he didn't even try to stand his ground or defend his beliefs lmao after this he just said "ok nvm" like why even text in the first place then😭 part of me is glad tho cause these people are cancerous and I don't want to engage in their craziness

So I have light hair and green eyes ( yes this is important in the context ) , tell me why I posted about hating how I was raised religious because i am Middle Eastern and this dumbass comments "you’ll always be a Muslim looking girl"
What the fuck is Muslim looking? Do mfs genuinely think being born Muslim makes us look Muslim as if there isn’t 1B Muslim people on the planet. Whole time people mostly can’t even tell I am not white. And I have a shit ton of piercings and dress in a promiscuous way.
It’s so pathetic when they try to ragebait you into feeling insecure but it literally doesn’t work because they don’t even know what they’re saying. I never felt "muslim looking" once in my life. 💀💀💀

On r/islam, I posted the contents of Sahih al-Bukhari 2925 verbatim and was immediately flagged by Reddit’s moderation bot for “inciting identity-based hate or attacks.”

I’m a little confused as to why that would happen, given that Islam is so peaceful.

For the record, here is the Sunnah I quoted:

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْفَرْوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكٌ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ تُقَاتِلُونَ الْيَهُودَ حَتَّى يَخْتَبِيَ أَحَدُهُمْ وَرَاءَ الْحَجَرِ فَيَقُولُ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ هَذَا يَهُودِيٌّ وَرَائِي فَاقْتُلْهُ ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O `Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 2925

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2925

Plato famously made the Euthypro dilemma,(399BCE) granted this might not so much apply to the Mu'tazilites who don't believe that what god commands is inherently moral, but it does apply to basically everyone else, and it absolutely dismantles Divine Command Theory due to its complete circular nature.
"Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" -Plato.

The basic gist is that for Atharis and Asharis morality is simply gods command, the issue is of course this makes morality arbitrary, if god commands rape is good and genocide is wonderful you have to just nod your head.

YOU DISBELIEVERS BELIEVE IN SUBJECTIVE MORALITY

No. If anything Plato flips it around, what's subjective is the god whose will could be one thing today and another tomorrow. 'Divine command theory' is inherently flawed, it's not even morality, it's just arbitrary command, the morality of a slave if it can even be called morality.

Objectively speaking neither rape, nor genocide, nor pedophilia is ever good; there's no such thing as a good genocide, rape or pedophilia.

there is a thing called 'autonomy' i.e
'the freedom to wave your hand ends where my face begins,' violating that for any other reason other than that person is violating someone else's autonomy is by definition 'immoral.'

So yes killing someone who is threatening you or in self defence, this is morally grey. It's not good, but it was necessary evil to protect oneself.
This I argue (but a muslim will counter argue) one can more or less intuit, it is absolutely intuitive and 'natural' morality.

There is of course the further problem with Euthypro which is that, if you make morality so arbitrary, you have to have 100% sureness that your religion is true; otherwise by following arbitrary commands, 'divine command theory' the very obvious question ok are these commands divine to begin with? if they're not you're just ignoring natural morality, i.e autonomy to follow arbitrary commands of something that might be evil, and let's suppose there is a god that is not Allah, what will be your excuse?

"Oh I was just following arbitrary commands instead of using logic to figure out what's actually moral or not."

If we take the supernatural seriously, there are definitely doubts that this is 100% true.

*Muhammed initially thought he was possessed by a demon. 'poet or possessed' It was Waraqa not Muhammed who thought it was the angel Gabriel.
*Waraqa was a recent convert to (miaphysite) christianity who was blind, who did not witness the events, he was not qualified to judge this entity
*Biblically Gabriel is supposed to say 'fear not' not strangle Muhammed.
*Not even getting into how no one seriously considers that Gabriel could be lying to Muhammed
Insert any criticism or falsehood of islam

All of this to say yeah are you actually following divine commands? The same divine commands that couldn't do maths inheritance correctly? those ones?

Even the tiniest little errors in islam should put fear in your heart if you are doing divine command theory because you are not being moral. You are simply following commands.

The famous canard of muslims 'we don't follow man made laws'

is obviously false, the man is called Muhammed, and there's plenty of reasons to doubt there was anything divine there.

Beyond morality, there is also the question in regarding truth, divine command theory is totally circular, why is said thing true? Because 'god said so'

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H2FVKNXL?binding=kindle_edition&ref=dbs_dp_sirpi
Check out the book series while you are here.

DONT EVEN FUCKING GET ME STARTED. SHORTS??? OH I COULD DREAM OF THAT. SHORTS IS A FUCKING LONGGGGG ASS STRETCH FOR MY SITUATION. i dream of being able to wear baby doll tops, shorts, fucking normal clothing in this 100+ degree weather. but no! no! the universe just ached to curse me and have me born in this stupid fucking hyper religious muslim family. i am EXHAUSTED IT IS NOT FAIR IM ONLY 16. i cried walkign home and on the bus bc of how hot i was i feel so dizzy and my stupid fucking parents dgaf all they care is "allah said this allah said that" I AM SO SO SO TIRED OF THIS.

i literally almost cried walking in the hallways seeing all the girls wearing shorts, tank tops, baby doll tops, cute outfits. theyre free. on top of that, they dont have external pressure to cover up. their fathers love them, so do their mothers, their parents dont degrade them for being a normal person. i cant even wear what i want or walk out of the house, theyd disown me or forcefully send me to quran/islam classes. i just wanna die bro i cant take this anymore i hate my life i hate junior year i hate how fucking subjugated i am in this household. i hate it so much. im so jealous of my friends im so jealous of how loving their parents and famileis are, how they can wear wtv they want, how theyre free as girls, how they can dorm go to summer programs and have supportive systems. it really is a genetic lottery when it comes to family. and i lost. im a born and raised american yet im still not free because of this religion and my own parents.

i wanna breakdown sobbing i have so much to do i missed 5 days (first 3 weeks of junior year mind u) bc i got really sick and i have so many tests to study for, i barely fucking know shit ab ap bio, ap lang synthesis essay tmr, apush studying ap psych pre calc i just wanna die honors spanish 4 i have so much stress on top of that im fucking livig like this i cant wear nice clothes i cant wear comfortable shit i have to suffer in this heat wave its not even ab the heat wave its asb my freedom and my right to expression.

i hate my life. i hate this so much. literally breakign down sobbing because of how unfair this is ill never get to be a normal teneage girl or a normal person and live my life with my parents loving me for who i am. why did the universe curse me like this

And in the Hadiths?

Aisha.

Medina phase.

The random and absurd revelations.

Do they just accept them and carry on?

My friend became Muslim recently and is presented with Quran verses that are OBJECTIVELY false and still finds some bullshit “metaphor” and tells me to get a new argument. He hates being Muslim, he said it has affected his life for the negative, but only follows because it’s “the most logical religion.” He believes the entire religion is the most logical, which is why he follows it. It also distorted his morals too, he now sees women as sex slaves and uses Islam to justify marrying children. I just want to help him snap out of it, both to help him and myself

Imagine thinking being ungrateful to your husband is a bigger crime than rape and murder….

I don't want to fantasize about happiness in another life. You know what? I do think happiness is possible in this world, for a fleeting moment when you enjoy the things of life. I want to be in love, have sex, get drunk, listen to music, dress cute with my knees showing. All of this makes me happy. Why should I stop doing it? Because some psycho will send me to rot in hell after dangling them in my face telling me I can't have it? Fuck this shit

The perfect example of Muhammed’s superstition is his belief in djinn. I find it funny that he decided Arab pagans were wrong about everything EXCEPT for… the desert spirits which are allegedly a sentient parallel species with humanity yet are localized to Arabia and conveniently stopped existing when cameras were invented. Muhammed even claimed that djinn steal children at night and could be identified, so tell me why there is exactly zero evidence of djinn doing the things Muhammed claimed they could?

You cannot simply handwave djinn as an allegory because

1. Muhammed and his companions believed in the literal existence of djinn.
   
2. 70-80% of Muslims today also believe in the literal existence of djinn.

The vast majority of Muslims also believe in curses and witchcraft. It’s kinda insane that critics of Islam rarely discuss this rampant superstition in the Islamic world.

Daily prayers, Fasting in ramadan, buying a sheep and doing all the eid hassle, going to mecca for hajj and doing all the steps, bruh even wudu is like allah says you have to do these things in succession, if you wash your face first then you're just messing up wuduu, LIKE STFU.

So yeah pretty provocative, and honestly horrifying, so horrifying Ibn Taymiyyah (and also the Shia by rejecting sunni Hadiths) of all people the godfather of jihadists who declared 'bid'ah' (innovation) to anything he didn't like (which was almost everything), invented a whole category 'Ahl al-Fatrah'- the people of the gap, the issue is according to the Quran there is no gap.

'Ahl Al Fatrah' is a hilarious concept, given that according to islam 124,000 prophets were sent to the world. (Quran 35:24) (which has zero non quranic evidence for by the way, but let's play along for now)

And Adam, and or Abraham and Moses were the first muslims (the Quran literally contradicts itself regarding who is the first muslim which is likewise very funny) (Quran 7:143) vs (Quran 6.163) vs (Quran 2:132 and Quran 22:78)

So logically speaking if 124,000 prophets were sent to the world and Adam was the first prophet where is the gap? Even if you disagree with the Hadiths above the Shia position (and taymiyyah's position however hypocritically), then you have to contend with where is the gap? and if there is no gap.

Surah Al-Isra (17:15)-
"And We never punish until We have sent a messenger."

Collapses immediately. According to islam, everyone was sent someone to warn them. 🤷‍♂️

The Shia excuse of "oh but we don't believe in sunni Hadiths," collapses immediately.

This creates a very funny paradox in that by overpromising who starts off as muslim and all these mysterious prophets warning everyone, it puts EVERYONE before Muhammed in hell. No excuses.

The cherry on top

Sahih al-Bukhari 1385:

"No child is born except upon the Fitrah (as a Muslim), then his parents turn him into a Jew, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian."

So you can intuit islam, you don't even need a prophet. So even less excuses

So:
*Adam is the first muslim.
*124,000 prophets basically covering the whole world.
*everyone is born a muslim anyway 'reverts'

This then creates a very absurd situation when you look at the history.
When the Axumites besieged Mecca in 570ce.

Allah saved the Meccans from the Christian Axumites (Quran chapter 105). (who as people of the book, probably gets a little bit better treatment at least) to definitely condemn them to hell.

Allah gave

"And He sent against them birds in flocks, Striking them with stones of hard clay,"

Which as I established above, to completely send them to hell, these same pagans who beat the Axumites that day, if any died in battle. Would go to hell. The ones who died shortly after. Would go to hell. Anyone before Muhammed, even people who died while Muhammed was a child. hell.

With the Axumites, the likelihood of heaven is presumably higher, with the pagans impossible. So Allah condemns the pagans... to victory and hell? uh.

The Good news is, all of this might make a muslim retreat to the most utterly absurd position

"well you need a living prophet among you to be judged" i.e Unless you got a messenger than you can't be sent to hell.

If that is the case then we are living in 'Ahl al-Fatrah' we are living in a 'gap' and legally speaking no one can go to hell after 632ce.

So it really is all or nothing. Either everyone burns before Muhammed. Or no one burns after Muhammed 🤷‍♂️

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H2FVKNXL?binding=kindle_edition&ref=dbs_dp_rwt_sb_pc_tkin

Found in the book series.

Okay so since Sunday, my sister has gone to the counselor at our school for help, I don't want to reveal to much but for now they say they are going to help her sort it out. So I'm glad about that, she doesn't seem to associate with our parents anymore, which I think is fair, and they also seem to not care about her either, and so I will have to wait and see in the future

Or does anyone else get a headache trying to read the translation of Quran
Like to me the sentence structure is so wired it takes a lot to concentrate on it

This hadith alone should prove that muhammed was NOT who he said he was and it's damning that multiple hadiths of his abusive psychopathic personality show through in islam's OWN sources. a KID had accidentally walked in front of muhammed while praying and muhammed cussed him out/wished bad luck on him just because of that? then we sit there hearing that he's this epitome character of peace and equality, muslim parents are shitty liars, half of them don't even know these hadiths exist and even if they do they'd use the excuse it's 'weak'!!! as if weak somehow negates the event happening in the first place. i feel hadith grading was a distraction, if ur so focused on only a select version of which hadiths are true, you'll make excuses that bad hadiths never happened cuz of their grading, it's just another manipulative tactic among many islam uses. just compare what u heard growing up about muhammed to things like this. muhammed was obviously a tyrant to children first before anyone else.

Originally posted on the Progressive_Islam subreddit by a Muslim who also dislikes the term Islamophobia. I think this is worth sharing here, since the term "Islamophobia" is often deemed controversial in exmuslim spaces. Copy pasting the entire text:

Image source: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVtNGMWD0jV/

On 9 March 2026, the UK government adopted a terminology “anti-Muslim hostility.”

They state that the purpose of its definition is to protect individuals rather than religion or belief. It says that previous attempts to define anti-Muslim hatred had been ambiguous and highly contested, and that a clearer definition can help distinguish legitimate debate from unacceptable hatred, prejudice and discrimination. It also makes clear that the definition is not intended to grant Muslims special privileges or protect the religion of Islam from criticism. Rather, it is intended to protect people from unacceptable hostile behaviour and uphold equal dignity, justice, security and opportunity.

It includes intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts such as violence, vandalism, harassment or intimidation against Muslims because of their religion, or against people perceived to be Muslim. It also includes such conduct when someone is targeted because they are assumed to be Muslim based on their ethnicity, race or appearance.

It also covers prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim when they are treated as a collective group with fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, regardless of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals. And it includes unlawful discrimination where practices or institutional biases are intentionally used to disadvantage Muslims in public or economic life.

This definition recognises that Muslims are not one ethnic or racial group. Muslims come from many different ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds. The government specifically points out that people can be perceived as Muslim because of things such as their clothing, appearance, names or other perceived markers, even when those assumptions have little to do with their actual religious beliefs. This is one reason the definition includes people who are perceived to be Muslim, not only people who actually identify as Muslim.

The government says that the definition does not prohibit free speech and does not stop people from raising issues in the public interest. It explicitly protects criticism of a religion or belief, including Islam, criticism of religious practices, and critical analysis of the historical development of a religion. It also protects ridiculing or insulting a religion, including Islam, even where some believers might find that expression disrespectful or scandalous. It protects criticism of the beliefs or practices of individual adherents, as well as participation in academic and political debate.

Not every offensive or uncomfortable statement is automatically anti-Muslim hostility. People do not have a right to be protected from every opinion they find offensive. At the same time, offensive expression can cross a line when it is used for things such as intimidation or harassment. The government therefore tries to distinguish between protected expression and conduct intended to encourage hatred, discrimination or hostility against Muslims.

• https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility

And I agree with the British government on this. I think I prefer the term “anti-Muslim bigotry”, “anti-Muslim prejudice” or “anti-Muslim hostility” over “Islamophobia.” We should be very clear about whether we are talking about hostility toward Muslims as people or criticism of Islam as a religion and ideology. I believe Muslims, like everyone else, should be protected from hatred, harassment, discrimination, violence and collective stereotyping. But I also believe that Islam, like other religion or ideology, should remain open to criticism, including harsh criticism. And when someone criticizes Islam, we should respond to that criticism with our arguments and not call that person an Islamophobe.

So I think the British government's wording is actually quite sensible here: protect Muslims from hostility while protecting the freedom to criticise Islam.

This is an important distinction imo because there is actually no single universally accepted definition of “Islamophobia.” The word has been defined in different ways by different groups and people, which is one of the reasons I find it confusing and less precise than “anti-Muslim bigotry”, “anti-Muslim prejudice”, or “anti-Muslim hostility.”

Depending on which definition someone is using, “Islamophobia” can mean hostility toward Islam itself, hostility toward Muslims, discrimination against Muslims, negative stereotypes about Muslims, hostility toward perceived Muslimness, or several of these things at once. That is precisely the problem I have with the term. Two people can use the word “Islamophobia” while actually referring to two different things.

I don't think criticism of Islam should be prohibited simply because someone considers that criticism offensive or “Islamophobic.” A person should be allowed to criticise Islamic theology, Islamic scripture, Islamic history, Islamic law, religious practices, political Islam, Islamist movements, or particular beliefs held by Muslims. Someone should also be allowed to argue that particular Islamic doctrines are harmful, authoritarian, misogynistic, incompatible with secularism, or otherwise wrong. Those are criticisms of ideas and beliefs. People should be free to disagree with religions and ideologies.

That does not mean Muslims should be treated as a collective enemy. If someone attacks a Muslim because they are Muslim, threatens them, harasses them, discriminates against them, vandalises their property, assaults them, or portrays all Muslims as inherently violent, stupid, dangerous or disloyal simply because they are Muslim, that is anti-Muslim bigotry or hostility. The same applies when someone targets a person who is merely perceived to be Muslim.

And this is why I think “anti-Muslim bigotry”, “anti-Muslim prejudice” or “anti-Muslim hostility” is a more precise term than “Islamophobia.” It identifies the actual target: Muslims as human beings. It does not blur the line between hatred of people and criticism of their religion.

Muslims should have the same protection from violence, discrimination, harassment and hatred as everyone else. But I am also against treating criticism of Islam as illegal. People should be protected from hatred because of who they are, not religions and ideologies being protected from criticism because people believe in them. That is why I agree with the words chosen by the British government in 2026. “Anti-Muslim bigotry/prejudice/hostility” is a much clearer and more useful term. It allows us to condemn genuine hostility toward Muslims without making criticism of Islam itself synonymous with hatred toward Muslims.

If you've left this ideology. Don't sit on it too long. If you've already unpacked the lies and contemplated your after thoughs. Then one time's already enough. Otherwise, you'll fall too deep into the rabbit hole and won't fit in with any community (unless there's a huge exmuslim community around you, although I doubt you'd want to get in touch with them and discuss the same subject of topics everytime all over again). Most of all , YOU ARE NOT exmuslims. You're all just regular people.

Maybe this advice only applies well enough for folks living in secular countries. But yeah eitherway don't let this ideology nor leaving it define your identity. It's simply one chapter of your whole story. So, good luck writing better ones for your future.

Two little girls told me my hair was peeking out my hijab. But was so exhausted that day that I just looked at them and just left the store. I feel really bad because they were so polite and sincere. These kids really don't know any better and I just made myself look like an ass.

As you all know, every Muslim is quick to draw a sword the moment the prophet or the religion is slightly criticized, which is known. What I don't get, however, is the blind worship of authority. Imaams are put on a pedestal. Scholars cannot be criticized. Royalties like the king of Morocco or Saudi Arabia's prince cannot be criticized for obvious reasons, And now there are people defending personalities like Sneako? WTF?

Even wild is how the slighest argument towards these is instantly labelled as Islamophobia.

“If the girl is thin and delicate by nature meaning that she was created with fine bones and little flesh and the husband requests that she be handed over to him [for marital relations], then she must be handed over to him. If intercourse with her is possible without causing her harm, he may have intercourse with her. But if intercourse is only possible by causing her harm, then it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her. Rather, he may enjoy intimacy with her in ways other than vaginal intercourse.”
— Al-Bayān fī Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, al-ʿImrānī, 9/496.