After reading the story last week about the Syrian refugee that hacked a pregnant woman to death with a meat cleaver in Germany, I was doing some thinking. It's well-known that inbreeding (marrying and having children with cousins) is a VERY common and accepted practice within the Islamic world, both in predominantly Islamic countries and among migrant communities elsewhere. It's also been established that this leads directly to the spread of recessive mental/physical disorders, a problem that has been on the increase.
Is it taboo to suggest that one potential reason for the, let's call it, "regressive" worldview of so much of the Islamic world, is the long-term damage that has been done to their genetic structure by inbreeding? I would imagine it would instantly be labeled "racist" by a fair number of people, but the statistics, numbers, and history backs it up. Or at least makes it a very plausible possibility, since it would offer an explanation as to why it's exclusively this world demographic, in 99.9% of the cases, where extremism turns violent.
INB4 Shad hates Muslims. Many leading geneticists have warned of the dangers (some of which have already happened) of inbreeding within this specific segment of the population, including this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones_(biologist). So why wouldn't this be a plausible theory? The one thing that is undeniable is that cousin marriage is a distinctly medieval practice with very troubling consequences.