One of the most common arguments used by Islamic apologists today is this:
"If you've left Islam, then just move on. Why keep criticizing and mocking it? Just live your life and do something else."
This demand goes against basic human nature.
When someone leaves something that shaped their worldview, identity and social environment, talking about it is one of the most normal human responses imaginable. People openly discuss all kinds of formative experiences, from leaving other religions like Moronism to escaping toxic relationships or rebuilding their lives after major turning points. Society rarely accuses them of turning those experiences into a personality. Instead it’s recognised for what it usually is: reflection for what previously defined and dictated their life.
From even the earliest stages of civilisation humans have organised themselves around shared experiences. Fishermen gathered with fishermen. Blacksmiths with blacksmiths. Philosophers with philosophers. Entire religions formed as communities of people who share beliefs about reality and meaning. Humans clustering around common experiences is one of the oldest and most consistent patterns in social life.
So when someone leaves a religion that shaped their childhood moral framework family relationships and identity, it is completely predictable that they will talk about it and seek out others who went through the same shift. That isn’t obsession, it’s simply how human beings process change.
So the real issue is not people talking about life shaping experiences. That behaviour is celebrated when the story reinforces a belief system.
The reaction to ex-Muslims is rarely about principle or a consistent standard. It is about discomfort.
When a belief system is deeply tied to identity and moral certainty, hearing people publicly reject it creates psychological tension. It raises questions believers would rather not sit with, so instead the conversation gets redirected through mental gymnastics. The criticism itself is replaced with strawman arguments about “obsession” and ad hominem attacks about someone being bitter, traumatised or needing to “heal.”
The double standard makes this obvious.
When someone converts to Islam and builds their entire online presence around “finding the truth,” sharing dawah content and explaining how Islam transformed their life, it is praised and celebrated. Their story is treated as inspiring.
But when someone leaves Islam and explains why they no longer believe, the exact same behaviour is suddenly framed as bitterness or fixation.
So the issue clearly is not people talking about life shaping experiences. That behaviour is celebrated when the story reinforces the belief system.
The problem only appears when the story challenges it.
So calling it a “personality” is not a real criticism at all. It is a rhetorical shortcut built on strawmen, ad hominem attacks and mental gymnastics used to dismiss uncomfortable perspectives without engaging with them. And the need to resort to that says far more about the listener’s discomfort than it does about the person speaking.
How can we bring a CHANGE in our Society without criticizing Islam?
Have you ever heard that human beings are social animals?
As social beings, we don’t live in isolation. We exist in societies bound together by shared laws, norms, and behaviours. These shared elements don’t arise in a vacuum, but they are shaped and reshaped through public discourse: by the promotion of ideas (tabligh) and by the criticism of those ideas (tanqeed).
This process, i.e. offering ideas and challenging them, is the engine behind social reform.
That’s why in democratic and free-thinking societies, the right to both advocate for a belief and to criticize it is fiercely protected. No matter how offended someone might feel, this balance between speech and counter-speech is how better societies are built.
Now back to ex-Muslims.
Even after leaving Islam, we remain part of societies that are heavily influenced by Islamic thought, be it from moderate Muslims or from hardliners. Their religious values, rules, and behaviours continue to shape the laws, education, family structures, and personal freedoms around us.
So, if we don’t criticize harmful Islamic ideas, others will continue to impose those ideas upon us through political means, social pressure, or even violence.
To remain silent would be to allow those ideas to dominate unchallenged.
And if you still say, “Well, just stop engaging entirely,” then what you’re really asking is for us to stop being fully human. You’re asking us to give up our right and our responsibility as thinking, social individuals who participate in shaping the society they live in.
Islamists' objection: Why don't ex-Muslims criticize other religions like Judaism/Christianity?
Because ex-Muslims are facing dangers from Islam only:
When the Prophet Muhammad faced persecution by the Meccan pagans, the Quran's criticisms were directed solely at the pagans and their gods. He did not criticize Jews, Christians, Hindus, or any other religion because they were not the source of his persecution at that time.
Similarly, when he moved to Medina and faced opposition from Jews and Christians for not accepting him as a prophet, the Quran's condemnations were directed at them, not at other religions that were not persecuting him.
Are Islamists able to see their double standards here too?
