"Muslims Most Civilized" book exposes Islamophobia

[Toramana]

Barkzai can say any unscientific thing to boost his fanatic ego. And the article that Catya has posted is nothing but a pack of lies and self-satisfying myths.

[Toramana]

Here is the list of countries by human development index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Here is some other information that is more authentic .

"Islam is not only a religion, but also a culture, tradition, and civilization. There are currently 1.5 billion people in the world who identify themselves as Muslim. Two thirds of the worldwide Muslim population, i.e. approximately a billion people, live in forty-eight Muslim majority countries (MMC) in the world– all of which except one are in Africa and Asia. Of these MMCs in Africa and Asia, only twelve (inhabited by about 165 million people) have ever achieved a high score on the Human Development Index (HDI), the index that measures life expectancy at birth, education and standard of living and ranks how "developed" a country is. This means that the majority of the world's Muslim population lives in poverty with low or medium level of human development.

The contributions to this innovative volume attempt to determine why this is. They explore the influence of environment, space, and power on human development. The result is a complex, interdisciplinary study of all MMCs in Africa and Asia. It offers new insights into the current state of the Muslim World, and provides a theoretical framework for studying human development from an interdisciplinary social, cultural, economic, environmental, political, and religious perspective, which will be applicable to regional and cultural studies of space and power in other regions of the world."

http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/book/978-94-007-2632-1

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I think Muslims really need to stop making excuses and face reality as it is

Muslims have severe issues in their social, technological, infrastructural and welfare development and the problem isn't simply because of being poor....it's because of our cultural attitudes and value system is all screwed up.

There are people on this board that think women shouldn't leave the house and that they should forgo healthcare unless she has a female doctor.

Muslims who think that cousin marriage doesn't have higher risks involved when it comes to offspring with genetic defects.

I think we need to stop being defensive ALL the time and look at ourselves HONESTLY

Islam is not the problem but backwards thinking amongst Muslims that is the problem

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Do not Jump to the conclusion that hurriedly. I did not copy the whole article but parts of it. The first link was about the controversy under the title

“It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood”: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective

Thus to give the historical perpspective of the controversy and then in the second link it is absolutely proved that cousen marriages are risky. Why you did not touch this part?

Babies born out of such wedlock could have a multiplicity of congenital problems. Heart problems top the list, followed by nervous disorders, limb anomalies and so forth. Sheridan and colleagues also studied the lifestyle, smoking and drinking habits, income and poverty and other factors that might contribute, and found that consanguinity is the leading culprit. They have published their analysis in the July 4 issue of The Lancet.

My intention was to submit a balanced approach towards the issue.firest the history, the controversy and then in the second link its total rebuttal. I will always give many other references which will show that cousin marriages are not recommendable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, even the Lancet study would not be applicable in the way you say, because its a COHORT study.

Its a good reference for the discussion and I appreciate it - but rather its your interpretation of it that's flawed.

Wrorraka you are really out of your depth because this is not a religious issue, but as you say often, a scientific issue.

The whole point of the study was to confirm DEPRIVATION was not truly causal.

That is why the author on the very study you quote says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355277/Warning-cousin-marriages-Unions-blood-relatives-Pakistani-community-account-birth-defects-children.html

"Study Co-author Professor Neil Small, from the University of Bradford, said it would be wrong to use the findings to dissuade blood relatives from marrying"

He basically is in agreement with Dr. Motulsky

The whole point of the American perspective from the Nation Council of Genetics lead author is to show that:

"Dr. Motulsky said the American laws against cousin marriage should be abolished, because they are based in part on the mistaken belief that the children of such parents will suffer from terrible physical and mental illnesses.
"They are ancient laws in terms of thinking it's really bad," he said. "The data show it isn't that bad. There shouldn't be a law that you can't marry your cousin.""

Meaning as physicians, once again, the data simply doesn't exist to make a GENERALIZED recommendation.

Even in the first link you have the following parts which are against the cousin marriages which shows that cousin marriages have risks, and banned in many places.

Badlun Saheb, please you are backing yourself into a corner even more. The article references these laws saying that there is no scientific evidence to support a legal ban for such a low incidence and generally low prevalence concept.

Once again this is why the expert consensus is:

"The new report says genetic counselors should advise cousins who want to have children together in much the same way they advise everybody else, and that no extra genetic tests are required before conception."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only exception is Middle east or Muslim countries. No where in Europe, USA, South America, China, Korea, India(Hindus) etc cousin marriages are practiced. It means it is some thing bad but as allowed in Islam you people are adamant to prove the otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL. Wrorra, once again your militant secular attitude is blinding you in the rage to try and hang Islam up - this has resulted in a series of inaccuracies that your Caucasian colleagues would even laugh at.

The article says, "Romantic relationships between cousins are not infrequent in the United States and Canada." But many cousins who marry or live together keep their family ties a secret because of the stigma, so the frequency of such unions is not known. Estimates of marriages between related people, which include first cousins and more distant ones, range from less than 0.1 percent of the general population to 1.5 percent. In the past, small studies have found much higher rates in some areas: a survey in 1942 found 18.7 percent in a small town in Kentucky, and a 1980 study found 33 percent in a Mennonite community in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/03CND-COUS.html

Or lets refer to Dr Sheriden's interpretation himself. He is the lead author of the study:

The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small

Here is the link to his bbc interview on the study:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why always my point on such issues like cousin marriages, polygamy, evidence and inheritance of women we have to reinterpret Qur'an not trying foolishly to justify such anomalies in this modern era.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, once again, the Quran does it correctly by making no advocacy for or against cousin marriages. The whole point is the consanguinity associated ailments (incidence and prevalence) were not enough to encourage social upheaval in societies where land ownership, familial ties, and poverty would often lead to consanguinity. Rather, Dr. Sheridan and Science support the Quran's stance.

Your goal has nothing really to do with accurate science or health care but rather abrogating parts of the Quran you feel are less in line with Caucasian/European values. This is not about modernity about an inferiority complex you harbor for some reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February, 2008, British environment minister Phil Woolas sparked a major row in the United Kingdom when he attributed the high rate of birth defects in the Pakistani community to the practice of marriages between first cousins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-read Dr. Sheridan's quote regarding "the high rate." His whole point is that the rate is DOUBLE the normal rate for non related couples but still the incidence and prevalence is NOT large enough to make a solid recommendation except in particular circumstances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem,” he told the Sunday Times [1].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, that statement is scientifically inaccurate and made by a POLITICIAN AND NOT THE STUDY AUTHOR, LOL. You are digging yourself further and further into a hole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a Muslim activist group demanded that Woolas be fired, he was instead promoted in October to the racially sensitive post of immigration minister.

Indeed, in the United States, similar assumptions about the high level of genetic risk associated with cousin marriage are reflected in the 31 state laws that either bar the practice outright or permit it only where the couple obtains genetic counseling, is beyond reproductive age, or if one partner is sterile.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlun wrorre, there are courses online or in universities that encourage reading for comprehension. You missed the highlighted word above. The university of Washington's emeritus medical professor already addressed this:

Dr. Motulsky said the American laws against cousin marriage should be abolished, because they are based in part on the mistaken belief that the children of such parents will suffer from terrible physical and mental illnesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/03CND-COUS.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, in both the US and Europe, the frequency of first-cousin marriage—a practice that had often been favored, especially by elites—sharply declined during the second half of the 19th century [3]. (The reasons are both complex and contested
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-read the above again that I highlighted for you Badlun Saheb. Once again, its not a bad thing that they decided not to marry cousins. I think that's a fine decision. But the point Dr. Moltusky makes is that its a cultural one and not a scientifically accurate one - i.e. Doctors cannot comment except to cite the statistic of a doubled rate but they still cannot do the prior advanced genetic testing and counseling that was not an evidence base approach.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, by the late nineteenth century, in Europe as well as the US, marrying one's cousin had come to be viewed as reckless, and today, despite its continued popularity in many societies and among European elites historically, the practice is highly stigmatized in the West (and parts of Asia—the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and both North and South Korea also prohibit cousin marriage)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again wrorre, read for detail, detail, detail! Otherwise you lose the point. Neither the Bible nor the Quran bans the practice. The quote above shows this was en vogue up until relatively recently. It was not Mendelian discoveries that drove the rate down, but rather social interpretations.

Perhaps, despite people being angry at her, Ann Cryer had a more partially reasonable view of why this happens: "They were arranged to keep wealth and property within the family"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355277/Warning-cousin-marriages-Unions-blood-relatives-Pakistani-community-account-birth-defects-children.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recently, good data on which to base an answer were lacking. As a result, great variation existed in the medical advice and screening services offered to consanguineous couples [12]. In an effort at clarification, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a group of experts to review existing studies on risks to offspring and issue recommendations for clinical practice. Their report concluded that the risks of a first-cousin union were generally much smaller than assumed—about 1.7%–2% above the background risk for congenital defects and 4.4% for pre-reproductive mortality—and did not warrant any special preconception testing.(Less or more but the risk does exist)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrorra, once again read for detail. Thank you for this section above. It demonstrates what I have been trying to teach you. The rate is low enough that Mortusky and Sheridan don't think the evidence substantiates making recommendations (once again Sheridan's Lancet study demonstrates that in one particular Bradford cohort, if the medical history supports it - genetic counseling and testing should follow. This is actually common medical practice. We often alter antibiotic regimens in locales based on which bugs appear with greater prevalence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some other related links
Risk of birth defect doubles for cousin couples -study

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_138417.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article merely summarizes what we discussed above. The low rate is doubled, but as Dr. Sheridan, the author of the study you cite notes, it still does not reach a significant enough rate in society to pass any meaningful laws or change medical practice except when the medical history or circumstance warrants it.


Cousin marriage: Is it a health risk?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7404730.stm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrorre, once again you are trying to blame this phenomena on the Quran, but in reality other cultures, as you saw above, the Europeans practiced it en vogue up until the late 19th century commonly and here is some commentary about Jews:

"Patai states in his other book The Myth of the Jewish Race that percentage of cousin marriage among Jews varies extensively with geographic location. Among Israeli Ashkenazi Jews, who originate mainly from Europe, the first-cousin marriage rate was measured in a 1955-7 study at 1.4% and other cousin marriages at 1.06% of all marriages. But among non-Ashkenazim the first-cousin marriage rate was 8.8% and an additional 6.0% of marriages were between more distant cousins. Thus a total 14.6% of marriages between non-Askenazim were consanguineous compared with only 2.5% for Ashkenazim. The highest frequencies of cousin marriages were found among Jews from Iraq (28.7%) and Iran (26.3%). High rates were also found among couples from Yemen (18.3%), Aden (17.8%), Tunisia (13.4%), and among Oriental Jews from the USSR (6.9%). Jews from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey saw rates of 7-10.7%. A later 1969-70 study rated the first-cousin marriage rate among Ashkenazim at 0.3% and other cousin marriages at 1.0%, while for non-Askenazim the respective figures were 6.2% and 8.1%. Among the Habbani Jews in Israel, 56% of marriages are between first cousins. The Samaritans also had very high rates of inbreeding, with 43% of marriages between first cousins and 33.3% between other cousins."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

How you are not proponent of consanguinity and how it is not related to Islam when cousin marriages are allowed in Islam, mentioned in Qur'an and widely practiced by Muslims?

Why instead you do not fight and argue against it if you are not its proponent and if you are not its proponent then how you will recommend to amend Islam for not allowing consanguinity?

If these are just facts then defend these facts and not trying arrogantly to win an argument in a forum on a subject you are not proponent

Wrorre, seriously now I am even more thankful that those people took care of Dr. Najib for good because the limits of your militant secularism have blinded you to reason. Your whole discussion above showed you quoting a study once again without actually reading or interpreting it or even looking into comments made by the lead authors. If Dr. Sheridan, the lead author of the Bradford Lancet study disagrees with you as does Dr, Multosky, and they did and wrote the studies - then you should argue with them, not me.

