Comments on: Europe a province of Islam

By: Ikram

Ikram — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:07:13 +0000

It strikes me as entirely possible you could create a European Muslim identity out of disparate groups as community organization develops I think it depends to the existance of a European identity, and a common european experience. I’m not sure these things exist. There is a rapidly emerging American identity, very different from third world Islam. In some ways (music/dancing) more conservative, in some ways (status of women) more liberal. But it arises out of a common American experience. TV, Schools, College, Jobs, etc. I don’T think europe does not have a cohesive enough identity to allow for a real Euro-Muslim identity. But I’m not European, I could be wrong. But if it is possible to have European Muslim identity, one could equally imagine a European-black identity, or a European-Jewish identity. Do such things really exist?

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:31:48 +0000

I could see a Euro-Muslim identity coming about, but only as a consequence of a more general Euro identity among all Europeans, coupled with a failure to effectively make Muslims in the UK, Germany, France etc into co-nationals. Unfortunatley, gvt policy in each of these countries does not rule out that possibility. I’m not sure about that. It strikes me as entirely possible you could create a European Muslim identity out of disparate groups as community organization develops. (I wonder: How did American Jewish identity develop?) So far, though, the trends I highlighted in my article seem to suggest that a substantial majority of Muslims in these countries are seeing themselves as nationals, perhaps hyphenated ones but still. Even in a worst-case scenario, it would seem to be an outcome of a minority.

By: Ikram

Ikram — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:00:22 +0000

i do know personally of south asian american muslims who tend to marry across south asian ethnicity (punjabi + bengali), and american born & raised muslims who marry across race (syrian + indonesian), and so forth. Yes, I am aware of this as well. Though culturally frowned upon, mixed Muslim marriages are becoming more common, especially (or should I say mostly) among the devout. But that speaks to a ‘Muslim’ identity within a particular country, not between countries. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK can think of themselves as British Asians or British Muslims, but their fellow-feeling with the Albanian in Italy will be no greater than their fellow feeling with an Iranian in Iran. A Muslim commonality, not a European Muslim commonality. I could see a Euro-Muslim identity coming about, but only as a consequence of a more general Euro identity among all Europeans, coupled with a failure to effectively make Muslims in the UK, Germany, France etc into co-nationals. Unfortunatley, gvt policy in each of these countries does not rule out that possibility.

By: razib

razib — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:01:33 +0000

ikram, if we carry randy’s analogy with american catholics-italian, irish & polish marriages would have been considered “mixed” 2 generations ago. today, from what i gather, catholics of these three groups are far more likely to intermarry as white ethnics as their ethnicity has faded and their religious (somewhat nominal) devotion is all that remains. i do know personally of south asian american muslims who tend to marry across south asian ethnicity (punjabi + bengali), and american born & raised muslims who marry across race (syrian + indonesian), and so forth. re: the point about ultra-orthodox haredis & co., their numbers would not have mushroomed in ben gurion had not started the precedent of subsidizing their peculiar lifestyle, and, from what i gather, defections from this group tend to bolster the number of secular & moderately religious jews.

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:42:30 +0000

Hi, Ikram! Your point works. I focused mainly on the situation of French Muslims since I’m most familiar with their history, and that of France. The points I made re: France, though, go still more for other European countries, of course. My thanks for bringing this vital element, of Muslims outside Europe, to everyone’s attention. There seems to have been some success, in Europe, in creating a broader European Jewish identity. That success, though, seems related to the relatively homogeneous origins of modern European Jews in central and eastern Europe, with France standing out for its Sephardic population. A transnational Muslim diaspora in the EU-25—or even a transnational Arab-states’ diaspora—strikes me as much more of a reach, IMO.

