Amsterdam: 173 polygamous marriages

According to data from the Amsterdam municipality, bigamy and polygamy exist in the Netherlands.  173 people in Amsterdam are registered with two marriages and two people are even registered with three.

The fact that bigamy and polygamy were commonly registered by the municipalities of the major cities despite a legal ban led to some fuss several months ago.  In Amsterdam the VVD asked for clarification and received the data for the first time in the Netherlands.  According to the current regulations, Amsterdam registers bigamous and polygamous marriages which are legal in the land of origin.  Whoever does the integration exam can't become a Dutch citizen as long as he's married to more than one spouse.

Of the 173 people with bigamous marriages, 31 have Dutch nationality in addition to their original nationality.  Having multiple spouses does not seem a hindrance to get Dutch citizenship, according to the answer of the Amsterdam city council to the VVD questions.

The mayors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht think that people who get married with multiple women abroad should not be Dutch anymore.  They will send a letter to Dutch minister of justice Ernt Hirsch Ballin asking to change the law, according to mayor Job Cohen of Amsterdam in a response Friday to a written question from the VVD party in the capital.  Currently people who get married to multiple women in their land of origin can get Dutch nationality.  Dutch are forbidden from marrying multiple partners, also abroad.

Sources: Telegraaf, AD (Dutch)

See also: Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands to look at polygamous marriages

17 comments:

freedom_vigilante said...

Immigrants who cannot obey the laws of their newly adopted country should be deported. This should be a 'reflex' response, no debate, no second chance, just deported.

FreeSpeech said...

Polygamy is contrary to equality. The latter is a human right.

wendy mann said...

"Polygamy is contrary to equality. The latter is a human right."

polygamy is a human right, and it exists for good reason in islam (you will have to do the research). firstly a man cannot marry more than once unless his wife gives permission to do so again.

and the man is only given permission in islam under strict conditions that are for the benefit of the woman.

"Immigrants who cannot obey the laws of their newly adopted country should be deported. This should be a 'reflex' response, no debate, no second chance, just deported."

what should happen to non immigrants who abuse the laws? whereas you might expect an immigrant to be bad (in your books at least) surely it is a greater criminal act for a member of the host community to be criminalised for what he/she might have done against the state.

anyway i dont care for the hypocrisy, we complain about polygamy whilst we have affairs, mistresses, one night stands regardless of being in wedlock or not.

dont tell me the sin is civilised because its european and white.

jdamn13 said...

Wendy, deporting immigrants who break the laws is the proper course of action because they should not be the taxpayers' responsibility to imprison like citizens who break the law. It's not like we turn a blind eye when citizens break the law. The difference is that citizens are our problem and immigrants are here on a trial basis and if they can't accept the law of the land they should get the boot. If you're not a complete narcissist you should understand this, like if I wanted to contract 10 million strains of mosque foot fungus on my hands and face, you would require that I remove my shoes before entering the mosque. We require that you abide by our laws before you enter the country and if you're not willing to do that then you should not be allowed in and if you should be so lucky as to be allowed in, even though 99.9% of the time you have absolutely nothing to offer us but parasitism and you still have the unmitigated gall to disregard the law of the land, yeah, ya gotta go. If you do not pledge complete allegiance to your country of immigration and you don't completely obey all of our laws to the letter, then you're a blight on the free world and you have no place in a civilized society, just like citizens who break the law have no place in civlized society. That's why we lock them up and get them off the streets until they hopefully learn their lesson.

Furthermore, polygamy is immoral. You obviously have no concept of morality, but here's how it works: it is completely objective and cannot be proscribed. Morality is the Golden Rule. That's why Islam has no morality. It has one set of rules for men and another for sex slaves, one set for Muslims, and another infidel apes/pigs-to-be-raped-enslaved-and-murdered. Allowing men one thing and women another is immoral. Obligating marriage in order for sexual relations, regardless of who does it, is arbitrary and amoral. It served a purpose before the advent of the DNA test, so that children knew who their fathers were, but it's now completely irrelevant. That's why Jesus never advocated marriage: because partners should, regardless of some stamp of approval from the Church or the State, simply be faithful to one another, and if you read between the lines of the Gospels, one can only reach the conclusion that he was against it. Furthermore, Jesus was very careful to define adultery in terms which have nothing to do with marriage. He expliticly defined it as polygamy, cheating on one's spouse, a breach of loyalty. Cheating on one's spouse, polygamy, and breaching the loyalty of a loved one ARE immoral because they run contrary to the Golden Rule. Polygamy is adultery. Romantic relationships indendent of incestuous Sharia sex slavery are not adultery, unless someone is being cheated on and their loyalty breached. Try really hard to wrap your head around it. That's how it goes. You wouldn't want it to happen to you so you shouldn't do it to others. That's the Golden Rule. That's morality.

Polygamy could theoretically be moral if women had the same right to marry multiple men and if all parties agreed and no feelings were hurt, but only under those circumstances can polygamy even theoretically fall under the heading of 'moral.' Furthermore, your between-the-lines, Islamic justification for polygamy as taking care of widows is because women have no rights in Islam. If they were on equal standing with men, had the same inheritance rights as men, had control over their own sex organs including their uteruses, were allowed to leave the home without the permission of the slave-owner muhrim who completely control their lives and fates, had the same opportunities as men, were free to travel alone or of their own volition, and could generally do whatever they wanted like they can in MORAL, FREE societies, there would be no reason for men to have to take care of women. I take care of myself just fine, thank you, and so could any woman with a backbone, a soul, half a clue, and equal rights, even without my fair share of my father's and my MOTHER's inheritance (they're still with me anyway, thank God). Shoot, lots of women take care of men, like my mom did when she put my dad through law school before he reciprocated and put her through law school, and wenching herself to pay the bills was considerably more difficult than practicing law like he did. Again Wendy, circular logic. It's Islam's enslavement of women that 'justifies' the polygamy. You can't justify evil with evil and have it come out moral, no matter how you parse, tu quoque, or kitman your way around it or try to divert attention from the issue by saying that people in civilized, free societies cheat on their spouses. Nobody ever claimed that doing so was moral, and they certainly have no fake-divine sanction to do so. It's like how Muslims justify rape in Islamic marriage (i.e., out-and-out sex slavery) by saying that people in the West have consentual sex without some fake-moral stamp of approval from the Church or the State. That stamp of approval doesn't moralize anything, rape is rape, and consentual sex is consentual. Violence justified by fake-morality is not comparable to sex, just like outright evil carried out with a fake-divine, fake-moral sanction is not moral. It's crazy and it makes no sense, just like everyting you've written in here.

Andrew said...

Polygamy is illegal in the civiliased world regardless of whether it's a central tenet of Islam or not. If Muslims don't agree with that law, they're free to go any practice their medieval weirdness in any of the failed, despotic shitholes euphemistically known as the 'Islamic World'.

Shawmut said...

I see it all as Muslims trying to up their numbers. Women to Muslims are little more or less brood cows.
How many of these polygamous marriages are already being supported with a man in one country and his herd spread around varous foreign villages?
The social democracies of Eurabiae make Disneyland sound serious.

jdamn13 said...

They're not trying to up their numbers. They don't have to. Muslim women are required to be pimped into sex slavery, ideally of the incestuous sort, as young as possible, even in that means over-force-feeding them so they can beed at 9 like they do in Mauritania. No, they're trying down our numbers. By allowing polygamy they have more sexually frustrated young men who are willing to blow themselves up because they can't afford a sex slave, and they can still pimp all their women away in societies like 'Palestine' where many males don't make it to adulthood because they were homicide bombers as children or because Hamas murdered them by filling their trenches wth them and then firing on Israel so that Israel would pick off their children when they defend themselves against Hamas' mortar attacks. That's why polygamy was never an issue in Western society. Becuase we're not sick and evil in every way imaginable like the Muslim world and we never were, even in pre-Antiquity.

ajsuhail said...

