Connect with us
Advertisement

Yahwehs Debauchery

Benson C Sail
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus, demands his share of virgins of conquered lands!

According to the Pentateuch, the Israelites were in the Sinai wilderness (or rather Arabian Wilderness as we now know) for 38 years or so, or approximately 40 years (this periodicity we have long debunked though and demonstrated that the wilderness years  totalled  13 at most). It was at this stage Ishkur-Adad, the Anunnaki Jehovah of the exodus, decided his chosen people were now ready for the march on Canaan. First, Moses dispatched a team of 12 scouts to spy out the Negev region in Canaan whilst the Israelites were camped at Kadesh  Barnea in the Wilderness of Zin.  Upon their return, they filed a militarily bad and therefore demoralising report, whereupon Adad had ten of the spies killed save for Joshua and Caleb.

To signal their protest against Adad’s draconian ways, and to move against Adad’s decree that the rebellious Israelites would never enter the Promised Land, a contingent of the Israelite army broke away and decided to launch their own invasion of Canaan. THIS WAS THE ISRAELITES’ FIRST OFFENSIVE AGAINST A CANAANITE NATION.  The Canaanite state the dissident Israelites targeted was that of the giant-sized Amorites, the descendants of Canaan the son of Ham, in what would become the Kingdom of Judah, and the Amalekites.

"The Amorites who lived in that hill country came out against you and chased you as bees do, and crushed you from Seir to Hormah," Moses recounted to the Nation of Israel in DEUTERONOMY  1:44.  The dissidents were routed and had no option but to ingratiate themselves back into Moses’ good graces.

The Promised Land was way north of Kadesh Barnea and having barred his people from proceeding there, Adad ordered them to trek southwards, in the opposite direction,  to Ezion Geber on the shores of the Gulf of Aqaba, the eastern wing of the Red Sea. “Now turn around, and don’t go on toward the land where the Amalekites and Canaanites live,” Adad said to Moses.  “Tomorrow you must set out for the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea”  NUMBERS 14:25.

EDOMITE KING SNUB ISRAELITES

The Israelites did not linger long at Ezion Geber. Remember, they did not have territory they could call their own: the expanse of wilderness within which they wondered was Ishmaelite land – the domain of the Arabs. So at some stage, they returned to Kadesh Barnea with a view to proceeding northwards and make their first offensive foray into  Canaan as a united army.

The obstacles, however, were mammoth. From the place they were stationed, they did not have direct passage to Canaanite territory. Canaan was surrounded, clockwise, by the kingdoms of Bashan, Heshbon; Ammon; Moab; Edom (now southwestern Jordan); and Arabah. Presently, the Israelites were camped near the Edomite border town of Petra, immediately south of Edom. It was therefore  of necessity that Moses seek permission from the Edomite King to traverse his territory. Moses’ optimism derived from the fact that the Edomites, being descendants of Esau, Jacob’s half-brother, were cousins to the Israelites.

Edom, also known as the Land of Seir, was a rich state with luxuriant fields and vineyards and plentiful   wells. Moreover, it was located on what was known as the King’s Highway, a main road and well-traversed trade route.  In the message Moses sent to Edom’s King, he stressed that his caravan would restrict itself to the King’s Highway. However, the King refused to give Moses the green light, fearful that this great horde of people would either stun them with an attack or devour their crops. The King even had the Edomite army stand guard along the southeastern border.

What that entailed was that the Israelites had no option but to use the much longer route along Edom’s eastern border but via the land of the Nabateans, who were neighbours to Edom. The trek was made all the more arduous because the Israelites had to make a decoy southernward journey (done to hoodwink the Edomites)  to Ezion Geber before they set course northwards again.

Moses wanted to attack Edom with a view to bulldozing his way through the country but Adad told him to desist because  “I have given them all the hill country around Mount Seir as their property, and I will not give you even one square foot of their land”, DEUTERONOMY 2:5.  Adad had allocated Edomite land not on his own behalf but on behalf of the Enlilite godhead, who he fronted by deliberate design. Otherwise, the Edomites’ specific god was Nannar-Sin, Adad’s older brother who is today known as Allah.
 
    ISRAELITES INCH CLOSER TO PROMISED LAND    

As Commander-in-Chief of the Israelite army, Moses did register key and decisive victories. These were four in total, three against Canaanite nations and one against a coalition of Midianite kings.      The order in which the conquests are recorded in the biblical Book of Numbers is not necessarily accurate, but that does not subtract from their significance.  

