Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

Worldreligions or Generic-only-religions


  • Total voters
    337
Any idea how it's been implemented?

In all seriousness, most of the concepts here sound either terribly one dimensional, or strictly a concept existing in name. ... if not a few isolated concepts that are large enough in scope to be their own game.

I thought the most promising idea was a religion/civics tree pulled apart from a tech tree. So tech is wide open, but religion and civics (social progress) moves in very specific directions that are hard to reverse.

Anyway, I just can't see the benefit to religion. But maybe if I had a clue on how it was implemented, I'd be convinced otherwise. (Not that convincing me is Soren's top priority or anything.)
 
sir_schwick said:
Also, by definition Jihad is the defence of the faith and your lands. Some extremists, note the term extremists, take this to mean that offensive action (not really sure if that legitimates intentional attacks of non-hostile civilizans) is a form of defence.

jihad

\Ji*had"\, Jehad \Je*had"\, n. [Ar. jih[=a]d.] (Moham.) A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief. (from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)

Kinda sounds like offensive action to me. ;) And I would have to say that Jihad is an EXTREME form of warfare, so in and of itself creates those "extremists", curse their oily hides. What Webster's doesn't tell you is that the Jihadists do not seek to conquer, or subjugate rival civilizations. They seek to completely ANNIHILATE them. Anybody engaged in Jihad is an extremist, in my opinion.
 
Originally, jihad referred to the mental offensive to destroy the infidel elements within one's own mind. It was a form of contemplation, or purifying the self. Of course, that is not the common meaning of the word as used in the west today.

I honestly can't see how religion can be implemented without either avoiding any reference to real world religion or offending lots of people.
 
To my knowledge, Webster was not an expert on Islam or a Muslim himself. I think it would have been more appropriate to find the term in the context of the Quran rather than a Western dictionary. Of course I have never read the entirety of the Quran, so anyone who has I welcome to help us in this debate.

Rhailto is right. I also thought it meant the defence of the Umma(community), which includes all Muslim brothers and possibly all people. Like I said, the ******* terrorists should not be considered representatives of Allah or Islam.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't Mohammed himself go on a Jihad - on a holy war? Muslims fighting Jihad's today are doing nothing different then the Prophet they followed at the beginning of the religion.

So lets not sugar coat the issue - The Prophet Mohammed himself went on a Jihad were he no doubt was upto his elbows in the blood of others.

Strange how everyone seems to avoid or ignores that fact - almost as if people try to pretend it never happened . . .hmmm?

And if you don't belive me about the prophet Mohammed going on a Jihad -read the Quarin - it says it in there plain as day as well as all the history books and stuff. It's just one of them things that people try to ignore - don't like to mention - almost as if if you don't tlak about it - it never happened.
 
Let us fix the facts: the Islam Umma (the general Islam community) is in a permanent state of war - permanent state of Jihad, until the whole world became muslim.
War might mean either virtual or real war - but it is only a question of fluctuation.
 
Jihad is a defense of the Umma(community). At the time of the phrophet the security of the Arab communities was not certain. Islam itself preaches respect and reverance towards all forms of life. Jihad was a concept that allowed Muslims to kill in order to defend their communities, including the community of faith. Some, especially Wahabiasts(spelled wrong I know), think Islam is under fire by the US. Many others though, disagree with the idea that Jihad is necessary, and definitely disagree with the tactics utilized. I think anyone would agree that a prayer for destruction is one that is unanswered.
 
rhialto said:
Yes, he went on a holy war. No, he didn't call it a jihad.

It is in actual fact the same thing - if you think the right word is Jihad or Holy War - the idea of a Holy War which many people mean the same thing when they say Jihad is something which was accepted and actually done by the Prophet Mohammed himself. NOw if they call it Holy War of call it Jihad - their meaing is a Holy War. And if you look into it further the two words can be inter-changed. I can't remeber exactly how the quote goes but Mohammed remarked that they they go off to fight a Holy War/Jihad but a greater Jihad awaits them back home - refering to the greater inner battle of spirit and soul. However -the two terms are to an extent interchangable. the closest example I can give is the word 'Fire" put it into differnt sentences it has slightly differnet meanings but is the same word.

Example "Fire your gun'
Or "There is 'FIRE' over there.'
or you are 'FIRED'

If you look into it a bit further - I think that you will find it was a Jihad. You must remeber that the Qua'ran was not first writtin in Arabic - but was rather translated into Arabic at a later date.

Many things were lost in the translation as well as a few things changed. It something that people like to deny - but it is a fact - the same with the bible, it was first not written in english as we now read it, and was translated through various langauges - each one losing some of its original meaning with the addition of the replacing of words - Some langauges not having the words of another language - though maybe close, still differnt.

However, the essence and message of the Bible - no matter what its change has remained essentially the same - I do concide that point.

But going back to the earlier point - I think if you do look into it further that The Prophet Mohammed did actually carry out the first Jihad - and also look into what actually befell in the city of Mecca when it was taken. You must realise that the people of Mecca where not converted by peace and love but by the sword. This was all done in the presence and direction of the Prophet Mohammed. It was a brutle and bloody war - and this wasn't done by Muslims twisting the religion, but by the very prophet Mohammed which all Muslims now follow - its like saying Jesus preached peace and love and then on a one of he went on a quick little war where hundreds if not thousands of people died, and then no one wants to mention the fact - and just mention the peace and love part of things - pretending the sword part never happened. Saying that, many leaders - prophets of many other religions have been involved in many terrable and bloody wars. The Bible is full of them as well as many other holy book and other religions - but you don't see anyone trying to hide that fact.

I think if Jesus went on a bloody war like Mohammed did it would be a constant talking point. Why the same doesn't apply to Mohammed I don't know. It seems like a bit of double standards to me . . . 'maybe I got it wrong'. But if you do look into it further, Mohammed did actually go on the first Jihad of the Islamic Faith - he did kill people, either directly or indirectly - his first order being that the head of the previous leader of the City that was just taken be brought to him as well as many othes who suffered that did not convert.

NOw - what really confuses me. How is it that in this day an age that if the american''s chopped the heads of POW's we would consider it wrong - yet, it is okay for a Prophet sent by God no less, to go around chopping peoples heads off - and no one even bothes to mention the fact, everyone kinda of silently accepts it? I don't understand it myself - it doesn't seem rational to me . . .maybe I'm the odd one out - wouldn't be the first time . ..

Summarize - Not making any judgements here - just stating what did happen. if you disagrees with me on the issue of did Mohammed go on a Jihad or not? I think he did and if one would read deeper into the subject I think you would probably reach the same conclusion. But moving on to a more disturbing idea - is that if Mohammed did go to war and one that was not a Jihad/ Holy War - and in my opionin, tell me if you disagree - it would relfect far worse on Mohammed if he went on a war which he didnt even think was a Jihad. Going on a Holy War is bad enough, but being a Prophet of God and just going to War which is not approved in the eyes of heaven isn't something good.


You see what I'm getting at - its too contradicatory. IF he didn't go on a Jihad then it doesn't make sense - that a Prophet of God would go on the war path and kill people and bloody his hands if it was not a war accepted in heaven/a Jihad/Holy War - and that all those loyal believers who followed Mohammed might not go to heaven for the laying down of their life for their faith. And on the other hand -if you accept the war Mohammed went on was a Jihad, and the first Jihad of the Islamic faith - which I think is alot more plausablie - then one must accept that Muslim's today - who go on Jihad/HOly War are doing nothing more differnt then what the Prophet Mohammed done himself. Matter of fact, by following the example of the Prophet Mohammed and going on a Jihad against those who threaten the Islamic faith -they are in fact being good Muslims.

Now - the only real arguyment one has as I can see it - is that what can one consider a Jihad. Example, going around blowing yourself up and kiling woment and children can not be called jihad - but fighting the soliders and government organizations of your enemy can be ligatimaty called a Jihad. The answer to this question is simple. All you have to ask yourself is did any women and children die, get killed, executed with the express consent or the knowlege of Mohammed when he took Mecca?

If the answer is yes - then what terrosits do now is a legitamte Jihad - if the answer is no, then what they do now is not a legitatmet Jihad.

Excuse my spelling. I think I have presented the case in a very clear and concise manner. The question of Jihad and its meaning in Islam can be answered in TWO simple steps.

Step 1: Mohammed went to war (fact). Was it a Jihad/ Holy War though?

If NO: Very worrying - means Prophet Mohammed went on a war which was not a holy war - a jihad. (End of Discussion, brings up other questions).

If Yes: Then it is okay for a Muslim to go on a holy War - a Jihad - all they are doing is following hte example of the Prophet Mohammed. (Continue onto Step 2).

