Firstly, I would like to make clear that I have absolutely no idea who this person is. I am told that he is quite famous, thus I felt the need to respond so that his publication does not deceive all those people who listen to him.
Norman Geisler has published a response to many of the accusations made within my videos and on this site. He has attempted to justify many of the lies and falsehoods that Ergun Michael Caner has presented.
You can read Norman's actual statement here.
If after reading my response, he decides to remove his statement, I have saved it here.
Below are his statements along with my response:
Norman = red
Me = black
A talented, dedicated, and high effective servant of God and convert from Islam has come under a strong attack by extreme Muslims. Why? Basically, it is because he is a converted Muslim and is an effective living, moving, talking representative of Evangelical Christianity. Radical Muslims believes that they should kill such defectors from Islam. If they can’t do it physically, they attempt it by character assassination.
Firstly, this statement of “extreme Muslims” is just nonsense; I am not an extreme Muslim. It seems to be a common trend amongst Ergun-defenders to try and use the “Muslim extremists” excuse; and thus conforming to the media-instilled preconception amongst many Christians that Muslims are hard-hearted terrorists who show no mercy and attack anybody and everybody “because this is what they are taught”. He mentions that Ergun is a converted Muslim which is wrong. Ergun did not convert from anything. He had a Turkish father who was a Muslim who he barely saw. The only time Ergun was a Muslim is when every single human being on the face of the earth is a considered a Muslim – before the age of accountability. If this were not the case then Ergun would be able to demonstrate what Muslims know – but he can’t.
I have not engaged in character assassination, rather, I have used Ergun’s own statements in order to present his lies and deception in an understandable fashion. I really do not understand why these Christians are trying so hard to make it seem as though is just another “ex Muslim” being unnecessarily attacked by “evil Muslims”, it’s actually starting to get boring.
What is their tactic? It was to destroy his credibility by making false and defaming allegations about him. Unfortunately some extremist Calvinists, who oppose Dr. Caner’s more moderate view, have piled on as well. The result? There has been a miserable and painful disruption of his life, his family, and his ministry.
False and defaming allegations? Which false allegation is he referring to? Everything I have presented is with proof. The “miserable and painful disruption of his life, his family and his ministry” is none other than the fault of Butch Caner. And if he wants this "pain" to end, he must end it up owning up to his fake life.
What are the Muslim Charges?
As anyone with experience knows, it is a whole lot easier to make accusations than to answer them. And if one makes them loud enough, long enough, and far enough (namely, through the world-wide internet), a lot of people come to believe them—even if they are not true.
No, it was a pain-staking process to sit there listening to each audio and video of Ergun Caner. It was not easy at all. I work six days a week and only have the evenings to do small bits here and there. My “accusations” were merely uploading a YouTube video every now and again – not quite sure what he means “loud enough” and “long enough” as though I was running around moaning to everybody. For him to say “even if they are not true” is leading me to believe that his person really does not know what he is talking about.
Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. Further, no one has demonstrated moral intent on any of the factual misstatements he made (which we all make).
Is this guy joking? We are clearly seeing that this is just another blind Ergun defender. If the charges against Caner are unsubstantiated then the sky is not blue. And no, we don’t all make “misstatements” like the ones Ergun’s makes. They are not misstatements, they are lies.
The Factual Misstatements
Dr. Caner has admitted to and apologized for some factual misstatements. But no one has proven any evil moral intent in any of them. Indeed, everyone I know who knows Ergun well, knows him to be a man of honesty, integrity, and moral character. For those who have no mercy for those who make honest mistakes, I would only say: Let him who is without mistakes cast the first stone!
There is a world of a difference between a factual misstatement and a lie. Ergun is 100% guilty of lying and deceiving; both of which are evil, so for this person to come and say that “no one has proven any evil moral intent” is laughable.
If what this person says is true regarding Ergun’s honesty and integrity to those who know him well, then why is it that on Ergun’s PERSONAL Facebook account (not available to the public, but only close friends), he DECEIVED them into thinking that pictures which were taken in America were taken in Turkey? Wow, that seriously is some honesty and integrity on behalf of Ergun to those close to him wouldn’t you say? Once again, the word “mistakes” is not applicable in Ergun’s circumstances; the correct words to use would be “lie”, “deceive”, “misrepresent”, “con”, “fraudulence” etc.
Caner’s misspeaks includes the following: 1) He said he was 18 instead of 16 which he repeatedly said he was.
What we find is that Ergun constantly changes his story with regards to the date and age of his acceptance of Christianity. Ergun has not only said he was 18 on one occasion as this segment seems to imply – he actually says it on no less than 5 occasions. What would be the reasons to tell people you converted at 18? The logical answer would be that Ergun wanted to deceive people into thinking that he was a mature Muslim male as opposed to mere immature teenager.
2) He said Shabir Ally had died (who is alive) when he meant another Muslim (who is dead);
This is an understandable error. Some say that Ergun was meant to say Ahmed Deedat (Raheemullah); nonetheless, Muslims didn’t actually refer to Ahmed Deedat as one of their leaders, rather, he was just a well-known Muslim apologist who many Muslims favoured and respected. On the other hand, if Shabir Ally or Ahmed Deedat was really one of his "leaders" and he was a devout Muslim as he and his naive fans consistently insist – how can he not know the name of his “leader”? This argument can go around in circles because one may say that he just forgot or got mixed up as ordinary humans do. Either way, Ergun is silly.
3) Ergun said they moved to America in 1969 and in another place he said it was 1978. More precisely, he got his citizenship in 1978.
This is a lie. If Ergun told this person in private that he moved to America in 1969, that does not mean it nullifies the multiple occasions when he tells people he moved to America in 1978; and neither does it nullify the multiple accounts of him saying he moved when he was 12, 13, 14 and 15. The written evidence of Ergun admitting to have moved to America in 1969 (to my limited knowledge) is in a Turkish article. Which gullible American Christian will read articles in Turkish? You will notice a trend in the statements made by the writer already; he makes it sound like that these “misstatements” only occur once, he is intentionally misleading you; had he done the research as he claims to have done, he would not be saying what he is saying unless he is deliberately lying.
4) Ergun once accidentally said Mulema instead of Ulema which is the Arabic word for scholar.
This one is a complete joke. As I constantly reiterate to my Muslim brethren - “these Christians really don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to Islamic principles do they? they always end up making themselves look silly”
So let’s get this straight; this gentleman has done research and even within his “response” he makes an error.
The word “Ulama” is actually a plural word referring to “Scholars”, whilst the singular would be “Alim”.
A “Mu’alim” is sort of a person (masculine) who possesses knowledge of some field and teaches, i.e. a teacher.
This ignorant writer has done no research as he claims, he is making himself look stupid and ruining his reputation which I am assuming he has. Had he done a simple Google search, he would know that “Mu’alima” (note the “A” at the end) is the feminine of “Mu’alim”.
All these Christians who try to speak about Islam-related issues only make themselves look stupid; which raises the question – why on earth is Ergun using these ignorant people to back him up? As an “ex Muslim”, he should have the ability to at least know what’s what when it comes to Islamic terms. Why rely on people who lack knowledge? Or does this “ex Muslim Islamic expert” honestly think that this writer possesses correct knowledge although it is so obviously wrong?
5) He mispronounces Sawm as “Swam.”
Wrong. Ergun does not say “Swam”, he says “SWAN” (a bird). Had this writer done his research, he would also know that Ergun does not know the meaning of “Swan” (incorrect word, but give him benefit of the doubt) – when he gives the definitions to the list of the pillars of Islam, he actually gives them in the complete wrong order to the English which he gave, thus – he is just echoing a memorised script. Besides, Ergun also says that “Swan” means “peace be upon him”.
6) He is charged with lying because he looks away or crosses his legs or arms (which is supposedly symptomatic of lying)!
In part 2 of my video I researched the body actions of somebody who lies; these actions and postures are not necessarily nullifying his testimony, rather, they are mere signs of somebody speaking dishonestly. Despite this fact, one needs not assess his body language to confirm he is a liar; they only need to listen to the filth coming out of his mouth.
7) It is charged that Ergun has shoes on in a mosque picture which is forbidden (Wrong. It is not forbidden in the outer court).
Can you see the contradiction within the statement? You can see the picture here and judge for yourself.
Several things are worth noting here. First or all, none of them are morally culpable since no one has proven intentional deception or embellishment.
What research did this guy do? No one has proven intentional deception or embellishment? I would usually draw up a long list here, but I really can’t be bothered. Instead, please browse this website in all the sections, particularly here and here.
Furthermore, when Ergun becomes aware of any mistakes, he owns it, corrects it, and apologizes for it.
Where is he then? Why is he hiding behind a corrupt board of trustees? Why does he need you to write this for him? Can he not speak for himself? Is he not built for confrontation as he claims? Are you sure he doesn't try to remove the videos from YouTube? Are you sure he doesn't get the audios deleted from the websites?
In addition, most of these allegations range from the trivial to the ridiculous. . Finally, not one of them involves a moral or doctrinal deviation from the Faith.
I am not a Christian, so whether he deviates from his faith or not doesn’t bother me. Nonetheless, last time I checked, you are not allowed to lie....Oh wait, Ergun is excused from that.
Some Muslim Allegations against Dr. Caner
These allegations have circulated freely on the internet and unfortunately some have even made it into Christian publications. Most of them center around Dr. Caner?s his claims to be a former Muslim.
The Charge that He Could Speak Arabic when He Can?t.?He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur?an and speak it in prayer.
This writer is either lying or he hasn?t done any research. Ergun claims that English is his third language. Ergun claims that Arabic was his language before English. Ergun claims he uses his language skills in Arabic language fellowships. Ergun claims that his father would come to him at night and speak to him Arabic. Ergun is quoted to have claimed to have debated Muslim scholars in Arabic.
This writer is yet again deceiving the reader. If Ergun learned enough Arabic to read the Qur?an and speak it in the prayer, then why does he lack the ability to recite any Qur?an? He doesn?t even know Al-Faatiha, he doesn?t even know Surah Al Ikhlas and instead speaks gibberish. There is only one Qur?an, and Ergun has not recited any of it in any of his sermons because he is a fake.
The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed.--This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun’s father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.
This doesn’t mean you can run around telling people that you were born in Istanbul. Excuse the rudeness, but only an idiot will see this statement as a justification of Ergun’s lies. At best, Ergun is more associated to his Swedish heritage as opposed to his Turkish; he was raised by his mother and grandmother who are/were both Swedish.
The Charge that He was never trained in Jihad at a Muslim School.—The charges that he trained in a Sudanese or Lebanese School (Madrassa) are false and are based on wrongly assuming his statement of “Islamic youth jihad” was in reference to a specific terrorist organization. He trained in the one attached to his Mosque as all Muslim children do. And he was trained there in Jihad, as all the other children are—even those who never take up a gun.
Ergun was not trained in any sort of “Jihad” (in accordance to Ergun’s stupid and incorrect interpretation of unnecessary violence to innocent people). I did not raise the point of Ergun being in “Islamic Youth Jihad” so I do not see why this accusation has been included in the “Muslim’s arguments” section. Despite this, Ergun has told people that he was in training to be a terrorist, thus implying that he was part of a terrorist group. Unless he was a lone soldier like Rambo or something? This of course – is a complete lie. Ergun was your ordinary western boy who decided to live a life of lies after coming from a family where he was conditioned to dislike Muslims (the influence of his mother and grandmother).
The Charge that Ergun claimed he “Always Lived” in a Muslim Country before Coming to the US.—Although, the phrase “always lived” is not precise. There is no evidence of an evil intent to embellish here, as his critics say. True, Sweden was not a Muslim country, but he did live as a Muslim with a Muslim father while in Sweden. After all, Ergun’s father was from a Muslim country, Ergun was a citizen of a Muslim country, and he lived as a Muslim in Sweden. It would be an embellishment to say that if he was not a Muslim and not a citizen of a Muslim country.
Telling people you have family residing in Lebanon when you have no association to that country whatsoever is a lie. These lies were uttered right after claiming to have always lived in Islamic countries, so how is there no evil intent to embellish or deceive? Telling people that you lived in Beirut, Cairo and Istanbul when you haven't are all lies.
This argument literally makes me laugh. Allow me to explain what he is trying to say – if you have a Muslim father and live in a non-Muslim country, then you have the right to tell everybody that you have always lived in Islamic countries. I mean no personal offence to the individual writing this, but this is just idiotic.You know what; just to demonstrate the stupidity here - Although I am born in London, I still come from a Muslim family; therefore, I HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN MAJORITY MUSLIM COUNTRIES (same as Ergun). I actually have a Pakistani Identity Card due to the heritage of my parents; I have only ever been there once when I was 7 months old! (Not joking). Does this mean I have always lived in majority Islamic countries? I strongly advise these Christians to disassociate themselves from Ergun, because each time they seek to protect him or conceal his lies, they are humiliating themselves
The Charge that He false Claims that “I Came as a Jihadist from Turkey”.—Ergun denies making this statement, and I have not seen any document refuting his claim. He does claim to have been trained in Jihad, as all Muslim children are. And he is of Turkish ancestry. The rest is apparently extrapolated by his detractors
The reason why this writer has not seen any documentation is because he himself knows nothing regarding the matter and has not strived. All he probably did was spend an hour or two going through blogs, videos and this website. If Ergun denies making this statement, then he is even more of a liar. Although Ergun's statement may not be the actual words quoted above, he has said that he was trained in Istanbul, had a Madrassa when he was there and was trained "in the protocals of Jihad"; which according to him means killing innocent people and engaging in suicide bombing.
And yes, Muslim children are taught about Jihad. But not the Jihad that Ergun led people to believe (killing innocent people). Jihad means to strive; and Muslim are taught to strive in aspects of life.
The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims to have been a Devout Muslim.—Caner photos prove of his activity in the Islamic religion. He has a picture of his masallah (when circumcised at age 12); a photo of him praying in the mosque; a picture of his reading the Qur’an in recitation. He also has a photo of his receiving a certificate from an Imam. His bother Emir, also a former Muslim, has vouched for the veracity of his claims.
Of course there will be photographs; Ergun’s father was a Muslim. Thus when visiting his part time father on those rare occasions, he was exposed to some aspects of Islamic practise and may, at times, have integrated in the Mosque at a very young age (an age where every child on earth is considered a Muslim). Not quite sure what he means by “a picture of his reading the Qur’an in recitiation” – is he referring to the picture where Ergun is around 5 years old and he is holding a piece of paper leaning against a pillar? Or is he referring to the picture where Ergun is sitting there smiling which Ergun titled as "Finishing reading through the Qur'an is celebrated"?
The writer then goes to humiliate himself. He writes that there is a picture of Ergun’s “masallah” (cirumcusion). Once again, what kind of research did this man do? Did Ergun tell him this? The word “masallah” is a Turkish spelling of the phrase “Masha’Allah” (phrase indicating appreciation for an aforementioned individual or event). The word “masallah” was written on the ribbon which was wrapped around Ergun’s body in the photograph. It does not mean circumcision. Talk about digging yourself a hole...
The Charge that Caner could not have Offered his Muslim Prays in the School Bathroom as he said he did.—This was neither a shameful or unacceptable practice for Muslims, as some critics claim. The Islamic Hadith allows it, and it is done by devout Muslims to this day as has been pointed out by former Muslim *name can be found via link to raw article*.
This is a shameful and unacceptable practice for Muslims. It is prohibited to perform your Salaah in the bathroom. Those who tell you otherwise are either deliberately misleading you or lack knowledge of Islamic doctrine.
Some “Muslims” have suggested that the sect which Ergun adhered to do pray in the bathroom, this argument is nullified because Ergun claims to have been a “Wahhabi” (misnomer and often an offensive term used to describe those who adhere to the methodology of the pious predecessors) – we do not pray in bathrooms because a Hadith clearly states that it is prohibited. In fact, all the most popular Sunni schools of thought agree that this is the case too; the Hadith which prohibits it is authentic, thus there is a consensus.
For the writer to say that “Islamic Hadith allows it” is deception, it doesn’t. He is lying to you.
It is common knowledge (for Muslims at least), that in certain circumstances, something which is prohibited becomes permitted. For example, if a Muslim were stranded with nothing at all to eat, and he just so happens to bump into a pig, and the pig is literally the only type of food that is available – then the consumption of pork becomes permissible in that situation. These arguments are not applicable to Ergun’s statement. The whole purpose of Ergun’s statement was to make it seem as though he was such a devout Muslim that he even prayed at school, but due to his vastly fabricated upbringing, he said he did it the bathroom; thus indicating he did not pray like he says he did.
The Charge that Caner Claimed Ramadan was Forty Days Long.?Muslims claim this feast is only 30 days long, and Caner said it was forty days. Caner cites Muslim authorities to the contrary, showing it can last up to forty days. Even the Qur?an (Sura 2:51) speaks forty days of fasting.
Firstly, Ramadan is not a feast! It is the name of the ninth month on the Islamic calendar. Again, what research did this ignorant individual do? He is writing as though Ergun is telling him what to say, so if Ergun told him this then we now have a new piece evidence proving that Ergun is a fake ex Muslim.
The writer is wasting his time. Ergun has already responded to his error. Error - meaning he did not fast or have the Islamic upbringing he claims to have had. This is the third response I have personally encountered regarding the issue of Ramadan being 40 days.
The first was from Ergun himself, where he stated that some deviant groups fast for 40 days. The second was from a person who is trying his utmost to get noticed by others who stated that the non-Ramadan optional fasts can total up to 40, and therefore Ramadan becomes a 40 day month (yes, I know, this is stupid). And now, this is the third.
The funny thing is that all 3 refuations, if I can call them that, are contradictory. So which refutation is it? The first two have already been addressed. Surely the "refutation" which was written by Ergun himself is the more valid one right?
Every Muslim, Christian and Jew on the face of the earth knows about the Prophet Musa (alayhisalam). Let?s look at the verse quoted above along with the verses before and after it (we = God):
[2:50] Recall that we parted the sea for you; we saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people before your eyes.
[2:51] Yet, when we summoned Moses for forty nights, you worshipped the calf in his absence, and turned wicked.*.
[2:52] Still, we pardoned you thereafter that you may be appreciative.
The Charge that Caner Confuses the Shahada with the Beginning Words in the Surat at-Fatiha.—It is alleged that no knowledgeable devout Muslim would confuse these two. But both are part of Islamic prayers that are recited many times every day. The first is the confession and the second is a recitation.
Invalid argument. Please go here to understand the enormity of this error. You don't even have to be devout, you merely had to have come from a Muslim family to know this, hence why I say that this error alone proves that Ergun Caner is a fake ex Muslim.
The Charge that His Family Did Not Disown Him When He Converted to Christianity as Caner Claimed that they Did.—It is true that after the divorce he was raised by his mother who obviously had not disowned him since she was no longer a Muslim. But his Muslim father who had remarried did disown him. This is the Muslim “family” to which he referred. This was very painful to him since he lived only a half hour away but could not even speak to him.
The writer must stop playing with Ergun’s words. Ergun said he lost his whole family and he was a Church orphan with one shoe and one sock. What else was Ergun to say? He told everybody that his mother was a Muslim at this time too! It is only now that people realise that Ergun’s mother was not a Muslim at the time of his acceptance of Christianty, so I wonder why this issue is not being addressed instead? I don’t understand how this writer can say that the word “family” is referring to one single Muslim man (Ergun’s father) when Ergun made it very clear that he became alone with no family whatsoever.
The Charges that He was not Turkish as He Claimed to be.--This stems from a confusion of his nationality and the country of his birth. Ergun was born in Sweden, but he was a Turkish citizen. According to Swedish law a child born in Sweden has the nationality of his father, and Ergun’s father was Turkish. Indeed, he traveled to Turkey with his father to establish his Turkish citizenship. When he came to America, he came as a Turkish citizen with a Turkish passport.
I think most of this has already been addressed in one of the sections above. Anyway, Ergun's father was Turkish whereas his mother Swedish. Ergun cannot speak Turkish, rather, he grew up speaking Swedish and was raised by mother and grandmother who both spoke Swedish. So is not convenient that Ergun only started telling everyone he is Turkish and an "ex Muslim terrorist" after September 11th? A time when the American public were ready to believe any ex-Muslim terrorist story.
The Charge that Caner Falsely Claims that he has had more than Sixty Debates with Muslims.—Critics challenge this statement and claim it is an intentional embellishment. But they mistakenly assume that all debates are formal. Caner lists many formal debates in the last ten years or so. But he has also engaged in multiple informal debates as well. There is no evidence to deny his claim. Indeed, given his numerous encounters with Muslims, it is reasonable to assume there were at least sixty.
Ergun does not do debates.The writer can twist, turn and make up as many excuses as he wants, the fact remains.
The Charge that no Knowledgeable Muslim Would Mis-cite the Hadith as Caner Did.—It is charged that Caner often cites the Hadith without mentioning the actual name of the collection. But, as even Muslim scholars admit, there is no “official” way to cite the Hadith. It is often cited without reference to the collection.
Although I had noted this obvious error; this issue was first “officially” raised by Christians so once again, I do not see why he is attributing this accusation to me. Nonetheless, I will respond – Ergun’s method of citing a Hadith is completely wrong. It actually makes us Muslims laugh that Christians see a person who cites Islamic texts in such a manner as an expert.
If anything, it would be excusable for him to have cited a Hadith by merely mentioning the collection from which it came. For example – when we Muslims speak with one another quoting Ahadith (plural), we would say “so and so is found in Sahih Muslim” or “so and so is found in Sahih Bukhari” – never in a million years would we refer to a Hadith as merely “Hadith 9:57” – there could be so many Hadith 9:57’s, how does one know which one he is referring to?
Although there is no “official” way, there are acceptable ways. Ergun’s method is unacceptable.
The Charge that Caner did not Debate Shabir Ally in Nebraska.?Dr. Caner has admitted that this was a mistake and has publically apologized for it. He did, however, engage another Muslim while in Lincoln, NB. No one has proven this was an intentional deception, as some critics claim.
Really? Ergun as has publicly apologised? I can?t seem to find that apology anywhere. Oh, that?s right, he deleted that statement within days of publishing it because he knew that even within the ?apology? he was talking nonsense. In contrast to the baseless statement of the writer, Ergun is guilty of intentional deception.
That Muslim who Ergun supposedly engaged with in Nebraska must have been quite famous; for him to confuse an ordinary everyday Muslim with the likes of the world renowned Shabir Ally is unthinkable so this is surely an intentional deception as opposed to a misstatement. It's like accidentally saying you met George Bush when you havent.
The Charge that Caner has Used various Names in Publications. Dr. Caner has used “E. Michael Caner” in one book while using “Ergun Mehmet Caner” in other books. Why? His mother desired that he use Michael, a name she always wished to give him, while Dr. Caner used “Mehmet” in honor of his father, especially after his father’s passing in 1999. Some have even attacked his nickname, “Butch,” which he has used since moving to the South and was a name given to him by those who had difficulty pronouncing his first name.
What complete nonsense! He uses the name Mehmet to honour his father? Then why does he lie about his own father everytime he stands behind the pulpit? His father would be ashamed, not honoured!
If your real name is Ergun Michael Caner and you write under the name Ergun Mehmet Caner and tell everyone you have never written under a false name, then this is a lie. An ex terrorist Muslim with the name Michael doesn’t sound convincing does it? Hence the name change.
The Charge that Caner Claims to have a Ph.D. when it is Only a Th.D.—Actually, his degree is a D. Theol. But these degrees are equivalent, as even accrediting agencies attest. Many seminaries have converted the Th.D. into a Ph.D. program.
Wrong. If this were the case, Ergun would have no need to edit his website all the time. If you have nothing to hide, don’t change your website, simple as that.
Some Concluding Thoughts
Reviewing these allegations reminds me of the numerous similar statements I have made in the past. I could easily be proven a liar on similar ground. For example, when ask where I was born, I have given at least three different answers over the years: In Detroit, in Warren, and in Van Dyke, Michigan. All are true.
It was metropolitan Detroit (literally a half mile into the northeastern suburb). It was in a place once called Van Dyke and now called Warren.
When asked what my father’s name was, I have said Fonse (which is what most people called him, or Alphonse, or more formally Alphonso). If one’s motives are to discredit, it would not be hard to discredit me or almost anyone with the kinds of arguments used by Caner’s critics.
The writer is using completely irrelevant examples to imply that the accusations against Ergun are stupid. Anybody with half a brain will know that none of these example are not applicable to the con-artist Ergun Caner.
If, on the other hand, one wants to be fair, then there are no real grounds to support the allegations of Caner’s critics that he is a liar and a fraud who repeatedly embellished things to support his own claims.
No real grounds? Which person did this guy do research on? He must have been looking up the idecent accusations against Michael Jackson.
No group authorized to investigate his statements have proclaimed any such conclusion. Nor did the Board committee at Liberty University that examined him. Rather, they said, “After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has some factual statements that are self-contradictory [as we have discussed above]. However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager…. [as his critics had charged]. Hence, 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.”
Clearly, Liberty found no moral culpability or doctrinal deviation or else they would not have kept him on the faculty. One can only speculate as to why his contract as Dean was not renewed. Certainly, it could not have been because Liberty is an institution that has eschews controversy. For it could be said that the founder Jerry Falwell, whom I have greatly admired and praised, had “controversy” as his middle name! My own guess, having taught at Liberty University and knowing many of its leaders and workings quite well, is that the decision was more institutional in nature.
I have responded to the decision by Liberty University here.
Way to go Christians! Keep showing us Muslims how you stand for truth!
Now on a serious note, why do these people have to come as though they are Ergun's mouthpiece? Ergun has his own mouth, why does he not come out and defend himself?
Simple answer = because he is a liar and doesn't want to admit it.
Overall, the writer of this "response" has no idea what he is talking about, he has made himself look stupid. If a Christian wants to hinder his/her own credibility, the best way to do it is to write articles defending Ergun Caner.