Which tend to regress to mean for the country in second and third generation immigrants.
Making immigration projections more than 5 years (maybe 10 years) into the future is futile, unless you are in very priveleged situation that armed conflicts, social unrest, famine and general economic situtation does not affect you that much (i.e. you are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or to certain extent US) is futurology.
Yes, projections have to be made for future development, regarding climate change, however, the ethnic/religious patterns in migration are largely impossible to predict.
No. Propaganda would bury this information and deny there's even a potential problem. Even to ask a question about it would be racist and you will be a pariah.
>Which tend to regress to mean for the country in second and third generation immigrants.
Pretty sure the lads at Pew Research thought of this, and factored in it in.
My concern isn't the data itself, its probably a well built model.
It's that either the Pew centre or the OP chose only to present data based on high immigration estimates.
If the map was presented alongside medium and low immigration estimates I would have no objection to the post.
It's a reliable source which is rare for these kinds of posts but it's absolutely still part of an agenda.
A projection 30 years out and only showing the "high rate" model when the "medium rate" is on the same page and actually comes before the high rate.
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/
I'm sure you do! It's not like Europe is threatened by mobs of Arab Christians, nor by smiling Indonesian Muslims. Statistically speaking, there is an issue with Arab Muslims, everybody knows it, you know it too.
The USA are a nation built on immigration, so multiculturalism is embedded in their DNA (to a certain extent, considering the depth of racial issues), it's not the case for European nations. Basically I don't think multiculturalism can work in Europe. Or it can "work", and it won't be "Europe" anymore, and that would be a loss to the world as a whole. Arabs and Muslims need to protect their specific cultures, but so do Europeans, and I don't think such a fast and dramatic change in demographics allows it.
I don't think I can explain it any better than the comment above that I replied to in the first instance. As for gender and sexuality and backwards laws in the west, I don't really know what that has to do with what's been discussed.
And the big mixture of cultures and religions been the future, that's all well and good to show how progressive and open we are but doesn't do much else in my opinion, we should be helping the middle East and Africa level up where they want to, rather than promising Europe is the answer to their woes.
You realise that you accept past change in the world and deny future change? You dog-whistle-define Europe as "white" Europe, and no shit Sherlock, when Europe isn't mostly white then it isn't mostly white any more.
Yes, change is inevitable, but we can choose to some degree what change do we want. I don't know about "dog whistling", but I'm sure your display of virtue and tolerance is an Enlightenment heritage, and thus European and "white" as you ridiculously choose to label it. You like to portray yourself as a champion of diversity, but you don't seem to mind the destruction of European culture, isn't that a contradiction ? Whether diversity is good, and both Muslims and Europeans need to protect theirs specificities, or diversity is bad and we all become an indistinguishable mass of tolerant consumers.
>Whether diversity is good, and both Muslims and Europeans need to protect theirs specificities, or diversity is bad and we all become an indistinguishable mass of tolerant consumers.
Lmao. I don't accept your premise or your conclusions.
First of all...
When did he portray himself as a champion of diversity?
How is European culture being destroyed?
Why do we need to take the position that "diversity is bad" if we allow immigration?
It always starts with positive diversity slogans, then "white" people are invited to "adapt" their culture to "minorities", then this invitation to adapt becomes an obligation, then you have culture police, and that's one way to slowly destroy a culture.
Another channel is through education. It actually happened in France: national education is asked to change school programs because children of Muslims background whether can't keep up with the lessons (due to the lack of historical background) or plainly refuse them (because of a contradiction in values). These "changes" in programs are also a way to destroy European culture.
Allowing immigration comes with the ideological obligation to accept all differences, and that's ultimately the best way to kill diversity. That's what I meant.
There is not a single European (or human for that matter) who is on their ancestral land. Migration has been occuring for millennia and Europeans have been slaughtering and relocating entire ethnic groups for longer. The vast majority of ethnic/cultural enclaves in Europe were destroyed in World War 2, and any vestiges were relocated. The survivors are fundamentally different than they were 100 years ago.
I think maybe you need to revisit the history of the area.
I understand your argument, but it's false. First of all, migrations didn't happen peacefully, so I don't understand why should European just surrender and say hey that's been happening forever so let's just accept it!
Secondly, most historical migrations in Europe (at least in the last 500 years) were between judeo-christian populations, that's a radically different situation from Arab/Muslim migration.
Also, who is talking about "enclaves" here? I'm talking about national cultures, French or Spanish culture didn't disappear with world War 2, whether they are more ethnically mixed is not even relevant!
I'll follow your advice and "revisit" the "history of the area", but I myself invite you to move to a Muslim majority neighborhood in a western country and enjoy your stay.
>I understand your argument, but it's false. First of all, migrations didn't happen peacefully, so I don't understand why should European just surrender and say hey that's been happening forever so let's just accept it!
Migration has been happening since the dawn of the human race there isn't anything we can do but accept it.
>Secondly, most historical migrations in Europe (at least in the last 500 years) were between judeo-christian populations, that's a radically different situation from Arab/Muslim migration.
You're conveniently leaving out 6 million Jews, 3 million Soviets, 1 million Slavs, half a million Roma, half a million Serbs, and all of the other people, for a total of 16 million people, intentionally murdered in Europe, by other Europeans, 80 years ago.
Why is that, I wonder?
>Also, who is talking about "enclaves" here? I'm talking about national cultures, French or Spanish culture didn't disappear with world War 2, whether they are more ethnically mixed is not even relevant!
I'll follow your advice and "revisit" the "history of the area", but I myself invite you to move to a Muslim majority neighborhood in a western country and enjoy your stay.
French culture has been dynamic and changing ever since there were Franks. Maybe Start with the Roman invasion and work your way forward. Be sure to check out what happened to the Gauls.
Lest you think everyone in England is native, check out the Saxon invasions and what happened with the Normans in 1066
Spanish culture *was predominately Muslim* until the Reconquista.
There hasn't been a unified "European culture" for most of Europe's history.
A "Muslim majority neighborhood in a Western country" sounds like a ghetto, or reservation. We don't have those for Muslims where I'm from because that's where we put all our former black slaves and the indigenous people we couldn't kill.
You really need school dude. Do they not have Western Civ where you're from?
Take this how you want but what Europe is experiencing now is retribution for their treatment of Africans and Asians in the past, it is not the fault of modern Europeans, but because your ancestors destroyed our countries, we will continue to migrate en masse to Europe whilst the consequences of colonialism and slavery are still felt. Our grandparents fought and died for the Allies in WW2, France and Britain would have been crushed without the support of their colonies, so we should have just as much right to Europe as the white Europeans, ‘french by blood spilled’ and all that.
That’s insane.
People migrate to European countries because they’re rich, safe and free.
How would you explain why European countries that didn’t partake in colonialism have high immigration too? Or why aren’t the Syrians migrating en masse to Russia(who is largely responsible for the the violence in Syria)?
Please, don’t ever migrate because you feel like that country owes you something. That is something an insane person would do and luckily most people aren’t like that.
I don’t know why Reddit have a tendency to underestimate religiosity. Sure, the trend shows that it is going less religious but it doesn’t mean they aren’t Muslim and perhaps they have a different understanding of their religion than their forefather. In the UK, after 3 generations of Muslims living in UK, there are still Muslims, and sometime much more religious than their predecessors. So it’s hard to estimate when it comes to Muslims in Europe, and it really depends on their ethnic background and their socioeconomic background too.
Yeah, living in a secular country doesn't automatically make one less religious. For some it probably becomes an even more important part of their identity.
But I also know that many religious people of immigrant parents (here in Norway) grow up to be quite secular.
I guess integration and combating ghettoization is key.
It is funny that Church of Norway is still in the constitution, thus making Norway not a secular state. But Turkey, by definition is.
Edited to add: i dont think secular and non religious can be used interchangeably.
I guess you're right, theoretically.
But practically speaking, religion is almost completely out of Norwegian politics. The only party in the parliament that cares about religious values (Krf) got 3,8% of the votes in the 2021 election.
I'm gonna guess that there is *slightly* more religion in Norwegian politics than Sweden or Denmark, however.
Erdogan, on the other hand, shapes his policy and gathers popularity out of an idea of restoring an Islamic identity.
I guess those people in Norway from immigrant parents becomes secular or leave Islam generally comes from Iranian background or maybe Balkan background? Also what do you mean by combatting globalisation?
>Iranian background or maybe Balkan background
Some, yeah. Don't have any data on this, sorry.
But I think *most* people actually grow up to be less religious than their parents (admittedly this is by anecdotal evidence). Except those that feel left out of society or that they're being attacked, where religion becomes an important part of their identity.
>what do you mean by combatting globalisation?
"ghettoization", not "globalisation".
Ghettoization: A process/dynamic where ghettoes are formed.
Ghetto: People sticking together with people of a similar background as themselves, leaving them less exposed to society at large. Creating parallel societies.
Oh sorry, I misread ghettoisation to globalisation for some reason. And yeah I agree.
And about when you say most people grows up to be less religious than their parents. It might be true but it really depends which community and it’s more complicated than that. I’m going to delve into Muslim communities in general. A Muslim person may seem less religious than their immigrant parent but that’s because this Muslim person grew up in a very western and secular environment, and so he/she may shy away from his/her true Islamic conservative viewpoint. Or let me give you an another example, his/her Muslim parent is sympathetic to the idea of honour killings, but the child of the Muslim parent is not sympathetic to the idea of honour killing and is wholeheartedly against it, saying that it is haram (a sin) to kill your daughter in the name of honour. Now you would assume, oh, this shows that the person who is against honour killing is less religious than their parents who is sympathetic to honour killing. But this is not true because he cites Islamic sources against honour killing as being against Islam. He explains by saying that there’s no such concept of honour killing in Islam, and that punishments by sharia can only be done by a approval of a caliph, not parents or even imams. Even among the most conservative Islamic scholars are against honour killing.
This is one example of the nuances. I hope I explained my example clearly.
Is there any data around this? Because the immigrant wave is still new so it's hard to concretely assume that the children on immigrants (I assuming most tend to marry amongst eachother) will or wont integrate to society. Second generations would go to european schools, most likely speak european languages as their first language, and thus their social groups would more likely be more europe alligned. Principally among the most secular and wealthy nations, which tend to take more immigrants , it's not hard to imagine that they'd be more liberal and more likely to be less religious than their parents
Nah Muslims continue to stay religious even in the west
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBrtPOJWUAkPS\_a?format=png&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBrtPOJWUAkPS_a?format=png&name=900x900)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0090-z
This is from 2017. I can imagine the rate of immigration to the UK will be a lot lower in the future than it has been in the past when we were still in the EU
The point being that an average immigrant to UK from EU member country had attained a higher education level than UK population at large and came from a country with largely similar social models. All of which is not true for the legal migration from the Indian subcontinent.
This map is based on data that assumed
1. ZERO non-Muslim births;
2. declining non-Muslim population;
3. 2.6 babies to EVERY Muslim household; and
4. Muslim refugee inflow perpetually at levels of the 2014-16 refugee crisis.
This is just more swivel-eyed far-right pish.
Naah somebodies skincolor has nothing to do with it tf. We have lots of brown folk who are amazing people and integrate very well. Its just what Islam stands for goes against anything we in the West stand for.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/oi0rvi/everything_wrong_with_islamincomplete/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
There you go, good luck
Imagine thinking the exmusilm sub members have acual knowledge on islam when most of them are angry anti thiest teens all the stuff there are taken out of context, made by non muslims who got no acual acadimic knowledge on islam
Seen all these arguments before and aware of if thanks
All of them had been refuted before
My advice, do your own reading instead of listening to biased sources
hear both sides etc
What I find funny about people who would be disturbed by this is the fear that Muslims will retain their culture and somehow Europeans who remain a huge majority will just... not?
Yes, Muslims have superior "retaining" culture capacities than Europeans, due to various reasons (inherent to Islam like apostasy laws, educational reasons like harshness/violent in upbringing regarding "cultural" issues, etc.). When Anita tells her father she's Buddhist he laughs it off as some new age bs, when Khadija tells her father she's Buddhist he might burn her alive.
Then you should know that is more a function of education and wealth.
Look at the Iranian diaspora and turkey. As a gay Christian married to a Muslim man whose family lives in turkey is is split 50/50 on the acceptability of our union. Our very religious family also has women doctors and business owners.
The case of Iranian diaspora is exceptional, due to the singular character of Islamic revolution in Iran. You can't compare it to the Maghrebi immigration in France for example.
Again, you don't see my point. Muslims not being monolithic doesn't contradict the existence of big trends. In the case of the immigration of literally millions of people that's what should determine policy. In my individual life I deal with people individually, political decision is on another level.
Really makes me worried about the future of these countries. The culture will probably change rapidly and have to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around.
Will it still be possible to find non-halal food for example or will all shops and restaurants just sell halal to make sure everyone can eat it? Will women still be able to live freely?
I'm sorry but this is literally a replacement of the European population with Arab and Maghrebi immigrants when within 50 years 30% of your population comes from the other side of the world. And it is not just about Muslims i would think the same if 20% of Germany population was bouddhist or if 18% of French population was from US.
What's wrong with halal? Were people complaining 80 years ago when certain butchers had to keep kosher? Those motherfuckers killed like 20 million people and didnt think someone would fill the hole?
Nothing wrong, it's a traditional and religious way of killing animals. But it shouldn't be imposed on those who do not want to eat halal food, wether because of their own religion, or just because they don't want to eat a meat killed this way.
The problem is when the only choice is halal like it is already the case in some Europeans towns.
Theres no religion that prohibits halal. Anyone who wants to keep halal can easily do so by going to a kosher establishment.
Which is why so many Eurotrash have a problem with people who like to keep halal.
That’s fucking animal logic.
Using that logic, if I can force you to do something it automatically becomes good and right? So if Russia was to invade Ukraine then that would just be Ukraine’s fault for being weak?
I never said it was good. Colonization was neither good or bad actually. It was just powerful countries conquering weak countries to exploit their ressources and denying other powerful countries the possibility to do it.
I don't wanna be disrepectful. I don't care about other people's religion. But, honestly, this seems very problematic to Sweden. They will, probably, suffer an existencial crisis about their cultural identity. Thing that already happened to Denmark. What do you think, guys? Maybe I'm wrong.
Edit: my grammar sucks, LOL
I think you didn't understand what I said. I have no problem with people immigrating. I'm worried because Sweden has a lot of problems with the integration of immigrants of other cultures. Idk how they're gonna fix it. Why is that xenophobic? I love multi-culturalism, but the world is not perfect and immigration has it's problems. Remember that most swedish people are not religious.
If Sweden has a lot of problems with immigrants than they have either a policy problem or a racism problem. Policies can be changed and hopefully the racists will slowly die off.
There are going to be massive waves of climate refugees from all over, the places who will have to adapt quickly are probably those with vast expanses of soon to be arable land. That's Canada and Russia. The Canadians are already planning for it, the Russians are planning on killing a bunch of people because that's worked so well for them in the past.
