Should the West be suspicious of Islam? | Hour 1

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetecleanershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. All Right, so I have a question for you. And this question was actually debated about six weeks ago in a debating society. But for some reason, the debating society that shoots video of the debates and puts them out onto YouTube and social media, for some reason, they were they were delayed. It took a while. It took six weeks for them to publish this debate, and I'm not sure why. I've not seen any explanation as to why it took six weeks for them to publish the debate. However, when I read to you the question that was debated, it may and I don't know, but it the question may provide some bit of insight into why it took six weeks for this video to be posted. So here's the question, and this is the way they frame all of their questions for debate. This is the Oxford Union debating society out of mary Old, England, and it's actually not part of the university Oxford University. It's just like their students. Let me see here there's a I'll tell you what it's described. It's described here from the BBC. The Union is a student society dating back more than two hundred years and is run completely independently of the University of Oxford. In the past, many of those who have served as the president of the Oxford Union have often gone on to work in public life, politicians, prime ministers in the like. Okay, so here was the question, and this is the way they frame all of their debate topics. They say, this house believes something, and then you debate it, and then the people in the society they then vote on which position won the debate. And so they'll say, you know, this house believes Pete Calender is a fantastic radio host, right, and then like I would get up there and argue why I'm not. Others would get up and agree with me, and that some would oppose and then you would take a vote. Okay. So that's sort of the nature of this of the of the format. So this House believes and here's the question that they debated six weeks ago and may be related somehow to the six week delay in posting the video of the debate. Here was the question, this House believes that the West is right to be suspicious of Islam? Yeah you could, Yeah, you see the problem just simply asking that question, is the right or sorry? Is the West right to be suspicious of Islam? Not to impune it, not to attack it, not to ban every Muslim, not to do anything. There's no action here all that they're talking about. The only thing in this question is a feeling, right, a feeling by citizens of Western societies that they feel suspicion towards a religion, a totalizing ideology because it's more than just religion, right, it's also governing system. So it's a totalizing ideology. So is the West right to be suspicious of Islam? All right? So they had a couple of people that were slated to speak for this motion say basically saying yes, the West is right to be suspicious, and then you had people that were there to speak against which spoiler alert the against team won by the vote turned into I think it was like a fifty one to forty seven, not a p it's not a percentage, that's like an actual count. But it was a very sparsely attended debate. The room holds something like four hundred people, but only like a quarter of it or so was full. Why because there were protests outside the building. There were hundreds of people that blocked the building and prevented people from gaining access to the building because they did not want anybody to hear the pro side. Specifically. One of the speakers, well two of them really. The first one, the main target was Tommy Robinson, right, he's been a he's like with the Restore Britain stuff, the marches and the protesting and all of that. There's another person that was there to speak as well, named Lawrence Fox. He is an actor, a political activist, leader of the Reclaim Party, which is not the Reform Party, it's another party that he started. And then there was the third speaker, Jonathan Sasser Dotti sacar Dotti, Zacardoti. He's a writer and a commentator. But here's to me, like, here's the problem in a nutshell right out of the gate. So, as part of their tradition, the people who like first speak pro and con, they introduce all of the speakers on the opposite team and they apparently they like roast them. And uh so this was the Oxford President, Oxford Union President our Haneen Alrias Okay, who was celebrated as a Palestinian Muslim, the first Palestinian president of the Oxford Union Debate Society. She's been celebrated for that, and she's been celebrated and lauded for inviting these people to come speak on this topic. Okay, and I would join that, like we want to see more of this kind of thing. But in her opening statement, as she's introducing Tommy Robinson, who that's like his real name is like Stephen, I think she says it here in the clip, but listen to this. Listen to how she introduces him in a debate as to whether or not Western citizens should be suspicious of Islam. Okay, here's what she said. Stephen Yaxley Lennin, known to Miss Hooligans as Tommy Robinson. Stephen, there is a crowd outside writing against you tonight and without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a mostly South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked. Huh. So you're saying he should not be suspicious. He's saying you're saying that because they had to hire And I saw one of the reports on this was that they spent like one hundred thousand pounds for security for this event six weeks ago. And the video was posted Saturday, six weeks after the fact, and only after one of the speakers, Jonathan Sasserdotti, he shot video himself and he published it on Friday, and he said, like, it's been six weeks more than in six weeks after the Oxford Union promised to publish the debate, the full video is still being withheld, while extracts of their own footage of the debate have appeared elsewhere. Heavily edited, right, So what was the Oxford Union doing. They were putting out clips from the debate that were selectively edited. All right. For over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create a Video. Great local company in mint Hill that has helped more than two million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS, tapes, film reels and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now creative videos helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams, I mean, and really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents. Even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip, and family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads, It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups, or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then, after the trip we're gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out Group travel videos dot com. That's group travel Videos dot com or call seven oh four eight four six seventy eight seventy extension two o six And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes you can. You can email Katie Katie at group travel videos dot com. Group travel Videos from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. Going over now some of the highlights from some of the speakers at this Oxford Union debate. Again, this was held mid June, but the video wasn't published until Saturday, and it was only done after one of the participants in the debate, Jonathan Sacerdoti sacar Dotti, basically shamed the Oxford Union into publishing it because he had recorded it separately with permission. He waited six weeks and was seeing clips being shared by the Oxford Union, but not the entire debate, and he got so frustrated he published the video that he had shot himself. Now, before the break, you heard the president of the Oxford Union who debated in opposition to this question whether the West is right to be suspicious of Islam, and she took the no position and makes the point to the participants that like, there's a mob outside that will literally kill you for what you're for, what you're saying, which I think, like, I think that just basically surrendered the entire argument for her. But also, as David Strom points out over at hotair dot com, what she is admitting there is that your safety only exists at the sufferance of people like her and the guards that she puts in place, right that that without her. These protesters and they were not like These people were not like Tommy Robinson's crowd. These were not the far right people. These were Muslims, and these were leftists who were outside in the Red Green Alliance. They were outside the Oxford Hall demanding that the debate not occur and blocking hundreds of people from going into the debate to see it. So here is Jonathan Sacerdotti where he makes reference to this essentially veiled threat, which confirms the very suspicion that she was arguing is unwarranted. I've had phone calls this week from friends, family, colleagues. Some called to praise me for my courage, others to question my sanity for coming back here, and one or two who begged me not to speak with you tonight. Why in what way does it take courage to come and speak at a student debating society. Why would it be foolish for my safety to debate to the invitation of a Muslim woman with two Muslim men and a mock Victorian Catholic knight. We all know why, which means more well, a Victorian. I didn't get the joke either. We all know why. That's why there's quite a lot of security here. It's why there's a bit of electricity in the air. That's why this debate generated news coverage before it even happened. It is because of Islam. Now, I'm not a Muslim for the purposes of full disclosure. I'm a Jew and a Briton. So I'm not here to speak for Muslims and what individual Muslims do or don't think, or feel or believe. I'm not here to argue over Koranic verses and hadith. I'm here tonight to represent. The other side of this debate, Western values. I'm here to talk about how Islam has encroached on our lives. I would love not to be here, especially at this time. I would love never to talk about this topic again, never to talk about Islam. It's not my faith, it's not my ideology. But over and over again it has confronted me, coming for my life, for your lives. I am not motivated by hate. Whatever those people outside say. The only person in this debate who has made physical threats was. Over there, no thank you. I am motivated by love, love for freedom, love for life, love for debate, for discussion, love for the West. The West is a civilization of defiant liberty and fearless truth telling. And that is why I'm here now. Right and see when people ask what can we do, Pete, what do we suppose to do? When we talk about, you know, the rising preferences and acceptance of Marxism, what are we supposed to do? How do we you know, combat that It's the same way. It's through this. It's through debating and argument with people on the other side, so as to convince observers that our position is the more rational, more humane, smarter like than Marxism, for example, that this is the way constant engagement in the debate. The Oxford Union Debate Society took up the question whether or not the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. One of the speakers in favor of this argument, a writer and commentator named Jonathan soccer doti dote, soccer dota dote. Somebody sent me a pronunciation, but it's just sacer doti soccer dote. It's Italian. I guess, okay, So he's running through. He starts to run through, and I'm not going to play the whole list, but he starts running through this lengthy list of Islamic jiehattist attacks on innocent people and politicians, right, and just one after the other after the other from the UK nine to eleven, like all of these different attacks, which then prompted the president of the Oxford Union, the woman who just said, you know, hey, if we let you, you know, if we didn't have security here, you're only you know, not getting ripped to pieces by the mob outside because of our largess. Basically, she then stands up to interrupt him to ask a question from the scripture. Raptly in contacts properly that would advise or point to the action day of these specific people. This is the crux of this point. I don't need to give you those examples, because all of these men who slaughtered Westerners, who slaughtered other Muslims, gave their quotes from your Holy book. Right, do not even engage. He's not even engaging with the Quranic verses. There's no reason to because the people who cited the Quranic verses, they cited them. So if you want to know what verses they were citing, go read what they wrote or listened to their martyr tapes or whatever they said those things. He's just speaking from a Westerner perspective on whether or not to be suspicious of Islam. Right, that's the question. So then he resumes the list. The list goes on and on. Dishonest people will tell you that this is not Islam but extremism, extreme what extreme Jainism, extreme Quakerism, the two converts to Islam opposite. Cannot deny that. Those killers were Muslim following their Islamic beliefs. They said it themselves. The list of Islamic contributions to our Western life demonstrates that human cost, the human cost that makes people in here afraid to even talk about Islam. That's why we're suspicious of Islam. Don't worry. I now think about that. You're in a room in a building that is surrounded by a mob that doesn't even want you to have the discussion, and the discussion is about whether or not you should be suspicious about the animating ideology of many of those people in the mark right. So it's like the question answers itself here. Oh that Islam is not all violence, it's also political. In nineteen twenty eight, Hassan Albana founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a discipline movement to reverse the fading of traditional Islamic life in Egypt, building an entire Islamic society mosques, schools, charities, youth groups, businesses, institutions, which they then spread to the West, and their devised strategy was one of patient Islamic transformation from within, a civilizational jihad. Don't worry. That is not a far. Right name made up by Tommy Robinson or me. That's actually what they called it. And we know that because the FBI sees their nineteen ninety one Explanatory Memorandum setting out the plan to settle in the West, build Islamic centers as bases infiltrate institutions, and work until quote Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. No, thank you, nearly cent free. Later, they are widely accepted across Europe and in the US and much of the West as a dangerous threat to democracy. So Islam doesn't only attack with bombs. Sometimes it uses our own freedoms and our own land and our own institutions against us. And Islam's ambition to spread is not always so subtle. Historically, Islam is an ideology of conquest and expansionism. After Muhammad's death in six hundred and thirty two, its armies burst out of Arabia and within a century conquered much of the ancient Christian world, the Middle East, North Africa, Egypt, Syria. They pushed into Spain al ANDALUSI where's that name from? They reached France halted at Tours in seven hundred and thirty two. Will give yes. Minded what happened at fourteen hundred and ninety two. Thank you for the reminder. See you've forgotten it that the Muslims were expelled along with the Jews from Spain by Christians. These sorts of wrongs have happened between all religions throughout. History fourteenth century. Sorry, excuse me absolutely, and if you would like to invite me back, Sir Reeth Mog, I would be delighted to debate your religion and your faith and the wrongs that it has done my people as well, But that is for another evening. A boom So that guy that you just heard asked the question, Sir Jacob reath Mog, the former Conservative minister and a Union trustee. Okay, remember his name because it's going to come up again in the next segment, but let me finish up with sacradode, and he notes that everywhere Islam is victorious, Jews and Christians are discriminated against. They are reduced to DIMIs as they are called. Defeated people, defeated peoples living under submission tax and Islamic supremacy, because that Islam's core is political theological dominance, not private internal faith. They may try to hide it, but it is written in blood across the centuries until today. For every other ideology, we can be proud of the positives and still suspicious of the negatives. But some people are so quick to list all the great things. They say Islam's contributed. The second speaker that he gave some money once to an. Old man who was in need. But they utterly reject any Islamic connection to all the dreadful things that I've mentioned tonight. The bits they like, those are all Islam. But the bits they don't like, well not Islam. Totally binary in an era when being non binaries all the rage. Everything today is on a spectrum except Islam. So I'm asking you to believe your own eyes, to accept your own survival instincts. Apply the same rational thought to Islam that you would and should to any other set of ideas and behaviors. Don't be afraid to call out an urgent danger that you instinctively identify just because you're afraid. What we have in the West is worth protecting our freedoms, our culture, our ethics, this university, this country, all of it, and it can compete, it can win, but only if you stay curious, stay intelligent, stay suspicious, especially of Islam. All right, and next you're gonna hear from Laurence Fox, who came with a cartoon in an envelope and threatened to show it. All right, So the last clip I've got is from Lauren Fox. Sorry, Laurence Fix. He is an actor, political activist, apparently leader of the Reclaim Party. So he gets up there to speak in favor of the measure, which is that the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. And he has a Manila envelope with the letters c H on it. I think it stands for Charlie hebdo And here's how that sounded. And most important to me is the free speech of this. So let's get this out, shall we. Seventy eight percent of British Muslims believe that no publication should publish pictures of Muhammad, an overwhelming majority. That rises that rises to eighty seven percent. That's one. That's nine out of every ten Muslims that are walking the streets today in a country which absolutely abandoned blasphemy laws. Suspicion is not strong enough a word. The West should resist Islam in the strongest terms on free speech grounds alone. So here we are with this cartoon right, and it's time to show that I will not submit. I will not adhere to the religious laws of far off places. Now. My wife asked me not to show this for fear of repercussions in my family, but I told her that if I did not, then I had already submitted to his arm So here we are. Is it not enough that has the team that invited you to the surbate or Muslim women who wanted to hear out your expression and got arguments. Is it not enough the eyes of a Muslim president have invited you to this chamber to give your arguments. Is that not enough justification and evidence for you to believe that we do believe in free speech. I will not become the president of a free speech society of example. May I in it? Thank you very much? May I finished? Excuse me? Order having been raised, I'll hear the x librarian. It's a long time since I've been in this chain for a new rules. Or by heart hast comments and we model ourselves on us commons. Props are not ald. I wonder whether the rule on props this is the same in the opportunity okay. Use props, gentlemen for his point of order? Excuse me, like for one and second one in the moment possible one. Moment the ex president is also raising a point of order. I think just to. Roads at least Michael his mom say that fans not extended. And okay, so there is no being on perhaps okay, thank you, so right, I just am I am going to rule on the point of order. There is no bar in the forms of the House against the use of props. However, I would encourage mister Fox to make the point to move on. I I was until points of order. So it is in that spirit that I will not submit that I show you this as an Englishman who believes in free speech. It's a picture of Sir Jacob Reese. Mad I will not submit, MOhm, I will not bow down right, so, I think, which shan rather proves the point of the point I was trying to make that in this envelope lived your fear and your fear of Islam, and what Islam will do to you that when you upset its very over sensive sky wisard. And what lived in this room is a healthy and brilliant and noble British tradition of suspicion of Isam. I encourage you to pass the motion. Thank you very much, proving the point. Just the thought that the cartoon of Muhammad was in that envelope prompted all of these objections, proving the point of the natural suspicion of Islam. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.