Better Representing Muslims: A Few Ideas

[Arif_Sohaib]

It is very brave of you to speak up here. I appreciate being able to see your response to this, thank you.

I looked through this thread earlier and found someone quoting two passages from the Quran, saying they aren't consistent.
There is no inconsistency, you have to keep in mind the context of the Ayat. Before it was revealed, Muslims weren't allowed to fight against anyone at all, no matter how much they were mistreated or even tortured, look up what happened in Al-Taif or before the migration to Abyssinia. Even after the first Muslims escaped to Madina and kind of had a state, that state was not allowed to go to war in any condition. This Ayat was revealed when they were finally allowed to fight. What it is saying is if anyone fights the Muslims, we are allowed to fight but are to cease immediately as soon as they do.

This is exactly correct and what I've been trying to mention regarding Islam being against attacking people who are non-combatants. There are specific ways to treat people of other faiths but at worst it's usually something like a special tax in trade and general discrimination. Not wanton murder. This is why I was shocked that around half of the Muslims surveyed seemed to think that the 9/11 attack had some merit.

The Muslim Empire also adopted a mission to spread Sharia law by the sword. I have been interested in the exact justification of that. I doubt that Spain had been attacking them in North Africa when they invaded them in 711. They seem to have adopted that practice super early.

May I ask what particular expression of Islam you follow? Sunni, Shi`ite, other?

Now as for games, everyone agrees that we need more diverse characters, right? Why not Muslims?

There are a lot of Muslims in games. Why not friendly Muslims should be a more apt question. The problem at hand is they only portray you guys as hateful war hungry monsters with kitten fur socks instead of real people with hopes and dreams and compassion for the innocent.

Joking aside. Muslim lore is remarkably rich. I'd like to see more Arabic settings in general and not just Prince of Persia/Aladin stuff.

And another thing, don't talk about Muslims as if we can't make games on our own. WE can and we have. Iran has a God of War like game called Garshap, Pakistan has made the most complex cricket game ever with Cricket Revolution and personally I intend to go into video game development myself from Pakistan. I am planning to make a game for my Final Year Project in Computer Science too. What I will ask from the international audience is to not just dismiss games because they come from Muslim countries, or talk from a Muslim or any foreign point of view (I think some Americans probably passed on Witcher or Metro because of that).

It would be great to start seeing some legitimate Muslim-made video games making it to the big time over here. Good luck on your efforts!

Metro 2033 was one of my very favorite games. I look forward to picking up Last Light soon. If you make a good game that's worth playing, rest assured that the majority of us don't care where you're from.

And from American developers, if you want Muslim villains, give them proper character and if you want to put Muslim countries in games at least do some research on them. Black Ops 2 had Arabic in Lahore, no one speaks Arabic in Lahore, my mother is from Lahore, some Lahoris don't even speak Urdu properly and use Punjabi. Modern Warfare 2 had Arabic in Karachi, I live in Karachi and no one speaks Arabic. And ISI does not have a full scale uniformed army. And where exactly did a flood come from in Lahore? Karachi I could understand because we border the sea and our sewage system sometimes works above capacity, not Lahore's. And why would the ISI be shooting people using drones when that is something that they are very clearly against when America does it? And don't you think any higher ups of that guy would notice, the Pakistani top army brass would have that ISI leader killed if they learned of his plans.

Haha, exactly! If they're going to do it at all, they need to do it right.

I won't be coming back to this thread, I don't want to make myself angry.

That's unfortunate. You've provided the best insight on the topic yet. A real benefit to the conversation. Most prejudice is born out of ignorance and you diminish that with your presence.

I did not want to come back to this thread and as soon as you start spreading baseless accusations against Islam(not Muslims, blame us all you want), I will leave.

I am a Sunni but I have Shia friends and there is no conflict most of the time. If it happened all the time it would not be on the news as something unique every time it happened.
And in my Islamic Studies class in university, I was told some Fiqahs(sects) follow some Sunnahs and others follow others, both can be true and in this way all Sunnahs are followed.

The people leading the "Muslim Empire"(there was no such thing unless you are talking about the first 4 Caliphs) were humans too and they too followed some parts of Islam and ignored others. There was no justification for Spain and because of that 300 years later Muslims lost it.
The invasions during the original Caliphate, however, were justified. The Romans and Persians were at war with the Caliphate and they were arming rebels against it on their borders so they were attacked in revenge or preemptive strike.

And 9/11, I think others already cleared it up well. Anyone approving of it did so because of the hatred the US already had against Muslims and their foreign policy against Muslim countries, supporting hated dictators and kings, regime change at will(remember what happened before the Iran Revolution?) and several other political reasons. Even now the US has made only one or two statements against Burma and the 969 monks, yet you want to fight Syria, also nothing against American-allied Bahrain or Yemen.
Ever seen the alternate ending to I am Legend or read the book? To some Muslims and several others America is the monster of their legends. America has the power to do almost anything to them, you spy on even your own people, you launch drones from far away, you change regimes at will, we never know if you rigged our votes(Several Pakistanis believe you were responsible for the last 5 miserable years under the PPP and Zardari) and the worst part to them is they can't do anything about at all.

As for games, games don't need just friendly bland Muslims. They can have Muslim villains but tell the audience why they hate them. Like a Muslim Raul Manendez or Ali Shaheed from Alpha Protocol.

If you really want more Muslim perspective, watch The Message(1976 movie about the begining of Islam) and Khuda Ke Liye(Pakistan's take on the war on terror, it even covers issues like extremism and forced marriage and a Muslim who is kind of an atheist and his Comstock-like attempt at redemption).

 

[Lightknight]

You have justified the killing (whether you believe your justification Ill not judge) of people not in the military in an allied country, away from any war zone, without trial, jury, right to appeal. Along with anyone standing nearby as collateral damage. Personally I disagree but there will be people who believe in what you wrote. I would hope their are people being held accountable for errors but I seriously doubt we will ever see any trials from a drone strike.

I do not generally believe that a soldier must have a warrant before shooting an enemy combatant. The drone program is, again, "Supposed" to be military action without endangering our soldiers. I do believe this to be the next step in military involvement but I do NOT agree with striking without certainty that they are the military combatants being sought. The face of war has transformed into something really strange. Military forces and groups that span nations while not necessarily being parts of those nations. As such, this step is necessary and it is fighting a war of sorts (I do wonder why we haven't used this against the drug trade, not to kill but to find drug crops and perhaps ruin them). But in today's society, much smaller forces can mobilize and communicate as efficiently as a national army. So we can't just not go to war with these groups just because they don't have a particular border they fit within.

So it's perfectly reasonable to agree with the notion of a drone program without agreeing with the way this administration is currently performing it. I would like to see the success rate. How many innocents killed or harmed in a strike compared to how many actual targets are taken out. I feel like that would be the only true success or failure rate in such a program. There is bound to be a margin of error, but it has to be an actual error and not a foreknown error that they deemed acceptable except in the most extreme and movie-esque of examples.

So again, there is a significant difference between the attempted targeting of military combatants and the purposeful murder of civilian non-combatants. Let's also not forget that these fragmented and regional groups showing their teeth on 9/11 is the entire reason for the drone program being necessary. Without them doing things like that, we'd still be stuck in border to border warfare as usual. They've literally brought tribal warfare back into viability. The history books being written regarding this period should hopefully touch on that.

Justifying attrocities against civilians is not a muslim thing. People do shitty things for ideology whether christian/catholic/muslim/free market capitalist/marxist/patriotism... I could go on. The IRA are catholic, they killed and maimed civilians attacking infrastructure on mainland Britain with funding and support from white, decidedly none muslim Americans amongst others. Someone felt justified to do this.

If they percieve America to be at war with Islam, then a military attack would be entirely justified by the Qur`an and the hadiths of practically any Islamic group. A civilian attack would not be. So the attack on the Pentagon would be justified by their faith if it hadn't also cost the lives of those civilians on the plane and the attacks on the twin towers would have been entirely unjustified. What's interesting is that suicide attacks don't really have a place in traditional Islam. There was no bomb equivalent so to die a martyr was either under oppression or during battle with combatants. Never strapping a bomb to yourself and clocking out.

Our best response should have been to encourage a deeper understanding of their faith. It's a shame that our government didn't know how to respond to such things culturally instead of just by force. I think they've learned thanks to this past decade. But it may be too little, too late, and I don't see evidence that they've really been willing to put that information into practice. They just keep shaking the hornet's nest, thinking that that's the way to pacify them.

Looking at the twin towers it could be justified (wrongly in my opinion. I dont believe in killing to meet goals) as an attack on America as an institution, hitting commerce and the "centre" of American capitalism. The civilians were collateral damage, in a similar way the IRA and supporters felt the Manchester city bombing was legitimate and justified. That was an attack on a shopping district and there was no mention of Alah.

Christianity doesn't have a clause to go out and kill people at any point or for any reason. At the very most, you'd maybe find verses where self defense is justified when Jesus said that the few swords the disciples had amongst them were plenty.

There is a difference between a group who enacts violence in the name of a peaceful religion and a group who enacts violence in order to adhere to a religion. If they felt that America was at war with them, then it is practically a command to fight back. That's not necessarily even the problem, it's that they fought back by attacking non-combatants. Something they aren't supposed to do.

You have to abide by the laws of the country you are in or face the consequences. Its why people smoke cannabis in bars in Amsterdam but not the US. Why Ill happily Jay walk in the UK, Why people dont drink outside in dry states. Some of the American laws and sentencing seem draconian from over here in Europe. In the US you get some awful reactions if you dont pay attention during the pledge of allegance or the singing of the national anthem, the horror caused by flag burning. Things that seem very alien to someone growing up in the UK. Its cultural differences.

Americans live free from the fear of death at performing those actions. Try burning the national flag of Iran or Pakistan in public in those countries. In America, people talk rudely to you and such but you don't have to be afraid that someone is going to kill you or that the government itself will put you to death for it. Draconian laws? Hardly. Here you have the literal right to piss and burn any religious text you own.

Alcohol is easy to get in Pakistan, can be legally bought and consumed in Egypt and UAE. You talk about Muslim culture but as the article said its multiple countries split into multiple regions full of individuals and not one faceless group with the same mind and culture. There were women attending night clubs in Mini skirts under the Shah in Iran when they were unheard of in Britain, Spain was tolerant of other faiths under muslim rule when believing in anything but the bible would have you tortured and killed in Christian Europe. There are mulitple interpretations of any religion and it will vary from person to person. Culture and religion are not the same. Most people will let you get on with your thing if it doesnt affect them. The police and law dont always feel the same.

I've already used Spain as the example that Islam is typically peaceful towards non-combatants of any faith. They do practice direct discrimination and do prohibit public displays of other faiths, but they don't kill them and such. My discussion here has mostly been towards civil injustices contained within the faith. Discrimination against women, children and non-believers. The mandate to return violence is more reactionary and the mandate to spread the borders of Islam is a military mandate rather than causing civilian death. Still, that has consequences that we may not like.

You'll notice that a lot of Christian evils were committed at the hands of specific countries rather than the Christian Church itself. The Spanish Inquisition and such could be an easy example of an atrocity attributed to Christianity that was instead performed by a government who had been at war with Muslims for the past 700 years. England's and Spain's crusades were also quite brutal and in the name of Christianity for stupid reasons but were still national actions. You also have a number of centuries where the popeship was fought over by the equivalent of mafia families who knew that the pope was actually an emperor and so you had significant corruption within the RCC during the dark ages. But you, like so many others, forget that the RCC was just one of the Pentarchy. Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria were all originally full fledged centers of the Christian church. All the way up until the great schism in the 11th century when Rome demanded deferrence from the others and they would not allow Rome's arrogance to corrupt the Church. The fact that this has largely been forgotten is testimony to Rome's success through being corrupt and also Islams success in the regions of the other four when Rome did not rally others to their aid. Only Jerusalem got special treatment and that was ridiculous. I guess we could have seen trouble brewing when the tradition goes that Rome adopted Christianity after they believed it to give them success in battle. Of course Rome would then use it as a tool to achieve their means.

What we see historically is that governments will abuse religion to their own ends. This says nothing about the religion itself unless the religion teaches that those actions are a good thing. Make no mistake, Rome and the Pope were actually governments using the faith to their political ends for several centuries. Christianity itself, however, was a religion that grew out of persecution and the message was to be good and noble despite oppression. A Roman soldier demands you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two. That's an almost unique message. The Roman Empire adopting Christianity was a good thing for the spreading of the faith but an absolute travesty to the spirit of its practice. People make a leap when they say that Christianity did those things. It's more a commentary on human nature and the corruption that power causes in us. There is a reason why protestantism was necessary. The RCC in that time period was finally too weak to respond to teh split and yet still corrupted enough to warrant a split. Christians had tried to split off earlier, seeing the extreme corruption of the RCC but were put to death by a government who did not wish to lose power.

Islam was a religion founded on having been oppressed and then physically overcoming the oppressors. It was being written and developed while its people were at war with other tribes in the reason and so it had the position of law whereas Christianity was written in the position of being under law. As such, you have a natural hornets nest kind of religion. One that if you strike it you will get messed up for doing so but one that really won't usually harm you if you leave it be (notice I resisted saying "...leave it bee", namely because hornets are not bees...). Interestingly enough, Hinduism took a route of creating a class system that was insanely discriminatory but not so outwardly violent. Judaism and Islam went an ultra violent "Us against them" route but Judaism at least confined its military endeavors to holding one particularly plot of land while Islam was not so contained and was encouraged to be spread. Buddhism and Christianity are the interesting outliers. Other religions I've researched have also been mostly on the war side.

An interesting note is that when the Muslims were kicked out of Mecca, they fled North and West. North to Medina, West to the Christian tribes who took them in. While the Muslims were quite appreciative of that shelter, there was also a non-trivial amount of conversion there. This is why if you read the 5th Surah you'll see significant language about not communicating with non-believers and no longer taking shelter with despite the fact that they were originally sent there by the prophet and despite the same Surah also establishing Christians and Jews as children of the book and therefore having nothing to fear on the day of judgment. The same terminology is also used in the 2nd Surah, verbatim, but without the rest of the terminology about not communicating with them (but don't make the mistake of thinking that it being 2nd was necessarily written before the 5th, there's some debate on the exact chronological order of the surahs and if they were medinan or meccan). Jews, Christians, and Sabians. Note that for the first year or so in Medina the prayer direction (Qibla) was actually towards Jerusalem and Medina also had some Jewish tribes in it that were under the Prophet's rule until he had to expel on of the tribes due to some disagreement.

I agree it would be good but this is part of American culture I struggle to understand. In the UK we have TV shows with American protagonists, Belgian, Australian. TV made abroad and we screen it as is. In America this doesnt fly, networks feel the need to have to remake it replacing everyone with Americans. the Office and Top Gear spring to mind. If someone is human its possible to find that common ground without being from the same country. Having a family, caring for people and things, goals, interests hopes and fears make people relatable. You dont have to have an American to do this.

The Office in particular is a bad example. There are some nuances in regional humor that can make the original Office difficult to watch at times while making the American Office more solidly in our vein of humor. I think we're beginning to see things like this change but jokes that do well here won't necessarily do well elsewhere either. Top gear though? I much prefer the UK version of that. Being Human is one I prefer the American version more but I may not have given it as fair a shot after having only found the British one later.

But do you feel like the UK is particularly anti-Muslim? What nations do you think would benefit most from games in which they're made more sympathetic to a Muslim individual by being put in their shoes? The more they have in common with them, the more they'll be able to consider how they'd feel in the situations the protagonist is put in. Even with your shows that have people from multiple countries, do you not perhaps identify a little more with the main characters who are from the UK? As humans, we have naturally been doing this for millenia. We have a thoroughly developed tribal mentality that I don't see going away as long as it benefits us in the social strata.

 

[Lightknight]

I did not want to come back to this thread and as soon as you start spreading baseless accusations against Islam(not Muslims, blame us all you want), I will leave.

I assure you that anything I say is out of earnest study of your Qur`an, Hadiths, and incredible history under Muslim tutelage in a secular University (as opposed to a Christian seminary or other biased institution). If I say anything that is baseless then I'd appreciate your correction. I am a scholar and the truth is my highest pursuit. I didn't spend years specializing in Islam just to put it down. I spent that time to learn and understand the culture.

I am a Sunni but I have Shia friends and there is no conflict most of the time. If it happened all the time it would not be on the news as something unique every time it happened.

Some Sunnis actually advocate accepting the Shi`ite Hadith as legitimate but such a notion is not getting much traction due to significant authoritative differences in successors. There are also some Shi`ite practices that are particularly offensive to Sunnis. Allowing icons would be the easiest example, where Shi`ites may even have posters of the Prophet in their Mosques where as Sunni groups will often destroy any icons they find due to the Prophet's destruction of icons in the Kaaba (though he did leave Christian icons unharmed according to the tradition).

And in my Islamic Studies class in university, I was told some Fiqahs(sects) follow some Sunnahs and others follow others, both can be true and in this way all Sunnahs are followed.

Yes, this is what I was saying regarding the four schools of law within the Sunni expression of Islam that emphasize different hadiths (Sunnahs) to establish law. You may know them as the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali rites. Hadith is commonly used interchangeably with Sunnah now that the Hadiths have undergone a stringent validification process that has made them a reliable Sunnah source. The Sunni faith in particular accepts six major hadith collections. Each Fiqh then takes those hadiths and interperets the degree of importance or necessity of verses and hadiths being emulated in every Muslim's daily life. The example I used before regarding the Prophet's habbit of brushing his teeth with a particular root. This practice is recorded in various hadiths and then each Fiqh decides whether or not that habbit is something every good Muslim should adhere to or if it's merely a recommended but not commanded action. The scale has five components. Obligation (fardh), Recommended (mustahabb), Permissable (mubah), Recommended against (makrooh), and Prohibit (haraam). So that's basically what the schools of law decide. They read the hadiths and the Qur`an and place those somewhere on that scale. Eating pork, for example, would of course fall under haraam. I believe the tooth brushing practice falls under mustahabb/recommended if I recall correctly. I don't know why I particularly latched on to the laws regarding brushing one's teeth. I just found it fascinating.

The people leading the "Muslim Empire"(there was no such thing unless you are talking about the first 4 Caliphs) were humans too and they too followed some parts of Islam and ignored others. There was no justification for Spain and because of that 300 years later Muslims lost it.

Interesting. Is it a widely accepted belief that there was no justification for invading Spain or do you believe this due to your college training? For example, I believe things that are contrary to the most common beliefs in my region because I've studied them to a point that made me think my region's common beliefs were wrong. While I've heard it commonly said that there is a mandate to spread the faith through conquest, I have not found a corresponding reference in hadiths, fiqh, or in the Qur`an. However, historically there does appear to be some credence to the notion as Tariq Ibn Ziyad invaded Spain under the order of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I. The Arabic Empire expanded significantly during even the Prophet's life.

The Muslims held regions in Spain for over 700 years. 711-1492 a.c.e. Very impressive and Muslim influence is still very present today. Especially in architecture. So I'm not sure where you get 300 years from as they were still going strong by 1000 a.c.e. and only really started becoming fragmented after the Marinids took over in 1269. It being successful or a failure does not legitimize whether or not it was appropriate, does it? I recall a battle in which the Prophet himself was struck on the face by a rock that even broke his teeth. The battle of Uhud which the Muslims lost to the Meccans whom they were clearly mandated to defeat. The Qur`an says that the loss was to test believers and admonishes the tribe that fled just before battle, stating that the many lives lost would not have been lost had they stayed strong. So a loss doesn't necessarily mean a lack of Allah's blessing so much as it may mean a faltering of the faith of the individuals.

As for why Spain was invaded, this is extremely disputed due to a tremendous lack of information on the topic from that era. Anything from the Muslims siding with their allies during a civil war to just a general invasion. The only real source we appear to have on the reason near the time was the Chronicle of 754 and that is somewhat vague despite being considered accurate. I'd say a 700-year rule isn't something to diminish. Not even a 300-year rule is anything to scoff at.

Do you know of any significant populations that believe Muslims should spread the faith through conquest (regardless of what you personally believe)? I've heard it said often enough that I must remain somewhat undecided of the veracity of this claim, having not actually seen those corresponding beliefs.

And 9/11, I think others already cleared it up well. Anyone approving of it did so because of the hatred the US already had against Muslims and their foreign policy against Muslim countries, supporting hated dictators and kings, regime change at will(remember what happened before the Iran Revolution?) and several other political reasons. Even now the US has made only one or two statements against Burma and the 969 monks, yet you want to fight Syria, also nothing against American-allied Bahrain or Yemen.

This may warrant a military attack, like the one on the pentagon. But not on civilians/non-combatants. Would you agree? The adoption of bomb usage in public areas completely undermines the spirit of Islam's call to attack only those who are at war with you.

Ever seen the alternate ending to I am Legend or read the book? To some Muslims and several others America is the monster of their legends. America has the power to do almost anything to them, you spy on even your own people, you launch drones from far away, you change regimes at will, we never know if you rigged our votes(Several Pakistanis believe you were responsible for the last 5 miserable years under the PPP and Zardari) and the worst part to them is they can't do anything about at all.

I recall the original black and white movie in which the Vampires/Zombies/Whatever were actually sentient in a completely meaningful way.

