The searches give a bit of background, but I doubt they'll ever officially say anything on Mecca (unless they release a splatbook for Earth itself). So, as a GM, you have to ask yourself the following questions: * How did the TITANs prioritize their targets? ** Resources? Was their a hydrocarbon vein under the city? Was the Black Rock an important material for them? ** People? Did they harvest pilgrims around the city? Did they set up a false safehouse for Muslims, drawing them into a trap? ** Morale? Would the TITANs immediately destroy the city to demoralize Muslims, or would they hold it hostage? * How did the occupants of Mecca and any nearby armies react? What kind of Muslims would stay behind to defend the holy site? I think it's a great idea for a Reclaimer adventure, but it's wide-open.

There's a line in _Sunward_ referring in passing to the Arabian peninsula being covered in a single giant nanoswarm, and another talking about the asteroid colony hosting the Israeli government-in-exile having hopes to reclaim the homeland complicated by the regional nuclear exchange. I'm guessing it's not intact.

I presume that muslims pray toward the Earth. There IS a method for praying in orbit, let me find it... http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/09/mecca_in_orbit

Quote:

But how does that work in space? Mathematically, Shukor would need to place both ISS and Mecca on the same imaginary sphere -- by either comparing the place on Earth directly beneath ISS with the real Ka'aba, or by projecting the Ka'aba into space (the option recommended by the Fatwa Council). Yet the option to pray while facing a point in space brings up another problem. Muslims face the ground to pray, in part to avoid any hint of pagan sun or moon worship ("Prostrate yourselves not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him" (The Quran, Fussilat 41:37). If the Ka'aba projection happens to line up with the sun or moon, purists might believe the prayer invalid.

I could imagine several different methods that an Eclipse Phase era fatwa council could work out. Pray toward Earth. Pray toward a beacon representing Mecca. It's an interesting concept, and I do think that it's a good idea to make Eclipse Phase less godless...even if it's because people immerse themselves in all sorts of social trends and so on in universe. They watch eachother, play XPs and go freerunning...why not follow a religion as well? Throughout history, religions have sustained people in times where reason tells them to give up and die. And if the Fall didn't convert as many people as it sent running into atheism I'd eat my hat. AND I DON'T EVEN OWN A HAT! (i'd have to buy one. Or borrow one...)

IIRC, its not that religion as an idea of humanity was wiped out, its that all of the popular Organized Religions of Pre-Fall humanity were pretty much killed by the destruction/loss of their holy sites/authority figures. It's clearly established that there are religious colonies through out Sol, both from before and after the fall. Rather its that, for example, the Catholic Church doesn't exist so much as a unified entity. Which is actually totally on topic. If you were part of a Muslim conclave or community before the Fall, the direction in which you pray would be based on whatever the authority figures your sect had said, where as post fall you'd either have to make it up on your own, or use the power of Space Google to find an answer you'd like. Honestly, with as much AR as there is, unless you're a total luditte, you probably have an App for that.

Reading Transhuman Space gave me a better grasp of what religion is more likely to be up to with this sort of technology. So I added to the Techno-Creationist thing with some Christian Hyperevolutionism and Cybergnosticism. Point is, I would not rely on any of EP's standpoints on religion as being an accurate portrayal of how they would adapt to even losing 95% of the human population.

Arenamontanus wrote:

But so far we have few good meaning providers except for various political ideologies like Marxism.

Or transhumanism. ;)

Quincey Forder wrote:

That's what, among other things like Richard Morganism, makes EP one of my three all times favorite RPG! There's enough monotheistic religious crap in the real world without polluting our games and free times with such toxic memes. when I depict religions in my games, it's never in a good light. Be it the Lancea Sanctum or the Circle of the Crone in Vampire, the Celestial Church in Fading Sun, Cerberus and Terra Prima in the Mass Effect amateur RPG or the various policlub like Humanis in Shadowrun. 99% of time my NPC of such faction are antagonist if not downright villains. Bioconservative, in EP, is 100% enemy material in my stories and adventures

Sounds to me like you're almost mixing Conservatism, or even just Pro-Humanity with Religion. I played Mass Effect 2. Cerberus was in no way about god, and were all about human supremacy. They weren't even bioconservative, as seen in their willingness to revive Shepard from the dead with SCIENCE! and include Miranda, who was a test tube baby. I mean, sure, all those things you mention are good sources for antagonism, or sound like them, (If you swing that way. I mean, I'm sure some people do actually agree some of those groups you mention. Its a free country), but maybe you shouldn't lump them all together because you don't agree with what politics they were made to have. I agree that it's nice that in EP they don't try for a heavy religious influence, and don't really mention it much other than that one small section in the core book, because, at least in Sci-Fi, I don't use religion to tell interesting stories. (Unless its Cults. Cultists always make great stories) So its good that its not a heavy element that I'd have to either deal with, or excise.

There is a big difference between having a setting where religion doesn't play a big role and a setting where people are not religious. BTW, yesterday I found an even better analogy to the issues for post-Fall Islam: Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in year 70 and the diaspora. Consider that the Temple was the centre of religious authority: it now became distributed. The prescribed offerings and sacrifices were carried out there, and instead substitutes were inserted in the liturgy. The destruction is mourned by the fast of Tisha B'av, and of course the Wailing Wall is revered as the only remnant left. And of course the desire to return and undo the damage has been a major political movement. It would not be hard to imagine post-Fall Islam to adapt in similar ways.

And why would it matter either way? Numerous Christian groups (for example) have repeatedly professed such belief, and it didn't alter their behavior. Would this affect these people or the setting?

Smokeskin wrote:

Islam evolved into something quite different than what you would recognize.

This is Eclipse Phase. Everything has evolved into something quite different than we would recognize.

I think you are overstating the importance of millennialism in Christian history, Re-Laborat. Sure, it has been there and it has sometimes had important influence (e.g. in the early church), but most of the major churches have also rejected it (the Orthodox Church declared it a heresy at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381; not sure when the Catholic church declared it heretic, but it is currently a heresy). The crusades are much easier to explain as partly political (weakening Byzantium requests help from the west, weak Spanish Muslim kingdoms) and partly as a response to the 11th century rise in lay piety that resulted from the investiture conflict among other things. They were not so much about re-taking Jerusalem to fulfil prophecy but more about individual absolution from sin. Individuals and small groups have often been predicting imminent Armageddon, but kings and popes tend to be pragmatic: you cannot run a society if you expect things to end shortly. A vague threat of end times, all right. But if the world is going to end on Tuesday, no taxes. I think we are often as roleplayers too interested in the dramatic and exceptional aspects of religion - cults, rituals, millennialism, zealotry - and miss the everyday and boring functions of religion. The first set makes for good stories, the second set makes for realistic stories.

When discussing the effects of millenialism during the middle ages, Renaissance and later, one of the things that has to be borne in mind is that there was no modern rapid communication. There were time periods, particularly around the Crusades, where the Church spent a great deal of time and effort effectively 'trying to put out brush fires' that were cropping up left and right, with more always blossoming while they were busy stamping out the latest. In the same sense that distance permitted the degree of freedom enjoyed by the early American colonies and encouraged the behavior and viewpoints which later led to revolution, distance (even in continental Europe) permitted cults to rise and take differing degrees of root/power in communities before the central Church became aware of them and attempted to take action to root them out. It's notable that in many cases these are not discussed as 'cults'. They are simply 'local custom' which was at odds with the central Church. There is an excellent (albeit a bit dry/scholarly) discussion of the cults and cult leaders' participation in (and steering of) the Crusades, as well as the persistent recurrence of certain cults in certain regions despite efforts from Rome, in Cohn's [i]"Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages"[/i]. I do not say that they ran Europe, but they were a constant thorn in the side of the Church and state, and they had lasting effects on the population, economy and society. Cohn was working in many cases from first sources and Church documents. Inquisitional behavior did not confine itself solely to Spain, and it was often directed against local religious leaders (whether appointed or heresiarch) who were not toeing the line.

The Crusades are probably better viewed as a geopolitical than a religious struggle. Leaving aside peasant armies, whose military effectiveness relative to trained knights was pretty weak, the crusaders themselves were essentially colonizing armies. If you look at the history of the Crusader States, they were largely run by a bunch of ambitious Frankish knights who didn't stand to inherit much back home and saw an opportunity to carve kingdoms out of an Islamic world that had become fractious. If religion hadn't been around, they'd have found another justification for their invasions. I suppose I tend to view religion as a symptom rather than a cause. The root causes of many of the historical ills blamed on religion are in fact the predatory ambitions of the powerful and wealthy. That religion is usually associated with them is to be expected, as it's a very effective tool for manipulating people, but Stalinism, arguably one of the biggest sources of human carnage ever, achieved its results while taking a party line of atheism. And the Nazis, while they borrowed a lot of religion's tricks, weren't explicitly religious, either.

