Youssef Ibrahim, former New York Times Middle East correspondent, writes in the New York Sun:
The letter "X" soon may be banned in Saudi Arabia because it resembles the mother of all banned religious symbols in the oil kingdom: the cross.
The new development came with the issuing of another mind-bending fatwa, or religious edict, by the infamous Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice -— the group of senior Islamic clergy that reigns supreme on all legal, civil, and governance matters in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The commission's damning of the letter "X" came in response to a Ministry of Trade query about whether it should grant trademark protection to a Saudi businessman for a new service carrying the English name "Explorer." ...
Among the commission's deeds is the famed 1974 fatwa -— issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile....
Still more interesting details in the article; thanks to David Kaplan of USNews.com for the pointer.
UPDATE: Bill Poser (Language Log) points out that "in some circles in Israel, the plus-sign is avoided due to its resemblance to the cross and is replaced with a version that looks like this: ﬩ It is actually in Unicode, at codepoint U+FB29, dubbed HEBREW LETTER ALTERNATIVE PLUS SIGN." Zayiny! (Well, OK, not quite.)
Poser's correspondents report that "the truncated plus sign turns up in some ulpan (Hebrew language classes for non-Israelis) and in the lower grades of primary school." That strikes me as pretty silly -- a weird signal of insecurity that shows you're obsessed so with the other religion that anything that even reminds people of it is somehow seen as a threat. But at least not as bad as trying to demand that private enterprises do the same.
On the other hand, those crescent-shaped bananas ....
So this sort of thing is nothing new.
It is ironic that in the land of the birth of the concept of zero, they would ban the concept of X, which is that of the unknown, at least in mathematics.
Kinda makes you wish you were a philosopher to find meaning here.....
But for much of the past 1300 or so years, it was the Christians whom the Moslems were fighting for dominence. And by the 19th Century, they were losing badly, often ending up as pawns in the "Great Game". And it was primarily the Christians who split up the middle east as we see it now and installed their choices as the new kings.
According to Wikipedia the number zero was first used in India.
The Hindu-Arabic numerical system, which is a pure place-value system requiring a zero, also originated in India. This system was introduced to Europe through the Islamic Middle East. Otherwise we would call it the “Hindu numerical system.” Note that the Maya Indians in Central America had a radix-20 positional number system that used a shell Glyph as a placeholder for zero. However it’s not clear that had a concept of zero meaning nothing in the modern sense.
It seems to be a common misconception that the Arabs invented zero.
The notions of “nothing” and “zero” are not necessarily synonymous. As Bill Poser points out “nothing” can mean a count of zero, and you treat it just like any other number. For example zero can be the solution of an equation. Thus the equation x^2 -2x = 0 has two solutions x=0 and x=1. But the equation x^2 + 1 = 0 has no solutions, or “nothing” is a solution to that equation (assume the solution must be a real number). Understanding the difference between “nothing” and zero can be crucial. When NASA engineers plotted the number of “o-ring” failures versus temperature they treated zero counts as “nothing” and didn’t plot the point. As a result the graphs of “o-ring” failures versus temperature were deceiving and they missed the temperature dependence. Thus the Challenger Space Shuttle was allowed to launch on a cold day, the rings failed, and the Challenger blew up. Giving NASA very costly lesson on confusing “nothing” and zero.
The distinction between “nothing” and zero really didn’t become clear until the concept of the empty set (set with no members) came along. So now we can say the set consisting of the solutions of x^2 + 1 = 0 is the empty set. All this might seem trivial to the modern mind, but was far from obvious to the ancients. Zero really had to be invented.
Ummmm, grandmother?
However, regarding letters -
In the Eighties an employee of Saudia Air was awarded a prize for discerning an unIslamic message in the airline's logo. At the time one of the logos was the lower case word "saudia." The font used left white space between the "s" and the "a" which could be seen as a cross. The employee won a cash reward, and the logo was changed.
The "Commission" is now more formally under government control and they are always accompanied on their patrols by police. That is both because the Commission members lack arrest authority and to protect the members from very unhappy Saudis. (There are several reported instances of members of the public putting a beatdown on Commission members for going too far.) The government is instituting an academy where it can keep the ignorant zealots out of what it considers an important religio-social function: keeping temptation away from would-be sinners. They are also seeking to keep the vigilantes off the street by considering things like uniforms for Commission members.
BTW, the "Star of David" is known to Muslims also as the "Seal of Solomon". It's a fairly widely used motif in Islamic design, to be found in mosaics, tile work, and other decorative arts. Context is all.
Didn't you watch the Da Vinci Code? The Star of David represents the uniting of male and female and so it would be both parents of other religious symbols.
Linux? Er...this could get difficult.
I think if my analysis above is correct then there is a qualitative difference between the Saudi X and Route 666. EV's points about government action to censor itself versus government coercion to censor private actions is the more tangible and important point.
Says the "Dog"
Says the "Dog"
Says the "Dog"
italicized comment signatures, especially ones that contain a joke that might be funny once but not when repeated on each post, would be a different story.)
I'm unfamiliar, though, with the Israeli law you mention. Might you point me to some source that describes its details?
Life is weirder than humour. A Language Log reader who has lived in Saudi Arabia emailed me about his experience there. He said that in fact Saudi schoolteachers were careful to write the letter "t" without letting the horizontal stroke cross the vertical stroke lest they be accused of spreading Christianity.
Computers do provide some humor in Saudi. When the internet was introduced at Aramco there were extensive filters placed on the browsers. These kept the search engines from honoring requests for pornography. However, they did go a bit far. For example, I was stumped on how to install a new version of MicroSoft Excel, so I typed "MSExcel" into Yahoo to find a page about Excel. It was rejected with a stern warning. Note the second, third, and fourth letters of my search request.
Somebody ought to tell the Saudis about triangles.
Why does my signature seem to irritate you? You've already banned *bold* is italics far behind. Its not a joke its a personalization or affectation. It seems perfectly harmless to me, but seems to rub high powered law professors' egos (or some subset thereof) the wrong way for some reason that totally escapes me. Sorry.
I would have thought it was the content of posts that bothered some people, and not my personal affectations.
To quote a common saying from pop culture American Idol "Come on Dog".
Says the "Dog"
On the other hand, trying to do a search on the Pussycat Dolls here in the Emirates brings up the "verboten!!!" screens.
And MBC leaves in all the "shit" and "fuck"'s in movies, but bleep the last word in the sentnence "I'm as fat as a pig!"
And maybe I'd like the job of covering the ass cleavage in copies of Maxim and FHM with black magic marker.
It really is an absurdity a day here in the sandlands.
And yes, I think that's a violation of speech rights as well, but it's hardly the same as "making it a crime to talk to a non-christian about christianity." And it's not "actually enforced" at all. It's never enforced.
(Interestingly, there's a current bill being proposed -- not yet passed -- which would forbid proselytizing BY ORTHODOX JEWS to secular Jewish minors.)
Nick
I had forgotten about the magazines.
For the uninitiated, every single copy of a magazine in the Kingdom is censored. Sometimes they use black markers to obscure unacceptable items, but then moved to sticky tape to cover ads for beer, Scotch, Vodka, womens' legs, womens' breasts, womens' midsectons, womens' butts and women. Besides women and booze, anything about religion, pictures of crosses, religious figures, churches, etc were also blotted. Articles about Israel never made it. I once saw a map of the mideast in TIME where a little square of tape blotted out Israel. It was not unusual to read half a story, turn to the contuation on page 51, and find the story blotted out because adjacent columns had a picture of a BudWeiser.
With practice, a steady hand, and a great deal of patience one could learn to peel back the tape without tearing the page. Putting it back on the library shelf then gave one a great deal of satisfaction. We took our small victories for free speech in the desert where we could find them.
In fairness, I have to say this really annoyed most Saudis.
Thanks for the clarification. All I can say is that several jewish people have described or responded to questions about this law in my lifetime, and none of them did anything but defend the law. They never said they didn't know anything about the law and how its enforced or that it was limited only to speech offering money to convert. I had no reason to doubt these otherwise rational, sane, and likable people when it came to discussing this matter. I guess they were also misinformed.
EV, stop reading here:
Says the "Dog"
Because its my signature and I'm obsessive compulsive about signing what I write. Its no different nor annoying than it is to have the name of each poster constantly repeated at the top of their posts. At least to me anyway.
Says the "Dog"
Well, there are several strains of reasoning re: KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)...
1. Oil. That's the biggie. They've got it. Lots of it. We need it. Lots of it. While their oil doesn't necessarily go to us, it goes to the world market, influencing world prices, and making the world economy go round and round. Also, they have the spigot (aka excess capacity) which they can turn on and off. If there is a shock to they system (invasion of an oil producing country, another pipeline going boom in Nigeria) the Saudis are the only country not currently maxed out in production.
2. General princimple of non-interference. Call this the Kissinger, or realpolitik model. The Saudis are our allies. Have been for a long time. Why cause problems in a country that is an ally of ours? There are many dictatorships, despots, and couuntries that aren't like America. It is not our job to interfere or invade with every one we do not like.
3. Until recently, the Saudi people were very friendly to Americans. I can only speak to 1993 (last time I was there) and the Eastern Province, but the people there were realtively friendly to Americans. From conversations I've had recently with friends that have been there in the aughts... not so much anymore. Still, the leaders continue to be pro-Western.
KSA has a lot of problems. I don't believe they've corrupted our government, however. There are vested interests on both sides that go back to when Standard Oil of Cal. first started drilling over there.
Oh, and to answer this question:
I'm thinking of something like... a slutty, spinster aunt? Or possibly the "funny" uncle who drinks too much at reunions and insists on personally putting the children to bed?
Reminds me that there was a time when the EU tried to do away with them!
Memories, memories.
If it's a big enough issue for you to use it in an argument here, it's a big enough issue for you to look up to verify.
GMAB,
Says the "Dog"
Those are all very good reasons. I’m not surprised that the Saudi’s were pro American in 1993; after all we were protecting them from an Iraq invasion. But Saudi Arabia is not our friend. We have ample evidence that SA supports terrorism and is hostile to the West. Here is but one example of many. The 1977 booklet, The Facts That the Muslim Must Know about Christianity and Missionary Activity, argues that Christianity has been converted into “paganism, polytheism, and fables.” The booklet bore the seal of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its cover and was issued by the General Presidency for the Directorate of Religious Research… a branch of the Saudi Government. Numerous radio and TV broadcasts in Arabic from SA are full of hate-filled venom against Christians and Jews. Hated is taught in Saudi schools. All this comes not only from fringe groups, but from the Saudi government itself.
When you say, “It is not our job to interfere or invade with every one we do not like,” how come that didn’t apply to South Africa, or Rhodesia? Let’s not forget that the Carter administration helped undermine the Shah of Iran because he was an autocrat. Remember Iran was our ally then. While the oil explanation goes a long way, I don’t think it goes far enough because we don’t have to be that friendly towards them for them to supply the world’s oil market. After all we buy most of our oil directly from Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. I think my model makes more sense, the US government at many levels has been directly corrupted by Saudi money. Money paid to ex-congressmen, retired State Department officials, law firms, retired military etc to act as lobbyists and agents for the Kingdom of Hate. Now I can’t prove my assertions without further research, but I think it makes a lot of sense.
And wouldn't you agree that what Carter did in Iran was a damnfool stupid thing to do? Would you really want to repeat that experience in Saudi Arabia (with the result being a Sunni mullocracy instead of a Shiite one)?
(Oh, yeah, and we should have left South Africa and Rhodesia alone. Although the harm from interfering there was a lot less than it was in Iran, or would be in Saudi Arabia.)