I start above with Jonathan Sacerdoti’s brilliant speech. Please listen to it before getting into this essay.
I am not able to record this essay today.
Break Free Media is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
One-time or recurring donations can be made at Ko-Fi
I have been waiting with great anticipation for this Oxford Union debate to become available. Finally, it is here. It took me a few days to get through all of it and present you with what I believe are the most important takeaways.
Motion: This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.
For the motion:
Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Jonathan Sacerdoti, Leyton Styles, Oliver Jones-Lyons
Against:
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Abdullah Al-Andalusi, Michael Doward, Arwa Elrayess
Reasons to be suspicious of Islam started to reveal themselves long before the debate EVER occurred.
Months before the debate happened, there was backlash that it should not be allowed to take place. The date was not announced ahead of time for fear of reprisal.
Finally, on the day, as you can see below, a mob amassed, trying to stop ticket holders from entering Oxford University to listen to the debate. Masked and with Antifa logos and slogans, they threw objects and bellowed "refugees are welcome here" while "racist scum” are not.
Can you guess which side they objected to and which debater in particular? I’m not even going to answer that question. We all know the answer.
The violent objection to this debate and the security needed to ensure the safety of those in favor of the motion is reason enough for us to be suspicious of Islam.
We only have to ask the question, if Oxford announced a debate titled “Is the West Right to be Suspicious of Christianity” there would be yawns of boredom. Christians don’t care if you object to their religion. They aren’t going to call you scum and attack you violently for it. Okay, they might have done so during the Spanish Inquisition, as the opposition team pointed out.
This always frustrates me because no one ever counters this argument with the most obvious. If only they would have a debate on “Jesus vs Mohammed” and invite me, I could dispose of the Inquisition argument forever. While everyone has a right to be suspicious of Catholicism or Evangelicalism or Protestantism there is no reason to be suspicious of Jesus. Every atrocity committed by Christian institutions CANNOT be traced back to the teachings of Jesus. Whereas every atrocity committed by Islamists CAN be traced back to the teachings of Mohammad.
THIS IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER. But it is seldom if ever mentioned.
Nor would there be a violent uprising if the debate was titled “Are Muslims Right to be Suspicious of Christianity”. In fact, there would be no debate. I doubt you would find a single reasonable Christian to argue that Muslims don’t have a right to be suspicious of Christianity.
And thereby lies another reason to be suspicious of Islam. It seems to be the only thing in the world that we are told we absolutely MUST NOT be suspicious of.
Suspicion is a healthy attitude. Recently, I had hip replacement surgery. Should I have been suspicious of surgeons as I picked my doctor, or should I have closed my eyes and pointed to one on a list? Apparently, we can be suspicious of everything, except when it comes to Islam.
Not only should we be suspicious of Islam, but we should be terrified of it. No one proved we should be suspicious of Islam more powerfully than Aisha Khan Aziz.
Aisha is the president of the Oxford Union. In her opening remarks welcoming the team for the motion, she warns them that if it weren’t for her efforts to protect them, they would literally be “cooked” by the mob outside.
Apparently, at a word from her, the doors the chamber could open, and the mob set lose upon the infidels. As it is, she graciously keeps the doors closed and allows them to live.
Quite stupidly, she proves the point that Islam is violent. She glories in her power over the men facing her, who are so obviously superior in intellect, life experience and knowledge of the subject matter, but at her mercy. Watch her face at the end.
Just a few words about Aisha before we continue. She calls herself a ‘Palestinian’ which is a bit confusing since we are assured that everyone in ‘Palestine’ lives in a prison from which they cannot escape. But never mind.
It should also be noted that Aisha is perhaps the most popular name among Muslim women. After all, she was the child bride of Mohammed. Married at six and raped at nine, we should all be so lucky, right? Our daughters should be so lucky. I have actually heard Muslim women say they would gladly give their daughters to Mohammed at that age. What an honor!
I knew quite a few Western women in Luxor who took on the name Aisha when they married Muslim men. Taking on a Muslim name is a tradition in Luxor, part of submitting to the cult of Islam, leaving your old identity behind.
Those who organized the debate tried to lessen the blow of Aisha’s gaff—and the lame arguments of the opposition who came after her—by delaying release of the debates long enough that the Middle East Eye could publish misleading clips and an article, claiming Tommy Robinson was trounced by the opposition.
As Jonathan Sacerdotti noted:
“The Oxford Union has chosen not to publish the debate on Islam which they invited me to be part of. Instead, they appear to have given their footage to Middle East Eye to release a very selectively edited 6 minute clip. This is entirely against the agreement we made with them.”
And this:
I have been informed by the Oxford Union that the video of the Islam debate I spoke in has not been published because “two speaker consent forms were outstanding.” All the speakers on my side consented – they forced us to sign before they would allow us into the debate.
So it seems that two of the speakers on the other side were permitted to speak without signing and are now afraid of the debate being seen.
Here are Jonathan’s further observations about the delay.
More than six weeks after the Oxford Union promised to publish my June debate speech, the full video is still being withheld — while extracts of their own footage of the debate have appeared elsewhere, heavily edited.
I filmed my own speech with the Union’s knowledge and agreement as an insurance policy and backup.
Indeed, this question is increasingly becoming absurd to even ask.
Below is the title and a link to the Middle East Eye article, published on June 18th. Here we are, July 3rd, where I am finally able to thoughtfully dissect the speeches and give a reasoned overview for discerning readers.
Inside the Oxford Union debate where Tommy Robinson lost to a Palestinian student from Gaza
Everyone now knows what they already thought before the debate ever happened. That most despicable lowlife Tommy Robinson lost!
But as even the article acknowledged:
… the audience inside the chamber on Wednesday night was extraordinarily small, owing to a crowd of hundreds of protestors who had prevented people - including speakers - from entering and delayed the event by hours.
Why were they so intent on not allowing anyone to hear or see this debate? If everyone was so sure the result would prove Tommy Robinson to be wrong, surely, they would WANT everyone to see and hear it.
But that’s not what happened. The speeches were delayed and instead, we were supposed to take the Middle East Eye’s word for who won. Millions of people did, which was their intent. Those millions of people will never be interested in actually watching what Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Jonathan Sacerdoti, Leyton Styles, Oliver Jones-Lyons had to say. Their opinions were formed long ago, and the algorithms merely fed them what they already wanted to see.
Before I share a few of the actual speeches, I have to say a few words about Aisha’s promise of protection for her opponents. Bravo, Aisha, for illustrating to us classic Islamic treatment of infidels.
We cannot really blame Aisha. She was merely obeying Mohammed’s instructions for “people of the Book” as a “protected class” that does not have to convert or be killed, as long as they acknowledge Islamic superiority. There could never be a question that Islam would win this debate. That is why those arguing for suspicion were protected. So that they could prove they must submit to Islam in the end.
As Surah 9:29 commands, dhimmis paid for humbled coexistence—a system that enriched Islamic empires but entrenched prejudice and inequality.
Isn’t it odd that Muslims scream accusations of others’ prejudice, inequality, racism, when such traits are foundational to Islam.
Historically, central to Jews’ and Christians’ protection was the payment of jizyah, a poll tax symbolizing submission. Dhimmi had to bow their heads and go to the other side of the street when a Muslim passed. They could not testify against a Muslim (imagine for one moment the implications of that). They could not ride horses; they had to ride donkeys. And so forth. You can find out more at the end of this essay.
Dhimmi Tommy Robinson also had to publish his speech himself. Here he is saying how everything presented to them, from start to finish, was a lie. But what does that matter. He is a dhimmi and it must be proved so, no matter if that “proof” is “proved” by lies.
You have given them the opportunity to selectively cut, edit and publish content they had no right in having or publishing.
You have literally allowed them to 'curate' a narrative which is totally contrary to the agreement we signed before the debate.
There are consequences.
Once things had 'blown up' online about the illegal leaked footage, cut, edited, and published by Middle East Eye (a media outlet that is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood) you can watch everything I speak about here clearly.
After being outed as the 'leakers' Oxford Union quickly uploaded the full debate, they had to, they had no choice.
People should be aware of the fact that they allowed a media organiation (supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood), curate a narrative using footage Oxford Union hadn't even published themselves at the time. Remember these words - Taqiyya, Tawriya, Kitman and Muruna.
Now, let’s look at the cringe of Arwa Hanin Elrayess’ speech
Arwa Elrayess is a ‘Palestinian’ student at Oxford. Well, it seems there’s another ‘Palestinian’ that’s been let out of the prison—and, I might add, perfectly free to speak. I very much doubt Tommy Robinson would be invited into Palestine to speak.
I have known so many women like Arwa in my life. It’s hard to listen to them in their whiny voices. She was on the verge of hysteria. You cannot reason with such a woman. It is clear she has completely committed herself to the cult. She will scream in your face and never have a logical conversation.
The poor young woman appeared rather confused. She insisted with great gusto that ISIS & al-Qaeda terrorists are not “real Muslims.” In fact, no one that does anything she, as the great arbiter of what constitutes true Islam, disagrees with is a Muslim. This would make Hamas and Hezbollah, of whom the former carried out the atrocities on 7th October 2023 not “real Muslims.”
I suppose jihadist al-Jolani, former leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was not a real Muslim until he lost the turban, trimmed his scruffy beard and put on a suit and changed his name to al-Sharaa. Then, as President of Syria, he magically transformed into a Muslim.
But let’s get a little deeper into who Arwa really is. Not only is her speech full of hysteria, but her bio is also shady, as I exposed in my December 2025 essay, Oxford Union picks first ‘Palestinian’ president amid controversy.
Arwa would be hard-pressed to prove she is from ‘Palestine’. Rather QATAR or the UK would be a better guess.
* Elyraess studied for her A Levels at Doha College School in Qatar (where she was head girl) and prior to that at RGS Guildford in Qatar. Her father is the section head of basic research at Qatar University. (4)
* Her father, Mohamed Elyraess has lived and worked in Qatar since 2012. Previously, he lived in London from 2002 to 2011.
* Arwa was born between 2005 and 2007.
That would make Arwa Hanin Elrayess British and/or Qatari but certainly not ‘Palestinian’.
She should be disqualified right there, for not speaking the truth. But if someone says they are from ‘Palestine’ no one dares to dispute it. It’s like a cloak of invisibility protecting them from the obvious.
Here is Tommy’s speech. The one that everyone objected to and no one wanted to be heard, even though he was invited to speak:
He is absolutely brutal in the facts he presents. Clearly, facts are offensive as is demonstrated by the reaction of the crowd. I will leave it for you to listen. He speaks with passion, but not with the hysteria of Arwa. There is a big difference.
Lawrence Fox tells us with finality why we should be suspicious of Islam.
43% of British Muslims want Sharia law.53% want schools with strong Muslim values.24% sympathize with violence to “protect” their religion.78% say no publication should ever show a picture of Muhammad.
And then, Fox threatens the unthinkable. He threatens to show a picture of Mohammed. Everyone holds their breath, expecting to be assaulted by a Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
Watch as the room turns on Lawrence.Points of order. Interruptions. Fear. He tells the angry audience that his own wife asked him not to show it because of what might happen to their family.
Sir Jacob jumps to his feet, all nervous. He begs the chair to ban the use of props in the debate. He is scared. Who can blame him.
If you haven’t seen what happens next, I won’t give it away.
Sir Jacob’s relief was palpable when the cartoon turns out to be a mockery of HIM.
Well, thank goodness. EVERYONE can be mocked—except Mohammed.
And then, negating his objection to props—except for himself—he gets out his own prop: a little cross, which he holds aloft as if to ward off a vampire.
If he really believed that cross would protect us all, why was he so worried about the cartoon?
I wish Lawrence would have shown the cartoon. But the fact that when he doesn’t and the room erupts with nervous laughter in relief, tells us everything we need to know.
Not only do we need to be suspicious of Islam, we need to be afraid.
Jonathan Sacerdoti gives an excellent recap of Jacob Ress Mobb’s lame defense of Islam. I know this is long, but it’s important because these speeches cannot be taken on face value, as people will do who merely listen to them without any background k knowledge. That is what I like so much about Sacerdotti, he is impeccable in his research.
In Jacob Rees-Mogg’s desperation during the Oxford Islam debate, he also came up with this bit of loony argument, praising Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) as a great Islamic political theorist we ought to admire in the West today.Sir Jacob is a fan of Ibn Khaldun’s writings on taxation. But what does he think of the rest of political thought? Unlike some contemporary scholars who argued Jihad should only be defensive, Ibn Khaldun explicitly stated that Islam has a unique divine obligation to aggressively subjugate other nations. He wrote: “In the Islamic community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”He contrasted Islam with Christianity, arguing that Christians were not commanded to seek global political dominion, whereas Muslims were. He fiercely held that Muslims were intrinsically culturally and morally superior to all non-Muslims simply by virtue of possessing the Islamic faith and legal code. He also argued that an oppressive, tyrannical, and unjust Muslim ruler was vastly preferable to even a single day of civil unrest or rebellion, and that citizens have an absolute religious duty to unconditionally submit to state authority, even if the ruler is actively stealing their property or acting cruelly.In his foundational work, The Muqaddimah, he also explains his pseudo-scientific views on sub-Saharan Africans, explicitly writing that people living in the extreme hot climates of sub-Saharan Africa were “closer to dumb animals than to rational beings” and alleged that they lived in caves and engaged in cannibalism.He used these prejudices to justify the Arab slave trade, writing: “Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because Negroes have little that is essentially human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals. He also claimed that Black people were characterized by universal “stupidity, levity, excitability, and great emotionalism,” attributing this to the “hot air” of their geographic zone.His views on Islamic political supremacy were uncompromising, and he openly argued that a religious theocracy (Khilafah) was the only legitimate form of governance. He explicitly stated that purely secular political systems based on human reason are fundamentally corrupt and sinful because they prioritise worldly greed over divine law. He even had zero tolerance for heterodoxy within the Muslim world, railing against Shia Muslims, and aggressively condemned and sought to ban the works of ecstatic or philosophical Sufi mystics (such as Ibn Arabi).So, are you embarrassed of this speech yet, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Judge for yourself if Sir Jacob should be embarrassed by listening to his speech below:
I close with the speech they really didn’t want you to hear—they didn’t want you to hear any of them, but this one is from a Muslim.
Below is Zagham Farhan (Muslim student, incoming Oxford SU undergrad president) floor speech. He is a Muslim who refreshingly says we should be suspicious of Islam:“Suspicion is a very low bar, and that is what this debate has missed so far. I am suspicious of anyone who uses their religion as a political tool. There is a version of our faith that can be lived and practiced in our country, and it is our job to find it. How can I, who lives in a liberal democracy, be anything but suspicious of Islam? Of course we have to be suspicious of religious authority. If you hold these values dear, you have no choice but to be suspicious of Islam.”
The sound isn’t good, I suppose because nobody was interested in making it better.
Below is more information about dhimmis. Tell me something, how does everyone feel about being a dhimmi?
How does everyone feel about being treated like student Aisha treats these men whom she clearly despises and would no doubt given the opportunity watch them humiliated and I won’t go into details as to what that might entail because I can only speculate.
How could any rational human being not cringe at the speeches of the opposition, rigged to win, no matter how absurd. The fear on Sir Jacob’s face, the fearful objections of everyone in the room when they thought an actual image of Mohammed might be presented.
So many reasons to be suspicious of Islam!
YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE DEBATE HERE
Dhimmis – Non-Muslims Under Islamic Rule
Religious and Architectural Limits on Dhimmis
Dhimmis could not erect new churches, monasteries, or synagogues, nor repair existing ones without Muslim approval. This halted visible expansion of non-Islamic worship. Crosses, icons, or scriptures couldn’t be displayed openly, and church bells—symbols of Christian authority—were banned or muffled. Synagogues faced similar curbs, ensuring mosques overshadowed other structures.
Distinctive Markings and Social Deference
To mark their status, dhimmis wore distinctive clothing: yellow badges for Jews, blue or black turbans for Christians, often with zunnar belts. Horses—reserved for Muslims—were off-limits; dhimmis rode donkeys. They carried no weapons, symbolizing non-threat.
Socially, dhimmis yielded right-of-way to Muslims on streets, rising when a Muslim passed. They avoided eye contact or elevated speech, fostering constant respect. Public cursing of Islam or Muhammad invited death; even private mockery risked exposure.
Prohibitions on Authority and Influence
No dhimmi could hold authority over Muslims—as judges, governors, or employers. Muslim slaves weren’t permitted in dhimmi homes. Intermarriages favored Muslims, with dhimmi women eligible to Muslim men but not vice versa.
These rules, echoed in later Ottoman millet systems, aimed to humiliate subtly while granting security. Enforcement varied: tolerant rulers like the Abbasids relaxed some, while zealots like Almohads revoked protections entirely.
Consequences of Violating Dhimmi Conditions
Breach meant revoked dhimma. Dhimmis lost legal personhood, becoming fair game for violence, enslavement, or property seizure. Historical pogroms, like the 1066 Granada massacre of Jews or 19th-century Damascus blood libels, invoked such violations. Riots often targeted prosperous dhimmis, with mobs claiming broken pacts.
Collective liability amplified fear: one offender’s sin punished the community. Converts to Islam escaped but risked family ostracism. Up risings, rare due to disunity, led to massacres, as in the 13th-century Mongol contrasts where unprotected Jews fared worse.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit khmezek.substack.com/subscribe
