A few weeks ago I read a letter in the NP (National Post) from a convert (Mr. Whitehead) to Islam claiming that
‘Islam is a religion based on tolerance and respect for other religions’, and `nowhere in the Koran does it say that conversion of others to Islam is a duty of all Muslims`.
I was staggered that someone would convert to Islam without a knowledge of the book of Islam and the nature of its prophet.
In fact there are very clear and explicit verses that give a clear injunction to believers to do that very thing.
My letter was published by the NP (letter of the day no less); read it here...
Islam should be judged by what Islam says about itself.
We are tolerant in Canada to other cultures and religions (perhaps not so much to the historical religion in Canada of Christianity), however how tolerant should we be to militant intolerance in other religions?
We are tolerant in Canada to other cultures and religions (perhaps not so much to the historical religion in Canada of Christianity), however how tolerant should we be to militant intolerance in other religions?
.jpg)
Posts
Hi there Gurth,
ReplyDeleteThis is the first time I have had the time to check out your blog. Mr. Rubin makes some good and pressing points in his article. However, think it might have been helpful to reflect on the reason why the Obama administration is taking the position they have chosen. I agree that more could have been done a lot more, to challenge Syria. However, after the harsh tone of the Bush administration where the rhetoric was, to me, so exaggerated perhaps the new administration is working in more muted and subtle ways.
I will look forward to further musings in the days to come.
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan;
ReplyDeleteI believe the "harsh tone" of the Bush administration is more effective than the appeasement approach by Obama. Dealing with brutal regimes reasoning and nuance don’t seem to work.
I also believe that his apologies for former US policies has backfired in the Palestinian
However, I do think that more back-room diplomacy might have been effective, but it is hard to know how much of this type of diplomacy there really was if it was truly “back-room” and not broadcast in the media.
I remember that Syria backed down in Lebanon and Libya suddenly became more friendly, during the early part of the Iraq war, if I remember correctly. I believe that those regimes were scared that the wrath of the US, or destabilization in the region could have destabilised their regimes.
We will see if Obama's foreign policy is more effective or not. Certainly the situation has changed since 9/11 and Pakistan are now attacking the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Waziristan. Also Obama has had great success with killing hundreds of Taliban including mid-level officers and leaders by the use of Predator drones launched from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Bush was very limited in the use of that option because under the previous administration, Pervez Musharraf had to personally approve every sortie. The number approved were about 5 or so per year, whereas during the current regime 35 – 56 per year have been approved. This has greatly weakened the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and emboldened Pakistan to eliminate them.
Blessing Gurth