Survey time - "Is secular koranism, by any stretch of the imagination, a legal system?"

There is a survey. If you do decide to take it after reading this blog, or if you are happy having trapsed through some of the other blogs here on the baseless cult of secular koranism (totally confidential and anonymous - any of your personal details will be ignored and erased, not revealed/loaned or sold to anyone and certainly not disclosed to a third party and furthermore, not used for any marketing or contact purposes by ANYONE) please, for the sake of fair balance do base your responses on the actual screenshots you have seen see from Claire Khaw's output, and not from my own freely-admitted partisan commentary. The survey can be found here - https://s.surveyplanet.com/8txppdx6

I have summarised all the reasons (all taken from Claire Khaw's own postings) why secular koranism is simply a load of total bollox (with apologies for insulting "total bollox") and not even remotely a legal system. It is the flight of fancy of someone who has to have mental issues of some description, as there can be no other explanation for her persistence with such unbelievable nonsense for over 15 years.

To once again set the scene about Claire Khaw's total lack of suitability to lead ANY legal system, let alone this nonsensical secular koranism (sorry if you have seen this multiple times already):

Claire Khaw claims she is "a legally-qualified moralist (an honours degree no less - however, she is NOT registered with either the BAR council or the Solicitors Regulation Authority), a psychologist (no qualifications), a social and political scientist (no qualifications), a philosopher (no qualifications), a political campaigner (several years promoting the neo-Nazi BNP), a mental-help therapist (dangerously, no qualifications, so a "quack" by any other description), and now, as of April 2024, offering marriageability classes (again no qualifications), all on top of being, as she claims, "the most theologically knowledgable person (she claims she is an agnostic, and again, has no theological training or qualifications) in the West if not the whole wide world". 

To note that Claire Khaw states Secular Koranism is a "legal and moral system she wants governments to adopt":

1. You won't find her own website (she deems it not necessary to have a website and instead claims her piss-poor and derided (by experts) 100-page, self-published book (in larger type, so no more in reality than 30 pages of A4) or any scholarly articles on "secular koranism" out there on the internet apart from the ramblings Claire Khaw has included in her divisive personal blogs
2. Secular koranism has not been registered for discussion with the Office of the Lady Chief Justice's in UK
3. Secular koranism  has not been registered for discussion with the Office of the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the UK
   
4. Secular koranism  has not been registered for discussion with the UK Parliament
5. Secular koranism  has not been registered for discussion with the House of Lords
6. Secular koranism  has not been registered for discussion with the Ministry of Justice
7. Secular koranism  is not a registered CIC (Community Interest Company)
8. Secular koranism  is not registered as a Charity
9. Secular koranism  is not registered as a Partnership or Limited Company
10. Neither has Claire Khaw any basic contact details such as an email, telephone number, address, office or staff you would expect from te promoter of a "legal system" that she expects major Western democracies to adopt! There is just Claire Khaw and the group of internet misfits she interacts with. And she uses a free, online meme generator for her "with secular characteristics" national flags she seems to delusionally think some of the major countries of the world have adopted. After 15 years promoting this nonsense and hyperbole that is secular koranism. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Not a scrap of evidential provenance for secular koranism can be found anywhere.
    
11. In the USA the Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. It has not been. For the sake of clarity
    
    
    Authority to Amend the U.S. Constitution
    a. Article V of the United States Constitution outlines basic procedures for constitutional amendment.
    b. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
    c. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
    d. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

The chances, therefore, of secular koranism being adopted by the UK and USA are so slim as to be totally and irrevocably impossible, so the question HAS to be asked as to why Claire Khaw is even bothering. Especially after 15 years with any, even minute tangible success.

That Claire Khaw is in fact in anyway suitable to run a legal system, these following are from snippets taken from her own postings over the years or the postings of others about her.

Take away this thought and ask the Uyghurs in China what they think about one of Claire Khaw's most ridiculous, if not, most mentally-deficient statements to date:

"China is the most prepared for putting on the hat of Secular Koranism"

Do make up your own mind based on Clare Khaw's own writings to decide her suitability to even manage the recycle bin day at home let alone a faux legal system cult. Here's the evidence (all can be backed up with proof from Claire Khaw's own timeline, so I'm not just saying it!). Here is a small list of her achievements:

1. A former BNP (Neo-Nazi British National Party) activist
2. Some 15 years advocating for the euthanasia of disabled children under puberty (I know of several disabled people, working for a living and paying their way - Claire Khaw is economically inactive, i.e. on DWP (government, tax-payer funded) benefits
3. Has never condemned or even acknowledged Islamic jihadist terrorism
4. Is disgustingly Christophobic, Antisemitic and misogynist
5. Supports, and is herself, a conspiracy theorist
6. Does not disapprove of the Iranian regime murdering girls for not wearing a head-bag
7. Considers the misogynist, and twice-arrested (for rape and people trafficking) Andrew Tate to be, like her, a "political philosopher"
8. Thinks jailed Holocaust denier David Irving is "entitled to his opinion" (that is, denying the Holocaust happened)
9. Thinks jailed professional antisemite Alizon Chablos should "Not have been jailed for her antisemitism"
10. Claims she is not antisemitic and that antisemites cannot be jailed (see #8 and #9)
11. Claims Christianity is "sh*t"
12. Says Jesus Christ is a "dead Jew on a stick"
13. One of her favourite books in “Mein Kampf”. Another is “Animal Farm”. 
14. Will call you out as an "Islamophobe" and "suffering from senile dementia" if you claim any connection, irrespective of how tenuous you may make that claim, between Islam and terrorism
15. Thinks the regime in Afghanistan, where girls over puberty are not allowed to attend education, is fine
16. Will not concede that the Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic groups proscribed by governments all over the world are terrorists
17. Claims she is agnostic, yet continually proseltyses not just for Islam but for the Iraniain style of Sharia to the exclusion of any other religion
18. Doesn't see anything wrong with either the Iranian or Afghanistan regimes
19. Wants people who have a child out of wedlock to be lashed 100 times
20. Lauds and worships the ridiculed antisemitic conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts, often reposting multi output from him on a daily basis
21. Has a blog entitled "Radicalised Rabbi" with a picture of rabbis at prayer yet has zero connection with Jews and Judiasm apart from her defence of antsemites. This is done so as to assuage the Muslim community should anything go wrong ans will therefore be seen as emanating from Jews. A classic antisemitic trope mechanism
22. Will not accept, even from Wikipedia itself, that is is not a reliable source for academia because of its open edit policy, yet only provides Wikipedia as a source when asked to prove her claims
23. Will never prove her obvious fake/conspiracy theory claims, made on an almost weekly basis, on various topics
24. Uses deliberately vague and rarely used terms and references to try and imbue a sence of fake academia (Noahide as an example)
    
25. Has never condemned fatwas where some complete off-his-head weird beard from the likes of Iran will issue a 'holy' hit squad on someone they don't agree with - cf, Sir Salman Rushdie
    
26. Does not disagree that in Turkey, Islamist sex with children is fine, or condemning it is an offence
    
27. Claims Christianity "is kaput", yet will not condemn the unique Islamic traits of blasphemy murders in Pakistan, compulsory burka/niqab wearing for women, girls not allowed to attend school to get educated, 95% of females being genitally mutilated in Somalia, underage female marriage and the utterly nonsensical notion of 72 virgins awaiting murderous Islamic martyrs to arrive at their feet
    
28. Thinks the world's media are all controlled and sometimes even owned by the CIA and that the UK's "Guardian" quality daily newspaper needs permission from the CIA to publish anything about her (this is becasue they have exposed her vile activitis in the past - she uses blame culture)
29. Wants a blanket ban on gay marriage and civil partnerships 
30. Claims it is better for people to be to the far right (the very ones who seek to destroy Islam - back to her roots - is she a worm that can turn?) than to disagree with her

Now, over to you.

The survey can be found here - https://s.surveyplanet.com/8txppdx6