Ahmed Maajid

Friday the 23rd of this December was a very special day in the history of this country. On that day, tens of thousands of Maldivians took to the streets and squares in almost all the 200 inhabited islands of the country to give the Maldivian Government and the whole world a simple message: the Maldivians love Islam; they do not want any other way of life than Islam; they do not, in their sovereign and independent nation, welcome those who mock and bash Islam and try to replace it with false ideologies; and they do not accept the Maldivian Government’s continued mockery of and attacks on Islam with the support of their Islam-hating friends. The base of this mass protest was Malé, the capital of the country. Dutifully abiding by the laws that prohibit protests in a way that would cause disturbances and disruptions to everyday life in Malé, the protesters gathered in the large open area at the eastern shore of the island, which is as far as one can get from the daily life of the public in

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 When my dear brother Ahmed Abdullah Saeed wrote that all the revealed faiths (or the Abrahamic Religions) have prescribed death penalty for apostasy in his article published at Haveeru Daily, someone commented by saying that only Islam has prescribed death penalty for apostasy. While I respectfully disagree with my brother Ahmed Abdullah Saeed when he says that Islam has prescribed death penalty for apostasy, it is surprising that there still are people in this country who say that the other Abrahamic Faiths do not impose death penalty for apostasy. The Old Testament of the Bible expressly commands apostates to be killed, and that the New Testament upholds the law. The person is not just to be killed, but is to be STONED to death. Deuteronomy, Chapter 13, verses 6-10 (The King James Version) reads as follows: 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee

Tuesday, 13 December, 2011 Ahmed Abdullah Saeed, a good friend of mine, has written an article about freedom of religion being a human right, at Haveeru Daily (http://www.haveeru.com.mv/dhivehi/report/114108). Many readers have commented on the article, and I was surprised to see that someone had accused him of being intellectually dishonest. While I do not myself agree with Ahmed's proposition that Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostates, I was puzzled that someone found reasons to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty. Why? Was it just because he had spoken in defence of Islam? More than likely, for in today's world, the fashion or trend is to hate Islam, to lie about it, to mock it, to not live it, and to seem as far from it as is possible. Anyway, let us keep that aside and talk about intellectual honesty and the freedom of religion! If God exists, and if He created the universe and mankind, then all "intellectually honest" thought processes would lead us

Written by Ahmed Maajid Mr. Saeed and Ms. Maria are prosecuted for committing fornication. The prosecution does not have enough witnesses to prove their guilt independent of their own confession, and as such, the court relies on their words in the matter. Ms. Maria confesses by saying these words: "I committed fornication with Mr. Saeed." Mr. Saeed rejects and says, "I have never committed fornication with Ms. Maria." If the court then decides that Maria is guilty of fornication on the basis of her own confession, and Saeed is not, because of his rejection, do you think justice is being served? If you think so, then consider the following points and questions very carefully! 1) In Islamic shariah, fornication is a crime that requires an act which is complete and valid only in the union of TWO people! As such, the physical element of the crime, or the actus reus as it is described in English law, would require two persons. This means that one person cannot commit for

Written by Ahmed Maajid Argument from Observation My eyes are so powerful that I can see all that exists. From the nearest to the farthest, there is no place where my sight doesn’t go, and never does my sight fail. If I do not see anything with my all-seeing eyes, it simply means that it doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen God with my eyes and therefore God doesn’t exist! Argument from Reason I know that, as a human being, my mind is limited in that it can, on its own, understand only that portion of reality which I can directly or indirectly encounter through sensory observation and experience. On the other hand, God, by definition, is transcendental and infinite in His being and existence, nature, attributes, and doings. As a result, I can understand only certain aspects of God’s existence, nature, attributes and doings with my limited mind. I also know that we don’t have to understand everything about a being in order to prove that being’s existence. For example, one doesn’t have to tell

Written by Ahmed Maajid In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Dispenser of Grace! Article 9 of the proposed (as of June 2008) Constitution of the Republic of Maldives states that only an adherent of Islam can be, become, or remain a citizen of the country. The said Article categorically denies any possibility of a non-Muslim being a citizen of the Maldives. According to this constitutional provision a Maldivian citizen cannot believe in, follow, profess, or preach another religion within the confines of the Maldivian polity and its jurisdiction. If he/she does so, he is no more a Maldivian citizen, and he/she is subject to whatever consequences that the lawmakers will (or might never) decide on in the future! There is no need to explain how this Article of the Maldivian Constitution constitutes a blatant and straightforward denial of the freedom of religion. It is only too clear! While some people have voiced out their criticism of this constitutional statement of a "No Musli