Step 2: In Mohammed's Jihad - did women and children die with his express consent or knowledge when he took Mecca?

If NO: Then terriosts who go around blowing up and killing women and children are not in a Jihad and are just murderers.

If Yes: Then what terroists are doing now, going around kiling women and children is acceptable as it is Jihad and they are not doing anything differnt then what was first done - the only differnece being they are using guns and explosives to kill instead of the Sword.

When you finish reading this - I don't want you to explode into all emotional tantrums - but to stop and think it over in a rational and logical way. Is what was said above unreasonable? Unlogical? Or was it very straight forward and clear? Dont judge it on personal thought and belives but rather attack the arguement on the issue of factual evidence and thinking of logic and reason which were left out - 'deductive logic' as the term goes. Meaning, if all the assumptions are considered to be true - then the conclusion reached must also be true. Only way the summary is not true is if the premises stated were not true or that some premises - were not mentioned - were missing from the structure. If that is the case add the missing premises to the arguement and see where deductive logic takes you.

Let me know your conclusion. . .
 
And this is why I voted Generic...
 
warpstorm said:
And this is why I voted Generic...

lol - I see your point exactly. But its not really about generic or world religions the above post - its more of just clarifying what actually Jihad/Holy War means? That's all - I put my take on it, I might have missed someting out - or my premise might be inaccurate or false - if that is the case then the conclusion are false.

But if you look at it closely - its not stating a certain assumptions. Its more of a set of questions. If Yes then this If No then this - Deductive logic.

It's not likea slaggin match where everyone throws abuse at each other - its a simple honest look at very clear and concise questions who's answer will lead us to a logical and reasonable conclusion - To be honest, I don't really care what the answer is or what the conclusion is - so long as it is reached and the conclusion reached is a True and Honest one - which ever way it goes. I'm a person that likes to have answers - don't care if its yes or no, or bad or good - so long as I got the right answers - from there I can deal with it.

That's the first important step to anything - one must have true and honest answers - one must know the facts. Then, no matter what the situation one can start dealing with it - be it good or bad, tragic or joyous. I hate this wishy washy stuff - lets get it to a simple yes or no - true or false - 0 or 1 (binary).

I don't know the real answer to Step 2: I'm doing a bit more research into it before I can asnwer it defiantly - but at least we know what questions we need to answer. So one said - not sure who, it's asking the right questions which are important - if you don't ask the right questions you can never get the right answers. . . or something like that.
 
menwia:
Islam is dynamic political system. All the muslim peoples which waged war, went to war for spreading Islam. The Crusades were not for spreading Christianity, ONLY for taking back the formerly Christian territories (Syria, Palestine, Armenia Minor and so on). No Christian nations initiated war for spreading their faith - even the Spanish conquistadors were interested in gold, not in converting natives.
I ca not call defensive those wars in which Islam leaders multipled the territory of Islam in 7th-9th century.
We know the backwards and brutality of Islam conquest in Hungary.
And we do not forget it.
 
K.F. Huszár said:
We know the backwards and brutality of Islam conquest in Hungary. And we do not forget it.

you are wrong here, the conquest of Hungary was by the Ottomans and they did it for the solo purpose of expansion and power

it was not a religious war and had nothing to do with Islamic expansion

if fact the Ottomans were very tolerant of other religions when it suited them to be.

they were also very brutal, when they needed/wanted to be, to anyone they conquered, this includes other Muslims
 
K.F. Huszár said:
menwia:
Islam is dynamic political system. All the muslim peoples which waged war, went to war for spreading Islam. The Crusades were not for spreading Christianity, ONLY for taking back the formerly Christian territories (Syria, Palestine, Armenia Minor and so on). No Christian nations initiated war for spreading their faith - even the Spanish conquistadors were interested in gold, not in converting natives.
I ca not call defensive those wars in which Islam leaders multipled the territory of Islam in 7th-9th century.
We know the backwards and brutality of Islam conquest in Hungary.
And we do not forget it.

To be honest, and to correct you on one point - Charlmange - Charles the Great of the franks implemted the faith by the sword policy in his reign. All the pagan people that were conquered who did not convert to Christianty were put to death. There are also many other times were Christain leaders have used the sword to spread their faith. Be it policitaclly driven, or greed or faith it is unknown. But one should not look at the actions of individuals throug out histroy who called themselves Christains or Muslims - for we are all human and we make mistakes. We can't blame our mistakes on the actuall founding fathers of the religion. That is why we must look at the leader of each religion - Jesus for Christianty and Mohammed for Islam and see what it is they done. If Jesus killed - then it is plausablle to say under the same circumstance a christian is allowed to kill. If MOhammed killed then it is plausable to say a Muslim is allowed to kill under the same circumstances. I'm not saying that in either case it is right - but at least you can rationally and reasonably arrgue the case.

Huszar - to be honest - we can go back and forth for ever going over every single specific war and such and giving justification for this and that - a muslim could say the same thing about many other holy wars declared - saying they were not trully holy wars but rather were inspired by greed or that Islam is somehow twisted - that Islam is a religion of peace. My approach take out all that never ending talk - and looks at the facts. We can look at Mohammed and his actions and we can compare Jesus and his actions. NO where, or at any time did Jesus go on a Holy War were he took the life of another human being - in contrast he was going around healing, if you belive it or not that is different question. So when somebody says that Christainty does not preach Holy Wars at its core - its pretty beliveable - because you just have to see what example Jesus set. Now on the other hand - when a Muslim says that Islam does not teach Holy Wars - or condone them - that's an absolute and blatant lie. The Prophet Mohammed himself - went on a Holy War - and if one goes on a holy war to protect the faith of Islam then that person is considered a good Muslim. After all, this is the example that Mohammed himself set and done. Holy War is an accepted part of Islam - if you deny that then you deny the Prophet Mohammed himself. That's a fact - you can't get around it.

We move on to the next argument that some wars are in actuall fact not really Holy Wars - but rather driven by greed and such but just labeled as such. Which is acceptable. But we also have to accept that holy war is acceptable in Islam- and is considered a Muslims duty to defend the faith of Islam -and if he dies in its protection that he will go to heaven. That is a fact about the belief system of Islam. There's no running away from that.

The next question is when a Hoy War/Jihad is acceptable and right ro be delcared and meets the same criteria's as the HOly War Mohammed went on himself - one must look at what is the correct methods which one is allowed to use to carry out that Holy War. The best way to find that answer is to look at the way the Prophet Mohammed himself carried out HIS Holy WAr. If he used a tactic then, or done something then, then it is also acceptable to use it now when involved in a legitamte Jihad.

In plain english. Did Mohammed consent or have express knowledge of any murder's - executions or killing of women and children when he took Mecca? If the answer is Yes - then it is acceptable to kill women and children in a Jihad. If the answer is NO then when involved in a Jihad you can only attack and kill the solders and government organizations that are your enemy and do not target the general population. All the answers lie in the actions of Mohammed himself when he fought the first Holy War of Islam - from his actions one can know what is acceptable and what is not in a jihad.

I think all muslims would agreew with me on this -that one should follow the example set by the Prohphet Mohammed. So let us look at his example so that we can find the answers of what is Jihad? And what is the right way to carry out a Holy War if or when one is ever involved in one.

Please NOte : The opiionin of when a war is a justified a holy war is another issue. The main issue that we are looking at is what is permitted in a Holy War within the faith of Islam - because there is no denying that holy Wars are permitted in Islam. The only questin is how are they allowed to be carried out. And for this we must look at the actions of the Prophet MOhammed himself. If he done it, then a Muslim is also allowed to do it - if he didn't do it then to a Muslim you should not as well. Eg - Mohammed took many wives - there of course are certain rules and such that must be followed - but if you follow them rules then as Muslim you to are allowed to have many wives. It is the same with Jihad/Holy War - if you follow the rules and example set by Mohammed himself then you to are allowed to go on a Jihad/Holy War - it is in actuall fact your duty as a Muslim to gon a REal or True Jihad/Holy War.
 
I admit, I havn't read all 10 pages of this thread, so have probably missed the bit where this is explained,

but how on earth would you add religeon to Civ?

Apart from how it's already implemented:

The leaders of civilisations used religeon as a way to keep their population under control (ie, make them "happy" or "content" rather than rioting. (Well, this is definatly what the roman's did.)

And also, to help convert neighbouring states to their way of thinking (ie, the religeon adds to the general "culture" of the civilisation and eventually other civ's will convert.

So, exactly how it's implemented currently.

