Muslim Asylum Seeker asks High Court to let in second wife

[fionnmccool]

Alas, only by anecdote. However I'll be nice-[SIZE="3"]if[/SIZE] thats what those individuals said, then they need their heads checked. An open borders policy is neither workable or desirable. Nor am I aware of anywhere that has one.

Everyone else on the thread is no different. It's scientific enough to simply ask them and give them space to answer.
Go ask them yourself. I'm not here to lie to people. Feck that. Truth is the only thing worth seeking or worth writing. In particular I spoke with some old dear who I seem to remember had bad teeth. A true believer in the new trendy hippy style open border faith and the dogma which has sprung up out of it. Go find them on the streets. Be nice, be polite to them. let them speak then ask them what should be done about our borders. It comes across as almost like a religion. Theres no concern for the aftermath if people actually took their views seriously and implemented them. No logic. Just free love. Like the concept of the religious fool who ends up with no shirt on his back. None of the most heavily multicultural countries in the world anywhere have become hippy paradises. Its a strange alliance for sure because having dark skin does not make one a liberal. It's fine in theory but in reality its too idealistic for anyone who isnt on an acid trip. Its' yet another diversion from more pressing issues.

[clonycavanman]

On what Legal basis are we obliged to consider in our Courts the claims of Asylum Seekers?

The Irish Government currently permits, far in excess of it's international obligations, the legal actions of foreign nationals against decisions already carefully made by that Government; and has funded those legal actions, much to the disadvantage of the people of this country.

The Geneva Convention on refugees (find it at UNHCR Welcome), to which Ireland is a voluntary signatory, and from which Ireland can withdraw at a year's notice, requires an appeal to a competent authority, plus legal advice, plus time to find another country to go to, before a refugee is expelled.
An appeal-one!

Ireland and Britain have opted out of EU immigration law (to preserve the common travel area, not to better safeguard the interests of the Irish people ) but have signed up to the minimum standards in asylum procedures directive; Council Directive 2005/85/EC. (Easier to find with a search engine than on the EU's incomprehensible lex website). This requires, (Art 39), 'applicants for asylum have a right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal'.
A court or a tribunal-not a series of them!

The Irish Government has been timid and unconfident, and has failed to implement it's own careful decisions to refuse asylum, and has permitted in some cases very undesireable persons to remain on our territory; some to set up sohisticated frauds (example 'Gardai uncover €2m fraud by asylum applicants' , from the Independent 25 Nov 2008); some to run up enormous legal aid bills and court costs , paid for by the taxpayer, by using legal actions to prolong their stay. In 2008 3 out of 5 judicial reviews at the High Court related to asylum and immigration issues.
Also; 'One in 20 asylum applications made form behind bars' -see One in 20 asylum applications made from behind bars - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie
And you know how reluctant the courts are to give a custodial sentence.

Our Government's prevarication, indecision, and incompetence (presenting lawyers with a 'take us to the cleaners' euro-millions feeding trough) has brought these problems unfairly upon the Irish people.

[Cato]

Facetious. Only one major religious group condones it. Attempting to decouple the discussion from Islam, never mind the fact that is being discussed in the context of a muslim taking legal action to have it recognized smacks of a desire to avoid real discussion.

Edit: In addition, you have a lot to learn about conservative Islam. You bandy about bon mots like "freely consenting" when such a thing doesn't exist for women in Islam. It is perverse; an inversion, that folks who seek to tout how liberal they are focus on Irish law when the divinely sanctioned practices of conservative muslims are so utterly illiberal. It starts with Hal-al foods, moves on to freedom of speech and along the way, through segregation, subjugation of women and erosion of their rights, ends with barbaric savagery such as recently seen in Turkey and Bangladesh. They are part of the same continuum of Islamic practice.

What we are seeing is the conservative muslims starting to probe at the limits of what can be considered acceptable in Ireland. The push has begun and, mark my words, for it has occured everywhere Muslims forge sub-societies in the west, it will not stop. Once a concession is won, it's on to the next thing. It is a push on a one way process which will make our society less Irish and more Islamic.

Before you throw your lot in with that push, I suggest you spend some time reading about its consequences. If you wish to prove how enlightened you are, please go do something positive like promoting asylum for Burmese, North Koreans or Chinese or Tibetan dissidents.


It is astounding that the self-appointed guardians of humanism and rights (the left) seek to facilitate the utterly inhuman and illiberal practices of Islam.

You are reading into my posts points that are not there. I am merely trying to ascertain why people are against polygamy, per se. I have not ventured any opinion on it either way.

As to conservative islam and my supposed mis-placed leftist sympathies; you must not have read many of my posts. I am a secularist and think that NO religion should have ANY influence on public policy. I think that religion should be a private affair and that people should never bring it up in the context of a decision on public policy. Nor do I think that any account should be taken towards religious feelings when making law or public policy.

All religion is built on falsehood and fear and they should all be rejected by thinking men and women everywhere. I hope that clears it up for you.

[sondagefaux]

............... I am merely trying to ascertain why people are against polygamy, per se. I have not ventured any opinion on it either way.
.

That is the only point really worth considering on this , yet another laborious thread that harkens the "ride the of xenophobes."

"

Use Wagner it scares the hell out of the slopes

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek"]YouTube- Apocalypse Now - The Ride Of The Valkyries[/ame]

[Lazarus]

This is not correct. The male can have children with all his wives and concubines. He need not even tell the first woman he has a second/third/fourth wife.

A Muslim man may have 4 wives. Concubines went out with Genie and the lamp. As stated before, the man has to give each wife exactly the same amount of money, goods, homes, gifts etc. Which brings us to our asylum seeker who brought over one wife, and left one behind. Wrong. On both counts. He should have brought both wives with him, or none, and if his life was in danger, then his wives' lives were in danger, as were his children, so he showed favour to one wife by getting her here, but not the other one. And how come the left behind wife appeared to survive well enough despite him having to run for his life? Does not make much sense.

Carrying on with Sharia law, the two wives should have a home, each. There are women quarters in Muslim houses granted, but that is where the visiting wives, inlaws (double inlaws God), nieces etc., meet up. In Saudi very few people have more than one wife. They cannot afford a second one, let alone four of them.

So will our man want two houses for his two households? Two lots of benefit, if he is indeed on benefit. If he is wealthy, grand. Let him remove himself to a country that allows such marriages. This will solve his problem but I think we have another well funded test case going before the courts, again, to change our constitution to suit our "guests", which I don't mind, but when our constitution is not changed for the benefit of thousands of Irish citizens who are either homosexual or lesbian, or of surgically altered gender, then I will not lose any sleep over this case should this man lose.

Re the circumcision business. I believe that when one lives in a particularly sandy place, i.e. the desert, that sandy particles get into the penis of boys, causing infections, pain, etc. Circumcision helps prevent such mishaps. A logical step, then, I think. To circumcise girls however, is done only to prevent them feeling any pleasure from the sexual act. Spite rather than right in that case.

[pete2]

A Muslim man may have 4 wives. Concubines went out with Genie and the lamp. As stated before, the man has to give each wife exactly the same amount of money, goods, homes, gifts etc...
Carrying on with Sharia law, the two wives should have a home, each. There are women quarters in Muslim houses granted, but that is where the visiting wives, inlaws (double inlaws God), nieces etc., meet up. In Saudi very few people have more than one wife. They cannot afford a second one, let alone four of them...

Worth mentioning shia and sunni Mut'a marriage contracts also, temporary marriages for the purposes of casual sex/arrangements.

I wonder out loud whether these Mut'a marriages are being abused to facilitate economic migration?

[fionnmccool]

Worth mentioning shia and sunni Mut'a marriage contracts also, temporary marriages for the purposes of casual sex/arrangements.

I wonder out loud whether these Mut'a marriages are being abused to facilitate economic migration?

A Lebanese-American friend told me a long time ago about these. If memory serves me correctly, theres a few famous Lebanese actresses or popstars who have used a string of short term marriages as a socially acceptable way of being promiscuous.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Part of the problem, Clonycavanman, is that Lisbon signs the EU up to the Geneva Convention, and this is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Granted - we and the UK have an optout from Justice and Home Affairs. But we have amended the Constitution last October such that the govt/Oireachtas can surrender the optout without a referendum (Article 29.4.7. of the Constitution), and with FG's Euro-election manifesto pledging to scrap the optout, it is probably only a matter of time before the optout is abolished, making the Geneva Convention binding on Ireland while we remain EU member states. It was an absolute disgrace that this fact has been hidden (by omission) by the elites in the referendum campaign owing to a compliant, Dublin 4 elite media (including Newstalk which has just lost a BCI complaint against it for bias in the campaign).

