Wednesday, 22 October 2025

No "No Go Zones"? No way! What's the story with Muslim enclaves in the West?

Above: Muslims call for Islamic Sharia Law in Europe
Muslim No Go Zones on video. 
I was going through some old books the other day, getting rid of trashy stuff, to make way for more. I came across a booklet I'd forgotten I had: "Sharia Law for non-Muslims", by Bill Warner. I'd bought it in 2014. The book first published in 2010, and still for sale, though now only on Kindle. 

I dipped back into it, and find my marginalia. I'm big these days on marginalia; I learned that bibliophiles feel the same -- like Helene Hanff in 84 Charing Cross Road. Even unto folding pages back to make them "dog-eared". I learned somewhere or other that that's a time-honoured tradition*. Now, on any book of mine, unless it's super special, I'll dog ear it to death and marginalia it to the max. 

This one had a note next to a sentence about "no go zones" in Europe, that I'd written: "694 as at 2014". 

I did recall that number. It was from a French publication talking about what they called the "Zones sensitives" in France, mainly Muslim and very unwelcoming to non-Muslims including to emergency services. That was a decade ago. 

I wondered what the number might be today. 

I hied me to the AIs, starting with Grok. Who denied that any such "No Go Zones" existed at all. I went to other AIs: to Gemini, Perplexity and to ChatGPT. They all said the same. In pretty much the same words. Clearly drawing on the same sources and running a narrative. That is: "No Go Zones do not exist". There is no such place where Muslims live that you are not allowed to go into as a non-Muslim. If you suggest otherwise, you're racist, xenophobic and islamophobic. 

The reasons for running that narrative being: immigration is good and if you say otherwise you're xenophobic. Muslim immigration is especially good and if you say otherwise you're most assuredly bigoted, racist and islamophobic. 

Thing is: I know that these areas exist. I've been in some in Paris and in Britain. 

I'm an old white man with a beard. I look like any old white Muslim guy might in a Muslim area, so I don't get any grief. But my wife, Chinese Australian, and without any head covering is made to feel very unwelcome. To the extent that she dicided to give up and go back to more welcoming territory. 

How the AIs can tell us that there are no "No Go Zones", is by playing with terminology. The governments don't label any as "No Go Zones", therefore how can we say they exist?! Rather like Kamala Harris denying she was ever a "Border Czar" during Biden's term, because that was not an actual title. It's all playing with words. 

They may not be stricly "No Go" in the sense that you cannot go there. But you certainly don't feel welcome if you're not a Muslim. Even me, this bearded man, can feel unwelcome if they find out I'm not a Muslim. Bad enough if I'm a Christian, for then at least I'm a "person of the Book", but even worse if they learn I'm atheist. 

Go to any place in the UK or in France with large numbers of Muslims and you're back in Bangladesh or Islamabad. You're surrounded by Islamic-clothes wearing people, looking at you funny if you're not in the same.  You notice that there aren't any pubs, in an area that used to be cockney with a pub at every corner. There are no fish and chip shops. No pie shops any more because they sold pork.  

These are certainly "No Go" in every way but literal. You can go there, if you're not a Muslim; at least if you're a man. But you're most unwelcome. And if you're a woman and not in Niqab or Chador or Hijab, fuggedabout it! You're going to be hassled and maybe worse. We know from police and ambulance drivers's statements that they too are often unwelcome; if there's a tense situation they'll be stoned and burned. They won't go in save with military protection.

Contrast the Muslim majority areas with Chinatowns. Of which Gemini AI says: 

"... people of all backgrounds are welcome in U.S. Chinatowns, which have become vibrant hubs that are welcoming to both visitors and residents, even as they were originally founded as safe havens for Chinese immigrants escaping discrimination.

The same is true in Little Italy's. Or in Koreatowns. In all of which everyone is welcome. They want to make money after all! All these enclaves have higher than average household incomes because they make a big deal of being open to all and to being welcoming destinations. 

By contrast the Muslim-majority areas are below-average of household income, because they ban alcohol, ban pork, force pubs and clubs serving alcohol to close down, and the only shops are kebabs, women's garb or barbers. They're below average income also because they encourage their women to stay at home and the men to take welfare where they can: it's taking money from the Kafir after all. It's their due as Muslims. 

I kind of had enough of AI being such apologists for a supremacist ideology like Islam. I'm not sure what to do, because where does AI go to for its info: Wikipedia and the rest of the Left Wing media. Then what to do if you want some information that's not in the main narrative? 

===========================================

No Go Zones in Europe and the US:

===========================================
*On a lighter note, I asked Grok to check up on my thought that dog-earing a book is a fine and ancient custom. Here's the answer: 

Dog-earing—folding down the corner of a page to mark your place—has a long history and isn't inherently harmful to books when done carefully, though opinions on it vary. Historically, dog-earing dates back centuries, as early as the 15th century with the advent of the printingpress, when books became more common but were still precious. Readers often folded corners because paper was expensive, and dedicated bookmarks weren’t always practical or available. Evidence of dog-earing appears in medieval manuscripts, where monks and scholars folded pages to mark important passages or for navigation in texts like illuminated books. Some even used "pointer" folds, creasing pages to highlight specific lines. 

 

The practice was practical in eras without modern bookmarking tools, especially for students or readers revisiting texts. For example, in the 16th and 17th centuries, scholars often dog-earedpages in their personal copies to flag references, as books were heavily used tools rather than pristine collectibles. However, as books became more mass-produced and libraries grew in the 19th century, dog-earing started to be seen as careless by some, especially for shared or valuable volumes, since heavy folding could weaken or tear pages over time. 

 

Today, opinions split. Bibliophiles and librarians often cringe at dog-earing, as it can stress paper fibers, especially in older or brittle books, and may obscure text or leave permanent marks. Modern paper, made from wood pulp, is less durable than older rag-based paper, making damage more likely. Yet, many readers see it as a personal, tactile way to engage with a book, marking not just a place but a moment of connection. Studies on book use (like those by book historians) note dog-earing as a common "reader’s trace," alongside marginalia, showing how people historically interacted with texts. 

 

If you dog-ear, it’s best to do so lightly with clean hands to avoid oils or dirt marking the page, and avoid excessive folding in rare or fragile books. Alternatives like bookmarks or sticky notes are gentler, but dog-earing’s historical precedent means it’s not a modern sin—more a personal choice. If you’re curious about specific historical examples or want tips on minimizing damage, let me know!

-
Labels: , , ,