The Muslim Riots in Antwerp: Peaceful Integration is

the Only Answer

European fans of tightly shut borders are already gladly pointing to Antwerp as an
example that immigration inevitably leads to civil strife. Hundreds of Muslim residents of
that Belgian port city rioted late last week after a professor of Islamic studies was killed,
and the situation was still tense all weekend. But the lessons to be drawn from this mess
may be the opposite: they are that Europe's immigrant communities need more
opportunities to integrate into the host societies, not less.

Certainly, this seems to be the opinion of the family of the murdered teacher, Muhammed
Achrak, a 27-year-old man of Moroccan origin gunned down by an apparently deranged
pensioner. The murder unleashed two days of rioting last week after trouble-makers
spread the rumor that it had been a racist act, though there was scant evidence of that.
But on Friday evening, as thousands gathered for the funeral, Achrak's younger brother,
Satif, appealed for calm by telling the crowd: "we're all one people, black and white,
Moroccan and Belgian, Muslims or not."

These noble sentiments from an aggrieved brother are a far cry from the immigrant-
baiting tactics of a Lebanese-born Dyab Abou Jahjah, the president of something called
the Arab-European League, who was arrested Thursday night by Antwerp police on
charges of fomenting the riots. An Arab nationalist who fought the Israelis and models
himself on Nasser, he told Britain's Observer newspaper soon before his arrest: "We
reject integration when it leads to assimilation. We are at home here and whatever we
consider our culture to be also belongs to our chosen country."

The AEL's Web site makes its aims clear. Under the picture of a masked Palestinian
terrorist comes the warning: "we shall overcome by any means necessary." Immigrants
who come with conquest in mind should expect no hearty welcome. But fortunately most
newcomers want only a better life. European nations, where those willing hands are
needed to replace aging populations, should take care to make a distinction between the
two classes and provide the means to assimilate those who come in peace.

During these days of incitement, inflamation and rage, all of us in the international peace
community need to be even more viligant in following the ways of Dr. King and Ghandi.

Global Peace Initiative

December 2, 2002

Down with dictatorships

The recent terrorist attacks in Kenya (and in Bali on October 12) should be a wake-up
call to all those who want to fight terrorism. Islamic terrorism will continue to worsen as
long as there exist dictatorial regimes - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. - that sponsor
and harbor terrorists.
The U.S. war on terrorism has so far been a failure because, with the exception of
Afghanistan, the U.S. has been practicing the hopeless policy of appeasement, the same
decades-old policy that allowed terrorists to become powerful enough to murder 3,000
people in one day on American soil. Such appeasement has only strengthened the resolve
of Islamic terrorists and their sponsors.

Snuffing out individual terrorists or terrorist cells is not enough, because new terrorists
will be recruited and trained. Building a security wall is not enough because the suicidal
fanatics will always find ways to penetrate. The only solution is to eliminate the
dictatorial regimes that sponsor terrorism.

Conservatives Dispute Bush Portrayal of Islam as Peaceful

Critics, Include Some Policy Advisers, Call Stance Political

Saturday, November 30, 2002;

President Bush finds himself in a rare disagreement with conservatives

in his party over his efforts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that
is not responsible for anti-American terrorism.

In a score of speeches since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the president
has called for tolerance of Muslims, describing Islam as "a faith based
upon peace and love and compassion" and a religion committed to
"morality and learning and tolerance."

But a large number of foreign policy hawks -- some of them with

advisory roles in the Bush administration -- have joined religious
conservatives in taking issue with Bush's characterizations. While most
of them understand the political rationale for Bush's statements --
there's no benefit in antagonizing Muslim allies such as Pakistan and
Indonesia -- they say the claim is dishonest and destined to fail.

For Bush and for the country, the outcome of the argument is crucial.
The administration, and moderate governments in Arab and Muslim
nations, are struggling to prevent the war on terrorism from becoming
what Osama bin Laden wants: a war of civilization between the Judeo-
Christian West and a resentful and impoverished Muslim world.

Calling Islam a peaceful religion "is an increasingly hard argument to

make," "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it
seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace
advocate like Jesus."

the enemy of the United States enemy is not terrorism "but militant
Islam." "The enemy has an ideology, and an hour spent surfing the
Web will give the average citizen at least the kind of insights that he or
she might have found during World Wars II and III by reading 'Mein
Kampf' or the writings of Lenin, Stalin or Mao."

I knowledges it is impolitic and "deeply uncomfortable" for the

administration to say such things. "Nobody would like to think that a
major world religion has a deeply aggressive and dangerous strain in it
-- a strain often excused or misrepresented in the name of good
feelings. But uttering uncomfortable and unpleasant truths is one of
the things that defines leadership," he said.

At the same time, social conservatives are resisting Bush's efforts to

portray Islam in a favorable light. "Islam is at war against us. one thing
that concerned me before September 11th and concerns me even
more now is his administration's constant promotion of Islam as a
religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is
neither."

Earlier this month, Bush distanced himself from virulent anti-Islamic

remarks made by a number of U.S. religious leaders. "Some of the
comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the
sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans,"
the president said in the Oval Office before a meeting with U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan. "Islam, as practiced by the vast majority
of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is
a country based upon tolerance, Mr. Secretary General, and we respect
the faith and we welcome people of all faiths in America."

Bush's remarks came after religious broadcaster Pat Robertson was

reported as saying that "Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims
want to do to the Jews is worse." Another religious conservative, the
Rev. Jerry Falwell, referred to the prophet Mohammed as a "terrorist";
Falwell later apologized. The Rev. Franklin Graham, who spoke at
Bush's inauguration, has called Islam "evil." In an interview with the
Washington Times published this week, an unapologetic Robertson
complained that Bush "is not elected as chief theologian" and objected
again to Bush's description of Islam as peaceful.

In fact, Americans see themselves as increasingly tolerant. In an Ipsos-

Reid poll this month, 56 percent of Americans said they had become
more likely over the past year to respect cultures that do not share
their values, while only 27 percent said they found it harder to have
such respect.

Bush was trying to encourage that sentiment when he hosted a White

House dinner earlier this month for Muslim diplomats and Muslim
American leaders for the Muslim holiday of Ramadan . "America
treasures your friendship; America honors your faith," he said at the
Iftaar dinner.

Last month, at a White House event promoting U.S. efforts to rebuild

Afghanistan, Bush celebrated Islam as "a vibrant faith." "Millions of our
fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its
traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great
traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."

Bush has delivered such speeches almost monthly since the terrorist
attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, beginning with an
appearance at the Islamic Center of Washington on Sept. 17, 2001.
"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," he said. "That's not
what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

Many understand the political and even moral reasons for such
pronouncements. Tere is no denying that there is a "clash between
Western values and the radical Islam we've seen" but said it need not
be "a war of Christianity versus Islam."

"Bush is doing his best to minimize it, and so far has avoided a clash of
civilizations. Yet, describing Islam as peaceful is the right political
argument, but it's a harder intellectual argument to make.

That likely won't get any easier with the intellectual ferment among
American conservatives, many of whom are coming to a conclusion
that "Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists," he wrote. "But it would
be dishonest to ignore the plain truth that Islam has become an
especially fertile breeding-ground of terrorism in our time. This can
only mean that there is something in the religion itself that legitimizes
the likes of Osama bin Laden, and indeed there is: the obligation
imposed by the Koran to wage holy war, or jihad, against the 'infidels.'
"