Muslim journalist: "The truth is, we do have a problem in our Muslim community"

Blaming the publisher for the Qur'an's hatred towards Jews? Oh lord. Not this "mistranslation" bulls**t again.

Nomani was unequivocal: You draw the line, then make it clear that the terrorists are on one side and everyone else on the other.
That's all well-and-good for starters, though I'm personally more concerned about the 'everyone else on the other'. Demographics + Koran-bashers = exponential probs.

"Why isn't Asra Nomani the "most popular at the local mosque"? Aren't those who support jihad terror and Islamic supremacism only a Tiny Minority of Extremists?"

Brilliant. The 64,000 dollar question!

Spencer writes:

Nomani is right about Kelly, but as for her statement "Let's be honest, there are people that do hate on Islam," come on: no one would care about, much less "hate on," Islam, were it not for jihad terror and Islamic supremacism...no one in America is spending any time "hating on" Hinduism or Buddhism -- a fact that gives the lie to the Islamic supremacist/Leftist claim that opposition to jihad is motivated by "racism" and "bigotry."

Bullseye. What a huge slander against honest critics is constantly being perpetrated by Islamic supremacists and their useful idiots.

In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection, Muhammad said,

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Various other canonical hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That's why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam.

I recently posted these links to news stories, and also these links to news stories about people being killed, injured, and physically threatened for daring to leave Islam. And many, many more such stories have been reported in the global media.

A December 2010 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found relatively widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for apostasy from Islam: in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30% in favor), Pakistan (76% favor) and Nigeria (51% in favor).

We can never allow "moderate" or any other kind of Muslims to get the upper hand in this country, that's for certain. When people like Nomani or Jasser are condemned by the majority of the Muslim community, while Islamic apologists make claims about how peaceful and lovely Muhammad really was, it's quite clear there's no point in giving in to their delusions.

This should be obvious even to the left of left liberals and the fact that it isn't should concern every one of us. What will it take to convince them otherwise?

Saudis Export Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish Textbooks that Continue to Fuel Intolerance and Violence Around the Globe: http://wp.me/p1qlPa-1Rn

From the article:

"Nomani showed Fox News a Koran from a mosque in West Virginia. She says the Koran’s Saudi publisher added negative language about Jews and Christians. This interpretation of Islam, Nomani says, is part of a larger problem."

That's the first big lie. The insinuation here is that this particular Koran or Koran version was adulterated with added vitriolic comments against Jews and Christians, as opposed to the reality that every Koran contains the very same.

Mainstream Islam and Islamic doctrine. THAT is the larger problem she should be referring to.

In speaking on Daniel Pearl the article goes on:

"Nomani worked with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and his throat slit by Islamic radicals in Pakistan in February 2002."

Being beheaded is now equivalent to having one's throat slit?

Nomani continued:

“They did their prayer on the blood-soaked floor of the room where he was murdered. And so, that was when I knew that we needed to challenge how it is that people of supposed faith use religion to sanction their violence," she said.

The second big lie;

Supposed faith? Who is Asra Nomani to judge any Muslim's faith? All these jihadists refer to Islamic doctrine as the impetus and mandate for their violent actions in their own words, but we are all to assume that all of them are feigning piety to Islam, because Nomani and her ilk say so?

Those two big lies operate hand-in-hand in this article. First, that there is a heretical, adulterated, vile version of Islam floating around that is somehow doctrinally different from mainstream Islam, and the second, that this version is practiced by people who deem themselves as Muslims, but really aren't.

Although some may hate islam, the issue is what islam teaches, and that is hate of all who do not follow the techings, such as in the qur'an.

To see islam as the enemy, of all humans, is not hate, it is reality. To clearly describe islam as the enemy, of all humans, is needed before progress can be made.

They that follow islam may do as they wish, and we must be willing to protect our way of life, and familys, people who we love and care about, with our lives as need be, to be willing to go as far as required to do so.

That is not hate, it is responce to threat.

"“I’ve had death threats," she told Fox News."

Well you certainly won't get offers of peace and co-operation from the pious followers of Islam.

I agree with LemonLime. She is a snake who is playing tricks on people's minds.
It is easy to be fooled. I am smarting after finding out that a Muslim I have known for years has been concealing vicious thoughts from me. Until the other day when we had an argument and it all came pouring out, with even an evil laugh which came with his proclamation about the coming destruction of America and the jizya to come for Allah.
To experience this first-hand is truly shocking.

LemonLime, you might be right, but I suspect she's deceiving herself as much as she is others.

Self-deception is not always completely distinct from intentional lying to others, of course. But it is distinct.

A lot of Western or Westernized Muslims are like Westernized communists -- they deceive themselves about the nature of their source ideology. Until very late in his life, my grandfather, for example, was a Western supporter of communism and believed that Stalin was not really the murderer of millions. But then late in life my grandfather realized with some surprise that the accusations against Stalin had not just been propaganda.

The capacity of people to deceive themselves is truly enormous.

And self-deception is a very strange and paradoxical sort of phenomenon involving the splitting of the self through a self-rigidification, or fragmentation. The self thus destroys to some extent its own integrity, its own fabric, and at the same time is a victim of those same self-destructive processes, which blind a person to some extent to the real character of those processes.

Merleau-Ponty, for example, reported psychological experiments with certain patients who, due to some sort of trauma associated with an object, genuinely could not perceive that object though it was easily accessible to perception. The failure to perceive could be determined to be genuine because the experimenters could carefully observe physical responses, or the lack of them, to the object. Yet at the same time, the subject, in the very moment of being directed to search for the object, and where to search for the object, systematically would avoid the spot where the object was, thus showing that the subject on some level knew where it was. Yet he could not perceive it.

Self-deception is a very strange mix of blindness and knowing. It may be the fundamental sickness of the mind, or at any rate, one of the fundamental sicknesses, and taken far enough, its complications perhaps lead to many of the various special forms of mental illness.

But self-deception is not just a sickness, which one cannot help. It is at the same time paradoxically a moral injury or collapse, that one to some partial extent chooses. That is the double-nature of self-deception. One is paradoxically both victim of it, and perpetrator, and not quite either. Or so it seems to me...

As long as Asra Nomani is opposed to sharia and jihad (i.e., jihad to impose sharia), and as long as she supports equality of all people, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and so on--as she appears to--then I have no significant problem with her from the standpoint of the aims of this website.

correction-- "subjugation"..yeah dat's da ticket..

It's odd the way she singled out Daniel Pearl's killing as something which made her think. Didn't she notice 9/11?

Another speaker of truth who now needs a squad of bodyguards. I suppose she sort of liked Danny Pearl but didn't know any of the 3000 9/11 victims...I guess you had to be there.

Exhibit A of Asra Nomani's schizophrenia (at best) or duplicity (at Islamically baseline worst) -- published at the New York Times in 2004 (when surely they were okay, since that was so many years ago, right?). "All the news that's shit to print" or something like that.

Schizoprenics or lying snakes. Wow, what a choice we have to save Muslims and the world from Islam -- since, apparently, we the West aren't doing much of anything in that department.

Anywho:

New York Times: Hate at the Local Mosque

New York Times, Op/Ed
Hate at the Local Mosque
By ASRA Q. NOMANI

May 6, 2004

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. - Not long ago in my little mosque around the corner from a McDonald's, a student from the university here delivered a sermon. To love the Prophet Muhammad, he said, "is to hate those who hate him." He railed against man-made doctrines that replace Islamic law, and excoriated the "enemies of Islam" who deny strict adherence to Sunnah, or the ways of Muhammad. While he wasn't espousing violence, his words echoed the extremist vocabulary of Wahhabism, used by some followers to breed militant attitudes.

Like others who listened that day, I was stung by the sermon. It stands in chilling contrast to reforms taking place within Muslim communities nationwide. In fact, only months earlier at my mosque, my mother, sister-in-law, niece and I prayed in the main hall, an act of defiance that led to a reversal of the policy that women had to pray in a secluded balcony. Sadly, I have learned that the realization of an inclusive Islam is a fragile thing, even in this country. Americans need not look elsewhere to hear hate-filled rhetoric preached by fundamentalists. It resounds in our own back yards.

Like many small mosques, mine does not have an imam. Instead, a governing board — which appoints its own members — sets policy. An elected executive committee is supposed to decide who will lead prayers and deliver sermons. With infighting, that committee disintegrated over the last year, and went vacant after the board failed to hold elections in November. The board took over managing the mosque. A month before the student's speech, he and about 10 other men staged the equivalent of a coup. They appointed five in their ranks as the "temporary executive committee" and usurped the board's power to choose who will lead prayers, preach and make management decisions.

These men rally around strict interpretation of the Koran and Sunnah, which last week entailed a sermon that criticized women working outside the home and called women who have lost their chastity worthless. The group has packed the mosque's bookcases with fundamentalist publications.

Even though a majority of the mosque's membership, which is largely made up of West Virginia University students and staff members, is moderate, passivity by it and the board has allowed extremism to take hold. One board leader told me that the board doesn't want to "get aggressive." Tired of such complicity, my father — who helped start the mosque, Morgantown's first, 23 years ago — just resigned from the board. But this is not a story about family wounds. If it were, I would leave and worship elsewhere.

I have chosen to stay. After first dismissing my concerns, the leader of the takeover group released a written response to my complaints that said, "We strongly disavow acts of hate and speech directed at inciting or invoking hate toward any group or individual."

The board is finally holding an election at the mosque on Friday to officially choose a nine-member executive committee. But I have little hope for real change. Nine of 13 nominees are supported by the takeover group.

Christian and Jewish leaders offered to meet with the takeover leaders to discuss promoting tolerance in Morgantown , a city where people from more than 100 countries coexist peacefully. Their offer stands in contrast to the reactions by the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations to complaints I filed. The society said it was available to mediate but would prefer disputes like this be resolved locally. The council, which recently started a "Hate Hurts America" campaign to counter anti-Muslim rhetoric, initially said it did not want to get involved in an "inter-community" issue, but now says it will investigate.

It saddens me that these Muslim organizations and my mosque leadership are reluctant to take a strong stand, because ending hate begins at home. If Muslims in America and elsewhere expect religious tolerance, we must ourselves enforce a zero-tolerance policy against preaching hatred and bigotry.

At the very least, American Muslims need to follow the lead of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, which sent a letter to 1,000 British mosques urging members to oppose extremism and provide "Islamic guidance" to help "maintain the peace and security of our country."

The goings-on in my small mosque may seem inconsequential, but we are a microcosm of the challenges moderate Islam faces throughout the world. If tolerant and inclusive Islam can't express itself in small corners like Morgantown , where on this earth can the real beauty of Islam flourish?

(Exhibits B-Z also available at that site, Ms. Nomani's blog-- http://www.asranomani.com/Writings.aspx)

gravenimage, traeh, Kinana, et al.:

Why are you being so generous to Nomani, by trying to find a way to exculpate her? Why take any Muslim's words at face value -- particularly when numerous aspects of their words don't jive? She cannot be assumed to be ignorant of Islam to the degree that would exculpate her. She has spent years thinking about Islam, traveling, talking with Muslims, getting involved as an observer and reporter in Islamic issues, analyzing the issue, worshipping as a Muslim, etc. How could she possibly be ignorant of the giant elephant, the mountain of evidence?

One possible answer to my questions is that you need Muslims like her -- that is, like what she purports to be -- to a great extent because you semi-consciously recoil from the logically horrible consequences of giving up hope of Muslim reform; a prospect that is dismayingly staggering to anyone who thinks it through. And if what she purports to be doesn't smell right and doesn't fit right, you and traeh and Kinana and others of similar mindset will make up theories without a shred of evidence to make her fit: because after all, she can't be as bad as her Islam would necessarily dictate. It's basically just the same old Tiny Minority of Extremists paradigm re-calibrated: "Okay, let's say there are more, a whole lot more, extremists, let's give lip service to our disdain for the term "moderate", and let's really really really talk tough about how bad Islam is, so you see we're not as stupid as all those liberals are" -- meanwhile Nomani, as can be plainly seen from the article of hers I reproduced above, believes in the viability of moderate Muslims among whose number she counts herself -- and would she earn your bonafides by emphasizing how "small" that number is and how difficult their plight and mission is among the "extremists" who are trying to make Islam bad? -- the same Islam she describes, at the end, as having "real beauty" which she hopes will "flourish"?

Then, to compute all this and make it fit, you all presume a hypothesis that she doesn't really know her own Islam! How about you try another hypothesis on for size. She knows what Islam is. We don't need her. After all, hasn't Spencer framed this whole issue of Nomani around the stance that we don't need her? So why are you all gymnastically contorting yourselves trying to make her not only okay, but actually good and useful?

In fact, Nomani is more dangerous precisely because she is effectively working to make Islam palatable and assimilable. It's a much cleverer tack to take to pretend to acknowledge deeper problems than the other "reformists" are willing to admit -- precisely because those problems are metastasizing and the Infidel is slowly wising up.

It's called damage control for Christ's sake.

And it's also called "Good Cop". The "Good Cop" only has a chance to be effective in his ploy, colluding with the "Bad Cop" from which he pretends to distance himself, to the extent that his dupe is guillible. It aggrieves to see how effective this tactic can be within the wire of the anti-Islam movement (such as it is, as Diana West once put it with wry parentheses -- a bitterly sarcastic aside epitomized searingly right here in this article and comments section).

"Nomani showed Fox News a Koran from a mosque in West Virginia. She says the Koran’s Saudi publisher added negative language about Jews and Christians. This interpretation of Islam, Nomani says, is part of a larger problem." --article.

I watched the video where Nomani shows the Fox journalist the Quran in question, and the passage in question where the translators added the "negative language" about the Jews and Christians. The Quran translation in question is the official Saudi approved one by Hilali and Khan. Nomani opened the book and showed to the camera a page in Sura 1, Al-Fatiha, particularly verse 7, which is wording of a prayer that Muslims recite to appeal to Allah to guide them on...

"...The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)."

The parenthetical insertions are those of Hilali and Khan; the Arabic in that particular verse says nothing directly or explicitly about Jews and Christians. Also visible in what Nomani showed were additional notes, commentary, and relevant hadiths added by the translators beneath the passage.

You can find an online version of this Hilali and Khan translation, the same book shown by Nomani, here (see the pdf, which takes a while to download):
http://www.archive.org/details/Dr.M.MuhasinKhanShaykhAl-hilaliTranslationOfTheQuran

One of the features of the Hilali and Khan (H&K) translation is the absurdly overbearing and obsessive tendency of the translators to add parenthetical insertions copiously throughout the text, making it practically unreadable in the normal smooth way one would ideally read through passages. It's as though they are not content to let readers take in the whole Quran and form their own impressions. Rather, they seem to want to manage the reader's interpretation through numerous passages, lest the reader go astray from the view of the translators or the patrons of the translators. There are indeed some cases where a translator might appropriately add such parenthetical insertions, but H&K have gone way overboard in this respect.

On the issue of bias, however, it cannot be claimed that the H&K insertions in Q 1:7 are unreasonable or baseless, since these particular explanatory insertions do make sense in light of (a) the rest of the Quran, (b) the hadiths that purport to address the meaning of this passage, and (c) mainstream respected commentaries (tafsirs).

The rest of the Quran makes it clear that doing or believing anything that opposes or deviates from Islam constitutes something that provokes Allah's anger or is deemed to be taking one astray from the true path. Christians and Jews, Sabaeans, polytheists, and other kinds of non-believers such as skeptical non-Muslims, Muslim hypocrites, and apostates of Islam, are all people who have, according to the Quran, deviated from or opposed Allah, thus earning his anger or disapproval. Verse 9:30 in particular excoriates the Jews and Christians for deviating from strict monotheism, saying that Allah himself will destroy them. Q 9:29 also orders Muslims to fight the People of the Book who do not follow Islam and its messenger, until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued. Moreover, a significant portion of the Medinan text is devoted to excoriating the Jews for their past, and current, transgressions, rebellion, and covenant-breaking. At numerous points in the Quran, Allah denounces the Christians for claiming that Jesus is the son of Allah. Thus, based on the Quran alone, since Jews and Christians, particularly those who do not convert to Islam after Muhammad has recited the revelations to them and invited them to Islam, are clearly among those who have earned Allah's anger and have gone astray, to the point that they are deemed to deserve brutal punishment in this world (Q 9:29) and in the hereafter (Q 9:30), the H&K insertions of "such as the Jews" and "such as the Christians" are appropriate.

Even if one assumes for argument's sake that the H&K insertions were not appropriate or justified in Q 1:7, one finds in the Quran overall that there are enough condemnations of Jews and Christians, and everybody else besides pious obedient Muslims, that Nomani's objection cannot be sustained through a full reading of the Quran--where "Allah" himself uses the words for Jews and Christians and others as people who have angered him and have deviated.

The hadith cited by H&K supporting their insertions in Q 1:7 was from Tirmidhi and Dawud.

Mainstream tafsirs, such as of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, and Ibn Abbas are in agreement that Q 1:7 refers to Jews and Christians as those who have earned Allah's anger or who are astray. From Ibn Kathir, citing hadiths:

"[...] (Those who have earned the anger are the Jews and those who are led astray are the Christians.)''
This Hadith was also collected by At-Tirmidhi who said that it is Hasan Gharib. [...]"
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=35

Robert has a good overview of this passage, particularly of Q 1:7, here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/blogging-the-quran-sura-1-the-opening.html

Some apologists have challenged the above interpretation of Q 1:7, claiming that Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism. They often cite verses 2:62 and 5:59, which are essentially the same:

2:62: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

An immediate problem for this is that the Quran also says that Islam is the only acceptable religion, and that accepting Muhammad is mandatory:

3:19 "Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."

3:85: "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."

48:13. "And so for him who believeth not in Allah and His messenger - Lo! We have prepared a flame for disbelievers."

7:158. "Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright."

Jews and Christians are in the Quran are called disbelievers (9:30-32, see 9:32, alkafiroona; 5:11-17 see 5:17 kafara; 5:72-73 kafara, kafaroo; 98:6 “kafaroo” the “worst of created beings”).

From the Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 438:
Narrated Anas: A young Jewish boy used to serve the Prophet and he became sick. So the Prophet went to visit him. He sat near his head and asked him to embrace Islam. The boy looked at his father, who was sitting there; the latter told him to obey Abu-l-Qasim and the boy embraced Islam. The Prophet came out saying: "Praises be to Allah Who saved the boy from the Hell-fire."

Also the Reliance of the Traveller cites a sahih hadith:
"The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell."" (RT, w4.3).

LemonLime, on another thread from about 5 days ago, you said,

If we can show that a sufficient mass of Muslims actually support a given pernicious Islamic idea, then we're getting the ball rolling.

Agreed.

My assumption is that "getting the ball rolling" requires assembling several pieces:

1. what the core texts are and what they say
2. how mainstream Islamic scholarship interprets those texts
3. what the Muslim masses believe, which has to some extent been determined by polling
4. the history of all those things, and how consistent it is.

Lemonlime,
There is some degree of uncertainty about any Muslim. Who will get sudden jihad syndrome? Who is secretly supportive of jihad and sharia, or will later become devout?

You find the odds that any given Muslim supports or will support jihad/sharia are sufficiently high to warrant treating all Muslims as liars, regardless of the fact that you are aware some are not. Every last purported Muslim "reformer" should in your view be treated as a liar. Part of your belief in that course is based on how huge and growing the Islamic religion is, and the spreading totalitarianism of it, including the growing intimidation of free speech about Islam even in the West. You are also, if I recall right, in support of removing Muslims, including Muslim citizens, from the population -- deporting them to Islamic nations.

As concerned as I am about the suppression/intimidation by Islam of free speech in the West, I'm also wary about depriving innocent citizens of their rights, and treating innocent people as liars, on the view that we don't know if they are or not, and on the view that those that are pose too great a risk for us to be able to afford to give the benefit of the doubt to those who might seem to be innocent. To you it is self-evident that things have come to such a drastic pass with regard to Muslims and the totalitarian agenda of Islam. Do you think that Spengler's (aka David P. Goldman's) argument about the rapid decline of the birthrates of Muslim populations is false? Because if he's right, the situation might not be so drastic as to require what you demand.

The action you propose is drastic. If the situation is not as drastic as you think, and if your judgment of the situation is thus wrong, then doing what you propose might be a grave crime. The extent of the gravity of the crime would depend on whether you should have known you were wrong. Before people will jump on the bandwagon you propose then, they will need to be sure that there is no other, less drastic way to deal with the problem. And to achieve such assurance is no easy thing. Perhaps you have achieved it too easily. Or perhaps you are relatively alone in recognizing with sufficient clarity the degree of the extremity of the situation. I know that I'm not satisfied with how the situation is unfolding. But I don't feel ready to call for the injury of innocent people (even though I have some uncertainty about which particular persons who seem to be innocent of totalitarian designs really are innocent and will remain innocent).

People do want to feel ethically good about themselves, sometimes even to the unethical point of shutting out reality and the lousy moral choices it often imposes. Clearly that dynamic is to some extent operative in relation to Islam. But there is a difference between 1) moral preening that, in the name of moral purity, immorally keeps one from forcibly stopping an aggressor, and 2) responsible moral hesitancy based on uncertainty about reality. To you it is as obvious as can be how dire the situation is, and how dire must be the response. Perhaps it should be obvious to the rest of us. But I don't have sufficient certainty about the right course of action, and therefore am very reluctant to deprive citizens of a presumption of innocence. Without more certainty than I currently possess that such a course of action is necessary, it would be morally irresponsible of me to support it. One should set a high bar for deprivations of basic human rights. Without a high bar, we lose what civilization we have, which is based on respect for human rights. That said, one can of course set too high a bar. Perhaps most of us are doing so.

But when I read again and again about public institutions and public figures, journalists, teachers, artists, etc., admitting to censoring themselves about Islam and saying they have been intimidated by death threats and so on, I sense a paralysis not only of speech, but of almost any development of organized resistance. The West so far seems almost a helpless victim of Islamization. And it's certainly not enough to educate, especially not in the anonymous way that most of us do. Action -- within the law -- needs to be taken, people need to publicly educate and organize. More people need to stop hiding, and too few are willing to do so.

Lemonlime,
There is some degree of uncertainty about any Muslim. Who will get sudden jihad syndrome? Who is secretly supportive of jihad and sharia, or will later become devout?

You find the odds that any given Muslim supports or will support jihad/sharia are sufficiently high to warrant treating all Muslims as liars, regardless of the fact that you are aware some are not. Every last purported Muslim "reformer" should in your view be treated as a liar. Part of your belief in that course is based on how huge and growing the Islamic religion is, and the spreading totalitarianism of it, including the growing intimidation of free speech about Islam even in the West. You are also, if I recall right, in support of removing Muslims, including Muslim citizens, from the population -- deporting them to Islamic nations.

As concerned as I am about the suppression/intimidation by Islam of free speech in the West, I'm also wary about depriving innocent citizens of their rights, and treating innocent people as liars, on the view that we don't know if they are or not, and on the view that those that are pose too great a risk for us to be able to afford to give the benefit of the doubt to those who might seem to be innocent. To you it is self-evident that things have come to such a drastic pass with regard to Muslims and the totalitarian agenda of Islam. Do you think that Spengler's (aka David P. Goldman's) argument about the rapid decline of the birthrates of Muslim populations is false? Because if he's right, the situation might not be so drastic as to require what you demand.

The action you propose is drastic. If the situation is not as drastic as you think, and if your judgment of the situation is thus wrong, then doing what you propose might be a grave crime. The extent of the gravity of the crime would depend on whether you should have known you were wrong. Before people will jump on the bandwagon you propose then, they will need to be sure that there is no other, less drastic way to deal with the problem. And to achieve such assurance is no easy thing. Perhaps you have achieved it too easily. Or perhaps you are relatively alone in recognizing with sufficient clarity the degree of the extremity of the situation. I know that I'm not satisfied with how the situation is unfolding. But I don't feel ready to call for the injury of innocent people (even though I have some uncertainty about which particular persons who seem to be innocent of totalitarian designs really are innocent and will remain innocent).

People do want to feel ethically good about themselves, sometimes even to the unethical point of shutting out reality and the lousy moral choices it often imposes. Clearly that dynamic is to some extent operative in relation to Islam. But there is a difference between 1) moral preening that, in the name of moral purity, immorally keeps one from forcibly stopping an aggressor, and 2) responsible moral hesitancy based on uncertainty about reality. To you it is as obvious as can be how dire the situation is, and how dire must be the response. Perhaps it should be obvious to the rest of us. But I don't have sufficient certainty about the right course of action, and therefore am very reluctant to deprive citizens of a presumption of innocence. Without more certainty than I currently possess that such a course of action is necessary, it would be morally irresponsible of me to support it. One should set a high bar for deprivations of basic human rights. Without a high bar, we lose what civilization we have, which is based on respect for human rights. That said, one can of course set too high a bar. Perhaps most of us are doing so.

But when I read again and again about public institutions and public figures, journalists, teachers, artists, etc., admitting to censoring themselves about Islam and saying they have been intimidated by death threats and so on, I sense a paralysis not only of speech, but of almost any development of organized resistance. The West so far seems almost a helpless victim of Islamization. And it's certainly not enough to educate, especially not in the anonymous way that most of us do. Action -- within the law -- needs to be taken, people need to publicly educate and organize. More people need to stop hiding, and too few are willing to do so.

Excuse the double post.

traeh,

"You find the odds that any given Muslim supports or will support jihad/sharia are sufficiently high to warrant treating all Muslims as liars, regardless of the fact that you are aware some are not. Every last purported Muslim "reformer" should in your view be treated as a liar. Part of your belief in that course is based on how huge and growing the Islamic religion is, and the spreading totalitarianism of it, including the growing intimidation of free speech about Islam even in the West."

You leave out a few other factors that are of critical importance with regard to treating Muslims with unique suspicion and prejudice -- the horrific consequences of the terrorism which the dangerous ones among them are assiduously intent upon wreaking, and networking internationally with an international cultural base to aid and abet them, as well as with access deep into the West unprecedented in all history. When spanning the 8th-16th centuries the Muslims were, for centuries, praying and planning (in the Muslim psychocultural fusion of mosque and state a distinction without much of a difference) -- and they were literally praying, in the context of mosque sermons -- to conquer Byzantium, the prize jewel of Islamic expansion as big in their mind as Europe would be -- they did not have the additional advantage of Byzantines having stupidly invited them inside by the millions.

