The motion was narrowly defeated by some 51% to 49%. The Pro team (which was defeated) was arguing that although there is nothing wrong with Muslims being political, there is a threat to the west if Muslims run an agenda based on a loliticized Islamic agenda. I do believe that the pro team did it's best to win the debate. To press their message home, they reminded the audience that even the most moderate Islamic parties run an agenda which:
- Prohibits women to become heads of state
- Prohibits non Muslims to be heads of state
Obviously there were all sorts of other points raised by both sides. It was a vigorous and by and large polite debate although both sides argued their case passionately. What I found most enlightening though is that although most of the audience and ALL the debaters (on both sides) were Muslim, no one denied the veracity of the above two points. Nevertheless, they seemed to just skim over it, as if those points had no relevance at all, even though the pro side reminded the audience more than once that those prohibitions, by political Islam, tend to dehumanize women and non Muslims and that therefore POLITICIZED ISLAM DOES represent a threat to westerners! I do believe that they made one MAJOR error though. If I would have been arguing their case, I would have put the following question to their opposition and to the audience:
How would Muslims feel about a political party which would run on the basis that Muslims are prohibited to become heads of state? Would they consider such a party a threat to themselves?I think that had they put that question, they might have narrowly won the debate instead of narrowly losing it. At least I hope so ....