Earlier this month, the distinguished Islam scholar Bernard Lewis gave the Irving Kristol lecture at the American Enterprise Institute. It is a fine analysis which puts the current global jihad into much needed perspective. The period when Islamic imperialism was subdued by outside powers, says Lewis, is over. The result is a resurgence of ancient internal struggles — Shia v Sunni being the best known example. And also

a return among Muslims to what they perceive as the cosmic struggle for world domination between the two main faiths–Christianity and Islam

and a revival of the declaration of war against the Christian world.

There have been two previous attacks by Islam upon Christendom in history. The first involved the conquest of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa and a sizable part of southwestern Europe, including Spain, Portugal, southern Italy and for a while, part of France, which Christendom eventually retook with the exception of North Africa and the Middle East. The second involved the conquest of Russia, Constantinople, the Balkans, parts of Hungary and reached as far as Vienna, as well as raids on western Europe including Iceland and Ireland (and although Lewis doesn’t say it, Britain too when raiding parties of the Barbary pirates came ashore and kidnapped Britons from the churches where they were praying). Europe counterattacked, recovering Russia and the Balkans. Drily, Lewis notes as an aside:

For this phase of European counterattack, a new term was invented: imperialism. When the peoples of Asia and Africa invaded Europe, this was not imperialism. When Europe attacked Asia and Africa, it was.

Now, says Lewis, a third attempt at the Islamic conquest of Europe is underway. And this one is taking two forms: terrorism and migration. But before such an attack, the designated victims are in disarray.

What are the European responses to this situation? In Europe, as in the United States, a frequent response is what is variously known as multiculturalism and political correctness. In the Muslim world there are no such inhibitions. They are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they want, a quality which we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength in the one, of weakness in the other.

… The Islamic radicals have even been able to find some allies in Europe… They have a left-wing appeal to the anti-U.S. elements in Europe, for whom they have so-to-speak replaced the Soviets. They have a right-wing appeal to the anti-Jewish elements in Europe, replacing the Axis. They have been able to win considerable support under both headings. For some in Europe, their hatreds apparently outweigh their loyalties.

… Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. They have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration producing major population changes, which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries. But we also have some advantages, the most important of which are knowledge and freedom.

Read it all.