in a static electric field. Capacitors consist of parallel-electric layers of a conductive metal separated by a non-conductive material, an insulator called a die-electric medium. Each of the conductive materials is connected to a corresponding electrode.
The above apparatus we vividly see in the Ark of the Covenant, which was primarily a capacitor. In describing the construction of the Ark, EXODUS 37:1-2 says, “And Bezaleel made the ark of shittim wood … and he overlaid it with pure gold within and without (meaning on either surface).” The critical components were thus two plate layers of gold (an excellent electrical conductor) and an insulator in the form of acacia wood (shittim) to increase the charge capacity of the Ark.
EXODUS 37:7 says, “And he made two cherubim of gold”. The cherubim were graven images of two winged beings facing each other. They were placed at each end of the “mercy seat”, that is, the box top that was symbolic of the throne of gold. The cherubim thus were the two outer electrodes, each connected to a respective layer of gold inside the Ark. With such a setup, the arc light was produced between the two cherubim and was responsible for the transmutation of metallic gold into Ormus, which was also known as manna. The Ark thus not only manufactured Ormus but served as a storage for this same Ormus. This made the Ark a power source by virtue of the superconductivity of Ormus.
EXODUS 25:22 says God (Enlil or any other Enlilite) “communicated with Moses between the cherubim” on the Ark’s cover. This was not exactly the case. God communicated with Moses through the two cherubim, which transmitted his voice by wireless means, just like a cordless phone or cellphone does, from some remote place. The Tablet of Testimony was the decoder for electromagnetic sound waves.
Note, however, that in the Pentateuch, God is repeatedly portrayed as sending out arrows of lightning. To the Hebrews, therefore, light became synonymous with God (“God is Light”). As such, the arc light (which the Israelites referred to as a cloud as it looked like a luminous cloud; the Glory of God; or the Shekhina) that gleamed on top of the Ark between the two cherubim was symbolic of the presence of God on the mercy seat. And beneath God’s presence inside the Ark was … the Bread of the Presence – manna aka Ormus aka Shewbread.
The Ark of the Covenant mechanism to produce Ormus can be referred to as the direct current arching process. It is significant that this is the same method used today in scientific laboratories to produce Ormus!
HOW ORMUS COULD SAVE A PRIEST
A covenant is a mutual agreement, whereby all parties agree to the terms thereof. It is entered into voluntarily and not decreed or dictated by one party to another. However, the Ark of the Covenant did not arise out of a contractual agreement between Enlil and the children of Israel: it was constructed by fiat. That is to say, Enlil simply commanded it (EXODUS 25: 10-22/37:1-9) as a “sanctuary so that I may dwell among them”. Moses or the Israelites had no say in the matter whatsoever. That is not a covenant: it is an edict, a directive.
It is only when one traces the original meaning of the term “covenant” that they will come to understand why the Ark of the Covenant was so-called. The prolific historian Laurence Gardner researched the word covenant and turned up its ancient-times meaning. This was “to eat bread with”. This was not ordinary bread: it was Ormus.
The Ark of the Covenant was therefore a Box of Ormus! It was a simple-tech box in which Ormus was manufactured and stored. The Ormus was for the spiritual and metaphysical sustenance, by and large, of the Jewish priestly caste. Since God symbolically sat atop this box in the form of the arc of light, he in effect fellowshipped with those who partook of the Ormus. Symbolically therefore, God too partook of the Ormus to give full effect to the conception of fellowship.
Why was it necessary for the priests, the elite of the day, to feed on Ormus besides the benefit of spiritual enlightenment? (Note that unlike the Ormus of copper, the manna that was fed to the entire Israelite nation at Mount Sinai, the Ark Ormus was a superior version as it was Ormus of Gold.) Let us once again reinforce the point of just what the Ark was.
