Half Of Muslims Are Inbred Due To Generations Of Incest

[josephpalazzo]

technically, he served on the wrong side. so that might be a problem.

Hmmm, no.

[drunkenshoe]

I don't have any problem with the high inbreeding rates of the muslim minorities in European countries. Actually, later I remembered Fidel posted an article in the forum about this years ago. However the percentage was somewhere around 30 something % (35? 37?) in UK I guess, but my memory is not as 'retentive' as it used to be.

They are a closed society and a minority in an opposite culture where they are the lowest in the hierarchy, they do not adapt and refuse to adapt and it's unlikely that they will choose or chosen as a mate by someone from an opposite group.

My problem rises from the style how this article -and others like it) is 'assembled'. Because it is an 'assembled body of text' up to the level of copy pasting ideas of supposedly related issues.

-It opens with UK rates of inbreeding among the muslim population and then jumps to a resreach one man made on hundreds of millions of muslims with hundreds of different cultures and customs. thrown between how most Pakistanis are coming from rural areas. Pakistan is 796,095 km².

-Forget about the real scope of a reserach of this multitude and geographical scale, this is all supposed to be based on the correlation between low IQ and tendency to participate in terrorist activity.

-It's basic premise that this has been going on for 1400 years for 50 generations. Can you imagine someone trying to attempt to prove this with empric data?

-Then it jumps to Nobel Prize winners as a conclusion -lol- and book translations, reading habits...

-And ends with how noone talks about this because of the fear of being called an 'islamophobe'. Which is very doubtful. Inbreeding in every culture is one of the long coming main subjects of anthroplogy in many aspects.


Anyone who is familiar with reading real articles in social sciences -from anthropology to ethno-linguistcs- made about anything would recognise this designed structure of the text offering political, one side comments thrown between.

Social scientists -to define them in general- are as objective, emotionless, unbiased and uncaring as the scientists in other fields and most importantly they do not give a flying fuck who thinks what about them as it should be. They are not intersted in media either. Their job is far more difficult than the other kind, because their lab is the world and their material is human. They have their own scientific jargon and language, their researches are interdisciplinary to the point of a fish net and they do not make personal political comments of their results or look for media confirmation or feel the need.

Esp. fields like anthropology -the one we are dealing with this article and many others in the forum-  sociology, cultural history...etc. -and all its branches down from history- which particularly deal with taboos, absolute lows and extremes when its necessary. The first and absolute prinicple of anthropology is that is "there is NO good or bad culture, just human culture we must learn". That's science, not fairy tales to please crowds.

An anthropologist doesn't care -cannot afford to care- that the ritual rape of the teenager boys at a certain age by old men in a primitve tribe is defined as 'atrocity' half a globe up or  some  'psychopathic culture'. A socio-linguist doesn't give a flying fuck how obnoxious is SJWs and MRAs to each other or which one is 'right', but just studies the new form of language and social 'labels' they produced. Another one couldn't care less, how disturbing the incest breeding at a very young age. Their job is to study and map the human culture.

This is why we don't see scientific articles of this particular subjects in the media, but biased -for every 'side'- sensational piece of stories drawn up from comments on reseraches itself. And they are as problematic as other scientific reporting in other fields like evolutionary sciences or orthers. Just the problem of linguistics in this issue is a very big one, because for example socio-linguists have  as many words for 'dialect' as Eskimos have for snow; anthropologists have as many words for 'culture' and its components as many as Mexicans have for weed. And when it comes to reporting the results; this is often the usual picture. You all know the joke below and it is perfectly accurate for social sciences too, it is just unfortunately not a joke but reality most of the time.



And this is just what's left of the blurred picture after taking out the bullshit about problems of:

-attempting to quantify intelligence and standardise it; using another culture's standards which is based on an already stanradised education
-the ugly reality that IQ testing is a profitable industry itself -behind its social and political indicators of a built world class and identities- different cultures and IQ tests,
-absolute acceptance of the correlation betyween low IQ and specific type of organised violence
-the low IQ being defined by undesired abnormality taken as the main abnormality of inbreeding -there are many of them are also physical and both
-accepting one aspect of the main tradition of many sub customs as an absolute rule,
-working from a premise that 'absolute rule' has been going on over for 1400 years
-the region being unstable for long time the considerable amount of population keeps moving around due to invasions, drought, famine or to be close basic services like hospitals and any other kind of aid

FFS, I am bored and this could go on.

