Quran verse 5:32 allows killing of those who commit "mischief/corruption" (fasad); this was part of what Obama (or his speech writers, advisors, etc.) excised in his mangled quote. Fasad can refer to just about anything that goes significantly against Islam. The major forms of it include the following:

Apostasy
Blasphemy
Adultery
Sedition and spreading false news
Proselytizing of a religion other than Islam in an Islamic country

The classical penalties for these transgressions [i.e., under the broad category of fasad] are laid out in 5:33.

Regarding "spreading false news" (sometimes translated as "sedition" or "alarmism") cited by Hugh in the quoted news article, above, this also can carry the death penalty and is based partly on Quran 33:60-61.

The DR article does not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. (Perhaps because Denmark, like some other western countries, does not distinguish on the basis of religion for such statistics as fertility rates?). Here are the 2008 fertility rates:

non-western immigrant 1.948
non-western origin 2.017
Danish origin 1.912

I'm not sure what percentage of "non-westerners" in Denmark are Muslims.

Esther,

Yes, I think there are problems with IntenseDebate. At JihadWatch, which also uses IntenseDebate comments, whole threads have disappeared and one cannot reliably access comments that are two or three months old.

Anyways, I agree with what you wrote above about there being multiple factors affecting demographic trends. I'm not a demographer, but I would guess that the margins of error for long-term predictions must be huge (e.g., such as projecting for 2050). Still, it seems to me that the balance of factors favours an increase in the Muslim population in Europe (and Canada, Australia, and other countries) compared to a decrease in the non-Muslim population.

Useful information in making guesses about long-term trends is to look at what has happened historically. For example, in India and South Asia, there seems to have been an overall increase in the percentage of Muslims in the population. This increase in the percentage of Muslims has continued in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, in the latter half of the 20th century.

Re Polish and Eastern European immigration into Western Europe, the Poles and the rest of the Eastern Europeans have very low fertility rates (with the exception of Muslim-majority Albania, which is at 2.01 according to the CIA Factbook estimate). If immigrants generally have fertility rates close to their nation-of-origin averages, then again this gives a demographic advantage to Muslims.

One important factor which influences fertility rates is whether or not the culture or the nation has prevailing attitudes and policies that are pronatal. Recently some governments in Europe have introduced pronatalist policies, i.e., baby bonuses, etc. In addition to this, traditional Muslims also tend to have pronatalist attitudes, which are built in to Islamic tradition and law. For example, in numerous hadiths, Muhammad is quoted as telling Muslim men to marry women who are fertile and "very prolific", explicitly so that Muslims will outnumber other peoples. Muslim men, according to Muhammad, are supposed to prefer to marry women who want to have children instead of women who do not want to have children. The Quran-based practice of polygyny also would tend to increase the Muslim population. Traditional Islam also discourages, though does not totally prohibit, the use of contraception. Thus Islam has pronatal policies already in place, to which would be added any recent pronatal policies introduced by European governments.

Infidel753,

I replied to you yesterday, but for some reason my response did not show up. (Though it was held in my IntenseDebate comment stream). Anyways, here it is:

Infidel753,

Thanks for posting that.

".....the birthrates of Muslim women in Europe—and around the world—have been falling significantly for some time...."

In some European countries this may be true. However, the key issue is what the level of fertility rate is for Muslims as compared with non-Muslims. The author of your cited article notes

"Between 1990 and 2005, for example, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9"

That's still much higher than the overall fertility rate for the Netherlands, which the CIA Factbook estimates to be 1.66. By logical deduction, we can infer that the non-Muslim fertility rate in the Netherlands is somewhere less than 1.66.

Also
"In 1970, ¬Turkish-¬born women in Germany had on average two children more than ¬German-¬born women. By 1996, the difference had fallen to one child, and it has now dropped to half that number.”

The CIA Factbook estimates the German fertility rate at 1.41. If the fertility rate of non-Muslim German women is slightly below 1.41, and if Turkish born women have 0.5 more than that (putting them at 1.91), then again we see predominantly Muslim women having more children than non-Muslim women. Also note, again, some of the German-born women are Muslims who would probably tend to have more children than non-Muslim German women.

You quote:
"Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies....."

That doesn't tell us which women, i.e., Muslim versus Non-Muslim, which is the key comparison of interest. These figures can be skewed upward by a small group that tends to produce large families.

The recent increases in some northern and western European countries don't apply to several countries in Eastern and Southern Europe, as the author of your cited article notes

"By contrast, the downward population trends for southern and eastern Europe show little sign of reversal. Ukraine, for example, now has a population of 46 million; if maintained, its low fertility rate ¬will whittle its population down by nearly 50 percent by mid-century. The Czech Republic, Italy, and Poland face declines almost as ¬drastic."

It remains to be seen whether these countries will turn to predominantly Muslim immigration in response to this trend.

You quote:
"Both Britain and France now project that their populations will rise from the current 60 million each to more than 75 million by mid-century.....[in France] the immigrant population is responsible for only five percent of the rise in the birthrate."

Do they mean "five percent" of the projected "rise in the birthrate"? In any case, the relevant distinction again is between Muslims and non-Muslims. Obviously some of the growth would be due to Muslims who are there in France and Britain now and who are not immigrants.

Also, my cited article seems inconsistent with what your author claims. For example,

"In only five countries—Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain—is the fertility rate now more than one-tenth of a percentage point higher than it was a decade ago. The largest increase has been in France, where the fertility rate has risen from 1.7 in 1995 to 1.9 in 2005 and an estimated 2.0 in 2006.7 Interestingly a large share (perhaps half) of the total increase in births has been due to a marked increase in the fertility of France’s sizeable population of immigrant mothers, especially Muslim mothers.8 Notwithstanding the higher fertility rate of immigrants, most
demographers do not believe that the recent uptick in fertility heralds a major
turnaround in the long-term trend. In most countries, it appears to be the result of a temporary “timing shift” that will soon run its course."
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_gr...

You write:
"This doesn't prove what those countries will look like in 50 years either. We can't know that. But we can know that it's unknowable."

We can make educated guesses based on what we do know. We do know that the Muslim populations of many Western countries have increased dramatically over the past few decades. At the same time, perhaps due to a variety of economic, cultural and religious factors, non-Muslim fertility rates are much lower than Muslim fertility rates.

Infidel753,

Thanks for posting that.

".....the birthrates of Muslim women in Europe—and around the world—have been falling significantly for some time...."

In some European countries this may be true. However, the key issue is what the level of fertility rate is for Muslims as compared with non-Muslims. The author of your cited article notes

"Between 1990 and 2005, for example, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9"

That's still much higher than the overall fertility rate for the Netherlands, which the CIA Factbook estimates to be 1.66. By logical deduction, we can infer that the non-Muslim fertility rate in the Netherlands is somewhere less than 1.66.

Also
"In 1970, ¬Turkish-¬born women in Germany had on average two children more than ¬German-¬born women. By 1996, the difference had fallen to one child, and it has now dropped to half that number.”

The CIA Factbook estimates the German fertility rate at 1.41. If the fertility rate of non-Muslim German women is slightly below 1.41, and if Turkish born women have 0.5 more than that (putting them at 1.91), then again we see predominantly Muslim women having more children than non-Muslim women. Also note, again, some of the German-born women are Muslims who would probably tend to have more children than non-Muslim German women.

You quote:
"Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies....."

That doesn't tell us which women, i.e., Muslim versus Non-Muslim, which is the key comparison of interest. These figures can be skewed upward by a small group that tends to produce large families.

The recent increases in some northern and western European countries don't apply to several countries in Eastern and Southern Europe, as the author of your cited article notes

"By contrast, the downward population trends for southern and eastern Europe show little sign of reversal. Ukraine, for example, now has a population of 46 million; if maintained, its low fertility rate ¬will whittle its population down by nearly 50 percent by mid-century. The Czech Republic, Italy, and Poland face declines almost as ¬drastic."

It remains to be seen whether these countries will turn to predominantly Muslim immigration in response to this trend.

You quote:
"Both Britain and France now project that their populations will rise from the current 60 million each to more than 75 million by mid-century.....[in France] the immigrant population is responsible for only five percent of the rise in the birthrate."

Do they mean "five percent" of the projected "rise in the birthrate"? In any case, the relevant distinction again is between Muslims and non-Muslims. Obviously some of the growth would be due to Muslims who are there in France and Britain now and who are not immigrants.

Also, my cited article seems inconsistent with what your author claims. For example,

"In only five countries—Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain—is the fertility rate now more than one-tenth of a percentage point higher than it was a decade ago. The largest increase has been in France, where the fertility rate has risen from 1.7 in 1995 to 1.9 in 2005 and an estimated 2.0 in 2006.7 Interestingly a large share (perhaps half) of the total increase in births has been due to a marked increase in the fertility of France’s sizeable population of immigrant mothers, especially Muslim mothers.8 Notwithstanding the higher fertility rate of immigrants, most
demographers do not believe that the recent uptick in fertility heralds a major
turnaround in the long-term trend. In most countries, it appears to be the result of a temporary “timing shift” that will soon run its course."
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_gr...

You write:
"This doesn't prove what those countries will look like in 50 years either. We can't know that. But we can know that it's unknowable."

We can make educated guesses based on what we do know. We do know that the Muslim populations of many Western countries have increased dramatically over the past few decades. At the same time, perhaps due to a variety of economic, cultural and religious factors, non-Muslim fertility rates are much lower than Muslim fertility rates.

I have to admit I have also cited the Muslim Demographics in Europe video. While it is overly dramatic and certainly not a scholarly presentation, and the figure for France's Muslim fertility rate of 8.1 seems unlikely, the broad gist of the points made in the video are plausible. Putting aside the precise claims made in the video, the gist is that

1. Muslims in Europe have fertility rates that are well above replacement level, indicating that their population should increase.

2. Native non-Muslims in Europe have fertility rates that are well below replacement level, indicating that their population will decrease.

