Why do so many muslims have sexual relations with their cousins?

robinman

Pigeon
“You do know half of the Arab world is inbred, right?”

It was a jarring line. It sounded both coarse and false. I politely answered that, no, I was not aware of this particular fact. I must have been smirking, because he persisted. “It’s true. Look it up.”

It was at this point I expressed skepticism. Perhaps he meant some villages in the Arab or Muslim world? Nope, he said.

I said I’d look into the matter, something I did several weeks later. To my surprise, I found an abundance of information on the subject. To my embarrassment, I found that my friend was pretty much right. Reliable research
suggests consanguineous marriage rates in many Arab nations are as high as 50 percent.
1597475033917.png

It reminds me of the Amish community tbh. They have a bad reputation for incestual relations as well.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Wasn’t it common in the past for people in Christian countries to marry their cousins?

Wasn’t it even common among European royalty?

I know FDR and his wife were cousins.
 

Enhanced Eddie

Pelican
Gold Member
There's something weird going on there... I knew an Arab guy. Wasn't even Muslim, but Christian. Spent his whole life in LA. Then flew to the Middle East and fell in love with his cousin. Married her and had kids with her. Something going on there... I'm not sure what it is but it explains the average IQ of Arabs at least partially.
 
I thought it was just because their culture doesn't permit them to meet women, so they have arranged marriages, but also everyone is in a "clan" that feuds with other clans, so the only option for arranging a marriage is within the clan.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
This might be a stupid question, but is it even proven that inbreeding causes weak genes?

I mean, it is often cited as the evolutionary reason why we are not sexually attracted to close family members, but there are plenty of more important reasons why having sex with your mom or your sister would be bad (if it was socially accepted, it would weaken and ultimately destroy families, regardless of genetic issues).

People say that inbreeding is bad because it promotes recessive genes, but “recessive gene” is a specific type of genetic trait that isn’t necessarily bad.

If inbreeding were really so bad (genetically), then wouldn’t it follow that breeding entirely outside your racial group would yield the strongest genetics?
 

mubs100

Sparrow
Cousin marriage is not necessarily 'inbreeding'.

The main reason cousing marriages are banned is because the establishment does not want families becoming larger and amassing wealth over generations, developing clan loyalty as ultimately these clans can compete with the establishment for power or go their own way (start their own state, with the big clan at the top).

So the establishment wants atomizing and break-down of clans.

Now, when it comes to the genetics side of the argument, you will never see the actual scientific truth discussed.

It isn't cousin marriage that causes physical issues, but the existence of deleterious alleles.

When you have two copies of the bad gene, the negative traits are manifested. The problem is even if you just have one, the bad gene is still there, just waiting for the next generation where if you breed with someone with a similar bad gene the problem will appear.

By marrying a cousin and creating these 'disabled' children, you are actually cleaning your gene pool of the bad genes. This is because the disabled children will not be able to procreate and the healthy ones will likely have lower levels of the bad genes, so over time the bad genes will die out in the dead-end children and the healthy ones will continue, thereby purging the gene pool of the bad genes.


Genetic purging is the reduction of the frequency of a deleterious allele, caused by an increased efficiency of natural selection prompted by inbreeding.[1]

Purging occurs because many deleterious alleles only express all their harmful effect when homozygous, present in two copies. During inbreeding, as related individuals mate, they produce offspring that are more likely to be homozygous. Deleterious alleles appear more often, making individuals less fit genetically, i.e. they pass fewer copies of their genes to future generations. Put another way, natural selection purges the deleterious alleles.

Purging reduces both the overall number of recessive deleterious alleles and the decline of mean fitness caused by inbreeding (the inbreeding depression for fitness).


I'm not for or againts cousin marriage per se, my personally position is that it is generally looked down upon to try and keep everything in the family. I think generally humans should look for the best possible partner they can get and compete for them. I think certain behaviours like cousin marriage are more to do with recent culture and isnt necessarily something that should exist for long or be respected. We need to look at why communities feel under-threat and what is causing them to "keep it in the family"

Having said that, it is rather sad but not unexpected that the 'scientific community' never discuss the actual scientific basis of consangenouty and never bring up the possible advantages (genetic purging) and therefore it seems like it is more political than anything else.

One could argue that is is better, if a community, like the UK Pakistani community, which has a high-rate of deleterious alleles, practice genetic purging (keeping it in the family) rather than spread their 'bad' genes to the rest of the population.

