Cultural Inbreeding


Incest/Inbreeding Taboos
International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family is quoted in this article

The CULT’ural “RAT PEOPLE” of Pakistan are victims of Islams 1400 years of religious inbreeding commanded by the Koran and the Hadiths.

The World is now within the “Acharit Hyamim” (End of Days) and the response of Humanity to that prophetic Bible fact is to go insane. Writing, blogging, and “prepping” for world collapse has become a cottage industry over the last ten years.  The proliferation of websites, books, articles, and conferences devoted to analysis and speculation about what will happen, learning to grow and preserve food and other survival skills, and storing up living supplies, are based on the well-founded fears that interconnected systems of phony fiscal finance and fossil fueled industry are all heading for implosion and that the environment will become unstable, less habitable, and less able to sustain the billions of souls straining the earth’s carrying capacity.  At the heart of all this activity is the concern, How will we be able to protect and sustain our families and others we love in drastically altered conditions? The descent into full implementation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, is well on its way to the cliff edge of dissolution through massive world Incestuous inbreeding and its inevitable conclusion, mass insanity. A very large segment of the human race has been involved with inbreeding for centuries, mostly for religious reasons, with predictable results. This essay will add another cautionary voice to the many writers and researchers on this “fools errand” doctrine practiced by the followers of the humanist manifesto promoted by false teachers, phony seers and lying prophets.
This is the latest of my series of Essays about the major sins of America and the rebellious world that bring on YHWH God’s Judgments described primarily in the Books of Daniel and Revelation. My previous works included “Vials, Viruses and Vectors”, a treatise on Revelation 16, “Homosexuality”, “Cannibalism”, “All about Abortion”, “A New Babylon”, “Apostasy” and a few hundred others. It is too difficult for one writer to address ALL the sins committed against YHWH Gods Torah Laws of Life, as only He knows the full extent of the reborn Sodom and Gomorrah being played out in America today.
CULTURE (Cult’ure)
If one were to look up this word in a complete, comprehensive Dictionary; one would find very many pages describing in quasi-scientific terms, this compound word. Most sociologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists and countless other “titled” individuals defending their pet theories over all others in academia, adnauseum. Even so; there is a vast religious culture of Inbreeding worldwide that has been in existence for time immemorial in defiance of the Torah Laws of God, the Almighty. This is to be expected of pagan humankind as normative, but Inbreeding through Incest is somewhat surprising when it is discovered in religious communities.

Incest/Inbreeding Taboos according to scripture

The incest taboo is one of the oldest and most perplexing mysteries studied by clueless students of human society. Historically, western scholars believed that the incest taboo—long proposed as a cultural universal—is vital to understanding the human condition. Thus, interest in the incest taboo has an extensive history.
Although the incest taboo varies in meaning by society, it is frequently an important rule of prohibition, commonly encompassing religious sanctions, and usually forbidding sexual contact between particular categories of relatives and family members. Closely related to the incest taboo are the rules of exogamy that usually prohibit marriage between the same categories of kin forbidden by incest rules (Murdock 1949). Typically included in the taboo are nuclear (parents and children) and immediate (e.g., grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and first cousins) family members. In societies composed of unilineal descent groups (e.g., lineages, clans, and moieties), the incest rule often includes all or most of a person’s descent (kinship) group. This includes distantly related individuals to which an actual genealogical connection cannot be made (Murdock 1949). A thorough understanding of the incest taboo necessarily recognizes this rule as an important part of a larger system of sexual regulations. In turn, these sexual regulations are an important component of the extensive normative structure regulating family, marriage, and kinship systems, and ultimately the larger society.
There are many cross-cultural variations in the incest taboo. Whereas it appears that most societies have some sort of incest prohibition, the rule is not strictly universal. Likewise, many societies deem the incest taboo extremely serious, whereas other groups view the taboo more casually. Sanctions for taboo violations reflect a similar cross-cultural diversity. In some societies, members simply express disapproval or distaste when incest occurs, as might be expected in the presence of bad manners. In other communities, the act of incest is considered horrifying or unthinkable, and transgressors may be put to death or expelled from the society. In many instances, the incest taboo is intricately entwined with religious tenets and proscribes supernatural sanctions against violators or against the society as a whole. In technologically advanced societies scientific explanations have commonly replaced religious beliefs, and religious sanctions have been replaced by legal penalties and concerns about genetic harm to progeny.
The TORAH Laws of YHWH God in the Bible set the rules for humankind’s life, health and wellbeing.
Sexual Laws to create and preserve a peaceful, orderly and lawful society are given in Leviticus 18, which says:
“Adonai said to Moshe, “Speak to the people of Isra’el; tell them, ‘I am Adonai your God. You are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Egypt, where you used to live; and you are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Kena‘an, where I am bringing you; nor are you to live by their laws. You are to obey my rulings and laws and live accordingly; I am Adonai your God. You are to observe my laws and rulings; if a person does them, he will have life through them; I am Adonai. “‘None of you is to approach anyone who is a close relative in order to have sexual relations; I am Adonai. You are not to have sexual relations with your father, and you are not to have sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother — do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that is your father’s prerogative. You are not to have sexual relations with your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with them. You are not to have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter. Do not have sexual relations with them, because their sexual disgrace will be your own. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father, because she is your sister; do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s sister, because she is your father’s close relative. You are not to have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. You are not to disgrace your father’s brother by having sexual relations with his wife, because she is your aunt. You are not to have sexual relations with your daughterinlaw; because she is your son’s wife. Do not have sexual relations with her. You are not to have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, because this is your brother’s prerogative. “‘You are not to have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter, nor are you to have sexual relations with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are close relatives of hers, and it would be shameful. You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister and have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. You are not to approach a woman in order to have sexual relations with her when she is unclean from her time of niddah. You are not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife and thus become unclean with her.
“‘You are not to let any of your children be sacrificed to Molech, thereby profaning the name of your God; I am Adonai.
“‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
“‘You are not to have sexual relations with any kind of animal and thus become unclean with it; nor is any woman to present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion.
“‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because all the nations which I am expelling ahead of you are defiled with them. The land has become unclean, and this is why I am punishing it — the land itself will vomit out its inhabitants. But you are to keep my laws and rulings and not engage in any of these disgusting practices, neither the citizen nor the foreigner living with you; for the people of the land have committed all these abominations, and the land is now defiled. If you make the land unclean, it will vomit you out too, just as it is vomiting out the nation that was there before you. For those who engage in any of these disgusting practices, whoever they may be, will be cut off from their people. So keep my charge not to follow any of these abominable customs that others before you have followed and thus defile yourselves by doing them. I am Adonai your God.’”

Haftorah Acharei Mot: EZEKIEL 22:

“‘The leaders of Isra’el in you all use their power in order to shed blood. In you, they make light of fathers and mothers, they oppress foreigners, they wrong orphans and widows. You treat my holy things with contempt, you profane my shabbats. In you, people gossip to the point of inciting bloodshed; in you are those who go to eat on the mountains; in you, they commit lewd acts; in you, they commit incest; in you, they force themselves on women during their menstrual impurity. In you, one commits an abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another commits some lewd act defiling his daughter-in-law; still another humbles his sister, his own father’s daughter. In you, people take bribes to shed blood; you demand and accept interest on loans; in greed you make profits off your neighbors by extorting them; and you have forgotten me,’ says Adonai Elohim.

These sexual rules of engagement and practical taboos formed by the Almighty God of the Universe in eternity, if violated, result in the deliberate incestuous inbreeding practiced by many human created religions, cults, tribes and nations that inevitably end with a diseased zombielike whimper of death.

Historical Review
Plutarch (c.e. 46–120) was one of the earliest Western scholars interested in the incest taboo. His writings anticipated two modern theories: alliance theory and familial conflict theory. Alliance theory concludes that the incest taboo exists to create an outward reaching network of cooperative kin, which is a primary social structure essential for human survival. This network works because rules of incest force individuals to find sexual and marriage partners outside their own families. Familial conflict theory argues that incest restrictions exist to prevent destructive conflicts within the family. If family members were to engage in sexual relationships with each other, role conflicts and jealousies would destroy the effectiveness of the family institution.
The Roman historian Tacitus (c.e. 56–120) offered a theoretical framework similar to Plutarch’s, suggesting alliance networks as the reason for the incest prohibitions in Roman society (Honigmann 1976). Along with other alliances, Augustine (c.e. 354–430) proposed a natural aversion to incest and an “inherent sense of decency” that prevents incestuous relationships. Thomas Aquinas (c.e. 1225–1274) advocated alliance theory and asserted that incest hindered child development. Aquinas believed that close kin marriages encourage lust and result in disruptive role conflicts that could destroy the family (Honigmann 1976).
The development of the social sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries continued these themes. George Murdock (1949) and Yehudi Cohen (1978) accepted alliance theory, whereas Sigmund Freud (1950) and Talcott Parson (1954) continued the argument that incestuous relations are destructive to the family.
In The Descent of Man (1871), Charles Darwin, a man who married his first cousin, acknowledged the family conflict model but proposed an evolutionary foundation by hypothesizing that inheritable traits allowing incest would be selected against in the evolutionary process.
