'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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment