Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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 16

How many Muslim women marry Jewish men in Israel? (Plus some more questions)

I can't find any data regarding the number of Muslim women marrying Jewish men in Israel. When I Google that all the results I get are regarding the reverse situation (Jewish woman and Muslim man). Does anyone have any idea how to get that data? If only to say that there are none.

I've suddenly realized I have a few more questions. As far as I understand a Muslim court would accept to marry a Muslim man and a Jewish woman because such a marriage is legal under Islam but not a Muslim woman and a Jewish man because that is not acceptable under Muslim law. On the other hand a Jewish court will not accept to marry any two people who are not Jewish. Therefore the only choice for a Muslim woman and a Jewish man wishing to marry is to go abroad register their marriage. (Whereas, as stated, a Jewish woman and a Muslim man can be married by a Muslim court). Is any of this incorrect?

The same applies to a Christian-Muslim situation, i.e. a Muslim man and a Christian woman will be married by a Muslim court, whereas a Muslim woman and a Christian man have no choice but to go abroad seek a civil marriage, because a Christian court will only marry two people who are both Christian. Is that correct?

What happens if a Karaite Jew and a non Karaite Jew wish to marry? Are there Karaite Jewish courts? Would a Karaite Jewish court register a marriage between a Karaite and a non Karaite? How about a normal (Rabbanite) Jewish court?

Thanks

Contact Basemetal here 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only ones with a death wish -- Q Chris (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About question #3: The reason why a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man is in Islam, not in Christian law. Christian churches nowadays marry many couples where only one is Christian, the other being of another religion or atheist. Akseli9 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain this is not a recent development in Western Europe? E.g. do the Greek Orthodox do that too? Remember that most Christian Arabs in Israel belong, as far as I know, to the Greek Orthodox Church, not to the Catholic Church. So I wonder if your information is also accurate in that case? Contact Basemetal here 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It is more a recent development in Western Europe. Akseli9 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the U.S., at least, Roman Catholic churches will not marry a couple unless both members are (at least nominally) Roman Catholic. I have known several couples where one member of the couple had to go through adult catechism and officially joining the Church. See Marriage (Catholic Church) and Disparity of worship. In fact, the Roman Catholic church requires both members to be in full communion with Roman Catholicism, not merely just professing Christians, or for the union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common. Protestant churches are often more liberal, one need not belong to the exact same denomination. --Jayron 32 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Interfaith marriage in Christianity which only has information about the Catholic church, but suggests that the situation has changed since Jayron's experience above. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it has changed, where I say that the "union to receive a special dispensation, though those are becoming more common." and the article you linked states "The Roman Catholic Church requires a dispensation for mixed marriages." I'm not sure where those two statements come into conflict. --Jayron 32 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I seem to have misread your post. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is mainly a discussion of who would perform a religious ceremony, I have nothing to add to the above. May I point out that traditional Arab women who are devout Muslims or live in a village setting or otherwise close to their birth family, are unlikely to have enough contact with Jewish men to develop a relationship leading to marriage. Conversely, a secular (non-practicing Muslim) Arab woman in a setting (e.g. urban) where she'd meet Jewish men and become involved with one to the point where the couple chose to marry - likely leading to ostracism by traditional members of her family (or worse: the so-called "honor killing" by male relatives) - wouldn't expect a religious wedding. To get some sense of the unlikelihood of Muslim/Jewish F/M couples in Israel, look for figures on unmarried Muslim women in employment and higher education and subtract the number who live in their parents' home. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I do know at least in one case of a marriage between a Jewish man and an Arab woman, namely singer Mira Awad, but she is a Christian. In general Arab Christian women seem to be better integrated but here we're talking show business and there's really no difference between Muslim women or Christian women or Druze women. There's got to be Muslim women in show business who work everyday with Jewish men. Take for example the case of Muslim singer Nasreen Qadri who sings as much in Hebrew as in Arabic. That not even one Muslim woman is married to a Jewish man even in show business might also have to do with the greater stigma that carries among Muslims and the supremacist attitude of Muslims who are very loath to "give away" their women, which is, in their mind, a shameful thing, which is very different from "taking" the women of others. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2014, a high profile inter-faith marriage in Israel attracted considerable interest from media and from the general citizenry. See [1]. --Jayron 32 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems the Jewish bride chose to first convert to Islam. But is this something that Israeli Muslim courts require? In principle, as far as I know, Muslim courts will accept to marry a Muslim man to a Jewish or Christian woman without requiring that the woman first converts to Islam. Are things different in Israeli Muslim courts? Contact Basemetal here 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of it is the understanding of "conversion". I'm not Muslim, but my understanding is that Islam has the doctrine that every person is born Muslim in the sense that there is but one God, who has but one plan for his creation, and who has the expectation that all of humanity would observe His law. People exist in either a state of adherence to his laws or not, thus all people who are not properly practicing Muslims exist in a state of apostasy rather than in a state of simple "believing in something else" or "not a member of the Muslim faith". According to Muslim doctrine, we're all Muslims, some of us are just not doing it right. This concept is known as "fitra", that is it is in our born nature and purpose to be Muslims. One becomes a practicing Muslim the moment one makes a sincere statement of the Shahada. See also Religious conversion#Islam. --Jayron 32 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is in fact mostly born a "practicing Muslim" (to use your terminology), simply by virtue of being born to a Muslim father. I have heard that Muslim fathers often whisper the shahada into the ears of their newborn child, but that is not a requirement and failure to do so does not change the fact that that child, were they later to convert to another religion would be deemed an apostate from Islam. I have heard that theory that you never really "convert" to Islam (but only "revert" to Islam), but the "apostasy" (again to use your terminology) of not "reverting" to Islam in the first place is very different from the apostasy of leaving Islam deliberately and explicitly. As far as I know the latter is punishable by death according to all schools of jurisprudence (madhhab), whereas the former isn't, at least if one happens to be a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian, etc. Regarding that Israeli Jewish woman who converted my understanding is that she converted formally (i.e. pronounced the shahada in front of two witnesses, etc.) although it is difficult to be sure as the article just mentions that once in passing and it might be that they are implying (incorrectly) that she converted simply by virtue of marrying a Muslim. It might also be that she did convert, but just because that's what she felt like doing, without it being a formal requirement for her to marry that Muslim man. If it was required of her by Muslim authorities in Israel then I think that that would not be in keeping with normal Muslim practice. Contact Basemetal here 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion at talk page of the Marriage in Israel article I think I might have the solution for this oddity: it seems (at least according to Married On The Mediterranean — But Not In Israel this source) that Israeli law prohibits the religious courts from performing a marriage unless the two partners belong to the same religion. Assuming that source is correct, this would explain why the Jewish woman had to undergo a conversion to be able to marry that Muslim man. Contact Basemetal here 06:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "the penalty for apostasy is death" is part of the twisted interpretation of Islam practised by terrorists. What the Qu'ran actually says is "There is no compulsion in religion". 86.149.14.226 (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual politically correct Islam-apologetic uninformed nonsense. Start by reading Apostasy in Islam instead of spouting nonsense. This (part of a) verse is about the only thing in the Qur'an that apologists know. If you really want to learn something you may also want to read Al-Baqara 256. Generally speaking it is not enough to quote out of context something in the Qur'an that fits what you want to believe regarding Islam to really determine what Islam requires. Contact Basemetal here 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I remember reading a dramatic story about people detained after the Iranian revolution. Some of them were taken for interrogation and were asked whether their fathers were devout Muslims and kept the family praying regularly... eventually some people who knew more about the religion realized that the purpose of the questions was to convict and execute them for apostasy, and the remainder were able to answer differently. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of that story. If you have a source so we can all read about it, that would be useful. --Jayron 32 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give the source if I could remember or find it, but I can do neither. I would guess (perhaps) that it was an article in The Atlantic, and that I read it 10-15 years ago. I actually don't think this was the 1988 massacre - the account I read was about the first prisoners who did not yet have experience with executions being a possibility, and most of whom where unaware of the legal aspects of apostasy. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wnt was referring to the 1988 massacre mentioned here. See also here. It is just a guess but the prisoners were asked from what I understand how well they followed Islamic prescriptions, etc. However the charge of apostasy was not the main reason they were executed. Contact Basemetal here 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Apostasy in Islam covers this - note the Koran verses in the first section. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. This Isis video shows in their (Isis's) interpretation Islam is a religion of love. Contact Basemetal here 19:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free-range terrorists

One of the reported perpetrators of the recent massacre in Paris was actually convicted of "criminal terrorist conspiracy" based on his intent to leave France to go fight in Yemen. [2] Similarly, one of the perpetrators of the Curtis Culwell Center attack was arrested immediately before planning to leave to Somalia.

Question: how many of these "free-range terrorists" are there? By which I mean, people criminally convicted of an imminent plan to go fight for ISIS or Al-Qaida, who though (apparently) banned from foreign travel are nonetheless allowed to roam their home countries relatively freely? Has anyone gathered a public website/database of them all? Wnt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just their home countries, the Schengen Area comprises most of Europe; France does not have any regular border control. - Lindert (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Schengen Area is only applicable to European countries; France has land borders with Brazil and Suriname (although neither Brazil–France relations nor Foreign relations of Suriname#France mentions border controls) and presumably maintains border controls at seaports and airports. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least when you enter France by air from outside the Schengen Area, passengers are separated into those with EU passports and those without. The ones with EU passports still have to go through security but I guess it's faster for them. If you were flying between France and, say, Spain, there is no border control. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in August I flew from Belfast to Paris on an Irish passport (i.e. a Schengen Area passport) and still had to go through a passport check, as did everybody else on the flight. Incidentally there were a few people on the flight travelling on Chinese passports but we all went through the same controls. Keresaspa (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland isn't a Schengen country. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First time that a French president addressed a joint session of Parliament since 1948?

According to CNN, President Hollande's address to a joint session of the French Parliament (i.e., a Congress of the French Parliament) at Versailles today marked "the third time since 1948 that a French president has done this."

Before this, the most recent occasion when a French president made a speech before both houses of Parliament in Versailles was on June 22, 2009, when Nicolas Sarcozy gave a speech on the Great Recession. (NYT, book) Yet this 2009 AP article on the Sarcozy speech says: "The last presidential speech to France's parliament was in 1873..."

So (1) is either CNN or AP wrong here (CNN says that there have been three speeches, while the AP seems to imply that there have been only two, unless there was some speech in between '09 and 15); and (2) if these were the second and third occasions, what was the first? Neutrality^talk 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess its a typo. The date should be 1848, as per [3] which notes that before the 2009 Sarkozy address, the prior occurrence was during the Second French Republic, shortly after Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's election to the Presidency in the French presidential election, 1848. --Jayron 32 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems likely. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know that the statement "The last presidential speech to France's parliament was in 1873..." is accurate. As noted in Adolphe_Thiers#Third_Republic, the law banning Presidents from speaking to Parliament was passed in 1873, but I don't know that any such Presidents actually spoke to Parliament between 1848 and 1873; between 1851-1870, France didn't have a President, and several sources have noted that 1848 was the last such speech also. I believe the AP article is misunderstanding the significance of 1873; that wasn't the year of the last actual speech, that was the year such speeches were banned. --Jayron 32 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS Kresge picture

Our article on S.S. Kresge has no free portrait of him; the only images are a nonfree portrait of him and a free picture of his house. By 1924, Kresge was worth more than a third of a billion dollars, so presumably his picture had started to appear in print by the end of 1922. Does anyone know where I could find a pre-1923 image of him? I was thinking of the New York Times or one of the Detroit papers, but I'm not familiar with searching the NYT archives, and I'm not familiar with the Detroit papers at all. His article mentions The Book of Detroiters, published 1914, but the archive.org edition is all text and no pictures. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922 by Burton, Clarence Monroe, vol. 3, published 1922, has a picture on page 172. Rmhermen (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]