Edward Westermarck, in The History of Human Marriage (1891), employed Darwinian evolutionary theory and posited that incest avoidance emerged as an instinct to prevent the genetic harm produced by inbreeding. Westermarck hypothesized that this instinct was made active when people were raised in near proximity, such as in families. He believed that this aversion would be evident most commonly among siblings, but Westermarck also proposed that sexual repugnance would develop when unrelated children were reared together. This thesis (Westermarck’s hypothesis) is currently asserted by sociobiologists of human behavior (human sociobiologists), who assume that many complex social behaviors are grounded in genetic inheritance shaped by natural selection.
Beyond these historical accounts, notable explanations of the incest taboo include demographic theory, proposed by Mariam Slater (1959) and elaborated by Charles Case (1969). It is these theorists’ assertion that the demographic characteristics of human breeding populations (e.g., life expectancy, birth order, and the distribution of sex among siblings) make incestuous activity in the immediate family unlikely and, at best, short-lived. They were wrong!
Talcott Parsons’s (1954) socialization theory asserts that the incest taboo is part of a normative structure employing eroticism—and its withdrawal—as a system of sanctions in the socialization of children. The affection offered by parents and other adults (often relatives) acts as a powerful reward for “proper” behavior in children, just as its withdrawal acts as a forceful punishment. Parsons claimed that this is an effective socialization process because of the deeply social nature of the human species. Scientists try to avoid the Biblical admonition against incest by asserting long and involved hypotheses. Scripture simplifies this rhetoric.
For Parsons, the incest taboo is part of the system of sexual regulations that draws a boundary beyond which the family may not wander when imparting erotic rewards. Withholding erotic rewards forces the adolescent child to participate in the larger society to find greater sexual fulfillment. This ties the society together through marriage and kin relationships.
Incest/Inbreeding Harm
Sociobiologists believe that life and its evolution results from the competition between individual species members to spread their genes by producing the most progeny. (Progeny, by definition, carry parental genes to future generations.) The central sociobiological thesis concerning incest/inbreeding avoidance simply states that natural selection favors outbreeding behavior because inbreeding more often results in genetically debilitated offspring—in other words, inbreeding is not the best adaptive strategy for producing the most descendants. Although the deleterious thesis is widely accepted, and has taken on a law-like stature, a careful examination of the simple Mendelian mathematics involved quickly refutes this notion (Shields 1982; Livingstone 1969).
Almost all harmful genes are recessive, requiring that both parents carry the gene to produce offspring that manifest the deleterious effect. Since relatives share some common ancestry, they are more likely than non-relatives to share the same harmful recessive genes. In this respect, the more closely related the mates, the more common their ancestry, and hence the more likely they will share the same deleterious genes. Thus, mating between relatives is thought to more readily produce genetically harmed descendants.
However, if a society, cult or religion customarily practices inbreeding, such as first and second cousin marriage, harmful recessive genes will quickly pair up and wash out of the gene pool. This occurs because deleteriously effected individuals are far less likely to reproduce and pass along the harmful genes to descendants. The result of systematic and recurring inbreeding in a population is to reduce the “genetic load” (the number of harmful recessive in the gene pool). Thus, inbreeding is no more harmful than outbreeding, they say, but they are wrong.
For most of ancient human history, breeding populations were small and isolated, and the community often practiced cousin marriage. Examples are found in the Tanakh (OT). The results were a relatively homogenous small population of some inbred individuals.
Sibling Marriage and Human Isolates
There are many examples of ancient and modern human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners and closed religious cults. This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving closed cults, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a natural selection mechanism exists by itself to prevent inbreeding. This process can be nullified by religious doctrine, mind control and fear of false prophets and the like.
One of the more conspicuous examples of incestuous marriage involves the Romans and Egyptians of the first three centuries c.e. A great deal of documentary evidence with genealogical information (mostly census records, but also personal letters, marriage contracts and other types of contracts, petitions, and documents addressed to the administrative authorities) has been unearthed and reveals that Egyptian commoners frequently practiced full brother-sister marriage (Scheidel 1996; Middleton 1962). Russel Middleton argues that there is little uncertainty in these documents. “Unlike some of the earlier types of evidence which may be subject to differing interpretations, these documents of a technical character have an ‘indisputable precision'” (1962, p. 606).
Evidently full sibling marriages accounted for 15 to 21 percent of all unions. When considering how many sibling marriages were demographically possible and socially acceptable (i.e., some families would not have children with siblings of the opposite sex that survived to marriageable age; or have children with opposite sexed siblings; or have children with siblings with the customary age differences—Egyptian marriages conventionally occurred between an older man and younger woman), we find that almost all possible brother-sister marriages were, in fact, contracted. This strongly suggests that sibling marriages were not only common but the preferred norm.
The documents also demonstrate that sibling marriages sometimes continued through two and three generations, and that the overwhelming majority of brother-sister marriages produced children. This practice lasted for at least three centuries and ended only when the Romans discouraged the custom by withholding Roman citizenship from persons continuing the practice.
Another example of a brother-sister incest custom is presented by Edward E. Evans-Pritchard when writing about the African Azande. “[W]hen a boy reaches puberty he may take his sister and with her build their little hut near his mother’s home and go into it with his sister and lay her down and get on top of her—and they copulate” (1974, p. 107). Middleton (1962, p. 603) also notes that Azande monarchs married their daughters and that father-daughter incest was common among the Thonga tribes.
Among the Greeks, Keith Hopkins notes, “[t]he Athenians allowed marriage between half-siblings of the same father but different mothers; the Spartans allowed marriage between half-siblings of the same mother and different fathers” (1980, p. 311). The ancient Hebrews permitted a similar practice as noted in the Old Testament by Abraham’s marriage to his half-sister Sarah.
Besides cases of sibling marriage, there is abundant evidence of close inbreeding provided by human isolates—small isolated communities where the degree of inbreeding is determined by the size, extent, and length of isolation of the population (Leavitt 1990). These small isolated communities were numerous in the past and represent the norm for preagricultural Palaeolithic societies.
A well-documented illustration of a human isolate is the Samaritans of Israel. From about 200 b.c.e., when the Samaritans broke completely from Jewish society, until the twentieth century, the Samaritan population declined dramatically (largely due to persecution by more powerful neighbors). At the end of World War II, the Samaritan population numbered 146 individuals, and this population had remained relatively stable for 100 years. By the 1980s, however, the population had increased and the Samaritans consisted of two communities of about 250 individuals (Bonne-Tamir 1980; Jamieson 1982; Talmon 1977).
Inbreeding in the Samaritan communities has been intense, not only because of their small population, but because of three other well established customs. First, Samaritan religion prohibits marriage with individuals outside of their faith. Second, the Samaritans limit their marriages to extended family lineages. Third, they prefer cousin marriage. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir (1980) has observed that nearly 85 percent of all Samaritan marriages are between first and second cousins. Yeshua spoke often of the Samaritans and used them as story teaching examples in the Gospels. They were usually despised by the Jews on the basis that their marriage practices violated the Torah and the Talmudic prohibitions.
Westermarck’s Hypothesis: The Israeli Kibbutzim Marriage

To support the deleterious theory of incest/inbreeding avoidance, human sociobiologists have repeatedly emphasized Edward Westermarck’s hypothesis (1891) that children raised in near proximity will develop an aversion to sexual relationships with each other. Sociobiologists assume that this aversion originated as a naturally selected mechanism. Human sociobiologists site evidence from two case studies of human communities in support of Westermarck’s hypothesis.
One group, the Israeli kibbutzim, separate children from their parents’ household at birth and raise them in age-graded cohorts. In these cohorts boys and girls are raised without segregation, even sharing sleeping, bathing and toilet facilities; the proximity and intimacy of their upbringing is greater than what would usually be expected among siblings. Joseph Shepher (1983) studied these kibbutzim as a test of Westermark’s hypothesis and reported that of the nearly 3,000 kibbutzim marriages he examined there was not one case of intra-cohort marriage.
However, several other researchers reported compelling research results which demonstrate that there are numerous social structural and ideological reasons why individuals of the same kibbutzim cohort might not marry (Talmon 1964; Spiro 1965). Mordecai Kaffman (1977), on the other hand, reported that by the late 1970s sex and marriage between cohort members had become common. John Hartung (1985), in reanalyzing Shepher’s research, reported that not only did cohort members from Shepher’s samples marry but did so at a disproportionately higher rate than would be expected for marriages involving non-cohort members.

The custom of inbreeding is as ancient as the history of the human life. It was not an exception among hunter Homo sapiens; it was the rule. However, humans learned from experience of its devastating affect upon the offspring. For example, none of the male children of pharaoh Akhenaton that were born out of consanguineous marriages survived. Later, Moses prohibited the marriages between siblings, mother ≠son and father ≠daughter (Thornill, 1993), a very courageous step in a population that had long embraced inbreeding.
The practice of interfamily marriage is still relatively common among Arabs because of the structure of the Arabic society. Nomadic people (Bedouins) do not really have the chance to mix with others. They are organized in tribes based on common ancestry, and when it comes to marriage, the only opportunity is to inbreed (Teebi, 1993). This social structure is common in the Arabic desert in countries like Kuwait. On the other hand, among the agricultural communities, inbreeding also commonly takes place but for different reasons. There it is favored because it ensures the unity of lands. Inheritance of land by males and females is kept within the same family, and this is of great importance for peasants because small pieces of land are inefficient in agricultural economies. This pattern is common among Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Jordanians (Klat et al., 1984).
The consequence of consanguinity in the Arabic population is worse than typical. Although Arabs are usually identified as Caucasians, modern Arabic populations especially in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, are the result of a long history of blending with different human races (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Arabs, Africans, Europeans, and other Asian people intermarried during wars, mass migrations, trade and religious practices (pilgrimage). This kind of “out breeding” rendered Arabic populations more susceptible to genetic disorders when comes to consanguinity; because out breeding introduced different deleterious recessive alleles common among other populations beside those alleles already common among Arabs.
The impact of consanguinity is that it increases the inbreeding coefficient (Thornill et al., 1993). Thus, the chance that an individual will inherit two alleles identical by descent increases. In other words, the frequency of homozygosity increases, while the frequency of heterozygosity decreases. Because recessive disorders phenotypes are only manifested in the homozygous state, their incidence increases in inbreeding populations.
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Slower growth rate
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function
Inbreeding can occur just because a small population has been isolated during some time, so that all breeding individuals became genetically related. It can also occur in a large population if individuals tend to mate their relatives, instead of mating at random.
Many individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental factors, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.
Marriages between first and second cousins account for over 10% of marriages worldwide. They are particularly common in the Middle East, where in some nations they account for over half of all marriages.
(“Blood relation”, from the Latin (consanguinitas) refers to the property of being from the same kinship as another person. In that respect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person. as another person. The laws of many jurisdictions set out degrees of consanguinity in relation to prohibited sexual relations and marriage parties or whether a given person inherits property when a deceased person has not left a will.
Modern secular law
Issues of consanguinity arise in several aspects of the law. It is directly relevant in determining whether a couple can marry. These are linked to a jurisdiction’s definition of incest, so that couples in an incestuous relationship will not be permitted to marry. Some United States jurisdictions forbid first-cousins to marry, while others limit the prohibition to brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles.
Several volumes of Smith’s Laws, enacted from 1700 through 1829, contain certain public and private laws of the Province and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Several laws with a prescribed punishment against adultery, bigamy, incest and fornication and all combinations of those crimes were enacted in 1705.

Religious and traditional law
Under Roman civil law, which early canon law of the Catholic Church followed, couples were forbidden to marry if they were within four degrees of consanguinity. In the ninth century the church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven and changed the method by which they were calculated. Eventually the nobility became too interrelated to marry as the pool of nonrelated prospective spouses became smaller. It was either defy the church’s position or look elsewhere for eligible marriage candidates.
The connotations of degree of consanguinity varies by context (e.g., Canon law, Roman law, etc.). Most cultures define a degree of consanguinity within which sexual interrelationships are regarded as incestuous (the “prohibited degree of kinship”).
It is common to distinguish first-degree cousins, second-degree cousins, and often also third-degree cousins. Since comparatively few people can trace their full family tree for more than four generations, the identity of fourth-degree cousins often cannot be established. Also at a genetic level, half-fourth cousins typically do not exhibit greater genetic similarity with one another than with any other individual from the same population.
Double first cousins are descended from two pairs of siblings, and have the same genetic similarity as half-siblings. Globally, the most common form of consanguineous union contracted is between first cousins, in which the spouses share 1/8 of their genes inherited from a common ancestor, and so their progeny are homozygous (or more correctly autozygous) at 1/16 of all loci (r = 0.0625). Due to variation in geographical and ethnical background and the loci chosen to genotype there is some 2.4% variation expected. In practice the technical factors involved are the design of the SNP genotyping platform was used (e.g. which SNP array or sequencing method) and which software cut-offs were applied. Historically, some European nobles cited a close degree of consanguinity when they required convenient grounds for divorce, especially in contexts where religious doctrine forbade the voluntary dissolution of an unhappy or childless marriage. Conversely, the consanguinity law of succession requires the next monarch to be of the same blood of the previous one; allowing, for example, illegitimate children to inherit.
It is estimated that 55% of marriages between Mirpuri (Kashmiri) Pakistani Muslim immigrants in the United Kingdom are between first cousins, where “preferential patrilateral parallel cousin marriage” (where a boy marries the daughter of his father’s brother) is often favored.
Genetic disorders
The offspring of consanguineous relationships are at greater risk of certain genetic disorders. Autosomal recessive disorders occur in individuals who are homozygous for a particular recessive gene mutation. This means that they carry two copies (alleles) of the same gene. Except in certain rare circumstances (new mutations or uniparental disomy) both parents of an individual with such a disorder will be carriers of the gene. Such carriers are not affected and will not display any signs that they are carriers, and so may be unaware that they carry the mutated gene. As relatives share a proportion of their genes, it is much more likely that related parents will be carriers of an autosomal recessive gene, and therefore their children are at a higher risk of an autosomal recessive disorder. The extent to which the risk increases depends on the degree of genetic relationship between the parents; so the risk is greater in mating relationships where the parents are close relatives, but relationships between more distant relatives, such as second cousins, the risk is lower (although still greater than the general population). The low genetic heterozygosity associated with increased consanguinity in a population (identified by micro-satellite markers) increases its susceptibility to infectious pathogens such as tuberculosis and hepatitis.
Although severe inbreeding depression in humans seems to be highly uncommon and not widely known, there have been several cases of apparent forms of inbreeding depression in human populations. Charles Darwin, through numerous experiments, was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the effects of inbreeding depression. Darwin had married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He later became concerned that inbreeding within his own family would adversely affect the health of his own children. The Darwins had ten children, but three died before the age of ten. Of the surviving children, three of the six who had long-term marriages did not have any children. As with animals, this phenomenon tends to occur in isolated, rural populations that are cut off to some degree from other areas of civilization.
A notable example is the Vadoma tribe of western Zimbabwe, many of whom carry the trait of having only two toes due to a small gene pool. Another example is Fumarase deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that leads to severe mental retardation. Over half of the known cases are in the isolated and adjoining polygamous Reformed Mormon communities of Hilldale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona.
In a study by Khoury et al., 1992, the frequency of consanguinity in Jordan was determined to be 50.33%. The average inbreeding coefficient was 0.0225. Interestingly, the study showed that male education didn’t have much effect on consanguinity. Forty percent of university graduate males had consanguineous marriages. However, female education seems to be mare important. Only 20% of university graduate females were married to relatives. This study also demonstrated a regressive pattern of inbreeding.A 30% consanguinity rate early in the 20th century increased at the end of the century to 50%. The pattern was also independent of religious beliefs as both Christians and Muslims showed similar results.
The Kuwaiti population is made up of Kuwaiti natives and Bedouins (40%), and immigrants from other Arabic countries and southeastern Asia (60%) (Al- Awadi et al., 1985). The incidence of consanguinity was 54.3% among Kuwaiti natives and higher among Bedouins. The average inbreeding coefficient was at least 0.0219.
Types and Reasons Behind Consanguinity:
Among Muslims and Christians, the most common type of consanguinity is between first cousins especially from the paternal side (Teebi, 1994) (Al-Nassar et al., 1989). A common Lebanese way of complimenting the spouse is to call her/him “cousin”(Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Marriages within the extended family are also common especially in villages and among Bedouins. However, aunt-nephew and uncle-nice marriages as practiced by Jews from Arabic origin, are prohibited by Islam and by state laws (Teebi et al., 1988). Genetically speaking, aunt-nephew and uncle-niece marriages result in the same inbreeding coefficient of double first cousin marriages (F=1/8) (Abdel-Gafar et al., 1983).
The question is why does the practice of consanguinity persist among Arabs in face of severe genetic consequences. Several factors might be involved here including religion, education, socioeconomic status and culture.
To begin with, most Arabs are Muslims and Islamists who worship the Mesopotamian moongod, Allah [Strongs Concordance, H#421-423, the CURSE]. Many researchers tend to conclude from religious studies that Islam discourages consanguineous marriages (Teebi, 1994). I think Islam is in theory equivocal about this issue. There is a very clear teaching from Prophet Mohammed encouraging people to outbreed. On the other hand, he was very proud of his tribe. One might deduce here that one’s Muslim tribe is favored especially when it comes to marriage.
The data from Lebanon show a significant difference in the incidence of consanguinity between Christians and Muslims (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). However, most Lebanese Christians (Maronites and Armenians) do not identify themselves as Arabs. Clearly, they have different origins and cultural practices. In Jordan, however, consanguinity rates among Christians and Muslims are very similar (Khoury et al., 1992). Besides, the practice is also common among Jews of Arabic origin (Stark et al., 1984). Thus, religion is at least not the single determinant of consanguinity rate.
Another consideration is educational level. I initially thought lack of education was the reason behind consanguinity. However, the data, especially from Jordan, demonstrated that the phenomenon is independent of the degree of education. For instance, university graduates showed a consanguinity rate of 40%, which is close to that of illiterates 44%. Nevertheless, in urban populations, that traditionally have higher degree of education, there is a lower occurrence of consanguinity than among suburban and rural populations. All in all, the relationship between consanguinity rate and educational level remains indirect and thus inconclusive.
I think the consanguinity problem is culturally based. Arabs previously lived as either nomads or as peasants in agricultural villages. Both styles of living, as I mentioned before, have their reasons to inbreed. As people moved toward urban cities in the 20th century, the pattern in cultural practices and inherent mentality remained untouched. Urbanization didn’t challenge the mentality of the old out-dated system, and it didn’t offer any alternative. It even strengthened the practice with the development of modern statehood in the Arabic countries (in Jordan for example). Political leaders didn’t legitimize their rule based on public consent, elections or economic development, but rather based on the power of their tribes or tribal allies. This tradition has had a great negative impact on the general population.
The high rate of consanguinity increases the inbreeding coefficient, and the frequency of genetic disorders in Arabic populations. This effects health, psychological state and economic status of many unfortunate families, and it has implications on the whole population. Regardless of the reasons behind it, there has to be an effort at least in the medical field and population genetics to evaluate the situation. There is a lack of research and information concerning the problem.
Many tragic, articles have been written about the rise of rare recessive diseases among a schismatic Mormon sect which dominates Colorado City, Utah in the FLDS Fundamental Mormon Church. This group has been in the news since their prophet, seer and revelator, Warren Jetts was arrested. The articles point out that because of the inbred nature of the community, and its small size, one particular rare disease, “Fumarase deficiency”, has now become rather common. Most of us know the problems that crop up intuitively from experience, rare traits begin to spread in an inbred population. What needs to be emphasized is the greater problem from long term customary inbreeding, as is common in much of the Muslim world (and now in the Muslim ingress into the West), and in isolated cases as above.
First cousins have a coefficient of relatedness of 1/8, that means you can expect 1 out of 8 genes to be identical by descent from the same ancestor. As a small community marries only among itself soon everyone is a first cousin in many different ways. In the United States most first cousin marriages are between individuals who share only one pathway of near genetic relationship, from one of their parents. In places like Colorado City this is not so, the family tree is reticulated and twisted back into itself multiple times. This results in a reduced long term effective population, a self-induced bottleneck as a few individuals population what should be a more diverse constellation of ancestors (e.g., your great-great-grand-father is really your greater-great-grandfather multiple times). Low effective population increases stochastic effects, random genetic drift, and so you have deleterious allergies which can rise in frequency rather quickly. Because of low effective population selection is swamped.The key for the Colorado City Mormons, and many Muslim groups, is that tightly knit clans share many, many, recent common ancestors, so even individuals who are not technically first cousins may share more genetical similarities than the typical first cousin.
In the articles referenced above, the anger and outrage at the “benign” neglect of the government at what was happening in Colorado City, and the refusal of the community to cease their inbreeding, is palpable. The Colorado City Mormons are dependent on the state for their well being, and their own actions have resulted in the generation of a dependent class of children who will never participate in society, as such. Though the case of Pakistani origin Muslims in Northern England is much milder per capita (due to the larger size of the community, and its more recent provenance), the size of this community is going to have implications for the US National Health Service, a federal agency. In many Muslim communities it seems that inbreeding has increased with “modernization” for a variety of reasons, all related to the religion of Islam.
A fundamentalist breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS, in Colorado City, AZ, is being overtaken by a rare birth-defect brought on by inbreeding doctrine ordered by Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, seer and revelator who revered Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, seer and revelator. The cult’s leader arranges all marriages between community members, who are descended from two founding families. The cult’s members view the severe disabilities brought on by the inbreeding as a test from God, and those who question this are excommunicated and thrown out of the community.
By the late 1990s, Tarby and his team had discovered fumarase deficiency was occurring in the greatest concentration in the world among the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
Of even greater concern was the fact that the recessive gene that triggers the disease was rapidly spreading to thousands of individuals living in the community because of decades of inbreeding.
Doctors and family members interviewed by Newspapers say up to 20 children from families in the polygamist community are currently afflicted with the condition that requires full-time attention from caregivers. Victims suffer a range of symptoms, including severe epileptic seizures, inability to walk or even sit upright, severe speech impediments, failure to grow at a normal rate, and tragic physical deformities.

There is a dire phenomenon rising in Europe that is crippling entire societies and yet the continent sleeps, refusing not only to confront the destructive elephant in the room, but also to admit its very existence. The troubling reality being referred to is the widespread practice of Muslim inbreeding and the birth defects and social ills that it spawns.
The tragic effect of the left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about vital issues such as these marks an individual as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.” A person who dares to point at the pathology of inbreeding in the Muslim community is accused of whipping up hatred against Muslim people. But all of this could not be further from the truth. To fight against inbreeding anywhere is to defend humanity and to defend innocent babies from birth defects. Fighting against this Islamic practice stems from a pro-Muslim calling, since identifying destructive ideologies and practices in Islam enables the protection of the Muslim people from harm.
