A debate between two moderate muslims - both of whom were against the widespread imposition of Sharia Law - and one Anjem Choudary, the 'Islamic Lawyer' who seems to believe that the Sharia is the cure for the entire world's ills.
The first thing to note is how pleasant it was to see Sharia Law and its punishments condemned as 'barbaric' by moderate muslims. That was heartening. But let's just look at a couple of noteworthy comments made by YOU, Mister British Taliban, and dig a little deeper.
"People have asked to be flogged"
Well, yes, I would imagine they have. Given the choice between death, amputation or a damn good beating, I would probably also elect to have the skin flayed off my back by a burly, sadistic mullah. That doesn't mean it's a good punishment.
Choosing between amputation and flogging (the example given in the debate) is asking someone whether they would like to eat a fresh turd or fresh vomit for supper. Neither are palatable, but most people would choose the lesser of the two.
"Under Sharia Law, there have been only two rapes"
I'm sure. However, I do rather wonder whether this is a factor of Sharia Law or the fundamentalist approach to women.
After all, you can't be raped by a stranger if you're not allowed to leave the house. You can't have spousal rape if the woman is a chattel of the man, because she has no right to object.
I would also imagine most women would be unlikely to make a complaint of rape if to do so would guarantee them jail and a flogging for adultery.
"The word Islam means submission to the Will of God"
And your God advocates the execution of all who wish not to submit.
Your God advocates Death for apostasy.Death by stoning for adultery. Hanging for homosexuality.
My Atheism does not call for the death of those who refute my views. Neither does Christianity (my views on which are well documented). Neither does Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Bhuddism or even Scientology. Who, pray, is out of step here?
You claim that Sharia has been the Law of God for over 1300 years. What's frightening is that by your slavish Submission, you fail to recognise that law drafted 1300 years ago which remains unchanged is not good law.
What doesn't change can't grow. What doesn't grow can't learn.
Your Sharia was relevant in a past time, a more barbaric time. As a species we have matured, grown away from crucificion, breaking on the rack, burning at the stake, the thumbscrews and the Iron Maiden. The ducking stool, scold's bridle and pillory are no longer a part of our justice system. Yet you believe the world should Submit to a battery of laws notable only for their archaic brutality.
You believe that the word of a MAN - for, and let's not forget this, Muhammad was a human being (and if I have read the Quran correctly, ALL men are imperfect), translating the word of God, should remain utterly valid, unchanged and unchanging for 1400 years.
Even other members of your own religion deny your interpretation and your desire for the world to Submit.
Your answer to them was, "how can you call yourselves muslims?". I would ask you the same question. More pertinently, I would ask you how you can call yourself a human being.
Your moderate debaters showed you, and your perversion of Islam, up for the anachronistic sadism that it is. They showed, calmly and clearly, that it's possible, desirable and right to be a human being first and a muslim second.
Instead of taking your cues from the writings of a long-dead Prophet, perhaps you should start learning from the rest of Mankind.