Muslim Men Can Have More Than One Wife - And Claim A Ton Of Benefits For All (And A Huge House, Of Course)

19th July 2014

Thought this was worth discussing in a thread of its own.

I'm absolutely amazed.

The system of paying extra benefits for multiple wives was reviewed under Labour in an exercise involving four separate Whitehall branches – The Treasury, the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and the Home Office.

The review concluded that recognising multiple marriages which had taken place overseas in the benefits system was the "best possible option".

At the time they stated: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

This has subsequently been increased to £38.45 a week for second and subsequent spouses, while the husband and his first wife are paid the ordinary couple rate of £105.95.

As well as income support, a husband with more than one wife is also eligible for possible housing benefit and council tax relief because of the larger property needed to accommodate his family.


What a generous lot the English taxpayers are!

unfair to our own , i hate discussing this it pisses me off big time .

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:unfair to our own , i hate discussing this it pisses me off big time .

The country is upside down in the way it treats its occupants.

BigAndy9 wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:unfair to our own , i hate discussing this it pisses me off big time .

The country is upside down in the way it treats its occupants.

and it will get worse

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05051.pdf

Polygamy
Standard Note:
SN/HA/5051
Last updated:
8 May 2014
Author:
Catherine Fairbairn
Section
Home Affairs Section
Constituents sometimes raise concerns about the status of polygamous marriages in this country and the rights of wives of polygamous marriages.
In order to be recognised as valid, all marriages which take place in the United Kingdom must be monogamous and must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation. For a polygamous marriage to be considered valid in the UK, the parties must be domiciled in a country where polygamous marriage is permitted, and must have entered into the marriage in a country which permits polygamy.
The Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDI) state that it is Government policy to prevent the formation of polygamous households in this country. Although the current Immigration Rules relating to spouses prevent two wives from seeking entry to the UK in this capacity, there are ways in which all parties to a polygamous marriage may be legally present here. For example, a second wife may come to the UK legally through an alternative migration route other than in her capacity as a spouse.
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age. It has been introduced for a small subset of new, single claimants in selected “pathfinder” areas and is to be expanded to include other groups, but the transfer of all existing claimants to UC is not expected to be completed until after 2017. The Government has decided that the Universal Credit rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships.
A wife in a polygamous marriage does not generally have the right to a state pension on the basis of her spouse’s contributions.
No formal assessment is made of the number of polygamous households.
This note deals with the recognition of polygamous marriages; immigration issues; social security benefits and pension entitlement.



This would also apply to Mormons.

BigAndy9 wrote:19th July 2014

Thought this was worth discussing in a thread of its own.

I'm absolutely amazed.

The system of paying extra benefits for multiple wives was reviewed under Labour in an exercise involving four separate Whitehall branches – The Treasury, the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and the Home Office.

The review concluded that recognising multiple marriages which had taken place overseas in the benefits system was the "best possible option".

At the time they stated: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

This has subsequently been increased to £38.45 a week for second and subsequent spouses, while the husband and his first wife are paid the ordinary couple rate of £105.95.

As well as income support, a husband with more than one wife is also eligible for possible housing benefit and council tax relief because of the larger property needed to accommodate his family.


What a generous lot the English taxpayers are!

Yes, Andy chap, we tax payers allow the rich to get away without paying £260 million PER DAY.

And you whine about someone getting £38.45 a week, ffs your racism defines your stupidly.

scrat wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:19th July 2014

Thought this was worth discussing in a thread of its own.

I'm absolutely amazed.

The system of paying extra benefits for multiple wives was reviewed under Labour in an exercise involving four separate Whitehall branches – The Treasury, the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and the Home Office.

The review concluded that recognising multiple marriages which had taken place overseas in the benefits system was the "best possible option".

At the time they stated: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

This has subsequently been increased to £38.45 a week for second and subsequent spouses, while the husband and his first wife are paid the ordinary couple rate of £105.95.

As well as income support, a husband with more than one wife is also eligible for possible housing benefit and council tax relief because of the larger property needed to accommodate his family.


What a generous lot the English taxpayers are!

Yes, Andy chap, we tax payers allow the rich to get away without paying £260 million PER DAY.

And you whine about someone getting £38.45 a week, ffs your racism defines your stupidly.

Ok ok scrat - make a thread about the rich getting away with their tax and i'll contribute.

£260 million? What, one person?

Because that's what you're talking about when you mention £38.45.

I'm allowed to discuss this - you can't stop me!

BigAndy9 wrote:

scrat wrote:
Yes, Andy chap, we tax payers allow the rich to get away without paying £260 million PER DAY.

And you whine about someone getting £38.45 a week, ffs your racism defines your stupidly.

Ok ok scrat - make a thread about the rich getting away with their tax and i'll contribute.

£260 million?  What, one person?

Because that's what you're talking about when you mention £38.45.

I'm allowed to discuss this - you can't stop me!

You do what the fuck you want Andy chap, we all know that you've become a snivelling dog that doff caps to its masters and spouts propaganda for the Conservative party.

It's hard to imagine how low you've become, but now you paint your own image and I guess crawling on all fours just to suck "daves" cock comes naturally to you, grow a spine ffs!

scrat wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Ok ok scrat - make a thread about the rich getting away with their tax and i'll contribute.

£260 million?  What, one person?

Because that's what you're talking about when you mention £38.45.

I'm allowed to discuss this - you can't stop me!

You do what the fuck you want Andy chap, we all know that you've become a snivelling dog that doff caps to its masters and spouts propaganda for the Conservative party.

It's hard to imagine how low you've become, but now you paint your own image and I guess crawling on all fours just to suck "daves" cock comes naturally to you, grow a spine ffs!

There really is no need for that kind of talk scrat.

Should we tackle benefits? Yes.

Should we tackle tax avoidance? Yes.

Should we be allowing foreigners to have more than one wife? No.

BigAndy9 wrote:

scrat wrote:
You do what the fuck you want Andy chap, we all know that you've become a snivelling dog that doff caps to its masters and spouts propaganda for the Conservative party.

It's hard to imagine how low you've become, but now you paint your own image and I guess crawling on all fours just to suck "daves" cock comes naturally to you, grow a spine ffs!

There really is no need for that kind of talk scrat.

Should we tackle benefits?  Yes.

Should we tackle tax avoidance?  Yes.

Should we be allowing foreigners to have more than one wife?  No.

No need for what?,,, I'm making a simple observation of what you are, a pathetic whining little cry baby, that grovels, snivels and begs to its so called betters, for a few crumbs sprinkled at your feet,,,you've been reduced to a racist fucktard bleating inanely to protect the wealth of a few.

Congratulations!

BigAndy9 wrote:

scrat wrote:
You do what the fuck you want Andy chap, we all know that you've become a snivelling dog that doff caps to its masters and spouts propaganda for the Conservative party.

It's hard to imagine how low you've become, but now you paint your own image and I guess crawling on all fours just to suck "daves" cock comes naturally to you, grow a spine ffs!

There really is no need for that kind of talk scrat.

Should we tackle benefits?  Yes.

Should we tackle tax avoidance?  Yes.

Should we be allowing foreigners to have more than one wife?  No.

spot on with everything you have said Andy

Are these more of the highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrants.... all on benefits...???

Scrat,why are you so rabid in your posts? can you not discuss in a rational manner,why are any one who appears to be r/w slated as being "cock suckers" "snivelling cowards" ect ect? do you have a little shrine in your bedroom with a photo of milliband that you wank over 5 times a day? By the way rabid, do you believe in the crap you post? you never answer the question, I have asked at least 20 times now. Penfold waits for an answer!!

Foreigners who don't work should be deported.

Andy where was this published? You didn't provide a link as far as I can see?

Apologies - it was carried over from another thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9029807/Ministers-ban-extra-benefits-for-multiple-wives.html

BigAndy9 wrote:Apologies - it was carried over from another thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9029807/Ministers-ban-extra-benefits-for-multiple-wives.html

Thanks
I'd like to read the whole article

While you're at it, read the truth

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05051.pdf

when in this country nobody should have more than one wife that is our law why should immigrants break our laws, as for paying them benefits they should not be entitled to anything if their husband wants more than one wife let him pay for them not the tax payer.

and yes i did read part of your link sassy but haven't got time to read the whole thing doing other things .

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:when in this country nobody should have more than one wife that is our law why should immigrants break our laws, as for paying them benefits they should not be entitled to anything if their husband wants more than one wife let him pay for them not the tax payer.

and yes i did read part of your link sassy but haven't got time to read the whole thing doing other things .

Then don't talk about what you are making up as you go along. They are only allowed one wife.

This bit :

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said: "We currently have an absurd situation where polygamous marriages are outlawed in the UK but recognised in the benefits system because of a loophole.." [snipped]


How many times have I read about bloody loopholes in this country that allows people to just about get away with the most amount of rubbish???
Can a "somebody" be employed to go through every political law - and this isn't difficult - to make sure they put a yellow highlight through any "loopholes" or things that just look and appear utterly ridiculous?

Absurd. These men are just thieves basically and our politician as thick as thieves

eddie wrote:This bit :

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said: "We currently have an absurd situation where polygamous marriages are outlawed in the UK but recognised in the benefits system because of a loophole.." [snipped]


How many times have I read about bloody loopholes in this country that allows people to just about get away with the most amount of rubbish???
Can a "somebody" be employed to go through every political law - and this isn't difficult - to make sure they put a yellow highlight through any "loopholes" or things that just look and appear utterly ridiculous?

Absurd. These men are just thieves basically and our politician as thick as thieves

Eddie, could I such you read the link to the Government briefing, that will give you the actual facts.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:This bit :

Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said: "We currently have an absurd situation where polygamous marriages are outlawed in the UK but recognised in the benefits system because of a loophole.." [snipped]


How many times have I read about bloody loopholes in this country that allows people to just about get away with the most amount of rubbish???
Can a "somebody" be employed to go through every political law - and this isn't difficult - to make sure they put a yellow highlight through any "loopholes" or things that just look and appear utterly ridiculous?

Absurd. These men are just thieves basically and our politician as thick as thieves

Eddie, could I such you read the link to the Government briefing, that will give you the actual facts.

Did you read both Sassy?

My article was about the Conservatives cleaning up the islamic/Labour mess:

Now, however, the coalition is to change the rules so that multiple benefits can no longer be paid.
Under the new system of Universal Credit, which will replace all mean-tested benefits from next year, polygamous marriages will not be recognised at all.
Instead, a husband and one wife will claim as a couple – with any other adults living in the household claiming as single people.
Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, said: "We currently have an absurd situation where polygamous marriages are outlawed in the UK but recognised in the benefits system because of a loophole.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05051.pdf

Polygamy
Standard Note:
SN/HA/5051
Last updated:
8 May 2014
Author:
Catherine Fairbairn
Section
Home Affairs Section
Constituents sometimes raise concerns about the status of polygamous marriages in this country and the rights of wives of polygamous marriages.
In order to be recognised as valid, all marriages which take place in the United Kingdom must be monogamous and must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation. For a polygamous marriage to be considered valid in the UK, the parties must be domiciled in a country where polygamous marriage is permitted, and must have entered into the marriage in a country which permits polygamy.
The Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDI) state that it is Government policy to prevent the formation of polygamous households in this country. Although the current Immigration Rules relating to spouses prevent two wives from seeking entry to the UK in this capacity, there are ways in which all parties to a polygamous marriage may be legally present here. For example, a second wife may come to the UK legally through an alternative migration route other than in her capacity as a spouse.
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age. It has been introduced for a small subset of new, single claimants in selected “pathfinder” areas and is to be expanded to include other groups, but the transfer of all existing claimants to UC is not expected to be completed until after 2017. The Government has decided that the Universal Credit rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships.
A wife in a polygamous marriage does not generally have the right to a state pension on the basis of her spouse’s contributions.
No formal assessment is made of the number of polygamous households.
This note deals with the recognition of polygamous marriages; immigration issues; social security benefits and pension entitlement.



This would also apply to Mormons.

So in other words she gets less than if she claimed as a single person, so we pay less.

I agree with Eddie and that it is so utterly wrong, what gets me is why women would want to be one of four wives, we know it is even greater for Mormons and the Later day Saints, where they have many more.
The one thing that makes me laugh is imagine four Mother in laws?

 ::rfth:: 

Women want it for security reasons.

Thats what i have been told!

Didge wrote:I agree with Eddie and that it is so utterly wrong, what gets me is why women would want to be one of four wives, we know it is even greater for Mormons and the Later day Saints, where they have many more.
The one thing that makes me laugh is imagine four Mother in laws?

 ::rfth:: 

If you marry for love and a soulmate - which is what we all dream of - then no, I'd not want to share.
But if you are the type of woman who marries for security (and there are many i reckon!) then sharing is the way to go!!
Cuts down on the washing, cooking, looking after the kids - plus you have other women to chat to all day and if you're not into sex - it cuts down that 'chore' too!!

Not for me though. Well the sharing of the cleaning and cooking yes, but I'm not sharing a willy with no one!!  

SEXY MAMA wrote:Women want it for security reasons.

Thats what i have been told!

Why cannot they not have security with one man like so many others?

To me it was a male invented Claus in religion for men to get their kicks, where if he legally is allowed to have fun with multiple women, lets face it how many young women are placed into this situation sexy, its wrong on so many levels and they have little choice in some of the cultures.
To me marriage is about love between two people no matter their  sexual orientation, to want more is not really love and security is not love either.

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Women want it for security reasons.

Thats what i have been told!

Why cannot they not have security with one man like so many others?

To me it was a male invented Claus in religion for men to get their kicks, where if he legally is allowed to have fun with multiple women, lets face it how many young women are placed into this situation sexy, its wrong on so many levels and they have little choice in some of the cultures.
To me marriage is about love between two people no matter their  sexual orientation, to want more is not really love and security is not love either.

I couldnt agree more!

Personally i think they have a screw loose

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why cannot they not have security with one man like so many others?

To me it was a male invented Claus in religion for men to get their kicks, where if he legally is allowed to have fun with multiple women, lets face it how many young women are placed into this situation sexy, its wrong on so many levels and they have little choice in some of the cultures.
To me marriage is about love between two people no matter their  sexual orientation, to want more is not really love and security is not love either.

I couldnt agree more!

Personally i think they have a screw loose

Agreed

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

I couldnt agree more!

Personally i think they have a screw loose

Agreed

Would you believe there are women out there who are very vocal in wanting to take one's husbands!!!!!!!!!!

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:



Agreed

Would you believe there are women out there who are very vocal in wanting to take one's husbands!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, happens all the time.

Today sadly many people have lost the ability of what love is really about or to work at making a marriage  work, many give up too easily, which really stems down to when the problems first started. What happens is that where there is a problem, it is not resolved, they may make up, but the issue is never fully resolved to the to the point there is resentment, which then leads to suddenly new problems each find with each other that they never felt before and this is all down to not resolving that problem. It shows where on problems is never properly resolved it turns into a thousand problems and to me why some marriages break down. Of course there are many other reasons, where people just like some men cannot keep their John Thomas in their pants or where women cannot close their legs, but much is down to me where there is a major problem within honest open communication.

No Didge what they do is portray us women with just one husband for ourselves as not good Muslim wives! We should encourage our husbands to share!

Wtf!

You get all sorts!

SEXY MAMA wrote:No Didge what they do is portray us women with just one husband for ourselves as not good Muslim wives! We should encourage our husbands to share!

Wtf!

You get all sorts!

Now that is really fucked up.

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:No Didge what they do is portray us women with just one husband for ourselves as not good Muslim wives! We should encourage our husbands to share!

Wtf!

You get all sorts!

Now that is really fucked up.

Yup.......

Sassy wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:when in this country nobody should have more than one wife that is our law why should immigrants break our laws, as for paying them benefits they should not be entitled to anything if their husband wants more than one wife let him pay for them not the tax payer.

and yes i did read part of your link sassy but haven't got time to read the whole thing doing other things .

Then don't talk about what you are making up as you go along.   They are only allowed one wife.

who are only allowed on wife ?

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:No Didge what they do is portray us women with just one husband for ourselves as not good Muslim wives! We should encourage our husbands to share!

Wtf!

You get all sorts!

Now that is really fucked up.

I think they must be swingers lol , i find that disgusting too

The Polishing Polish Polisher springs to mind.

the wives must have sexually transmitted diseases all the time having been used by their husband ,makes me vomit thinking about the filthy pigs . Yuck and how the women must have low opinions of themselves to share a marriage with others . Backward religion .
thats islam for you following the example of the pedophile false prophet .

just out of curiosity peeps......leaving religion out of it.......

what about men and women .....married or not....who have sex with others while in another relationship....prostitutes, serial one night stands, sleeping with multiple partners? unprotected sex along with disease and unwanted babies....it goes on and on......

its been around since time began....ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, Mormons, Henry VIII, black, white, purple....name any country, any race, any time period you will find it.

Cass wrote:just out of curiosity peeps......leaving religion out of it.......

what about men and women .....married or not....who have sex with others while in another relationship....prostitutes, serial one night stands, sleeping with multiple partners? unprotected sex along with disease and unwanted babies....it goes on and on......

its been around since time began....ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Jews, Muslims, Japanese,  Chinese,  Mormons,  Henry VIII,  black,  white,  purple....name any country,  any race,  any time period you will find it.

Of course that's no different.

Back to the topic, though, there are plenty of Christian groups that have practiced polygamy, and the Bible itself describes King Solomon as having 700-some-odd wives ...

And far more to the point -- the most recent data I can find says that there were about 1,000 total UK households in 2007 in which a Muslim man was married to more than one woman:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/families/article1757524.ece

Although the families are entitled to claim social security for each wife, no one has counted how many of them are on benefits.

So more worrying about something that barely exists from the right ...