The Ark of the Covenant was a very powerful capacitor as explained above. With the Ormus placed in it, it became a superconductor, a perfect conductor of electricity in that there was no voltage and therefore electrical resistance was zero. When something is in a superconducting state, it produces what is known as a Meissner Field (also known as a Meissner Effect) around it. This is simply a special magnetic field. Now, when incompatible physical objects such as a human being enter this Meissner Field, that is, touch the Ark or look into it, they will be killed because they perturbed its Meissner Field.
This is exactly what happened to seventy men at a place known as Beth Shemesh (1 SAMUEL 6:19) and the son of Abinadab, an Israelite of the tribe of Judah in whose house the Ark rested after its return by the Philistines (2 SAMUEL 6:2-7). Because of this possibly hazardous aspect about the Ark, it was covered under a large veil made of skins and blue cloth. The Kohathites who carried it also wore special protective outfit for the head, the lungs, heart and other important areas of the body. They were even warned not to casually look at it.
That said, the priests who were “in resonance” with the Ark could touch it and they would not be harmed whatsoever. How did the priests come to be in resonance with (that is, be energetically compatible with) the Ark? By regularly eating the Ormus it produced and thus acting more or less like a superconductor themselves. Explains David Hudson: “If you are a high priest, a Melchizedek priest, and you eat this Bread of the Presence (Ormus) of God every week, you are a light being, and you can enter into that field and approach the Ark of the Covenant and not perturb it because you're in resonance with it.
But if you're an ordinary soldier or a person who thinks bad things, they have to tie a rope around your legs because as you approach it, it may have a flux collapse and now you've got voltage … It'll kill you.” The Talmud says exactly that – that the High Priest had a rope tied around his ankle or waist when he entered the Holy of Holies (the section of the temple the Ark was kept) so that in case he was struck dead (ostensibly by the wrath of God but in truth by the Meissner Effect of the Ark if for one reason or the other he was not resonant with it), he was pulled out from a safe distance.
KING SOLOMON USED AND DEALT IN ORMUS
We all know something about a man known as Solomon, who is reputed to be the wisest man who ever lived. Solomon was King David’s seniormost son by his wife Bathsheba (actually his daughter, a scandal that is deliberately veiled in biblical accounts). He is also arguably the richest man of antiquity. Present-day calculations reckon that during the 40 years he ruled the Kingdom of Judah, Solomon amassed gold worth approximately $40 billion in today’s money and that excludes other forms of wealth in silver and precious stones. What on Earth was Solomon accumulating all that gold for, that he wouldn’t have spent in several life times?
The answer is a simple and straightforward one: Solomon not only used Ormus but he traded in Ormus with fellow Kings. It explains why prominent kings on the planet literally tripped over each other to “gift” him with their daughters. King Solomon traded Ormus with Egyptian, Phoenician, and other kings for his vast shipping fleet, horses, chariots, and a host of other pricey properties. In 3 KINGS 5:7/10:11, we’re told that King Hiram of Tyre supplied Solomon raw gold from the mines of Ophir (that is, Africa) near Sheba and what was Hiram’s only payback? That “Solomon should give bread to my household”. Of course this was not ordinary bread but shewbread – Ormus.
Solomon was the builder of the first Jerusalem temple. In constructing it, it seemed he was not motivated by faith but by commercial, self-serving motives. We read, in the Old Testament, that Solomon had Hiram – a skilled artificer from Tyre who was probably related to King Hiram – build a massive container made of bronze in the Temple court. This great vessel has been explained away as a ritual bath for the priests but that simply doesn’t wash: it was 15 feet in diameter and 7.5 feet in height – something of a mountain top swimming pool (ritual baths were the size of a Jacuzzi). What the bronze receptacle actually was was an Ormus manufacturing plant.
Because he took Ormus, probably in its near-purest form, Solomon had capacities no ordinary man could possess. He had surpassing wisdom as one can easily glean from Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, the books he’s said to have written. He had enormous sexual stamina: he was able to serve 700 wives and 300 concubines and keep them sexually fulfilled when you and I struggle to satiate just one girl-friend. He was the most peaceful of all of Israel’s kings, thanks in part to the calming and nerve-steadying effects of Ormus.
The Quran says Solomon had control over various elements such as the wind and sea waves, and that he was able to understand the language of the birds and ants, and to see some of the hidden glory in the world that was not accessible to common human beings. In the occultic world, Solomon is reputed to be the greatest witch who ever lived. Why? He is chronicled – and reliably so – to have had a magisterial command over forces of darkness. He could order demons to do everything for him forthwith, including construction work.
The Quran actually says Solomon not only ruled over people but over demons as well. But the fact of the matter is that Solomon was far from a witch. One effect of partaking Ormus is that you become so spiritually and metaphysically enlightened and empowered that you practically become your own god as nothing seems impossible to you.
Thus to Solomon, the demons were tame: instead of manipulating him, he manipulated them to do his every bidding but only in a positive sense. Demons did not have mastery over him: they kowtowed to him. He enslaved them and not the other way round as ordinarily typical. We have phenomenal power over demons/Reptilians which we can bring to bear if we were in perfect tune with our Higher Self, also known as the Holy Spirit. Ingesting Ormus helps rekindle this link. Ormus has a spiritual effect and not simply a physical one, something we shall showcase in due course.
King Solomon reportedly died of natural causes at age 80. That wasn’t remarkably long enough for somebody who fed on Ormus, but when a King dies, the cause of death is scarcely what is put out to the public. He may have succumbed to poison or some glitch in the Ormus he was fed as indeed Ormus, when not taken in the prescribed way, can be deadly as we shall later demonstrate. It is also not far-fetched that the King may have simply chosen to voluntarily translate to another realm of existence as Ormus is capable of engendering that.
NEXT WEEK: ORMUS IN GARDEN OF EDEN
In recent years, using personal devices in working environments has become so commonplace it now has its own acronym, BOYD (Bring Your Own Device). But as employees skip between corporate tools and personal applications on their own devices, their actions introduce a number of possible risks that should be managed and mitigated with careful consideration. Consider these examples:
Si-lwli, a small family-run business in Wales, is arguably as niche a company as you could find, producing talking toys used to promote the Welsh language. Their potential market is small, with only some 300,000 Welsh language speakers in the world and in reality the business is really more of a hobby for the husband-and-wife team, who both still have day jobs. Yet, despite still managing to be successful in terms of sales, the business is now fighting for survival after recently falling prey to cybercriminals. Emails between Si-Iwli and their Chinese suppliers were intercepted by hackers who altered the banking details in the correspondence, causing Si-Iwli to hand over £18,000 (around P ¼ m) to the thieves. That might not sound much to a large enterprise, but to a small or medium business it can be devastating.
Another recent SMB hacking story which appeared in the Wall Street Journal concerned Innovative Higher Ed Consulting (IHED) Inc, a small New York start-up with a handful of employees. IHED didn’t even have a website, but fraudsters were able to run stolen credit card numbers through the company’s payment system and reverse the charges to the tune of $27,000, around the same loss faced by Si-Iwli. As the WSJ put it, the hackers completely destroyed the company, forcing its owners to fold.
And in May 2019, the city of Baltimore’s computer system was hit by a ransomware attack, with hackers using a variant called RobinHood. The hack, which has lasted more than a month, paralysed the computer system for city employees, with the hackers demanding a payment in Bitcoin to give access back to the city.
Of course, hackers target governments or business giants but small and medium businesses are certainly not immune. In fact, 67% of SMBs reported that they had experienced a cyber attack across a period of 12 months, according to a 2018 survey carried out by security research firm Ponemon Institute. Additionally, Verizon issued a report in May 2019 that small businesses accounted for 43% of its reported data breaches. Once seen as less vulnerable than PCs, smartphone attacks are on the rise, with movements like the Dark Caracal spyware campaign underlining the allure of mobile devices to hackers. Last year, the US Federal Trade Commission released a statement calling for greater education on mobile security, coming at a time when around 42% of all Android devices are believed to not carry the latest security updates.
