Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[menwia]

For all the talk there is about Jihad -- which IS a word open to interpretation...

For all the talk about how Mohammed had his hands covered in blood, people seem to think that Abraham never picked up a sword.

But that's not the point at issue. It's obvious that specifics in religion are contraversial in two respects. One respect is that they're morally contraversial and offensive to some. Others is that they're HISTORICALLY and FACTUALLY contraversial, which is the one I particularly care about. To force one religion down one path is just factually inaccurate.

But besides the point, I still think religion is a wasteful exercise in Civ 4... unless it's as simple as adding a few meta tags to a few civilizations, or pulling out a few new religion-specific advances in the tech tree.

I haven't heard a thing about its implementation, and every model of religion on these forums has been a disappointment.

But did Abrham ever force someone to become a jew with the threat of force?

Or rather more accuratly put - was this method of conversion by the sword to the jewish faith written down in the HOlY Book as an example of what a good jew should do when following the jewish faith?

I don't recall in the Torah it ever written that Abraham watched as the pagan's/Unbelievers were led out and given the choice to convert to Jewdism or have their heads removed from their shoulders by the swift and sharp edge of the sword of the rightous doing God's will - if you get my point.(this is just a fictional sentence I have made up to get my point across).

How about my model dh? You know the one with the tech tree - and religous classes with specific religions wihtin them, and relgious building, wonders and units that come from them reflecting each world relgions charcter so we can keep true to their essence? I thought you said you ddin't loath it outright?

 

[dh_epic]

For one, the Quran and "infidels". You need to remember the context in which Islam was founded, and who they were talking about. They weren't talking about anyone and everyone.

For two, there are dozens of interpretations of the Quran. As many as there are of the bible. If the Quran is victim to the most literal and extremist interpretation, then so should the bible.

We should deport the uncircumcized.

No one may eat pork.

Tattoos should be banned.

Slavery is to be regulated. Beating slaves to death is okay, as long as they don't die immediately.

If is woman is a virgin, and is someone comes upon the act of her being raped, she must marry her rapist.

Kill your family members who try to convert you to other religions.

But no Christian would say this represents the religion that they practice today. We discard some stuff because of what we recognize as historical context (they talk about slavery in Egypt, even). And yet you would have the Quran become this cartoon charicature based on what you might see on Fox News, if not some kind of hate-site.

That's the funny thing about religion. For as much disagreement there is between different religions, there's even more disagreement and hatred WITHIN a religion who hold different views.

I'm not trying to cover up the past or be politically correct. I'm just saying that pretty much any implementation of religion that doesn't allow for serious flexibility would end up being factually inaccurate and strategically boring. They would be cartoon parodies that exaggerate features to create the worst of historical atrocities in a game, when history has many more highs and lows and shades of gray.

(PS: I stole those links from another website that highlighted some of these pecularities in the holy scriptures.)

 

[menwia]

For one, the Quran and "infidels". You need to remember the context in which Islam was founded, and who they were talking about. They weren't talking about anyone and everyone.

For two, there are dozens of interpretations of the Quran. As many as there are of the bible. If the Quran is victim to the most literal and extremist interpretation, then so should the bible.

We should deport the uncircumcized.

No one may eat pork.

Tattoos should be banned.

Slavery is to be regulated. Beating slaves to death is okay, as long as they don't die immediately.

If is woman is a virgin, and is someone comes upon the act of her being raped, she must marry her rapist.

Kill your family members who try to convert you to other religions.

But no Christian would say this represents the religion that they practice today. We discard some stuff because of what we recognize as historical context (they talk about slavery in Egypt, even). And yet you would have the Quran become this cartoon charicature based on what you might see on Fox News, if not some kind of hate-site.

That's the funny thing about religion. For as much disagreement there is between different religions, there's even more disagreement and hatred WITHIN a religion who hold different views.

I'm not trying to cover up the past or be politically correct. I'm just saying that pretty much any implementation of religion that doesn't allow for serious flexibility would end up being factually inaccurate and strategically boring. They would be cartoon parodies that exaggerate features to create the worst of historical atrocities in a game, when history has many more highs and lows and shades of gray.

(PS: I stole those links from another website that highlighted some of these pecularities in the holy scriptures.)

okay, lets accept you example about different versions and different interpreations.

Does it in any version of the Qu'ran say that Mohammed did not chop of the heads of people (POW's), that he did not sell women and children into slavery? Show me any version which states different.

Unbelivers were split into two groups - those who were pagans and those who were 'people of the Book.' The Pagans - MOhammed ordered his followers to go and find them were ever they be and to destroy them,' I can get you the exact quote if you want but its essentailly that. To the 'People of the Book' which means the Jews and the Christians - they are allowed to live under Islamic rule, and don't have to convert to Islam so long as they pay a TAX and also "surrender - submit themselves.' which what Islam actually means - to surrender. Salam means peace in arabic - I should know I'm from that region and come from a Islamic country . . . so people who say Islam means peace - they must be speaking a differnt kinda of arabic then wher i'm from.

Correct me if i'm wrong dh - but alot the quotes you have are from before the Time of Jesus? Correct? If one reads the Bible and the coming of Jesus - then it shows God coming to save all his children - not just the Chosen People. Also one should not take one off versions, or a very small minority of texts - but rather compare them to all of the texts so that we can take it into context. Also taking phrases out of context is also something one shoud not do. I have come across many phrases and quotes which were very biased towards the Islamic faith. You could put words or sentences in such a way as to make them something else - that is why I looked at the actions of the Prophet MOhammed and not just his words. Also no matter what history books or Holy texts you read dh -the battles of Mohammed are pretty accepted world wide - each one varying in slight detail of course - but all generally saying the same thing.

I have researched alot of the main Islamic Texts/HOly Book and the version of Mohammed choppying of heads those who refues to convert and selling women and children into slavery pretty much accepted through out the writings.

Also if you read later on in the Qu'ran - it does not say that slaves should no longer be taken in war. However, if you read the Bible I'm sure that Jesus teaches people that slavery is wrong - and for the slaves who are suffering to not react in violence against their masters because their souls are free - also the example that Jesus showed was non-violence - Words and actions together.

You see the thing is, in the Qu'ran you are not allowed to contradict MOhammed, or to say you should do something different then he did. Because He is the last Prophet - so what he done and said was the correct way till the end of time.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm no expert on the Quran, but from people I've talked to who practice the religion on a day to day basis the things you talk about have no relevence to them. It depends on what you mean by "non-believers". There's a lot of quotations that talk about doing something about them. But it depends on whether you mean everyone in the world not a Muslim, or the people relevent to the ongoing wars and conflicts at the time.

What you're talking about is fundamentalism, plain and simple. And Christian fundamentalism is pretty much as scary as Islamic fundamentalism. I've never heard of a Jewish fundamentalist, but based on how close some people have come, those people are pretty scary too. Fundamentalism is the belief that the holy scriptures should be applied strictly and broadly to every aspect of life. This is the cartoon charicature that people promoting hatred rely on -- from all religions against all other religions.

Forget it, man, implementing religion in the game that has to represent extremist views to the letter is just a really ignorant idea. Not politically incorrect, not contraversial -- I mean ignorant. Like "all small town have crooked teeth" ignorant. Like "all poor people smell bad" ignorant.

 

[menwia]

I'm no expert on the Quran, but from people I've talked to who practice the religion on a day to day basis the things you talk about have no relevence to them. It depends on what you mean by "non-believers". There's a lot of quotations that talk about doing something about them. But it depends on whether you mean everyone in the world not a Muslim, or the people relevent to the ongoing wars and conflicts at the time.

What you're talking about is fundamentalism, plain and simple. And Christian fundamentalism is pretty much as scary as Islamic fundamentalism. I've never heard of a Jewish fundamentalist, but based on how close some people have come, those people are pretty scary too. Fundamentalism is the belief that the holy scriptures should be applied strictly and broadly to every aspect of life. This is the cartoon charicature that people promoting hatred rely on -- from all religions against all other religions.

Forget it, man, implementing religion in the game that has to represent extremist views to the letter is just a really ignorant idea. Not politically incorrect, not contraversial -- I mean ignorant. Like "all small town have crooked teeth" ignorant. Like "all poor people smell bad" ignorant.

I know what you are saying. But I'm not looking at it as an extremists view. I'm looked at it in an honest way. Being True about it. Extremiests are those who do not listen and adhere to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed - like the terroists who go around blowing women and children up for no reason except to cause fear and terror. However, to go on a holy war like Mohammed done to protect the Islamic faith is not extremists - it is doing you duty as a Muslim. I have many noo arab muslim friends who only know how to recite the Qu'ran but do not know or understand its real meaning. All they want to concentrate is the tolerance, peace stuff - wanting to forget the sword part. So when one talks about holy war -they don't really know what a holy war is and how Mohammed fought in the Hoy Wars and what he did in there.

What's extremists about being honest about what Mohammed done and that accepting holy war is part of the Islmaic faith. I'm not saying the Islamic nation should rise up in a Holy war right now - but don't deny the fact that's its part of the religion. In Islam all non Muslims are Unbelivers - but they are spread into two camps - Pagan's and the People of the Book.

Why are we so scared to accept the fact that the Prophet Mohammed waged Holy war and it is every Muslims duty to protect the Islamic faith against those who threaten it - as the Prophet Mohammed showed us himself how to. If doesn't say in the Qu'ran later on that from now on you can't go on Holy Wars - or you can't chop the infedal's heads of that you capture who don't convert to Islam. It does not contradict what the Prophet Mohammed said and done earlier.

However - in the Bible - I think that Jesus says - I'm no expert on the Bible, but I think he changes alot of the rules and laws that went before - like healing on the sabbath - and about a man and wife divrocing each other. changing the rules and laws to make them better. The way I look at it - it's a bit like basic training - you're given a basic set of rules -when your ready your put into advanced training and given real ammunition and such. For a Jew the old rules - the Torah is enough - for the Christians the Bible is enough - for Muslims -the Qu'ran is enough. We can't change what the Prophet Mohammed done or said - just like Christains and Jews can't change what their leaders of their religion siad and done.

I'm not looking at one abstract verse but the main figure head of the religion.That way - we can't try and bury our heads in the sand. What happened happened - and what is true is true. What's so extremist about that.

There is tolerance and respect for life when there is peace. But when a Holy War is in effect it is a different matter dh. the faith of Islam is under attack and Muslims who fight Holy Wars are fighting for God.

 

[dh_epic]

I know a lot of Christians who talk about the tolerance, peace stuff, wanting to forget about the sword part. There are a lot of duties they forego too, because some of the duties are stupid, or some of the duties open to interpretations that might actually not be stupid -- like stoning people to death.

Not to mention that Mohammed was illiterate. Nor did Jesus write the entire bible, let alone the portions from his four closest apostles. They are written by mortal men.

And mortal men die. So will all the things that mortal men construct. The laws and rules that make sense in one context don't make sense in another context. You happen to be of the fundamentalist and extremist group who believes that "non believers" must refer to any non-muslim. In practice, many people regard that as one of those time sensitive things in the book, like talking about what to do if you encounter an Egyptian. The rules don't apply.

But that doesn't mean people don't try to apply them. That's why these people are fundamentalists.

What you fail to acknowledge is the existence of Christian fundamentalists. Some of the things they say and do are quite scary, despite being consistent with the bible. It's all which passages you quote, and which you favor over others.

You're clearly the worst kind of extremist if you take the most extreme interpretation of one set of scriptures, and then allow the most bizarre parts of another set of scriptures to be overridden by conventional wisdom and selective quoting.

 

[menwia]

I know a lot of Christians who talk about the tolerance, peace stuff, wanting to forget about the sword part. There are a lot of duties they forego too, because some of the duties are stupid, or some of the duties open to interpretations that might actually not be stupid -- like stoning people to death.

Not to mention that Mohammed was illiterate. Nor did Jesus write the entire bible, let alone the portions from his four closest apostles. They are written by mortal men.

And mortal men die. So will all the things that mortal men construct. The laws and rules that make sense in one context don't make sense in another context. You happen to be of the fundamentalist and extremist group who believes that "non believers" must refer to any non-muslim. In practice, many people regard that as one of those time sensitive things in the book, like talking about what to do if you encounter an Egyptian. The rules don't apply.

But that doesn't mean people don't try to apply them. That's why these people are fundamentalists.

What you fail to acknowledge is the existence of Christian fundamentalists. Some of the things they say and do are quite scary, despite being consistent with the bible. It's all which passages you quote, and which you favor over others.

You're clearly the worst kind of extremist if you take the most extreme interpretation of one set of scriptures, and then allow the most bizarre parts of another set of scriptures to be overridden by conventional wisdom and selective quoting.

What sword part dh? There is no sword part were Jesus goes around chopping people heads off. Christian are people who folow Jesus - there is no Sword part were he teaches or does acts of viiolence - so how can Christians talk about the sword parts. Jesus never used a sword to hurt a single person - Christains folllow Jesus - so how can a Christian talk about a sword part when his/her leader never used a real life blade to kill anybody? ON the other hand - in the case of the Prophet Mohammed, there is a sword part - what's so difficult to accept about that. I'm only stating fact . . .

I guess being honest is now considered extremists. Your Jesus - Westerners that is - never went on a Holy War. Also, Did he not say that 'he without sin throw the first stone' so its pretty obvious His views on Stoning.

The Extreme Christains who do things can be called extrem because they do not follow the example of their leader - Jesus - who never hurt anybody, who forgave those who hurt him or cursed him. But you can't call me or any other Muslim an extremists just because we follow the example of the Prophet MOhammed. A chirstian who goes on a Holy war can be called Extremist - but a Muslim who does - can't. After all the very Prophet that Islam followes went on a HOly War.

Just rembered something as well! Correct me if I'm wroing - but when they came to arrest Jesus - one of his followers pulled out his sword and Jesus told him to put it away because - "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." So you see - there is ample reasons why Christians who use the Name of Jesus to carry out wars and violence can be considered extremists. But a Muslim who goes on a Holy War and adhers to the rules that the Prophet Mohammed went on - how can you call that person an extremist? I don't understand. YOu might not agree with it - but alot of Muslims don't think folowing the Prophet MOhammed's example as being extrem.

If the Prophet Mohammed who was sent from God - who was filled with compassion and mercy that no Muslim in all the world and through out all of Time can ever hope to come near - felt it was necessary to execute his prisioners if they did not convert to Islam. Then how can you call normal human beings extremists for following the example of the Prophet Mohammed. It doesn't make sense . . . If a muslim does something which the Prophet Mohammed did not do or teach - then yes he is a extremist - but to say that those who follow his example are extremists - its just not logical.

Ii'm not saying that there is a Holy War going on now. But if the situation arises that for example USA or the Western countries try to wipe out Islam - then the Prophet Mohammed has shown us what a Muslim should do and how to carry out a Jihad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Juses never went on a Holy War and advised forgiveness and never killed anybody or ordered anybody put to death. In the case of Islam - The Prophet Mohammed did - how can you call me extremist or any other Muslim who followes the example of the leader of their relgion.

I'm only looking at the context of Jihad in Islam. I did not say that there is not tolerace and respect for life in Islam. There is - but when it comes to a Holy war dh we can only but follow the example of the Prophet Mohammed as Muslims - as Christians follow the example of Jesus and Jews follow the example of Abraham and Moses.

What is so extrem about that dh. All i'm trying to be is honest.

 

[menwia]

dh - just think this point over. Just because we have the Geneva convention - by trying to set some kind of rules when wars break out - does it mean that everyone who adhers to these rules or tries to set some sort of guide line is an extremist.

The same with Jihad/Holy War - all i'm looking at is what is allowed in a Jihad. To try and set some rules -some guidelines as to what is allowed and what is not. What is so extrem about that?

If you think about it -its acturally a good thing, because then we know what is acceptable or not . . .

Believe me - i abhore violence, but just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean its not going to happen. The USA didn't want to go to war against Japan or Germany in WWII - but they were forced to. But when they did go to war they followed a set of rules - what's so wrong about a set of rules for a Holy War/Jihad?

 

[menwia]

off topic
Menwia,
What else to say?

About Hungary.
We did not only fight against foreign dominance in the time of Ottoman wars, but for defending our way of life - the western culutre, which meant more or less Chritianity.
When a Muslim empire begans to expand it begans to spread the faith as well, untolerating the local beliefs.
Chrlemagne's wars against the saxons , well I will react for it a bit later.

Charlemagne - Charles the Great of the Franks was considered one of the Great Chirstian Emperores of his time - but he used the sword to spread his faith. Killing the pagan's he defeated who refused to convert to Christianty - this in part to him being fed up off them constantly rising up against him in revolt. But nevertheless - this is the main reason why one should concentrate on ther leaders of the religion - like Abraham/Moses/Jesus and Mohammed rather then certain individuals throughout our history who are but only humans and make mistakes.

From what I know - I don't really think Jesus would have approved of the slaughter of the pagan's that Charlemagne carried out. But then again Charlemagne was not a prophet or a religous leader - but rather a very powerful king within western europe - so we can't judge Christianty or any other religions by the actions of such rulers . .. we can only judge the faiths by the actions and teachings of the leaders - the founding fathers - the prophets of the religions - because remeber - we are only human - and out human weakness have led us to misinterpret or mistranslate alot of the religous messages recieved throughout history - letting our own greed and desire's corrupt us or blind us from what is true.

 

[JG99_Korab]

a choice in the game would be cool. In like the options menu. To choose which you would like to play with. Might be complicated thought

 

[JG99_Korab]

a choice in the game would be cool. In like the options menu. To choose which you would like to play with. Might be complicated though

 

[rhialto]

The same with Jihad/Holy War - all i'm looking at is what is allowed in a Jihad. To try and set some rules -some guidelines as to what is allowed and what is not. What is so extrem about that?

Problem is, there will ALWAYS be some religious person who says you are misinterpreting his religion. Most holy books are sufficiently ambiguous and open to interpretation that you can make almost any case out of any of them. And given the choice between the righteous indignation of a fellow believer or the interpretation of their holy texts by someone who isn't even of their religion, I can easily see how fellow members of that religion will become incensed against a game that portrays their religion in a perceived negative light.

It really doesn't matter how you interpret their texts. What matters is how they interpret their texts, and most (all?) religions are sufficiently schismed that you can't fail to offend someone by including real world religions.

 

[menwia]

Problem is, there will ALWAYS be some religious person who says you are misinterpreting his religion. Most holy books are sufficiently ambiguous and open to interpretation that you can make almost any case out of any of them. And given the choice between the righteous indignation of a fellow believer or the interpretation of their holy texts by someone who isn't even of their religion, I can easily see how fellow members of that religion will become incensed against a game that portrays their religion in a perceived negative light.

It really doesn't matter how you interpret their texts. What matters is how they interpret their texts, and most (all?) religions are sufficiently schismed that you can't fail to offend someone by including real world religions.

Most Muslims rhialto will not find any thing offensive about stating that the holy Prophet went on a Holy Wars. IN fact most muslims look at the battle of Mohammed with pride as a glowing example of how a muslim should act when faced wtih a Holy War. I'm only talkin about ooes behaviour in a Holy War - not your everday to day behavious. Muslims are not allowed to ifght unless it is in a Holy War - so that says a very good thing about the faith. It does not allow violence for greed and power and such - but when it comes to defending the faith a Muslim is allowed to declare Jihad/Holy War - No it is his duty. What is so offensive about that - you can ask T think every muslim in the world will tell you that it is their duty to defend the faith of Islam when it is under threat. How can any one find that offensive? I just don't understand this stubborn reluctantance to accept that Holy War is part of Islam . . .what's so hard about it - its a basic, generally world wide accepted fact by all muslims and non muslims.

 

[JG99_Korab]

Islam's Holy War is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty.

 

[menwia]

Islam's Holy War is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty.

Yes, and if the followers of idolatries and other evil people who bring violence and threaten violence to Islam do you or do you not defend the faith of Islam with the sword as did the Prophet Mohammed himself? If a nation or a relgion was to declare thier intention to destroy Islam - would it not be the duty of ev every Muslim to go on a HOly War and defend the faith as the Prophet Mohammed done himself - peace be upon him.

 

[JG99_Korab]

Not in the way of blowing up schools with tons of innoccent children inside. Like last week

 

[JG99_Korab]

35 CHILDREN died and don't know how many wounded

 

[rhialto]

Oh, as far as I am concerned, it isn't offensive. however, I am not teh one invensting a small fortune in the commercial success of a game, a success which could quite easily be destroyed if a religion chooses to denounce the game.

And as I said, there are enough factions in religion that you can't help but to offend someone. I am not the one you have to avoid offending, so whether I am offended or not is immaterial.

 

[menwia]

35 CHILDREN died and don't know how many wounded

The Prophet Mohammed - to the best of my knowlege never gave express orders to kill women and children indiscrimantly when in a holy Jihad. In fact if you read my earlier Postings its pretty clear that Jihad/Holy War does not allow you to go around blowing up women and children - the non fighting kind.

You are only allowed to go on a Jihad when the faith of Islam is threatened and when you do go on a Jihad you are only allowed to use the same tactics that the Prophet Mohammed used when he fought His Holy War. Killing innocent women and children for the sake of installing fear and terror into a population was not one of his methods. In fact when in one of his battle his follwers filled with battle luster killed some chidren of their enemies he was outraged - and forbade it.

Can you find me any Muslim in the world that will say that Mohammed was wrong for going on the HOly Wars? Can you find me any Muslim in the world that will say Mohammed was wrong for chpping of the heads of his captives. Can you find me any Muslim in the world that will say Mohammed was wrong for selling the women and children into slavery? The answer to all these questions is NO. Because as Muslim's one belives the actions and words of the great prophet Mohammed - peace and blessing upon him - were the right things to do and the right things to teach. That's is why all the brothers of Islam try to follow his example.

Dh and everyone out there -just so you know I'm not being bais, but only trying to be honest and truthful. If the prophet Mohammed done it - be it violent or mercyful i will not deny his actions or words. But will just state them plainly - its a very simple thing to do.

What's so offensive about just being honest about things? It like Christains getting outraged if i state that Jesus went around the temple and destroyed goods and stuff that were being sold in the temple grounds. How can any Christian be offended by just stating what Jesus done and repeating the words he said. Its pretty clear that If you sell your goods and stuff in the holy temple and make it a place for money changers and stuff you gonna get told off and punished - just like when you were a lttle kid and done someting wrong - you got spanked, or when your parents slapped you hand everytime you reached out towards the fire in the fire place - they didn't do it because they wanted to hurt you - but would rather slap you hand then watch you get burned. Same with the Prophet Mohammed - he didn't just go around punsihing people for the sake of it - but when and if he did he done it for the good of people - so they wouldn't get burned. Its the same when he went on the first Holy War of the islamic faith. The prophet Mohammed didn't just do it because he wanted to - but because it was the right thing to do - unless you think it was wrong - but then again thats your own personal opionin - and you can make your own judgements upon the issue - but don't try and cover up the facts or try to deny them. What ever people's opiioninss of what is the right thing or the wrong thing t0 do - does not change the fact of what happened and what was said.

 

[menwia]

"Iman complete with all of its three components makes the believers the best nation. Those who claim "belief in god" but reject ANY of the messengers of Allah - such as the Jews who rejected both Isa and Muhammad or the Christians who rejected Muhammad - are not believers and it is not lawful for a Muslim to believe them to be so or to refer to them as such.

Allah Says:

"You are the best nation brought forth for mankind. You command what is right and forbid what is wrong and you believe in Allah. If only the People of the Book believed it would be better for them. From them are some believers, but most of them are corrupt."
[Âl-'Imrân 3: 110]

So you see - two camps of Unbelivers - the Pagan's and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians).


http://www.islamic-world.net/dakwah/khutbah2.htm#tawheed
dh - Just so you know what Islam consider non-belivers and you don't delude yourself to the contrary please read below - this is just one examle - I can provide you hundreds of them if you want. And if you ask me - In all earnesty i will complile a list of all sources, texts, everywhere where it states this whtin the islamic world and belief's. I have gone out my way to not include any extreme - minorty views and beliefs or text in my resears - but have checked and rechecked all my sources and quotes against many others - just so I don't just quote or refer to an event or teaching which was ever only siad in on obscure place by one version with hundred of other versions stating the contray.