Why should polygamy be a crime?

KEYSAR TRAD/Sydney Moonbat Herald

We should take this a step further: why should wife beating be a crime? Why bother with prosecuting honor killings, or killing your daughter for apostasy? Why should the rape of uncovered women be a crime? Hey, why do we even bother to prosecute Islamic terrorists who only follow the Koranic commandment to strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers? Should be prosecute people for  cutting the clitoris out of their daughters? Why don’t we have public floggings for drinking beer and fun for the whole family, like stoning adulterous women for Friday afternoon entertainment?

There are still a few things missing, but you get the drift. Welfare recipient Keysar Trad, “out of context” spokesman for catmeat sheik Taj din al Hilali who calls Australians the “criminal dregs of white society” wants to take us a step further towards that Islamic paradise that worked so well in so many other countries that have been conquered and are now impoverished by Islam. Here is  an account of his latest activities:

In a liberal society such as Australia, it should not be a crime to have more than one wife, argues Keysar Trad.


IN JUNE last year, Triple J’s current affairs program Hack ran an item on plural relationships. The ABC’s youth broadcaster interviewed me about polygyny, a form of polygamous marriage in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. A bisexual couple were also interviewed.

More on polygamy:

“Every Muhammedan is entitled to his 4 women tilts…”

burkalili3Four tilts is all a (Musel-)man needs, on the dole…

To my surprise, I was reported on the ABC’s respected current affairs program AM the next morning. Without speaking to me again and after seeking comments from the Attorney-General’s office, AM ran the line: “Undeterred Keysar Trad says he’s hoping to find another wife to join his family. To do so, he says, would be to honour his first wife.”

No such comment had aired on Hack. The media then spent more than a week mocking the practice of a husband having two or more wives simultaneously. No one took issue with the bisexual relationship, which involved one man and his female partner, who also had a relationship with another woman.

At the end of an interview on 2UE, Mike Carlton declared that, as a Judeo-Christian nation, we marry one person for life. After a pause, he added that we just have lots of affairs on the side.

In Western society, the “other woman” in an affair is stigmatised. She faces significant pressure to keep the relationship secret to protect her man because modern society frowns on plural heterosexual relations. If she fell pregnant, society – including her partner – could place great pressure on her to have an abortion.

The mistress in an affair should have rights. She needs to be protected if she decides to end the relationship because the man refuses to live up to her expectations and leave his wife.

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, must have been paying attention. A few months later, he introduced legislation granting rights to the second woman so that she could also share the assets of her married lover.

The problem of deception, however, does not go away. Why in the liberal 21st century must we live a lie in relationships? And why do we continue to maintain a facade that monogamy is a perfect institution, when studies consistently reveal that most men admit to having affairs? Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.

Islam openly acknowledges this fact of human nature and stipulates a regulatory framework for plural relations. But modern Western society, suspicious of all things Islamic, fails to recognise the qualities of Muslim marriage and family.

Legally enforceable monogamy was introduced by Emperor Justinian in the year 534. Justinian himself kept a courtesan as a mistress. He married her after the death of his wife, Euphemia, and only after he convinced Justin, his predecessor, to change the law so that senators could marry actresses and courtesans.

Justinian is said to have criminalised plural unions under the influence of St Augustine, though Augustine clearly stated in his treatise on marriage that having several wives is not “contrary to the nature of marriage”. Yet like other church fathers, Augustine preferred celibacy, or monogamous marriage if one could not be celibate.

Over the years, I have counselled adulterers from different faith backgrounds. I never tried to punish, hurt or expose them. I tried to guide them to mend their ways. I tried to help them understand that sex outside marriage was neither in their best interests nor in the best interests of society. If they were married, I did my best to ensure that their marriage remained safe and stable. Had they been in plural unions that conformed to the Islamic regulatory framework, such relationships would not have been adulterous, but divinely sanctioned unions.

Australian law has maintained the Justinian facade that a marriage is one man and one woman, and that every other relationship must be kept secret. Under Australian law, bigamy attracts penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, polygamous marriages conducted overseas are recognised under family law for the purpose of property settlements.

When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.

There is no requirement for such a union to be “legally” registered with a secular body that does not recognise the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation’s criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.

This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.

Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband’s time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.

In most cases, the husband ends up providing separate accommodation. The women can agree to share dwellings – it’s entirely up to them. Many men in Western society complain about their mother-in-law or a “nagging” wife. If his wife and in-laws were difficult, would he seek more of the same? The willingness of a man to take on another wife is in fact a form of praise to his first wife.

While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her bookSex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying “yes” more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt’s research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.

Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?

A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?

Keysar Trad is president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia. He will deliver a speech on why polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Opera House today.


* Text of Trad’s hate-speech against white Australians, now cleaned up from most sites, still available here:

Keysar Trad, founder of the Islamic friendship Association of Australia (is that name a friggin misnomer or what?) said about Australia in Nida’ul Islam magazine:

“In a way, they feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?

What will a starving person do when he wants food?

They will no longer respect these laws which were drafted in a cocoon away from the reality that the land of Australia does not belong to white European man.
The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country, and now, they only take the select choice of other societies, and the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.”

Of course Keysar conveniently ignores that the taxes of these “criminal dregs” pay for his disability pension as well as payments for his wife and six kids, or maybe he just considers that a justly paid “Jizya” from the infidel Dhimmi’s of Australia.

11 thoughts on “Why should polygamy be a crime?”

  1. ‘ Why in the liberal 21st century ‘ ……………….

    You muslims really pick and choose when it suits you .
    You’re the least liberal people in every other matter but ‘liberal’ when it means you get more than one woman to have sex with – and be honest, the sex is all you’re interested in .
    You go on later to talk abou ‘caring relationshps’ – what would you know ?
    You’re the biggest liars in the world .

  2. Muslims hate and persecute gays, and prohibit same sex unions between two committed and loving adults, yet muslim society is riddled with homosexual rape and child abuse. They beat and murder their wives, yet claim to honour women by polygamous unions. Muslims are without a doubt the MOST hypocritical, lying assholes on the face of the world.

  3. Example of polygamous relations gone wild. This could explain the strangeness of Muslim mentalities.

    Let’s say you have four wives and they each have say five kids, that is twenty kids running around. Now, when they get older doesn’t the increased number of kids also increase the chances that there will be interbreeding and possibly pose generational health risks?
    Comments welcome.

  4. I’m old enough to remember the 1950’s. Movies in the 1950’s had little sex, Elizabeth Taylor’s and Marylin Monroe’s lifestyles/antics were the epitome of louche then but seen today these two sex symbols’ behaviours and roles (look it them on YouTube) are suggestive but never overt. It was in the 1960’s that we all got into “making love not war”. Celibacy too was resected as a personal choice.

    These traditional Muslims are mere lechers. Sod these Mosquitoes!

  5. Al-Kidya
    There is a problem with interbreeding…I think mainly Pakistanis marrying first cousins in order to keep the wealth in the family.
    I recall something about this awhile ago to do with Auburn hospital in Sydney. There was a muslim riot there , cell phone induced. An Aussie poster could shed more light on this.
    I think generally , the issue is kept fairly quiet.

  6. But all in all, muslims interbreeding amongst themselves wouldn’t really be a bad thing…I mean, wouldn’t it result in them wiping themselves out and thus removing themselves from the face of the planet? Saving us the trouble?

    But from human point of view, it’s totally abhorrent…

  7. This is ridiculous. Western civilization cannot AFFORD legal polygamy.
    While religious polygamy is a private matter between a man, women and their shaman, legal polygamy awards special privileges to ‘expanded’ families.
    It means someone on soc.sec., paid for by my taxes, can import & claim benefits for 4 wives and inumerous children. I wouldn’t mind if the 4 women went to work and paid taxes, but somehow the polygamy types never seem to have any energy left after “servicing” their wives to be of service to their country and few of these wives work.
    Why should we not be permitted to claim tax-relief and health care for 4 husbands? Not to mention schooling and dentistry for all their children?
    These constant demands that other people work to provide them with their preferred lifestyle is bad enough, having their ludicrous demands taken seriously by elected governments is down right disheartening!

  8. We pay endlessly for all the damaged children also. These people do not seem to have any conscience about others totally funding their lifestyles.

  9. Well said, gsw. I’ve been scouring the net for a good argument against polygami since it became a topic of debate. I found that your explanation made the most sense. With public benefits in the US, virtually any large polygamist family would qualify for public assistance (i.e. 5 wives + 10 children = 15 dependents)

  10. “Triple talaq” (sharia divorce) a few wives & top up every now & then & really swell the welfare rolls.

Comments are closed.