Talk to some European Jews, and you will hear a lot of agitation about Europe “Islamizing” and becoming irreversibly inhospitable to Jews, especially in the wake of global hostility to Israel’s post-October 7 brutalizing of Gaza. Considering how important Europe is to global culture, that’s a major assertion: Western civilization is in danger. Is it true?
The numbers suggest concerns are overblown. Muslims comprise only about 6% of the continent’s population of over 400 million, with projections reaching perhaps 8% by 2050 under zero migration (more under continuing migration, but no one expects the one-fifth proportion you find in Israel).
Of course, certain cities tell a different story: Brussels’s Muslim population is almost a quarter. And there’s a far larger Muslim community in the wealthy countries of Western Europe than in the east. Still, no Islamic takeover seems imminent unless hundreds of millions migrate to the continent.
So why is the perception that Europe is in danger of losing its identity so strong?
The answer lies less in demography than in liberalism’s infuriating softness when confronted with the illiberal. In France, Belgium, Sweden, and beyond, many Jews have come to fear that radical Islamist ideology – with its entrenched antisemitism and patriarchal, homophobic violence – is allowed to fester unchallenged under the very freedoms meant to preserve open society.
In Belgium and France, mosques have been found preaching antisemitic conspiracies and exhorting communities to reject integration. The infamous case of Salaam BCR, a UK-based broadcaster that aired a 38-minute antisemitic tirade, ended with a £3,500 fine – a punishment so lenient that it borders on acquiescence.
European democracies, proud of their liberal traditions, have been unwilling or unable to defend those very values when confronted by actors who despise them, especially when religious extremism cloaks itself in the garb of minority rights and protected speech. So liberal Europe protects those who would, given the chance, abolish those rights.
THE HARSHEST critics of Europe’s current trajectory – often dismissed as xenophobes – sometimes voice important truths. They point to neighborhoods like Molenbeek, Belgium, as breeding grounds for extremism, noting the social isolation and proliferation of radical religious institutions.
They argue that integration has failed in parts of Western Europe, not just culturally but also civically. Generations pass, yet parallel societies persist, with illiberal values reinforced by the very communities Europe hoped to uplift.
They warn that Islamist influence has seeped into public institutions, with local councils in places like Antwerp or Schaerbeek quietly dominated by community leaders who resist liberal norms.
They highlight the collapse of pro-liberal free speech because the cost of speaking out has become unbearable when critiques of religious violence are falsely deemed “hate” by an intolerant progressive orthodoxy. Such progressivism, like US “wokeism,” is the antithesis of liberalism.
The result is that Jews are afraid to wear yarmulkes in public, women are pressured to cover up, and gay people face threats on the street.
Of course, the issue is not simple. Many of the obsessive critics of Muslim immigrants are plainly racists, and the question of how liberals should deal with illiberalism contains a built-in paradox that is difficult to resolve.
Israel offers its own example: In an atmosphere as fraught as Israel’s has become, the most vile Jewish religious extremism is tolerated because of freedoms, and as a result, the country is veering towards illiberalism.
There is a way to deal with religious-based illiberalism, and the best example may be in Denmark, where, 20 years ago, violent protests erupted by Muslims outraged at caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which then spread to Muslim countries, where hundreds were killed.
Denmark has taken decisive steps to protect liberalism. Its “Aarhus model,” developed in the mid-2000s, treats radicalization not merely as a law enforcement issue but as a social pathology requiring early intervention. Police, social workers, educators, and psychologists collaborate to identify individuals at risk of ideological extremism. Even returnees from ISIS territory were de-radicalized and reintegrated by combining firmness with humanity.
Its parliament has drawn hard legal lines, banning full-face veils and outlawing forced marriage. The goal is not to stigmatize Muslims – in fact, many liberal Muslims support such measures – but to push back on radical ideologies. Liberal columnists, left-wing intellectuals, and secular Muslims all speak freely without fear.
What Denmark understands – and much of Europe still forgets – is that the defense of liberalism requires drawing firm lines against illiberal practices: against honor killings, forced modesty, and punishments for blasphemy. It requires recognizing that offense is not violence and insult is not assault.
What else must Europe do?
The continent needs to confront a sensitive truth: It cannot continue admitting illiberal individuals. Immigration is not a right, as some progressives would assert. Europe and North America should not be the only places on the planet that are obligated to let in the rest of the world. Immigration is a privilege for those who respect and share core civic values.
So, it is justifiable to apply ideological screening to those seeking European citizenship.
It’s okay to require applicants, credibly and unequivocally, to uphold the primacy of state law over any religious or tribal code, accept gender equality, respect freedom of speech – including the right to offend religion – understand that no tradition or belief justifies violence, and agree that gay rights are not negotiable.
Lie-detector tests, background checks, and extended interviews are all okay to protect liberal democracy.
Those already residing legally in Europe are protected by social contract, but new entrants must meet the bar. Cultural preservation is no less vital than diversity.
Next, enforce hate speech laws consistently. Religious incitement to violence should be treated no more delicately than racial or ethnic hate speech. The fact that preachers wrap their bigotry in religious language must not absolve them of civic responsibility. Social services must work hand-in-hand with law enforcement to spot radicalization early.
Also, establish and defend the boundaries of public space. That means banning face coverings where identification matters, prosecuting honor-based violence without hesitation, insisting on equality for women, gays, and religious minorities, and doing so with the full force of the law. And, no less importantly, defend speech that offends religion.
Lastly, empower and protect liberal Muslim voices – those who speak out for pluralism, civic integration, and modern values. These voices exist and deserve amplification.
The myth of an Islamizing Europe has been overstated, but the threat to Europe’s liberal soul is real. So is the threat to Jews. The choice is standing for liberal values or losing them in a tide of cowardice. Europeans need reassurance on a simple, basic point: It is not intolerant to reject intolerance.
The writer is a former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East; ex-chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem; and author of two books about Israel. Follow his newsletter “Ask Questions Later” at danperry.substack.com.