Arranged Marriage Within the Muslim Community

Part 1

Daily Mail: A licence for extremism By GEORGE ALAGIAH (Extracted from A Home From Home by George Alagiah )
Strengthening and nurturing family ties remains the single most important factor governing the choice of partners for marriage.
This means that the search for brides and grooms leads inevitably to rural Pakistan. According to the Ousley Report, published after the riots in West Yorkshire in 2001, there were about 1,000 marriages a year in Bradford's Pakistani immigrant community.
The majority of these — at least 60 per cent — involved a spouse brought over to Britain from Pakistan. Virtually all of these marriages were to close relatives — probably first cousins, who are considered the perfect match.

Some people believe arranged marriages should be permitted as it is part of a religion, culture or tradition.
I oppose the principle of arranged marriage on the fact two people are often thrust together never having met before and having been told they will be spending the rest of their lives together, choice having been cruelly torn from their hands whether they want it taken from them or not.

The effects of an arranged marriage are not just of moral questioning but also of potential social problems it causes.
As you can see above the source states that 60% of the marriages within the Bradford Muslim community involve the spouse being brought over from Pakistan and virtually all of the marriages being to relatives close in nature.

I shall cover the genetic issues of the marriage later on, but bringing in a spouse from Pakistan where the culture is not akin to Britain provides people who speak little or no English with minimal understanding of the huge difference of the varying British cultures, and will in turn (and I can’t blame them) seek shelter within their Muslim community as everything outside is new, massively different and often frightening.

If it were a small number of cases then social integration into British society wouldn't be a problem, but the fact it involves 60% of all marriages in the Bradford area means integration isn't happening and social divide is being caused between other groups and an even more isolated Islamic culture.

They are turning in on themselves and others are turning away…

It isn't however just the fault of the Islamic community and arranged marriages, it's a two sided coin as ever, while they may be developing a sub culture, other groups within society are making minimal effort to integrate the Islamic community.

Those in an arranged marriage may find something akin to love as time passes, but when the arranged marriage is between two members of the same family then I can find no forgiveness for those who construct the union... see part 2



[edit on 22-8-2006 by Prometheus James]

Daily Mail: A licence for extremism By GEORGE ALAGIAH (Extracted from A Home From Home by George Alagiah )
In November 2005, the BBC's Newsnight programme aired an investigation which claimed to show that there was a higher incidence of recessive disorders such as cystic fibrosis among the children of first-cousin marriages. British Pakistanis account for 30per cent of all British children with recessive disorders, although they account for just 3.4 per cent of all births. In the programme Ann Cryer said the practice of first-cousin mar-A volatile version of Islam seeped into Bradford.

30% of children born with recessive disorders are British Pakistanis, while they only make up 3.4% of all births.
The fact they are of Pakistani origin doesn't mean they are more likely to have children with disorders, it's the genetic closeness of the Father and Mother of the child that causes this frightening issue, when the parentage are first cousins (or near family) the child has a massively increased risk of being born with a range of disorders and disabilities.

People may say “what right do we have to interfere, the law doesn't stop them”, well I say the law should for the protection of any potential child.
There is a moral obligation (from my point of view) that no matter the culture we should educate and legislate to raise awareness of the issue and prevent it happening.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by Prometheus James]

If these guys want to practice this, let them stay in countries that allow it.

Im all for freedom of religon, but there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. if your religon requires murder, rape, poisoning people, or kidnapping and false imprisonment, should that be allowed? of course not.

Aranged marriage is about denying a person free will, and should be fought against.

Much as my 'western' outlook has my heckles rise at the thought of something so profoundly alien to me as 'arranged marriage' - and I would always stand against coercion and anything forced on anyone - I have to admit that it does have its supporters from within the community where it is practised.....

.....and not just amongst the older people within that community doing all the arranging either.

Whilst I was working in London over the years I have spoken to several married Asian women and men about this (of various ages) who (actually now I think of it) without exception told me that they thought their way was superior to ours and that they had no regrets about having had arranged marriages themselves.

They believed suitable matching made for for more durable and happier marriages.....and they also informed me that the western 'image' of this (that there is absolutely no element of choice) is almost entirely mistaken.

The image 'we' seem to have of people forced against their will is, I was told, a myth based on exceptional and rare (criminal) cases and not typical at all.

Perhaps 'we' should also bear in mind that there are arrangements and there are arrangements.
It's not that long ago that our society - or at least parts of it - too practiced something not so dissimilar.
Neither is it something confined to 'the Muslim community' either.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Just a quick question, why is arranged marriage often seen as "enforced" marriage? It's a bit of a big presumption that they are all coerced or forced in some way into marrying each other. Not to mention, I abhor where the source comes from. I may be reading too much into this, but the title doesn't give it much weight with me.

Daily Mail: A licence for extremism By GEORGE ALAGIAH (Extracted from A Home From Home by George Alagiah )

I have to ask because the article is pretty damning.

If these guys want to practice this, let them stay in countries that allow it.

yep...

and also something which would really worry me is that your bride to be could be an absolute bush pig?

"dad?"

"yes ahmed?"

"you know this arranged marrige thingy?"

"yes?"

"can you make sure my wife is really, really hot?"

"shut up, Sunee has a really nice personalitty"

"great."

Arranged marrige isn't actually something in Islam but actually a tribal tradition.

I'm not saying that arranged marrige is bad either but it's not a requiment for marrige or introduction to a partner in Islam.

This is actually a tribal practice in Pakistan and also exist in Bangladesh and India(hindu's).

So it's not just muslims but also hindu's that practice this. Also exists in Africa amoungst all christians, muslims etc...

There is no islamic law which requires arranged marrige.

Originally posted by Prometheus James

30% of children born with recessive disorders are British Pakistanis, while they only make up 3.4% of all births.
The fact they are of Pakistani origin doesn't mean they are more likely to have children with disorders, it's the genetic closeness of the Father and Mother of the child that causes this frightening issue, when the parentage are first cousins (or near family) the child has a massively increased risk of being born with a range of disorders and disabilities.

People may say “what right do we have to interfere, the law doesn't stop them”, well I say the law should for the protection of any potential child.
There is a moral obligation (from my point of view) that no matter the culture we should educate and legislate to raise awareness of the issue and prevent it happening.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by Prometheus James]

A law should be introduced to stop this.

But to be fair abortion happen in many countries in the world which kill hundreds of thousands of babies a year.

At least they are looking after the kids and taking responsibilty for there actions.

Originally posted by iqonx
Arranged marrige isn't actually something in Islam but actually a tribal tradition.

I'm not saying that arranged marrige is bad either but it's not a requiment for marrige or introduction to a partner in Islam.

Of this I know, its a issue within the Islamic community within the UK, I have nothing against Islam as a Religion, but cultural corruption such as forcing women to cover themselves head to toe (without their opinion involved) and arranged marriage I disagree with.

Originally posted by Prometheus James
but cultural corruption such as forcing women to cover themselves head to toe (without their opinion involved) and arranged marriage I disagree with.

- I agree that no-one should be coerced into doing anything they would rather not do.
But it is utterly false to claim that women 'taking the veil' in Islam is always about the full head to toe Burka or that it is always "forced".
However unusal of different it might seem to our values the truth is that I have regularly seen British Islamic women on British TV talk about how they made their own their free choice abou this and moved from western clothes to 'taking to the veil'.

Ditto almost all of these arranged marriages.
Sure, one hears in the press every once in a while of a genuinely forced marriage but that is not IMO in any way typical (just as abusive, perverse and criminal brutal practices in some 'western' homes or families are not typical).

As I indicated earlier there were many Asian colleagues of mine who went through arranged marriages who were stongly of the view that their system of arrangement (conducted by their family) led to stronger, more durable and ultimately more successful marriages and families .......and with 'our' divorce rates they have a point.

To me what they do in their religion is their business as long as it does not intervere with my own, then Im not bothered.

But whats gets me is if the female does not agree to the marriage. These Honour killings wth is that all about?

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
To me what they do in their religion is their business as long as it does not intervere with my own, then Im not bothered.

If whay they say about recessive disorders is true then it does affect you indirectly by placing an additional burden on the NHS, which is funded by your taxes.

I wonder what the actual number of cases is that we're talking about (as opposed to playing % games) and how that compares with any of the other avoidable "burdens" and costs the NHS faces?

Of course it's not as if 'they' aren't tax-payers too (and sometimes paying towards stuff 'they' might not choose to either), right?

My bet is that it's a tiny number of individuals we're talking about in the UK and therefore a tiny "burden"......and now that it has been recognised asa cause of disease and disability in Pakistan it is being tackled and will reduce as a problem both there and here in the UK.

(see Matt Ridley's excellent 2-part channel 4 program 'What makes us human'......available on bittorrent here - www.torrentportal.com... ).

[edit on 10-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I wonder what the actual number of cases is that we're talking about (as opposed to playing % games) and how that compares with any of the other avoidable "burdens" and costs the NHS faces?

Well, let's look at some data.
According to the BBC Newsnight program about 55% of all British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and in Bradford it's about 75%. They also state that one in ten children born to first cousins either dies in infancy or lives with a disabilty caused by a recessive genetic disorder.
The risks of cousin marriage

I imagine that's got to add up when you consider that there are close to a million Pakistanis in Britain.

there were about 1,000 marriages a year in Bradford's Pakistani immigrant community.
The majority of these — at least 60 per cent — involved a spouse brought over to Britain from Pakistan.

Why does this British government keep allowing them to bring so many people in anyway?
How they hell does that benefit anyone in Britain?

They should put a stop to those imported brides and grooms.

Their worse than jews for wanting to keep their money in the family....

Damn marrying your cousin? man we rip the pee out of the deep south for its alledged inbreeding, but these people do it as a fact??? eeeeewwww!!!

All that dowry coming their way must make them rub their hands in glee (and greed) and so another drain on the tax payer is born....great - What an uplifting tale of the benefits of immigration to this country and its impact on the local areas..

Wow I bet Bradfords NHS is well happy about this one....

news.bbc.co.uk...

Turns out their not, neither are the MP's ...

[edit on 11-9-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]

In Appalachia they said, "Incest is Best." But it was not lust or even convenience that drove many people to marry a cousin. It was location and transportation. Travel by foot in the mountains is not easy. I once courted a girl from Harlan County, Ky. Many American states have laws forbidding a person to marry anyone of the first or second degree of consanguinity. The 1st degree being brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers; the 2nd being aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews. The 3rd degree, which is allowed in those cases, are cousins. There is no proof required. There is a question on the license asking if the parties are related, and if yes, how. I don't know if anyore reads the form or cares what it says.

It was not uncommon for an entire family to sleep in one room, sometimes in the only bed in the house. Indeed, many houses had but one room. But that’s life in the slow lane. It was not until the New Deal (1930s) that roads were paved and travel made easier. Discrete outsiders soon learnrd to keep their social commentary to themselves. Many of those people were of Scots-Irish descent, which many say, got the worst of both races. With poor or non existent health care services until the 1950s, most of the handicapped children died very early, so statistics are not available from that region. Life in that region was real hard scrabble. the world's largest standing hardwood forest was cut and shipped to England and France in the 18th and 19th century. Underground coal mining was the mainstay of the region's economy.

Ky, my state, did not issue birth certificates until 1917, so neither of my parents had an official birth certificate. It was of no consequence until 1978 when my mother needed a passport for a planned trip to Russia. It turned out her elementary school was closed and the country courthouse had burned in the 1930s. Alternatively, 2 witnesses who knew firsthand of the child’s birth could give affidavits. After a diligent search, two men were found who would sign. I had personal, but unspoken reservations they really could remember an event in 1910, 68 years earlier. I felt they were just willing to help a neighbor. She went to Russia. And returned.



[edit on 9/11/2006 by donwhite]

I always thought arranged marriage was an abuse; until I met someone at a party who had met their lover through arranged marriage. She told me she thought the Western method was not as good because when you’re young "you don’t know what you want as much as your parents do". Apparently their marriage thing is more successful.

So basically providing arranged marriage is done liberally I don’t have a problem with it.

However
The genetic-(country of origin) thing is what disturbs me. 60% are foreigners? Right I have a better idea: How about: “If you want to marry a foreigner who doesn’t speak English then they learn to speak it fluently or they don’t live here?” (Alternatively maybe you would choose to move to their country of mother tongue?

Furthermore: anyone coming into the U.K outside the European Union (but how about also the five English speaking nations?) should pay a Tax (Duty) on coming into the U.K (in exchange for their British citizenship).

The logic is really quit fair given that “if people will risk their lives to come here; others can at least pay a Duty to the Treasury for a currently guaranteed British Citizenship”. Regarding arranged marriages; both these ideas would encourage parents to look for partners (for their children) within the U.K. Ultimately the number of people coming into this country who are not culturally suited to it would be reduced.

Surely this is a good thing?

So who supports my “Foreign Marriage Duty to The Treasury” idea?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Far better a world that is as open and free as it can be than the closed and restricted world some appear to day-dream of.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my travels and to hell with restricted access on the basis of language.

People from abroad have certain rights here (now much much reduced than they once were) because either 'we' used to occupy and exploit their country (and got very rich as a nation in the process) or their forefathers came to our aid in their many thousands at the time of our darkest hour.

It's a pity some people prefer to forget that.