Joseph in Egypt
Columns
Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER
“Hykso slave” eventually comes to rule country on behalf of King!
The smokescreen gimmick the Enlilites came up with with a view to recapturing Egypt was to smuggle Joseph into that country under the cover story that he had been sold into slavery by his jealous and loathing brothers. For such a stunt to succeed, it had to be demonstrable and therefore convincing. It also had to be well-coordinated just in case Joseph met with disaster at some stage during his peregrinations.
The starting point, however, was to cultivate friendly forces in Egypt who would at long last be the custodians of Joseph under the story line that he was their slave. In point of fact, the Enlilites had long laid the groundwork for a sympathetic reception of Joseph by the powers that be in Egypt. For we now know that Amenhotep II, the 7th Pharaoh, had a curiously Hebrew predilection. One of his many pharaonic titles was “Hykso King of Heliopolis”, which may hint at a modicum of Jewish blood in him, likely from his mother’s side.
It is probable that Amenhotep’s mother was of Jewish stock, a cleverly contrived manoeuvre on the part of the Enlilites as a preliminary step to retake Egypt in the fullness of time. Thus if Amenhotep was kind of favourably disposed toward the Hebrews, it follows that his successor, Thothmosis IV, was most likely of a similar frame of mind. That could explain why Joseph, a full-blooded Hebrew, ultimately took centre stage in the affairs of Egypt. But we’re getting ahead of our story.
Next, a network of slave traders, all in on the ruse, had to be propositioned, syndicated, and well-orchestrated. Joseph had to be passed from one slave merchant to another and not be rushed so as allow time to ascertain whether Egyptian intelligence was sniffing around for his presence in the country. It was imperative that the Enlilites not take chances as there was always the possibility that some turncoat might spill the beans on the young man and in the event that he resultantly landed in the wrong hands, the whole plan would boomerang back horrendously. It was only when the Enlilites were satisfied all the safeguards were in place that they decided to launch Joseph into the fray.
JOSEPH OPERATIONALISED DURING RULE OF THUTMOSIS IV
Joseph was 17 years old when he set off on “Operation Retake Egypt”. Before he was taken away, his father presented him what the Bible wrongly describes as a “coat of many colours”. The Hebrew term translated “coat of many colours” is Ketonet Passim. This simply meant an ornamented tunic. It was presented by a king to his prince or princess. To the princess, it was indicative of virgin status, whereas to a prince, like Joseph was, it denoted princely status. It was a coded message to Joseph’s future Egyptian guardians that he indeed was not an ordinary Hebrew but a dynastic heir.
As per the pre-arranged setup, Joseph was sold five times for purposes of maximum precaution. His brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Midianite traders. The Midianites sold him to the Medanites. It was the Medanites who sold him to the Egyptians, at which point he crossed into Egyptian territory. The Egyptians finally hawked him to his intended custodian going by the name of Potiphar.
Who was Potiphar? Genesis describes him as a “captain of the guard”, meaning the chief of the pharaoh’s security detail, something akin to Secret Service, a bureau responsible for the safety and security of the US president. This man was very strategically placed as an Enlilite agent in the corridors of Egyptian power. First, his responsibilities entailed constant interaction with the pharaoh. Second, his very senior security portfolio meant he was trusted to the hilt, so that whatever information he passed to the pharaoh was received as gospel truth. He was thus just the right guy to endear young Joseph to the pharaoh.
The pharaoh of the day was Tuthmosis IV. Although his capital was Thebes in southern Egypt, he spent the bulk of his time at his residence in Memphis, northern Egypt, which was only a stone’s throw from Avaris, where the Hykso-Hebrew remnants who stayed behind after the First Exodus under Kamose abounded and slaved. Potiphar therefore must have been based in Memphis too.
Tuthmosis IV was the 8th pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, which began with Kamose. To tell from the features of his mummy, he is the first pharaoh from southern Egypt to bear traces of mixed blood – straight hair, narrow nose, and thin lips, characteristics which were not quintessentially Bantu. The Egyptian annals say his mother, Tiaa, was of “unknown origin”. She may as well have been a Hykso-Hebrew and her identity was jealously guarded so as not to provoke public outrage. Indeed, in those days when there were no newspapers, TV, radio, social media, or cameras of any kind, a secret could be kept from the wider public forever.
Intent at blunting the menace that was the Hittite Empire, a formidable power in the ascendant, Tuthmosis IV struck an alliance with the King of Mittani and took Mutemwiya, the latter’s daughter, as his minor wife. It was to Mutemwiya that Tuthmosis IV’s heir, Amenhotep III, was born. The fact that Tuthmosis IV’s heir came from a foreign and secondary wife and not from one of his two senior, indigenous wives attests to his desire to forge an enduring detente with the Hurrians (the people of Mittani).
THE FRAME-UP THAT NEVER WAS
All went according to plan. When Joseph arrived in Egypt, he never did a moment of slave labour: that is a cock-and-bull story. Joseph was a long-term VIP guest of Potipher: he neither worked nor toiled under him. In fact, no sooner had Joseph arrived at the Potipher estate than he arranged for him to go to school in Heliopolis.
The historian Herodotus informs us that Heliopolis was the oldest centre of learning in Egypt. It was the Oxford of the day. The city teemed with religious and academic institutions. For Joseph to be seen in a positive light by the religious establishment, he had to be well-versed in knowledge pertaining to the national god Marduk. Needless to say, this specific theology was one of his majors. In the seminary training, Joseph was taught by the priests of Heliopolis.
Now, in Egypt, Joseph was known by a different name, Yuya. We know this was an assumed name, if it can be called that in that it simply meant, “One Who Is the Son Of”. It was not an Egyptian name at all. At school, Joseph was surpassingly brilliant and so was easily noticed by his professors. By the time he was graduating, his intellectual renown had spread as far as the pharaoh’s courts at Memphis. The professors must have wondered how such a gifted youngster should be a slave in the very home he dwelt when he should have been its resident celebrity. Of course the slave tag simply was a cover story: Potipher had to have a worthwhile explanation in case something went wrong. But contrary to the Genesis story, nothing went wrong at all.
Genesis relates that the dynamically good-looking Joseph was sexually propositioned by Potipher’s wife, who upon being spurned had him framed for an attempted act of adultery. This incident led to Joseph serving time in prison. Once again, that is a fictitious story, literally: neither Joseph nor Potipher’s wife had anything to do with it. In fact, the story emerged 200 years after Joseph’s time.
Researchers have found that the Genesis writers plagiarised the substance of the story from a 12th century BC document known as The Orbiney Papyrus. The document which, dates from the reign of Pharaoh Seti II, who ruled from 1200 to 1194 BC, features a story titled The Two Brothers, which very closely mirrors the jiggery-pokery of Potipher’s wife as per the Genesis account. Reduced to its basic essentials, the story goes like this:
“Bata lived with and faithfully served his older brother, Anubis. One day Anubis’s wife tried to seduce Bata, who rejected her advances. Furious, she accused him of attempted rape, and the enraged Anubis prepared to kill Bata. But Bata, forewarned by a cow, fled in the nick of time. A lake filled with crocodiles magically appeared between the brothers, cutting off Anubis’s pursuit. Anubis returned home and proceeded to kill his wife. Meanwhile, Bata cut out his own heart and placed it high in a pine tree, an act rendering him nearly immortal.
The gods fashioned a beautiful wife for Bata. An immoral woman, however, she entered Pharaoh’s harem and divulged to the Egyptians that Bata could be killed by cutting down the pine tree. They followed through, but Anubis, apparently prepared to reconcile with Bata, found his brother’s heart and restored him to life. Bata in turn transformed himself into a bull and carried Anubis to Pharaoh’s court, where Bata’s alarmed wife persuaded Pharaoh to sacrifice the bull.
Its blood caused two trees to sprout. Realizing that Bata still lived, his wife arranged to have the trees cut down, but a splinter flew into her mouth and she became pregnant. She bore a son, whom Pharaoh raised as his crown prince. The boy – Bata himself – in due course became the pharaoh and appointed Anubis to be his viceroy.”
The two stories are not exactly identical but people who plagiarise do not do so verbatim through and through: they build into the story at least a modicum of either their own input or spin, or yet another aspect lifted from some other source. So long story short, Joseph was never the centre of a sexual scandal at any point in time whilst living in Potipher’s luxurious house. His conduct was consistently above-board. Joseph never tasted prison at all: indeed, there is nothing in the Egyptian records that remotely intimates Yuya was ever imprisoned.
JOSEPH HITCHES ROYAL LASS
When Joseph graduated, everybody wanted a piece of him thanks to his diamond-edged brilliance, his film-star looks, and his natural charisma. Among those who set his eyes on him was the chief priest of the Heliopolis temple, who the Bible calls Potipheras (a different person from Potipher, the head of royal security). The chief priest soon was match-making her gorgeous daughter Tuya with Joseph and before long the two had tied the knot. Tuya’s other name was Asenath. In Egyptian spelling, this is Nes-Net. The name evoked Nut, who in Egypt was the Anunnaki god (or goddess as she was female) of the sky.
Tuya was not simply a scion of the Egyptian priesthood: she was royalty too. She is said to have been the granddaughter of Tuthmosis III, who according to those who have studied royal Egyptian mummies, looked very much like her. Her mother, Potipheras’ wife, therefore, was a daughter of Tuthmosis III (Tuthmosis III had at least 7 official wives, three of whom foreigners).
Since Joseph too was a descendant of the great Hykso pharaoh and patriarch Jacob, this was a union, to all intents and purposes, of two dynasties. It was not a clincher yet on the part of the Enlilites but it was a significant step in that direction: their main target was the pharaonic perch itself.
Although Joseph had spent much of his Egyptian time in Heliopolis, where he went to school, and Memphis, where his guardian Potipher resided, the city he chose to dwell in after his nuptials was Khent-Min (today’s Akhmin), then the headquarters of the 9th province of southern Egypt, which was located on the east bank of the Nile. Initially, Min was another name for Enki, the overall god of Africa. It would later come to incorporate Horus, a great-great grandson of Enki, who was one of the most popular of Egyptian gods. Joseph would in future be conferred the civic title of Lord of Khent-Min such was his attachment to the city.
JOSEPH ENTERS SERVICE OF PHARAOH
Meanwhile, the chief priest of Heliopolis was determined that her daughter be ensconced near the very pinnacle of political power and in her husband Joseph, she had a wonder catalyst. Both Potipher and Potipheras were gushing in their recommendation of Joseph to the reigning Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV, projecting him as a great visionary who could help take Egypt places.
Although he was not an indigenous Egyptian, Joseph, the pharaoh was told, had come to Egypt as a slave, sold by his own dirt-poor family, and as such he was a de facto Egyptian and would never return to Canaan. “He has the mind of a prophet,” the king was told. “He can literally divine the future of Egypt. To him, interpreting a dream is child’s play.”
At the time, the pharaoh was disillusioned with his coterie of advisors who kept falling short time and again, the reason Joseph was pitched to him. Although even for the pharaoh it was love at first sight when Joseph was brought before him, he first put him on probation just to gauge his potential objectively. He was impressed beyond measure: the young Hykso-Hebrew was a genius who knew practically everything. He seemed incapable of error or ill-judgement. Joseph was hired even before the probation ran its course. He was about 30 years of age when he entered the King’s service.
Joseph’s position is said to be that of Vizier, a mistakenly assigned designation on the part of historians in our view. In today’s terms, we might call him “Prime Minister” (like Theresa May under Queen Elizabeth) or “Chancellor” (like Otto Von Bismarck under German King Kaiser Wilhem I). But as we shall see, he was more of a viceroy than prime minister or chancellor as he was an appointee and not an electee and was not subject to the King but ruled on behalf of the King.
In commissioning Joseph into service, Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV said to him, “I have set thee over all the land of Egypt … Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled; only in the throne will I be greater than thou … I am pharaoh, and without thee no man shall lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” The pharaoh ordered every Egyptian to bow by the knee before Joseph, which made him a king in his own right. Thus while this pharaoh reigned over Egypt, the country was governed or ruled by Joseph. He made all the decisions and simply briefed the king about what he had done.
A SUPER-VIZIER
Typically, the duties of a vizier have been described as follows:
“The viziers were appointed by the pharaohs but often belonged to a pharaoh's family. The vizier's paramount duty was to supervise the running of the country, much like a prime minister. At times this even included small details such as sampling the city's water supply. All other lesser supervisors and officials, such as tax collectors and scribes, would report to the vizier. “The judiciary was part of the civil administration and the vizier also sat in the High Court. However, at any time, the pharaoh could exert his own control over any aspect of government, overriding the vizier's decisions.
“The vizier also supervised the security of the pharaoh and the palace by overseeing the comings and goings of palace visitors. “Viziers were the second in command, they oversaw the political administration and all official documents had to have his seal on them, managed the taxation system and monitored the supply of food, listened to problems between nobles and settled them, and ran the pharaoh’s household and ensured the royal family’s safety.
“From the Fifth Dynasty onwards viziers, whom by then were the highest civilian bureaucratic official, held supreme responsibility for the administration of the palace and government including jurisdiction, scribes, state archives, central granaries, treasury, storage of surplus products and their redistribution, and supervision of building projects such as the royal pyramid.
“It will be seen that the vizier is the grand steward of all Egypt, and that all the activities of the state are under his control. He has general oversight of the treasury and the chief treasurer reports to him; he is chief justice or head of the judiciary; he is chief of police, both for the residence city and kingdom; he is minister of war, both for army and navy; he is secretary of the interior and of agriculture, while all general executive functions of state, with many that may not be classified, are incumbent upon him. There is, indeed, no prime function of state that does not operate through his office.”
But Joseph was not simply a vizier: he was a super-vizier. We say this because he was practically the conscience of the pharaoh: whatever he pronounced had the force of a pharaonic fiat. Also, the name Yuya, as Joseph was known in Egypt, does not appear on the list of viziers of both Tuthmosis IV and his successor Amenhotep III, under whom Joseph consecutively served. At the time of the 18th Dynasty, there were two viziers at any one time, one for northern Egypt and another for southern Egypt.
During their collective tenure, Tuthmosis IV and Amenhotep III had a total of 7 viziers, none of whom goes by the name Yuya. Clearly, Joseph was more than a vizier in that he had two viziers under him. His unique position was the first and last in the entire history of Egypt, which goes to show that he was a man of extraordinary ability and of extraordinary capacity.
NEXT WEEK: THE FEATS OF JOSEPH
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.