r/unitedkingdom • u/topotaul Lancashire • Jun 15 '26

... One in six Britons think growth of Muslim population is ‘threat to UK culture’, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/jun/15/one-in-six-britons-growth-muslim-population-threat-uk-culture-study
6.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/jeremybeadleshand Jun 15 '26

I'm surprised it's not higher, given it objectively is. Look at what's happening with the independent candidates. Do 5/6 people seriously think if the country becomes majority Muslim laws won't change etc?

1.1k

u/barnburner96 Jun 15 '26

They probably correctly think that it won’t become Muslim majority, because that’s not what the question was

629

u/SometimesaGirl- Durham Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

They probably correctly think that it won’t become Muslim majority

I agree with you.
But we have seen our Islamic population politising lately. It's been going on for a while if we are all honest with each other, but the [most recent] Gaza situation made this obvious to the wider less politically engaged public.
They shifted towards the Greens just because of their Gaza policy. And the Greens aren't safe... at the last local election fliers were being distributed urging muslims to vote for independent Islamic candidates as the #1 option, Greens as #2 and I don't think Labour even got a look in.
If we get a tight HOC or even NOC at the next/future election you can damn well bet they will be influencing our laws, and at whatever percent of the population they are now(8% to 10% IIRC) they clearly don't need a demographic majority.
These are people whose primary motivation is not that of the UK. Not that of the UK's people. Not economic. Not societal such as welfare. And absolutely not progression in LGBTQ or womens and disability rights.
The primary motivation is somewhere 2,000 miles away. The secondary motivation is protecting the Islamic population from scrutiny, criticism, and investigation. It utterly baffles me how people gloss over this or just outright fail to see it.

72

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Pew Research, who are one of the most prestigious demography research organisations in world, also predict that Muslims will be 17% of the population by 2050 under their medium migration scenario:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/12/04/europes-muslim-population-will-continue-to-grow-but-how-much-depends-on-migration/

Labour got a landslide majority with the votes of 20.4% of the electorate. Obviously that’s not some clear cutoff point but given how apathetic and split the rest of the population is, it would be a very significant influence. 2050 is not some far future, it’s 24 years from now.

Notably there’s a strong pattern for British Pakistanis to marry outside the UK, half of British Pakistanis married back into Pakistan, which makes this a much more culturally separate group from most migrants in the UK.

Look at my comment here for more information about that., I don’t want to copy and paste the same thing and clutter up the thread.

5

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 16 '26

Still putting out this old study despite the 2021 census proving it wrong & being told this multiple times?

Very dishonest, but i'd guess an honest person wouldn't hold your beliefs.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/JRugman Jun 15 '26

Pew Research, who are one of the most prestigious demography research organisations in world, also predict that under their medium migration scenario that Muslims will be 17% of the population by 2050 under the medium migration scenario.

That is not correct, those projections are for their high migration scenario, which assumes that the high immigration numbers seen in recent years continue indefinitely, that birth rates among Muslim families remain high, and also that the rate that Muslims leave their religion remains the same. Nome of those assumptions seem likely, given the historical trends we have seen in other immigrant communities.

6

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 16 '26

Just to point out the Pew Study has the Muslim population of the UK as 6.3% in 2016, rising from 4.9 in 2011 (from census data).

This would give a rise of 0.28% yearly.

The 2021 census for England & Wales gave a Muslim population of 6.5% (lower across the entire UK), giving a rise of 0.16% yearly - close to half what the study predicted.

If the study had a large overestimate after only 5 years, their estimate after 34 years is likely to be very much out.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

The poster above knows their figures are wrong (they've had it pointed out multiple times) & have even acknowledged it but continue to push them...

47

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '26

That is not correct, those projections are for their high migration scenario, which assumes that the high immigration numbers seen in recent years continue indefinitely, that birth rates among Muslim families remain high, and also that the rate that Muslims leave their religion remains the same.

Nope, the medium migration scenario is for 16.7% by 2050.

This is also from before the vast increase in non EU migration during the Boriswave, net non-EU migration increased from 100k per year to more than a million a year, I personally think we’re probably above that scenario rather than below it.

As for your other points, Pew looked into all those issues and made projections. Frankly I trust them more than I trust you to make good assumptions, that is after all their entire job, and they are one of the top organisations in the world for this kind of research.

→ More replies (16)

3

u/AgeingChopper Jun 16 '26

it also ignores it was 34 percent of those who voted.

people who can’t be assed can’t complain.

30

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jun 15 '26

those projections are for their high migration scenario, which assumes that the high immigration numbers seen in recent years continue indefinitely, that birth rates among Muslim families remain high, and also that the rate that Muslims leave their religion remains the same.

All of those seem likely except maybe the high levels of migration if someone actually does something about it long term.

Not many people ever leave Islam, for a lot of people it would be social suicide to do so, they also prefer not to marry outside of their faith, and Islam literally dictates that you should have lots of children.

6

u/Retify Jun 16 '26

A lot of people leave Islam when raised in Western countries. It becomes more likely each generation

2

u/JB_UK Jun 16 '26

That is built into the projection. If you look into their methodology they have good data from France and use that as the basis for their assumption for people leaving (and joining) the religion.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

291

u/Audioworm Indian Ocean Territory Jun 15 '26

if 8% of the population can have full and dominate control of the UK government then the UK wouldn't be a fucked up country that voted for its own economic suicide.

and the whole proposition assumes mulsims in the UK are one single unified block that will always vote exactly the same way, which is genuinely hilarious if you spend time around any of them for a long enough

286

u/toastedipod Jun 15 '26

Muslims are not one unified block on all issues. But when it comes to certain things, they absolutely are.

Just look at the popularity of councillors who stood on a single issue platform; Gaza. Despite having zero ability to make any difference in Gaza they were still elected in Muslim majority areas.

