Polygamist Marriages becoming common in the Western Nations

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2008
63,345
31,652
2,320
Patriotic American Muslim
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
November 26, 2008

Westerners Welcome Harems - article by Daniel Pipes

A Scottish judge recently bent the law to benefit a polygamous household. The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone – usually grounds for an automatic loss of one's driving license. The defendant's lawyer explained his client's need to speed: "He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving licence he would be unable to do this on a regular basis." Sympathetic to the polygamist's plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license.

Monogamy, this ruling suggests, long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law. Should current trends continue, polygamy could soon be commonplace.

Since the 1950s, Muslim populations have grown in Western Europe and North America via immigration and conversion; with their presence has grown the Islamic form of polygyny (one man married to more than one woman). Estimates find 2,000 or more British polygamous men, 14,000 or 15,000-20,000 harems in Italy, 30,000 harems in France, and 50,000-100,000 polygamists in the United States.

Some Imams openly acknowledge conducting polygamous marriage ceremonies: Khalil Chami reports that he is asked almost weekly to conduct such ceremonies in Sydney. Aly Hindy reports having "blessed" more than 30 such nuptials in Toronto.

Social acceptance is also growing. Academics justify it, while politicians blithely meet with polygamists or declare that Westerners should "find a way to live with it" and journalists describe polygamy with empathy, sympathy, and compassion. Islamists argue polygamy's virtues and call for its official recognition.

Polygamy has made key legal advances in 2008. At least six Western jurisdictions now permit harems on the condition that these were contracted in jurisdictions where polygamy is legal, including India and Muslim-majority countries from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia to Morocco.

United Kingdom: Bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in jail but the law recognizes harems already formed in polygamy-tolerant countries. The Department of Work and Pensions pays couples up to £92.80 (US$140) a week in social benefits, and each multiculturally-named "additional spouse" receives £33.65. The Treasury states that "Where a man and a woman are married under a law which permits polygamy, and either of them has an additional spouse, the Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003 allow them to claim tax credits as a polygamous unit." Additionally, harems may be eligible for additional housing benefits to reflect their need for larger properties.

The Netherlands: The Dutch justice minister, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, has announced that polygamous Muslim marriages should not be dealt with through the legal system but via dialogue.

Belgium: The Constitutional Court took steps to ease the reunification of harems formed outside the country.

Italy: A court in Bologna allowed a Muslim male immigrant to bring the mothers of his two children into the country on the grounds that the polygamous marriages had been legally contracted.
Australia: The Australian newspaper reports "it is illegal to enter into a polygamous marriage. But the federal government, like Britain, recognises relationships that have been legally recognised overseas, including polygamous marriages. This allows second wives and children to claim welfare and benefits."

Ontario, Canada: Canadian law calls for polygamy to be punished by a prison term but the Ontario Family Law Act accepts "a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid."

Thus, for the cost of two airplane tickets, Muslims potentially can evade Western laws. (One wonders when Mormons will also wake to this gambit.) Rare countries (such as Ireland) still reject harems; generally, as David Rusin of Islamist Watch notes, "governments tend to look the other way as the conjugal mores of seventh-century Arabia … take root in our backyards."

At a time when Western marriage norms are already under challenge, Muslims are testing legal loopholes and even seeking taxpayer support for multiple brides. This development has vast significance: just as the concept of one man, one woman marriage has shaped the West's economic, cultural, and political development, the advance of Islamic law (Shari‘a) will profoundly change life as we know it.
 
Amen.

Though I've read many accounts of polygamy, written by Mormon and Muslim women, and by all accounts it's a living hell, regardless of which religion you belong to.
 
Most of us have enough trouble coping with one significant other.

But for those whose self lothing is especially profound, if they choose to have more than one SO at a time?

Hey! be my guest.
 
Polygamy is illegal in the United States and therefore discriminates against Muslims.
Very true xsited!

Once homo marriages (god forbid) becomes legal every where in the US.

Than there will be no reason to discriminate against Polygamist marriages and they will be come legal!! :eusa_angel:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsited1
Polygamy is illegal in the United States and therefore discriminates against Muslims.

Very true xsited!

Once homo marriages (god forbid) becomes legal every where in the US.

Than there will be no reason to discriminate against Polygamist marriages and they will be come legal!!


Talk about walking into it.
 
If everyone is consenting and happy I don't have a problem with polygamy. Personally, I've never known anyone that was involved so I can't say if people really do enjoy that kind of life, but the things you hear on the news don't make it sound like a very good thing in actual practice.
 
The news media is under pressure from corporate sponsors to not seem to favor "non-traditional" lifestyles very much, or various lobbies and interest groups will threaten them with boycotts and other profit-killing campaigns.

The entertainment media has a bit more leeway, of course.
 
All I know is when in those rare cases I found myself intimately involved with two woman, I found myself looking around for a third just to get away from the first two.

But hey, if you're the kind of person who can answer to more than one mistress at a time, no skin of my nose.
 
You forget these women have no power in the relationship. It isn't as if you were dating a couple of Playboy bunnies. These are women who get beaten for leaving the home without a related male escort, and who will lose their children or worse if they make waves.
 
If we are going to legalize gay marriage or civil unions between any two people, I can see no reason why polygamist marriage or civil unions should remain banned.
 
You forget these women have no power in the relationship. It isn't as if you were dating a couple of Playboy bunnies. These are women who get beaten for leaving the home without a related male escort, and who will lose their children or worse if they make waves.

That doesn't say anything to polygamy in a non-religious context, particularly polyandry.
 
Alliebaba Wrote:
These are women who get beaten for leaving the home without a related male escort, and who will lose their children or worse if they make waves.

And perhaps, if polygamy were legal, and the women did not need to worry about losing her children, being arrested, or her children being put into protective services as was done recently...they would be more willing to seek help, rather than remain in abusive relationships.

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of abused women in "normal" heterosexual marriages who are beaten, terrified to leave their husbands, fearful of having their children taken from them, etc. So it isn't necessarily the type of marriage that brings these problems...but rather the behavior and mental issues of the spouses....at least women in "normal" marriages can receive police help without fearing legal prosecution.
 
Alliebaba Wrote:


And perhaps, if polygamy were legal, and the women did not need to worry about losing her children, being arrested, or her children being put into protective services as was done recently...they would be more willing to seek help, rather than remain in abusive relationships.

Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of abused women in "normal" heterosexual marriages who are beaten, terrified to leave their husbands, fearful of having their children taken from them, etc. So it isn't necessarily the type of marriage that brings these problems...but rather the behavior and mental issues of the spouses....at least women in "normal" marriages can receive police help without fearing legal prosecution.

It doesn't matter what you marital status is, ABUSE IS ILLEGAL.
 
editec wrote:
It doesn't matter what you marital status is, ABUSE IS ILLEGAL.

Absolutely. However, based on a documentary I watched recently about polygamous compounds...many of the women who would consider leaving their husband are fearful for what legal rights they might have, what might happen to their children, etc. because they are engaged in an illegal activity.

Even if this fear is manufactured by their husbands or their communities in order to keep them "in check," it would seem to me that if we are considering granting "civil union" status to homosexual couples...then a next step might be exploring the benefits taking polygamy out of the shadows might bring. One possible benefit being that the women involved would know that they were protected by the law and that they would have rights if they wanted to leave that relationship.
 
I know this is about "organized polygamy" but there is plenty of under the radar relationships going on that are poly-triads etc. If I recall correctly the former head of the National Organization for Women was bisexual and lived with her husband and girlfriend. Whether they would have married, if there was an option, I don't know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top