According to the Herald Sun:
Recognise polygamous marriages, says Sheikh Khalil Chami
Members of Sydney’s Islamic community believe polygamous marriages should be recognised to protect the rights of women.
Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba yesterday said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and should be recognised.
“…Not an open door but in a way everyone will have control,” he told Triple J’s Hack program.
Everyone? Really?
What about the women? Do they have any control?
No… I think the sheikh just meant people, not women.
The new law would protect women from… well, I’m not sure what it would protect them from. Certainly not from being married to Muslim men.
But in any case, the sheikh wants to help:
- - - - - - - - -
“It’s a bit hard, very difficult, but unless we face it, how (do) we overcome it?
“If you know there is law that will help you, there is community will help you. Why not? Why not change the law?”
It’s that same old argument: people are going to keep breaking the law anyway, so why not make the illegal actions legal?
Sheikh Chami said he was asked almost weekly to conduct polygamous religious ceremonies.
While he declined to perform such ceremonies, he said, other sheikhs did not.
“There are a lot of sheikhs here without any qualifications, without any place,” he said.
“They’ll conduct that marriage no problem at all.”
After all, burglary and murder were against the law, and yet people kept get burgled and murdered. So we legalized those two activities, and…
No, wait: we didn’t — we must have overlooked it somehow!
Another reason to institute polygamy is that it will save men from the temptation of committing adultery:
Islamic Friendship Association of Australia president Keysar Trad said recognising polygamous unions would help protect the rights of women in the relationship.
Mr Trad once proposed to another woman with the consent of his wife, Hanefa, but the second marriage did not proceed.
“I certainly would not have entertained the thought of having a relationship without a religious marriage and I thought the relationship with that person was developing to the stage where we had become too friendly with each other,” he told the program.
“Rather than entertain any thoughts of an affair I thought the only decent thing to do was to consider a proper commitment to that person.
What a great idea — a man can still get all the quiff he wants, but it’s all nice and legal! And Muslim women don’t mind; after all, they’ve been trained since birth to accept their status as chattel.
Asked if it was just about wanting sex with more women, she said: “Yeah it can be, but having it in the right way instead of having it in like go to prostitute or just date’’.
Now that’s showing respect for women.
The cause was taken up in the Muslim Village forum, with one of the posters making an argument that the opponents of gay marriage have been predicting for years:
I think there is a close connection to the same sex laws. They changed the law to allow gays to marry eachother..WHY? because they were being disciminated against? well Muslims have the same right..they should be allowed to practice their religion as gays are alowed to practice their..whatever it is.
Unfortunately, once the old definition of marriage is abandoned, there’s no logical reason not to legalize just about any form of it. If you’re keen on liberation, polygamy is the way to go.
Maybe Islam is modernizing after all.
Hat tip: Nilk.
21 comments:
That was inevitable. Australlia isn't as far down the dhimmi road, though, so there's some hope this will be opposed. I'm quite surprised that this isn't being pushed in Britain, since they've already bared their throat.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma has absolutely ruled out changing the state's laws to recognise polygamous relations.
[...]
Asked if he would consider changing the laws, Mr Iemma said, "Absolutely not".
"I'm not going to be changing our laws, which apply to everybody, and everybody knows the laws when they come here, regarding marriage," he told Fairfax Radio Network on Thursday.
SMH
No change....for now.
But polygamy was invented by and for women, as a way for more of them to have access to wealth and to have less ******* to put up with.
This issue is completely different from gay marriage. Legalising polygamy would be for the convenience of people from an alien culture, while legalising gay marriage would be for the convenience of some of our own people. I think gay marriage should be a states' rights issue, or maybe it could even be decided at the local level. If the people of San Francisco support gay marriage, they should have it, but people in other areas could choose not to recognise it. Unlike polygamy, recognising gay marriage wouldn't make us dhimmis.
It gets worse than this, you know. Muhammad proclaimed the rightness of muta -- temporary marriage, which can last as little as one hour -- for Muslim men who are, for whatever reason, in a state of sexual tension. Classically, such tension arose from being on jihad in a foreign land.
Scared yet?
Wether its homosexual or heterosexual marriage, it's still only one partner. Gays are being granted the right to marry ONE partner, same as straight people. How anyone can equate that with polygamy is beyond me.
And if that proposal were to get through... let's consider the age at which women are allowed to marry. Surely 6 years is old enough? /sarc off
While he declined to perform such ceremonies, he said, other sheikhs did not.
“There are a lot of sheikhs here without any qualifications, without any place,” he said.
***
This is the classical good cop / bad cop routine. If you don't want to purchase the protection services we're generously offering you, some bad guys might come around and smash up your bar.
***
"If you know there is law that will help you, there is community will help you. Why not? Why not change the law?"
***
No wonder they are not willing to abide by the country's laws if they cannot even be bothered to learn its language.
Laller:
"Gays are being granted the right to marry ONE partner, same as straight people. How anyone can equate that with polygamy is beyond me."
Very simple, really.
Marriage is primarily meant for society's good, not for the couple's good. It's meant for bringing children forth and protecting them.
So-called gay marriage has a completely different aim, since children do not result from it.
"Gay marriage" is primarily meant for the good of the two people involved. The argument goes: we feel like it, we'd like to have it, ergo you should allow us to.
Once society has agreed to that, there's absolutely no reason left to oppose any other form of marriage. It could be polygamy. It could be marriage between three or more individuals (some people are actually advocating this).
It could be the marriage between a woman and a transsexual woman who has morphed into a man, but has retained her uterus, and therefore has become a pregnant bearded "man" after artificial insemination (this has actually happened in the United States, except that the "couple" is not married as far as I know; but nothing legally prevents it).