We struggle with this as well. There's a major push to make our government more open. Make no mistake, a lot of the actions performed by our governments are done in secrecy moreso out of fear of our (their own citizen's) reactions than even international backlash. For example, if it became known that even one drone strike was carried out knowing full well that they were just attacking civilians then we'd want to see people imprisoned. There has already been SIGNIFICANT political backlash regarding attacks performed without certainty that the individuals were actual combatants. I don't have a problem with drone attacks hitting absolutely verified militants (just as I fully understand Muslim military actions against invading forces as them defending themselves) as long as avoiding collateral damage is entirely avoided. Please do not forget that your countries also have drone programs, Iran leading the wave. Drone strikes will be the next form of warfare.

As for games, games don't need just friendly bland Muslims. They can have Muslim villains but tell the audience why they hate them. Like a Muslim Raul Manendez or Ali Shaheed from Alpha Protocol.

I think we have a lot of generally poor writing anyways. Meaningful villains are sorely needed regardless and you're right that bland friendlies wouldn't do anyone any good. Great perspective.

If you really want more Muslim perspective, watch The Message(1976 movie about the begining of Islam) and Khuda Ke Liye(Pakistan's take on the war on terror, it even covers issues like extremism and forced marriage and a Muslim who is kind of an atheist and his Comstock-like attempt at redemption).

I'll have to check those out. Though I am fully versed in the birth of Islam. I'm good all the way up through the first four Caliphates before my knowledge gets spotty.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

@Lightknight
There is nothing about spreading religion by the conquest in Islam, as you mentioned in the post above the one where you replied to me. If someone attacks, we fight back otherwise we are not allowed to start a fight. There is part of an Ayat that says that Allah does not love aggressors.
It is forbidden to forcibly convert anyone.
It is also forbidden to oppress non-Muslims in a Muslim country.
And the tax you mentioned earlier as discrimination is there, I think, so Muslim soldiers know where part of their salary comes from so they won't oppress non-Muslims.
And a few of the Jewish tribes of Madina were exiled, not because of a disagreement but because they were actively supporting the Meccans during the battle of Uhad. Those who did not support them stayed.

And the 300 years, I might have confused that with the Mughal Empire. Still Muslim Spain was a great achievement and was the most scientifically advanced and tolerant society in Europe at the time, one of the very few places in Europe where Jews were not oppressed.

About 9/11, it was never justified, no attack on any civilians is ever justified, but try to look from a poor and/or illiterate Muslim's point of view. Non-combatants in Muslim countries had suffered or were told they had suffered at the hands of Uncle Sam and now they got to see the other side suffer, simple as that.

And about America and the Muslim world, just imagine a nation not friendly to you with influence on the rest of the world and even your own government and with the ability to attack you without any significant consequence at any time, the ability to change your government at its will with or without your knowledge, the ability to spy on you without consequence and with rumors that it even has devices to control the weather and cause earthquakes. Imagine living in an alternate reality Cold War with the USSR having much more power, unimaginably advanced technology and influence and power over the entire world and the US having almost nothing, then you will understand what makes some Muslims so afraid of and angry at the US.

Lastly, I thought this thread was supposed to be about games and Muslims, why is it descending into something that should be in the religion and politics section? The last few posts have almost nothing about games so I make it a point to mention them in all my posts here.

 

[Therumancer]

[
Right, I'm cutting up this paragraph because I think it's critical to our disagreement here. You are correct in that, theoretically, this is supposed to be what the denominations teach. The reality is that even preachers rarely teach a lot of the examples you cited, and the reality for individual Muslims and their beliefs vary dramatically. And above all, if it isn't what Muslims actually believe, it's fundamentally irrelevant. What's the point in harping on about something as indicative of a culture if the majority of that culture doesn't believe in it?

Alright, to get right to the point, and trimming this down. Your argument basically boils down to the fact that you believe that the problem is with a radical fringe, I, and a few others, believe that it is instead a majority of Muslims that represent the problem with the "Fringe" being those that are actually peaceful and believe in co-habitation with other cultures and religions without any special allowances being made for them. Given that the issue revolves around the majority also not being up front about this, as they cannot engage in a "standing war" and instead rely on terrorism and deniability, the basic argument is that you cannot go with what people say is the truth when you have a gun to their head. Simply put it's part of the strategy of the Muslim Metaculture to convince people to think like you, by playing to the media, paralyzing the US military, while we run around chasing an endless array of terrorists and insurgents rather than going after the core of the problem.

You mention things like Indonesia, but the truth is that there are a lot of countries and even religious factions that don't get mentioned specifically very often. The focus tends to be on where we're fighting right now is part of the problem. The point of referring to "The Muslim World" and a "Muslim Metaculture" is largely because all of these nations need to be address as well as they tend to quietly provide support when it comes to dealing with other nations and cultures even to various Muslim factions (drawn by whatever line) they are normally enemies with.

This serves as a response to more or less everything I've gotten in disagreement recently since it pretty much comes down to claims of "that isn't true", "yes it is!", back and forth, which is when I withdraw from discussions. Especially seeing as I notice nobody here really wants to do any research when it doesn't fit what they want to think. When I provided my initial links, right from the beginning I said it was a small sampling and more could be found easily. I notice that the "defense" commonly being used here is that several of those links (but not all of them) are from Palestine. the problem is of course that I myself said that you could find pages of that garbage if you wanted to, across the entire Muslim World, but surprise, surprise, nobody wants to even check out other links from those pages (to similar Youtube videos) or check into what might disagree with them and teach them something. Now, I could fill up a couple of pages full of links, and assuming anyone bothered to actually check them, I'd still probably be getting "yeah buts" for whatever area I didn't put a link up for... which in short means I fail to see the point.

For example, you yourself bring up Indonesia as an example of peacefulness and how wrong I am but with simple searches you can find tons of garbage about Indonesia as well:

http://www.indonesiamedia.com/2012/08/19/indonesia-hit-by-anti-christian-hate-speech-video/

I mean you go onto Youtube and say type in "Indonesia Hate Speech" and well, there you go. The above was pretty much the first link that came up searching for Indonesia in the news.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm going to try to weed out parts of our discussion that don't appear to be going anywhere. Let me know if I miss a part that you believe warrants further discussion. Please let me know if you feel insulted by me at any point. Certainly not a goal of mine. Try to imagine me talking evenly while reading this or perhaps imagine me petting a fuzzy bunny while meniacally laughing and staring out a window. Either way is good as long as you don't imagine me angry at you or something.

It's funny that you mention that, because you're basically agreeing with my main point. Indeed, with Rath's first argument. That Islam does not equal a predisposition towards hating the US. Your suggestion, that they should exclude any "peaceful regions" and just focus on those nations with, well, a history of war with the US... you clearly see that that would lead to different results. And it would. Not because the people being polled are Muslim, but because they have a history of violence with the US that would predispose them towards seeing that those actions are somewhat justify.

Note that even then, it's still "somewhat justified". We're only talking a small percentage that believe it's fully justified, and it's my view that regions like Palestine and Pakistan would massively skew those results due to the widespread distrust and history of fighting Americans and American allies.

I did not say that Islam equals any kind of predisposition for or against the US. I was just remarking on how many stated that the attacks were warranted. It was surprising to me because I anticipated a lot more Muslims would have been against attacks on civilians/non-combatants. Then again, perhaps if they had been pressed further to distinguish between the Pentagon attack and the Towers attack that they'd answer differently to each. While I don't agree with the attack at all, I can at least percieve the attack on the Pentagon as an act of war while the attack on the Twin Towers would be purely an act of terrorism.

As I said a few posts back, nearly every country in the world with a predominantly Muslim population condemned 9/11, just as you say they should. Even terrorist organisations like the Taliban and Hezbollah condemned it. Iran, which you bring up, condemned the attacks on a massive scale.

This 55% number you're bandering around is misleading. Answering "somewhat justified" (another 20-something %) does not equal the same level of support that the 7% of "completely justified" responses indicate.

55% said they were not justified. It's less than half that said the actions were at least somewhat justified but 8% gave no response. So less than half believe that the 9/11 attack had some merit at least. This number is still higher than I expected. Ant that's all my comment was for. I was surprised that so many people thought that 9/11 was justified in any way.

I would have liked to see that data split up by country. I would anticipate Muslims in regions that are not at war with the US presently to have a very different take on things. We don't seem to disagree.

First of all, these questions were phrased in the local languages. Now, in the context of an opinion poll of this sort, "qualified" pretty clearly means that they have the physical and mental capacity, along with the requisite skills and experience, to perform the job required. As we're talking about an experienced polling group with an in-depth knowledge of the regions they are conducting the poll in, I think it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they actually know how to phrase their questions correctly.

Pretty clearly? What are you basing that assumption on? Our useage of the term qualified? Why do you assume that? You're projecting English linguistics on how an unknown translation would have been recieved. Surely you can understand why this warrants finding out? You can't just go into another country using similar dialect and assume everything will translate perfectly. All your base are belong to us and all that.

Never let it be said that I'm shrugging off the degradation of women. So we're clear, I find it despicable, repulsive, and insane. All I am arguing is that it is ludicrous to portray Islam as a whole as oppressive towards women. It's not something inherent to the religion. It's something inherent to a lot of developing nations, regardless of their religion. Islam is used to justify it in parts of the Middle East, just as Christianity is used to justify it in parts of Africa and Hinduism used to justify it in parts of India.

And this is where I disagree. It is inherent to the religion. Everything from Muhammad marrying a 6-7 year old girl, wife beating being recommended and being an action of the Prophet (he is cited as having beat his young wife in the chest), and a clear establishment of women as inferior. It even directly says that a woman's testimony is half that of a man. Imagine a court system where it takes two women testifying to equal just one man's testimony. It's literally the equivalent of Jim Crow laws being put into religious text. Don't get me wrong, other religions have them too but Islam is a lot more blatant and discriminating against women than most others. This is why I said these are the things that would clash with Western thinking moreso than violence that isn't expressed in the way people think.

It's just ludicrous to portray Muslim women as passive victims, their usual role in Western media. It dismisses the amazing women's rights movements in Islamic countries right across the world. That is a great insult to all the women actually involved in fighting back against the oppression or focused on trying to bring equality to their regions.

Saying that Islam as a faith is against gender equality diminishes the fact that women are having to fight for equality? I'm pretty sure that just establishes cause and effect more than anything else. I'm sorry, but you appear to be unaware of Islamic tenets regarding women. If you knew them and had studied them you would likely not disagree here. I have a feeling some of our disagreement is out of the feeling that you need to defend Muslims when I'm mostly just defining accepted beliefs. Interestingly enough, your defense against these beliefs may actually be more offensive to some than me just referencing beliefs.

...Did you watch the video? They went to peoples' houses. They mostly used women to interview women and men to interview men. They went deep into rural areas, even conflict zones, in order to gather opinions.

I watched it, yes. I just feel like this would be a really difficult study to actually get a random result. I'd like to know their rejection rates and I'd also anticipate some individual surveyor bias (if you can indeed call a surveyor not going up to certain scary looking individuals to ask questions, biased...). I'm sorry if I seem like I'm just disagreeing in the face of numbers. But this is quite an undertaking that warrants skepticism on face value. Having worked in marketing where surveys were our main job, I have to say that there's almost no end to the number of ways a random sample size can be compromized in its randomness. I just feel like I need more information and I need it not to filtered through them. Do you have a link to the actual text study?

This entire paragraph just seems to be trying to imply that the study is inaccurate without actually saying as much. If you do think that, say so and why.

It's not saying as much because I actually don't know. This study could be a random sample done well enough to have valid answers and the questions may have been translated in a way that completely side stepped cultural nuances that would prevent accurate translations.

The entire point of anything I've been saying about the study is just to get more information. Not to say its false. I also pointed out that these people are jumping to conclusions that do not mean what they're saying they mean. That I'm seeing assumptions made in the video doesn't bode well for how competent they were in conducting the study but I also have to admit that it doesn't necessarily negate it. You have to understand that this is how any person who has studied and even performed statistical analysis looks at studies. We look for the cracks and holes FIRST before concerning ourselves too much with the data. You'd be surprised how many studies had a sample size of 13 that wasn't even randomized properly.

A well done study is a refreshing cool oasis after dragging one's ass through a desert and practically just as rare.

The legality holds in, what, five or six countries? With optional sharia law in a few others. And even in countries like Iran and Pakistan, which do have it written into law, the interpretation varies by region and they sometimes outright ignore it. One of those countries, for example, has a theocratic head of state while the other has a democratically elected one. In Nigeria, Sharia Law is used to justify harsher punishments, but they flout that parts that actually require a great amount of proof first. And for the vast, vast majority of the Muslim world, Sharia Law is not actually the legal system that they live under. That affords most Muslims in the world just as much ability to flout the parts of the Qur'an advocating the oppression of women as it gives Christians the right to not stone homosexuals to death.

I'm sorry but you're likely just unaware of the extent of Sharia laws in governance. Consider this, how many laws in the US were originally from the Bible in some way? These other countries are basically the same way but based on the Qur`an. Except where modern laws have done their best in America to divorce us from religion, Sharia-based systems aren't typically moving away from religion. I'll give you some examples from ol' wiki answers regarding just the countries that enforce blasphemy laws:

Death for Blasphemy:
1. Afghanistan
2. Bahrain
3. Iran
4. Mauritania
5. Oman
6. Pakistan
7. Yemen
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Gaza

Imprisonment for Blasphemy:
1. Algeria
2. Bangladesh
3. Egypt
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
6. Libya
7. Malaysia
8. Maldives
9. Morocco
10. Somalia
11. Tunisia
12. United Arab Emirates

Some specific examples of Sharia law in other nations (the honor killing bit is regarding reduced sentences for honor killings):

1. Jordan (2 years or less for honour killings)
2. Eritrea (Girls as young as 8 can be married, spousal rape is not recognized)
3. Syria (1 year or less for honour killings)
4. Niger (girls can be married off before they reach puberty)

Basically, there are many nations where Sharia law is at least partially enforced at the government level as well as plenty of nations where it is summarily enforced. That's not including countries where the local tribal level carries out the law that would otherwise not be enforced at the government level.

