So basically Britain has now gone ahead and said polygamy is now OK and legal now in the UK. Although Britain will now allow such marriages to take place in the UK. But this does not prevent such marriages to occur out side the UK, then move back or too the UK after the marriages have taken place.

So the question is, should polygamy be made legal in this case much as the current government of Brittan has? Is this in a way pandering to one group of people as being brought up.

Well, if the people involved in the marriage are happy, then it's fine. But why they are eligible for extra welfare benefits is beyond me - if you can't afford to support your extra wives, don't get anymore!

so we as tax payers are paying for someone elses religion that we dont even conform to.
if they cant afford to keep thier wives, then dont have them. same principle with children really.

it should'nt be allowed. if they don't like our laws then sod off back to their own country where they dont get any form of benifit at all and no free health care. why are they even complaining.

Huh. That's very weird. I don't see why Britain would do that. I mean, why should someone with an extra wife get extra benefits? You don't get benefits for having an ex live in your house with you and your wife. Just doesn't make much sense.

They are trying to react to the changing needs of its citizens but at the same time p***ing a lot of other citizens off in the process. I am on benefits and they're not paying me enough to cover my rent so im struggling to find the rest of the money each month. I would need to work 30+ hours at minimum wage before its better to come off the benefits than it would be to stay on them.

Giving people more money is only going to cause more long term problems then it solves, with all those wives surely they'd be earning loads?

This multiple wife thing AND benfits sounds a bit unfair to me. A guy is supposed to have money to be able to marry more than one wife, and should one of them die, he get the benefits. However, if he dies, all his wifes get to divide the benefits from him. Not very fair, if you ask me, especially since these women don't usually have jobs of their own.

I agree with this. I don't think we should have to pay for someone to have several wives. if their religion permits it then they should simply only have multiple wives if they can afford to support them. We shouldn't be supporting them for these people.

I'm just going to make a comment on a particular verse of the Qu'ran as it relates to this debate. This is from Surat An-Nisa:


Therefore, I say that if a man actually needs income support to live with more than one wife in Britain, he shouldn't have more than one wife. To paraphrase, if he cannot support so many women, then he should have only one wife.

There should be no extra benefits such arrangements.

Hey you stole my words! Give them back! =D In fact the notion of marrying more then once was to take care of the widowed in war times...which isn't the case here.

What about non-Muslims? Or women with multipale husbands. Or men with multipale husbands. Or women with multipale wives? (You guys have gay marriage correct?)

having multiple wives does not seem bad but might actually be bad . Because having multiple wives means disloyalty towards your first wife , unless she allows it that's a different story . But normal human females wouldn't be so stupid right ? If not then the number of men having multiple wives would not be as few as today . and black_barook , i wouldn't wanna imagine a woman with multiple husbands lol

in nearly all of the religions you can't have multiple husbands or wives. its against the law in the form of bigamy.

and another thing, i think the majority of the benefits would go straight in the husbands pocket. muslim women don't have any right rights in their faith/country. they don't get treated as equals.

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Why is it against the law for more then two people to get married?

Muslim women don't have the right to marry more than one man. So, they don't have same rights as men. Just because you don't beat them for going out by themselves or for wearing lacy undies, doesn't mean they enjoy same rights as men, or that they have same opportunities. All religious issues aside, I find it degrading to be forced to share your husband with 2-3 other women and compete for his attention. If he wants more women in his life, he should by all means stay single. And if he wants to make a display of his wealth he might as well buy another Mercedes or house, not another wife.

Ok, forcing people to stay in a marriage that makes a member feel degrading is bad. But what if none of the wives feel degraded at all? Is it still wrong?

Yes it is bad if they can’t afford to support themselves and are in need of the government help in order to eat.

In Islam, this is an allowed practice for men to support women who were left widowed by some means. The man is, in essance, making a donation of family funds to this woman and possible children, which is one of five essential parts of the Islam faith. But you shouldn't marry more then you can afford.

While I'm not protesting this practice, I do disagree with government support, as it undermines why this practice was put into place.

No...lol as long as it's their personal decision. Hey if we're not going to give gay people benefits when they marry why should some people get multiple benefits?

I doubt that women raised with the notion that one day they may become second wife to someone, actually feel degraded by the thought of it. They may even view it as totally right.



