From Q Magazine
By Lucia Crăciun
Is Europe looking away from a religious conflict? Martin Mawyer, President of Christian Action Network, tells Q Magazine how Europe can defend itself from Muslim radicalization.
Why is this clash of civilizations happening right now?
The current clash is the natural result of competing – and extremely divergent – worldviews. Though many ideologies compete for the minds, souls and direction of mankind, there are four main combatants: Secular humanism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
At the root of the enmity is the core question of whether God exists and man’s secular and religious duties that flow from either belief or nonbelief.
Islam believes that all secular and religious behavior in any nation should be guided by a supreme leader called a Caliph. Secular humanism maintains that mankind should be guided by the laws of nature and that governments should be free of religious markings, rituals and compulsion. Christianity holds that mankind’s behavior should be the mirrored life of Jesus Christ, with government designed to protect the biblical principles of justice. Judaism, with a history far longer than the other three, enters the arena primarily because it claims the right to possess the ancient homeland of the Jews, Israel.
Though these forces are sometimes in agreement with one another (e.g. both Islam and Christianity oppose abortion), they also have many core beliefs that put them in conflict, particularly in areas of morality, finance, criminal justice, types of government and the most obvious, religious observance.
There are, of course, differing views in each philosophical camp. And there are plenty of smaller players also competing for the direction of their governments, the souls of mankind and the destiny of their nations – Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to name a few. From a global perspective, however, the primary clash of civilization is among these four worldviews.
In the late 20th century, wars to secure land, resources and nations became less significant and frequent. When they were fought, they were typically limited or smaller-scale adventures (Falkland Islands, Kuwait, Grenada, the Gulf wars). This was the result of the political, economic and military strength of various superpowers. Modern war has the potential to be staggeringly expensive and destructive, and subject to political pitfalls. In Iraq, for example, overthrowing a government without its people sharing the conquerors’ worldview has proven troublesome, perhaps even futile, or worse.
With major land-grabbing between nations nearly impossible, a different dynamic is now at work. The modern battle is to steer the hearts, minds and souls of citizens into a particular worldview and gain territory through stealth, conquering nations from within. Since individual citizens have no standing army, no fortress and no military equipment to defend them, they become easier targets for the hopeful conqueror. Much of this philosophical clash consists of nonviolent persuasion – schools, social media, publications, missions, media, entertainment and outreach programs to indoctrinate or sway. Some takes the form of laws that strong-arm the individual into obedience to a worldview, whether or not the person is in agreement (blasphemy laws are an example). The clash also unfolds as violence and terrorism: suicide bombs, mass shootings, deadly sabotage to coerce and convert.
The clashes today are both cultural and religious. Both are less costly than traditional wars, whether they are pursued violently or nonviolently. Both offer a greater prize than just land and resources: They offer the obedience and the servitude of people along with the land, resources and government in which they live.
History has shown that money runs out and land and resources become exhausted. But ideas can survive for thousands of years, and inevitably, they can change governments, institutions and nations for generations to come. We live in an era of crumbling or crumbled empires (e.g. the British, American and Soviet) and a changed definition of war. For the first time in hundreds of years it is possible for ideologies – some quite old and “backward” – to spread among the masses regardless of borders and armies. Cheap, instant mass communication only adds fuel to the fire.
It appears that Islam, existing in this changed world where colonial and imperial powers associated with Christianity seem to be waning and weakening, sees “an opening” to make a play for farther-reaching and more global power.
How can Europe protect itself?
To protect itself, Europe needs to rid itself of the many obstacles that prevent member nations from defeating radical Islam. There are a few short-term solutions before launching into any full-blown, long-term strategy. Even these simple measures will likely prove difficult, especially in host countries where leaders place political correctness, “diversity” and nation-shaming above the welfare and safety of their own citizens.
First, Europe must stop the unfettered, illegal migration of Muslims into its community of nations. Second, it must rid itself of blasphemy laws that prevent citizens from freely condemning uncivilized Islamic behavior, belief or history. Third, each nation must rebuild pride among its citizens and honor its own historical, cultural and national achievements. Fourth, Europe must oust weak, appeasing leaders who believe “multiculturalism” is a solution to assimilating migrant Muslims into western ideals, democracy and behavior. Fifth, European nations must reject laws and ordinances that impose Islamic beliefs or traditions upon native citizens. In the long run, however, these simple and obvious solutions will be only a bandage over a cancerous tumor that is festering and growing in Europe. A long-term strategy is needed, and that is a more daunting task.
For the most part, Islam is a force that is united, determined, calculating and – in many instances – willing to use deadly force to vanquish enemies. Most Muslims are united in their belief, objective and purpose of conquering Europe and establishing an Islamic caliphate to rule over it. European countries that are ashamed of their past, have no unifying ideals or faith, are fearful of asserting their own public conscience and have no way to rally and muster their own resistance will certainly lose to this cohesive, resolute and unwavering adversary.
Unfortunately Europe has moved into a post-Christian era, where the basic values and principles of Christianity are honored (love thy neighbor, don’t steal, don’t murder), but where the spiritual teachings of Christian faith and worship have been cast off as outdated and non-scientific. Pastors, churches, Christian ministries and religious organizations no longer bind Europeans into a cohesive purpose, belief system or deep-seated resolve about their destiny. Without Christianity playing a dominant role in European life, native Europeans lack the solidarity that comes from having organized meetings, like-minded friends, inspiring leaders, boldness, confidence and instructive wisdom.
The West wants to ignore that Islam is pushing the world toward a religious war.
Atheism, secularism and agnosticism – which root their values in a post-Christian framework – lack the cohesiveness to organize much resistance to an Islamic onslaught. These belief systems do not know what they stand for. They are malleable, inconsistent and supremely unpersuasive to an enemy that is unyielding in its worship of a conquering God. Only an equally determined faith, which is equally unyielding, has a chance against an Islamic invasion. My answer to how Europe can protect itself is, of course, is to reward and spread Christianity. Christianity knows what it stands for. It will defend what it stands for. It will die for what it stands for. Yet it will do all of this while celebrating mercy, love and sacrifice.
The Battle of Tours, in which Charles “The Hammer” Martel defeated an Islamic army invading France in 732, should be a constant reminder of the high stakes at play in Europe. As historian Godefroid Kurth noted, the Battle of Tours “must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”
What is the future of Christianity?
The immediate future of Christianity will rest on whether adherents can recognize that the teachings of Jesus are more than simply a doctrine of love. The same Son of God who said “love thy neighbor” also said, “Think not that I came to bring peace in the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (KJV Matt. 10:34)
Those who threaten our lives, property and faith at the point of the sword need to be answered with the point of the sword. Otherwise, Islam will not only achieve its objective of conquering nations, but will also succeed in vanquishing opposing religions – including Christianity.
In modern times, the teachings of many (if not most) Christian churches have been geared toward tolerance, acceptance and capitulation to clearly defined biblical evils. Sadly, the 21stcentury Christian often fails to separate the sin from the sinner and ends up showering both the person and the evil with mushy love. I am confident, however, that this will change with the precipitous rise of Islam.
It’s one thing to tolerate evil as long as it has no direct effect on your personal life. Why, some would ask, should Christians get up in arms about something like homosexual marriage (a clearly defined Biblical no-no) when it has no immediate impact on a Christian’s life, property or faith? Can’t a Christian love the sin and sinner and be accepting of both?
Islam will change this line of thinking, and as Christians are targeted and slaughtered throughout the Middle East and North Africa, this change is already apparent. Last month (March 2016), an outraged Christian public persuaded the United States Congress to pass a resolution condemning the mass murder of Christians by Islamic groups and categorizing the slaughter as an act of genocide. No tolerance there for sin or sinner. The convicted could be imprisoned for life or even executed.
