Mehdi Hasan Defends Islam as a Religion of Peace at Oxford Union Debate
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
College Student Parker Challenges Charlie Kirk on Gender Definitions Using Biblical Arguments on Jubilee
8:17
Tucker Carlson 2028 Presidential Run Has Republican Jewish Coalition and Israel Lobby Deeply Worried About Anti-Zionism Gaining Ground
13:44
Destiny Debates 20 Trump Supporters on January 6th, Immigration, and Economic Policy
1:58:54
Mehdi Hasan Defends Islam as a Religion of Peace at Oxford Union Debate
Mehdi Hasan delivers a passionate defense of Islam at the Oxford Union, confronting claims that Islam is inherently violent. Speaking as a Muslim representative, Hasan challenges opponents who blame Islam for terrorism, pointing to historical Christian violence and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims worldwide. He argues that extremists represent a tiny minority misinterpreting Islam for political reasons, not religious ones. Hasan criticizes the debate's opposition for lacking expertise in Islam, Arabic, or terrorism studies while making sweeping generalizations about 1.6 billion Muslims. He presents evidence from scholars, terrorism experts like Robert Pape, and global polling data showing 93% of Muslims reject violence. Hasan warns that voting against the motion would legitimize bigotry and fuel division, urging the audience to recognize Islam's true message of peace, mercy, and compassion rather than empowering those who seek a clash of civilizations.
Mehdi Hasan begins his speech at the Oxford Union with striking irony, sarcastically apologizing for terrorist attacks as a Muslim representative. He addresses the opposition's opening statements that apparently blamed Islam collectively for the Bali bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and the 7/7 London attacks. Hasan expresses astonishment at such sweeping claims, particularly on a day when the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom publicly stated that such views are unacceptable.
Hasan challenges the factual accuracy of the opposition's arguments, pointing out a fundamental historical error made by the second speaker who claimed Islam was born in Saudi Arabia. Hasan corrects the record, noting that Islam was born in 610 AD while Saudi Arabia as a nation was only established in 1932 AD—a discrepancy of 1,322 years.
Contributions of Islamic Civilization to Western Advancement
Addressing claims that Islam has held back intellectual progress, Hasan highlights the contributions of Muslim scholars to mathematics and science. He specifically mentions Al-Khwarizmi, one of history's greatest mathematicians who worked during the Golden Age of Islam. Al-Khwarizmi developed not only algebra but also algorithms—without which modern computers and laptops would not exist.
Hasan notes the irony that Daniel Johnson printed his speech criticizing Muslims on a laptop that depends on technology rooted in Islamic mathematical contributions. He further references historian David Levering Lewis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "The Golden Crucible," who argued that there would be no Renaissance or Reformation in Europe without the contributions of Muslim theologians, philosophers, and scientists like Ibn Sina and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) who brought Greek texts to Europe.
Addressing Anti-Semitism and Historical Context
Hasan acknowledges that anti-Semitism exists in parts of the Muslim community, referencing his own New Statesman article on the subject that generated controversy. However, he clarifies that he never claimed this anti-Semitism was caused by the religion of Islam itself. Rather, he argues that modern anti-Semitism in the Middle East was imported from Christian Europe.
He recounts a conversation with Thomas Friedman, the Jewish American columnist for The New York Times, who told him at the Oxford Union that had Muslims been running Europe in the 1940s, six million additional Jews would still be alive. Hasan states he will not accept lectures on anti-Semitism from those defending the judeo-Christian values of a continent that murdered six million Jews.
When challenged on this point, Hasan clarifies that he does not believe Europe is evil or bad—he identifies as a proud European. His point is that if the debate is going to descend into citing the worst atrocities committed by members of each faith, then Christianity has an equally troubling historical record.
Christianity's Historical Violence
Hasan notes that Daniel Johnson was a last-minute replacement for Douglas Murray, with whom Hasan has well-documented differences. He acknowledges that atheists like Murray and Peter Atkins view all religions as potentially evil and violent, which he considers intellectually consistent.
However, Hasan takes issue with Daniel's robust defense of Christianity while attacking Islam, pointing out that Christians acting in the name of Jesus gave the world the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, anti-Jewish pogroms, European colonialism in Africa and Asia, the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and countless arson and bomb attacks on abortion clinics in the United States continuing to the present day.
Despite cataloging these atrocities, Hasan emphasizes that he does not actually believe Christianity is a religion of violence and hate. He states his belief that Christianity, like Islam and virtually every mainstream religion, is fundamentally based on love, compassion, and faith.
The God of Islam: Mercy and Compassion
Hasan describes his faith as one in which 113 out of the 114 chapters of the Quran begin by introducing the God of Islam as a God of mercy and compassion. He states he would not have it any other way, and that he does not follow a religion that introduces God as a God of war, wrath, hate, or injustice.
He references Adam's earlier presentation showing the mercy, love, and justice found throughout the Quran. Hasan acknowledges that the Quran does contain verses referring to warfare and violence, but emphasizes that this is not a debate about pacifism. Islam is not a pacifistic faith—it allows military action and violence in certain limited contexts. A minority of Muslims do take these teachings out of context, but this does not reflect mainstream Islamic teaching.
Lack of Islamic Expertise Among Opposition
Hasan finds it amusing that in a debate specifically about Islam, the opposition consists of a graduate in law, a graduate in modern history, and a graduate in chemistry—but not a single expert on Islam, scholar of Islam, historian of Islam, speaker of Arabic, terrorism expert, security expert, or pollster qualified to speak about what Muslims actually believe or think.
