Meanwhile, all sorts of complications arise that throw a question mark over the legitimacy of Jesus
Nabunaid returned to Babylonia in 539 BC, when he heard that Cyrus, the mighty Persian King, had Babylon in his sights. It seemed the Babylonian priesthood had somehow become disenchanted with his regent Belshazzar’s rule when initially he had been their darling. For when Cyrus marched into the city of Babylon, he was welcomed in the manner of a messiah. The propaganda word Cyrus put out there was that he had been expressly invited by the Babylonian god Marduk himself.
Whilst Belshazzar was killed, probably because he wanted to get up to some kind of mischief, Nabunaid was spared and so lived to a ripe old age. Having grasped the hand of Marduk as a sign of the god’s seal of approval, Cyrus was prompt in effecting radical reforms in his new empire, which extended to the “Four Corners of the Earth” as he brashly announced in his inscriptions. Perhaps the happiest beneficiaries of his reforms were the Jews.
He declared their exile over, consented to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and ordered that all the articles Nebuchadnezzar had looted of the destroyed Temple be returned. Cyrus also proclaimed a general amnesty that allowed people to worship any god they pleased and not be force-fed a faith. The Jews, however, did not return all at once. The return occurred in waves and over a period of 110 years. The first wave comprised of 50,000 Jews and set off in 538 BC. They were led by Zerubabbel, who Cyrus appointed as the new governor of Israel.
The second wave was led by Sheltiel, Zerubabbel’s son. About 42,360 Jews were participants in this wave. With this reinforcement, the Temple was rebuilt and completed in 516 BC. The third wave of returnees set off in 458 BC. They were led by Ezra the scribe. Ezra was at the head of 5000 Jews. The fourth and final wave was led by Nehemiah, who was cup-bearer to the Persian King and who took over from Zerubabbel as Israel’s next governor. It is not known exactly how many Jews were in this group though it must have comprised a good number of the Jewish nobility as it was escorted by a sizeable contingent of the Persian army.
Nehemiah was responsible for performing the feat of constructing the Jerusalem wall in only 52 days. He was in Jerusalem for 12 years before he returned to Persia to resume his royal court duties but he was forced to beat a path back to Jerusalem in 431 BC to help arrest the deteriorating security, religious, and social conditions. Altogether, there were about seven Jewish governors of Judah from circa 538 BC to 443 BC. The last governor was Hananiah, whose exact circumstances are unclear. In the next 200 years after Hananiah, Persia dominated all of the Middle East and Egypt, During all this time Palestine was a client state of Persia and was directly ruled by a Persian governor.
WAS JESUS OF A CURSED LINEAGE?
There is a section of the gospels which practically nobody reads, including pastors. This is the genealogy, the lineage of Jesus. Throughout the 30 years or so that I have been a Christian, I have never heard a single sermon on the genealogy of Jesus. This is unfortunate because the genealogy, when investigated by cross-reference with Old Testament records, yields some very valuable insights on the ancestry of Jesus. Furthermore, it provides context as to why he was such a love-him-or-loathe-him figure as well as why the circumstances of his birth were overshadowed by a scandal that continued to haunt him for the rest of his life.
The genealogies are found in MATTHEW 1:1-17 and LUKE 3:23-38. The scope of each of the two genealogies is tailored to the audiences for whom the gospel narratives were primarily intended. Matthew was fundamentally writing for the Jews; hence he begins his genealogy with Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. On the other hand, Luke, a Greek, targeted Gentiles. Accordingly, he began his genealogy with Adam, the father of the human race.
Why did Matthew and Luke deem it necessary to furnish a genealogy of Jesus? Certainly, if Jesus was a God-man, as the bulk of Christendom believe, there would be no need for a genealogy. God will not need details about his family background. The only reason, therefore, why the two evangelists decided to include a genealogy in their accounts was because they wanted to set down evidence of Jesus’s royal credentials. They wanted to demonstrate that Jesus was a descendent of David, Israel’s covenant king, and therefore had the right pedigree.
Both Mathew and Luke do articulate Jesus’ Davidic connection. The very first line of Matthew’s gospel reads, “This is the record of the ancestry of Jesus Christ, the son of David …” In LUKE 1:32, we’re told, plainly, that Jesus would “sit on the throne of his father David”. It was the Jews’ Anunnaki “god” Ishkur-Adad – generically called Yahweh in the Bible – who through the prophet Nathan declared to David during his waning days that only a Jew of Davidic stock would ever rule Israel (2 SAMUEL 7:12-16).