If you honestly believe that Sharia is not widely practiced in Muslim countries then you're sorely mistaken. You're also unaware of more recently successful groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood whose goals are to actually install Sharia law at the state level.

I'm simply explaining the situation. It is what it is.

I didn't say there weren't any. My point is that there are Christians that don't follow those parts of their holy book, just as there are Muslims that choose not to follow that part of their book. It's not a problem inherent to Islam. It's a problem widely found in developing countries that are still working on getting their equality and general acknowledgement of human rights up to scratch.

I fail to see why Christians not following tenets that are merely meant to be enforced by the individual and no one else would apply to tenets of a religion that is specifically enforced at the state level. Also, lifestyle and belief are two different things. Hopefully those pedophilic priests don't think that what they're doing is good or ok.

No, but being as a sizeable portion of my extended family is Muslim (and living in the Middle East), and that a lot of the Muslim women I know have no problem harassing, badgering, or mouthing off to their husbands without getting beaten, I can honestly say that I've never seen this one in effect.

Two things:

1. Where in the Middle East? It makes a difference.
2. Husbands are not commanded to beat their wifes. It is a recommended way of "handling" them. It's cool that you have Muslim family members who are merciful in that area. That doesn't mean it isn't what Islam teaches. Again, I cannot attest to the individual expression of the faith. All I can tell you is what the religion itself teaches. You presenting personal evidence only tells us your experience. Not how everything else is. As a man, I enjoy lady drinks. Those sweet and colorful drinks that men scoff at other men for drinking. Therefore all men everywhere enjoy lady drinks. Experience equaling truth just doesn't follow.

Again, I'm not saying this stuff doesn't happen. It does, and it's appalling. But it's not a universal part of Islam and it's not as widespread as western media would have you believe. It's a problem that needs to be changed, but not an indication of a root problem in the religion. It's far more of a cultural and social issue that needs to be dealt with using a knowledge of local culture, rather than a widespread condemnation of the religion they all happen to be part of.

I personally think that Islam is a beautiful religion and have been allured by it in the past. I'm merely bringing up legitimate points of contention that require a significant change before the west would deem it appropriate in actuality. Islam does have some pretty troubling tenets that can't just be overlooked that easily. If I come across as condeming of the faith altogether then that couldn't be further from my intention. My original post in this thread was to explain that the violence depicted isn't Sharia induced, that the examples of Islam that are harsh are the laws produced by Sharia law that Westerners wouldn't think are appropriate. Death for apostasy and blasphemy, significant inequality amongst genders, and even strict punishments for lesser crimes like petty theft.

Are you a female who successfully drove a car around Saudi Arabia without being properly attired and having a male escort? Were you a ten year-old female whose father was attempting to entice a 40-year old wealthy man into marrying you or something?

Two example of laws that need to be changed in those countries where they are in effect. But, again, the overwhelming majority of Muslims live in countries where women are allowed to drive and where child marriage is just as illegal as in the West. When it happens in those countries, and it does on occasion, it's a violation of the civic law and no different from the cases of child marriage we still get here in the West. More widespread, because a lot of the time we're talking developing countries with a more ineffectual legal system, but it's a part of the religion that most do not follow and not indicative of the culture as a whole.

There's usually a mix and match in most countries. Some areas are not oppressive while simultaneously being oppressive in others. Islam even allowed women to own land and property before western countries did with the small side law that women's inheritance is to be half that of their male counterpart's inheritance. But no, most Islamic countries do not have equality.

I will say that gender equality does appear to be getting better.

I'm confused now. I'm speaking from a mixture of personal experience with some supporting statistics and facts. I've also acknowledged that all the bad stuff happens, and shouldn't be forgiven. My main argument is that that is not representative of the religion. And now you're accusing me of projecting?

My apologies. I can certainly see how a claim of projecting your sensibilities would be offensive. My point remains that the Qur`anic verses, the hadiths, and the laws in these regions still actively discriminate against women. Even when the laws are taken down, local cultures continue to enforce those practices out of religious piety. There is no small difference in committing crimes in the name of a religion that the religion does not teach and simply following the commands of a religion that does teach it.

The religion, on the whole, is peaceful. Individual people, sometimes with the backing of a local cultural consensus, can do terrible things. Sometimes there are even whole countries that fall into this trap. But, and this is all I've been arguing, this is not a problem with the religion as a whole. I agree that prejudice is pretty much intrinsically evil, which is why we should stop being so damned prejudiced against Muslims in both video games and western media in general.

Let me clarify. The intolerance of Islam is what makes me think of it as violent. The idea that a person could lose the faith and be put to death for it cannot be reconciled with peace. Cultural practices have made things a lot more violent but I do not believe that to be necessarily the fault of the faith. As was my original intention for coming here to disagree with the person saying that Islam is just a violent and hateful religion bent on killing innocents. It isn't. It has significant problems, but not that. I thought mentioning those problems would lend credence to my saying that it isn't about killing all non-believers.

 

[Cpt. Slow]

I call you what you are if you are going to call a faith backwards insulting the millions that follow it then that makes you a bigot plan and simple

Your insult undermines your opinion. So I'm not going to bother with your zealous hateful response.

 

[ThreeName]

snip

Cool your jets bro. I'd edit this quick-smart. Leave the bigots be, you're not gonna change them.

 

[peruvianskys]

I remember that Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay had Muslims in prison (or at least a very Islamesque religion that involved prayer rugs and praying in a certain direction). That was an interesting side dressing.

 

[Azahul]

1. Where in the Middle East? It makes a difference.

Exactly. This. This is the core of my argument, the main point I've been making. There is a lot of difference within Islam, and within the Middle East, and video games do not represent that well. You clearly agree.

At this point posts are taking me far, far too long to for me to reply to point by point (I entirely understand your last post cutting out a lot of the discussion, for what it's worth). Especially since we still seem to be perpetuating the same cycle. I think, in essence, most of our conversation comes down to a few key points that have been stated time and again. You find a lot of problems in Islam. I agree that those problems exist, and that they are problems, but disagree that they're an intrinsic problem within Islam (incidentally, this remains my argument for most of your points in your latest post). Even the most widespread problems share a huge amount of overlap with non-Islamic countries in the same economic/development bracket, which shows, I think, that they're hardly problems within Islam and more a problem with equality in the world in general. Heck, most of these problems were shared by the West until the last century. And none of that really has much to do with the fact that video games have pretty much a single representation of Islam, which is the topic at hand.

Still, I do want to thank you. Discussions like this are incredibly interesting and insightful and usually lead me to discovering all kinds of new research projects. It's why I quite like reading Therumancer's posts. I invariably disagree with his opinions, and he really struggles to remain on topic, but even when he's getting wildly off topic he usually presents interesting new subjects to look into.

 

[bjj hero]

So again, there is a significant difference between the attempted targeting of military combatants and the purposeful murder of civilian non-combatants. Let's also not forget that these fragmented and regional groups showing their teeth on 9/11 is the entire reason for the drone program being necessary. Without them doing things like that, we'd still be stuck in border to border warfare as usual. They've literally brought tribal warfare back into viability. The history books being written regarding this period should hopefully touch on that.

As Ive said, this isnt a Muslim thing. The IRA amongth other groups have targeted civilian targets.

