Q: Are Muslims taking over the world?

[^_^ 5,021]

Are Muslims taking over the world, or at a minimum, transforming Europe into Eurabia? Whatever your hopes or fears for the future of the world’s religions, a report published this week has plenty to stoke them. "The Future of the Global Muslim Population", produced by the Pew Research Centre, a non-profit outfit based in Washington, DC, reckons Muslim numbers will soar from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030. In other words, from 23.4% to 26.4% of the global total.

At the heart of its analysis is the ongoing effect of a “youth bulge” which peaked in 2000. In 1990 Islam’s share of the world’s youth was 20%; in 2010, 26%. In 2030 it will be 29% (of 15-to-29-year-olds). But the Muslim world is slowly heading towards paunchiness: the median age in Muslim-majority countries was 19 in 1990. It is 24 now, and will be 30 by 2030. (For French, Germans and Japanese the figure is 40 or over.) This suggests Muslim numbers will ultimately stop climbing, but later than the rest of the world population.

The authors call their calculations demographic, not political. Drawing on earlier Pew research, they say conversion is not a big factor in the global contest between Islam, Christianity and other faiths; the converts balance out. Nor do they assess piety; via the imperfect data of the United Nations, the European Union and national statistics, they aim simply to measure how many people call themselves Muslim, at least culturally, if asked.

New numbers, they say, will change the world map. As Indonesia prospers, its birth rate is falling; South Asia’s remains very high. By 2030, 80m extra mouths in Pakistan will boost its Muslim numbers to 256m, ousting Indonesia (with 239m) as the most populous Islamic land. India’s Muslim minority will be nearly as large at 236m—though growth is slowing there too. And in 2030 India’s Muslims will still constitute only a modest 15.9% of that country’s swelling total, against 14.6% now.

The report asserts no causal link between Islamic teaching and high fertility rates, although it notes that poverty and poor education are a problem in many Muslim lands. In Muslim countries such as Bangladesh and Turkey, it observes, the lay and religious authorities encourage birth control. Better medical care and lower mortality boost poor-country population numbers too.

Some bleak findings concern Nigeria, where Muslim numbers are seen rising to 117m in 2030 from 76m now, edging up from 47.9% to 51.5% of the population. Illiteracy among Nigerian women of child-bearing age is three times as high among Muslims (71.9%) as among others (23.9%). Two-thirds of Nigerian Muslim women lack any formal education; that goes for just over a tenth of their non-Muslim sisters. The fertility rate is between six and seven children per Muslim woman, versus five for non-Muslims. It is hard to prove that these factors are related, but they do seem to form a pattern.

The total Muslim share of Europe’s population is predicted to grow from 6% now to 8% in 2030: hardly the stuff of nightmares. But amid that are some sharp rises. The report assumes Britain has 2.9m Muslims now (far higher than the usual estimates, which suggest 2.4m at most), rising to 5.6m by 2030. As poor migrants start families in Spain and Italy, numbers there will rocket; in France and Germany, where some Muslims are middle-class, rises will be more modest—though from a higher base. Russia’s Muslims will increase to 14.4% or 18.6m, up from 11.7% now (partly because non-Muslims are declining). The report takes a cautious baseline of 2.6m American Muslims in 2010, but predicts the number will surge by 2030 to 6.2m, or 1.7% of the population—about the same size as Jews or Episcopalians. In Canada the Muslim share will surge from 2.8% to 6.6%.

How will liberal democracies accommodate such variety? The clarity of a written constitution may give America an advantage over many European countries, where unwritten custom has more sway. Jonathan Laurence, an Islam-watcher and professor at Boston College, thinks Europe could rise to the challenge, but failure is also easy to imagine. Europe’s Muslims should, by 2030, have become articulate and effective political bargainers. But with nativism on the march, it is also highly possible that Muslims will come to feel they have less in common with their fellow citizens than with their growing band of co-religionists elsewhere.

http://www.economist.com/node/18008022?story_id=18008022&fsrc=rss

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Maybe they will. If they ever get a foothold in South America, I would say that would be the inevitable result. Muslims have already transformed Asia and Africa. Europe is next.

[^_^ 5,021]

Maybe they will. If they ever get a foothold in South America, I would say that would be the inevitable result. Muslims have already transformed Asia and Africa. Europe is next.

At the heart of its analysis is the ongoing effect of a

“youth bulge” which peaked in 2000

. In 1990 Islam’s share of the world’s youth was 20%; in 2010, 26%. In 2030 it will be 29% (of 15-to-29-year-olds). But the Muslim world is slowly heading towards paunchiness: the median age in Muslim-majority countries was 19 in 1990. It is 24 now, and will be 30 by 2030. (For French, Germans and Japanese the figure is 40 or over.) This suggests

Muslim numbers will ultimately stop climbing, but later than the rest of the world population

.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110127/wl_mideast_afp/europerightsmideastreligionchristianity[/b]

Christianity 'could vanish from Middle East'

STRASBOURG (AFP) – Christian communities could disappear from the faith's birthplace in the Middle East because of persecution and low birth rates, the Council of Europe's parliament warned Thursday.

"The Assembly is convinced that the loss of Christian communities in the Middle East would also endanger Islam as it would signal the victory of fundamentalism," a resolution approved by the 318-member body said.

It condemned the October 2010 massacre of worshippers in the Syriac Catholic cathedral in Baghdad and the January 2011 suicide bombing in a Coptic church in Alexandria as two "particularly tragic" events in a growing number of attacks on Christian communities worldwide.

The representatives from the 47 member states said the co-existence of religious groups was a sign of pluralism and an environment favourable to the development of democracy and human rights.

Relations between Christian communities in the Middle East and the Muslim majorities have not always been easy, the assembly said, while public authorities in some Muslim countries have not always conveyed the right signals about other religious communities in these countries.

It called for a Council of Europe strategy to enforce freedom of religion -- including the freedom to change one?s religion -- as a human right.

Member states should also promote educational material which addressed anti-Christian stereotypes and bias as well as "Christianophobia" in general, the assembly said.

They should also insist on a "democracy clause" when making agreements with third countries, and take account of the situation of Christian and other religious communities in their political dialogue with these countries.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is amazing to me, is that the Muslim world has yet to really impose themselves as a world power, well since WWI. Perhaps they are waiting for a dominate leader to assert himself. Perhaps that is the real reason the US and the Brits decided to take out somebody like Saddam, or Bin Ladin, before they acquire that status. If you think about the abilities of some place like UAE to build anything, no matter the cost, the potential is there.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[웃 910]

Interesting chart. Isn't France the country that banned Burkas?

[The_Dude 1,142]

What is amazing to me, is that the Muslim world has yet to really impose themselves as a world power, well since WWI. Perhaps they are waiting for a dominate leader to assert himself. Perhaps that is the real reason the US and the Brits decided to take out somebody like Saddam, or Bin Ladin, before they acquire that status. If you think about the abilities of some place like UAE to build anything, no matter the cost, the potential is there.

Either way, we have manufactured a reason to stay in the area indefinitely with out military.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

What is amazing to me, is that the Muslim world has yet to really impose themselves as a world power, well since WWI. Perhaps they are waiting for a dominate leader to assert himself. Perhaps that is the real reason the US and the Brits decided to take out somebody like Saddam, or Bin Ladin, before they acquire that status. If you think about the abilities of some place like UAE to build anything, no matter the cost, the potential is there.

The US took out Saddam for oil. Saddam was secular and the Muslim nutters hated him for that fact.

[^_^ 5,021]

The US took out Saddam for oil.

Provide your evidence please.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Provide your evidence please.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/nabucco-pipeline-confirms-feeder-lines-iraq-georgia-news-497069 <--- Did you really think the US invaded Iraq to help spread democracy and world peace ?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Why_Me

[^_^ 5,021]

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/nabucco-pipeline-confirms-feeder-lines-iraq-georgia-news-497069 <--- Did you really think the US invaded Iraq to help spread democracy and world peace ?

euractive.com?

