England: the prestigious Oxford Union concludes that Islam and democracy are compatible
The Oxford Union in England is a prestigious debating society at the University of Oxford, founded in 1823. It hosts passionate discussions and renowned speakers, who hold forth on societal, political and cultural issues.
The Oxford Union Society recently debated a controversial assertion: “This Chamber considers that Islam is incompatible with democracy”.
This debate, which brought together diverse Muslim and non-Muslim speakers, aimed to explore the compatibility between Islamic and democratic principles, raising profound questions about multiculturalism and religious diversity.
Supporters of the motion, such as Zuhdi Jasser, an American physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, have pointed to institutional obstacles within majority-Muslim countries, saying that religious power is corrupted and influenced by “petro-Islam.” makes it difficult to establish democratic systems.
In opposition, Serbian Minister Usame Zukolic and Malaysian professor Mazlee Malik argued that many Muslim-majority countries, such as Indonesia and the Maldives, embody stable democracy and advocate coexistence.
Moosa Harraj, treasurer of the Oxford Union, responded to the arguments of the proposal by recalling the history of several women leaders in Islamic nations, testifying according to him to the compatibility of Islam with democratic values. For his part, Maajid Nawaz, the last speaker from the opposition, denounced the confusion between modern political practices and the foundations of Islam, urging us to avoid misinterpretation of religious texts.
The argument for the incompatibility of Islam with democracy was also supported by Benedict Masters, a law student at the Oxford Union, who argued that any religion based on divine law cannot coexist with a system democratic where the popular will takes precedence. He questioned the necessity of democracy in the presence of absolute religious principles, suggesting that Islam, as a legal and spiritual framework, limits popular sovereignty.
However, opponents have highlighted concrete examples of democracies in Muslim countries, while denouncing the biased selection of non-democratic states as representative of the entire Islamic world.
At the end of a lively debate which captivated the large audience, the motion “of an incompatibility of Islam with democracy” was rejected by 112 votes to 49, the Oxford Union concluding that Islam can be compatible with democracy.
In conclusion, the debate revealed the complexities and misunderstandings surrounding the relationship between Islam and democracy, highlighting varied perspectives within the Muslim community itself. The motion rejected by a wide margin of votes reflects growing support for a more nuanced vision, affirming that Islam, despite its diverse interpretations, can find points of compatibility with democratic values.
In France, certain intellectual and political discourses continue to nourish the idea that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democratic values. This perception, often tinged with Islamophobia, associates Islam with authoritarian regimes and opposition to the principles of freedom and equality, influencing part of public opinion.
Political figures and certain thinkers argue that Islam, perceived as a restrictive and obscurantist religion, could threaten the French secular model. However, the recent Oxford Union debate contradicts this vision: by demonstrating that certain states from the Muslim world practice democracy and that Muslim intellectuals openly defend democratic values, it reminds us that this presumed incompatibility is not based on universal realities.
On the contrary, various contexts show that Islam, interpreted in its diversity, can completely coexist with democratic regimes, as evidenced by current examples of States where democratic and Islamic values go hand in hand.
