Muslim extremists conspiring to overthrow Great Britain

Originally posted by eyescryforALLAAH07

IF the woman has grounds for a divorce, she can go to ANY qualified scholar or shari#ah court and put forward her case.
if they deem it a good reason they will tell her "right you are divorced" and that is it![/QUOTE]

This was more or less what the programme actually said.

[QUOTE]whereas the husband can issue the pronouncement of divorce 3 times to finalise it (usually with at least one month between), [/QUOTE]

This too was explained, although as one of the young Muslim men at the centre of one of the domestic desputes was explaining, there seemed to be an almost ‘Candyman’ aspect to it, where he could pronounce the divorce pretty much by just repeating it three times there and then without having to wait any particular length of time. Whilst it’s a while since I saw the show and am possibly misremembering a couple of things, I do remember one of the Muslim women actually pointing out how unfair this was; a wife had to petition a male Sharia court and have it drag on and one, whereas the husband had no such problems and could just pretty much end the marriage there and then.

the woman CAN get a divorce if her husband is unjust to her... like the following things:

[QUOTE] 2 - if the husband apostates from islaam the woman is AUTOMATICALLY divorced from him IMMEDIATELY.[/QUOTE]

One of the Muslim males in the programme seemed pretty much into pornography. I've got a recollection of it being an issue because his kids were finding it and this was one of the reasons the woman wanted a divorce. I'm not sure how Islam stands on pornography, how does it stand?

[QUOTE]i could go on and on and on... and like you said you watched something on tv!
do you always trust the media? [/QUOTE]

No, I don't always trust what I see in the media. Although, you are offering me information via a media channel, the internet, am I to trust you ?

As I said initially, the programme seemed fairly even handed to me. It was presented by a young Muslim male, and was generally sympathetic. If anything, it painted the reality of the implementation of Sharia law as being very drab and mundane: hardly the hotbed of insurgency conspiracy that some would like to believe.


[QUOTE]usually on these types of programmes they have either ignorant muslims who are so confused with the rulings of marriage and divorce that they think our laws are like that of the jews OR you have extremists who treat divorce just like the jews![/QUOTE]

To be fair, I'm not sure whether in the position to comment on this particular programme if you hadn't seen it.

[QUOTE]this means that the man may think he can beat his wife black and blue continually, and think she cannot seek a divorce...
ANY qualified GOOD islaamic scholar or court would issue her a divorce straight away, ESPECIALLY if he has been advised on how unislaamic it is to do such and he continues to do it!...[/QUOTE]

At the risk of going off-topic – or perhaps not – isn’t that actually covered in some Islamic writing, that a husband can beat his wife, but is governed by some guideline about how he does it or what he uses to beat her with?


[edit on 16-9-2008 by Merriman Weir]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Apologies for splitting this into two replies, but the character count was preventing me from responding fully in a single post.

Originally posted by eyescryforALLAAH07
and you see, unlike an "official court", the divorce is immediate with no waiting around... everything paperwork based would be sorted out in due course...

Something else that was shown in the programme too. I was actually initially impressed with this aspect, although I realised afterwards that such immediacy seem a bit of a hollow victory as I’m sure the ramifications of any divorce linger on afterwards, particularly if there’s children involved and depending on the influence of extended families.

anyway, my mother told me the same thing was on GMTV one morning about a sister saying she had waited years to divorce etc...

Hey! I hope your sister doesn't "always trust the media"? After all, the woman on TV could have seen "ANY qualified GOOD islaamic scholar or court"!

Seriously though, you're giving your own example of the point I was making, which only supports whatever point was being made in the programme. Also, several times in my reply, I've given examples where I've pointed out where I've remembered instances in the programme that match what you're saying. It seems like you'd have actually agreed with the bulk of the programme; perhaps it wouldn't have been as 'untrustworthy' as you're suggested.

however in islaam as we believe divorce to be the most hated of lawful things by Allaah, we DO strive to keep marriages together as much as possible, BUT if things are bad within the marriage and continue that way, she does have the right to seek a divorce...
it has happened many times in the u.k and DOES continue to happen

There lies the rub, not for me, but also I think for some of the women in the programme. The male-dominated Sharia court seemed to want to keep marriages together, even when the women didn’t want to be part of that marriage. As you say yourself, the woman “does have the right to seek a divorce”, but seeking a divorce and actually being granted a divorce are completely different things.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

however in islaam as we believe divorce to be the most hated of lawful things by Allaah, we DO strive to keep marriages together as much as possible, BUT if things are bad within the marriage and continue that way, she does have the right to seek a divorce...
it has happened many times in the u.k and DOES continue to happen

There lies the rub, not for me, but also I think for some of the women in the programme. The male-dominated Sharia court seemed to want to keep marriages together, even when the women didn’t want to be part of that marriage. As you say yourself, the woman “does have the right to seek a divorce”, but seeking a divorce and actually being granted a divorce are completely different things.

well look who is nit-picking lol...

like i said if she is in the right it IS granted...
the reason why i said IF is because some women today are VERY materialistic, and it is NOT grounds for divorce if her husband doesn't give her tonnes of money each month, or doesn't buy her fancy cars etc...
neither is it grounds for divorce if he takes another wife as this is 100% ALLOWED in islaam, HOWEVER if he is unjust after taking another wife then YES it is grounds for a divorce...
i know of PLENTY sisters in the u.k who have been divorced immediately...

you see, i do NOT follow wahhabi scholars who have said to a sister before, who complained about her husband constantly beating her "sister, have patience and you will be rewarded insha'Allaah!"
WHAT?
any of the scholars upon the haqq / truth would give her a divorce immediately, as i have known of several times before!
brutality towards the wife is not islaamic and she does NOT have to endure this...

"

"Among my followers the best of men are those who are best to their wives, and the best of women are those who are best to their husbands. To each of such women is set down a reward equivalent to the reward of a thousand martyrs. Among my followers, again, the best of women are those who assist their husbands in their work, and love them dearly for everything, save what is a transgression of Allah's laws."

here is a fatwa given by one of the scholars upon the TRUTH
(do not misinterpret the qur'aan because you need to understand what the arabic word often TRANSLATED as beat, means.)

It is a shame upon you that;

1. As a man, you hit a woman;
2. and that she is your wife;
3. and that she is pregnant.

You are to be blamed for all that (i.e nothing and no-one else for beating her)... You should endevour to reform yourself and until then behave. Offer your wife sincere apology and make up for the wrong you have done. You should also make istighfaar (prayers of seeking forgiveness) your entire life and regret the incident.
Beg Allah not to hold to and hold you back in His court on the day of judgment for abusing your wife.
Men who abuse their wives should never be unmindful of Allahs wrath and punishment.
Allah is All-Seeing and All-Hearing.
FEAR ALLAH.
and Allah Ta'ala (most High) Knows Best.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

[edit on 16-9-2008 by eyescryforALLAAH07]

Originally posted by eyescryforALLAAH07


well look who is nit-picking lol...

like i said if she is in the right it IS granted...
the reason why i said IF is because some women today are VERY materialistic, and it is NOT grounds for divorce if her husband doesn't give her tonnes of money each month, or doesn't buy her fancy cars etc...
neither is it grounds for divorce if he takes another wife as this is 100% ALLOWED in islaam, HOWEVER if he is unjust after taking another wife then YES it is grounds for a divorce...
i know of PLENTY sisters in the u.k who have been divorced immediately...

But why should it be about being "in the right"? Why shouldn't it just be about whether someone wants no longer wants to be married? Does Sharia law cover 'look, it's obvious it's not working out'?

If you're making the the multi-marriage point in reference to the point I made earlier, I think it was more about the fact, that the other wife was in a different country and the way he was splitting his time between the two homes was causing the problems. It didn't seem to be the fact that he had two wives per se. I think the woman accepted that particular detail.

That said, again this is another area where Sharia/Islamic law doesn't sit too well with British law and indicates they're not wholly compatible. Britain tentatively recognises polygamous as long as they've been conducted in other countries; it doesn't recognises polygamous marriages conducted here. Also, as far as I'm aware, despite Sharia-approved divorce being, apparently, more commonplace than it might appear in this country, it's not actually recognised by British law and people remarrying in this country run the risk of bigamy.

Which leads onto the general point about the 'fairness' of polygamous relationships. I dare say I don't have to explain to you the meaning of 'polygamous', which loosely means 'many females'. The male Muslim can be marriage to several women, but it seems strange to me, that a culture/religion that promotes the multiple marriages doesn't recognise polyandry. I think the idea of a woman having several husbands would be 'unthinkable' to most Muslim men. If this isn't the case, why doesn't it happen? I'm sure there must be Muslim women out there wealthy enough to meet any Sharia requirements about supporting several spouses and so on.

oh, this is hilarious. the reason that britain is attractive to these people is that it is not run by religious funamentalists. as soon as britain is overrun by millions of moslems and run by some crazy mullah it will become another "stan" and they will leave in droves looking for the next civilised country. if their way was so good they wouldnt be leaving pakistan, afghanistan and all other islamic nations and mooching off us. It amazes me that these people beleive that by destroying that which is good about countries like britain and overtaking itwith their bigoted fundamentalism that things would somehow be better for them. You cant make a purse out of a pigs ear, there will be poverty and despair wherever funamentalism predominates.

Originally posted by fozotronic
there will be poverty and despair wherever funamentalism predominates.

However, it is exactly these prerequisites that tend to foster fundamentalism. Evil begets evil.

reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge


Islamic fundamentslism is on the increase in the UK, a country where Muslim immigrants enjoy a much better standard of living than which they did in their countries of origin.

Islamic fundamentalism is brutal and all controlling, it doesn't require economic povertyfor it to spread.
Many fundamentalist leaders / exponents come from affluent backgrounds.
E.g. The terrorists who attacked Glasgow airport were all qualified Doctors.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Maybe you don't want to see me burnt at the stake.

But if Britain ever gets a full-on Muslim PM (and the way things look right now, that isn't such an impossible thing to see in the near future), I can assure you that under Islam rule...

There is no toleration for Witchcraft...!!!

None what so ever!!!

They still Execute witches in the middle East...!!!

They either burn them, behead them or stone them.

Don't say it doesn’t happen & Muslims aren't that backward... cause they are & I can show you a number of extremely graphic Witchcraft related execution Videos and Images from the middle East. If you want em for proof that it still happens, I'll Email em to you, but I won't risk posting them or links to them here.

[edit on 9/16/2008 by Ironclad]

reply to post by johnsky


Seems that religion of any sort is the problem. Need to get rid of sectarian governments of all kinds. Imagine no religion! Nothing to kill and die for.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by eyescryforALLAAH07

he male Muslim can be marriage to several women, but it seems strange to me, that a culture/religion that promotes the multiple marriages doesn't recognise polyandry.

oh... so YOU would marry a woman who is having regulard sex with another husband?

let's discuss polyandry shall we?

okay, if a woman has 2 husbands, HOW will she satisfy the sexual desire of BOTH when it is FACT that a woman has a lower sexdrive than a man?
HOW would you decifer who is the father of the child if she fell pregnant, especially if they are in a country where dna testing isn't present?
i find the idea of a woman having 2 men having their way with her DISGUSTING and against human nature!
men NATURALLY have an inclination towards more than one woman, they have a higher sexdrive etc, and even looking in the BIBLE it mentions that the prophets (aside from jesus) had multiple wives! peace and blessings be upon them all

the difference with islaam is that there is a LIMIT given i.e 4, AND the qur'aan CLEARLY states:

suraat an-nisaa (4)

1 O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.
2 And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime.
3 And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.
4 And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.
5 And do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of (the profits of) it, and clothe them and speak to them words of honest advice.


i am sure that YOU wouldn't marry a woman who is married to another man!
the thought of such a thing makes ANY MODEST WOMAN'S skin crawl!

now, why is it okay for a woman to have a husband with more than one wife?
well, for starters women mainly crave EMOTIONAL support, and as long as the man is just between the 2/3/4, and the wives are close friends also, then this does not bother them if their rights are being fulfilled!
as Allaah Almighty has said "if you fear you cannot deal justly..." and this is exactly the case! as long as the man is JUST in dealing with his wives, yes there will be some form of jealousy as this is a natural reaction in this world, then there isn't much of a problem and the women merely observe patience and tolerance...

for the reasons i listed about polyandry, AND the faxct that it is prohibited by The Almighty, THIS is why we disagree with it...

and PLEASE, let us stay on topic and not keep deviating!
if nothing else is to be said with regards to the topic, then stop posting!

reply to post by eyescryforALLAAH07


jewish courts are not recognised by english law and they havent asked for it

its a bit difference

hello All

right

Muslims
some very nice some not nice

many sects and different interpretations of the Koran

Liberals do not want to live under sharia Law and conquer all nations in the name of Islam

The extremists do, and this is the problem, this is the Islam I am worried about. By hook or crook, guile and subtlety and force they will attempt to achieve this. It is the extremists that are lobbying for this that and the other to national governments and the UN and EU.

Liberal Muslims will be caught in the cross hairs of the extremist, just as they are in Muslim countries now because the extremists see the liberals as much as an infidel as the non muslim.

Lets not forget it was not only the Papacy that advocated invasions of the holy lands, the muslims did there own in Africa and southern Europe. A conveniently forgotten fact.

david

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

Good post Pheonix, I agree. Of those that defend Islam here, I respect you the most.

One thing though bud, you need to stop using female avatars. Guys are supposed to use guy avatars, or be prepared to be constantly thought of as a female.

Well thank you! And I do agree with some of your views too.

And yes I REALLY need to change this avatar lol.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by _Phoenix_]

It's nice to dream of the day when there will be no more religion..... but what are we to do with the mindless fringe that needs religion to guide their every move?

The extremists will get their way and win because I have lost faith in Britain that does not believe anymore. Britain has lost its britishness to fight and stick up for it self.

I bet they want extremists to rise because that way they have something in common which is to imprison the nation into an orwellian illuminati sharia law society where technology keeps track of the public and the state of fear keeps people agreeing to giving up their freedoms and privacy.

If the devil exists he would do that since all the above titles share Satanic ties of orgins. But if not, then see it that there is hardly any difference between all the extreme politics in the world that don't allow freedoms.

They are amalgermating every worse trait so that it works like an octopus with many arms sorting out socity under different laws but the core brain is one big messed up Satanic system controlling everyone as keeping happy in but imprisoned in walls of fear.

reply to post by Ownification


So because I state a few facts about the condition of Israel and how they've been kicking Muslim ass for decades after being attacked by Muslim, I'm now an Zionist sympathizer?

Nope. But I have the highest respect for fighting men, men of courage, and men who prevail, even against overwhelming odds. I detest those who fight without balls, men who would strap an explosive vest on some female retards and detonate remotely. I detest those who would kill innocents, including children.

And as far as calling bastards "bastards," I don't care about their numbers. Right now my numbers are 44 confirmed. And legal. And against some of the bravest, most capable warriors anywhere.

No, I admire courage, intelligence, and a well disciplined group of fighters. If somehow that makes me what you call a Zionist sympathizer, then I guess that's what I am.

The map of the entire Middle East was drawn up at random. War now has redefined those initial lines, with territory going to the victor. Too bad. You know, it would be one thing if Israel gained their territory by attacking and going on the offensive. But they didn't. They only responded when attacked. That takes some serious gonads, something lacking from the countries around them.

oh cmon folks dont fall for the propaganda.

the oldest trick in the book is using an enemy to act as a bogey man to control your flock.

its built into our dna as a survival mechanism from our primordial past. when theres an enemy people automaticly stop thinking rationaly and look towards thier alpha male figure for protection,the rulers in our case.

its being used on the other side too, the extremists using us a bogeyman ,yet we pretty much caused this situation with our foriegn policy which was intentionaly designed to create an enemy for political and military-economic reasons.

Originally posted by Cythraul

Yes but it is not America that faces having it's land and culture turned into a giant mosque... and in fact, America has less history and less claim to its land than the white British do. We have SO MUCH to protect and preserve. I'm in support of smallscale, controlled immigration into Britain, but I outright oppose bogus asylum (where the seeker could find asylum in a more suitable country close to their homeland) and outright oppose mass-immigration and a multiculturalism where original British culture and peoples are no longer the dominant force in their own land. Every people and culture in the world deserves their own land where their own original culture dominates. As backed up by Phoenix's following statement:

I'm interested to know whether you would support the mass migration of say, British people to Morocco? I'm aware that a few have settled there or bought holiday homes. But what if the British made up a sizeable proportion of the population and began to expect equal ownership of the land, and started to call themselves 'Moroccans'? Is that a good way to ensure that 'each different culture' survives and maintains what is unique and wonderful about itself?

I'm sorry but global multiculturalism will lead to the rapid disappearance of all the world's beautiful unique cultures. Britain is first in line.

I'm sorry but it's human nature, London for example is already a multi cultral society and has been for many years, and it's impossible to stop that. Myself I love London just for this very fact. The different people and no seperation.

Wether you agree or disagee with this, it can't really change this fact sorry. We can only change the future. But for those non white people who are BORN here they have been here just as long as you white people have. It belongs to them just as much, because this country is all they know.

What else can I say, it's just the way it is.



And that Morocco comment, well Morocco "has" been through many different culture changes, so has most countries.

If you don't mind let me tell you, Morocco has very interesting history.

The Berbers.
Berber Morocco
Morocco has been inhabited since Neolithic times at least since 8000 BC by people known as the Amazigh people, referred to as Berbers

At the time of the roman empire, the romans used Morocco as a strategic region
when the romans left in the 5th Century the region got took over by the
the Vandals, Visigoths, and then Byzantine Greeks rather quickly.
Many of the berbers lived in the mountains, and were not effected much by all this.

Now In the seventh century, the berbers still lived in Morocco, but this is when the arabs came to Morocco and lived there, when they came they influenced the berbers, and they bought their customs and culture with them. This created a new culture, a mix of the old culture and the new.
Now it became a country mixed with berber and arab.

From the 8th Century to the 11th and on there were a few civil wars and influences from such power as the Idrisid Dynasty(arab settlers) who established Fes as capital of Morocco. After a while the arab settlers lost political control, and the berber dynasty gained control of power and goverment over the country and it continiued, but this was the beginning, eventually The Almoravids(Berber 11th century), the Almohads(Berber 12 century), then the Marinid( Ifriqiya 15th century) and finally the Saadi dynasties(Arab 15-16th century) all took control of Morocco or parts of morocco and influenced the culture etc.

After the Saadi Dynasties, the Arab Alaouite Dynasty eventually gained control. At the time Morocco was facing aggression from Spain and The Ottoman Empire(turkish). But the Alaouites Dynasty succeded in keeping their position and controll and they remained quite wealthy. In 1684, they took the city Tangier, which by the way was taken control by the portuguese before that and later was given to Charles II of England. When the english were forced out. The English decided to destroy the town and its port facilities prior to their departure in 1684.

There were other spanish influences, african, black Moroccans and others etc but I'll just carry on.
Also I'll just add that Morocco was home to more Jews than any other Muslim country in the world. The Jewish community of Morocco, which dates back more than 2,000 years, has experienced various waves of both tolerance and discrimination.

Now on to the barbary Pirates! From the time of the Crusades until the early 19th century in north Africa. There were powerful and dangerous pirates!

They captured around over 1 Million europeans from england, spain, italy, france etc etc and made them into slaves.

These attacks when capturing the europeans caused France, England, and Spain to each lose thousands of ships, and long stretches of coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned by the people. Pirate raids stop people wanting to settle along the coast until the 19th century.

From 1609 to 1616, England lost 466 merchant ships to Barbary pirates. In the 19th century, Latterly American ships were attacked. The babrbary pirates also made ships pay licence tax for safe travel. One American slave reported that the Algerians had enslaved 130 American seamen in the Mediterranean and Atlantic from 1785 to 1793.
For more info.
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1777 Morocco was actually the "first" nation to recognize the fledgling United States as an independent nation!
In the beginning of the American Revolution, American merchant ships were attacked by the Barbary Pirates while sailing the Atlantic Ocean. At this time, American envoys tried to obtain protection from European powers, but to no avail. On December 20, 1777, Morocco's Sultan Mohammed III declared that the American merchant ships would be under the protection of the sultanate and could thus enjoy safe passage. Eventually the pirates by th 19th century slowly died out, disappered, only some small attacks up to 20th century did happen.

The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty!

In the beginning of the 20th century french had huge influence over Morocco, culture, economic etc etc for many reasons I would prefer not to go into detail right now lol, anyway french became the second language in Morocco. Almost everyone talks french in Morocco now, and watches french TV etc. Probably one of the reasons theres quite a few Moroccans in france.

Morocco recovered its political independence from France on March 2, 1956.

The influences of culture changes shows in the food too!
This is a result of the centuries-long interaction of Morocco with the outside world. The cuisine of Morocco is a mix of Berber, Spanish, Corsican, Portuguese, Moorish, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and African cuisines. The cuisine of Morocco has been influenced by the native Berber cuisine, the Arabic Andalusian cuisine brought by the Moriscos when they left Spain, the Turkish cuisine from the Turks and the Middle Eastern cuisines brought by the Arabs, as well as Jewish cuisine.

So morocco has had influence so that their culture is a mix of arabic, berber, spanish, english, french etc. (thats why it's a great place to visit, it has a sense of mystery and beauty)

And now Morocco is still in big culture change, influences from all over the world, all kinds of music, all western products, bollywood movies, western clothes, fashion, bigger cities for example Casablanca.

Well that took quite some time to write lol.

The cultures of the countries in this world has always been changing and always will change, it's the way of life.

Thank you for reading.

Peace.



[edit on 16-9-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Wether you agree or disagee with this, it can't really change this fact sorry. We can only change the future. But for those non white people who are BORN here they have been here just as long as you white people have. It belongs to them just as much, because this country is all they know.

Firstly, thank you for the Moroccan history lesson. Very interesting. I believe it's a shame they have had Islam imposed upon their beautiful ancient heritage, but nevertheless - very heartwarming to read about a rich culture.

Secondly, I'm sorry to come off sounding like a b*stard here but no, Britain does not belong to second+ generation immigrants as much as it does to the indigenous Brits. Their ancestors did not build Britain, they did not fight thousands of years worth of wars to protect it, they did not make it a wealthy country. As you can probably tell, I believe very strongly in bloodlines and ancestry. This piece of land is in the blood of the indigenous. Immigrants with no British ancestry do not have a vested spiritual passion for the land and I believe that's why they are drawn to Urban areas. A Brit of Indian descent whose grandparents came to Britain 60 years ago has more ownership over the land than an Iraqi whose parents moved here 20 years ago, and so on in varying degrees. I know this sounds like a cruel viewpoint and I had some trouble coming to terms with such a mindset initially myself. But through pragmatic consideration of how best to preserve independent peoples and cultures, I realised that such strict perspectives are necessary if the world is to avoid Globalist oblivion.

And you're right. London is absolutely multicultural. There may be no way to undo the damage done by multiculturalism. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to hold onto my heritage and my beliefs. Europe should stay European, Africa should stay African and China should stay Chinese. The watering down of all the world's cultures by multiculturalism is about the most anti-cultural concept possible. It's as if to say "No! Independent culture shouldn't be allowed! It shouldn't be preserved, it should be forgotten and forsaken for a new monocultural blend."

[edit on 16/9/2008 by Cythraul]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Thanks for the history on Morocco. What percentage of Morocco is Muslim? How safe is it for a white man to walk around? Isn't Casablanca in Morocco? Also, from my understanding, one of the populations with the highest percentages of RH negative blood is in the Mountains in Morocco. These people are probably related to the Basques, and the ancient Britons, after whom the British isles are named.

The way I see it, it that we either talk about our problems, suspicions, and fears in the escalating war between non-Muslims, even when these exchanges get ugly, or we can be silent, and the violence will come sooner than later.