Instead, the opposition has presented sweeping opinions and generalizations without the credentials to back them up.
Terrorism Research: Political Motivations, Not Religious
Hasan cites Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, one of America's leading terrorism experts, who studied every single case of suicide terrorism between 1980 and 2005—315 cases in total. Pape concluded that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any of the world's religions.
Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.
Hasan notes the irony that the opposition and Muslim terrorists like those in al-Qaeda actually share common ground—both believe that Islam is a warlike, violent religion. They agree on this fundamental characterization. Osama bin Laden would be nodding along to everything the opposition has said. The problem is that mainstream Muslims—the majority of Muslims around the world—do not agree with this characterization.
Global Muslim Opinion Research
When opponents cited various polls, Hasan counters with the Gallup organization's massive poll of Muslims worldwide—35,000 to 50,000 Muslims across 35 countries. This research found that 93% of Muslims rejected the 9/11 attacks and suicide attacks. Of the 7% who did not reject them, all cited political reasons for their support of violence when interviewed in focus groups, not religious reasons.
Islamic Scholarly Consensus Against Terrorism
Addressing what Islamic scholars actually say, Hasan directs attention to Oxford's own Center for Islamic Studies and Sheikh Afifi al-Akiti, a massively well-credentialed and respected Islamic scholar who has studied across the world. In the days following the 7/7 London bombings, Sheikh al-Akiti published a fatwa denouncing terrorism in the name of Islam, calling for the protection of all non-combatants at all times, and describing suicide bombings as an innovation with no basis in Islamic law.
Hasan also references Sheikh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, one of Pakistan's most famous Islamic scholars, who published a 600-page fatwa condemning the killing of all innocents and all suicide bombings unconditionally, without any ifs or buts.
This represents nothing new, Hasan argues—this is mainstream Islam and mainstream Islamic scholarship that has maintained these positions for years. Islamic teaching does not support going out and killing people indiscriminately in the streets, on buses, or in malls based on cherry-picked Quran verses taken without context, understanding, interpretation, or scholarly commentary.
The Sharia Law Myth
Responding to warnings about sharia law from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hasan states he would like to see "the book of sharia law"—because it does not exist. People argue extensively over what sharia law is and means. By claiming there is only one monolithic version of sharia, critics empower extremists and give them unwarranted authority to define Islamic law.
The Diversity of 1.6 Billion Muslims
Hasan emphasizes that Islam is a 1,400-year-old global religion followed by 1.6 billion people in every corner of the world—a quarter of humanity from all backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicities. Yet the opposition wants to generalize, stereotype, and smear this vast population in order to win a debate.
Even if one accepts the premise that recent attackers and bombers like Faisal Shahzad (the Times Square bomber) and Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) were motivated by Islam, Hasan poses a critical question: If Islam truly is responsible for these killings, if Islam is what motivates these people, and if Islam is therefore not a religion of peace but a religion of war, then why aren't the rest of Muslims doing it?
Why is it such a tiny minority of Muslims interpreting their religion in the violent way the opposition claims is normative? Even assuming there are 16,000 suicide bombers in the world (there are not), that would represent only 0.001% of the global Muslim population. What about the other 99.99% of Muslims whom the opposition either ignores or smears?
The Fundamental Question
The reality, Hasan states, is that the vast majority of Muslims are not blowing themselves up. The opposition did not come to the debate worried that Hasan and his debate partner Adam might pull open their jackets and detonate explosives, despite being followers of what the opposition characterizes as a warlike warrior religion intent on taking over Europe.
Unless the opposition can answer why the vast majority of Muslims around the world do not behave as violently and aggressively as a tiny minority of politically motivated extremists, they might as well give up and stop pretending they have anything relevant to say about Islam or Muslims as a whole.
What Voting No Would Mean
Hasan urges the audience to consider what the opposite of the motion actually means. If they vote no, they are saying that Islam is not a religion of peace but rather a religion of war, violence, terror, and aggression. They would be saying that the people who follow Islam—including Hasan himself, his wife, his retired parents, his six-year-old child, 1.8 million British residents and citizens, and 1.6 billion people across the world—are all followers, promoters, and believers in a religion of violence.
Hasan asks directly: Do you really think that? Do you really believe that to be the case?
Historical Parallel to the 1933 King and Country Debate
Hasan invokes the Oxford Union's most famous debate from 1933, when the Union voted against fighting for king and country—a result Adolf Hitler reportedly monitored with interest as he assessed British resolve.
Eighty years later, Hasan argues that two groups of people around the world are waiting for the result of this debate. First, there are the millions of peaceful, non-violent, law-abiding Muslims in the UK, Europe, Asia, Africa, and beyond who see Islam as the source of their identity, spiritual fulfillment, hope, and solace. Second, there are the phobes, haters, and bigots who want to push a clash of civilizations narrative and divide humanity into "them" and "us."
Final Appeal
Hasan urges the audience not to fuel the arguments of phobes and bigots, not to legitimate their divisions, and not to legitimize their hate. He asks them to trust the Muslims they know, have met, and have heard—Muslims who do not believe in violence and who want others to hear the peaceful message of the Quran as it is taught to the majority of Muslims.
He calls for recognition of the Islam of peace, compassion, and mercy—the Islam of the Quran, not of al-Qaeda. Hasan concludes by begging the audience to support the motion and vote yes.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.