I really don't care how many wives a Muslim has, unless they are forced marriages.

I understand that in Islam you can have upto 4 wives providing you can provide for them.

In a lot of the cases they cannot provide for them but the welfare state does.

This is my beef why are we paying for some sex-crazed musulman to break our laws and shag himself crazy, yes I am jealous !!!!!!

In France its a well known fact that Muslims have as many children as they can so that they can claim the benefits.

In a lot of cases this amounts to thousands of Euros. Also, just recently the French passed a law encouraging its citizens to have more children in return for extra money.......... I understand that in the UK a similar system exists but you don't get extra money for more kids.

A more serious issue is that with rising unemployment and the Muslims rather lackadaisical approach to Education, what we are encouraging is civil war by masses of bored, unemployed youths.

Just look at the Banleius outside of Paris or what is happening in lots of other European countries.

Posted by: ericthekuffar at March 1, 2008 7:11 AM

I like these titles you've been coming up with. Have you thought about the Borscht Belt this summer?

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2008 8:30 AM

Oh, it was David J. Rusin's title. Never mind.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2008 8:31 AM

State welfare transfer payments are nothing more than jizya so that muslims can use the population bomb against us in slow jihad. Why are these welfare payments given to every Tom Dick and Harry (or in this case tariq, mohammed and hussein)? If the mythical liberal muslim exists, then why aren't they speaking out?

Posted by: lonewolf at March 1, 2008 8:34 AM

Change the laws! Do not allow these people to survive at our expense.

Posted by: lonewolf at March 1, 2008 8:38 AM

The laws prohibiting polygamy need to be enforced all over the West. Simply enforced. Those practicing polygamy should not be receiving any benefits from generous Western governments -- not the husbands, not the wives, not the children. The adults should be prosecuted, with stiff fines (designed to recover all of the sums spent supporting such an illegal arrangement) and, for the men, jail terms. Those who wish to practice polygamy can go to any of a number of countries. There are 57 members of the O.I.C. One or more of them will surely take such people in.

It's not our business. It's not our affair. We don't need to stand for it. End of story.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2008 8:49 AM

The presence of Muslims = the presence of Sharia.

The presence of Sharia = the presence of fascism, terrorism, intolerance, menace & murder.

Posted by: jsla at March 1, 2008 12:07 PM

The legal sanction for monogamy only is up there in significance with the magna carta and Socrates. We would be jackasses not to defend it. And I am not talking about gay marriage. I am talking about one of the most profound aspects of Western civilization, as problematic as the institution might be for human beings.

Posted by: Moonzoo at March 1, 2008 12:28 PM

And btw, responding to a poster above, I very much care how many wives a man has, including how many wives mohammed-worshippers have. Polygamy, a legal institution, institutionalizes pig behavior. I care whenever any man for whatever reason is acting like a pig. Basic respect for every human being demands as much.

Posted by: Moonzoo at March 1, 2008 12:32 PM

I really don't care how many wives a Muslim has, unless they are forced marriages. Ericthekuffar

Polygamy should have never been made a crime unless it has been forced, or the wives are not aware of the situation.
Polygamy is fun, trust me. Just be aware: it is not cheap.
As for the benefits, those are paid to single mothers as well, which is wrong as it creates more single mothers. Childs’ benefits should not be paid at all, to Muslims or non Muslims. Tax deductible expenses like education or health insurance are enough. The state does not owe living to its citizens.

Posted by: pong at March 1, 2008 1:11 PM

Utah was not allowed into the Union until it banned, made ILLEGAL, the taking of more than one wife. Recently much was made of the southern Utah man for his polygamy and the taking of underage wives. He was for many years one of the FBI's most wanted and it was ballyhood in headlines nation wide when he was captured. Mormons, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, do NOT subscribe to multiple wives any longer, although there are offshoots of the religion that still do and funny thing, HA HA, THEY are the ones saying that they are the TRUE church of JCoLDS. Sound familiar?? The fact remains that when the laws are enforced against white anglosaxon Christians, the same should be done for everyone, including those Muslims trying only to practice their religion. East is East and West is West and never the 'twain shall meet. Hrm, forgot who said that, sorry, but apparently it seems not too many subscribe to that and are trying to force the rest of us to subscribe to the 'easts' standards. Not I. Don't Tread On Me.

Posted by: Coeurmaeghan at March 1, 2008 1:26 PM

"East is East and West is West and never the 'twain shall meet."

Mark Twain? just kidding.

The abuse that have occurred in Colorado City should be a lesson to everyone that polygamy has, can and will be used to oppress women.

Why no polylandry in Islam? Oh, that might imply that women are equal to men.............

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 1, 2008 3:03 PM

"The laws prohibiting polygamy need to be enforced all over the West. Simply enforced."

There are thousands of laws that while not overturned are simply not enforced. Fact is that many if not most of those who immigrate to the west do so for reasons unrelated to culture, they do not want to be Germans, Brits, or americans, they want the money that the wests culture has made possible for the masses, but they want to retain the culture that has impoverished their own nations so drastically.

Posted by: stickman at March 1, 2008 4:26 PM

“Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65.”

Nope. This should be considered an un-Islamic situation. There is the caveat in the Qur'an about being able to support the number of wives in question.

I doubt Islamic countries smile on a man who can't support his wives.

Posted by: Abscedere at March 1, 2008 5:58 PM

"Niqab-clad Myra, a convert to Islam two decades earlier, acceded to his bond with the younger woman, whom he had met online in late 2006. Privately, however, the 47-year-old mother was shattered, recording her dismay in a journal and lamenting to friends that she no longer received attention."

Well, duh! What did she expect?? I wonder if she's still merrily niqab-clad...

Posted by: Lili at March 1, 2008 7:20 PM

One example of their burgeoning population and growth of muslims is that one muslim male can have 4-6+ kids with one wife, mulitiplied many times. Just because a man can have up to 4 wives doesn't mean that they stop with 4. They can divorce and remarry as often as they want. And with the likes of Europe who is experiencing this at a greater rate than we are - they just practice their sharia law despite being in a Western land.

We really need to kick these people either out if they are new immigrants, or put them in jail. Stop supporting them with welfare! A woman can get her tail to work just like a man in our society! And once that starts happening things might start changing. I thought we had welfare reform? What happened?!

Posted by: R_not at March 1, 2008 10:15 PM

In cultures where men and women are not in the same legal position, nobody is, it takes the whole human race to make a society work.

If we lose this perspective, we'll lose our freedoms and our way of life.

This has nothing to do with sexual insecurity, but everything with how it wors. If you do not believe me: look at the societies where pologamy is the norm (for about 25% of the male population, don't ask about the other 75%), and backwardsness the practess.

Posted by: Ernst at March 1, 2008 11:12 PM

I understand the sentiments of those who demand that Western laws be enforced. Problem here is - polygamy is legal in Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, et al. So if a Londonistan resident on some of his many visits to Pakistan legally marries his cousin, his neice, his sister-in-law and his family maid, what does the UK, in this example do? How do they determine which marriage to recognize and which one not to? It's almost like expecting Westerners to interpret which hadiths are authentic and which ones aren't.

Also, given that there are no Western laws against people having multiple affairs without marrying, this one seems more a variant of that, except for the perpetrator in this case claiming all the women involved as his wives.

Simple solution - if Muslims can't be deported en mass, simply make the mere existance of polygamous relationships the basis to cut off all benefits (since nobody has the balls to do that simply on the basis of being Mohammedan).

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2008 2:22 AM

My point above is that it would be a situation analogous to the US if gay marriage were to be recognized in some states, but not others. In this case, you have polygamous marriages being recognized in some (i.e. Islamic) countries, but not others.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2008 2:25 AM

“Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65.”

Abscedere

is this a ruling in England ?

Posted by: ericthekuffar at March 2, 2008 2:38 AM

Medieval Islamic Shariah law in a Modern secular world…. ?

by Humanist International, Switzerland
Humaniste_international@...
The response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's confused lecture on 7 February 2008, " Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective", has included discussion of the character of the "medieval and repressive sharia" that formed an important part of the address.
Il is a valid arguement that there is no fixed and settled system of law called sharia; that this word does not, originally, had the meaning of "law", and is indeed cognate with the word for "path" or"street". Il is also usefull recallimg that the various schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) have issued divergent opinions down the centuries on all kinds of legal matters; and one may conclude that it is not sensible of the Church of England's spiritual leader to anticipate some compromise between the United Kingdom's modern and secular jurisdiction and the medieval and suppressive Islamic sharia.

The divine and the human

Il is necessary to reminds people in Britain (and Europe) of what they suffered of the dreadful religion in the shape of the Christian legacy. And one of the horrors that they owe to that Christian legacy is the idea that under religion, the law becomes merely a maid in the hands of the religious bureaucracy of fascist bishops and pedophil priests, the rapacious monks and the sexually immoral nuns-the religious prostitutes. The religious bureaucracy which tortured, burned and kiled millions of Europeans for witchcraft and heresy under the infamous Christian Inquisition. That only a secular institution, whose authority is founded in reaonable and rational human decisions can guarantee the fundamental human rights and civil libeties. Such institution which is independent of religion make ethical rules that takes precedence over the so-called and fictional divine commands.
Religiously brainwashed, socially primitive and medieval-minded Muslims may find it difficult to accept a civilized and secular vision of law. But il is time to ponder. How can the so-called fictional divine commands take precedence over rational and reasonable human decisions ? How can some real, rational and reasonable human institutions be set aside on the assumption of a demand by a merely fictional Allah or God ?
As to islamic shariah laws produced by the Islamic fiqh schools, it must be held all such schools of fiqh were human institutions which tried to humanize the repressive and barbaric Islamic Bedouin quasi-legal customs and traditions. As such their ijtihad (effort at renewal of religious prescriptions) was expended on showing that the fictional divine law, as revealed in the Qur'an, and as concocted on the name the Sunnah (sayings and actions of the Prophet of Islam collected 250 years after his death), might be made compatible with the social and administrative practices found to be necessary in governing various colonies which the barbaric Islamic Arab Bedouins conquered with their brutal and insatiable swords. These efforts were by turns approved and disapproved, and changed hundred times acording to whims of the conquerers and their lust for brutal misrule, female sex slaves and war booty.
By the time the Ottomans (19th century) strove to release the Muslim people out of the shackles of the primitive Islamic barbarism into the modern world, there was no choice but to adopt modern European codes of law, while allowing the various communities within the empire to settle matters of marriage, domestic strife and inheritance according to their own community traditions, without ever giving any legal status to these barbaric practices.

The cost ofcompromise

The European vision of law is very different, and its roots are deep. Europe has suffered long centuries of medieval Christianity which was trying to re-establish the ancient and barbaric Roman Empire on the name of Christianity.
An Europe harrassed by the fire, swords and the murderous political manipulations by the Christian popes, had to submit to a pronouncement in the story of the tribute money, that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. This has served for many centuries as authority for the view that, in public matters, it is secular and human authorits and not the Christian pope’s divine government that should be obeyed. This idea gained credibility through the Roman spy and an early Christian leader St Paul's letters, influenced as they were by Roman tradition and law and by the knowledge that the early church enjoyed the protection of the developed legal system of lthe Roman Empire.
This law, although tolernt at the begining, soon claimed the absolute religious authority for the Christian religion. The pre-Christian pagan Roman law was equally tolerant of all gods who did not openly confront with the political authority of the Roman emperor and made annual sacrifices on the altar of the emperor. Even if religious edicts crept back into European jurisdictions after the triumph of Christianity, the Roman vision of secular sovereignty as exercised through civil law survived into modern times. It served as the foundation of national jurisdictions, and shaped legal systems in which religious diversity is merely permitted as long as it doesn’t interfere the concern of the secular state.

This kind of secular jurisdiction has enabled people to accept the legitimacy of laws which clearly is different from what they believe to be the fictional divine commands. People in Britain must accept the legality of secular law which includes fundamental human rights, civil liberties, as well as the consensual adult male-femal natural sexual relationship, medically advised abortion; we must allow our children to marry whom they will and also to divorce when the going gets tough, these being few of the rules that may conflict with the medieval and often superstitious and repressive religious convictions.
Moreover any change in these provisions is to be secured by decisions taken in parliament, by elected representatives whose religious views are often kept behind the scene, and whose private conduct is their personal affair. Eurpeans, whether belonging to religious groupos like Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Jews accept the secular law in the civil and criminal matters. Muslims have got to accept it too. For that is the basis on which we are governed. If you don't accept it, then you should explain why it is wrong and why Muslim community should be governed on the basis of a medieval Muslim mis-understanding of law (like forced marriages, multiple wives, beating of women, female sex-slaves, stoning of women, flogging, cutting of hands and feet for theft, beheading for apostacy and blasphemy, slavery etc. etc.).
These Islamic practices are often repungent to the civilized European law codes; so if the Muslims and Bedouins do not like the civilized ways, they should go to their Islamic deserts on their Islamic camels, to backward and barbaric Islamic countries where people are repressed in away more congenial to their barbaric medieval Muslim mentality. In Iran, Bahais are facing meaas-murders and extiction, a fate which awaits Coptics in Efypt and Ahmedis in pakistan. Sudan is a clear example of genocide of non- arabs in our own time.
For many in Islamic countries, the decision on legal codes is not about how the citizens should best be governed now, but about what the Arabian Bedouin ancestor made deity-the Allah, had intended and had revealed 1,500 years ago what nonsense, what imbecility… !
As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is surely the case that his words, however qualified, betray a lack of knowledge and respect for one of the great European achievements - the achievement of a continent that has survived by resisiting Christian fascist attacks on their vivic institution, on the bodies as well as on the minds of women and men.

See other intersting articles by the same author on this topic :

The anti-Shariah storm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanist_international/message/90

What is Islamic Shariah… ?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanist_international/message/86

Posted by: humanist_2008 at March 2, 2008 6:42 AM

Mormons also have plural wives. Best kept secret in the USA.

Posted by: eneri at March 2, 2008 10:39 AM

In the 19th century, Utah was not admitted to the Union until it legally outlawed polygamy. Federal law prohibited polygamy, due to concerns about the status of the many women and children.

Why is this practice permitted anywhere in the West? If Abdul has a bunch of wives and many children, he can support them on his own until he is caught and goes to prison for bigamy.

A woman who converted to Christianity after being brought to the US by her Muslim husband as a polygamous wife thinks this isn't uncommon. This woman was forced to marry the man, who wanted her for the bookkeeper for his business! Eventually she escaped, and now is on the run because her family will murder her if they can find her.

Just read about Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar if you think polygamy might be acceptable. That mess is the origin of most of the troubles in the world today.

Posted by: NavyMom at March 2, 2008 4:35 PM

Since believing Muslims are against any secular rule of law, they cannot honestly become citizens of any but a Sharia-based state, and thus their "citizenship" in the US (etc.) is bogus, and invalid, because it has been fraudulently sworn to.

This should be a legal method to begin shuttling them off to Mecca as freeloaders, frauds, and falsifiers.

Let the Saudis fund their Mohammedan folly.

Enough of the infil-traitors.

Islam is an anti-Constitutional subversive movement aiming for a global theocratic tyranny.

Completely incompatible with America, of the rest of the West.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 2, 2008 10:11 PM

Islam is an anti-Constitutional subversive movement aiming for a global theocratic tyranny.

This is so true and should be put on bumper stickers all over the US
It is hard to count how many Muslims have more than one wife in the US because they usually married the second one in a mosque and nobody knows about it.The last person to know about it it always the first legal wife.(most of the time an American woman who was the key to citizenship)

When are we going to declare Islam illegal?
To morrow will be too late.

Posted by: Tartine at March 2, 2008 10:30 PM