A reader writes: “What if Muslims and Muslim movements in Europe could be brought under sufficient control that apostates would no longer be afraid to leave Islam? Wouldn’t that create a very strong minority in Western countries, one fiercely opposed to Islamization? After all, renewed Islamization could put their lives at risk. They could become a powerful ally, even if it came at the price of a certain degree of cultural blending.”
Of course! And that is already the case. Ex-Muslims are incredibly courageous people, and as a group they do more to defend the West than almost anyone among its native population. When I hear some figures in the alternative scene today describing these ex-Muslims as Jewish agents, only one word comes to mind: disgraceful.
I assume these ex-Muslims are so courageous because they represent a selection from among all apostates—a tiny group of the bravest. They speak publicly against jihad even though doing so condemns them to a life of fear, hiding, and constant threats. The best known are assigned security details (few people realize that living under constant protection is a kind of half-imprisonment), while the less prominent are left to fend for themselves.
If the West were still the kind of West it was in the postwar decades, things would look very different. Ex-Muslims would live freely, speak openly about their break with Islam, and probably make fun of Islam as well. Devout Muslims might promise them eternal hellfire, but they would not dare do anything more. Quite simply, mosques would be under surveillance, and the slightest mention of punishing apostates would result in the mosque being closed, deportations, property confiscations, and so forth. This is how De Gaulle, Churchill, and most likely Adenauer as well would have responded to Islamic fundamentalism. It was also how such matters were handled in the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. And the result was that the character of Islam changed.
Unfortunately, it changed only temporarily. As I tried to show in Breaking Through the Walls, Islam is elastic. Under political pressure, it can assume a moderate and relatively friendly form; once that pressure disappears, it reverts to its bloody historical form. Still, this would help, at least for a time. And perhaps a more lasting solution could be found in the meantime.
But establishing such conditions now appears impossible.
It is worth remembering that this did not begin yesterday. In 1989, when thousands of Muslims marched through London demanding the killing of Salman Rushdie, and when leaders of Muslim communities joined in that demand, Margaret Thatcher’s government did not even consider taking action against them. Rushdie was eventually given police protection, but the prime minister justified it by pointing out that he had paid a great deal of money in taxes. Had he been poorer, would he not even have received protection?
More than thirty-five years have passed since then, during which the strength of the Muslim community has steadily grown, culminating in the migration wave of the past decade.
Why is it impossible to begin enforcing secular law against the Muslim community as well? Because the combined forces supporting Islamization are stronger than the combined forces opposing it. Nothing short of a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape will suffice. That is what we may perhaps expect from the next wave of modernization.