Consanguineous Marriage and the Modern Saudi

The Saudi Gazette recently ran an article about Saudis continuing to prefer consanguineous marriages.

The article starts off with the genetics scare tactic.

According to Ahmed Qassim Al-Ghamdi, the former head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, awareness among Saudis of hereditary disease in children and their relationship to marriages between relatives has increased due to the progress made in scientific research. Al-Ghamdi, however, said many of the risks have been exaggerated and urged couples to undergo premarital blood testing.

“Scientific studies have proven that there is an increase in risk of affliction with certain hereditary diseases among children born from marriages between close relatives. The studies have proven a high probability of the husband and wife carrying the same genes if they are relatives. Hence, this increases the probability of their children carrying a gene for a rare disease. However, this does not necessarily mean that every related couple’s child will be born with hereditary disease,” he said.

The article gets into religion...

“The belief that marriage between relatives in itself increases hereditary diseases in children is an exaggerated belief. Islam has permitted marriage between relatives. The Prophet (peace be upon him) married his daughter Fatima to his cousin Ali Bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). The companions of the Prophet followed the same path. This is widespread in Arab societies even though it has a role in the appearance of some hereditary diseases. At the same time, it causes the appearance of some good characteristics. The moderate view is to take precautions by undergoing premarital blood testing,” he added.

I think it is a good idea for anyone planning to have their own genetic children to look into their risks.

Educational consultant Dr. Shaker Al-Hukair said one cannot issue an absolute judgment in favor or against consanguineous unions especially since many Saudis support such unions due to several reasons.

“The most important among these reasons is to follow what happened during the era of the Prophet (pbuh) as he married his daughter Fatima to his cousin Ali Bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). Marriage between relatives strengthens the bonds of kinship, aside from boosting the bonds of intermarriage. A husband and wife need a lot of wisdom in dealing with their marital differences and even in the case of separation, the bonds of kinship and kindness remain. Despite the disadvantages of marriage between relatives, I still believe that the advantages exceed the disadvantages. The previously mentioned matters are a sufficient reason for supporting marriage between relatives,” he said.

Marriages to cousins, cousins-once-removed, second cousins, etc. has a long history around the world. It is ridiculous that any country or any US state discriminate against or ban such marriages. It's good to see support in Saudi Arabia. Now if we could just get the Saudis moving forward with things like gender equality, polyamory, polyandry, and LGBT rights!

Like Father, Like Son

Consanguinamory happens between people and their adult children more than most people think. Another forbidden relationship that is, perhaps, even more frequent is between adults and their new stepparent, especially if their stepparent is closer in age to them than their parent. In addition to steprelations being seen as incestuous, another aspect that also makes many of these relationships forbidden is when they involve cheating due to the stepparent violating a vow or agreement with the parent. (Not all have such agreements and thus the relationship with the "stepchild" would not be seen as cheating.)

At islamweb.net there was something that addressed these topics, headlined with attention-grabbing "His wife and son have regular incestuous relations together."

It appears to be an advice column. From the question...

Respected Sheikh, I am a man in my late sixties and recently discovered that my 33 year old wife has regular incestuous relations with my 17 years old son.

A few things to note right away: 1. Although this is not written so as to make clear she is not the biological mother of his son, I think if she was the biological mother of the son that would have been explicitly stated, which is not. 2. She is closer in age to his son than she is him. 3. Seventeen year-old males generally are bursting with hormones and constantly wanting sex. Leave one alone all day with an attractive person and... well, this isn't surprising. 4. It is entirely possible that where they live 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex with 33-year-olds.

When I confronted them they denied it, but one day I came home unexpectedly and found them in the act. They repented and promised not to do it again.

So this was a matter of cheating.

I am devastated and don’t know what to do. I beg you to tell me in the light of the Quran and hadith what course of actions I shall take.

This is, of course, from a Muslim website. Being cheated on, especially when the other person is another person you thought you could trust, is painful. My advice would be to seriously consider if this is unacceptable, and if he needs her to only have sex with him, if he's going to be able to treat her right going forward without going batty. If not, then the marriage should be over. But he didn't ask me. Let's get to the response was given...

Cousin Marriages From a Genetic Perspective

A blog about gene expression at Discover Magazine took a look at “the individual & social risks of cousin marriage,” and it even had maps.

In the United States there’s a stereotype of cousin marriage being the practice of backward hillbillies or royalty. For typical middle class folk it’s relatively taboo, with different legal regimes by state. The history of cousin marriage in the West has been one of ups & downs. Marriage between close relatives was not unknown in antiquity. The pagan emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, while the Christian emperor Heraclius married his niece Martina. Marriage between cousins were presumably more common.

How did things change?

With the rise in the West of the Roman Catholic Church marriages between cousins were officially more constrained. Adam Bellow argues in In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History that there’s a material explanation for this: the Roman church used its power over the sacrament of marriage to control the aristocracy.

That’s interesting.

More precisely the coefficient of kinship between two first cousins is 1/8. That means that at any given locus there’s a 1 out of 8 chance that the two individuals will have alleles which are identical by descent, which means that the genetic variant comes down from the same person in the family line.

If the allele is “good,” that is, totally normal/wild type, not associated with any pathology, then we’re in the clear. That’s why most first cousin marriages don’t produce children who are monsters. What a first cousin marriage does is change the odds. How you present these odds matters a great deal in how scary they sound. If I told you than the chance of first cousins having children with a birth defect is 4-7%, vs. 3-4% for a non-consanguineous couple, it might not sound that bad. But if I told you that the odds of having a birth defect is ~50% greater, then it sounds worse.

He got more technical and moved on to discuss Muslims in Britain.

They Know Equality Will Happen

Steve Sailer wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Polygynists, Obama, and Romney

I've mentioned before the polygyny in the heritage of both President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Thanks to Jesse Walker at reason.com for calling my attention to McKay Coppins' article at buzzfeed.com, "Polygamists See Themselves in Romney, Obama Family Trees."

Anne Wilde still clearly remembers the moment she watched Mitt Romney throw his heritage under the bus.

A practicing polygamist and leading advocate for "plural marriage" rights, Wilde had watched Romney's political rise over the years with an unusual sense of personal investment. She knew his agenda wouldn’t include the polygamist equality that she’d spent years fighting for as co-founder of the advocacy group Principle Voices. She knew he was just a politician trying to win an election.

And look how he's treated gays and lesbians who want to monogamously marry.

Consanguineous Marriages Are Very Common in Some Cultures

Ammarah Fayyaz, Director Human Resource, MSF Pakistan, writes about how common consanguineous marriages are, and is a little concerned...

The consanguineous marriage has it well developed historical background and is especially prevalent in Asia and Middle East. There have been special reason for it in the past but now they seem to be less important i.e. the perseverance of wealth, the low education status of the mother, traditions, vows of the elderly, family structure and fear of losing the money on wedding the daughter.  In present times, the only thing that has come to light after studying the different population groups of Asia is that People don’t want to marry out of the caste as it, according to them will cause them lose their social status. Sometimes people also fear the external people about their habits and good reputation thus they marry their girls in the family always.

The very close marriages i.e. parents with children and brother with sister are not allowed in any religion, consanguineous marriages have been prohibited in some cultures and allowed in some but In Islam, there is obviously no such restriction because The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also married his cousin, Zainab Bint-e-Jahash.

Sometimes the Pakistanis settled in other countries like England and America are more prone to the consanguineous marriages because of the immigration policies of these countries. Some presume that local Muslim community there is so small and the people have no way out except for marrying the same generation women.

So the leaders in Asia must address this. The health education can be of immense help. Most important time of learning about these issues is while adolescence, so the school programs and event must be organized. Teachers must tell the students importance of preventing consanguineous marriages. Parents must avoid the close association of their children with sister, brother or cousins during the adolescence.

And if ever people have to marry their cousins, they must have pre-marriage genetic counseling or counseling when the marriage has been consummated.

Racist jokes ignored, does anyone see a health problem in these communities? Siblings and cousins experiment. Some go on to do more, some to be together as life partners. People need to get over it and  worry about their own lives.

Thumbs Down on Polygyny From Muslim Group in India

A Muslim group in India changed positions, and now condemns polygyny...

From urging Muslims not to celebrate birthdays to asking men to avoid working in banks and financial institutions, the diktats from the Darul Uloom at Deoband have often evoked a mixture of mirth and anger.

Sound like real party animals.

In a revolutionary fatwa which could go a long way at strengthening the institution of Islamic wedding, the Darul Uloom at Deoband, in a departure from the Shariah, has said that a second marriage would be a bad idea if the first wife was alive.

How about embracing gender equality and then letting adults decide for themselves? You know, a woman might want to marry a married man, or might want to marry two men, or a woman, or two women.

Darul Ifta, the fatwa department of India's foremost Islamic seminary, passed the decree following an online question posed by a married man with two children.

"According to the Shariah, it is lawful to keep two wives at the same time. But it is generally not acceptable in Indian custom. Here in India, it is like inviting hundreds of problems. Moreover, the husband generally cannot do justice and cannot maintain equality between the two wives."

Why don't they let adults decide that for themselves?

There was no harm cited by the freedom to marry, only warnings that people would be sorry if they married more than one person. Isn't that up to the people in the marriage?

Muslims Need Relationship Rights, Too

From winnipegfreepress.com comes this article by Nadia Kidwai about Muslim women speaking out against stereotypes.

In A Prayer Answered, Tolu Adiba writes of the inner turmoil she experiences as a practising Muslim who also happens to be gay, and the love she finds with another niqab-wearing Muslim woman, describing their relationship as "Two orthodox girls with an unorthodox love."

Three, written by African-American convert Asiila Imaani, tells of her journey as a divorced single mother searching for a Muslim husband through various Muslim matrimonial services and eventually finding love and support in a polygamous marriage from both her husband and her "sister-wife."

It doesn't matter to me what religion someone identifies with. What matters to me is that our laws equally protect the right for consenting adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage.

Not Going to Make the New York Times Bestseller List

From Malaysia…

An "Obedient Wife Club" known in Malaysia for its controversial views has published a book urging men in polygamous Muslim marriages to have group sex with their wives, a report said Friday.

I think very few men would need to be told twice.

The club, formed earlier this year, has made headlines with its radical suggestions on sex and marriage in conservative, Muslim-majority Malaysia.

They include earlier calling on women to be "whores in bed" to prevent their men from straying and pursuing divorce.

Some people cheat and divorce regardless.

In a 115-page book titled "Islamic Sex, Fighting Jews to Return Islamic Sex to the World," the group calls on Muslim husbands to have sex with all their wives simultaneously, The Star daily reported.

What’s with hating Jews? And what is “Islamic” sex?

One chapter, "How Sex Becomes Worship," contains unusually explicit sexual descriptions for a Malaysian publication, such as a tutorial on breast-fondling.

AFP was unable to immediately obtain a copy of the reported book, published by Global Ikhwan, the Malaysian Islamic group that formed the wives' club.

I’m sure the AFP will obtain a copy if they haven’t already. It is important for… research.

Global Ikhwan first shot to prominence in 2009 when it formed the equally controversial "Polygamy Club".

Global Ikhwan member Maznah Taufik told AFP the book was exclusively for wives' club members and declined to comment further.

Wait, is this like a Columbia Record Club?

The Star said Jamil Khir Baharom, Malaysia's minister in charge of Islamic affairs, has promised to investigate the book's contents.

Oh, I’m sure he will.

Malaysia bans books deemed to be pornographic or insulting to Islam.

Sounds like there must be many insecure people there.

Maria Chin Abdullah, executive director of women's advocacy group Empower, called the book a "very backward, narrow way of presenting women's role".

"It's really an affront to the women's rights movement," she said. "We have come forward so far to say women are not just sex objects."

People, regardless of gender, should be respected, including in their identity, orientation, and personal choices. Gender equality is essential to full marriage equality. “Obedience” to a spouse, unless, we’re talking about a fetish or kink or a mutual thing, is probably not the best way to have a marriage. Mutual respect, love, kindness, and deference are important.

The Law Needs to Adapt to Polygamy

This blurb takes a short look at a radio program on polygamy, which according to the blurb is surging among British Muslims.

What's Wrong with Polygamy? (Asian Network) was studded with moments to make you hurl things at the radio. "I just went ahead and did it," one polygamist said of his second marriage. "My first wife found out about it afterwards".

Other spouses should always be informed so that they can express their objections or divorce.

There were some surprising points of view. One woman explained that she had chosen to be a second wife.

Why is that surprising?

"I didn't want him 24/7," she said. "I didn't want to cook for him 24/7." A first wife willingly agreed to polygamy ("I will be rewarded if I suffer") but asked for a divorce after six miserable years.

Six years? That’s longer than many monogamous marriages last.

Places like the UK are dealing with an increase in subcultures practicing Islamic polygyny, as well as polyamory that isn’t necessarily affiliated with religion. There are three basic responses:

1. Trying to prevent polyamory and polygamy. This would involve investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing and/or fining people for having consensual relationships. This is overly intrusive and oppressive, and not very effective.

2. Ignoring it. This will mean an increase of problems as people living in marriages won’t have those marriages legally recognized. What does this do to the government’s social programs?

3. Registering the marriages per request. This provides equality and protects spouses and children. This is the best option. It offers the most protection against welfare fraud and domestic violence.

The British people should not have their marriages dictated by the Anglican church, especially if they aren’t Anglicans or aren’t religious. Adaptation is necessary. Embrace full marriage equality, and let adults have the marriages they choose.

Update on Consanguinamorous Indonesian Siblings

Here's and update on a sibling couple I wrote of in this previous entry. They haven't been stoned, but they have been banished. What is this, "Monsters, Inc?"

A brother and sister who had a child together have been banished from their Aceh village, despite officials struggling to find an offense to charge them with under the province’s Shariah legal code.

The couple — 34-year-old M.N. and his sister, Y.W., a 30-year-old divorcee with two children — were told they were no longer welcome in their village in Susoh subdistrict in Southwest Aceh.

Someone ratted them out, remember.

But Muddasir, the head of Southwest Aceh’s Shariah Police, said there was no bylaw explicitly prohibiting incest.

“After consulting with local community and religious leaders, we decided that the brother and sister must be banished from their village, because what they did brought shame to the community,” Muddasir said.

I'd be ashamed of archaic attitudes towards sex, not that siblings actually loved each other.

“This is a customary sanction and is a lifetime banishment. They are forbidden from returning to the village, except if their parents or family members die, and then only for 10 days of mourning; afterward, they have to leave.”

Might be the best thing to happen to them besides each other, because it doesn't sound like a great place to live.

The pair were also ordered to separate.

Good luck enforcing that, geniuses, since they won't be in your jurisdiction any more.

Best wishes to the siblings. May they ignore the village-full-of-idiots and follow their bliss.

Haters in Indonesia Looking For Excuse to Stone Lovers

I like my headline better than the (I’m assuming) unintentionally funny headline of “Incestuous Siblings Expose Holes in Aceh's Shariah Law.” (Yes, inside every grown man there is a little boy who will sometimes enjoy that kind of humor.)

An incestuous relationship between a brother and sister in sternly religious Aceh is the newest unconventional relationship to test the limits of the province’s Shariah law, which fails to consider the possibility, authorities there said.

The incestuous relationship was discovered when it was revealed that a child born to 30-year-old Y.W. was fathered by her 34-year-old brother, M.N.

They are both adults. What is the problem?

Muddasir, the head of Southwest Aceh’s Public Order Agency (Satpol PP), said that the siblings are residents of a remote village in Susoh subdistrict. He said that M.N. was single, while Y.W. was a divorcee with two children.

Since the birth of the child, the siblings have been under protection of their local village head to protect them from reprisals from angry neighbors.

What are the neighbors angry about?

But the case has left local Shariah authorities in a quandary.

“We are really confused because there are no rules in qanun Shariah [Shariah bylaw] that discuss incest,” Muddasir said.

Good.

“We can’t marry them because they’re blood related and according to Islamic Shariah, they have to be stoned to death, but there are no legal grounds in Aceh to condone that,” he said.

Stoned to death? What century is this again?

The incestuous siblings were outed to village officials by a man who said he loaned the pair funds to have the baby delivered.

Rat.

The brother and sister were originally taken to the police, but were released due to a lack of laws regarding incest.

How about a law saying it is none of anyone else’s business?

“They told us that the incestuous sex took place in 2010 when M.N. came into his sister’s bedroom, asking her to give him a massage,” Muddasir said.

“Y.W. said they only did it once but I think it had to be more than once, because they live in the same house,” he added.

The baby, born two months ago, was adopted by a military officer in Meulaboh, Muddasir said. The child’s sex was unknown.

No mention of any problems with the child. I wonder why the child was adopted? Protection from the angry thugs? But then, if they didn’t have the money for the delivery, they likely wouldn’t have the money to provide for the child.

“I hope they would ask God’s forgiveness for their sins,” Muddasir said.

What about all of the people who waste their precious time in this life worrying about the love lives of other people? Should they ask for forgiveness, too?

This is not the first time that Mudassir has had to acknowledge the limits of Aceh’s Islamic bylaws. In August, he admitted he was clueless about how to handle a case involving the marriage of two lesbians.

How about with a wedding gift?

The two women were eventually forced to separate with the promise that they would never see each other again.

What a pile of manure. We need more love in this world, not less! Let people be themselves and be with the people they love. I promise it won’t cause more natural disasters.

marko got it right…

"Since the birth of the child, the siblings have been under protection of their local village head to protect them from reprisals from angry neighbors" - is this now a passtime sport in Indonesia??? lets freak out over nothing that concerns us?

Make a new law in Indonesia called "mind your own Fuc**** affairs"

Good idea.

If you want your religion, you should be free to practice it as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Ireland Rejects Freedom to Marry

According to this, Justice Elizabeth Dunne found that a polygamous marriage was not valid in Ireland, even though it was in Lebanon.

The applicant was married twice in Lebanon, first to the respondent in 1975 and later to the notice party, in 1988. Both marriages took place under Muslim and Lebanese law and all parties are Muslims, whose religion permits a man taking up to four wives. The applicant came to Ireland seeking asylum in 1998 and was granted refugee status in 2000.

He then sought to bring both wives and children to Ireland to reunify his family. The notice party (second wife) and children were given permission to come as his wife and family, and came to Ireland in 2001.

There was no deception...

The second notice party said on affidavit that she knew the applicant was married when she married him in 1988 and that this was acceptable under Lebanese law and Muslim marriage custom. The respondent said she knew when she married the applicant in 1975 that her husband could marry up to three more wives, in accordance with their religion and with Lebanese law.

So what happened?

The submissions on behalf of the applicant and both the respondent and the second notice party stated that the rules of private international law were clear. These were that the validity of a marriage was determined by the domicile of the parties and the place where it was celebrated. Therefore, the polygamous marriage of the applicant and the other parties should be recognised unless there was strong reason to the contrary.

An authority on Conflicts of Law, Dicey and Morris, was quoted stating a marriage which was polygamous would be recognised in England as a valid marriage unless there was some strong reason to the contrary. Counsel for the applicant said the central legal issue here was the rules concerning the conflict of law. It was clear the rules governing the validity of marriage were based on the domicile of the parties, and it was also clear that the marriage at issue here, that in 1975, must be declared valid, he said.

So far so good...

Polygyny in Kazakhstan

This article says that “Polygamy A Fact Of Life In Kazakhstan.”

With power comes privilege, and with privilege comes polygamy.

Polygamy should be available to all who want it. If three or more people want to be connected in a marriage/marriages, they should be allowed.

Technically, polygamy is illegal in Kazakhstan, and has been ever since Soviet authorities banned it 90 years ago this month. But while elsewhere in Central Asia having multiple spouses is a criminal offense, carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison, in Kazakhstan polygamy has been decriminalized since 1998.

Any laws impeding the freedom of consenting adults to marry should be discarded on the ash heap of history sooner rather than later.

This has helped fuel a spectacular comeback that began two decades ago with the fall of communism.

The practice -- especially among the powerful or well-heeled -- has become part of the social fabric for Kazakhs, who say polygamy is on the rise both in cities and villages. There have been multiple attempts to legalize it, although none have yet made it through parliament.

Instead, it happens with social and religious, but not legal recognition.

Shynar-apai, a 57-year-old housewife who lives outside the southern Kazakh city of Shymkent, says she doesn't mind polygamous marriages "one bit."

Shynar-apai shares a sizeable family home, five children, and her husband with two other women -- her husband's younger wives.

"I don't see any problem with men having more than one wife as long as they treat all wives equally and are able to provide financial support for all of them," she says.

A husband shouldn’t be required to financially support his spouse if that spouse has career or investment income. That should be something they work out themselves, not outsiders. It may be that the wife or wives financially support the husband(s).

"In our family we don't divide anything. All our children call us, the three wives, 'mother.' We go to places together and take turns in doing housework."

Speaking from the point of a "baibishe," Shynar-apai says she prefers men who are openly polygamous to those who have affairs and lie about them. She says these mistresses and their children "have no rights, get no support from the man."

That’s an absurdity that more and more people are seeing.

A bill on "Marriage and Family" seeking to legalize polygamous marriages returned to parliament in 2008. But once again it failed to pass after coming under strong criticism from female lawmakers, notably Bakhyt Syzdykova, a young deputy and woman's rights activist.

"If you want to legalize polygamy then you would also have to legalize polyandrous marriages -- women having multiple husbands simultaneously," Syzdykova argued. "Otherwise, you would violate our constitution, which gives equal rights to men and women."

All forms of polygamy between consenting adults should be legal. That is part of full marriage equality.

A Happy Spouse May Want Another Spouse

Romantic_Rebel asked, “What are your views on polygamy?” Granted, this was in a section of Yahoo Answers were mostly Muslims write, and I typically address the legal and social, rather than religious aspect of marriage equality, but I read the responses anyway.

Sadia…

Well polygamy has always existed around the world.

True. Sadia then goes on to write about Muslim restrictions on polygamy.

Carlie…

No woman wants to share her husband and that is why cheating hurts so much.

Many women do not want to share. Not all. Some are fine with sharing. Some have other husbands themselves.

Louise…

If muslim men truly loved their wife they would not want a second one.

I’m not sure how that makes sense. A man may want another wife (or another husband) even if he never even says so. If a man truly loves someone else, and that other person has made it clear they need monogamy with their spouse, the man can either live with that or not; he can stay or leave. It would be unloving to lie or disregard existing vows while trying to fool the first spouse into staying around. But it isn’t necessarily true that if a man truly loves his wife, he would have no desire for another wife. This sounds a bit like an only child saying a sibling shouldn’t be desired, because if the parents truly loved him, they wouldn’t want another child. It could actually be the reverse. A man may find he loves being married so much that he has room in his heart for another spouse.

It is silly for a society in which people can legally have multiple sex partners (I’m not knocking that), divorce and remarry countless times, in which men can impregnate any number of women… to prevent a person from marrying more than one person as a time. If, for example, a man is willing to marry three women, perhaps before he impregnates them, and the women are all agreeable to this, why in the world would the law deny this, while it would allow him to impregnate all three women, but only marry one at a time?

To answer the original question, I am in favor of full marriage equality, which means both men and women are free to marry any consenting adults. That includes both polygyny and polyandry and every other form of polygamy. They should also be equally free to not marry, free to divorce, free to seek prosecution for and protection from domestic violence, etc. Certainly, if a Muslim man and four Muslim women choose to have a polygynous marriage situation, they should be free to have it, but legalized polygamy should not end there.

Professor Speaks Up in Defense of Cousin Marriage

Professor Alan Bittles of the Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, takes issue with Professor Steve Jones' John Maddox Lecture at the Hay Festival 2011, as it was reported. He wants to clean up misinformation and confusion about consanguineous marriages, as well as Muslim custom.

There is no doubt that couples who are close biological relatives are at a higher average risk of giving birth to a child who has inherited a genetic disorder that otherwise is very rare in the general population. But in a large majority of families where the parents are first cousins this added risk is small, and comparable to other non-genetic risk factors, such as maternal alcohol ingestion during pregnancy. Therefore to approach this highly sensitive subject via the statement that, 'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there', is troublesome. The very concept of an 'inbred' city is curious indeed.

It is, however, the claim, 'It is common in the Islamic world to marry your brother's daughter, which is actually closer than marrying your cousin', that specifically jars and alarms. In fact, contrary to Professor Jones' unqualified assertion, uncle-niece marriage is specifically prohibited by the Holy Quran. So the idea that Muslims worldwide commonly contract this form of marriage is both incorrect and could well be interpreted by some as insulting.

A lot of people don’t mind insulting others, especially when it comes to their sexual orientation, or the person(s) they love. What would they say if we criticized their love life?

British Geneticist Notes that Consanguinamory is Not Rare

Professor Steve Jones, a British geneticist, has stirred up some controversy by warning about Muslims (and others) who marry and have children with close relatives.

The geneticist said that it was common in the Islamic world for men to marry their nieces and cousins.

He said that Bradford has a particular problem and warned that it could affect the health of children born into these marriages.

Could. Could. That means that no, cousin-cousin or uncle-niece marriage does not, as too many people believe, automatically result in birth defects. In fact, parent-child offspring and sibling-sibling offspring are often healthy.

“It is common in the Islamic world to marry your brother’s daughter, which is actually closer than marrying your cousin.

“We should be concerned about that as there can be a lot of hidden genetic damage. Children are much more likely to get two copies of a damaged gene.”

They are also more likely to get two copies of an advantageous gene.

Studies have found that within the city, more than 70 per cent of marriages are between relations, with more than half involving first cousins.

Sounds like there’s much consanguinamory.

Prof Jones also said that incest was more common than is often realised in every part of society, adding that it had been particular prevalent among royalty and suggested it is still continuing.

This is nothing new. From royalty to commoners, from the urban to the rural, everything from youthful experimentation to lifelong spousal relationships have been going on between close relatives for all of human history.

Still No Good Reason for Laws Against Consensual Incest

Danz123 in London asked at The Student Room, “Should incest be legalised?”

As regular readers here know, we say adults should be able to pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults, including close relatives. Consanguineous sex should not be a crime, and consanguinamory should be celebrated. Only abuse and assault, including child abuse, should be a crime when it comes to incest.

OK, so I know this subject has been debated, and a few threads have been made on it, but I came across this argument for legalising incestuous relationships, and I want to see how people who think it shouldn't be legal respond to this:

"People seem to assume a 100% probability that any children will have a severe genetic defect from an incestous relationship.

A litlle research will show that the closest possible relation will increase the defect rate 7 to 10 % above the backgound rate. Now, couples every day, with known genetic disorders or known carriers, try to have children that may have as much as a 50% chance of getting that defect. NOTHING is done to stop them, and in fact many applaude their "conviction" to TRY and have a good one.

So, if the reason is possible defects then either the law is wrong or it is based on something else.

I believe it is based on the "ewwwww", "gross" factor that is the knee jerk reaction most people have. Its true there is a psychological finding called the Westermarck Effect that contributes to that, but for those that arent affected, and there is no under age people involved then and its all consensual, who does it hurt?

You may not like it, but that shouldnt make it illegal."

Danz123 did a good job. Some allies chimed in. The “no” side consisted of the typical bad arguments, most common being “eew.”

Psyk, example, invoked Discredited Arguments #18 and 20.

Woman Arrested For Leaving Husband

In Egypt...

Abeer Talaat Fakhry, 26, was living with her Christian husband in the southern city of Assiut when she ran away from home, converted to Islam and "married" Muslim Yassin Thabet, the source said.

I’m not so familiar with Egyptian law. Is it possible for a woman, I mean actually possible in reality and not just theory, to divorce her husband? To me, the freedom to divorce or not marry at all, along with gender equality, are ingredients to full marriage equality.

Hundreds of ultra-conservative Muslims known as Salafists attacked a church in the poor Cairo district of Imbaba on Saturday, spurred on by rumours that Fakhry had converted to Islam and was being held there against her will.

Violence is hardly the answer to a situation like this, other than to rescue someone who is being held against her will.

But the source said Fakhry was actually with her new "husband" in a house next door to the church and that she had fled when the clashes began.

The largest Christian community in Egypt is that of the Copts, in whose church divorce is extremely difficult to obtain.

Ah. Well, if the church wouldn’t recognize her divorce, that shouldn’t stop the government from recognizing it.

There have been a number of cases in which unhappy women have left their husbands, converted to Islam and "married" Muslims, but those marriages are not recognised in law.

That’s too bad. I’m not a Muslim nor am I partial to Islam, but if that is what the women freely choose they should be allowed their new marriages.

Hence, the charge that Fakhry had committed polyandry, or having more than one husband.

It’s very simple. Allow her to divorce, and she won’t be committing polyandry against her first husband’s will. Consensual polyandry, however, is another story and shouldn’t be a crime. Either way, she shouldn’t be arrested in this case. Perhaps escorted for her own protection, but not arrested.

Addressing Some Concerns of Polygyny

In “Polygamy, A Woe Or a Blessing? A Male View,” Mohammed Hashem writes of Muslim polygyny…

I believe that polygamy brings with it minimal concerns and in saying that, I suggest consistent planning, and the rejection of any negative external forces intruding in on the families’ life. It is better to remain determined, and follow a stable agenda, which will in turn allow the souls of the individuals to connect as one.

In saying that, let us not lose sight in identifying some of the problems that polygamy could present; there is the religious legality of the marriage and there is the unfortunate misuse of this right by some men.

Among those, he lists…

Mistrust from the one of the wives, who believes love cannot be shared

The agony of the jealously among co-wives, which sometimes conveys negative messages to the children.

Careless heads of family who are eager for polygamy, but have no real commitment and responsibility to sustain it.

External forces, like friends and advisers who take sides to fuel any misunderstanding within the family

Of course, this blog supports full marriage equality, which includes the polygygnous freedom to marry, but also the polyandrous freedom to marry and other forms of polygamy, regardless of religion. Full marriage equality also carries with it gender equality and the freedom to divorce.