I*sla*m

There is no doubt about it.  Our politicians and the intellectual classes haven't a clue how to deal with the ideas and  actions of a resurgent, militant I*sla*m.  The whole business does not come into their mental framework. The cosy liberal consensus that has ruled, apart from the blip of Nazism, most of Europe for the past three centuries, and the current craze for multiculturalism, don't know how to react to a faith that rejects the democratic process, that derides the whole system of what they call man-made laws,  and will have nothing to do with the separation of Church and State that has dominated European thinking since the beginning of the eighteenth century.   
Militant I*sla*m takes pride in stating that their religion encompasses all facets of life, whether it be religious, political, moral and social.  They want to impose on Europe a Theocracy based on Sharia law and centred around a restored Caliphate in Turkey. Above all they want to suppress freedom of debate.  They detest our freedom to ruthlessly analyse and even criticise all religious pretensions.  To the islamist criticism is simply blasphemy.  They are pressing in the UN that a bill should be passed outlawing all criticism of religion.   Our intellectuals shudder and protest meekly that nothing has been seen like this in England since the Civil War that ended in 1651.  
The other point that confuses and scares the pants off our chattering classes is the acceptance in militant Islam of the proposition that the end justifies the means, a moral doctrine that has always been rejected by Christian moral philosophers. That means that deception (taqqiya in Arabic) and extreme violence can legitimately be used if they achieve the advancement of Islam.  Our writers and serious journalists who love to ridicule and marginalise everything Christian have suddenly been struck dumb.  They remember the fate of Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding after publishing The Satanic Verses in 1988.  However, their fears are not trivial. A French philosopher, Robert Redeker,  wrote an article in Le Figaro, criticising Islam in 2006.  He received death threats and had to go into hiding.  Geert Wilders of Holland, a controversial politician who campaigns against the Islamification of Europe, never sleeps in the same house for two nights and rarely sees his wife.  Dutch Islamists have vowed to kill him. Theo Van Gogh, a descendent of the painter, made a programme about domestic violence in I*sla*m, was shot eight times and had his throat slit in the middle of Amsterdam by a Islamic radical in 2004.
As a result  of this you rarely if ever see a radical critique of Islamic doctrine or history in the serious press or on TV.  Most TV companies avoid any programme that would upset Muslims.  The reason for all this moderation and hesitation is simple - fear.