Some questions about the future of Islam in Europe

[Angra Mainyu]

Prompted by a debate in another thread, I would like to ask the opinion of readers of this forum - especially conservatives or libertarians - about Islam in Europe, Islam, Muslims, etc.


I would like to ask readers to say what probability they assign to each of them, approximately. (i.e., to their being true). Of course, it doesn't have to be a number, or a single number. Something like "between 1 and 5 %", or "between 0.01 and 0.05" if you prefer to use a notation more common in math, or simply "probable", "very improbable", "certain", "certainly false", etc., will do. If you have no idea and are not inclined to assign probability, "I don't know", or "I have no idea" will do.

What are the odds?

0. In the future (at some time), Islam will be the predominant religion and/or ideology in the UK.
1. In the future (at some time), Sunni Islam will be the predominant religion and/or ideology in the UK.
2. In the future, Sunni Islam will be the predominant religion and/or ideology in at least some countries in Western Europe now predominantly Christian.
3. In the future, gay sex or adultery will be criminalized in the UK, due to Islamic influence.
4. In the future, blasphemy will be criminalized in the UK, due to Islamic influence.
5. In the future, gay sex, adultery or blasphemy will be criminalized somewhere in Western Europe when they're not criminalized today, and due to Islamic influence.
6. In the future, life in Western Europe will get overall worse than it is today, due to immigration from some countries where Islam is predominant, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Syria.
7. In the future, life in Western Europe will get overall worse than it is today, due to immigration from some countries where Christianity is predominant, such as Ghana, Nigeria or Uganda.
8. Legal immigration of Muslims to Europe is overall negative for European society.
9. Illegal immigration of Muslims to Europe is overall negative for European society.
10. Legal immigration of Christians to Europe is overall negative for European society.
11. Illegal immigration of Christians to Europe is overall negative for European society.
12. Legal immigration is overall negative for European society.
13. Illegal immigration is overall negative for European society.

 

[repoman]

The question is can the religious stuff wear off of them.

But asking questions like this assumes that humans can continue for long enough with this industrial society not having massive resource shortages that will make islamization look like a footnote problem. In a hundred years the world population will likely not be over a billion anyways.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The question is can the religious stuff wear off of them.

But asking questions like this assumes that humans can continue for long enough with this industrial society not having massive resource shortages that will make islamization look like a footnote problem. In a hundred years the world population will likely not be over a billion anyways.

No, there is no such assumption. All of the questions are compatible with things getting much worse for other reasons.

 

[faded_Glory]

Your post is a typical example of the vastly overblown fixation on Islam and Muslims that many people have.

Here is a basic truth that really ought to put a sock into all the panic and doom mongering: after more than 50 years of Muslim immigration into W. Europe, there is still not a single Muslim or Islamic political party anywhere that has an ounce of influence over the way W. Europe is being run.

None.

The number of Muslims in political life is tiny, and insofar as there are any, these are members of the mainstream political parties and follow their agendas (more commonly left wing than right wing as well).

Muslims are nowhere near the levers of power, and there is nothing whatsoever on the horizon that suggests they will get there any time soon.

This fact alone exposes the endless waffling about Islam and Muslims taking over Europe as nothing more than a misplaced fear-based obsession.

Moreover, there is barely any trace of Muslim influence over the culture of W. Europe, apart perhaps from some (welcome) culinary enrichment. If anything, European culture has moved very fast in the opposite direction - just consider seculisarisation, legalisation of gay marriage, reducing gender inequality, and the ever increasing sexual content in popular media.

And yes, I do know that there are some extremists who every now and then commit atrocities. Obviously such people need to be hounded out and prosecuted, which is a matter of law enforcement. Terrorist attacks are abhorrent, but happen infrequently and at relatively small scale. The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.

http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/

The anti-Islam stick is getting really old. If only all this energy could be spent on worthwhile causes. God knows there is plenty to be done still in Europe to make life better for everyone without inventing bogus problems.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your post is a typical example of the vastly overblown fixation on Islam and Muslims that many people have.

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

 

[PyramidHead]

Your post is a typical example of the vastly overblown fixation on Islam and Muslims that many people have.

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

No, he's spot on. The probability of every item on your list is very low. The overall demographics of countries where immigrants originate have very little bearing on the policies or the living conditions of their destination countries, especially when a large portion of these immigrants are intentionally fleeing from their previous governments. European democracies are ably equipped to manage their laws and quality of life the way they always have, by involving the public. If you're worried about gay sex being criminalized, don't vote for people who want to criminalize it. Worrying about people who disagree with you entering the country is basically saying you don't trust the existing social and legal infrastructure to function when confronted by a diversity of opinion, in which case you're not presenting much of a case that the European way is worth defending.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

No, he's spot on. The probability of every item on your list is very low. The overall demographics of countries where immigrants originate have very little bearing on the policies or the living conditions of their destination countries, especially when a large portion of these immigrants are intentionally fleeing from their previous governments. European democracies are ably equipped to manage their laws and quality of life the way they always have, by involving the public. If you're worried about gay sex being criminalized, don't vote for people who want to criminalize it. Worrying about people who disagree with you entering the country is basically saying you don't trust the existing social and legal infrastructure to function when confronted by a diversity of opinion, in which case you're not presenting much of a case that the European way is worth defending.

No, he's not remotely spot on. In fact, you are also not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up. For example, you say that he's spot on and add that "The probability of every item on your list is very low.". But of course, that is irrelevant. In fact, if the proper assignment of probability were zero for every item on the list, his reply would still be a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in. So is yours.

Again, I said:

Prompted by a debate in another thread, I would like to ask the opinion of readers of this forum - especially conservatives or libertarians - about Islam in Europe, Islam, Muslims, etc.

I haven't said anything at all about the probability of any of that here. Nothing whatsoever. I asked.

 

[repoman]

Say it is the year 2100 and there has been a devastating sea level rise, climate is haywire with drought and deluge everywhere. Resources are very tight, trade is grinding to a standstill because of irrevocably flooded ports and scarce petroleum, a mostly vegetarian diet happens because of cost, also fresh water will be in high demand. And so on...

Now imagine that the demographics of western Europe is mostly indigenous Europeans because immigration was completely stopped now OR getting on to ~30-40% muslim from elsewhere.

What would be the difference between the two scenarios?

How would having a base of people who would be at best case nominal muslims effect politics or the chance of political fracture into micro islamic states (not be confused with ISIS)?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Say it is the year 2100 and there has been a devastating sea level rise, climate is haywire with drought and deluge everywhere. Resources are very tight, trade is grinding to a standstill because of irrevocably flooded ports and scarce petroleum, a mostly vegetarian diet happens because of cost, also fresh water will be in high demand. And so on...

Now imagine that the demographics of western Europe is mostly indigenous Europeans because immigration was completely stopped now OR getting on to ~30-40% muslim from elsewhere.

What would be the difference between the two scenarios?

How would having a base of people who would be at best case nominal muslims effect politics or the chance of political fracture into micro islamic states (not be confused with ISIS)?

I don't know why you're asking me those questions, or their answers. It's all very vague; what is "at best case nominal muslims"? Are they Muslims or not? And that aside, what's the actual political organization in your apocalyptic scenario? Social organization? Technological level? Production capacity? I don't have nearly enough info to address that hypothetical scenario. But it would in any case be a massive derail. I'm asking readers what the probability of each of the statements is, in their views. I have not made any claims about what their probabilities are, and I'm definitely not asking them to ask me about the situation in vaguely-defined nightmarish future scenarios.

 

[PyramidHead]

No, he's spot on. The probability of every item on your list is very low. The overall demographics of countries where immigrants originate have very little bearing on the policies or the living conditions of their destination countries, especially when a large portion of these immigrants are intentionally fleeing from their previous governments. European democracies are ably equipped to manage their laws and quality of life the way they always have, by involving the public. If you're worried about gay sex being criminalized, don't vote for people who want to criminalize it. Worrying about people who disagree with you entering the country is basically saying you don't trust the existing social and legal infrastructure to function when confronted by a diversity of opinion, in which case you're not presenting much of a case that the European way is worth defending.

No, he's not remotely spot on. In fact, you are also not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up. For example, you say that he's spot on and add that "The probability of every item on your list is very low.". But of course, that is irrelevant. In fact, if the proper assignment of probability were zero for every item on the list, his reply would still be a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in. So is yours.

Again, I said:

Prompted by a debate in another thread, I would like to ask the opinion of readers of this forum - especially conservatives or libertarians - about Islam in Europe, Islam, Muslims, etc.

