Minister warns of inbreeding risk for Muslims - Page 2

terry witless · 02-21-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

Christianity is "porkaphobig" too, are you saying all Christians are Arabs?

branch of judaism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

Where as you're a picture of tolerance.

you don't know me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

Isn't that what you like?

sometimes.....

**Will** · 02-21-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terry witless

branch of judaism?

Oh that's right, you don't answer even remotely challenging questions, I remember now.

Quote:

you don't know me

I know that you enjoy posting pictures of a hung black man, along with what I assume you think is humor. Since you have just committed this act a second time, you've been relegated to where you belong once again, which is the zoo!

You've certainly never given any indication that you're anything other than a sad little racist bigot. As fas as I'm concerned, I know more about you then I care to already.

WillowTheWhisp · 02-22-2008, 05:40 PM

Since when were Christians porkophobic?

However, to get back to the original topic in-breeding can be a danger wherever you get a minority group who seek to marry within their own kind. It can happen in small villages where (like Poppy describes) you end up with just a few family surnames and everyone seems to be everyone else's cousin (be it two three or four times removed) or within religious groups where it is important to people to marry their own kind because differences of values would cause real problems.

It happens in our church although some do venture out there and even occasionally marry someone from another area or even another country you also tend to find that there's some family connection somewhere along the lines between most people. I think until my girls marry we are one of the few who are not actually related to any other church family - yet.

There can be real problems with in-breeding where inherited diseases and what have you are concerned so it's a valid topic, although not confined to Muslims in Britain. Of course it wouldn't relate to Muslims in a Muslim country because they have far more choice of marriage partners - which may also have some bearing on looking to 'the home country' for a husband or wife in order to bring new blood into the gene pool.

**Will** · 02-22-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Since when were Christians porkophobic?

Leviticus 11:1-47 Deuteronomy 14: 3-20

Quote:

However, to get back to the original topic in-breeding can be a danger wherever you get a minority group who seek to marry within their own kind. It can happen in small villages where (like Poppy describes) you end up with just a few family surnames and everyone seems to be everyone else's cousin (be it two three or four times removed) or within religious groups where it is important to people to marry their own kind because differences of values would cause real problems.

It happens in our church although some do venture out there and even occasionally marry someone from another area or even another country you also tend to find that there's some family connection somewhere along the lines between most people. I think until my girls marry we are one of the few who are not actually related to any other church family - yet.

There can be real problems with in-breeding where inherited diseases and what have you are concerned so it's a valid topic, although not confined to Muslims in Britain. Of course it wouldn't relate to Muslims in a Muslim country because they have far more choice of marriage partners - which may also have some bearing on looking to 'the home country' for a husband or wife in order to bring new blood into the gene pool.

Don't forget that in-breeding increases the chance of mutation, as any mutation in a family's gene pool will be replicated.

The main point is, inbreeding exists in all countrys and cultures. It was in the UK before Muslims lived here, and it would no doubt still go on if they all left again.

Sweetpea · 02-22-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

It was in the UK before Muslims lived here, and it would no doubt still go on if they all left again.

Dare I mention Wisbech again?

Cinnamon · 02-27-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

As far as I know, Islam doesn't condone inbreeding anywhere. The tradition of arranged-marriages comes from the traditions of the countries these immigrants have come from.

The Quran directly mentions this: Islamic View on Marrying Cousins - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Quote:

Marriages between first cousins are allowed in Islam. In surat an-Nisa' (4:22-24), Allah mentioned the women who are forbidden for marriage and then He said, "… Lawful to you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you may seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock…" In surat al-Ahzab (33:50), Allah mentioned to the Prophet that he may marry the daughters of his uncles and aunts from the father's side or the mother's side. It is the consensus of the jurists that this permission was not only for the Prophet, but it is also a permission for other believers. Muslims have practiced marriages between first cousins in all countries since the time of the Prophet.

I personally have no problem with voluntary marriages of any kind if the people who need to, use the services of the many IVF clinics we have, after voluntary sterilisation so that there cannot be an accident that results in a crippled life of lonely torture that cannot be made better in any way.

Btw, this is an issue with many Mohamedan communities in Europe, take a look at Sweden or Germany and you'll see that the Iraqis and the Turks have the same issues.

Pointing this out is the first step towards a solution, and not racist. In fact, one could argue that since it mainly affects immigrant children that are not white, it would be racist not to do something about it...

poppy · 02-27-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinnamon

The Quran directly mentions this: Islamic View on Marrying Cousins - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

I personally have no problem with voluntary marriages of any kind if the people who need to, use the services of the many IVF clinics we have, after voluntary sterilisation so that there cannot be an accident that results in a crippled life of lonely torture that cannot be made better in any way.

Btw, this is an issue with many Mohamedan communities in Europe, take a look at Sweden or Germany and you'll see that the Iraqis and the Turks have the same issues.

Pointing this out is the first step towards a solution, and not racist. In fact, one could argue that since it mainly affects immigrant children that are not white, it would be racist not to do something about it...

who is gong to pay for the IVF? He would be bringing up a child he hadn't fathered.
what happens to the guy if he divorces his wife and remarries someone
unrelated? They can't have children.
Complete plan for total disaster IMHO

Cinnamon · 02-27-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

who is gong to pay for the IVF? He would be bringing up a child he hadn't fathered.

Treat it like adoption. Those who don't want this, can marry someone other than their blood relation. It's not up to them to intentionally take on the risk to seriously crippling their child.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

what happens to the guy if he divorces his wife and remarries someone
unrelated? They can't have children.

Suggest to unfreeze the sperm samples. And yes, extravagance in life has always carried a price tag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

Complete plan for total disaster IMHO

And the current free for all approach that results in a few hundred cripples every year (and we're not talking hare lip here) is not?

Btw, IVF treatment is still a quids in profit for the state, if you take into account that the kids who are produced will one day pay taxes.

poppy · 02-27-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinnamon

Treat it like adoption. Those who don't want this, can marry someone other than their blood relation. It's not up to them to intentionally take on the risk to seriously crippling their child.

Suggest to unfreeze the sperm samples. And yes, extravagance in life has always carried a price tag.

And the current free for all approach that results in a few hundred cripples every year (and we're not talking hare lip here) is not?

Btw, IVF treatment is still a quids in profit for the state, if you take into account that the kids who are produced will one day pay taxes.

of course the health service has nothing better to spend the money on, like saving lives.
First cousins should not marry end of.

Cinnamon · 02-28-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

of course the health service has nothing better to spend the money on, like saving lives.
First cousins should not marry end of.

Did you see the case of the brother and sister who were adopted separatly at birth, met and fell madly in love? They had to divorce. That I thought was just vindictive -- and utterly pointless. There is no harm in their love unless they have a child together.

Also, suppose we make first cousin marriages illegal -- what about all the cousins who are already married? It's really better to only ban the actual problem when you design laws, so making incestuous conceptions illegal would address the actual problem whilst leaving people the freedom to stay married as they are and live as they want to.