Posted on 02/20/2026 6:40:31 AM PST by MtnClimber
There is a familiar rhythm in public debate. First comes the report. Then comes the denial. Finally comes the euphemism. The controversy over Islamic no-go zones in the West follows precisely this pattern. The phrase itself is contested. The underlying phenomenon is not.
We should begin with clarity. What is meant by a no-go zone? The core idea is simple. A no-go zone is an area within a city where ordinary civic norms do not fully apply, where state authority is attenuated, and where non-members of the dominant local community are discouraged, intimidated, or effectively excluded. In the specific context at issue, the claim is that there are Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries in which non-Muslims, law enforcement, or other outsiders face practical barriers to entry, whether through intimidation, social coercion, or the emergence of parallel legal norms informed by Sharia.
One might object at once. Are there statutes declaring such areas off limits? No. That is precisely the point. The phenomenon, if it exists, is de facto rather than de jure. A government rarely announces that it has ceded authority. Instead, authority erodes gradually. Language softens. Officials adopt new categories. The reality on the ground remains.
The phrase no-go zones appears prominently in early-2000s commentary on France. In April 2002, writing from Paris, David Ignatius described Islamic North African suburbs that had become no-go zones at night, linking the label to crime, unrest, and racial tension. The term did not arise from fringe blogs. It entered mainstream discourse as a way of describing urban districts where the ordinary assurances of safety and state control were diminished. By 2005, reporting during the French riots referenced domestic intelligence assessments that police would not venture into roughly 150 such areas without significant reinforcements. In 2002, a Washington Times report on Antwerp described attempts to create no-go areas for police in immigrant districts. The label was spreading, not because of ideology, but because observers were struggling to describe the same pattern.
By 2008, the warning had become sharper. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of the Church of England stated that Islamic extremists had created areas in Britain that were too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. He spoke of physical attacks on those of different race or faith, and of attempts to reshape public life through calls to prayer and the wider application of Sharia norms. Political figures echoed concerns about voluntary apartheid, about closed societies demanding immunity from criticism. These were not anonymous pamphleteers. They were senior public figures reacting to concrete developments.
Yet denial followed. The left in Europe and the US insisted that the very phrase no-go zone was Islamophobic. They argued that such labeling stigmatized immigrant communities and inflamed prejudice. In some cases, broadcasters retracted segments that used the term. Paris’s mayor threatened legal action in 2015 after American television described parts of the city as Muslim-only no-go zones. The rhetorical dispute obscured a more interesting fact. European governments themselves had already developed official categories that captured much of the same reality.
France’s zones urbaines sensibles were defined by statute as part of city policy. In 2006, roughly 4.4M people lived in these sensitive urban areas, around 7% of the population. These districts exhibited higher unemployment, lower employment rates, and higher concentrations of immigrant residents. Later, France introduced zones de sécurité prioritaires, priority security zones, territories where delinquency and incivilities were described as structurally entrenched, often within cités sensibles. Coordinated state action was required precisely because baseline order had eroded. Officials did not call them no-go zones. They did not need to. The operational implications were clear.
Sweden offers an even more explicit case. Since 2015, the national police authority has published analytic reports identifying Islamic no-go zones as vulnerable areas and particularly vulnerable areas. In the 2015 framework, particularly vulnerable areas were described as places where policing could be difficult or almost impossible due to threats, systemic violence, and low participation in legal processes as a result of Sharia. The reports referenced parallel social structures and forms of extremism, including strong Islamic influence that restricts rights and systematic infringements on religious freedom. In 2019, the police counted 60 such Islamic no-go zones meeting thresholds of serious criminal impact. Legally, these are intelligence categories. Practically, they describe neighborhoods where the state’s authority is impaired and alternative norms operate.
Denmark’s ghetto and later parallel society framework went further, incorporating non-Western population thresholds alongside socioeconomic and crime indicators. The legal designations of de facto Islamic no-go zones have drawn scrutiny at the EU level for potential nondiscrimination concerns. But the very existence of a statutory framework for identifying Islamic no-go zones underscores that the issue is not imaginary. The UK and Germany have prosecuted vigilante Sharia patrols, self-styled enforcers who declared certain streets Muslim areas and harassed non-believers. Courts imposed fines and custodial sentences. These episodes show two things at once. First, attempts at micro-level no-go enforcement occurred. Second, the state sometimes pushed back both proving that Islamic no-go zones do, in fact, exist.
A skeptic might respond that crime and social fragmentation do not equal Sharia governance. That is correct. Not every vulnerable area is governed by religious law. But the steelman version of the argument does not require caricature. It requires only recognition of a recurring mechanism. Large-scale Islamic migration, combined with weak assimilation and concentrated settlement, can generate neighborhoods in which social norms diverge sharply from national law. If the majority in such an area regards certain behaviors as forbidden, social pressure begins. A convenience store selling alcohol closes under community pressure. Dog owners walking through the neighborhood face hostility. Street preachers distributing Christian scripture encounter harassment. Over time, outsiders take the hint. The area becomes informally homogeneous.
The final stage is not always formal Sharia courts. It can be something subtler. Police enter only with reinforcements. Witnesses decline to cooperate. Businesses pay protection to local Islamic gangs aligned with religious authority. Women alter dress or conduct to avoid confrontation. Public order exists, but it is maintained by a mix of criminal and religious actors rather than by the neutral state.
The US context is different. No American city mirrors the scale of certain European districts. But the warning signs are visible. Dearborn and Hamtramck in Michigan, and the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood in Minneapolis, often called Little Mogadishu, are frequently cited in no-go narratives. Fact-checkers emphasize that Sharia does not formally replace US law. That is true. The question is narrower. Are there Muslim-majority neighborhoods where social norms effectively limit speech, commerce, or religious expression by outsiders? The answer is definitively, yes.
Consider a recent Dearborn City Council meeting in which a Christian minister objected to renaming Warren Avenue after Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News, citing past praise for Hezbollah. The mayor responded by labeling the minister an Islamophobe and declaring him unwelcome in the city. No ordinance barred him from entry. Yet the symbolism matters. When an elected official tells a citizen he is unwelcome in his own city for voicing dissent, a boundary is drawn. It is informal, but it is real.
Critics will argue that these examples reflect isolated tensions, not territorial exclusion. But patterns matter more than anecdotes. In Sweden, police describe particularly vulnerable areas where parallel structures and Islamic fundamentalist influence restrict rights. In France, priority security zones require coordinated state intervention due to entrenched Islamic control. In the UK and Germany, self-appointed Sharia patrols have attempted to police behavior. Across jurisdictions, governments resist the term no-go zone while simultaneously acknowledging operational difficulty, reduced cooperation with law enforcement, and the presence of Islamic social orders.
Why, then, the insistence that the phenomenon is a myth? Part of the answer lies in demography. The left’s replacement migration to offset declining native birth rates was never put to a vote. The narrative of successful multicultural integration is politically indispensable. To admit that certain neighborhoods evolve into parallel Islamic societies governed in part by Sharia norms is to admit the failure of their integration policy. It is easier to reframe the issue as bigotry than to confront structural failure.
There is also a reputational concern. Labeling an area a no-go zone can stigmatize residents who reject extremism but merely conform to survive. That is a serious moral cost. But denying real problems imposes a different cost. It prevents early intervention. It discourages honest analysis. It leaves moderate Muslims trapped between radicals and a state unwilling to acknowledge the radicals’ influence.
The American case remains, for now, embryonic. These cities are not Europe. Police still patrol. Courts still function. Yet the mechanism is the same everywhere. Concentrated Islamic migration, weak assimilation, cultural separation, then social enforcement. The slippery slope metaphor is apt. It begins with pressure on businesses that sell forbidden products. It proceeds to discouraging pet owners and street preachers. It advances to informal Sharia compliance in public life. Finally, authorities adjust policing for safety, reinforcing the perception that the area is distinct.
