So, if anything, the Islamic state is more oppressive to Muslims than it is to non-Muslims. >> So, what you're saying is fundamentally there is a discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslims. >> This is the debate the Oxford Union was told not to hold. The motion, the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. Protest noise comes through the chamber walls while he speaks. He proposes it anyway without a safety net of any kind.

He takes an interruption on the jizya tax. He takes another on Sura 9 verse 5. He takes a third on British values polling. Watch how many of them he hands strike back. Let's get into it. >> Despite external pressure, internal pressure, political machinations, and every type of motion under the sun, this house voted clearly and decisively two weeks in a row to have this debate and live up to this society's name of being the last bastion of free speech.

We are here tonight cuz that principle matters and this motion matters. I rise to propose the motion that this house believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. The rise of Islam in the West has been the most notable and significant demographic change in the West over the course of the last few decades. Its effects, both positive and negative, are well known. But, if we are fully honest with ourselves, it's certainly not a secret that the West is in fact suspicious of Islam. >> Start with what he just said.

This house voted to hold this debate two weeks in a row. It survived two attempts to kill it before a single word was spoken. You can hear the protest outside while he speaks. Then comes the line that ends careers in this country. The West is already suspicious of Islam. He is not inventing that suspicion. He is pointing at the polling, at the headlines, at the crowd outside the door. He is daring the chamber to admit it. >> Tonight, the proposition will not cower away from the issue being debated here.

It's not whether the enlightened West should be suspicious of every religion. It's about Islam. The burden for side proposition will be to prove that good reason exists to find uniquely justifiable reasons uh to be suspicious in the religion of Islam. It's my belief those good reasons exist. It's my hope that this debate won't descend into being a series of increasingly technical, theological gotchas, nor the swinging around of anecdotes.

This debate, if it is to be honest, will examine how Muslims actually live their lives in accordance with their beliefs and the teachings of their faith and its leaders. Members of the house, I will set out during my speech the incompatibility of Islam with the values of religious tolerance and pluralism that underpin our society. I will then set out how Islam is more widely irreconcilable with the fundamental principles of Western liberal democratic society.

And I will end with a call to action. >> Notice how tightly he just drew the field. He refuses the escape hatch of every religion is bad. The motion says Islam, so he argues Islam. Then, he sets his own burden and accepts it. Prove there are uniquely justifiable reasons. He even rules out the two cheapest weapons available to him. No trading Quran verses for sport, no parade of convenient anecdotes, either. He wants this judged on how the doctrine actually governs.

That is a confident man volunteering to fight uphill. >> This discussion should not be as fraught or as, well, frankly you can hear it, as protested as it has been. And fundamentally, the West must move back to its fundamentally liberal roots. And accept that no culture, no religion, no belief may not be subject to the scrutiny of reason and virtue. But before that, Mr. Chair, is my obligation to introduce speakers on site opposition to this honorable house.

In the Union, we have a tradition of introducing the opposition speakers via roast. Given, however, is the last week of term, and I'm feeling in a very, unlike the protesters tonight, constructive mood, I thought I'd say some thank yous. Firstly, you will hear from Aisha Khan Aziz, the Union's chief negotiations officer. I'd like to thank Aisha for her work on this debate. She seems to have an extensive amount of contacts in the global Muslim community and some very entertaining anecdotes about every niche Muslim celebrity.

However, the way Aisha could be more helpful to any future president she may serve is perhaps by improving her matchmaking skills by finding them a and I must emphasize, quote, "snuggle buddy" who would dedicate eight weeks to jet deciding. >> He just told the room the rule everyone forgot. No culture, no religion, no belief is immune to reason. And he says it while protesters are audible through the door, which makes his point better than any argument could.

Then watch the register change completely. Union tradition says you roast the opposition bench. He stands there and thanks them instead. He is arguing the most inflammatory motion of the term, and he is the politest man in the room. And wait for the nickname he says the community gave one of them. [clears throat] >> Next we have Michael Dower. Michael is a podcaster from Luton. I'd like to thank Mr. Dower for being willing to speak in this debate despite all the difficulties and pressures many speakers on this side of face.

I also hear though, and despite both supporting Luton Town, that Mr. Dower may not exactly share many of the views with his fellow Hatter on side proposition. Then you will hear from Sir Reese Mog. Sir Jacob, I was corrected outside. I'd like to thank Sir Jacob for being a tireless defender of both this debate and freedom of speech. My biggest concern having heard Sir Sir Jacob in my first debate as a fresher was that he was debating on side opposition.

And that he decided to go woke. But then I realized there is nothing woke about defending the right of all peoples to practice ultra-conservative values that should have been left in the 19th century. Something Sir Jacob is famously familiar with. Next we have Abdal Abdal Andalusi. Much like many of the faces on side proposition Mr. Andalusi has been a vocal defender of the president's decision to have this debate. And I want to be absolutely clear that having the balls to defend your faith and put up to scrutiny is something I can literally only have the utmost respect for.

However, I was a bit confused when I heard Mr. Andalusi is so popular in the Muslim community for being its answer to, and I hate to say I'm quoting Muslim committee members here, who is the Muslim Tommy Robinson. >> That is four thank yous to people who came here to argue he is wrong. Every one of them had to walk past that protest to get in. He praises them for turning up under pressure. Then the knife slides in, wrapped in the compliment.

He says it takes real courage to put your own faith up for scrutiny. Then he quotes the nickname he says community members use for one of them. That name is the Muslim Tommy Robinson. He did not invent that line. >> And finally you will hear from our president, Awol Raes. Most of my job this term has been what we have begun colloquially referring to as Awol-gazing. But I'll do it again one last time. Awol has faced so much grief for having this important discussion, including most especially from her own community.

The bravery and courage she has exhibited to stay steadfast in the face of Awol from every hourly press request, every daily smear campaign, and every weekly motion challenging her authority and her decisions exemplifies exactly what this institution is about. >> [applause] [applause] >> I hate to say she's not getting off that easy. If nothing else, if her desired career as a Green Member of Parliament fails, I'm sure after her term she'll enjoy a safe backstop in Reform UK.

Mr. Chair, Madam President, these are your guests and they're all most welcome. >> He spends that whole passage defending the person who scheduled this debate. He lists the hourly press requests and the daily smear campaigns. He lists the weekly motions filed to challenge the president's authority. That is the price of putting one motion on a card. The chamber applauds because everyone in it knows it is true. Then the Reform UK joke lands and the room goes up.

That is the housekeeping done. What follows is the actual case and it opens on Sharia. >> Debates about exclusivism are familiar to any student of philosophy. Islam, as many religions do, has a doctrine that is the final revelation of truth. And that all of our revelation is either not divine, not final, or simply wrong. This isn't unusual. But Islam presents a unique challenge to the secular liberal order. While many belief systems engage in internal moral dialogue, Islam encompasses an overarching political and legal framework referred to as Sharia, that makes explicit actionable demands on the governance of the state.

This system includes a system of taxation called, and I'm aware I'm going to butcher this, but jizya, whereby non-Muslims are in Muslim lands, as envisaged by the Quran, required to pay a tax for the extension of freedom of belief and the right to autonomy of life. We talk a lot about how we should be tolerant, how we should be accepting of beliefs, and I'm sure that different presentations of Islamic law will be presented.

When you examine concepts like the jizya or specific jurisprudence regarding apostasy, we need not quote trade quotes from scripture. We can debate the more essential tension between a political doctrine that legally categorizes citizens by their faith status under Western liberal system that mandates equality under law regardless of belief. Take jizya. Is it not fundamentally liberal? And is it not fundamentally liberal and Western to believe in discriminatory taxes against those of different faiths that are a requirement to be guaranteed the most basic of what we in the West would call human rights.

Such as the right to even light a >> This is the load-bearing beam of his whole case. His argument is not theological, it is structural. Other belief systems argue morality inside themselves. Islam, he says, carries a legal and political framework aimed at the state. Then he names his example. Jizya is a tax on non-Muslims for the right to keep their own faith. And he refuses to fight it verse by verse. His question is simpler than that.

Can a doctrine that sorts citizens by faith sit inside a law that promises equality? Then he opens the floor. >> Feel free. >> Um it's not discriminatory tax taxes, it's that in Islamic state there's there's only one level of citizenship. Non-Muslims are the citizens. Muslims are the subjects of the state. We have obligations to the state that non-Muslims are not subject to. And if you go to Pakistan, for example, they have some aspects of Islamic law there.

In the constitution, Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol. But Pakistani Christians are actually allowed to drink alcohol and follow their practices. So, if anything, an Islamic state is more oppressive to Muslims than it is to non-Muslims. >> So, what you're saying is fundamentally there is a discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslims. >> Watch what happens the second he opens the floor. The intervention answers that non-Muslims are citizens and Muslims are the subjects.

It offers as proof where Christians may drink alcohol and Muslims may not. So, the claim is that Islamic rule falls harder on Muslims. He does not argue with a single word of it. He just asks whether that means the law treats the two differently. The answer [snorts] is yes, and that was his entire point. The rebuttal proved his premise. >> Not in the sense >> This is but one example. Scholars may disagree on the interpretation of various verses of the Quran and Hadiths from again, a quote, "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them." in Sura 9:5 to quote, "Whoever changes religion, put him to death." in the words of the Prophet Muhammad in the Hadiths.

But only these verses, even if not literal instructions, go on. >> In the Sura that you mentioned, Sura verse, the verse of the Sura, sorry, can you recite the verse that comes before it and then also the verse that comes after it? And are you willing to accept that that verse was given in a very specific time regarding a very specific tribe that perverted or prevented the treaty that they had signed with Muslims that is not a universal command upon all Muslims? >> I found about get what.

But only these verses, even if not literal instructions, even if not divine law, tell you something about the fundamental difference between Islam and other faith. >> He quotes two lines here, Sura 9:5 and the Hadith on leaving the faith. The response from the floor is not a denial. It is a request to recite the verse before and the verse after. Then a specific tribe, a specific treaty, a specific year. That is the oldest move in the book and he does not take it.

He told the chamber he would not trade scripture quotes and he meant it. He goes straight back to the structure instead. >> Islam is a totalizing religion. Non-believers are expected to convert or end in fear. Not in the divine realm above, but here on earth. >> What information? >> Polytheists, apostates, and all of the other deserving exclusion or worse. This brings me quite nicely to my second point. Ultimately, I could list countless examples of how Muslim majority countries treat non-believers.

How it is potentially lethal in countries like Syria to be a Jew or religious minority. How Iran hangs homosexuals. How countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia subjugate women through passport controls moderated by a male guardianship schemes. But we hear the same old tired criticism. I want us to think about this differently and honestly. We can put this down to you, as I'm sure side proposition will, local anomalies or distorted interpretations.

Yet nearly 80% of the world's Muslim population live in states where these frameworks are not just abstract theory, but the law of the land. We must grapple with this reality. >> This is the strongest stretch of the speech so far. He lists Syria's religious minorities and executions of homosexuals in Iran. He lists [clears throat] male guardianship rules over women's passports in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Then he does something most debaters never do.

He calls his own list tired. Anyone can wave a list of atrocities around. His real number is the one that follows. Nearly 80% of the world's Muslim population lives under those legal frameworks. That is not a local anomaly and it is not a distorted reading. That is the law of the land. >> We can observe the outcome of this doctrine where it is empowered to govern through the very same people who profess its teachings.

If that practical truth is the standard of governance in the vast majority of the Muslim world, why should we, as a liberal society, treat the expansion of that system as if the outcome would be any different? Most concerningly, political Islam, once dismissed as being crazy and as fringe as the conspiracy of the Epstein files is now being normalized as a policy end by an insurgent Green Party. The idea of Islam as a political ideology certainly isn't new, but the open pursuit of it by parliamentary hopefuls, moving from the streets to the hall of government, should concern anyone who values our secular democracy.

When the state goal of a movement is to institutionalize its legal framework, to replace existing statutes with an alternative code, we are no longer discussing a religion but a political competitor. >> Here is the line that will get clipped. Political Islam used to sit in the same drawer as Epstein file conspiracies. Now he says it is being normalized into a party platform. That is the Green Party he is pointing at, not a fringe group, and his test is clean.

A religion asks for the freedom to worship, a political competitor asks to replace the statute book. The second one is a rival for power, and rivals get scrutinized. That is not a claim about anyone's faith. It is a claim about who writes the law. >> Finally, I will leave you a point. It is my choice, as it is your choice, to be suspicious of Islam or not. But let's not act like we really treat it that way. The West has got into this unfortunate habit of thinking tolerance means protection, avoidance of scrutiny, and avoidance of uncomfortable conversations.

To be clear, faith is a choice. I have faith. I'm certainly not an atheist. But I expect, and nor should anyone expect, any accommodation, no safe space. The freedom for faith incurs the liability of criticism. If truly we shouldn't be suspicious of Islam, then why the visceral backlash that you can hear right now to this debate? Why do more Muslims not they see this debate how our president does? Look at the five pillars poll as an example of how the Muslim world sees this very important debate.

What about how the noble gentleman sitting right there sees it as an opportunity to defend his religion? The UK >> The point of information >> Feel free. >> The initial five pillars poll suggested 66% of Muslims was supportive of this debate going through. >> And then they found out the speakers and they changed it. The UK They knew about Tommy and that was one side. >> The freedom for faith incurs the liability of criticism.

Notice that he is not an atheist taking free shots. He says he has faith himself and he still refuses a safe space for it. Then the five pillars poll comes up. The audience member in the kufi corrects him from the floor. 66% of Muslims backed this debate going ahead. His answer takes about 10 seconds. They backed it until they found out who was speaking. The number did not move because of the motion. It moved because of the guest list. >> The UK regards, quote, religion or belief as a protected characteristic.

But no belief system should be protected from inquiry. You should have the freedom to practice, I should have the freedom to criticize, to scrutinize, or in fact condemn. Religions are systems of propositions, political, philosophical, personal, and ultimately ontological. One can certainly be suspicious of Islam and I hate to say you are allowed. It's not bigotry, it's not far right. How can a system of belief that demands the discrimination of apostates be compatible with a secular order based on equality and rights?

How can a religious order that imposes subjugation as morality be compatible with a liberal democratic order. Members of the house, if if you, like me, can't answer those questions, >> This is the cleanest distinction in the entire speech. The law protects people, not propositions. You have the freedom to practice, he has the freedom to scrutinize. Then he says the words everyone else avoids. It is not bigotry, and it is not far right.

He closes on two questions instead of a slogan. How does a doctrine that punishes apostasy fit an order built on equal rights? If you cannot answer that, vote for the motion. >> On every measure of British values poll last year, democracy, equality before the law, loyalty to this country, opposition to bigotry, BRITISH MUSLIMS SCORED HIGHER than the British average. Will the speaker concede that the community he's asking us to be suspicious of is holding the line on the values he claims to defend? >> I would direct the president to other polls, including the polls about whether October 7th actually happened, the polls about whether 9/11 was staged by the American government, the polls about the basics of British values. >> 16 minutes of one speaker in a room that fought twice to stop this.

He never once asked for the heat to be turned down. He opened the floor three separate times and answered on the spot. Notice what he never did. He never said a word against [clears throat] Muslims as people. Every sentence was aimed at doctrine, at statute, at political programs. That is the distinction Britain keeps failing to make, and it is why this debate needed protection to take place at all. So, where do you land?

Did he prove the West has justifiable reasons to be suspicious, or did the floor land a real hit? Drop your thoughts in the comments.