Connect with us
Advertisement

Abe Firm in the Saddle

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

   

Abraham ousts southern Pharaoh to become undisputed King of Egypt

Having become Pharaoh Mehibre Kheti of northern Egypt toward the end of 2047 BC, Abraham soon decided to take a second wife. This was fundamentally for political reasons: as a de facto Egyptian now, it was needful that he marry an indigenous woman to help raise his esteem in the eyes of the disaffected indigenous Egyptians.  Her name was Hagar.

As we pointed out last week, Hagar was not Sarah’s slave: that simply is a slur tagged on her by the Jewish authors of Genesis with a view to undermine her pedigree. She was a daughter of the Egyptian nobility. Since the dominant peoples of Egypt populationwise those days were blacks, the odds are Hagar was black too. It could explain why the pale-skinned Genesis authors contrived such a demeaning outlook of her. 

Yet to Abraham and his people anywhere, Hagar was just as reverenced as Sarah. Hagar was not her original name: it was given to her when she married Abraham. She was named after a prominent river in the Indian subcontinent –the Hakar. The Hakar River was a tributary of the Saraisvasti River and if you recall, the Saraisvasti was named after Sarah to honour her as Terah/Krishna’s seniormost daughter. India had a special place in Abraham’s heart in that Terah was born there and the Hykso-Hebrews, who now abounded in northern Egypt and who had facilitated Abraham’s smooth landing there, originally came from India.  

Exactly in what year Abraham and Hagar tied the knot is nor certain but it was somewhere between 2047 and 2040 BC. It was during this same period that Abraham had his first biological son. This was Ishmael, born to Hagar.  If we are to go by the Genesis account, Hagar stole a march on Sarah reproductively because Sarah was barren.  That, of course, is a sublime pack of lies.  In the days of the Anunnaki, no royal woman could be infertile, let alone sterile.  The Anunnaki were genetic wizards.

If Sarah was unable to conceive, all she needed to do was to call upon Ningishzidda, Ninmah, or Enki – all of whom were genetic fundis and nine months later she would be cradling a little bundle of joy.  For God’s sake, Zidda for one was capable of cloning beings from even non-sexual cells (a process known as artificial meiosis), which he did with Horus, the posthumous son of the iconic Egyptian Anunnaki god Osiris.

What most likely happened was that Sarah initially had girls only and as a result, Hagar beat her to it when her first child turned out to be a son. That could explain why Sarah had such a virulent loathing of Hagar: she feared that Ishmael would inherit after Abraham in the event that she was unable to produce a boy, leaving her   progeny in the lurch. I enjoin you not to take everything you read in the Bible as incontrovertible truth: the “Holy Writ” is not without its share of concoctions, distortions, and outright disinformation. Luckily, Sarah was not destined to be sonless. Not every long after Hagar had Ishmael, Sarah begot Isaac. But was Isaac Abraham’s biological child? You will be surprised to hear this, but he wasn’t!

SARAH IS WIFE  TO TWO  PHARAOHS

At long last, Abraham received a letter of acknowledgement from Pharaoh Mentuhotep I that his prospective emissary was welcome and was being awaited in Thebes, the capital of southern Egypt.   Abraham was ecstatic: instead of sending down his chief aide, he decided to travel himself. That he would do incognito. He would pose as his own high priest rather than    travel on his own behalf as Pharaoh Mehibre Kheti. The reasons he did this were two-fold.

First, if he went as a Pharaoh, Mentuhotep was unlikely to welcome him as he regarded him as a usurper. He might even be held for ransom by the highly disgruntled southern pharaoh. Second, he wanted to deploy his queen Sarah as a Trojan Horse with which to endear himself to Mentuhotep and strike at the most opportune moment. Abraham’s camouflage would not be easy to see through as Mentuhotep I had never met him in person. Very few people were as cunning as General Abe.

When Abraham arrived at the royal palace in Thebes, he was very well-received by Pharaoh Mentuhotep. And in keeping with his stratagem, he did not introduce himself as Pharaoh Mehibire Kheti: he introduced himself as the pharaoh’s high priest primarily and his chief steward secondarily.  Moreover, he did not introduce Sarah as his wife: he introduced her simply as his half-sister. 

Now, Sarah was stunningly beautiful. In 2046 BC, she was 67 years old, having been born in 2113 BC. By human standards, she was old, but since like Abraham she had a lot of Anunnaki blood in  her, she did not age as fast as ordinary Earthlings did: she in all probability looked between 35 and 45 years at  the time. Inevitably therefore, Mentuhotep was smitten. But there was an even weightier reason as to why Mentuhotep began to hit on Sarah.

Sarah, it transpired, was related to him. She was actually a maternal full sister of  Mentuhotep. Remember, Sarah’s mother Tohwait  was married to Intef the Elder, the deceased ex-governor of Thebes before she got married to Terah. Whilst married to Intef, she had a son with him and this was none other than Mentuhotep I. Sarah and Mentuhotep were therefore maternal siblings.

As Abraham was busy spying on Thebes under the pretext that he was trying to familiarise with the gods of southern Egypt as a high priest of the northern Pharaoh and promoting Nannar-Sin at the expense of Amun-Ra, as Marduk was known in Egypt,  Sarah, who remained at the palace, was being gallantly propositioned by Menthuhotep. There was nothing incestuous about  this as Egyptian royals of old did marry their sisters, whether half-sister or full sister.

If  you recall, the diabolical Egyptian Anunnaki god Seth was married to his full-sister Nephthys.  It was this same setup Mentuhotep wished vis-à-vis his full sister Sarah and before long  the two had tied the knot. Sarah found herself married to two pharaohs though of course Mentuhotep was not aware she was Abraham’s wife. On his part, Abraham didn’t care an iota about this development as it perfectly conformed with his scheme to unseat Mentuhotep and appropriate the whole of Egypt.

ABRAHAM DEPOSES MENTUHOTEP TO RULE WHOLE OF EGYPT

It did  not take long before Sarah had a child with Mentuhotep, a son. This was the famous Isaac. This may take the Christian fraternity by surprise as the Bible seems to suggest that Isaac  was Abraham’s biological son. Well, that was yet another spin the Genesis writers put on the affair. At the same time, the Genesis writers did drop sufficient hints that Isaac was not a true-blue Jew but a foreigner.

First, there is the case where Abraham decided to sacrifice Isaac to his god Enlil (GENESIS 22:1-19). If Isaac was the true heir of Abraham, he wouldn’t have been Abraham’s choice for a sacrificial killing: he’d have chosen Ishmael. The fact that he opted for Isaac demonstrates quite clearly that he had a very low regard for Isaac, who indeed wasn’t his real son. 

Second, there’s the curious case of  Esau, Isaac’s firstborn son, selling his birthright to his younger brother Jacob (GENESIS 25:29-34).  The reason advanced by the Genesis writers is that Esau did so out of  famishment with hunger  when Jacob offered him a tantalising morsel of mouthwatering stewed meat subject to forfeiting his right of primogeniture.  Of course the story is nonsensical. No one would sell a birthright on account of pangs of hunger.

In any case, Esau and family were not ordinary, struggling people as the Genesis writers would have you believe: they were royals, a dynastic family of substantial means.  And hunger amongst the royals is unheard of anywhere.   What Genesis doesn’t tell you is that Jacob wrested the birthright from Esau simply because Esau had an Egyptian mother whereas Jacob had a Hebrew mother: the two were not twins at all but half siblings. The twin phenomenon was a pure concoction.

Indeed even the Bible itself tells us Esau’s  descendents are Edomites, who racially are Arabs.  Herod the Great was an Edomite,  which was one reason the Jews loathed him like the plague. Like all biblical patriarchs, Isaac had several wives – comprising of Egyptians and Hebrews – and Jacob succeeded after Isaac  because he had more Hykso/Hebrew blood than Esau, who carried a substantial portion of indigenous Egyptian blood being the son of the half-white, half-black Isaac: it was as simple as that.

 Meanwhile, as Mentuhotep’s concubine wife, Sarah was highly doted upon. She took advantage of the fervid affection she enjoyed to tactfully inquire about the strategic secrets of  Thebes from her husband and these she passed on to Abraham. Then when Abraham had gathered sufficient intelligence, he told Sarah to  confess to Mentuhotep as to her true relationship with him.  Upon learning that Abraham was at once Sarah’s husband and half-brother,  Mentuhotep was irate. But he was not prepared  to let go of  the voluptuous Sarah: instead, he compensated Abraham with “flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses,” without the merest idea though that Abraham was actually Pharaoh Mehibre of northern Egypt.

At the time, however, General Abraham was already in his stride. The mighty Hykso army had already stolen into Thebes and before long Mentuhotep was overthrown. Pharaoh Mehibre Kheti of northern Egypt was now Pharaoh of the entire land of Egypt.   Abraham no doubt was a brilliant military tactician.

ENKI, MARDUK MAINSTREAMS ORMUS IN CANAAN!

Meanwhile, in Sumer-Akkad (the East) and Canaan (the West), Nabu was making significant political and territorial gains. Arguably the greatest demagogue of his day, Nabu had managed to win over the loyalty  of five Canaanite kings who ruled what were known as the “Cities of the Plain”, that is, the River Jordan plain.  They were Bera King of Sodom; Birsha King of Gomorrah; Shinab King of Admah; Shemeber King of Zebim; and Zoar King  of Belah.

However, the five kings were not sovereign: they were subject kings who were under the rule  of an overarching,  Sumer-based King known as Khedorlaomer, the king of the militarily efficient Elamites. It was Nabu who persuaded the five kings to rise  against Khedorlaomer after promising them full sovereign status when his father Marduk was  the  God of the Age of Aries. With five powerful Canaanite kings in his sphere of influence, Nabu now poised to capture the spaceport. With the spaceport in the bag, it would be curtains for the Enlilites as it was the ultimate symbol of Earthly  authority.

With Abraham, Enlil’s trump card, ensconced as King of Egypt, it fell to Amar-Sin, the King  of Sumer-Akkad, to step into the breach. Accordingly, Enlil ordered Amar-Sin to  launch a major military campaign against the “sinning cities” or “rebel lands” as he called the five cities of the Jordan plain. What heinous sin had they committed in the eyes of Enlil?

According to  DEUTERONOMY 29:22-27, “they had  forsaken the covenant of the Lord (Enlil) … and they went and served other gods (Enkites).” But other sources furnish hints for a more crucial reason – Enki and Marduk had had begun to mainstream the consumption of Ormus, or gold dust, in Canaan to ready its people for the dawning astrological Age of Aries. This Ormus, which was obtained from the Dead Sea, the Canaanites now guarded jealously from expropriation by the Brotherhood of Gold – the Enlilites, who didn’t wish mankind to partake of it and therefore prolong their lives indefinitely and gain staggering metaphysical  insights. 

In a text known as the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin  109 A reads as follows: “As for the Earth, out of it cometh bread; and under it it is burned up as it were with fire. And it has dust of gold … They said (the Canaanites): since there cometh forth bread out of Earth, and it has the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth?. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.”

The Canaanites, who had fanatically rallied behind Marduk and Nabu, now regarded the Enlilites as “wayfarers”, or encroachers whose principal goal was to deprive them of access to and the utilisation of Ormus. They therefore decided to bar Enlilites and their Sumerian human minions from setting foot on Canaanite soil.  That meant fighting them to the death. The term “bread”, as we have long explained at length, referred to shewbread, which was the directly edible bread-loaf form of Ormus.

In a Sumerian text titled Enki and World Order  by the great Sumerologist Samuel N Kramer, we learn something very similar about  “bread”. The text partly reads, “Enki placed the nourishing bread, the bread of all, in charge of the black-heads”. “Blackheads” was the Anunnaki term for mankind and the nourishing bread of all was a metaphor for Ormus.
    
INANNA HIJACKS CANAANITE SIEGE

Since Amar-Sin was aware he was faced with a very formidable enemy, he decided to form a coalition  to reinforce his forces. He allied with their ancillary kings of the principal Sumerian city-states. They were Eri-Akhu of Larsa; Khedorlaomer of Elam;  and Tidal of Goim, with Khedorlaomer as the military commander.  The ensuing confrontation became known as “The  War of the Kings”. It pitted “Four Kings of the East” (The Khedorlaomer Alliance) against “Five Kings of the West” (The Canaanite Coalition), and  took place in 2041 BC. The war  was of such eminence that the GENESIS Chapter 14 is wholly dedicated to it.

Amar-Sin’s brief was to “reassert Enlilite control over Tilmun (the spaceport), to sever the sacred region from the ‘rebel lands’, then pry loose those lands from the influence of Nabu and Marduk by force of arms”.  Enlil’s get-set instructions  to Amar-Sin were to sieze and defile Babylon, Marduk’s cult centre. Says the Khedorlaomer Text: “The gods … to Khedorlaomer, king of the land Elam, they decreed: ‘Descend there!’ That which to the city was bad he (Marduk) performed: Babylon, the precious city of Marduk, sovereignty  Khedorlaomer seized. In Babylon, the city of the king of the gods, Marduk, kingship Khedorlaomer overthrew. o To herds of dogs its temple Khedorlaomer made a den; flying ravens, loud shrieking, their dung dropped there.”

Next was Borsippa. “The stronghold of Nabu, with weapons be despoiled”, Enlil said to Amar-Sin.  It  was from Borsippa, south of Babylon, that Nabu had orchestrated the insurrection of the five Canaanite cities against  Khedorlaomer and rallied Sumer-Akkad cities west of the Euphrates.   Marching under the banner of Nannar-Sin and in heed of the strategic guidance of  the irrepressible Inanna-Ishtar, Khedorlaomer “with wicked thoughts against Marduk, the shrine of Borsippa with fire he destroyed and its sons with a sword he slew” before he and his three allies proceeded to smite one Western land after another. 

Enlil’s emphasis to Amar-Sin was that under no circumstances should the spaceport fall into the hands of  Nabu and Marduk for if that happened heads would surely roll. The principal role of the Khedorlaomer Alliance was to protect the spaceport. Hearing this, the ultra-ambitious Inanna decided to capitalise as the overall military strategist of the Western Kings.

She sweet-talked the frontline commanders into not safeguarding the spaceport as such but seizing it on her behalf so that she uses it as leverage to ascend to the lordship of Earth at the expense of the deserving Marduk and to hell with her father Nannar-Sin and her grandfather Enlil.  Having been promised their own tiny fiefdoms in the new dispensation, the frontline commanders undertook to do likewise. Thus the campaign turned full cycle: it was no longer under the auspices of Nannar-Sin: it was under the auspices of Inanna-Ishtar. 

KHEDORLAOMAR FORCE THRUST INTO CANAAN

Exactly how did the Khedorlaomar Alliance advance? Zechariah Sitchin: “Acting in accordance with an oracle of Ishtar, the army put together by the Kings of the East arrived in Transjordan using the southern route from Mesopotamia to Canaan.  The invaders proceeded southward in Transjordan, along the King's Highway, attacking in succession key outposts guarding crossing points on the Jordan River.

“First to be attacked was a stronghold in ‘the high land’, then Rabattum. The route was the same as the one described in the Bible: from the highland in the north through the district of Rabattum in the center, southward around the Dead Sea. Thereafter, El-Paran (the city just before the spaceport) was to be captured, and the Canaanite cities (including Gaza and Beer-Sheba in the Negev) were to be punished.

“According to the biblical tale, a place called El-Paran was the real target of the invaders, but it was never reached by them. Coming down Transjordan and circling the Dead Sea, the invaders passed by Mount Se'ir and advanced  ‘toward El-Paran,  which is upon the Wilderness."

But as they approached El-Paran, the invaders  were intercepted by a formidable stumbling block in the form of one referred to in the Khedorlaomar Text as “the Son of the Priest, whom the gods in their own true council had anointed.” This dude, Enlil’s chosen Shepherd-King of the Age of Aries, was indeed the son of Melchizedek, the  Priest-King of Jerusalem. He was General Abraham.  
 
NEXT WEEK: ABRAHAM CONFRONTS THE INVADERS

Continue Reading

Columns

STRESS TEST

14th December 2022

We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.

Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.

Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?

The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.

There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill.  Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.

What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”.  Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe:  And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.

All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.

And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”

It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.

Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.

If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.

To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels.  Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter.  Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.

QUOTE

Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

Continue Reading

Columns

Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022
I

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?

 

Pic Cap

SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

NEXT WEEK: DIANA REVERTS TO SINGLENESS

Continue Reading

Columns

Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim

Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.

To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:

Right to life

The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex

Right to Equality 

The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.

Right to justice

Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice.  The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v  8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.

Right to freedom of conscience and religion

The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.

Right to personal freedom

No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.

Right to Protection of Honour

Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49  : v 11-12).

Continue Reading