Now, although the King of Edom initially refused the Israelites passage through his territory, he at long last relented and gave them the nod after Moses badgered him. This was  after having covered considerable distance on the roundabout route. The Moabite King, the central figure in the Balaam story, also did likewise in heed of Balaam’s warning that anybody who tried to stand in the way of Yahweh’s chosen people automatically invited a curse.  

The Israelites were now camped at a place known as Arnon, on the border between Moab and Amorite lands and  east of the Jordan River.   The Amorites were the most dominant nation of Canaan, with the result that the terms Amorite and Canaanites are often used interchangeably in the Old Testament.  The light-skinned (not white-skinned) Amorites – Amaru in Sumerian – were descended from Canaan, Ham’s fourth son. They have gone into the annals of history as the first Europeans as they were the first to settle north of the Mediterranean Sea (Europe is actually E-ru-Pan, meaning “Land of Fair-Skinned People”).

The Amorite ruling elite came from the Nephilim race – the offspring resulting from matrimonial unions between the Igigi (space-based Anunnaki who at some stage settled on Earth) and Earthling women. The Nephilim, also known as Anakim, Rephaites, Emites, or Zamzumites, were gigantic in stature thanks to the more expressive Anunnaki genes in their blood. The Bible describes them as “of the height of the cedars” and “of the remnants of the giants”. One Amorite King’s bed measured  13 feet long and 6 feet wide.  The Amorites teemed in the lands west of the Jordan River though they occupied both Canaan (east of the Jordan River  basically) and Transjordan (west of the Jordan River in present-day Jordan). In the Bible,  they are  generally associated with Canaan.

MOSES OVERRUNS THREE CANAANITE STATES

The  principal Amorite states were Heshbon immediately north of Moabite territory and Bashan, the northernmost state  of Transjordan. Heshbon was ruled by King Sihon, whereas Bashan, which encompassed Gilead and Galaunitis,  was ruled by King Og. Heshbon had been captured from a Moabite King, which suggests the Amorites were people  of  substantial military mettle.  

All Moses wanted was to transit through Heshbon to further his march on Canaan, and so he sent a deputation to King Sihon to make that request. Sihon not only parried the overture but declared war on the Israelites pre-emptively. It was a gross miscalculation as the Israelites turned out to be a formidable foe. King Sihon’s army was routed and at the orders of Ishkur-Adad, the Israelites saw to it that the king was killed along with all his children. IN FACT, WHAT THE ISRAELITES ADMITTEDLY PERPETRATED AMOUNTED TO A GENOCIDE. “We conquered all of King Sihon’s towns and completely destroyed everyone – men, women, and children,” relates Moses in DEUTERONOMY 2:34-35. “Not a single person was spared.”

On hearing of the fate of his counterpart and his people, King Og of Bashan feared he and his people were next. He too decided on a pre-emptive, knockout  offensive at the Israelites. Big mistake: he was given a pasting and both his family members and his subjects, children included, were massacred. All of Bashan’s 60 towns were strewn with Amorite dead, the only living and breathing humans being Israelites. The Israelites now occupied the entire expanse of Amorite land.   

Just how did Moses pull off this twin feat considering that in the case of Bashan, for instance, “all these towns were fortified with walls and barred gates”?, (DEUTERONOMY 3:5).  It seems Adad either assisted them with aerial firepower, or the Ark of the Covenant’s military capacity was employed to full effect though it is not associated with these preliminary wars in the Pentateuch records. In delivering a walk-over victory to the Israelites, Adad must have employed  mind-manipulation stratagems in part.

For of   King Sihon,  Moses says, “the Lord made Sihon stubborn and defiant so that he could help us defeat him …  The Lord our God helped us conquer Aroer on the edge of the Arnon Gorge and the town in the gorge and whole area as far as Gilead. No town had walls too strong for us.” Meanwhile, the King of Arad, a Canaanite state that was located around the Negev Desert, got wind of the Israelite army’s exploits   and its imminent approach. He decided to intercept them before they penetrated deeper into his territory.

The Israelites were stunned and a good number of them were taken as prisoners. Once again, Adad came to their rescue and somehow facilitated their eventual drubbing of the Aradians. The destruction of Arad was so comprehensive the place  earned itself a new name, Horman, which means “ruins”. Clearly, Adad must have used sophisticated weaponry in the kingdom’s routing.

MIDIAN CONQUERED, PLUNDERED

Next to quake in his boots at the military might of  the Israelites was the Moabite King. With Moses’ forces cutting a swathe through the region and putting everybody to the sword, King Balak was anxious that his own scalp might be next. But he didn’t have much confidence in his own forces to pit them against the mighty Moses. As such, he decided to employ the services of the most renowned sorcerer of the day  to utter curses against Israel and therefore pave way for a Moabite easy victory. That was how Balaam entered the lists, an episode we have already dwelt upon in detail.

In calling upon Balaam, Balak did so in league with the Midianites. At the time, Midian was a confederacy of five states, each ruled by its own king.  Having been prevented from placing a curse on the Israelites by Ishkur-Adad, Balaam had advised  King Balak to strategically lure Israelite soldiers into the worship of  the Moabite god using promiscuous women as the mercenary bait. It was hoped that in the process, the Israelites military prowess might be compromised and they would be easy pickings when hostilities commenced. About 24,000 Israelites were so seduced, both sexually and religiously, as a result of which Adad cracked the whip by visiting a unspecified deathly plague on them.  

A livid Adad ordered Moses to attack the Midianites for leading  his people into “idolatry”. Moses commissioned 12,000 soldiers, led by Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, into the  war effort and before long all of Midian had been overrun and all of its five kings executed. Balaam, who had lingered among the Midianites as their mercenary strategic tactician, was also ferreted out  and put to death.  

This time around, the Israelites did not  kill every living and breathing Midianite: they spared the women and children, who they presented as war trophies to Moses. BUT MOSES WAS NOT AMUSED: HE WANTED A WHOLESALE MASSACRE AND SO ORDERED THAT THEY ALL BE KILLED SAVE FOR VIRGINS. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.

They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves”, NUMBERS 31:15-18. Of course Moses was simply doing the bidding of his sadistic god Adad and if it were all up to him, he wouldn’t have resorted to this barbarism.   

Every time the Israelites conquered a state, they plundered it. From Midianite lands, the plunder consisted of 675,000 sheep and goats; 72,000 cattle; 61,000 donkeys; 420 pounds (190 kg)  of gold; and a wealth of jewellery in the form of armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings, etc.  Of these, Adad demanded 675 sheep and goats; 72 cattle; and all the gold. As for the jewellery, Adad ordered that it all be handed over to him as atonement for whatever sin the soldiers may have committed whilst waging war.

Altogether, 16,000 Midianite virgins were spared. ALL WERE GIVEN AWAY TO THE SOLDIERS FOR A JOB WELL DONE SAVE FOR 32, WHICH ADAD DEMANDED FOR HIS OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION (NUMBERS 31:40), AN INCIDENT YOUR PASTOR WILL NEVER PREACH ABOUT. This was Jehovah folks, the god of Christendom, seeing to it that  he did not miss out on the indulgence jamboree with sexually innocent teens. This Earth, My  Brother …

THREE TRIBES ALLOTED CONQUERED TERRITORY

The Israelites were now poised to invade Canaan proper, the lands east of the Jordan River. Since this was the final and decisive offensive, Moses decided to conduct a census of fighting men. The 12 tribes (excluding the Levites, who were exempt from serving in the army) totaled 601,730, only slightly lower than the 603,550 who were tallied when the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai “40 years” before. As before, the most numerous was the tribe of Judah at 76,500 (followed by the tribe of Dan at  64,400) , and the tiniest was the tribe of Simeon  at 22,200 (followed by the tribe of Ephraim at 32,500).  

At this very  juncture, the tribes of Reuben and Gad asked Moses for permission to settle the lands the Israelites had wrested from the two Amorite kings being enamoured with their fertility. At first, Moses rejected their request, fearing that allowing the tribes to stay behind and avoid further military service would discourage fellow Israelites and lead to disunity among tribes. Moses also interpreted their request as a cover for their fear of  entering the Promised Land and suspected that it was a cleverly contrived way of pulling back from the brink. Moses believed that all the tribes should conquer the Promised Land together.

The Reubenites and Gadites responded by emphasising their commitment to the community and their willingness to fight alongside their fellow Israelites until everyone had attained the land they were promised. Moses listened to their arguments and eventually accepted   their solemn promises to engage in battle for the collective conquest of the Promised Land before returning to their settlements outside Canaan. That’s how the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Mannaseh eventually came  to occupy what used to be the Kingdoms of Bashan and  Heshbon.
   

NEXT WEEK:   DEATH OF A COLOSSUS

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