I swear! The Reality of Islamization of Europe is unreal!

The mythical European Umma
Given that only about 4% of the EU's population is Muslim, why is the fear of a coming Eurabia so strong in certain quarters?
Khaled Diab - guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 August 2009

Muslims in Europe are secretly amassing an arsenal of the deadliest in biological weaponry: the demographic time bomb. The first phase of the Muslim invasion – or should I say reinvasion – of Europe has already begun with the deployment of an expeditionary force of womb-men: a fearsome army of mutant ninja warriors whose function is to go forth and multiply. Their turbo-charged and perhaps even genetically modified uteruses mass produce the deadly biological agent which is currently being stockpiled in Muslim homes across the continent.

And their mission: to create Eurabia – or, better said, since many European Muslims are not Arabs, to turn the EU into the European Umma. Having been driven out of Europe once and unable to reconquer it through force of arms, those crafty and cunning Muslims are back to do it through the Trojan horse of immigration and reproduction.

Some dismiss this demographic time bomb as being far-fetched and as fantastical as Saddam Hussein's non-existent arsenal of WMD, but yet another smoking gun has been found in the Netherlands. Troubling evidence has emerged that Muhammad has become the most popular boy's name in the country's four biggest cities. And a similar situation is emerging in other European urban centres.

In fact, five centuries after the reconquest of Granada, that last Muslim stronghold, Eurabia has established its first de facto capital in Rotterdam.

And when the number of Muhammads and other assorted Mohammedans become a majority over the coming century – as the great Bernard Lewis warned – they will form an army of mujahideen of Talibanesque horror which will subjugate the natives and make them live as second-class dhimmis under sharia law.

As far-fetched conspiracy theories go, the Eurabia myth is one of the most persistent and dangerous of recent years – and the Daily Telegraph fanned the controversy this month with its claims that it had carried out an investigation which revealed that the EU's Muslim population would jump from the current 4-5% to an improbable 20% by 2050.

The six-paragraph article gives no indication of how the projections were arrived at, nor the assumptions upon which they were based. In fact, as the BBC pointed out in a piece debunking a popular YouTube hit on "Muslim Demographics", population projection is an inexact science. It cites, as an example, the projections made in the 1930s that the UK's population would fall to 20 million by the end of the 20th century.

Most projections that foresee a massive increase in Europe's Muslim population are based on certain assumptions which are hard to justify. They assume that recent immigration trends will continue indefinitely for decades to come, but this is unlikely as Europe continuously raises the immigration bar for non-EU citizens, and it is not far-fetched to expect that many European countries may call a halt to immigration or draw their future immigrants from certain more "desirable" countries.

The projections also assume that European Muslims will continue to have a significantly higher fertility rate than the population at large. But evidence suggests that the fertility rates of Muslim women are gradually converging with those of the wider population. And there are signs that the fertility rate among the white population of some European countries, such as France, is recovering.

So, given that the only hard facts we can be sure of is that a small minority of about 4% of the EU's population is Muslim, why is this fear of a coming Eurabia so strong in certain quarters? Many of the biggest proponents of the Muslim demographic time bomb myth are cheerleaders of and apologists for US imperialism in the Middle East, such as Bat Y'eor and Bernard Lewis.
Some Europeans, particularly from conservative and Christian circles and the intolerant wing of liberalism, have fallen for the myth for a variety of reasons. One is the relatively rapid shift in western Europe towards multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies in recent decades, which has caused a certain sense of alienation and insecurity, especially for those whose economic security has been undermined by neo-liberal economics and globalisation.

Other reasons are the massive lifestyle and social changes. These have caused distress for traditionalists and people who still identify themselves as Christian: they have seen their religion die a slow death, while Islam seems to go from strength to strength.

Then, there is the plain old fear stoked by the overexposure given to the most intolerant Islamic fringe groups and individuals. Certainly, there are some European Muslims who want to live according to sharia and there is even a lunatic fringe who would like to see Europe incorporated into some fantastical global caliphate.

But Muslims in Europe are not some unified, monolithic force. Not only are they ethnically diverse and from communities that are not the greatest fans of each other – consider the animosity between Moroccans and Algerians, for example – they are also as varied ideologically as the rest of the population.

Although Muslims tend to be more religious and conservative than the rest of society, there are also plenty of secular, non-practising, cultural and even non-believing Muslims. In addition, it is impossible to tell what kind of identities future European Muslims will have, but I suspect that the future cultural fault lines in Europe will not run along traditional religious lines, but will pit believers against non-believers, creating a kind unity of purpose between conservative Muslims and Christians intent on preserving faith in a "Godless Europe".

While Eurabia is a fantasy, Europe is almost certainly going to become more diverse in the future, and so a debate is worth having about how to adapt to this reality and what constitutes citizenship in an increasingly mobile world.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/21/muslims-eurabia-europe

What Will a Muslim Europe Look Like?

By Daniel Greenfield

The Telegraph recently made headlines with a survey that suggested that a fifth of the European Union will be Muslim by 2050. This is if anything an understatement of the situation, since once you subtract Eastern European states and focus in on Western European countries such as England, France and Italy... or Sweden, Islam will comprise a sizable enough minority to be considered a state within a state. And even the most pessimistic statistics will grow gloomier if 75 million Turks inside the presently Islamist Turkey will become part of the European Union.

Meanwhile always eager to get ahead, Russia estimates that Islam will become its predominant religion by 2050.

The Russians, both under the USSR and in the Putin era, have done everything they can to try and raise the birth rate, but remains at half that of Uzbekistan, or even war torn Chechnya.

With the Russian population set to fall by almost 50 million, to 100 million in 2050, the Muslim birth rate will have made up the surplus.

Having tried all the usual financial family incentives and even made an effort at luring back its former Jewish emigrants, Russia is now counting on its state run network of mosques, which can only preach Jihad at America, England and any non-Russian infidels, to maintain control. It is an absurd strategy, but no more so than Europe's own.

While Europe may not boast a population that is by turns dying of alcohol poisoning or trying to escape abroad-- Europe is dying the slow death of socialism instead.

High taxes, late marriages and the accompanying low birth rates have hit Europe hard. And attempts to compensate for gaps in the workforce during economic upswings with immigration, has imported the barbarians through the gate, past customs and into every major European city.

The old European is likely to live comfortably, to go abroad on vacations and have plenty of time for hobbies and entertainments. And to be child free, or perhaps one or two indifferently pampered children, if they can find the time.

The new European is likely to be named Mohammed, to have twice as many children, if not twice as many wives, and to spend less time entertaining himself at operas and on vacations, and more time building a future for his family.

The old European is likely to have a limited interest in church or synagogue. His children may even hold an open hostility toward organized religion. The churches and synagogues will pursue his grandchildren with all sorts of gimmicks in the hopes of getting them to show up, but even if they do, there will be very little there to hold them.

The new European will have a steady mosque. Outside the mosque he will listen to Islamic lectures on his media player or cell phone. Family ties will create strong religious bonds through the next generation, and there will always be a brother with a shiny knife for any daughter who stays off the path.

The end result is not very hard to project at all. Europe's left of center parties have embraced Muslims as a voting public, speeding their legalization, and what can only be euphemistically described as integration. But it is not so much Muslims being integrated into Europe, as Europe becoming integrated into the Islamic Ummah.

Read more here,,,,

Source: CFP

Words Matter in the War on Terror: If we refuse to call terrorists by their proper name - "jihadists" - we will never defeat them.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The less accurate words are, the less accurate the knowledge they impart; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the war on terror, to acquire accurate knowledge — which is pivotal to victory — we need to begin with accurate language.

Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of calling them what they called themselves, “Nazis,” it had opted to simply call them “extremists” — a word wholly overlooking the racist, expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the word “Nazi”?

Unfortunately, the U.S. government, apparently oblivious to this interconnection between language and knowledge, appears to be doing just that. Even President Obama alluded to this soon after taking office when he said, “Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [war on terror] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds.”

According to an official memo, when talking about Islamists and their goals, analysts are to refrain from using Arabic words of Islamic significance (”mujahidin,” “salafi,” “ummah”); nor should they employ helpful English or anglicized words (”jihadi,” “Islamo-fascism,” “caliphate”). Instead, vague generics (”terrorists,” “extremists,” “totalitarians”) should suffice. Read more ...

Source: Pajamas Media

Islam's selective outrage

By Riazat Butt

Muslims cannot claim a monopoly on anger over the events in Gaza while ignoring the suffering of other Muslims and non-Muslims

Much has been been written about the Gaza conflict and several pieces concern the impact that events are having on British Muslims – whether it's alienating them from the political process or driving them to radicalisation.

More than a few commenters, such as Johnton, have claimed that the UK's Muslim communities have largely remained silent on the other catastrophes and atrocities to have affected their brethren in recent times.

Two years ago, at a press conference, I asked Fareena Alam of the Muslim magazine Q News why Muslims were so quick to condemn western governments for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet appeared to show little heartbreak or anger over suffering in Darfur.

She replied that it was "shameful" the way British Muslims had responded to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan: "We can get hot and bothered about Iraq. There is a lot of information about Darfur. There is no doubt this is Muslim-on-Muslim violence. In this situation where are these values we talk about, that killing one life is about killing humanity? It is a huge embarrassment to us. We need to have a very big conversation about this."

It was a subject I explored in a podcast about attitudes towards the ummah, the global family all Muslims are supposed to belong to. In reality people only refer to it when it suits them. I remember talking to Iraqis in London who said they were criticised by fellow Muslims for having allowed western soldiers into their country. They also said they had little or no social contact with the more prosperous and established Muslim communities in the UK and that they were seen as outsiders. That they were Shia Muslims further increased their sense of isolation. So much for solidarity.

Another case of a pick-and-mix approach to the ummah involves members of the Afghan community in Birmingham. They didn't have access to local mosques or community centres where they could meet or pray. Birmingham has a larger-than-average Muslim population and you would have thought someone could give them room hire at a reduced rate.

I appreciate that conflict in the Middle East has long been a lightning-rod issue for Muslims, but Muslims don't have a monopoly on this outrage. Besides, if you believe in the ummah then be consistent – not just when you believe there to be a western enemy.

Here's another thought, instead of crying foul when it's just Muslims who are suffering, why not react this way when anyone is affected, regardless of what they believe? When there's a hurricane, a cyclone or civil unrest that leaves people dead, homeless or in the grip of oppression? It is your duty to protest and react, not because you're Muslim, but because you're human. Looking after your own – and only your own – gives the lie to the idea that Islam is a religion of compassion. In fact, it says Islam is a religion of self-interest.

Source: The Guardian

Would a Jihadi by Any Other Name Smell as Foul?

The terminology we use to describe our enemy in the war on terror matters a lot. A spirited debate is underway among specialists and in the press.

An op-ed published Monday in the New York Times entitled "What do you call a Terror(Jihad)ist?", by P.W. Singer and Elina Noor, attempts to defend the recent State Department memo advising government personal to refrain from using theologically-laden terms-"jihadi," "mujahidin," "caliphate," "Islamo-fascism," "salafi," "wahhabi," "ummah"-when describing Islamic radicals and their motives. Instead, generics-"terrorists," "extremists"-should suffice. Read more ...

Source: American Thinker