Part one is here.
Government Responses: Balancing Security and Liberty
Surveillance and Intelligence Operations:
In response to the growing domestic terror threat, European governments have significantly expanded surveillance and intelligence efforts targeting individuals and networks deemed suspicious. These measures include wiretapping, internet monitoring, and physical tracking. After the 2015 Paris attacks, France declared a state of emergency, allowing police to conduct home searches and place suspects under house arrest without judicial oversight (source). New anti-terrorism laws later made many of these emergency powers permanent—such as the ability to close places of worship deemed extremist or to intensify digital surveillance.
Intelligence agencies have recruited Arabic-speaking analysts, increased monitoring of social media platforms, and enhanced cross-border cooperation through EU frameworks. These actions have successfully disrupted plots and led to numerous arrests. However, the expansion of the surveillance state has triggered concerns about privacy, due process, and the risk of governmental overreach. Muslim community leaders have voiced concern that their communities are being disproportionately monitored, further reinforcing a siege mentality among law-abiding citizens.
Tougher Laws and Police Powers:
Many European countries have amended their counterterrorism legislation to address evolving threats. Some have criminalized travel to join foreign terrorist groups. Others have granted broader powers to police and intelligence agencies—enabling them to freeze assets, detain suspects longer, and ban organizations linked to extremist ideologies. The UK’s controversial “Prevent” strategy mandates that schools, hospitals, and other institutions report signs of radicalization, essentially enlisting civil society in counterterrorism. Critics argue this blurs the line between education and surveillance.
France, in an effort to deter attacks, deployed soldiers to patrol public areas under the Opération Sentinelle program. Across the EU, special intervention units have received budget increases and enhanced coordination via agencies like Europol. But these measures have sparked intense debate: to what extent can governments curtail civil liberties—such as freedom of speech or religion—in the name of national security?
For example, France’s 2017 anti-terror law enabled authorities to close mosques suspected of preaching “hate” and to place individuals under house arrest without formal charges. Human rights groups criticized it as a threat to religious freedom and legal safeguards. European societies continue to wrestle with this tension: how far should a democracy go to protect itself without undermining the very liberties it claims to defend?
The Role of Foreign Actors: The Case of Turkey
With millions of Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities living across Europe, Turkey’s influence over these populations has become an increasingly contentious issue. Through the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), Ankara regularly sends imams to Europe and maintains an active role in shaping the religious life of Turkish expatriates (reuters.com). While this presence was originally welcomed as a moderate counterweight to more radical ideologies, it is now viewed with growing skepticism by European authorities.
European governments are concerned that a foreign power—namely Turkey—exerts ideological, cultural, and even political control over a segment of their citizenry. This, they argue, risks undermining integration and fostering dual loyalties. In recent years, countries like France, Austria, and Germany have taken steps to curb foreign influence over mosques and religious institutions.
For example, France has stopped accepting foreign-funded imams and committed to training clerics domestically to ensure alignment with republican values. Austria’s 2015 “Islam Law” explicitly prohibits Islamic organizations from receiving foreign funding. These moves have provoked strong criticism from Ankara, which often frames them as acts of Islamophobia or anti-Turkish discrimination.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has positioned himself as a defender of Muslim rights in Europe and has publicly condemned efforts to restrict Turkish-backed religious infrastructure. This has escalated tensions between Turkey and several European capitals. While Turkey is not directly responsible for jihadist attacks in Europe, its expanding religious and cultural outreach—particularly through Diyanet—has become part of the broader discussion on integration and security.
Diyanet’s network is seen by some as a stabilizing force that helps prevent radicalization; by others, as a vehicle for advancing a foreign Islamist agenda. This dual perception has prompted several European nations to demand greater transparency and independence from religious institutions operating on their soil. European governments now face the difficult task of balancing the potential benefits of Turkey’s involvement with the risks of ideological interference.
Conclusion
Europe’s struggle with the “jihadist threat from within” is a multifaceted challenge—security-related, social, and ideological. From Paris to Manchester and Vienna, the bloodshed of the past decade has made one thing tragically clear: violent jihadist ideology can take root in the heart of European neighborhoods. In response, governments have ramped up surveillance and policing measures, dismantled cells, and prevented numerous attacks. The absence of another mass-casualty attack on the scale of the 2015 Paris massacre is a testament to improved vigilance.
Yet incidents like the murder of Samuel Paty or the stabbing of a teacher in Arras show that the threat has not disappeared. Gaps remain—and the debate continues: is Europe doing enough to stop jihadism, or too much in a way that risks undermining its own freedoms?
Security measures alone are not enough. Long-term victory against jihadist ideology requires preventive action: strengthening social inclusion, addressing economic disparities, and cultivating a shared national identity that diminishes the appeal of hate-driven narratives. It also demands an honest reckoning with the root causes—discrimination, alienation, and marginalization—that drive vulnerable youth into the arms of extremists.
