Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:01 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcotron View Post
First, you've obviously never talked to a Muslim about Islamic extremism if you don't think the graven image thing is a serious issue.
Well, let's say that I have never talked to an extremist Muslim. Even among Christian sects the issue of graven images is not consistently interpreted, so I find it plausible that some extremist Muslims would reject Christianity on that basis.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
Not explicitly, but getting in trouble with the police kind of implies that it is illegal.
You seem to be imagining a rule-of-law country, where the mutawwa'in are just like the NYPD, and the only difference is that the laws are crazy. That's not how it works.
Haven't actually been there, and have met only a few people who have. I have no plans to go myself. Perhaps it's not the law, though the cite I provided is as close as I could find as to a description of law from a reliable source. But however interesting this discussion is, we don't seem to be getting any closer to a factual answer as to what the law actually is specifically regarding a cross on a T-shirt.

Last edited by CookingWithGas; 10-14-2010 at 09:01 PM.
  #102  
Old 10-15-2010, 08:15 AM
Raguleader Raguleader is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kansas
Posts: 8,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
When it comes to shirts, Sharif don't like it.
Rock the Casbah! Rock the Casbah!
  #103  
Old 10-15-2010, 02:00 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcotron View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I really doubt those stories were true.
Yes, so do I. But they were great stories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
And secondly about "sharif in pakistan", who the hell is he. If he is Nawaz Sharif former PM, then I can't ever remember him saying anything either way about minorities unless its a message of congratulation at Christmas or other holiday time.
Exactly, Nawaz Sharif, former PM. When he began talking about the Shariat Bill he would later propose, the Clinton administration sought assurances that this wasn't going to be used to persecute minorities. He told them that as far as every political and religious leader in Pakistan was concerned, the ancient dhimmi contract was still in force, because Pakistan wasn't party to the Ottoman abrogation, and therefore People of the Book would be protected, even under sharia.
I really really really doubt that. The "Shariah Bill" as you call it or more accuratly the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan was in two versions

As presented and withrawn.

As actually passed by the lower house and finally defeated in the upper house.

Niether states anything about "Dhimmitude" and more accurately it was a very Middle Eastern concept. You did not have Dhimmi's since about 1550; the Emperor Akbar's time.
  #104  
Old 10-15-2010, 06:52 PM
Gala Matrix Fire Gala Matrix Fire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA/female/40s
Posts: 3,985
I see Sudan is also on their list. Here's news about some oppressed Christians in Sudan.

Quote:
The LRA emerged in 1998 in northern Uganda as a rebel movement dedicated to overthrowing the east African country's government and establishing a regime to uphold the Biblical Ten Commandments, but it was largely put down in its own country.

However, today it is infamous for regional atrocities against civilians, including massacres, and its leaders are wanted for war crimes. Uganda launched a joint raid with DR Congo troops against it in December 2008, but failed to crush it or capture its chief, Joseph Kony.

"So far this year, the Ugandan rebel group has carried out more than 240 deadly attacks. At least 344 people have been killed.
  #105  
Old 10-15-2010, 08:51 PM
falcotron falcotron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Niether states anything about "Dhimmitude" and more accurately it was a very Middle Eastern concept. You did not have Dhimmi's since about 1550; the Emperor Akbar's time.
The dhimma was ended only by the Hatti Humayan edict in 1856. And that only applied to the Ottoman Empire. Khomeini's argues in "On Islamic Government" that all non-Muslims in the rest of the Muslim world must be required to pay the jizya in exchange for receiving the protection of the state without military and other obligations.

And I'm not sure what you mean by it being a very Middle Eastern concept. Certainly it was a concept born in the Middle East, and probably borrowed from the Eastern Roman Empire. But it spread far beyond the region, from Morocco and Spain in the west to Indonesia in the East. In fact, you mention Akbar--a Mughal Emperor who was born in Pakistan, grew up in Afghanistan, and spent most of his rule campaigning throughout India.

If you're saying that nobody in Pakistan has used the word or concept since Akbar, what about, say, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi?

I suppose you're right that it's not a good word to use, because of the negative connotations (especially from the 19th century, and reawoken more recently in Lebanon). But it is the legal word for non-Muslims living under Sharia, and any Muslim nation that allows freedom of worship, freedom from conscription, protection from outsiders, etc. is abiding by their side of the contract whether or not they enforce the other side. This is part of sharia law.