So, apart from adding some "storytelling" elements to the game, it's not going to make much difference. Apart from maybe if too civilisations have similar beliefs, then they'll get on a little bit better diplomatically.

But then again, maybe not. All the christian beliefs are pretty similar, but a few subtle differences, and look at the problems you get in Northern Ireland.
 
"In 626 Abu Sufyan and the Quraish resumed the offensive, this time with 10,000 men, and with material aid from the Banu-Kuraiza Jews. Unable to meet such a force in battle, Mohammed defended Medina by having a trench dug around it. The Quraish laid siege for twenty days; then, disheartened by wind and rain, they returned to their homes. Mohammed at once led 3000 men against the Banu-Kuraiza Jews. On surrendering, they were given a choice of Islam or death. They chose death. Their 6oo fighting men were slain and buried in the market place of Medina; their women and children were sold into slavery.

Abu Sufyan, perceiving the strength of Mohammed's forces, allowed him to enter unopposed. Mohammed responded handsomely by declaring a general amnesty for all but two or three of his enemies. He destroyed the idols in and around the Kaaba, but spared the Black Stone, and sanctioned the kissing of it. He proclaimed Mecca the Holy City of Islam, and decreed that no unbeliever should ever be allowed to set foot on its sacred soil. The Quraish abandoned direct opposition; and the buffeted preacher who had fled from Mecca eight years before was now master of all its life."

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/medina.htm

Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.” Tabari VIII:40 “The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.”
Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”



So we have an account of Mohammed beheading his prisioners and sellng the women and children into slavery. We also have an account that upon entering Mecca Mohammed showed great mercy and spared all the city apart from the main leaders. There are also accounts of fathers, husbands and brothers being slaughtered and Mohammed taking the widows for his wives. Either by their free will as some say or against their will as is contested by others. Many sources coming down on one or the other side contradicting each other depending on what side of the argument they are.

I will now look at other sources and see what it is written there.

Mohammed did destroy nearly all the idols of the Hindu religion upon capturing the city. But that is not the same as slaughtering women and children.

He did however, without doubt behead all the POW's as can seen by the first paragraph if they did not convert to Islam. The women and chidren were sold into slavery.

Bukhari:V4B52N175 “He heard the Prophet saying, ‘Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.’ The Prophet then said, ‘The first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.’”

Ishaq:385 “Amr Jamuh was a very lame man. He had four lion-like sons who were present at the Apostle’s battles. At Uhud he came to the Prophet and told him that his sons wanted to keep him back and prevent his joining the army. ‘Yet, by Allah, I hope to tread in the Heavenly Garden of Paradise despite my lameness. The Apostle said, ‘Allah has excused you, and Jihad is not incumbent on you.’ Then Muhammad turned to his sons and said, ‘You need not prevent him. Perhaps Allah will favor him with martyrdom.’ So the lame old man went into battle and was killed.”

Mohammed's own words declaring that Holy War - Jihad is a good thing and that a muslim killed in Jihad will go to heaven. There was also a lot of site with a lot of quotes from the Qua'ran which were obviously tinted in a bias way and could be looked at on many different levels. Also of other prophets from other religions basically saying the same thing for example - Qur’an 4:80 “He who obeys the Messenger obeys Allah.” NOthing that extrodianry - sounds very familiar - however - it is clearly obvious that Mohammed decapitated alot of prisioners who did not convert to Islam and sold their wives and children into slavery. It is also pretty clear that Mohammed has made clear that a Holy War is the duty of every muslim and that the killing of Infedals is a good thing - the Angel Gabrail and Allah himself giving them 'power over their enemies.'

There is at this point - i have found no concrete evidence yet of mass slaughter and murder of women and children by the express order of Mohammed - however- he does give permission and carried out the act himself of seling them into slavery. When taking Mecca he was very mercyful in contrast to he's other conquests - and so far I have only seen accounts of the men being beheaded who did not convert - there are also claims that the women were raped - but then again I guess that's what happens when you put someone into slavery, you can basically do what you want with them.

What happened with Mohammed's milatery conquests and the capturing of booty and the enslavement of women and chidren is nothing different then what happened all around the world and which continued up into our own modern times - with slavery existing in America non-the-less.

However, the question of it being appropiate behaviour of a prophet of God and messenger of peace maybe quite dubious - especially chopping of the heads of POW's -which Mohammed ordered to be carried out. Also the enslavement of women and children isn't something very palatable to us in this day and age - but is was something tha Mohammed took part in.

