If Claire Khaw was a pop act, after the past 15 years at it, she'd still be a no-hit wonder

If you like an hour debating with an unplugged, empty vending machine about the return of your money, then debate with Claire Khaw! You'll probably at least get somewhere! With the unplugged vending machine that is.

As I said in my first blog, secular koranism is the equivalent of a social cure for which there is no disease. It is like some bright spark in a health authority saying "Hey, as we're throwing away far too many crutches, let's reintroduce polio".

From “Secular Koranism? Refuting the Novel Call Coined by the Woman, Claire Khaw” (a detailed review paper by the Islamic academic Wm. Halim Breiannis, reviewing her appalling book that she claims is a "legal system [of happy-clappy Sharia no less] for the world"

On Page 4, second paragraph, beginning line four of Wm. Halim's appraisal, and according to Claire Khaw herself:

“I was born in Malaysia… …I came to England when I was 15 as a student. …I did manage to pass my Bar Exams and graduated with a degree in law… worked as a legal secretary before marrying and becoming a mother. …Aware of my activities, [my mother] [accuses] me of being a crank and [wonders] if I have any friends because of my political views. As well as a political activist, I am a social and political scientist promoting the political philosophy of nationalism.” 

She claims that she is:

1. a legally-qualified (honours degree, non-practising barrister) moralist (she is not registered with either the SRA or Bar Council)
   
2. a psychologist (no qualifications or experience)
   
3. a social and political scientist (no qualifications or experience)
4. a philosopher (no qualifications or experience)
5. a political campaigner (one time for the BNP)
   
6. a mental-help therapist (no qualifications or experience)
7. a marriage guidance counsellor (no qualifications or experience)
8. all on top of claiming to be "the most theologically knowledgeable person in the West, if not the whole wide world" and that "no one is intellectual enough to engage with her".

WOW! (As someone might indicate by bending over naked with a "W" on each buttock cheek!)

Here are her qualification certificates from recognised academic institutions for all of the above summarised:

Yet her main and consistent engagement at the time of writing (19 Nov 23) is with Vincent Bruno, an American, highly-antisemitic conspiracy theorist who she admits has mental problems. (Remember, they both advocate the legalisation of the murder of children with disabilities between birth and puberty, and a mental problem IS recognised as a disability. Bruno, from his conspiratorial and antisemitic writings, certainly has an age of no more than about 9).

So, some academic is Claire Khaw!

The illusory superiority of Claire Khaw's is nothing but that of an imposter with incredible delusions of grandeur, none of which manifest in her postings. Yes, she uses archaic, ridiculous and often meaningless words/terminology in the modern context to imbue a sense of academic superiority ("neocon", "Noahide", "globo-homo" as just three examples), but is totally unaware that people are simply laughing at her. 

She is the mistress of meaningless words in very angry voices.

All the above, yet she has time to stalk Facebook 24/7 (an instant reply, usually a facile question, if you reply to her Facebook post at almost any time of the day) when she is not engaging with lunatics, making ridiculously-themed videos (which she notes the timings of and summarises each participant) and posting on her divisive and antsemitic-titled/themed blog RadicalisedRabbi (remember, she states she is Agnostic and secular from a Bhuddist background, so is certainly not qualified to use a Jewish rabbinical illustration for her blog and is so clueless about Judaism that she has no right to even suggest she is a Rabbi's shoe, let alone an actual Rabbi, radicalised or otherwise.

In summary, it's all just shambolic, immoral, divisive, dishonest and utter unadulterated drivel.

She claims through her Facebook interaction that she is moral and questions all the time what she may have said that is NOT moral.  Aside from calling out anyone who disagrees with her or finds fault in what she says as an "Islamophobe" (yet she is positively vitriolic towards Christianity - but that's alright then for morel Claire), when you really do catch her out  (remember, she NEVER apologises or retracts anything that people find is wholly untrue) she then shouts that "you suffer from senile dementia". 

How moral is that?