Once you agree to all that, how on earth will you deny polygamy to Muslims in your own country? Muslims will say, just as gays do: we feel like it, we'd like to have it, ergo you should allow us to.
And they will add: anyway, we're already doing it, so you might as well endorse our behaviour. Just as gays say.
They will even have a much more potent argument than gays: you see, we're are not doing it only for selfish reasons.
It protects women from men's unbridled lust, so all we are really trying to do there is protect your own society from the scourge of rape (which we'll inflict upon your women if you don't do exactly as we say; and you know we can do it; we're doing it right now in Brussels train stations; in Scandinavia's swimming pools; in France's council estates).
How on earth are gays going to argue that their own sexual habits are more legitimate than Muslims'?
They'd have to argue that being gay is somewhat morally superior to being muslim.
That's an impossible defence to mount in a liberal, democratic society.
Actually, Muslims will have no trouble at all turning the argument on its head, and insinuating that, in fact, they are the morally superior lot, especially when compared to gays.
Which they have already begun to do: "Muslims have the same right... they should be allowed to practice their religion as gays are allowed to practice their... whatever it is."
The choices a society makes have consequences. Nothing comes free. Complete sexual freedom brings down the pillars of society and invite its subversion, conquest and enslavement by Islam.
Some of the 'basis' for legalising polygamy in Australia seems to stem from protection against 'corrupt western values'. ie. engaging in pre-marital sex, or affairs. Some of the argument for polygamy in Australia unfairly assumes that all men are adulterous. Is this presumption just convenient for men who are themselves trying to legalise the practice in accordance to their religion? If I was a western man I would be annoyed at the presumption I am adulterous.
How does any one take the call for polygamy seriously when the section in the sacred text (Qu’ran) polygamy is taken from states ‘If you fear you will not deal fairly with orphan girls, (In pre-Islamic Arabia guardians often married orphan girls to acquire their property) you may marry whichever other women seem good to you, two three, or four. If you fear that you cannot be equitable to them then marry only one, or our slave(s): that is more likely to make you avoid bias.
Also, this is a sexist practice, whereby Islamic polygamy promotes Polygyny (the practice of a man marrying more than one woman), but Polyandry (the practice of a woman marrying more than one man) is Haraam (forbidden). If one form of polygamy is forbidden, perhaps it is time to abolish the entire practice.
A recent decision in the UK granted welfare benefits to the extra wives of Muslim men in polygamous marriages, even though such marriages are illegal in Britain.
Ermm ... Aren't those who pay out welfare benefits to people participating in illegal polygamous marriages wilfully breaking the law? I seem to recall that being defined as a criminal act. Why isn't some British solicitor or barrister filing a major lawsuit against this state sanctioned criminality?
As to the Muslims in Oz ... SSDD.
The mian issue for us is how polygamy relates to immigration and "family reunfication." Consider the following: four brides imported into our countries for every Muslim man, instead of just one. We'd be swamped in no time. We must fight it with everything we've got. The cultural Marxists, of course, will be all for it -- the ACLU is already pushing for the legalization of polygamy. As well as the corporate fascists, and the lawyers -- more brides, more for the wedding industry, more divorces, more for the lawyers.
latté island: "This issue is completely different from gay marriage. Legalizing polygamy would be for the convenience of people from an alien culture, while legalizing gay marriage would be for the convenience of some of our own people."
I suppose the various fringe polygamist Mormon sects aren't "our people"?
At any rate, Robert Marchenoir is 100% correct when in stating that the government's support of marriage is for the good of Society. Marriage is the vehicle by which a civilization perpetuates itself. "Gay Marriage" works exactly the opposite of marriage and further cuts into our society's already low population replacement rates.
Homosexuality, abortion, sterilization and contraception throughout western civilization has created the vacuum that Islam is rapidly filling. The Leftist establishment in government, media and academia are tirelessly promoting these behaviors among the native populations and at the same time working to boost Muslim reproduction even further with polygamy.
One cannot be against Islam's reproductive conquest of their native country and at the same time advocate the very behaviors that have ultimately facilitated it.
Sure didn't take long after the gays redefined marriage in the West for the Muslims to make their move.
Men with more than one wife in Australia should be arrested and charged with whatever is on the books. Simple enough. It is against the law isn't it? Why is it so hard to uphold the bloody law? Has everyone gone raving mad and soft?
I read recently that Muslim men are allowed up to four wives and as many concubines as they want. This sounds more like an invasion than anything - a couple generations of offspring for each man to measure twenty or more children will mean they will become the majority in no time.
I'm sorta torn here. On the one hand, should Muslims be allowed polygamy, and be allowed to bring multiple spouses into a country? No. The laws of the country are the laws of the country.
On the other hand, I'm enough of a libertarian to question why polygamy is illegal anyway...? If a man (or woman) wants to enter into a relationship like that, and they are an adult, why is it any business of mine?
If they made polygamy legal across the board in Oz, Britain, the US or wherever, I'd have no gripe. But if only Muslims are allowed, then that's completely wrong.
gun-totin-wacko: I'm sorta torn here. On the one hand, should Muslims be allowed polygamy, and be allowed to bring multiple spouses into a country? No. The laws of the country are the laws of the country.
On the other hand, I'm enough of a libertarian to question why polygamy is illegal anyway...? If a man (or woman) wants to enter into a relationship like that, and they are an adult, why is it any business of mine?
If they made polygamy legal across the board in Oz, Britain, the US or wherever, I'd have no gripe. But if only Muslims are allowed, then that's completely wrong.
So, let's make polygamy legal throughout the land and see what sort of societal erosion happens because of it.
Get a clue! I'm not the biggest subscriber to the nuclear fambly, but it sure beats the living Hell out of everything that tries to replace it.
Do you have any appropriate arguments to the contrary?
Post a Comment