Mumin Salih: Credible Ex-Muslim?

Bismillah, the first verse of the first

Basmillah, the first verse of the first surah of the Qur’an, bismi-llāhi ar-raḥmāni ar-raḥīm.

Mumin Salih: Credible Ex-Muslim?

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.

Fallacious assertions:

1. Islam cannot be learned from Muslims (This is a clever ploy, an assertion, if accepted, that will allow Islamophobes to be the arbiters of what is Islamic.)

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?


[Qur’an 21:33]

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)

[Qur’an 36:40]

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.

This entry was posted in Islamophobia as a Social Phenomenon and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Mumin Salih: Credible Ex-Muslim?

  1. Sound Doc says:

    Jesus calls Muhammad, and adulterer; Lu 16:18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
    He was saying that if one gets a divorce so they can marry another person, their motive for divorce is adultery. It is no secret that Muhammad wanted Zaynab before she divorced so she can marry him; Mt 5:28 “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Moses agreed; Ex 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,

    • That was a nice try, especially with your bogus interpretation. But, the validity of the Bible notwithstanding, a better translation of the Greek text and the commentary that follows exposes your ridiculous conclusions:

      Luke 16:18:

      “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.”

      *Note at Luke 16:18: This statement about divorce and remarriage was made as a rebuke to the Pharisees’ seeking to justify themselves before man (Luke 16:15). The Lord knew the corruption that was in their hearts despite their outward holiness. They claimed to keep the Law, but they had interpreted it in a way that was contrary the Lord’s intent.

      The Old Testament Law allowed divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:7 and Mark 10:4) if there was found “uncleanness” in the mate (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). During Jesus’ ministry, the religious leaders had interpreted this “uncleanness” to be anything that the husband disliked (Matthew 19:3). Jesus clarified this “uncleanness” as being marital unfaithfulness or fornication (Matthew 19:9) and stated that that was the only justification for divorce.

      Therefore, the Pharisees had not kept the Law as they professed, and Jesus had not broken the Law as they had accused Him of. Jesus fulfilled the smallest jot and tittle of the Law, while the Pharisees had made the Lord’s Word of none or different effect through their traditions (Mark 7:13).

      As for Muhammad(sal Allahu `alayhi wasallam), where is the proof that he divorced any of his wives in order to marry Zaynab(radiAllahu anha)? And where is the evidence that he desired her before her divorce? You are not dealing with a simpleton here. Do not post empty claims. Your comment is distractionary anyway, as this post is about fake ex-Muslims. You are employing the common Islamophobic tactic of diverting from the actual subject and introducing some new lie for people to chase. Your comment does not even belong here, but rather than delete it, I responded here.

      May Allah guide you to the Truth.

      • Sound Doc says:

        Islamaphobe? I am NOT afraid of Islam, I simply have a love of truth and reject any religion that permits lying, [as you excuse it by calling it, ”taqiyya and kittman” ITS still LYING and guile to promote your Satanic cult. The YHWH of TRUTH has NO need to support His Salvation with any of that. Ps 34:13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
        As it is written, ”NO LIE is of the truth” Truth is pure HOLY and without guile, threats, fear tactics, tricks or coercion, which the Quran is filled with.
        1. I did not interpret it, I simply copied and pasted from the Holy Bible. It is in there by more than one witness[ person] 2, I did not say Muhammad divorced to marry another. JESUS SAID,”whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
        How can you interpret THAT any other way? Its simple, it says whoever marries any one who is divorced commits adultery. DID Muhammad, marry Zaynab who divorced? 1+1 =2.
        His own mouth exposed his desire for her BEFORE she divorced to get another man; (Muhammad fell in love with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter’s absence, he was met by Zainab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad’s heart [LUSTS] was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, “Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men” and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zainab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zainab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife.) A true man of GOD would forego the temptation just for the sake of the TRUTH, and NOT use his self made ministry to get her and everything he wanted justifying it by saying , ”its so men can marry divorced adopted son’s wives, THEN DO AWAY WITH ADOPTION. Islam is as shifty and unstable as the sands Muhammad built it on. As it is written, ” Let every word be established by at least two or three witnesses. I trust the Bible over some evil spirit.
        Muhammad has NOT one other witness[ person] to what the strange and evil spirit forced him to recite. Gabriel NEVER treated anyone like that leaving them in a state of trauma wanting to commit suicide sweating, hearing bells, and having all the symptoms of being demon possessed. YHWH spoke to ALL His Holy prophets, HIMSELF, making HIS OWN WORDS more valuable than anything Muhammad claimed to have received from Gabriel, whom his wife identified so she can be somebody.

        • Sound Doc says:

          The Old Testament Law allowed divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:7 and Mark 10:4) if there was found “uncleanness” in the mate (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). During Jesus’ ministry, the religious leaders had interpreted this “uncleanness” to be anything that the husband disliked (Matthew 19:3). Jesus clarified this “uncleanness” as being marital unfaithfulness or fornication (Matthew 19:9) and stated that that was the only justification for divorce” UNQUOTE .[ WHAT UNCLEANNESS DID Zaid find in Zaynab? What was the fornication that Zaynab committed so she can divorce or that Zaid committed so she can divorce,] Neither had the authority to divorce unless one had some uncleanness such as adultery, and Muhammad marriied an adulterer, he is one with her. Mal 2:16 “For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.” [Muhammad disobeyed the YHWH OF The Bible and is an adulterer.]

          • Nice try. Again, your argument, if we can call it that, rests on the validity of the Bible. Archaeology has already proven it as unreliable, and the Qur’an proves it is not the word of any Deity, but the words of men, edited and redacted. But again ,that is not the point, this article is about Mumin Salih and his ploy to deceive people into thinking he is a former Muslim, giving him authority to speak on Islam. Stay on topic or I will block you.

  2. Bin Baz’s(rahimahullah) actual opinion:

    Introduction: The following letter reached the program (broadcast program) from Kenya, sent by our brother, the student, Ibraheem Muhammad Al-Awwal. The brother says, “I heard the program Nurun ‘alad-Darb (A Light upon the Path) and I benefited greatly from it. Therefore, I wanted to send these questions to you all because their topics are very perplexing to me. The first is: Is the earth round or flat?”

    Shaikh Bin Baz: According to the people knowledge (scholars of Islaam) the earth is round, for indeed Ibn Hazim and a group of other scholars mentioned that there is a consensus (unanimous agreement, Ijmaa’) among the people of knowledge that it is round. This means that all of it is connected together thus making the form of the entire planet like a ball. However, Allaah has spread out surface for us and He has placed firm mountains upon it and placed the animals and the seas upon it as a mercy for us. For this reason, Allaah said: “And (do they not look) at the Earth, how it was made FLAT (Sutihat).” [Al-Ghaashiyyah (88):20]

    Therefore, it (the Earth) has been made flat for us in regards to its surface, so that people can live on it and so that people can be comfortable upon it. The fact that it is round does not prevent that its surface has been made flat. This is because something that is round and very large, if it is made flat (its surface), then its surface will become very vast or broad (i.e. having a flat appearance). Yes.”

  3. Stay on topic folks, or you will be blocked..this is not a platform for “my religion is better than your religion” type arguments.

    Proof of Islamophobia:

    1. You engage in distraction: No comment on the actual topic of the article and just right into the “my religion is better than yours” arguments/comparisons.

    2. You parrot information from Islamophobic sites, things that have been debunked [centuries ago], and resurrected by idiotic Islamophobes, hoping that the general lack of knowledge about Islam nowadays, buttressed by the complicit Media in their police blotter-style reporting of the Muslim world, will allow them to get away with their calumnies.

    3. You repeat this nonsense about taqiyya, obviously with no clue as to what it really means, as a means of attempting to back Muslims into a “catch 22” situation.You want people to believe that whatever we are saying(when it is positive) is a “lie” (to “further Islam”). Nothing but intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

  4. Musulmano says:


    • The word “god” has been proven through linguistic archeology to be the name of a demonic entity, so you are correct that Islam is not a religion of “God”, whereas most other religions are. You do understand that you are engaging in distractionary rhetoric? How does what you have to say, or your personal life experience have anything to do with whether Mumin Salih is a fraud or not? Stay on topic please.

      • Musulmano Apostata says:

        You are correct – Islam is Muhammed’s religion of Allah!
        Re “Fallacious Assertions” above:
        The Qur’an itself says the earth is flat: Sura 18:86.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s