I encounter many evangelical Christians in south London. Many of them black, many of them female. It seems to be African Christianity (they wear very ornate and colourful outfits to church on Sunday) with a bit of American megachurch aspirational Christianity thrown in. They certainly seem to be attempting to convert anyone who will listen to them. “Are they targeting Muslims?” is an interesting question. They seem to be pretty decent people, on the whole, and what the preach is pretty non-threatening.

Very interesting post, and if true, very encouraging. I think that in the short term that Islam is still doing well among the sort of folk looking for some sort of identity and who, for reasons too long to go into, are repelled by the West, and in particular, the more supposedly materialistic, prosperous, militarily successful bits. But that will change, I reckon, in part because the sheer, murderous nature of radical Islamists is proving a turnoff not just in the West, but in the MidEast and Africa. The behaviour of Islamists in places such as Nigeria, for example. Ditto the Sudan.

The birthrate thing is interesting, because alarmists such as Mark Steyn and many a commenter on the blogs like to bring up the image of all these Muslims breeding away while the decadent, secular Westerners are not having so many kids, or having children at all. Steyn constantly bangs on about the deathbed economics of the West. He may have a point, but he ignores, I think, how even the tiniest shift in birthrates, deathrates and the like can have a dramatic effect one way or the other. It is far from obvious why the pessimists are right.

The prescription seems to be: “Don’t worry, all will be well.  Forces that are way beyond your control will see to it.” Followed by: “All this writing and thinking is a complete waste of time.”

Which I don’t like.

Patrick

I know what you mean, but I don’t think that’s quite right.  I think that when people write about such large forces as these, they include in their assumptions that people like you, and me, and everybody, will carry on thinking and writing as hard as we/they can.  Given that, then this is how it will play out.  But remove all that, and all bets are off.  History works through people like us, not above and beyond us.  It’s like what Maggie T was trying so incompetently to say, all those years ago, about “society”.

If you say something like “England are bound to beat Bangladesh at cricket this summer”.  That doesn’t mean that the England team can take it easy, party all night and show up drunk for the start of all their games, and still win them.  It means, assuming they don’t take it easy, and play the way they usually play, they’ll win.

Or how about: after about 1943, the Allies were inevitably going to win the war.

Yes, but only if they carried on fighting and killing and dying.

We’re part of the process being described.  And we have to give it our best.

Besides which, this is only a small part of this very big subject.  Other bits of it may not make me nearly so optimistic.

And further to which ...

Suppose, after prolonged study, I find that defeat for Islam is indeed inevitable.  By telling the world of this discovery, I can speed up that defeat, most particularly by convincing now optimistic Islamists that they are doomed to lose and might as will give it all up now.

Clearly, Allah did not intend for Islam to last any longer than this.

One of the key triggers of Soviet collapse was the dawning realisation that, one day, they were going to lose.  Once that idea caught on, the collapse followed with amazing suddenness.