The Mark of Cain
Columns
Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER
Just what was it that Enki’s son was marked with after he killed Adam’s son?
In Genesis, Cain and Abel are presented as brothers. In the Sumerian chronicles, the source material for much of the Genesis story, they are set down as twins. Why did the Genesis writers choose to mis-characterise the relationship between the two siblings? Venturing a definitive answer to such a question is not easy as the whole gimmick is actually absurd considering that Abel, who was killed by his brother, did not have to be politically dissociated from the “wicked” Cain. He had no heirs who had to keep a wide berth from the taint of Cain.
What is apparent, nonetheless, is that the Genesis writers were not comfortable with associating Jewish posterity with Cain. And this had nothing to do with the fratricide against Abel. It all had to do with the fact that Cain was an Enkite, the son of Enki, who was branded and vilified as the evil Serpent by the Enlilites. On the other hand, the Genesis writers, the Levites, were Jewish, Enlil’s chosen people. As such, any relationship with the infamous Enkite Cain had to be avoided like the plague. You cannot be Enlil’s people and openly admit your roots are in fact predominantly Enkite.
Yet however hard the Jews tried to steer clear of the stain of Cain, they just could not cleanly dodge the connection. They were stuck with him come rain or shine. Why? Because Cain did succeed to Adapa’s throne as a true-blue bloodline. He was a leading light of the Holy Grail, the dynastic ruling line that stretched all the way from Adapa to Jesus Christ and well beyond. So to have totally sidestepped him would have rendered all the Jewish kings who followed after him, including David and Solomon, counterfeit.
Note that although Genesis does highlight the killing of Abel by his brother Cain, it does not demonise or blacklist him as such. The only people who do so are the prejudiced pulpit men. The fact of the matter is that Genesis actually exalts Cain even after the murder of his brother. The notion that Cain was cursed by “God” and bore the brunt of that curse forever is purely a figment of the pulpit men’s laughable imagination. It belongs to the refuse bin, to put it mildly.
CAIN AND ABEL COMMISSIONED INTO SERVICE
Although Adapa (Adam in the Bible) was ordained by King Anu to be the provisioner of the Anunnaki through the institution of agricultural activities, he did not embark on the enterprise himself. Enki had decided that that role was going to be effected by his sons Cain and Abel. So it was that when Cain and Abel came of age, they were officially commissioned into the task by the Anunnaki pantheon chaired by Enlil, the primary Jehovah/Yahweh of the Bible.
Since at age 12 the twins were still young anyway, they first had to be trained into their occupations. It was decided that Cain was to specialise in arable farming, whereas Abel was to specialise in pastoral agricultural. Cain was going to be mentored in his occupation by Ninurta, Enlil’s firstborn son, and Abel was going to be mentored by Marduk, Enki’s firstborn son. However, Marduk would be standing in for Dumuzi, who was away on planet Nibiru and was not expected for about 3600 Earth years, equivalent to 1 Nibiru year, known as a shar. The primary mandate of the twins was to produce food for the gods every Earth year in sufficient quantities. Each was given a minimum production target by Enlil, which they were to meet without fail.
On what basis was the specialisation decided? Why was Cain allotted farming and Abel shepherding? The Bible is silent on this, as if it was an arbitrary decision, but the more ancient records do intimate a raison d’être. In Anunnaki modus vivendi, everything had to be symbolically apt. It had to sync energetically, if you know what I mean. When you were a “tiller of the land,” like Cain was, it meant you had dominion over that land. As the heir to Adapa, Cain was Earth’s King-in-waiting.
Thus he had dominion over Earth. That’s the reason he was allotted a responsibility that dovetailed with land ownership. It explains why according to Sumerian records, Cain’s role was not restricted to farming. He also had responsibility over laying down and maintaining infrastructure. It was Cain who built dams, roads, and canals.
Whereas Cain was to set up his grain and horticultural farm around the Eridu within the broader Edin (Eden in the Bible), Abel’s animal domestication activities were to be conducted at the foot of the Cedar Mountains in today’s Lebanon. There, at the mountain summit, Ninurta had set up for him a “Creation Chamber” along the lines of Enki’s Bit Shimti facility in East Africa. Also called the “House of Fashioning”, the Creation Chamber was used to genetically engineer for-meat animals such as sheep, goats, and cattle as well as to improve strains over time through periodic genetic tinkering.
A few years later, the two had settled into their occupational rhythms and were ready to present the first fruits of their labour to Enlil, Earth’s Chief Executive. It seemed Abel the shepherd had worked harder than his older brother the ploughman. Consequently, Abel met his production target and Cain fell considerably short. Abel was therefore highly extolled by Enlil whereas Cain, though commended too for his efforts, was censured and told in no uncertain terms that he had to produce more grain to meet his production quota.
A highly combustible man, Cain was wroth. And not only that: he was rancorous. He had a lump in his throat. For to him, it was not simply about being out-produced by his younger brother. Over and above that, it was about the threat Abel now posed to his prospects for inheriting after Adapa, a fact even savants of ancient history seem wholly ignorant of.
ABEL IS SLAIN
In Genesis, we’re told that Cain moved to kill his brother out of sheer jealous, that he was envious that God had embraced Abel’s offering whereas his had been rejected. The Sumerian records on the other hand say Cain’s offering was accepted too though frowned upon. And it was not only envy that drove Cain to get rid of his brother, it turns out: dynastic politics was central to the whole intrigue.
At the time, Lilitu, Adapa’s highly conceited, seniormost Anunnaki wife, had left him, preferring instead to be a mistress of his father Enki. Enki, who had an Achilles penis, had eagerly obliged and had produced two children with her. They were Luluwa, also known as Awah, and Alimath, both of whom daughters. Although the two girls were genetically senior to Cain, they were female and so they posed no obstacle to Cain as heir to Adapa’s throne.
That left Abel as the only contender. In truth, Abel was not in contention at all: he was Cain’s junior and was by rights ineligible. Potentially though, he was a possible threat. Abel was a protégé of the Enlilites and the Enlilites wielded a lot of political power. They could easily manoeuvre Abel into contention on the pretext that he was more agriculturally productive and therefore more dutiful than Cain and thus snatch the crown from under Cain’s nose. It was out of fear of such an eventuality that Cain decided the only safe Abel was a dead one.
If Cain was to kill Abel, it was important that he uses tact, he reckoned. He could not simply bludgeon him to death on a whim: he had to allow hostilities to naturally arise and then capitalise on that to tear into his brother. Then once the deed was done, he would have the excuse that, “It was not premeditated murder: I did it in the emotion of the moment”.
Now, although the two brothers’ main theatres of operation were miles apart, they had small holdings somewhere in the Edin which adjoined each other. Cain’s was a beautiful meadow bristling with green pastures and Abel’s was a hay-stacked area within which flocks roamed about. One day when both Cain and Abel were at Edin, Cain received a report from his workers that Abel’s men were trespassing on his pastures as they drove the flocks to the canals. Cain decided this was the time to pounce.
He made a beeline for Abel’s fields and angrily confronted him for the highly provocative encroachment, demanding that he withdraws his flocks forthwith. A slanging match ensued, with each making a case for the instrumentality of his role in catering to the needs of the Anunnaki. “I am the one who abundance brings, who the Anunnaki satiates, who gives strength to the heroes, who wool for their clothing provides!” Abel boasted. Cain shot back thus: “It is I who the plains luxuriates, who furrows with grains makes heavy, in whose fields birds multiply, in whose canals fish become abundant: sustaining bread by me is produced, with fish and fowl the Anunnaki's diet I variate!”
As they altercated, a fist fight ensued and picking up a stone, Cain bashed his brother hard on the head and Abel fell limply to the ground. His workers immediately gathered around him and frantically tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Meanwhile, a message was radioed to the Shuruppak health facility and a chopper was on its way over to airlift a comatose Abel. Ningishzidda was also sent for so that he could possibly do his “medical magic” in case all efforts at restoring Abel’s life proved futile. Sadly, Abel had suffered substantial and irreparable brain damage and there was nothing that could be done to bring him back to life.
CAIN SENTENCED TO A LIFE OF WANDERING
When Adapa and his wife Titi-Eve heard the news of Abel’s murder, they were gutted. Titi-Eve was inconsolable. An equally tenderhearted Enki wept like a baby. Marduk for one, who had mentored Abel, was incandescent with wrath. He wanted Cain slain on the spot. Enki and Adapa had to physically restrain him as he braced to take the law in his hands.
Thus far, Marduk was not aware that Adapa and Titi-Eve were in fact Enki’s children nor that Cain was his child too. Enki now decided to divulge the secret to him with a view to pacify him. In the event, Marduk was disarmed and jokingly teased his father that, “Of your lovemaking prowess much to me was rumoured, now of that convinced I am!”
The decision finally was that due process of law had to be followed. Cain had to be brought before the Anunnaki tribunal to face trial. In a paradoxical turn of events, Cain was genuinely remorseful of his brother’s killing, having sobered up after the fact. For days, he sat on the very spot at which he had killed his brother, regretting the barbarity of his actions. Maybe the abominable act ultimately served him well but the effect on his psyche would linger for long. Adapa and Titi-Eve mourned their son for 30 days, clad in sackclothes and ashes.
The judgement panel sat at Sippar, Utu-Shamash’s cult city. It was a seven-man bench, namely Enlil, his wife Ninlil, Ninurta, and Nannar-Sin of Enlil’s Lineage; Ninmah; and Enki, his wife Damkina, and Marduk from the Enkite clan. After deliberations that went on for days, judgement was passed.
First, a curse was pronounced on Cain by Enlil in his capacity as Earth’s Chief Executive for spilling the blood of his sibling. The sentence was banishment from the Edin. Cain was to go into exile and only be eligible to return after seven generations counting from Adapa. The number seven here is significant. First and foremost, it was both the number of planet Earth counting from Pluto and therefore the number of Enlil himself as head of the planet. Secondarily, it alluded to the number of people who presided over Cain’s case.
When Cain was given a chance to comment on his sentence as per the juridical procedure, he bemoaned the harshness of the punishment. He wondered aloud to the panel thus: what if during his wanderings somebody who wanted to avenge Abel’s death stalked him and struck him dead? Furthermore, did his banishment to the ends of the Earth mean he had also lost the right to inherit after Adapa?
The first concern was addressed by Enlil. Enlil told him he need not worry as anybody who would so much as lay a finger on him during his peregrinations would receive seven times the punishment Cain had received. That effectively amounted to capital punishment. The second question was addressed by Enki. Enki told his son that the right of succession did not have to be warranted: it was a right of primogeniture. One was born with it.
Therefore, Cain would remain heir to Adapa for as long as he, Cain, was alive. In the event that Adapa passed on, Cain’s son would ascend to the throne. In order to make it plain to everybody who encountered Cain anywhere that he was a King-in-waiting, Enki rose from his judgement seat and made his way into Cain’s dock. Then he made a declaration in relation to what would later become known as the Mark of Cain. Exactly what was this?
MARK OF CAIN WAS NO BLACK MARK
In every sermon belted out from Christian pulpits, the Mark of Cain is invariably described as a curse. The notion is absurd as the Bible itself says, in GENESIS 4:15, that, “Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him". The Mark of Cain was thus an insignia of protection: it was a preservative feature rather than a punitive measure. It was not a curse at all.
The curse was separate from the redemptive Mark of Cain. The curse is explained in GENESIS 4:11-12. It was expulsion from the Edin, the land where Cain had shed blood, and condemnation to a life of endless wondering into uncharted territory far and beyond. The Mark of Cain was meant to distinguish Cain for preservation during these wanderings. So exactly what was it?
The highly regarded Grail bloodline historian Laurence Gardner provides an answer that is corroborated by several other objective and meticulous sources thus: “As for the enigmatic mark placed upon Cain, this is probably the most important aspect of the story so far, because although not defined in the Bible, the Mark of Cain is the oldest recorded Grant of Arms in sovereign history.
In the Midrash and Phoenician traditions, the Mark of Cain is defined as being a cross within a circle. [Which is also the astronomical/astrological symbol for Earth.] It was, in principle, a graphic representation of kingship, which the Hebrews called the MalKhut (‘Kingdom’; from the Akkadian word malku = sovereign).”
As Crown Prince, Cain already had a mark that designated him as such, long before he killed Abel. This was a cross within a circle. The mark was also known as a Grant of Arms in that only a King or Crown Prince had the right to bear arms. In point of fact, all cultures of antiquity bore distinct birthmarks that defined their ancestry. In the African culture, these typically took the form of incisions on the face mainly but also on other parts of the body such as over the heart or between the shoulders. In the days of the Anunnaki, birthmarks took the form of tattoos as they had the technology to indelibly imprint them.
In those days, there was no DNA testing (among Earthlings) as we know it today. As such, they had to find a way of visually identifying somebody for who he claimed he was, particularly if he was a member of the nobility. If, for example, one claimed he was a Saili, he had to point to a mark on his body identifying him as a Saili.
Thus the Mark of Cain would identify Cain wherever he was on the globe that where he came from (that is, the Edin), he was actually a royal and a Crown Prince for that matter. That way, even if he met hostile people, he would be treated either respectfully or with great caution.
When Enki came down from the judgement seat to ratify Cain as Crown Prince, he was not bestowing on him the Right of Succession. He was confirming it – that it had by no means lapsed by forfeiture but was still in force and would always be in force. The Mark of Cain was an affirmation of an inborn right. It was not a stain or any such black mark.
NEXT WEEK: THE PARIAH ASCENDS TO THE TOTEM POLE!
Columns
THE KEY TO HAPPINESS
Speaking at a mental health breakfast seminar last week I emphasised to the HR managerial audience that you cannot yoga your way out of a toxic work culture. What I meant by that was that as HR practitioners we must avoid tending to look at the soft options to address mental health issues, distractions such as yoga and meditation. That’s like looking for your lost bunch of keys, then opening the front door with the spare under the mat. You’ve solved the immediate problem, but all the other keys are still missing. Don’t get me wrong; mindfulness practices, yoga exercise and taking time to smell the roses all have their place in mental wellness but it’s a bit like hacking away at the blight-ridden leaves of the tree instead of getting to the root cause of the problem.
Another point I stressed was that mental health at work shouldn’t be looked at from the individual lens – yet that’s what we do. We have counselling of employees, wellness webinars or talks but if you really want to sort out the mental health crisis that we face in our organisations you HAVE to view this more systemically and that means looking at the system and that starts with the leaders and managers.
Now. shining a light on management may not be welcomed by many. But leaders control the flow of work and set the goals and expectations that others need to live up to. Unrealistic expectations, excessive workloads and tight deadlines increase stress and force people to work longer hours … some of the things which contribute to poor mental health. Actually, we know from research exactly what contributes to a poor working environment – discrimination and inequality, excessive workloads, low job control and job insecurity – all of which pose a risk to mental health. The list goes on and is pretty exhaustive but here are the major ones: under-use of skills or being under-skilled for work; excessive workloads or work pace, understaffing; long, unsocial or inflexible hours; lack of control over job design or workload; organizational culture that enables negative behaviours; limited support from colleagues or authoritarian supervision; discrimination and exclusion; unclear job role; under- or over-promotion; job insecurity.
And to my point no amount of yoga is going to change that.
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Micromanagement and/or failure to reward or recognize performance are the most obvious signs of toxic managers. These managers can be controlling, inflexible, rigid, close-minded, and lacking in self-awareness. And let’s face it managers like those I have just described are plentiful. Generally, however there is often a failure by higher management to address toxic leaders when they are considered to be high performing. This kind of situation can be one of the leading causes of unhappiness in teams. I have coached countless employees who talk about managers with bullying ways which everyone knows about, yet action is never taken. It’s problematic when we overlook unhealthy dynamics and behaviours because of high productivity or talent as it sends a clear message that the behaviour is acceptable and that others on the team will not be supported by leadership.
And how is the HR Manager viewed when they raise the unacceptable behaviour with the CEO – they are accused of not being a team player, looking for problems or failing to understand business dynamics and the need to get things done. Toxic management is a systemic problem caused when companies create cultures around high-performance and metrics vs. long-term, sustainable, healthy growth. In such instances the day-to-day dysfunction is often ignored for the sake of speed and output. While short-term gains are rewarded, executives fail to see the long-term impact of protecting a toxic, but high-performing, team or employee. Beyond this, managers promote unhealthy workplace behaviour when they recognize and reward high performers for going above and beyond, even when that means rewarding the road to burnout by praising a lack of professional boundaries (like working during their vacation and after hours).
The challenge for HR Managers is getting managers to be honest with themselves and their teams about the current work environment. Honesty is difficult, I’m afraid, especially with leaders who are overly sensitive, emotional, or cannot set healthy boundaries. But here’s the rub – no growth or change can occur if denial and defensiveness are used to protect egos. Being honest about these issues helps garner trust among employees, who already know the truth about what day-to-day dynamics are like at work. They will likely be grateful that cultural issues will finally be addressed. Conversely, if they aren’t addressed, retention failure is the cost of protecting egos of those in management.
Toxic workplace culture comes at a huge price: even before the Great Resignation, turnover related to toxic workplaces cost US employers almost $50 billion yearly! I wonder what it’s costing us here.
QUOTE
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Columns
Heartache for Kelly Fisher
| T |
o date, Princess Diana, General Atiku, had destroyed one marriage, come close to ruining another one in the offing, and now was poised to wreck yet another marriage that was already in the making. This was between Dodi Fayed and the American model Kelly Fisher.
If there was one common denominator about Diana and Dodi besides their having been born with a silver spoon in their mouths, General, it was that both were divorcees. Dodi’s matrimonial saga, however, was less problematic and acrimonious and lasted an infinitesimal 8 months. This was with yet another American model and film actress going by the name Susanne Gregard.
Dodi met Susanne in 1986, when she was only 26 years old. Like most glamourous women, she proved not to be that easy a catch and to readily incline her towards positively and expeditiously responding to his rather gallant advances, Dodi booked her as a model for the Fayed’s London mega store Harrods, where he had her travel every weekend by Concorde. They married at a rather private ceremony at Dodi’s Colorado residence in 1987 on New Year’s Day, without the blessings, bizarrely, of his all-powerful father. By September the same year, the marriage was, for reasons that were not publicised but likely due to the fact that his father had not sanctioned it, kaput.
It would take ten more years for Dodi to propose marriage to another woman, who happened to be Kelly Fisher this time around.
DODI HITCHES KELLY FISHER
Kelly and Dodi, General, met in Paris in July 1996, when Kelly was only 29 years old. In a sort of whirlwind romance, the duo fell in love, becoming a concretised item in December and formally getting engaged in February 1997.
Of course the relationship was not only about mutual love: the material element was a significant, if not vital, factor. Kelly was to give up her modelling job just so she could spend a lot more time with the new man in her life and for that she was to be handed out a compensatory reward amounting to $500,000. The engagement ring for one, which was a diamond and sapphire affair, set back Dodi in the order of $230,000. Once they had wedded, on August 9 that very year as per plan, they were to live in a $7 million 5-acre Malibu Beach mansion in California, which Dodi’s father had bought him for that and an entrepreneurial purpose. They were already even talking about embarking on making a family from the get-go: according to Kelly, Dodi wanted two boys at the very least.
Kelly naturally had the unambiguous blessings of her father-in-law as there was utterly nothing Dodi could do without the green light from the old man. When Mohamed Al Fayed was contemplating buying the Jonikal, the luxurious yacht, he invited Dodi and Kelly to inspect it too and hear their take on it.
If there was a tell-tale red flag about Dodi ab initio, General, it had to do with a $200,000 cheque he issued to Kelly as part payment of the pledged $500,000 and which was dishonoured by the bank. Throughout their 13-month-long romance, Dodi made good on only $60,000 of the promised sum. But love, as they say, General, is blind and Kelly did not care a jot about her beau’s financial indiscretions. It was enough that he was potentially a very wealthy man anyway being heir to his father’s humongous fortune.
