NES games are hard but a lot of fun

Note: NES = Nintendo Entertainment System; SNES = Super NES. Also, whatever I talk about here probably applies to other consoles like SNES and the SEGA Genesis but NES is most influential in my mind and the true milestone in gaming history.

And when I say hard, I mean hard, they got you yelling at the screen in jibberish and obscenities when you lose and when you beat that boss that was only like the 3rd in the game but so hard for some annoying power he had or what not. My favorite moment of rage is when its some small enemy that is annoying for one reason or another be it that they're small or frequent like bats and birds (damn those bats/birds to hell!) and when you kill one, you flip out on it to show your dominance; reminds me of the story of the little man who slapped the wrestler on his bald head and the wrestler proceeded to pound the crap out of the little man who continued to laugh while the wrestler wasted energy in raging and hurting someone significantly weaker than him. Yeah, that makes me look bad but at least I got that damn bat right?

Regardless, they were some of the most fun games I have ever played, even more than some 3D games of modern times. They had this appeal to them that can't be captured. In a way, they were more real than modern games. For example, one really annoying trait of a lot of NES games was no save option. When you had a password option, it was like 20 characters to put in ranging from lower/upper case characters to numbers and symbols and you wonder how much better the gameplay could have improved than it already had if they had used the extra memory they spent on the password system for the gameplay instead. Anyways, in real life, you don't get to start from the last save point or even input a password but I doubt most kids would bother with that unless it was a particularly long game. Multiple lives is an issue too but for games where you die one hit deaths, that balances it out as there are many things human can survive in real life. Beat surviving hundreds of bullets to the head with bandages.

Another thing that is quite appealing is the music. There's something about 8-bit tunes that are 30 some seconds long that keep looping which keeps you going. Its like a jingle from some catchy commercial or the introduction to your favorite Saturday morning cartoon. There also aren't a lot of long lyrics, usually incomprehensible, which need to be remembered to hum along with it. Its particularly interesting to note that good NES music kept you going, especially if its a particularly hard game where you die a lot because you'll hear more of it when you come back. Imagine 8-bit Eye of the Tiger, except not just for training. They also make cool ringtones and alarms; thank God for the man who made available the tunes for Mega Man 1-6 on the Android market.

Also, a lot of games on the older systems had a lot of freedom. I don't mean lack of linearity though some games did have that, I mean freedom for the imagination. These games did come with manuals which gave stories and characters and even controls (will get to that in a bit) but who reads manuals? I do but I like to think I'm part of the minority. When they do, its still just text and some pictures of the game but they don't always help in actually getting through the game and there is where the adventure was. You could spend hours playing the game and still be less than half way through. Nowadays, you're led along like its a movie which has its own appeal but its not the same adventure I think. Tutorials are quite necessary now also, you drop straight into most any FPS without some onscreen help or tutorials, you might be at the first stage for a long time.

Finally, the controller. It had a D-pad, a start button, a select button, and 2 "action" buttons, that's it. There was a beauty in such a simple design for such difficult games. Mastering a game with so many obstacles and jumps was amazing and noteworthy. It reminds me of a language almost with limited letters which in the proper order can express so much. You didn't need to keep track of 20 hotkeys on a keyboard or 10 buttons with 2 joysticks on a controller though again that has its own difficulties and enjoyment. Nevertheless, that is all you had to defeat the final boss and his 20 fireballs or whatever.

It is a shame though that many people today don't appreciate some of the really good games of that day or wouldn't care to go back and play them for even a while or even on an emulator where the comforts of modern gaming are provided. I think some games definitely should be played again to see the roots of modern games, especially those games which still continue on today in remakes and sequels and prequels and what not on modern systems. It adds another level of awesomeness to the experience I think and to the story of the characters you play now. Its like people who listen to modern music. I don't like a lot of modern music but some people love it all but I think they need to check out old tunes to see how music really evolved because even some pop artists have probably listened to more classics than we think. Books too are a good example as something like Catch-22 or Count of Monte Cristo never get old and show where some ideas originated.

There are many other points I can get into as well as expand on many of the points I got to here but you get my drift. I would suggest checking out some of these games in your spare time if you have any. Even if you can't play, I would suggest checking out youtube videos of playthrough because while they're not the same, it has some of the visual benefits mentioned. Again, if you have time, don't give up your day job or family for it.

BTW, I haven't quite talking about serious topics, anyone who's read my first post should know I said I would talk about whatever. Also, I will discuss some NES games as soon as I beat them. That's another thing I like, they have a lot of secrets which gives a lot of replay value. It is after an adventure, even non-adventure games.

Muhammad (saw) is not our God

Long time ago, 9th grade I think, a friend of mine asked me why do Muslims believe in Prophet Muhammad (saw) if he's dead. Years later, back when I still had a facebook, I friended her and noticed she was quite Christiany, more than I ever noticed. In fact, a lot of my friends had this religious side they never really quite showed in school. Also, I have noticed from talking with many friends then and now that a lot of people have this one set understanding of religion and little to no knowledge about Islam passed we pray and fast a lot or something. They certainly have no idea why we believe what we believe as my friend's ignorance has shown.

Now my friend's ignorance was understandable but mine wasn't (to me anyways), I still regret the answer I gave which I suppose was partially a misunderstanding of the question in my confusion about why she thought something like that was important in believing in something. I said that in Islam, we believe prophets have Caliphs or Successors who succeed prophets and continue their message long after they have passed away. I guess that partly answers that question but it was lacking and weak overall. Back then I wasn't too interested in learning history and learning the details of Islam as I am now. Regardless, I had this implacable trust and belief in my faith and I studied it well after that, gaining knowledge over the years little by little.

The proper answer to my friend's question actually comes from moment in the history of Islam at the passing of Prophet Muhammad (saw). It was a severe shock for the Muslim community at the time and they were really unprepared for it b/c they had such loyalty and belief in him and they could not ever imagine that he'd ever leave them.  It's natural after all, people don't consider for example when they're parents or close ones will die so when it happens, it sucks and a lot of people suffer severe depression.

Anyways, a close follower of his who would become the 2nd Caliph, Caliph Umar (ra) took up a sword and said that he didn't believe that Prophet Muhammad (saw) had died and if anyone said so, he would cut off his head. So then, the close friend of Prophet Muhammad (saw) who would soon be the 1st Caliph, Caliph Abu Bakr (ra), came to him and the congregation at the Prophet's (saw) mosque and told them 2 things which sobered everyone up. First, if anyone worshiped the Prophet (saw), he should know that he is dead but if anyone worshiped Allah, he should know that He is Everlasting. Second, he proceeded to quote the following verse from the Qur'an:

[3:145] And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.

The truth in our eyes is submission to Allah and the message he sent to us through His messengers. Just b/c His messengers have passed on doesn't mean His message will disappear. This is a mistake tribes in the time of Caliph Abu Bakr (ra) made that were far away from Medina, the city of the Prophet (saw), who still had not received proper education from Islam and some of them treated it as another pact with some leader and were therefore persuaded by local troublemakers to raise arms against Medina and the Muslims and not pay any Zakat or the tax on Muslims for the benefit of the state and society.

In our belief, Prophet Jesus (as) was a man and not God or His son as Christians believe. They also believed that no prophet of God has ever been fully innocent of a crime or indecency, to my knowledge anyways, and you pick any prophet, you'll find there is some moment of weakness in their life given about them in the Old Testament going all the way back to Prophet Adam (as). We do not believe in the truth of these accusations and of course the Qur'an, which is the book for all mankind, denounces the accusations and negative accounts given of them.

As a Muslim, we have a greatly differing view from both beliefs and much more so about Prophet Muhammad (saw) as we see him as the chief of all Prophets. We believe God to be the ultimate power to whom we hold allegiance and Prophet is a messenger as any messenger or diplomat is messenger to any head of state and as a messenger, he would be treated with similar reverence and respect as would be given the King or President he represents if he were in the presence of whoever was greeting him. Furthermore, the diplomat would do his best to emulate the outstanding qualities of his King and so would not be the shortfalls people would try to ascribe to him. Now if this diplomat is killed, God forbid, then the King or President would live on and maintain His power.

Another very important verse is the following which is usually recite when someone passes away or something important is lost but also can be said when something causing grief happens:

[2:147] Who, when a misfortune overtakes them, say, ‘Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him shall we return.’

It is true, our Prophet Muhammad (saw) has passed away but so will we all as have all Prophets and peoples before us but that makes their message no less true or credible or good. In fact, I feel closer to the Prophet (saw) and all prophets b/c of their humanity and their closeness to God and if I believed in their truth, I would be rewarded similar to them in time, Inshallah.

CGI is where it's going

So there's some angst in my generation, the past generations, and so forth about the rise of CGI in films and its abuse where some films are entirely CGI save the people playing the characters. Personally, I don't have a problem if the story is nice and/or if it was meant to demonstrate in exquisite detail some intense action and/or grand beauty of something. The problem comes from our changing perception on how films should be made and done and even what should be given emphasis in films or should it have a middle ground and so on. I'm specifically talking about anything made by George Lucas who notoriously applied more and more CGI to the prequel Star Wars flicks till everything but the non-clone humans were CGI.
In the past, there have been a number of jumps that have been taken in relation to motion pictures the least of which don't even include the introduction of motion pictures for entertainment. Can you imagine how many people were equally fascinated and repulsed by the idea of actors not playing parts in front of a live audience? Forget that its becoming commercialized, it was crazy to think that people would want to go see people having already done something but not be there in the theater and because its recorded, it can't be changed in any way to liven it up and it'll age quick, who can keep their interest in something like that?

A few decades later, they incorporated sound into the mix and then that really stirred some emotions. Charlie Chaplin, famous silent film star, said something along the lines of films having dialogue would be the equivalent of a piece by Beethoven having lyrics. And again, it was an attack on an art form and style which had been so popular where in silent films, people could express their emotions strongly because there was little other way to do so and it still retained that theater and opera style. Nevertheless, people learned to love it.

Over time, other things came like color films, advanced sound systems, digital cameras, better prop setups made of things other than wood and plastic, etc. and again and again, the older generation would resent it while the newcomers would embrace it wholeheartedly. For example, I hear people complain about how hyped up with effects the new Star Trek was but I wonder how the fans of Captain James T. Kirk felt about Star Trek:The Next Generation with a sleeker ship, a holodeck, Klingons with crests on their foreheads, etc.

In the case of Star Wars, there has been a 20 years or so gap between the sequels and prequels where the original utilized a lot of up to date tech to make all the models and sets in its time. So I don't understand what people were expecting with the prequels, dated special effects and scenery, something out of a 70s film and slow moving fight scenes/space battles? They're as bad as the Trekkies who flip out over the new Star Trek tampering with their nostalgia of the original series, a series which like the original Star Wars films was quite EPIC, don't get me wrong on that.

I've also noted something which may have some truth to it. I've heard people say the CGI made everything look so fake as if the metals, plants, animals, etc. that were shown in the Star Wars films were real and these people have actually seen them. What they saw in the original films were sets and props made of plastic, wood, earth metals, etc. so in other words, not from a galaxy far far away and certainly not what the people in the stories are pretending their structures and props are actually made of. It is a case of reality being unrealistic or in this case, a fictional reality. Here's a funny example:

http://xkcd.com/331/

Part of us getting so used to the old style of props and sets is that we assume that is what it looks like in real life or in the case of a fictional universe, what it would like it were real. When Lucas updated the films, he got to use technology which he didn't have before and so he could make everything look cleaner and shinier and more futuristic and maybe that's what durasteel and ferrocrete (Star Wars jargon) actually look like as opposed to styrofoam painted gray (not that the millennium falcon was made of styrofoam). I guess people preferred the styrofoam though b/c it all looked so "fake" in  the prequels.

Going away from Star Wars, I'd like to point out that there's been somewhat of an increase in more animated films becoming full CGI films as opposed to hand drawn cartoons of the old days. They still have them but I really do enjoy these new CGI films a lot as well. I don't think either should really go away but if one becomes more common as it seems like it is becoming, I wouldn't fret if it still delivers a good story with good characters.

In all, I think if a film decides to use a heavy amount of CGI for something, its not something it should be judged on. Its just nitpicky and if people actually cared about about that, then we wouldn't have had any progress in film making or even in classical theater as people want everything to look real while being real or whatever. There are better things to consider when saying if you like a film. The film should not be denounced for it and it should not be praised solely for it.

BTW, This angst kind of reminds me of UAVs, believe it or not. People debate whether human pilots are necessary anymore and whether or not they should be put in harms way as opposed to a drone. Now these drones are operated by humans but you don't necessarily need a full pilot's license to operate them. People who are full pilots complain that its not real flying b/c it isn't the same feel and doesn't allow the same freedom but if they fly a UAV, they say it does work like actual flying, just not physical forces and such. I'm not for either side as I'm sure there's more to it but UAV's have become quite useful in our arsenal despite an older generations misgivings about it and they have proved themselves useful.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was OK but not great

WARNING: Major Spoilers, read only if you've seen the movie, read the book, or like me you don't care.

I recently watched the titular film with some friends on the advice of another friend. I didn't know what to expect, I hadn't heard anything about it before then and had no clue what the story was about and therein lies part of the problem I encountered when I watched the film. Overall, I say it was a good movie with a solid story.  However, it was only after about the halfway mark I could really start making out what the story was.

This is what the story was as far as I could gather it before I went to wikipedia and looked up the details. Its the cold war, MI-6 is carrying out small operations and one group in particular is involved with particular operations related to battling a counter-intelligence agency of a similar nature in the USSR. During an operation, their agent is betrayed and they come to realize there is a mole in their small group so they bring in a retired agent played by Gary Oldman, aka Commissioner Gordon w/o a mustache and w/ an English accent, to root out this double agent. He meets with another agent who is in hiding b/c he was also betrayed and puts together all this evidence from various witnesses and accounts from people in the agency.

Eventually, somehow the head of the agency, who was shown as dead in the beginning in a flashforward, makes a partial title drop by naming the 4 main members of the agency as tinker, tailor, soldier, and something else I forgot. It wasn't spy though but once you realize that he's the only one with a different name than whats given in the title, you know that character must obviously be the spy and this is about 3/4 of the way through the film. There's also apparently an agent in the USSR counter-intelligence agency who heads it and is the opposite of Gary Oldman's character in this chess game (they use chess pieces to identify the agency members so its a fitting analogy). The UK agency was trying to outsmart him by hiring an obvious double agent as a reverse double agent (so a triple agent) to give false information to the USSR agency. However, they find the mole giving the real information away and compromising MI-6 agents and then in the end they get rid of him tearfully b/c apparently he was a good friend or something before that.

Now I'm glad there's a wikipedia b/c otherwise I'd remain confused about somethings. For one thing, the Russian counterintelligence head was named Carla and one of my friend's accidentally said it was one of the women Gary Oldman talked with and not that guy. More importantly though, the head of the agency, played by John Hurt, aka Evil Dictator from V for Vendetta, did die early in the movie but his image was brought back in flashbacks later. Early in the movie, they show a mission that went bad b/c of the mole and that happened in the past and b/c of it, Gary Oldman and John Hurt and the agent were fired and John Hurt died b/c he was old and sick.  Also, the names of the group's members, the group being called "Circus", was not directly in line with the title and the "Spy" was not who the actual Spy was so in saying it was obvious who the spy was, I think I mixed up what I saw and what I read on wiki afterward, no biggy. And of course, there were all these other little things too but I got most of thankfully.

Regardless, this film required some patience in the first part b/c there isn't exactly a proper introduction for every character. I find that it would have been helpful to either have seen a trailer or even read a short introduction about what the movie was gonna be about. This isn't like the "traditional" spy flick either with loads of action and excitement though there is some of that.  The excitement and impetus to see the rest of the film comes from wanting to solve this mystery that is undermining a major counter-intelligence organization against a common threat in the west, the USSR, something that is not such a grave threat to the youngins today who didn't live in that era. And when you add a great actor like Gary Oldman in to head the case, you really wanna see him get to the bottom of things and solve this mystery.

I feel like some people who are like that but more accepting of seeing the whole film would not be able to understand it all and would have to see it more than once or read the wiki on it like I did. In that, I admit that I too have kind of short attention span but I am more accepting of different genre's. In fact, I enjoy a lot of old films, black and white included, which most people today groan at having to see while I would trade away a good deal of movies with bazillions of explosions for any one good old film which included and relied on superb acting and story lines more than anything else.

It is true though, b/c this is based off a book, it cannot cover everything that the book probably went into such great deal to explain, especially sometimes when books go into the minds of characters and share their thoughts with us. Maybe I might genuinely have been more disappointed with this movie if I had read the book first but now, I can give it the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I have NOT proof-read this in anyway, forgive me for any grammar/spelling mistakes.

Love is a struggle (or a battlefield)

Ok, I've never heard the entirety of the song with they lyrics and I probably have no clue what she's talking about, Pat Benetar that is, but I agree with that statement because its catchy and generally speaking quite applicable.  No matter how you approach the subject or how much control you give to one person or another, there's so much struggle involved in reaching the goal of a happy relationship with someone you can love. I'm gonna rant about some types of ways people pursue and/or shy away from relationships and/or how I've observed it in fiction and/or real life.

I thought there would be no problem or struggle with an arranged marriage as opposed to however non-Muslims figure it out. Mind you, everything I know about non-Muslim relationships is a mix of what I see from friends and what I've seen in anime and various film or tv shows. However, while it is easier, we still care whether person A is compatible with person B or whether either person is a good person overall and so its an intricate search and examination whenever someone is considered.


In our community, there's multiple places we have access to for finding a suitable person. Most people look in family or friends but if nothing can be found, they'll ask family and friends everywhere to look for people who know other people.  If that doesn't work, then our community actually offers a proper match making service of sorts. I've never tried it or delved into so I wont discuss it because I might get the details wrong. I'm sure though that some people will go straight with the last choice with no qualms and I'm sure they find someone.

Anyways, once someone is found, each side can request some information about the other person like education, age, parentage, etc. and even a picture. They can also ask them about other details like their involvement in the community. The most important thing though is prayer and I'm not ashamed to say that I wouldn't move forward without it. Both sides pray that God show them the best path regarding the proposal and if it is not good for them that He show them a better path. In our belief, God can show signs any way He wants whether it be in our daily lives or in our dreams and it can be a mix depending on how the parties go about the proposal.

Prayer however requires continuous practice; you can't just pray once and expect an answer unless you're always in the habit of praying in which case we believe that such a person is close to God and he/she will more often than not be granted an answer sooner than later but even then, its about showing how much you care and believe in the will of God. He alone decides when a person is truly committed enough that he/she believes in God to answer his/her prayers.


So going back to the title of this blog, its a battlefield akin to the fighting of counter-intelligence organizations I think because neither side is totally aware of the best decision to take on any matter and only after great effort in gathering information about the other side as well. I guess it diverges when you consider the belief in God in which case I was just playing around with the idea because I like some Pat Benetar's songs. I hate to compare God to anything because there's nothing really you can compare to His knowledge of all things. I guess counter-intelligence organizations also have people who believe in God as well. Anyways, there's no big losses or suffering if there is a "loss" for either side in this, they just move on to the next big fight or if they win, there's the truce which is marriage and then you know the rest...maybe.

Now the non-Muslim system of relationship making is much more of a physical battlefield I think which involves not only counter-intelligence but multiple adversaries at times. In some shows I've seen in particular, there's 2 people who love one person and they want to be all friendly and let the other person win but they fail to understand that in a society where gender mixing allows an array of feelings to develop between multiple people of opposite genders, they can't just shy back and let genuine attraction go to waste if it is indeed genuine. Of course, it is only this way if they are not married yet because in my belief, marriage represents that bond which is sacred which denotes that 2 people have made a commitment out of their mutual attraction. Where they are still girlfriend/boyfriend, I think it still should be respected but if there was someone who just didn't act and therefore missed out on that relationship, that gets me a bit.

2 shows in particular were annoying like this.  First was this show, Toradora, about guy 1 who like girl 2 and girl 1 who liked guy 2. Guy 1 and girl 1 help each other try to show their feelings to each others crushes but they eventually start developing an attraction for each other.  When girl 1 realizes this, she chooses to step back and let girl 2 have a chance but up till now, its been pretty obvious guy 1 and girl 1 had a developing attraction where they might as well have been going out already. She realizes girl 1's shying away to let girl 2 win and guy 1 is helping because he's still clueless about his feelings for girl 1, as most anime guy characters are except for secondary characters, she flips out and forces guy 1 and girl 1 to be together and when they run off happily ever after, or so we would think as it turns out not to be so simple, she breaks down crying.

I was thinking both girls were stupid, its a fair fight for the heart of guy 1 as he has some attraction to both but only one can win and they should have both put forth how they felt and let him decide. It was already bad enough that they invoked the cliched "I'm too much of a wuss to tell someone how I feel" with guy 1 and how he felt about girl 2 in the beginning but this had me really annoyed.

Another show was one called Kodomo no Omocha or Kodocha or Child's Toy in translation; it comes from the name of a show within the show and the main character who is an actress in it. Anyways, she is oblivious to the feelings of a guy in her class who again invokes being too much of an idiot to just tell her straight up how she felt because she had to invoke the other cliched idea of being as dense as a neutron star to understand how someone feels. It didn't help that her step-mother, whom she loved dearly regardless, essentially taught her that lying is ok without saying that straight out and lied to her about a number of things which eventually brought the chickens home to roost over the timeline of the show and made her as dense and retarded as she was.

So to  the point of the blog, a friend of hers, lets call her girl 2, falls for the guy who likes the main character while she's away and so they become a couple.  When the main character finds out, she's devastated and when she meets them again, she's all angsty about it until she confronts the guy about it and they confess their feelings. Girl 2 overhears and makes it bitterly clear she wont give up the guy and the main character goes "its cool, I don't like him anymore." If I slammed my head into the keyboard then, I would have a new computer right now or none at all, I don't know, but I kind of wanted to slap her.

Besides the ridiculousness of her claim and why she was doing it, it is also funny to note that girl 2 already faced this situation when a guy she liked, call him guy 2, gets another girlfriend, girl 3, when he's away from girl 2. They meet again in this big reunion and girl 3 tells girl 2 to not take him away from her. Girl 2 frustratingly says the same exact absurdity, that she doesn't like guy 2 anymore and she can have him. She feels the pain of having to say that yet she puts the main character through the same crap just as selfishly.

Fortunately, in the manga, the main character realizes soon after that she still loves the guy and that even if he's not with her, he'll compete fairly for his affection and she makes this clear to girl 2. Regardless, she says that she wants to stay friends with her which they do and in the end, the main character gets the guy and girl 2 gets guy 2 when guy 2 realizes he can't be w/o girl 2. The anime vaguely gets to this point after a ridiculous amount of filler probably because the manga was still being written when the anime was being filmed.

Anyways, thinking on all that, I'll take the arranged marriage though if I didn't and I had to compete for someone's affections, I would be honest about how I feel towards someone. I would like to think that I would not shy away from someone who I have a crush on a despite my introverted personality. Unfortunately, I might've been a different person if I wasn't Muslim and maybe a jerk, I don't know. I feel like I have more respect for women than some so-called gentlemen who aren't Muslim and I don't mean to brag about myself by saying that but praise what I believe.

You could say with tv shows its all drama and that's why people are so stupid and it is partly that but I do recall some friends who have told me about problems confronting others about how they feel or expressing how they feel or confronting someone they want to express interest in and it has a good amount of truth. People fear embarrassment or breakup of friendships or casual relationships they had with some people and in that is another model for love being a battlefield where alliances and how they are shaped are important. I believe one should stand up tall for what they believe and if they believe that they see some interest in someone not attached to someone else, they should voice those feelings.

That's all I have to say about that right now, I feel like I've got a bit off my mind now and I've somehow been able to inculcate anime/manga into a serious issue.

My Hat - the Fedora

Let me just start off by telling all the desi's out there my hat is NOT, repeat, NOT a cowboy hat, that is an entirely different type of hat all together.  Just b/c the hat has a big rim and is brown colored does not make it a cowboy hat.

Anyways, I got the urge to make this post after I was told how I should wear and handle my hat one too many times and frankly, I don't care how you think it should be worn or handled.  If you think that is the right way, get your own hat and deal with it your own way.

I want to discuss the SEVERAL reasons I started wearing my hat because I didn't just have one set necessity or desire to fulfill in my mind when I was buying it.  Judging by the title and picture, you may have already guessed that I wear a fedora, an "Indiana Jones" fedora to be exact.  While deciding to get and wear this kind of hat was kind of on a whim, the decision to wear one was in my mind for a while.  Why I decided on this kind of hat also was in part to that thought process.

One reason was my faith.  People always look at Muslim women and say their oppressed and such b/c they're made to cover their heads but in reality, both genders should cover their heads for reasons of modesty and so forth, it is just a little stricter for women for such and such reasons that require another blog post at another time but I digress.  Therefore, I thought it would be good to start following that more proper dress code as well as another step in the direction of becoming a better Muslim.

Another reason which stemmed from the first was that I wanted a hat that looked nice and not totally out of place as well.  I've seen Muslims who wear the different prayer caps and such but I wanted one that fit me and what I liked.  The fedora was also a popular hat in the first half of the 20th century and so part of the culture; in fact, it has made a bit of a resurgence, sometimes in more modern form, among a number of people I've seen around on campus and in the city and not just on older people.  I also like the classy look and I've stated before that if I could wear a suit a lot more often and not look perpetually overdressed, I probably would.

The third reason I believe developed from the second in that I rationalized good uses for it.  I got this hat in the summer of 2010 and I used to work a lot in the sun.  Therefore, I thought it would be good to have a hat to get some shade while I walk around.  I would find out later that it was also good against other elements of the weather such as rain.  Of course, if that's where my list of reasons stopped, I might have just gone with a baseball cap but its not where it stops.  Also, a baseball cap isn't as good against the rain.

The fourth reason is of course obvious from the brand of hat I got; I really like the Indiana Jones series and of course Harrison Ford is the man.  He made the hat an icon and not something that was a mundane, average piece of attire as it was in reality at the time.  I thought it would be cool if I could wear that hat in normal day without the premise of being a commie-nazi fighting archaeologist and still rock it.

I feel like that sums up how I feel about it and I feel like I've accomplished many times over what I intended for it.  I receive many compliments for it, at times from total strangers too.  I'm not naive though, I'm sure many do it out of mockery but that's fine because I wear it because I like it and I have established it as part of my persona.  I don't think many people can recognize me now without it and many people use it to find me in crowds.

I was of course reluctant at first.  I've been pretty hesitant on many things throughout my life and I still am many times but I've gained confidence through the years as I've interacted with others more and so forth.  The one time I remember talking with friends about making a lifestyle or appearance change, they said that people would care only for so long before it became a norm.  Of course, somethings are more weird than others and are harder to overcome; one of my friends told me of a friend he had who used to put Elmer's glue in his hair everyday and that perplexed people for the longest time.  People still do joke around about me and my hat too but are more casual about it than before and don't care much otherwise.

The last push for me to wear the hat finally, I think, was one conversation I had with a co-worker and friend a day before I started wearing it.  I actually wore a baseball cap that day, possibly as a fruitless attempt to acclimate myself and others to me covering my head before I put on a fedora.  Alternatively, I may have been gauging people's reactions to it which were comparably tame to non-existent in comparison to the fedora.  Anyways, I asked my friend if it'd be a good idea to wear a fedora around everywhere or some question like that; he was quite supportive of the idea and said there would be nothing wrong with it.

There on out, I've worn the hat as normally as I've worn shoes or pants wherever I've gone.  The one thing that does get to me though is etiquette and I've always been here or there on it depending on the company or how I felt about the situation.  I take it off when I'm in a casual place and I'm gonna sit down or spend a lot of time there like studying or eating or hanging out at home.  When I meet a non-Muslim teacher or boss or some person of import, I take it off.  However, if I'm in a gathering of Muslims where there are some people wearing it, I will likewise keep it on and for a religious person of import I would keep it on as the etiquette changes for Islam.

Before I finish, I just wanna explain my opening statement because it's really something.  Most all non-desi people I meet know the reference to Indiana Jones and some of my friends jokingly call me Indy because of it.  However, most all non-desi people I meet instantly make some reference about me wanting to be a cowboy or something along that line.  It reminds me of my landlady who went to Egypt and said the people there would make one or two cultural references, the same ones every time, to her being American and it eventually ticked her off.  I'm more relaxed about it but its still a little irksome if I think about it meticulously because it isn't a cowboy hat; cowboy hats are an entirely different kind of hat and I've actually seen one of my desi friend's 2 cowboy hat's from when he used to live out west.

Now hopefully I'm not so weird anymore.

Religion is a scapegoat REDUX

 In fact, it never was.  People like to have straightforward answers to things without having thorough investigations that require them to ponder over subjects longer than they feel like doing, especially if the subjects involve the question of various ideologies and have some degree of confrontation with various people.  Religion is one such subject unfortunately and it doesn't help that it has been scapegoated convincingly by the very people who claim to follow the religions themselves.

I will use mainly the history of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) in this article as that is the most well known to me and the most example filled.  They are also one of the most recent of the big religions so their progress or regress is much better documented.  I will also include the history of the founding person of our community whom we believe to be the Promised Messiah, Prophet Ahmad (as).  For more info on that, read my first blog about what I believe.  I will also refer to the followers of the prophets as believers, the society, and the community.

Since the beginning of humanity, in the belief of the Muslims, religion has been a way by which God communicated with humanity.  He would send prophets who would bring laws and some that would refresh and maintain the messages of previous prophets that brought laws and he did this to all peoples.  In every case though, there was opposition as there would be to a new message of any kind which makes radical amendments to society.  Eventually though in the life of the prophets or following them, these opponents would convert to that message and the people would be dominated by that faith.  However, many of these opponents and even the supposedly sincere did not change because they saw a great truth and benefit in it for humanity but it fit their needs in society.

A lot of the opponents would usually be of the people who are the previous ruling class of the society the prophet came to and naturally would be the first to antagonize the prophet, his followers, and his message.  When they converted though, not all but some would do so only because they realize this is where their society is headed and instead of dying out, they should adapt to the new society and take control within it.  Some would even realize that before the opponents and from the beginning they would they would convert only to go along with the crowd and insert their authority into every affair whether it is needed or not.

Over time with the death of the prophet and his successors, believers would stray from belief not because they never believed but because they believe their prophets to be the root of their faith and if he is human and must eventually pass away, then his faith is as such and to them can be dictated any way they want afterward.  Those who were always mischievous and joined the society because it was where society was going take these opportunities to lead the communities how they wish and interpret the messages of the prophets how they wish.

The other trouble that arises during the lives of the prophet and his successors is the education of believers both worldly and spiritually.  As the message grows and spreads in the regions it is for, it is harder to educate the followers equally and as quick as the message is spreading.  If many of these people cannot be taught their new faith properly and in detail and they bring in much of their own culture and beliefs whether or not they are accepted in their new religion.  It is especially difficult if there already elements in the community who are trying to subvert the message being spread and they spread a corrupted message and there are such elements in the new peoples as well.  They take great advantage of the lack of education in the faith of the people the most.

These various aspects contribute to the original reasons by which many religions had supposedly turned to violence and become "the cause of all the world's problems."  It is of course apparent that it was not the religion but the people themselves who changed their goals in faith from peaceful to oppressive.  In the latter days of all religions, it is blatantly apparent that religion had only become a means to carryout whatever the leaders required of their citizens.  Going on from the above mention of people lacking education being led by mischievous people, they know that it is a touchy matter for the people and so they exploit it like anything can be exploited

Religion is not needed to create the disruption in society that exists in place where religious fanaticism is but its a good medium because people follow it on a wide scale and its a way of life.  Anything that people can strongly affiliate to can be used to create violence.  No better example of that exists I think than in the modern century where we have had wars with Fascist, Imperialist, and Communist countries because they had different political ideologies.  I don't recall religion being used by them to expand their territories and wage world wars and regional wars against people who didn't do anything, 2 of them didn't even have a religion if I'm not mistaken and the other one dealt with superiority as a people, not superiority in belief.

Looking at the history of Islam, there were people in the time of Muhammad (saw) who were known to the most devout Muslims as the Hypocrites.  Whenever the Muslims would be weakened by a loss in battle or some treaty or expedition they had to carry out or even some little societal disturbance, they would always be the first to make a big deal out of it to the rest of the Muslims and take advantage of the situation to create their own spheres of influence on them.  Thanks to God though, every time they were subverted by words of the Prophet (saw) or his actions because as hypocritical as they may have been, this wasn't modern day extremism and they followed as much as they were required to still be called Muslims but not be involved in any great undertakings.

At the death of Muhammad (saw), many uneducated peoples who had joined Islam in the life of Muhammad (saw) left because of the lack of education and grief of his death.  It helped that many of the same people in these peoples who joined to take advantage of the situation stirred these people to leave and rebel against the newly unified Arabia.  These were subdued not because they left Islam but some did not pay their taxes which they thought unnecessary at the death of Muhammad (saw) and others because they joined the armies of the people who stirred rebellions and were threatening to tear apart the state.  It has become imprinted in peoples minds that it was because of apostasy because many of the rebellion leaders claimed themselves prophets as well but again it is only another example of how religion was only abused and scapegoated both by those leaders and historians who misinterpret the Muslim action against these people.

Later on in the careers of Muhammad's (saw) Caliphs, two were assassinated because of the machinations of said people who were either part of the crowd because they thought it in their best interest or had been corrupted by said people.  The first was the third successor who was doing a standup job leading the state and even had the Quran standardized as there were many different versions where the verses and chapters were in different orders and such.  The antagonists reasoned to their followers that he was acting as a corrupt leader and was to be deposed violently on religious grounds yet they only sought disorder so that they could take control of the state.  This is confirmed in the assassination of the fourth Caliph.

The last Caliph of Muhammad (saw) was trying to regain order in the Muslim state before he was to go after the miscreants but the family and closest followers of the former Caliph wanted quick judgment on them and on this, no reason of religion, was a war fought.  On both sides were these people hiding when they came to clash in several unfortunate battles and both sides they gave their advice.  When the Caliph tried to make peace based on religious reasons because Islam does call for peace wherever possible, they treated him just like the previous Caliph and killed him for the same flimsy reasons because it was them who did not follow the religion but only used it.

After the fourth Caliph, many leaders and dynasties succeeded him but none are considered legitimate Caliphs of Muhammad (saw) as they weren't chosen by the people or their advice and many were like kings instead of Caliphs who spent more time with spiritual matters.  It was when the true Caliphs fell that the education of peoples far from Arabia started stunting and the Muslim world started going further and further away from Islam.  The kings, as I'll refer to them because I don't believe them to be true Caliphs, utilized Islam more and more for the purpose of conquest and then subjugation of minorities and just all out violence the further time went on.

In my community, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, in our beginnings, there were numerous people that joined that would later leave and in the life of the Promised Messiah (as) were studious followers but showed signs of not truly believing or having faults with what they were following.  It was with our first Caliph that they started machinations of trying to get rid of the system of Caliphate because they thought a group of people would be the better to run the community and the Caliph remain a figurehead.  He had many followers though as he was the closest follower of the Promised Messiah which is why he was elected as he was.

It was in the time of the second Caliph was elected very young but was quite learned as he was personally taught religion by his father, the Promised Messiah (as), and the first Caliph, that they just got up in left.  Many of them were middle aged and had spent a great deal of time in the company of the Promised Messiah so they refused to be led by him and chose to start their own community.  They've written a number of books on why they split and have attempted to support religiously why they did and they have even gone so far as to reject the very basic reasons as to why they were a separate community in the first place despite the fact they clearly believed it while the Promised Messiah (as) was alive.

Mischievous people will always be around and we should be able to examine them and see who is doing something for an alternative reason aside from allegedly "following his religion."  On that note too, religion is an ideology, not a person, you don't just follow it blindly, you interpret and follow it.  If you interpret it with mischievous intent, you will get mischievous results and it will not be the fault of the religion as it is only a message.

Blogger's note:  I realized after writing this that I had already written a post on religion being used as a scapegoat and I was tempted to delete this and do something else but then I realized some I addressed points in this which I did not cover in my previous post.  Further more, I feel that this a response to the bigger issue which has plagued the view of all religions as a whole in the eyes of the people of today and it should stop because it makes people as narrow minded as the people they are criticizing for using religion for violence.  I also included examples in this one from my own religious community and the time of Muhammad (saw) as I have read some more on their history.