At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental dilemma: how can Europe protect itself from homegrown terrorism without fracturing its social fabric or betraying its liberal values? So far, the results have been mixed. On the one hand, intelligence efforts have undoubtedly saved lives. On the other, aggressive policies have strained civil liberties and eroded trust among communities.
Focusing solely on integration without acknowledging real security threats would be naïve. Likewise, prioritizing policing while ignoring the social roots of extremism is shortsighted. To address the jihadist threat effectively, Europe must advance both approaches simultaneously: a robust, rights-respecting security strategy and a sincere, inclusive integration policy.
Maintaining this delicate balance will remain one of Europe’s greatest tests in the years to come.
Barry Goldberg says
The author writes, “It also demands an honest reckoning with the root causes—discrimination, alienation, and marginalization—that drive vulnerable youth into the arms of extremists.” If this is his take on what motivates Islamic extremism, then it’s clear he hasn’t read the numerous dictates of the Qur’an, or else he’s deliberately being disingenuous. In either event, one would be wise to read Robert Spencer’s numerous insightful articles and books.
gravenimage says
Yes–the root cause is Islam, not “discrimination, alienation, and marginalization”. Muslims have been welcomed into Europe, and other migrants don’t try to impose brutal Shari’ah law and murder unbelievers if they do not comply with their demands.
Walter Sieruk says
It may be truly said that “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of Islam.
Therefore, it might be of some interest to a few people that that a book with title of JIHAD IN THE WEST published in the year 1998 authored by Paul Fregosi ,was a man who was thinking ,a bit ahead of his time ,as in before 9/11 and then many Islamic horrors of jihad terrorism that hit London, Manchester, Madrid Paris as well as other Western nations of Europe .For above mentioned book of page 411 reads “Most worrying , both Islam and the West see each other as potential enemies of tomorrow .The future is a source of concern , not of optimism.”
For this year of 2025 is the “future” as seen from the time-frame of the year 1998 when that book was published. As the author thus had a valid point in what he wrote in the above quote .
Moreover the threats of the jihadists towards the people of the nations of West .This has been further explained and revealed by in the book , by Robert Spencer ,THE HISTORY OF THE JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS .Which in page 367 informs the reader that “The early twenty- first century saw a sharp rise in jihad massacres perpetrated all over the West by individuals or small groups of Muslims: in London, Manchester, Paris, Toulouse, Nice ,Amsterdam, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin Munich ,Copenhagen…”
Those jihadists /Muslims with their insidious jihad-minded Muslims scheming for the subtle and not so subtle, Islamic conquest of Europe by every possible means, including the stealth and violent jihad which is, indeed, awful.
As explained by William Wagner in his book HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD .Which informs the reader n page 195 “Of all the continents of the world, Europe is probably the number one target by Muslim strategist who are seeking world dominance.”
Therefore, all Europeans and other Westerners would be wise to be on guard.
Walter Sieruk says
Those Muslim migrants who were allowed to enter the countries of Western Europe which resulted in them not only being ungrateful but even worse yet many of those Muslim migrants becoming so very arrogant to the point that they became criminals . As in some of them engaged in rioting and even rapes of the European girls and women.
In addition to this vile brutal behavior by the heinous Muslim who were kindly permitted to enter the nations of Europe to live, As the countries of ,for example Germany France, Sweden, Denmark etc. This unthankful Islamic spirit on the part of those lawless violent Muslims who immigrated to the countries of Europe may be explain, in part, by the fact that the Muslim fundamentalist group that even had the president of Egypt assassinated in the month of October of the year 1981 has a fifty –five booklet that is was written only for Muslims fundamentalists but was later discover by non-Muslims.
This booklet’s title is THE NEGLECTED DUTY. One scholar, Johannes Jansen who had thoroughly investigated Islam and Islamic terrorism has even discover that those Muslims, who had entered Europe of behaved in violent and heinous ways, are actually action out what they view and a sacred individual duty of the jihad as by engaging in awful violent criminal action in non-Muslim lands . As Jansen revealed that jihad booklet of Islam, THE NEGLECTED DUTY “contains all the ideological material needed to justify the attacks of 9/11 or any other acts of terror committed to frighten non-Muslims. And he thinks the document explains the criminal behavior of suburban and center –city immigrant youngsters in many European cities; its author clearly ‘sees Islam as license to kill rob and commit arson.’ “ [1]
Nevertheless, many of the apologists for Islam still have that blatant gall , in spite of all the facts of reality, to actually make the claim the Islam is a “peaceful religion.” What a totally false to make that Islam is “a peaceful religion “What Bull! A “peaceful religion” indeed.
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq pages 308, 309.
Walter Sieruk says
Just last year in the Christian brochure of the title Battle Cry , June 2024, it on page 8 in an article entitle “Europeans Call For A Return To Christian Root’s.”