[Shiranu]

Esp. fields like anthropology -the one we are dealing with this article and many others in the forum-  sociology, cultural history...etc. -and all its branches down from history- which particularly deal with taboos, absolute lows and extremes when its necessary. The first and absolute prinicple of anthropology is that is "there is NO good or bad culture, just human culture we must learn". That's science, not fairy tales to please crowds.

Shame Franz Boas and his anthropology stances are only taught in anthropology and not common class rooms.

[stromboli]

Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

Be warned: this video is nauseating and definitely NSFW.
[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0[/spoiler]
[mod]Spoiled[/mod] (Gerard)

[josephpalazzo]

Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

Be warned: this video is nauseating and definitely NSFW.
[spoiler]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsrE-aNlSw0[/spoiler]
[mod]Spoiled[/mod] (Gerard)

I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

[Baruch]

I doubt incest is limited to rural areas.  But bestiality is easier in rural areas.  Britannica reported in my old set ... that it was like 10% of the rural US population had tried sex with animals at least once in their lives.  And I don't think they mean a dog humping your leg.

[drunkenshoe]

Just from the observable evidence, i. e. condoning 1st cousin marriage for 1400 years, the higher rate of birth defects  including microcephalism in Islamic states and the dominating nature of the religion to be right no matter what, the practice has caused considerable damage and will compound and continue into the future.

Incest related inbreeding can be seen in many places- I grew up in a fairly isolated country town and there were some inbred people in the area, including people I went to school with. Places like the Ozarks and other fairly secluded places; everybody has seen Deliverance. The idea that centuries of inbreeding can lead to the claimed high number of incest inbreeding isn't illogical by any means.

I have not been able to find any studies I'd call objective to correlate/disprove the claim; the same problem you get with anything that criticizes monotheistic religions. The information is touted by right wing sources and objected to vehemently by Islamic sources. Sad, but based on available evidence I still think it is a legitimate claim.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

Also, Islamic cultures weren't always this way in history. They also had a bright period. It's just flat out stupid to take 1400 years of inbreeding as a rule.

This is what I am talking about all along. When people are thinking about muslims they do not even think about that they are ordinary people living normal lives, needing normal needs like they do. The group is so demonised and alienated from the world it is fucking crazy. It's like they live on the world, but not in it. There is an incredible underestimation of these people with their goods or bads, it's comical. It's like they do not exist on the same planet, breathe oxygen or food, need similar things with others, but just pop out from nowhere as some other species, noone knows how they live.

There is no genetic or some special, extra reason for Islamic terrorism. It's very simple. They have been killed and lived under threat for so long, they finally got organised better than before BECAUSE NOW the world is their oyster. They provide profit and benefit and being nurtured right and left. And people are looking for some sort of genetic stupidity to explain all this, inventing notions when everything needed is out there. Stupid. Irrational.

Do you really think you can find healthy information in this climate? About anything? On any religious group?

Honestly, I think the same things about the Christian lot and the Southern cultures in the US. Everything I read about them have the same language and jargon, demonisation, so obviously exagerated baseless categorisations from moronic nonexistent premises. It's disgusting.

We keep talking about religious extremism, but atheists started to prove that they can compete with religious people. I don't know, may be it is the internet culture and that because people have become social media intellectuals and cannot grow from there, all their opinions are shaped by the bullshit thrown at them. Add to that the fear, it is getting very dangerous.

People need to remember that scepticism doesn't stop after figuring out there is no magic man. Back to scepticism. They need to be sceptic about everything they are handed in this time. Every fucking thing.

Especially with something that plays into mainstream politics. While something claims to be scientific, if it carries political comments all over flashing on, that's the most dangerous red flag. That's my problem. Not which group has inbred the most.

[stromboli]

I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

I'm popular? Boy, that's news. PS: Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. If they don't like discussing their religion on an atheist forum, oh well.

[stromboli]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

Also, Islamic cultures weren't always this way in history. They also had a bright period. It's just flat out stupid to take 1400 years of inbreeding as a rule.