"Some" is targetting and killing Iranian nuclear scientists as we speak. No one is owning up but the likely people will be American/British/Israeli intellegence services. None military targets, labs, scientist and factories are not military targets but its seen as justified. If a superpower aggressor as you see it was suporting oppressors (eg Bahrain, SAE)umping in with their military as and when it suits them, over thrown democratically elected governments for their own gain and jumping in with their military as and when it suits them, a strike on their financial power house could be seen as a viable target.

The curse of Empire has been going on for centuries and there is a lot of bad feeling. No one has the power to line up on the battle field with western powers and go for it. Thats part of the reason these attrocities happen. This isnt about muslims, this is about people without the power to attack a country directly. As Ive said before, justifying attrocities against civilians is not a muslim thing. Just like the none muslim IRA who blew up and killed civilians for decades. No one blames their religous leanings (or shouldnt in my opinion) for the violence. When its muslims its all because of their book. Heaven forbid they may have other reasons to feel aggreived. Im not excusing terrorism but if you come from the opinion "Its because of the book they read" you wont find the common ground or settle the conflict.

I wont get into which religion is more peaceful. Shit things have happened from interpretations of all forms of religious texts and political ideology. Christian extremists have felt justified in bombing abortion clinics for a contemporary example. There are thousands of words and youll find what you want in there, there are multiple interpretations of each text, hence factions and sects. Theres no "one" bible faith or "Koran" faith. Even the new testement is made up of multiple books with different accounts and someone through the ages has decided what to keep and what to throw out. A lot of whats attributed to "muslims" is from regimes or warlords with their own agenda. Its like blaming Christianity for the Lords resistance army and the misery thats caused.

As far as Muslims in the UK? Its not a bad place to be a muslim, you can worship (although out lifestyle doesnt fit well with preaying 5 times a day, wear what you like and can openly be muslim. ITs not perfect though. We have some racism, Muslims on our TV are still sterotyped. They own corner shops, restaurants or are family doctors. There is also segregation in that there are "muslim" areas but this is the legacy of migration and economics, in a similar way low earners are clustered together, IMO. Muslims are also the current Bogey man in our media unfortunately.

 

[Lightknight]

There is nothing about spreading religion by the conquest in Islam, as you mentioned in the post above the one where you replied to me. If someone attacks, we fight back otherwise we are not allowed to start a fight. There is part of an Ayat that says that Allah does not love aggressors.

I've often wondered if this was the case. I do kind of wonder where the notion of spreading Islam by the sword came from. I mean, we can certainly say that Islam was effectly spread by the sword but them only attacking those at war with them is quite another thing that the phrase causes one to believe. Thank you for your response. I think I'll shift my view to match this going forward unless actual data is presented that would indicate otherwise. Having studied the religion as long as I have, I do not expect to find such information.

It is forbidden to forcibly convert anyone.

Yes, I believe the wording is that there is no compulsion with faith or something along those lines. There is even a principle in Islam that allows Muslims to lie about their faith to save their lives. I was surprised to find that wording. I suppose their being heavily oppressed early on must have led to the need for that to be clarified.

It is also forbidden to oppress non-Muslims in a Muslim country.
And the tax you mentioned earlier as discrimination is there, I think, so Muslim soldiers know where part of their salary comes from so they won't oppress non-Muslims.

Well, yes and no. I did establish that the Muslims were remarkably kind to the Christians and Jews in Spain when they invaded, compared to other invaders. But oppression of non-Muslims comes in the form of discrimination. The special tax you agreed was there and also a general forced state of subjugation included in the same verse (9:29). Any form of discrimination like that is typically considered to be oppressing that group.

And a few of the Jewish tribes of Madina were exiled, not because of a disagreement but because they were actively supporting the Meccans during the battle of Uhad. Those who did not support them stayed.

Ah, so THAT was the tribe that fled just before the battle. I knew there was a conflict between that tribe and Muhammad and I knew about the tribe that abandoned him during that fight, but I didn't know both were the same. Very good.

And the 300 years, I might have confused that with the Mughal Empire. Still Muslim Spain was a great achievement and was the most scientifically advanced and tolerant society in Europe at the time, one of the very few places in Europe where Jews were not oppressed.

Agreed. Hopefully everything I said regarding the invasion was along those lines.

About 9/11, it was never justified, no attack on any civilians is ever justified, but try to look from a poor and/or illiterate Muslim's point of view. Non-combatants in Muslim countries had suffered or were told they had suffered at the hands of Uncle Sam and now they got to see the other side suffer, simple as that.

Yes, I understand it. I just don't think the belief that the attack on civilians jives with Islamic teaching. That's why I'm surprised so many believed it was warranted. None of the people in those buildings in New York had anything to do with their suffering. The Pentagon was the only "legitimate" target and even that included a non-trivial amount of civilians. But yes, it is all fine and well for me to look at this from the wealth of information that is the internet and what is almost a God's eye view over the situation to criticize it, but you're right that they most likely don't have that kind of information. In fact, it may very well be that the people who are proud of the attacks would be the most verbal about it.

And about America and the Muslim world, just imagine a nation not friendly to you with influence on the rest of the world and even your own government and with the ability to attack you without any significant consequence at any time, the ability to change your government at its will with or without your knowledge, the ability to spy on you without consequence and with rumors that it even has devices to control the weather and cause earthquakes. Imagine living in an alternate reality Cold War with the USSR having much more power, unimaginably advanced technology and influence and power over the entire world and the US having almost nothing, then you will understand what makes some Muslims so afraid of and angry at the US.

Oh, I understand the reason for dislike entirely. Engaging in battle with us and hating us is one thing, attacking civilians who have no say over our government's politics is quite another. But you seem to agree with that sentiment anyways. So again, thank you for adding your perspective. It's the rational clear intellect that people need to see to understand this kind of topic.

Lastly, I thought this thread was supposed to be about games and Muslims, why is it descending into something that should be in the religion and politics section? The last few posts have almost nothing about games so I make it a point to mention them in all my posts here.

That is the nature of the internet, my friend. To claim that there should be better representation of Muslims naturally leads to a discussion on what Muslims actually practice vs what they do not.

 

[Lightknight]

1. Where in the Middle East? It makes a difference.

Exactly. This. This is the core of my argument, the main point I've been making. There is a lot of difference within Islam, and within the Middle East, and video games do not represent that well. You clearly agree.

At this point posts are taking me far, far too long to for me to reply to point by point (I entirely understand your last post cutting out a lot of the discussion, for what it's worth). Especially since we still seem to be perpetuating the same cycle. I think, in essence, most of our conversation comes down to a few key points that have been stated time and again. You find a lot of problems in Islam. I agree that those problems exist, and that they are problems, but disagree that they're an intrinsic problem within Islam (incidentally, this remains my argument for most of your points in your latest post). Even the most widespread problems share a huge amount of overlap with non-Islamic countries in the same economic/development bracket, which shows, I think, that they're hardly problems within Islam and more a problem with equality in the world in general. Heck, most of these problems were shared by the West until the last century. And none of that really has much to do with the fact that video games have pretty much a single representation of Islam, which is the topic at hand.

Intrinsic or inherency is regarding the basic components of the structure and not the use of the structure itself. A gun is inherently a device made to fire a bullet but a gun may be made and purchased that is never fired even once. The use does not negate the function.

