Behind the creation of the modern welfare state lay a noble ideal.

The post-war generation of politicians and civil

servants were motivated by the desire to protect the vulnerable, the sick and those in genuine poverty.
Tragically, over recent decades, the system has become corrupted. It might have once been a safety net for those in
real difficulties but, today, parts of the benefits structure have become a lucrative racket for claimants who lack any
sense of social responsibility.
Through its generosity, which now costs taxpayers more than 200billion a year, Britains social security system
incentivises idleness and fecklessness.
And one of the most worrying aspects of this and which is something that has been a taboo subject for far too
long, because of sensitivities about the issue of race is the way the system is exploited by some migrants from
Pakistan and Bangladesh.
As I said in Parliament this week, there is now a growing wealth of evidence that the generosity of the welfare state
encourages some Muslims from these two regions along with plenty of white families to produce ever larger
families in order to claim extra payments and publicly-subsidised housing. And its something the system seems to
allow too easily.
For example, a Pakistani man contracts a marriage in his native country, and then brings his wife to England to start
a family. Because they have been married only under Islamic law, she isnt legally registered by British authorities as
his wife. Even so, they are able to claim child benefit for any children they have.
But the state handouts do not end there, for under Islamic Sharia law, polygamy is permissible. So a man can return
to Pakistan, take another bride and then, in a repetition of the process, bring her to England where they also have
children together obtaining yet more money from the state.
Because such Islamic multiple-marriages are not recognised in Britain, the women are regarded by the welfare
system as single mothers and are therefore entitled to the full range of lone-parent payments.
As a result, several families, fathered by the same Pakistani man, can all claim benefits as they are provided for by
the welfare state, which treats them as if they are not related.
Figures are hard to obtain, but its thought there may be around 1,000 polygamous families living in the UK, costing
taxpayers millions of pounds every year. A friend of mine, who investigated the issue for a BBC Panorama
programme, told me of one street in a Yorkshire town where all the residents are Pakistani women with children living
on social security. There is not one man living in the street.
Where are the men? Perhaps with another family somewhere else.
Who knows. It is certainly difficult to discuss, because this phenomenon of serial marriage and exploitation of the
benefits system is taboo with few people in Britain seeming to want to face the disturbing truth.
Indeed, any mention of this issue is seen in politically-correct quarters as a much greater crime than the wanton
abuse of the welfare system and of taxpayers money.
There may be 1,000 polygamous families living in the UK
My proof of this? Following my speech in the House of Lords this week, I have been subjected to a torrent of criticism,
with some people accusing me of prejudice and others even condemning me for racism.
Such accusations are absurd. I was born in the city of Lahore, which is now part of Pakistan, and I have devoted
much of my public life to fighting discrimination.
Yet in our politically-correct society, nothing smothers open debate more than the accusation of racism.
We cannot continue like this. The misuse of welfare among some Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others has to be
challenged, for the practice seriously undermines the social contract upon which the British welfare system is based.
When modern social security was first introduced after the war, the driving force behind its creation was the liberal-
minded civil servant Sir William Beveridge, who said that the system was not meant to provide something for
nothing.
Benefits were to be given in return for contributions to society through taxes, national insurance payments and
work. But, over the years, the contributory principle has been destroyed. Its obliteration is particularly stark in this
case, for many of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi claimants will often have paid nothing in British tax or national
insurance.
Whats more, the continuation of this unfairness is a recipe for friction between communities.

Nor should we tolerate the acceptance of Sharia law in areas of this country (as some militants minorities have been
calling for) since an extreme interpretation of the Islamic code treats women as second-class citizens, stripping them
of their rights on practically everything from property to divorce, which they have under British law.
Indeed, there is some evidence that the Department for Work and Pensions, which is responsible for running the
welfare system, has turned a blind eye to the incidence of polygamy in Muslim communities.
In 2007, the Ministry of Justice admitted it had no exact figure on the number of polygamous couples living in Britain,
and my fellow peer Baroness Warsi more recently warned that the Government shies away from discussing the issue
because of cultural sensitivity.
Two years ago, ministers proposed a change to the law to tackle the issue only to back down after being warned
this could contravene human rights legislation.
Furthermore, we are also allowing the culture of benefit dependency to have a very unhappy effect on our children.
All studies show that they are best brought up in a household with a loving mother and father.
The accusation of racism kills open debate
But when they are cynically treated as nothing more than a means to welfare payouts with their two parents living
apart they are denied that support.
Not only are the childrens polygamous fathers often absent, but their mothers often struggle to cope with ever larger
broods, unable to give their full attention to their individual sons and daughters.
Furthermore, the culture of benefit dependency bred by this practice tends to trap children in poverty, for, through no
fault of their own, these youngsters often grow up in jobless households without any masculine role models and are
very likely to repeat this miserable pattern.
It is time to break this cycle and stop providing incentives to dependency.
For a womans first two children, there should be the full raft of benefits, but, for the third child, the amount should be
cut by a quarter and, for the fourth child, by half.
After that, there should be no more benefits for any extra children.
The same should apply to accommodation. It is wrong that families are encouraged to believe that they can keep
moving to ever larger, taxpayer-funded homes simply by expanding the number of their children.
After all, its not as if, in our advanced, industrialised society, there is a need for vast families, with children put to
work to bring in vital wages.
This might be the case in parts of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, where there is no social service provision, no
NHS, no pensions or care homes for elderly, and where children are needed to look after their elders.
Before critics of what I propose start throwing around abuse, I must stress that this is not some kind of British version
of the Chinese governments brutal crackdown on family size, where parents are allowed to have just one child.
I dont care how many children any family has, but, beyond four, parents should be expected to meet their own costs.
This is a matter of fairness between those who give and those who take.
The current free-for-all, as we can now see from the countrys gargantuan fiscal deficit, is simply unsustainable.

Many scholars[6][7] claim Shari'a law encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband
suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife.[8] Other scholars claim wife
beating, for nashizah, is not consistent with modern perspectives of Qur'an.[9] Some conservative
translations find that Muslim husbands are permitted to act what is known in Arabic as Idribuhunna with
the use of "light force," and sometimes as much as to strike, hit, chastise, or beat.[10]

In some exegesis such as those of Ibn Kathir and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, the actions prescribed in
Surah 4:34 above, are to be taken in sequence: the husband is to admonish the wife, after which (if his
previous correction was unsuccessful) he may remain separate from her, after which (if his previous
correction was still unsuccessful) he may hit her[11][12] [nb 1][nb 2] or give her a light tapping.[15]
Contemporary Egyptian scholar Abd al-Halim Abu Shaqqa refers to the opinions of jurists Ibn Hajar al-
Asqalani and al-Shawkani who state that hitting should only occur in extraordinary cases.[16]

A translated passage by Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Muhsin Khan in 2007 defines men as the protectors,
guardians and maintainers of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and
because they spend (to support them) from their means. Upon seeing ill-conduct (i.e. disobedience,
rebellion, nashuz in Arabic) by his wife, a man may admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their
beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them
means.[17]

Some Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, even where permitted, are
not to be harsh[11][18][nb 3] or some even contend that they should be "more or less symbolic."[20][nb
4] According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above
verse describes a light beating.[13][22] Abu Shaqqa refers to the edict of Hanafi scholar al-Jassas (d. 981)
who notes that the reprimand should be "A non-violent blow with siwak [a small stick used to clean the
teeth] or similar. This means that to hit with any other means is legally [Islamically] forbidden.
Jurisprudence and reality
In deference to Surah 4:34, many nations with Shari'a law have refused to consider or prosecute
cases of domestic abuse.
[25][26][27][28]
In 2010, the highest court of United Arab Emirates (Federal
Supreme Court) considered a lower court's ruling, and upheld a husband's right to "chastise" his wife
and children with physical violence. Article 53 of the United Arab Emirates' penal code
acknowledges the right of a "chastisement by a husband to his wife and the chastisement of minor
children" so long as the assault does not exceed the limits prescribed by Shari'a.
[29]
In Lebanon,
KAFA, an organization campaigning against violence and the exploitation of women, estimates that
as many as three-quarters of all Lebanese women have suffered physical abuse at the hands of
husbands or male relatives at some point in their lives. An effort has been underway to remove
domestic violence cases from Shari'a driven religious courts to civil penal code driven
courts.
[30][31]
Social workers claim failure of religious courts in addressing numerous instances of
domestic abuse in Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Morocco, Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
[

Conservative interpretations of the Quran find men to be the physical and intellectual superiors of
women, both ontologically, since woman is considered to have been created for his pleasure, and
moral-social, with the "completeness of mental ability, good counsel, complete power in
theperformance of duties and the carrying out of (divine) commands." Conservatively, women are
considered unfit for any work or activity because of theirphysiology and child-bearing ability. The
women's role, then, is to oblige to be subjected to man, by which alone she can have any
meaningful identity. Rather than derived from Quran's teachings, this attitude comes from
Muslim exegetes and Quran commentators, such as Tabari (d.923), Zamakhashari (d. 1144),
Baydawi (d. 1286), al-Suyuti (d. 1505), based upon their personal perspective.
[4

Hartz IV[edit]
The fourth stage of the reform was voted in by the Bundestag on December 16, 2003 and by
the Bundesrat on July 9, 2004, to take effect by January 1, 2005.
This part of the reforms brought together the former unemployment benefits for long-term
unemployed ('Arbeitslosenhilfe') and the welfare benefits ('Sozialhilfe'), leaving them both at
approximately the lower level of the former Sozialhilfe (social assistance). The level for a single
person was 374 per month for a single person (known as the Regelsatz). This was subsequently
raised to 391 per month, in 2013.
[1]
Added to this is the financial assistance with housing and health
care. Couples can receive benefits for each partner including their children.
Prior to 2005, between 12 and 36 months (depending upon the claimant's age and work history) of
their full unemployment benefit (60 to 67% of the previous net salary) were followed by
the Arbeitslosenhilfe (unemployment assistance), amounting to 53 to 57% of the last net salary).
Since 2008, eligibility for the full unemployment benefit (renamedArbeitslosengeld in 2005 and
commonly referred to as Arbeitslosengeld I in everyday German to contrast it with the lower benefits
discussed below) has been restricted to 12 months in general, 15 months for those aged 50 or older,
18 months for those 55 or older and 24 months for those 58 or older.
This is now followed by the (usually much lower) Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) benefits if the
claimant meets eligibility requirements.
Whether or not a claimant is eligible for Arbeitslosengeld II depends on his or her savings, life
insurance and the income of spouse or partner. If these assets are below a threshold level, a
claimant can get money from the state. The threshold level in July 2008 was 150 for free assets (at
least 3,100) and 250 for fixed retirement assets, both calculated per capita and lifetime
year.
[2]
Additionally, every employable individual in a communal household (persons living in and
depending on the resources of the claimant), can have one car worth about 7,500 and a self-used
house of 130 square meters living space (more if there are other people in the common household).
To receive payments, a claimant must agree to a contract subject to public law. This contract
outlines what they are obliged to do to improve their job situation, and when the state is obliged to
help. An unemployed person may be required to accept any kind of legal job. This compulsion is
restricted by constitutional rights, like freedom of movement, freedom of family, marriage and human
dignity. If taking on a specific placement is deemed reasonable by the responsible agency, not
applying will result in a reduction or even complete suspension of the appropriate payment.
Within the Arbeitslosengeld II schemes, the state covers the health insurance of the unemployed.
Until the end of 2010, payments towards the pension scheme of the claimant were also made.
It is possible to earn income from a job and receive Arbeitslosengeld II benefits at the same time.
Job income is debited from Arbeitslosengeld II payments according to a formula that leaves a certain
amount of the additional revenue untouched. These revenues are: a certain amount of savings
(which increases with age); 100 plus 20 percent of the wage up to 800 plus 10% of the wage up to
1200 (up to 1500 if there are children). Through this mechanism Arbeitslosengeld II can be
regarded as a sort of minimum wage floor for employees without assets, where the minimum wage
is not fully paid by the employer but assured by the state. There are criticisms that this defies
competition and leads to a downward spiral in wages and the loss of full-time jobs.
The Hartz IV reform merged the federal level unemployment agency with the local level welfare
administration. This facilitated a better, case-oriented approach to helping unemployed people find
work and improve their situations. The plan's objective is to reduce caseloads from 400 unemployed
persons per agent to not more than 75 (aged 25 or less), or not more than 150 persons over the age
of 25. For difficult cases, dedicated case managers may be deployed. Legally, however, the
agencies remain separate.
The Hartz IV reforms continue to attract criticism in Germany, despite a considerable reduction in
short and long term unemployment. This reduction has led to some claims of success for the Hartz
reforms. Others say the actual unemployment figures are not comparable because many people
work part-time or are not included in the statistics for other reasons, such as the number of children
that live in Hartz IV households, which has risen to record numbers.