Khaleel Mohammed, the Islamic "scholar" who appeared in Obsession but (now that the film is being distributed everywhere) has suddenly discovered it to be "Islamophobic," has responded to my post here with an article at The American Muslim -- a reliably truth-free publication -- about "Spencer and his satanic cabal."
His response consists of the usual series of insults to my integrity and scholarship, accompanied by the usual failure to provide any actual evidence of my alleged egregious errors. He even asks his readers to take his word that what he is saying is true:
Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war...and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim). I am not even going to get into detailing that I do not deny that there are some Muslims who attempt to warp the meaning into that...but throughout Islamic history, there have always been scholars who have harkened [sic] to the true meaning.
What is that true meaning? Which scholars? What establishes that the Muslims who believe that jihad includes warfare are "warping" its meaning? Khaleel Mohammed offers no answers -- we just have to take it all on faith.
And then, displaying again the audacity of his dishonesty, he accuses me of being the one who doesn't work from evidence:
I guess it irks you that your "scholarship" is not accepted among people of conscience and discernment. Perhaps, instead of knowledge, you rely on faith to argue against Islam and anyone who is a Muslim. Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?
What would Jesus do, Dr. Mohammed? For one thing, he would tell the truth. But that is a concept with which you are quite obviously unacquainted. For example, Khaleel Mohammed says this:
This time around he raises the red-herring and disproven nonsense about Muhammad marrying his daughter-in-law--and here, either Spencer is a bigger ignoramus than I think, or he has once again resorted to prevarication. It is difficult to figure out where he is coming from. The issue of whether or not an adopted son like Zaid is technically Muhammad's son could be answered by any first week student of Islamic law. Perhaps Spencer should go reattend Professor Carl Ernst's classes and get some deprogramming from a bona-fide expert on Islam.
I never had the pleasure of being a student of the estimable Carl Ernst, so Khaleel Mohammed's "reattend" is inaccurate.
But more importantly, in this Khaleel Mohammed suggests that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, did not actually marry his daughter-in-law, because his adopted son Zayd was not to be considered his son at all -- and that I am either unaware of all this or lying about it. It is "difficult" for Khaleel Mohammed to know where I am "coming from" because he apparently has not read, or does not want his readers to know about, my discussions of this incident, in which I deal with the material he claims I ignore. See, for example, this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series:
Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad's daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.
If Khaleel Mohammed had cared to spend even a moment on research before slinging his accusations, he might have discovered that I also discuss the issue of adoption and its relationship to the Zaynab incident on page 67 of my 2006 book The Truth About Muhammad. But he prefers to pretend that I ignore all this, out of either stupidity or bigotry, in order to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.
Yet it is I whose scholarship is poor and who issue "poison-pen" tirades.
"Satanic." "Ignoramus." "Bigotry." "Crusader." Khaleel Mohammed's frenzied name-calling only highlights his intellectual bankruptcy, his contempt for truthful and honest dealing -- and his increasing desperation at being exposed as the poseur he is.