frontline exposure

Recent Blog Entries

Poll

Views on the decision to have Ergun Caner demoted (30th June 2010)

Recently the decision was made about Ergun Michael Caner. The decision was that as of 30th June he will no longer be the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and that he will instead continue to work in the faculty as a professor. I posted a short response to this decision to the associated press which can be read here.

Now that I have access to the actual statement released by the University I am able to give my opinion on the matter in detail.

The statement from Liberty states:

"After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caners public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty Universitys Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.  However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.  Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.  Dr. Caners current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary expires on June, 30, 2010.  Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  The university has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a professor."

summary of the decision

To sum up the decision of the inquiry in a manner which they do not make apparent due to their careful wording, this is what they are saying:

Not Acceptable

To be teaching students on a daily basis, speaking to them about Christian values and running a faculty whilst being a compulsive liar would mean that the University has justified deception; and subsequently setting a bad example to the youth, giving Christians a bad name and hindering the reputation of the University. Thus, it is not acceptable to be a compulsive liar whilst you are a professor and in charge of a theological seminary.

Acceptable

It is perfectly acceptable to be a compulsive liar whilst you are a professor in a theological seminary. Even though you will still be teaching students on a daily basis and speaking to them about Christian values, the fact that you are a compulsive liar and deceive people regularly does not matter. Despite the fact that you will still be setting a bad example to the youth, giving Christians a bad name and giving a bad witness to the Muslims by showing them that Christians enjoy being taught by a liar; merely being a professor as opposed to the dean of the seminarry and by maintaining our high number of yearly applications with your comedic approach means your lying, deception and ill-speech is justified.

In other words:

compulsive liar + professor of theology + dean = unacceptable

compulsive liar + professor of theology = acceptable

-----

Whether one agrees with the summary above or not, this is exactly what they are implying. It is not comprehendible how many of the Christians think that justice has been done. It really hasn’t.

definitions of applicable and non-applicable words

Lets use some online dictionaries for the definitions of some words.

Discrepancy

An illogical or surprising lack of compatibility between facts. (Source)

An instance of difference or inconsistency. (Source)

Lie

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly - even when not necessary. (Source)

An intentionally false statement or a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression. (Source)

Misstatement

A statement that is false. Usually indicating an error rather than an intentional lie. (Source)

A statement that contains a mistake. (Source)

Mistake

A wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention. (Source)

An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness. (Source)

Deceive

To deliberately mislead into believing something false.  (Source)

To cause someone to believe an untruth. (Source)

Anybody who has been following the situation and can distinguish between Erguns true and false sayings will come to know that his sayings are not mistakes, they are lies. His sayings are not misstatements, they are lies. His discrepancies are due to lack of truth in his testimony thus his subsequent inability to remember what he has lied about; he is undeniably guilty of deception.

why not use the applicable words?

One will notice that the statement has been carefully worded as though to make the fraudulence seem nominal. As you can see from the definitions above, the word discrepancy is not entirely applicable to what Ergun Caner has been engaged in for the past 10 or so years. Rather than using applicable words such as "deception", "deceive", "lies", "untruths", "fraudulence" or even a kind but true word like "misrepresentations", they have used the word "discrepancies". There is a world of a difference between a person who generates unintentional discrepancies and a bold-faced liar.

message to Ergun

Here is a message I have just sent to Ergun Caner which will hopefully enable you to realise why the statement published by Liberty University is nothing but an absurdity. This was written in a rush and quite quickly, so please excuse the errors in the sentences:

------ Dear Ergun Caner,

To make things a little easier, I have written you a list off the top of my head and would greatly appreciate if you were to respond to or explain to me some, if not all this:

Saying you have a Ph.D when you really don’t is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying you were born in Turkey when you really were not; is a lie and a form of deception in order to lead people to believe you were a devout Muslim from a native Muslim country.

Saying you were a Muslim even though you know absolutely nothing about Islam is not a discrepancy, it is deception.

Saying you performed your Salaah in the bathroom (on two occasions) is not a discrepancy, it is a form of deliberate deception to make it seem as though you were a Muslim who was so devout that he performed your prayers even when at school. But because he is a fake ex Muslim, he does not know that Muslims are prohibited from praying the bathroom and thus his lie turned into a laughable statement.

Saying you prayed 5 times a day and then you do not know what Muslims call their prayers is a lie, not a discrepancy.

Saying you moved to America as an illiterate teenager who came to kill infidels is not a discrepancy, it is a deliberate form of deception to conform to the already-instilled misconception amongst American Christians that all Muslims are terrorists.

Saying that a picture which was taken in Turkey even though it wasn’t, is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying your mother was a strict Muslim who adhered to an extreme methodology is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying you can speak Arabic even though you can’t is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying you have eight fataawa (religious rulings) from Muslim scholars for your death is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying your name is Ergun Mehmet Caner even though it is Ergun Michael Caner is not a discrepancy, it is a form a deception.

Saying you are 100% Turkish even though your mother is half Swedish. (Should say "your mother is Swedish")

Saying you had lived in majority Islamic countries is not a discrepancy or a misstatement, it is a bold faced lie.

Saying you write under your real name even though your real name is something other what you have been claiming is not a discrepancy, it is the action of a con-artist.

Uttering complete gibberish as though it is a foreign language is not a discrepancy, it is the action of a fraudster.

Consistently telling people that you converted on November 4th 1982 and that your brother converted a whole year later; whilst yet stating in a fully published book that your brother was the one who converted in November of 1982 is not a discrepancy, it is your untruthful and exaggerated background surfacing for the world to see. To further cause problems, you appeared live on radio with your brother Emir stating that you converted in 1981 and that he converted a year after that.

Saying you fasted during the month of Ramadan even though you miss the number of days within the month by a whole 10 is not a discrepancy or misstatement, it is a beacon of the ignorance of the faith to which you claim to have once followed. I.e. You lied about having fasted.

Saying that Bahruch is a Prophet in Islam is not a discrepancy, it is proof that you know nothing about the faith to which you claim to have adhered. After all, you attempt to justify your mentioning of this unknown name. I.e. Your background is vastly untrue and you lack fundamental Islamic learning which even Muslim children know. Hence, we call you a fake ex Muslim.

Telling people you have debated Muslim scholars in Mosques is not a misstatement, it is a lie.

Telling people that English is your third language is not a discrepancy, it is a lie.

Saying that you were a devout SUNNI Muslim whilst not knowing that Sunni Muslims do not believe in the Mahdi as a Hidden Imam is proof that your background is false; had you been a Sunni Muslim, you would know the difference. I.e. Your background is false and you are deceiving people into thinking you were something which you were not.

Saying that Shabir Ally was one of your leaders is not a discrepancy, it is your deceptive method to make your gullible Christian audience think that you were just like us real Muslims; even though Shabir Ally was not even known in the 70’s or 80’s.

Saying that you debated Shabir Ally on two occasions is not a discrepancy or a misstatement; it is a deliberate lie to make people think you are something you are not.

Saying you are ex devout Muslim whilst saying that the phrase used after mentioning a Prophet is “Swan” is not a discrepancy, it is you trying to mesmerise your gullible flock with fancy words to which they do not know meaning, even though the word you are using is completely wrong. I.e. Your claim to have had an Islamic upbringing is a lie because the phrase which you are using is incorrect.

Saying you are an ex devout Muslim even though you do not know the difference between two fundamental phrases in Muslim life is not a discrepancy, it is a sign indicating that your claim to have had an Islamic upbringing is untrue.

Saying that your mother dressed Islamically even though she didn’t is deceiving people into thinking you had an Islamic upbringing, thus not a discrepancy.

Not knowing whether you told your father you were going to the Church on those nights pre-conversion is not a discrepancy, it is foundation of your mostly false background story surfacing.

Telling people that the reason your father divorced your mother was because of her conversion in 1991 is a lie because your parents divorced in the 70’s.