By: Ikram

Ikram — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:12:13 +0000

An excellent post Randy, for which you are deservingly getting recognition. But let me quibble, or, more strongly, disagree, with an extrapolation of your post made in the comments bove: that there is such a thing as Muslim immigration to Europe. In the UK, the Muslim pop is Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or African. These three communities generally do not intermarry. What does a boy in Bradford have in common with an illegal Albanian in Italy? What do either of them have in common with a third generation secualr non-citizen Turk in Germany? Isn’t it more sensible to compare Morrocan agricultural workers in Spain with Polish (or Ukranian) agricultural workers in Germany, not down-at-heel second generation beurs. I liked you article on France, but I do not think there is any point in extrapoloating to the non-existant ‘European Muslim’. Outside the imaginings of Tariq Ramadan and a few fevered bigots, such a person does not exist.

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:58:57 +0000

Mr. Copeland: I submit to you that Muslims, in fact, do not seem to be homo progenitivus. If birth rates in Muslim countries considered as a group are higher than in Christian countries considered as a group, that’s because modernity has been introduced later. In those Muslim-majority countries where modernity is most advanced—Azerbaijan, Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania—fertility rates have dropped to or even below replacement levels. Perhaps there may be a distinction between homo contracipiens and homo progenitivus, but if latter group exists at all it’s more likely to be found in Africa than not. My thanks for the information on illegal immigration into France, and alerting to me to what looks like the strong possibility of greater-than-described illegal immigration. This, however, does not detract from the core of my argument, namely that French Muslims are assimilating quite quickly to French cultural norms. You probably will get a hard core of conservative/neo-traditionalist Muslims, but I doubt—given the cited statistics—that it will include more than a fairly minority of those people nominally Muslim. How can a population increasingly monolingual Francophone, not prone to religious practice, increasingly hostile to traditional elements of gender and sexual behaviour, intermarrying with non-Muslims, become that?

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:21:09 +0000

wtb: Briefly put, they take current trends, project them indefinitely into the future without any change (without taking into account declines in immigration, or declining birth rates, or assimilation), and present them as a certain outcome. After all, the statistics do indicate that these majorities will develop … I suppose that it comes from a limited view of statistics, one that doesn’t take into account how the wider environment producing the statistics can change radically. It’s more 20th century, perhaps? Mr. Burton: Agreed about the longevity of these fears, though interestingly enough I’ve recently reviewed a book on early Israel which suggests that perhaps certain subgroups aside (Moses’ posse?), Israelites can trace their origins to highland refugees from the collapse of Egypt’s post-Hyksos imperial satellite states in Palestine in the 14th and 13th centuries BCE. So, they’re native.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:19:36 +0000

I think the common error is that they extrapolate something into the future, assuming it won’t change. Ethnic group A are newly arrived immigrants, forming a closely-knit community with a high birthrate? Then they will always be closely-knit, will never assimilate, and will always have a high birthrate. And if we extrapolate that high birthrate far enough into the future, then we find that in X generations nearly everyone wil be called Jean-Claude. Or Paddy. Or Jose. Or Osama. Whoever the current, local bugbears are. Its a special case of unwarranted generalisation (is there a name for this particular fallacy?), and in other instances its quite funny, at least in hindsight, the famous example being that quote about computers growing so much larger and more powerful that in fifty years there’d only be five in the whole world. Implicitly racist arguments about fast-breeding ethnic groups taking over aren’t so funny.

By: wtb

wtb — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:52:04 +0000

Randy, I was glad to see that you addressed this issue. I’ve been reading, ad nauseam, about the demographic disaster threatening Europe and have been waiting for another take on the issue. I’m mathematically challenged, so I can only sit idly by and act as an incompetent jury while the experts fight out it out. I haven’t made up my mind about it but I’m reading as much as I can. I do, however, have one question: You posed the question “Why do people argue that Muslims will be taking over Europe?” What I would like to know is how—why is too broad to answer here—all those predictions of French Canadian demographic conquest of New England, the Mexican takeover of the Southwest et al. gain currency? I don’t mean their ideological appeal; rather, what mathematical/statistical errors do they share that make them so speciously convincing? Could you explain that to someone who couldn’t complete high school algebra?