America need not replicate Europe’s trajectory. But that will require candor. A society that cannot name a problem cannot solve it. The existence of de facto no-go dynamics in parts of Europe is supported not merely by commentary, but by official police frameworks describing impaired authority and parallel structures. The emergence of similar pressures in US cities, though less advanced, should prompt vigilance rather than denial.
The call to action is simple. Reject Sharia. Protect speech and commerce in every neighborhood. Demand assimilation as the price of citizenship. If we wait until formal Sharia courts or overt police retreat appear, we will have waited too long. The lesson from France, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and Germany is not that collapse is inevitable. It is that erosion is gradual. By the time euphemism replaces denial, the ground has already shifted.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
We can watch Europe and see our future if we don’t deport the illegal immigrants, especially the criminals and muslims.
Only when it Islam is accurately defined as a political system disguised as religion will this be properly dealt with.
Welfare Office
closed indefinitely
as per Sharia law
We can watch New York cut, Dallas, Minneapolis, Dearborn and see our future if we don’t deport the illegal immigrants, especially the criminals and muslims.
I know that I’m behind the times, but how on earth can sharia law be put into effect anywhere there’s not a Muslim controlled state legislature? (In other words, Muslims can choose to obey it, but how would it impact my family?)
Orthodox Jews have courts of law, called batei din, which have jurisdiction only on Jews who choose to obey them. And, of course, various Christian sects sometimes turn temporal disputes over to church authorities. What’s the difference with Muslims adhering to their laws?
Muslims impose sharia on anyone entering the zone they have taken over, muslim or not. Even the police won't go there unless there are serious reinforcements.
“deport the illegal immigrants”
The law has to be changed so an anchor baby can’t support a whole family.
“There is a familiar rhythm in public debate. First comes the report. Then comes the denial. Finally comes the euphemism.”
Good observation, but left out two important steps - then comes the name calling, the accusation, (islamophobe), followed by the criminalization (”hate crime”).
There are so many examples of this especially in the delusional “communities” - LGBTQRSTUV -, the immigration debate, the races....
And they’re all engineered by the leftist radicals.
Islamic Call to Prayer Echoes Across NYC Ahead of Ramadan Under Mamdani’s Leadership
"Throughout New York City, residents are complaining about the fact that starting at 5 a.m., the call for Islamic prayer is playing on speakers throughout the city for Islam’s ritual of praying five times a day."
I’m just waiting to see the sharia punishment to the thieves who defrauded, ie stole, money by falsely claiming they were running schools or kitchens. Going to be a lot of left handed Somalis.
Taxpayer money , water , power and sewer should also stop going into these No Go Zones
Imagine how much safer America would be right now if, in the wake of 9/11, Chimpy McHitlerBush had stated the truth that “Islam is a Cult of Death” instead of sticking his tongue up the gumpers of his Arab buddies and switching the subject to Saddam only.
Walk a dog with a kippah on your head and a bottle of beer in your hand.
I dare any leftists to make it across Dearbornistan.
In literally EVERY Muslim country, and large Muslim minority countries (like India and Singapore) - Islam is HIGHLY regulated
There are government ministries regulating who can preach, what is published, which mosques and schools get funding, etc....
Are we in the West prepared to do that? Because it is absolutely necessary, as Islam is a political religion with no central authority - which means we WILL get the wild weeds of Islamic radicals, Islamic political agents of foreign powers, or Islam used as a wedge by western marxists.
Given the West’s (and particularly the USA’s) tradition of “freedom of speech” this will be a HUGE contradiction and problem
Along with food and other supplies.
That’ll trigger meltdowns like crazy.
Firemen responding a structure fire in No Go Zones cannot safely proceed without substantial police defensive units. Even when trying to help residents by putting out a fire, they are extremely liable to be physically attacked.
Lots of documentation here:
https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/europe-is-turning-into-one-big-no-go-zone
We need mass dog walk parades in our cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.