They might not portray them well, but they aren't actively creating or maintaining negative stereotypes of Christians. Furthermore, Muslims in games and any media, seems to often take on more of an ethnic flavour than a religious. Some could argue that it is primarily racist.RatherDull said:
Better Representing Muslims: A Few Ideas
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While I understand your problem, the author did however, go to great lengths to convey that the current discourse in the west can not actively grasp the Muslim world. He criticised 'Arab' as a blanket word at the start. While I agree that it could be argued that criticising the language used to describe a phenomenon, without managing to escape that very language, is a major failure, I would only hold an academic to that standard, and not a games journalist on a website.James Joseph Emerald said:
Care to name a few. Also, is it specifically about Christians being intolerant, or just white westerners in general?RatherDull said:
I'm sorry, but if someone is arguing against a more nuanced depiction of Muslims and instead insists that we portray them as their stereotypes, because apparently those are accurate, then I feel that we should at the very least take the majority of Muslims (that is to say, the 60% or so of the world-wide Muslim population that lives in South-East Asia) and use them as the template.Da Orky Man said:
[small]To be clear, I'm referring to Therumancer there. And of course, it's not like you can really generalise the South-East Asian population, no more than you can Muslims in the Middle East. But, as I said right after the section you quoted, I was being facetious.[/small]
As for not garnering much attention? We're talking about a country that has good odds of becoming a world superpower in the course of this century. A country that is both the world's largest Muslim population and the target of a series of terrorist attacks from fundamentalist Muslims. A country that subsequently captured, tried, and gave the death penalty to these very same terrorists. It's also a country where young Muslim preachers, often very liberal and generally tolerant of the rest of the world, travel around the country being greeted with all the fervour and excitement of a rock star. Indonesia is fascinating, but of course it fails to fit the narrative the media loves to present about Muslims, so people tend to assume it just doesn't do much worthy of attention.
Many Muslims do denounce the part of their religion that tells them to hate and wage war against atheists. Any given Muslim you are likely to meet will be one of those, for obvious reasons. If you travel to the majority of Muslim countries in the world, most communities will be absolutely accepting of you regardless of your personal beliefs. And the only reason I can think of for you thinking that change isn't happening within Muslim communities is that you are only watching media that refuses to report on that change which... is basically the main point of Rath's article.Zeckt said:
I mean, for crying out loud, I'm an atheist and I've had perfectly sane conversations with members of "fundamentalist" militia groups without being shot or hacked to pieces. I have a friend that has actually interviewed high-ranking members of Hamas as part of his research into the group's dual role as terrorist organisation and elected government. Frankly, all of them seemed better at telling who their enemies were than a good few posters in this thread. Very few of their hatred are irrational, or even based in their religion. They're almost always political. Any hatred of the United States is because of actions the United States has taken in the area (whether it be supporting Israel, supporting the Taliban, a previous invasion, or possibly the current invasion). And, I should note, even the militiamen I spoke to were able to differentiate between the American people, who they generally liked, and the American military and government, who they didn't.
I... I really feel you need to actually go and meet more people. Not just Muslims, although that would certainly help. Travel in the Middle East or South-East Asia for a while. As much as I'd love to be able to convince you that the "core of the religion" is nothing like you describe, I don't think it'll be possible without you actually experiencing it for yourself. It sounds like your fear is just too ingrained and irrational to really break through.Zeckt said:
Still, never let it be said that I'm a quitter! Let's put it this way. As another poster in this thread has said, the majority of Muslims live in South-East Asia. The negative stereotypes of South-East Asia are hopefully not quite as extreme and ingrained as the Middle Eastern ones apparently are, so hopefully you can approach that subject a little more easily. The main thing to remember about South-East Asia is that the Sufism tradition is really strong. Sufism itself is a little too complex to really sum up properly with one word, but suffice to say that there are lots of different permutations and it can be very individualistic, and you are unlikely to find too many men gunning for you for not believing the same thing as them.
We're talking about a developing nation. Intolerance isn't exclusive to Islam, and as I've said before, there are problems within Islamic communities. Attacking LGBTs is something that happens in the heavily Christian parts of Africa and places like Papua New Guinea as well, and hey, happened in the West as well until fairly recently. It's bad, but it's not a universal problem in Islam. If you think it is, that's just more evidence that the suggestions Rath is making really need to be implemented, and quickly.Zeckt said:
I respect your opinion Azahul but I simply cannot overlook the fact that thousands and thousands of them stormed embassies and murdered rampantly in the streets all over a book. We are not talking small numbers here, we are talking about ridiculous amounts of people crowding streets mobbing anyone of western origin, burning our flags and destroying property.
How can we show any respect to a society that goes that far over one book? one book to them is worth more then lives of people of our nations. You talk as if it is a select few, yet that was proof that the problem is far worse then that. I think its time they need to be worthy of the respect they DEMAND rather then raise pitchforks whenever anyone flips them the wrong way. Like it or not, their religion to this day teaches them to hate and wage war on atheists even if many of them denounce it it should not be there to begin with. Why are you so quick to forgive and forget how they spat on us immediately after 911? innocent people died, mothers fathers sons and daughters lost to their loved ones. And they LAUGHED at us in droves. You can overlook that, but I won't. What have they done to deserve our respect other then spit in our faces and demand it? Their society teaches to this day to repress women and hate LGBT's. I won't give in just because it's politically correct.
How can we show any respect to a society that goes that far over one book? one book to them is worth more then lives of people of our nations. You talk as if it is a select few, yet that was proof that the problem is far worse then that. I think its time they need to be worthy of the respect they DEMAND rather then raise pitchforks whenever anyone flips them the wrong way. Like it or not, their religion to this day teaches them to hate and wage war on atheists even if many of them denounce it it should not be there to begin with. Why are you so quick to forgive and forget how they spat on us immediately after 911? innocent people died, mothers fathers sons and daughters lost to their loved ones. And they LAUGHED at us in droves. You can overlook that, but I won't. What have they done to deserve our respect other then spit in our faces and demand it? Their society teaches to this day to repress women and hate LGBT's. I won't give in just because it's politically correct.
Yeah, lumping all the diverse populations into one is dumb. The same is done with Africa and to the lesser extent with Asia and Europe.
Aren't they basically people from desert regions, so wouldn't they dress in certain ways because of the climate?
Yeah, I never associated them with muslims or Arabs.Xdeser2 said:
Aren't they basically people from desert regions, so wouldn't they dress in certain ways because of the climate?
I'm curious about these mass celebrations you and Therumancer are a bit preoccupied with. I clearly don't watch the same news reports that you do, because my understanding of the post 9/11 reactions was that the Islamic world condemned it on a massive scale. For crying out loud, terrorist organisations condemned it. The Taliban condemned it. Hezbollah condemned it. The leaders of nearly every country in the Middle East and North Africa, with the major exception being Saddam Hussein, condemned it. That's a distinct lack of laughter. On top of that, I can find only a handful of cases of celebrations, all from Palestinians (who have non-religious reasons to hate the US, just to be clear), and for some of those it was later found that the people participating had simply been offered money/food to cheer and act excited for the cameras. In other cases, the footage used was stock footage of Palestinian celebrations over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.Zeckt said:
The Arab Spring is a tricky case. It's a post-revolution environment. Those are almost never pretty. That isn't to say that I condone it, I certainly don't, but I fail to see how that kind of violence differentiates Muslims from any other group that have just won a violent struggle.
And as for teaching to repress women and hate LGBTs... oh for crying out loud. I can't debunk this more thoroughly than I already have. Go and meet some Muslims. Spend time at your local mosque. Nearly all Muslims are regular people and hold views that are normal for their society. In the west, you're likely to find people just as liberal as anyone else. In developing countries, you're likely to find repressive societies not unlike the West a few decades ago. And even then, this repression of women and hatred of LGBTs is massively exaggerated. It exists, I don't deny that, I don't deny that it is a problem. But at the same time, I can recall having a delightful time with a taxi driver when I lived in the Middle East who spent most of his life being bounced back and forth between his two wives. His wives each had their own households, supported those households, and were quite clearly the dominant figures in the home. He was generally treated in a fairly jovial manner as someone that needed nearly as much taking care of as the children. On a broader scale, even most of the hard-line Muslim countries have female parliament members. Nowhere near enough, of course, but it's clearly not a blanket oppression. Better than that, in many cases it's an oppression that's beginning to crack.
50% may seem like a small number compared to your 90% guess, but that is actually quite a large percentage of people who believe an attack on innocent civilians in a country that is not actively at war with you is justified. As you said though, the study does include a significant number of Muslims who aren't in the main areas of hostility towards America. I'd like to see those numbers revealed by country as I'd believe that some more peaceful regions that are US friendly (Indian Muslims, for example) would have skewed the data downwards a fair bit. They have to be careful doing that though, as this particular question can rally people to a cause and if you actually had a nation that was over 90% on that question then we'd begin singling out certain nationals.Therumancer said:
An attack on civilians would have been condemned by their own prophet and that's speaking of a man who built an empire bent on conquering the world within just a few decades of its inception (from Medina to Spain in less than 100 years, no small feat). Many of us even have problems with the Dresden bombings and the bombings of Japan and those were countries who were actively at war with us. It takes a special kind of mindset to justify such an attack on non-combatants. The 55% need not surprise you when the study is worldwide and not region based. The numbers from Iran would differ greatly from the numbers from India or China.Azahul said:
What does "intention" have to do with anything? It's the effect that matters. It's great that you likely live in a country with significant efforts to establish gender equality but you have to understand that these are cultures where being a woman literally disqualifies you from certain jobs. Had they begun asking about specific jobs they would have found what appears to be a significant inconsistency arise. Imagine if you'd just gotten an affirmative to the previous question and then asked if they could be a cashier only to get a no because then men would have to talk to her as is not culturally acceptable in their society. "Of course being able to talk with customers to take orders and money is a requirement of being a cashier". If I were a store owner in a Middle Eastern culture with that kind of custom I would be unable to hire women in client-facing positions even if I wanted to.
To look at this kind of study an use it to shrug off Islamic culture's outright degradation and abuse of women is a great insult to all the women impacted by a very different reality that flies in the face of any such study.
I'd love to find out more about the intricacies of these studies. For example, how many of the surveyors were female? That number being significant at all could significantly skew results due to the customs I mentioned. In a culture where men don't usually talk to women, the kind of people who respond are already those who don't follow the local customs. They say that they did this in an unbiased way but I'd love to have access to regular footage of them performing the surveys and where they performed them. For example, did they go from house to house or did they do it largely in colleges or other such places? If there's anything I've learned from all the coursework I did in statistics, it's that surveys can be biased in three ways. The wording of the questions, the way survey collectors conduct the surveys, and the way that the sample is randomized. The absolute most important component is that the sample be random. You can even forgive the other two points of bias to a significant extent if the sample size is large and random enough. If the study is done right, then the numbers speak for themselves. Some people would say that interpretation is another area for bias but how the group performing the study interprets them is meaningless when the numbers stand firm.
It is what Islam teaches, it is not necessarily what Muslims practice. These aren't only religious beliefs, but also legal beliefs as I've explained. There is a difference when a national religion has been established in a way that involves it in the legal process.
What makes you think Christians don't believe that women are to obey their husbands? I'd say the numbers of people who don't follow that is increasing but it's still a VERY common belief/practice. It is even regularly taught from the pulpit.
I don't know why your experience would be particularly relevant. What verse/belief that I presented would be something that would have impacted you? As I stated regarding the "fight unbelievers" verse, it's out of context despite being a controversial one. Did you go there shouting that there is no Allah or something like that to disprove the verse's acceptance. Were you a Muslim's wife for a time and did you mouth off more than three times? 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?
I'm not sure how you'd really come across these things that largely happen behind the scenes.
I dare you to say this exact paragraph within a populated Muslim establishment in pretty much any of the Islamic nations. "What do you think of these Qur`anic verses," "I interpret them as kooky laws written down centries ago...". If dealing with American Muslims, they very well may agree with you thanks to the integration into our culture but you'd likely get offense in the same way Christians would be offended. I wouldn't anticipate violence though. If dealing with Indian Muslims your speech may be angrily tolerated or you may be physically removed from the establishment and taught a lesson out back. I fear for your very life at the blasphemy you've spoken in say, Iran. Either at the hands of the locals or even the government itself.
Let's not even get started on apostasy, an automatic death sentence in nearly every Islamic nation, both locally within the culture and legally.
What's interesting is that people like you project their own sensibilities onto these very different cultures. You think that just because you and I believe these verses to be archaic that these other countries would too. But that's not the case. They're several decades behind us at least and that's only assuming that they're progressing our way thanks to the distance diminishing force that is the internet.
A question you should ask is what would happen in most Muslim cultures if you were to walk into the street and burn a Qur`an. Yes, you'd be stupid for doing something like that in any culture. But the ability to offend Islam is not present at all.
For all my studies and interactions with peaceful Muslims. I've very much wanted to consider Islam peaceful. But that would be a lie. Islam is incompatible with pluralistic ideals and Western culture without significant revisions. The current movement to make it out to be peaceful is to counteract the very real and very wrong persecution of Muslims by Americans who are quick to stereotype individuals around them. I understand this motivation. I understand wanting to do anything to protect innocent people who don't deserve such discrimination and even persecution. But the way to do that isn't to lie about something. It's to come down hard about prejudice, something that is intrinsically evil.
Meaning we don't depict Taliban forces like they're just charging troops with kittens and candies? Perhaps the Al Qaeda forces in video games should be secretly trying to get into tickle fights.
The issue isn't that Muslims are being misrepresented. It's that the groups that aren't extreme or militant aren't relevant to the stories we see them in. The groups being represented are entirely apt but by no means make up the normal Muslim.
I do wonder how a game would go over regarding a main character who is Muslim but is also American. To see those two qualities conflict while fighting militant Muslisms overseas. It's certainly ripe for dialogue but I don't know how Americans would recieve it.
Right. This is why I'm specifying that I do not believe the context of that verse to be what people assume it is. I thought it may be beneficial for you and me to discuss this as we're likely in agreement here. As long as individuals do not directly insult Islam or publically practice their faith, they're generally safe. Those verses in context generally refer to other nations who are militant and is the grounds for taking over another nation to impose Sharia law moreso than harming the individual. This is what people confuse when they think of spreading Islam by the sword. They (people who have not studied Islam) believe that terminology means that they demand people convert or they kill them. That is not (or should not) be the case. It's an overall spreading by military conquering which may still be upsetting but certainly has a different opponent than the individual. Individual entities within an Islamic nation are then only confronted for doing something contrary to Sharia law.
Because it's part of their laws. Sharia law is a derivative of Qur`anic passages and the specific Hadith source that the relative school of law adheres to. Western criticism and political pressure has made their enforcement of these laws a lot more difficult but only on cases that catch the public eye. Men are legally allowed to treat their wives that way as well as to allow those marriage practices and it's fairly common in the bedouin societies still. Add that to commonly know practices like female circumcision and being a female in an Islamic society can be quite the hard knock life.
No, I am judging the actual letter of their laws that are often criticized by other nations when particularly egregious examples surface.
Have you actually studies the Islamic faith and the resulting Sharia law? It honestly sounds like you're projecting your Western culture onto other cultures. Essentially, you're doing the same thing you think I'm doing. Just in the other direction.
A mainstream belief is an orthodox/accepted belief. Particularly one that has found its way into law. Tell me, in a Sunni nation, what do you think the law has to say about someone who blasphemes? Do you believe that there is no such law that regards that or do you know full well that it exists and how extreme the punishments can be? I mean, hell, these are nations that cut off the hands of thieves regardless of the extent of the theft as long as they're repeat offenders (two, for example). Why? Because the Qur`an says to. We are literally looking at a theonomistic religion that is in the seat of power over several nations. That makes a difference.
The 5 schools of law (4 Sunni, 1 Shi`ite) take commands of the Qur`an and their respective hadith source and literally rate each command from outright demand to recommended but not compulsory. It's typically a 5-point scale that even rates brushing one's teeth (Muhammad had a habbit of brushing his teeth with a root and so the action has been considered righteous and therefore given a religious/legal rating. I forget the rating but I don't believe it was compulsory like not drinking or eating pork are).
Not in an Islamic nation where Sharia law would fine, imprison, kill them for doing so if the locals didn't exact "justice" first. In the US? Sure. Please remind me which games show American Muslims at all, let alone in a negative light?bjj hero said:
I'm not sure why any other religious text/belief negates the severity of another. That'd be like someone getting onto you for murdering someone and you say, "But Stalin murdered millions" as some kind of justification for your actions. At best, you can only make claims against both rather than justifying one evil by showing another.Falterfire said:
The Christian Bible includes two covenants. One is called the old covenant, one is called the new covenant. They're both set up like suzerain treaties (between a feudal lord and his subjects) with seperate stipulations and all. Christians have sometimes used old covenant passages to justify actions they've taken or want to take but that doesn't make them right in doing so. There's a reason why Christianity as a whole does not practice theonomy. Because there has even been debate of including the Hebrew Bible at all since its laws and stipulations no longer apply to adherrents of the New Covenant. A non-trivial number of Christian verses firmly seperate itself from the old covenant counterpart by establishing while the original covenant was for only one nation's blessing above other nations, the new covenant is intended to be open to all. According to Christian theologists and apologists, this accounts for the significant shift in the warlike nature of God where the original treaty pit His "people" against the rest of the world whereas all the world is not potentially His "people" in the new covenant.
That's how you arrive at verses in the new covenant like:
Hbr 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.
and
Hbr 8:13 When God speaks of a "new" covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.
This is why Christians do not stone blasphemers and why Gideon goes through so much effort to pass out small pocket new testaments. Christianty lost its way for awhile, when the popeship meant being an emperor moreso than a religious leader. But it's been getting back to its roots of love for some time now. Christianity and Buddhism, two very peaceful religions. Judaism and Islam, not so much.
So pointing to Judaic covenant stipulations as being Christian tenents is inaccurate. If you want to show Christanity's stances that are difficult for westerners to swallow you're only area of action would be in the condemnation of homosexuals and the inferior status of women in their texts.
Thats not just muslims though. The IRA got considerable funding from the USA. The money and arms was used, for the most part, on civilian targets. People can justify some nasty stuff for a cause and a braveheart-esque plucky under dog story. Equally there are currently drone strikes killing people without a uniform, who are members of no army, often unarmed and no court has seen evidence onf their wrong doing. There are plenty of none muslim white folks who see these killings as pay back. That mindset isnt looking so special anymore.Lightknight said:
It happens in those muslim nations too. You think none of them drink? No one has an affair? No one has sex unwed? It happens behind closed doors. Its like saying no one takes drugs in the west because its against the law and they send you prison.Lightknight said:
As too your question, why does everyone have to be american? You see very few muslim charecters that present any more than target practice. That was kind of the point of the article. Even the Prince of Persia was a white American.
Aren't the characters in Prince of Persia (even though it's fairly fantastical) supposed to be Muslims? I feel like a good portrayal of Islam in games could come in one of two ways.
1) Just sort of do a, "He's Muslim, deal with it yo" sort of thing. Make it a part of his/her character without reducing it to "flavor" or making it his/her defining characteristic.
2) Make the game about Islam. This could be done in a lot of different ways, but I think that some games have already done this pretty good. Crusader Kings II did this pretty well with a whole set of expansions focused on the Muslim Empires of Africa and the Middle East, and from what I remember, the new Medal of Honor handled the cultural turmoil of the region quite well in the earlier missions.
Also, concerning the Redguard... They're not Muslim. Not at all. Africa was full of pre-Islam societies, and the later ones such as pre-Islam Mali dressed like the Redguards to protect from harsh desert climate.
I know a handful of Muslims from school, and most of them just get uncomfortable and kind of try to half-defend things that seem "weird" or "bad" from a Western perspective. The pork thing, for example. A friend of mine (Muslim) basically tried to convince me that pork tasted bad and was bad for you, and that's why Muslims don't eat it. I don't buy it, but there's nothing wrong with him defending his beliefs.
Furthermore, when people call upon specific examples from, say, Afghanistan or Iran of fundamentalist Islamists saying things like "Death to America" or burning the stars and stripes, they tend to forget that those people are the Middle Eastern analogues to staunchly conservative Baptist fundamentalists or the sort of flag-waving jingoists that suddenly cropped up in the mainstream following 9/11. They /don't/ represent the majority, but with Feminism, Christianity, Bronies, and just about any other "group", the most extreme minorities are often the loudest, or at least the most widely publicized.
1) Just sort of do a, "He's Muslim, deal with it yo" sort of thing. Make it a part of his/her character without reducing it to "flavor" or making it his/her defining characteristic.
2) Make the game about Islam. This could be done in a lot of different ways, but I think that some games have already done this pretty good. Crusader Kings II did this pretty well with a whole set of expansions focused on the Muslim Empires of Africa and the Middle East, and from what I remember, the new Medal of Honor handled the cultural turmoil of the region quite well in the earlier missions.
Also, concerning the Redguard... They're not Muslim. Not at all. Africa was full of pre-Islam societies, and the later ones such as pre-Islam Mali dressed like the Redguards to protect from harsh desert climate.
I know a handful of Muslims from school, and most of them just get uncomfortable and kind of try to half-defend things that seem "weird" or "bad" from a Western perspective. The pork thing, for example. A friend of mine (Muslim) basically tried to convince me that pork tasted bad and was bad for you, and that's why Muslims don't eat it. I don't buy it, but there's nothing wrong with him defending his beliefs.
Furthermore, when people call upon specific examples from, say, Afghanistan or Iran of fundamentalist Islamists saying things like "Death to America" or burning the stars and stripes, they tend to forget that those people are the Middle Eastern analogues to staunchly conservative Baptist fundamentalists or the sort of flag-waving jingoists that suddenly cropped up in the mainstream following 9/11. They /don't/ represent the majority, but with Feminism, Christianity, Bronies, and just about any other "group", the most extreme minorities are often the loudest, or at least the most widely publicized.
The drone strikes are "supposed" to be targeting enemy combatants/terrorists. Hopefully 50% of the US doesn't think that innocent casualties are a good thing, but any justification would generally be along the lines of believing that the US made a mistake if it didn't get the target rather than actually targeting civilians.bjj hero said:
I'm sure we have our radicals/racists who want Muslims gone. I just don't believe that it is half and I don't believe that a drone strike killing a dozen civilians on accident is equivalent to 9/11 in which the purposeful attack on civilian landmarks murdered thousands. At least the Pentagon was a military establishment, tragedy though it was. But the twin towers? It had no point but to kill civilians. I would say that a purposeful drone strike killing known non-combatants would be equivalent in mindset of the terrorists the program is supposed to target. I hope if that happens that we'll see the appropriate people held accountable.
Yes, it happens behind closed doors. Why? Because the culture around them would punish them for it because they are not tolerant. Which is the whole point. An intolerant religion is not a peaceful religion. In America, Baptists are against drinking. Nevermind verses where their very own Lord and Savior turned water into wine and had it served to already drunk partiers in a wedding party, they believe it's an absolute sin (and in claiming thus also call their Lord a sinner who also led others into sin, haha). Yet Baptists know full well not to acknowledge each other when they see each other at the liquor store. If it becomes common knowledge, then there may be some discrimination against the other person. But certainly not murder or violence. This is not the case in Islam. There is no winking eye at sin. Not culturally. Apostates and those who would lead Muslims to other faiths or disbelief have a very real fear for their lives.Lightknight said:
In combating ignorant intolerance of Islam you are making out the Muslims who do not follow their culturals practices to be the norm. I admire the desire to combat people who would hate or fear their Muslim neighbor without justification but I must disagree their culture is all secretly American culture and it's just that their not brave enough to speak out. Yes, they do exist but do not mistake them for the majority.
Because the games are marketed towards Americans who make up the most significant amount of the target market. The games we're talking about with militant Muslims are nearly all from the American perspective and so the best way to do this, if you're going to do it, would be from an American Muslim's perspective. I mean, how meaningful would it be to show an American Muslim being mistreated by his comrades despite doing everything right? That's how you help with racism and staggered representation. The whole point is to make them reflect on being treated that way internally. Having something in common with the protagonist would be key to thae internalisation of such a theme. Making the character American from a recognized city would be that easily obtained common ground.
I know I won't change anyone's opinion here but I am a proud practicing patriotic Pakistani Muslim.
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.
Now as for games, everyone agrees that we need more diverse characters, right? Why not Muslims?
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).
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.
The most accurate recreating of Karachi in a game was in Doorfighter, I could actually recognize some of those places, Memon Masjid, Empress Market, Natives Jetty even the traffic jam at Sadder. And then they go to a slum(Kachi Abadi in Urdu) and people are wearing toops(Arabic clothes) and looking like Arabs while speaking in broken Urdu. Why?
And the same game compares traffic violation to treason on the loading screen. Are you serious? Treason has a death penalty in many countries and traffic tickets are paid in Pakistani currency based on what average Pakistanis earn, 1000 rupees is $10 to you but a lot to us.
If it wasn't for that stupid level in Black Ops 2, I would have really really wanted Raul Menendez to be a Pakistani-American programmer whose family gets killed in a drone attack and he goes out for revenge. I do think there are hints in the story that this was the original version of the character.
I won't be coming back to this thread, I don't want to make myself angry.
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.
Now as for games, everyone agrees that we need more diverse characters, right? Why not Muslims?
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).
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.
The most accurate recreating of Karachi in a game was in Doorfighter, I could actually recognize some of those places, Memon Masjid, Empress Market, Natives Jetty even the traffic jam at Sadder. And then they go to a slum(Kachi Abadi in Urdu) and people are wearing toops(Arabic clothes) and looking like Arabs while speaking in broken Urdu. Why?
And the same game compares traffic violation to treason on the loading screen. Are you serious? Treason has a death penalty in many countries and traffic tickets are paid in Pakistani currency based on what average Pakistanis earn, 1000 rupees is $10 to you but a lot to us.
If it wasn't for that stupid level in Black Ops 2, I would have really really wanted Raul Menendez to be a Pakistani-American programmer whose family gets killed in a drone attack and he goes out for revenge. I do think there are hints in the story that this was the original version of the character.
I won't be coming back to this thread, I don't want to make myself angry.
But then I think it's a positive portrayal in name only. I think it should be a defining quality of the individual but one that moves them to save lives and be honorable in their actions. The Qur`an is remarkably kind towards to the weak, the poor, and has a lot of focus on hospitality for travelers. While Islam is not tolerant of other faiths and several practices, it is generally benign otherwise to foreigners who don't throw their beliefs in the faces of Muslims.Stephen Wo said:
I've wondered why we don't have more. Islamic tradition has a ton of lore that would be great in games. I do see it poking out here and there but not nearly as often as it deserves. I'm also regularly astounded that their philosopher Al-Farabi doesn't get more mention in society. I think there's a clear western bias against Arabic culture and that's disappointing considering the scale of their contributions to the world in trade and pursuits of higher learning.