Deleting accreditations attained in diploma mills from your website is not unintentional; it is you covering up the findings of people who were curious of your claims.

Telling people you attended a Madrassa in Istanbul even though you did not live there is not a misstatement, it is a lie.

Telling people that your “mormor” (Swedish grandmother) dressed Islamically even though she was not a Muslim is not a misstatement, it is a lie.

Telling people that you dressed in Arab garments even though you didn’t is not a misstatement, it is a lie.

Telling people that your father was an Islamic scholar is not a misstatement, it is a lie.

Telling people that Muslims target you because we do not relate to the kind of Islam you adhered to is a form of deceiving your ignorant followers.

You and I both know that there are many more lies which you have spoken.

In addition to this, could you please explain to me why you or people who work for you, go around asking the uploaders of your speeches to remove them? I have many of these saved to my favourites in YouTube; when I go back to the list of my favourities, most of the controversial videos have a message saying "video unavailable". Surely if you have done nothing wrong, assuming that this is your stance because I am yet to see a statement of you acknowledging all of your lies - you would have no reason to do this.

Anyway, please get back to me whenever you feel ready,

Thank you

Mohammad Khan

----------

As you can see from the list above which I wrote off the top of my head, Ergun is guilty of lying and deceiving, not merely making unintentional misstatements or discrepancies as the statement seems to suggest. There are countless other lies and deliberate misleading which I have not yet included on the videos or website which will be included in the future.

"no evidence" - of course not

A segment which stood out to me and the many Muslims who I have been in contact with is –

“However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager”

This segment is very funny.

Firstly, the full statement from the beginning makes it very clear that the board engaged in a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caners public statements".

So my question is, how would an all-American Christian group of trustees find evidence in Ergun's public statements that show he was not a Muslim when these very trustees are the ones who see the Caner brothers as experts on Islam even though the Caner's know next to nothing and are both all about promoting anti-Islamic propaganda? The point I am emphasising is; if these people thoroughly and exhaustively reviewed public statements and found no evidence within these statements suggesting Ergun was not a Muslim, what kind of expertise or Islamic knowledge do these trustees possess in order to differentiate between an erroneous and truthful statement regarding Erguns supposed Islamic upbringing?

Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun does not even know the Shahada? Where is the mention of this major error?

Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun thinks that Ramadan is a 40 day month?

Did this board of trustees not encounter the audio segment of Ergun not being able demonstrate the phrase Asalaamualaykum (peace be with you)?

Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun keeps using the wrong word to refer to the Muslim prayers; the prayers which even nominal Muslims would know the name of?

Not to mention the many other evidences that demonstrate Ergun’s lack of Islamic upbringing.

Not that I am anything special or have any sort of authority; but why did this board not contact me and ask me why I say what I say? Why did they not contact me for an explanation of the many Muslim-related issues that have been raised and included on my videos and website?

Not even me; why did this board of trustees not cooperate with a local Islamic institution or Imam to go through Erguns statements which are related directly to his Islamic upbringing in order to verify that what he is saying is correct?

How would this board of Christian “trustees” spot even a single error related to Ergun’s supposed Islamic upbringing when they themselves are ignorant of the faith?

I bet this board of trustees were actually amazed at Ergun's ability to speak other languages.

Some Ergun-defenders are saying how this inquiry has somehow nullified the allegations by the "Bristish Muslim" (me); this to me and the many other Muslims is a joke. 

For this board to publish such a weird statement and then to say there is no evidence is a complete joke and the Muslims can now look and point at this Christian faith based University and safely say that they are corrupt.

A segment which stood out to me and the many Muslims who I have been in contact with is ?


"However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager"


This segment is very funny.


Firstly, the full statement from the beginning makes it very clear that the board engaged in a "thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caners public statements".


So my question is, how would an all-American Christian group of trustees find evidence in Ergun's public statements that show he was not a Muslim when these very trustees are the ones who see the Caner brothers as experts on Islam even though the Caner's know next to nothing and are both all about promoting anti-Islamic propaganda? The point I am emphasising is; if these people thoroughly and exhaustively reviewed public statements and found no evidence within these statements suggesting Ergun was not a Muslim, what kind of expertise or Islamic knowledge do these trustees possess in order to differentiate between an erroneous and truthful statement regarding Erguns supposed Islamic upbringing?


Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun does not even know the Shahada? Where is the mention of this major error?


Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun thinks that Ramadan is a 40 day month?


Did this board of trustees not encounter the audio segment of Ergun not being able demonstrate the phrase Asalaamualaykum (peace be with you)?


Did this board of trustees not notice that Ergun keeps using the wrong word to refer to the Muslim prayers; the prayers which even nominal Muslims would know the name of?


Not to mention the many other evidences that demonstrate Ergun?s lack of Islamic upbringing.


Not that I am anything special or have any sort of authority; but why did this board not contact me and ask me why I say what I say? Why did they not contact me for an explanation of the many Muslim-related issues that have been raised and included on my videos and website?


Not even me; why did this board of trustees not cooperate with a local Islamic institution or Imam to go through Erguns statements which are related directly to his Islamic upbringing in order to verify that what he is saying is correct?


How would this board of Christian ?trustees? spot even a single error related to Ergun?s supposed Islamic upbringing when they themselves are ignorant of the faith?


I bet this board of trustees were actually amazed at Ergun's ability to speak other languages.


Some Ergun-defenders are saying how this inquiry has somehow nullified the allegations by the "Bristish Muslim" (me); this to me and the many other Muslims is a joke. 


For this board to publish such a weird statement and then to say there is no evidence is a complete joke and the Muslims can now look and point at this Christian faith based University and safely say that they are corrupt.

destroy the "no evidence"

Prior to this biased and corrupt investigation, this very same University attempted to shut down my YouTube Channel. Why was there a concerted effort on behalf of Liberty University and John Ankerberg to have the videos removed?


If there is "no evidence" anyway, and according to John Ankerberg – I have somehow manipulated his videos (checkout his Facebook wall posts)- then my videos existing and being available for all to see should be no problem. Surely if I am in error or presenting obvious falsehood, the smart thing to do would be to leave it up and let everybody see how stupid I am.

removal of more evidence

Another issue which many people are not aware of is that some of the videos and audios, particularly on YouTube were conveniently removed by the owners. How do I know? Because many of these videos are saved in my favourites, and now when I look back at them in my list, they say "video unavailable". Why was there a need to remove them? I know for certain that it was the University itself that engaged in the removal of videos because I received a violation e-mail via YouTube!


Why have all the Xtreme Winter Conference videos been removed coincidentally just before the inquiry?


Why did the Southern Evangelical Seminary remove the Ergun Caner at the 2007 Spiritual Counterfeits Conference video from YouTube?


Why have the many of the audio testimonies within which the lies consisted been deleted from various websites?


Please bear in mind, these videos were deleted; not removed by a copyright claim as mine were. DELETED ? meaning ? the owner of each video logged into in his or her account and pressed ?remove this video? ? why remove it? Were the videos not inspiring anymore? 


What kind of messages did Liberty/Ergun send to the video owners to have them removed?


"Please remove these videos, Ergun is liar and we need to hide the evidence"?


Surely there must have been an element of deception within the removal requests; they probably told them that "Muslim extremists are using these videos to attack our brother in Christ, so please remove them immediately".


In simple terms, this university which is supposed to be of good Christian values who train "champions for Christ" is not only covering up the lies of their most popular employee, but they are cooperating with him in the removal of the evidences which prove he is a fraud. As I said before, they are all in on this together.

If this is the methodology of this Christian institution, what were the chances that their inquiry was going to be an honest one?

"built for confrontation" (obviously not)
More importantly, where is the direct response from the man who is “built for confrontation”? To hide behind a corrupt board of trustees and have them pass everything off as discrepancies and misstatements isn’t exactly responding to the allegations, it is brushing them off and justifying deception. There would have been no need for an inquiry or all of this hassle had he been open and honest in the first place (not that he is being honest now). This whole saga could have actually ended in mid-2009 before it became so big, but no.
one is sufficient

Although my main focus is on Ergun’s ignorance of Islam and his vastly fabricated Islamic upbringing; had the university conducted an honest inquiry; even a single lie, deception or exaggeration not related to his "Islamic" upbringing should have been sufficient for him to be no longer worthy of place within the institution, especially a faith-based one.That would have been the case if this were to happen in England; America is obviously a "little" different.

Even if one were to take the Muslim context out of the equation, Ergun will still be left with many lies, so I really do not understand the mentality of the Universities in America, especially those that are run by "Christians".

Ergun is supposed to be a deliverer of glad tidings (Christianity) but he is a compulsive liar and is doing nothing other than hindering the spread of the faith which he claims to be spreading. The funny part is - the University obviously know this, thus proving that they have no interest in being honest, setting good examples for the youth or demonstrating good Christian values.

"inquiry"
This inquiry (if I can call it that) was clearly just another scandal; and the 30th June deadline was either to give the impression to the public that they are doing something about the issue or it was just to give them time to come up with an idea of how to overcome the issues as opposed to dealing with them in an honest manner. I can just imagine them all sitting there WITH ERGUN conjuring up some plan; so what they agreed was to admit that “discrepancies” exist, brush everything off like it’s nothing, allow him to keep a job as a professor and then just carry on like nothing has happened. I bet he still has the same office and desk. He will probably get a promotion back to president in a year so.
"thrilled"

We have all seen how much of a liar Ergun is, and surely he himself knows he is a liar.

So why is it that on the day the inquiry was announced by Liberty University, he was quoted to have said that he is “thrilled”?

Why would a man who so obviously acknowledges the fact that he is a liar be “thrilled” that an investigation of his public statements is happening if he did not already know the outcome of it? 

If I were to lie about where I was born, told people I had a Ph.D, told people I was raised to be a terrorist and my “honest” employers were going to do an inquiry, I would not be telling everyone that I am “thrilled”, rather I would keep quiet and be worried that they will find out the real me. In fact, I would probably resign before I am brought to shame in the presence of all the people who looked up to me.

This bizarre expression of confidence raises the question, was this really an inquiry, or was this another reputation-hindering action of Liberty University? One explanation for Ergun’s apparent confidence would be that he was putting on a “thrilled” facade to make it seem as though he is not worried when he really is, you never know with Ergun. Allah knows best.

the spreading of truth cannot be harmed
As I stated before, whether Ergun stayed on at Liberty University or not will not harm the spread of the truth (Islam) in any way whatsoever; him staying means that he will continue to teach nonsensical lies about Islam and when his students approach real Muslims thinking that they are “ready” for us, they will be gracefully corrected and they will inevitably learn that their professor (Ergun) taught them incorrectly. After all, many of the new Muslim reverts were actually people who were caught up in all of this anti-Islamic propaganda and when they decided to use their logic and reasoning by looking Islam for themselves, they embraced Islam.
the "apology"

All I can say is that his supposed apology was directed at the wrong people. Does this supposed apology somehow eliminate the evidence proving that Ergun Caner knows absolutely nothing about Islamic fundamentals even though he constantly emphasises on his "Islamic" upbringing? Does this supposed apology somehow make up for the 10 years or so of lying? Does this apologise admit that most of the money he has been making from books and lecture call-outs is all from an evil source? Clearly not; what I would love to see from Ergun is a point by point response to all of the issues raised. This is what he should have done in the first place, but because he is a liar, he can't.

In fact, I will be happy and content with a mere statement of “I AM SORRY” published on his website, as long as this apology tags with him stopping the exaggerations and fabrications upon his half Turkish heritage to turn himself into an ex Sunni Muslim, because he really isn’t one; I will hopefully in the very near future post a detailed analysis as to why this is the case.

conclusion

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary or Liberty Corrupt Theological Seminary? We all know which one suits them best; and Ergun fits right in.

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.