Article

2008-08-13 Europe

Dutch authorities recognized illegal polygamous marriages

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 08:33|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 lotp, just the westernmost part.

Posted by Spike Uniter 2008-08-13 09:23|| 2008-08-13 09:23|| Front Page Top

#2 europe aint gonna die cause some local bureaucrat writes down a marriage that happened overseas.

I know, I know, boiled frogs, gradual defeats, all that. I wasnt born yesterday. But them Eurabians had better move fast before all their kids are assimilated and are spending their time making Dutch language Rap videos, or whatever.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 09:29|| 2008-08-13 09:29|| Front Page Top

#3 It's unclear that they are assimilating, and I've read people say that they're definately not. This is another step in the process.

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-13 09:32|| 2008-08-13 09:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Im going more by France than NL - in France theyre assimilating without integrating - ie they are losing their traditional culture while remaining on the margins of society in the under class - a minority of the youfs become radical islamists (in some cases a profound rejection of their parents Sufist Islam) but most are just part of a more mongrel underclass rap culture.

Muslim pop in NL includes Indonesians, etc as well as North Africans - im not sure all those subgroups are moving the same way.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 09:57|| 2008-08-13 09:57|| Front Page Top

#5 And, right after that, it's time to march down to the local welfare office I'm sure and get the new missuz on the program.
If ya can't beat em, bankrupt em.

Posted by tu3031 2008-08-13 10:23|| 2008-08-13 10:23|| Front Page Top

#6 Not untrue, re french muslims, BUT, islam remains a very strong cohesive identity glue (ramadan observance is almost universal among french muslims, even generations removed from arrival, and so is aid el kebir, a MASSIVE fait accompli that goes against all french laws and customs, but which still goes on every year), and I'm not even talking about the alimentary restriction (huge halal business, obsessive pork thing),... as a matter of fact, all sociologists, even the most PC ones (hard to top sociologists in term of PCness, french or otherwise) observe that religious observance is *increasing* along the passing of generations, younger muslims are more observant (and DEMANDING) than their fathers or grandfathers, a global trend of muslim pop IIUC.

Plus, in addition to this muslim identity, well, there is a clearcut rejection of french and westernvalues and traditions (with the help of the culture of criticism of the Enlightened Elites and their narratives pushed through school and msm, about the crimes and villainies of europans, the crimes of France, the debt of the West toward the looted third world from which we stole our weatlth,...), and an actual anti-european racism, up to and including reccurring, every day hate crimes of various seriousness, mixed with HUGE over-representatrion of arab & african Youths in criminal activity (both street level, and increasingly, organized crime, hounding the traditional italian, corsican and gypsy crime families).

So, in a way, islam is not something that is being assimilated out of the Youths, it rather adds fuel to the whole anti-white "gangsta" culture. And I might even add if there's a real acculturation process going on, it's with the lower class ethnic french stuck (for all purpose, those who can't move out and cannot afford the white flight out of what were once access-to-middle class social housing that were the dreams of 60's working classes, and are now supposedly ghettoes created by the racist french to park away those poor migrants away) in the 'hoods being actually assimilated... to the dominating muslim model, and to the spread of that "model" to the middle class (coupled with the breakdown of the educational system, which churns out, well, ignorant idiots who can't speak nor write their own language, out of touch with their history, their heritage, and who try to speak with that odious yob accent and that arab slang to be like the manly Youths who dominate the street, get the girls instead of the european boys, and racket them out of their ipod).

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-13 10:30|| 2008-08-13 10:30|| Front Page Top

#7 "Not untrue, re french muslims, BUT, islam remains a very strong cohesive identity glue (ramadan observance is almost universal among french muslims, even generations removed from arrival, and so is aid el kebir, a MASSIVE fait accompli that goes against all french laws and customs, but which still goes on every year), and I'm not even talking about the alimentary restriction (huge halal business, obsessive pork thing),... "

Mouse, I dont eat pork, I observe Rosh Hashanah AND Yom Kippur AND Passover. I consider myself 100% American, and I like to remind people that no less a person than Robert E Lee gave his men of the "Hebrew faith" time off to celebrate RH and YK.

