Islamic aspirations to dominate the world are set to happen—if not through might of arms, then apparently through sheer numbers.
In 1900, the Muslim population of the world was less than 200 million. Conversely, the Christian population of the world was almost 560 million—almost three times the number of Muslims.
Times have changed. According to the findings of a Pew Research Center in America:
The number of Muslims will increase at more than double the rate of the world’s population, which is expected to rise by 35 per cent in the next four decades.
There will be more Muslims than Christians in the world in less than sixty years, new research revealed.
The [Islamic] religion’s share of the world’s population will equal the Christian share – at roughly 32 per cent each – in 2070, analysis by the Pew Research Center showed.
[…]
By 2050 Muslims will make up around ten per cent of Europe’s population.
For a better idea of what is in store for Europe, simply look to the UK’s “Londonistan”—the apt name for London and other regions with a notable Islamic presence: Already with a 10 percent Muslim population, Londonistan is a reflection of Europe 35 years from now when it too is projected to be ten percent Muslim (and by which time the UK will likely have an even much larger Muslim population).
The same sorts of anti-infidel violence and sexual abuse that is a daily fixture in Muslim majority nations is already a normal feature of Londonistan with its mere 10 percent Muslim minority.
Put differently, if “ISIS” and other Islamic groups regularly behead “infidel” men and sexually enslave “infidel” women in the Middle East—so are “average” Muslims doing so in the UK:
Recall how in 2013, two Muslim men shouting “Allahu Akbar” beheaded a British soldier with a cleaver—in a busy intersection and in broad daylight no less. They even boasted in front of passersby and asked to be videotaped.
Or recall how Muslims were recently busted for running a sex ring in Rotherham, England: 1,400 British children as young as 11 were plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops.
It was at least at least the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered in England—Muslims who only make 10 percent.
During the trial of an earlier Muslim-run sex ring “Several of the men on trial in Liverpool apparently told their victims that it was all right for them to be passed around for sex with dozens of men ‘because it’s what we do in our country.’”
In fact, when a Muslim man savagely raped a nine-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan, he told her “not to worry because he had done the same service to other young Christian girls.” Commenting on this case, local human rights activists said, “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”
Seemingly not a day goes by without Christian girls in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, and any number of other Muslim majority nations being abducted, enslaved, raped, and/forced to convert (See Crucified Again, pgs. 186-199 for a sampling, plus the doctrinal justification.)… Keep reading
Matthieu Baudin says
Raymond Ibrahim does well to keep us on our toes.
katherine says
Gotta admire him too for being the rare voice that speaks up for Myanmar’s policies towards the Rohingyas. Most people don’t realize that the Burmese have already applied the perfect solution to Population-jihad by legally restricting family size of the Muslims to 2 offspring. When you consider that the average western family unit comprises less than 4 children , you can already visualize the solution needed to fix this abomination of using babies as Weapons of Jihad.
Clay says
A lot can change in the coming years. Hopefully there will be another great awaking and Christians will have a revival and bringing the unchurched to Christ. We are not born Christians. We become Christians when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
Just because the birth rate is down for Westerns at this time doesn’t mean it will stay that way. A lot can change in 50 years. I don’t think anyone in 1960 would have predicted the world as it is now. We do not have to accept that those projections are written in stone. We just have to wake up.
Joseph says
@ Clay
We are not born Christians. We become Christians when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
_________________________________________________
Amen brother.
Lioness says
No one is waking up. Jihad Watch readers are but a small group, Muslims are thriving under Hussein Obama, who wants to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in the US. Christianity is disappearing, many US Jews are leftists to the core and hate Israel, and only Muslims are multiplying like rats. How is this a rosy picture for the future?
Clay says
Looking at the numbers the future is not rosy. All we can do is do our part to change it. God has never promised that we would have what the world considers success. Stand for and do what is right. That is all we can do.
mortimer says
Much of Islam is concerned with the sexual gratification of jihadist warriors. Whether or not they are actually fighting, many cabbies and delivery drivers apparently consider themselves SEX JIHADISTS and consider their role to be that of rapists of non-Muslim women.
pongidae rex says
The world is currently grossly overpopulated and beyond carrying capacity. We are strip mining ecosystems all over the world to survive. Muslims have traditionally dealt with overpopulation by expelling or exterminating religious minorities. That process has now been completed in ‘Muslim lands’, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, etc. At this point, the only way Muslims can increase their population is via massive food aid from the West, or emigration to non-Muslim lands. Both processes are in full and escalating operation. In non-Muslim countries, Muslim population growth is the direct result of ‘resettlement’ and immigration directly subsidized via the state, followed by skillful Muslim gaming of Western welfare systems. If the Muslim population of the world vastly increases, it will only be via the direct assistance of the West. You cannot blame this one on Muslims. We are responsible for our own suicide. Islam and Muslims are simply the weapon of choice for self destruction.
RonaldB says
Well, you’re on the right track, but in my opinion have some details wrong. This is what I conjecture.
Muslims developed a prodigious birth rate because being backwards, they had a high death rate. What Muslim country on its own would develop or apply scientific methods? Traditionally, backwards societies have a high birth rate to maintain their population. When they were able to conquer neighboring territories, they had unearned loot and knowledgeable slaves to lower the death rate.
Once they were pushed back and their expansion and looting stopped, the death rate due to starvation, unsanitary conditions and abject ignorance went up to stabilize the population.
The Western countries began operating on the “life is valuable anywhere, justifying socialism” principle, first shipping massive aid and technology to the Muslim countries, and then importing the resulting population surpluses into Western countries. So, what we have coming in is a slothful, unproductive population genetically programmed to grab whatever resources are near them. The West spends vast resources grabbed from productive citizens to house these immigrants, and provide vastly expensive medical treatment for every last genetically inbred and damaged baby.
So, yes. By importing these people assuming they are exactly the same as the previous population of Europe except for “culture”, the West began a process of entirely avoidable suicide which is accelerating rapidly today.
Worse, the natural method of government for Muslims is a strong, dictatorial leader who suppresses Muslim excesses with brute force. This provided the only push to civilization in the Muslim world. Our presidents, Democratic and Republican, have supported the overthrow of these types of governments in favor of “democratic” governments, which means sharia and religious rule in Muslim countries.
Just to be clear, I do not support any action by the West which results in injury or death to Muslims. I favor keeping Muslims in Muslim countries.
I do not support any invasions except to remove immediate threats. Israel bombed Iraq when it was developing nuclear weapons, obviously a preemptive move Israel thought necessary. There is controversy about whether Hussein actually had an active chemical or nuclear program when Bush invaded in 2003, but at most, our armies should have deposed Hussein and then should have simply left, allowing the same dictatorship to continue with another dictator. And if a Muslim country chooses to secularize on its own, as in the case of Tunisia, so much the better.
But, by socializing, and supporting the free migration of Muslim overpopulation to the West, we are literally committing suicide.
quotha raven says
Yup. That’s about it. Cheers! Quotha R
Phil says
Before I comment on this article, let me put my heartfelt admiration for Raymond Ibrahim on record. The invaluable service he performs in compiling the unending catalogue of Muslim atrocities that our obscenely dishonest self-appointed leaders have chosen to whitewash makes him one of the truly heroic figures of our time – and I only wish we had more like him.
That said, I can’t agree with this article. The Dar al-Islam surely wants to flood the world with its hordes, but the facts are plain : using the UN Population Division data (one of the few reliable data sources coming out of the UN these days, primarily because the UN has done nothing but reformat data from other competent independent sources) Eberhardt and Shah in 2012 conclusively demonstrated that “ forty-eight Muslim-majority countries…witnessed fertility decline over the past three decades”. Further the estimated population-weighted average for Muslim-majority areas as a whole was minus (!) 41% over the same three decades and 22 Muslim majority countries underwent fertility declines of greater than 50% (Iran and the Maldives both had total fertility declines of over 70% – which is historically unprecedented even including eras of major plague pandemics). Of the ten greatest declines in total fertility rates in the post-war era, “six have occurred in Muslim-majority countries”. Numerous other epidemiologists and demographers had come to the same conclusion using different data sources – the Dar al-Islam is not demographically healthy. It’s been evident for the last 15 years and the trend is irreversible. By 2040, Iran is in trouble, with Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Iraq and Syria not far behind.
From a historical perspective let’s all remember, just 35 years ago they were making inflated claims about Iran’s population – never realizing it was about to fall off a demographic cliff. I’m not suggesting Muslims won’t cause substantial demographic shifts in Europe – but world-wide they won’t be the overwhelming force their proponents believe they will be. As for the numbers of Christians – the Pew report ignores the startling growth of Christianity in China. I don’t think China will become a Christian-majority nation (although, on current trends, it well could), but Chinese Christianity will be significant. We will lose much of Europe – which faces Balkanization on a scale to dwarf anything in Lebanon (with all the human tragedy that will bring) – but even the feckless, gender-challenged Europeans will still be around in sufficient numbers to dilute the musulman masses. And resistance is growing. If the Czechs can become so disillusioned with Islam, so much so that their Slovak cousins are following suit, then there is hope for the survival of some of Europe. I would include the Swiss in that category, as well.
All that said – many of the salient point Raymond Ibrahim raised are correct.
Sorry for the long rambling post – but I think we should remember we’re not facing defeat yet – only our Multikulti ideology and the whoring after muslim votes by the political elite have prevented a reasoned and reasonable response to the encroachment of the Dar al-Islam.
cs says
Good post, but as I live in Britain, I am very, very, very concerned…
What I believe is that people should cut all help for children, they are encouraging this Muzzie Children inflation. So stupid.
Phil says
Absolutely agree with you there – if the UK cut the social welfare programs given to the Muslim migrants they wouldn’t come. The whole system is an insane Ponzi scheme. And since UK and Eire have opt-out options for the Schengen agreement – they should enforce them.
RonaldB says
Thank you Philip. Any factual contribution is always welcome.
By the way, there are at least 57 Muslim-majority countries. You mentioned fertility decline in 48 or them. Are the other nine countries fueling a population overflow? The boat people coming to Europe are clearly African and even more clearly, genetically unable to assimilate, even without the millstone of Islam.
Since maintaining borders is a matter of national survival, all the European countries should opt out of the EU migration commitments, legal or not. The European countries have become too dependent on German money and are unwilling to mobilize and just kick the EU out. Once the EU develops its own independent military force, it’s all over for Europe anyway: a more thoroughly fascist structure than the EU cannot be imagined.
Angemon says
I can’t help but to look at that pic and seeing a ransom note.
“We’ve got your kid. Give us such and such money on such and such place at such and such time or the kid gets it”.
voegelinian says
Once again, the Erroneous Either/Or pops up in the Counter-Jihad. Here, Raymond Ibrahim can’t help spontaneously blurt it out:
Islamic aspirations to dominate the world are set to happen—if not through might of arms, then apparently through sheer numbers.
In fact, we have every reason to assume that Muslims are pursuing both tactics, as part of their supremacist-expansionist strategy. Closely related to this has been the odd difficulty so many in the Counter-Jihad have with realizing that Muslims are pursuing both Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad — that the two work together, in tandem (basically through having enormous effect through the classic Good Cop/Bad Cop mechanism).
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Once again, the Erroneous Either/Or pops up in the Counter-Jihad.”
Yes, you’d know a thing or two about popping a “either/or” every once in a while, wouldn’t you?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/university-of-california-berkeley-students-article-about-why-she-left-islam-pulled-from-school-paper-over-fears-for-her-safety/comment-page-1#comment-1251959
“Either they are worried about what the PC MC mainstream will think, or they actually disagree with those words. There is no third option I can think of.”
Your “analysis” is a rotund failure, BTW. There’s no “either/or” in Raymond’s post. He’s clearly saying “they’re trying both things and they hope to get it with either”. But, of course, you need to undermine any regular contributor of the site, even it if means you have to shove one of your square bullet point pegs into a round hole and claim that the hole was a square but you made it round with your round peg.
Godless says
Angemon, Voegelinian was saying how those in the Counter-Jihad need to recognize Muslims are pursuing both Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad. He was pointing out that MUSLIMS’ tactics are not “either/or” So why would you respond by copying and pasting a comment he made about NON-MUSLIMS not saying something because they really do not believe it or just omit it because they are afraid of what the PC MC mainstream will think? It appears you are EITHER confused OR you are deliberately misrepresenting him so that you can insinuate he is somehow being inconsistent.
Anyway both of you did not click on “keep reading” at the bottom. Read the full article. Angemon, Ibrahim was not saying “they are trying both and hoping to get it with either” He says at the very end “with all the forms of Jihad, Sword Jihad, Tongue Jihad, Money Jihad, the West also needs to be aware of Baby Jihad.”
Angemon says
Godless posted:
“Angemon, Voegelinian was saying how those in the Counter-Jihad need to recognize Muslims are pursuing both Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad.”
I’m going to quote voeg here:
“Once again, the Erroneous Either/Or pops up in the Counter-Jihad. Here, Raymond Ibrahim can’t help spontaneously blurt it out:”
There was no “Erroneous Either/Or” in Raymond’s article. He made it quite clear that they’re trying both things and they hope to get it with either.
“He was pointing out that MUSLIMS’ tactics are not “either/or””
While insisting that Raymond was erroneously saying they were. Which he isn’t. But that’s voeg’s MO: misrepresent people like Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerals, etc, to bolster his standing.
“So why would you respond by copying and pasting a comment he made about NON-MUSLIMS not saying something because they really do not believe it or just omit it because they are afraid of what the PC MC mainstream will think?”
To prove that he’s an hypocrite: he claims others indulge in “Erroneous Either/Or” when he does the same thing.
“It appears you are EITHER confused OR you are deliberately misrepresenting him so that you can insinuate he is somehow being inconsistent.”
Neither of those, as explained above.
“Anyway both of you did not click on “keep reading” at the bottom. Read the full article.”
Voeg quoted the first sentence of the article to make his erroneous point. I called him out on that very first sentence. No need to try to muddy the waters.
“Angemon, Ibrahim was not saying “they are trying both and hoping to get it with either” He says at the very end “with all the forms of Jihad, Sword Jihad, Tongue Jihad, Money Jihad, the West also needs to be aware of Baby Jihad.””
I read the article. Voeg quoted the first sentence. I called him on his misrepresentation of it. Also, not really sure what you’re trying to achieve. That Raymond further down the line says “they’re trying it in all ways and expect to succeed with any or all of them” changes nothing – it’s till not the “Erroneous Either/Or” voeg claimed based on the first sentence alone.