Connect with us
Advertisement

Adad Cracks Whip

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

The Jehovah of the Exodus puts 3000 Israelite insurgents to the sword for treason and sacrilege

On the day the Apis Bull altar was complete, Aaron announced that the following day, it   would be officially  commissioned in the name of the new Yahweh, Marduk, who was represented by the Apis Bull, or the Golden Calf as it is referred to in the Bible, and the people should present offerings to mark the highly momentous occasion. That they indeed did the following day, amid a lot of dancing, singing, feasting, and other such frenzied revelry. The euphoria and commotion was such that it reached the Sinai Mountain and inadvertently alerted Ishkur-Adad as to what was happening.

A perturbed Adad, the Anunnaki god of the Exodus, immediately ordered Moses to descend the mountain and acquaint with the situation firsthand. Adad also had Moses carry with him two tablets of his covenant with the Israelites for Moses to reiterate and reinforce when he faced his people just in case they were engaged in activity that was in flagrant breach of the covenant. The tablets, which had been inscribed in Adad’s own hands (through his aides of course), were meant to formalise the contract between Adad and the Nation of Israel.

Just as the church today is figuratively the bride and Jesus is figuratively the groom, Adad was the groom and the Nation of Israel the bride. The verbal contract had been a kind of engagement. The written contract would be a binding contract once Aaron officially ratified it as the High Priest designate of the Hebrew nation. 

It never crossed Moses’ mind that his people were up to some particularly outrageous act of mischief. When Joshua, who had accompanied him over his 40-day audience with Adad, suggested to him that something war-like was afoot in the camp, Moses said to the contrary his people were engaged in festivity of some kind and not anything untoward. He couldn’t have been more wrong.     

MOSES CLEVERLY ANNULS  ADAD’S PRENUP WITH ISRAEL

The spectacle that greeted Moses when he got to the foot of the mountain was beyond his wildest imagination. His people had fashioned themselves a new god, a foreign god, and they were paying homage to that god atop an altar. Moses was transfixed both with shock and searing anxiety. The ramifications  were dire. FOR WHAT IT ENTAILED WAS THAT THE SYMBOLIC MARRIAGE BETWEEN ADAD AND THE NATION OF ISRAEL HAD BEEN RENDERED NULL AND VOID. This was in all probability the end of Adad’s dealings with Israel.

It was a stab in his back that he wouldn’t take lying down like the hot-tempered god he was. If the Nation of Israel had decided to get rid of Moses and even killed a relation of Aaron to underscore their resolve, then when Moses finally materialised, they would have swarmed in on him to aggressively put the message across. Inevitably, Moses would have called upon the “angel” Adad had assigned to the Nation of Israel to see to it that he was not harmed in anyway. 

Moses firstly inquired of Aaron as to what all the kerfuffle was all about. The Bible’s version of events does not implicate Miriam at all simply because the aim of the  blatantly patriarchal and pro-Moses Pentateuch writers   was to substantially underemphasize the protagonistic role of Miriam in the affairs of the Nation of Israel. But in truth, Miriam was the bone of contention. It was she the Israelites wanted to be their queen at the expense of Moses.  In fact, both Miriam and Aaron were so popular as to be absolutely untouchable even to Adad himself.

Aaron had particularly endeared himself to the nation by readily obliging the Israelites when they demanded that he forge the Golden Calf and erect its altar. Concerned that the sin Israel had committed spelt enormous trouble for them at the hands of Adad, a quick-thinking Moses decided to engage in action that was certain to lessen the extent of the reprisals. He dismantled the two stone blocks on which the covenant between Adad and the Nation of Israel was summarised.

According to the Bible, he did this out of anger. Anger of course was the surface emotion but it was not the underlying reason. MOSES DESTROYED THE TABLETS TO CANCEL THE PRE-MARITAL CONTRACT BETWEEN ADAD AND ISRAEL. What that now meant was that Adad would judge Israel like an affianced woman who simply acted promiscuously and not as a married woman who did likewise. In other words, Adad would not divorce Israel as there actually had been no marriage: he would punish her somehow alright, but would still proceed to wed her anyway. Moses’ gesture was a masterstroke as that is exactly what transpired.

ADAD ORDERS THE EXECUTION OF 3000 DISSIDENTS

When Moses returned to the mountain top and reported what he had found, Adad was incandescent with rage and pronounced four measures against the Nation of Israel. First, all the ring leaders in the sacrilege would be put to death so as to deter the recurrence of any such abomination. Second, all the offspring of these same culprits would be subject to a curse spanning four generations. In other words, the curse, which would begin with them, would be in force up to and including their great grandchildren. What kind of justice is this that tars the innocent, both existing and unborn, with the same culpability brush? This, to say the least, is crass. But that is the warped juridical code of the gods of Christianity.

Third, he would send a plague (whose exact nature is not specified in the Bible) against the Nation of Israel as a whole both for taking part in and condoning the setting up and worshipping of a graven image. Fourth, he would no longer move in their midst in a flying saucer as he had done since they left Egypt as they were a “stubborn and rebellious people”. Nonetheless, Adad reiterated that despite their intractability, the Israelites would remain his people but he would reign over them with an iron fist and punish them severely whenever they offended against him.  

Accordingly, Moses, who was accompanied by a formidable security detail of Anunnaki men, gathered the Levites around him and in the presence of Aaron demanded that they point out to him the men who were at the forefront of the putsch. Once these malefactors were paraded, Moses ordered their fathers, brothers, next of kin, and immediate neighbours to come forward too, then handed out daggers to each one of them. They were  to  take turns in lancing the paraded culprits, who were either their own flesh and blood or very intimate friends or neighbours. 

It must have been gut-wrenching for a father to kill his own son,  a brother to kill his own brother, a relation  to kill his own relation, and a neighbour to kill his own neighbour,  but Moses didn’t care a damn: he wanted to make a statement – that he and his god would be ruthless at the slightest show of  insurrectionist or   sacrilegious tendencies.

Altogether, 3000 men were killed.  Once the deed was done, Moses asked the executioners, who clearly were choking for spilling the blood of their loved ones, to purify themselves and brace for a great blessing from  Adad.  “Consecrate yourselves today to Yahweh, for each man has been against his son and against his brother,  that a blessing  may be given over you today,” (EXODUS 32:29). 

Note, however, the paradox of the matter. Miriam, the rallying cry of the entire saga, and Aaron, who had so  meekly capitulated to the dissidents and personally fashioned the Golden Calf and built the altar,  got away scotfree, without so much as a slap on the wrist. But you need not be surprised: in every society, there are always  two sets of laws: the public domain  law, which binds the common herd like you and I,  and the unspoken law, which applies to and favours  the elite only. This Earth, My Brother …

MOSES FORCE-FEEDS ISRAELITES ON ORMUS OF GOLD

Since the Israelites were  such a rowdy lot and there was every indication that even the executions would by no means deter them,  Moses decided it was time he fed them with  a more potent version of Ormus. This was Ormus of  Gold. To date, the Israelites had been fed on Ormus alright,  but  it was the variety  made from copper. This one was just good enough to keep them in  generally sound health. The gold variety was meant to do much more, to make them more  rational in their judgement and in their thinking  so that they did not go to extremes in whatever behavior they indulged in. They would be able to weigh the  pros and cons of every course of action before they actualised it.

Moses’ task was made all the more easy  because in the Golden Calf Aaron had forged was sufficient  enough gold for the purpose. To that effect, this is what Moses did as per EXODUS 32:20: “Then he took the calf which they had made, burned it with fire and ground it until  it was pulverised;  he winnowed it upon the surface of the water and made the sons of Israel drink it.”

The brain-dead, undiscerning Christian clergy interpret Moses’ act as a “punishment” for his people’s disobedience toward Adad. To the contrary, this was not a punishment: it was a corrective and remedial ritual. FIRING GOLD DOES NOT PRODUCE POWDER: IT PRODUCES MOLTEN GOLD. What  Moses did was  to produce Ormus, the white, monoatomic powder of gold, and have the Israelites consume it whether they liked it or not.

The pay-off did not take long to materialise: soon the Israelites had discarded all their jewelry, which was largely made from gold. Furthermore, they lost a sense of vanity and no longer turned out in ostentatious clothing. Ormus had not only steadied their temperament  but made them a sensible and orderly people. However, this type of Ormus was a once-off treat: humans were not entitled to it. As such, it did not take long before the Israelites reverted to their  obdurate ways.

MOSES HITCHES A RIDE IN ADAD’S FLYING SAUCER
 
Although Moses was the King of the Nation of Israel, he felt his god, Adad, did not afford him the closeness he deserved. Adad never once allowed Moses to see his face. Every time he ascended the mountain to meet him, he actually met his aides and not Adad himself. The only thing he had been permitted to see of   Adad was the god’s shoed feet resting on a footstool.

Furthermore, Adad never once invited Moses to ride in any of the god’s flying machines. How could the King of God’s own chosen people be denied direct access to the god and to his chopper or some such sky vehicle, which symbolised the god’s throne?  Having decided that he just could not bear such a slight anymore, Moses set out to confront Adad on the matter.  Thus it was that on his next  ascendance to the mountain, Moses wondered aloud to Adad’s aides as to how he could convince his people that Adad was indeed a flesh-and-blood god when he had never seen him at close quarters.  Adad, Moses insisted,  should reveal much more  to him than he had done to date.

Now, when Moses asked to see Adad in person, he was not that matter-of-fact: he was tactical. According to English translations of the Bible, Moses, said, “Show me your glory”, EXODUS 32:18.  Sorry folks, but that’s not what Moses actually said. The term translated “glory” is actually KABOD. We have long unpacked the meaning of the term Kabod in earlier articles: it was a flying craft.  SO WHAT MOSES REQUESTED OF ADAD WAS TO TAKE HIM ON A RIDE IN HIS FLYING SAUCER, WHICH WOULD BE HIS CROWNING ACHIVEMENT AS A MORTAL.   

Of course Adad was not a dumb god: he knew what Moses really wanted – to see him face to face, literally, not figuratively as had been the case in the past. Speaking through his aides, Adad once again reiterated his warning: “No one may see my face and live,” EXODUS 32:20. Nonetheless, Adad was prepared to relent a bit this time around to  content his great protégé to the barest minimum. He  consented to taking Moses on a ride in his sky vehicle allright, but made it clear to him that whilst they were airborne, he would allow Moses to see only his backrest, that is, the  back of the seat in which the god would sit alongside his pilot.

This special treat is related in EXODUS 33:18-23 but in a manner that hardly makes any sense as the Pentateuch scribes simply did not understand the figurative language employed in their records of reference  and so put their own laughable slant on the story.  According to the biblical version,  Moses was put in the hollow of a rock by Adad. Then Adad covered the opening of the crevice with his hand, after which he removed his hand to allow Moses to see only his back. But why go to that extent if all Adad wanted to show Moses was his backside?

It would have been much simpler for Adad to  ask Moses  to come up the mountain and see his back whilst he sat on a stool of some kind.  Clearly, either the scribes didn’t know what they were talking about or the exact nature of the event was scrambled through the passage of time thanks to faulty or interpolative copy editing.
  
ADAD AND MYSTERIOUS CLOUD COMMISSION WILDERNESS TABERNACLE

 Once Adad had meted out all the retributions against the Israelites, he was now in position to renew his covenant with the Nation of Israel. So once again, he summoned Moses up the mountain to furnish him with the one he had tactfully destroyed. You can call this a renewal of the marriage vows between Adad and Israel. In addition, Adad was to administer to Moses a whole glut of instructions over multifarious issues.  Whereas last time around he was accompanied by Joshua, this time around he was all alone. Moses had trusted Joshua to maintain order and discipline amongst the Israelites whilst he was away to avoid a repetition of the Golden Calf saga.   

Once again, Moses spent “40 days and nights” on the mountain. Of course,  the number 40  was not literal but figurative. In  fact, this time around Moses stayed on the mountain even longer than he did previously, for when he returned, he shone so brightly that he had to veil his  face as the Israelites thought  it would be dangerous to come near him. The simple explanation for this oddity is that he had partaken Ormus throughout his stay and as such he too shone like the Anunnaki.

Onwards now, Moses dedicated himself to the construction of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant. The concomitant projects were completed after eight months. The commissioning of the Tabernacle  was graced by Adad himself. Details on the incident are sketchy  in the Bible. We’re not told, for instance, what kind of ceremonies were conducted or whether Moses or Aaron gave an inaugural sermon to the Nation of Israel in the presence of Adad.

In fact, what the Bible intimates is that none of the Israelites was allowed to  set foot in the Tabernacle on the occasion. There were only two presences in the Tabernacle. This was Adad, who came in his chopper, referred to as usual as the Glory of the Lord, and a cloud that shrouded the entire Tabernacle as if to conceal whatever Adad and his aides were doing from the multitude of the  Nation of Israel. We’re already familiar with the concept of the Glory of God. But just what was this humongous cloud which assumed various shapes and  went before the Nation of Israel in a pillar-like configuration during day time throughout their  wilderness wanderings?


     Make a date with us next week.
     The answer will surprise!

NEXT WEEK:   ADAD BAGS POUND OF FLESH FROM AARON’S LOINS

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