The problem is really the cost to the NHS, but why should it cost 3/5 mill a year to look after these children. This then opens up the question of 'Euthanasia' and stuff like that and that is when it becomes complex and political. So I think the establishment would rather the Pakistani community just pass their bad genes on to everyone else so the problems can manifest further down the line, as long as the status quo can be maintained for now...
 

Goni

Robin
This might be a stupid question, but is it even proven that inbreeding causes weak genes?

I mean, it is often cited as the evolutionary reason why we are not sexually attracted to close family members, but there are plenty of more important reasons why having sex with your mom or your sister would be bad (if it was socially accepted, it would weaken and ultimately destroy families, regardless of genetic issues).

People say that inbreeding is bad because it promotes recessive genes, but “recessive gene” is a specific type of genetic trait that isn’t necessarily bad.

If inbreeding were really so bad (genetically), then wouldn’t it follow that breeding entirely outside your racial group would yield the strongest genetics?
Having any sexual desire or evan worse sexual contact with your mother or sister is something utterly disgusting for which I do not have the words to describe.

This is out of context. This is a discussion about marriage between 1st or 2nd cousins which is again a no no to me.

However everything has a limit.

While marriage between cousins must not happen, thay doesn't mean you should switch to race mixing.

The biggest issue with race mixing is that the off spring will not be similar at all to the white parent , will have moral issues as in general these marriages end up in divorce and the child will have huge problems with his/her identity and might create inferiority complexes or not be a very functional person.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Having any sexual desire or evan worse sexual contact with your mother or sister is something utterly disgusting for which I do not have the words to describe.
...
Exactly.

But what is the evolutionary reason for why this is so disgusting? Is it really because inbreeding causes weak genetics?

It seems more likely it is simply because sexual contact between close family members would destroy families. Nothing to do with genetics or inbreeding.
 

Easy_C

Crow
I can tell you the answer to that from first hand observation.

Both because those areas extremely rural, and because villages and urban social circles are both highly focused around the clan structure. Most of the people you meet and know will be 2nd and 3rd cousins if you’re from those areas.
 

Waverer

Robin
Cousin Marriage Conundrum: The ancient practice discourages democratic nation-building

Also this:
Cryer warns of risks of cousins marrying

Georgina Cooper
3 MIN READ

LONDON (Reuters) - The Pakistani community should reduce the number of marriages between cousins to lower the risk of having babies with birth defects, an MP said on Monday.
Ann Cryer of the Labour Party said British Pakistanis who marry first cousins are “in denial” about the risk of birth defects, and community leaders should point out the risks.
“The price to pay is often in either babies being born dead, babies being born very early and babies being born with very severe genetically-transmitted disorders,” she told BBC radio. “This is a blight on that community.”
Research done by the BBC in 2005 showed that people of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 percent of British births but 30 percent of babies with genetic defects known as recessive disorders.
Marriages between first cousins are legal in Britain and more common in the British Pakistani than the wider population.
On Sunday, environment minister Phil Woolas told the Sunday Times newspaper that there was a “duty” to raise the issue.
Some Muslim groups expressed concern over the way the issue was being presented at a time when integration of Muslim communities in Britain has been a divisive issue.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has faced heavy criticism in recent days after saying that the introduction of aspects of Islamic sharia law in Britain was unavoidable.

“This is a very sensitive case and there are ways of addressing this without having to basically scaremonger and create more hate than there already is,” said Raza Nadim, spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.
But the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group for British Muslim organisations, said it was a legitimate topic.
“This is a genuine medical issue, so I think to describe it as Islamophobic and as a race question is over the top,” spokesman Inayat Bunglawala told Reuters.
Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, said the problem should not be overblown.
Jones told Reuters that first cousin marriages double the risk of having children who will die or face disability, but child mortality is so low nowadays that such risks are negligible.

He said smoking or drinking alcohol during pregnancy can be far more harmful to unborn babies.
“There’s a lot of false information or false consciousness out there in the public about the horrors of cousin marriage and that actually isn’t true, you’ve got to put it into context with all the other things that kill children off.”
Jones noted that many women are having children later in life, another cultural factor that raises the risk of genetic defects.
 

checkem33

Newbie
This might be a stupid question, but is it even proven that inbreeding causes weak genes?

I mean, it is often cited as the evolutionary reason why we are not sexually attracted to close family members, but there are plenty of more important reasons why having sex with your mom or your sister would be bad (if it was socially accepted, it would weaken and ultimately destroy families, regardless of genetic issues).

People say that inbreeding is bad because it promotes recessive genes, but “recessive gene” is a specific type of genetic trait that isn’t necessarily bad.

If inbreeding were really so bad (genetically), then wouldn’t it follow that breeding entirely outside your racial group would yield the strongest genetics?
I could be way off, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the math shows we all have inbred genes. 2^n, with n being the number of generations to go back, will give you a count of how many individuals needed to procreate to beget the next generation of your lineage.

The issue arises about 36 generations ago. Assuming a 25 year generational span (likely way too high) that puts us 900 years in the past, so well within recorded history. For a person to be free of inbreeding it would have required more humans than have ever existed to have been alive at that point, split perfectly into male and female counts and each pair produced offspring. This is just for a single person.

Now the math in the scenario is highly simplified but seems to point to a high prevalence of incestuous relationships in our collective past. Then again what else could be expected when most people didn't travel outside of a 10 mile radius for the majority of their life. Not like there was a wide gene pool available. I don't have the numbers on hand but recall reading that 2nd and 3rd cousin pairings had no more risk than non relatives for birth defects and even 1st cousin was only slightly elevated.
 

BadWhite

Newbie
Wasn’t it common in the past for people in Christian countries to marry their cousins?

Wasn’t it even common among European royalty?

I know FDR and his wife were cousins.
No, it wasn't common as the Catholic Church forbade marriages between persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kinship (i.e. second cousins and closer) Although dispensations could sometimes be granted to allow 2nd cousins and 1st cousins to marry, I would assume this mostly applied to royalty and nobility. Cousin marriages only became common (or at least, less rare) in Protestant countries after the Protestant "reformers" removed the incest taboo.
The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (City of God XV.16) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II.154.9; St. Augustine, City of God XV.10). Nature itself seemed to abhor the marriage of close kin, since such unions are often childless and their offspring seem subject to grave physical and mental weakness (epilepsy, deaf-muteness, weak eyes, nervous diseases), and incur easily and transmit the defects, physical or moral, of their parents, especially when the interbreeding of blood-relations is repeated (Santi-Leitner, op. cit., IV, 252; Huth, "The Marriage of Near Kin, considered with respect to the Law of Nations, the results of Experience and the teachings of Biology", London, 1875; Surbled, "La morale dans ses rapports avec la médecine et l'hygiène", Paris, 1892, II, 245-55; Eschbach, "Disputat. physiologico-theolog.", 99 sqq.; Luckock, "The History of Marriage, Jewish and Christian, in relation to divorce and certain forbidden degrees", London, 1894; Esmein, "Le mariage en droit canonique", Paris, 1891, I, 337, sqq.; see also Wernz, op. cit. IV, 686-37, and the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, 22 Nov., 1836).
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
Inbreeding limits the traits that one's gene pool has access to. And is pretty narcissistic. Having a larger breeding pool increased the potential for alliances and more greater familial feeling among people of a Nation

I suspect Nationalism is the result of enough outbreeding that everyone is pretty much related through intermarriage.

It allows for larger alliances over tribal clan levels. And it also reduces corruption and nepotism:

The more inbred. The more corruption.
 
In ancient, biblical times, the preferred wife for having kids was a half sister. The idea was the half sibling union would maintain the bloodline while not having the deleterious effects of a full sibling union.

This may not go over well, but if you read carefully in the bible about Abraham and Sarah, you'll find they were half siblings. It was the normal thing to do for thousands of years. Abraham wasn't technically lying when he told Ablimech that she was his sister.

The thought of a cousin is weird to us, think about a half sister being the norm. Weird.


Gen 20:11 and 12

11 And Abraham H85 said H559, Because I thought H559, Surely H7535 the fear H3374 of God H430 is not in this place H4725; and they will slay me H2026 for my wife's H802 sake H1697.

12 And yet indeed H546 she is my sister H269; she is the daughter H1323 of my father H1, but not the daughter H1323 of my mother H517; and she became my wife H802.

If you want the context, back up to Gen 19 or so and read from there.
 
I have a friend whose mother was once a public hospital nurse in an area with a community of polygamous splinter group Mormons. The men in charge would run off the rising generation of young guys, and then hog the young women for themselves. This had been going on for generations. The level of inbreeding was so bad that genetic disorders like having six fingers on a hand were common. She said that the most shocking thing when around them, was a sense that their average IQ was very low.
 
Last edited:
Top