Ahmed Maajid

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