Your summary of my position also glosses over the intractable problem of our inability to tell the difference between harmless and dangerous Muslims; you gloss over it to glide quickly to the ethical problems it poses. But if there's an impervious obstacle in the way, no amount of ethical qualms can will it away. We have to deal with it. And given the factor you ignored which I had to repeat above, the risks are too high to dance and try to do intellectual gymnastics around it.

Kinana's pessimism makes his disinclination to support deportation that much odder. Why not advocate for the only thing that could reverse the horrible consequence that (in his estimation) is inevitable -- Muslim domination of the West? That's like giving up on saving a house that's on fire, by assessing it's going to be futile to try.

So we have two different objections to deportation often subtly (or sloppily) mangled together (or sometimes the conscientious objector will vacillate back and forth between the two):

1) it's not pragmatically possible, given either the gargantuan technical problems it entails, AND/OR given our PC MC climate

2) it's not ethical.

I can understand the logic which an ultimate optimist might have to avoid deportation, given that he believes other means less "unethical" will eventually manage the problem. But an ultimate pessimist, one would think, would want to pull out all the stops, no matter what. If you don't try, you surely won't get the result.

P.S.: At any rate, I'm a temporary pessimist, but an ultimate optimist. I think the West will wake up sufficiently, and will deport all Muslims (because that's the only conclusion that "waking up" leads to, logically, given the nature and dimensions of the problem of Muslims, which I have articulated many times ad nauseam).

My temporary pessimism entails the high likelihood that this waking up will be so slow, so incremental, and will take so long, the result will be that millions will die (on both sides), massive property destruction will occur, and massive dislocations and psychological trauma of terror will occur.

We will ultimately prevail, but at a horrific cost that was avoidable, but for the ongoing cultural stupidity of the West as it will have dragged its feet and will have kept hitting the snooze alarm decade after decade.

This is the most likely scenario for this century as it unfolds, given the stupendous disparity between the sophistication of the West in contrast with the backwardness of Muslims and their culture (with "sophistication" and "backwardness" denoting complex multifarious levels and factors I should not have to explicate to intelligent educated readers if they just took a deep breath and thought about it for 5 fucking minutes).

Kinana, isn't it critical to weight the average, based on the size of each country?

Lemonlime,
You mean, among other things, that I left out the WMD problem. And that if the problem is included, the conclusion must be that the most moral and least immoral path available to us is to treat Muslims as you suggest. Otherwise we will permit much worse damage than the damage we will do following your course.

Again, perhaps that result should be obvious to me, but I'm not there at this point.

Why would it not be sufficient in the U.S. (if it were practicable) to stop Muslim immigration? Why expulsion? Because of WMD?

There are indications that new kinds of WMD will be available fairly soon. These WMD are not explosives and will not require huge financial or technical resources. Such WMD might only support your argument. Though even without Muslims in the equation, easily accessible WMD put the survival of technological civilization in doubt.

Admittedly, even if immigration limits were sufficient for the U.S., they might not be sufficient to save freedom in Europe, where the Muslim citizen population is perhaps reproducing much more quickly than non-Muslim Europeans. But there is another data point I'd like to see verified. What are really the population trends in Europe? Is it really true that the most common baby name in France today is one or another variant of Muhammad? Is it really true that the baby population in France today is one-third Muslim?

I'm curious what Kinana's response to your question to him about expulsion will be...

P.P.S.: The sophistication of the West (or superiority would be a perfectly fine word, and juicily INcorrect, politically) paradoxically explains both our ultimate victory (hence my ultimate optismism) as well as our temporary retardation in waking up (ditto, my short-term pessimism).

That's the key to understanding PC MC: the same virtues and values that have made the West great -- indeed, the greatest civilization in the world now and throughout all history -- have also morphed into the spasmodic syndrome of taking good things too far, which is the essence of PC MC.

One example being our civilizational and hence sociopolitical ability to evolve from tribalism to universalism: that's a good thing; but when taken to irrational excess that leads to conferring the benefits of universalism upon a hostile culture inveterately and endemically prone to tribalism (which term includes far more than mere "tribes" wearing bone noserings but also many other features, including most prominently the mindset of intolerance, hatred and fear of the Other), our very same strength becomes a weakness that threatens our beneficence and moral superiority.

Protecting this moral superiority by bombing the shit out of mass-murderous fanatics and rounding up and interning American citizens whose seditious potential we had no way of knowing but had to prejudicially suspect rationally (as we had to do in WW2) or rounding up and deporting Muslims (as we have to do now) is not compromising or undermining our beneficence and moral superiority, as our fellow handwringers and fingernail-biters worry so in their ethical anxiety. These are perfectly in keeping with our moral superiority and in fact it is the self-righteously anxious handwringers among us who are undermining our ethics and morals, by enabling our weakness in the face of evil. They may claim they are "not Amish-type pacifists"; but they may as well be, given the logic of their unconscionable ethical anxiety in this regard. Shame on them, not on those of us who want to protect our civilization proportionately with relation to the danger as it is -- not as we imagine it to be as we revise it in our imagination to better fit our ethical sensibilities.

Kinana, you said,

What Spengler is talking about in what you quote is not data but is conjecture...

Huh? Let me put in bold the parts of the quote that are presented as data about the past and present, not as conjecture about the future:

Fertility in the Muslim world has fallen two or three times faster than the world average. The drastic drop-off in fertility has hit Arab, Persian, Turkish, Malay, and South Asian Muslims. Iran’s fertility has fallen by almost six children per woman, Turkey’s has fallen by five children per woman, Pakistan’s by more than three children per woman, and Egypt’s and Indonesia’s by four...Many of the largest Muslim countries may well catch up with Europe’s geriatric crisis in a generation and a half. By 2070, Iran will be grayer than Europe. By the year 2070, several Muslim countries will have a higher proportion of elderly dependents than Western Europe...The moment Muslims learn to read, family size falls below replacement. Literacy explains about 60 percent of the fertility differential across the Muslim world. Across the entire Muslim world, university-educated Muslim women bear children at the same rate as their infecund European counterparts. As soon as Muslim women break the constraints of traditional society, they have one child and sometimes two, but rarely three or four—and almost never the six or seven children that their mothers bore. This correlation holds whether we compare fertility among different Muslim countries or compare the fertility of women with differing educational levels within the same country, as we will see in the detailed data for Iran and Turkey. Other factors impinge, to be sure: Bangladesh has promoted contraception more than some of its neighbors.

LemonLime, in addition to expulsion, do you also support outlawing the Qur'an and Islamic religious texts among the general population? How would you determine who is a Muslim?

LemonLime,
Also, what if no country would accept the expelled? You would intern them on a permanent basis? Would you use military force to compel Islamic nations to accept them?

An important distinction between Kinana and LemonLime seems to be that Kinana supports expulsion, as far as the near term is concerned, only from Europe, and then only of those Muslims who support sharia and jihad, not all Muslims. LemonLime supports expulsion of all Muslims.

"Kinana supports expulsion, as far as the near term is concerned, only from Europe,"

No, from Canada, Russia, and any other country that faces such a demographic deluge that would lead to a sharia take-over.

I don't think the U.S. needs to do it--at least, not until the trends become clearer later in the century. But the U.S. would be wise to bring in the ban on sharia and deport those who still insist on supporting it.

Kinana you don't support expulsion of mere apologists for sharia, if I read your last comment right. Only for "supporters" of it, which evidently means they do something more than merely argue for it.

traeh,

"To be consistent, shouldn't you support expulsion only for those who support the parts of sharia that are inimical to Western freedoms?"

I do say that, though I don't spell that out every time I mention the word sharia. I don't care if they support aspects of sharia (such as rules for monogamous marriage ceremonies between consenting adults, etc.) that don't conflict with our laws and constitutions.

But someone issuing a death threat in response to a criticism of Muhammad or Islam would be deported if not imprisoned.

Not as an attempt to try to refute the arguments of Kinana of Khaybar or LemonLime, but I believe that Traeh is making some valid points that aside from the perceived necessity of a total moratorium of Muslim immigration to the West and the forced deportation of Muslims from the very same in order to preserve a non-Islamic West, ergo to offset the end of the Judeo-Christian West as we know it.

The problems of implementation of these means would require a multitude of obstacles be overcome, namely:

1) The ability to accurately determine who are Muslims, whether it be by appearance, open or secret religious practice, recorded actions and words, etc. It is a mightily difficult task in and of itself, similar to the conundrum of trying to establish "good" Muslims, whether peaceful practicing, lapsed or lapsing, or simply cutural, from "bad" Muslims, those who openly support and advocate Islam and Sharia and are overtly expressing the desire to replace western society, through violent or stealth jihad if necessary in order to achieve their desired end.

2) The logistical problems of actually executing those actions, to have willing countries, whether Islamic or not, who would accept the deported Muslim refugees willingly, or in the absence of that, unwillingly.

3) the internal sovereign resources to physically achieve this process of identification, acquisition, proper legal proceedings to enact a schedule of deportees and the realistic associative means of transport out of a particular western country.

Now again, this is not an actual philosophical argument against Kinana of Kaybar or LemonLime in terms of the eventual necessity of enacting this policy. The inevitable demographic conquest statistics are too apparent to ignore and should sound an alarm in every non-Muslim mind, whether a policy-maker or a constituent who elects them.

That said, Europe is in an advanced stage of this demographic reality, a nightmare actually, but it still has not reached a watershed moment in terms of the logical conclusion of Islam's goal and by extension, Muslims who through pious adherence would obviously support that conquest by hook or by crook.

The U.S., behind in terms of probably about two decades at the most in their liberal perceptive embrace, refusal if you will, of this reality of Islam and Muslims, falls woefully short in a couple of categories to date that will ultimately lend to this continuing trend, namely:

1) The U.S. is unique, due to its sheer size, and currently has no will or sees no need by the controlling policy-makers to regulate immigration of any kind within its borders, whether via the North or by the South, Christians and Muslims and everyone else alike. Now any semi-sentient person knows that no country can maintain their identity and more importantly, their historical cultural sovereignty in the face of eternal, unchecked and unopposed immigartion from anywhere. This must be made to change or nothing will change and the Islamic demographic conquest will continue to worsen and expand exponentially over time.

2) Most importantly, and in order to draw the requisite conclusion about the uniqueness of Islamic ideology, and by extension, any untold Muslims here and abraod, which may eventually lead to the implementation of policies that could prevent Islam from growing apace, is a collective inherent knowledge and acceptance that Islam is not only NOT a religion of peace, but rather the opposite, with anyone, whether Muslim or not, telling you otherwise, drawing immediate and irreversible suspicion.

Without this recognition becoming mainstream perceived and accepted thought from the overwhelming majority non-Muslim community, the rest is unfortunately a non-starter.

Education is the key, as slow and painfully tedious as it seems at the momemnt, in my opinion. To that, I for one laud Robert, Marisol, Raymond and all the others past, present and future who have, do, and will continue to contribute to this most vital education process in order to ensure the survival of a non-Islamic West.

I notice what I have already known before, but had momentarily in this discussion not factored in: namely, that Kinana's main preoccupation and concern is not terrorism, but sharia. Since my preoccupation and concern and diametrically opposite to his, I can see why we disagree on our measures.

Also, his limited (or, a less generous term might be "half-assed") deportation criterion is irrational. If we don't know which Muslim is lying and which Muslim is honest, we can't determine which Muslim fits Kinana's criterion to deport -- unless he has some magical key none of the rest of us has to read the minds of Muslims.

Correction (to the last sentence of my first paragraph):

"Since my preoccupation and concern ARE diametrically opposite to his, I can see why we disagree on our measures."

(Note to self: never hit "Publish" before you hit "Preview"!)

See? I just hit "Preview" -- then, of course, previewed; and now I will hit "Publish"!

Kinana, you said,

"Those who advocate sharia (which is contrary to our laws) can be prosecuted for such things as sedition and would be deported under my proposal. If their "apologetics" involves advocating that sharia (contrary to our laws) be set up in our countries, that's where they are engaging in sedition."

What if they advocate that sharia contrary to current law be implemented only by legal and constitutional processes -- by using legal means to change the law, so that the law incorporates sharia? I don't think that would fall under the current U.S. legal definition of sedition.

And yet...all this refutable, unattainable, philosophical purity discussion continues.

Pointless. Start with your locally elected government representative, by nature of a vote, and publicly declare yourselves in the arena and actually do something notable and worthwhile.

The only surprising thing in this thread is traeh using a cold as an excuse and a reason to backtrack from a cogent and sentient counter-argument to a fantastic film's conclusion, directed by a person of a caliber no less than the estimable Steven Spielberg. Everyone loves a Blockbuster, mostly because they never represent any plausible reality, and usually have a happy ending.

Goodnight boys. I'll leave you three to it.

traeh,

If you just think about it, we can use our own PC habits and Muslim habits against Muslims (once we wake up). I.e., most Muslims in the West have not tried to hide their Muslim identity. Even the Muslims who have been caught in the midst of planning terror attacks didn't try to hide their Muslim identity prior to that. However, I suppose if we take a long time in changing our minds and making our slow change of mind public, perhaps many Muslims will scramble around trying to cover their tracks and paper trails. But I think most Muslims will be identifiable when the time comes to decide to deport them. The ones who may be hiding are a matter for intelligence -- which is their job, to ferret out people who are trying to hide in subterfuge, for fuck sake.

This isn't rocket science. And even if it were rocket science, we, the West, are quite capable of doing it. The only thing hindering us are stupid people with silly ethical concerns. That's it. Once we get over those silly stupid obstacles, it's lights out for Muslims.

So let's get on with it, for crying out loud. Time's a wasting. And millions of lives hang in the balance (not that that seems to concern y'all).

LemonLime, when you refer to "silly ethical concerns" -- I assume you don't mean that all ethical concerns are silly -- just the particular concerns we were discussing before, which you believe to be misconceived or self-deceived and in reality immoral. I suppose the only way I or anyone should agree with your proposals is if those proposals are the most moral/least immoral path available. I have been assuming that you support the course of action you support because you deem it the most moral course available, your reference to "silly ethical concerns" notwithstanding. But what do I know? Perhaps you would describe your proposals not so much in terms of morality, as in terms of a union of your gut visceral response with your intellect. To me the moral justification is essential, perhaps the most essential part.

Kinana, what do you make of this:

...UPDATE: In a telephone conference with journalists later on Thursday, Pew Forum researchers commented on the study. I asked what the results said about the “Eurabia” claim.

Senior researcher Brian Grim said: “Across the next 20 years, we’re only seeing a 2 percent rise in the total share of Europe that is Muslim. We’re projecting that the growth rate is slowing. So this rise is very very modest. It’s a relatively small share of the overall population in Europe… There’s no real scenario that we’ve looked at that this ‘Eurabia’ scenario would come to be.”

Alan Cooperman, associate director for research, said the percentages of Muslims in some European populations would rise from 3 to 5 percent to between 6 and 10 percent by 2030. “Those are substantial increases but they are very far from the ‘Eurabia’ scenario of runaway growth,” he said. “We do not see either wordlwide or in Europe runaway growth. The growth rates are slowing.”

p.s., and I don't assume Muslims will be a majority in Europe in the next "few" decades, if "few" means three. I assume that they will become majorities in several major western countries, according to present trends, in four or more decades, approximately between 2050 and 2075.

It is almost certain to happen eventually, assuming we don't intervene, even taking the modest increase suggested in the anecdote you cite as our assumption and projecting it beyond 2030 towards the end of the century or into the next century.

The point is, demographically, non-Muslims in Europe are snookered. The only realistic debate is over how long it will take to have a Muslim majority, i.e., several decades versus a century or two.

In the case where Muslim population in Europe doesn't increase at all--again a wildly improbable scenario I cite for argument's sake only to point out the problems with the opinion piece you cite--it would obviously take a lot longer for them to become a majority simply due to the declining non-Muslim populations in Europe.

Nevertheless, Islam is now, and will become, an increasing problem in Europe over the next few decades.

"There’s no real scenario that we’ve looked at that this ‘Eurabia’ scenario would come to be.”"

Sheesh. How about looking at the present?! You cannot even criticize Islam in public without requiring bodyguards.

North America and Canada, Islam Demographics
http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx
PEW projections of Muslim population growth, it will triple in North America by 2030.
“World Muslim Population Grows Twice as Fast as Others"
Jan 27, 2011 – 6:31 AM

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100309/dq100309a-eng.htm
Study: Projections of the diversity of the Canadian population
Mar 9 2010
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Muslim+population+Metro+Vancouver+will+triple+2031/2665619/story.html
Muslim population in Metro Vancouver will triple by 2031
By Douglas Todd, Vancouver SunMarch 10, 2010
"Statistics Canada projected Tuesday that Muslims are on target to make up half of the country's expanding non-Christian religious population by 2031. That means roughly one out of 10 Canadians might be Muslim in two decades.
[...] Many of those new Muslims will have origins in Arabian countries, Pakistan and India, which are a rich source of new immigrants to Canada.
[...]"

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_grayinpowers_advanceproofs.pdf

QUOTED EXCERPTS

p. 42
Wolfgang Lutz calls the dynamic the “low-fertility trap,” and predicts that it will lead to a self-perpetuating downward spiral, with each successive
generation coming of age in a lower-fertility environment and themselves aspiring to even lower fertility. Lutz places the threshold fertility level for the trap at around 1.5—an admittedly arbitrary number, but one lent some support by the fact that no country where fertility has sunk beneath 1.5 for more than a few years has ever risen
back above it.14

P.100
Let’s begin with a closer look at the numbers—and let’s start with Western Europe. Knowing the exact size of its Muslim population is impossible, since most countries do not collect comprehensive data on the ethnic origin or religious affiliation of residents—and for some countries, including France, which has Western Europe’s largest Muslim population, there are no official data at all. Most careful estimates place the total number of Muslims in Western Europe (including both native-born and foreign-born) at somewhere between 13 million and 17 million, or roughly 3 percent to 5 percent of its total population (including the UK). 76 All agree, moreover, that the number has risen dramatically in recent decades, perhaps doubling over the past 10 to 15 years alone.
If counting the number of Muslims in Europe today is problematic, projecting their future number is even more so. It requires data not just on the size and age
distribution of the current Muslim population, but assumptions about future Muslim immigration and fertility. Because we know so little about the key variables, different projections can produce very different results. Based on a review of the
available data and what we believe to be reasonable assumptions (see Appendix 1), we have projected the Muslim population of France and Germany through 2050.

p. 104
Meanwhile in Europe, the trend is going the other way. Even in France, whose Muslim population is the most secular in Europe, Muslims under the age of 35 are
more likely than older Muslims to identify as Muslim first and French second (51 percent to 36 percent).87 Younger and second-generation Muslims across Europe
also tend to hold more extremist views than older or first-generation Muslims. One British poll found that Muslims aged 16 to 24 were more than twice as likely to
favor living under Shari’a law as Muslims aged 55 and over. They were also more likely than their elders to say that they have more in common with Muslims abroad
than with non-Muslims in Britain.88

p129
Demographic competition among ethnic and religious groups is already fueling conflict and provoking social and political backlash in many parts of the developing
world. In Lebanon and Kosovo, the wide differentials in growth rates between declining Christian populations and demographically ascendant Muslim populations have helped to precipitate civil wars.36 In Israel, the fear of being demographically overwhelmed by the faster-growing Palestinian population (Yasser Arafat once said
that the Palestinian struggle with Israel will be won in the bedroom) has become a serious security concern—and according to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert it
was a decisive factor in the decision to build the West Bank Barrier.37 Meanwhile in Russia, where the ethnic Russian population is shrinking while Muslim minority
populations continue to grow rapidly, differential growth rates are provoking contradictory reactions—fueling the rise of far-right Slavic nationalism on the one hand, while prompting some officials to call for a more pro-Muslim tilt to Russian foreign policy on the other.38 In India, worries about higher Muslim fertility are similarly fanning the flames of Hindu nationalism.

p.130
There is another kind of demographic competition that may have profound long-term implications for the security environment. Fertility rates not only vary
between different ethnic and religious groups, but also within groups according to the intensity of religious convictions. In most countries, the demographic
transition is led by the more secular members of society, while fertility rates decline more slowly among those who remain more religious. As we have seen,
this is true in the United States, where the fertility rate in Red-Zone Utah is roughly 50 percent higher than in Blue-Zone Vermont. It is true in Israel, where
the fertility rate of ultra-Orthodox Jews towers 3-to-1 over that of more secular Jews.39 And it is true in many Muslim societies. According to a recent World
Values Survey of Muslims in Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, those who strongly agree that the state should “implement Shari’a only” as the law of the land have larger families than those who strongly disagree. Among rural Muslims, the differential is nearly 1.5-to-1;
among urban Muslims, it is even larger—nearly 2-to-1.40 To the extent that fertility declines are concentrated among the more progressive and westernized elements
in society, we may be exaggerating the extent to which the transition is pushing some countries toward modernity. In fact, as each successive birth cohort comes
of age a larger share of youth will have been raised in more traditional and religious families. As Phillip Longman observes, “Those who reject modernity
would seem to have an evolutionary advantage.”41

40 See Eric Kaufmann, “Religion and Politics: The Demographic Imperative” (paper presented at
the Annual Meeting for the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 30-September 2,
2007), 27.

P150
As Russia contracts demographically, it will also become less ethnically Russian.
Low birthrates are mostly an affliction of the Orthodox Slav population. Russia’s large Muslim minority has higher fertility rates and lower mortality rates, which,
combined with immigration from the Central Asian Republics, means that it will grow steadily as a share of the total population. How much will depend crucially on the future rate of Muslim immigration. Assuming that the spike of the past few years subsides, we project that the share would rise from 14 percent in 2005 to 19
percent in 2030 and 23 percent in 2050.70 Some projections are much higher, and at least one expert predicts that Russia will be majority-Muslim by mid-century.71

END OF QUOTED EXCERPTS
------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w3meSupCME&feature=related
NOTES:
Dangerous demographics
at 52:37 they mention that fertility rates increase with increasing religious conviction, and this is true also among Muslims. Muslims who want sharia have fertility rates that are twice as high as those who don’t want sharia.
-bachelor surplus creates a security problem
-young age (15-24) most dangerous violent, unstable

END OF NOTES
---------------------

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_grayinpowers_advanceproofs.pdf

QUOTES:

Meanwhile, many radical Islamist leaders advocate higher fertility as a means by which Muslim-majority nations can, over time, wrest greater control of global
affairs. They variously describe most forms of family planning as pro-Western, contrary to Shari’a, and a hindrance to jihad. …Although national Islamist parties
holding this aggressively pronatalist posture have yet to win political power in a Muslim-majority nation (and were decisively defeated in the Pakistani election of
2008), their world view has a significant constituency.

In only five countries—Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain—is the fertility rate now more than one-tenth of a percentage point higher than it was a
decade ago. The largest increase has been in France, where the fertility rate has risen from 1.7 in 1995 to 1.9 in 2005 and an estimated 2.0 in 2006.7 Interestingly a large share (perhaps half) of the total increase in births has been due to a marked increase in the fertility of France’s sizeable population of immigrant mothers, especially Muslim mothers.8 Notwithstanding the higher fertility rate of immigrants, most demographers do not believe that the recent uptick in fertility heralds a major turnaround in the long-term trend. In most countries, it appears to be the result of a temporary “timing shift” that will soon run its course.

END OF QUOTE

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110903.html
German Population Plunge “Irreversible,” Federal Stats Office Admits
Expected that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. By Gudrun Schultz. BERLIN, Germany, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Muslims May Dominate Germany in 40 Years. Jan 15, '07 / 25 Tevet 5767 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119489
(IsraelNN.com) “German Muslims may be a majority in the country by 2046, according to a study by the Islam-Archive Central Institute and financed by the Interior Ministry.
The Islamic think tank said that 4,000 Germans have converted to Islam in the year between mid-2004 and mid-2005. Along with an influx of Muslims in the country, they will form a majority in less than four decades.”

---------------------

Daniel Pipes
http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/eurabian-nights-1474
"THE MOST critical issue facing Europe is the long-term relationship between the continent's natives and its burgeoning Muslim minority. There are but three outcomes-Islamic takeover, Muslim expulsion or harmonious integration-and the end result has profound implications not only for Europe but for humanity as a whole.
Muslim Rule
EUROPE NEEDS immigrants (the fertility rate is about 1.4 children per woman, just two-thirds the replacement rate of 2.1) to avoid severe population decline, with all the woes that implies-particularly an absence of workers to fund generous pension plans-and Muslims tend to make up that imported third of the population. In part, this is because Muslims are close by; it's only 13 kilometers from Morocco to Spain. After moving to Europe, Muslims relieve European childlessness with a high fertility rate. Although the Muslim fertility rate is falling, it remains three times that of indigenous Europeans. In Brussels, "Muhammad" has for some years been the most popular name given to boys. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are on track to have majority Muslim populations by about 2015.
Immigrant Muslims widely disdain Western civilization, especially the open sexuality shown through pornography, divorce and homosexuality. Yet they stay.[...]"

http://www.danielpipes.org/1796/muslim-europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html
Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent

The Limits of Dissent
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=324
(Ben Shapiro, August 05, 2006)
“Several demographic scholars plausibly suggest that Israel will have an anti-Zionist majority within 50 years, due to high birth rate among Arabs and low birth rate among most Israeli Jews.”

http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2207
The Muslim Problem and What to Do about It. John Stone.
Quadrant Magazine Australia September 2006 - Volume L Number 9
“ANYONE WITH EVEN a passing knowledge of what has been happening for years now in Western and Central Europe must surely have begun to see the nature of the writing on those countries’ walls. The Netherlands, France, Denmark, Spain in particular, and many others have all seen the Trojan horses of Muslim immigration, legal and illegal, pushed further and further within their border walls. Four of the Netherlands’ major cities—Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht—today have Muslim majorities in the under-fourteen- year-old age group.”

Analyst Predicts Muslim Majority in Russia Within 30 Years. By Meredith Buel
Washington (Feb 26, 2006). Link: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-28-voa77.cfm?CFID=26602740&CFTOKEN=94232751

"For 25 years Paul Goble worked for the U.S. government as an expert on minorities in the former Soviet Union.
He has been closely tracking what he describes as a huge demographic shift in Russia, a shift he says will have a major impact on the nation's relations with western countries.
"Within most of our lifetimes the Russian Federation, assuming it stays within current borders, will be a Muslim country," he said. "That is it will have a Muslim majority and even before that the growing number of people of Muslim background in Russia will have a profound impact on Russian foreign policy. The assumption in Western Europe or the United States that Moscow is part of the European concert of powers is no longer valid."
Goble, currently the Vice Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities at Concordia-Audentes University in Tallinn, Estonia, says when the Soviet Union collapsed, most western countries looked at influencing Russia from a European perspective.
He says, however, Muslim countries viewed the opportunity for migration and the spread of Islam from the Caucuses or the newly created states in Central Asia.
"The Muslim growth rate, since 1989, is between 40 and 50 percent, depending on ethnic groups," he said. "Most of that is in the Caucuses or from immigration from Central Asia or Azerbaijan."
Goble says in 1991 there were about 300 mosques in Russia. Today there are at least 8,000. He says about half of those were built with money donated from abroad, much of it from Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.""

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/19/MNGJGMFUVG1.DTL
San Francisco Chronicle, Nov 19, 2006

EXCERPTS:

"Russia's overall population is dropping at a rate of 700,000 people a year, largely due to the short life spans and low birth rates of ethnic Russians. The country's 2002 census shows that the national fertility rate is 1.5 children per woman, far below the 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain the country's population of about 143 million. The rate in Moscow is even lower, at 1.1 children per woman.
But Russia's Muslims are bucking that trend. The fertility rate for Tatars living in Moscow, for example, is six children per woman, Goble said, while the Chechen and Ingush communities are averaging 10 children per woman. And hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been flocking to Russia in search of work.
Since 1989, Russia's Muslim population has increased by 40 percent to about 25 million. By 2015, Muslims will make up a majority of Russia's conscript army, and by 2020 a fifth of the population.
"If nothing changes, in 30 years people of Muslim descent will definitely outnumber ethnic Russians," Goble said. "

"The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the support of the Muslim minority," he said Monday in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

END OF EXCERPTS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467792048&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

---------------------

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8825&geo=&theme=8&size=A
03/25/2007 20:57
Fifty years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, Benedict XVI turns to the present and the future of Europe
Benedict XVI: “…from a demographic point of view Europe seems to be on a path that might lead to its twilight in history.”

Islam Could Become Europe's Dominant Religion, Experts Say. By Kevin McCandless CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 02, 2007

EXCERPT:

London (CNSNews.com) - As the Anglican Communion continues to fight over homosexuality and as church attendance plummets, experts say that Islam is well on its way to becoming the most dominant religion in Europe.

[...]

According to Christian Research, a British think tank, only 6.3 percent of the British population in 2005 attended Christian services on a weekly basis.

The group also projects that around 4,000 churches will close over the next 15 years, being sold off or rehabilitated for other uses.

Reflecting a trend around Europe, British churches in the past decade have been transformed into restaurants, cafes, art galleries, mosques, and in one notable instance, a training school for circus acrobats in Bristol.

But while church attendance on the continent reportedly shows a similar decline, the level of Muslim religious participation and the Muslim population itself has exploded.

In recent years, experts say that young European Muslims are returning to the faith which their parents observed only sporadically, becoming much more devout.

Though Muslims only comprise around three percent of the British population, Christian Research says that in 35 years there will be twice as many Muslims in mosques on Friday as there are Christians in churches on Sunday.

In a 2004 ICM poll of 500 British Muslims, 51 percent said that they prayed every day.

In November, a study by the Spanish magazine Alba said that more mosques and prayer centers have been built in France than churches over the last century, with over 4,000 mosques currently serving the largest Muslim population in Europe.

Europe has seen a wave of Muslim immigration over the last century, in large part from the countries of North Africa, and some experts predict that they will become the dominant population by the end of this century.

In January, the Islam-Archive Central Institute, a government-sponsored think tank, projected that Muslims will be the majority population of Germany by 2046, based on fertility rates.

Brent Nelson, an expert on European Islam at Furman University in South Carolina, told Cybercast News Service Thursday it was hard to guess what a Europe with a large Muslim minority would look like.

However, he said that unless Christians and Muslims as a whole learn to compromise and live together, there was a danger of a clash between the two cultures.

From introducing daily prayers into the workplace to building mosques and minarets in cities, there would be endless grounds for conflict in the future, he said.

"The danger is that Europe will not come to terms with what it means to absorb a large Muslim population," he said. "And in turn that Muslims won't come to terms with what it means to live in the West, the need to compromise with Western values. If that doesn't occur, you'll have a culture war which will dwarf anything we've seen in the United States."

David Masci, a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said Thursday it was difficult for many Muslim immigrants to accept the secular nature of countries like Holland.

"Look," he said. "Holland is a society which is very, very liberal in terms of attitudes towards gender and towards sexuality. These people are clearly pushing against that."

However, he added that the Pentecostal and Evangelical strains of Christianity were showing a revival in Europe, spurred on by an influx of immigrants from Africa and Asia.

Though he didn't believe that Muslims would become the majority in Europe, he said he did see Muslims and Evangelical Christians eventually working together to achieve common goals, in areas such as curbing abortion laws and same-sex "marriage."

Sara Silvestri, an expert on European Islam at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, that many Muslims have a tendency to exaggerate their religious beliefs when asked.

Events over the last five years and the media spotlight on Islamic issues pushed previously nominal Muslims to be more active in their faith, she told Cybercast News Service.

"I know Muslims who don't wear a veil, who don't grow a beard, but who still identify themselves as a Muslim in the social sphere," she said.

Nicole Bourque, a professor of religious studies at Glasgow University, said that she thought increasing numbers of Christians would convert to Islam in the coming years.

She said that she knew of around 200 converts in Glasgow alone, mostly lapsed Christians who had grown up without a strong religious background.

While many were women who had married Muslim men, she said many had been attracted to learn more about Islam by its increased profile since 2001.

END OF EXCERPT
-----------------------

“…the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the nonMuslim one.”
(the article provides no source for that claim) http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/religion/
UK. Has demographic stats by religion.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=961
Muslim, Sikh and Hindu households in Great Britain are larger than households headed by someone of another religion. In 2001, households headed by a Muslim were largest, with an average size of 3.8 people, followed by households headed by Sikhs (3.6 people) and Hindus (3.2 people). A third of Muslim households (34 per cent) contained more than five people, as did 28 per cent of Sikh and 19 per cent of Hindu households.

Jewish, Christian and Buddhist households were smaller – each with an average size of 2.3 people. These groups have an older age structure than the other religious groups, and contain a higher proportion of one-person households. Over 30 per cent of these households contained only one person, compared with between 13 and 15 per cent of Sikh, Hindu or Muslim households. […]
[…] Households headed by a Muslim are more likely than other households to contain children. Around two thirds (63 per cent) contained at least one dependent child in 2001, compared with around a quarter of Jewish (25 per cent) and Christian (27 per cent) households.

Muslim households also contained the highest number of children. A quarter (25 per cent) of Muslim households contained three or more dependent children, compared with 14 per cent of Sikh, 7 per cent of Hindu, and 5 per cent of Christian households.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=955
[Muslim population is also the youngest].

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954
QUOTES:
“Christianity is the main religion in Great Britain. There were 41 million Christians in 2001, making up almost three quarters of the population (72 per cent). This group included the Church of England, Church of Scotland, Church in Wales, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations.

People with no religion formed the second largest group, comprising 15 per cent of the population.

About one in 20 (5 per cent) of the population belonged to a non-Christian religious denomination.

Muslims were the largest religious group after Christians. There were 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain in 2001. This group comprised 3 per cent of the total population and over half (52 per cent) of the non-Christian religious population. [...]”

END OF QUOTES
---------------------------

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/oslo-34-of-schools-have-immigrant.html
Friday, January 11, 2008
Oslo: 34% of schools have immigrant majority

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024650.php
UK Muslim population growing 10 times faster than non-Muslim population

René Servoise warns the French people
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3842
An Ambassador’s Warning to the French People

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=131077
Large European Cities Overwhelmed by Muslim Population - Expert
Society | August 12, 2011, Friday

British taxpayers pay welfare for multiple Muslim wives and children
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men-exploit-UK-benefits-system.html
U.K.: Up to 20,000 Muslim polygamous unions robbing welfare system blind
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/uk-up-to-20000-muslim-polygamous-unions-robbing-welfare-system-blind.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/09/last-of-pork-gobblers.html
We Are the Last Three German Children in Our School
by K. Hense, T. Biermann and D. Riedel

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/06/oslo-40-of-schools-have-immigrant.html
June 2 2009 Oslo: 40% of schools have immigrant majority

http://www.eurasiareview.com/18112011-belgium-25-percent-of-brussels-population-is-muslim/
Belgium: 25 Percent Of Brussels Population Is Muslim
Written by: KUNA
November 18, 2011

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4162907,00.html
Europe's Islamic future
Op-ed: If current demographic trends persist, Europe to be Muslim by century's end
Giulio Meotti
Dec 18 2011

Correction: The following excerpt was not from the Russia article but obviously was from another:

"The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the support of the Muslim minority," he said Monday in an interview with The Jerusalem Post."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467792048&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From Kinana's own many posts on demographs with copious links and quotes from studies he himself believes are sound and credible, it seems he would have to significantly revise his concern that Europe will become Muslim majority (which of course means > 50% of the population in all European countries and the UK) by 2050-2075. Fhe first quarter of the 22nd century, if not later, sounds more reasonable.

That data, incidentally, contains a combination of optimism and pessimism that dovetails perfectly with my advice on how to manage the problem of Islam. It gives the West long enough time to wake up (given the retarding effects of the PC MC prescription medication -- which it has been taking at high doses for quite a while now -- on its brains and limbs), yet at the same time predicts a sufficiently alarming scenario that would galvanize and electrify a somnambulist, once awake, into requisite action.

And requisite action at that time will be, pace Kinana, unable to distinguish the Muslims that are dangerous (and hence must be expelled) from the Muslims that are harmless (and don't need to be expelled). About this latter meme I have repeated so many times, if I had a nickel for every time I've had to repeat it, I'd be richer than Bill Gates (slight exaggeration). I find it odd and not a little amusing that Kinana is so rigorously logical and scientific about all his other claims, but he has never provided a shred of evidence by which we can, with sufficient reliability, make that distinction in the Muslim population within the West -- which is the crucial distinction, the very one upon which his whole suggested policy of selective deportation depends. The reason he hasn't provided a shred of evidence on it is simple: it's not possible. At least not until the year 2279 -- when some genius will have finally invented the mind-reading machine.

awake's last post contains a perfectly, unremarkably correct fact; which, formulated more broadly, simply means that any pragmatic proposal for solution or management (those two not necessarily being the same thing, which is why, incidentally, Hugh Fitzgerald eschewed the idea that Islam is a problem necessitating a "solution", but rather is a problem necessitating management which, in turn, will likely be imperfect, as are all things in this life prior to the Second Coming).

What awake fails to factor in, then -- as does Kinana, by the way, even though he disagrees otherwise --, is that broader formulation, which we may further clarify by noting that all political policy and all laws (at least in polities that are not utopias) cannot avoid being based, to one degree or another, on philosophy, and therefore on uncertainty and imperfection. This, of course, doesn't mean that we cannot critique and even condemn certain particular policies, suggestions, and laws; it only means that the mere fact that a particular proposal for policy and/or law contains the philosophical uncertainty principle does not ipso facto vitiate it -- as awake seems to think -- as though there could ever be a policy or a law free of philosophy and uncertainty and imperfection.

The more important consideration, once we get past the unremarkable details of Logic 101 as remedially reminded in the paragraphs above, is to discuss and come to a collective decision, insofar as there exists anything remotely resembling a cohesive community rallied around the anti-Islam cause and principle (which, itself, continues to be a dubious proposition -- but that is a distinct, if related, issue), on the following:

1) What is the problem of Islam?

2) What can the West best do to manage this problem, given what we have concluded in response to #1?

Note: What is best for the West in regards #1 and #2 does not depend on whether it is currently feasible given our temporary sociopolitical climate -- if only because this proposal and the discussion it is based in emanate from a community of people who don't have primary political power. That's one of the great things about the West: most political decisions and policy and laws are not thoroughly controlled by an elite or by a dictator; their enactment goes through a process that includes the participation of the People. Often this process goes on for a long time -- decades, even generations of time (as, for example, with the Abolition movement, or the Suffragette movement; etc.) In the free West, every sociopolitical policy or law can be influenced by the People, in various ways. The thoughts and discussions of ordinary people like us do matter, and they can have effect. But one thing is for sure: they will never matter, and will never have effect, if we just give up hope that they can matter and have effect and don't even bother to try.

So, on the level of people thinking about, and discussing, the problem of Islam, we have the luxury of not having to hamstring our every thought and word and proposal by the consideration of what is feasible right now in Washington D.C. or Parliament or The Hague. We are on the level where thoughts, ideas and discussion percolate and hopefully can merge into the larger process called a change in the climate of opinion -- which matters to those who do have primary political power, becuse the West is not a totalitarian society, nor is it controlled, pace an uncomfortably large minority of those even in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is), by some Machiavellian Secret Cabal of Globalist Elites who are in league with the Muslims and/or the Jews (and hell, throw in the Masons and the Illuminati and remnants of the medieval Knights of Malta while you're at it).

Anywho.

As you were.

Tally ho, and all that rot.

Kinana, you said,
"In Canada: The Muslim total fertility rate given is 2.41, based on 2001 data. The Arab fertility rate is 2.60. Muslims are the only religious group that has a fertility rate above replacement level."

Aren't the majority of the Arab immigrants to Canada Christians? If so, the 2.6 rate for Arabs, with 2.41 for Muslims, could mean that Arab Christians have a fertility rate above 2.6., which would be rather good news (indeed, probably too good to be true).

"Immigrant women from places of origin that are mostly Muslim have a tendency to retain their higher fertility rates over decades in Canada, as do their daughters, in contrast to many of the others who show reduced fertility rate over time."

In other words, a typical Muslim immigrant woman tends to keep having babies over a period of decades? And the same is true for a typical second generation Muslim woman?

Thank you Kinana, very helpful. Having firm, clear data on this issue is pretty critical.

This interests me from page 7-8 of an American Enterprise Institute Working Paper, "Fertility Decline in the Muslim World: A Veritable Sea-Change, Still Curiously Unnoticed":

Figures 4 and 5 afford a closer look at the scope and scale of fertility declines in Muslim-majority countries and territories over the past generation. With respect to absolute changes in TFRs, the population-weighted average for the grouping as a whole amounted to a drop of 2.6 births per woman between 1975/80 and 2005/10—a markedly larger absolute decline than for either the world as a whole (-1.3) or the less developed regions as a whole (-2.2) during those same years. Fully eighteen of these Muslim-majority places saw TFRs fall by 3 or more over those thirty years—with nine of them by 4 births per woman or more! In Oman, TFRs plummeted by an astonishing 5.6 births per woman during those 30 years: an average pace of nearly 1.9 births per woman every decade...As for relative or proportional fertility declines: here again the record is striking. The population weighted average for the Muslim-majority areas as a whole was -41% over these three decades: by any historical benchmark, an exceptionally rapid tempo of sustained fertility decline. In aggregate, the proportional decline in fertility for Muslim-majority areas was again greater than for the world as a whole over that same period (-33%) or for the less developed regions as whole (-34%). Fully 22 Muslim-majority countries and territories were estimated to have undergone fertility declines of 50% or more during those three decades—ten of them by 60% or more. For both Iran and the Maldives, the declines in total fertility rates over those thirty years were estimated to exceed 70%...[from page 22:] This [a multivariate analysis of several socioeconomic factors] is to suggest that, at any given level of per capita income, literacy, and contraceptive use, Muslim-majority societies today can be expected to have fewer children than their counterparts in non-Muslim societies nowadays!...[from page 24:] Over the past generation, we should remember, demographic authorities for the most part underestimated the pace and scale of fertility decline in Muslim regions—sometimes very seriously. If underestimation is still the characteristic error in fertility projections for these populations, this would mean that manpower declines would commence earlier than envisioned for the countries in question—and that additional countries and territories might experience workforce decline before 2050.

None of the above disproves the stats about Muslim populations living in non-Muslim nations. The working paper only concerns itself with Muslim-majority nations. Still, the unprecedentedly rapid decline in fertility rates among those nations needs to be taken into account.

Kinana, you said,

Moreover, in the rest of the world, to the extent that it's relevant, Muslim fertility rates remain on average well above replacement, and higher than those of non-Muslims on average.

Certainly seems so.

Only a radical reform of Islam will bring its long-term fertility rates to the same level as those of Non-Muslims on average.

Probably. But if the unprecedentedly fast drop in fertility rates in Muslim nations continues, they will reach parity with fertility rates in the rest of the world, and will do so sooner than some expected. Muslim fertility rates have been dropping more rapidly than the fertility rates of the world as a whole (page 8 of the AEI working paper).

The top four most rapid 20-year declines in absolute fertility rates were all in Islamic nations (page 9 of the AEI working paper). 6 or 7 of the top 10 were Muslim nations. That unprecedented rapidity is to some extent replicated across the Muslim world, according to the AEI working paper, if I read it right.

Kinana, you also said,

As far as I can tell, that trend in those countries isn't affecting Muslims in the West.

Maybe not, though the AEI working paper seems to make that supposition. It treats Muslim-majority nations as a proxy for the global Ummah.

Kinana, you said,

Those Muslim countries they're talking about had extremely high fertility rates to start with. That's why they were declining more quickly. As a general rule as per regression toward the mean, the closer the value/score trend gets to the mean, the more the trend should slow down.

Yes, sounds right.