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.
Muslims are originally dwellers from regions not too far from the Equator. For them, it is obviously possible to fasten during the day. However, what would a Muslim do, if he lives farther up north? The time between dawn and sunset would get longer the closer you get to the north pole. Are they also forced to keep the fasting? --Llaanngg (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read this. I found by typing a variation of your question into Google. Generally, questions can be answered faster if you try programs like Google. That's all anyone here does anyways, and waiting for other people to do what you can do yourself will often take longer than if you just did it yourself. --Jayron32 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to Llaanngg, this user refers to the article at wikiislam stating this matter. in reply to Jayron32, the non-existence of any rule limiting the range of on-topic questions ensures that enquiries are performed at refdesk without any considerations of searching by the selfFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to Jews keeping the Sabbath at extreme latitudes. One solution, honest to Jimbo, is to "not live that far North." I am not sure what they do above the Arctic Circle, but otherwise, you are looking at an 11 PM end time, and when it's a fast day, many people go to sleep and eat when they wake up rather than stay up very late. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are fatwas explaining all sorts of really unusual and unlikely scenarios - I seem to recall one dealing with observant muslims who become astronauts, going into diet and cleanliness and obligatory prayer and so forth. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Judaism. If a religious Jew orbits the Earth, when does he observe the Sabbath, say daily prayers, etc.? Sir Joseph(talk) 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re the comments about Jewish law. As with many aspects of Jewish law, this is debated and discussed. There have been various responsa on both the latitude and orbiting astronaut problems. I'm aware of a ruling that says, respectively, to follow the timetable of the nearest Jewish community / the community closest to the place from where the astronaut blasted off. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe other than "don't do it", the astronauts would follow Houston time (for US space program astronauts) for Jewish laws based on time. At least that is what I remember from years ago when this came up. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, they never blast off from Houston, they usually leave from Florida, but Houston is the control so that is why Houston was picked. I'm not sure how it would work with a commercial venture. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1] suggests Ilan Ramon followed Houston time. Meanwhile [2][3] and [4] suggests there was a ruling he should follow Cape Canaveral time. Some of those sources and [5] suggest one of the early people consulted suggested it wasn't necessary to follow the earthly observances at all. [6] sort of implies he decided to follow Houston time. [7] has some interesting related discussion. My guess is that since there was some rulings suggesting he should follow Houston time and he probably didn't care much personally and possibly the first person he consulted told him he didn't even have to observe and finally because it was probably easier to follow the same timezone being used by the mission which I guess was Houston time, he decided to follow Houston time. The SMH source suggests Ilan Ramon was the first to want to practice Jewish observances not because he was particularly religious/observant but he felt he should as the first Israeli. I'm not sure if it's come up again since then. For the ISS, it's probably more complicate. I believe they use UTC as their time zone, but it isn't in reference to any particular place. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 7/7 was a Friday Thursday. I remember I'd just had this massive dump, that's why I was under the impression it was a Friday. Thanks for the corrections below. MuffledPocketed 09:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to Sagittarian Milky Way, this user asserts the fact that statistically majority sects of islam forbids offensive strikes against infidels during fridays and the month of ramadan. the infamous surah of repentence, the ninth one in quran, ordered the prophet to wait out.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the IP who started the talk page thread, they did wikilink freenode's user, which should have given freenode an alert, hence the courtesy of informing was observed. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7/7 was a Thursday. The numerals in the date can be reversed, but the day of the week has to stick with what it was, in 2005, in London. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is what remains of the U.K.'s "Jews Relief Act" constitutional?[edit]
(Please note, I am not the troll - check my edit history)
My question is about the Jews Relief Act 1858, or the one restriction that it still imposes on Jewish Prime Ministers - that they may not advise certain government officials on matters related to appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland.
Now I'm well aware that this power (advising on church appointments) is only an illusory power, for the most part - the Prime Minister is given a Hobson's choice, as Margaret Thatcher discovered. And as pointed out in a previous discussion, "politicians make decisions about the Church of England for political reasons, as seen with the women bishops, not because they have any particular theological conviction, or even because they particularly care what actual Anglicans believe or do". But let's put all that aside.
If the law said that "only Anglican Prime Ministers may advise government officials on matters related to appointments in the Church of England", I would assume it to be constitutional - the same way you wouldn't expect a Catholic Parish to appoint an Anglican as a Priest, or vice versa. Religious bodies, to my understanding, generally have the right to limit internal "religious" decisions to members of their own Religion, and deciding whom to appoint as a Bishop, for example, definitely falls into that category.
My question about the constitutionality of this act, is in the sense that it specifically singles out Jews. A Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh Prime Minister could advise on Church appointments, but a Jew - no? Would this accord with the Human Rights Act 1998 for example, or general legal principles of Equality before the law, as they apply to U.K. common law? If Ed Milliband challenged the law in the courts (which I highly doubt he'd do, but assume he did it), what would the likely ruling be?
Please note that as far as I can see, this is not a request for legal advice, as there's essentially ZERO chance of anyone acting on the opinions expressed. I'm not Ed Milliband, and I don't think he (or any other future Jewish Prime Minister of the U.K.) will look to wikipedia to answer the question for him or her, should they care to challenge the law.
(I'm afraid that some IPs will attempt to answer this question and be caught out by that damn edit filter, not knowing what hit them. If you don't have an account and the edit filter blocks your response, post your answer on the Reference Desk talk page, so someone can copy and paste it here) Eliyohub (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer, but the beauty of the British Constitution is that if something is wrong with the present arrangement, Parliament is free to change it and it can be done in a very short space of time. An effective work-around for the situation where a non-Christian Prime Minister took office might be the appointment of an advisory council who could make the decision for him (or her). Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Bradney, a legal research fellow, makes this exact point in Law and Faith in a Sceptical Age, that the relevant sections of the Jews Relief Act 1858 and Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 restricting just these two groups from offering this advice, appears to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act.[8]Warofdreamstalk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any references to back this up, just some conjecture. We are talking about the Human Rights Act specifically, not human rights generally. The Human Rights Act implements a Europe-wide treaty, and there are plenty of European states with established religions. Some might argue that the establishment of religion is in itself incompatible with freedom of religion, but it seems unlikely that the ECHR would have been framed so as to outlaw establishment of religion. And once you accept establishment of religion to be compatible with this specific interpretation of human rights, it doesn't seem disproportionate to not give non-co-religionists a say in the running of that religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the link I provided above? Bradney discusses exactly this. Warofdreamstalk 14:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Warofdreams, I did read the extract you linked to, and my post above is in response to that somewhat brief statement. It doesn't analyse it substantively and is quite equivocal, I don't know if there was a more substantive analysis elsewhere in the work that I did not see. Going only by that page, the OP's post is better reasoned and more substantial than Mr Bradney's one sentence supposition. The point of my responses is that, it's easy to suppose that provisions like this might be contrary to the Human Rights Act, but looking at it conceptually it needs not necessarily be so. In short, I am not convinced that there is a fair arguable case after reading the page you linked to. I am hoping someone can find a better, more reasoned analysis; I have not been able to after spending a few minutes on Google. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the UK equivalent to "unconstititonal" ?[edit]
Inspired by the above Q, what exactly happens in the UK when Parliament passes an act that is in serious need of immediate repeal ? Let's say (after the press causes a panic by publishing a false story, for example) Parliament passes an act confiscating all newspapers, TV stations, and other media outlets. Is there no recourse short of voting the members of Parliament out of office, or is there some type of legal review process that would find such a law unreasonable and repeal it, similar to what the US Supreme Court would do ? StuRat (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Britain does have a constitution (that is, a set of governing principles that describes how the state is supposed to function), the concept of Parliament passing an unconstitutional law is not one of them, simply because of the concept of parliamentary supremacy, which holds that Parliament's actions cannot be bound by any actions of past Parliaments. --Jayron32 17:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest things would be: (i) a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998; and (ii) infringement of EU Treaty, for failure to implement / comply with EU law, in proceedings brought by the European Commission. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also refusal of the monarch's assent (which would precipitate a "constitutional crisis" but in the hypothetical circumstance outlined above, might well be forthcoming.) -Nunh-huh 21:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal of assent is similar to the concept of unconstitutionality in that it stops the law becoming law, but it is also different because it is the intervention of the sovereign rather than the courts. I'm not sure of the legal tradition that StuRat had in mind with the original post. If it is the US, then refusal of assent is, at least formally, more akin to a presidential veto, rather than a declaration of unconstitutionality. If it is a Commonwealth country with a written constitution, then refusal or assent is, at least formally, equivalent to the refusal of (viceregal) assent, which also is different from a declaration of unconstitutionality by the courts. In the UK, even under the theoretical modern practice, the withholding of assent does not, I think, depend on the law being unconstitutional. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UK law is fun. My jurisprudence professor used to talk about stuff that the UK technically leaves open to possibly happening, even if it wouldn't. For instance, the idea of a general warrant. Parliamentary acts can even abolish some of the most ancient principles of English law. Trial by combat, for instance, was theoretically available into the 19th century. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, Ashford v Thornton abolished the appeal of felony, not wager of battle itself. The last (unsuccessful) attempt was in 2002, over an expired tax disc - not a felony at common-law. On the more serious issue, a recent example is the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which, although duly enacted by Parliament, was subject to a declaration of incompatibility and made unworkable in practice by the courts. There is also the Royal veto, but that wouldn't be a live issue unless the country were on the brink of civil war. Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically speaking you're right: The abolition of the appeal of felony is what happened after that case, not trial by battle itself. That said, appeal of felony was the only remaining circumstance under which trial by battle could even be pleaded at that time. One of the few other circumstances where it was available was to try a writ of right (the other option with a writ of right was a grand assize, which would have required calling up twelve knights). The general reforms to the UK's judicial system—particularly the unavailability of the writs and esoteric forms of action under which such anachronistic modes of trial could be undertaken—further cemented their abolition. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is Sir Henry Lovell Goldsworthy Gurney KCMG KStJ wearing? Is it a British tropical trend (only mad dogs and Englishmen), or an emblem of rank, or a gift from a Malayan princeling? There was a (British) judge, allegedly, in British India who got fed up with the courtroom heat, and tore off his horsehair wig, after which all his fellow judges felt liberated to choose to bare their hair. At what point did colonial administrators (British and other) cease to wear daft hats? And what places had the daftest? I'm more interested in the sartorial aspect than the legalities of "colony"; I'd be delighted to hear that tax inspectors in the Falklands have to have half a sheep on their head for their valuations to be valid in a court of law. Officials on home territory don't count, otherwise the Italian police forces would win. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly a Pith helmet. Daftness is not quantifiable, so your other questions cannot be answered. --Jayron32 17:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's twice as large as any pith helmet I'd ever seen before, so I didn't even look there. Further down that article, it appears that he may be exactly wearing the Wolseley pattern -- or maybe not, as it lacks the red swan's plume. If daftness is deemed unencyclopedic, and goodness knows the refdesks have competently answered dafter questions than this one, then a surrogate indicator might be a combination of size (height or volume) and specificity, for lack of a better word (the difference of said headgear from anything the locals wore, or the colonial administrators wore back home in Europe). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same size as any other pith helmet anyone has ever seen. It does have a rather large Plume. But that's a separate accessory apart from the hat itself. Such plumes were very common at the time of the picture in question (say the end of the 19th century through the first 3 decades of the 20th century). --Jayron32 02:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your dates quite add up. While the photo is undated, my vague memory of having seen that or similar photos in history text books in Malaysia is that it was probably dated not long before his assasination which was at the start of 6th decade of the 20th century, so either 5th or 6th. Or if by first 3 decades you mean 1900-1940 for some reason, it's still nearly a decade out. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Idries Shah has something to say about "government by astonishment" with regard to British colonial headgear in one of his books. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Government by astonishment", what a lovely phrase. (And Wikipedia has its own Principle of least astonishment.) The story is told in Shah's Adventures, Fact, and Fantasy in Darkest England (1999) and reminds me of the golden chamberpot in the original Utopia. Thanks for the images, too, Askedonty. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I couldn't find the proper pictures on Wikipedia (rather than the plumes it is perhaps called something about feathers), but these other pictures reminded me there is a parentage linking pith helmet with parade pickelhauben. --Askedonty (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Idries Shah devotes an entire chapter (23) of his book Darkest England to "Government by Astonishment". The particular anecdote to which Duncan may be referring is on p. 224. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jack, my copy of Darkest England is hiding from me at the moment. Yes, it's the episode with the ostrich feather that I was thinking of. DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! It was hiding between a puncture repair kit and the Discworld. I suspect some kind of L-Space effect. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case we're comparing apples and oranges, or pineapples and coconuts....
Frankly, I didn't recognise Sir Henry's headgear as related to the soldiers' until Jayron said it was; I acknowledge the similarities, but I think there's more to this story. (Please re-format if you can improve the layout.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The big pith helmet with plumes looks like a fairly standard design often worn by governors of tropical territories. I'm just not sure whether they are wearing them because they are governors, or because of their concurrent military roles (the big pith helmet, no plumes, seems to have been a fairly standard part of ceremonial uniform for the British military in the tropics). You can see examples of multiple governors of Bermuda wearing the same sort of headdress on this page, and here's a photo of a governor of the Seychelles in 1972. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page, about the uniform of the governor of St Helena, calls the governor's uniform (complete with the plumed pith helmet) the "full dress Colonial Officers’ tropical ceremonial uniform", and describes the hat as a "Marlborough helmet with Generals’ swan’s feather plumes". It also helpfully explains the demise of the traditional uniform -- due to austerity on Westminster's part. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent finds, thanks. It presents one side of the demise; I bet there are plenty of anti-nostalgists who are thinking "Thank goodness my official representative no longer looks like a Gilbert and Sullivan character." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there had to be a reason for Her Majesty needing all those swans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the pith helmet worn by colonial governors seems pretty similar to that worn today by Royal Marines on high days and holidays. Try telling them that it looks daft (I'll hold your coat for you). Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Lo, all our pomp of yesterday" has not all departed; here is the Governor of Bermuda proudly wearing his "daft hat" last April. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![[9]](http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01618/rex_main_1618738a.jpg){kind=link}