Eh, I'd disagree. Their weapons (scimitars), names and garments are Arabic in design and their homelands are desert. There is no other culture that would possibly fit all that criteria.
I'll point out that Northern Africa is Muslim. When I mention that Muslims had already formed an empire and invaded Spain within 100 years of Muhammad's establishment of the faith, that's only after they'd already marched across Northern Africa. Take Morocco for example. It's Arabic name is "The Western Kingdom" and the religion is Islamic (98.7% Muslim, to be specific). This was the country from which the Muslim Empire launched it's very successful invasion in 711 into Spain and they were not pushed back until 1492 (the same year and by the same King and Queen who sent Columbus west, to give you a frame of reference of how long they were in Spain). As such, Northern Africa is very much Muslim. So it is not correct to claim that they're North African and therefore not Muslim. It is also directly incorrect to say that they are not Arabic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world
Interestingly, I've always considered the Kajiit to be Middle Eastern too. Perhaps the Bedouin. Maybe a diaspora era Jewish considering their nomadic status and the way the other people treat them.
What I don't agree with is that the Redguard were portrayed badly for any reason other than them being foreigners in this particular game. EVERY Elder Scrolls game has the same element where the other regions not being the center of the game are treated badly. This is because they're constantly at war with each other. The Nords hate dark elves, for example.
Yeah, I've run in this too. I recall one of my friends saying that he was eating and tasted some odd meat and spit it out before realizing that it was pork. That he didn't like it. Hehe, there's no debating that pork is bad for you though
.This is a valid point to make. That the Middle Eastern examples of Islam are the staunchest or most conservative Islamic cultures. But considering the size of the region, the population and the governments who enact Sharia law, you certainly can't call them a minority of Islam. It is the very seat of the religion and is only contained by the borders at which Sharia law does not pass. The Middle East is the example of Islam being in authority and that's scary. So pointing out that the Middle Eastern examples of Islam as just being one expression would be a little like people pointing out the RCC as just one expression of Christianity despite the fact that it makes up 1.2 billion members compared to all of protestantism's 590 million. Yes, there are other expressions and yes, most of them are less strict culturally, but that doesn't negate what the Middle Eastern examples are or even that they're the orthodox group. It's amazing that Bah`ai grew out of Islam.
Fortunately, humans assimilate into the cultures in which they're immersed. It's a basic human survival mechanism. As such, a Muslim who migrates to the US or India or the UK is often found to have very different beliefs in a few years as long as they become involved in their community. That Boston bombing is a scary example of that failing to happen.
It is very brave of you to speak up here. I appreciate being able to see your response to this, thank you.
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?
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.
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.
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.Arif_Sohaib said:
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?
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.
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.
Haha, exactly! If they're going to do it at all, they need to do it right.
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.
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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.
Before the twin towers the American government had no issue with its citizens funding the IRA.
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.Lightknight said:
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 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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.
...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.Lightknight said:
Not sure what point you're making there. You seem to just be casting a vague aura of doubt over the study without actually accusing it directly of anything. Everything you say is absolutely correct, but also... rather unnecessary unless you follow it up with a point. 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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
If I have to shout at people I know to be religious that their religion is nonsense in order to find out whether or not they believe in that law, I can't imagine it matters. That's so incredibly situational, and quite a dick move to do to someone that you know is religious, that I can't imagine that law impacting anyone all that often.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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.Lightknight said:
Personally, I don't make it a habit of offending the religion of anyone. I know full well that even in the "civilised" west, mouthing off about someone's religion in that way is a good way to cop a beating regardless of their religion. And in Iran... again, I don't agree with theocratic states. What I disagree with is portraying Islam as being like Iran's interpretation of it. Everything I've been trying to say in this topic has been in respect to Rath's article that we need better representation of Muslims in video games. Since we mainly portray them as terrorists, and terrorists make up much less than 1% of all Muslims, I don't think that's inaccurate. And in the broader media, we have a habit of focusing on the least savoury aspects until people like you think that they represent the religion as a whole.Lightknight said:
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?Lightknight said:
Oh come on, you're just being ridiculous. You say so yourself. Insulting someone's religion is never a good idea. To start with, it's just flat out impolite. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here beyond making yourself look good, but since you can't even to say it without admitting to yourself that it's ridiculous I can't say it does a good job.Lightknight said:
I wonder, what would happen if I were to walk into a street anywhere in the world and act as offensively as possible towards the local beliefs and traditions?
