Snippet from page 16 of George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four
(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1949, 1977)
Orwellian Concerns about
Manitoba’s Anti-Islamophobia Action Plan
By Hendrik van der Breggen
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS
SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
On December 12, 2025, the
Government of Manitoba announced its Anti-Islamophobia Action
Plan
(hereafter AIAP). The subtitle of the AIAP is “Addressing Islamophobia in the
K-12 Education System.”
The AIAP’s goal of caring for children is laudable, but its definition of Islamophobia is deeply problematic. I will argue that the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia not only is far too wide but also has a sinister Orwellian dimension. In addition, I will set out several reasonable—non-phobic—concerns about Islam.
I write this article with the hope that my fellow Manitobans will understand not only why the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia is faulty, but also why its faultiness is significant—even dangerous. The problem we face has to do not merely with a faulty definition, but also with our future.
I’ll be blunt. I believe that the faultiness of the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia allows for the possibility of a future in which Islam rules over us. And I believe we should not let this happen.
Read on, dear reader, before you judge me (falsely) as Islamophobic.
Laudable goals
I agree whole-heartedly with Tracy Schmidt, Manitoba’s Education and Early Childhood Minister, who writes the following in her foreword (letter) for the AIAP: “Every child deserves to feel safe, supported and included in Manitoba’s schools, regardless of their faith, their background or their identity.” And I agree whole-heartedly with Schmidt when she also says Manitobans want “an inclusive province where every kid has the opportunity to grow up well and build a good life.” Amen to all of this! These are truly worthy goals.
But the AIAP runs immediately amok with its definition of Islamophobia.
Definition includes too much
First, the AIAP’s definition of the word “Islamophobia” is problematic because it is too broad. The definition includes as referents things it should not include.
Let me explain.
To define a square as a shape with four sides is a definition that is too broad. Why? Because this definition would mistakenly include four-sided shapes that are not squares: rectangles, rhombuses, trapezoids, kites.
Or to define hockey as a game played with a stick is a definition that’s too broad, too. This definition would include games such as lacrosse, billiards, baseball, cricket, etc.
Now think of the suffix “phobia” in the term “Islamophobia.”
What is a phobia? Google AI’s answer is helpful here: “A phobia is an intense, irrational, and persistent fear of a specific object, situation, or activity that isn’t genuinely dangerous, leading to overwhelming anxiety, panic, and significant avoidance behaviors that disrupt daily life.”
Also, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine: “A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity.”
Some examples of phobias are arachnophobia (an irrational fear of spiders), ophidiophobia (irrational fear of snakes), and acrophobia (irrational fear of heights).
Back to the AIAP definition. The AIAP defines Islamophobia as follows (I add italics to highlight my present concern): “Islamophobia refers to racism, prejudice, stereotypes, fear or acts of hostility directed toward individuals who are Muslim or perceived to be Muslim, as well as toward Islam as a religion.” (Again: The italics have been added to highlight my present concern: “fear…toward Islam as a religion.”)
Yes, racism and prejudice and stereotypes and acts of hostility directed toward individuals of a particular religion are serious problems. This much is true. And I do not wish to dispute or diminish the importance and wrongfulness of this.
Here, however, I wish to focus on the definition’s idea that having a fear directed toward the religion of Islam is a phobia. I submit that such a fear may not be an instance of phobia.
My point: Classifying all people who have a fear directed toward Islam as having a phobia (an irrational fear), as the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia tells us, does a disservice to people who have serious non-phobic rational fears or concerns about Islam.
Pause, re-read my previous point, and let that point sink in.
Let me be clear. I am not talking about prejudice or hate or hostility or fear directed toward Muslim persons. This is bigotry and wrong, full stop. Rather, I am talking about having reasonable fears/ concerns about the essential teachings of Islam.
My focus is not persons; my focus is on religious ideology. My focus is not Muslims; my focus is Islam.
At the get-go, then, the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia is too broad. It makes people with reasonable fears or concerns about Islam out to be psychologically problematic, that is, as suffering from an actual phobia, when they are not. Merely having a reasonable fear or concern about something is not a phobia as, say, merely having a reasonable fear or concern about large possibly-poisonous spiders or snakes is not a phobia. (Note: I am not making an analogy between Islam and spiders or snakes; I am making the point that not all fears or concerns are unreasonable, even if such fears or concerns are intense and serious.)
By using the term “phobia” (as a suffix in “Islamophobia”) and then including mere fear (i.e., a possibly reasonable fear or concern) about a religious ideology (i.e., Islam) in the definition of Islamophobia—as the AIAP does—the logical implication of the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia is that all fears/ concerns about Islam—not only irrational fears—are phobic. Thereby, and mistakenly, the definition relegates serious reasonable concerns to the category of a psychological problem.
According to the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia, people who have serious non-phobic fears/ concerns about Islam are deemed phobic. But, surely, such people should not be included in the definition of Islamophobia. Why not? Because they are not phobic.
Again, this means the AIAP definition of Islamophobia is too broad: it includes in its field of reference what clearly does not belong there. The definition makes a mistake—a hugely significant mistake—which is unfair to people who have serious reasonable, non-phobic fears/ concerns about Islam (more on this below).
In other words, the AIAP engages in a definitional sleight of hand. And it should be called out.
Definition has Orwellian overtones
It gets darker. The definitional sleight of hand in broadening Islamophobia to include serious reasonable concerns about Islam has a sinister element.
Enter Orwell.
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell sets out the idea of “Newspeak” (new-speak). Via Newspeak the political elites/ rulers, whose figurehead is Big Brother, attempt to control the thoughts of citizens by manipulating their language (i.e., their old-speak is intentionally changed to new-speak). The goal of this language manipulation is to make some ideas impossible to think and thereby make political dissent impossible.
For example, in Newspeak any act of thinking negative or critical thoughts about the ruling party falls under the definition of the term “thoughtcrime.” A citizen’s reasonable concerns about the ruling party would be, by definition, a crime. Enter government censorship and citizens’ self-censorship. In effect, critical investigation and open discussion are squelched.
I submit that something Orwellian is happening with the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia. According to the AIAP, even reasonable fear or concern about Islam is, by definition, a phobia. This means that citizens should not think about such concerns nor should we dissent, if we wish not to be perceived by our government and fellow citizens as having a psychological disorder (i.e., a phobia).
It very much seems, then, that the government of Manitoba is, via the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia, manipulating language to control the thoughts of Manitobans—and to put a chill on critical inquiry and speech. Non-phobic critical thought about Islam becomes a thoughtcrime (or a thoughtsickness).
Orwellian, indeed.
Why the fuss?
To readers whom Orwell would call “Proles,” that is, people who are easily distracted by entertainment and blindly trust government to make decisions for them, my criticism probably seems overly academic or pedantic. It’s just a definition! Why make such a fuss?!
I am making a fuss because I strongly suspect (reasonably) that a serious danger is looming, and I believe we should not be complacent.
A recent National Post article (published January 1, 2026) confirms my suspicion.
The article is written by Ches W. Parsons (a retired Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP and its former Director General of National Security), Sophie Milman (a Strategic Advisor at Secure Canada), and Cheryl Saperia (CEO of Secure Canada).
The article is titled “Canada can no longer ignore its violent jihadist extremism problem.” And its byline reads: “Canada excels at interception. Now it must commit to prevention and uproot the conditions that allow this extremism to take hold.” My interest is the conditions that allow this extremism to take hold.
The article’s authors write the following: “What Canada has not done, at least not consistently or seriously, is confront the ideological ecosystem that produces [Islamic] radicalization in the first place. Here, Canada has been dangerously complacent.”
I submit that the AIAP’s Orwellian definition of Islamophobia is a part of this ideological ecosystem. And it should be nipped in the bud.
I am thinking about the long game here. If we allow the AIAP’s faulty definition of Islamophobia to go unchecked and unchanged, then, as the years go by—and as our children from K-12 and their teachers are indoctrinated by the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia—the AIAP’s definition will probably become accepted in public discourse and entrenched in law. And dissent or criticism of Islam will not be tolerated. Orwell’s Newspeak will win.
So what? Well, there are some serious concerns about Islam—serious non-phobic concerns—that the AIAP’s definition of Islamophobia may not allow us to address if we allow that definition to go unchallenged. And those serious non-phobic concerns about Islam should be addressed.
