Take My Wives, Please: Polygamy Heads West
The emergent phenomenon of Muslim men taking multiple wives should be a cause for worry in the Western world, warns David J. Rusin.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Myra Morton approached her sleeping husband on the morning of August 5, 2007, with pain in her heart and a gun in her hand. Once the smoke had cleared at the couple’s upscale home just outside Philadelphia, a man would lie dead, a family secret would be exposed, and a spotlight would shine on the emergent phenomenon of Islamic polygamy in the Western world.
The slaying took place just hours before Jereleigh Morton was scheduled to leave for Morocco on a mission to impregnate his other wife, Zahra Toural. 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. Myra even mailed a letter to immigration officials falsely claiming that Toural had terrorist ties and should thus be prohibited from entering the country. Her husband’s plan to conceive is apparently what sent her over the edge.
Islam did not kill Jereleigh Morton; Myra Morton did. She bears full responsibility for her brutal deed and should be punished accordingly. Regardless of the circumstances, murder is anathema to Western legal and moral standards. Yet so too is polygamy. Recent evidence, however, indicates that governments tend to look the other way as the conjugal mores of seventh-century Arabia - and the problems that travel with them - take root in our backyards. Just as Myra Morton faces justice in a court of law, these drowsy cultural watchdogs must be made to answer in the court of public opinion.
The prevalence of polygamy among Muslims living in the West remains a matter of debate. Here is a sampling of what has been reported: As many as thirty thousand Muslim families in France include more than one wife. There are fifteen thousand in Italy and several thousand in Great Britain. Estimates for the United States typically run into the tens of thousands. Even Australia has been forced to crack down on Muslim men looking to meet potential second wives via the internet.
Individual cases often come to light unexpectedly through high-impact media events such as the Morton saga. Another example is the tragic Bronx house fire that killed ten people on March 7, 2007. Moussa Magassa, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Mali who lost five of his children in the blaze, was discovered to have two wives living a floor apart. A subsequent investigation by the New York Times found polygamy to be an open secret in his immigrant community, with agencies that serve it adhering to a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Lack of official curiosity is just one reason for the poor statistics. Practitioners also labor to avoid scrutiny. Two strategies are common. Some Muslim men with additional wives living abroad arrange for relatives to sponsor visas that can bring them to the West without raising red flags. Others find second, third, or even fourth wives locally, sealing the deal in a nikah ceremony conducted by an imam. Because such marriages are performed under the state’s radar and have no legal standing, the wives enjoy none of the rights guaranteed to spousal partners.
Concern about Islamic polygamy - whether in the West or East - has naturally been dismissed in some quarters as cultural imperialism. For example, Duke University professor Miriam Cooke argues that “polygamy can be liberating and empowering.” As Kay Hymowitz explains in City Journal, “Some women, [Cooke] continued, are relieved when their husbands take a new wife: they won’t have to service him so often. Or they might find they now have the freedom to take a lover. But, I ask, wouldn’t that be dangerous in places where adulteresses can be stoned to death? At any rate, how common is that? ‘I don’t know,’ Cooke answers, ‘I’m interested in discourse.’”
Two nations have apparently skipped the “discourse” and moved straight to capitulation. Following a yearlong review, the British government has ruled that husbands can claim benefits for multiple wives, as long as the marriages are legal in the countries where they were conducted. Specifically, guidelines issued by the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the jobseeker’s allowance state: “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.”
A similar arrangement exists in parts of Canada. According to the Toronto Sun, “Hundreds of [Greater Toronto Area] Muslim men in polygamous marriages … are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say. Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Act Law, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.”
Why should the introduction of - and increasing tolerance toward - Islamic polygamy be a cause for worry in the West?
First, like so many facets of sharia, Islamic family law codifies inequality and thus contravenes both the letter and the spirit of Western jurisprudence. While guidelines that reference polygamy, such as those now regulating welfare benefits in the UK, typically employ general-neutral language, there can be little doubt regarding the very gender-specific nature of the institution as it exists among Muslims. By tacitly recognizing this practice, governments offer their imprimatur to sex discrimination.
Second, Nonie Darwish and Phyllis Chesler have noted that polygamy, when combined with other misogynistic provisions of sharia, breeds societal dysfunction. Plural unions not only inspire distrust between spouses and heightened competition among offspring. Children also learn from an early age that females are unworthy of exclusive affection and therefore hold less value than males. Moreover, if common, polygamy creates legions of unhappily unmarried young men who are ripe for radicalization.
Third, polygamy is illegal in virtually every Western state. Men who partake in such marriages while residing in the West or circumvent immigration rules to gain entry for additional spouses are law-breakers, plain and simple. Which other statutes might they feel comfortable violating in the name of their imported traditions? The mixed message sent by government bureaucrats is particularly damaging in this context. Their multicultural nonchalance undermines both the legal system itself and the foundational values that laws are intended to reflect and secure.
Fourth, the push to normalize polygamy is yet another front in the Islamists’ campaign of inches. Its acceptance would serve as a powerful salient, paving the way for the further implementation of sharia principles. This slippery slope is not lost on Tory shadow secretary Chris Grayling. Discussing the welfare imbroglio, he observed that extending payouts to multiple wives “sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law.”
While Grayling sounds the alarm in Britain, a few European nations have already enacted policies designed to combat polygamous unions. The Telegraph reported in 2004 that Ireland “has ordered all men from Islamic countries seeking residency to sign a sworn affidavit rejecting polygamy. … A man must swear he has ‘one spouse only’ and ‘has no intention of entering into a simultaneous marriage.’” Likewise, the Italian interior ministry has asked Muslim groups to agree to a “values charter” that promotes monogamous families and the equality of women.
Contrary to defeatist pronouncements by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, these examples demonstrate that the arrival of sharia law in the West is not “unavoidable.” It can and will be avoided if the public musters the resolve to beat it back. As Daniel Pipes noted regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ sudden abandonment of Muslim cabbies who object to serving passengers with seeing-eye dogs, widespread outrage is the best disinfectant. “When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority’s will.”
Simply put, the choice is ours: defend a hard-won heritage of freedom and equality, or continue slouching toward sharia. Pray that we choose wisely.
David J. Rusin is a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
52 Comments
tommy:It is rather unfortunate for Britain that muslims can marry by proxy,by telephone or over the internet and no doubt with extended families and all that that entails we will see Britain’s immigration policicies (such that they are) descend into total farce —-
Feb 29, 2008 - 2:00 am AndyA:I was outraged when I hard that our appeasing, kowtowing government here in the UK were going to cave in to this nonsense. The answer is simple: if a man has legitimately married four (or three or five or whatever) women in a country where polygamy is legally recognised, we in the West simply say, “OK, mate. We’ll recognise one of your wives for official purposes, benefit (welfare) status and so forth. Which one is it to be? You choose.” If the rest of them are here, and legitimately so (e.g. they were here already but he went on holiday somewhere and married them), then we say, “It’s entirely up to you how many lodgers you have in your marital home, but only one of them will be recognised as your missus.” Easy-peasy. But no: those tossers in Whitehall continue to lie supine and, when the Muslim says jump, they say, “How high?”
Feb 29, 2008 - 4:21 am Fausta:Strictly speaking, it’s poligyny since women would still not be allowed to have multiple husbands.
Feb 29, 2008 - 5:54 am Jancis M. Andrews:Or would they?
We have the same disgusting problem in Canada, only worse. As well as allowing Muslims and their four wives taxpayer-supported financial help, our misogynistic governments (provincial and federal) have allowed a crazy polygamist community in B.C., called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (all white-skinned, no “coloureds” allowed), run by middle-aged elders, to order girls as young as 15 to become concubines in the men’s harems. The girls are threatened with eternal hell fire if they refuse. That’s rape, but do our government officials care? No. Winston Blackmore now has 26-30 concubines and 115 children and more on the way. Guess who supports these middle-aged Romeos illegal sex-fests? That’s right — the British Columbian taxpayer. Our government officials should be jailed along with the rapists for aiding in child sexual exploitation, and for the denial of the girls’ basic human rights.
Feb 29, 2008 - 6:15 am MerryMaven:Janice Andrews, we have one of those lovely groups, same one I think, in Colorado City, Arizona. There was an attempt to break it up in the 50s I think, but nothing came of it and the evil bastards were allowed to keep on raping girls. I believe they actually operate like carnivorous animals: young men are kicked out so they will not be able to compete for the young girls with the old farts in charge. It’s truly disgraceful that this is allowed to go on and on. Why law enforcement doesn’t break it up is beyond me. Additionally, again just like Muslims, they have a higher incidence of birth defects because of inbreeding.
But here’s another problem: I saw a program on TV about polygamists living in Utah, fundie Mormons, but not part of the Colorado City group. Anyway, they are, like Muslims, married religiously but not legally so the extra wives and kidlets are all able to collect welfare so we end up subsidizing this appalling lifestyle. What is the solution to that? We can’t recognize the plural marriages because that would be very bad for women and our entire society, but we can’t leave the children to starve and if the children aren’t being abused (until they are old enough for old farts to screw, age varies with religion), the local version of Child Protective Services won’t remove them from the home.
So, short of dismantling the entire welfare system, how is this to be solved?
Feb 29, 2008 - 7:38 am Rubicon:If I were a woman, I would be extremely angry that the guy I married has decided to dip his pen elsewhere, based on what he says is a “religious” concept. There is no religion in playing around. There is no love in seeking sexual services with another & expecting the one you promised to love “til death do us part.”
Feb 29, 2008 - 8:29 am Sheila:The real issues with Muslim marriages & other Sharia issues, is that they combine religion and law. To them religion is law and law is religion. In America, our founders fought a war to relieve themselves of a government controlled religion in England & elsewhere. They fought against taxation w/o representation.
Any time we pay taxes & some clown gets paid for something other than what we respect as acceptable conduct, we are taxed unfairly.
Is this objection cultural? You bet your sweet bippy it is! At no time should we be compelled to accept traditions or cultural impositions that defy our laws, customs, and traditions. In addition, we should never permit any portion of religious doctrine to compel our system to legally accept it.
There is much to-do lately about those who object to Christian symbols and such. Yet at the same time some want us to accept a tradition or symbol of another religion, just because we should be tolerant. Where is the tolerance for Christianity if that is the case?
These problems crop up when some want to deal with legal issues based on tolerance or feelings or what is popular at the time. We have w written constitution & it is our law. No exceptions. If the “people” want anything different, there is a mechanism built into the constitution that permits us to make changes. It is tedious & difficult. It is designed to make sure we realize what we are doing & so that some powers to be cannot unduly influence our system to satisfy their desires over others.
We must fight “ALL” judicial fiat. No court can make a law. Laws come from our elected representatives in Congress only. If we want anything different its up to us to make the constitutional change, not some judge who thinks its popular or what they “feel” is right.
One day, judges may make rulings we do not want but because we allowed judges who rule based on popular or feelings, we may find out we allowed them to establish their own legal doctrine that we must then fight to overturn. Legal fiat works against all sides of the aisle. Liberals & Conservatives can have such used against them if we allow it. just as folks in Great Britain are now apparently stuck giving out welfare money to multiple wives to satisfy a judges or a bureaucrats feelings that this is correct since no one should offend another!
Now is the time to stand up in America & tell our government officials, elected leaders, & bureaucrats that we have but one law & we accept no other, no matter how much we offend or how good it makes someone feel!
“The Telegraph reported in 2004 that Ireland “has ordered all men from Islamic countries seeking residency to sign a sworn affidavit rejecting polygamy. …”
As an Irish person I would like to say that we were standing up to Sharia creep. I’m afraid that’s not the case. The political correctness mafia holds a lot of sway.
We have state funded Muslim schools and only today the papers reported that Muslims in Catholic schools are demanding to wear the hijab even though it is not part of the designated uniform.
As with everything in this country - transport, infrastructure, drugs, and now immigration and “multicultural” - we never ever learn from Britain’s mistakes.
Feb 29, 2008 - 8:32 am peggy:Here is my response to those who paint polygamy in glowing colors.
“Women have too much God-given dignity and individuality to be part of a herd”
No matter how one tries to spin it or improve it, the fact remains that women in polygamous marriages are part of a female herd.
Feb 29, 2008 - 11:03 am Little_much:Islamic increasing saturation of the west is all OUR fault. Political correctness via the liberal idiocy is doing nothing for one sector of humanity. From what I see, the UK is lost already, on so many levels. Islam is using the UK’s laws, some of which are completely incredulous, against them. Apparently, Muslim checkout clerks being excused from servicing a customer purchasing alcohol, to pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions to female customers. Same with women Muslim surgeons refusing to wash their arms prior to surgery for fear of exposing their skin, or seeing male patients. Is this what we want for the US?
Women and children will, yet again, suffer for the resurgence of yet ANOTHER fundamentalist religion. Must this battle be fought all over, again?
When are we going to walk the talk of “Separation of Church and State” fought for so hard and long and mean it?
Great article Mr. Rusin. Thank you for keeping this frightening subject at the forefront.
Feb 29, 2008 - 1:16 pm Lloyd:Will this habit also spread West?
A largely successful Arba’een — [Sergeant Grumpy - in Iraq]
http://sgtgrumpy.blogspot.com/2008/02/largely-successful-arbaeen.html
http://tinyurl.com/2kgjqk
…The Shia in my observation are obsessed with suffering and, as might be said in America, immerse themselves in a culture of being the victim. During Ashura they beat and cut themselves to show their devotion to Husayn and his suffering. They also have a bizarre tradition where they put their sons in a tent which is then lit on fire. All the kids are supposed to run out, but we have had to treat some poor boys who were badly burned.
Feb 29, 2008 - 1:51 pm Patrick Murphy:.
Why don’t the Muslim women that aren’t into having to “share” their husbands just divorce the guy? I know that in the Islamic faith women can divorce their husbands. (I came by this information at the Islamic Center in Dharahan, Saudi Arabia and the Immans doing the teaching there. I’m not Muslim, but was just interested and asked about Islam in general and this business of multiple wives was one of the topics I asked about.)
Frankly having been married once and the disaster that occured as a result, I can see NO reason to compound that mistake by having more than one wife!
Feb 29, 2008 - 10:11 pm Taqiyya Basher:The reason why neither media nor governments deal forcefully and unambiguously with this problem of polygamy is because they do not want to confront the fact that polygamy is sanctioned in the Koran and the aHadith because Muhammed, the warlord founder of this cult, took “wives” and “sex slaves” from among the captives he and his armies amassed in battle. To acknowledge that fact would mean having to acknowledge that Islam’s founder committed murder, rape, pillage, was a slave owner and a dictator. That hardly accords either with the general notion of conduct expected from any “prophet” or with the popular mantra they (govt and msm) have pushed, of “religion of peace hijacked by a minority of extremists.” I can’t think of any other ideology whose leader’s life, his acts and words, as well as his character, gets a total blackout. Once the facts about Muhammed get public airing, there’ll be no further countenancing of these barbarisms like polygamy, child brides (also thanks to Mo’s ‘marraige’ to 6 yr old Aisha), female genital mutilation, wife beating, etc. All sanctioned because of that man’s conduct “an exalted standard of character” (Koran 68:4), “an excellent model of conduct” (Koran 33:21).
Mar 1, 2008 - 3:51 am tanstaafl:Khadija was Mohammed’s first wife as well as his financial benefactress. She was 40 when they married, 15 years older than he.
Is it not true that Mohammed did not take multiple wives until after Khadija had died ?
All these so called debates among Islamic scholars as to who can marry whom when where and how many…seem a little silly and transparent. At which point did the Angel Gabriel sanction multiple wives ? At which point in the evolution of the Koran was Mohammed given permission (in one of the Sura) to have sexual relations with his adopted (sometimes described as “foster”) son’s wife ?
And can you imagine being a 16 year old in Afghanistan or Pakistan and catching the eye of a grizzled middle aged Osama bin laden or Ayman al Zawahiri ? What sadness, what misery for these poor girls.
Is not having multiple wives a matter of convenience when a younger, prettier woman catches the married man’s eye or he simply wishes variety ? The idea that Myra had to accept this facet of Islamic law (that devastated her own life) is very sad.
Mar 1, 2008 - 9:35 am Vinny Vidivici:“polygamy can be liberating and empowering.”
Except in television exposes of Western polygamy practiced by stern-faced, white ‘elders’, where multiple wives are almost always depicted as abused, unhappy and trapped. So, she must be referring to the husband, right?
Hey, maybe open or plural marriages work for some consenting adults, although the effect on children is of concern. But let’s call the Duke professor’s pandering relativism for what it really is.
When will we figure out that political correctness isn’t about justice or equality or cultural sensitivity? It’s about Balkanizing us into a hierarchy of grievance, victim, entitlement and scapegoat groups, with rights, privileges and allowable behavior determined by membership — and all of it administered by unaccountable high priests free to interpret multiculturalism any way they see fit.
Mar 1, 2008 - 9:55 am Jerry Milek:Sharia through the back door?
At least three times a week, every winter, I go to the community center to swim. This year, I got quite a surprise. I am not sure about other pools in Ontario, but the pool here in Mississauga it left me speechless.
There on the schedule were segregation hours for boys and girls with the note, “windows covered”. Of course, the leaflet does not say that this policy was created for our Muslim community.
When I immigrated to this great country in the late sixties, there wasn’t a different policy for immigrants. We all tried to blend with Canadian customs.
My questions are: Why we do segregate the Muslim community? Is it because they put the pressure on City Hall? Who is responsible?
Everybody I talked to had very negative responses. The decision (to allow segregation) is fueling real hatred. As an equal citizen, I demand to have some pool hours open to our naturalist community, so we may equally enjoy the rights as Muslims do and swim nude . Please “windows not covered”.
Jerry Milek
Printed in Mississauga News, week of Feb. 15-21, 2008. The title was not there as well as some editorial softening was done.
Mar 1, 2008 - 5:12 pm tanstaafl:But let’s call the Duke professor’s pandering relativism for what it really is.
Professors of today were themselves trained and educated at the altar of political correctness and “deconstructionism”.
They apparently don’t know any better than to continue to insist on some kind of locked in and predetermined worldview.
(Recall that other Duke professors (quite a few) continued to insist the La Crosse players were culpable even after the case against them fell apart.)
These days, unfortunately, many professors seem to view the lectern as pulpit for purposes of propagating their own enormously toxic version of the human condition.
Or, in the words of the just deceased William F. Buckley…
“The academic community has in it the biggest concentration of alarmists, cranks and extremists this side of the giggle house.”
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:38 am Dave_Violence:All this doesn’t mean anything.
If the law of the land in the US is to be obeyed, then all men will be allowed to take up to four wives. And if welfare will take care of ‘em if the man can’t, good.
Opposition to polygamy is nothing more than the phalocentric, pro-Western, male-dominated, second-citizenizing American culture at work.
Polygamy is freedom. Particularly for men. If the partiarchs and kings of the Old Testament were afforded it, why shouldn’t modern men - even if we can’t afford it?!
No special treatment for polygamists! End bigamy laws! Cats and dogs living together!
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:22 pm Spectre765:Here in Massachusetts, The state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage a couple years ago. The legislature voted down a petition to put the matter before the voters. They didn’t want “discrimination” to be written into the constitution.
Uh huh.
So marriage is a “right” claimed by the state’s homosexuals. How long before the polygamists win a court ruling that they can’t be discriminated against, either? Can you say “equal protection under the law”?
I’ll bet real money the first state to recognize polygamy as legitimate will be Massachusetts. Any takers?
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:57 pm Koblog:So tell me how this “polygamy for welfare” scam is different from our current approved American system of a man fathering multiple children by multiple women out of wedlock, all of whom (the man, all the women and the children) go on welfare?
We, in typical American fashion, have streamlined the process by getting rid of the “marriage” part, having adopted the same “don’t ask, don’t tell” no-fault system. In the end, I don’t see much difference.
We have destroyed marriage and family and have left women and children destitute. Heck, we’re even adding homosexuals to the definition of “marriage.”
I guess the bugaboo here is “sharia” law being observed as opposed to our shifting-sands “if it feels good do it” version of law.
Mar 2, 2008 - 2:12 pm supercafone:I agree with Koblog. There is now no legal prohibition to a man cohabiting with as many women as he can seduce and living off of their welfare checks, so what’s the big deal?
With regard to the state, marriage should be little more than another type of contract. Of course, since there a few tax and other benefits to marriage now, everyone gets all excited about how others want to be married, just like the sight of a woman with a headscarf freaks people out. As if those scary Moooslims will be banning pork and alcohol in the US next (they don’t in most Muslim countries).
There is as little reason to prohibit polygamy (or polyandry) as there is to prohibit gay marriage.
Let people live their lives as they choose. Last time I checked my quarters, dimes and nickels, it said “LIBERTY” on them, not “MORALITY.”
Mar 2, 2008 - 3:02 pm David W. Lincoln:To those who are enthusiastic about polygamy, or don’t see what all the fuss is about when a countering view is presented to counter polygamy and they wonder why bother presenting the alternative; I have this question: How would you like it if your partner did not practise monogamy?
Would you resent it and conclude that you are a second class citizen?
Because there are realities that even the political arena has to conclude that the reality is mightier than the arena.
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:55 pm Arty:Idiots have been voting for for other idiots in the UK for the better part of a century. The only time the Brits voted sensibly was when they realized Hitler was a monster and when their socialist masters brought their economy to the brink of ruin. Face it, the English are getting everything they asked for for.
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:57 pm Ed:How about someone impregnating five women at the same time, like its happening now, and these woman are happy to collect welfares. Are there any laws against it? How many of these people live around of us and have fathered children from multiple women and continue as they go and have never been married once!!!!
West allows men to have unlimited women as sexual partners, but will not allow women to be in a respectful relationship of plural marriage which would promote if not the best but the second best option of a healthy family. So what’s all the fuss about polygamy nothing but to hide our own shortcomings here in the West……
The important thing to remember that, those forming polygamous relationships should do with their own free will and without any coercion or abuse and a good understanding of future consequences and difficulties of such relationships…..
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:43 pm JohnnyJ:Maybe Mitt Romney is needed to confront this threat!
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:00 pm richardM:..
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:00 pm Bigotry:Does not come close to the evil perpetrated by Israel and Zionism.
Why not focus your keyboard in that direction. Lets first take care of Israeli theft and racism, then we can “nail” the polygamists.
..
It is not about polygamy, It is about Islam. At any opportunity Islam would be bashed, how Irony! Read Bible, how many wives Solomon got? 900 dudes! Moses got at least 2 wives, Jacob got 4 or more and jews that time also practiced polygamy, now go and bash those jews. Hey! bill clinton shagged Monica and other guys..what is it then? Illegitimate polygamy? people in the west mostly polygamy, they shagged women they flirt, in UK at least 70% unfaithful to their partners. Listen to your saints Jimmy Swarggart while preaching monogamous he was shagging whores like sheeps. Why focus on myra, many non-muslims women did the same and those women in the west also multitasking with so many men, you people don’t mind a man with one wife but 10 mistresses, so why bother with muslim man having 4 wives then. Chill! stop being nonsensical, kettle calling pot black! sheesh! Adious..Tchau
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:36 pm James:How hypocritical!!! And it is celebrated for a man to be or behave as a jiggolo (clinton / lewinsky) or a playby (Heffner). Having many girlfriends, one night stands, orgies etc. This is celebrated lets not kid ourselves of this fact! At least Islam requires that if a man takes another wife there is the condition that he can support her and will treat her or them justly. No such attachments for the playboy and one stand participants; spreading diseases and corruption, physically and mentally, throughout these western societies!
Mar 3, 2008 - 5:32 am dinoN:Am I missing something here. Why are all these countries in this article, passing LAWS allowing “Muslim Polygamy”? The last time I checked the Jews are in control of the Governments of USA, UK and to lesser extent Europe, Canada etc. Please DUM-Dums, this article is written by a Jew who control your country.
Mar 3, 2008 - 7:27 am Truthseeker:I wonder why Muslims are vilified when Mormons and other splinter groups have been doing this for over 150 years.
The founder of Mormonism was a cheater caught with his hands in the cookie jar who claimed he was “Told by God” to do this.
I for one, have many Muslim friends and NOT ONE of them is into Polygamy.
They are decent, loving, family oriented people and live chaste, decent lives dedicated to their marriage to ONE WOMAN.
This diatribe is written by a member of the media that is DYING to cast Muslims in an awful light.
They want to create a clash of civilizations and they want you to be PETRIFIED that the big bad muslims will come and thrust their “evil ways” on you and your lovely society.
This world is in a terrible state and most of it is due to evil governments run from the shadows and their adulterous counterparts: the complicit media.
When you fall for it, you are another willing partner.
It makes me sick to see this nonsense.
Mar 3, 2008 - 7:53 am Deacon:Sure hope the mormons don’t get wind of this!
Mar 3, 2008 - 8:10 am yuyubenson:Yuyubenson: Why ban concentual polygamy if all parties are willing. Why do we promote gay/lesbian marriage on basis of respecting choices?
Mar 3, 2008 - 10:39 am vera:I think justice has been served on the dead man!
Mar 3, 2008 - 10:40 am Mylai:when comparing Mormons to Muslims all I have to say is this. Polygamy in the US is not a federal right. Why? Well if anyone has been watching the shame that is fundamentalist mormonism as apparently our Law makers have (than God) they would see a system that only benefits men, old men at that, and does nothing to benefit the young women who are indoctrinated and forced into it. and forget about the ridiclous number of children born of such onesided unions that non-funda taxpayers foot the bill for.
Polygamy under religious sharia law is no different from the scourge that is Funda Mormonism. It benefits one segment of society at the expense of another.
Men push this, just as anything else that serves men, through religion.
I don’t see where any Muslim woman or any woman for that matter wish for this law to take place - unless of course they’re forbidden the free speech to talk about what THEY want for themselves. Where are the women fighting for polygamy. Please, I would love to hear them either condone or sanction it.
Until women are considered in this dialog, this law should not be passed.
Jeez, poor England, what’s happening over there?
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:30 pm betsy ross:there is a secret here that i fail to see revealed by anything printed….and its key….islam states that a man may have 4 wives…but he MUST BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM…if the govt ends up supporting them, then the man is failing islam…so why should the govt take over a responsibility that belongs to the man according to ISLAM???? if a muslim male CANT support his extra wives..they should be deported back to the country of origin, let their families support them…not a nonmuslim govt….which of course is against OUR laws….muslims are also told by islam to respect the laws in countries they move to…so as you can see…muslims are abusing the situation twice over
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:53 pm Steve B, Colorado:What about the economic consequences of polygamy? Most polygamous relationship are drawing off the public dole in some way, shape or form leaving the rest of us to foot their bills.
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:58 pm Alice AN:Equally offensive to me is the polygamy practiced in Utah and elsewhere in the US. We cannot now feign moral outrage over Islam’s treatment of women, when entire enclaves in our society are accepted along with their similar nefarious practices.
To each his own - as long as I never have to go out of MY way to accommodate the bullshit, I don’t really care. Women who adhere to Islam and live in the west have a way out - If they choose not to opt out, and not to demand their due in the context of a society that will acquiesce their request - then it’s their lives and I have no sympathy for them.
Some seek enlightenment and others prefer ignorant bliss. It’s a free country, na?
Mar 3, 2008 - 3:43 pm glxi390:Sharia law indeed states a man can have a number of wives as long as he has the means to support them. Collecting welfare or any other assistance by cheating the infidel govt. is an acceptable means of income. If a muslim has to lie to get that money, that is taqqiya, and it is acceptable. Any abuse or mistreatment against infidels is acceptable. If there are no infidels available you can fight with other muslims that worship the wrong descendent of mohammad. And they call this a religion.
Mar 4, 2008 - 5:28 am Sam:Barack Obama’s mother was his father’s second wife.
No, not after he first divorced.
This information is not widely known, yet.
Gee, where do you think Obama would come down on this issue?
Mar 4, 2008 - 11:41 pm tanstaafl:Yes, a man is required under Islamic law to provide financial support for his wives.
However, under the same laws, a man can become divorced by simply saying “I divorce you”.
So much for a sense of certitude and security for the woman.
And under Islamic law, a woman who has been pronounced “divorced” from her husband may not, in fact, be considered reciprocally divorced from him.
And can spend years of her life begging courts and judges to set her free while the husband himself has freely moved on to other marriage(s) and endeavors.
Using a word such as “polygamy” is distancing from the nuts and bolts of the situation. The facts are, were and remain that a (always lesser) woman is treated hugely unequally under shari’a law, in marriage and divorce, in inheritance, in rights to her children, in the weight of her judgment in testimony…and so on.
And this is no accident.
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:07 am Muhammad Rafiq:I am British and a Muslim. I have more than one wife and I married most of them in the UK, in accordance with Muslim marriage law. But UK law does not recognise my family structure and I and my wives have been insulted by judges in the UK High Courts on several occasions through their referring to my other wives as “mistresses”. Their excuse is that my wives are not recognised as wives in UK law, so they are ‘reduced’ to referring to them legally as mistresses.
We are happy in our family, so what business is it of yours, or anyone else’s who does not pay my bills.
Keep your unwanted opinions to yourselves, I am sick of being insulted by people who like to sit in judgment of others whilst they know their own lives are full of dirty little secrets, like porn, sneakily staring at the anatomies of members of the opposite sex, fantasising about members of the opposite sex etc etc.
I have several wives. Stop trying to impose your morals on me and get over it.
Mar 5, 2008 - 10:46 am tanstaafl:No one’s trying to impose any moral structure on you, Muhammed.
As a British subject, you have simply chosen to follow the laws of your religion as opposed to the civil law of the country in the area of marriage and family law.
You should not be shocked or affronted if British courts take issue with this position.
Fear not, however, as Britons seem increasingly inclined to accommodate your lifestyle, see numerous attempts at accommodation plus such things as the recent ruminations of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
It seems like throughout Europe, a large part of the agenda of Islam is to gradually take over and subdue if not completely eliminate civil and secular law.
Might I suggest, however, that since your Muslim-ness takes precedence over your British-ness, you might be more comfortable living in a Muslim country for the time being.
I hope this helps.
Mar 5, 2008 - 12:38 pm Hay:This is another sensationalized story where a woman kills her spouse or partner. It is actually not common and therefor makes some great “news.”
Most women who kill their partners are either severely abused or mentally ill.
If it was the case of not wanting to be in this situation the question remains why did she not leave the situation. Either she was prevented or she was mentally ill.
And really, is people are in polygamy and choose it, is that really any worse then the deception that goes on all over the place.
And really, let’s be honest, would anyone want 100% of a bad man or 50% of a good one?
Mar 25, 2008 - 11:23 am JANET:Muhammad Rafiq: Why do you think that anyone who objects to your illegal polygamy must be “sneakily staring at the anatomies of members of the opposite sex, etc…”? How have you addressed your illegal (and obscene) behaviour? What a non sequituor! Like many of your persuasion, you lack any sort of skill in logic and debate. Pathetic! I guess my country can soon look forward to this type of flaunting of the law. It happens anywhere “Asians” migrate.
