Golden Fleece

All the following couples:

1. Sylvester Stallone and Brigette Neilsen [1]
2. Joan Collins and Peter Holm [2]
3. Martina Navratilova and Judy Nelson [3]
4. Paul McCartney and Heather Mills [4]

have four things in common:

1. All involved couples that were on the opposite sides of the wealth scale
2. All collapsed within two years (except the Judy and Martina relationship which seems to be a little complicated possibly because it was an SGR)
3. All resulted in large amounts of wealth [in the form of 'Compensation'] being transferred from the wealthier person to the poorer spouse
4. Not one of them had a legally cast-iron prenuptial agreement in place that:
a. Limited the amount of compensation (if any) in the event of a marital breakdown (eg [8])
b. Banned the poorer spouse from 'kiss and tell' ie selling their story to the media for large sums of money (surprising as it may seem, even wealthy people like keeping their private/personal lives PRIVATE)

The 'Compensation' factor I find particularly puzzling. If either:

1. There were children involved whose needs the poorer spouse agreed to honour
2. The poorer spouse had to sacrifice his/her career before entering a marital relationship with the wealthier side

then I can understand the need for some form of compensation to be paid. However none of the couples involved qualify for either of these scenarios so therefore...

If I were being suspicious, I would propose that the poorer person:

1. Identified a suitable victim based on such characteristics eg loneliness, wealth etc etc
2. Produced a complete plan of entrapment to trap the victim
3. Married the victim with a temporary (or Mut'ah) marriage in mind
4. Complained of 'physical harm' etc after a couple of years [5]
5. Fleeced the wealthier victim for maximum finance compensation (in Heather's case this seems to be running into $100M+) [6, 7]

In a time when the Church of England bemoans that marriage has now become 'an ideal' rather than the norm, I would it particularly disgraceful if my suspicions proved correct.

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Nielsen
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Holm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Nelson
4. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
5. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1776957,00.html
6. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2342183,00.html
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/23/law.world
8. http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/11/celebrity-women-alimony-biz-cx_lg_0412womenpay.html

Fatal Exposure

So you can print anything in 'Free Afghanistan' so long as it doesn't upset the authorities [1]. Once you do that you're hit with a blasphemy charge and sentenced to death. So much for 'Free Afghanistan'. Whatever you say about the Taliban, they were honest and up front, so reporters knew where they stood. If I had a suspicious mind I would say that the Authorities are undertaking criminal activity (eg Drugs and Mut'ah-Prostitution Rings) and protecting themselves [from exposure] by er...'interesting' use of the Blasphemy Laws.

References:

1. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/01/24/4791832-cp.html

Here Today Gone Tomorrow?

Bearing in mind the British Government's recent decision to ban the fiery Scholar Yusuf Qaradawi from UK because of 'Incitement of Hatred' [1], I find their silence on the subject of Salman Rushdie extremely hypocritical. Even more interestingly The Queen has even honoured this apostate [2]- clearly insulting the Prophet and his Household is regarded as 'Contributing to British Society'.

If blasphemy against Islam is regarded is acceptable [and honourable] behaviour in UK then:

1. The phrase 'British Muslim' is an oxymoron
2. Muslims living in Britain need to determine whether they should really be making long-term plans to live elsewhere

Its all very well claiming that Muslims are 'safest' in UK, but if that comes at the expense of Intellectual Terrorism in the form of 'Free Speech' that insults Islam and Islamic Personalities, then Muslims are better off living as beggers in Muslim Lands

Of course its worth discovering whether Salman Rushdie's religious background is Shi-itism...

References:

1. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2253812,00.html
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm

Critical Success

'Michael' [1] is clearly unaware of the legal concept of 'Circumstantial Evidence' [3]. Where NO hard evidence exists, one analyzes the situation and builds up a picture [to the best of one's knowledge] of the likely scenario. To the best of my knowledge, having undertaken a substantial amount of background reading (and discounted several theories) I have come to the conclusion that 9/11 could ONLY have been planned by the White House. As for motive, well its staring your in the face if you care to look closely enough.

As for the 'put down', its so meek ("don't visit my house and I won't visit yours") that it didn't even occur to me the 'mighty' Oliver was attempting sarcasm. Clearly he needs to change his literary circles and spend more time with the likes of Ian Hislop [2]. Its also a little confusing since he wanted to see some sort of 'rational' argument. Perhaps Oliver was attempting more 'sarcasm'.

As for his being a Zionist [7], I don't see how that's relevant unless Oliver is one of those misguided fools who believes the White House is somehow serving Israel with Her policies in Iraq (the White House may be propagating this belief amongst Jewish-Americans to gain Political Support, but that's not quite the same thing...).

Anyway there seems to be a degree of confusion regarding the Blasphemy Laws in Islam. These Laws were initially revealed to prevent micreants (ie hypocrites and apostates) spreading lies about God, Muhammad and Islam. As a modern example, Salman Rushdie's accusation that 'The Prophet was a pimp and his household a brothel' [6] would be blasphemic.

The idea was to force people into using their Critical Faculties to make constructive negative comments about Islam, since these could then be used to develop a stronger more Positive Constructive Society [by evolving the Law]. Thus whilst 'those cartoons' [4] initially appeared blasphemic, in retrospect they seem to be 'Construction Criticism'. As an example, a popular accusation is that Muhammad was a paedophile because he married a 6 year old girl [and by Modern Social Standards] that would constitute 'Criminal Behaviour'. This is actually Valid Criticism, because we have a sound basis for a negative comment. And whilst there were critically important reasons for this marriage [of which I'm fully aware], I'll leave that as a exercise for others to contemplate.

Another point of mockery is the '72 virgins for suicide-bombing a kafir' accusation. Again this is valid criticism since [apparently] ignorant and extremely bigoted 'Sheikhs' appear to be plucking out stuff from the Quran and Sunnah to promote their own [hidden] agendas.

Hanafi Fiqh demands punishment for those who commit blasphemy. However its upto Jurists and Scholars to determine whether a statement is Blasphemic or Constructive Criticism [5].

References:

1. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/02/battling-satani.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hislop
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
5. http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/01/24/index_on_censorship_on_sayed_parvez_kambakhsh.php
6. http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism