For months, Paul Golding, the leader of the far-right group Britain First, has orchestrated a campaign for a mixed martial arts fight against Muslim thinker and MMA fighter Mohammed Hijab.
It’s a desperate bid for relevance, but the most decisive knockout has already occurred – not in a physical ring, but in the arena of public debate.
In a recent online stream, the two faced off. The contrast could not have been starker.
Skilled debater
In one corner was Mohammed Hijab: a man of formidable physical and intellectual stature.
Standing six-foot-eight, he is a theologian pursuing a PhD, a founder of the Sapience Institute, and a skilled debater who navigates complex philosophy and theology with the same confidence he brings to MMA training.
Criminal
In the other corner was Paul Golding: a multiply convicted criminal, co-leader of Britain First, and a man publicly accused of coercive control and domestic abuse.
His platform is built on a foundation of racial nationalism, yet from the very first bell, he found himself tangled in the contradictions of his own ideology.
In the event, the most decisive blow was delivered not with a fist, but with reason, as Golding’s own ideology was revealed to be a house of cards, collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
His arguments on national identity, immigration, and Britishness exposed a project built not on fact, but on flimsy, self-serving fiction.
The core of Golding’s unraveling lay in his impossible attempt to define British identity. When pressed by Hijab on whether a black Briton with multi-generational roots in the UK could be considered truly British, Golding initially exhibited a flicker of nuance.
Reason crumbled
He acknowledged such a person would have a “level of attachment to this country” and that dual identification was “entirely natural.” Yet, the moment he was pressed for a definitive standard, this facade of reasonableness crumbled.
He retreated to a rigid, essentialist position, declaring, “It’s the only marker, biological marker. It’s ancestral,” and arguing one cannot be an “Anglo-Saxon Pakistani.” This biological determinism immediately created a logical chasm he could not cross.
Selective tool
He simultaneously dismissed the “South African” identity of white communities there, labeling them “European settlers.”
When challenged on why African Americans were a “different situation,” he could only lamely state that America is “a country of immigrants” – a description he fiercely rejects for Britain, revealing his “common sense” to be a selective, arbitrary tool for exclusion.
This intellectual chaos was compounded by the flimsiness of his factual foundations. He authoritatively claimed the “native British people” comprise only 75% of the population, framing this as a catastrophic decline.
When challenged for a source, the bedrock of his demographic panic was revealed to be not an official census, but a segment he saw on GB News, referencing a comment by Nigel Farage.
Emotive rhetoric
His admission that he was “not armed with sources and figures” for a topic central to his political activism laid bare a preference for emotive, sensationalist rhetoric over empirical evidence.
This lack of intellectual rigor was epitomized by his bizarre claim that his own lineage stretched back to “Stonehenge,” a statement of profound historical illiteracy that ignores the millennia of migration, invasion, and genetic admixture that have shaped the British Isles.
Perhaps the most damning contradiction lay in Golding’s attempt to reconcile personal experience with discriminatory policy.
When confronted about the Muslim doctor treating his own family member, a story which has gained much traction online in recent days, he was forced to concede that this individual was making a “good contribution.”
Irrelevant detail
Yet, in the very same breath, he severed this admission from its policy implications, dismissing it as an irrelevant personal detail and arguing, “It’s not a matter of attacking people individually.”
But his proposed political solution is precisely that: a brutal, collective punishment of countless individuals.
He explicitly stated his goal is “re-migration,” aiming to make the British population 90% “native,” and he told Hijab, “you would be on the first plane.”
Violent expulsion
This reveals the vicious contradiction in his worldview: acknowledging the humanity and contribution of individuals while simultaneously advocating for policies that would violently expel them.
Ultimately, these contradictions are not random failures but symptomatic expressions of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that underpins his politics.
His fear that native British people are being “reduced and reduced eventually” and his description of the UK being “swamped by mass immigration” are direct echoes of this racist narrative.
This ideology requires its adherents to view people not as individuals, but as demographic tokens in an existential struggle. It is this that makes it possible for Golding to hold such grotesquely opposing positions.
Final humiliation
The final humiliation was Golding’s admission of bad faith. This man, who has written a book on Islam, was unable to name the Five Pillars of Islam, dismissively stating, “I don’t really care about that.”
This confession revealed his entire project as an exercise in prejudice, not reasoned argument or principle. When leaders like Golding are challenged on the basics, they have nothing.
Their platform, built on a scaffold of historical illiteracy, scientific fallacy, and profound self-contradiction, is blown over by the first gust of reasoned inquiry.
Embarrassing knockout
The fight against such figures is not merely physical or political, but intellectual – and in that arena, Golding’s own words have already delivered a decisive and embarrassing knockout.
And where are we with the MMA battle? Well, sadly, Golding’s lawyers (he says) have found all sorts of problems which prevent it actually happening. So he is proposing a harmless pat-a-cake sparring match instead.
Shame.