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.Lightknight said:
Again, you're being ridiculous and acting like you didn't even read the article. It means showing that some of the bravest people fighting the Taliban are local, unarmed translators. Without them we wouldn't have a hope in the region, and they risk not only their own lives, but the lives of their families and friends by helping us. It means showing that the local population by no means supports the Taliban. It means showing that there's more to Islam than the Taliban. Not all of that is necessarily possible within the context of a single game, although a good chunk of it certainly is, but at the moment all we're really getting is the Taliban.Lightknight said:
There are two problems here. The first, it's really easy to have characters like the aforementioned translators in the common MMS. It's easy to things like having the local military supporting you in some capacity. It's easy to have American Muslims in your squad. There are plenty of ways to have a fairer representation without changing the format. And of course the second big problem is this idea that we have to tell this kind of overblown, prejudiced, and ultimately unrealistic story. In real life, the groups that are neither extreme nor militant are incredibly relevant to the war efforts in those areas. That they apparently aren't to the games we choose to tell to those games is just a total and utter failure on the part of those games.Lightknight said:
And my entire point is that terms like "an Islamic nation" are inherently meaningless without more specifics. There are a lot of Islamic nations in this world, and not all of them use sharia law in any capacity. Of those that do, most use it as an optional court for Family law. And Sharia law in each of these countries has its own idiosyncrasies and differences.Lightknight said:
Regrettably, as I've said time and again, there are problems in a lot of Islamic countries. This is not because of Islam. It might be used as the justification, but as I've pointed out Sharia Law, when used as you describe, is being used to support a local culture or tradition. And these cultures and traditions are not universal in the Islamic world. Almost all of the problems you name are common problems in a lot of developing nations regardless of their religion.Lightknight said:
I am, regrettably, only a few years into my studies on Islam. I've spent a lot of time in South-East Asia and the Middle East, know a lot of Muslims and so on, but my academic studies into it have only been for the last three years. I do have one friend that spent close to a decade in the Middle East working at universities and interviewing Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip as part of his PhD, and I wish I had half that experience. While I know that, like all human beings on the planet, I have my own biases and a tendency to project them, I feel pretty damned confident in saying that Rath's article is pretty damned good and that the depiction of Islam in the media is generally not representative of the religion as a whole.Lightknight said:
And the fact that you think the term "a Sunni nation" has any meaning in respect to the law is really telling. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi once made the point that nothing in the Qur'an actually supports blasphemy law. But now I'm going to pick a case of a blasphemy law that somewhat supports your case, because I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not arguing in an opposite direction. I'm arguing in terms of variation and representation, not that there is a total absence of anything you describe.Lightknight said:
So, with that in mind, let's look at Indonesia's Blasphemy Law. It is, after all, the world's biggest Sunni nation, and it presents a fascinating case. "Indonesia prohibits blasphemy by its Criminal Code. The Code?s Article 156(a) targets those who deliberately, in public, express feelings of hostility, hatred, or contempt against religions with the purpose of preventing others from adhering to any religion, and targets those who disgrace a religion. The penalty for violating Article 156(a) is a maximum of five years imprisonment."
So, it's more or less a law that guarantees religious freedom and prevents people from trying to prevent others from following a religion. The punishment for this is five years in prison. So, you're right, if I were to go to Indonesia and tried to stop people from attending their mosque, I could be thrown in jail. But it's not all good. Oh no. Although parts of Indonesia's one are actually pretty admirable, it has some clauses that have been used to imprison people just for making outlandish claims or denigrating Islam. But again, for the umpteenth time, what goes for one Muslim country does not go for all the others. Blasphemy law is not universal. And, above all, we are mainly talking developing countries here. It isn't Islam causing the unjust actions in any of these countries. It is merely being used as the excuse. I don't expect these countries to have the same level of respect for human rights as certain Western countries, but I do expect them to reach that level hopefully within my lifetime. And I don't expect their religion to pose an obstacle, at least no more than Christianity did for the West. Do you understand yet what I'm saying? Islam is not the problem. And more than that, Islam varies. Region, local culture and traditions, these inform the way in which the people in any given place follow Islam.
And, for the final time, very few Muslim countries have any of that enshrined in law. They each have a different system, and even in the areas where Sharia is enforced, it's often done on a tribal rather than national level.Lightknight said:
Considering most muslims in my country (Holland) think that what happened to the jews in World War 2 was fantastic, I think muslims should first try and better represent themselves.
Many schools here seriously just don't even mention the Holocaust during history class, because it pisses off the muslim students.
Many schools here seriously just don't even mention the Holocaust during history class, because it pisses off the muslim students.