A Belgian far-right lawmaker says Muslims who do not reject what he describes as violent religious teachings should not be allowed to remain in Belgian society, arguing that Islam itself — not extremist offshoots — is the root of social tensions in the country.
Sam van Rooy, a member of parliament for the Vlaams Belang party, said Muslims living in Belgium should be required to explicitly repudiate passages in Islamic religious texts that he claims promote violence against Jews, Christians and nonbelievers. Those who do not, he said, should be denied the right to operate mosques and should ultimately leave the country.
Van Rooy argued that distinctions commonly made between Islam and Islamism, or between Islam and so-called political Islam, obscure what he views as a deeper problem. In his assessment, the issue lies within foundational religious teachings rather than modern political interpretations.
He said such reforms are unlikely in Belgium, which he believes is unwilling to confront what he described as a fundamental conflict between Islamic teachings and Western values. Van Rooy accused politicians and journalists of avoiding the issue out of ideological reluctance.
Citing academic research on Muslim identity in European cities, van Rooy pointed to data suggesting that a significant portion of second-generation Muslims in Belgium do not identify as Belgian. He said this reflects failures in integration and reinforces his call for stricter immigration controls.
Van Rooy said Belgium should sharply reduce immigration levels and impose what he called a “cultural selection” process for newcomers. He criticized current integration programs as costly and ineffective, arguing that stricter entry standards would make such programs unnecessary.
He attributed what he described as political hesitation on immigration and Islam to lingering guilt over European colonialism and the Holocaust. According to van Rooy, fear of appearing intolerant has led Belgium to accept what he views as intolerant ideologies, producing the opposite of its intended moral outcome.
Van Rooy also criticized Belgian political leaders for what he called weak responses to antisemitism, arguing that electoral considerations — particularly the size of the Muslim voting population compared to the Jewish community — influence policy decisions. He said Jewish interests are often sacrificed during coalition negotiations.
As an example, he pointed to a recent decision to block military cargo flights destined for Israel from passing through Belgian airspace, a move he said was welcomed by militant groups. He characterized such decisions as political trade-offs that leave Jewish communities vulnerable.
Van Rooy said many politicians privately recognize what he described as growing religious radicalization but are unwilling to admit decades of policy failures, fearing damage to their credibility and careers. He suggested that similar dynamics exist in the media, where institutions are reluctant to reassess past positions.
He also criticized public discourse surrounding Israel, arguing that negative portrayals reflect deeper antisemitic attitudes rather than principled criticism. Van Rooy said he views attitudes toward Israel as a test of political and media credibility and said he refuses to work with politicians who oppose the Jewish state.
According to van Rooy, symbolic condemnations of antisemitism are insufficient without concrete policy measures. He said government officials frequently express moral opposition to antisemitism but avoid actions that would involve restrictions on speech or measures affecting Muslim communities.
Addressing criticism that his strong pro-Israel stance is politically motivated, van Rooy rejected the claim, saying his views are based on conviction rather than electoral strategy.