
YC-backed Muzmatch definitely doesn’t want to be Tinder for Muslims - janober
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/03/yc-backed-muzmatch-definitely-doesnt-want-to-be-tinder-for-muslims
======
awjr
TBH the approach Muzmatch seems to be based on seems rather interesting.

-: Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family. (Family shame)

-: GPS validation, selfie verification etc. (Anti-catfishing)

-: Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)

-: Rewards for good behaviour. (Anti abuse & dick pic behaviour)

It's impressive, culturally, but as a father of a 13 year old girl, some of
these features appeal. Yes I am protective because I've seen how bad men can
be on dating sites. However I recognise I have no right to impose myself on
her privacy. Yes, educate her about the darker side of online dating. Yes, be
that friend that does not judge and is there to support her. BUT no, do not
control her. That is simply wrong. I love the fact my daughter has an
independent spirit and does, rightly, stand up to me when she feels she is
right and feels comfortable talking to me about pretty much anything (or her
mum ;) ). Most importantly we trust her and give her the privacy she
cherishes.

The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when this
logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in such a
way?

As an aside, about being a father. When my daughter was born I spoke to my
neighbour who had two 18 & 19 year old girls. I asked him how it all works.
His answer was "You have them until they are 14, and then you are there to
pick up the pieces."

The other night I took a taxi home and started talking to the driver. He
mentioned his 13 year old daughter was only allowed a basic phone and 1 hour
of Facebook, observed, every night, just in case. I was surprised. I just
regularly ensure my daughter knows about the various dangers and that she can
always talk to us. I've seen this too many times though. Parents blocking porn
web sites, then me hopping onto their computer and showing them porn on
twitter.

Anyway getting back onto Muzmatch. I suspect it is a good cultural match,
where the idea that women/men cannot be trusted and must be controlled, but
still providing the ability for women/men to hide their identity from their
own family and friends to prevent that control.

~~~
shakkhar
> Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family.
> (Family shame) ... > Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)
> ... > The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when
> this logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in
> such a way?

It is not about you enforcing this on your daughter. The religion demands it.
So if the app also facilitates that, it will appeal more to the target
audience.

~~~
patrickaljord
> It is not about you enforcing this on your daughter. The religion demands
> it.

Coming from a Muslim family myself, I can tell that Islam has so many rules
most Muslims (if not all, given that some of these rules are contradictory)
ignore most of them and only follow the ones they strongly agree with and are
part of their culture since probably pre-Islamic times. So no, I would have to
say I disagree here, Muslims who control their daughters like that do it
because they want it, not because "the religion demands it" though that's the
primary excuse they use (I've seen fathers who drink alcohol and eat pork for
example or don't pray and yet still go full control freak on their daughters
"because Islam demands it".). And yes, this goes for most religions but
because Muslims tend to be much more culturally conservative than others, it
shows a lot more in their cases.

------
virtuabhi
It is so disappointing to see a YC startup directed only to a particular
religion. Where I come from (India) there are things like if you belong to
religion X then you cannot go to temple of religion Y during prayers, etc. But
we regard those policies as regressive and are trying to remove them.

And regarding the idea that Muslims are looking for marriage and not for
casual encounters, it is possible to achieve it without focusing on religion
aspect. For example, in India websites like shaadi.com (shaadi literally means
marriage) are used as dating websites where participants know that they plan
to marry in near future.

Also, I would expect VCs with supposedly liberal beliefs to stand for inter-
religion marriages as they are much more dangerous (seriously, you can get
killed for it) and not for an app "where single muslims meet".

~~~
contingencies
Agreed. Frankly I should think that many Muslims would find this entire notion
offensive. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they (a) necessarily
want to find a muslim partner (b) have family with backward and regressive
views (c) live in a society with backward and regressive views (d) want to
support the continuation of backward and regressive views

IMHO in many traditional societies young people want to shake off the
controlling habits of former generations and such an app would actually be a
concrete step backwards.

(Full disclosure: My wife is Chinese muslim, and we have muslim friends in
Australia, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Tunisia, UK, etc. I am personally
irreligious.)

~~~
computerex
> (b) have family with backward and regressive views (c) live in a society
> with backward and regressive views (d) want to support the continuation of
> backward and regressive views

Wait, what are you implying here? A dating site exclusive to Muslims isn't
suggestive of B, C or D. There are dating sites exclusive to African Americans
for example, are they backwards and regressive too?

~~~
intoverflow2
Not defending the words of the poster you are quoting but African American is
a race not a religion/belief system.

Dating app for Mormons or Atheists would be a more appropriate analogy.

~~~
dragonwriter
All identities are beliefs, as are all concepts of race; an identity tied to a
concept of race is absolutely a belief system.

> Dating app for Mormons or Atheists would be a more appropriate analogy.

Of course, both of those exist, too.

~~~
whywhywhywhy
Babies are not born with beliefs they can't change. But they are born with a
race they can't change.

It's not the same.

~~~
dragonwriter
Races aren't objective facts of biology they are mutable social constructs
(both in terms of identity and ascribed status.)

It's true that you can't directly control (though you can influence)) ascribed
racial status (the rest of society collectively does that) but, that's true of
all ascribed statuses (including ascribed religion, though that's often not
significant in modern Western societies.)

~~~
whywhywhywhy
TIL being Chinese isn't an objective fact it's something you can stop being
true if raised in the right society.

By this logic white people raised in certain parts of America are African
Americans.

------
anovikov
I can't see it working, dating sites aren't for people who get married
quickly. They, as every site, need users stick for years, or LTV will be too
low and not cover the UAC. So, it should be casual dating as in: 7000 contacts
and 200 met in person over 12 years (me on mamba.ru). Users like me are
definitely very profitable. Users who see 100 profiles, chat with 20, and get
married and leave, aren't.

~~~
shakkhar
> Users like me are definitely very profitable

What is the LTV of a user like you? match.com charges ~$20 per year. How many
years are you planning to use it (or any other dating website / app) for?

You are missing a key point here - this is a matchmaking app masquerading as a
dating app. So they can extract a lot more value from a customer despite their
brief tenure on the app.

------
zitterbewegung
Even though a bunch of startup blog posts say not to make a dating service it
looks like they have had great success with this. This isn't a tinder for
Muslims its more like a hip Christian Mingle for Muslims. Dating verticals
seem to be easier to figure out than the general one. Also, stressing marriage
and long commitment is better.

Also, this is great marketing for Muzmatch by techcrunch. Title entices people
for engagement, statements enforce the values of the people that will use the
service and the purpose / mission statement is well mixed by the central
thesis.

~~~
avip
"JDate for Muslims" is the most accurate, but I guess most TC readers won't
recognize that historic item.

~~~
dogma1138
JDate isn't actually limited to Jews only, I'm not sure if it's still the case
but few years ago Jews were actually a minority on JDate.

It was at some time considered the 'better dating site' as far as demographic
goes before dating sites for the 'better educated and better paid'
demographics became more prevalent.

------
s3nnyy
> Younas — a young Muslim in London — bootstrapped and built the initial app
> himself [...] he plans monetizing beyond the business of matching by
> offering related services, such as, for example, helping users find a
> wedding venue.

In London there is a parallel legal system that does run counter to British
law. Here hidden-camera footage how a "Muslim judge" suggests to a woman, she
should just accept being beaten on a regular basis:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZCFdHkd4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZCFdHkd4A)

Hence, counseling or after-marriage check-ins with the women whether they are
threated well would be a real help.

------
bogomipz
The article states:

>"Not just market size — we’re more than 100 times larger market than the
Jewish market, for example — but the real difference is the seriousness and
intent."

Is that not kind of self-righteous and condescending? What is the implication,
that people from other religious groups or those without religious
affiliations somehow aren't serious about meeting someone? Or that their
intentions are not quite as sincere? Why is this somehow their exclusive
domain?

------
EGreg
Basically this is an app for "orthodox Muslims". As soon as other, more
secular Muslims join the site, there may be more than just "halfway there".

"I think some people think it’s just like JCrush for Jews. But it’s totally
not about that from where we stand."

I think they are implying Muslims are proportionally less promiscuous than
Jews. I wonder if this is so :)

Orthodox Jews don't even touch ther dates until marriage!

------
hedgew
According to their numbers, 3% of their users have gotten married through the
app. I wonder what that number is for Tinder?

~~~
bogomipz
I am doubting that they are verifying actual marriages resulting form their
app.

------
comnetxr
> So, for example, all users have to take a selfie via the app so their
> profile can be manually verified to help boost trust and keep out spammers;
> users don’t have to provide their real name though, and can choose not to
> display photos on their profiles or blur photos unless there’s an active
> match. Users are also asked to rate others they have interacted with — and
> these ratings are fed into the matching algorithm, with the aim of surfacing
> “quality users” and promoting positive behaviors.

All of this sounds like a big improvement on Tinder. I'm not Muslim, but I'd
try a dating site that worked like this. They should open it up but allow
users to restrict to the Muslim subset if they choose.

------
Grue3
Does it allow same-sex dating?

~~~
bogomipz
That's actually an interesting question. Maybe someone who's used it can
confirm?

~~~
dingo_bat
Are you kidding?

~~~
bogomipz
I think it's quite a reasonable question regarding a modern dating app. Not
all countries are equally conservative regarding this. See:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-
merkel...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-
chancellor-germany-same-sex-marriage-vote-lgbt-muslim-mps-berlin-bundestag-
cdu-sdp-a7819391.html)

and

[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gay-marriage-muslim-
coup...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gay-marriage-muslim-couple-
christianity-lgbt-faith-same-sex-ceremony-a7838816.html)

------
hkon
Does it allow the parents to swipe for you? If it does it will be a big hit.

------
becga
I previously worked with a guy who was Muslim. He told me he was looking for a
wife on shaadi.com

------
moretai
This is nothing but a cash grab.

------
bitwize
Well, too bad. Look what happened to ChristianMingle. From what I hear, most
of the men on there aren't even Christian, they're just cruising for what they
think is an easy lay.

------
whipoodle
> Most people I know see religion as something people slowly liberate
> themselves from

Maybe others think that view of religion is closed-minded. :)

~~~
Chris2048
"others" == religious people?

~~~
whipoodle
Maybe, I couldn't really say. I'm not religious and I do find that view
closed-minded myself.

~~~
Chris2048
Why? Isn't religion/faith "The belief is something unsubstantial and/or
unproven"?

edit: countdown until Dang detaches this tangent thread in 3, 2, ...

~~~
jauzeyimam
At some level most things cannot be consistently proven though -- mathematics
is premised in axioms that are not complete and consistent insofar as they
cannot be proven by the systems of mathematics. They have to be taken as true,
however, for the remaining systems of mathematics to be consistent. See
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_the...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems)

The larger point is that derogatory comments about belief systems only point
to the speakers subjective inability to comprehend said system, nothing
objective about the system itself.

~~~
ShabbosGoy
Are you familiar with Russell's teapot? The burden of proof lies upon the
person making an assertion or claim.

~~~
jauzeyimam
Heh in a roundabout way Russell's teapot came back to haunt him for the same
reason as my earlier comment. His goal in attempting to create an internally
consistent body of mathematics with Whitehead was proven impossible by Godel--
Russel's teapot was mathematics as he could not meet the burden of proof at
the axiomatic level, yet we still believe it to be true.

This is not to say that mathematics is wrong, of course, just that since it is
not internally consistent -- and since nothing is -- everything becomes an
object of belief at some level. Therefore relying on notions like "the burden
of proof lies upon the person making an assertion or claim" is turtles all the
way down -- NOTHING is provable and EVERYTHING is a belief.

~~~
Chris2048
> NOTHING is provable and EVERYTHING is a belief

If that's the case, then it's tautological. In practice, "provability" is
partially quantitative, not starkly Boolean (True/False)

I'm not sure Russell's Teapot concept _was_ troubled by his later failures to
create an internally consistent body of mathematics:

> Russel's teapot was mathematics as he could not meet the burden of proof at
> the axiomatic level, yet we still believe it to be true.

You don't need to meet a BoP at an axiomatic level, by definition of what an
axiom is. We still accept the analogy of the teapot, because the axioms are
accepted by standard. If this acceptance is "faith", it is still far from
religious faith, whose "axioms" are not reduced/irreducible, but complex,
dependent (on reason) and ad-hoc.

------
alexdrans
Congratulations Ryan!