This is what I am talking about all along. When people are thinking about muslims they do not even think about that they are ordinary people living normal lives, needing normal needs like they do. The group is so demonised and alienated from the world it is fucking crazy. It's like they live on the world, but not in it. There is an incredible underestimation of these people with their goods or bads, it's comical. It's like they do not exist on the same planet, breathe oxygen or food, need similar things with others, but just pop out from nowhere as some other species, noone knows how they live.

There is no genetic or some special, extra reason for Islamic terrorism. It's very simple. They have been killed and lived under threat for so long, they finally got organised better than before BECAUSE NOW the world is their oyster. They provide profit and benefit and being nurtured right and left. And people are looking for some sort of genetic stupidity to explain all this, inventing notions when everything needed is out there. Stupid. Irrational.

Do you really think you can find healthy information in this climate? About anything? On any religious group?

Honestly, I think the same things about the Christian lot and the Southern cultures in the US. Everything I read about them have the same language and jargon, demonisation, so obviously exagerated baseless categorisations from moronic nonexistent premises. It's disgusting.

We keep talking about religious extremism, but atheists started to prove that they can compete with religious people. I don't know, may be it is the internet culture and that because people have become social media intellectuals and cannot grow from there, all their opinions are shaped by the bullshit thrown at them. Add to that the fear, it is getting very dangerous.

People need to remember that scepticism doesn't stop after figuring out there is no magic man. Back to scepticism. They need to be sceptic about everything they are handed in this time. Every fucking thing.

Especially with something that plays into mainstream politics. While something claims to be scientific, if it carries political comments all over flashing on, that's the most dangerous red flag. That's my problem. Not which group has inbred the most.

Actually not disagreeing with what you are saying because, as I mentioned earlier, I can't find what I would consider an objective source to verify any of it one way or another. Also you are right in doing any real surveys would be very difficult because of the insular nature of Islam. And it would be near impossible, short of testing every Muslim and tracing their genealogy, to determine what level of participation there has been over centuries. Nicolai Sennels study group was a prison population which in itself is suspect, because they may not be representative of a broad cross section.

That being said, there is still enough anecdotal evidence and the mere fact that the Koran does allow consanguination and has for 1400 years to make a general assumption there is a problem. The percentages we can debate infinitum, but as you yourself said, the likelihood is certainly there.

[Cocoa Beware]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think inbreeding among muslims is not a legitimate claim. I just find the percentages gross, research it offers undoble -it is TOO big. And if they have inbred for hundreds of years, the result would be so awful, it would be an old common knowledge, it would be something that has been in the open for a long time in this age of medicine AND we would already know it. It's talking about inbreeding for 1400 years, strom. This is not some several generations.

How do you think these people live? Or people anywhere in the Middle East live? 1400 years of non-stop dominant inbreeding and inbreeding -and they do not marry from ouside- to leave the greater part of the majority of every population literally stupid, but they have a civilisation going on. They have hospitals, factories, engineers. They are building roads and structures. The work force. They are actually doing much more. You realise that the article is drawing an impossible picture to do all these, right?

All inbred people aren't going to have developmental problems, it just makes it far more likely.

It would seem 55% of UK Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, so I don't think its all that difficult to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Apparently it's also 13 times more likely they will have children with developmental issues or genetic disorders, and I'm assuming this includes the ones who don't make it to term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Also, a broad view. Prevalence of close kin marriage by country.



Thanks a fucking bunch Mohammed you perverse warmongering pig. Just had to go and marry your cousins.

[drunkenshoe]

We are not discussing if there is inbreeding or not, we agree there is.

[drunkenshoe]

strom, I'll try to explain an aspect of Islam -in general- that might give a little light about how does any kind of prevalence would work about anything. (I'll try to offer a naked interpretation of the 'understanding' so I am not interested in verses or what they say and how good or bad it is.)

As you probably know, the structure of Kuran is different than Bible(s). Bible is mainly made of parables and it tells stories and offer characters in certain situations to give a message. Now, Kuran doesn't have that and instead, it is designed to work like a manual. As you would guess the most part it is about the family unit, 'affairs' between men and women and people.

The written style of the given 'information' is designed to be directly interpretated as "what to do when". And there is a hierarchy of any acts as in how they should be applied in certain situations and how do they function. Like ritual ablution for example. It's done 5 times a day before prayer -also there is gusül ablution after sexual intercourse; the usual bath-  and its basic function is to clean people up. 

