A contemplation from the carport (about trees)

Clint Eastwood as Walt Kowalski in the 2008 film Gran Torino

A contemplation from the carport (about trees)

By Hendrik van der Breggen

I am a retired philosophy professor who, during the summer months, spends a lot of time in the carport. It’s a shaded place with comfortable patio furniture. I smoke my pipe as I watch passersby, and as I contemplate the world’s goings-on. Before I set out my most recent contemplation, I have a confession.

Confession

When someone, whether out for a stroll or delivering flyers, oversteps the boundaries of the sidewalk (even innocently to admire our beautiful weeping willow tree or my wife’s lovely flower garden), I must suppress an urge to shout.

Shout what, you ask? This:

“Get off my lawn!”

And then I have to suppress a covetous thought about how nice our carport would look with a freshly polished Gran Torino.

On that note, let’s get serious.

Contemplation

Recently in a small town in Quebec, trees have been given various rights, including the right to life. “A tree is like a human being,” said the mayor of Terrasse-Vaudreuil. This, it seems to me, is a big mistake.

Don’t get me wrong. I love trees—I really do. Joyce Kilmer’s poem “Trees” speaks the language of my heart. In fact, my heart still aches over the majestic 30-year-old-and-30-foot-tall cedar our neighbour chopped down two years ago. Our neighbour’s tree provided beauty and privacy. But they wanted a parking spot for their second mini-monster truck.

I planted three cedars (on our property) to replace the beauty and privacy provided by our neighbour’s late tree, but I probably won’t be alive to see our cedars mature.

Trees are beautiful and good for us. As an online article points out, “trees are essential infrastructure, helping reduce heat, improve air quality, manage water, and protect biodiversity.” Yes, trees should be protected and stewarded wisely. I love the idea of caring for trees and understanding their value for us in terms of health and aesthetics.

But give them rights like human beings? Not only the right to life, according to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Tree, but also the right to natural growth, the right to integrity, and the right to regeneration? Again, it seems to me, this is a big mistake.

Why is it a big mistake?

I have two reasons.

Reason 1

My first reason is religious. I am a Christian. In the beginning God calls the creation good but only very good when humans are created. I believe that in all of creation, only human beings are made in the image of God. This is what grants us and grounds our right to life, etc.

But if we elevate trees, which are not made in God’s image, to the status associated with bearing God’s image, it seems to me that we falsely equate our special status as image-bearers of God to beings that are not image-bearers of God. In effect, we thereby lower our God-given special status.

Or we might be elevating a non-image-bearer in some sort of idolatrous fashion. Either way, it seems to me, the effect is that our discernment of what’s theologically special gets twisted.

Treating a tree “like a human being” blocks our view not only of the forest, but also of the moral-theological landscape.

Reason 2

My second reason is secular but consistent with my religious reason. And I think it should be acceptable to humanists who are atheists or agnostics.

By treating and judging trees to be exceptionally important like humans (i.e., bearers of fundamental rights), we in effect make humans not exceptionally important.

Let me explain. The yard around our house (and carport) has a dozen or so trees. By giving them the right to life, etc., it may seem (at first glance) that I am making them as important as me. But it actually means that I am not as important—exceptionally important—as I used to be.

Think of it this way: If I have a beautiful diamond the size of a marble (i.e., the little glass ball used in the game called marbles) and I then add a dozen actual marbles, and if I judge the diamond and the marbles all to be equally valuable, then the actual value of my diamond gets lost. In a game of marbles in which my opponent knocks my diamond out of the ring and gets to keep it, even though I won the game by knocking out and getting to keep all the rest of the marbles, I still won. Yeah, right.

I submit that claiming trees are as valuable as people has the unintended consequence (but consequence nonetheless) that people are as valuable as trees—which is in effect to bring down our value.

Enter Gad Saad

I recently read Gad Saad’s latest book Suicidal Empathy: Dying to be Kind. Professor Saad argues, rightly, I believe, that empathy is a virtue, but can be misguided. Too little empathy makes one a psychopath. Too much empathy makes one lose one’s sense of what’s truly important—to the point of destroying one’s self and others.

For example, according to Saad, too little empathy for immigrants is truly unkind, but too much empathy for immigrants makes us fail to realize that some (many?) immigrants wish to kill us (and rape our daughters). So Saad recommends better immigration procedures.

I think Saad’s thesis could apply to our discussion of tree rights. Our empathy toward trees, as in the case of the Quebec town, may be so misguided that we fail to realize that we are lowering our worth in our efforts to care for trees. This consequence may not be apparent right away (as has been the case with years of unchecked immigration), but it still looks like a real consequence—and not a step in a good direction.

Back to Clint Eastwood

All this talk about the rights of trees brings me back to thinking about my lawn. I love our trees, for sure, but I love our lawn, too. If I judge that grass has the right to life and if you walk on my lawn and thereby murder hundreds of blades of grass, is your walking on my lawn a good reason for me to shoot you?

Get off my lawn!

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor.

 

Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs in 1948? Critical thinking about the Nakba

Image credit: United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA)

 

Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs in 1948? Critical thinking about the Nakba

 

On May 15, 2026, many people commemorated the Nakba. On that date, Al Jazeera reported the following:

Millions of Palestinians are marking the 78th anniversary of the Nakba—Arabic for “catastrophe”—a term that refers to the mass expulsion and flight of some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war surrounding the creation of Israel….

Historians estimate that about 750,000 Palestinians—roughly one-third of the population at the time—were forced from their homes….

In other words, Israel at its inception was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

But is it true?

No, it’s not true. It is anti-Israel propaganda.

For my argument for believing it’s not true, see below for chapter 2 of my recent book A Defence of Israel: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War.

To avoid being bamboozled by anti-Israel propaganda, it’s important to be clear about the truth of the Nakba.

Note to critics: Before offering criticism, please read the whole of my chapter, plus endnotes, plus relevant linked-to articles. And perhaps read chapter 1 (on settler colonialism) of my book A Defence of Israel or part 1 of my blog article “Settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing: Two false assumptions about Israel’s inception.” Thanks.

 

Chapter 2 of A Defence of Israel

 

Israel at its inception was engaged in ethnic cleansing (a.k.a. the Nakba)?

 

Objection: When Israel began as a state, it engaged in ethnic cleansing—also known as the Nakba (Arabic for catastrophe)—so Israel is not a legitimate state.

Short reply: No, and no.

Long reply: As pointed out in the previous chapter, when Israel began as an independent state in 1948 its Nazi-sympathizing Arab neighbours immediately went to war against Israel. Instead of accepting the UN’s two-state solution for a Jewish state and an Arab state in the region of Palestine, Arabs chose to make an attempt to wipe Israel off the map. The Arabs would rather go to war than allow there to be a Jewish state (for more on this topic, see previous chapter). Of course, terrible things happen in war. Nevertheless, in its inception in the midst of a war started by Arabs, Israel did not attempt to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Arabs (though there may have been some Israelis who wished to do so).

To understand this, it helps to get some clarity on the so-called Nakba.

About the Nakba

The Nakba (“catastrophe”) of the 1948–49 Arab-Israeli war refers to the fact that 750,000 Arabs were displaced from Israel. It should be noticed that the term nakba was originally used by Arabs to refer to the embarrassing-to-them defeat of Arabs by Jews when in 1948 the Arabs attacked the new State of Israel. The goal of the Arabs, led by Nazi-collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini and company, was to exterminate the Jews and dominate the whole of the Palestine region. But the Arabs failed miserably.

And this failure was for Islamic Arabs a humiliation of epic proportion—a catastrophe. Why? Because of a culmination of at least three reasons.

Humiliation 1: Nakba was self-inflicted

First, the catastrophe was a self-inflicted wound. Arabs started the war—and lost. As researchers Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf point out: “For the Arabs, the results of the war were a complete humiliation—a small community of some 650,000 Jews succeeded in overpowering Arab Palestinian militia and the combined Arab armies of the surrounding states.”¹ And one of the results of the war (begun and lost by the Arabs) was the flight of 750,000 Arabs out of Israel. So Arabs were the main cause of the refugee problem. If the Arabs had not started the war, which they lost, there would be no refugee problem.²

Humiliation 2: Arab defeat embarrasses Allah

Second, the Arab defeat was an (alleged) injustice against God. According to Islamic doctrine, all once-Muslim lands always belong to Islam. This includes the Palestine region—once part of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic caliphate—which was to be divided by the UN between Arabs and Jews. But in 1948–49 the Muslim Arabs lost the once-Muslim land to the Jews in a war started and lost by the Muslim Arabs. Such a loss is a violation of Islam’s Allah-ordained domination of the world. Daniel Pipes, an American historian and president of the Middle East Forum, elaborates:

Islamic doctrine holds that once a land has been conquered by Muslims, it becomes part of the lands of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and an inalienable Islamic patrimony (a waqf). Accordingly, its loss constitutes a robbery, and Muslims must exert to bring it back under their rule…

Palestine became a part of Dar al-Islam after its conquest by Muslims in 638 CE, six years after the Islamic account records the death of Muhammad. Muslims then ruled it until 1917, with the exception of two centuries, from 1097 to 1291, when Crusaders controlled parts of it. The British ruled all of it from 1917 to 1948 and Israel, most or all of thereafter. This history has created a deep sense of entitlement: Palestine belongs under Muslim control.³

Humiliation 3: Jewish victory embarrasses Islam

Third, according to Islam, Islam is the “true religion” whereas Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is not (nor is Christianity or any other religion⁴). For Islamists, that is, for Muslims who take Muhammad seriously as their prophet and revealer of God’s will, Muhammad’s later hateful and violent teachings against Jews (teachings that abrogate the prophet’s earlier peaceful views of Jews) are to be taken seriously.⁵ Indeed, very seriously. For Islamist Muslims like the popular al-Husseini and his many followers in the Arab world, Jews are less than human, like disease-laden “microbes” or “mangy dogs.”⁶ And they should be treated as such.⁷ According to al-Husseini: “The world will never be at peace until the Jewish race is exterminated... The Jews are the germs which have caused all the trouble in the world.”⁸ Thus, as Joseph Spoerl reports: “In March 1948, [al-Husseini] told an interviewer in a Jaffa newspaper that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but ‘would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state.’”⁹ The reality, then, of a Jewish state simply cannot be the case for Islamists. A Jewish state is anathema to Islam (especially fundamentalist Islam, what I am calling “Islamist Islam,” as followed by al-Husseini and many Arabs, which takes Muhammad’s teachings against Jews seriously). Hence, the defeat of Arabs by Jews was a deeply embarrassing catastrophe—a Nakba.

Inverting the Nakba for Palestinian propaganda!

But now Nakba has a meaning used by Palestinian propagandists to divert attention away from the Arab anti-Semitic (i.e., anti-Jewish) violent aggression of 1948 and instead promote Palestinian victimhood. Nakba now means an alleged 1948 ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel by Israel. But this narrative is false. Yes, many Arabs, especially those deemed hostile to Israel, were forced out by Israel in 1948. This is truly tragic. But it was war—a war started by the Arabs. And these facts remain: Many Arabs left Israel willingly to get out of harm’s way because a war (to exterminate Jews) was at hand (and these fleeing Arabs planned to return to Israel after Israel was destroyed); many Arabs left Israel because the surrounding Arab nations (wishing to wage genocidal war on the Jews) ordered them to leave to facilitate the war effort (and return later to a Jew-ridden land); many Arabs who were not hostile to Israel stayed in Israel (as citizens of Israel). In other words, the criterion for Arabs being forced out of Israel was not whether they were Arab, but whether they were hostile to Israel. Middle East expert Denis MacEoin observes: “It is true that the Israelis expelled some Arabs, but they were mainly those in frontline areas and who were known to be cooperating with the enemy. But they were only a small percentage of those Arabs who became displaced.”¹⁰ Thus, embedded in the criterion of expulsion is a distinction that shows the Nakba was not genocide, not ethnic cleansing. Hostility, not ethnicity or religion, was the concern. This is a significant distinction that should not be missed (but often is) and it refutes the genocide/ethnic cleansing charge.

This distinction is additionally significant because it also refutes the oft-heard theft charge, i.e., the charge that Israel stole Arab land. That is to say, the distinction shows that in 1948 many Palestinian Arabs forfeited the ownership of their houses and land by siding with those who waged war on the Jews with the intent of murdering all the Jews. Is “forfeited” too strong a word? No. As MacEoin points out, “The Arabs in Palestine were being told: ‘You can leave now, you can get out of the way, let the armies—let the Egyptian army, the Jordanian army—let them do their work, and then when you come back you can have all the properties that belong to the Jews when we have wiped them out.’”¹¹ Surely, abandoning one’s property (even with intent of doing so only temporarily) so thereby one aids and abets a genocidal war against one’s neighbours constitutes no legitimate grounds whatsoever for one’s complaint of theft concerning the abandoned property’s subsequent appropriation by those neighbours (as a nation state) when the genocide attempt is stopped by those neighbours.

Thus, contrary to popular thought, Israel in its inception did not ethnically cleanse Arabs.¹²

(For additional perspective, keep in mind that whereas 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were pushed out of Israel during the 1948 war, in subsequent years about 850,000 Jews were expelled from surrounding Arab countries.¹³)

Conclusion

Thus, insofar as the popular Israel’s-inception-involved-ethnic-cleansing assumption undergirds criticism of Israel’s legitimacy as a state, such criticism fails. And thus, too, insofar as this assumption undergirds calls for Israel’s destruction, such calls are unfounded. In other words, the popular objection that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, a.k.a. the Nakba, and thus is not a legitimate state and so should not exist, is an abject failure.^14,15

 

NOTES

1. Adi Schwartz & Einat Wilf, War of Return: How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream Has Obstructed the Path to Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Publishing/ All Points Books, 2020), 28. Adi Schwartz is a political scientist who is completing his PhD (Bar-Ilan University) and whose research focuses on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Einat Wilf has a PhD (Cambridge) in political science and is an Israeli politician.

2. See, again, Schwartz & Wilf, War of Return, 2–3, 5–6, 17, 32.

3. Daniel Pipes, Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated (New York & Nashville: Wicked Son/ Post Hill Press, 2024), 32–33. See, too, Robert Spencer et al., Islam: What the West Needs to Know, DVD (98 minutes), produced and directed by Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly (Lorain, Ohio: Quixotic Media Productions 2006). (See comments at 51:25–52:36 by Serge Trifkovic.) For further thought, see Mordecai Kedar, “Arabs and Muslims Will Not Accept Israel as the Jewish State,” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, January 18, 2018.

4. For a look at how to arbitrate between the truth claims of competing religions vis-à-vis pluralism, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Religious Pluralism x 3,” APOLOGIA (blog), November 21, 2013. And for a look at how to arbitrate between the truth claims of Islam and Christianity, see Hendrik van der Breggen, “Islam and Christianity,” APOLOGIA (blog), March 16, 2017.

5. It would be reasonable to describe Islamists as what Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls “Medina Muslims,” i.e., they follow the violent teachings of the Prophet Mohammed when in Medina the prophet effectively became a warlord after his peaceful approach to spreading Islam in Mecca was rejected (“Mecca Muslims” follow the Prophet Mohammad’s peaceful teachings when he first began his religion in Mecca). For more on the distinction between Medina Muslims and Mecca Muslims, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Islam Is a Religion of Violence,” Foreign Policy Magazine, November 9, 2015. And see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now (Toronto:  Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2016), 13–23.

6. Joseph S. Spoerl, “Palestinians, Arabs and the Holocaust,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 1/2 (Spring 2014), 17.

7. For further thought about Islam’s view of Jews, see Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle (Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma House, 2003). Also see R. C. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2003).

8. Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2009), 184.

9. Spoerl, “Palestinians, Arabs and the Holocaust,” Joseph Spoerl is Professor of Philosophy (emeritus) at Saint Anselm College (Manchester, New Hampshire).

10. Denis MacEoin, in “The Status of Jerusalem, the 1949 Armistice Lines, and Refugees,” Whose Land? Episode 12 (London: UK Lawyers for Israel: 2024). MacEoin has a PhD in Persian and Islamic Studies from Cambridge University, was a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University, and was a senior editor at Middle East Quarterly.

11. MacEoin, “The Status of Jerusalem, the 1949 Armistice Lines, and Refugees.”

12. Of course, and sadly, atrocities happen in war, and Israel, like most other countries, is guilty of engaging in such behaviour. But sometimes atrocities get blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes. One atrocity that has been blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes is the killing of 107 Arab civilians and soldiers by the Israeli military in the village of Deir Yassin in 1948. For clarity on this, see Mitchell Bard, “Israel War of Independence: The Capture of Deir Yassin (April 9, 1948),” Jewish Virtual Library, no date. And see Jacob Schwartz, “What is Deir Yassin and the Nakba?” Unpacked, September 5, 2019 (11 minute video). And see Noam Weissman, “Deir Yassin: The Battle for Truth,” Unpacked, October 5, 2023 (26 minute audio); transcript.

13. Noa Tishby, Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth (New York: Free Press, 2021), 297. See, too, The Forgotten Refugees (49 minute documentary), produced & directed by Michael Grynszpan, IsraTV/ The David Project, 2005. My pointing to the expulsion of Jews from Arab states along with pointing to the expulsion of Arabs from Israel is not to suggest that two wrongs make a right. Two wrongs do not make a right. Rather, I am merely providing context to show that Palestinian Arabs were not the only ones who suffered.

14. For additional thought about the Nakba, see Salo Aizenberg, “Nakba Day: Why Israel did not allow refugees to ‘return’ after the 1948 war,” The Times of Israel, May 19, 2022. Salo Aizenberg is an independent scholar who studies and writes about antisemitism and the Israel-Palestine conflict and serves on the board of Honest Reporting.

15. To support the claim that at its inception Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing, some scholars refer readers to Ilan Pappé’s book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London: Oneworld Publications, 2006). But it very much appears that the scholarly merit of Pappé’s work is dubious. In a review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (and of two other books by Pappé) the highly-respected Israeli historian Benny Morris says the following: “At best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.” (Benny Morris, “The Liar as Hero,” The New Republic, March 16, 2011.) Apparently, Pappé has postmodern interpretive leanings and thus is much more open (prone) to allowing his subjectivity and ideology to influence his historical work than is Morris. Some helpful discussion (and links) concerning the differences in Pappé and Morris’s approaches to the study of history can be found on Reddit: “Nobody should be quoting Ilan Pappé or his works.”

Speaking of Pappé’s work, permit me at this juncture to point out that Pappé’s work on the topic of colonialism is sloppy, too. I add this extended comment on colonialism here instead of in my [earlier] chapter on settler colonialism because, from a pedagogical point of view, I felt readers first needed to understand or have a brief refresher on the historical background I set out in the above chapter on the ethnic cleansing charge against Israel during Israel’s inception and how the Nakba has been used for anti-Israel propaganda purposes. I submit that Pappé allows his postmodern interpretive leanings to influence his conceptual analysis of “colonialism” as well: that is, he very much seems to make meanings of words fit his preconceptions. It turns out that via several confusions he twists the notion of colonialism and forces his twisted version onto Israel. (Warning: Postmodern-leaning writers tend to create an entanglement of confusion and intellectual knots. Breaking free by untangling the knots takes intellectual effort. If what follows is confusing, it is Pappé’s fault.)

In chapter 4 of Ten Myths about Israel, Pappé attempts to change the meaning of colonialism (what Pappé calls “classic colonialism”) so it applies to Israel (as “settler colonialism”). To make his case, Pappé argues that Israel is an instance of “settler colonialism” but is different from “classic colonialism” (i.e., colonialism) in three respects. Pappé wants us to believe that because of those differences, it follows that Israel is in fact a case of settler colonialism. Pappé, however, is mistaken, so we should not be persuaded by his arguments. Contra Pappé, the first two of those three respects show that Israel’s case is not colonialism at all and the third respect is simply a flagrant falsehood foisted onto Israel. So, contrary to what Pappé would have us believe, Israel is not an instance of settler colonialism. Bear with me as I sort through Pappé’s intellectual entanglements.

The first respect or difference, according to Pappé, is that Israel’s survival at its beginning depends on the empire “only initially and temporarily” and that its people (i.e., the Jewish settlers who became, along with the Jews already there, the State of Israel) “do not belong to the same nation as the imperial power that initially supports them” (Pappé, 41). In reply (besides saying “Huh?”), we should notice that if the Jewish settlers do not belong to the British or any other empire, they are not colonialists from that or any other empire. In fact, the Jews at the time of Israel’s inception consisted of Jews already living in the region of Palestine and Jews from a variety of countries which were often persecuting them. Many of the Jews who immigrated to Israel came as refugees from Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, (Nazi) Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Greece. And probably, because most were fleeing, none or almost none of these immigrants were being supported by their countries of origin. True, the British did provide support initially by way of the Balfour Declaration (1917), but the British also withdrew that support via the White Paper (1939). Be that as it may, the temporary support was not that of a “mother country” promoting its colony; it was to help establish a national home for a people other than the British, that is, a national home for Jews who besides living in the land already were also people from other countries with ancestral connections to that land. And, as indicated by the UN Partition Plan (1947), it was also to help establish a national home for Arabs in the region. Contrary to what Pappé would have us think, then, this difference means that Israel is not an instance of colonialism at all—so cannot qualify as “settler colonial.”

The second difference, according to Pappé, is that the Jews were “motivated by a desire to take over land in a foreign country” instead of “[coveting] the natural resources in its new geographical possessions” (Pappé, 42). In reply, we should notice that the Jews were motivated to take over some land in the geographic region known as Palestine (while respecting the human and civil rights of those already there) but, contra Pappé, that land was not a country. As I pointed out in the previous chapter, the land was part of a region lost by the Ottoman Empire to the British as a result of World War I (recall that the Ottomans sided with Germany). Moreover, because the age of empire was coming to a close, the region became a part of the British mandate to allow for peoples in the region to develop into self-governing nation states. And the taking over of the land by the Jews was not for the sake of a colonial expansion or coveting natural resources; it was to be a place of refuge from persecution, and a place of national self-determination of a people. And the land was not foreign; the land was the land of the Jews’ ancestors who were forcefully dispersed from the land, a land to which the Jews were returning, a land on which many Jews already lived. Contrary to what Pappé would have us think, then, this difference means (again) that Israel is not an instance of colonialism at all—so cannot qualify as “settler colonial.”

The third difference, according to Pappé, “concerns the way they [the Jews] treat the new destination of settlement” (Pappé, 42). According to Pappé, the Jews engaged in “annihilation and dehumanization” of the native Palestinian Arabs and thereby “remove[d] the natives from their homeland” (Pappé, 49). In other words, Pappé charges Israel with ethnic cleansing. In reply, we should notice that aside from being a questionable characteristic difference concerning colonialism per se, when it comes to being attributed to Israel, Pappé’s claim is false—and grossly so. These historical facts remain and are ignored by Pappé: (1) Israel was fighting to resist annihilation by Jew-hating Nazi-collaborating Islamists (as I argued in my earlier chapter on settler colonialism); (2) the flight and displacement of many Arabs from Israel was primarily due to the Arabs beginning and losing the genocidal war they waged against Israel (as I also argued in the aforementioned chapter); and (3) Israel was not engaging in so-called ethnic cleansing (which I have argued above in the main body of chapter 2). It seems that Pappé is attempting to divert attention away from the Arab anti-Semitic (i.e., anti-Jewish) violent aggression of 1948 and instead promote Palestinian victimhood by alleging (falsely) that there was in 1948 an ethnic cleansing (“annihilation,” “dehumanization,” removal) of Arabs from Israel by Israel, a.k.a. the Nakba. But, again, this narrative is false.   

To ensure the reader understands my point, permit me to repeat my above reply (in the main text of this chapter) to the allegation that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing. Yes, many Arabs, especially those deemed hostile to Israel, were forced out by Israel in 1948. This is truly tragic. But it was war—a war started by the Arabs. Nevertheless, many Arabs left Israel willingly to get out of harm’s way because a war (to exterminate Jews) was at hand (and these fleeing Arabs planned to return to Israel after Israel was destroyed); many Arabs left Israel because the surrounding Arab nations (wishing to wage genocidal war on the Jews) ordered them to leave to facilitate the war effort (and return later to a Jew-ridden land); many Arabs who were not hostile to Israel stayed in Israel (as citizens of Israel). In other words, the criterion for Arabs being forced out of Israel was not whether they were Arab, but whether they were hostile to Israel. Middle East expert Denis MacEoin observes: “It is true that the Israelis expelled some Arabs, but they were mainly those in frontline areas and who were known to be cooperating with the enemy. But they were only a small percentage of those Arabs who became displaced.” (MacEoin, “The Status of Jerusalem, the 1949 Armistice Lines, and Refugees.”) Thus, embedded in the criterion of expulsion is a distinction that shows that the ethnic cleansing charge fails. Hostility, not ethnicity or religion, was the concern. This is a hugely significant distinction that should not be missed (but often is).