It is what she has NOT SAID that demonstrates the highest levels of immorality. For example (these are only some of her main in-your-face examples):

1. Not once did she condemn the Hamas incursion into Gaza or recognise that since Hamas came to power in 2006 their stated goal has been the destruction of Israel and the murder of its Jews. Instead, she has made up utter poppycock about how Hamas want Israel to be governed by them under Sharia. This ignorant, conspiracy theory nonsense proves, if anything, that not only is she potentially stark raving mad, but that her alleged legal degree needs examining as to its authenticity. No honours degree barrister could dream up this puerile fantasy given the conclusive, rock-solid evidence and proof of Hamas's murderous intentions! And she says she's not antsemitic? Very moral.
2. Not once has she condemned Islamic/Jihadist terrorists or even acknowledged that they exist. Very moral.
3. She has never condemned the Iranian regime for having murdered girls for not wearing the burka. Very moral.
4. She does not condemn child marriage or murder for blasphemy in Pakistan. Very moral.
5. She does not condemn female genital mutilation in Somalia. Very moral.
6. She does not condemn the Syrian regime where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and half the population displaced under Muslim on Muslim violence. Very moral.
7. She supports the legalising of the murder of disabled children between birth and puberty because "they are a strain on society". Very moral.
8. She does not condemn the Taliban in Afghanistan who stop girls being educated post 11 years of age.Very moral.
9. She does not condemn the jailed, conspiracy theorising, Holocaust denying neo-Nazi David Irving
10. She has never condemned Hitler for being the drug-addled, megalomaniacal mass-murderer he was, responsible for 55+ million deaths. Furthermore, she dismisses it as being "he made some mistakes". And that's it! Very moral.
    
11. She fully supports misogyny with her "patriarchal" secular koranism nonsense. Very moral.
12. The image on her antisemitic blog is that of a woman wearing the female-oppressive and demeaning headbag, yet claiming she is not a Muslim, but an Agnostic and secularist. Would an Agnostic and secularist with aq full mental capacity volunteer to wear the modern-day dress insisted on by male Muslim misogynists such as the Taliban or the mad mullahs in Iran? Very moral.
13. In her rules for the ridiculous secular koranism, she insists on 100 lashes for any parents of a child out of wedlock and that men should take a DNA test on the birth of their child. George Orwell's 1984 anyone? Totally dystopian and potentially a quite mentally-challenged view of society.Very moral.
14. Not a single condemnation of 9/11 in New York, 7/7 in London or the Manchester Arena bombing, all the work of Koran-inspired jihadists (with the encouragement of their cowardly leaders, in Hamas fashion, who never like to get their own hands dirty). 
15. Not a word against Yassin Omar, the cowardly jihadist who said he escaped 24 hours after he set off a rucksack device on 21 July 2005, two weeks after the 7/7 jihadist murders, dressed in Claire Khaw's favourite Agnostic/secular form of female-oppressive dress, the burka, because he was "terrified the police would shoot him". Shoot him? Oh dear! Diddums. Very moral.
16. She continually engages with conspiracy theorists and antisemites on her timeline and in her blogs. Very moral.
17. She antisemitically uses the image of a Jewish Torah reading by Rabbis and has named her blog "RadicalisedRabbi" despite claiming she is Agnostic and secular and not antisemitic, but plainly having zero knowledge of experience of Judaism. Why does she use this image and nomenclature, when if she was to be open and honest, she would have used something like RadicalisedIslam  instead? Very moral.

After 15 years of pushing the deplorable, antisocial and dystopian nonsense that is secular koranism, it's now about time she gave it up. It has gained no traction except among a very small group of absolute nutters and social ingrates. It's just a very sad, deluded road to absolutely nowhere. And more the pity she doesn't realise it herself. 

There HAS to be an ulterior motive that she keep pushing her drivel. There can be no other reason. Apart, that is, from calling her mental status and stability into question. Which many have done. Including her mother, who says she is a "crank" which is quite a damning indictment.