The Oxford Union voted last night that Islam is compatible with democracy. But before debating world politics, the packed chamber was treated to nearly an hour of the Union’s very own politics, with President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, his supporters, and his critics engaging in a heated debate over racism, rules changes, and the legitimacy of returning officers. The motion “This House Believes Islam is Incompatible with Democracy” saw 49 votes in favour and 116 votes against.
Before taking questions, Osman-Mowafy began with a summary of last term’s controversy over “institutional racism” and the undemocratic nature of returning officers, who were the primary target of last week’s reforms. Social Events Officer Shermar Pryce asked Osman-Mowafy if he was still friends with a member who had called Pryce a “coconut”, eventually escalating into shouts about dinner and Instagram slides. Russell Kwok, who was blocked from becoming a Deputy Returning Officer, accused Osman-Mowafy of misspelling his name and alleging that he was “racist by association”, a term Osman-Mowafy denied using.
Students of law – a subject that appears to dominate Union leadership these days – must have greatly enjoyed the courtroom-esque scene, but the same can’t be said for the audience. Throughout this heated saga, students repeatedly asked for the Union to move onto the main debate, to applause and cheers from the chamber. The invited speakers, one of whom had flown in from Malaysia just for this debate, sat silently throughout all this, exchanging amused looks and occasionally giggling.
Finally underway, the debate began with Deputy Director of Press Yashas Ramakrishnan opening for the proposition. He started by “roasting” his opposition, mentioning that Usame Zukorlic used to run an organic store and thanking him for “putting down the green beans to focus on something more serious”. The audience did not laugh. Ramakrishnan’s argument hinged on the idea that Islamic governments can only function as the voice of God, making representation of the people impossible. He seemed eager to get through as much argument as possible — so eager he had to be asked to stop speaking so quickly.
Next came Treasurer-Elect Moosa Harraj, who began by saying Ramakrishnan’s stance on the motion makes sense since “when Muslims run, they beat him in democratic elections”, referring to his recent loss in standing committee elections to three Muslims. He went on to refer to proposition speaker Benedict Masters as a “socially acceptable Boris Johnson.” Harraj’s argument hinged on an explanation of democracy and justice in Islamic history, as well as highlighting the importance of “consultation” in the religion.
Next came the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Zuhdi Jasser. Jasser began his speech by asserting that he was a proud Muslim. As an American, Jasser deemed Britain and the USA the “free-est countries in the world”, and was met with applause from the audience. He defined Islam as not just a religion, but also a “brand”, and one that he believes has been corrupted; Islam could be compatible with democracy, but is not. Jasser found time in his nine-minute speech to advertise for his book at least twice.
Serbian politician Usame Zukoric informed the chamber that this was his first debate in English, which he said proved a “special challenge”. Zukoric put himself and his protection of Muslim minority rights forward as an example for the compatibility of religion and democracy. He provided examples of Muslim democracies such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Tunisia, urging the audience not to allow “isolated examples of extremism” to “overshadow” the Muslim faith. Zukoric finished by reminding the audience of the importance of European Muslims.
Masters began his speech by addressing the “elephant in the room” and admitting that he also did not know why he had been chosen to speak. Masters tried to appeal to the chamber’s baser instincts by starting his speech with an insult to the French, a tactic that received a tepid response. Masters’ main argument was that Islam could not be compatible with democracy because divine law would always trump human law. He took a different approach than his fellow speakers, by admitting that all faiths struggled with this same problem, concluding that secularism is the only ideology that can coexist with democracy.
Now reaching 10.15pm, Malaysian politician Maszlee Malik had to wait awkwardly for an exodus of people leaving the chamber before he could begin his speech. Malik detailed his work with education in Malaysia as a real-life example of how Islam could be compatible with democracy. He went on to call out what he called the “hypocrisy of Western democracy”, referring in particular to what he saw as bystanderism in the context of the war in the Gaza strip – Malik’s explicit referral to it as a “genocide” elicited applause from the chamber.
The final proposition speaker, the former Deputy Leader of Reform UK, Ben Habib, began by informing the chamber he was not actually interested in debating the motion. Instead, he decided he would debate what he deemed a more important question – whether or not Islam, as it is practised in Britain, is compatible with British democracy. Instead of talking about the motion, Habib launched into an attack on “diversity, equality, and inclusion”. He professed that he believed liberalism had gone “too far” and that the UK was now “positively prejudiced” for minorities.
At last, Majjid Nawaz began his speech by arguing that no proposition speaker had been arguing for the motion, which referred to Islam in its essence, not as it is practised now or its history. Nawaz went on to say that he believed the motion was dangerous, saying that it was sentiment like it that had led to the communal riots experienced in the UK earlier this year, as well as the Bosnian genocide of the 1990s. He went on to state that there is no predetermined way to Islamically govern because concepts like “state” and “constitution” did not exist when Islamic scriptures were being written; systems, he said, are made by people.
Editors’ note: Commentary herein represents the opinion of the reporter, not of Cherwell.
