Connect with us
Advertisement

Hooked on Flesh and Blood

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

… and this is none other than Jehovah we’re talking about!

There are two diametrically opposed views on human sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, familiarly known as the Old Testament. The first and the overwhelming view is pro- human sacrifice. The other view rails against human sacrifice. Now, contradictions in the Bible are more the norm than the exception. The reasons are manifold but we will cite only a few.    

First, the Bible was not written by a steadfastly like-minded scribal team. It was written by different people who had one general premise but over which they had clashing positions or viewpoints. In some cases, especially in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible,   several writers contributed to one book,  e.g. Deuteronomy, and these writers did not bother overmuch about synchronising the overall drift and orientation  of the narrative.

Scholars have identified at least four compound authors of the Pentateuch, who they have dubbed J (because he refers to his god as Jehovah), E (because he uses the plural term Elohim to refer to his god), D (the Deuteronomist) and P (the Priestly scribe).   Of course the casual reader will scarcely notice this disaccord,  but the scholar who has studied the Bible verse by verse will easily discern this.  

Second, the stories we read in the Bible were documented over thousands of years (as fragments of or excerpts from other age-old texts), beginning with the Sumerian records. For instance, the  first 25 chapters of Genesis were researched from Mesopotamian records written about 4000 years before Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, was written. The first concerted efforts on the part of the Jews to  compile the Hebrew Bible was done in the 7th century BC during the Babylonian captivity.

In the process, the source manuscripts were not left intact: some of the information they contained was edited out by the so-called redactors and perspectives  which were deemed palatable with the times were interpolated into them. Third, the gods of the Old Testament as we have long demonstrated were the Anunnaki, Aliens from the Sirian and Orion star systems via the little-known planet of the Solar System known as Nibiru.

The dominant Anunnaki in the Bible are the Enlilites, the clan of Jehovah-Enlil, who until the astrological Age of Aries was Earth’s Chief Executive. The Enlilites were the hawk faction  of the Anunnaki ruling pantheon. They were the diabolical faction vis-à-vis mankind. However, even they were not always in one accord. For example, Nannar-Sin, the second-born son of Enlil who later became the Allah of Islam, was the dove in the predominantly hawk faction. He was the only kind Enlilite.

Thus when you read of a god  speaking against human sacrifice, rest assured that god is Nannar-Sin. If the Jewish scribes had referred to Anunnaki gods by their own individual names throughout, we would not have such ambiguity. But they used a blanket term, such as Yahweh or Adonai, as a result of which one can only  glean an idea of which particular god is being talked about by  cross-referencing with the more authoritative Sumerian records.

The gods themselves share the blame for this convoluted state of affairs.  In Aries, the Enlilites, as we pointed out in earlier pieces, decided to pose as one unitary god before their chosen people, the Jews, whilst maintaining their individual identities behind the scenes.  It explains why they no longer wished to be seen by Earthlings; only to be heard. In the post exilic era (from the time of the Exodus till the waning days of the astrological Age of Aries), the Enlilites were mostly represented by Ishkur-Adad, Enlil’s third-born son, before the Nation of Israel.  Adad, as we shall demonstrate in due course, was the cruelest Enlilite after Enlil.

He was responsible for much of the evil perpetrated by “God” in the Old Testament. In the Sumerian records, it  was Ninurta and Inanna-Ishtar, Enlil’s granddaughter, who were the prime evils. And the god who committed the world’s  best-known and most outrageous act of genocide was Enlil, when he let mankind perish in their millions during the Deluge. This brings us to the matter of human sacrifice and why there are  contending views about it in the Hebrew Bible.

There were scribes who thought since human sacrifice was a most egregious evil, it should not be  presented as something  decreed by God. As such, these scribes inserted passages in the  original texts that gave the impression that actually God frowned on human sacrifice. But the more objective scribes were of the view that what the original manuscripts contained should stand irrespective of whether it portrayed God in a negative light. After all, God was God and he did not have to sanitise any extreme measure he took. That, in sum folks, is why you find some verses reporting that God  was hooked on human sacrifice and others  underscoring God’s condemnation  of the act.

