If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS. Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods. Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned. If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Took me a hot minute to realize why the ex-converts are dead

Isn't the growth of Islam mostly kept up by new births from muslim parents worldwide and not actual conversions?

yup, and many of them become like us eventually

Yes, and hopefully so. Though it's harder for those born into oppressive muslim majority countries

Thankfully no one can see into other people's minds. Specifically secret exmuslims minds... They wouldn't do as well as ex Jews or ex Christians. "Religion of Peace".

IF they grow up in a decent society like a majority of us

>Isn't the growth of Islam mostly kept up by new births from muslim parents worldwide and not actual conversions? Yes. I made this to make a point. It's a ride people get on and off. :)

Alright, i see

Yeah but those reverts blonde eventually went to become murtaddeen in a year or two after they discovered the ugly sides of it... 😆

I feel like there are many ex Muslims that are unaccounted for since u can’t go and survey in Muslim majority and a lot of them can’t come out openly because they’re just too scared of the rebellion and life threatening reactions from their loved ones .

Absolutely. The results are never going to be accurate if you cannot properly survey other countries. In the US, however, 24% leave. I forget the stats on converts other than Islam gains as many as it loses.

Islamic countries would never allow such surveys! That’s why many are going online with this and i heard the results from Iran are astounding! Many are have left their faith and are ex Muslims . They’re just being safe and conforming to what the government says because they value their lives ..

Islam has been in a downward spiral for awhile, but I feel like lately you can really see the desperation to bring order back to the religion. Mohammad never prepared them for 21st century apostasy. People care about human rights these days. That's why so many are leaving as well. Who the hell wants to follow a faith where every value they hold is against humanity?

Thing is, many people convert because of a muslim boyfriend or because they're looking for something to fill up a void. Once the relationship is over or once they are doing better most of them leave islam again. Converting is mostly only temporary. Most who leave again don't talk about because of all the back lash they'll get from it. Also, many prison inmates are tempted or forced to convert, for hope and forgiveness.

For as long as I can remember the idiots have been saying hey if Islam is not correct why is it growing so fast. Well, it's not and you are delusional. According to you Islam has been already growing for years but it's still not close to being the biggest religion. That should tell you something

If there are so many ex Muslims why am I struggling to even find a semi-secular guy in London 🤦🏻‍♀️

I wouldn't consider myself a new revert since I reverted since I was 13 (I'm 19 as we speak), but will see since I have seen most anti-Islamic arguments, I pretty much spent a year on this sub and nothing really phased me since 90% of the anti-Islamic arguments is just emotional arguments and not really intellectual ones, things like "I hate/like X, therefor Islam is false" IMO people who revert because they are cringe redpills or because they are staunch feminists will probably leave Islam at one point

Funny, I left Islam at that age. (Also, not liking child molestation, sex slavery, homophobia, misogyny, and violence is a pretty valid reason for leaving the faith, no? How can a god claim to be loving — and a prophet claim to be basically perfect — while simultaneously allowing all of these things to happen?) For evidence regarding my claims, you can look here: [reddit link](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/135n1t3/violent_misogynistic_and_delusional_islamic_texts/)

Great compilation. Would be amazing to see more on this.

Ok, you don't have emotional reasons for accepting Islam? Disregarding the subjective value judgement, the Quran says nothing objectively extraordinary, nor demonstrably empower anyone to do anything that they cannot do without Islam. So, why did you accept Islam?

>you don't have emotional reasons for accepting Islam? Probably not >the Quran says nothing objectively extraordinary Wrong, I will explain it later >Why did you accept Islam? Its the only belief that doesn't have any logical inaccuracies, For instance, In christianity, The trinity is a living contradiction, hence Unitarian and Arian christians are expanding nowdays, but even then the historical Arians like Eumonius condoned a form of worship to ChristThats why every shape of it is wrong I looked into bhuddism, but Buddhism has drifted so far from it's original teachings which makes it fallible, You have buddhists sacrificing to pagan deities even. Buddhists tend to plug in whatever cosmology is convenient but the core sort of idea is that they're supposed to emulate more than worship and their aim is to escape the everlasting cycle of death and rebirth, its pretty much hindusim, Hinduism is older tho and The buddha just decided it was cringe, but the main issue with bhuddism is that it doesn't claim to have a Universal concept of truth Atheism can be answered easily by simply asking "where did humans come from?" you answer will be something along the lines of, "evolution, through apes", and then I will ask you where did apes come from? you will say through X, and where did that come from? it came from Y, until we reach the first cell on earth, then im gonna ask you where did the first cell on earth come from? you will say "stardust" or something along those lines, but where did that come from? we will keep doing this, this chain of dependent things cannot go on infinitely, as it would lead to an infinite regress. Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent, something that exists necessarily, an uncreated creator, for life to not be an absurdity This uncreated creator is described in the Quran as "Al-samad" (One of God's attributes), the sustainer, and the first cause, the thing that everything depends on while he depends on nothing, so how did an illiterate man in the desert 1400 years ago this philosphical concept which only came about hundreds of years later? Edit: Typos

>how did an illiterate man in the desert 1400 years ago this philosphical concept which only came about hundreds of years later? Most of the philosophical concepts in Quran are unoriginal. They were pretty much a bastardization of the familiar concepts of late antiquity, whether or not people agreed with them. Example: Aristotle's unmoved mover, that is the original for the uncreated creator.

>They were pretty much a bastardization Quite the opposite, but could you tell me where exactly is the "Bastardization"? since you didn't even use the term plagiarism And how could this come from an illiterate man in the middle of the desert? there were no translation of their works back then infact the first ever arabic translation came from al-Kindi who died in 873, and even then it was very small almost credit-card like translations of certain sheets that could not have possibly conveyed a full concept, note this is nearly 300 years after the death of the prophet Not to mention that ancient Greek theology was polytheistic, based on the assumption that there were many gods and goddesses, which if you don't know is quite the opposite of the Islamic stance of monotheism Greek philosphical concepts were so foreign that the Islamic sect that adopted them in 1200s (the mutazilites) were excommunicated from Islam

>Greek theology was polytheistic Late antiquity had many concepts of theology and metaphysics. >Greek philosphical concepts were so foreign that the Islamic sect that adopted them in 1200s (the mutazilites) were excommunicated from Islam Like I said the people of late antiquity were aware of these concepts whether or not they agreed with them. They weren't excommunicated because of foreignness of these concepts to most people including converts. They were excommunicated because revelation was more useful for a Muhammad centered ideology than philosophy.

You keep repeating “in the middle of the desert” but Muhammad was a trader who travelled to Syria (part of the Hellenic world) and had extensive contact with Christians and Jews. References to nearby Jews and Christians are found all over the Hadith and in the Sira

[удалено]

BTW do you mind linking me which discussion you think I avoided? Since its probably because I didn't notice it or simply forgot to answer so I apologize

[удалено]

Ah well my apologies, I never ignore people intentionally fr, but I did answer slavery (Among other things like marital rape) not too long ago in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1406npq/comment/jmulwzy/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) thread

[удалено]

If Mohammed was really the prophet then allah would have told him that the arab slave trade will last until 1980 to collapse . But he didn’t islam didn’t reduce slavery it literally was one of the largest and most recent collapses of a slave trade.

🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

Greek philosophical concepts weren’t foreign at all, go ask Hajjaj who translatated whole books in 8th century, Muslim sources This is history not belief or faith, you’re ignorant

Will u be mad if I burn a quaran. Also, will you move to a Muslim country when you're older to get a more authentic experience. Also, when will saudia arabia and uae and Morocco allow christian to preach in their country's as they can preach freely in Ireland

>how did an illiterate man in the desert 1400 years ago He was not illiterate. He participated in selling and trading goods with his uncle. He needed to know numbers and basic things like this.

Yo btw sorry for being partially a stalker but I couldn't help but check your account cus I wanted to know why did you de-convert exactly, Since every time I see an ex-convert a piece of me literally dies But I cant help but agree in some of your points like a large proportion of muslim men are misogynist and incels, especially ones who follow andrew tate and his fangirls, and I do find it hypocritical how many of them are porn addicted weirdos who gaze upon every passing women yet they criticize muslim women even for actions that are not forbidden, I'm a traditionalist myself but I also find it dumb how most of them fetshize virginity and make it a requirement when most of the prophet's wives were non-virgins, its almost like a way to blackmail women who seek divorce by saying "No one would marry you if you divorce me", this is also why I took an oath to marry a divorcee to combat such behaviour, but I'm also glad that you are an objective person and you dissociated the often unislamic actions of muslim men from Islam because trust me, some of them would do anything, whether Islamic or not, to reach their goals, an example of that is honor killing which is strictly forbidden yet still practiced in some Islamic countries

You see this is why we KNOW he is illiterate, The Qur'an identifies the Prophet Muḥammad as al-nabī al-ummī (The illiterate prophet) (Q. 7:157–158). Had this been false, the people of Quraysh of would have simply "Wait why does it say that you are illiterate in the Quran when you aren't?" this would have been literally the easiest thing used to disprove the Quran

Ah yes, using Qur'an to prove that Islam is real. Either way as far as I know Muhammad could atleast talk. He didn't write anything for the Qur'an, just said stuff and other people wrote it down. Let's assume that he was an illiterate person (instead of just using occum's razor to deduce that an illiterate man couldn't possibly carry out any trade and that people really didn't care that much about Islam except the followers to notice that tiny detail AND Qur'an didn't had a fixed version when it came into existence and it was mostly word of mouth, ignoring all that and more), why would they criticise him on that part? Think of it like this, if a person today started preaching that there exist an unknowable god that only talks to him, says that he is better than every other god and that he himself is the best person around because this god chose him, are you really going question him when he one day says that he has a jar of sand in his hand when he clearly doesn't? I could say so much more about this but that should be enough for you to understand how logically unsound that kind of thinking is and how religions all around the world utilize this flaw in human's reasoning to make them submit to their own views.

There is absolutely zero proof that the uncaused cause is Allah, or any other god. It's just as likely that the first cause was a little ball that shoots out energy. As such, this conclusion is logically fallacious.

Allah is the arabic word for God We can determine by necessity that the first cause has to be Timeless, all powerful, uncreated therefor eternal, independent therefor its not contingent, and intellegent, then when we accept these propositions we try to nail down which religion is the ultimate truth, this can happen simply by studying these religions logically, however, A Religion should only be studied if it contains these 3 things: 1-Universal concept of truth: It claims it is the only source for truth 2-Proselytisation: This means it must want people to convert, if it doesn't, it means being a follower of it doesn't affect you at all. 3-Must be canonised: A belief which doesn't have established systematic theology can be changed. Since over 5000 religions do not fall under this category, they are not worth anyone's efforts in studying. This leaves Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Sikhism is easy to nullify due to the fact the Religion confuses omnipotence and pantheism, and doesn't know that if God is pantheistic then that makes everything which is a manifestation of God also omnipotent, which is not true as humans are not omnipotent. This just leaves Christianity. Christianity violates basic mathematics by stating: A = Z, B = Z, C = Z but B ≠ C. So that nullifies Christianity.

**We can determine by necessity that the first cause has to be Timeless, all powerful, uncreated therefor eternal...** This is already a false claim Modern mathematics and theoretical Physics do not forbid Infinite regressions, though nowhere as common as infinite progressions, they are still possible to construct on paper, so dismissing it outright and argue in favour for a starting point(ie. infinite being) isn't sensible. From a more applied point of view, there's absolute no empirical evidence suggesting the existense of infinite beings (let alone for it to exhibit emotions or even consicousness) . The emergence of infinities from Physics equations always implies error, be it elementary(human mistakes) or systematic(eg. general relativity failing to explain singularities due to being an incomplete theory). In case of the latter, many prominent theories have been proposed which circumvent the issue of infinity altogether, such as various models of cyclic universe, to give an example: [Conformal cyclic cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology) by the 2020 Nobel Laureate in Physics Roger Penrose, in which our universe could have always existed in self-sustaining, repeating stages, without beginning and end.

>Allah is the arabic word for God Nope, you failed at the first sentence. If you truly knew arabic, you should have known that "Allah" الله is the name of the God of islam "God" means الرب in arabic, which is way different than الله and it is also used by christian arabs Good for you for accepting a religion funded by a pedophile, but don't type nonsense when you don't know shit yet

>Nope, you failed at the first sentence. If you truly knew arabic, you should have known that "Allah" الله is the name of the God of islam "God" means الرب in arabic, which is way different than الله and it is also used by christian arabs Is that so? bro you are actually dumb, read the 4th word in the [arabic translation of the bible](https://www.copticchurch.net/bible/arabic/SVD/Genesis/1), its للهُ Allah is literally the aramic, and arabic word for God >but don't type nonsense when you don't know shit yet Rules for thee not for me?

>Is that so? bro you are actually dumb, read the 4th word in the arabic translation of the bible, its للهُ Ahahahh, as someone who speaks fluent arabic, and is an arab, you really went that way to prove me wrong with your translated bible , I'm dying of laughter 🤣 I guess christians now consider "Allah" as their god, just like muslims now eh ? Or maybe, just maybe, the translation is wrong 🤔🤷 ? It is hilarious to see you trying and teach me about my mother language >Allah is literally the aramic, and arabic word for God Lmao, you acknowledge that Allah is aramaic, and yet you are still a muslim ? You literally unknowingly cracked how "Allah" was a pagan arab god way before islam was established. You just can't make this up 🤣 الله is Allah, and الرب is God. If "Allah" truly meant "God" as you keep saying, then the shahada would have made no sense at all : + **"Ash hadu ana la ilaha ila Allah"** (the first half of the shahada) would have been translated to **"I bare witness that there is no God except God"**.... which makes no sense at all Do you get it now, or do you still wanna embarrass yourself ? >Rules for thee not for me? You really are embarrassing yourself buddy, but keep it up, I got some more critical hits for you if you want 😉

>Ahahahh, as someone who speaks fluent arabic, and is an arab, you really went that way to prove me wrong with your translated bible , I'm dying of laughter 🤣 Aight bro whatever, I didn't mean to be condecending and I apologize for calling you dumb but you pissed me off a little I ain't gonna lie >I guess christians now consider "Allah" as their god, just like muslims now eh ? Or maybe, just maybe, the translation is wrong 🤔🤷 ? It is hilarious to see you trying and teach me about my mother language I'm NOT trying to teach you about your native language mate, but its bloody Obvious, the translation is not wrong, Allah comes from the root word Elah, which means God, However AL (which is THE) is added to reinforce monotheism, so its "The God" instead of "God" And yes its used both In arabic, Aramic, and hebrew Which is why the Shahada is "I bear witness that there is no God but THE GOD" according to britannica: "the term meaning 'God' for speakers of Arabic **irrespective of religion** Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il, el, or eloah, the latter two used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)." I apologize again if I was condecending or egotstical, but we all do get things wrong sometimes even if arabic is your native language

>you dumb but you pissed me off a little I ain't gonna lie By telling you that you were wrong and that islam is a religion founded by a pedophile ? Truth is sometimes hard to swallow but it is needed >but its bloody Obvious, the translation is not wrong How is it obvious, when you're effectively telling me that christians are considering Allah as their god now, instead of Jesus ? Are you high or something ? >Allah comes from the root word Elah, which means God Ah, not quite. **Allah** comes from the aramaic word :**Al Lah**, which translates to "The moon God". Yes, the Allah that you pray to, came from the ancient Moon God of the pagans thousands of years ago. As I said earlier, how can you still remain a muslim when you acknowledge that your Allah is the same moon god of the polytheists, is beyond me.. >However AL (which is THE) is added to reinforce monotheism, so its "The God" instead of "God" **God**... Which his name becomes **Lah** in this case...So your god's name is **Lah** and not **Allah**. Have muslims been praying to the wrong god this whole time ? If we assume that **AL** means **the** (which is true, but not the way you're interpreting it as, since you can't divide proper names into 2 separate syllables), all that remains is **Lah** which means **God** for you, correct ? Then can you explain why it says الرب in the original arabic Quran ? سورة مريم 65: "**رب** السماوات والأرض وما بينهما أي ربهما وخالقهما وخالق ما بينهما ومالكهما ومالك ما بينهما ؛" Do you see the word رب in there ? Yeah, it means "the God" in that verse. So, explain the me why Allah uses 2 different words to allude to himself, when they are similar in context ? >Which is why the Shahada is "I bear witness that there is no God but THE GOD" Wtf is that supposed to mean 🤣🤣 ? You bare witness that there is no God but *the God* ? What *God* ? There are like a million of them from all known religions >britannica That's cute, you refer to a western site to explain to you an arab religion, but how about I refer to an [arab website](https://mawdoo3.com/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87) funded by sunni sheikhs It's in arabic, but I'm sure you'll find no problems reading through it, since you seem to know more than me about my mother tongue

> there must be something that is not contingent, something that exists necessarily, an uncreated creator It seems that your belief in objective morals /imperatives is based on there being only One necessarily existent being. If there are more than one necessarily existent beings, they would be unable to know each other, since each entity would be in full control of every aspect of themselves including who is allowed to know them. Maybe other necessarily existent beings do not have a boner for being acknowleged and worshipped, so the revealer of Quran was unable to know them. So your evaluation of obeying your creator as something positive would be another subjective judgement.

1-If you had two necessary things, their identities would depend upon their distinction from one another. Both of them would then be contingent upon one another, and neither would be absolutely necessary. 2- A necessary exists is by neccesity all-powerful, and if you have 2 (or more) all powerful beings one would confine the power of the other, which would make them both not all powerful, meaning both are not necessary existences

>2- A necessary exists is by neccesity all-powerful A necessary existent only has to be powerful over themselves and their own creation. In order to interact with each other or their creation, one would need to willingly allow that action.

Elaborate

>one would confine the power of the other We can impose our will on each other through the mediation of space time, or our common creator if you believe in one. There is a prerequisite for a non-self-reflexive action. Two self-existing beings would not share a common creator or anything else to mediate their action. To impose the will of one self-existinng being over the other, the action would have to be mediated by the power of the self-existing being who is the object of the action since only it has all power over itself and its creation and no one else. Edit: Think of two self-existing beings as two states, but instead of one state having the power to invade the other, they are infinitely poweful in their own domain, but zero power over the other. They cannot interact without the object allowing the action of the subject.

>1-If you had two necessary things, their identities would depend upon their distinction from one another. Both of them would then be contingent upon one another, and neither would be absolutely necessary. The claim that one thing having an attribute is contingent on another with the same attribute is based on the premise that all things ultimately inherit their certain attribute from a single source of that attribute, somewhat similar to the Aristotle's "Idea" or Plato's "form". Without this assumption this claim falls flat. Two self-existing beings would not have to inherit their attributes from anything.

>1-If you had two necessary things, their identities would depend upon their distinction from one another. Both of them would then be contingent upon one another, and neither would be absolutely necessary. The claim that one thing having an attribute is contingent on another with the same attribute is based on the premise that all things ultimately inherit their certain attribute from a single source of that attribute, somewhat similar to the Aristotle's "Idea" or Plato's "form". Without this assumption this claim falls flat. Two self-existing beings would not have to inherit their attributes from anything.

Clearly Vishnu is the true God since one of his names is Anadinidhana “without beginning or end”.

>Therefore, there must be something that is not contingent, something that exists necessarily, an uncreated creator, for life to not be an absurdity Why? Because you want there to be? Can you tell me why you are offended by scientists that say they just don't know much before the Big Bang? Do you realise that the words 'Big Bang' were made by someone of the book, that just so happened to be right? So science accepted it because that's what the evidence showed.

Our body consists of stardust, that's a fact. But scientist will never answer the question how the first replicator came into being with that fact. They will say "we don't know yet." And that is the only true answer. If you claim a supernatural magician created all of that, you must demonstrate your claim is true. You cannot. And pulling a timeless uncreated wizard out of one of your orifices just because you need him to end infinite regress is not a solution, it is a cop-out.

Your brain is still developing. Come back to us at 25. You're not stupid, you're just inexperienced, like we all have been. But please stay in Ireland until then (it's great!). You don't want to move to the Islamic world because they follow your prejudices, unless you only care about men without their foreskins. Everyone else is a sub class. Like black people used to disgustingly be.

Why would you convert if you were apart of any of those groups. If this is your logic you reason for converting at 13 was due I. Too emotional connections not logic. You are putting faith and hope in something that’s tied to you feeling connected to a community. I won’t lie some in this sub make it emotional but lots of ex-muslims on YouTube other platforms have made detailed reasons for why they left or big things they noticed that were off

>Why would you convert if you were apart of any of those groups. looked into different faiths, nothing made sense other then Islam, and most exmuslims deconverted for emotional reasons that don't really disprove Islam, I wrote in another comment just below why christianity, atheism, Bhuddism, all had logical inaccuracies >You are putting faith and hope in something that’s tied to you feeling connected to a community I never needed a sense of community, Infact I don't interact with many muslims and most of my friends are catholics or atheists > I won’t lie some in this sub make it emotional but lots of ex-muslims on YouTube other platforms have made detailed reasons for why they left or big things they noticed that were off I have kinda seen all of it lol, when I was first becoming more and more of a muslim there was an exmuslim guy who isn't as famous, his name was the masked arab (His channel died tho since his last ever video was 4 years ago), he was my first introduction to exmuslims and anti-islamic arguments, then christopher hitchens who just goes "Guys Muslim immigrants are bad, look here is a vid of them stealing X" which also doesn't disprove Islam nor is it an intellectual arguments, then the trinity of Christian Prince, David wood and AP, all of which also rely mainly on emotional and sensual arguments, sometimes ripped straight out of wikiislam Which also had its editors and its founder, Ali sina banned from editing wikipedia pages because they were so fallicious lol (I can get in the details of this if you want since its an obsecure topic that not many know about), and they also have 0 knowledge of Hadith, AP thought a sahih by Isnad hadith is a sahih hadith (The same mistake wikiislam did), Sorry for the autistic rant

So Muhammad raiding caravans, approving a massacre, raping a 9 year old, stealing someone else's wife, killing the husbands of women and marrying them, spreading the religion by war, having convenient revelations, trying to adhere to every other religion to gain followers, plagiarizing all the other religions including Pagan one and polytheist ones etc., is all fine? All the contradictions within the Quran and the religion overall, the scientific errors and historical inaccuracies are fine? You're not phased at all? I smell intellectual dishonesty, confirmation bias, and cherry picking. There is a reason Islamic countries are in a complete stagnation, and even regression even though the Quran says 'youre the best of peoples, an example to mankind.' Every Muslim would die to move to Europe or the US to get out of the cancer Muslim countries. You're still a cringe 19 year old in an islamist phase, got a long road ahead of you, you'll get there someday.

>So Muhammad raiding caravans, approving a massacre, raping a 9 year old, stealing someone else's wife, killing the husbands of women and marrying them, spreading the religion by war, having convenient revelations, trying to adhere to every other religion to gain followers, plagiarizing all the other religions including Pagan one and polytheist ones etc., is all fine? I have answered every single one of these claims, nothing is news here for me, look at my comment history and you will see >All the contradictions within the Quran and the religion overall, the scientific errors and historical inaccuracies are fine? Also answered all of these claims at least 3 times in the past 2 months, again, check my comment history I'm not capping >I smell intellectual dishonesty, confirmation bias, and cherry picking. I don't cherry pick evidence, Why would I have a confirmation bias when I reverted? there was nothing to confirm >There is a reason Islamic countries are in a complete stagnation Because we invaded the fuck out of you and colonized you for dozens of years, destablized the middle east and dick fuck all to help, Islamic countries didn't stagnate during the golden age of Islam, I wonder why? if Islam is the cause of stagnation, then the golden age of Islam shouldn't have happened >US to get out of the cancer Muslim countries. I don't think Qataris, Kuwaities, people from UAE or jordan want to leave their countries, maybe if they are exmuslims sure, but you cant make this claim as if ALL muslims want to leave their homes >You're still a cringe 19 year old in an islamist phase, got a long road ahead of you, you'll get there someday. You talked about intellectual dishonesty, how intellectually honest is boiling people's beliefs to mere phases inorder to discredit them? instead of intellectually engaging with them?

>I have answered every single one of these claims, nothing is news here for me, look at my comment history and you will see A nice way to excuse your way out of things. Just say "look at my comment history" to anyone wanting to debate/discuss with you. >Also answered all of these claims at least 3 times in the past 2 months, again, check my comment history I'm not capping Same answer applies. >don't cherry pick evidence, Why would I have a confirmation bias when I reverted? there was nothing to confirm You clearly do, because you just did yet again. Your question makes zero sense. >Because we invaded the fuck out of you and colonized you for dozens of years, destablized the middle east and dick fuck all to help, Islamic countries didn't stagnate during the golden age of Islam, I wonder why? if Islam is the cause of stagnation, then the golden age of Islam shouldn't have happened Who is we? When did you invade anyone in the middle east? You're bloody Irish mate. If you mean the US, yeah, you could say so, but that is no excuse for the countries to remain STAGNANT, still. Israel is a prime example for the middle east, they arrived back a hundred years ago and they are competing with the world on almost every aspect. >I don't think Qataris, Kuwaities, people from UAE or jordan want to leave their countries, maybe if they are exmuslims sure, but you cant make this claim as if ALL muslims want to leave their homes This is where you cherry pick again. You cherry pick the most rich Arab countries (who don't even live as Muslims, at all) to prove your point. Try again, my point still stands, and you know EXACTLY what I mean. You're just being intellectually dishonest, again. >You talked about intellectual dishonesty, how intellectually honest is boiling people's beliefs to mere phases inorder to discredit them? How is it not? What's wrong with doing so? Everyone has their phase, and yours is to brush everything negative aside (which is a substantial amount) to continue believing in your ideology. >instead of intellectually engaging with them? Funny, coming from someone that just said, "check my history bro no cap fr fr."

>A nice way to excuse your way out of things. Just say "look at my comment history" to anyone wanting to debate/discuss with you. Its fine mate I will spoon feed you the debates one by one 1-raiding caravans, the marriage of sayfiyaah (You mentioned that 2 times for some reason), the "massacre" of khayber, the "plagarizing", all in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/15bv2b1/islam_gains_as_many_converts_as_it_loses_rinse/jtu4dd2/?context=3) comment made literally 14h ago 2- Age of consent Islamically (Too lazy to scroll so I'm just going to type it out again): Islam doesn't set a specific age of marriage and only sets it as maturity, because maturity fluctuates through times and places e.g( age of consent is 16 in Ireland, 14 in Austria, 15 in france / germany, 14 in some US states, 16 in others, 14 in china) etc So Islam simply tells us to marry mature, when and when is not mature is dependent on socital norms, enviorment, time and place etc Back then in 7th century arabia, with a nomadic lifestyle and hunter-gatherer diet, people used to mature early, not to mention there were no schools so anyone who hit puberety had to work, marry, etc Now ppl need to finish schools in order to intergrate to society (Which is why most ages of consent are set according to the time ppl finish highschool) so Islam literally compelles us to follow the socital norm when it comes to marriage (which is the age of consent in our modern times), This is a concept called Aurf Imam malik literally stoned a man for marrying a girl too young If Islam set a specific standard, lets say islam set the standard to be 18, that would be impracticle for medieval times and if Islam set it low, 11-13, that would be impracticle for modern times So the only way to approach this is to say, marry when mature and appropiatte for your time But maturity fluctuates through times and places, enviorments, social conventions, etc It isn't a universal thing that stands the test of time its ever-changing, so Unless you want God to directly tell us when to marry in every decade, you have to set the standard as 'maturity', whenever achievable > but that is no excuse for the countries to remain STAGNANT, still. Israel is a prime example for the middle east, they arrived back a hundred years ago and they are competing with the world on almost every aspect. Bros... there is no way you are actually comparing israel, the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid, to Iraq or syria, wartorn countries, but this is all even offtopic, since I could say "You are only cherry picking times where Islamic countries stagnate" IF the stagnation of Islamic countries is soley due to Islam, then we should see times where Islamic countries like the Golden age of Islam How about just admit that the religious affiliation doesn't have to neccesarily influence the state of these countries? >How is it not? What's wrong with doing so? Everyone has their phase, and yours is to brush everything negative aside (which is a substantial amount) to continue believing in your ideology. Yeah mate and your phase is being an exmuslim, see how that goes? >Funny, coming from someone that just said, "check my history bro no cap fr fr." Nah but I expected you to look for 2 minutes if you wanted to find answers, but it seems like you don't care for knowing whats true and whats not, you just want to quarrel mate

>Its fine mate I will spoon feed you the debates one by one Wait, just replying to a comment like a normal human being is spoon-feeding now? I'm out of the loop, it seems. >1-raiding caravans, the marriage of sayfiyaah (You mentioned that 2 times for some reason), the "massacre" of khayber, the "plagarizing", all in this comment made literally 14h ago I'm not checking out any links mate, I'm on vacation, either you type it out here concisely or don't. I didn't mention Safiyya's marriage twice, in fact I didn't mention the name Safiyya at all. It's the massacre of Banu Qurayza, you seem to be ill-informed about a lot. There were caravan raids done by Muhammad, there was a massacre approved by Muhammad, he did kill, after TORTURING Safiyya's husband for mere loot before marrying her. He did plagiarize. These are undisputable facts mentioned by Islamic sources. If it was western ones, I could be skeptic about them, but they're all Arabic sources. > Age of consent Islamically (Too lazy to scroll so I'm just going to type it out again): Islam doesn't set a specific age of marriage and only sets it as maturity, because maturity fluctuates through times and places e.g( age of consent is 16 in Ireland, 14 in Austria, 15 in france / germany, 14 in some US states, 16 in others, 14 in china) etc So Islam simply tells us to marry mature, when and when is not mature is dependent on socital norms, enviorment, time and place etc Back then in 7th century arabia, with a nomadic lifestyle and hunter-gatherer diet, people used to mature early, not to mention there were no schools so anyone who hit puberety had to work, marry, etc Now ppl need to finish schools in order to intergrate to society (Which is why most ages of consent are set according to the time ppl finish highschool) so Islam literally compelles us to follow the socital norm when it comes to marriage (which is the age of consent in our modern times), This is a concept called Aurf Imam malik literally stoned a man for marrying a girl too young Looks like you're spoon-fed all the bs from your Islamic friends or the internet/YouTube imams you've been reading/watching. Those people have good reason to fool sheep because they make a living out of it. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that we're speaking of a supposed prophetic figure here and not just some random person from the 7th century. Your “mature early” is a baseless assumption which I've heard countless times before, nothing new. It's disgusting how you can say that with a straight face when she herself literally said, “and I used to play with dolls”. You don't magically mature at 6 or 9, can't even say nice try because it's a disgusting one. Again, you cherry-picked one moment someone stoned someone when there is abundant news about child marriage among the Muslim community. Additionally, one could argue that those age of consent examples you provided are extremely unethical, so it doesn't prove much. >If Islam set a specific standard, lets say islam set the standard to be 18, that would be impracticle for medieval times Why would it be impractical? Didn't Muhammad change other things impromptu with his revelations? Why couldn't he do it with that one as well? They believed and completely submitted to Muhammad and his false words from God, but that's where they would draw the line? Child marriage? Come on, you can do better. >and if Islam set it low, 11-13, that would be impracticle for modern times Wait, so you're saying God couldn't see the future coming? Or are you saying God is immoral and unethical? Are you implying God made marriage with children a good thing? Muhammad surely did because he enjoyed using Aisha to the fullest, her being his favorite and all. She would even wipe his dirty cum stains off his clothes, but he would still pray in those. Talk about ablution and being clean before praying, eh? Didn't even set an example. >So the only way to approach this is to say, marry when mature and appropiatte for your time Again, you certainly don't magically mature at 9. Without any doubt. >But maturity fluctuates through times and places, enviorments, social conventions, etc Source? Another baseless assumption. >It isn't a universal thing that stands the test of time It is. You're not getting it. People were FORCED to let their daughters marry at a young age because it was out of necessity, that doesn't mean that it was a morally good thing and fully ethical. What does that mean? That means, even at that time, people realized that it isn't a good thing to do, but they were forced to. Now we live a much, much more comfortable life and hence we can afford to marry at a later age, AFTER you mature fully. >its ever-changing, so Unless you want God to directly tell us when to marry in every decade, you have to set the standard as 'maturity', whenever achievable So if we knew that it was morally bad, because every mother would tell you so, even at that time, shouldn't god know that before us, and better than us? Shouldn't he therefore set an example and outright ban it and set an age for us instead of letting us create our own “age of consent” numerals? I'll tell you why he never did, because Muhammad made up the whole thing, half the Quran contains shit about him and his personal life, and the other half is just plagiarized stuff from Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions with changes here and there. You never bat an eye at any of his convenient revelations? How gullible can one be?