Thantastic wrote:

Man I want to hijack this thread further about the crusades and the historical impact of heterodox religious practices (I've done under- and post-grad research and thesis work on religious and legal prosecution of witches and a MA thesis on the prosecution of Jewish communities in the Rhineland in advance of the 1st crusade), but to get closer to the core point about where things stand post-Fall...

But it would be an epic thread hijacking! With literature citations! :-)

Quote:

For the specific example that started the thread, not only did the Muslims lose Mecca, they also lost almost all the respected scholars and imams that otherwise would have been the ones most likely to give official guidance on how to change the ongoing practice of Islam to compensate.

Good point! However, there would be *some* scholars around, and they might gain a much higher influence simply by being the only ones (their individual idiosyncrasies would also have a far bigger effect than otherwise on the emerging religion - a kind of memetic founder effect). If you have a set of N people and there is 1% chance of surviving the Fall, then the chance of at least one survivor is 1-(0.99^N). For N=100, there is 63% of at least a survivor. For N=1000, it is 99.99%. The average number of surviving imams would be 10, however. I think it is not too implausible that there existed an off-site branch of Al-Azhar University on Mars, just like the other big universities. However, it might have been located at Qurain, so it might have been lost a second time... But I think the basic argument for why organised religions lost a lot of societal influence is valid. I have mostly been thinking about the grip about people's minds, not the organisational coordination. People still believe, but that more seldom turns into coordinated social influence (except in Brinker habitats where the founders deliberately set things up to achieve this).

SEÑOR FASE wrote:

Hullo! You read? - shucks! What if the game's (Promethean) creators missed this lilttle tidbit? I mean, even Seed AI's can be in the dark about some things. SF

I guess maybe I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly in terms of a response to your original post SF. The game's creators have left post fall religion vague and "as you will" in the published materials. Jack even popped in here to mention that all religions had all their holy sites blown to the here-after. Based on the posts thus far I think you have some good suggestions for how others view Islam and organized religion in general after the fall of Earth (for, against and interesting sideways views). However, I don't think you will see a "right" answer expanding on the minutiae of post apo Islam in Eclipse Phase from any "official" source. If I were you I'd hop into my GM fiat-mobile and create any post-fall incarnation of Islam or other organized religion that meets the needs of the group and makes the game fun to tell stories with.

Also, bear in mind that very few major religions do NOT have little schisms and splinters (quiet or noisy), so if you like, you could have several varieties of Islam around. It's not as if there's no precedent!

No way. If there are 2 religious people, there are 3 opinions. By definition, they're not doing the logical thing.

For what it's worth, this is my view of religion post-Fall. I agree that it won't go way; if anything, it'll become like most atheists and agnostics would like - a hobby, more than anything. Something like collecting stamps. But anyway, there was a lot left out of the core books as far as religion goes - a few religions that match this setting really well are overlooked or not mentioned at all. I also think it's a lot more complicated than people think it out to be. First, about Mecca and Islam so I'm not totally derailing the thread: Islam, I think, persisted because, as was pointed out further up thread, there were just so many Muslims who managed to get away from the Fall. Perhaps the separation from Mecca and the loss of that holy site helped morph Islam into a more progressive and technoprogressive religion. I know that it would have a profound impact, and probably would require a major paradigm shift in the way Muslims view the world. Islam is capable of adapting to a progressive agenda; that's what it did in the Baghdad Caliphate, when it turned out some of the finest polymaths known to human history and kept alive, and re-imagined the knowledge of Ancient Greece and Rome. It's certainly capable of achieving that again, and EP, it mostly has. Another reason Islam might persist is because Islam is not any kind of a rigid, hierarchical religion. There's no Muslim pope, no Muslim Church, none of that. This allows for people to take their own interpretations of things; to each imam their own. Now, to derail: One faith that got overlooked was Baha'i faith. Transhumanism hits all of the major tenants of Baha'i faith; the equality of men and women, removing poverty and such, among others. This religion would sustain if not thrive in this environment. Baha'i faith has a small number of worshipers worldwide, it's true, and it's possible they were all wiped out - but really, this is probably the one religion that could adapt really well. Liberal Evangelicalism might not see persistence, but certain liberal sects of Christianity will probably continue. I realize to most people Liberal Evangelical seems like an oxymoron, but it's really not. With their focus on fixing societal ills, as they believe was mandated in the Bible, they stand a better chance of adapting to the technology than the stodgy old Conservative Evangelicalism. Conservative Evangelicalism will also go away when people stop paying attention to it; after the Fall, a lot of the scary Right-Wing movements rampant today will fall by the wayside - but Christianity probably won't follow them. What is said about Christianity can also be said about Judaism. Reform and some Reconstructionist Jewish people would adapt very well; it's the conservatives and the Orthodox ones that will find themselves in trouble. I don't think the question of synagogues in space is out of the question, although a lot of modern notions about Judaism (for instance, the ethnicity aspect of it) will have to be reevaluated. Concepts like Jewish ethnicities will be reevaluated; Sephardi will mean less an ethnicity and more of a culture/clade with a specific set of traditions (even more so than it does today). In fact, I suspect there would be a strong reassertion of various Jewish groups to retain their culture identities, especially once the ethnic one stops having meaning. While I'm not Jewish, I was disappointed that the setting overlooked the aspect that Judaism is more than just a religion - it's an ethnicity and a culture as well (a collective of them, in fact). Neo-Paganism and (P)paganism was mentioned further upthread; that can go either way. I've encountered more than a few pagans who do *not* mesh well with transhumanist theories and ideas; in fact, most of the pagans I know (usually through online circles) don't. I'm inclined to believe that if they aren't all gone after the Fall (for the same reason as Baha'i faith - small worship pools), they're part of the bioconservative groups who isolate themselves from the greater society. I've drifted in and out of debates with them on the matter, and what it seems to boil down too is a "natural order of things" kind of argument that I strongly suspect they'll stick to, aligning them comfortable with other bioconservative arguments. Now, other pagans may not be like that. There are pagans who ascribe symbolism to objects and phenomena; these sorts of pagans could adapt really well and be comfortable in their religion and their acceptance of scientific technoprogressivism. In short, if it can make up for the small worship pools, paganism is too varied to be killed off completely. The Pepsi-Coke Incorporated Model: To steal from Dune, I'm sure you'll see blending. Blending of Islam (Sufism or Sunni Islam) and traditional Chinese belief might lead to something like Zensufism or Zensunnism. Religion opens the door to memorable characters that really stand out. Okay, so this cat here, Enigma32, hie's an atheist (and hie really is, too, but hie prefers humanist). Everyone knows how atheists (don't) believe (in a God/supernatural entity. Other stuff - UFOs, LGMs, Ghosts, etc, are fair game still). But this guy over here, he's a Mahayana Christian from Lucifer. Tell me that NPC won't stand out.

One of the things that would make a Post-Fall Islam a little bit of a trickier situation to deal with compared to Christianity or Judaism is that the Qu'ran is considered by Muslims to be the unexpurgated word of God himself. It's not "The Gospel According to Muhammad," It's the straight stuff as told to Muhammad by God. It's why in many cases, translated Qu'rans aren't even considered "official" because it was originally told to Muhammad in Arabic and putting the Qu'ran in another language changes it. The fact that two of the most fundamental aspects of Islam (The Hajj and the fact that you are to pray to Mecca) would be eliminated with the destruction of Mecca would throw the Muslim World into considerable disarray. If the Ka'bah is destroyed, I have no idea how the religion would adapt. If not, there are actually some rather dramatic options. First, it could be possible that the world does not know the fate of the Ka'bah and Mecca. The Islamic World would want to know (ADVENTURE HOOK?). Second, if it still stands, wouldn't it be an amazing statement of faith to brave Earth and the NanoSwarm that covers the Arabian Peninsula in order to complete the Hajj? Of course, the decontamination and screening issues would be huge, but I could very much see it being worth the death to complete the Hajj, then get resleeved. The trick is to get to the Ka'bah and do the proper seven laps before you go.

I am not a practitioner of Islam. Heck, I was raised Roman Catholic (insert the obvious 'got better' joke here). But it seems to me, even as an outsider, that Islam is not Mecca. Islam is not the Hajj. Islam, as I understand it from an outsider's perspective, begins with service to God. Without Mecca, perhaps one may pray to God without any illusions about the direction in which He resides. Without the Hajj, perhaps one may believe that the life worth living in service to God is its own Hajj, and that there are other, less ceremonial trials which one must persevere through. This is, of course, an outsider's perspective, but I doubt it is one which would be considered disrespectful. Humans have a way of persevering in their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. I can't imagine that the desolation and loss of Earth would change that. If anything, it might enhance it. Suddenly there is an entire planet which may be considered a lost, holy place. An Eden from which the unworthy have been cast out. A Shangri-la. A place of terrible revelations and judgements. Disasters make some people cease to believe in God, sure. They also make others believe. I think it's very hard to make any kind of coherent 'this argument will stand' one way or another for 'how Islam will behave'. It isn't a coherent belief system which everyone adheres to equally even NOW. Why should that change just because a planet went away?