Bennettian Butthurt: A Response to Chris Bennett’s recent tirade
I will keep this brief.
Chris Bennett’s most recent Substack article continues the pattern established in his earlier publications: substituting personal attack, psychological speculation, and insinuation for substantive engagement with evidence. Rather than addressing my actual scholarly claims—textual, historical, or philological—the article relies on ridicule, caricature, and unsubstantiated assertions about my mental state, motivations, and credibility. This response is therefore limited to correcting the record and clarifying several recurring misrepresentations.
On the Characterisation of My Responses as “Unhinged”
Having exhausted substantive argument, Bennett repeatedly describes my responses to his earlier articles as “unhinged,” claims I have “lost the plot,” and suggests I require a “wellness check.” These are not arguments. They are rhetorical pathologisations. They cite no clinical authority, no behavioural evidence, and no factual basis. Their sole function is to discredit a critic without engaging the substance of the critique, by implying psychological instability—an allegation that is irresponsible and defamatory.
My responses consist of documented textual analysis with sourcing, historical contextualisation, and publicly accessible citations. The length of my writing reflects the breadth of the misrepresentations involved, not emotional instability. Disagreement, even sharp disagreement, does not constitute pathology. If Bennett believes otherwise, the appropriate forum is legal review—not insinuation.
On the 2014 Rohani Fatwā
Bennett asserts that discussion of the 2014 Ayatollah Rohani fatwā should be suspended until “authentication” is provided by a Shiʿi authority acceptable to him. He is entitled to pursue that line of inquiry, but it does not invalidate the documentary evidence already presented. I have consistently stated that the fatwā exists in Arabic copies issued by Rohani’s office and transmitted through intermediaries. Bennett has not demonstrated that the document is forged, misattributed, or fabricated; he merely labels it “dubious” by assertion alone. In the absence of counter-evidence, insinuation does not invalidate a document.
When my earlier rebuttals are placed side by side with Bennett’s latest hit-piece, the record shows:
No refutation of my core claims.
Explicit concession of the document’s authenticity.
Persistent reliance on irrelevant criteria (state law, publicity).
Escalation into ad hominem framing as technical arguments fail.
From a scholarly, journalistic, or evidentiary standpoint, the comparison overwhelmingly favours consistency on my side and complete instability on his.
On Accusations of Plagiarism
Bennett alleges plagiarism without producing any side-by-side textual comparison or evidentiary demonstration. None is provided because none exists. Unsupported accusation does not constitute proof.
On Claims of Racism, Nazism, and “White Nationalism”
Bennett denies racism by demanding an explicit racial slur as evidence. This is a category error. Racism is not limited to epithets; it includes racialised framing, pathologisation, and the recurrent trope of the “mad Eastern mystic”—a trope extensively documented in Orientalist literature. Bennett’s article titles, fixation on alleged psychological instability, and reliance on binaries such as “Messiah or Madman” reproduce precisely this frame.
Conversely, Bennett’s accusations that I am antisemitic, Nazi-adjacent, or conspiratorial are unsupported by quotation, evidence, or analysis. Where such claims are gestured toward, they dissolve into assertion and ridicule rather than substantiation.
On “Corpus” and Academic Recognition
Bennett suggests that the absence of mainstream academic reviews invalidates my work, ignoring the fact that my work has in fact been cited by academics. In any case, this misunderstands both independent scholarship and the politics of academic recognition—particularly in fields involving marginalised or suppressed traditions. Academic silence is not evidence of intellectual failure, nor is institutional endorsement a criterion of truth. My work is publicly available, citable, and open to critique on its merits. Bennett does not engage it at that level.
On Threats, Authorities, and Intimidation
Bennett portrays my legal correspondence and formal complaints as intimidation. This is incorrect. Lawful notice and complaint mechanisms exist precisely to address defamatory publication. Characterising their use as coercive while engaging in repeated personal attack is a misrepresentation of both process and intent.
Conclusion
Chris Bennett’s article is not an investigation. It is a polemic. It relies on mockery where evidence is required, speculation where citation is necessary, and personal attack where argument should appear. I stand by the factual accuracy of my work and reject the defamatory characterisations advanced in his Substack publication. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources, verify claims independently, and distinguish disagreement from defamation. Bennett questions my credibility yet I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he has none.
Any further engagement on this matter will proceed through appropriate legal, regulatory, and human-rights channels.
