At a steady population growth rate of 5.0, the Muslim population in the US would top 2 billion by 2097, while the rest of the US would remain relatively constant with a 2.0 growth rate.

You're still not saying what you suggest we do about this. Should we institute programs to increase the non-muslim birth rate, or programs to decrease the muslim birth rate? Also, what to do about muslim converts, who add to the count regardless of the religion of their parents, how do we control them? I'm sure you have a solution to this, and again I'm equally sure that I won't like it.

For Dhimmitude, try Qur'an 9:29, still not abrogated.

What countries institute the Dhimmi tax today?

For Dhimmitude, try Qur'an 9:29, still not abrogated.

The question of what to do I first posed to you, not the other way around. I am waiting for your solution, if any. If you are aware of geometric progressions, why don't you figure out for yourself how many Muslims will be in the US in 2060-3000, starting from a base today of 6 million and with a replacement rate of 5.0! With that number in your head, then try to answer my question. Waiting....

The permissions to deceive non-Muslims are far more restrictive than you make them out to be.

If you lived in the Netherlands for so long how is it you thought that Eindhoven and Utrecht were centers of national decision making?

Your daughter is simply wrong about the population figures for Muslims in those cities. Let us look at this logically from another perspective. The four cities you named have a combined total of about 2 million people. 40% of that is 800,000. That is virtually the entire population of Muslims in the Netherlands located exclusively in these four cities. That is not even close to the case.

Do I need to give you the references? These facts you should know before trying to lecture me.

By all means give the references.

Your paranoia about a mass uprising of Muslims in the US if just that paranoia. As is your alarmist notion that the US will be 40% Muslim in the near future consolidating our subject status in the global caliphate.
Still no answer from you on what you think should be done about the demographic crisis you perceive to be looming. If their birth rate is so alarming to you, what do you think should be done about it? Do you want them sterilized? deported? Should they have to register?

You need to spend more time in that book, it seems. Or are you simply playing obfuscater?

Something to consider when trying to impress others with your knowledge of Islam; dhimmi status is afforded free non-Muslims in lands under Sharia law. If you convert to Islam you are by definition not dhimmi. Failing to understand a point as basic as this leads me to question how much of the study you claim was internalized.

Now in order:
1. No member of Al Qaeda is authorized by Islamic law to call for jihad. Nor is Ahmadinejad. The mullahs could but haven't and even if they did it would only extend to their followers. No global caliphate, no global command structure.
2. Some Muslims are dedicated to this goal. The vast majority of Muslims are about as dedicated to this goal as Christians are dedicated to all the world being Christian. In other words, not all that dedicated.
3. Not exactly. Muslims are allowed to be dishonest under some circumstances. If it was deemed to be in the interest of Islam, Ahmadinejad would be allowed to lie about Iran's nuclear ambitions for instance.
4. Addressed above.
5. When living under Sharia law that is true in theory if not always in practice. If we lived according to Biblical law we would stone to death children that talked back.
6. Is largely irrelevant unless you are postulating that the majority of the American and European Muslims are a giant sleeper cell. Are you?
7a. This scenario is once again about as credible as the "Reconquista." Do you believe in that as well?
7b. I don't know where you got your population figures for cities in the Netherlands. I could not find a reliable source for a city by city breakdown by religious population. I was able to find some figures on Wikipedia. Rotterdam is universally recognized in the Netherlands as the city with the highest concentration in the country. As of 2006 in had a population of 588,718. Of that people of Turkish decent make up 45,415 and people of Moroccan decent make up 36,831. These make up the bulk of the Muslim population there. Other notable minority populations are Surinamese, Antillean, and South European. All of these areas or less than 20% Muslim. But let's say that half of their Dutch population is Muslim. This gives us about 21% Muslim. For your arguments sake lets use half again that and say its 31% Muslim. That is almost certainly a large overestimate of the Muslim population in the most highly concentrated area of Muslims in the Netherlands. I don't know where you got your 40% figure, but I suspect that if we tracked it down the trail would lead to someone's @ss.
BTW applying the same math to Utrecht gives about 15% (22%), to Eindhoven gives about 9% (14%). I could not find good numbers for A'dam with a quick and lazy search but personal observations would put it in the 10-15% range.
Re: the cities where control lies in the Netherlands
I notice you left out Den Haag, the seat of government. Amsterdam and Rotterdam have considerable influence, rivaling that of Den Haag in some matters. To say that Eindhoven and Utrecht are are where control lies in the Netherlands is to demonstrate an acute lack of knowledge on the subject.
(Sorry for the overlong bit on NL)
8. Reconquista again.

