President Obama issues proclamations like Emperor Augustus? “in those days a decree went out frm Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered…All went to their own towns…Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth …to the city of David called Bethlehem…”

Obama-Care requires all non-profits to register with IRS & give 1099's

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Is there is a resemblance between President Obama and Emperor Augustus who, 2010 years ago, required everyone to register where they were born?

Because the Emperor proclaimed they must, Joseph took pregnant Mary to Bethlehem…. And now, in 2010, Obama-Care tells every non-profit organization that they must trudge over to the government and register afresh with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

There are a million and a half non-profit organizations in the U.S. Because of Obama-Care all of them must register afresh with the IRS. And, all non-profits who do $600 of business with anyone must give that person a 1099. Did you know that failure to re-register with the IRS can result in lose of non-profit status and a huge fine?

So — if you support or know of any tiny non-profit out there be sure to tell them of President Obama’s proclamation: Go to the city of Washington and register with the government! Modern day Emperor Obama requires that you register! Or stand to lose non-profit status and pay a fine.

Only 63% of all non-profits are registered with the IRS. That means that 1/3 are not. So, because of Obama-Care, roughly 500,000 non-profits must — for the first time — journey to Washington and register with the IRS. And every non-profit must take the time — which means money — to fill out the new form.

Do you support repeal of Obama-Care? Vote out every Democrat — including Sam Farr — that voted for Obama-Care.

For some exact figures on non-profits go to:
urban org

Share

Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.

Support more mosques in your local community?

About time Americans get educated about Islamic law and how it can affect your local American community. Take a few minutes to read 10 reasons why NOT to have Islamic law affecting you and those you love.

By the way, the prophet Muhammad had nine (9) wives when he died. Yet he told his followers that they could only have four (4) wives. Is that an example of do what I say, not what I do? Some call that hypocrisy….?

Muhammad beat his wife A. and ok’s beating wives who are “high handed”. Wife beating ok? Not in my view.

Have we not evolved beyond the nomadic, violent values of 7th centurry?

Read more as to why Islamic sharia law should be rejected in America and other countries.
Continue reading “Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.”

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: Duplicity – thy name is … not woman but the the replacement for ex-Senator Hilary Clinton

Do you trust Hillary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate? Would you send her a dime? I say “No!” based on her pro-Obama voting record and how she mis-leads the public about her work history.

Hilary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate is attorney Kristen Gillibrand. Gillibrand faces conservative Republican Joseph DioGuarrdi in Nov. 2010.

Gillibrand voted yes for all Obama spending programs. She called herself a public interest lawyer when she actually worked for Philip Morris. Her job for the tobacco company was to keep the research records out of the hands of the courts. Later, she worked for HUD secretary on new products — selling sub-prime mortgages. When the mortgage market collapsed she made money shorting companies such as Country-Wide.

From Dick Morris,com

“Had Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used her incumbency to good advantage, her victory this fall in the heavily Democratic state of New York would be a foregone conclusion. Instead, she squandered her opportunity — remaining passive and on the sidelines while the Republicans fought for the right to oppose her.

“The rules are different for appointed senators, like Gillibrand, than for incumbents who’ve won election to the job: They have yet to make that crucial first sale with the voters.

“Indeed, they have yet to do most of the groundwork that leads to that sale — like having voters know who you are.

“Gillibrand remains largely unknown to her constituents. She should have used this spring and summer to tell New Yorkers who she is and what are her plans in the Senate. Instead, she hoarded her funds and chose to say and do nothing.

“So there is no true incumbent, just Gillibrand and GOP nominee Joseph DioGuardi competing for a vacancy.

DioGuardi brings real strengths to that competition — while Gillibrand has weaknesses. For starters, she’s reinvented herself again and again over the last two decades.

“It started long before the flip-flops she announced in her first months in the Senate. The “delete” button on her computer must have worn thin as she has erased large segments of her past.

“She now describes her self as having been a “public interest lawyer” in the 1990s. In fact, she represented Philip Morris — assisting its CEO in covering up evidence that he knew of tobacco’s addictive properties and that it caused cancer. Her job was to keep the company research records — which proved beyond a doubt that corporate execs knew the addictive qualities of tobacco — beyond the reach of American courts.

“For years, she hid that role from her constituents. Then, when The New York Times printed the facts, she claimed that she had no choice but to represent tobacco since she was only an associate at her firm. In fact, the firm’s policy was to let associates opt out of any case that offended their moral compass — and she definitely didn’t opt out.

“In 1999, she became counsel to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo. Her job was to promote “new products” for the agency — subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t afford them. But once the mortgage meltdown began, she hit the “delete” key again — expunging the item from her resume.

“She also faces the problem that she profited from the crisis: Once the financial meltdown started, she and her husband shorted firms like Countrywide that specialized in subprime mortgages.

“Bottom line: New Yorkers don’t yet really know Gillibrand as “their” senator — and they ought to know her as a chameleon who’s shown no principle in her pursuit of profit.

“Polls show her only barely above 50 percent before the Republican primary. Now, she is probably under 50 percent.

Joe DioGuardi, a committed conservative with a fine record in Congress, offers an alternative that voters will find attractive. He’s hampered by limited name recognition, likely still in the mid 30s.

But once an incumbent is under 50 percent, she is very vulnerable, particularly with Gillibrand’s record of support for every Obama big-spending scheme. And she stands for nothing in a year when voters are looking for sincerity.

If the national party and its New York adherents give DioGuardi the money he deserves, he has a real shot.

Share

kalamullah.com is the web site for Friz Muhammad, the Australian radical Islamist who recently calls for be-heading of a Dutch politician.

Fritz Muhammad is angry because the Dutch politician called Islam ‘retarded”. Anyone who mocks Islam… anyone who laughs at Islam… anyone who degrades Islam will die by fatwa said Fritz Muhammad.

One must leave an email on Fritz Muhammad’s site in order to comment. I was tempted but did not.

It is time for moderates to laugh at Friz, to mock him and to deride what he says.

Fritz Muhammad calls on extreme Islamics to be-head a person. But, a jehad is only binding on the author!

Let Friz Muhammad start by doing his own be-heading… of first fleas! And then work up to be-heading ants! Let him practice on creatures way down on the food chain! And then let him work on chopping off his … nails!! Yes, clean up the old hands of Fritz Muhammad!!

I do think it intemperate for that Dutch politician to call Islam “retarded”.

That is an out of date term. Mental Retardation has been replaced with Intellectually Deficient. An 8 sylable phrase instead of a 6 sylable phrase.

I say this tongue in cheek and to mock Fritz Muhammad. Why not consider Islam as developmentally delayed rather than “retarded”?

Just as persons can be developmentally delayed so can cultures, religions and political ideologies.

That Islam permits children in second and third grade to be married… that women must wear a veil …. that women are second class citizens … that Christians and Jews are not equal to Muslims …

Isn’t it fair to say that these ideas are developmentally …delayed? Let me know who goes to Fritz Muhammad’s web site and mocks him to his face.

Yep!! Hey, Fritz, Islam is progressing … just more slowly and at a slower rate. The Islam religion, political ideology and culture is developmentally delayed! What does that make the Prophet? Heavens! I am not mocking the Prophet just Fritz Muhammad. He deserves to be mocked. And laughed at!

written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com


Yes — let’s mock Friz Muhannad!
Let’s laugh at him! Let’s deride him for his comments.

Share

Islam is a political philosophy & non-Muslims are second class citizens

Heard of the Jizziva?
That is the tax that Christians and Jews must pay as non-Muslims.

Though higher up than Buddhists and Hindus, Christians and Jews are to be subjugated and humiliated by the Jizzia tax imposed on them by Muslims. Christians and Jews are second class citizens and treated as such.

Think that Muslims are peace loving? With non-Muslims a Muslim passes the peace by saying peace to those who follow the right way — which is of course the Muslim way. There is only one right way — the Muslim way of course.

Wake up and find out what Islamic religious leaders are preaching in your back yard.

The following is from MyVworld.com and written by a single woman who lives in Colorado:

“Did you know?
“Islam is not only a religious philosophy but also is a political ideology.

Jihadists are not a minority of the Islamic community and moderate Muslims deny that Jihadists exist as a majority of their community.

“Radical Muslim leaders use the teaching of the Qur’an (Koran) to establish Islamic law for the world and to justify violence.

The Qur’an (Koran) says the prophet Mohammed is the excellent example of conduct and demonstrates an exalted standard of behavior and whoever obeys Mohammed, obeys Allah.

Child marriage according to Islamic tradition, recorded by the Haddith by the Muham Idari, states his favorite wife was only 6 and Muhammed consumated his marriage when she was 9.

Note, this is not said to condemn the historical acts of Muhammed because this was acceptable behavior during this time but because Muslim’s use his actions as examples of the highest standards of conduct in the Islamic religion then it is considered to be acceptable behavior right now.

“An example of how this example of behavior is being used today is that in current day Yemin they wanted to abolish the minium age of legal marriage from 15 to 9. Another example of this, in 2002, when researchers entered the refugee camps in Afghanistan found 2 out of 3 girls in second grade were already married because of Muhammed’s example of conduct.

“Islamic religion is not spread by the sword because when a country is conquered they don’t mandate conversion to the Islamic religion but Islamic Law is spread by the sword because they do mandate Muslims as superior and all others who are not Muslims are second class and inferior. In other words you have to join the ‘club’ to be considered ‘good enough’.

The greeting you hear in Islam is “Peace be upon you” but did you know Muslims are directed to use this saying only with another Muslim because you cannot wish Peach upon a non-Muslim.

The greeting Muslims use with non-Muslims is “Peace be upon those who follow the right guidance.” In other words, peace again to people who follow the right guidance, i.e., Muslims.

Only two times a Muslim should enter into a PEACE TREATY according to Islamic Law:

Muslims are weak and need to time to recover.

If they have a reasonable expectation is their foes will become Muslim

Negotiaters fail to realize Muslim Jihadi terroists use these strategies. We should respect our enemies enough to understand why they are doing what they are doing. And truly understand there is no basis in Islamic law for a treaty for peaceful co-existence.

Chief enabler as terrosim around the world is an ally of the US, Saudi Arabia.

“Billions of dollars of US aid goes to countries like Egypt and Pakistan who allow the Mosques and schools to teach anti-western views and hate of Americans, Christians, and Jews. They are working according to these principles and goals — why do we still give them money!

“There is no comprehensive effort to combat Jihaddist philosophy in the US Mosques.

There is no greater deed than Jihad and by doing this you atone for all your bad deeds.

Jihad = warfare against the non-believers — is not spiritual warfare.

Jizzia is part of the political arm of Islam. Jizzia in Sharia law in a Muslim country is a taxation for all non-muslims. According to the Quran, “They shall pay a jizzia. By an upper hand may they be subjugated and humiliated.”

Christians and Jews are protected people because they believe in the ‘book’ but are not equal to Muslims and must be ’subjugated and humiliated’.

However, Hindus and Buddahists have it worse because they are not people of the book.

Radical Muslim’s around the world want to replace the western governments and the US Constitution with Islamic Sharia Law.

Three choices offered to enemies: conversion, subjecation, or war. These are not “old” philosphies but are quoted and invoked by Islamic leaders today.

The idealogies of the past are not rejectted but are being used to confornt moderate Muslims today to follow these prinicples.

There are peaceful Muslims but where are they? Why aren’t they speaking out against these Islamic teaching?
Warriors in Jihad around the world look to Mohammed to justify what they are doing.

November 2003, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy web site told Muslim should engage in Jihad.

Jihadist’s believe the religious principle that says we can’t live with infidels.
Democracy can support Sharia law — so according to the Iraqi and Afghanistan constitution but Islamic law ALWAYS will outweigh any Democratic beliefs.

Political Islam has not been challenged and will always win out.

Saudi Arabia sends radical books and ideology to US based Mosques and schools.

