| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989. Meanwhile the Russian population of Russia has gone down. There are now 25 million Muslims in Russia. And the Central and East European Affairs editor of The Economist has suggested in print that by 2015, 40% of the Russian army may be Muslim.
What do the Russians intend to do about this? Anything? Nothing?
And what do the Americans intend to do in their conversations with the Russians? Will they not mention this? Will they not try to emphasize that common ground should be found against a common threat -- that of the worldwide Jihad? Will they not explain to the Russians that whatever the Russian government does to deal with a potential Muslim threat will get no quarrel from us? And it should get no quarrel from us, because we are, or should be, much more fearful of a Russian military under Muslim control -- by 2040, 2050? -- than of one under the control of the Russians themselves. After all, the Russians are rational actors, though they are far too given to conspiracy theories about the West and especially about America (which has hardly been paying the kind of attention to "encircling Russia" that many Russians apparently are convinced it has).
A poster at Jihad Watch recently asserted that "Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are natural allies." And certainly many people believe this to be the case. But in fact, Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are not natural allies, even if shortsighted Russian leaders may think they are. Any country that relies on oil for its main source of wealth has a stake in the disruption of oil supplies elsewhere. Russia should not wish Iran or Saudi Arabia well. This is principally because they are its economic competitors, supplying the same goods it supplies: oil and natural gas in the case of Iran, oil in the case of Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the Russians should be worried far more than they seem to be about demographic changes, and about the possibility of Muslims taking over parts of the military in a decade or two or three. They appear as heedless of this problem as the American government has appeared heedless of the texts and tenets of Islam. The American government remains convinced that the "best way" to deal with the situation is to pour money and men and materiel into Iraq or, for some (choose your poison), into Afghanistan, when the desired results will never come. They will never come, but this will be to the everlasting surprise of the American government, because the nature of Islam, and the threat of Islam, has not been understood.
Many Russians are consumed with conspiracy theories about America. And these conspiracy theories gain credibility from the maladroit American presentation of those policies, and American officials’ seeming inability to explain them in a way that Russians would find palatable. They do not even seem capable of explaining, or perhaps of understanding themselves, that Russia and America share the same potential threats and need to collaborate, rather than cling to or reassert hostile attitudes. Russians, meanwhile, seem to assume that Muslims in Russia will continue to be "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims just like those their parents grew up with. They somehow think that "our" (nashi) Muslims are "different." The same complacent thought is often uttered these days by Americans: the Muslims in America are "quite different" -- better educated, more prosperous -- we are constantly told, and therefore "not a threat," as are the Muslims in Western Europe. Whistling in the dark.
The Russians are not factoring in the renewed appeal of Islam for some Muslims in Russia, especially in the Caucasus but also in Moscow itself, and the effect of Saudi-financed mosques and propaganda all over the place. The effects of the long-ago anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, and the crushing of the revolt by Central Asian Muslims who were opposed to this policy in the 1930s, are held by some Russians even today to represent a permanent end to the internal Muslim threat. They are wrong. And they are betting a lot, far too much, on that notion.
Posted by Hugh at August 17, 2008 8:23 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"the Muslims in America are "quite different" -- better educated, more prosperous -- we are constantly told, and therefore "not a threat," as are the Muslims in Western Europe. Whistling in the dark."
Hugh, they're also "assimilated", or so we've been told.
What about South Ossetia and the other Georgian province that Russia wants control over? Is it true that either or both have "a substantial Muslim minority"? All we hear about are the "ethnic Russians" in those areas.
When they were first described as separatist, Islamic separatists came to mind.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Russia can control threats from Muslims in ways that would be totally illegal in the West. Russia is a police state run by a sort of KGB mafia that is not only corrupt and greedy but paranoid. To get a sense of what is happpening in Russia see the informative video interview about "The New Cold War"
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9152&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes
at August 17, 2008 8:58 AM
Russians need only remember Beslan and the horror of those 3 days in September, 2004 to understand the reality of Islamic terrorism. I cannot imagine the horror that those students, teachers, and administrators went through during that time.
Anyone who lacks resolve, or doesn't understand what having large numbers of Muslims living in your society means, need only to talk to the parents and relatives of those victims. I'm sure they can explain why it is not a good idea.
Posted by: George Mc. at August 17, 2008 9:01 AM
"What do the Russians intend to do about this?"
The Russians will most likely keep arming them and encouraging them to attack those evil Infidel Americans and other Non Muslims...The Russians will provide their Iranian Muslim buddies with ground to air missiles, tanks, fighter jets, and for good measure, throw in a couple of submarines..The Iranians will get land mines, tens of thousands of machine guns and millions of bullets too.
The Russians are just as inept at fighting Islams incursions into their society as the rest of the world...they just hope they will last longer..
Posted by: pulsar182 at August 17, 2008 9:01 AM
According to this blogger, North and South Ossetia seek to merge and create a MUSLIM state. What is Russia thinking? They've said this was "just like Kosovo". They were right, but for the wrong reason. Assuming they annex these two provinces, all the Russians are doing is uniting the Muslims of the area. They will soon have but one enemy to fight: Russia.
Posted by: PMK at August 17, 2008 9:12 AM
This is not just a Russian problem, it's a European problem. If nothing is done muslims will take over several European cities in the near future: Amsterdam and Rotterdam in Holland, Marseilles in France, Malmo in Sweden etc. The Russians may be forced to give up some of the muslim republics that are part of the Russian federation but will other Europeans surrender their cities?
The only ones that tried to do something about the demographic conquest of Europe were the Serbs, but they were bombed by the US and forced to give up even more land to the ummah. Meanwhile US continues to pressure EU to let Turkey with its 70 million muslims become a member.
Posted by: European Crusader at August 17, 2008 9:21 AM
Russia is not in denial on this one. Even their media sources admit it..
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/105837-1/
at August 17, 2008 9:24 AM
Putin is KGB, and the jerks seeking empire are back.
The main question is what will America do about it.
Fortunately G.W. is still in charge.
He is sending 'meals on wheels' by way of the military into Tblisi airport, and signing an anti missile deal with the poles.
the G8 should be reduced to the G7, NATO should meet, and the 2014 Olympics in Russia cancelled.
Except in the hopelessly romantic mind (of tarbaby Hugh ?), conflicts of this nature are rarely solved in the darkened streets of WWII Lisbon by intrigue and night moves.
Putin is a puke who must be denigrated in the eyes of world opinion. Georgia is the lifeline of the West to the oil and gas of the Caspian basin.
Will Putin give a fig that the islamics are creeping up on Mother Russia ?
Will he desist in ordering the assasination of just one critic or opposing journalist anywhere on this planet because of this argument?
Worth trying, but good luck.
Posted by: dgene at August 17, 2008 9:25 AM
PMK is right, and the Russians are carefully training hundreds of thousands of Muslim men to use the Russian arsenal. Does the Kremlin really believe that these guys won't bite the hand that trained them? If Russia's regular army is composed of 60 percent ethnic [more or less] Russians and 40 percent ethnic/religious Muslims, why would the Russians not expect a religiously inspired mutiny in the more or less near future? Russians typically train people from the "periphery" to be infantry/artillery troops and train "Russians" to be officers and technical types. Which leads to the question as to whether there would be enough "Russian" soldiers to defend Rodina against the Islamic hordes. Recall that they didn't do so well in the 1100-1400AD era against the "Hordes."
Posted by: spinoneone at August 17, 2008 9:26 AM
PMK: The majority of the Ossetians are Christians not muslims. Remember Beslan? That was an Ossetian school that was attacked by muslims from Chechnya and Ingushetia. The Ossetians are the people most friendly to Russia in the North Caucasus, and they have scores to settle with the Ingushetians and Chechens
Posted by: European Crusader at August 17, 2008 9:28 AM
This is a bit OT, but still related to the demography question.
Russia isn't the only country facing demographic disaster. Another is Iran.
Iran is one of the slowest-growing countries in the Mid-East. Between now and 2025, its population is expected to grow by ca. 19%. to ca. 77 million. Its eastern neighbors, Pakistan and Afghanistan, are growing at a much faster rate. Pakistan already has a population double that of Iran. It is expected to grow by over 40%, to nearly 229 million by 2025, nearly triple the figure for Iran. Afghanistan is growing faster yet, and should reach over 50 million by 2025.
Iran has good reason to fear its eastern neighbors. Both are overwhelmingly Sunni; both were ruled for much of their history by one or another Persian empire, and are likely to have some longstanding grudges against the Iranians; both are comparatively poor, and might cast envious eyes on Iran's oil wealth; and Pakistan already has missiles and nukes.
So perhaps a lot of their bluster about Israel having no right to exist is mainly grandstanding for the benefit of their fellow Moslems, designed to hide the fact that their nuclear missiles will really be aimed at Pakistan. If their missiles can reach Tel Aviv, they can just as easily reach Karachi or Islamabad.
at August 17, 2008 10:11 AM
PMK~
I've just seen a slit-eyed, gloved woman in a very prosperous area outside DC with her six children. The people with me said 'What the hell is that?" because they are all clueless. And thobed, sandeled men in a very small town in another state. The US may be saying they are assimilated, but they are becoming more fanatical.
That's the way it always starts.
Assimilated.
A few fanatics, mostly assimilated.
A large minority unassimilated.
A large majority unassimilted.
Takeover.
Run out the the unassimilated.
The US is at step 2.
Posted by: Borg at August 17, 2008 10:28 AM
Russian-language commentary on the Putin Regime, Georgia, and Saakashvili (or, more accurately: "Saakashvili Amerikanets"):
Yulia Latynina (investigative journalist)
http://www.gazeta.ru/kolonka.shtml
On Southern Ossetia, Kokoito, Russian Mafios, etc.:
Andrey Piontkovsky (journalist):
http://www.grani.ru/Politics/Russia/m.139941.html
Grishkovetz (a playwright and journalist) on Saakashvili:
http://www.russned.ru/stats/2522
at August 17, 2008 10:39 AM
The 40% increase in Russia's Mohammedan population ought to be put in perspective. The country's total population is 150m, of which 25m are Mohammedans. A 40% increase means the population was previously 17m. While the increases are cause for concern, it does not imply that Russia will go Islamic anytime soon. Besides, there is a conscious effort on the part of Russian Christians do improve on population, and such moves generally work only too well.
dgene, I don't see any 'fortunately' about GW Bush still being in charge - we're already contemplating reparations to Gadaffi's Libya (not even a post-Gadaffi Libya) and this is without either McVain or Obama in office.
It is arguable about whether Putin opposes Jihad or not. It's unarguable about Bush, McVain or Obama - none of them do.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 17, 2008 10:47 AM
For all the muslim population that is growing, they kill each other faster than from non muslims, and with the nukes abounding, iran, iraq the pak, the saud will self implode sooner or later when islamists are killing muslims not musilm enough.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 17, 2008 10:55 AM
Excellent, Hugh.
I would just add that our recognition of Kosovo was a self-defeating and needless irritant, as is our failure to condemn Shaakashvili for his impetuous resort to violence against South Ossetia.
Meanwhile, Condi Rice has framed the whole conflict in simplistic and categorical terms, only antagonizing Russia further, when their cooperation is needed in Georgia and the Mideast. In any case, demanding a Russian withdrawal will only have real credibility if backed by the threat of force, and our naive Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has already ruled that out.
What really gets me the most is our seeming tolerance for Iran to develop nukes since using military force to destroy them would disrupt our Iraqi effort. This as really the tail wagging the dog, since we want a democratic Iraq to prevent terrorism, but are willing to allow a terror-sponsoring state to get nukes to protect the democracy project. Backass!!
at August 17, 2008 11:02 AM
l listened to Bolton on a talk radio last friday, and he is so right on all things, he agreed it was wrong for the US to recognize Kosovo, but also said that wrong for Nato to not take in Georgia,etc. it showed weakness to Russia, and how Russia has planned for a very long time of taking back their soviet states. too bad Bolton is not President!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 17, 2008 11:23 AM
If one doesn't read Russian, can one still smell moral equivalency ?
The haughty John Kerry syndrome.
Posted by: dgene at August 17, 2008 11:32 AM
"Haughty John Kerry syndrome..."
Please explain further.
Posted by: Hugh at August 17, 2008 11:42 AM
Yes, Zena, Bolton should be president, but he's too intellectual for people to identify with. And too realistic.
Posted by: jewdog at August 17, 2008 11:44 AM
(and Hugh, know that one is just joshing here - cause next to Robert and that great babe, you are one of the best minds on this site)
But let's talk of the Russian soldier.
We teach our soldiers to be tough and smart (they are already patriotic).
It is this bloggers view that the Russians encourage bruttishness and unreasoning aggression in theirs.
(and yes, this blogger does support the Christian Serbs against the foolishness of recognizing Kosovo)
We have seen some of this bruttishness and unreasoning aggression in the Georgia incursion.
Posted by: dgene at August 17, 2008 11:45 AM
Hugh: the John Kerry Syndrome should have had "lol" after it. Was kidding. Please do not take offence. You are far better (it is meant seriously) than that windbag, and that includes smarter, more intelligent, sensitive, insightful, and expressive than that windbag.
(but then you might resent this truth from someone you might not have confidence in)
In any case, apologies if you took it a way not intended.
Posted by: dgene at August 17, 2008 11:53 AM
Oh.
Posted by: Hugh at August 17, 2008 12:08 PM
Mention of John Kerry prompts the followingbit of Recovered Memory:
I ran into John Kerry once. I was standing on a street-corner in Woods Hole, as he was disembarking from the Forbes Family Ferry at its special dock, the one that goes back and forth to the Elizabeth Islands (all but Cuttyhunk). I smiled sweetly, as he brushed past me in his determined haste to enter the liquor store. I waited, and watched as he exited with a groaning box full of hard liquor, and he paid me no never mind, not even with a reciprocating smile. No doubt he had correctly sized me up as unlikely to be a present, or even more important, potential future contributor.
That's Kerry. Kerry of the Forbes Ferry. Kerry with a glad hand and sincere interest in some, but not in all.
I was not impressed.
Posted by: Hugh at August 17, 2008 12:32 PM
On the other hand, there is always China Forbes (as in "China Trade" and "Milton, Massachusetts") to make up for John Kerry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I69GmDHKvI&NR=1
at August 17, 2008 12:40 PM
Upon the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia was in desperate need of great leadership. For its first two Presidents a George Washington and John Adams types would have done nicely. Instead, it got a drunken oaf and a cynical ex-KGB agent. So, instead of Russia being led by great men who understood that democracy, capitalism, the rule of law and a proper moral order were the ingredients of a successful nation and that Russia's future lay with the West, America and NATO, the country devolved into crony capitalism and semi-lawlessness in the Nineties and since 2000 has exhibited a tremendous capacity to confirm to others in the West that all the negative stereotypes of Russia are unfortunately true. Russia is indeed paranoid, xenophobic, unable to treat with Eastern European neighbors as brother nations and seems determined to look upon Western idealism as some kind of Machiavellian scheme. (And yes, the West erred in recognizing an independent Kosovo, but anyone who uses this as the reason why Russia is acting the way it has is desperate for excuses, not arguments).
Putin is a disaster for Russia. The man's a clever thug and Russia will pay a very high price for a long time to come for supporting him so enthusiastically now. Instead of a democratic, free, prosperous Russia in league with America opposing the tyrants of the earth, Russia under Putin is every year aligning itself more and more with the detritus of mankind and being stupidly belligerent. What a waste. And don't think Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and many other Eastern European countries don't deeply regret this. They do. As for Russia's Muslim problem, it's substantial and all the more reason why Russia should have made common cause with the West against the worst evil in the world------Islamic supremacism. Shame on Russia. It's on the wrong side of history again.
Posted by: Wellington at August 17, 2008 12:54 PM
"John Kerry Syndrome" - you take yourself way too seriously?
I think it could be named after any number of politicians - from either side of the aisle.
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 17, 2008 1:10 PM
I came across something interesting recently when reading a copyright 2001 book by Peggy Noonan on Ronald Reagan that relates to this thread;
A little background first; Bush met Putin in spring of 2001:
It now holds little of the warmth displayed after their first meeting in early 2001, when Mr. Bush said he had “looked the man in the eye” and gained “a sense of his soul.” (1)
But Mr. Bush also talked about his famous meeting with Vladimir Putin and the criticism of the President's over-the-top enthusiasm for his new soulmate, the K.G.B. thug. Mr. Bush defended himself: "I have pretty good instincts," he told Ms. Noonan, "and I found a man who realizes his future lies with the West, not the East, that we share common security concerns, primarily Islamic fundamentalism." (2)
Sources:
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/us/01putin.html
(2)http://www.observer.com/node/45236
at August 17, 2008 1:33 PM
I don't understand why Russia should be concerned with a rising Muslim population that could render the Army 40% Mohamaddan. Russia successfully stamped out all religious beliefs and religions once before and they can do it again.
Right?
Posted by: Indigo Red at August 17, 2008 1:42 PM
there is a conscious effort on the part of Russian Christians do improve on population, and such moves generally work only too well.
Posted by: Infidel Pride
I hope for their sake, and for the sake of the West in general, that they succeed. But they'd better get cracking. Russia's population growth is negative, and the latest figures I've seen (admittedly 2 or 3 years old) show that about 1/2 of Russian pregnancies end in abortion. The other European ex-republics are in about the same shape.
A few figures: in 2000, Russia and Pakistan had almost identical populations, 146+ million each; in 2050 Russia is projected to have 109 million, and Pak 295 million. Pak is expected to go from parity with Russia eight years ago to nearly triple Russia about 40 years from now.
Best of luck to the Russkis.
at August 17, 2008 2:01 PM
PMK, thanks for the link in your August 17, 2008 9:12 AM post above. I had suspected there had to be a Muslim angle to this story, and, indeed, it appears there is.
Posted by: Eastview at August 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Hugh, just out of curiosity, do you speak Russian? I noticed you posted those links to articles in Russian, and in another thread you posted a comment from some source that was in Russian. I was just wondering...
Posted by: Natalie at August 17, 2008 2:50 PM
The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989.
............................
This is an absolutely stunning figure, especially since a number of the Soviet Union's post-communist central Asian breakaway states--Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan--are Muslim-majority.
Unlike some people, I was never completely rosy in my outlook on Russia's future, even right after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. I was cautiously optimistic, however.
Many former iron curtain countries of eastern Europe--Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states--have indeed been very impressive in the strides thay have made in instituting democracy and growing their economies.
But Russia herself has reverted to many of her autocratic, anti-democratic ways, especially under Putin (who is still the power in Russia, despite the "election" of nobody Mikhail Medvedev as president). That she has a growing and increasingly restive Muslim population can hardly bode well.
Posted by: gravenimage at August 17, 2008 3:06 PM
Actually, his name is Dmitry Medvedev...
Posted by: Natalie at August 17, 2008 3:11 PM
It looks like this may be only a warm up for the main show to come. Check out the article in the Jerusalem Post about Russia's threat to arm its Baltic fleet with nukes: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710380668&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Now look at a map and observe where its Baltic fleet is stationed, i.e., at Kaliningrad (point Google Earth to 54.64N, 19.91E). Zoom out to where you can see the boundaries, and you will note that it is in the Province of Kaliningrad, Russian Federation. Zoom out further still and you will see that this is an enclave that is physically isolated from Russia, bounded only by Lithuania on the north and Poland on the south.
If Russia is starting to assert itself to regain absolute control over the movements of its Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol, say by encouraging splitting off of the Crimea from the Ukraine, then one might also suspect they are considering similar moves with regard to regaining unrestricted control of Kaliningrad. From their perspective this would include regaining control of the territory between Kaliningrad and Russia.
It is no wonder the Baltic Republics and the Ukraine are starting to become nervous. And since Belarus is sandwiched between these pieces of the FSU, they should be nervous, too.
Condi Rice and the Cold War boys must be ecstatic. Forget the menace of Islam. Finally they have something they understand (or think they do) that they can sink their teeth into!
Posted by: Eastview at August 17, 2008 3:17 PM
Well said, Hugh!
I've been calling for a meeting of the minds with Russia on our common ground for as long as I've been posting at this site, but with what has often seemed a pretty disappointing response, so I'm glad to see you weighing in on this, with your considerable firepower.
One thing though that I think is overlooked so far in the discussion on this thread is mention of the strength of the Orthodox Church in Russia, which is an important element of Russian society and is undergoing its own considerable resurgence in the post-Communist era. In the Orthodox Christian world, religion typically goes very strongly hand in hand with national identity and nationalist ideology. This, I think, will be a considerable barrier to Islam. Not only that but given that the influence of religion generally tends to be pro-natalist, and considering that Putin's government has been, with some early signs of success, attempting to reverse the declining birthrate, it's too early to consign Russia to the grave.
The West has to work a lot harder than it has to promote political and economic reform in Russia, including its eventual membership in European and Western institutions like the EU and NATO (not that I'm saying I necessarily support those agencies in their current form, but Russia is part of the West and deserves to be with the rest of the family howsoever the table is configured). The success of the anti-Jihadist struggle depends on the solidarity of the non-Muslim world, and the partnership of Russia and the West, embodying the former Christendom, is an essential feature of that unity.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/47603.html
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18532&prog=zru
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 3:17 PM
Natalie wrote:
Actually, his name is Dmitry Medvedev...
..............................
Thank you, Natalie--you are quite right. Of course, in a way, this proves my point. Or maybe, I just need to do a bit more research before I post...
Posted by: gravenimage at August 17, 2008 3:40 PM
From a posting at a different site:
Word of the Day: поводырь
поводырь
In Russian, it can mean "guide." It can also mean -- refer to but not reference -- the man who leads around a trained bear, on a leash, from town to town, and has him dance, and collects money from the on-lookers. A Russian friend brought back from Moscow a few years ago not an old lubok (a Russian version -- but predating -- the French images d'Epinal) but a modern attempt at something similar. It depicts such a scene: the dancing bear, the povodyr', the gawking on-lookers: 'medved' plyashchet a povodyr' beryot den'gi" (The Bear dances, while his Master takes the money) is the caption.
The Russian word for Bear, you have already been informed, is "medved." The new candidate for President of Russia is a mild-mannered young economist named "Medvedev." You can supply for yourself the name of the поводырь in question. It's a word bound to come in handy, especially if you are watching Mat'-Rossiya from the beautiful -- and safe -- distance.
Addendum on March 2, 2008:
Vsya Rossiya v Tome "P": Pobeda, Politika,Povodyr', Prostranstvo, Pushkin, Pytka.
Yes, you can learn a lot from the right volume of Brockhaus and Efron.
at August 17, 2008 3:46 PM
Hugh said: "I studied it, a long time ago. "
I see... very interesting.
Gravenimage, I see what you're saying. Medvedev was such an unknown that loads of foreigners (and even Russians, I've heard) don't know his full name. It kind of reminds me of a little news video I saw somewhere. The person in the video was interviewing random Russians about Medvedev and one person couldn't remember his patronymic (and people are always addressed by their first name and their patronymic in Russia).
And isn't Dmitry Medvedev a former lawyer, not an economist?
Posted by: Natalie at August 17, 2008 4:07 PM
Hugh and others:
One thing that I often wonder about when people start analyzing demographic statistics, including Ebonystone's forecast of 295 million Pakistanis by 2050, is to what extent we consider the real impact of these numbers, or in fact the likelihood of their actual occurence, given the limiting factors of hard realities such as economics and geopolitics.
Even if Pakistan does attain a population of that size in the next 40 years, to what extent will it be a major threat to the rest of the world if much of that population is too weakened by hunger and disease, its economy and its military too obsolescent, for the country to take any aggressive action. Given Islam's regressive influence on culture, which you, Hugh, so often link to the fatalistic attitude summed up in the phrase "inshallah", can one expect countries like Pakistan, that have no relatively more advanced dhimmi communities of any significant size to exploit for any technical prowess or economic initiative, as the Muslim rulers of Middle East and Spain at least did in the past when they built all those famous and "illustrious" Islamic Empires that today's Western media and "academics" are so fond of, to be in a position to be anything other than lucky to again be recolonized by the West, or perhaps by some new power like China or even India? Pakistan may seem like a menace now, but I really wonder what'll happen to that place and others like it (Saudi Arabia? North Africa?) once the West wakes up (as it surely must eventually) and cuts off the gravy train that's provided the oil money, development aid and technology transfers that have given them whatever temporary economic clout they now have. Will a Pakistan bereft of these gratuities even be able grow a population of the size Ebonystone projects, or will it be debilitated by endemic disease and hunger long before it can ever get there?
If we're talking about Islam colonizing European states like France, Germany, Sweden, Russia and the UK, that's something to worry about in terms of a demographic basis for generating a military threat to the West and other regions because it would be able for a long time to benefit from the superior culture and knowhow of its subjugated peoples there until it eventually extinguished them as it nearly has in the ME, but I doubt that the same is true when it comes to places like Pakistan or any of the monoculturally Islamic states in Central Asia (Afghanistan included), which I would suspect could ultimately be contained and controlled at least with no greater difficulty than the Communist threat was.
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 4:17 PM
The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989. Meanwhile the Russian population of Russia has gone down. There are now 25 million Muslims in Russia. And the Central and East European Affairs editor of The Economist has suggested in print that by 2015, 40% of the Russian army may be Muslim.
Disturbing to say the least.
The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989. Meanwhile the Russian population of Russia has gone down. There are now 25 million Muslims in Russia. And the Central and East European Affairs editor of The Economist has suggested in print that by 2015, 40% of the Russian army may be Muslim.
So was that and then we have ...
One plan on the table in Moscow, DEBKAfile's sources report, is the establishment of big Russian military, naval and air bases in Syria and the release of advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran (the S-300 air-missile defense system) and Syria (the nuclear-capable 200 km-range Iskandar surface missile).
...and as Mr. Fitzgerald points out ...
The effects of the long-ago anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, and the crushing of the revolt by Central Asian Muslims who were opposed to this policy in the 1930s, are held by some Russians even today to represent a permanent end to the internal Muslim threat. They are wrong. And they are betting a lot, far too much, on that notion.
Ivan is a fool! Like Western Europe's natvie populations, theirs are not only in decline but they are willing to turn over nuclear weapons to those who caused Beslan, the bombings in the Moscow theater, and so on -- just because it is the anti-American thing to do.
islam appears to be gaining on yet another front if any of the foregoing is true.
at August 17, 2008 4:19 PM
templar, THANK YOU so much for that comment. It's pretty much exactly what I think, articulated better than I could.
There's nothing wrong with analysing statistics for population growth and all that stuff, but one thing that people forget is how many factors are assumed. For example, I just read recently that current minorities in the US will not be minorities by 2050 or so. What the article neglected to focus on was that this would only happen IF our immigration policy stayed the same, IF Americans kept reproducing at our current rate, etc. There are just so many factors to take into account that we cannot truly and accurately predict future demographics. Demographics are interesting to analyse, but they're not necessarily destiny.
Tony Blankley made a lot of these points in his excellent book "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?". For those who haven't read it, I would recommend it highly.
Posted by: Natalie at August 17, 2008 4:25 PM
One thing that I often wonder about when people start analyzing demographic statistics, including Ebonystone's forecast of 295 million Pakistanis by 2050, is to what extent we consider the real impact of these numbers, or in fact the likelihood of their actual occurence, given the limiting factors of hard realities such as economics and geopolitics
In that case you have do your own research. Ask yourself how many mosques were in the West 20 years ago -- if you could find one, it was odd.
Count how many mosques there are today and count the building permits for the new ones.
Count how many halal shopes are going up in urban areas today compared to how many there were a scant 10 years ago.
Just for kicks, go to the inner city Christian charity stores and food banks and look around.
Count the number of islamics in line getting the free goods that all those Christians with their silly smiles are handing out to them.
The muslim takers are much more affluent than the Christians volunteering their time and resources; you get a sense of that when you see the islamics load their free goods into newer mercedes while the Christian volunteers take public transportation,
You find lots of islamics in these Christian food pantries -- but good luck trying to find any islamic food pantries.
These are statistics you can gather that will tell you what you might not want to know.
Posted by: witness at August 17, 2008 4:32 PM
Borg: I didn't say they were assimilated. I said that's what we keep hearing. The quotes weren't a giveaway?
Hugh, they're also "assimilated", or so we've been told.
European Crusader: It's not the Christian majority that's the problem. Is there, or is there not, a sizable Muslim minority in South Ossetia? They are the ones, according to this blogger, that are looking to unite with North Ossetia.
Eastview: Thanks. I actually read it first on American Thinker. A respondent said, almost in passing, that South Ossetia had "a sizable Muslim minority". There have been separatist movements that weren't Muslim but it seems like today all the ones we read about are Muslim in origin.
As we have seen in other countries, they don't have to be a majority to cause trouble. As long as Muslims control an area, we have to be wary. Muslims who don't seek separation are unlikely to stand up against those who do.
at August 17, 2008 4:43 PM
Ask yourself how many mosques were in the West 20 years ago -- if you could find one, it was odd.
Count how many mosques there are today and count the building permits for the new ones.
Count how many halal shopes are going up in urban areas today compared to how many there were a scant 10 years ago.