We Americans (or at least some of us) find your French views of what constitutes "assimilation" very odd.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 11:02|| 2008-08-13 11:02|| Front Page Top

#8 I consider myself 100% American

The problem is, they really don't see them (even "assimilated" muslims I know or have known) as "100% french", but rather as 100% muslims living in France, being "french" (since they've got ID papers and are inserted into french society), but still belonging to the old country, even if they have no intention of going back there except to spend vacations, and perhaps to bring back a wife (and from there, her whole family), an increasing trend among YOUNGER immigrant generations. To them, being french is not being an heir to this patrie, but just living in this territory and having the ad hoc gvt stamp.

Besides, the point is moot, I'm a "blood & soil" guy; you either are born french, or you can become one, by actually embracing this identity, this history, and, most importantly, by shedding your old identy (the melting pot idea, obviously only for a limited minority ideally, WE ARE NOT A NATION OF MIGRANTS, period, and so aren't the USA, too, you're a nation of FORMER migrants, I'd rather think).
But, for the majority of african & arab or turkish migrant, they retain their allegiance. Embrace multiculturalism.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-13 11:15|| 2008-08-13 11:15|| Front Page Top

#9 And, again, the french muslim identity (arab & black african) is built against what I perceive as french identity, in a continuum ranging from open warfare from the islamists to the chip-on-his-shoulder of the very "assimilated" muslim. This is true of all non-western migrants (I put european migrants totally out of this, attitude is 180° from that, with the glaring exception of the ever-loving "romanians"), who basically either don't mold or don't want to mold themselves into France, even when they are troubleless like the chinese, who just keep to themselves.
A major, easily identifiable point is the first names of the child born in France; you'll find with a 99.99% occurrance that asian most often give their kids french first names, speak with non-descript french accent, and are accepted as fully french despite being non-white, while almost all african or arab or turks or pakistanis... give muslim or african first names to kids born even after 3rd generation, or from mixed couples.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-13 11:23|| 2008-08-13 11:23|| Front Page Top

#10 "the melting pot idea, obviously only for a limited minority ideally, WE ARE NOT A NATION OF MIGRANTS, period, and so aren't the USA, too, you're a nation of FORMER migrants"

We are former immigrants who have contributed our immigrant customs to the common mix, and who have often retained our old customs, esp where those customs are specifically religious.

Im not going to suggest that the racial and politial tensions in the banlieus are not important. But you cited specifically dietary questions and holiday observance as evidence of failure to assimilate, and here in the USA those just are NOT criteria for assimilation.

If some guy whose father came from Algiers is not really French cause he wont eat pork, then either Im not really American cause I wont, or else theres a fundamental difference between the USA and France.

Or else, political and social issues are being confused with ones of religious ritual.

Posted by Galitizianer 2008-08-13 11:31|| 2008-08-13 11:31|| Front Page Top

#11 I'd cite gang rapes of girls and young women who refuse the veil, myself.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 11:36|| 2008-08-13 11:36|| Front Page Top

#12 France is not an aggregate of communities united under one ideal like the current notion of the USA seems to be. If muslims want to live in France, AND become french, then, in an ideal world they must conform to the larger french "standard" (which is not set in stone, but is self-evident as one assimilates himself into its curretn version) and that implies giving up on the non-private part of islam, and eventually disappearing as a separate community, to become, again, french of muslim descent, not muslims living in France.
Of course, since this is not an ideal world, the exact reverse is happening, and almost all schools have dropped pork out of their meals not to offend muslims (most do not even propose non-pork priducts as a separate choice, and many even propose halal food even to non-muslims), entire streets are blocked by public praying several times a day in marseiiles or elsewhere,... and anyway, that french "standard" which I mentioned above doesn't even stand anymore, having been supplanted by the dogma of métissage and multiculturalism, and most of our heritage, religious notably, has been left over on purpose. So, even for those who would like to assimilate and melt themselves into France, well, there is nothing to assimilate to anymore, or almost.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-13 11:47|| 2008-08-13 11:47|| Front Page Top

#13 "Of course, since this is not an ideal world, the exact reverse is happening, and almost all schools have dropped pork out of their meals not to offend muslims "

but that isnt required to not offend muslims. In schools where I live, meals that include pork are noted by a tiny picture of a pig, and those, whether Jewish or Muslim who prefer to avoid them can take another offering.

perhaps French schools dont offer as many different offerings as American schools do?