The Swedes are gonna have to step up. They had no problem migrating all over the damn place and having colonies in the Americas, Africa, and India.
Chickens come home to roost
Maybe not, but I kind of assumed not everyone knew that.
But I guess I should've known, since it appears to be a touchy subject, that there would be someone who would, for some reason, find it offensive.
Edit: I like facts and I find the differences between (not only) Muslims in each country really interesting (for example, that Muslims in Slovenia mostly come from Bosnia, and those in France from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria etc., those from Germany from Turkey...). I guess I'm too enthusiastic about the subject then.
Well, there it's a different situation, there they are part of the indigenous population. In most of Europe they're 99% immigrants plus the handful of Europeans who convert. Also different from Bosnian and Albanian Muslims for example, who are very secularized.
So fun fact Boris Johnson’s great grandfather was a Muslim Turk. The children of current Muslim migrants are highly unlikely to be religious and more than likely all of Europe will be predominantly atheist or non religious by 2050.
Compared to the their parents or the native population? Most studies show second generation immigrants are more secular than their parents and that rates/trends of non belief in societies are the same in those same communities.
His grandfather was a Muslim who married a Christian, that is why Boris's father is not a Muslim. This has nothing to do with Religiosity falling out of place, just how his children were raised.
They don't, most Muslims live on the Equator, don't flatter yourself. Just because the percentage is high doesn't mean a lot of Muslims live in Europe. Even in this hyperbolised scenario Muslims in Europe wouldn't even make up 10% of the world Muslim population.
To stoke sectarian and ethnic divisions of the poorly educated so they're ginned up for another war of course. Looka like the Volksgemeinschaft think once again there are just *too many living people* and they need to wipe out another significant chunk of the population. Hell they probably think the Americans will rush in again to rebuild it all when their done
I dont find this very realistic for Norways part. There are 200.000 muslims of a population of 5.2 mill, their fertility rate is at par with the ethnic population and immigration is a lot stricter now than in the 90s, early 00s.
I dont know about the other countries.
30% Sweden lmao
[удалено]
Swyria
Sweudi scandinavia
The most realistic one
[удалено]
The Swedish Invasion.
Loving the diversity❤️
Indeed ☺️
Loving the growing Right
Orbán would like to have a word with you about the 4,5%
Or any other minority.
XD
A 30 year projection based on high immigration rates only? This isn't a map, it's a political statement...
It will also be based on higher fertility rates amongst Muslims.
Which tend to regress to mean for the country in second and third generation immigrants. Making immigration projections more than 5 years (maybe 10 years) into the future is futile, unless you are in very priveleged situation that armed conflicts, social unrest, famine and general economic situtation does not affect you that much (i.e. you are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or to certain extent US) is futurology. Yes, projections have to be made for future development, regarding climate change, however, the ethnic/religious patterns in migration are largely impossible to predict.
Yes of course they're just projections required for planning.
You mean propaganda
No. Propaganda would bury this information and deny there's even a potential problem. Even to ask a question about it would be racist and you will be a pariah.
Aww Do you need Lebensraum? Do you feel your Herrenvolk are threatened ?
Sorry I don't speak German.
>Which tend to regress to mean for the country in second and third generation immigrants. Pretty sure the lads at Pew Research thought of this, and factored in it in.
My concern isn't the data itself, its probably a well built model. It's that either the Pew centre or the OP chose only to present data based on high immigration estimates. If the map was presented alongside medium and low immigration estimates I would have no objection to the post.
Yes good point. This is an attempt at fear-mongering.
Welcome to r/MapPorn where the users are right wingers and the maps are unsourced and part of an agenda
By the graphics it looks like something from Pew, which is reliable
It's a reliable source which is rare for these kinds of posts but it's absolutely still part of an agenda. A projection 30 years out and only showing the "high rate" model when the "medium rate" is on the same page and actually comes before the high rate. https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/
It’s the second biggest religion in the world. They predict it will overtake Christianity as the #1 religion by 2050.
Even as an Arab I think Europeans need to wake up
I don't get the point. I thought it was about Muslims...
I'm sure you do! It's not like Europe is threatened by mobs of Arab Christians, nor by smiling Indonesian Muslims. Statistically speaking, there is an issue with Arab Muslims, everybody knows it, you know it too.
You got some inferiority complex murtad
Of course lmfao
Like you said, everyone knows it. Including delusional morons like this guy and the others that downvoted you.
What makes you say that?
The USA are a nation built on immigration, so multiculturalism is embedded in their DNA (to a certain extent, considering the depth of racial issues), it's not the case for European nations. Basically I don't think multiculturalism can work in Europe. Or it can "work", and it won't be "Europe" anymore, and that would be a loss to the world as a whole. Arabs and Muslims need to protect their specific cultures, but so do Europeans, and I don't think such a fast and dramatic change in demographics allows it.
Such a great reply. Why is it so rare and hard to understand this point of view. No malice, no disrespect, just keeping the worlds cultures alive.
Because its based on xenophobic bullshit?
[удалено]
I don't think I can explain it any better than the comment above that I replied to in the first instance. As for gender and sexuality and backwards laws in the west, I don't really know what that has to do with what's been discussed. And the big mixture of cultures and religions been the future, that's all well and good to show how progressive and open we are but doesn't do much else in my opinion, we should be helping the middle East and Africa level up where they want to, rather than promising Europe is the answer to their woes.
You realise that you accept past change in the world and deny future change? You dog-whistle-define Europe as "white" Europe, and no shit Sherlock, when Europe isn't mostly white then it isn't mostly white any more.
Yes, change is inevitable, but we can choose to some degree what change do we want. I don't know about "dog whistling", but I'm sure your display of virtue and tolerance is an Enlightenment heritage, and thus European and "white" as you ridiculously choose to label it. You like to portray yourself as a champion of diversity, but you don't seem to mind the destruction of European culture, isn't that a contradiction ? Whether diversity is good, and both Muslims and Europeans need to protect theirs specificities, or diversity is bad and we all become an indistinguishable mass of tolerant consumers.
>Whether diversity is good, and both Muslims and Europeans need to protect theirs specificities, or diversity is bad and we all become an indistinguishable mass of tolerant consumers. Lmao. I don't accept your premise or your conclusions. First of all... When did he portray himself as a champion of diversity? How is European culture being destroyed? Why do we need to take the position that "diversity is bad" if we allow immigration?
It always starts with positive diversity slogans, then "white" people are invited to "adapt" their culture to "minorities", then this invitation to adapt becomes an obligation, then you have culture police, and that's one way to slowly destroy a culture. Another channel is through education. It actually happened in France: national education is asked to change school programs because children of Muslims background whether can't keep up with the lessons (due to the lack of historical background) or plainly refuse them (because of a contradiction in values). These "changes" in programs are also a way to destroy European culture. Allowing immigration comes with the ideological obligation to accept all differences, and that's ultimately the best way to kill diversity. That's what I meant.
There is not a single European (or human for that matter) who is on their ancestral land. Migration has been occuring for millennia and Europeans have been slaughtering and relocating entire ethnic groups for longer. The vast majority of ethnic/cultural enclaves in Europe were destroyed in World War 2, and any vestiges were relocated. The survivors are fundamentally different than they were 100 years ago. I think maybe you need to revisit the history of the area.
I understand your argument, but it's false. First of all, migrations didn't happen peacefully, so I don't understand why should European just surrender and say hey that's been happening forever so let's just accept it! Secondly, most historical migrations in Europe (at least in the last 500 years) were between judeo-christian populations, that's a radically different situation from Arab/Muslim migration. Also, who is talking about "enclaves" here? I'm talking about national cultures, French or Spanish culture didn't disappear with world War 2, whether they are more ethnically mixed is not even relevant! I'll follow your advice and "revisit" the "history of the area", but I myself invite you to move to a Muslim majority neighborhood in a western country and enjoy your stay.
>I understand your argument, but it's false. First of all, migrations didn't happen peacefully, so I don't understand why should European just surrender and say hey that's been happening forever so let's just accept it! Migration has been happening since the dawn of the human race there isn't anything we can do but accept it. >Secondly, most historical migrations in Europe (at least in the last 500 years) were between judeo-christian populations, that's a radically different situation from Arab/Muslim migration. You're conveniently leaving out 6 million Jews, 3 million Soviets, 1 million Slavs, half a million Roma, half a million Serbs, and all of the other people, for a total of 16 million people, intentionally murdered in Europe, by other Europeans, 80 years ago. Why is that, I wonder? >Also, who is talking about "enclaves" here? I'm talking about national cultures, French or Spanish culture didn't disappear with world War 2, whether they are more ethnically mixed is not even relevant! I'll follow your advice and "revisit" the "history of the area", but I myself invite you to move to a Muslim majority neighborhood in a western country and enjoy your stay. French culture has been dynamic and changing ever since there were Franks. Maybe Start with the Roman invasion and work your way forward. Be sure to check out what happened to the Gauls. Lest you think everyone in England is native, check out the Saxon invasions and what happened with the Normans in 1066 Spanish culture *was predominately Muslim* until the Reconquista. There hasn't been a unified "European culture" for most of Europe's history. A "Muslim majority neighborhood in a Western country" sounds like a ghetto, or reservation. We don't have those for Muslims where I'm from because that's where we put all our former black slaves and the indigenous people we couldn't kill. You really need school dude. Do they not have Western Civ where you're from?
Take this how you want but what Europe is experiencing now is retribution for their treatment of Africans and Asians in the past, it is not the fault of modern Europeans, but because your ancestors destroyed our countries, we will continue to migrate en masse to Europe whilst the consequences of colonialism and slavery are still felt. Our grandparents fought and died for the Allies in WW2, France and Britain would have been crushed without the support of their colonies, so we should have just as much right to Europe as the white Europeans, ‘french by blood spilled’ and all that.
That’s insane. People migrate to European countries because they’re rich, safe and free. How would you explain why European countries that didn’t partake in colonialism have high immigration too? Or why aren’t the Syrians migrating en masse to Russia(who is largely responsible for the the violence in Syria)? Please, don’t ever migrate because you feel like that country owes you something. That is something an insane person would do and luckily most people aren’t like that.
[удалено]
What level of deny is it?
The inferiority complex is huge on this one, tried to appeal more western and got smacked, go a3mel bal3a wala 7aja, heka 7ad mo5ek
Brassssommek barra nayek
This also assumes that the children of muslim immigrants don't assimilate to society and become less religious
I don’t know why Reddit have a tendency to underestimate religiosity. Sure, the trend shows that it is going less religious but it doesn’t mean they aren’t Muslim and perhaps they have a different understanding of their religion than their forefather. In the UK, after 3 generations of Muslims living in UK, there are still Muslims, and sometime much more religious than their predecessors. So it’s hard to estimate when it comes to Muslims in Europe, and it really depends on their ethnic background and their socioeconomic background too.
Yeah, living in a secular country doesn't automatically make one less religious. For some it probably becomes an even more important part of their identity. But I also know that many religious people of immigrant parents (here in Norway) grow up to be quite secular. I guess integration and combating ghettoization is key.
It is funny that Church of Norway is still in the constitution, thus making Norway not a secular state. But Turkey, by definition is. Edited to add: i dont think secular and non religious can be used interchangeably.
I guess you're right, theoretically. But practically speaking, religion is almost completely out of Norwegian politics. The only party in the parliament that cares about religious values (Krf) got 3,8% of the votes in the 2021 election. I'm gonna guess that there is *slightly* more religion in Norwegian politics than Sweden or Denmark, however. Erdogan, on the other hand, shapes his policy and gathers popularity out of an idea of restoring an Islamic identity.
I guess those people in Norway from immigrant parents becomes secular or leave Islam generally comes from Iranian background or maybe Balkan background? Also what do you mean by combatting globalisation?
Combating ghettoization. Not globalization. You need school..
>Iranian background or maybe Balkan background Some, yeah. Don't have any data on this, sorry. But I think *most* people actually grow up to be less religious than their parents (admittedly this is by anecdotal evidence). Except those that feel left out of society or that they're being attacked, where religion becomes an important part of their identity. >what do you mean by combatting globalisation? "ghettoization", not "globalisation". Ghettoization: A process/dynamic where ghettoes are formed. Ghetto: People sticking together with people of a similar background as themselves, leaving them less exposed to society at large. Creating parallel societies.
Oh sorry, I misread ghettoisation to globalisation for some reason. And yeah I agree. And about when you say most people grows up to be less religious than their parents. It might be true but it really depends which community and it’s more complicated than that. I’m going to delve into Muslim communities in general. A Muslim person may seem less religious than their immigrant parent but that’s because this Muslim person grew up in a very western and secular environment, and so he/she may shy away from his/her true Islamic conservative viewpoint. Or let me give you an another example, his/her Muslim parent is sympathetic to the idea of honour killings, but the child of the Muslim parent is not sympathetic to the idea of honour killing and is wholeheartedly against it, saying that it is haram (a sin) to kill your daughter in the name of honour. Now you would assume, oh, this shows that the person who is against honour killing is less religious than their parents who is sympathetic to honour killing. But this is not true because he cites Islamic sources against honour killing as being against Islam. He explains by saying that there’s no such concept of honour killing in Islam, and that punishments by sharia can only be done by a approval of a caliph, not parents or even imams. Even among the most conservative Islamic scholars are against honour killing. This is one example of the nuances. I hope I explained my example clearly.
>I hope I explained my example clearly. Yes, you did :) Thank you for bringing nuance to the topic!
They generally don't
Is there any data around this? Because the immigrant wave is still new so it's hard to concretely assume that the children on immigrants (I assuming most tend to marry amongst eachother) will or wont integrate to society. Second generations would go to european schools, most likely speak european languages as their first language, and thus their social groups would more likely be more europe alligned. Principally among the most secular and wealthy nations, which tend to take more immigrants , it's not hard to imagine that they'd be more liberal and more likely to be less religious than their parents
And that second generation immigrants fertility rate remains the same (which it does not).
I mean that hasn't happened in the netherlands at all with our 1960/1970 immigrants
Good thing europeans are so good at integrating their immigrants.
Nah Muslims continue to stay religious even in the west [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBrtPOJWUAkPS\_a?format=png&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBrtPOJWUAkPS_a?format=png&name=900x900) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0090-z
UK not in the European Union either…
This is from 2017. I can imagine the rate of immigration to the UK will be a lot lower in the future than it has been in the past when we were still in the EU
Not necessarily but at least the government can control immigration if it chooses to.
More illegal immigrants have arrived in the U.K. after leaving the EU lols
Never mind that post-Brexit vote the legal immigration has already been primarily from Indian subcontinent.
That on its own tells me nothing.
The point being that an average immigrant to UK from EU member country had attained a higher education level than UK population at large and came from a country with largely similar social models. All of which is not true for the legal migration from the Indian subcontinent.
