Muslims offended by Israel's tattoo

Lol, ain't no brother gonna have incomplete tattoo of Africa because of someone else's closet racist feelings. Africa is Africa.
 
meauneau said:
By subtle you mean beheading, rapes, slavery and so on? Because all of that is lawful in Islam, it is in the Hadith and Quran.
Click to expand...
Already answered > subtle = tax system.

Your narrative is actually interestin´ tho... Christians stayed several centuries in America, Noth & South, and they indeed raped & literally ended the native people´s race.

Are Southern Europeans (from Poitiers to Eastern Europe, actually) all dead?
 
gono btw said:
Already answered > subtle = tax system.

Your narrative is actually interestin´ tho... Christians stayed several centuries in America, Noth & South, and they indeed raped & literally ended the native people´s race.

Are Southern Europeans (from Poitiers to Eastern Europe, actually) all dead?
Click to expand...
They both committed atrocities. The tax, or Jizya, wasn't a simple tax, it was a class system and the Jizya tax wasn't a fixed percentage like zakat is for Muslims, so the Dhimmi could be paying 50%, 80% or whatever the Muslims wanted; the dhimmis were treated like animals, they didn't have the same rights as the Muslims, they couldn't freely practice their religions, they couldn't build their temples and so on.

One thing I can agree with you is that there was less blood in the Muslim conquest than in the Christian, but there was blood and rape and so on nevertheless.
 
meauneau said:
They both committed atrocities. The tax, or Jizya, wasn't a simple tax, it was a class system and the Jizya tax wasn't a fixed percentage like zakat is for Muslims, so the Dhimmi could be paying 50%, 80% or whatever the Muslims wanted; the dhimmis were treated like animals, they didn't have the same rights as the Muslims, they couldn't freely practice their religions, they couldn't build their temples and so on.

One thing I can agree with you is that there was less blood in the Muslim conquest than in the Christian, but there was blood and rape and so on nevertheless.
Click to expand...
All invasions are violent & brutal, but ya cant realistically compare what the Christians did with the Muslim invasion,, it would be too easy.
Animals... The Native people in America didnt even have a soul, accordin´to them Christians...

Ya´re sayin´that they couldnt really practice 'freely' their religion?
Do ya know the reason why Morocco has somethin´like the 2nd Jewish community in the world?
 
gono btw said:
All invasions are violent & brutal, but ya cant realistically compare what the Christians did with the Muslim invasion,, it would be too easy.
Animals... The Native people in America didnt even have a soul, accordin´to them Christians...

Ya´re sayin´that they couldnt really practice 'freely' their religion?
Do ya know the reason why Morocco has somethin´like the 2nd Jewish community in the world?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the Arabs not modern Moroccans.
 
meauneau said:
They both committed atrocities. The tax, or Jizya, wasn't a simple tax, it was a class system and the Jizya tax wasn't a fixed percentage like zakat is for Muslims, so the Dhimmi could be paying 50%, 80% or whatever the Muslims wanted; the dhimmis were treated like animals, they didn't have the same rights as the Muslims, they couldn't freely practice their religions, they couldn't build their temples and so on.

One thing I can agree with you is that there was less blood in the Muslim conquest than in the Christian, but there was blood and rape and so on nevertheless.
Click to expand...

You are obviously oblivious about this subject, you exagerates many of your argument to the point that it just made up by you or some weird right wing media just to validate your assumption or opinion about Islam or Muslim.

the fifty percent or eighty percent of tax that burdened by the Muslim government is example of the over extension of the argument. Depend on whose ruling, it either get charged as the equal amount of dzakat with the top line that is agreed upon by idjma ulama is an equal value of the previous ruler.

And what do you meant by treating the dhimmi like animals? The predominant population of the Muslim owned territory were stay predominantly the previous state religion as the majority of the religion. Under the long span of Umayyad Dynasty the Coptic Christian stay as majority, so do the Zoroastrian in Persia or Orthodox in Levant. This is stay until the mid of Abbassid era.

Given there were no head of state from other religion, but the dhimmi were exist within the military or the government. Not so different as of today. While the slavery things required another whole of reading you can start from the Amitav Gosh travelogue regarding the manuscript of the Jew trader Ben Yiju and the life of his Indian slave Bona in a Muslim ruling state in Egypt. It was not in any sense similar with the African enslavement in the New World, slave is more like those who work at your household as a member of your family, that gets shared profit from any business or work that he done for you. Many important figure in Muslim history were slave in one time of their life like the noteable Tariq Ibn Ziyad, or even the Mamlukes themselves arguably were slaves.

You need a proper reading, not read things that only triggered you or confirm your bigotry.
 
I've yet to meet someone from the north part of Africa that was ashamed to be called African and if they are, fuck em. I don't need to know them.

The Euro's still have people brainwashed into thinking that "sub-sahara" Africa is really a thing. It's a old-dated Eurocentric classification and perspective of Africa to divide.

African/Melanated genes come in all different shades and types spanning all across the globe, even outside of landlocked Africa.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,714
Messages
55,436,787
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top