| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
With a bit more bite than The Age, the great Andrew Bolt weighs in on the Australia polygamy controversy: "Polygamy - the right to put down women," from the Herald Sun, June 27:
WE haven't heard the last of this call by Muslim leaders for the right to polygamy.After all, how can a society that's moving to give a man the right to marry another man then refuse a man the right to marry two women?
Give way on gay marriage, you must give way on polygamy. In both cases it's about consenting adults, right?
So I couldn't blame the sheiks who thought it was time this week to demand we change our laws to make polygamy legal.
Sheik Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, said we already had Muslims in polygamous marriages here, and should protect them with legal status.
These weren't just polygamists who had somehow slipped through immigration checks, either: "There are a lot of sheiks here . . . (who) conduct that marriage no problem at all."
Chami soon had backers. Sheik Isse Musse of Werribee mosque said Melbourne had some 20 polygamous families from Africa, mainly Somalis and mainly refugees. The second wives deserved to have their marriages recognised so they weren't seen as having sex outside wedlock but, alas, "the Australian law is unfortunate".
Keysar Trad, translator for the former mufti of Australia and head of the Islamic Friendship Society, agreed, saying he'd even proposed to a second wife. And the current Mufti, Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam, said this was an issue for the Australian National Council of Imams to discuss.
And relax, crooned Yasser Soliman, one of the Muslim advisers handpicked by then prime minister John Howard: "I don't think it should be discussed in terms of any threat to the Australian way of life."
Except, of course, that it is.
It's not just a threat in the obvious way, being a challenge to the way we regard women in this country.
Women have slowly, painfully won the right to be considered equal to men in status and freedoms. Do we betray that ideal now by approving a form of union in which women are inevitably subservient?
It's no coincidence, after all, that these sheiks are utterly against giving women the equal right in turn to several husbands. And you need only hear Trad argue for polygamy to suspect they feel a woman's place is under a man, literally.
Trad this week said he'd proposed to a second woman because he'd fallen in love and thought it sinful to commit adultery. His wife, Hanifa, said she'd approved, because it would mean "having (sex) in the right way instead of having it like go to a prostitute . . ."
A second wife as a prostitute substitute? How could any woman resist such a sweet offer? No wonder Trad's proposal was turned down....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at June 27, 2008 6:50 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
For those who aren't familiar with Australia's newspapers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are owned by Fairfax.
These two newspapers generally don't come down hard on issues such as this apart from the newspapers' token, stand-alone opinion writers such as Andrew Bolt.
However, as could be seen from the editorial and the letters pages from the above newspapers, as well as The Australian (which I consider to be a far superior newspaper), thankfully all pointed in the right direction, condemning the absurd idea proposed by Keysar Trad et al that polygamous marriages should be legalised. Widespread condemnation was swift and hard, which was good.
Fortunately, Bolt is one of the few opinion columnists in Australia who knows what a grave threat Sharia law presents. He's done the nation an honour by writing such a fine article.
Posted by: S Perry![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2008 9:20 AM
Oh, polygamy is total barbarism. There's not even any explanation needed as to why. It's like having to explain why child molestation is bad and wrong. No explanation necessary. Hello.
Bunch of primitive barbarians for whom child molestation is also acceptable. Just read the Ayatollah Khomeini's own words about "thighing" of a baby or young girl, plus sodomy, too. Both acceptable. And, of course, there's the "perfect" example of Mo with nine-year-old Aeisha.
Political Correctness has given the primitive barbarians known as Muslims an inch, and they are taking five million miles. Disgusting. Misogynist, sociopathic, uber-Patriarchal human monsters.
There. Now I feel better. Freedom of Speech!
Posted by: darcy at June 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Darcy,
You nailed it. Opening up marriage to anything but ONE man and ONE woman will eventually demand state sanctioning of various alternate arrangements.
One such arrangement will be polygamy which seems to always be unseparable from child marriage wherever it is practised.
It is the total subjugation of a woman for (supposedly) religious reasons, or for the woman's "protection." Unless the state denies it and punishes those who engage in it, the state implicitly endorses it.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at June 27, 2008 10:41 AM
Thanks, CapGig.
How could anyone in their right mind endorse polygamy? Even the Mormons (and they have a false prophet, too) eschew it.
Posted by: darcy at June 27, 2008 5:39 PM
I don't want to drag gay marriage into this, but as Charles Krauthammer once pointed out, once that starts getting allowed, the time is not far off when polygamy and others would be allowed too. While it's true that polygamous relationships are usually not consensual, what would one do in the cases that it was? And why stop there - why not allow polyamorous relationships - multiple husbands married to multiple wives, resulting in a set of husbands married to a set of wives?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 27, 2008 7:40 PM
Sheik Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, said we already had Muslims in polygamous marriages here, and should protect them with legal status.
Next thing you know, they'll want the "right" to perform "honor" killings and genital mutilation. After all, "we already had Muslims doing these things, and should protect them with legal status."
I've got a better idea: BAN ISLAM!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at June 28, 2008 9:59 AM
And, of course, there's the "perfect" example of Mo with nine-year-old Aeisha.
Posted by: darcy at June 27, 2008 10:00 AM
================================================
That's right, I forgot about that. I guess we should also legalize old men having sex with 9 year old girls, so that these men will have "legal status".
Let's see, what else can we legalize?
* Drunk drivers
* White collar criminals
* Grand-theft auto (in honor of the kids who play the video game)
* Burglary
* Marijuana and cocaine usage
* Drug traffickers (they're just making a living)
The list could go on and on! These poor people don't have "legal status".
You finally come to the conclusion that Muslims don't have a clue what "civilized society" means.
at June 28, 2008 10:07 AM
The Anglican Church worldwide has a formidable organisation known as the 'Mothers' Union' (or MU) whose brief is to promote family life as understood by Christians, that is, one man-one woman life-long, fidelity, marital love and loving, positive child-rearing. The Union also offers help to abused and at-risk women and children. It is very active in the church's 'third world' parishes. It tends to have a strongly evangelical membership.
There are branches in many parishes and many countries. The MU exists in southern Sudan among Anglicans there; it exists even in Iraq (the last MU publication had a full two pages devoted to the Muslims' ferocious persecution of Iraqi Christians, and what the MU, Iraqi branch, was doing in the midst of this).
Today I was speaking with an MU member at our church; I mentioned the Muslim demand for recognition of Muslim polygamy in Australia, and my support for the Attorney-General's categorical rejection of that demand. The lady told me that the MU Australia-wide is going in boots and all on the subject.
Our parliamentarians and the Attorney-General will be receiving an avalanche of mail from Mothers Union members, expressing support for maintenance and defence of existing Australian law, and adamantly opposing polygamy.
I should add that the Union counts among its members and leadership quite a few formidable and well-heeled matrons, the sorts of ladies who head up large charities. It is probable that some of these ladies will be ringing up, and even personally visiting, their parliamentary representatives.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 28, 2008 9:40 PM
We can send Mr Bolt the Quran texts that are used to support and prescribe polygamy, or, more correctly, polygyny. We can point him to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 'The Caged Virgin' and Nonie Darwish, 'Now they Call Me Infidel', which includes scathing analysis of the psychological and sociological fallout from Muslim polygyny.
I suggest that we also, just for fun, send Mr Bolt this link - to the recent posting at this site, of the Saudi TV interview with a Saudi 'marriage officiant' discussing marriage to little girls, and the Islamic reasons for it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021524.php
Saudi "marriage officiant": Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and had sex with her when she was nine.
The interview includes information on child marriage in Yemen, cheerfully volunteered by the interviewee without, apparently, any hint of disapproval:
"Q: But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for having sex for the first time?
"A: This varies according to environment and traditions. In Yemen, girls are married off at nine, ten, eleven, eight, or thirteen...".
Show Mr Bolt where to find out all about the whole can of worms that is 'family sharia': all of which - polygyny; marriage to, and sex with, prepubescent girls; use of concubines/ slave girls; talaq divorce; stoning for adultery; automatic exclusive male custody of children in cases of divorce; the Quran's advice to men to beat wives who MIGHT be 'disobedient' - is a violation of women's human rights.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 28, 2008 10:03 PM
Hugh Hefner versus the Mormon polygamists of FLDS
Somewhere between gay marriage and glorified cohabitation we have succumbed in many ways to this already. Pandora's box has been not just opened... but the lid has been ripped clear off!
One wonders what gay and lesbian polygamy will look like.
Posted by: A Simple Sinner at June 29, 2008 1:24 AM
Three years ago, the Muslims (led by Keysar Trad, again) were trying it on, just like now. Back then, they wanted sharia courts for what Nonie Darwish calls family sharia (they were probably getting ideas from the Muslims in Canada, who were trying for the same thing). Just like now, they hit a brick wall.
Notice the pattern? They make a demand; if we say NO, they retreat, low for a bit; but then they try again, with another demand, to test our resistance, to see if they can get away with it. And they will keep on doing it: that's the point we need to make to our politicians. This is 'raiding parties', just as surely as the raiding parties that nibbled away at the borders of Byzantium and Christian Western Europe during the entire Middle Ages.
Here's the link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005631.php
and an excerpt:
"MUSLIM leaders want to set up a separate Islamic court in Australia to deal specifically with Islamic divorces.
The radical idea was raised by Muslim leaders in a meeting with Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Minister Peter McGauran last week.
"But Mr McGauran and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock yesterday rejected the idea.
"The law in this country is secular. There's a clear separation between religion and the law and Australia's laws apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion," Mr McGauran said.
A spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock added: "It would not be appropriate for the Government to establish a separate religious court."
NO means NO, Mr Muslims.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 3:28 AM
They don't DARE, as yet, not in the wake of huge scandals about pedophile rings, to broach the subject of lowering the age of female consent to nine years - whether the girl has even attained puberty, or not.
I'd like to see them try getting us to alter our laws to permit THAT little piece of sadistic perversity.
They'd get tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 29, 2008 3:31 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)