Doha Debate: “This House believes that political Islam is a threat to the West”

[Reffo]

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:

1. Prohibits women to become heads of state
2. 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 ....

[andak01]

Reffo, you can't make that argument within the confines of any theocratic or semi-theocratic state. If the basis of the state is the supremacy of a particular religion, then having it run by a non-believer causes it to no longer be a theocracy. That's like suggesting that the head of the Vatican City could be a woman or a Jew. The very thought of it is an anathema to what the Vatican City is. For that to happen, the Vatican City's power structure would need to be obliterated.

[Reffo]

andak

I agree with you. And on second thought, I guess the debate should have put a context of location to the whole topic (more clearly). Why? Because if we are talking of political Islam in a predominantly Muslim country then I guess a westerner would not consider the prohibition of a non Muslim, to be a leader, a threat (certainly not an external threat to the west).

Of course, that still leaves the question of the prohibition against women which I as a westerner find confronting but again, I have to concede that it is not an external threat to the west.

So, I guess, I have to concede that if we are talking in that contexts, maybe the voters did get it right. However, if we would transpose the context to a multicultural western country, that's an entirely different proposition. In that context, I believe that the voters got it wrong for the reasons that I outlined in my previous post. To be fair, I do believe that the debaters were talking about the context of predominantly Muslim countries ....