Islamist movements have long been a central force on the Arab political scene. In recent years, especially with the success of Islamist political parties in elections in several Arab countries, the divide has widened and intensified between these movements’ supporters and opponents. There are voices among Islamists’ opponents who call for banning Islamist parties on the grounds that they are purportedly undemocratic. Opponents argue that Islamists do not support inclusive constitutions that guarantee the rights of society’s different faith communities. Further, they tend to use their own conservative interpretation of Sharia law as the main frame of reference for legislation. Opponents argue that by claiming to represent the will of god, Islamist politics closes the door for debate on material policy questions before the state hampering free speech and public debate. On the other hand, supporters argue that banning Islamist parties is a violation of freedom of expression and would not lead to the elimination of the ideology behind these parties anyway. Banning peaceful pathways to political participation could result in Islamists giving up on the political process and opting to use violence to achieve their objectives instead. Before the debate began 44% of the audience voted in favor of the motion with 56% opposing it. After the debate the audience vote showed that the opponents of the motion had swayed some of the audience leaving only 39% supporting the motion and 61% against it.