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.’”
3. One final note. Below are some passages from Danny
Burmawi, Islam, Israel, and the West: A
Former Muslim’s Analysis (Gerasa Books, 2025), pages 128-130:
“In the modern Western lexicon, ‘Islamophobia’
has become a weapon—designed, refined, and deployed to neutralize criticism of
Islam before it can even begin. The term doesn’t simply mean ‘hatred of Muslims’
as its defenders claim. In practice, it means that Islam as an ideology is
placed off-limits for scrutiny. That is its true function.
The core manipulation of Islamophobia is that it treats the fear of an ideology as morally
equivalent to irrational prejudice against people. But fearing a
political-religious system that openly declares its supremacy over all others
is not irrational—it is prudent. Fear becomes irrational only when it is
baseless, and the case against Islamic supremacism is anything but baseless.
Islam’s political theology is not hidden. It has been consistent for over 1,400
years: Islam is the final, perfect system, meant for every place and every
time, destined to rule all others. To fear the legal and political consequences
of that worldview is no different than fearing totalitarianism, fascism, or
communism. Yet by branding such fear as a phobia,
the term smuggles in the idea that it is irrational, baseless, and morally disreputable.
That’s the power of the word: it forces a moral concession before the conversation
even starts....
[The charge of Islamophobia] comes with teeth:
social ostracism, loss of employment, legal consequences in some jurisdictions,
and public humiliation. The goal is to make the cost of speaking out so high
that most people will choose silence….
Islamophobia
is not about protecting Muslims from hate crimes; laws against violence already
exist for that. It is about making you doubt your right to criticize an
ideology [Islam]. It is about training you to see legitimate scrutiny as moral failing,
so that you self-censor before you ever speak….
And without scrutiny, the ideology’s political
ambitions can advance unopposed, under the cover of victimhood.”
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).
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).
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, “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.)
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.