Massive inbreeding among Muslims has been going on since their prophet allowed first-cousin marriages more than 50 generations (1,400 years) ago. For many Muslims, therefore, intermarriage is regarded as being part of their religion. In many Muslim communities, it is a source of social status to marry one’s daughter or son to his or her cousin. Intermarriage also ensures that wealth is kept within the family.
The custom of inbreeding is as ancient as the history of the human life. In fact, it was not an exception among hunter Homo sapiens; it was the rule. However, humans learned from experience of its devastating affect upon the offspring. For example, none of the male children of pharaoh Akhenaton that were born out of consanguineous marriages survived.
The practice of interfamily marriage is still relatively common among Arabs because of the structure of the Arabic society. Nomadic people (Bedouins) do not really have the chance to mix with others. They are organized in tribes based on common ancestry, and when it comes to marriage, the only opportunity is to inbreed (Teebi, 1993). This social structure is common in the Arabic desert in countries like Kuwait. On the other hand, among the agricultural communities, inbreeding also commonly takes place but for different reasons. There it is favored because it ensures the unity of lands. Inheritance of land by males and females is kept within the same family, and this is of great importance for peasants because small pieces of land are inefficient in agricultural economies. This pattern is common among Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, and Jordanians (Klat et al., 1984).
The consequence of consanguinity in the Arabic population is worse than typical because of their religion, Islam. Although Arabs are usually identified as Caucasians, modern Arabic populations especially in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon, are the result of a long history of blending with different human races (Der Kalustian et al., 1980). Arabs, Africans, Europeans, and other Asian people intermarried during wars, mass migrations, trade and religious practices (pilgrimage). This kind of “out breeding” rendered Arabic populations more susceptible to genetic disorders when comes to consanguinity; because out breeding introduced different deleterious recessive alleles common among other populations beside those alleles already common among Arabs.
Our present President, Barack Hussein Obama is half Arab from an Arab father and a White mother, so there is a high likelihood that Arab inbreeding may be a part of his ancestry! His assertion that he is of the black race is an Al Taquiya lie based upon the Koran, the Hadiths and Sharia Law. He fas stated publicly on many occasions that he is an “inbred” Muslim. This explains his strange personality and Islamic decisions.
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins. A study comparing Pakistani children of consanguineous marriages with Norwegian children shows a 50 percent higher risk that babies die during birth. Infant mortality among the inbred Pakistani children was more than double that among the Norwegian children. Deaths due to disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy were 18 times more common among the Pakistani children and deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized medical autosomal recessive syndromes were 10 times more common.
Other research concludes that inbred people have a higher risk of developing mental disorders such as depression  and schizophrenia. The practice of consanguineous marriages in Muslim families may thus explain why more than 40 percent of the patients in Denmark’s Sct. Hans Hospital for the criminally insane and 70 percent of the inmates in Danish youth prisons have Muslim immigrant backgrounds.
The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a socially acceptable way of committing suicide to end mental torment.
A study from Kabul, Afghanistan, based on autopsies of the remains of suicide bombers, shows that close to 90 percent were suffering from severe illnesses or deficiencies such as blindness, cancer, missing limbs, diminished brain capacity or leprosy. Many Muslim societies, including that of Afghanistan, have a low social acceptance of handicaps and mental illness. Being physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion based upon Sharia law and Muslim extremism. Becoming a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some cases of Down’s syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of 72 virgins in a false paradise to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true.
Inbreeding among Muslims has severe social implications both for the Western societies and the Muslim world. According to Danish Social worker Merete Lefelt, “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child. …  Disabled immigrant children cost Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen the number of disabled children … has doubled over 10 years.” She has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen and estimates that one-third of her clients have a foreign cultural background. The cost of special education for slow learners consumes one-third of the Danish school budget. This means less money for normal and gifted learners. 51 percent of the children in Copenhagen’s three schools for children with physical and mental handicaps have immigrant backgrounds.
Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool as was done to the Samaritans. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins has a very serious effect on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.
The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. To keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percentage.
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.
The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2, 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants”.).
More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried to siblings and first cousins:
The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11, 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).
The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.
Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
“Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.” (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children”).
The article “Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices” concludes that “Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status.” (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).
Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: “The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation”). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages.”
Mental and physical diseases and death
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins. (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants)
One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):
Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common. (BMJ, 1994 Infant death and consanguineous marriage)
There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: “The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high.” (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 “Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population”)
Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: “The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness.” (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders)
The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: “In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background.” (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane)
Implications for the Western and the Muslim World
The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:
Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to antisocial behavior.
The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.
However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.
Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child – it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. … Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background.”
On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who – because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents – are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.
The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the “Peace Prize” – for peace that turned out not to last for very long).
There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.
Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.
A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.
Walking exhausted on the road to Emmaus,
Rabbi James Talbott, Yeshua HaTikvah Yisrael Ministry


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s