 It was a remarkable exchange between Mohamed Hijab and P.S. Morgan last night. Initially, one might have assumed that a discussion would be a journalistic exercise where the host's opinion wouldn't come into play. However, what we witnessed with P.S. Morgan and his featured attempt to defend Israel was quite embarrassing. Well, Mohamed Hijab joins me now. Mohamed, thank you very much for coming in. I hadn't actually watched your videos. I have now. I've watched a few of them. I'm aware you've got a massive following. You've got nearly a million YouTube subscribers. You're an influential person and you have a lot to say about this issue, obviously. So I thank you for coming in, but I'm not too cowardly to talk to you. I don't have a horse in this race. I think I've tried to straddle a divide of being fair-minded with all sides. I've had all voices on the show. I commend you for that, actually. To be honest, for bringing me on. But do realize I did caveat that with unfair ground. So let's hope that this interview is conducted. I intend to be completely fair. I promise you, because all I want to get to here is a real sense of what is going to happen. We can all look back at... Before that, Peter, sorry. If you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... I actually corrected myself. I said pro-Palestinian. I meant to say pro-Palestinian. So why did the word controversial come into play? Of course, you were trying to appear impassial, but the interview with a pro-Palestinian campaigner and scholar seemed rather contrived. In sessions with anti-Palestine figures like Ben Shapiro and Mr Morgan, you made us believe you were neutral. However, last night, the fuckhead fell away and your true stance was revealed by the incisive intellectual arguments put forth by Muhammad Hijab. You started on the wrong foot. Why introduce Hijab? I said controversial YouTuber. I mean YouTuber? If you want to say fair grounds, you introduced me as a Palestinian controversial... I actually corrected myself. Right. So I said pro-Palestinian. I meant to say pro-Palestinian. So why did the word controversial come into play? I think you're controversial. So are you? Yeah. I wouldn't... So is the ambassador. Why didn't you introduce her in that manner? Mr Morgan, it was quite evident that you hadn't done your homework on Muhammad Hijab. You seem to think he was just some random individual making videos in the fans of Islam. He's not allowed me to assist you. So Muhammad Hijab is an author, comparative religionist and philosopher of scripture. He is a co-founder of the Sapin Institute and serves as a researcher and instructor for the organization. He holds a B.I. in politics and master's degree in history. He has numerous books and publications to his credit. He's very far from being controversial. Let me ask you this. Where were you when you heard about what happened on October the 7th? I was at home. What was your reaction when you heard? I was actually very sickened by it. And this is something I do want to put on the table because I think it's fair for people to know this. In our religion, we do not believe, okay, as a Muslim, I am a Muslim and I do not believe in the killing of any man, woman or children. Non-combatants. That is not despite the religious teachings. That is because of the religious teachings. So in terms of condemning Hamas and just jumping straight into it, I condemn not only Hamas but any other entity, okay, wherein it's proven that this has been done, that the killing of combatants has been done, therein I condemn any party that does it. Any party that kills people or strikes at people where it's more probable than not that it will hit a civilian target, I condemn them and that's why I condemn the IDF. Because when they strike, they know that it's more probably than not going to hit civilian targets. They know that the majority of civilians or the majority of people that are going to be affected are civilians. We know that from the various operations that have been conducted. We know that because now in Gaza, you find that there is a blockade, as you know for 17 years, but also they're stopping them from electricity, water, which is a war crime under Geneva 4 of the Geneva Convention, protocol 4 of the Geneva Convention. So this is something I'm surprised you didn't actually mention to the ambassador. I did mention it. You didn't say it's a war crime? Well, I think it's an arguable point with us to a war crime. Okay, I'm asking another thing. They are saying at the moment, as well as Adam, they are not breaching war crimes, right? It will be determined. Well, it will be determined whether that's the case. No, no, no, sorry, sorry. That's incorrect. Well, let me just make a button to you back on that. I think surely we can agree that what happened on October the 7th was a war crime. I mean, when people are taking grandmothers and executing them, kidnapping young children, when they're killing babies in their cribs, we can agree that's a war crime, right? Okay, babies are... Can we? Surely, of course, 100%. But babies in the crib. Sorry, what was the evidence for that? You don't believe that happened? Sorry, CNN, The White House, Sky News, which you work for, all say it's... I don't work for Sky News. Well, you're thinking... I did work at CNN. I saw one reporter who retracted it because she wasn't sure about the source. It's unconfirmed by The White House. But then The Daily Telegraph and The Drewson Post and other sources then did publish pictures. CNN? Which didn't disputably show babies have been killed. No, it showed one baby who's been charred and that picture has been put up on Twitter and has been refuted by many people saying that it's actually AI. No, no, that's completely untrue. That is true. No, no. What's your source? No, no, no. What's your source? There's been a thorough investigation into the claim that was put up there by some rogue person on Twitter that it was AI. It has been completely disproven. Okay, let me ask you a question. That picture, which was published on Telegraph, is a genuine legitimate picture. What's your source? What is your source? Are you seriously arguing that babies weren't killed? And no, I didn't say that. Well, what are you saying? I'm saying give me a source. Yeah. You know full well you've been fired from the Daily Mirror for fake images. So you know full well about the... I didn't accept they were fake. Exactly. The UK government did. Yeah, they did. Uh-huh. Because the UK government, just to be clear, had waged, in my view, an illegal war in Iraq. So you're allowed to go against the government and I'm not allowed to go against the Israeli government? No, no. Of course you're allowed to. So tell me now, what's the source? You seem to be making a lot of presumptions about me, Muhammad. Yes, you had softball questions for your ambassador of... No, they weren't. I put all the questions to the ambassador. I was editor of the Daily Mirror when we opposed the Iraq War. Sure. On the grounds that I believed it was an illegal war. Yeah. I still believe that to this day. I think you've stained this country. Fantastic. I don't think you even knew that. I did know that. Right. But that's not the point I was making. I was making the point that if you're allowed to go against the government in their classification of an image, then if you have pro-Palestinian activists who are saying, actually, we need to see a source, shouldn't they be entitled to that? The Daily Telegraph published on page three. Should they be entitled to that, yes or no? The Daily Telegraph said they had independently verified the picture, Muhammad. No, excuse me. If you're saying that their verification is wrong. No, excuse me. Primary source in academia. I know you've done a journalism degree, which frankly is not relevant to what we're talking about here anyway. Probably used to journalism, yeah. No, it's not to this conflict. But we academics require primary source evidence in order to make it... The Daily Telegraph said the Daily Telegraph said they verified the picture. That's a second resource. That's a second resource. You may say... That's a second resource. Well, you may say you don't think it's genuine. I don't agree with you. But the wider point... That was my point. I said I want a source. Muhammad, a lot of people are arguing about here. You're not contesting that babies were killed. No, I'm saying I want to see the evidence. So why are you picking on the semantics of the veracity of one picture, which has been verified by British journalists? Why are you picking on that? British journalists are not on authority. Some examples of this wasn't as bad as it seems. British journalists are not an academic authority. You know that full well. You've been fired from Daily Mirror for that very purpose. What I'm saying to you is this, putting this issue to the side, I think you're trying to use it as a red herring to move away from the bigger issue. What red herring? This is a red herring because already 1,023 children have been killed in Gaza. That's why. And you didn't ask the ambassador that question. I literally asked the ambassador. No. I said 3,000 people have already been killed in a week in Gaza. Sure. Well, you didn't ask her... Did you even listen to my interview with the ambassador? I did listen. I did listen. But, excuse me... Well, don't put words in my mouth or say I didn't ask her questions. Hold on. Let me ask you a question. Do you condemn the killing of those children by the IDF? I tell you what I condemn. Yes or no? I'm going to answer your question, honestly and truthfully. Sure. I am astonished by Mr. Morgan's audacity in defending the collateral damage to Gaza and its inhabited by Israeli forces. That's by the fact that international organization and bodies of the United Nations have labeled such actions as war crimes. How can a civilized person view as normal the destabilization of an entire population in the name of fighting and adversary? I'm equally surprised that Morgan propagated some very questionable propaganda that has been debunked by multiple sources, particularly in viral claims about Israeli babies in Hamas. Morgan seemed ready to present all these talking points to justify the Israeli's occupation of Gaza and the subjugation of its people. It's clear that he has felt measurably because the atrocities committed in Gaza by the IDF are indefensible. No matter how one looks at it. I've got the stats for that. Israeli forces do not go... Cast lead, protective age. Go and check it out. Mohammed. Israeli forces... Cast lead, protective age. Israeli forces don't go into Gaza on one day and grab grandmothers and kill babies in their beds. Wait, excuse me, OK. And then hold on. Rape and abuse women... So, rape, is there any evidence for that? It's been multiple reports of multiple mainstream media publications. Well, you can just say you deny everything. No, no, I'm not denying anything. You are. No, I accept that some civilians have been killed. I do accept this. And I already said... You don't believe any of the reports that women were raped? No, I didn't say that. I said that it's still to be... Do you think they were raped? No, I don't know. It's like the Russell Brand thing. You said you don't know any of the evidence. So, why do you apply two standards? I'm not. OK, so, by the way... When it's Israel, we know they're raped. When it's Russell Brand, you don't know because it's your friend. No, it's been reported by legitimate news sources. When it's Israel, you know they're raped. But when it's Russell Brand, you don't know. I don't know. When it's Russell Brand, you don't know if they're raped. There's no comparison between Russell Brand It's the same thing. It's rape allegation. Why are you stuttering? I'm not stuttering. You are stuttering. You're contesting every single thing that I'm saying. Yeah, that's a nice point of argument. At the end, 1,300 people were brutally murdered... 2,000 people have been killed on the other side. ...abused... 2,000 people have been killed on the other side. I said that to the ambassador. OK, but do you condemn that, yes or no? I don't think... So, you refuse to condemn? No. You do refuse to condemn. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Because you're not condemning it, are you? What do you want me to condemn? Condem, OK, excellent. What do I want you to condemn? Yes. I want you to condemn the fact that the IDF, knowing that it's more probable than not, pressing buttons from the sky, killing innocent civilians, 1,000 of them children, that that is a war crime and that is not acceptable morally. Just like you condemned the other one. Is it condemned or not? I believe... This is where the issue becomes perplexing, help those that occupy in force, justify itself when facing attacks. Why is this so challenging for people to grasp that Israel was in fact the aggressor arriving uninvited and transforming people's homes into settlements, resettlement enclaves? How can Israel possess one of the world's most powerful militaries and citizen people's lands portray itself as a victim against a grip of people without an army or access to state-level security guarantees which Israel enjoys today? How does one recognize such distorted view of reality? It's truly disheartening, my friend. Morgan appears to be at a loss when it comes to understanding how the Israeli army would deal with Hamas without humming civilians. He is really at loss in that regard. Then the question becomes, Muhammad, there's an interesting debate. Sure. If, as it seems to me, you believe too... Go on. Hamas are not a force for good. Do you believe that? Well, I think that anybody who kills children and those elements of Hamas were killing children. Right, so we can agree. So we agree. Go ahead, finish your point. If Israel's purpose is to rid the world of Hamas after the atrocity of October the 7th... Sure. How do they do that, given that Hamas embeds itself in civilian areas in the way that it does? Everyone knows that in Gaza. OK. How do they do that in the surgically clean way that you seem to think they should be doing? OK, can I say... How do you not kill civilians? Beautiful. Can I... I don't like any civilian death. Do you mind if I answer the question? I don't endorse any civilian death. No, no, no. We don't condemn it, though. Hang on. Yeah. No, and here's why. Because I support Israel's right to defend Israel. Beautiful. Now, one more point that you can reply. Sure. But the question then becomes, what is proportionate? OK. What is a proportionate response? OK. I don't have the answer. Excellent. Because I don't know what a proportionate response to 1,300 murders is. When 260 young people at a music festival, most of them peace-loving people are enjoying themselves at a festival. But they get slaughtered by people parent fighting in with machine guns. I don't know what the proportionate response is. Peer, slimmer response. So can you tell me? You spoke of about two minutes. You didn't do that with the ambassador, by the way. I'm just showing you. You're saying fair, but you're not being fair. I've said that one, sir. OK, so let me just, let me paint a picture. I will be fair. Sure, sure. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. Fine. Excellent. You're from Irish descent. We know that there was an IRA in Belfast and so on. OK, so let me ask you a question now. If there was IRA in Belfast, and there were occupying council properties and so on, and then we have a plane of RAF going to destroy that council property, destroy all of Belfast, flatten it, as one representative said, got live. The IDF said that one of the IDF members said that we'll flatten it completely. That's what we want to do. We don't care about accuracy, he said. We'll care about damage. That's what he said. You didn't question her about that. But anyway, if the RAF were to then go into Belfast and flatten as the IDF and these guys want to do, if they want to flatten Belfast with all the white people, I'm going to use the term white, all the white people, council estates, living in there with the excuse that we're doing this because it's proportionate defence to the terrorists. What would you say about that? Here's what I would say to you. Is that acceptable or unacceptable? Here's what I would say to you. The IRA committed a series of atrocities over numerous decades. They targeted in their eyes military and political targets. They usually gave some form of warning, not always. OK. They absolutely... They were terrorists. No, no, they were terrorists. Sure. They never ever went out one day and committed the barbaric slaughter of 1,300... Irrelevant. No, no. If they did. If they did. I'm sorry. If they did. If they did. No, Mohammed. If they did. His wife's not irrelevant. OK. They never did. But if they did, would you accept that the IRA have to flatten out Belfast? By the way, there were outrages committed by... My question is... By the lawyer's parliamentary too. My question is, if they did, would you think it's acceptable or not? They never came close to committing an outrage on that scale, right? If they did, is acceptable to flatten Belfast? They never went in and kidnapped grandmothers or killed babies in cribs. If they did, is acceptable or not? They believed they were fighting for better or worse, and I believe for worse, and that's why I'm glad peace was found. They believed they were fighting... I'm asking you a real answer to my question. ...political and military targets. I'm trying to bring it closer to home too. But you're trying to compare apples and oranges. No, I'm not. Yes, you are. It's you that's doing that. The only comparison that I would say that we saw from October the 7th and what Hamas did is with ISIS. Excuse me. The only comparison... Do you mind if I... Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question. And ISIS were taken now, by the way, with plain... No, you keep interrupting me. No, no, here's my... You don't do this with the ambassador. I'm going to finish this point. You do this with Ben Shapiro, which you gave the show to him. No, no, hang on. I'm giving you plenty of time. No, you're not. I'm giving you plenty of time. You asked about the analogy of a plane flying over and targeted... But you didn't answer my question. But that did happen, Mohammed. Frankly, I anticipated he'd job, dismantle the debate and expose Piers Morgan's misguided views and tactics. He extensively did so and really damaged his ego and that's exactly what we see in this video. Please like and share this video so that others can see it. This is an amazing, you know, 22 minutes video that I've ever watched in my life. It was a very hot exchange and I really give it up to Mohammed Hijab for really dealing with this guy that's filled with pride. See you next time, brothers and sisters. As-salamu alaikum.