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 12:13|| 2008-08-13 12:13|| Front Page Top

#14 " If muslims want to live in France, AND become french, then, in an ideal world they must conform to the larger french "standard" (which is not set in stone, but is self-evident as one assimilates himself into its curretn version) and that implies giving up on the non-private part of islam, "

what is public, and what private? Do you have to eat pork to be a good Frenchmen? Because if so, then there are thousands of observant French Jews who need to depart.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 12:15|| 2008-08-13 12:15|| Front Page Top

#15 Galitzianer, I think the point is that in America a person will consider himself 100% American, and consider his religious observances as a part of that. In France, the Muslims are using their religious observances to distinguish themselves -- in their own minds, most importantly -- as French in name only.

Granted, France has a problem with those who insist on clinging to their religious particularity. I think it was Napoleon who, speaking of the French Jews, said, "To the individual, everything. To the group, nothing." But regardless, there is now an openly aggressive Muslim piety that aims to clarify to the native French that France now belongs to the Muslims.

To help my understanding, anonymous5089, do you consider yourself a Catholic/Christian?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-13 12:16|| 2008-08-13 12:16|| Front Page Top

#16 Sounds like the components for a large fire.
Oh, yeah, that's been happening right along.
Rioting, check...Raping, check...Murder, no doubt, looks like we're all set for a civil war in Frogland. Cake for the winners.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-13 12:18|| 2008-08-13 12:18|| Front Page Top

#17 "In France, the Muslims are using their religious observances to distinguish themselves -- in their own minds, most importantly -- as French in name only. "

and again, im not sure thats really the case. There are old folks who keep the old ways. There are youfs who are seriously alienated, but arent deeply muslim, though they may refrain from pork and keep ramadan out of solidarity. There are also folks whove adopted the jihadist POV of denying any loyalty to an infidel state, but from what Ive been told by Frenchmen on other sites (see I know someones gonna say Im not there and dont know, and I admit that, but Im not going to limit myself to anecdotal evidence from folks here, who arent necessarily representative of all "christian" frenchmen)

I mean what Im seeing, TW, is claims that French muslims are failing to assimilate, made on the basis of behavior that in the USA would be considered good assimilation by muslims, and furthermore that would hold me (if not you) as a failure to assimilate as well. Now Im perfectly fine that France isnt the US, has its own traditions and political viewpoints (indeed, I think Im rather more fine with that than most people here, who get in a tizzy that they dont mostly share our approach to economics) but I think that when an American reads that French Muslims arent "assimilated" and that "eurabia" is threatening, they arent thinking "oh, they dont eat pork, and consider themselves a distinctive community, just like the Jews or the Amish or the Mormons in the USA do"

And that leads to considerable misunderstanding on THIS side of the Atlantic.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 12:25|| 2008-08-13 12:25|| Front Page Top

#18 Gang rape of unveiled women is behavior that is viewed as indicating assimilation in the US?

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 12:34|| 2008-08-13 12:34|| Front Page Top

#19 No, I was responding to Mous statements about keeping halal and ramadan.

Obviously gang rape of woman for being unveiled is an indicator of being unassimilated (and is also criminal and vile, as ANY rape of anyone for any reason would be)

What percent of muslim men participate in such rapes?

Note Im NOT saying there isnt a problem with assimilation. But "europe is lost" statements are usually based on data that INCLUDES not only muslims who dont condone such acts, but even the women who are victims of such acts. Ironic, eh?

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 12:45|| 2008-08-13 12:45|| Front Page Top

#20 Oh, I agree that religious observance per se should not be a mark of not assimilating. Nor should being an active member of a religious congregation as we both are, Galitzianer. But demanding imposition of one's own rules on the general population signals a problem. Hence anonymous5089's objection to halal food and daily prayer. Not because some keep it themselves, but because too many insist school meals for the general population must also comply, and because they choose to block traffic several times a day so that they may pray were they stand instead of taking themselves off to a mosque, or praying quietly at their desks, as everyone else must do if they wish to keep their jobs.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-13 13:02|| 2008-08-13 13:02|| Front Page Top

#21 i dont know much about the insistence on school meals, or the traffic issues, and id be happy to see links to an unbiased source (and yeah, it could be in French, Im rusty but could struggle through it)

Based on my past experience with this kind of discourse, you will forgive me for guessing that whats involved is some French school that serves only one entree (not being as commited to choice as we in the USA are) or else its some school in a 98% muslim neighborhood where the pork entrees simply find no takers.

I recall the heated discussion of teh evil mooselimbs trying to keep an NGO from giving pork to poor frenchies, and it turned out they were doing a pork soup kitchen in a mainly muslim neighborhood, with fairly obvious intentions to insult.

and, again, btw, TW, i dont just belong to a congregation. I observe a fair amount of halacha, I participate in federation activities INCLUDING support for Israel, and otehr political issues. I am a PUBLIC jew, very much so, and that does NOT mean I want to subordinate non-Jews to Judaism or create a Jewish polity here. I am going to be just as demandign of evidence that most muslims are doing trying to impose Islam in "eurabia". And I will not accept assumptions based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes observance that defines religion in essentially Christian terms, and combines that with a parochial french definition of assimilation.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 13:11|| 2008-08-13 13:11|| Front Page Top

#22 I think you're missing one salient difference: Judaism is not expansionist, indeed is the exact opposite.

Militant islam is.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 13:19|| 2008-08-13 13:19|| Front Page Top

#23 so, proselytization is okay if its a religion thats "private" like christianity, "public" religion is okay for a religion that doenst proselytize, like Judaism, but when you both proselytize AND has is a "public" religion, thats bad.

Not sure I follow the logic.

I guess that makes LDS unAmerican though - I mean they wont drink COFFEE, and to me thats more essentially american than pork. and damn, they sure do try to expand.

Also, note well, there are a FEW Reform Jews who think the discouragement of proselytizing is wrong, and IIUC not all of them eat pork ;)

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 13:23|| 2008-08-13 13:23|| Front Page Top

#24 "Militant islam is."

all islam supports prosylitazation, IIUC. Except for odd groups like the Druze. By expansion do you mean conquest by force?

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 13:24|| 2008-08-13 13:24|| Front Page Top

#25 I mean, among other things, the forceable imposition of Shari'a without reference to private conscience.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 13:30|| 2008-08-13 13:30|| Front Page Top

#26 Duh, the taxi drivers of Tel Aviv, who make a good part of their living cause theres no bus service on Shabbat, in a mainly secular city, also say hi.

as do the folks who fly to Cyprus to get married when their marriages are forbidden by halacha, cause theres no civil marriage in ISrael, also say hi.

But anyway, thats not really what you meant is it? Not the fact that alcohol is banned in muslim countries (as it is in many US cities and counties) or other such things, but the belief in aggressively taking over non-muslim countries and THEN imposing sharia on them, and not just minor stuff, like no booze, but deeply political stuff, like forms of punishment, blasphemy laws, etc. That latter tendency among the Jihadists has no equivalent among Jews, or even Mormons, I agree.

But Im not convinced the majority of french or Dutch muslims support it either, and I dont think the stuff mous was saying showed that it is. Im also not sure that a dutch population registrar noting that Abu Abdullah got married to BOTH fatima abdullah, AND aisha Abdullah, back in Rabat, necessarily means that the Mooselimbs are about to force the Dutchies to stop drinking heineken. Its a complex area of law, and may have been misdecided by the local registrar, I agree, but its not eurabia.

Posted by superstitiousGalitizianer 2008-08-13 13:38|| 2008-08-13 13:38|| Front Page Top

#27 In reference to the article lotp posted, I think we can agree it is not a good thing for a Western nation to allow a select group to openly flout a culturally significant law, and benefit from that flouting. In this case, the equal treatment of men and women under the law, and the sparing of offspring from the psychological dangers of the harem -- or do the Dutch plan to allow women to bring in spare husbands, too? I think we can assume that the purpose of recognizing these formerly illegal wives is to allow welfare benefits to the extra wives and their children when the husbands cannot or will not support them financially. Will the Dutch then go on to support the unmarried mistresses of those who can attract them, on the grounds that the men would have engaged in polygamous marriages had it been available... or is this something that will only be available to those reared in a culture of polygamy?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-13 13:43|| 2008-08-13 13:43|| Front Page Top

#28 "They are simply acknowledged. It is important for us to check that the documents are authentic and that the husband does not have Dutch nationality." Otherwise the construction is illegal, Verhoeven explained."