As such, when I say that the verses and the laws derived from the Qur`an/Hadiths include the points of contention that I mentioned, I believe this to be inherent function being shown. I also believe that individual nations and individual Muslims may and sometimes do likewise reject those functions. But their rejection of certain functions does not negate the inherency of those commands and laws existing as legitimate teachings. The fact that the Qur`an puts the testimony of a woman at half the value of that of a man means that this principle is inherent in Islam whether it is functionally followed or not. Therefore, you can say that Islam is inherently discriminatory against women while not necessarily claiming that all Muslims and Muslim nations follow that guideline.

Perhaps our disagreement has been mostly semantics on that point and my defining of it above clears that up. If you agree that such discriminatory beliefs are present in their scriptures and laws then the disagreement is purely on the term intrinsic/inherent, which does us no good to debate since we agree on function.

Still, I do want to thank you. Discussions like this are incredibly interesting and insightful and usually lead me to discovering all kinds of new research projects. It's why I quite like reading Therumancer's posts. I invariably disagree with his opinions, and he really struggles to remain on topic, but even when he's getting wildly off topic he usually presents interesting new subjects to look into.

I certainly appreciate your input and the fact that we may have a pleasant/insightful discussion on such a potentially heated topic.

So again, there is a significant difference between the attempted targeting of military combatants and the purposeful murder of civilian non-combatants. Let's also not forget that these fragmented and regional groups showing their teeth on 9/11 is the entire reason for the drone program being necessary. Without them doing things like that, we'd still be stuck in border to border warfare as usual. They've literally brought tribal warfare back into viability. The history books being written regarding this period should hopefully touch on that.

As Ive said, this isnt a Muslim thing. The IRA amongth other groups have targeted civilian targets.

No, you mean this isn't an Islamic thing. A Muslim thing in that it was born out of a particular sub-Muslim-culture. Likewise, if they percieve the US as being hostile towards them, then this IS an Islamic thing as well. They'd hardly be blamed for seeing the US as combatant with us siding with their enemies and waging wars on their soil from time to time. But as enemies, they are practicaly commanded (Islamic) to attack us, especially with us waging war in their land. The part that was cultural was the attack on civilians specifically. That is not a warranted action within Islam and different Muslim cultures likely disagree or agree with it according to region and adherence to Islam which would be against civilian murders. The part that was potentialy Islamic (religiously justified) was attacking us in general. It is important to note that just as Jews are a culture in addition to a faith, so are Muslims typically a culture and a faith. So there can be some confusion over saying that "Muslims believe this:" as opposed to "Islam teaches this:". Those two are not synonymous yet are often confused as synonyms. For example, Saudi Arabian Muslims believe that women should not drive cars. Yet as far and wide as I look in Islam, not so much as a reference to women not driving carts can be found.

So please bear in mind that my only claim is what Islam teaches and how the schools of law interpret that. To say what Muslims believe would require for me to go through by culture rather than through a higher/broader level. That being said, Sunnis who are a member of a particular school of law do believe X. Culturally they may not practice X. So you can see the confusion. All I can really tell you is what they teach. How it is practiced is up to the individual. I've repeated this several times throughout this discussion so hopefully this distinction will better serve as an explanation that I'm not talking about all Muslim cultures and am just referring to teachings and laws.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Yes, a lot of Muslims are psychopaths.

A lot of catholics are psychopaths. Infact, wasn't the Koo Klux Klan a Catholic group? And isn't the Al Queada a Muslim group? Are we really willing to bash Muslims for terrorism when the Koo Klux burned immigrants and Black people to death on crosses?

We're just as bad as each other. Here's an idea, instead of races or religions, we have people. With an identity. A name, orientation, a personality, a religion, hopes, dreams, knowledge, education, history, and memory. Not groups. There are as many awful people as there are good people.. most of the time.

And for a more ditch-effort, just make everyone an asshole.

 

[Cpt. Slow]

How about actually arguing.

Wow, you went from

How about actually arguing instead of acting like such an arrogant prick

(yes, the original comment is still in my inbox) to

How about actually arguing.

You still lost this by calling names (again).

-edit- So I've decided to put you on the ignore list. Arguing is fine, but you can not keep the bad words out of it. Cheerio.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, a lot of Muslims are psychopaths.

A lot of catholics are psychopaths. Infact, wasn't the Koo Klux Klan a Catholic group? And isn't the Al Queada a Muslim group? Are we really willing to bash Muslims for terrorism when the Koo Klux burned immigrants and Black people to death on crosses?

We're just as bad as each other. Here's an idea, instead of races or religions, we have people. With an identity. A name, orientation, a personality, a religion, hopes, dreams, knowledge, education, history, and memory. Not groups. There are as many awful people as there are good people.. most of the time.

And for a more ditch-effort, just make everyone an asshole.

First off, you're completely right that stereotyping individual Muslims based on the actions of others is a veritable guilty before even proving/disproving anything scenario.

As a side comment though, I'll present the concept that Islam itself, as a faith, openly commands discrimination against women and non-believers to a degree that is incompatible with some fairly fundamental human rights (as we see them). There is a difference between groups that do extreme things in the name of a religion that openly rejects them (Hell, Christianity was established by Jews and likely Black people as well considering the region it sprouted from, so the KKK can just go suck it if they do what they do in the name of Christianity) and groups that do extreme thing in the name of a religion that openly commends said actions.

The main problem is that people believe that Islam teaches to attack non-aggressors. It doesn't. That is a complete misconception. So when extremist groups attack people who are peaceful then they are directly breaking their faith. However, Muslims in the Middle East see the US (not incorrectly, necessarily) as at war with them. From siding with their enemies (Israel) to literally warring in their land to overthrow leaders. As such, the attacks on US soil were technically condoned and even encouraged by the Islamic faith. Though the methods and targets of the attacks would likely have been condemned as I seriously doubt that investment bankers had much of anything to do with combating Islamic nations).

It's a fascinating subject. It has to always be looked at with the understanding that individuals may vary greatly and that a Muslim in India likely has very different views from a Muslim in Iran.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or maybe we could you know, play as one?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

...Yeah, right. What next, play as a woman? Or a homer sexual?

 

[Danny Ocean]

Man... you guys need to actually get out and meet some Muslims.


All in the name of Allah.

And I'm as surprised as anyone to see women walking around as they are in the UK. They can dress how they want.

The ignorance on show here is astounding.

I mean, really, what did you think day-to-day life was like? What did you really think the people were like? Why are you so ready to accept the complexity of your society but not afford the same luxury to others?

Do you really think the world is that simple?

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

@Lightknight
Sorry for the late reply, I had been a bit busy lately but I just want to clarify that when I said some Jewish tribes supported the enemies of the Muslims, I meant they violated the Constitution of Madina and had meetings with the Meccans and were their allies. The archers that left their posts(Not fled, they thought they had won and disobeyed direct orders and went to collect the items left by the Meccans) were Muslims.
And this battle was not a defeat as the Meccans did not achieve their goal but the Muslims had very high losses.

And The Message has a fairly accurate depiction of this battle and the battle of Badr agreed upon by scholars of from the University of AlAzhar and another university, meaning they took permission from Sunni and Shia scholars before making it.