Year One in the Islamic Calendar is when Muhammed became a military and political leader. Islam is a political idealogy and the US is not approaching Islam as a political group but as a religious group. Why not?

“80% of American Mosques are controlled by extremists teaching hate literature and Muslim supremency being taught in the schools.

Foreign Policy: “Recommendations/What should we do?
Saudi Arabia — we should find alternative energy sources and bring pressure to bare upon Saudi Arabia
Challenge Saudi Arabia’s support of Wahhabism around the world
Iraq- withdraw entirely and/or protect the surrounding countries around Iraq to make sure it does’nt spread.
Iraq was formed by the English — why should they stay together? Iran will have nuclear weapons, they have said they want to destroy Israel — take them at their word — they want to be the leader of global Jihad.
Related Links

Reference: Robert Spencer (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev111406a.cfm)

View Robert Spencer’s Talk

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm

What are people saying on Technorati about Wahhabism?

Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030915/wwahhabism.html

Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for All Societies (Note, Sharia is the “legal” parts of the Islmaic religion.)

Share

Do Islamic mosques across America — and Islamic community centers — teach Jizzia and other marks of second class citizenship? Why not ask your Islamic religious leaders?

The following may be reproduced if credit is given to Ami Isseroff and MidEastWeb:

“About 638 AD, the Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab, entered the city of Jerusalem, then called Aelia Capitolina by the Romans or “Ilia” by the Arab conquerors.

“According to tradition, Omar granted to the people of Jerusalem and to the Patriarch Safronius a covenant of peace and protection which came to be known the Covenant of Omar, or the Code of Omar. In addition, to ensure the care and protection of Christian and Jewish Holy places, Omar entrusted each of the major holy places to the care and protection of a different Muslim family.

Many non-Muslim scholars believe that the covenant of Omar was actually written at a later date, since the earliest manuscript can only be dated from the eleventh century, and because they believe that it represents customs that had accumulated over the centuries. However, there is no definitive proof that the document is not genuine.

“For some reason, this document has gained a very bad reputation among critics of Islam. However, considering the fate of conquered populations in general at that time, it seems to be very liberal, and the intention was to protect and reassure the Christian population of Jerusalem.

The institution of the Jizziya tax and other marks of second class citizenship were not invented by Omar, but rather copied from the custom instituted in other conquered Muslim cities, based on the Qur’an. We must remember that when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem several hundred years later, Muslims and especially Jews were evicted.

Omar seemingly did not keep one promise of his covenant, which reads “None of the Jews shall reside with them in Ilia’.” In fact, Omar allowed the Jews, formerly excluded from Jerusalem by the Christians, to return and live there, though under Muslim rule, each group lived in different quarters of the city.

written by Ami Isseroff

Share

The goal of radical Islamists is to rip Western law and liberty in two says Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish contends there is a growing movement in this country willing to shed blood in the name of Islam. “While Americans are busy erasing Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children, the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America.”

Islamic law allows men to marry babies age one and consummate the marriage at age eight. In the U.S. this is child abuse – pure and simple.

For an Islamic woman to prove rape she has to have 4 witnesses. How likely is that to happen in the Middle East?

Muslim men in the West demand Shariah Law so the women cannot divorce.

The plan to put a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero should be a wake up call. For every American town and community. What do mosques spread?

Let’s find out what Islamic religious leaders teach in local mosques. Is it hatred of Western liberty? Is it the subjection of women and children to the whims of men?

Instead of the Golden Rule, Islam has two systems of ethics — one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. And the goal of Islam is to take and subjugate others. So says Nonie Darwish, an Islamic woman who converted to Christianity.

Go and attend the local mosque in your community. See for yourself what goes on. And if you don’t like what goes on — use the free speech this county has to say what you think.

Where are the local mosques? In Santa Cruz it is called an Islamic Center: Going to the local home page I see mention of a religious leader protecting Jews and Christians. This was back when Jerusalem was invaded. For more information:

Muslim Islamic Center of Santa Cruz
4401 Capitola Rd. #2,
Capitola, CA 95010
Tel: (831) 479 8982

written by Cameron Jackson
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: Support Islamic mosque in your back yard? Guided by Shariah law? Think twice.