When you read the Bible, it is important that you take the bigger picture and not use an isolated incident as the basis of  your inference. Focus on the sum total of what is being related to you and not on the contents merely of one verse, one chapter, or even one book. Above all,   ensure you augment and buttress your understanding  of the Bible with extra-biblical sources. For example, you would never grasp the creation story, that of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and the great  Flood of Noah’s day without reading the Sumerian chronicles or books on the Sumerian chronicles. You will never know who the gods of the Old Testament exactly were without being acquainted with what the Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets and cylinder seals say about these gods.   

ADAD AND NINURTA FRONT-RUNNERS IN THE APPETITE FOR HUMAN FLESH

In the Bible, two gods are particularly associated with human sacrifice. The first goes by the generic name  YAHWEH,  or Jehovah. We by now know that Yahweh was a cover name, primarily,  for the Enlilite godhead,  which comprised of five kinsmen, namely Enlil-Jehovah (the father), Ninurta (the firstborn), Nannar-Sin (the secondborn), Ishkur-Adad (the last born), and Utu-Shamash (the grandson). But we also  know that in the post-exilic era, the main  Yahweh was Ishkur-Adad. Adad was also the meanest and vilest of  the Yahwehs and  human sacrifice was actually his staple.  Needless to say, Adad is one of the two Yahwehs mostly associated with human sacrifice.  

Adad’s notoriety for human sacrifice was well-known even in Mesopotamia, in modern-day Iraq. Clay-tablet  texts unearthed in Mesopotamia and which have been dated to between the 10th and 7th centuries BC talk  of burnt offerings of male children  to “the god Adad”.  It was Adad who instructed Abraham to sacrifice his  son (GENESIS 22:22), though the Hebrew redactors recast the story in such a way that a ram was substituted for Abraham’s son.

Before the Israelites were liberated from Egyptian bondage, Adad demanded that they sacrifice their eldest sons as  atonement for  his indispensable role in winning their freedom. Once again, the Pentateuch scribes spun the story around  to make it appear  like it were the Egyptians who lost their sons at the hands of Adad’s “Angel of Death”. 

Then at the  Mount of the Elohim (Sinai or Horeb in the Bible) in Arabia’s Wilderness of Sin, Adad insisted that he was only going to address the Israelites in person if they made another mass human sacrifice.  Given that  the firstborn sons had already been sacrificed in Egypt,  this time around it were the virgins who must have  stepped into the breach. Indeed, EXODUS 19:18 does hint at the Mount Sinai sacrifice. It goes without saying that in the original texts, details to that effect did abound but were removed by later editors.

In Assyria, his main bastion as a god in Babylonian times, Adad was known by several names.   One of these was Anammelek (Anu-Malik in the Assyrian language,  meaning “chief deity”, which Adad was in Assyria). In 2 KINGS 17:31, we’re told that “the people of Sepharvaim (an Assyrian tribe that was relocated to Samaria after the Israelites were taken into Assyrian captivity)  burned their own children as sacrifices to their god Anammelek”.  The Anunnaki gods were very clever operators.  ONE GOD (E.G.  ADAD)  WOULD PRESIDE OVER RIVAL NATIONS (E.G.  THE ISRAELITIES AND CANAANITES) USING DIFFERENT NAMES AND WOULD EVEN CONDEMN THE PRACTICES OF “THE OTHER GOD” WHEN  IN TRUTH HE AND  THE OTHER GOD WERE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

The other god who was notorious for human sacrifice according to the Old Testament was BAAL-MOLECH, Baal (sometimes spelt Ba-El) simply meaning  “The Lord”.  Scholars have endlessly groped in the dark in their efforts to identify this god. I yet have to come across a single  book or article that crisply nails him: they all make wild guesses. Most of them, brainwashed by the Bible’s Enlilite propaganda,  even associate Molech with poor Marduk, a highly benevolent Enkite god was a darling of his direct subjects, notably the Babylonians and Egyptians, and who in the Age of  Aries had replaced Jehovah-Enlil as Earth’s Chief Executive.    

The Hebrew word translated Molech is actually MLK. This is MELEK when we put in the vowels as ancient Hebrew had no vowels. Originally, the term Melek (MALAK in Hebrew) meant a deputy, king, or emissary.  The anglicised version of Melek is MICHAEL. According to the Sumerian records, the Book of Enoch, the Epistle of Jude, and Revelation, Michael was the warring archangel.

IN SUMERIAN RECORDS, THE ARCHANGEL (CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE OF A DEITY) MICHAEL  WAS NINURTA, ENLIL-JEHOVAH’S FIRSTBORN SON AND THEREFORE THE HEIR APPARENT. I’m sure by now you know that Ninurta was the Anunnaki’s God of War.  It was he who fought and vanquished “the Evil Zu” in an aerial battle and it  was he who commanded the Enlilites when they warred against the Enkites in all the Pyramid Wars.

The god Molech, therefore, was  Ninurta.  He was based on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem,  and at a place called Topeth in the Valley of Ge-Hinnom (Gehenna) just outside Jerusalem, he superintended over a huge fiery pit in which children were presented to him as a burnt offering. That’s why in the English version of the Bible, Gehenna is translated as “Hell” or “Lake of Fire”. This has nothing to do with an afterlife inferno: it all harps back to the literal hell the place was to the children of Israel. 

The sacrificed children were said to have been “passed over”  or “passed through” the fire in sacrifice to Molech.  THIS IS THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE “PASSOVER” FEAST FOLKS, not the drivel you have been fed by the Pentateuch authors about God’s Angel  of Death bypassing the homes of Israelites and zeroing in on those of Egyptians. Since Ninurta was so fixated on human sacrifice, the term Melek over time also assumed the meaning  “sacrifice”.  

“THE FIRSTBORN OF YOUR SONS YOU SHALL GIVE TO ME”

Human sacrifices were made to the Old Testament gods for any number of reasons. First, they stemmed from a standing order by a god that a human sacrifice be done as and when required. The case of Abraham in relation to his son Isaac  in GENESIS 22:2 is one such example. In EXODUS 22:29, Adad makes it clear to the Israelites that,   “The firstborn of your sons shall you give to me”.

In LEVITICUS 27:28, Adad emphasises that anything mankind set aside for him, whether this be an animal, agricultural produce, or “man” was not eligible for redemption (that is, could not be substituted for anything else). In EXODUS 22:29-30, Adad says,  "The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal”. When it came to which tribe of the Nation of Israel the human sacrifice were to routinely come from, this was the tribe of Levi.

Adad had chosen them as the priestly tribe but there was a price to pay for this privillege: THEY WOULD BE THE MAIN TRIBE FROM WHICH HE WOULD HARVEST HUMAN SACRIFICES. This is what he says to that effect in NUMBERS 3:12-13: “I hereby accept the Levites from among the Israelites as substitutes for all the firstborn that open the womb among the Israelites. The Levites shall be mine,  for all the firstborn are mine; when I killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both human and animal; they shall be mine. I am the LORD.”  

In some situations, the god decreed a mass sacrifice as a punishment for being offended or somewhat displeasured by his people. For example, in EZEKIEL 20:26 (note: in properly translated versions and not in highly doctored ones such as the NIV and NLT), Adad boasts that he had the Israelites sacrifice their firstborns as burnt offerings to him to demonstrate to them  that he was Yahweh who should never be defied! What crime did the Israelites commit?

They sacrificed children they had pledged to him to rival gods instead (EZEKIEL 16:20), who he dismissively denounced as “images”.   These rival gods were not Enkites: they were fellow Enlilites but who were distant cousins being the sons of his older brother Nannar-Sin’s children with several concubines. (Sin had more than 80 children, the reason he was known as Aten, in this context meaning “Multiplying God”, in line with the injunction in Genesis that “Be fruitful and multiply”.)

There were cases, however, in which Kings or generals simply sacrificed their own children to kind of incentivise their god to dispense a blessing or simply show gratitude for a triumph in a battle or war.  A classic example in this regard is that of Jephtah, an Israel judge (as leaders were called before the advent of King Saul, Israel’s first King) for six years,  in JUDGES 11:29-40. This is the vow Jephtah made to  Adad as he headed for a battlefield clash with the Ammonites, the descendants of  Lot: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

Jephtah did trounce the enemy all right, but guess who should be the first to meet him at the palace gates upon returning from the war? His virgin daughter and the only child. The story is tear-jerking as the ill-fated daughter pleaded with her father to give her a two-month “stay-of-execution” so her friends would have ample time to celebrate her existence and do their farewells. 

Jephtah for one was deeply troubled by what had transpired but sadly a promise to  a god, and by a leader in particular,  was cast in stone: it could not  be reversed. Exactly two months later, the poor daughter was delivered to Adad. Whether it was via a furnace or simply on a silver platter the Bible does not say. This Earth My Brother …

SIN’S HUMANE VOICE

Whereas Adad and Ninurta were the veritable vampires what with such a ready appetite for human flesh and human blood, Nannar-Sin was  the polar opposite. Every time you hear Yahweh or Jehovah say something that is sober and rational, feel at liberty to assume it is the voice of Sin you were listening to. Remember, although  Adad was the main Jehovah of the Exodus, he wasn’t the sole one. Once in a while, Sin took his position too. The Pentateuch authors however attributed every pronouncement by an Enlilite deity to simply one Yahweh, with the result that Yahweh comes across as a god with a split personality not once but multiple times.     

Sin frowned upon human sacrifice. So in the following passages, it is either Sin who is talking behind the  general façade of Yahweh, or the Jewish redactors themselves put words in Yahweh’s mouth:

DEUTERONOMY 12:31:  “You shall not act thus toward Yahweh your Elohim, for every abhorrence which Yahweh hates they perform for their Elohim, for even their sons and their daughters they burn with fire for their Elohim. You shall not act thus toward Yahweh your Elohim, for every abhorrence which Yahweh hates they perform for their Elohim, for EVEN THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS THEY BURN WITH FIRE FOR THEIR ELOHIM.”  Here, Sin was warning the Israelites about copying the ways of the Canaanites, who they would co-exist with when they entered Canaan.

DEUTERONOMY 18: 9-10: “When you come to the land that Yahweh your Elohim is giving to you (Canaan), you shall not learn to act according to the abhorrences of those nations (the Canaanites). There shall not be found among you one causing his son or his daughter TO PASS THROUGH FIRE.” In JEREMIAH 19:4-9, Adad  promises to severely punish  the Israelites for having “built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal”.  

This statement should be taken with a pinch of salt. There simply was no way Adad would have punished the Israelites for doing something he himself had instituted. Also, the god he was condemning here was his own  brother Ninurta ( Baal-Molech) when the two were birds of the same figure. Clearly, the statement was an interpolation by Jewish scribes.  

PSALM 106:48 (my favourite psalm)   condemns human sacrifice. The psalms were written by several individual  authors who did not have a uniform agenda.  PSALM 82, for instance, which was written by a certain Asaph, is in fact  a diatribe against the Anunnaki gods for  pretending to be God (First Source) when in actual fact they too were mortal and would therefore die someday and  be accountable to God. Thus the psalmist who condemned human sacrifice was making a indirect dig at Adad and company.

In 2 KINGS 16:3,  King Ahaz of Judah is condemned for  sacrificing  his own children by way of a fiery furnace. No Jewish King reigned without the sanction of a god. Thus if Ahaz was into human sacrifice, it meant that that pleased his god, to whom the sacrifice was made. Once again, this passage is suspect. The case of King Josiah  of Judah is a revelatory one. Josiah,  who the Bible describes as a righteous king, did away with human sacrifices and got rid of all the priests who were at the centre of this barbarity (2 KINGS 23:5). 

Jehovah (either Adad or Ninurta) bristled at this gesture, which he regarded as “opposing god”(2 CHRONICLES 35:21), and engineered his death in a battle at the tender age of only 38. Human sacrifice was Jehovah’s lifeline: you didn’t tamper with it and get away scotfree.

NEXT WEEK:   SATAN WORSHIP IN TEN COMMANDMENTS

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