Talk:Eurabia

Londonistan
Would it be awkward of me to point out that Londonistan (which redirects to this page) was actually a pejorative term coined by the French police in the 90s as a reference to the policy of tolerating Muslim extremists basing themselves in London on the principle that they wouldn't attack a place willing to put up with them? I don't want facts getting in the way of this "rational" entry. 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence for it
The counter-argument is that birth rates among Muslim decline in Europe; However, birth rates among newly arrived immigrants are through the roof, and there are no signs that there will be cuts in immigration. On the contrary, due to political unrest in the middle east and Pakistan, immigration is destined to increase. Add that to the fact that Europeans have barely any children, and it's hard to imagine anything other than Eurabia will happen. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Steelman / talk / contribs
 * Even if the first generation has lots of kids Their children will probably assimilate and become as European as anyone else. Even if they don't assimilate culturally for several generations the birth rate will probably lower in successive generations. The low infant mortality rates and the fact that children are more of an economic liability then an asset will see to that. And yeah I just made this argument up, still I find it easier to imagine then Eurabia which strikes me as fear mongering, and hatred of minority groups. --NonPerson (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe your argument? Studies show Muslims become MORE religious each generation, not less. Eurabia is fact. Just accept it. 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except in the United States  and oddly enough, France,  (I highly doubt that 48% of people from those immigrants' home countries accept premarital sex let alone 35% who accept homosexuality as acceptable). That is a rather positive and surprising (given current events over the past several years) development for France since it seems to show that French Muslims are quite content on becoming French. Alsto003 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Alex
 * Ah, but religiosity is positively correlated with both fertility, and traditional social attitudes towards gay people and women. Fertility is also negatively correlated with intelligence and social status in the modern world (it used to be the opposite). So... just what France needs - even more disaffected Muslim youths who won't be able to get a job because of the notorious levels of racism in France, the Germans' obsession with imposing economic austerity on the whole of Europe, and the impossibility of firing a Frenchman.--Greenrd (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Problematic Phrase
the following quote technically contradicts itself. "Unsurprisingly, proponents of the Eurabia theory rarely provide evidence. Claims about the demographic transformation of Europe rest on assumptions of extremely high birthrates among Muslim immigrants, which also continue indefinitely." If the transformation of Europe into Eurabia rests on the assumption of continuous high birthrates and continuous immigration from Muslims countries which continue indefinitely than Eurabia (which I should add only really applies to western Europe) will indeed be a fact. I don't care if this term is used by xenophobes, this article should present a clear analysis of this idea and more importantly the various merits of the assumptions it rests on and we must start by addressing the fairly obvious contradiction made in the two sentences quoted from the article. Alsto003 (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Alex

Immigrants from Muslim countries are not automatically Muslims
In fact I'd wager that right now people fleeing the Syrian civil war are more likely to not be Muslims, as IS and other groups explicitly target anybody not "Muslim enough" in their insane world view. Hence refugees are actually the best way to avoid Eurabia. If you doubt my hypothesis, ask myself how the number of "Muslims" is usually calculated in Europe. All too often, the country of citizenship/birth / birth of at least one grandparent is simply cited and thaen it is treated as "evidence" for those people being Muslim. However, it is obvious that since pretty much 1948 Jews Christians and secular people have been emigrating from Arab countries in greater numbers thaen their share of the population. And why not? After all, if I am not a Muslim, what keeps me in a Sharia style country like Saudi Arabia or Iran? On the other hand, if I am of the strong opinion that Europe is decadent and infidel, why would I ever leave Saudi Arabia to go there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Eurabia is Fact
It seems to me like Eurabia's reality is unavoidable. Muslims continue to flood Europe day after day, with thousands entering every single European country by the hour. Look at all the occurrences of Muslim men raping unveiled women in Europe. This theory is supported by facts, reason, and logic. Help society (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [Citation needed] I am not the Ombud's man 15:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see how "someone gets raped by Muslim" = "Muslims control society". Do Europeans have to out-rape women in some bizarre gang war to regain control or something?-- Forerunner (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't children of hypothetical rapes of hypothetical women by hypothetical Muslim rapists less likely to be Muslim? Unless of course, Muslim is not a religion but a "race"... I am not the Ombud's man 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are the people who insist their arguments are logical the least likely to ever have the slightest clue what logic actually means? Spoiler: it doesn't mean "Makes sense to me", it's a formal method for structure deductions to make it possible to highlight mistakes in reasoning or fallacious assumptions.  Not once, in my entire life, have I seen an internet argument called "logical" that came anywhere close to that.  If I ever see so much as one valid syllogism from you, I will be utterly astounded.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Original reason was labour shortages
I've had a little look into this but confess information is scarce and some behind very expensive paywalls, but from what I could gather it was a time when we still had a large manufacturing sector and much was very labour intensive. So it is plausible that what I read could have been correct. It said the Arabs were not particularly keen and had to be persuaded, hence sweeteners were offered like being allowed to maintain their own way of life and religious practices in the host country. So it was kind of like the CBI et al were telling our government on behalf of industry what they needed. I don't think the article is fair when it tries to ridicule those who follow it that the reason is some name calling like the ubiquitous cultural Marxists. Sure there will be those in any political camp who use names and labels, but being rational here we really need to see the best of evidence available/most plausible support for it. I found one academic publication but they wanted 25 quid for 24 hours reading! The most informative link I had on has now gone dead, but this reason is worth looking into.

Iceland
Wrong caption, Iceland IS on the map, Greenland isn't, but Greenland is North America. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The caption was correct at the time that I wrote it. Look at the file on Wikimedia Commons. You'll see that somebody altered it a few weeks ago on 5 September 2019. But I'm glad the caption has been updated anyway. Spud (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Sneaky Wikimedia changers! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)