Am creating a separate thread for this story (first blogged here), because I think this might be another Danish cartoons episode, and also because the spineless Western response to the original Rushdie fatwah was a seminal moment for the Islamist movement, (rightly?) convincing them that the West had no appetite even for self-defence.
Two stories are below: gotta love the Sun headline, as well as the accusation that Rushdie is the one with blood on his hands. These Islamist sympathizers sure have Chutzpah. Meanwhile the Telegraph headline reminds us of the hopeless addiction of the Muslim world on the (infinitely flexible, utterly unrequitable) concept of 'honour'.
Pakistan orders smoked Salman
The Sun
June 19, 2007
A SICK Pakistani politician last night said Salman Rushdie’s knighthood justified suicide bombings against British targets — as mobs burned effigies of the author. Cabinet minister Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq said the gong for The Satanic Verses writer was to blame for fuelling al-Qaeda terrorism.
He told the Islamabad parliament: “This is an occasion for the world’s 1.5billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision. “The West always wonders about the cause of terrorism. Such actions are the root cause. "If someone commits a suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammed, his act is justified.”
The comments from Pakistan’s religious affairs minister came as mobs demonstrated in the eastern city of Multan. About 100 students chanted, “Kill him! Kill him!” as they carried banners and set fire to images of Rushdie. Figures of the Queen were also torched. Pakistan’s lawmakers, meanwhile, passed a resolution demanding Britain withdraw the knighthood.
Another leading Pakistan politician, Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, branded Rushdie a “blasphemer”. In Britain, the first Muslim Peer fuelled the row by accusing Rushdie, 59, of having “blood on his hands”. Labour Lord Ahmed, 48, said Verses triggered “violence around the world”.
Prize-winning Rushdie was forced into hiding for ten years when Iran issued a fatwa against him in 1989. Lord Ahmed added: “Honouring a man who has blood on his hands goes too far.”
He told BBC Radio 4: “Two weeks ago the Prime Minister was calling for building relations between the Muslim world and Britain, then suddenly this knighthood is given to a man who has not only been abusive to Muslims but also to Christians — because he used abusive language towards Jesus Christ.”
Lord Ahmed said the decision had damaged British interests abroad and community relations in the UK.He went on: “This man not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people who were killed around the world.” Rushdie got the knighthood in the Queen’s Birthday Honours on Saturday. Yesterday her Majesty was at the Order of the Garter service at Windsor Castle.
-------------
Honour 'justifies' suicide attack on Rushdie
Telegraph
19/06/2007
Sir Salman Rushdie, the author, was facing fresh threats to his life yesterday following his knighthood. A senior minister in the Pakistani government said that the decision was a justification for suicide bombing, after the parliament in Islamabad condemned the honour as "blasphemous and insulting" to the world's Muslims.
As Pakistani MPs issued a demand for the award to be immediately withdrawn, the religious affairs minister, Mohammad Ejaz-ul-Haq, said: "The West always wonders about the root cause of terrorism. Such actions [giving Sir Salman a knighthood] are the root cause of it. "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified." The parliament passed a unanimous resolution deploring the honour as an open insult to the feelings of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.
Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, the minister for parliamentary affairs who tabled the motion, said that the knighthood was "a source of hurt for Muslims" and would encourage people to "commit blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad".
Mr ul-Haq then called on Pakistan and all other Muslim states to "break off diplomatic relations with Britain" if the knighthood was not withdrawn. The minister was later forced to clarify his potentially highly inflammatory statement, saying that he was speaking about the wider causes of terrorism and not of Sir Salman specifically.
Pakistan's condemnation came after Iran expressed similar sentiments at the weekend and will again raise concerns for Sir Salman's safety almost 20 years after the publication of The Satanic Verses. Pakistan's religious parties ordered supporters on to the streets of two provincial cites yesterday. Effigies of both the Queen and Sir Salman were burned while some protesters chanted "Kill him! Kill him!"
Sir Salman, 59, who said he was "thrilled" to be knighted, was forced to live in hiding for nine years after Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill him for allegedly insulting Islam's holy Prophet in The Satanic Verses. It was not until 1998, when the Iranian government said that it would not support the outstanding fatwa, that the author took the decision to return to public life.
Last night British officials were waiting nervously for further reaction to the award at a time when Pakistani society is becoming increasingly radicalised. At the Multan protest, Asim Dahr, a student leader from the group Jamiat Turaba Arabia said that Sir Salman should face Islamic justice. "This Queen has made a mockery of Muslims by giving him a title of 'sir'.
Salman Rushdie was condemned by Imam Khomeni and he issued a decree about his death. He should be handed over to the Muslims so they can try him according to Islamic laws." Robert Brinkley, Britain's High Commissioner to Pakistan, said: "It is simply untrue to suggest that this in any way is an insult to Islam or the Prophet Mohammed, and we have enormous respect for Islam as a religion and for its intellectual and cultural achievements."
However, the Muslim peer, Labour's Lord Ahmed, told BBC Radio 4's PM that he was "appalled" to hear of a knighthood for "a man who has not only been abusive to Muslims, but also to Christians".
5 comments:
Presumably Lord Ahmed would like the publishers of the Koran prosecuted for blasphemy.
Keep an eye out for anyone challenging Lord Ahmed over his outrageous "blood on his hands" Rushdie comments.
Minister accused over Rushdie may visit UK
Telegraph
22/06/2007
A fresh row is looming over Salman Rushdie's knighthood after the Pakistani minister who raised the prospect of reprisal "suicide" killings said he may visit the UK. The Government has already made clear its anger at claims from Ijaz-ul Haq that the controversial honour for the author of The Satanic Verses would justify suicide attacks.
And there have now been calls for Mr Haq to be barred from the UK until he stated unequivocally that he had not effectively incited suicide attacks. Rob Wilson, the Conservative vice-chairman of the all-party Pakistan group at Westminster, said: "If he did incite people to use suicide bombs, he should not be allowed in."
If Pakistan is so angry, give back our aid
By Andrew Marr
Telegraph
20/06/2007
Pakistanis have every right to voice their anger at the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie. Equally, the rest of us have every right to express our anger at the deeply offensive response of Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister who invoked the world's 1.5 billion Muslims and said: "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammed, his act is justified."
He later "clarified" his words, but we all know exactly what he was up to. And what of the Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who responds by saying Rushdie has "blood on his hands".
Some people like Rushdie's novels, others don't. Some say he's smug, others say he's delightful. Yes, he has cost this country a lot in protecting him and through him, a core value of freedom of speech. But unless there is a strange and violent back-story we didn't know, Sir Salman hasn't the smallest drop of blood on his hands.
If Pakistan is so offended, however, there is a dignified way to deal with the problem. Last year, Tony Blair went to Lahore to praise its "enlightened moderation" and to announce a rise in our aid budget to Pakistan from £236 million to £480 million. If this is tainted money, it can presumably be returned.
Rushdie, ungrateful whining wretch:
Salman Rushdie, Man of the Left
Daniel Pipes' Weblog
August 10, 2004
-------------
Concluding Thoughts
from The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West
By Daniel Pipes
published 1990
-------------
Salman Rushdie and British Backbone
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
June 26, 2007
Is the knighting of Salman Rushdie, 60, by the queen of England "a sign of the changing mood" toward British Muslims, as Observer columnist Nick Cohen wrote? Is it "a welcome example of … British backbone," as Islamism specialist Sadanand Dhume described it in the Wall Street Journal? I think not. Rather, the knighting, announced June 16, was done without heed of its implications.
...
I welcome the knighting because, for all his political mistakes, Rushdie is indeed a fine novelist. I wish I could agree with Dhume that this recognition of him suggests "the pendulum has begun to swing" in Britain against appeasing radical Islam.
But I cannot. Instead, I draw two conclusions: First, Rushdie should plan around the fact of Khomeini's edict being permanent, to expire only when he does. Second, the British government should take seriously the official Pakistani threat of suicide terrorism, which amounts to a declaration of war and an operational endorsement. So far, it has not done that.
Other than an ambassadorial statement of "deep concern," Whitehall insists that the minister's threat will not harm a "very good relationship" with Pakistan. It has even indicated that Ijaz ul-Haq is welcome in Britain if on a private visit. (Are suicide bombers also welcome, so long as they are not guests of the government?) Until the Pakistani authorities retract and apologize for Ijaz ul-Haq's outrageous statement, London must not conduct business-as-usual with Islamabad.
Now that would constitute "British backbone."
Is Pipes saying that Rushdie doesn't have the right to be critical of the Bush administration while accepting America's protection? If that's what he's suggesting I think he's completely wrong.
As to whether the Pakistani minister's outrageous remarks were in fact a declaration of war, I think that is a little alarmist of Pipes. The reports I have read suggest that the minister's comments are motivated by internal domestic politics and that the intended audience for them are the masses of Pakistan. Which isn't to say the British Government couldn't have shown more backbone; they should have called the ambassador for Pakistan in to explain those comments and to say in no uncertain terms that if they wanted to continue good relations with us those comments couldn't stand.
I wonder if anyone's managed to blame these Rushdie threats on Western imperialism in Iraq (which as you know is the root of all al-Qaeda's grievances).
Al-Qaeda deputy threatens retaliation for Rushdie knighthood
The Times
July 11, 2007
Post a Comment