Cass wrote:just out of curiosity peeps......leaving religion out of it.......

what about men and women .....married or not....who have sex with others while in another relationship....prostitutes, serial one night stands, sleeping with multiple partners? unprotected sex along with disease and unwanted babies....it goes on and on......

its been around since time began....ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Jews, Muslims, Japanese,  Chinese,  Mormons,  Henry VIII,  black,  white,  purple....name any country,  any race,  any time period you will find it.

Filthy disgusting as well, but these men cannot claim for their mistresses on benefits can they .
It's the the fact the Muslim men can legally marry more than one wife and then have the bloody cheek to claim for them . You won't fine a man / woman / prostitute claiming for each of their sexual partners lol
Any man woman who sleep with others while in a relationship are risking disease and they are all disgusting .

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

Cass wrote:just out of curiosity peeps......leaving religion out of it.......

what about men and women .....married or not....who have sex with others while in another relationship....prostitutes, serial one night stands, sleeping with multiple partners? unprotected sex along with disease and unwanted babies....it goes on and on......

its been around since time began....ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Jews, Muslims, Japanese,  Chinese,  Mormons,  Henry VIII,  black,  white,  purple....name any country,  any race,  any time period you will find it.

Filthy disgusting as well, but these men cannot claim for their mistresses on benefits can they .
It's the the fact the Muslim men can legally marry more than one wife and then have the bloody cheek to claim for them . You won't fine a man / woman / prostitute claiming for each of their sexual partners lol
Any man woman who sleep with others while in a relationship are risking disease and they are all disgusting .

Will you stop lying through your back teeth.   In this country Muslims men CANNOT marry more than one wife, and he is not allowed to bring more that one wife if they were married abroad.   The wife might be allowed in as a single person, if she qualifies, but if he claims for her as a dependent, she gets less than she would have got claiming as a single person. And there are very few households were this happens, about 1000 out of millions.

Sass you cant 'debate' with Zionists!

Plain and simple no matter how much evidence you show them!

SEXY MAMA wrote:Sass you cant 'debate' with Zionists!

Plain and simple no matter how much evidence you show them!

You can't debate with fundamentalist Christians either!!!!!!!!

Sassy wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Sass you cant 'debate' with Zionists!

Plain and simple no matter how much evidence you show them!

You can't debate with fundamentalist Christians either!!!!!!!!

Shes a Zionist supporting a terrorist organisation that ORGASM at murdered children

Shit i cant even find the words to write how disgusted i am with people like her.

And yet both of you fail to condemn Hamas who has committed human rights violations against the Palestinians, where you both fail to show the same zeal and passion against far worse atrocities happening to Muslims in Syria, Iraq etc , which would lead anyone to believe the pair of you are antisemitic, which is of course backed by your view to exterminate Jews by Hitler.

The difference with many who debate against you is that we all condemn Israel fir when they have done wrongs, both of you fail to ever condemn Hamas and thus the pair of you back an organisation that is classed as a terrorist organisation which has little friends even in the Arab world, that speaks volumes

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


There really is no need for that kind of talk scrat.

Should we tackle benefits?  Yes.

Should we tackle tax avoidance?  Yes.

Should we be allowing foreigners to have more than one wife?  No.

spot on with everything you have said Andy

 :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: 

'LittleMissBullshit" proves once again that her ignorant opinion is anything but "perfect" !!!

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Didge wrote:And yet both of you fail to condemn Hamas who has committed human rights violations against the Palestinians, where you both fail to show the same zeal and passion against far worse atrocities happening to Muslims in Syria, Iraq etc , which would lead anyone to believe the pair of you are antisemitic, which is of course backed by your view to exterminate Jews by Hitler.

The difference with many who debate against you is that we all condemn Israel fir when they have done wrongs, both of you fail to ever condemn Hamas and thus the pair of you back an organisation that is classed as a terrorist organisation which has little friends even in the Arab world, that speaks volumes

The difference iS I dont show support for HAMAS

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:And yet both of you fail to condemn Hamas who has committed human rights violations against the Palestinians, where you both fail to show the same zeal and passion against far worse atrocities happening to Muslims in Syria, Iraq etc , which would lead anyone to believe the pair of you are antisemitic, which is of course backed by your view to exterminate Jews by Hitler.

The difference with many who debate against you is that we all condemn Israel fir when they have done wrongs, both of you fail to ever condemn Hamas and thus the pair of you back an organisation that is classed as a terrorist organisation which has little friends even in the Arab world, that speaks volumes

The difference iS I dont show support for HAMAS

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Really, since when have you condemned them for attacking Israel with rockets?


I do not support anyone, I state what is right and wrong in something and even worse where two posters show more concern with hatred to Israel than they do to ISIS, the Taliban etc who are murdering innocent Muslims all the time