Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe responds to the viral debate at the Oxford Union: “Is the West right to be suspicious of Islam?”
I am a member of the Oxford Union which has a long tradition of robust debates and defence of free speech. I remember several entertaining and sometimes tense debates which I attended as a student and which I learned from. I was never brave enough to participate myself, but discussions about the motions would continue afterwards with other students. Such debates helped sharpen our thinking and challenge our views. On rare occasions I have been back to watch a prominent debate or speaker, but since I do not live in Oxford this is no longer very practical.
I was tempted to try to attend the debate in June about whether the West should be suspicious of Islam. In the end there was a diary clash, but the full video of the debate is now online and has been watched over 450,000 times. Clips of the debate have had millions of views on social media.
Speaking for the motion – that the West is right to be suspicious of Islam – were Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Jonathan Sacerdoti and two students. Speaking against the motion were Arwa Elryess (the President of the Oxford Union), Michael Doward, Abdullah al Andalusi, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and another student, Aisha Khan.
Protests outside
There was considerable controversy around this debate. The date had to be rearranged and on the day it took place, there were masked protestors outside. Two streets were closed off around the union and some pubs and cafes closed early in anticipation of the protests. Many students and guests were prevented from attending the debate, including Laila Nasher, a Muslim student who had been due to give a speech. Family members of other students who spoke in the debate were prevented from entering due to the protests. I am now glad I didn’t try to attend since most likely I would not have been able to get into the union.
Laurence Fox said: “I needed a security team to attend and we were spat at, bullied and heckled by a baying mob.”
No reason to be suspicious of Islam then?
‘We Muslims protected you’
The most watched clip from the debate, at over 12m views to date, is of Muslim student Aisha Khan who opened for the opposition. She addressed Tommy Robinson, saying:
“…there is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight, and without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a largely South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked.”
This is an extraordinary statement. She seems to be boasting that Tommy’s life was in danger from Islamic protestors, whilst arguing that the West should not be suspicious of Islam! Furthermore, she essentially claims that were it not for the generosity of the Muslim students, Tommy would have been killed. Is Tommy supposed to be grateful? Astonishingly, the audience applauded at this. What were they applauding? The generous support of Muslims in allowing Tommy to live? Or the fact that the crowd wanted him dead? Are we supposed to be grateful to Muslims for allowing people to live now? Is that why we should not be suspicious of Islam?
Robinson’s speech
Tommy’s speech itself wasn’t the best speech of the night. He railed at Islamic treatment of gays and fornicators and complained about child marriage in Islam. When speakers from the other side demanded justification from the Qur’an he told them to take it up with the Islamic leaders who teach these things. This is a fair rebuttal, but it leaves open the question of whether the opposition has a better understanding of Islamic teaching than he does.
Fox steals the show
Laurence Fox stole the show with the best speech and a dramatic rhetorical flourish. He brandished a large manilla envelope stating that there was a cartoon inside; strongly implying that it was a cartoon of Muhammad. Towards the end of his speech, he said the time had come to stand up for free speech against Islam and to show this cartoon to the crowd. There were several interjections and points of order raised. The tension is palpable even watching on YouTube. Rees-Mogg himself rose to raise a point of order about whether props were allowed in the union since they are not allowed in the House of Commons. The chair ruled that props are allowed. Thereupon, Fox took the image from the envelope and displayed a cartoon of Rees-Moog himself, much to everyone’s relief and amusement. His point was well made. Free speech in relation to Islam is already lost in this country. We learned that from what happened at Batley Grammar School. Today even Fox dares not to show a simple cartoon of Muhammad, and the attendees were mightily glad he didn’t.
Reasons for suspicion from the other side
Andalusi’s speech appeared to focus on how lovely and friendly many Muslims are. Towards the end of his speech, he asked whether anyone knew someone famous who had said “Live and let live”? No one responded, so Andalusi then proceeded to state that no less a Muslim than Osama Bin Laden had said “Live and let live” in a particular interview some years ago. He cited Bin Laden as if he was a reputable scholar of Islam without qualifying whether he agreed with him. Only after being pressed on this point, did he make clear that he disapproved of Bin Laden.
After the debate, Jonathan Sacerdoti found some clips of Andalusi speaking to an Islamic Society. In this lecture, he argues for recreating a Caliphate ruled by Sharia law. He argued for the punishment of amputation of a thief’s hand. He also argued for capital punishment for adultery and corporeal punishment for fornication, though he argued against these in the debate. In the lecture he said that Islamic foreign policy means that “Zionists have to go.” He also said that he wants to allow polygamy, arguing that it is a natural law from nature, but that most men will not do it “once they discover how demanding being responsible for one person is.”
A report in The Independent from 2015 says that Andalusi worked at Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for almost two years. He is described as an Islamist extremist who told audiences at Mosques and universities that Isis “were no different to western armies.” He used another name whilst employed by the government and was given security clearance. It was only when he was spotted defending extremism on television that his cover was blown. He was suspended immediately and investigated for “gross misconduct by taking part in a public activity that compromised his impartial service to the government”, and subsequently he resigned.
Andalusi’s own beliefs and actions justify the West’s suspicion of Islam.
Rees-Mogg’s faith in the constitution
Rees-Mogg concluded for the opposition. He noted that many evils were carried out by Stalin and Mao which we couldn’t blame on Islam. This is quite right, but one can also be suspicious of communism and atheistic states, whilst being suspicious of Islam at the same time. Mogg also tried to argue from history that there were some good examples of Muslims we could learn from. One of these was Ibn Khaldun who apparently argued for low taxation – something Rees-Mogg supports. However, as Sacerdoti pointed out on X, Khaldun also argued that Jihad should not only be defensive, and that “Islam has a unique divine obligation to aggressively subjugate other nations.” Khaldun’s teaching turns out to be another good example of why the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.
Rees-Mogg’s main argument was that the wonderful British constitution is unassailable. He has such faith in the constitution that he appears to believe it is indestructible. He argued:
“Our constitution will not allow sharia law to become the law of the land. A democratic Westminster Parliament will not vote for that. So, fear not!”
This is incredibly naive. Already we have one local council run by an Islamic political party. At the last election we had a national Islamic political campaign which resulted in five independent Muslim candidates being elected. Thirty constituencies now have Muslims as more than 25% of the population. 120 constituencies with more than 10% Muslim.
Robinson rose to point out that sharia courts are already operating in many communities. Rees-Mogg dismissed these as mere tribunals not actual courts. But this misses the point. These communities are running a parallel legal system which doesn’t necessarily even recognise British law.
This Parliament was very quick to recognise a Palestinian state after the election – a key demand of The Muslim Vote. This government moved swiftly to find a definition of anti-Muslim hostility which it has now made an official government definition. The British government issued government sharia bonds – becoming the first non-Muslim country in the world to do so in 2014. What makes Rees-Mogg think that the government will not vote for more Islamic demands as the population of Muslims in this country increases?
Rees-Mogg continued:
“The reason the West is strong is because of Christ, and because of the resurrection.”
Quoting Jesus’s statement that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, Rees-Mogg argued:
“Nothing will prevail against our values, because our values are underpinned by that underlying truth that is Christ.”
This is astonishing. The British constitution, based on Christian values though it may be, is not the Church. Jesus never promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against Westminster, or even against Christian countries or Christian governments. Many formerly Christian countries are now Islamic, including much of North Africa, Egypt and Turkey. What makes him think we won’t succumb in the same way? Blind faith in the British constitution is not going to stop Islam from growing in influence in this country.
Having raised a point of order about props in an attempt to stop Fox from showing his cartoon, Rees-Mogg then somewhat hypocritically concluded by exhibiting a small cross which he claimed contains a piece of the true cross. The video of the debate ends with Rees-Moog holding this cross aloft and proclaiming: “Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!”
The use of this cross in this way is pure superstition. It is almost idolatry. Where Rees-Mogg is right is to point to the Christian values of the West as foundational to Western civilisation and crucial to its success. Where he is wrong is to assume that these values will continue to underpin Western culture forever. All the signs are that the West has been moving to abandon its Christian values for decades. Islam is gaining ground, partly because of the spiritual vacuum this has created.
What does Islam teach?
Key to this debate is what Islam actually teaches. The proposition kept quoting examples of terrorism or grooming gangs, or treatment of adulterers as reasons to be suspicious. The opposition responded asking for actual verses from the Qur’an that in context justify these actions. The proposition would counter-respond saying that they should argue with the perpetrators themselves. This does not resolve the point. The opposition are quite right to insist on looking at what the Qur’an and the teaching of Muhammad actually says. It was disappointing that none of the proposition were willing to engage with this.
My most read article by far is Is Islam a Religion of Peace? For a long time it was in the top three on a Google search for that question. It has been read by thousands of people. Its success is probably because it does attempt to assess the text. What does Islam actually teach? This is the key question. Sadly, I do believe that Islam, as assessed by its texts, and by the example of its founder, is not a peaceful religion. Therefore, the West is quite right to be suspicious of Islam.