[realist]

I wonder is the this the same guy?

Lebanese man disputes refusal to allow his two wives live here - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

[SAT]

This is not correct. The male can have children with all his wives and concubines. He need not even tell the first woman he has a second/third/fourth wife.

Not according to this Islamic site

What is the Legal Status of Polygamy in Islam?

The Verse that allows polygamy "was revealed after the battle of Uhud in which many Muslims were killed, leaving widows and orphans for whom due care was incumbent upon the Muslim survivors."

The translation of the verse is as follows: "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then (marry) only one…" (Qur’an 4:3)

From this verse a number of facts are evident:

1 That polygamy is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted.

2 That the permission to practice polygamy is not associated with mere satisfaction of. Rather, it is associated with compassion towards widows and orphans, a matter that is confirmed by the atmosphere in which the verse was revealed.

3 That even in such a situation, the permission is far more restricted than the normal practice which existed among the Arabs and other peoples at that time when many married as many as ten or more wives.

4 That dealing justly with one’s wives is an obligation. This applies to housing, food, clothing, kind treatment…etc., for which the husband is fully responsible. If one is not sure of being able to deal justly with them, the Qur’an says: "then (marry) only one." (Qur’an 4:3)

This verse, when combined with another verse in the same chapter, shows some discouragement of such plural marriages. The other verse plainly states: "You are never able to be fair and just between women even if it is your ardent desire…" (Qur’an 4:129)

The requirement of justice rules out the fantasy that man can "own as many as he pleases." It also rules out the concept of a "secondary wife", for all wives have exactly the same status and are entitled to identical rights and claims over their husband. It also implies, according to the Islamic Law, that should the husband fail to provide enough support for any of his wives, she can go to court and ask for a divorce.

5 The verse says "marry," not kidnap, buy or seduce. What is "marriage" as understood in Islam? Marriage in Islam is a civil contract which is not valid unless both contracting parties consent to it. Thus, no wife can be forced or "given" to a husband who is already married.

It is thus a free choice of both parties. As to the first wife:

A She may be barren or ill and see in polygamy a better solution than divorce.

B She may divorce him (unilaterally) if he is married to a second wife provided that the nuptial contract gives her the right of unilateral divorce (ismah)

C She can go to court and ask for a divorce if there is evidence ofmistreatment or injustice inflicted upon her.

But if polygamy is discouraged and loaded with such constraints, could it have been better if the Qur’an simply forbade it? To answer this question, we may have to raise another one: Can Polygamy be a Better Solution in Some Cases?

Scholars in the past and at present, Muslims and Non-Muslims have consistently pointed out such cases. The following are a few examples, which are tied in with the general approach of Islam to individual and social problems.

1. A man who discovers that his wife is barren, and who at the same time instinctively aspires to have children and heir. In a situation as this, then man would either have to:

- Suffer the deprivation of fatherhood for life.

- Divorce his barren wife and get married to another women who is not barren.

In many cases, neither solution can be considered as the best alternative. Polygamy would have the advantage of preserving the marital relationship without depriving the man of fathering children of his own.

2. A man whose wife becomes chronically ill would have one of possible alternatives:

- He may suppress his instinctive sexual needs for the rest of his life.

- He may divorce his sick wife at a time when she needs his compassion most, and get married to another woman, thus legally satisfying his instinctive needs.

- Or he could compromise by keeping his sick wife, and secretly take for himself one or more illicit sex partners.

Let us discuss these alternatives from the point of view of the Islamic Teaching. The first solution is against human nature. Islam recognises sex and sexual needs and provides legitimate means for their satisfaction. The second solution is clearly less compassionate; especially where there is love between two parties. Furthermore, divorce is described by the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the "permitted thing that is hated most by God". The last solution is plainly against the Islamic teaching which forbids illicit sexual relationships in any form.

To sum up, Islam being against immorality, hypocritical pretence of morality, and against divorce unless no better solution is available, provides for a better alternative which is consistent with human nature and with the preservation of pure and legitimate sex relationships. In a situation like this, it is doubtful that any solution would be better than polygamy, which is, after all, and optional solution.

Polygamy in Islamic Law