The key thing is the Quran makes no ban or comment on it and neither does the Bible nor did most societies until the late 19th century. As we show above, various leading scientific figures, even ones you cited are not in favor of a blanket ban and don't think the scientific evidence behind social driven state bans makes sense - they have gone so far as to LIMIT the amount of testing American doctors should do theoretically. That's your fight with them, your Caucasian Prophets, not me.

The Quran for instance does not ban high cholesterol rich foods that result in artery clogging either - but that, nor Islamic law inhibits commentary on this subject under generalized Islamic concepts of abstention and moderation.

Your question is really silly - why not argue against it? Because as the authors Dr. Multosky and Sheridan show, its irrelevant except in certain circumstances.

I have on a personal level both here at PF and in real life told Pashtuns to marry far and wide between tribes and across borders for other social reasons. But that doesn't mean I have the evidence at hand to ban a prominent social practice. And the issue in Muslim societies rests NOT IN ISLAMIC theology - if you ask most Bibis in Pashtunistan or other races (Gypses, Menonites etc) why they advocate this - its obvious its a social move to preserve land rights and keep wealth within the family.

In some instances - I have been told by folks engaged to their cousins that its a wealth issue where its unlikely a cousin will have a high dowry (which is an issue that should not be there in the initial if two people want an Islamic strong marriage and are good people). Therefore, so many poor people do this practice so that they can marry in the first place.

How will I recommend to mend Islam?
Once again, this is a militant secular viewpoint on how to handle a problem. Your slain Prophet Najib tried these things by force and by "mending Islam" and created social consternation and war.

Rather the question should be: How do we remove feudal concepts and establish reasonable imminent domain rights in Muslim lands that will lead to social changes to facilitate the changes you want in a reasonable way?

One Islamic way though is to emphasize Muhammad's description on the way dowry should be practiced (he said even a symbolic brass ring is better) and also refer to Umar Bin Al Khattab's viewpoint on the subject (which was to deal with dowry driven extortion in a way).

The other issue is what is the chicken and what is the egg. Bride prices in Afghanistan are often driven by the desire of families to make money or to have money at hand to transfer for when their own sons marry. As this Afghan American author writes, - there are cultural incentives in place to continue this process:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2868133.html

She gives you some great advice.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I think Muslims really need to stop making excuses and face reality as it is

I don't disagree with this.

Muslims have severe issues in their social, technological, infrastructural and welfare development and the problem isn't simply because of being poor....it's because of our cultural attitudes and value system is all screwed up.

Of course, the onus for the depridations Muslims find themselves in today is primarily on them. After all, no one can bully you if you at least stand up for yourself etc.

There are people on this board that think women shouldn't leave the house and that they should forgo healthcare unless she has a female doctor.

This view of theirs is not sensical.

Muslims who think that cousin marriage doesn't have higher risks involved when it comes to offspring with genetic defects.

Let me explain - what I stated was not that there are not higher risks. That is a scientifically invalid statement. I said that the studies show the risk, already low, may double, but is still considered in the words of Dr. Multowsky, the author of the American Genetics Society's paper on the subject:

For first cousins, "there is a slightly increased risk, but in terms of general risks in life it's not very high," said Dr. Arno Motulsky, a professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, and the senior author of the report, being published today in The Journal of Genetic Counseling.

Before you say, well he makes no comment on whether to advocate for or against it, he says:

Dr. Motulsky said the American laws against cousin marriage should be abolished, because they are based in part on the mistaken belief that the children of such parents will suffer from terrible physical and mental illnesses.
"They are ancient laws in terms of thinking it's really bad," he said. "The data show it isn't that bad. There shouldn't be a law that you can't marry your cousin."

Dr. Motulsky said that medical geneticists had known for a long time that there was little or no harm in cousins' marrying and having children.

Sheridan, the author of the Lancet study Badlun appropriates provides a similar vantage point:
The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small

Here is the link to his bbc interview on the study:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102

Co-author Dr. Small writes:
"Study Co-author Professor Neil Small, from the University of Bradford, said it would be wrong to use the findings to dissuade blood relatives from marrying"

I think we need to stop being defensive ALL the time and look at ourselves HONESTLY

This is honest reflection. I am simply abiding by the standards set by both the aforementioned authors and the American Medical approach to the issue and what the Brits also appear to be saying. The most honest assessment is once again:
The study's lead author Dr Eamonn Sheridan, from the University of Leeds, said: "It is important to note that the vast majority of babies born to couples who are blood relatives are absolutely fine, and whilst consanguineous marriage increases the risk of birth defect from 3% to 6%, the absolute risk is still small

Islam is not the problem but backwards thinking amongst Muslims that is the problem

It is. But you are scientific minded and I think you would agree that doesn't give Badlun the right to

A. Claim something that is actually scientifically invalid - i.e. that cousin cousin marriages carry significant risk for defects/genetic issues etc. based on absolute risk assessments from cohort studies and retrospective data.

B. Claim that a cohort study which set out to differentiate deprivation as a significant confounder from consanguinity establishes the equivalent of large absolute risk.

C. That 19th century transitions (even before Mendel's work was disseminated) were based on Christian Caucasians somehow understanding better than others about absolute risk being tremendous.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I think Muslims really need to stop making excuses and face reality as it is

Muslims have severe issues in their social, technological, infrastructural and welfare development and the problem isn't simply because of being poor....it's because of our cultural attitudes and value system is all screwed up.

There are people on this board that think women shouldn't leave the house and that they should forgo healthcare unless she has a female doctor.

Muslims who think that cousin marriage doesn't have higher risks involved when it comes to offspring with genetic defects.

I think we need to stop being defensive ALL the time and look at ourselves HONESTLY

Islam is not the problem but backwards thinking amongst Muslims that is the problem

Once again, so that this doesn't turn into a pages long debate - I am NOT disagreeing and have not disagreed with the bolded statement above. I made sure to verbatim quote the statements that do establish a "higher risk"

Rather, I am taking issue with Badlun's inaccurate interpretation of a cohort study to buttress his views that somehow allege the Quran needs to be modified because due to some tremendous (but as the authors note actually negligible) absolute risk.

I don't think he understands what a cohort study sets out to do, and unlike yourself I don't think he understands how to apply cohort derived data (i.e. for instance if you SXE read a study on a cohort of Pashtuns in Wana you would understand that the findings address that cohort specifically and that the cohort study in this case set out to eliminate depriving of nutrients etc as a confounder.

I also am noting his lackadaisical approach to not reading what the lead two authors say about the interpretation of the very study he quotes to validate going after Islam and the Quran.

Finally, I am opposing his interpretation of absolute risk.

Strictly the facts - and I also recommend folks marry outside of their family due to my personal views.

As a physician though - I can not lie and say there are existing guidelines that demonstrate the need for

A. Additional testing in the overwhelming majority of cousins that are married beyond what we do for the standard population (i.e this is standard of care here in the US)

B. Science supports a blanket ban on this practice or a reinterpretation of the Quran since it poses a tremendous absolute risk.

He also seeks to prove causality between the Quran and the practice - despite it predating the Quran by centuries. And this in turn, in his own words above show he thinks he has evidence to show the Quran promotes a concept (by not banning it) that is affecting the overall genetic health of Muslims (once again unsubstantiated per the evidence due to the absolute risk profiles).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barkzai can say any unscientific thing to boost his fanatic ego. And the article that Catya has posted is nothing but a pack of lies and self-satisfying myths.

Lol. wow you secular militants do not appear to read for comprehension. I never quoted Kevin Barrett, the author of Catya's article.

What I would like you to comment on are whether the Lancet study and the prior American Genetics Council study permit for the statement to be made that

1) Doctors should advocate banning of cousin-cousin marriages based on evidence hint: They don't have data to do so as all three lead authors note.
2) Is additional beyond the baseline genetic testing mandated by the data presented? hint: no

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Another statement Badlun missed in the very article he quoted. lol please wrorra, you are really digging yourself a deeper hole:

"Most states in America have either outlawed or restricted the practice, as has China, Taiwan and both North and South Korea. Professor Spencer, an evolutionary zoologist, said these laws should be repealed, especially in America, where he said they were drafted in a way that discriminated against the rural poor and immigrants: "Neither the scientific nor social assumptions behind such legislation stand up to close scrutiny. Such legislation reflects outmoded prejudices about immigrants and the rural poor and relies on over-simplified views of heredity. There is no scientific grounding for it.""

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/theres-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

Pretty Dubious Badlun wrorre, you only quoted half the paragraph and purposefully left off the rest to save face.

Who are Professor Spencer and Paul??

"Professor Diane Paul of the University of Massachusetts in Boston and Professor Hamish Spencer of the University of Otago in Dunedin"

Here is the portion Badlun Saheb lifted from that article without citing the statement correctly and without adding in the context and what Drs. Paul and Spencer said regarding these laws:

From Badlun:
"practice is highly stigmatized in the West (and parts of Asia—the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and both North and South Korea also prohibit cousin marriage)"

The red parts demonstrate how Badlun truncated the thought to suit a militant secularist narrative.

Wrorre, please, we have to be honest and evidence based and not try to be selective the way you are at times. This trait is something that Asfandyaar and Najib brainwashed so many people with - but with due time with recognition/marginalization, this approach will be abandoned by secular militants.

If you have an issue, please write Dr. Paul and Dr. Spencer and post their responses here regarding your interpretation of their data and views as well since you were well aware of it but decided to expunge it.

Please do not get so angry so quick and jump to accusations about wanting to win arguments etc. The discussion at hand is the truth of the scientific matter and how you are misrepresenting the science to suit your goals.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Once again, so that this doesn't turn into a pages long debate - I am NOT disagreeing and have not disagreed with the bolded statement above. I made sure to verbatim quote the statements that do establish a "higher risk"

Rather, I am taking issue with Badlun's inaccurate interpretation of a cohort study to buttress his views that somehow allege the Quran needs to be modified because due to some tremendous (but as the authors note actually negligible) absolute risk.

I don't think he understands what a cohort study sets out to do, and unlike yourself I don't think he understands how to apply cohort derived data (i.e. for instance if you SXE read a study on a cohort of Pashtuns in Wana you would understand that the findings address that cohort specifically and that the cohort study in this case set out to eliminate depriving of nutrients etc as a confounder.

I also am noting his lackadaisical approach to not reading what the lead two authors say about the interpretation of the very study he quotes to validate going after Islam and the Quran.

Finally, I am opposing his interpretation of absolute risk.

Strictly the facts - and I also recommend folks marry outside of their family due to my personal views.

As a physician though - I can not lie and say there are existing guidelines that demonstrate the need for

A. Additional testing in the overwhelming majority of cousins that are married beyond what we do for the standard population (i.e this is standard of care here in the US)

B. Science supports a blanket ban on this practice or a reinterpretation of the Quran since it poses a tremendous absolute risk.

He also seeks to prove causality between the Quran and the practice - despite it predating the Quran by centuries. And this in turn, in his own words above show he thinks he has evidence to show the Quran promotes a concept (by not banning it) that is affecting the overall genetic health of Muslims (once again unsubstantiated per the evidence due to the absolute risk profiles).

I'm aware of genetic screenings; but these types of resources are not in the Muslim world on a wide scale so such an argument is splitting hairs to the point of red herring.


I mean let's be real here; how many cousin marriages in the Muslim world were genetically screened?

We have problems wrora; We can't use evidence of some other issue to hide behind the serious damage that's being done by our willful ignorance.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm aware of genetic screenings; but these types of resources are not in the Muslim world on a wide scale so such an argument is splitting hairs to the point of red herring.


I mean let's be real here; how many cousin marriages in the Muslim world were genetically screened?

We have problems wrora; We can't use evidence of some other issue to hide behind the serious damage that's being done by our willful ignorance.

Wrorra, not disagreeing. Tell me your opinion solely based on applied practice of the science we are discussing.

My point was that the American standard of practice currently is the following practical scenario:

Two hypothetical people, Stacy and Bob are cousins in Washington State. They decide they want to get married. They go to Dr. Thomas, the Internist and also his consultant geneticist and ask about whether they are at risk for having a child with defects etc. and whether they should be tested for anything. Both Dr. Thomas and his geneticist do a standard history and physical which includes the family history component (in fact, involving the geneticist was unnecessary on Dr. Thomas's part based on the evidence at hand - buts its all right he's afraid of malpractice lawyers) Neither Dr. Thomas's history and physical nor even the more detailed mendelian diagrams done by the geneticist reveal anything to chase.

Question 1: Stacy and Bob turn to Dr. Thomas and ask whether they should get married based on the evidence
Answer 1: Dr. Thomas can divulge his own social view - but more likely he will quote the higher rate of genetic and congenital issues with cousins but he will also have to note the absolute risk relative to the general population. This would mean he would have to tell Stacy and Bob that the absolute risk in the over whelming majority of marriages like Stacy and Bobs are but a blip above the general population's and that this risk in general is low: From the author of the Lancet study:!
"Co-researcher Neil Small said that in absolute terms, the risk from consanguineous marriage was still small. The study noted, in fact, that the risk was about the same as for older white British mothers – an age deemed to be 34 years and above."


A year goes by, they go to University of Washington Medical Center because Stacy is pregnant with Bob's child. Stacy tells her Ob/Gyn Dr. Smith about the fact her and Bob are first cousins. Dr. Smith opens up with the standard set of questions a doctor asks any tom, d-ick, or harry off the street regarding medical history, family history, or social history and hears of no abnormalities. Her in office physical reveals no abnormalities either.

Question 1: what additional testing, based on the evidence at hand, is Dr. Smith medical legally and ethically obligated to do?
Answer1: Nothing beyond what she would do for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie or Kanye and Kim or any person in the general population at this point.

Badlun on the other hand is saying Muslims are, based on the evidence obligated to establish
A) moratorium on cousin cousin marriages due to the risks inherent to it (which once again are exceedingly small in terms of absolute risk)
B) reinterpret Quranic verses or dismiss Quranic verses that do not outright ban cousin-cousin marriages based on the data and the risk and how backwards it is.

The nice thing about the Bradford Lancet study if you read the details was that it showed the genetic risks were about equivalent to white 34 year old mothers deciding to have babies:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/572403/c...-babies-study/

The hypocrisy here is that Badlun advocates delaying marriage and just relying on fornication to pass the time and basically women delaying childbirth.

By his own evidence, that would mean if a moratorium was put on first cousin marriages then 34 year old women should undergo the same moratorium!

Scimitar I am simply saying Badlun is out of his league in making these broad assumptions on genetics and associated laws and social structures and trying to insinuate that Islam is somehow promoting a genetically inferior model to his Caucasian overlords.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm aware of genetic screenings; but these types of resources are not in the Muslim world on a wide scale so such an argument is splitting hairs to the point of red herring.


I mean let's be real here; how many cousin marriages in the Muslim world were genetically screened?

We have problems wrora; We can't use evidence of some other issue to hide behind the serious damage that's being done by our willful ignorance.

My point is that the standard of practice is that genetic screenings are generally unnecessary per the evidence itself, but I take your point.

You are saying that Muslims with genetic issues in the initial still wouldn't get tested anyway. But I think based on the absolute risk profile, that's a secondary issue at least per Drs Sheridan and Mortusky, yet still valid in the social contexts you mention. The issue of trying to do what Najib did with land reforms except using by force social reforms is a nonstarter.

It would be like saying: since a segment of the population (a fraction) commit suicide with psychiatric medications or Aspirin or with firearms and don't seek help we should ban these things. But I think the smarter response would be what the Brits and Americans are saying:1) the evidence isn't convincing for outlawing a common social practice in a lot of the world when the absolute risk profile doesnt accord with such an approach and 2) the evidence generally supports diagnostics and treatment go along the same path as the rest of the population when working with genetic ailments in consanguineous first cousin marriages.

I would also say that Muslims in general are less aware of a series of health related problems (i.e. a Muslims have less advanced cardiovascular interventions available, higher infant mortality rates in their countries, etc) and those should all be acknowledged.

Now, lets say the Muslims catch up and say build a bunch of states like Turkey but even stronger as the average as opposed to the exception. What I am saying is that even in those contexts where the society might get genetic testing more readily - the same standard of practice applies irrespective of our opinions on cousin cousin marriage

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm aware of genetic screenings; but these types of resources are not in the Muslim world on a wide scale so such an argument is splitting hairs to the point of red herring.


I mean let's be real here; how many cousin marriages in the Muslim world were genetically screened?

We have problems wrora; We can't use evidence of some other issue to hide behind the serious damage that's being done by our willful ignorance.

I'll let you translate what I am trying to say to Badlun since you are the only person in the discussion to bring a valid notion to light (i.e. that even those with genetic issues in the initial would be less likely to pursue testing) since he appears obsessed with assuming I am trying to mandate cousin-cousin marriage via the Quran lol.

[Badlun]

Cousin marriages have some risk. Let us agree on it. For some it is an incest because a cousin is like a brother or sister. I know the subject is controversial but I will prefer to avoid cousin marriage than defend it.

Following link presents a good discussion on the subject

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/8284/why-you-should-not-marry-your-cousin/

To this date, many are blissfully unaware of the complications that a couple can face when marrying within the family. There can be a myriad of genetic aberrations and chromosomal mutations that could result in sometimes fatal congenital anomalies. Children, for example, can be born with a hypoplastic heart, a condition where one side of the heart is severly underdeveloped, agenesis of a kidney, where one or both kidneys fail to develop and many more.


These mutations occur primarily because first cousin couples possess a higher than normal consanguinity; they have, on average an increased chance of sharing genes for recessive traits. A positive association between in-breeding and a very wide range of common adulthood disorders, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, uni/bipolar depression, asthma, gout, peptic ulcer, and osteoporosis has been reported. Therefore it is very important to make known the risks inter-family marriages pose and provide appropriate counselling to people in this relationship.


Though I initially chose to concentrate on inheritance of hearing impairment problems, I gradually saw that the number of genetically inherited diseases was the maximum in Muslim population. Due to illiteracy and poverty, these Muslims never went to doctors and kept on producing more kids in the hope of “one” normal kid. There was this one family I met who had 7 kids – 5 with hearing impairment, slurring of speech, and with mild mental retardation and 2 with Down’s Syndrome. It took a lot of effort by social workers to pull this family for counselling and to convince them not to have any more babies. But they still did and produced 2 more kids – both being deaf and dumb.


My sample size was 250 families and an alarming 78% of my sample size were Muslims and most did not go to doctors or practised family planning. It was a real heart breaking scene to see so many of these helpless kids who were born such way and that too for no fault of theirs. My study included their 3 previous generations too, and the risk of genetic diseases increased with every successive generation of consanguineous marriage (cousin marriage). The risk was higher with first cousins but those who married 2nd cousins or distant relatives too were not spared.
Abt 18% of my sample size was Hindus and though they did have some genetic diseases, it wasnt as high as Muslims. And majority of these 18% were south indians. The remaining 4% of my sample size were Christians and Jews.
Just as a note: Hindus are not allowed to marry within their own “Gothra” as people of one Gothra are considered to be blood relatives.



And what ir wrong with Cohort study as a cohort study or panel study is a form of longitudinal study (a type of observational study) used in medicine, social science, actuarial science, business analytics, and ecology. It is an analysis of risk factors and follows a group of people who do not have the disease, and uses correlations to determine the absolute risk of subject contraction. It is one type of clinical study design and should be compared with a cross-sectional study. Cohort studies are largely about the life histories of segments of populations, and the individual people who constitute these segments.

RCT may be better but it is important to note that RCTs may not be suitable in all cases and other methodologies could be much more suitable to investigate the study's objective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study

[Khostai]

Kind of strange that Pakistan and Afghanistan have the same color on Human development INdex map, I tought it would be atleast developed as India....