Islam could become Europe’s dominant religion

Greetings,

First of all: Osman - long time no speak! Good to see you around.

Second: I think the article could well be true, given the current decline of Church attendance. Having said that, I think both Muslims and Christians will eventually be outnumbered by those with no religion. Most of the people I know aren't practising adherents of any faith.

Peace

Salaam,

It is not just Church attendance but the birthrate of the west as compared to the muslim world..

format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim

Salaam,

It is not just Church attendance but the birthrate of the west as compared to the muslim world..

Birthrates among Muslim immigrants children are quickly dropping in Europe though, they are already close to the average. This is logical of course, since they live in the same society as the rest of the Europeans.

Secularism is not a religion. But it is growing faster than Islam.

If Islam is the fastest growing religion that doesn't mean it is the fastest growing belief.

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

Thus, the Islam that may have emerged after a few generations may not be what I call 'true Islam', but Islam that has been modified by the influence of western culture.

I think you can bank on this. The same secularization that happened to Christianity will happen to Islam if it is submerged in western culture. I see this as a good thing, but I'm sure many muslims would see it as something to avoid.

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

Greetings Mr Gibson,



And you. Perhaps I might post a bit more frequently now, although my exams are looming. Getting close and closer. *Tries to think of a simile*

As close as the breath of your opponent as you weigh-in for a boxing match.

Sorry - been a long day. I always look on exams as being like fights, though - you vs. the examiner. You learn your stuff until you could burst with it, then walk into the exam room thinking 'do your worst'. Getting aggressive about it can help with writing, especially persuasive essays!

Seriously: I'm sure you'll make the best use of the holidays. Get the exams out of the way, then spend time on the forum. Trust me, the relaxation after the exams will be worth it.

Yes, but I am now beginning to wonder whether this would have any effect statistically, as people can may still stay Christian by name, but not in practice.

Absolutely true. A lot of people listed as 'C of E' never go to church.

Yes, but is 'most of the people I know' enough to validate your opinion? But then, in your profession I suppose you do come across a lot of people, eh?

It's probably not, no. Fair point.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

Birthrates among Muslim immigrants children are quickly dropping in Europe though, they are already close to the average. This is logical of course, since they live in the same society as the rest of the Europeans.

Heya

can you provide the statistics for the muslim immigrant birthrate?
Never came across statistic that breakdown by immigration generation..

thanks..

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...ar20030301.htm

More are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.ph...ticle_ID=13882

Russia's Muslim community is extremely diverse, including Volga Tatars, the myriad ethnicities of the North Caucasus and newly arrived immigrants from Central Asia. But they all share birthrates that are far higher than Russia's ethnic Slavs, most of whom are Orthodox Christians:
Russia's overall population is dropping at a rate of 700,000 people a year, largely because of the short life spans and low birthrates of ethnic Russians.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the national fertility rate is 1.28 children per woman, far below what is needed to maintain the country's population of nearly 143 million.
The fertility rate in Moscow is even lower, at 1.1 children per woman.

Russia's Muslims, however, are bucking that trend, says Paul Goble, a specialist on Islam in Russia and research associate at the University of Tartu in Estonia:
The fertility rate for Tatars living in Moscow is six children per woman, while the Chechen and Ingush communities are averaging 10 children per woman.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been flocking to Russia in search of work.
Russia's Muslim population has increased by 40 percent since 1989, to about 25 million.
By 2015, Muslims will make up a majority of Russia's conscript army and by 2020 one-fifth of the population.

http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html

Some authorities think Muslims have a higher birthrate simply because they life in poorer nations, but even when Muslims live in the same nations as other groups their birth rates have been higher

Because Muslims are not as promiscuous as the rest of the human race they have largely avoided AIDS. ............. the rate of infection in Muslim countries is typically less than one in a thousand adults

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1796

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98

Secularism is not a religion. But it is growing faster than Islam.

If Islam is the fastest growing religion that doesn't mean it is the fastest growing belief.

Cna you pls define secularism...LOL..

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

I have my suspicions, but why is it exactly that you see it as a good thing?

Your suspicions are likely correct. We view Islam from opposite points. You see it as the perfect way to live your life. I see it as dangerous supersticion that some will use to lead and abuse others. A system of beliefs and dogmas to stand in the way of secular society and progress.

I'm not sure if we can both agree that the secularization of Christianity was a good thing? A few hundred years ago Christians were burning witches, killing heretics, warring with anybody from a different worldview (including muslims). People would blindly follow whatever church leaders told them. Times have chnaged and though other notions are abused (such as patriotism in the US) religion is no longer abused as bad as it once was.

I can';t remember where I read , but one of the professors from Princeton University (a non-muslim) said that by the end of this century Europe will be an Islamic continent. I'll try to find where I read it. InshaAllah

Islamic Europe?
From the October 4, 2004 issue: When Bernard Lewis speaks . . .
by Christopher Caldwell
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

SELDOM HAS THE COURSE of European history been changed by a non-politician's throwaway remark in a German-language newspaper on a Wednesday in the dead of the summer doldrums. But on July 28, Princeton historian Bernard Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest," and continental politics has not been the same since.

Days before the third anniversary of 9/11, Frits Bolkestein of the Netherlands, the outgoing European Union competition commissioner, caused an uproar when he mentioned Lewis's remark in the course of an address at the opening of courses at the University of Leiden. Bolkestein warned that the E.U. will "implode" if it expands too quickly. It was a timely topic.

A few days from now, the E.U. commissioner for expansion, Günter Verheugen of Germany, will issue a report on whether to open negotiations with Turkey on E.U. membership. It is expected to be positive. The full commission must vote on the report in December, after which a decade of talks is envisioned. But since the Verheugen report is likely to be positive, and since the commission is expected to rubber-stamp the report's recommendations, and since no candidate state that has begun E.U. accession negotiations has ever been rejected, the process has the look of a fait accompli. Thanks to . . . what? . . . Günter Verheugen's mood, the peoples of Europe are about to see their fate yoked irrevocably to that of the Islamic world.
Indeed, the need to forge a solemn bond with Islamic secularism of the sort that Turkey enjoyed after Kemal Atatürk came to power is the reason most often given for the indispensability of Turkish accession.

Bolkestein was thus addressing a continent-wide discomfiture. His speech was long. It was no rant. Alluding to the E.U.'s aspiration to become a multinational state, he drew listeners' attention to the fate of the most recent European power with that aspiration, the Austro-Hungarian empire just over a century ago. Austrians were culturally confident (Liszt, Richard Strauss, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner were working in Vienna). They were prosperous and proud. The problem was that there were only 8 million of them, and expanding their country's frontiers brought them face to face with an energetic pan-Slavic movement. Once the Empire absorbed 20 million Slavs, it faced difficult compromises between allowing the new subjects to rule themselves and preserving its own culture. Rather like the E.U., the Empire was past the point of no return before it realized it was going anywhere in particular.

Bolkestein asked what lessons Europeans ought to draw from this history, as they consider welcoming Turkey. He then addressed two specific problems. First, that there was no logical end in sight to European expansion--once the E.U. accepts Turkey, it will have no principled reason to reject the considerably more European countries of Ukraine and Belarus. Europe is thus adding instability that it has neither the financial means nor the cultural solidarity to master. The second problem, Bolkestein warned, is that immigration is turning the E.U. into "an Austro-Hungarian empire on a grand scale." He alluded to certain great cities that will soon be minority-European--two of the most important of which, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are in his own country--and warned that the (projected) addition of 83 million Muslim Turks would further the Islamization of Europe. It was this part of his speech--in which he referred to Lewis's projections--that made headlines around the world: "Current trends allow only one conclusion," Bolkestein said. "The USA will remain the only superpower. China is becoming an economic giant. Europe is being Islamicized."

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/685ozxcq.asp

format_quote Originally Posted by Zulkiflim

Heya
can you provide the statistics for the muslim immigrant birthrate?
Never came across statistic that breakdown by immigration generation..

thanks..

Well, I'm mostly basing myself on what I have read in Dutch statistical publications on the birthrate of Turkish and Morrocan and their children in the Netherlands. Unfortunately all these reports are in Dutch, but I'll translate the relevant bits.

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/CCD50...b15p096art.pdf

format_quote Originally Posted by Demographic Report

De vruchtbaarheid van jonge niet-westerse allochtonen van de tweede generatie is weliswaar hoger dan die van de autochtonen, maar aanzienlijk
lager dan die van de eerste generatie.

Dat de vruchtbaarheid van Marokkaanse vrouwen twee keer zo hoog is als die van autochtone vrouwen, is vooral toe te schrijven aan de eerste generatie.

Translated:
The fertility of non-Western immigrant children are still higher than those of 'native' Dutch, but considerably lower than the fertility of the first generation immigrants.

That the fertility of Moroccan women is twice as high as those of 'native' Dutch can mainly be attributed to the first generation of immigrants.

There are some graphs on page 106 of the report. There are other reports that say the same about the evolution of fertility in the Netherlands. I don't really see a reason why developments would be any else in most European countries.

And on Denmark

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/647
Europe's Muslim Population in Demographic Free-fall?

August 7, 2006

No, that's not a headline you expected to read, but it is suggested by a report from Denmark's Dream Institute indicating that Danish immigrant women in 1980 had on average 4 children but now have only 2.4 children. The study offers such reasons as the older age of women immigrating and fewer immigrants from poorer countries; but surely, being exposed to the hyper-modernity of Denmark must also play a role.

This drop in fertility has major implications for Denmark's ethnic composition. The last forecast, made in 2004, predicted immigrants and their descendants (from countries like Turkey, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq) would constitute 15.3 percent of the population in 2080 (presuming no more immigration, I infer). The 2006 forecast finds them making up just under 8 percent.

Comment: The study is limited to Denmark, which probably has more stringent immigration controls than any other country in the West. But the demographic trend first spotted here is likely recur elsewhere, dimming the chances for a Muslim demographic takeover. (August 7, 2006)

All these developments are completely logical. These immigrants come from developing countries, countries in where fertility rates are always high, regardless if they are Muslim or not. They are moving to a developed society in which birth rates (like in virtually all developed countries) is much lower. There are social and economic reasons for this drop in fertility. Why would Muslims be immune to it? Even if 'secularization' would partly explain the low birth rates, why would we assume Muslims are immune to it? Clearly, they are not, considering the high number of secularized and westernized Muslims you see everywhere.

None of your links seem to give an actual source for their claims. Besides, as far as I know there have been no European-wide studies on the fertility differences among first and second generation Muslims immigrants.Your first article is an op-ed article, which doesn't even claim that fertility is not dropping among immigrants. It is only claiming that fertility is still higher than among 'native' Europeans, which nobody is disputing.

The second article deals with Russia, which is really so much different from Western Europe. Firstly, there Muslims are indigenous and not immigrants and Russia is simply not very developed.

The third article, like the first, does not show any source and does not comment on fertility changes, but merely that they are higher currently. Which is indeed correct. Besides, these unsubstantiated claims don't seem to agree with a study like this one on West Africa.

http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...ournalCode=maq

Recent popular works have represented Muslim fertility as dangerously high, both a cause and consequence of religious fundamentalism. This article uses comparative, statistical methods to show that this representation is empirically wrong, at least in West Africa. Although religion strongly inflects reproductive practice, its effects are not constant across different communities. In West African countries with Muslim majorities, Muslim fertility is lower than that of their non-Muslim conationals; in countries where Muslims are in the minority, their apparently higher reproductive rates converge to those of the majority when levels of education and urban residence are taken into account.

I am not sure why the AIDS comment is in your post. How many people do you think are dying in Europe because of AIDS? :X In Holland about 100 people a year die because of AIDS. However you put it, that is simply not much at all out of a population of 16 million. AIDS is simply not a major killer in the West.

Your fourth link, the one pointing to an article from the notoriously 'Islamophobe' Daniel Pipes. These doom and gloom predictions of Muslim 'take-over' are generally based on several assumptions:
1. Muslims cannot modernize (and thus get less children or apostate)
2. Europe cannot restrict immigration

I think these assumptions are highly flawed. None of them have been substantiated by any kind of research.

Clearly Muslims can live modern life styles, they are not any different from other humans. There are generally only two groups who want to designate Muslims as 'special', Islamophobes and overly enthusiastic Muslims. Unsuprisingly, these are also the two groups that promote this idea that Islam will take over the world, the latter as a wet dream, the former to scaremonger people into action.

Clearly Europe can limit immigration if they want to, countries with strict immigration policies see huge drops after a while (look again at Denmark and Holland). Most immigration is because of import husbands/wives and family reunions. Limit that and your are halfway there.

But we are getting off-topic, we were just discussing birth rates, not immigration. This is just my opinion of course, your opinion may differ .

I happen to disagree.I don't think Islam will be practised at all in the next decade in this increasingly liberal world.read about Jews no longer carrying out their religious duties and have seen plenty of Muslims not practise their religion.Its liberalism ,not western culture.

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

Well, I'm mostly basing myself on what I have read in Dutch statistical publications on the birthrate of Turkish and Morrocan and their children in the Netherlands. Unfortunately all these reports are in Dutch, but I'll translate the relevant bits.

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/CCD50...b15p096art.pdf


There are some graphs on page 106 of the report. There are other reports that say the same about the evolution of fertility in the Netherlands. I don't really see a reason why developments would be any else in most European countries.

And on Denmark


All these developments are completely logical. These immigrants come from developing countries, countries in where fertility rates are always high, regardless if they are Muslim or not. They are moving to a developed society in which birth rates (like in virtually all developed countries) is much lower. There are social and economic reasons for this drop in fertility. Why would Muslims be immune to it? Even if 'secularization' would partly explain the low birth rates, why would we assume Muslims are immune to it? Clearly, they are not, considering the high number of secularized and westernized Muslims you see everywhere.

None of your links seem to give an actual source for their claims. Besides, as far as I know there have been no European-wide studies on the fertility differences among first and second generation Muslims immigrants.Your first article is an op-ed article, which doesn't even claim that fertility is not dropping among immigrants. It is only claiming that fertility is still higher than among 'native' Europeans, which nobody is disputing.

The second article deals with Russia, which is really so much different from Western Europe. Firstly, there Muslims are indigenous and not immigrants and Russia is simply not very developed.

The third article, like the first, does not show any source and does not comment on fertility changes, but merely that they are higher currently. Which is indeed correct. Besides, these unsubstantiated claims don't seem to agree with a study like this one on West Africa.

http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...ournalCode=maq


I am not sure why the AIDS comment is in your post. How many people do you think are dying in Europe because of AIDS? :X In Holland about 100 people a year die because of AIDS. However you put it, that is simply not much at all out of a population of 16 million. AIDS is simply not a major killer in the West.

Your fourth link, the one pointing to an article from the notoriously 'Islamophobe' Daniel Pipes. These doom and gloom predictions of Muslim 'take-over' are generally based on several assumptions:
1. Muslims cannot modernize (and thus get less children or apostate)
2. Europe cannot restrict immigration

I think these assumptions are highly flawed. None of them have been substantiated by any kind of research.

Clearly Muslims can live modern life styles, they are not any different from other humans. There are generally only two groups who want to designate Muslims as 'special', Islamophobes and overly enthusiastic Muslims. Unsuprisingly, these are also the two groups that promote this idea that Islam will take over the world, the latter as a wet dream, the former to scaremonger people into action.

Clearly Europe can limit immigration if they want to, countries with strict immigration policies see huge drops after a while (look again at Denmark and Holland). Most immigration is because of import husbands/wives and family reunions. Limit that and your are halfway there.

But we are getting off-topic, we were just discussing birth rates, not immigration. This is just my opinion of course, your opinion may differ .

Salaam,,

Dont speak,the Netherland language so will just have to take your word for it.

And as for Denmark,after SEP 11 and its tightening of Immgration rules and stopping its current immigrant from marrying outside of denmark of course has caused a huge drop in fetility rate.

But that again opens a nother rift,if the second generation immigrant are not able to amrry outside they will have to marry inside.
The demographics do not state how many Danish women marry immigrants and what is their fertility rate.
I suppose such should be taken into account.

And yes,i cannot find any european wide studies that break down fetility by generation.
nor do they have fertility demographics of those who married muslim immigrants.
i think they will soon...

But it is not denied EU that the birth rate of musloim,even in Netherlands is 2 to 3 times higher compared to the natives..

format_quote Originally Posted by Emir Aziz

I happen to disagree.I don't think Islam will be practised at all in the next decade in this increasingly liberal world.read about Jews no longer carrying out their religious duties and have seen plenty of Muslims not practise their religion.Its liberalism ,not western culture.

Salaam,

Yes that is in the Propehcies remember..

Build glorious and majestic Mosques but the heart will be empty..

These will be the losers.

So to those who wish Jannah,persevere and keep the covenant.
Inshallah...Jannah awaits.

But for those who seek this secular world,it is but a short period followed by eternal torment for those who forsake guidnace willingly..

Greetings and peace be with you brother Osman,

I’m with Mr Gibson, its good to see you back again, I have missed your wit, wisdom and the ability to find a smilie for all occasions.:blind:

I don’t think the problem is to worry about numbers and who is going to be the dominant force in Europe, numbers always seem to shift and change.

The greater challenge is how can we strive for a greater friendship with people who are different to us? How can we get on and still celebrate our differences?

In the spirit of praying for a greater secular and interfaith friendship

Eric