Scaremongering over Muslim demographics

Recently, a video has been popping up on various Muslim blogs ([1], [2], [3]), attempting to raise fears among Westerners that Muslim birth rates are vastly outstripping non-Muslim ones, to the point that some western European countries will have Muslim majorities by the middle of this century. Another example of this kind of scaremongering appeared on the Telegraph’s blog site (which, regardless of the impression the site might give, is not restricted to Telegraph columnists; it appears that anyone can get a blog there) by some guy called Ed West, “a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture”. West compares those on the left who “kept silent” about the issue of declining European birth rates coupled with rising Muslim ones to those on the right who “kept silent” about man-made climate change, until Hurricane Katrina forced the issue out into the open.

Here’s the video:

The video, made by very obviously ignorant people (their maps show the whole of Ireland as part of the UK and a backwards Turkish red-and-white flag is used to represent Islam), alleges that current general birth rates in several European countries are at levels which have always brought about the death of civilisations, and that only the United States is bucking the trend and, even then, only Latino immigration has made up the figure (so, presumably he counts Latinos as “his” people). Even so, as I pointed out at Muhajideen Ryder, it compares the number of nominal Muslims (and not all countries measure religious adherence, so the number could easily be based on countries of origin and other factors which do not always translate into religious adherence) with numbers of practising Christians, rather than those who merely identify as such. As we all know, there are a lot of Muslims who are not practising, including some of the most troublesome, as with the Muslims, or descendants of Muslims, who rioted in France in 2005 and in Australia in 2006. More is to be feared from them in terms of crime than of religious radicalism. So the claim that “in 39 years, France will be an Islamic Republic” is absurd.

Ed West writes of gays in some European countries abandoning their traditional left-wing party allegiances and turning to the anti-immigrant right in response to a wave of attacks by “Muslim youths”. However, I’ve yet to hear of a Muslim religious leader telling Muslims to go out and attack gays, and I’ve not heard of a significant problem with this in the UK, so we should consider the differences in make-up of the Muslim communities in the UK and Europe and how the political classes relate to them if we want to know why this mixture of bigotry and juvenile delinquency found in Europe is not found, to anything like the same extent, in the UK where the left still maintains the loyalty of both the gay community and the Muslims. A vocal minority of lunatics aside, religious Muslims in the UK are quite placid, in my experience.

The persistent claims that the changes in the ratio of Muslims to others will rapidly bring an Islamic state in which women cannot go out without hijab and a long coat, gays get stoned to death and people can only join Islam but not leave it are laughable. How many Muslim-majority countries are even like this today? A handful. In many, it is practising Muslims who are at a disadvantage or even face persecution. In most Muslim countries where there is some form of democracy, religious parties actually get only a small share of the vote, as has always been the case in Pakistan, outside the less densely-populated western provinces, and was seen recently in Indonesia. Issues of religion and politics do matter to Muslims, but so do the things which matter to everyone else, such as crime, education, the economy and so forth. The idea that as soon as the Muslims make up 51% of a country’s population, it is only a matter of one more election before there is an Islamic state is ill-founded. If the Islamic party promises “hijab enforcement squads” or anything similar, it can expect to lose an election in more or less any Muslim country, let alone France.

It’s highly likely, in fact, that the political establishment will remain in the hands of non-Muslims long after this happens, as, crucially, will the armed forces. What is more likely to happen is that “dirty politics” of the sort found in the countries of origin of many Muslims will rise: vote-buying and electoral corruption (this is already prevalent in the UK, and a number of cases of postal-vote fraud have been recorded, as well as postal votes being used to deprive individuals of their votes, mostly for the benefit of Labour and against new movements appealing to younger and more religious Muslims), clan politics and wasta-ism (meaning claiming, or needing to claim, connections as means to get things done). This is not to say that we do not have enough dirty politics of our own, of course (Asians certainly did not invent postal vote fraud in the UK; google “granny farming”). However, Europe is still part of the developed world and the problems of much of the Muslim world are Third World ones, which do not stem from religion but from poverty and corruption. The intellectual backwardness of much of the Muslim world is often blamed on Muslim hostility to what the critics call “free inquiry”, which is a joke as inquiry does not qualify as free unless the outcome is against religion; however, speak to those who have studied in many Muslim countries and you will hear tales of students not getting much work out of their professors because they are too busy giving private tuition. There is also stifling bureaucracy, a result of governments insisting on providing more jobs than there is actual work, and bribery. How Islam contributes to this I have no idea, as it explicitly prohibits bribery.

A final consideration is that those who tell non-Muslims “have more babies” point to the potential effect of a “Muslim takeover” on women; however, the decline in the birth rate has much to do with the increased freedom of women to choose to have fewer, or no, children, often later than they would otherwise done, and to have careers instead. The idea of going back to the 1950s and being a housewife and mother of six would be scarcely more appealing than any realistic vision of a “Muslim takeover” (particularly when the Muslims they know don’t much look like Taliban and ghostly figures in burqas, the women often having careers and, indeed, fewer children than they used to). It is a paradox that this form of “muscular liberalism” posits a problem which can only be solved with measures which would be off-putting in the extreme to all but the most conservative people in the west today.

Possibly Related Posts:

  • As I watched the video, I was thinking “damn, I’ve got a lot of catching up to do and my wife isn’t going to be too happy…”

  • Old Pickler

    Interesting you should mention the postal vote fraud. Many Muslims could well be intimidated into voting the way their husbands or the local imam tells them - that’s if they even fill in the postal vote themselves. And we will never know, because we don’t hear their voice - it’s all “Muslim community” and “community leaders”.

    And who are the “gay community”.

    I don’t believe in communities. The are a leftist con.

  • DrM

    Asalamu Aliakum,

    This propaganda clip proves that my assertion its always been about RACE. European extremists often claim that they are not racists by declaring that Muslims are not a “race,” yet at the same time speak of Europeans and Muslims as if they are separate entities despite there being so many European Muslims. Why even religiously profile Europeans? The answer is simple, they consider Muslims enough of an other to be classified as a “race.” Islam to them is essentially a religions of non-whites and white race traitors. Go ask a Bosnian about that. Notice also the role of colonialism is never mentioned as that’s how millions of Muslims become subjects of various European empires. Heck, even today they are ruled western puppet regimes so little has changed. Regardless Europe’s declining birth rates have nothing to do with Islam but rather the extreme liberalism, feminism, decline of the family structure and the social ills that come with them. Any society where the nuclear family is lost is doomed to extinction. They now have to live with the consequences of the choices they made, so I really don’t want to hear their silly little conspiracy theories.

  • George Carty

    I’m surprised that Islamophobic videos like this one don’t use the black jihadi flag to represent Islam.

    It is arguably more specifically “Islamic” than the Turkish flag (or the Pakistani flag which I’ve seen used elsewhere), and has a very sinister look to Western eyes (probably because white on black is the same colour scheme as the Jolly Roger).

  • George Carty

    Once concern I have is that an unholy alliance in favour of genocide of Muslims may develop, between Islamophobes (motivated by hatred of Islam) and radical environmentalists (who believe that human population needs to be culled, and that they are more likely to get away with exterminating Muslims than any other similarly-sized portion of humanity).

  • gess

    As’salamu Aleikum,

    Poor propaganda trash video. Boouh!

    I just wonder if their attempt to racialize all Muslims in one race will work. They use Turkish flag as if all Muslims are from Turkey or the Middle East.It’s just a continuation of an old Hollywood propaganda/stereotype.

    Wa’aleikum salaam.

  • Phil

    “Go ask a Bosnian about that.”

    Or anyone else from that part of the world.

    “It is arguably more specifically “Islamic” than the Turkish flag “

    Well the Turkish flag has certain connotations in some circles. There are lots of Turkish migrants in some continental countries.

  • Daniel E.

    I find it interesting that Americans seem to be more worried about the “islamification” of Europe than Europeans are. Could it be that they are projecting their own fears regarding Mexican immigration onto something that’s less politically incorrect to discuss.

  • Nicolas Krebs

    The (fertility rate of) 8.1 children/woman among Muslims in France is the funniest joke of the year.

    See also “World Factbook”, 2008 edition, CIA, , and tinyfrog, “Muslim Demographics”, Tiny Frog, 2009-05-03, (and possibly ).

  • LeedsLad

    lol, the irony is that rather than scaring, they are actually resigned and getting ready “no longer reversible” :)

    These guys better behave themselves then.

  • DrM

    As usual its no surprise to find stupid comments left by BNP reject pRickler. The old raggedy goat is clearly in denial like many European extremists. In the mind of the “white man,” Islam is seen as alien and threatening and a threat to his cultural hegemony. Also, in the “white man’s” mind, Islam consists of an amalgamation of brown, black, and various “mulatto” races. The white-looking people among the Muslims (e.g., Albanians, Bosnians, Turks, Lebanese) are also not considered to be “part of the club” of whiteness. In part, perhaps, because those white-looking Muslims are not nearly as willing to maintain the bulwark of white racial preservation as the Western European “white man.” That is, historically, white Muslims have been far more willing to intermarry than the “white man.” So not only are these white-Muslims considered traitorous on a religious level, they are also racially traitorous. Perhaps we need to initiate a “stop the westernization of Muslim nations” campaign? One bad turn deserves another don’t you think?

  • Thersites

    “I’m surprised that Islamophobic videos like this one don’t use the black jihadi flag to represent Islam.

    It is arguably more specifically “Islamic” than the Turkish flag (or the Pakistani flag which I’ve seen used elsewhere), and has a very sinister look to Western eyes (probably because white on black is the same colour scheme as the Jolly Roger).” Well, it offers veryy frightening choices: fight or submit. A more likely reason for the use of the Turkish flag is that many eastern Europeans have historical memories of Turkish muslim rule. In the eyes of many Serbs and Croats “muslim” Bosniaks are hereditary traitors who became muslims to receive privileges under the Ottomans. When Bosnia-Herzevogina passed from the Ottomans to the Habsburgs the main concern of many muslims was retaining their hereditary privileges, which included control of the last serfs in Europe. The sincerity of their beliefs was irrelevant; their self-identification with conquerors damned them and their descendants.

  • Thersites, I’m not sure how relevant things which happened in the 19th century were to ordinary Serbs and Croats by the early 1990s; it was merely a convenient excuse for Serbs to secure dominance over Bosnia and to make sure Croatia didn’t slip from their grasp either. The idea of “Yugoslav-ness” was a much easier sell to Bosnians, who were more likely to know people of other than their own tribe than people in Serbia; the Yugoslav leadership in Belgrade, which was Serb-dominated (as might be expected as Belgrade is in Serbia), used the Chetniks (Serb nationalist extremists) to keep Bosnia under their control (Milosevic was actually a secular socialist, and he — and especially his wife — despised the Chetniks). One possible reason why the Serbs were able to do this is that the Serbian Orthodox Church is notorious for its hostility to and contempt for other religions, including non-Orthodox forms of Christianity. Historical memories are not real memories; nobody in Yugoslavia remembered Ottoman rule in the late 20th century, and very few actually had ever known anybody who had. But, it’s an easy way of making up excuses, much as slavery is for some black people nowadays, and for fomenting hatred.

  • Thersites

    Not things that happened in the nineteenth century, I.J., but then and before is when attitudes were set: look at the activities of the Croats especially and- to a lesser degree- the muslim Bosniaks in WWII. Historical memories may not be “real”; they are just as effective for all that. The Serbs of the Krajina and BH-Karadzic was the epitome- were influenced by immediate history- their parents’ and grandparents’ memories- as well as the “1066 and ALl That” history they had learned and they responed accordingly. Like William Faulkner said, “The past isn’t dead…It isn’t even past.”

  • DrM

    I see therShites is up to his usual theatrics, trying to subtly imply that the current extremism by Europeans is justified. So essentially you’re stuck in the past and only want an adversarial relationship with Muslims. Your argument further falls into irrelevance given the fact that millions of Muslims in Europe aren’t even of turkish extraction. Of course this is coming from the same idiot who insists that Palestinians blow up their own ambulances to make Israel look bad.

  • Thersites

    Still telling lies, Dr Mabuse, and you can’t even think up new ones.

  • George Carty

    I don’t believe in communities. The are a leftist con.

    I’d correct that to “They are a New Functionary con”, referring to the class of people identified by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson in The Gods That Failed. They are ex-leftists who became obsessed with identity politics and used it to justify lucrative employment at the taxpayers’ expense.

  • LeedsLad

    lol @ “their self-identification with conquerors damned them and their descendants.”

    My neighbour has a Norman family name, should he be damned as well?

    He answered to himself acknowledging their indigenous heritage of the land, but his ghetto mentality from planet Juus overcomes him often. People in that region will fight and make peace, but think what would have happened if it involved the aliens from planet Juus and the Serbs; phew I will hate to imagine the screams and protestations for the next 1000s of years.

  • LeedsLad

    Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent

    Do I not like that Ninja lady who is always hard to find. Where do they find such women?

  • LeedsLad

    And finally, here is where the Telegraph contributor came from: UK policewomen dress as Muslims to ‘celebrate diversity’

    Guess who are there again(CSC) and a guy from the Christian Peoples Alliance. CSC founded and run by Hebrews, CPA found and run by a Hebrew who conveniently “converted” to Christianity.

    I wish Muslims could take an example from their pages and stick to their own think tanks only.

  • Thersites

    “My neighbour has a Norman family name, should he be damned as well?” If the Normans had still ruled England until a hundred years ago and had retained much of the privilege they had then and the Saxons defined themselves by theuir hatred of the Normans, there’d be no “should” to it.

    A closer analogy would be with the Anglo-Irish or those Algerians who supported the French.

  • Muratcan

    Funny how they use an imitation of the Turkish flag to represent Islam, when Turkey is actually one of the most unreligious Muslim countries. In fact with Turkey’s history of hardline Secularism it makes no sense that an imitation Turkish flag should be used to represent Islam. Also another reason the use of the fake Turkish flag is erroneous is that racists who make this kind of video no doubt view Muslims as brown or black and different looking to Europeans. But many Turks are actually white looking* and added to the fact many are nonreligous and Secular, they could easily blend in in Europe and therefore escape whatever persecutions these Islamophobes want to inflict upon Muslims in Europe.

    *The most Turkish person who ever lived and ever will live was Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Turkey, and he had fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes.

  • George Carty

    Isn’t one of the main assertions of the Eurabia conspiracy-theorists (that white Europeans aren’t having enough children because they’re not religious enough) factually false?

    Irreligious Scandinavian countries have higher birth rates than the more traditionally Catholic countries of southern Europe, perhaps because of generous state support for families in Scandinavia, combined with an almost complete lack of stigma against out-of-wedlock births.

  • M Risbrook

    I personally think the UK should reduce its population to no more than 40 million - and that’s generous. It will result in an increased standard of living for the working and lower middle classes. Examples include things like cheaper houses and less traffic congestion.

  • George Carty

    Couldn’t the counter-argument be made that the problem is not too many people, but too few houses and roads? And that the reason why we don’t have enough houses and roads is because pensioners and soon-to-be-pensioners are a very powerful voting bloc who are hell-bent on keeping house prices high?

    Attempts to reduce the population (which in a democracy would obviously involve lowering birth/immigration rates, rather than actively killing people off) would reinforce this NIMBY tendency, by skewing the demographic profile even more strongly towards the elderly.

  • M Risbrook

    No, that isn’t a counterargument. I don’t want to see England covered in concrete and tarmac. Why can’t immigrants move to a country where there is more land?

  • George Carty

    Curbing mass immigration is one thing, but reducing Britain’s population by a third is quite another.

    Scratch a Malthusian and you’ll find a genocide advocate underneath…

  • M Risbrook

    I remember a time when the Green Party wanted to reduce Britain’s population to somewhere between 20 and 30 million. This was seen as a highly controversial move. Some Green Party members even proposed that certain sections of society should be reduced more than others. One such example was that a middle class couple in Surrey should have two children whilst a lower class couple in Sunderland should have none, rather than each couple having one child.

  • Thersites

    If even the most hopeful expectations about the effects of global warning are correct we will have mass immigration or mass extermination or both.

  • M Risbrook

    Man made global warming is a hoax.

  • Thersites

    There is a lot of evidence that the earth;’ atmosphere is getting hotter, whatever the cause.

  • M Risbrook

    And so are surface temperatures on the moons of gas giant planets…

    I don’t go in for all this man made global warming nonsense. There was a time when I believed it but, if one looks carefully, then real evidence is scant. It is highly likely that there is an upper limit to how much CO2 the atmosphere can contain. CO2 is soluble in water and it rains a lot on earth.

  • Thersites

    It is certain that there is no upper limit to how much CO2 the atmosphere can contain except the amount of carbon on earth. It is the effect on temperature of the earth that varying amounts of carbon dioxide have that is important. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to correlate very highly with atmospheric temperatures and is higher than it has been for a long time and is growing steadily higher. Equally, water can absorb a lot of CO2. It already does absorb increasing amounts and it is damaging some forms of life in the sea.

  • George Carty

    I think near-term catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax, certainly.

    If it wasn’t, why aren’t governments across the world rapidly building nuclear power stations to produce huge quantities of CO2-free energy (instead of playing about with wind turbines and other weather-dependent toys which can only ever be a supplement to fossil-fuel energy, not a replacement), and shooting dead any anti-nuclear protesters who try to stop them?

    (Unless governments and business are controlled by monsters who actually want a mass die-off to happen…)

  • Thersites

    “I think near-term catastrophic man-made global warming is a hoax, certainly.”

    Do you mean it is caused by many thousands of people with a malevolent sense of humour- which would make it a hoax- or do you mean that catastrophic global warming is taking place, but it isn’t man-made or that there is no global warming whatsoever? The last would not involve a hoax but a worldwide conspiracy or delusion on a grand scale.

    The reason why governments are not responding as you think they would is probably because even those politicians who are intellectually persuaded by the evidence, like nearly everyone else, cannot adjust their emotions and minds to recognise what is likely to happen in the very near future.