Is Snapchat Satanic?

As a Muslim, as a believer, I belive in the "unseen". Part of the "unseen" is the world of the jinn and Satan (Iblis) and his jinn (demon) followers. The difficulty for a believer in such things is how to verify their existence? Can we prove the "unseen" exists? Certainly, an inability to prove something "unseen" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Until our understanding of science developed we were unable to prove the existence of "unseen" things such as gravity and magnetism.

In this light I was disturbed to see Snapchat's recent introduction of allowing users to video themselves vomiting rainbows. I will say that again, vomiting rainbows. Maybe I am too old to understand (I am in my 40s) but why would someone want to see themselves vomiting a rainbow? The zombie face, I can understand. Change your appearance and shock your friends and family. But vomiting rainbows? What does it mean?

As far as I could find out vomiting rainbows means you find something too sweet - sickly sweet. Ok. But is this such a popular thing that it is added as a feature to Snapchat? Obviously it is. So why do people want to show themselves vomiting rainbows? The most popular answer I received to this question is that it is "fun". Really? This is fun? Maybe I don't have the right sense of humour to see the "fun" here.

Actually, I find the image shocking and, to me, Satanic. This depiction is what I imagine a demon to look like. I think this is the popular image that we all think a demon looks like. But how, have we ever seen a real demon?

Why do we think that demons have horns and big eyes? Just fantasy? We made it up? Collectively?

What about vomiting? I cannot think of anything positive about this. Of course the symbolism is unpleasant.

What I find strange is why would anyone want to depict themselves like this? Ok, maybe a few people perhaps, but such a number that it warrants its own application on Snapchat? Wow. This led me to thinking how did this come about. Certainly, to me, the depiction looks Satanic, it makes people look like demons. I have two thoughts on this. Say the "unseen" is true - that there really are demons - wouldn't they want their natural enemy - humankind - to depict themselves as demons? Who knows?

Putting the demonic copying to one side - isn't it that this is truly a waste of time? Does anyone need to send to another person a picture of themselves vomiting a rainbow?  In Islam, we believe that one of the tricks of Satan (Iblis) is to waste our time - preoccupy us with irrelevant and foolish matters. I think anyone reading this article who has teenage children will agree that whilst smart phones are incredible devices with very many wonderful uses - how often do our children waste their time with pointless activities on them? Could there be a more pointless activity than showing yourself vomit a rainbow?

One thing we can all agree on is that our time on Earth is limited. Again, we can agree we should use our time constructively and usefully. I don't think there is time for depicting ourselves vomiting a rainbow.

Who wrote the bible?

It seems to me that the science proves religion wrong debate is based largely on finding scientific errors in the Bible and then using this to show that the Bible cannot be divine and therefore dismissing the entire notion that a "creator" was responsible for creating the universe, the Earth and mankind. This led me to thinking who wrote the Bible? Is the Bible the word of God? Is it God inspired? Is it correct in every aspect?

The book "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman provides a scholarly analysis of who wrote the Bible and, based on evidence, shows that for the first five books of the old testament that there is a strong case to show that a number of different authors wrote the Bible. Indeed, Mr Friedman shows how different authors wrote/compiled the first 5 books of the Bible in accordance with their own social and political perspectives. This isn't cheap shot at dismissing the authenticity of the Bible, it is a scholarly study based on evidence.

If we take the evidence presented by Mr Friedman as authentic (and I have no reason to doubt this) it is clear that the Bible, or at least the first 5 books, were not written by a prophet of God, certainly it appears they were not written by the prophet Moses.

Indeed, Mr Friedman's conclusions are mentioned in the Quran: 2:79

Sahih International: So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Pickthall: Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

Yusuf Ali: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Shakir: Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Muhammad Sarwar: Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!

Mohsin Khan: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. 

Arberry: So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

This is not to belittle the Bible or to cheaply say that the Quran is better than the Bible. It is agreed amongst the biblical scholars that no one knows who wrote the Bible. This is an important fact when considering whether it contains a divine message.  Whilst one could say that the Bible is "God inspired" and leave it at that - it seems absurd to do this when the historical evidence appears to show that editing and refinement took place - by whom we do not know - for what purpose - we can only guess at.  

If we therefore have doubts over the divinity of the Bible we therefore cannot simply say that scientific errors in the Bible mean there isn't a creator.  The scientific errors in the Bible would, if anything, suggest that the Bible isn't divine. Finding the Bible to be error strewn isn't proof that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer. 

The Quran in comparison has a much clearer history with less doubt as to its authorship.  I would also say that I am unaware of any clear contradictions in the Quran to scientific facts.  Indeed, Islam has never had the aversion to science that Christianity has had.  If anything, we can see from the historical record that after the revelation of the Quran there was a burst of scientific knowledge. Did you know that the names of stars have Arabic origins? 

Does the finding of an extinct human like species really mean that there isn't a creator?

The Independent ran an article today with the heading "Sorry creationists, but scientists have found an entirely new species of human" (see the above screen shot).

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/sorry-creationists-but-scientists-have-found-an-entirely-new-species-of-human--ZJG6L_Gk8e?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

This led me to ask myself - is this really the case? Does the finding of an extinct species mean there is no creator? Well, I don't think this is the case. From a scientific perspective, there is no "science" to prove that there is no creator. At best, the case is inferential, the inference being that humans gradually evolved from pre-human species. Again, what is the scientific evidence for this? I think it is fair to say that this isn't conclusive.

The fossil record hasn't really shown the gradual evolution - the fossil record seems to show long periods of stasis (no change) with species appearing fully formed and then departing into extinction. Defenders of the view that there is no creator (based on the inferences of evolution) say that we are lucky to have the fossils that we have and that it would be foolish to think we will ever have a complete record to show the gradual evolution of one species into another. However, such a view of itself isn't "scientific".

From an Islamic perspective it is clear that Allah created man.  Does this mean Allah created man by the process of evolution and natural selection? Was man placed on the Earth fully formed? These are questions I will explore and hopefully proffer an answer. Certainly, for now, I don't think we can say that the finding of extinct human like species means that there isn't a creator.

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

The World couldn't have been created by chance could it?

I am currently working on writing a book to explain how people believe there is a God. In my efforts to write my book I have been reading up on scientific discoveries and how "believers" see these as signs of God - an intelligent creator/designer.

As part of my reading  I came across the above article entitled "How the World's most notorious atheist changed his mind". I was interested to read that Mr Antony Flew changed his mind about the existence of a god because he felt that the complexity of life and the universe could only be explained by the existence of an intelligent source.  He concluded that to suppose life and the universe came about by accident or chance was illogical.

Here is an extract from the article:

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/

The ironic thing is that many seem to point to science as a basis for their disbelief in God (intelligent designer) however the science doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Quran 3:190

Sahih International

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.

The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its scientific pretensions - David Berlinski

A great read - an erudite and witty examination of a variety of arguments that science proves there is no God. David Berlinski shows from a scientific and philosophical perspective the case against God isn't anywhere near as conclusive as other "scientists" would have us believe.

It amazes me how the atheist scientists don't seem to address the weaknesses in their own arguments and from this they lose credibility.

David Berlinski makes the point (very neatly) that it is difficult to call our recent history "enlightened" when we consider the human suffering and misery of (amongst others) the first and second World Wars (70 million dead).

While there is debate as to whether Hitler was a believer (there seems no doubt that Stalin wasn't), David Berlinski makes the striking point that for those who carry out atrocities, it is unlikely that they "believe" that "God is watching".  If God isn't watching it means that there is no higher authority, therefore, no moral pause before you act. David Berlinski describes this as the "meaning" of a secular society.

What I like about David Berlinski's style is that he doesn't try to guilt you into believing what he believes or what he argues. Professor Dawkins in the Greatest Show on Earth compares people who do not believe in evolution as "history deniers" not dissimilar to Holocaust deniers. If Professor Dawkins has such a strong case for evolution why try to guilt people into believing?

Chapter 10 - The God Delusion Richard Dawkins - A Much Needed Gap

In the final chapter of the book Professor Richard Dawkins makes the point that the idea of God fills a gap in our lives in the same way that an imaginary friend fills a gap in the life of a child. Again, no scientific evidence for this - more of a thought and certainly not persuasive in putting across the view that belief in God is delusional.

Professor Dawkins then refers to the burka (a form of Islamic dress for women) and makes the point that while such form of dress covers the body except for a small slit for the eyes then this image can be used to show the similarity of a mind which excludes science. A bizarre analogy to me as it presupposes that Muslims have no belief in science (not true). Again, no science to support this point and again no real argument to support the title of the book whether a belief in a God is a delusional belief.

Professor Dawkins has a shot at the burka saying it is an instrument of oppression. Again, no evidence given for this. What clothing would be suitable or appropriate Professor Dawkins does not say. If a burka covers most of the body and therefore is a symbol or restricting the mind is a bikini a symbol of great learning and enlightenment? What about people in cold countries don't they need to cover up to keep warm? Are they also uneducated because of covering up?

A disappointing end to an interesting book.  Certainly, I am not convinced that a belief in a God (any God for that matter) is delusional per se. In fact, Professor Dawkin's acknowledgement of a possible existence of a God who made the laws of physics tells me that it is clear there isn't proof to say there is no God and it therefore follows that you cannot say that belief in God is delusional.  

Chapter 9 - The God Delusion - Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion

Professor Richard Dawkins starts this chapter with a story about a girl set in the 1850s who was taken from her Jewish parents because she had been baptised by a maid and the result was that she was not allowed to be brought up by her parents - in turn Professor Dawkins expresses dismay about how the parents would't renounce their faith and become Catholic at least just for the sake to be reunited with their daughter - the conclusion - religion is bad and I guess it follows there is no God.  No science in this - a bit disappointing.

Professor Dawkins continues to question the practice of parents bringing up their children a particular religion and suggests that this is akin to child abuse.  He also seems to play down sexual abuse generally and in particular child abuse by Catholic priests and suggests that teaching about hell is perhaps a greater form of abuse.  Indeed, Professor Dawkins refers to the abuse he suffered and notes he has long forgiven the abuser.

In summary, I didn't find any science in this chapter to suggest that belief in God is delusional. With regard to Professor Dawkins' point that children should be taught to think for themselves and then decide for themselves - I think this is valid however you would have to expect that the parents/society will obviously tailor such education in what they think is in the best interests of the child. As a Muslim, I would certainly want my children to receive a broad education (obviously including science) but I would also want them to learn about my religion (Islam) as well as other religions. Certainly, Islam places on each individual the decision as to what they want to believe.

Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

Chp 8 – The God Delusion – What’s wrong with religion? Why be hostile? – my initial thoughts

In this chapter Professor Dawkins explains why religion is not good for the World and gives a variety examples of where religion, in particular, fundamentalism and literal belief in holy books, has resulted in horrible acts. Professor Dawkins laments over the otherwise smart scientist who gives up a potentially successful life as a scientist because he believed the Old and New Testatments over scientific fact. Professor Dawkins also refers to terrorists acts such as 9/11 and the London bombings.

Professor Dawkins refers to the “dark side of absolutism” ….most dangerously so in the Muslim world”.  I was disappointed that the reference to the “Muslim world” isn’t supported with credible evidence other than references to the Taliban (Afghanistan), 9/11 and the London bombings. Certainly not a scientific approach but I would also add that I really do not think you can judge the Islamic faith by simply referring to a handful of terrorist acts and the failed state of Afghanistan that has been war torn for much of my life and has been the subject of proxy wars by other more powerful countries. Was Islam fine before 9/11, the Taliban and the London bombings?

Professor Dawkins concludes from the examples that he gives that “religion can be a force for evil in the world”. I don’t disagree but also it can be a force for good. Again, I was disappointed that there was insufficient evidence to support such conclusions. 

As I am writing my thoughts on this book and posting them to my blog one person who commented on my comments said that the God Delusion is like a “Turkey shoot” where you try to find logical and factual errors. I thought this was a harsh comment at the time but after reading chapter 8 I felt this comment had some validity to it. There are several incorrect (plainly wrong) and misleading references to Islam as follows –

1.     Prophet Muhammed did not invent Islam at the age of 40. Islam means submission to the will of God (Allah). Prophet Muhammed was a messenger following the long line of prophets who came to deliver the message to believe in God (Allah). This is what Muslims believe. It is incorrect to say that Islam was invented by Prophet Muhammed. Professor Dawkins is free to say this is what he thinks but this is not what Muslims think. A basic factual error.

2.     Professor Dawkins refers to the case in Pakistan where a man was questioned as to his motives to be a Muslim.  There is no validity to such questioning – it is known in Islam that no one knows the sincerity of another.

3.     Professor Dawkins likes assessing Islam by the seemingly outrageous law that apostates must be killed. As I understand it the death penalty for apostates is more akin to treason i.e. the disbelief has to be public and an overall threat to society and such punishment can only be sanctioned by the head of state. If someone disbelieves internally and privately no one would know. From my experience of living in the Middle East, I think there are lots of people who do not practice the religion, lots who don’t believe but nothing happens to them. There is no Islamic duty to kill apostates. This is another factual error. If someone kills someone else it is murder – simple as that.  Just like in the UK if a murderer tells us that God told him to kill, we don’t accept that as a basis to criticize religion – it shows the killer is a murderer and possibly insane.

4.     How does Professor Dawkins know that the Taliban takes the Quran literally? Why are the Taliban poster boys for the Islamic religion? In the Middle East we take no guidance or direction from the Taliban. Who are the Taliban anyway? How would Professor Dawkins analyse Islam before the Taliban?

5.     What Islamic fascist state is ardently sought? Most of my Muslim friends in the Middle East enjoying living and holidaying in the UK, Europe, the USA.

6.     Professor Dawkins refers to militant Muslims living in Britain who consider themselves bound by Islamic law and not the laws of the UK. Islamically, you are obliged to follow the laws of the land where you live.

7.     Referring to Sam Harris and how Sam Harris says the 19 bombers on the 9/11 planes believed the literal truth of the Koran – how does Sam Harris know this? Comical and certainly no evidence of there not being a God. Where has the scientific analysis gone?

8.     Again Sam Harris, and Sam’s interview with a failed suicide bomber – my understanding is that there are a variety of reasons for suicide bombing – mainly born out of fear, frustration, oppression and certainly this is not prescribed in Islam – of course no reference in the Quran to suicide bombing.

9.     Where are the contradictions in the Quran referred to by Sookdeo? Where in the Quran does it say any Muslim who denies terror is part of Islam is a disbeliever? Utter nonsense.

Overall, I was disappointed with this chapter. I certainly do not mind a critique of the Islamic religion but please a more well thought out critique based on an analysis of the texts and not just references to the Taliban, 9/11 and the London bombings. Also, to get back to the central theme of the book, where is the connection between instances of evil and the existence of a God? I don’t think any of the faiths/believers in a God ever suggested that a hallmark of God’s existence is an absence of evil. Isn’t the presence of evil part of the test God has set for us in this World? Anyhow, disappointed with this chapter for its lack of intellectual rigor. These are the types of arguments you would face from anyone.

Chp 7 – The God Delusion – The “Good” book and the changing moral zeitgeist – my initial thoughts

A wonderful chapter with lots of thought provoking points. 

In this chapter Professor Dawkins makes the very strong case that “we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture.” As for “scripture” Professor Dawkins is referring to the Old Testament and the New Testament. Professor Dawkins provides ample examples of references in the Bible which simply cannot be taken literally otherwise to do so would in today’s thinking be absurd and even if we are to assume such passages are not to be taken literally it is unclear what the moral/lesson of such passages are.  Professor Dawkins makes the point that believers in scripture pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and sums up his point by saying “Do those people who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it?”

I noted with interest that Professor Dawkins does not refer to the Quran and I would certainly like him to do a similar analysis of the Quran as he has done of the Bible.  Indeed, I think Professor Dawkins would find that the Quran has a better pedigree and authenticity (compared to the Bible) as there is certainly much less debate about the authenticity of the Quran. Moreover, he will not find the same amount of parables open to question. I think this will come as a genuine surprise to Professor Dawkins. Indeed, I must admit before I knew anything about Islam I simply assumed it must be “hocus pocus” and full of nonsense. My first (and sincere) reading of the Quran dispelled this view at once.

Professor Dawkins expresses concern at the chief concern of the “scripture” God being other gods to rival him. Certainly, in Islam, this is the same insofar as the worship of gods other than Allah (known as shirk) is the worst sin. Professor Dawkins considers this petty but I can understand this insomuch as if we think of ourselves doing something for others and then such others thank another person for our good deeds we wouldn’t be happy! Also, again, if we were to assume that there is a God, he would be more offended I guess by actions against him compared to actions against others because God is able to make good our misdeeds between ourselves but what of when we offend God?  If you indulge me and assume there is a God, that he made the Earth a habitable place for us, he made the laws of physics, chemistry, made our bodies, provided us with food etc. shouldn’t we be grateful? If you did this for someone wouldn’t you be upset if that someone showed no thanks?

I was not impressed that the only references to Islam were three references to the Taliban and two to Saudi Arabia. With regard to the Taliban, this label is really not what Islam is about and I would imagine it was thrown in as it evokes images of savagery and ignorance which really isn’t what Islam is about. As for the reference to Saudi Arabia, there was never an idea to bulldoze Mecca, certainly, there is ongoing construction to accommodate ever growing numbers of pilgrims. With regard to the Saudi attitude to women, again, there is a fuller discussion to be had about women’s rights in Islam that goes beyond a casual reference to Saudi Arabia.

Returning to Professor Dawkins’ main theme in this chapter, that we shouldn’t and in fact do not get morals from the Old Testament and the New Testament, I think he is dead right about this.  Professor Dawkins mentions the harshness of Jesus supposedly advising his disciples to abandon their families (this is opposite to Islamic values) and the absurdity of “original sin” (again, totally contrary to Islamic values whereby each person is only responsible for his own actions). In Islam we consider these aspects a corruption to the original teachings (indeed Professor Dawkins earlier in his book notes the lack of pedigree of today’s Bible as an accurate record of the teachings of Jesus).

I very much liked Professor Dawkins’ observation that there is a consensus as to what we consider right and wrong. In Islam this is explained by the term “fitrah” which essentially means that we are all pre-programmed to believe and have a sense of right and wrong. 

I also thought that Professor Dawkins comments about the shifting zeitgeist (spirit of times) were well made, interesting and thought provoking.  Certainly, I have witnessed in my time a shift in what we think of as good and bad. In this regard, I would also add the shifting in views of “Islam” and how the religion of Islam seems to be persistently defined without reference to the Quran or the vast majority of sincerely practicing Muslims. Indeed, I find it odd that a religion I see is based on peace and being gentle, charitable and considerate to others is continuously defined in the media by the actions of thugs who I doubt are sincere believers. 

I also liked Professor Dawkins’ comment that religious labels are often used in conflicts however the true underlying reason for such conflict isn’t necessarily religion (i.e. Northern Ireland).  I honestly don’t believe that religion is the cause of wars and conflicts – I would say that humans have a tendency for conflict and will find any area of difference to start conflict. We don’t only have religious, national and regional rivalries we also have local ones that can even pit town against town, village against village and even street against street.

I have one further thought from the previous chapter. Professor Dawkins examined whether people are good because of religion. From my experience of living and working in the Middle East, I would say that from my experience, the place where I have lived in the Middle East has stronger family values, stronger moral values than in my home country of the UK. I would put this down to belief in Islam. To give a sense of this – you can safely walk in a park in my home in the Middle East with very very little fear of attack. I would not say the same is true of the UK. Also, in the UK, the older generations can talk of a time when you could go outside and leave your house unlocked with little fear of being burgled. Again, the place where I live in the Middle East is more like that and I would put that down to the religion of Islam. A final example, alcohol. Obviously, in the West, it isn’t immoral to drink alcohol but it is immoral in Islamic countries. Which is right? I remember in my early days as a lawyer conducting work experience in a magistrates court in the UK – to my horror I discovered that most of the criminal cases heard on Mondays related to drink related offences occurring during the previous weekend. How many of the accident and emergency cases in hospitals on a Friday night are drink related? Ever noticed that menacing gang of youths hanging out around off licences? I never saw any of this where I live in the Middle East. I will leave it to the reader to decide for themselves which is good and bad.

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Chp 6 – The God Delusion – The roots of morality  – why are we good? - My initial thoughts

Professor Dawkins begins this chapter referring to hate mail he received from people who make some reference to being religious. It is obviously paradoxical and hypocritical that religious people (or at least people who profess to be religious) show non-religious traits but I don’t think that this is a scientific proof for the non-existence of God. The logic is almost like saying that the UK’s most prolific serial killer was a medical doctor (Dr Harold Shipman) therefore this says something negative about the medical profession. Not really.

I certainly would agree that it seems that a lot of people who profess to be religious are anything but.

Professor Dawkins refers to the ideas of the selfish gene and reciprocal altruism as the main Darwinian pillars of thought when it comes to what appears to translate into good and bad behavior. Whilst the gene is selfish insofar as it is a unit of life which is essentially in a battle of survival against other genes there are instances where selfish behaviour isn’t the only way to achieve such survival and Professor Dawkins provides 4 possible examples where altruistic behavior could perhaps assist in gene survival - (1) altruism where there is a genetic kinship – in the sense this is furthering your genes by assisting the genes of kin which carry genes similar to your own; (2) reciprocity – where an altruistic act invites one in return; (3) Darwinian benefit for acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness; and (4) conspicuous generosity as a show of strength.

Certainly I find this very interesting but I am not convinced of the scientific basis of this.

From the section of the chapter entitled “A case study in the roots of morality” the point that seems to be made is that it isn’t religion that drives our morals but instead we (humans) seem to have an inbuilt moral compass.  From this Professor Dawkins makes the point we don’t need God to be good or evil. As a Muslim, I would look at this differently. In Islam, we have the idea of “fitrah” that we are all born, pre-programmed if you like, to believe in God and also to know the difference between good and bad.  I think that the references Professor Dawkins provides does support the idea that we seem to be born with the capacity to believe in God and we seem to have a moral sense (albeit that professor Dawkins would say that these traits have evolved over time and there is no pre-programming). I for one feel that I have a moral sense and certainly when I speak to those around me it seems to me that they also have a moral sense. Professor Dawkins seems to acknowledge this - where we differ is how we got this moral sense. 

I do find the idea of morals as very interesting and I wonder why we have this. As I mentioned above I am not convinced of the Darwinian explanation here which I am sure Professor Dawkins will agree isn't concrete. I would also say that having a moral sense and behaving morally are two different things and in Islam this is essentially the test (combined of course with belief in God). It therefore comes as no surprise to me that whilst we all have a sense of morality, both religious and non religious people can act morally/immorally. In Islam, the key consideration is why you act morally. If your act of kindness is to win a favour in return or to appease an aggressor then you cannot expect any reward from God (Allah) for such an act unless also you are in  a state of belief and that your act is part of your overall life in servitude to God (Allah).

Whilst I do enjoy reading Professor Dawkins I do sense his bias to conclude there is no God. For example, he “suspects” there are few atheists in prisons.  As a man of science there should be some evidence to support such a comment. You cannot write a book saying people who believe in God are deluded and then throw in a loose remark that you suspect there are few atheists in prisons. This is very much misleading in my opinion. On this issue I would like to see some evidence – also, what number of prisoners become religious inside prison? In any event, what is the correlation between the beliefs of prisoners and the existence of God? I do find it amusing when Professor Dawkins accuses religious people of being unscientific and not using evidence to support their beliefs. Pot, kettle….