As for Nawaz Sharif, he probably didn't actually use the word "dhimmi" in his talks with the Clinton Administration, but he certainly used the word "protected" (which is just the English translation), and he claimed that any Muslim state is obligated to protect non-Muslims.
  #106  
Old 10-15-2010, 08:59 PM
falcotron falcotron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookingWithGas View Post
Haven't actually been there, and have met only a few people who have. I have no plans to go myself. Perhaps it's not the law, though the cite I provided is as close as I could find as to a description of law from a reliable source. But however interesting this discussion is, we don't seem to be getting any closer to a factual answer as to what the law actually is specifically regarding a cross on a T-shirt.
True. Honestly, the only way we're likely to find out for sure is to ask a Saudi jurist or legal scholar.

But my point still stands: So far nobody's turned up any evidence that the t-shirt would be illegal in a single country, much less in 52 of them. At best, people have suggested that it might possibly be illegal in 4 to 6 countries. And it seems pretty likely that the people who design and sell the shirt know it isn't true. The shirt is a cake.
  #107  
Old 10-15-2010, 09:59 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcotron View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Niether states anything about "Dhimmitude" and more accurately it was a very Middle Eastern concept. You did not have Dhimmi's since about 1550; the Emperor Akbar's time.
The dhimma was ended only by the Hatti Humayan edict in 1856. And that only applied to the Ottoman Empire. Khomeini's argues in "On Islamic Government" that all non-Muslims in the rest of the Muslim world must be required to pay the jizya in exchange for receiving the protection of the state without military and other obligations.

And I'm not sure what you mean by it being a very Middle Eastern concept. Certainly it was a concept born in the Middle East, and probably borrowed from the Eastern Roman Empire. But it spread far beyond the region, from Morocco and Spain in the west to Indonesia in the East. In fact, you mention Akbar--a Mughal Emperor who was born in Pakistan, grew up in Afghanistan, and spent most of his rule campaigning throughout India.

If you're saying that nobody in Pakistan has used the word or concept since Akbar, what about, say, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi?

I suppose you're right that it's not a good word to use, because of the negative connotations (especially from the 19th century, and reawoken more recently in Lebanon). But it is the legal word for non-Muslims living under Sharia, and any Muslim nation that allows freedom of worship, freedom from conscription, protection from outsiders, etc. is abiding by their side of the contract whether or not they enforce the other side. This is part of sharia law.

As for Nawaz Sharif, he probably didn't actually use the word "dhimmi" in his talks with the Clinton Administration, but he certainly used the word "protected" (which is just the English translation), and he claimed that any Muslim state is obligated to protect non-Muslims.
I see you are predicating your argument on the basis of Conjectures, presumptions and surmises. Most Pakistanis would not even know what "dhimmi" means outside of religious scholars, I never knew what it meant until I went to the UK.

If you talk about protection to minorities then NS would have been referring to Articles 20-22 of the Constitution which protect minority right and as NS was trained as a lawyer (though he never practiced) this is almost certainly what he was referring to.

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/co...part2.ch1.html
Quote:
20. Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions.
Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

21. Safeguard against taxation for purposes of any particular religion.
No person shall be compelled to pay any special tax the proceeds of which are to be spent on the propagation or maintenance of any religion other than his own.

22. Safeguards as to educational institutions in respect of religion, etc.
(1) No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.
(2) In respect of any religious institution, there shall be no discrimination against any community in the granting of exemption or concession in relation to taxation.
(3) Subject to law:
(a) no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or denomination; and
(b) no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth.
(4) Nothing in this Article shall prevent any public authority from making provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward class of citizens.
  #108  
Old 10-16-2010, 03:34 AM
falcotron falcotron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 212
We've gotten way off topic here, so let me first say: You're mostly right here, and I apologize for taking us off track.

But, as far as it affects the topic of this thread, I think we'd agree that Pakistan would be unlikely to ban a cross t-shirt.

Now, on to the details:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I see you are predicating your argument on the basis of Conjectures, presumptions and surmises.
Yes, it was a mistake for me to bring up the dhimma in this context.

The Council of Islamic Ideology and its predecessor advisory bodies do take the contract into account in advising the government. At least two members of the CII has spoken and written about this.