Clearly, then, Pappé’s postmodern interpretive leanings (i.e., his subjectivity and anti-Israel ideology) influence his philosophical-historical work in the direction of, to use Morris’s term, sloppiness. And thereby Pappé casts onto Israel, to use Lowry’s term, a smear. Ilan Pappé’s work does not show that Israel is a settler-colonial state. Pappé’s argument fails—miserably.

For further assessment of Ilan Pappé’s view that Israel is (allegedly) a settler-colonial state, see the section “Colonialism and imperialist support” in Alexander Yakobson & Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish nation-state and human rights (London & New York: Routledge, 2010), 65–75. On pages 76–82 of their book, Yakobson and Rubinstein also refute the claim that there is no historical continuity of the Jewish people. (Yakobson is a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the late Rubenstein was dean of the Radzyner School of Law in Herzlia, Israel.)

On the topic of land in the Palestine region legally purchased by Jews before 1947, see Benji Rosenzweig, “Did Jews ‘steal the land’ in Israel? What the 1945 JNF map reveals about the partition plan,” Unpacked, November 28, 2025. Also see Oren Cahanovitc, “Did the Arabs Steal Palestine? Let’s Check the Receipts,” Travelling Israel, November 30, 2025 (19 minute video).

 

End of chapter 2.

---

Postscript

About the trucks in the above photos: According to an April 1948 British report, it turns out that at least some of the trucks used to evacuate Arabs from Israel were borrowed from the British Army by Arabs who insisted on leaving even though Jews asked them to stay. For more on this, see M. A. Rothman, X, May 18, 2026.

---

Note to critics (again): Before offering criticism, please read the whole of my above chapter, plus endnotes, plus relevant linked-to articles. And perhaps read chapter 1 (on settler colonialism) of my book A Defence of Israel or part 1 of my blog article “Settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing: Two false assumptions about Israel’s inception.” Thanks.

 

A Defence of Israel: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War—NEW BOOK

 

A Defence of Israel: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War—NEW BOOK

A Defence of Israel is a thoroughly revised, updated, and expanded version (now more than double in size) of my 2024 booklet Untangling Popular Anti-Israel Arguments: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War.  My book is now available at Amazon. Below are some endorsements and the table of contents. 

Amazon does not permit authors to reply to reviews of their books, so I will provide my thoughts here—farther below—about any Amazon reviews that are, in my opinion, deeply problematic from the point of view of logic and evidence. I will update if needed and as time permits. I realize I risk drawing undeserved attention to problematic reviews of my book, but I think the need to encourage the discernment of truth outweighs that risk. Perhaps friends and acquaintances who have actually read the book would be kind enough to leave an honest review at Amazon. Thanks in advance. 

Endorsements

“In A Defence of Israel, Hendrik van der Breggen systematically examines the central legal and moral accusations leveled against Israel since October 7, 2023. Drawing on history, just war principles, and careful reasoning, he challenges claims of genocide, apartheid, and disproportionality with arguments that demand serious engagement. At a time when rhetoric often replaces analysis, this book insists on disciplined thinking about war.”

—John Spencer, MPM, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies, Modern War Institute, West Point

“Philosopher-turned-legal-advocate Hendrik van der Breggen’s A Defence of Israel delivers on the promise of its title in distilling the finer points of Israel’s defense of its homeland, which involves moral and military compromises necessitated by terrorists who are not fighting according to the laws of war.”

—Thane Rosenbaum, JD, law professor and Distinguished University Professor, Touro University

“In A Defence of Israel: Critical Thinking About the Israel-Hamas War, Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen dispels pervasively popular ‘progressive’ myths about the war in Gaza with a careful and disciplined appeal to reason, evidence, historical contextualization, and conceptual clarification. But he does more than this. He invites his readers to resist the strategic cynicism and virtue posturing of contemporary postmodern political discourse in favour of reasoned and charitable debate, pursued in good faith and with a genuine desire to seek and discover the truth. As such, Dr. van der Breggen’s Defence represents not just an argument, but a call to return to civil dialogue, respectful disagreement, charitable representation of the views of one’s intellectual and political opponents, and a commitment to substance over style, reasoned persuasion over sophistry, and calm deliberation and wisdom over moral panic and emotivism.”

—Patrick S. Franklin, PhD, Associate Professor of Theology, Alister E. McGrath Chair of Christian Thought & Spirituality, Tyndale University

“I cannot recommend this book highly enough! In A Defence of Israel: Critical Thinking about the Israel-Hamas War, Hendrik van der Breggen offers a careful, reasoned exploration of one of the most significant conflicts of our time. With precision and the heart of a truth-seeker, he invites readers to slow down, examine popular assumptions, and engage the evidence. Hendrik systematically untangles complex false charges against Israel with intellectual rigour and humility. Whether or not one agrees with every conclusion, this book models the kind of respectful, critical dialogue our world desperately needs. An essential resource for those seeking clarity and truth over rhetoric!”

—Stefan Duerksen, Lead Pastor, Southland Church, Steinbach, Manitoba

“Hendrik van der Breggen’s A Defence of Israel is a solid, informative, and helpful text for addressing a wide range of misconceptions concerning the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. While acknowledging the sad reality of genuine suffering and actual victimhood when it occurs, the book also debunks the swamp of misinformation keeping false Gazan victimology afloat. I was even able to use some points from Hendrik’s book during a discussion, online, to refute falsehoods about Israel and Zionism.”

—John D. Ferrer, PhD, speaker-writer-researcher, CrossExamined.org

 

Table of Contents

Maps

Introduction

Objections & replies

1. Israel is a settler-colonial state?

2. Israel at its inception was engaged in ethnic cleansing (a.k.a. the Nakba)?

3. Israel is an apartheid state?

4. Israel occupies Gaza?

5. Israel is guilty of genocide?

6. The International Association of Genocide Scholars says Israel is committing genocide?

7. Israel targets a hospital?

8. Israel’s response to Hamas is not proportional?

9. Israel is a powerful state and thus the oppressor?

10. Israel should agree to a ceasefire?

11. Israel’s qualms about a two-state solution mean Israel rejects peace?

12. Conclusion and prayer

Appendices

Appendix 1: Book review of Adam Kirsch’s On Settler Colonialism

Appendix 2: Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic? (Part 1 of 2)

Appendix 3: Criticizing Islam is Islamophobic? (Part 2 of 2)

Appendix 4: War and Bible

Appendix 5: Untangling anti-Israel propaganda for today’s college students

Appendix 6: My radical suggestion for deradicalization in Gaza

Suggested resources

About the author

Endnote

 

My replies to Amazon reviews

Re: Review by H. Scott

The review by H. Scott completely misrepresents my book, making it clear that the reviewer either has not read my book or has read it but does not comprehend it. Either way, the reviewer’s representation of my book is wholly false. 

For example, the reviewer says “the overall message” of my book is that “maybe genocide is good actually if you’re sufficiently powerful and you think of the people you’re exterminating as more animal than human.” For the record, that is 100% NOT AT ALL the overall message of my book. For substantiation, see my book.

The reviewer is also deeply insulting to one of my endorsers. This is simply not appropriate. In fact, it is morally wrong to hurl false personal accusations against people. This shows that the reviewer has a character flaw (whereas the previous misrepresentation by the reviewer speaks to a logical and/or intellectual flaw).

Interestingly—and revealingly—at the end of the review, the reviewer recommends a different book in the place of mine but fails to mention (a) that my whole book actually refutes that other book’s thesis and (b) that my book (on pages 29–30, note 30) also makes reference to a couple critical reviews of that other book. This serves as additional evidence for believing the reviewer has not read my book.

My conclusion: The review from H. Scott is blatant anti-Israel propaganda.

My grade for the review: F (maybe even F-).

Reasonable—non-phobic—concerns about Islam

 
Al Masjid Al Nabawi, a.k.a. the Prophet’s Mosque, is situated in Medina, Saudi Arabia, and was built by Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in 622 AD. The green dome is situated directly above the burial chamber of Prophet Muhammad and his companions Abu Bakr and Umar. This mosque is the second holiest site in Islam (the first is the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, and the third is the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem). Photo credit: Magzter/ Asian Geographic AG 162.

Reasonable—non-phobic—concerns about Islam

By Hendrik van der Breggen

I have serious concerns about Islam, and my fellow Westerners should, too.

My focus in this article is on Islam itself, i.e., the religious ideology, not individual Muslims. My focus is on ideas, not persons.

Before I set out my concerns about Islam, please know this: Vandalizing mosques or otherwise treating Muslims with disrespect or hatred is wrong, full stop. Muslims, like all people, deserve respect (because, I believe, they are, like the rest of us, made in the image of God). But their behaviours and beliefs—as those of Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.—can be legitimately criticized and judged from the point of view of reason and truth.

In other words, thinking carefully about Islam and criticizing Islam are not instances of Islamophobia. Whereas a phobia is an irrational fear or hatred, the fact remains that one can have reasonable, truth-based non-phobic concerns. Setting out accurate statements of objective truths about Islam is not Islamophobic.[1]

In this article I will do the following:

(1) question whether Islam is a religion of peace (it’s not);

(2) question whether Islam is good for women (it’s not);

(3) question whether Islam is good for persons who identify as LGBTQ+ (it’s not);

(4) question whether Islam is merely a personal religion (no, it’s also a political ideology);

(5) question the legitimacy of Islam’s overstepping the relationship between church—better: mosque—and state (no, it’s not legitimate to do so in a secular liberal society);

(6) question whether the notion of “moderate Muslim” means there is a “moderate Islam” (again, no).

I conclude that the West needs to understand that we should resist this religio-political ideology—Islam—which threatens to destroy us. How? For starters, by discerning evidence-based truth about Islam.

Let’s proceed.

 

1. 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—violent jihad against non-believers.

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.

In fact, 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, especially Jews.

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 closely follow the Quran and Muhammad are so 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 as revealed by the Quran and Muhammad, 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 subjugated. Or dead.[2]

 

2. 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.

Consider the following words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim:

“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.”[3]

Islam, then, is no friend of women’s rights. Nor the rights of little girls.

 

3. LGBTQ+ equality?

The Quran’s and Muhammad’s views about homosexuals are also negative. How does Islam fit with respect for those who identify as gay? Answer: It doesn’t.

Google AI is helpful here: “According to traditional Islamic jurisprudence (Sunni and Shia), homosexual acts are considered forbidden major sins, with most scholars recommending severe penalties, including the death penalty (stoning or throwing from a height) based on Hadith, though specific punishments vary.”

Surely, it is not phobic for members of the LGBTQ+ community to be reasonably concerned about the teachings of Islam.[4]

 

4. Islam is a personal religion?

We 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? Then consider the history of Islam.

Islam’s violent conquests began in Arabia under the leadership of Muhammad (570–632 AD) and then rapidly spread by his followers. Within a bit more than a century an Islamic caliphate (i.e., a trans-national state governed by Sharia law) stretched from Spain to India, including Syria, Egypt, Persia, North Africa, and parts of Europe. Its goal was to conquer the globe via jihad. Happily, but at the cost of much bloodshed from those who resisted the Islamic forces, Islam’s spread was stopped.[5]

But that was then. At present, Islam’s goal of world conquest via jihad is upon us again. Witness the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Islamic proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Islamic militias in Iraq and Syria. Witness, too, the growing number of Islamic jihadists and their supporters among us.[6]

I repeat: Islam is not merely a personal religion. It is a totalitarian political-religious ideology that calls for the domination of the world.

 

5. Separation of mosque and state?

For Westerners, this brings up the question of separation of church and state, or, better, mosque and state.

I am a Canadian. Canada is a secular liberal state. As such, Canada has a commitment (at least) to individual liberty, including religious freedom and freedom of speech, equality before the law, and state neutrality (though our “neutral” state reflects values inherited from its Western/ Judeo-Christian history; for example, the dignity and worth of each individual).[7]

About any totalitarian political-religious ideology such as Islam, 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 squelch rights and freedoms?

I believe all the answers are no. O Canada, we must stand on guard for thee![8]

 

6. What about moderate Muslims?

Yes, there are moderate Muslims, that is, Muslims who favour secular liberalism with its commitment to religious freedom and pluralism. And 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 cancel his earlier peaceful teachings—these core teachings of Islam are anathema to secular liberalism. They do not promote liberal values of freedom for all, do not promote women’s rights, do not promote LGBTQ+ rights, are not merely personal, and do not promote separation between mosque and state.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims, then, should not diminish our concerns about Islam per se.

Enter: Middle East historian Raymond Ibrahim—a historian for our time. Ibrahim’s knowledge of the history of Islam provides much-needed insights into the complexities of the present.

Ibrahim wisely points out that, yes, there are moderate Muslims, but, he quickly adds, and emphasizes, there is no moderate Islam.

