Video: Spencer vs. jihadists Anjem Chaudary and Abu Bara: democracy vs. theocracy

Can't wait to read the transcipt, as I don't have video facility on my device. .bet you socked it to 'em Mr Spencer.

Audio quality is not so good.
I could barely hear so will have to rely on the transcript.

Robert,

That smirk of yours is out of this world. It reads like a magnificent FU, as it should to those two clowns. You need to put it on T-shirts. :)

I watched about 30 minutes of the video; will be back later for the remainder.

Great job!

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

The Mohammedans have no records to prove anything, that is correct.

The inquisition lasted 300 years and some 50.000 people were put on trial. Up to 5000 were tortured and killed.

As ugly as that may be, it pales in comparison to the multiple, spontaneous pogroms committed by the soldiers of allah who murdered, assassinated, robbed and raped, plundered and waged jihad on end.

The Moslems left mountains of skulls, wrecked havoc and destroyed far greater cultures and civilizations, they enslaved millions and without tribute from ill advised or fearful infidel nation states the cult of Islam would have collapsed long ago.

All Islamic states are failed nations and will continue to be.

Islam is a house of cards, and as soon as the wind blows it collapses.

We haven't started blowing yet.

Its about time we changed the game...

I'm posting prior to watching the video. As usual, I expect Robert do his usual style...which is exceptional.

Excellent debate as usual Robert. When the debate focused on jizya, I personally would have had to bring up the amount of benefits(jizya) that Andy takes from British taxpayers.

Watched about the first eight - 10 minutes..."Andy" is definitely engaging in deception. He's a little hung-up on March 3, 1924, which is the date the modern-day caliphate was put to rest...forever! Even went so far as to call Ataturk a "stooge." Are his true colors shining through? Will watch the rest later.

At the moment, however, I have but one comment. As I said, I only watched about the first eight minutes, so have yet to heard all of Robert's positions. However, while I think it is necessary to cite "freedom of religion," loudly and often, I think it is equally important to also cite its corollary, the flip side of the coin, if you will, and that is "freedom from religion."

Citing "freedom of religion" only is a dangerous precedent and is what gets us in trouble vis-a-vis islam, as it encompasses/covers all aspects of a believer's faith. If that faith includes such things as wife beating, honor killings, and the like, so be it. That merely places "freedom of religion" in the careful-what-you-ask-for column, though I think cogent arguments can be made that the founding father's never envisaged the rise of islam or "mohammadism," as they were wont to call it, when they included the "freedom of religion" clause. While I cannot prove this, I suspect this utterance was to preserve the rights of colonists to practice freely among the various Christian faiths, i.e., Protestantism, Catholicism, etc., without fear of reprisal or fear of a state sanctioned religion.

Getting back to the main topic at hand, however, by linking the notion of "freedom of religion" with its converse "freedom from religion," you create a much stronger argument and position as to why Islam is wholly incompatible with western notions of democracy in general, and the US Constitution in specific. Since Islam is all encompassing, and as Mr. Choudary himself explains since there is no separation of church and state...no giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and giving unto God what is God's"...under islam, islam is indee-ed, therefore, incompatible with western democracy and more importantly, the US Constitution. PERIOD. That should be the end of the discussion.

While muslims in the US are free to practice their faith, they are free to do so only under the "freedom of/freedom from" proposition inherent in the first amendment. Since an all encompassing faith such as islam cannot deliver the tacit "freedom from" aspect of "freedom of religion" then it cannot and must not be sanctioned beyond the limited scope afforded to its adherents to freely practice their religion without undue harm to them or the faith or non-faith of those around them. Since sharia in any form clearly violates separation of church and state, its practice should not be allowed, regardless of circumstance. For example, it should be deemed illegal for a muslim cab driver to refuse a fare from an individual carrying a bottle of liquor or for a muslim to demand special accommodation for prayer, or other religiously sanctioned behaviors, e.g., separate gym facilities for men/women, etc., in public places such as public schools, airports, universities, etc. And such absurdities as requesting that religious icons of other faiths be removed even when those icons are present in an institution owned by another faith (vis-a-vis removal of crucifixes from classrooms at Catholic University) should be dismissed outright, no discussion needed.

The time has come, if not already passed, where a stronger stance against the encroachment of islam and sharia at the expense of our freedom and liberty is necessary if we are to preserve this thing called America for future generations to prosper under and enjoy.

I haven't watched it all yet...later...

First observations...Roberts explanations were right on the money...

The woman was wearing a ton of make-up, at least ten pounds of mascara around her eyes, And her supercillium looked photo shopped...

To Islam, good is evil, and evil is good...the Bible says that's not good...

"The woman was wearing a ton of make-up, at least ten pounds of mascara around her eyes, And her supercillium looked photo shopped..."

Andy wants to fix all this, that's why he's pro-Sharia!

Watched it live. I thought it was the best ABN debate yet. Sickening how Chaudary tried to get away with saying that Muhammad didn’t consummate his marriage to Aisha until she was “mature.”

I'd advise listening to Abu Bara (i.e., Mizan ar-Rahman) and Anjem Choudary's lectures on certain topics, Abu Bara especially isn't cowardly regarding jihad...

The Inquisition ENDED; the abominations and atrocities of sharia/jihad have NOT. If Islam is so good about taking care of its muslim followers who are impoverished/disabled, why is Choudary a ward of the British State? Is it because the principle is false on its face or because Choudary believes that he is entitled to the confiscatory, "social-justice" taxes paid by the "lesser" infidel citizens in lieu of the currently non-existent jizzya? Also, does anyone here have enough camels to sustain/support this barbaric seventh century legal system?

If anyone finds a transcription of this please post or link it. I can't hear much of what is being said. I'm hard of hearing / deaf so this will help me understand what is said. Thanks!

The "Inquisition" has changed quite a bit - I often ask whether it the Islamic one in 12th Century Spain that is referred to, or elsewhere in the medieval Islamic empire - but nowadays it's called "Blasphemy Trial" or "Apostasy Trial" and takes place in quite different places.

The mumbling, moronic Muslims kept dishing the same old crap, hoping we will all believe it's tasty, gourmet food rather than what it truly is: poison.

Great job as usual, Robert.

Why is this even being debated?

God isn't real, it's like debating Santa and whether he is genuinely able to deliver all those presents in 1 night!

It would be beneficial if this video could surface somewhere in the mainstream media.

Robert did a very good job of exposing and correcting the lies of Bara and Choudhary. The rights of non-Muslims under Islam, the oppressive effects of the '4 witnesses' rule, the 54 year old Mo's paedophilic union with 9 year old Aisha. All those and much more were spelled out and Robert clearly exposed the lies of the other two in each case.

Well done, Robert. Great job!

I hope that, in the future, ABN will screen their callers to help eliminate the kind of nearly unintelligible and/or long winded ramblings that detract so much from the discussion.

I'm not hard of hearing/deaf (as one poster notes above), but I also had trouble hearing some of the caller's comments/questions and, in particular, Izadeen's responses.

Summer did a pretty good job, but waits a little too long to tell long-winded callers to get on with it, IMO.

I was also impressed when she put her foot down; preventing Andy from making the call to Islam on a Christian channel.

During the debate, Abu Bara is confusing democracy with capitalism. Abu Bara, if you are reading this, they are different:

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Robert, congratulations on another convincing victory over the Mohammedans.

Mr. Spencer:

You really are getting very, very good at this.

And I was very glad to see that the moderator kept things under control. I had early expressed concerns that things would devolve to talking over one another but there were few if any signs of that happening at all.

This is non-negotiable.

The difference between "Man made laws" protecting our natural human rights and freedoms, and "theocratic law of God" defining what those human rights and freedoms are allowed or not allowed to be, is that under our man made laws the human being is sanctified as an individual to be honored and protected equally; but under Allah's laws that same human being is to be constrained or forced to be 'sanctified' as an imperfect being, unequally. End result is that our democratic "sanctity" of the individual trumps religious constraints on individuals; which is why we have a "separation of religion and state" in the civilized world. Where one honors the individual and respects their (God given) conscience in a democratic rule of law, the other demands that individuals obey (in submission) religious interpretations of what conscience is supposed to be. One is called Freedom, the other Tyranny.

