The Oxford Union in 1933 held a famous King and Country debate in which the motion that members would under no circumstances fight for King and country passed by a large margin. The Oxford Union does tend, along with its sister debating society in Cambridge, to be a reflection of the way that the elites view the world in the United Kingdom. So, it was with a great deal of interest that I watched the debate last month on whether ‘this house has a right to be suspicious of Islam’.
The speakers in favour of the proposition were Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jonathan Sacerdoti, whilst Abdullah Al-Andalusi, Michael Doward, and Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke against it. The motion was defeated by a narrow margin with a much smaller than usual attendance.
What was of particular note were the hundreds of protesters outside because of the presence of Tommy Robinson, and indeed because of the subject itself. Ironically evidence in support of the motion came from a Muslim student stating that it was only because of the Muslim and predominantly South Asian executive that Robinson was not ‘quite literally cooked’. The level of security needed because of a debate was indicative of a deeply divided society, under threat from extremists.
The debate was interesting but also depressing for various reasons. I want to focus especially on Jacob Rees-Mogg's surprising opposition to the motion. But before we do that, let's look at some of the arguments that were moved before he closed the debate.
All of these speeches are available on YouTube, but I thought that Robinson spoke clearly about Islam with plenty of examples, although he did look nervous and well out of his comfort zone (which he was). At least two of the speakers against the proposition spent a great deal of time personally attacking him.
The main arguments against the motion that we should be suspicious of Islam were based largely upon the fact that there are Muslims who do good works and that Muslims are opposed to pornography, drink, drugs, criminality, and alcohol.
There was one spectacular piece of theatre when Laurence Fox threatened to show a portrait of Muhammad, and members of the house desperately tried to stop him, including Rees-Mogg, who tried to argue that he was not allowed to use props, something which was itself wrong. Fox eventually pulled out his cartoon of Rees-Mogg, but his point was well made. The level of fear in the room showed just how far the restrictions typically imposed by Islam on societies where it is dominant have already taken hold.
It was also interesting to see people arguing that no Islamic terrorist is a real Muslim, and that any verse cited from the Quran which advocates violence was just a misinterpretation. Astonishingly, the claim was made that free speech and debate are inherent to Islam (I am struggling to think of any Islamic country which allows these to the extent that the West does – or at least used to). And it was denied that the Quran condemns homosexuality, the argument being that the condemnation of homosexuality came from the West, not from Islam.
But let’s turn to the astonishing speech given by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man I admire and regard as one of the great orators and politicians of our time - who at first mocked those who were suspicious of Islam, stating that they have no confidence in the values of the West.
He pointed out that he was not going to be converted to Islam, and we shouldn't worry that other people were.
He argued that Islam was the foundation of capitalism and would lead to lower taxes.
He then went on to say that there were some Christians who have committed evil acts, and that we should be far more concerned about China and Russia than Islam.
He argued that Muslims did not sack Constantinople, and that our constitutional system can cope with 6% of the population being Muslims because our constitution, apparently, will not allow a Muslim takeover.
What goes on in Iran will not happen in Westminster.
Sharia law is not going to apply in the UK or the USA. It is illegal for any law in this land to be given out by any court other than the King's court.
But then came his most astonishing claim. The reason the West is strong is because of Christ and because of the resurrection. The Gospels underpin the values of our society, and therefore the gates of hell shall never prevail against the values of our society, which are the values of Christ. And to demonstrate this, he held up a cross with what he said was a piece of the true cross within it.
What are we to make of this?
I was far more disturbed by Rees-Mogg's speech than those of the Muslim panellists as he was wrong in so many areas.
Muslims did sack Constantinople, not in 1204 but in 1453, and tens of thousands were killed or enslaved. Many Orthodox churches were desecrated and stripped. Some were destroyed or burned. The Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque. Some surviving inhabitants were allowed to remain. But the statement that the Muslims did not sack Constantinople is a demonstrably false one.
Rees-Mogg also cited Ibn Khaldun (1332 to 1406) as a great political theorist we ought to admire in the West today. He cited, in particular, his writings on taxation. However, as Jonathan Sacerdoti pointed out in a later X post, Ibn Khaldun is actually an example of why Islam does not fit with the West.
Ibn Khaldun stated that Islam has a unique divine obligation to aggressively subjugate other nations. He wrote that, in the Islamic community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everyone to Islam, either by persuasion or by force.
He pointed out that one of the key differences between Christianity and Islam was that Christians were not commanded to seek global political dominion, but Muslims were.
Khaldun argued that Muslims were intrinsically, culturally, and morally superior to all non-Muslims, and that all citizens have an absolute religious duty to unconditionally submit to state authority, even if the ruler is actively stealing their property or acting cruelly.
He argued that people who lived in the extreme hot climates of sub-Saharan Africa were closer to dumb animals than to rational beings, and he used these prejudices to justify the Arab slave trade, writing, "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery because Negroes have little that is essentially human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals."
He also openly argued that a religious theocracy, a caliphate, was the only legitimate form of governance and explicitly stated that purely secular political systems based on human reason are fundamentally corrupt and sinful because they prioritize worldly greed over divine law.
Yet this is the man that Jacob Rees-Mogg cited as an example of why Islam was compatible with the West! It is the ignorance that is chilling from such an educated, cultured, and specifically Christian politician. Of course, he is right to say that no Christian lives in abject fear of being taken over by Islam. But I doubt very much that Rees-Mogg would argue that we have no right to be suspicious of communism or of China or of Russia. Indeed, he argued the opposite.
But why should a Christian be fearful of that? The reality is that, of course, we are going to be suspicious of Islam because it is an authoritarian religion, which is fundamentally, at its core, anti-Christian and is entirely opposed to the values of the Christian West.
His argument based on freedom of religion did not make sense either. Christians should not be arguing that Islam is a false religion and therefore we want to ban it. But neither should we go to the other extreme of saying that because we permit freedom of religion, there is nothing to fear in any of these permitted religions – especially the ones that want to deny us the very freedom of religion that will be used to make us submit to theirs!
Rees-Mogg’s naive faith in the Westminster political system and constitution was stunning. Does he not realise that what has been built can just as easily be destroyed - indeed, some of us would argue that it is already being destroyed. Rees-Mogg said that Sharia law is not going to apply in the UK or USA, and yet there are over 80-plus Sharia courts at the moment.
It is true that the reason the West is (was?) strong is because of Christ and because of the resurrection and the Gospels. But if people stop believing in Christ and the resurrection and the Gospels, then the foundation is destroyed. The fruit may be retained for a while … but not for long when the roots have gone.
Jesus did not say that the gates of hell would never prevail against Westminster. He said that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church. And we have many examples in history of nations that once had strong Christian churches being destroyed, Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire - one of the greatest of all civilizations - being the prime example, but there are other examples across North African, Egypt, and Turkey.
Rees-Mogg's view is based on wishful thinking and a degree of superstition and superficiality that is disturbing. The cross that he held up did not have a piece of the true cross on it - the United Kingdom was thankfully delivered from such superstitions and idolatry at the time of the Reformation. But Rees-Mogg seems to be taking us back into a world where Christianity is represented by the idolatry that caused Muhammad to form Islam in the first place, at least partially.
It is ironic that the Christian position was defended by a Jew and a working-class populist who has only recently come to some understanding of the Christian faith, while the Christian intellectual seemed blissfully ignorant of the foundations of our own nation and of the threat posed to it by external forces. On the other hand, if someone believes he is walking around with a piece of the true cross on his person, perhaps it is not surprising that he cannot see the irrationality of claiming that Islam poses no threat to the West!
It is also ironic that the greatest warning against the influence of Islam came from the late great atheist Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens stated that Western societies were being pressured into self-censorship and appeasement in the face of Islamism, especially because any criticism of Islam was being re-labelled as Islamophobia. Such as Rees-Mogg's mocking, "What are you afraid of?" As Hitchins memorably put it: "The barbarians never take a city until someone holds the gates open to them. And it's your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you." Jacob Rees-Mogg is exhibit A.
So where do we go with all this? I'm with Rees-Mogg on saying that we should not have the kind of crippling fear that stops us from acting, but neither should we be blind to what is happening in our culture and society. The history of Islamist persecution of Christians, combined with the somewhat bizarre and suicidal left-wing alliance with Islamism, is likely to mean severe trouble for the Christian Church in the days ahead.
Rees-Mogg believes it is our constitution that will protect us, but he forgets that constitutions can be changed. For example, we are soon to have a new blasphemy law to prevent ‘Islamophobia’.
We can close our eyes, or we can open them and plead with the Lord to save us from the destruction of our nation's Christian foundations – and from those who would unwittingly vote for those seeking such destruction.
David Robertson writes on https://substack.com/@theweeflea
More by David Robertson
What should Christians make of Tommy Robinson?
Amid calls to 'make Britain Christian again', here are some questions for the Church