Its not clear from the article WHAT is done as a result of the registration.

thought experiment for you, TW. Abu married Fatima in Rabat. Abu married aisha in Rabat. The three of them move to Amsterdam. Abu divorces Fatima, in accord with Dutch law. Abu DOES NOT divorce Aisha. Abu attempts to marry Christina. Aisha complains that Abu is commiting bigamy. Abu rejectst that, saying his marriage to Aisha has no standing in Dutch law, since it was a second marriage.

How do you decide?

Note, this is not an idle question, it comes up in halacha - sometimes being lenient makes you strict, and being strict makes you lenient (again issues of intermarriage and bigamy and proper divorce and annulled marriages and all that)

Without a full explanation of what the implications are, which the article does not provide us, I wont make assumptions.

Posted by supergal 2008-08-13 13:53|| 2008-08-13 13:53|| Front Page Top

#29 I recall the heated discussion of teh evil mooselimbs trying to keep an NGO from giving pork to poor frenchies, and it turned out they were doing a pork soup kitchen in a mainly muslim neighborhood, with fairly obvious intentions to insult.

Nope, this was indeed a clever agitprop by a rightwing group, BUT, this was not set in a muslim 'hood (this would not have been physically possible, simply put), this was just it, a soup for homeless with pork and red wine - and the stomping was not done by muslims but by the power-that-be, who have curiously no problem allowing jewish or muslim-only soup. Intent of the move was to expose the double standards, and it worked.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-08-13 14:22|| 2008-08-13 14:22|| Front Page Top

#30 "jewish or muslim-only soup"

Im not sure what such soup would be like, could you inform me? Ive made matzoh ball soup, and my christian friends seem to like it.

And IIRC, it was in a heavily muslim area, but perhaps my memory fails.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 14:24|| 2008-08-13 14:24|| Front Page Top

#31 I don't think its just a step but a waypoint.

For some reason I keep trying to connect this to the 'up you ally' deal in san fran - must have something to do with government breaking its own laws for its own political expediency. That of course is a breach of contract with the citizens and erodes the faith in government; the governors no longer consider themselves accountable to its citizens or to their duty as representatives of state and obligation.

I think what A5089 meant is that the soup must be acceptable for everyone or it is not allowed. That attitude is in the USA as well though not as mean (as stated it may have been a bait but it was a NGO which the government forced its influence upon) but with a smile (not everyone likes to play tag so nobody can play tag).

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-08-13 14:54|| 2008-08-13 14:54|| Front Page Top

#32 I think that some wits ought to turn this on its ear by having a woman marry four men, just to make sport. It would be especially good if she is a leather "master" type and they dress up like "slaves".

If they really wanted to be over the top, they could make a video of them wearing masks, the men wearing Mohammed masks. With her spanking them and making them eat pork chops for being naughty.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-08-13 15:13|| 2008-08-13 15:13|| Front Page Top

#33 thought experiment for you, TW. Abu married Fatima in Rabat. Abu married aisha in Rabat. The three of them move to Amsterdam. Abu divorces Fatima, in accord with Dutch law. Abu DOES NOT divorce Aisha. Abu attempts to marry Christina. Aisha complains that Abu is commiting bigamy. Abu rejectst that, saying his marriage to Aisha has no standing in Dutch law, since it was a second marriage.

I think that's why the rabbis decided to outlaw polygamy, supergalitz. ;-) Were I to rule on it, I'd say that Abu could only bring one wife with him, not both. The situation of the second wife back home is a matter between him, her, and their families, but has no legal standing in the monogamous country. Likewise, the second wife's objections to Abu's divorce and remarriage in the monogamous country are not a concern for the Law there, although I personally would not be willing to marry someone with a pre-existing wife back home. However, divorce of the first wife does not make Abu less bigamous when he takes a third, as this is not a case of serial monogamy, but of serial bigamy, which is illegal in the monogamous country. Wife number three thus would have a legal case against Abu, although wife #2 would not as she has no legal standing to bring suit in the monogamous country. I've done this particular thought exercise before. ;-)

Being nonjudgemental of those who are different is all very nice, but not when one or the other way really is better... or worse.

Posted by trailing wife 2008-08-13 15:17|| 2008-08-13 15:17|| Front Page Top

#34 I think that's why the rabbis decided to outlaw polygamy, supergalitz.

only the ashkenazim did. the sephardim allowed it till modern times.

anyway, outlawing polygamy doesnt entirelyavoid the problem. There are many complications introduced by civil divorce, intermarriage, etc.

as for Aisha, I did not specify that she was "brought" by Abu. She simply decided to migrate to the NL, bought a ticket like anyone else. So now she IS in the NL. I think ignoring her prior marriage to Abu is going to have to mean you allow him to remarry and give her no option, which seems unfair as her marriage was completely legal WHERE it was entered into.

this isnt about being nonjudgemental between different CULTURES - its about dealing with problems created by differences between different national LAWS.

IIUC there are many situations where a country recognizes marriages which would not be legal to perform in that country.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 15:50|| 2008-08-13 15:50|| Front Page Top

#35 It is my understanding that American law requires that before entering into a marriage here, all previous spouses must be divorced. Marriages that have taken place under foreign laws are considered to be pre-existing. So if I am correct, Abu would have to legally divorce both Fatima and Aisha before he could marry Christina, and come to an agreement on divorce settlements and support for all the children. Nonetheless, here only Fatima would be given legal rights as Abu's wife, and only her children would have standing as legal children. Ignoring, of course, those in New York City who chose to wink at the law when handing out welfare to the poor multiple wives and children that Somalian idiot kept in the same apartment building until it caught fire a few years ago... and his compatriots who boasted about similarly gaming the system.

Is this unfair to Aisha and her children? Yes, until Abu is forced to divorce her. However, you said nothing about Aisha mustering law and family connections to force Abu to divorce her back home, before she joined him and Fatima over here (or in Amsterdam or wherever), which would make the whole thing moot. What benefit did she see in coming to a land where she and her children have no legal standing? For that matter, why did she not force the issue by suing him for bigamy once they settled here, and making him provide support for her and their children, so that they would neither be in legal limbo nor a burden on the State?

Admittedly I haven't read the article, so I don't know how the Dutch plan to handle this, nor whether they are recognizing pre-immigration polygamy or allowing a certain group of men to legally marry multiple women in Holland. The second should be anathema, the first is a bit more complicated but can be handled.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-13 16:44|| 2008-08-13 16:44|| Front Page Top

#36 However, you said nothing about Aisha mustering law and family connections to force Abu to divorce her back home, before she joined him and Fatima over here (or in Amsterdam or wherever), which would make the whole thing moot.

Her whole family died in a tragic accident, she has no more connections.
What benefit did she see in coming to a land where she and her children have no legal standing?

see above. Plus she has a REALLY big thing for windmills and wooden shoes. And for freedom, dont forget that.

For that matter, why did she not force the issue by suing him for bigamy once they settled here, and making him provide support for her and their children, so that they would neither be in legal limbo nor a burden on the State?

first, of course, I said nothing about being a burden on the state. There is nothing in what I said, nor in the linked article saying this has ANYTHING to do with eligibility for welfare. Lets assume it does not. In fact given NL generous social services, it seems to me quite reasonable that it does not. They might well give social supports to anyone without regard to marital status.

second, why doesnt she sue to avoid legal limbo? Well cause she likes the dude, and she had no particular problem with the first wife (we can specify that teh first wife is her cousin, if that makes it more credible) Or simply that her mind was opened after teh first wife was divorced. Or simply that she considered a marriage contracted in Rabat just fine, cause that was the custom there, but to be bigamized in Amsterdam was a totally different matter. as for kids, she has none. Cause I say so.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 16:53|| 2008-08-13 16:53|| Front Page Top

#37 so I don't know how the Dutch plan to handle this, nor whether they are recognizing pre-immigration polygamy or allowing a certain group of men to legally marry multiple women in Holland

at most its the first, as the part i quoted indicates. Its not even clear that they will recognize the foreign multiple marriages for ALL purposes.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 16:54|| 2008-08-13 16:54|| Front Page Top

#38 After the Murder arrest of African American militant, Rap Brown, it was disclosed that he had married 2 ladies in islamic ceremonies. It didn't come out until the issue came up of care of his property when he was in prison. Many more of these shariah arrangements are concealed.

Posted by McZoid 2008-08-13 16:58|| 2008-08-13 16:58|| Front Page Top

#39 congrats on finally figureing out what kinda on topic means.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 16:59|| 2008-08-13 16:59|| Front Page Top

#40 I need to get hooked up with that. But play it straight and have a wife that's a lawyer, one that's a doctor, one that's a hedge fund manager, ect, ect, ect. Then you got something. Not just a house full of circumcised burka babes.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-13 17:04|| 2008-08-13 17:04|| Front Page Top

#41 Talmudic hairsplitting aside, IMO there really is a larger issue here that needs recognizing.

In the late 90s the Moslem Brotherhood called for Muslims to chip away at western societies until full Shari'a could be imposed.

This past year a very senior Islamicist theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, published his new book Edarat al-Wahsh (Governance in the Wilderness) in which he urges a program of decentralized attacks by Muslims on non-Muslim societies through lawfair, use of Western welfare and human rights mechanisms and low-level violence. Non-Islamicist societies must, he says, be turned into 'wildernesses' where no one can feel safe or secure unless they live by Shari'a practices.

In order to achieve such an effect, one must first chip away at being a small numeric and cultural minority. Polygamous marriage recognition is exactly this sort of chipping away at Western society, especially when it consists of *officials* ignoring the explicit law of the land.

There has been no debate in Netherlands about the law and whether it should be changed. There has been no consent by the people. Instead, there has been a covert submission by officials to implicit and often explicit demands.

The Netherlands isn't the only place this is happening. The brazen welfare frauds committed in the UK by Abu Hamza al-Masri, drawing substantial welfare payments each year while somehow being able to own a very expensive home, originally caused an outcry when it was uncovered. Shortly afterwards a British law lord ruled that the government could not cut off those benefits. Nor has he yet to be extradited to face trial in the US --- a battle that has been going on for over 4 years now.

Looking at the twigs on the trees misses the forest. The rule of law and public consent are key elements in western civilization. Our law codes conflict with Shari'a and with tribal customs such as forced marriage of underage girls, female circumcision and honor killings. Insofar as we do not strongly defend our way of life it WILL be eroded beyond recovery.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 17:08|| 2008-08-13 17:08|| Front Page Top

#42 There has been no debate in Netherlands about the law and whether it should be changed. There has been no consent by the people. Instead, there has been a covert submission by officials to implicit and often explicit demands.

its not clear that FROM the article whether this was about demands, admin convenience or what.

And Im sorry, but you have to look at leaves to see if the forest is there.

welfare fraud existed long before there were muslim immigrants in the west. as did bureucrats holding themselves above legislators, esp in Europe.

I insisnt on examining leaves because Ive seen too many distortions to trust folks telling me about the forest.

I note in your penultimate sentence you included customs that are widely held to be against Sharia. And use that as a basis for the assertion that Sharia in general is incompatible with our law codes.

SOME items of Sharia ARE incompatible with "our law codes" some items of the law codes of the US are incompatible with the law codes of european countries. of course, or theyd be the same law code.

The real question is whether muslims who consider themselvs to be following Sharia can live in accordance with the laws of non-muslim countries that dont recognize Shari, non-muslim countries that DO recognize it, and muslim countries that are predominantly secular. The answer to all three is a resounding YES - hundreds of thousands of observant muslims live in the US and obey US law, despite the lack of explicit recognintion of Sharia. Other muslims live in non-muslims states that partially recognize Sharia, notably india and Israel, both states that have avoided the imposition of sharia on non-muslim citizens (i am, needless to say, much mroe familair with the status of Sharia in Israel than in India) and there are muslims who live in more or less secular muslim states from Morocco to indonesia.

THAT is the forest.

The Sharia phobia thing is getting very tiresome.