In other words, Muslims who are moderate do not take Islam seriously insofar as Islam is constituted—which it is!—by the central teachings of the Quran and Muhammad and their requirements of global domination, war against infidels, women as second class citizens, denial of LGBTQ+ rights, and denial of separation between mosque and state.

In other words again, as Ibrahim also points out, 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 or nominal Muslims (i.e., they are merely cultural Muslims, like atheist Richard Dawkins is a cultural Christian). On the other hand, 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 or practicing Muslims. Let. That. Sink. In.[9]

Also, as Ibrahim points out, we should contemplate the fact that the Islamic doctrine of deception, a.k.a. taqiyya, allows for observant or practicing Muslims to pretend they are non-observant or “moderate.” Taqiyya allows Muslims to tell lies to non-Muslims for the sake of furthering Islam. Let. That. Sink. In. Too.[10]

Of course, we should not become paranoid and unjustly suspect or charge every Muslim with lying simply because they are Muslim. We should hold to the (Western) principle that all people should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. And we should remember that all people—including Muslims—deserve respect (which is yet another Western value, historically based on the notion that people are made in the image of the Judeo-Christian God). Keeping this in mind, we should nevertheless realize that the doctrine of taqiyya casts at least some reasonable doubt over the proliferation of Islamophobia accusations levelled against those who criticize Islam from the point of view of reason and truth.[11]

 

Conclusion

I will say it again: Vandalizing mosques or otherwise treating Muslims with disrespect or hatred is wrong, period. Nevertheless, Islam—the religious ideology—is deeply problematic.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is not good for women. Islam is not good for persons who identify as LGBTQ+. And Islam is not merely a personal religion—it’s also a political ideology.

Moreover, Islam oversteps—and threatens to obliterate—the boundary between mosque and state, and it thereby challenges the legitimacy of secular liberal society. And, although there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam.

We in the West must understand the truth that Islam is a political-religious ideology which threatens to destroy Western society and values.

We must understand, too, that this is a reasonable judgment about Islam. This is not hatred directed at Muslims nor is it Islamophobia. It is, rather, an instance of careful, critical thinking for the sake of truth—and freedom.[12, 13, 14]

 

Notes

1. 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.” A phobia, then, is an irrational or ungrounded fear, aversion, or hatred. Consider arachnophobia, an irrational ungrounded fear or hatred of spiders. Clearly, however, it is possible to have reasonable, non-phobic concerns about some spiders if the spiders display evidence of being harmful or lethal to humans. Merely having a reasonable fear or concern about something is not a phobia. (Note: I am not making an analogy between Islam and spiders; I am here merely making the point that not all fears or concerns are unreasonable, even if such fears or concerns are intense and serious.)

2. 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.

3. “Koran” is an older, anglicized spelling of “Quran.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s comment is from a conversation with Sam Harris, a conversation titled Lifting the Veil of ‘Islamophobia’.

4. Also from Google AI: “The Quran and Islamic tradition generally condemn homosexual acts, viewing them as sinful, unnatural, and ‘exceeding limits,’ often citing the story of Lot (Lut) as a warning. While the Quran describes the behavior of Lot’s people as a ‘horrible sin,’ the Hadith (teachings of Muhammad) contains stricter prohibitions. Mainstream scholars consider homosexuality taboo and a serious sin.”

5. To learn more about the imperialist-conquering nature 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).

6. For a list of the Islamic jihadists and their supporters among us, see Thane Rosenbaum’s recent article, Islam Is Calling. Thane Rosenbaum is a law professor and Distinguished University Professor at Touro University (New York), where he directs the Forum on Life, Culture and Society. He is also legal analyst for CBS News Radio.

7. The preamble to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” This means that our “secular” state assumes the legitimacy and truth of some principles that reflect the Judeo-Christian worldview which informed our founders’ Western understanding of civilization when Canada became a country in 1867.

8. For a look at how Islam and the secular state are at odds, see Glen Scrivener’s Top Historians CLASH on Islam: What’s Really Going On? (18 minute video). In this video the insights from Tom Holland (who describes Islam as “indigestible” for Secularism) and Kevin Flatt (who briefly discusses the “sacred-social order”) are very helpful. For more about Kevin Flatt’s thesis, see Paul VanderKlay, Everyone in the World HAD a Sacred Social Order, not a “Religion” (9.5 minute video). See too Flatt’s new book (which, I confess, I haven’t yet read but only have read good things about) Secularization, Social Order, and World History: Toward a Global Perspective (Routledge, 2026). Kevin Flatt is Professor of History and Associate Dean of Humanities at Redeemer University, and is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Religion, Culture, and Societal Futures at the University of Waterloo.

9. About moderate Muslims and moderate Islam, see Raymond Ibrahim’s analyses here and here. It would also be reasonable to describe observant or practicing Muslims as what Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls “Medina Muslims,” i.e., they follow the violent teachings of the Prophet Muhammad when in Medina the prophet effectively became a warlord after his peaceful approach to spreading Islam in Mecca was rejected (“Mecca Muslims” follow the Prophet Muhammad’s peaceful teachings when he first began his religion in Mecca). For more on the distinction between Medina Muslims and Mecca Muslims, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islam Is a Religion of Violence.

10. According to Merriam-Webster, taqiyya is “the principle of practicing the dissimulation of outward conformity permitted Muslims in a hostile or persecuting non-Muslim environment for the sake of their personal safety.” This is true, but not the whole truth. Merriam-Webster misses the full understanding as endorsed by Islam’s prophet Muhammad. For Islamists (i.e., those Muslims who take all of Muhammad’s teachings seriously), taqiyya also allows and encourages Muslims to lie to achieve the goals of Islam. On the Islamic doctrine of deception/taqiyya, see Raymond Ibrahim’s analyses here and here and here and here. And see David Wood’s analysis here.

11. For more on Islamophobia and how Islamic ideology is very apparently infiltrating Canadian education—and how it is not Islamophobic to point this out—see my blog article Orwellian Concerns about Manitoba’s Anti-Islamophobia Action Plan.

12. For additional thought on Islam, see my Islam and Christianity (blog article), Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s After Bondi: We Can No Longer Ignore Islam (60 minute video), and Danny Burmawi’s Islam, Israel, and the West: A Former Muslim’s Analysis (book).

13. My above article “Reasonable—non-phobic—concerns about Islam” is a much-shortened and revised version of my January 2026 blog article “Orwellian Concerns about Manitoba’s Anti-Islamophobia Action Plan.”

