Ergun Caner: Islam is not a Peaceful Religion {Former Muslim}

Ergun is the oldest son of a Muslim mwazien. The mwazien is similar to a preacher. In 1982 when he was 16 years old, he attended a revival service in Columbus, Ohio, at the invitation of a high school friend and accepted Christ. Ergun started attending church on Monday, accepted Christ on a Thursday -- and had his first piece of ham at a Youth Afterglow activity days later.

When Ergun attended the mosque the next day, his youth group of Shiite Muslims "beat the tar out of me," he says. Ergun's parents were separated at the time (prior to a divorce), and when his father found out about his salvation, he confronted Ergun. When Ergun refused to repudiate his faith in Christ, his father disowned him -- by facing Mecca and praying a prayer of abandonment because it was embarrassing that his oldest son would accept Christ. Sadly this effectively ended their relationship. Ergun didn't see his father for 17 years, until three days before his dad's death in 1999.

Ergun's Swedish mother met and married a Turkish man . They relocated to the U.S .where the younger brothers were born. Ergun says he was called to preach one year after salvation (he began college at 16), becoming a pastor at age 17 to a small country church in Manchester, Kentucky.

He says it was a mystery to him that God would call him because at the time, Ergun didn't speak English very well and didn't fully understand the Scriptures. He felt that he was all alone because neither his mother, nor his grandmother, were Christians. But he gladly accepted the call, and led his brothers to Christ the same week of his salvation.

As the son of a mwazein, Ergun had to learn the hadith (the sayings and traditions of Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam) in the Qur'an. In these teachings, Ergun says the central thesis of Islam does in fact have an essential tenet of militaristic conquest at its heart. The infidel, or unbeliever, must be converted or conquered. If the Muslim dies in such a struggle or declaration of war (jihad), he is promised immediate translation into the highest level of paradise. Therefore, when pressed most Muslims would say that Mohamed Ata is in heaven according to the Qur'anic teaching.

The Qur'an, supposedly from the mouth of Allah, takes a dim view of the non-believer and a strict view of jihad as a warfare against them. In Surah 2:190, Allah says, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever you catch them." Physical warfare is an absolute necessity so that Allah is honored and worshipped. Jihad is one of the highest calls of life for a Muslim. "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and lives." Surah 4.95

According to the doctrine of jihad there are three waves of jihad. The first wave is the shock -- which was Sept 11.

The second wave is to show a people that they are vulnerable. It has to be public. "Daniel Pearl was killed on videotape," says Ergun. There is no question that group who killed Pearl is a subgroup of the radical Muslim fundamental group, Mujahdeen.

The third wave is to humiliate your enemy, to "cut the legs out from under them." "Thank God President Bush responded as he did," Ergun says. "If he had not, the second wave would have been much, much worse than the first." The Koran teaches that if your enemy is weak -- conquer him. If he is strong -- respect him. That means they keep going until they meet with resistance.

When asked if he believes Osama bin Laden is still alive, Ergun says yes. "He is considered to be a martyr in their faith. If he were dead, they would be hailing him." Peace With Allah, Not Us

"I must take this opportunity to side with Pat," says Ergun. "He cannot take these hits (from the media and press) alone." Ergun says the word "Islam" means "peace with Allah" not "peace with us." "We are the infidels and therefore the enemy," says Ergun.

He further explains that when a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, he does that in spite of the teachings of Jesus Christ. "Muslims perform jihad because of the teachings of Muhammed," declares Ergun. "Make no mistake, they are at war with us and these are not just radical Muslims."

Osama bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim, not a Shiite, which is considered the more radical of the two. When bin Laden is on television, he is quoting the Qur'an. "It is difficult to take the Qur'an out of context," says Ergun. Even to the casual reader, jihad is more than just an intellectual exercise of struggle, but rather an engagement in battle and struggle and warfare with death as a conclusion for the Muslim blessing.

Muhammad echoed this conclusion in Hadith 4.73 "Muhammed said, "Know that paradise is under the shades of the sword." For the Muslim apologists who redact the terminology to indicate that fighting is perhaps an intellectual debate must read Surah 2:216, "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not." It is impossible to determine that the text means anything but fighting in the traditional sense of combat.

A Muslim is a Muslim by birth, but many are illiterate. Therefore they must take the word of the imam, equivalent to a pastor, as truth. They cannot question the validity of what the imam says. With reference to the recent Gallup poll, "they hate us," says Ergun. "And they cannot make the distinction between an American and a Christian because of the way they are brought up culturally. When you say a man is a Turk, it is understood that he is Muslim."