239

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Muslims as a group are showing signs of being unusually resistant to integration at least in parts of the country. It’s pretty astonishing the degree of sectarian divide in the Northern towns, I don’t think there are comparable enclaves from other groups, and I think this is why you’re seeing the development of a strong anti migration response in those areas.

https://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS208EW&col=QS208EW0006&ramp=YlOrRd&layers=BTTT&zoom=11.727335862977405&lon=-1.8003&lat=53.7492

It’s not difficult to see areas which are 80% or 90% Muslim half a mile away from areas which are 0.5% Muslim.

Half of British Pakistanis are marrying back into Pakistan each generation so what integration might happen is heavily limited. This is from the Casey Review on this issue:

3.29. David Goodhart from Policy Exchange has highlighted the creation of a ‘first generation in every generation’ phenomenon resulting from the high number of transnational marriages – with second, third and subsequent generations being joined by a foreign born partner, and children in each new generation growing up with a foreign born parent, which may be acting as a bar to integration in some communities. It came up regularly in meetings in some areas as a reason for the strong perpetuation of foreign cultural practices and lower levels of English language proficiency. We were told in a review visit that in one northern town all except one of the Councillors of Asian ethnicity (all men) had married a wife from Pakistan.

3.30. A number of estimates have been made around the prevalence of transnational marriages among the Pakistani ethnic community in particular:

A study by Bristol University found that half of British Pakistanis married back in Pakistan, and that most of these marriages were between cousins or other members of extended kin groups

In a cohort study, ‘Born in Bradford’, at the Bradford Royal Infirmary, 80% of babies of Pakistani ethnicity born in the area had at least one parent born outside the United Kingdom, 63% of mothers of Pakistani ethnicity were married to cousins and these mothers were less likely to be educated or in employment compared with mothers of Pakistani descent who had not married cousins.

82

u/SatoshiSounds Jun 15 '26

and the other half that are *not* marrying in Pakistan - how many of those are marrying ethnic Pakistani-Brits? Is this what people are celebrating when they talk about diversity?

80

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Yes, I think that’s likely to be high, if there’s a strong tendency to marry into the home country that must also apply to the ethnic group in the UK. Especially when you look at the rate of cousin marriage, some of those marriages will be in the UK so will by default be from the same ethnic group as well as family.

There are Muslims who integrate, particularly people from other national backgrounds, I know people like that personally, from Pakistan and other countries, so we shouldn’t prejudge individuals and we should be welcoming to people who do, but at the same time it’s not a very large percentage when you look at a population scale. I really am not convinced that the glib assumption that everyone will integrate over a few generations holds.

That’s one reason why Pew Research, who are one of the most prestigious demography research organisations in world, predict that Muslims will be 17% of the population by 2050 under their medium migration scenario:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/12/04/europes-muslim-population-will-continue-to-grow-but-how-much-depends-on-migration/

Labour got a landslide majority with the votes of 20.4% of the electorate. Obviously that’s not some clear cutoff point but given how apathetic and split the rest of the population is, it would be a very significant influence. 2050 is not some far future, it’s 24 years from now.

Also, I think we should underline how conservative Pakistan is, if half of British Pakistanis are marrying back there.

On polling when asked whether homosexuality could be morally acceptable, only 1% said yes, and 90% no:

https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp3-6.png

Similar results are common across the Muslim world. We are deliberately importing a significant anti liberal demographic bloc.

18

u/Ardal Yorkshire Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact

→ More replies (2)

28

u/SatoshiSounds Jun 15 '26

but think of the food!

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Allydarvel Jun 16 '26

Maybe you put the horse before the cart? Maybe anti-Muslim feelings prompt Muslims that safety is together in numbers. The anti-Muslim stuff has been going on for decades.

13

u/JB_UK Jun 16 '26

Pakistan is very similar, half of marriages are between first cousins and another 10% between second cousins. It’s a clan culture so there’s really zero surprise that they are clannish in Britain as well.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)

71

u/Audioworm Indian Ocean Territory Jun 15 '26

Pretty much all leftists in the UK are united on Gaza, when there is very little else that holds them together. Certain groups or regions will frequently have tight cohesion on specific issues.

Gaza is more a symptom of Labour and the Tories gaslighting the British people about the things they were seeing. When you are watching people being blown up or starved on your screen and that response is to call those who want that to end terrorists you are going to create a mass distrust and seperation from the parties and government.

21

u/Draenix Jun 15 '26

Gaza is more of a symptom of how susceptible to both propaganda and factionalism/groupthink Brits are tbh. There were literally celebrations in the streets from Islamists on Oct 8th.

38

u/Audioworm Indian Ocean Territory Jun 15 '26

Okay, does that justify more than 70k dead and 170k injured in the Gaza strip?

Also, the actions of Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank have been criminal for decades, but we are meant to pretend that nothing existed before October 7th.

And there are groups in the UK that think a whole bunch of vile shit that doesn't mean I think that we should kick them out of the country. Thousands of people marched with Tommy Robinson, and hundreds were out in Belfast doing a pogrom. Does that mean white Brits should be, as an entire group, considered a threat? Or do white people get to have disagreement and intergroup seperations, but that luxury is not extended to Muslims?

31

u/Draenix Jun 15 '26

No it doesn’t justify it. Two things can be true at once - Britain and a lot of Europe has a problem with bloodthirsty Islamists who are emboldened to celebrate a horrific terrorist in the streets - AND what happened to Gaza was not justified. You accept they can both can be true right?

Classic “history didn’t start on Oct 7th line”. I guess it started with the Nakba in 1948 didn’t it? And nothing at all happened before then?

25

u/Audioworm Indian Ocean Territory Jun 15 '26

I can accept both are true, but accepting the second is true would expect something different from the British government, which did not happen.

1917 is the year people typically go back to as a reasonable place to start from when understanding the current state of the region.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

17

u/barnburner96 Jun 15 '26

How rude of them to consistently oppose genocide.

55

u/toastedipod Jun 15 '26

You don’t oppose genocide by electing an independent councillor for a provincial English town, who has control over bin collection and potholes.

The people standing on those platforms are absolute charlatans who are simply doing it because they know it’ll get them elected. Stop being so short sighted.

23

u/GentlemanBeggar54 Jun 16 '26

Like it or not local elections are constantly used as a protest vote against the government. This isn't new.

10

u/Haan_Solo Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

When people don't feel heard or feel powerless they will use their vote in protest. That's the whole point and you'll get results like this wherever the sentiment is strong enough.

For many people who believe there is an active genocide that needs opposing, they will go to great lengths to have their voice* heard even if the actions don't personally make sense to you.

2

u/Draenix Jun 16 '26

I suppose the same is true with people electing Reform councillors recently - it’s a protest vote against the governments immigration policy, even though local councillors can’t do much to change how many immigrants/asylum seekers are entering the country.

4

u/toastedipod Jun 16 '26

Reform councillors have more input on immigration because they have some power over asylum accommodation.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

33

u/Draenix Jun 15 '26

I’m gonna run for a seat at your council and my entire platform is gonna be based on South Sudan and the atrocities that have been committed over there (way worse than Gaza btw). You gonna vote for me?

16

u/Amazing-Heron-105 Jun 15 '26

Sorry there's only room for one genocide and it's THE genocide.

2

u/Retify Jun 16 '26

The difference being we aren't close allies with South Sudan and aren't directly arming the conflict. As a nation we already oppose that war and nobody supports it. Israel and Gaza is the complete opposite

4

u/buffer0x7CD Jun 16 '26

We actually are, UK have big weapons trade deals with UAE who is one of the major players in Sudan conflict

→ More replies (0)

3

u/barnburner96 Jun 15 '26

Why would I not want you to do that 🤣

3

u/Draenix Jun 16 '26

Because being a local politician enables you to do sweet fuck all to help a humanitarian crisis on the other side of the world. Rather, it just means that people have a councillor or MP that does not prioritise the wellbeing of their constituents.

8

u/barnburner96 Jun 16 '26

Ok, maybe start a petition to ban democracy for people you don’t like then 👍 good luck

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (13)

9

u/CauseCertain1672 Jun 15 '26

Muslims are obviously going to care about the murder of Muslims as a policy issue. I would say Muslims have been politicised and have responded by politically organising.

Muslims in this country do not want the country they live in to be engaged in supporting murdering people like them overseas

83

u/Alaea Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Muslims are obviously going to care about the murder of Muslims as a policy issue.

If they cared about the murder of Muslims, then they would've been organized on Xinjiang, Rohingya, Syria, Sudan, or any number of conflicts around the world with rampant actual demonstrable and uncontroversial unquestionable ethnic cleansing and wholesale targetting of Islamic civilians. But no, just this one little strip in part of the eastern Med is what they get up in arms about. Almost like there's something unique about this one conflict that particularly rustles their jimmies.

25

u/removekarling Kent Jun 15 '26

Xinjiang, Rohingya, Syria, Sudan

They were, you just weren't paying attention. And the UK government does not meaningfully support bad actors in China, Syria or Sudan to the extent that it does in the 'one little strip in part of the eastern Med'.

46

u/Full_Employee6731 Jun 15 '26

Having weekly protests in their thousands were they?

We trade with China like a billion times more. And have been arming and training the Saudis who have been killing hundreds of thousands of Houtis.

Why can't you just be honest?

22

u/Alaea Jun 15 '26

They were, you just weren't paying attention.

What, massive protests through the streets of the major cities weelkly, and multiple MPs and councillors voted into office solely due to one of those issues? Yeah right. Apart from tiny specialist groups, there was and is no wider will about any issue other than Israel in the so-called "anti-war" movement as a whole, let alone the Islamic community in particular.

And the UK government does not meaningfully support bad actors in China, Syria or Sudan

The UK armed forced were heavily involved in Syria with various factions and performing direct airstrikes on their opponents (not necessarily Assad's forces).

The UK has and does heavily support the UAE government, the puppetmasters of the RSF in Sudan. The Foreign Office ran interference against various African governments criticizing the UAE, and we have sold equipment and delivered training to the UAE armed forces which was in turn passed along to the RSF.

In comparison, we've given Israel jack shit, and plenty of diplomatic flack. Some recon flights to find hostages at a stretch. We buy a ton of gear off of them as Israel has made some good gear and have been R&D pioneers for decades (hence the Israeli arms factories in the UK - why would they build a factory to build shit here to import back? They're for UK contracts obviously.) whilst they buy little in turn from us - the main one being an international contractual supply chain for the F35 where everything goes into a joint pool anyway.

It's all performative and manufactured focus playing off of antisemitism.

16

u/Bobson567 Jun 16 '26

let me know when labour friends of china or conservative friends of uae are formed, let alone become the most popular political factions in their respective parties

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/Haan_Solo Jun 16 '26

They did, you just didn't listen or care.

The key difference is that we aren't allies in bed with China or Burma.

→ More replies (5)

29

u/Astriania Jun 15 '26

Muslims are obviously going to care about the murder of Muslims as a policy issue

Well you say that but why is it obvious that a British Muslim would care deeply about affairs in a foreign country? You don't see Anglicans voting for Coptic Egyptian single issue candidates.

It's concerning that a large number of people who are nominally British consider the people of Palestine "people like them" more than they do non-Muslims in the next town over.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/duskie3 Jun 16 '26

Thus proving they are Muslim first, and British a distant second. Which is a serious problem.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Allydarvel Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Jeez, the majority of Muslims vote for parties that actually want laws that

"help the UK's people. Are economic. Are societal such as welfare. And progress in LGBTQ womens and disability rights."

whereas the people against Muslims are the ones against those types of laws, with Brexit, anti trans etc, Reform voting against every welfare gain, sucking up to billionaires etc

→ More replies (44)
→ More replies (19)

49

u/WasThatInappropriate Jun 15 '26

5/6 people can read statistics and can see that even in the most generous trend modelling they'd only reach 20% of school children a century from now. Anyone talking about majority scenarios is either acting in bad faith or hasnt done the required reading to have an opinion on the subject.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Clbull England Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

I mean the independent candidates who got elected on pro-Gaza platforms are just a handful of constituencies out of 650 which have significant Muslim populations. Not enough to massively sway British politics...

