Moses’ Ark of the Covenant was a multi-purpose, pricey device
The standard Temple Tax, or rather, Religious Tax, was the Half-Shekel yearly, though it was reduced to One-Third-Shekel following the Babylonian exile and reinstated to Half-Shekel during the reign of Herod the Great. Half-Shekel was 2 Drachmas in the gospel era and is US$0.13, or P1.35, in our day at the prevailing exchange rates.
In Old Testament times it was equivalent to a day’s wages, whereas in New Testament times, it amounted to a couple of days’ wages thanks to the inescapable effects of inflation. Every Jew who was 20 years and above was subject to this levy: only Levites were exempt. The Orwellian paradigm, whereby all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, dates back to the very days when “God” lived among his people.
Note that the Half-Shekel was not a coin. In Moses’ day, the Israelites did not mint coins. Thus Half-Shekel simply represented a specific weight of silver and this was accepted as currency. Half-Shekel was about 6 grams of silver, which took the form of bars, bracelets, or necklaces weighed in a balance scale against a standardised and inscribed stone weight. The worshiper received a receipt (and even “change” if he paid more, such as a full Shekel instead of a Half-Shekel) in the form of a piece of pottery or a clay tablet with the words "Paid in full" duly inscribed thereon. The Shekel coin came into being in the 6th century BC following the Babylonian captivity.
For a brief period after the restoration of the Temple (the so-called Second Temple, which replaced the one Solomon had built but which was razed down by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC), the Jews had their own currency. Known as the Yehudi coins, they were minted in 350 BC. In truth, the Yehudi coins were not an own currency as they bore motifs commemorating the Anunnaki goddess Athena, known as Inanna-Ishtar in Sumerian times. During the Hasmonean rule, the Jews had the so-called brutah bronze coins minted but they too were adulterated with foreign symbology.
Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate would also later mint brutah coins for the Jews but they also were tainted with tell-tale imageries of the oppressors and so were not eagerly embraced by the Jews. The first real Jewish coins, which were made from silver, were minted in AD 66 following the Zealot uprising. But they were short-lived as Roman general Titus overran Jerusalem in AD 70 and laid waste to the Temple. In AD 132, Simon Bar Khoba led an uprising against the Romans and minted new silver coins depicting the defunct Temple. The revolt was crashed three years later by the then Roman Emperor Hadrian. The next time the Jews would have their own currency was in the 20th century.
What is ironic is that throughout the pre- AD 66 series of upheavals, the main Temple currency was the Tyrian Shekel, issued circa 300 BC. The Tyrian Shekel bore the image of the patron god of Tyre, a Phoenician (Palestinian in today’s terms) domain about 150 km away from Jerusalem. The god was known as Melqart or Baal Sur, meaning Lord Sur. The Romans called him Heracles (Hercules) and the Greeks called him Apollo. In the Sumerian and Akkadian records, he’s called Utu-Shamash.
The Jews were not aware that it was the same Anunnaki gods playing mind games on them. So to them, Melqart was a “pagan” god when in truth he was the nephew of their very god Iskur-Adad. Be that as it may, the Jews didn’t mind using a currency bearing the image of an idol god in the hallowed precincts of the Temple primarily because the Tyrian Shekel contained the most silver – 92 percent. Economic reasons seemed to have overridden religious sanctity.
It was the Tyrian Shekel, the dollar of the day, that sustained the bureau de change business that thrived in the Temple’s Court of Gentiles and in which the priesthood had stakes as pilgrims who came to Jerusalem on festive occasions from all over the world and who were the Temple’s main lifeline were obliged to convert their currencies to the Tyrian Shekel for transactional purposes (tendering their tithes and buying animals for sacrifice).
Thus when Jesus stormed the Temple and angrily set upon the money changers, turning their tables and driving their animals out with a whip, he was registering his outrage at the spiritual hypocrisy of the Temple system. Sadly, it was this act, largely, that resulted in his crucifixion as from that point on, he was a marked man for tampering with economic mainstay of the corrupt-to-the-core priesthood.
GOLD APLENTY IN ARK OF COVENANT
We showed in the previous article that the Tabernacle had three main constituents. These were the Tabernacle proper, the courtyard, and the altar. The duo-section Tabernacle proper comprised of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies was the most sacred place in the entire structure in that it was the deity’s inner sanctum, the very dwelling place of Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus. Of course Adad did not physically reside in the Holy of Holies: in fact, he never set foot in there once. His permanent presence in the Holy of Holies was purely symbolic, along the lines of virtual reality.
It was in the Holy of Holies that Adad discoursed with the High Priest Aaron. Exactly how did Adad communicate with Aaron? It was by way of the Ark of the Covenant, Adad’s symbolic throne. “I will speak with you from above the Ark-cover, from between the two cherubim which are on the Ark of Testimony, about all the orders I am giving you for the people of Israel,” Adad said in EXODUS 25:22. In other words, THE MOST IMMEDIATE PURPOSE OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT WAS AS A TWO-WAY WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
This was when Adad was not in the vicinities of the camp, for as the Bible makes clear, when Adad’s flying saucer was parked on Mount Sinai, Moses and he talked “face to face”, which is a figure of speech really as the Enlilite gods had long made a resolution that their faces should not be seen by mankind at all since they rotated as Yahweh and so were determined not to expose themselves as different personages masquerading as one.
The Ark of the Covenant was constructed by Benzeleel and Aliohab under the supervision of Moses. Like the Tabernacle, the Ark was neither original nor unique: it very much harked back to Egypt. Says Dr Raanan Eichler of Tel Aviv University whose PhD dissertation was on the Ark and the Cherubim: “The Ark was a portable wooden chest made in typical Egyptian style, and extant chests from the ancient Near East, particularly Egypt, reveal parallels to almost every detail of the Ark as described in priestly and other biblical texts … It would seem that the Egyptian design was copied and adapted by the Hebrew tribes of the time when they created their own sacred objects.”
Dr Eichler’s assertion is a pointed one: in the inner chamber of Pharaoh Tutankhamun’s tomb was found the same Ark as described in the Bible, the major difference being that whereas the Biblical Ark bore images of two Cherubim across its lid, the Tutankhamun Ark bore the image of a jackal, called Anubis in ancient Egypt; hence its name the “Shrine of Anubis”. MOSES, BENZELEEL AND ALIOHAB COULD AFFORD TO BUILD THE ARK OF THE COVENANT BECAUSE THEY HAD FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE IN EGYPT!
The Ark of the Covenant was overwhelmingly made of pure gold. EXODUS 25:10-11 says; “They (Benzeleel and Aliohab) are to make an ark of acacia-wood three-and-three-quarters feet long, two-and-a-quarter feet wide and two-and-a-quarter feet high. You are to overlay it with pure gold — overlay it both inside and outside — and put a molding of gold around the top of it.” It was a large chest or ornate box of acacia wood, plated on the inside and outside with pure gold.
Four gold rings were fastened to its four feet and gold-covered poles of acacia wood were inserted into rings on each side to render it easy to carry. The Ark’s cover or lid was a slab of pure gold, with two cherubim of hammered gold, one at each end, facing each other, their wings spread upward and just stopping short of touching. It has been estimated that approximately 8 tons of gold, silver, and bronze went into the entire Tabernacle and its fixtures and fittings. In today’s money, the Ark of the Covenant alone would cost $10 million to replicate.
THE ARK BORE IMAGES OF AERIAL CRAFT
Exactly what were the two cherubim (plural for cherub) that faced each other on the cover of the Ark? Practically every depiction of the Ark portrays the cherubim as angels, that is, winged masculine beings. The Bible, however, simply describes them as cherubim and not angels or creatures of any kind. What were cherubim?
The term cherubim is a most misunderstood, if not deliberately distorted term even by savants of theology. Every pastor will tell you that cherubim were a class of angels, but that is simply the popular narrative: it has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is wishful or contrived thinking. The term cherubim stemmed from the ancient Semitic term KERUB, which meant “to ride”. It is therefore rooted in the notion of transportation. An alternative term that was synonymous with KERUB was ERUB.
It was ERUB that informed the term HOREB, the other name for Mount Sinai or any such prominent mountain range. Mount Horeb thus simply meant “Mount of Cherubs”. That is to say, a mountain where a form of transportation, particularly aerial transportation, was typically observed. What was this form of transportation? IT WAS ADAD’S FLYING SAUCER, JET, OR CHOPPER, TYPICALLY REFERRED TO AS THE GLORY OF GOD IN ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.
Certainly, every time the term cherubim is encountered in the Bible, it is associated with a mobile throne (chopper, flying saucer, or simply the cockpit compartment) or with flight or locomotion in general. For instance, when Jehovah-Enlil expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (GENESIS 3:24), a cherubim mounted with a flaming sword which turned every which way hovered at the gates to prevent the couple from making a defiant return (assisted by Enki) and therefore have unauthorised access to the Tree of Life (a rocket parked on the Eridu apron).
This simply was a levitating vehicle equipped with a search light. Both 2 SAMUEL 22:11 and PSALM 18:10 state that, “He (Yahweh) rode upon a cherub and did fly; and he was seen upon the wings of the wind”. EZEKIEL 9:3 also says, “He (Yahweh) was gone up from the cherub whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house”. Clearly, the cherubim were not sentient things: they were flying or levitating machines, variously called celestial chariots or sky vehicles in Sumerian records.
So if cherubim were not angelic beings, or such winged humanoid figurines, why are they depicted as such in popular paintings of the Ark? Once again, it all harps back to Egypt. The Egyptian arks of the gods bore the image of the goddess Maat (a daughter of Marduk and consort of his younger half-brother Ningishzidda who was known as Thoth in Egypt) with wings on each arm. Religious artists therefore automatically assumed that since Moses was raised up in Egypt, some such similar male figurines must have appeared on his version of the Ark of the Covenant too, which is too much of a leap of faith.
The one other very pertinent factor that those who show two angelic beings atop the Ark of the Covenant overlook is that ADAD HAD PROHIBITED THE NATION OF ISRAEL FROM MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES (an image carved out of stone, wood or metal and taking the form of either a person or animal, see EXODUS 20:4-5) or any idols (rival Enkite gods) in cast metal (DEUTERONOMY 34:17). Clearly, there was no way Moses was going to affix to the Ark images of angelic beings forged from gold when Adad unequivocally frowned on that. (Angels, or AN-GAL in Sumerian, meaning “Great Ones of Heaven”, was simply the general term for the Anunnaki. In art, the Sumerians depicted the Anunnaki as winged giants to denote the fact that they flew in skyborne vehicles).
True, the Bible says the cherubim had “wings”, but we cannot be dogmatic that as such they were life-form representations. Hospitals have wings, aircraft have wings, shirt collars have wings, ploughs have wings. A “wing” is simply a lateral projection which extends from the main body of an object. So in what form where the cherubim on the cover of the Ark? SINCE A CHERUB WAS AN AERIAL CRAFT, IT WERE TWO SUCH WINGED AIR CRAFT, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD AN OFFSPREY (WHICH IS PART AIR PLANE, PART-HELICOPTER) THAT FEATURED ON THE ARK.
These were molten images but they were not graven images in that they were not in the form of a human being or an animal but in the form of machines. The air crafts were the best representation of Adad in the eye of the Israelites as they symbolised his presence among them: whenever there was a flying saucer or helicopter parked or hovering around, it was a sign that their god was around. It is a pity that the Ark is lost to history. This is by deliberate design because if ever it were to be found, it would reveal a lot of secrets the Vatican & Co wouldn’t want Christendom to know.
TABLETS OF TESTIMONY AS DIGITAL RECORDS
According to the Bible, the Ark of the Covenant enclosed a number of items. They were the Tablets of the Covenant, the Tablets of Testimony, Aaron’s Rod, and a golden jar of Manna. The Tablets of the Covenant was the so-called Covenant Book, in which Moses wrote everything he had been instructed by Adad at Mount Sinai. Aaron’s rod was of course his symbol of Pharaonic authority, which the Pentateuch writers spun as a magical wand which he turned into a snake at the courts of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses I. This leaves us with the Tablets of Testimony and the Manna.
What were the Tablets of Testimony? The term “testimony” simply means “spoken evidence”. THE TABLETS OF TESTIMONY WERE THEREFORE A DIGITAL STORAGE OF THE ISRAELITES’ ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ADAD. When Adad spelt out to them what he expected of them as his chosen people, the Israelites had to undertake that they were in full agreement with the decrees and ordinances he had pronounced forth. Such a nod on the part of the Israelites was digitally recorded in the Tablets of Testimony. Even in our day, we refer to our portable computer devices as tablets. The Anunnaki had such technology too though it was not mainstreamed to mankind.
As for Manna, this was inevitable. One of the everyday uses of the Ark of the Covenant was the manufacture of Manna. Of course this was not Manna in the form it is preached to you from the pulpits. This was special Manna, which also went by such names as Shewbread, Bread of Life, Bread of the Presence, the Paradise Stone, Highward Firestone, the Phoenix, Our Daily Bread, etc. The Sumerians called it Shemanna. The Egyptians called it Mfkzt. Ancient chemists referred to it as the Philosopher’s Stone. Today, it is best known as Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold.
THE WONDERS OF ORMUS
We did dwell on Ormus at length in earlier articles but we will hereby briefly recap for the sake of newcomers to this column. The term Ormus is the easier-to-pronounce form of ORME, an acronym for Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Element. Ormus is manufactured using a process which in the ancient mystery schools was known as alchemy. This was defined as the transformation of base metals such as tin to gold. But that to a large extent was disinformation: it was meant to blindfold lay people, the bulk of the human population.
What alchemy was fundamentally about was the creation of Ormus from what we today call the Transition Elements on the Periodic Table. These are gold, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, platinum, iridium, osmium, copper, cobalt, and nickel. All these ten metals are capable of transmuting to Ormus, which has properties which are radically different from the original metals, but the highest quality of Ormus is that which is made from gold. As you know, gold is the god of metals.
The Institute of Advanced Studies refers to Ormus as “exotic matter” and characterises its superconductive powers as “the most remarkable physical property in the universe”. When high-quality Ormus is consumed, it can perform wonders in a human being. It can boost the intellect manifold, instill deeper spiritual and metaphysical insights, dispel any form of disease (including incurables such as cancer and HIV/AIDS) in the body, and impart a whole host of abilities which ordinarily we would regard as magical or miraculous.
For example, one could walk on water and glow in the darkness. One can also lay hands on the sick and cure them immediately. Even a mere word or thought would be enough to bring about another’s wellbeing. Besides producing a blindingly brilliant light, Ormus can also give off deadly rays.
But there is more. Because it confers near-perfect health, Ormus can lengthen lifespans indefinitely. Even more tantalising, it can make a person to defy gravity by floating in the air (levitation), transport a person from one part of the cosmos to another (teleportation) and translate a person from this physical dimension into another, postmortem dimension, the Astral dimension (transmutation): hence its other name, the Powder of Projection. That Moses, Benzeleel and Oliab could manufacture Ormus using the Ark of the Covenant is no surprise: they were from Egypt and Egyptian Pharaohs and some members of the nobility were fed on Ormus.
NEXT WEEK: ORMUS FIND IN THE SINAI!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).