to be a bit unhappy about Harems being supported by the taxpayer?

[pankhurst]

I am ardently against polygamy. Sorry. I think it's discourteous and (because usually male advantageous) sexist nonsense masquerading as religious right.

I found out that men with multiple wives under islam will have benefits for all of them.

AIBU to be concerned about this? If I were a muslim man on benefits and I wanted to, there would be NOTHING now to stop me bringing four wives in.

I don't want my children to grow up in a country where harems are even 1% of the population. I really don't. I would prefer more obstacles rather than making it easier.

Or did I miss the point somewhere? Help?

oh b''''ger

now we have to have another six hour debate until we get to 300.

where's the ocd thread?

So for the law to be a 'level playing field', what could/should be done re. men with more than one wife, whose marriage is legitimate in another country but not the UK?

Presumably, the general consensus is that no extra benefit should be paid, as such marriages shouldn't be recognised in this country. So who will support the extra wives?

Pankhurst you mentioned in your OP that you'd prefer more obstacles. But realistically, what choice does the Govt have but to provide support for each individual in need?

I would like to point out that I am interested in this discussion as it is something I will potentially come into contact with at work (am a Benefit processor)

Oh, are we finished?

Islam says you can only have Xtra wife if you can fulfill her (& kids) needs - that is material AND emotional.

Claiming benefits is a clear admission of failure in the first place isn't it?

The husband must support the extra wives. I see no reason why a government who has deemed bigamy illegal should pick up the tab, whether it's a Muslim in the UK, or a White British male abroad.

If you want to dip you wick in more than one lady, then you pay the price.

I mean, Jeez, only an idiot would marry more than one of us lot. I mean ... would you???

Unless claiming benefits is how you are going to make it......which is fraud no?

I'm actually a bit bemused by what seems to be the assumption that all or most of the individuals in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship are pocketing the taxpayers' money, any more than any SAHP in a monogamous relationship is pocketing the taxpayers' money. Recently-arrived immigrants may need benefits but many of them will want to work and look for work as soon as they are allowed to. And if some people are maintaining a polyamorous household (Muslim, mormon or swingers) and not claiming benefits, and not holding anyone captive who is not happy to be part of that household, what is there to object to?
I am not in favour of the 'it's their culture' argument for allowing abuse of women/children, but surely the answer to that is to provide more help for women trying to get away from their abusers, rather than trying to prohibit a way of arranging one's household that suits some people and isn;t always about coercion.

NOW it's complete!

Umm, I don't disagree with your sentiment, Madamez, but many Muslim women (or women from societies where polygamy is legal) probably wouldn't view it that way. I would imagine a sizable majority would like to see the practice banned, and it really doesn't help that the British government is being seen to condone it. It's a retrograde step for women all over the world.

Fine if you're a middle-class swinger from Hemel Hempsted with a lifetime of choices behind you. Not fine if you're a 17 year girl from Iraq, perhaps.

To be honest, I'm not particularly interested in the benefits aspect. Like the OP, I'm more interested in the feminist aspect(and you won't here me say that too often). Unless the law states that a woman can also take four husbands, then the law is an ass.

Desi, I do know what you mean, but think the answer is in general offering support and sympathy to women trapped in abusive situations rather than spending a lot of time and effort prohibiting a minority practice which is not always abusive. Because it's all too easy to go, look at the wierdos/foreigners, make them stop it.

For MONKEYTROUSERS (and others of course)

Just saw you were on the thread, in case you read this, I was thinking of you the other day.
I opened some old boxes full of books from Uni day sand I found some essays By Nawal Al Saadawi.
Thought you might be interested.
She's Egyptian, in her 70ies now and WEEEEEELL respected by the educated muslim public on feminist issues/Islam.
Thought you might want to look up it up in your local library.

[www.nawalsaadawi.net]

Cool, thanks Slim

Xenia, polyandry is practiced in some areas of Nepal but the woman is always married to two brothers and it is more about keeping land in the male family.

And even in Nepal it is very rare, and mostly happens in isolated villages. D uncle in Law worked in Nepal for many years in TB control/lepsory control and only saw it once or twice. And this was in spite of him spending most of his life in the back end of beyond.

I would be interested to see the explanation for the fact that muslims contibuing to have polygamous marriages in the UK in spite of it being illegal under UK law.

Many poster on MN have made the point that Sharia law expects you to follow the law of the land. Are these men breaking Sharia law?

And if so , should their second marriages be recognised by UK or Islamic law?

Sorry, just going backwards through the thread..

"Doesn't Sharia law state that an observant Muslim has to follow the law of the land they live in?" Yeah, you're right MB. Women in Islamic countries must abide by Islamic law, whether they are Muslim or not.

But here, the multiculturalism has gone a tad awry as Sharia is practiced within closed communities and especially within the family home, not the law of the land, so there is a definite hypocrisy going on.

People have the right to practice their religion - but the oppressive cultural practices and traditions of that religion cannot be accommodated to the same degree if, again, liberal democracy is for all.

Yes, you are right MB again. Very rare.

But mostly because these communites are very small. Must ask my anthropologist friend...

Uncle in Laws comment was that it was rare to the point of almost being a 'familial' trait, that specific families practiced it.

And as you say it is all to do with keeping land within the family unit.

It's not against the law to have a lover. Go into any workplace in the UK and you'll probably find 10% or more of those who are married do so. So I don't think you can really get Muslims for doing what is the same thing but instead of lying about it being open about it.

True, but your lover isn't recognised under uk law

Adultery (or even the suspicion of it) is against the law in Islamic cultures where ever they be, here or else where and is punishable by death.

You don?t get supported by the state to carry on an affair Xenia. It's a personal choice/risk and isn't necessarily immoral where the whole tyrannically patriarchal structure of Islamic marriage is.

One of the things that worries me most about polygamy in the Islamic setting is that there is a dreadful combination of cultural practice and religious law that is working against many , many women,

Under Islamic law Muslim women have the right to prevent their husband having second and subsequent wives. This is written into their marriage contract. Many Muslim women who know of this right take the option.

However, culturally many Muslim women are ignorant of this right, and many cultures are happy for the ignorance to continue.

The combination of the two aspects means that the women have few of the rights that sharia law gives them