Ergun believes that the United States did not finish the job in the Gulf War. He believes that we will not end the war on terrorism without including Saddam Hussein, who is the major fundraiser for Islam. "If we do not go after him, this will never end," he says. "He will continue the jihad."

But in the midst of this turmoil, Ergun says this is the most incredible opportunity to witness to Muslims. They are beginning to understand their religion. Many do not want to be part of the violence and are coming to Christ. The difference between reaching them and not reaching them depends on the teaching of grace.

"The single most important thing to do is teach on grace," he says. To Muslims, the intimacy of God is so new. Teach them that they don't have to live in fear of the "scales of Allah," which are seen as actual scales (2 Surah 4). For the Muslims who fear the scales that measure their eternal damnation if weighted heavier for evil than good, this is the only true eternal security they have.

Christians should also know that Allah and God are not the same. "No serious or intellectual Muslim would say that Allah has a Son, that He is a Triune, nor that He is personal," Ergun says. Allah is Creator and Judge. Christ's attributes are so totally different. He is loving, kind, gracious, and forgiving. As a Christian, Ergun is offended when he hears people say that God and Allah are the same. Many think getting to God is like getting to Chicago. You can get there by plane, train or auto. It doesn't matter what path you take, as long as you get there. Ergun calls this the "Oprahization" of American culture.

On October 19, 2001, Ergun spoke before the UN at the Subcommittee on Cultural Affairs. As an expert on Islam and one who speaks Arabic, he is being invited to participate in even more high-level projects on this area. There are only 20 former Muslims who are now preachers in America; there are only eight (and Ergun is one of them) who are professors of theology.

I never said that any atrocities perpretrated by Christians were excusable. I was merely refuting the erroneous point that Christians were historically responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpretrated in humankinds existence. They simply do not come close in numbers killed.

I believe in this respect it is you who is following revisionist history.

I'm getting my butt kicked, so I'm taking my ball and going home.

Yeah, whatever. You continue to be a jackass as much as you want. You have yet to actually add anything of value to the argument, so you make do by attacking the posters. You are impossible to converse with because you do not consider, nor respond to anything which actually has anything to do with the conversation. You do not listen to anything which doesn't line up with your "creative" reading of history. I'm tired of wasting my time trying to argue with someone who, for all rationale, could just as well be a wall. Or my television set.

I've got better things to do with my time than argue with someone who will not rationally argue back, bud. Take your effing ad-hominems and shove 'em back where they came from.

You can read THAT however the hell you want. FReegards.

:/ ttt

They simply do not come close in numbers killed.

Or percentage. Or destruction of land. Etc. Not that any of this matters to him.

For the last time, atrocities are atrocities, no matter who the hell committed them. That is not what's under dispute. I don't give a damn whether it's Attilla the Hun that did it, or if it's Mr. Rodgers. There's no justifying evil acts.

What is being argued is the INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST reading of history, which states that religion in general, Christianity in particular, has committed more acts of evil than any other group. This is patently and grossly untrue.

(It's a waste of time to argue it with such an anti-religious nut (if I may say so), though.)

:) ttt

Yeah, whatever. You continue to be a jackass as much as you want. You have yet to actually add anything of value to the argument, so you make do by attacking the posters. You are impossible to converse with because you do not consider, nor respond to anything which actually has anything to do with the conversation. You do not listen to anything which doesn't line up with your "creative" reading of history. I'm tired of wasting my time trying to argue with someone who, for all rationale, could just as well be a wall. Or my television set.

OWdKc recycles his arguments when he disrupts a thread, no matter how many times they are responded to. If it is not the Inquisition, it is the Crusades. If it is not the Crusades, it is Salem. If it is not Salem, it is the "peacefule aboriginal peoples" of north and south America. And it goes on and on. A literal head of stone, if you will.

A fun project would be putting together a web page for the OWdKc FAQ. That way, when he starts trolling on a thread, simply link to the page. Maybe I would do that, but I am too nice of a guy. ;)

Well, I have been going back and forth with OWK for several years now but it has been a while since I have traded posts.

He has certain a priori concepts which he is blinded to by their very nature, and when you throw something at him that doesn't fit into his paradigm, arguing with him can sometimes be like butting your head up against a wall.

But it is usually never worth losing your temper over, even on a thread like this one, where he has been guilty of a number of ad hominem and straw man arguments.

I was merely refuting the erroneous point that Christians were historically responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpretrated in humankinds existence. They simply do not come close in numbers killed.

I don't necessarily think numbers of dead are the only yardstick by which we are to measure history's "worst" attrocities. Particularly given the technological disadvantage in the tools of war which the crusaders and conquistadors had, relative to the 20th century communist butchers.

I personally would count the inquisitor's attempts to help others confess their love of Jesus, by ripping the flesh off of their quivering backs, among the worst of history's attrocities, but I guess that's just me.

And for what it's worth... I said earlier, (and I repeat now) that the actions of the inquisitors, the crusaders, and the conquistadors were in diametric opposition to the teachings of the Nazarene.

I'm not attempting to rest these attrocities at the feet of Christianity. I am attempting to help others understand that the communistic atheist butchers of the 20th century, and the theologically oriented butchers of the middle ages didn't share a faith... but they shared one common trait which allowed them to brutalize their fellow men in unspeakable ways. They shared a fundamental disregard for the rights of their fellow men.

Any man (whether claiming Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or atheism) who disregards the rights of others is a potential butcher.

Any who respect the rights of others, are not.

(good to see you by the way)

Thats actually a good idea Hacksaw.... I always ping OWK and demidog because they have this idea we are all living in the crusade days and still are slaughtering millions of muslims for some reason... I have yet to see the Jewish community have a parade when those Jewish terrorists blew upa bomb in the PA school... It is atrocious and not a Jewish practice... Those people should be caged up right along side of muslim terrorists.

The Conquistadors and the Crusaders certainly killed hundreds of thousands if not millions combined

This is of course, an exaggeration. To come up with that kind of number one has to blame the spread of smallpox amongst native Americans on a belief that the Europeans spread the disease on purpose and they did it in the name of Christ. Denying your exaggeration is not making an excuse for their actions.

Gosh Demidog, there's hundreds of Muslims on that list who roundly (or not so roundly) condemn the events of 9/11.

Now let's do a little math here. 1.5 Billion Muslims, divided by of, Oh let's say 500 condemners of the evil acts of 9/11. I make it 0.0000000033% of Muslims worldwide who condemn this form of jihad.

Thank you for reassuring us. I can see now that Islam is truly a religion of peace and that the 200 Million or so Muslims who really want me converted or dead, and their 3 or 400 Million enablers, are merely a statistical aberration among an otherwise upright group of mosque-going, Allah-fearing folks, who are tolerant, live-and-let-live, and just want to get along.

Drop by my place sometime, show you pictures of bridge I just bought down to NYC. Goes over the East River to Brooklyn. Real deal. In the meantime, do us all a favor, take your Muslims back to Sandistan and have them reapply under your sponsorship when YOU guys get it sorted out.

What are you babbling about...We are talking Islam...its evil...promotes killing and claims to be peaceful by nature... Of course humans by nature arent going to kill, but if you give them reason or motive like the Kuran does, then its evil. Atheism has no doctrine either way so killing has no moral equivalence. But there is no doctrine for atheism suggesting someone to kill. they have to go by the laws based on, ehem..you guessed it...religion.

Well, even the techniques of the worst Christian inquisitor have been matched and surpassed in terms of hideous personal cruelty by other nonChristian thugs in history.

As to your comment about what is the real distinction to be made, I must say that it is not the distinction being discussed on this thread. Nor, for that matter, is it particularly helpful, other than to give yourself an opportunity to pat yourself on the back for being morally and ethically superior. Because certain groups and philosophies and theologies have a logical and historical propensity to violate the God-given rights of others to either a greater or lesser degree, athiests presently holding the record for the worst atrocities of all time.

And it is good to see you as well, although I have not been around here of late.

If that is so, then perhaps you should just stop coming here... But you wont...because this is one of the best websites on the web and you cant just leave it. You need to develop your own forum so you can spread your "Christianity is just as bad" ideas there. Ill give you forum software if you want it... As long as you quit whining about us informing you of your misunderstanding of basic history.

Because certain groups and philosophies and theologies have a logical and historical propensity to violate the God-given rights of others to either a greater or lesser degree, athiests presently holding the record for the worst atrocities of all time.

Once again, I am trying to draw an important distinction (which I think you are struggling to ignore).

It is not atheism which shapes my dealings with other human beings. Atheism simply describes my beliefs with respect to the existence of deities. My ethics are derived from my philosophy. At the core of this philosophy, is the concept of individual human rights. As such, you need not fear the initiation of force from me under ANY circumstances, regardless of my lack of theological beliefs.

And likewise theistic beliefs are no guarantee of respect for the rights of others. The initiation of force has often historically accompanied the advancement of religious beliefs.

So it is not religion, or lack of religion, which empowers history's butchers. It is a system of ethics (whether philosophically or theologically inspired) which disregards the rights of individuals.

Have atheistic communists butchered millions? you betcha...

Have theistically minded zealots butchered quite a few themselves? Yup.

What did they share in common? Not religion, but corrupted ethics which disregarded rights.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.