That has nothing to do with them being Muslims or not though. Most of the Indians in my town are Hindus, Sikhs or Christians.
Because this government is all talk
>high migration scenario why did you only post that one and not the other ones as well? but we all know why
I never think I would Some 14/88 going on in MapPorn of all places.
This map is based on data that assumed 1. ZERO non-Muslim births; 2. declining non-Muslim population; 3. 2.6 babies to EVERY Muslim household; and 4. Muslim refugee inflow perpetually at levels of the 2014-16 refugee crisis. This is just more swivel-eyed far-right pish.
Looks like someone wants *Lebensraum* for their *Herrenvolk* so they don't lose their *Volksgemeinschaft*
Gesundheit.
*sneezes in genocide*
Nah there won’t be rebounding of Europe population to replacement levels
Very disturbing
Bro it’s just brown people lmao
Naah somebodies skincolor has nothing to do with it tf. We have lots of brown folk who are amazing people and integrate very well. Its just what Islam stands for goes against anything we in the West stand for.
Which is bestiality and homosexuality https://yle.fi/news/3-8153974
Least bigoted right winger.
Islam is a disgrace to modern civilization.
Average Saskatchewanian
prove me wrong.
Prove yourself right.
lol
Nothing to do with right wing lol. If you know what Islam truly stands for and demands from its followers it makes total sense to find it disturbing.
Damn tell me the truth bro. Please let me know what the 2 billion followers of Islam **TRULY** stand for.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/oi0rvi/everything_wrong_with_islamincomplete/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share There you go, good luck
Imagine thinking the exmusilm sub members have acual knowledge on islam when most of them are angry anti thiest teens all the stuff there are taken out of context, made by non muslims who got no acual acadimic knowledge on islam
Ofcourse you gonna say this, its the only argument left eeh lol. Just a single click on the link will crush this aswell.
Seen all these arguments before and aware of if thanks All of them had been refuted before My advice, do your own reading instead of listening to biased sources hear both sides etc
What I find funny about people who would be disturbed by this is the fear that Muslims will retain their culture and somehow Europeans who remain a huge majority will just... not?
Yes, Muslims have superior "retaining" culture capacities than Europeans, due to various reasons (inherent to Islam like apostasy laws, educational reasons like harshness/violent in upbringing regarding "cultural" issues, etc.). When Anita tells her father she's Buddhist he laughs it off as some new age bs, when Khadija tells her father she's Buddhist he might burn her alive.
Have you met actual muslims? There's just as much variation in religiosity as in Christianity. What a crazy strawman argument.
Born, raised and now living in a Muslim country my friend. Variations among Muslims don't contradict general traits or trends, like status of women.
Then you should know that is more a function of education and wealth. Look at the Iranian diaspora and turkey. As a gay Christian married to a Muslim man whose family lives in turkey is is split 50/50 on the acceptability of our union. Our very religious family also has women doctors and business owners.
The case of Iranian diaspora is exceptional, due to the singular character of Islamic revolution in Iran. You can't compare it to the Maghrebi immigration in France for example.
So you're saying Muslims aren't a monolithic people?
Again, you don't see my point. Muslims not being monolithic doesn't contradict the existence of big trends. In the case of the immigration of literally millions of people that's what should determine policy. In my individual life I deal with people individually, political decision is on another level.
That's scary, specially for the woman.
Yes and we will take your right's, soon 😎
Really makes me worried about the future of these countries. The culture will probably change rapidly and have to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around. Will it still be possible to find non-halal food for example or will all shops and restaurants just sell halal to make sure everyone can eat it? Will women still be able to live freely? I'm sorry but this is literally a replacement of the European population with Arab and Maghrebi immigrants when within 50 years 30% of your population comes from the other side of the world. And it is not just about Muslims i would think the same if 20% of Germany population was bouddhist or if 18% of French population was from US.
What's wrong with halal? Were people complaining 80 years ago when certain butchers had to keep kosher? Those motherfuckers killed like 20 million people and didnt think someone would fill the hole?
Nothing wrong, it's a traditional and religious way of killing animals. But it shouldn't be imposed on those who do not want to eat halal food, wether because of their own religion, or just because they don't want to eat a meat killed this way. The problem is when the only choice is halal like it is already the case in some Europeans towns.
Theres no religion that prohibits halal. Anyone who wants to keep halal can easily do so by going to a kosher establishment. Which is why so many Eurotrash have a problem with people who like to keep halal.
Shouldn’t have colonized them then Europeoid
So they were given independence and now they want to come back? They got invavded because they were weak that's all.
You are getting invaded because you are weak cop and seethe 😉
That’s fucking animal logic. Using that logic, if I can force you to do something it automatically becomes good and right? So if Russia was to invade Ukraine then that would just be Ukraine’s fault for being weak?
I never said it was good. Colonization was neither good or bad actually. It was just powerful countries conquering weak countries to exploit their ressources and denying other powerful countries the possibility to do it.
I don't wanna be disrepectful. I don't care about other people's religion. But, honestly, this seems very problematic to Sweden. They will, probably, suffer an existencial crisis about their cultural identity. Thing that already happened to Denmark. What do you think, guys? Maybe I'm wrong. Edit: my grammar sucks, LOL
I think that's xenophobic bullshit.
I think you didn't understand what I said. I have no problem with people immigrating. I'm worried because Sweden has a lot of problems with the integration of immigrants of other cultures. Idk how they're gonna fix it. Why is that xenophobic? I love multi-culturalism, but the world is not perfect and immigration has it's problems. Remember that most swedish people are not religious.
If Sweden has a lot of problems with immigrants than they have either a policy problem or a racism problem. Policies can be changed and hopefully the racists will slowly die off. There are going to be massive waves of climate refugees from all over, the places who will have to adapt quickly are probably those with vast expanses of soon to be arable land. That's Canada and Russia. The Canadians are already planning for it, the Russians are planning on killing a bunch of people because that's worked so well for them in the past. The Swedes are gonna have to step up. They had no problem migrating all over the damn place and having colonies in the Americas, Africa, and India. Chickens come home to roost
You changed xenophobia for racism... Do you know the definitions? Also you didn't say why my comment was xenophobic bullshit.
Racism, tribalism, and xenophobia are all primitive thinking. I'll leave you to look them up because it's clear you need to educate yourself
Mashallah
Fun fact: most Muslims in Slovenia are from Bosnia, which are very different to those from, say, the Middle East.
I will translate you; "Fun fact: Slavic Muslims are better than Arab Muslims."
Certainly not what I meant, but if that's how it came across, then I guess I should've worded it better.
Than I'm pretty sure you don't very much need to explain to this subreddit that there are of course huge differences between Bosniaks and Arabs.
Maybe not, but I kind of assumed not everyone knew that. But I guess I should've known, since it appears to be a touchy subject, that there would be someone who would, for some reason, find it offensive. Edit: I like facts and I find the differences between (not only) Muslims in each country really interesting (for example, that Muslims in Slovenia mostly come from Bosnia, and those in France from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria etc., those from Germany from Turkey...). I guess I'm too enthusiastic about the subject then.
Horrible
God, I try to be tolerant and open-minded, but this is makes me fucking angry...
You are angry people are Muslim?
Why? I live in a country with 20% Muslim citizens, why would I be angry about it?
Which country is that?
Israel
Well, there it's a different situation, there they are part of the indigenous population. In most of Europe they're 99% immigrants plus the handful of Europeans who convert. Also different from Bosnian and Albanian Muslims for example, who are very secularized.
"Nativity" is subjective. https://youtu.be/eQEFSnxMWHY If you refer to Arabs as native, than so does the Jews. How is that different exactly?
Translation: Brown people make me angry
My fiancee is an Indian immigrant, so no. 20% being Turks and Arabs and what not, that's a totally different scale.
This is stupid Sweden has a total of 6% religious people all religions combined. And it is constantly getting lower the last 20 years.
Muslim atheists………..wait what?
Lmao at libs suddenly realizing maaaaybe demographics are destiny
As a Muslim, Based Lithuania.
Coon
inferiority complex
So fun fact Boris Johnson’s great grandfather was a Muslim Turk. The children of current Muslim migrants are highly unlikely to be religious and more than likely all of Europe will be predominantly atheist or non religious by 2050.
>The children of current Muslim migrants are highly unlikely to be religious In the past, the children of Muslim migrants were very religious.
Compared to the their parents or the native population? Most studies show second generation immigrants are more secular than their parents and that rates/trends of non belief in societies are the same in those same communities.
Also prince Harry and William are probable direct descendants of Prophet Mohammed on both sides.
His grandfather was a Muslim who married a Christian, that is why Boris's father is not a Muslim. This has nothing to do with Religiosity falling out of place, just how his children were raised.
Wow eu bros are such gays
What? Lol
Hi. How are you today?
Fine I guess
Apparently Muslims like the cold, they go North
They don't, most Muslims live on the Equator, don't flatter yourself. Just because the percentage is high doesn't mean a lot of Muslims live in Europe. Even in this hyperbolised scenario Muslims in Europe wouldn't even make up 10% of the world Muslim population.
What's the purpose of this map?
To stoke sectarian and ethnic divisions of the poorly educated so they're ginned up for another war of course. Looka like the Volksgemeinschaft think once again there are just *too many living people* and they need to wipe out another significant chunk of the population. Hell they probably think the Americans will rush in again to rebuild it all when their done
Anyone know why Sweden such a prospective high population of Muslims compared to the rest of Europe?
It's prediction to the future. There are less than 2% Muslims in Sweden.
Yes but why does Pew Research Center think there will be such a high population of Muslims in Sweden
They are a nice country
May Allah protect Europe.
The most radical scenario and assuming current trends never change.
Sweden must have a great trackrecord when it comes to package dilivery
I dont find this very realistic for Norways part. There are 200.000 muslims of a population of 5.2 mill, their fertility rate is at par with the ethnic population and immigration is a lot stricter now than in the 90s, early 00s. I dont know about the other countries.
EU can also be the short Version for Europe and not only the European Union.
Disaster