Connect with us
Advertisement

Prophets Paint Doomsday Scenario

Benson C Sail
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

… as Day of the Lord looms large

Although Solomon was a great and highly esteemed King, he was resented in one respect: he was a task master bordering on the slave driver. His subjects bemourned the “heavy yoke” he placed on them in his infrastructural enterprises and the tax burdens required to support them.

Then there  was the ever-simmering political grievance on the part of the House of Joseph – the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Collectively, they were the most numerous Israelites and together had the largest territory. In point of fact, the House of Joseph fancied themselves as Israel’s royalty in that Jacob’s anointed heir was Joseph, not Judah, whose role was simply to hold the royal fort till Joseph was old enough to assume the reigns. Thus the House of Joseph resented the fact that the King of Israel was of the tribe of Judah when he should have come from their ranks. So whilst the House of Joseph recognised  Solomon as King, they did so with a clutch of reservations.

In the course of time inevitably, a secessionist movement  arose in Shechem in the province of Mannasseh. It was  led by one Jeroboam,  a dissident  officer in Solomon’s army and a fugitive from the King’s justice.  Solomon had put Jeroboam, an Ephraimite,  in charge of the conscript labour battalions of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, which was a very senior position in the military hierarchy, but Jeroboam was not content: he felt his people were basically enslaved by Solomon’s rather arduous and onerous labour policies. That’s how Jeroboam came to lead an insurrection against Solomon.

The putsch, however,  was crushed and Jeroboam fled into exile in Egypt. There, he was gladly welcomed by Pharaoh Shosheng I (Shishak in the Bible). It was Shosheng who had deposed David from the Egyptian throne and so to him, anybody who was against the House of David and therefore an enemy of his enemy  was a potential  ally. Indeed, Shosheng had vested political interests in Canaan and so viewed the burgeoning power  of Solomon’s dual kingdom as a threat to his own designs to bring the country into his political orbit. 

Meanwhile, Solomon’s grip on power had increasingly become tenuous. Several border cities, one of which was the prominent Damascus, had secured their independence from him. His wisdom and power were not sufficient to deter tendencies to  rebellion: his kingdom had begun to disintegrate long before he gave up the ghost.

Upon his death, Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam. Solomon’s death encouraged Jeroboam to return to Canaan. He based himself in Shechem in the north. The House of Joseph was prepared to rally to Rehoboam for as long as he undertook that he would not over-exert them in  their toils and that he would relax the tax burden. A haughty Rehoboam, however,  made it point black that he would in fact double the strain on them, which would make his father a saint in comparison.

He had crossed the Rubicon. All the ten tribes of the north withdrew their allegiance to Rehoboam and crowned Jeroboam as the new King of Israel. This comprised all territories save for Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon. The latter three became part of  a country known as the Kingdom of Judah. This was circa 923 BC. The United Kingdom had lasted for roughly 110 years having come into being circa 1030 BC.   For the next 200 years, the two kingdoms co-existed uneasily. Indeed, throughout the 17 years  Rehoboam reigned in Judah, the two kingdoms clashed militarily from time to time.    

ADAD AND SHAMASH IN POPULARITY  CONTEST

The tensions and feuds that plagued the Nation of Israel were a reflection of the dissonance between their own gods – the Enlilites. Since the time of the judges, the Enlilites, who posed as one godhead fronted mostly by Ishkur-Adad, were no longer in one accord. Although they were united in their anti-Marduk stance and were determined that he not be the person to receive Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, when he pitched on planet Earth, they were not in agreement as to which Enlilite to supplant Marduk with.

The contending Enlilites were essentially three in number. They were Nannar-Sin, Jehovah-Enlil’s second-born son; Ishkur-Adad, the third born; and Utu-Shamash, Sin’s heir apparent. Each one of these wanted to be the Earth Lord at the expense of Marduk, the lawful Chief Executive of the planet in the still-in-force astrological Age of Aries. Jehovah-Enlil himself had retreated from the centre stage since the accession of Marduk and had practically left his clan to their own devices, just as Enki had in the case of his clan.    

The dilemma now was not solely about who would be in charge of the space-related sites between the Enkites and the Enlilites at the time Anu arrived: it was also about who among the individual Enlilites would be Earth Lord and therefore be the one to receive Anu.  Since Nannar-Sin was naturally a humble, mild, and scrupulous god, the real adversaries in the  Enlilite fold were Adad and Shamash. Adad fancied himself as the main Yahweh, having  instituted and personally overseen the exodus, and it was he who controlled the prophets.
 

Whilst Adad was the main god of the Jews, Shamash, the “Sun God”, was the chief god of the Canaanites (that is, the non-Jewish nations of Canaan), the Phoenicians, and the Syrians. He was best known as Baal, which simply meant “The Lord”. He was typically worshipped alongside and in concert with his twin sister, the irrepressible Inanna-Ishtar who in Canaan was best known as Asherah.

Shamash was a real thorn in the side of Adad. He was a great propagandist and so the Jews were always torn between Adad and he.  An incident is related in the Book of Ezekiel whereby Adad showed outrage at one particular envincement of Shamash’s popularity. “Then he (Adad) brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house. and behold, at the entrance to the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the Temple of the lord and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun” (EZEKIEL 8:16). In other words, the men were paying homage to Shamash, whose celestial counterpart was the sun, and this was within the precincts of the very Temple that was built under the auspices of Adad! 

At one time, the Temple was practically overrun by worshippers of Shamash and Inanna, with an Inanna-oriented prostitution ring ensconced in there. King Josiah of Judah had to crackdown on this brazen “idolatory” by killing the “pagan” priests who had desecrated the Temple and purging it of all the “unholy” articles (EZEKIEL 2 KINGS 23).

At another time, Adad had to engage in a showdown with Shamash on Mount Carmel just to demonstrate who was the more powerful between the two gods.  He had the prophet Elijah engage in a contest with the prophets of Shamash and Inanna, who Ahab, the seventh King of Israel, and his infamous queen Jezebel dutifully served.  The two sides, that of Elijah and the Shamash priests,  each placed a sacrificial bull on an altar.

Then each side invoked its god to consume the sacrifices. Elijah’s sacrifice was immediately consumed by Adad’s fire whereas nothing happened to the other party’s sacrifice. According to the terms of the contest, members of the party whose sacrifice was not consumed were to be put to death. Consequently, Elijah had all of 400 prophets of Shamash slain (read I KINGS 18:20-39 for more details). 

PROPHECY INSTITUTED AS NIBIRU LURKS

Circa 800 BC, the return of Nibiru was reckoned to about 200 years imminent. At this juncture, Adad decided to raise prophets both to alert mankind about the planet and to herald the associated geopolitical events  that were certain to arise in the intervening period. It was the imminence of Nibiru in the main which necessitated the commissioning of prophets and not the desirability of painting future scenarios in general.

Adad was to talk to the prophets through visions (holographic projections or motion-picture  imagery), dreams (future scenarios beamed into the mind both whilst asleep and in waking), and oracles (direct pronouncements by Adad himself, which pepper the entire length of the Old Testament in the form of the phrase, “Thus says the Lord”). The Old Testament spotlights 15 formal prophets in all. The first, Amos, began prophesying circa 760 BC, during the reigns of Jeroboam II in Israel in the north and Uzziah in Judah in the south.

The prophets referred to the return of Nibiru as the “Day of the Lord”. Nibiru was the Celestial Lord in that it was the principal planet of the solar system being the home of the “gods”, as the Anunnaki were received as by mankind. Furthermore, it was Nibiru which in the course of the so-called Celestial Battle of 4 billion years ago fashioned Earth and the Asteroid Belt from the planet Tiamat (also known as Maldek) that lay between Jupiter and Mars. Earth and the Asteroid Belt became remnants of Tiamat after Nibiru and its moons splintered Tiamat.

The prophets also referred to the advent of Nibiru as the “Day of Judgement”. The reason it was so-called had to do with the fact that when it approached Earth and drew closer than usual, it engendered catastrophic floods (as it did during the Deluge of Noah’s day), earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, etc. On the other hand, when it showed up but kept a wide berth from planet Earth, hardly any disasters struck the planet if at all.

PSALM 19 extols the planet Nibiru in these words:  “The heavens (the celestial bodies in the ecliptic, our region of the solar system) bespeak the glory of The Lord (Nibiru); the Hammered Bracelet (Asteroid Belt) proclaims his handiwork … He (Nibiru) comes forth as a groom from the canopy (deep in outer space); like an athlete he rejoices to run the course (traverse its elongated orbit). From the end of the heavens (at aphelion, the furthest point from the sun) he emanates, and his circuit (orbit) is to their end (at perihelion, the nearest point to the sun).”

PROPHETS PREDICT DIRE DAY OF THE LORD

The prophets were never absolutely certain of what might befall Earth when Nibiru re-appeared. Since it was always better to err on the side of caution, they chose to propagate doom so that mankind took whatever precautions he could. As such, Amos did not have great news for mankind.  This is what he said according to AMOS 5:18: “Woe unto you that desire the Day of the Lord! To what end is it for you? For the Day of the Lord is darkness and no light.”

Amos described the Day of the Lord as a day when “the Sun shall set at noon and the Earth shall darken in the midst of daytime”, which turned out to be strikingly prescient as we shall see. Amos must have sent the hearts of his listeners palpitating when he told them the horror of the Flood of Noah’s day, when “the day darkened as night, and the waters of the seas poured upon the Earth;” would be replayed when Nibiru hove in sight. 

PSALM 77:6, 17–19 is a flashback to what transpired during the Deluge, which was precipitated by an incoming Nibiru, and therefore what was feared to recur when Nibiru materialised. This is what its author says:  “I shall recall the Lord’s (Nibiru’s) deeds, remember thine (Nibiru’s) wonders in antiquity (in Noah’s day) … The waters (sea expanse) saw thee, O Lord, and shuddered (surged forth to inundate the planet). Thine splitting sparks went forth, lightnings lit up the world. The sound of thine thunder was rolling, the Earth was agitated and it quaked.”

Around 700 BC, the prophet Isaiah was also in full flow concerning the wrath to come at the hands of the dreaded Nibiru. He warned: “Behold, the Day of the Lord cometh with pitiless fury and wrath, to lay the Earth desolate and destroy the sinners upon it”, just as he did during the Deluge when “he came as a destroying tempest of mighty waves”. In ISAIAH 13: 10,13, the prophet sketched out a most sombre picture of what would transpire with the advent of Nibiru: “The stars of heaven and its constellations shall not give their light; the Sun shall be darkened at its rising and the Moon shall not shine its light … The heavens (neighbouring celestial bodies) shall be agitated and the Earth in its place will be shaken; when the Lord of Hosts shall be crossing on the day of his wrath.”

Isaiah referred to Nibiru as the “Lord of Hosts”, hosts in this context meaning  the solar system’s celestial bodies, and characterises its circuit as a “crossing”. This echoes,  uncannily,  its description in the iconic Sumerian text, the Enuma Elish as “the Planet of the Crossing”.  Not to be outdone, the prophet Zephaniah thundered thus concerning Nibiru in ZEPHANIAH 1: 14-15: “The great Day of the Lord is approaching—it is near! The sound of the Lord’s Day hasteth greatly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of calamity and desolation, a day of darkness and deep gloom, a day of clouds and thick mist.”

As the year 600 BC neared, prophecies concerning Nibiru became even more impassioned. In 605 BC,   Habakkuk commenced his prophetic career in Jerusalem and asked Adad as to when the Day of the Lord would come as it now was essentially overdue. Adad said to him: “Write down the prophecy, explain it clearly on the tablets, so that it may be quickly read: for the vision there is a set time; in the end it shall come, without fail!  Though it may tarry, wait for it; for it will surely come—for its appointed time it will not be delayed”, HABAKKUK 2:2–3.

