I think that it is only fair that we review all relevant evidence before deciding upon a person’s status in this regard. At most, a quote in an article is only one piece of evidence. A person can be having a bad day, or poorly express their ideas in English. The relevant section is this:
Some Iraqi Christians expressed fear that the evangelicals would undermine Christian-Muslim harmony here, which rests on a long-standing, tacit agreement not to proselytize each other. “There is an informal agreement that says we have nothing to do with your religion and faith,” said Yonadam Kanna, one of six Christians elected to Iraq’s parliament.
"We are brothers but we don’t interfere in your religion."Delly said that “even if a Muslim comes to me and said, ‘I want to be Christian,’ I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you.” Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, “is not acceptable.”
Firstly, his comment exists in the context of an informal agreement that essentially avoids violence and allows everyone to practice their faith. If converting one Muslim causes violence that destroys the ability of everyone else to practice their faith, then what is gained?
Secondly, I don’t think he would really do what he is saying. It’s a hypothetical scenario and I’m sure if a Muslim did come up to him and say those things he would, when confronted with the reality of a real person, behave quite differently. He is perhaps exaggerating his point for effect.
Perhaps he is a heretic but before claiming such a thing I would want to examine the man’s writings and thoughts in detail and hear his responses before I slapped such a dramatic label on him.