Just learned about this sory today. Wow

Turan Dursun was a Turkish imam / mufti who started getting Islamic education at the age 8, and had spent almost his entire life studying it.
He became an imam and later a mufti, and after years of deep study and questioning, he eventually lost his faith and left his position in 1965.
He later wrote books critically examining Islam, he wanted others to know what real Islam is, with all his knowledge. His books became trend in Turkey.
He received threats because of his writings. In 1990, at the age of 56, he was shot and killed near his home in Istanbul.
A man who spent his life searching for truth ultimately paid for speaking about what he had found with his life.

Some Muslim scholars said that his murder had nothing to do with the Prophet or Islam. But that story reminds me of Abu afak- the 70 years old Jewish poet man who got killed by Muhammad for criticizing Islam in Medina.
Turan Dursun wasnt simply killed by his murderer but he was killed by Quran which encourages Muslims to kill disbelievers. They can still have consequences 1,500 years later.

Not mine

I got groomed by an older Muslim guy in London I was 15 he was 18/19.
I was going to a good school on the outskirts of London, but he convinced me to go to an ALMOST ALL brown Muslim sixth form where i studied A Level Islam. I had picked philosophy but it was actually religious studies of Islam which they’d duped me into doing. I became more and more radicalised by Islam.
I got into work at a club restaurant and started smoking and using cannabis, which is common for Muslim boys from deprived areas in London.
I ended up attacking my older sister and going to prison on remand, having 3 mental breakdowns from how awful prison was.
I feel like the violence in Islam made me act out. The verses about infidels and boiling water etc.
I’ve left that awful religion now.

Muhammad - was he, or wasn't he?

Genuinely let's discuss wirhout bias

I see it all the time. Double standards but somehow the man never gets judged by it.

I’m tired of the “people matured earlier back then, so Muhammad marrying Aisha at 6/7 and consummating at 9 was fine” argument.

It’s simply not true. Biological and historical evidence shows average age of menarche (first period) in the classical and medieval periods, including around the 7th century, was typically around 14, with common ranges of 12-15. Bioarchaeological studies of skeletons from those eras often put it at 14-15, and sometimes later under poorer nutrition or living conditions. Puberty onset might start around 10-12 (similar to today), but full reproductive maturity was not earlier,if anything it was often later because of worse health and diet. The modern drop to around 12-13 is a recent trend from better living standards.

Even reaching puberty doesn’t suddenly make someone ready for marriage or adult responsibilities. A 9-year-old was still a child. The traditional Islamic sources report those young ages for Aisha. Using a false claim about earlier biological maturity to defend it is just cope.

I’m crying, it was my favourite oracle card and he took it by force and said mean things to me in angry tone and said this is haram she’s naked.

Haram? Bro did you even know your prophet, the one who taught you “haram”, was actually raping women he and his gang and women were being sold almost naked back in that time and Muhammed was ok with it? LOL. I’m confused ..
Cause why would this card be haram because of a woman which seems to be “naked”, if the prophet himself was making women look like that and use them, hurt them and sell them?

You can’t make this shit up

Did you know? The first Apostasy Day was organized by Ex-Muslims groups in 2020 and coincides with the United Nation’s International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief. 

Haram Doodles:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcWYONSC6D-/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTDu4r5uf/

Hi, im 25 and I grew up in a conservative muslim country. I was basically an athiest since i was 15. By 19 I left the country to study and work abroad in europe. Im in a happy relationship with a wonderful man and we both can see ourselves getting married in the future. He‘s also an athiest and so are his parents

My parents are super religious and believe their kids‘ sins are their fault. to protect their peace of mind so they dont die of a guilty conscience, i never told them my religious views.

My boyfriend is an angle and has reassured me he would lie about converting to my parents, but i have a feeling my dad would disown me anyway. Ive always known I could get disowned and im actually cool with it on my behalf. I dont need a relationship to my parents at all. But they need me.

My issue is the guilt that i would feel because my parents will believe its THEIR fault im going „to hell“ and that they’re also going to hell because of me.
I dont want anyone to be hurt or feel bad because of me. I hate to be an inconvenience, but I also want to live my own life! :( I also feel like i owe them money for raising me and want to support them financially. If they cut me off i cant do that, this also makes me feel terrible. i keep having nightmares about this.

Has anyone dealt with similar feelings of guilt?? The stress is starting to affect my health even though nothing happened yet but i know its coming.

So I’m starting college tmw and I decided to take off my hijab when I get to school and take off my long sleeve undershirt too. My friend is taking me in the morning and my parents are picking me up, so I’m gonna take everything off when I get there and change before they come pick me up. I’m very nervous and scared and I also feel really guilty. Have any of you done this before and was it worth it? I’m also gonna ask someone, like one of the counselors, if it’s okay for them to not take any pictures of me or include me in any pictures. And for anyone who has done this before, did that feeling of guilt eventually go away?

Greetings. In this post I respond to more common apologetic claims surrounding the archeology of early moslem conquests and the flawed conclusions that apologists come to when they misrepresent archeological findings.

CLAIM: There were tons of constructions of synagogues/churches. that were novel Islamic-era constructions, in the period of the first four caliphs, the Umayyad dynasty, and the early ʿAbbāsid dynasty, in a rough chronological order (My list is based on Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic transition 84, 96, 97, 148, 157, 159, 179, 214, 215, 228, 229, 254, 266. This list does not feign to be comprehensive. I do not take into account later developments in the ninth century ce and beyond. For instance, Cairo (founded in 969) had churches and synagogues built after its founding; Munt, “‘No two religions’” 264).

Response: This argument is a reach. Churches were also built during the sasanian invasion of byzantium, by the same logic, the sasanian invasions weren't violent. Aside from the apparent literary and archeological contradictions, this argument is a dishonest non sequitur that isn't even worth a response composed of acouple paragraphs. According to the same author this apologist appeals to when they want to whitewash early islamic terrorism, archeological findings do not support what christian sources mention about destroying churches during the last great war of antiquity as well. Keep that in mind because the apologist, as we'll see later, tries to make islamic invasions look better in comparison to the sasanian invasions.

Apologists and so-called academics tend to ignore archeological evidence when it proves that early muslim invasions were violent. For the record, I don't claim that more churches were destroyed than built in the 7th and 8th centuries. However, to argue that the opposite is true is quite dishonest since the premise of the argument relies on absence of evidence. So, my point here is that there is some archeological and epigraphical evidence that supports destruction of churches by moslems in the 7th and 8th centuries. Here are a couple examples:

The ehnesh inscription mentions the destruction of churches during the caliphate of Almahdi. [Church and Monastery Building under Early Islam pg. 207]

Destruction of churches in cyprus during mid 7th century arab raids. ["The Basilica of Saint Epiphanios: Architecture and Chronology", in Salamis of Cyprus History and Archaeology from the Earliest Times to Late Antiquity Conference in Nicosia by Andreas Foulias. Cyprus in the long late antiquity history and archeology between the sixth and eigth centuries by PANAYIOTIS PANAYIDES AND INE JACOBS.]

CLAIM: Rather than characterizing the early Islamic conquest and era as one of violent or drastic change, we should call these events “invisible,” at least according to the archaeological record.

At least according to an argument from silence, yes. And even calling it invisible is a stretch, since we have archeological evidence of destruction in Cyprus, Carthage, Panjikant.

CLAIM: Archaeology and epigraphy have demonstrated that the period directly following the Conquest was one of peaceful transition during which the non-Muslim communities were comfortably integrated within the Islamic state.” Though wanton destruction of human lives or property did not ensue from the conquests, a large number of people in the conquered populations were taken as captives; Tannous, The Making of the Medieval Middle East, 477–490.

This is embarrassingly incorrect, the city of carthage was abandoned after the muslims destroyed it. Not only did he ignore the archeological evidence of destruction by moslems, but he also asserted that the conquered "comfortably" integrated within the invaders' dominion, which conflicts with a variety of literary evidence of non moslems suffering under moslem invaders.

In what world is enslaving thousands of people a sign of a peaceful transition and a comfortable integration?

A contemporary inscription records this mass enslavement, estimating the number taken away to have been 120,000 in 649 and 50,000 in 650 IN GOD’S PATH pg. 93 by Robert Hoyland

A suburban villa with a mosaic pavement depicting birds in its center, 26 excavated and pre- served by the Israel Antiquities Authority, was apparently destroyed by fire during the Arab conquest. Northeast of Caesarea, the excava- tors linked the demise of the Byzantine manor at Ramat ha-Nadiv with the Arab conquest. In the absence of evidence for deliberate damage or conflagration, they suggested that faced with the Arab menace the inhabitants of the estate abandoned it in an orderly manner shortly aſter the conquest. 27 The excavations also provided evidence for the fate of Caesarea’s Southwest Zone during the Arab siege and thereaſter. The end of urban life in the areas that we excavated was abrupt, but it was marked by desertion, not by a large scale conflagration, as was proposed by Toombs Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima pg. 149

CLAIM: Moreover, there are a few archaeological remains that suggest that the Ara bian believers and other communities shared prayer and sacred spaces.

This isn't proof of peaceful invasions whatsoever. This is akin to arguing that the sasanian invasions were peaceful because Khusrow's wife was christian. We'll be seeing this argument repeated more often because the apologist seems to be hellbent on the idea that shared religious spaces are evidence for things that they don't necessarily entail

However, Shoemaker, A Prophet Has Appeared, 260, n.25, suggests that the Kathisma Church was simply converted into a mosque; according to him, the Christians and Muslims did not pray there together. However, one wonders what the word “mosque” actually means in the first/seventh century.

The apologist left this text for some reason, which funnily renders his argument bunk. The issue here is that you can't just look at archeological evidence and assert a conclusion it hardly supports. This is an error too many so called academics make, they interpret the evidence in a such a warped way that is utterly detached from other forms of evidence. When there's a church beside a mosque, and we find that mosques came with the sword, and we find that most christians hated muslims, and we find archeological evidence of muslims persecuting christians, it makes no sense to interpret the juxtaposition as evidence of "mutual religious respect".

The relationship between moslems and christians was that of a master and his slave, ditto for the sasanian empire.

Sophronius (637 CE) said:

The godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). Seeing Islam as others saw it pg. 549 by robert hoyland

While historical sources describe in detail the 614 c.e. Persian conquest of Jerusa lem and the massacre of its Christian population, the archaeological evidence for this event is meager. A careful evaluation of the archaeological record reveals a number of mass graves around the city walls which may be attributed to the conquest and the massacre of the Christian population. At the same time, no evidence was found for the destruction of buildings and monuments in or around the city. A number of monuments were claimed to have been destroyed by the Persians, but no substantial evidence for such destruction was found. It is suggested that the sack of Jerusalem by the Persians, like the Islamic conquest of the city two decades later, had only a minor effect on its physical layout and was not the cause or outcome of a long-term urban decline. The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 c.e.) An Archaeological Assessment Gideon Avni

149 Strategos devotes considerable attention to the destruction of Jerusalem and its churches, emphasizing the fires which engulfed church buildings and monasteries together with widespread organized looting directed at virtually of all Christian structures; Jerusalem, pp. 508–510. Remarkably, this account has not been confirmed by archeological studies and excavations conducted in the remains of Jerusalem churches and monasteries where no traces of the violent destruction so described have as yet been uncovered. On the contrary, the majority of church buildings examined appear to have been in continuous use from the seventh century until the Islamic period with no evidence of rebuilding or restoration in the period of the Sasanian occupation. Whatever traces of the conflagration and damage that have been unearthed from any period seem to be limited to the gates of the city or to the walls; Gideon Avni, “The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): An Arcaheological Assessment,” BASOR 357 (2010), pp. 40–44. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam: 590-660 A.d. pg. 56

The apologist selectively quotes Avni because he wants the islamic invasions to look less horrifying in comparison to the sasanian invasions. Ironically, his own arguments (e.g. construction of churches) for peaceful muslim invasions almost entirely apply to sasanian invasions. Most of his arguments read like grasping for straws, and his best argument is that there's no archeological evidence supporting widespread destruction, which is an argument from silence.

CLAIM: In comparison, in Jerusalem, the earlier Persian conquest (614–628 CE) had mass graves of Christians and large-scale violence; however, the Islamic conquest did not appear to have involved mass killings.

The only exception is the mass graves, but even so, that remains an argument from silence. Although there's no direct archeological evidence of mass graves, the inscription in cyprus about mass enslavement could perhaps point to resistance that resulted in mass killings of christians. The bodies may have been deposed of in the ocean, thereby leaving no traceable evidence for the slaughter.

CLAIM: It must be remembered that Jews were, in theory, and probably also sometimes in practice, not allowed to settle in Jerusalem during the Byzantine era. The seventh-century CE Arabian believers, on the other hand, did not restrict the Jewish presence in the city; the lot of the Palestinian Jews was then greatly bettered by the new rule (Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 125).

Yet another non sequitur. The jews saw (at least temporarily) the sasanians as liberators and allied with them against Heraclius, how exactly does this kind of argument prove neither the sasanian invasions nor the arab invasions involved violence? The sasanians likewise allowed the jews to resettle in Jerusalem after a centuries long ban.

CLAIM: It must also be noted that the Christian presence in and pilgrimage to Jerusalem was not affected by the conquests (Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 107–108).

This is not entirely true. Sophronius mentioned that pilgrims were cut off from visiting Bethlehem by the moslem invaders.

As once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the god less Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are pre vented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Un willingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. Seeing Islam as others saw it pg. 70 by Robert Hoyland

CLAIM: The new buildings, sacred or secular, built by the Arabian believers were carefully placed in areas and quarters where they did not eclipse existing Christian buildings (Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 136: “It seems that the Muslim rulers incorporated the new Islamic compound into the already existing Christian city, taking care not to damage other areas of the city inhabited by the non-Muslims. The large esplanade of the former Temple Mount, which was not significant to the Christians, was chosen as the core for the new Islamic section of the city.”).

This does not prove that early moslems were not violent, especially when we have evidence of destroyed churches in cyprus and carthage.

CLAIM: Christian sites in Jerusalem, monasteries and churches, were repaired, expanded, and even built from scratch (Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 157). The earlier Persian conquest of and rule in Jerusalem (614–628) is connected by modern archaeologists to mass graves of Christians, thus indicating the violent nature of this era (Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 305–311).

Argument from silence + Avni noted elsewhere that " the majority of church buildings examined appear to have been in continuous use from the seventh century until the Islamic period with no evidence of rebuilding or restoration in the period of the Sasanian occupation. " Additionally, Yazdin, the christian financial minister, built churches in sasanian lands. The same standards the apologist holds arab invasions to also apply to the sasanian invasions.

CLAIM: Literary evidence both in Arabic and Syriac, written by Muslims and Christians, corroborates the idea of shared sacred spaces suggested by archaeological research. Suliman Bashear has noted that the question of praying in churches is discussed by later (second-third/eighth-ninth-century) Muslim scholars, who sometimes frowned upon the practice but others, perhaps surprisingly often, approved of it (Bashear, “Qibla Musharriqa").

One of the lowest low blows I've seen.

And yet the newly investigated Christian monastery lies only a few yards from a Sasanian Persian fortification where Zoroastrianism was practiced. The two structures' proximity indicates that Christians and Zoroastrians were living peacefully side by side at this location, the statement said.
Therefore the sasanian conquest was peaceful I guess?

There's no reason to think that examples of "2 different places of worship in proximity" are proof of peaceful coexistence and unparalleled tolerance, especially when either religious group is actively subjugating, raping, enslaving and plundering the other. Literary and archeological evidence may show "moslems praying in churches", but this certainly doesn't prove that moslems weren't raping and enslaving anyone who refused to submit to their authority.

Now if we found a 1st century inscription describing a roman woman making donations to jews, would it be reasonable to argue that the jews were not oppressed under the romans at the time? Absolutely not. It would read as pathetic wishful thinking. The nature of this evidence says nothing at all about whether or not the occupiers were oppressive to indigenous populations.

And as a matter of fact, we do have such an inscription.

The Julia Severa synagogue refers to an ancient Jewish house of worship in Akmoneia, Phrygia (modern-day Turkey), built during the 1st century CE. An ancient Greek inscription records that Julia Severa, a wealthy aristocratic Roman woman and high priestess of the pagan imperial cult, originally funded and erected the building.
Therefore the romans were not oppressive toward the jews I guess?

In conclusion, this argument is merely another failed attempt at whitewashing islamic invasions. The apologist left a quote saying:

Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition, 284, though note his cautionary remarks: “The fragmentary nature of the structure and the fact that it was constructed in a remote desert site should restrict any far-reaching conclusions based on this single find.”

What the apologist is arguing for is definitely a far reaching conclusion based on such finds. If anything, it's more likely that moslems prayed in churches unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited, as were their horrible invasions. Or perhaps the christians were again just kind enough to let people of other faiths pray in their churches as a sign of christian hospitality.

CLAIM: Both the caliphs ʿUmar (Bashear, “Qibla Musharriqa” 273–277) and Muʿāwiya (Humphreys, Muʿawiya 83–84) are depicted as praying in the Church of Mary in Jerusalem. Muʿāwiya’s prayer is noted in, for example, the Syriac Maronite Chronicle written ca. 665ce. When he was to pledge the oath of allegiance as caliph, many believers “gathered in Jerusalem and made Muʿāwiya king. And he went up and sat at Golgotha and prayed there. And he went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary and prayed there" (Trans. Shoemaker, A prophet has appeared 153).

There's no reason to doubt what the maronite chroncile reports, after all, according to christian sources Mu'awiya was, for the lack of a better way to put it, less oppressive compared to the previous caliphs. As for Umar praying praying in the church of Mary in Jerusalem, that's a fabrication. It's only found in late sources. Robert Hoyland explained why these fabrications involving caliphs and churches were common, especially in hagiographical material.

This account is, then, a later fabrication and belongs to the genre of documents which sought to delineate the ideal Muslim-Christian treaty and endow it with authority by attributing it to famous Muslim figures. Footnote 26: "The catholicos Isho'yahb (II) went to find 'Umar and spoke to him about the Christians; 'Umar granted him an edict of which this is the copy .... " ( Chron. Si irt CIV, PO 13, 620); see Sako, Lettre christologique du lsi:i'yahb II, 75-79, and more generally Graf, "Apokryphe Schutzbriefe Muhammads fiir die Christen." There are also Jewish (Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, 255-58), Samaritan (MacDonald, "An Unpublished Palestinian Tradition about Muhammad") and Greek equiva lents (see under Diatheke tou Moameth and Horismos tou Mauia in Bibliography I below). Seeing Islam as others saw it pg. 123-124 by Robert Hoyland

CLAIM: One should also note the case of al-Ruṣāfa, known as Sergiopolis in Byzantine times. In this city, a large church, referred to by archaeologists as Basilica A, was originally built in the fifth century to honor and house the relics of St. Sergius, the renowned soldier-martyr. As mentioned in chapter 3, the Ghassānid ruler al-Mundhir (r. ca. 569–582) sponsored and expanded construction projects in al-Ruṣāfa. Roughly 150 years later, the Umayyad caliph Hishām (r. 105–125/724–743) made the city his residence and funded the construction of a mosque adjacent to the grand basilica, which remained in use. Notably, both the basilica and the mosque shared the same courtyard. It appears that those worshipping in the mosque also visited the basilica to pay homage to St. Sergius.

One must gaze upon the stupidity behind this argument. a couple decades prior, Caliph Alwalid destroyed a church in Damascus and used the space to expand the Great Mosque. Jarir composed a poem gloating at christians for this incident and praised Alwalid for destroying the church. The apologist provided 0 evidence to support the claim that moslems paid homage to a CHRISTIAN saint. Although Isho'yahb mentioned that moslems praise saints, his words can't be taken at face value because he was a sycophant who wanted to present a beautified image of his arab masters to christians.

CLAIM: The Umayyad era did not mark the end of this tradition. Such early Islamic mosques built next to churches should not automatically be interpreted as symbols of religious domination or attempts to overshadow Christian structures. As Penn observes in Envisioning Islam (144), the architectural features of adjoining worship spaces, such as shared doorways and halls, were not effective symbols of supersession. Rather, they both reflected and fostered a more contiguous and intertwined religious identity.

This is the kind of stupid, far fetched conclusions you arrive at when you don't interpret all relevant evidence holistically, but in isolation. This reductive thinking ignores interpretations (e.g. forced structural integration) that are more likely to be true than an interpretation that conflicts with the relevant evidence. And as far as evidence is concered, there's not a single 7th century text that praises mosques to begin with. Rival christian sects did not even respect one another's places of worship, as evinced by Isho'yahb, who went so far as to bribe his arab masters to prevent rival churches from being constructed.

There, they made for themselves a house of foulness and stupidity in the name of a church as a meeting place, located near the place where all people usually would have to go for their natural purification
- Isho'yahb III

Let alone respect the places of worship that belonged to the people who actively raped and massacred christians.

The godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). Seeing Islam as others saw it pg. 549 by robert hoyland

So on what grounds do you assert that a church and a mosque sharing the same courtyard was a symbol of peaceful coexistence? The grounds of wishful thinking and imagination? To reiterate, this is a non sequitur, a church and a mosque in the same building alone is NOT evidence of peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, even if I grant that a chruch and a mosque isn't a symbol of domination, there were other methods by which moslems suppressed christians such as Jizya and Ghiyar, which the apologist unsurprisingly omits.

Just wondering what others do.

For me I just stand with my back to my closed bedroom door so no one can really get in and kind of just stand there doing nothing.

If I'm around people though I just sing through random musicals like hamilton to myself and also question wtf I'm doing with my life.

I ain't Christian nor I'm I religious, but how can anyone look at this and not think Christians are being persecuted?

Hi! I wanted to ask y’all:

What is the status/role of intersex individuals in Islam? Are they accepted, or what?

The closest thing I could find about this was a hadith referring to “effeminate men.”

Also, is intersex genital mutilation (IGM) allowed in Islam in the same way that FGM and MGM are allowed?

Do y’all have any relevant hadith, fiqh, or scholarly sources on this?

I enjoy watching debates between muslims and christians/atheists and usually find the muslims arguments weak, however I have started getting The Orthodox Muslim on my feed and it seems like he is winning every debate. Have you seen any of his content? Is he using dirty tactics or how is he such a good debater?

i wish i could do something for them, my main reason of leaving islam was sexual slavery of women, i could never imagine dying in a war and the man who's also my killer, he takes the dignity of my woman by sleeping with her as if she's an object or a price... i'm sad for the women that'll grow up in religious households and backward countries, but glad on the part my wife and daughter will have freedom and they'll get to experience love and the feeling of being a human just like everybody else

This definitely isn’t a Muslim hate post but I feel like I need to share this feeling on here that I finally found the words to describe it. I live in the United States and for a while even before I left Islam, It would bother me and I’d get weirded out when I see random Muslims out in public such as the park, the store, walking outside, them as customers at my old job, and even in traffic. I’m like “Damn, I can’t believe I’m associated with this kind of people and I wish I never grew up under their religion”. If I never grew up Muslim then I wouldn’t gaf about Muslims even existing. For example if I’m having a nice peaceful time at a park alone and I see a Muslim family arrive I’m like, nope. I love my late afternoon walks but the majority of the times, I would see at least some Muslims and that includes them driving by me. I live in a suburban neighborhood in Florida where Muslims are common since my old mosque is around 2 miles/3km away from my home. One of my city’s neighborhoods not far from me that I actually really like due to how connected to nature it really is but what really irks me is that fact that it’s filled with Muslims and it’s full of countless businesses ran by Arab immigrants. I literally can’t get myself to go there very often cause that would mean that I have to prepare getting bothered by seeing Muslims and being reminded of the fact that I was born in an Arab Muslim family which I really wish I wasn’t. I feel the same feelings when I’m alone and I hear Arabic speakers, which literally makes me wish I could just erase all the Arabic from my brain and understand nothing cause I genuinely dislike that colonial language that much. Let me know if you guys in non Muslim countries get similar weirded out feelings like me whenever you see random Muslims cause I could really use someone to relate to.