Our "human sanctity" is not negotiable by mullahs, priests, prophets, politicians, universalists, shamans, moralists, preachers, internationalists, or communists and fascists. That Sanctity is our God given right. That is what democratic, constitutional rule of law (so-called Man-made laws) seeks to protect above all else, that we are free human beings, free to pursue our right to happiness with our conscience, reciprocally for all equally, without harming or trespassing on that right for others. That is why Freedom is far far far superior to Theocracy.

If they do not respect our human Sanctity, which is non-negotiable, they will be fought. We will fight to win.

Just finished watching the debate.

It's interesting that the defenders of Sharia always claim there are no examples of real Sharia anywhere in the world, and so they rely on historical 'golden age' myths to talk it up and then say, 'Y'see, that's why we should have Sharia now.'

That's a very weak argument!

To me it sounded like it was similar to (Robert) shooting fish in a barrel.

Chaudary guy admitted guilt by implication virtual on every point, for example he said only about 60 people's hands were chopped in Islamic history (knowing that's wrong) - therefore Sharia is not commandments from divine; another example Mo screwed his child bride when she was mature - he could not bring himself to say she was nine and he was 56. Chaudry felt guilty as he tried to defend Mo, therefore he could not have done divine act and by implication he is fake.

The other guy could not make a single point except Sharia is the best bla bla bla. There was zero substance in his arguments. What a waster - and he proved Robert's point that MoSlums live on other people's hard work, they have no ethics about work.

Robert stuck to the facts - expressed the stuff straight out of the horses mouth, in this case from the KORAN.

Thank you for knocking two wasters to the floor.

Statistical context

let me teach you about context in statistics, quoting rape statistics from America and comparing it to an islamic country, like Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh. Why is it out of context you ask me... Well, because in America it is encouraged to report rape, and we use science to prove it, whilst in islamic countries they either need 4 witnesses, or they as the victim end up being charged with adultery and lashed, and the rapist, most of the cases with less lashes and goes free... Sometimes a raped women will die after being lashed. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/bangladesh.lashing.death/index.html?hpt=C2 here is one from bangladesh, where a 14 year old rape victim died after being punished for being raped. Here is another one http://www.hudson-ny.org/1856/bangladesh-sharia-brutality-raped-girl. Or this one, where she got lashed and accused of adultery for being raped in saudi arabia, with 100 lashes http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009020828735

This is a case of 503 women lashed in bangladesh for being raped http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/500-women-fatwa-victims-in-bangladesh-in-past-10-years-85380

I can also quote the statistics of Norway, which shows that malee , who immigrated from islamic countries to norway has increased the rape statistics, which goes to show...islam is not a good religion http://norwaypost.no/news/immigrants-behind-most-cases-of-aggravated-sexual-assault.html

It is also common for this to happen in any islamic country, in Pakistan a Priest in Diocese of Lahore says "the police help the guilty" when Muslim men rape non-Muslim women
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Punjab:-armed-Muslims-rape-a-Christian,-a-common-practice-22725.html

+290 million victims of Islamic terror.

120 million Africans, according to Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, page 62, in 1888.

80 million Hindus, according to Koenard Elst, in Negationism in India, page 34.

60 million Christians, according to David Barrett and Todd Johnson, in World Christian Trends AD 30 to AD 2200, page 230. and by Raphael
Moore in History of Asia Minor

10 million Buddhists. [David B. Barrett, Todd M.
Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.

And 220,000 Jews, just in one year, 1146, in Morocco, according to H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews of North Africa, 1974, page 127-28

Adding 14 million of Slave trade done and shipped to Islamic countries, Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] And still goes on to this day

11 million muslims have been killed by the hands of muslims themselves since 1948, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=why-golda-meir-was-right-2011-08-23

3 million bangladeshis were wiped out by the hands of muslims, Encyclopedia Americana (2003), Bangladesh and http://necrometrics.com/20c1m.htm#Bangladesh

1.5 million Algerians massacred by islamists, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

1.5 million Armenians , according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6043730.stm

750,000 Assyrians, according to “Native Christians Massacred”: The Ottoman Genocide of the Assyrians during World War I , Genocide Studies and Prevention, Volume 1, Number 3 / December 2006

1 million Greeks , according to "Greeks Hatzidimitriou, Constantine G., American Accounts Documenting the Destruction of Smyrna by the Kemalist Turkish Forces: September 1922, New Rochelle, New York: Caratzas, 2005, p. 2.

400,000 Darfurians according to "United humans Rights Council" http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide-in-sudan.htm

70,0000 Kurds acording to, The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38) Page 4

For 2010, 9213 people were killed by the hands of islamists and 16987 were injured, according to FBI, CIA.

The host - Samar Gorial did a great job give each guest enough time to debate or counter-argue. In addition she is beautiful. The last sentence "she is beautiful" I could not write under Sharia law - that is enough for me to conclude Sharia is not a law from the Divine but written by some overly jealous people/person.

One of the difficulties I had they all talked about punishing criminals. A criminal is someone who brakes the law. To leave a religion in many people's view is our 'God' sent right. Leaving Islam is equal to joining the opposing army in a war. There is nothing divine about that, except Islam considers itself to be in war with the rest of the humanity. That is a man made law and used in every army, and it was used long before Mo was a twinkle in his Pa's eyes.

It was a little ironic Robert stated clearly Mo didn't exist and carried on after that Mo said this and that.. The context was a little confusing.

When I let go off a feather from my hand, it will drop to the floor without failure. That is a law of divine. Nobody can ever fool or break divine's laws. Divine doesn't need protection from a bunch of nerds who are lucky to live upto 70-80 years. The laws written in Koran, every single human being can break them at a whim - for instance, everyone has the capability to kill, steal, rape or whatever. These attributes are "good" to avoid. That is a common sense. Democratic laws protect us from these undesirable events. I didn't hear any effective counter-argument to democratic laws, except Sharia is written by divine, which obviously is not the case.

Re the work ethic/jizzyah points made by Robert...all he had to do was ask Andy how he made his living in the UK.....everyone her knows that the parasitic twat lives on benefits provided by the dhimmi UK government.

1. TypePad is such a POS.

2. It's obvious why the word went out to never debate Robert. Guess these losers didn't get the memo.

Notice how all they do is filibuster and ramble on about everything under the sun. They NEVER concede the mike once they have it - moderator must ALWAYS intervene..

Gotta love Andy , he sit in the U.K. on welfare that is funded by the same jews and Christians he hates and yet holds up islam and Shariah as the perfect system that will one day rule the world.
How long would the Saudi's put up with deadbeats poring into their nations to go on welfare and bash islam .

As Robert noted, Anjem Chaudary seems embarrassed about elements of sharia, such as cutting off the hand of the thief, stoning to death of adulterers, and the permissibility of the consummation of marriage between Muslim men and nine-year-old girls (like Muhammad's child-bride Aisha). Chaudary says the punishments of cutting off the hand and stoning were hardly ever used, and that Aisha was "mature" (at nine years of age). This sounds like the apologetics we hear from other Muslims whom Chaudary would consider to be hypocrites or lax.

Whatever else may be said about democracy versus theocracy, the fact that people in modern democracies have outlawed sex between adults and children, whereas Islamic theocracies have not--and cannot if they are following the Quran and Hadith--again shows the failure of Islamic theocracy.

Superb performance by Robert my hats off. Thank you Robert.

Andy did have a good point about Shariah and islam, he's in the West where he must make free-will choices that can really tire people out....but under shariah law as in iran or gaza, the State thinks for you.

Makes good sense what you said B of T.

Have so far seen the first 25 mins or so. Robert Spencer was excellent in his first statement, and brilliant in his second statement. Have to go to sleep now...

Actions speak louder than words. These two muslim hypocrits choose to live in a democracy. Millions of muslims are pouring out of their Islamic sharia hell holes desperate to come to democracies. End of argument.

Galling for these Muslims to even debate this topic: Theocracy vs democracy would immediately pose a question as to which religion, and whose interpretation. The debate would have been clear from the beginning if it was correctly titled: Sharia vs democracy.

Nevertheless, the debate like this is useful in exposing the Islamic agenda upon the West

Too bad the moderator didn't ask the Muslims: "How do you feel about having your clock cleaned by Mr. Spencer?"

Why are we talking with genocidal pedophiles?

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."

Winston Churchill

Is Islam the 'economic' solution? Abu Bara towards the end of the show mentions how Sudan is now a 'democratic' country, so is corrupt and poor, but when it had Sharia, it was economically successful. Point in fact, Sudan was prosperous because of its reliance as a transit point for African slaves shipped to Middle Eastern Arab markets, for their harems and servitude. Typically, the males were castrated to serve as eunuchs, while the women were used in brothels. Unfortunately, many of the Black captives died on the journey. But for pre-colonialism Sudan this Black-Ivory slave trade was exceptionally lucrative. When slavery was abolished in Sudan by the British, their economic prosperity disappeared. Today except for oil in the south, there is virtually no economy of worth in Sudan, though it practices Sharia law in all its draconian modes (including turning a blind eye to modern slavery). Without slavery or oil, or jizya-bleeding dhimmis, or piracy, Sharia states go into economic decline. What Abu Bara failed to mention is it was Black-Ivory that fueled Sudan's 'golden age' of Sharia.

More on Sudan slavery: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20586

As Robert said, the Islamic system economically, legally and ethically is clearly inferior to Democratic systems. Well done, let's hope this program has opened more eyes to what primitive, self-damning theocratic Sharia intends for "We the People" of the Free World.

In medieval Europe Roman Catholicism = Christianity as a whole. An implicitly endorsed moral monopoly of one specific religious outlook that only got breached by religious dissenters (Lutherans + Calvinists, mainly)during the 16th century. Europe had to fight for centuries along these divisions until it became so weary of war with regards to this issue that in the long run, secularized law making had to be implemented as a standard by 19th century governments in order to put a stop to the inequities felt by different religious minorities across the continent.

When Chaudary says "Islam is not a secular belief" (contrary to all other -isms", or something to that effect), this is quite telling: it is not a secular belief and it will never become one, it will have to be a moral monopoly imposed on all others. (analogous to European history, as mentioned above) And second of all, deeming all other religions to be "secular", he actually says they are invalid as a whole, alongside secularism. Secular philosophies or religious ones, doesn't make any difference to him, it's all the same. So therefore, basic human rights and pluralism (guarded by secular laws) mean nothing to him. In fact, within the time frame of just 11 minutes after the start of this debate, he actually corroborates all the points Robert has made at the very beginning. And then you get the same old "look at our achievements, think about how we protect all the oppressed people of this world" crap.

I've also taken note of the fact that he can be easily grilled by the presenter as well. Evading the question of why Sharia doesn't solve all problems in Muslim countries, he accuses these Muslim governments of being Hypocrites (isn't that Salafi discourse, by the way ?), without actually using the word, and then starts a rant about Western crime statistics ??? Tail between your legs, Chaudary.

And then you have Abu Bara cropping up. "In democracy, man makes the Law." In Islam, ONE man, calling himself the messenger of Allah, has made ALL law for ALL people, Abu Bara: that's totalitarianism ! And particularly when these Borg-type followers of him want to "assimilate" all others, without them having any say in the matter !

Awfully grotty, slimy gits, those two ! How Robert can stay so cool and collected, I really don't know...

From about 7:30, Spencer said:

"What they call oppression is the inability to impose Islamic Law upon the rest of us."
_______________________________

Thread winner!