by Muhammad ‘Abd al-Haqq
Before we get into an introduction of the fake ex-Muslim par excellence, I want to give a brief note as to why the Islamophobes have absolutely no leg to stand on, but will continue to rely on the ignorance of the masses. This is the reason why so much of this type of garbage can be widely disseminated and passed off as knowledge and sound research. Besides the fact that none of this information is peer-reviewed, scholarly, or vetted by the academic community, the conclusions reached by these Islamophobes sometimes go unchallenged simply because no one really checks that their operating assumptions are essentially fallacious.
Look at the beginning of this video as an example to prove my point.
2.Very few Muslims understand Arabic. (This lie is a serious intellectual bait-and-switch designed to disguise the fact that the Islamophobes do not understand Arabic themselves, and must rely on Arabic speakers-turned Islamophobes with an agenda to translate for them.)
Mumin Salih has tried to pass himself off as the credible ex-Muslim with a knowledge of Arabic. When we do the research into the backgrounds of these supposed ex-Muslims what we find is they all speak in Islamophobinese, a unique language that makes use of a common pool of logical fallacies, false operating assumptions, the jargon of twisted meanings of Islamic concepts and Arabic words, the language of a meta-narrative designed to confuse and obstruct, and the demagogic rhetoric designed to instill fear and incite intense revulsion and hatred in peoples’ hearts for Islam. In the first video below Salih says that he has proven from the Arabic of the Qur’an that the Qur’an itself says the earth is flat. Does it? Another video follows here refuting that claim. Is Mumin Salih a credible ex-Muslim in your view? Why do Islamophobes find it necessary to lie about Islam if their position is so solid? What is the importance of the role of the ex-Muslim turned Islamophobic crusader?
And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak(orbit)
|Transliteration||La alshshamsu yanbaghee laha an tudrika alqamara wala allaylu sabiqu alnnahari wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona|
|Abdel Haleem||The sun cannot overtake the moon, nor can the night outrun the day: each floats in [its own] orbit.|
Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728 H / 1328 CE), may Allah be merciful with him, in his famous treatise, ar-Risalah al-‘Arshiyah, refutes the position of the neo-Platonic philosophers who identified Allah’s Throne with the ninth celestial sphere (Majmu’ul-Fatawa, Vol. 6, pp. 546-ff). In the course of his response, Ibn Taymiyah discusses the question of the earth is it round or flat? He writes:
[That] celestial bodies are round (istidaaratul-aflaak) – as it is the statement of astronomers and mathematicians (ahlul-hay’ah wal-hisab) – it is [likewise] the statement of the scholars of the Muslims; as Abul-Hasan ibn al-Manaadi, Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, Abul-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi and others have quoted: that the Muslim scholars are in agreement [that all celestial bodies are round]. Indeed Allah – ta’ala – has said: And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, 21:33). Ibn Abbas says: A falaka like that of a spinning wheel.
Ibn Taymiyah continues: The [word] falak [in the Arabic language] means that which is round. From which is the statement [of the Arabs]: <ta-fa-la-ka when they become round.>> (Vol. 6, pp. 566-567)
In an earlier passage (Vol. 6, pp. 565-566), Ibn Taymiyah discusses why those on the other side of the earth are not below us, just like we are not below them. He writes:
As for the other side of the earth it is surrounded by water. [Note: Admittedly, Ibn Taymiyah – as all Muslim scholars of his day- were not aware of the Americas and believed that the Old World was encompassed by an ocean.] There are no human beings or anything like that [on that side]. Even if we were to imagine that people were on that side of the earth, such individuals would still be on the face of the earth. Those on that side of the earth are not below those who are on this side; just like those on this side are not below those on that side. For as all spherical bodies surround a center point (markaz), no one side of a spherical body is under the other, nor is the north pole under the south [Note: Unlike Western maps, Muslim cartographers (map-makers) would draw the world with the south-side up.] or vice versa.
In another passage (Vol. 5, p. 150) Ibn Taymiyah clearly states the earth is spherical.
Significantly Abu Ya’la in his work Tabaqatal-Hanabilah (Biographical Entries of the Hanabali Scholars) quotes the unanimous consensus (ijma) of all Muslim scholars that the earth is round.
This consensus was mentioned by the scholars of the second generation (the students of the Prophet’s Companions) and was based upon Ibn Abbas’ explanation to 21:33 (previously cited) and other evidences.
The later belief of Muslim scholars, like as-Suyuti (died 911 AH / 1505 CE) that the earth is flat represents a deviation from this earlier opinion.
The “two Easts” and “two Wests” on earth in the Noble Qur’an and the roundness of the earth:
The earth literally has two sun rising points and two sun setting points! Noble Qur’an and Science agree on this:
Before we look at the Noble Verses, it is important to know when the sun rises on one half of the earth, it is at the same time setting on the other half, and when it sets on one half of the earth, it is at the same time rising on the other half. This clearly means that the earth literally has two sun rising points (mashriqayn) and two sun setting points (maghribayn)!
Now let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Qur’an:
“GOD of the two Easts, and GOD of the two Wests. (The Noble Qur’an, 55:17)“
The Arabic words “mashriqayn“ and “maghribayn“ were translated as “two Easts” and “two Wests” respectively. It is important to know that Noble Verses 55:10-25 are speaking about the earth and the some of the Creations that exist on it.
The two root Arabic words “Sharq” and “Gharb“, which mashriqayn and maghribayn are derived from respectively, can also literally mean the rising point of the sun, and the setting point of the sun.
Important Note: “two Easts” would’ve be an accurate translation if the word was “Sharqayn” and NOT “mashriqayn“. As I said above, “Sharq” means “East”, and “Sharqayn” is two easts. But “Mashriqayn” is a plural of “Mashriq“, which is used for referring to sun rising as in “Mashriq Al-Shams” (the rising of the sun).
*** The same for “two Wests” and “Gharbayn“. This is the literal and accurate meaning for “two Wests”. “Maghribayn” is plural of “Maghrib“, which is used for referring to sungsetting as in “Maghrib Al-Shams” (the setting of the sun).
The fact that Allah Almighty chose to use “Mashriqayn” and “Maghribayn” as opposed to “Sharqayn” and “Gharbayn” is a clear proof that Noble Verse 55:17 is referring to the two sun’s rising and setting, and not to east and west.
The definitive verse in my view:
[Qur’an An-Nazi’at 79:30]
Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha
79:30 He made the earth egg-shaped.
Qur’an says earth is spherical and it circles sun, and the ahadith and tafsir generally show that this was the understanding of the salaf, and many Muslim scholars did believe the earth was flat, despite the fact. But this creative tafsir says otherwise and would like to present a simplified way of understanding things in an effort to malign Islam and present Muslims as backwards and with a book not in step with modern science. A modern science that relies on theories and believes that there is no such thing as absolute fact, rendering any “modern scientific” knowledge tenuous at best, providing no certainty.
This is the type of “science” that Muslims are asked to defer to as a paradigmatic framework to be compared to. And to make matters worse we are subjected with the endemic of systemic closure that refuses to accept the principle that every Quranic verse must be understood in light of the entire Qur’an and no verse can be looked at in isolation, divorced from the context.
In addition, to compare modern Arabic to the classical Arabic of the Qur’an, ignoring semiotics and history of language usage completely, in order to come up with any fanciful idea that puts Islam in a bad light is not fair play. People like Mumin Salih would have us believe that as “former Muslims”, who are native Arabic speakers with an extensive knowledge of the Arabic language, that because the words madda, madadnaha, mahdan, firasha, farashnaha, bisata, sutihat, tahaha appear in the Qur’an describing the flatness of the Earth that we should just take their word for it and not look into whether other words in the Qur’an show the roundeness of the Earth? Does the Earth appear round or flat from the human perspective on Earth? How does it appear in space? Seems that the Earth can be described as flat and geospherical. We are also to believe that because the word meaning round stones, does not appear in the Qur’an describing the Earth, then the word dahaha must mean “flat”. This is nothing more than a very clever misguided interpretation that doesn’t take into account that this word has multiple meanings, one being “spread out, suggesting “flatness”, the other meaning “egg-shaped”, suggesting “roundness”.
I would venture that as the Qur’an describes both the flatness and roundness of the Earth, that Allah’s use of this word is in itself a miracle as the word dahaha is the word chosen to suggest that the Earth is both flat and geospherical, rather than a word that would imply only roundness or only flatness. And to misquote out of context, Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz(rahimahullah), a Saudi `Alim, as the authority on this issue further corroborates my idea that Islamophobia is designed to advance Extremist “Islam” as normative Islam in order to draw people away from real Islam by inciting fear, revulsion, ridicule, and hatred for Islam and its followers. Islamophobes fail again. Not that bin Baz is not a legitimate scholar, but there already is a negative point, due to massive manufactured misunderstanding by pejoratively labeling Salafi scholars as “Wahabbis”, equating them with real Muslim extremists, such as the Khawarij, and taking outlier opinions as binding Islamic law.
I would suggest that at 2:25 of the first video we are given a clue as to the origin of Islamophobia.