Yes I was deeply offended by the headlines,
Don,t you think that the greatest offence is committed against the infants who face a lifetime of ill health because of your refusal to face the truth and your taking offence at the facts.
I find your attitude to this serious problem deeply offensive,how is a solution to be arrived at this century if you behave and talk like that.
Your a disgrace to the human race,what you need is some of their suffering.

You are very evil in that its not about Muslims its about the suffering caused that is unnecessary...hard to believe you could be that bad.

If by some stretch of the imagination I were to pretend that Woolas may actually care about the well-being of British Muslims,

Sorry MPAC, but in this instance I disagree with you.

Inbreeding is rife amongst Pakistani Muslims in particular. It forms another strand of the importing of wives/husbands from Pakistan (and perhaps also Bangladesh, although the latter only minimally). Marrying within the family generally happens for the purpose of keeping land within the extended family, and not to lose/diminish it by marrying outsiders. You only have take a walk down Walthamstow market and you can see Pakistani women showing signs of genetic disabilities.

It is also used for bringing cousins into the UK.

This practise could always be curtailed/inhibited by banning the importing of marriage partners from South Asia. It will also put the brake on Jilbaab/Niqaab-wearing nonsense, as well as force Pakistani men in the UK to get educated so that they can deserve UK-born Muslim wives. At present, their illiteracy and general backwardness (and their stupid wearing -in public- of shalwaar kameez) disqualifies them in the eyes of any decent British Muslim woman.

Complain against the beasts who force in-breeding for monetary/materal gains and pay no regard to the human rights of the girls/women. Many of these girls have been beaten/tortured/starved until they agreed to marry their 1st cousins.

Don't defend the indefensible.
You should be campaigning against this biologically unwise practice.

Mr.Woolas will be someone that these unfortunate girls would have been praying for.

Is it not a fact that marrying your first cousin is medically unsound?

Why should an MP be sacked simply for telling the truth simply because the truth is uncomfortable?

Studies have shown that people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin have a rate of recessive genetic defects 13 times higher than the general population. Though they form 3% of the population they account for a third of such recessive genetic illnesses. These are the facts. Facts are not "racist".

The genetic dangers of widespread marriage of first cousins and producing children with close relatives are widely known and have been for a long time. This is not a mystery or a controvertial issue - in most populations such marriages are rare for precisely this reason. Such high levels of recessive genetic conditions are found in all populations where it is common for children to be born to closely related parents. Further, this is not a Muslim issue, this is something that originates in rural areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh and is not widespread in other Muslim populations.

To cry "racism" and "islamophobia" in the face of the obvious facts is silly, it is not to dispute the facts but to try to suppress them or draw attention away from them.

How can anything said about Muslims or Islam be racist?
For the ten millionth time: MUSLIMS ARE NOT A RACE.

I'd like to know what further steps can be taken to make sure this disgraceful person is brought to full justice. Writing letters can only have so much impact.

Leading geneticist Steve Jones made an excellent contribution on Today this morning, putting the statistical risks in perspective, noting that some Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are well aware of the risks and have information campaigns, and pointing out how "inbred" the Rothschild dynasty has been!
for useful background, see:
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Woolas is known in political circles as 'Woolly' for his hair brained thoughts and ideas.
Not for nothing is he still at his age a junior Minister, trying to rise by making Blairite-type racist comments about the Muslims.

He would be better off trying to go up the political ladder by showing his ability, if he has any.

Woolly, we assume, will be knocking on the doors of the various European Royal families to stop their centuries-old habit of inbreeding.
If he has the balls that is. But I assume ''Woolly'' will be doing it rather sheepishly.

Ironic. Khalid Mehmood PM has a child from a marriage to his first cousin.

No sensible person would argue that first cousin marriages don't increase the risks of recessive genetic disorders.
And its not a "muslim" issue.
(The headline in the Sunday Times) was a disgrace.
In the states first cousin marriage is illegal in some states for this specific reason

Assalaam walaikum and Greetings

Can we please be sensible here and listen to what is being said by the Minister. Otherwise, we Muslims fall into the trap that we are an intolerant bunch who is not willing to listen.

Yes, he has mentioned Bradford Muslims.
Yes, he has mentioned Pakistani People.
But he has not attacked Islam.

Listen to what he is saying, please.

Anyone who has touched on gene mixing in 'A'-level Biology (or has studied Genetic Engineering) should know that if one has a gene defect within a family, which manifests itself as an incurable disease or a disability, then the chances of the siblings getting the defect are high (because they inherit, or are carriers, of that gene).

It becomes higher still, that is the siblings are MORE LIKELY to have the defect, if the 'gene pool' has no new information (from outside).

This will occur if members of the family keeping marrying within the family for generations.

If people keep marrying within 1st cousins and the family has members who have serious genetic diseases then the changes of the siblings inheriting the same diesease are MUCH MUCH Higher.

This is what the minister is WARNING.

What the minister is saying, is that continuous marriage between 1st cousins will make it more likely for further generations to inherit the defect that their forefathers may have carried.

He is not saying STOP MARRIAGE into 1st COUSINS but telling people that there are HIGHER RISKS associated with CONTINUOUS marriage between 1st cousins. AND we should reflect on this and not keep our "heads in the sands" or attack anyone who make sensible medical based statements.

This continous marriage between 1st cousins is NOT CONFINED to Muslims as we see this done in the SIKH and HINDU culture as well. So, to suggest this is somehow ISLAMOPHOBIA is wrong.

The minister said...

"55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, resulting in an increasing rate of genetic defects and high rates of infant mortality.

Figures show that British Pakistani children account for as many as one third of birth defects despite making up only three per cent of all UK births.

The likelihood of unrelated couples having the same variant genes that cause recessive disorders are estimated to be 100-1. Between first cousins, the odds increase to as much as one in eight.

In Bradford, more than three quarters of all Pakistani marriages are believed to be between first cousins"

I'm afraid I agree with him.

There is no harm with the odd marriage between 1st cousins, as long as their siblings in the distant future then marriage someone within their family who is NOT 1st cousins (say a distant cousin). Preferably, marry someone from outside the family.

BUT, REPEATED MARRIAGE between 1st cousins from one generation to another will invite serious problems.

This is something that is being discussed in PAKISTAN itself and Doctors there are ALREADY AWARE OF THIS ISSUE. So to slag off a minister for something which is already known in the medical profession is like using a bulldozer to move an ant.

REPEATED Marriage between 1st cousins is problamatic. It is mainly a cultural thing,

1) People are scared to marry their children 'outside' the family

2) Peer pressure.

Marriage between 1st cousins is OKAY, if you do this occasionally.

REPEATED marriage between 1st cousins, generation after generation, HAS SERIOUS RISKS due to INHERITANCE of genes.

Of course, people will say that any defect is due to Allah's (SWT) will. But Allah, has given us a brain and if we have medical evidence to suggest that there are genetic issues with REPEATED marriage between 1st cousins then we should note this.

I mean, there No point is standing put when you are in the vicinity of a fire and saying "If Allah wills then the fire will not touch me". It WILL touch you.

Wasalaams

And yet, your man goes on the Today programme this morning to more or less give Woolas you tacit approval. What is MPAC playing at?

well we all should expect this sort of bigoted and islamophobic behaviour from labours scum.
yet there are brain dead followers of islam who will vote for labour.
as to genetic disorders it can be said that if cousin marrriages take place over many generations than there is a increased likelyhood of birth defects,otherwsie i have challenged people to tell me why people who marry total strangers have children with birth defects.
as his name suggests what else do you expect from someone with a name like wool-ass.

What has this got to do with racism? Yet again you have totally misrepresented what was originally said, in order to further your ridiculous agenda.

This MP never referred to Muslims, but the Pakistani Asian community. It is estimated that 55% of marriages of British born Pakistani people are between first cousins. This is a serious problem. It is a situation that would not be accepted amongst white people, so really it would be racist to accept lower standards from paki-brits.

In the facts section, can you please add how common marriage of first cousins is amongst pakistani immigrants?

Lets be fair, many ethnic groups (I Wont refer to them as ethnic minorities as this is no longer the case) have marriages within the family circle. In every case I have seen the choice is made on dowry, and keepong family relations healthy. There will be people reading this who feel that the western way is not conservative enough, there are people who genuinely have the impression that westerners feel it is ok to have as many partners as they like before settling down etc, but i assure you this is not the case, as with these arranged/forced marriages this attitude is limited to the few who give us all a reputation. Anyone who did science at school should be aware of the effects of 'interbreeding', so to phrase it. Just as lots of people jumped to the wrong conclusion over the Archbishops comments, I see the same happening here. Once again both sides of our society are guilty of rushing to conclusions and ''chomping at the bit''. Surely in this country we have all built together, it is time to wave goodbye to non exsistent religious issues and come to discuss these problems openly and honestly, without jumping doen each others throats? I am not religious, and personally I feel that alot of people (again both sides) tend to hide behingd their religion for alot of things, this being one of them. If anyone can tell me where in the Q'ran it states you must marry in the family, let me know because I havent seen it! Also I think religion shouldnt come into anything of a public matter - we all pay our taxes, so we should all get treated the same in respect of healthcare, benefits, and whatever else we need. For the sake of the country and to stop these ministers wasting our money any further on these 'discussions', my suggestion would be that we all face up to facts - there are alot of people guilty of causing hassle and they need to be sorted out to make life generally nicer for us all. Sorry folks, but religion will never co incide properly with politics, and we are a democracy.

if what is being said is for the benefit of the pakistani community then do you not think it would be better for the health department to give evidence to this effect.
it has been shown medically that having down syndrome children has got nothing to do with cousin marriages,if by attacking a community you think get change then you are sadly mistaken.
my cousin has married someone who she met at university and he was not related to her whatsover yet her child has a birth defect,so what are we to say because she married another british pakistani her child has a birth defect.
mariages between cousins are not done for monetary but for stabilty, if there is a argument the famlies will help to resolve the problem to keep the famliy togather.
keeping th family togather is the main issue in a wider society that is rife with breakdowns in family, the wider society is slowly waking upto to reality the breakdown in respect and good behaviour is due to the breadkown of family stability.

Familial intimate relations produce medical problems. Fact.

However, I am astounded at Mr Woolas's lack of sensitivity. This is an issue to be taken up within the concerned communities and NOT in the public media.

Given the amazing amount of cultural ignorance, religious bias and out and out racism in the UK, Mr Woolas should have engaged his brain before opening his mouth.

This just reinforces the view that the Labour party is is continuing to seek excuses to stop asian people from coming into the country as it continues to encourage white european immigration.

Arranged marriges is one of its primary targets as so many non-white asians come in legitimately under current rules. Tightening up on arranged marriages under the guise of pretending to prevent so called forced mariages is another way.

With regards to the comments, it is true that hereditary diseases are more likely to be passed on between couples who both have hereditary diseases but then that is common sense and the couples do not need to be cousins or even related for a hereditary disease to be passed on to their offspring.

Fact: non related couples also can and do pass on hereditary diseases.

Fact: marriage between cousins produces many fine offspring.

Racists have always sought to discredit arranged marriages as it means more Asian immigration and this is one of the ways in which they try to do so.

As for cryer's comments about medieval practises about keeping wealth in the family....well we all now about medieval politicans and what they get up to with tax payers money...

Rudolph - if you want to hide behind your racism then continue to hide behind your belief that you can be as racist as you want to a muslim because they are not a race but the fact is racism is racism.

Is anybody who criticizes anything a Pakistani does a racist?

Carry on marrying your cousins for all I care. When the inevitable war comes, our children will be healthy, yours will have one eye and the intellect of a rodent.

Neither are Jews - so shut up!

Shan,

When 2 people are bought together, who both are carriers of defective genes (relating to some disability), then the outcome is that there is more chance that the offspring will have a gene where the defect is dominant.

If your cousin married someone completely unrelated and their offspring had a birth defect (and this birth defect was soley owing to genetic disorder, because you can also get a birth defect when the mother is not following a good diet) then chances are that both
parents were carriers of recessive genes that became dominant in the child. Or one parent had a more 'dominant' gene that gave rise to this defect.

The chances of this happening when you marry into someone completely unrelated is very small indeed and in your cousins case it was very unfortunate that this
happened ('kismat', etc).

However, when you marry within family circles (and especially when you marry between 1st cousins) then the genetic disorder 'remains within the family' (so to speak). In this case, it is not a question of IF but more of a question of WHEN.

Thus, in this case the chances of giving birth to offspring with genetic disorder (or having offspring which carry the defective genes) is much greater.

I hope you see the difference.

One, reduces the chances of getting it and it is unfortunate if you get it (statistically speaking). This is the case of the cousin.

The other is delaying the inevitable. You WILL get it within x generations.

There are several news items where Medical Experts state that the practice of ALWAYS marrying within 1st cousins is to be cautioned against, but not to be banned.

Other (medical experts) claim that the increase in risk is not serious enough to ban this.

You take your pick, and your chances.

As one website put it,

"It all comes down to the kinds of defective genes parents carry which could be passed down to their children. And that occurs even when parents come from families which do not overlap for many generations."

Please refer to this PAKISTANI NEWS WEBSITE about this issue IN PAKISTAN before questioning/attacking the ministers in the UK.

"LAHORE: Marriages between cousins is a major reason for around 44 percent thalassaemia children registered in the city, a study conducted by the University of Health Sciences (UHS) reveals.

Prof Dr Muhammad Aslam Khan, the head of the UHS Human Genetics and Biotechnology Department, conducted a study on cultural consanguinity in Punjab and highlighted the hazards of marriages between cousins and blood relatives."

www.dailytimes.com.pk/

GOOGLE "genetic disorder 1st cousins pakistan" for articles relating to this subject

Blue eyes:

In these sort of debates we always seem to hear this type of faulty logic. Non-related couples can have children with recessive genetic conditions but it is MUCH rarer than amongst couples who are closely related. Pakistanis in Britain produce children with recessive conditions at fully THIRTEEN times the national rate and in Bradford marry first cousins in THREE QUARTERS of marriages.

By this "logic" one could point out that people wearing seatbelts die in car crashes as well as those who don't (true) and therefore it is just as safe not to wear a seatbelt (false). Or that there are warm days in Iceland and cold days in Spain (true) therefore Iceland is just as good for a beach holiday as Spain (false). Or people die from falls from ladders and from falling while mountaineering (true) and therefore climbing a ladder is just as dangerous climbing Mount Everest (false) etc.

For a child to be born with a recessive genetic condition both of its parents must have one copy of the same faulty allele (gene that codes for the genetic condition). The parents don't show the condition because they have one healthy allele and one faulty one, and the healthy allele masks the faulty one (this is why the faulty allele is called recessive).

Such faulty alleles are comparatively rare, so the chance of an unrelated couple having the same faulty copy is small. The chance of close relatives sharing the same faulty allele is much higher because of common ancestry.

Why is it that when it comes to things like seatbelts, choosing a holiday destination or more or less risky activities such as ladder climbing or mountaineering common sense and logic are obvious, but if race/ethnicity is involved logic has to be thrown out of the window?

If there were towns and villages of white Britons where three quarters of marriages took place between first cousins we'd never hear the end of it. The inhabitants would be mocked and ridiculed without mercy and there would be public health campaigns against the practice.

Yet in the interests of avoiding "racism" the issue has been ignored up till now when it comes to Pakistanis. Pakistanis have been held to a different standard from everyone else. Surely that is the real racism? It is NOT real equality to pretend that Pakistani marriage practices are the same as everyone elses or equally valid when they are clearly not.

As Aristotle said "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal".

WEll if he is going to attack Islam by bringing a cultural subject and making it out that it is a Muslim thing then he needs to be corrected.

If he is going to start laying mines down then he needs to put his own house in order first - not his personal house but look at the Europeans and the Americans.

Europeans keep it in the family - Incest.
Americans known as the Hill Billies - Incest.

Now for all the above who are agreeing with this individual - which would you prefer 1st Cousin or your brother/sister. Sounds sick doesn't it well thats what goes on -

Thank God we were sent Muhammed (PBUH) The final Messenger of God.

Alhamdulilah I have been happily married for 23 years, my first cousin maaraige has produced 9 children all of whom are by the grace of God, healthy, intelligent, studious and fine-looking (though I would say that..) My oldest is currently studying law at Cambridge and my daughter is at Imperial studying medicine. Where exactly did I go wrong??? This debate should be put in context and if any sensibel citizen were to read between the lines they would see the malicious and hateful motives which have caused this story to surface on the heels of the Sharia controversy. The media has openley declared a war on Islam, the sooner we relaise this the better.

Salam and greetings everyone.
I'm a devout and practising Muslim and in no way see the minister's comments as racist whatsoever. He is high lighting a problem that needs to be addressed and debated. Why not discuss instead of going all defensive and immature by incorporating a cartoon back drop with the ministers head. I live near Bradford and Leeds, have been involved with the Asian community and can see that years of inbreeding has caused a problem. When the facts are infront of you, marrying into first problems causes defects, recessive genes, intelligence levels? Why are our Pakistanis kids at the bottom of the the School legue tables and the Indians second from the top? Is that due to Racism? I have read so many studies supporting the claim that inbreeding causes problems. First hand I have seen these problems. This subject is not racist. We are sitting on a time bomb. Marrying first cousins is wrong. I look at my cousins like my sisters, especially when they look a bit like my mum or dad.
The POLITICALLY CORRECT BRIGADE will never allow much discussion.

Blue eyes:
Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race.
Can you not get that in your head?
Yes, racism is racism. But opposing the ideas and actions of Islam is not racism.

Phil Woolas's truncated quote in the above article was not about the Headscarf, it was about the veil:
http://tinyurl.com/2wsng6

Again, Woolas' intemperate "crap" comment was in response to a Muslim woman sayint he was patronising her, not about her opinions:
http://tinyurl.com/2mhmrh

(The Independent sub-editor's headline also misrepresents the incident.)

You talk about gentic defect being high in pakitani community but you over look many fact like the high rate of bith with these community compaed to the british white community and the the very high rate of abortion within that community when people find out that the child is disabled. So you con not compare one comunity agant the thsir when they are total diffrent.

Thanks to arrogant-niave Rowan Williams opening the doors to a new level of media vomiting-on-Muslims, it won't be long before this kind of nasty news becomes the norm.

fact of the matter is Phil Woolas is a racist Anti Muslim, Anti British and Pro Zionist and Pro Holocaust MP! The man hates civilised people! Remember this a person who supports Zionist Terrorism against the Civilised people of Palestine! This a person who refused to condemned the cold blooded murder of three British Nationals, James Miller, Tom Hurndall, and Ian Hook who were murdered in cold blood by the Zionist Terrorist! And finally, remember, Gordon Brown is in the pocket of Zionist Extremist!

What the minister said has nothing to do with race or religion. He has pointed out a potential medical problem, that is all. If MPAC cares for your communities, take the issue seriously, instead of going to the default position of crying racism.

Neither are Jews - so shut up - Barbarossa

Who mentioned Jews? Not me.

It does not help matters that so many MPACUK articles give a distorted account of issues they highlight. Not only were comments of Phil Woolas misrepresented (see above), he specifically said that the practice of first cousins marrying did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan:

http://tinyurl.com/2m93zl

Why wait until then fool? Why not strike while the iron is hot - or are you all mouth no action. For your information - it maybe your future generations that will embrace Islam.

Not only were Woolas's remarks not about "an entire [Muslim] community", as the article above falsely states, there is doubt that he actually used the term "inbreeding". After reading the article the URL to which I give below, I've done a quick check on the internet and can't find an actual quotation of that word from Woolas himself:

http://tinyurl.com/29qk2w

Can you imagine if the minister had said that in-breeding in the Jewish community was causing birth defects, what calamity would have befallen his poolitical career?

Is there a greater incidence of mental illnesses in the Jewish community? Is the incidence of Alzheimers higher amongst Jews?

Do Jews marry within the community?

Does this happen also within the Zoroastrian (Parsee) community, or the Hindu Brahmins, or the Sikhs? Of course it does. But 'tis the season to bash a Muslim, so of we go a-bashing -- street rabble, Media, politicians, uncle Tom Cobbly and all!!

1st cousin marriages should be made illegal for all.

The problem is not what this or that minor minister has said but that firstly Muslims are being constantly singled out and secondly, and crucially, Labour's timing of these matters which ensures that Muslims are essentially bullied.
In addition Brown has said nothing to stop this constant hate-campaign. Coincide as these speeches often do with B'liar's $$$ rantings, we are thus left with the strong impression that it is official Labour policy, or that Brown is not in charge, or that he is not able to control those Blair followers who are saying these things.

Assalaam walaikum and Greetings

Having read the comments from my fellow Muslim contributors, I see that the usual "state of denial" exists amongst many.

This issue is NOT about anti-Islam.
It is about anti-Culture. A practice that can have a detrimental and devastating effect on future generations.

Saying, "I married my 1st cousin and my children are fine". Well, Al'humdollilah if this is the case. I too married my 1st cousin and my children appear fine. BUT, will either one of us wait and care to see what happens our children then marry their 1st cousins (children of our own brothers/sisters) and this is repeated again in the next generations. Perhaps, you will change you mind or even say this was their "kismat".

Sorry, not prepared to play with my childrens (or grand-childrens) lives in this matter. I will look elsewhere in the extended family for their 'rishtas'.

Saying the non-Muslims have their own issues (such as divorce, adultery, etc) and they should lay off our culture, is just diverting the issue without addressing it.

Has ANYONE seen the effects of repeated marriage into 1st cousins (generations after generations). Probably not, but I have. It's not nice.

It is typical that we Muslims jump on the bandwagon and shout "anti-Islam" whenever something concerning us is concerned.

I suppose it is anti-islam when we are told most asians (Pakistanis included) suffer from heart-disease or diabetes. Of course, it isn't.

How long are we going to bury our heads in the sands ? and ignore advice which is being said for OUR benefit.

We were in a state of denial when it was said Muslims engage in drugs.

We were in a state of denial when it was said Muslims engage in other crimes.

We were in a state of denial when it was said Muslims engage in forced marriages.

I have no hope for us (yes, us) Pakistanis. Just look at the state of our country back home, and we think we can tell these people where they have got it wrong.

ED - your comparison is illogical as in all instances you're talking about probability. Probability is not fact and therefore illogical.

For someone to pick on a matter of probability and present it as fact and also bring race into the equation is racism as it sole purpose is to target a practise carried out by a specific race.

Nowhere can it be shown that marrying ones first cousin poses more risks than that of 2 people who are unrelated but carry the same genetic disorder. Both have the same chances of passing the geneitic disorder to their offspring and so racial practises are irrelevant. If marrying ones first cousin was a risk believe me, marrying ones first cousin would have been prohibited both in the bible and the holy quran.

Rudolph - you don't seem to get it -just because someone has decided that muslims are not a race like jews and sikhs does not make this actually true. If you want to believe that they are not and cannot arrive at your own conclusion then so be it.

Whilst we're on genetics and gentically modified babies isn't that what hitler spent so much of his time trying to achieve. The genetic super race..... well if nothing else the asians and muslims can't be accused of that can they...

If marrying your cousins so bad for yor health i wonder why all the kings and queens of Britain married their cousins.
since they stopped marrying their cousins their marriages have gone down the pan.
i beleive that is the main reason behind this horse manure, since their marriages are breaking down they cannot stand to see people still living and growing up in stable families.
I have a simple question for all people calling themselves muslims and commenting like bigots,if cousin marriages are so bad then why is it after a thousands of years of cousin marriages everyone pakistan is not disabled because according to your comments that would be the natural outcome.
if you drink you are more likely to commit violence,if you drink you will become ill,if you eat too much you will become ill, everything in life has a risk to it.
as to this MP talkign about a helath issue he is neither the health minister or expert biologist,he is the same labour scum who told a lady in meeting she was talking crap whe she was giving her views.
its ncie to see bigots defending a fellow bigot since muslims are the only people these bigots can insult and getaway with.
having read history this is nothing new it seems british governments always need scapegoats to fool the people,its all politics.

If and when you engage your brain, brother, you will recall that marriage into 1st cousins REPEATIDLY poses an INCREASED RISK.

Did you not study elementary genetics in 'A'-level, and how recessive genes can become dominant. Or how the makeup of a child can be traced back to its forefathers ?

As you put it, why are everyone in pakistan not disabled, if they have been practicing this for ages.

First, repeated marriage into 1st cousins does not mean everyone (every offspring) later on will get genetic disorder. It means, some will (for sure). Others will not. If you look into genetics then 1 in X has a chance of becoming disabled via this means. X can be anything between 5 and 10 in this case. This means you can have 1 person in 10 who MAY have a genetic disorder.

Because it is based on chance, you could end up with ALL Children being normal. OR, ALL children being disabled. Usually, 1 in 10 means, 1 in 10.

Hence why everyone in Pakistan is NOT disabled.

Also, when a Pakistani has a disabled person, they do not marry them off to "normal" (healthy) people. They generally tend to marry the disabled with the disabled, or not at all. This is the mentality (like it or not).

This means, the disabled is prevented from passing his genes on to a normal person, or is allowed to pass this onto another disabled person. In other words, the gene is 'contained'.

Hence, why everyone in Pakistan is not disabled.

Furthermore, NOT all Pakistani people marry into 1st cousins. They marry into relations (the extended family) but not necessary into 1st cousins. This can be the 2nd cousin, distant relatives, etc.

Hence, why everyone in Pakistan is not disabled.

The villagers, those who live in slums, etc, do tend to do this more often. So, these are the people who should be looked at for proof.

Do you think is is possible to collect statistics of how many of them have 'genetic disorder' when they 'hide in shame' a family member who is disabled ?. Or when a person is somehow disabled, they say he is mentally retarded or 'weak'.

When fellow Muslims wakeup and give this more thought, rather than brandishing other Muslims as "bigots" is the day some Muslims will have hope.

Otherwise, please continue in your set ways and let those who have experienced this 1st hand deal with this issue and educate the masses.

Afterall, it is your lives and those of your children you are playing with.

Interesting, that no-one seems to have noted a Muslim Professor living in a Muslim Country (lahore) talking about health issues associated with marriage between 1st cousins.

IS HE A BIGOT ? or someone who is experienced enough to warn people about this practice.

[quote=shan]If marrying your cousins so bad for yor health i wonder why all the kings and queens of Britain married their cousins.
since they stopped marrying their cousins their marriages have gone down the pan.
quote]

What a load of ribbish, you really like the idea of 1st cousins getting married. It's inbreeding and there is nothing Islamophobic about it. Besides the Muslim world has gone backward from the former glorious civilisations they once were. Look at Pakistan, the people, so much racism amongst each other, Pathans, Panjabis, Sindhis etc etc, dont marry out of community or out of family,s o much hate. Whilst the western world has evolved all we do in the Muslim world is suicide bombings, sectarian violence, extreme Shariah law and other backward nonsense. Modern medicine, science, maths, astrology etc came from the Islamic world, but now we are in the 'Dark Ages'. Cousin marriages and other backwardness. Wake Up! If some idiot draws a cartoon then we go mad and behave like animals, esp young Pakistani men, claiming that Islam has been insulted but dont know the first thing about Islam. If people read the Quran then they'll know anger is Haram. Tolerence, forgiveness, manners a must, these embarrassing people who make muslim people look like animals mainly come from the communities where 1st cousin marriage is the 'be all and end all'.
Is it any co-incidence that all the Muslim/Pakistani/Kurdish (yes the Kurds do it, as do alot of Emiraties) criminals all come from 1st cousin marriage communities?

From a lengthy check on the internet I can find no evidence that Phil Woolas actually used the word "inbreeding". He referred to genetic defects.

Shan - you forget the bouts of haemophilia that the various royal families in Europe have suffered from together with a number of other inherited illnesses. Look back at the Romanovs, Hapsburgs, Saxe-Coburg Gothe's etc around the WW1 period, and see how many had odd afflictions and disabilities. They have since been careful to marriage outside of immediate family.
I am surprised no one has mentioned how Jews have been quietly checking that they don't marry couples where a certain regressive gene is present in both. I understand that they run a DNA database to do this and it has been very successful. This problem arose from them marrying within the very narrow pool of the various ghettos, and results in a high level of congenital idiocy.
It seems to me that the heat generated by the faux outrage prevents some real steps being taken to address the real issue.

Joe Smith

“Phil Woolas” you accuse, is a “Pro Holocaust MP.”
My mind boggles! How does one become pro Holocaust? Join the Pogrom Promotion Party? Buy shares in the Zyklon-B market? Open an Arbeitmachtfrei Seaside Camp? Your tolerance for the frothing-mouth vocabulary of the Joe Smiths gives MPACUK a foul reputation.

Sultan - I see that you have taken to the scaremongering that this is intended to achieve in order to manipulate public opinion and create another excuses to prevent asian immigration into the country.

You are still talking about probabilities and not fact. So there is a probablility that marrying your first cousin poses a risk just as there is a probablity of two entirely unrelated people marrying and posing a risk.

Ok so you say (and have been led to beleive) that there is a greater liklihood of first cousins mariages carrying a greater risk but then this still is a probablity and not a fact.

Hereditary disease are passed on to offspring in many marriages all the time whether it is first cousin or entirely unrelated. Now that is a fact.

Incidentally I am not necessarily in favour of or against first cousin marriages but believe in freedom of choice and definitley reject scaremongering and racism.

Comments under this article r shocking. I can very well understand some non muslims coming up with nonsense about Islam, but to expect the same from muslims is unbelievable. Whether inbreeding causes genetic disorders or not the fact remains that Phil Woolas comments were Islamophobic. Woolas might have been right when he said inbreeding causes genetic disorders but to target one section of the community for it was a disgrace as the stats show that the figures for other factors causing genetic disorders are much higher than inbreeding such as pollution, obesity and drugs but did woolas touch on those factors. No he did not. Instead he thought he would target the pakistani community and make it out like the only reason for genetic defects is because of the Pakistani community. And why didn’t he touch on the environmental factors. Because as environmental minister he didn’t want to bring attention to his own shortcomings.
Stats for birth defects on the uk health research website shows that environment factors have a major part to play on birth defects so its very rich for the health minister to stand up and make the current comments.

If he really had serious concerns abt british Pakistanis then he could have raised the same subject in a more dignified and sensible manner.

But them im not surprised as he has a history of flirting with islamophobia and hes been very insensitive this time around as well. Nobody shud make these comments without backing it up and there r ways to address these issues too. In the current climate there is a way of addressing the issues we face…without using words like inbred, and pinning it on one community. We need to phrase our words better as the consequences will be very dire to the people u talk abt.

I cannot believe that as minister he didn’t realise what a row it would cause to make such comments in a currently sensitive climate and how it would inhibit community relations. He knew very well wat an uproar his comments would cause. And to think he used to be race relations minister…yes we all know the history of that.

The MP Woolas was wrong to use the phrase “inbred Muslims” because in daily slang usage, it has derogratory connotations. The term is only meaningful if used in a medical sence something which most readers are not akin to. If he had meant good, then he would have tried to musdar support by meeting young Muslims and trying to tackle this in a subtle way rather than giving ammunition to right wing papers. Now, there is a great chance of Muslims being insulted on the streets by being called inbreds. This is also how right wing papers like The Telegraph and Express worded it, i.e. in a derogratory fashion. If Woolas doesn’t understand how this phrase is insulting, he should stop being such a narrow minded inbred and get out and about a bit more. I’m only kidding but this is how the term is used in a negative way if you are complete unaware. Woolas should atleast appologise and there is precedence for this involving “whites” living in Norfolk:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4781693.stm

According to medical science, only constant breeding between cousins increases the risk of genetic defects, i.e. you and your spouse are cousins, your parents, grand parents etc. However, the odd close marriage doesn’t increase the chances of having such conditions.

Lastly, it doesn’t only affect Muslims. I know Pakistani Christians who have married their cousins from abroad. Its more of a Sub-Continent thing than Muslim. It was also a common practice among East Europeans. Muslims should not have been made the target and yes it is true that Muslims are not a race. This is the reason for the need of a law to also protect their faith and that is another debate.

Such an outburst from a society stooped in high divorce rates, pre-marital s*x, pa*edophilia, alcohol abuse, abnormal relationships etc etc... are much more related to psychological and physiological problems in children so the government should focus on and tackle these issues rather than going on an is*lamophobic wit*chhunt. People in glass houses should learn not to throw stones.

There is a better way to deal with the issue of recessive gene disorders - genetic counselling. First, the man and woman are tested for recessive genes. Then, if both are found to carry the same recessive gene, they receive counselling as to the probable effects on an, as yet not conceived, child. This system is being used very successfully in Sardinia where beta thalassemia has been endemic. The combination of education and genetic counselling is more likely to be accepted quickly as it does not challenge traditional culture. There is no point in closing the barn doors when the horse is already out. Genetic counselling should be provided on the NHS as a prerequisite service to pre-marital consangineous couples. However the issue in hand is not with consangineous couples but when it is carried through several generations.

As a matter of fact, the British Monarchy practised Consanguinity in order to preserve royal blood as well as the europeans and current day Hindus and Jews. On the other hand, Consanguineous marriages last much longer due to increased love and respect, wealth and blood in the family is maintained and current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages due to similarities in body chemistry. We should not blame the badge on the car but rather analyse the attitude of the driver. The fact is I*slam encourages to marry outside of family to improve social bondage but this is left to the people's discretion.

Keep in mind that this issue is not isolated to a particular race, globally, over 20% of the population live in communities with a preference for consanguineous marriage, and 8.5% of all births are to consanguineous parents.

Woolas's comments were out of order, insensitive and irresponsible, especially at such a time only doing well to breed antagonism and deteriorating community cohesion. He ought to be sacked after putting himself in a position where he can no longer do his job.

For all who have managed to misquote and mangle - some of the actual words he used:

"If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage."

"That’s a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. It is not illegal in this country."

"The problem is that many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages"

I could NOT find "inbred Muslims" attributed to him. He clearly identifies the problem as being *marriage between 1st cousins* NOT *muslims* OR even *Pakistanis*.

Blue Eyes: "Ok so you say (and have been led to beleive) that there is a greater liklihood of first cousins mariages carrying a greater risk but then this still is a probablity and not a fact."

I'm embarrassed to have to point out that statistics and derived probabilities are indeed facts, just not of the simple 'yes/no' variety you might prefer.

Here is an example of a probability you would do well to treat as 'fact': Overall, for those who smoke one pack a day, the chance of getting lung cancer is about 10 times greater than for nonsmokers.

Or: Analysis of studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health found an 85% decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent users of condoms.

Need I go on, or will you accept that statistics and probability are pretty worthwhile things to take in account when choosing how to behave in certain circumstances?

It has been PROVED that a child produced of first cousin sexual intercourse is significantly more likely to suffer a genetic disorder. Most cultures now discourage this practice.

ALL cultures abhor sexual partnerships between siblings partly for the same reasons - the increased likelihood of abnormal children. The risk between first is lower, but where would you like the line to be drawn? A statistic he used (3% of births accounting for 30% of disorders) would indicate that first cousin marriages (especially when anteceded by same) increase the chance of a serious genetic disorder by 10.

Several Muslim posters have already stated that Islam doesn't suggest this practice and that this clearly has nothing to do with Islam, yet several others seem intent on taking offence specifically for the perceived attack on Islamic values. Can someone clarify: IS this an Islamic tradition OR is this a Pakistani tradition OR is this just the behaviour of some uneducated people who happen to be from Pakistan?