The situation in France has gotten so desperate that the only way to prevent civil war between Muslim and non-Muslim sections of society is to divide the country in two, one French academic argued. This may seem needlessly drastic, but the push for Sharia (Islamic law) being enshrined in the government may make it necessary.
“Just as the English never managed to tame the Irish Catholics, we will never be able to eradicate the radical Islamism,” wrote Christian de Moliner in the French online magazine Causeur. “Everyone realizes that a second people has formed in France, a branch that wants to settle their life on religious values and is fundamentally opposed to the liberal consensus on which our country was founded.” The author also shared his article in a post on Facebook.
De Moliner argued that “a nation always rests on a fundamental pact, a minimum of laws that all approve.” In France, he claimed, this is no longer the case.
“We can never get the toothpaste into the tube and convert the 30% of Muslims who demand the introduction of Sharia to the merits of our democracy and secularism,” the author explained. “We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name.”
“While we are not yet at open war, the faithful of the Prophet are already grouped in areas sometimes governed by special rules (compulsory veil, rejection of Jews in certain ghettos, marriage and married life regulated by the Qur’anic principles),” de Moliner wrote.
The French author warned against appeasing those who push for legal recognition of Sharia in French laws and courts.
“For fear of appearing Islamophobic, to satisfy this waving fringe of Muslims, these governments are ready to accept the widespread spread of radical practices throughout the country: the veil at school and at work, the obligation of halal meat in all the cafeterias,” the author wrote.
He argued that if France continues to appease the Sharia minority, local laws will prevent people from eating during Ramadan, blasphemy will be punished as “an incitement to racial hatred” and Christianity will have to be practiced in secret. “The chimes of the churches will stop,” he warned.
De Moliner mentioned the May victory of President Emmanuel Macron over the anti-Islamist populist Marine Le Pen. This election “did not make the problems disappear,” but it merely put the issues aside.
The French author admitted that forced remigration of Islamist Muslims would not be possible “if we keep a democratic framework.” He cited the fate of the Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, an international scandal resulting from a government cracking down on religious freedom.
De Moliner presented only one possible solution to this cultural divide: “one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with Qur’anic status (but only for those who choose it).”
Those under Sharia “will have the right to vote … but they will apply Sharia 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 Sharia.”
Even so, secular courts will have a kind of supremacy. “Conflicts between Christians and believers [by which de Moliner means Muslims] will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts,” he suggested.
Most importantly, “no encroachment of Islam into ordinary legislation will be tolerated.”
Such a system, he argued, would “bring peace to France, break the excesses of Islam and preserve for 95% of the population a democratic framework.”
It is tragic that such a drastic solution would be necessary to prevent open conflict between supporters and opponents of government Sharia in France. Even so, de Moliner at least took the situation seriously and suggested a plausible answer.
There is a clear worldview conflict between Western laws and the political establishment of Sharia, and long-term appeasement may indeed be impossible. It would be better to segregate the two legal systems before they become entwined.
Nevertheless, many might condemn de Moliner’s suggestion as a form of segregation or even apartheid. Such comparisons would be false, as the Islamic-Western legal struggle has nothing to do with race and everything to do with worldview and the practical effects of law.
At the very least, de Moliner’s presentation of the problem cut through the enforced silence of political correctness. The conflict between Western law and Sharia is important, and it is not “Islamophobic” to address it. Indeed, Muslims who oppose Islamism have bravely stood up against this creeping threat. For their sakes, Western countries need to seriously address this issue.