Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims from all over the world, born and raised in Islam. We were taught never to question Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith.

But there is a clash between Islam and Humanity. Finally, the Humanity within us won the war, and we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioning the belief that was imposed on us. And we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, and nothing but lies and deceit.

What we believe:

Some of us have embraced other religions, but most of us have simply left Islam without believing in any other religion. We believe in humanity. We believe that humans do not need to follow a religion to be good. All we need is to follow humanity within us. It is enough to tell us clear what is bad and what is good. It will never misguide us. This is the essence of all goodness.

What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However, we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth.

We strive to bring Muslims into the fold of humanity. We fight to obtain our rights as citizens to declare our apostasy and not be persecuted for it. We want to be free from the tyranny of Islam in our own home countries. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for the oneness of humankind.

Please join us on Reddit

Objection: People should avoid our website because it's biased and neither neutral nor academic:

Islamists attempt to undermine our website by claiming it lacks neutrality and academic rigour in its approach to Islam.

Here's our response:

  1. We don't have to be neutral when we're the affected party: In a courtroom, the party that has been wronged isn't expected to be neutral. They have the right—even the obligation and duty —to present their side with evidence and arguments. If public figures like Zakir Naik can defend Islam, shouldn't we have the same right to critique it? These are only Double Standards of Islamists where they respect and accept defence of Islam by Zakir Naik, but dismiss our arguments against Islam by accusing us of being biased. 

  2. Readers are the judges, and they should remain neutral: Truly neutral sources are rare, and even those that claim neutrality often have subjective elements. It's up to you, as the reader, to examine the arguments from all sides and form your own opinion. This means gathering information from multiple perspectives and drawing your conclusions based on that.

  3. Arguments based on original sources cannot be dismissed by blaming them biased: Islamists employ the tactic to reject all arguments against Islam but accusing them of being biased. But this does not work. In a court, only testimonies may be dismissed if they are biased. As for arguments, that are developed based on commonly accepted sources (Qur'an, Hadith, logic, mainstream scientific theories), it doesn't matter whether they are biased or not. You still have to tackle their arguments with arguments.

  4. An affected party in court doesn't need to be academic:  In a courtroom, it is not obligatory for the affected parties to be Academic. We are normal people and this website is also for normal people, and it is enough if we use the language of normal people to convey our message.

Moreover, academic papers are free of human emotion, but we want our articles to have human emotions that can touch human hearts. As victims of Islamic oppression, it is our right to raise our voice against Islam as much as we can. Even Islam itself gives this right to victims to raise their voices against the oppressors. So why do Islamists want to snatch away our right to protest against Islam?

Moreover, the language of the Quran itself is not academic itself, but it insults Kafirs, and try to look them bad and teaches its followers that Kafirs: