Islamic hardliners in Pakistan burned an effigy of Queen Elizabeth as senators Tuesday joined mounting calls for London to withdraw Salman Rushdie's knighthood.

 

The senate approved a unanimous resolution demanding London axe the honour bestowed Saturday to the controversial author of the "blasphemous" book "The Satanic Verses."

 

It came a day after Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq said the award for Rushdie justified suicide attacks, although he later withdrew the remarks, saying he meant it could increase terrorism.

 

The senate resolution carried by the official Associated Press of Pakistan "demands that the knighthood conferred on Salman Rushdie be withdrawn."

 

It said the chamber "expressed its annoyance over blatant disregard for the sentiments of the Muslims by the British government by awarding (a) knighthood to Salman Rushdie, who committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet."

 

The Indian-born Rushdie, now 59, was forced to go into hiding for a decade after Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a death sentence over his book.

 

Legislators in North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan, which is ruled by an alliance of hardline Islamists, also called for Pakistan to sever diplomatic ties with London over the Rushdie issue.

 

Pakistan's national assembly, the lower house of parliament, had already Monday demanded the withdrawal of the honour.

 

Around 150 hardline protesters in the eastern city of Lahore torched an effigy of the British queen and called for Rushdie to be handed over to an Islamic court, witnesses said.

 

"We want Rushdie to be handed over to Muslim country where he should be tried under Sharia law," protest leader Shahid Gilani told the crowd. "The punishment for a blasphemer is death."

 

Gilani is head of Shabab-e-Milli, the youth wing of Pakistan's radical Jamaat-e-Islami party. The group hit headlines in 2006 when they called for the assassination of a Danish cartoonist behind drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.

 

He said activists in other cities planned later to "garland (late Nazi dictator Adolf) Hitler's effigies to express our hatred toward those who garland blasphemers."

 

"We have also decided that we will from now on call every dog 'Sir'," he said.

 

Conservatives in Iran, which borders Pakistan, on Tuesday attacked the British monarch, with a top MP saying the British monarch lived in a dreamworld and a newspaper labelling her an "old crone."

 

Britain's High Commissioner Robert Brinkley defended the award and said it was not intended as an insult to Muslims.

 

"Sir Salman's knighthood is a reflection of his contribution to literature throughout a long and distinguished career which has seen him receive international recognition for a substantial body of work," Brinkley said.

 

"It is simply untrue that this knighthood is intended as an insult to Islam or the Prophet Mohammed," he added in the statement issued late Monday.

 

... demand a knighthood is taken away? Are these people for real???? The Muslim faith attracts zealots like no other religion.... and any religion based on total devotion and woship of a paedophile... surely VERY suspect.

true russ... but we dont live in a world where everyone can have freedom of speech, tbh im surprised salman rushdie is still alive.

But we live in Britain, Rob, where regardless of faith, free speech is allowed (sometimes, in the case of Muslim preachers, allowed way too much in my opinion)... how DARE these people 'demand' a knighthood be taken away.

Well, I think it is awful. I was never a big Queen Fan,

but they weren't that bad!!!

 

Is it fair, when you see how c**p Westlife are?

Edited June 19, 200718 yr by zeus555

Have they burned effigy's of the Queen in Trafalgar Square or in Mile End ? are they British residents that have burned them ? no, its not a big deal

 

 

Well, I demand his Knighthood taken away because frankly, what the fukk has he actually done to deserve it anyway....? You ever try reading one of his books...? Christ, what pretentious c**p.... Not to mention the fact that "Satanic Verses" is woefully innaccurate and badly researched, ACCORDING TO MANY SCHOLARS, not just MY or some "loony cleric's" opinion..... And you just have to actually wonder about the timing of this "Knighthood" dont you...? "War On Terror", "Islamophobia", "Clash of Civilisations".... I just get the impression that it's all just a bit more than coincidence.....

 

Oh, and being a bit of a Leftie myself, I have objections to the whole "honours idea" in principle anyway..... But I guess it's okay for ME to voice my objections innit.....? I'm a white NON-Muslim.....

Everybody has the right to an opinion, Scott.

 

However, many Muslims just don't seem to think so.

 

I seem to recall demands for terrorist activity, death to Scandanavians (on a massive scale) and calls for beheadings when a bloody CARTOON of the paedophile prophet was printed not so very long ago.

 

How's that for democracy and freedom of speech and opinions, eh?

well, who DIDNT see this coming - I cannot beleive how niave the UK has been giving the man a knighthood, I could see this the minute I read he had been given one - why does he need to be given one anyway it is like a red rag to a bull? I have nothing against freedom of speech, but it was stupid to honour him for offending Islam - or has he done something other than write some books?

 

then again they hand these honours out quite willy nilly it seems to me

Edited June 19, 200718 yr by prettyinpink

well, who DIDNT see this coming - I cannot beleive how niave the UK has been giving the man a knighthood, I could see this the minute I read he had been given one - why does he need to be given one anyway it is like a red rag to a bull? I have nothing against freedom of speech, but it was stupid to honour him for offending Islam - or has he done something other than write some books?

 

then again they hand these honours out quite willy nilly it seems to me

 

Oh, they pretty much are PiP.... It's more to do with "who kisses Tony's arse" (well, Gordon these days I suppose....) the most.... I read somewhere that David Beckham was going to get on.... I mean, WHY??????? For being a total fukkin' LOSER in the World Cup....??? <_< <_<

 

Everybody has the right to an opinion, Scott.

 

However, many Muslims just don't seem to think so.

 

I seem to recall demands for terrorist activity, death to Scandanavians (on a massive scale) and calls for beheadings when a bloody CARTOON of the paedophile prophet was printed not so very long ago.

 

How's that for democracy and freedom of speech and opinions, eh?

 

Some of those cartoons were offensive c**p though Russ.... Racist garbage of the worst kind..... exactly the sort of rubbish in my mind as was being printed in British Newspapers and "penny dreadfuls" in the "glorious empire days" of "coolies", "wogs" "fuzzy wuzzies" and "N*****s". I see absolutely no difference at all between some of these cartoons and the sort of representations of Africans and Indians in British newspapers of the 1800s..... Exactly the same ignorance.....

Some of those cartoons were offensive c**p though Russ.... Racist garbage of the worst kind..... exactly the sort of rubbish in my mind as was being printed in British Newspapers and "penny dreadfuls" in the "glorious empire days" of "coolies", "wogs" "fuzzy wuzzies" and "N*****s". I see absolutely no difference at all between some of these cartoons and the sort of representations of Africans and Indians in British newspapers of the 1800s..... Exactly the same ignorance.....

 

but again scott you are living in the past, you are judging victorian times by todays values which you cant really do as its out of context. im not saying they were right, but by their standards and the world they lived it it was normal. those rags didnt just lampoon johnny foreigner though, they lampooned EVERYONE especially polititions in the same unremitting way.

 

i didnt agree that those cartoons were offensive, would you be so vitriolic if it was jesus they were lampooning?.. there has to be a sensible line drawn between legitimate comedy and offense for offence sake, its a grey area, but it has to be even handed.

but again scott you are living in the past, you are judging victorian times by todays values which you cant really do as its out of context. im not saying they were right, but by their standards and the world they lived it it was normal. those rags didnt just lampoon johnny foreigner though, they lampooned EVERYONE especially polititions in the same unremitting way.

 

i didnt agree that those cartoons were offensive, would you be so vitriolic if it was jesus they were lampooning?.. there has to be a sensible line drawn between legitimate comedy and offense for offence sake, its a grey area, but it has to be even handed.

 

Thing is though, one or two of those drawings can easily be seen as representing ARABS in general and not just the Prophet Mohammed in particular, because they have no real context when you look at it in isolation, that is where you have to say "steady on old chap". I once showed a copy of the picture of "Mohammed" with his turban as a bomb to several friends of mine, I didn't tell them what it was, they ALL said it was a representation of an Arab, and NOT specifically the Prophet Mohammed, and they ALL agreed that it was totally racist (even The Tory voter) and that it went too far.... There is NOTHING in that drawing that says "Hey, this is a representation of Mohammed"... Whereas, you can usually ALWAYS tell a drawing of Jesus.....

 

And, sorry, but I dont see it the way you do, these drawings in the past set out specifically to dehumanise indigenous peoples, to make the British public see them as figures to ridicule and to hate, to get them "on side" with the Imperial Capitalist exploitation. There is nothing "innocent" about what these drawings were, they were evil Propaganda pure and simple, and there was a specific ideology at work behind it..... I take it we shouldn't judge the Nazis representing Jews as Sinister Hook-nosed kikes" in many propaganda posters then, because "that was okay in Berlin in the 1930s and to look at it in 00s terms is wrong". Bollocks mate, wrong is wrong, simple as.... The genocides we, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the French committed in India, Africa, The Americas and Australasia is just as evil, just as wrong as the genocides Hitler and Stalin committed, end of.....

i know m8 and it was wrong but i still say that by their standards it was acceptable, as bullying (tom brown anyone?) racism and class divide was normal in that society. it would be interesting to have a chat with some victorian geezers actually and try to understand their world.

i know m8 and it was wrong but i still say that by their standards it was acceptable, as bullying (tom brown anyone?) racism and class divide was normal in that society. it would be interesting to have a chat with some victorian geezers actually and try to understand their world.

 

But again, what you fail to take into account is the fact that Slavery had been abolished almost 100 years previously by the then Prime Minister William Pitt.... So, are we saying that people in the 18th Century had a more well-developed moral compass than those in the 19th....? Piffle mate.... What drove the Victorians was GREED..... Same as what drove the Slave Trade, same as what is driving the Multinational Corporations in Iraq and the Middle East now...... Capitalism and Greed is probably the greatest evil even known to man, because it is this that pretty much created and drove the concepts of Racism and Genocide and is responsible for the type of world we are living in now....

well yes i am! as social reforms were starting slowly to take hold. soon after the victorian era women got the vote, so there IS a gradual progression towards social reform that gathered speed as time went on.

 

agreed about greed though ...:)

well yes i am! as social reforms were starting slowly to take hold. soon after the victorian era women got the vote, so there IS a gradual progression towards social reform that gathered speed as time went on.

 

I think you misunderstood me.. I was comparing the people of the 1700s to the people of the 1800s.... Slavery was abolished in this country in the 1700s.... So, basically we realised that slaves were human beings with a right to life and liberty, but these things just seemed totally forgotten about when we went around destroying indigenous cultures in India and Africa decades later in the Victorian era...... Surely something's a bit wrong there dont you think....? We regressed rather than progressed......

Above the entrance to a mosque in Cardiff, the massive words carved in stone above the main entrance are this;

"No-one is worthy of worship but Mohammed"

 

HOW OFFENSIVE IS THIS TO NON-MUSLIMS, Scott?

 

Yet, I don't see the Christians or Catholics protesting outside or trying to burn the bloody place down.

 

And to call those cartoons seriously, honestly offensive... oh please.

 

These people burning effigies think the west is running scared and they think if they make enough threats and scream and rant and insult us we will kow tow to their medieval and backward demands and beliefs.

 

Knighthoods are usually chosen by the goverment NOT the Monarch. The Monarch is a-political. She does as the goverment requests. I am sure she would probably give the Knighthood to someone else of her own choice to be honest but Salman Rushdie is an accomplished writer whatever your religous beliefs are.

 

These people are backward, ignorant and anti democratic and are simply ITCHING to find offense anywhere - with anything.

 

Enough's enough..

Above the entrance to a mosque in Cardiff, the massive words carved in stone above the main entrance are this;

"No-one is worthy of worship but Mohammed"

 

Oh, come ON, Christianity, especially Catholicism, makes similar pretty ludicrous claims as well.....

 

And yeah, one or two of those "cartoons" are definitely offensive, I think I made that point pretty fukkin clear as to why tbh..... The facts are, you cannot possibly compare those cartoons to something like "Life Of Brian", because unlike that film, they have no actual context and aren't really making a clear enough point as to whether they are critiqueing a RELIGION or merely being deliberately offensive to a RACE of people (ie, the Arabs), also, pretty much in ALL cases of these "cartoons", Muslims are portrayed as being exclusively Arabic, again, a wholly false and entirely ignorant portrayal of Muslims, MOST of whom are actually Asian in point of fact, NOT Arabic, it's a bit like saying all Oriental people are Chinese.....

 

My problem with some of these cartoons is simple - they are dangerously ambiguous in what they are representing, it is simply NOT clear enough and it is very easy to interpret them in a non-religious way....

I'm a bit unsure why you're so pro-Muslim, Scott. After all, aren't these the same neanderthal people who believe that, because of your sexuality, you're 'lower than a dog' and should be 'eradicated'? :huh: