Additionally, I disagree that sources should mention Zheng He- it is utterly irrelevent if Zheng he's name is mentioned- the argument is based on timelines and thus still attacks the fallacious claims.  Furthermore, it proves the poor quality original pro-Zheng scholarship- how dreadfully pathetic to not bother reading mainstream discourse on the origins of Islam in SE Asia, even in passing. It's inexcusable. And typical hagiography from hack writers.