Did you catch this item on Today just after 7.30am discussing the issue of polygamy and Islam? The topic was, correctly in my view, raised by Baroness Warsi, and her view is that in the UK one man should be legally married to one woman. Naturally dark ages Islam finds such concepts difficult but in this lengthy broadcast item by Zubeida Malik, the clear impression given was the mainstream Islam, and all good Imams, oppose polygamy and it is not the way of the Religion of Peace. Total and absolute nonsense. The BBC is prepared to turn truth on its head in order not to offend tender Islamic sensibilities and in this regard, for once, I applaud Warsi for saying that which the BBC dhimmis find untenable — namely that BRITISH law should operate in this United Kingdom, not the tenets of Sharia.
WHAT ALLAH HAS JOINED TOGETHER….
Bookmark the permalink.
mikewhineliberal:
There, that’s better Mikey. Try to respond faster to fresh threads in future. If you don’t have a contary opinion quickly enough then you may start looking like a troll.
🙂
Ratass Shagged | 20.02.09 – 11:24 pm |
Or like someone who works for a living. perhaps.
“Bastard” – irony?
On what moral basis do your draw your conclusion of deviancy? By whose standard?
I don’t regard cozy public sector non-jobs as ‘working for a living’ mikey.
Ratass Shagged | 21.02.09 – 1:36 pm
Shove your emoticon up your @rse. I work dead hard me.
The Today piece on polygamy in Islam was introduced with a lie. Naughtie says that “there is provision in Islam for multiple marriages under quite strictly defined circumstances.” (His emphasis on “strictly” was audible.) This proves that he’s reading the official Islamic apologia for polygamy, with the intent to give the audience a completely false impression of modern polygamy amongst Muslims in Britain.
The origin of the passage from the Koran in which polygamy is justified under “certain, strict circumstances” was after a war which left lots of orphans and widows. The idea presented in Sura 4:3 and onwards (scroll down about half way) is that this provision was created out of compassion for women in various difficult circumstances.
Now, this is of course totally different than the multiple marriages amongst Mohammedans in the West today. It’s also complete BS to present Islamic polygamy in this way because, as we all know, multiple wives were standard issue for those who could afford it in the ancient Middle East. Islamic scholars even justify their own polygamy by pointing at Solomon and all that. None of those multiple marriages had anything (or precious little) to do with compassion for orphans, widows, and the like. As has been pointed out already above, polygamy in general exists for the benefit of men, not women.
So Naughtie sets up the whole segment with a falsehood, reading out the Islamic apologia as fact. There are even bits in the segment itself which seem to contradict this notion, yet he seems to be very clear in his intent.
Listening further, we hear about “20 cases a year” being referred to a local mufti, who is allowed to further justify the concept of polygamy with ideas of “fairness and justice”, and it’s only a few bad apples – I mean only 20? What’s the big deal, right? – so where’s the harm? Then the segment seems to devolve into musings on how it can be a good option for some women.
Is it just me, or does this sound exactly like the excuses given by white, Christian women in those polygamist cults in the US? Who, I don’t need to remind anybody, are condemned by Beeboids. Double standards or what?
Having said all that, I’m surprised nobody has come up with one possible reason for the BBC’s seeming support for the normalization of multiple marriages: It fits right in with the multiple-partner lifestyles of so many of them.
Also, the number of female births in India (Pakistan probably similar) is less than expected by chance – ie something is happening to the female foetuses – one theory is abortion if they are female.
This will make the shortage of females even worse, along with polygamy.
And does the 15 year old who marries a much older man who already has several wives really have any say in the matter? Of course not. He gets to marry her becuase he is richer. And often the wealth is connected with corruption.
In India, newborn female babies are sometimes killed – I don’t know whether they are recorded as births.
Caveman,
*Forced* couples marrying is just as much an evil as *forced* polygamous marriages.
As I mention, and everyone avoids THE point (as usual when religion is involved) – voluntarily entering into multiple relationships with agreement of all parties is *not* wrong.
The matter to be addressed is the absence of *individual* rights in the use of coercion (be it physical threats, or on the equally evil religious text grounds), whether in a monogamous or a polygamous marriage.
Glenn Aylett, I’m sorry you used to like the BBC but now think its biased. I think you are misinformed though. Many of the strong feelings of people here come about through ignorance.
Let me deal with each in turn:
‘More recently a BBC reporter covering the strike over immigrant labour at the Total refinery referred to the strikers as ” xenophobes” when in reality they were local men trying to stop companies giving their jobs to immigrants’.
I think you’re referring to Nick Robinson’s report. In it he explained that the Business Secretary had, that day, said that the strikes over the use of foreign labour in the UK were grounded in xenophobia.
Nick Robinson then said “beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straight-forward xenophobia”. There followed a clip of a striker talking to camera and using a racially offensive word about one nationality of workers. The report discussed various others aspects to the strikes ie. the economic downturn, EU rules etc.
‘Also the Carol Thatcher sacking sums up how biased the BBC has become as this is after all the daughter of a BBC hate figure from the 80s and they were just waiting for the slightest excuse to sack her.’
That is totally unsubstantiated. There’s no evidence to support that at all. If it were true, why hire here in the first place! Why was she filming a programme about her mother for the BBC the very next day! It seems quite obvious why she was sacked from the One Show. She has no-one else to blame but herself.
‘However, personal comments about her mother on QI passed without comment from the BBC hierarchy as you would expect.’
Not true. They didn’t pass without comment. The producer has commented. Still, the contexts are very different.
I hope I have enlightened you some.
GBS:
As I mention, and everyone avoids THE point (as usual when religion is involved) – voluntarily entering into multiple relationships with agreement of all parties is *not* wrong.
GBS | 22.02.09 – 3:22 pm |
I suppose you have got a point there. I think what you say might be appropriate in a relatively small number of cases if everyone genuinely is happy with the situation. But if it becomes widespread, it somehow does not seem right that rich men (often rich through corruption more than hard work in poor countries) have several wives, meanwhile a shortage is created for everyone else.
It sort of ‘distorts the market’ and makes the possibility of finding a partner just that little bit more complicated and difficult, when there is already enough going on to contend with in life.
I was going to use words like ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’ but they have socialist connotations so they
cannot be used as straighforward words any more.
Bulls**t Detective | 22.02.09 – 5:45 pm
The BBC itself has made a public apology for the misleading Nick Robinson report, which you continue to defend!