Sex with Muslim women
- Thread starter justawny
- Start date
Gavy, now that is impressive. I bet most do not realize the size of the land area conquered
by Islam during those 200 years. Chales Martel was the first leader to stop their expansion.
Then his son Pipen II, and finally his grandson Charlemagne, pushed them out, and founded the Holy Roman Empire.
People always speak about The Crusades, and, but fail to mention this Islamic expansion, and agression.
by Islam during those 200 years. Chales Martel was the first leader to stop their expansion.
Then his son Pipen II, and finally his grandson Charlemagne, pushed them out, and founded the Holy Roman Empire.
People always speak about The Crusades, and, but fail to mention this Islamic expansion, and agression.
Last edited:
Its an undisputed fact. Islam spread throughout Arabia by war and conquest, and then continued to spread in the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
Note I am not saying that Islam spread through forced conversions though. I do not believe they adopted that practice (they may have originally in Arabia but I'm not 100% sure on that point). But there certainly were benefits afforded to the conquered who adopted Islam.
(I know wiki isn't really a good final source for most information, but its not a bad starting point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
Note I am not saying that Islam spread through forced conversions though. I do not believe they adopted that practice (they may have originally in Arabia but I'm not 100% sure on that point). But there certainly were benefits afforded to the conquered who adopted Islam.
(I know wiki isn't really a good final source for most information, but its not a bad starting point)
Probably. I was going for something funny rather than historically accurate.
You may be right. The ottomans had some formidable advantages (14-16th centuries), but their eastern ambitions sabotaged their western advances. Let's say some other muslims have some of the merit the Ottomans did not expand farther in the christian world.
You may be right. The ottomans had some formidable advantages (14-16th centuries), but their eastern ambitions sabotaged their western advances. Let's say some other muslims have some of the merit the Ottomans did not expand farther in the christian world.
Lol.
In fact, Muslims did not push this issue the way the Christian did. The Jews and the Christians did not have to abandon their faith in the Emirate of Cordoba, in Spain.
When the Christian armies took it over from the Arabs, (1400s) they killed or imprisoned the Jews who did not convert to Christianism.
The lucky Jews who left the country established in the Ottoman Empire where they had no problem in keeping their religion for centuries, at least until the Empire became too weak to remain tolerant.
In fact, Muslims did not push this issue the way the Christian did. The Jews and the Christians did not have to abandon their faith in the Emirate of Cordoba, in Spain.
When the Christian armies took it over from the Arabs, (1400s) they killed or imprisoned the Jews who did not convert to Christianism.
The lucky Jews who left the country established in the Ottoman Empire where they had no problem in keeping their religion for centuries, at least until the Empire became too weak to remain tolerant.
Last edited:
Staying alive was not a problem for non-Muslims living in lands ruled by the Caliphate for the most part. That is, after the conquests were over. If anything, they mostly dealt with higher taxes. Until recently, Christianity has been much less tolerant than Islam.
Looks like Marc already addressed this though.
Looks like Marc already addressed this though.
Muslims consider Jews and Christians and a few other small, pre-Islamic, monotheistic religions, "people of the book". The people of the book were governed by the dhimmi laws.
That didn't just include "If anything, they mostly dealt with higher taxes" as DaveNJ so innocently suggests - we're talking major discrimination laws. The dhimmis were "free" to practice their religion as long as they recognized the superiority of Islam. Take a look at the Coptic Christians' situation in Egypt today - they are degraded in every possible way. The Coptics were the majority in that territory before the Muslims came in and subjugated them. In Malaysia today the Christians are “free” to practice their religion but are totally discriminated against in every facet of daily life. I suggest you visit http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ and do some reading. Under Islam Christians were required to wear a blue patch on their clothing and Jew a yellow one. The Muslims were allowed to hit/beat a dhimmi, who was not allowed to fight back. Muslim tolerance is a myth.
That didn't just include "If anything, they mostly dealt with higher taxes" as DaveNJ so innocently suggests - we're talking major discrimination laws. The dhimmis were "free" to practice their religion as long as they recognized the superiority of Islam. Take a look at the Coptic Christians' situation in Egypt today - they are degraded in every possible way. The Coptics were the majority in that territory before the Muslims came in and subjugated them. In Malaysia today the Christians are “free” to practice their religion but are totally discriminated against in every facet of daily life. I suggest you visit http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ and do some reading. Under Islam Christians were required to wear a blue patch on their clothing and Jew a yellow one. The Muslims were allowed to hit/beat a dhimmi, who was not allowed to fight back. Muslim tolerance is a myth.
That's shocking I tell you. Did you know that under Christians at times, Jews and other "non-believers" were killed if they didn't convert?
To be fair, I oversimplifed. But its still true that wearing a patch or getting beaten is a lot better than being tortured and killed. Obviously nobody would want to be forced to choose between one or the other, but if they were I can guarantee you people would choose being a Dhimmi over being dead.
To be fair, I oversimplifed. But its still true that wearing a patch or getting beaten is a lot better than being tortured and killed. Obviously nobody would want to be forced to choose between one or the other, but if they were I can guarantee you people would choose being a Dhimmi over being dead.
I have been with 2 - one was a local pro in NNJ many years ago, she gave me her # to see outside the agency. We would hook-up for quickie car dates since she was close by me. She was wild - she was from Pakistan, very hot with nice c-d cups. She love showing her pussy " do you like my hot pink pussy??" - the contrast to her dark skin was awesome. The other, said she was from Italy, but a simple google search of her ***** gave all her real info and she was also from Pakistan (even smelled of curry whick I hate). She was (obviously) a non-pro who was looking only to do bbbj; I met at her office after everyone left, sat in her office chair, she opened he blouse and knelt down. She finished me off with the porn-star CIM where it dripped down out of her mouth! She obviously watched a lot of porn!
Forget about 800 years ago. What about NOW?
The difference is that there arent any Christian countries where non-Christians are tortured or killed because they dont convert, but there are still Muslim countries where to be anything other than Muslim instantly makes you a second class citizen. They havent learned anything in 1400 years.
The difference is that there arent any Christian countries where non-Christians are tortured or killed because they dont convert, but there are still Muslim countries where to be anything other than Muslim instantly makes you a second class citizen. They havent learned anything in 1400 years.