In it after going over a list of Christian values that some Europeans are now, rediscovering it further mentions concerning the different countries of Europe that “Uncontrolled immigration that is bringing large numbers from the Middle East and Africa. Most of those who are coming with a heavy Muslim ideology. These are gaining a measure of control of local governments and are influencing polices that dampen fair debate, free speech, and the right of Christians to worship.”
Such influence and “control of local governments” by Muslims political activists in the different nations of Europe has been termed by some scholars of Islam as the “Stealth Jihad.”
In addition, one very good way to describe this twenty –first century “War of Ideas” is that of a great a conflict and a clash between Christianity and Islam. As explained by the Christian author, William Wagner,, in his book which is entitled HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD had explained on page 155 about a meeting that he had with a Muslim cleric , which reads “Several years ago one Imam told me that ,prior to 1990, the greatest enemy to Islam was Communism but now it is the Christian missions.” Further, on page 208 the Wagner had written about some zealous Muslims that “They have failed to stop Christian missions. They see Christian missions as their number one enemy.” On the next page the reader is informed that “Christianity remains the number one buffer against Islam, a fact readily recognized by those who seek a world wild ummah.” [1]
Moreover, in that same it also informs its realer “Since the stealth jihad is more advance in Europe then in the United States, the situation there is more dire….Muslims are accomplishing today what they have tried but failed to do for over a millennium : conquer Europe.” page. 195
[1] Ummah – The community of all those who affirm Islam.
rubiconcrest says
Thank you Burak Can Çelik for your detailed look at how Europe is trying to deal with their Islam problem. Walter S’s points are also not to be ignored by Europe and so it is interesting to note that Europe is not attempting to tackle the Islam problem at it’s roots.
The elephant in the room is how to deal with an intolerant religious – political movement? Policing alone is not the answer. Islamic doctrine and law is the problem and can cannot be ignored. It must be front and center in the resoration and maintenance of civil society.
The authorities are afraid of the backlash from radicals but underestimate the broad support in the Muslim community that recognition of the evils of Islam could provide. The fight is really one that Muslims themselves must be empowered to take on. But they only will do so with the knowledge that they will be protected. The reformers are not protected now whether they be rebellious family members or spokesmen. Just look what happens to someone who burns the Quran in protest.
Europe cannot wait for violence of intimidation and physical harm. They must be more proactive in getting the radicals out or permanently off the streets
gravenimage says
Europe: Balancing Security and Liberty
…………………………………….
Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
This is the case if you are appeasing those threatning you, hoping they will not attack you…we need to speak out about the threat of Islam.
OLD GUY says
We need to remove the threat of Islam.
The ideology of Islam is world wide dominance
gravenimage says
+1
Captain Quirk says
The question:
‘(…) to what extent can governments curtail civil liberties—such as freedom of speech or religion—in the name of national security? Human rights groups criticized it as a threat to religious freedom and legal safeguards.’
The answer: article 9 para. 2 ECHR:
‘Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject (only) to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’
This would appear to cover the several national penal codes, which criminalize actions in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others by law, i.e. the penal code. It is to be presumed that the several articles in the penal codes mentioned have been deemed to be necessary in said interests.
So, now let’s examine some surah’s from the koran:
Surah 2: 191: ‘Kill them whereever you find them’. ‘Them’ being the ‘kufar’, the unbelievers, i.e.: you and me and Jews and Hindus and what have you not. This is an unlimited and open call for the murder of non-mohamedans and as such is an extremely serious offence in all penal codes mentioned.
Surah 47: 4: ‘Strike (at) their necks.’ This is a call to cut the jugular veins of the ‘kufar’, the unbelievers and thus an unlimited and open call for the murder of non-mohamedans and as such is an extremely serious offence in all penal codes mentioned.’
Surah 8: 39: ‘And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.’ This is a open and unlimited declaration of war against the ‘kufar’, the unbelievers, you and I and thus an unlimited and open call for the murder of non-mohamedans and as such is an extremely serious offence in all penal codes mentioned.
So what’s the problem? Why tolerate this? Why tolerate the koran? Do these ‘c.t.a.’s’ deserve protection on the basis of the freedom of religion, or on the basis of the freedom of speech? Surely not. Come on!
gravenimage says
Spot on.
Winston 101 says
All of this trouble because Islam is not recognized for what it is:
ISLAM is a form of GOVERNMENT that includes a religion.
Would any host country import people as labor – and allow those people to stay and reproduce – if those people continuously swore fealty to the totalitarian government of their country of origin? A government whose goal is a complete takeover of the host country?
But, because Islam is a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing, it uses stealth to come in under the Sheep’s Clothing of claiming to be just” a religion”. Once in, the Wolf starts demanding to be the GOVERNMENT it has always been.