This is an era when employees increasingly use their smartphones for work-related purposes so is your business doing enough to protect against data breaches on their employees’ phones? The SME Cyber Crime Survey 2018 carried out for risk management specialists AON showed that more than 80% of small businesses did not view this as a threat yet if as shown, 67% of SMBs were said to have been victims of hacking, either the stats are wrong or business owners are underestimating their vulnerability. A 2019 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests the latter, stating that the majority of global businesses are unprepared for cyber attacks.
Consider that a workstation no longer means a desk in an office: It can be a phone in the back of a taxi or Uber; a laptop in a coffee shop, or a tablet in an airport lounge. Wherever the device is used, employees can potentially install applications that could be harmful to your business, even from something as seemingly insignificant as clicking on an accidental download or opening a link on a phishing email. Out of the physical workplace, your employees’ activities might not have the same protections as they would on a company-monitored PC.
Yet many businesses not only encourage their employees to work remotely, but assume working from coffee shops, bookstores, and airports can boost employees’ productivity. Unfortunately, many remote hot spots do not provide secure Wi-Fi so if your employee is accessing their work account on unsecured public Wi-Fi, sensitive business data could be at risk. Furthermore, even if your employee uses a company smartphone or has access to company data through a personal mobile device, there is always a chance data could be in jeopardy with a lost or stolen device, even information as basic as clients’ addresses and phone numbers.
BOYDs are also at risk from malware designed to harm and infect the host system, transmittable to smartphones when downloading malicious third-party apps. Then there is ransomware, a type of malware used by hackers to specifically take control of a system’s data, blocking access or threatening to release sensitive information unless a ransom is paid such as the one which affected Baltimore. Ransomware attacks are on the increase, predicted to occur every 14 seconds, potentially costing billions of dollars per year.
Lastly there is phishing – the cyber equivalent of the metaphorical fishing exercise – whereby cybercriminals attempt to obtain sensitive data –usernames, passwords, credit card details –usually through a phoney email designed to look legitimate which directs the user to a fraudulent website or requests the data be emailed back directly. Most of us like to think we could recognize a phishing email when we see it, but these emails have become more sophisticated and can come through other forms of communication such as messaging apps.
Bottom line is to be aware of the potential problems with BOYDs and if in doubt, consult your IT security consultants. You can’t put the own-device genie back in the bottle but you can make data protection one of your three wishes!
“I Propose to Diana Tonight”
About five days before Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed landed in Paris, General Atiku, a certain Edward Williams was taking a walk in a woods in the Welsh town of Mountain Ash. Williams, then 73, was a psychic of some renown. He had in the past foretold assassination attempts on US President Ronald Reagan, which occurred on March 30, 1981, and Pope John Paul II, which came to pass on May 13, 1981.
As he trudged the woods, Williams had a sudden premonition that pointed to Diana’s imminent fate as per Christopher Andersen’s book The Day Diana Died. “When the vision struck me, it was as if everything around me was obscured and replaced by shadowy figures,” Williams was later to reminisce. “In the middle was the face of Princess Diana. Her expression was sad and full of pathos. She was wearing what looked like a floral dress with a short dark cardigan. But it was vague. I went cold with fear and knew it was a sign that she was in danger.”
Williams hastily beat a retreat to his home, which he shared with his wife Mary, and related to her his presentiment, trembling like an aspen leaf as he did so. “I have never seen him so upset,” Mary recounted. “He felt he was given a sign and when he came back from his walk he was deeply shaken.”
The following day, Williams frantically sauntered into a police station to inform the police of his premonition. The officer who attended to him would have dismissed him as no more than a crackpot but he treated him seriously in view of the accuracy of his past predictions. He took a statement and immediately passed it on to the Special Branch Investigative Unit.
The report read as follows:
“On 27 August, at 14:12 hrs, a man by the name of Edward Williams came to Mountain Ash police station. He said he was a psychic and predicted that Princess Diana was going to die. In previous years, he has predicted that the Pope and Ronald Reagan were going to be the victims of assassination attempts. On both occasions he was proved to be correct. Mr Williams appeared to be quite normal.”
Williams, General, was spot-on as usual: four days later, the princess was no more.
Meanwhile, General, even as Dodi and Diana were making their way to the Fayed-owned Ritz Hotel in central Paris, British newspapers were awash with headlines that suggested Diana was kind of deranged. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana in Pursuit of Love: “In The Independent Diana was described as ‘a woman with fundamentally nothing to say about anything’. She was ‘suffering from a form of arrested development’. ‘Isn’t it time she started using her head?’ asked The Mail on Sunday. The Sunday Mirror printed a special supplement entitled ‘A Story of Love’; The News of the World claimed that William had demanded that Diana should split from Dodi: ‘William can’t help it, he just doesn’t like the man.’ William was reportedly ‘horrified’ and ‘doesn’t think Mr Fayed is good for his mother’ – or was that just the press projecting their own prejudices? The upmarket Sunday Times newspaper, which had first serialised my biography of the princess, now put her in the psychiatrist’s chair for daring to be wooed by a Muslim. The pop-psychologist Oliver James put Diana ‘On the Couch’, asking why she was so ‘depressed’ and desperate for love. Other tabloids piled in with dire prognostications – about Prince Philip’s hostility to the relationship, Diana’s prospect of exile, and the social ostracism she would face if she married Dodi.”
DIANA AND DODI AT THE RITZ
Before Diana and Dodi departed the Villa Windsor sometime after 16 hrs, General, one of Dodi’s bodyguards Trevor Rees-Jones furtively asked Diana as to what the programme for the evening was. This Trevor did out of sheer desperation as Dodi had ceased and desisted from telling members of his security detail, let alone anyone else for that matter, what his onward destination was for fear that that piece of information would be passed on to the paparazzi. Diana kindly obliged Trevor though her response was terse and scarcely revealing. “Well, eventually we will be going out to a restaurant”, that was all Diana said. Without advance knowledge of exactly what restaurant that was, Trevor and his colleagues’ hands were tied: they could not do a recce on it as was standard practice for the security team of a VIP principal. Dodi certainly, General, was being recklessly by throwing such caution to the winds.
At about 16:30, Diana and Dodi drew up at the Ritz Hotel, where they were received by acting hotel manager Claude Roulet. The front entrance of the hotel was already crawling with paparazzi, as a result of which the couple took the precaution of using the rear entrance, where hopefully they would make their entry unperturbed and unmolested. The first thing they did when they were ensconced in the now $10,000 a night Imperial Suite was to spend some time on their mobiles and set about touching base with friends, relations, and associates. Diana called at least two people, her clairvoyant friend Rita Rogers and her favourite journalist Richard Kay of The Daily Mail.
Rita, General, was alarmed that Diana had proceeded to venture to Paris notwithstanding the warning she had given Dodi and herself in relation to what she had seen of him in the crystal ball when the couple had consulted her. When quizzed as to what the hell she indeed was doing in Paris at that juncture, Diana replied that she and Dodi had simply come to do some shopping, which though partially true was not the material reason they were there. “But Diana, remember what I told Dodi,” Rita said somewhat reprovingly. Diana a bit apprehensively replied, “Yes I remember. I will be careful. I promise.” Well, she did not live up to her promise as we shall soon unpack General.
As for Richard Kay, Diana made known to him that, “I have decided I am going to radically change my life. I am going to complete my obligations to charities and to the anti-personnel land mines cause, but in November I want to completely withdraw from formal public life.”
Once she was done with her round of calls, Diana went down to the hair saloon by the hotel swimming pool to have her hair washed and blow-dried ahead of the scheduled evening dinner.
THE “TELL ME YES” RING IS DELIVERED
Since the main object of their Paris trip was to pick up the “Tell Me Yes” engagement ring Dodi had ordered in Monte Carlo a week earlier, Dodi decided to check on Repossi Jewellery, which was right within the Ritz prencincts, known as the Place Vendome. It could have taken less than a minute for Dodi to get to the store on foot but he decided to use a car to outsmart the paparazzi invasion. He was driven there by Trevor Rees-Jones, with Alexander Kez Wingfield and Claude Roulet following on foot, though he entered the shop alone.
The Repossi store had closed for the holiday season but Alberto Repossi, accompanied by his wife and brother-in-law, had decided to travel all the way from his home in Monaco and momentarily open it for the sake of the potentially highly lucrative Dodi transaction. Alberto, however, disappointed Dodi as the ring he had chosen was not the one he produced. The one he showed Dodi was pricier and perhaps more exquisite but Dodi was adamant that he wanted the exact one he had ordered as that was what Diana herself had picked. It was a ploy on the part of Repossi to make a real killing on the sale, his excuse to that effect being that Diana deserved a ring tha was well worthy of her social pedigree. With Dodi having expressed disaffection, Repossi rendered his apologies and assured Dodi he would make the right ring available shortly, whereupon Dodi repaired back to the hotel to await its delivery. But Dodi did insist nonetheless that the pricier ring be delivered too in case it appealed to Diana anyway.
Repossi delivered the two rings an hour later. They were collected by Roulet. On inspecting them, Dodi chose the very one he had seen in Monte Carlo, apparently at the insistence of Diana. There is a possibility that Diana, who was very much aware of her public image and was not comfortable with ostentatious displays of wealth, may have deliberately shown an interest in a less expensive engagement ring. It may have been a purely romantic as opposed to a prestigious choice for her.
The value of the ring, which was found on a wardrobe shelf in Dodi’s apartment after the crash, has been estimated to be between $20,000 and $250,000 as Repossi has always refused to be drawn into revealing how much Dodi paid for it. The sum, which enjoyed a 25 percent discount, was in truth paid for not by Dodi himself but by his father as was the usual practice.
Dodi was also shown Repossi’s sketches for a bracelet, a watch, and earrings which he proposed to create if Diana approved of them.
DIANA AND DODI GUSH OVER IMMINENT NUPTIALS
At about 7 pm, Dodi and Diana left the Ritz and headed for Dodi’s apartment at a place known as the Arc de Trompe. They went there to properly tog themselves out for the scheduled evening dinner. They spent two hours at the luxurious apartment. As usual, the ubiquitous paparazzi were patiently waiting for them there.
As they lingered in the apartment, Dodi beckoned over to his butler Rene Delorm and showed him the engagement ring. “Dodi came into my kitchen,” Delorm relates. “He looked into the hallway to check that Diana couldn’t hear and reached into his pocket and pulled out the box … He said, ‘Rene, I’m going to propose to the princess tonight. Make sure that we have champagne on ice when we come back from dinner’.” Rene described the ring as “a spectacular diamond encrusted ring, a massive emerald surrounded by a cluster of diamonds, set on a yellow and white gold band sitting in a small light-grey velvet box”.
Just before 9 pm, Dodi called the brother of his step-father, Hassan Yassen, who also was staying at the Ritz that night, and told him that he hoped to get married to Diana by the end of the year.
Later that same evening, both Dodi and Diana would talk to Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s dad, and make known to him their pre-nuptial intentions. “They called me and said we’re coming back (to London) on Sunday (August 31) and on Monday (September 1) they are
RAMADAN – The Blessed Month of Fasting
Ramadan is the fasting month for Muslims, where over one billion Muslims throughout the world fast from dawn to sunset, and pray additional prayers at night. It is a time for inner reflection, devotion to Allah, and self-control. It is the ninth month in the Islamic calendar. As you read this Muslims the world over have already begun fasting as the month of Ramadan has commenced (depending on the sighting of the new moon).
‘The month of Ramadan is that in which the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for people, in it are clear signs of guidance and Criterion, therefore whoever of you who witnesses this month, it is obligatory on him to fast it. But whoever is ill or traveling let him fast the same number of other days, God desires ease for you and not hardship, and He desires that you complete the ordained period and glorify God for His guidance to you, that you may be grateful”. Holy Qur’an (2 : 185)
Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars upon which the structure of Islam is built. The other four are: the declaration of one’s belief in Allah’s oneness and in the message of Muhammad (PBUH); regular attendance to prayer; payment of zakaat (obligatory charity); and the pilgrimage to Mecca.
As explained in an earlier article, fasting includes total abstinence from eating, drinking, smoking, refraining from obscenity, avoiding getting into arguments and including abstaining from marital relations, from sunrise to sunset. While fasting may appear to some as difficult Muslims see it as an opportunity to get closer to their Lord, a chance to develop spiritually and at the same time the act of fasting builds character, discipline and self-restraint.
Just as our cars require servicing at regular intervals, so do Muslims consider Ramadan as a month in which the body and spirit undergoes as it were a ‘full service’. This ‘service’ includes heightened spiritual awareness both the mental and physical aspects and also the body undergoing a process of detoxification and some of the organs get to ‘rest’ through fasting.
Because of the intensive devotional activity fasting, Ramadan has a particularly high importance, derived from its very personal nature as an act of worship but there is nothing to stop anyone from privately violating Allah’s commandment of fasting if one chooses to do so by claiming to be fasting yet eating on the sly. This means that although fasting is obligatory, its observance is purely voluntary. If a person claims to be a Muslim, he is expected to fast in Ramadan.
The reward Allah gives for proper fasting is very generous. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) quotes Allah as saying: “All actions done by a human being are his own except fasting, which belongs to Me and I will reward it accordingly.” We are also told by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that the reward for proper fasting is admittance into heaven.
Fasting earns great reward when it is done in a ‘proper’ manner. This is because every Muslim is required to make his worship perfect. For example perfection of fasting can be achieved through restraint of one’s feelings and emotions. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that when fasting, a person should not allow himself to be drawn into a quarrel or a slanging match. He teaches us: “On a day of fasting, let no one of you indulge in any obscenity, or enter into a slanging match. Should someone abuse or fight him, let him respond by saying: ‘I am fasting!’”
This high standard of self-restraint fits in well with fasting, which is considered as an act of self-discipline. Islam requires us to couple patience with voluntary abstention from indulgence in our physical desires. The purpose of fasting helps man to attain a high degree of sublimity, discipline and self-restraint. In other words, this standard CAN BE achieved by every Muslim who knows the purpose of fasting and strives to fulfill it.
Fasting has another special aspect. It makes all people share in the feelings of hunger and thirst. In normal circumstances, people with decent income may go from one year’s end to another without experiencing the pangs of hunger which a poor person may feel every day of his life. Such an experience helps to draw the rich one’s conscience nearer to needs of the poor. A Muslim is encouraged to be more charitable and learns to give generously for a good cause.
Fasting also has a universal or communal aspect to it. As Muslims throughout the world share in this blessed act of worship, their sense of unity is enhanced by the fact that every Muslim individual joins willingly in the fulfillment of this divine commandment. This is a unity of action and purpose, since they all fast in order to be better human beings. As a person restrains himself from the things he desires most, in the hope that he will earn Allah’s pleasure, self-discipline and sacrifice become part of his nature.
The month of Ramadan can aptly be described as a “season of worship.” Fasting is the main aspect of worship in this month, because people are more attentive to their prayers, read the Qur’an more frequently and also strive to improve on their inner and outer character. Thus, their devotion is more complete and they feel much happier in Ramadan because they feel themselves to be closer to their Creator.