Masha Allah jazakallah for this truthful stories Allah will give All the awards for your hardworks

Silf, help me up here with links/references.
This is not true:
– Vlad II didn’t give sons freely, he give them in slavery in Ottoman Empire as political hostages as a security that he will be loyal to Ottomans against Hunyadi.
(sorce: Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times – Florescu, Radu R.)
– Vlad III wasn’t convert to Islam, just Radu.
– impaling, in those days and before, was practised in Byzantine (and Ottoman Empire) before Vlad III started it
– Vlad III did rise against Ottomans because he hated them, not because money. As you wrote: “The young Dracula continually abused and rebelled against his hosts earning himself imprisonment and castigation. Due to the heavy handedness of the Turks in response to his insolence, he developed a compounded and complex series of grudges.” Many of landowners (boyars) and merchants had money but they couldn’t buy they lives from Dracula (because they sinned)
– Vlad III never did see his brothers and father after he was send to Ottomans, he return to Wallachia after theirs deaths.
– there’s other records how he died; that he was killed by his men mistaken him for a Ottoman and, other, that boyars paid to kill him. So maybe Muslims didn’t kill Dracula.
– Radu The Hansome died of a syphilis, was bisexual, most likely as Sultan Mehmet II

Silf can you give more links about Dracula, I’m also doing research. Thank you

P.S. I’m not defending Dracula, he was firs class sadist.

P.P.S. Mr. Zaman, can I ask you about your faith? In Quran (written in 7 century AD) is written that Dawud and Sulayman were Muslims (practising Islam). Right? In Tora (last book written in, about, 3rd century BC) is written that David and Solomon were Jews (religion). One book is wrong. Right? Thank you

There is no such thing as true history. It’s all subjective and depends upon different views …

Precisely. He was a rebel and traitor to the Turks and his father. But not to the Romanian People. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and all. Even today he is celebrated as a hero in Romania …

I think it’s a misinterpretation, pretty much like those who were also upset by the fact that the evil literature monster was portrayed as a hero instead of a villain but in the context of the movie trying to focus more on Vlad III and a reinvention of the vampire myth than being a true prequel to Bram Stocker’s book, he is only a hero in that he is a ruling lord doing what any feudal lord would do in his time that is protecting his people (part of the tacit contract between the peasants working for him while knights and lords would assure their protection against any invader). Had Hungarians attacked instead historically it would have been the exact same thing, but it just happened to be the Ottoman empire being linked to Vlad Tepes.

Moreoever, the movie does actually a good job in avoiding putting religions and beliefs as part of the conflict in this tale, even the Christian faith only briefly appears under the guise of the typical vampire repellent at rare points of the movie but is never heavily put forward or favored.

To me an invasion is an invasion, there is no why. No justification for those who did abhorrent acts. Jizya! Wasn’t it the same as protection money in modern context imposed among gangsters? Why would someone need to pay for not believing and practicing their faith and so these rightist muslims thought their islam is the best in the world and everyone should follow and the film is bad just becos it has potrayed something bad about muslims? Oh come on!!!

Based on everything you wrote above, I’m sure you read the historical books. AND Im sure you DIDNT read many of Islamic book which refers to the meaning and purpose of JIZYA and WHY Islam continuously INVADE(as what you called it) other country or empire at that time. You should refer to all sources from all religion in order to have enough academic knowledge to make an opinion. WAllahuA’lam. Thanks.