But going back to our original look at things. What is permitted in Jihad - so far as I can tell - you not suppose to go around killing women and children on a whim, but you are allowed to chop of the heads of your enemies when you capture and defeat them if they do not convert to Islam - and you are allowed to take all the possesions as booty and sell their women and children into slavery. These things Mohammed adtually done and ordered himself while he was fighting his Holy War/Jihad.

I will look further into the issue to see what other sources say on the matter. But so far - jihad as mohammed practiced does not allow for terroists to go around blowing up women and children.

so if a Jihad is declared and it is legitamte - you are allowed to fight the troops and the other government organizations of your enemy - you are allowed to chop of the heads of your enemies (POW/s) who do not convert to Islam - as Mohammed himself had ordered to be done - and you can sieze all their wealth and possesions as booty - giving a fifth of your spoils to the Messenger or the good of the faith -and you are allowed to sell the women and children of your enemies. However - you are not allowed to go around blowing up women and children of your enemies as a tool of terror -fear - or a method of Jihad.

If i find evidence contray to this I will post it - but so far - the terroists are not carrying out Jihad in the way Mohammed did. They are not following the example of the Prophet Mohammed. As Mohammed done himself when he fought the First Holy War of Islam- any Muslim in a Jihad is allowed to fight the enemy troops or government leaders - behead any enemy warriors/leaders/men captured who do not convert to Islam. They are allowed to take the defeated enemies possesions as spoils of war giving a fifth of it to the Messenger or the good of Islam. They are allowed to sell the women and children into slavery. On the other hand - lets not forget Mohammed's grand gesture of mercy when he captured Mecca - in stark contrast to many other leaders - he granted a mass amnesity.

But I will look into the matter a bit further - and will relate any new discoveries that i find.
 
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.
 
I think the definition of unethical war-time directives has to be better than, "killing women and children". Many times women and children were combatants and soldiers, that is even more true today. Here are a coupler operational definitions for things such as terrorism.

1) Indesriminant attacks on non-combatants. Targets cannot be chosen for strategic purposes, such as being ones of economic, political, or military importance.

This means assassination is condoned under this definition. Also, women and children combatants can be killed or executed under this definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------

POWs in general, until this century, were treated as the property of the victor. In the time of the phrophet, women and children were property of the man, so captured men's families were now property of the victor. Just an observation, which may need some adjustment.

-----------------------------------------------------------

@Menwia, while it is good you are using some form of argumentation, relying on just one form of reasoning could leave holes. I need to do a little reading to figure out what the falicies of reasoning are specifically for deductive reasoning.
 
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.
 
sir_schwick said:
POWs in general, until this century, were treated as the property of the victor. In the time of the phrophet, women and children were property of the man, so captured men's families were now property of the victor. Just an observation, which may need some adjustment.QUOTE]

Just because that's how things were done back then - does it make it right?

Rember - we're talkin about a Messenger of Allah - A Prophet of God, not just some power hungry warlord. This is not Ceaser, or Alexandra the Great or Gingas Khan were takin about, were they would follow the rules of WAr as it was back then. This is about the Holy Prophet Mohammed who was sent by God and followes the rules and commands of God.

He didn't just chop people heads off if they didn't convert because he wanted to - but because he was supposed to as God intended.

As a Muslim one must accept that it was right. Therefore - even in this day and age - we have been shown what and how a Holy War should be carried out by the example of the Prophet Mohammed - peace be upon him.

When I'm talkin about women and children - you know I mean the women and children huddled up in their little mud huts trembling in fear as the battle rages around them.

Deductive logic and the sturcture i'm using is very simple.

1:As a Muslim one must follow the example of the prophet Mohammed.

Do you accept this. If yes we move on to 2

2: Did Mohammed go on a holy War/Jihad? We know this answer to be Yes.

3: Did Mohammed chop the head of POW's and sell their women and children into slavery? We know this answer to be YES

4: Did Mohammed give express orders for women and children - the non fighting kind - to be executed or killed or mudered? The answer to my knowledge so far is NO.

So if you accept 1 to be true. Then any Muslim involved in a Holy War/Jihad is allowed to chop off the heads of his enemies that he captures (POW's) - sell their women and chidren into slavery, but not go around slaughtering women and children as a means of wagin war.
 
Back
Top Bottom