Thursday, November 6, 2014

The Muslim Feminist vs. Islam, Part Two: Theresa Corbin Rewrites the History of the Battle of Badr

Self-proclaimed "Muslim feminist" Theresa Corbin has given us her list of the "Most Misinterpreted Verses" of the Qur'an. Today we'll take a look at Corbin's attempt to rewrite Islamic history. In defense of Surah 8, verse 12, Corbin gives us this bit of outright deception:
2. Qur'an 8:12—Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

This verse was revealed about the Battle of Badr. The pagans of Mecca travelled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to kill the Muslims who numbered around 300. The Prophet Muhammad and fellow Muslims had suffered severe persecution, torture and even murder of their brethren for 13 years in the city of Mecca at the hands of these very same pagans.

And once the Muslims had fled Mecca and found a sanctuary in the city of Madinah, they were followed by the pagans of Mecca. By this verse God gave the order to Muslims to fight to defend their lives and faith, as they had previously been forbidden from defending themselves.

Another verse in the same chapter (8:61) that is often overlooked states:
But if the enemy incline towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).
Another oft-ignored verse is Qur'an 2:190:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah does love not transgressors.
Corbin must have seen Qur'an 8:12 elsewhere, because it's the only verse she tries to reinterpret that wasn't copied from my article. Many sites have appealed to the verse to account for recent beheadings, because "smite ye above their necks" is also translated as "strike off their heads," as in Shakir's translation:
When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Corbin doesn't respond to what critics are actually claiming about the verse (namely, that it's one of many Islamic teachings that inspire ISIS to behead people), so perhaps she agrees that enemies of Islam should be beheaded. In either case, she attempts to justify the command in 8:12 by lying (knowing that she can start shouting "Islamophobe!" when someone exposes her). Here's my outline of Corbin's assertions concerning the background of the Battle of Badr (and the command to behead the Meccans):
(1) Muslims wanted to live in peace in Mecca.
(2) The pagans tortured and killed Muslims anyway because they hated Islam.
(3) Muslims fled because they wanted to live in peace.
(4) The pagans pursued them to continue the persecution.
(5) Muslims had no choice but to defend themselves by chopping off their pagan heads.
What happens when we actually read the Muslim sources? We find that events went more like this:
(1) The pagans had no objection to Muhammad preaching Islam in Mecca.
(2) Instead of peacefully preaching Islam, Muhammad decided to mock and ridicule the beliefs of the pagans and to raise an army so that he could violently subjugate Arabia.
(3) In response to Muhammad mocking their beliefs and attempting to raise an army, the pagans persecuted Muslims.
(4) Muhammad vowed to slaughter the pagans.
(5) Muslims fled because they wanted to launch attacks from a more secure location.
(6) Muslims began terrorizing the pagans by raiding their caravans, going so far as to kill a man during a holy month (when there was a pact of non-violence).
(7) The pagans learned that Muhammad was preparing to attack a caravan returning from Syria, so they sent an army of 1000 to protect the caravan.
(8) Allah ordered Muslims to chop off the heads of the pagans for trying to guard their property.
Why did Corbin completely distort the background of Qur'an 8:12? Does she think that, if people know the truth, they will conclude that Islam is violent? Does she believe that she can only defend Islam from criticism by concealing the truth and deceiving her readers?

Let's turn to Islam's most trusted sources, so we can see why Corbin and other Muslim apologists are forced to rewrite history.


According to Muslim sources, the pagans of Mecca were quite comfortable allowing Muhammad to preach Islam. They only became upset when Muhammad began insulting their gods:
At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 93—The Messenger of Allah proclaimed Allah’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way . . . until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom Allah had protected from error by means of Islam.
Here's a description of what the pagans had to put up with, in their own words:
At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 101—"We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided out traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him."
But Muhammad wasn't satisfied with mocking the religious beliefs of the pagans. He also tried to raise an army. One day, some of Muhammad’s tribesmen went to his uncle, Abu Talib, because they wanted to arrange a truce with Muhammad. Their only request was for Muhammad to stop criticizing their gods. Here's what happened:
At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 95—Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of Allah, and when he came in he said, "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god." "Uncle," he said, "shall I not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods?" "What do you summon them to?" he asked. He replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs." Abu Jahl said from among the gathering, "What is it, by your father? We will give you it and ten like it." He answered, "That you should say, 'There is no deity but Allah.'"
Notice that Muhammad, while he was in Mecca and had very few followers, was already planning to conquer Arabia (and beyond). What does he need in order to make the both Arabs and non-Arabs submit to him? He needs an army. And so he asks his tribe to convert to Islam to help him wage jihad. They rejected his offer, but they never forgot his intentions.

Because Muhammad wouldn't stop attacking their beliefs, the pagans responded by ridiculing him. In response, Muhammad vowed to slaughter them:
At-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 101-2—I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, 'We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused devision among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,' or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God's face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, "Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad's soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.' They were gripped by what he had said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in a conciliatory way to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, 'Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God, you were never ignorant.'

"The Prophet left, and the next day they gathered in the Hijr, and I (Abdallah b. Amr b. al-As) was again present. They said to one another, 'You were talking about the unpleasantness which you have endured and the things which Muhammad has done to you, but when he openly said something disagreeable you shrank from him.' While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared, and they leapt upon him as one man and surrounded him, saying, 'Is it you who says this and that?' repeating what they had heard of his denunciation of their gods and their religion. The prophet said, 'Yes, I am the one who says that.'"

"Then I saw one of them grabbing his cloak, but Abu Bakr stood in front of him weeping and saying, 'Woe upon you all! Would you kill a man because he says, My Lord is God?' Then they left him, and that is the worst thing I ever saw Quraysh do to him."
Notice that the narrator says that the worst thing he ever saw the Quraysh do to Muhammad was grab his cloak. And this was after Muhammad promised to slaughter them. Notice also that Abu Bakr immediately lied about what happened. The pagans grabbed Muhammad because he had insulted their gods and had threatened to slaughter them, but Abu Bakr claimed that they were attacking him simply for saying that Allah is his Lord. The deception, misrepresentation, and exaggeration we see from people like Corbin goes back to the earliest stages of Islam.

The pagans of Mecca did persecute Muhammad and his followers, but we can't ignore the fact that these pagans were vastly more tolerant than Muhammad and his followers were when their situations were reversed. (Muhammad eventually received Qur'an 9:5, commanding Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them.") Muhammad preached openly in Mecca for a decade, while ridiculing the beliefs of the pagans and even promising to slaughter them. Would I last ten years in Mecca if I went there today and started preaching Christianity? Would I last ten minutes if I mocked the beliefs of the current inhabitants of Mecca and threatened to kill them? Why do Muslims complain about intolerance when Islam is far less tolerant than any other religion?<


Muhammad and his followers left Mecca and moved to Medina. Instead of living in peace, however, they began robbing the Meccan caravans. Since the caravan trade was one of the only sources of income for many of the Meccans, robbing the caravans was a direct threat to their livelihood. Attacking the caravans was thus a form of terrorism, for families would starve to death if the caravans did not return.

After a number of unsuccessful raids, Muslims had their first important victory at Nakhlah, when they attacked some unsuspecting traders, killed a man during a holy month (thus violating a truce), and seized men and property. Here's what happened:
At-Tabari, Volume VII, pp. 18-9—The Messenger of God wrote him (i.e., Abd Allah b. Jahsh) a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had travelled for two days. Then he was to look at it and to carry out what he was commanded in it but not to compel any of his companions to do anything against their will. When Abd Allah b. Jahsh had travelled two days, he opened the letter and looked at it, and it said, "When you look at my letter, march until you halt at Nakhlah, between Mecca and al-Ta-if. Observed Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing." When Abd Allah looked at the letter he said, "I heed and obey." Then he said to his companions, "The Messenger of God has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and observe Quraysh so that I can bring him news of them. He has forbidden me to compel any of you against your will, so whoever of you wishes and desires martyrdom, let him come with me, and whoever does not, let him go back. As for myself, I am going to carry out the command of the Messenger of God." He went, and his companions went with him, and not one of them stayed behind. He made his way through Hijaz, until, when he was at a mine above al-Fur, called Buhran, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas and Utbah b. Ghazwan lost a camel of theirs which they were taking turns to ride. They stayed behind to search for it, but Abd Allah b. Jahsh and the rest of his companions went on until he reached Nakhlah. A caravan of Quraysh went past him carrying raisins, leather, and other goods in which Quraysh traded. Among the Quraysh in it were Amr b. al-Hadrami, Uthman b. Abd Allah b. al-Mughirah and his brother Nawfal b. Abd Allah b. al-Mughirah, both of the clan of Makhzum, and al-Hakam b. Kaysan the mawla of Hisham b. al-Mughirah (also of Makhzum). When they saw (the Muslims) they were afraid of them, since they had halted very close to them. Then Ukkahshah b. Mihsan came into view and he had shaved his head, and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are on their way to the umrah (or lesser pilgrimage); there is nothing to fear from them." The (Muslims) consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab, and said, "By God, if you leave these people alone today, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and be out of your reach there; and if you kill them (today) you will have killed them in the sacred month." They hesitated and were afraid to advance upon them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many of them as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid b. Abd Allah al-Tamimi shot an arrow at Amr b. al-Hadrami and killed him, and Uthman b. Abd Allah and al-Hakam b. Kaysan surrendered, but Nawfal b. Abd Allah escaped and they were unable to catch him. Then Abd Allah b. Jahsh and his companions took the caravan and the two captives back to the Messenger of God in Medina.
At first, Muhammad was upset with his followers for killing a man during the holy month. But then Allah calmed him down by revealing Surah 2, verse 217:
Qur'an 2:217—They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever."
Hence, according to Allah, even though it would ordinarily be bad to kill during the holy month, it was okay to kill a peaceful caravan trader and violate a truce in this case because the pagans were unbelievers and were trying to convince Muslims to leave Islam.


The pagans of Mecca finally realized what they were up against. Muhammad was going to make good on his promise to slaughter them. They needed to protect themselves and their property, so they became more cautious when sending out caravans. Eventually, Muhammad learned that a caravan was returning from Syria to Mecca, and he decided to attack. Read the following passage carefully and see if it lines up with Corbin's assertion that the "pagans of Mecca travelled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to kill the Muslims who numbered around 300."
At-Tabari, Volume VII, pp. 34-5—The Messenger of God heard that Abu Sufyan b. Harb was coming from Syria in a great caravan belonging to Quraysh containing money and merchandise of theirs and including thirty or forty horsemen of Quraysh . . . When the Messenger of God heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria, he called the Muslims, both Emigrants and Ansar, to go against them, saying, "This is the caravan of Quraysh, containing their wealth; so go out against it, and it is to be hoped that God will give it to you as booty." The people went out in answer to his urging, some eagerly and some reluctantly, as the latter did not suppose that the Messenger of God would take any booty. Abu Sufyan had been seeking information and questioning the riders whom he met as he approached Hijaz, being fearful for his people's wealth. Finally he received news from some riders: "Muhammad has called his companions together to fight against you and your caravan." He was on his guard after that, and he engaged the services of Damdam b. Amr al-Ghifari and sent him to Mecca, telling him to go to Quraysh and summon them to come out to fight to protect their property, and to inform them that Muhammad and his companions had set off to intercept the caravan. So Damdam b. Amr set off swiftly to Mecca.
So did the pagans head to Medina to kill Muslims? Or did they go out to protect their property from Muhammad and his band of robbers? Even Muhammad himself declared that the pagans were simply protecting their property when he said, "Quraysh have come to protect their horseman" (At-Tabari, Volume VII, p. 31). So if Muhammad said that the pagans were simply guarding their caravan, why does Corbin insist that they had traveled there to kill Muslims?

It seems that Corbin has been a Muslim long enough to learn the art of taqiyya, and CNN is acting as her "taqiyya megaphone," helping her spread deception to far more readers than she could have hoped to deceive otherwise.

As for the two verses Corbin quotes to show that Islam is peaceful, she apparently thinks her readers are too stupid to open up a commentary. Here is Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur'an 8:61 and 2:190:
Tafsir Jalalayn on 8:61—And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, 'settlement'), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn Abbās said, 'This has been abrogated by the "sword verse" [Q. 9:5]'; Mujāhid said, 'This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions.'

Tafsir Jalalayn on 2:190—After the Prophet (s) was prevented from [visiting] the House in the year of the battle of Hudaybiyya, he made a pact with the disbelievers that he would be allowed to return the following year, at which time they would vacate Mecca for three days. Having prepared to depart for the Visitation [umra], [he and] the believers were concerned that Quraysh would not keep to the agreement and instigate fighting. The Muslims were averse to becoming engaged in fighting while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability in the Sacred Enclosure [al-haram] and during the sacred months, and so the following was revealed: And fight in the way of God, to elevate His religion, with those who fight against you, the disbelievers, but aggress not, against them by initiating the fighting; God loves not the aggressors, the ones that overstep the bounds which God has set for them: this stipulation was abrogated by the verse of barā'a, immunity' [Q. 9:1], or by His saying: And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, that is, from Mecca, and this was done after the Conquest of Mecca; sedition, their idolatry, is more grievous, more serious, than slaying, them in the Sacred Enclosure or while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability, the thing that you greatly feared. But fight them not by the Sacred Mosque, that is, in the Sacred Enclosure, until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, there, slay them, there (a variant reading drops the alif in the three verbs [sc. wa-lā taqtilūhum, hattā yaqtulūkum, fa-in qatalūkum, so that the sense is 'slaying' in all three, and not just 'fighting']) — such, killing and expulsion, is the requital of disbelievers.
As I said in a previous article, I would ordinarily think that such a horribly inaccurate defense of Islam was the result of ignorance. However, even when I send Corbin the sources that prove that she is wrong, she conceals them, which means that her inaccuracies aren't merely the result of ignorance. She is actively covering up the reality of Islam in order to deceive her readers.

Welcome to the world of the "Muslim feminist," where women believe what they're told to believe, and then lie to defend it.


D Goska said...

Theresa Corbin lies about Islam. That's what David Wood demonstrates here. Either Corbin proves Wood wrong, or CNN should take down Corbin's piece and CNN should post a retraction. CNN audiences should pressure CNN on this matter.

Dacritic said...

Hey David, I'm gonna frame this post up. There's nowhere to run now. Muslims like to claim that Muhammad only attacked when he was attacked, huh?

Anonymous said...

Jesus saved his harshest criticism for those who deliberately concealed truth because the lie they protected, benefited themselves ....seems we have a parallel here concerning Corbin?

TPaul said...

Nice work on the rebuttal David, however by playing the proverbial ostrich, Ms Corbin has deigned not to respond to defend her newfound faith, instead burying her head deeply in the sand of deceit.

On her own "Islamwich" blog posts Ms Corbin responds "Jazak-Allah" at her minions' condescending remarks, as though it is some kind of mantra that mystically changes all lies into the truth.

Unfortunately, this pathetic woman's deceptive twaddle could lure other insecure westerners like herself into the snare of Islam.

I am glad there are people like You, Sam, Spencer, Wilders, Geller, and others who are not afraid to speak the truth about this evil ideology.

Keep up the good work!

Samatar Mohamed said...

Wow David. You never cease to amaze me. It's funny how over the years you develop these extreme ideas. You had a show where you said muslims are not even monotheists.

If the Jews were muslims in the Holocaust, you would find a way to make seem like the guilty party.

Your claims have been refuted time and time again but you get more extreme with your hate against Islam. Here are some links anyways.

>Did Muslims Instigate Badr?

>Should Muslims accept peace or not?

>Non Muslims in Islamic state

I honestly once thought you had objections against Islam because you didn't understand its teachings. But it's clear to me now that you just have a vendetta against Islam like your friend shamoun. When I listen to Dr. James White, at least he tries to be fair with Islam regardless of what his conclusions are.

Osama Abdallah said...

Great answer, dear brother Samatar Mohamed!

Hiwot said...

You nailed it!! Theresa Corbin proves Allah and Muhammad right regarding Muslim women having brain deficiency. David and the likes are smart enough to read Islam's own book and easily point out that the battle of Badr was Muhammad's war against the Quraish pagan caravan which the pagans were trying to defend themselves from Muhammad and his gangs' attack. Great job!!!

apostlepaul said...

Samatar Mohamed provided a link and in this link at the end of the article it reads "Now if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was safe from the Meccans as David claimed, why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) feel the need to have bodyguards protecting him?" hhahahahaha What kind of stupid logic is this... all gangsters have bodyguards. Of course Muhammad has men protecting him, he was a gangster who robbed to earn a living.

QuranIsCorrupt2 said...

After the Battle of Badr some of Muhammad's Shahaba believed Muhammad had STOLEN red velvet from their STOLEN booty.

What type of religious followers would believe their "prophet" would steal from them? A PIRATE, more than an a prophet.

Murtadd said...

The so called privilege og living under islamic rule for kafirs is not so "halaal" as the followers of islam wants people to believe..
The conditions of acceptance for kafirs
under islamic rule : We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes
wherever we are, wear belts around our
waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to 'Umar, he added to it, 'We will not beat any
Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our
religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.' " Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah 9

Murtadd said...

And here the followers of islam wanna sell us the "privilege" of dhimmitude....
The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr
and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs
dishonours the Muslims : The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in
grandeur. They should constantly remain
terrified and trembling . It is intended to
hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam. Sufi saint
Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), letter No. 163

Anonymous said...

To the Muslims posting, why do you try SO HARD to defend your prophet? He is undoubtedly a criminal.

Devotee of Christ said...

A very interesting area of research would be the neuroscience of why humans prefer a) evil under the cloak of good to b) evil itself or c) good.
This will clearly explain the underlying attraction of Islam, Nazism etc. and how i) these evil ideologies would make man kill when he wouldn't otherwise. And also important, ii) how their advocates would go to any lengths to justify filth that is obvious to even a mentally-challenged person.
As a neuroscientist and behavioral economist, this will be my next area of research. I will publish and popularise this for the whole world to see. I know some failed islamic fanatics cooling their heels in jail for experiment (i). Could anyone suggest mullahs or muslim apologists for (ii)?

Hiwot said...

Samatar Mohammad, Bassam Zawadi forgot to tell his readers what Muhammad did to the Meccan pagans before he left to Medina and what was he doing in Medina against the Meccan pagans. His story is one sided.

In his article, David shows what Muhammad did to the pagans while in Mecca and Muhammad's plan for the pagans which prompt them to keep an eye on him. David also mentions what Muhammad did to the Meccan caravans before the Badr war.

I wish Bassam Zawadi also did the same - present the whole case, what Muhammad did and planned for the pagans in Mecca and in Medina and the pagans respons instead of giving one side of the story.

Unknown said...

Well done David for allowing Samatar Mohamed's post to stand. It shows how you are perfectly willing to put another side, as opposed to the lying delusional Corbin (and the other censorial Islamists).

Of course the links he posts demonstrably contain nonsense. Badr was a simple Muslim raid on a caravan as told by all the relevant sources.

And to provide a link to the status of non-muslims under an Islamic state? We know what the status of Yazidis and Christians and aid workers and journalists and Shi'ites is. We know that Islamic scripture sanctions that status, and we know it is hell on earth. Contest this with the leader of IS who is far better qualified than you.

Any humane person who has good understanding of what Islam teaches would have a problem with it. We can just be thankful that most Muslims realise the inhumanity of a lot of the teachings and choose not to follow them to the letter like the Islamists.

Unknown said...

For readers who can not get the At-Tabari, as book and the source is AFAIK NOT on line
one can download this:

Life of Muhammad

Ibn Ishaq tranlation by Alfred Guillaume

It contains the same background as David Wood wrote.

Christlike said...

I have never read an article so simple,concise and straight to the point on islamic lies like this before.As the islamic scriptures themselves points out, mohammd was a robber/raider, very intolerant,warmonger and a pedophile. For Corbin, she is the perfect tool for Wahabi propaganda and the medium to spread the hate cult of Islam to the white they so much desire to convert, perhaps her income tunnel is directly from Saudi Wahabi source so from now till she dies and face judgement, she will leave in deceit and shame associated with liars like her.