But what will happen if there is no water for some legitimate reason? Then it offers another way in that situation. Prayer is also a physical a bit, but what will happen if you got crippled and cannot move. It offers another way of namaz...etc and so on. This doesn't end with personal rules. This is also with community as you'd expect. And most importantly it is on how to get married and with whom. And that has a hierarchy too.

Who should they get married and who they cannot get married in what circumstances. These are called Usül and Füru and according to that there is a 'tree' who you can wed and who you cannot. The logic is that it's a haram for a man to get married with women they are related to with blood and a marriage act and what is called milk bond in the Middle East.

Now as we know it is lawful to get married to cousins which is also a blood relative, but it is defined as mekruh which means something revolting and harmful to people, but not haram. "Mekruh is a concept in islam that it is an act defined as 'it is better not to do than to do' for the good individual and the community" Expression is important. Because I have seen countless cathecism -ithey are now online too- which explains the undesired consequences of inbreeding.

But what happens to this when it is not defined as flat out 'haram' and a no-no? Under many various different circumstances, people do automatically jump to it. Just because it is NOT haram and it is how they think. They are following a hierarchy to solve problems they face. But before what Muhammed and the book said, there are other important reasons.

-to keep the money and property in the family
-business
-blood vengeance (you'll think wtf what is the relations, well it s a huge issues in rural regions here between great many families. It doesn't have to be in a fatal level.)

With severe ignorance, it becomes very easy.

I also looked in what is surfaced in Turkiye and official statistcs reports of inbreeding in Turkiye is 22 % and 51,9 % in that is 1st cousin marriages. And it is openly defined as 'a bomb waiting to explode'.

I have to go, I'll look at some more if I find time.

[drunkenshoe]

I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

It's amusing how that people -despite their completely different world views- capable of having a conversation about something elicits such passive agressive responses from you.

stromboli is a popular member, because he is immune to a lot of bullshit, he is sincere and therefore treated differently. He is not treated differently, because he is popular. Nobody thinks he is racist. I do not and I'm certainly not the poster who would hold back anything she thinks regarding people's status in some public forum. He gets pissed off a lot at me I am sure -and I to him- I don't even think he likes me as a poster which is irrelevant, but he turns back and drops a line or acknowledge any opinion offered sincerely by anyone and willing to throw a rope to the other side. I don't know him in real life, but it seems he is a kind of man that can read past a lot of immediate reactions in people -life experience used in a consturctive way- and see beyond if something is offered. He doesn't feel vulnerable or weak while doing this or trying to look 'cool' to anyone. I believe, that is called character.

On the other hand, you wouldn't know if rational, critical thinking punched you in the face between your genocidal mumblings and crude understanding of everthing around you resulting from your fear and hatred, including the religious culture in the country you live. And the worst thing is, not because you can't, but because of your belligerent, willful ignorance and bigotry you cannot even get aware of, becuse it is warm and cosy. You remind me a certain class of highly educated, highly secular, wealthy white turks, lol.

So you get to be ignored in any real conversation -not that you are willing to have any - and feel the need to respond with passive agressive snarky remarks and stromboli gets to be respected and popular.

[Shiranu]

I know that our Islam apologists don't have the courage to tell you this, as you are so popular on this forum, so I will speak in their honor: you're a racist... ;-)

I think he was predominately aimed that at me since he has been saying the same thing for over a month in any thread regarding Islam... and since he consistently mistakes "xenophobic" for racist... neither of which I would accuse stromboli of anytime soon. There are only maybe two posters here I think it would accurately fit.

Of course he also put me on ignore about a month ago and has insisted on making underhanded swipes like that every couple of threads ever since. Because I guess it must take huge balls to put someone on your ignore list so they cant respond while continuing to talk shit about them for over a month.

I feel kinda bad for him :\.

[josephpalazzo]

I'm popular? Boy, that's news.

Your humility is charming. BTW,  I was just pulling your leg. No offense taken.

PS: Islam isn't a race. It's a religion. If they don't like discussing their religion on an atheist forum, oh well.

Spot on. The general feeling from the Islam apologists is that Islam is too complex; we, simpletons, don't get it.