I hate radical islamists with a passion. I have real issues with "moderate" muslims, notably their willingness to selectively excuse atrocities that support certain political movements. But the notion that there is a serious movement to impose Sharia on the non-muslim world by the muslims who live there, has very little real world support outside of maybe Britain, and not even as much there as some think.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 17:30|| 2008-08-13 17:30|| Front Page Top

#43 And you know that exactly how?

Saying it is so, at great length, does not a proof make.

I've cited one recent influential force who has laid out such a course of action. I've referred with out detailed citation to another, whose validity can easily be checked online.

A French citizen comments thoughtfully and with some nuance on matters in his country and you contradict him without any facts or experience to back it up.

You've sidestepped both of us -- and others here -- to offer generalized assertions at great length without data. From the number of comments you've made today, it would appear you intend to substitute volume for content. Not very persuasive.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-13 17:40|| 2008-08-13 17:40|| Front Page Top

#44 Im sorry if ive posted too much, Ive been away from here a long time.

My opinions on muslim behavior and opinion in the west is based on hundreds of things ranging from my personal observations of people I know, to reports in all different kinds of media, to my study of history, to very nuanced reports from individuals who live in europe and who wouldnt be caught dead posting here. I dont have cites at my fingertips sorry - Ive come here mainly to discuss Georgia and found myself distracted by this thread. You can choose to disbelieve me, if you wish, there would be nothing unreasonable if you did. I can only give you my word I am sincere, for what its worth.

I have tried to focus on the actual article you posted, and I think I have demonstrated there is not much there. When i do so, you complain that I am focusing on leaves and missing the forest. Well the forest necessarily is something impressionistic and my impressions are quite different from yours.

Yes, I understand some Imam thinks muslims should be trying to impose Sharia. I happen to be aware (from Bernard Lewis, amogn other sources)that the problem of muslims living in non-muslim states is along standing problem for muslim theologians. Its NOT clear to me that the fatwas on that matter are really of much import to the vast majority of muslims living in the west. In fact I strongly beleivethey are not.

are the actions of a small minority of western muslims from gang rapes to terror acts something to be reviled and opposed? Of course. Does it mean there is real danger of Europe being lost? That question is dependent on how many muslims support those things, and how that is changing over age cohorts. It cant be answered by studying fatwas.

as for the frenchman here, his views of what constitutes "assimilation" are so different from mine (the discussion of halal etc that you lost patience with) that his assertion that most young muslims in France arent assimilated is not relevant. Its great hes there to empirically measure things (assuming of course, he really does spend time in the banlieus - my informant on a differnt site DID spend such time, and came to rather different conclusions, and also asserted that many frenchmen do NOT spend much time in the banlieus and do not have accurate views of what goes on there) but if hes not measuring what we agree is important - not how many muslims keep halal, but how many want to change french law to allow things like plural marriage - than his data is misleading.

Thank you

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-13 17:59|| 2008-08-13 17:59|| Front Page Top

#45 ^^^^ Troll

Posted by Spike Uniter 2008-08-13 19:27|| 2008-08-13 19:27|| Front Page Top

#46 At Partition, India assumed constitutional protection for Shariah. Yes, Muslim polygamy is allowed in India. And the Muslim education curriculum imposes Arabic and Islamic studies requiring 30% of a student's time. Google "Muslim Personal Law" if you doubt that our muslims demand piecemeal shariah in the West. Warning: doing the search will challenge stereotypes.

Some Muslim groups work for regulations against sales of alcohol in public universities; and they want halal food and dar-islam mosque privileges.

Posted by McZoid 2008-08-13 22:33|| 2008-08-13 22:33|| Front Page Top

23:43 FOTSGreg
23:35 Correction
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:29 Correction
23:28 rjschwarz
23:23 Halliburton - Blogosphere Welcome Division
23:23 Jiggs Chiter5628
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:17 Correction
23:12 3dc
23:11 tipover
23:02 Steve White
22:56 Classical_Liberal
22:55 Correction
22:36 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
22:35 crosspatch
22:33 McZoid
22:30 Hupusong Hatfield aka Broadhead6
22:30 Besoeker
22:23 Hupusong Hatfield aka Broadhead6
22:22 McZoid
22:21 USN,Ret.
22:18 lotp
22:18 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division