A Female Muhammad (PBUH)

[Arkiuz]

C'mon. Where's the equal opportunity? You aren't afraid of changing powerful historical figures. Why not replace the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)?

I don't see a reason not to. Your game is all fake, right? Fake enough to completely alter the representation of powerful and important cultural figureheads. So let's go. Let's get in there.

Or are you only allowed to replace Asians and Whites?

[folgra]

I don't think they want to be under a fatwah (sp?). I assume you know what happened to the westerners that have irritated the faithful.?

[z3rk]

Its simple, you only bully those who do not fight back, some guys in some caricature press forgot this and the rest is history, now the rest keep on remembering who not to piss off at all, in any way

[Greyhawk The Angry]

Originally posted by folgra:

I don't think they want to be under a fatwah (sp?). I assume you know what happened to the westerners that have irritated the faithful.?

So basically they are cowards, something a plurality of us all ready knew.

Further shows how shallow yet cynical and malicious this aspect of "Representation and Inclusion" is.

[Rhapsody]

Because going out of your way to insult someone's religion just for the sake of insulting religion would be stupid. But of course you knew that. That makes this thread stupid also.

Furthermore, none of the Civs even feature the conquests of Muhammad and founding of Islam... at least with any detail. But they do feature Mongols waging war to satisfy the overlording player's greed for sugar.

[Greyhawk The Angry]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Because going out of your way to insult someone's religion just for the sake of insulting religion would be stupid. But of course you knew that. That makes this thread stupid also.

Furthermore, none of the Civs even feature the conquests of Muhammad and founding of Islam... at least with any detail. But they do feature Mongols waging war to satisfy the overlording player's greed for sugar.

You might, might mind you, actually have a point if not for Western media going out of it way to insult Christianity just for the sake of insulting Christians, while making a point of doing the opposite to all the other religions (though I would not be surprised if Judaism started getting the same treatment within the next decade or so).

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Greyhawk The Angry:

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Because going out of your way to insult someone's religion just for the sake of insulting religion would be stupid. But of course you knew that. That makes this thread stupid also.

Furthermore, none of the Civs even feature the conquests of Muhammad and founding of Islam... at least with any detail. But they do feature Mongols waging war to satisfy the overlording player's greed for sugar.

You *might,* might mind you, actually have a point if not for Western media going out of it way to insult Christianity just for the sake of insulting Christians, while making a point of doing the opposite to all the other religions (though I would not be surprised if Judaism started getting the same treatment within the next decade or so).

I think Christianity falls within the loosely defined category of "someone's religion".

Also, western culture is largely christianized. Making fun of yourself is always allowed. In fact, it would be worse if religion was being poked at by "Western media" and the target wasn't Christianity.

[🥇 Xaxoon 🥇]

Religion per se is questionable. Where has it led people, and where is it leading them? Hate, contempt, war, and death. Why? It's simply... I'm not going to write any further because this forum is censored and prohibits free expression.

[jariel]

what even is today's Christianity, specially the political Christianity? it has turned the opposite of Christianity the religion of forgiveness, havent it? all it is these days is hate and bigotry, not exactly what christ preached about?

[Arkiuz]

Originally posted by folgra:

I don't think they want to be under a fatwah (sp?). I assume you know what happened to the westerners that have irritated the faithful.?

Are you saying that if you do this, a certain demographic would become violent?

What? Why would they do that? Isn't this just a simple fun game? Maybe the developers need to stick it to the fragile little zealots and go ahead anyways! They've made a stand before, why not now?

[Martian]

Originally posted by z3rk:

Its simple, you only bully those who do not fight back, some guys in some caricature press forgot this and the rest is history, now the rest keep on remembering who not to piss off at all, in any way

This is exactly it

The left never race/gender-swaps Muhammad because they’re terrified of Muslims.
Example: Charlie Hebdo massacre for cartoons, while Netflix makes black Cleopatra and faces no violence.
Proves Selective Outrage: The left only swaps figures from cultures that won’t retaliate violently.
But Christianity?
The left doesn’t actually care about “accurate” Jesus—they just want Christians disarmed while Islam gets a pass.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Martian:

The left never race/gender-swaps Muhammad because they’re terrified of Muslims.

How to tell you know nothing about Islam without saying you know nothing of Islam.

[Martian]

Fact 1: Islam forbids visual depictions of Muhammad (most Muslims consider it blasphemy).
Fact 2: The left never tests this boundary, despite constantly pushing limits on Christianity.
Fact 3: When someone does depict Muhammad (e.g., Charlie Hebdo), the left either stays silent or blames the victims (“Islamophobia!”)
You accuse me of ‘not knowing Islam,’ but you’re the one ignoring the real issue: The left only swaps figures from cultures that won’t riot over it. Muhammad is off-limits. Jesus, Cleopatra, and Shakespeare are fair game. Why?

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Martian:

Muhammad is off-limits. Jesus, Cleopatra, and Shakespeare are fair game. Why?

You already answered your own question, at least in part. Go do more homework.

[z3rk]

Well to some extent christianity does not allow depictions of god/saints used as a idolatry, it was possibly changed some time ago, but nobody cares tbh and even the extremist christians (if there are any), wouldn't simply muster up and go 'un-alive' someone for it, while the other side not only doesn't have any problems with that, but feels like it is some kind of duty.
Wasn't there a guy who burned quran, assassinated on live stream? I mean, one could argue that burning 'holy book' is bad but getting offed for that is kind of overkill, pun perhaps intended.

So, like in Orwell's book "all animals are equal, some animals are more equal tha others', and it seems that if you don't want to be a target of laughing/abuse, violence is the answer, who would have thought.

[TheBestestDictator]

A jolly good idea.