But Mark Steyn points out that the 20% figure actually means that Muslims likely will be in charge or close to is in key areas of Europe well before 2050. He says:
"The "European Union" is a fairly meaningless statistical concept including as it does places far off the Muslim-beaten path (Estonia). What counts are real jurisdictions — first, the major cities, which are already on the brink of majority Muslim status, from Malmo in Sweden to the EU capital Brussels; and, after the cities, individual nations. Critics of my thesis, most of whom don't seem to have read the book, like to obsess about the point at which Europe becomes 50.1 per cent Muslim: Steyn's full of hooey; it won't happen till 2100, or 2200, if ever. But as I say about 30 pages in, it is not necessary for Islam to become a statistical majority in order to function as one. At the height of its power a millennium and a quarter back, "the Islamic world" stretched from Spain to India, yet its population was only minority Muslim."
A committed minority with a sense of destiny has often, if not usually, ruled a more placid majority in most countries throughout human history - think of the British Empire. At least, most Muslims know what they believe and are committed to a cause bigger than themselves as individuals. Europeans are going to feel like John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign shouting to his aides: "I cannot believe I'm losing to that idiot!" Nevertheless, he lost. What Islam failed to accomplish by war in 732 and 1529, it may be on the verge of accomplishing by immigration.
Rod Dreher at the Crunchy Con, commenting on Steyn's point says:
"I don't think it's possible to argue credibly that it's not happening. What you can argue about is a) what's it's likely effect to be, and b) what, if anything, can be done to stop it? To say that it's not going to have any real effect on the law and public character of European nations is simply absurd. How could it not? The question is, are the likely effects something that Europeans are prepared to live with? And if not, what are they prepared to do about it?"
Dreher has no answers any more than anyone else. He closes with this sobering anecdote.
"I'm beginning to understand why a senior and well-respected British journalist once told me that he believed he would see a religious war in his native land before he dies. This is a politically moderate, even-tempered fellow; he was simply saying that he did not see how British society was going to go easily down this inevitable path. As my English correspondent quoted above indicates, the alienation of European intellectuals, cultural elites and educated middle-class persons from their ancestral religion and its traditions is only greasing the skids. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, if you will not have the faith of your fathers, prepare to pay your respects to Islam or the British National Party."
Perhaps when, 40 years ago, Europe began to abort half of its babies in the name of "freedom" for women (consisting chiefly of "freedom" to enter the full-time labour force instead of raising a family) and using contraception to limit family size to two, one or zero children, they thought "What could possibly go wrong?" And when forced to bring in ever-increasing numbers of foreign workers to keep the economy going, they thought "What could possibly go wrong?" Now, they contemplate the end of Christian Europe and they still cannot imagine doing anything different.
In the name of Enlightenment, equality, progress and modernity they are creating a situation in which their granddaughters will be forced to wear the burka. A society that refuses to reproduce itself has no future. An ironic end to the West indeed.