(1) False propaganda that 4 years old kids in kindergarten are taught about masturbation

Many homophobe websites are doing this propaganda constantly. For example, read this (link):

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), children under the age of four should learn about masturbation as they have “right to explore gender identities”, ...

But this is nothing else than lies from homophobes. Here you can read the rebuttal of this false propaganda. 

Nevertheless, this propaganda is so successful that many parents gathered in UK to protest against WHO (while they thought it to be a true news). Still today, homophobes are propagating this lie, and people are also becoming prey of it, which is unfortunate. 

 

(2) Germany is opening its first LGBT kindergarten

This is also propagated as if it is a crime, and an impression is given that this kindergarten will turn small children into homosexuals. But this is a lie, and this kindergarten is not for turning any child into a homosexual. 

This kindergarten is nothing different from another normal kindergarten, except this that it provides a community-based appropriate space for children of queer families, as well as parents, whose children want to be familiar with a very diverse lifestyle at an early age (link). 

If religious communities are allowed to open their kindergarten, and to take their children to worship places, in order to give them more exposure to the lifestyle of their community, then there should also not be a problem if the LGBT community also open a kindergarten, where their children can get more exposure to other LGBT families.

Why these Double Standards?

Actually, it is worst for religious families, as they take their children to worship places, and religious schools like Madrassas, where they are indeed brainwashed into believing in only the religion of their parents to be true and to convert to that specific religion.

But the LGBT Kindergarten does not brainwash or turn any child to homosexuality, but still homophobes have issue with it.

 

(3)  12 years old kids are allowed to take Toxic Hormone Blockers 

Homophobes blame liberals that they are giving their kinds of toxic hormone blockers in the name of homosexuality. 

The basic issue is, many religious people think that NATURE is 100% PERFECT, while their 100% Perfect God/Allah created it. Nevertheless, this is a mistake. Nature does not make itself perfect for human beings. Actually, nature does not care about human beings, but it follows only its own path. And we human beings have to adapt ourselves according to nature. 

Gender dysphoria starts in childhood and worsens with the start of puberty, rarely going away. And it results in such children in a form of:

  • Depression and anxiety 
  • Problems in social interaction with other kids
  • Thoughts and actions related to self-harm and suicide

The issue is, homophobes all together deny these issues among such children, while they consider their God/Allah to be perfect. 

But these are not liberals, who have suggested this solution. But these thousands of Psychiatrists, and hundreds of Scientific Studies, went for decades-long research, and after that, they suggested this solution to such problems, 

The use of hormone blockers pauses puberty, and it is useful while:

  • It provides time to determine if a child's gender identity is long-lasting.
  • It also gives children and their families time to think about or plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues ahead.

Moreover, it is also necessary, while:

  • Just imagine a male by birth, who feels himself to be a girl inside. He does not want to have facial or body hair and a deepening of the voice, but he wishes to look like a girl outside too. The only solution for it is to take a hormone blocker. In those identified as male at birth, hormone blockers decrease the growth of facial and body hair and prevent voice deepening.
  • Similarly, imagine a female by birth, who feels to be a boy inside. She does not want to have breasts. In those identified as female at birth, a hormone blocker is the only solution, as it limits or stops breast development and stops menstruation.

Due to nature, these changes start taking place at the age of 12 years (with puberty), thus, a cure is also needed at this similar age. 

And hormone blockers are not toxic as homophobes portray. They may have some negative side effects (like all other medicines), but all doctors and psychiatrists and scientific studies are unanimous that the POSITIVES of taking hormone blockers outweigh any side effects. 

Read more about Puberty Blockers here. 

 

(4) New curriculum makes 6 grade students to have education about LGBT too, along with sex education

Yes, it is true. But what is wrong with it? 

Please read the following article, in order to understand that it is the right move, and it should always be like this. 

Guardian Newspaper:

At last, a generation of school children will grow up knowing it’s OK to be LGBT

Students across the country are heading back to school this week, and while this might not seem momentous, for Stonewall, this school year marks the beginning of the end of a decades-long campaign to get an inclusive education system in England. In September 2020, new regulations for teaching relationships and sex education (RSE) in English schools come into force. It will be a landmark moment – a whole generation will attend schools that not only accept LGBT people and same-sex relationships, but also celebrate and offer support on the issues that young LGBT people face.

The guidance means that primary schools will teach about different families, which of course includes LGBT families. Contrary to what’s been said by some online and in the media, this is just about showing kids that families can have two mums or two dads. Or to put another way: different families, same love.

Please read the full article here, as it has other important information too. 

Again, homophobes are unable to show what is wrong in telling 6th-grade kids about the existence of LGBT families in society. They are only good for doing hate-filled propagandas.

 

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →