ODM Daily Inspirational Devotional Messages Bible Verse and Prayers ODM
Should the West Be Suspicious of Islam? The Oxford University Debate
The Oxford Debating Union met at the weekend to debate whether or not the West should be suspicious of Islam.
The remarkable thing about this debate is that the side arguing “No, the West should not be suspicious of Islam”, did seem to make a very good case for the affirmative.
Pro-Islam Side Kicks Own Goal
Student debater and moderate Muslim Aisha Khan gleefully boasted that if it wasn’t for the generosity and protection of Muslims on the Oxford committee, one of her opponents would probably not make it home from the debate alive.
Aisha Khan said…
“Steven Yaxley-Lennon, known to his hooligans as Tommy Robinson…
“Steven, there is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight.
“And without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a mostly South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked.”
Hey, you’ve got no need to be suspicious of Muslims because, well, as long as you’re in our good graces, we’ll make sure the pro-Muslim mob out the front don’t lynch you…
That’s a hell of an argument and the biggest own goal I’ve seen, including at the World Cup.
Charlie Hebdo Cartoon
And then there was this fascinating drama.
One of the debaters for the affirmative — Laurence Fox — arguing the West should be suspicious of Islam, advised he would be showing a cartoon of Muhammad during his speech. Fox said…
“The West should resist Islam in the strongest terms on free-speech grounds alone.
“So, here we are with this cartoon…”
Well, there was an audible gasp from everyone in the room.
And then faster than you can say Charlie Hebdo, people began running interference.
Muslims on the negative team argued there was no need to test their commitment to free speech by showing the cartoon.
They’ve already proved their commitment to free speech by holding the debate in the first place.
Muslim student Arwa Elrayes argued…
“Is it not enough that I as a Muslim president have invited you to this chamber to give your arguments?
“Is that not enough justification and evidence for you to believe that we do believe in free speech? I would not become the president of a free-speech society if not for that.”
And then members of the audience began interjecting, urging the debate chair to discover some rule or regulation that would prevent the cartoon from being shown.
So, by now you’re getting the idea.
The very people insisting the West has no need to be suspicious of Islam were desperate to prevent a cartoon of Muhammad from being shown in public.
Eventually, however, the debate chair ruled the cartoon could be displayed.
“So it is in that spirit that I will not submit. I show you this as an Englishman who believes in free speech. I will not submit. I will not bow down.”
Fox pulled out the cartoon, which depicted… Charlie Hebdo!
Turns out the cartoon wasn’t of Muhammad at all.
The affirmative side weren’t that silly. Everyone in the room, not least those arguing there was no need to be suspicious of Islam, breathed a huge sigh of relief.
But the point had been well and truly made.
Watch the full debate here.
Republished and edited from the YouTube transcript.
Image via screenshot of YouTube.
ODM Daily Commentary
Let’s be honest: the Oxford debate was a masterclass in unintentional self-incrimination. The side arguing that the West should not be suspicious of Islam ended up proving the exact opposite.
The article from The Daily Declaration recounts the drama. Aisha Khan, a moderate Muslim, boasted that Tommy Robinson would be “quite literally cooked” without the protection of the Muslim committee. The message was clear: you need us to protect you from our own people. That is not a reassurance. It is a threat.
Then came the Charlie Hebdo moment. Laurence Fox announced he would show a cartoon of Muhammad. The room gasped. The Muslim debaters argued there was no need to test their commitment to free speech. The audience urged the chair to find a rule to prevent it. The very people insisting the West had no need to be suspicious of Islam were desperate to prevent a cartoon from being shown.
Fox pulled out the cartoon. It was Charlie Hebdo. Not a cartoon of Muhammad. The point was made: they were so terrified of the mere possibility of a cartoon that they revealed their true colours.
The debate was a litmus test. The pro-Islam side failed. They showed that their commitment to free speech is conditional. They showed that they are willing to use violence and intimidation to silence dissent. They showed that they cannot be trusted.
The comment section adds to the analysis. One reader notes that Tommy Robinson and others are powerful speakers for the affirmative. Another highlights Jacob Rees-Mogg’s closing statement, where he raised a cross and declared, “Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat” (Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands). That was the most important moment of the debate—a declaration of Christ’s kingship.
Another commenter is tired of talk. They want action. They note that Australia is being taken over “via the womb” because young people cannot afford children. They point to the corruption of politicians and the weakness of the Church. They quote The Godfather: “Politics and crime, the same.”
So here is the challenge: stop being naive. The Islamists are not hiding their intentions. They are telling us, in debates and in riots, that they will not tolerate free speech, that they will use violence to enforce their will, and that they are taking over. We must wake up. We must act. And we must not be afraid to show the cartoon.
The Oxford debate proved that the West should be suspicious of Islam. And it did so by accident.
Keywords: Oxford debate, Islam and West, suspicious of Islam, free speech, Charlie Hebdo, Muhammad cartoon, Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Aisha Khan, Arwa Elrayes, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Christus vincit, Islamic intimidation, free speech test, Oxford Debating Union, Western values, Islamism, cultural clash, UK politics, religious tolerance