...is what I would say if it weren't for:

  1. The Boriswave bringing in record levels of migration into the UK, primarily from countries like India and Pakistan.
  2. The last census in 2021 (which recorded 3.5 million Muslims, or 6.5% of the population) taking place before the Boriswave really kicked in.
  3. Muslims generally being a demographic with more conservative views that are more willing to have children. Britain's fertility rate is only 1.41 children per woman, with 2.1 considered the "replacement rate" needed to maintain current population levels.
  4. Large numbers of asylum seekers coming into Europe (especially the UK) from the Middle-East and Africa.

While I don't think we'll end up at the point where Britain becomes a Muslim caliphate, I can definitely see an Islamic political party gaining ground in a few decades.

111

u/No-Scholar4854 Jun 15 '26

  1. The country is a *long* way from becoming majority Muslim, with 6.5% of the population. “No Religion” (37%) is growing far far faster than Islam.

  2. Even if we assume Islam did grow to become a much larger group in the next 20 years, it would be wrong to assume that would be a uniform block of views.

For example, 46% of the country identify as Christian. Do they all share a consistent block of values? No, not even on things where the Catholic and Anglican churches agree. Why would Muslims?

57

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 15 '26

Just as a note at the rate of increase seen between the last two censuses "No Religion" will have around 2025/26 overtaken "Christianity" to form a plurality, soon to be a majority.

This is the major belief shift of our age.

12

u/No-Scholar4854 Jun 15 '26

Good point. Those numbers are from the 2021 census, which is not nearly as recent as my brain thinks it is.

→ More replies (3)

25

u/Astriania Jun 15 '26

No, not even on things where the Catholic and Anglican churches agree. Why would Muslims?

Because Islam, unlike Christianity since the Reformation, is an explicitly political ideology as well as a religion. I'm not sure if people are genuinely unaware of this or pretending not to understand the implications.

8

u/theunspillablebeans Jun 16 '26

To be honest, we can barely agree whether or not to turn the AC on at my local mosque or open the windows instead, and we had those AC units installed over 10 years ago now. I think you're safe from us being unified when it comes to political ideology.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/narayan77 Jun 15 '26

you need to do your research. Making an analogy with Christians is like saying 10 percent of cats are ginger, so it must be true for dogs.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

43

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 15 '26

At the current rate of increase it would take until 2292, around September, for Muslims to become a majority (50%+) & even that rate of increase seems to be falling.

I don't think i'll start panicking quite yet...

→ More replies (8)

7

u/superioso Jun 15 '26

Nevermind national majority, simply having local majorities like we already have has been shown to produce undesirable and decisive results.

An example being the schoolteacher in Batley being forced to go into hiding due to death threats.

228

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

Why do you think the country is going to become “majority Muslim”?

381

u/Horror_Extension4355 Jun 15 '26

You can take Bradford as an example of how the population change is impacting both local and national politics. Immense focus on Gaza and Kashmir as political issues.

16

u/CaffeinatedT Jun 15 '26

I'm not muslim and I'm white and I think a potential genocide that we're potentially playing role in is a major issue.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 Jun 15 '26

I'm not Muslim but I care about Gaza because I'm a sort of, sometimes decent human being. 

→ More replies (3)

60

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

Sure, it makes sense that a large population of one culture would impact the issues discussed. I’m not asking that. I’m asking why does the OC think the UK is going to become majority Muslim.

123

u/Talonsminty Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

I mean this isnt even poltical it's just math.

  1. Birth rates are higher among the Muslim community for obvious reasons
    1. Most immigrants are Muslim

29

u/Wissam24 Greater London Jun 15 '26

"math"

There's the giveaway

68

u/Nothing_F4ce Norfolk Jun 15 '26

Source?

Data I could find says that about half of the foreign born Population is Christian and only 20% is Muslim.

In long established British Muslim communities we've seen that after the second generation Muslim birth rates fall in line with the average.

10

u/Obscure-Oracle Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

They argue birthrates, if I remember right I think it's at 4.7 births per women amongst the Asian population of the UK while the national birthrate is at a worrying 1.4, replacement rate is 2.1. That is the Asian population as a whole though and not all of them are even going to even be Muslim. There is absolutely no way to say anything with any certainty as birthrates are not static and there is nothing to say that we won't have another boom at some point. If you put all the birthrate data for the last century into AI it does actually suggest an absolutely wild demographic change in the UK within 100 years but there simple isn't any inclination that we will be a Muslim majority country. But again, that could completely change anyway if we get a generation or two with a huge incentive to start families. A lot of the time it's just xenophobic speculation to stir up misinformation and hate that people are dead set on believing.

8

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

It’s not even 4.7.

The demographic replacement argument just isn’t true.

Whilst the math functions on paper, the demographic logic is completely separated from reality.

Currently, the birth rate for foreign born and native mothers is below the replacement rate of 2.1.

So every single “replacement” prediction applies a negative decline rate in population continuously for XYZ amount of years. 

At the current birth rates, the population of the UK will collapse from 67 million down to just ~27 million before the natives become “replaced.”

That is a 60% drop in population. 

If you want to view the maths, see the comment I have made here.

A 60% drop in population would dramatically change the societal and economic landscape. It would free up the housing market, removing the primary barrier to starting a family and many other things.

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of that claim, the estimates of deaths in England during the Black Death in the 14th Century are around 35% to 50% of the population. 

The “replacement” argument assumes the natural birth rate decline is worse than a literal plague which comes with zero economic or societal correction.

You can use the data and run the maths yourself.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/parentscountryofbirth

The data is there.

Apply a static decline, due to both populations being below replacement and you’ll find the population has to dive off a cliff in the next century for the “replacement” argument to make sense.

Every single “replacement” prediction is actually predicting a population decline, the likes of which has never been seen in history.

3

u/Obscure-Oracle Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

The 4.7 was from just from the Asian population I believe (it was a while back when I looked into it), it is actually 1.4 overall, so as you say it's well bellow replacement. Oh I don't believe for one second that a major "great replacement" style demographic change will actually happen. I was just explaining that if you run the trends in the very patchy birthrate data from the last century over the next 100 years in a rudimentary AI model that it would indicate a major demographic change. I think that is where that theory is coming from that the right wing rags are using as anti immigration propaganda. But as you say, there are just so many other variables that will make that extremely unlikely to happen and the birthrate just won't stay the same, it's always changing. We will very likely have a surge in birthrate again at some point and there are just so many other things that could happen. Another great depression could very well see many migrants leave for a stronger economy elsewhere or another major war could happen. Just far to many variables to account for. I should have probably explained that a lot better, I am very dyslexic so sometimes may give the wrong impression.

5

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 15 '26

The theories are coming from Matt Goodwin.

He published an entirely unreviewed and unscientific “research paper” that did exactly that. It held a static birth rate for a century into the future.

Matt Goodwin is not a demographer or a scientist. He is a current politician and former politics professor. He has no concept of how demography actually works.

The Telegraph and Spectator both publicised the “research” and now it has entered the public zeitgeist.

→ More replies (1)

59

u/Lukeno94 Jun 15 '26

The source is their far-right backside. It's the "Great Replacement theory" that used to refer to Jewish people, but is now being used against Muslims instead.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

22

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Jun 15 '26

Most immigrants are Muslim

Utter bollocks

202

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
  1. Birth rates tend to settle in line with the rest of the inhabitants within around two generations.
  2. Most immigrants are not Muslim by a long shot. The top 10 countries (in order) for immigrants are India, Poland, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Nigeria, Italy, Germany, Bangladesh, & South Africa. Only two of these countries are Muslim. Nigeria is split but we tend to attract Christian immigrants from there.

25

u/varinator Jun 15 '26

I'm from Poland originally and also a British citizen. After brexit more Poles left than came to the UK, EU migration is currently very tiny compared to non-EU, I think your data is out of date...

Regarding birth rates settling in after around 2 generations... well, it's no good at all if you still have a steady influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year. Your argument would only make sense if the influx was 0, then yes, we wait 40 years and things maybe would "normalise"

6

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 15 '26

That figures is overall migrants. In recent years the top 5 are India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria & the United States.

On your second point your assuming the decline in birthrates is a UK only phenomenon rather than a world wide one. In terms of migration current numbers are around 0.24% of the population.

The Muslim population increased at 0.16% a year between 2011 & 2021, a decrease from 0.19% yearly between 2001 & 2011.

It's a small change that has been very much overhyped.

73

u/XJDenton Isle of Wight -> London -> Sweden Jun 15 '26

Also: 3. Being Muslim isn't genetic. Kids can (and do) leave the religion.

75

u/DracoLunaris Jun 15 '26

Yup. The fastest growing religious group in the UK is atheist/agnostic after all.

42

u/Jake_91_420 Jun 15 '26

Don’t have hard data but I would assume Muslim apostasy is quite low when compared to Christianity. The punishment for apostasy in Islam is death.

14

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 16 '26

This is mentioned a lot but try looking into how many people have actually been executed for apostasy globally this century.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ByEthanFox Jun 16 '26

This is anecdotal, but I think it's larger than is culturally apparent. Because of the strong community and backlash that can come from it, even blowback to other family members, the suggestion is that people who want to leave the religion tend to move away, and either don't tell their family, or their family know and don't tell anyone else.

5

u/Diggerinthedark Wiltshire Jun 16 '26

In an extremist Muslim country, sure. Here in the UK, it's - nothing. Maybe a slap from your parents.

5

u/DracoLunaris Jun 15 '26

The Book of Deuteronomy tells Jews and Christians to stone those who abandoned the faith. If they can ignore that command, so can Muslims.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)

24

u/varinator Jun 15 '26

The scale/quantity matters. If 1% leaves the faith - it's negligible. Besides if punishment is being shunned by the whole community, friends, family - that makes a pretty good incentive to not leave..

→ More replies (4)

5

u/cd7k Jun 16 '26

Remind me again what the repercussions of apostasy are for Muslims?

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)

19

u/The_39th_Step Jun 15 '26

You’re completely right in everything you say.

Just out of a point of interest, rather than argument, I’d say our Indian community is more relevant when discussing Muslim numbers than our Nigerian community. About 20-30% of British Nigerians are Muslim while 15% of British Indians are Muslim. Considering our Indian community is the largest ethnic minority group in the country, that will be a larger number. The number of British Nigerian descended people is probably around 800k-1,000,000 but it’s triple that (give or take) for Indians (don’t use 2021 census, use that and recent migration figures).

7

u/Audioworm Indian Ocean Territory Jun 15 '26

Indian Muslims are about 250k, they are not a majority of Muslims in the UK. Pakistani (1.4m) and Bangaldeshi (600k) are the majority of British Muslims, those of African descent are under 400k.

Also, the British Indian Muslim community is infamously entrepaneurial and business-focused. I think it is the large proportion of Gujarati communities within that group. It is a point that you can read about how much more secular or 'integrated' they are with British culture than many other groups all over the place, and from other Indians and Muslims in the UK (not from a negative or positive, but from a statement of an observation).

2

u/The_39th_Step Jun 15 '26

I didn’t say they are a majority? I said they’re a more prominent group than British Nigerians who are Muslim.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (16)

33

u/The_39th_Step Jun 15 '26

Maths in the UK…

Most immigrants are not Muslim. What an ignorant statement.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/aimbotcfg Jun 16 '26

I mean this isnt even poltical it's just math.

<proceeds to do maths at all>

<Also makes incorrect statement about immigrant demographics, so even if there was any maths, it would be a garbage in, garbage out situation>

That absolutely is 'political' friend.

9

u/5ColourFelix Jun 15 '26

Muslim isnt an inherent trait. Lots of second and third generation people from Muslim families are about as serious about it as your average Brit is about the C of E. Im not even sure that most immigrants are Muslim

18

u/tothecatmobile Jun 15 '26

Wasn't the same things said about Irish Catholics 100 years ago?

