Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Adultery is a grave sin in Islam. There have of course been countless Muslims, men and women, who were promiscuous but were not caught. So I interpret the question as, are there Muslim women who are notable and known to have been accused of adultery? For an alleged adulteress to be notable, there should be a reason for the notability, for example being the wife of a very notable person. Aisha, the third wife of prophet Muhammad, was accused of adultery but let of the hook when God (allegedly) sent her husband a revelation that she was innocent. (The evidence was apparently purely circumstantial and very thin.) Another reason is convictions in modern times that drew international attention due to the harshness of the punishment. One such case is that of Amina Lawal, a Nigerian woman who was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. The international attention saved her. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a 13-year old Somali girl who had been raped, was killed by stoning. The case drew attention, both because of the young age of the victim and the egregiousness of accusing a victim of rape of adultery. Soraya Manutchehri, an Iranian women, was stoned to death for adultery; she became notable by being the subject of a book, later adapted as a film, The Stoning of Soraya M.. There are probably some more, but most cases, however tragic, never garnered attention. --Lambiam10:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to what some Muslims claim is the highest form of Islamic law (called "Hudood" in Pakistan), a woman claiming to have been raped (or the fact of her pregnancy, if she's unmarried) is enough to establish that she had sex outside marriage, but it takes the testimony of four male eyewitnesses to convict on a rape accusation. There are many obvious problems with that, but it was the standard applied to Amina Lawal... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that restriction, apart from Aisha mentioned above, I believe one other unfaithful female character occurs in the Qur'an: Zulaikha. This is a pre-Islamic character, though. She is not named in the Qur'an (or the Hebrew Bible); the name comes from a medieval retelling of the story. --Lambiam16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is supposedly a famous and "iconic" photo of Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank during the 1991 Russian coup attempt. I found many mentions of it online, but few reproductions. Is this it, or is there another? I was imagining something more dramatic than the one I linked. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it. There's a YouTube video of "Yeltsin's tank speech" that I'm not going to link here since it's of unknown copyright provenance. If by "dramatic" you mean something like him proudly standing alone (or highest) atop a tank, then I don't think such an image exists. It really just looks like he used it as an impromptu stage. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The links are indeed the pictures. When the coup plotters announced that they had taken power in the USSR on the morning of August 19, 1991, in place of Mikhail Gorbachev, Yeltsin called a special session of the Russian parliament and read a short speech calling for resistance to the coup attempt. However, as the audience inside the Russian parliament was limited, he then went outside and re-read the statement while standing atop the tank. The tank was one of the many that were sent into Moscow from a nearby army base by the coup leaders in order to scare the population into meekly accepting the coup. Yelsin's dramatic gesture caught the population's and the world's imagination and became the iconic image of that event. The coup failed miserably within three days as the population followed Yeltsin's call refused to go along with the plotters. Xuxl (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that background. It is helpful in understanding what happened. I fixed your typo in Gorachev's first name--hope that's ok, it fixes the wikilink. Brandmeister, thanks too, though that picture like the other one doesn't clearly show the tank. I guess the tank must have been parked outside the Parliament for a while, when Yeltsin came out to speak. I'm not a serious photographer and have never been at a world-shaking event like that, but I've taken plenty of pics where in retrospect I wished I'd shot at a different angle to avoid cutting something out of the frame. Those Yeltsin pics are sort of like that, I guess. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the typo; I did not have time to come back and check out my post as I had a busy day. Note that this event was before the era of the smart phone, and there were relatively few cameras around in the USSR, where they were a luxury item. It was also the very beginnings of a freer press, and there were not that many journalists going around either (the official press was waiting for instructions). There was such confusion regarding what was happening that morning that the few western journalists present were unsure where to go and what to cover. All that resulted in relatively few good pictures (there were more as the events progressed). Xuxl (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would Speaker of the House get their job back after being VP?
If the POTUS got 25th'ed today, the Speaker of the House becomes vice president until the 20th, or 7 days. The VP, who is now president, was elected alongside the original president, so they'd be done in that position. The new VP would be as well, but they were elected separately from POTUS and VP. Would the VP get their job as Speaker of the House back after their 1 week vice presidency? If that's not explained well, here's a table:
(ec) When the office of the President is vacated, the VP becomes president. Then there is a vice presidential vacancy. This is not filled by the Speaker of the House; instead, the 25th Amendment prescribes that upon such a vacancy arising the President (in this case the former veep) shall nominate a Vice President – who needs to be confirmed by both Houses. Only if both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency should become vacant does the Speaker of the House get a role; not because of a constitutional provision, but by virtue of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. They are then the first in line of presidential line of succession, not to become President, but to become Acting President. --Lambiam16:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump gets 25th'd, he continues to be president, but is put on something like disability leave while Pence becomes acting president. Pence continues to also be VP and perform his VP duties such as presiding over the Senate, I'm pretty sure. Pelosi stays House Speaker. If Trump gets impeached and removed before his term is up, Pence becomes President and the office of VP becomes vacant. Pence could in principle appoint a new VP and get that VP confirmed by the Senate, but that seems unlikely with just a few days remaining. There is actually almost no chance of a Senate impeachment trial being completed before Biden's inauguration (see other thread about that). The main thing a conviction would do is prohibit Trump from running again in 2024, though there is apparently an argument that such a prohibition would conflict with the 14th amendment. I don't know how credible that is. It certainly seems to me that if the semi-permanent two-party political establishment thinks the country might be willing to elect Trump again and it's scared of that possibility, it should ask itself what it did to put the country in such a mood, and consider doing something different instead. Impeachment just seems like a stopgap. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing a conviction would do is prohibit Trump from running again in 2024 Point of clarification: A conviction itself would not bar Trump from running again. There would need to be a separate vote, though Senate precedent is that it only requires a simple majority to achieve. Thus, if Trump is convicted by a 2/3 majority, it seems likely that the votes would exist for the second vote. But that’s my own speculation. there is apparently an argument that such a prohibition would conflict with the 14th amendment I’ve not seen that argument, and I’m not sure what it would be. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer, no. Longer answer: Nancy Pelosi would not become VP as a direct result of Trump resigning, being removed by impeachment, or being incapacitated under the 25th Amendment. The only way Pelosi would become VP is if Trump resigned or were removed by impeachment, and Pence offered her the job and she accepted. The result would be her resignation as a Representative in order to accept the position as VP. That won’t happen. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pelosi would also have to be confirmed by both chambers of Congress, if we're being pedantic. The Senate is still controlled by Republicans, if I'm not mistaken, since it is split 50-50 and the tiebreaker would be Pence, who is still VP along with being acting president. We'll ignore the 14-dimensional politics it must have taken Pence to nominate Pelosi in the first place. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent has already been set. When Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace, the office of VP was vacant until Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford who was approved by the Senate. When Nixon resigned in disgrace, Ford became the first and only unelected U.S. president to date. He appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP, who was approved by the Senate and served out the rest of the term. Two years later, Rockefeller died of a heart attack on the midst of an "intimate encounter" with a much younger woman. It is hard to make this stuff up. None of these chess moves spread down to the Speaker of the House, who was Carl Albert at that time. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United States intelligence gathering in the years and decades before the creation of the CIA
Yes of course MarnetteD, big typo! There were hundreds of concerts planned last year as well, most of which were canceled because of COVID unfortunately... Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say President X and Vice President Y are elected and inaugurated. A while later, X has a medical setback and is in the hospital, unconscious but stable. The 25th kicks in and Y becomes the acting president. After a while, it becomes clear that X is in a coma and might awaken at any time, but might also stay in it for potentially years.
It is impossible for X to resign the office of POTUS, since X is unconscious. Meanwhile Y does in fact serve as acting president for some years, with no end in sight before the next election.
