This final instalment is published on the author’s birthday as a gift to the secularists who helped him free himself from Islam—leading, in essence, to his rebirth as a freethinker. The introduction to and first instalment of the series can be found here and other instalments in the series can be found here.

One day in November 2023, some Muslim friends of mine from the Far East asked that I lead the group in the Maghrib prayer (one of the five mandatory daily prayers in Islam). Far Eastern Muslims value Arab Muslims as being linked to the birthplace of Islam, plus one of my ancestors was a famous companion of the Prophet Muhammad. I tried to make excuses to get out of it, but they insisted, so I went ahead and led the prayer. Little did my friends know that by that time I was an ex-Muslim. After my defeats by secularists in numerous debates, I had turned my back on Islam. They were being led in prayer by an apostate who had devoted himself to refuting and defeating Islam!

When I returned home, I apologised to Satan (known as Iblis in Islam) for obeying Allah’s will, but he told me: ‘Do not worry, my friend, I will not punish you by putting you in hell forever, I am not Allah! It suffices to do your freethinker homework.’ I could not resist thanking the almighty Satan and I obeyed His command. That night, I did my homework, studying with secularists all the flaws in Islamic apologetics.

In his book, Allah tells Satan: ‘[Y]ou will certainly have no authority over My servants, except the deviant who follow you’. (Quran 15:42.) Allah seems to have control over some servants, but not over everyone. At least Satan does not make claims that He cannot fulfil…

Of course, I don’t mean that I believe in Satan/Iblis literally. But the disobedient Satan figure is a potent symbol for me, epitomising my own journey away from prostration to Allah towards freedom and independence.

Muslim scholars and apologists claim that during Ramadan, all the devils are chained. Yet I and other freethinkers have joyfully engaged in counter-apologetics during the last two Ramadans. We served Satan during the holiest Muslim month, so it would seem that Satan is not chained after all. Subhan Iblis! He is the greatest, indeed. And He never called us ‘servants’.

The Satan of Islamic theology is not just a personal symbol. He is a paradoxical figure who highlights the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in religious belief. Satan was a key aspect of my journey away from faith. The story of Satan’s refusal to bow to Adam, as described in the Quran, raises profound questions about the nature of God’s commands and Satan’s role in the narrative. Satan, created from fire, refused to prostrate before Adam, who was made from clay, arguing that He was superior. This act of defiance resulted in His expulsion from Paradise.

Yet, one might ask: Why did Allah create something that could argue with him and cause trouble in the first place? Satan’s refusal can be seen as an act of courage. Ironically, it is also consistent with the divine command to worship none but Allah: if all creatures are to bow only to Allah, then Satan’s refusal to bow to Adam could be interpreted as an act of fidelity to this principle, albeit one that defies Allah’s direct command.

Moreover, the Quran verse cited above suggests a limit to Allah’s power: Satan is granted authority over some of humanity. This raises further questions about the nature of divine power and the existence of free will. If Allah is truly omnipotent, why grant Satan any power at all?

The paradoxical nature of Satan’s role, combined with the theological inconsistencies surrounding his creation and actions, challenges the coherence of Islam’s theistic belief system. The Quranic narrative reveals contradictions in the divine attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence and highlights the problematic nature of theological doctrines that fail to align with observable reality.

This was just one of the many Satanic verses I encountered which shook my faith in Allah. Satan, paradoxically, led me to nonbelief. As for the existence of Allah more generally, I recommend Edgar Morina’s book Disproving Islam, which provides many excellent scientific arguments against the existence of Allah.

My complete loss of faith was not an overnight event but a gradual process of disillusionment. It involved countless hours of introspection, reading, and engagement with ideas that I had previously dismissed. Even as I continued to defend Islam in debates with secularists, I began to feel empty inside. I was like a hot air balloon: I seemed big and confident, but I was easily popped. This made it look to my opponents as if I just suddenly crashed out of Islam, but the truth is more complex.

The final admission of my defeat was both liberating and deeply humbling. It was an acknowledgement of my intellectual defeat and a surrender to the reality I had long resisted. It was a decisive defeat of Jihad by Word. Nowadays, with digital tools allowing people to document and share information efficiently and systematically, Islam simply cannot keep up. There can be no more tricks. Everything is well documented. Though the defeat of Islam will take time to fully play out, secularists have essentially already won. They have returned the Muslim genie to the bottle and locked it there forever. How long it takes Muslims to realise their intellectual defeat is, however, another matter entirely.