I get it. You're trolling.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

euractive.com?

I get it. You're trolling.

Before you accuse someone of trolling, you better have your facts straight, or better yet don't post and save it for some chump. Why do you think the US invaded Iraq ? Do you know anything of the Nubbucco line, or how Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gas ? You mean you don't have a clue as to why NATO joined the US in invading those two country's...? Are you for real

I served my country, and I am as American as the next guy. But what I am not is totally clueless on the fact our government would screw us in a heart beat if they thought it was for all the right reasons. Either your new to this country, or your very young...maybe both eh. Never ever stop questioning your government. It's what it's all about...the freedom and ability to think for ones self and not be a patriotic zombie like your showing yourself to be with your post.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Why_Me

[^_^ 5,021]

Before you accuse someone of trolling, you better have your facts straight, or better yet don't post and save it for some chump. Why do you think the US invaded Iraq ? Do you know anything of the Nubbucco line, or how Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gas ? You mean you don't have a clue as to why NATO joined the US in invading those two country's...? Are you for real

I served my country, and I am as American as the next guy. But what I am not is totally clueless on the fact our government would screw us in a heart beat if they thought it was for all the right reasons. Either your new to this country, or your very young...maybe both eh. Never ever stop questioning your government. It's what it's all about...the freedom and ability to think for ones self and not be a patriotic zombie like your showing yourself to be with your post.

I have no idea why we invaded Iraq. I'm reasonably certain that it had nothing to do with WMDs.

But you go one step further and claim it was about the oil. When asked to provide evidence for your claim, you point to some obscure website. Sorry, but that's a FAIL.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I have no idea why we invaded Iraq. I'm reasonably certain that it had nothing to do with WMDs.

But you go one step further and claim it was about the oil. When asked to provide evidence for your claim, you point to some obscure website. Sorry, but that's a FAIL.

No, a FAIL is when someone post on ####### they obviously don't have a bloody clue on. For people in the US...most of them don't have a clue on; Nabbuco line, South Stream line, and Nordstream line. Gas and oil is what makes the free world go..and not so free like China and Russia. If you think there's anything more important than energy, you better go back to school.

Chechnya, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanstan, Caspian Sea and Russia all play a big role in what's been happening in the past two+ decades. I'm not sure if you have heard of a place called "Europe" but it doesn't get it's energy off an apple tree. It gets most all of it from Russia. One totaltarion state controls the heart beat of Europe. Europe tried to get started years ago what is called the Nabucco line...it's a common name to Europeans, but to people like you...well ya, keep watching NFL and FOX news...don't forget about reality TV while your at it.

Northstream and Southstream lines/projects are Russian, Nabucco is European. The Orange Revolution in, the three invasions of Chechnya, invasion of Georgia...it's all about one thing...ENERGY. Read up on some of this stuff and then come back and post.

[^_^ 5,021]

No, a FAIL is when someone post on ####### they obviously don't have a bloody clue on. For people in the US...most of them don't have a clue on; Nabbuco line, South Stream line, and Nordstream line. Gas and oil is what makes the free world go..and not so free like China and Russia. If you think there's anything more important than energy, you better go back to school.

Chechnya, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanstan, Caspian Sea and Russia all play a big role in what's been happening in the past two+ decades. I'm not sure if you have heard of a place called "Europe" but it doesn't get it's energy off an apple tree. It gets most all of it from Russia. One totaltarion state controls the heart beat of Europe. Europe tried to get started years ago what is called the Nabucco line...it's a common name to Europeans, but to people like you...well ya, keep watching NFL and FOX news...don't forget about reality TV while your at it.

Northstream and Southstream lines/projects are Russian, Nabucco is European. The Orange Revolution in, the three invasions of Chechnya, invasion of Georgia...it's all about one thing...ENERGY. Read up on some of this stuff and then come back and post.

I suggest you go back to college and retake Argument 101. None of what you state is evidence that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. At best, it is background for an argument you have yet to make; at worst, it is diversionary and conspiratorial nonsense.