Posted by Witness
Granted. But you assume, as Natalie also points out, that all of this will continue forever. It (unfortunately) MAY, but it won't NECESSARILY - and I think its fair to say that it LIKELY WON'T. Given the liberal culture of the West for most of the last century or even longer one would expect some of this in the earlier stages of this encounter, which its fair to say that we're presently in, though there are strong signs that it's coming to an end. Few people in the West until recent times have had any experience with Islam and so one would have to expect that people in the West would at first be inclined to see its adherents as being essentially the same as any other newly arrived cultural community, but as our exposure to it grows, and becomes more and more negative, as it is, people will become much more critical and demanding in their response.
Consider, for example, that even now, cracks are beginning to appear in the pro-Islamist liberal culture of the West, even on the political left, which has long been one of the most potent defenders of the current policies on Islamic immigration. The other day, Robert Spencer posted a thread on this site about a leftist journalist who is demanding that Islam be denounced for the ridiculous cult that it is and that it be subject to the same scrutiny that Christianity, Judaism, and other non-Islamic religions have been in recent times. In Denmark, the Social Democrats have loudly and angrily demanded that Hizb ut Tahrir and its supporters be told to either assimilate to Danish society or leave. And, to cite a personal example, I have a history of centre-left political thought and voting pattern, but since learning about the history of Islamic Jihad and the dhimma, I've been part of the cheering section here and posting on this site for nearly two years, and I've served notice to my political party (in Canada) that I won't support or vote for them unless they change their position on matters related to Islam (and other issues), including the war in Afghanistan (they want our troops brought back home immediately whereas my position is that we should only leave if we're unsuccessful in first delivering a fist in the eye to the Karzai government by demanding the disestablishment of Islam in the Afghan constitution, the abolition of Shariah law, and the aggressive prosecution of those who "practice" it). It's true that there's still a long way to go but things ARE changing.
I'm not saying that the things you cite, or the demographic trends noted by Hugh and Ebonystone are not worrisome, only that we are still at an early stage in the current encounter with Islam and that its FAR too early to site any of this as a guarantee that the war is lost or to write the epitaph for Western civilization.
Don't lose heart - or you may lose the fight as well!
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 5:16 PM
Granted. But you assume, as Natalie also points out, that all of this will continue forever.
Sorry, I don't do forever; I can look back to say the last 20 years and project forward perhaps 10 -15 years.
After that, all bets are off.
I am willing to say with a confidence level of 95% that we will have big problems with islam in the next 15 - 20 years; including a nuclear exchange involving perhaps a Russian muslim army?
Posted by: witness at August 17, 2008 5:23 PM
Witness says:
"I am willing to say with a confidence level of 95% that we will have big problems with islam in the next 15 - 20 years"
I'd give about equal odds to the possibility that the Russians will smash the Islamic states on their borders, just as decisively as they did the Chechens, long before then.
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 5:34 PM
Natalie:
Thanks for the info about Tony Blankley's book. I'll be sure to read that.
Cheers!
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 5:41 PM
One thing that I often wonder about when people start analyzing demographic statistics, including Ebonystone's forecast of 295 million Pakistanis by 2050, is to what extent we consider the real impact of these numbers, or in fact the likelihood of their actual occurence, given the limiting factors of hard realities such as economics and geopolitics.
Posted by: templar
These numbers are not "my" forecast. They are the figures given by the Census Bureau's International Data Base. They are based on analysis of various demographic and socio-economic factors, and are regularly refined by new hard data as it comes in. Naturally they are projections, but they are based on past experience. Of course, something unforeseen may happen. There could be a new epidemic of a very virulent form of influenza, like that of 1919. Or an old disease like polio or whooping cough could mutate into a more aggressive form, which would strike especially hard at countries (like certain Islamic ones) that resist inoculation programs. For that matter, a large meteor could strike anywhere on the planet, killing a few hundred million in one shot, and so disrupt planetary weather and agriculture that a couple of billion more could die in the following 10 years. But it's folly to count on any of these happening. We can't rely on a deus ex machina to save us; we've got to work with the information we have at hand. Imagine if we'd fought WW2 with an important part of our strategy being that Hitler might suddenly drop dead, and that the surviving generals would recall all their forces back to Germany, disarm, accept the borders of 1939, and agree to pay reparations. Something like that could have happened. Or if we'd fought Japan with the expectation that an earthquake of 8.5 or so on the Richter scale would devestate Japan for us. Why not? Japan is earthquake-prone.
And don't count on poverty or hunger to stop the growth. It's the poorest countries that are growing most rapidly. As countries grow more wealthy, their growth slackens; this is almost universally true.
Let's compare three of the major south-west Asia countries: Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Iran is by far the wealthiest; from 1950 to 2000 it grew from 16.4 million to 63.3, an annual growth rate of 2.7%; but in the last decades of the 20th c its oil wealth began to kick in, and it's projected to reach only 81.5 million by 2050, a growth rate of only 0.5%.
Now look at Pakistan, a much poorer country: in 1950 it was at 39.4 million, by 2000 it was at 146.4 million, an annual rate of 2.7%, identical to Iran's. But it's slackening, by 2050 it's projected to reach 295.2 million, an annual rate of only 1.4%.
Finally Afghanistan, by far the poorest of the three. In 1950, 8.2 million; in 2000, 24.8 million, or an annual growth of 2.2%. Here there's no slackening of growth, by 2050 it's projected at 81.9 million, for an annual rate of 2.4%.
And as far as hunger and poverty go, take a look at some of the African countries, which are just as poor as Afghanistan, but have even higher growth rates.
We can hope for all sorts of things to change the situation; but we've got to plan on the basis of the projections being correct.
My own hope is that the Western peoples will begin having more children, and that they will cut immigration to virtually zero.
at August 17, 2008 6:00 PM
Most of Russia's Muslims are concentrated in areas around the periphery such as Dagestan and Chechnya. These areas are densely populated regions in the Caucasus and are ethnically non-Russian.
To count these Muslims as Russians is as misleading as saying that the US has nearly 7 million Puerto Ricans. There are only 2.7 million Puerto Ricans in the 50 states while 4 million are in Puerto Rico, a US Commonwealth that cannot vote in US elections.