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

Related reading

The need to rekindle irreverence for Islam in Muslim thought, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

The price of criticising Islam in northern Nigeria: imprisonment or death, by Emma Park

My journey from blindness to rationality: how English literature saved me, by Sonia Nigar

Rushdie’s victory, by Daniel James Sharp

Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape, by Azad

From religious orthodoxy to free thought, by Tehreem Azeem

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park

The Satanic Verses; free speech in the Freethinker, by Emma Park

How I lost my religious belief: A personal story from Nigeria, by Suyum Audu

Why I am no longer a Hindu, by Amrita Ghosh

The post Jihad by Word #4: The Satan paradox; or, Putting the Muslim genie back in the bottle appeared first on The Freethinker.

After being defeated in several debates against secularists, I offered my secularist opponents a conditional surrender, admitting that, while I had been unable to defend some arguments, other aspects of the Quran and hadith were still defensible. My opponents rightly refused this offer. Now I have come to realise that it was untenable to hold on to selective interpretations while admitting that much of the apologetics I had believed in was flawed. To do so was to undermine the objective of the debates I freely chose to engage in: that is, to seek truth and challenge the veracity of religious claims through rigorous examination and rational discourse. A conditional surrender was antithetical to the comprehensive nature of this intellectual pursuit.

My opponents insisted on an unconditional surrender, an admission that all of my arguments in defence of Islam had been thoroughly debunked. Eventually, I relented, and I am glad I did, not only for reasons of intellectual integrity but also for the freedom from religion that such an admission granted me.

Below is an edited copy of a transcript from another of these debates. This debate concerned the ‘daḥa deception’, as many secularists call it: the view, popular in Muslim circles about ten years ago, that the word daḥa in verse 30 of surah 79 of the Quran, which contains an account of Allah’s creation of the world, refers to the Earth being shaped like an ostrich egg, thus indicating a spherical Earth and demonstrating the Quran’s scientific validity. This, of course, was apologist gibberish. I hope others can benefit from seeing how I was disabused of this notion.

The daḥa debate

Jalal: It has been argued that the Quran says the Earth is flat. But, in fact, the meaning of the verse with the Arabic word ‘daḥa’ suggests that the Earth is round, as far as I can remember.

Secularist: That argument has already been debunked, my friend. Go check the lexicons—daḥa has the connotation of the nest that an ostrich makes (i.e. a flattened round surface) within which to place its eggs, as Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon makes clear. It is not a round egg. It is actually more proof that the Quran talks of a flat Earth.

Jalal: But it also means making a thing round. As you know from previous discussions, many Arabic words have multiple meanings. You have to choose the right one for the context. And daḥa in the sense of making a thing round is the proper meaning in this context!

Allow me to double-check this claim by looking it up. … I see that the meaning is to flatten a thing. Nothing points to making things round. And yes, there is also a meaning for a nest, you are right. Admittedly, the flattening meaning makes more sense in the context.

…

OK. But the process of flattening something is applied to something that is originally not flat. That is why a bird flattens a round structure of sticks to make the nest. Now, God created the Earth as a nearly round structure—the Earth is not perfectly round—and that made it look like a flat object to us. This goes more with the context of the verse.

Secularist: The ‘rounding’ that an ostrich performs is not the flattening of a mound into a round shape. Actually, they dig out a flat area to make a disk-like shape to sit in. You can see some good pictures of what I mean here. So the Quran is using a word referring to a flattened disc and not a round spherical shape. This is why the classical exegetes of the Qur’an describe the Earth as flat. For example, the leading Sunni authority Ibn Kathir said in the 14th century that the Earth is like a building with floors stacked on top of each other and that heaven is akin to a dome over the Earth—i.e. the Earth is a flattened disk.

The reason that some earlier Muslims speak of a spherical earth is that they were guided by the astronomers of the time (the spherical nature of the Earth had been known for centuries). However, the increasing trend of literalism in understanding the Quran and hadith meant that, eventually, the flat Earth model prevailed. So, by the 10th century, we find the leading Islamic exegete al-Suyuti saying this:

As for His [God’s] words sutihat, ‘laid out flat’, this on a literal reading suggests that the earth is flat, which is the opinion of most of the scholars of the [revealed] Law, and not a sphere as astronomers (ahl al-hay’a) have it, even if this [latter] does not contradict any of the pillars of the Law.