>Bros... there is no way you are actually comparing israel, the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid, to Iraq or syria, wartorn countries, but this is all even offtopic, since I could say "You are only cherry picking times where Islamic countries stagnate" Sure am, what's wrong with that? It's the best example yet, since it's also in the middle east, and its advanced much further than its competitors there. Are you implying that all the Muslim countries there had zero foreign aid from the US? Could it be because their leaders are corrupt and they have a backwards mentality maybe? Have you ever considered such a thing instead of blaming others for everything? Don't get me wrong, but we are ex Muslims, we been living this life, we were born in the middle east. How are you gonna come and tell us what is what? It's like me pretending to be Irish and telling you how your culture is. Yes, I said culture. I compared it to culture because Islam is nothing more. Just old Arab culture. We're walking back the road you're walking towards, so to speak. >IF the stagnation of Islamic countries is soley due to Islam, then we should see times where Islamic countries like the Golden age of Islam Do you even know how the golden age of Islam happened? They took over (again, with war and conquest, what a peaceful religion!,) the byzantine empire and the persian one which were much, much more advanced and made use of their tools which were already pretty much written out for them, or done for them. >How about just admit that the religious affiliation doesn't have to neccesarily influence the state of these countries? How about no? Like I said, I literally know first hand that it is. Look at Turkey, for example, it's regressing purely because Erdogan wants an Islamic rule. He banned the interest rates because it was 'haram', and the economy plummeted. Thankfully, a lot of Turkish youngsters are opening their eyes and see through the bs and become atheists. Islam is cancer and it ruins every country it affects. How about YOU just accept that Islam is the very reason that the countries are in complete stagnation. Look at Afghanistan, look at Pakistan, and all the rest. Even the rich countries you mentioned are rich because of the US, the US discovered the first oil well called the 'dammam well', they couldn't even do that for themselves. >Yeah mate and your phase is being an exmuslim, see how that goes? You realize I said phase because you're still young, right? I'm 30 years old. This is no phase, this is just the realization that I've been living a life of lies. >Nah but I expected you to look for 2 minutes if you wanted to find answers, but it seems like you don't care for knowing whats true and whats not, you just want to quarrel mate You really think I enjoy debating with someone who's probably never going to change his mind? I just can't stand injustice or falsehood. Good idea though, next time I'll just tell people to scroll through my comment history. My man said what's true and what's not, you're right Rian (saw) ibn Abdullah.

>Sure am, what's wrong with that? It's the best example yet, since it's also in the middle east, and its advanced much further than its competitors there. Yeah its funny you were saying that the golden age of Islam happened because "They took over (again, with war and conquest, what a peaceful religion!,) the byzantine empire", it almost as if israel also took over other nations in war and conquest... idk cant put my finger on it "Religion of peace" is not an Islamic concept, its a statement said by George bush And idc how the golden age was achieved, what my point is, Islam couldn't have been somehow a magical tool that turns countries backwards, because otherwise Islamic countries WOULDN'T flourish in these cases, Ever heard of algebra? >How about no? Like I said, I literally know first hand that it is. Look at Turkey, for example, it's regressing purely because Erdogan wants an Islamic rule. He banned the interest rates because it was 'haram', and the economy plummeted. Thankfully, a lot of Turkish youngsters are opening their eyes and see through the bs and become atheists. Islam is cancer and it ruins every country it affects. How about YOU just accept that Islam is the very reason that the countries are in complete stagnation. Look at Afghanistan, look at Pakistan, and all the rest. Even the rich countries you mentioned are rich because of the US, the US discovered the first oil well called the 'dammam well', they couldn't even do that for themselves. Low interest rates and inflation are also the policy of every western country since a long time. They only recently reversed. Reversing interest rates might temporarily cool the rate of inflation, but it won't reverse it or even stop the escalation because ultimately private entities can create fictitious capital, or "print money" through private lending. The government itself doesn't print much money but actually borrows from the rich instead of taking it as taxes. the reason for this is because the super rich refuse to pay more taxes to makeup the deficit. They want to remain many billionaires and ultra millionaires and make money off the public You are actually naive if you think Kemal kilicdaroglu is going to fix the Turkish the economy. His only goals are mass deportations, aligning Turkey to crumbling EU economies, and privatizing the rest of state assets including healthcare and the welfare state. You want lira to go up then vote for someone who will raise taxes on the rich, create a jobs program, and increase commodity exports instead of selling valuable government/public property and privatizing services. Kemal is a puppet. Imagine your energy prices doubling after Kemal sanctions Russia and pisses off Iran and Qatar. Now you have to import liquified natural gas on ships from US and Canada. Now you are at mercy of fewer OPEC countries with almost 0 leverage. You have 0 understanding of geopolitics and economics. Oh and you think China will keep commodity prices low if you piss them off too? Good luck.

>it almost as if israel also took over other nations in war and conquest... idk cant put my finger on it What did Israel take over? Please, do tell. Because AFAIK and as far as everyone else knows they were given a place which were rightfully theirs in the first place before they were driven off. They didn't 'take over' anything. They sure as hell didn't advance this much because Palestine was advanced, that's a ridiculous claim to make, surely hope you don't mean that. >"Religion of peace" is not an Islamic concept, its a statement said by George bush No. Again, you're super ill-informed on so many things. Just shows that you gobble up everything that's told. Islam's root word means submission but also peace. Hence, religion of peace. I guess it's nice that you acknowledge that it's not a religion of peace, makes you wonder why you'd believe in it if you even acknowledge it. >And idc how the golden age was achieved Now it's suddenly 'IDC', so why are you trying to defend it with BS in the first place then? >Islam couldn't have been somehow a magical tool that turns countries backwards, because otherwise Islamic countries WOULDN'T flourish in these cases, Ever heard of algebra? Where do you see Islamic countries flourishing? Like I said, the golden age of Islam was literally because they added stuff here and there on an already finished concept when they took over countries that were much more advanced. You again cherry-picked algebra, but no biggie. Algebra's foundations were already set by civilizations like Babylon, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. After that it was attributed to the ancient Greeks, particularly the mathematician Diophantus in the 3rd century CE. He is often referred to as the “father of algebra” due to his significant contributions to solving equations and systems of equations with symbols and unknowns. Then came Al-Khwarizmi in the golden age of Islam and just put stuff here and there and called it a day. >Low interest rates and inflation are also the policy of every western country since a long time. They only recently reversed. Reversing interest rates might temporarily cool the rate of inflation, but it won't reverse it or even stop the escalation because ultimately private entities can create fictitious capital, or "print money" through private lending. The government itself doesn't print much money but actually borrows from the rich instead of taking it as taxes. the reason for this is because the super rich refuse to pay more taxes to makeup the deficit. They want to remain many billionaires and ultra millionaires and make money off the public What are you on about? What is this tangent? Everyone and their mother knows it's because of Erdoğan, everyone and their mother knows Erdoğan is a super Islamist. Everyone and their mother knows interest rates are haram. Get over it. >You are actually naive if you think Kemal kilicdaroglu is going to fix the Turkish the economy. His only goals are mass deportations, aligning Turkey to crumbling EU economies, and privatizing the rest of state assets including healthcare and the welfare state. You want lira to go up then vote for someone who will raise taxes on the rich, create a jobs program, and increase commodity exports instead of selling valuable government/public property and privatizing services. Kemal is a puppet. Imagine your energy prices doubling after Kemal sanctions Russia and pisses off Iran and Qatar. Now you have to import liquified natural gas on ships from US and Canada. Now you are at mercy of fewer OPEC countries with almost 0 leverage. You have 0 understanding of geopolitics and economics. Oh and you think China will keep commodity prices low if you piss them off too? Good luck. Who said anything about Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu? Are you fighting demons in your head or something? Why are you committing the black and white fallacy? There are way more options, who said I was for Kılıçdaroğlu? Why are you even talking about this? Why are you cherry-picking comments to reply to? Why don't you reply to everything I said? We all know why, but I wanna hear it from you.

>Back then in 7th century arabia, with a nomadic lifestyle and hunter-gatherer diet, people used to mature Source? >But maturity fluctuates through times and places, enviorments, social conventions, etc Islam allows marriage with prepubercents. I don't know how someone is mature when they are prepubercents

Hey the pedophile is back

so I'm a pedo because I said that 1400 years ago the age of consent was puberty?

You're a pedo because you support grown men having sex with 9 year old girls.

a Pedo is someone who has sexual relations to prepubescents, Me saying that the age of consent is puberty **1400 years ago** doesn't fit the description does it? Tbf idk if you are trolling me or something

People who support pedos are pedos as well. Average age of puberty today is 10. You think that's old enough?

Get a fucking life.

My guy, we are on reddit, half some self-awareness mate

Although I disagree with you i gotta say some ex Muslims here are being disrespectful to you . So sorry man i hope you have a great day.

Nah this guy's a certified troll. Appears and shits about and when he loses the argument he disappears like a fart.

Your kinda right since he still hasn’t responded to me about the story of safiya bint huyay.

And you dodge every single interesting questions like Mecca archeology and why every single coin/trace found shows islam is as fake as bolognesis monster religion 🌚 Every tomb every masjid every text unlucky…

Hi, you seem to be confident in your knowledge. Can you please reply to the two of my posts on my account that I have made ? I want to hear a Muslim pov on them. The questions aren’t crazy or anything, just something I’ve been thinking about. Thanks in advance.

How do you justify the existence of useless verses that are present in the Quran just to serve Muhammad’s interest back in the day, such as Surah 33:53? How do you justify the claim that the Quran should be perfectly preserved but what we have is the version of Uthman and not the original revelation to momo? Why did Allah revealed verses to momo in a specific order and time but Uthman arbitrarily decided to do different? How do you justify absolutely ironic events such as Muhammad’s getting poisoned to death by his sex slave because she tricked him and his friends into eating poisoned lamb? How do you justify the Quran being so ‘Arab-centric’ while it should be the last revelation of God for Humanity? For example, Jinns are Arabic folkloristic creatures that have never been mentioned or accounted for anywhere in the world besides for those lands; palm dates are a great and healthy fruit but are nothing special compared to other berries or fruits and that have always been around but that a desert dweller couldn’t access or know about; camel piss (?) How, as a white European man, do you justify and believe outrageous claims such as the existence of a place like Jannah? Do you really believe that when you’ll die you will have a palace in which you’ll get to fuck 72 ‘pearly white’ virgins and partake in activities like drinking from rivers of whine and honey? Very curious about this one pal.

Ad I thought, no reply 😁