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:38:21 +0000

Too, in the absence of high-fertility cohorts in the past successfully taking over existing states by supplanting declining or static populations, too, I’m skeptical whether this scenario is even possible. See Exodus 1. At the very least, this is a proof-text for the long lineage of demagoguery around the fear of the resistant-strain scenario. As for its historicity, I heard an eyewitness account of the whole thing by word of mouth over dinner last week, from relatives I trust who had it from equally trustworthy relatives before them…

By: Charles Copeland

Charles Copeland — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:33:09 +0000

NEWS FLASH FROM FRANCE “ POPULATION Un document du ministère des Affaires sociales révèle que le nombre d’entrées légales a fait un bond de 36% entre 1999 et 2002” Translation: “POPULATION – a document from the Ministry of Social Affairs reveals that the number of legal immigrants shot up by 36% between 1999 and 2002” – Le Figaro, 14.4.2004 Randy et al, You may have to eat some humble pie— as will the director of INED, Francois Héran. A report by demographer André Lebon – so explosive it was kept under lock and key until after the recent elections – reveals that legal immigration to France has risen by 36% over the past three years. Apparently, those ‘received ideas’ that Héran and you yourself mocked are not without foundation. You’ll find the article here in today’s Le Figaro: http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20040414.FIG0152.html Also an interview with Maxime Tandonnet entitled ‘A massive and growing phenomenon’: http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20040414.FIG0153.html However, at least your data on the gap between the immigrant birth rate and that of the ‘Francais de souche’ don’t seem completely off the mark – so thanks at least for that lowdown. The thirteenth of the month was an unlucky day for you, though!

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:30:51 +0000

This is one of the most earthshattering and important issues raised in modern science, given that the wish for children is definitely genetically inherited. also I guy at my old construction job used to say that the white race in the U.S was down to 40%, he was one of the most profound thinkers of the ages given that this was true. or not if not I guess. this is the point where our knowledge of pop culture should oblige me to point out that I see a funny doggy.

By: Charles Copeland

Charles Copeland — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:57:06 +0000

Fascinating comment, Joshua. In an essay entitled “Can Man Control His Numbers?” Charles Galton Darwin hypothesised some forty years ago that homo contracipiens might well become extinct, to be replaced by homo progenitivus. It would appear that Muslims are more like to belong to the latter than to the former category. Here’s the relevant extract from ‘Can Man Control His Numbers?’: “If I may be permitted so to put it, by the invention of contraception, the species Homo sapiens has discovered that he can become the new variety “Homo contracipiens,” and many take advantage of this to produce a much reduced fraction of the next generation. We have found out how to cheat Nature. However, it would seem likely that in the very long run Nature cannot be cheated, and it is easy to see the revenge it might take. Some people do have a wish for children before they are conceived, though for most of them it has not the strong compulsion of the two instincts. There will be a tendency for such people to have rather more children than the rest, and these children will tend to inherit a similar wish and so again to have larger families than do others. In succeeding generations there will be some who inherit the wish to an enhanced extent, and these will contribute a still greater proportion of the population. Thus, the direct wish for children is likely to become stronger in more and more of the race and in the end it could attain the quality of an instinct as strong as the other two. It may well be that it would take hundreds of generations for the progenitive instinct to develop in this way, but if it should do so, Nature would have taken its revenge, and the variety Homo contracipiens would become extinct and would be replaced by the variety Homo progenetivus.” The full text of the essay is available online at: http://www.trinity.edu/lespey/biol1307/lectures/lect18/lect18.html

By: Randy McDonald

Randy McDonald — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:11:10 +0000

Mr. Burton: The Hutterites and Amish of North America, I believe, also approximate the biological maximum of fertility. You raise an important point. All I can say is that I’ve seen no sign of such a high-fertility cohort anywhere in the data, particularly since a tight-knit culture comparable to that of Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jews (or Hutterites, or Amish) would seem to be both a prerequisite and highly visible. Too, in the absence of high-fertility cohorts in the past successfully taking over existing states by supplanting declining or static populations, too, I’m skeptical whether this scenario is even possible. Delays in acheiving demographic transitions certainly exist, and some populations bottom out sooner than others. Such a protracted delay, though, seems improbable, particularly in the context of assimilation. It can happen, given the case of Israel, but still.