So what is really going on in France?

Car torchings. Burned out social, leisure and work buildings. Violence on the streets of every major city. This was no ad hoc explosion of hatred. The riots experienced in the fall of 2005 across a French society in an advanced state of secularization ought to have fired a shot of concern across the bow of every Western nation set on the same secular, multicultural, post-Judeo-Christian tradition path. Why so? Well, it depends on what we really perceive as the core issues at the heart of the matter that brought so much turmoil to France's streets. Because one thing seems certain, we cannot depend on a politically-correct, "let's-not-blame-anyone-except-the-government" mainstream medium to inform us, as we shall see.

The heart of the matter

I have yet to read a definitive assessment of the French riots that reveals the heart of the matter. Internationally syndicated columnist Mark Steyn comes closest with his prophetically entitled "Early Skirmish in the Eurabian civil war." In it Steyn makes the case that multiculturalism, far from becoming a social blend of the best of all cultures, is actually a recipe for a "worst of all worlds" social soup. Steyn also points out that another critical element of this affair is, as I have indicated, the media coverage itself. The media, so it seems, have gone out of their way to play down the central role played by Islamic fervour, as he points out the "ideology of choice for the world's disaffected."

Another late-night TV news contributor, noting the "highly co-ordinated" aspect of the riots, pointed to a prior warning of an Internet-directed "Ramadan Offensive" (the riots began just before the end of Ramadan in October) by Islamic militants operating from Bosnia. It is impossible to confirm the veracity of this assertion at present. But whether the riots are indeed part of a wider strategic operation or not, without doubt, as numerous reports reveal, cries of 'Allahu Akhbar!" and "Jihad!" accompanied many of the violent attacks, on cars and property. To listen to the mainstream media coverage, however, this element was almost studiously played down.

Religion of the sword

Like Steyn, I have long conceived of the inherent dangers of large numbers of Muslims taking residence in European cultures. Islam is, and always has been, a religion of the sword, not, as with Christianity, a religion of the word. Nations have been "converted" by the raised scimitar far more than by the spoken word. The scimitar is not a principal symbol of Islam by accident. The truth is, Islam sits uneasily with other religions and in other cultures. The reason is simple.

The core teachings of the Koran both preclude integration, equality with other religions, and even friendship (though many Muslims ignore this) with non-Muslims, except for the furtherance of Islam. While the Western elites "beat themselves up" over non-integration, they are often little aware that the main preclusion of such a policy comes from Islam itself. The clerics themselves know this. And those we often describe as "hate-mongering" are often simply being consistent with the teaching of the Koran and the Traditions.

The prospect then of millions of Muslims and an aggressive Islam--whether Muslims personally pursue its aggression or not--has long offered the spectre of a bloody social and cultural struggle for supremacy; not equality. In short, for civil war on European soil. Islam simply cannot be "one of many" religions or cultures. Islam must dominate and rule through subjugation, what Islam calls dhimmi-status. Indeed, as Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has pointed out, the very word "Islam" does not mean "peace" as is often suggested, but "submission" (see www.danielpipes.org, Oct. 9, 2005).

Forthcoming war of Eurabia

What we have been watching unfold on our TV screens each evening are perhaps, as Steyn suggests, the "opening shots in the forthcoming war of Eurabia." Whether the recent violence is merely a skirmish, or a trial run, or part of a sustained and steady European "intifada," is too early to say. But all the signs are that many Islamic militants certainly sense Europe's social, cultural, even moral, vulnerability at this time.

Even so, I do not think this is quite the whole story; yet. The Islamic militancy present in the recent troubles in France is still only one factor--though a major one--in the turmoil over advancing secularization in Europe. With many Western elites still banging the multicultural drum as the answer, the mainstream media have continually diverted us away from the Islamic-centred violence and focus our attention instead on the "tensions with African immigrants" and "integration failures," and on the apportioning of blame for both. Consequently, the French authorities have borne the brunt of the world media brickbats. And the perpetrators are portrayed as of all ethnic shapes and cultural sizes.

In the overall scheme of things, disaffected Hindus, Sikhs and even French youths will play their part. However, I predict these will in due course be shown to be only support players to the main Islamic protagonists.

Media's play

Wherever the "religious elements" associated with the rioting are raised, however, we may be sure that the predilection of the mainstream media to avoid pinning the blame on particular religious elements will do its level best to insinuate Christianity as "culpable" too. Such is the ideological "neutrality" the liberal mainstream seeks to preserve.

In reality nothing could be further from the truth. France has long divested itself of its Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed it has worked at doing so. But the pursuit of the god of secularism requires that a price be paid. Emptying one's spiritual soul only creates a moral vacuum. And moral vacuums, by nature, require filling. Secularism has struggled to provide the moral certainty and clarity of purpose that the Judeo-Christian heritage gave. Islamists see an opportunity here. They seek for Islam to fill France's spiritual void. And without any coherent spiritual worldview to fall back on, France is finding itself morally adrift and in search of answers formerly underpinned by a Judeo-Christian spiritual soul.

Though the twin issues of multiculturalism and non-integration will, for the moment, continue to distract the media, they should not divert us as from the heart of the matter. In the coming Eurabian civil war, only the risen sword of Islam has genuine conviction and purpose in the apparent mayhem of violence being sponsored. But, we might ask, why France? Isn't Dance the most Islam-friendly country in Europe? Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Why France?

Well, the prophetic words of Middle East authority Daniel Pipes back in 2003 provide a clue:

"Death to France? Death to Chirac the Zionist? When thousands of Muslim worshippers gathered for the Friday communal prayers in Tehran on Jan. 2, 2003, they heard a stem-winder of a sermon by Ayatollah Ahmad Janati. In the course of it, Janati denounced France's President Jacques Chirac for his endorsement on Dec. 17 of a ban against 'conspicuous' religious symbols in state schools, including the hijab, large crucifixes, and skullcaps. Janati called on Muslim countries to 'threaten France with canceling contracts and to reconsider their relations with France, "promising them that Muslims need only roar, 'and the French would back off.'

"'Death to France!' came the response. This follow[ed] an incident on Dec. 29 when protesters at the French Embassy in Tehran shouted not just 'Death to France!' but also 'Death to Chirac the Zionist!'

"These imprecations prompt many thoughts, but one will suffice: given the French government's friendliness to Tehran and its hostility to Israel, this hostile reaction points to the possibility that the condition of Muslims living in Western states might in the future define Muslim attitudes more than that state's [ambiguous] foreign policy."

It seems Pipes was right. Ironic, is it not, that Islamic militants may have chosen the soil of Islam-appeasing France, a nation which has consistently operated policies designed to placate its volatile Muslim population, upon which to foment the beginnings of a potentially bloody, ideological, civil war across Europe? Doubly ironic when one appreciates the history of Islam's covetous nature of Europe. It was the brave Charles Martel and his small army of Frankish nobles who destroyed the superior forces of an invading Islamic army on the battlefield of Tours in 732AD. Had Martel not won, historians generally conclude that Europe would have soon been enveloped under the Muslim yoke. But without the military strength to raise the sword, Islam's pretensions for a new Eurabia were ended. Until now, that is. Even pro-Islam historian Bernard Lewis has stated his belief that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."

France should know that appeasement has historically had a poor track record. And multiculturalism is not, and never has been, the international political cure-all some, ideologically-speaking, would like it to be. The objective reason is simple. Islam does not allow for the same separation of politics and religion and culture that tolerant Western nations and cultures do. Thus Islam rests uneasily alongside "equal" religions and cultures. To really understand Islam it is imperative to understand that it is far more than a religion as we in the West often conceive religions. If we are to learn any one thing from the mistakes of France we will need to know that culture, nationality and religious identity do matter. And, perhaps most significantly, that the "religion" of secularism might not be the tolerant panacea that it is cracked up to be. If we really think that attempts to remove and hide Judeo-Christian symbols from our societies in the vain hope of placating Muslim sensibilities will succeed, then we need to know it won't work. Just ask the French.

If we want to avoid that which France is beginning to experience, it will behoove us to perhaps reconsider our heritage and traditions and that which we have abandoned or lost and that upon which the entire genius of Western civilization--its education, science, culture and identity and moral underpinning--is based and is wholly dependent on: our Judeo-Christian tradition and worldview. Far from being an "obstacle," a "barrier," or an "irrelevance" to our increasingly fragmenting Western civilization, perhaps falling back once more on that tradition which has served us so well for so long could perhaps be something after all. Even--dare I say it--the West's very salvation?

Peter C. Glover is a British freelance writer and author on political, social, cultural and faith matters.