But that doesn't mean that the general public, or even the government, necessarily sees things in those terms. And you're completely right, it was an unwarranted conjecture to assume they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
If you talk about protection to minorities then NS would have been referring to Articles 20-22 of the Constitution which protect minority right and as NS was trained as a lawyer (though he never practiced) this is almost certainly what he was referring to.
JAG points out that this is exactly what it means for a Muslim state to uphold its side of the contract without requiring the dhimmi to uphold their side (except that it's missing the freedom from conscription). It's one of his examples for the idea that democracy grows out of Islamic law, and therefore Muslim countries don't need to borrow extensively from the west.

But, reading it over, it's a good secular Constitution. That's probably the only way a businessman/politician with legal training, or anyone but a religious scholar trying to make a point, would read it. And, even if those weren't his personal thoughts, that's almost certainly how he'd present it to worried western allies.

So, you're right, I assumed NS was speaking of the dhimma (in JAG's terms), but he probably wasn't.
  #109  
Old 10-16-2010, 05:32 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,962
There have been attempt to ban religious literature and have failed spectacularly as the case below shows

Quote:
P L D 2005 Lahore 354

Before Syed Zahid Hussain and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ

Hafiz ASMATULLAH‑‑‑Appellant

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents

Intra‑Court Appeal No. 599 of 2004, decided on 7th April, 2005.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Arts. 20, 36(3), 227 & 199‑‑‑Intra‑Court appeal‑‑‑Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions‑‑‑Protection of minorities‑‑Contention of the petitioner under Art.199 of the Constitution was that the Provincial Government be directed to impose ban qua the book "God's Special Agents" and that the respondent be restrained from preaching and projecting the programme of Christianity in Pakistan‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Held, under Art.20 of the Constitution every citizen enjoys a Fundamental Right to profess, practise and propagate his religion and every religious denomination and every sect thereof has a right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions‑‑‑Petitioner failed to point out and to address any argument as to how the actions of the respondent offend against any particular law, public order or morality so as to exclude the application of Art.20 of the Constitution‑‑‑Reliance of the petitioner upon Art.227 of the Constitution in the context was inapt inasmuch as clause (3) thereof ensures that "nothing in this part shall affect the personal laws of non Muslim citizens or their status as citizens" and rather gives added strength to Art.20 of the Constitution and is also consistent with the principles of policy as contained in Art.36 of the Constitution‑‑ Benevolence and tolerance is the hallmark of religion of Islam and faith of Muslims and provisions of Arts.20, 36 & 227(3) of the Constitution are reflection thereof‑‑‑No valid justification having been found to interfere, order of the Single Bench was reaffirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Muhammad Yousaf Javed with Shabbir Hussain Qureshi for Petitioners.


ORDER

Through the petition tiled under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 it was prayed that the Government of Punjab be directed to impose ban qua the book "God's Special Agents" and that respondent No.4 namely William Johnson be restrained from preaching and projecting the programme of Christianity in Pakistan. The said petition carne up for hearing before a learned Judge in Chamber of this Court who dismissed the same on 1‑11‑2004, which order has now been assailed through this Intra- Court Appeal.

2. The petition was dismissed as mentioned above by the learned Single Judge observing that "Under Article 20 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 every citizen enjoys a Fundamental Right to profess, practise and propagate his religion and every religious denomination and every sect thereof has a right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions. The petitioner has failed to point out in his petition and has also failed to address any argument before this Court as to how the actions of respondent No.4 offend against any particular law, public order or morality so as to exclude the application of Article 20 referred to above.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we have found absolutely no error or illegality in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition and would rather reaffirm the view taken in the impugned order by reproducing Article 20 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973:

"20. Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions.‑‑Subject to law, public order and morality‑‑‑

(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and

(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage, its religious institutions. "

Reliance of the learned counsel upon Article 227 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in the context is inapt inasmuch as clause (3) thereof ensures that "Nothing in this Part shall affect the personal laws of non‑Muslim citizens or their status as citizens". It rather gives added strength to fundamental right No.20 ibid and is also consistent with the Principles of Policy as contained in Article 36, which reads like this:‑‑

"Article 36. Protection of minorities.‑‑The state shall safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of minorities, including their due representation in the Federal and Provincial services."