Is there a way for Y to appoint an acting VP? Otherwise, what if something now happens to Y? Does the House Speaker (potentially from the other party) become acting POTUS? This doesn't sound set up the way the policymakers were likely to have wanted. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no mechanism for "acting Vice President". There's also no need for one. The Vice President only has 2 jobs, neither of which in a normal sense are very taxing, and one of which only happens exceedingly rarely. Job 1) is to be the presiding officer of the Senate; however over the years this job is mostly ceremonial and ONLY kicks in when their vote is needed as a tie breaking vote. Job 2) is to be alive in case the president dies or is incapacitated. For this reason, it was fairly recently (the 1960s) when the constitution made any provision at all to replace a Vice President. In your scenario, if the President is not actually dead, then the VP remains Vice President, and only becomes an acting President in the sense that they are authorized to do the job of President, but don't get the title. In function, they are basically both Vice President and acting President. Now, if a Vice President who is acting as President becomes dead or incapacitated, the next person up is the Speaker of the House, who becomes acting President. If they become so incapacitated as well, the next person up is the President pro Tempore, then the NEXT person would be the Secretary of State, and so on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security based on the United States presidential line of succession. AT no point in this process is there any mechanism (or, indeed, much need) to name a Vice President so long as the President himself is still alive. Once he dies, the Vice President becomes the Honest To God President, and names a Vice President pursuant to the process laid out in the Constitution. If someone other than the VP is acting President at the time, it is something of an open question, as that has never happened before. There are legal opinions all over the map with regards to whether or not, if BOTH the President and Vice President die, the Speaker (or anyone else) becomes the Honest To God President, or just Acting President until the next scheduled election. --Jayron3215:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, imagine in 2017: Trump is president and is reasonably popular at that time, Pence is VP, Pelosi is House Speaker, and Republicans control the Senate. Then Trump goes into a coma, Pence is VP and acting president and has high likelihood of being acting president for the next 3 years, but ZOMG, Pelosi is next in line! Pence could easily get a Republican successor confirmed if only there were a mechanism for it, but there just doesn't seem any way to get there from here. Same scenario could apply with the parties switched under Biden/Harris, if something happens to the Democrats' House majority. It seems like an oversight in the succession scheme. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, there just isn't a mechanism. Your individual desire to see one does not seem to have been shared by Congress, which has not taken up the issue since 1947 (minimally amended several times to include new executive department chairs, when created) or since 1967 if you count how to handle VP vacancies. Write your congressperson if this bothers you. No one here can fix it. I'll also note that so far it has never come up. Indeed, vacancies in the VP position were so frequent, and yet such a minor problem, that despite basically a little less than 1/2 of all Presidents having at least some time in office without any VP, it only got dealt with in 1967. Oddly, the U.S. functioned fine for almost 200 years without dealing with it. --Jayron3219:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we get into all kinds of bizarre events because the people who wrote those statutes weren't thinking carefully. The 25th amendment that they wanted to use on Trump was written because of issues that came up with Eisenhower. We need to throw out the Congress and put engineers in charge (joking--actually doing that would of course be awful in its own way). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the vice presidency could be filled only by a regular election; several individuals who served during these vacancies were referred to informally as "acting vice president."
["several individuals who served" meaning served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate.]
Acting Vice President of the United States is an unofficial designation that has occasionally been used when the office of vice president was vacant.
and:
Nonetheless, James Eastland, senator from Mississippi, was referred to as "acting vice president" twice while he was president pro tempore in the 1970s, during periods of a vacancy in the vice presidency.[1] The first occurred following the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew, prior to the appointment of Gerald Ford to replace him, and the second occurred when Ford became president, vacating the vice presidency, before Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as his replacement. During both these periods, however, Speaker of the House Carl Albert was first in the line of succession to the presidency under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, ahead of Eastland.
however that given reference is of questionable reliability, and I don't know if there are any contemporaneous sources referring to James Eastland in that manner. -- ToE04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, the President pro tempore is always the "acting Vice President" given that one of the VPs two constitutionally defined roles is "President of the Senate". Since the VP often doesn't preside over the senate, the President pro tempore acts for them. --Jayron3214:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