Below I set out a few of those concerns.
Reasonable—non-phobic—concerns about Islam
Before I set out my concerns, please know this: Vandalizing Mosques or otherwise treating Muslims with hatred and disrespect is wrong, period. Again, my focus is on the ideology of Islam itself, not individual Muslims. My focus is on ideas, not persons.
Thinking carefully about Islam and criticizing Islam are NOT instances of Islamophobia. One can have non-phobic, reasonable concerns.
Let’s proceed.
Islam is a religion of peace?
Often we are told that Islam is a religion of peace. But is it? The facts are these: Islam is centered on the Quran (Allah’s literal words) and Muhammad (Allah’s latest and greatest prophet), and the Quran and Muhammad promote war.
Yes, most Muslims don’t follow the Quran or Muhammad in this regard, which is good. They elevate the Quran’s peaceful verses and Muhammad’s peaceful traits above the violent ones.
But there are serious problems with this.
It turns out that the Quran’s chapters are ordered from longest to shortest, not chronologically. Chronologically, the Quran’s peaceful verses occur before Muhammad gains power, whereas its calls to jihad (war on unbelievers/ “infidels”) occur after Muhammad gains power. Significantly, according to the Quran, the later verses abrogate (cancel) the earlier verses.
According to the sayings and actions of Muhammad (Hadith) and biographies of Muhammad (Sirah), Muhammad is a warlord, responsible for hundreds of murders plus the enslavement of men, women, and children.
According to the Quran’s last revelation (which cancels the previous peaceful ones), Muhammad orders his followers to kill infidels, i.e., those who don’t agree with his views about God.
Again, most Muslims don’t follow the Quran or Muhammad in this regard, which is good. They elevate the Quran’s peaceful verses and Muhammad’s peaceful traits above the violent ones.
But why do this, if Muhammad’s call to violent jihad is his latest Quranic revelation and this latest revelation cancels the earlier peaceful revelation?
If Islamic “reform” means getting back to basics, what are those basics? In the Protestant Christian reformation, getting back to basics meant getting back to Scriptures. If reform of Islam means getting back to Scriptures in Islam, this explains why those who follow the Quran and Muhammad closely tend to be violent. (Note: The former leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, earned a PhD in Islamic studies.)
As far as I can tell, Islam is a religion of peace only in the sense that peace is understood as submission. (“Islam” means submission, and “Muslim” means one who submits.) According to the Quran and Muhammad, the enemies of Allah, i.e., those who refuse to submit to Allah, must submit to Allah…or else. Islam’s peace, then, is like the peace at the end of a battle—after Allah’s enemies are all dead or subjugated.
Orwell’s “war is peace” should come to mind.
For additional thought on this topic, see Middle East historian Raymond Ibrahim’s 12-minute video, Moderate Islam Is a Lie – The West Is Deluding Itself. Also, see former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi’s 5-minute video, Why I stopped believing Islam is a religion of peace.
Yes, the Bible has calls to war in the Old Testament. But the Bible’s calls to war are specific and limited to particular times and places, whereas the Quran’s call for jihad is Muhammad’s latest revelation and is open-ended—and continues. Also, according to the New Testament, Jesus promotes his message by allowing his blood to be shed on a cross. But Muhammad, according to the Quran and tradition, promotes his message by shedding the blood of others.
Equality for women?
If, as Islam teaches, Mohammad is the latest and greatest prophet whom all Muslims should emulate, then equality for women is lost.
According to Islamic tradition and the Quran, Muhammad has a terribly low view of women. How so? Consider these points: a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, more women than men will be in hell, women can be beaten. Also, Muhammad married a girl when she was six, consummating the marriage three years later.
Don’t take my word for this. Consider the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim. Hirsi Ali says the following in a conversation with Sam Harris, a conversation titled “Lifting the Veil of ‘Islamophobia’”:
“Under Islam, every woman is a second-class citizen. She can inherit only half as much as her brother. Her testimony in court—say, in the case of her own rape—is worth half that of her rapist. A Muslim woman has to ask a male guardian for permission to get married or have a child—in some places to even leave the house. And all these various oppressions are justified using the core texts of Islam: the Koran and the hadith.”
Islam, then, is no friend of women’s rights. Nor the rights of little girls.
Ignorance of this is no strength, contrary to Orwell’s newspeak “Ignorance is strength.”
LGBTQ+ equality?
The Quran’s and Muhammad’s views of homosexuals are also negative. How does Islam fit with respect for those who identify as LGBTQ+? Answer: It doesn’t. Surely, it is not phobic for members of the LGBTQ+ community to be reasonably concerned about the teachings of Islam.
Again, ignorance of this is no strength, contrary to Orwell’s newspeak “Ignorance is strength.”
Separation of mosque and state?
Westerners tend to forget that Islam is not merely a personal religion. Islam is also—at its essence—a political ideology. And not just any old political ideology: it’s a theocratic totalitarian ideology that seeks to dominate the world.
Don’t believe me? For substantiation, consider the history of Islam. Take some time to view and contemplate the following:
- Andrew Bostom, The Hidden Truth of Islamic Conquest, Slavery and Jihad, Winston Marshall, October 15, 2025 (130 minute video).
- Raymond Ibrahim, The Islamic Conquest Of Europe and Why It Was Covered Up! The Winston Marshall Show, May 10, 2025 (116 minute video).
- Raymond Ibrahim, The Real History of Islam with Raymond Ibrahim, Triggernometry, December 14, 2025 (122 minutes).
- Raymond Ibrahim, RIBAT: Islam’s Blueprint to Conquer Europe, Raymond Ibrahim, December 8, 2025 (11 minute video).
- Konstantin Kisin, Why They’ll Never Be Honest About Islamist Violence, Triggernometry, October 6, 2025 (4 minute video).
- Robert Spencer et al., Islam: What the West Needs to Know, produced and directed by Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly (Lorain, Ohio: Quixotic Media Productions, 2006) (98 minute video).
Again, Islam is not merely a personal religion. It is a totalitarian political-religious ideology that calls for the domination of the world.
Canada is a secular liberal state with a commitment to religious freedom and pluralism. Canadians should ask: Can what is incompatible with secular liberalism be compatible with secular liberalism? Should liberal tolerance tolerate illiberalism? Does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms require its own destruction by respecting political-religious ideologies that use the language of rights and freedoms to deceitfully squelch rights and freedoms (as phobias)? I believe all the answers are no.
Freedom is not slavery, contrary to Orwell’s newspeak “Freedom is slavery.”
What about moderate Muslims?
Yes, there are Muslims who do not believe this. For this, we should be grateful. But the fact remains that the core teachings of Islam, as taken from the Quran and Muhammad—and which reflect Muhammad’s later violent teachings which abrogate his earlier peaceful teachings—these core teachings of Islam do not promote liberal values of freedom for all, do not promote women’s rights, and do not promote separation of church (mosque) and secular state.
The fact that there are moderate Muslims should not diminish our concerns about Islam. Middle East historian Raymond Ibrahim’s thoughts about moderate Muslims and moderate Islam are helpful. See here and here.
Ibrahim rightly points out that there are moderate Muslims but, he quickly adds, there is no moderate Islam. This is simply to say that Muslims who are moderate do not take Islam seriously insofar as Islam is constituted by the central teachings of the Quran and Muhammad and their demands for global domination, war against infidels, and women as second class citizens.
Ibrahim also points out that such “moderate” Muslims, when it comes to following the full teachings of the Quran and the model of Muhammad, are better described as non-observant or lackadaisical/indifferent or cultural Muslims (i.e., nominal Muslims), whereas Muslims who take Islam seriously—that is, who follow the full teachings of the Quran and fully emulate Muhammad, including the violent teachings that abrogate the non-violent teachings—are better described not as “radical” but observant (i.e., practicing or not nominal).
Again, see Ibrahim analyses here and here.
Also, contemplate the fact that the Islamic doctrine of deception (a.k.a. taqiyya) allows for observant or “radical” Muslims to pretend they are non-observant or “moderate.” The Islamic doctrine of deception allows Muslims to tell lies to non-Muslims for the sake of furthering Islam. This should cast additional concern about the AIAP’s faulty—deceitful—definition of Islamophobia.
