Saturday, February 2, 2008

UK: Polygamist Muslim Men Receive the Jizya

A major slide downhill for the United Kingdom....

Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits is reproduced here in its entirety, with my comments:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

Just another (big) step in the wrong direction for the UK.

See Islamic Imperialism 102 and Dysfunctional Religion, Dysfunctional Families: Dysfunctional Society for some thoughts on what impact polygamy has on Islamic society.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

What do you want to bet the decision won't benefit Muslim women?

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

To say the least!

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

The important thing is that the dhimmis are supporting their Muslim overlords. Later, the Muslim men can get more demanding, and insist that the amount increase -- payable to the male head of household, of course.

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.

We saw that coming.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

And those millions of pounds will be paid until the citizens of the UK feel themselves subdued -- it's the second part of the infamous triple choice!

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

I wonder why they didn't announce it publicly?

Surely they weren't ashamed of their efforts to be more inclusive and tolerant?

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Polygamy is also now punishable by forcing the offending Muslim male to receive free government money, proportional to the number of extra wives he has!

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

I wonder if there is any requirement for quality of time spent, or just for quantity?

For example, if the husband spends twenty minutes beating one wife, and twenty minutes sexually assaulting another, is the requirement met? Both kinds of conduct can be justified with Islamic texts!

A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".

The immigration rate for guys with multiple wives has been going down.

What do you want to bet that statistic turns around now?

While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.

And there is now greater incentive to do so!

In fact, now there is an incentive to bring in women to whom the man is not married -- he might be able to find a way to claim them and get more money!

In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.

So, he could have his four Islamic wives, but only have one of them recognized under British law.

"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."

I wonder what dhimmi put that clause in?

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

To say the least!

Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

They should be proud of that! That puts the UK Government at the front of the line groveling before their new overlords!

An excerpt from The Jizyah Tax (one typo cleaned up):

Differences of taxation demonstrate distinctions in citizenship. As a symbol of subjection, it signifies that the state is not really the common property of all its permanent residents, but only the Muslims. The non-Muslims are conquered outsiders. It demonstrates their inferior condition. It also punishes them for their disbelief in Islam. Islamic law makes it very clear that the Jizyah is punitive in character. Further, it is levied with humiliation. Hence, it is in no way comparable to Western tax systems. Even progressive taxation is not a 'punishment' for economic success, nor is any tax specifically humiliating in character.

This illustrates that essentially, in an Islamic State, the non-Muslims are in a worse situation than prisoners out on parole, since they are still being punished – they are not considered 'good, law-abiding citizens' however exemplary their conduct, but rather criminals given day-leave. Their crime is their faith.


Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could the situation of non-Muslims under Islamic law be seen as one conferring equal citizenship, whatever Muslim apologists claim. Similarly, only a leap of fantasy could ever believe that such a situation is one that non-Muslims would welcome. The honour, dignity, equality and even the lives of non-Muslims are by no means guaranteed under Islamic law. The Jizyah tax in particular demonstrates the constitutional inferiority and humiliation such a legal arrangement confers.

And paying your Muslim overlords to break your society's laws certainly meets the requirement in my opinion.

This begins a new label: Britain.

"Ta!" for now, chaps!

Feb 3 update:

A commentator sent me an email with the following statement:

BTW if you'll forgive a hint about style, as you're starting a 'British' section, we Brits don't take kindly to being sneered at - especially when we're in the wrong!

I'm not sneering at you! I'm laughing at you!! There's a difference.

Your government is almost as bad as ours.

No wonder we started a revolution!


anticant said...

This is utterly gobsmacking! Another topic for conversation when I have lunch with the Tory front bench spokesperson on equality issues next week....

Aurora said...

Incredible. By putting the proviso that the marriage has to have occurred, the Law has effectively barred Britons from receiving the same benefits should they decide to go polygamous as well! The British Law has been set up to favor the Islamists over the Brits. Never has any civilization shot itself in the foot in favor of another without a battle shot being fired in this way in history.

pela68 said...

The migration rules here in Europe are absolutely a joke. The "next of kin" migration scam has been used here in Sweden for so long that nobody really knows (or want to relive) how many people that has actually done their way here by those means.

As I wrote in an earlier post there is some great incitaments to why we allow this. The greatest one is that these people almost without exeption votes for the social democrates (who is behind the last decades of immigration politics), the other reason is that "the-not-so-socialistic" parties will not change migration politics out of fear to be deemed as racists.

About a year ago (I belive) around 300 somalis vere granted student visas (and remember that grades in these countrys is something that you BUY rather than earn) Four showed up for classes!


pela68 said...

Oh- I forgot.

I read that an immigrant family with four kids could very well get around 23 000kr $2700 a month in different kinds of wellfare deductions (?) without lifting a finger.

Does that mean anything? I don't know- you be the judge...

anticant said...

A dear American friend of mine once said to me after a memorable incident in New York [another story!] "I bet you'll write a book about us, and call it 'I'm Glad They Had a Revolution'".

I've pondered over this long and deeply, and am not so sure I AM glad. Maybe you'd have been a bit more clued up about some things if you'd stayed with us and morphed into a major part of the Commonwealth. I know George III & Co. were bungling idiots, but we all make mistakes and the British Empire didn't do too badly in Victoria's time.

What we're experiencing now is colonisation in reverse! Sins of the fathers and all that.