Nebuchadnezzar has the Jews exiled to his own domain to wreck Jerusalem’s prospects of hosting King Anu
Circa 4000 BC, when Nibiru King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, concluded his visit to Earth and was now bidding farewell to his seniormost children Jehovah-Enlil, Ninmah, and Enki (a step-son), this is what he said as per Zechariah Sitchin’s The Lost Book of Enki: “Whatever Destiny for the Earth and the Earthlings intended, let it so be! If Man, not Anunnaki, to inherit the Earth is destined, let us destiny help. Give Mankind knowledge, up to a measure secrets of heaven and Earth them teach, Laws of justice and righteousness teach them, then depart and leave!”
It was onward from 4000 BC, during the astrological Age of Taurus, that the Sumerian civilisation, a giant leap in mankind’s knowledge horizons, blossomed and so Anu’s wish was fulfilled. As such, the next time Nibiru showed up, Anu was certain to order the Anunnaki’s evacuation of Earth as their mission of civilising mankind will have been complete.
Nibiru was expected to re-appear at the very turn of the 6th century BC. Just around that time, word began to circulate among Anunnaki circles that the arrival into the ecliptic of planet Nibiru was close at hand but KING ANU WAS UNLIKELY TO SHOW UP; INSTEAD, HE HAD WIRED ORDERS TO THE EFFECT THAT ENLIL, ENKI, AND THE REST OF THE ANUNNAKI PREPARE TO LEAVE EARTH. Thus it was that in 605 BC, Ishkur-Adad instructed the prophet Hosea to begin to prophesy about Nibiru so as to alert mankind to the possible perils its proximity to Earth might wreak on the planet.
Marduk and his son Nabu, however, took the news that Anu might not pitch with a grain of salt. To them, it was a ploy on the part of the Enlilites to have Marduk caught off-guard when the King arrived and therefore irreparably scandalise him. As far as Babylonia (where Marduk was based) was concerned, preparations for Anu’s arrival would proceed regardless. Marduk was the only god with a vested interest in Earth as he had been banned from ever returning to Nibiru for marrying an Earthling woman. Both his first wife Sarpanit I and his second wife Sarpanit II were demigods, that is, part Earthling and part Anunnaki. IN GENERAL, HOWEVER, THE GODS (AS THE ANUNNAKI WERE REFERRED TO) BEGAN TO DEPART EARTH AT THIS JUNCTURE.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR TAKES THE REINS
In order to see to the stability of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which he had founded in 625 BC after trouncing his Assyrian overlords into oblivion, Nabupolassar was aware he could not do that singlehandedly: he needed the embrace and co-operation of the Persians, then known as Medes. It were the Medes in point of fact who had made his defeat of the Assyrians possible when they allied with him. In a bid to secure the Medo-Babylonian alliance, Nabupolassar had his eldest son Nebuchadnezzar marry the daughter of the King of the Medes.
Now, with the return of Nibiru just around the corner, the race to control the space-related sites became even more frantic. Until now, the Egyptians had been of the same accord with Babylon in resisting Assyrian rule. Now they decided it was time they ceased and desisted from playing second fiddle to the Babylonians and set about charting their own hegemonic destiny. This was the resolve of Pharaoh Necho II, who came to power in 610 BC.
Necho wanted both Jerusalem and Baalbek to be in Egyptian hands by the time King Anu arrived, not in Babylon’s or any other nation for that matter. If he were to achieve these ends, he needed allies: that’s how he roped in the Assyrians despite the fact that they were already a spent force and all they could muster was the last kick of a dying horse.
In 609 BC, the Egyptian forces were on their way to reinforce the Assyrians in their desperate endeavours to stand up to Babylon when they were intercepted by King Josiah of Judah, who had allied himself with Babylon, at Megiddo. Sadly, Josiah’s forces were routed and Josiah himself was killed. The Egyptians pushed ahead, managed to cross the river Euphrates, and took control of Baalbek. In 605 BC, they advanced to Carchemish on the frontier between today’s Turkey and Syria, where they were now poised to capture Harran.
At the time, an aged Nabupolassar was terminally ill and so he mandated his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was about 30 years of age, to head the Babylonian army and tackle the Egyptians. In June that same year, Nebuchadnezzar confronted the Egyptians at Carchemish and gave them a very good drubbing. He pursued them all the way to the Sinai Peninsula, thus liberating “the sacred forest (Baalbek) in Lebanon which Nabu and Marduk desired”. He relentlessly chased after the Egyptians and retreated only after he received news of the death of his father in August that same year, whereupon he rushed back to Babylon to be crowned as the new King of Babylonia the following month.
However, Necho still had Judah in his sphere of influence. Josiah was succeeded by the younger of his two older sons Jehoahaz, who declared Judah’s independence from Egypt. The freedom was short-lived as Necho deposed Jehoahaz after he had reigned for a mere three months and replaced him with the rightful heir Jehoiakim but who was given strict instructions that he was under obligation to toe the Egyptian line through thick and thin. Jehoahaz was taken prisoner to Egypt, where he saw his last days. Would Nebuchadnezzar simply fold his arms whilst Necho held the all-important Judah in custody?
NEBUCHADNEZZAR READIES BABYLON FOR KING ANU
On the day he was being sworn in as the new King of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezzar intoned thus for the attention of the god Marduk: “O merciful Marduk, may the house that I have built endure forever, may I be satiated with its splendour, attain old age therein, with abundant offspring, and receive therein tribute of the kings of all regions, from all mankind.” Much of what he entreated his god came to pass as Babylon became the most powerful city-state in the region and Nebuchadnezzar himself the greatest warrior-king and ruler in the known world.
By 600 BC, Babylon was so aglitter it was regarded as the centre of the world. Indeed, a contemporary clay tablet, which is on display in the British Museum, presents the ancient world as revolving around Babylon. “I have made the city of Babylon to be the foremost among all the countries and every habitation; its name I elevated to be the most praised of all the sacred cities,” Nebuchadnezzar wrote in his inscriptions.
Nebuchadnezzar ascended to the throne at a most momentous point in time – when the Return (of the planet Nibiru) was just around the corner. So to him, practically every action he took had to take this phenomenon into account. It was a time period “marked by decisive actions and fast moves, for there was no time to lose —the nearing Return was now Babylon’s prize!”
Nebuchadnezzar had decided that King Anu was to be hosted not in Jerusalem but in Babylon. Babylon was to replace Jerusalem as the new “Navel of the Earth”, the Duranki in Sumerian, meaning “The Principal Link between Heaven (Nibiru mainly but the ecliptic in general) and Earth”. As such, massive renovation and construction works were to be undertaken in the great city and on the double. Marduk’s temple-abode, a seven-stage ziggurat, the Esagila, was renovated and rebuilt and renamed the Etemen-Anki, meaning “The Temple of the Foundation for Heaven-Earth” to accord with its new role as the Navel of the Earth. It was equipped as an astronomical observatory from which to monitor, primarily, the approaching Nibiru – exactly the same thing that was done in Uruk when Anu’s visit to Earth was imminent circa 4000 BC.
A new processional way leading to the Sacred Precinct for Anu’s holy feet to tread upon and a magnificent gate to usher through the great god were constructed. The iconic, glimmering blue gate was named the Ishtar Gate, after Inanna-Ishtar, who served as King Anu’s sexual hostess every time he came to Earth. A reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate (see accompanying image) can be seen in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR SEIZES JERUSALEM
If Babylon was to be the undisputed Navel of the Earth, it was imperative that Nebuchadnezzar neutralise Jerusalem; otherwise, there would be two geopolitically eminent centres of power contending for King Anu’s attentions when he turned up on the planet. Nebuchadnezzar had his sights set on Jerusalem from the very day he was crowned King in 605 BC and even as the coronation was in progress in Babylon, he gave orders for a detachment of his army that had trounced the Egyptians and was still in the Canaanite region to besiege Jerusalem. The army did that without encountering much resistance. The reigning King of Judah, Jehoiakim, agreed to the status of a vassal king, albeit it reluctantly so.
The Babylonian army ransacked the Temple of some of its golden articles and took them to Babylon. Some members of the royal family were also taken along, plus the leading lights of the Jewish intelligentsia, the latter of whom included the famous Daniel, Meshack, Abednego and Ezekiel. The event marked the first of a series of deportations that were to follow.
By December 604 BC, a number of local states in Syria and Canaan had pledged their subjection to Babylonian rule after Nebuchadnezzar had taken control of the Philistine Plain. The Babylonian Empire would in time stretch from the Persian Gulf on the south, through the ancient rivers of Tigris and Euphrates in the middle, and ending to the west with Syria and Palestine.
Meanwhile, the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho had regrouped after his drubbing by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC and had been rebuilding his arsenal and honing his battle field prowess. It paid off, for when his forces faced off again with the Babylonians on the borders of Egypt in 601 BC, the seemingly invincible Nebuchadnezzar was defeated and forced to retreat. Buoyed by this development, Jehoiakim, plus several other Babylonian vassal states in the region, rebelled and declared independence against the advice of the prophet Jeremiah.
It took three years for Nebuchadnezzar to recover from this setback and to be in a position where he was reinvigorated enough to launch a renewed assault to regain control. His immediate target as expected was the critically important Judah. In December 598 BC, he had Jerusalem surrounded. The siege, during which Jehoiakim was killed, apparently by Jewish dissidents who abhorred his daring against Babylonia, and replaced with his son Jeconiah, lasted for three months and with Necho’s assistance, which Jehoiakim had counted upon, not forthcoming, the city surrendered in March 597 BC. Jehoiakim’s youthful uncle Zedekiah was installed as the vassal King.
Jeconiah, his mother, and his captains were deported to Babylon. “All the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land,” the Bible documents in 2 KINGS 24:14. This was the Second Deportation.
In 590 BC, King Zedekiah decided he would no longer be the puppet of Babylon. Just like Nebuchadnezzar, he wanted to be in full and unmitigated control of the Holy City in the event King Anu pitched up. But he was under no illusion he could throw off the yoke of Babylon singlehandedly. So in the fourth year of his reign he – once again against the advice of the far-sighted Jeremiah – joined a coalition that was being formed by Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon in rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar.
Upon getting wind of the rumours of these machinations, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Zedekiah to Babylon to administer to him a warn and caution statement but it seemed he took no heed. The following year, Nebuchadnezzar decided to pounce: he captured all the cities of Judah except three, one of which was Jerusalem and which he proceeded to besiege for the third time.
Finding himself in dire straits, Zedekiah made an alliance with Pharoah Apries of Egypt and indeed the latter rushed to reinforce him. In the ensuing lull in hostilities, Nebuchadnezzar pulled a stunt by lifting the siege and Apries withdrew. No sooner had Apries done so than Nebuchadnezzar hemmed in on Jerusalem once again: Zedekiah was on his own. Jerusalem was under siege from January 587 to July 586 BC. The following are the circumstances and aftermath of the siege according to one chronicler:
“Conditions in the city became increasingly desperate. Although the people had had time to prepare, their food supplies eventually began to run out. Cannibalism became a grim reality. Despite Jeremiah's counsel to surrender the king refused to do so and just as the last of the food in the city was exhausted the Babylonians broke through the wall. “Zedekiah fled with remains of his army, but was overtaken and captured near Jericho. From there he was brought before Nebuchadnezzar at his field headquarters at Riblah, his sons were executed in front of him and he was blinded. From there he was taken in chains to Babylon. The key members of his cabinet were executed before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah shortly afterwards.
“A large part of the population of Jerusalem was put to the sword and everything of value plundered. The bronze articles from the Temple were cut up and removed and the building together with the palace and the important houses were set on fire. “In order to ensure that the city would never rebel against him again, Nebuzaradan, the commander of the Imperial Guard, ordered that the walls be demolished. All who survived in the city were carried off into exile in Babylon, with the exception of the very poor of the land.
The starving population exchanged whatever riches they had left for food, its leadership and priesthood were gone and the Temple burnt. The Babylonians soldiers oppressed the survivors and forced them to work for their food.” The remnant of poor people that were spared were meant to serve as farmers and wine dressers. These people had previously been landless peasants and presented the least risk to the Babylonians, but were required to work the land to prevent the fields falling into disuse.
WOULD KING ANU CONDONE NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S ACT?
Nebuchadnezzar was not the first King to deport a people from their own country. The pace was actually set by the Assyrian King Adad Nirari I (c. 1307-1275 BC), who thought the best way to prevent any future uprising was to remove the former occupants of the land and replace them with Assyrians. But Nebuchadnezzar had an ulterior motive for the deportations, which only the “Illuminati” of the day were privy to.
HE WANTED TO MAKE JERUSALEM DESOLATE AND DECREPIT SO THAT WHEN KING ANU ARRIVED, HE WOULD AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE AND INSTEAD FOCUS ON THE GLITTERING BABYLON. His aim was to kill off entirely the competition posed by Jerusalem. Says Zechariah Sitchin: “The expectation, it seems, was that the arriving god (Anu) of the Winged Disk (symbol for planet Nibiru) would come down at the Landing Place (Baalbek) in Lebanon, then consummate the Return by entering Babylon through the new marvelous Processional Way and imposing Ishtar Gate.”
But in the event that he indeed pitched, would the pro-Enlilite Anu take kindly to being deflected to a city (Babylon) other than Jerusalem when it had been specifically designated for his ultimate hosting on the planet by virtue of its geometrical centrality?
Having taken over Nippur’s prediluvial role to serve as Mission Control Center after the Deluge, Jerusalem was located at the center of concentric distances to the other space-related sites. Aptly calling it the “Navel of the Earth” (EZEKIEL 38:12), the Prophet Ezekiel had announced that Jerusalem has been chosen for this role by God himself.
“Thus has said the Lord Yahweh: ‘This is Jerusalem; in the midst of the nations I placed her, and all the lands are in a circle round about her,” EZEKIEL 5:5. “Determined to usurp that role for Babylon,” Sitchin further notes, “Nebuchadnezzar led his troops to the elusive prize and in 598 BC captured Jerusalem.” How would King Anu take this seeming sacrilege in the event that he pitched?
We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.
Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.
Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?
The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.
There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill. Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.
What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”. Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe: And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.
All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.
And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”
It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.
Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.
If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.
To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels. Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter. Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.
Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity; inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation: Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.
In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said. “If he dies, he will die immediately; otherwise he’ll survive.”
It came to pass, General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak: Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”
Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room. ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all. “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”
As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.
But Raine, General, was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”
Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.
R.I.P. EARL SPENCER
It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the Austrian Alps along with her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.
When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”
Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe, “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’
At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”
Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.
PRINCE CHARLES FINALLY OWNS UP TO ADULTERY WITH CAMILLA
In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.
In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.
The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable. Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.
BASHIR INTERVIEW BODES ILL FOR DIANA
If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.
The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people, conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.
And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne. Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.
It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?
SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim
Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.
To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:
Right to life
The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex
Right to Equality
The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.
Right to justice
Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice. The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v 8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.
Right to freedom of conscience and religion
The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.
Right to personal freedom
No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.
Right to Protection of Honour
Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49 : v 11-12).