I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.
In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.
This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.
Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.
But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.
On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.
At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.
I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I see Muslim population growth in Europe as a related but actually separate issue than low native European growth. Certainly they are related because low native growth is what prompted them to admit the Muslims in the first place, but today the problems have become separate and twofold.
First, Europe's problems with native growth are big trouble for its sluggish economies and welfare states. These are already under serious strain, and the more the workforce diminishes compared with elderly people, the more unsustainable the system will become until it reaches a breaking point.
The Muslims, meanwhile, are as I see it a separate issue. The current Muslim population has been causing problems, and this would likely be the case regardless of how large Europe's native population is. There could be twice as many native Europeans, for example, but I doubt that'd stop the current Muslim group from acting up. As I wrote in the piece, I don't see Muslims overwhelming Europe demographically, but they certainly are causing some serious problems with their numbers right now. Regardless of how many native Europeans are out there, Europe will only be able to solve the problems of Muslim extremism by cracking down on the radicals right here and now.
Reader Comment:
I think that Steyn is trying to make the point that in the next two decades, the number of muslim adolescents will continue to rise, as will the the target audience for radical clerics who to try to recruit suicide bombers.
I have also read articles by Steyn that imply that by the year 2100, the majority of citizens of the EU will be muslim, and their democratically elected governments will become religous radical muslim states. (think Palestine with Hamas or Pakistan should Musharraf leave power)
Thanks for the comment. I totally understand your concerns, but the numbers show that Steyn's predictions are off. He doesn't mention it, but most Muslim countries have declining population growth to the point where they have reached subreplacement fertility. This will actually produce a decline in Muslim adolescents over the next 20 years, as compared to today.
Similarly, his predictions for 2100 are based on the assumption that current immigration and fertility levels for all groups will remain exactly the same for the next 94 years. Of course this is theoretically possible, but I wouldn't bet a cent on it, because in all nations throughout history, there has never been a single 94-year period (or even a 5- or 10-year period) where these levels haven't fluctuated (and in many cases dramatically).
Europe may seem soft on Muslims now, but even with everything we've seen on the news lately, Muslims really don't have that much power at the moment. If they start to get it, Europeans will likely become much tougher on them; I can't see any of the EU nations simply allowing Muslims to passively take them over and force them into a theocratic state.
Post a Comment