I haven't said anything at all about the probability of any of that here. Nothing whatsoever. I asked.

Hi, everybody. Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I was just wondering what you think about Jews. Yes, no, or maybe: Jews are greedy fucks who control the banks, Jews go from house to house stealing people's babies for unspeakable rituals, Jews taint everything they touch just like they murdered Jesus, Jews need to be expunged from society. No ulterior motives here, not like I constantly rush to the defense of people accused of being anti Semitic, just spitballin' on a Friday afternoon.

After the shit you spewed in the other thread this week, you are in no position to sanctimoniously clutch your pearls and stamp your feet about unjust treatment. You expect us to think you're a Logic Android with no biases and perfect impartiality. But this isn't 4chan; people can check your posting history.

 

[dismal]

The question is can the religious stuff wear off of them.

We have a bias (based on our own historical experience, I guess) that the vector of history is towards reason and enlightenment.

It's worth noting this needn't be the case, and hasn't been the case of late in the muslim world.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/48901/how-veil-conquered-cairo-university-jamie-glazov

 

[laughing dog]

Your post is a typical example of the vastly overblown fixation on Islam and Muslims that many people have.

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

Your OP is a caricature that someone else made up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, he's not remotely spot on. In fact, you are also not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up. For example, you say that he's spot on and add that "The probability of every item on your list is very low.". But of course, that is irrelevant. In fact, if the proper assignment of probability were zero for every item on the list, his reply would still be a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in. So is yours.

Again, I said:

Prompted by a debate in another thread, I would like to ask the opinion of readers of this forum - especially conservatives or libertarians - about Islam in Europe, Islam, Muslims, etc.

I haven't said anything at all about the probability of any of that here. Nothing whatsoever. I asked.

Hi, everybody. Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I was just wondering what you think about Jews. Yes, no, or maybe: Jews are greedy fucks who control the banks, Jews go from house to house stealing people's babies for unspeakable rituals, Jews taint everything they touch just like they murdered Jesus, Jews need to be expunged from society. No ulterior motives here, not like I constantly rush to the defense of people accused of being anti Semitic, just spitballin' on a Friday afternoon.

After the shit you spewed in the other thread this week, you are in no position to sanctimoniously clutch your pearls and stamp your feet about unjust treatment. You expect us to think you're a Logic Android with no biases and perfect impartiality. But this isn't 4chan; people can check your posting history.

First, I spewed no shit in any thread. That's a false, unwarranted accusation.
Second, if you had read the exchange in the other thread and understood it, you would know that I'm asking mostly because I want to know what the people who are being accused of a number of things actually believe on these particular matters. I was thinking that later I would ask also what they think about Muslims, etc.
Third, you're attributing intentions and beliefs to me that I do not have. And you have no warrant to believe that I do.
Fourth, of course people can check my posting history. If they do, and they react as you do, then they're being epistemically irrational, and unjust.
Fifth, you're giving yet another example of a leftist preventing civil discussion on this board.

- - - Updated - - -

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

Your OP is a caricature that someone else made up.

And yet another unwarranted, unjust leftist attack.

 

[ronburgundy]

The answer to all of these depends heavily upon whether these countries maintain or change their current immigration policies, and if they change, in what way.

Also, proportion of the entire national population is often far less important than proportion of more specific regions. Muslims are almost non-existent in some regions of the UK, but already comprise about 1/3 of the population in some large bouroughs (e.g. 14% - 35% in 9 Bouroughs in London, and 15%-28% in another 11 urban boroughs outside of London). I'm not talking about a single street or neiborhood (many of which are already over 50%), but sizable regions of 300,000 to 600,000 total residents that are already 1/3 Muslim and on track to be over 50% within a decade.

These regions are large enough to have their own local politics and ordinances, etc.. So, sizable % of Muslim in these boroughs can greatly alter the politics. And since the UK and most of Europe does not have a simple 2 party system, no actual majority is required for Muslims having huge influence if not control of local governments. IF non-Muslim residents are split between multiple parties, then a united Muslim contingent of even the existing % can have lots of influence if not primary control of local government.

Given that the Muslim population of UK has doubled in 13 years (and the # of registered Mosques tripled), several boroughs are on track to be majority Muslim in the near future.