14. A note for Christians who wish to share their faith with Muslims: Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig recommends that we focus on the person of Jesus. See Craig’s videos” Advice for Evangelizing Muslims! (4 minutes), How Should Christians Share Their Faith with Muslims? (3 minutes), and The Historical Achilles’ Heel of Islam (2 minutes). Also be sure to understand the Islamic Dilemma, as set out by Canadian apologist Wes Huff:

—Cameron Bertuzzi, Wes Huff Drops Islamic Dilemma On Piers Morgan! Capturing Christianity, April 18, 2025 (10 minute video).

—Wes Huff, Wes Huff Exposes 3 Huge Problems For Islam (Quran vs History), Daily Dose of Wisdom, March 8, 2025 (15 minute video).

—Wes Huff, The Quran is False, Capturing Christianity, December 13, 2024 (11 minute video).

—Wes Huff, The Qur’an has a problem, Wes Huff, October 16, 2024 (3 minute video).

—Wes Huff, Comparing the Qur’an with the New Testament, Wes Huff, April 29, 2022 (46 minute video).

—Michael Jones, An Even DEADLIER Islamic Dilemma – Introducing: The Clear Quran Dilemma, Inspiring Philosophy, December 5, 2025 (9 minute video).

 

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, Wisdom for our culturally volatile moment, APOLOGIA, September 18, 2025.

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).

Danny Burmawi, Islam, Israel, and the West: A Former Muslim’s Analysis (Gerasa Books, 2025).

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).

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, “After Bondi: We Can No Longer Ignore Islam,” John Anderson Media, February 2, 2026 (60 minute video).

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.)

Andy Bannister, Islam and Christianity – Andy Bannister interviewed by Stefan Gustavsson, FOCLOnline, February 15, 2024 (36 minute video).

Andy Bannister, Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God, Premier Unbelievable? September 5, 2023 (24 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).

Raymond Ibrahim, The Dangers of Radical Islam, PragerU, September 28, 2015 (5 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).

Bill Warner, Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades, Political Islam, August 20, 2024 (5 minute video).

 

---

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor.

---

 

Objections & replies

A Facebook friend has contested my view that moderate Muslims exist but moderate Islam does not. Here are his five objections (sometimes slightly reworded for brevity and clarity) and my replies.

 

Objection 1

Moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam?

Reply

Moderate Muslims are those who “water down” Islam, insofar as Islam is constituted (which it is) by the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad, teachings that include the Quran’s and Muhammad’s abrogation—cancelation—of the peaceful teachings. So, yes, moderate Muslims exist but moderate Islam does not.

 

Objection 2

It is for Muslims to determine what constitutes Islam.

Reply

The essential core of Islam is constituted by the Quran (alleged to be the literal word of Allah/God) and Muhammad (alleged to be Allah’s greatest prophet/final messenger and supreme human example). I am quite sure that all Muslims agree with me on this. So my assessment, which takes the Quran and Muhammad seriously—and takes into account the fact of the Quran’s cancellation of the peaceful teachings and Muhammad’s violent life—is appropriate. This is the case whether one is a Muslim or not.

 

Objection 3

What Muslims do with that critique [i.e., Hendrik’s assessment] is their business, and we cannot tell them that the result is not Islam.

Reply

But we can discern that if Muslims do not follow the violent teachings of the Quran and Muhammad, then their understanding of Islam (which centers on the Quran and Muhammad whose violent teachings abrogate the peaceful ones) does not take into account the full counsel of the Quran and Muhammad—which is Islam. 

Moderate Muslims are, as I pointed out in my reply to objection 1, those who “water down” Islam, insofar as Islam is constituted by the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad, teachings that include the Quran’s and Muhammad’s abrogation—cancelation—of the peaceful teachings. Moderate Muslims are those Muslims who, as I point out in my article above, “do not take Islam seriously insofar as Islam is constituted—which it is!—by the central teachings of the Quran and Muhammad and their requirements of global domination, war against infidels, women as second class citizens, denial of LGBTQ+ rights, and denial of separation between mosque and state.”

And, as I also point out in my article: “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 or nominal Muslims (i.e., they are merely cultural Muslims, like atheist Richard Dawkins is a cultural Christian). On the other hand, 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 or practicing Muslims.”

 

Objection 4

Your description of the essence of Islam is correct, but you cannot use that essence to flatten the description of the whole religion.

Reply

I am not flattening, but clarifying. The essence of Islam is the Quran and Muhammad—and this essence includes their call for global domination, war against infidels, women as second class citizens, denial of LGBTQ+ rights, and denial of separation between mosque and state. Insofar as Muslims do not follow this essential core of Islam, they are not reflecting the essential teachings of the Quran and Muhammad.

 

Objection 5

Hendrik, you are reducing the whole to a part or reducing the whole to its seed, which is not legitimate.

Reply

No, I am describing truthfully Islam’s essential nature as, say, the essence of an acorn and pointing out that subsequent oak trees, to be accurately described as actual oak trees, must also consist of that oak nature.

More philosophically, think of it this way. The essential nature or core of Islam is constituted by the following:

(a) the Quran (literal words of Allah/God);

(b) Muhammad (Allah’s greatest prophet/final messenger and supreme human example);

(c) the fact that the Quran’s and Muhammad’s teachings include promoting violence (and these teachings cancel the earlier peaceful teachings).

If a thing that is alleged to be X does not have the essence of X, then that thing is not X. So, if a religion—i.e., so-called “moderate Islam”—which is alleged to be Islam does not have the essence of Islam—i.e., (a) AND (b) AND (c)—then that religion is not Islam.

Or think of the matter this way. The meaning of Islam is made clear by how Muhammad puts the words of Allah in the Quran to use. Muhammad’s words and deeds are Allah’s eternally-fixed interpretive grid for Islam and thus our interpretations must be exactly in line with Muhammad’s interpretation. According to Muhammad, Islam is constituted by (a) and (b) and (c).

Again: If Islam’s essential core consists of (a) and (b) and (c), which is the case, then anything less is not Islam per se, i.e., not the religion of Muhammad. This is true, even though some people, a.k.a. moderate Muslims, might call what they follow—i.e., (a) and (b) without (c)—“moderate Islam.”

But strictly speaking there is no moderate Islam, if (a) and (b) and (c) actually constitute, which they do, the essential core of Islam.

Thus, the claim that moderate Islam exists is false.

So my article’s six concerns about Islam remain.