Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'He's a TERRORIST!' Mohammed Hijab vs Jonathan Conricus | Migrant Protests, Iran War, Israel & Islam

Episode Date: September 8, 2026

From the Port of Dover to the streets of Southern England, the UK is reaching a breaking point. As protests over small boat arrivals escalate into a broader cultural flashpoint, the familiar chants of “Stop the Boats” are being overtaken by increasingly radical rhetoric. But this isn't just a British problem. The same tensions are being mirrored in the US, as Republicans move to frame the Democrats as being in league with radical forces. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has launched a scathing attack on the British government, accusing them of "Jew hate" - igniting a firestorm over Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Is this the fight for the survival of Western culture against the spread of radicalism? Or is the real driver here old-fashioned bigotry? Joining Piers Morgan to debate is Islamic activist Mohammed Hijab and Jonathan Conricus, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Uncensored  tackles the biggest threat to Western civilization—and why the temperature in our politics is hitting the boiling point. 00:00:00 Introduction 00:03:22 Is Islam an existential threat to western society? 00:14:44 What is the difference between Islam and Islamism? 0017:38 ‘Don’t be a weasel’: Hijab and Conricus clash 00:20:20 Are Sharia Courts a threat to the UK legal system? 00:27:10 Where’s the evidence that the UK is being overrun by Muslims? 00:30:48 Hijab on grooming gangs 00:36:25 Is Israel’s influence on western society the greatest threat to global stability? 00:38:48 “You’re a coward!” Hijab unleashes on Israel 00:44:58 Why are so many Muslims drawn to extremist groups? 00:52:18 Piers’s final word Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I want to try and keep this as civilized as we can to allow both sides to speak. What they are trying to do is to take control over societies and then implement Sharia law, which means to erase Western laws, norms and culture and subjugate them to a medieval mindset that is Islam. You lost the war. You should be ashamed of yourself. You're an embarrassment. You're telling these people to have died for you. Fight yourself. Why are you a coward? You speak nonsense and you're... way out of your depth, but I allowed you to speak. And you try your personal insults, which are, you know, actually quite ridiculous.

Be a man and speak the truth. Don't be a weasel. Don't be a coward. Don't be a coward. Don't backtrack now. Why are you backtracking like a pusillanimus? You're interrupting. Why are you backtracking like a pusillanimus? Process in the south of England this weekend with the ladies flashpoint in a culture war

has been simmering to the boil for years. Hundreds of people gathered apparently spontaneously to confront the police after a small boat carrying 140 migrants was brought to shore. A day earlier, Black Cloud Vigilantes brought the port of Dover to a standstill. The small boats may have been the catalyst, but the issues are far broader. Chance of Christ is king were heard alongside the familiar cries to stop the boats. And while the number of small boat crossings is significantly down this year, the same cannot be said of the tensions underpinning the crisis.

They are the same ones currently playing out in the US as Trump's Republicans seek to portray Democrats as in hock with radical Muslims. And they're at the root of many of the arguments about Israel and Palestine. Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, posted on Sunday, the Brits have lost it, the Jew hate of their government, knows no boundaries, and knows no facts. He was responding to a compilation of stories about Gaza, posted by the British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is in fact Jewish.

Broadly speaking, one side wants to frame all of the arguments as a fight for the survival of Western culture against the spread of Islam. Israel, they say, is a bastion of Western values in the Middle East. The other says the real cause of his fight is old-fashioned bigotry, and the recent behavior shows the Israeli state's values are not ours at all. But join me to debate this, Islamic activist, thinker and public debater, Mohammed Hijab, and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Comrickers.

Well, welcome to both of you. Had you both on the show many times? times. I'm glad you've agreed to debate this. You both have strong views. I think we know before we start what side you come from, so we accept that. I want to try and keep this as civilized as we can to allow both sides to speak and make their point and for the other to respond. Honestly, when people start shouting at each other, the loser is the viewer. And I would remind you, we also air in podcast form where if you're listening to it, you can't make Hedner tell her what anyone say. So let's just try and keep to that principle. I'm going to organize this debate really

along two propositions. And in both cases, I'll invite one of you to open up with your argument and the other one response. So the first proposition is that Islamic infiltration into Western society, politics and culture is an existential threat to our way of life and must be reversed before it's too late. So, Jonathan, you start. Why do you believe that? Yeah, Shalom from Israel. Thanks for having me on. I really welcome the new practices, and I commit to behaving accordingly.

Excellent. Yeah, I'll really try my best to stay in my lane. And unless there's any personal transgressions, I will keep silent as my co-panelist is speaking. Okay. What I will say is not directed against Muslim private citizens. It's more related to the political structure and the core tenets of Islam and the mindset, the very aggressive and imperialistic mindset, which we in the Middle East are at the receiving end of when it comes to Islam. I think that, shortly put, this is today the biggest threat to Western civilization.

I think it is much more dangerous than Nazism and communism were at the time for the main reason that the threat is more dynamic. It is clever and deceptive, and it's not so clear to distinguish. And you really have to pay attention if you want to understand what the threat is. In the 7th century, when Islam conquered about half of the known world or a third of a known world, by force, by the power of the sword. It was jihad and conquest with the power of the sword. In the 21st century, what's happening in Europe

is that it is a slow, relatively peaceful, relatively legal conquest by immigration and then by birth rate. And it's a conquest from within. Now, your introduction speaks about Israel and makes the connection. I don't really see the connection here. One issue, I mean, there's a lot of...

going on in Israel and a lot going on in the Middle East, and we definitely have our plate full. But I don't think that the two issues are really connected. There are, however, people that have a very strong and burning hatred against Israel who find themselves in the camp of the Muslim Brotherhood and the pro-Islamists. But that doesn't really make the topic related to Israel. Now, one thing that I think we should acknowledge first, which a lot of Europeans are sensitive about saying and acknowledging, and that's the fact that the immigrants come from failing or failed states. If their form of government, if their societies and culture was

compatible or equivalent or as good as or as functioning as Western society, they would not be immigrating. And I think that basic notion of understanding why people migrate and why out of their own volition, they try to get to the West because their systems work and their law and order exists and there there's welfare and many other things and there there's tolerance. I think should cause a lot of decision makers to pause and assess, well, if they're coming from there, what type of failed mindset are they bringing with them and what are they going to try to do in our countries? I think that there is a heavy, heavy trouble and troublesome ignorance in many of the higher layers of society in the West, in Europe, in UK, in some parts of the US, and many other

places, where people are ignorant of the basic tenets of Islam, of Islamic culture, religion, tradition, customs and norms. They are ignorant about what Sharia means. They are ignorant about the obligation of jihad, and they don't understand what is happening to them, and they don't understand what is at risk. The short-term problems, are easily identifiable, its crime, its violence, its over-dependence on welfare, its welfare states. Many examples of good integration that gives us hope that with good government policies,

people, migrants, Muslims and non-Muslims, can move out of those circles. And we have a lot of good examples around the world of countries to do that. But we also have many bad examples of countries that do not understand the short-term problems, and they also invite the long-term problem. Now, we're talking about a threat that is a creeping, almost legal and a gradual approach.

This isn't jihad by the sword, like the things that we face in the Middle East, by the likes of Hamas and Hizbalah, and some further away like ISIS. That's clear, that's identifiable, that's jihad by the source. But it is very similar. And what the Muslim Brotherhood and many other politically organized Islamists want to do. Yeah, I'll wrap it just very quickly. I do need to let the response come. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sure that there will be one and I'll be listening.

And what they are trying to do is to take control over institutions, take control over societies, and then, and this is the kicker, which many people are ignorant of, then to implement Sharia law, which means to erase Western laws, norms and culture and subjugate them to a medieval mindset that is Islam. And if we have time, I would want to give suggestions of what should happen. And I think, you know, there are countries that have taken a much more... Well, I'll tell you what. Let's come to what you think the solution is in a minute.

But let Muhammad Hijab respond to what you've just laid out as being the problem. as he sees it. And, Muhammad, what I would say to you is, the second proposition is specifically about Israel's influence on Western politics and so on. So try to keep the Israeli element of this sort of out of this. This is more your response to what Jonathan Comrickas has said specific about Islamic infiltration into Western society.

Sure. I mean, I think the first thing we have to just acknowledge is that he's spoken for about maybe 10 minutes. I don't know how... Four and a half. All right, four and a half minutes without any interruption, right? So I hope that that will be afforded to me, the same point which would be afforded to me.

The first thing he talks about jihad and all these kinds of concepts. And I came across a video of his, a very interesting one, with Brendan Weichhardt, whereby he was speaking on Mario Norfolk's show. And on the 28th minute and the 34th second, he was asked directly whether or not he intends or that he wants civilian targets to be killed directly.

And he said, that's what needs to be done. This is exactly his quote. That's what needs to be done. The question that was posed to him was, the question that was posed to him was, do you think civilian targets should be, civilians should be targeted? He answered, that's what needs to be done.

This is online. I've given you the exact time time. And then he goes on to say, war is about breaking the political will of the opponent. This is an exact quotation from what he's said. So for him then to pontificate in a sesca-pedalian way, about for four and a half minutes, Islamic jihad and infiltration,

after essentially saying what amounts to a terroristic phrase that if he was in the UK, would actually render him applicable to be arrested in the UK because he is talking about civilians, under the Terrorism Act of 2000, under Section 58 or many other sections, you can make an argument, is actually a laughable proposition in the first place. But let's deal with it, because here's the thing.

He's talking about Islam, and he's making a causative argument between the Muslims in the UK and Islam as a way of life. Well, first and foremost, Islam has very clear guidelines. I can tell you this as someone who has memorized the Quran, someone who has gone to the most prestigious Islamic institution in the world,

and graduated from there. So I'm speaking for a place of some authority. The Quran is very clear that we're not allowed to kill civilian life. Man cutella napsan by any of fasad in chapter 5 verse 32 it says that whoever kills a person unless they commit murder or that they've done corruption in the land. It's like killing all of humanity. The prophet Muhammad said, then when cutal ma'ahadal um yeah ira'raehaehaehah whoever kills a non-believer, a non-believer, a non-believer, he will not smell the fragrance of paradise. So clearly here, you're missing, I think, confusing Islam with the Old Testament. Maybe you're confusing it with First Samuels, where it says that you have to kill the men, the women, the children, and the donkey as well.

Or maybe you're confusing it with Deuteronomy 22. Or maybe you're confusing it with numbers 31. I don't know what you're confusing it with, but you're certainly not representing Islam in the correct nana. And you don't find any equivalent of my challenge you since you're making a theological claim. You came right into my playing field. I challenge you to find anything in the Old Testament that is remotely, remotely as categorical in denying civilian death as you find in the Quran and sunnah. That's number one, since you want to make a theological case.

Number two, now he's trying to link Islam with, for example, he mentioned violent and then he mentioned something about immigrants depending on welfare and all these kind of things. What's Islam got to do with any of that? Is there a necessary link between Islam and someone being poor, for example? Is there a necessary link? I don't understand the argument here. Where is, you said, the tenets of Islam.

Jihad is not actually a pillar of Islam in the first place. There's five pillars of Islam, if you didn't know, and jihad is not one of them. So you're an ignorant on these matters. You shouldn't even be speaking. You said you've got to stick to your lane. You didn't even stay on your lane. You started speaking about theology. And then you started talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, as if they have a presence here in the UK.

What I want to know from you is that since you think they do, and you're using the word infiltration, I want to know exactly who you're talking about, what institutions they have infiltrated, and give me specific objective factual criterion for what you're talking about. Since you've made this claim, and it's a cause-based argument

between the religion itself and the practitioners, I will leave it to you to explain to me exactly what institutions have been infiltrated, which, by the way, the definition of infiltration, is to covertly, okay, covertly influence a group through secretive means. That's the Cambridge definition of infiltration. And you'll find, and we're going to speak about this,

that if you think about the Israel Lobby, which we'll speak about after this, it fits the definition, I think, much better. But we can speak about that later. I want to know exactly what Muslim Brotherhoods you're talking about in England. I want to know what institutions you're talking about. I want to know exactly what you mean by this infiltration.

And is this a systemic effort by these people to try and take over the country? And if so, give me the exact data points that you're referring to. Before I go to Jonathan for that answer, just to clarify for viewers, what do you perceive, Muhammad, to be the difference between Islam and Islamism? Because people hear these phrases, they hear these words, a lot of people get confused. What is the difference?

Well, the difference from a political science perspective, right, is that Islamism is an attempt to politicize Islam. That's usually the definition that political scientists use. However, I mean, the fact is this, I mean, Islam has always been a political system. So we don't know exactly where that starts and where that ends, because this construct is Islamism. I would say is a social construct and it's a Eurocentric view. We don't have this distinction. We've never had it in our texts.

We've never had it in our medieval manuals. So the fact is this is a Western construct in political science that's used to try and distinguish between Muslims who are attempting political participation in some way, violent or nonviolent, versus Muslims who are not doing that. Okay, Jonathan Kilbrickis, your response to that, and specific to what he said about Muslim Brotherhood and the evidence of infiltration in the UK. Yeah, not only the UK.

And I think it's an interesting answer from someone who clearly has clerical and religious knowledge. The Al-Azhar University is one of the driving forces of the Muslim Brotherhood. and its teaching, it's a known center for a very extremist part of Islamic interpretation. That's where many of the world's terrorists and the scholars of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Daesh, Hamas, and many others were given their education, if you'd use that word. So I'm happy that you mentioned your pedigree and you inform the people that you're on the same boat

as, or in the same boat, the same ideological boat and background as Kardawi and many other extremists, that indeed what they aspire to do by their sayings and by their right things and by their actions is world domination. It is the caliphate. It is to take control over first lands that Islam conquered violently in the 7th and 8th century. And since then, and have been lost back to Europeans and Jews and others, Christians and others, to first take back those lands, and then by force and by other means to take control over other lands, of Europe and of the West. And it's very good that you mentioned that this is where you come from, and I strongly urge people, our viewers, to take a deep dive into the more stellar scholars

of the Al-Azha University in Egypt and to see what kind of benign, belive, benevolent thinking has come out of that university, undoubtedly one of the oldest, if not the oldest, if not the oldest in the Muslim world. And it really is telling you. So what's the evidence on Muslim infiltration, Jonathan? Yeah, yeah. You weren't interrupted, even though it was tempting. I didn't interrupt you, even when you falsely accredited and cited me out of context,

which was quite laughable. Don't weasel out of it now, Jonathan. Don't wheezele out. No, listen, don't wheeze it now. It was very clear what you said. You are interrupting. No, we are speaking now. We're speaking to each other.

It was very clear what you said. And people can go to that same YouTube video and they can check it out. You are encouraging and you are incentivizing this American politician to kill civilians. That's what happened. And we agreed that we wouldn't. Do you deny that?

Be a man. Be a man and speak the truth. Don't be a weasel. Don't be a coward. Don't be a coward. Don't backtrack now. Why you backtrack like a pus? You're interrupting and we're interrupting and we read not to interrupt.

Why? You are interrupting and we agree not to interrupt. Why? Let Jonathan answer the question. Yeah, go on. Yeah, well, I'll answer your questions, peers, not of... Sure, but I thought it was a relevant question that when we talk about infiltration in the UK from Muslim Brother...

Do you have evidence of that? Yeah. Yeah, so I'll bring an example from Sweden because I didn't confine myself to the UK. But I could probably dig up a few examples from Sweden, from the UK. But for instance, in Sweden, the society that represents Muslims in Sweden, which by the way, probably similar to the situation in the UK, is state-funded and supported by Swedish taxpayers' money, when you do a close analysis or just a basic analysis of what they hand out and what they disseminate to Muslims in Sweden,

it is almost identical to the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of the goal, the objective and the means and how Muslims should operate in Swedish society. And this has been researched by an Egyptian, Coptic Swedish PhD doctor, who I think also, by the way, studied a bit at El-Azhar. Now you're referencing an academic from the institution. You were just bashing, are you? You're interrupting.

Again, you're interrupting. That's a little bit ironic, I think. Again, you are interrupting. That's a bit ironic there, Jonathan. There you think. I'm answering a question. Go ahead, now. But just, you get to the point, because we're not

your filibusters and your diatribs, you know? Your interruptions, just tell me that you have very little substance and you resort to to be honest, your boring peers and your boring public. Well, let me, all right, but let me ask Muhammad a question, which I think a lot of people were one of the answer to, which is there are estimates that there are 80 to 85 informal Sharia councils operating across the UK. These obviously have no legal justification under British law, but you would accept, I assume, that they can have enormous influence over the local communities in which they operate.

I think that these particular councils are completely overestimated, especially by right-wing outlets, because what they really are, the opinions of some people like me, who have essentially come out of universities, and two people will come into those places and say, well, this is what's happened, but this is what's happened, and say, well, you've got, well, you've got the truth on your side,

you've got the truth on your side. People can leave that place agreeing or disagreeing with the person in question. It has absolutely no enforcement out. But you understand why a lot of people in the UK feel apprehensive that it's a very short step from that. I mean, here goes the argument. I mean, it's the same with the Jewish community, though.

I know, but we'll come to that. Let me just put to you... They've got the same thing. Let me just put to you the argument, which is that people say, well, look, we've got all these unofficial Sharia courts, Sharia councils. that it's as you see the Muslim population of the UK,

and it's happening in the US as well, exponentially increasing, which it will, just on sheer numbers, that there will be an increasing influence on the political stratosphere, if you like, up and down the ladder. And that as a result of that, you may end up, this is the fear that people have, you may end up with Sharia law

being pushed to be incorporated into British law. Now, could you ever say, see that happening, what is being done in Muslim communities maybe to stop that happening? Well, first and foremost, these ideas of Sharia courts, as I've mentioned, they have absolutely no legal enforcement power whatsoever. So it's just the opinions of people. You can have an LGBTQ council. You can have a feminist council. And as we do have, we have Jewish councils. So that if the argument is going to be made, and here's really what I find quite incredulous, if I'm being honest, almost every argument you can make about the Sharia, you can make about the

which is the Jewish equivalent. In fact, my argument is, in most of those instances when it comes to gender interaction, divorce for women, where they have to get something called a get, anything which is that a man cannot, a woman cannot get divorced without the man's permission in Judaism. It's even more severe than Catholicism. That, they have those courts in the Jewish community. So if you want to say that they're not allowed in the Muslim communities and you want to have a consistent principle, then you have to now start applying that consistent principle to people like you, Jonathan. Of course, you don't believe in that because you believe in killing the civilians and you're a coward and a pusillanimous and you now have a forked tongue on Pearz Morgan's show because when you are on Mario Nalfel's show, you're making the argument with this American diplomat.

When you come on Pierce Morgan's show because you know it's a bigger audience, much bigger audience, what you're doing is you are putting your tail, your micro tail between your knees, between your legs and you're scurrying and running away, running away like you did in the first debate with Mario Nolfo. All right, let me put a different question to Jonathan. to respond to your... Yeah, you can. But also, Jonathan, the question I would put to you is what we're seeing, and I think you were at one of these events, you're seeing the pro-Israeli and what many perceive to be an anti-Muslim lobby, making allies in the UK with people like Tommy Robinson and what people think are his thuggish group of supporters.

I think I'm right in saying you were at one of his rallies. So there is a rising concern conversely about that going on in the UK. as well. You know, you supporting people like Tommy Robinson. Are you comfortable with that? Yeah, we, you try that gotcha the last time I was in studio. I mean, you were there. I'm just asking you whether you're comfortable supporting him. Oh, yeah. I'm, you know, as I said, in studio when we spoke about it and you had some other clown representing the other side in studio alongside me, who is as laughable as Muhammad is now with, you know, personal insults about that rubbish. Well, you weren't going to get personal, you said at the start of this. Yeah, well, I'm responding in kind to the level of conversation here.

I'll say this. When I walked on the streets of London in the United Kingdom March, what I heard was a lot of patriotic love for England and the UK. I didn't hear a lot of hate speech. I didn't hear people say bad things about other people. Yes, you showed me a clip of some lady who said things about Islam. out of that house, and we debated it in studio. I don't think we have to go over it again, but I'm happy to do it.

But I think the bottom line here is, and I think that what people around Europe are saying pretty clearly, whether it's just two days ago or a day ago in Germany or in continuous elections in Scandinavia and in France, in many other places in East Europe, a lot of people are signaling their frustration with this unchecked and reckless immigration of people who are importing a foreign mindset to Europe. And I think a lot of people understand... But I would say to that, okay, but I would say to that... Okay, but hang on.

Why doesn't that apply to you? Well, hang on, let me speak a point. I think there has been clearly a collective failure right across the continent of Europe in how migration, immigration has been managed and handled. Everyone would have to accept that. And I think the rise of a lot of right-wing populist groups and leaders is a consequence of that. And it's a consequence because it's inarguable.

You can't look at the failure of border control across Europe and not think it's been a failure. But it's also an argument. I say that it's more than border control peers. It's the underlying ideology. No, I understand. It's the underlying ideology that you can keep point, though. It comes to my point, which is that I keep. appearing from my friends in America who are pumped this narrative all the time,

that Britain is being overrun by Muslims. They've taken control. We're all living in terror of the Muslim community. And I don't recognize any of that. I live in London for most of the year. There are millions of Muslims in our country. And most of them have assimilated extremely well with communities and are not violent jihadists.

And I certainly don't feel like my country's been. overrun by Muslims. So when you start talking about the ideology, Jonathan, I say, well, what you're saying is it is wrong to allow so many Muslims to be in the UK, for example, and to which I say, well, where's the evidence that the Muslim communities in the UK are causing any more problems than any other communities? Do you have it? I'm happy that you ask. The UK, I think, has the authority. in the UK are doing pretty effective influence operations on the British population and significantly denying people statistics and data about the nationality and background of offenders.

I think it's very telling when you look at a rare country in Europe, which is one of the top countries in the world on everything, on quality of life and tolerance and life expectancy and all of the other metrics, and that's Denmark. Denmark is a country that actually profiles crime, criminals, and their ethnic and religious background. And it compiles very interesting data. Now, since societies, we could say that there are similarities between Lutheran or Christian Denmark and the UK.

I'd say that there is some level of information that we can deduce from the statistics, and I would urge viewers to have a look at, official Danish police data about the identity and religious. You are aware, Jonathan, and I've said this before on the show, the vast majority of crime in the UK is committed by white Christians. It's a population-related answer. Not if you look at it percentage-wise.

There are populations that are over-represented. It remains the fact that the vast majority of crime, and what you'll never read on Tommy Ruffalo. Robinson's social media is anything about crimes committed by white Christians. He's making a deliberate decision to only post information when it's a Muslim offender. And I think that creates, and that is one of the reasons why in America, they have this ridiculous view that were being overrun by Muslims. Mohammed.

I just want to make a couple of points. Because you just speak twice, Jonathan. Let Mohammed respond to that. You have spoken twice. On that point, Mohammed, look, the argument, I guess what I just said is. that when you look at it as a proportion of the Muslim population, there are 5% of the country is Muslim in the UK. What do you say to those who say,

well, you have a disproportionate amount of offenders in the Muslim community? Yeah, so let's take a look at a couple of things here. The first thing is I asked him to give me evidence that there's systemic infiltration as he claimed, right? And then he gave me one scanty piece of secondary resource material, which is not even evidence. In Sweden, which is a country which is barely recognizable

in the grand scheme of things in terms of population, I don't know how many millions there are, 10 million people in Sweden or something like that. It's a very small country comparative to like the US and the UK and et cetera. So that's number one. He couldn't even find it. If it was so systemic and if it was so obvious and it was glaring, then he would have had so many case study examples of the Muslim Brotherhood and the UK and the US and all these groups that is talking about infiltrating in a systemic way,

the institutions that, in fact, the pro-Israel lobbies are doing overtly. They're not even hiding at hundreds of millions of pounds in America. What are you shaking your head about? This is a fact, okay? It's in how... I just mentioned in your... I'm shaking my head because you're talking nonsense. Ipac is lobbying at 100 millions of hundreds of millions of pounds in primaries and stuff like that.

That's a fact. You can argue... That's why I'm trying to shaking my head. This is a funny. None of it is foreign. It's American money. Let me continue. None of it is foreign.

Jonathan, let me continue my point because you can come back and respond in kind. But let me just finish first. The second point that you made was we talked about per capita, essentially, percentage. So let's take a very... famous situation, grooming gangs. Okay? This is a very famous situation. Now, what is usually presented is what happens in Telford or Rochdale or one of these places. And in those places, admittedly, there is over-representation of Pakistani Muslims in those cases. But when you look at the CSA report, which is the most authoritative report that was conducted in 2025 based on home office data

and O&S data, that report on a percentage basis says that there are 83% white people. people in this country as a percentage, and they commit 88% of the child sexual exploitation offenses. Whereas there's 2% Pakistanis, you were saying that in Denmark, they have categorizations based on ethnicity and the UK. They don't have that. That's factually incorrect. As I've just cited, a source for you, which is the most authoritative source.

2% are Pakistanis in this country. There are 2% Pakistanis. And of them 2% according to this, which is the most authoritative data, commit the grooming gang or the sexually child sex exploitation offenses. So it's actually not disproportionate. White people are disproportionately represented. Pakistani people are not disproportionate on a national basis on the most used example, which is grooming gangs. Admittedly, once again, I have to be concessionary here. If you look at prisons, for example, there is an overrepresentation of Muslims. Why is that? There's an overrepresentation of blacks. You can say,

what, is it because of their skin color? Is there something genetic within them? The reason I propose why there's an overrepresentation of black people or Muslims or Pakistanis or Somalis or whoever it may be in prisons in the UK is not to do with religion as you're making a cause-based argument and has to do with socioeconomics. When people are poor in a country, they are more likely to commit crime. So black people from the Caribbean, for example, or Muslim people that have been colonized before in their second generation and their poor working class people are more likely to commit crimes and therefore more likely to be in prisons. So this is something very easy to understand.

And this thesis, which is that socioeconomics is the main determinant for criminal behavior, is the most compelling thesis, which if you look at all of the different countries in the Western countries, tells the data the best. The Islamic data thesis, if you look at countries which have got more money,

Muslim countries that have got more money, they commit less crimes. Money and crimes are related somehow. When you have less money, commit more crimes. When you have more money, when you're poorer, you're more likely to commit petty crime. That's it. It's not to do with skin color. It's not to do with your religion. It's not like they're looking at the verses of the Quran and saying, yes, now I'm going to implement this from the people. There's not even one example of that in the grooming examples. No one says,

yeah, I'm going to intoxicate this woman over here, which is haram religiously, not allowed, prohibited, to give her alcohol, which is a prohibit Islam, and groom her, give her drugs. No one says, yeah, I'm doing this because Islam tells me to do so. Okay. Let me get Jonathan's to that, then I'm going to go to the proposition too. Jonathan? Yeah, I think what we should be looking at is what needs to be done. And, you know, we can spin around in circles

and... You've got to respond to what I've just said, Jonathan, please. Talk nonsense. I mean, you don't respond to me, so I'm not going to... Oh, so you don't have an answer then, do you? Of course I do. I have many answers. But I don't want to be sidetracked by your nonsense, because that is essentially what you want to do. I think now you... Just concede the debate. Conceive the debate. You want to... You've lost, you've lost.

You have no response to you. You want to divert. You have no response to you. The core issue at hand. Does that you respond? You are trying to divert the core issue at hand here. And that is the threat to Western civilization. And what I think people in the West should be cognizant of

is that this is the biggest threat that that civilization is facing. And no fancy talk and smoke screens and mirrors that you will provide. Many of them factually wrong, by the way. If you look at data in Denmark, if you look at data in Denmark, Muslims, Algerians, Moroccans, Palestinians, Syrians and Afghans are overrepresented by a factor of 10 and 15 in violent crime, in rape, and in heavy assault and in murder.

And those are facts. Now, according to the case. Now, I'll ask you to stop interrupting me. Now, give me the source. You've just made a very, very, you've made a big claim. Mohammed, stop interrupting me. Mohammed, stop interrupting me. You don't have the source there.

And I want to focus on the clear issue here that is at hand. Now, let them into examples. Okay, go ahead. There are examples. There are examples of countries around the world who, without saying so, have a clear policy of minimizing Muslim immigration into their countries, whether it's Japan, South Korea, Denmark,

three countries in Eastern Europe, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, and other examples of countries that silently because it's not politically correct to say it and it offends and it kind of goes against the grain of a lot of basic beliefs in Western society. But what they're doing is effectively one, limiting the amount of people from Muslim countries that are eligible to come in. And if they are eligible to come in, what they do, and this is very important because there is hope that people can adopt. There is hope that also Muslims who come with a mindset that is basically meeting and with intentions of taking over countries

and waging jihad against the non-believers. There's examples of successful All right, listen, listen, I want to move... You're not equipped for this. Just for time purposes, I want to be fair to both propositions. Let's move to Proposition 2. Israel's influence on Western politics, especially US foreign policy,

is now the greatest threat to global stability and must be reversed as soon as possible. possible. Mohamed, you go first on this. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, think about what just happened with Iran. I mean, according to John Mishamah, who you've had on your show as well, he is probably one of the most recognized political scientists,

scholars in the Western world today. I mean, America signed a surrender document, okay, which is on the 18th of June. And now, they've lost the law, the war. They've actually cost the taxpayer, according to Mark

Zandi, who's an economist, at Moody, he says that the average American household has to pay a thousand dollars per annum to fund this war through groceries and interest rates and other things and through petrol and gasoline. So imagine you who have been on the record trying to get people to go to Iran, American people, white people to die for you. Maybe you see them as subhuman, I don't know, because already you've justified civilian deaths,

so maybe you do see them as subhuman. I don't know what the situation is. You want them to die for you. You want them to spend their money for your war, which brings about absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the UK, for the US, or for any of those countries. And in fact, the major beneficiary is obviously Israel. And at the same time, I'll ask you one question, Jonathan,

just to show you this. You don't want to have a reciprocal relationship. You don't want to have a reciprocal. The reason is because 18,000. service people, American service people, died for this Israeli war that Netanyahu is bragging about. Name me one Israeli that has died for an American war. You want to have an asymmetrical, non-reciprocal relationship with the American and British public. Your foreign minister was just threatening the UK, saying that if the UK does this and that with the settlements, that we have

tools, they said. They're threatening the UK. They are threatening the US. They're lobbying. They're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to try and get them to go into wars so they can influence politicians undemocratically in a way that's not in the interest of the populace, not in the interest of America, not in the interest of Europe, not in the interest of the United Kingdom, and kill, you want them to fight on your behalf because you're a coward. You run away from things, just like you run away from the debate. You only have fights with militia groups, which you can't even defeat. Because how? Hamas is still negotiating with them.

You said you were going to feed them three years ago. You're still negotiating with them. You couldn't even finish them. You lost the war. You should be ashamed of yourself. You're an embarrassment. You're telling these people to die for you. You fight yourself.

You go and fight yourself. Israel, go boots on the ground, Kag Island. You fight yourself. Why do you want Americans to die for you? Why are you a coward? You go first. You go and fight them first. Why do you want them to die and you're not dying for them?

All right. Let him respond. Jonathan? Well, if your way of trying to tell a story about Israeli influence is to speak on behalf of the Iranian regime, which brutalizes its own people, which is the biggest international state sponsor of terrorism, which fires ballistic missiles and kills civilians and drones around the Middle East, and oppresses its own people under the power of radical Islam, if your best argument to speak about so-called Israeli influence in the West is to bring up Iran, then I thought more of you coming into this interview than I do now. And none of the nonsense that you're trying to rage-bate me with is going to work. I've been through more qualified debaters than you, and I'm not even going to respond to it.

What I would say is the following. What I would say is the following. I would say that, unfortunately, you know, I'll acknowledge the fact. that Pete Hexeth and various American generals, commanders of Centcom and even the president, have said that Israel is a model ally. Why have they said that? They've said it because before we ask anybody to fight for us, we fight for ourselves. And of all of America's allies, perhaps except for the UK and the Second World War, Israel is a country that first asks its own people to fight its own service members to fight and unfortunately has its own civilians exposed

when was the last time in israeli died for us war in the last time in the last round of fighting when iran fired ballistic missiles at israel sadly we had 98 israeli civilians that were killed and one off-duty israeli soldier who was at home so it's it's a very clear situation and unfortunately I can give a lot of examples of where things are very different. Do you understand the question? Where things are very different. Do you understand? Try to make this conversation on Jonathan.

Look, with all your respect, this is going to get boring if you just keep talking and not engaging. You're not engaging. You're not tracking. You're not engaging or interacting with any question. You're not interacting with anything I've put it on the table. Even though you speak nonsense, you're not interacting with anything at all. I refrain from interrupting you. Do you want to finish off, hurry up because they're getting bored now?

friend from interrupting me. By interrupting, you make no points. Make a point. Hurry up. Hurry up. Hurry up. Hurry up. I'm not going to be allowed to speak over me. Hurry up. We're getting bored now. Hurry up. I didn't interrupt you. Even though you speak nonsense and you're way out of your depth, but I allowed you to speak and you try your personal insults, which are, you know, actually quite ridiculous. But I can give a long list, unfortunately, of factual examples of why US policy significantly differs from. from Israeli interests and policy. One example would be the situation in Syria.

The Syrian regime, under Bashar al-Assad, was under severe American sanctions, the Caesar Act and many other sanctions. The Americans have taken them off the sanctions list, and it has come at exactly zero benefit to Israel, even significant threats to our national security. Another example would be Turkey, as Erdogan speaks about waging holy war against Israel and marching on Jerusalem, our capital, and as his minister of the interior speaks about being the governor of Jerusalem in the future, the U.S. is pondering, providing that autocrat with F-35s, the pinnacle of American weapons systems, and a lot of fighting had to be done in order to prevent that

from happening. That's another example. A third example would be Saudi Arabia, or the Houthis. The Houthis, the U.S. made a direct deal with the Houthis over Israel's head and left Israel out of the calculations and basically green-lighted the Houthis to fire missiles towards Israel as long as they didn't fire them at the U.S. And I could go on with a long list of actual examples, not nonsense and cheap propaganda, but actual examples of real-world politics where U.S. policy always takes primacy over Israeli interests. And I think that if you try to convince the world that bringing down the Iranian regime is a bad thing that doesn't serve the purposes of the free world, man, you really have got it

wrong. And I think you should reevaluate where you stand because that regime is evil incarnated. It oppresses people. It doesn't allow people to have any civil rights. and I think that even just aligning yourself with them and saying that that is a regime that shouldn't be touched and shouldn't be held responsible for their aggressions,

I think speaks very poorly. Okay, well, let me ask Mohammed this. So the argument that Israel is a threat to peace, the biggest threat to peace, some people on your side of this argument would say, is countered by the fact that the top 10 designated terrorist organizations in the world right now are all Muslim.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Taliban, al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashq al-Tayy, Islamic jihad movement in Palestine, the Tariqi Taliban in Pakistan, which prompts the question, why are so many Muslims clearly drawn to terrorism with these groups, do you think? Well, let's start with his non-answer, because I asked him a question, which in the beginning he decided to, for some reason, he's not engaging with any question that I've put to him.

I'm engaging with every single question and people can see this. I asked him, give me an example. We've got 18 people that have died in America, American service people that have died for Israel. Give me an example of one Israeli that has died for an American war, and he went here, there and... Okay, well, look, viewers can see...

Viewers can see that. So they can also say, I've asked you a question. You've asked me a question right now, so what is the answer to that? Why are so many Muslims gravitating to these groups? Of course, there is an issue with Islamic terrorism. I mean, if someone is not concessionary with this issue and says that there is something called radical Islam.

There are people who actually believe in killing civilians. There are people who believe in these kinds of things. Then they would be obviously trying to fall the public. We're not trying to fool the public. But the designation of terrorist groups would fall into the legalistic fallacy. I mean, just because the West designates a certain group as a terrorist organization, in those cases, I don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't do so with other groups.

Like, for example, Israel, this man here who I'm speaking to, who's a spokesperson or former spokesperson for the IDF, literally, and he's trying to run away from it, was justifying the targeting of civilians to the point where the interlocutor was astounded with what he was saying. Well, okay, but he would, okay, what I would say to that?

Well, hang on, hang on, hang on a second, Jonathan, hang on, I know, I know what you're going to say, which is the IDF did not deliberately target civilians. We've had that debate. He was saying that you should, he was telling the Americans should target civilians. But that's not the point I'm going to make. The point I'm going to make is we've literally just had

the American ambassador to Israel, Mike Cuckabee, categorize some Israeli settlers as terrorists for what they're doing on the West Bank. Now, Danny Danon, Jonathan, who I interviewed earlier, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, he denied that categorization. He said that is not right, it's wrong, and not terrorists. What would you say?

He's a terrorist himself. Well, I ask a question. He's a radical. Jonathan's not a terrorist. No, hold on, he was saying, wait a minute, I ask it in the context of you making a concession that you believe there are a number of terrorist, Islamic, Islamist organisations.

So you've made that concession. My question for you, Jonathan, is, in light of what Huckabee said, do you accept that there are Israeli terrorists? Very clearly so, and I've said it long before our good friend, Huckabee said so. And, you know, you call a spade a spade. The behavior of some, a small group of people in Judean Samaria,

is despicable, condemnable, shouldn't be allowed, should be dealt with in a much more effective way by Israeli authorities, is not representative of the overwhelming majority of Israelis who live in Judean Samaria. And very simply put, these are people that are acting outside the law, and I think they should face the consequences of the law, and they shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing. And what about people like...

By the way, that's an important thing you've just said. And I think that both of you have made consensus, which I think viewers will look at it and go, good. All right, we're getting somewhere in this debate. We're getting some intellectual honesty. Let me ask you, Jonathan, my question is this, though. The Minister of National Security in Israel, Ben-Givir, criticized Israel's recent drawdown of strikes in Gaza

by saying, I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat. There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn't live. They're not even people. He has the same view.

I'm asking the question. He has the same view. I'm asking the question. Is that the language of a terrorist? I'll say this. First of all, we can see what Israel does. It does not conduct targeted... That wasn't my question.

Yeah, no, but it's an important part to recognize the big difference... It's what he wants to do, and he is the National Security Minister. Between talk of a politician that is, in my mind. But is it the language of a terrorist, Jonathan? No, it is reckless.

It is ignorant. It is, I think, not really conducive to winning the war and defeat. If a Palestinian politician... If a Palestinian politician said that about Israelis, I think you would frame it as terrorists. If, Pierce, they say it every day and now.

They say that they would do... Okay, but you were categorized that as terrorist... Again and again and again. But my point is... My point is, though, is if the Israelis... Rather like with Danny Danone, who tried to draw a distinction between what Palestinians do on the West Bank to Israelis and what Israelis do to Palestinians, one is terrorism and one is not,

I think, again, you're trying to make this distinction, and viewers will be like, well, how can it be any different? No, I'm not making that distinction. And I think I was pretty clear with my answer, the first answer, where I draw a very... I draw a very clear and distinguishable line between what is unlawful, vigilante, and in some cases, terrorist behavior, and the fighting done by the state of Israel against an internationally recognized terror organization, which is Hamas, which you just pointed out.

And it's interesting to mention, you know, you said all of the long list of some of the Muslim terrorist organizations that exist and have been blacklisted. There are, of course, many, many others, just in Gaza. There are many others in Judean, Samaria, and in Syria and Lebanon, and in Yemen, and in Iraq and many other places. It's full of extremist Muslim organizations that are terror organizations. And when you ask the question of why do so many of these, why are all of these organizations Muslim, it is because, in part, they are implementing the obligation of jihad.

They are interpreting their religious teachings, and they say, well, if we are obliged to conduct jihad, and yes, there are different types of jihad, there are spiritual jihad, etc., etc. But these lot, these people are interpreting and saying, I'm going to do the very literary understanding of jihad, which is holy war against infidels and against people who think different than me. And I will show no mercy, not to civilians, not to women, anybody who is a non-believer. doesn't have the right to live and we shall strike them down. And if someone agrees to subjugate and become a second-class citizen under Islam,

then we can allow him to live how benign. That is the ISIS ideology. And by the way, coming back full circle to how we started this, many of those teachings come out of the El Azha University. Okay. Many of the people who are the idealization of those very same obligations come from L'Azha. Honestly, look, it's been an interesting debate. You've managed to keep it reasonably civilized with a few lapses into personal ad homin.

Can I just respond to that? The point I would make is this, though. To me, it's an important concession by both of you that there are extremists on both sides who are committing acts of terrorism, right? What we need to do as a society, whether UK, whether it's America, wherever it is, Israel, Palestine, right? You need to eliminate extremists, right? That really is the challenge for where we find ourselves in the world right now. The big root problem of all of these situations is extremism.

And I like the fact that both of you have conceded that you have terrorists in your mix. It's just an important concession to accept that there are limits beyond which certain members of your communities are going and committing acts of terrorism. So for that alone, I think this has been an interesting and important debate. Thank you both very much indeed. Peers Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.