The prophet then proceeded to  rhapsodise about “the God who in the nearing years is coming”. He described Nibiru as a radiant planet – exactly as it is characterised in the Sumerian chronicles – “whose shining splendour will beam as light”. Habbakkuk proceeded thus as per HABAKKUK 3:3-6: “The Lord from the south shall come … Covered are the heavens with his halo, His splendour fills the Earth. His rays shine forth from where his power is concealed. The word goes before Him, sparks emanate from below. He pauses to measure the Earth; He is seen, and the nations tremble.”

The prophet Joel was even more frantic. “The Day of the Lord is at hand!” he warned. The prophet Obadiah was equally vehement. “The Day of the Lord is near!”,  he announced feverishly. Finally, in 570 BC, the die was cast. Adad summoned the prophet Ezekiel and said this to him as per EZEKIEL 30:2-3: “Son of Man, prophesy and say: ‘Thus sayeth the Lord God: Howl and bewail for the Day! For the Day is near—the Day of the Lord is near!’”

BABYLON AND ASSYRIA PREPARE FOR ANU

Whilst in Palestine the prophets underlined the nether or dark aspects of Nibiru’s approach, in Assyria and Babylon the chief astronomers also underscored the positive aftermath. They called this the “End of Days”, the coming to an end of the Age of Aries not very long after Nibiru had retreated. In other words, they seemed to suggest, whatever calamities Nibiru would have wrought in its wake would not spell the end of the world; shortly thereafter, an idyllic age would dawn, something akin to Heaven-on Earth.  The Jewish prophets did hint on this too but they did not emphasize it.

This is what Assyrian records say on a positive note: “When Nibiru will culminate … The lands will dwell securely, hostile kings will be at peace; the gods will receive prayers and hear supplications. When the Planet of the Throne of Heaven (Nibiru) will grow brighter, there will be floods and rains. When Nibiru attains its perigee (closest point to the sun), the gods will give peace. Troubles will be cleared up, complications will be unravelled.”

The Assyrian King Ashurbanipal,  who ruled from 668-630 BC and is regarded as the most erudite of Assyrian kings,  was particularly fanatical about the imminence of  Nibiru. In his book The End of Days, Zechariah Sitchin writes that, “Ashurbanipal was engaged in collecting, collating, translating, and studying all the earlier texts that could (a) provide guidance to the astronomer-priests for detecting, at the first possible moment, the returning Nibiru and (b) inform the King about the procedures for what to do next.”

Since King  Anu was being expected, Ashurbanipal instructed that the ancient Sumerian texts that documented activities and protocols that punctuated the occasion of Anu’s  last visit to Earth circa 4000 BC, be translated into Akkaddian, the mainstream language of the day in Babylonia and Assyria, and be disseminated to his subjects. He also instructed the astronomers to meticulously watch the sky for Nibiru’s appearance. Sitchin: “Among the purely astronomical texts translated and, undoubtedly, carefully studied, were guidelines for observing Nibiru’s arrival and for recognizing it on its appearance.”

One such Babylonia texts stated: “Planet of the god Marduk (as Babylonians referred to Nibiru): upon its appearance SHUL.PA.E (Saturn, which it reaches at this stage). Rising thirty degrees, SAG.ME.NIG (Jupiter, which it at this juncture passes).  When it stands in the middle of the sky (that is, a crossroads,  between Jupiter and Mars, the scene of the Celestial Battle) it becomes  NIBIRU (that is, the Planet of the Crossing).”

Another text says: “From the station of Jupiter, the planet passes toward the west. From the station of Jupiter,  the planet increases its brilliance. Planet Marduk will enter the Sun (i.e. reach Perigee) and  will become Nibiru. The great planet: at his appearance: dark red. The heaven he divides in half (it roughly bisects the solar system when it courses between Jupiter and Mars)." But did Anu actually turn up  or Nibiru wrought such havoc that he was prevented from doing so? Did Earthlings see the “radiant” comet planet which is seen only once  in 3600 years? Make a date with us next week.

NEXT WEEK:   ASSYRIA AND BABYLON CONTEND FOR JERUSALEM

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