A small step in right direction

Submitted by Amitabh tripathi (India), Oct 12, 2005 at 02:06

In one of his articles titled(Neo-conservatives caution) Dr Pipes accepted in unambiguous terms as people think neo-conservatives influence American foreign policy. Speech of president Bush on 7th of October endorses this fact. For Those who are reading Dr Pipes carefully from last several years, this speech of president is no big surprise. He has unfolded one part of war on terror before the whole world. Still one million dollar question is unanswered: whether Bush administration still has ambiguity regarding the nature of enemy or they not declaring it becuse of diplomatic reasons
Bush tried to differentiate radical Islam and Islam.This is more cosmetic definition of Islamic terrorism and could be one of the shortcut ways to handle the problem.If some people misinterpreating Islam it clearly means Islam has some scope of misinterpration.So how can you assure that Quran and Islam will not be misinterpretated in near future and so called militant or radical Islam will not arise.You can not do this without amending theological base of Islam.
Yesterday it was Khomeini who interpreted Islam for his political goal now a days Bin Laden is doing same thing. Is it not enough to understand where root of problem exists. But unfortunately President Bush is still behaving diplomatically who is more interested in dissolving problem rather than solving it. His foreign policy advisors should also bear some of responsibility for his attitude towards Islamic problem.
Director of jihad watch Mr Robert Spencer published an article regarding Bush speech in his 9october issue of jihad watch which raise some genuine questions for Bush .http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008484.php.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".