Since “God” so said, the Jews simply never accepted anybody who wasn’t a descendent of David to rule over them. For example, King Herod (reign: 37 BC to 4 BC) went out of his way to try and win the devotion and affections of the Jews. He even built a magnificent Temple for good measure, the globe’s architectural masterpiece of the day. The Jews were unmoved.
Being half-Arab, Herod was not a true blue Jew. Worse still, he did not have a single drop of Davidic blood coursing in his veins. Even the prophets themselves – Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc – referred to Israel’s throne as “David’s throne”, that is, one worthy only of a descendent of David and no less. Yet although Jesus was of Davidic lineage, he was tainted in two ways. FIRST, THERE WAS A CURSE ONCE UPON A TIME IN HIS ANCESTRY. SECOND, HE WAS BORN IN CIRCUMSTANCES ANATHEMA TO A DYNASTIC HEIR.
THE CURSE OF JECONIAH
The Jewish king who caused problems for Jesus, who considerably dented his legitimacy, was Jeconiah (also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin). In terms of monarchical profile, Jeconiah was dismally undistinguished. He officially ruled over Judah for only three months but the effect he had on the fate of his nation was probably of eternal proportions.
Jeconiah ascended to the throne at the very tender age of 18, on December 9, 598 BC, following the foul death of his father Jehoiakim. Then just after 100 days on the throne, he was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar on March 15, 597 BC (“beware the ides of March” a soothsayer had warned Julius Caesar) and led into incarcerated exile in Babylon. In the greater scheme of things, his fate was inevitable: it was part of a series of Seven Chastisements Ishkur-Adad, had pronounced upon the Jews for diluting their loyalty to him with intermittent worship of rival “gods” (LEVITICUS 26:27-28 /PSALMS 12:6)). However, since the Babylonian Chastisement, the second of the seven, occurred on Jeconiah’s watch, a sadistic Adad slapped a further curse on him personally (?).
Adad pronounced the curse through the prophet Jeremiah thus: “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken pot, a vessel no one cares for? Why are he and his children hurled and cast into a land that they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his seed shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah (JEREMIAH 22:28-30).” The boy king did no wrong: he incurred a personalised curse all because a national curse took effect when he was reigning. We Christians ought to wake up: our “God” is a joke really!
The Kingdom of Judah was not left without a king though as Nebuchadnezzar appointed his own client king in place of Jeconiah. This was Zedekiah, Jeconiah’s 21-year-old uncle, another youngster. About ten years later, Nebuchadnezzar struck again after an intransigent Zedekiah revolted. This was the beginning of the Babylonian captivity proper, when Solomon’s Temple was razed to the ground and virtually every able-bodied Jew, including Zedekiah himself, was matched off to Babylon.
To ensure there was no rabble-rousing heir for the Jews to possibly rally around, all of Zedekiah’s ten sons, who included toddlers, were killed in cold blood and Zedekiah had his eyes gouged out. He was to die whilst in captivity. The exile ended in 539 BC, when Persian King Cyrus conquered Babylon and issued a decree to free the Jews. As highlighted above, the Jews left in batches.
The Jews naturally did not recognise Zedekiah as their king. Only Jeconiah counted as he was the linear and anointed king. At the same time, they were well aware of the fact that he was accursed, including his descendents, which meant that there was never going to be another King of Judah from his loins. That was what complicated things for Jesus. He was legally a descendent of Jeconiah and was by rights disqualified from ever occupying the throne of Judah. But did the Jeconiah curse indeed invalidate the accession of Jesus to the throne of a liberated Israel?
A CANCELLED CURSE
Let us take another look at the Jeconiah curse. There were three aspects to the curse. First, Jeconiah would not prosper in his life time. Second, his own descendents too would not prosper. Third, none of the Jeconiah offspring would ever be King of the Jews. We will begin with Jeconiah himself. Contrary to the wishes of his god, JECONIAH DID ACTUALLY PROSPER. True, Nebuchadnezzar did confine him to jail but he was released after 36 years, on March 27, 561 BC, by Nebuchadnezzar’s successor Merodach.
What happened upon his release? Merodach exalted him above every other king that was in captivity in Babylon at the time (2 KINGS 25:27-28). In other words, Jeconiah became a national patriarch in a foreign domain, a kind of elder statesman whose views in regard to the affairs of the nation were periodically sought. This may come as a shock to Christians but prophecies did not always come true.
For instance, this was what a “major” prophet had said about Jeconiah: “And I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went into Babylon saith the LORD: for I will break the yoke of the King of Babylon” – JEREMIAH 28:4. The same Adad who had surrendered Jeconiah and the rest of Judah for that matter into Babylonian bondage declared that he was nonetheless going to ensure that Jeconiah returned to Judah some day. This prophecy never came to pass as Jeconiah died right in Babylon. The Bible is full of consistencies which Christians tragically, hypocritically, and therefore comically assume away.
It is clear from these developments that the Jeconiah curse did not bear out in full measure: only the element of a descendent of his never having to sit on the throne of Israel was fulfilled though this was simply in the nature of things and not because Adad intended it. I say this because THE JECONIAH CURSE ACTUALLY LAPSED. In JEREMIAH 22:24, Adad had said thus to Jeconiah: “As surely as I live … even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim King of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.”
Adad had compared Jeconiah to a signet ring, a symbol of divine as well as monarchical authority: Adad himself wore this ring and so did other members of the Anunnaki royalty and Egyptian kings. Now, let us listen to what another prophet of the same Adad said to Zerubbabel upon his return from Babylon: “On that day … I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel … and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you … (HAGGAI 2:23).”
Adad here designates Zerubbabel as a potential king by likening him to his signet ring. Clearly, the Jeconiah curse was at this point rendered null and void. It explains why Jerubbabel, Jeconiah’s grandson legally speaking, did prosper: when the exile ended, he was not only instrumental in resettling the freed Jews in Jerusalem but he was appointed governor of Judea.
Sadly, the matter of the status of the Jeconiah curse was a rather grey area to the Jews of Jesus’ day. Some thought Jesus was not entitled both to the symbolic and literal throne of Judah as his ancestral line had been the subject of a curse. This was the more influential view. Those who recognised that the curse had been withdrawn as per prophet Haggai were in the minority. Since the matter was not settled with cut and dry finality, later Christian redactors inserted phrases in the gospel texts that made it look like both Matthew and Luke had intimated that Jesus was not fathered by Joseph but was begot supernaturally.
IN TRUTH, HOWEVER, JESUS WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE JECONIAH CURSE.
THE ROLE OF NERI
Both Mathew and Luke were cognisant of the Jeconiah curse and the problems it threw up for Jesus. In their accounts, therefore, they made sure it was somewhat disambiguated. How?
Let us begin with Matthew. On concluding his genealogical line-up, after the words “Jacob became the father of Joseph”, Matthew adds: “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Contrary to what some ranks of the so-called scholars aver, this statement had nothing to do with the drivel that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus or that Jesus was born to Mary only by supernatural means, without the involvement of a male agent.
Mathew featured Mary in a genealogy she was not part and parcel of, the genealogy of Joseph, for two reasons only. The first one was to demonstrate that Jesus was a descendent of David not only through Joseph but through Mary as well. As such, the Jeconiah curse had to be evaluated in this context.Matthew, however, did not expand on his point. Noting this shortcoming, Luke decided to plug it. Now, Luke is my most favourite evangelist.
Like the other three, he is not consistently truthful and even shows bias in some respects but he is the most accurate historically as even scholars now almost unanimously agree. The man was not only a chronicler but he was an intellectual, a doctor, and so he made sure he meticulously investigated everything to make sure what he set down was in general unimpeachable (LUKE 1:3-4). Whilst Matthew traces the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph, Luke does so through Mary. Both Joseph and Mary were descendents of David but Joseph came through the line of Solomon, David’s heir, whereas Mary came through the line of Nathan, Solomon’s elder brother.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary’s lines did converge at Shealtiel as indeed the two genealogies bear the name Shealtiel. However, what Luke found was that Shealtiel was not the son of Jeconiah but the son of Neri (LUKE 3:27). WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED WAS THAT WHILST IN PRISON AND CONSCIOUS OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF HIS CURSE, JECONIAH ASKED HIS COUSIN NERI OF THE LINE OF NATHAN TO “SERVE” HIS (JECONIAH’S) WIFE AND SIRE HEIRS FOR HIM PARTICULARLY THAT HE WAS NOT SURE WHEN HE WOULD BE RELEASED FROM JAIL.
Such arrangements, called levirates, were common among Jews particularly when a wealthy or dynastic relation died childless or simply was infertile. Thus whilst Jeconiah was the legal father of Shealtiel and at least four other children out of Jeconiah’s seven, their biological father was actually Neri. That way, the Jeconiah curse was rendered invalid, with all descendents henceforth – Jesus included – benefitting from such a setup. Indeed prophet Haggai’s euphoria over Zerubbabel says it all. But as I have already indicated, the issue was quite a sticking point to the Jews of Jesus’ day and therefore remained a divisive bone of contention indefinitely.
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).