Notice that this says that going from the text of the Quran alone indicates a flat Earth. Muslims ended up moving away from the scientific ideas of astronomers and returned to the simpler Quranic flat Earth model.

In summary, the lexicons and the most revered exegetes all point to the Quran describing a flat Earth. This shows that daḥa does not refer to an egg shape, nor does it mean the Quran describes the Earth as spherical. You have even admitted yourself that it is not a reference to an egg. Yet popular Islamic apologists like Zakir Naik still insist on this meaning, thus misleading their audiences.

Jalal: OK. 

Secularist: OK what? Tell the world about your jihad by word/tongue/debate. 

Jalal: OK, you are right. 

Secularist: Accept your defeat loudly and clearly, please. We answered you using your own Islamic sources. 

Jalal: I accept my defeat in this debate and I admit my inability to defend the daḥa argument.

My secularist opponent was a little ruthless towards the end there, but I am happy that he was. You can see how I flailed during that debate, and it took a forthright rebuttal to make me admit and accept the truth of my defeat.

Today is Ashura, an Islamic day of commemoration. For Sunni Muslims, it celebrates Islamic triumphs, while for Shia Muslims, it is a day of mourning, a remembrance of defeat and loss. The latter is more appropriate: today, I have shown that jihad by word is as much a failure as jihad by the sword. Jihadists by word can be made to surrender, too: I once vowed to defeat secularists in debate, yet here I am on Ashura, celebrating the defeat of Islamic apologetics. Robust debate did more than just open my mind: it freed it.

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

The post Jihad by Word #3: The ‘daḥa’ deception; or, the Earth is not shaped like an ostrich egg in the Quran appeared first on The Freethinker.

When I was preparing to become a Muslim scholar, one of the arguments I focused on countering was the argument that dhimmis—nonbelievers with legal protections in an Islamic state—were humiliated by Muslims. By addressing this, I aimed to show that Islam is a religion of peace. I believed I could win this debate despite its difficulty.

However, my argument was debunked. Below is my defence of jizyah and a summary of a debate I had with a secularist, where I was defeated using logic and Islamic sources.

My defence of jizyah

Jizyah was a tax paid by dhimmis in Islamic states (not to be confused with zakat, a tax paid by Muslims only). The jizyah rate varied based on the financial status of the dhimmi. Roughly speaking:

A. The richest dhimmis paid four dinars (gold coins).

B. Moderately wealthy dhimmis paid 20 dirhams of silver.

C. Those unable to pay did not pay anything.

This shows that the levying of jizyah was not intended to humiliate dhimmis: it was a fairly administered tax. Quran verse 9:29 indicates that only those capable of paying should do so. Though zakat was generally lower, jizyah still differentiated between dhimmis with different incomes. This fiscal system was fair, especially in an era with minimal tolerance for different faiths.

There were various valid justifications for jizyah:

1. The Islamic state uses zakat and jizyah payments for services, like security, benefiting all residents.

2. The extra amount of jizyah compared to zakat compensates for the dhimmis’ freedom to practice their faith. Countries today legitimately use citizenship rules to define rights and relationships among citizens, refugees, and immigrants.

3. The gradual increase in payment is based on financial capability, with the rich paying more and the poor paying nothing.

Do these not strike you as fair points?

Additionally, Islamic history shows that the Prophet forgave his enemies, so why would he humiliate dhimmis? Here, for example, is one of the authentic hadiths:

‘Al-Qasim ibn Salam reported: When his enemies came to the Ka’bah, they were holding onto its door and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “What do you say? What do you think?” They said three times, “We say you are the son of our brother.” The Prophet said, “I say to you as Joseph said to his brothers: No blame upon you today. Allah will forgive you, for he is the most merciful of the merciful.” In another narration, the Prophet said to them, “Go, you are free.”’

Another example of Islamic mercy is Umar’s Assurance, a document written by Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab to the people of the recently captured Jerusalem in AD 637 or 638. This assurance guaranteed the safety of Christian churches and property, and it is said that the Caliph, despite being invited to do so, did not pray inside the Church of the Resurrection so as not to establish a precedent which might threaten the church’s Christian status.

