I think that CK3 should delete Jihad
- Thread starter KoukuraAsahi
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Iirc the caliph called a jihad during first world war. Yes, I know that is in the XX century but I guess there will be more examples
And that "jihad" did not result in a massive outpouring of Muslim support for the Central Powers, because nobody besides the Ottomans themselves considered it legitimate.
- 1
No, as with basically everything in the Middle East (and heck, everywhere) it’s a lot more complicated than that. Plenty of Arabs still sided with the Ottomans.
“Jihads” in game as a mirror GHW to “Crusades” functions well enough. Holy Fury did a great job of making the Catholic Crusades
and reconquista more interesting and historically authentic. However, we simply need a more complex war system to capture all of the nuance of the actual conflicts. For CK2, GHWs are a necessary evil because they are a fun mechanic for players and help drive the game story.
The Mongolian invasion(s), like many game implementations, relies on huge numbers and doomstacks which historically just isn’t true. A competent player moving around mobile armies against a player new to the concept would be a better approximation, but the invasion is what it is because it *works* for the single player gameplay.
Whatever mechanic CK3 uses, I should feel like the gameplay is pushing me to do things actual rulers did. CK2 is already great for encouraging you to make strategic marriages to secure claims or “convert” to avoid religious wars.
Sorry for daring to join this discussion without having a degree on islamic studies, still ...
"...[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e. razzias or raids) at least once a year ... one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. ... If a person of the ahl al-kitab [i.e. People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is revoked. ... One may cut down their trees. ... One must destroy their useless books. The Mujahid may take as booty whatever they decide ... they may steal as much food as they need..."
- al Ghazzali
"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be faught. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words and acts. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims. However, the first opinion is the correct one, because we may only fight those who fight use when we want to make God's religion victorious. ..."
- Ibn Taymiyya
Of course you intelect superior to mine knows how exactly would these two scholars oppose my statement:
"But it (jihad) means "fighting against infidels by sword" and that meaning was vastly prevalent in the CK timeframe."
... so share with us plz.
You might want to share with us the exact books and pages in which al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya wrote those things. Citation needed and all that.
Even then, their writings are more so ''oughts'' from their own religious doctrine - which for both authors is somewhat idiosyncratic (especially Ibn Taymiyyah, the contemporary Jihadi go-to citation - he wrote specifically for the political context of war against the Mongols whom he believed were pseudo-converts to Islam, so infidel is more complicated than just non-Muslim). Still, either writing has no clear bearing on the practice as it stands. These particular sections also do not indicate how one is supposed to engage in Jihad - even when, and it is generally true that Jihad in this period was about military action, all the practicalities are debatable - juxtapose this with early Hanafi positions.
Jihad is a discrete concept in Islam and considered an important part of being a pious Muslim.
The easiest way to translate it into western terms is that Jihad is about putting effort into making the world a better place by improving your own piety or the status of your society.
Frankly the GHW mechanics in CK2 were nonsense, including the updated Crusades mechanic. They shouldn't be about offensive conquest of heathen land, they should be about recapturing holy sites or coreligionist land held by heathens.
The easiest way to translate it into western terms is that Jihad is about putting effort into making the world a better place by improving your own piety or the status of your society.
Frankly the GHW mechanics in CK2 were nonsense, including the updated Crusades mechanic. They shouldn't be about offensive conquest of heathen land, they should be about recapturing holy sites or coreligionist land held by heathens.
Congratulations!
from not ever hearing about those 2 now you can quote their most prominent jihadi quotes. Well done, you showed you can google. Now can you actually read more than what google offers you after the obvious Ghazali/Taymiyya + jihad search? Perhaps try those who polemized with them? Ibn Rushd maybe?
As I said, those 2 were the most hardline theologians of the period. Yet their theology was way more complex and as it goes with islamic theology, they're full of contradicting quotes depending on the question they are replying to.
That's how it has always worked. Since you have shown you can google, donthat with the other side of story and save our time, okay?
It still does not mean that jihad even for those 2 meant only fighting with sword. Jihad has always been much broader thing.
Congratulations!
Thanks, it feels great to be appreciated by true experts.
Now can you actually read more than what google offers you after the obvious Ghazali/Taymiyya + jihad search? Perhaps try those who polemized with them? Ibn Rushd maybe?
As I said, those 2 were the most hardline theologians of the period. Yet their theology was way more complex and as it goes with islamic theology, they're full of contradicting quotes depending on the question they are replying to.
That's how it has always worked. Since you have shown you can google, donthat with the other side of story and save our time, okay?
Well, maybe you can finally stop trying to hurl the burden of proof onto me. I go along with the current scholar consensus on the topic. You said even Ghazali/Taymiyya would disagree with me. Time for you to enlighten me on what exactly is your bold opinion based on.
Again, I have never claimed it "only" means fighting with sword. I maintain that the predominant meaning of jihad during the CK2 period (and during the classic islam period) was "armed struggle against unbelievers".
On what do you base your claim that armed struggle was the predominant meaning of jihad during the CK2 period?
This definitely sounds like it could be a nifty change for CK3, especially if they overhauled holy sites for added accuracy. After all, the justification for most holy wars was more reclaiming land lost to heathens, protecting pilgrimage routes, etc. As has been previously mentioned, the Invasion CB for Islam allows the more offensive, pseudo-religious attacks done by the early Caliphate, so we wouldn't entirely be losing that aspect, either.
That all being said, though, I can think of one exception that might be a bit of a problem: the Baltic Crusades. Neither Livonia nor Prussia were Catholic lands, much less Novgorod. Any thought on how this could be modeled? I suppose standard Holy Wars could perhaps cover it well enough.
Does the Bible command to Crusades? Does the concept of Holy War have support in the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Hardly, and it’s completely besides the point. CK is a game. We Christians are adults about how our religion is depicted in the game. Muslims should be too.
Hardly, and it’s completely besides the point. CK is a game. We Christians are adults about how our religion is depicted in the game. Muslims should be too.
Last edited:
- 1
The original poster argues that because Jihad doesn't theologically mean a "holy war", there shouldn't be such a concept in the game.
My point is that neither do Crusades have theological support in the Bible.
Crusades and Jihads are justified to be in the game as historical events, not theological concepts.
- 1
Protecting missionaries could be a valid GHW reason for proselytizing religions.
Jihads don't have the work the way they currently do in ck2. If it could do something more along the lines of bolstering the armies of any true believer attacking the target kingdom and a free CB and make it so it's called by the strongest ruler of the religion rather than the religious head.
- Status