3. A high percentage of immigration is Muslim

4. Native non-Muslims in Europe tend to be older, and Muslims in Europe tend to be younger.

I think most people would agree on the above four points. What is less clear, based on what we know, is whether or not the present trends will continue. However, unless there is massive Muslim out-migration, and non-Muslim European women of child-bearing age radically increase their fertility rates, these trends are not likely to be reversed.

A more credible assessment of the Muslim demographic situation in Europe is provided in The Graying of the Great Powers
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_gr...

These authors project, for the year 2050, Muslim populations of 22% and 38% in France and Germany, respectively. (see pp. 100, 101). These authors also note that population projections of Muslims versus non-Muslims in Europe are often difficult because many of these countries do not officially collect population statistics that identify people on the basis of religion.

As regarding the claim that most Muslims in Europe will tend to secularize, I doubt this. Muslims who are more religious and who want sharia tend to have more children than Muslims who are less religious and who don't want sharia [see the above-cited link at page 130], so in the long term the threat of sharia being implemented increases.

OT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Muslim demographics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w3meSupCME&fe...
Dangerous demographics
at 52:37 they mention that fertility rates increase with increasing religious conviction, and this is true also among Muslims. One of the researchers claims Muslims who want sharia have fertility rates that are twice as high as those who don’t want sharia.
Other notes:
-bachelor surplus creates a security problem
-young age (15-24) most dangerous, violent, unstable
-1:22:00 Putin wants increase in fertility rates

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080331_gai_gr...
-note: search word Muslim for the relevant information
-excerpt:
"In only five countries—Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain—is the
fertility rate now more than one-tenth of a percentage point higher than it was a
decade ago. The largest increase has been in France, where the fertility rate has risen
from 1.7 in 1995 to 1.9 in 2005 and an estimated 2.0 in 2006.7 Interestingly a large
share (perhaps half) of the total increase in births has been due to a marked increase
in the fertility of France’s sizeable population of immigrant mothers, especially
Muslim mothers.8 Notwithstanding the higher fertility rate of immigrants, most
demographers do not believe that the recent uptick in fertility heralds a major
turnaround in the long-term trend. In most countries, it appears to be the result of a
temporary “timing shift” that will soon run its course."

The figure of 18% seems quite low, but I think this is due to the muddled concept of "integrating" sharia with Danish law being not very appealing to those who want sharia per se. So these Muslims were not asked whether they wanted sharia, but rather they were asked whether they wanted some sort of mixture of sharia and Danish (i.e., non-Muslim, "kafir") law, which is quite a different issue.

That figure must also be seen in light of other figures cited at the bottom of the article at the Europe News link (apparently mislabeled above as Islam in Europe--which is a different site). There one sees that 64% of Muslims want restrictions on freedom of speech particularly in the area of religion (and only 14% of Danish Muslims said they disagreed with those restrictions). The percentages of support for restrictions on free speech may give us a better idea of what percentage of Muslims in Denmark want at least the extent of sharia that will ban criticism and lampoon of Islam and Muhammad.

IslamInEurope,

Even a devout, strict, traditional Muslim could interpret the question/statement about "religion" from the perspective of Meccan-phase Islam, which is relevant where Muslims are a small minority. In the Meccan stage, criticism of religion--all religions--was permitted. (There was only an afterlife penalty for blasphemy, disbelief, etc.). Muhammad criticized the polytheists, and they criticized his religion. Muhammad did not have sufficient military and political power, at that stage, to enforce worldly punishment of people who criticized and insulted Islam. Later in the Medinan stage, killing of blasphemers of various kinds was ordered by Muhammad, once he had more political and military power. Hence, some Muslims may follow the rules of a non-Muslim society, for the most part, until they become a large minority or a majority capable of implementing Islamic law more fully (including over non-Muslims).

Even if most Muslims do not interpret the question in the way I suggest (Meccan phase strategy and perspective), there is still ambiguity in saying "religion", and we really cannot estimate the amount of difference it would make unless "Islam" was mentioned specifically. (Though I do guess the difference, by including the word "Islam" instead of "religion", would increase the percentage of Muslims who reject free speech in that particular case).

You may be right about Muslims possibly being more hostile toward other Muslims criticizing Islam, because of the strong taboo (and harsh punishments) against what could be perceived as apostasy from Islam. Yet it seems Muslims also become especially upset when non-Muslims become so bold as to criticize Islam. While the Saudis bulldoze the grave of prophet Muhammad, Muslims are silent; but when non-Muslims show a few cartoons of Muhammad, there is world-wide rage.

I also recall that about 78% of British Muslims thought that the Danish cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished. I think the Danish Muslims' opinions are probably close to that percentage, specifically in regard to the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

The poll questions/statements are too broad in asking about "religion." Of course there will be lots of Muslims who say that criticizing "religion" is okay, but many of those same Muslims will say that criticizing Islam in particular should not be allowed. It is not clear how those Muslims would interpret the question/statement. The pollsters should have asked specifically about criticism of Islam. That particular case would probably show that there is a much higher percentage of Muslims who oppose free speech.

I would like to see the question/statement:

"Non-Muslims should not be allowed to criticize Islam and Muhammad"

Completely agree:
Agree:
Neither agree nor disagree:
Disagree:
Completely disagree:
Don't know:
won't say: