MovieChat Forums > Joan of Arc (1999) Discussion > If you think Muslims are fanatics...

If you think Muslims are fanatics...

posted 13 years ago by kael_32
16 replies | jump to latest

...try the medieval Catholic church. Crusades in the name of God, witches/heretics burnt at the stake after extensive brainwashing and manipulation, kings empowered by God (Where did this BS originate anyway?), senile old men dressed up in robes and expensive jewelry thinking they were favored by God (worst part is that many believed them), I don't think I've ever seen a movie set in the Middle Ages that portrays the clergy in a favorable manner.

So while Joan of Arc might not be the definitive historical drama, it certainly reminds us how the church used to be back in the day. Thank God I wasn't born in those times.

[–] guyincognito1 13 years ago

I don't think any reasonable person truly believes that Muslim's are fanatics, it is an essentially peace-loving religion. The only people who are fanatics who interpret the teaching for their own personal gain.

[–] Clusium 12 years ago

"Crusades in the name of God,..."

Ironic how site Christianity in the medieval times, & use this as an example as to how they are compared to Muslim fanatics. It was precisely to stand up to Muslim conquests on Christian sites, that the Crusades had been started.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

[–] nightblast 12 years ago

Christianity during the medieval times was not so much Christianity (or perhaps more appropriately the Catholic Church) as power-obsession, genocide, torture, depravity and a number of other ills. It was just a horde of clergymen who grew fat on the blood, sweat and tears of those crushed beneath their boots, and of course in full collaboration with the noble classes all the while. Think the pedophile scandals today are bad? Sheee-it, that's mere peanuts compared to what priests used to do back in the day. The Lollards, Cathars, Bogomilists and Protestants really had the right idea (although the Protestant movement was corrupted, inevitably, by its position of power later, but nowhere near to the same extent as the Catholic Church).

[–] member-id 9 years ago

Christian sites? Like all the ones that are also muslim and jewish sites as well.

[–] geirfold 7 years ago

Actually the first Crusade was started by the Pope to get knights that were younger sons out of Europe. Since these knights would not inherit anything they spent their lives fighting to make money. The pope had received a letter from Byzantium for help against the Ottoman Turks. The pope thought this was the perfect way to get these knights out of Europe and so came up with the idea of the Crusade.

[–] viddi212 12 years ago

Comparing people today to those of over 600 years ago is probably not the best way to prove whatever point you are trying to get across.

[–] pecisk 12 years ago

To simply but Muslims goes trough same period. They have been kept in medival mind set due of power plays of their leaders, Western leaders trading with their leaders and keeping them into power. That's how it works.

By the way, there's quite number of radical Christians still out there, especially in US. Again, case of encapsulation.

[–] foster11 8 years ago

Funny thread started by a moron

You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!

[–] Maya55555 8 years ago

foster11

This is the best that I have read so far.

"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello)

[–] clong_clong 8 years ago

"If you think Muslims are fanatics... try the medieval Catholic church"

I'm not sure it's fair to compare 920 yrs ago (1st crusade) or +500 yrs ago (Joan of Arc's time) situation to nowadays' situation (despite the world's disparity in societies, life diffculties, etc... - The context is quite different between today and the middle-ages (Today: exponential level of knowledge about everything, easier life, more importance given to the individual and his well-being, large immediate informations to about anyone, etc...).
The fanatics of today (muslims, christians, hindus or whoever else) have less excuses.

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

The Crusades were not about Catholic fanaticism! They were attempts to liberate the Holy Land from fanatical Muslim invaders. We are seeing something rather similar now, with many countries fighting against Muslim fanatics.

[–] puirt-a-beul 7 years ago

Not really. The lands were Muslim at the time; it was the Christians who were the invaders, set on the idea of "liberating" the so-called Holy Lands from the non-Christians. Cities like Jerusalem had been Muslim and Jewish for centuries; they never were Christian, regardless of how much the Crusaders wanted them to be.

It's not far different from modern American Christian Evangelism, which holds that Jesus is somehow going to return and turn Jerusalem into a Christian city, as a precursor to Armageddon and the "Rapture". The mythology is still thoroughly mediaeval.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] clong_clong 7 years ago

puirt-a-beul: "Not really. The lands were Muslim at the time; it was the Christians who were the invaders, set on the idea of "liberating" the so-called Holy Lands from the non-Christians."

And before being Muslim lands? What were these lands?
When the Muslims arrived to conquer these lands and populations (*) they were way more christian than a huge part of Europe. The whole Mediterranean world (south of Europe, Asia minor, Near east, Egypt, north Africa) was mainly Christian.

The Muslims, from the very beginning, had attacked and conquered, anything around them (on one side of the map, they conquered Spain (711 AD) and reached the heart of France (Battle of Tours in 732 AD and later (battle of Narbonne and Avignon in 737, for instance)), on the other side of the world, they reached India (e.g. Battle of Rajasthan in 730 AD)).
They were the ones attacking the Christians first. They were also the ones that attacked Europe first (Spain remained under Arabo-muslim rule, to some extent, for 781 yrs (711 to 1492), but they attacked also others: France for isntance was raided a lot and muslims forces settled there too, in several spots, even after 732 AD).

Bottom Line : These lands you are talking about were originally truly Christian Lands before the Muslims preyed on them. In other words, what seems to be a moral critic stance from your part, stands on a flimsy ground.
You can't criticize a "predatorial"/imperialistic behavior to support, on a moral ground, an anterior "predatorial"/imperialistic behavior. Double standards can't work. They attacked christianity first, you can't expect us to weep more when Christianity reacts to this unabashedly warlike and imperialistic "rival". Even more so that despite what you say, these lands where then under muslim control but the population was not as muslimized as you think. They were not ALL Muslims (and Jews), far from it.

(*) (about 450 yrs earlier; BTW the first encounter between the Christian Byzantine Empire (and the Ghassanids) and the Muslims was in 629, at the battle of Mu'tah, east of the Jordan River, and Muhammad was still alive at this time)

--

I'm not even mentionning the piracy in the Mediterranean Sea, the razzias and raids on the european coasts (including to get slaves) throughout the centuries (untill the 2 barbary wars of early 19th c. or French colonization of Algeria starting in 1830) or the Ottoman (Turkish) colonization of Europe that occured later after this early period (they reached Vienna (in Austria) twice IIRC) ... The Muslim conquest of India was also supposed to have been quite bloody. It's certainly not a GOOD VS BAD issue.

[–] davidmcgmiller 7 years ago

False. Your parallax is so skewed, it's not even worth correcting. Get over yourself.

[–] andreea_bob 7 years ago

We are not in Medieval Times.