Europe Is Facing a Civil War
Subtitle: A 7th-Century Cultural Governance System Is Launching a Power Struggle Against a 21st-Century Civilization Governance System
“Do not allow the civilization governance system to be destroyed.”
“Remain vigilant against the power-seizing challenge launched by Islamic cultural governance against the civilization system.”
This is the message I have been consistently trying to convey in my previous articles that touched on Islam.
This has nothing to do with discrimination, because this is not about music, dance, language, clothing, architecture, or cuisine.
This is not about the harmless cultural expression layer.
(If you are unfamiliar with the definitions of “cultural expression layer,” “cultural governance layer,” and “civilization,” you may refer back to my earlier articles Why Japan Preserved Its Culture Under Westernization and The Watershed Between Culture and Civilization. Please note that those two articles are conceptually connected, and they are also directly connected to this third article.)
What this article addresses is the issue of Islamic religious courts replacing secular courts, and, in the name of religion, undermining judicial independence, legitimacy, and procedural justice.
I must emphasize this again: Islam is a religion in which politics and religion are inseparable.
Religion is law.
Religion is governance.
Religious law is the foundation of daily life.
All aspects of a Muslim’s life are conducted according to Islamic law.
This implies two things.
First, Islam cannot , and must not , be separated from politics.
Christians cannot use the post-Reformation framework of church–state separation to interpret a cultural governance system in which religion and state are unified.
Second, when state law conflicts with Islamic law, Muslims will prioritize Islamic law, even when doing so violates secular moral norms and national legal codes.
Let me ask you bluntly: When was the last time Christianity operated religious courts?
Placing divine authority above the law is a fundamental taboo of civilization governance, because it means one religion , or one sect , claims the right to judge others.
This inevitably leads to endless power struggles, internal conflict, accumulated resentment, and hatred toward judicial outcomes, ultimately resulting in war.
History has already proven this through the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants.
You might say:
“Come on, don’t exaggerate. Religious courts only judge Muslims. Don’t interfere. Respect their culture.”
That is a fair question.
But what happens when a legal conflict involves a Muslim and a non-Muslim?
Should the case be handled by a secular court, or by an Islamic religious court?
Let us go one step further.
Even if religious courts truly only adjudicate Muslims ,
By 2010, the total number of Muslims in Europe had already reached 44 million.
Among them, 19 million lived within EU member states.
With such a large population, what happens if Sunnis refuse to accept judgments made by Shiite judges?
Can you guarantee that disagreements between Islamic sects will not escalate into violence on European soil?
If armed conflict erupts among Muslims due to Islamic religious courts, how exactly are Europeans supposed to respond?
These are not abstract questions.
These are real, practical problems.
The second point I want to address is this:
Civilization is not about cultural expression.
Civilization functions as a governance layer, operating on the premise that it respects diverse cultural expression layers.
The civilization governance layer consists of:
law, monopoly on legitimate violence, and judicial independence (uniqueness and exclusivity).
Civilization does not interfere with, nor does it own, cultural expression layers.
Just as the sky contains different weather, and the ocean contains different forms of life.
Peaceful coexistence is possible only because different cultures have handed over their governance authority to civilization.
Get Aeris’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
When conflicts arise between people of different cultures, we can entrust those conflicts to civilization for resolution, because everyone recognizes and respects the same civilizational framework.
But what if one kind of “weather” claims it should replace the sky itself?
What if summer declares, “I am the sky,” and demands that spring, autumn, winter, rain, sunshine, and storms all obey summer’s rules?
This is neither sensationalism nor alarmism.
Islamic legislators (or members of parliament , titles vary depending on national political systems, but within a separation-of-powers framework they belong to the legislative branch) are actively working to grant Islamic religious courts secular legal legitimacy.
More radical actors are attempting to replace secular courts altogether with Islamic Sharia courts.
In Christian terms, when religion becomes politics, religious courts represent the executive branch illegally interfering with judicial independence.
You believe you are importing multiculturalism.
In reality, you are importing an incompatible operating system.
Once this system begins installing its own religious courts as “drivers,” it will format the judicial hard drive you spent three centuries building.
You will no longer be able to uphold:
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
The reason is simple.
Sharia law is not a cultural preference.
It is a competitive governance system from the 7th century that merges legislative, executive, and judicial power into one.
Islam cannot separate its cultural expression layer from its cultural governance layer.
It cannot transfer its governance authority , its judicial arbitration power , to secular civilization and national legal systems.
Its internal design does not separate judicial, legislative, and executive power either.
This is why conflicts arise when the Muslim population increases within non-Islamic host countries.
Because Islam is a religion-state polity (note my use of the word polity: when separation of religion and state is impossible, it is no longer merely a “religion,” but a political system with religious characteristics), expansion requires it to prove the legitimacy and orthodoxy of its governance system.
If Islam fails to demonstrate the legitimacy of its governance structure, it will face internal doubt and loss of trust, ultimately leading to collapse.
Therefore, when Muslims become a significant proportion of the population in non-Islamic countries, religious leaders , imams , are structurally obligated to perform this legitimization.
The result is this:
A 7th-century religion-state governance system initiates a challenge against a 21st-century secular civilization system.
Please note carefully:
This challenge is initiated by the 7th-century system, within the territorial domain of 21st-century governance.
You may ask:
What if external forces impose secular separation on Islam?
This has already occurred in Turkey and Iran.
Whether the results were successful is evident today, particularly in Iran’s current theocratic reality.
What about relying on internal Islamic reformists to secularize and decentralize Islam, allowing it to integrate into civilization?
Regretfully, the answer is no.
This is because when Muhammad inscribed the Seal of the Prophets into the Quran, he permanently severed Islam’s capacity for self-reform, self-correction, and self-evolution.
Any internal call for reform is ultimately condemned as “defying the Prophet” or “blaspheming the Prophet.”
Therefore, I advise all those who still hope Islam can align with secular civilization:
Stop waiting.
From the moment the Seal of the Prophets was written into the Quran, this religion was destined to remain in an “eternal yesterday” (the 7th century CE).
Its timeline cannot advance itself.
If 21st-century civilization governance does not wish to be dragged back into Islam’s “perpetual yesterday,” then defensive measures and limitations are unavoidable.
As a non-white person, this is my final warning to European whites and to all non-Islamic societies.
This article was written by myself.
Gemini provided suggestions for supplementary sources.
The translation was done by ChatGPT.
Thank you for reading.