Russia itself is still overwhelmingly Slavic and the Slavs are over 98% Christian or non-believers. Muslims in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Tataria live in autonomous republics that are federal subjects of the Russian Federation. If (when in the case of Chechnya) the Muslims of these border colonies become "restless" the Russian military crushes any threats without pity.
The Muslim subject areas are allowed to live according to their own customs, as are the Buddhists republics of Khalmykia, Tuva, and Buryatia. However, Russia itself tolerates no threat to Slavic dominance, especially under Putin.
As for the accusation that Putin wishes to re-establish the old Soviet Union, this is absolutely false. The Soviets were a totalitarian state based on Marxist atheism. The official ideology of the Russian Federation under Putin and Medvedev is Orthodox Christianity. Perhaps they wish to restore the old Russian Empire but never the failed Soviet Union.
at August 17, 2008 6:33 PM
Hugh wrote: Will they not explain to the Russians that whatever the Russian government does to deal with a potential Muslim threat will get no quarrel from us?
On the contrary, so hard is the official American cold war mindset, and affection for Islam, that any action that Russians may take against Muslims in Russia, will be viewed with great misgivings.
Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2008 6:56 PM
Ebonystone:
I think you and I are on the same page about most of this. I certainly agree with you that the West has to reverse its declining birthrate. Also, you are clearly correct about the growth rates of poorer versus more affluent countries. It was not my intention to question your statistics. I'm simply saying that size of a population alone does not determine a threat level to its neighbors, even when a population is hostile.
I do say though that that growth rate simply can not continue in terms of the long run of history. There are numerous examples in every region of the world throughout history of population decline due to natural disaster, climatic change, economic collapse, disease outbreak or other causes - war among them. Sooner or later something will put a stop to growth beyond the limited carrying capacity of a country and this applies no less to countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as any direct threat that countries like this pose to the West, no matter how many waves of teeming humanity they threw at the considerably more advanced technology of the militaries that presently exist or could be raised and fielded by the West, they could not succeed if Western populations and governments were determined to hold the line against them. But that is a question as much of political will and ideology as it is of demographics - theirs or ours. That (political) front is likely to change in our favor (as will our own demographics) before a more organized Islamic threat such as a neocaliphate can emerge, provided that people like you and I keep working to change it.
The major threat to the West is only found in subversion from within, including the establishment of pipelines for the transfer of cash, material aid and technology that these wretched populations could never devise or produce on their own, through the establishment of Islamic outposts within its current domains, not in the propagation of impoverished, disease-ridden, uneducated, half starving masses.
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 7:18 PM
To avoid further offense, let me post a clarification. I said just above to Ebonystone: "It was not my intention to question your statistics".
I probably should have said: "... the statistics you cite", or something to that effect
Posted by: templar at August 17, 2008 7:26 PM
templar
what you say has some backing in history.
Take away western-type medicine and plumbing for a couple of generations (even Muslims trained in the West cannot maintain the same standard of medical care and public health as are maintained in halfway decent non-Muslim countries; why do you think wealthy Arabs and Pakistanis come to the west for medical treatment? - they don't trust their own hospitals and doctors to do a good job!).
Factor in the ferocious mistreatment of women which causes a massive maternal and infant mortality. Allow inshallah fatalism and the rapacity of the despots and local war-lords to do what it has always done. Factor in civil war of every imaginable variety, from village and clan level up to the dynastic. Carrying capacity of countries under long-term Islamic rule always goes *down* not up.
For just one 'case study', see James Parkes' 'Whose Land?' which gives an overview of the history of eretz Israel under its various rulers from Canaanite times to the modern day.
He observes that the land did not in fact support, during its period of Muslim occupation, as many people as it had supported during Roman and Byzantine times.
That is: over time, under Islam, its population and human carrying capacity ...collapsed.
By 1800-1880 its population had fallen, Parkes notes, to "the lowest level that it had ever known in historic times".
Here are just a few very telling lines from Parkes, summing up centuries of Muslim rule.
p. 76: The 9th to the 10th century: "a long period of misrule".
p. 78, on the 9-11C - "ever-increasing poverty, obscurity and decline...no continuous security or competent public administration'.
p. 91, on the Mamluk period, which was probably the worst - the Mamluks "spread economic havoc, administrative decay, and destruction of all social order".
On page 100 Parkes notes that " the population of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, from 1250-1517, *reduced* by two-thirds."
So - if one takes modern medicine out of the equation, and once the dhimmis fall below a certain number and the supply of booty/ jizya drops off, then despite Muslim forced over-breeding, heavily Islamised populations tend to steadily collapse.
I suspect that the pattern Parkes records for eretz Israel under Muslim rule could be duplicated in, for example, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, and for the Balkans and India.
It would be very, very interesting to know what the *real* population figures for some of these Muslim countries - that claim high population growth rates, and huge populations - are. Anyone with intelligence and satellite spy photos is probably doing sums.
You can even have a go at 'reality checking' yourself, if you visit the Muslim heartlands. But first: get Robert A Heinlein 's essay collection 'expanded universe' and read the two fascinating essays about visiting the USSR at the height of the Cold War, 'Pravda Means Truth' and in particular, the 'Afterword' to the essay 'Inside Intourist'.
In 'Afterword' Heinlein describes how he and his wife worked out for themselves, by using their eyes and their common sense and a couple of other simple techniques, that Russian claims (in the 1960s) of a population of 225 million and a Moscow population of 5 million, were completely hollow.
I will add that not too long ago some Israeli researchers decided that Arab Muslim claims about the size, and rate of growth, of the local Arab population in Judea and Samaria, aka 'west bank', were ...somewhat exaggerated. Yes, even despite the artificial prop of UNRWA that prevents enormous Arab families from hitting the 'starvation wall'. Perhaps the Jewish observers used some of the indicators Heinlein and his wife employed.
Does anyone want to rely on the accuracy of ANY statistics coming out of the Arabised/ Islamised world? Given the 'culture of deception' and the 'shame/ honour' imperative that pervades the whole society? Is *anybody* going to answer census questions honestly? Are civil servants and hospital administrators, say, going to report accurately on anything that happens within their jurisdictions, if it should reflect badly on themselves or their community?
I suspect that 'rubbery figures' would only be the half of it.
at August 17, 2008 11:30 PM
Templar, I appreciate your comments, and agree that steps must be take to counter the Islamic threat to the world. But please stop referring to the population figures I cite as "my forecast". They are from the International Data Base of the U.S. Census Bureau. These are the experts in demography.
And don't count on poverty and hunger to limit population growth in these countries any time soon. Even at its projected 2050 level, the Afghan population density will only be 1/2 the PRESENT density of Haiti, and I don't see any mass die-off in Haiti.
These figures are SCARY. And the West needs some coherent thinking on how to deal with them. It's not good enough to hope that the figures are wrong, or that something will come along to change them.
at August 18, 2008 12:04 AM
Sorry, Templar, when I made the above post, I hadn't noticed your post-script changing your exprssion "your statistics" to "statistics tyou cite."
You mention the lack of threat to the West from impoverished millions when faced with modern military technology. Mexico and Central America have been successfully conducting an invasion of the U.S. for the last 20 years or more. Our stealth aircraft, satellite reconnaisance, cruise missiles, laser targetting, etc haven't been much use to us.
at August 18, 2008 12:52 AM
The Muslims in the Russian Army are happy to kill Christians (Infidels) in Georgia and Russia has given them big, bright and long green light to kill infidels. No wonder the Russians have no remorse for killing nearly hundred thousands Georgian Christians a.k.a. Infidels.
Posted by: American at August 18, 2008 1:26 PM
PMK:
I had answered your identical ? Re: South Ossetians religion in a post to an earlier article by Diana West: they are 100% Christian. The North Ossetians on the Russian side of the Caucasus mountains are absolute majority Christian, with a Muslim minority. All of them: South (the Kudars), North Christian (the Irons), and even the Muslims (the Digors) are united in total loyalty to Russia. They earned a disproportionate share of highest military honors fighting in the Russian Red Army in WWII, and will fight for Russia again, in any war, against any enemy. So, you don't need to worry about them uniting into a "Muslim state" against Russia, but please have some mercy for the Americans visiting this site, for they are being lied to enough by the sociopaths in the US gov't & media. The blogger that you link is a total liar, and I don't use such strong words without basis, so, for God's sake, don't disseminate his lies any more.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at August 18, 2008 3:33 PM
40% Muslim soon. Maybe that's why Russia is arming every nutcase in the mideast.
Posted by: nameless-fool at August 18, 2008 10:04 PM
"being lied to enough by the sociopaths in the US gov't & media"
compared to who, Putin? Ooops, I better watch my soup or tea for polonium you Russian propagandist.
Posted by: nameless-fool at August 18, 2008 10:09 PM
1 Guys, Ossetians are mostly Christian Orthodox (some little part of them are muslims, they say the North Ossetia, but in Georgia they were Christians). I know, because I lived there.
2. Abkhazia, (another breakaway region with Russian army standing there now) is another thing. Ethnic Abkhazians (though they represented only 17% of all population of Abkhazia, others were Georgians, Armenians, Greeks, Russians, etc) are muslims. They are related to other ethnicities of Northern Caucasis - Chechens, etc. Abkhazia completes the "Muslim belt" of small republics in the North of Caucasis, which stretch from Black to Caspian sea.
Posted by: American at August 19, 2008 1:12 AM
1 Guys, Ossetians are mostly Christian Orthodox (some little part of them are muslims, they say the North Ossetia, but in Georgia they were Christians). I know, because I lived there.
2. Abkhazia, (another breakaway region with Russian army standing there now) is another thing. Ethnic Abkhazians (though they represented only 17% of all population of Abkhazia, others were Georgians, Armenians, Greeks, Russians, etc) are muslims. They are related to other ethnicities of Northern Caucasis - Chechens, etc. Abkhazia completes the "Muslim belt" of small republics in the North of Caucasis, which stretch from Black to Caspian sea.
Posted by: American at August 19, 2008 1:12 AM
American:
You are right Re: the Ossetians being predominantly Christian, but I have to correct you on the Abkhazians:
In centuries past, the Turkish invaders converted part of the Abkhaz into Islam, but the Muslim religion had since withered on the vine. The Muslim part of the Abkhaz are probably the most non-practicing Muslims on Earth. Today, the largely "lapsed" Muslims and Christians are roughly the same in numbers. True, the Abkhaz are related to several Muslim peoples of Russia's Caucasus region, but not to the Chechens. The small Abaza people there are practically the same as Abkhaz. Somewhat more distant kin are several peoples collectively known as Circassians, such as Kabardin and Adygey. Yes, all of them feel kinship with the Abkhaz, not on the basis of religion, but ethnicity. If the Russian Army did not defend them, thousands of volunteers of those peoples would pour in accross the border to fight a guerilla war against the Georgians and their US backers, just as the North Ossetians would come to the aid of their Southern bretheren.
All of the Abkhaz, of both religions, display extraordinary community spirit preserving the mostly Russian Christian religious sites, for both religious and cultural reasons. With some financial help from the Russian Ortodox Church, they lovingly restore shrines, such as the mountaintop Afon Monastery, with its dramatic, wide, straight stairway leading up to the convent. The visiting Russians are in owe over the Abkhaz folks enthusiastic efforts. "Amasing people", that's all they can say.
Compare this to the so-called Christian America who aided Nazi Croats in brutally razing Ortodox Christian life out of the much-suffered Serb regions of Krajina, Kosara, West Slavonia, East Slavonia. The so-called Christian America who aided Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists in brutally eradicating Christianity from Kosovo. 150 magnificent churches and monasteries that were on the UN World Heritage Site List destroyed right before the eyes of the huge, heavily armed horders of the US, UK and French "liberators", 100 of them during the 1st year of the "liberation".
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
at August 19, 2008 2:13 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)