"In a sample of Pakistanis, first-cousin couples accounted for around 60 percent of all marriages. In a sample of Indians, first-cousin couples accounted for one-third of the marriages, and uncle-niece couples accounted for one-fifth."

I think that it is important to point out that many of these cousin marriages by Pakistanis are the result of the Muslim kinship structure, where marriages to family members strengthen clan ties and guarantee that wealth will stay within families (since dowries are paid by the bride's family). The real downside to this is the fact that most of these marriages are arranged and obligatory, forcing young girls into incestuous relationships against their will. If they refuse the price can be great (honor killings).

Great Britain is considering the issue not just because immigrants want to practice their traditions, but because cousin marriages are another reason why Muslim immigrants so often fail to assimilate. If British officials are smart, they will outlaw cousin marriages so as to facilitate assimilation, avoid health risks to children, and most importantly protect women who would be forced into such arrangements.

Outrageous.

Why not just outlaw 5 prayers a day, limiting it to 2?

Its classic social engineering of selfpossessed, arrogant, ignoramuses who advocate destroying reasonable social relations which reenforce marital bonds in a society.

Do you outlaw mentally retarded people from marrying?

Do you outlaw physically disabled people from marrying?

Do you outlaw blind or deaf people from marrying?

Do you outlaw convicts from marrying?

Do you outlaw people earning less than 30K a year from marrying?

do you outlaw interracial marriages?

A man marrying his niece in a forced arrangement is not by any standard reasonable. It's socially and religiously sanctioned molestation, plain and simple.

I agree with you whole heartedly, I think the UK government should try to prevent first cousin marriages along with arranged marriages as a means of forcing integration.

But I must point out that first cousin marriages are not a function of Islam but a function of tribal soceity. According to wikipedia, first cousin marriages existed in the Old Testament, and is ambigious on the morality of the practice.

And I forgot where i read it but I remember that several of the London tube bombers chose radical islam (in this case wahabism) becuase they were being forced into arranged marriages and /or not allowed by their extended families to marry the people that they wanted to. In wahabism you can marry whoever you want.

cheers

Mark,

Its not sanctioned by Islam for any person to be forced into marriage against his or her will. This is a basic concept of Islamic marriage law.

Now if you are talking about exceptional cases, well yes, exceptional cases of strange scenerios exist. But one does not make law or regulation on the exception. One enforces the law to reveal and invalidate the exception. Forced marriages did not begin with Islam. In fact, there are numerous sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) where young women went to him and told him she was forced into marriage with so and so. He would ask if you want to keep it or annul it and rule accordingly. If she said 'I didn't want it' he'd say: so its over.

And the family cannot then come and say: our honor is offended by our daughter's refusal of her forced marriage.

Theses phenomena occur in the absence of Islamic authority, not as a result of Islam.

What you have in the Muslim world and the Muslim communities people acting outside the bounds of Islam with no consequences. Just because these people are Muslims does NOT signify that Islam condones their actions.

My ultimate arguement is that the Muslim world is missing a central Muslim leader, an authority who has power to represent Islam, rule for justice, to bring the powerful to account and to bring justice for the weak.

Broker, I'm glad we agree on many things.

One of my closest friends, a Muslim, was pushed into marriage with his cousin by his family. But they both consented. I agree that his family was the primary impetus behind their marriage, ecspecially since he is highly educated at a major US university, with a type A personality and could have any kind of wife if he wanted. But they have been married for over 10 years and have 4 kids and he will likely be the leader of his big, extended family once his father passes or becomes incapable. In fact, he is already the de facto head of his family. I'm not talking about a family of 6. Instead, in the tradition of large Palestinian families, his extends over 100s of people.

I'm not familiar with the marital decisions of the London tube bombers. I am somewhat familiar with the intellectual . vibrancy of the Muslim community of Britain, and I first must say that 'wahabism' is used as a pejorative here.

I understand that many nonMuslim observers use it under the assumption that various modern Islamic concepts or political philosophies in the Muslim world are linked to the Islamic movement of Abdul Wahhab of the 18th century and the Saudi regime of today.

But what these observers do not realize is that it is first propagated by government operatives of the Muslim world in order to repel and repress the natural dynamism and much-needed revivalist potential of various Islamic movements. These regimes seek to prolong their own rule and power. They find Muslim scholars who cater to their whims. They adopt laws which cater to oppressive traditions, customs and backwardsness tied to tribalism, nationalism, and even ethnocentrism and racialism.

Case in point, the wonderful Uzbekistan regime, former communists, is one of the worst in the world. Within the Fergano valley and Central Asian region, various movements have developed that have sought to question the post-Soviet creation of the various 'stan' nations of the region and have provide new ideas and visions for the region. The Uzbeki regime responded by describing these movements as foreigners, 'wahabis', as in aliens, and have taughted their own legitimacy by catering to nonpolitical Muslim groups like sufis.

So in England, there have been several Muslim groups with philosophies and concepts separate from the 'old guard', which has been resulted in various movements. As in any human political movement, the propensity for a faction to branch off into violence or militancy instead of political struggle is such a risk.

Even India's nonviolent political movement led by Gandhi had a rightwing militant Hindu faction, the RSS, which branched off, the same faction which led to the assasination of Gandhi. That same faction's successors have gain greater power in India under the protection of the BJP and the ritewing Hindu nationalist "Hindutva" movement , called the Sangh Parivar.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and State."

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in his letter of July 18, 1948
to Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee

"The speeches of the Sangh leaders are poisonous. It is a result of the venom that Mahatma Gandhi has been assassinated. The followers of the Sangh have celebrated Gandhiji's assassination by distributing sweets."

Sardar Patel’s letter to the Sarsanghchalak of RSS on 11 September 1948

The perspective which says that the entire 'free India' movement should be shut down because of the risk of violence from a militant faction misses the ultimate cause of the movement, the proverbial forest for the trees.

Well you know what -- there is no central Christian leader with anything like the powers you're describing either. And thank God for it.

As for what Islam condones, that's as subjective as what the Bible says on any number of issues. Different people will have different interpretations. I'm afraid your desire for a unified Islamic theocracy is a pipe dream, and you're just going to have to learn to live with it. Thank God, Allah or whoever.

I understand your disdain and fear of such an entity given today's world events and the chaos in the Muslim world. But said chaos, violence, and more importantly, corruption, oppression, and injustices are a result of the absence of central leadership. How well do institutions or families function without a head?

That's the Muslim world. And they have the assets and resources to solve their economic, education, development problems, but the absence of central leadership results in 'every man/regime for itself'. It just so happens that America and Europe like the scatter brained disunity of the Muslim world because it enables them to profit from their chaos, to turn peoples against each other for their own detriment (Gulf states, authoritarian regimes, now have military pacts with America and France against Iran).

In case you didn't know, the Netherlands alone has a greater GDP than all the North African Muslim regimes combined. Thus, these regimes trade extensively with Europe and the US but not with each other.

Meanwhile, there's a world hunger crisis because of Western machinations on the global market.

There are ongoing wars in East Africa, Central Africa, and Central Asia all over energy resources but in the pretext of War on Terror.

Yeah, things are just fine the way they are.

Hey Usama,

I guess there are 3 discussions here:

1) Legislate against first cousin marriages : I am definately pro on this one, in fact i think the British government should try to limit immigration that is led by arranged marriages.

2) Wahabism does not mean Political Islam in general is a right /wing reactionary movement: I guess i can agree with that, I am unfamilliar with Indian politics but i understand the role of political islam as popular opposition to authoritarian governments in the caucuses / CIS.

3) The neccesity of Islamic leadership: I disagree on this one. I think there is need for dialouge amongst the schools of Fikh, and between Sunni and Shii, on what Islam really means to people in the 21st century. I dont think a revival of Khalifate is desireable. But i do think great er communication is...

Unfortunately i do not think Islamic intellectuals have the tools to succesfully communicate to reach a broad understanding though. The medrese system of education does not produce good logicians or debaters, and popular sentiment is too volatile / violent to handle progressive thinking.

happy to expand on these points further, many thanks for your comments

regards

Oh and heres the article on the 7/7 london tube bombers:

A couple of exerpts:

"Families [In the Pakistani community of Leeds] that allow children to marry for love are considered to have lost their izzat, or honour. In most circumstances, the only way for the family to regain it is to kill the offending boy or girl. Pakistan has the highest number of honour killings in the world"

" So when the Mullah boys started conducting marriages from the premises of Iqra, the local Islamic bookshop on Bude road, it caused a stir. Ali says that when Sidique Khan’s friend Naveed Fiaz and his brother married white girls, and a Bangladeshi girl married an Afro-Caribbean guy, the community elders became very worried.

But the Mullah boys were armed with faith. As long as the marriages were between Muslims, they didn’t care about tribal tradition. And since the outsiders all converted to Islam before the marriages, the older generation’s insistence that their young marry their cousins was simply ignored. "

cheers

<link>