Fair or not, people have long made jokes about the French surrendering at a conflict’s very start. Now a French author proposes surrender before a conflict has even begun — to avoid civil war with Muslims.
Writing at Causeur.fr, intellectual Christian de Moliner makes the following points (auto-translated from French and edited slightly for style):
• “The war in France is just beginning.... Many murderous Islamist attacks have just taken place and a few aftershocks from the other side are appearing.”
• “We can never put the toothpaste back in the tube and convert the 30 percent of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia to ... our democracy.”
• “We will never be able to eradicate radical Islamism.”
• “The faithful of the Prophet are already united in areas sometimes governed by special rules” (no-go-zones).
De Moliner proposes what essentially is a quasi-Sharia state within France, where Muslims who so choose could live by the Koran. He writes that they “will have the right to vote ... but they will apply Shariah in everyday life, to regulate matrimonial laws (which will legalize polygamy) and inheritance. They will no longer apply to French judges for disputes between Muslims, but to Cadis. On the other hand, conflicts between Christians and believers will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts.”
Moreover, de Moliner states, “This system would involve schools or hospitals reserved for believers and therefore the creation of local committees that will manage them independently. A council of ulemas [a body of Muslim scholars] will fix the religious law, but the autonomy will stop there. It is obviously out of the question that an embryonic Muslim government should develop in France.”
Unsurprisingly, de Moliner has received harsh criticism. Yet he’s correct in saying that a failure to “face reality” will be disastrous. The problem is that he only faces half of it.
De Moliner justifiably warns of political correctness, stating that for “fear of appearing Islamophobic, to satisfy this bustling fringe of Muslims, governments are ready to accept the spread of radical practices throughout the country.” He rightly (and naturally) speaks of no-go zones, writing, “In addition, [some] territories are outside the control of the Republic. The police can come only in force and for limited durations.”
(Note that leftist media and other entities have insisted no-go-zones are a myth, and two years ago Fox News was threatened with a lawsuit and cowed by criticism after talking about them. This, even though the New York Times basically originated the no-go-zone story in 2007.)
Where de Moliner goes terribly wrong is in thinking the jihadist-oriented Muslims would be satisfied with a half-measure. Further emboldened and cemented in their own norms by the concessions, would they, for instance, submit to the civil courts’ judgments in disputes with non-Muslims? They don’t believe they should be subject to non-Muslim law or that non-Muslims deserve equal rights. Thus, they ultimately would not consider it “out of the question that an embryonic Muslim government should develop in France.”
Moreover, Sharia would do far more than legalize polygamy. According to Dr. James M. Arlandson, who teaches world religion, Sharia includes the following:
• “Apostasy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on anyone who leaves Islam (an apostate).”
• “Blasphemy laws, including imprisonment or execution, may be imposed on critics of Islam or Muhammad.”
• “Drinkers and gamblers may be flogged.”
• “An injured plaintiff (a private citizen) has the options of forgiving or exacting legal and literal revenge — physical eye for physical eye.”
• “The hand of a male or female thief may be cut off.”
• “A highway robber may be crucified or his alternate hand and foot cut off.”
• “Adulterers may be stoned to death.”
• “A man may legally and irrevocably divorce his wife, outside of a court of law, by correctly pronouncing three times ‘you are divorced.’”
• “A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, has sex with him, and then this second man divorces her.”
• “A man may simply get rid of one of his ‘undesirable’ wives.”
• “Husbands may hit their wives.”
• “A mature man may marry a prepubescent girl.”
De Moliner writes that, historically, “to separate territorially two ethnic groups or two groups that no longer support each other has allowed the resolution of conflicts. Thus, Greece and Turkey exchanging their population in 1922, put an end to a war that lasted 100 years.... Sudan has eliminated much of its civil war by granting independence to the south of the country.”
Yet de Moliner refutes his own proposal with these examples. The Greece/Turkey population transfer would be analogous to sending the Muslims back to their ancestral lands; the Sudanese affair resulted in the creation of South Sudan — another country — an outcome de Moliner calls “out of the question.” And, oh, South Sudan currently has its own civil war.
In reality, de Moliner’s proposal would create something closer to the Israel/West Bank-Gaza Strip situation. But however sloppy his thinking, it’s more precise than that of those who created the problem he addresses. De Moliner correctly notes that if “the English never managed to tame the Irish Catholics, we will never be able to eradicate radical Islamism” (under the West’s current framework of rights). This better analogy well illustrates the insanity of the West’s immigrationism and mindless diversity worship, whose logic makes as much sense as the slogan of the autocratic government in the novel 1984: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” In our case, we say diversity is strength — and it didn’t even take a tyrant to get us to accept it.