Episode 48 – Does El Daheeh Spread Science or Atheism?

Peace be upon you.

Introduction: Responding to El Daheeh and His Atheistic Direction

I published a response to El Daheeh’s “What Happy Coincidences!” In the comments, I noticed many followers defending him: “No, do not wrong El Daheeh. He merely conveys science and theories. He may be right or wrong, but he does not intend to spread atheism. You cannot judge him by one episode.”

Although El Daheeh’s direction was perfectly clear in that episode, I reviewed and watched many of his episodes. I found that most promote atheism under cover of science and materialism. In this episode, instead of one example, I will bring you ten from his episodes.

Incidentally, I am not Egyptian, but I am especially keen to keep my language simple in this episode so that language is no barrier. I love and cherish my brothers in Egypt and elsewhere, with whom I share the bond of faith.

Atheism Concealed behind Pseudoscience

Friends, to understand where El Daheeh and others like him are heading and see the whole picture, we will begin with an extremely important introduction, without taking too long. In Journey of Certainty, we explained that we believe in God through reason, innate disposition and empirical science.

Atheism begins with insistence on a predetermined conclusion: denying God’s existence, as we explained in “The Kidnapped Child”. But atheism does not acknowledge this, because it would appear obstinate and committed to a conclusion in advance, rather than neutral or scientific. It therefore hides behind a purely material explanation of existence, claiming to recognize only material things, not anything called the unseen.

But when atheism insisted on opposing the evidence of innate disposition, reason and genuine empirical science, and excluded the Creator’s existence, the universe and life were left unexplained: gaps everywhere. It tried to fill those gaps. How? With explanations that are actually claims about the unseen, but foolish ones, as we explained last time.

If you ultimately have to resort to the unseen, atheism, why not acknowledge the Creator: the true unseen reality to which all evidence points, instead of your foolish unseen claims? No: anything but the Creator. To avoid appearing dogmatic, atheism hides behind empirical science. When you check its evidence, however, you find pseudoscience, or genuine science pointing to God whose meaning atheism reverses, making it evidence against God’s existence.

The El Daheeh episodes I watched revolve around these methods. For those following Journey of Certainty, this episode will be a practical case study of El Daheeh’s approach, following our examination of Adnan Ibrahim’s, so you can learn to listen critically.

El Daheeh denied the universe’s intentional fine-tuning in “What Happy Coincidences!”, replacing it with chance multiple universes, a multiverse: a foolish, hypothetical unseen reality, as we explained in the previous episode. Then he attributed human creation to chance evolution and denied fine-tuning in the human body, using false evidence throughout, as we will see.

He then denied human innate disposition by questioning life’s purpose, the religious inclination, rational necessities, moral inclination and free will. He gave material explanations of life and death and claimed humans can bring the dead to life. Then he hinted that God has no real existence, being an idea humans invented.

To those surprised at our saying El Daheeh promotes atheism: notice that his method differs from someone like Sherif Gaber who tells you directly, “I want you to disbelieve.” No, El Daheeh does not discuss Islam directly. He undermines its foundations in your mind, such as innate disposition, belief in creation and the soul, while pretending to discuss science. You do not feel he is attacking your religion, but gradually begin to doubt.

His information sources, which he boasts about throughout, are atheists’ books. To those saying, “He conveys science and theories and provides sources”: why, in these fields, does he draw only on atheists’ books full of pseudoscience and foolish unseen claims, as we will see? Why does he not cite serious research showing these theories are nonsense? Even when he brings genuine research, why does he draw false inferences from it to establish atheistic ideas?

Examples from El Daheeh’s Episodes: Promoting Atheism

Let us take them one by one, brothers.

Denying Fine-Tuning in the Universe and Humans

We discussed the universe’s fine-tuning and El Daheeh’s doubts about it in “What Happy Coincidences!” Let us turn to living organisms. If they have no Creator who created them intentionally, knowingly and wisely, how did they arise? In “Dinosaur Shawarma”, El Daheeh answers: through evolution, of course.

Strangely, El Daheeh avoided mentioning Darwin, his book’s title and evolutionary theory throughout that episode, saying:

“The 1859 book… Anyway, in 1859, a scientist whose name we do not really know published a book whose name we do not know either. It discussed the origin of species… Here before us is this terrifying fossil evidence, this astonishing mixture predicted by that 1859 book.”

Are you embarrassed to confront your audience with these names, El Daheeh? Anyway, do you have evidence for organisms evolving from one another? He answers: of course, the Archaeopteryx fossil represents a transitional link between reptiles and birds, so it can be considered the first bird.

About dinosaurs, El Daheeh says:

“The scientific community agrees that these are the ancestors of the ten thousand bird species living today.”

Of course, in “Tarzan”, I showed, using papers from leading journals such as Science and Nature, that there is no such scientific consensus. I cited research denying Archaeopteryx was a link with birds. El Daheeh chooses what he likes and claims consensus for it. Besides, in “Who Stole the Million?”, I explained why the very idea of transitional links is an extremely comical sleight of hand.

In the same “Dinosaur Shawarma” episode, El Daheeh gives another argument for evolution, especially human evolution:

“When he started looking for things called atavism—the things hidden in our DNA, traces of our ancestors—you sometimes find babies born with a tail.”

So our ancestors were tailed animals, and children growing tails are the evidence. In “Your Tail: What You May Not Know”, I explained that this is a very, very old lie begun by Darwin in The Descent of Man, based on outward resemblance. Scientific papers, some by supporters of evolutionary theory, published in Nature and elsewhere, showed that so-called human tails are actually growths and appendages of fatty and fibrous tissue, with neither bones nor cartilage: nothing to do with an animal’s tail.

These appendages can appear in various places, such as the neck, as in this Nature paper. What El Daheeh and others like him call a tail is a medical condition with scientific names: spinal dysraphism, spina bifida and lipoma, rather than a tail indicating animal origins. El Daheeh uses any old myths—pseudoscience—while pretending to present neutral, sourced science.

If humans arose through chance evolution, El Daheeh, how do you explain the fine-tuning, craftsmanship and precision in the human body? In “Colours of the Past”, he answers: “Who told you the human body is precise? It contains defects.” Let us see:

“Then beneath the cornea there is a lens focusing the light. Your eyes evolved considerably through history. So, God willing, a lot of work has gone into your eyes. I hear someone saying: ‘Wonderful! We have now reached the height of miraculous craftsmanship. Human eyes have become the best, the greatest!’ I hate to surprise you with this, but your human eyes contain some defects. What?! How can that be?!”

The lie that the human eye is defective, brothers, was promoted by the atheist author El Daheeh cites in his episodes, Richard Dawkins. We answered it in “Got You!”, explaining in detail from scientific research that the arrangement they criticize is necessary and a “superior solution” for using the eye’s space, as in Vision Research.

We explained that this arrangement exposes light to dozens of different cell types before it reaches the retinal cells, increasing the strength and clarity of vision, as reported by leading journals such as PNAS and Nature, among others. Even the evolutionary website Phys.org states that light-sensitive cells being at the rear of the retina is a “design feature”, and that suggesting the eye would be better if they were at the front is “folly”.

El Daheeh leaves all this scientific research aside and cites Richard Dawkins’s follies. We explained many examples of Dawkins’s lying and falsifying science to convince people there is no God.

Questioning Human Innate Disposition

Let us move beyond the human body, El Daheeh. How do you explain innate disposition? What does that mean? People are born with the roots of religious inclination and resorting to a higher power; rational necessities, such as causality—every event has a cause; a moral inclination to love good and hate evil; a sense that life must have a purpose, called purposiveness; and free will, enabling us to do things or refrain and bear responsibility for our choices. All this belongs to innate disposition.

Innate disposition poses a great problem for atheists, brothers. Its existence means an external intervention by a knowing, willing power; random biochemical reactions alone cannot explain it. Imagine someone saying: this computer formed purely by chance. Its parts assembled and coordinated without a maker; a violent windstorm merely put it together this way. We open it and find a complete, coherent operating system and programmes, each serving a purpose. How do you explain those programmes, atheist? Even if we swallow your ridiculous lie about the hardware, how do you explain the software?

Suppose we concede that mere biochemical reactions, random mutations and evolutionary natural selection could actually create a human and even give him life. How could these blind abstractions place these coherent, directed components of innate disposition within him—and within every newly born person?

Atheism becomes hopelessly confused here. Some atheists seek material causes for these innate components. Let us suppose, for argument’s sake, they found genes for religious inclination, others for rational necessities, a third set for morality and genes for feeling that life has a purpose. What is this coherent, directed package making people believe in a Creator, love worshipping Him and seek refuge in Him, possess rational necessities such as causality through which to infer His existence, a moral inclination consistent with His commands, and a sense of purpose prompting them to seek His will and follow it?

If you actually found material causes for these innate components, that would merely provide further evidence of the greatness of the Creator who placed them within humans, integrated them and made them consistent with His religious commands. Besides, if this is only genes and biochemical reactions, how do you explain human free will, also part of innate disposition?! If humans are merely matter, they are puppets driven by their genes in a predetermined, settled direction, without choice. Or will you say there are genes forcing you to choose freely?

Here atheism stubbornly digs in and must deny innate disposition, denying things people intuitively know about themselves. Incidentally, I discussed atheism’s crisis with innate disposition in detail in episodes 3 to 12 of Journey of Certainty. Follow them to see the scientific answers and understand exactly where El Daheeh and others like him are taking us.

You will find El Daheeh offering an atheistic treatment of each innate component we mentioned: purposiveness, meaning the sense of a goal in life; religious inclination; rational necessities; moral inclination; and free will.

Purpose and Religious Inclination

A clip circulated of someone asking El Daheeh about life’s purpose and requesting advice for young people. His answer was so shocking that those deceived by him said he was joking. But when you see him citing particular writers to support his answer, never subsequently changing it, and see its consistency with his materialist worldview and atheistic approach, you will know he was not joking.

The question was…

Questioner: We want you to give a message to young people who have no goal in life. El Daheeh: What is the problem? Life has no purpose. Have you not read… Questioner: No, you yourself have so many goals. El Daheeh: That is from Albert Camus and Sartre, in their existentialist books, which assume life has no meaning. Questioner: No, of course life has meaning. Humans on earth have needs and, for example, particular goals. El Daheeh: All those goals are there: we want to eat, drink and reproduce.

Eat, drink and reproduce!! “And they say, ‘There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.’” [Al-Jathiyah 45:24] He tells you life has no purpose, leaving no place for God’s words: “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” [Adh-Dhariyat 51:56] Nor for developing the earth in ways pleasing to God, entering Paradise or escaping Hell. Yet some still doubt that El Daheeh spreads atheism, nihilism and absurdism!

As for religious inclination, watch “Believer on Mars”, for example, to see his disdain for religion and religious observance. Nevertheless, El Daheeh does not often discuss religiosity. He discusses matters about which God has spoken decisively, offering contradictory claims as science, as though revelation had no value.

Sadly, some comment: “Why bring religion into everything?” They do not understand the relationship between sources of knowledge: reason, innate disposition, truthful testimony such as revelation, and empirical science. Revelation is knowledge; Quranic verses and authentic hadiths are knowledge and cannot contradict genuine empirical science. Some revelation has a definitive, perfectly clear meaning. If it contradicts supposed empirical science, that science must be false, as I have often explained in Journey of Certainty.

If we think there is a conflict between genuine empirical science and revelation, the error may indeed lie in our understanding of revelation. Reconciling revelation and science has rules and principles. Saying “Do not bring religion into science”, however, is profound ignorance. Those saying this urgently need to revisit “The Kidnapped Child”.

Rational Necessities and Moral Inclination

Rational necessities underpin religious and worldly knowledge. For example, causality: everything that begins to exist has a cause, so the universe and humans must have a cause for their existence. Science rests on observing causal relationships. In “The Cause”, El Daheeh questions causality itself, citing David Hume, who questions causal relationships between things. Someone will say: “He is presenting Hume’s view without saying he supports it.” Again, why choose ideas leading to atheism, and what benefit comes from presenting them without answering them?!

As for moral inclination, in “Children’s Morals”, El Daheeh acknowledges that we have an inclination to love justice and hate injustice. But he questions its validity and fairness, claiming, on the basis of alleged research, that this moral inclination is directed only toward people like us: it is biased.

El Daheeh says:

“The summary, as far as I understood these studies, is that they show we are born with morals installed in our brains. We come into the world with certain morals, including very good and noble things. But those good, noble feelings usually go toward people like us. We love people like us, and are prepared to accept injustice and obstruction toward those unlike us, who differ from us.”

Notice that El Daheeh is not merely discussing our greater familiarity with people resembling us, or the corruption of some people’s morals as they grow up and their standards change until they accept injustice. No, he is convincing you that moral standards are defective and biased from childhood. What does this mean? Two dangerous conclusions:

First: these morals do not indicate a Creator. I explained, brothers, how morality in our innate disposition provides evidence of a Creator who makes people love goodness and justice and hate evil and injustice. According to El Daheeh, however, morality is biased: we accept injustice and evil toward those different from us merely because they are different. This moral inclination is therefore neither fair nor wise, and provides no evidence of a wise Creator, since it is relative and biased.

The second dangerous conclusion is that these morals cannot be relied on, being relative and biased rather than absolute truth. Notice that he says this at the end of an episode beginning with this question:

“If we took a child and left him on an island, then brought him back when a little older, what would he tell us? What actions would upset him? Would he accept injustice? Harm? Would he betray people? Respect his parents? Would he love homosexuals? These are all very important questions. Would he love homosexuals?”

“Would he love homosexuals?” Aha: so, El Daheeh, you want us to understand that if we do not love homosexuals, it is simply because they are unlike us and different—not because homosexuality itself is something vile. We would then accept their being wronged and obstructed, and prevented from practising homosexuality. Of course, this will become clearer when we see how El Daheeh denies free will: according to him, a homosexual is compelled to perform homosexual acts.

According to El Daheeh, morals are therefore not real, absolute values involving right and wrong. When he defined evil, he put it this way:

“Perhaps one day we will be able to treat evil; perhaps we can treat any trait society rejects.”

Of course, this definition can change. Many societies do not reject homosexuality, so it is not necessarily evil according to El Daheeh. Besides, in “A Documentary Film”, he discusses pornography’s benefits and how it connected the world. About porn, meaning sexual images, he says:

“Dear viewer, porn was behind the cables and infrastructure that created the internet—the internet which, to say the least, now supports so many livelihoods.”

El Daheeh even credits pornographic images with spreading printing, microfilm and more. I would not be surprised if he began promoting homosexuality more explicitly after preparing the way in “He, She and Circles of Identity”. Rejecting homosexuality would then constitute injustice and obstruction simply because they differ from you, according to El Daheeh, rather than because homosexuality itself is vile.

On what basis did El Daheeh build all this? On experiments by Paul Bloom. Who is Paul Bloom?

“Here comes the famous psychologist Paul Bloom, whom I have worn out mentioning in five hundred previous episodes. Frankly, I love this man. His lectures, at least, are magnificent and available online for free.”

Paul Bloom is an atheist, author of the article “Is God an Accident?”, in which he says general religious beliefs arise accidentally as a by-product of our mental systems. He represents atheists in debates. This is Paul Bloom, whom El Daheeh loves and whose free online lectures he recommends. Bloom is no child on an island: he is an atheist seeking an atheistic explanation of morality.

So what if he is an atheist? That will not affect his research’s truthfulness and integrity. No: if you believe that, you urgently need to watch “Falsifying Science: Homosexuality as an Example” to learn that such neutrality in research used for doctrinal ends is merely a laughable myth.

Besides, consider the failure of the argument from Bloom’s experiment:

“The surprise was that these lovely, innocent children we previously saw liking the helpful one, knowing how to distinguish injustice from justice, chose and selected the one obstructing whoever chose a different kind of chocolate.”

The children chose the robot obstructing the opening of chocolate different from the type they liked. El Daheeh builds on this experiment—whose reliability, coming from an atheist like Bloom, God knows—to reach dangerous conclusions like those we saw, making young people feel he is promoting science.

Free Will

El Daheeh has therefore treated the four preceding innate components in the various ways we mentioned, entirely familiar from atheistic discourse. Number five remains: free will. He concentrates on it most because it is among the things most troubling to atheists and most clearly exposing their ideas’ absurdity.

If humans are merely matter governed by biological and chemical laws and a little electricity in nerve cells, we are just robots driven to perform particular acts without choice. How do you explain free will, atheism?! No one can deny this reality: humans choose whether to buy, speak or write, or refrain from doing so.

The priest of atheism Richard Dawkins, when asked whether any materialist evolutionary explanation of free will existed, answered:

“I don’t think there is a scientific explanation for free will.”

Yet atheists chose to deceive themselves and persuade people against what they actually know about free will, falsifying research or distorting its implications. El Daheeh’s task is simply to repeat their words in Arabic.

“The more important question: is that really what the genes want? Someone will naturally ask: what have genes got to do with it? That is what I want! In his book The Selfish Gene, the famous biologist Richard Dawkins…”

So it is ridiculous to imagine that you have free choice. El Daheeh tries to convince you through The Selfish Gene by the priest of atheism Dawkins, who himself acknowledged free will as a difficulty. Our brother Reda Zaidan published a book scientifically criticizing the selfish-gene myth and explaining its filthy moral implications. The biological community speaks scornfully of the selfish gene, as in this interview with Professor Edward Wilson. Wilson refers to his paper in Nature. Yet El Daheeh still cites the selfish gene.

El Daheeh imitates atheists even in their imagery. When the atheist Sam Harris writes Free Will, beginning “Free will is an illusion” and describing humans as “biochemical puppets”, El Daheeh repeats the same ideas in “Controlling the Brain”, even using the concept of Harris’s book cover.

In that episode, he says:

“Ultimately, scientists currently think your movements, memories, sensations, feelings and imagination are a little electricity, chemistry and nerve cells… Why can we not control our brains? Why can we not control our addiction? Our emotions? Having said that, why could it not be our brain controlling us?”

“We do not control our addiction; our brains control us.” In “Your Atheist Half”, El Daheeh says:

“Questions like these return us to one of history’s most important philosophical dilemmas: are humans determined or free? In this case, perhaps they are determined, but the left half then makes up a good story convincing them they chose freely, after the decision has been made.”

So the right half of your brain may force an act, then the left invents a story persuading you that you chose freely when you did not. Atheists emphasize denying free will, brothers, not merely to escape the problem of innate disposition, but to justify every moral vice, such as homosexuality. Their claim even supplies a justification for crime.

In “The Serial Killer”, El Daheeh says:

“The biological aspect is extremely important in making a serial killer: genes, hormones and changes in the brain.”

In the same episode:

“Discoveries like these, frightening as they are, make us regard a human as a biological organism whose genes interact with nature, with limited choice over either.”

You do not control your genes—your genetic material—or the environment and nature. These two things direct you, so you are determined rather than free. In “Controlling the Brain”, he says:

“Simply by changing a particular electrical activity in the brain, we made certain people accept injustice.”

In “Free or Free”, El Daheeh attributes child molestation to inflammation in a brain region, saying:

“A story like this is frightening if you think about it. It shows that small changes in the brain can change our desires, inclinations and behaviour, and our ability to control them.”

Of course, he frames this as understanding such people and trying to help rather than taking revenge through punishment. Is that the message reaching young people, or normalization of vice on the grounds that we are compelled?! Whose interest does this serve? Who benefits from spreading the idea among Muslims that humans are forced into moral vices and crimes? Young people accepting El Daheeh’s claims will naturally develop a doctrinal doubt: why does God hold me responsible if I have no choice?

Denying Divine Acts: Bringing the Dead to Life

We have finished discussing El Daheeh’s atheistic treatment of innate disposition. Let us turn to divine acts, such as bringing the dead to life: “When Abraham said, ‘My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death.’” [Al-Baqarah 2:258] El Daheeh tells you: no, we too give life and cause death. In “Bringing the Dead to Life”, he claims science is approaching resurrection:

“I want you to raise your ambitions even higher. Here is one: why do we not bring the dead to life in the first place?”

How, El Daheeh? He says:

“DNA contains all the information about you. All the information about you, all your characteristics, are in your DNA.”

Notice “all the information” and “all the characteristics”. Therefore, he says, if we took DNA from dead people whose cells are frozen, injected it into stem cells and placed them in a woman’s womb, an identical child would result. We could produce an exact copy of Einstein, for example.

To begin with, this is nonsense: even if achieved, it would not bring that dead person back to life. El Daheeh also employs the same foolishness as the king to whom Abraham, peace be upon him, said: “‘My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death.’ He said, ‘I give life and cause death.’ Abraham said, ‘Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.’ So the disbeliever was overwhelmed by astonishment, and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.”

Besides all this, El Daheeh’s basic premise is false: that your DNA contains all your information and characteristics, including morality, psychology, personality and intelligence. As an obvious observation, conjoined twins have exactly the same DNA and many grow up in the same conditions, yet their personalities often differ considerably.

As for a scientific explanation, through epigenetics we understand how the same DNA strand can be read in different ways, producing different results. More importantly, modern genetics refutes a specific gene for a specific behavioural trait, as in this 2008 Nature paper. It shows that after decoding genetic information, even most simple physical traits could not be attributed to a particular gene or defined gene set. What, then, of behavioural traits, far more complex than physical ones?

Your behavioural traits are influenced by DNA, epigenetics and environment. All this concerns the body, but you are more than a body: you have a self and a soul. This is what atheism and materialism try to deny. In “Why Do We Die?”, El Daheeh mocks the existence of an angel of death under cover of mocking death, building the entire episode on Dawkins’s selfish-gene myth. Without your noticing, he denies the soul’s existence, replacing this true unseen reality with the selfish-gene myth.

God as an Invented Idea

I will end with a final example of El Daheeh promoting atheism. In “Trading Ideas”, he says:

“This distinguishes humanity: it can invent ideas with no objective existence we can hold and play with, develop them over time and make them more complex. Important ideas facilitating cooperation, such as money, the state, law and patriotism. Although they derive their value from us, they affect us.”

So, ideas without real existence, deriving their value from us. If I wanted to learn more about them, El Daheeh, whom should I read? He answers:

“In his book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, the author Yuval Noah Harari uses these experiments and stories to ask: what distinguishes us humans from other animals?”

El Daheeh explains Harari’s answer:

“Why can only humans cooperate like this, unlike other animals? I will tell you: because humans alone can invent ideas.”

Let us hear this Harari whom El Daheeh cites. What do you mean by ideas humans invent, Harari? Listen to the Israeli atheist author:

“God is a product of the human imagination.”

In his episode, El Daheeh mentioned everything Harari mentioned except God, Paradise and Hell. He discussed humans inventing ideas with no real existence, then referred you to a book and author who include God, Paradise and Hell among them.

These are the scholars El Daheeh cites: Harari, predicting the possibility of the rich becoming gods and the poor worthless in the future; Dawkins, whose atheistic charlatanry I illustrated; Sartre and Camus, saying life has no purpose; Paul Bloom, representing atheists in debates, about whom El Daheeh says, “Frankly, I love this man.” These are El Daheeh’s favourites. Remember his saying: “Our noble feelings go toward people like us.” Could you love these people, El Daheeh, because they resemble you, and you resemble them?

Summary and Recommendations

This is what I saw in the El Daheeh episodes I watched. Every one, without exception, contains a problem, and most entrench atheistic concepts disguised as materialism. God knows what is in the many other episodes I have not watched.

To the young people who objected last time, saying “El Daheeh does not promote atheism”: frankly, if you watched those episodes, or some of them, and see no promotion of atheism, today’s discussion should make you reconsider. Do you understand your religion well? Do you have sufficient intellectual protection? Have you seen an El Daheeh episode exposing atheists’ lies and building faith on a scientific foundation?

Have you not noticed that when he addresses religion, he treats it flippantly, as in “Believer on Mars”:

“You tell him: please, we want a franchise for the Sacred Mosque on Mars. That is your right. What is the problem? A franchise! We will not oppose development. If you cannot go on Hajj, get the franchise for Arafat and Muzdalifah. This is a trade that will never perish.”

“Indeed, those who recite the Book of Allah and establish prayer and spend out of what We have provided them, secretly and publicly, can expect a profit that will never perish.” [Fatir 35:29] “This is a trade that will never perish.” No, he did not mean to mock the verse. Surely not! In contrast, have you seen an episode in which he uses a verse as evidence or mentions it reverently?

Does he spread pseudoscience deliberately, or unknowingly? What exactly does he believe? None of that concerns us. What matters is exposing what he spreads as atheism and myths.

Finally, El Daheeh’s episodes and atheistic presentations are broadcast on AJ+, part of the Al Jazeera network, which months ago broadcast the documentary In Seven Years, normalizing atheism, as we explained. Of course, we have not yet discussed other programmes on AJ+ mocking Islamic rites under cover of comedy and criticism of society.

The same country opens the channel Al-Araby Al-Jadeed under Azmi Bishara’s supervision. From the outset, the channel attacks the rightly guided caliphs and casts doubt on every Islamic consensus. Sadly, these channels are funded by Muslims’ wealth. Nations generally use their wealth to promote their principles, ideas and religions. The wealth held by the Muslim community’s richest states is being used to undermine religion, spread atheism and turn young people into distorted beings with no aim, purpose or creed. These states compete in this process. There is no power or strength except through God.

We need practical steps, brothers: First, please have your friends and children who watched El Daheeh watch this episode and the previous one, “Responding to El Daheeh”. Second, share this video in appropriate places online to open people’s eyes. Third, I invite you to follow Journey of Certainty, which addresses reason and innate disposition in genuinely scientific language, building faith on strong, protected foundations.

Remember, beloved ones: “And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know.” [Yusuf 12:21] I ask God to use you and me to support His religion and expose deceit.