Letter: Banning Cousin Marriages Would Be Wrong

Published on: 2 Jan, 2025
Updated on: 2 Jan, 2025

From Rabia Salim

Richard Holden MP recently proposed the banning of cousin marriages.

The argument is to promote women’s freedom and to prevent the risk of health defects. As a British Pakistani, I have an aunt who freely wed her cousin and had a fulfilling marriage, with healthy children.

In Islam, cousins are permitted to marry, because cousins are not seen as close family members as outlined in the Holy Quran, chapter 5 verse 24.

Mr Holden cites Leviticus 18:6 from the Bible as an argument, which states that sacred law forbids a man to uncover the nakedness of his near kin.

However, “near kin” does not specify cousin. Indeed, in some families, cousins may not have interacted closely before the idea of marriage. To ban cousin marriage would be to take away many liberties to practise our religion.

Also, Islam says that marriage should be done with consent. Forced marriages are a cultural innovation, and marrying your cousin is not mandatory.

I agree with Mohammad Yasin MP who countered the negative view of it, by highlighting the positive. This includes better cohesion and stronger bonds within families.

This practice, which is also followed in other communities, should be preserved to protect the freedoms of many people, including my aunt and uncle, who just celebrated 50 happy years together.

Responses to Letter: Banning Cousin Marriages Would Be Wrong

David Roberts Reply

January 2, 2025 at 5:13 pm

Let’s strip all religion out of this debate. As usual, Leviticus is particularly unclear and unhelpful. Marrying your cousin brings risks of birth defects, although you can’t compare the systematic in-breeding of, say, the Habsburgs with one-offs such as Mr & Mrs Charles Darwin.

In some countries you can also marry your uncle or aunt. But marrying your cousin has been legal in England since the Reformation and is likely to remain so, especially as it’s become extremely rare over the last hundred years. Mr Holden’s private member’s bill is a non-starter.

The only strong argument for a ban is social, not religious or biological: to deter cultural practices among some social groups (not only Muslims) that oppress women and expose them to violence by putting too much power in the hands of bigoted family patriarchs. It does no credit to any religion to deny that this happens, although it’s easy to see how the political far right will try to turn this debate into an attack on migrants and ethnic minorities in general.
P J Sheppard Reply

January 3, 2025 at 5:10 pm

I am glad that Rabia Salim’s aunt has had a happy marriage and healthy children. However, although it seems to have worked out well for them, marriage to a cousin may not be a wise choice, given our knowledge of the possibility of medical problems in offspring.

It is true that neither the Bible nor the Quran specifically mentions cousins as forbidden for sexual relations. Rabia made a typo in the Quran reference – the list of permitted and forbidden relations is 4:21-24. In verse 24 and other places, the Quran permits men to have sexual relations with captive and slave women, even if already married. (“Also [forbidden are] women already married, except those [captives and slaves] whom your right hands possess.”) So, I don’t consider it a good guide on this subject.

Hopefully, our MPs will consider the facts carefully and use wisdom in making any restrictions on our liberty.