Humanities desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29

Does Islam forbid football?

A group of teenagers (and some kids), ages 10 to 15, were sentenced to receive 38 lashes each of them for playing football. According to the court, they were wasting time playing football because it's an un-Islamic thing. [1] - --190.50.81.196 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it does, there are a large amount of teams from Islamic nations in the AFC and CAF that are being naughty. Incidentally, Al-Shabaab (Somalia) are a bunch of complete lunatics. Nanonic (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a key difference between a group of people, wishing to exert absolute power over a group of people, and using fear to cow them and religion as an excuse to exert their power, and genuine religious belief. Islam itself has no such proscriptions. There are likely, however, people who are willing to use Islam as a means by which to force weaker people to their will. --Jayron32 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports have sometimes been used as a target for repressionists in the west as well. In the Somlia example, I wonder about the quality of play. Note that the quote was "a waste of time, and un-Islamic". The first part of that could easily be argued, for example, in regard to the three NFL teams that are 1-9 at the moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And going back to the original question, it's worth remembering that Islam is almost as diverse as Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised to find some group that forbids football in Islam.Sjö (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there have been western countries that also forbade the playing of sports from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said football is very popular in the islamic world, but it also runs into difficulties as it is either seen as a waste of time when you could be worshiping or studying, or occasionally seen as a focus of dissent. Here is a fatwa setting out an islamic flavor to football rules [2], here are some earlier people getting puritanical about football [3] and here is scotland banning it Football Act 1424. meltBanana 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject that Sjö mentions — in college I wrote a short paper for a physical education course (yes, having to write a paper for a phys-ed class was rather annoying on principle!) on various Christian philosophies of physical education, and during my research I discovered that many members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church oppose competitive sports because they believe that sports can lead to aggression and unchristian pride. Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we need an article on Religion and football. :)Sjö (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And conversely, many attribute the late 19th century vogue for Muscular Christianity to be the reason why so many English association football clubs were created by churches or churchmen as described in Thank God for Football. Nanonic (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

exact date in 1980

What was the exact date in which L.C. Bates died in 1980? What did he die of?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read for yourself. See the Wikipedia article L. C. Bates, and this reference linked from the Wikipedia article, which states his date and cause of death. --Jayron32 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, does the Daisy Bates Elementary School have any school colors?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Spencer

I do apologise for this, since I am certain I have asked this question before, it is just that I cannot find where it is in the archives. My understanding is that Diana Spencer, on her father's side, was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons:

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, son by Barbara Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox, son by Louise de Kérouaille Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans, son by Nell Gwyn James Crofts-Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, leader of a famous rebellion, son by Lucy Walter She was also a descendant of King James II of England through an illegitimate daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, by his mistress Arabella Churchill. On her mother's side, Diana was Irish and Scottish, as well as a descendant of American heiress Frances Work, her mother's grandmother and namesake, from whom the considerable Roche fortune was derived.

The Spencers had been close to the British Royal Family for centuries, rising in royal favour during the 1600s. Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a long-time friend and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Her father had served as an equerry to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II.

So she was also a distant relative of Sir Winston Churchill. But my question is, since these ancestors are illegitimate, how can her sons William and Henry be legitimate heirs to the throne ? It is unfortunate that a particular person is punished themselves for something their parents or ancestors didn't do, then did do, that is, didn't marry, but then did the deed, but there it is, especially as some are claiming Elizabeth the Second is not the genuine Queen due to the alleged illegitimacy of her ancestor Edward IV, and that over 550 years ago. What is the Law regarding this, since I am sure that anyone due to marry an heir to the throne, with a view to creating further heirs to the throne, would have been thoroughly checked out to make sure the issue was going to be entitled. The Russian.C.B.Lilly User:Christopher1968 05:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained before, didn't you read the explanation? Anyway, the Tudors hardly had any respect for Richard III's self-serving legal manipulations... AnonMoos (talk)

Didn't I just say I cannot find the original place I asked the question, so I cannot read the explanation. However, I would be happy to, to read it in its original place I asked the question, if someone would please inform me where it is. Thank You.

In addition, I have another question. What was the name of the lady who, from what I understand, died of a heart attack upon hearing that Martin Luther King had been assassinated ? Thank You. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you ask somebody for help in finding the earlier replies in the archives, instead of going through the whole long rigamarole again? AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference ? Don't worry about it, why get snotty ? Might have been quicker for you to have told me the answer, since it appears from your first tirade that you knew the question I was referring to, but never mind, I found it in the archives for Nov 16, and thank you to those who answered it then. I apologise for any trouble that might have been caused, and having now read the explanation, I now understand it. Strange they only need one legitimate line, but if it makes them happy, that's fine. Long may they reign.

With reference to my question on who the lady was who died, I understand she may have been a receptionist at Mr. Bailey's Lorraine Motel, but again I cannot recall her name. Shame that one bullet should cause so much death, not only to Dr. King, but this innocent woman, and sparking off the many riots Dr. King would have not wanted to occur. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous question about Diana and the answer are here[4] (third question down). I assume your question refers to this [5] speculation. Elizabeth II is the genuine Sovereign because she has lawfully acceded and has had a lawful Coronation. As far as I know, there is no way of challenging that; especially on an unprovable hypothesis about an event half a millennium ago. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: a coronation does not make a British monarch the monarch. It's only performed on people who have already been acknowledged as the monarch, and usually at least some months after the event (because it takes a long time to organise). Elizabeth became queen on the instant of her father's death. So her coronation is worth mentioning in the present context only to demonstrate that she was fully accepted and acknowledged as the monarch, but not if you intend it to mean that the ceremony conferred the monarchy upon her, which it didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proscription against a monarch having illegitimate lines somewhere in their past. All that is required is one legitimate line, and under most circumstances this legitimate line will be as short as parent-to-child. Elizabeth II is legitimate because she was born legitimately of her father, George VI, and you can trace such legitimate lines back at least as far as Henry Tudor, who seized the throne by conquest, and made his son and successor Henry VIII a legitimate heir by marrying Elizabeth of York. Through Elizabeth of York, you can trace a fully legitimate line back through Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York back to Edward III and thus all the way back to William the Conquerer. There is thus a legitimate line of legitimate children that can be traced from Elizabeth I all the way back to William the Conquerer. In the other direction, Elizabeth's son Charles, Prince of Wales is her legitimate son by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and Charles's two sons, Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales were his legitimate sons by Lady Diana Spencer. The fact that you can trace illegitimate lines in Princes William's and Harry's past is irrelevent; there is a legitimate line that can be traced all the way back to William the Conquerer. Regardless, they are the legitimate children of the legitimate son of the current monarch, and so would be perfectly legitimate heirs to said throne. --Jayron32 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question "What is the Law regarding this", the relevant law requires descent from Sophia of Hanover, not from William the Bastard. Thus, any questions of the legitimacy of Edward IV, who lived 200 years before Sophia, are moot. FiggyBee (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its a good thing that Elizabeth II is also a legitimate decendant of Sophia of Hanover (who herself was a legitimate decendant of William I, via James I and VI and thus via the same line as Elizabeth II), and thus her legitimate children and grandchildren are also legitimate heirs (barring a sudden conversion to Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic). --Jayron32 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) First to answer your question of why it's better to ask for help then to re-write the whole question, firstly it saves you time. More importantly, while you did mention first up that you couldn't find the question, it's possible someone could miss this meaning they would read the whole question only to discover/remember it had already been answered, wasting their time as well. Remember RD answerers are volunteers. Note that you should not expect someone to rewrite earlier answers. People may offer to find earlier questions & answers but clearly re-writing an early answer is just a waste of time.

In terms of your comment that it's surprising that you only need one legitimate line suggests you still don't really understand how this works. The legitimate eldest son or the legitimate eldest daughter if their are no legitimate sons of the current monarch is the heir to the throne, and the legitimate eldest son or legitimate eldest daughter if there are no sons of the heir is his/her heir. Who the spouse (mother/father) is, doesn't matter provided they are married. There are a few additional legal requirements, e.g. no Catholics but they don't relate to the spouse's heritage. And technically there was some question of suitability of the spouse hence why Edward VIII of the United Kingdom abdicated but this does concerns the public acceptance and primarily because Wallis Simpson was a divorcée rather then any legal requirement.

In the past it would generally be expected for the spouse to be of the nobility but that was purely a social expectation and if it later turned out they weren't or if questions were raised of the legitimacy later well that would be something 'polite' people wouldn't talk about and no one would question the legitimate heredity of any children solely because of questions over the spouse's heredity. But all this has largely disappeared now anyway. (Note that even if someone does marry a Catholic their children are still in the line of succession if they are brought up as Anglicans.)

These expectations generally lead to fairly inbred populations so in reality you'd probably usually find some legitimate line of succession but it could easily be a long one (HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is currently perhaps 493, he would have been something else at the time of his marriage and birth of his children but anyway clearly rather high up) which would require many deaths before it became of any relevance (so why would it matter?) and in any case if there was a 'suitable' spouse but he/she wasn't in the line of succession it wasn't of any relevance.

Unless we're talking about a brother & sister and the only two children of a monarch marrying (and they can't marry!) then there's always going to be someone higher up in the line of succession then one of the spouses who isn't one of the spouses (and of course in such a case once the child was born they'd be higher up then their mother). Remember if William marries Princess Maria of Yugoslavia but then dies without children she would just become (presuming no other changes) 98th in the line of succession and still largely irrelevant, the next heir would be Henry. (And Kate Middleton is not in the line of succession AFAIK.)

To use a related example, while inheritance laws vary somewhat in many countries the issue (probably children and the children of any dead children) will be entilted to some inheritance (often the spouse too but let's not complicate things) if the death is intestate. In such cases legitimacy used to matter in a number of countries and does still matter in some e.g. Malaysia [6] [7] and Singapore [8]. However who the spouse (mother/father) is rarely did or does. E.g. if a rich person dies without a will, the children of any dead children may be entitled to a share of the inheritance, no matter that the spouse (or mother/father i.e. son or daughter in law) did not contribute to the building of the fortune and wouldn't have been entilted to it if not for their marriage (and in fact may not be entilted to if even after the marriage). In this case, we aren't talking about a single heir, but you can see the same thing.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning that William I of England was himelf illegitimate, so implying that probably all heirs to the English/British throne have illegitimacy in at least one generation of their ancestry. Of course William didn't succeed by inheritance to the English throne, but took it by right of conquest (based on a rather dubious claim of descent). --rossb (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglo-Saxon kings didn't necessarily inherit the throne - they had to be appointed by the Witan, who would sometimes choose the ablest of the royals rather than the next in line. Harold Godwinson was selected in this way. After Harold's death, the Witan appointed the 15 year-old Edgar the Ætheling who had been previously passed-over in favour of Harold. Not long afterwards the Witan forced Edgar to submit to William, on whom they conferred the crown, making it a lawful succession. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, consider the matter of descent from Sophia: all descendents of Catholics are disqualified from the throne, but the fact that everyone in line for the throne had Catholic ancestors before the Protestant Reformation is irrelevant at least in part because of the descent from Sophia. Nyttend (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Act of Settlement 1701 secured the succession to Sophia's Protestant heirs, while barring Roman Catholics and their spouses from the Throne. That doesn't mean, I think, that the Protestant descendants of Roman Catholics were barred, although their claims might come after those of the Protestant descendants of Sophia's Protestant heirs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? As I mentioned above and discussed elsewhere in the RD and in our article, Roman Catholics and people married to them are barred from the throne but their descedants are not provided they are raised Anglican (or I presume more like not raised as Catholics). They are simply treated as dead when it comes to succession. I don't know if it was always like this or it changed at some stage but it's how it is now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to apologise to whom ever it was I snapped at. I only did so, because I sensed this person was snapping at me first. I thank all of you for your time and effort in answering these. Be aware, that as a keen student of History - especially that of England, for over twenty five years, I was aware of a good number of things concerning the right of succesion to the Throne - just not the fact that one needed only ONE legitimate line. I had not really thought about that in all that time. It may seem unfair, since strictly speaking James Stuart ( or Stewart) and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie, did have a closer claim to the throne by blood than Elizabeth Stuart's daughther Sophia, and her son George, but could it be the Catholics were also excluded based upon their previous treasonous attmepts, namely the Gunpowder Plot, and before that, the Armada ? I do not count Titus Oates' claims, since I think he was a liar. The parallel for today is mistrust, whether justified or unfounded of Moslems and or Arabs, as there was for Catholics back then. Some may wish to repeal that, but I think it should be left well enough alone. Like it or not, the British Throne nowadsys is a Church of England affair. Of course, this is not to say that Protestants have been entirely blameless in the crimes they have committed supposedly in God's name. C.B.Lilly 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How would you account for 2 lines in any case? Would you add them up and look for the lowest? E.g. This person (a) is number 1 on the father's side and number 200 on the mother's side? This person (b) is number 3 on the mother's side and number 130 on the father's side? So person b had greater rights to succession then person a? I presume these calculations would be at the time of succession so you couldn't even prepare the heir or be that sure of who it was in many cases until it happened since it would be changing. And you'd need to look at a lot of people so do you realise how complicated it would get? Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Double Summer Time in the Second World War

Did Germany adopt Double Summer time during the Second World War, thus moving from UTC+2 to UTC+3. If so, what were the dates? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Germans often imposed their time on the countries they occupied (no more 20-minute difference for Belgium), an interesting derivative question would be whether they also imposed double or triple Summer Time. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, it's not straightforward, but according to Doane's "Time Changes in the World" Germany observed Double Summer Time from 24/5/45 to 9/23/45. In Berlin and Soviet-occupied areas some cities adopted Moscow time (i.e. German Double Summer Time) but other cities did not. There are all sorts of complications. For example, when Soviet troops marched into Leipzig, they adopted Double Summer Time but for the railway only. In the smaller cities of Saxonia, all the people adopted the time of the railroad clock, which showed German Double Summer Time. In the East Zone, Double Summer Time was also adopted in 1947 from May 11 but only until 29 June....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a summary of historic summer-time changes in Germany at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt website. It agrees with Shantavira, i.e. double summer time was only used in Soviet-controlled areas after surrender, in 1945 and 1947. --Cam (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if that was only in the Soviet zone; it seems to me that the CEMT in 1947 held for all zones. But be that as it may; the list makes it clear that there was no CEMT during WW2, which seems to answer both the original question and Shakescene's conjecture. — Sebastian 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What name was J R R Tolkien known by?

John? Jack? J R R? It's not in the article, nor on its discussion page. Anyone know for sure? Peter Greenwell (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page [9] says "his family only called him Ronald, and later his friends called him "John Ronald"." Pollinosisss (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis (known as "Jack"), a friend of Tolkien's, had a nickname for him. My memory says it's "Tollers"...my copy of volume 1 of Lewis's letters (when he was just befriending Tolkien) only refers to him as "Tolkien", but I'm finding quotations from books on The Inklings that use "Tollers" as a nickname. I think its use probably only extended to other members of that social group, but it's hard to say. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.227.159.200 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above is actually totally wrong; he went by Jerry. 92.229.13.231 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly confident in asserting that 92.229's contribution is a troll and should not be believed. --ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a falsehood, as ColinFine notes. Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien agrees with the site that Pollinosisss cites: it was generally "Ronald". Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of International humanitarian aid given, by country

Has anyone ever created a map or chart of humanitarian aid provided, listed by country? Measured in currency (US dollars), or percentage of GDP, or both.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.255.118 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided by or provided to countries? Government aid or NGO aid or total? --Jayron32 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prokhorovka (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the dating of the Dom Helder Camara quote at worldmapper.org is faulty. The quote certainly predates 2004. --Soman (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song

There is a song with the lyrics "I don't like sleeping alone" (this line sung by a female) in the chorus. In the chorus, a male singer sings also. The song sounds kind of indian. The chorus is electronic, but the verses have rap (I think).

The song might have been a hit (single) recently (possibly in the last 3 years). What is the artist and song name?174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Entertainment desk, the people over there are great with this kind of question. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this google search. —Akrabbim^talk 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christadelphian and Advent Christian Churches in Sydney

Are there any Christadelphian churches in Sydney? If so, then what are they? Are there any Advent Christian churches in Sydney that are not Seventh-day Adventist? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a website [10] which gives # Sydney Ecclesia, Shaftesbury Road, Burwood, New South Wales

Sydney Companion Ecclesia, Woodbury Road, Glenbrook, New South Wales

You may not have found these before because their word for "church" is "ecclesia", which is the Greek word for "church". --TammyMoet (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any Adventist churches that aren't Seventh-day Adventists anywhere. Hope that answers your question. By the way, Google is your friend and will get you quicker answers than you can get here! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]