I don't think that Ahmed did a very good job with regards to the fine-tuning argument. I used to like the "sample size argument" against FT, but I've recently changed my mind. There are far stronger philosophical arguments against FT.
Here is a Cosmologist's objection to an argument similar to Ahmed's :
The short answer is that a universe is possible if it is free from contradiction. For a universe specified by its laws, constants and initial conditions, all we need to know is that its mathematical formulation is self-consistent.
* For initial conditions, this is easy – the laws of nature, expressed mathematically, define a space of solutions. Each solution is a possible description of a physical system, differing in their initial conditions.
* For fundamental constants, there is a range of values inside of which the logical consistency of the laws is unaffected. For example, masses make sense from zero to the Planck scale. Negative masses make no sense; masses above the Planck scale need a quantum gravity theory to handle. For all we know, there might not be any such thing as mass above the Planck scale.
* For the laws themselves, we can check mathematical consistency as we would with the laws that (we hope) describe our universe. It’s not trivial, but there is no problem in principle.
If the “underlying necessity” is not logical necessity, then what? Physical necessity? Fine-tuning is about changing the laws of nature i.e. changing what is physically possible and/or necessary. If there is a metalaw standing above the laws of nature as we know them, then fine-tuning asks what properties that law needs to have in order for a universe described by that law to be life-permitting. A good example is string theory. Even if string theory contains no free parameters, there are a huge number of solutions characterised by hundreds of parameters. The metalaw exchanges constants for initial conditions. We still have a parameter space to explore and a life-permitting range to identify.
As for London/Global/Whateverthefuck Dawah Movement, it's good to see that Hamza has moved onto confirmation arguments but I'm not sure if he realises that the confirmation fine tuning argument is also flawed. The primary reason is that the principle of confirmation that he invokes is question begging.
Tl;dr: Muslim apologists are still years behind their Christian counterparts.
Topic: Arif Ahmed