Mar 26, 2008 - 6:54 pm Muhammad Howell:The Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) had two wives, as well as other prophets mentioned in the Bible.
Mar 29, 2008 - 1:56 am Muhammad Howell:Many of my fellow Americans already consider Europe to be inevitably a Muslim Land.
At the rate things are developing over there, my offspring may be able to migrate back to their ancestral homelands (Wales) while at the same time be migrating to a Muslim country.
Mar 29, 2008 - 2:07 am A second woman:I’m a woman here to fight for polygamy. I know about a love story. About a married muslim man from a strict Asian Islamic country who met a Europian christian woman. Both he or she didn’t want the man to divorce, to leave his wife and his children alone. And because of the circumstances, because of his social background it would have been completely impossible.
May 2, 2008 - 3:34 pm Rod:They tried to leave each other, tried to live without each other, but after years of suffering, years of emotional frustration while they were getting sick several times, lost their lust for life, they couldn’t lose only one thing the lust for each other. And they decided to marry.
The man moved to the woman’s country to live there with his secret second wife and their children while often visiting his first wife and family.
Only polygamy brought them happiness and completion. No words can describe the bliss they are living in. And they didn’t have any other chance than polygamy to achieve it.
This is my life…
And I wouldn’t ever change it!
I personally have no problem with Polygamy. It has been around since the biginning of recorded History. Our modern way of “dating” here in the USA is a recent phenomenon unheard of befoe the 1940’s and 1950’s. What’s the differnce of a 15 or 16 year old girl losing her virginity to a 40 year old man who is already married? Verses the moral dilemma we have here in the United States and other western Countries. Where the average teenage girl wiil have already lost her virginity by age 16. Statistics say as many as 30% of 15 yr. old girls have lost there virginity. And by 17 years of age 75% will no longer still have their “Cherry”. And we all know by the time the 18 year old girls graduate from public high school there is’nt hardly one to be found who can proudly say she is still a virgin, saving herself for her wedding night. You might be able to find a strong % of girls who are in Parochial or Christian Schools who can make that claim. But not in Public Government Schools.
May 20, 2008 - 2:16 pm monica:I have put much thought into this. Is a lovestruck 16 year old girl better off making that decision of whom she will have sex with? Or is she better off having her parents decide whom she will marry and make quite sure she is still a virgin on her wedding night? It seems to me that it is obvious that every year that passes after a teen girls 15th birthday it is much more difficult for the parents to have any influence on her decisions. Especially when it comes to sex. Biologically her body is telling her once a month to have sex and get pregnant and have a baby. Therefor get married. But society is telling her the opposite. Society is telling her too be promiscuous. Be independent, free, get educated. Do anything you want. It’s all about you. Postpone having children and getting married. They tell her she can always get married in her mid to late 30’s if at all. And that would only be to have a child before it is too late. Because her biological clock is ticking at the eleventh hour by this time. Now she realizes that her life was all for a lie. What “they” told her was a lie. She desperately wants what she avoided since she was a teen.All throughout her teens and 20’s her most prime years for child bearing and reproduction she ignored this.
So I think we need to clean up our side of the street before telling others to clean uo their side. Our modern and progressive ways are far from perfect. As a matter of fact our ways are much worse for the girl. Who can take care of her and the child if she get’s pregnant better? The 40 year old married man and his 38 year old wife? Or the 16 year old boy who is still in high school?
what’s the problem in that? isnt a signe of freedom ? why this hypocricy of media? freedom for gays and no freedom for polygamy, i can agree if yf all ou enforce some one do it, but if someone dosent , she/he may ask divorce. but if all agree that ’s their own life, we can not choose who you love or not to love. beside there is polygammy practicing as cheating behind the walls, and not only man use it bit also women, we will be so hypocritist to see gays are free and other types of sex with animals in pornography and and everything is marketng. at least this is a marriage with agreement and spoken not in a secret. and eacg group has right to practice their own culture and tradetion because it’ s a human rights.
Aug 14, 2008 - 2:10 pm Flug New York:Is the Polygamy problem not the same as Circumcision? If a Child can not choose it is a criminal assault. But would someone put a jude for this to a court? nope.
This is coulture and grown in hundered of years.
So how arrogant is it to judge a diffrent coulture , becouse we dont understand it?
Kind regards
Aug 19, 2008 - 4:40 amFlug, New Jork