The medieval Muslim scholar Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, in his book Ahkām ahl al-dhimma, provided copious evidence that the humiliation of nonbelievers was not intended in Islamic states and that dhimmis were well treated (see, for example, his interpretations of Quran 9:29 and Umar’s Assurance). 

Further, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that:

‘During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime, the jizyah was not imposed on non-Muslim tribes consistently. For example, the Nubians of North Africa, despite being non-Muslim, were exempted; instead they entered into a trade agreement (baqt) with Muslims.

In the period following Muhammad’s death, the jizyah was levied on non-Muslim Arab tribes in lieu of military service. Performance of military service earned an exemption; for example, under the second caliph, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, the Jarājimah tribe was exempted when it agreed to serve in the army. The non-Muslim poor, the elderly, women, serfs, religious functionaries, and the mentally ill generally did not pay any taxes. Early sources state that under the first caliphs poor Christians and Jews were instead awarded stipends from the state treasury, which was funded largely by monies derived from the zakat, the obligatory tax paid by Muslim men and women of financial means, and from the jizyah paid by non-Muslim men of means.’

The principles instilled by the Prophet and Umar can still be felt today in regions where dhimmis and Muslims live in peace and mutual respect. In short: jizyah was a legitimate tax administered fairly and Islamic principles allowed for peaceful coexistence between believers and nonbelievers.

The debate

Such was my case for the defence when I engaged in a debate with a secularist on the issue.

My opponent questioned the three levels of jizyah I mentioned and the context around ‘humiliation’ in its payment. He argued that the terms used in Quran 9:29 imply subjugation and belittlement and questioned the validity of my interpretation of the verse.

I emphasised the importance of consulting the original Arabic text, explaining that ‘عن يد’ (ean yad) translates roughly to ‘out of hand’, or ‘those who can pay’, indicating flexibility in payment, not humiliation, and noted that many interpreters assert that the verse speaks of commitment rather than degradation. My opponent remained sceptical, insisting that ‘صاغرون’ (saghirun; roughly, ‘slavish’) implies humiliation and that the verse pertains to conquering non-Muslim lands.

The debate shifted to the concept of dhimmitude, the protected status of non-Muslims under Islamic governance. I clarified that ‘dhimmi’ means ‘protected person’ and that dhimmis’ feelings of subjugation stemmed from their having to live under Islamic law in general, not from any particular mistreatment. My opponent countered with examples from the time of Umar’s Assurance, highlighting restrictions imposed on Christians and arguing that these were humiliating. He pointedly asked if Muslims would find similar rules degrading.

I pointed out that the authenticity of Umar’s Assurance is debated, with some attributing it to later jurists rather than the Caliph himself. My opponent argued that the legitimacy of Islamic laws does not rest solely on the character of political leaders but on the consensus of jurists.

I asserted that true Islamic law is derived from the Quran and authentic hadith. My opponent questioned who determines the proper understanding of these texts, noting that scholars diverge widely in their views. I mentioned that consensus among scholars is crucial but acknowledged that different groups might have their own consensus. He cited legal manuals from various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, all of which included humiliating conditions for dhimmis, reinforcing his point that such practices are integral to Islamic law.

My opponent maintained that Islamic legal texts mandate even the poor to pay jizyah and that the humiliation is inherent in the laws themselves.

I argued that the Quran should be the primary source of Islamic law, and it contains no explicit command to humiliate dhimmis. My opponent pointed out that Islamic jurisprudence combines Quranic text, hadith, and juristic consensus, and that these have long produced discriminatory laws. He quoted various scholars and legal manuals to prove that systemic humiliation is part of established Islamic law, showing that my argument was insufficient against historical consensus.

To counter, I cited Ibn al-Qayyim’s work, which denies historical evidence for such humiliations in jizyah collection. Ibn al-Qayyim interprets the dhimmis’ feelings of being low or sad as arising from a feeling akin to paying taxes one disagrees with rather than stemming from discrimination and humiliation. My opponent remained unconvinced, emphasising that the majority consensus among jurists includes humiliating conditions and cannot be dismissed by a single scholar’s opinion.

Towards the end of the debate, I acknowledged the diversity of interpretations and the rigorous methods scholars use to authenticate hadith and derive legal rulings. My opponent insisted that the established body of Islamic law, including its dhimmi-humiliating aspects, is backed by centuries of juristic consensus and cannot be easily refuted. Despite my attempts to present a more humane and flexible understanding of jizyah, my opponent’s extensive citations from legal texts and historical practices ultimately made a compelling case for the systemic nature of these conditions, highlighting the challenge of reconciling ideal Islamic principles with historical jurisprudence.

I have now accepted my full and decisive defeat in this debate and my inability to defend the Islamic argument.

As a penance for this and many other defeats in debate, I have now shaved my beard and abandoned Islam. I have also paid my own form of jizyah to secular societies—a much better use of money, I think! I hope that by sharing these stories of my defeats I can help others to counter Islamic apologetics—and perhaps even help some Muslims to go on the same journey of enlightenment as I have.

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

Related reading

The need to rekindle irreverence for Islam in Muslim thought, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias on Islam, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

When does a religious ideology become a political one? The case of Islam, by Niko Alm

Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape, by Azad

From religious orthodoxy to free thought, by Tehreem Azeem

Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

The post Jihad by Word #2: how I could not defend jizyah appeared first on The Freethinker.

I can still remember the scent of my morning coffee wafting through the air during my first Ramadan as an ex-Muslim. This was a milestone for me. Never could I have anticipated that I would one day be an apostate, enjoying coffee during the holiest of months. Raised as a devout Sunni Muslim in the Levant, I staunchly rejected anything Western or non-Islamic. I meticulously avoided walking past or even glancing at churches. I would not even look at food or drink deemed inappropriate for a practising Muslim. I was akin to a prized Arabian horse, brimming with zeal to debate non-Muslims, to perform what Islam calls jihad by word (or tongue or debate). Subdued by Islam, at its beck and call whenever I was required, I would be summoned to ride out and humiliate the enemies of the faith in argument.

Jihad in Islam takes many forms, and during my time as a Muslim apologist, I championed the concept of jihad in the form of debates (jihad by word), as it aligned with my expertise. I firmly believed that jihad, in its myriad forms, made us Muslims the most steadfast in faith. Surrender was inconceivable. I spent two decades preparing for debates with nonbelievers and I planned to document their defeats to demonstrate the superiority of Islam. I would become a hero for the faith. However, little did I know that I was riding towards my decisive defeat rather than to ultimate victory over the infidels.

One debate in particular stands out: an individual known as a secularist on Reddit reached out to me to debate the alleged scientific miracles of the Quran. This was a topic that consumed my thoughts, and I gladly accepted.

In our exchange, the secularist and I delved into the intricacies of these purported miracles, a subject that has garnered much attention and debate within and beyond Islamic circles. The secularist and I engaged in a cordial debate, dissecting each claim of scientific miracles presented in the Quran. However, it became evident that these miracles crumbled under scrutiny. Each alleged miracle appeared to unravel upon closer examination, and I was exposed to numerous flaws in interpretation, scientific accuracy, and historical context. I became beset with doubts and uncertainties. I was, in this and many other debates, unhorsed. Even to what I considered unanswerable points, my secular adversaries provided simple and devastating critiques. My feeling of invincibility was completely shattered, as was my faith in Islam.

Reflecting on that conversation about scientific miracles, I feel compelled to share some insights and strategies gleaned from my years of grappling with this contentious issue—insights which can also, I believe, be applied more broadly in dealing with Islamic apologetics in general: 

• Approach with Scepticism: When encountering claims of scientific miracles in the Quran, it is imperative to maintain a sceptical mindset. Often, apologists impose modern scientific understandings onto ancient texts, disregarding the historical and cultural contexts in which the texts were written. By consulting classical commentaries and scholarly interpretations, we can gain a clearer understanding of the intended meanings of Quranic verses. 
• Verify Scientific Accuracy: Many of the purported scientific miracles in the Quran are put forward by individuals lacking scientific expertise. It is vital to fact-check their claims by consulting reputable scientific sources. Blind acceptance of unverified assertions perpetuates misinformation and hinders genuine intellectual enquiry. 
• Consider Historical Precedence: Before attributing miraculous knowledge to the Quran, it is essential to consider the scientific knowledge available to past civilizations. Many scientific concepts mentioned in the Quran were already known to ancient peoples, rendering them less miraculous and more reflective of the prevailing scientific understanding of the time. 
• Scrutinise Linguistic Claims: Claims of linguistic miracles often hinge on reinterpretations of Arabic words and phrases. To evaluate these assertions, one must consult academic lexical sources and linguistic experts. Misinterpretations and mistranslations can lead to erroneous conclusions, undermining the credibility of alleged miracles. 

My secularist opponent and I publicly shared our conversation to shed light on the fallacies of blind faith and the importance of critical enquiry. My transition from staunch defender to sceptical observer of Islam serves as a reminder of the transformative power of intellectual honesty. I find myself not only liberated from the confines of dogma but also enriched by the pursuit of truth. Our quest for enlightenment and understanding continues. 

Below is an edited excerpt of the transcript of the scientific miracles debate.

Scientific miracles in the Quran? A debate

Jalal: But what about verses that contain numerical miracles and also scientific miracles? There are well-edited rigorous books about them. I mean Muslim scholars from scientific backgrounds have written these books. See this one on the position of stars: 56:75-76. The verse says: ‘I swear by the positions of the stars—and this is indeed a mighty oath, if only you knew.’ According to physics, this is a very accurate statement because the star could have exploded and the light travelling from it is what you see. It takes many light years to reach you, so what you actually see is the position of the star and not the star itself, although it could be there—but a more accurate statement is to refer to the position of the star.  

Secularist: I don’t find it convincing at all. There are actually so many problems with this. First, the cosmological understanding given by the Quran and hadith themselves is one of a flat Earth with a dome sky. This can be shown in so many places, and the tafsirs [exegeses of the Quran] confirm it. The stars still have a ‘position’ within such a system, and there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that anything other than this was intended. Remember, the Quran thinks stars are ‘lamps’ small enough to hurl at a disobedient jinn. This fits way better when you think that stars are just tiny lights and are unaware that in reality they are gigantic suns like the one at the centre of the Solar System.

Second, the idea that we observe the position of the star in the night sky is not even an accurate statement according to physics. Think about it: what we see is only the apparent position of the star, not the actual position. We have been viewing points of light from a very long time ago, but because of processional shifting, the proper motion of stars relative to each other, and atmospheric refraction, etc., the apparent position of the star may very well not be where its position actually is.

Lastly, why does Allah make oaths on created things? In my opinion, this is bad theology and also makes no sense. With an oath, you are supposed to swear by something greater than you because the greatness of the thing is meant to supply for the lack of confidence the person has in you. But God is an infinite being. What are the stars, figs, camels, etc., before Being Itself? Nothing—less than dust. Indeed, any created thing is nothing compared to God. Therefore, God should swear by Himself as He does in the Bible. What we have in the Quran is just nice flowery words that don’t actually mean much. 

Jalal: For the second point, the beam that you are referring to is what the Quran calls the apparent location as seen by the human eye, as you said. The actual location is what the Quran refers to by saying ‘stars’ in that context, so your second argument is supportive to the Quranic interpretation. Everything in this universe is in motion. 

Secularist: You said that what we see is the star’s position. But what we see may not be the star’s position. In any case, I do not accept that the mere mention of the ‘positions’ of the stars is in any way miraculous as even in a flat Earth model the stars have a position. Further, almost all ancient people studied the changing positions of the stars and had developed complicated systems of astrology and mythology about these. They already knew about the procession of constellations over time and could predict the movements of certain stars. They actually had a lot of information. On the contrary, I do not find the mere mention that the stars have a position to be impressive at all. Anyone who visually sees a star knows it has a position, even if they do not know what a star is. So, it need not even be a scientifically accurate statement.

That was just a taste of the many defeats I suffered at the hands of this and other nonbelievers. Before, I was a devout Muslim, extremely strict, for example, about haram food: always avoiding touching it, avoiding even being near it or looking at it, and avoiding any food or drink that might contain even microscopic haram ingredients. In fact, my family and I took great pride that I was the only person in my family who had never ever tasted this type of food or drink—not even by accident.

But my record achievements in adhering to Islam were broken following my defeat in many debates. All concepts of faith fell away from me, and so adhering to Islamic practices came to mean nothing to me. I can still fast during Ramadan if I like—but these days I would only do it to lose weight!

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

Further reading

‘The best way to combat bad speech is with good speech’ – interview with Maryam Namazie, by Emma Park

Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape, by Azad

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

From religious orthodoxy to free thought, by Tehreem Azeem

Mind Your Ramadan! by Khadija Khan

Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park

The need to rekindle irreverence for Islam in Muslim thought, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

The post Jihad by Word #1: the defeat of a Muslim apologist appeared first on The Freethinker.