PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds: Imams divided over video game fatwa - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-46214184/playerunknown-s-battlegrounds-imams-divided-over-video-game-fatwa The Kurdish Union of Islamic Scholars has officially declared a fatwa against playing a hugely popular video game, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. Officially, the group is responsible for issuing fatwas – which are rulings by Islamic authorities – in Iraqi Kurdistan. However, other imams have come out against the ban. There are some hilarious quotes in the video, such as: "Divorce is the only solution really..." "This game will badly affect vision when played on mobile phones. It will affect the body as well". "The prophet has advised that the body has rights and must be looked after".

Honestly, in such tense areas such as that, video games as a stress release are probably pretty important to the youth

"Imams divided over video game fatwa" is the funniest saddest sentance ive ever read

"Attention all Muslims"

I mean at least they have slight bit of common sense but still what the hell

Just make it so that Muslims playing PUBG have to announce in local voice their jihad against the infidels.

its rather sad that in a world where we have professions and an entire branch of science dedicated to health, people listen to the guy who's proclaiming what's good or not for you based on a theorcratic interpretation of a 700-1000 year old text

I had a stroke trying to read the title

I also dislike Catholicism

I like to think that they worked out 'Playerunknown' is actually the Prophet Muhammad and his face is shown in the game as an Easter egg.

religion is fine its when its not balanced with science or anything else that is the problem. The same is true about science, placing it above everything else has lead to some horrific inventions and acts. The heart of the problem is people are lazy and don't want to balance anything they just want one simple answer to everything, but there are no simple solutions to complex problems.

Religion is wholly unnecessary. The issue is when science and ethics are not balanced. Religion has no part in this equation.

religion shapes the ethics.

People shape their religion to match their ethics.

I doubt religion will ever go away, especially when civilization goes poof due to climate change.

This is why I balance my astronomy with my astrology and my Earth sciences with Flat Earth Society blog posts.

And if said ethics are reasonable, who gives a fuck. If we got to a point where the only religion that still exists is in harmony with science and reasonable thought, continuing to be butthurt that everyone hasn't ditched religion entirely is just petty, IMO. But then, I'm not an atheist myself, and definitely not an anti-theist, so I stand athwart a lot of people here on Facepunch regarding this particular issue. (It helps that the most progressive person I know in real life - my uncle - is an ex-christian and agnostic convert to buddhism. And right behind him in progressivness are two christian friends, who essentially agree with me on every political and ethical issue, and also that the bible can't be taken as the literal word of god. So I am not exactly lacking positive examples of religion in my own life.)

Oh shit, Steve Harvey, what's up, big fan.

Some people like religion and find great comfort in it. It can provide a sense of community and identity for a person, and participating in the ritual of worship can help ground people in their day to day life. I'm not religious at all but to say it's unnecessary and should be extinct is just presenting your personal views on religion as fact. I can't agree.

tip your fedora harder while the dogma of religion in general can be iffy, the amount of charity work religious people do cant be ignored. Plus, who defines ethics? The traditional sense of ethics in the West is based on Christian morals while the MENA follows Islamic morals and South East Asian ethics are Buddhist/Confucianist. The idea of secular ethics is extremely new and niche.

What exactly do you mean by this? Are you referring to an effort of some sort to encourage people to think critically and objectively about theology? Or are you referring to a programme that clearly discredits the practice of religion? I've a habit of being a bit pedantic, but it's sort of hard to define what constitutes a religion, so much so to the point that I don't believe there is any consensus on the matter. Sure, what generally comes to mind is the worship of some supernatural or spiritual power, but there's a lot of wiggle room and stipulation to this definition. This is very important as well. Many scholars argue that "religion" as we tend to know it is a modern Western concept, and that you can't really apply it to non-Western culture. On top of this, throw in ethnoreligious groups such as the Jews, Druze, and Yazidis, and suddenly the concept of "peaceful" eradication of religion is near impossible. Theology and culture often have a lot of overlap, and in the case of these groups they are more or less joined at the hip. I say this as non-believer of any particular doctrine as well. If you would seek to eliminate religion, as we tend to define it across the board, you would be eliminating many distinct cultures as well. Would the world be a better place if certain cultures were eliminated, or at the least kept contained to their own separate development? Perhaps, but where you draw this line is difficult, and it's starting to veer from the topic of the conversation anyways.

wrong, that's the whole point of religion. "don't be an asshole" is meaningless because it is much more open to individual interpretation, meaning it fails to create shared norms across cultural boundaries that reduce conflict. religion instead suggests man is too fallible and must defer to a higher set of values to live by, which is key to running large societies and getting people to recognize natural rights.

If you need the threat of burning forever after you die to make you act like a decent human being then there's something wrong with you.

Extremely new and nietzche, you meant to say.

It's no surprise considering most people are still religious and much of their charity is done through religious organisations. Charity can exist without religion. Non-religious-based ethics have been a thing since at least the Ancient Greeks, what are you on about?

Agreed. Thankfully not all religious belief is rooted in eternal suffering as punishment for sinning. Hell, I was raised evangelical and was a pastor's kid, and even my own father refused to accept that hell was god's personal torture chamber. He is far too committed to his belief that god is a god of love to allow traditional evangelical views about hell to get in the way of that central tenant. It's also the single biggest reason he was such a good father to me, especially when I was at my lowest point and needed his support the most: he loves me because he believes god loved him first, and it is his responsibility as a father to pass down the same love. He never once so much as criticized me for showing weakness or doubting, or zillions of other things that wretched, super fundamentalist christians punish their children for. And he and mom both accepted that it was my responsiblity, and mine alone, to chose what path my life would ultimately take.

It's incredible, then, that I've managed to not rape or murder anyone even though I don't believe someone is constantly watching my every move. It's almost as if ethics has nothing to do with religion.

So in other words, we shape ethics along with everything else.

ya religion doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor do people and society, they all feed into each other.

shouldnt be the same as tv/phones/anything digital entertaiment? all of it can cause you harm (some more than others) and distract you from praying. imams will complain about anything thats made by forigners and cause distraction from praying