Yeah, then why is it that the second wife is usually much younger than the first one and she almost never has children of her own? And how come that second wife usually becomes the husband's favourite and gets to spend more time with him?

high and mighty, no.
i'm not sniping, or 'having a go'. your right in saying not all women are treated that way, but some are so my comment is still valid.

women are treated as cows in england? its seems very apt to flip reverse that, seen as cattle are kept in heards.
tbh woman are treated unfairly everywhere. bad one eh.
i'm off x

Not really, it's taught in our schools as normal but I know females that would spit in their husbands eyes (Kuwaiti saying) if he even thought of such a thing.



Well gee, men will abuse anything for their own needs. I should know.

And LOZOTRON I don't mean now, I meant it was so in the Middle Ages and I believe that doesn't give you a right to critize our entire faith or culture when yours (assuming you are Christian or European [Though I still count North Americans with Europeans]) did the same.

i'm a catholic and british, but everything aside i apologise for any offence. i'm quite abrupt with my words .. :mute:

If you can't support an extra, don't get one. I see too much room for corruption within this law.

Can a woman have multiple husbands? I see the polygamous marriage allowed as sexist because they didn't allow polyandrous marriages at the same time. I do not think much of it. Why marry if you want to be married to multiple wives at once? And why EXTRA welfare benefits?
The British government shouldn't be that naive and give extra welfare to people who certainly don't deserve it. I'm all against Sharia laws and it shouldn't be allowed in the western society. I'm all for immigration but the immigrants should respect the country they immigrate to. If the government is that naive they can lead thousands of non muslim brits to anti-immigrationism and even nazism.

I'm not British or an adherent to any one faith. I am American and I do not adhere to any one faith.

First of all, where is all of this talk of Islam coming from? Muslims may be the majority of polygamists in Great Britain, are not the only people Great Britain to practice "polygamy." Because marriage is defined very narrowly by some countries, many people of diverse faiths and backgrounds have arrangements that I would consider polygamous. In these situations, three or more romantically connected adults live together as a family unit. For example, my friend used to be part of a belly dancing troupe. In this troupe, there was a household comprised of three women. Two of the women regarded themselves as married to one another (even though gay marriage was illegal in the state in which they resided). The third was romantically involved with both spouses and lived in and contributed to the household, but her status in the household was not yet such that the others felt it necessary to call her a "wife." It was, however, implied that this status was possible should all parties one day desire it. I do not know anything about the religious affiliation of these women, but I do know that I would consider this an example of polygamy. There are many more arrangements held between private individuals than are commonly considered "marriages" in most countries.

I don't think a government should dictate to its citizens which interpersonal relationships they may or may not form. In that spirit, I think welfare benefits should be based solely on household income, with no distinctions made for type of relationship whatsoever. To make distinctions seems not only discriminatory, but also has a tendency to diminish individual freedom. I am married and I am not on any sort of welfare. But if our household income was such that welfare was required in order to eat, then why should our marital status have an effect on the type of benefits to which we are entitled? One does not have to be married at all or to only one other person in order to be hungry, so why must one be married at all or married to only one other person to claim benefits that will allow one to eat? If a country is going to put in place a system designed to feed, clothe, and otherwise provide for the poor, I think it would do well to extend those benefits to ALL poor, not only those poor that satisfy certain marital status requirements. I just don't see what a person's marital status has to do with his or her level of need. A system that is in place to address need seems like it is not doing its job if it turns away the needy for any reason, especially for a reason that is so wholly unconnected to the issue of need.

Hey now, compared to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan treats it's women alot better. At least women in Pakistan can have many of the same jobs as men and hold positions in the goverment. The country still has a long way to go but comparing it to SA is inaccurate.

As for the multiple wives thing in Islam, the reason it was allowed was because at the time it was hard for widows to support themselves and with all the tribal warfare going on at the time there were many widows, meaning that alot of the tribes had more women than men. So the rules for multiple wives were made so that these widows could be supported. From what I heard, the logic behind why men could have multiple wives but women couldn't have multiple husbands was because if a woman had multiple husbands and got pregnant it would be hard to tell who the father was (especially with lack of testing at the time) which could lead to inheritence issues. But a man with multiple wives could obviously tell, if one of the wives were pregnant, who the father was. (Unless she was cheating XP)

Of course times have changed now, while multiple marriages may have some benifits in the middle ages, now I see no need for them. Especially in developed countries such as Britian where there are no wars, plenty of people to marry, and single women can be able to support themselves and get help from the goverment. So I don't see why they should have extra benifits. And Doddibot made a good point, if they can't even support more then one wife then they shouldn't have married them.