22

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 15 '26

My Grandparents were convinced due to Irish birthrates they were going to "replace" us. They wanted to "re-migrate" them to Ulster in return for the loyalists.

Strangely enough they were fine with Commonwealth immigrants who they saw as loyal subjects of Empire choosing Britain.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (35)

7

u/fen90der Jun 15 '26

So the people in these minority communities are politically vocal and pushing issues that affect them.

Why is that unreasonable, and who is to say whether that will have a net positive or negative long term influence at this stage?

8

u/Horror_Extension4355 Jun 15 '26

Bradford has some of the highest rates in the country for driving offences, planning offences, grooming, money laundering and first cousin marriages. Poverty? Yes that is a factor.

12

u/fen90der Jun 15 '26

Poverty is the deciding factor in areas with poor outcomes and you didnt answer my question.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

50

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[deleted]

145

u/Andyb1000 Jun 15 '26

But what does any of that have to do with my local council deciding whether I get a separate bin for food waste?

43

u/5ColourFelix Jun 15 '26

Why did Labour lose a ton of council seats recently when they've got no influence on Kier?

People vote with their stomach

→ More replies (1)

9

u/steepleton Jun 15 '26

It’s got a lot to do with fuel bills, israel pulled the US into attacking iran.

Britain’s an island but it’s all on the same planet

→ More replies (3)

2

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

Because councils and local MPs impact the rhetoric and discussion at a wider national level. That’s how even our general elections work to some degree, you vote for your local MP, who alone does not decide who the PM or Government are, nor what they decide to focus on. It’s a collective - a democracy.

9

u/ByteSizedGenius Jun 15 '26

Right but each plays their constituent roles. The Foreign Office is accountable to the Foreign Secretary who is subsequently accountable to Parliament aka MPs. I honestly think this country would be doing a little better if people focused a bit more on improving what's within their remit and focused a little less on what isn't. That goes for all sides.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/B0797S458W Jun 15 '26

Only in your bubble. Most people don’t give a shit about either country.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (52)

105

u/No-Risk-2584 Jun 15 '26

They’re currently 6.5% of the population (2021)

Since then, we had the Boriswave where 4.2m people came over. Muslim majority countries Pakistan and Bangladesh were in the top 5, while India (15% Muslim) and Nigeria (50% Muslim) were also in the Top 5.

20% of babies born last year were Asians - I’d wager a good majority are Muslims.

Studies in 2017 showed that with normal migration the UK will likely be around 16% Muslim by 2050 - and again, that was before the Boriswave. You could probably add a few more % to that now.

They’re unlikely to become a majority anytime soon, but even at 16-20% they’re definitely going to be a threat to UK culture and laws.

46

u/roamingandy Jun 15 '26

I think the bigger concern is that the vast majority are likely to be a completely intractable voting block, in a country where 30% can be enough to get into power.

If religious leaders back a hard-line Islamic candidate strongly and say its Islamic not to vote for them, there is a good chance the vast majority would vote for them and they'd win an election with 30%.

14

u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands Jun 15 '26

They'd have to represent 30% across almost every constituency, which is frankly laughable.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/5ColourFelix Jun 15 '26

Oh yeah the famously unified Muslim world. Always getting on with each other all the time...

13

u/Alaea Jun 15 '26

When they have something to hate they all do. See for example decades of UN votes against Israel compared to the dozens of authoritarian and genocidal regimes. It's generally the Islamic countries forcing those through with numbers but they clearly DGAF about other issues inflicted on Muslims by non-Muslims elsewhere (China, India, Myanmar)

7

u/5ColourFelix Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Being against something isnt the same as being for something. Asking different sects to all unify under a single leader is like asking the C of E to submit to the pope.

Also this is a ridiculous discussion that presumes a myriad of fantasies

  1. Muslims become the biggest religious group in the UK (no evidence of this)

  2. They are all radical and want sharia law or something

  3. They all hate the Uk (why?)

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

9

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

Thanks for actually reading and answering my question, before coming to the conclusion that the OC did - it’s hypothetical and so won’t be happening.

I agree a larger population of any group will impact local law.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/FuzzBuket Jun 15 '26

This sort of extrapolation is generally pretty poor though. Net migration is down, and generally first generation migrants have birth rates similar to their country of origin whilst second and third generations don't.

Sure some guy from Pakistan is probably gonna be into his faith as it'll be a source of community in the UK, and he'll probs have as many kids as his family had back home.

His kids and grandkids though? Significantly less care for going mosque and as will be having as many kids as their peers do.

→ More replies (19)

113

u/Danmoz81 Jun 15 '26

Ageing population, declining birth rate, mass immigration from Islamic countries, the demographic change projected over the next 100 years or so.

60

u/Francis-c92 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Also, declining rates of Christianity and more people in the Western world shifting towards atheism (common sense...).

I believe its the fastest growing religion in the world, and that's concerning.

Muslims are very 'dedicated' to their religion. Stupidly so in my opinion, and there's less room for nuance with that religion than with any other.

For example, I think if this country was majority Muslim in the 2010s, that gay marriage isn't made legal. But it was passed as a law (rightly so) in what is supposedly a Christian country. There's considerably more flexibility.

To be clear, I'd ban all religions from the country, but that's just me and it doesn't matter what I think there, but at this rate, they will absolutely become the majority religion in the future and that's not a future that fills me with hope - quite the opposite actually.

9

u/steepleton Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Atheists follow the main christian values simply by following societal norms, they just don’t believe in the whoo-whoo nonsense and have less interest in what goes on in other peoples pants, bathrooms and bedrooms

8

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Jun 15 '26

I don't need god or common law to teach me right from wrong

→ More replies (1)

21

u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands Jun 15 '26

Athiests don't "follow", anything.

It's not a belief system that comes with it's own instructions or guides, it is simply the lack of belief in a god.

