Connect with us
Advertisement

Marduk is Seized

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

Popular Anunnaki god put under house arrest for refusing to be part of great deception

On becoming Earth’s foremost Anunnaki god effectively in 2024 BC but substantively in 1954 BC, Marduk declared Nibiru as his celestial counterpart, not Earth itself as was the case with his predecessor Jehovah-Enlil. We have already dwelt on the reasons he did so. Not only did Marduk identify himself with the great planet: he decided, in due course, to make Nibiru the focus, exclusively, of a new religion he called the Star Religion. The “Star” was Nibiru: if you recall, Nibiru was also known as the Star of Jacob for reasons we have already spelt out.

Why did Marduk choose to place Nibiru at the centre of mankind’s religious fervour? Well, he had calculated, and rightly so, that the return of Nibiru was going to occur on his watch – the astrological Age of Aries, which mathematically ran from 2220 to 60 BC.  The last time Nibiru showed up was circa 4000 BC, which enabled Anu to visit Earth. This time around, Nibiru was expected around the halfway point of the 6th century BC, between 600 and 500 BC.

What that meant was that when King Anu appeared, Marduk would be the one ruling Earth and would therefore be the primary host of the Solar System’s greatest sovereign. Needless to say, that would be the greatest milestone of his life. Of course it was not every time Nibiru was in the ecliptic that Anu visited Earth. But he was always expected anyway: elaborate and meticulous preparations for his arrival had to be made whether he turned up  or not.  

In Babylonia, the key person Marduk chose to propagate his Star Religion was Hammurabi, the Babylonian King. Hammurabi went at his brief hammer and tongs. In Marduk’s Star Religion, the astronomer priests, known as the MASHMASHU, worked practically day and night in the Esagil, Marduk’s temple-abode which was principally an astronomical observatory.

The Esagil’s main function was to “constantly observe the heavens, track the movement of stars and planets, record special phenomena (such as a planetary conjunction or an eclipse), and consider whether the heavens bespoke omens; and if so, to interpret what they did portend.” At the head of the Mashmashu was the URIGALLU, the Great Priest, who was a holy man, a magician, and a physician rolled into one. The Urigallu conveyed the astronomer-priests interpretations of celestial phenomena to Hammurabi through a special priest known as the ZAQIQU.

Marduk, however, had his mortal enemies to contend with – the Enlilites, who were not ready to cut  him any slack whatsoever. THE ENLILITES JUST WOULD NOT COUNTENANCE THE IDEA OF KING ANU BEING RECEIVED BY AN ENKITE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. That scenario was simply inconceivable. It is small wonder, therefore, that they raised kings who were unstinting in making inroads into Babylon, the nucleus of the Babylonian empire, so as to unseat Marduk. In their pathologically jaundiced mindset, Marduk just could not do right: every peace feeler he sent, every concession he tabled forth in the interests of peaceful  co-existence with the Enlilites, fell on stone deaf ears. This Earth, My Brother …

MARDUK’S TELL-TALE  COMPOSITE EMBLEM

When Marduk became the Lord of Earth, he chose the MUS-HUS as his regnal emblem. The Mus-Hus has been described as a mythical, hybrid watery creature  with  “a scaly (fish-like) skin,  hind legs resembling the talons of an eagle, feline (lion-like) forelegs, a long neck and tail, a horned head, a snake-like tongue, and a crest”. In Babylonian sketches, Marduk is more often than not depicted standing by  the Mus-Hus.

Since no such creature existed in real life, in Egypt, Marduk’s other bastion, it was represented by the crocodile. It was with  the fat of the crocodile, known in Egypt as the MESSEH, that pharaohs were anointed on their accession as King. The crocodile was a symbol of virility (because of its sexual prowess), vitality (it’s the largest reptile on the planet), and longevity (it is among the oldest creatures of Earth, having existed in its present form for more than 200 million years).

Why did Marduk chose a nondescript creature as his emblem? The answer lies in the kinds of animals that were represented in the Mus-Hus.  They were a fish, lion, eagle, and snake. The fish was probably a tribute to his father Enki, who was also known as the fish god, Oannes in Greek, Dagon to the Philistines. The lion  represented homage to Sirius, where his mother Damkina came from.

Sirians evolved from a creature that was part-wolf, part-lion, and part-reptile. The snake was obviously  a bow to Orion, where Enki originated and whose people evolved from a serpentine creature.  As for the eagle,  it in all probability represented the Carian race, one of the four major races of the Milky Way galaxy, the others being Reptoids, Felines, and Humans. The Carians evolved from a bird-like creature. (Egyptian gods such as Horus and  Ningishzidda were sometimes depicted as bird-headed gods, which suggests a Carian genetic link.)

In sum, the Mus-Hus was Marduk’s statement that he had a universal outlook leadershipwise which was not partisan to any single galactic race. He was prepared to work with all and sundry in the interests of the planet Earth and its peoples. Sadly, the Enlilites didn’t care an iota. To them, whether Marduk meant well or not, he would always be a marked man.  

BABYLON’S GOLDEN GLOW COURTESY OF MARDUK!

In the Bible,  the term Babylon just stops short of being a swear word. It is a symbol of evil and defiance, a symbol of rebellion against “God”.  From Genesis to Revelation, Babylon is mentioned only in unflattering terms. In Revelation for one , it  becomes a byword for the so-called Antichrist’s evil world system spearheaded by the Roman Empire.  For instance, in REVELATION 17:5, Babylon, as code for the Roman Empire, is described as “the mother of prostitutes and of Earth’s abominations”. The prophets have a field day lambasting and prophesying doom for Babylon and its god, Marduk, often referred to as Bel.  

But don’t be taken in folks. The Bible, more so the Old Testament, is an Enlite document. It was written by the Jews, Enlil’s chosen people, his sheep. As such, it’s bias against the Enkites is to be expected. FOR IF THE TRUTH MAY BE TOLD, MARDUK DID TURN BABYLON INTO A MINI-PARADISE.

Babylonian texts extol Marduk as wildly popular because “he is seen as a approachable deity, who cares about human beings and their suffering”.  In Babylon, happiness and joy were ubiquitous. There was scarcely any lack. Everybody was in blooming health. Strangers hugged each other  more than they snapped at  or wronged  each other. The following extract from the letter of a Phoenician who had visited Babylon speaks volumes on the glory and grandeur of Babylon:

“The civilising power of Marduk: see in the streets of the city a man and a maid. He shines before the people as a sun in splendor, she as the Moon keeps her face to her Lord. As they pass, old men seated in their doorways smile. Old women cease to scold and the soldiers do not jostle. See in the market as they move, ripples of smiles upon the face of the people spreading among the throngs. Such is the power of Marduk. SEE  THAT GOLDEN GLOW THAT WRAPS THEM AS ONE THAT IS THE MARK OF HIS POWER. It is not the power of Ishtar (Inanna),  much more fiery and passionate. Marduk’s power spreads peace in man.”

The above scenario clearly is not a picture of a city or nation  steeped in sin, as the Bible would have you believe: it is the picture  of absolute bliss.   Perhaps the most telling statement in the letter is the one we have emphasized – about the golden glow that shone forth from the people. This was  the result of consuming Ormus folks  – the monoatomic powder of gold known as Manna in the Bible. Ormus imparts perfect health, sharp faculties, and staggering spiritual and metaphysical insights. 

This is the ultimate empowerment of the human race. And when you have just partaken of it, it makes your body give off a glow that can be seen from a distance. You shine like “the noon day sun” folks. You are “transfigured” courtesy of the gospels. For mainstreaming Ormus in Canaan, Marduk had his most devout cities, Sodom and Gomorrah,  nuked at the orders of Jehovah-Enlil.  For mainstreaming Ormus in Babylon, he was to be overthrown by the same Enlilite forces. But it is not easy to unseat a popular leader: it took close to 1500 years to make him budge.

ISHKUR-ADAD IS MARDUK’S MAJOR FOE

In order to fight, tame,  and ultimately topple Marduk, the Enlilites groomed two powerful warrior nations primarily. They were Assyria to the north of Babylon and Hatti to the west. It were the Assyrians in fact who were the first to attack Babylon circa 1900 BC and would be Babylon’s main antagonist for the next 1000 years or so.

Ethnically, the Babylonians and Assyrians were Akkadians. Both were Semitic: indeed, GENESIS 10 makes it clear that  the Assyrians were descended from Shem. The only element that set them apart was the god each worshipped.  The Babylonian god as we have stated and restated was Marduk. The Assyrian god was Ashur. Who was Ashur?

The term Ashur (ESH-HUR when fully rendered) means “Fiery Mountain”. We know a fiery mountain is known as a volcano. “Volcano” (Vulcan, the god of fire, to the Romans) was what the Sumerians called Ishkur-Adad, Enlil’s youngest son, owing to  his fiery temper and  generally ruthless disposition. Indeed, the name Ishkur (ESHA-KUR in full) also means “Fiery Mountain”.  When Adad  became the god of Assyria, he usurped the title Enlil as a dare against Marduk, who had become the new Enlil in 2024 BC, and even conferred the queenly title “Ninli” on his spouse. And not only that: he also appropriated the winged disc, the symbol of planet Nibiru, as his own, just as Marduk had done. In Adad’s  case, the winged disc bore an image of he himself, often carrying a bow, a symbol of war.

Hatti was the land of the Hittites, who had burst forth from Anatolia in today’s Turkey.  The Hittites would blossom into a major military power and close ranks with the coalition of Enlilite states who were opposed to Marduk. The non-Semitic Hittites enjoy repeated mention in the Bible but without the rancor and virulence reserved for other nations such as the Babylonians. They were Abraham’s neighbors in Harran, and it was from Hittite landowners in Hebron, south of Jerusalem, that he bought the Machpelah burial cave. Bathsheba, the centre of King David’s sexual scandal, was the wife of a Hittite captain in his army.  It was from Hittite farmers David bought the platform for the Temple on Mount Moriah. King Solomon bought chariot horses from Hittite princes and married one of their daughters.

The national  god of the Hittites was Teshub. This is TESH-HUBA in full, also meaning “Fiery Mountain”. In short, Teshub and  Ashur were the same god. The Hittites both with fondness and dread referred to Adad as the Storm God – the God of Thunder and Lightning and hence the god of rain. But they may as well have been referring to his stormy temperament.

As Teshub,  Adad’s  signature symbols were a triple thunderbolt and a bull, upon which he was  depicted standing to send the message that he was the new Bull of Heaven, the title by which his father Jehovah-Enlil  had gone by in the Age of Taurus. Throughout Aries, it was Adad who was Marduk’s greatest nightmare and not Enlil, Ninurta, Nergal, or Inanna-Ishtar as was traditionally the case in the countdown to Aries.

MARDUK ASKED TO BE PART AND PARCEL OF NEW GOD CALLED ANKI

For 400 years or so, the Enlilites fell flat in their resolve to depose Marduk. Meanwhile, as the centuries wore on, the reappearance of Nibiru – and possibly the return of King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven” – loomed ever large and inevitably attention overall shifted to this all-important planet of the gods.  All of a sudden, Marduk’s Star Religion, which centred on Nibiru, assumed a universal dimension.   

The urgency with which the Enlilites now were seized was, IN WHOSE HANDS WOULD BE THE SPACE-RELATED SITES WHEN KING ANU TOUCHED DOWN ON EARTH? If you recall, space-related facilities were the ultimate symbol of Anunnaki power and pride. This was because they linked Earth to the mother planet, Nibiru. The other reason was that like any other space traveler, King Anu arrived on planet Earth via a spaceport. Thus whoever controlled the spaceport enjoyed enormous prestige in the eyes of the King.

For example, when Anu came to Earth the last time around circa 4000 BC, he was received by Enlil, who was Earth’s Chief Executive, and piloted by Utu-Shamash, the Sinai Peninsula spaceport’s Chief Aviation Officer.  Thus the people  who controlled the space-related infrastructure were the primary hosts of Anu.

As the possible return of King Anu became imminent, the Enlilites decided to take several measures before he actually pitched. First, they were to ensure that all the space-related sites were under their aegis. At the time, the space-related sites were Babylon (the Mission Control Centre), Baalbek (the Landing Place) in Lebanon, the Great Pyramid at Giza in Egypt, and the Nazca Desert in today’s Peru.

Since this was circa 1600 BC, the Enlilites already were in charge of the Nazca Landing Place and the Giza Pyramid (since they ruled northern Egypt, where the Great Pyramid was located). Baalbek, however, was not under their control: it was being vied for by both the Enlilites and the Enkites. Babylon was out of the question: the Enlilites would not want to dignify it with Mission Control Centre status when Anu arrived.

THEY WOULD RATHER RESTORE JERUSALEM, WHICH WAS THE MISSION CONTROL CENTRE BEFORE 2024 BC, SINCE IT WAS LOCATED IN A REGION THAT WAS NOT UNDER THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF MARDUK. Accordingly, it was on Jerusalem and Lebanon they set their sights. Now, if they had to capture Jerusalem from the Jebusites, who presently inhabited it, they needed their own people, the Hykso Hebrews, who were based in northern Egypt, as foot soldiers. That, however, was a tall order. The Hyksos had been in Egypt since days immemorial and they were for all practical purposes Egyptians. How were they to be prevailed upon to depart Egypt and fight for some obscure territory in Canaan? It was hard but a way had to be found.

Finally, Marduk either had to be overthrown or tactfully won over to the Enlilite side so that by the time King Anu arrived, an Enlilite was the de facto CEO of Earth. It was this measure the Enlilites took first. Having failed to unseat him over 400 years of naked aggression to date, they opted for the carrot approach as opposed to the stick approach. They made overtures to him to the effect that they needed his cooperation to bring about monotheism on the planet Earth. The one advantage monotheism had was that it would certainly unite Earthlings under the banner of one god and therefore make  wars between nations, which were essentially religious,  a thing of the past.

When Marduk asked as to how this monotheism was to be achieved, he was told that all Enlite and Enkite gods were to retreat into the shadows and pose as just one god, who  would be unseen by Earthlings though he would be heard. The Anunnaki gods would take turns to be this representative god. The Enlilites also proposed that the role of the first such composite god would be carried out by Ishkur-Adad, to be followed by Marduk himself after a period of time.

Adad was chosen under the pretext that he was best placed to keep in check all those nations who kept waging war on Babylon since they were mostly under his control. But Adad, being a representative god, would not go under his own name. HE WOULD GO BY A NEW NAME KNOWN AS ANKI, WHICH MEANT “GOD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”. Would that be music to Marduk’s ears or as pure garbage?
    
MARDUK BECOMES THE DEVIL
 
Needless to say, Marduk was far from impressed. He read the scheme for exactly what it was – a cleverly contrived strategy to undermine him as Lord of Earth and to ultimately unseat him. Besides, the idea of a non-visible god did not appeal to him.  Marduk loved his people, his dear Earthlings, and wanted to be seen by them, to interact with them in person. He was a man of the people. What was the point of claiming that you were a god of your people without allowing them to see you? Even the Earthlings themselves would pooh-pooh  the idea.

Those days, mankind worshipped or revered a god they knew – one they had seen with their own eyes. Tell them you were their god but they could not set their eyes on you, and they would denounce you as a joke. It goes without saying that Marduk rejected the Enlilite bait with the contempt it deserved. Whether they liked it or not, he was Earth’s foremost authority and he would remain so till the close of the Age of Aries.   

The Enlilites did not take the spurn lying down. In 1595 BC, Adad sprang his Hittite warriors on Babylon. Their siege of Babylon was so overwhelming it was like a walk in the park but only because  Marduk had instructed his king not to fight them as he was aware it was not the seizure of Babylon they were after per se: it was the seizure of he himself. As such, he didn’t want the lives of the Babylonians to be unnecessarily expended.

Indeed, the Hittite army headed straight for his sacred precincts and seized him. But they did not harm him at all: all they did was take him with them to a Mesopotamian city known as Hana. He was to be kept there under house arrest and was given 24 years in which to change his mind and sign up to the Enlilites’ monotheistic ploy.  

 
Meanwhile, the Enlilites launched propagandistic pitches denouncing Marduk as the “Devil”, meaning “Prime Evil”. Devil resulted from a twisting of the term D’EA-BEL in Sumerian (Diabolos in Latin). D’Ea-Bel was Enki’s title, conferred on him for his lead role in the creation of Adam and Eve. It meant “The (D) Lord (BEL) of Life (Ea)”. In the case of Enki, the Enlilites corrupted D’Ea-Bel to Devil when he unilaterally illumined Adam and Eve knowledgewise, which Enlil took to be a betrayal. In the case of Marduk, who  D’Ea-Bel Jr in that he was Enki’s heir, the Enlilites adulterated D’Ea-Bel to Devil as a vilification manoeuvre arising from his refusal to toe their monotheistic line. This Earth My Brother …
 
NEXT WEEK:  ERA OF MOSES BEGINS   

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