Needless to reiterate that benevolence and tolerance is the hallmark of religion of Islam and our faith. Indeed the provisions of Articles 20, 36 and clause (3) of Article 227 is reflection thereof. We, therefore, find no valid justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

M.B.A./A‑427/L Appeal dismissed.
I would say that yes, at least in Pakistan a shirt with a cross won't be illegal.

Finally about the CII, it is a joke, their job is to write memos which no one reads, except the press and or media on a slow day to manufacture controversy.
  #110  
Old 06-23-2012, 08:52 AM
Buzz470 Buzz470 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Read the rest of the shirt

As of 2009 it is 53 countries and it is broke down like this 40 restricted nations and 13 hostile areas. In 13 cases it is not the whole country and the shirt does say that. You just need to read the whole shirt.
  #111  
Old 06-23-2012, 02:32 PM
njtt njtt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz470 View Post
As of 2009 it is 53 countries and it is broke down like this 40 restricted nations and 13 hostile areas. In 13 cases it is not the whole country and the shirt does say that. You just need to read the whole shirt.
So it is like having a shirt that reads:
Quote:
Christians are Murderers and Pedophiles!
Actually only a tiny minority of them, though.
I wonder how that would go down in, say, America.
  #112  
Old 06-23-2012, 02:46 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz470 View Post
As of 2009 it is 53 countries and it is broke down like this 40 restricted nations and 13 hostile areas. In 13 cases it is not the whole country and the shirt does say that. You just need to read the whole shirt.
It's ironic cite to data from three years ago in a thread from two years ago.

Last edited by CookingWithGas; 06-23-2012 at 02:49 PM.
  #113  
Old 06-23-2012, 03:00 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
As kids we were taught that wearing a cross outside of your clothes as decoration was wrong.

I could see in some countries people being stopped before entering certain churches or religious areas dressed inappropriately.
  #114  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:26 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,906
Edit: Never mind - didn't spot that this was a zombie thread

Last edited by Quartz; 06-23-2012 at 04:27 PM.
  #115  
Old 06-23-2012, 04:47 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,498
Hm... doesn't look like the shirt would stop zombies. Vampires, now... that's different. Never could figure out why Buffy never had crosses tattooed on her neck.
  #116  
Old 06-23-2012, 05:04 PM
Kenm Kenm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,314
Now I have to get a T-shirt that says in big letters, Cite? With an arrow pointing to the person wearing the illegal-in-52-countries shirt. Of course I'd die of old age before I could make use of it. Still, it's better to be prepared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
As kids we were taught that wearing a cross outside of your clothes as decoration was wrong.
Sorta like white after Labour Day.
  #117  
Old 06-23-2012, 08:17 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,179
In Germany and a number of other countries, wearing a shirt with a swastica or pro (neo) nazi is illegal.

Of course, rising fascism (like in Hungary) can always make its point through other means.

My personal opinion is that is a terrible move, and I am a Survivor's son, and everyone else, excluding my Mom, were murdered.
This of course requires a faith in that simple grass-roots activism, especially in the light of historic disaster, will have little, if any, national traction.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 06-23-2012 at 08:18 PM.
  #118  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:58 AM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,281
The shirt simply exists so that the American conservative christian majority can live within their bubble and pretend that they're actually the persecuted.
  #119  
Old 06-24-2012, 07:23 AM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz470 View Post
You just need to read the whole shirt.
Why? Did you read the whole thread?
  #120  
Old 06-24-2012, 07:42 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbox View Post
The shirt simply exists so that the American conservative christian majority can live within their bubble and pretend that they're actually the persecuted.
Or that they're somehow morally superior.
  #121  
Old 06-24-2012, 08:00 AM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 10,582
I wonder is stipulating that it be a woman wearing the shirt brings us closer to 52. If a woman went out in public wearing a t-shirt, she'd be breaking the law in quite a few more places. Or maybe it's all the same places as the original list?
  #122  
Old 06-24-2012, 09:23 AM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,262
How about (hypothetical) jurisdictions where it's illegal to display a statement that's verifiably untrue? If you had 4 countries where the cross was illegal, another 48 where the untrue statement was illegal, that would bring us up to 52.

But wait - then it would be true, and it would be hunky-dory in the 48 truthy countries. But then it would be untrue again...
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017