An ex-Muslim who converted to Hinduism recently visited r/exmuslim subreddit and expressed concerns about hostility. He wrote:
I find this place to be hostile towards us. Non-Hindu ex-Muslims [basically atheist ex-Muslims] attack us as viciously as Islamists attack non-believers. The similarities are uncanny. The fact that people here call it [Hinduism] a cult shows nobody understands what a cult is. Cult is one person/one god worship and proselytizing. Whereas in Hinduism there are 3 gods with hundreds of millions of forms. Heck, a lot of Hindus don't even believe in God as belief is not even a central tenet in scriptures. It's a Big Tent way of life.
There is no caste system in Hinduism.
The Varna system for division of societal roles based on strengths was later exploited by foreigners [British Colonizers] as Caste system to decide who was important to interact with to control people. Nowadays few people hold onto it as pride and to not let go of power that they wrongfully had. Average day-to-day people don't care about it as this caste system has nothing to do with Vedas or Hinduism.
But everybody in this subreddit thinks of ex-Muslim-Hindus as never-Muslims. It's clear that people here want to gatekeep the way an ex-Muslim should live.
First, yes, some atheist ex-Muslims may be critical of ex-Muslims who convert to Hinduism. But let's add context:
You're not alone in facing criticism but Ex-Muslims who convert to Christianity face similar scrutiny by atheist ex-Muslims
This community has diverse opinions, and yes, sometimes those debates get heated. We're not angels, but we're humans with different perspectives.
However, claiming ex-Muslims are "as vicious as Islamists" is a huge stretch. Last I checked, atheist ex-Muslims aren't:
- Issuing death threats over religious disagreements
- Getting people imprisoned for apostasy
- Calling for blasphemy laws
- Organizing mob violence
Being criticized isn't the same as being persecuted. Let's maintain perspective.
The Gatekeeping Accusation
Saying "you were never really Muslim" to someone who converted to another religion is indeed wrong. That's the same dismissive tactic many Muslims use against all ex-Muslims, and we should reject it.
Your journey is valid. You left Islam. That makes you an ex-Muslim, regardless of what you believe now.
But please also understand that validating your ex-Muslim status doesn't mean we can't critique Hinduism. Just as you're free to practice Hinduism, we're free to criticize it. That's what we do here, i.e. we critique ideologies, especially religious ones.
We Have the Right to Critique Hinduism
You say people here (i.e. atheist ex-Muslims) don't understand Hinduism.
Fair enough, and let's discuss it. But don't expect us to stay silent about problems we see.
Claim 1: "The caste system has nothing to do with Vedas or Hinduism"
This is historically inaccurate. The earliest textual evidence of caste hierarchy comes from the Rig Veda 10.90.12 (Purusha Sukta):
"The Brahmin was his mouth,
The Rajanya became his arms,
His thighs were the Vaishya,
From his feet the Shudra was born."
This explicitly describes a hierarchical social order with divine origins. It's not about "division of labor based on strengths", but it's describing a cosmic hierarchy where different groups are literally born from different body parts of a deity, with Brahmins at the top (head) and Shudras at the bottom (feet).
Even if some modern Hindus reject this text, it's in the Veda. You can't claim caste has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures when the Rig Veda explicitly establishes this hierarchy.
Claim 2: "Varna was flexible and based on qualities, not birth"
While some texts like the Bhagavad Gita theoretically suggest varna is based on guna (qualities), actual historical practice was rigidly birth-based:
- The Manusmriti (a foundational Hindu law text) explicitly makes varna hereditary
- Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan Empire, faced stigma for his low-caste origins
- Buddha (563–483 BCE) criticized caste rigidity—centuries before any foreign interference
- Greek ambassador Megasthenes (300 BCE) described Indian society as having rigid hereditary castes
There's essentially zero historical evidence for widespread varna flexibility. The "it was meant to be flexible" argument is apologetics, not history.
In the original Hindu scriptures, “varna” simply means caste, i.e. a hereditary social category based on birth, lineage, and purity. It never meant “profession” or “occupation”. This reinterpretation is a modern invention by Hindu apologists who try to present ancient caste hierarchy as a benign “division of labour”. But all Hindu sacred texts like the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata and especially the Manusmriti all define varna as something you are "born into", not something you "choose". The occupation of each group developed as a consequence of caste, not the definition of it.
Claim 3: "Foreigners (British) created the caste system"
This is perhaps the most misleading claim. The caste system was fully formed long before any foreign rule:
- Upanishads discuss caste (800–500 BCE)
- Buddha criticized caste hierarchy (6th century BCE)
- Ashoka's inscriptions mention caste realities (3rd century BCE)
- Megasthenes documented rigid caste divisions (300 BCE)
- Medieval Hindu kingdoms enforced caste rules strictly
Did the British exploit caste divisions? Absolutely. Did they census and codify castes? Yes. Did they invent the caste system? No.
The British encountered an already-existing, rigid hierarchical system and used it for colonial administration. Blaming foreigners for caste is a convenient way to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about Hindu history.
Note:
Our Hindu ex-Muslim friend is not alone in making these claims. The idea that “there is no caste system in Hinduism and it was only introduced by the British” has become a mainstream talking point among modern Hindutva apologists (link). Through this narrative, they are misleading millions today with a historically false propaganda.
Why This Matters
These aren't just academic debates. Caste discrimination is still a massive problem:
- Dalits face violence, discrimination, and exclusion today
- Inter-caste marriages can result in honour killings
- Temple entry and water access remain caste-restricted in some areas
- Caste-based politics dominates Indian society
When you claim "average day-to-day people don't care about caste," you're ignoring the lived reality of millions of Dalits and lower-caste Indians.
The Real Problem: Modern Hindutva
Here's what many of us see when we look at modern Hinduism on the international stage: Political Hinduism (Hindutva), which has increasingly become:
- Aggressive and nationalist
- Targeting religious minorities (especially Muslims)
- Promoting historical revisionism
- Using mob violence to enforce religious norms
- Pushing supremacist narratives
This isn't traditional Hinduism. This is politicized, weaponized religion, the same thing we fought against in Islam.
When we criticize Hinduism, we're often reacting to this modern manifestation. The peaceful, spiritual, pluralistic Hinduism you describe exists for some practitioners, but it's not what dominates the public discourse.
Our Position: Humanity Above Ideology
We're atheist/agnostic ex-Muslims, but atheism isn't sacred to us. Humanity is.
We don't care if someone is Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or anything else, as long as they respect human rights and don't impose their beliefs on others.
For us:
- Practicing your religion peacefully? Fine.
- Discussing your beliefs? Welcome.
- Converting to another religion? Your choice.
But:
- Using religion to justify discrimination? Not okay.
- Supporting religiously-motivated violence? Absolutely not.
- Denying historical atrocities committed in religion's name? We'll call it out.
You want respect for your choice to become Hindu. We respect that choice. You left Islam, and that took courage for going against religious indoctrination and family/community, and we honour that.
But respect doesn't mean silence. Just as you're free to criticize Islam and atheist ex-Muslims, we're also free to criticize Hinduism. That's not hostility, but that's open discourse.
The Comparison to Islamists
You compared atheist ex-Muslims to Islamists. Let's be clear about what Islamists do:
- Islamists: Kill apostates, imprison blasphemers, ban criticism, enforce religious law by violence
- Atheist ex-Muslims: Write Reddit comments you find mean
These are not comparable. Not even close.
Are some ex-Muslims overly harsh or unfair in their criticism? Sure. Should we be more respectful in how we disagree? Probably.
But criticism is not equal to persecution. We're not trying to ban Hinduism, hurt Hindus, or prevent you from practicing. We're expressing our opinions on a discussion forum. That's it.
Final Thoughts
This community should be a place where all ex-Muslims feel welcome, whether atheist, Hindu, Christian, agnostic, or anything else. Your identity as an ex-Muslim is valid.
But being part of this community doesn't mean immunity from criticism of your beliefs. We criticize Islam relentlessly here. We'll criticize Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and yes, even atheism when warranted.
That's not hostility. That's how free discourse works.
If you want a Hindu echo chamber where nobody challenges Hindu apologetics, there are subreddits for that. But r/exmuslim is a place where we question all religious claims, because that's what many of us do after leaving Islam.
You're welcome here. Your beliefs will be challenged here. Both things can be true.
A Message to ex-Muslims who want to convert to Hinduism
If any ex-Muslim thinking about converting to Hinduism, then we request him/her to please first read our article.
To the broader community: Let's make sure we're criticizing ideas, not attacking people. Someone choosing Hinduism after Islam doesn't make them "never really Muslim" or less valid as an ex-Muslim. Let's maintain that distinction between critiquing ideology and respecting individuals.
Hassan Radwan