Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[dh_epic]

You're assuming that the holy war referred to that war. You're also assuming that any violent act against a non-muslim would be an extension of that war.

Islam does not adhere to your warped views of what it can be at its most extreme.

The example is quite valid. Just because a man did something in his life doesn't mean blindly copying it would make him proud. I could imagine a situation under which I could kill someone. And I could imagine someone who looked up to me copying me and said "but I thought that's what you wanted". And I could imagine saying "no, what I did was totally different from what you did". That's what it means to interpret someone's example. You happen to think that killing non-muslims is a core principal of Islam. Every Muslim I know would disagree with you.

I don't care what time period your in. But to be a good Jew one must follow the example of Abraham and Moses. To be a good Christian one must follow the example of Jesus. To be a good Muslim one must follow the example of Mohammed. You can't pick and choose what you want suites you or is convienant to you in this day and age.

This is the essence of fundamentalism. To believe that you can figure out the life you should lead by following the most extreme actions of a leader and the most extreme and literal interpretations of the religious text. Given two quotes, one that says "be peaceful and love everybody" and one that says "he killed a man who wasn't wearing a hat", you default to the latter quote and interpret it to mean "kill all men without hats".

None of the muslims I know are fundamentalists. I consider myself a christian, and I'm certainly no a fundamentalist in that regard either.

 

[menwia]

You're assuming that the holy war referred to that war. You're also assuming that any violent act against a non-muslim would be an extension of that war.

Islam does not adhere to your warped views of what it can be at its most extreme.

The example is quite valid. Just because a man did something in his life doesn't mean blindly copying it would make him proud. I could imagine a situation under which I could kill someone. And I could imagine someone who looked up to me copying me and said "but I thought that's what you wanted". And I could imagine saying "no, what I did was totally different from what you did". That's what it means to interpret someone's example. You happen to think that killing non-muslims is a core principal of Islam. Every Muslim I know would disagree with you.



This is the essence of fundamentalism. To believe that you can figure out the life you should lead by following the most extreme actions of a leader and the most extreme and literal interpretations of the religious text. Given two quotes, one that says "be peaceful and love everybody" and one that says "he killed a man who wasn't wearing a hat", you default to the latter quote and interpret it to mean "kill all men without hats".

None of the muslims I know are fundamentalists. I consider myself a christian, and I'm certainly no a fundamentalist in that regard either.

Killing in a Holy War dh? you keep forgeting that defination. NOt just killing for kiling sake, but killing in a Holy War as Mohammed did. Are you telling me that mohammed was wrong?

 

[MeatWad]

The romans managed the change from pantheism to monotheism easily enough. If anything, I'd say a change within a single class should be harder if anything, but in game terms, I'd place both of them at the same level of upheaval.

I'd also change Pagan to Animism, as pagan is usually used to refer to a specific set of European traditions.

This model is great so far, but the real issue is in what effects you give to the various religions. That is where the potential to offend every religious group on Earth exists.

Not to get too far off topic here, but the Roman Empire, under the rule of Theodocius (circa late 4th century AD) made any and all religions other than Catholicism ILLEGAL and punishable by death. Yep, pretty easy. What is it they say about the golden rule? "He with the most gold makes the rules." And we are not talking about converting subjugated peoples here, were are talking about Roman citizens, made to convert under the point of a sword. Nobody has addressed anything like that yet. I think this thread has gotten WAYYYY off topic re. the GAME, CIVILIZATION 4, and become a sounding board for religious speculation resulting in intolerance and bigotry. I hope the design team is reading all of this before including some halfbaked religious model into the game. This thread alone should convince them that it will cause more harm than good to them and their company. Please DO NOT try to "define" existing world religions to fit the rather limited scope of your game. It's a mistake, I'm telling ya. Make other stuff better, and drop this horrible idea!!

 

[dh_epic]

Not saying Mohammed was wrong. Just that the actual physical war, for some people, was only a part of a larger holy war. Only some people -- such as yourself -- think they are synonymous.

Most muslims believe Mohammed was right, but put his actions in context and do not extend them in the most extreme view to apply across all times and situations.

Fundamentalists are the ones who believe that holy war is always on, it is always physical, and it is against anyone who does not follow the exact version of Islam that they do.

The same way that Christian fundamentalists believe the world was, in fact, created in but 7 days.

The muslims I know believe that even Mohammed thought of the holy war as either (1) not always on, or (2) not always physical. And, certainly, they believe the physical kind of holy war is only used against those who persecute Muslims (for example in the 8th Century).

The same way the Christians I know believe in evolution. Even the pope has endorsed it.

 

[menwia]

I didn't mean to make it a sounding board. I just wanted to clarify a very simple issue which people seemed to be having a problem with.

for your benift just one link with detailed detail on the chronoligy of the Prophet MOhammed. Have a real close at the contents were it mentions the battles. Only a Spirtual HOly War! Please, dh - we're not that niave.

http://www.islam.com/chronology.htm

It is both - I don't accept one and deny the other. One must accpet the spritual as well as the physical.

I just want to add somehting - just so you'll know. I respect your views and appreciate hearing your thoughts. Even if we disagree I still hghly respect your views. I mean no offence against you personally.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not saying he only faught a spiritual war. I'm saying he faught a physical war as well. But there are many interpretations.

The spiritual war and the physical war are one and the same.
The spiritual war and the physical war are not one and the same. He did both, but seperately.
The physical war was a component in a greater spiritual war, and are compatible.
It is only a physical war, and only applies to self defence against persecution.
It is only a physical war, and applies broadly to killing all non-muslims.

Do you understand what it means to interpret something? What it means to take several sentences -- like in the constitution for example -- and try to interpret what its founders meant for people to do?

PS: ... taking a look at this website. While not fundamentalist, it's still quite dogmatic. Like a Catholic website telling you that to have sex for pleasure is a sin. Not all followers of these religions agree.

PPS: ... digging deeper into this website. I think you'd be surprised by how they describe "Jihad" -- it's not the fundamentalist definition that you're using. http://www.islam.com/qans2.htm -- scroll down to the bottom entry on violence.

 

[menwia]

I'm not saying he only faught a spiritual war. I'm saying he faught a physical war as well. But there are many interpretations.

The spiritual war and the physical war are one and the same.
The spiritual war and the physical war are not one and the same. He did both, but seperately.
The physical war was a component in a greater spiritual war, and are compatible.
It is only a physical war, and only applies to self defence against persecution.
It is only a physical war, and applies broadly to killing all non-muslims.

Do you understand what it means to interpret something? What it means to take several sentences -- like in the constitution for example -- and try to interpret what its founders meant for people to do?

Thsi is how i'm looking at it, just so you'll know from what sounding board i'm coming from. In my view. Jihad/Holy War is an inter-changable word which can be and is used to discribe the Spritual War and in some cases the Physical War. The spritual war is a constant that all muslims must strive against. The Physical war is activated when Islam is under threat - by anybody, its not important how you define unbelivers - but if islam is under threat then every muslim has the duty to declare the physcial holy war in its defence.

That's why I state that Holy War - the pysicaly kind is a part of the Islamic teachings. The spritual holy war goes without saying.

P.S. - that doesn't negate the fact about what MOhammed done? In reply to your PS

 

[dh_epic]

Obviously the physical part is part of the holy scriptures. Whether it is taught and how it is taught is subject to major amounts of interpretation. Fundamentalists believe that this is to killl all non-muslims and spread Islam by the sword. Moderates -- the 99% of sane, intelligent people -- believe that it is more spiritual in nature, and that Mohammed used violence in the context of the persecution he was facing in the 8th century.

http://www.islam.com/qans2.htm -- again, scroll down to the bottom entry on violence, and observe what it says about violence (and more specifically, Jihad). Not to say that this is the correct interpretation of Islam. But that it is impossible to know the correct interpretation -- and this is one of many.

 

[menwia]

Obviously the physical part is part of the holy scriptures. Whether it is taught and how it is taught is subject to major amounts of interpretation. Fundamentalists believe that this is to killl all non-muslims and spread Islam by the sword. Moderates -- the 99% of sane, intelligent people -- believe that it is more spiritual in nature, and that Mohammed used violence in the context of the persecution he was facing in the 8th century.

http://www.islam.com/qans2.htm -- again, scroll down to the bottom entry on violence, and observe what it says about violence (and more specifically, Jihad). Not to say that this is the correct interpretation of Islam. But that it is impossible to know the correct interpretation -- and this is one of many.

I find nothing wrong with the version upon looking at it. Like I said, Holy War is part of the islamic teachings. The physical kind, it even states God allowing muslims to take up arms to protect themselves against those who take up armas agaisnt them. A HOLy WAR, dh - just like I said. So do you accept that Holy War - Physical kind is an accepted part of Islam? The prophet mohammed being the one to tell muslim's it was okay to take up arms to defend the faith. its what i've been saying all along.

 

[menwia]

This leads me on to my other quote. Once the prophet Mohammed was in a hOly War. He did tell his followers to go and to find the pagan's where they be and to destory them. I can find the exact words and such if you want. dh, i'm only stating what is written, i'm not making this up or tryint to put some extremist tinge to it.

You can see i've been as honest as possible - even if the conclusion might not be something we all want to hear - myself included.

 

[dh_epic]

Of course, this was never in contention. What's in contention is that your interpretation is the only and sole correct way of looking at it. Some people believe that aggression can be justified by the fact that the western world is "implicitly" attacking Islam. Others believe that the kind of physical war that Mohammed engaged in only applied in the 8th century -- and all the stuff that followed with beheading and slavery is an 8th century thing, not a 20th century thing. That to seek out the non-believers and kill them is an 8th century thing and not something to be done until the end of time.

What you're saying is that a religion MUST reflect its most extreme and literal interpretation, staying as consistent as possible with the era of its origin. I think 99% of religious people disagree with you, and thus actively try to interpret what the constants in their religion are. Sometimes arguments involve two quotes from two different parts of the scriptures that seem to contradict one another.

 

[menwia]

Of course, this was never in contention. What's in contention is that your interpretation is the only and sole correct way of looking at it. Some people believe that aggression can be justified by the fact that the western world is "implicitly" attacking Islam. Others believe that the kind of physical war that Mohammed engaged in only applied in the 8th century -- and all the stuff that followed with beheading and slavery is an 8th century thing, not a 20th century thing. That to seek out the non-believers and kill them is an 8th century thing and not something to be done until the end of time.

What you're saying is that a religion MUST reflect its most extreme and literal interpretation, staying as consistent as possible with the era of its origin. I think 99% of religious people disagree with you, and thus actively try to interpret what the constants in their religion are. Sometimes arguments involve two quotes from two different parts of the scriptures that seem to contradict one another.

no dh, please listen to my words. Its not that i am saying that muslim's must now go and find unbelivers and kill or convert them by the sword till the end of time. But when a holy war is declared - the physical kind - as you your self have seen proof is part of islam.

I repeat dh - WHEN, and I emphasis - when a Holy WAR is declared as a Muslim one must follow the example of the Prophet Mohammed. What is so extrem about that. You might not like the idea of beheadings and slavery of women and children - but Mohammed never said anything to contradict his actions in a Holy WAR - HOlY WAR dh, and only a HOLY WAR.

As Muslim's there is no other example like Jesus who will come after Abraham or Moses or Joshua as in your case of Christianty for us to look for guidance. Mohammed was the last prophet and we must follow his teachings and his examples. That can't be change dh - no matter how we might want to - its a the fundemental belief of Islam that all Mohammed done and taught were and si the right way of things.

 

[dh_epic]

Well you're assuming that it would even be possible for holy war to be declared and for all muslims to agree that the person not only has the authority to call it, but is declaring it in the right sense.

Muslim extremists have declared holy war -- recently. But only a minority of people are fighting with them. The muslims who disagree, they either believe that these extremists lack the authority to declare holy war, or that no good muslim would declare holy war as a physical war in the 21st century. And both sides of the debate think the other side is misusing Mohammed's example.

 

[menwia]

Well you're assuming that it would even be possible for holy war to be declared and for all muslims to agree that the person not only has the authority to call it, but is declaring it in the right sense.

Muslim extremists have declared holy war -- recently. But only a minority of people are fighting with them. The muslims who disagree, they either believe that these extremists lack the authority to declare holy war, or that no good muslim would declare holy war as a physical war in the 21st century. And both sides of the debate think the other side is misusing Mohammed's example.

Why wouldn't a good muslim declare a holy war in the 21Century IF Islam was under threat like it was in Mohammed's times. It iis his duty to defend the faith the physical way just liek Mohammed done.

You have a very valid point - and I agree with you completly. But lets just say for arguments sake - that one day there came a person who had the authority and Islam was under the same threat as Mohammed's time.

Would it be wrong to declare a Holy War? And if a Holy War was declared should not a Muslim follow Mohammed example. We have no other prophet or examle that we can follow - his way is the last and right way for a muslim.

Do you see my pont dh?

 

[dh_epic]

Well, of course I see your point. But you're assuming that's what Mohammed would do. Most muslims disagree that's what he would do, as much as Christians think it would be ridiculous for Jesus to come back and say "okay, kill any non-Christian".

Not to mention that IF someone came back and said these things, there's a large portion who would think they were an imposter just based on these kinds of extremist teachings. They'd be like "there is NO way you are the prophet mohammed", or "there is no way you are the messiah".

Applying this to the game of Civ, it is completely unrealistic and inaccurate for a state leader to declare holy war in the 20th century and for everyone to say "OKAY!" blindly. Not to mention the fact that it would be unrealistic and inaccurate for one religion to permit or facilitate holy war more easily than another. History has shown us that.

My point is your view is so narrow and inapplicable to every day life that it could not possibly be construed as the realistic theory of what a religion is.

 

[menwia]

Well, of course I see your point. But you're assuming that's what Mohammed would do. Most muslims disagree that's what he would do, as much as Christians think it would be ridiculous for Jesus to come back and say "okay, kill any non-Christian".

Not to mention that IF someone came back and said these things, there's a large portion who would think they were an imposter just based on these kinds of extremist teachings. They'd be like "there is NO way you are the prophet mohammed", or "there is no way you are the messiah".

Applying this to the game of Civ, it is completely unrealistic and inaccurate for a state leader to declare holy war in the 20th century and for everyone to say "OKAY!" blindly. Not to mention the fact that it would be unrealistic and inaccurate for one religion to permit or facilitate holy war more easily than another. History has shown us that.

My point is your view is so narrow and inapplicable to every day life that it could not possibly be construed as the realistic theory of what a religion is.

I talk and I talk but you do not hear my words dh. Jesus never went on a Holy War. Mohammed did. Jesus was persecuted but did not take up the sword. MOhammed was persecuted and he took up the sword. Jesus's diciples were persecuted but they did not take up the sword. MOhammed's followers were persecuted but they did take up the sword. Jesus never killed a non-christian. Mohammed did kill a non-muslim. Jesus never ordered the death of a non-christian. MOhammed did order the death of non-muslims.

Holy war as the example of Jesus and teachings are not a accepted part of Christianty.

Holy War and the example of Mohammed are an accepted part of islam.

Merciful Allah - what is so hard about realizing this fact.
http://www.islam.com/qans2.htm

Answer these two questions dh.

Is Holy WAr/JIhad - physical kind, a part of Islam as can be seen by the actions of Mohammed?

If Yes, then IF a Holy War is declared should not a muslim use the same tactics as the Prophet Mohammed when He fought the first Holy WAr?

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, of course Mohammed did things Jesus didn't do. Jesus did things Abraham didn't do. And Abraham did things Mohammed didn't do. And all three did similar things.

It's the "example" part that you've grossly overinterpreted in a fundamentalist way. Of course "the example" of Jesus and Mohammed are accepted by their respective religions. It's what those examples are that is the subject of much debate. Some people think killing non-muslims is the example. Others think raging against persecution is the example. And others still think the example has nothing to do with violence -- that violence was something Mohammed did, not an example he expected to be emulated.

It is much more complicated than the black and white fundamentalist interpretation you use.

Yes, Mohammed engaged in war.

But some people do not think this is a necessary part of muslim life. Some muslims even think it's necessary, particularly in the 21st century, to avoid war at all costs.

For the people who would even consider holy war, if holy war were declared, not all muslims would follow because not all muslims would believe that leader had the authority to do so, or the rationale to do so, or both.

And for the muslims who WOULD follow, not all of them would enslave and behead victims.

Moreover... popes in the middle ages declared crusades against not just non-christians, but christians who did not agree with their exact interpretations.

But some people do not think this is a necessary part of Christian life. Some Christians even think it's necessary, particularly in the 21st century, to avoid war at all costs.

For the people who would even consider a crusade, if a crusade were declared, not all Christians would follow because not all Christians would believe that leader had the authority to do so, or the rationale to do so, or both.

And for the Christians who WOULD follow, not all of them would enslave their enemy either.

The point is not that Mohammed and Jesus are different -- of course they are. But that religious people pick and choose what part of their leaders' and founders' examples to follow.

 

[menwia]

Yeah, of course Mohammed did things Jesus didn't do. Jesus did things Abraham didn't do. And Abraham did things Mohammed didn't do. And all three did similar things.

It's the "example" part that you've grossly overinterpreted in a fundamentalist way. Of course "the example" of Jesus and Mohammed are accepted by their respective religions. It's what those examples are that is the subject of much debate. Some people think killing non-muslims is the example. Others think raging against persecution is the example. And others still think the example has nothing to do with violence -- that violence was something Mohammed did, not an example he expected to be emulated.

It is much more complicated than the black and white fundamentalist interpretation you use.

Yes, Mohammed engaged in war.

But some people do not think this is a necessary part of muslim life. Some muslims even think it's necessary, particularly in the 21st century, to avoid war at all costs.

For the people who would even consider holy war, if holy war were declared, not all muslims would follow because not all muslims would believe that leader had the authority to do so, or the rationale to do so, or both.

And for the muslims who WOULD follow, not all of them would enslave and behead victims.

Moreover... popes in the middle ages declared crusades against not just non-christians, but christians who did not agree with their exact interpretations.

But some people do not think this is a necessary part of Christian life. Some Christians even think it's necessary, particularly in the 21st century, to avoid war at all costs.

For the people who would even consider a crusade, if a crusade were declared, not all Christians would follow because not all Christians would believe that leader had the authority to do so, or the rationale to do so, or both.

And for the Christians who WOULD follow, not all of them would enslave their enemy either.

The point is not that Mohammed and Jesus are different -- of course they are. But that religious people pick and choose what part of their leaders' and founders' examples to follow.

I know you are an intellegant and a rational person.

If you search your heart you will know what is true.

I have nothing more to give, the answers that you seek are now within yourself.

 

[dh_epic]

I just don't see what's so hard to understand.

The question isn't what mohammed did. It's if everyone is expected to follow what mohammed did to the letter. You've picked and chosen what you think that means. Others disagree with you. I'm obviously one person. My muslim friends are obviously others. There are many people who disagree with you.

Your stance -- that there is one interpretation -- requires everyone to give up their position and surrender to you. My stance -- that there is more than one interpretation -- allows your interpretation to stand, along with many others.

A game that would put in one interpretation -- the most fundamentalist and extremist version -- would be ignorant. Not because it's offensive, but because it would be factually inaccurate. This is the point I have been emphasizing right from the beginning.

 

[menwia]

I just don't see what's so hard to understand.

The question isn't what mohammed did. It's if everyone is expected to follow what mohammed did to the letter. You've picked and chosen what you think that means. Others disagree with you. I'm obviously one person. My muslim friends are obviously others. There are many people who disagree with you.

Your stance -- that there is one interpretation -- requires everyone to give up their position and surrender to you. My stance -- that there is more than one interpretation -- allows your interpretation to stand, along with many others.

A game that would put in one interpretation -- the most fundamentalist and extremist version -- would be ignorant. Not because it's offensive, but because it would be factually inaccurate. This is the point I have been emphasizing right from the beginning.

I'm sorry dh - I meant no discomfort to yourself. Its just that I can't expalin it anymore then I already have. I have nothing more to give. I respect your opionin's, and appreciate your honest debate - I apologize if my earler comments hinged upon emotional blackmail. It was wrong of me. I should have kept to the facts.

What can I say my friend. . .. forgive me for causing any discomfort - it was not my intention.

It was rash of me.