The threat of subjugation, beheading, mutilation and enslavement (both sexual and physical) will force Christians to re-examine their faith, reassess Christ’s teachings and recognize that some evil must be dealt with severely – sometimes even with the sword. The spread of Islam, both radical and moderate, is likely to bring an increase in Christian numbers, activism, conversions and unification, just as it did following the 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists.
USA Today noted after the 9/11 attacks: “For millions of Americans, the immediate response was to drop to their knees in prayer.” A Gallup poll showed that church attendance spiked 6 percent following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, though those numbers have since subsided to pre-9/11 levels.
Still, there is plenty of evidence to show that persecution sows the seeds of Christian growth. In Nigeria, for example, Muslim terror gangs wantonly attack and kill Christians in the most vile and vicious ways. Christianity has grown so strongly in response in that country that it is nearing the majority of the population. Even conservative estimates now have Nigeria at 45 percent Christian. At the start of the previous century it was a meager 1 percent.
Islam will not conquer Christianity in the near future. In fact it may act more like fertilizer, spreading and strengthening the faith.
Why are European leaders so weak in defending their countries?
To understand the weakness of European leaders in regard to Islam, one must first understand their motivation for inviting Islamic immigrants into their countries and their strategy for handling disruptive Muslim behavior and demands when they arise. During the filming of Europe’s Last Stand,our documentary on the Islamic invasion of Europe, we asked this question of a number of politicians. Some favored Islamic immigration and some opposed it.
A typical answer from those who favored a Muslim presence in Europe came from Italy’s Sen. Francesco Casoli, a member of the People of Freedom party. “We need hard job workers,” Sen. Casoli said. “Italians don’t like to work the countryside, or with metals, or to look over the fields day after day. I have to say that with immigrants, Italy in the last 20 years has grown a lot.”
European politicians who favor Muslim immigration would take exception to the accusation that they are being “weak.” Instead, they believe they are helping their countries in several ways:
- By bringing in new workers to better their nation’s economy
- By showing the world that European nations are compassionate and humane
- By building trade and political agreements with Arab countries
- By introducing their own citizens into a global community of new ideas, traditions and cultures
These politicians must recognize, however, that there have been unexpected problems with and fatal consequences (literally) from their plan to bring Europe into a global community of oneness.
These leaders hinged their bets on three misguided assumptions:
- That assimilation would work with Muslim migrants
- That Islam is a peaceful religion
- That their own citizens would appreciate the economic and cultural benefits of having Muslim aliens living in their communities
What they didn’t anticipate from the newly arrived immigrants were Islamic demands for Sharia law and courts, segregated neighborhoods, Sharia patrol units, polygamous marriages, honor killings, Muslim sex gangs and rapes, female genital mutilation and terrorist bombings and shootings. If one can set aside the wisdom of European leaders and their grandiose intentions, their weakness can readily be found in their lack of any strategy for controlling Islamic antisocial, anti-western and uncivilized behavior when it rears its brutal head.
By now it is clear that Islamic demands and terrorism work together. The so-called moderates make the demands. The radicals commit the terrorism, which paves the way for those demands’ being met. The moderates will always denounce the terrorism, of course, but will gleefully reap the rewards.
European political leaders believe that appeasing and caving in to the demands of the moderates will cause terrorist acts to stop, when of course the opposite is true. Appeasement rewards terror, and behavior that is rewarded will occur again.
There’s another critical Islamic strategy in play here. Muslims make a point of blaming the victim for their bad behavior, in order to force westerners to grant their demands.
I interviewed Danish psychologist Nicoli Sennels during our filming, who spent years counseling imprisoned Muslim inmates in Demark. He told me that most Muslims he counseled prey on the social and economic guilt of Europeans. He said they are taught from youth to make Europeans feel ashamed of their wealth, privilege, prejudice and ungodly behavior. Their rationalization is: A bad environment corrupts good behavior. So, make them change the environment.
“Muslims often look to an unfair society, that westerners are racist,” Dr. Sennels said. “They believe they are being forced to live in a society that is not Islamic enough – a society that is not able to provide whatever they want in Islamic rules and rights. It’s never their fault. Whatever problems they have, they ask, ‘Who did this to me?’” The answer to that question is, of course, that the nonbelievers of Europe and their wicked culture, liberal western ways, secular politics and un-Islamic laws did it to them. Rather than dealing harshly with troublesome Muslim immigrants, European leaders take the view that native citizens must change their behavior, their laws and their culture to keep Muslims from acting irresponsibly.
European leaders will remain weak until they throw off foolish notions that aggressive and ruthless Islamic behavior can be controlled through capitulation, appeasement and acceptance. The schoolyard bully doesn’t change because you give him your lunch money. It only encourages him to come back tomorrow, and the day after that.
Why did they not anticipate this scenario?
There are many reasons why European leaders have failed to anticipate troublesome and sometimes violent behavior by Muslims deposited in their countries by an assortment of liberal immigration programs. It’s easy to say that multiculturalism, globalism and “diversity” are the main blinders for leaders who didn’t see the peril of welcoming millions of people into a nation who share little of its ethics, politics, religion or goals.
But there is one very prominent cause for this political blindness, and his name was Adolf Hitler.
No matter where one travels in Europe (and we visited 14 countries during our documentary filming about the Islamic invasion of Europe), you will constantly hear chants of “Hitler” and “Nazi scum” to anyone opposing Muslim immigration. To be against Muslim immigration is to be racist, fascist and a Nazi – or so the pro-immigration lobby would have you believe.
The legacy of Hitler still lies heavy on the European landscape, like smoke after an artillery barrage. It’s dense, non-navigable and blinding. The dread of even being considered a Nazi makes Europeans deathly afraid to oppose, reject or even criticize another person’s culture, race or religion. For the most part this is a good thing. Only it can be a very bad thing when it overrides discretion, intuition and common sense.
Hitler’s philosophy was racist, nationalistic, xenophobic and bigoted. His time in power, like that of the racist and nationalistic empire of Japan, erupted into a world war that claimed an estimated 60 million lives, many of them European. It’s not surprising that Europe still shies away from nationalism in its less extreme and even positive forms, like pride in race, flag, culture, religion or gender. Hitler’s savagery bequeathed to us an urge toward oneness – the view that citizens of the world must be treated with equality regardless of their politics, religion or culture. Only in this way, the reasoning goes, can another great war be avoided.
Europeans (and increasing numbers of Americans) have been conditioned that it is the ultimate evil not to accept anyone, from anywhere, for any reason. Doing so exposes one to being called “Nazi scum.”
Trying to distinguish between vile discrimination and responsible discrimination – especially under the simple-minded yet powerful gaze of international media – has become nearly impossible for leaders in today’s politically correct world, especially in western nations. European leaders did not anticipate the rise of Islamic extremism in their countries because the specter of Hitler is still alive, still eroding common sense, deductive reasoning and critical thinking.
They did not anticipate it, because they were (and still are) afraid to. Ironically, if Europe falls to Islam, Hitler should get a good deal of the credit.
* * * * * * * *
Martin Mawyer is the Founder and President of Christian Action Network, a non-profit public advocacy and education group based in Lynchburg, Virginia since 1990. He began his career as a freelance journalist and has authored several books, including Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamic Terrorist Training Camps Inside America. He has produced a number of documentary films, including Europe’s Last Stand – America’s Final Warning and Homegrown Jihad. Mawyer has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, Larry King Live, Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, NBC’s Today Show, Entertainment Tonight and Fox and Friends. His latest book, Twilight in America, co-authored by Patti A. Pierucci, details the activities of Islamic camps scattered throughout the United States operated by The Muslims of America.