I was entertained by an interview carried out by those of "SBC Today". The aim of the interview was respond to what I have stated regarding Ergun Caner.
It is important that one listens to the interview before reading the response.
You can find the interview at: http://sbctoday.com/2010/05/06/episode-26/
The first 20 minutes of the interview are not relevant, it is merely the interviewee giving his testimony.
Please click here to listen to the interview without having to hear the irrelevant testimony.
The use of this material comes under the fair use doctrine in United States Copyright Law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. The full ownership of the audio interview belongs to SBC Today and can be found at http://sbctoday.com/2010/05/06/episode-26/
The following is my response to accusations made:
In contrast to what the interviewee says, Erguns inability to pronounce common Islamic phrases is not my sole proof to disqualify Ergun Caner's ex Muslim status.
Although Ergun claims that Arabic is his language before English, this is not my argument. In some of my videos I showed clips of Ergun not only mispronouncing Islamic phrases that are known to all Muslims around the world, but also using the complete wrong phrases ? for example, the error of the Shahada.
I don?t see how the interviewee can say I am a liar based on this even though I have not stated that Ergun is a liar solely for the reason that he cannot pronounce certain words.
He then tells the interviewer, that in order to see how much of a liar I am, search videos of the Iranian president who is obviously Persian and listen to how he pronounces words. He then goes on to say how it is wrong to say that one?s belief in Islam is nullified based upon somebody?s pronunciation of certain Islamic phrases ? I agree 100% - one?s belief in Islam is not nullified based on pronunciation, so to say that I disqualify people as ex Muslims for the sole reason of them not saying things properly is a misunderstanding on behalf of the interviewee.
Despite the errors in their argument, Ergun claims that Arabic is his language before English ? how would looking at videos of a person from Iran (Persian speaking) back up Ergun?s case? This is laughable. Unless of course, the interviewer and interviewee agree that Ergun Caner has lied about having Arabic as his first language? Of course they will never do that, they only just about manage to use the word "discrepancies" and "Caner" in the same sentence.
In one of my videos (not related to Ergun) I showed how many of the ex Muslim testimonies say the word ?Muslim? in an identical manner to the non-Muslims ? ?Mozlem?, "Muzzlim" or ?Morzlem?. I then stated that all of those people are fakes.
In spite of this, my judgment of them being fake was not based solely on their inability to say the word ?Muslim? correctly; rather, it was based upon viewing the entire testimonies and evaluating them. Saying the word Muslim in a manner in which it said by non-Muslims however, does make me suspicious of their supposed upbringing in an Islamic environment.
Never have I stated that a person?s mispronunciation of Islamic phrases automatically disqualifies them. All I say is that it makes me suspicious.
For sake of argument, if one were to analyse Ergun?s ?mispronunciations?, what you will find is that people of Turkish origin do not say any of the words he mispronounces in the same manner he does. So what accent is he speaking in?
Ergun is half Turkish by blood and claims to have moved to the US in late teens, why do his pronunciations not reflect the pronunciation used by Turks?
What Ergun does is ? puts on a FAKE Arab accent and then fails miserably by adding in a ?kh? everywhere.
There is no Muslim society who refers to the pillar of fasting as SWAN!
What on earth is SWAN?
Where is the ?N? in the words Sawm or Sayaam?
Do you see an "N" anywhere?
Do half Turkish people introduce new letters into Islamic terms?
Do people of Ergun?s heritage refer to the word ?Wahy? (pronounced WA-HEE) as ?WaKHaaii??
Or was Ergun putting on a fake accent in order to make himself seem like the ex Muslim raised in Beirut, Cairo and Istanbul as he told people?
When Ergun said the word "Synagogue" - he decided to add an "AY" at the end of it to make it sound he is using a different language! This is not an issue of pronunciation, this is Ergun deliberately manipulating English terms in order to deceive people into thinking he is using a different language. Do Turkish people say "SynagogAY"? No, they don't.
On no less than two occasions, Ergun refers to the word Angel as ?Injeel? (Gospel). Do people of different cultures refer to an Angel as ?Gospel?? Does that make sense to you? So Ergun's langauge before English is Arabic and yet he thinks that "Injeel" (Gospel) means "Angel"...Not very convincing is he?
Ergun Caner doesn't even know the phrase "Alayhisalam" (upon him be peace) which is to be said after mentioning the name of a Prophet. This phrase is so common amongst Muslims that it sort of becomes surname of each Prophet.
But for some reason, the "ex devout Sunni Muslim", thinks that Muslims say "SWAN" after mentioning the name of a Prophet! The same "SWAN" he uses to describe the pillar of fasting. It's like an ex-Christian not understanding that the word "Christ" is used after "Jesus" and instead, tells everyone that Christians use the word "Fasting"after "Jesus"!
Does that make sense to you? "Jesus Fasting" as opposed to the correct term "Jesus Christ"?!? What would Christians think of an "ex Christian" who makes this sort of an error? Surely they would laugh at the lame attempts to fool people.
Ergun does not even know the difference between Insha'Allah and Al-Hamdolilah. Did you know that even non-practising Muslim Turks regularly use the phrase Insha'allah (God Willing)?! So not only was Ergun half Turkish, he was a devout Muslim and yet he does not know the context within which the phrase Insha'Allah is to be used?! Truly amazing.
Ergun does not even know the difference between Mahabbah (love) and Masbahah (string of prayer beads). In addition to not knowing the difference, he LIES by saying that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) accepted the use of Masbahah and adopted the use of them from the Catholics, he does not know that the use of Masbahah is usually considered a minor innovation as it was not a practise of the Prophet or his Companions. He as an ex "Wahhaabi" should know this of all people!
Ergun is not even aware of the meaning of the universal Islamic greeting "AsalaamuAlaykum" (peace be unto you).Ergun thinks that the "Salam" (peace) within "aSALAMualaykum" is referring to "Allah" (God)!, is this an error of pronunciation? or is this an error in the fundamental greeting which he "as a Muslim" would have been exposed to everyday? Not forgetting the fact that he claims to have prayed 5 times a day and this greeting is said twice upon concluding each prayer! So he said this phrase 10 times a day, greeted people with this phrase for the first 18 years of his life, but does not know the meaning of it. Right okay.....
On two occasions Ergun states that his father was a Scholar in Hadith. Every Muslim knows that a specialist in Hadith is called a "Muhaddith! So why does Ergun say that a Scholar in Hadith is "AHADITH"?
Does he not know that "Ahadith" is merely the plural of "Hadith"?
And yet he claims that his father was a Scholar in Hadith!?
Once again, this is NOT an issue of pronunciation; this is Ergun using the WRONG term to describe something that all Muslims would be aware of, especially if you claim your father was one!
Do people from Turkey refer to a Scholar of Hadith as "Ahadith"? You can see why we Muslims find Ergun Caner so funny.
What would a Christian think of a man claiming to be an ex Christian who says that his father was a Church leader who delivered sermons, but he's not even familiar with the words Pastor, Reverend, Minister etc? Would they not laugh?
The point I am making is, my arguments are not solely based on pronunciation, and rather they are also partially based on his use of incorrect phrases/words. Phrases/words that even Muslims as young as the age of 2 would understand.
The problem with many of the people who wish to discredit me, is that they think that my judgments and conclusions are based solely on what I have stated in my videos and website. That most certainly is NOT the case. I have watched and listened to most, if not all the available testimonies of Ergun Caner, and there are serious errors with regards to his use of incorrect Islamic terms and fundamentals that I have not yet even documented; errors in Islamic terms and fundamentals which if he had any sort of Islamic upbringing, would not make. Although I spent some time last summer break listening to and watching every Ergun video/audio, working on solely on my own with so many responsibilities such as work, university, family, seeking knowledge etc, I can't really invest as much time as many Christian bloggers have done, so many of the things I have mentioned are not really known to everybody. Hence the reason why it took me a whole year to make 17 cheaply made videos.
Nonetheless, what these critics must do is listen-to and watch all the testimonies before seeking to defend a man who so clearly lacks knowledge in Islamic fundamentals and Islamic phrases/terms. Not forgetting the countless lies he has uttered. At the end of it all, these critics will look even more silly when the nearly 50 more errors and discrepancies come to light. Maybe these critics are using the Ergun controversy as a spring board to fame because their publications do not sell, whilst aiming to divert people away from the real issues, I don't know :)
Their straw-clutching argument of "mispronunciation" is flawed, but not surprising to say the least. Even after giving the writer of the Christianity Today article such a long, clear and concise answer, he got it completely wrong and said it is about ?mispronunciation?. I never even spoke of Ergun?s mispronunciation in my answers and yet they put words into my mouth and used it as my argument. This is similar to what the interviewers and interviewee here have done, they have misunderstood what I have been saying all along, and then attributed their deliberate misunderstanding to me as though it is my primary argument - it isn't. Any unbiased reader will realise this.
The interviewee correctly states that I am not an exexceptional reader of the Arabic language. This is true. I cannot read Arabic as fluently as a native Arab or a person who has studied the Qur?anic Arabic for a very long time. Nonetheless, I CAN read Arabic.
If one were to give me an Arabic copy of the Quran right now, I would happily read it with no problems.
Although my recitation may not be free-flowing, I can still read it and more importantly, I know how to say the words properly.
When I read the Qur'an in Arabic, I tend to read it at a slow pace and after reading the same verses/chapters on multiple occasions, not only can I free flowingly read, but I can also memorise it along with its English translation/meaning. That is what I mean by not being able to read Arabic very well.
I?m not going to come out and say I can read Arabic well even though I am a slow reader, this would be exaggerating the truth. After memorising the segments of the Qur'an, I have the ability to openly recite them fluently at the required pace. So when the interviewee says that I can barely perform my Salah because I can?t read Arabic very well, his argument is plain ignorance. He, as an ex Muslim from a non-Arab nation ought to know this.
Al-Hamdolilah I pray five times a day in Arabic with no problems. I have memorised and know more than enough Qur'an to perform my Salah (prayer) - so his illegitimate statement of me being barely able to pray is rather silly.
The humorous thing about this allegation is that I already explained what I meant by ?cannot read Arabic very well? to the interviewee in a brief discussion on facebook. So I don?t understand why he is using this as an argument despite the fact that I already explained what I meant. Maybe he reads with his eyes closed? He's clutching at straws here.
The interviewee correctly says that I say there is no difference of Islamic phrases such as Salah, Shahadah, Sawm etc amongst the entire Muslim world. He then says that my statement is an exaggeration. What I have stated is correct and true.
These Islamic phrases are the same phrases used and known amongst Muslims across the whole world. The argument of the interviewee is that in certain places such as Indonesia, they use the word "Namaz" for Salah (Prayer) and in some places such as Turkey they use the word “Munz” (this is wrong, because Turkish people also use the word "Namaz"). The argument is invalid. These words that he is using are translations of the Islamic phrases; the Islamic phrases which are used and known amongst all Muslims across the world despite the existence of translations of these words amongst different cultures. There is no issue here. If you were to ask a Muslim from Pakistan, South Africa, India, Malaysia, England, America or anywhere for that matter - “what is Salah?” they will tell you without a second thought, because despite the existence of the translation amongst their languages, they know and use the word "Salah" because it is a universal Islamic phrase derived from the Islamic texts.
You will even hear these phrases being constantly used in and out of the Mosques in Arab, as well as non-Arab countries. He states that the Arabic terms change - no they don’t. The Arabic terms remain the same and are known by and often used by all Muslims, just because certain countries have a word in their own language for particular phrases, that does not mean the Arabic terms have changed, they remain the same.
As the interviewee states, it is a must for all Muslims to perform their Salah in Arabic – why would there be an issue of different Islamic phrases if all Muslims across the world do everything in Arabic? Do we non-Arabs say things in Arabic whilst not knowing the Arabic phrases? This is amusing.
We must also understand that Islamic terms are the terms derived from the Qur'an and the Ahadith of Muhammad (pbuh).
There are bound to be differences amongst certain cultures when translating certain Islamic phrases, for example - we call "Salah" (prayer) - "Moonz", but that does not mean the Islamic phrase has been altered, it merely means that the people of my heritage have a translation for the Islamic phrase in our own language, the Islamic terms themselves are not changed.
We still know and use Salah.
We know what Sawm (fasting) is and use the word often.
We still know what the Shahada (declaration) is and use the word often.
We know what Ramadan is and use the word often.
We know and use Al Hamdolilah.
We know and use SubhanAllah.
We know and use Jazakallah.
We know and use Insha-Allah.
We all comprehend and utilise these along with many other phrases on a daily basis, because Islam is a way of life practised and implemented in it's original language of revelation amongst Arabs and non-Arabs.
We all read the same Qur'an in its original Arabic from which the Islamic terms are derived.
We pray, greet each other, give the Call to Prayer, begin our sermons and even supplicate to the Lord in Arabic. So where is the issue of different Islamic phrases? To say that the actual Arabic Islamic terms change is ignorance, because they don’t.
When I tell my parents I am going to perform my Salah (prayer), I tell them “I am going to do my Moonz” - as Pashto is their mother tongue, although we still know and use the Islamic term “Salah”. The point I am making is that different cultures and languages may have different words representing the core word; this does not mean that the Arabic term has changed and left un-used, because we all implement and practise Islam in it's original language (Arabic), and thus we use the Islamic phrases on a daily basis no matter where we are from. An example would be – giving somebody a nickname – a person can have hundreds of names, whilst at the same time, everybody comprehends what his or her real name is.
The interviewee then embarrasses himself by stating that in some countries they use the word "Roza" for the month of Ramadan. This made me laugh because the word "Roza" means ‘fasting’ or ‘fast’, it is not used as a replacement for the word Ramadan. Although it can be argued that one fasts during Ramadan so it is okay to call it "Roza", the problem is - we don’t refer to the month of Ramadan as "Roza", we merely refer to the action of fasting as "Roza". Trust me, at home I speak Pashto, we use "Rozja" for a single day of fasting, whereas we refer to more than one fast as "Rozjeeh" we will never use it as a replacement for the actual month of Ramadan, and likewise in Urdu which uses "Roza". It’s actually quite hilarious how the interviewers are actually falling for the nonsense being said, just goes to show how you can fool ignorant people.
If the interviewee wishes to use the Internet as a source of knowledge, he must also look up the information and verify it with people who are familiar with these languages. That’s the benefit of attending a Mosque consisting of Muslims originating from all corners of the earth (the earth does not have corners, but you know what I mean).
For the interviewee to compare the translations of the universal Islamic phrases and use it as an argument to prove that I was in error is laughable.
The interviewee states that I am all about discrediting former Muslims. This is not true. Ergun Caner and those people who I have made videos on, demonstrated very serious errors. I felt it my duty to clarify the issues and explain the errors being made to the people. I am not all about blindly discrediting all former Muslims, that would be unjust, but if someone claims to have once devoutly believed what I believe, and then at the same time not know what on earth they are talking about whilst making countless errors in Islamic fundamentals, I have no choice but to explain their flaws. There is no issue of "all about discredting former Muslims".
If the tables were turned, and a former Christian was making stupid errors like ‘Jesus was born on Easter’, ‘the fast of Lent is 70 days’ and ‘the trinity consists of John, Paul and Peter’ – I am pretty sure Christians would not only doubt, but also laugh at these people. It would be unfair to label those exposing these “ex Christians” within the similitude as “all about discrediting former Christians”. If somebody wishes to leave Islam, that is their personal choice, but if you say you were a devout Muslim whilst not being able to demonstrate your knowledge in what you claim to have believed so devoutly during your formative years, then what do you want me to do? Sit there and do nothing? Let this person carry on spreading lies about Islam? No, of course not.
So why label me as "all about discrediting former Muslims"?
He then states that, at the expense of the truth I will carry out my mission! This made me laugh. At the expense of the truth? Where have I lied? Only one video consisted of factual errors, this was part 4. The errors were related to the issue of "Byrum" and a picture used from some website who wrongly labelled the children within the picture as "the caner brothers" - this is the reason as to why I removed this part when I found out and told everybody who wanted to re-upload the videos to not upload part 4. Many people accuse me of lying, I am yet to be shown where and when. You can see on the discussions section that many people have accused me of lying, but when I ask them to show me where, they don't know what to say.
What mission is he referring to? I am a full time university student who makes videos and runs a website in my spare time on my own in my bedroom. My mission is not to chase after ex Muslims, what is this guy talking about? He’s making it sound like I sit in some sort of bat cave under the influence of some Islamic organisation planning and plotting my next steps to unjustly discredit random ex Muslims, what kind of picture is he painting of me? A false one.
Just to clarify, my "mission" is to merely make the truth apparent, nothing more. I don't hate Christians, I'm not looking for an argument or looking to stir up trouble amongst the Christians, In fact, I have made some more Christian friends due to all of this controversy.
Await response, I am collecting evidences.
I don’t recall stating that accepting Jesus (pbuh) as fully God and fully Man is "not a tough concept at all".
For them to say I am lying based on this false attribution to me is very funny. Never have I said that Muslims understand Jesus (pbuh) the same way as Christians do, I do however, have a small clue as to where the interviewers are acquiring this information, but their interpretation really makes me laugh. They then say it is totally false for me to say this. I agree that Jesus (pbuh) is a Prophet of God and not fully man & God simultaneously as many Christians believe. From where did they attain this nonsense that I said it isn’t tough for a Muslim to believe in Jesus (pbuh) as fully God and fully man? Of course I would be full of ‘total rubbish’ if you make up rubbish and then attribute to me.
Let's see, in one of my videos, I showed a clip of Ergun Caner being interviewed by John Ankerberg. Ergun Caner then goes on to explain how Pastor Clarence (the one in the Church where Ergun got “saved”) asked him “WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT JESUS!?” – Ergun then stated to John Ankerberg that “OF COURSE IN ISLAM, THIS IS A TOUGH QUESTION”.
Please my see videos to verify it, oh wait, you can’t check it, Liberty University and John Ankerberg got them all removed for copyright violation. They forgot to report the other hundreds of people who also uploaded their videos, maybe I did something to upset them? I don't know.
Anyway, after Ergun stated that answering “what do you think about Jesus?” is tough, I then made a brief comment in my video saying something along the lines of “it is not a tough question; it is only tough if you have to make up things to say in your fake story”.
So how would this mean that I said accepting Jesus (pbuh) as fully God and fully Man is not a tough concept for a Muslim? The interviewer has completely misunderstood what I stated in my video, attributed his wrong interpretation to me and then based on their incorrect interpretation, they call me a liar?!?. What I said was that answering the question “what do you think about Jesus?” is not tough.
Besides, why would answering “what do you think about Jesus?” be tough for a devout Muslim?
Did Ergun not know how to respond?
Did he not know what he believed?
Did they not teach him this in his “Islamic Youth Jihad” training centre?
Was he not trained to answer and confront the Christians like he said he was?
I don’t see what is so tough about that question if you are a Muslim.
If Ergun had the Islamic upbringing which he and his blind followers claim he did, the question would not be tough.
Do you not find it interesting that the interviewee never even bothered to ask the interviewer for evidence of this being said by me?
He blindly accepted the word of the interviewer without verifying it and then started calling me a liar.
First of all, I found the naivety of the interviewers quite funny. The confusion they demonstrated when they heard the word minaret was humorous. This reminds me of some videos where people had no clue about anything, one woman thought that a Mosque is an animal! (here, here and here) By no means am I saying all American people are stupid, the videos are just compilations of people who just so happen to be living in America.
The same people who don’t even know what a Minaret is are sitting there and soaking up all the things being said by the interviewee. That says an awful lot about them.
Moving back to the issue, those of you who have followed the controversy would know that a kind Christian contacted the Islamic Centre that Erguns father attended. The centre informed him that they do not have a Minaret and neither did they have a set person who actually gave the call to prayer, i.e. a Mu’athin/Muezzin/Mu'adhin. Meaning, that when the Caner brothers say their father would go up to the top of the Minaret to give the call to prayer in Columbus, Ohio, they were being a "little" dishonest.
He argues that in an American building (converted into a place of worship (a Mosque)), if one were to go up as high as the chimney and give the Call to Prayer from there, then that place from where they give the Call to Prayer is a Minaret. Right okay, so there isn’t a Minaret, but because they gave the Call to Prayer, that spot becomes the Minaret....Does that make sense to a logical minded person? Where is the Minaret or "Minaret Imitation Chimney" on the Islamic Centre? I don't see one. The interviewee is speaking from pure assumption.
As the interviewee rightly says, a Minaret is the part of Mosque that is higher than the structure itself - to say that the place from which the Call to Prayer is given within a converted building can be considered as a Minaret is nothing but giving Ergun and Emir Caner the benefit of the doubt. I know sticking up for Ergun gives you temporary fame and attention, but come on man, what a nonsensical thing to say.
It's like saying that your father used to ring the bell from a Church Tower even though the Church which you are speaking of is merely a converted building with no tower whatsoever. But! if you go up really high and ring your own bell from there, then that spot from which you rang your own bell becomes the Church Tower.....this makes perfect sense :)
Besides, most of these converted house/function hall buildings that are being used as Mosques don't actually have designated high-points from which to give the Call to Prayer. The Call to Prayer is usually given right at the front of the congregation.
The interviewee correctly states that my open letter erroneously states that the month of Ramadan is a month consisting of no more than 31 days. He says that this letter has been posted on numerous websites which is a lie, because it has only been published in two places, fakeexmuslims.com and one blog. I admit, I made a mistake when writing the letter to Ergun Caner, I should have written 30 days and not 31. What I didn’t want to do is edit the letter on my website and on that blog because that would be a form a deception. Had I edited the 31 to 30 on the website and blog, it would not reflect the actual letter that was sent to Ergun Caner. Instead, I published a correction in red text explaining the error. Yes, I agree, it is absolutely rubbish to say that Ramadan is a month consisting of up to 31 days, it is wrong, it should say 30. I agree with the interviewee that it is prohibited to fast on the day of Eid ul Fitr, or "Eid ul fiTREE" as he says.
Before continuing, please watch the following clip:
The interviewee goes on to argue that it is possible for Ergun to attain the idea of fasting for 40 days WITHIN RAMADAN due to the optional and voluntary non-Ramadan fasts that a Muslim can observe. This argument is invalid. Ergun Caner says that !
Does it sound logical to attribute the voluntary fasts that take place outside of Ramadan and then say that "Ramadan is a 40 day month"? The interviewee's justification is funny, even the gullible interviewers would understand this.
How ignorant can a person be to attempt to refute an allegation without having actually seen and understood the argument made in the first place?
Ergun even used his "40 day lunar month" nonsense to justify why the Islamic calendar is different from the standard calendar. If Ergun or the interviewee had an ounce of knowledge, they would know that the lunar calendar year is SHORTER than our normal calendar year! So how would adding an extra 10/11 days to the lunar month of Ramadan prove this? It actually demonstrates the exact opposite of the reality.
Anyway, had the interviewee done his research, he would know that Ergun Caner has already responded to this error by stating that there is a group in Syria called the Alawite who fast for 40 days, and thus, it is okay for him to say that Ramadan is a 40 day month. For the interviewee to attempt to justify the error made in the manner which he is doing, he is conflicting with Ergun Caners personal justification.
Which "justification" is more reliable? The one by the man who makes the errors (Ergun) or the one by the interviewee?
The interviewee then embarrasses himself by stating that certain Muslims would refer to fasts that are not observed during Ramadan as Ramadan. That’s funny. He even says it’s a fact that people from his tribe in Kenya refer to the non-Ramadan fasts as Ramadan too. That’s like putting up a Christmas tree in mid-March and saying it's December.
Why would any Muslim on earth refer to the non-Ramadan fasts as Ramadan?
Even "if" his tribe in Kenya wrongly refer to the non-Ramadan fasts as Ramadan, how does that justify the saying of a half-Turkish man?
Any person with a logical mind can see the flaws of the arguments a mile away. You don't even have to be a Muslim to know these things.
When a child is born, the Adhaan (Call to Prayer) is said in the baby’s ear, not the Shahada (declaration of faith) alone. The Caner brothers of all people should know this; after all, they say that their father was the one who gave the Adhaan.
The interviewee then goes on to speak from pure opinion that it is possible for it to be the Shahada that is whispered in the ear of a new born because the Shahada is the most important aspect within Islam. He then reiterates the importance of the Shahada in his tribe in Kenya as though it somehow justifies the error of Ergun. It is true that the Shahada is important, but that doesn't mean that Shahada is the thing that is recited into the baby's ear at birth, it's actually the Adhaan.
Do you not find it funny how this interviewee somehow knows all of the "controversial" issues spoken of on his website and on comments he left on facebook, but does not know that the Adhaan is the thing said into the baby's ear? Not that this proves anything, it's just something to think about.
In an attempt to explain his assumption of the Shahada being whispered in the ear of a new-born, the interviewee attempts to demonstrate the "differences" amongst Muslims scholars by using a "fatwa hotline" as an example:
A fatwa (religious ruling) hotline would be a phone service that gives people religious rulings.
On the other end of the phone would have to be a Muslim scholar who is an expert in Islamic jurisprudence, I am not aware of such a hotline in the UK, it may or may not exist.
The interviewee uses this as an example of how the message in the Qur’an and the Ahadith is indecisive, this is total nonsense. The most famous of the schools of thought nowadays are just four: the Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafai and Hanbali schools - the followers of these schools are agreed on most matters and on the most important issues of religion, whereas the differences in understanding Islamic jurisprudence and in the evidence that reaches rulings have to do with minor issues.
So when it comes to minor issues relating to everyday life, they may or may not have slight differences in the religious rulings issued, whilst the fundamental beliefs within remain the same amongst the schools. So for him to say “that’s why they kill each other” is very funny. There may be conflict in certain parts of the world between particular groups who call themselves Muslims, but the interviewee’s reasons for these conflicts are not applicable.
The interviewee’s comment on how it is not out of the blue that the Muslims went after the Caner brothers, is implying that this whole thing has been pre-planned by some sort of Muslim organisation.
He states that we Muslims intensified the attacks on Ergun during March because March was one of the worst months for Islam. This is funny. First of all, I don't see how March was a bad month for Islam, everything seemed pretty normal to me.
I am one single Muslim who makes videos and runs a website ALONE, that’s it! I am not part of a group that pre-plans these kinds of things to happen, this is all total nonsense. He wants to paint a picture as though I am associated with some Islamic organisation that “carries out these illegitimate attacks” – that is most certainly not the case.
The interviewee needs to be reminded that my first video was published in April 2009, that’s 11 full months before he claims that the Muslims decided to do “this”. It was not only me who pursued this matter it was many GOOD Christians too. I have been making these videos for over a year and yet he claims that we planned this to outburst recently. All I did was continue to make my videos at my usual pace, I never planned any sort of outburst, this is all nonsense. It's not my fault that Christians only just started to become aware of my videos and website during this time.
If you were to ask me, the Christians should have acknowledged Ergun for the fraud that he is all the way back in April 2009 or even before that - by no means is this “attack” in March pre-planned. I am one Muslim, working on my own, but with the wonderful support of many other Muslims.
I don't see how this unknown interviewee can come out of the blue and start making such nonsensical statements, he isn't even fully aware of what is going on.
He then says we have invested a lot of time and money into it! :)
Let me draw you a picture of me right now:
I make my videos on my Laptop, in my bedroom, ON MY OWN.
Does that sound like “the Muslims invested a lot of money" into it or does it sound like an average Muslim working on his own in his bedroom?
His comment of investing money makes me laugh, the only money used here is the subscription fee to the host of fakeexmuslims.com. This money comes straight out of my pocket and is around £50 or something per annum (I don't remember). So is £50 a year investing a lot of money?
Look at the quality of my videos, they are made with Windows Movie Maker, a movie making tool that comes FREE with almost every home package operating system. Not only that, do my videos even look like they have been made by professionals who have “invested a lot of money” into them? What a complete joke!
What the interviewee is trying to say is that I am somehow affiliated with some anti-Christian Muslim organisation who arranged this "attack" to place, I can assure you, that is not the case. I am a nobody, I’m not famous, I don’t belong to a group, I’m just an ordinary Muslim from London. This supposed ex Muslim really has no idea what’s going on and is misleading people by drawing a false picture of me without actually verifying anything.
I liked it when he says “This is a man on a mission, and let us stop it!”
Stop what? What mission? One of their "Christian” brothers has been exposed for the liar that he is, but that’s not my fault is it? I never told Ergun to lie and make up stories.
These people are wasting their time. Nobody wants to hear what these random irrelevant people have to say about Ergun.
There is only one man that can explain the errors and that is none other than Ergun Mehmet Michael Butch Giovanni Caner – this useless interview demonstrates nothing other than an act of desperation on behalf of the SBCToday guys.
Why do these people not get Ergun to come on the radio or make a public appearance?
Even reading the comments on the original post (http://sbctoday.com/2010/05/06/episode-26/), it makes me laugh how some people blindly agree with someone else merely because they are saying something against a person they don’t like; they don’t even bother to verify the information.
It is quite clear from the situation that the interviewee is using this controversy to make himself famous. Maybe his book does not sell and he needs to generate a market?
The same interiviewee even appeared on the Dividing Line Radio telling everybody that he is "concerned" that I will "go after him" next. I didn't even recall who he was, he was the one contacting me with e-mails titled "dear ex-muslims basher" and posting comments on the facebook fan page trying to get noticed by people. Why would he be concerned that I will go after him next when he is the one coming after me? Do you not find this funny? Surely if he is worried about me "going after him" he would remain silent, what a complete joke. We are clearly dealing with an attention seeker here. Maybe people will buy his book now, after all, he never forgot to mention it on both of his radio appearances so far....it's now even linked on the SBCToday post.
The most significant aspect of all of Ergun's defenders are their lame attempts to prove that Ergun was a Muslim. This is nothing by a diversion. Ergun Caner is a fake ex Muslim whereas many Christians believe he was a Muslim, we have agreed to disagree.
These Ergun defenders are wasting their time trying to prove that Ergun was a Muslim because that is not the topic in question anymore.
Quite frankly, I am not here to prove Ergun is a fake ex Muslim. People can disagree if they like, it doesn’t bother me even the slightest. However, there is a consensus amongst many Christians and myself that Ergun Caner did/does not actually know anything about Islam. Their argument is that Ergun proclaimed the Shahada at a young age therefore he is an ex Muslim, they don’t consider the fact that one has to acknowledge and embrace the fundamentals too – knowledge which if Ergun had indeed embraced, he would be able to demonstrate. The most Ergun can say is – “I was born in a Muslim context but was influenced by my anti-Islamic hippie mother who was my primary carer, I then became a Christian” – to say that he himself was a devout Muslim is nothing but a lie.
Some people have even tried to prove that Ergun was a Muslim by looking into the testimony of a man by the name of Jamal Jivanjee.
When I read some blogs consisting of information about Jamal Jivanjee speaking about Ergun Caner, it really made me laugh.
Jamal Jivanjee was SHIA! His father was a Shia, his mother was a Catholic.
Ergun Caner writes: "The irony is, Jamal knew us as Muslims, because we went to the same Mosque, prayed in the same prayer room, and was taught in the same classrooms as we were. In fact, his family rented an apartment from our father!?"
I understand if Jamal went to perform his Friday prayers at Columbus Islamic Centre because there were no Shia Mosques around, but to specifically say that Jamal was taught in the SAME CLASSROOMS is funny.
Sunni and Shia don't even perform the prayers in an identical manner, the Call to Prayer is even slightly different, even the Shahada differs, and yet this ex-Shia is coming out to back up Ergun Caner.
Why on earth would a Shia (Jamal) and a Sunni (Ergun) be attending the same Islamic classes? It doesn?t make sense. It?s like a Southern Baptist sending his or her children to optional Catholic Bible study classes.
Jamal was supposedly born in "about 1975" - Ergun says he converted in 1982 - so how old was Jamal when he would have encountered Ergun "as a Muslim"? 4? 5? 6? 7? Wow, such a reliable account from a Shia attending the Islamic Classes of Sunni.....
These people just keep digging Ergun a bigger hole. A Shia and a Sunni attending the same Islamic classes, I can't wait to see what these people start saying next.....Maybe Ergun was a Shia?