KELLY CONSIGNED TO “BOAT CAGE”
In that summer of the year 1997, General, Dodi and Kelly were to while away quality time on the French Rivierra as well as the Jonikal after Paris. Then Dodi’s dad weighed in and put a damper on this prospect in a telephone call to Dodi on July 14. “Dodi said he was going to London and he’d be back and then we were going to San Tropez,” Kelly told the interviewer in a later TV programme. “That evening he didn’t call me and I finally got him on his portable phone. I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he said he was in London. I said, ‘Ok, I’ll call you right back at your apartment’. He said, ‘No, no, don’t call me back’. So I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he admitted he was in the south of France. His father had asked him to come down and not bring me, I know now.”
Since Dodi could no longer hide from Kelly and she on her part just could not desist from badgering him, he had no option but to dispatch a private Fayed jet to pick her up so that she join him forthwith in St. Tropez. This was on July 16.
Arriving in St. Tropez, Kelly, General, did not lodge at the Fayed’s seaside villa as was her expectation but was somewhat stashed in the Fayed’s maritime fleet, first in the Sakara, and later in the Cujo, which was moored only yards from the Fayed villa. It was in the Cujo Kelly spent the next two nights with Dodi. “She (Kelly) felt there was something strange going on as Dodi spent large parts of the day at the family’s villa, Castel St. Helene, but asked her to stay on the boat,” writes Martyn Gregory in The Diana Conspiracy Exposed. “Dodi was sleeping with Kelly at night and was courting Diana by day. His deception was assisted by Kelly Fisher’s modelling assignment on 18-20 July in Nice. The Fayed’s were happy to lend her the Cujo and its crew for three days to take her there.”
Dodi’s behaviour clearly was curious, General. “Dodi would say, ‘I’m going to the house and I’ll be back in half an hour’,” Kelly told Gregory. “And he’d come back three or four hours later. I was furious. I’m sitting on the boat, stuck. And he was having lunch with everyone. So he had me in my little boat cage, and I now know he was seducing Diana. So he had me, and then he would go and try and seduce her, and then he’d come back the next day and it would happen again. I was livid by this point, and I just didn’t understand what was going on. When he was with me, he was so wonderful. He said he loved me, and we talked to my mother, and we were talking about moving into the house in California.”
But as is typical of the rather romantically gullible tenderer sex, General, Kelly rationalised her man’s stratagems. “I just thought they maybe didn’t want a commoner around the Princess … Dodi kept leaving me behind with the excuse that the Princess didn’t like to meet new people.” During one of those nights, General, Dodi even had unprotected sexual relations with Kelly whilst cooing in her ear that, “I love you so much and I want you to have my baby.”
KELLY USHERED ONTO THE JONIKAL AT LONG LAST
On July 20, General, Diana returned to England and it was only then that Dodi allowed Kelly to come aboard the Jonikal. According to Debbie Gribble, who was the Jonikal’s chief stewardess, Kelly was kind of grumpy. “I had no idea at the time who she was, but I felt she acted very spoiled,” she says in Trevor Rees-Jones’ The Bodyguard’s Story. “I remember vividly that she snapped, ‘I want to eat right now. I don’t want a drink, I just want to eat now’. It was quite obvious that she was upset, angry or annoyed about something.”
Kelly’s irascible manner of course was understandable, General, given the games Dodi had been playing with her since she pitched up in St. Tropez. Granted, what happened to Kelly was very much antithetical to Dodi’s typically well-mannered nature, but the fact of the matter was that she simply was peripheral to the larger agenda, of which Dodi’s father was the one calling the shots.
On July 23, Dodi and Kelly flew to Paris, where they parted as Kelly had some engagements lined up in Los Angeles. Dodi promised to join her there on August 4 to celebrate with her her parents’ marriage anniversary. Dodi, however, General, did not make good on his promise: though he did candidly own up to the fact that he was at that point in time again with Diana, he also fibbed that he was not alone with her but was partying with her along with Elton John and George Michael. But in a August 6 phone call, he did undertake to Kelly that he would be joining her in LA in a few days’ time. In the event, anyway, General, Kelly continued to ready herself for her big day, which was slated for August 9 – until she saw “The Kiss”.
THE KISS THAT NEVER WAS
“The Kiss”, General, first featured in London’s Sunday Mirror on August 10 under that very headline. In truth, General, it was not a definitive, point-blank kiss: it was a fuzzy image of Diana and Dodi embracing on the Jonikal. A friend of Kelly faxed her the newspaper pictures in the middle of the night and Kelly was at once stunned and convulsed with rage.
But although Kelly was shocked, General, she was not exactly surprised as two or three days prior, British tabloids had already begun rhapsodising on a brewing love affair between Dodi and Diana. That day, Kelly had picked up a phone to demand an immediate explanation from her fiancé. “I started calling him in London because at this time I was expecting his arrival in a day. I called his private line, but there was no answer. So then I called the secretary and asked to speak to him she wouldn’t put me on. So Mohamed got on and in so many horrible words told me to never call back again. I said, ‘He’s my fiancé, what are you talking about?’ He hung up on me and I called back and the secretary said don’t ever call here again, your calls are no longer to be put through. It was so horrible.”
Kelly did at long last manage to reach Dodi but he was quick to protest that, “I can’t talk to you on the phone. I will talk to you in LA.” Perhaps Dodi, General, just at that stage was unable to muster sufficient Dutch courage to thrash out the matter with Kelly but a more credible reason he would not talk had to do with his father’s obsessive bugging of every communication device Dodi used and every inch of every property he owned. The following is what David Icke has to say on the subject in his iconic book The Biggest Secret:
“Ironically, Diana used to have Kensington Palace swept for listening devices and now she was in the clutches of a man for whom bugging was an obsession. The Al Fayed villa in San Tropez was bugged, as were all Fayed properties. Everything Diana said could be heard. Bob Loftus, the former Head of Security at Harrods, said that the bugging there was ‘a very extensive operation’ and was also always under the direction of Al Fayed. Henry Porter, the London Editor of the magazine Vanity Fair, had spent two years investigating Al Fayed and he said they came across his almost obsessive use of eavesdropping devices to tape telephone calls, bug rooms, and film people.”
Through mutual friends, General, Porter warned Diana about Al Fayed’s background and activities ‘because we thought this was quite dangerous for her for obvious reasons’ but Diana apparently felt she could handle it and although she knew Al Fayed could ‘sometimes be a rogue’, he was no threat to her, she thought. “He is rather more than a rogue and rather more often than ‘sometimes,” she apparently told friends. “I know he’s naughty, but that’s all.” The TV programme Dispatches said they had written evidence that Al Fayed bugged the Ritz Hotel and given his background and the deals that are hatched at the Ritz, it would be uncharacteristic if he did not. Kelly Fisher said that the whole time she was on Fayed property, she just assumed everything was bugged. It was known, she said, and Dodi had told her the bugging was so pervasive.
KELLY SUES, ALBEIT VAINLY SO
To his credit, General, Dodi was sufficiently concerned about what had transpired in St. Tropez to fly to LA and do his utmost to appease Kelly but Kelly simply was not interested as to her it was obvious enough that Diana was the new woman in his life.
On August 14, Kelly held a press conference in LA, where she announced that she was taking legal action against Dodi for breach of matrimonial contract. Her asking compensation price was £340,000. Of course the suit, General, lapsed automatically with the demise of Dodi in that Paris underpass on August 31, 1997.
Although Kelly did produce evidence of her engagement to Dodi in the form of a pricey and spectacular engagement ring, General, Mohamed Al Fayed was adamant that she never was engaged to his son and that she was no more than a gold digger.
But it is all water under the bridge now, General: Kelly is happily married to a pilot and the couple has a daughter. Her hubby may not be half as rich as Dodi potentially was but she is fully fulfilled anyway. Happiness, General, comes in all shades and does not necessarily stem from a colossal bank balance or other such trappings of affluence.
Pic Cap
THE SHORT-LIVED TRIANGLE: For about a month or so, Dodi Al Fayed juggled Princess Diana and American model Kelly Fisher, who sported Dodi’s engagement ring. Of course one of the two had to give and naturally it could not be Diana, who entered the lists in the eleventh hour but was the more precious by virtue of her royal pedigree and surpassing international stature.
NEXT WEEK: FURTHER BONDING BETWEEN DIANA AND DODI
Columns
EXTRAVAGANCE One of The Scourges in Society.
Extravagance in recent times has moved from being the practice of some rich and wealthy people of society in general and has regrettably, filtered to all levels of the society. Some of those who have the means are reckless and flaunt their wealth, and consequently, those of us who do not, borrow money to squander it in order to meet their families’ wants of luxuries and unnecessary items. Unfortunately this is a characteristic of human nature.
Adding to those feelings of inadequacy we have countless commercials to whet the consumer’s appetite/desire to buy whatever is advertised, and make him believe that if he does not have those products he will be unhappy, ineffective, worthless and out of tune with the fashion and trend of the times. This practice has reached a stage where many a bread winner resorts to taking loans (from cash loans or banks) with high rates of interest, putting himself in unnecessary debt to buy among other things, furniture, means of transport, dress, food and fancy accommodation, – just to win peoples’ admiration.
Islam and most religions discourage their followers towards wanton consumption. They encourage them to live a life of moderation and to dispense with luxury items so they will not be enslaved by them. Many people today blindly and irresponsibly abandon themselves to excesses and the squandering of wealth in order to ‘keep up with the Joneses’.
The Qur’aan makes it clear that allowing free rein to extravagance and exceeding the limits of moderation is an inherent characteristic in man. Allah says, “If Allah were to enlarge the provision for his servants, they would indeed transgress beyond all bounds.” [Holy Qur’aan 42: 27]
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, “Observe the middle course whereby you will attain your objective (that is paradise).” – Moderation is the opposite of extravagance.
Every individual is meant to earn in a dignified manner and then spend in a very wise and careful manner. One should never try to impress upon others by living beyond one’s means. Extravagance is forbidden in Islam, Allah says, “Do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
The Qur’aan regards wasteful buying of food, extravagant eating that sometimes leads to throwing away of leftovers as absolutely forbidden. Allah says, “Eat of the fruits in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. And waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters.” [Holy Qur’aan 6: 141]
Demonstrating wastefulness in dress, means of transport, furniture and any other thing is also forbidden. Allah says, “O children of Adam! Wear your apparel of adornment at every time and place of worship, and eat and drink but do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
Yet extravagance and the squandering of wealth continue to grow in society, while there are many helpless and deprived peoples who have no food or shelter. Just look around you here in Botswana.
Have you noticed how people squander their wealth on ‘must have’ things like designer label clothes, fancy brand whiskey, fancy top of the range cars, fancy society parties or even costly weddings, just to make a statement? How can we prevent the squandering of such wealth?
How can one go on spending in a reckless manner possibly even on things that have been made forbidden while witnessing the suffering of fellow humans whereby thousands of people starve to death each year. Islam has not forbidden a person to acquire wealth, make it grow and make use of it. In fact Islam encourages one to do so. It is resorting to forbidden ways to acquiring and of squandering that wealth that Islam has clearly declared forbidden. On the Day of Judgment every individual will be asked about his wealth, where he obtained it and how he spent it.
In fact, those who do not have any conscience about their wasteful habits may one day be subjected to Allah’s punishment that may deprive them of such wealth overnight and impoverish them. Many a family has been brought to the brink of poverty after leading a life of affluence. Similarly, many nations have lived a life of extravagance and their people indulged in such excesses only to be later inflicted by trials and tribulations to such a point that they wished they would only have a little of what they used to possess!
With the festive season and the new year holidays having passed us, for many of us meant ‘one’ thing – spend, spend, spend. With the festivities and the celebrations over only then will the reality set in for many of us that we have overspent, deep in debt with nothing to show for it and that the following months are going to be challenging ones.
Therefore, we should not exceed the bounds when Almighty bestows His bounties upon us. Rather we should show gratefulness to Him by using His bestowments and favours in ways that prove our total obedience to Him and by observing moderation in spending. For this will be better for us in this life and the hereafter.