The Solid Surfer.com

Europe, Islam, and Demographics

Last week, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a dire-sounding piece in the Wall Street Journal expressing a fear that declining Western fertility, combined with rapid Muslim growth, will eventually lead to a radical Islamic takeover of the West (especially Europe) and the decline of our modern liberal society. Steyn backs his claims with numerous alarming statistics, such as Western fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman; Muslim rates far higher (over 6 children per woman) in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Niger; continued Muslim immigration into Western nations; and those Muslims' propensity towards extremism. Islamic dominance, according the piece, is practically inevitable; as Steyn writes, "It's the demography, stupid."

But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.

Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.

First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.

Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater rate: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.

You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.

Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.

Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.

But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.

Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.

Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.

Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.

Riots In France

I have predicted in the past that radical Islam will ultimately lose out due to a number of inherent contradictions in its makeup and philosophy. I have also theorized that this will probably take quite some time (unfortunately), a likely scenario being continued radicalism ultimately leading to civil war, at which point Western governments will finally get real about the threat and destroy it.

I never would have thought, however, that such civil wars would occur so soon. And make no mistake - France is fighting a civil war. Now the land of wine and cheese is learning the hard way that radical Muslims care only about their own interests (i.e spreading radical Islam), no matter their host country's multiculturalism, appeasement of dictators, and anti-American posturing.

Perhaps now, France will finally see the follies of its own decisions, and will move toward American and Israeli methods of fighting global jihad. The sooner this occurs, the better for France and the better for the world. The country that gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty needs to regain the ideals it once so valiantly cherished, and here's hoping that it will.

European Immigration Solutions

There is an interesting article in the New York Times today that discusses Europe's problems with immigration, multiculturalism, and Muslims who have failed to assimilate into mainstream society. The gist of the piece is that Europe (and by this they mean Western Europe) is in a seemingly unsolvable dilemma, because it needs immigrants more than ever due to declining natural population growth, and yet many immigrants have not and don't seem to be able to integrate into the rest of society, with disastrous results. The article offers no solutions and appears pessimistic that an answer will be found anytime soon.

Now I don't know why Europeans (and the piece's author) consider this to be an unsolvable problem, because there is indeed an easy solution: encourage immigration from countries other than the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of people from China, India, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America who would love to live in First World Europe, and who would very likely become hardworking, productive members of society. Sure, many of these countries are farther away than the Muslim world (except for Eastern Europe, which to be fair, does contribute a decent number of immigrants to the West), but that never stopped tens of millions of these people from immigrating to America, which is farther off still.

Europe's immigration problems do not stem from letting in too many immigrants; they stem from letting in too many radical Muslim immigrants. If the immigrants come from elsewhere, the problem is solved before it even begins.

Of course, this is not the only potential solution; immigration would not be needed at all if Europeans decided to have more babies and create more productive economies. But given the Continent's quasi-socialist welfare states that depress economic growth and make it expensive to raise kids, this scenario is unlikely to occur anytime soon. And as such, non-Muslim immigration appears to be the best answer.