Best to learn about Islamic Shariah religious law before imposed on you in your local American community.

Our young president Obama supports the legal right of a mosque close to Ground Zero. Whether wise to do it so is an issue Obama side-stepped.

Broaden the question to do you want a mosque in your back yard? Or put differently: Do you want Islamic Shariah law to rule in your local community?

One reason not to embrace mosques and Islamic law: Islamic law per the Koran supports marriage between first cousins. So what?

Marriage between first cousins can cause severe birth defects. Islamic Law — read the Koran — permits such marriages.

The Koran explicitly says NO to marriage between an Islamic man and his mother-in-law (wow!) And NO to marriage between an Islamic man and his daughters (my goodness!), his sisters and the Islamic man’s nieces.

However, it is OK according to the Koran for an Islamic man to marry his first cousin. So what’s so bad about marriages between first cousins?

Jewish and Christian religious law views such marriages as wrong.

Why do religions forbid sex between persons related by blood? Sex between persons related by blood is taboo. Why? birth defects result.

And it is just inherently wrong for men to take advantage of women that men have easy access to : nurse mothers, their sisters, his nieces etc. And — sexual relations between persons related by blood — has been a NO for thousands of years.

Half of the U.S. states makes first cousin marriages illegal. Do you want Islamic law to change these U.S. laws? Think twice about this.

See the following article below for more information:

written by Cameron Jackson
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

“With all the talk lately about American prejudice towards the Muslim world, it might be interesting to discuss one aspect of their culture. It should be a topic of real concern for all American women. Concerned for their “fellow sisters” in that world.

The following is excerpts from an article written by Nonie Darwish, a Muslim author and lecturer, describing the hell Muslim women face in a culture geared strictly towards men. Here is a portion of her description:

“In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as one year-old and have sexual intimacy with this child consummating the marriage by the age of eight.

“The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use as a toy. Even though the woman is abused, she cannot obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have four male witnesses.

“Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.

Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have four wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim Law controls the private as well as the public life of the women. In the Western world (America), Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife cannot obtain a divorce. He can have complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many Muslim women now attending American universities are marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to Shariah Law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under this law.

She recently authored a book, “Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.Ms. Darwish describes the goal of radical Islamists as a goal to impose Shariah Law on the world, “ripping Western law and liberty in two.””

Born in Cairo and spending her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, Darwish’s father had been killed leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian officer stationed with his family in Gaza. When he died, he was considered a “shahid”, a martyr for jihad. Her father’s posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

Darwish developed a skeptical eye toward her own Muslim culture and converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

While Westerns tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

The alarming fact is that there are many in America disillusioned with life and Christianity and willing to accept Muslims as peaceful. Many are, but there is a growing number that are willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.

Ms. Darwish contends there is a growing movement in this country willing to shed blood in the name of Islam. “While Americans are busy erasing Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children, the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America.”

“It is something for every citizen of this country to pay heed as many attempt to marginalize the growing threat.

* If you have enjoyed this column, may I suggest you scroll to the top of this page and press the “SUBSCRIBE” Box? It’s FREE. For past columns, press the “RSS FEED” Box. Thank you for your patronage.

Share

First cousin marriages between British Pakistani a ‘tradition’? So says Deborah Gabriel

On the website People With Voices Deborah Gabriel writes concerning British Pakistani who marry first cousins.

Gabriel, working on a Ph.D. in journalism, criticizes fellow British journalist Ed West for using ‘inbreeding’ instead of ‘consanquinity’ to describe marriage between British Pakistani first cousins.

After faulting West, Gabriel goes on to use the word ‘ tradition’ in a misleading way. She says that wearing Burka and marriage between first cousins are best described as Pakistani ‘traditions’. I disagree. Gabriel describes human behaviors – clothing and marriage habits – that are largely guided by Islamic religious law.

What are traditions? Some Brits regularly eat yorkshire pudding with their roast beef. Some Americans regularly go to 4th of July parades. Those are traditions. No legal or religious sanctions attach to persons who do not do those activities.

In some countries — and possibly in certain areas of the U.S. and Britain — Islamic religious law guides most aspects of life including clothing, marriage and sex. And huge sanctions may attach for breaking Islamic religious law.

In Saudia Arabia last year Shiria law upheld selling an 8 year old child to a 50 year old man. In Afganistan, a couple was stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage Homosexualaity is a capital crime under Sharia law.

A favorite cookbook of mine is 1000 Jewish Recipes by Faye Levy, published in 2000. This cookbook has no recipes for pork. Is Ms. Levy a racist or acting in a discriminatory manner by not including pork recipes? No. My Jewish cookbook lacks pork recipes precisely because ancient Jewish religious law guides modern Jewish food habits.

Similarly, wearing Burka and first cousin marriages between British Pakistanis are not best described as Pakistani ‘traditions’.

These behaviors are guided, possibly controlled, by Islamic religious law. Yes, some Pakistani women may say that they choose to wear Burka in Britain. A choice in Britain or the U.S. is not a choice for women in other parts of the world.

I have heard it said that Islamic law affects all decisions people make. And we all know instances where things do not go well for those who break with Islamic laws.

A year or so ago, in Saudi Arabia a bunch of school age girls ran out of their school because it was on fire. The girls did not wear Burka. The girls were seized and thrown back into the burning building. The girls died because Islamic religious law caused some men to act that way.

Deborah Gabriel argues that first cousin marriages and wearing Burka by British Pakistanis are best thought of as ‘traditions’ and best dealt with similarly to the demographic shift in educated women to bear children later. She cites figures that older women age 40 have a 1% chance of having a Down’s Syndrome child. Pakistanis who are first cousins have a 6% chance of bearing a child with severe disabilities. If older women have choice to bear disabled children why not also British Pakistani who marry first cousins? The author uses medical authority for support for her view.

Does Gabriel think that Pakistani women who were bamboozled or intimidated into marriages have a real choice to say “No!” to more children with their first cousin husband? In general, Islamic women are very much second class citizens relative to the power and authority that Islamic men exert.

What will give real choice and freedom to British Pakistani women? Not having to do 24/7 total child care for severely disabled children is one way. And that way means knowing that marriage between blood relations is wrong for the children, wrong for society to pay the incredible expense and wrong for parents to bear the terrible grief.

If women know it is wrong then they will teach their daughters and sons that it is wrong.

I say to Deborah Gabriel, aspiring Ph.D. journalist, that she call a spade a spade. Use words accurately. Words are your craft as a journalist. Be precise with words.

Traditions are habits that people engage in by choice and desire. Traditions are not behaviors that must be done or sanctions may attach.

Gabriel may prefer the six sylable word ‘consanguinity’ to the word ‘ in-breeding’ but generally simple words say it best. ‘Related by blood’ says it simply and accurately.

First cousin marriages between British Pakistani is not a ‘tradition’. It is an unfortunate bi- product of ancient Islamic religious law.

The Prophet Mohammed had a number of wives. Five wives I believe. One marriage was consummated when the girl was age 9. Is that not child abuse? Another marriage was with a young woman whom he married the same day that he killed her father, brother and husband. How cruel can you get to deprive her of all close male relations? The Prophet in his personal behavior showed little respect for women.

With this kind of personal marital history — multiple wives with young girls and women taken through violence –probably the Koran condones behavior akin to what the Prophet did.

Back to author Gabriel’s assertion that marriage between British Pakistani first cousins is simply a ‘tradition’.

No, Ms. Gabriel. Read the Koran. Project Gutenberg has 3 versions of all verses. Book 4 verse 023 lists all persons a man is prohibited from marrying. The list is extensive including his mother-in-law and nieces. Not on the excluded list are first cousins. So, the religious law of Islam permits marriage by first cousins. This is not a ‘tradition’ — this is Islamic law.

From the Koran:

004.023 Y: “Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:– Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, Mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful;-

P: “Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father’s sisters, and your mother’s sisters, and your brother’s daughters and your sister’s daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mothers-in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection (born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in – but if ye have not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you (to marry their daughters) – and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins. And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.”

Written 8-28-2010 by Cameron Smith Jackson drCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: intermarriage by Islamic 1st cousins leads to children with serious defects

Who or what encourages Islamic fist cousins to marry?

In England, Islamic parents who are first cousins have horrific rates of serious birth defects. In England, it is hard to believe — but true — that one third (33%) of rare recessive gene defects are caused by a so few people (1.5 %). Is this Islamic culture or is it because of their laws?

See story below:

Tazeen Ahmad’s grandmother gave birth to six daughters and three sons. Five of the six daughters died and all three sons were born deaf. Why? Because of an unspoken tragedy which the Muslim world refuses to confront – intermarriage. Tazeen’s grandmother and grandfather were first cousins.

The consequences of intermarriage are that a disproportionate amount of children are born with massive birth defects. Tazeen Ahmad’s broadcast makes the case clearly: “..children of first cousins are ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders which can include infant mortality, deafness and blindness…British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community.” The cost of caring for children with birth defects is horrific, both emotionally and financially. Parents are reduced to prisoners in their own home caring night and day for their sick children; the strain doesn’t just affect the parents physically but emotionally. The most devastating thing in the world is to watch one’s children suffer. And the community in which these families live pays a high price as well – literally.

“On average, a children’s hospital will see 20 to 30 recessive gene disorders a decade, but one hospital in Bradford has seen 165, while British Pakistani children are three times more likely to have learning difficulties, with care costing about £75,000 a year per child.”

Yet, when Ahmad attempted to call attention to this horrific disaster, she met with a wall of resistance. Intermarriage is one of the tenets of Islam – ergo, to criticize intermarriage is to criticize Islam. And, as the Danish cartoonists discovered, that’s not such a good idea. When Ahmad approached 16 British MPs – all of whom had significant British Pakistani constituents – none of the MPs would go on the record. They were too afraid of the Muslim backlash. The Muslim community itself didn’t want to hear what she was saying – they also were afraid of offending the Muslim world by refusing to intermarry, even if it had bitter consequences for themselves as well as their children. Ahmad relates the all too typical tragedy of forced marriages. One young woman, “Zara” was blackmailed into intermarriage when her husband’s family in Pakistan “threatened suicide over loss of honour should she refuse to marry her cousin. She relented and lives in a deeply unhappy marriage.”

Nonetheless, Ahmad pressed on with the broadcast. She broke the wall of silence. It is hoped that her brave action will break the cycle of sick children. One can only hope.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305078/TAZEEN-AHMAD-Three-uncles-deaf-Five-aunts-died-babies-Why-My-grandparents-cousins-married.html#ixzz0xkFWL0Ei

The greatest taboo: One woman lifts the lid on on the tragic genetic consequences of when first cousins marry
Sitting in the family living room, I watched tensely as my mother and her older brother signed furiously at each other. Although almost completely without sound, their row was high-octane, even vicious.
Three of my uncles were born deaf but they knew how to make themselves heard. Eventually, my uncle caved in and fondly put his arm around his sister.
My mum has always had a special place in her family because she was the first girl to live beyond childhood. Five of her sisters died as babies or toddlers. It was not until many years later that anyone worked out why so many children died and three boys were born deaf.
Today there is no doubt among us that this tragedy occurred because my grandparents were first cousins.
My grandmother’s heart was broken from losing so many daughters at such a young age. As a parent, I can’t imagine what she went through.
My family is not unique. In the UK more than 50 per cent of British Pakistanis marry their cousins – in Bradford that figure is 75 per cent – and across the country the practice is on the rise and also common among East African, Middle-Eastern and Bangladeshi communities.
Back when my grandparents were having children, the med­ical facts were not established. But today in Britain alone there are more than 70 scientific studies on the subject.
We know the children of first cousins are ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders which can include infant mortality, deafness and blindness.
We know British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community.
Despite overwhelming evidence, in the time I spent filming Dispatches: When Cousins Marry, I felt as if I was breaking a taboo rather than addressing a reality. Pakistanis have been marrying cousins for generations.
In South Asia the custom keeps family networks close and ensures assets remain in the family. In Britain, the aim can be to strengthen bonds with the subcontinent as cousins from abroad marry British partners.
Some told us they face extreme pressure to marry in this way. One young woman, ‘Zara’, said when she was 16 she was emotionally blackmailed by her husband’s family in Pakistan who threatened suicide over loss of honour should she refuse to marry her cousin.
She relented and lives in a deeply unhappy marriage. But others told me of the great benefits of first cousin marriage – love, support and understanding. To them, questioning it is an attack on the community or, worse, Islam.
At a Pakistani centre in Sheffield, one man said: ‘The community feels targeted, whether that be forced marriages or first-cousin marriages. The community is battening down its hatches, not wanting to engage.’
As a British Pakistani, I am aware of the religious, cultural and racial sensitivities around this issue and understand why people would be on the defensive when questioned about it.
At times I was torn between explaining the health risks while privately understanding the community’s sense of being demonised.
But I have also grown up in a family that has suffered the medical implications and strongly believe that people should have the choice to make an informed decision.
Throughout I had to remind myself that this is a health story – nothing more. It is not about religion or cultural identity. It is about avoidable suffering such at that experienced by Saeeda and Jalil Akhtar, whom I met in Bradford.
They are first cousins and have six children, three with the genetic disease mucolipidosis type IV. This stops the body getting rid of waste properly and affects brain functions controlling vision and movement.
Mohsin, their second eldest, is 17 and blind. He wanders aimless and helpless, often crying in frustration. His sisters Hina, 13, and Zainab, 11, have the same condition. They live in almost complete darkness.
Saeeda is worn down from years of round-the-clock care. She spoon-feeds them, dresses them and fears for them. Neither she nor her husband can quite accept that their familial link is the cause of this pain.
This is a major public health issue that has huge implications for other services. The cost to the NHS is many millions of pounds.
On average, a children’s hospital will see 20 to 30 recessive gene disorders a decade, but one hospital in Bradford has seen 165, while British Pakistani children are three times more likely to have learning difficulties, with care costing about £75,000 a year per child.
However during this investigation we found no efforts to introduce any national awareness-raising campaign. Why?
We approached 16 MPs with a significant number of British Pakistani constituents for interview – every one declined. We asked 30 MPs with a high population of British Pakistanis
in their seats to give their views in a short survey. Only one, who wanted to remain anonymous, responded, saying anyone who tried to talk about it risked being attacked politically.
A lone voice was Ann Cryer, former Labour MP for Keighley, near Bradford, who said ‘fear of being accused of racism or demonisation’ prevented politicians speaking up.
It is not just British Pakistani families who suffer. Wayne and Sonia Gibbs are white and first cousins once removed. They had no idea this could lead to problems. Their daughter Nicole had juvenile osteopetrosis, a genetic disease that causes the bones to thicken and crush the body’s organs. Nicole died aged two.
The couple now know both carry the recessive genes that caused Nicole’s illness. They wanted more children – but had genetic counselling first. They have two healthy boys today.
I have travelled nationwide, meeting doctors and families whose lives are full of pain. To me the solution is simple: Ring the alarm bells loud and clear.
In Birmingham, one GP practice has taken radical action. The doctors have campaigned heavily to stop cousin marriages. They have introduced genetic screening and testing for patients, starting at 16, and now claim that very few cousin marriages take place there.
My mother tells me that, long before I was born, her siblings and their cousins decided their tragedy would never recur.
The conclusion some will draw is that cousin marriages should be banned. I disagree. But people must be able to make informed choices about the risks involved and options available, be they genetic screening, counseling or carrier-testing.
At least there should be leaflets in doctors’ sur­geries and school campaigns.
Meeting the families in the program upset me greatly. Every day for them was an uphill struggle, mostly because their children needed so much help and this put enormous stress on their family lives.
Yet this was avoidable. If this were any other health issue, politicians would have been out in force. But they are silent and as a result children continue to be born with terrible, prevent­able disabilities that are devastating their lives and those of their loved ones.

Share