Rushdie title 'may spark attacks' - Pakistani gov't minister

[Eugene]

Source: BBC News

Last Updated: Monday, 18 June 2007, 14:56 GMT 15:56 UK

Rushdie title 'may spark attacks'

Britain's knighthood to the author Salman Rushdie
contributes to insulting Islam and may lead to
terrorism, a Pakistani minister has said.

Such actions are the root cause of terrorism,
Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq told
parliament.

"If someone commits suicide bombing to protect
the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is
justified."

The minister later said he had not meant to
condone or incite terrorism but stress its
origins.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6763119.stm

---

Source: The Guardian

3.15pm update
Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks'

· Pakistani MPs pass resolution condemning author Salman
  Rushdie's Queen's birthday honour.
· Muslim Council of Britain says knighthood a final insult
  from departing prime Minister Tony Blair.

David Batty and Peter Walker
Monday June 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The award of a knighthood to the author Salman Rushdie
justifies suicide attacks, a Pakistani government minister
said today.

"This is an occasion for the 1.5 billion Muslims to look at
the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq,
religious affairs minister, told the Pakistani parliament in
Islamabad. "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism
and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he
would be right to do so unless the British government
apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title."

Article continues The comments follow other condemnation
of the award for Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses
provoked worldwide protests over allegations that it
insulted Islam.

He received the knighthood for services to literature in
the Queen's birthday honours list published on Saturday.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2105748,00.html

---

Also: Iran condemns Rushdie knighthood - BBC

[acmavm]

1. This was just plain stupid. And there was no author in Britain

who was worthier of the honor?

Gasolene, meet fire. Shit, just fan the flames why don't they?

I cannot believe this.

[jobycom]

2. I agree, it was a middle-finger to the Middle East by Tony Blair.

Not saying Rushdie didn't deserve the honor, but this was stupid.

One wonders whether Blair was hoping to provoke another fatwa from Iran, or worse, hoping that Iran would succeed in killing Rushdie this time. They need a spark to set off the powder keg, and they are trying everything they can think of to do it.

[CJCRANE]

4. The knighthood for the Russian defector

was also a clear message to Putin.

On edit: and I think we know what the message was in both cases...

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Actually it was to honor a well achomplished writer. Many have received honors for less

To not allow something to go forward because of risk of blowback is called the Heckler's Veto. Its one of the most pernicious forms of oppression out there. How anyone civilized person could support it is beyond me.

Consider the following analogous statement: We can not allow Dr. King to speak in Washington, DC on August 28, 1963 since we know it will inflame white southerners. That is what those who are making "we don't want to inflame muslims" are saying. In case you did not recognize the date, that was the "I have a Dream" speech

If it was a middle finger it was to muslim fundies, who deserve every finger and affront to islam they get. There is a lot more to the Middle East than muslims. If this is sacrilege, let us make the most of it.

[jobycom]

14. That's as bad an analogy as I've ever heard.

Rushdie received a personal honor, MLK was fighting for the human rights of millions. If Rushdie had not received the honor, or more likely waited a bit longer to receive it, no one but he would have suffered, and he only by not getting an extra title or lump of cash. Contrast that to possibly a hundred deaths, maybe his included, and the risk seems atrocious. Deny MLK the right to speak or protest (something JFK tried to do on a couple of occasions, btw), and millions continue to suffer while their oppressors, who were clearly in the wrong, win.

Here's a simple test. Would you have laid down your life in support of MLK's work? Obviously, most people would say yes. Would you lay down your life so a writer can receive a knighthood now instead of in a few years?

[Solo_in_MD]

5. You support the use of the Heckler's Veto, how very progessive of you

[acmavm]

7. You're wrong there bucko. What I don't support are empty

gestures guaranteed and intended to worsen the world situation.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. This is a classic Heckler's Veto by the islamic fundies...how can anyone support it is beyond me

Rushdie is well over the threshold for honors. To not award it is to kowtow to the muslim fundies.

[acmavm]

9. Whatever. I'm sure that it's gonna be worth all the trouble...

[Solo_in_MD]

11. Things that show islam for what it is has value.

[acmavm]

12. Tell that to the family/families of anyone who gets killed over this.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Suicide is not acceptable

Sorry, but not all Muslims would agree with this person. I've never read Rushtie's books, and very likely will not. But I figure what he did is between him and his conscience (for atheists) or him and God (for believers). Qur'an doesn't condone suicide.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Yet another example of why Islam and the Sharia are a significant danger to a free society

read some of the other articles on this...its truly scary how backwards Islam is and the threat it poses.

[acmavm]

13. Ah, You're right, I found it. That was the wrong link.

And Rushdie still has nothing to do with this even if I did screw up.