...including a Fatwa to permit the use of nuclear weapons against the infidel.

That is one fatwa for, by one of the most conservative Iranian clerics. This is a bit troubling but it won't cost me much sleep as it is the stand of a relatively small fraction of Iranian clerics. There are a number of fatwas against the use of nuclear weapons, some of these also recently originating from Iran.
I do not like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran and we should make all realistic and reasonable efforts to delay the inevitable for as long as we can.

Then too, what do you recommend we do when the US Muslim population reaches 40-50% in about 2060 or so? Just let it happen? Their birthrate is between 4.0 and 5.0 now, and rising.

Wow! What do you suggest we do? Sterilization? Child quotas? Forced deportations?

All in good time. Islamists think in very long time periods. They do not want to alarm the US too soon, in my opinion.

I guess if Christians could think in such long time periods the US would be in much better shape.

Beyond here you fall into such unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing that response is pointless.

I note with glee that you haven't answered my long post, except with an attack. Very leftwing of you.
That solves the whole matter to my satisfaction.
That is simply what leftwing moonbats do.

Its funny how after every time you play the victim of my 'attacks', you conclude with an attack of your own. Now calm down, this isn't another attack on you. I'm just saying, its funny.

Point out for me just where I advocated genocide.

In just this thread?

The cancer must be excised before its inevitable spread, and without waiting for a trivial excuse to attack for worldwide consumption.

Bombard is a good word. Almost as good as excise, but not as certain.

I suggest we do not have any better solutions to Islamofascism either, since the Muslim is wedded to his ideology, and his ideology is wedded to jihad. Reform of Islam is not in the cards, at least not in this eon.

Islam and Muslims present an existential threat to our way of life, and they must be dealt with--the sooner the better.

No granted you never used the 'g' word, but you were pretty clear none the less.

This tack of yours seems in itself to be a conspiracy meme. Trying to save yourself from being accused of being soft on Muslims and Islam. Or just being a smear artist, or leftwing moonbat.

In a real sense, I hope your ideas are correct, but I would never, never bet the farm on them! You may be so wrong as to give the nation away, or aid its demise. This makes you a threat to our nation.

So not over-reacting to every crazy conspiracy theory by wiping entire regions of the world devoid of life makes me a threat to the nation?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99.99% (+/- 0.1%) of the population of the USA would not endorse killing every Muslim in the world because they are having more children than we are. I guess than makes 99.99% of Americans a threat to our nation. Or, more accurately, it just makes us a threat to the ambitions of your 0.01% who prefer genocide simply because it's easier.

EOS, I have better things to do.

As Grewgills has already mentioned, Islam is not the only warrior religion who's tradition of bloody conquest has persisted to this day, a fact I hardly need to point out to you I'm sure.

So what? Not relevant.

Again Grewgills has already pointed out why this is a ridiculous idea, but now I challenge you to tell us who the last Caliphate was who's authority was recognized by both Sunni and Shia. And after that, maybe you could tell us why a Caliph is more dangerous than a Pope.

Not relevant in the 21st century. Time alters circumstances and allegiances, especially when the stakes are high enough. The Pope! Oh dear! The comparison doesn't merit an answer.

I will refrain from saying what I really think of your posts; it is easy to denigrate someone in an ad hominem attack.

In a real sense, I hope your ideas are correct, but I would never, never bet the farm on them! You may be so wrong as to give the nation away, or aid its demise. This makes you a threat to our nation.