Ironic that Polygamy is illegal in Western countries but a blind eye is turned to the many adulterous relationships that exist.Truly a perverted concept of Morality.Neither Christianity nor Judaism proscribes polygamy;the Bible is replete with instances of polygamous relationships.

This is the kind of skewed logic that has lead to immorality and licentiousness in the West.

jdamn13 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Esther said...

jdamn13,

You might disagree with others, but please don't insult other commentators.

-ImanAzlan- said...

I've read through the comments and I saw some guys said that free sex, adultery whatsoever is better than polygamy.

Do you guys know what makes polygamy differ from free sex whatsoever?

1. In Islam, anyone who is in polygamy, will need to register. So that the man will be responsible to his wives. And his wives, has the right to prosecute their husband if they are treated with inequality.
If the man wanted to divorce his wife, he can do so, but he needs to pay 'nafkah' which is a sufficient amount of money every month to his son, and his ex-wife.
If you can see clearly. This surely differs than free sex as free sex, the man can leave anytime he wants and does not need to pay a single cent.

So, which on is more immoral?
You answer yourself ;)

2. As what I've known, adultery is a sin in Christian right? It is also a sin in Islam. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, because I did not know much about Christian :)
But yeah, my point is, polygamy can reduce adultery.

3. Abortion. Most people who have free sex, without condoms (as they say for pure sexual sensation lol) would surely make the girl pregnant. And the girl, who does not ready with the responsibility of being a mother will abort her child. This is pure killing. Others said that Islam is a terrorist, kills everyone etc. But, killing a child. Who knows nothing. Does this make the girl who aborts her child is the same as Islam that you guys really hated?

You answer yourself :)

So, yeah, actually, I'm not really commenting on the blog but I'm commenting on the other comments. Please, forgive me for my error or whatnot. I'm a Muslim, and a good Muslim will always say sorry and learn from others who knows better :)

jdamn13 said...

Iman, wrong, wrong, wrong, and lying:

1. In Islam, anyone who is in polygamy, will need to register. So that the man will be responsible to his wives. And his wives, has the right to prosecute their husband if they are treated with inequality.
If the man wanted to divorce his wife, he can do so, but he needs to pay 'nafkah' which is a sufficient amount of money every month to his son, and his ex-wife.
If you can see clearly. This surely differs than free sex as free sex, the man can leave anytime he wants and does not need to pay a single cent.


Polyagamy is immoral so long as men can do it and not women. Morality hinges on the Golden Rule, and having one set of rules for one set of people and another for another is always immoral, hence the fact that every Islamic teaching and practice is immoral and Islam is not a religion. And yes, Muslim men have to buy their non-abducted sex slaves, but when women choose to divorce, not that they are ever actually awarded these theoretical divorces to which they are entitled, they by law forego alimony and custody. So they are pimped into sex slavery, waste their lives, get abused and mistreated, and left with nothing. That is slavery, and slavery is immoral. One set of rules for one set of people, and horrible commandments for women, who are treated like something less than farm animals.

2. As what I've known, adultery is a sin in Christian right? It is also a sin in Islam. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, because I did not know much about Christian :)
But yeah, my point is, polygamy can reduce adultery.


You don't understand what adultery is. Adultery is not sexual relations independent of incestuous Sharia sex slavery. It has nothing to do with some fake-moral sanction from the Church or State. Morality is not proscribed by others and does not hinge on someone else's approval, a creepy ceremony, and a john fee. It is objective. Adultery is cheating on one's spouse, breaching their loyalty, polygamy. POLYGAMY IS ADULTERY. Polygamy is fake-divinely sanctioned adultery. Also,'Christian' is not a noun. Furthermore, Islamic 'marriage' is sex slavery, so no matter how you parse it it is always immoral. It is a business contract ('permission to penetrate') between a slave-owner and a slave-buyer regarding money and a vagina, and nothing more. The Sharia permission to penetrate could not be more crystal-clear. It does not even imply any of the values associated with decent-person marriage, such as 'love, honor, cherish,' CONSENT, partership, reciprocity, a relationship of any sort other than that of sex-slave to slave-owner, FIDELITY, MONOGAMY, LOVE, or devotion. Muslim 'marriage' is about creepy, violent, property, necrophiliac Muslim sex and nothing more, since women are nothing more than undead corpses to rape in Islam, and female 'beauty' consists of the extent to which women can dehumanize themselves through silence, submission, and immobilty (i.e., the extent to which they are undead corpses). NO morality there, and you have no idea what 'adultery' even is.

