I think you mean in the developed countries?
In either case, you are still wrong. Data is slightly harder to come by, when referring to subpopulations, but the birth rate among North Africans in France — a fairly good proxy for religion, since most French Muslims are from France’s North African colonies — is less than 2.4. That’s marginally higher than France’s native (”cosmopolitan”) population (1.9), but not enough to skew anything crazily.
And yes, Mohammed is England’s #1 boy’s name, but that’s because it accounts for a third of all Muslims, whereas the most common boy’s names among everyone else accounts for less than 1% of the population. The days of everyone being named Joseph, Harry or George are long gone.
And no, I am not wrong at least according to Mark Steyn in his excellent book, America Alone, The End of the World As We Know It.
From a review of the book:
Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.
According to Steyn, these are the statistics of the population under the age of 15: Spain and Germany--14%, United Kingdom--18%, the United States--21%. On the other hand Saudi Arabia's 15 and under is 39%, Pakistan--40%, and Yemen--47%.
Who is reproducing themselves: the US at 2.1 babies per couple, Saudi Arabia at 7.46, Mali at 7.42, Somalia at 6.76, Afghanistan at 6.69, Ireland at 1.9, New Zealand at 2.11. There are Germany and Austria at 1.3, Russia and Italy at 1.2, and Spain at 1.1. Those with birthrates over 2 are Muslim; those under Caucasian Christian.
With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare?
Sorry, I'll go with Mark's assessment.