Another factor is who and under what circumstances the Muslims are. It makes a huge difference whether the Muslims immigrating are leaving relatively stable Islamic countries because they prefer to live in secular countries (aka, Muslim who don't actually adhere to or really believe in Islam or the Koran), versus devout Muslims who prefer the inherently oppressive Sharia law and theocracy and only immigrating out of desperation and fear for their safety.

Finally, the OP focuses only on their impact on actual formal legislation. We are already seeing effects of criminalizing speech (blasphemy laws masquerading as "hate speech" laws). But their are countless ways Muslim culture will turn back the clock on moral and intellectual progress without formally altering governmental laws. After all, parts of the US culturally differ almost as much as 21st Century England differs from 15th Century England, and yet most of those difference that severally affect people's lives are not found in difference in the formal laws.

 

[faded_Glory]

Your post is a typical example of the vastly overblown fixation on Islam and Muslims that many people have.

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

You're probably right, I didn't really respond to your OP. I should have posted on any of the other numerous threads on here going on and on about how Muslims are going to take over Europe and destroy our civilisation. My excuse it that these threads are all pretty much interchangeable rantings and ravings of obsessed bigots with an axe to grind. Most of them have never even been in Europe and simply don't know what they are talking about. If you are not one of them I apologise.

Having said that, I am not going to respond to your OP because I find the entire 'debate' ludicrous and the idea that anyone could put a sensible estimate on your particular questions so absurd that they don't warrant a response.

 

[PyramidHead]

Damn leftists. Time was, a guy could casually ask if immigrants of a certain religion would ruin every aspect of society. There was a guy in the late 30's who would ask the same thing to a huge crowd, and everybody raised their hands in agreement.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

You're probably right, I didn't really respond to your OP. I should have posted on any of the other numerous threads on here going on and on about how Muslims are going to take over Europe and destroy our civilisation. My excuse it that these threads are all pretty much interchangeable rantings and ravings of obsessed bigots with an axe to grind. Most of them have never even been in Europe and simply don't know what they are talking about. If you are not one of them I apologise.

Having said that, I am not going to respond to your OP because I find the entire 'debate' ludicrous and the idea that anyone could put a sensible estimate on your particular questions so absurd that they don't warrant a response.

Alright, though going by your first sentence, it seems to me you're implying sensible estimates would be "extremely improbable", "so improbable that it's beyond a reasonable doubt it won't happen", etc. (I don't require numbers, as I mentioned).

I'm not sure whether the apology applies, because while I'm not an obsessed bigot, it may well be that I qualify in your view, given your assessments about others. But maybe not. I can't be sure, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Damn leftists. Time was, a guy could casually ask if immigrants of a certain religion would ruin every aspect of society. There was a guy in the late 30's who would ask the same thing to a huge crowd, and everybody raised their hands in agreement.

More abject leftist demonization, now comparing me to Hitler.
Anyone else?

 

[J842P]

That reply is a typical example of the unwarranted, unjust attributions of beliefs and intentions that many people engage in.

Your not engaging me, you're engaging a caricature that you made up.

You're probably right, I didn't really respond to your OP. I should have posted on any of the other numerous threads on here going on and on about how Muslims are going to take over Europe and destroy our civilisation. My excuse it that these threads are all pretty much interchangeable rantings and ravings of obsessed bigots with an axe to grind. Most of them have never even been in Europe and simply don't know what they are talking about. If you are not one of them I apologise.

Having said that, I am not going to respond to your OP because I find the entire 'debate' ludicrous and the idea that anyone could put a sensible estimate on your particular questions so absurd that they don't warrant a response.

I think the entire *purpose* of this thread is sort of a meta-discussion. Angra has been debating about the beliefs other posters have, and whether or not they are being misrepresented, so I think he wants to ask the people directly.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The answer to all of these depends heavily upon whether these countries maintain or change their current immigration policies, and if they change, in what way.

I'm asking for the probabilistic assessment on the basis of the information currently available, not the probability conditioned to some future immigration policies. If you think there is too little info to even make a "probable", or "improbable" assessment, I'd like to hear that answer to.

Finally, the OP focuses only on their impact on actual formal legislation.

True. I was planning to ask about other effects in other threads, later. But I didn't want to ask too much at once.

We are already seeing effects of criminalizing speech (blasphemy laws masquerading as "hate speech" laws).

Are there new laws on the matter, resulting from Sunni or Shia Muslim immigration?