3. Abortion. Most people who have free sex, without condoms (as they say for pure sexual sensation lol) would surely make the girl pregnant. And the girl, who does not ready with the responsibility of being a mother will abort her child. This is pure killing. Others said that Islam is a terrorist, kills everyone etc. But, killing a child. Who knows nothing. Does this make the girl who aborts her child is the same as Islam that you guys really hated?

Women who engage in romantic relationships independently of incestuous Sharia sex slavery use condoms by and large, and take the pill (since it's not 1950). I agree that nobody has ever gotten pregnant through consentual sex nd that if you're not on the pill and you get pregnant, it's because you were actively trying to. But to assume that women who have sex independently of incestuous Sharia sex slavery never use condoms, never take the pill, all get pregnant, and all get abortions is simply insane. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who engage in romantic relationships independently of incestuous Sharia sex slavery have long-term relationships which, unlike Muslim fake-moral sex slavery, are actually based on love, affection, partership, reciprocity, etc. It's simply not immoral, whereas reducing women to undead corpses/farm animals to be bought then raped at will is not. There's simply no comparison. If being a Muslim didn't necessitate being a mentally malignant narcissist who divides the world into Dar-al-Islam/Dar-al-harb, men/sex slaves, Muslims/infidel apes and pigs to be raped, enslaved, and murdered, you would have some concept of love and you would understand this.

I'm a Muslim, and a good Muslim will always say sorry

I'm waiting for my apology for the murders of 270,000,000 people, for the slavery that continues under Islam, for a complete and immediate reversal of every inequity in Isllm and reparations paid to all Muslim women and non-Muslims in your hellhole countries as well as to Israel, along with multi-billion-dollar settlements to every genitally mutilated woman on this planet, for the restitution of every building blown up by a Muslim, for a complete withdrawal of "Palestinians" from the ISRAELI West Bank, for Gaza and the Sinai back, for Saudi Arabia and Egypt to pay to rebuild the World Trade Center, for an apology for all of the above, and for Muslims to take on the financial burden of $500,000 annualy that the taxpayers pay in taxes, welfare, insurance, security, and transportation that we pay for each and every Muslim in America annually. I'm waiting.

kevin said...

Murders of 270,000,000 people?????? You are a first class joker, and I am SURE you are a child. No adult with the slightest bit of intelligence and insight into history, could make the comments you do. For you, I think history started when you were born, roughly 15 years ago I'm guessing?

In regards to morality, then there is absolutely no way someone in support of the current state of social affairs in Europe could lecture the Islamic world about morality. How twisted can Satan make the human mind sometimes. I am not going to even debate any details with you because you are ignorant. Really an intelligent person can only lose a debate with an ignorant. You see, writing this message lost me like a minute of my time. May God guide you.

Shawmut said...

The issue of polygmany is surely historical and anthropoligical. Surely, the primative goal to go forth and multiply has been necessity on countless cultures.
It's when a population wants to order itself into a society, that we see limitations being imposed; same tribe, same religion, wealth; then we find we're looking at homogeneity and possibly surplus numbers.
Clearly, the words of the Algerian 'statesman' that wombs will win has come about. But, we also have to look at the rationale.
Obviously - by numbers and economic indicators - the mercenary deployment of wombws and womb fuses (why give them any more dignity - if that's all their leaders see them as - and they don't seem to object) has been a big bang, but no bust (unless you consideer the budgets of Eurabia's social democracies busted).
The peoples of countries of origin (except for their leaders) have not gained at all. The spread of poverty has only grown.

jdamn13 said...

Actually, it's interesting that you deign to argue, since you obviously can't refute a single point I made, all of which are undeniably true and valid. You argue like a child and I hand retards their asses. And yeah, I made up that 270,000,000 figure. And then these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, these guys, and these guys, all cited me.

-ImanAzlan- said...

jdamn13.

Well, yeah. You just called me a liar. But its okay then.

I'm sure that everyone had heard about Islam that asks every single Muslim to kill all non-Muslims right?

Actually, its just a funny thing when I read through the statements. Some of them even quote from al-Quran. I've read someone who said: "Kill all Jews wherever you are" Ishaq:369. I was laughing out lout. seriously.

You know why I laughed? Because, there's no suraatul Ishaq in al-Quran lol. So, got what I mean? What I'm trying to say is, there is no, no, no such thing in al-Quran.

Let me tell you some history. This are what we are taught in school, in Siraah(History) of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. When Makkah and Medina was under Prophet Muhammad, he let the jews and nasrani (christian if I'm not mistaken) and other religion to happily live in the country. He(Prophet Muhammad) did not kill them. And even we (Muslims) are taught to be good to Jews and others as Prophet Muhammad had been feeding an old, blind Jew everyday. Until the time Rasulullah died, Abu Bakr (The first Caliph or Khulafa' Ar-Rasyidin) tried to give the Jew something to eat. But she refused it.

You might called this a lie. I don't blame you for this. But this is what we were told. We were taught like this. Muslims were taught like this. To be good to everyone. Including non-Muslims.

We were only allowed to declare war on three conditions:

1. When defending our religion.
2. When defending our country.
3. When defending our self.

For the war on Iraq, I think the Muslims fight to defend themselves and their country.

But for the WTC, I don't know.

try
http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/index.htm

to get to know more about the 9/11 :)

jdamn13 said...

Ibn Ishaq is the foremost, according to Muslims and their most reputable tafsir, biographer of Muhammad. His works comprise an essential part of the Muslim canon, which consists of the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira - the biography of Muhammad. The Koran never quotes anyone but Allah, Mo's displaced schizo personality. And it's 'Kill any Jew who comes under your power,' not 'Kill all Jews wherever you are.' You obviously don't even understand how simple citation works - since you somehow came to the insane conclusion that I was quoting the Koran - let alone the dogma of your death-cult for inbred, baby-raping Nazi terrorists.

In Medina Perv Mo personally beheaded up to 900 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe in one day after they had surrended peacefully, and then had every woman and child systematically raped and enslaved. That is the "perfect man" who all muslilms are to follow in word, deed, and tought. He killed a 120-year-old Jew who wrote a poem which hurt his wittew feewings. And he raped his sexually-enslaved, brain-damaged six-year-old niece.

Muslims are explicitly instructed through every unabrogated passage in your 'holy' books to rape, enslave, and murder every infidel you encounter unless you're playing nice while biding your time until the day of troat-slitting comes. You are to rape your own daughters and sisters and then pimp their mutilated asses into incestuous Sharia sex slavery to cousins and half-brothers 10 times their age. You are to never do an honest day's work in your life, but rather to survive all your days as a genocidal parasite just like your Pervert. You are to enslave blacks and Turks even if they are Musim because they all go to hell and you are, of course, to murder every Jew you come across unless you can extort some jizya protection money from him or take her as a sex slave for a while before you kill them. YOu are to destroy every culture on this planet and replace it with that of the sickest, most digusting, most perverted, most violent, most misoygynist, most regressive, most backward, most evil, least defensible, least productive, most absolutely soulless one in the history of time, thereby shading conquered lands with the cloak of immutable Muahmmadan backwardness, stupidity, evil, and poverty.

Hone your taqiyya skills before you try pulling that sick crap for me. And don't forget to apologize for those slaughtered 270,000,000 reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, outbred people who were killed by your genocidal, supremacist, totalitarian, fascist political system/death-cult for inbred, incestuous, baby-raping, Nazi terrorists who force all their women to live their enntire lives as sex slaves and kill dogs, tyvm.