Questions and answers. Or rather, questions that need answering

There are no timeline image grabs here from Clair Khaw's voracious and never-ending social media and blog output, as they can be found elsewhere here on this Radicalised Imam exposé blog. All I have done here is question her own output, which so often conflicts with the material she has previously posted herself. I suggest the late "Mark Twain" may have suggested the reason for this:

So, how can Claire Khaw possibly be, as she claims to be, "A psychologist, a legally-qualified moralist, a scientist, a philosopher and the most theologically knowledgable person in the West if not in the whole wide world"

Her output seems to suggest she has deep-rooted delusions of mere adequacy, coupled with megalomania, homophobia, misogyny and an unwavering support for some of the most antisocial and lunatic beings on the planet whom she NEVER criticises or condemns.

Unfortunately, Claire Khaw has zero concept of the one thing that the internet does. It remembers things. Once you say it, you cannot unsay it! Someone, somewhere will have noted it, screenshot it or bookmarked it. You cannot therefore either make audacious and unbelievable claims or not get by without apologising, admitting you are wrong or retracting your comment without it being noted. And if you contradict yourself, as Clair Khaw often does, it's there for all to see and refer to. And when you are asked to prove some claim or other yet you don't, it's also there for all to see. And, the wonderful open-platform "wayback" internet archive means that you can't scrub it. It's there for life. Proof at anyone's fingertips. Yes, with a valid reason (admitting you are a liar is not a valid reason), you can get yourself removed from google searches, but then the obvious thing to do is not to obfuscate the truth in the first place! Keep it "moral", and you have nothing to fear from anyone.

1. In 14 years promoting "secular koranism" since 2009, why has no one, apart from some of her regular deviant acolytes, heard of it? Isn't it time to give the silly notion of it as a "new, world legal system" abandoned as the load of codswallop it is?
2. How can anyone who claims to be "the most theologically knowledgable person in the West if not in the whole wide world" think for one moment that "Hamas simply want Israelis to live under Sharia" when their stated goal, as a proscribed terrorist organisation, and clearly stated in its "constitution"  as "the destruction of Israel and its people"? The Hamas Charter translated
   
3. How can Claire Khaw ask "who of my friends are Nazis?" when she was thrown out of the BNP (British National Party) for her still-ongoing support for the Hitlerian legalisation of the post-natal murder of disabled children between birth and puberty? She also thinks jailed Holocaust denier David Irving is "entitled to his opinion" (it's not his "opinion" Claire Khaw - he continually claims it as a historian) and should not have been jailed for his abject Jewhate, she has been photographed with him on two separate occasions, and has also been photographed in front of a Nazi Swastika, wearing a "Happy Hitler" t-shirt and with a rifle in her hands. She also claims that "Hitler merely made some mistakes" rather than calling him out as the drug-addled, megalomaniacal mass-murderer he was.
   
4. How can she claim not to be an antisemite when she holds Alison Chabloz (the jailed Derbyshire Jewhater) in high regards and thinks she should not have been jailed for her antisemitic incitements; Claire Khaw interacts regularly with voracious Jewhater and conspiracy theorist Vincent Bruno who claims that "Hindutva [Indian Hindu nationalism] is wholly owned and an arm of Zionism". This also further solidly underpins her total lack of knowledge as to what Zionism actually is.
   
5. How can she claim to be a "legally-qualified moralist" (whatever that means) when she supports a  Hitlerian-styled eugenic legalisation for the post-natal murder of disabled children between birth and puberty? In her ridiculous secular koranism she seriously expects major constitutions to include the flogging, 100 times (shades of the Taliban) of parents who have children out of wedlock, and in dystopian, Orwellian 1984 fashion, she wants all fathers to undergo a DNA test when they father a child. 
   And, when someone catches her out/proves her wrong or disputes her ridiculous claims, she immediately responds by saying they suffer from "senile dementia". Again, hardly very moral!
6. Does it not show some form of disorder that she is on Facebook 24/7. Despite the time of day one dips in to post a comment on her timeline, she responds immediately. And when she does respond, in over 70% of cases she responds with a question rather than a reply, often repeating the call for an answer when her question has already been answered, often several times, elsewhere on her timeline. And when she does post one of her many particularly divisive comments, she always does this very late at night.
7. Why does she constantly repost nonsense from established conspiracy theorists (such as Vincent Bruno and the appalling American antisemite Paul Craig Roberts) when she claims not to be either a conspiracy theorist or antisemite herself. She pretends to repost these to "stimulate debate" However, reposting nonsense from these people, none of whom she is in any way critical of, on a daily basis, is hardly "stimulating debate". 
8. She is forever reposting videos from deviants on YouTube on her timeline, as well as other highly-divisive personal blogs from a host of antisocial deviants.
9. When asked for proof of her conspiracy theory statements, she never provides any, despite being asked over and over again multiple times. Neither does she apologise or retract material that is plainly untrue. She seems to be only capable of providing links to Wikipedia, who themselves have an uneditable warning on their 'about' pages that material on Wikipedia is not verified so is not up to legal or academic standards. So in essence, it "would not stand up in court". She claims to be an honours-degree barrister, so one would expect she should be fully aware of this herself - "Yes your honour, serial killer Charles Manson was innocent because it says so on Wikipedia, and besides, my friend Billy also said on his blog that Manson was innocent.
10. She claims that world media is run by the CIA (she has been asked 14 times by me to provide proof, but to no avail, apart from a Wikipedia link). I have already disproved her claim that "the New York office of the (British) Guardian Newspaper is located in a building owned by the CIA so it (the Guardian) is owned by the CIA. For starters, the CIA does not disclose its non-Langley outpost addresses, and secondly the building on Broadway that the Guardian has its offices in has only ever, since it was built in 1913, been either privately or corporately owned.
    
11. She has an incredible paranoia that the media will not interview her because she is on a CIA list somewhere. It is the fact she is seen as a total crank peddling a load of offensive and dystopian twaddle that the media don't want to interview her. 
12. Despite her lack of any theological qualifications, her obvious lacking in training, and her claim that she is Agnostic/secular, and having been caught out on several occasions by Islamic scholars in relation to her secular koranism, she claims that there are no recognised theologists who are qualified or expert enough to speak to her.
13. Despite claiming to be an Agnostic pushing a secular load of nonsense, she constantly refers to the necessity for society to have a religion (generally Islam, which despite disputing that she does, she constantly proselytises for). She is also deeply and insultingly Christophobic, yet hypocritically calls out anyone who criticises Islam (remember, she is supposedly Agnostic) as Islamophobic. Why, as an Agnostic and secularist, she defends ONLY Islam, remains to be answered. She uses terms like "Thank God" and "Inshallah" on a regular basis. This is hardly the expected response of a sentient and professed Agnostic and secularist.