This article is based on a document published by Ergun here.
If "for some reason" Ergun decides to remove this document, it has been saved here.
This PDF does not deserve a response, Muslims have no problem in responding to his arguments, but he brought no facts in this document, only absurdities and false propaganda, the same propaganda uttered by almost every Islamophobe.
However, this article will touch on a few points and provide a number of Muslim articles about Jihad and what it really means.
Ergun knows he cannot find a single authoritative Hadith, verse from the Qur’an, scholarly definition that can support his claims on Jihad, so he gives no definition to the term "Jihad" to somehow allude to the Islamophobic definition of the term which is constantly indoctrinated into the masses.
Another problem with people like Ergun, they cannot answer or refute other points related to Jihad like the Greater Jihad which is a personal struggle to be ethical and righteous, or the laws of war in Islam; all Muslims must adhere to this law, when Muslims go to war they do not kill civilians, women, children, animals, plants, they are forbidden to burn homes, destroy crop, loot....etc
He is not addressing the issue of liberty in Islam. He is assuming (or at least implying) religious liberty does not exist (in Islam) and somehow exists in the New Testament. This “former devout Muslim” has clearly never read Seerah books, Hadith or even the Qur’an. Here is one example from the Quran, a whole chapter on religious liberty, does Ergun know this chapter exists? I doubt it.
1. Say: "O ye that reject Faith!
2. I worship not that which ye worship,
3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. To you be your Way, and to me mine". (Qur'an 109)
With these facts in mind, let us move on.
Where does Islam teach atrocious crimes? If certain "Muslims" in the past were guilty of certain crimes then that is their own fault, not the fault of Islam. If Ergun wishes to blame Islam he must show beyond any doubt that Islam's teachings are responsible. We constantly hear him tell people that “unlike Christianity”, Islam prescribes the involvement of unnecessary violence. This is about as trust as Ergun claiming to have been brought up in a terrorist camp (yes, this is what he claimed).
Sudan in the present? Do the "jihadists" in Sudan comply with these laws stated previously? How can this be "Islamic Jihad" if the EXPLICIT laws of Jihad and the Qur’an are not being followed?
Unlike Ergun, I am not a double standard hypocrite; I do believe that Christianity is a belief system that teaches some aspects peace, fairness and morality. I do not believe all the violence going on the world is from religion (except the violence committed by the state of Israel), so I will not accuse Christianity of any violence.
Ergun argues that Christianity is not guilty of any present crimes. If one were to adapt his methodology; which can be summarised as:
1- Find a state with some violence in it without taking into account how and why the violence exists.
2- Find Christians committing them.
3- Rip their scriptures out of context.
4- Ignore what their scriptures really say on the issue of peace and war.
5- Write a document about it and tell people what you find.
So this is what I will do.
We all heard about the current Muslim-Christian violence going on in Nigeria , while the media likes to conceal the truth, in reality the Muslims did not start the violence there, it was THE CHRISTIAN CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT THAT TREATS MUSLIMS LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS
"The government there is Christian-controlled, and Muslims have complained they are treated as second-class citizens there. Aid workers said the most recent violence came in response to a January attack in Muslim areas." (Source)
Do more research on this topic (Religious violence in Nigeria) and see for yourself what “Christianity is guilty of” according to the standards set by Ergun Caner himself.
Now for scriptures, do one need to remind Ergun that he believes in the Old Testament? The testament consisting of vast amounts of violence? whether he believes it's abrogated or not, it can still influence violence and backward thinking in the world.
some examples from the "all loving God" :
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)
Hence according to Ergun's methodology, Christian violence is supported by scriptures.
Note to Christians: If you got a problem with this method of approach, then you know you have a problem with Ergun and Emir Caner, because this is their method of approach.
The whole purpose of this document so far is merely to affirm the media-led teaching that Islam is violent. We all know that the media know absolutely nothing about representing the truth. Look here how a speaker of peace and truth has to respond to his illegitimate banning from entering the UK after the media lied about him and said he condones terrorism!
I wonder why Ergun does not quote the context?
Like verse number 6 for example (And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know)?.
Why does he not present to you the story behind the revelation?
I would say "Based on your ignorance , Sura 9:5 & 9:29 teaches unnecessary violence" .
Islamophobes like Caner totally ignore the historical context, the reasons of revelation, what Islam has to teach about violence and peace as a whole.
Please watch this video by Jamal Badawi regarding the teaching of Surah 9:29:
So let's get this straight. It's ok for the non-believers to attack and kill Muslims but Muslims are not allowed to defend themselves? This is what Ergun believes whether he makes it apparent or not.
There a number of difficulties and errors here, I previously explained the reasons Muslims might go to war could be self defence or to promote religious freedom.
First of all since when did the conversation of a state to Islam comes ONLY via sword? I challenge Ergun to bring one authentic historical source that records one Muslim solider going to Indonesia (currently the biggest Muslim state) or East Africa.
Secondly, this assertion creates even more historical problems, How did the Mongols become Muslim? The Mongols where the only case in history in which the invader adapts the religion of the invaded, how did the weak defeated Muslims convert the Mongols? How did the Mongolian empire become a Muslim state? By the sword? No historian says it was by the sword, but by the teachings if Islam.
Please watch this video by Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips:
This has nothing to do with the topic, but he makes a factual error here which every Muslim knows.
When Muslims welcome a newborn into this world, the father does not speak the creed (Shahadah) into the child's ear, the father speaks the Adhaan (the call to prayer). I thought Ergun was the son of Mu’athin (one who gives the call to prayer)? and yet he does not know the difference between the call to prayer and the fundamental declaration of faith known to even Muslim toddlers, truly amazing!
I personally have no less than 9 occasions where Ergun and Emir make this same mistake when speaking and writing!
Christians like Ergun like to pretend their faith has nothing to do with politics and the state when in reality they bring up the bible all the time! Which Christian supports the liberation of pornography, strip clubs, drugs, divorce etc? They oppose all this because of their faith and what the bible teaches.
This one is funny. What do Christians do to their children before the age of understanding? They teach them the bible, its stories, its theology ("Jesus died for your sins"), no wonder he/she will profess faith since he/she was taught to believe it with no evidence.
There is a fact we all must accept, children are primarily socialised in their homes by their parents and thus they adopt the faith of their parents. Christianity is not better.
In contrast to what Ergun teaches (a Muslim is accountable from the second you are born); in Islam, a person is accounted for his/her actions and beliefs when reaching the age of understanding, so if Ergun wishes to make that argument for Christianity, it is easily applicable to Islam as well.
Millions have given their lives for the faith? Limited freedom in Islam? I ask Ergun to entertain us with evidence and sources because this is a lie uttered by the Coptic Christians all the time!
What kind of reference is this? This is referencing to nothing! Which hadith collection is he referring to? Bukhari, Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawood?
This is an excellent example of double-standard hypocrisy. As mentioned previously, Ergun doesn't mind quoting Surah 9:5 but then purposely does not quote 9:6! What is he afraid of? Is it not the same "violent" Chapter that teaches unnecessary killing?
Had he quoted the 6th verse, his hypocrisy would be made apparent to his gullible fans:
“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know”
You can clearly read that the 6th verse is explaining the exact thing which Ergun attributes to 2 Peters 3:9. Nowhere does Islam teach that the nonbeliever has no right to exist; however, some Old Testament verses do suggest otherwise.
Did he bring any evidence to support this claim? You can see that the basis of this claim is in all honesty – baseless and false propaganda. Unnecessary violence and force is not taught in Islam; Ergun is deluded and is merely promoting the common media-led hateful understanding of Islam due to the fact he is a fake ex Muslim who knows absolutely nothing about it himself. Islam is spreading, they don’t like it, so they need to lie about it in order to prevent you from investigating for yourself.
John Ankerberg says 68,000 every 24 hours.....