On the Islamic doctrine of deception, see Ibrahim’s analyses here and here and here and here. And see David Wood’s analysis here.
Two more reasonable concerns
AIAP may have a connection to Islamists
It turns out that two of the AIAP’s authors (Sadaf Ahmed and Haseeb Hassan) are representatives of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). Surely, it is a reasonable and legitimate concern for Manitobans that the NCCM is listed by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) under the heading “Rebranded Extremist Groups Operating in Canada.”
The ISGAP reports the following:
Organizations such as the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), Islamic Relief Canada, and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) [ italics added] are cited as examples of [Muslim] Brotherhood-linked entities that have operated under the guise of community outreach while promoting extremist ideologies and receiving foreign funding. (“Canada Faces Rising National Security Risk from Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration, Report Warns,” Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy/ ISGAP, June 26, 2025.)
(Background information/reminder: The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic organization from which other Islamic organizations such as Hamas stem. It is a movement aimed at transforming societies to be based on Islamist principles. It may do this gradually and peacefully by shaping culture, i.e., via infiltrating institutions and influencing education, or not-gradually and not-peacefully by violent jihad and terrorism. Either way—and the two ways may work together in this—the goal is to have Islam dominate the world and have the world governed by Sharia law.)
AIAP is tone deaf about Jews
The world is presently on fire with anti-Semitism. Surely it is reasonable to question the AIAP’s focus on Islamophobia when hate crimes against Jews are so much worse.
Google AI: “According to data from Statistics Canada, significantly more police-reported hate crimes occur against the Jewish community than the Muslim community. The Jewish community is consistently the most targeted religious group in Canada.”
For perspective, keep in mind that the Jewish community in Canada is much smaller (0.9% of Canada’s population) than the Muslim community (4.9%), yet Jews are much more often at the receiving end of hate crimes. And with on-going calls to “global intifada” anti-Jewish hate crimes are on the rise.
So, is Manitoba’s government tone deaf? That is, is Manitoba’s government jarringly out of sync with the much larger and growing reality of Jewish hatred?
I believe it is. And I suspect that its focus on anti-Islamophobia might be because it lacks courage to acknowledge that much of the world’s anti-Jewish violence stems from Islam and so it fears being deemed Islamophobic. It may have fallen prey to its own Newspeak.
Conclusion
Manitoba’s Anti-Islamophobia Action Plan has adopted a definition of Islamophobia that is much too broad and as a result has dark Orwellian overtones. The definition should be revised so it does not include reasonable fear of or concern about Islam, and the overall action plan should be revised so it explicitly deems criticisms of Islam as non-Islamophobic (just as criticisms of Christianity are non-Christophobic).
There are in fact reasonable and serious non-phobic concerns about Islam. Those concerns should not be dismissed as Islamophobic if we wish to maintain our secular liberal democracy with its equal rights and freedoms for all—including women, young girls, gays and lesbians, and non-Muslims.
Manitobans who value our secular liberal democracy should be vigilant and not complacent. We should demand fact-based critical thinking in our K-12 education system, especially when it comes to ideologies that threaten our freedom to seek and speak truth. And we should never let our children and grandchildren be deceived by our government’s manipulation of language.
Manitoba’s Anti-Islamophobia Action Plan is dangerous. Our government is not our Big Brother, nor is Muhammad.[1,2]
Notes
1. Another way of looking at the problem with the AIAP’s definition of Islamophia is that it commits (at least implicitly) what C. S. Lewis called Bulverism. Google AI explains Bulverism well:
“Bulverism is a logical fallacy, coined by C.S. Lewis, where you assume your opponent’s argument is wrong and then condescendingly explain why they believe it (based on their psychology or biases) instead of addressing the argument’s actual merits, effectively committing circular reasoning and an ad hominem attack simultaneously by dismissing ideas based on the perceived flaws of the arguer. It shifts focus from the truth of a claim to the motives of the person making it, preventing real debate.”
In Lewis’s own words: “[Y]ou must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [of argumentation, a.k.a. Bulverism] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.” (C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism,” in God in the Dock [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970, reprint 1998], 273.)
The AIAP definition of Islamophobia explains why we are “silly” to have our reasonable fear/concern by saying that such fear/concern is a phobia, but does so without argument, i.e., without actually showing why those reasonable fears/concerns are mistaken. It does so merely by defining.
Bulverism, indeed.
2. As additional food for thought, below is a snippet from Connor Tomlinson’s article “The Radicals Redefining Extremism: New reports allege widespread Islamophobia in Britain; but their affiliation with Islamist and communist activists suggest otherwise,” Courage Media, December 16, 2024:
“The [Muslim] Brotherhood also invented the term ‘Islamophobia,’ as a means to silence critics of Islam, and their activities by proxy. Dr. Gilles Kepel [a French political scientist who specializes in the study of the contemporary Middle East and Muslims in the West] alleged the [Muslim] Brotherhood devised the term to seek ‘symmetry’ with antisemitism, and link opposition to Islam with the same objectionable views that produced Nazism and the Holocaust. Former Islamist, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad corroborated Kepel’s account, confirming that a meeting took place where members of a Muslim Brotherhood outfit, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, conspired to ‘emulate the homosexual activists who used the term ‘homophobia’ to silence critics.’”
For further
thought
Articles
Joe Adam George, Ontario Schools Promote Islamist Agenda in Name of ‘Equity’: Parents Object as Group With Ties to Muslim Brotherhood Sets Curriculum, Middle East Forum, December 12, 2025.
Ahmed Charai, The Muslim Brotherhood’s Stealth Jihad, The National Interest, April 3, 2025.
Raymond Ibrahim, How Trustworthy Are Muslim Professions of Peace? Raymond Ibrahim blog, December 14, 2020.
Ches W. Parsons, Sophie Milman & Sheryl Saperia, Canada can no longer ignore its violent jihadist extremism problem, National Post, January 1, 2026.
Hendrik van der Breggen, Is Hamas a legitimate representative of Islam? Yes, it is, APOLOGIA, February 24, 2025.
Hendrik van der Breggen, Islam and Christianity, APOLOGIA, March 16, 2017.
Hendrik van der Breggen, Questioning Islamophobia, APOLOGIA, March 2, 2017.
Books
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It (Stanford, California: Stanford University/ Hoover Institution Press, 2017).
Andy Bannister, Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? (London, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2021).
Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle (Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma House, 2003).
William Kilpatrick, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Douglas Murray, Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady (Amazon KDP, 2020).
George Orwell, 1984 (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1949, 1977).
Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A devout Muslim encounters Christianity, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018).
R. C. Sproul Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2003).
Videos
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Our Crisis of Antisemitism & Islamism,” University of Austin, April 11, 2025 (70 minute video).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Muslim plan to ‘bring the world under Islam dominion’, GBNews, May 31, 2024 (41 minute video).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Growing Threat of Radical Islam, Triggernometry, May 26, 2024 (63 minute video).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the West, Dawa, and Islam, Hoover Institution, August 3, 2017 (42 minute video).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, et al., “Islam Can’t Be Trusted” Ayaan Hirsi Ali DISMANTLES Muslim Panel In Heated Debate! By The Book Ministries, March 29, 2025 (17 minute video). (This is from a few years ago. The title is overly sensationalist. Nevertheless, the discussion is insightful and important.)
Cameron Bertuzzi, Wes Huff Drops ISLAMIC DILEMMA On Piers Morgan! Capturing Christianity, April 18, 2025 (10 minute video).
William Lane Craig, The Historical Achilles’ Heel of Islam, drcraigvideos, February 16, 2016 (2 minute video).
Mark Durie, The Quran Says Jews Are Almost Sub-Human, John Anderson Media, December 21, 2025 (5 minute video).
Raymond Ibrahim, Can Muslims Assimilate into the West? iCatholicRadio, August 18, 2025 (33 minute video).
Michael Jones, An Even DEADLIER Islamic Dilemma – Introducing: The Clear Quran Dilemma, Inspiring Philosophy, December 5, 2025 (9 minute video).
Gad Saad, The Woke Islamic Alliance – Gad Saad Interview, Nick Freitas, December 30, 2025 (65 minute video).
Nabeel Qureshi, Muhammad’s Life EXPOSED: What History Really Says, 100 Huntley Clips, March 20, 2025 (21 minute video).
---
Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor.
