Even the most intellectual among us probably don’t have time to watch the full two hours of a debate at the Oxford Union last week in which two sides at the institution hashed out the question over whether the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.
So, I present to you a decent summation of the outcome of the debate.
First, the academic and cultural elite of Britain got themselves scared stiff over the possibility that a depiction of the prophet Muhammad might be displayed, and second, one of the participants on the Islamist side promised one of the participants that they need just say the word and their opponent would be “cooked” by a mob.
The first participant was Laurence Fox, a comedian and conservative activist who promised to unveil a depiction of Muhammad — verboten under the tenets of Islam, and worth killing for in certain circumstances.
“Most important to me is the free speech of this,” Fox said.
“So, let’s get this out, shall we? Seventy-eight percent of British Muslims believe that no publication should publish pictures of Muhammad.”
“An overwhelming majority.” Fox said.
“That’s nine out of every 10 Muslims that are walking the streets today in a country which absolutely abandoned blasphemy laws.”
Fox held up a folder containing what he said was a cartoon of Muhammad.
“And it’s time to show that I will not submit. I will not adhere to the religious laws of far-off places. My wife asked me not to show this for fear of repercussions in my family. But I told her if I did not, then I had already submitted to Islam.”
At this point, the other side — headed by Aisha Khan Aziz, one of the student speakers — objected by saying that it should have been enough that they were invited in the first place and objecting to the use of props.
After much squirming and hemming and hawing, it was determined that props were indeed allowed. So thus allowed, and with everyone on pins and needles, he unveiled… a picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the opposing speaker in the debate.