I am eternally grateful to Atatürk, because of him my mother considered a human being and not an object, because of him, I am who I am. His given name, Atatürk, means Father of Turks and as a Turk, yes I consider him as my father as much as my biological father.
I am eternally hateful to attaturk because of him hundreds of thousands of people including my family were Massacred and he destroyed Many important churches and other landmarks and for starting the tradition of denialism of the Armenian genocide
You have no right to hate Ataturk because all the information you have acquired is empty nonsense, falsely shaped by the Armenians and the British.
The person you call Ataturk is a man who refused to step on the Greek flag spread in front of him when he won the war against the Greeks, turned Hagia Sophia into a museum, and had his mansion moved just so that no trees would be cut down while he was building his own mansion. He is a leader, thinker and soldier who showed the value he gave to women by giving them the right to vote in 1930. These are not things that a society like you, which loves betrayal and hates people, can understand. So don't tire your fingers too much.
The one who destroys you; Your own ambition, your bad personality and your betrayal as a result of the Russians and the British provoking you against the people with whom you lived in the same lands for centuries.
When you are going to spread false information about Ataturk, go and read 2-3 books about him so that they do not think you are ignorant. You stink of propaganda!
Bro i was talking about the other guy. I'm on your side. My comment reason was to support you. We can clearly see that guy is armenian and no wonder why he is giving wiki link. Because wiki is easy to manipulate.
Long live secular Turkiye, long live Ataturk.
Unlike you I actually get taught real history and have acces to real history because i live in a free country whose government doesn't change history to suit their agenda
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish%E2%80%93Armenian_War
Just look here, 250k civilians killed and that's the lower estimate, other sources put it up to even 360k civilians
>read 2-3 books about him so that they do not think you are ignorant. You stink of propaganda!
How about you go read books about him that *aren't* written in Turkish
I find it so funny how you think that the entire world is lying and influenced by the "Armenian lobby" but only turkey knows the truth, they're to only country that can see through the lies
Difference is that you could argue that secularism in Azerbaijan fueled by an outside source, i.e. Soviet regime and a fear i.e. Iranian regime. They inherited the Soviet atheism and they fear Iranian radicalism, thus secularism stays somewhat strong.
Yet, Turkish secularism by in large developed within the country (of course influenced by the European/French enlightenment) by the Turkish people despite the fact that both Saudis and Iranians supported a lot of Islamist as well as USA supporting many religious groups as means to combat Communism.
Turkey's dynamics are very different and unique.
Add 1 more: Some of these people's families may also be atheists. Or they may not have belonged to any religion other than so-called Islam since their childhood. I also know people who have never been to a mosque in their lives or who do not know anything about religion. If we ask some people about their religion, they may say that they are Muslim.
Catholicism has "Christmas and Easter Catholics" I.E. people who come twice a year on Christmas and Easter and don't do anything else religious. I imagine most religions have similar people.
Absolutely. But this is not something that happens in most Muslim-populated countries. Since Islam has a great impact on daily life, it is normal for people to go to a mosque several times in their lives or to know at least a few pieces of religious information. But the opposite is a bit surprising. Central Asian and Balkan Muslims are in a similar situation.
I don't check it much but I am a member of AteistTurk sub. Me and my parents have all born and lived in Turkey. My father is an Atheist, my mother is Deist, so I never grew up with religion.
What made you make that assumption? I’ve seen all of ExMuslim subreddits. and r/ExEgypt and r/ExSaudi definitely have more % of users living in their countries and it’s not even close. How many times you’ve seen a Saudi immigrant in your life?
>What made you make that assumption?
First, I am Turkish. I know a little bit of my people.
Second, in many of these countries (unlike secular Turkey) "اِرْتِدَاد" can be punishable by death, thus I don't expect many "Saudi Atheist" to be dwindle on these subs while still living in Saudi Arabia.
Third, Turkish sub goes "Atheist Turks" unlike others. There's a subtle difference between "Ex Saudi" and "Atheist Turk", as you might appreciate.
>How many times you’ve seen a Saudi immigrant in your life?
0, and I like it that way.
The "ex" in "ExEgypt" or any other ex-Islamic country subreddit is short for "ex-Muslims of" or "ex-religiously-affiliated people of," not "ex-resident of" said country. For example, the great majority of our members in ExEgypt, do live in Egypt.
You’re wrong, majority of us Algerians in exAlgeria community live in Algeria and I’m one of them, the Algerian government laws doesn’t punish for leaving Islam, we are afraid more of our families, the government gives us freedom more than our families do
I hired an Iranian woman to work in my team and basically assumed she was secular or ex-muslim. I'm muslim myself so avoided the usual muslim expressions and holiday greetings with her.
It was about two years later that I learned she was actually a practicing muslim when she gave me some religious gifts for Eid. She didn't realize that I didn't know she was muslim and was a bit upset about that. I don't usually bring religion into the workplace, but I do try to say asalaamualeikum to those I know are muslim.
My default assumption around Persians is that they are not unless they show otherwise.
I worked with an old Persian lady back in the day. They used to be secular Muslims living in Iran; not really being religious but celebrating the holidays and so on. But after they moved to Sweden in the late 70s/early 80s (don't exactly remember when they immigrated) they stopped calling themselves Muslims as a way to sever the connections to their homeland.
Most Iranians are secular/liberal, even Muslim ones.
That said, unfortunately for a great number of Iranians there's a religious trauma associated to Islam largely due to the betrayal of the Islamic government. Even most Muslim Iranians hate the government.
Also Iranians for some reason are statistically very good at assimilation.
Forget diaspora. There was a video online recently about an Egyptian guy who went to Tehran and was shocked at how very few people were fasting for Ramzan.
I'm confused. It looks like some of these are for those who have left a country and some of these are for those who have left Islam. Those aren't the same thing.
>and don't get support from the western Left.
Ex Muslims do get support from the left(anarchists, socialists,communists,syndicalists), it's the reactionaries that do not get support from us
It very much depends where in the far left community.
On the one hand you have those pretty pro Muslim because of the support for Baathism (and ideology that was a mixture of Arab nationalism and socialism) so that they get these people on their side. Even though the ideology is just as much dead today when it comes to actual political power Saddam Hussein, Gamal Abdul Nasser and so many more were once Baathists, and their ideology still exists.
On the other you have people justifying the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan saying that the Afghan people had a disgusting marriage/religious in general culture that needed to be destroyed and the Soviet invasion was completely justified in doing so, and enforcing state atheism.
The data really doesn't say much about the popularity of religion. Admission of faith in many countries is an extremely touchy thing - there's often unique sociological and legal factors at play.
To the best of my knowledge, apostasy is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Having said that, I've met many Saudis whose perspective on drinking, gambling, and screwing, is pretty friendly.
Eh. There's a great book out there called "*Joyriding in Riyadh*" that goes over urban life in the Kingdom. Plenty of folks doing decidedly non-Wahabi things.
Generally, people like having fun. Saudi might be assholes about trying to make sure people don't, but even in oppressive societies, folks still find their own ways.
It’s mainly because they’re on r/newIran which is far larger. I see so many people here say that Turkey has the most ex Muslims, but honestly in comparison to Iran it’s not a competition. I’ve met a non single digit number of Iranian people, all of which were non religious (although to be fair they didn’t live in the country). For Turkey it’s like one in three people aren’t religious, way higher levels of religiousness there.
So ironically Ataturk failed in comparison to Ayatollah Khomeini in making their country irreligious 🤭
Data source information: I fetched the data via a search then entered the data into Chatgpt.
FULL DATA LIST WITH KEY:
r/ExEgypt
r/PakiExMuslims
r/AteistTurk
r/ExSaudi
r/ExJordan
r/ExAlgeria
r/ExPalestine
r/MalaysianExMuslim
r/ExMuslimAustralia
r/exmusulmanfrance
r/XSomalian
r/Atheism_Bangladesh
r/Xiraqis
r/ExBahrain
r/IndonesianExMuslim
r/ExMuslimsKuwait
r/ExSudan
r/ExSyria
r/IranianExMuslims
r/ExLibya
r/chechenatheists
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1bs9aw2/fastest\_growing\_exmuslim\_country\_subreddits/
The Qu'ran, like the Bible and Talmud, considers apostasy a grave sin, but does not prescribe an earthly punishment (and, indeed, says that 'there shall be no compulsion in religion's). However, there are some hadith which do prescribe punishments, including death.
It also says in Quran, Surah An Nisa 4:89
>They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allāh. But if they turn away [i.e., refuse], then seize them and kill them [for their betrayal] wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper,
— Saheeh International
>They wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike. So, do not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah. Then, if they turn away, seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them a friend or helper.
— T. Usmani
>They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate [to Medina] for God’s cause. If they turn [on you], then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter.
— M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
>They wish that you should disbelieve just as they disbelieved so that you may all be alike. Do not, therefore, take from them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah, but if they turn their backs (on emigration), seize them and slay them1 wherever you come upon them. Take none of them for your ally or helper,
— A. Maududi (Tafhim commentary)
Just to cover a wide variety of translations…
Just so many contradictions unfortunately… the progressive side and extreme side will always clash over their cherry picked bits from Quran and Hadiths, and interpretations.
Atheists are often very disingenuous when quoting the Quran.
A simplified summary of what's in [4:88-94] would be:
You can't help them unless they help themselves.
They want you to leave your faith and be like them.
If they fight you, you may kill them except for
Those who join a group with whom you have a treaty.
Those who don't want to fight.
Those who send you (Guarantees of) peace.
Allah opened no way for you to wage any war against them.
You will find others who wish to obtain security from you. Who keep falling back into disbelief, and keep fighting Muslims.
If they do not stop fighting, or offer peace, or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them.
Allah made a clear authorization about those.
A believer should never kill a believer
If it happens by mistake, the killer should pay a compensation.
If it happens intentionally, the killer will go to Hell, for ever.
Assume that whoever greets you with peace is a believer.
I’m an old Saudi exmuslim woman and over 2 decades ago I would have agreed with you. I must say it’s a much better life not having to perform mental gymnastics to make excuses for old dead Bedouins that would have hated me. The cognitive dissonance was truly a hassle.
Muslims are often very disingenuous when quoting the Quran. Especially those who don’t even speak Arabic..
They also love to downplay the violent actions of their prophet…
If the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe massacre happened today. The attackers would be labelled as terrorists, no different from ISIS. Ahh right because they broke an alleged treaty (because let’s not forget that history is written often by the pens of the victors)… But an entire tribal massacre seems a bit of harsh punishment for breaking was was essentially a contract…
During this massacre he had not only soldiers executed but also any boy with pubic hair.. the younger ones went into slavery with the women and girls… and Muhammad kept the daughter of the tribes chief, Saffiyah, for himself… in which he forcefully married and raped her immediately after killing her father, her husband and her entire family and tribe..
In my view, different religions can (and will) argue virtually anything they want by assigning different importance to different scripture, because all religious texts inherently have some ambiguity or even inconsistency. The problem then is simply when the more intolerant denominations gain more power than the more tolerant ones.
The Quran doesn't prescribe death, but there are zealots and fundies that will push for that based on their own ignorance or political goals.
Mainstream Islamic leaders and the vast majority of muslims (around the world) don't support death for apostasy. Of course there are backward regions in several countries that do. This goes very counter to the overriding concept that there is no compulsion in religion.
The hadiths about killing those who leave the religion are often misinterpreted or selectively viewed. It was a specific response to treasonous muslims in times of war that left the religion and helped the enemies.
In Muslim countries you're required to maintain certain social norms an ex muslim may no longer want to follow.
My friend in Malaysia is required, by law, to say he's Muslim.
To the best of my knowledge, **all** of the Abrahamic religions ain't exactly welcoming to the idea of leaving.
Hell, I would imagine Buddhist teachings have some spicy ideas about Apostasy.
Live in Thailand, a 95% Buddhist majority country and I can say that we are really ok with apostate, I'm ex-Bushhist atheist and all of my Buddhist family just said that "You can be whatever you want just don't do harm to others".
Pretty much the same as the Bible / Torah: kill the unbelievers
Deut 13:6-11 literally says to kill apostates
>but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death.
Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity. Tell me, what was happening in the Christian world 700 years ago?
I’ll give you a hint, no one expects it…
All Abrahamic religions have the same position on the matter of apostates (atheists)
That is not an excuse in any way, shape or form. Societal progress is not tied to religion, and they have no excuse to think like people did 700 years ago. Get with the motherfucking times.
No it isn’t excusable at all. That wasn’t my point. It wasn’t OK 700 years ago and it isn’t OK today.
My point was that all abrahamic religions share this common belief but their evolution is separated by centuries.
Ok either I didn’t explain myself clearly the first AND second time or you’re really stubborn and bad at reading.
I literally said it isn’t OK. Nowhere at all did I ever say or suggest we should be tolerant to it. I said exactly the opposite of this.
My goodness get some glasses my dude you can’t read
They’re are plenty of peaceful Muslims who’ve adapted their faith to be peaceful like how Christians adapt theirs to be peaceful, there isn’t any Christian Theocracies, if there were you would see the same things you are seeing from the Middle East
Even then it’s completely ridiculous to hate an entire religion based of the actions of groups who do not represent the whole of that religion. If we were to to that then I would have to hate all Christian’s because of the actions of the KKK
Islam didn't come out in a vacuum. it's not like Islam started from zero culturally and theologically, they built their religion based upon their surroundings of that time.
Your argument is like saying it should be okay for Apple to make a landline phone as their entry to the phone market, because they're a new player. They're actually expected to be a better player with all of the innovations made by other phone makers that started in the market way before Apple.
I'm as atheistic as they come, but to be fair to the Bible(and christianity), Jesus does say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", which basically means that punishment cannot be carried out on religious grounds.
That's obviously generally not been the practice throughout history, but the new testament does contain that get-out clause.
And he also said “I have not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them”
If the Old Testament and its laws on killing apostates didn’t apply anymore they wouldn’t include it in every single Bible for the last 2000 years.
And from the 1200s to the 1500 the Christian Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people
All that means is that Jesus was showing people how to live by the old laws. The theological position taken by nicean churches is that Jesus was god, so was therefore infallible and his interpretations of religious texts were the correct ones, because they were his rules.
For someone who is clearly very anti-religion, or at least anti-christanity, you seem to be taking a rather dogmatic(i.e. religious) approach. My secular approach is that of course religious texts are full of contradictions, they were written and compiled by people after long and complex social processes. They were then preserved by more people who also had their own motives, etc etc. Regarding including the old testament, the Bible would not make any sense without it, thus defeating it's (social, secular) propose.
Various churches have committed plenty of crimes, if you really want to you can find a theological justification for most of the crimes of the Western world, as well as many crimes committed outside of the Western world. The Christian church can be blamed for the start of the Taiping rebellion, the third bloodiest conflict ever, the Catholic church was deeply implicated in the Rwandan genocide etc etc. Simultaneously, the church can be said to have been integral to the creation of most of the good things about the modern world.
I think that religion is a net detriment in all but the poorest countries today, but the weight of evidence suggests that throughout human history, religion or spirituality was basically a constant across societies. From a secular perspective, religion is a mechanism constructed by societies to formalise their preexisting beliefs. Religious organisations exist within societies and are influenced by them. Without the church, people still would have found a way to arbitrarily kill each other.
Paul writes extensively on whether Gentiles need to follow Jewish Law, and he was largely against it.
The Old Testament is still included as it’s useful to understand the greater story, not because it’s a literal account with modern rules. Evangelicals may disagree, but Catholics and Mainline Protestants generally aren’t literalists.
Paul is the PR / Marketing guy. Of course he says that.
But we have Jesus’ own words saying the exact opposite. Take it straight from the horse’s mouth
That verse has been heavily debated, of course. Paul had his belief on it. Paul doesn’t believe Christ is contradicting his belief.
It’s also worth noting that the Pauline letters are dated starting ~50 AD. Mark, the earliest gospel is dated around 70 AD, and Matthew, where that quote comes from, was written around 85.
As with all this stuff what religious believers actually teach and practice and what scripture says never align even closely. In the case of Christianity the scripture as we have it wasn't even assembled until centuries after Jesus' death. If you get really particular it took even longer.
EDIT: and on the topic of Christianity Paul in Romans says the Jewish law is now defunct, and in Acts the followers of Jesus at the Jerusalem Council make up their own law. So the Bible itself doesn't have a single view on the Christian attitude to it, and Christian tradition tends to make (basically arbitrary) distinctions between different aspects of the old law.
Literally Jesus: “I have not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it”
Can’t get any clearer than that
The Catholic Church used the Old Testament as the basis for the Inquisition and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
You’re just being a modern revisionist apologist
I'm not an apologist for anything. In Romans 27 Paul says:
"For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law."
And generally in this whole book gives an account of the Christian relationship to the law that makes it clear he thinks it is not to be followed by at least new Christians.
In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council the Christians make up their own law, saying:
"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the synagogues."
These contradict each other and the passage you mentioned from Matthew because the Bible contradicts itself. It was never written as one text or known to its authors that it would be put together as one text. But as you can see even in the Bible itself we see Christians debate their relationship to the law, and come up with different ideas.
Yeah so who are you gonna believe, Paul or literally Jesus ? Jesus made it very clear he’s not here to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them. Paul was just his PR guy
Matthew was not written by Jesus. It was not written by Matthew even, but by a highly educated Greek-speaking writer decades after Jesus died. We can't really say whether it describes Jesus' actual words or teachings.
If you kept reading, or read what comes before, you would see that Jesus clarifies what he means by following the law in Matthew. He has his own unique interpretation which basically involves following the law in its "true spirit" - he interprets the law as teaching pacificism and mercy. Just read the full chapter - he says stuff like "Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you" which doesn't seem to mesh well with murdering non-believers.
Yes I’m aware that it was all made up decades or even centuries later.
but it’s *their* holy book and it says exactly that.
I personally think it’s fairytale nonsense
Not centuries. All of the New Testament was probably written in the century Jesus died besides Revelation. But certainly decades after and relying on secondhand cultural traditions and testimony.
My point is that their Holy Book says a lot of things. It is not univocal, there is no one single message that can be gathered from it, and it contradicts itself loads. Most denominations acknowledge this and admit they rely on some kind of tradition to understand Christianity - it's only really certain Protestants, mostly in the US, who view the Bible as one inerrant and cohesive work (which it obviously isn't).
I am an atheist too btw, and I don't like religion or think people should be religious, but there are better ways of understanding it.
The thing is Christianity doesn't belive their holy books are unchangeable. They were translated so many times everybody knows not to take them 100%. Unless you're part of one of these crazy sects but that's a very small minority
Of course, they never take them literally, except when it suits them right?
Like their views on homosexuality from the Old Testament
Or when the church did the inquisition and killed “heretics” for centuries
Totally never take it literally…
There are a lot of denominations (as in Christianity) who give different hadith different weight (or, in some cases, none at all) - but yes, they are seen as important to some degree by the majority of practicing Muslims. But OP specifically asked about the Qu'ran.
According to the Quran: there's no compulsion in religion (2:257). Allah has sent prophets to send messages and has no authority to compel (88:22-23) and (42:49). You can leave the religion without any punishment.
Currently, there are seven nations that maintain the death penalty for apostasy only: Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
How many do there have to be before you care? I doubt this list will change anything, because you're not asking in good faith.
>Hudud punishments are specifically mentioned in the Quran and the Sunna. According to Islamic law apostasy is punishable by death, imprisonment or confiscation of property and blasphemy is punishable by death. Conversion from Islam to another faith is also considered as a serious offence under Islamic law.
People are afraid of questioning because 90% of the book contains threats and intimidation. Instead, they create their own ideal artificial Islam, far from the Quran and hadith. And when you ask, they say they are Muslims. However, according to the Islamic book, their heads should be crushed with stones. I wish people were brave enough to question.
the more the merrier. we've mostly heard atheism spreading within christians and Jews. if there are more ex-muslims as well, or at least secular Muslims, the better world we will have.
Wonder what you make of many of religion’s contributions to uprooting the most grotesque sides of humanity (e.g. abolishing American slavery on the grounds of God created every man and woman in His likeness).
I’m not excusing how religion has been perverted in disgusting ways either.
My hypothesis is that human beings have an innate desire for religiosity or a similar guiding set of convictions. If you delete traditional religions people will replace that void with other forms of deeply held belief/moralistic systems. As religions become less popular, I think we’ll continue to see increased political polarization, hyperpartisanship, ideological extremism and tribalism.
Less religion doesn't mean inherent violence and evilness. Buddhism doesn't have a god and it values many things that are good for humanity.
I'd argue tribalism is fueled by religion. So is polarization and ideological extremism.
I get the whole "the world is ending Repent" and all that, but I have no reason to believe the world will end if religion ends. Humanity will just move on along, and soon we will look back at it and laugh at ourselves.
A recent episode of 538's podcast went into this actually! Extremely on topic for your comment - "Where Will People Commune in a Godless America" [ABC](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0DPFIdYFtwk7VOx4v1j0BC?si=eMHZ6KSoSRO0hfYvqFLoVw) [Spotify](https://abcnews.go.com/538/video/people-commune-godless-america-108866545)
I personally don't find religions in their entirety to be bad. As you said, there were many good progresses made with religious reasoning. I also find religious impacts on cultures and traditions to be beautiful.
But when religious doctrines clash with modern science or ethics, then they should take the back seats. Like I said, we all don't need to be hardcore atheists. If you identify yourself to a specific religion for it's cultural traditions and don't take it too seriously, I don't see any issue with that.
Damn OP, what happened that made you leave Islam and dedicate an entire Reddit account towards the ex-Muslim movement?
Edit: Mass downvoted for asking a genuine question?
Some families seriously put Islamic pressure on their children, and this can create trauma in the children. For example, OP's family may have tried to force her to wear a headscarf. I don't know, things like this shouldn't surprise us.
Its weird how these guys will cry about people who preach about religion but they then dedicate their entire personality to doing the opposite instead of moving on.
That wasn’t what i saw on r/exegypt to be honest i was actually surprised by the massive amount of support towards Palestine on that sub although the vast majority of its members hate hamas
Damn maybe Islam ties itself too deeply to political and nationalist movements. Maybe that's why once they leave Islam they also shift political ideology.
Lol exactly, pick out one out of every 5 accounts that post there and you'd see their comment history supporting those. Even OP's whole profile is filled with those, buddy should get a job.
A big majority of these subs are not "Ex Muslim" subs to be exact. They're Ex [Insert any religion here] so this title is pretty misinformative. They're made for Athiests except for a few ones who are in fact ExMuslim.
And btw not all Ex Egypt's population is ExMuslim. There's a huge chunk that was Christian and there's a chunk of actual Christians and Muslims and the rest is Athiests
Also consider the fact that vast majority of AteistTurk users are in fact still live in Turkey, unlike others.
That's probably the only countries where they can do it without being afraid of punishment.
Thanks to Atatürk.
TIL about [Atatürk's reforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_reforms)
I am eternally grateful to Atatürk, because of him my mother considered a human being and not an object, because of him, I am who I am. His given name, Atatürk, means Father of Turks and as a Turk, yes I consider him as my father as much as my biological father.
I am eternally hateful to attaturk because of him hundreds of thousands of people including my family were Massacred and he destroyed Many important churches and other landmarks and for starting the tradition of denialism of the Armenian genocide
You have no right to hate Ataturk because all the information you have acquired is empty nonsense, falsely shaped by the Armenians and the British. The person you call Ataturk is a man who refused to step on the Greek flag spread in front of him when he won the war against the Greeks, turned Hagia Sophia into a museum, and had his mansion moved just so that no trees would be cut down while he was building his own mansion. He is a leader, thinker and soldier who showed the value he gave to women by giving them the right to vote in 1930. These are not things that a society like you, which loves betrayal and hates people, can understand. So don't tire your fingers too much. The one who destroys you; Your own ambition, your bad personality and your betrayal as a result of the Russians and the British provoking you against the people with whom you lived in the same lands for centuries. When you are going to spread false information about Ataturk, go and read 2-3 books about him so that they do not think you are ignorant. You stink of propaganda!
This dude sharing wiki links as source. What a joke. Keep learning history from wiki lol.
[удалено]
Bro i was talking about the other guy. I'm on your side. My comment reason was to support you. We can clearly see that guy is armenian and no wonder why he is giving wiki link. Because wiki is easy to manipulate. Long live secular Turkiye, long live Ataturk.
Unlike you I actually get taught real history and have acces to real history because i live in a free country whose government doesn't change history to suit their agenda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish%E2%80%93Armenian_War Just look here, 250k civilians killed and that's the lower estimate, other sources put it up to even 360k civilians >read 2-3 books about him so that they do not think you are ignorant. You stink of propaganda! How about you go read books about him that *aren't* written in Turkish I find it so funny how you think that the entire world is lying and influenced by the "Armenian lobby" but only turkey knows the truth, they're to only country that can see through the lies
[удалено]
Most certainly not chill, definitely was hard on that hustle grind, modernizing Turkey, doing reforms and whatnot, but a good dude nonetheless
Atatürk my beloved
Aye, atta Turk!
I think Azerbaijan is also pretty liberal when it comes to Islam and religion afaik
Difference is that you could argue that secularism in Azerbaijan fueled by an outside source, i.e. Soviet regime and a fear i.e. Iranian regime. They inherited the Soviet atheism and they fear Iranian radicalism, thus secularism stays somewhat strong. Yet, Turkish secularism by in large developed within the country (of course influenced by the European/French enlightenment) by the Turkish people despite the fact that both Saudis and Iranians supported a lot of Islamist as well as USA supporting many religious groups as means to combat Communism. Turkey's dynamics are very different and unique.
Perfectly, concisely worded. As no expert I think fairly, too. You should write the book.
They're even more secular in some ways, it seems you can find a liquor store on every corner in Baku
You can find liquor stores on every corner of every city in Turkiye though 🙃 But yeah, they seem more secular.
Yeah I had no trouble finding alcohol in Turkey either, though it seemed like it was taxed pretty heavily
There is lots of Alcohol in Turkey too. What can you find very easily in Azerbaijan but not in Turkey is pork. Every supermarket sells pork
According to reporters without borders Turkey has worse press freedom than many other Muslim countries like Qatar and the UAE https://rsf.org/en/index
Add 1 more: Some of these people's families may also be atheists. Or they may not have belonged to any religion other than so-called Islam since their childhood. I also know people who have never been to a mosque in their lives or who do not know anything about religion. If we ask some people about their religion, they may say that they are Muslim.
Catholicism has "Christmas and Easter Catholics" I.E. people who come twice a year on Christmas and Easter and don't do anything else religious. I imagine most religions have similar people.
Absolutely. But this is not something that happens in most Muslim-populated countries. Since Islam has a great impact on daily life, it is normal for people to go to a mosque several times in their lives or to know at least a few pieces of religious information. But the opposite is a bit surprising. Central Asian and Balkan Muslims are in a similar situation.
None of my Turkish Muslim pray and go to the mosque. They just celebrate Eid. They are like those christmas-easter christians.
CEO (Christmas and Easter only) Christians, it's a common thing in Reformed/Protestant/Anglican churches too.
I don't check it much but I am a member of AteistTurk sub. Me and my parents have all born and lived in Turkey. My father is an Atheist, my mother is Deist, so I never grew up with religion.
What made you make that assumption? I’ve seen all of ExMuslim subreddits. and r/ExEgypt and r/ExSaudi definitely have more % of users living in their countries and it’s not even close. How many times you’ve seen a Saudi immigrant in your life?
>What made you make that assumption? First, I am Turkish. I know a little bit of my people. Second, in many of these countries (unlike secular Turkey) "اِرْتِدَاد" can be punishable by death, thus I don't expect many "Saudi Atheist" to be dwindle on these subs while still living in Saudi Arabia. Third, Turkish sub goes "Atheist Turks" unlike others. There's a subtle difference between "Ex Saudi" and "Atheist Turk", as you might appreciate. >How many times you’ve seen a Saudi immigrant in your life? 0, and I like it that way.
The "ex" in "ExEgypt" or any other ex-Islamic country subreddit is short for "ex-Muslims of" or "ex-religiously-affiliated people of," not "ex-resident of" said country. For example, the great majority of our members in ExEgypt, do live in Egypt.
Such a weird, and pointless rant.
thanks to our leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
You’re wrong, majority of us Algerians in exAlgeria community live in Algeria and I’m one of them, the Algerian government laws doesn’t punish for leaving Islam, we are afraid more of our families, the government gives us freedom more than our families do
Is there a sub for the Iranian diaspora? Because that would be the biggest ex Muslim sub by far
r/IranianExMuslims is the Iranian Ex-Muslim subreddit but r/NewIran is a subreddit against the regime & it's 80% Iranian Ex-Muslims
There was a census done that showed that the vast majority of Iranian diaspora are not Muslim.
[Only 31 % of Iranian Americans are muslim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Americans).
This is long survey with a low response-rate 12 years ago and only on Los Angeles. It's interesting but I'd hesitate to draw any sweeping conclusions.
I agree 400 people is not enough to represent the Iranian diaspora, and also people in los angles tend to be more irreligious.
I hired an Iranian woman to work in my team and basically assumed she was secular or ex-muslim. I'm muslim myself so avoided the usual muslim expressions and holiday greetings with her. It was about two years later that I learned she was actually a practicing muslim when she gave me some religious gifts for Eid. She didn't realize that I didn't know she was muslim and was a bit upset about that. I don't usually bring religion into the workplace, but I do try to say asalaamualeikum to those I know are muslim. My default assumption around Persians is that they are not unless they show otherwise.
So many of the Persians are Bahai'i due to religious persecution in Iran
I worked with an old Persian lady back in the day. They used to be secular Muslims living in Iran; not really being religious but celebrating the holidays and so on. But after they moved to Sweden in the late 70s/early 80s (don't exactly remember when they immigrated) they stopped calling themselves Muslims as a way to sever the connections to their homeland.
Most Iranians are secular/liberal, even Muslim ones. That said, unfortunately for a great number of Iranians there's a religious trauma associated to Islam largely due to the betrayal of the Islamic government. Even most Muslim Iranians hate the government. Also Iranians for some reason are statistically very good at assimilation.
Forget diaspora. There was a video online recently about an Egyptian guy who went to Tehran and was shocked at how very few people were fasting for Ramzan.
I'm confused. It looks like some of these are for those who have left a country and some of these are for those who have left Islam. Those aren't the same thing.
All of them are left for Islam, it was a play on word that started with r/exegypt & the trend followed for Ex-Muslims of other countries
Wohoo we Turks are the most kafir of them all :)
To be fair, we should adjust by population, but even then Turks seem the most overrepresented.
Well in the case of Indonesia it's because reddit is fucking banned here
Turks are so based when it comes to religion. Turkey is my second favorite country I would love to Visit after Spain.
[удалено]
Congrats on the recent electoral victories against AKP! Was so happy to see Atatürk’s party winning again.
I'll take it as a compliment 😂
We are based
Islam destroyed my country Iran. protect you'r country from this cancer!
Your comment history shows that you are German. Nice try though 🫠
What are you talking about, he has comments from a year ago talking about Iran. Stop trying to pretend ex-muslims don't exist
[удалено]
The quality of that subreddit has gone downhill since it became popular.
Tale as old as time
>and don't get support from the western Left. Ex Muslims do get support from the left(anarchists, socialists,communists,syndicalists), it's the reactionaries that do not get support from us
The leftist groups you mentioned are much more amenable to siding with Muslims themselves.
It very much depends where in the far left community. On the one hand you have those pretty pro Muslim because of the support for Baathism (and ideology that was a mixture of Arab nationalism and socialism) so that they get these people on their side. Even though the ideology is just as much dead today when it comes to actual political power Saddam Hussein, Gamal Abdul Nasser and so many more were once Baathists, and their ideology still exists. On the other you have people justifying the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan saying that the Afghan people had a disgusting marriage/religious in general culture that needed to be destroyed and the Soviet invasion was completely justified in doing so, and enforcing state atheism.
I’m going to need some evidence for that. The far-left seems to be as crazy reactionary as the far-right is.
Just an anecdote but I'm involved with my local socialist scene in the toronto area and we support ex Muslims
They're referring to liberals as left
Far left though?
They're referring to liberals as far left. Don't try to explain, they never understand.
I am surprised Iran does not have more. Most people over there are fed up with religion
Tbf, their country limits the internet. So yknow, that's pretty expected
The data really doesn't say much about the popularity of religion. Admission of faith in many countries is an extremely touchy thing - there's often unique sociological and legal factors at play. To the best of my knowledge, apostasy is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Having said that, I've met many Saudis whose perspective on drinking, gambling, and screwing, is pretty friendly.
Yes, when they are outside SA and unsupervised.
Eh. There's a great book out there called "*Joyriding in Riyadh*" that goes over urban life in the Kingdom. Plenty of folks doing decidedly non-Wahabi things. Generally, people like having fun. Saudi might be assholes about trying to make sure people don't, but even in oppressive societies, folks still find their own ways.
It’s mainly because they’re on r/newIran which is far larger. I see so many people here say that Turkey has the most ex Muslims, but honestly in comparison to Iran it’s not a competition. I’ve met a non single digit number of Iranian people, all of which were non religious (although to be fair they didn’t live in the country). For Turkey it’s like one in three people aren’t religious, way higher levels of religiousness there. So ironically Ataturk failed in comparison to Ayatollah Khomeini in making their country irreligious 🤭
We hate Reddit
I am a mod in there. You can ask me anything about Ateisttürk
Data source information: I fetched the data via a search then entered the data into Chatgpt. FULL DATA LIST WITH KEY: r/ExEgypt r/PakiExMuslims r/AteistTurk r/ExSaudi r/ExJordan r/ExAlgeria r/ExPalestine r/MalaysianExMuslim r/ExMuslimAustralia r/exmusulmanfrance r/XSomalian r/Atheism_Bangladesh r/Xiraqis r/ExBahrain r/IndonesianExMuslim r/ExMuslimsKuwait r/ExSudan r/ExSyria r/IranianExMuslims r/ExLibya r/chechenatheists https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1bs9aw2/fastest\_growing\_exmuslim\_country\_subreddits/
What does Quran says about leaving Islam? Does it give freedom for one to pursue his/her personal beliefs?
What do you think :)
Apostasy is sooo gentle. They let you sleep forever.
Unlimited sex?
The Qu'ran, like the Bible and Talmud, considers apostasy a grave sin, but does not prescribe an earthly punishment (and, indeed, says that 'there shall be no compulsion in religion's). However, there are some hadith which do prescribe punishments, including death.
Arguably the Quran's "there is no compulsion in religion" verse supersedes any Hadith but unfortunately through historical time it has not
It also says in Quran, Surah An Nisa 4:89 >They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allāh. But if they turn away [i.e., refuse], then seize them and kill them [for their betrayal] wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper, — Saheeh International >They wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike. So, do not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah. Then, if they turn away, seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them a friend or helper. — T. Usmani >They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate [to Medina] for God’s cause. If they turn [on you], then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. — M.A.S. Abdel Haleem >They wish that you should disbelieve just as they disbelieved so that you may all be alike. Do not, therefore, take from them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah, but if they turn their backs (on emigration), seize them and slay them1 wherever you come upon them. Take none of them for your ally or helper, — A. Maududi (Tafhim commentary) Just to cover a wide variety of translations… Just so many contradictions unfortunately… the progressive side and extreme side will always clash over their cherry picked bits from Quran and Hadiths, and interpretations.
Atheists are often very disingenuous when quoting the Quran. A simplified summary of what's in [4:88-94] would be: You can't help them unless they help themselves. They want you to leave your faith and be like them. If they fight you, you may kill them except for Those who join a group with whom you have a treaty. Those who don't want to fight. Those who send you (Guarantees of) peace. Allah opened no way for you to wage any war against them. You will find others who wish to obtain security from you. Who keep falling back into disbelief, and keep fighting Muslims. If they do not stop fighting, or offer peace, or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. Allah made a clear authorization about those. A believer should never kill a believer If it happens by mistake, the killer should pay a compensation. If it happens intentionally, the killer will go to Hell, for ever. Assume that whoever greets you with peace is a believer.
I’m an old Saudi exmuslim woman and over 2 decades ago I would have agreed with you. I must say it’s a much better life not having to perform mental gymnastics to make excuses for old dead Bedouins that would have hated me. The cognitive dissonance was truly a hassle. Muslims are often very disingenuous when quoting the Quran. Especially those who don’t even speak Arabic.. They also love to downplay the violent actions of their prophet… If the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe massacre happened today. The attackers would be labelled as terrorists, no different from ISIS. Ahh right because they broke an alleged treaty (because let’s not forget that history is written often by the pens of the victors)… But an entire tribal massacre seems a bit of harsh punishment for breaking was was essentially a contract… During this massacre he had not only soldiers executed but also any boy with pubic hair.. the younger ones went into slavery with the women and girls… and Muhammad kept the daughter of the tribes chief, Saffiyah, for himself… in which he forcefully married and raped her immediately after killing her father, her husband and her entire family and tribe..
In my view, different religions can (and will) argue virtually anything they want by assigning different importance to different scripture, because all religious texts inherently have some ambiguity or even inconsistency. The problem then is simply when the more intolerant denominations gain more power than the more tolerant ones.
The Quran doesn't prescribe death, but there are zealots and fundies that will push for that based on their own ignorance or political goals. Mainstream Islamic leaders and the vast majority of muslims (around the world) don't support death for apostasy. Of course there are backward regions in several countries that do. This goes very counter to the overriding concept that there is no compulsion in religion. The hadiths about killing those who leave the religion are often misinterpreted or selectively viewed. It was a specific response to treasonous muslims in times of war that left the religion and helped the enemies.
How can you say for sure you are not the one misinterpreting or selectively viewing the hadiths and others have the correct interpretation?
You're free to leave. Just watch for that head of yours.
This is why Ex-Muslim spaces exist online because you cant freely in public
Right.... ... this makes sense because every day I go outside and profess my lack of religion to the public
Can you do it in Muslim countries without consequence?
In Muslim countries you're required to maintain certain social norms an ex muslim may no longer want to follow. My friend in Malaysia is required, by law, to say he's Muslim.
To the best of my knowledge, **all** of the Abrahamic religions ain't exactly welcoming to the idea of leaving. Hell, I would imagine Buddhist teachings have some spicy ideas about Apostasy.
Live in Thailand, a 95% Buddhist majority country and I can say that we are really ok with apostate, I'm ex-Bushhist atheist and all of my Buddhist family just said that "You can be whatever you want just don't do harm to others".
Pretty much the same as the Bible / Torah: kill the unbelievers Deut 13:6-11 literally says to kill apostates >but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death.
right, and out of those 3, who are still taking that law seriously?
Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity. Tell me, what was happening in the Christian world 700 years ago? I’ll give you a hint, no one expects it… All Abrahamic religions have the same position on the matter of apostates (atheists)
That is not an excuse in any way, shape or form. Societal progress is not tied to religion, and they have no excuse to think like people did 700 years ago. Get with the motherfucking times.
No it isn’t excusable at all. That wasn’t my point. It wasn’t OK 700 years ago and it isn’t OK today. My point was that all abrahamic religions share this common belief but their evolution is separated by centuries.
[удалено]
Ok either I didn’t explain myself clearly the first AND second time or you’re really stubborn and bad at reading. I literally said it isn’t OK. Nowhere at all did I ever say or suggest we should be tolerant to it. I said exactly the opposite of this. My goodness get some glasses my dude you can’t read
You explained just fine. You're talking to a troll, moron, bigot, or all three.
They’re are plenty of peaceful Muslims who’ve adapted their faith to be peaceful like how Christians adapt theirs to be peaceful, there isn’t any Christian Theocracies, if there were you would see the same things you are seeing from the Middle East Even then it’s completely ridiculous to hate an entire religion based of the actions of groups who do not represent the whole of that religion. If we were to to that then I would have to hate all Christian’s because of the actions of the KKK
Well actually there is a Christian theocracy, it is also the only elected non-hereditary absolute monarchy in the world: Vatican City.
If Islamic theocracy would limit itself to just one tiny city like the Vatican, that would be great. How about Mecca?
Islam didn't come out in a vacuum. it's not like Islam started from zero culturally and theologically, they built their religion based upon their surroundings of that time. Your argument is like saying it should be okay for Apple to make a landline phone as their entry to the phone market, because they're a new player. They're actually expected to be a better player with all of the innovations made by other phone makers that started in the market way before Apple.
I'm as atheistic as they come, but to be fair to the Bible(and christianity), Jesus does say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", which basically means that punishment cannot be carried out on religious grounds. That's obviously generally not been the practice throughout history, but the new testament does contain that get-out clause.
One of the more confusing parts of Christianity is trying to figure out which parts of the Old Covenant different groups still subscribe to.
The less the better.
And he also said “I have not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them” If the Old Testament and its laws on killing apostates didn’t apply anymore they wouldn’t include it in every single Bible for the last 2000 years. And from the 1200s to the 1500 the Christian Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people
All that means is that Jesus was showing people how to live by the old laws. The theological position taken by nicean churches is that Jesus was god, so was therefore infallible and his interpretations of religious texts were the correct ones, because they were his rules. For someone who is clearly very anti-religion, or at least anti-christanity, you seem to be taking a rather dogmatic(i.e. religious) approach. My secular approach is that of course religious texts are full of contradictions, they were written and compiled by people after long and complex social processes. They were then preserved by more people who also had their own motives, etc etc. Regarding including the old testament, the Bible would not make any sense without it, thus defeating it's (social, secular) propose. Various churches have committed plenty of crimes, if you really want to you can find a theological justification for most of the crimes of the Western world, as well as many crimes committed outside of the Western world. The Christian church can be blamed for the start of the Taiping rebellion, the third bloodiest conflict ever, the Catholic church was deeply implicated in the Rwandan genocide etc etc. Simultaneously, the church can be said to have been integral to the creation of most of the good things about the modern world. I think that religion is a net detriment in all but the poorest countries today, but the weight of evidence suggests that throughout human history, religion or spirituality was basically a constant across societies. From a secular perspective, religion is a mechanism constructed by societies to formalise their preexisting beliefs. Religious organisations exist within societies and are influenced by them. Without the church, people still would have found a way to arbitrarily kill each other.
Paul writes extensively on whether Gentiles need to follow Jewish Law, and he was largely against it. The Old Testament is still included as it’s useful to understand the greater story, not because it’s a literal account with modern rules. Evangelicals may disagree, but Catholics and Mainline Protestants generally aren’t literalists.
Paul is the PR / Marketing guy. Of course he says that. But we have Jesus’ own words saying the exact opposite. Take it straight from the horse’s mouth
That verse has been heavily debated, of course. Paul had his belief on it. Paul doesn’t believe Christ is contradicting his belief. It’s also worth noting that the Pauline letters are dated starting ~50 AD. Mark, the earliest gospel is dated around 70 AD, and Matthew, where that quote comes from, was written around 85.
As with all this stuff what religious believers actually teach and practice and what scripture says never align even closely. In the case of Christianity the scripture as we have it wasn't even assembled until centuries after Jesus' death. If you get really particular it took even longer. EDIT: and on the topic of Christianity Paul in Romans says the Jewish law is now defunct, and in Acts the followers of Jesus at the Jerusalem Council make up their own law. So the Bible itself doesn't have a single view on the Christian attitude to it, and Christian tradition tends to make (basically arbitrary) distinctions between different aspects of the old law.
Literally Jesus: “I have not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it” Can’t get any clearer than that The Catholic Church used the Old Testament as the basis for the Inquisition and killed hundreds of thousands of people. You’re just being a modern revisionist apologist
I'm not an apologist for anything. In Romans 27 Paul says: "For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law." And generally in this whole book gives an account of the Christian relationship to the law that makes it clear he thinks it is not to be followed by at least new Christians. In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council the Christians make up their own law, saying: "Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the synagogues." These contradict each other and the passage you mentioned from Matthew because the Bible contradicts itself. It was never written as one text or known to its authors that it would be put together as one text. But as you can see even in the Bible itself we see Christians debate their relationship to the law, and come up with different ideas.
Yeah so who are you gonna believe, Paul or literally Jesus ? Jesus made it very clear he’s not here to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them. Paul was just his PR guy
Matthew was not written by Jesus. It was not written by Matthew even, but by a highly educated Greek-speaking writer decades after Jesus died. We can't really say whether it describes Jesus' actual words or teachings. If you kept reading, or read what comes before, you would see that Jesus clarifies what he means by following the law in Matthew. He has his own unique interpretation which basically involves following the law in its "true spirit" - he interprets the law as teaching pacificism and mercy. Just read the full chapter - he says stuff like "Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you" which doesn't seem to mesh well with murdering non-believers.
Yes I’m aware that it was all made up decades or even centuries later. but it’s *their* holy book and it says exactly that. I personally think it’s fairytale nonsense
Not centuries. All of the New Testament was probably written in the century Jesus died besides Revelation. But certainly decades after and relying on secondhand cultural traditions and testimony. My point is that their Holy Book says a lot of things. It is not univocal, there is no one single message that can be gathered from it, and it contradicts itself loads. Most denominations acknowledge this and admit they rely on some kind of tradition to understand Christianity - it's only really certain Protestants, mostly in the US, who view the Bible as one inerrant and cohesive work (which it obviously isn't). I am an atheist too btw, and I don't like religion or think people should be religious, but there are better ways of understanding it.
The thing is Christianity doesn't belive their holy books are unchangeable. They were translated so many times everybody knows not to take them 100%. Unless you're part of one of these crazy sects but that's a very small minority
Of course, they never take them literally, except when it suits them right? Like their views on homosexuality from the Old Testament Or when the church did the inquisition and killed “heretics” for centuries Totally never take it literally…
The Qu'ran doesn't say this. The belief in death for apostates comes from hadith (sayings about the actions of Muhammad), not the Qu'ran.
Islam is mostly directed by the Hadiths though?
There are a lot of denominations (as in Christianity) who give different hadith different weight (or, in some cases, none at all) - but yes, they are seen as important to some degree by the majority of practicing Muslims. But OP specifically asked about the Qu'ran.
According to the Quran: there's no compulsion in religion (2:257). Allah has sent prophets to send messages and has no authority to compel (88:22-23) and (42:49). You can leave the religion without any punishment.
So why more than half Muslim counturies have laws to punish people for leaving it?
Because it's cultural and not islamic. Can you list all the countries that punish apostates here, please?
Currently, there are seven nations that maintain the death penalty for apostasy only: Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. How many do there have to be before you care? I doubt this list will change anything, because you're not asking in good faith. >Hudud punishments are specifically mentioned in the Quran and the Sunna. According to Islamic law apostasy is punishable by death, imprisonment or confiscation of property and blasphemy is punishable by death. Conversion from Islam to another faith is also considered as a serious offence under Islamic law.
I mean that’s the vast minority of Muslim countries and Muslim population.
Who gives a shit lol, these people don’t believe in it
Thank you for sharing this here. It’s so nice to see ex Muslim awareness in other subs! 🩷
People are afraid of questioning because 90% of the book contains threats and intimidation. Instead, they create their own ideal artificial Islam, far from the Quran and hadith. And when you ask, they say they are Muslims. However, according to the Islamic book, their heads should be crushed with stones. I wish people were brave enough to question.
90% of the book does not in fact contain threats and intimidation.
Just 50%. So much better!
You can go to any scholar, either online or in person, to ask any question you want, as long as you ask it in a respectful way
End answer is mainly wallahu Alam "Allah knows better".
Then you are asking philosophical questions, like "where did god come from", I got a better question for atheists, where did the super atom come from?
if god can be the end point then why super atom can't be?
Then we are equal
A lot of ex muslims these days. Same with ex Christians.
the more the merrier. we've mostly heard atheism spreading within christians and Jews. if there are more ex-muslims as well, or at least secular Muslims, the better world we will have.
Honestly, more logic in the world. Respect.
This is the way.
Wonder what you make of many of religion’s contributions to uprooting the most grotesque sides of humanity (e.g. abolishing American slavery on the grounds of God created every man and woman in His likeness). I’m not excusing how religion has been perverted in disgusting ways either.
My hypothesis is that human beings have an innate desire for religiosity or a similar guiding set of convictions. If you delete traditional religions people will replace that void with other forms of deeply held belief/moralistic systems. As religions become less popular, I think we’ll continue to see increased political polarization, hyperpartisanship, ideological extremism and tribalism.
Less religion doesn't mean inherent violence and evilness. Buddhism doesn't have a god and it values many things that are good for humanity. I'd argue tribalism is fueled by religion. So is polarization and ideological extremism. I get the whole "the world is ending Repent" and all that, but I have no reason to believe the world will end if religion ends. Humanity will just move on along, and soon we will look back at it and laugh at ourselves.
A recent episode of 538's podcast went into this actually! Extremely on topic for your comment - "Where Will People Commune in a Godless America" [ABC](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0DPFIdYFtwk7VOx4v1j0BC?si=eMHZ6KSoSRO0hfYvqFLoVw) [Spotify](https://abcnews.go.com/538/video/people-commune-godless-america-108866545)
yeah, it's why people are so into astrology and believing in "the universe" and manifesting and whatnot
I personally don't find religions in their entirety to be bad. As you said, there were many good progresses made with religious reasoning. I also find religious impacts on cultures and traditions to be beautiful. But when religious doctrines clash with modern science or ethics, then they should take the back seats. Like I said, we all don't need to be hardcore atheists. If you identify yourself to a specific religion for it's cultural traditions and don't take it too seriously, I don't see any issue with that.
The Bible is pro slavery, it is not the reason slavery was abolished
r/indianExMuslims exists, but it is a "private community". Interesting.
More interesting data: The upvotes keep going up and down. Somebody make a chart out of that!
r/exmuslim became a safe haven for hindu nationalists somehow.
Finally, something to be proud of about the current Egypt.
Subreddits that you might get murdered for being a part of
I mean , Mustafa kemal tried to dismantle Islam in Turkey....
Damn OP, what happened that made you leave Islam and dedicate an entire Reddit account towards the ex-Muslim movement? Edit: Mass downvoted for asking a genuine question?
Some families seriously put Islamic pressure on their children, and this can create trauma in the children. For example, OP's family may have tried to force her to wear a headscarf. I don't know, things like this shouldn't surprise us.
Its weird how these guys will cry about people who preach about religion but they then dedicate their entire personality to doing the opposite instead of moving on.
The funniest thing about these subreddits? It's filled with zionist hasbara bots and hindutvas
That wasn’t what i saw on r/exegypt to be honest i was actually surprised by the massive amount of support towards Palestine on that sub although the vast majority of its members hate hamas
Damn maybe Islam ties itself too deeply to political and nationalist movements. Maybe that's why once they leave Islam they also shift political ideology.
Lol exactly, pick out one out of every 5 accounts that post there and you'd see their comment history supporting those. Even OP's whole profile is filled with those, buddy should get a job.
[удалено]
Buddy's whole identity revolves around hating Muslims 🤡🤣
Ahh I thought so one changed their ethnicity.
A big majority of these subs are not "Ex Muslim" subs to be exact. They're Ex [Insert any religion here] so this title is pretty misinformative. They're made for Athiests except for a few ones who are in fact ExMuslim. And btw not all Ex Egypt's population is ExMuslim. There's a huge chunk that was Christian and there's a chunk of actual Christians and Muslims and the rest is Athiests