The Solid Surfer.com

Western Writers and Muslim Demographics Part II

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I had planned to move beyond the topic of the previous post, but instead feel compelled to return to it by a new Mark Steyn doom-and-gloom piece.

In the latest of his Western demographic disaster articles, Steyn compares Palestinian and Episcopalian birthrates to once again advance his thesis of high-fertility Muslim immigrants taking over low-fertility Europe. Furthermore, he writes a rejoinder to a strong opposing piece by columnist Ralph Peters, who feels that Europe will soon awaken and expel the Muslims.

So who is correct? I'm still undecided on Peters (although I do have some thoughts in the comments section of a post on Israpundit covering the debate). But as usual, Steyn's demographic analyses are largely off the mark. Similar to with his previous Europe-is-a-goner conclusions (debunked here and here), he simply ignores significant factual data.

In his current article, Steyn is absolutely correct that Europe has low fertility. What he doesn't mention, though, is that most Muslims today also have low fertility, and the Muslims still at high rates are dropping rapidly. Steyn cites a Palestinian grandmother with nine children and 41 grandchildren as a high-birthrate Muslim example. But really, her fertility is irrelevant. You see, her childbirths already occurred in the past; the real number to be concerned with is not her fertility, but the fertility of those grandchildren who are *currently* of reproductive age. And on average, this generation is having not nine children, but only one or two each. This is right in line with European fertility levels, and does not at all lead to the type of demographic takeover that Steyn envisions.

Mark Steyn is a fine writer in many other regards, but his demographic projections simply don't gel with statistical reality. And given the disastrous policies that can proceed from faulty demographic knowledge (i.e. Ehud Olmert's continuous call for Israel to withdraw from settlements), I believe it is strongly necessary to correct such misunderstandings.

Western Writers and Muslim Demographic Exaggeration

Before reading this post:

If you haven't done so already, please visit the previous post to see how you can help save the life of Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who has been arrested for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam and supporting Israel, America, and other religious faiths. It's a real must, and takes only a moment.

And now, onto the main content:

In the recent past, many Muslim communities in non-Muslim countries have exaggerated their demographic numbers, often wildly, for political gain. Among other places, they have done so in America, in France, and in Israel. Certain Western writers, meanwhile, particularly Mark Steyn, have taken these numbers at face value, and have scared the daylights out of Westerners by projecting a population-based Islamic takeover of the world. In reality, however, statistics that Steyn excludes from his analysis largely debunk his thesis (as I have demonstrated here and here), and the Muslim threat to the West, while clearly real, is far from the certainty he claims.

Lest such journalistic predictions remain a Western phenomenon, however, a researcher in Estonia named Paul Goble now claims a similar situation for Russia. According to Goble, current Russian population trends indicate that by mid-century, over half of that country's citizenry will be Muslim. Worrisome? Of course. But true? Almost certainly not.

Goble bases his projection on three apparent indicators - low Russian fertility, high Muslim fertility, and Muslim immigration from other Soviet republics. Taken at face value, the combination of these indeed points to a Muslim population takeover.

Thing is, however, only one of these indicators is actually correct. Russians indeed have few children (about 1.3 per woman), but the Muslim numbers are enormously exaggerated.

Goble claims that the primary Muslim groups in Russia, the Chechens and Ingush, average ten children per woman, while the Tatars (at least those living in Moscow) average six. He also states, meanwhile, that several hundred thousand Muslim immigrants arrive each year from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.

Now I don't know where Goble found this ten-children number, but rest assured, it is most certainly false. It is difficult to find exact fertility numbers for ethnic/religious populations within Russia, but the state of Chechnya itself claims a crude birthrate of 24.9 per 1000 women, which translates to a fertility rate of about three children per woman. This number may or may not be accurate for all Muslims in Russia, but for comparison, we must note that not a single nation on Earth averages close to the ten-children mark. (The highest-fertility groups worldwide -- certain African tribes, desert Bedouins, and Hasidic Jews -- max out at about seven.) The world fertility average is 2.5, and the Muslim nations bordering the parts of Russia where the Chechens, Ingush, and Tatars reside range from 1.8 (Iran) to 1.92 (Turkey) to 2.46 (Azerbaijan). Most likely, the overall Russian Muslim rate lies somewhere within this span, and whatever it is, it's not remotely close to ten (or even six).

Of course, a fertility rate between 2 and 3 is much higher than the ethnic Russians' 1.3, but there are also about 130 million ethnic Russians and perhaps only 15 million ethnic Muslims. At current rates, it will take Muslims almost two centuries to catch up. Furthermore, if rates (and/or the political situation) change, something that's virtually guaranteed to occur to some degree, they will likely favor the Russians, as their birthrates probably can't sink much lower and have actually slightly risen over the past few years.

At the same time, meanwhile, Goble's other Muslim source, immigration numbers, is also likely misrepresented. Many migrants have indeed moved to Russia from surrounding nations, but their religion has not formally been tracked, and chances are, a large portion are actually returning ethnic Russians.

For all his assumptions, Goble does attempt to support his claim with some genuine hard evidence, such as increased mosque construction and Islamic religious practice over the last twenty years. But these too can be explained. In Soviet times (i.e. before 1989), religion was almost entirely suppressed. Today it is not. The mosque construction and religious practice, hence, reflects not necessarily an absolute population rise, but a return to observance by a portion of the already existing population. Very similarly, many more churches and Christian worshippers (and synagogues and Jewish worshippers) exist compared to 1989, even though the absolute numbers of ethnic Russian Christians and Jews have not increased.

Whatever his motivations, Paul Goble follows Mark Steyn in using exaggerated Muslim numbers to predict the downfall of other nations. This threat, however, does not stand to genuine statistical scrutiny. The fundamentalist Muslim threat to the free world, once again, is very real. But non-Muslim nations should be much more optimistic about their relative demographic situations than much of the media has led us to believe.

Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Israel's Demographic Non-Crisis

With all the recent hoopla over Muslim vs. Western demographics in Europe, public discussion of a similar situation in Israel has been pushed slightly to the backburner. But within Israel itself, this issue has continued to dominate the political landscape, as successive leaders from Barak to Sharon and now Olmert have based key foreign policy decisions on the premise that Palestinian population growth rates far outstrip Jewish increases.

According to Palestinian Authority-provided statistics, 3.8 million Arabs live in the West Bank and Gaza. Add in Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens, and it appears that 5.2 million Arabs live west of the Jordan River, as compared with only 5.3 million Jews. Factoring in the Arabs' higher natural growth rates, an Arab majority in the region would seem almost certain to occur within a few years.

Believing these numbers, Israel's government has postulated that a long-term Jewish majority can be achieved only by ceding Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. And thus Sharon withdrew from Gaza, and now Olmert intends to destroy Jewish settlements throughout Judea and Samaria.

But what if the numbers are actually wrong? In early 2005, an Israeli demographic study found that the Palestinians had far inflated their population count and growth rates, and that the actual number of Arabs in the disputed territories is only 2.4 million. Furthermore, so many Palestinians are emigrating from the territories in the wake of the intifada that Israel's share of the overall population may even increase. Going by this study, Israel has no demographic problem at all.

Both sides claim to be right; Israel stands by its numbers while the Palestinians stand by theirs. So who is telling the truth?

Until recently, it may have been difficult for an outside observer to know. But now that Palestinian election returns have come in, we have a definitive answer: Israel.

According to official polling station counts, there were 1.3 million eligible Palestinian voters, a number that corresponds only with Israel's findings of 2.4 million Palestinians. (Here is a thorough analysis of why.)

Just as the Palestinian leadership has always lied about its intentions and its true goal of destroying Israel, we see once again that they have spread deliberate falsehoods in order to advance their political cause. By emphasizing a phony demographic threat, they conned Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and threaten to do the same for most of the West Bank.

We must spread the truth before it is too late. Ceding land to terrorists is a terrible idea, and Israel must not fall into such a trap again.

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.