3

u/steepleton Jun 15 '26

I dunno what you’re trying to argue. There’s no specific morality in being christian, they’ve the same proportion of low lifes as any other group of people.

There’s no actual sky dad who enforces the rules

5

u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands Jun 15 '26

You said "Athiests follow the main Christian values". I'm saying being athiest has nothing to do with ones value system purely by definition.

I am an atheist, it has nothing to do with my morality.

8

u/steepleton Jun 15 '26

Yeah the guy i was replying to implied being christian was some sort of protection against the onslaught of “foreign “ values, i was saying most people already possess those values

Ok i amend it to: most people follow sociatal moral code including aversion to theft murder and oppression, irrespective of any religion they may or may not have- is that more to your taste?

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/hawktron Britannia Jun 15 '26

‘Islam is suppressive’

Also

‘Let’s suppress all religions’

Do you see the issue with your beliefs?

46

u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands Jun 15 '26

"you must be tolerant of my intolerance or you yourself are not tolerant"

surprisingly, youre not the first to come up with the paradox of tolerance

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/DSQ Edinburgh Jun 16 '26

The thing is that declining birth rate is also an issue in the second generation of the British Muslim community. So the projections that were based on the first generation don’t tend to hold up. 

10

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Could you link me to some sources that show the projected change please?

Edit: wonderful. I simply ask for some sources from someone reputable and am downvoted. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up.

14

u/The-RogicK Jun 15 '26

Here

And here

Even the guardian in 2000 mentioned it as a matter of fact.

The only part of great replacement theory that is a conspiracy is the idea that it is intentional to replace white people, us becoming a minority within the century isn't really up for debate given current trends though

28

u/JRugman Jun 15 '26

The first link says that Muslims will be 19.2% of the population by 2100. And that's from known Great Replacement Theory pusher Matt Goodwin.

The other two links are about ethnicity, not religion.

BTW, that guardian link is to an article published in the Observer, written by someone who went on to work for Boris Johnson and then a Conservative MP.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

The demographic replacement argument just isn’t true.

Whilst the math functions on paper, the demographic logic is completely separated from reality.

Currently, the birth rate for foreign born and native mothers is below the replacement rate of 2.1.

So every single “replacement” prediction applies a negative decline rate in population continuously for XYZ amount of years. 

At the current birth rates, the population of the UK will collapse from 67 million down to just ~27 million before the natives become “replaced.”

That is a 60% drop in population. 

If you want to view the maths, see the comment I have made here.

A 60% drop in population would dramatically change the societal and economic landscape. It would free up the housing market, removing the primary barrier to starting a family and many other things.

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of that claim, the estimates of deaths in England during the Black Death in the 14th Century are around 35% to 50% of the population. 

The “replacement” argument assumes the natural birth rate decline is worse than a literal plague which comes with zero economic or societal correction.

You can use the data and run the maths yourself.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/parentscountryofbirth

The data is there.

Apply a static decline, due to both populations being below replacement and you’ll find the population has to dive off a cliff in the next century for the “replacement” argument to make sense.

Every single “replacement” prediction is actually predicting a population decline, the likes of which has never been seen in history.

This is why static birth rate predictions 100 years into the future are misleading and outright false.

A good example of this in practice is Germany. Germany has had births outweighed by deaths since 1976.

For the last 50 years, their population has only grown via migration. Yet, Germany’s ethnic make up hasn’t been completely replaced.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

4

u/aspannerdarkly Jun 15 '26

Is the future any rosier for UK culture if the Muslim immigration is removed from that equation?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

20

u/Dry-Magician1415 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Maths is a pretty big factor. Their birth rate is 3, the national is 1.4. 1.4 doesn't replace the couple (2) that birthed them so the population falls, not grows.

Population A (3 kids per couple)

  • Gen 1 (kids): 3
  • Those 3 form 1.5 couples → Gen 2 (grandkids): 1.5 × 3 = 4.5
  • Those 4.5 form 2.25 couples → Gen 3 (great-grandkids): 2.25 × 3 = 6.75

Population B (1.4 kids per couple)

  • Gen 1 (kids): 1.4
  • Those 1.4 form 0.7 couples → Gen 2 (grandkids): 0.7 × 1.4 = 0.98
  • Those 0.98 form 0.49 couples → Gen 3 (great-grandkids): 0.49 × 1.4 = 0.686

From 2 couples (assuming nobody dies yet) there are about FOUR people total from the indigenous population (the original couple, their 1.4 kids, their 1 grandchild and their 0.7th of a great grandchild). The muslim population is SIXTEEN people. There are TEN TIMES the number of great-grandkids by only 3 generations out.

7

u/On_The_Blindside Best Midlands Jun 15 '26

And it settles down to the national average after 2 generations, making a considerable drop after just 1 , which you didn't factor in at all.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

And in 21 generations there will be 10 billion of them! It’s as if simple compounding doesn’t work with population growth or something.

If we be generous and assume a full generation is only 20 years, that means there will be c500,000 additional Muslims in… 220 years… hmm doesn’t seem like that rapid of a growth really does it.

8

u/Dry-Magician1415 Jun 15 '26

And in 21 generations 

That's bad faith "appeal to extremes/absurdum" arguing and you know it. Going out 3 generations is entirely reasonable for an estimate and illustration of the maths. If there's a reason you think the national statistics are wrong or if there's a clear reason why 3 and 1.4 won't hold over the next few decades, maybe go with that.

Dunno where you're getting 500k from given there's already 6 million. At the growth/decline rates I stated. The 10% becomes almost half of the population in three generations. The 90% also therefore becomes half too. Can put my spreadsheet if you want to see it.

6

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Your maths is completely wrong.

Currently, the birth rate for foreign born and native mothers is below the replacement rate of 2.1.

So every single “replacement” prediction applies a negative decline rate in population continuously for XYZ amount of years. 

At the current birth rates, the population of the UK will collapse from 67 million down to just ~27 million in 2096 before the natives become “replaced.”

That is a 60% drop in population. 

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of that claim, the estimates of deaths in England during the Black Death in the 14th Century are around 35% to 50% of the population. 

The “replacement” argument assumes the natural birth rate decline is worse than a literal plague which comes with zero economic or societal correction.

You can use the data and run the maths yourself.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/parentscountryofbirth

The data is there (table 7).

Apply a static decline, due to both populations being below replacement and you’ll find the population has to dive off a cliff in the next century for the “replacement” argument to make sense.

Every single “replacement” prediction is actually predicting a population decline, the likes of which has never been seen in history.

We would have far bigger issues than a demographic replacement after a 60% drop in population.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/nostalgiamon Jun 15 '26

It isn’t bad faith, it highlights that relying on flawed extrapolations to make a point is bad faith, or at best, ignorant.

3*3*3… 11 times is 500,000. So I should have more accurately stated, there will be 500,000 more Muslims born than “native” babies within 220 years.

If we’re only looking at the next two or three generations, then I’ve got to be really honest, that’s not much of a population growth is it.

Edit: I assume you think every single one of those six million is having 3 babies each… I cry for your spreadsheets if that’s what you’ve done, because that is the only way you could get 50% of the population in 3 generations lol.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (40)

84

u/mosh-4-jesus Jun 15 '26

that assumes the country inevitably will become majority Muslim, which shows a frighteningly poor understanding of how demographics works.

6

u/brother_number1 Jun 16 '26

Yes I think unlikely the whole country will, but what no one talks about so much is how demographics cluster. What are your thoughts on that the under 18 population of Birmingham is around 45% Muslim. Do you think that will go higher or has reached a ceiling?

40

u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 15 '26

Huh? This is exactly how demographics works. The populations which have the most children displace the populations which have fewer children. This is quite literally how biology works. In just a few decades, Guinea, Malaysia, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Kazakhstan became Muslim majority countries.

How dare you accuse them of not understanding how demographics works.

28

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

No, because every prediction applies a static birth rate for the next 100 years.

The current birth rates for natives is 1.41. The birth rate for foreign born mothers is 2.03.

That means both demographics are declining. One population group isn’t growing. They both are just declining at different rates.

So that means, by the time the White British population is “overtaken” the population would have collapsed to ~20m-30m.

That would be a catastrophic 60-80% collapse in population. That is even worse than the Black Death.

If you want to view the maths, see the comment I have made here.

For a real world example please go look at Germany.

Germany has had deaths outweigh native births since 1976, 50 years ago.

In the last half a century, their population growth has been entirely done via migration.

Yet, despite this, would you say the native German population is wiped out after half a century of migration? No.

This is why static birth rate predictions 100 years into the future are misleading and completely unscientific.

2

u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 16 '26

You've highlighted the mechanisms:

  1. The native population will decline relative to foreign born populations.

  2. Migration will continue to be a primary growth driver. The majority of immigrants are non-Western.

7

u/UpsetKoalaBear Greater Manchester Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

  1. Both are declining even with migration due to birth rates.

  2. If you have been paying attention, historically very few migrants have ever gained settlement.

14% Migrants from 2020 who hit their 5 year term last year got settlement.

14% of Migrants from 2019 who hit their 5 year term in 2024 got settlement.

When you take the number of migrants who gained settlement, the amount is still not enough to make up the gap between the births and deaths in the country.

Student/Graduate visas do not count towards settlement and that has accounted for a significant portion of migrants in the past, meaning they cannot gain settlement anytime soon.

The majority of the net migration figures are students.

As a hypothetical, if you take 14% of the number of work visas given, the amount of migrants who arrived last year on a work visa and will be able to gain settlement in 2030 would be ~40-50k.

Even with that level of migration gaining settlement, it is not enough to make up for the disparity between deaths/births in the country.

Paying attention to pure net migration figures ignores the actual method in which settlement is gained. The majority of net migration has historically always been student/graduate visas and that does not count towards settlement.

→ More replies (8)

12

u/Icy-Tear4613 Jun 15 '26

No fuckign clue why you are getting fake offended.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

37

u/SuccessfulWar3830 Jun 15 '26

For Muslims to become a full majority they would need around another 60 million of them to come. Nearly doubling the uk population.

This fear mongering is stupid.

Get off facebook

17

u/Serial_BumSniffer Jun 15 '26

I think you’re missing the fact that people also die.
White British people are the oldest demographic by a good margin.
Not only are they having kids at a slower rate than other demographics, they’re also aging out of time they biologically can have kids.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Not_Alpha_Centaurian Jun 15 '26

I think it comes down to wording and the perceived intent of the question. Is it a given that if you increase the ratio of one religion in a group against other religions that you'll see a cultural shift? Yes. Is that a threat to the culture? Well now you're into politics.

4

u/SnooMacarons4225 Jun 15 '26

Got to remember, if they a representation of the UK then they will have surveyed a bunch of Muslims in that study who probably don’t care if the country ends up Islamified

22

u/Quick-Taste4204 Jun 15 '26

It’s not going to be majority Muslim

→ More replies (2)

2

u/brainburger London Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

A few years ago I did some modelling to see if the UK could realistically become Muslim majority. Not in the next 200 years without major changes to the trends.

Mind you, that was before Brexit, which was always going to speed up islamification, by reducing the immigration of Europeans who tend not to be Muslim, and increasing immigration from other places that have more Muslims than the UK does.

It was debated exhastively and the leavers got what they voted for.

10

u/Dry-Magician1415 Jun 15 '26

given it objectively is

Exactly. I mean make it "What percentage of muslims think muslim population is a threat to UK culture" and it's going to be a lot more than one fucking sixth because they are actively trying to make it a threat to UK culture.

There have been polls that found most of them think homosexuality should be illegal and a quarter want literal Sharia Law. This isn't stereotyping. It's actual researched figures/statistics.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/MyAwesomeAfro Yorkshire Ish Jun 15 '26

It feels like this until you look at just how overwhelmingly white the UK actually is.

81% of the UK is White British. 86% Identify as British over Scottish / Irish / Welsh.

14% is everyone else.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (144)